Tell me more about how a vast free trade area that orders countries to enforce austerity and worships laissez faire capitalism is 'dominated by the left side of the political spectrum' and 'Marxists'.
WI: No EU
- Thread starter Killer300
- Start date
Tell me more about how a vast free trade area that orders countries to enforce austerity and worships laissez faire capitalism is 'dominated by the left side of the political spectrum' and 'Marxists'.
MrP
Banned
I also happened to miss the violent revolution that overturned the previously established nation-states, the years of civil war that followed, the ruthless elimination of political opponents, the famines caused by disastrous agricultural policies, and last but not least the absolute concentration of power in the hands of a single man.
In short, the "EUSSR" acronym is nothing but a baseless slur thrown around by uninformed tossers who have nothing of value to contribute to the conversation on European integration.
I can't believe anyone would actually think this. It just blows my mind. You have this free trade area which is dedicated to economic liberalism, in a continent which is currently trending towards right wing populism, and which is strongly divided internally and absolutely incapable of acting as a single entity; so you call it a Marxist superstate. I cannot help but think that you do not actually know what even a single one of the terms you used in that sentence actually means.
To be honest, I think that without something like the EC/EU minor crises like the current one in Greece might develop into a full-scale conflict or even war. There have been such conflicts and wars in non-EU parts of Europe: the Yugoslavian civil war, the Kosovo crisis, Transnistria, the war in Georgia in 2008 and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Things became only a lot better in the Balkans, when the EU entry perspective for Slovenia and Croatia appeared on the horizon. The Cyprus situation would still be a clusterfuck without the EU membership of both Greece and Cyprus. Let's not forget that smaller border conflicts could escalate pretty fast before 1945.
First we have to define what "the European Union isn't even attempted" actually means. If we take it to mean the 1992 Maastricht treaty is not signed then...well, what happens next? OK, with it we had the Scandi's joining/trying to join in the 90's, then the Euro started in 200blah, then the A8 join in 2004, then Romania and Bulgaria join in 2007, then the banking crisis hits, Iceland tries to join, thinks better of it, Eurocrisis hits, expansion slows and stops, with Turkey perpetually frozen out, the remaining former Yugos start twiddling their thumbs or (like Serbia) thinking of getting closer to Russia, and nationalist sentiment rising with several states either idly considering leaving or (in case of UK) genuinely considering it.
Sans Maastricht, what happens instead?
Some of the expansion was driven by the collapse of the cold war, so the Scandis would still probably have joined (ironically, Norway would be more likely to join?). The present Europessimism is the handmaiden of the early noughties Euro-optimism, so no Euro and less economic exuberance between 2000 and 2007, no Celtic Tiger, and so on. Greece doesn't expand so dramatically between mid-90's and 2009, but conversely doesn't collapse as far either. Economically it would still have grown but not as fast nor as far, but would not be undergoing the current wild ride either. So economically you would still have the sine wave, but less dramatically: standards of living would be less than now
Geopolitically? The lack of the urge towards unification makes the bloc less blocky...there's no guarantee the former Yugos and Warsaw Pact countries would be in the alt-EEC/EC, and we may see several overlapping mini-unions (the Mediterranean Union was formed as a way of cooperating with Northern Africa nations without letting them join the EU) instead of one big one
So: no Maastricht treaty, no European Union, no Euro, our alt-EEC has less than 28 members, there are instead a alt-EEC with ~15/18 members, an Eastern Union (the former Warsaw Pact countries) as a buffer to the resurgent Russian Federation and its westward expansion. No big expansion 1995 to 2008 (so living standards less than now), but no Eurosclerosis either.
The Balkans still a mess (what happens with Croatia? Dunno). Greece is nowhere near as big as it is now and carries on quietly, devaluing once or twice each decade, nobody knowing or caring. The Baltics may have fallen back into the Russian sphere by now (something they are terrified of in OTL).
There are 28 members of the European Council (the EU members). Ten are European People's Party, six are ALDE, one is AECR. So that's 17 out of 28 that are center, centre-right, or right. So it's currently dominated by the center-right
If you were just referring to the senior staff, then Tusk (European Council President) and Juncker (European Commission President) are both European People's Party, so center-right again.
The political makeup of the EU waxes and wanes with the political makeup of Europe. But it has never been Marxist.
And as for the "democratically elected"? Well, Juncker was elected (26-2 if I remember correctly), and the Parliament President (Schultz? I lose track) was also elected, tho I take your point about Tusk.
In that case, German rearmament after the Korean War, would not happen.
The ECSC was a way to regulate and monitor iron & steel production in the member countries.
With it being in place France could feel more secure knowing that German Steel production was unlikely to be syphoned off to clandestine arms production that would be a threat.
Conversely, the Common Market - with its Agricultural Policy was a way ensuring the 'French way of life' for its farmers!
OTOH, if neither, than the BENULUX countries, form ever closer union all of their own.
Britain signed up for the commercial aspect of the 'Market', Italy signed up for political 'stability', and Spain entry in respectable international relations after coming out of the Franco era.
Politically - the problem is that voters vote for the Party for national reasons, not for 'Euro' reasons. That is you may vote for say a right-wing party, even though the left-wing party more reflects your Euro view.
MrHola
Banned
I consider that "no EU" = no Treaty of Maastricht. This will probably lead to a two-speed Europe, with Britain and the Scandinavians remaining in the EEC, while the Eurocore will attempt a (careful) federalisation. In any case, it's better then what we have right now. Cack-handed federalisation by shoving a poorly-configured currency down everybody's throats and causing a nasty economic crisis. No, a two-speed Europe would be way better.
I would like to point out that I was only pointing out what the term EUSSR meant, I don't believe despite my dislike of the EU