England maybe leave EU june 23.

[Amsel_]

I haven't been following this closely, but these negotiations seem odd. Is Britain trying to leave the EU by agreeing to follow all the requirements of being in the EU? What's the deal with that?

[deleted_user0]

Just arrogant british lords finding out that london is no longer the center of the world about 100 years after the rest of us figured it out

[pecelot]

the current deal seems to be somewhat about that — the UK leaves the EU, but is still going to follow the trade union regulations and recognise jurisdiction of the EU Justice Court, while not having any say about them and not paying yearly fees, mainly due to the issues with Northern Ireland — at least that's what I understand

[momuuu]

Does that mean they still get to expell immigrants though?

[Dolan]

I haven't been following this closely, but these negotiations seem odd. Is Britain trying to leave the EU by agreeing to follow all the requirements of being in the EU? What's the deal with that?

Britain is not a single entity of one mind. It's a kingdom of countries, out of which at least two countries (Northern Ireland and Scotland) voted to remain in the EU.

And even those who voted to leave the EU are split in various factions: some believe in leaving without any deal (the WTO camp), others believe in leaving with some kind of a bespoke deal (Canada+, Norway+, Switzerland+, etc), others like their current government believe in a hotchpotch deal in which there's something for everyone, but the whole deal has lots of elements that others strongly dislike.

The government deal attempts to achieve a compromise between all these diverging positions, by giving each something to their taste:

- immigration control, abolishing the authority of the European Court of Justice over UK courts, no more money sent to the EU budget, no more participation in EU policies like the CAP (agri policy), an independent trading policy & others -> to hard Brexiters

- a temporary customs union with the EU until a free trade agreement is closed with the EU, that should offer the UK trading terms which are as close as possible to those enjoyed by EU members (this is what the business sector who wanted the UK to remain in the EU argued for)

- no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland (which is what both these countries wanted and which preserves the terms of the Good Friday agreement, that ended "the Troubles")

Etc.

The problem is that each faction in this debate is so entrenched in its own views that it doesn't accept any compromise on how the final deal with the EU should look like. So, they're not appeased at all even if they get something, as long as the other terms are, according to them, unacceptable. Which means, there is no actual majority in the UK that could support any particular version of a deal with the EU right now. They all support different things, that are incompatible with the views of other parts of the population.

To complicate things even more, this division and discord can be found in each major party, both in the Conservatory party and in the Labour party. They both have their own versions of Leavers and Remainers.

Basically, they brought the perfect storm unto themselves and now they're wondering how did this come about.

[spanky4ever]

https://youtu.be/EqPtz5qN7HM

[spanky4ever]

https://youtu.be/EqPtz5qN7HM

this is a meme about EU, you can join, but you can never leave. I hope UK leave and prosper after. I do think EU was a really nice "project" but it has turned out to be a thing that nobody wanted.

[fightinfrenchman]

https://youtu.be/EqPtz5qN7HM

this is a meme about EU, you can join, but you can never leave. I hope UK leave and prosper after. I do think EU was a really nice "project" but it has turned out to be a thing that nobody wanted.

Lol

[fightinfrenchman]

@spanky4ever

[spanky4ever]

@fightinfrenchman and?

[fightinfrenchman]

@fightinfrenchman and?

That's pretty much it

[Amsel_]

@spanky4ever

How does the EU stop war? What has it done with the Catalonia crisis? The riots in France? The members who refuse to follow its rules? The countries that are constantly kept on the brink of bankruptcy due to the ECB? The waves of hundreds of thousands of third worlders coming in to exploit welfare? The massive oil-pipeline that Germany is building to buy oil from Russia? The Schengen zone is kind of neat, I guess, but the EU doesn't have much to offer in terms of peace-keeping. Neoliberal institutionalism is a fine field of international relations, but EU countries would probably be at peace no matter what. Even countries that hate each other, like in the Middle-East or the Far-East, still aren't fighting wars.

If you want to talk about peace through international institutions, lets talk about that NATO budget.

[Dolan]

How does the EU stop war? What has it done with the Catalonia crisis?

The EU isn't a country, how would Catalonia's claim to independence be any of their business? It's Spain's internal affair.
Also, if every region in a country claimed they need to be independent, where would that lead us? What if the population of Texas or another US state (California?) became mostly Latino/Mexican and claimed independence from the USA? Would you support their claim to independence?
I think you would tell them to forget about it because there's a constitution which forbids that. That's exactly what Spain did.
How is that the EU's business again?

The riots in France?

So the EU needs to solve a member state's internal issues again? Every riot, every street protest needs to be solved by the EU?
What would the government of that country do to justify their pay then?

The members who refuse to follow its rules?

Their voting rights can get suspended so they become like a dummy member. If there's no majority to support such a decision, they can have their access to EU funds slashed or other such punitive measures. After all, if you agreed to be part of a club and break its rules, you have to accept the consequences, right?

The countries that are constantly kept on the brink of bankruptcy due to the ECB?

Which countries would that be? Do you mean those countries that the ECB saved by keeping lines of credit open for their banks, in order to avoid a collapse of their frail banking systems?
How is that different from what the USA's Fed is doing with the US economy or what the US government did by saving private corporations from bankruptcy with taxpayers' money?
The ECB is doing something similar, which is equally bad or good, depending on your perspective on this subject.

The waves of hundreds of thousands of third worlders coming in to exploit welfare?

That crisis reached its peak in 2015, when Germany took in more than 1 million migrants, but after 2015 migration waves tapered off. Now it's maybe a couple of tens of thousands that are still trying to get to Europe, but some EU countries like Italy are blocking their entrance and refusing to give them asylum or right of passage.
This issue is not over yet, Germany promised they will continue to send back lots of migrants that don't meet the criteria for asylum, especially if they don't come from warzones. And frankly, the whole crisis has been overblown, it only concerned a few EU states (Germany, UK, Sweden, Italy, France). But the EU has 28 member states (27 once the UK leaves).
The number of non-EU nationals who migrated to the EU in 2016 is roughly 2 million. That's about 0.39% of the total EU population (512 millions). But as I said, migration tapered off during the last few years, so it's likely we're going to see numbers continuing to dwindle, as national authorities are coming under pressure from their own people to stop non-EU migration.
But let's see how the USA is doing on this front...

It seems the number of legal migrants to the USA keeps growing, according to Homeland Security stats. A total of 1.183 million new legal residents in 2016. That's basically 0.38% of the total US population (308 millions), so it's pretty much the same proportion of migrants as in the EU's case.

The massive oil-pipeline that Germany is building to buy oil from Russia?

To be honest, I think the reason why that pipeline is getting built is political, not economic. My hunch tells me that Merkel wanted to make sure Europe doesn't cut off all relations with Russia and this project is one way of keeping the Russians co-interested in keeping the dialogue open. If you cut all relations, you never know where that could lead in the future.
Then again, American's vociferations on this subject are not innocent. What they want is to force Germany to buy liquefied gas from the US, instead of buying gas from Russia. So, it's more like political blackmail. The USA is using similar tactics to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia. You Americans close your eyes to all the shenanigans that Saudis are up to (funding terrorism, executing journalists etc) just for the sake of getting those billions from your arms trade. So, it's a bit disingenuous to play the morality card against Europe, dontcha think?

The Schengen zone is kind of neat, I guess, but the EU doesn't have much to offer in terms of peace-keeping. Neoliberal institutionalism is a fine field of international relations, but EU countries would probably be at peace no matter what. Even countries that hate each other, like in the Middle-East or the Far-East, still aren't fighting wars.

Typical American ignorance of history and local culture. No, European culture is nothing like Middle Eastern relations, which are largely mediated by religion (Islamism) and different allegiances to different splinters of Islamism (Sunni, Shi'a, Ibadi). Why do you think Saudis and their allies are in open conflict with Iran, another Muslim state? In fact, right now there is a civil war in Yemen which is funded by Saudi Arabia on one side and Iran (the Houthis are also Shi'a, though Iran denies supporting them) on the other. How does that reflect relations between European states?

If you want to talk about peace through international institutions, lets talk about that NATO budget.

Yeah, sure. Do you know how those NATO contributions work? Each state basically pays for its own military. So, when Trump says country X isn't contributing enough to NATO, what he means is that state X is not buying enough weapons from the USA, to fund the USA budget deficit. The US weapon trade is basically a state-level racket scheme. The US is using all sorts of arguments and blackmail to make other states buy its weapons every year to fund its large deficit. It does this with Saudi Arabia, with European allies, with Asia-Pacific countries, heck one report found that over the last five years, the USA has sold weapons to 96 countries:

Figures released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, a monitoring group, showed that even as the total trade in weapons grew by 14 percent between 2011 and 2015, the two largest exporters, Russia and the US, managed to capture even greater portions of the pie. American exports made up a full third of the global trade, up from 29 percent between 2006 and 2010. According to a congressional report, US arms sales increased by more than a third in 2014 alone, to $36.2 billion from 26.7 the year prior. SIPRI reported that over the last five years, the US sold "major" weapons to at least 96 countries — just a hair under half the total number of UN member states.

This is how the USA is funding its budget deficit, by telling other states: You have problems with X issue (human rights, trade, etc etc), by telling NATO allies (you guys aren't """"contributing"""" enough...). It's diplomatic-speak for "you should buy more US-made weapons".

Because if you look at how the NATO budget works, you realise that the money don't actually go to NATO, no, each country funds its own military endowment up to 2% of their GDP. So why would Trump/USA insist so much that other countries invest in their own military? Hmm, why would he care so much about their own good...

Also, this appeal to increase military funding only makes sense in the context of triggering Article 5 of the treaty which calls for mutual defence. Because that's the only realistic situation in which one NATO country would spend its own money to protect another NATO ally. Do you know when was the only time when article 5 was triggered? During the 9/11 terror attacks in the USA.
Why did the USA trigger article 5 of NATO if they can manage their defence on their own? Really makes you think, doesn' it.

[Amsel_]

@Dolan

Thank you for the reply.

1) The discussion was one of "the EU preventing wars." When I cite things such as Catalonia or the riots (which appear to be anti-EU, but there's a lot of conflicting media coverage) I'm using it to point out that there is still instability within the European Union. If the European Union were currently preventing wars, then there wouldn't be so many "leaks in the dam," so to speak. Furthermore, the EU demands certain amounts of authority over its member states, which means that it still has responsibility for internal affairs.

2) I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Do you mean those countries that the ECB saved by keeping lines of credit open for their banks, in order to avoid a collapse of their frail banking systems?" If you're talking about the ECB loaning money to banks to increase their reserves, that is to be expected. That is the entire purpose of a central bank. That is to be expected when agreeing to form a central bank. If they didn't do their job then it would be tantamount to an act of war.

If you're talking about the loans that have been given to countries to pay for internal matters, that is irrelevant. If those countries weren't on the Euro then they wouldn't have to worry about solvency. They would be able to pay for all of their expenditure, worry free. When the EU gives money to these countries, they can't expect gratitude. It's like if someone sabotaged your oven, so it would start a fire, but then handed you a fire extinguisher after your house is already aflame.

3) The decline in migration rates doesn't matter. They allowed these people in, and caused strife across the entire continent. They had no reason to let these people in to begin with. Cutting migration rates after immense backlash doesn't absolve them of guilt. Once again, you can't light a house on fire, and accept gratitude for offering a fire extinguisher.

I also don't know why you are bringing up American immigration. If our country has a bad immigration policy, then that is a mistake. But it is our mistake. When the EU sets immigration quotas, it makes a mistake - not for itself - but for its members. Your entire post resonates with this odd tone that seems to think attacking America somehow bolsters the EU's position.

4) Again, I find it necessary to reiterate that this discussion was about the EU supposedly keeping peace. If Germany is giving economic assistance to the West's geopolitical rival, then it seems to be doing a bad job at that. The United States sells weapons, but to people who are useful to us. Giving economic aid to Russia is the opposite of that. It endangers Europe.

5) My point was that those countries listed despise each other, and have little economic attachment, yet aren't at war with each other. This is used to push my main thesis which is that the EU is not keeping the peace in Europe. I never said anything to imply that Europe and the Middle-East were similar in terms of culture, or situation. My point was just that Western European countries are, for the most part, on good terms with each other. They would likely not fight wars with each other, especially if these countries in other regions that hate each other aren't currently at war.

For the sake of ego, I would also like to show you this thread viewtopic.php?f=315&t=14906 where I demonstrate my knowledge of the middle-east.

6) I don't think you understand how the American financial system works. We don't fund our deficits through trade. We don't fund deficits at all. Debt to a country which issues its own currency is different from a business, or a country using a foreign currency. (this includes the Euro) U.S. treasuries are converted into cash automatically upon maturity. We don't need to pay for deficits through taxation or trade balances or anything of the sort. When the United States sells people guns, the main purpose is because we want those people to be stronger. When we voice concerns about others not contributing to NATO, it's because we want stronger allies.

7) We triggered article 5 of NATO, but the results were fairly minimal. It results in two operations: Eagle Assist and Active Endeavor. Eagle Assist was minor, and Active Endeavor mainly took place in the Mediterranean. I don't see the issue with asking European NATO members to do something in what is essentially their backyard. I'm grateful for the support, but it was more of a question of international security than just American defense.

[Dolan]

@Dolan
1) The discussion was one of "the EU preventing wars." When I cite things such as Catalonia or the riots (which appear to be anti-EU, but there's a lot of conflicting media coverage) I'm using it to point out that there is still instability within the European Union. If the European Union were currently preventing wars, then there wouldn't be so many "leaks in the dam," so to speak. Furthermore, the EU demands certain amounts of authority over its member states, which means that it still has responsibility for internal affairs.

Neither of those riots or protests were about the EU. I haven't seen anyone shouting against the EU at any of those protests. Can you prove your statement? In fact, that party in Catalonia which was pushing for independence was hoping that the EU would get involved, they were hoping to gain leverage over the Spanish authorities by appealing to the EU. And the EU just told them it's none of their business.
The theme of discussion you were quoting is completing disconnected from these internal protests, because EU is preventing wars between states, and none of these protests were against another EU state or against the EU, for that matter. So your argument is one giant non sequitur. I don't see how you make this connection. Sure, you could argue that French protesters were frustrated about austerity policies and so on and so forth, but this is so far from relating this to the idea that the EU is preventing intra-European conflict. I mean those protesters weren't even against any category or country, they were protesting against their own government.
The EU does not demand any particular authority, it just legislates over some issues, while leaving it up to its members to regulate in other sectors. In some areas, like public order, the EU has no remit whatsoever, no competence. It cannot tell a state it should deal with a protest or something like that. At best, they can monitor what's happening there to make sure that that member state respects the rule of law so it doesn't break its own laws.
In a way, this is the EU's fault. This perception that you have that the EU is some super-powerful, supranational authority that dictates countries how to manage themselves is to some extent fed by the EU, which likes to think it's more important and impactful than it really is. But let's compare some facts a bit here: the EU has 46000 employees working in its institutions and a budget of 1-2% of the total GDP of all its members. For comparison, the Birmingham City Council in the UK employs about 33400 public servants, which covers a population of 1.1 million people. The superpowerful EU covers a population of 512 million people with 46000 employees. Also typically national governments have budgets in the 35-46% of their GDP range. Now you tell me how an institution that barely has more staff than some local UK city council and has a budget the same size of Venezuela's budget (roughly 157 billions for the year 2017) is that "superpowerful" entity which gives orders to its member states and controls their governments' every move. How could that even work? How could they even exert such authority as people perceive them to have? I mean, we're not in the 16th century when the Pope in Vatican could pull such a feat with even less staff, just because he had the credentials to be god's representative on earth, but the EU clearly can't pull that trick anymore, right?

2) I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Do you mean those countries that the ECB saved by keeping lines of credit open for their banks, in order to avoid a collapse of their frail banking systems?" If you're talking about the ECB loaning money to banks to increase their reserves, that is to be expected. That is the entire purpose of a central bank. That is to be expected when agreeing to form a central bank. If they didn't do their job then it would be tantamount to an act of war.
If you're talking about the loans that have been given to countries to pay for internal matters, that is irrelevant. If those countries weren't on the Euro then they wouldn't have to worry about solvency. They would be able to pay for all of their expenditure, worry free. When the EU gives money to these countries, they can't expect gratitude. It's like if someone sabotaged your oven, so it would start a fire, but then handed you a fire extinguisher after your house is already aflame.

Well, that burden of proving this statement falls on the one making such statement. You have to prove that those countries were pushed in debt by their Eurozone membership. Did anyone in the Eurozone actually forced them to live beyond their means? To live on debt? And it's rich that someone from the USA could even use such an argument, considering how involved US banks were in selling the Greeks "distressed assets" as very valuable investment assets. Greece didn't get into a debt crisis out of the blue, it all started as a direct effect of the subprime mortgage crisis from the USA. Sure, that doesn't absolve them of accumulating such a huge pile of debt, but you can't simply say that their high level of debt was created by them being members of the Eurozone, because there are a lot more Euro countries that didn't get in a similar situation.

3) The decline in migration rates doesn't matter. They allowed these people in, and caused strife across the entire continent. They had no reason to let these people in to begin with. Cutting migration rates after immense backlash doesn't absolve them of guilt. Once again, you can't light a house on fire, and accept gratitude for offering a fire extinguisher.

I also don't know why you are bringing up American immigration. If our country has a bad immigration policy, then that is a mistake. But it is our mistake. When the EU sets immigration quotas, it makes a mistake - not for itself - but for its members. Your entire post resonates with this odd tone that seems to think attacking America somehow bolsters the EU's position.

How much strife did those people actually cause on the continent? Like, statistically, what was the impact of their migration in those 5-6 EU countries? Because there were also lots of EU countries that refused to take migrants and continue to refuse. And no, there is no migrant quota in the EU, that proposition never really passed. It couldn't have been legal anyway, the EU has no legal authority to impose such quotas, it cannot decide on matters of internal order or migration.

4) Again, I find it necessary to reiterate that this discussion was about the EU supposedly keeping peace. If Germany is giving economic assistance to the West's geopolitical rival, then it seems to be doing a bad job at that. The United States sells weapons, but to people who are useful to us. Giving economic aid to Russia is the opposite of that. It endangers Europe.

The United States sold weapons to ISIS, this is a known fact. They armed people that organised terror attacks and killed lots of civilians. It's a well-known fact that US intelligence was involved in supporting the creation of those Muslim groups that were supposedly fighting for liberation from Assad and whatnot, but then later turned against Western allies, using weapons that they received from the USA.
Also the US maintains a special relationship with Saudi Arabia which is known to have funded terrorism for decades. I mean, Osama bin Laden was a Saudi from a rich and influential family over there. So I'm not so sure about the US only selling weapons to "people who are useful" to them.
Again, it's rich how concerned are Americans about how Europeans manage their geopolitical issues, when the USA doesn't even have a direct border with Russia. Isn't it cheap for you to show so much concern when you're not in our shoes? You don't have to make any compromise to make sure your neighbours won't nuke you overnight, since you're isolated by two oceans, side by side, it's so comfortable for you to lecture us on what we should do, when you're not in the same neighbourhood. We're not lecturing you on how to manage your relations with Mexico or Canada... We're not telling you "hey, stop antagonising Canada, they're our allies in NATO and in trade". We're not telling you that, are we?

5) My point was that those countries listed despise each other, and have little economic attachment, yet aren't at war with each other. This is used to push my main thesis which is that the EU is not keeping the peace in Europe. I never said anything to imply that Europe and the Middle-East were similar in terms of culture, or situation. My point was just that Western European countries are, for the most part, on good terms with each other. They would likely not fight wars with each other, especially if these countries in other regions that hate each other aren't currently at war.

Before the EU was created European countries have been involved in military conflicts with each other for centuries. I think there probably is no single century during which we didn't have one single war between two European countries. So evidence doesn't really support your statement. It seems that keeping European countries engaged in a neverending state of negotiation with each other over economic, social, political issues does prevent war. The last two world wars were started here. There's a strong reason why the United States advocated and supported the creation of the EU and NATO after WW2. It's exactly what you guys fought for. It was your and the UK's project, in the beginning. Germany was completely destroyed and divided after the war. Who do you think provided the initial impetus to create the EU, France alone? Italy alone? No, it was the USA, it was Churchill, all those big shots from the Anglosphere who pushed for the idea of a united Europe as a counter to Russia's expansionist tendencies.

For the sake of ego, I would also like to show you this thread viewtopic.php?f=315&t=14906 where I demonstrate my knowledge of the middle-east.

I will try to take a look at it, when I get some time.

6) I don't think you understand how the American financial system works. We don't fund our deficits through trade. We don't fund deficits at all. Debt to a country which issues its own currency is different from a business, or a country using a foreign currency. (this includes the Euro) U.S. treasuries are converted into cash automatically upon maturity. We don't need to pay for deficits through taxation or trade balances or anything of the sort. When the United States sells people guns, the main purpose is because we want those people to be stronger. When we voice concerns about others not contributing to NATO, it's because we want stronger allies.

I think it's more complicated than that. Treasuries can only be emitted if the government has the legal backing to issue them, according to limits imposed on issuable debt by the Congress. But these instruments don't exist in a vacuum, they exist in the context of financial markets. So they are worth buying if their yields are good enough compared to other classes of assets. They're also an instrument for recycling dollars from the global oil trade, which is mostly denominated in dollars. Should I continue to explain how oil trade denomination in dollars is basically a highly political issue, for which the USA has gone to war in order to remove from power leaders who attempted to establish oil trade in other currencies? That's the thing, all the major rules of international financial markets work based on the premise that the dollar is the main reserve currency and the principal means of exchange in any global financial transactions. And this serves the US' interest in financing its deficit by selling treasury bonds to those who are recycling dollars from the global oil trade. If there were alternative currencies in which oil were traded, the US could face the prospect in which there would be much fewer buyers of its treasury bonds. Sure, I know that the biggest holders of US debt are US companies, but still, a huge chunk of that debt is owned by overseas parties (primary dealers, central banks, investment funds and so on). It's a very long story to tell here, but basically the whole global financial system works to fund the US deficit and actually I'm not sure the US even likes this anymore, because if your currency is the global reserve currency, you have no choice but to run a trade deficit with the rest of the world, otherwise you can't supply them with enough dollars. So, in a way, you both benefit from this scheme immensely, but it also carries some obligations, such as running a significant trade deficit.

7) We triggered article 5 of NATO, but the results were fairly minimal. It results in two operations: Eagle Assist and Active Endeavor. Eagle Assist was minor, and Active Endeavor mainly took place in the Mediterranean. I don't see the issue with asking European NATO members to do something in what is essentially their backyard. I'm grateful for the support, but it was more of a question of international security than just American defense.

Yeah, I was just pointing out that European countries never really asked the US to spend any money on their security. It's really your choice to do that. You're doing it of your own volition, nobody asked you to spend so much on your military. I mean, nobody in the last few decades, don't ask me to explain what happened in the 1950s or 1960s, because it was a wholly different world.

[Amsel_]

@Dolan

1) My argument is that if the EU cannot prevent these internal issues, it's clearly not that powerful at stopping international issues.

Also, the "yellow vest" thing now includes a riot outside of the EU headquarters in Belgium

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eu ... 64bea3bda5

According to this less reputable source, a lot of them are anti-EU. I suppose it makes sense. The protests are an odd mix of the far-left and far-right. I recall Melanchon being against the EU during the recent French election.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/10 ... xit-latest

2) The Greek debt crisis was an issue of government debt, not private. They were running a deficit budget. Normally that's fine, if you issue your own currency. Because if you issue your own currency, you control the printing press. It's technically not even debt when you print your own currency. "debt" for these countries is part of the money supply. That's why the United States and Japan have been able to maintain such enormous debt to GDP ratios. If Greece had its own currency, instead of being on the Euro, it wouldn't have had an issue with debt solvency. Without the Euro, countries like Germany and France cut maintain their massive social-spending while slashing taxes dramatically.

3) Not following those quotas is what I meant earlier when I said "members not following its rules." Your response was to list some of the punishments given to those members. Say they're not legally binding if you'd like, but the EU seems to think otherwise.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/worl ... vakia.html

4) I don't know why you keep falling back to attacking America when the discussion is about the EU. You yourself seem to imply that Russia is a threat with your nuke comment, so you yourself should know that supporting the Russian economy is a bad thing. If the EU were able to prevent war, surely it would have prevented something like this?

But I would still like to address some of your other complaints about the United State's activities. The United States armed those Syrian rebel groups with the intention of overthrowing Assad. Neutralizing Syria was an important move in the region because it would #1 isolate Lebanon #2 eliminate an Iranian ally. The goal wasn't to create a fanciful liberal-democracy in Syria (despite what the politicians say); the goal was to take out an enemy. When we sell weapons to the Saudis, it is for similar reasons. They are an important counter-balance to Iran. I would like to see them stop funding Wahabbi/Salafi groups, and they've shown a bit of willingness to do this. But I don't care about domestic Saudi affairs. If they want to run over gays in their gold-plated rolls royce, that's their business.

I would also like to mention that nuclear weapons can travel across the world. Someone in Europe and someone in America should both be just as afraid of nuclear weapons.

5) The world has changed. The EU was formed rather quickly after the second world-war, so we don't know if the new international situation would have meant European peace without the EU. There's not much evidence to show that the EU has prevented any wars; though, I guess there's not much evidence to say it hasn't. I think peace would have been maintained at least to the extent it is now. Those countries are all so similar. They would surely work together now that there are other continents to worry about.

6) I'm not sure why you're mentioning yields. But I would like to say that debt monetization is a thing. The government doesn't need people to purchase its bonds in order to function. Bonds are basically just a government savings account.

Also the petrodollar thing is a /pol/ meme. We can convert currencies instantly with computers. Most money is just numbers in a computer. I don't know how this is supposed to sustain the price of the dollar as some people suggest. Being the global reserve currency doesn't mean much post-Bretton Woods.

7) We've been spending disproportionate amounts to defend the West, relative to European spending, for decades. Since the 60's. Even Nixon mentions it in his speech while accepting his party's presidential nomination at the 1968 RNC.

[Jam]

Guess they decided on the continental drift policy.

[Dolan]

@Dolan

1) My argument is that if the EU cannot prevent these internal issues, it's clearly not that powerful at stopping international issues.

The two are not really related, though. The EU has no competence in a member state's public order issues. And it's just part of democracy, people want to be able to protest against their government. It's really nothing to be scared of. You Americans should try it from time to time. Or are you that happy with what your administration does? Like cutting taxes for the rich and letting the middle class sink? Why aren't you protesting against your government? Are you that happy with what's happening in your country? With gun crime levels in schools, tax evasion via Cayman Islands for the big bois who can afford it? With wealth inequality reaching unseen levels in America? You're basically starting to look a bit like Russia, where a small bunch of oligarchs get rich thanks to special treatment from their administration, while the rest of the population is getting poorer and poorer. Are you happy with how healthcare services are managed in your country?
In Europe, if we don't like something we take it to the streets, we protest. It's no big deal, really, It doesn't mean that the EU is weak or strong if they don't do something about it, it's not even their competence, because the national government is the first in line to manage internal affairs, not the EU. You guys should try it too. If you don't like your healthcare system, you should protest against your government, your Congress, it's good for your democracy, you know?

Ok, so going back to the EU argument, the EU's competence is mostly in standardising some things like food quality, food safety, environmental issues, labour standards, trade agreements etc etc. But it's none of their business to regulate whether the police should wear blue uniforms or black uniforms, whether they should buy armored vehicles or not, whether a city council should buy wooden chairs or plastic chairs.. and so on. The fact that the EU is not concerned with every lil' aspect of a country's management doesn't mean it lacks international influence. In fact, it's the only trading block in the world which is directly represented in the G7 group. It has its own separate representative, alongside representatives of Germany, the UK, France etc (who are also EU members). And not only in the G7, but also at the WTO and other big international organisations.
Also, I wouldn't talk about the EU in relation to its members as "international" relations. I think it's more correct to talk about it in terms of regional influence, because the EU is a regional integration union. Not an international organisation that everyone can join, it's not open to everyone. So, at this regional level, the EU does have a lot of influence in matters which concern the EU. Its influence is nothing more nothing less than what is enshrined in its treaties. You can't talk about it like some kind of mafia or club which has informal influence. What happens in its dealings with its members is strictly based on laws. And that's the normal way things should happen in a rule of law setting.

Also, the "yellow vest" thing now includes a riot outside of the EU headquarters in Belgium
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eu ... 64bea3bda5
According to this less reputable source, a lot of them are anti-EU. I suppose it makes sense. The protests are an odd mix of the far-left and far-right. I recall Melanchon being against the EU during the recent French election.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/10 ... xit-latest

Ok, so some people in one EU state are protesting against something. It's their right. Is there something wrong with that? Is it the majority of the Belgium population that is protesting? Are they representative of something? Do you expect them to overthrow their government or overthrow the entire EU by protesting in yellow vests? Or what exactly is the problem here? What does this prove? That if a bunch of people protest or even shout against the EU, that's it, they're finished, a few hundred people shouting against the EU means the whole European project is over, right? You Americans are so weird, I swear. You fought to create this union and now are so hell-bent on seeing it fail, on seeing it destroyed. It fucking eats you inside that there is a competing currency, the euro, on the international stage, and that there is a competing economic and political bloc which basically has more purchasing power than your country and is the biggest trading bloc in the world. You just can't stand that. You have to destroy it, you have to keep undermining it in every of your financial papers. You keep writing in every of your economic and financial papers how the euro is kaput, how the EU is on its way out, how Europeans are so pathetic and can't even tie their own shoe laces. Jesus fuck, can you mind your fucking gun shooting in your schools? Your endemic poverty at the bottom of the ladder? Your disaster of a healthcare system? We're not as obsessed with you as you are with us. We don't keep babbling about how the US is kaput, it's over, they're all gonna secede soon and Spain will get Alabama back and the UK will get parts of the US back since they were their colonies. We're not obsessed with destroying you, you know? Then why are you? Why do you keep talking about the EU as if it needs to be destroyed, we're all feeling so bad here and we're unaware of it. You need to keep telling us how bad we're doing and how doomed we are. Meanwhile, you have maybe the highest density of hobos walking on your cities' sidewalks in the world. The biggest number of gun shooting casualties in the world. And you're actually proud of that shit, seriously, you see nothing wrong with that. But you see a lot of things wrong with a bunch of protesters in yellow vests taking it to the streets in Paris or Brussels. That's it, the EU is finished, a few people protested against their government, it's over.

2) The Greek debt crisis was an issue of government debt, not private. They were running a deficit budget. Normally that's fine, if you issue your own currency. Because if you issue your own currency, you control the printing press. It's technically not even debt when you print your own currency. "debt" for these countries is part of the money supply. That's why the United States and Japan have been able to maintain such enormous debt to GDP ratios. If Greece had its own currency, instead of being on the Euro, it wouldn't have had an issue with debt solvency. Without the Euro, countries like Germany and France cut maintain their massive social-spending while slashing taxes dramatically.

Seriously this is like Zerohedge level of economic arguments, it's like goldbug, prepper sort of arguments about currency debasement. Can you quote ONE SINGLE example of a modern country which used currency debasement to pay their debts? Can you quote one single example of such a country that successfully repaid their debts by debasing their currency. Because I keep hearing this argument which is very popular in certain circles (among Zerohedgers, preppers, goldbugs) that the USA can always just debase its currency and tell the world: hahaa, we tricked you, we're gonna give you worthless paper in exchange for those bonds.
Do you even consider the implications of such a move? Do you think you'll be able to afford anything or buy anything if your government debases your currency? Do you think that's a risk worth taking just for the sake of "sticking it to the world, because we're the USA"? You guys are really too high on your own egos, you know. You think you're the bees knees, right? No rules apply to you, right? Nothing can happen to you, right? You can debase your currency, bomb the entire world, nothing's gonna happen to you right? That's how a 12-year old kid thinks about the economic system and about politics. Guess what, it doesn't really work like that. I mean you guys lost the Vietnam world against a bunch of Viet farmers, hiding in the bushes with pitchforks. Reality is a bit more complex than how 12-year old kids see it when they're playing with their tin soldiers and tanks. But sadly, I keep seeing this 12-year old mentality among Americans discussing politics or economics. This "we're just gonna solve it through tricks and if that doesn't work, we're gonna send our big military".
Reminds me of this pic
[spoiler=spoiler][/spoiler]

3) Not following those quotas is what I meant earlier when I said "members not following its rules." Your response was to list some of the punishments given to those members. Say they're not legally binding if you'd like, but the EU seems to think otherwise.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/worl ... vakia.html

What the court says here is that the EU Commission had the right to claim that there was an emergency situation and the Commission could ask member states to host some migrants on a temporary basis. They specifically stress "temporary" and the fact that this can't be a legislative act or measure. Which means, it's pretty much up to each EU member state if they want to do that. There's no law to force them to do that. And this is what it actually happened, most EU countries didn't take migrants and some even refused categorically, no matter the consequences.

4) I don't know why you keep falling back to attacking America when the discussion is about the EU. You yourself seem to imply that Russia is a threat with your nuke comment, so you yourself should know that supporting the Russian economy is a bad thing. If the EU were able to prevent war, surely it would have prevented something like this?

Because it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It's very characteristic of Americans to criticise the EU, when they have even bigger issues in their own backyard that they don't want to admit. So typically Americans act like their country is squeaky-clean perfect, while everyone else is just so bad. So I'm pointing out that this attitude stems from your lack of self-awareness about your own society. You are taught in the USA that everything is perfect there and everyone else on the planet has it so badly, really, they can barely survive outside of the US. There's a flaw in how you're brought up, with this veil of ignorance on your perception. And that's why you have the tendency to see every other part of the world as fraught with issues, on the verge of collapse, on the precipice of complete failure...

The United States armed those Syrian rebel groups with the intention of overthrowing Assad. Neutralizing Syria was an important move in the region because it would #1 isolate Lebanon #2 eliminate an Iranian ally. The goal wasn't to create a fanciful liberal-democracy in Syria (despite what the politicians say); the goal was to take out an enemy. When we sell weapons to the Saudis, it is for similar reasons. They are an important counter-balance to Iran. I would like to see them stop funding Wahabbi/Salafi groups, and they've shown a bit of willingness to do this. But I don't care about domestic Saudi affairs. If they want to run over gays in their gold-plated rolls royce, that's their business.

I think it's more accurate to describe things like this: the USA wanted Assad out, simple as that. Because Assad is Iran's and Russia's ally, because he's a bastion of Russian influence in the region, because of many things. So, for this purpose, the US funded and encouraged the Syrian opposition to defy the Assad regime and question its legitimacy. The US encouraged the Syrian opposition to start a civil war there. That's how it all started, you guys fuelled the Syrian civil war by funding that opposition, by arming it. And then, when you saw that it wasn't working and Syria wasn't folding like all the other North-African Arab states (Egypt, Tunisia) where the Arab Spring toppled their regimes and where you were hoping to install your own US-friendly regimes, you just kept arming rebel troops in the hope that this would eventually weaken Assad. But that didn't happen, because Russia was adamant in their support and they went pretty far in defending their interests there. Obama, by comparison, was very hesitant to get much involved in the region, which pretty much defines his whole foreign policy legacy.

I would also like to mention that nuclear weapons can travel across the world. Someone in Europe and someone in America should both be just as afraid of nuclear weapons.

Yes, but the closer the targets are, the easier it is to destroy them with much more precision (and fewer costs). And so Europe's neighbourhood is surely a lot more dangerous than USA's comfortable geographical position.

5) The world has changed. The EU was formed rather quickly after the second world-war, so we don't know if the new international situation would have meant European peace without the EU. There's not much evidence to show that the EU has prevented any wars; though, I guess there's not much evidence to say it hasn't. I think peace would have been maintained at least to the extent it is now. Those countries are all so similar. They would surely work together now that there are other continents to worry about.

The evidence is staring you right now. The fact that before the EU was created, Europe used to be embroiled in constant conflicts and the fact that it hasn't been so ever since the EU was created is evidence in itself. What kind of other evidence would you need and could you get? It's actually those European states that were not integrated in the EU (and NATO) which got into military conflicts in the 20th century (such as the former Yugoslav republics). So there actually is evidence that the contrary is false: not being in the EU doesn't prevent conflicts, as you claim.

6) I'm not sure why you're mentioning yields. But I would like to say that debt monetization is a thing. The government doesn't need people to purchase its bonds in order to function. Bonds are basically just a government savings account.

Yeah, ok, keep doing it then. It will really reflect great on how you manage your fiscal and monetary policy if you pile on debt to infinity.

Also the petrodollar thing is a /pol/ meme. We can convert currencies instantly with computers. Most money is just numbers in a computer. I don't know how this is supposed to sustain the price of the dollar as some people suggest. Being the global reserve currency doesn't mean much post-Bretton Woods.

One thing doesn't exclude the other. Yeah, you can do both. That doesn't mean that what I said is not true. In fact, it's basic knowledge in the global financial trading arena that US bonds exist to soak up that dollar liquidity from the global oil trade. If you don't believe me, ask any trader working at a hedge fund.
On the contrary, being the global reserve currency is a very important thing after Bretton-Woods, because the gold standard has been replaced with dollars as a global store of value. And now, as a result of that, most central banks store their reserves mostly in dollars, and to a much lesser degree, in gold.

7) We've been spending disproportionate amounts to defend the West, relative to European spending, for decades. Since the 60's. Even Nixon mentions it in his speech while accepting his party's presidential nomination at the 1968 RNC.

That's true. But you didn't do that because Europe asked you to do that. You did it because it was in your interest to create a buffer zone of democracy and economic wealth (Western Europe) against Russia. That's why there was a Marshall plan in Germany, that's why the Allies managed Western Germany after WW2. That's why the EU and NATO were created. Sure, things changed a lot since then, and now Trump is signalling he doesn't care much about that. And actually, this change in geostrategic thinking came about earlier, during Obama's mandates, when he clearly sent the message that Europe wasn't of any particular importance to his foreign policy strategy (whatever that was, because nobody knows what his foreign policy actually was).

[pecelot]

I wantes to reply, how foolish of me...

Dolan, about the Article 5 of the NAT --- do you think there was ever a time to use it as well? Falklands war or something?

[Dolan]

@pecelot It's usually up to NATO members to decide for themselves if they want to trigger Article 5 of the treaty.
It could have been used in every situation in which one NATO member's territory was attacked, in principle.

[pecelot]

I do realise that, but you pointed out that it was used only then and seemed not so content about it

apart from theories about the alleged inside job, which can have some legitimacy due to the need of a casus belli for Bush (but that's obviously for another debate), it was an attack at the US, and I believe it could be argued it was perfectly justified for the Article 5 to be used then

[Amsel_]

@Dolan

1) I think you're missing my point. I'm saying that there is still a lot of discontent and issues within the EU. If they manage themselves to an unsatisfactory extent, I doubt they do much to keep these countries from fighting with each other in wars. I've repeated this a few times, and it seems like the point should have gotten across by now.

2) When I mention the implicit anti-EU tone in some of these riots, the main point is lumped in with the internal issues I mention in 1). But I think the fact that violence has been induced in retaliation against the EU shows its ineffectiveness at peace-keeping. Even if we were to accept the premise that the EU is preventing wars, this behavior would suggest that it (the EU) is transferring international violence to intranational violence.

3) I didn't say anything about debasing the currency. We aren't on a gold standard. That doesn't happen. I'll repeat myself. The government does not "pay back" bonds. U.S. treasuries are part of the money supply. When bonds are "paid back" that money just transfers from one form to another. If a bond you own matures, they just debit your treasuries account and credit your checking account. It's not "money printing" or anything like that, nor is it inflationary. We do this all the time. It's how all treasuries are "paid back." Solvency is not something to worry about when you issue your own currency.

4) I'm not sure it matters if it's "legally binding." If you tell someone to do something, and threaten to punish them if they don't, it's a binding of some sort. Closer to gangsters than bureaucrats though.

5) We aren't taught that everything is perfect. In fact one of the biggest pass-times for many people is to insult the country. Opinion polling consistently shows that Americans are unhappy with the direction of the country. This stereotype you have of Americans doesn't exist, or is at least extremely minor. The media actively pushes this to try and make it seem "cool" to be unpatriotic. Turning people into consumerist cosmopolitans is what the international elite want. It gives them power. It gives them money. But even if this stereotype you've been fed were true, it wouldn't work on me. I support major economic and social reforms in my nation. You're the one arguing for the establishment in yours.

6) I agree with you completely.

7) If a single nuke gets fired, the entire world is going to start shooting them off. Also, NATO has built some nifty anti-missile defenses in Romania, so you're welcome I guess. :^)

8) It seems incredibly unlikely for rich Western European countries to go to war with each other post-WW2. Even then, I am not arguing against all of these international coalitions. I am only saying that the EU in particular probably hasn't prevented any wars among its member-states. I also find it odd that you call Catalonia an internal matter, but call Yugoslavia a war.

9) We are going to keep doing it. We have to. It would be economically irresponsible not to run further deficits.

10) You aren't really proving your point here. A hedge fund trader saying something doesn't make it true.

11) Okay? We acted in self-interest, and it helped Europe. I don't see any reason for Europe to complain about a mutually-beneficial relationship.

[Snuden]

An unfortunate consequence will be that it will be more difficult to smuggle cheap cigarettes from Gibraltar and in to Spain.

[Dolan]

1) I think you're missing my point. I'm saying that there is still a lot of discontent and issues within the EU. If they manage themselves to an unsatisfactory extent, I doubt they do much to keep these countries from fighting with each other in wars. I've repeated this a few times, and it seems like the point should have gotten across by now.

But those issues are outside of EU competence. The EU doesn't manage the French economy, the French government does. And that protest from Belgium was against their government signing the UN migration pact. So you're saying that if national governments fail to satisfy their citizens' demands, it's the EU's fault... And that somehow proves the EU is unable to prevent wars. There's one major non sequitur in this argument, it simply does not follow. Because your premise (popular discontent) is not linked to any specific EU competence and those protests were not directed at the EU. And the EU does not micro-manage its member states' affairs. The EU is not a country, it doesn't have the same responsibilities and powers as a sovereign country has, despite what memers and /pol/acks say.
However, the union does have more power on issues which concern the whole region, like standards on goods and services delivered to citizens of an EU state. So by keeping everyone focused on a common European project, which relies on a common market, common travel area and so on, it prevents its members from engaging in isolationist policies which could lead to actual conflicts.

2) When I mention the implicit anti-EU tone in some of these riots, the main point is lumped in with the internal issues I mention in 1). But I think the fact that violence has been induced in retaliation against the EU shows its ineffectiveness at peace-keeping. Even if we were to accept the premise that the EU is preventing wars, this behavior would suggest that it (the EU) is transferring international violence to intranational violence.

Can you give any specific examples of how this happens? Any huge mass protests against EU policies or decisions? Any decisions that somehow led to people in one country protesting against their own government? For example, there were some protests in Germany against Merkel's migration policy, but Germany decided to take those migrants in before the EU took any stance on the issue. Nobody forced Germany to accept those migrants in 2015. And nobody forced Macron to raise fuel taxes, which triggered the yellow vests protest either.

3) I didn't say anything about debasing the currency. We aren't on a gold standard. That doesn't happen. I'll repeat myself. The government does not "pay back" bonds. U.S. treasuries are part of the money supply. When bonds are "paid back" that money just transfers from one form to another. If a bond you own matures, they just debit your treasuries account and credit your checking account. It's not "money printing" or anything like that, nor is it inflationary. We do this all the time. It's how all treasuries are "paid back." Solvency is not something to worry about when you issue your own currency.

The money supply must match your GDP, otherwise you get higher inflation. If bond buyers send those dollars back to the US economy, by purchasing other assets from the US, you get higher inflation. Simple as that.
Romania also issues its own currency. Does that mean we could print new debt to infinity and just keep spending more than we can afford? No, we couldn't because our currency is not a global reserve currency. Can you name any other state that can do what you're describing, issue as much debt it wants because it could simply just transfer virtual money from one account to another to cover that debt? That's why you need the dollar to be a global reserve currency, because this allows you to pay your debts with imaginary, fantasy currency, ie, virtual money that have no coverage whatsoever in goods and services. This is why I said you are funding your deficit by issuing bonds which are exchanged for dollars recycled from the global oil trade and by having a global reserve currency. Because your treasury cannot spend that extra money without someone buying those bonds. And even when your Fed was basically giving near-zero interest credit to primary dealers to keep buying your bonds, you still had a limit on how much debt you could accumulate each year, a limit imposed by your congress. You cannot really issue infinite debt and keep giving infinite credit to primary dealers to fund your deficit. So, nope, you may have an economy that is based on fantasy economics, but that only works to some extent, just enough to keep up the appearance that your economy is doing well. It's a make-believe sort of economy, fake it until you make it, add more debt until everyone feels the wealth flowing.

4) I'm not sure it matters if it's "legally binding." If you tell someone to do something, and threaten to punish them if they don't, it's a binding of some sort. Closer to gangsters than bureaucrats though.

What about Trump threatening the judiciary if they overturn his policies by issuing certain legal decisions? What about Trump threatening the FBI that if they don't end that Russia investigation, they will suffer some untold consequences. He's been doing that ever since he got in office. Sounds closer to gangster government, rather than bureaucracy, innit.

5) We aren't taught that everything is perfect. In fact one of the biggest pass-times for many people is to insult the country. Opinion polling consistently shows that Americans are unhappy with the direction of the country. This stereotype you have of Americans doesn't exist, or is at least extremely minor. The media actively pushes this to try and make it seem "cool" to be unpatriotic. Turning people into consumerist cosmopolitans is what the international elite want. It gives them power. It gives them money. But even if this stereotype you've been fed were true, it wouldn't work on me. I support major economic and social reforms in my nation. You're the one arguing for the establishment in yours.

I'm not arguing for the establishment, but people are so misinformed about institutions, they default on a 12-year old kid's level of understanding politics and the economy. They'd rather believe infantile conspiracy theories than put some effort into becoming more informed. It's much harder to follow facts, than to believe simplistic, infantile soap-opera explanations of how things really work. Because most people lack the mental abilities to follow such topics, but sadly they have a say and a vote on them. So, far from me to defend how things are right now, nobody asked me what's wrong with the establishment. When I have to waste time on dismantling people's misconceptions about the current establishment, people start thinking I'm somehow defending it. So if I don't support this sort of black-and-white reasoning, I'm somehow defending the establishment...
Why are people so infantile from a political point of view? Why do they think it must be either their way or no way and throw a tantrum if their way doesn't happen? And if the other party refuses them something, those other people are the baddies in this narrative. It's either baddies or heroes, nothing in between, that's how politics work...

7) If a single nuke gets fired, the entire world is going to start shooting them off. Also, NATO has built some nifty anti-missile defenses in Romania, so you're welcome I guess. :^)

Yeah, that anti-missile system turns us into a very convenient target for the USA. Meaning, that's the first target Russia is going to preemptively strike, to make sure they're not getting hit while trying to reach more distant targets. You're welcome, I guess.

I also find it odd that you call Catalonia an internal matter, but call Yugoslavia a war.

Yugoslavia split because they were an artificial state created early 20th century. Catalonia has been part of the Spanish crown since the 16th century. Very different cases. They have more ethnic and national bonds than American states have. Spain even owned more than two thirds of USA's territory once (including that big Louisiana territory).
[spoiler=Spanish Louisiana][/spoiler]
Should old Louisiana demand independence from the USA and rejoin Spain, because it's only been in the USA for two centuries and a bit? Would you support Louisiana's plea for independence from the United States? Then maybe you could consider Catalonia's claim to independence somewhat more credible and think it's a potential cause for war.
That's how relevant that comparison between Catalonia and Yugoslavia is. Just like comparing old Spanish Louisiana with any of them.

10) You aren't really proving your point here. A hedge fund trader saying something doesn't make it true.

No, it was a question of whether this is considered common knowledge, because everyone who deals in global markets is doing it. Would you consider they have no idea about what they're actually doing?

11) Okay? We acted in self-interest, and it helped Europe. I don't see any reason for Europe to complain about a mutually-beneficial relationship.

Yeah, so why so much ill will towards Europe and the EU on the USA's part? It's like you don't know your own interest and want your allies to have a weak position in this dangerous neighbourhood. Then one day wake up and realise you are alone vs a new alliance between China, Russia and Europe.

[Amsel_]

1) I'll repeat for the dozenth time that I'm bringing up these domestic issues to show a microcosmic failure on the part of the EU. This isn't meant to be an argument on its own. It's just supposed to show supposed "leaks in the dam" about the EU not assuaging macro issues. Isolationist policies are also rather unlikely. There's no reason these countries can't trade with each other without the EU.

2) Surely you have seen the massive right-wing surge that has been explicitly anti-EU.

3) When those countries buy U.S. assets they are increasing our GDP. According to you, it should balance out. But inflation isn't just matching GDP to the money supply. Money creation is not inflationary as long as there are goods and services to buy with that money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNCZHAQnfGU

Romania also could spend plenty, presumably more than it is now. Unfortunately you're trying to join ERM 2, which will ruin your chances.

"Can you name any other state that can do what you're describing, issue as much debt it wants because it could simply just transfer virtual money from one account to another to cover that debt?"
All of them... if you want an example other than the U.S., Japan. Take a look at their debt to GDP ratio.



Now look at Greece's debt to GDP ratio.



Not only isn't Japan suffering from inflation or solvency issues (like Greece) it is struggling with avoiding deflation.



Just imagine what those wealthy Western European countries could do with their own currency. They could maintain or even expand their massive welfare systems while cutting taxes.

4) So the EU is as bad as Trump?

5) Okay.

6) If one nuke goes off, all of them go off. That has been the situation since the cold-war.

7) The Louisiana territories never really developed their own nationality. Meanwhile Catalonia has its own language, history, politics, ethnicity, and culture. Time alone doesn't disqualify them from comparison to Yugoslavia.

8) These financiers assuredly know more than I do. But I could be the only person in the world who believes something, and I'd still believe it unless someone could prove me wrong. So whether or not it's common knowledge doesn't affect me.

9) I don't have any ill will towards Europe. I just dislike the EU out of economic and national-sovereignty concerns. A stronger, independent Europe will make for much better allies than the flimsy little-girls, of both sexes, who seem to have a monopoly on power over there.