Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Politics’

obama-SOTU
This is already the 2nd time that I am writing a blog about a speech by a world leader. Last time I wrote about David Cameron’s EU Speech in late January 2013.
Both of the posts however are written before the speech.

This year’s State of the Union by Obama will obviously be focused mostly on the economy and of course gun control in the United States.

One thing, that I am hoping and am very eager to hear in his address is the announcement of negotiations on a Free Trade Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union.
US Vice-President Joe Biden mentionned it during the Munich Security Conference. (You can view it here)
Biden also talked a lot about the Euro-Atlantic Security partnership, NATO and how Europe is still the most important partner to the United States.

In his 1st term Obama seemed like a non-EU president who is not that interested in European Affairs and does not see Europe as the focus of his foreign policy. With the declarations in Munich and the announcement of a Free Trade Deal with Europe Obama would change his reputation completely. Achieving such a grandiose free trade deal would also be a lasting part of his legacy. He could be remembered as the President who brought Europe and America closer together economically.

Before retiring Hillary Clinton also promoted the idea of a closer European-American economic partnership in November 2012. (Watch her speech at Brookings here)

During December 2012 many columnists wrote about the idea of such a free trade deal. An interesting one is an article by David Ignatius of the Washington Post. David Ignatius called it TAFTA – Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement.

I am very much in favour of this idea. I was surprised to find out a couple of years ago that no such a deal exists yet. Liberalizing the trade would give a much needed stimulus to the economies on both sides of the North Atlantic in the European Union and in the United States. That is something both economies and politicians in those regions need.

The most significant reason why I am interested in this is the fact that my current thesis that I am writing deals exactly with this issue. I am writing about the future of the North Atlantic Economic Relations. When I chose the topic in september 2012, TAFTA was not being talked about so it is exciting to see it happen while I am writing my thesis and to write it on something current.

My thesis deals not only with TAFTA between the EU and the USA but deals with the entire North-American region including Canada. A similar deal between the EU and Canada has already been negotiated and should be signed soon. Not many ahve heard of it. It is called CETA – Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement – and it was supposed to be finisehd and signed for a long time.
The current Conservative Canadian government is eager to get it signed soon and join it with TAFTA as a part of some North Atlantic Economic Initiative.

As of the coming weeks and months I will be posting news and updates concerning North American Free Trade including Canada, USA and the European Union.

I am eager to read the news about the State of the Union speech tomorrow. I hope Obama will announce the free trade talks.
But as always, I am cautious. A free trade deal is an awesome idea, but agriculture will probably be exempt from it and it is likely to have a lot of common rules and restrictions which might have unforeseen negative effects that might negate the positives of free trade and of lowering of trade barriers.

Read Full Post »

[Author’s note: I originally intended my first post of 2013 to be about a different subject(s), but I will post it later and will keep you updated. However due to the relevance of a current event I decided to write a blog about it right away.]

On Tuesday January 22nd 2013 David Cameron, the Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was suposed to deliver his speech about the future of the EU-UK relationship in the Hague in the Netherlands. 

Now, however, it will be held in London the next day on Wednesday January 23rd. Too bad, I argue. The symbolic value of the speech would have been greater was it held in an original founding member of the European project. I think the Netherlands would have been ideal.Image

Photo: ALAMY

This speech follows in the tradition of many previous speeches by British Prime Ministers on the future of UK’s relationship with Europe. It started with Winston Churchill in 1946.

This speech also comes during a critical period. The European Union is going through a major (but not existential) crisis. The single currency, the Euro, faces big challenges too and is shaking the world economy.

The UK, these days might lose its credit rating. Nobody is without trubles.

Last year the UK vetoed a proposed EU treaty and up to this day the UK is really in the EU with just one foot.  Not a member of the single currency nor a member of the Schengen Area. There are other aspects of the EU integration that the UK wanted to opt out of, such as the justice and home affairs.

Britain has always stood on the sidelines of the European continent, saving it a few times along with America from itself (World War I and II). A weird country in Europe that is closer to America with language and law. 

On the other hand however, it is closely tied with Europe too. All the nations throughout history that formed the history of Britain came from the European mainland: the Celts, the Romans, the Angles, the Saxons or the Normans.

Today, as I am writing this blog another important EU milestone took place. Germany and France have marked the 50th anniversary of their mutual relationship treaty. This relationship is now the corner-stone of the European Partnership. This treaty started the Franco-German cooperation and ended the Franco-German conflicts that caused both world wars.

Wow! Could Cameron’s timing be any better? If he had chose as the venue, Strasbourg, it would have peaked with symbolism.

I think there are two ways to explain this: either David Cameron did not wish to overshadow this historic moment for the EU and so he chose London instead of mainland Europe or his speech is not going to be that ground-breaking.

I think it is the latter. I do not expect a ground-breaking speech.

If it was really to change his UK’s stance towards the EU in a ground-breaking way he would have made sure to pick a European venue instead of London.

So, my expectation is that he will not say anything new. He will restate what he always said and that is that he wants the EU and the Euro to succeed. The UK as a trading nation will remain in the EU single market (although it is still not a real single market – more integration and liberalization is needed in my view).

Yes in British eyes the EU is interfering with too many aspects of British lives and Britain will probably ask for some concession from Brussels. David Cameron will have to defend his own taxpayers and voters. He will have to protect the interests of the city of London and its financial markets.

Whether he will announce a referendum in the UK over staying in the EU is unlikely but some referendum over the relationship  with the EU within the EU might be possible. However, I don’t claim to know whether Cameron will announce such a thing or not.

He will underscore the importance of fiscal prudence and good economic policies in order to avoid future economic crises such as the current one. The Germans and the Dutch will be glad to hear this. I also think that he will say that going backwards in integration is not the answer either. That on the other hand is something that the French and the Italians might like hearing.

He might however, twist his speech by emphasizing the “how”. Perhaps a new way to think about all these partnerships and integrations.

I am not surprised that an ordinary British citizen does not understand the EU, few people in Brussels really do. The ongoing crisis is changing the dynamism of the EU like never before as we speak.

I, in my view, claim the the UK is a plus for the EU. Without it the EU would be more boring and more bureaucratic. With the UK, the EU has more dynamism and more pragmatism. Pragmatism is something that the EU needs right now during its ongoing crisis.

British members of the European Parliament (notably Nigel Farage and Daniel Hannan) are being very outspoken against the democratic deficit of some EU institutions. That is something I happen to agree with. The importance of democratic principle is again, something that David Cameron will mention but it is nothing new.

I claim that France, Germany that happen to mark their anniversary are along with the UK the three most important members of the EU. The relationship of the first two is the building block of the EU and are also the two biggest EU and eurozone economies. The UK is the third biggest EU economy (and 7th biggest globally) and therefore important.

UK is also important because without it English would not be a working language in the EU institutions, and it is now the most spoken language in the EU, whether being a first language or not.

If the UK was not in the EU, either France or Germany would have their way at the expense of the other, which is partially happening now with the Euro and its crisis. I also claim that the EU needs the UK to save it from itself. 

Whether the speech will be historic or not is not up to debate. Of course it will. It is supposed to be a historic speech. But, whether the speech will be some historic turning point in the UK’s relationship with the EU is difficult to tell and I don’t think we will be able to tell it right away. 

I think that whether  this speech will be a historic turning point in Britain’s relationship with the EU will be clear in a few years after the UK and the EU took some concrete steps in either direction. The real historic value of this speech will maybe be really clear only after a decade or a few.

But I do not expect to hear anything extraordinary, new or “super-historic”. 

Good Luck to David Cameron.

Read Full Post »

(Author’s note: I was writing this article during the summer so it might not be perfectly new but the points I make remain)

The election of François Hollande as the president of France has been an important turning point. He is a Head of State who is openly anti-austerity has been negatively portrayed by The Economist magazine’s article, which called him “rather dangerous”.

The election of François Hollande has been a sign of a current trend in Europe that is going against austerity.  Austerity across the EU is now in its third year almost. Some countries are feeling the pain of austerity, especially the PIIGS, which have all had to be bailed out.

With all of its current problems, the last thing Europe needs right now is a complete move away from austerity and fiscal tightening to a more expansionist monetary policy and more borrowing. These policies are, among other reasons, what caused the current crisis in the first place.

First of all, with the exception of the PIIGS, no real cuts are taking place or have actually taken place in Europe. The graphs on this blog post of an economics think-tank in Slovakia show that in reality no cuts took place. The only thing that happened is that the rise of government spending decreased. But it is still increasing nevertheless so there is no real austerity. In some EU countries governments were actually spending more than they had before.

The public across Western Europe was upset about the austerity and many politicians claim that it doesn’t work. What is really felt, however, is not the pain of the austerity since there isn’t really any, but the pain of the continuation of the economic crisis. The recovery of economic activity in 2010/2011 was largely due to expansionist monetary policies across Europe. Governments spent a giant amount of public money immediately after the start of the 2008/2009 crisis to stimulate the economy. But this kind of Keynesian stimulus only works as long as the government money keeps flowing. With every government dollar that flows into the economy the threat of high inflation increases.

Now, years later when governments started to cut public spending so that they do not run up huge public debts the economies are starting to slow down and the global outlook isn’t rosy. This has mostly manifested itself in fears of the so-called “double-dip” recessions.  These “artificial economic revivals” did not last and genuine economic recovery will not arrive easily.

In short austerity isn’t working because it hasn’t really been tried out. Germany and France have huge public debts, although still incomparable with the PIIGS.  There is one country in the EU, however, that has resisted this tide of “no real austerity” or “just a bit of austerity”. The Baltic state of Estonia has been making headlines around the world in being the “prime example” of austerity. Estonia is the only country in the Eurozone that is experiencing an economic growth, is having a budget surplus and its debt is actually decreasing. No other Eurozone country has all of these three things happening at the same time.

Estonia has felt the real pain of austerity. However, throughout the years the country’s inhabitants got closer together and got through the tough times. The politicians cut their wages by around 20% in order to persuade the public to go through with the tough fiscal tightening measures. Now the economy is recovering and it has very good prospects. Estonia adopted the Euro in January 2011 when no other country even considered joining the common currency union.

Estonia is the only country in all of Europe, which meets the economic criteria of the eurozone and the political and military criteria as a NATO member. The World Bank has graded it as the 24th country in the world in the ease of doing business ahead of France and Italy. Estonia’s economy might face problems in attracting FDI because of being right next to Russia, which is the reason why it was eager to join the North Atlantic alliance in the first place.

Estonia deserves a lot of respect and praise for its sacrifices. With a population of just roughly over 1 million, is certainly is a dwarf when compared to the biggest and the oldest EU members such as France or Germany.  The Estonians have chosen the “hard way”. After a tough and painful crash and a recession in 2009 and 2010 the country looks ahead to a highly potential bright future.  They haven’t decided to borrow more money for which they would have had to pay for later and which would have hurt much more than the austerity they went through.  Estonia’s Baltic neighbors: Latvia and Lithuania have chosen a similar economic policy as a way to sort out the crisis.

In a way, the two opposing ideas in the Eurozone are whether it is better to chose an immediate crash which is then followed by a real recovery or pursue a mild long recession made possible by more spending and borrowing which only gives the temporary impression of recovery. Estonia chose the 1st way which is tougher and certainly less attractive with the public.

Estonia should be an example for the European Union since it is one of the few countries that actually did try austerity as a way out of this crisis. It should also serve as an example in NATO, having kept all of its membership requirements.

These days this “new” EU member (having joined in 2004) is showing the right way.  The “old” members such as Italy, Spain, Portugal or Greece are facing grave problems. Germany and France, which are currently leading the way out of this crisis, have huge public debts and do not lack problems. Why should they have all the credibility?

Perhaps once in a while a “new dwarf” should be listened to or respected and given just as much credibility as the “old giants”. 

Read Full Post »

Edward Lucas, the Central and Eastern European correspondent of The Economist recently narrated a video on The Economist‘s website, in its multimedia library. (I posted the video earlier click here to view it)
Lucas explained how in his opinion the concept of “Eastern Europe” which is used to describe all of ex-communist Europe is a messy concept that doesn’t make sense and should not be used any more.

This narrated video follows a TED Talk that Lucas gave at the TEDx event in Krakow. (To watch it on YouTube click here) During the talk he explained why calling the whole ex-communist region of Europe as one entity by using the name “Eastern Europe” is wrong, confusing and far from the truth. It is a messy concept that does not make sense. I shared this video via Twitter and other social media websites.

Lucas gave that TED Talk back in December 2011 and now months later he narrated a video with the same message. I noticed it and think that Edward Lucas is trying to make a serious point so I decided to make a post about it in my Blog.

It also concerns me since I’m originally from Slovakia, a country which gets caught in this messy concept as well with many other countries.

Edward Lucas is perfectly right. This concept does not even make sense geographically. If the Czech Republic is in Eastern Europe then why should Austria not be in there too. I know, for example, that French geography tex books divide Europe exactly like that and include Greece in “Western Europe”. That is close to insane.

In the two videos Edward Lucas proposes two new concepts: “Baltic Europe” and “Danube Europe”. These two make perfect sense geographically and culturally.

A term that I believe should be used more often from a geographical point of view is “Central Europe”. Not that there is anything wrong in being from the East or being Eastern European, but calling half the continent Eastern Europe is not correct.

“Central Europe” is ideal to describe Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria and perhaps even Germany, Switzerland, Slovenia and Lichtenstein.  However, I do not think that the term “Eastern Europe” should be abandoned completely. I think it is ideal to use it to describe the countries that constitute the territory of the former Soviet Union: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova and maybe the 3 Baltic States. The 3 Baltic states, however, would rather be included in “Northern Europe” among countries such as Finland and Sweden or they should be part of what Lucas calls “Baltic Europe”.  Sometimes according to some classifications the Baltic States along with Romania and Croatia also fall into “Central Europe”. To see the various ways of how “Central Europe” is classified view this Wikipedia entry here.

The term “Central Europe” should be used more often in international media. For example we commonly use  “Central European Time” or “CET” to describe the time zone that runs from Spain through most of Europe all the way to the Baltic States, Romania and the former USSR. That concept is also untidy and the time zone itself is confusing, but that is a different topic. I’m not going to get into that.

The ex-communist countries of Europe are far from being homogenous. Yes, they were all communist during almost half of the last century but that is all. Most of them are Slavic, but not all of them. In only some of them is the Eastern Orthodox Cristinatiy the dominant religion . The others are mostly Roman Catholic. ( Not to mention that two of them: Czech Republic and Estonia are among the most atheist countries in the world.) A common misconception abroad is that they all use the Cyrillic alphabet. Most of them actually use the Latin alphabet.

If you watch these two videos (it will not take a lot of your time) you will find out more about this part of Europe and what the countries of this region are like. Most of them are integrating deeper and deeper into the European Union and are also becoming important on the world stage. The recent EURO 2012 tournament for example was held in Poland and Ukraine.

Edward Lucas deserves thanks and  a lot of credit. The website of The Economist where his video is posted is visited daily by millions of people all over the world. Thanks to his video everyone who sees it will hopefully stop using the old concept of “Eastern Europe” and will recognize the ex-communist countries of Europe for what they really are.

Thank You Mr. Lucas

Read Full Post »

Back in October 2011, I wrote a rather long and very critical blog post about how Slovakia’s Government collapsed. In that post I partly blamed the EU Bureaucracy for that collapse.

(So in a way you can consider this Part 2 or a Following of that post. You can read it here.)

Since then, many months have passed and the early elections held past week-end confirmed what everybody knew. The current pro-market and very courageous government is out and the old one is back in. Although only one of the 3 parties is.

———————————————————————-

Slovakia’s former  Prime Minister Robert Fico is back. His left-wing social democratic party replaced the previous center-right coalition of 4 parties that were known to be very pro-market and progressive. They were appreciated in Brussels, Berlin and Washington DC. Fico’s party has received over 44% of the votes (over 1 million votes) and has more than 50% of the parliamentary seats. This means that they can govern alone as one party without a need for a coalition partner.

This is interesting, scary and exciting  news for Slovakia.  Many, however, say that it is very bad, because since 1989 we haven’t had a single party in power (Before 1989 it was the Communists). But it still isn’t the same. Back in the pre-1989 times we had no such thing as an opposition. This time there is one and it is in a democratically elected parliament. Luckily enough, Fico does not have a constitutional majority as does Viktor Orban in Hungary. No one single party should ever have that much control. But Slovakia in its democratic history has always had at least 3 or 4 parties in a coalition. Never a single one. That’s why so many political commentators in Slovakia and in Europe are worried.

In the past in years from 2006-2010 when Robert Fico was the Prime Minister for the 1st time, he was in coalition with 2 other parties. Those two were involved in  most of the scandals. Some hope that Fico’s party won’t do as badly as his previous partners did. This will only be found out in the future.

Fico has a high percentage also due to the fact that many voters from the other parties decided to vote against the right-wing parties that are involved in a big corruption scandal known as the “Gorilla”. (Click here to read the Economist’s article about it). So a 45% vote is not genuine. His preferences are high because the preferences of other parties are low. Fico’s party always obtained more percent in every other election gradually  since 2002, (2002: 13,46%; 2006: 29,1%; 2010: 34,79%; 2012: 44,41%) but this is his peak and I predict that from here he will go only lowerBut he will not go away easily. The Right will have a tough job to do if they want to get back in power.

The Slovak Right, in a way,  killed itself. It has partly itself to blame and that is why Robert Fico can govern alone. Let’s hope that this “Slap in the Face” or this “wake-up call” will bring the right-wing parties closer together  will finally force them to get their (excuse my language) “shit” together. Many people who should have left a long time ago, stayed in power, among them Mikulas Dzurinda the former PM and FA Minister. He will always be remembered as a reformer and the man who put Slovakia into the EU and NATO. I respect him for that. But he will also be remembered as a man who did not know when to stop and partly weakened the Right and eased Mr. Fico’s return to power.

Many young in Slovakia are skeptical and very critical to say the least, and I look at this with caution too. Having just one party in power is dangerous. It is democratic but still can be dangerous. Yes in the US there is, or a couple of years ago in the UK, there was a two party system where one party rules the 51%+ majority. But in those countries this system has existed for quite some time and democracy has also been there for longer time.

Nevertheless, at the same time, this is also an opportunity for Slovakia. I think either of the two things will happen: Either Robert Fico with his party will truly do as they wish and he will leave Slovakia in a worse shape and with lots of new scandals. Or, Mr. Fico in order to try to be reelected will try not to lose the public’s trust. But here the opposition’s activity is crucial. Although it is small it must be a fierce opposition and must check the government every single time. One more reason or one more way for the Right to come closer together. Investigative journalists and media are also important. They helped uncovered the scandals of all previous governments. This time they must be even more vigilant.

Finally, I respect Robert Fico, people voted for him clearly after all. Although I’m not a big fan of “social state” or big government economic policies and I don’t always think that progressive tax is legitimate, I think that in these difficult times it could be applied. But, I would insist on returning to a flat tax once economic growth is restored, unemployment is lowered and poverty is lowered as well. I do agree with him that a higher VAT Tax that was proposed by the Right will actually hurt the poorest.

However, I still am cautious of Robert Fico for his populism, the way he criticized the media and  some of the scandals that involved his previous government.Let’s not forget his stance towards Hungary.

Finally, let’s hope again that he won’t become like Vladimir Meciar (Slovakia’s 1st PM and an autocrat) to whom he is often compared to or like Hungary’s PM Viktor Orban. Now he and his party will have the entire responsibility. They won’t share it with anyone else. If anything goes wrong Fico and his party will be the only ones to blame. This  should make him govern more carefully and hopefully also more responsibly especially with the budget.

——————————————————-

Here are links to articles that have wrote about the election result, in case you’re interested: The Economist, Washington Post, NY Times.

Finally, as always I added a cartoon from Slovakia’s Newspaper SME that shows the election result. (The 5 tiny guys rolling the carpet are the heads of the 5 other parties that got into the Slovak parliament, they are rolling it for Robert Fico, the giant winner whose social democratic party’s color is Red, thus the red carpet)

Read Full Post »

(I’m not an expert in Latin America or Argentina. However, I always had an interest in the region, its culture and I do speak Spanish as well. Usually I would not write about Latin America and focus on other topics instead, but since the Falklands topic was a lot in the news recently I decided to sum up my thoughts about it)

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Recently Argentina, with the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War (April 2012) approaching, has once again re-started the old debate about whom the Falklands (Malvinas in Argentina) should belong to. Once again the tensions between the two countries, Argentina and the UK have increased. Argentina’s president Cristina Kirchner even accused the UK of militarizing the dispute by sending a naval ship into that region, and made a formal complaint to the UN.

This is nothing but a repetition of old patterns. The Falklands War in 1982 was started by the then-ruling Argentinian military junta. Amongst many other reasons, the main reason was to divert attention from domestic problems. Back then the Argentina was under rule of a military dictatorship of General Galtieri, so there were clearly political problems. But moreover there were economic difficulties which were undermining the military junta’s control. What could be a better diversion than a war? Later on the defeat in the war meant the end of the dictatorship.

Today the pattern appears the same. A need to divert public attention from domestic problems, means that  Argentina’s President is again spurring up the old debate. She convinced many other Latin American countries to refuse ships from the Falklands in their ports. She called UK and British Prime Minister David Cameron “neo-colonialist”.

Argentina does have domestic problems, and in my opinion this whole sabble-rattling  just proves that the internal problems are actually getting worse. Why else would Cristina Kirchner be diverting attention like this? Already back in 2010 Argentina was facing some economic and political difficulties. The Economist was fiercely criticizing the government’s policies. Both economic and political. (High inflation, control of the Central Bank, conflict with the media)

It is very unlikely that since 2010 the problems disappeared or things improved, if anything they most likely got worse. Recently when I talked to one young Argentinian he did say to me that in his opinion with Cristina Kirchner and her policies Argentina is “becoming Venezuela”.

To make a point, the Falklands never belonged to Argentina and the fact that they belonged to Spain before they became British does not change anything. And does anyone care what the inhabitants of the Falklands think? They do not want to be Argentinian, nor do they wish to discuss the sovereignty of the islands. Despite everything that Argentina says, its claims to those islands will never be legitimate.

One should not forget that oil is involved. No doubt Argentina would like to get piece of the action. If Argentina really wanted to control the Falklands or at least have some influence there, it should do the opposite and start cooperating with the UK: open its sea ports, its airports and its economy to the Falklands. Argentina and Buenos Aires, especially, would make an ideal land base for processing and further transporting the oil from the Falklands. Free movement of people between the islands and the continent would definitely enable many Argentinians to move onto the islands and this could make those, “really more Argentinian”. There’s great economic potential in cooperation for all the parties involved and it could finally make Argentina and the UK put their history of hostility behind them. The economic potential that this cooperation offers would benefit Argentina’s economy and help resolve its economic problems and Cristina Kirchner would not have to divert the public’s attention away from it by making populist claims.

Instead of trying to divert attention from a problem, it is better to try solving it.

Read Full Post »

It won’t come as a surprise to anyone today that Europe or more specifically the European Union (EU) is in trouble. Everyday new events linked to this crisis are being reported in the media from all over the world. In this post I would like to express my opinion about what is going on and maybe clarify the whole issue a bit.

What the EU is starting to resemble more and more these days is actually a loose Confederation of Nation-States rather than a real European Federation that speaks with a unified voice as it was supposed to after the Lisbon Treaty that passed in December 2009. Only 4 months after the treaty was passed and 18 months after the start of the Global Financial & Economic Crisis began, this whole European economic mess started. It all started in the same place where the current European Civilization did very long ago, in Greece.

I named this blog post the Holy Roman Empire of the European Nation(s), because the EU today is starting to look more and more like the very old state called Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation which existed between 962 to 1806. (To find out more than just the Wikipedia page, you can also click here.)

The EU is not a federation because it doesn’t speak with one voice. Nobody can really figure out who (if anyone, really) is in charge of the EU. Is it the European President Hernan Van Rompuy, Head of the EU Commission José Manuel Barrosso or the French-German duo “Merkozy”? Nobody really knew who was in charge of the Holy Roman Empire either.

I remember that during one history lesson our teacher told us that the position of the Holy Roman Emperor, (the ruler  who was formally in charge of that Empire) was just a representative figure and somebody who would not hold any real power, but only a prestigious post. She then went on to mention that it was a position best compared today to the office of the Head of the European Commission (José Manuel Barrosso). She said it before the Lisbon Treaty was passed and before Hernan Van Rompuy became the EU President. Today I’m sure she would say that one of the two men ressembles the Holy Roman Emperor the most.

The Holy Roman Empire was, in reality, a loose confederation of smaller German States, where each had a good degree of independence. The German Princes were interested in exactly that. Today, the EU is becoming more loose and loose. Until 2008/2009 it seemed that Europe was moving more and more towards an eventually unified entity. That was the trend. These days the trend is opposite. Previous national and regional agendas and tendencies are becoming more obvious. The biggest problem of the EU today is the Eurozone Crisis, but the fact is that not all the EU members actually use the common, Euro, currency. The EU has within itself a free travel area called the Shengen Area. This allows European citizens to travel freely and easily within Europe without a need for Passport. However, not all the EU members are a members of this group either.

The European Union can thus be divided into the countries that have the common currency (Eurozone) and those that don’t and into countries that are members of the Shengen Area and those that aren’t. Some countries aren’t members of either (UK, Romania, Bulgaria, the last two are supposed to join eventually). The latest British decision to VETO another EU Treaty meant that UK will be out of future EU agreements. Some countries such as Poland and Czech Republic announced that they aren’t interested in joining the Eurozone in the foreseeable future.

The EU, thus, looks more confusing and loose and non-united than ever. But, this does not mean that before it was more united or that it is less united today. It is just no longer moving towards unification as it was until 2009. The EU is just as united as it was in 2009. New problems and challenges, however showed differences which were always here but were not apparent. The Eurozone Problems are being solved by Germany & France, while other problems such as the question of Democracy in Hungary is solved on the EU level from Bruxelles by the Commission. This shows again a duality of leadership. Some things are decided on the nation-level, some still on the EU level and some countries (i. e. UK) remain more or less independent.

But, today there is still a talk of a common European identity or at least of an EU-Identity. So, since Europe still is unified through the EU but loose within it into nation-states and other groups it can really be considered a unified confederation but which is loose and whose members are rather independent. Exactly a kind of a Holy Roman Empire of European Nations. Or for those who strongly believe in a European Identity, of a European Nation.

Concerning the Eurozone Economic Crisis and the Greek Economic problem, based on my economic knowledge and common-sense, I think that Greece will eventually default. In the end, I do remain cautiously optimistic about the EU’s and the Eurozone’s Future. The Euro will survive 2012 and the future in tact. It will however be different.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

For those who are interested in the coverage of these issues, a very good source is The Economist’s Website on Europe News and its Charlemagne Blog.

Another good source and a way to see Canadian Perspective on these issues is the Broken Europe Section at The Globe and Mail.

I wrote 2 previous posts that do touch the EU issue. One about Poland and the other about Slovakia.

Finally I thought I would add some Cartoons showing this European Crisis.

Enjoy!

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »