The European Project: the future of the EU.

We're on it :)


The Huyghe Brewery in Melle East Flanders has decided to dispatch 20 containers of its Delirium Tremens beer to its facility in the United States straight away.
“We are now going to do that faster than planned. I have also issued instructions to Mechelen to send all the beer to America immediately, even if there are containers that aren’t full. All the containers that are currently available will leave for America early next week.

As you may imagine the Trappists are not overly concerned, they measure time in centuries are thus are unconcerned by the politics of the day :

At the Westmalle Trappist brewery they do not fear any major impact for the time being. “We export only 1% of our production to the US and so we are not too concerned for the time being”.

Duvel has different plans :

At Duvel Moortgat in Breendonk (Antwerp Province), they are refraining from comment for the time being. The company may be able to overcome any issues that might arise by using its own brewery in the US to brew Duvel.
 
Last edited:

About Trump's tariff policy. Argument is that it means to boost industrialization/manufactories in the US, including with foreign companies hit by the tariffs relocating to the US or investing strictly there.
Blame Times Radio for the clickbait title.
 

About Trump's tariff policy. Argument is that it means to boost industrialization/manufactories in the US, including with foreign companies hit by the tariffs relocating to the US or investing strictly there.
Blame Times Radio for the clickbait title.
My understanding of that video is that he is not talking principally about Trump's tariff policy but about hiscrypto reserve.

It is delicate exercise. On the one hand he wants to reduce the value of the dollar in order to make American exports more competitive and imports into the United States more expensive and therefore shift jobs back to the Midwest. At the same time he wants to maintain the hegemony of the dollar. He doesn't want some other currency to replace the exorbitant privilege that the dollar affords anyone who happens to be in the White House.How is this connected to bitcoin to the reserve the Strategic reserve?
For the dollar to fall he needs the Chinese the Japanese the Brits and the Europeans primarily to sell many of their dollars but he doesn't want them to buy the Chinese currency he doesn't want them to buy the Euro he doesn't want want them to buy the British pound.
If you can create a flow of capital from the American dollar to malange of cryptocurrencies and especially these cryptocurrencies that are back stopped through some kind of stable coin then that achieves this goal.
 
That is a separate subject he was asked about :) Not related to the tariffs. Crypto is in the middle of the video - bleeds into stuff due to the interviewer being so keen on it.
 
Germany set to vote on historic increase in defence spending
What happens today, here in Berlin, will impact the entire future of Europe's defence and its ongoing support for Ukraine.

Germany's Parliament, the Bundestag, is voting on whether to take the brakes off defence spending. This could pave the way for a massive uplift in military investment just as Russia makes gains in Ukraine and Washington signals that Europe can no longer rely on US protection.

"This vote in the Bundestag is absolutely crucial," says Prof Monika Schnitzer, who chairs Germany's Council of Economic Experts.

"After the Munich Security Conference, then the Trump-Zelensky row, Europe got a wake-up call. For the first time Europeans may not be able to rely on Washington. A lot of people had sleepless nights after that."

"The outlook for European defence spending hinges on developments in Germany, as the holder of the region's largest defence budget," agrees Dr Fenella McGerty, senior fellow for defence economics at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
 
One would have thought that by now Germans had realized what the outcome of Germany being involved in a major war is. Apparently not. They have very significant industry, but next to no resources and they can't antagonize continent-sized enemies.
 
Let me make some baseless speculation in an irresponsible manner.

South America and Sub-Saharan Africa are happy to take €€Euros€€ for raw materials to support German industry.

European army can use two weapons systems, one using NATO weapons for high-intensity offensive operations, one using cheaper Chinese weapons for holding positions and simpler tasks. Chinese don't say no to €€Euros€€.

Demobilised Ukrainian nationals have no jobs. Can hire them into private contractor companies.
 
One would have thought that by now Germans had realized what the outcome of Germany being involved in a major war is. Apparently not. They have very significant industry, but next to no resources and they can't antagonize continent-sized enemies.
Comparing arming in response to Putin invading Ukraine and Trump abandoning NATO to Imperial/Nazi Germany is certainly a take.
 
One would have thought that by now Germans had realized what the outcome of Germany being involved in a major war is. Apparently not. They have very significant industry, but next to no resources and they can't antagonize continent-sized enemies.
Are you saying that Germans are somehow inherently evil and can't be trusted with a proper military? :rolleyes:

The West German Bundeswehr was much more formidable than its current incarnation, and yet the Fourth Reich never arose.

I'd sooner not trust America and its mighty military, seeing how its controlling political structure is rapidly shredding any and all interest in freedom and democracy. They're rapidly distancing themselves from what they used to stand for and, God forbid, may end up pretty close to what they themselves fought in WW2.
 
In any case they would end fighting something very close to what they used to stand for in WW2.
 

Europe is going full 1790s America​

This time, joint bonds really might forge a more united Europe.

With Donald Trump triggering the biggest reordering of the European security landscape since World War II, debt issuance may not sound like the most urgent matter in hand, but supporters of a more deeply integrated European Union reckon bonds for rearmament are crucial to realizing their federal dreams.

Trump's insistence that Europe will have to step up and look after its own regional security — and provide Ukraine with security guarantees against Russia — is pressing the EU to raise cash fast for military investments.
Only six weeks after the United States president's inauguration, the European Commission announced a plan to raise €150 billion of joint debt to finance European weapons purchases. It's a large sum for EU-level bonds, outstripping Russia's entire projected military spending for 2025.

The debt is up for discussion at Thursday's summit of EU leaders in Brussels, but no one is digging in their heels. In the past, frugal countries like the Netherlands fought against common borrowing, but Germany's support has swung the dynamic of the conversation. The EU is now aligned on the need to spend big on weapons.

For supporters of a stronger EU, issuance of joint debt brings them closer to their long-desired "Hamiltonian moment" — a reference to the efforts of first Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, who helped unify the U.S. by consolidating the debts of disparate states into federal bonds in 1790.

This is not the first time that the EU is raising common debt. There was massive investment during the Covid-19 pandemic to prop up Europe's floundering economy. But that agreement was thrashed out painfully over the course of nearly five months.

The pandemic was also seen as a one-off emergency. The need to rearm is a long-term refocusing of what Europe is all about, and the €150 billion is likely to be only the first step.

When announcing the joint debt plan, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the response from European capitals to "an era of rearmament" had been "as resounding as it is clear."
“The real question in front of us is whether Europe is prepared to act as decisively as the situation dictates. And whether Europe is ready and able to act with the speed and the ambition that is needed,” she said in a speech. “This is a moment for Europe. And we are ready to step up.”

The bond issuance will allow the Commission to lend money to member countries to buy weapons, which the capitals will pay back to Brussels.

In parallel, a political reorientation in the bloc's largest economy, Germany, has meant the traditionally frugal country is finally changing its attitude toward debt in order to finance a modernization of its underpowered military. It also suggests a newfound German openness to fund investment at a European scale.

Taken together, these are changes that will be difficult to reverse, even if peace returns.

“In view of the threats to our freedom and peace on our continent, 'whatever it takes' must now also apply to our defense,” Germany's chancellor-in-waiting, Friedrich Merz, said earlier this month, echoing former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi's call to arms from the eurozone debt crisis.

“What happened in Germany is a huge change,” said Florian Schuster-Johnson of Dezernat Zukunft, a nonpartisan, economy-focused think tank in Berlin. “And this change will also be very, very consequential for European policy.”

Creatures of war​

Guntram Wolff, senior fellow at Bruegel, said the EU's move could prove as fundamental as the "Hamiltonian moment" that sped up the transformation of the U.S. from a loose confederation of polities into a nation-state with centralized spending powers.

“If this happens — more military integration together with more joint funding — then we are really in the creation of a completely new EU,” he said. “That’s really a mega Hamiltonian moment.”

The entanglement of finance with war has a long history. Arms are expensive, and governments look for new ways to raise finances in war. Those innovations tend to stick around long after the emergency has passed.
Take the Bank of England, founded in 1694 against the backdrop of the Glorious Revolution and war overseas.

“In the statute that created the Bank of England, the only purpose it gave was conducting the war against France,” said Harold James, an economic historian at Princeton University. The bank took over government debt raised to fund England’s military, backing it with tax receipts raised by parliament. “It’s specifically put in the statute. It’s absolutely the creature of war,” James said.

Likewise, France created its own central bank in 1800, which helped finance the Napoleonic wars.

Ever closer union​

Something similar is going on now at the European level, analysts say. The move toward defense by potentially enormous debt financing seems “to be actually going back to how people thought about this in the 18th and 19th century,” James said.

“It’s not necessary for a state to have its own money. Early modern states often operated with all kinds of coinages … But the states do need to defend themselves,” he added. “They need an army.”

The war in Ukraine has also forced European policymakers to consider major fiscal adjustments that were previously unthinkable — and which have long been seen as a first step toward a deeper union.

Germany's relaxation of its debt brake for the military is, at first glance, strictly a national decision — one that it will put to the vote in its lower house on Tuesday. But the jettisoning of the national taboo on debt suggests a softening of its long-held fiscally conservative stance at the European level. It's in Berlin's interest that if it goes further into debt to help defend the bloc as a whole, its partners do so as well, since all EU countries benefit from collective security. Indeed, it's notable that Berlin has not opposed the Commission's joint debt proposal, provided it's disbursed as a loan that countries have to repay, and not as no-strings-attached grants.

“Suddenly a country that in the past was saying we have to balance the budget and we should not allow debts to increase, even to finance investment of whatever kind, turns around 180 degrees,” said the Belgian economist Paul De Grauwe. “You will change your mind when somebody has a gun against your head.”

Since the EU’s formation, its treaty has called for an “ever closer union,” but national governments across the bloc have always been wary of surrendering powers to a central EU administration — and of any moves that could make them liable for their neighbors’ debts.
The recent moves could represent a significant reversal in that direction after years of bickering.

What comes next is another question.

So far, the Commission’s borrowing is indirectly financed by the EU budget, but that has severe limits. To raise more money, the Commission will need to find ways to raise taxes. It will then be able to issue bonds on the market backed by taxpayers, just like a sovereign country does.

Levying taxes will prove tricky because EU taxation requires unanimous agreement. In the past that's been a no-go for capitals jealously guarding what they see as a national prerogative. Even in the wartime context, it remains a difficult prospect as long as Ukraine- and EU-skeptical leaders like Hungary's Viktor Orbán have a seat in the Council.

Waltraud Schelkle of the European University Institute in Florence said that something would have to give: “It’s not credible in bond markets if you borrow a trillion with a budget that is exactly that … a capacity to tax will have to be created at the EU level.”

Marco Buti, who served as chief of staff for former Economy Commissioner Paolo Gentiloni, saw parallels with the EU’s coronavirus recovery fund.
In 2020, the Commission also relaxed fiscal rules to allow member countries to prevent their economies from flatlining as a side effect of lockdowns. The next step was a €100 billion fund raised for employment protection — which he sees as equivalent to the recently announced €150 billion defense fund. The final step was the massive €800 billion recovery fund, which as yet has no parallel.

“The next step should be joint borrowing — but not for national transfers. Rather, it should be for financing European-level transnational projects in defense,” he said.

“The idea of debt-funded EU policies is now acceptable politically,” said Iain Begg of the London School of Economics’ European Institute. “Once the genie is out of the bottle, it’s very hard to put back in.”
 
Are you saying that Germans are somehow inherently evil and can't be trusted with a proper military? :rolleyes:

The West German Bundeswehr was much more formidable than its current incarnation, and yet the Fourth Reich never arose.

I'd sooner not trust America and its mighty military, seeing how its controlling political structure is rapidly shredding any and all interest in freedom and democracy. They're rapidly distancing themselves from what they used to stand for and, God forbid, may end up pretty close to what they themselves fought in WW2.
The inference was that Germany always lost the war against countries with vast resources.
But what you thought it meant also comes from somewhere; mass genocides tend to leave a bad taste.
 
The inference was that Germany always lost the war against countries with vast resources.
Not comparable to the Imperial or Nazi era at all. Germany has been asked to contribute it's share to a joint European defense effort, and is increasingly doing so after previous reluctance under the Sholz Cabinet. The EU's GDP is 10x that of Russia, and their population is 3x.
But what you thought it meant also comes from somewhere; mass genocides tend to leave a bad taste.
Ironic, considering the "country with vast resources" you're comparing them to.
 
The inference was that Germany always lost the war against countries with vast resources.
Only if you cherry-pick and under-contextualize your cases. Modern Germany and Russia aren't really comparable to their WW2 selves, if that war was your primary example.

In WW2, Nazi Germany only lost against the Soviet Union because it was simultaneously fighting literally every democratic power out there, including the friggin' United States (which was at the same time substantially supplying the Soviets).

In WW1, Imperial Germany (and its alliance) was outmatched not by any single country "with vast resources", but a larger coalition aligned against it. Tsarist Russia had an atrocious performance, to the point it was a major factor in the toppling of the monarchy before the war was even over.

Modern Germany exists in a fairly politically aligned, developed European context, and Russia is a shadow of the Soviet Union, unable to deal with an originally semi well supplied yet ultimately developing nation a fraction of its size without massive, massive casualties. Even when supplied drones, ordnance, hardware and in some cases even direct troops by its Eastern club of dictator buddies.

Russia has only ever won anything through excruciating human cost, and right now it wouldn't withstand a direct conventional confrontation with any sufficiently resolute modern power. Of course, the problem is that after being soundly defeated in the battlefield, the only recourse of an unpredictable, aging dictator would be the huge pile of nukes he's sitting on. Putin knows this, and obviously nobody really wants an atomic conflagration, which is why he relies on far sneakier, insidious methods of fulfilling his ambitions. Methods which keep rivals guessing and circumvent direct (overt) confrontation with anyone capable of slapping him down and drive him into the nuclear corner. He knows he loses even if everyone else does too, in that scenario.
 
Last edited:

Poland shuts asylum door at Belarus border with EU backing​

BRUSSELS — Poland is moving ahead with a controversial new law, backed by European Union leaders, to suspend access to asylum for new arrivals crossing into the country through Belarus after accusing Moscow of weaponizing migration flows to upend security in the region.

The measure has cleared Poland’s parliament and is expected to be signed by President Andrzej Duda, Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Friday.

“Every day of delay puts our border guards, soldiers and police officers at further risk by prolonging this acute crisis at the border. Thanks to this tough policy, we’re effectively stopping the wave,” said Tusk in Brussels, following a meeting of the bloc’s leaders the day before.
In October, Tusk claimed the influx of would-be migrants, with many from Africa and the Middle East, was orchestrated by Russia, calling it “hybrid warfare.” Belarusian border guards are alleged to be actively aiding the groups attempting to cross the border, Tusk said previously, in a bid to tie up resources and destabilize Poland.

The law would empower the government to suspend registration of asylum claims in designated border zones for up to 60 days, which could be extended with parliament’s approval. Vulnerable groups — including unaccompanied minors and pregnant women — are exempt.

“Every day we’re seeing 100, 150, even 200 attempts to cross the border illegally,” Tusk said.

Critics and rights groups have criticized the plan, calling it “unlawful” and warning that implementing “abusive pushbacks” violates both EU and international refugee law. A report published this week accused Polish and Belarusian forces of systematically abusing migrants trapped in the Białowieża Forest. The report detailed beatings, dog attacks and forced returns by Polish guards, as well as torture and rape by Belarusian forces.

Pushbacks — the practice of summarily expelling people without allowing them to apply for asylum — have also been condemned by the U.N. refugee agency as unlawful.

The asylum suspension is the latest chapter in Poland’s hardening migration policy ahead of the country’s presidential election in May.
This is not the first wave of migration Poland has attempted to stem. In 2021, Poland faced a national emergency as tens of thousands of people attempted to cross its border with Belarus as its leader Alexander Lukashenko weaponized desperate migrants in retaliation for sanctions imposed on him and his allies.

“We’re not going to be the only ones on the front line while others hesitate,” Tusk added.

Tusk, a former European Council president, has leveraged his Brussels connections to secure support for the move. He first proposed it at a meeting of EU leaders in October last year, where they endorsed exemptions to asylum rules in “exceptional situations” involving threats from Russia and Belarus.

The government also plans to launch an information campaign in migrants’ countries of origin, warning that irregular arrivals will no longer be able to claim protection in Poland.

“They’ll just be throwing their money away,” Tusk said.

While defending the eastern border crackdown, Tusk dismissed opposition calls to also close Poland’s western border with Germany to stem the return of asylum seekers, calling the idea “brutal and unnecessary” and arguing it would hurt ordinary Poles who live and work in the region. Warsaw will not comply with EU rules requiring it to take back migrants from other member states under the Dublin Regulation.

“Poland is carrying enough burden,” he said. “We will not take anyone back.”

Europe’s new unanimity: Orbán doesn’t need to agree​

European leaders are no longer relying on Hungary to go along with key policy positions on Ukraine. But that doesn't mean Budapest can't still cause problems.

Presidents and prime ministers from across the bloc met in Brussels on Thursday to sign off a raft of new commitments, from economic competitiveness to financial markets.

But by far the thorniest issue, as always, is delivering support to Ukraine — with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán consistently opposing any efforts to step up military aid or progress the country's application to become a European Union member.
Rules that normally require all 27 EU countries to agree on a joint statement for it to be issued on behalf of the European Council were firmly in the crosshairs two weeks ago, when he attempted to derail proposals for Europe to fill the gap left by an American aid cutoff for Kyiv.

Then though, a text agreed by the remaining 26 countries was appended to the other resolutions, which were unanimously agreed. And while Hungary opted out, it was still issued as a formal European Council conclusion. That tactic seems to be working and diplomats told POLITICO they intend to use it again.

"The statement on Ukraine today will be issued as an annex on behalf of the 26," said one senior EU diplomat, granted anonymity to discuss Thursday's closed-door talks. "This is the new normal. And it is useful when it comes to political intent. Maybe down the line though we will encounter other problems."

Meanwhile, a top EU official added, Hungary's objections are being priced in — and quickly ignored.

"After March 6, no one has any doubts that there is divergence with one member state. The objective should always be to have conclusions at 27 — if it’s not possible, if the strategic division is maintained, and we have all the indications that it is maintained, that we would move forward at 26," the official said.

European leaders scored a major win at the last European Council earlier this month when they secured the support of Slovakia’s Robert Fico, splitting him off from joining forces with Hungary.
Ultimately though, tough wording threatening additional sanctions on Russian energy and trade goods might mean little, given actually implementing it at an EU level still does require unanimity — and Hungary has time and time again blocked proposals to tighten the remaining loopholes.

"Orbán chose isolation and a path of illiberal democracy against the obvious interest of the EU and, in fact, Hungary. He was given many opportunities and rejected extended hands," said a second diplomat. "The security of Europe is too serious of an issue to negotiate with one person who sees things 180 degrees differently than everyone else."

"If he thinks he can do it better, by going alone, I don't think many would try to stop him."

A draft of the Ukraine statement, seen by POLITICO, reaffirms the EU's "continued and unwavering support for Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders."

"The European Union maintains its ‘peace through strength’ approach, which requires Ukraine to be in the strongest possible position, with its own robust military and defence capabilities as an essential component," it said.

Meanwhile, a third senior European diplomat said that while the bloc welcomes President Donald Trump's efforts to try and end the war, it was not expecting to change its stance any time soon.

“There are U.S.-Russia talks and U.S.-Ukraine talks, but these are not seen as a peace negotiation,” another senior EU official told POLITICO. However, the official added, “the EU welcomes U.S. efforts” to try and cement a ceasefire, but will continue to provide material support to Ukraine regardless.
 
The West German Bundeswehr was much more formidable than its current incarnation, and yet the Fourth Reich never arose.

West Germany was never allowed to control its own armed forces. Command was, solely for Germany, always subject to the NATO structure. Other members would only relinquish national command on the event of a war.
NATO in fact initially arose out of a need to keep the germans down. And the americans in as a means to do it.

History has not come to an end. Europeans sould learn european history, their own history first and foremost, then perhaps they wouldn't be living in fantasy world. Might identify their actual problems and what to do about them.
 
West Germany was never allowed to control its own armed forces. Command was, solely for Germany, always subject to the NATO structure. Other members would only relinquish national command on the event of a war.
NATO in fact initially arose out of a need to keep the germans down. And the americans in as a means to do it.

History has not come to an end. Europeans sould learn european history, their own history first and foremost, then perhaps they wouldn't be living in fantasy world. Might identify their actual problems and what to do about them.
Technicalities. Initial fear, yes, sure. Makes some sense in the immediate aftermath of a world war. Though I'd contest the predominant intent with the fact it was readily apparent by 1945 that further Soviet advance was a far greater and more immediate threat than an German aggressor, presently thoroughly crushed, resurging sometime in the future. WW3 was never likelier than immediately after WW2, when the Soviet war machine was hot, primed and ready for more.

Ultimately, my point is that it's pretty damn vapid to believe Germans are inherently evil and unworthy of having their own, full-fledged armed forces in 2025. It's pretty clear modern rampaging destabilizers like Russia, chiefly, are in far greater need of demilitarization.
 
War economy can only lead to war - after you have sold what you could, you need to create more demand, which happens by rapid depletion of what you sold.

We will get there soon enough.
1742823790411.png
 
Back
Top Bottom