UKC

An interesting take on the problems brewing in the Eurozone. 

These 3 Events Will Create A Perfect Storm For Europe In Early 2019 https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2019/01/04/these-3-events-will-cre... Sent via @updayUK

Will is snow? 

Is he?

Who is this Corbin they speak of? 

Who was it said "the market has predicted nine of the last five recessions?"

Turns out there's a link to it on Forbes...  https://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2018/11/22/the-stock-market-ha...

By which I expect you mean that the EU will mend it's ways and avoid the storm? 

https://g.co/kgs/Fph74i

?

I simply mean that predictions may or may not turn out to be correct.

Cheers, this made me laugh. 

The headline:

"These 3 Events Will Create A Perfect Storm For Europe"

And the piece starts:

"Last week my British friend Jim Mellon sent me a fascinating article with an alarming title: “News from Euroland—Recession Imminent.”

Now, I am not one who falls prey to clickbait headlines"

There are none so blind.

Does that mean its wrong?

Is the EU in better or worse shape than it was 5 to 10 years ago?

https://www.politico.eu/article/european-election-2019-brussels-risks/

All rosy in Euroland, eh?

Let's see how the forthcoming elections turnout.

Economically better because there's more distance from the financial crash but none of the problems that existed 5 to 10 years ago have actually been solved and quite a few more have emerged since.

By the way, it isn't just the Telegraph which runs articles on the woes besetting the EU

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/04/brexit-sideshow-for-eu-beset-...

Well as the excellent historian Norman Davies has pointed out, it seems that the UK and the EU are in a race as to which collapses first.

Looks like the UK is going to get there first.

Reports of the EU's death have been greatly exaggerated.

"Poll shows support for EU at 35-year high across bloc"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-election-poll-idUSKCN1IO2SP

It's useful to know the public/political opinion influences in the EU countries we negotiate with.

Polls.. Serbia's presidents is pro eu, but the people are also on the streets and there is a trade war going on amongst other Balkan states. There can be more going on under the surface than a simple do you like the eu poll shows.

Serbia and most balkan countries aren't in the EU...  

That quote from Davies is taken from his book 'Vanished Kingdoms' I think. That book was published in 2012, so the quote can't be directly related to Brexit, and, in any event, is hardly an endorsement of any intrinsic strengths of the EU.

True ish.

All the western Balkan nations were granted eu autonomous trade preferences. There is also a central European free trade agreement. Some are in the eu as well. Kosovo is imposing extra trade tariffs on Serbia and others. Obviously these tariffs grate a little on not so old wounds.

Out of sight of mind? Doesn't really hold with the idea of some that the eu is the sole reason for peace in Europe. 

Nobody has ever said that. Perhaps your memory is faulty. But I think you're a liar.

The way the right wing in the UK with the Brexiteers and the US with Trump keep going on about the EU falling apart is like a patient with Ebola worrying that their visitor is going to die because they have a runny nose.    

You do realise you are providing arguments against your own case ?

Of all the balkans countries, the ones in the EU are all way ahead economically compared to their neighbours.

As you point out many of those are entangled in mini tarifs wars, exactly the kind of thing that being part of the single market prevents.

No, it's a comment from him on sky news in 2017, about Brexit.

You are right it's not an endorsement of any of its strength, he is just pointing out that the UK is looking as weak, or weaker.

Those in the UK who fantasies about the EU breaking down (although, given enough time, they'll inevitably be right, hey've been predicting it for 30 years now, and still have been proven wrong time and time again) don't realise what's happening in their own backyard.

Which is not surprising given that they are ignorant of it.

A point that Davies makes quite powerfully in his fantastic book "Europe, a history".

The original quote is taken from his 2012 book, and is as follows:

“The immediate future may be determined by a race between the United Kingdom and the EU over which beats the other to a major crisis.”

So nothing has happened since to make him change his mind...

Actually it was Croatia, an eu member, who put a 220% import tariff on some goods, other opposing countries like Serbia have introduced counter measures. 

It seems that indeed Norman Davies has been quite good with his predictions and had done the correct analysis, even in 2012.

Source?

More BS. Croatia does not set its own import tariffs - they are in the EU and apply the EU external tarifs.

They tried to increase the cost of phytosanitary controls, and have renounced almost immediately. Policy was never used.

So to sum up:

- you got your facts wrong (stop reading g the daily express, for your sanity)

- your arguments do not logically connect

- you've been proven wrong (again)

The classic summo post.

I don't know how you do it, it must be hard to be proven wrong ALL of the time. 

Don't bother, It's not true.

I know, just wanted see him trying to back his lies.

If anyone is interested, the only 'source' for the claim is the Express... Uh oh. What a surprise.

The origin of that claim was that in august 2017 Croatia raised the fees for the sanitary checks of some products on imports. And what happened next? EU membership candidates in the Balkans appealed to the EU, and guess what? After the EU's mediation the fees increase was cancelled within 2 weeks.

Not quite what the Express/Summo team claim, and in fact a good endorsement of the EU

ETA: Ah, hadn't seen your previous post explaining it. Oh well

Summo is like an inverse fake news detector: whatever he says is true is actually false, and whatever he predicts will happen doesn't actually happen.

For all the years he's been lurking in these forums he's been entirely consistent in being wrong, wrong, and wrong again. It's almost uncanny.

He can speak for himself. All I'm pointing out is that the original quote was not made in the context of Brexit.

Don't be a child, make the argument, don't target the person. 

https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/balkan-trade-war-bre...

So it is acceptable for the Croatians to introduce tariffs that have huge impacts on their neighbours, breach existing post Balkan war trade agreements etc.. in the name of the eu, risking future conflict.

But it would be unacceptable for anything half as bad in NI with Brexit. EU cake and eat it? Or just typical double standards? 

Didier Sornette worth a listen https://www.ted.com/talks/didier_sornette_how_we_can_predict_the_next_finan...

This is not for the faint hearted https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/mtec/chair-of-entrepr...

Are you suggesting all is well in the Balkans, or is it just another problem ignored. Shoved under the carpet? 

Why do you always deflect discussion on the EU to balkan states that aren't members!? Maybe they aren't doing well, but that is irrelevant to a discussion of how the EU is doing.

Hint: Try Hungary if want an problem within the EU. 

I have made the argument. And I do target the persona s well because you consistently talk BS, and are consistently proven wrong. It would be dishonest of me to not point it out.

Again, they have not.

It's not half as bad it's a 1000 times worse, plus the original point was, well, fake.

Summo's only argumentation strategy is whataboutism, and even that he fails to even do it properly.

  Is anybody actually going to provide a refutation of two of the three key points in the article: that the ECB is withdrawing its quantitative stimulus programme and that the Italian debt crisis is coming to a head?

  Is anybody going to explain how the fundamental problem of the Euro, which is tearing the EU apart, can be addressed? To wit:  a uniform monetary and interest policy being implemented across the whole continent thus creating enormous financial imbalances between its constituent parts. And neither  forex adjustments available to provide a safety valve nor a fiscal transfer system to offset the impact of the imbalances.

So boring. 

Not on here. It’s fascinating to look at the protests against Macron. Popularity ratings 18 per cent. Majority would vote leave. Just as a you gov poll shows a majority of all UK voters believe it would be wrong not to enforce referendum result. Elites, the anywheres versus the somewheres, continue to think that ‘populism’ will go away. Seriously misunderstands the crisis in political legitimacy across Europe (and that includes EU). We need to rethink our political ‘system’ at home first but that means breaking the current dispensation. All parties now discredited. A dangerous moment made more so by slowing of China economy, historic levels of debt, global mass migration, and recession end of this year early next. Those who scoff at Forbes article like the fool MG are deliberately blind to the crisis now facing the EU and the nations of Europe. Wrong model, wrong time, wrong direction. 

For the reasons you outline the Euro has made no logical sense to me but it seems to have muddled along for twenty years despite me finding it illogical. 

You could write essays on both - fundamentally however neither are existential threats as shown by the USA, India etc which have similarly diverse economies. Are you predicting EU collapse or severe recession in 2019? I'll stick my neck out and say there won't be and the article is wrong. Your irrational hatred of cooperation is blinding you to the EU's strengths. 

  So that'll be a "no" then.

I could but you are not actually interested are you? You just want to doom monger. 

So that'll be a "no" then.

No doubt the 37% of youth that are unemployed in Greece, the 35% in Spain, 33% in Italy , and 21% in France and Portugal are "muddling along" as well. And hey, a 25% shrinkage in the Greek economy is fine, just muddling along.

To quote Stiglitz: "The euro has failed to achieve either of its two principal goals of prosperity and political integration: these goals are now more distant than they were before the creation of the eurozone. Instead of peace and harmony, European countries now view each other with distrust and anger. Old stereotypes are being revived as northern Europe decries the south as lazy and unreliable, and memories of Germany’s behaviour in the world wars are invoked."

I'm sure the solution to that is hard borders, populism, and division, rather than democracy, openness and cooperation. Yep, definitely, you've convinced me. 

  Go ahead. Last time you seemed completely oblivious to the issue so I look forward to your essays on the subject. Talking of "doom mongering....hahahaha. Are you serious?

 Such binary caricaturing reflects a complete failure of imagination or understanding. Can you address any of the points raised?

  It would funny if it weren't so sad that such a passionate remainer as yourself is unaware of a fundamental threat to the EU that economists as diverse as Stiglitz, Wolf, Bootle, Varoufakis,Friedman and Krugman (amongst the many) have highlighted and wrestled with.

  Anybody would think that you don't know what you're talking about....

Despite a 25% shrinkage they are still massively better off than before they joined the EU, and massively better off than other Balkan countries they were pretty much on par with prior joining.

the reality is that EU membership has transformed Greece from a poor country that was selling oranges to a modern, developed economy. It's pretty darn obvious when you compare Greece to its non-EU neighbours.

Sure they had a credit boom which resulted in a massive crash, but that was the case in the UK as well, which did not have the euro.

I wasnt, it's just irealise median errors in economic forecasts and Italian debt are not a major issues in the scheme of things so don't obsess about them like you. 

What's you approach to reducing co2 emissions in your Hobbsian dreamland  

  So you spend years pontificating about the economic impact of brexit but it is not a major enough issue to care about the experts' forecasts? Haha...

   So the Italian debt crisis has nothing to do with the structure of the Euro and of the Euro financial system?

In the absence of a crystal ball your suppositions about future events are debatable but not refutable.

As I said, it makes no sense to me but it does seem to muddle along.

Not really what I heard in Germany last week. However it sounds like what I heard 5-10 years ago. I see it's a quote from 2016 and I think it might have been out of date then.

Yes, definitely what I wrote that.

Grow up. 

   It's the most basic criticism of the Euro and it makes no sense to you? What don't you understand?

Nobody denies the two, but it's questionable as to whether either are unmanageable . Inflation is low in the eurozone.

The situation of Greece was far, far, worse and still the euro is there.

What you don't get is the other side of the coin. Prior the euro macroeconomic stability in Europe was not any better by any stretch, of anything, it has improved.

As far the "safety valve" anybody who has evolved In the 21st century, at the time of the global integrated supply chain and knowledge based economy, would have noticed that the mechanism of recovery by devaluation of currency doesn't work anymore.

A fact widely observed in the UK where massive currency depreciation both in the aftermath of 2008 and after the brexit vote, have not lead to any sort of sustainable reduction of the trade deficit.

(That's another one of your "prediction" you kept peddling you got completely wrong, again)

I don't know what will happen to the EU or the Euro, one thing I'm sure, is, that given your strong track record of being pretty much consistently proven wrong in hindsight, your opinion is not worth much.

   What else can you did you mean?

  So, still no answer to the problem except to deride it as no problem in contradiction to so many of the world's leading economists?

   Lots of people keen to mock the OP's link but nobody prepared to address the points it raises. Come on!

You have misunderstood. I previously wrote "For the reasons you outline the Euro has made no logical sense to me but it seems to have muddled along for twenty years despite me finding it illogical."

I'll clarify with upper case.

As I said, THE EURO makes no sense to me but it does seem to muddle along.

Yes your solution to any imperfect (ie real world) body that isn't aligned with your myopic, extreme-right populist ideology is to a) predict its collapse and b) when that doesn't happen propose smashing it up anyway. NHS, school system, UK, EU. 

  So address the questions instead of trying to change the subject.

My mistake, sorry. But it hasn't "muddled along". It has been a root cause of massive economic hardship and a catalyst for the rise of populism on the left and right which threatens stability and democracy across Europe.

Hardly surprising given the basic errors in it. 

but nobody prepared to address the points it raises. Come on!

QE stopping?One crude solution is to, err, not stop it.

Euro problem: Greater. Integeation(e.g US)  abandon it, one off.tranfers etx

Any answers on actual problem such as climate,  Russia (given NATOs flakiness), trade?

I was answering your question : "Are you serious?" 

Increase of gov debt to GDP between 2000 (start of the euro) and 2017:

Italy : + 26.1%

United Kingdom : + 50.4%

Hint: the UK isn't part of the euro, and Italy is.

   And how do you persuade the German electorate  that that they should pay for the Greeks and the Greek electorate  that they should do what the Germans tell them?

A referendum (or two?) maybe?

And your answers?, Or do you think an obsession splitting everyone up will magically put Putin off and reduce CO2

(to be fair a massive economic collapse might work for. Co2, I suppose ) 

Nonsense, the rise of populism has occurred everywhere, most visibly so in the US, which are as far removed from the control of your evil EU overlords as can be.

If anything, not unlike the US democratic system, the EU has been a brake on the damage the populists can make - why do you think the populist wish its destruction ?  At the very least it provides a democratic platform to resolve the issues instead, of, like in the good old days you languish, sorting it out by butchering each other.

If anything the EU has managed the pppulist way better than the UK did, where it has resulted in total paralysis.

May I point out that the rise of populism, in the EU and elsewhere, is partly the result of policies you've been an evangelist of for many years on these forums, despite all the warnings you got this was going to end badly. 

I guess it's easier to blame the EU and retreat in idiotic jingoism than admitting that you were wrong (again). It must be soul crushing to be so wrong, so much.

By getting them to realise that it is in their mutual interest to cooperate, which for the most part, they have well realised.

Yes, and there is also a pro-EU wave going through Europe, countering the populism to some degree, that is partly fuelled by a observing the idiocy of Brexit and Trump.

  So, no answers except silly and downright false caricaturing of others' positions. I'll leave it now and see if somebody else has any thoughts.

I gave you answers. As I predicted, you don't actually want them, and you are completely blank on matters of substance. 

He gave you very clear answers :

"

QE stopping?One crude solution is to, err, not stop it.

Euro problem: Greater. Integeation(e.g US)  abandon it, one off.tranfers etx

"

It makes a couple of points I certainly agree with

• "Regardless, it is highly uncertain what happens next."
• "How that will unfold is hard to predict."

and then another I don't agree with

• “a disorderly Brexit will be the spark that sets the Eurozone tinderbox aflame in the first half of 2019."

It's like saying if I shoot myself in the foot my dancing partner will suffer more. It just doesn't seem very plausible as I don't think my dancing partner will die of shock at the sight of MY blood or that Europe is so fragile. 

It can't be refuted though because "Regardless, it is highly uncertain what happens next." and  "How that will unfold is hard to predict."

  Well, I'd agree with you on all three as well (nobody can forecast how brexit will pan out ) but the points I highlighted are undeniably important so rather than just sneering I hoped that somebody might have a counter to them.

You've been presented many and failed to address any of them.

You gave vague generalities each of which have obvious and well documented difficulties. When I raised the difficulties you ignored the question. I assume you haven't thought about them.

True, nobody knows when the next earthquake will come or what magnitude it will have, but still I can predict that my cat is far more likely to survive it than my coffee cup.

So now, ask yourself, which is most likely to fail first ?

A small centralised country massively reliant  on the kindness of strangers, or a loose bloc of varied country that can rely on trade and cooperation with each other and can react in different ways ? The jury is out. My bet is on the latter to survive. The EU may be full of problems but it has the ability to adapt, and has shown the adapt and change at every crisis.

In the UK, though, we seem to have total paralysis, which is slightly worrying.

 It's quite amazing in fact that the so called incompetent EU seem to have been able to handle Brexit with relative ease and competence, in stark contrast, it's been a total shit show in the UK (despite the fact that it was our idea in the first place !)

No, he gave you concrete, practical, common sense answers.

Stiglitz whilst outlying the problems also outlines the solutions and is pro the Euro. 

He takes the exact opposite view to somebody like Bootle. 

Your quote is taken out of context. LOL. And you know it .

Asking intellectual honesty from PP... might as well play euro millions.

There is no denying that the particular set up of the Euro can be problematic in some situation, but it can also be very beneficial in others.

And let's not forget that despite all its flaws and it's relative youth, it survived the biggest economic crisis in history - and arguably the majority of euro country have faired reasonably well through it, if anything overall they've not really done particularly worse or better than non-euro countries.

The Eurozone, despite being difficult to manage especially in times of crisis, offers many long term benefits, such as: 

- Lower transaction costs

- Price transparency

- Eliminating exchange rate uncertainty.

- Improved trade. 

- Improvement in inflation performance.

- Lower interest rates 

etc etc 

It's perfectly plausible that in fact, over the long term, the benefits outweigh the costs.

  I said "  It would funny if it weren't so sad that such a passionate remainer as yourself is unaware of a fundamental threat to the EU that economists as diverse as Stiglitz, Wolf, Bootle, Varoufakis,Friedman and Krugman (amongst the many) have highlighted and wrestled with" which is absolutely true and I sand by it.

  Stiglitz  thinks the Euro is deeply flawed and responsible for many of Europe's problems and for basically the same reasons as eg.Bootle. He is absolutely explicit on this: "While there are many factors contributing to Europe’s travails, there is one underlying mistake: the creation of the single currency, the euro. Or, more precisely, the creation of a single currency without establishing a set of institutions that enabled a region of Europe’s diversity to function effectively."

  Where he differs from Bootle is that he  believes that if it (or the institutions) can be radically reformed then it need no longer be the problem.

  So, I am asking the question of the remainers on UKC, how do they think that it can be achieved? I so passionate in their support for something isn't it reasonable to ask how they think its problems should be addressed?

I too saw and continue to see this as a fundamental problem. However after 19 years of the Eurozone I have to conclude I was and am probably wrong.

What do you conclude after 19 years of being wrong?

"a uniform monetary and interest policy being implemented across the whole continent thus creating enormous financial imbalances between its constituent parts. And neither  forex adjustments available to provide a safety valve nor a fiscal transfer system to offset the impact of the imbalances."

  It's not been wrong! It's been at the core of the eurocrisis and the problem is unresolved.

And you've had answers you dont like so you pretend not to hear. Nothing from you on how putting up barriers helps with these or more serious matters. 

As pointed out before the safety valve mechanism is largely irrelevant in the 21st century. And financial imbalances existed before the Euro  - if anything, they were worse. As for financial transfer, ie, financial solidarity between countries, well maybe there isn't enough but there is clearly more now than before.

I was just wondering when it's going to dawn on you that one of the main reasons for Brexit and the rise of the extreme right in EuroGloryLand is your precious Freedom of Movement?

Like it or not, it's a major reason.

  I've asked twice for an answer to my answer. Reply came there none....

  On the other point, of resuming quantitative easing, what do you think it would take to provoke that?

It's dawned on me well before you that indeed opposition to FoM is the main reason for Brexit. In fact I've pointed it out repeatedly.

And as I have also said repeatedly, I don't care that much about the UK leaving the EU, I do care tremendously about losing FoM though.

It’s worth reading Yanis Varoufakis for some ideas on alternative solutions. To summarise his arguments  is pretty dangerous for a non-economist like me, but in essence the EU needs to become more like the United States, where a central body, in this case the EU, directly determines fiscal policy across the whole continent, backed by a strong EU central bank. Surpluses are re-cycled to poorer areas, and individual states can no longer tax and spend as they see fit.

Whether that would be politically acceptable to most voters is a different matter!

Oh those Golden Years before we Joined the EU,

Europe so much better then with Fascist Franco Spain West and Greek Generals Junta in the East.

War in Northern Ireland, IRA killing across Europe, Cod War at sea

Happy times!

Actually, fiscal transfers in the EU are not that much lower than the fiscal transfers you see in the US, so to an extent, this is already happening.

Of course it's not enough and in the US you frequently see entire cities going bust. But integrating too much is not good, the point of it is that when one country or state makes a mistake, it shouldn't fuck up the entire system. 

  I've read him. He basically takes the integrationist line but you have immediately grasped the difficulty with this, (which I have asked MG for a solution to).

   So far when problems arise the EU''s answer is to impose change from above (Greece, Italy), wait until a crisis is so bad to make things happen (Draghi "whatever it takes") , keep holding referendums until they get the "right" answer, or simply not bother with the referendum, but this has not exactly endeared Brussels to the the electorates.

  Just breezily saying "OK, the EU can just turn into a federal State" just poses a whole new set of questions.

If it is not wrong and 19 years is not long enough for the Euro to collapse how long do you have to wait before you decide it is not such a fundamental problem. 

It is normal that the "the problem is unresolved". Only in the fantasy world of ideological purity is a problem resolved. That's why you don't have a perfect country on this earth with the parliament sitting there saying "nothing for us to do". In the real world problems ebb and flow as history repeats itself in a slightly new variation.

Care to answer any questions yourself, or are just going to continue to fulfil the second part of my prediction? 

Oopsie, you're wrong (again)

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1IO2SP

In fact as you would have observed, the next european election are likely to put elect more MEP who are against further european integration.

As a result integration will slow, stop, or reverse, some sort of compromise will be found between the federalist and the nationalists. That is exactly how a democratic system should be, and an example of the capacity of the EU to absorb the populist wave in a peaceful and constructive way.

   It doesn't have to have collapsed for it to be a fundamental problem. It is a fundamental problem if it has caused mass unemploymement and reduced living standards through swathes of Europe.

The basis problem of imbalances remains so there is not reason to think that the problem is solved. The can, as they say, has simply been kicked down the road, at the cost of mass unemployment and resentment amongst electorates..

   Not unless they refer to my original question. I joined the thread to see if the hard core remainers understood or had answers to the issues facing the EU not for a general debate.So far the answer has been a resounding "no".

Muddling along like everybody else.

No, because the answer hasnt been "yes there's no solution, you are quite right learned Mr Pat, thank you for gracing us fools with your infinite wisdom", you choose to ignore it. 

Unfortunately however the reality is you have nothing to say on substantial points, or even the ability to see then

Rather; you've been peddling falsehoods (easily debunked), shown a superficial understanding of the subject matter, ignored all the answers, and once beatened thoroughly, retranched in your usual bitterness and resentment towards "remainers."

  So why won't you answer my response your your so called "answer". As Elsewhere has pointed out, it's a pretty obvious problem not exactly requiring a doctorate in economics.

  You're absolutely full of it on the economic disasters that will happen to Britain post brexit but strangely quiet on the economics of the Eurozone.

Those who claim to have the answers to real world problems are usually fools or liars.

It's more sensible to have opinions about how the future might develop. 

The fact that you think it's an obvious problem serves only to illustrates your shallow understanding of the issue.

  With those levels of unemployment? Italian per capita income has barely grown in 20 years!

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYGDPPCAPKDITA

Yeah, barely, by +69%.

You are a joke.

  Yes, I'm not hoping for expecting a cast iron solution. But some idea of the end position and how that process might be achieved, which itself would suggest a recognition of the difficulties of both.

  The remainers are more than happy to detail every disaster that may result from brexit as if these are writ in stone but equally happy to skate over, it would appear in blissful ignorance of, the issues facing the EU.

69%? Average annual income in Italy has grown by 900 Euros between 2000 and 2017.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/416213/average-annual-wages-italy-y-on-...

Not if you select

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&...

Rather selective as only true for one of the five ways they have for putting Italian GDP & GNI into US dollars. Try the options on the graph, I think there will be two (GNI & GDP constant 2000 US$) that say you are right and eight that say you are wrong.

You come across as a top rate know it all prick. 

Och,  no they’re not. The EU faces massive, existential issues, including but not limited to:

- emergence of a superaged demographic and how you continue to run health and social care systems in that scenario

- AI wiping out employment prospects for huge numbers of its population 

- climate change and conflict causing massive displacement of populations from the Middle East and Africa to Europe 

- a progressively more assertive, economically powerful and militarily capable China, alongside a waning US with diminishing interest in transatlantic alliances

- populations who are dissatisfied with the inability of the current economic model to deliver growth in national wealth at a greater rate than the costs imposed by providing necessary public services to an acceptable standard, and with political elites’ willingness to ensure what growth there is is shared equitably; leading to the spread of protectionist, nativist ideologies.

these problems will be as pressing, urgent and potentially catastrophic whether or not brexit happens or the Euro exists.  The question is, will there be more of a chance of facing them as a collective, arriving at acceptable approaches across a population of 500 million, or a 28 separate small states each putting their own national interests first?

In the end, I think the former is our best, and probably only hope; despite the manifest and growing problems of the EU, the alternative is dismal. 

  A

  Constant dollars are generally used because they adjust for inflation. The datasets I checked (St.Louis Fed and Trading economics)-and yours-appear to use these as the standard.

There is very little evidence of governments putting the EU before national interests and if it looks like they are doing so, they soon find that they are in big trouble with their own electorates.

I agree it's dismal but in the face of huge existential pressures, such as you outline, I can't think of one empire that pulled together and consolidated. Every single one collapsed.

You're the joke, blinded by your EU driven ideology against what's staring you in face.
You just hide away behind your wealth!

USA civil war, as one example. Japan lost WW2. Not that the EU is in any sense an empire! 

  Those are global challenges not EU specific challenges. There is certainly a case to be made that they are better handled within the framework of the EU but, except in the very long term, they are are not a specific threat to its existence.

The dysfunctional Euro is.

USA was one country to start with...hence 'civil war'. Don't understand how Japan is relevant either.

   I'd resisted mentioning this earlier but since you brought it up: a civil war that killed 600,000 people, or 2% of the population is not really a great precedent for how we might achieve a United States of Europe.....

So? Its an example.of.an empire (are querying this) surviving existential threats and subsequently coming together 

It's another  example of an empire surving extreme existential threats. You said you  didn't know of any. 

This month the eu celebrated 20 years of the euro and gave this press release.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-6811_en.htm

Mr Juncker.      “ The euro has become a symbol of unity, sovereignty and stability. It has delivered prosperity and protection to our citizens and we must ensure that it continues to do so. This is why we are working hard to complete our Economic and Monetary Union and boost the euro's international role further.”

He is living in a world of his own.

Mr Tajani.   “In order for Europeans to benefit fully from the jobs, growth and solidarity that the single currency should bring, we must complete our Economic and Monetary union through genuine financial, fiscal and political Union. This will also allow Europe to better shield its citizens from potential future crises.”

This won’t please the Irish with their low corporation tax to attract investors. Full political and fiscal union with one central government is the only way forward for the euro to be successful throughout the eu. Ken Clark still believes we should have joined the euro despite the banking crisis. Had we been in the euro at that time it would have been disasterous for this country.

No. I don't think anyone is suggesting that <eye roll>

National interest and the EU's interest are the same. The EU is nothing but a platform to allow it's member to pool their interest when needed or compromise between them when needed.

The roman empire lasted between 500 and 1500 years depending on how you define it.
Byzantine empire lasted  more than a 1000 years.

The bulk of it in relative peace and stability.

Find me one nation state that lasted that long.

Most people would understand empire as a unified collective of historically separate nation states. The USA didn't qualify at the time of the Civil War and its a stretch to label them an empire now (unless you're Noam Chomsky).

The Japanese Empire lasted barely 80 years and didn't survive extreme existential threat.

How many people did WWI and WW2 kill ? Not really a great precedent either.

I couldn't actually work out what you were trying to say! What was it?

But are you going to suggest how the resistance to integration may be overcome?

Not sure I entirely agree; I think the problem is not putting the EU ahead of national interests, it’s my point 5 above. People will accept ‘transnational altruism’ as long as their personal situation is improving. Since 2008, that’s no longer the case, across the western world. Unless that changes, or we have leaders that can counter this, then populations will continue to turn inwards.

Again I don’t think that’s necessarily true; the Roman Empire lasted over 400 years. But I wouldn’t bet the mortgage on the EU having similar longevity. I hope I’m wrong though.

The Eu existed before the Euro, the euro withstood the worst financial crisis in memory despite its youth.

And it doesn't seem more dysfunctional than anything else. The Uk blew up many times because of having its own currency and making a mess of it, so did many other countries. Some even seem to make a habit out of it. Not a panacea.

Sensible. And refreshing.

I wouldn't bet on 400 year either. But I bet that nations states such as the UK, or other similar large and centralised nations states within the EU, will break up before the EU itself disappears.

You really believe that?....sounds wonderful, you should move there.

and when it stopped expanding, it collapsed.

The rump of the Roman Empire squeezed East in defeat. You're basically quoting the same empire twice.

Jeez....read a book.

Those empires didn't maintain the same forms of governance or borders over the periods you quote. So by the same parameters...scores.

Fair point, but what's the chance of improved personal circumstances for the individual, in the face of all the pressures you outlined?

The Roman Empire lasted just as long as it was the biggest kid on the block, backed with overwhelming military power. The EU was never in such a position and is never likely to be.

Yes, you are right, they are global challenges. As to whether the threat they pose to the existence of a way of life we currently enjoy is a long term one or not, well, I think that depends how you define long term. If the mid point predictions of the hit to GDP from a no deal Brexit are realised, then for the UK at least, sustaining the current levels and model of health and social care provision might become an interesting challenge in the next decade, and I wouldn’t consider that the very long term. Radical political changes can happen pretty rapidly too; when empires fall, it happens fast, witness the end of the USSR. If Merkels successor is weak, and Macron fails, and Italy moves further to the right, and we leave without a deal, then there is going to be a test of the EU soon. The Euro will be part of that, but all these other issues will be at play too, and turning the ratchet tighter every year.

Military power flows from economic power. That’s why the EU (combined GDP around 18 trillion USD) wields power far in excess of Russia (GDP around 1.7 trillion USD) despite Russia’s nuclear arsenal. The EU is one of three economic superpowers, alongside China, and the US, and as such can leverage preferential trade deals and set standards and regulations to its advantage that others have to follow. But it can only do this as a bloc; individually it’s members, even Germany, are second tier powers at best. It’s best chance of a good long term outcome for its citizens is by sticking together, accepting the  trade off in sovereignty this requires, for the power on the global stage in external relations this delivers. 

As to your first question; not a great chance. I’m an optimist by nature, but the tide seems to be flowing strongly in the wrong direction  

It's not a given that economic power equals military power. By most standards both china and India were far wealthier nations than Britain when we first came into conflict with them. Militarily however...

An even more striking example is provided by the Spanish Conquistadors. A few hundred men subjugating wealthy empires with populations in the millions.

In any event, it's hard to make the case for the EU as anything approaching a unified military power of Global standing.

Edit: India is a poor example as it wasn't a unified country. 

In each of these cases, there were special circumstances- with the conquistadors, the belief system of the Incas played a huge part; and diseases brought to which they had no resistance 

inthe case of china, western powers had technological advantages relating to weaponry-  but that was also the time Britain’s economic power was at its zenith. Gunboats and the infrastructure and logistics to place them on the other side of the planet don’t come cheap. China’s economy was larger than the UKs; but they were comparable, not like the order of magnitude difference between Russia and the EU.

currently the EU has two nuclear armed states, and will have the biggest aircraft carrier force outside of the US. It can’t project power the way the US can, but then no other state can either

I take it that you are aware of the Treaty of Versailles, which was a group nations laying down excessively punitive measures against one single nation?  Look what that led to.  Spotting any similarities yet from your sun soaked bunker?

It was still a few hundred Vs millions. The might of an empire Vs a handful of men, cut off from supplies and reserves by thousands of miles, months of travel and with no lines of communication. You can't extrapolate force projection from economic power.

That was rather my point. Economically comparable but a complete mismatch militarily.

You keep talking of the EU as a unified military power. It's not.

The most basic and least costly form of military force projection is threat. Can you really see any circumstances in which the EU could even agree to threaten another military power?

The UK and France have the big stick if required.

The EU does not need to threaten other powers militarily because in most circumstances it can just buy things.

There was more to the conquistadors success than military advantage. Even if they’d had M14s and armoured vehicles, rather than flintlocks and horses, that level of numerical disadvantage would have been impossible to overcome- except for the Inca societal structure, which placed the Inca king as a god, and left them leaderless once he was killed. Add to that millions dead from communicable diseases; smallpox was the most devastating weapon the Spanish had 

And I don’t think the EUs military is there to project power; it’s a deterrence force, not centrally controlled at EU level of course, but since most EU members are NATO members, as good as.

You're arguing against your own case. It is exactly what the EU prevents. Instead of dealing with grievances through threat, coercion, bargaining and punishment, it offers a platform under which it can be resolved through compromise and consensus.

The big mistake of the brexiteer was to believe that by leaving the EU and returning to a relationship based on bargaining and threat they'd have the upper hand. Which of course is nothing but jingoistic delusions.

Yes. If an EU country was attacked. With NATO weakened by American isolationism, it's not like we have a choice.

Without the support of the US, Europe has no choice but to protect itself, and  brexiteers are betraying the safety and geopolitical interests of the continent.

They captured him and held him hostage for some time before killing him, overcame his successor, and (for the most part) got away with the loot, before starting to carve out an empire, only at this point did disease become a part of the equation. Different society but same outcome in Mexico.

But whatever, point stands that there's no direct equation between economic power and military power. Combined EU defence budgets completely dwarf Russia's but actual force projection, not so much.

As is the way with these threads, it seems to have gone off course. The only point I was making was that longevity of empires/super-states has been tied, historically, with military power. This was as true for the Romans as it was for the USSR. NATO does not represent EU policy and the EU itself has neither the will nor the unified military force to present as a serious military power.

...and the UK (unfortunately) leaves in March which leaves France as sole nuclear power.

Back to the economics. It'd be great if countries could just buy off aggressors. We didn't manage it with the Vikings, the Incas didn't manage it with the Spanish, the Chinese didn't manage it with the mongols and, a bit more recently, Germany managed to rise from economic basket case, to over-running most of Europe in a space of just 10 years.

And that's exactly why you need an united european defense to protect our asses.

If the survival of the EU project would be dependent on the existence of a USA sized unified military force, that army would be created. The EU can adapt and will do whatever it takes to survive. Luckily such an army is not required these days.

Not the survival of the EU, the survival of the continent. And no, such an army has not been created mostly because of nationalist tendencies.

However it's pretty darn obvious to me that if us Europeans want to preserve our way of life, we need an european defense, for the simple reason that:

- no european country can be strong enough  to defend itself alone

- the US is not interested in protecting our asses any longer.

Those who can't face these two facts are either stupid, or complacent.

Indeed. It's called Target 2, I brought it up on another thread a while back. It's now getting a lot more attention in Germany (backed up by a UKC poster who lives in Germany) as it appears to be an accounting fudge that is keeping the patient alive. But better still, read on and make your own conclusions..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARGET2 (read "Relation to the world financial and European debt crisis" section)

http://www.hanswernersinn.de/en/controversies/TargetDebate

youtube.com/watch?v=q2QYaJGgtw8&

The difference between cooperating armies and an EU army ,  is that they are less likely be used against protests or member states.

The biggest difference is that one doesn't exist, the others do.

Other way around I would of thought. One potential critisism of an EU army is that it would be toothless and require unilateral agreement for action.

The point of having integrated forces is purely political (as from a military standpoint, coordination is largely sufficient, see NATO).

It sends a message that whatever military deployment is in interest of and backed by the entire EU, rather than a single country.

At a lower, binational level this is already happening. Sending, say, the French/German fast reaction brigade rather than the Foreign Legion to some North African state would be a way to make the point that such a hypothetical intervention is more than the former colonial power shoring up its interest.

CB

Sinn is officially an idiot (or at least a fundamentalist in the Minford mould), and the discussion of the target 2 saldi has come and gone. There is a reason why Sinn has been removed from the standing economic expert body regularly advising the German government, and it is not that he is the lonely prophet in the desert....

CB

You think the eu member states are capable of forming an agreement to use military force that would ever justify the phrase.. ' fast reaction'? 

Why not? Probably it would not include all member state, though.

Some two tiered reorganization, with a core of more federal minded states and a outer ring of more loosely integrated states is likely the way forward anyway, not only with respect to the military.

CB

So some members get to decide how to use others military? Democracy?

Putin could pop over and annex a former eastern block nation, head back to Moscow for a victory parade and Brussels would still be finalising the wine list for their war cabinet dinner. 

depends on whether it is really integrated, including officer/nco exchange, joint exercisea and harmonised C4I protocols at command as well as political level.  Everyone using NSN vocab might help with logistic cooperation.

Begone, Troll...

Seriously, as with NATO, countries volunteering parts of their military to such a common unit will agree beforehand how control of deployment is organized, using their democratic mechanisms.

Actual defence against attack on EU territory will not rely on a shared command structure, an "EU army" for political purposes does not need to be fast.

CB

"Sinn is officially an idiot"

Oh, it's official?...sorry I had no idea. I just assumed it was people who disagreed with him that thought he was an idiot. Reading his wiki page, I wish I was as officially idiotic as him.

Is it not just another duplication or flavour of NATO and the UN. another hq another load of civil servants doing exactly the same thing? Nato isn't dead, it's just having a moment with trump. 

I worry that Trump has damaged US/EU relations for good.

CB

Maybe, but that's political. That's not the same as the military alliance of NATO, who continue to exercise together, along with other guest nations in Europe. 

For 'Forbes' read 'Circling Vultures'.

These are people who despise the EU because it protects the people at the bottom of the pile from parasites like them.