Growing Plot to Unite the EU under one non-elected President

[innonimatu]

Indeed. And the really stupid thing is that the Euro could have worked. Hell, it can perhaps still be salvaged even now, if just the european governments decided to sort out the whole debt mess and used their power to force banks to recognize losses, close or recapitalize those in need of support (I'd want the whole thing nationalized for good, but I know you won't be agreeing with that) and pay bank creditors of the insolvent ones according to what the law and the state grantees require, and only that. The supposed problem with the "institutional holders" of state debt can be even more easily solved, simply by erasing it: it won't cause inflation because the inflation was already caused on debt creation. That's how money creation from debt really works. And that's why merely moving debt around hasn't prevented what is dangerously close to deflation in some areas, nor provided any new credit within the financial system.

And then they'd have to keep the financial system competently regulated and unable to peddle loans to consumers without solid grantees, but that shouldn't be hard for a couple of decades, until the lesson of this crisis was forgotten by a new generation, which seems to be as these things go.

But what hope can there be of any competent regulation of the financial sector in the EU, let alone sorting out its dab debts, when the people recently appointed to the top places of the ECB are an italian former member of that criminal association named Goldman Sachs, and a portuguese utterly incompetent central banker who closed his to rampart theft and all kinds of illegalities in at least two banks he was supposed to be regulating? And you wonder Why I don't have any faith in the EU surviving this crisis?

Interesting article on spiegel.de The Kohl government was very skeptical that the Euro could work with Italy in it, yet went on anyway: http://www.spiegel.de/international...d-to-origins-of-common-currency-a-831842.html

I can believe that. But it wasn't just Italy (as it turned out Spain is more likely to be the country bringing the whole thing down). Even if neither of these were in, some day there would be a big row between France and Germany, for the economies of those two countries are also different, as well as its government policies and political priorities.

 

[Hehehe]

That's not the problem. The problem was that the banks were foolish enough to lend to Greece. If it weren't for them, the Greek debt crises would've only been a Greek problem and not the Pan-European problem it is right now.

Yes, the lending is the reason for this current debt crisis. But the EU has some deep seated issues, such as economically incompatible economic zones having the same currency.

 

[Winner]

And how do you think that will go with the member states? What exactly does "seizing power" mean? You can't seize more power than whatever member states are willing to give you.

The European Parliament has the right to not approve a commissioner, and legally its approval is needed for the commissioner to get the job. In the past, the member states counted on the EP being essentially a rubber-stamping institution in this respect. That clearly has to end - which is what I mean by seizing power. All will be perfectly legal and in line with the existing EU treaty structure.

There's plot to unite the EU growing in this very thread it seems. I'm just throwing this opinion out here, but I'm not at all sure if I want to be part of whatever federal European Union you guys are planning. And I know I'm not the only one who thinks this way. This whole EU thing was poorly planned from the start, and seeing more poor plans made forces me to consider if this is such a good idea.

These are good plans. "We guys" (I am not sure who exactly) just want more democracy at the EU level. What's wrong with that is beyond me.

It's all Wikipedias page for the EU election 2014 talks about really, although only the Socialists have actually commited to it for now, they plan to hold primaries in January 2014. It's a step in the right direction, although it is fewer parties than I thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014

Let's hope others will join as well.

Next stop: pan-European political parties

 

[Traitorfish]

Don't they technically exist already? Or do you have in mind something more centralised, equivalent to current national parties on a pan-European scale?

 

[Leoreth]

These are good plans. "We guys" (I am not sure who exactly) just want more democracy at the EU level. What's wrong with that is beyond me.

Sometimes I suspect people don't want to lose one point to complain about.

 

[Dachs]

Am I the only one who opposes it due to Anglophobia?

Surely Anglophobia would be a reason to approve of European integration.

 

[kronic]

But what hope can there be of any competent regulation of the financial sector in the EU, let alone sorting out its dab debts, when the people recently appointed to the top places of the ECB are an italian former member of that criminal association named Goldman Sachs, and a portuguese utterly incompetent central banker who closed his to rampart theft and all kinds of illegalities in at least two banks he was supposed to be regulating? And you wonder Why I don't have any faith in the EU surviving this crisis?

Add to those people the newest German member on the boards, who was the chief lobbyist of financial deregulation in Germany, which he then pushed through while serving on several key posts in the German ministery of Finance. He also is responsible for the German approach to managing the banking crisis. But it is fitting that, while being a Social Democrat (haha), he got further promotions even though the Social Democrats were ousted from the government in 2009.

Btw, I'm not at all against bank nationalisations. A decently regulated state-owned banking sector (see German saving banks) is a big asset in an economy's financial architecture. In fact, I believe that (quasi-)insolvent banks should be nationalised and drastically shrunk in size (they can be sold off later on). In cases like Hypo Real Estate, existing shareholders should not even get a cent for as compensation as they wouldn't get one in a market transaction either. But the German government back then rather decided to gift shareholders some money while putting the costs on the taxpayer. They also injected equity into Commerzbank without getting voting rights in return. Never mind that Commerzbank hasn't paid a single cent of interest since then on it either. And the guy managing all that now sits on the boards of the ECB...

 

[innonimatu]

I do think that nationalization will happen anyway, because so many european banks are bound to collapse from all the bad debt before they can possibly manage to slowly take the losses and cover them with the profits obtained through arbitrage with the cheap loans from the ECB.

The problem is that there is a history of then privatizing them again! Which will only allow the boom-bust thing to happen again. I'm not even arguing that nationalized banks will be immune from that boom-bust cycle, I'm pissed that states end up assuming the responsibilities for the debts, and the private owners and managers get all the profits from the booms. And public banks in trouble may be at least easier to deal with anyway than are private banks - no need for the nationalization step, which only delays and worsens things as the people in control resist giving it up.

In the meanwhile, having mentioned Spain breaking the Euro, looks like the rats are abandoning the ship of spanish finance already. (sorry for the pun, couldn't resist)

 

[Winner]

Don't they technically exist already? Or do you have in mind something more centralised, equivalent to current national parties on a pan-European scale?

Not really. These are still little more than collections of diverse nationally-based parties which share the same ideology (in very broad terms). They do not work as proper parties - a good analogy could be a situation which occurs in some parliamentary systems when a bunch of smaller parties team up for the elections and present a single candidate list, even though the individual parties remain independent.

I want proper transnational European parties with branches in individual member states that would present their vision for the future of the EU to the voters. It would boost the legitimacy and effectiveness of democracy at EU level immensely, and I believe it would help the voters connect with Europe more.

I believe there was an attempt to organize that, but sadly only on the far-left of the spectrum.

 

[Leoreth]

Don't they technically exist already? Or do you have in mind something more centralised, equivalent to current national parties on a pan-European scale?

I think the fact that Angela Merkel and David Cameron are both EPP says all about these parties. They're just big tents, often for big-tent parties themselves.

Plus, if say, a German conservative candidate runs for the European parliament, he runs for the CDU, not the EPP, and until recently, there were even national restrictions on when a German party could enter the EP (5% of the national vote just as for German parliaments). This leads to a situation where

a) each nation's representatives are only known in their home countries
b) each national party only campaigns on domestic issues instead of actual European topics

In the end, this makes people vote for the European parliament as they would for their national parliament, which doesn't make any sense.

This is why I think exclusively European parties that run in the whole Union are a necessary prerequisite for a legitimate parliament. Membership in such a party should preclude active membership in national parties, even.

 

[Winner]

I think the fact that Angela Merkel and David Cameron are both EPP says all about these parties. They're just big tents, often for big-tent parties themselves.

Actually, Tories split from EPP and formed their own platform with Czech ODS and some other eurosceptic-slash-ultraconservative idiots in other EU states.

Plus, if say, a German conservative candidate runs for the European parliament, he runs for the CDU, not the EPP, and until recently, there were even national restrictions on when a German party could enter the EP (5% of the national vote just as for German parliaments). This leads to a situation where

a) each nation's representatives are only known in their home countries
b) each national party only campaigns on domestic issues instead of actual European topics

In the end, this makes people vote for the European parliament as they would for their national parliament, which doesn't make any sense.

You nailed it.

This is why I think exclusively European parties that run in the whole Union are a necessary prerequisite for a legitimate parliament. Membership in such a party should preclude active membership in national parties, even.

Here I disagree. As I said, I imagine these pan-European parties would stand in other elections, not just in elections to the EP. They'd have national branches which would represent the party in elections to national assemblies.

This way, pan-European parties would basically be able to "win" states and connect pan-European with national politics. More glue to hold the superstructure together

 

[Leoreth]

Actually, Tories split from EPP and formed their own platform with Czech ODS and some other eurosceptic-slash-ultraconservative idiots in other EU states.

Oh, there's that then. I suppose then it's the fact that I didn't know this which shows the irrelevance of the current superparties.

Here I disagree. As I said, I imagine these pan-European parties would stand in other elections, not just in elections to the EP. They'd have national branches which would represent the party in elections to national assemblies.

This way, pan-European parties would basically be able to "win" states and connect pan-European with national politics. More glue to hold the superstructure together

Well, that's another step ahead, but I don't know if it's feasible. In several countries, parties are very ingrained into the whole political structure, and it would be hard to reverse that. It all would depend on how much sovereignty national parliaments still have in this scenario.

But I think the first step would be to stop domestic politics from spilling over into the federal level, THEN we can think about letting the federal level politics spill back to the national level.

 

[Tahuti]

But I think the first step would be to stop domestic politics from spilling over into the federal level, THEN we can think about letting the federal level politics spill back to the national level.

I think that problem would solve itself if the EU Parliament were to gain the same powers national parliaments take for granted.

Though, I recall there is one Pan-European political party that seeks a unified democratic European federal state.