Yes, helping countries in need is a sign of imperialism. What they should have done as decent neighbours was let them collapse. That would have been good for relations all round.
Imperial countries give their money to other countries. Good countries hoard it.
That evil imperial USA really screwed us over when the Marshall Plan was imposed on Europe. What the USA should have done as a decent friend was let Europe rebuild without any help.
Jesus Christ.
Wait - your argument is that Germany helped countries having financial crises and that’s why those countries were having financial crises? Does Germany have some sort of time machine? Are you unclear on the basic rules of causality?
Greece, as already discussed, was rife with government waste and incompetence and gross amounts of corruption, AND lied their asses off on their application to join the euro. Spain had a massive real estate bubble collapse. Italy…well, Italy had Berlusconi. Germany didn’t cause any of those.
I can see both sides of the argument. The rules of the euro were set on the basis that everyone would be trying to run their economy the way the Germans would, but without sufficient transparency or independent audit as to what was really happening in each country and whether their economic and fiscal fundamentals could be fitted within the rules, and with too rigid a set of criteria as to the limits of allowable variation.
Oh sure, I agree with all this. This is largely WHY Greece got away with fudging their numbers despite everyone knowing they were fudging their numbers. Germany was always the economic heavy-hitter in the Eurozone and had both the most clout in setting monetary policy and the most to lose if the euro failed. But that’s not “German imperialism” in the sense UTJ seems to use the term.
Germany didn’t cause the cutting and privatization during Thatcher, or the continuation under Tory. *
Not to forget: Germany added an impoverished country of ca. 17 mil. people with broken industry 26 years back, and still isn’t as broke as Spain, Greece or GB.
I remember way back when there was the discussion of “yes or no for Euro” I got angry at the stupid dilemma, because I was yes for Euro, but not with the modell of locked exchange rates. Given how much they fluctuated before, and how different the economies were, it was obvious to most experts that a fixed model wouldn’t work.
Allowing the EU to meddle in the financial affairs of those countries who failed to meet the Euro criteria might have worked, but given that a lot of finance ministers believed in libertarian or austerity or trickle-down idiocy, it could have been a worse disaster than now.
And of course, putting in the rules “if a country doesn’t meet the criteria because its debt is bigger than 3%, then obviously we must punish them by slapping a fine on them” is like throwing a cement block at a drowning person.
Still, the Euro didn’t cause the stupid bubble in Spain - that was Spain’s stupid tax laws; or the corruption and collapse in Greece, or the almost-zero corporate tax which Ireland used to try and attract corporations, and only got Starbucks and amazon using accounting tricks to let their millions vanish as costs.
I would like to know what the aim of this imperialism is supposed to be anyway? Back under the Emperor Wilhelm II, “we wanted sun” - GB doesn’t qualify; but we haven’t occupied or subjugated or bought wholesale Spain (despite it being bankrupt); the only occupation in Italy and Spain are tourists, because Germans like to travel (and have both the vacation days and the money to do so).
Though German tourists, despite the drinking and loud shouting, still seem to be a welcome source of income; apparently lots of Germans stopping visiting Turkey under autocrat Erdogan have hit their local economy already.
Since we haven’t occupied Greece or Spain, haven’t even interfered in their elections despite the (rather tasteless in my opinion) comparisions in Greece between Angie and Hitler (despite their Golden Dawn being a fascist party…) - what is left for imperialism?
Also, how does it help if the EU were controlled by Germany to stop having any voice at the table, and any influence in negotiations by leaving the club and being an outsider?
Yes, Germany has a strong voice in the EU because of its economic power - but I would like some examples of where this power was used to obviously benefit only Germany at the expense of another EU country, instead of pushing for something that benefits all (or hurts all, like Trittin being forced by Schröder to vote - as a Green! - against stricter anti-pollution car laws).
Don’t be so naive. Greece didn’t “get away” with anything. Greece was vital to the project. Germany gave Greece a pass and everyone benefitted. This is how that works:
You have a very high value currency > you allow a couple of problematic economies to join > this devalues the new currency.
In other words - and this is almost too basic to point out - Germany got a new DMark, expect this one was 20% cheaper. All the euro does is depress the price of exporters. Hence Germany remains the worlds largest/second largest exporter by value, and has sub 5% unemployment despite sucking in nearly 1 million low skilled immigrants.
Ah yes, that must be why the broke Greek citizens are all buying Mercedes and BMWs with the money they don’t have.
Or something? It would be better for German export industry to have countries with strong employment, so people earn enough money to buy our stuff, instead of only buying food locally and not being able to afford anything else.
What low-skilled immigrants? Do you mean the refugees from 2015? They are not immigrants. It’s difficult to immigrate into Germany. Refugees apply for political asylum, and it takes time for the process. Once they are approved, they can apply for language courses, can apply to have their previous education be considered.
And many of those Syrians for example who could afford to pay the smugglers all the way to Germany were of middle class. The “economic refugees” - people who leave an African country or similar because there are no jobs - mostly don’t make it out of the continent, because travelling is expensive. Most war refugees only make it into the neighbouring country. That’s what the numbers of the UNHCR, which counts the refugees to give aid, regularly gives, between 3/4 and 90% of refugees stay on their continent, in a neighbour country.
Also, given a population of about 80 mil., 1 mil. refugees is not going to break us.
Also (shamedly) previous rates of acceptance of request for asylum were refused at over 70%. So not all of 1 mil. people will stay.
The real hit was re-unification … which happened before the Euro. And since many companies inside Germany used the introduction of the Euro to double the prices overnight, consumers were rather upset, and some industries (like restaurants) took a hit for the first 6-9 months, dropping frequency by about 2/3.
Also, how is Brexit going to help, since GB has never joined the Euro (but the pound has dropped compared to other currencies for decades)?
Indeed.
How is Brexit going to help, do you mean help Germany?
Let’s play a little game; guess which year the euro came in?
HERE’S A CLUE: https://www.stratfor.com/sites/default/files/styles/wv_small/public/main/images/Germany_trade_balance_euro.jpg?itok=Yg_wUm1_
this is literally deranged and deluded…
the german economic policy is often a autistic one, but the greeks did not have a great effect on the Euro value and the driver of the german export industry is not Euro value.
your rendition of the economics of the zone and the german policies has no basis in any reality, it is pure bizarre conspiracy theory.
No, I mean: since you are so convinced that Brexit is a good idea FOR GB, please explain how it will HELP GB.
I know that Germany, and the rest of the EU countries, will of Course be hit economically; but GB will be hit much harder. We will lose one Country to Export to; you will lose one big market to Export to and Import from.
Maybe you can also explain how the poor unskilled workers IN GB will be better off if foreign companies no longer invest there (since they want a foot in the EU market, not in the small Island market), or what will happen to poor regions that receive Money from EU Projects for development, e.g. education, Promotion of tourism or building factories, which the GB govt. has already declared to not continue (just as the GB govt. won’t increase NHS funding).
Also, unskilled GB workers will lose the Chance to move to the continent to find a Job there. The skilled City People you have expressed your hate for previously will have good chances even after Brexit, because skilled workers get Special clauses in many countries despite General Immigration stop. But the unskilled Joe Average from Manchester or wherever can no longer easily move to the continent without freedom to work and live, he will be treated like a Yank or Aussie non-EU-native.
So this Shows nicely that after the economic recession hit (Greece and Spain), exports to EU and Eurozone countries dropped sharply, rose a bit but are still declining. Because the countries still struggling like Spain and Greece are not buying the (expensive but Quality) German stuff.
It also doesn’t explain why a decade after the introduction of the Euro and the benefits reaped from it (according to your belief) Germany then spent Money trying to rescue Spain and Greece, instead of letting them collapse or return to their own currency (as esp. Greece suggested several times)
Germany actually needs immigrants, particularly in the East, as it has a very low birth-rate. And it’s not the only country - the problem also affects France and - wait for it - Britain, although it’s worse for Germany at present.
And remember that the Continent is the biggest current market for a lot of British manufacturing industries, particularly in the North where workers do not have a lot of other options should factories close or relocate abroad. But at least British workers won’t have to look at immigrants while standing in the dole queue…
You’re wasting your breath, guys. UTJ will just say you’re pessimistic. It’s the ultimate thought-terminating cliche.
Bumping this thread three months after the last post does anyone have any further thoughts?
To me it is growing more and more likely that Britain will crash out of the EU without a deal. For the first three issues:
Further arrangements: Britain doesn’t seem to know what it wants. There are massive differences within the government. Yet “the clock is ticking”. But even if an agreement is made it still has to be approved by the UK Parliament, the EU parliament and the European governments. I am pessimistic.
Me too. And this was all predictable before the referendum.
The EU are trying it on demanding a financial settlement. As for the rest, we’re only 3 months in and there are massive divisions on both sides. There will be a fudge - it’s what politicians do best. Apart from screwing over the public and enriching themselves, of course.
This, I think, is the current biggest issue. How can the UK negotiate without a firmly agreed negotiating position? Davis, Johnson and May are winging it against a very well-organised party on the other side of the table, and they are not good enough to pull it off. In the meantime a lot of UK businesses that deal with the Continent are left in limbo - react before the terms are agreed and risk being wrong and losing out, or wait for the agreement and risk it being left too late to react.
