Let's bring in some numbers. Here are the financial ratios of the Eurozone + the UK: Code: [B]Country Budget balance in % of the GDP Debt in % of the GDP 2009 2010 2009 2010 [/B] Luxembourg -2.2 -4.2 15 16.4 Malta -4.5 -4.4 68.5 70.9 Finland -2.8 -4.5 41.3 47.4 Germany -3.4 -5.0 73.1 76.7 Italy -5.3 -5.3 114.6 116.7 Austria -4.3 -5.5 69.1 73.9 Cyprus -3.5 -5.7 53.2 58.6 Belgium -5.9 -5.8 97.2 101.2 Slovakia -6.3 -6 34.6 39.2 Netherlands -4.7 -6.1 59.8 65.6 Slovenia -6.3 -7 35.1 42.8 Portugal -8 -8 77.4 84.6 France -8.3 -8.2 76.1 82.5 Spain -11.2 -10.1 56.3 66.3 Greece -12.7 -12.2 112.6 124.9 UK -12.1 -12.9 68.6 80.3 Ireland -12.5 -14.7 65.8 82.9 It's ordered by the 2010 numbers for the budget balance. The ECB allows a 3% deficit. 2010 not a single country is within the allowed limits. Also, the UK and Ireland are doing even worse than Greece, the Greek do have a bit of a debt problem though, as does Italy and Belgium. Many economists are afraid that Spain might bring down the Euro, but their debt situation is above average, so if they get their deficit under control, there's no problem. I don't think Spain will get anywhere near collapsing.
Default/collapse has little to do with the mere quantity of public debt. Especially since it has become strongly intertwined with private debt, as showed by the ongoing crisis. Not to mention Argentina went bust despite having, by the obsolete, monetaristic, Germano-centric Maastricht standards, a 'working' economy....Japan is still there despite having had super-high debt (about 200% of gdp) for decades. If you're good by Maastricht standards but have a 20% jobless percentage, families with heavy private debt, no social state and an economy built on a bubble (real estate, financial markets, green economy, etc.), I guarantee you you're still screwed. I can't believe people still think that Maastricht criteria have anything to do with economy.
so let's disband the netherlands then. it's an artificial construct and not of any great use , so what's the point?
Whether it's wasteful and ponderous is rather irrelevant in the grander scheme of things. I mean the Brown government is wasteful and ponderous too. Is that reason enough for you to want rid of democracy altogether in Britain? Your issue clearly isn't with the EU as a system, but with the fact that you feel your country is contributing to something financially that you're not part of or benefit from. That's fair enough if that's your opinion but let's not pretend here that the EU is particularly wasteful or undemocratic even compared to a random government. Even your BBC employs more public servants than the EU. The EU system like many democracies isn't perfect but works, and generally better than any other alternative. If you can come up with a better alternative though, please let me know.
When did I talk about disbanding countries? My point is that there is no reason why you can't be both Dutch/French/what have you and European.
you're saying national identity is an artificial construct and not of any great use. that you had more in common with the germans across the border than some of your countrymen. what's the point of countries than? let's re-draw the map into more efficient administrative regions.
***remembers the early 1930s and indemnity payments*** I disagree, I think it does. You (and based on their longstanding business culture, I think most Dutchmen) think people should be responsible for their money and that spending should not go out of line from finances. In other words, you think people have a responsibility to elect a good government that will keep the country's finances in good stead. Greeks, as seen now, obviously disagree. They voted for their bread and circuses and here they stand, expecting a federal European bailout and apparently very mad that they're going to be asked to undertake austerity. So maybe that's a difference between the cultures of the two places, or "nation-states". I thought you just said the ideal of the nation-state is a non-existant enterprise? How can you hold a nation of people accountable when you think their nation doesn't really exist? Well, California's the one about to go bankrupt. Which is one of the problems with the euro.
Sure. And the US, Russians and Chinese are its saviour... Close to an enforced polity ... what ended in disasters. If you really want to call that an "European polity", then do it.
Rationally there is no point whatsoever to national identity so on that level, you're right, there is no point to countries within the EU. But emotionally there is of course, it's important for people to feel they belong. But again there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to think that the EU wants to stop people from having those emotions. If anything the EU has gone to great lengths to protect them. By given dialects a protected language status for example. By giving regional foods a protected status. Etc.
Can I be Greco-Roman and become a wrestler? I think the point most are trying to say is that very few people will ever be European first, certainly not in our lifetime that's for sure.
Maybe I'm stupid or something but I've no idea what you're even arguing for or against so I don't know what to reply.
I'm going to assume those were French-speaking colleagues. Even though Van Rompuy wasn't a "star" prior to becoming prime minister, people who only sporadically follow politics will have known him. In Flanders at least. I can imagine many Walloons did not know him before he became PM.
I'm arguing that your reaction to the Greek crisis is a point to show that the notion that the nation-state is a recent invention and doesn't really exist isn't true.
Again, I've no idea what you're talking about. What is the link between the Greek crisis and the recent invention of the nation state?
Oh yes, Obama's relation with Europe is very bad ... isn't it? There's so many differences that the Neo-Cons are rubbing their hands with glee.
You're looking out for the interests of the Netherlands over the interests of Greece (and maybe the Eurozone). I don't blame you, I look out for the interests of the U.S. first too, because I'm a member of the American nation-state, I'm just telling you that you should acknowledge it for yourself. This was always one of the issues with the Eurozone, everyone's a willing member of this partnership when things are going well, what about when they're not? And another example: "Oh look (turns to the side), there's the Dutch and the British accusing Iceland of terrorism." (that was a very nationalistic manuever too)
We're looking out for the interests of the Euro and the economic situation of the Eurozone as a whole. Helping Greece out now would not help out anyone in the Eurozone in the longer term. By the way, it's not like Greece even disagrees with the EU's position on this. They don't even want any financial help. So I'm afraid this is a bit of a non-discussion.
Problem is, the 'Eurozone' doesn't have one interest only. Its member states have radically different needs.