” …for all the talk of the EU’s integration-through-crisis approach, it should be apparent by now that no crisis will be big enough to muster support — among Europe’s national elites or, even more so, among ordinary citizens — for a move towards full-blown federalism.”
The people of Europe may not want a federal USofE but to suggest that leaders within the EU don’t want federalism? You must be joking. Macron – the pound shop Napoleon the BBC so fawns over – is a committed and quite explicit Federalist. He has written several books and given countless speeches on the subject. He is determined to see a federal EU – with France and Germany at the top table – just slightly more equal than the others. Ursula von der Leyen – is another avowed and explicit Euro-federalist. This is a woman who announced: “I imagine the Europe of my children or grandchildren not as a loose union of states trapped by national interests.” …. “My aim is the United States of Europe” Charles Michel – failed Belgian PM and now President of the council is of a similar bent. Juncker – Another Federalist from top to toe. It isn’t possible to know anything about Juncker and not know he is an avowed Federalist. Verhofstadt – probably the most vociferous federalist of the lot. You might have got a clue from his book title – Verenigde Staten van Europa (“United States of Europe”) Martin Schulz, former President of the Parliament Frans Timmermans, Former Vice Pres of the Commission Martin Selmayr, former Sec Gen of the commission
… all of these people, and many more beside, are openly and explicitly pro federalism. It becomes tricky to deny that there is a cabal who fully intend to push for a united states of Europe, a fully federal EU.
Public antipathy for a USofE is no impediment in the minds of these zealots because they are quite explicit that the views of the little people should never stand in the way of the wider ambitions of a federal EU superstate.
I’m glad we are no longer part of this grisly experiment in corporate empire building, but actually the only way to really tackle the problems in the Eurozone would be for full political and fiscal union. I wanted no part of that – one of the main reasons I voted to Leave – but without such a union, and the natural transfers that would see Germany help its neighbours rather than exploit them, then I cannot see how you solve the problem.
The current situation is unsustainable, it has only been QE keeping it afloat. For some years now it has been, in effect, a public-funded Ponzi scheme. This one, unlike a private Ponzi scheme, can (theoretically) go on indefinitely – but only true fiscal union, with centralised tax resources and mutualised debt will rescue it. Ponzi’s eventually fail – and it won’t be pretty. The only way to avoid that is a transfer union – something the “frugals” and German taxpayers simply won’t countenance.
For all the talk of “the club”, it has been telling that the wealthier members have shown no appetite whatsoever to help their poorer brethren. Covid merely highlighted the gap between their rhetoric and the reality.
Italy, a founding member of the EU club, in extremis, asked for assistance from fellow members.
The response? A Gallic shrug of indifference swept the corridors of Brussels like the world’s most apathetic Mexican-wave.
Trying to maintain a single currency among countries with radically different economies, with no proper political and fiscal union was always going to be risky – if not downright impossible. In their zeal to expand the Eurozone the EU admitted member states who were, by any honest metric, not ready to join.
Their ‘solution’ to the problems since 2008 has merely papered over the cracks, they’ve never tackled the fundamental weaknesses at the heart of the “project”. The various schemes put forward are only about delaying the inevitable – they do nothing to address the core issue.
For all that hard-core Remainers claim they’ve never heard a sensible reason for Brexit, I have to say I have never heard a Remainer give a sensible answer to the following issues:
• Do you believe you can “fix” the Eurozone’s inherent weakness without full fiscal union?
• Do you think full fiscal union is possible without full political union?
• Do you see any politician in Europe with the guts (let alone the popularity) to make the case for such a future?
• If not, then how do you see this playing out?
• If you agree that the Eurozone cannot survive the coming recession and sovereign debt crisis unless it adopts a full fiscal transfer union, then it must surely federalise. If you think that is the best way forward – for Europe and, by extension, for us – do you think that should simply be implemented without recourse to the ballot box, or should each of the member states seek the consent of their people?
• If the latter, what should happen (as seems nailed-on certain) if one or more member states reject that future?
• If full federalism is the only solution (and I can’t think of another one), should it be forced through without democratic consent? If so, would that not make the EU the totalitarian state that Remainers usually suggest is only a head-banging ukipper’s fantasy?
There are still – to my amazement – plenty within our Parliament, our media and institutions, who’d wish to see us row back out to this sinking ship and climb aboard – but if they can’t address the questions listed above then I don’t see why anyone should take them at all seriously.
Yup.
If you had any doubts left then you only need look at who was appointed to replace Juncker et al. Open federalists – despite the fact that the EU Parliament put forward more pragmatic candidates who did not want to see the federalist future pushed so hard.
Wishing to be part of a USofE is an entirely credible and valid position – I wholeheartedly and strongly disagree with it, but have no problem with those who genuinely espouse such a view – if they have the moral courage to be open and honest about it.
Where I do have a problem is with those who seek to achieve such an aim via the back-door, without gaining the consent of those they wish to govern.
If an honest referendum were held on a federalist future in all EU member states then we’d see a widespread rejection of it.
Of course there’d be some backing for such a vision – but country by country, how many would see a majority vote to become a province within a USofE? …. Ireland? France? Spain? Italy? Germany? The Netherlands? Not a chance. Not even Denmark. …. Maybe, just maybe, Belgium would enjoy the idea, but who’d join them?
But, of course, the EU won’t do that – for the same reason they have never done that. The concerns of the citizenry are simply not a factor. It would happen incrementally, as all these things do – but quite deliberately.
As the arch federalist J-C Juncker himself described it, “We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”
And don’t for a minute imagine that a veto would save a sovereign state from being subsumed – Such trifles have been swatted aside by the commission before now. ‘Unanimous consent’ becomes ‘Qualified Majority voting’ whenever it suits the commission’s broader objectives.
I’d no more trust Brussels to honour a veto than I would have trusted Juncker with the keys to the wine cellar.
We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”
I note that Sunak was all over Macron and Ursula von de Leyen. Quite frightening. Is Sunak clever enough to pull the wool over our eyes and take us back in? I fear that he is. Without such people like Farage and others the British are getting easier to deceive.
We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”
I note that Sunak was all over Macron and Ursula von de Leyen. Quite frightening. Is Sunak clever enough to pull the wool over our eyes and take us back in? I fear that he is. Without such people like Farage and others the British are getting easier to deceive.
Yup.
If you had any doubts left then you only need look at who was appointed to replace Juncker et al. Open federalists – despite the fact that the EU Parliament put forward more pragmatic candidates who did not want to see the federalist future pushed so hard.
Wishing to be part of a USofE is an entirely credible and valid position – I wholeheartedly and strongly disagree with it, but have no problem with those who genuinely espouse such a view – if they have the moral courage to be open and honest about it.
Where I do have a problem is with those who seek to achieve such an aim via the back-door, without gaining the consent of those they wish to govern.
If an honest referendum were held on a federalist future in all EU member states then we’d see a widespread rejection of it.
Of course there’d be some backing for such a vision – but country by country, how many would see a majority vote to become a province within a USofE? …. Ireland? France? Spain? Italy? Germany? The Netherlands? Not a chance. Not even Denmark. …. Maybe, just maybe, Belgium would enjoy the idea, but who’d join them?
But, of course, the EU won’t do that – for the same reason they have never done that. The concerns of the citizenry are simply not a factor. It would happen incrementally, as all these things do – but quite deliberately.
As the arch federalist J-C Juncker himself described it, “We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”
And don’t for a minute imagine that a veto would save a sovereign state from being subsumed – Such trifles have been swatted aside by the commission before now. ‘Unanimous consent’ becomes ‘Qualified Majority voting’ whenever it suits the commission’s broader objectives.
I’d no more trust Brussels to honour a veto than I would have trusted Juncker with the keys to the wine cellar.
Superb post. I endorse every word. The contempt of the so-called “elite” for national parliamentary democracy has never been better expressed than by Ken Clark who memorably said “I look forward to the day when our Westminster Parliament is just another council chamber in Europe”. There were many reasons I campaigned so hard for Brexit but preserving democratic accountability in Britain was pre-eminent. And therefore to avoid our inevitable absorption into a United States of Europe, which has been the end game ever since Jean Monnet created the “Action Committee for a United States of Europe”.
Hear Hear! A genuine Tower of Babel is just a stone’s throw away. The fact that people would still be keen to sign up for the EU lunacy is pretty shocking, but then again, the “collective West” seems to be signing up for all things lunatic, including more NATO, and the bottomless pit / slush fund nicknamed Ukraine.
(Not sure why the author thinks Germany would be an economic steward moving forward – they’ve just commenced their own de-industrialization – with no end in sight.)
I agree apart from Nato which we definitely need. I also am not in agreement of leaving Ukraine to be devoured by Russia any more than I would agree to Britain being devoured by the EU.
I agree apart from Nato which we definitely need. I also am not in agreement of leaving Ukraine to be devoured by Russia any more than I would agree to Britain being devoured by the EU.
Well said.
Perhaps a hidden motive for Brexit in the higher echelons of power was our desire to Always act as The US’s distinct Lieutenant in its foreign policy. Whereas the German led EU has a more subjected status in relation to the US. Always remember the 3 principles of NATO.
Keep Russia OUT, America IN, and Germany DOWN. This may have evolved somewhat but it remains the thread.
In order to substantiate this I summarise a document leaked from the Rand Corporation reporting to a US Committee entitled “Weaker Germany, Stronger America” in January ’22.
The committee came into existence because of concerns that the growing energy relationship between Russia and Germany would have the deleterious effect of moving a German led EU away from US subjection and that could cause other difficulties down the road as with a changing alignment the EU could represent a serious competitor as its GDP was not that far short of the US.
Any watering down of European hostility towards Russia was a concern for the US
The writer congratulated the administration on its achievement in preventing Nord Stream II from going into operation, then said that the cessation of a Russo-German energy relationship was necessary to secure future US hegemony.
He continued that the best way for the US to achieve this aim would be to get Russia and Germany on opposite sides of a military conflict and that what the US was then doing in Ukraine should ensure this outcome,
This appears to leave Europe between a rock and a hard place with its leader nation rather compromised.
We are left to reflect on the inversion of the EU project after 2008.
Before that time the banks and German Industry told the weaker nations that the miracle had arrived and all they had to do was take up the massive loans offered from the banks to transform their nations by paying the industrial and construction base – mainly German – to modernise infrastructure and other expensive features which would all easily pay for itself.
When this policy – upon which part of the thriving of German Industry depended – blew up because of the financial crisis the poorer countries which were most severely harmed were treated as the guilty parties and that remains the Authorised Version.
According to that perspective, the EU had been the plaything of German interests under US Geopolitical control and we are best outside the hidden consequences of that situation.
Depressingly accurate analysis!
But what should potentially concern us more over the coming decade is how does the US play the same game with the EU vis a vis China, if Biden the Senile-Sinophile is no longer in office?
Depressingly accurate analysis!
But what should potentially concern us more over the coming decade is how does the US play the same game with the EU vis a vis China, if Biden the Senile-Sinophile is no longer in office?
Superb post. I endorse every word. The contempt of the so-called “elite” for national parliamentary democracy has never been better expressed than by Ken Clark who memorably said “I look forward to the day when our Westminster Parliament is just another council chamber in Europe”. There were many reasons I campaigned so hard for Brexit but preserving democratic accountability in Britain was pre-eminent. And therefore to avoid our inevitable absorption into a United States of Europe, which has been the end game ever since Jean Monnet created the “Action Committee for a United States of Europe”.
Hear Hear! A genuine Tower of Babel is just a stone’s throw away. The fact that people would still be keen to sign up for the EU lunacy is pretty shocking, but then again, the “collective West” seems to be signing up for all things lunatic, including more NATO, and the bottomless pit / slush fund nicknamed Ukraine.
(Not sure why the author thinks Germany would be an economic steward moving forward – they’ve just commenced their own de-industrialization – with no end in sight.)
Well said.
Perhaps a hidden motive for Brexit in the higher echelons of power was our desire to Always act as The US’s distinct Lieutenant in its foreign policy. Whereas the German led EU has a more subjected status in relation to the US. Always remember the 3 principles of NATO.
Keep Russia OUT, America IN, and Germany DOWN. This may have evolved somewhat but it remains the thread.
In order to substantiate this I summarise a document leaked from the Rand Corporation reporting to a US Committee entitled “Weaker Germany, Stronger America” in January ’22.
The committee came into existence because of concerns that the growing energy relationship between Russia and Germany would have the deleterious effect of moving a German led EU away from US subjection and that could cause other difficulties down the road as with a changing alignment the EU could represent a serious competitor as its GDP was not that far short of the US.
Any watering down of European hostility towards Russia was a concern for the US
The writer congratulated the administration on its achievement in preventing Nord Stream II from going into operation, then said that the cessation of a Russo-German energy relationship was necessary to secure future US hegemony.
He continued that the best way for the US to achieve this aim would be to get Russia and Germany on opposite sides of a military conflict and that what the US was then doing in Ukraine should ensure this outcome,
This appears to leave Europe between a rock and a hard place with its leader nation rather compromised.
We are left to reflect on the inversion of the EU project after 2008.
Before that time the banks and German Industry told the weaker nations that the miracle had arrived and all they had to do was take up the massive loans offered from the banks to transform their nations by paying the industrial and construction base – mainly German – to modernise infrastructure and other expensive features which would all easily pay for itself.
When this policy – upon which part of the thriving of German Industry depended – blew up because of the financial crisis the poorer countries which were most severely harmed were treated as the guilty parties and that remains the Authorised Version.
According to that perspective, the EU had been the plaything of German interests under US Geopolitical control and we are best outside the hidden consequences of that situation.
‘ I wanted no part of that – one of the main reasons I voted to Leave ‘
Me too
Paddy Taylor
11 months ago
” …for all the talk of the EU’s integration-through-crisis approach, it should be apparent by now that no crisis will be big enough to muster support — among Europe’s national elites or, even more so, among ordinary citizens — for a move towards full-blown federalism.”
The people of Europe may not want a federal USofE but to suggest that leaders within the EU don’t want federalism? You must be joking. Macron – the pound shop Napoleon the BBC so fawns over – is a committed and quite explicit Federalist. He has written several books and given countless speeches on the subject. He is determined to see a federal EU – with France and Germany at the top table – just slightly more equal than the others. Ursula von der Leyen – is another avowed and explicit Euro-federalist. This is a woman who announced: “I imagine the Europe of my children or grandchildren not as a loose union of states trapped by national interests.” …. “My aim is the United States of Europe” Charles Michel – failed Belgian PM and now President of the council is of a similar bent. Juncker – Another Federalist from top to toe. It isn’t possible to know anything about Juncker and not know he is an avowed Federalist. Verhofstadt – probably the most vociferous federalist of the lot. You might have got a clue from his book title – Verenigde Staten van Europa (“United States of Europe”) Martin Schulz, former President of the Parliament Frans Timmermans, Former Vice Pres of the Commission Martin Selmayr, former Sec Gen of the commission
… all of these people, and many more beside, are openly and explicitly pro federalism. It becomes tricky to deny that there is a cabal who fully intend to push for a united states of Europe, a fully federal EU.
Public antipathy for a USofE is no impediment in the minds of these zealots because they are quite explicit that the views of the little people should never stand in the way of the wider ambitions of a federal EU superstate.
I’m glad we are no longer part of this grisly experiment in corporate empire building, but actually the only way to really tackle the problems in the Eurozone would be for full political and fiscal union. I wanted no part of that – one of the main reasons I voted to Leave – but without such a union, and the natural transfers that would see Germany help its neighbours rather than exploit them, then I cannot see how you solve the problem.
The current situation is unsustainable, it has only been QE keeping it afloat. For some years now it has been, in effect, a public-funded Ponzi scheme. This one, unlike a private Ponzi scheme, can (theoretically) go on indefinitely – but only true fiscal union, with centralised tax resources and mutualised debt will rescue it. Ponzi’s eventually fail – and it won’t be pretty. The only way to avoid that is a transfer union – something the “frugals” and German taxpayers simply won’t countenance.
For all the talk of “the club”, it has been telling that the wealthier members have shown no appetite whatsoever to help their poorer brethren. Covid merely highlighted the gap between their rhetoric and the reality.
Italy, a founding member of the EU club, in extremis, asked for assistance from fellow members.
The response? A Gallic shrug of indifference swept the corridors of Brussels like the world’s most apathetic Mexican-wave.
Trying to maintain a single currency among countries with radically different economies, with no proper political and fiscal union was always going to be risky – if not downright impossible. In their zeal to expand the Eurozone the EU admitted member states who were, by any honest metric, not ready to join.
Their ‘solution’ to the problems since 2008 has merely papered over the cracks, they’ve never tackled the fundamental weaknesses at the heart of the “project”. The various schemes put forward are only about delaying the inevitable – they do nothing to address the core issue.
For all that hard-core Remainers claim they’ve never heard a sensible reason for Brexit, I have to say I have never heard a Remainer give a sensible answer to the following issues:
• Do you believe you can “fix” the Eurozone’s inherent weakness without full fiscal union?
• Do you think full fiscal union is possible without full political union?
• Do you see any politician in Europe with the guts (let alone the popularity) to make the case for such a future?
• If not, then how do you see this playing out?
• If you agree that the Eurozone cannot survive the coming recession and sovereign debt crisis unless it adopts a full fiscal transfer union, then it must surely federalise. If you think that is the best way forward – for Europe and, by extension, for us – do you think that should simply be implemented without recourse to the ballot box, or should each of the member states seek the consent of their people?
• If the latter, what should happen (as seems nailed-on certain) if one or more member states reject that future?
• If full federalism is the only solution (and I can’t think of another one), should it be forced through without democratic consent? If so, would that not make the EU the totalitarian state that Remainers usually suggest is only a head-banging ukipper’s fantasy?
There are still – to my amazement – plenty within our Parliament, our media and institutions, who’d wish to see us row back out to this sinking ship and climb aboard – but if they can’t address the questions listed above then I don’t see why anyone should take them at all seriously.
Last edited 11 months ago by Paddy Taylor
Hugh Bryant
11 months ago
What will destroy the euro in the end is not bad fiscal policy but over-regulation.
In France, for example, few businesses will risk expanding their workforce in order to exploit a new opportunity due to the cost of down-sizing should conditions change. It’s worse in Spain where, for example, you need a licence from the state to become a freelancer.
Try registering a new company in any of these countries and compare the experience with doing the same in the UK or USA.
The tragedy in the UK is that there is little or no enthusiasm amongst politicians for getting rid of legacy EU regulation because so few of them have any experience of entrepreneurial activity and just can’t see the enormous benefits that could follow.
What will destroy the euro in the end is not bad fiscal policy but over-regulation.
In France, for example, few businesses will risk expanding their workforce in order to exploit a new opportunity due to the cost of down-sizing should conditions change. It’s worse in Spain where, for example, you need a licence from the state to become a freelancer.
Try registering a new company in any of these countries and compare the experience with doing the same in the UK or USA.
The tragedy in the UK is that there is little or no enthusiasm amongst politicians for getting rid of legacy EU regulation because so few of them have any experience of entrepreneurial activity and just can’t see the enormous benefits that could follow.
Steve White
11 months ago
None of the policies make any sense. The whole governance is always so convinced in the moment that it’s doing the exact right thing. Exactly what is needed, and exactly what will work. The news companies get on board and write the stories. They talk about it and all the things get justified and everyone who lives under it says one more time, “well okay”.
Then suddenly, “oops things didn’t work out”, and “oh no, everything only got worse”. But then dealing with the next crisis is done in the exact same manner, as if the most competent people are in charge. As if their way of looking at reality is best, even though they did the stupidest things that could be done. But there is no one else to take on the task. These politicians, these experts are what we have.
They get back up on camera, full of confidence, even swagger, and they state the next policies, define the next reality, and come up with the next solution. The same stupid people, the same stupid experts, dealing with the bad realities their policies created, what they didn’t foresee. Nothing learned, nothing repented of. No, none of it is their fault. We must address the things they say that must be addressed. We must do what they say must be done. They have all reality figured out. They are the smart ones, the chosen ones.
The whole thing is broken, yet, somehow life goes on here, we all find the money to pay our bills each month. We work, we try to get ahead. We try to enjoy our lives some with the limitations, but nothing gets better, nothing gets brighter, nothing changes.
Because we have a bunch of narcissistic politicians who live in their own heads. They have their little fantasies that they mix in with reality where they are always doing the best. Where they are always the ones in the right. We’re stuck in this abusive relationship under these truly unaccountable, unethical phony people. They are really not that bright, hardly ever right. They are self-righteous, arrogant, corrupt, fools.
I am glad that I am able to say that for now, because there will come a time in the not so distant future where you won’t be able to say that. You won’t be able to speak up about these clowns. Because they don’t like it. It makes them feel injured to point out what they are afraid you will point out. That they are phony people, they are incompetent, they are liars, and cheats, and just not that bright.
Steve, you are exactly right.
This country could be a happy, prosperous and peaceful country in which to live.
It is slowly being destroyed by our cretinous and cowardly politicians, civil servants and their groupthink.
It is a tragedy for the nation that the woke buffoon King Charles is now our head of state.
A perfect example of your point has just bubbled to the surface. Von der Leyen has just pronounced that Kyiv is “the beating heart” of European values. Kyiv is the capital of one of the most corrupt nations in Europe, and the Ukrainians are a long way from accepting the social programme of the EU Commission on gay rights and abortion. One wonders why she produces this drivel – surely she can’t actually believe it?
Her favourite 30 year Shetland pony, rather oddly named Dolly, was recently ‘hoovered up’ or ‘harvested’ by good old Mr Wolf.
Perhaps she is still suffering from PTSD.?
ps.My ‘agents’ inform me that Mr Wolf is still ‘on the run’.
Her favourite 30 year Shetland pony, rather oddly named Dolly, was recently ‘hoovered up’ or ‘harvested’ by good old Mr Wolf.
Perhaps she is still suffering from PTSD.?
ps.My ‘agents’ inform me that Mr Wolf is still ‘on the run’.
Steve, you are exactly right.
This country could be a happy, prosperous and peaceful country in which to live.
It is slowly being destroyed by our cretinous and cowardly politicians, civil servants and their groupthink.
It is a tragedy for the nation that the woke buffoon King Charles is now our head of state.
A perfect example of your point has just bubbled to the surface. Von der Leyen has just pronounced that Kyiv is “the beating heart” of European values. Kyiv is the capital of one of the most corrupt nations in Europe, and the Ukrainians are a long way from accepting the social programme of the EU Commission on gay rights and abortion. One wonders why she produces this drivel – surely she can’t actually believe it?
Steve White
11 months ago
None of the policies make any sense. The whole governance is always so convinced in the moment that it’s doing the exact right thing. Exactly what is needed, and exactly what will work. The news companies get on board and write the stories. They talk about it and all the things get justified and everyone who lives under it says one more time, “well okay”.
Then suddenly, “oops things didn’t work out”, and “oh no, everything only got worse”. But then dealing with the next crisis is done in the exact same manner, as if the most competent people are in charge. As if their way of looking at reality is best, even though they did the stupidest things that could be done. But there is no one else to take on the task. These politicians, these experts are what we have.
They get back up on camera, full of confidence, even swagger, and they state the next policies, define the next reality, and come up with the next solution. The same stupid people, the same stupid experts, dealing with the bad realities their policies created, what they didn’t foresee. Nothing learned, nothing repented of. No, none of it is their fault. We must address the things they say that must be addressed. We must do what they say must be done. They have all reality figured out. They are the smart ones, the chosen ones.
The whole thing is broken, yet, somehow life goes on here, we all find the money to pay our bills each month. We work, we try to get ahead. We try to enjoy our lives some with the limitations, but nothing gets better, nothing gets brighter, nothing changes.
Because we have a bunch of narcissistic politicians who live in their own heads. They have their little fantasies that they mix in with reality where they are always doing the best. Where they are always the ones in the right. We’re stuck in this abusive relationship under these truly unaccountable, unethical phony people. They are really not that bright, hardly ever right. They are self-righteous, arrogant, corrupt, fools.
I am glad that I am able to say that for now, because there will come a time in the not so distant future where you won’t be able to say that. You won’t be able to speak up about these clowns. Because they don’t like it. It makes them feel injured to point out what they are afraid you will point out. That they are phony people, they are incompetent, they are liars, and cheats, and just not that bright.
Adrian Smith
11 months ago
“Today, around two dozen countries would fall under the scope of the new deficit and debt-reduction plans;”
There are only 27 of them so would be better to talk about who isn’t on the naughty step (presumably Germany at the moment but as it’s economy goes down the pan due to lack of cost effective energy supply that will change).
“the ones required to make the most stringent action would be Greece, Italy, France, Spain and Belgium.”
The usual suspects of Greece, Italy and Spain are no surprise but seeing France there does not bode well as France normally is the worst for simply ignoring EU directives that don’t suit it.
UK never being part of the Euro and now being outside the EU this ought to be good news for us, except out own national elite seem determined to destroy us too.
Adrian Smith
11 months ago
“Today, around two dozen countries would fall under the scope of the new deficit and debt-reduction plans;”
There are only 27 of them so would be better to talk about who isn’t on the naughty step (presumably Germany at the moment but as it’s economy goes down the pan due to lack of cost effective energy supply that will change).
“the ones required to make the most stringent action would be Greece, Italy, France, Spain and Belgium.”
The usual suspects of Greece, Italy and Spain are no surprise but seeing France there does not bode well as France normally is the worst for simply ignoring EU directives that don’t suit it.
UK never being part of the Euro and now being outside the EU this ought to be good news for us, except out own national elite seem determined to destroy us too.
Peter B
11 months ago
We really must get away from this childish “recessions are bad” (and must be avoided at all costs – including piling up something even worse for the future) narrative.
Recessions are a good and necessary part of the creative destruction of capitalism. They expose and kill off the failing enterprises that need to be closed down. Pretending this isn’t necessary or helpful is just delusion.
I do sometimes wonder what Mr. Fazi is thinking. If you don’t want “sound public finances”, presumably you are campaigning for *unsound* public finances.
He might benefit from studying the UK public finances after 1815 when Gladstone’s successful policy of “retrenchment” (that’s what they called sound public finances in those days) got the UK debt under control – and hugely reduced it.
The way the MSM present recessions (omg, GDP fell 0.1% last quarter, we’re doomed!!) is intended to manipulate people’s emotions so they become more compliant with the progressive agenda. These outlets have become intolerable. What you’ve just written would’ve passed as basic common sense fifty, or even thirty years ago.
What annoys me almost as much as the idea that a 0.1% fall over 1 quarter is a reliable measure of any long term trend. That “0.1%” probably has at least a 0.3% tolerance on it (0.3% either way), based on the revisions usually made later.
These MSM morons are literally measuring noise half the time.
What annoys me almost as much as the idea that a 0.1% fall over 1 quarter is a reliable measure of any long term trend. That “0.1%” probably has at least a 0.3% tolerance on it (0.3% either way), based on the revisions usually made later.
These MSM morons are literally measuring noise half the time.
Similar issue with politicians trying to demonise short sellers who carry out the vital role of ensuring that prices don’t just go up and up on assets but rather reflect some sort of reality. They prevent huge crashes by stopping the asset ‘inflation’ before it has got too ridiculous..
The problem is that the West no longer has or believes in Capitalism. How much that is down to the Greens is moot. Net Zero is the ultimate disaster, and the only question is ‘Will the populace realise what it means before the damage can’t be undone, or will our leaders realise that IF they don’t fix it before then, they are toast. Possibly real toast.
The FIRES report, P6, graphic indicates that for “Net Zero by 2050” there will be in the UK, No maritime shipping (presumably that means none using fossil fuels), No air travel and NO fossil fuels.
That is 27 years away. The country is NOT and has not for centuries, been self-sufficient in food. A population of 70m+ on an Island with only the Channel Tunnel (or a currently mythical fleet of sailing ships) to connect us to anywhere we can get food is a famine in the making. Quite frankly it is insanity. Net Zero is the belief that a pre-industrial energy policy can support a post-industrial civilisation. Doomberg has a response to that, perhaps the morons who rule us should take out a subscription before we are the new 3rd world?
The way the MSM present recessions (omg, GDP fell 0.1% last quarter, we’re doomed!!) is intended to manipulate people’s emotions so they become more compliant with the progressive agenda. These outlets have become intolerable. What you’ve just written would’ve passed as basic common sense fifty, or even thirty years ago.
Similar issue with politicians trying to demonise short sellers who carry out the vital role of ensuring that prices don’t just go up and up on assets but rather reflect some sort of reality. They prevent huge crashes by stopping the asset ‘inflation’ before it has got too ridiculous..
The problem is that the West no longer has or believes in Capitalism. How much that is down to the Greens is moot. Net Zero is the ultimate disaster, and the only question is ‘Will the populace realise what it means before the damage can’t be undone, or will our leaders realise that IF they don’t fix it before then, they are toast. Possibly real toast.
The FIRES report, P6, graphic indicates that for “Net Zero by 2050” there will be in the UK, No maritime shipping (presumably that means none using fossil fuels), No air travel and NO fossil fuels.
That is 27 years away. The country is NOT and has not for centuries, been self-sufficient in food. A population of 70m+ on an Island with only the Channel Tunnel (or a currently mythical fleet of sailing ships) to connect us to anywhere we can get food is a famine in the making. Quite frankly it is insanity. Net Zero is the belief that a pre-industrial energy policy can support a post-industrial civilisation. Doomberg has a response to that, perhaps the morons who rule us should take out a subscription before we are the new 3rd world?
Peter B
11 months ago
We really must get away from this childish “recessions are bad” (and must be avoided at all costs – including piling up something even worse for the future) narrative.
Recessions are a good and necessary part of the creative destruction of capitalism. They expose and kill off the failing enterprises that need to be closed down. Pretending this isn’t necessary or helpful is just delusion.
I do sometimes wonder what Mr. Fazi is thinking. If you don’t want “sound public finances”, presumably you are campaigning for *unsound* public finances.
He might benefit from studying the UK public finances after 1815 when Gladstone’s successful policy of “retrenchment” (that’s what they called sound public finances in those days) got the UK debt under control – and hugely reduced it.
rob drummond
11 months ago
Well Well, there you go.
Someone has finally written about Germany’s (planned) hegemony of Europe (or specifically The EU).
Twice in the 20th century it was tried, and failed.
If anyone does not know Germany has much of Europe in its own financial stranglehold – then they need to look into it more. Essentially all financial EU roads lead to Germany. The ECB has no money – it has to be created and underwritten by ECB Shareholders (Euro members) of which Germany is the key/
Ask Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Greece after the last financial crisis ”The Computer (ECB) said No”. The UK bailed out Ireland as their beloved EU/Germany would not.
An excellent book ‘The Shadow Liabilities of EU Member States‘ is an eye opener (but not for me and a few others).
Germany is indeed calling the EU Shots, as I believe tbhis article also concurs.
I don’t disagree with you, but my point is that historically Germany always seems to fall at the ‘final fence’. I put this down to arrogance or over confidence.
Perhaps if one Publius Quinctilius Varus hadn’t made such a hash of things in AD9 we wouldn’t have this ‘problem’?
British Cavalry joke ” Is that the sound of that German Leopard tank’s turbochargers?… No it the the 1945 remnants of the 351st Panzer Grenadiers spinning in their graves at the horror of their useless successors”….
British Cavalry joke ” Is that the sound of that German Leopard tank’s turbochargers?… No it the the 1945 remnants of the 351st Panzer Grenadiers spinning in their graves at the horror of their useless successors”….
I don’t disagree with you, but my point is that historically Germany always seems to fall at the ‘final fence’. I put this down to arrogance or over confidence.
Perhaps if one Publius Quinctilius Varus hadn’t made such a hash of things in AD9 we wouldn’t have this ‘problem’?
If anyone does not know Germany has much of Europe in its own financial stranglehold – then they need to look into it more. Essentially all financial EU roads lead to Germany. The ECB has no money – it has to be created and underwritten by ECB Shareholders (Euro members) of which Germany is the key/
Ask Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Greece after the last financial crisis ”The Computer (ECB) said No”. The UK bailed out Ireland as their beloved EU/Germany would not.
An excellent book ‘The Shadow Liabilities of EU Member States‘ is an eye opener (but not for me and a few others).
Germany is indeed calling the EU Shots, as I believe tbhis article also concurs.
No chance.”The Hun”* maybe brilliant at micro but hopeless at macro, as history proved in 1918 & 1941.
(*A term of affection dating from 1914-18.)
rob drummond
11 months ago
Well Well, there you go.
Someone has finally written about Germany’s (planned) hegemony of Europe (or specifically The EU).
Twice in the 20th century it was tried, and failed.
”Third time lucky?”
Mike Doyle
11 months ago
The title looked interesting; sadly, though, Fazi lived down to my expectations of him being the Owen Jones of UnHerd.
Mike Doyle
11 months ago
The title looked interesting; sadly, though, Fazi lived down to my expectations of him being the Owen Jones of UnHerd.
UnHerd Reader
11 months ago
haha….So EU should have spent its way out of debt? Rather than so called ‘austerity’ back in the day?
”These policies (austerity) didn’t just raise unemployment, erode social welfare, push large portions of the population to the brink of poverty and, in the case of Greece and other countries, create a genuine humanitarian emergency — they also completely failed to achieve their stated aims of kickstarting growth and reducing debt-to-GDP ratios. On the contrary, they drove economies into recession and increased debt-to-GDP ratios. ** The result was a “lost decade” of stagnation and permacrisis”
You silly euroweenies – don’t you get it? You are being destroyed. The Ukraine war and sanctions were not for Freedom and Democracy – it was to break you, Break the world, like the Plandemic was. Now they Want you to try to spend your way out of this even deeper pit of debt you are in…….haha
”Yet it’s hard to see how Europe could survive a second round of austerity, which would come at a time when the state of the global economy is far bleaker than it did a decade ago: we are facing high inflation, supply-chain disruptions, global fragmentation and a war with no end in sight at Europe’s border with Russia.”
Well you sure cannot survive greaterprofligacy. It is like drinking your way to sobriety, it is not a real thing.
See- you have been hooked on Socialism – intentionally, to destroy you. You have more people getting money than comes in. Government, which is a parasite, is over half the ”GDP”, haha…. Every one who does not produce is ‘Entitled’, and the workers are too few to pay for it. Government is a machine to waste money pointlessly. This is Intentional. Your sickoo Lefty/Liberal postmodernist welfare state is not to help the poor – it is to make the successful and hard working poor too. Poor are clients of the state – the government (Global) wants you poor so the state owns you – so they are having you spend your nations into poverty. Same as USA.
Free Market Capitalism, or chains of poverty via Socialism? You guys chose the later….were conned into it……Clement Atlee, LBJ, haha, they got you….
While it is true that it is not possible for governments to spend their way out of debt, it is also commonly forgotten that they cannot save their way out of debt either – not, that is, unless the fiscal austerity in question is accompanied by supply-side reform.
The reason governments get into debt is that they keep spending money on stuff that doesn’t produce growth. Austerity that works isn’t merely spending less money: it’s cutting the expenditures that possess no value in order to reallocate capital to things that do create value. Proper austerity is therefore the statist equivalent of the creative destruction of free markets, and it is worth pointing out that although the UK was not in the Eurozone in 2009, it made almost as great a pig’s ear of the austerity measures as did the Eurozone.
Cameron/Osborne ducked all the really big decisions that would have fixed the public spending problems: the UK still possesses now, 13 years later, Gordon Brown’s conception of how the State should operate. That is why the country is in such trouble. And while I’m no fan whatsoever of the contemptible and anti-democratic EU, it does at least have some sort of mechanism by which it might carry out the necessary measures. In the UK our political system simply doesn’t have the capacity to do it.
There is nothing magical about a 2% inflation target or a 60% debt ceiling. Experience would suggest neither of these are preconditions for rising living standards.
Take Italy. Italy persistently ran deficits and suffered higher inflation than most of the countries that were the EEC. Yet at the dawn of 1990 its GDP per capita had overtaken Germany’s. Italy had outgrown Germany for nearly 4 decades. If Germany had undergone an economic miracle, how do you describe what Italy had achieved after WW2? How could this have happened in a country where parts of it flirted with communism, with high inflation, and large deficits?
Italy’s golden years of economic growth abruptly ended when it joined the European exchange rate mechanism (ERM). It was decided that Europe would adopt Germany’s fiscal and monetary policies. Italy has barely grown since.
The UK joined the ERM too, and the economy suffered its worst recession ever, an experience that sowed the seeds of Brexit. To prove the point, Britain (unlike Italy) was forced out of the ERM and immediately began one of its longest economic expansions in history despite not following German fiscal orthodoxy. Again, how could this be if that orthodoxy is a precondition for rising living standards?
And of course, take the USA. A country that has not followed any orthodoxy it prescribes for others. Since 2008, the USA stands almost alone as a Western country that has increased GDP per capita. Almost everywhere else (France, Canada, UK, etc), where orthodox central bankers reign unchallenged, GDP per capita has stagnated.
The last paragraph of the article. “The combination of austerity, renewed German hegemony and aggressive militarism makes the Europe of the past decade look positively benign.”
Your ‘hahas’ give you away. I think you put your finger on the spot though. We are kidding ourselves (brought on by the socialists) that we are poor in Europe and that we should feel guilty for having those ‘poor’ people in our midst. The Socialists want to give more and more of our money away to finance bigger and bigger flat-screen TVs, newer mobile phones, even better vacations. (Not to mention the illegal things that the money buys). Meanwhile, the people who have worked and accumulated things are supposed to give it all up for the ‘poor’.
There is a bigger problem in the EU. They are used to being saved at the last moment by John Wayne riding in over the hill. They have to realise that John Wayne is now dead. The Europeans have thumbed their noses at a nuclear super-power which has now reacted. The Europeans have to pay for this. It is a lesson you are supposed to learn when you first go to school.
German hegemony no longer exists.
While it is true that it is not possible for governments to spend their way out of debt, it is also commonly forgotten that they cannot save their way out of debt either – not, that is, unless the fiscal austerity in question is accompanied by supply-side reform.
The reason governments get into debt is that they keep spending money on stuff that doesn’t produce growth. Austerity that works isn’t merely spending less money: it’s cutting the expenditures that possess no value in order to reallocate capital to things that do create value. Proper austerity is therefore the statist equivalent of the creative destruction of free markets, and it is worth pointing out that although the UK was not in the Eurozone in 2009, it made almost as great a pig’s ear of the austerity measures as did the Eurozone.
Cameron/Osborne ducked all the really big decisions that would have fixed the public spending problems: the UK still possesses now, 13 years later, Gordon Brown’s conception of how the State should operate. That is why the country is in such trouble. And while I’m no fan whatsoever of the contemptible and anti-democratic EU, it does at least have some sort of mechanism by which it might carry out the necessary measures. In the UK our political system simply doesn’t have the capacity to do it.
There is nothing magical about a 2% inflation target or a 60% debt ceiling. Experience would suggest neither of these are preconditions for rising living standards.
Take Italy. Italy persistently ran deficits and suffered higher inflation than most of the countries that were the EEC. Yet at the dawn of 1990 its GDP per capita had overtaken Germany’s. Italy had outgrown Germany for nearly 4 decades. If Germany had undergone an economic miracle, how do you describe what Italy had achieved after WW2? How could this have happened in a country where parts of it flirted with communism, with high inflation, and large deficits?
Italy’s golden years of economic growth abruptly ended when it joined the European exchange rate mechanism (ERM). It was decided that Europe would adopt Germany’s fiscal and monetary policies. Italy has barely grown since.
The UK joined the ERM too, and the economy suffered its worst recession ever, an experience that sowed the seeds of Brexit. To prove the point, Britain (unlike Italy) was forced out of the ERM and immediately began one of its longest economic expansions in history despite not following German fiscal orthodoxy. Again, how could this be if that orthodoxy is a precondition for rising living standards?
And of course, take the USA. A country that has not followed any orthodoxy it prescribes for others. Since 2008, the USA stands almost alone as a Western country that has increased GDP per capita. Almost everywhere else (France, Canada, UK, etc), where orthodox central bankers reign unchallenged, GDP per capita has stagnated.
The last paragraph of the article. “The combination of austerity, renewed German hegemony and aggressive militarism makes the Europe of the past decade look positively benign.”
Your ‘hahas’ give you away. I think you put your finger on the spot though. We are kidding ourselves (brought on by the socialists) that we are poor in Europe and that we should feel guilty for having those ‘poor’ people in our midst. The Socialists want to give more and more of our money away to finance bigger and bigger flat-screen TVs, newer mobile phones, even better vacations. (Not to mention the illegal things that the money buys). Meanwhile, the people who have worked and accumulated things are supposed to give it all up for the ‘poor’.
There is a bigger problem in the EU. They are used to being saved at the last moment by John Wayne riding in over the hill. They have to realise that John Wayne is now dead. The Europeans have thumbed their noses at a nuclear super-power which has now reacted. The Europeans have to pay for this. It is a lesson you are supposed to learn when you first go to school.
German hegemony no longer exists.
UnHerd Reader
11 months ago
haha….So EU should have spent its way out of debt? Rather than so called ‘austerity’ back in the day?
”These policies (austerity) didn’t just raise unemployment, erode social welfare, push large portions of the population to the brink of poverty and, in the case of Greece and other countries, create a genuine humanitarian emergency — they also completely failed to achieve their stated aims of kickstarting growth and reducing debt-to-GDP ratios. On the contrary, they drove economies into recession and increased debt-to-GDP ratios. ** The result was a “lost decade” of stagnation and permacrisis”
You silly euroweenies – don’t you get it? You are being destroyed. The Ukraine war and sanctions were not for Freedom and Democracy – it was to break you, Break the world, like the Plandemic was. Now they Want you to try to spend your way out of this even deeper pit of debt you are in…….haha
”Yet it’s hard to see how Europe could survive a second round of austerity, which would come at a time when the state of the global economy is far bleaker than it did a decade ago: we are facing high inflation, supply-chain disruptions, global fragmentation and a war with no end in sight at Europe’s border with Russia.”
Well you sure cannot survive greaterprofligacy. It is like drinking your way to sobriety, it is not a real thing.
See- you have been hooked on Socialism – intentionally, to destroy you. You have more people getting money than comes in. Government, which is a parasite, is over half the ”GDP”, haha…. Every one who does not produce is ‘Entitled’, and the workers are too few to pay for it. Government is a machine to waste money pointlessly. This is Intentional. Your sickoo Lefty/Liberal postmodernist welfare state is not to help the poor – it is to make the successful and hard working poor too. Poor are clients of the state – the government (Global) wants you poor so the state owns you – so they are having you spend your nations into poverty. Same as USA.
Free Market Capitalism, or chains of poverty via Socialism? You guys chose the later….were conned into it……Clement Atlee, LBJ, haha, they got you….
J Guy
11 months ago
Seems like every article written by Mr. Fazi contains some reference to the EU capitulating to nefarious US foreign policy demands. Sure, these pieces begin well and include some interesting analysis … then pivot to blame it all on the Americans. If he stopped a couple paragraphs before the end I would have commended his insight.
It’s disappointing to realise that there are otherwise intelligent people who still think the Russian invasion of Ukraine marks anything other than unwarranted aggression and a breakdown of what was always supposed to be our shared, collective defence of Western values.
Fazi disagrees with Western involvement in Ukraine. I disagree with him on this, but his reasons are logical and honourable.
However, it is not true that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is entirely unwarranted or that there was no provocation. Starting in the 1990s, the West made a series of strategic blunders, worsened at times by outright dishonesty, in its dealings with Russia. The eastward expansion of NATO, driven principally by the expansionist ambitions of the EU, meant breaking a promise to Russia that NATO would not expand, and means that Russia can claim to have been deceived. This does not, of course, justify the Ukraine invasion, of course it doesn’t. And there is also of course the fact that Russia cannot itself claim to be a nation governed by a rules-based order and in possession of a functioning polity and civil society.
But Russia was indeed decieved, and no matter whose side you take here you cannot seriously claim that doing this to a nuclear superpower is a good idea. This mess is the direct result of a generation of idiotic policymakers in the West who are still making the key decisions now. I’m sorry, but it just isn’t as simple as you appear to believe.
Yes, Russia and her apologists try to play the part of the aggrieved party in the media, but every single one of those former Warsaw Pact countries that switched “sides” to NATO did so willingly and enthusiastically. Why? Because they knew first-hand what living under Russian hegemony was like. Make no moral equivalencies between the two former Cold War adversaries — only stark reality could drive Finland and Sweden to abandon decades of strategic neutrality.
I was very careful not to draw moral equivalence between Russia and the West, I think my previous comment fairly clearly does not make that mistake. The observations I’m making are more related to statecraft and realpolitik than to simplistic moral generalities: we – the West that is – spent 30 years poking the bear, and now we’re supposed to be surprised it’s bitten us? Don’t get me wrong, Ukraine needs to win this war and the plan to assist Ukraine in doing so has my support. But I’m not going to do it wearing rose-tinted spectacles, not a chance.
The fact that Russia claims to have been provoked does not make it so. Russia is a gangster State and will look for advantage wherever it finds it. In this case, it clearly thought a takeover of Ukraine would be quick and easy, like the Crimea. The war is because it miscalculated, not because it was threatened.
“The fact that Russia claims to have been provoked does not make it so.”
No, but the fact that our own diplomats and strategists agree with the statement does make it so. Particularly George Kennan’s observations back in the late 1990s which make him look more like a prophet these days.
“The fact that Russia claims to have been provoked does not make it so.”
No, but the fact that our own diplomats and strategists agree with the statement does make it so. Particularly George Kennan’s observations back in the late 1990s which make him look more like a prophet these days.
The fact that Russia claims to have been provoked does not make it so. Russia is a gangster State and will look for advantage wherever it finds it. In this case, it clearly thought a takeover of Ukraine would be quick and easy, like the Crimea. The war is because it miscalculated, not because it was threatened.
The US should keep its nose out of Europe’s affairs. They are known to meddle in the domestic affairs of countries and instigate coups to get their preferred person in the right position. They did it with Ukraine and are currently doing it with Hungary
Generally I agree but do you think those politicians support the EU just because of the history with Russia rather than their buy-in to the EU and its endless coffers?
I was very careful not to draw moral equivalence between Russia and the West, I think my previous comment fairly clearly does not make that mistake. The observations I’m making are more related to statecraft and realpolitik than to simplistic moral generalities: we – the West that is – spent 30 years poking the bear, and now we’re supposed to be surprised it’s bitten us? Don’t get me wrong, Ukraine needs to win this war and the plan to assist Ukraine in doing so has my support. But I’m not going to do it wearing rose-tinted spectacles, not a chance.
The US should keep its nose out of Europe’s affairs. They are known to meddle in the domestic affairs of countries and instigate coups to get their preferred person in the right position. They did it with Ukraine and are currently doing it with Hungary
Generally I agree but do you think those politicians support the EU just because of the history with Russia rather than their buy-in to the EU and its endless coffers?
I sometimes think Putin apologists don’t grasp that what they are defending is murder and brutalisation, which they’d rail against were it being committed by terrorists in another context. Essentially therefore they are defending the use of terror as a vehicle of policy.
It is disappointing that whenever someone points out that the West does not have entirely clean hands in its dealings with Russia, they are simply characterised as “Putin apologists”.
The US gave a clear promise that Russia ( for practical purposes including Belarus ) would never face NATO tanks on its border. Perhaps that was not in their gift, but they gave it anyway. They then set about breaking it.
The current proxy war in Ukraine is suiting the US establishment very well and they care no more about the casualties, military and civilian, than Putin does.
Utter rubbish. There was no deal. And besides sovereign countries can make their own decision. (One irony I’ve noticed on UnHerd is a considerable overlap between Brexit supporters extoling the democratic imperative of self-determination who then seem to completely set aside the same principle regarding Ukraine and the eastern Europe Russian neighbours).
Utter rubbish. There was no deal. And besides sovereign countries can make their own decision. (One irony I’ve noticed on UnHerd is a considerable overlap between Brexit supporters extoling the democratic imperative of self-determination who then seem to completely set aside the same principle regarding Ukraine and the eastern Europe Russian neighbours).
It is disappointing that whenever someone points out that the West does not have entirely clean hands in its dealings with Russia, they are simply characterised as “Putin apologists”.
The US gave a clear promise that Russia ( for practical purposes including Belarus ) would never face NATO tanks on its border. Perhaps that was not in their gift, but they gave it anyway. They then set about breaking it.
The current proxy war in Ukraine is suiting the US establishment very well and they care no more about the casualties, military and civilian, than Putin does.
This is ridiculous, after 1989 the Russians could not have seriously contemplated that former states they absolutely brutalised in Eastern Europe were not going to look towards Western Europe and NATO for closer ties?
Maybe that is why the USSR insisted as part of agreeing to German reunification that NATO would not extend east of Germany. They were so assured, and permitted reunification. Then the US and NATO reneged.
Maybe that is why the USSR insisted as part of agreeing to German reunification that NATO would not extend east of Germany. They were so assured, and permitted reunification. Then the US and NATO reneged.
Who promised no NATO expansion? I only recall Russia unilaterally claiming a sphere of influence over all former Warsaw Pact countries. The Obama administration reversed the previous administration’s decision to place anti-missle defenses in Poland. Surely this was a gesture to assuage Russia’s stated concerns. But it changed nothing that I can discern respecting Russia’s stance and appetite.
I like this comment – too much of the commentary on the Ukraine conflict is around Ukraine good/Russia bad and there isn’t enough detailed analysis of what is a long term degradation of the situation in Eastern Europe. It is too complicated a situation for soundbite reporting and response. We need all parties to sit down and thrash out an honest response to the situation in which both sides appear to have honest grievances. I doubt we have any politicians up to the job either due to vested interest or lack of political talent.
Yes, Russia and her apologists try to play the part of the aggrieved party in the media, but every single one of those former Warsaw Pact countries that switched “sides” to NATO did so willingly and enthusiastically. Why? Because they knew first-hand what living under Russian hegemony was like. Make no moral equivalencies between the two former Cold War adversaries — only stark reality could drive Finland and Sweden to abandon decades of strategic neutrality.
I sometimes think Putin apologists don’t grasp that what they are defending is murder and brutalisation, which they’d rail against were it being committed by terrorists in another context. Essentially therefore they are defending the use of terror as a vehicle of policy.
This is ridiculous, after 1989 the Russians could not have seriously contemplated that former states they absolutely brutalised in Eastern Europe were not going to look towards Western Europe and NATO for closer ties?
Who promised no NATO expansion? I only recall Russia unilaterally claiming a sphere of influence over all former Warsaw Pact countries. The Obama administration reversed the previous administration’s decision to place anti-missle defenses in Poland. Surely this was a gesture to assuage Russia’s stated concerns. But it changed nothing that I can discern respecting Russia’s stance and appetite.
I like this comment – too much of the commentary on the Ukraine conflict is around Ukraine good/Russia bad and there isn’t enough detailed analysis of what is a long term degradation of the situation in Eastern Europe. It is too complicated a situation for soundbite reporting and response. We need all parties to sit down and thrash out an honest response to the situation in which both sides appear to have honest grievances. I doubt we have any politicians up to the job either due to vested interest or lack of political talent.
Fazi disagrees with Western involvement in Ukraine. I disagree with him on this, but his reasons are logical and honourable.
However, it is not true that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is entirely unwarranted or that there was no provocation. Starting in the 1990s, the West made a series of strategic blunders, worsened at times by outright dishonesty, in its dealings with Russia. The eastward expansion of NATO, driven principally by the expansionist ambitions of the EU, meant breaking a promise to Russia that NATO would not expand, and means that Russia can claim to have been deceived. This does not, of course, justify the Ukraine invasion, of course it doesn’t. And there is also of course the fact that Russia cannot itself claim to be a nation governed by a rules-based order and in possession of a functioning polity and civil society.
But Russia was indeed decieved, and no matter whose side you take here you cannot seriously claim that doing this to a nuclear superpower is a good idea. This mess is the direct result of a generation of idiotic policymakers in the West who are still making the key decisions now. I’m sorry, but it just isn’t as simple as you appear to believe.
J Guy
11 months ago
Seems like every article written by Mr. Fazi contains some reference to the EU capitulating to nefarious US foreign policy demands. Sure, these pieces begin well and include some interesting analysis … then pivot to blame it all on the Americans. If he stopped a couple paragraphs before the end I would have commended his insight.
It’s disappointing to realise that there are otherwise intelligent people who still think the Russian invasion of Ukraine marks anything other than unwarranted aggression and a breakdown of what was always supposed to be our shared, collective defence of Western values.
Last edited 11 months ago by J Guy
Alan Thorpe
11 months ago
Politicians never learn from their mistakes because they are completely unaccountable and are more likely to go on to more important jobs. There is only one thing that can save us and that is to adopt the Roman approach to punishing the army – decimation. Get rid of a tenth immediately and repeat until we get governments that work for the electorate.
Alan Thorpe
11 months ago
Politicians never learn from their mistakes because they are completely unaccountable and are more likely to go on to more important jobs. There is only one thing that can save us and that is to adopt the Roman approach to punishing the army – decimation. Get rid of a tenth immediately and repeat until we get governments that work for the electorate.
William Shaw
11 months ago
The SNP just announced that if they were in coalition with Labour after the next election they were going to work to do as much as possible to rejoin the EU…. which is there ultimate stated goal.
Is that what Scots really want?
The SNP just announced that if they were in coalition with Labour after the next election they were going to work to do as much as possible to rejoin the EU…. which is there ultimate stated goal.
Is that what Scots really want?
Last edited 11 months ago by William Shaw
Susan Grabston
11 months ago
Thomas writes so beautifully. I simply question whether Germany will be the EU mover and shaker going forward. The latest GDP figures and the implications of the US’s “make a choice – China or the US” – let alone their Green policies – put this mercantile economy in question going forward. The world is going East over the coming decades and Europe is no exception. Reading Unherd’s Poland as a great power, and doing my own research, I find myself wondering whether the mantle might pass in this direction over time. France will – as ever – do its own thing.
Susan Grabston
11 months ago
Thomas writes so beautifully. I simply question whether Germany will be the EU mover and shaker going forward. The latest GDP figures and the implications of the US’s “make a choice – China or the US” – let alone their Green policies – put this mercantile economy in question going forward. The world is going East over the coming decades and Europe is no exception. Reading Unherd’s Poland as a great power, and doing my own research, I find myself wondering whether the mantle might pass in this direction over time. France will – as ever – do its own thing.
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
The Russian R-28 Sarmat Intercontinental Ballistic Missile* is reputed to be capable of reaching London NW1 in three minutes. The subsequent explosion would ‘make you eyes water’ in Windsor or Heathrow, 13 miles away.
The Russian R-28 Sarmat Intercontinental Ballistic Missile* is reputed to be capable of reaching London NW1 in three minutes. The subsequent explosion would ‘make you eyes water’ in Windsor or Heathrow, 13 miles away.
Perhaps it won’t work?
(* Sometimes irreverently called Satan II.)
Howard Gleave
11 months ago
“The bloc’s increasingly vassal-like subordination.to US foreign policy.”
Macron has only recently returned from a visit to China during which, speaking on behalf of the EU but without any mandate whatsoever, he called for EU “strategic autonomy” from the US over Taiwan, very publicly throwing Taiwan under the bus, virtually assuring China the EU would take no punitive action against China in the event of a Chinese invasion and in effect equating the USA with China.
Macron is a disgrace. He appears to consider France to be the EU’s diplomatic mouthpiece, possessing as it does a nuclear deterrent and sitting on the UN Security Council. With a view to parading the EU’s credentials as a top table power in an emerging multipolar world order, Macron is cosying up to Xi and even Putin. If that is what the EU calls “strategic autonomy” (I prophecy it will put Macron increasingly on a collision course with Eastern Europe), it is welcome to it.
Howard Gleave
11 months ago
“The bloc’s increasingly vassal-like subordination.to US foreign policy.”
Macron has only recently returned from a visit to China during which, speaking on behalf of the EU but without any mandate whatsoever, he called for EU “strategic autonomy” from the US over Taiwan, very publicly throwing Taiwan under the bus, virtually assuring China the EU would take no punitive action against China in the event of a Chinese invasion and in effect equating the USA with China.
Macron is a disgrace. He appears to consider France to be the EU’s diplomatic mouthpiece, possessing as it does a nuclear deterrent and sitting on the UN Security Council. With a view to parading the EU’s credentials as a top table power in an emerging multipolar world order, Macron is cosying up to Xi and even Putin. If that is what the EU calls “strategic autonomy” (I prophecy it will put Macron increasingly on a collision course with Eastern Europe), it is welcome to it.
Jim McDonnell
11 months ago
Vassal-like submission to US foreign policy? Is that how European governments providing for their own defense and not having to rely so much on American help is to be perceived? Would vassal-like submission to Beijing and Moscow be preferable?
Vassal-like submission to US foreign policy? Is that how European governments providing for their own defense and not having to rely so much on American help is to be perceived? Would vassal-like submission to Beijing and Moscow be preferable?
Last edited 11 months ago by Jim McDonnell
Stephen Quilley
11 months ago
‘bloc’s increasingly vassal-like subordination to US foreign policy’ – I see far more resistance to the war in Ukraine in the US than in Europe. I wonder what you would be saying if the US had shrugged and said ‘local European problem’? On this one, I think there are enormous geo-political and moral hazards either way. But to present this as US leading the EU bull by the nose is off the mark
Whilst I would not put it in such strident terms as Tom does, it is clear that the US is the largest net beneficiary from the situation and the opposition in the US is mostly around not spending US resources on a European problem, hence the drive to get EU countries defence budgets to 2% of GDP (not a new aspiration by the US but being acted upon now).
I think you are right about the geopolitical and moral hazards when the invasion first occurred and I believe Putin expected a rather weak and disunited response from the West. However having been given bloody nose after bloody nose for over a year now by a remarkably united western backing of the Ukrainian forces, are those hazards still there?
Also does it make one a Putin apologist to question whether the current plan which, to misquote Black Adder, seems to be to continue with total slaughter until the only Ukrainians left are Zelensky, Mrs Zelensky and their tortoise Alan is really the right answer?
This is a very reasonable point, and one that doesn’t get nearly the attention it should. I well-remember back in the early 1990s people in the US, very reasonably, asking exactly where the interest was in Bosnia that needed US men to be sent to die. Had the internet been around at the time I imagine we would have seen similar US commentary to what we now see about Ukraine. The direct US interest in Ukraine in the sense of a strategically useful diminution of Russian capability is perhaps clearer. But like you I struggle with the characterisation of the EU being led here.
The day will come when the US will say no. Had Donald Trump won the last election we may have been at that day now. We in Europe have outsourced everything in the name of a doubtful idea of ‘change through trade.’ We outsourced our capacity to make corporate profit to China, we outsourced our fuel security to the Russians and we outsourced our military security to the US with very little if any idea of what a fall-back would be. We have no idea what we would do had the US just shrugged. Presumably the answer would be to throw money at Kiev and arms into the region. But the idea that this conflict ends without talking to the Russians is just fanciful.
The most the EU could do is the economic hit – that’s hardly trivial but it’s not irrecoverable for a country like Russia, one of the few states in the world that could be an autarky. Back in the 1990s the fashion was to see the EU as an economic giant and a political dwarf. 30 years on that formulation doesn’t seem to have done anyone any favours as the EU has denuded its economy with a botched currency union and has run up against the limits of its attraction as a political project. Indeed some Europeans would do very well to remember that when Republicans McCain and Kerry warned about Russia they were treated with disdain. And this is before we get to the very dumb promises made to Ukraine about membership, agriculture alone is going to be a huge problem.
Your point however is a good one. Whatever the US interest does end up being in Ukraine folks in Europe need to see that outsourcing security to the US is a plan with real risks, not theoretical ones. It only needs one election.
Whilst I would not put it in such strident terms as Tom does, it is clear that the US is the largest net beneficiary from the situation and the opposition in the US is mostly around not spending US resources on a European problem, hence the drive to get EU countries defence budgets to 2% of GDP (not a new aspiration by the US but being acted upon now).
I think you are right about the geopolitical and moral hazards when the invasion first occurred and I believe Putin expected a rather weak and disunited response from the West. However having been given bloody nose after bloody nose for over a year now by a remarkably united western backing of the Ukrainian forces, are those hazards still there?
Also does it make one a Putin apologist to question whether the current plan which, to misquote Black Adder, seems to be to continue with total slaughter until the only Ukrainians left are Zelensky, Mrs Zelensky and their tortoise Alan is really the right answer?
This is a very reasonable point, and one that doesn’t get nearly the attention it should. I well-remember back in the early 1990s people in the US, very reasonably, asking exactly where the interest was in Bosnia that needed US men to be sent to die. Had the internet been around at the time I imagine we would have seen similar US commentary to what we now see about Ukraine. The direct US interest in Ukraine in the sense of a strategically useful diminution of Russian capability is perhaps clearer. But like you I struggle with the characterisation of the EU being led here.
The day will come when the US will say no. Had Donald Trump won the last election we may have been at that day now. We in Europe have outsourced everything in the name of a doubtful idea of ‘change through trade.’ We outsourced our capacity to make corporate profit to China, we outsourced our fuel security to the Russians and we outsourced our military security to the US with very little if any idea of what a fall-back would be. We have no idea what we would do had the US just shrugged. Presumably the answer would be to throw money at Kiev and arms into the region. But the idea that this conflict ends without talking to the Russians is just fanciful.
The most the EU could do is the economic hit – that’s hardly trivial but it’s not irrecoverable for a country like Russia, one of the few states in the world that could be an autarky. Back in the 1990s the fashion was to see the EU as an economic giant and a political dwarf. 30 years on that formulation doesn’t seem to have done anyone any favours as the EU has denuded its economy with a botched currency union and has run up against the limits of its attraction as a political project. Indeed some Europeans would do very well to remember that when Republicans McCain and Kerry warned about Russia they were treated with disdain. And this is before we get to the very dumb promises made to Ukraine about membership, agriculture alone is going to be a huge problem.
Your point however is a good one. Whatever the US interest does end up being in Ukraine folks in Europe need to see that outsourcing security to the US is a plan with real risks, not theoretical ones. It only needs one election.
Stephen Quilley
11 months ago
‘bloc’s increasingly vassal-like subordination to US foreign policy’ – I see far more resistance to the war in Ukraine in the US than in Europe. I wonder what you would be saying if the US had shrugged and said ‘local European problem’? On this one, I think there are enormous geo-political and moral hazards either way. But to present this as US leading the EU bull by the nose is off the mark
rob drummond
11 months ago
There is a lot of ”funny money” within The EU. Germany:
Putting aside Germany calls the financial shots, as can be seen by this article, Germanys actual debt to GDP – taking into account its off-balance sheet liabilities is probably double what it says officially. Due to its liabilities with the ECB – as indeed as all Euro member states.
I am not saying they cannot afford to pay – its just the disclosed numbers are disguised. I am not convinced The German Volk are actually aware of this – but perhaps they will be happy with it.
Another example of ‘funny money’: Ireland:
Irelands ACTUAL GDP is probably around £225bn-ish. Their official GDP is listed at £511bn at the last count.Their economy is ‘growing’ like crazy, by recieving emails for orders (say between France and Belgium) and then hitting the ‘reply’ button – to book the ”sale/profit” in Ireland.
38% of ”Irish” Exports are also fake – in a similar manner as above. Irish debt to GDP is similarly effected and is around 100% not the 45% on their books. Read the synopsis of this book:
Its an excellent book ‘The Shadow Liabilities of EU Member States‘ is an eye opener (but not for me nor a few others). https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/183806589X/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Other Shadow Banking books are available.
UVL looks just like the sexy wife of a German Brigadier’s wife whom I met after Mass at Catholic Church at Sandhurst all those years ago and… got to know well!… Happy memories…
That’s hilarious! First time I’ve heard/read someone describe UVL as sexy. 😉
Nicky Samengo-Turner
11 months ago
UVL looks just like the sexy wife of a German Brigadier’s wife whom I met after Mass at Catholic Church at Sandhurst all those years ago and… got to know well!… Happy memories…
Rachel Taylor
11 months ago
This demonstrates the unsustainability of the modern concept of welfare, but does not provide a route back from it.
It defies belief that the population of modern Europe needs more welfare than in previous eras. But it is a fact that it has become accustomed to it. All the crises and landmarks (peak interest rates, lowest growth rates, highest deficits etc.) are merely trivia on the route to the collapse of the welfare State.
The author argues against using the brakes, and advocates the accelerator. Neither will change the destination.
Rachel Taylor
11 months ago
This demonstrates the unsustainability of the modern concept of welfare, but does not provide a route back from it.
It defies belief that the population of modern Europe needs more welfare than in previous eras. But it is a fact that it has become accustomed to it. All the crises and landmarks (peak interest rates, lowest growth rates, highest deficits etc.) are merely trivia on the route to the collapse of the welfare State.
The author argues against using the brakes, and advocates the accelerator. Neither will change the destination.
j watson
11 months ago
You don’t have to read far into a Fazi article before the Putin apologist comes to the fore – ‘…then came the largest energy and commodity shock in 50 years, caused by the decision to sanction Europe’s largest supplier of gas to the continent’. Err no TF this happened because for the first time in 80yrs a European country invaded another and continues to indiscriminately lob missiles into residential areas.
That aside had a Right Wing Govt in any state proposed most of the alleged EU policies the Author outlines many right leaning commentators would have signalled strong support.
The question thus centres on democratic legitimacy. Here there is a debate about how the EU sets direction. There is far more democratic control than critics often contend, but there is no doubt in some countries it’s not well understood and a democratic deficit can pervade some thinking. Club members need to have a role in direction setting, but then as in any club to stay you need to abide by some rules. The international bond markets will set rules too of course, so the idea you don’t then just bob about on economic waves not of your own making if you seek total freedom naive too. Trade offs are a judgment made.
As regards Europe, and other Western states, now needing to re-prioritise defence and security spending – the old saying goes if you want to protect the peace plan for war. Deterrence works. It feels uncomfortable to say this doesn’t it but we are already in Cold War 2 and we better wake up to it quickly.
His general point is right though: in the West we tolerate a level of rent-seeking behaviour that is utterly unsustainable. Far too many people – and particularly middle class people – live comfortably on the state. It’s worst in France and the club med – but we’re not far behind.
No, the sharp jump in energy (specifically gas) prices was indeed caused by the EU’s hysterical rush to sanction Russia. I’m not denying that this was in response to the invasion, but the cause-and-effect is crystal clear, except to juvenile thinkers.
But the EU is not a club. That’s fatuous. And even it it was a club, members of a club and reasonably easily leave. Is there a democratic deficit? That is a rather 1990s term and a way of looking at it which, to my mind, is well out of date. There is no Finer-style Man on Horseback here. Democratic rules and process are qualitatively in place for sure in the EU.
The issue is I think far more about a constitutional deficit. It’s no good just glossing over that the EU is basically a one-way deal. Once something is gone and signed over to the EU then that’s it pretty much forever, irrespective of what the future may bring or what future electorates may have to say on the matter. You may be comfortable with that, however you have no expectation everyone else will be. And then, as neofunctionalism tells us, the spillover effects are remorseless. Pretty much anything and anything can be regarded as a ‘single market’ issue.
We see this most obviously with free movement where a lot of people (not just in the UK) have serious reservations about the ever-growing nature of free movement, but with no recourse to challenge the direction. It’s not exactly as if the ECJ is going to change course is it?
As we have seen with the UK, the right to leave – a treaty right – is pretty much on paper only. Why exactly does a member of the club exercising an explicit club rules right cause heads to spin?
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m quite sure that all the people who signed those treaties had it in mind that the EU was permanent and binding and there was no way out – just they didn’t mention that part to the voters.
Now, of course, there is a reasonable argument for integration to some extent. But that integration does not need a constitutionally deficient political construct on top. Let’s at least say as much.
The West had the chance to bring Russia into the western club, but the US in particular didn’t want that and used NATO to try and put an end to any future ‘challenge’ from Russia to its dominance in Europe. Imagine a Russian minister turning up on Jan 6th in Washington and encouraging the Capitol ‘coup’. OR imagine Mexico asking to join a Russian defence pact – in fact,why imagine? Look back to the threatened siting of Russian missiles in Cuba and the US response to that. A reading of the true history of the US/EU/NATO response to Russia might help understand how much more restraint Putin showed with the behaviour of NATO/US/EU than the US has ever shown. Even George F Kennan advised against the US policies that have led to this Ukraine war. As for NATO it should have been scrapped when the Warsaw Pact was scrapped. Afghanistan/Iraq are a fair way off the North Atlantic.
If it turns out that Boris did indeed stop Zelensky negotiating with Putin/Russia then he may well be responsible for the destruction of the Ukraine. As for the Eastern EU countries, I never cease to be amused how they swap between villains and heroes depending upon the topic of the conversation and who their opponents in that conversation are – the EC or Putin.
His general point is right though: in the West we tolerate a level of rent-seeking behaviour that is utterly unsustainable. Far too many people – and particularly middle class people – live comfortably on the state. It’s worst in France and the club med – but we’re not far behind.
No, the sharp jump in energy (specifically gas) prices was indeed caused by the EU’s hysterical rush to sanction Russia. I’m not denying that this was in response to the invasion, but the cause-and-effect is crystal clear, except to juvenile thinkers.
But the EU is not a club. That’s fatuous. And even it it was a club, members of a club and reasonably easily leave. Is there a democratic deficit? That is a rather 1990s term and a way of looking at it which, to my mind, is well out of date. There is no Finer-style Man on Horseback here. Democratic rules and process are qualitatively in place for sure in the EU.
The issue is I think far more about a constitutional deficit. It’s no good just glossing over that the EU is basically a one-way deal. Once something is gone and signed over to the EU then that’s it pretty much forever, irrespective of what the future may bring or what future electorates may have to say on the matter. You may be comfortable with that, however you have no expectation everyone else will be. And then, as neofunctionalism tells us, the spillover effects are remorseless. Pretty much anything and anything can be regarded as a ‘single market’ issue.
We see this most obviously with free movement where a lot of people (not just in the UK) have serious reservations about the ever-growing nature of free movement, but with no recourse to challenge the direction. It’s not exactly as if the ECJ is going to change course is it?
As we have seen with the UK, the right to leave – a treaty right – is pretty much on paper only. Why exactly does a member of the club exercising an explicit club rules right cause heads to spin?
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m quite sure that all the people who signed those treaties had it in mind that the EU was permanent and binding and there was no way out – just they didn’t mention that part to the voters.
Now, of course, there is a reasonable argument for integration to some extent. But that integration does not need a constitutionally deficient political construct on top. Let’s at least say as much.
The West had the chance to bring Russia into the western club, but the US in particular didn’t want that and used NATO to try and put an end to any future ‘challenge’ from Russia to its dominance in Europe. Imagine a Russian minister turning up on Jan 6th in Washington and encouraging the Capitol ‘coup’. OR imagine Mexico asking to join a Russian defence pact – in fact,why imagine? Look back to the threatened siting of Russian missiles in Cuba and the US response to that. A reading of the true history of the US/EU/NATO response to Russia might help understand how much more restraint Putin showed with the behaviour of NATO/US/EU than the US has ever shown. Even George F Kennan advised against the US policies that have led to this Ukraine war. As for NATO it should have been scrapped when the Warsaw Pact was scrapped. Afghanistan/Iraq are a fair way off the North Atlantic.
If it turns out that Boris did indeed stop Zelensky negotiating with Putin/Russia then he may well be responsible for the destruction of the Ukraine. As for the Eastern EU countries, I never cease to be amused how they swap between villains and heroes depending upon the topic of the conversation and who their opponents in that conversation are – the EC or Putin.
j watson
11 months ago
You don’t have to read far into a Fazi article before the Putin apologist comes to the fore – ‘…then came the largest energy and commodity shock in 50 years, caused by the decision to sanction Europe’s largest supplier of gas to the continent’. Err no TF this happened because for the first time in 80yrs a European country invaded another and continues to indiscriminately lob missiles into residential areas.
That aside had a Right Wing Govt in any state proposed most of the alleged EU policies the Author outlines many right leaning commentators would have signalled strong support.
The question thus centres on democratic legitimacy. Here there is a debate about how the EU sets direction. There is far more democratic control than critics often contend, but there is no doubt in some countries it’s not well understood and a democratic deficit can pervade some thinking. Club members need to have a role in direction setting, but then as in any club to stay you need to abide by some rules. The international bond markets will set rules too of course, so the idea you don’t then just bob about on economic waves not of your own making if you seek total freedom naive too. Trade offs are a judgment made.
As regards Europe, and other Western states, now needing to re-prioritise defence and security spending – the old saying goes if you want to protect the peace plan for war. Deterrence works. It feels uncomfortable to say this doesn’t it but we are already in Cold War 2 and we better wake up to it quickly.
Doug Mccaully
11 months ago
Some perceptive stuff here, spoiled by empty headed hyperbole. The economic hits we took from the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine weren’t elite engineered, they were engineered by Mr Covid and Mr Putin, but Fazi can’t resist a chance to make his fatuous comments.
The responses to both Covid and Ukraine were decided upon in isolation by the elite with little thought to the consequences on ordinary people. A pliant mainstream media has supported a free speech denying campaign to ensure the plebs unquestioning loyalty to these responses, which should at least be being continually questioned if we are living in a liberal democracy.
To counter the immediate economic consequences of Covid more money was printed a disproportionate amount of which has ended up in the pockets of the already rich.
Whilst I don’t agree with Tom’s perspective on everything, to call his comments fatuous is fatuous.
National statistics office [hardly a woke organisation] estimates covid related deaths in the UK at 330,000. It’s reasonable to consider this a little high, so lets go with 220,000,from Devi Shrider, professor at Edinburgh university. Spikes of death rates at 1500 people a day, no treatment until the vaccine [after the first year and a half, and we got lucky with that] 30% of people hospitalised dying a particularly nasty death etc. These are the consequences, wake up from your conspiracy dream.
What conspiracy dream? Another fatuous comment clearly you remain one of many who never questioned the reality behind the numbers that were trotted out by MSM.
The vast majority who died were 80+ and they mostly died with Covid not from Covid. The massive debt, the lost opportunities and mental health issues now facing our young were not considered in the response to Covid. The hangover from the response to Covid will haunt a generation.
Over 80s are people too. Many people who died from covid had other illnesses, but could have looked forward to many years if covid hadn’t carried them off. There are well established criteria for deciding cause of death and that’s what the NSO is using. Until the vaccine kicked in, after 18 months, we really didn’t know how things would eventually pan out, so we applied responsible caution. The debt, mental health issues clearly were considered but if you’re presented with a dilemma, which it was, then some things have to take priority over others.
Over 80s are people too. Many people who died from covid had other illnesses, but could have looked forward to many years if covid hadn’t carried them off. There are well established criteria for deciding cause of death and that’s what the NSO is using. Until the vaccine kicked in, after 18 months, we really didn’t know how things would eventually pan out, so we applied responsible caution. The debt, mental health issues clearly were considered but if you’re presented with a dilemma, which it was, then some things have to take priority over others.
Don’t you mean Devi Lalita SRIDHAR FRSE?
If so there isn’t space here to discuss her qualifications or lack of, but she cannot be described as an authority on COVID by any stretch of the imagination.
I presume by “ National statistics office” you really mean the Office of National Statistics or ONS?
As Adrian Smith has correctly pointed out the average age of a COVID death in the U.K. was 82, a year longer than life expectancy itself!
So Sir, disappointingly you seem to be a male hysteric, to whom accuracy is unknown. Pull yourself together while you still can.
COVID is/was the greatest confidence trick since the Resurrection, how did you seriously miss that?
What conspiracy dream? Another fatuous comment clearly you remain one of many who never questioned the reality behind the numbers that were trotted out by MSM.
The vast majority who died were 80+ and they mostly died with Covid not from Covid. The massive debt, the lost opportunities and mental health issues now facing our young were not considered in the response to Covid. The hangover from the response to Covid will haunt a generation.
Don’t you mean Devi Lalita SRIDHAR FRSE?
If so there isn’t space here to discuss her qualifications or lack of, but she cannot be described as an authority on COVID by any stretch of the imagination.
I presume by “ National statistics office” you really mean the Office of National Statistics or ONS?
As Adrian Smith has correctly pointed out the average age of a COVID death in the U.K. was 82, a year longer than life expectancy itself!
So Sir, disappointingly you seem to be a male hysteric, to whom accuracy is unknown. Pull yourself together while you still can.
COVID is/was the greatest confidence trick since the Resurrection, how did you seriously miss that?
National statistics office [hardly a woke organisation] estimates covid related deaths in the UK at 330,000. It’s reasonable to consider this a little high, so lets go with 220,000,from Devi Shrider, professor at Edinburgh university. Spikes of death rates at 1500 people a day, no treatment until the vaccine [after the first year and a half, and we got lucky with that] 30% of people hospitalised dying a particularly nasty death etc. These are the consequences, wake up from your conspiracy dream.
Mr Covid was self-inflicted, and Mr Putin looked at the price of gas heading skyward thanks to Net Zero insanity. Windmills failed to deliver in 2021 the Golden Child of renewables, hydro also failed to deliver across South America as well as Europ. This resulted in a dash for Gas & in the case of the EU a failure to put the gas they needed for winter into storage as they used it to replace hydro and wind. Gas prices sent many UK companies to the wall pre-Xmas 2021 AND Putin, seeing the US basically blocking Nord Stream 2 decided that he had Germany & the EU by the pipelines and moved into the Ukraine. One thing that has to be said of Putin – he isn’t stupid, who in their right mind would sanction their main energy supplier? 😉
Meanwhile the west pays through the nose for Indian Diesel – made from Russian Oil, and Azerbaijan gas replaces Russian gas, which in turn replaces the Azerbaijan gas that Azerbaijan sold at higher prices to the EU.
The West is ruled by Morons.
Meanwhile the West cheers as we fight to the last Ukrainian.
The responses to both Covid and Ukraine were decided upon in isolation by the elite with little thought to the consequences on ordinary people. A pliant mainstream media has supported a free speech denying campaign to ensure the plebs unquestioning loyalty to these responses, which should at least be being continually questioned if we are living in a liberal democracy.
To counter the immediate economic consequences of Covid more money was printed a disproportionate amount of which has ended up in the pockets of the already rich.
Whilst I don’t agree with Tom’s perspective on everything, to call his comments fatuous is fatuous.
Mr Covid was self-inflicted, and Mr Putin looked at the price of gas heading skyward thanks to Net Zero insanity. Windmills failed to deliver in 2021 the Golden Child of renewables, hydro also failed to deliver across South America as well as Europ. This resulted in a dash for Gas & in the case of the EU a failure to put the gas they needed for winter into storage as they used it to replace hydro and wind. Gas prices sent many UK companies to the wall pre-Xmas 2021 AND Putin, seeing the US basically blocking Nord Stream 2 decided that he had Germany & the EU by the pipelines and moved into the Ukraine. One thing that has to be said of Putin – he isn’t stupid, who in their right mind would sanction their main energy supplier? 😉
Meanwhile the west pays through the nose for Indian Diesel – made from Russian Oil, and Azerbaijan gas replaces Russian gas, which in turn replaces the Azerbaijan gas that Azerbaijan sold at higher prices to the EU.
The West is ruled by Morons.
Meanwhile the West cheers as we fight to the last Ukrainian.
Last edited 11 months ago by Simon Simple
Doug Mccaully
11 months ago
Some perceptive stuff here, spoiled by empty headed hyperbole. The economic hits we took from the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine weren’t elite engineered, they were engineered by Mr Covid and Mr Putin, but Fazi can’t resist a chance to make his fatuous comments.
” …for all the talk of the EU’s integration-through-crisis approach, it should be apparent by now that no crisis will be big enough to muster support — among Europe’s national elites or, even more so, among ordinary citizens — for a move towards full-blown federalism.”
The people of Europe may not want a federal USofE but to suggest that leaders within the EU don’t want federalism? You must be joking.
Macron – the pound shop Napoleon the BBC so fawns over – is a committed and quite explicit Federalist. He has written several books and given countless speeches on the subject. He is determined to see a federal EU – with France and Germany at the top table – just slightly more equal than the others.
Ursula von der Leyen – is another avowed and explicit Euro-federalist. This is a woman who announced: “I imagine the Europe of my children or grandchildren not as a loose union of states trapped by national interests.” …. “My aim is the United States of Europe”
Charles Michel – failed Belgian PM and now President of the council is of a similar bent.
Juncker – Another Federalist from top to toe. It isn’t possible to know anything about Juncker and not know he is an avowed Federalist.
Verhofstadt – probably the most vociferous federalist of the lot. You might have got a clue from his book title – Verenigde Staten van Europa (“United States of Europe”)
Martin Schulz, former President of the Parliament
Frans Timmermans, Former Vice Pres of the Commission
Martin Selmayr, former Sec Gen of the commission
… all of these people, and many more beside, are openly and explicitly pro federalism. It becomes tricky to deny that there is a cabal who fully intend to push for a united states of Europe, a fully federal EU.
Public antipathy for a USofE is no impediment in the minds of these zealots because they are quite explicit that the views of the little people should never stand in the way of the wider ambitions of a federal EU superstate.
I’m glad we are no longer part of this grisly experiment in corporate empire building, but actually the only way to really tackle the problems in the Eurozone would be for full political and fiscal union. I wanted no part of that – one of the main reasons I voted to Leave – but without such a union, and the natural transfers that would see Germany help its neighbours rather than exploit them, then I cannot see how you solve the problem.
The current situation is unsustainable, it has only been QE keeping it afloat. For some years now it has been, in effect, a public-funded Ponzi scheme. This one, unlike a private Ponzi scheme, can (theoretically) go on indefinitely – but only true fiscal union, with centralised tax resources and mutualised debt will rescue it. Ponzi’s eventually fail – and it won’t be pretty. The only way to avoid that is a transfer union – something the “frugals” and German taxpayers simply won’t countenance.
For all the talk of “the club”, it has been telling that the wealthier members have shown no appetite whatsoever to help their poorer brethren. Covid merely highlighted the gap between their rhetoric and the reality.
Italy, a founding member of the EU club, in extremis, asked for assistance from fellow members.
The response? A Gallic shrug of indifference swept the corridors of Brussels like the world’s most apathetic Mexican-wave.
Trying to maintain a single currency among countries with radically different economies, with no proper political and fiscal union was always going to be risky – if not downright impossible. In their zeal to expand the Eurozone the EU admitted member states who were, by any honest metric, not ready to join.
Their ‘solution’ to the problems since 2008 has merely papered over the cracks, they’ve never tackled the fundamental weaknesses at the heart of the “project”. The various schemes put forward are only about delaying the inevitable – they do nothing to address the core issue.
For all that hard-core Remainers claim they’ve never heard a sensible reason for Brexit, I have to say I have never heard a Remainer give a sensible answer to the following issues:
• Do you believe you can “fix” the Eurozone’s inherent weakness without full fiscal union?
• Do you think full fiscal union is possible without full political union?
• Do you see any politician in Europe with the guts (let alone the popularity) to make the case for such a future?
• If not, then how do you see this playing out?
• If you agree that the Eurozone cannot survive the coming recession and sovereign debt crisis unless it adopts a full fiscal transfer union, then it must surely federalise. If you think that is the best way forward – for Europe and, by extension, for us – do you think that should simply be implemented without recourse to the ballot box, or should each of the member states seek the consent of their people?
• If the latter, what should happen (as seems nailed-on certain) if one or more member states reject that future?
• If full federalism is the only solution (and I can’t think of another one), should it be forced through without democratic consent? If so, would that not make the EU the totalitarian state that Remainers usually suggest is only a head-banging ukipper’s fantasy?
There are still – to my amazement – plenty within our Parliament, our media and institutions, who’d wish to see us row back out to this sinking ship and climb aboard – but if they can’t address the questions listed above then I don’t see why anyone should take them at all seriously.
A brilliant synopsis of the current ‘state of play’, thank you.
Well said.
100%
I think you’ve nailed it.
Yes Paddy has nailed it. A lot of us have not that level of understanding but I sense he is talking the truth instead of just rhetoric.
Yes Paddy has nailed it. A lot of us have not that level of understanding but I sense he is talking the truth instead of just rhetoric.
In other words, the euro is doing exactly what its creators intended: force federation down the throats of the people.
Yup.
If you had any doubts left then you only need look at who was appointed to replace Juncker et al. Open federalists – despite the fact that the EU Parliament put forward more pragmatic candidates who did not want to see the federalist future pushed so hard.
Wishing to be part of a USofE is an entirely credible and valid position – I wholeheartedly and strongly disagree with it, but have no problem with those who genuinely espouse such a view – if they have the moral courage to be open and honest about it.
Where I do have a problem is with those who seek to achieve such an aim via the back-door, without gaining the consent of those they wish to govern.
If an honest referendum were held on a federalist future in all EU member states then we’d see a widespread rejection of it.
Of course there’d be some backing for such a vision – but country by country, how many would see a majority vote to become a province within a USofE? …. Ireland? France? Spain? Italy? Germany? The Netherlands? Not a chance. Not even Denmark. …. Maybe, just maybe, Belgium would enjoy the idea, but who’d join them?
But, of course, the EU won’t do that – for the same reason they have never done that. The concerns of the citizenry are simply not a factor. It would happen incrementally, as all these things do – but quite deliberately.
As the arch federalist J-C Juncker himself described it, “We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”
And don’t for a minute imagine that a veto would save a sovereign state from being subsumed – Such trifles have been swatted aside by the commission before now. ‘Unanimous consent’ becomes ‘Qualified Majority voting’ whenever it suits the commission’s broader objectives.
I’d no more trust Brussels to honour a veto than I would have trusted Juncker with the keys to the wine cellar.
We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”
An honest politician. Well I never.
I note that Sunak was all over Macron and Ursula von de Leyen. Quite frightening. Is Sunak clever enough to pull the wool over our eyes and take us back in? I fear that he is. Without such people like Farage and others the British are getting easier to deceive.
We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”
An honest politician. Well I never.
I note that Sunak was all over Macron and Ursula von de Leyen. Quite frightening. Is Sunak clever enough to pull the wool over our eyes and take us back in? I fear that he is. Without such people like Farage and others the British are getting easier to deceive.
Yup.
If you had any doubts left then you only need look at who was appointed to replace Juncker et al. Open federalists – despite the fact that the EU Parliament put forward more pragmatic candidates who did not want to see the federalist future pushed so hard.
Wishing to be part of a USofE is an entirely credible and valid position – I wholeheartedly and strongly disagree with it, but have no problem with those who genuinely espouse such a view – if they have the moral courage to be open and honest about it.
Where I do have a problem is with those who seek to achieve such an aim via the back-door, without gaining the consent of those they wish to govern.
If an honest referendum were held on a federalist future in all EU member states then we’d see a widespread rejection of it.
Of course there’d be some backing for such a vision – but country by country, how many would see a majority vote to become a province within a USofE? …. Ireland? France? Spain? Italy? Germany? The Netherlands? Not a chance. Not even Denmark. …. Maybe, just maybe, Belgium would enjoy the idea, but who’d join them?
But, of course, the EU won’t do that – for the same reason they have never done that. The concerns of the citizenry are simply not a factor. It would happen incrementally, as all these things do – but quite deliberately.
As the arch federalist J-C Juncker himself described it, “We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”
And don’t for a minute imagine that a veto would save a sovereign state from being subsumed – Such trifles have been swatted aside by the commission before now. ‘Unanimous consent’ becomes ‘Qualified Majority voting’ whenever it suits the commission’s broader objectives.
I’d no more trust Brussels to honour a veto than I would have trusted Juncker with the keys to the wine cellar.
Superb post. I endorse every word. The contempt of the so-called “elite” for national parliamentary democracy has never been better expressed than by Ken Clark who memorably said “I look forward to the day when our Westminster Parliament is just another council chamber in Europe”. There were many reasons I campaigned so hard for Brexit but preserving democratic accountability in Britain was pre-eminent. And therefore to avoid our inevitable absorption into a United States of Europe, which has been the end game ever since Jean Monnet created the “Action Committee for a United States of Europe”.
Surely not the recently ennobled ‘Kenneth Harry ClarkE Baron Clarke of Nottingham CH, PC, KC.’, otherwise known as “hush puppy Ken”?
The very man.
The very man.
Surely not the recently ennobled ‘Kenneth Harry ClarkE Baron Clarke of Nottingham CH, PC, KC.’, otherwise known as “hush puppy Ken”?
Hear Hear! A genuine Tower of Babel is just a stone’s throw away. The fact that people would still be keen to sign up for the EU lunacy is pretty shocking, but then again, the “collective West” seems to be signing up for all things lunatic, including more NATO, and the bottomless pit / slush fund nicknamed Ukraine.
(Not sure why the author thinks Germany would be an economic steward moving forward – they’ve just commenced their own de-industrialization – with no end in sight.)
I agree apart from Nato which we definitely need. I also am not in agreement of leaving Ukraine to be devoured by Russia any more than I would agree to Britain being devoured by the EU.
I agree apart from Nato which we definitely need. I also am not in agreement of leaving Ukraine to be devoured by Russia any more than I would agree to Britain being devoured by the EU.
Well said.
Perhaps a hidden motive for Brexit in the higher echelons of power was our desire to Always act as The US’s distinct Lieutenant in its foreign policy. Whereas the German led EU has a more subjected status in relation to the US. Always remember the 3 principles of NATO.
Keep Russia OUT, America IN, and Germany DOWN. This may have evolved somewhat but it remains the thread.
In order to substantiate this I summarise a document leaked from the Rand Corporation reporting to a US Committee entitled “Weaker Germany, Stronger America” in January ’22.
The committee came into existence because of concerns that the growing energy relationship between Russia and Germany would have the deleterious effect of moving a German led EU away from US subjection and that could cause other difficulties down the road as with a changing alignment the EU could represent a serious competitor as its GDP was not that far short of the US.
Any watering down of European hostility towards Russia was a concern for the US
The writer congratulated the administration on its achievement in preventing Nord Stream II from going into operation, then said that the cessation of a Russo-German energy relationship was necessary to secure future US hegemony.
He continued that the best way for the US to achieve this aim would be to get Russia and Germany on opposite sides of a military conflict and that what the US was then doing in Ukraine should ensure this outcome,
This appears to leave Europe between a rock and a hard place with its leader nation rather compromised.
We are left to reflect on the inversion of the EU project after 2008.
Before that time the banks and German Industry told the weaker nations that the miracle had arrived and all they had to do was take up the massive loans offered from the banks to transform their nations by paying the industrial and construction base – mainly German – to modernise infrastructure and other expensive features which would all easily pay for itself.
When this policy – upon which part of the thriving of German Industry depended – blew up because of the financial crisis the poorer countries which were most severely harmed were treated as the guilty parties and that remains the Authorised Version.
According to that perspective, the EU had been the plaything of German interests under US Geopolitical control and we are best outside the hidden consequences of that situation.
Depressingly accurate analysis!
But what should potentially concern us more over the coming decade is how does the US play the same game with the EU vis a vis China, if Biden the Senile-Sinophile is no longer in office?
‘Sino delenda est’.
‘Sino delenda est’.
Depressingly accurate analysis!
But what should potentially concern us more over the coming decade is how does the US play the same game with the EU vis a vis China, if Biden the Senile-Sinophile is no longer in office?
Are you prepared to write the next article?
Few things I’d enjoy more, frankly, if Unherd want to commission one.
Few things I’d enjoy more, frankly, if Unherd want to commission one.
‘ I wanted no part of that – one of the main reasons I voted to Leave ‘
Me too
A brilliant synopsis of the current ‘state of play’, thank you.
Well said.
100%
I think you’ve nailed it.
In other words, the euro is doing exactly what its creators intended: force federation down the throats of the people.
Superb post. I endorse every word. The contempt of the so-called “elite” for national parliamentary democracy has never been better expressed than by Ken Clark who memorably said “I look forward to the day when our Westminster Parliament is just another council chamber in Europe”. There were many reasons I campaigned so hard for Brexit but preserving democratic accountability in Britain was pre-eminent. And therefore to avoid our inevitable absorption into a United States of Europe, which has been the end game ever since Jean Monnet created the “Action Committee for a United States of Europe”.
Hear Hear! A genuine Tower of Babel is just a stone’s throw away. The fact that people would still be keen to sign up for the EU lunacy is pretty shocking, but then again, the “collective West” seems to be signing up for all things lunatic, including more NATO, and the bottomless pit / slush fund nicknamed Ukraine.
(Not sure why the author thinks Germany would be an economic steward moving forward – they’ve just commenced their own de-industrialization – with no end in sight.)
Well said.
Perhaps a hidden motive for Brexit in the higher echelons of power was our desire to Always act as The US’s distinct Lieutenant in its foreign policy. Whereas the German led EU has a more subjected status in relation to the US. Always remember the 3 principles of NATO.
Keep Russia OUT, America IN, and Germany DOWN. This may have evolved somewhat but it remains the thread.
In order to substantiate this I summarise a document leaked from the Rand Corporation reporting to a US Committee entitled “Weaker Germany, Stronger America” in January ’22.
The committee came into existence because of concerns that the growing energy relationship between Russia and Germany would have the deleterious effect of moving a German led EU away from US subjection and that could cause other difficulties down the road as with a changing alignment the EU could represent a serious competitor as its GDP was not that far short of the US.
Any watering down of European hostility towards Russia was a concern for the US
The writer congratulated the administration on its achievement in preventing Nord Stream II from going into operation, then said that the cessation of a Russo-German energy relationship was necessary to secure future US hegemony.
He continued that the best way for the US to achieve this aim would be to get Russia and Germany on opposite sides of a military conflict and that what the US was then doing in Ukraine should ensure this outcome,
This appears to leave Europe between a rock and a hard place with its leader nation rather compromised.
We are left to reflect on the inversion of the EU project after 2008.
Before that time the banks and German Industry told the weaker nations that the miracle had arrived and all they had to do was take up the massive loans offered from the banks to transform their nations by paying the industrial and construction base – mainly German – to modernise infrastructure and other expensive features which would all easily pay for itself.
When this policy – upon which part of the thriving of German Industry depended – blew up because of the financial crisis the poorer countries which were most severely harmed were treated as the guilty parties and that remains the Authorised Version.
According to that perspective, the EU had been the plaything of German interests under US Geopolitical control and we are best outside the hidden consequences of that situation.
Are you prepared to write the next article?
‘ I wanted no part of that – one of the main reasons I voted to Leave ‘
Me too
” …for all the talk of the EU’s integration-through-crisis approach, it should be apparent by now that no crisis will be big enough to muster support — among Europe’s national elites or, even more so, among ordinary citizens — for a move towards full-blown federalism.”
The people of Europe may not want a federal USofE but to suggest that leaders within the EU don’t want federalism? You must be joking.
Macron – the pound shop Napoleon the BBC so fawns over – is a committed and quite explicit Federalist. He has written several books and given countless speeches on the subject. He is determined to see a federal EU – with France and Germany at the top table – just slightly more equal than the others.
Ursula von der Leyen – is another avowed and explicit Euro-federalist. This is a woman who announced: “I imagine the Europe of my children or grandchildren not as a loose union of states trapped by national interests.” …. “My aim is the United States of Europe”
Charles Michel – failed Belgian PM and now President of the council is of a similar bent.
Juncker – Another Federalist from top to toe. It isn’t possible to know anything about Juncker and not know he is an avowed Federalist.
Verhofstadt – probably the most vociferous federalist of the lot. You might have got a clue from his book title – Verenigde Staten van Europa (“United States of Europe”)
Martin Schulz, former President of the Parliament
Frans Timmermans, Former Vice Pres of the Commission
Martin Selmayr, former Sec Gen of the commission
… all of these people, and many more beside, are openly and explicitly pro federalism. It becomes tricky to deny that there is a cabal who fully intend to push for a united states of Europe, a fully federal EU.
Public antipathy for a USofE is no impediment in the minds of these zealots because they are quite explicit that the views of the little people should never stand in the way of the wider ambitions of a federal EU superstate.
I’m glad we are no longer part of this grisly experiment in corporate empire building, but actually the only way to really tackle the problems in the Eurozone would be for full political and fiscal union. I wanted no part of that – one of the main reasons I voted to Leave – but without such a union, and the natural transfers that would see Germany help its neighbours rather than exploit them, then I cannot see how you solve the problem.
The current situation is unsustainable, it has only been QE keeping it afloat. For some years now it has been, in effect, a public-funded Ponzi scheme. This one, unlike a private Ponzi scheme, can (theoretically) go on indefinitely – but only true fiscal union, with centralised tax resources and mutualised debt will rescue it. Ponzi’s eventually fail – and it won’t be pretty. The only way to avoid that is a transfer union – something the “frugals” and German taxpayers simply won’t countenance.
For all the talk of “the club”, it has been telling that the wealthier members have shown no appetite whatsoever to help their poorer brethren. Covid merely highlighted the gap between their rhetoric and the reality.
Italy, a founding member of the EU club, in extremis, asked for assistance from fellow members.
The response? A Gallic shrug of indifference swept the corridors of Brussels like the world’s most apathetic Mexican-wave.
Trying to maintain a single currency among countries with radically different economies, with no proper political and fiscal union was always going to be risky – if not downright impossible. In their zeal to expand the Eurozone the EU admitted member states who were, by any honest metric, not ready to join.
Their ‘solution’ to the problems since 2008 has merely papered over the cracks, they’ve never tackled the fundamental weaknesses at the heart of the “project”. The various schemes put forward are only about delaying the inevitable – they do nothing to address the core issue.
For all that hard-core Remainers claim they’ve never heard a sensible reason for Brexit, I have to say I have never heard a Remainer give a sensible answer to the following issues:
• Do you believe you can “fix” the Eurozone’s inherent weakness without full fiscal union?
• Do you think full fiscal union is possible without full political union?
• Do you see any politician in Europe with the guts (let alone the popularity) to make the case for such a future?
• If not, then how do you see this playing out?
• If you agree that the Eurozone cannot survive the coming recession and sovereign debt crisis unless it adopts a full fiscal transfer union, then it must surely federalise. If you think that is the best way forward – for Europe and, by extension, for us – do you think that should simply be implemented without recourse to the ballot box, or should each of the member states seek the consent of their people?
• If the latter, what should happen (as seems nailed-on certain) if one or more member states reject that future?
• If full federalism is the only solution (and I can’t think of another one), should it be forced through without democratic consent? If so, would that not make the EU the totalitarian state that Remainers usually suggest is only a head-banging ukipper’s fantasy?
There are still – to my amazement – plenty within our Parliament, our media and institutions, who’d wish to see us row back out to this sinking ship and climb aboard – but if they can’t address the questions listed above then I don’t see why anyone should take them at all seriously.
What will destroy the euro in the end is not bad fiscal policy but over-regulation.
In France, for example, few businesses will risk expanding their workforce in order to exploit a new opportunity due to the cost of down-sizing should conditions change. It’s worse in Spain where, for example, you need a licence from the state to become a freelancer.
Try registering a new company in any of these countries and compare the experience with doing the same in the UK or USA.
The tragedy in the UK is that there is little or no enthusiasm amongst politicians for getting rid of legacy EU regulation because so few of them have any experience of entrepreneurial activity and just can’t see the enormous benefits that could follow.
What EU regulations did you have in mind?
How about ALL OF THEM ?
That’s about 4,000 isn’t it?
That’s about 4,000 isn’t it?
Start with the Financial Catastrophe Authority….
Working Time Directive. Why on earth should a hairdresser in Newcastle have their working hours regulated by an EU-wide regulation??
How about ALL OF THEM ?
Start with the Financial Catastrophe Authority….
Working Time Directive. Why on earth should a hairdresser in Newcastle have their working hours regulated by an EU-wide regulation??
What EU regulations did you have in mind?
What will destroy the euro in the end is not bad fiscal policy but over-regulation.
In France, for example, few businesses will risk expanding their workforce in order to exploit a new opportunity due to the cost of down-sizing should conditions change. It’s worse in Spain where, for example, you need a licence from the state to become a freelancer.
Try registering a new company in any of these countries and compare the experience with doing the same in the UK or USA.
The tragedy in the UK is that there is little or no enthusiasm amongst politicians for getting rid of legacy EU regulation because so few of them have any experience of entrepreneurial activity and just can’t see the enormous benefits that could follow.
None of the policies make any sense. The whole governance is always so convinced in the moment that it’s doing the exact right thing. Exactly what is needed, and exactly what will work. The news companies get on board and write the stories. They talk about it and all the things get justified and everyone who lives under it says one more time, “well okay”.
Then suddenly, “oops things didn’t work out”, and “oh no, everything only got worse”. But then dealing with the next crisis is done in the exact same manner, as if the most competent people are in charge. As if their way of looking at reality is best, even though they did the stupidest things that could be done. But there is no one else to take on the task. These politicians, these experts are what we have.
They get back up on camera, full of confidence, even swagger, and they state the next policies, define the next reality, and come up with the next solution. The same stupid people, the same stupid experts, dealing with the bad realities their policies created, what they didn’t foresee. Nothing learned, nothing repented of. No, none of it is their fault. We must address the things they say that must be addressed. We must do what they say must be done. They have all reality figured out. They are the smart ones, the chosen ones.
The whole thing is broken, yet, somehow life goes on here, we all find the money to pay our bills each month. We work, we try to get ahead. We try to enjoy our lives some with the limitations, but nothing gets better, nothing gets brighter, nothing changes.
Because we have a bunch of narcissistic politicians who live in their own heads. They have their little fantasies that they mix in with reality where they are always doing the best. Where they are always the ones in the right. We’re stuck in this abusive relationship under these truly unaccountable, unethical phony people. They are really not that bright, hardly ever right. They are self-righteous, arrogant, corrupt, fools.
I am glad that I am able to say that for now, because there will come a time in the not so distant future where you won’t be able to say that. You won’t be able to speak up about these clowns. Because they don’t like it. It makes them feel injured to point out what they are afraid you will point out. That they are phony people, they are incompetent, they are liars, and cheats, and just not that bright.
Steve, you are exactly right.
This country could be a happy, prosperous and peaceful country in which to live.
It is slowly being destroyed by our cretinous and cowardly politicians, civil servants and their groupthink.
It is a tragedy for the nation that the woke buffoon King Charles is now our head of state.
A perfect example of your point has just bubbled to the surface. Von der Leyen has just pronounced that Kyiv is “the beating heart” of European values. Kyiv is the capital of one of the most corrupt nations in Europe, and the Ukrainians are a long way from accepting the social programme of the EU Commission on gay rights and abortion. One wonders why she produces this drivel – surely she can’t actually believe it?
Her favourite 30 year Shetland pony, rather oddly named Dolly, was recently ‘hoovered up’ or ‘harvested’ by good old Mr Wolf.
Perhaps she is still suffering from PTSD.?
ps.My ‘agents’ inform me that Mr Wolf is still ‘on the run’.
Her favourite 30 year Shetland pony, rather oddly named Dolly, was recently ‘hoovered up’ or ‘harvested’ by good old Mr Wolf.
Perhaps she is still suffering from PTSD.?
ps.My ‘agents’ inform me that Mr Wolf is still ‘on the run’.
Steve, you are exactly right.
This country could be a happy, prosperous and peaceful country in which to live.
It is slowly being destroyed by our cretinous and cowardly politicians, civil servants and their groupthink.
It is a tragedy for the nation that the woke buffoon King Charles is now our head of state.
A perfect example of your point has just bubbled to the surface. Von der Leyen has just pronounced that Kyiv is “the beating heart” of European values. Kyiv is the capital of one of the most corrupt nations in Europe, and the Ukrainians are a long way from accepting the social programme of the EU Commission on gay rights and abortion. One wonders why she produces this drivel – surely she can’t actually believe it?
None of the policies make any sense. The whole governance is always so convinced in the moment that it’s doing the exact right thing. Exactly what is needed, and exactly what will work. The news companies get on board and write the stories. They talk about it and all the things get justified and everyone who lives under it says one more time, “well okay”.
Then suddenly, “oops things didn’t work out”, and “oh no, everything only got worse”. But then dealing with the next crisis is done in the exact same manner, as if the most competent people are in charge. As if their way of looking at reality is best, even though they did the stupidest things that could be done. But there is no one else to take on the task. These politicians, these experts are what we have.
They get back up on camera, full of confidence, even swagger, and they state the next policies, define the next reality, and come up with the next solution. The same stupid people, the same stupid experts, dealing with the bad realities their policies created, what they didn’t foresee. Nothing learned, nothing repented of. No, none of it is their fault. We must address the things they say that must be addressed. We must do what they say must be done. They have all reality figured out. They are the smart ones, the chosen ones.
The whole thing is broken, yet, somehow life goes on here, we all find the money to pay our bills each month. We work, we try to get ahead. We try to enjoy our lives some with the limitations, but nothing gets better, nothing gets brighter, nothing changes.
Because we have a bunch of narcissistic politicians who live in their own heads. They have their little fantasies that they mix in with reality where they are always doing the best. Where they are always the ones in the right. We’re stuck in this abusive relationship under these truly unaccountable, unethical phony people. They are really not that bright, hardly ever right. They are self-righteous, arrogant, corrupt, fools.
I am glad that I am able to say that for now, because there will come a time in the not so distant future where you won’t be able to say that. You won’t be able to speak up about these clowns. Because they don’t like it. It makes them feel injured to point out what they are afraid you will point out. That they are phony people, they are incompetent, they are liars, and cheats, and just not that bright.
“Today, around two dozen countries would fall under the scope of the new deficit and debt-reduction plans;”
There are only 27 of them so would be better to talk about who isn’t on the naughty step (presumably Germany at the moment but as it’s economy goes down the pan due to lack of cost effective energy supply that will change).
“the ones required to make the most stringent action would be Greece, Italy, France, Spain and Belgium.”
The usual suspects of Greece, Italy and Spain are no surprise but seeing France there does not bode well as France normally is the worst for simply ignoring EU directives that don’t suit it.
UK never being part of the Euro and now being outside the EU this ought to be good news for us, except out own national elite seem determined to destroy us too.
“Today, around two dozen countries would fall under the scope of the new deficit and debt-reduction plans;”
There are only 27 of them so would be better to talk about who isn’t on the naughty step (presumably Germany at the moment but as it’s economy goes down the pan due to lack of cost effective energy supply that will change).
“the ones required to make the most stringent action would be Greece, Italy, France, Spain and Belgium.”
The usual suspects of Greece, Italy and Spain are no surprise but seeing France there does not bode well as France normally is the worst for simply ignoring EU directives that don’t suit it.
UK never being part of the Euro and now being outside the EU this ought to be good news for us, except out own national elite seem determined to destroy us too.
We really must get away from this childish “recessions are bad” (and must be avoided at all costs – including piling up something even worse for the future) narrative.
Recessions are a good and necessary part of the creative destruction of capitalism. They expose and kill off the failing enterprises that need to be closed down. Pretending this isn’t necessary or helpful is just delusion.
I do sometimes wonder what Mr. Fazi is thinking. If you don’t want “sound public finances”, presumably you are campaigning for *unsound* public finances.
He might benefit from studying the UK public finances after 1815 when Gladstone’s successful policy of “retrenchment” (that’s what they called sound public finances in those days) got the UK debt under control – and hugely reduced it.
The way the MSM present recessions (omg, GDP fell 0.1% last quarter, we’re doomed!!) is intended to manipulate people’s emotions so they become more compliant with the progressive agenda. These outlets have become intolerable. What you’ve just written would’ve passed as basic common sense fifty, or even thirty years ago.
What annoys me almost as much as the idea that a 0.1% fall over 1 quarter is a reliable measure of any long term trend. That “0.1%” probably has at least a 0.3% tolerance on it (0.3% either way), based on the revisions usually made later.
These MSM morons are literally measuring noise half the time.
What annoys me almost as much as the idea that a 0.1% fall over 1 quarter is a reliable measure of any long term trend. That “0.1%” probably has at least a 0.3% tolerance on it (0.3% either way), based on the revisions usually made later.
These MSM morons are literally measuring noise half the time.
Similar issue with politicians trying to demonise short sellers who carry out the vital role of ensuring that prices don’t just go up and up on assets but rather reflect some sort of reality. They prevent huge crashes by stopping the asset ‘inflation’ before it has got too ridiculous..
The problem is that the West no longer has or believes in Capitalism. How much that is down to the Greens is moot. Net Zero is the ultimate disaster, and the only question is ‘Will the populace realise what it means before the damage can’t be undone, or will our leaders realise that IF they don’t fix it before then, they are toast. Possibly real toast.
The FIRES report, P6, graphic indicates that for “Net Zero by 2050” there will be in the UK, No maritime shipping (presumably that means none using fossil fuels), No air travel and NO fossil fuels.
That is 27 years away. The country is NOT and has not for centuries, been self-sufficient in food. A population of 70m+ on an Island with only the Channel Tunnel (or a currently mythical fleet of sailing ships) to connect us to anywhere we can get food is a famine in the making. Quite frankly it is insanity. Net Zero is the belief that a pre-industrial energy policy can support a post-industrial civilisation. Doomberg has a response to that, perhaps the morons who rule us should take out a subscription before we are the new 3rd world?
The way the MSM present recessions (omg, GDP fell 0.1% last quarter, we’re doomed!!) is intended to manipulate people’s emotions so they become more compliant with the progressive agenda. These outlets have become intolerable. What you’ve just written would’ve passed as basic common sense fifty, or even thirty years ago.
Similar issue with politicians trying to demonise short sellers who carry out the vital role of ensuring that prices don’t just go up and up on assets but rather reflect some sort of reality. They prevent huge crashes by stopping the asset ‘inflation’ before it has got too ridiculous..
The problem is that the West no longer has or believes in Capitalism. How much that is down to the Greens is moot. Net Zero is the ultimate disaster, and the only question is ‘Will the populace realise what it means before the damage can’t be undone, or will our leaders realise that IF they don’t fix it before then, they are toast. Possibly real toast.
The FIRES report, P6, graphic indicates that for “Net Zero by 2050” there will be in the UK, No maritime shipping (presumably that means none using fossil fuels), No air travel and NO fossil fuels.
That is 27 years away. The country is NOT and has not for centuries, been self-sufficient in food. A population of 70m+ on an Island with only the Channel Tunnel (or a currently mythical fleet of sailing ships) to connect us to anywhere we can get food is a famine in the making. Quite frankly it is insanity. Net Zero is the belief that a pre-industrial energy policy can support a post-industrial civilisation. Doomberg has a response to that, perhaps the morons who rule us should take out a subscription before we are the new 3rd world?
We really must get away from this childish “recessions are bad” (and must be avoided at all costs – including piling up something even worse for the future) narrative.
Recessions are a good and necessary part of the creative destruction of capitalism. They expose and kill off the failing enterprises that need to be closed down. Pretending this isn’t necessary or helpful is just delusion.
I do sometimes wonder what Mr. Fazi is thinking. If you don’t want “sound public finances”, presumably you are campaigning for *unsound* public finances.
He might benefit from studying the UK public finances after 1815 when Gladstone’s successful policy of “retrenchment” (that’s what they called sound public finances in those days) got the UK debt under control – and hugely reduced it.
Well Well, there you go.
Someone has finally written about Germany’s (planned) hegemony of Europe (or specifically The EU).
Twice in the 20th century it was tried, and failed.
”Third time lucky?”
No chance.”The Hun”* maybe brilliant at micro but hopeless at macro, as history proved in 1918 & 1941.
(*A term of affection dating from 1914-18.)
If anyone does not know Germany has much of Europe in its own financial stranglehold – then they need to look into it more. Essentially all financial EU roads lead to Germany. The ECB has no money – it has to be created and underwritten by ECB Shareholders (Euro members) of which Germany is the key/
Ask Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Greece after the last financial crisis ”The Computer (ECB) said No”. The UK bailed out Ireland as their beloved EU/Germany would not.
An excellent book ‘The Shadow Liabilities of EU Member States‘ is an eye opener (but not for me and a few others).
Germany is indeed calling the EU Shots, as I believe tbhis article also concurs.
I don’t disagree with you, but my point is that historically Germany always seems to fall at the ‘final fence’. I put this down to arrogance or over confidence.
Perhaps if one Publius Quinctilius Varus hadn’t made such a hash of things in AD9 we wouldn’t have this ‘problem’?
British Cavalry joke ” Is that the sound of that German Leopard tank’s turbochargers?… No it the the 1945 remnants of the 351st Panzer Grenadiers spinning in their graves at the horror of their useless successors”….
British Cavalry joke ” Is that the sound of that German Leopard tank’s turbochargers?… No it the the 1945 remnants of the 351st Panzer Grenadiers spinning in their graves at the horror of their useless successors”….
I don’t disagree with you, but my point is that historically Germany always seems to fall at the ‘final fence’. I put this down to arrogance or over confidence.
Perhaps if one Publius Quinctilius Varus hadn’t made such a hash of things in AD9 we wouldn’t have this ‘problem’?
If anyone does not know Germany has much of Europe in its own financial stranglehold – then they need to look into it more. Essentially all financial EU roads lead to Germany. The ECB has no money – it has to be created and underwritten by ECB Shareholders (Euro members) of which Germany is the key/
Ask Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Greece after the last financial crisis ”The Computer (ECB) said No”. The UK bailed out Ireland as their beloved EU/Germany would not.
An excellent book ‘The Shadow Liabilities of EU Member States‘ is an eye opener (but not for me and a few others).
Germany is indeed calling the EU Shots, as I believe tbhis article also concurs.
No chance.”The Hun”* maybe brilliant at micro but hopeless at macro, as history proved in 1918 & 1941.
(*A term of affection dating from 1914-18.)
Well Well, there you go.
Someone has finally written about Germany’s (planned) hegemony of Europe (or specifically The EU).
Twice in the 20th century it was tried, and failed.
”Third time lucky?”
The title looked interesting; sadly, though, Fazi lived down to my expectations of him being the Owen Jones of UnHerd.
The title looked interesting; sadly, though, Fazi lived down to my expectations of him being the Owen Jones of UnHerd.
haha….So EU should have spent its way out of debt? Rather than so called ‘austerity’ back in the day?
”These policies (austerity) didn’t just raise unemployment, erode social welfare, push large portions of the population to the brink of poverty and, in the case of Greece and other countries, create a genuine humanitarian emergency — they also completely failed to achieve their stated aims of kickstarting growth and reducing debt-to-GDP ratios. On the contrary, they drove economies into recession and increased debt-to-GDP ratios. ** The result was a “lost decade” of stagnation and permacrisis”
You silly euroweenies – don’t you get it? You are being destroyed. The Ukraine war and sanctions were not for Freedom and Democracy – it was to break you, Break the world, like the Plandemic was. Now they Want you to try to spend your way out of this even deeper pit of debt you are in…….haha
”Yet it’s hard to see how Europe could survive a second round of austerity, which would come at a time when the state of the global economy is far bleaker than it did a decade ago: we are facing high inflation, supply-chain disruptions, global fragmentation and a war with no end in sight at Europe’s border with Russia.”
Well you sure cannot survive greater profligacy. It is like drinking your way to sobriety, it is not a real thing.
See- you have been hooked on Socialism – intentionally, to destroy you. You have more people getting money than comes in. Government, which is a parasite, is over half the ”GDP”, haha…. Every one who does not produce is ‘Entitled’, and the workers are too few to pay for it. Government is a machine to waste money pointlessly. This is Intentional. Your sickoo Lefty/Liberal postmodernist welfare state is not to help the poor – it is to make the successful and hard working poor too. Poor are clients of the state – the government (Global) wants you poor so the state owns you – so they are having you spend your nations into poverty. Same as USA.
Free Market Capitalism, or chains of poverty via Socialism? You guys chose the later….were conned into it……Clement Atlee, LBJ, haha, they got you….
While it is true that it is not possible for governments to spend their way out of debt, it is also commonly forgotten that they cannot save their way out of debt either – not, that is, unless the fiscal austerity in question is accompanied by supply-side reform.
The reason governments get into debt is that they keep spending money on stuff that doesn’t produce growth. Austerity that works isn’t merely spending less money: it’s cutting the expenditures that possess no value in order to reallocate capital to things that do create value. Proper austerity is therefore the statist equivalent of the creative destruction of free markets, and it is worth pointing out that although the UK was not in the Eurozone in 2009, it made almost as great a pig’s ear of the austerity measures as did the Eurozone.
Cameron/Osborne ducked all the really big decisions that would have fixed the public spending problems: the UK still possesses now, 13 years later, Gordon Brown’s conception of how the State should operate. That is why the country is in such trouble. And while I’m no fan whatsoever of the contemptible and anti-democratic EU, it does at least have some sort of mechanism by which it might carry out the necessary measures. In the UK our political system simply doesn’t have the capacity to do it.
There is nothing magical about a 2% inflation target or a 60% debt ceiling. Experience would suggest neither of these are preconditions for rising living standards.
Take Italy. Italy persistently ran deficits and suffered higher inflation than most of the countries that were the EEC. Yet at the dawn of 1990 its GDP per capita had overtaken Germany’s. Italy had outgrown Germany for nearly 4 decades. If Germany had undergone an economic miracle, how do you describe what Italy had achieved after WW2? How could this have happened in a country where parts of it flirted with communism, with high inflation, and large deficits?
Italy’s golden years of economic growth abruptly ended when it joined the European exchange rate mechanism (ERM). It was decided that Europe would adopt Germany’s fiscal and monetary policies. Italy has barely grown since.
The UK joined the ERM too, and the economy suffered its worst recession ever, an experience that sowed the seeds of Brexit. To prove the point, Britain (unlike Italy) was forced out of the ERM and immediately began one of its longest economic expansions in history despite not following German fiscal orthodoxy. Again, how could this be if that orthodoxy is a precondition for rising living standards?
And of course, take the USA. A country that has not followed any orthodoxy it prescribes for others. Since 2008, the USA stands almost alone as a Western country that has increased GDP per capita. Almost everywhere else (France, Canada, UK, etc), where orthodox central bankers reign unchallenged, GDP per capita has stagnated.
The last paragraph of the article. “The combination of austerity, renewed German hegemony and aggressive militarism makes the Europe of the past decade look positively benign.”
Your ‘hahas’ give you away. I think you put your finger on the spot though. We are kidding ourselves (brought on by the socialists) that we are poor in Europe and that we should feel guilty for having those ‘poor’ people in our midst. The Socialists want to give more and more of our money away to finance bigger and bigger flat-screen TVs, newer mobile phones, even better vacations. (Not to mention the illegal things that the money buys). Meanwhile, the people who have worked and accumulated things are supposed to give it all up for the ‘poor’.
There is a bigger problem in the EU. They are used to being saved at the last moment by John Wayne riding in over the hill. They have to realise that John Wayne is now dead. The Europeans have thumbed their noses at a nuclear super-power which has now reacted. The Europeans have to pay for this. It is a lesson you are supposed to learn when you first go to school.
German hegemony no longer exists.
While it is true that it is not possible for governments to spend their way out of debt, it is also commonly forgotten that they cannot save their way out of debt either – not, that is, unless the fiscal austerity in question is accompanied by supply-side reform.
The reason governments get into debt is that they keep spending money on stuff that doesn’t produce growth. Austerity that works isn’t merely spending less money: it’s cutting the expenditures that possess no value in order to reallocate capital to things that do create value. Proper austerity is therefore the statist equivalent of the creative destruction of free markets, and it is worth pointing out that although the UK was not in the Eurozone in 2009, it made almost as great a pig’s ear of the austerity measures as did the Eurozone.
Cameron/Osborne ducked all the really big decisions that would have fixed the public spending problems: the UK still possesses now, 13 years later, Gordon Brown’s conception of how the State should operate. That is why the country is in such trouble. And while I’m no fan whatsoever of the contemptible and anti-democratic EU, it does at least have some sort of mechanism by which it might carry out the necessary measures. In the UK our political system simply doesn’t have the capacity to do it.
There is nothing magical about a 2% inflation target or a 60% debt ceiling. Experience would suggest neither of these are preconditions for rising living standards.
Take Italy. Italy persistently ran deficits and suffered higher inflation than most of the countries that were the EEC. Yet at the dawn of 1990 its GDP per capita had overtaken Germany’s. Italy had outgrown Germany for nearly 4 decades. If Germany had undergone an economic miracle, how do you describe what Italy had achieved after WW2? How could this have happened in a country where parts of it flirted with communism, with high inflation, and large deficits?
Italy’s golden years of economic growth abruptly ended when it joined the European exchange rate mechanism (ERM). It was decided that Europe would adopt Germany’s fiscal and monetary policies. Italy has barely grown since.
The UK joined the ERM too, and the economy suffered its worst recession ever, an experience that sowed the seeds of Brexit. To prove the point, Britain (unlike Italy) was forced out of the ERM and immediately began one of its longest economic expansions in history despite not following German fiscal orthodoxy. Again, how could this be if that orthodoxy is a precondition for rising living standards?
And of course, take the USA. A country that has not followed any orthodoxy it prescribes for others. Since 2008, the USA stands almost alone as a Western country that has increased GDP per capita. Almost everywhere else (France, Canada, UK, etc), where orthodox central bankers reign unchallenged, GDP per capita has stagnated.
The last paragraph of the article. “The combination of austerity, renewed German hegemony and aggressive militarism makes the Europe of the past decade look positively benign.”
Your ‘hahas’ give you away. I think you put your finger on the spot though. We are kidding ourselves (brought on by the socialists) that we are poor in Europe and that we should feel guilty for having those ‘poor’ people in our midst. The Socialists want to give more and more of our money away to finance bigger and bigger flat-screen TVs, newer mobile phones, even better vacations. (Not to mention the illegal things that the money buys). Meanwhile, the people who have worked and accumulated things are supposed to give it all up for the ‘poor’.
There is a bigger problem in the EU. They are used to being saved at the last moment by John Wayne riding in over the hill. They have to realise that John Wayne is now dead. The Europeans have thumbed their noses at a nuclear super-power which has now reacted. The Europeans have to pay for this. It is a lesson you are supposed to learn when you first go to school.
German hegemony no longer exists.
haha….So EU should have spent its way out of debt? Rather than so called ‘austerity’ back in the day?
”These policies (austerity) didn’t just raise unemployment, erode social welfare, push large portions of the population to the brink of poverty and, in the case of Greece and other countries, create a genuine humanitarian emergency — they also completely failed to achieve their stated aims of kickstarting growth and reducing debt-to-GDP ratios. On the contrary, they drove economies into recession and increased debt-to-GDP ratios. ** The result was a “lost decade” of stagnation and permacrisis”
You silly euroweenies – don’t you get it? You are being destroyed. The Ukraine war and sanctions were not for Freedom and Democracy – it was to break you, Break the world, like the Plandemic was. Now they Want you to try to spend your way out of this even deeper pit of debt you are in…….haha
”Yet it’s hard to see how Europe could survive a second round of austerity, which would come at a time when the state of the global economy is far bleaker than it did a decade ago: we are facing high inflation, supply-chain disruptions, global fragmentation and a war with no end in sight at Europe’s border with Russia.”
Well you sure cannot survive greater profligacy. It is like drinking your way to sobriety, it is not a real thing.
See- you have been hooked on Socialism – intentionally, to destroy you. You have more people getting money than comes in. Government, which is a parasite, is over half the ”GDP”, haha…. Every one who does not produce is ‘Entitled’, and the workers are too few to pay for it. Government is a machine to waste money pointlessly. This is Intentional. Your sickoo Lefty/Liberal postmodernist welfare state is not to help the poor – it is to make the successful and hard working poor too. Poor are clients of the state – the government (Global) wants you poor so the state owns you – so they are having you spend your nations into poverty. Same as USA.
Free Market Capitalism, or chains of poverty via Socialism? You guys chose the later….were conned into it……Clement Atlee, LBJ, haha, they got you….
Seems like every article written by Mr. Fazi contains some reference to the EU capitulating to nefarious US foreign policy demands. Sure, these pieces begin well and include some interesting analysis … then pivot to blame it all on the Americans. If he stopped a couple paragraphs before the end I would have commended his insight.
It’s disappointing to realise that there are otherwise intelligent people who still think the Russian invasion of Ukraine marks anything other than unwarranted aggression and a breakdown of what was always supposed to be our shared, collective defence of Western values.
And what the heck is that photo, anyway?
Fu Manchu!
Know your enemy.
09.22 BST. Changed to:-
The Reich Führerin.
Congratulations! Your comment had an effect – they changed the pic. Good to know someone is taking note.
Fu Manchu!
Know your enemy.
09.22 BST. Changed to:-
The Reich Führerin.
Congratulations! Your comment had an effect – they changed the pic. Good to know someone is taking note.
Fazi disagrees with Western involvement in Ukraine. I disagree with him on this, but his reasons are logical and honourable.
However, it is not true that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is entirely unwarranted or that there was no provocation. Starting in the 1990s, the West made a series of strategic blunders, worsened at times by outright dishonesty, in its dealings with Russia. The eastward expansion of NATO, driven principally by the expansionist ambitions of the EU, meant breaking a promise to Russia that NATO would not expand, and means that Russia can claim to have been deceived. This does not, of course, justify the Ukraine invasion, of course it doesn’t. And there is also of course the fact that Russia cannot itself claim to be a nation governed by a rules-based order and in possession of a functioning polity and civil society.
But Russia was indeed decieved, and no matter whose side you take here you cannot seriously claim that doing this to a nuclear superpower is a good idea. This mess is the direct result of a generation of idiotic policymakers in the West who are still making the key decisions now. I’m sorry, but it just isn’t as simple as you appear to believe.
Yes, Russia and her apologists try to play the part of the aggrieved party in the media, but every single one of those former Warsaw Pact countries that switched “sides” to NATO did so willingly and enthusiastically. Why? Because they knew first-hand what living under Russian hegemony was like. Make no moral equivalencies between the two former Cold War adversaries — only stark reality could drive Finland and Sweden to abandon decades of strategic neutrality.
I was very careful not to draw moral equivalence between Russia and the West, I think my previous comment fairly clearly does not make that mistake. The observations I’m making are more related to statecraft and realpolitik than to simplistic moral generalities: we – the West that is – spent 30 years poking the bear, and now we’re supposed to be surprised it’s bitten us? Don’t get me wrong, Ukraine needs to win this war and the plan to assist Ukraine in doing so has my support. But I’m not going to do it wearing rose-tinted spectacles, not a chance.
The fact that Russia claims to have been provoked does not make it so. Russia is a gangster State and will look for advantage wherever it finds it. In this case, it clearly thought a takeover of Ukraine would be quick and easy, like the Crimea. The war is because it miscalculated, not because it was threatened.
“The fact that Russia claims to have been provoked does not make it so.”
No, but the fact that our own diplomats and strategists agree with the statement does make it so. Particularly George Kennan’s observations back in the late 1990s which make him look more like a prophet these days.
“The fact that Russia claims to have been provoked does not make it so.”
No, but the fact that our own diplomats and strategists agree with the statement does make it so. Particularly George Kennan’s observations back in the late 1990s which make him look more like a prophet these days.
The fact that Russia claims to have been provoked does not make it so. Russia is a gangster State and will look for advantage wherever it finds it. In this case, it clearly thought a takeover of Ukraine would be quick and easy, like the Crimea. The war is because it miscalculated, not because it was threatened.
The US should keep its nose out of Europe’s affairs. They are known to meddle in the domestic affairs of countries and instigate coups to get their preferred person in the right position. They did it with Ukraine and are currently doing it with Hungary
So you’d rather they hadn’t bailed Europe out in not one but two world wars then ?
So you’d rather they hadn’t bailed Europe out in not one but two world wars then ?
Generally I agree but do you think those politicians support the EU just because of the history with Russia rather than their buy-in to the EU and its endless coffers?
I was very careful not to draw moral equivalence between Russia and the West, I think my previous comment fairly clearly does not make that mistake. The observations I’m making are more related to statecraft and realpolitik than to simplistic moral generalities: we – the West that is – spent 30 years poking the bear, and now we’re supposed to be surprised it’s bitten us? Don’t get me wrong, Ukraine needs to win this war and the plan to assist Ukraine in doing so has my support. But I’m not going to do it wearing rose-tinted spectacles, not a chance.
The US should keep its nose out of Europe’s affairs. They are known to meddle in the domestic affairs of countries and instigate coups to get their preferred person in the right position. They did it with Ukraine and are currently doing it with Hungary
Generally I agree but do you think those politicians support the EU just because of the history with Russia rather than their buy-in to the EU and its endless coffers?
I sometimes think Putin apologists don’t grasp that what they are defending is murder and brutalisation, which they’d rail against were it being committed by terrorists in another context. Essentially therefore they are defending the use of terror as a vehicle of policy.
The same can be said about Ukraine and apologists for the west. They are also know for defending murder and brutalisation
It is disappointing that whenever someone points out that the West does not have entirely clean hands in its dealings with Russia, they are simply characterised as “Putin apologists”.
The US gave a clear promise that Russia ( for practical purposes including Belarus ) would never face NATO tanks on its border. Perhaps that was not in their gift, but they gave it anyway. They then set about breaking it.
The current proxy war in Ukraine is suiting the US establishment very well and they care no more about the casualties, military and civilian, than Putin does.
Utter rubbish. There was no deal. And besides sovereign countries can make their own decision. (One irony I’ve noticed on UnHerd is a considerable overlap between Brexit supporters extoling the democratic imperative of self-determination who then seem to completely set aside the same principle regarding Ukraine and the eastern Europe Russian neighbours).
Utter rubbish. There was no deal. And besides sovereign countries can make their own decision. (One irony I’ve noticed on UnHerd is a considerable overlap between Brexit supporters extoling the democratic imperative of self-determination who then seem to completely set aside the same principle regarding Ukraine and the eastern Europe Russian neighbours).
Ukraine’s Azov Battalion had been practicing that in the Donbas since around 2014
I sometimes think the people who reply to my comments don’t go to the trouble of actually bloody reading them first.
The same can be said about Ukraine and apologists for the west. They are also know for defending murder and brutalisation
It is disappointing that whenever someone points out that the West does not have entirely clean hands in its dealings with Russia, they are simply characterised as “Putin apologists”.
The US gave a clear promise that Russia ( for practical purposes including Belarus ) would never face NATO tanks on its border. Perhaps that was not in their gift, but they gave it anyway. They then set about breaking it.
The current proxy war in Ukraine is suiting the US establishment very well and they care no more about the casualties, military and civilian, than Putin does.
Ukraine’s Azov Battalion had been practicing that in the Donbas since around 2014
I sometimes think the people who reply to my comments don’t go to the trouble of actually bloody reading them first.
This is ridiculous, after 1989 the Russians could not have seriously contemplated that former states they absolutely brutalised in Eastern Europe were not going to look towards Western Europe and NATO for closer ties?
Maybe that is why the USSR insisted as part of agreeing to German reunification that NATO would not extend east of Germany. They were so assured, and permitted reunification. Then the US and NATO reneged.
Not in writing.
Not in writing.
Maybe that is why the USSR insisted as part of agreeing to German reunification that NATO would not extend east of Germany. They were so assured, and permitted reunification. Then the US and NATO reneged.
I agree, the west and NATO are spinning a deceitful story about Ukraine and Russia. We have lied about why this is happening.
Who promised no NATO expansion? I only recall Russia unilaterally claiming a sphere of influence over all former Warsaw Pact countries. The Obama administration reversed the previous administration’s decision to place anti-missle defenses in Poland. Surely this was a gesture to assuage Russia’s stated concerns. But it changed nothing that I can discern respecting Russia’s stance and appetite.
I like this comment – too much of the commentary on the Ukraine conflict is around Ukraine good/Russia bad and there isn’t enough detailed analysis of what is a long term degradation of the situation in Eastern Europe. It is too complicated a situation for soundbite reporting and response. We need all parties to sit down and thrash out an honest response to the situation in which both sides appear to have honest grievances. I doubt we have any politicians up to the job either due to vested interest or lack of political talent.
Yes, Russia and her apologists try to play the part of the aggrieved party in the media, but every single one of those former Warsaw Pact countries that switched “sides” to NATO did so willingly and enthusiastically. Why? Because they knew first-hand what living under Russian hegemony was like. Make no moral equivalencies between the two former Cold War adversaries — only stark reality could drive Finland and Sweden to abandon decades of strategic neutrality.
I sometimes think Putin apologists don’t grasp that what they are defending is murder and brutalisation, which they’d rail against were it being committed by terrorists in another context. Essentially therefore they are defending the use of terror as a vehicle of policy.
This is ridiculous, after 1989 the Russians could not have seriously contemplated that former states they absolutely brutalised in Eastern Europe were not going to look towards Western Europe and NATO for closer ties?
I agree, the west and NATO are spinning a deceitful story about Ukraine and Russia. We have lied about why this is happening.
Who promised no NATO expansion? I only recall Russia unilaterally claiming a sphere of influence over all former Warsaw Pact countries. The Obama administration reversed the previous administration’s decision to place anti-missle defenses in Poland. Surely this was a gesture to assuage Russia’s stated concerns. But it changed nothing that I can discern respecting Russia’s stance and appetite.
I like this comment – too much of the commentary on the Ukraine conflict is around Ukraine good/Russia bad and there isn’t enough detailed analysis of what is a long term degradation of the situation in Eastern Europe. It is too complicated a situation for soundbite reporting and response. We need all parties to sit down and thrash out an honest response to the situation in which both sides appear to have honest grievances. I doubt we have any politicians up to the job either due to vested interest or lack of political talent.
And what the heck is that photo, anyway?
Fazi disagrees with Western involvement in Ukraine. I disagree with him on this, but his reasons are logical and honourable.
However, it is not true that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is entirely unwarranted or that there was no provocation. Starting in the 1990s, the West made a series of strategic blunders, worsened at times by outright dishonesty, in its dealings with Russia. The eastward expansion of NATO, driven principally by the expansionist ambitions of the EU, meant breaking a promise to Russia that NATO would not expand, and means that Russia can claim to have been deceived. This does not, of course, justify the Ukraine invasion, of course it doesn’t. And there is also of course the fact that Russia cannot itself claim to be a nation governed by a rules-based order and in possession of a functioning polity and civil society.
But Russia was indeed decieved, and no matter whose side you take here you cannot seriously claim that doing this to a nuclear superpower is a good idea. This mess is the direct result of a generation of idiotic policymakers in the West who are still making the key decisions now. I’m sorry, but it just isn’t as simple as you appear to believe.
Seems like every article written by Mr. Fazi contains some reference to the EU capitulating to nefarious US foreign policy demands. Sure, these pieces begin well and include some interesting analysis … then pivot to blame it all on the Americans. If he stopped a couple paragraphs before the end I would have commended his insight.
It’s disappointing to realise that there are otherwise intelligent people who still think the Russian invasion of Ukraine marks anything other than unwarranted aggression and a breakdown of what was always supposed to be our shared, collective defence of Western values.
Politicians never learn from their mistakes because they are completely unaccountable and are more likely to go on to more important jobs. There is only one thing that can save us and that is to adopt the Roman approach to punishing the army – decimation. Get rid of a tenth immediately and repeat until we get governments that work for the electorate.
Politicians never learn from their mistakes because they are completely unaccountable and are more likely to go on to more important jobs. There is only one thing that can save us and that is to adopt the Roman approach to punishing the army – decimation. Get rid of a tenth immediately and repeat until we get governments that work for the electorate.
The SNP just announced that if they were in coalition with Labour after the next election they were going to work to do as much as possible to rejoin the EU…. which is there ultimate stated goal.
Is that what Scots really want?
With any luck most of the SNP will be in HMP* Barlinnie by then.
(* His Majesty’s Prison.)
No!
With any luck most of the SNP will be in HMP* Barlinnie by then.
(* His Majesty’s Prison.)
No!
The SNP just announced that if they were in coalition with Labour after the next election they were going to work to do as much as possible to rejoin the EU…. which is there ultimate stated goal.
Is that what Scots really want?
Thomas writes so beautifully. I simply question whether Germany will be the EU mover and shaker going forward. The latest GDP figures and the implications of the US’s “make a choice – China or the US” – let alone their Green policies – put this mercantile economy in question going forward. The world is going East over the coming decades and Europe is no exception. Reading Unherd’s Poland as a great power, and doing my own research, I find myself wondering whether the mantle might pass in this direction over time. France will – as ever – do its own thing.
Thomas writes so beautifully. I simply question whether Germany will be the EU mover and shaker going forward. The latest GDP figures and the implications of the US’s “make a choice – China or the US” – let alone their Green policies – put this mercantile economy in question going forward. The world is going East over the coming decades and Europe is no exception. Reading Unherd’s Poland as a great power, and doing my own research, I find myself wondering whether the mantle might pass in this direction over time. France will – as ever – do its own thing.
The Russian R-28 Sarmat Intercontinental Ballistic Missile* is reputed to be capable of reaching London NW1 in three minutes. The subsequent explosion would ‘make you eyes water’ in Windsor or Heathrow, 13 miles away.
Perhaps it won’t work?
(* Sometimes irreverently called Satan II.)
How long to reach N1?
How long to reach N1?
The Russian R-28 Sarmat Intercontinental Ballistic Missile* is reputed to be capable of reaching London NW1 in three minutes. The subsequent explosion would ‘make you eyes water’ in Windsor or Heathrow, 13 miles away.
Perhaps it won’t work?
(* Sometimes irreverently called Satan II.)
“The bloc’s increasingly vassal-like subordination.to US foreign policy.”
Macron has only recently returned from a visit to China during which, speaking on behalf of the EU but without any mandate whatsoever, he called for EU “strategic autonomy” from the US over Taiwan, very publicly throwing Taiwan under the bus, virtually assuring China the EU would take no punitive action against China in the event of a Chinese invasion and in effect equating the USA with China.
Macron is a disgrace. He appears to consider France to be the EU’s diplomatic mouthpiece, possessing as it does a nuclear deterrent and sitting on the UN Security Council. With a view to parading the EU’s credentials as a top table power in an emerging multipolar world order, Macron is cosying up to Xi and even Putin. If that is what the EU calls “strategic autonomy” (I prophecy it will put Macron increasingly on a collision course with Eastern Europe), it is welcome to it.
“The bloc’s increasingly vassal-like subordination.to US foreign policy.”
Macron has only recently returned from a visit to China during which, speaking on behalf of the EU but without any mandate whatsoever, he called for EU “strategic autonomy” from the US over Taiwan, very publicly throwing Taiwan under the bus, virtually assuring China the EU would take no punitive action against China in the event of a Chinese invasion and in effect equating the USA with China.
Macron is a disgrace. He appears to consider France to be the EU’s diplomatic mouthpiece, possessing as it does a nuclear deterrent and sitting on the UN Security Council. With a view to parading the EU’s credentials as a top table power in an emerging multipolar world order, Macron is cosying up to Xi and even Putin. If that is what the EU calls “strategic autonomy” (I prophecy it will put Macron increasingly on a collision course with Eastern Europe), it is welcome to it.
Vassal-like submission to US foreign policy? Is that how European governments providing for their own defense and not having to rely so much on American help is to be perceived? Would vassal-like submission to Beijing and Moscow be preferable?
Defence
On my side of the pond we spell it with an “s”.
That is completely fair enough Jim! (yours was probably the original ‘english’ spelling anyway)
That is completely fair enough Jim! (yours was probably the original ‘english’ spelling anyway)
On my side of the pond we spell it with an “s”.
Defence
Vassal-like submission to US foreign policy? Is that how European governments providing for their own defense and not having to rely so much on American help is to be perceived? Would vassal-like submission to Beijing and Moscow be preferable?
‘bloc’s increasingly vassal-like subordination to US foreign policy’ – I see far more resistance to the war in Ukraine in the US than in Europe. I wonder what you would be saying if the US had shrugged and said ‘local European problem’? On this one, I think there are enormous geo-political and moral hazards either way. But to present this as US leading the EU bull by the nose is off the mark
Whilst I would not put it in such strident terms as Tom does, it is clear that the US is the largest net beneficiary from the situation and the opposition in the US is mostly around not spending US resources on a European problem, hence the drive to get EU countries defence budgets to 2% of GDP (not a new aspiration by the US but being acted upon now).
I think you are right about the geopolitical and moral hazards when the invasion first occurred and I believe Putin expected a rather weak and disunited response from the West. However having been given bloody nose after bloody nose for over a year now by a remarkably united western backing of the Ukrainian forces, are those hazards still there?
Also does it make one a Putin apologist to question whether the current plan which, to misquote Black Adder, seems to be to continue with total slaughter until the only Ukrainians left are Zelensky, Mrs Zelensky and their tortoise Alan is really the right answer?
I first read “strident terms” as “student terms”, which actually seemed more apt.
I first read “strident terms” as “student terms”, which actually seemed more apt.
This is a very reasonable point, and one that doesn’t get nearly the attention it should. I well-remember back in the early 1990s people in the US, very reasonably, asking exactly where the interest was in Bosnia that needed US men to be sent to die. Had the internet been around at the time I imagine we would have seen similar US commentary to what we now see about Ukraine. The direct US interest in Ukraine in the sense of a strategically useful diminution of Russian capability is perhaps clearer. But like you I struggle with the characterisation of the EU being led here.
The day will come when the US will say no. Had Donald Trump won the last election we may have been at that day now. We in Europe have outsourced everything in the name of a doubtful idea of ‘change through trade.’ We outsourced our capacity to make corporate profit to China, we outsourced our fuel security to the Russians and we outsourced our military security to the US with very little if any idea of what a fall-back would be. We have no idea what we would do had the US just shrugged. Presumably the answer would be to throw money at Kiev and arms into the region. But the idea that this conflict ends without talking to the Russians is just fanciful.
The most the EU could do is the economic hit – that’s hardly trivial but it’s not irrecoverable for a country like Russia, one of the few states in the world that could be an autarky. Back in the 1990s the fashion was to see the EU as an economic giant and a political dwarf. 30 years on that formulation doesn’t seem to have done anyone any favours as the EU has denuded its economy with a botched currency union and has run up against the limits of its attraction as a political project. Indeed some Europeans would do very well to remember that when Republicans McCain and Kerry warned about Russia they were treated with disdain. And this is before we get to the very dumb promises made to Ukraine about membership, agriculture alone is going to be a huge problem.
Your point however is a good one. Whatever the US interest does end up being in Ukraine folks in Europe need to see that outsourcing security to the US is a plan with real risks, not theoretical ones. It only needs one election.
Whilst I would not put it in such strident terms as Tom does, it is clear that the US is the largest net beneficiary from the situation and the opposition in the US is mostly around not spending US resources on a European problem, hence the drive to get EU countries defence budgets to 2% of GDP (not a new aspiration by the US but being acted upon now).
I think you are right about the geopolitical and moral hazards when the invasion first occurred and I believe Putin expected a rather weak and disunited response from the West. However having been given bloody nose after bloody nose for over a year now by a remarkably united western backing of the Ukrainian forces, are those hazards still there?
Also does it make one a Putin apologist to question whether the current plan which, to misquote Black Adder, seems to be to continue with total slaughter until the only Ukrainians left are Zelensky, Mrs Zelensky and their tortoise Alan is really the right answer?
This is a very reasonable point, and one that doesn’t get nearly the attention it should. I well-remember back in the early 1990s people in the US, very reasonably, asking exactly where the interest was in Bosnia that needed US men to be sent to die. Had the internet been around at the time I imagine we would have seen similar US commentary to what we now see about Ukraine. The direct US interest in Ukraine in the sense of a strategically useful diminution of Russian capability is perhaps clearer. But like you I struggle with the characterisation of the EU being led here.
The day will come when the US will say no. Had Donald Trump won the last election we may have been at that day now. We in Europe have outsourced everything in the name of a doubtful idea of ‘change through trade.’ We outsourced our capacity to make corporate profit to China, we outsourced our fuel security to the Russians and we outsourced our military security to the US with very little if any idea of what a fall-back would be. We have no idea what we would do had the US just shrugged. Presumably the answer would be to throw money at Kiev and arms into the region. But the idea that this conflict ends without talking to the Russians is just fanciful.
The most the EU could do is the economic hit – that’s hardly trivial but it’s not irrecoverable for a country like Russia, one of the few states in the world that could be an autarky. Back in the 1990s the fashion was to see the EU as an economic giant and a political dwarf. 30 years on that formulation doesn’t seem to have done anyone any favours as the EU has denuded its economy with a botched currency union and has run up against the limits of its attraction as a political project. Indeed some Europeans would do very well to remember that when Republicans McCain and Kerry warned about Russia they were treated with disdain. And this is before we get to the very dumb promises made to Ukraine about membership, agriculture alone is going to be a huge problem.
Your point however is a good one. Whatever the US interest does end up being in Ukraine folks in Europe need to see that outsourcing security to the US is a plan with real risks, not theoretical ones. It only needs one election.
‘bloc’s increasingly vassal-like subordination to US foreign policy’ – I see far more resistance to the war in Ukraine in the US than in Europe. I wonder what you would be saying if the US had shrugged and said ‘local European problem’? On this one, I think there are enormous geo-political and moral hazards either way. But to present this as US leading the EU bull by the nose is off the mark
There is a lot of ”funny money” within The EU.
Germany:
Putting aside Germany calls the financial shots, as can be seen by this article, Germanys actual debt to GDP – taking into account its off-balance sheet liabilities is probably double what it says officially. Due to its liabilities with the ECB – as indeed as all Euro member states.
I am not saying they cannot afford to pay – its just the disclosed numbers are disguised. I am not convinced The German Volk are actually aware of this – but perhaps they will be happy with it.
Another example of ‘funny money’:
Ireland:
Irelands ACTUAL GDP is probably around £225bn-ish. Their official GDP is listed at £511bn at the last count.Their economy is ‘growing’ like crazy, by recieving emails for orders (say between France and Belgium) and then hitting the ‘reply’ button – to book the ”sale/profit” in Ireland.
38% of ”Irish” Exports are also fake – in a similar manner as above. Irish debt to GDP is similarly effected and is around 100% not the 45% on their books.
Read the synopsis of this book:
Its an excellent book ‘The Shadow Liabilities of EU Member States‘ is an eye opener (but not for me nor a few others).
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/183806589X/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Other Shadow Banking books are available.
Let everyone join hands and be friends!
Regarding Germany: eugyppius dot substack – FDR article
UVL looks just like the sexy wife of a German Brigadier’s wife whom I met after Mass at Catholic Church at Sandhurst all those years ago and… got to know well!… Happy memories…
addenda and erata: 2 ” wives” !
This clarified absolutely nothing.
This clarified absolutely nothing.
That’s hilarious! First time I’ve heard/read someone describe UVL as sexy. 😉
addenda and erata: 2 ” wives” !
That’s hilarious! First time I’ve heard/read someone describe UVL as sexy. 😉
UVL looks just like the sexy wife of a German Brigadier’s wife whom I met after Mass at Catholic Church at Sandhurst all those years ago and… got to know well!… Happy memories…
This demonstrates the unsustainability of the modern concept of welfare, but does not provide a route back from it.
It defies belief that the population of modern Europe needs more welfare than in previous eras. But it is a fact that it has become accustomed to it. All the crises and landmarks (peak interest rates, lowest growth rates, highest deficits etc.) are merely trivia on the route to the collapse of the welfare State.
The author argues against using the brakes, and advocates the accelerator. Neither will change the destination.
This demonstrates the unsustainability of the modern concept of welfare, but does not provide a route back from it.
It defies belief that the population of modern Europe needs more welfare than in previous eras. But it is a fact that it has become accustomed to it. All the crises and landmarks (peak interest rates, lowest growth rates, highest deficits etc.) are merely trivia on the route to the collapse of the welfare State.
The author argues against using the brakes, and advocates the accelerator. Neither will change the destination.
You don’t have to read far into a Fazi article before the Putin apologist comes to the fore – ‘…then came the largest energy and commodity shock in 50 years, caused by the decision to sanction Europe’s largest supplier of gas to the continent’. Err no TF this happened because for the first time in 80yrs a European country invaded another and continues to indiscriminately lob missiles into residential areas.
That aside had a Right Wing Govt in any state proposed most of the alleged EU policies the Author outlines many right leaning commentators would have signalled strong support.
The question thus centres on democratic legitimacy. Here there is a debate about how the EU sets direction. There is far more democratic control than critics often contend, but there is no doubt in some countries it’s not well understood and a democratic deficit can pervade some thinking. Club members need to have a role in direction setting, but then as in any club to stay you need to abide by some rules. The international bond markets will set rules too of course, so the idea you don’t then just bob about on economic waves not of your own making if you seek total freedom naive too. Trade offs are a judgment made.
As regards Europe, and other Western states, now needing to re-prioritise defence and security spending – the old saying goes if you want to protect the peace plan for war. Deterrence works. It feels uncomfortable to say this doesn’t it but we are already in Cold War 2 and we better wake up to it quickly.
His general point is right though: in the West we tolerate a level of rent-seeking behaviour that is utterly unsustainable. Far too many people – and particularly middle class people – live comfortably on the state. It’s worst in France and the club med – but we’re not far behind.
No, the sharp jump in energy (specifically gas) prices was indeed caused by the EU’s hysterical rush to sanction Russia. I’m not denying that this was in response to the invasion, but the cause-and-effect is crystal clear, except to juvenile thinkers.
But the EU is not a club. That’s fatuous. And even it it was a club, members of a club and reasonably easily leave. Is there a democratic deficit? That is a rather 1990s term and a way of looking at it which, to my mind, is well out of date. There is no Finer-style Man on Horseback here. Democratic rules and process are qualitatively in place for sure in the EU.
The issue is I think far more about a constitutional deficit. It’s no good just glossing over that the EU is basically a one-way deal. Once something is gone and signed over to the EU then that’s it pretty much forever, irrespective of what the future may bring or what future electorates may have to say on the matter. You may be comfortable with that, however you have no expectation everyone else will be. And then, as neofunctionalism tells us, the spillover effects are remorseless. Pretty much anything and anything can be regarded as a ‘single market’ issue.
We see this most obviously with free movement where a lot of people (not just in the UK) have serious reservations about the ever-growing nature of free movement, but with no recourse to challenge the direction. It’s not exactly as if the ECJ is going to change course is it?
As we have seen with the UK, the right to leave – a treaty right – is pretty much on paper only. Why exactly does a member of the club exercising an explicit club rules right cause heads to spin?
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m quite sure that all the people who signed those treaties had it in mind that the EU was permanent and binding and there was no way out – just they didn’t mention that part to the voters.
Now, of course, there is a reasonable argument for integration to some extent. But that integration does not need a constitutionally deficient political construct on top. Let’s at least say as much.
The West had the chance to bring Russia into the western club, but the US in particular didn’t want that and used NATO to try and put an end to any future ‘challenge’ from Russia to its dominance in Europe. Imagine a Russian minister turning up on Jan 6th in Washington and encouraging the Capitol ‘coup’. OR imagine Mexico asking to join a Russian defence pact – in fact,why imagine? Look back to the threatened siting of Russian missiles in Cuba and the US response to that. A reading of the true history of the US/EU/NATO response to Russia might help understand how much more restraint Putin showed with the behaviour of NATO/US/EU than the US has ever shown. Even George F Kennan advised against the US policies that have led to this Ukraine war. As for NATO it should have been scrapped when the Warsaw Pact was scrapped. Afghanistan/Iraq are a fair way off the North Atlantic.
If it turns out that Boris did indeed stop Zelensky negotiating with Putin/Russia then he may well be responsible for the destruction of the Ukraine. As for the Eastern EU countries, I never cease to be amused how they swap between villains and heroes depending upon the topic of the conversation and who their opponents in that conversation are – the EC or Putin.
His general point is right though: in the West we tolerate a level of rent-seeking behaviour that is utterly unsustainable. Far too many people – and particularly middle class people – live comfortably on the state. It’s worst in France and the club med – but we’re not far behind.
No, the sharp jump in energy (specifically gas) prices was indeed caused by the EU’s hysterical rush to sanction Russia. I’m not denying that this was in response to the invasion, but the cause-and-effect is crystal clear, except to juvenile thinkers.
But the EU is not a club. That’s fatuous. And even it it was a club, members of a club and reasonably easily leave. Is there a democratic deficit? That is a rather 1990s term and a way of looking at it which, to my mind, is well out of date. There is no Finer-style Man on Horseback here. Democratic rules and process are qualitatively in place for sure in the EU.
The issue is I think far more about a constitutional deficit. It’s no good just glossing over that the EU is basically a one-way deal. Once something is gone and signed over to the EU then that’s it pretty much forever, irrespective of what the future may bring or what future electorates may have to say on the matter. You may be comfortable with that, however you have no expectation everyone else will be. And then, as neofunctionalism tells us, the spillover effects are remorseless. Pretty much anything and anything can be regarded as a ‘single market’ issue.
We see this most obviously with free movement where a lot of people (not just in the UK) have serious reservations about the ever-growing nature of free movement, but with no recourse to challenge the direction. It’s not exactly as if the ECJ is going to change course is it?
As we have seen with the UK, the right to leave – a treaty right – is pretty much on paper only. Why exactly does a member of the club exercising an explicit club rules right cause heads to spin?
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m quite sure that all the people who signed those treaties had it in mind that the EU was permanent and binding and there was no way out – just they didn’t mention that part to the voters.
Now, of course, there is a reasonable argument for integration to some extent. But that integration does not need a constitutionally deficient political construct on top. Let’s at least say as much.
The West had the chance to bring Russia into the western club, but the US in particular didn’t want that and used NATO to try and put an end to any future ‘challenge’ from Russia to its dominance in Europe. Imagine a Russian minister turning up on Jan 6th in Washington and encouraging the Capitol ‘coup’. OR imagine Mexico asking to join a Russian defence pact – in fact,why imagine? Look back to the threatened siting of Russian missiles in Cuba and the US response to that. A reading of the true history of the US/EU/NATO response to Russia might help understand how much more restraint Putin showed with the behaviour of NATO/US/EU than the US has ever shown. Even George F Kennan advised against the US policies that have led to this Ukraine war. As for NATO it should have been scrapped when the Warsaw Pact was scrapped. Afghanistan/Iraq are a fair way off the North Atlantic.
If it turns out that Boris did indeed stop Zelensky negotiating with Putin/Russia then he may well be responsible for the destruction of the Ukraine. As for the Eastern EU countries, I never cease to be amused how they swap between villains and heroes depending upon the topic of the conversation and who their opponents in that conversation are – the EC or Putin.
You don’t have to read far into a Fazi article before the Putin apologist comes to the fore – ‘…then came the largest energy and commodity shock in 50 years, caused by the decision to sanction Europe’s largest supplier of gas to the continent’. Err no TF this happened because for the first time in 80yrs a European country invaded another and continues to indiscriminately lob missiles into residential areas.
That aside had a Right Wing Govt in any state proposed most of the alleged EU policies the Author outlines many right leaning commentators would have signalled strong support.
The question thus centres on democratic legitimacy. Here there is a debate about how the EU sets direction. There is far more democratic control than critics often contend, but there is no doubt in some countries it’s not well understood and a democratic deficit can pervade some thinking. Club members need to have a role in direction setting, but then as in any club to stay you need to abide by some rules. The international bond markets will set rules too of course, so the idea you don’t then just bob about on economic waves not of your own making if you seek total freedom naive too. Trade offs are a judgment made.
As regards Europe, and other Western states, now needing to re-prioritise defence and security spending – the old saying goes if you want to protect the peace plan for war. Deterrence works. It feels uncomfortable to say this doesn’t it but we are already in Cold War 2 and we better wake up to it quickly.
Some perceptive stuff here, spoiled by empty headed hyperbole. The economic hits we took from the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine weren’t elite engineered, they were engineered by Mr Covid and Mr Putin, but Fazi can’t resist a chance to make his fatuous comments.
The responses to both Covid and Ukraine were decided upon in isolation by the elite with little thought to the consequences on ordinary people. A pliant mainstream media has supported a free speech denying campaign to ensure the plebs unquestioning loyalty to these responses, which should at least be being continually questioned if we are living in a liberal democracy.
To counter the immediate economic consequences of Covid more money was printed a disproportionate amount of which has ended up in the pockets of the already rich.
Whilst I don’t agree with Tom’s perspective on everything, to call his comments fatuous is fatuous.
National statistics office [hardly a woke organisation] estimates covid related deaths in the UK at 330,000. It’s reasonable to consider this a little high, so lets go with 220,000,from Devi Shrider, professor at Edinburgh university. Spikes of death rates at 1500 people a day, no treatment until the vaccine [after the first year and a half, and we got lucky with that] 30% of people hospitalised dying a particularly nasty death etc. These are the consequences, wake up from your conspiracy dream.
What conspiracy dream? Another fatuous comment clearly you remain one of many who never questioned the reality behind the numbers that were trotted out by MSM.
The vast majority who died were 80+ and they mostly died with Covid not from Covid. The massive debt, the lost opportunities and mental health issues now facing our young were not considered in the response to Covid. The hangover from the response to Covid will haunt a generation.
Over 80s are people too. Many people who died from covid had other illnesses, but could have looked forward to many years if covid hadn’t carried them off. There are well established criteria for deciding cause of death and that’s what the NSO is using. Until the vaccine kicked in, after 18 months, we really didn’t know how things would eventually pan out, so we applied responsible caution. The debt, mental health issues clearly were considered but if you’re presented with a dilemma, which it was, then some things have to take priority over others.
Over 80s are people too. Many people who died from covid had other illnesses, but could have looked forward to many years if covid hadn’t carried them off. There are well established criteria for deciding cause of death and that’s what the NSO is using. Until the vaccine kicked in, after 18 months, we really didn’t know how things would eventually pan out, so we applied responsible caution. The debt, mental health issues clearly were considered but if you’re presented with a dilemma, which it was, then some things have to take priority over others.
Don’t you mean Devi Lalita SRIDHAR FRSE?
If so there isn’t space here to discuss her qualifications or lack of, but she cannot be described as an authority on COVID by any stretch of the imagination.
I presume by “ National statistics office” you really mean the Office of National Statistics or ONS?
As Adrian Smith has correctly pointed out the average age of a COVID death in the U.K. was 82, a year longer than life expectancy itself!
So Sir, disappointingly you seem to be a male hysteric, to whom accuracy is unknown. Pull yourself together while you still can.
COVID is/was the greatest confidence trick since the Resurrection, how did you seriously miss that?
You’re not very mature, are you.
That’s for others to say, but in your sad case you are obviously educationally subnormal.
Still I mustn’t “mock the afflicted “ as we used to say in those ‘mature’ days years ago, probably before you were born.
You keep making my point for me. I’m a retired NHS clinician, by the way, fool.
You keep making my point for me. I’m a retired NHS clinician, by the way, fool.
That’s for others to say, but in your sad case you are obviously educationally subnormal.
Still I mustn’t “mock the afflicted “ as we used to say in those ‘mature’ days years ago, probably before you were born.
You’re not very mature, are you.
What conspiracy dream? Another fatuous comment clearly you remain one of many who never questioned the reality behind the numbers that were trotted out by MSM.
The vast majority who died were 80+ and they mostly died with Covid not from Covid. The massive debt, the lost opportunities and mental health issues now facing our young were not considered in the response to Covid. The hangover from the response to Covid will haunt a generation.
Don’t you mean Devi Lalita SRIDHAR FRSE?
If so there isn’t space here to discuss her qualifications or lack of, but she cannot be described as an authority on COVID by any stretch of the imagination.
I presume by “ National statistics office” you really mean the Office of National Statistics or ONS?
As Adrian Smith has correctly pointed out the average age of a COVID death in the U.K. was 82, a year longer than life expectancy itself!
So Sir, disappointingly you seem to be a male hysteric, to whom accuracy is unknown. Pull yourself together while you still can.
COVID is/was the greatest confidence trick since the Resurrection, how did you seriously miss that?
National statistics office [hardly a woke organisation] estimates covid related deaths in the UK at 330,000. It’s reasonable to consider this a little high, so lets go with 220,000,from Devi Shrider, professor at Edinburgh university. Spikes of death rates at 1500 people a day, no treatment until the vaccine [after the first year and a half, and we got lucky with that] 30% of people hospitalised dying a particularly nasty death etc. These are the consequences, wake up from your conspiracy dream.
No, they were entirely self-inflicted. Lock down for Mr Covid, energy sanctions on Russia for Mr Putin
?
?
Mr Covid was self-inflicted, and Mr Putin looked at the price of gas heading skyward thanks to Net Zero insanity. Windmills failed to deliver in 2021 the Golden Child of renewables, hydro also failed to deliver across South America as well as Europ. This resulted in a dash for Gas & in the case of the EU a failure to put the gas they needed for winter into storage as they used it to replace hydro and wind. Gas prices sent many UK companies to the wall pre-Xmas 2021 AND Putin, seeing the US basically blocking Nord Stream 2 decided that he had Germany & the EU by the pipelines and moved into the Ukraine. One thing that has to be said of Putin – he isn’t stupid, who in their right mind would sanction their main energy supplier? 😉
Meanwhile the west pays through the nose for Indian Diesel – made from Russian Oil, and Azerbaijan gas replaces Russian gas, which in turn replaces the Azerbaijan gas that Azerbaijan sold at higher prices to the EU.
The West is ruled by Morons.
Meanwhile the West cheers as we fight to the last Ukrainian.
The responses to both Covid and Ukraine were decided upon in isolation by the elite with little thought to the consequences on ordinary people. A pliant mainstream media has supported a free speech denying campaign to ensure the plebs unquestioning loyalty to these responses, which should at least be being continually questioned if we are living in a liberal democracy.
To counter the immediate economic consequences of Covid more money was printed a disproportionate amount of which has ended up in the pockets of the already rich.
Whilst I don’t agree with Tom’s perspective on everything, to call his comments fatuous is fatuous.
No, they were entirely self-inflicted. Lock down for Mr Covid, energy sanctions on Russia for Mr Putin
Mr Covid was self-inflicted, and Mr Putin looked at the price of gas heading skyward thanks to Net Zero insanity. Windmills failed to deliver in 2021 the Golden Child of renewables, hydro also failed to deliver across South America as well as Europ. This resulted in a dash for Gas & in the case of the EU a failure to put the gas they needed for winter into storage as they used it to replace hydro and wind. Gas prices sent many UK companies to the wall pre-Xmas 2021 AND Putin, seeing the US basically blocking Nord Stream 2 decided that he had Germany & the EU by the pipelines and moved into the Ukraine. One thing that has to be said of Putin – he isn’t stupid, who in their right mind would sanction their main energy supplier? 😉
Meanwhile the west pays through the nose for Indian Diesel – made from Russian Oil, and Azerbaijan gas replaces Russian gas, which in turn replaces the Azerbaijan gas that Azerbaijan sold at higher prices to the EU.
The West is ruled by Morons.
Meanwhile the West cheers as we fight to the last Ukrainian.
Some perceptive stuff here, spoiled by empty headed hyperbole. The economic hits we took from the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine weren’t elite engineered, they were engineered by Mr Covid and Mr Putin, but Fazi can’t resist a chance to make his fatuous comments.