New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: The President Of France Wants Eurozone Members To Transfer Their Sovereignty To A United States Of Europe
Source:
prophecynewswatch.com
URL Source: http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2015/July21/212.html
Published: Jul 21, 2015
Author: Michael Snyder
Post Date: 2015-07-21 11:37:44 by Don
Keywords: None
Views: 1652
Comments: 18
The President Of France Wants Eurozone Members To Transfer Their Sovereignty To A United States Of Europe July 21, 2015 | Michael Snyder Share this article The President of France has come up with a very creative way of solving the European debt crisis. On Sunday, a piece authored by French President Francois Hollande suggested that the ultimate solution to the problems currently plaguing Europe would be for every member of the eurozone to transfer all of their sovereignty to a newly created federal government. In other words, it would essentially be a “United States of Europe”. This federal government would have a prime minister, a parliament, a federal budget and a federal treasury. Presumably, the current national governments in Europe would continue to function much like state governments in the U.S. do. In the end, there may be some benefits to such a union – particularly for the weaker members of the eurozone. But at what cost would those benefits come? When I first learned that French President Francois Hollande had proposed that the members of the eurozone should create their own version of a federal government, I was quite stunned. But I shouldn’t have been surprised. For the global elite, the answer to just about any problem is more centralization. The following comes from a Bloomberg article that was posted on Sunday… French President Francois Hollande said that the 19 countries using the euro need their own government complete with a budget and parliament to cooperate better and overcome the Greek crisis. “Circumstances are leading us to accelerate,” Hollande said in an opinion piece published by the Journal du Dimanche on Sunday. “What threatens us is not too much Europe, but a lack of it.” So precisely what would “more Europe” look like? Hollande envisions a central government that has both a parliament and a federal budget… “I have proposed taking up Jacques Delors’ idea about euro government, with the addition of a specific budget and a parliament to ensure democratic control,” Hollande said. His remarks touched on what analysts have seen as a major flaw in the euro. Under the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht, countries which share a common currency must obey rules on borrowing and deficit spending. But the Greek crisis saw one of the 19 eurozone members notch up successive worsening deficits and amass a mountain of debt. The problems were only addressed by bailouts from the European institutions and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Critics say the problem stems from a lack of centralised control over national fiscal policies, which today are jealously guarded areas of sovereignty. In addition, this eurozone government would have its own prime minister. In essence, he would be the European version of the president of the United States. The following comes from the Independent… There would be a eurozone government with its own prime minister, the officials said. This government would have its own budget – separate from the EU budget – to aid and invest in more fragile countries, It would try to harmonise corporation and pay-roll taxes to ensure fair competition in the eurozone. Of course Hollande is not the only one calling for more centralization. Last month, European Central Bank President Mario Draghi, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Eurogroup President Jeroen Dijsselbloem proposed a plan that would create a shared European treasury… Draghi called for the creation of a shared treasury within 10 years in a joint proposal with politicians including European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Eurogroup President Jeroen Dijsselbloem last month. I don’t anticipate that we will see any of these things implemented immediately. However, what is important is the fact that this is where the European elite plan to take Europe. And when the next great European financial crisis erupts, these proposals will be offered as the “solutions” necessary to end the crisis. During times of emergency, the elite are often able to push things through that they would never be able to accomplish under normal circumstances. At the moment, it would be extremely difficult to get everyone to agree to a full-blown “United States of Europe”. But if things were to start spinning wildly out of control and people were suddenly desperately clamoring for solutions, the environment would be quite different. What that time arrives, the key will be to get Germany and France to agree on what a “United States of Europe” should look like. If Germany and France can agree, it is inevitable that most of the other members of the eurozone would ultimately fall in line. One potential hurdle for the creation of this new government would be the euro. The current treaty agreements concerning the euro are quite complicated and quite restrictive. If Germany and France decided that they did want to create a “United States of Europe”, they might have to create an entirely new currency in order to accomplish that. I know that sounds kind of crazy right now, but at one time the concept of “the euro” sounded really crazy too. For the moment, the debt crisis in Europe just continues to get even worse. Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Belgium and France are all drowning in debt. Whether or not we see a “Grexit” in the short-term, I fully expect that European bond yields will continue to rise and European stocks will take quite a tumble in the months ahead. I believe that we are right on the verge of a very significant European financial crisis. In particular, keep on eye on the big banks. Just like in the United States, the “too big to fail” banks in Europe are massively overleveraged and are tremendously exposed to derivatives. In fact, the bank with the most exposure to derivatives on the entire planet is Deutsche Bank. It has been reported that Deutsche Bank has a whopping 75 trillion dollars worth of exposure to derivatives, their co-CEOs were recently forced to resign, and there are all sorts of rumblings about troubles going on behind the scenes at the bank. What do you think would happen if the biggest and most important bank in Germany suddenly became the next Lehman Brothers? That is something to think about. Meanwhile, the euro continues to fall. For a long time, I have been repeating my prediction that the euro would fall to parity with the U.S. dollar. One year ago, the EUR/USD was sitting at 1.35. Today, it has come all the way down to 1.08. There will be more ups and downs, but we are almost there. A time of great chaos is coming to Europe, and the eurozone will be deeply shaken. But whether or not there is a break up of the eurozone in the short-term, in the long-term the goal of the European elite is even more integration and even more centralization. So even though there will be significant bumps in the road, I fully expect to see the “United States of Europe” that French President Francois Hollande has proposed. Do you agree? What do you think the future holds for Europe? Read more at http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2015/July21/212.html#c9FsTmUSeFYC765s.99
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Don (#0)
Europe is in the "Articles of Confederation" phase. The weaknesses of the "Articles of Confederation" will lead logically to the "Federal Constitution" phase. It's an inevitability. The threat of war and concepts of religious and cultural chauvinism that kept Europe divided throughout history are weaker than ever. The forces of convergence are very strong. As always, it will be France/Germany first, followed by Benelux, followed by the rest. England will hold out for awhile longer, but in the end will join also; the logic of union is too strong to prevent it.
Europe is in the "Articles of Confederation" phase. The weaknesses of the "Articles of Confederation" will lead logically to the "Federal Constitution" phase. It's an inevitability. A la U.S. history? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Pretty much, yes. The economic and political forces that drove the US together in an unhappy union are driving Europe together too. Missing from Europe, that was present in the US, was the military NEED to remain united. Had the US disunited, the British or French, or perhaps the Spanish imperials, would have swooped in to grab territory. Alone, no American state had a prayer against Britain or France. It was only in unity that there was military security against the most powerful European states. So, external threat forced the Americans together in a way that they otherwise may not have been willing to endure. That doesn't exist in Europe. None of the EU countries is a military threat to any of the others. Russia isn't really a threat to Europe either. The USA isn't. China is far away. There is no overriding NEED for unity in the face of any real military threat. Europe's unity comes from common economic goals in a sphere of recognized common culture - Western Christendom. It's on the eastern edge that things become problematic. The states that were Catholic after the East/West Schism form a cultural unit from a common legal and philosophical heritage. The Orthodox East is like a first cousin - but was historically distant enough to really be different. With the rise of secularism and collapse of widespread real belief, Eastern Europe moves closer to the West. But Russia is farther still. Russia is, and will remain, a separate entity. It won't be joining Europe.
I guess they have not learned from history. US absolute central control is a huge failure. Those that over look history for their wishy washy progressive desires are doomed to repeat these failures over and over! Well until their children turn against them! With the way EU is pushing diversity at any cost they will not last another generation!
That's not what your original comment was about. The U.S. was initially formed under the Articles of Confederation. You claimed that is was inevitable that the AoC would give way to a Consitution. Why was that inevitable for the U.S. and why is it, as you claim, inevitable for Europe? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
The US was originally formed by revolution. The Articles of Confederation were not agreed upon and ratified until the shooting war was nearly through. The problem America faced was overwhelming military threat. America did not have the power, standing alone, to face either England OR France. And though Spain was in her dotage already, the Spanish still could command the American seas if the English or French did not intervene. America was large, but weak and vulnerable. Individually, the states were doomed. When the Articles were ratified, the English had not yet agreed to withdraw. And even once they withdrew, they could always come back, in force. The French could not be depended upon to leap immediately to America's aid again. If the states did not stay united, they would fall. There was no prospect of any individual state being able to drive against the Indians either, especially with the English arming them. America was driven together by military necessity. The Confederation was vital for the survival of independence. From the military necessity arose the ties that made the economic situation unworkable without a greater Constitution. The grandees in every state had a strong economic interest in greater uniformity of trade and money. and they were the ones who led both the Constitutional Convention and the American government. Still do. In Europe, the military necessity no longer exists. In fact, the beginnings of the European Union was to prevent war from happening again. Two war-ravaged European states - one a "victor" in name but nothing else, the other, conquered and crushed, - bound themselves together. The French reached out to Germany and made an alliance in the original French sense of the word: a marriage. It worked. The economic logic of it led to rapid development, which fed more and more cooperation, and soon, the little countries caught in the middle, BeNeLux, were clamoring to get in. The logic of economic union has driven everything. Germany and France and BeNeLux were all much better economically in a common market, and the fewer barriers between them, the better of commerce…and the better lives for most of the people. That's what drives Europe together: an unavoidable economic logic. It's why the Greeks (and everybody else) have been willing to cede so much sovereignty. Having an ever-bigger field in which to play, Europeans from each country enjoy the prosperity and benefits that come from that. The old borders were a hindrance, then a nuisance. Now they're barely there, other than psychologically. This is very good for Europeans, and they know it. The English will always be odd-man out, because their geographical situation as an island on the fringe makes them different. Southern Europe, like the Southern USA, is poorer and less well organized. Cold weather leads to clearer thinking. So, it was inevitable for the US that the AoC would give way to the Constitution, because the AoC left things very economically inefficient. The military need meant that a confederation was necessary, but without better integration, it was a hot mess. Integration was necessary to make the grandees, merchants and traders happy - and they're the ones who control government. Same basic thing drives Europe: commerce is good, more commerce is better, and the wealthy and major commercial enterprises are the well-connected who run everything. Of course they will act in their own economic self-interest, just as the Founding Fathers did. That's why it's inevitable.
So what? Why must Articles of Confederation always have to give way to a Consitution? That was you claim was it not? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
From the view point of the ruled subjects. For the rulers it is a resounding success.
From the view point of the ruled subjects. For the rulers it is a resounding success. That is true.
Yes, it must. The alternative is rising dysfunction, collapse and dissolution. Different states have different sizes, resources and prospects. They can stand alone, at a low level. And at that level, they are prone to be attacked. They band together for defense, or they fall to the biggest fish - and that means a Constitution is imposed - the central government of the conqueror. Assuming that states bond together, if they stay confederated but dissociated, the problems of budget and trade become overwhelming. The lack of war means that all there is to do is commerce, and the existence of massive inefficiencies, borders, restrictions, a crazy-quilt of regulations, becomes immensely frustrating to commerce. Only the largest merchants can afford the hassle of interstate trade. And when they do it, they profit. But they could profit MORE if the barriers were smoothed. The largest merchants have money, and therefore are powerful in all governments. They press those governments to lower the barriers, to make their business easier. And because of their influence on government, government does that. Always. (The exceptions are the North Koreas, which fall into poverty and desperation and then revert to being entirely about defense and keeping power. Autarky is a failed model. No nation is big enough to have everything everybody wants. Trade is necessary and generally advantageous.) What countervailing force is there ever to the merchants? IF there is a military threat, there is that. But if there isn't, there's nothing strong. Language barriers? Smart people know more than one language and derive a benefit from it - and become part of the pressure for coming together with others. Who, then? Tribalists. But they're usually dumber and poorer, and they don't offer anything that compares to the promise held by mercantile activity. So the tribalists bluster, but lose out over time, every time. They may stage a coup and establish a brutal dictatorship, for awhile. But those never last. Over time, they fall apart - because to live alone in autarky is to be poor and struggle more than one really has to, and there's no perceived virtue in that. Over time the zeal dies and the dictatorship ends, and then the overwhelming pressure for the prosperity of peaceful trade resumes. Cuba opens up. So does Vietnam. North Korea will too...eventually. The Soviet Union falls and Russia re-emerges, interested in trade. Pinochet retreats and regular civilian government emerges, and commerce resurges. The pressure of commerce drives people together, relentlessly together. And the togetherness drives standardization, which in turn makes a centripetal force that, over time, is not resisted. The Articles become a Constitution, Coal and Steel Union becomes EURATOM becomes the Common Market becomes the European Union becomes the Eurozone becomes a Federal State. The US and Canada and Mexico become NAFTA, which branches into the hemisphere. Common religion and culture drive people closer together. Only war disrupts the process, and then only for a time. With war abolished in Western Europe, the European Union naturally and inevitably falls towards integrated union...the Articles become a Constitution. It is inevitable because it is profitable, and no countervailing advantage is found in foregoing the profit. It is slow because people don't like to give up what they perceive as independence. But men and women eventually marry, and Articles become Constitutions. It's a natural and inevitable evolution because it's too advantageous not to. The bigger the trade area and the more integrated and commoditized and systematized it is, the more economic opportunity there is for most.
Different states have different sizes, resources and prospects. They can stand alone, at a low level. And at that level, they are prone to be attacked. They band together for defense, or they fall to the biggest fish - and that means a Constitution is imposed - the central government of the conqueror. The differnce in the U.S. is that the Articles of Confederation gave the states too much power and the Federal government not enough to function properly. THAT is why the U.S. Consitution was born. The AoC, which was enacted in late 1777 did provide for the national defense. "Dickinson proceeded to write the basic draft himself. An eminent lawyer, he believed that the Articles should preserve the familiar organization of American society and restore the liberties lately threatened by Parliament. At the same time, Dickinson was a pragmatic politician who realized that the nation's first and most important task was to ensure its survival in a war against a vastly more powerful enemy. His Articles, therefore, were designed primarily to deal with the war emergency, providing the Continental Congress with the specific powers needed to meet Washington's military needs. A militiaman himself, Dickinson counted on the states to maintain local forces adequate to local defense-the "well-regulated" (well-trained, well-organized, and well-equipped) militias that had played so important a role in the ideology of the colonial days. But, as the presence of a British army in New York City made clear, situations could arise that no single state or region could handle. He planned, therefore, to turn Congress into a national government with strong central powers, especially in the military arena, and provide after-the-fact justification for the creation of the Continental Army (see Selected Documents). Congress debated Dickinson's Articles in the summer of 1776, focusing on powers to be retained by the states, but then put the revised draft aside to deal with other matters. Meanwhile, the Continental Congress turned its attention to General Washington's requests for help. In retrospect, the national legislature proved to be an impediment to the progress of the war. Established primarily as the instrument to develop a joint defense effort, the Congress was responsible for enlisting a Continental Army, obtaining reinforcements when needed from the state militias, paying and supplying the troops, and conducting a foreign policy that supported the independence movement. But even Dickinson's original draft of the Articles, calling for a far stronger centralization than provided by subsequent versions of the document, had envisioned supporting no more than the basic military machinery as it existed in the summer of 1776: a small body of regulars enlisted annually and backed by large numbers of militiamen. The Continental Army was responsible to the Congress, but it consisted of troops raised and sustained by the individual states. Congress could not enforce the quotas it set for each state, and control of the purse strings allowed the state legislatures to retain a final say in many areas of military matters. There was nothing at all inevitable about abandoning the AoC for a Constitution. The AoC could just as readily been amended to get the job done. My guess is that it was just a matter of expediency and PR to junk the AoC and start anew with a Consitution, i.e. - an easier sell job. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
There was nothing at all inevitable about abandoning the AoC for a Constitution. The AoC could just as readily been amended to get the job done. The AoC did not GIVE the states power. It was states coming together to form a de facto national government. The states were the lawgivers, the ones with the power. They merely determined how much to cede. When it came to the test, the powers they ceded were insufficient to allow the country to function, so the Constitutional Convention was called together at the behest of SOME of the grandees. It was easier to have a Constitutional Convention outside of the AoC than to try to amend the AoC, because the Constitutional convention did not require unanimity among the states for the Constitution to begin operation, but the AoC effectively gave a veto to each state. Note well that this limitation severely affected the AoC - the Continental Congress passed them in 1777, but they did not go into effect until all 13 states had adopted them - unanimity was the rule - and that did not occur until 1780, when the war was nearing its final campaign. That was the problem with the AoC: unanimity and the lack of power to do anything without such unanimity meant that nothing got done. Poland had a similar problem in its legislature, with a unanimity requirement. The result was that the Poles never could come to agreement on any important measure, and so the country was divided between Austria, Russia and Prussia and completely ceased to exist until after World War I.
The AoC was not adopted until 1781. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp Agreed to by Congress 15 November 1777 In force after ratification by Maryland, 1 March 1781
The revolution created free sovereign and independent states, individually named in the Paris Peace Treaty. His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof. There is ongoing debate about whether a nation was formed under the AoC. Somehow, George Washington is called the first President, not President John Hanson, the first president elected after ratification of the AoC in 1781. History is a little messy about how the AoC was scrapped without the unanimity required by the AoC to effect any change to that self-stated perpetual union. One might even say it was the secession of eleven of the thirteen states. The presidents under the AoC generally have been dispatched to non-history as if the government of the nation operated in a vacuum.
That's how DC worked from the git-go, more that a little messy. "There is ongoing debate about whether a nation was formed under the AoC. Somehow, George Washington is called the first President, not President John Hanson, the first president elected after ratification of the AoC in 1781." It's a debate of which most people have never heard. And there really isn't much of a debate going on. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
It's a debate of which most people have never heard. And there really isn't much of a debate going on. It is an enduring debate in North-South food fights. The Northern contingent argues that secession was illegal, cite Texas v. White. The Southern contingent cites the Hartford Convention and various other threats of secession, and the creation of the Constitution. George Washington was inaugurated as president of ELEVEN states, not thirteen. NC held out for six months and RI held out for a year. How was the perpetual union of 13 states under the AoC destroyed and replaced by a union of ELEVEN states, unless those ELEVEN seceded from that first union? The people of the ELEVEN made up their own mind, used their own rules, and left the others behind. The Northern explanation for why John Hanson, et al, are not cited as presidents is that they were not real presidents and they were only President of the United States in Congress Assembled. There was a real nation but there was not a real president. Following John Hanson were Elias Boudinot (1782-83), Thomas Mifflin (1783-84), Richard Henry Lee (1784-85), John Hancock (1785-86), Nathan Gorman (1786-87), Arthur St. Clair (1787-88), and Cyrus Griffin (1788-89). Samuel Huntington was the sitting President when the AoC was ratified. Only people who argue in this little era of history ever even think about presidents prior to Washington.
The AoC are interesting to me because of their most enduring legislative effort - the Northwest Ordinance - and because they are an old American model of what Europe is groping for, and what drives eventual integration. Once you take military necessity out of the picture, union is a difficult thing to achieve. But economic interests drive it forward, bit by bit. Historically, wars have always come along to disrupt it, but nuclear weapons put war off limits in Western and Central Europe. This creates an interesting experiment, something new under the Sun. The American experience with the Articles of Confederation is about the only place one can look to find anything relevant to compare to Europe, and of course the American states all had the same language, the same foes, the same overlord, and did not have a history of warfare with one another. That made things easier than Europe has it. Still, Europe has come amazingly far - and the fact that it all started with France and Germany marrying each other is really the decisive step. No two European nations have a greater history of antipathy in the late 20th and early 20th Century than France and Germany. They were the worst of foes, for the most persistent reasons, and had fought the most brutal of wars (the trenches in World War I), and then experienced the most dire of humiliations (BOTH were beaten down and conquered at one point in World War II). That THEY were able to marry so quickly after the war was remarkable, and really that fact, more than any other, is what made the European Union possible. For it yoked together, for good, in an ever-more integrated economy, two complementary powers that were between them the biggest countries in Europe. If Germany and France could do it, then others would follow one or the other, and something could come of it. But the same barriers that the Americans faced, in a much tougher and more sophisticated economic and social environment, have had to be overcome, and the Europeans, led by France and Germany, have come remarkably far. To see what is next, the Articles of Confederation really do give insight. The economic pressures that made America simply "not work" under the AoC are mirrored in the problems of the Euro. They will be surmounted. Europe will be united.
I have heard this argument before and long ago. IMO at this time: потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
#2. To: Vicomte13, Don (#1)
#3. To: SOSO (#2)
A la U.S. history?
#4. To: Don (#0)
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
Pretty much, yes. The economic and political forces that drove the US together in an unhappy union are driving Europe together too.
#6. To: SOSO (#5)
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
In Europe, the military necessity no longer exists.
#8. To: Justified (#4)
US absolute central control is a huge failure.
#9. To: A Pole (#8)
US absolute central control is a huge failure.
#10. To: SOSO (#7)
So what? Why must Articles of Confederation always have to give way to a Consitution? That was you claim was it not?
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
Yes, it must. The alternative is rising dysfunction, collapse and dissolution.
#12. To: SOSO (#11)
(Edited)
The differnce in the U.S. is that the Articles of Confederation gave the states too much power and the Federal government not enough to function properly. THAT is why the U.S. Consitution was born.
#13. To: SOSO, Vicomte13 (#11)
The AoC, which was enacted in late 1777 did provide for the national defense.
#14. To: Vicomte13, SOSO (#6)
The US was originally formed by revolution.
Article 1:
#15. To: nolu chan (#14)
History is a little messy about how the AoC was scrapped without the unanimity required by the AoC to effect any change to that self-stated perpetual union.
#16. To: SOSO (#15)
"There is ongoing debate about whether a nation was formed under the AoC. Somehow, George Washington is called the first President, not President John Hanson, the first president elected after ratification of the AoC in 1781."
#17. To: nolu chan (#16)
#18. To: nolu chan (#16)
Only people who argue in this little era of history ever even think about presidents prior to Washington.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]