Yes, yes, I know. In your world every country is an island to itself sharing hardly anything with any other country. I get why you are upset how the EU impacts Italy. I don't think it is all bad for Italy but I can see why somebody has a different opinion on it. I can understand scepticism regarding a developing European identity or the European project in general. What I don't get is your total refusal to even entertain the possibility of an European identity or any shared history/culture. I don't get it. It is illogical and in stark contrast to reality.
Shared history/culture? Greece has more shared culture (music, food, ancient history) with the Arab world than anything in Europe outside of Cyprus (which should be a part of Greece now anyway, but I digress). I understand that the formation of the European political union had good intentions in mind, and to a large extent it has succeeded in fostering better ties between its member states. But this idea of a shared European identity is flawed massively for the reason I and the Italian posters point out. On top of that, the political union, like other large international political bodies, has become a forum for national politicians of large countries to impose their will on the weaker members. This sounds a lot like the negotiations during the formation of the American constitution. America is far more integrated than the union, but at least the American colonies had a truly shared identity and history and values that allowed for a federal system to develop successfully. In Europe this isn't the case at all unless you allow Germans to claim Aristotle as part of their history and Greeks to claim Nietzsche as part of theirs. And values? Ha, for a while you could barely go a day without hearing about Germans calling their southern neighbors lazy. Whether or not its true (it isn't), it indicates a belief that the defining values of the German and Greek people differ greatly. What does this mean for the status for the union? Well, not much in terms of specifics. Just that any changes should not be for some ideal of a European identity but for the practical good of its member states. And if more (or less) integration is necessary to do so then so be it. The European identity has been shown to be one without a foundation other than geography. In fact when it is misinterpreted, a vocal few end up holding the very, very bad values inadvertently expressed in this commercial for EU expansion. I personally believe that the monetary union is walking very slowly toward its death due to the insistence by certain national politicians that they impose their will on weaker nations (much like those at the IMF, who with the World Bank have perfected this approach). This despite the overwhelming proof that it has indeed worsened the conditions in the weaker nations as well as proof of successful turnarounds by those who resisted. However the political union still has a vital purpose much more practical than pushing some made up ideal.
On the contrary, I see mattteo as the realist in this situation. You can make a good case that Italy is not a culturally homogenous nation. How exactly can Europe exist if "Italians" don't really exist? Maybe Germany is different, but my experiences in Italy and Spain interacting with the local people tells me a very different story than a place with shared history and culture. Think about it this way. You have all of these different cultures and nations with polar opposite monetary policies all using the same currency. This just seems like a recipe for disaster. I agree with the premise that the idea of Europe is completely made up. Whenever I meet people from the Netherlands all they do is tell me how much better, and functional their country is compared to the rest of Europe. Sorry if I'm coming off as a dick, but I just don't see it.
But yet Spain and Italy exist as nations. Amerisnob: Well, while German enlightenment for example certainly happened mostly in the German speaking world, it drew heavily on Greek and Roman thought and ideas, and, through Christianity, claimed it as an important inheritance. None of those things happened in a box. If what you were saying was true, why does Europe exist at all? Shouldn't we be having it about Western Eurasia instead? Also, every day Bavarians call people in Berlin lazy (and they probably have more of a point when comparing that to Greeks or Italians), and yet both are part of one nation or country. As to what common European traits could be, please take a look at the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europeanism and then tell me whether you agree or disagree, and why.
Never disputed that. I have more in common with people in Canada than people in Alabama. Those ideas are incredibly vague. Secularization, cosmopolitanism, etc.? We could draw parallels with many nations around the globe with these ideas. Would you agree that Germany is more like the United States than Sicily?
A lot of the points second, longer list in that article can simply be lumped together in the statement "European nations to some degree tend to have political views slightly to the left of the United States and East Asia both economically and on social issues." And there are even notable varying degrees to this, and that is behind the division in Europe today. German citizens and voters do have quite a bit "skepticism about the achievements of markets" but not nearly as much as Greeks do, for example. In fact, German media and political leadership often sound like they have complete and unwavering trust in the market when compared to Greeks. The "lazy" claims are open acknowledgments of the differences. So really a lot of that list is too general. It contrasts Europeans to the rest of the world very well, but the differences within Europe are too great for us to consider "European identity" a real thing. What is left in the list? A low tolerance for the use of force and multilateralism. In other words, they favor a political union to diplomatically resolve problems between the states rather than constant war. And that populations tend to be more densely populated in urban areas than their American counterparts. That is not the basis for an identity. That is the basis for a practical political union and not much more.
Shit, people in Maine have very little in common with people in Mississipi, yet we do have a common cultural identity (even among the different racial groups), to say that Europe could not develop something similar is crazy. Now I understand why some people may not want to, but it will be just that. I still think the EU needs to be split into at least 2 parts, the Northers countries in one and the PIGS in the other. Merging the Greek-Germans, Italians-English and Spaniards with Dutch was probably too much.
Maine and Mississippi, hardly an example of positive integration, at least have a common language. I agree though that the only way of uniting Europe is through war and cultural colonization, just like it happened with the Southern US. a) Your mother's a PIG b) Such a project would defy the very existance of the European Union. And I'm not talking about some bogus artifical common identit. I also don't think Southern European nations would unite. People would be against it and, more importantly, national capitalistic elites wouldn't have any advantage (unlike, until recently at least, with the EU). A free trade area would suffice.
Merging the slaveholding and non-slaveholding states was really too much at the time too though. Yet after a good decade of negotiations and false starts, the US managed to strike a balance. I think the answer to all this is somewhere between the pure individual nationalism supported by matteo and others, and a strong federalist union proposed by many of our german posters. Perhaps something similar to the Articles of Confederation that the former British colonies implemented initially before choosing a stronger federal system a few years later. The strength and long-rooted nationalism of European states seem better suited to a loose federalist system, and the objections of each side seem to support that. matteo's labor oriented nationalism clashes strongly with a strong federal system in which the central government can force states (like Italy) to make drastic cuts to areas of spending in which they strongly believe. And Homa's (among others) strong federalist stance seems mildly contradictory, in that while the Germans very clearly want to force weaker states to make the kinds of changes matteo is decrying, they don't want to sign up for an American style re-distributive federalism. Not saying it'll be easy, or even possible. But it seems to me that the agreed upon level of pan-Euro economic centralization has to align and balance with a certain level of redristrubtion from North to South.
I think the distinction between monetary union and political union must be made though. The Eurozone is the butt of my criticism. It on its own is a vehicle for the strong to impose their will on the weak. There are no significant checks on the power of Germany and the ECB to impose austerity, and there is no recourse for a country to help itself through the devaluing of its currency or other means. The way things are happening now is how it was meant to happen, since no alternatives are given. The European Union though has significant checks to the power of larger countries as well as larger corporations looking to exploit the creation of the free trade area.
Yes there are, the countries could balance thier budgets and stop borrowing money. The Reason why Germany has so much power is because everyone wants Germany to lend them money. No different that what we (USA) used to do to the Banana republics or other Latin American countries that would be in debt to us our our bankers.
Germany is making money from this crisis (through lower-than-normal interest rates and a steady influx of money by the ESM and other ECB-controlled funds*, which can only deposit their cash in 'triple-A' bonds) and is contributing to rescue funds just as much as other nations and nothing more....not sure what you're babbling about. Leave the zerohedge-style crap out of this thread, please. Germany's advantage position (although you can't generalize...German 'precarious' workers are getting screwed just as much as their Italian counterparts...it isn't always a matter of one nation versus another...I doubt the majority of German proletarians from the former DDR is in any way supportive of the Bundesbank) stems from the fact that the common currency is tailored around its needs.
What you're describing is a "significant check" OUTSIDE of the political system we're discussing. That's defeating the purpose. Greece and Italy aren't banana republics that Germany just wants to endebt. They are, at least theoretically, partners in a greater European political and economic union. A union they could do one hell of a lot of damage to on the way out, should Germany continue to demand that everyone follow the 1) austerity 2) ??? 3) Profit! model they keep pushing while knowing it's completely anti-reality. A better example might be this: Louisiana could always make good on it's GOP governor's threats to turn down ACA money, balance it's budget, pay for the care of it's own damn poor and stop sucking money away from it's rich and non-profligate northern neighbors (like my state). Outside of the federal system. (Well they could!)
Well that is the problem also, that Brussels can't make the "States" to balance their budgets (not that USA States have balanced budgets). But it is exactly as you describe, should Germany be like Massachusetts and subsidize Italy and Greece. I mean the Red states in the USA bitch about welfare, yet they are the biggest welfare queens and Northern states transfer funds to those SOBs all the time. England knew that was going to happen that is why they never got fully into the EU and its currency; they knew that at the end they too would be left holding the bag. If the EU was a total political union like the USA (something people like Matteo do not want) then I would agree with you and there should be a transfer of funds from the "rich" states to the "poor" states, but in this sense Matteo is right, just like the South European countries do not want the northern European countries telling them what to do, the northern European taxpayers do not want their tax dollars going to bail out their southern neighbors. The EU is where the USA would have been if the Anti-Federalists would have won the day and each State was like a little independent republic with in a smaller Union. In Europe State Rights win over central government, in the USA the central government has been winning those fights for a very long time.
Ceezmad, Germany indeed is treating the southern states like the IMF/World Bank/US treat the so-called banana republics. The difference here is that Germany and the southern states are in economic union who's mission is to promote the economic wellbeing of all states. The IMF/World Bank/US are not in such a union with, say, Bolivia. So they can and have done everything in their power to impose their neoliberal policies on the country and did without impunity. They were never there to truly help - only to bang the privatization drum so corporations can move in and take over. Germany's behavior has gone against the mission of the Eurozone, and both them and rules governing Eurozone integration is to blame. An economic union is only worth it if it is done US-style or not at all. And given the previous discussion and recent developments, I'd say were better off not having it at all.
Oh good grief. The fact that Greeks eat some similar food to people in Lebanon doesn't mean they have as much shared culture with the Arab world. As for the ancient history part - yikes. Apparently the cultural ties that bound Greece and Rome for almost 1500 years are easily discarded in favor of its Anatolian influence (which were never Arab) and a few settlements in Egypt now long irrelevant. I find this argument somewhat fascinating since nearly all European "national" identities are actually very recent creations, many of which are still in flux today, such as in Spain and even in Italy. The notion that the EU project is irredeemable because national culture can't be overcome is a giant red herring. The EU's real problem is the lack of a true fiscal union with proper transfer mechanisms, not cultural issues. The concept of a nation state is itself only 220 years old, and yet is now inimitable to the identity of, say, the French. Identities can change relatively fast.
That's quite false, by the way. Germany is most certainly not making money from this crisis. Though I do agree their no inflation policy is bad for the southern Europeans in the long run.
Really? Rome? You know what Greeks think their link to ancient Rome is? That the empire simply took Greek culture and slapped new names onto it. There is no link there nor does anyone in Greece recognize one.
There are parts of the United States that are more similair to certain parts of Germany then Sicily, but actually on none of the ideas mentioned by McCormick. Of course they are vague, so are the ideas the US has been built upon, or the ideas that make Germany Germany. The point is that Europe, along with some cultural European nations like New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, can be set apart from the US, China, Russia, India, the Arab World or Brazil using those vague ideas, and that in order to defend our interpretation of what secularism or the welfare state should be about we need to work together (as a good example for this is ACTA, it was stopped in all of Europe by protests in most parts of Europe, if the EU would not be the US would just concentrate their lobbyism to a few countries at a time in order to pass favourable (to US industry) legislation, like Ley Sinde in Spain or the changing copyright laws of Sweden (not to mention the Pirate Bay trials).
I would imagine that there are people in North Italy that have more in common with say Bavaria than they do with Sicily.
Yes, they do but fiscal union means having a European retirement system, a European safety net, a parliament that can raise and spend taxes as it wishes etc. Nothing of this exists on the European level and purely cultural differences aren't the reason for that. Yes, but I think even most Italians don't see Tyrolans as true Italians. They certainly don't meet matteos criterias.
Absolutely not. Visit the 2 lands and you'll see it yourself. There are regional differences obviously but you're still in Italy. Germany is a completely alien place. EDIT: Oh, you said people. Culturally not at all, obviously. If you're talking about eugenetics, phenotype, physical appearance...who cares, that's Nazi stuff which doesn't in any way belong to my culture. Tyroleans live in Austria. There are German minorities inhabiting Italian lands such as Alto Adige and they obviously aren't Italian in the least and they don't feel Italian either. Most of them can't even speak the language properly. When I talk about Italian culture, historical Greek, French, German, Albanian, Gypsy and Slovene minorities are obviously not included.