except they never had this - the richer countries see their contribution as a drain (e.g., the almost collapse for the greeks), unlike the american state, which distributes the federal taxes somewhat more "evently", and there's no "Us vs Them" mentality.
The level of naïveté displayed in this comment is shocking.
America is politically able to let, for example, Detroit, die a lingering death. For obvious reasons the Greeks would rather a similar fate wasn't in store for their country.
"Damned if you do, damned if you don't" as a famous early 90s child philosopher put it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Articles_of_Confe...
States, despite all this fanciful nostalgia, do not exist in a vacuum and their continued sovereignty today is dependent on belonging to a larger unions. It's the only way to protect themselves from the imperialism of powerful federal unions like the US, Russia, and China. If any European state thinks that it can exist independently of a federal (or worse) arrangement, it has misunderstood 20th century history.
And I would also argue the election of Trump demonstrates that you actually can't allow Detroit and similar regions to wither without significant political repercussions. The Democrats tried that and it cost them the election.
The shared attachement to democracy, peace, to solidarity versus exacerbated nationalism, refusing death penalty, of some version of social democracy in the broad sense of the term, is much stronger than what divides us.
Only we never done that. We just allowed for easy border access, united a few laws, and had central bureaucrats and heavier countries step on the throats of lesser ones.
If you remember what happened a couple of years ago, when Syriza came to power, and Yiannis Varoufakis became finance minister, we threatened to leave the EU if our (vague and silly) terms were not accepted. The rest of the EU refused steadfastly, but nobody ever voiced any desire to make us leave the union.
You can contrast this with what is happening right now. When the UK voted for Brexit, the rest of the EU breathed a collective sigh of relief and wished them good riddance. In Brussels they could hardly keep themselves from laughing and dancing a jig, that the great European troublemaker had finally decided to jump over a cliff, feet-first, entirely of its own volition.
Nothing like that happened when Grexit was afoot. Nobody was laughing, everyone was waiting patiently for our national tantrum to abate. Angela Merkel, that evil ogre of a woman who wanted to roast our babies over an open fire [1], waited patiently for our juvenile prime minister to get his shit together and learn how to rule a country.
Nobody wanted to harm the Geeks and nobody tried to harm the Greeks- all harm that came to us we did to ourselves, or it was a result of the economic crisis. Your comment is blaming the wrong people for our woes.
___________
[1] cf. all of the Greek press at the time.
"Thrived" just meant the Greek state could for a few years borrow money more easily because of the Euro, nothing substantial that one could actually call "thriving". The actual health of the economy (inflated numbers from borrowing aside) was in its worst condition ever.
For the Greek economy it was the beginning of the end, as at the same time, The euro, and the lack of control of its own monetary policy, sealed the inability of Greece to ever repay its debt. And of course made its exports, lackluster even before, collapse completely.
>The Germans actually tried to help, in the way they thought was best
Actually they merely tried to enforce their economic ideology of austerity upon further austerity, totally in spite of dire results and being totally not workable, all the while making billions in the process for the German economy, plus insuring its banks against the crisis with EU money (transferring money from the European public to the financiers).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/11/despite-l...
Greece is now an ex-country on life support giving the semblance of a European country.
>Nobody wanted to harm the Geeks and nobody tried to harm the Greeks
The world is not some hugging and loving place, international politics and finances even more so. Those doing the harm could not care less if they were harming Greeks, Irish, Italians, etc. specifically, so that much is true: they didn't actively try to "harm the Greeks".
It was a matter of pursuing their own financial interests, as always is. The Greek public were just imbeciles in recognizing that, and the Greek politicians where profiting just the same.
Aw, thank you. That's the most offensive thing I've read all month on the internet.
As to the rest of your erudite analysis, no, it was not just the Greek state that prospered and thrived in the time before the crisis. The Greek people also did. Our living standards rose with alacrity, so much so that a British family friend who had been visiting the country for a long time once remarked that the cats get fatter every time she sees them (though, to be fair, they have nothing on the British ones, I should say).
Also, no, people are not automata, and they do make imperfectly rational decisions- as evidenced by the Brexit vote, for instance. Indeed, in politics sentiment rules, otherwise countries would (almost) never go to war, or make catastrophic economic and political decisions, such as adopting communism and so on.
The easiest thing for the EU would have been to kick us out and towards the end of the peak of the Grexit crisis there were indeed voices that suggested the time might have come for the EU or at least the Eurozone, to go on without us. It didn't happen. Why not? Everyone's rational self-interest was to kick us out. Oh, but- I forget. The whole of the Eurozone economy was so hung up on the few millions they got out of the bailout, that they thought they couldn't live without us. Gods! We dodged a bullet, innit!
Of course you might disagree with me. As a Greek I'm used to everyone knowing what went down with the crisis, and Grexit, except me and other Greeks.
I doubt that. Besides, it's still true. Countries prosper or decline all the time. Losing 5% of your young educated population to brain drain, a huge hit on your economy, a continued debt burden, and a supervision program struggling development for the long term future, and a 30% or more income loss over the last decade, are all signs of a country in free fall. Heck, the unemployment alone is close to Weimar republic levels... And let's not go to the health of the banking system, or the welfare system (pension funds, etc).
It's like those persons walking off of cliffs in cartoons, until they realize they are on air, and suddenly fall. Some people just haven't realized it yet.
>As to the rest of your erudite analysis, no, it was not just the Greek state that prospered and thrived in the time before the crisis. The Greek people also did. *
It's easy to "prosper" on borrowed money (that the state distributes) or easy access to finance (that banks lend as if there's no tomorrow). Even so, the Greek people show a steep decline in job prospects post 2004 or so, and their "prosperity" was not based on anything remotely looking like a viable economic progress. There was an actual rise on living standards in Greece since the 70s or so, and the euro era is the period when that rise was put to a hold, and private loaning and credit card debt went on the rise.
>Indeed, in politics sentiment rules, otherwise countries would (almost) never go to war, or make catastrophic economic and political decisions, such as adopting communism and so on.
Going to war can have several important benefits for a country. That's how most countries made their colonies, controlled trade routes, built empires, secured cheap resources, or expanded on the expense of nearby countries. Going to war is abhorrent and murderous, yes, but not really irrational, that's how much of the western progress was funded.
As for "adopting communism", you're thinking with hindsight. At the moment there was not much for countries to not adopt communism, and for some it was even seen as an improvement on the previous situation (being colonial slaves and protectorates mostly). For some countries, communism was the engine that managed to bring them to the 20th century pronto, including Russia/USSR (they would be cannon fodder for Nazi Germany without the forced industrialization done by the communists) and China (which the new regime organized, united, and brought to the 21st century quite the winning power -- besides, after Mao they use their own version capitalism that has little to do with any historical form or dogma of communism apart from the party rule).
>The easiest thing for the EU would have been to kick us out and towards the end of the peak of the Grexit crisis there were indeed voices that suggested the time might have come for the EU or at least the Eurozone, to go on without us. It didn't happen. Why not?
Because they could still pretend-give money to Greece that's siphoned from the European people to the German and other banks.
This way, Greece nominally pays their debt, the fat cats at the European banks are getting money, German banks are secured from their frivolous lending, the Greek state assets (e.g. profitable airports) can be sold for a penny and Greek economy controlled in order to continue the "bailout". Furthermore, they can all pretend that there's an EU and that the euro experiment has not failed (well, if it wasn't for a similar crisis lurking in most other EU countries, the Brexit, Italy and so on).
The losses of Greek and French banks were socialised onto the Greek state by the terms of the bailout so the Greek people suffered rather than people who'd invested in the bank losing.
Now Greece did over borrow but when banks lend they take a risk and sometimes that risk doesn't pay off.
The opposite is usually lamented in the heavier countries, e.g. here in Germany it is often lamented that a German voters vote is less important than that of a voter in a small country like Luxembourg due to the way EU representation is structured.
Additionally, the voting process in the European council is structured so that bigger countries cannot just impose their will in smaller ones (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E... for details).
All sides can lament, but the numbers speak for themselves.
'The apportionment of seats is not proportional to each state's population, nor does it reflect any particular mathematical formula; however, it is stated in the treaties that distribution of seats should be "degressively proportional" to the population of the member states. The process can be compared to the composition of the electoral college used to elect the President of the United States of America in that, pro rata, the smaller state received more places in the electoral college than the more populous states.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_in_the_European_...
There's the EC and bureaucratic ad-hoc groups that nobody appointed like the Eurogroup (an informal assembly of eurozone fin-mins with super powers that's not legitimized anywhere officially), the council of the EU (composed by state leaders and making decisions where strong countries like Germany and France have disproportionate influence using lackey satellite countries or debtors they control), etc.
Here's another Wikipedia link for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit_in_the_Euro...
Do you realize you used 'just', talking about countries that were at war with each other for their entire history? When I said "we don't realize", I was talking about you
And, of course, containing Germany, which brought war upon Europe twice in the 20th century, was a stated goal of the 1950s European politicians and diplomats that designed EU and its early precursors (E.g. "The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany.").
The funny thing is Germany is more contained inside the EU than outside it.
Of course I don't expect you to be able to explain it, because if anything the EU has given voice and veto power to small EU countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E...
this is how the spectacularly unpopular migrant relocation was forced through against Eastern Europe's objections
Some might argue that lessens small countries' power to streamline the decision making. Those would be the same that criticised the EU during the CETA negotiations and the whole Wallonia potential veto.
Nothing is black or white indeed.
Those countries themselves -- and any other state actor, that is not tied by a bureaucracy they don't control but Germany does.
>The lack of an existing legal framework agreed upon all actors would mean there's no deterrent for an escalation if, let's say, France or UK decided to side with their Eastern colleagues and get serious about it.
Only then it would mean war or close, and the aggression and control would be evident (and costly).
Whereas within a "existing legal framework" under your control (including controlling several lesser states to always vote for your interests), and with you controlling the centralized "purse" of Europe as well as its monetary policy, you get to push your agenda more effectively.
Even if Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Spain decided to vote together, the others can still win a vote against them. (Also, the EP is split according to political ideologies, not nationalities, so this scenario is unrealistic.)
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_in_the_European_...
Who's to blame? Hard to say, but no one's free of guilt here.
That doesn't answer the question, what are you on about?
That "bureaucracy" is an actual agreement between each of those countries, up to 27 members. A one sided aggression has no legal framework of defense and it gives full advantage to the bigger bullies.
> Only then it would mean war or close, and the aggression and control would be evident (and costly).
So smaller countries have way more to lose than bigger countries.
> Whereas within a "existing legal framework" under your control (including controlling several lesser states to always vote for your interests), and with you controlling the centralized "purse" of Europe as well as its monetary policy, you get to push your agenda more effectively.
You are able to push any agenda more effectively, with the "minor" detail that the agenda has to be agreed and voted by the representatives of 27 different countries.
Would you want to try again at answering my original question? If international law is not your forte (it's certainly not mine), do you mind just answering the example questions?:
> Do you think Germany wouldn't be able to throw its weight around to push Poland, Czechia or Slovakia to do whatever they want to? Who would legally put an opposition to that?
Is breaking apart so that each little insignificantly economic nobody can be bullied by the rest of the world a better solution?
What's your solution to the problem?
It's pretty easy to complain, but coming up with actual solutions is way way harder.
Free trade is fantastic, but a unified monatory policy is a disaster - it cannot work- not even on paper.
Would regions like Madrid or Barcelona, easily at e.g. Dutch level, have to share monetary policy with Andalucia or Extremadura - two of the poorer regions in Europe?
Are there studies pointing to when or where a common monetary policy stops making sense?
And that's precisely why it is failing, and will continue to fail.
Imagine combining Canada and the USA into a single country.
That's certainly the endgame. What couldn't be achieved by world wars, is being achieved by the EU project.
> US and Canada... very similar countries
I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic here. And if not, don't you think it's pretty disgusting to suggest the culture of Canadians and Americans is pretty similar? Don't you think that culture is something to cherish and protect, rather than pretend doesn't exist?
I hope the best for Europe and UK on their separate path. Given the mess, a clean cut is probably in the best interest of both sides