• German SPD backs talks with Angela Merkel, hoping for a future "United States of Europe"
    41 replies, posted
[QUOTE]BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany’s Social Democrats (SPD) voted on Thursday to hold talks with Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives on forming a government after their leader made an impassioned plea for a free hand to work for a social “United States of Europe”. The vote clears the way for talks that could resolve the impasse into which Europe’s economic powerhouse was plunged after Merkel and the SPD shed support in a September election, greatly complicating the parliamentary arithmetic. Martin Schulz urged reluctant center-left SPD members to be open to Merkel’s overtures to renew the coalition that has governed for the past four years, saying the party had a responsibility to revive social democracy in Germany. A new “grand coalition” with the reluctant SPD is Merkel’s best hope of extending her 12 years in power after talks with two smaller parties failed, giving the smaller SPD greater leverage in any negotiations. “The question isn’t grand coalition or no grand coalition,” he said in a speech to his party’s biennial congress, “Nor minority government or fresh elections. No - it’s about how we exercise our responsibility, including to the next generation.” Schulz said the party would only recover if it could offer a clear vision of a Germany and a Europe that worked for their citizens, calling for deeper European integration and a “United States of Europe” by 2025. “Europe does not always work for its people, rather too often for the big companies,” he said, outlining a populist vision that goes well beyond Merkel’s own openness to limited structural reforms and bureaucratic streamlining. Talks between the two parties are expected to begin in earnest in the new year. A special congress will have to be convened at which party members will vote on whether to support a final agreement, which could fall short of a formal coalition, and could include tolerating a minority government. Stephan Weil, the influential premier of the state of Lower Saxony, said the SPD would want to see its policies reflected in return for supporting any government. “I think the majority of the delegates see themselves as a European party and they expect that Germany becomes a driving force in Europe again,” he said of Schulz’s proposals regarding the European Union. Schulz’s proposals were received more cautiously by Merkel.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-politics/german-spd-backs-talks-with-merkel-after-impassioned-europe-speech-idUSKBN1E039L?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5a2974c104d30178a9afb282&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook"]Reuters.[/URL]
probably better to not take a name for a united group of nations from a country that is decidedly not united at all
[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;52955807]probably better to not take a name for a united group of nations from a country that is decidedly not united at all[/QUOTE] There is also the United States of Mexico. Should places not be called Republics because Venezuela is titled as a Republic?
United States of Europe just sounds bad lol. Although he probably just said that to be illustrative. If a country were to actually form it'd probably be called the.... wait for it.... European Union.
[QUOTE]Schulz said the party would only recover if it could offer a clear vision of a Germany and a Europe that worked for their citizens, calling for deeper European integration and a “United States of Europe” by 2025. “Europe does not always work for its people, rather too often for the big companies,” he said, outlining a populist vision that goes well beyond Merkel’s own openness to limited structural reforms and bureaucratic streamlining.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't exactly say that more Europe integration would fix the issue of governments working for companies and not people, more than likely will end with more interference in government by companies.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;52955830]Wouldn't exactly say that more Europe integration would fix the issue of governments working for companies and not people, more than likely will end with more interference in government by companies.[/QUOTE] A bigger government, even more separated from the people it governs, will almost certainly work more for large entities like corporations than it does now.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52955855]No surprises here, regarding your opinions. The issue is EU is susceptible to sabotage by members like UK if it tried to do anything remotely controversial (among member states.) A stronger EU would be more populist as it'd answer less to member states and more to their populations - their own electorate. Most lobbyists go to the Council for their lobbying, which is member state ministers' little parliament. A weaker and/or elected Council would negate that. Not that I wan TV it to happen - I don't know if corporate lobbying is THAT big of a problem. I'd support a more united Europe simply on principle.[/QUOTE] As member states have less of a say within the EU, it means that the corporate lobby effort becomes more centralized than before, I just think people need to understand that a "United States of Europe" can be taken as having a federal government and that as long as people know that it may come to share more with U.S then it did before and face similar situations. [QUOTE=Trebgarta;52955855] I don't follow your line of reasoning - a lot of corporate lobbyists want to make govt smaller, not bigger? A stronger EU is closer to people than a weak one.[/QUOTE] Yes, but a bigger (federal type) government is better for lobbyists, especially as it will be even more seperated from voters.
I doubt this will carry much weight. The current confederal system strikes the balance between mutual benefit and independent governance.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52955811]There is also the United States of Mexico. Should places not be called Republics because Venezuela is titled as a Republic?[/QUOTE] I just think it's funny, honestly. Plus I didn't know until literally just now that that's the official name of Mexico so
Hopeful it will happen ~ even because is better to be under a federal law of Europe rather than being in a clusterfuck of the italian government I am now. Also, if Switzerland did it, despite having four languages and overall differences, why cannot the entirety of Europe?
[QUOTE=MarcusSmith;52955971]Hopeful it will happen ~ even because is better to be under a federal law of Europe rather than being in a clusterfuck of the italian government I am now. Also, if Switzerland did it, despite having four languages and overall differences, why cannot the entirety of Europe?[/QUOTE] I doubt they'd make a single government for all countries, no government would stand for it
I could see a "United States of Europe" actually working out. Unlike the USA whose many states are disproportionately populated and economically situated for them to hold more power than the central government, a bunch of nations would be able to. Think of Articles of Confederation US or the CSA. Europe uniting doesn't mean there's some big scary mega government ruling over all the different nations, but rather nations dictating things within their own borders whilst also contributing legislation for the continent. Doesn't seem like a bad prospect.
[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;52955807]probably better to not take a name for a united group of nations from a country that is decidedly not united at all[/QUOTE] It won't be named that, it will still be European Union, they just call it that to give a general idea of how it would work.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52956059]Member state governments won't be abolished, no one is suggesting that anyway.[/QUOTE] We don't know how much their power will be reduced, especially with pushes even now from Macron for a fiscal union with a euro area finance minister etc.
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;52956025]I doubt they'd make a single government for all countries, no government would stand for it[/QUOTE] I imagine they would do something very similar to the US with state government vs federal government.
I've always thought of this concept as ending up being called the European Federation, as a continuation from European Union.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52955848]A bigger government, even more separated from the people it governs, will almost certainly work more for large entities like corporations than it does now.[/QUOTE] Any proof for that beyond a general feeling of dislike toward the EU? Coz I have an example where the EU has served the people when the government (UK Conservatives) wanted to serve the big corps. Trade talks re ttip Though some members wanted it EU shot it down
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52957958]Any proof for that beyond a general feeling of dislike toward the EU? Coz I have an example where the EU has served the people when the government (UK Conservatives) wanted to serve the big corps. Trade talks re ttip Though some members wanted it EU shot it down[/QUOTE] TTIP isn't permanently shot down and trade isn't pro-big corp, it's pro-pretty much everyone provided negotiations and rules are properly set.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52957966]TTIP isn't permanently shot down and trade isn't pro-big corp, it's pro-pretty much everyone provided negotiations and rules are properly set.[/QUOTE] Ttip is pro big Corp. Giving companies the power to sue governments over "loss of future profits". Disputes are taken to arbitration, which are essentially closed courts and the arbitrators work for the companies, not for the governments. Sod that for a laugh, last thing we need is more power taken away from democratically elected representives of the people and given to private actors who's only merit/mandate to power is their vast wealth (which they were probably born with anyway!) Furthermore ttip would result in a race to the bottom where the UK (and other EU countries) would need to drop regulations, lower standards and employee protection to compete with the USA (less regulations, lower minimum wage, shit employee protections) and the cherry on the cake is ttip limiting government investment into public services because its "unfair" and anti competitive. I like the NHS. I pity my cross Atlantic amigos for their shit teir healthcare (and welfare) system (or lack thereof). I don't want the UK or any of Europe to be like America and ttip would make that happen. It does not serve the people. Trade is good, race to the bottom is not
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52955811]There is also the United States of Mexico. Should places not be called Republics because Venezuela is titled as a Republic?[/QUOTE] IIRC Mexico actually changed its official name to just "Mexico" two or three years ago. [editline]8th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Destroyox;52956057]I could see a "United States of Europe" actually working out. Unlike the USA whose many states are disproportionately populated and economically situated for them to hold more power than the central government, a bunch of nations would be able to. Think of Articles of Confederation US or the CSA. Europe uniting doesn't mean there's some big scary mega government ruling over all the different nations, but rather nations dictating things within their own borders whilst also contributing legislation for the continent. Doesn't seem like a bad prospect.[/QUOTE] The Articles of Confederation and the CSA are probably the worse possible examples you could have dug up as evidence it would work :v:
Call it the European Union oh wait
[QUOTE=Boilrig;52956087]We don't know how much their power will be reduced, especially with pushes even now from Macron for a fiscal union with a euro area finance minister etc.[/QUOTE] Or increased since we need the unification to have some leverage against China currently shopping around like there is no tomorrow ?
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52955855]No surprises here, regarding your opinions. The issue is EU is susceptible to sabotage by members like UK if it tried to do anything remotely controversial (among member states.) A stronger EU would be more populist as it'd answer less to member states and more to their populations - their own electorate. Most lobbyists go to the Council for their lobbying, which is member state ministers' little parliament. A weaker and/or elected Council would negate that. Not that I wan TV it to happen - I don't know if corporate lobbying is THAT big of a problem. I'd support a more united Europe simply on principle. [editline]8th December 2017[/editline] I don't follow your line of reasoning - a lot of corporate lobbyists want to make govt smaller, not bigger? A stronger EU is closer to people than a weak one.[/QUOTE] Bigger isn't necessarily stronger. Just take a look at our government. It's [I]huge[/I] and yet it's as corrupt and self-serving as it could possibly be and not be a dictatorship. The concern, which is fully justified far as I can tell, is that a bigger EU government will be more disconnected from the average European, which in turn, would make it easier for corporations to lobby it, in much the same way that the US Federal Government is more disconnected from the average American than their state government and thus is much easier to lobby.
[QUOTE=TestECull;52958481]Bigger isn't necessarily stronger. Just take a look at our government. It's [I]huge[/I] and yet it's as corrupt and self-serving as it could possibly be and not be a dictatorship. The concern, which is fully justified far as I can tell, is that a bigger EU government will be more disconnected from the average European, which in turn, would make it easier for corporations to lobby it, in much the same way that the US Federal Government is more disconnected from the average American than their state government and thus is much easier to lobby.[/QUOTE] There is good reason for the EU getting more centralised. EU has shared currency to ease trade, EU has shared regulations and no tariffs to ease trade. Both a shared currency and shared regulations are difficult to manage without share fiscal policy, if you have that then you've effectively got a centralised government. Might as well take the jump and commit to it rather than teetering on the edge while the euroskeptics whinge anyway and the lack of shared fiscal policy brings out problems like greece.
[QUOTE=Killuah;52958451]Or increased since we need the unification to have some leverage against China currently shopping around like there is no tomorrow ?[/QUOTE] Pretty sure the EU has procedures already in place, like adding duties to steel from China for dumping onto the European market as well as against the subsidies that China provides, more unification won't exactly make you more efficient at holding off China. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52958502]There is good reason for the EU getting more centralised. EU has shared currency to ease trade, EU has shared regulations and no tariffs to ease trade. Both a shared currency and shared regulations are difficult to manage without share fiscal policy, if you have that then you've effectively got a centralised government. Might as well take the jump and commit to it rather than teetering on the edge while the euroskeptics whinge anyway and the lack of shared fiscal policy brings out problems like greece.[/QUOTE] That is a pretty big jump to take and will just fuel the euroscepticism, last thing you want to do is tell governments how much tax they can collect and where to spend it, people may accept an army, but when it gets to taxing/spending, the sovereignty argument arrives in full force.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;52958516] That is a pretty big jump to take and will just fuel the euroscepticism, last thing you want to do is tell governments how much tax they can collect and where to spend it, people may accept an army, but when it gets to taxing/spending, the sovereignty argument arrives in full force.[/QUOTE] Necessary step to make the shared currency thing work though. Euroskeptics gonna skeptic anyway
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52957958]Any proof for that beyond a general feeling of dislike toward the EU? Coz I have an example where the EU has served the people when the government (UK Conservatives) wanted to serve the big corps. Trade talks re ttip Though some members wanted it EU shot it down[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-european-parliament-brussels-corporate[/url] The EU is a already corporate powerhouse.
Looks like project 10% is in full force, neat.
[QUOTE=Vasili;52958658][url]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-european-parliament-brussels-corporate[/url] The EU is a already corporate powerhouse.[/QUOTE] It doesn't have to be perfect, only superior to our own government divided. Coming from the UK, I say the EU has a LONG way before it's anywhere near as corporate serving as my own government. Additionally the EU isn't gimped by political squabbles in my own country. In the UK there are labour stronghold areas which see no funding from our own government because the tory party see no chance of winning them over, so the money is diverted to marginal areas and tory strongholds. The EU on the other hand diverts funds to areas based on their condition and need for those funds.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52958106]The Articles of Confederation and the CSA are probably the worse possible examples you could have dug up as evidence it would work :v:[/QUOTE] I mean you kinda missed the second sentence describing why it didn't work for America but why it could work for Europe.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.