European dream is dying

[Symmetry]

You're asking if Europe is the same as it was over a century ago, I think that your view of Europe is kind of out of date.

I asked if it could return to how it was over a century ago. There's a bit of a difference.

Surely you can understand where I'm coming from. For the vast majority of Europe's history, it was little more than a battlefield. Then, it all culminated with two world wars, which led to the formation of the EU, which has been very good for Europe, at least as far as preventing mass bloodshed and war. (This is my limited understanding of the matter, I could be wrong here. Again, ignorance of the situation, as stated multiple times now. Also, I understand that the EU's stated goal isn't really preventing European war, it's more of an economic thing than anything else. But, by tying the various countries together economically, it does indirectly accomplish that task, at least to an extent.)

So, it doesn't seem like a huge leap in logic to my uninformed mind to think that if the institution that has been holding Europe together and preventing mass war were to fall, that it is a possibility that things could return to how they have been for basically all of Europe's history save for the past 50ish years.

That's where I'm coming from, anyway. So, pretty much just to sate my curiosity, I figured I would ask people that live there or are otherwise much more informed on the matter than I am about it. While others give an answer that includes a bit of explanation, you respond with "No." Not very helpful, as you can surely see.

That's a fair reply. The EU did receive a Nobel Peace Prize a little while back for what its worth.

The concept is a little difficult to get my head around. Basically my answer is still no, for the very reason that turning the clock back a century seems to me to be an unlikely thing to happen.

Is there a continent that doesn't have a bloody history?

[waauw]

Military conflict between former EU-nations in case of a break-up seems unlikely. You should take into account that the EU has changed european mentality towards this topic, especially for those who have been members for over 50 years.(proof of this is the low investments in military)

The real question is, if the EU would fall apart, why would they go to war? Let's take a look at the Ukraine issue. EU-nations are not inclined to intervene militarily in Ukraine, so why would they do so in other EU-nations. It would seem to me that any dispute can be sufficiently tackled through economic sanctions.

Not to mention the fact that many eastern european countries would automatically start clamping together to make certain they don't get absorbed by the Russian bear. As for my own country, Belgium, I can tell you that even if the EU were to fall apart the BeNeLux agreements(predecessor to the EU) will still remain standing. And the BeNeLux would quickly seek to re-establish previous EU-deals with their most important partner in trade, Germany. All over Europe countries would seek to re-establish ties with the governments they deem important to their economy and like minded enough.

Watching the news every day, I deem it a lot more probable that the EU would fall into racist nationalism and start ethnically cleansing muslims, rather than EU nations fighting amongst themselves. Usually when things go wrong, there is always someone who is blamed. Currently the most hated people in europe are muslims. If anyone is going to bear the full burden, whether justified or not, of europe's anger it's them.

[Army of GOD]

I thought the European dream was to have a giant gay hairy sex orgy

[waauw]

I thought the European dream was to have a giant gay hairy sex orgy

Nope, that's just italy

[DoomYoshi]

The American Dream is alive and well. Obama is living it right now:

[tkr4lf]

So basically, as long as the US and NATO keep up their troop presence, the likelihood of anything serious happening, in terms of war anyway, are pretty low, yes?

I would say so. It's difficult to end up in a war with your neighbor when both you and your neighbor are part of the same military alliance.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, aren't most American troops stationed in Europe concentrated in the west? The only place that I personally know that definitely has American troops stationed there is Germany. Where else are they?

They also have a reasonably significant amount of troops in Italy and UK. I believe a lot of their bombing missions against countries such as Libya and Syria have been run from British air bases. In any case, redeployment from Germany to elsewhere wouldn't be difficult, and those other countries have their own militaries anyway.

And aren't the majority of the U.S.-friendly nations concentrated in the west? If so, what happens to the east? Does Russia expand their influence back over them? And if so, what does that lead to? Could we conceivably wind up in another cold war type situation?

The 'buffer zone' of eastern nations that border Russia are mostly neither in NATO nor the EU anyway, so I doubt much would change there should the EU dissolve. The situation would still be NATO on one side, Russia on the other and a fence of (nominally) non-aligned states sat in between.

And where would China fit in with all of this? I think waauw had a good point that they would be doing their best to buy up as much influence as they could, but then what? Assuming a Russia-Eastern Europe/U.S.-Western Europe cold war type situation, which side would China join in on? Are Chinese/Russian relations good these days?

If we take history as precedent, China would take neither side. China has never shown any interest in getting involved in international affairs and interfering in disputes abroad, and isn't really doing anything today that would suggest that it would be interested in doing so now.

OK, cool. Thanks for taking the time to answer my silly questions.

You're asking if Europe is the same as it was over a century ago, I think that your view of Europe is kind of out of date.

I asked if it could return to how it was over a century ago. There's a bit of a difference.

Surely you can understand where I'm coming from. For the vast majority of Europe's history, it was little more than a battlefield. Then, it all culminated with two world wars, which led to the formation of the EU, which has been very good for Europe, at least as far as preventing mass bloodshed and war. (This is my limited understanding of the matter, I could be wrong here. Again, ignorance of the situation, as stated multiple times now. Also, I understand that the EU's stated goal isn't really preventing European war, it's more of an economic thing than anything else. But, by tying the various countries together economically, it does indirectly accomplish that task, at least to an extent.)

So, it doesn't seem like a huge leap in logic to my uninformed mind to think that if the institution that has been holding Europe together and preventing mass war were to fall, that it is a possibility that things could return to how they have been for basically all of Europe's history save for the past 50ish years.

That's where I'm coming from, anyway. So, pretty much just to sate my curiosity, I figured I would ask people that live there or are otherwise much more informed on the matter than I am about it. While others give an answer that includes a bit of explanation, you respond with "No." Not very helpful, as you can surely see.

That's a fair reply. The EU did receive a Nobel Peace Prize a little while back for what its worth.

The concept is a little difficult to get my head around. Basically my answer is still no, for the very reason that turning the clock back a century seems to me to be an unlikely thing to happen.

Is there a continent that doesn't have a bloody history?

Oh, of course there isn't. All of them have bloody histories, even the (up until fairly recently) relatively scarcely inhabited ones. And while I agree that things regressing are unlikely to happen, I still wonder if it could. I wonder what it would take to make that happen. We started out as tribals that fought and killed anybody that wasn't from our tribe, and now look what we've progressed to. But it seems to me that there aren't that many things holding this society we've created (speaking in general terms here) together.

Now, Europe is unique in that the right conditions aligned to allow two world wars to take place, and plus this thread is about the potential death of the EU, so that's why I singled out Europe.

Does that explain my line of reasoning better? Or am I making even less sense now?

[GoranZ]

Though I see you're from Macedonia, you're from the region, you probably know better than me what politicians in that region think. As for the north-western part of europe(where I'm from) I can tell you that in my own country and in neighbouring nations nationalism and racism are on the rise. This endangers many of the foundations of the EU and is increasing hatred for foreigners, mostly muslims and eastern european immigrants.

Politicians can be changed(for various reasons) so their opinion is irrelevant... What the people think an feel is not easily changeable.
In Southeastern Europe Nationalism is over increased for some time, so far that is covered with promises of EU's dream but that dream turns out to be more nightmare then a dream... Sooner or later nationalism will show its teeth.

Military conflict between former EU-nations in case of a break-up seems unlikely.

Military conflict will not happen but terrorist attacks will, mainly from Muslim radicals and local nationalists.

The real question is, if the EU would fall apart, why would they go to war? Let's take a look at the Ukraine issue.

EU will most likely not fall apart but drastic reforms are needed. There is an option to be transformed into union made up mainly from North European countries.

Watching the news every day, I deem it a lot more probable that the EU would fall into racist nationalism and start ethnically cleansing muslims, rather than EU nations fighting amongst themselves. Usually when things go wrong, there is always someone who is blamed. Currently the most hated people in europe are muslims. If anyone is going to bear the full burden, whether justified or not, of europe's anger it's them.

I guess this is the same as I said previously about possibility of large military conflict on European soil.

So what are the main problems in current EU?
1. Germany and France act like they own EU, especially Germany.
2. Why Angela Merkel(+ German, other European media, and European population in general) is finding only Greeks as responsible for the crisis in Greece?
3. How in a hell did French and German banks borrowed so much money to Greece without collateral for those borrowed money? And whats interesting, on what grounds? Was bribery involved, and if it was involved how much, and why?
4. Why EU(and banks from EU) are still funding profitless projects like Athens Olympics, Monuments, pointless buildings?
5. Why EU politicians undermine EU's economical growth with investments in Greek debt in order to save French and German banks?
6. If politicians can easily lure general population to believe in the profitability of profitless project why do banks that support such projects are not punished for its mistakes?
7. Why law is ignored? And why EU politicians are allowed to bend the law?

If it is up to me Greece should return nothing from its debt, banks that borrowed money to Greece should suffer the consequences for its actions(no matter what they will be). Those banks will also have to reveal from which politicians they received any form of pressure or bribery. And Greece should be restricted from borrowing money in the next 40-50 years(if someone chose to borrow it should suffer the consequences). That should fix few things for the feature.

[waauw]

So what are the main problems in current EU?
1. Germany and France act like they own EU, especially Germany.
2. Why Angela Merkel(+ German, other European media, and European population in general) is finding only Greeks as responsible for the crisis in Greece?
3. How in a hell did French and German banks borrowed so much money to Greece without collateral for those borrowed money? And whats interesting, on what grounds? Was bribery involved, and if it was involved how much, and why?
4. Why EU(and banks from EU) are still funding profitless projects like Athens Olympics, Monuments, pointless buildings?
5. Why EU politicians undermine EU's economical growth with investments in Greek debt in order to save French and German banks?
6. If politicians can easily lure general population to believe in the profitability of profitless project why do banks that support such projects are not punished for its mistakes?
7. Why law is ignored? And why EU politicians are allowed to bend the law?

Of course the EU wants to save the french and german banks. They're scared of a domino-effect. These banks, just as Lehman Brothers was, are 'too big to fail'. As for the banks, well everybody knows they've comitted many fraudulent crimes. Personally I don't understand either why they don't do something about them. There is probably a lot of corruption going on in Brussels and Strasbourg. Though I'm at least pleased that the EU is doing something(however small) about it, rather than nothing like the USA on Wall street.

As for the Greek crisis. The Greek government is fully responsible for its own mistakes. They purposefully cheated their books, with the help of banks.

If it is up to me Greece should return nothing from its debt, banks that borrowed money to Greece should suffer the consequences for its actions(no matter what they will be). Those banks will also have to reveal from which politicians they received any form of pressure or bribery. And Greece should be restricted from borrowing money in the next 40-50 years(if someone chose to borrow it should suffer the consequences). That should fix few things for the feature.

It's a noble principle, however in reality its a death sentence to act so foolishly. After argentina defaulted on its debts, they got a very bad reputation on the financial markets.They had trouble collecting new funds on the markets and it were mostly the worst of the worst, dangerously powerful hedgefunds, that were still prepared to loan money. This has all resulted in Argentina being in economic woes for 17 years now. In Greece's case it would sour foreign relations with almost all its trading partners, portraiting them as unreliable; with as only alternative China, a partner more interested in economic colonialism than whatever else.

As for restricting Greece from borrowing money in the next 40-50 years, that would exacerbate the economics in the country to its grave. It doesn't make any sense according to Keynesian economics. Even Austrian economists wouldn't go as far.

[GoranZ]

So what are the main problems in current EU?
1. Germany and France act like they own EU, especially Germany.
2. Why Angela Merkel(+ German, other European media, and European population in general) is finding only Greeks as responsible for the crisis in Greece?
3. How in a hell did French and German banks borrowed so much money to Greece without collateral for those borrowed money? And whats interesting, on what grounds? Was bribery involved, and if it was involved how much, and why?
4. Why EU(and banks from EU) are still funding profitless projects like Athens Olympics, Monuments, pointless buildings?
5. Why EU politicians undermine EU's economical growth with investments in Greek debt in order to save French and German banks?
6. If politicians can easily lure general population to believe in the profitability of profitless project why do banks that support such projects are not punished for its mistakes?
7. Why law is ignored? And why EU politicians are allowed to bend the law?

Of course the EU wants to save the french and german banks. They're scared of a domino-effect. These banks, just as Lehman Brothers was, are 'too big to fail'. As for the banks, well everybody knows they've comitted many fraudulent crimes. Personally I don't understand either why they don't do something about them. There is probably a lot of corruption going on in Brussels and Strasbourg. Though I'm at least pleased that the EU is doing something(however small) about it, rather than nothing like the USA on Wall street.

The Domino-effect is instant, after that there is only growth(like in Iceland). So there is no point of doing wrong things in order to fix other wrong things.

As for the Greek crisis. The Greek government is fully responsible for its own mistakes. They purposefully cheated their books, with the help of banks.

I never said that Greek governments(not just one, probably all of them) were not responsible, but that is in their blood and it was expected of them(I will explain why bellow).

If it is up to me Greece should return nothing from its debt, banks that borrowed money to Greece should suffer the consequences for its actions(no matter what they will be). Those banks will also have to reveal from which politicians they received any form of pressure or bribery. And Greece should be restricted from borrowing money in the next 40-50 years(if someone chose to borrow it should suffer the consequences). That should fix few things for the feature.

It's a noble principle, however in reality its a death sentence to act so foolishly. After argentina defaulted on its debts, they got a very bad reputation on the financial markets.They had trouble collecting new funds on the markets and it were mostly the worst of the worst, dangerously powerful hedgefunds, that were still prepared to loan money. This has all resulted in Argentina being in economic woes for 17 years now. In Greece's case it would sour foreign relations with almost all its trading partners, portraiting them as unreliable; with as only alternative China, a partner more interested in economic colonialism than whatever else.

As for restricting Greece from borrowing money in the next 40-50 years, that would exacerbate the economics in the country to its grave. It doesn't make any sense according to Keynesian economics. Even Austrian economists wouldn't go as far.

I hope you know how many times did Greece declared bankruptcy in the last 200 years.

There is one interesting saying(it predates current economical crisis) in all neighboring countries of Greece for a person in debt... The most precise translation of the saying is "In debt like Greek". This saying is present not only in my country but also in Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Albania, Turkey, Bosnia and most likely Romania. So if it up to us Greece should be restricted from borrowing money for life. That 40-50 years is mild
P.S. If China wants to throw money they can freely borrow them to Greece. They will never see them again

[waauw]

The Domino-effect is instant, after that there is only growth(like in Iceland). So there is no point of doing wrong things in order to fix other wrong things.

But it would take down the global financial markets and the governments in power at that very instance would get blamed for all. Nobody likes instant crises. History has proven them to be immensely unpredictable. On the positive side you can have societal progress, on the negative side crises can also spark wars and the rise of dictatorial regimes. Nobody likes unpredictability.

Additionally this would not only mess up global economic balance but also geopolitics as money is inseperable.

And Iceland is not in as good a shape as most people think them to be. They lost many of their young educated workforce and are now left with an aged population. They lost a generation.

I hope you know how many times did Greece declared bankruptcy in the last 200 years.

There is one interesting saying(it predates current economical crisis) in all neighboring countries of Greece for a person in debt... The most precise translation of the saying is "In debt like Greek". This saying is present not only in my country but also in Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Albania, Turkey, Bosnia and most likely Romania. So if it up to us Greece should be restricted from borrowing money for life. That 40-50 years is mild
P.S. If China wants to throw money they can freely borrow them to Greece. They will never see them again

There is a very big difference between the past 2 centuries and current day reality. Alliances and mutual interests grow as economic ties grow. This has been proven through the McDonalds theory. This being said, the wealthy european nations are fed up with sending money south. They are united in this opinion and in case of greek misbehaving, might end up with united retribution. This is a horrible prospect for a nation like greece. This is quite the contrary to the past, where europe was more divided than it is today. If Greece wants economic isolation to send it back to the middle ages, then they should do exactly as you said.

As for China, they are a very dangerous trading partner. They copy technology and given the chance they will take control over important national interests. There is a good reason why North-Korea, Mongolia and all of central asia prefer to strengthen their ties to Russia over their ties with China. The chinese are as ruthless in economics as they are in anything else, so much so that even Russia is a better alternative. Nations only lend money if they gain something in return. China doesn't care about interest payments on debt. They use debt to gather hard assets as collateral or gather power over the country. A good example of this is Sri Lanka where chinese submarines are now porting and where the new shipping docks, costing China merely 1.5 billion dollars, will be under Beijings control.

[GoranZ]

As for China, they are a very dangerous trading partner. They copy technology and given the chance they will take control over important national interests. There is a good reason why North-Korea, Mongolia and all of central asia prefer to strengthen their ties to Russia over their ties with China. The chinese are as ruthless in economics as they are in anything else, so much so that even Russia is a better alternative. Nations only lend money if they gain something in return. China doesn't care about interest payments on debt. They use debt to gather hard assets as collateral or gather power over the country. A good example of this is Sri Lanka where chinese submarines are now porting and where the new shipping docks, costing China merely 1.5 billion dollars, will be under Beijings control.

Although China is indeed nasty trading partner dont forget the Greek ability to spend money over their abilities, аnd to bankrupt when they cant spend over their abilities
When it comes to Russia they are indeed in Chinese trap but the Chinese should be also careful, the moment when Russia would stop being westerns most dangerous enemy, Chinese turn will come. And then who knows if Russia will keep their back safe

[waauw]

Although China is indeed nasty trading partner dont forget the Greek ability to spend money over their abilities, аnd to bankrupt when they cant spend over their abilities
When it comes to Russia they are indeed in Chinese trap but the Chinese should be also careful, the moment when Russia would stop being westerns most dangerous enemy, Chinese turn will come. And then who knows if Russia will keep their back safe

You have a very good point concerning Russia. But back to Greece, what I'm trying to say and which I might have explained poorly before, is that you can't financialy cheat anybody. History has indeed shown that letting countries default on debt is not a bad thing, it's even better than its alternative.

However the greek are somewhat trapped between the Scylla and the Charybdis. Russia and China are just too powerful and too spiteful let go of their prey, making them too dangerous to deal with. While europe, though already having decades of EU-history, is still too unsympathetic to go through great lengths for each other.

[waauw]

Interesting article from the Netherlands:
https://decorrespondent.nl/2412/Zo-ziet-een-Griek-de-wereld/251914707000-64664c2c

interview with greek philosopher Nikos Dimou. He said this at some point and I translate:

In the 1000 years of being seperated from europe(he refers to being part of eastern empires) the great events that shaped europe were lost to Greece: scholarism, renaissance, reformation, the enlightenment and the industrial revolution. The Greek-orthodox church, and hence the greek people, resisted the west. After all we implemented under pressure of europe: kings, laws, and yes even democracy. But it's because of that forceful pressure that most was lost on Greece.

[mrswdk]

There is a good reason why North-Korea, Mongolia and all of central asia prefer to strengthen their ties to Russia over their ties with China.

The reason Kim Jong-Un is supposedly set to visit Russia soon is to try and coerce China into doing what North Korea wants. North Korea has been behaving so badly recently that even China - North Korea's only ally and the country that it depends on for its continued existence - is getting exasperated; that's why China supported the sanctions that followed North Korea's most recent nuclear tests. Kim just wants to try and make China think that it might be losing influence to Russia, as a way of scaring China into being more compliant.

As for the rest, if they're so much more keen to make friends with Russia then how do you explain the way they're deepening ties with China at the expense of Russia?

The chinese are as ruthless in economics as they are in anything else, so much so that even Russia is a better alternative. Nations only lend money if they gain something in return.

Well, duh. China lends money in return for something, just the same as the US, Western European nations, Japan and anyone else only lend money in return for something. Generally China provides loans to build national infrastructure in return for access to national resources.

You'll have to do better than 'China lends people money' if you want to prove that it is EEE-EEE-EEEEEEVIL!!!!!

China doesn't care about interest payments on debt. They use debt to gather hard assets as collateral or gather power over the country. A good example of this is Sri Lanka where chinese submarines are now porting and where the new shipping docks, costing China merely 1.5 billion dollars, will be under Beijings control.

China has a 100-year lease on one of the berths at Sri Lanka's new port, which it was able to secure as a result of loaning Sri Lanka almost all of the money needed to build the port.

China is not bullying anyone there. Sri Lanka quite freely chose to take the loan, agreeing to pay 6.3% interest on it and to lease out one of the berths in its port to China for a while. China makes some money and gets some good port access, Sri Lanka gets a new port. I don't see any bullying or strong-arming in that deal.

[waauw]

The reason Kim Jong-Un is supposedly set to visit Russia soon is to try and coerce China into doing what North Korea wants. North Korea has been behaving so badly recently that even China - North Korea's only ally and the country that it depends on for its continued existence - is getting exasperated; that's why China supported the sanctions that followed North Korea's most recent nuclear tests. Kim just wants to try and make China think that it might be losing influence to Russia, as a way of scaring China into being more compliant.

As for the rest, if they're so much more keen to make friends with Russia then how do you explain the way they're deepening ties with China at the expense of Russia?

Actually North-Korea has been trying to strengthen its ties with Russia for decades. It's not purely because of recent events. Their problem is that Russia has never really shown much interest for the far-east. Russia was always more interested in eastern europe and central asia. Only recently has Russia started showing more interest in North-Korea, if only to build pipelines and railways to South-Korea(diversification into asia).

Well, duh. China lends money in return for something, just the same as the US, Western European nations, Japan and anyone else only lend money in return for something. Generally China provides loans to build national infrastructure in return for access to national resources.

You'll have to do better than 'China lends people money' if you want to prove that it is EEE-EEE-EEEEEEVIL!!!!!

I'm not saying China is evil, and I know fully well that almost any nation on earth uses money as a means to get what they want. However China's shown a constant dismissel of local plebs opinions. A mere look at China's behaviour in Africa says enough.

China has a 100-year lease on one of the berths at Sri Lanka's new port, which it was able to secure as a result of loaning Sri Lanka almost all of the money needed to build the port.

China is not bullying anyone there. Sri Lanka quite freely chose to take the loan, agreeing to pay 6.3% interest on it and to lease out one of the berths in its port to China for a while. China makes some money and gets some good port access, Sri Lanka gets a new port. I don't see any bullying or strong-arming in that deal.

1)I'm not saying China is bullying, I'm saying China now has a strong grip on Sri Lanka from which the country will have trouble escaping. It even docked military vessels there. This of course would never happen in Greece, but it does show a dangerous ambition.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/02/us-sri-lanka-china-submarine-idUSKBN0IM0LY20141102

2)China doesn't care about interests on loans, because it has so much cash to spare. Finances are not their main drive. For many years now they have been trying to diversify their monetary reserves and still they are unable to do so fast enough(mainly because many countries are resisting chinese take-overs). As I said, it's power and influence the chinese are pursuing.
The interesting thing about interests on

[mrswdk]

Actually North-Korea has been trying to strengthen its ties with Russia for decades. It's not purely because of recent events. Their problem is that Russia has never really shown much interest for the far-east. Russia was always more interested in eastern europe and central asia. Only recently has Russia started showing more interest in North-Korea, if only to build pipelines and railways to South-Korea(diversification into asia).

Assuming that what you say is true, that doesn't mean that North K doesn't like China. It just means they don't like being in a situation where they are totally reliant on one single backer.

I'm not saying China is evil, and I know fully well that almost any nation on earth uses money as a means to get what they want. However China's shown a constant dismissel of local plebs opinions. A mere look at China's behaviour in Africa says enough.

Are you suggesting that is unique to China?

Besides, if the Chinese government and, say, the Zimbabwean government sign a deal for China to invest and operate in Zimbabwe and that deal is to the displeasure of people in Zimbabwe then their problem is with their government who chose to sign that deal, not with China.

1)I'm not saying China is bullying, I'm saying China now has a strong grip on Sri Lanka from which the country will have trouble escaping. It even docked military vessels there. This of course would never happen in Greece, but it does show a dangerous ambition.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/02/us-sri-lanka-china-submarine-idUSKBN0IM0LY20141102

That depends on whether or not you call renting a berth in a port and refuelling a couple of submarines 'having a strong grip'.

[Donelladan]

Also, I understand that the EU's stated goal isn't really preventing European war, it's more of an economic thing than anything else. But, by tying the various countries together economically, it does indirectly accomplish that task, at least to an extent.)

Actually Europe has been creating with the purpose of avoiding war. At the beginning it was mainly a French-German thing in order to avoid any war in the future.



Otherwise, there is a 99.999999% probability that Europe will not die. All your talk are pure non-sense. Maybe we could lose one member or two but that's the maximal extent of loss Europe is gonna have. The vast majority of people are very happy to be in Europe. Just forget about Europe collapsing. This is not going to happen soon.

[GoranZ]

Otherwise, there is a 99.999999% probability that Europe will not die. All your talk are pure non-sense. Maybe we could lose one member or two but that's the maximal extent of loss Europe is gonna have. The vast majority of people are very happy to be in Europe. Just forget about Europe collapsing. This is not going to happen soon.

First consider the possibility for UK to leave EU, then reevaluate your probability. Although UK is not founding member, losing UK is serious issue.
Currently EU doesn't have competitor in Europe, but what if competitor show up on the horizon? In such case you will see how happy some Europeans are, and how strong EU is.

[waauw]

Assuming that what you say is true, that doesn't mean that North K doesn't like China. It just means they don't like being in a situation where they are totally reliant on one single backer.

Alright point taken. Maybe I have been overassumptive about North-Korea.

Are you suggesting that is unique to China?

Besides, if the Chinese government and, say, the Zimbabwean government sign a deal for China to invest and operate in Zimbabwe and that deal is to the displeasure of people in Zimbabwe then their problem is with their government who chose to sign that deal, not with China.

Yes China is indeed unique today. No other country on earth is transporting its own labour forces to Africa in such large quantities. China now is what europe was during their colonial times.

The point is, even though countries like Zimbabwe, might be corrupt enough to dismiss the needs of their own citizens entirely. Knowing what they are doing, the local governments should do something about it. Many nations in latin america and south-east asia are already opposing chinese deals on multiple points. The same should happen a lot more often.

That depends on whether or not you call renting a berth in a port and refuelling a couple of submarines 'having a strong grip'.

No country on earth just randomly allows military vessels from other nations to come into their docks. Especially considering this wasn't due to some emergency. It either takes one dominant nation to make demands of a weaker nation or strong allies to cooperate(like NATO). And I just don't think China is close enough to anybody for such deals.

[waauw]

Otherwise, there is a 99.999999% probability that Europe will not die. All your talk are pure non-sense. Maybe we could lose one member or two but that's the maximal extent of loss Europe is gonna have. The vast majority of people are very happy to be in Europe. Just forget about Europe collapsing. This is not going to happen soon.

First consider the possibility for UK to leave EU, then reevaluate your probability. Although UK is not founding member, losing UK is serious issue.
Currently EU doesn't have competitor in Europe, but what if competitor show up on the horizon? In such case you will see how happy some Europeans are, and how strong EU is.

Though UK leaving the EU would indeed be a serious issue, it would hurt the british a lot more than it would hurt the rest of europe. So I don't think the UK will actually leave the EU. If they would, they would rapidly come to regret their mistake and immediately attempt to either join the EU or get special trading agreements.

However, with how pissed some european countries are and might be, I don't think the british would receive such a favourable trading agreement. They would probably have to relinquish a lot of favours.

[saxitoxin]

I can't imagine any way in which the U.S. will ever allow the UK to leave the EU in the short-term; not as long as the UK controls 10 of the 26 votes needed to block measures in the European Council. The UK, just like Poland and the Czech Republic, is a reliable proxy for U.S. interests, regardless of what party is in charge in Westminster. If the UK goes, the U.S.' grip around the EU's neck starts to loosen.

Conservative party politicians lined up before the general election to promise that they would run a "pro-American regime" and buy more arms from the US if they came to power this year, the leaked American embassy cables show. Despite British leaders' supportive stance, the dispatches also reveal – in what some will see as humiliating – how US diplomats in London are amused by what they call Britain's "paranoid" fears about the so-called special relationship. One said the anxious British attitude "could often be humorous."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... lationship

[mrswdk]

Are you suggesting that is unique to China?

Besides, if the Chinese government and, say, the Zimbabwean government sign a deal for China to invest and operate in Zimbabwe and that deal is to the displeasure of people in Zimbabwe then their problem is with their government who chose to sign that deal, not with China.

Yes China is indeed unique today. No other country on earth is transporting its own labour forces to Africa in such large quantities. China now is what europe was during their colonial times.

It's pretty common for Western countries to stipulate that aid money they give to a developing country must be used to buy services and products from the Western country that's doing the donating. China using its own laborers for development projects in other countries isn't anything particularly out of the ordinary.

The point is, even though countries like Zimbabwe, might be corrupt enough to dismiss the needs of their own citizens entirely. Knowing what they are doing, the local governments should do something about it. Many nations in latin america and south-east asia are already opposing chinese deals on multiple points. The same should happen a lot more often.

Well this illustrates perfectly why there is no problem. Countries who don't wish to deal with China are perfectly free to refrain from dealing with China. Countries who don't like the terms of an agreement that China is proposing are free to contest those terms, and to refuse to sign any contract until they are happy with the terms of the contract.

I don't really understand how you look at a country signing a deal with China of its own free will and conclude that China is an imperialist bully.

That depends on whether or not you call renting a berth in a port and refuelling a couple of submarines 'having a strong grip'.

No country on earth just randomly allows military vessels from other nations to come into their docks. Especially considering this wasn't due to some emergency. It either takes one dominant nation to make demands of a weaker nation or strong allies to cooperate(like NATO). And I just don't think China is close enough to anybody for such deals.

The article you quoted said that over the past few years Sri Lanka has allowed about 230 military vessels from various countries to make similar stops in Sri Lankan ports, of which about 4 or 5 have been Chinese.

Why do you have a bug up your ass about China? The things you're complaining about China doing are things that every other country in the world also does.

[waauw]

It's pretty common for Western countries to stipulate that aid money they give to a developing country must be used to buy services and products from the Western country that's doing the donating. China using its own laborers for development projects in other countries isn't anything particularly out of the ordinary.

I'm not saying western countries are saints, but I do still think western countries are better alternatives than China. At least western businesses hire local workers, providing jobs. Chinese businesses don't even do that small gesture if given the chance.

Well this illustrates perfectly why there is no problem. Countries who don't wish to deal with China are perfectly free to refrain from dealing with China. Countries who don't like the terms of an agreement that China is proposing are free to contest those terms, and to refuse to sign any contract until they are happy with the terms of the contract.

I don't really understand how you look at a country signing a deal with China of its own free will and conclude that China is an imperialist bully.

That's the whole point!! Have you even been reading what I posted before you came into this topic????
Any government with even the slightest bit of sanity has to be extra careful when conducting business with a country like China. Its dangerous nationalism is reflected in its business. Chinese businesses prefer to do business with other chinese businesses if they have such a viable alternative. Letting too many chinese enter european markets would be disastrous. Sell half a port to China and all the chinese products will pass through that port rather than through any other port, obstructing local entrepreneurship.

This is outrageously contrasted with business in europe. Most businesses in europe don't give a damn about nationalism and just do business with the most profitable.

Why do you have a bug up your ass about China? The things you're complaining about China doing are things that every other country in the world also does.

As a belgian-philippino I read both european newspapers and philippino newspapers on occasion. In european newspapers you constantly hear about how china copies all technologies and how businesses nowadays prefer to produce their top technology at home or in India. Because even corrupt India is more reliable than China. Or how about the fact that every so often, when there is a football match-fixing scandal, it originates from China and the chinese refuse to cooperate in any sort of investigation concerning chinese nationals.

What I read in philippino newspapers is even worse. The chinese steal gold, threaten with warships, organize protests to advocate war against neighbours of China, bribe politicians and businessmen to take philippino food and leave local people to die of starvation; send fisherman to fish just off philippino beaches and refuse to cooperate in multilateral negotiations about the south-china sea instead sending their military.

China most certainly IS a bully. And you trying to argue that western nations are bullies too doesn't change what China is and does.
There is a reason why China's relations with many of its neighbours are in such a tight spot. China is heading straight for war with several of them. For several years east and south-east asia have been increasingly arming their military. The only thing keeping things from escalating to the point of war is the USA.

[mrswdk]

It's pretty common for Western countries to stipulate that aid money they give to a developing country must be used to buy services and products from the Western country that's doing the donating. China using its own laborers for development projects in other countries isn't anything particularly out of the ordinary.

I'm not saying western countries are saints, but I do still think western countries are better alternatives than China. At least western businesses hire local workers, providing jobs. Chinese businesses don't even do that small gesture if given the chance.

Que? Western companies also regularly import staff from other countries instead of hiring locals, and in any case you are now talking about the activities private companies, not bilateral relations between two governments.

Well this illustrates perfectly why there is no problem. Countries who don't wish to deal with China are perfectly free to refrain from dealing with China. Countries who don't like the terms of an agreement that China is proposing are free to contest those terms, and to refuse to sign any contract until they are happy with the terms of the contract.

I don't really understand how you look at a country signing a deal with China of its own free will and conclude that China is an imperialist bully.

That's the whole point!!

What's the whole point? That China is not an imperialistic bully, or that it is not China's fault if a government signs a trade deal with China that upsets some of their populace?

Any government with even the slightest bit of sanity has to be extra careful when conducting business with a country like China. Its dangerous nationalism is reflected in its business. Chinese businesses prefer to do business with other chinese businesses if they have such a viable alternative. Letting too many chinese enter european markets would be disastrous. Sell half a port to China and all the chinese products will pass through that port rather than through any other port, obstructing local entrepreneurship.

I don't see how any of that is a problem, and I'd be interested to see how you justify the statement in bold.

Why do you have a bug up your ass about China? The things you're complaining about China doing are things that every other country in the world also does.

As a belgian-philippino I read both european newspapers and philippino newspapers on occasion. In european newspapers you constantly hear about how china copies all technologies and how businesses nowadays prefer to produce their top technology at home or in India. Because even corrupt India is more reliable than China.

I have a friend who works in the engineering department of one of the big European automobile manufacturers, and he has told me on several occasions that he will take a Chinese partner over an Indian one any day because the Indian engineers are totally incompetent.

Or how about the fact that every so often, when there is a football match-fixing scandal, it originates from China and the chinese refuse to cooperate in any sort of investigation concerning chinese nationals.

Given that FIFA, the world's highest football authority, awarded the 2022 world cup to a country that is 99% desert, refused to investigate widespread allegations of bribery during the selection process and then spent $20m shooting a feature film about how incredible all the FIFA executives are, one could argue that this complaint would be better addressed to Vince McMahon than to the Chinese government.

China most certainly IS a bully. And you trying to argue that western nations are bullies too doesn't change what China is and does.

I'm arguing that I don't understand why you singled out China as some sort of horrible trading partner, when China does not behave in any way that is particularly special or unique. China is not a horrible trading partner, it is just a trading partner.

[waauw]

Que? Western companies also regularly import staff from other countries instead of hiring locals, and in any case you are now talking about the activities private companies, not bilateral relations between two governments.

Not for menial jobs. Of course they have to import managers, engineers and other highly educated people. And in some instances uneducated bu highly skilled labour force.

What's the whole point? That China is not an imperialistic bully, or that it is not China's fault if a government signs a trade deal with China that upsets some of their populace?

This whole conversation started when I said 'Greece', a european country, should not sell itself out to China. That's the point.

I don't see how any of that is a problem, and I'd be interested to see how you justify the statement in bold.

In the short term, it is not a problem, on the long term on the other hand it is. Nationalistic behaviour among multinational corporations is good if you look at it from a national perspective. However if this compulsion persists on an international level, it is detrimental. China might be well off, but any nation selling too much of its vital resources out to China would suffer from the deal. Hence why the nationalist propensity of chinese multinationals is dangerous for other nations. It would cause serious harm to local businesses.

Nationalism in an international capitalist environment is just another form of protectionism.

I have a friend who works in the engineering department of one of the big European automobile manufacturers, and he has told me on several occasions that he will take a Chinese partner over an Indian one any day because the Indian engineers are totally incompetent.

This is not about technical expertise. It's about economics, not the exact sciences. Engineers are not the ones signing businessdeals, managers and politicians are.

Given that FIFA, the world's highest football authority, awarded the 2022 world cup to a country that is 99% desert, refused to investigate widespread allegations of bribery during the selection process and then spent $20m shooting a feature film about how incredible all the FIFA executives are, one could argue that this complaint would be better addressed to Vince McMahon than to the Chinese government.

FIFA is corrupt, there is no question about that.
But if I look at a football scandal from 10 years back at my local football club K. Lierse S.K., there was a chinese national called 'Zheyun Ye' involved. Now belgian authorities have done all they can to investigate the issue, but China has persistently refused to let Zheyun Ye be put on trial.

I'm arguing that I don't understand why you singled out China as some sort of horrible trading partner, when China does not behave in any way that is particularly special or unique. China is not a horrible trading partner, it is just a trading partner.

This is a topic about 'Europe' and the US is much less of a threat to europe than China is, purely because we have better relations with the US. I could've also talked more about Russia, but personally I don't think Russia is less of threat to europe than China. The exacerbating situation in eastern-Ukraine is in my opinion mostly our own fault(the west). So if we finally decide to stop annoying Russia, I think things could get resolved pretty swiftly.

As for why China instead of Arab nations or India or whatever. China is a bigger country, making them an easier example. Also I can hardly start talking about another country, when you address me about China. That would be evading topic.