EU Spectacle
The word spectacle is carefully chosen, since this is what the current drama of which Greece is the symptom, not the cause, has become. It no longer bears any relationship to coherent democratic leadership or process of governance in a workable political and currency union. The cancellation at a moment’s notice of a summit of all EU leaders is extraordinary.
There is a problem with Greece, but it is not that difficult to solve. Indeed this blog working alone would be able to negotiate a workable solution. What is proving impossible is to find an acceptable solution, because the institutions normally established to process decision making at national and international levels are not there, or there in such abundance nobody can detect who is in charge. And to make matters worse the structure of the currency itself is unsustainable as it lacks a treasury and a finance minister answering to an elected government. A committee of finance ministers at loggerheads, elected by only one member state in each case, on conflicting mandates and to differing electoral timetables will work only in the good times and becomes dysfunctional under pressure.
So all we know at this moment is that Greece may or may not go bust tomorrow, the euro looks more like an impediment to growth than an engine of it, and the reputation of the EU as a coherent political union is severely damaged. Beneath that a big gap is developing between the north and the south of Europe, between the politicians and their electors everywhere and between those in the eurozone who want to stand firm to high principle even if it brings the whole thing down, led by the Germans, and by those who feel pragmatic reality demands compromise, led by France and Italy.
At the heart of of this crisis now engulfing the whole EU are three violated principles. You cannot have a democratic political union without an elected forum from which all authority flows. You cannot have a currency which cannot be printed. You cannot have capitalism which does not permit debtors to go bust. The first is violated because the whole EU is wrongly configured. The last two are rescinded because Germany says No.
message 851:
by
Linda
(new)
Jan 26, 2016 07:30AM
If you say it began in the 1950s that's when the British Empire pretty much ended. I know in 1956 the British pulled out of Egypt. So all the colonials came to Britain.
reply
|
flag
The problem is that you can't really be socialistic and capitalistic at the same time past a certain point. Nobody knows what that point is. Hitler had National Socialism but he was still capitalistic. The Russians never had capitalism and they pretended they were communists. The British invented capitalism, but now they are leaning towards socialism, but their economy still works. The Americans have always practiced capitalism. Like all western countries they too are moving towards socialism. Their economy HAS TO work or the world as we know it is doomed. But the key may be whether capitalism is in your country's history and background. If you bring in too many immigrants from non-capitalistic areas such as the Middle East who are not well-absorbed into the society, then you may harm how well your capitalism functions. But if you absorb them the way America does then your economy continues to function. The real question is how well does Britain absorb into its culture its foreign immigrants? How well does Germany absorb them? I don't think Germany absorbs them as well. Therefore, I ask the question if they get too many immigrants, will they harm their economy?
Yes, I like the blog. You say Europe will become part of Germany. I agree that the Continent has become Germany's economic empire. But I don't see how Britain can follow along there. It has to be independent of Germany and have its own currency. I don't see Britains using the euro, do you?
Linda wrote: "The problem is that you can't really be socialistic and capitalistic at the same time past a certain point. Nobody knows what that point is. Hitler had National Socialism but he was still capitalis..."Britain is as good, if not better, than any country on earth at absorbing immigrants who then make an enormous contribution to the economy.In this way it is like America which was built on immigration rather than an indigenous tribe, but it started two thousand years ago. Actually it started longer ago then that. And although there is a lot of hyper politics about benefit scroungers among immigrants, the figures show that we make a profit as these new arrivals pay more in taxes than then get in benefits.
Germany has taken in a million this year. Traditionally they are good with immigration but their record fell to pieces because of the persecution of the Jews. i think now they are trying to get themselves into a better light.
Linda wrote: "If you say it began in the 1950s that's when the British Empire pretty much ended. I know in 1956 the British pulled out of Egypt. So all the colonials came to Britain."Correct. In fact we automatically gave a British passport to anyone from a former colony who wanted to come here.
Linda wrote: "Yes, I like the blog. You say Europe will become part of Germany. I agree that the Continent has become Germany's economic empire. But I don't see how Britain can follow along there. It has to be i..."No joining the Euro is an absolute No No for 80% of Brits and it will never happen. However all our economic problems now stem from the fact that we did not join. Our economic imbalance favouring assets over production of new wealth and the shocking performance of our exports is because the pound is way out of line with the euro and the dollar. Yes Europe is our biggest trading partner but we buy from them of £50 billion (e65 bil) more than we sell to them each year.
Had we joined at the beginning it would have been run from London, not Frankfurt and it would have been properly organised so as to avoid the muddles it has got itself into. And our economy would be on a par with Germany. And all this stuff about leaving would not be happening, neither would Germany be the only voice heard in Europe.
It's hard for somebody in America to think of Britain as a country of immigrants. In the sense you are talking about immigrants almost any country on earth would be a country of immigrants. You almost always have movements of peoples around the globe, invasions, migrations, etc. In England you had the Romans and the Normans, for instance. You had Vikings, too. Does that make you a country of immigrants? I think only in more recent times has Britain become a country of immigrants and that time is less than 100 years.
I meant to write this yesterday, but I ran out of time. In Germany there is a Vietnamese man called Philipp Rosler in government. He was adopted by a German couple when he was less than one year old and raised as a German. He speaks German. He thinks like a German. He acts like a German. He is married to a white German woman. He gets alone fine. He's a perfect example of exactly what I am talking about. If suddenly all immigrants including the ones from the Middle East were to behave like him, there would be no problems with immigration and soon even prejudice against immigrants would vanish. People would come to realize that the origin of prejudice isn't really because somebody LOOKS different. It's because they act different, speak a different language, dress differently, have a different religion, don't have an education, etc.
Why do you say that Germany has a record of absorbing immigrants? When I was there I saw an Arab cab driver. I saw a few Turks. What are you talking about?You notice that the Eastern Europeans and the Russians want none of this.
You automatically gave a passport to anyone from a former colony who wanted to come to Britain? Why haven't you given passports to all the Americans in the US? I haven't yet received my British passport!
So you wish you had adopted the euro even though you say nobody would do it. Very interesting. Would Germany want you to adopt the euro?
As far as modern Europe's toleration for immigrants goes, what was going on just a handful of years ago when France was expelling Gypsies? Nobody ever talks about it. Nobody seems to care about the Gypsies, not even the US. I didn't notice any protest about it.
Linda wrote: "It's hard for somebody in America to think of Britain as a country of immigrants. In the sense you are talking about immigrants almost any country on earth would be a country of immigrants. You alm..."About eight million British people originate from an ethnic minority.Of the balance there are a lot from Europe post WWII
Linda wrote: "You automatically gave a passport to anyone from a former colony who wanted to come to Britain? Why haven't you given passports to all the Americans in the US? I haven't yet received my British pas..."If America had stayed it would have been a Dominion like Canada or Australia so you would have had your own passports. Anyway you became independent through war, so actually Britain is your oldest enemy.
Linda wrote: "So you wish you had adopted the euro even though you say nobody would do it. Very interesting. Would Germany want you to adopt the euro?"Oh gosh yes they all wanted us in. The trouble with Britain is that it likes to be at the party but on a different level to others. So in Europe we do not get stuck in as a full participant; we have to have all sorts of special provisions. If we leave, instead of going and telling them to get stuffed and we will make our own way, we will still want to have some kind of deal with them, so that although we have left we will still be partly there.
It is the part of being British myself that I find really annoying. It is the same with America. You jumped out of our pocket, so we jumped into yours. I suppose it is like my divorce. We still see each other all the time and we are best friends.
Linda wrote: "As far as modern Europe's toleration for immigrants goes, what was going on just a handful of years ago when France was expelling Gypsies? Nobody ever talks about it. Nobody seems to care about the..."There has always been a problem in Europe because of their nomadic lifestyle, but they have always been accepted here, although there are occasional problems about sites for their communities. Now by law they have to be provided. Mostly they are fully integrated and educated nowadays anyway in the UK. it is not an issue here and anyway it would be unlawful to discriminate against them.
I don't remember that Britain had an invasion after the Normans in 1066. That was about 1000 years ago. You had Norman overlords for a couple hundred years that resulted in tales like Robin Hood and the evil King John who was a Norman. I think there was a French pirate incursion into Southampton in the 1300's. But that didn't amount to much. So all this immigration is very recent. You can remember most of it.
That's supposed to be a joke! Obviously that's going the wrong way across the Atlantic to give Americans passports. But I think the real difference here is between "settlement colonies" and other colonies such as India which was started by the East India Company for trade and profit. Australia and Canada were other settlement colonies. They weren't given passports either. Only the other kind of colony was given a passport. And of course the US didn't stick around as long as Australia and Canada.
As far as Britain being the oldest enemy of the US, did you know that just a couple of years after the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams visited Great Britain as tourists? Apparently they even went to Stratford upon Avon. If it was such a horrible war, how could they have done that? You'd think they would have been arrested. Remember, they were fighting for "the rights of Englishmen". They objected to "taxation without representation".
As far as divorces go, you could have all sorts of arrangements depending upon the individual people involved. But countries follow certain rules and patterns. It's hard for me to believe that Germany and England could be in the same currency union. I don't see how the euro could be Germany's show if England were involved. You would think that there would be all sorts of contests and disagreements as part of power politics. Remember the war?
So you admit you have Gypsies in England. I know Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights was supposed to be a Gypsy. But you say it's worse on the Continent? I don't know if there are Gypsies in the US. You would think they would be here. But I've never seen such a nomadic community. I've never heard about people providing "sites" for them to settle. It would be against the law here. They wouldn't have any special rights because of their ethnic background. I suspect that they've been assimilated into society long ago. This just illustrates what I was saying about the Continent. They may have immigrants, but can they handle them? They don't assimilate well. And in Britain you are saying they are only half-assimilated? By the way I've seen assimilation occurring in the US before my very eyes. I could give you illustrations of it, which would help to explain why it occurs so rapidly in certain instances.
The only ethnic group in America where land has been set aside for them are the American Indians with reservations. This is a totally different situation than Gypsies. I now live in what is known as "Indian Country" and I have my own opinions about reservations after I drove through or visited several of them in recent years. In short, I don't think Indian Reservations are a good idea either.
Linda wrote: "So you admit you have Gypsies in England. I know Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights was supposed to be a Gypsy. But you say it's worse on the Continent? I don't know if there are Gypsies in the US. Yo..."I think Britain and the US are by far the best at absorbing immigrants from other cultures and continents. personally I have never understood the fuss. I have never seen immigrants as different. They are just people.
Linda wrote: "As far as divorces go, you could have all sorts of arrangements depending upon the individual people involved. But countries follow certain rules and patterns. It's hard for me to believe that Germ..."Germany and England were traditional protestant allies until WWI. The Royal family was German (less so now), I am mostly German. They would have seen eye to eye on the currency but it would have been run from London. There are much bigger cultural difference with France, which incidentally is much less sure footed with the immigration from its old colonies, many of whom are not well treated.
Linda wrote: "The only ethnic group in America where land has been set aside for them are the American Indians with reservations. This is a totally different situation than Gypsies. I now live in what is known a..."The American treatment of the Indian tribes is a dark page in its history. I would rather not go there.
I think the origin of the fuss is supposed to be jobs. Blue collar workers are afraid that the new immigrants will work for less than they are willing to work for. This is more traditional. But in recent years there is resentment that even people who are not immigrants but are foreign are competing for jobs. For instance in the US you have the proliferation of call centers in India. People resent this, too, and will become irate if they see anybody from India around them, even if they don't belong to a call center. This is one of the big ways that resentment about immigrants works.P.S. As far as call centers go, I have a customer reaction only. I don't care about the jobs. But I hate attempting to talk to non native speakers of English. I'm constantly having to ask them to repeat what they said because I couldn't understand them.
The contest with Germany was building for a long time before WW2. There was also WW1. I think it dates from German reunification. And though you might be Protestant allies and your monarchy may have been imported from Germany in the 1700's with the Georges, that just sets up more of a contest to see who is dominant. I don't see how Germany would want their currency run from London anymore than you would want your currency run from Germany. But I am not in Europe.As far as France goes, I've heard a lot about how they don't absorb their immigrants well. Just a few years ago there was a big incident with burning cars or something like that. I'm sure Germany as big cultural differences with France, but during WW1 France ceased to fight. Slowly but surely after that they were drawn into Germany's orbit. During WW2 they were largely complicit with the Nazis.
The Russians think that the EU is a new German Empire. Apparently you must not think so if you imagine that Britain could be part of it.
What do you mean by the Indians are a dark page in American history and you would rather not go there? What I think nowadays is that Indian Reservations should not be held in trust for the Indians as if they were incompetent and somehow inferior peoples. They should be returned to the Indians. The Indians should be able to do what they want with them including selling off the land. Right now the ones who live on reservations are kept in isolation from the rest of society. For them the melting pot doesn't work. It's the only example I've ever seen of this, though most Indians don't live on reservations and have been assimilated into society. The Navajos in Northern Arizona have the largest Indian Reservation both in land area and in the number of members. It's wild, deserted land on the Colorado Plateau, and there's not much you could do with it in terms of business and industry. The US Government should buy it from them (Department of the Interior) as a National Park including Monument Valley and the Canyon de Chelly, etc. That would make each individual member of the tribe a millionaire. Then they should be allowed to go and disperse.
Getting rid of the Navajo Reservation would be a boon for not only the remaining Indians who live there in isolation but for the white men, too. It's distinctly in the way as far as building roads and highways and it's an obstacle to travel. Believe me, I know. I've driven there. They don't have bathrooms or rest stops for almost 100 miles when you are driving from Flagstaff to Lake Powell from Cameron all the way to the dam. On the other side of Lake Powell as you drive towards Utah, more rest areas and gas stations appear because you run into the Mormans. This must all sound very exotic to you but at one point after I moved to Arizona I was driving this way on a yearly basis.
This is just one example of an Indian Reservation. I've run into examples in the Pacific Northwest along the coast in Washington State, too. That's a very isolated part of the country, and the reservations --- which are cultural and economic ghettos --- should not be there either. You should set the people free.
I remember when I took my first trip to Arizona and saw my first real Indian I was absolutely amazed. Gary even ate Indian fry bread. When you were out East Indians were just fables and myths. You thought they were in history books and not real anymore.
I guess what I'm saying about Gypsies in the US is that the nomadic lifestyle isn't allowed especially nowadays where the US government has cracked down and INSISTS that they know your physical address. You can't even open a bank account without one.
Linda wrote: "What do you mean by the Indians are a dark page in American history and you would rather not go there? What I think nowadays is that Indian Reservations should not be held in trust for the Indians ..."Well the whole notion seizing the Indian lands and the killing of the native people is anathema to modern thinking and was at a certain level genocide. I think you are quite right that modern so called Indians should have title to what is their own land.
Linda wrote: "The contest with Germany was building for a long time before WW2. There was also WW1. I think it dates from German reunification. And though you might be Protestant allies and your monarchy may hav..."My Grandfather was against Bismark and declared that a united Germany would make a nuisance of itself and he was right, but modern Germany, reunited again, is very different.
Linda wrote: "The contest with Germany was building for a long time before WW2. There was also WW1. I think it dates from German reunification. And though you might be Protestant allies and your monarchy may hav..."The Russians are pretty shrewd observers of Europe and are right about a new German Empire, although nobody, especially not the Germans, will admit to it. But if we remain then we act as a check on the Germans and an alternative centre of power among the 27 members.
Apparently the US government is holding the Indian land "in trust" for the Indians. It is as if they are still children. They are not permitted to sell the land even if they want to. Also from the other point of view, if you enter an Indian reservation to go to a casino and you trip and fall, you can't sue the Indian tribe in court. They are immune. This also limits business development on Indian reservations. They are allowed to break contracts, and many of the regular laws don't apply there. This should be changed, too. Otherwise there will be little business development. And when it comes to Indian law, it's all up to the US Congress.
You say modern Germany reunited again is different from the time of Bismarck. How so? Unless you mean that all of Europe is very different now than it was in the 19th century for all sorts of reasons including the new US dominance after WW2. The new norm is to have "economic empires" after the US model. That is what Germany is now doing I think.
You say if you remain in the EU you act as a check on Germany's growing power. How so? If you aren't part of the currency union, you aren't part of deciding what goes on with it, right? Britain doesn't make euro policy, right? The three primary currencies in the world are the US dollar, the British pound, and the euro. You're just concerned with the British pound.
Linda wrote: "You say modern Germany reunited again is different from the time of Bismarck. How so? Unless you mean that all of Europe is very different now than it was in the 19th century for all sorts of reaso..."Yes that is what I meant but you put it better!
Linda wrote: "You say if you remain in the EU you act as a check on Germany's growing power. How so? If you aren't part of the currency union, you aren't part of deciding what goes on with it, right? Britain doe..."Actually the euro is an issue but there are others. There are political issues about governance and decision making, which are paralyzed in Europe,especially over the migrant diaspora. At the moment eventually everybody has to fall in line with what Britain, France and Germany decide. If Britain goes Germany will decide regardless of whatever France thinks.
I didn't think France had much of an ability to decide anything. They declined after 1815 when Napoleon lost at Waterloo, which is what I am writing about now. After that the Versailles Treaty after WW1 was such a disaster that they never got to even try anything again. After all, it was the French more than anybody else who were pushing the reparations on Germany. But certainly since WW2 and the Nazi's I thought France was in Germany's orbit. I thought everybody had to fall in line with what Britain and Germany decide. Forget France.
And as far as all the EU states falling in line with what Germany and England do about the migrants, the Eastern European states don't seem to be falling in line at all, do they? I thought following Russia's model they refused to allow any migrants to enter the country.
I thought the European Union was mostly about economics, jobs, and trade, etc. I didn't think it had any political clout. What authority does the EU have to enforce political decisions such as what to do about the migrants? Does some central body in Brussels vote to withhold money to a country that refuses to comply? How does it work?
Linda wrote: "And as far as all the EU states falling in line with what Germany and England do about the migrants, the Eastern European states don't seem to be falling in line at all, do they? I thought followin..."Yes the East is very anti migrant.
Linda wrote: "I thought the European Union was mostly about economics, jobs, and trade, etc. I didn't think it had any political clout. What authority does the EU have to enforce political decisions such as what..."The problem with the EU is a bit like the US. there are various organs of governance but non has absolute power, so unless there is consensus (which there most certainly isn't with migrants or the euro) nothing much happens. This is the list
The European Commission (appointed)
The European Parliament (elected)
The European Council (appointed from elected Heads of EU governments)
The European Court
The Council of Ministers (appointed from elected departmental ministers of member governments)
All collectively have sovereignty over over national parliaments under various treaties, which can only be varied by referendum in each country voting in favour. One No and it is lost.
Please don't ask me how it all works because nobody knows the answer. It kind of works after a fashion. But if Angela says no that is that. If she say Yes everybody falls in line. Cameron stands on the sidelines uttering unctuous sound bites, but until they suddenly realised Britain was about to walk off the stage, nobody paid attention. Now they are trying to get Britain to vote yes, so there are a few little goodie bags on offer, but no real meat.
Yes, the East is very anti-migrant. So what can the West do to enforce the policy? In the US the federal government is supreme. They got rid of the loose confederation of states first of all with the Constitution and then with the Civil War. If the US Congress passes a law based on a Presidential policy to admit 3 million more immigrants from a certain country (which is not what's happening), then the states have NO POWER to not agree to go along with the policy. There only chance is to appeal it to the US Supreme Court. And lately the US Supreme Court seems to be populated by a bunch of flakes. But at any rate that's what happens. Even if you get some sort of massive resistance in certain states the way you did with Brown vs. Board of Education in the 50's or with the civil rights laws of the 60's then the Feds can send in troops if need be to enforce what they have decided.
The problem in the EU is that they have no enforcement power unless maybe it is economic, a carrot and stick approach. This could work fine in certain instances. But I don't think it will work for the migrant crisis. Germany can't sent troops abroad. England can, but it won't. And sending troops into Eastern Europe to enforce a migrant policy is something that even the US wouldn't do. Eastern Europe is the land of the world wars. It's what kicked off WW1. There's a certain dark creepiness to the place. (I've always thought of Russia as dark and creepy, almost supernatural, but then Eastern Europe and Transylvania was the home of Dracula). It's an unstable region but at the same time Europe. That's the problem. I think off the record that's why England and America have decided for a long time to prop up the Russian government behind the scenes. They don't want anymore world wars.
Also the EU is new. When the US was that new nobody knew how it worked either. In the US you usually don't get a law passed in Congress (especially if it is something new or radical) unless you've got a solid consensus. That's why almost nothing ever seems to happen otherwise. As far as Angela goes, Gary says she's in trouble over the migrant crisis. What do you think? He claims that she made a statement saying that she expects the Syrians to return home when the crisis is over or something like that. Is she serious? I don't think a US President would say that to a group of migrants who have come to the US.
But you know I meant to mention this before. I think there is a tradition in the US for some groups of migrants to be privately sponsored which is why is works. I remember a local article talking some years ago about a group of Eastern European immigrants who had come to the area and were being sponsored by a church group. Housing had been provided by the group, also some group meals where they talked with them. That's where the newspaper interviewed them. They checked up on them from time to time, too. The same church was also sponsoring a group from somewhere in Africa and the newspaper was contrasting the attitudes of the Eastern European immigrants to the attitudes of the Africans. All were welcome to stay. The Christian group was helping them to find jobs, too. But some of the Eastern European adults wanted to return home. They didn't like certain things about America such as the food. But their children wanted to stay in America, so the adults were torn. BUT the Africans to a man wanted to stay. They didn't complain. They thought it was great.
Do you in Europe ever have immigrants sponsored by private groups? Or is it always left to the government?
Oh yes there are loads of financial interests and charities, church groups etc that help migrants, but many, if not most, pay their way. The effect economically is positive and they pay more in taxes than they take in benefits etc. The problem is they often displace local workers, not because they work cheaper (although that does happen) but because they work smarter and better. That builds resentment. There are now 800,000 Poles working here and they are very good. Polish is now the second language in the UK.This latest blog sets out my view. You will like it I think. Just below the Hess ad.
http://malcolmblair-robinson.com/word...
Two more short blogs.One on Cameron in Europe and the other on Trump in Iowa
http://www.malcolmblair-robinson.co.u...
When you talk about Polish migrants into the UK, we're not talking about the same thing. Poland is a member of the EU. Supposedly Poles can go wherever they want in the EU to get jobs, right? So can the French and Germans and Italians. We were talking about the Syrian refugees. I suppose that most of those immigrants are not skilled and take only the lowest level jobs, displacing only blue collar workers of the unskilled sort. That's what I thought we were talking about.
Yes, your blog is very thought provoking. What do you think the terms will be for Britain to remain in the EU? You expect them to be silly and not make much sense or make enough of a difference so you must have some idea of what will be offered.
Trumped in Iowa sounds like a very clever title. At least you are following the US Presidential Race. I haven't been paying attention to anything. I didn't even know that the Iowa Caucus or whatever it is was taking place. I suppose that this year is the year and by this summer we will have the Republican and Democratic nominees. I did tell you that the US has a tradition not to have Presidents who are big businessmen. I did predict even without following anything going on that you would end up with somebody nobody had ever heard about before.
