Soros would be probably the last I would listen to. Money and politics is a toxic mix. He influences politics and markets to create chaos to make profit out of it. He is still upset that his manipulations against the EU and the Euro has failed. In the last few years the news of the collapse of the Euro was daily in the headlines of interested newspapers and magazines, manipulated by persons like Soros.
The Euro is still there and the EU, too. Don't hold you breath to see them collapse.
Just to provide the counterpoint (perhaps from a less biased position than Soros): the EU was doomed from the start due to member countries (excluding GB) losing sovereignty over monetary policy (i.e. common currency) but retaining sovereignty over fiscal policy. This is a problem because there is no strong mechanism for 'horizontal fiscal equalisation' (HFE) across EU member countries.
Take Greece and Germany in the lead up to the GFC for instance. Germany's economy is going great-guns and national income is rising thanks to their strong exports. Greece is not doing so well, with low productivity and low or negative economic growth. If Greece was not in the EU, they'd have had two options to stimulate their economy: government spends more (fiscal policy) or its central bank lowers interest rates (monetary policy). The latter option also has the nice side benefit of depreciating their currency, meaning their exports become more price competitive.
However, because they're a member of the EU monetary union, they're stuck with the Euro as their currency. Which has a single centrally set interest rate. So with Germany (and other EU countries) doing well, while Greece (and others) doing poorly, the European Central Bank sets the interest rate 'too low' for Germany, and 'too high' for Greece. Therefore, Greece's only option is to deficit spend. And they have to spend more than normal because EU monetary policy is working against them and they have little to no control over it. And because there's no HFE, they have to go in to extreme budget deficit despite being monetarily yoked to countries like Germany.
I think that the monetary union will eventually dissolve and EU nations will move back to sovereign monetary policy. It's hard to imagine the alternative: an effective and formal HFE mechanism being agreed. It's a hard sell in domestic politics, especially if you happen to be one of the 'successful' countries, who must now cross-subsidise 'unproductive' neighbours.
It's just my speculation, but I suspect they'll hold on to free trade and 'open boarders' within the EU.
> It's hard to imagine the alternative: an effective and formal HFE mechanism being agreed.
I believe a fiscal union is the only viable resolution to this crisis - any dissolution of the euro would look like a huge defeat for European politics from which Brussels wouldn't recover for decades. You are right that a fiscal union is very hard to imagine - because it would undermine national sovereignty even more. That's why I believe we will see the usual European approach to this problem: Misusing existing institutions like the ECB to create a "quasi fiscal union" (for example by guaranteeing rates for government bonds of poorer countries). It would work almost like a real fiscal union but its true nature would be somewhat hidden behind misleading nomenclature, complex and indecipherable legal agreements and new institutions with fancy names. It's a very schizophrenic situation, because every EU official knows that creating a fiscal union (of sorts) is inevitable for the survival of the Union, while at the same time promoting such an idea would be political suicide for any government in the wake of recent nationalistic movements.
I realise I'm replying to a fairly old thread now, but just wanted to say thanks for the insightful comments. After giving it some though, I agree that the scenario you've outlined is the most likely one.
I hope the 'eurocrats' keep an eye out for unintended consequences/incentives that 'hidden' (but more complex) arrangements can spawn. Hidden subsidies, like underwriting government bonds, give me the willies...
I agree with your description of the situation but on the other hand it can't be the solution for an economy to engage in currency wars.
Greek labour SHOULD be priced lower than labour in the Netherlands, Germany, Austria or the UK because it is less productive.
Once its labour is priced correctly it should cause foreign investors to invest there, which would in turn increase productivity.
I think austerity is not the issue, the problem is that the EU forces Greece to take on larger credits and even larger credits after that instead of letting dysfunctional parts of the Greek economy go bankrupt.
I agree; currency wars are certainly not the answer as they most likely make everyone poorer in the long-run. I'm more talking about a 'nation level' currency/floating exchange rate (to act as an automatic stabiliser) and interest rates that can be set domestically (as a stimulatory/destimulatory policy tool).
Those 'loans' to Greece are a 'kinda, sort of' weak form of HFE. Most bureaucratic government organisations have a strong instinct for self-preservation. I imagine they would have been pressuring Germany and other nations pretty hard to effectively extend these loans to Greece via capital reserve deposits and corresponding drawing rights for Greece.
I haven't looked at it in any detail, but I find myself wondering if there might be a half-way house resembling the Bretton-Woods system (though perhaps with something other than gold backing). Assuming the ECB is preceived to be credibly independent (as opposed to the IMF, who were suddenly less hawkish when the GFC hit rich western nations)...
EDIT: Oh and agreed on allowing capital and labour to reallocate. I guess the point of contention is at what rate, and whether there are other non-distortionary ways of softening the social dislocation (possibly necessitating fiscal support).
You seem to advocate lowering the interest rate. The interest rate is currently -0.3% and we've just heard Draghi promise (over 10 times in a single meeting) that he'll lower it further.
What makes you think Greece could lower it's interest rate from that point ?
I don't think Soros' civic engagement is connected to his investments in the ways you think I've been involved in some of the projects run by his OpenSociety Foundation and the work they do is clearly Pro-EU.
Of course he's pro-massive bureaucracies. He thinks it'd be excellent if he could repeat this action. But let's not confuse that with being pro-Euro. He wants a bigger Eurozone because it'll be more exploitable. He's just a wolf advocating for fatter sheep.
I like Angela Merkel, and I live in the EU (Ireland). I think she's wrong about a lot of things though.
The EU is on shaky foundations. The original principles of free movement, free trade, solidarity & peace are great. I totally support them. They move the world in a liberal (ie liberty) direction and they really do promote the central goal, centuries of peace. Europe has been at peace for a logn time. It's an achievement, and we need to defend that. But, there was never a truly agreed upon and understandable basis for how these would be promoted and protected and an explicit definition of where and how the EU's authority ends and the State's begins. This has left our national governments with a nice scapegoat, great for populists, nationalists and fringe politicians to use for their purposes.
The Greek saga is a perfect example. Rather than an intelligent abstract policy of allowing Greek to make their own decisions, support with limited liability for the Union we get a German style bureaucratic approach. Regulation an oversight.
I also appreciate her refugee policy. My grandparents (like many's) were refugees in WWII. I think it came from a genuine place of human solidarity. I hope it doesn't sting Germany too badly.
I hope that the EU gets another round of constitutional, foundational work. Take as long as it takes, but do it right. This is for the next 200 years. The problem, as I see it, is that politics has polarized into pro and anti EU. Anti-EU political outsiders from either (or neither) traditional wings using anti-EU rhetoric as an easy populist tools and pro-EU insiders defending the EU as a bureaucratic status quo.
One thing I think needs to change urgently is an exit policy. We need a way for countries that don't want to be in, to get out. It will act as a relief from a lot of populist pressure. If the UK want out, they should have an available option. Similar for Greek. No hard feelings, civilized-like, we can still be friends, just do what the people want.
Apparently, Greece owes Germany $80+ billion dollars[1]. Of course, if it were up to Greece alone, they'd prefer to say "just forgive our past loans and let's reset the odometer to 0 for a new set of loans. And oh, btw, don't expect to get paid back on the new loans either since we don't want your input on how to reform our ineffective government to even make payback possible."
People want to interfere with Greece because they took lots of other people's money.
If a company borrowed money from bond holders and timely payment is not possible, those bondholders can pressure the company to hire their turnaround managers in return for refinancing, or force it into bankruptcy and seize assets.
Whether it's a country or a company borrowing other people's money, it's hard to see how a "hands off" policy by the lenders would be possible.
In 1953 Germany had half its WWI debt erased to rebuild the country and curtail violent attitudes.
Also, Greece did not dig themselves in this hole alone. Its a little telling that so many EU members kept lending to them despite ample signs of fiscal irresponsibility.
I agree with the general gist of your argument but you can't treat firms and nations and equals in this case. Greece's problem reflects a deeper concern of international debt structures and the concerns of the union against those of member nations.
"Keynes points to the material violation of the terms regarding reparations, territorial adjustments, and an equitable economic settlement as a blot on the honour of the western allies and a primary cause of a future war. Given that he was writing in 1919, his prediction that the next war would begin twenty years hence had an uncanny accuracy."
a video i watched (which, i can't for the hell of me, remember the url or name), explained that the difference between the EU and the USA is that of national identity. People in the USA doesn't bat an eye when federal funds are sent to states whose revenue is below the national average. There's no ethos where a 'they' and 'us', unlike in the EU.
This is mostly correct, but the dynamic in USA is a bit more complicated. When one compares "donor" states to "recipient" states, by and large the donors are states with a political commitment to expanded federal spending while legislators elected by the recipients at least rhetorically favor curtailed federal spending. The transfers thus amount to a sort of "bribe" that allows spending bills to get through Congress. It's not clear to what extent the "spend less" position is actually a calculated pose to procure more transfers...
Have you heard of the "halo effect"? It's a very common fallacy where people mistake cause and effect. If a company is doing well, people will say "this company has great management and has a great, productive work culture." If a company is not doing well, people will say "this company has inefficient management, and has an unproductive, corrupt work culture."
They will say this, even if it is the exact same company say, right before a crisis and 6 months into the crisis. See [1] for more information.
When Germany's economy was doing worse than EU average, Germany was the "sick child of Europe". Now they are doing great and they are the "locomotive engine of Europe".
Besides, how do you reconcile these "ex protestant" work ethics with the breathtaking corruption of the VW scandal?
Greece was loan-sharked by Germany and other "investors" for the explicit purpose of pumping up German exports and making German shareholders happier.
This is not quite the same thing as taking a lot of other people's money.
A lot of the money never reached the ground, so most of the Greek people got very little benefit from it. Rather a lot of it went on defence boondoggles. See e.g.
I don't argue it makes sense, but Germany also got a few years of interest on those loans. Could they have gotten the same interest elsewhere for significantly less risk? I doubt it.
>Greece was loan-sharked by Germany and other "investors" for the explicit purpose of pumping up German exports
I hear the same argument with the housing crisis; that people were somehow "suckered" into borrowing money. I don't understand how other people can be blamed for borrowing, spending, then failing to repay.
Keep on living, dude. If you only gain the sort of experience that gives one such understanding late in your life, you won't be the first for whom that is the case.
The irony is that Germany also owes Greece $300 billion, but refuses to acknowledge it. The German position towards Greece is extremely hypocritical, selfish, and undermining the stability of the EU.
Also, if a company borrowed money and couldn't repay it, they can declare bankruptcy and have their debt restructured. Greece needs to have their debt restructured. Most financial experts say it's irresponsible to expect them to pay it all back, but Germany took those debts from the banks (in order to protect the banks) when it was already clear Greece couldn't pay, and then used their political weight to enforce full repayment.
The way Germany treated Greece is disgraceful and foolish on several different levels, and it's extremely damaging to the EU.
I think they are referring to war reparations which Greece claims Germany still owes them[1]. I don't know anything about this really, but the article suggests Germany's standpoint was something to the effect that Greece should've brought this up earlier (in negotiations before joining the EU, for instance) and failing to do so should mean they aren't entitled to any recompense. An odd argument, if indeed I've understood it correctly, since I guess it would suggest Germany acknowledges there may indeed be debt owed to Greece.
Regardless, it makes for more interesting reality tv than catching up with the Khlardäshiäns[2].
Originally, reparations were postponed until there was an official peace treaty. Despite WW2 ending in 1945, there apparently wasn't official peace until the German reunification in 1990. At that time, the major allies decided to forgive Germans war debt. Greece was never a party to those negotiations, and would actually like its part of the war debt to be repaid.
So before Greece was too late, they were too early because there wasn't a peace treaty yet. There's no way for them to win.
In any case, Germany had massive amounts of debt forgiven, so them tightening the screws when someone else owes them money, is very hypocritical. Add to that that Germany is really rich and could easily handle a $100 bn or $300 bn loss, whereas Greece is in serious trouble, and that's partially because of Germany.
The reason Germany is so unforgiving, is that back in 2008, Merkel wanted to rescue the banks from their bad loans, and when the German voters questioned whether that was wise, she promised that the loans would be repaid. Forgiving the loans now would be breaking that promise. Merkel wanting to save the banks from their own foolish risks is part of the problem. Had they not lent money to Greece, Greece would have had to restructure much earlier. Instead, Greece was allowed to live on money they didn't have, and all of Europe knew and was fine with that. Until the crisis hit, and now Greece is the scapegoat for everybody's problems.
I'm not saying Greece is innocent here; they obviously aren't. But almost everybody carries some of the blame here, especially Merkel, and now they're sacrificing Greece to absolve themselves of their own mistakes.
I think he is referring to the notion that Germany still owes Greece war reparations from WWII, which Greece put at 297 billion Euros [0]
This is a hairy topic, with Germany insisting that these matters were closed in the Two-plus-Four Treaty, and Greece wanting to be repaid for their post WWII magnanimity, in addition to this being viewed as the Greek government trying to weasel themselves out of systemic issues and necessary reform using dubious legal claims.
Germans, and younger Germans in particular may also view this as a "sins of our forefathers" issue, which also strikes a nerve, especially since the claim seems frivolous to many.
If Greece were devastated by a natural disaster and demanded aid citing their waving of reparations more than 70 years ago, this would be viewed in a different light, but the general perception in Germany is that they brought this issue upon themselves, even though the situation is likely considerably more complex than that.
Very very controversial, that's as much as I'll say.
If the US were organized like the EU, several of the states would be heavily indebted and bankrupt, with a third world quality of life, and the financial, industrial, and entertainment centers would be even richer. Instead, richer states transfer huge amounts of money to poorer states through various federal programs (infrastructure spending, assistance to the states, federal welfare programs, etc.), going a long way towards putting citizens on an equal footing everywhere in the nation. The banking system is unified and federally insured, disaster relief is centrally supported, people are free to move around entirely freely as citizenship is handled at the national level. Every state has a comparable seat at the political table.
The weaker states in Europe should have never agreed to a currency union without any kind of fiscal or political union. It led to a massive bubble of stupidly cheap debt and speculative capital inflow, and then when the economy started looking iffy all the money flowed out again, and poof.
Losing control of your monetary policy is straightjacket enough when your economy dips, but under the rules of their debt deals, Greece also lost control over fiscal policy, and was forced to apply pro-cyclical cuts to government spending. They ended up in worse-than-great-depression level economic collapse, with absolutely no tools available to deal with it.
For Germany by contrast, the Euro has been great (though fiscal austerity in response to a recession was stupid for them too). Their currency has been artificially weak relative to their neighbors, helping them run huge trade surpluses.
> If the US were organized like the EU, several of the states would be heavily indebted and bankrupt, with a third world quality of life, and the financial, industrial, and entertainment centers would be even richer.
Have you ever been to rural Mississippi or West Virginia?
I have, and I've also been to rural areas of the "second class" countries of EU, like Greece and Romania (not to mention pending member states like Bosnia). And it's actually striking how similar they are in terms of economic development. Granted, I still saw some livestock plowing in Romania-not a common sight in the US-but otherwise the poorer states of the US and the poorer nations of the EU are pretty on par. Particularly with respect to dwellings and the frequent lack of many of the accoutrements of what we consider "modern life" (Internet, computers, smart phones).
I'd say the urban areas of the poorer US states are slightly more developed than their counterparts in Romania and Greece, but the rural areas are pretty much on par.
And btw, the governments of those poorer US states are typically fairly cash poor and often indebted, because they have very poor tax bases.
And in terms of government corruption, the two are absolutely on par, I'd say.
Median yearly household income across US states varies by less than a factor of two in nominal dollars, not accounting for differences in land prices or cost of living. (Mississippi = $37k ... Maryland = $70k) Mississippi has a <7% unemployment rate, down from a peak of about 11% in 2010. Compare to a Greek unemployment rate of 26%.
There are certainly many poor rural people in the US who get screwed over by the society at large, just like there are many poor urban people who get screwed over by society, but that’s a different set of problems that federal transfers to keep states afloat doesn’t necessarily fix.
(I agree though that it would be nice if we in the US had a more effective set of social support systems to help individual struggling families. It would also be nice if we had stronger labor protections, a higher federal minimum wage, etc.)
Have you ever been to rural Mississippi or West Virginia? I have...
You have seriously misunderstood the situations that you've seen. Yes there are poor people in Mississippi. No they do not live like poor people in Romania. They are probably similar in a way that looms large for you, in that they make different choices about their lives than you would make for them. An American who doesn't have a smartphone doesn't want one, which is a perfectly valid choice. [0] The use of animal traction in agriculture is also a valid choice, but one would be wrong to assume that the Amish are poor. It's especially problematic for "yuppies in McMansions" to attempt to universalize their idiosyncratic tastes in housing. Most of humanity does just fine without a giant pile of pine sticks and drywall.
Greece has consistently received at least 2% net of their GNI each year in subsidies from EU since 2000. This is investment in Greece with EU fees removed. (EL is Greece in the data below).
Germany consistently operated at a net deficit of 6-8 B euro/year in terms of EU fees vs EU investment in Germany.
That same wealth transfer is taking place in the EU as well. Not on the same scale possibly, but it certainly takes place.
Greece's 6B net gain in 2008 makes up 1/9th of their total welfare spend in 2009 for instance (56B).
I agree that it was not a good move to join the currency union for Greece. That was a bad choice by Greece, and a greedy move to manage finances short term with artificially cheap borrowing.
2% of GNI is a trivial sum in comparison to the scale of fiscal transfers between US states.
In poorer US states, about 10% of gross state product is collected as federal taxes, whereas something like 20–30% of gross state product comes to those states through various federal spending.
Agree completely. Not having the ability to inflate one's currency in times of economic struggle (so that exports are made to be cheaper, etc.) is not the best thing; while for Germany it helps with their own exports.
Moreover, lots of Greek debt (IIRC) was originally to banks which had lent lots of money without oversight; almost knowing that someone (the EU states) would take over the debt if need be... Of course Greece had borrowed recklessly on their end as well.
But I think the analogy and contrast to how US states work is really good. Want a single currency across multiple areas with differing economic performance? OK, but then better have mechanisms for supporting equal footing.
>banks which had lent lots of money without oversight
If you sign a legally binding document that you will repay a loan, plus interest, or your assets are on the line, what "oversight" do you need? Wouldn't the world be a better place if people paid money back as contracted, rather than ripping off (and somehow blaming) the lender? If you don't like the terms, don't accept them. "But we need money!" isn't an excuse.
If everyone repaid debts, then lending money wouldn't require interest. Interest expresses the danger that money may not be repaid as, for example, during bankruptcy proceedings.
Debt forgiveness has existed since the dawn of money. See [1] for more information.
It's interesting that you say that the weaker states never should have agreed, while in the stronger states (I live in one), the opposite is the current opinion. Maybe everyone agrees on this point? I think that is the case: now (!) everybody agrees that this was a stupid scenario.
On the other hand, where would we have been without the euro? Would it have been any better? I am not so sure.
And in the EU the richer states do support the poorer ones, but since long especially the UK opposes this. They don't see the benefit. I think it's well worth the money, even with the Greek. We cannot abandon them, and it would be a major political stupidity to do so, with Turkey and Russia going the wrong way. I think - in the end - all political leaders of importance will agree with this.
In Greece, the problem is corruption. It will be an uggly fight to turn this around. I hope this is that fight, because otherwise it's all for nothing, or it's only for the EU. I sincerely hope they can get rid of corruption, because it will make their life in the end a lot better. For now it's lots of misery though.
Well quite a few states are heavily indebted. While many if not the majority have balanced budget rules they and the cities circumvented fiscal responsibility by making out too many promises to government and union retirement programs. That is their real time bomb and quite a few states are/will be in the same boat as Greece when time comes to pay up
The EU has lost its main purpose - in a sense it's a victim of having largely done its job.
Although it was originally created to prevent future wars in Europe, the role it performed most effectively for most of its life was to be an incentive for countries on its borders to open their markets and become democracies. Spain, Portugal, Greece, and most of eastern Europe, left dictatorships and/or communism behind and joined the European gravy train all, all through the 80s and 90s.
But its borders are rather different now -- corrupt cronyism (to the East) and Islamic radicalisation (ISIS etc, to the south) are the main threatening neighbours. It's less effective at dealing with those, and there's not many countries it can dangle the carrot of membership in front of, and the prospects of them being accepted are lower.
So with the potential gains gone, it's left looking like a layer of bureaucracy and interference sitting heavy-handedly on top of two dozen market-based democratic economies.
What you describe is not an unreasonable assessment, but it is very pessimistic. I don't think it's a matter of bleak reality, where a more optimistic assessment is naive or less reasonable.
Europe is generally a peaceful place, a decent political culture with relatively low tolerance for overtly sociopathic political actors. The corrupt cronyism is a real problem, a bigger problem outside the EU than in and most certainly not a new problem.
One of the founding principles of the EU has really been to try and avoid a repeat of the world wars that are still (just about) in living memory. In that respect it's been a wild success, I'm not sure we've ever had such a lasting amount of peace.
As someone with a mixed UK / Greek background it's been interesting and often painful seeing the current woes of the EU. Greece has had a lot of problems, many of which really do benefit from outside oversight. I've seen a large amount of corruption there, be it deliberate or just letting things slide. Having input from outside to try and stamp out some of the more rampant stuff is very much a good thing.
However this isn't always a good thing, the rise of the far right 'golden dawn' can very much be attributed to old stirrings of anti German sentiment, much of it based on inflammatory second world war tub thumping (although ignoring the fact that many of the particularly right wing areas now were Nazi sympathisers, go figure).
The UK has, in contrast, been much more high handed. I think a lot of the Greeks are worried but ultimately they really do want to stay in the EU, where as I'm not sure that's the case in England. There's this air of superiority, both from the colonial past and the nature of the UK as an island that lends itself well to always expecting to be treated specially for some reason.
Rather than forever going towards a broader union I can't help wondering if a more hazy framework would work better, rather than having an authority in Brussels/Strasbourg could we not have representatives from sovereign governments that debate these issues when they affect areas larger than countries? Much of the current legislation seems as though it doesn't really need to be done on such a sweeping scale.
> In that respect it's been a wild success, I'm not sure we've ever had such a lasting amount of peace.
It's weird, but we basically had decades of peace in Europe with only minor conflicts before WWI. Interestingly enough, most of this minor conflicts happened in the balkans, much like recent history.
EDIT: not trying to deny your observation, or your conclusion that EU was a success in this, just mentioning an interesting fact.
Well, debatable. Last major war before WWI was in 1870, however there was an arms race and escalation of military preparation since the last years of the 1890s. So you really only had a couple of decades of peace, then people started preparing for war again.
I think in terms of peace it's useful to distinguish between the EU and Europe. There have been a couple of wars in Europe in my lifetime. Not to mention a few military dictatorships (which had a kind of 'peace' I suppose - but not a good one), assassinations of leaders etc.
Maybe (hopefully!) we'll get through this without it imploding - maybe end up with a more Hanseatic League kind of set up, maybe more like the US. 'May you live in interesting times' and all that... ;-)
I would also question whether this period of peace in Europe is really due to the EU. The EU and it's predecessors certainly contributed to it, but I would argue it's a marginal contribution. If you look at world history after WWII you see that major conflicts - between two powerful nations - have largely disappeared. Instead we got a slew of proxy wars: US vs. China in Korea, US vs. China/USSR in Vietnam or Iran vs. Saudi Arabia in Syria more recently. I think the reason for this is purely economical. No country can afford in the late 20th century to break all diplomatic ties with another country (and their allies), so instead of engaging in an all out war they support local regimes or mercenaries whilst maintaining the necessary economic relations with supporters of opposing regimes. In Europe meanwhile the economies have become so interconnected (even before the EU) that any war would mean economic devastation for the whole region and is thus an impossible course for any regime.
I think the EU certainly helped a lot by trade and free movement of people. It's a lot harder to make people from another country into demons if you've met them and shared a bottle of wine with some of their (almost inevitably from a UK perspective, better) food. Not impossible - but much harder.
I think we've had proxy wars by major powers going back millenia - I don't think that's such a strange situation for Europe compared to free movement and cheap flights.
It's unthinkable at this point for any of the large nuclear powers (e.g. the permanent members of the UN security council) to engage each other in direct military confrontation. Barring an early armistice, there's a high likelihood of human extinction as soon as one side gains the upper hand and the other side believes it has nothing to lose.
Much safer for everyone to expand their sphere of influence through proxy wars.
"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Is there really a strong anti-EU movement? Admittedly I don't really follow the nationals politics of the other member states, but at least from my position - living in one of the PIGS - what I see is mostly a movement against the Euro. I mean, sure, Merkel, Schäuble and Juncker are demonized quite a bit, but I think the argument is for improving the EU, not leaving it.
In the 2015 UK general election, UKIP, whose main selling point is "UK should leave the EU" came third with 12.5% of the votes. That's a significant amount.
On my case in France (2012 election) if you do an addition of all the parties against the EU : Front National (want to go back to the Franc and do a poll for quitting the EU, ~18%), Front de Gauche (considering quitting the Union depending of the circonstances, ~11%).
So these + all the minor parties it's like 35% of votes more or less against the EU. This was back in 2012, it's currently probably higher.
In the UK, yes. The party in power (the conservatives) favour leaving the EU, and even those among them who supposedly favour staying will only do so with demands met they already know they won't get.
The population at large also support leaving, and when the referendum happens this summer, I will be surprised if this ship of fools doesn't vote to be cast adrift.
Have you got any sources on that? First of all I haven't met many people that favour leaving the EU. And what is the tory position on it? I thought they were in favour of a referendum but largely also in favour of voting to remain in the EU (at least Cameron supposedly is).
That's not entirely true though. There are a lot of leftists who oppose the EU because they believe it is to neoliberal, prioritizing the protecting of businesses rather than the interests of the people. At least that's the case here in Sweden, and I'd be surprised if we were unique in this aspect.
In British politics the need to leave the EU ASAP unites both left and right.
I personally want out because of the Double Irish and the Dutch Sandwich. "Racist!" is the only argument the self-serving pro-EU movement have left, and no-one pays any attention to that word anymore.
The future of the UK lies where it always has, with the Commonwealth.
> We need a way for countries that don't want to be in, to get out.
Can you imagine a US state doing that? I don't think unions are reversible at this state in history. The national state is not exactly living a revival. This is majorly a financial crisis.
> This has left our national governments with a nice scapegoat, great for populists, nationalists and fringe politicians to use for their purposes
That is a very good observation. It's the reason Greece is suffering at the moment. But leaving the EU at this point would be even worse.
>Can you imagine a US state doing that? I don't think unions are reversible at this state in history. The national state is not exactly living a revival. This is majorly a financial crisis.
I might be wrong, but it's not my impression that the US laws are a hodgepodge of compromises between states. In many ways the US is more coherent. Americans are also viewing themselves as Americans first, secondly as Irish, Latino, whatever their ancestors origin might be. Only rarely do Americans define themselves as being Idahoan, Washingtonian or Michigander (Exception are Texan, New Yorker and maybe Californian). For most people in the EU European wont even be their second level identification, for me personally it might be third or forth level.
My point being that not wanting the EU or parts of it, has no consequences for my identity in the same way if would for a person in the US wanting his or her state to at least partially leave the union.
The nation state are seeing a revival. Areas like Catalonia want to be their own small separate nation, Scotland considered leaving the UK. Many EU members also want to move power from a distant and anonymous EU parliament, and give it back to their national parliaments. In some cases people want to move power even closer and adopt Swiss style democracy. I don't think it's to fare fetched to see a state like Bavaria in Germany wanting to move power from Berlin to Munich.
The US started out as a hodgepodge of kludgy compromises, with a uselessly weak confederate structure, but after a dozen years of experience, the system was in many ways failing. And so, still wanting to make the nation hold together and function, with the memory of winning independence fresh, the states decided to start over, and gathered a group of delegates to write a new constitution establishing a more coherent and unified federal government.
At this point I think internationalism and republicanism in Europe is sufficiently weakened that such an outcome is impossible in the near future.
The USA is ancient compare to the EU. The EU's first days were debated on the internet. The US' were debated by pamphleteers, distributed on horseback and had slavery as a side issue midway down a list of policy questions to debated later.
Could you imagine The US expanding its union? Could you imagine Mexico joining, the constitution being re-written?
I don't think we're bounded by what the US is or has done. Even the US isn't. Times change.
On exits
I don't think that option would be taken very often. (A) It would pressure the EU to be what it needs to be, a Union countries want to be a part of. (B) It would change the local political debate. At the moment, the anti-EU Trump^ can safely talk without it meaning anything. I think the EU should be built to withstand border changes, in both directions.
^Interesting how rarely EU politics is debated on HN compared to US politics. Hello brothers from across the Atlantic.
As a Canadian, this scares me. The only outcome I can imagine of such a union is that the American states would bully our politics to an even greater degree.
I would love to see USA broken up into many smaller pieces. Many of our problems are due mostly to our giant unwieldy scale. Those problems wouldn't be solved by absorbing Canadia.
I'm not opposed to less drastic unions, however. Super-NAFTA? Free immigration? I'd vote for both of those. The thing we should do to help Mexico first is to end drug prohibition. We'll be harshly judged by history, for the violence to which we've subjected the people of Mexico.
Incidentally, many of the pieces into which USA might be broken would end drug prohibition fairly immediately once on their own.
> I don't think unions are reversible at this state in history. The national state is not exactly living a revival.
Unions not reversible? Ask Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, or the USSR. Or within Europe currently, the Scottish and Basque separatist movements. The growth of the EU -- largely for financial reasons (access to EU development aid and a large market) -- has been an exception in an era of fragmentation.
Well, the soviet republics you mentioned weren't really unions but Stalin's grand vision how the world is supposed to be organized.
After WW2, commies divided the land under their control into countries and forcibly relocated people around to match new borders in pursuit of "historic justice" and whatnot.
You can't compare US and EU. US was built more or less as a coherent whole - politically speaking. EU was jury rigged on top of autonomic political entities, some with hundreds of years and some tens of years of political sovereignty.
>The national state is not exactly living a revival.
...unless you look at Eastern Europe. Poland and Hungary show that homogenous nation states are not as much a thing of the past than you'd thought, and that their 'revival' (they were never dead though!) is doing just fine.
How do they show it? I live in Poland and I don't see it (though I am biased, I like the idea of unification and I wouldn't mind Europe's nation states turning into simple states).
It's difficult to attribute success. Heck, it's difficult just to compare your situation to the situation 20 years ago when you were a different person.
The populists in Poland and Hungary made a story where good aspects of the current development (for example: competitive workforce, open borders) are taken for granted and bad aspects like perpetuating big differences (like, wages, or quality of public institutions) between Hungary/Austria or Poland/Germany are attributed to some evil manipulation by the seemingly neutral EU.
Every explanation for the big wage differences is quite complicated: you can't rely on any popular simple ideology. If market is efficient, why the difference? If state-regulated society is just, why the difference? This leaves space for quite stupid populist "solutions" that are not true, but at least short.
Hey, I'm kinda torn on the issue as well. If not for the EU, we would not have that huge brain drain that left our country kinda stupid and slow to develop (lots of unskilled workforce left, as well).
But then again, I am fairly certain that EU integration helped with our progress, especially since we had corrupt ex-commies running the show ever since '89.
It stopped them from being too greedy, plus the aid, advice and reforms did help.
And now if some people who left return out of a feeling of patriotic duty or just wanting to improve their home country, they'll be much more effective with the knowledge they gained in western Europe...
The ability to manufacture for cheap and export without too many taxes and customs headaches really helped, too, and we've set a very low corporate income tax to attract foreign (mainly EU) companies here (which worked).
I live in Hungary and don't feel that way. In fact, not even anti-EU populists feel that way considering all the talk I've heard about closer ties to the V4 and talks of a comprehensive political framework that would tie these countries together.
Most of the peace was achieved by having two superpowers use Europe as their high noon staring contest location. Most of Europe was exhausted from two generations of war at that point, so having another would be a fools errand.
Also, i don't think Merkel has much say in any of this. Its her finance minister and his buddies at the ECB that is running the show.
> We need a way for countries that don't want to be in, to get out. It will act as a relief from a lot of populist pressure. If the UK want out, they should have an available option
That has been possible since the Treaty of Lisbon.
This is not only the UK I believe, it's just the UK is the only country where citizen will have their opinion heard about the EU, the sentiment is shared by other countries. On my case in France, they won't do a vote because they are really afraid of the result, the anti-EU movement is going stronger every year and I believe it's the same in Germany, Spain and Italy. As much I as love the EU myself, it's currently not very democratic I must admit.
I think that pressure would be healthier if directed at a real path. The combination of EU as scapegoat and fear-based counter-politics by the political establishment is unhealthy. I don't think it's possible to really poll opinion in this environment.
Look at Scotland. They wanted an independence vote from the UK. It would have been historically peaceful and safe independence. They would have joined the EU, maintained close ties with England. But, when push came to shove, Scotland didn't want it, mostly because of anxiety. That's a real pressure valve. If Scotland really wanted independence (like Ireland did 100 years ago) it would have passed.
It would also put pressure on the EU to improve. I want more democracy too. It wouldn't be bad to have countries demand it to stave off EU-exit politics.
It's indeed complicated, the EU is moving way too fast for local cultures, they are also arriving in a bad economic climate so it does not help. No-one thinks themselves "European" either (whatever this might mean), the European Union looks from the outside as a floating entity on top of Europe, it's difficult for people to relate to it.
The fact that politicians are avoiding to do a poll with almost 35% (total of left + right parties) of votes to openly Anti-EU party (this was in 2012, I imagine it's more now, and this is only people voting for openly anti-EU parties, the real figures are obviously higher) is also seen really negatively and does not help at all to improve the general opinion of the European Union.
To me, it's a modern identity. I have geographically dispersed friends and family. I am speaking to you online, right now and we are speaking candidly about political issues concerning us together. I don't even know where your'e from (Hello, by-the-way.) I appreciate the right to live in other EU countries and I would feel violated if it was curbed. I respect other European's rights to live here if they choose.
That's it. There is a lot of movement, btw and I think it's a good thing. The italians living here for 2 years before college and the Germans living in Paris for a year. The cousin who married a French girl. Maybe their grandchildren will feel differently.
We don't need to be anything in particular. We just need to function a little better. We'll feel whatever we feel. Our kids will feel what they feel and hopefully they won't bomb each others cities ever again.
I think you make a good point about your cousins children. I believe if the EU could survive for another decade or so, it will be in a much better shape. IMO the politics of free movement inside the EU changes the lives and behavior of those affected(e.g. students having the chance to live & study in a totally different culture and environment) in a way that makes is almost impossible for them to accept a reversal to the old status-quot. When the generations that are currently criss-crossing in the halls of european universities will get a chance to influence the politics I believe we'll see a much more aligned "european identity".
Oh yeah I feel the same, I'm a French guy currently living in London but I must admit I clearly not represent the majority, especially when I look around my relatives.
FWIW, in Italy the general complaint is that the EU needs reform, or that the Euro sucks, but none of the major political entities has a platform of leaving the EU (the Lega Nord does but is below 20%).
I detest Merkel generally, but her refugee policy was the right thing and earned her some grudging respect from me. Unfortunately it could very well be her undoing if she doesn't pull it off very well.
On the other hand, not much grudging or otherwise, respect from the German women (among others) molested and in some cases raped by them. Hungarian women will count themselves lucky they have Orban as PM. 'Could be her undoing' is an understatement.
> Rather than an intelligent abstract policy of allowing Greek to make their own decisions.
I think the point was that Greece needs to change and arguably are incapable of making the decisions that need to be made. Germany felt that there was an need/opportunity to impose that change. Whether it was the right move or will be successful is a completely seperate discussion.
The rampant tax avoidance, the unsustainable pension system, the very low productivity and the culture that allowed Greece to lie their way into the EU all need to stop if they are going to be a successful part of Europe.
> "[...] allowed Greece to lie their way into the EU"
I believe you hit the nail, but not quite on the head.
The fact that it was possible to get into EU through systematic lies was a symptom of a much bigger problem. I remember when Greece joined. Everyone I know thought that it was an insane idea, because Greece simply wasn't ready or financially stable enough.
But at the time the main political drive in EU was expansion. It was almost as if the heads of EU states felt that unless the union was large enough it would be irrelevant. So the policy was expansion at all costs.
And there was nothing subtle about it. Hell, a Finnish politician got the seat of a commissary of EU expansion!
Not sure whether that was naked ambition or just institutional myopia.
> You've made a very serious mistake, and that's to think that all peoples are the same.
You're making the mistake to think that "peoples" are a monolith. They are much less so than racists. Which, regardless of other problems that need to be addressed, should have a priority of not being given one inch. We should have learned that the hard way, and now again this rhetoric is trying to weasel its way into everywhere.
Say what you want, wish what you want, but it changed nearly nothing for the people who wanted to help before. Those who didn't were obstructing before and are exploiting it now. They just got louder and more violent, not more correct.
>"As we've seen in all countries migrants especially those with families end up being massive positives for the country and its biggest defenders."
What you're seeing also includes a lot of selection bias.
Just as you claim that a few bad apples shouldn't tarnish all migrants, you also have to accept that the "good apple" migrants that you're speaking of can't speak complete good of all potential migrants.
I.e. you're making the exact same type of generalization, just the opposite way.
>> "We have worked very very hard to end poverty and everything else that leads to crime during decades"
Have you? What have YOU done besides be born in the right country? Put yourself on the other side of it. What if you'd be born in Syria and had a lovely life until all hell broke loose a few years ago? Would you be fighting ISIS? Fighting Assad? Or would you be begging EU states to let you in?
So we agree. You've done nothing and believe you have a right to the liberty you have simply because you were born at the right time in the right place.
It causes their posts to be automatically marked [dead]. Users who have 'showdead' turned on in their profile see these, but other users don't.
[dead] comments that are good can be rescued if enough users vouch for them. To do that, click the 'vouch' link at the top of the comment's page (which you get to by clicking its timestamp). But please only do this for comments that are both civil and substantive.
> We need a way for countries that don't want to be in, to get out. It will act as a relief from a lot of populist pressure. If the UK want out, they should have an available option.
The EU has a well-defined mechanism for secession; it is what the "out" option on the UK referendum is about. Any country can get out of the EU within a couple of years if they really want that.
I'm not terribly interested in the views of a billionaire investor on the EU.
I have to say though that I searched for the original interview in Wirtschaftswoche and Handelsblatt Online. And I did not find words as strong as "on the verge of a collapse". Those articles read "on the future of the EU [he] is pessimistic"
All the same the Schengen treaty is at risk with the current flood of immigrants. [1]
As far as the EU goes: I'm a Dutch citizen. And the NL have a long history of belonging to a coöperation of nations. Just after WWII it founed the BeNeLux. And it was a founding member of the EU later on.
So I lived in a supra-national organisation for as long as I live. And I have to say that when I work here in the NL with people from France, Spain, Italy, Germany, ... I truly feel that we're all Europeans. It's some feeling of shared fate, shared history, shared culture, speaking their languages, intuïtively knowing their characteristic strengths and foibles.
So as far as I'm concerned even if the current EU would fail we'll just start anew with an EU 2.0.
Less expansionist and less idealistic probably. Sadder and wiser surely.
But in my estimation the sense of a shared EU identity has become stronger than even the current vicissitudes or the meddling from billionaire investors.
The interview is rather more positive. It is clear that Soros supports the ideas behind the EU. He shares some specific concerns about some of the directions it is heading, but has ideas on how these should be addressed.
Regarding your point on "meddling from billionaire investors", note the question "You have retired from running your hedge fund and devote all your energies to your foundation." The foundation seems to me to share a lot of the hopes that you express about the EU.
For interest, Soros's six point plan for dealing with the refugee crisis is detailed in this article:
You might want to reconsider after reading this article[1] about his 200.000 euro investment in 'Stem voor Nederland' to get the Dutch people to vote yes in the Ukraine referendum in april.
Soros is definitely weird at times, and he is almost always too-certain. But your negative characterization of "billionaire investor" is a disservice to you and him. Rather than learn about the world by selling products or climbing a political ladder, he formed opinions and made bets. Massive, massive respect.
If we throw out, even if momentarily, that there's more to success in the markets than pure luck, then people who have succeeded have done so in a very pure way: you can only make money in trading by being right. When you're right as often and to the extent that someone like Soros is, you have insight that 99.9999% of people don't.
Soros has insightful opinions regarding Orbán and the internal political struggle arising within the EU, but caveat lector: Soros has a large, literally vested interest in seeing the Euro collapse. That is to say, he has bet a huge amount of money on it collapsing. So he paints a bleak picture about the future of the Euro, because it is the future he desires.
Based on Soros' past, it's probably a combination of both. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday . In the 90s he saw that the UK's commitment to prop up the Pound Sterling was ill advised, but he made sure that his short position paid off by systematically selling Pounds until the government had to renege on the exchange rate mechanism.
If he didn't really believe what he was saying, he wouldn't have bet such a large amount of money on it. There is no reason to believe he is lying. Whether he is correct is another matter, but he's not "working for/against" anything, he's just stating his actual opinion.
Soros is a very manipulative gentleman looking exclusively after his own interests. When he says A it doesn't mean it's true, it merely means that saying A benefits him the best.
You're probably right (and you'll remain right if "Soros" is replaced with the name of many, many people), but I don't think you're the kind of source the grandparent asks for; I think they wanted evidence that Soros shorted the euro or something similar.
Even if he's short the euro, it kinda seems that no single famous, connected billionaire can make or break the euro. It's, like, a really, really big, erm, thing. He ought to believe his bet to be correct rather than hope that him talking about it will move the market very much. So if he's indeed short the euro, I'd guess you're hearing his true opinion (which doesn't make him right, it's not like he's never lost money, it just probably means he's honest in this particular instance.)
>Even if he's short the euro, it kinda seems that no single famous, connected billionaire can make or break the euro. It's, like, a really, really big, erm, thing.
The euro is bigger than GBP, but:
You do know he broke the British Pound, right?
Your link says John Major instituted a fixed exchange rate regime and made pounds overpriced. Soros didn't even break the news (a German official did), he just made the most profit shorting the pound. I wouldn't call it "breaking the pound" unless you think the pound was priced about right and he made his profit manipulating the public opinion and thus moving the market.
BTW, I found the interview rather trite; he's really full of it.
But if he didn't think it would be true he'd bet the other way. Of course he's going to put his money on what he thinks/thought was going to happen. I can see how it's not true but I think it's likely he believes what he's talking about.
The whole world today is based on countries and their respective borders. When you want to travel between countries anywhere in the world you must have valid passport, to prove your identity. Countries can issiue or choose not to issue visa, so not everyone can pass every border. Things are working this way, and have worked this way for very long time. A very basic principle. Why is that? Many reasons, and the main is national security.
EU opened borders between their own countries. This is a good thing, it allows free travel and flow of products and money between EU countries. But EU still borders countries that are not in EU.
Now they are allowing everyone without valid documents to pass EU border in Greece and Turkey. You just need to say that you are a Syrian refugee and that you are going to Germany. Sane countries like Poland and Hungary are only reacting to this insane situation. Racism is not involved here, only logic.
It's hard to care about articles like this anymore. They're like the SV bubble articles. Every month some other genius tells us the EU is about to collapse and they've been telling us this since 2008. The EU has faced some pretty massive hurdles in that time and managed to overcome them and I see no reason that can't continue with the new refugee crisis and the ongoing financial crisis in some of the member states.
It's interesting to hear something like this coming from Soros because as I understand it he has himself caused the collapse of government banks in the past.
I'd say it's a hazard, but not necessarily a given. The current cultural and economic interconnectedness of the globe is profoundly unprecedented in all of human history, no reason why old patterns should repeat themselves.
... except those that are still around. I'm not sure how that logic can work. You're essentially saying "immortality is impossible because the people who are dead aren't still alive".
He's essentially saying that historically the odds are vastly in favour of every empire eventually falling. The "American empire" is a historical shortlived blip compared to many other empires that eventually fell.
The idea that the USA is a superpower is antiquated and I am still surprised people think it is. It is unquestionably the strongest country but it isn't able to just unilaterally impose its will.
Obama's most notable legacy for me has been the acknowledgement of this and realising that the USA is far stronger and far more successful leading multilateral coalitions.
We absolutely are an empire... which is failing rapidly. But don't take my word for it - Lawrence Wilkerson[1] as a much better explanation[2] of the travails of the American Empire.
[1] retired Colonel and former chief of staff to Sec. of State Colin Powell
sorry, should have put quotation marks, I meant it a bit facetiously. Usually articles about America's decline have that sort of bent to it ("Emperor has no cloths", etc.)
I do think that the US gets away with much more stuff than it would in another universe. Especially in the financial domain (American sanctions work so well because of the virality of the regulations and the ubiquity of the dollar). But hey, Russia annexed a part of Ukrain, so they're not the only one.
I think the fundamental problem with the European Union is the way it's organized and governed.
The reason we don't see a wholly European solution to many of these problems is due to the fact that the decision making progress is functionally biased towards each of the member's states unique interests.
The most important institution we have in Europe is, in my opinion, the European Parliament. It is designed in a way that ensures fair representation of all countries and at the same time enables us to pass legislation for which there is collective support. Its members are elected directly by the people in the European elections, which are separate from national elections, for obvious reasons.
All of this, however, is subverted by the existence of the European Council as well as the Council of the European Union (yes, the naming is a bit confusing). Their members are respectively the 28 heads of state of each EU country and members of their government.
This means that, while the European Parliament is elected with the express purpose of dealing with EU law, the European Council and the Council of the European Union are fruit of very different elections and because of that, they are bound to put their national interests first, since they might lose votes at the national level otherwise.
In my opinion, the European Council and the Council of the European Union should be replaced by a body elected directly by either the European Parliament, or in some way, the European population.
> In my opinion, the European Council and the Council of the European Union should be replaced by a body elected directly by either the European Parliament, or in some way, the European population.
The EU is never going to work because its people are too different, they don't speak the same language, don't have the same culture and its citizens aren't that mobile (good luck finding a job in France if you don't speak french, good luck expending your business to Germany if you don't understand the German market and law, thinking that the EU can copy the US in anyway is a huge mistake). We have already seen that with each crisis ( the Greek crisis, the refugee crisis ... ) that it is still everybody for himself and rightfully so. Mind you i'm not anti-european, I was fine with the EEC, the EU is an experiment and us citizens are the guinea pigs.
The situation in Europe now reminds me a lot of the situation of Italy and Germany before their own unifications: for external powers, it was easy enough to stoke up rivalries between the various statelets, and push even the most successful around. Without the EU, this is the future I see for us: as difficult as it can be to unite a continent which lacks a common language, the alternative is to become irrelevant on the world stage - and the world market.
EU is in a risky position, but the article seems to only tangentially mention the main problem: shared money without a proper merging of monetary policy. The 5 trillion euro bank bailout abused Greece with idiotic austerity policies a left quite a few countries (France in particular) with banks that are leveraged many times larger than their host country's GDP.
Mark Blyth[1] has a very good explanation[2] of this mess that covers a lot of the history. More recently, his analysis has unfortunately changed for the worse[3]. We find ourselves in a precarious situation on both sides of the Atlantic, and I hope we can find enough good men willing to actually do something about these problems; if instead we do nothing and let the profiteering and institutional corruption continue to grow, some sort of collapse seems inevitable.
Spaniard here. Unemployment has reached 20% after 2008 real state collapse, central government is corrupt and incompetent. I guess that any economic trouble could be fatal.
I don't think we're there yet, but I think the EU could theoretically be a benefit. Eventually, I think the EU should be capable of limited direct transfers in times like this, but we're not really there yet. More immediately many young people stung by Spain's youth unemployment crisis are here (in Ireland) working and living for a few years, for example. Still close to home and planning to return. Flights are €40. They are not is Spain, but they aren't foreigners either. I like having them here and I'm glad they can get a job and live here as a right. Maybe one day I'll exercise that right in Spain.
An EU working as it should should be of help, in solidarity with our brothers and sisters. I think we'll get closer eventually.
Merkel took only charge because everybody else didn't and the other European leaders indirectly expected her to lead them in the Ukraine crisis and the refugee crisis.
In my opinion there are two problems with the refugee crisis: (1) for many years the calls for help from Spain/Italy/Greece have been ignored and the refugee problem was swept under the mat. And now since Syria everyone is unprepared because no sensible policy was created back then. (2) the EU members from eastern europe wanted to join the EU for economic gain and protection from Russia. Now they have to realize that the EU is a union and not a economic aid programme. But this is also a consequence of problem nr.1 because it was politically ignored to set policies for distributing refugees in the EU.
Eu is a work in progress. Its end has been announced many times. With every crisis it changes a bit. Organically through pragmatism and consensus. What we end up with is not a thing of beauty but it holds together and works with the help of a bit of duct tape and grease.
I'd be cautious about an in-depth article about the state of the European Union where the protagonists never bring up the subject of France. Not once. Kind of strange.
One of the things I recommend everybody to do is learning languages. This article is one of the reasons for doing that. You are manipulated by translators' interests.
The original in "WirtschaftsWoche" does not use such a strong wording in my opinion. I am Spanish native but work using German most of the time in central Europe.
In my personal opinion traveling around the world I find the Muslim countries in lots of ways having opposite principles to Western values.
They are not compatible: Mohamed told them that adultery women had to be punished with stoning death, Jesus response was forgiveness.
In Qur'an it is said that anyone that does not believe in Ala, Christians and Jews should be killed, including those that call their selves "Muslims", but are not real Muslims. Of course Mohamed could say who was real Muslim and who was not. In other words he could kill anyone he wished with no consequences.
Jesus told everybody should be respected, including those that believe in something different, or did not believe at all. A great difference.
Mohamed married a 5 year old girl and consummated the act when the girl was 10, so by Western standards he was a pederast.
If you believe that Mohamed is God's prophet you have to believe all he did is ok if you do yourself.
Muslim countries are not open, I have visited countries were they kill you if you define yourself atheist or homosexual. There are atheists there, they will tell you as foreigner, but they could not tell anybody in their own country.
If Europe opens the gates to Muslims, Europe will became a Muslim territory. As a European I don't want this for Europe.
Your post is borderline offtop and I can see it downvoted to hell, but you actually touch an important issue.
Using the Internet for two decades I came across countless campaigns against systematic human rights violations or violence against women in Muslim states. The politicians and organizations supporting Syrian immigrants are yet to explain how exactly they want to instill into those millions of people the same values that allowed them to come to Europe in the first place. So far it seems that they tend to settle in isolated neighborhoods and continue living the way they've always been, occasionally causing some trouble outside (the forbidden t-word, rapes in Koln, etc).
BTW, a friend of mine had seen a group of those refugees in Hungary. They didn't want to deal with local people, many didn't accept food or other help as if it was below their dignity or something. It appears that they have some kind of "give us welfare money 'cause we as victims deserve it and leave us alone" attitude. This isn't pretty.
I'm in that non-muslim category in a muslim country you mentioned, and I'd say you are right. One does not openly say that here though. One would say you are generalizing muslims but statistics are on your favour with this one. People I know who are against radical actions define themselves as muslims but they don't even practice it. Even if they do, they could be considered reformist but such people are stigmatized, even killed. A woman would throw away her burka as soon as she manages to reach a civilized country, If she does not support incidents like the ones in Germany in new years eve. That ideology is simple, no burka otherwise getting raped is natural. She might very well be under scrutiny by her relatives to be forced into wearing that way, if that is the case those relatives more than deserve to be deported.
It seems that most of the time people point verses 2:190-194 as example, but frankly, they only tell to "fight those who fight you" [1].
However, in practice apparently some leeway in definition of what constitutes an attack on believers and reasonable retribution is used to justify things going on in Syria and, recently, in Europe. Or maybe they just don't care that much. It's not like medieval Europe followed the Gospels to the letter. The whole discussion is pretty academic.
Indeed, a lot of people are put into asylums for things lighter than that. You tend to get away with it if it is your 'religion' and is backed by a lot of people.
The Euro is still there and the EU, too. Don't hold you breath to see them collapse.