Why The European Union Is Doomed To Fail

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Marian Tupy via The Foundation for Economic Education,

Have you ever heard of Deutsch Jahrndorf? No? I don’t blame you. The tiny Austrian village, which is situated four miles from the Danube, is utterly unremarkable, except for the fact that it sits on the border of three countries. To the east is Slovakia. To the south lies Hungary. As such, within shouting distance of one another, live three peoples speaking completely unintelligible languages. Austria belongs to the West Germanic language group, Hungary to Finno-Ugric and Slovakia to West Slavic.

I thought about the exquisitely rich tapestry of European languages, cultures, customs, and nationalities as I watched the sad spectacle of Spanish riot police and Catalan separatists confronting one another on the streets of Barcelona. How on earth can the European Union unite that which history forced asunder?

The Folly of the EU

The European Union, French President Emmanuel Macron has recently declared to almost universal acclaim, needs more unity, including the creation of “a eurozone budget managed by a eurozone parliament and a eurozone finance minister”.

The need for the centralization of power in Brussels is, apparently, the lesson that the EU establishment has learned from the outcome of the British referendum on EU membership. Meanwhile, in Catalonia, millions of people have set their sights on independence from Spain. Foremost among their complaints is that the Catalan budget is influenced by Madrid.

Independence, the Catalans feel, will rectify a grave injustice occasioned by the French capture of Barcelona in 1714. The conqueror, Duke of Anjou, became the first Bourbon king of Spain under the name of Philip V. His descendant, Philip VI, is on the throne today. In Europe, ancient lineages last as long as ancient resentments.

Therein lies the conundrum of European unification.

On the one hand, people throughout much of Europe desire greater autonomy. Madrid has the vexing problem of the Basque Country to worry about as well as Catalonia. In Italy, Padania and South Tyrol in the North don’t feel like they have very much in common with the Mezzogiorno in the South. Corsica does not want to be French and Britain has only recently revisited a territorial arrangement that dates back to 1707.

 

On the other hand, every separatist movement in Europe declares its support for the project of European unification. But, how likely is it that people annoyed by Madrid, Rome, Paris, and London will be happy to have their affairs decided upon in Brussels? Will the Catalans, resentful of subsidizing farmers in Andalusia, quietly have no problem with subsidizing Polish peasants in Lower Silesia?

How Did It Go So Wrong?

Speaking of Brussels, it is both the seat of the increasingly dysfunctional EU and the capital of Flanders, which wants to separate from Belgium. It’s complicated.

Years from now, when the EU is either reformed beyond recognition or gone, historians will debate what went wrong and when. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992, which reinvigorated the British Eurosceptic movement that ultimately delivered Brexit, will be one of the obvious culprits. But I think that the problems of European integration are of an older vintage. Perhaps because it was signed by none other than Margaret Thatcher, the Single European Act of 1986 does not get the attention it deserves. Yet it was SEA that eliminated the national veto in a number of crucial policy areas and replaced it with qualified majority voting (QMV). Thatcher acceded to this new arrangement, for it was meant to break down intra-European trade barriers and transform the fledgling “common market” into a freer “single market”. Unfortunately, the introduction of QMV also meant that, occasionally, individual nation states got outvoted on issues they cared deeply about. Accusations of “meddling from Brussels” grew.

To make matters worse, the SEA engorged the powers of the Commission. That proved to be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the Commission went after the anti-competitive practices of nation states with gusto. On the other hand, it used its new powers to start over-regulating economic activity. The regulatory and protectionist impulses of the nation states, in other words, were replaced by regulatory and protectionist impulses at the pan-European level and Europe became less competitive vis-á-vis the rest of the world. Maastricht and the Lisbon Treaty sped up the excessive centralization of power in Brussels that was already underway and transformed the European Economic Community into the EU with its own flag, anthem, and currency.

To those symbols of statehood, President Macron now wishes to add a financial transfer union, which, he feels, is necessary to make a success of the single currency. On a continent inhabited by a multitude of diverse peoples with no shared identity, Macron’s proposal, if implemented, will surely prove to be the EU’s undoing.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Haus-Targaryen's picture

The EU in its current form will most definitely fail, and fail for one reason: 

Sometime in the 1980s the ideal of the EU went from "Hey guys, listen, we have more in common than different, lets not shoot at one another anymore" to being hijacked by complete fanatics who changed this to "Why have we been shooting at one another in the past ... we are one group of people" and thus the hydra grew a second, and third and fourth head as the current political institution seeks to achieve what the U.S. did post civil war.  History, cultures, languages and what the preamble to the Maastricht "peoples of Europe" says all be damned. 

Its too bad, the idea itself is quite good and if they'd split the block into three perhaps four different "zones" they could achieve a much much deeper level of integration than they ever could hope to achieve with its current construction. 

But alas, the people running the show are fanatics.  Maybe we'll all get lucky and they'll put on black Nikes and commit mass suicide when this whole thing comes unraveled. 

EuroPox's picture

The reason it will fail is that the real purpose of the EU (as it morphed from a coal and steel agreement to the Common Market to the Economic Community), was to give the US an easy way to control Europe.  It never was for the people of Europe, it was set up so that the US did not have to deal individually with so many European countries.  

The US control is exercised through COREPER - the permanent representatives body that meets weekly (with 2 US representatives present, though this is never minuited).  COREPER decides policy, which is why the European Parliamant cannot introduce its own legislation.

It never was for the benefit of European people which is why it acts against their interests - like Russian sanctions are always nodded through by COREPER; never a vote in the European Parliament..

Slack Jack's picture

I have cut and pasted a section of the article Proof that Adolf Hitler was a double agent. http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1174 for your perusal:

Jews, Nazis, Ukraine and Hitler.

So, how is it that the Jews, Oleksander Turchinov, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Vitali Klitschko, etc, have teamed up with the Ukrainian Neo-Nazis to conduct a coup in the Ukraine. Why is the coup always called a Neo-Nazi coup but never a Jew coup (look it even rhymes). The Ukrainian coup was organized by Jews; they got the most important positions of power. So it was obviously a Jew coup. Then why the Neo-Nazis? Simply so the lying press could say "It was a Neo-Nazi coup." I think these Ukrainian Neo-Nazis are actually a "false flag" group of Jews.

Hitler was the same. Hitler was actually a Jew.

I have gathered yet more evidence from various web-sites and people, and it gets better & better. It is very interesting;

1) Hitler ordered the tanks to stop for 3 days near Dunkirk when only a short distance away. This allowed the entire British army and part of the French army to escape to Britain.

2) Hitler refused to take Gibraltar and turn the Mediterranean into a "German lake". There was nothing to stop the Germans from driving through Spain (their ally) and doing the job.

3) Hitler declared war on the United States.

4) Hitler refused to allow the tens of thousands of tons of weaponized nerve gas that the Germans had produced (at Dyhernfurth an der Oder) to be used. Over 500,000 artillery shells and about 100,000 bombs filled with nerve gas were found in their storage areas (mainly at Krappitz = Krapowice) at the end of the war.

5) Hitler refused to conquer Britain. After Dunkirk, Britain was totally defenseless.

6) Hitler refused to authorise the production of jet fighters. The Heinkel He 178 had its first successful flight in 1939, but the Jews Milch/Goering/Hitler showed no interest in it. The fighter version, the Heinkel He 280, was successfully demonstrated on April 5, 1941, but the Jews Milch/Goering/Hitler refused to put it into production. Hitler wasn't interested in a plane that could travel a couple of hundred miles per hour faster than the others. Same story with the Messerschmidt jets.

7) Jewish financiers gave billions to finance Hitler's rise to power.

8) Only the Nazi's attempted to kill Hitler. The Americans, British and Soviets made no attempt to kill Hitler. It is known that the British refused to allow a number of feasible assassination plans to proceed.

9) An article from "The Jewish World" tells us that Hitler, Goering and Himmler, all have close relatives living as religious Jews in Israel today. Namely,
Hitler's nephew's grandson,
Matthias Goering - great-nephew of Hermann Goering, and
Katrin Himmler - the great-niece of Heinreich Himmler.
http://ou.org.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/ja/5766/summer66/11_17.pdf

10) In 1932 the Jewish genealogist Karl Friedrich von Frank published Hitler's family tree. It was pointed out (June 16, 1932, in the newspaper Neue Zurcher Zeitung) that the name Salomon, which came up repeatedly in Hitler's maternal line, was unlikely to be Aryan. On July 14, 1933, the newspaper Osterreichisches Abendblatt published photographs of graves of various Hitlers from Jewish cemeteries and mentioned a cookbook written in Hebrew by Rosalie Hitler. Also, a number of Jewish families, surnamed Hitler, officially applied to have their names changed due to Hitler's (supposed) antisemitism. [Hitler's Vienna by Brigitte Hamann]

Learn from the past to prevent war in the future.

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1174

GreedyBoard's picture

If you want to know the truth about Hitler, then read the books or watch the youtube videos of David Irving the Historian that has devoted his lifes work to discovering the truth about WW2 and its main characters. Unfortunately there are many powerful people that have tried to silence him, they have even imprisoned him for speaking the truth.

 

 

 

News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.
Lord Northcliffe.

Slack Jack's picture

"David Irving the Historian that has devoted his lifes work to discovering the truth about WW2"

What is David Irving's explanation for Hitler refusing to take Gibraltar the most strategic place in all of Europe?

What is David Irving's explanation for Hitler refusing to allow the tens of thousands of tons of weaponized nerve gas to be used against the Russians?

What is David Irving's explanation for Hitler refusing to conquer Britain? After Dunkirk, Britain was totally defenseless.

It looks like David Irving is false opposition.

However,... David Irving did say:

"Probably the biggest friend the Jews had in the Third Reich, certainly when the war broke out, was Adolf Hitler. He was the one who was doing everything he could to prevent nasty things happening to them."

GreedyBoard's picture

If you took the time to read his works, you will find the answers to all your questions and a lot more, he has spent all his adult life studying this. Been through all the archives  in Moscow, US,UK, spoke to some of these characters and interviewed them personally(He speaks fluent German). His book Hitler's War is over 500 pages long.

Bulgars's picture

Can't stop laughing... with this ZH non-sense propaganda against EU

Slack Jack's picture

GreedyBoard: "(in Irving's) works, you will find the answers to all your questions"

You obviously don't know that, or you would have just listed the answers.

In fact, prove that YOU actually know that Irving's work contains the answers as you claim: list the answers on this thread.

But you obviously don't know his books contain the answers, so you won't.

Slack Jack's picture

I just grabbed a copy of Irving's "Hitler's war."

Irving presents the view that Hitler would only attack Gibraltar if Franco gave the little boy permission.

Franco never gave the little boy Hitler permission so Hitler couldn't attack.

On page 460 Irving says "Hitler sadly reflected that if he could capture Gibraltar it would solve the whole problem with one blow, but without Spain’s consent this was impossible."

What a joke.

It couldn't be more obvious that Hitler was false opposition.

It couldn't be more obvious that David Irving is false opposition.

Irving presents the view that Hitler insisted on abiding by the Geneva Convention even if it meant losing the war.

On page 11 Irving says "He (Hitler) had opposed every suggestion for the use of poison gases, as that would violate the Geneva Protocol; at that time Germany alone had manufactured the potentially war-winning lethal nerve gases Sarin and Tabun."

Really, could it be more obvious that David Irving is false opposition.

Irving presents the view that Hitler didn't invade Britain because he liked the English. [Even though he accidently killed hundreds of thousands of them. I guess he didn't like the French, so he invaded them.]

Really, could it be more obvious that David Irving is false opposition.

So much for David Irving.

The Alarmist's picture

Maybe Hitler was a stand-up guy who didn't want to double-deal an old friend.

lucitanian's picture

You're right about one thing and that is EU does not represent people, or their economic, social, or cultural interests. From the coal and steel union or cartel to the present day through the EEC the EU has been a union of nations which is designed to further shared national economic benefits, but in fact served the interest of principal partners and their multi-national corporations while regulating away sovereignty in a march towards undemocratic federalization.

So, people of Europe were left with ham strung governments which have little control answering to a bureaucracy in Brussels without transparency or democracy. The Euro experiment, exacerbated both the lack of control and the dominance of the ponsy scheme of the ECB and the banksters, to the detriment of the weaker smaller joining states and their people especially bore the brunt.

One cannot federalize in half measure and people are not economic units of debt, consumption, labor, and production only to be manipulated by their castrated and often corrupt national governments on the orders of EU commission deciding in the interests of the dominant major banks and industries.

Without a restructuring of Europe into a fully democratic and transparent union of their sovereign states with the people being in control through democratic means at both institutional governing levels, the EU will be disintegrated by the polarization caused by the populous. People, their cultures, regions, their diversity, their interests and priorities are far more than their utility to a centralized economic model that has failed.

There is a movement looking to cause these changes by 2025 named DiEM 25. It includes 10s if not hundreds of thousands of people of different political camps who have a vision for a functioning Europe in the future, but without immediate realization and action, the pressures tearing EU apart will overwhelm any voices of reform and sanity. 

wildbad's picture

we see that they are now uncloaking. their once hidden agenda of world domination is now obvious.

in the beginning of this globalist experiment there was no talk of money, taxes, armies, laws constraining national soverainty...now that is all they have and it is what they always strove for.

their one argument is that they have had a good run free of war. but that too is not to "their" credit. that credit belongs largely to NATO, a US international expeditionary force.

brussels neither protects nor supports. it takes and pushes out orders to its purchased, treasonous politicians in the countries it is trying to simultaneously destabilize.

they are the beast, they are the epitome of psychopathic evil.

new game's picture

nothing is moar obvious than the russia non-threat. but these nato/merican/nwo morons have to have an enemy.

psychopathic fuks ruling. moar war. russia is not the enemy, but rather these fuks, the nueland types are the enemy within...over here, macstain types. derranged mutherfuks.

money at the core of it all....

ludwigvmises's picture

A weaker, 3-4 zone Europe is something that what we (United States) and China want. We want them to be disunited, weak and confused. Right?

But what if the opposite happens, even if it appears unfathomable. What if they don't break up the union? What if they become stronger? What if they start a unified budget, pension system, taxation system. And - God forbid - a European army? In the next 75 years?

Where does that leave us, between 1 billion in China and 500 million in Europe?

Haus-Targaryen's picture

Quit living in fantasy land. 

The choice is: split it up into a couple chunks, some will be irrelevant geopolitically, others very relevant -- or the thing falls apart and you'll have some countries remain relevant geopolitically and others won't. 

The way the group is structured financially it is as strong as its weakest member, currently Greece. 

The EU in its current form makes controlling all of Europe that much easier for the powers that be.  

So to address your question quite clearly: what you hope will happen is in fact unfathomable.  The union will break up.  It will not become stronger.  A unified budget pension system and tax system would hollow out the few remaining nations that aren't already financially ruined and would ruin them too.  A EU army would be as competent as its strongest member right now -- France -- who ran out of cruise missiles in less than 12 hours after it started bombing Ghadaffi. 

Keep dreaming and doing whatever drugs you're on to make you believe in what you dream. 

You can choose to ignore reality, but you cannot choose to ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. 

BrownCoat's picture

"You can choose to ignore reality,"

The EU will NOT break up. All it has to do is hang around for another 40 years and it becomes a unified Muslim state.

WTFUD's picture

Yes, what if my Grandmother had Balls, then she'd be my Grandfather on my mother's side?

Sparehead's picture

That’s an easy one. If the EU succeeds in seizing supreme federal power you’ll have a truly unelected and unaccountable dictatorial bureaucracy established. The EU parliament is a joke with no real power so don’t even bother mentioning it. The size of the federal government will explode along with taxes and Europe will become even less competitive globally. People and their wealth will flee the continent. That army you mention will be used to suppress the people. Of course, you won’t have soldiers of French origin kicking in the teeth of French grandparents, they’ll be sent to kick in the teeth of other country’s grandparents, and vice versa. Ultimately Europe will once again become a hellhole of warfare and human tragedy, and it will still end up breaking apart.

waspwench's picture

The EU already has failed.    It is being prevented from collapsing by the NWO who are flooding Europe with immigrants in order to destroy the individual nations and their concommittant cultures and traditions.   If they can succeed they will then have a blank slate upon which to impose an ESSR.

Ikiru's picture

And so it goes with all bureaucracies--the most deadly parasites in existence.

Ghordius's picture

excellent point

what is better for us europeans? to have one set of civil servants in a dedicated shared ministry, watched by 27 governments or...

... to take them back home, in 28 separate sets? and the same for 30 shared agencies?

we had the separate setup, before. and the same for intra-european diplomacy. and we put together what would be less inefficient to sum up, and the same with commercial and trade regulation

now, watch... Brexit. how many more civil servants had to be hired? 2'000? and how many more will be needed? depends on how many agencies the UK will want to set up on it's own. still unfolding, but the talk is about 5'000, expecting a Brexit without Single Market and without Customs Union. oh, and more border/customs employees

efficient? meh. business friendly? double-meh. costly? well, more civil servants do cost more

how many of those critters in Brussels? 30'000. how many countries "served"? after Brexit, 27. do your math

Haus-Targaryen's picture

Ghordo, something important to remember: 

If you have a bowl of cereal and your cat then shits in it -- the cereal will definitely taste worse, the cat shit will likely taste a little bit better but at the end of the day -- its still cat shit. 

Same applies when you combine different nations, cultures, customs and groups of people into a single pot. As much as you might wish for the good to completely replace the bad -- the bad will make the good much worse than the good makes the bad better. 

It is this reason the EU is so dysfunctional. Don't understand why this is hard to understand. 

Ghordius's picture

meh. you start by wanting "something to break". then by identifying the EU as something big enough that it would make some great breaking, and then by trying to find reasons why it ought to break

Russians do the same. they wish for something "to break their ranks apart". NATO would be better, but the EU would give some satisfaction, too. and they are still mad at the US for Kosovo and their old friend Serbia, but for propaganda reason they prefer to put the "NATO" label on all that. as on the matters related with Ukraine

British Brexiters... the same. they are starting to see that perhaps Brexit is not exactly as advertised, and the former partners not that willing to provide cake for free and cake to eat and more cake to take home. so they have a bit of this refuge in dreaming up that the 27 will soon break apart, and so they won't have difficult questions to answer

and so all the talking points are grouped, in the hope that "someone understands". problem is, all involved talkers... have a myth they are talking about

as I wrote below: meh. and we will see, won't we?

BrownCoat's picture

Almost up-voted ya!... Until you mentioned Brexit. Didn't the UK populace vote to leave? Then.... it's tyranny when the "new nobility" (EU elites) countermand the vote (and all the other countermanded votes).

BrownCoat's picture

"watched by 27 governments or... to take them back home, in 28 separate sets? and the same for 30 shared agencies?"

From a ZH perspective, redundant bureaucracies are a problem. Not so for the European elites! The EU ruling class looks at the bureaucracy as employment opportunities. 

The layers of EU bureaucracies and inefficiencies were established intentionally!!! Example, the EU meets in two different locations which provides a change of scenery (like the old noblity's country estates) and an opportunity to pad the travel expenses.

malek's picture

You meant to say
"we must eliminate competition for he sake of effectiveness?"

How come that never worked, because the single central bureaucracy couldn't figure out the right way to do things, without competition. (Or any other entity for that matter.)

Ghordius's picture

the above, btw, is one of the main reasons why small european countries are such fans of the EU in principle

in the EU, they have the shared ministry and the shared regulations that make them sit at the table with the Big Boyz, be them China, the US, India, Brazil, etc. etc.

outside of the EU... they are, in the words of Singapore, "rule takers"

meaning they have no say, no voice in anything related to the complexities of world trade, regulations, etc.

look at Bombardier. the US is talking about slapping a small thing on them. what was it again? some 200% tariffs?. who is going to defend this firm? Canada and the UK. why the UK? because Bombardier has 4'000 employees in Northern Ireland, all fretting about their jobs because of this smallish trade skirmish

look at the recent "future trade" talks between the UK gov and India. the latter is fully OK with a good trade deal. but it wants... visas. lots of visas for trade. in the range of hundreds of thousands

that's the UK just in process of exiting the EU and the future partners are already considering that WTO rules will highly favour them, not the lone UK. and the UK is "medium-sized", we have far smaller countries here

why are regulations, standards, so important? because they are the one undisputed super-weapon of trade talks. which are not two chaps sitting together and trying to find equitable solutions. they are more "I'll drag you over the table and spank you" things

the US was not different, in this. but now, it's officially "America First". it has the size for this. what can Canada and the UK do? they simply don't have the size, even together, to retaliate, to kick back until the contender backs off. and those WTO affairs take ages, the verdict might come in three years, by which the UK will be out

above, the talk is about "reality". well, I'd hazard to say that this is the reality of world trade. a reality from which 95% of people are sheltered and know very little about. a reality that is more visible to people in Singapore then to people in Kansas or York or Yekaterinenburg

again: in a small country in the EU, you just have to take the regulatory rule-book of the EU and produce this way. the rest is being taken care of... by the EU system. and so you can... export to nearly the whole world (including putting finishing touches in Germany, and so put the label "Made in Germany" on the thing) and... export without being hassled to much. and without having to be a megacorporation in the first place. you can be a small or medium producer which... is exactly what "the EU" fosters most, visible in all statistics

hassled like Bombardier is starting to be, for the sin of selling planes no US plane maker makes in the same size, but where those same US huge plane makers simply don't like intruders, as a matter of principle, and their availability of vast legions of lawyers and lobbyists

end of rant

dark fiber's picture

The only reason small European countries where in favor of the EU was because of the subsidies gravy train.  Everything else is complacent nonsense.

BrownCoat's picture

Nice rant. Ghordius, you managed to highlight one advantage of the EU, defending smaller nations from globalist trade rules.

On the other hand, the smaller European nations have little or no say in the EU trade rules! 

dark fiber's picture

Which are as globalist as it gets.  See what they did there?

DaiRR's picture

Bravo, that is an insightful analysis and true based on my experiences living in different countries there.

Mimir's picture

"The Foundation for Economic Education"

The first lie of this ignorant pamphlet.

wildbad's picture

Fuck Macron and the twats in Brussels.

We do not need MORE masters rather fewer.

We don't need to go back in time for justification.

Tyranny is tyranny and layer upon layer of it should be peeled away instead of accrued.

hestroy's picture

Customs union would be enough.

Peter K's picture

It's always the HIDDEN AGENDA that gets in the way!

covfefe MICdotard's picture

It was programmed to fail in the first place (so that the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT could replace it)...

 

Because DOUBLING DOWN on failure is always the best solution.

HTZMR's picture

Fiscal transfer union would never be accepted by Germany. It already exists in a way, since Berlin is Paymaster General of the EU - any further attempt to subsidize the profligacy of Club Med countries would founder. BUT .. if Macron were to prove that he could structurally reform France and drag it into the 21st Century, then maybe more measures to create a more flexible single currency area might be accepted. As it stands though, productivity and economic growth in France and Italy are poor, Spain isn't much better, Portugal is barely staying afloat.

Greece for the love of God just needs to leave the community of civilized nations and form its own loose confederacy with third and fourth world countries like Albania or Papa New Guinea (although the latter might take offense that they are grouped in the same boat. After all PNG has at least developed a bit in the past few hundred years. Greece had its heyday thousands of years ago and just went downhill since Alexander the Great). 

Haus-Targaryen's picture

Disagree. 

I'm on the ground in Germany, and if the choice was 10% tax hike and annual transfer to poor southern European nations or the EU collapses, most Germans would vote for the transfer. 

I wish I was joking, but the level of self-loathing here is something you can never really comprehend unless you live here for a while and can speak the language. 

Doom and Dust's picture

Germans are just being smart. Raising living standards elsewhere in the EU is very much in their interests.

The EU is more than a Single Market, it's a Single Economy nowadays.

Weisshorn's picture

That "single economy" is really (((international))) conglomerates that have managed to eliminate the competition since the Euro was formed.  The consolidation has been brutal but isn't as recognizable in Germany because many global brands are German (Auto's, Pharma, White goods).  In the ex-Warsaw pact countries all the old local brands are long gone, as are the jobs.

Europe actually died with the Third Reich, the Zionists used their shabboz puppets, the USSR, the UK and the US, to castrate Germany and turn her and all of Europe into another Zio-puppet empire.

What we are witnessing are the birthing pains of Noahide Europe.  Once the jews have finished their demographic takedown of the European peoples then Europe will become part of Greater Israel. 

The real truth is that the two white stripes on the Israeli flag stand for the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, not the Nile and Euphrates.

Doom and Dust's picture

The single economy means those conglomerates have supply lines and distribution chains that stretch the entire continent.

The ex-Warsaw countries are growing fast. Many Poles are returning because their economy is booming. Czech Republic is at full employment.

Germany may have been castrated after WW2, it rebounced quickly in economic terms. And while the US could still bully Germany into the Plaza Accords in the 80s, with the euro that has become impossible.

The sinews of power are infinite money. In the end productive capacity is the most important power vector

As to Zionist occupation, compared to the US, Europe's elite is almost judenfrei.

Joe A's picture

Austerity kills living standards. Fiscal discipline is necessary but austerity at this moment kills people's spending power. That doesn't hurt German export much because they have export markets outside of Europe as well.

HTZMR's picture

tue ich doch - seit 20 Jahren. und wie kannst Du das ausgerechnet jetzt glauben? Es gibt ein Rechtsrueck im Land. 

Gerade hat die AfD 13 Prozent geholt und gleichzeitig diese anstaltreife Gruene Fundis, diese selbsthassenden Deutschen von dem Du sprichst, hatten nichts zu melden gehabt - kein Pieps von Peters und ihre Unterstuetzer seit Nafri und Vorschlaege fuer steuerlich befoerderte Puffbesuche fuer Pensionaere.

Haus-Targaryen's picture

Ich kann dich ja gut verstehen, *ABER* 87% von der Bevolkerung wählt gegen der AfD.  Das heißt 87% sind für MEHR "Flüchtlinge" MEHR "Europäische Einheit" MEHR "Europäische Solidarität" und MEHR "finanzielle Unterstuztung [von Deutschland]". 

Und ja, es gibt ein "Rechtsruck" in Deutschland, *ABER* vergleiche Deutschland mit Schweden (Schwedischen Demokraten), Österreich (FPÖ), Frankreich (FN), die Niederlände, Danemark, Italian, usw., usf.,  Der "Rechtsruck" in diese Länder hat mehr als 30% .... Deutschland ... 13%. 

 

HTZMR's picture

Versteh mich nicht falsch, ich finde es nicht gut dass Leute wie Hoecke, von Storch und wie die alle heissen irgendwo auch nur in der NAEHE von der Macht kommen. Schaetze es wird eh nicht dazu kommen. Piraten habe sich ja auch selber zerfleischt.

Berlin soll aber eindeutig verstehen, dass ein weiterso der Merkelsche Politik keinen Zuspruch mehr findet. GroKos kann man nur in absolute Ausnahmesituationen bilden, sonst schwaecht sie die Demokratie. (Oessterreich laesst gruessen) 

Ich moechte dass die Union und FDP wieder einer erfolgreiche Duo bildet (gefuehrt von Schaeuble und Lindner) und dafuer sorgt dass Wohlstand fuer Alle moeglichst erhalten bleibt, aber gleichzeitig dafuer sorgt dass das Land wettbewerbsfaehig bleibt. Ich moechte dass die SPD wieder eine starke Oppositionsrolle uebernimmt, und zusieht dass die Marktwirschaft moeglichst sozial bleibt.

Und ich moechte dass die Gruene sich spalten in Realos, die im Bundestag bleiben und Deutschland helfen, die Energiewende schafft. Die Fundis und die gesamte Linke soll sich eine neue Partei gruenden und ihre idiotische Ideen von den Daechern schreien damit alle wissen wie daemmlich sie sind und diese prompt nie wieder den 5% Huerde schaffen. 

So koennte Deutschland noch eine hoffentlich prospierende Zukunft vor sich haben.

 

 

oncemore's picture

Warum sollen sie nicht an die Macht???
Weil du es nicht wills?
Wie lange werdet ihr euch beschimpfen lassen?

nevenbridge's picture

The problem is the €uro, money transfers dont work, already tested betwen north italy and south italy, money transfers make parasites thrive. And apart from this aspect many people would probably prefer to die rather than accept charity. It's also better to split Italy into at least 3 smaller states.

€uro increase inequalities, the best get better the worst get worse, this happens between west and east germany too or am i wrong? :)

It's best for the european union to come to an end, it doesn't work and it's absolutelly not democratic either. Everyone on his own road and everyrone will die or live by his hands.

Joe A's picture

You do realize that it was Germany that profited the most from the Euro, going from being the sick man of Europe in the 90s to the country on top now. The advantageous exchange rate along with modest social claims by the unions along with the continuation of the reunification tax filled the coffers of German financial institutions (and were subsequently loaned out to whomever wanted to borrow) and provided a competitive advantage over other countries. What you saw was a flow of money going North in exchange for German goods that everybody wanted going South. And when it all went bad, German and other countries' banks got an EU taxpayers funded bailout.

For now, a fiscal transfer union is unacceptable for Germany, the Netherlands and Austria. And it should stay that way but these countries might be pressured by other countries with bad fiscal disciplone and the EU for the sake of "European solidarity". A nice warm fussy feeling to fill your empty belly with.

HTZMR's picture

That's what all the Club Med countries and their Keynsian proponents argue all the time, and apparently with some success. Germany went into the euro at a much too high DM exchange rate, basically making much of the economy uncompetitive. Years of internal devaluation resulted - much of it market-induced and not a result of unions or reforms. Only after the SPD elected to go into coalition with Merkel and dump Schroeder did the fruit of the reforms start to be reaped. Sadly. She had nothing to do with that. If anything she's made Germany less competitive by rolling back reforms with the flood of cash taxed from her citizens. Scrappage scheme anyone? That helped FOREIGN carmakers like Hyundai most of all, while German premium brands suffered in 2009. 

All other euro zone countries are free to reform their economies, they just didn't WANT to, and expected Germany to foot the bill as usual. So NO - Germans didn't benefit from the euro directly. They worked hard to make their economy competitive. 

Joe A's picture

Gemany bled capital to other countries, stimulating these economies. Germany had so much capital because of what I mentioned. Instead of investing that in Germany, it was loaned out to other countries. On average, from 1995 to 2008 about 76% of aggregate German savings (private, governmental and corporate) was invested abroad. Only 24% found their way into the domestic economy. The capital outflows made the domestic economy lose pace. Consumer prices and wages in Germany rose only marginally, much more slowly than in the neighboring countries. From 1995 to 2008, Germany underwent an internal devaluation of 18% compared to its EU partners. This devaluation made Germany’s export surpluses possible. The exports were supported by German money loaned out. That -along with lower production costs due to modest labor demands- acted as export subsidies and made Germany more competitive. The internal devaluation (=Germans having less money to spend) was the result of modest labor demands and the reunification tax. This loss in spending power was greatly compensated by the subsidized German export.

So who profited? Mostly the German companies and banks. Not the honest hardworking German people. While getting less increases in salaries, they unknowingly and probably unwillingly, supported the outflow of capital which supported the countries south in Europe. That money of course came back, with an interest but the German worker would not see much of that.

Did the Germans work hard? Yes, they did. But so did others. But they could not compete with Germany because of the internal devaluation. Maybe Germans were good or crazy enough to put with that, other countries people weren't. 

Honestly, I don't know why the German workers put up with all this. I guess that is a cultural attitude. I guess that is why Germans feel resentment towards others countries. They feel they -the Germans- sacrificed while the others partied. And now the Germans feel more resentment because other countries want Germany to bail them out. But don't you see, it were the German companies and banks that profited the most, not the German worker.

Cultural attitudes also explain why other countries don't want to reform, as you said. And that is the underlying problem in Europe: differences in cultural attitudes towards work and making sacrifices. Germans are perhaps too conscientious, while others are not.