Skip to comments.Planning for the Future: A Sneak Peek at Tomorrow's Europe
Posted on 06/13/2012 11:32:55 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Because they have been unable to find agreement, European leaders have asked top EurocratsEuropean Commission President José Manuel Barroso, European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, Eurogroup head Jean-Claude Juncker and European Central Bank head Mario Draghito come up with a plan. They hope to share some initial proposals at the European summit scheduled for the end of this month. A concrete plan is to be ready by autumn.
The four are intent on making the currency union irreversible, and deepening it to become a political union. A completely different Europe would emerge from such a process.
The plan envisions nation states giving up significant elements of their sovereignty to European institutions. It would mean that the European Parliament would have to fight for relevancy with a new body that would be granted important oversight functions. The result would be a two-speed Europe, the core of which would be represented by the currency union.
At the heart of the deliberations is the creation of a real fiscal union, which would prohibit member states from taking on new debt on their own. Governments would only have complete control of funds that are covered by tax revenues.
Those needing more money than they generate themselves would have to register their needs with the euro group, made up of eurozone finance ministers. They would then analyze the financial needs and the amount of funding requested from the different countries before deciding which were justified and which were not. Euro bonds would then be issued to finance the debt.
The group of finance ministers would be led by a full-time chairand not, as is presently the case, by one of the finance ministers. The chair would ultimately become a kind of European finance minister.
(Excerpt) Read more at spiegel.de ...
Nah, the plan is really quite simple and brilliant.
No more wars between countries, in the future, there will be only civil insurrection - easily and legally put down by the police.
They weren’t at war in the first place. The very creation of this construct is what is upsetting the civil peace.
“Wow, look at how bad theyre allowing this to get.”
Are you refering to the IMF?, or Helicopter Ben?, or simply the marxist obama?
They all take their cues from Europe, so they’re irrelevant.
“They all take their cues from Europe, so theyre irrelevant.”
I lacked a sarcasm tag. But the point was the only *positive* effect is making what were formerly conflicting interests betweens states into conflicts within one state.
I was looking from the point of view that there must be some benefit to this union or else no one would be for it, right?
Thatcher was right, the EU is “perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era.”
“A Sneak Peek at Tomorrow’s Europe”
Bankruptcy and rioting; possibly war.
They don't have that much time.
They’ve been plotting since the 90s, and even long before that.
unfortunately, it makes sense — if you join a common currency, you should expect this. That’s why I hope Poland won’t join — the date for that is constantly pushed back...
She was correct.
On the EU, it does makes sense -- it's kept the peace between numerous feuding countries for a half-century.
I have never heard that any country that took on the US dollar as its own currency had to have its national budget approved by Washington DC.
No, i believe she said that about the EU..
In her book - Statecraft - Lady Thatcher describes the EU as “perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era”.
She called Britain’s membership as “a political error of historic magnitude”.
Any vision of the future of Europe that doesn’t see a lot of smoking rubble and people struggling just to themselves after the war is delusional.
So the Germans are singing a different tune? Maybe it's the same old tune with a rocked-up beat. At any rate, you can bet the rest of Europe is going to be dancing to it!
The real question is whether Europeans will wake up to the reality that socialism doesn't work before or after they fall into the abyss.
They might buy some time by establishing the iron-fisted dictatorship required for Marxism to function until it has completely destroyed the economy.
But it's hell when truth comes crashing through delusions--and it inevitably does.
That's tragedy for you. Western Civilization began with a Greek chorus shouting warnings about that very thing. Looks like it's going to end the same way.
“The idea developed by the Euro-crats would force governments to live within their means and to spend only that money which they take in themselves. Only then would they be able to maintain full national control of their expenditures. Should the concept work, it has the potential of transforming the current debt union into a union of stability.”
That’s essentially how the United States was SUPPOSED to work. Each state running itself pretty much independently, with DC only taking on tasks that had to be done at the federal level. The states would not be permitted to run deficits or print money. Of course the feds ended that experiment with Social Security, and the states haven’t done a whole lot better, taking on huge debt loads (i.e., Governor Perry’s big legacy in Texas, besides selling off our highways, will be the huge debt that we have to deal with).
What could go wrong?
I seriously doubt this will ever happen. Its the final death throes of an ill conceived union. Look for the Eurozone to break up and everybody go back on their own currencies.
For most of Europe, it’s socialism or facism with nothing in between. They’d rather commit suicide than adopt anglo style classical liberalism.
The leaders of the countries in question want it to happen. The fanaticism of pro-EU politicians is little understood, but it’s there; this forced union would never have gotten as far as it did if not for that fanaticism.
The elites aren’t on that barge.
You got that right.
Except the United states was formed by a group of entities with a common language, common culture, no history, and a common goal to rid themselves of a common tyranny. The founding fathers were creating a nation of common interests, not trying to merge existing nations of differing interests, languages, and cultures, some of which have been around and seperately evolving for over a thousand years (England and France). Oh, and just another tiny difference: the people of the differing nations of Europe don’t want it, not even the German people, only the politicians of just about every party aside from the UKIP.