Debate:What to do with the European Union?

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by Osaka Sun.

Ok, if you haven't been reading the news for the past few months, the euro is in serious shit right now. Quick video here.

Basically, Greece, Italy, etc. borrowed like crazy and didn't care at all about paying taxes (you could compare them to being left-wing versions of the USA). The EU is so interconnected that if only one defaults...2008 would only be a slight error in human history. So, if you were in charge of the handling the crisis, what would the best option be? And explain why.

Kick the PIGS out, and make sure whoever joins the EU in the future is fiscally competent

My personal opinion. After the Papandreou/Berlusconi mess I'm growing increasingly pessimistic if the four nations can do anything to stem the bleeding. The EU is a spectacular economic group without them, we're really just kicking the can. Sarkozy and Merkel are already considering it.

And do not, and I repeat, DO NOT, have governments hire dumb-as-fuck investment banks (*cough* Goldman Sachs *cough*) to hide debt from the rest of the continent. If there's one important lesson from all of this, every single member state needs to be completely transparent with each other or the eurozone won't work. At all. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"Kick the PIGS out, and make sure whoever joins the EU in the future is fiscally competent."

But what should we do about the US? --145.94.77.43 (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say at least until the beginning of 2012 solving the economic issues in the US is on the backburner. Obama is on campaign mode and the rest of the G20 is totally focused on Europe right now. Developments in the OWS protests or a spike in unemployment could change things, but you really can't predict the future. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Screw the eurozone entirely

How far can the "extend and pretend" strategy go? The PIIGS are not the only ones responsible for the current clusterfuck. The euro shell game has worked so far by tethering peripheral economies to the need for more debt while Germany cranked out loads of exports to maintain its surplus. The instability of these economies during the 2000s was masked by the fictitious "financial innovations" of the banksters. When that's shot, the ECB tries to keep the game going by dumping loads of cash into the zombie banks of countries like Greece while imposing austerity measures. The chances of these countries now somehow magically having enough of an economic explosion to climb out of the holes they're in is about nil. As others have noted, it's a Titanic situation. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

But wouldn't dismantling everything make market uncertainty even worse? I'm not sure tearing apart a monetary system that provides nearly 25% of the world's GDP would leave investors confident. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Somehow or other I think it's going to break up.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Complicated Uniting Strategy

The still-solvent economies (predominantly Germany, of course) should agree to bail out the PIGS in exchange for agreements on tighter fiscal cooperation, ceding some sovereignty to a central monetary authority. The agreement should be huge and ironclad, to ensure market faith in PIGS debt, and should take advantage of this problem by solving the essential difficulty at the heart of the modern Eurozone: excessive levels of risk from the links between countries, but neither commensurate responsibilities or the ability to leverage their own finances and forestall this kind of problem. The Eurozone countries are like carpenters who've all thrown away their hammers to share a nailgun - if they don't agree and empower someone to work out whose turn it is to pound out some nails, then they just keep squabbling and find themselves without the basic tools they once relied on, like devaluing money.--^talk 03:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, unless you have a means in mind to enforce them, "agreements' and "promises" are much like teh US treaties with the indians. in effect until or unless they want to break them. --GodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 03:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Put their national pension systems in the mix as surety for the loans. Obviously it couldn't be so blatant, so a workaround would have to be developed. Class them in the same system or something.--^talk 03:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a "complicated" uniting strategy, what is required is a very simple unification strategy: members of the Eurozone should directly abrogate part of their sovereignty to a controlling economic government responsible to the citizens of the Eurozone as a whole (not just their national governments). That won't come about without a massive shift in popular sentiment, but that is what is required. --Lord Shang (talk) 07:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This might work - or it might make things worse. But it's academic for one this is certain - this is not going to happen. It'll take too long and the electorates won't go for it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, federalizing Europe - even assuming it occurred, which would require a magical and complete shift in public opinion - would take years. This is an immediate problem.--^talk 12:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Other options

Let the Europeans sort it out themselves. The last thing they need are a bunch of busybody Yanks, Canucks and others poking into their affairs and pushing their agenda onto other people. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 02:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Still doesn't mean we can't talk about it. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but relevant to the whole "who should have a say", exactly what is the UKs role in the EU? I never quite get it. --GodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 03:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

See opt-outs. The UK observes EU treaties but at the same time retains the pound sterling as its main currency (instead of the euro). Which, for now, might be a good thing. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well the US government seems eager to start a war with Iran, maybe Europe should kick up it's weapons productions and wait for the USA to accidentally launch a missile at those peace loving hippie Swedes or poor Germany. Cash in on selling weapons to the USA! Hurray! Or they could just wait for WW3 to start. In reality, I think what's going on doesn't have an instant solution, and it'll take years, possibly decades, to sort it all out. HollowWorld (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey! I'm a European and I live in a Eurozone country. So I'm one of the few people allowed to have an opinion? Cool.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)