The EU Unification Project – Applied Elsewhere…. May 28, 2012

An American asked me “How will/would a Federal Europe help Nation-States and vice-versa so that Europe remains a major geopolitics player and Nation-States prosper ?” .

If we must discuss what’s being proposed for the unification of Europe, and what it means for Nation States on a Global Geopolitical Basis …..

Let’s discuss Federal Continental Union in a North American context, just to give you a bit of perspective on how it feels to have people insist that a European Federalist state is a desirable goal.

So there you have a natural geographical unit like the Continent Of Europe. The expanding EU is already a bigger economy than the US. The Chinese are within touch distance of taking over as the worlds No 1 economy.

The good old US should do what in those circumstances.

A – accept their soon to be number three status, just suck it up and concentrate on running their own country as properly as possible.

B – proceed to enlarge itself by forming a North American Union, with Canada, Mexico, Guatamala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicuragua, Cost Rica, Panama.

How could this be done, how could so many countries with different languages, cultures and economies be moulded into one Union. Why would they be willing to surrender sovereignty to a Union dominated by the US.

Well first you would need to form a free trade block. NAFTA, fits the bill, non threatening. Start with some large countries, the immediate neighbours. Canada and Mexico.

So far, so good or goodish. They need to grow this sucker, there are so many markets and countries on the continent that would benefit from mutual cooperation. Their poverty could be overcome by offering structural funds, a win win scenario.

The US need a goal of economic and social convergence before they offer these funds. They can’t just throw money at banana Republics, let’s bring them up to the USs level. They’ll have a NA parliament, a council of ministers, each country will have a Veto so they will have their own sovereignty otherwise it would be impossible to sell to their electorates. ( North American Economic Community )

Gradually it absorbs some of the smaller countries into the community, progress is being blocked by the need for unanimous votes on nearly everything, the use of the Veto by insignificant smaller countries is frustrating. Why are they holding things up, don’t they know it’s for the common good. The union must be expanded so we can outmanoeuvre the smaller countries. We need to create an entity with more centralised powers like a NAU.

The US offers them structural funds and grooms their political parties by forming alliances with them in the parliament. The real power lies with the council of ministers, they are ardent supporters of the project, 1st World salaries for them in the NAEC administration when they retire from National politics and their share of NAEC pork will make them good advocates of NAEC policy.

Let’s move to the next step, obviously they need to move to a full union, more qualified majority voting is necessary. Let’s form the NAU, we’ll abandon our individual currencies. We’ll have a NA dollar backed by the strength of the US economy, it’ll be controlled by an Independent NACB. What could go wrong?

There’s a worldwide boom, it’s fantasy economics, the bubble should be deflated. The US is going through a tough patch, they don’t want higher interest rates, they want to export to the peripheral countries who are flying high on cheap credit.

The US is back on it’s feet, the fantasy economics have been proven to be just that. The peripheral are in deep trouble, the US and International Finance has so much to lose if the peripheral can’t pay back the loans. The NACB steps in and shores up the private banks of the periphery so that the US and International Finance are guaranteed their money back.

The periphery are shagged, they’re in a weakened state, time to go in for the kill. You advance them loans at high interest rates, they grudgingly accept as TINA and you have them by the privates. You proceed to use the high interest rates on the loans you advanced and control of the “Independent” NACB to exert pressure to finish full fiscal and political Union on your terms.

Game over, NAU is almost complete, you give the peripherals a bit of equality in the NAU parliament which is only a talking shop. The rules have been set in stone by Treaty, try changing them without the say so of the US. You give the peripherals a bit of a writedown on their debt and lower interest rates after you’ve got what you want.

Job done and dusted, you didn’t even have to give the Hondurans an equal say in the running of the NAU. Of course you never intended to, a 300 million population powerhouse economy vs a 7.6 million population banana republic. Only a fool or a dishonest person would ever pretend that was on the cards.

The best part is you get to look down on them, if only they were as organised and ruthless as you they would never have succumbed to their own chronic shortsightedness.

Never mind, they can send their unemployed youth to fight in your army. Every Empire needs an Army, how else would they rig the game in their own favour.

I know which stage the small countries should cry stop at, the Free Trade in exchange for structural funds stage.

The final stage has not been completed, the best thing we can do is refuse to take that final step. If they want their money back they’ll have to come to an agreed solution, they’re not the only ones with cards at the table.

Shaadi  27 May 2012

Join our discussions on the Treaty and Referendum at Political World forum

http://www.politicalworld.org/

“The morning after…. ” A Risk Assessment of the Fiscal Stability Treaty Vote May 17, 2012

” The morning after…….

Supporting a ” yes” vote in this referendum is one of the most difficult decisions I have had to make, politically. 

My ability to represent my constituents was taken away by the Intergovernmental nature of the Fiscal Compact Treaty.  The European Parliament, in particular, the Socialist Group, was hostile to the Treaty.  It was obvious that it was a political agreement to satisfy Merkel’s government. Just about everything was wrong with it. 

And yet, and yet, I had to move past all that, in to the particular situation we were in. After much deliberating it became clear to me and at least some others on the centre left, that the risk was simply too great for a “no” vote. In other words I made a risk assessment. It had nothing to do with being a member of a government Party. It is also clear that the FCT will fail at a EU level, but it is a failure that we must not bring about. On a more hopeful note, our ability to re-negotiate our debts, in particular the promissory notes, will be enhanced by a yes vote. However I personally expect the government to engage in that serious negotiating with the Troika, if necessary, unilaterally.

My concerns are, and always have been, about the aftermath, the morning after May 31st. Where will we be then? While we will have left the “hot zone” of risk by a “yes” vote, no actual gains will be made.  At that point if no political will is demonstrated to show a red rather than white flag, in those negotiations, the government, in particular the Labour Party, will have failed. At that point it will be impossible for me to support the status quo. 

Many of my constituents are very angry, even the “yes” voters. Why should anyone be surprised at this anger? They will still be so on June 1st. And they will expect something.  I expect something. But will it happen? 

There is reason for hope. Only a few people know our negotiating strategy. But I know what is right and what is wrong. No hero will appear to rescue us from everything. Great damage has been done already. But we can be rescued from unacceptable suffering. 

Nessa Childers    16.5.2012