Brexit

[Rudy Tamasz]

What about the possibility of the currency going kaput (because Greece lied to get into it; like it did with the Latin monetary union) and the rise of naitivism fueling outright conflict.



And 1871.
And 1848.
And 1803.
And 1792.
And 1756.
And 1740.
And 1727.

You can continue referring to the distant past. You don't want that distant past rearing its head again and again and again. The European Coal and Steel Community, then the European Economic Community and then the EU proper is precisely about clogging up the wheels of European "diplomacy" so that people in board rooms and great halls don't fling people's sons into each other at great speed and bloodshed.

Yeah, like the adages actually teach anybody anything. Especially effectively they deter bad guys from doing bad things.

You are also wrong on the rest of your points. From 1945 to 1991 Europe had no major wars simply because it was divided between the Western and Eastern blocs. Everybody knew that a wrong step would lead to a global war. That is why both sides tolerated the other side crushing dissent in their own ranks. Starting 1970s they used OSCE for easing tensions. When the Eastern bloc collapsed and EU had a chance to become a benevolent hegemon of Europe, it failed. It didn't do much to handle the Yugoslavian crisis. In fact, some EU members fanned the war by taking sides. The handling of the current refugee crisis was downright disastrous.

[janvanvurpa]

The difference with Soviet Union is very clear.

In Soviet Union - a) they forced an economic system, which was inefficient; b) they forced it with violence; c) they brought the overall living levels down. The whole Eastern Europe, the former communist bloc, is lagging well behind the Western Europe in economy and life standards in many areas.

The EU has its problems, but the key factors are positive - a) it actually increases the competitiveness of economy with less trade barriers and more freedom; b) it has instilled peace instead of violence between nations and ideologies.

No system will ever be free of problems. If there is a complex governing system, there also IS bureaucracy. There is no way around it. Of course we can debate about the details - how it should exactly be managed, or how big the EU should be - i.e whether it should include the likes of Greece.

But Europe is better off with EU, rather than without it. Also interesting to ponder is that once upon a time UK actually decided to join EU. It was in the 70s. And the reason back then was precisely because their economy was lagging behind France, Germany, and others, and they wanted to be more competitive. What will be different this time around, when they are on their own? We'll see I guess...

OK but just one point should be stressed.Not apologizing for the Soviet system especially after Stalin and the Bureaucrats triumphed after Lenin's death.
But you say "a) they forced an economic system, which was inefficient; b) they forced it with violence; c) they brought the overall living levels down."

Inefficient compared to what? We can't measure other country except by their own local conditions, and so the only thing to compare the Soviet system is to what it grew out of: Czarist Russia.
So inefficient compared to what they had previously?

Soviet system was unimaginably brutal..So was its immediate predecessors... It was exploitative. But less than its immediate predecessors.
I am not apologizing for it.. And as a lifetime anti-imperialist of course I am aware of the fate that the Estii and Letts and Lituanians and later the rest of the so called "East Bloc" suffered.. I worked with so many people from the old "East Bloc" who had left and were like me working in heavy industry in Sweden...Painfully aware that I could go "home" (where ever that was) and that they could not--for what seemed like forever (who could see 20 years ahead?)

So no apology for the methods the gangsters in the Politburo used..
But hard to buy everything was all bad and inefficient*, after all it is a rule of nature that is a situation is intolerable to a certain number of a population they will rise up and overthrow the system---exactly as finally began in Gdansk and spread all over.



* a look at literacy, life span, general health, education, etc shows--compared to previously.

[Rollo]

You are also wrong on the rest of your points. From 1945 to 1991 Europe had no major wars simply because it was divided between the Western and Eastern blocs.

You haven't studied history have you?

None of those wars that I listed really involved Western and Eastern against each other. They were all about Western European powers fighting other Western European powers. Starting with the European Coal and Steel Union, it was about tying up Western Europe.

If the EU wasn't about that, then where is the war between West Germany and France in 1973? History never ran down that path.

[gadjo_dilo]

Sorry guys, I admit from the start I'm bad at history and politics, not to mention that I'm natural born dumb. Reading the threads above I understand that EU was created to prevent possible wars and assure stability in the area. But aren't these states NATO members? Doesn't this exclude a possible war between them?

PS. Please, don't jump down my throat. I already know I'm dumb.

[gadjo_dilo]

Inefficient compared to what? We can't measure other country except by their own local conditions, and so the only thing to compare the Soviet system is to wha it grew out of: Czarist Russia.
So inefficient compared to what they had previously?

.

I don't know what Jens means but I'd like to share my views on the inefficient socialist economy we had in my own country. I won't use comparisons, esp. in the last century things evolved too fast and it's difficult to predict what would have happened if the regime hadn't been changed.
It's more about how the economy went. First of all, it wasn't a market economy and supply and demand or free competition weren't its rules. It developed on plans on different periods of time, plans that were completely unrealistic and pointless. The results were also a bit swelled and only on the paper. The technologies were old, the costs high ( but with a very low level of salaries that didn't stimulate work, because everybody was guaranteed a working place), a lot of products weren't demanded but we continued to produce them ( they were in the plan! ), branches of industry were developed although we hadn't resources to sustain them. The slogans that governed that period were "we work at the Working in Vain Cooperative' and " we pretend to work, they pretend to pay us". Add to all these the Communist Party involvment in the economy - you don't do the plan, you're contrarevolutionary, you have to overpass the plan, etc.

If I look back, I admit we still built a lot of things in that period, much more than we achieve today. But it was more because the state ( the only ownership form ) used a cheap working mass that was forced to work, sometimes in the condition of industrial revolution stage. However I shall always claim that that type of economy was meant to fail because of its inefficiency.

But hard to buy everything was all bad and inefficient*, after all it is a rule of nature that is a situation is intolerable to a certain number of a population they will rise up and overthrow the system---exactly as finally began in Gdansk and spread all over.

The state also created a fearful repressive force, not to mention that the Russian forces in the neighbourhood could get to Absurdist an in a few hours. There were attempts in Hungary and Czechoslovakia and you know how they ended. The system failed only when the approval came after the Malta meeting.

[jens]

Sorry guys, I admit from the start I'm bad at history and politics, not to mention that I'm natural born dumb. Reading the threads above I understand that EU was created to prevent possible wars and assure stability in the area. But aren't these states NATO members? Doesn't this exclude a possible war between them?

PS. Please, don't jump down my throat. I already know I'm dumb.

Heh.

The explanation I'd give to it is that to go into war, you need to gear economy ready into 'war' mode as well. However, if economies are closely tied, there is less incentive and less opportunity to prepare yourself for "war economy". The heavy industry areas, i.e Ruhr in Germany, are busy working on other projects.

I remember this was the argument right after WWII. Top politicians said "let's unite the economies of France and Germany, so that it would be impossible for them to have a go at each other again."

NATO helps, but together with a unified economy system it gives sort of a 'double protection'.

[gadjo_dilo]

I always saw only the economic reasons behind the EU. ....
When we joined I never thought that Hungary will stop to dream about a certain part of us.....

[jens]

I always saw only the economic reasons behind the EU. ....
When we joined I never thought that Hungary will stop to dream about a certain part of us.....

Economy actually is the main reason.

Hungary - or at least some people there - may dream, but will they actually do it? Or they'd see that "this part of Romania" is completely open in everyday life anyway - you can go freely there, do business, whatever, you don't need to 'occupy' it.

[Rudy Tamasz]

You haven't studied history have you?

None of those wars that I listed really involved Western and Eastern against each other. They were all about Western European powers fighting other Western European powers. Starting with the European Coal and Steel Union, it was about tying up Western Europe.

If the EU wasn't about that, then where is the war between West Germany and France in 1973? History never ran down that path.

Never been strong at history, so the rest of the post is just my speculation. Let's go back to 1973 and imagine what might have happened. The u.s. is stuck up to its neck in Vietnam. India and Pakistan fight over Bangladesh. Arabs try to pay Israel back for 1967. And all of a sudden Germany raises the issue of Alsace. Hmm, says Politburo, what a nice chance! All types of leftist activists on the Soviet payroll both in Germany and France start vocally protesting the revanchist plans of disguised Nazis. In the worst case scenario, the Soviet Union gets a good opportunity to invade Germany, in the best case scenario, the governments of involved Western countries fall like flies. That's why another war between France and Germany did not happen. Maybe EU had something to do with it, but before 1989 everything else was just a side show to the Soviet - American rivalry.

Speaking of earlier times, the situation in Europe was the result of the balance of power between a few leading countries at least since the treaty of Westphalia. Some dropped out of the club like Denmark, Sweden and Poland, some joined it later like Prussia. Everything depended on whether they could peacefully figure out their differences or not. In the process they fought their battles from Lisbon to Moscow. For instance we in Belarus have as many battlefields of the Napoleonic wars and WWI as they have in Flanders.

I can understand though that from your island it is difficult to see anything farther than Rhine. It gets misty 'round Lorelei, doesn't it?

Sent from my Lenovo P70-A using Tapatalk

[Rollo]

I can understand though that from your island it is difficult to see anything farther than Rhine. It gets misty 'round Lorelei, doesn't it?

From the island that I live on, I can see that my country has gone to all sorts of crazy wars that it didn't need to; which is really dumb because it takes forever to get anywhere.

In the election that we had on Saturday, just the Federal Division of Durack if it was a country, would be the 17th biggest country in the world.