Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   It's been 40 years now. So, how's that whole euro thing working out for ya'?   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 99
    More: Obvious, Europeans, Frenchman Jean Monnet, political union, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, fishing industry, national governments, comparative advantage, United States of Europe  
•       •       •

5231 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jan 2013 at 8:40 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



99 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-01 08:51:14 AM  
Then the UK should leave if it is so bad. There is a specific procedure that is outlined in the Treaty of Lisbon. shiat, or get off the pot.
 
2013-01-01 08:57:22 AM  
tdf;dnr
 
2013-01-01 08:58:04 AM  
Well, Panzers haven't rolled across France in the past 60 years, so it's got that going for it.
 
2013-01-01 09:00:26 AM  
Most European countries are experiencing an unprecedented standard of living, despite the financial difficulties EU is currently facing. While Americans go bankrupt because they get sick, so working out for ya'?
 
2013-01-01 09:06:05 AM  
It isn't just Europe, the Chinese use valuation gimmicks of the yuan and artificial pegging of the yuan to understate their own spending and labor inflation problems, the US absolutely loves deferred costs wherein we pretend projects cost nothing the first 19 years, then pay for it in year 20, but year 20 gets shifted every year or two so it goes a little further down the road. Frankly, when the budget became a political football instead of a realistic accounting, it all went to shiat. From imaginary surpluses to phony baloney giant deficits caused by finally paying off wars that ended decades ago, from "balooning" debts that are really just x owes y and y owes x games to debts owed internally to the citizens of respective nations, the game has gone on so long that it's nigh impossible to say for sure who owes how much.... but that was really the goal all along.
 
2013-01-01 09:07:51 AM  

firefly212: It isn't just Europe, the Chinese use valuation gimmicks of the yuan and artificial pegging of the yuan to understate their own spending and labor inflation problems, the US absolutely loves deferred costs wherein we pretend projects cost nothing the first 19 years, then pay for it in year 20, but year 20 gets shifted every year or two so it goes a little further down the road. Frankly, when the budget became a political football instead of a realistic accounting, it all went to shiat. From imaginary surpluses to phony baloney giant deficits caused by finally paying off wars that ended decades ago, from "balooning" debts that are really just x owes y and y owes x games to debts owed internally to the citizens of respective nations, the game has gone on so long that it's nigh impossible to say for sure who owes how much.... but that was really the goal all along.


Merry-go-round, broke down.
 
2013-01-01 09:09:09 AM  
Lots of vaca, a living wage with preventatives against being canned from your job overnight, socialized healthcare, better quality consumer goods, high quality food/produce, a great standard of living for most and lower obesity rates on the Continent. My overseas colleagues had it much better than us.

Racism/ethicism, poverty gaps and ancient grudges aside, I've always enjoyed my visits over there.
 
2013-01-01 09:11:00 AM  

andrewmoriarty: Most European countries are experiencing an unprecedented standard of living, despite the financial difficulties EU is currently facing. While Americans go bankrupt because they get sick, so working out for ya'?


Most European countries aren't spending their citizens into oblivion though never-ending military adventurism and nation-building.
 
2013-01-01 09:19:15 AM  
Higher standards of living, better working conditions, better access to health care, an overall healthier population, plus much more even with economic struggles.

I'm guessing subby figures "America, f*ck yeah" without actually looking at it. Or, of course, SOCIALISM!
 
2013-01-01 09:20:40 AM  
The American system of entering into free trade agreements with nations with lower environmental, educational, and labor standards to appease corporate greed has worked out so well for us. I'll take the EU model any day over NAFTA and CAFTA.
 
2013-01-01 09:24:59 AM  
Actually it's the Germans who should leave. Seems like pretty much the rest of Europe expects them to pony up the money to keep the whole thing solvent.
 
2013-01-01 09:26:41 AM  
The EU resembles America under the Articles of Confederation in many ways. I suspect that at some point in the next ten or so years, the Lisbon Treaty will either get extensively reformed or completely tossed out in favor of a new constitution that grants the central European authority more sovereignty much like America did when we threw out the Articles of Confederation (illegally I might add) and wrote the Constitution.
 
2013-01-01 09:33:18 AM  

ejwsod36: Then the UK should leave if it is so bad. There is a specific procedure that is outlined in the Treaty of Lisbon. shiat, or get off the pot.


despite the UK's handwringing over the euro, predicting the current mess....the country has not diversified its exports away from the eurozone.

the UK's exports to Spain are bigger than its exports to India and China combined. Oops....
 
2013-01-01 09:40:48 AM  
A rightwing turd like the Daily Mail fanning anti EU sentiment?


This is new and exciting.


/yawn
 
2013-01-01 09:44:13 AM  
Well, if the brits don't like the EU, they should get out. As far as I can tell, they've been thing but a ball and chain to the union anyway. Kinda like Republicans to the US.

/and they should take Greece with them when they leave
//fark Greece
///and go federation already
 
2013-01-01 09:46:23 AM  

CujoQuarrel: Actually it's the Germans who should leave. Seems like pretty much the rest of Europe expects them to pony up the money to keep the whole thing solvent.


When Greece was on a spending spree they were buying German stuff.
 
2013-01-01 09:46:49 AM  

Serious Black: we threw out the Articles of Confederation (illegally I might add).


Oh for fark's sake...is this the new talking point along the lines of repealing the 17th amendment?
 
2013-01-01 09:48:51 AM  

bulldg4life: Higher standards of living, better working conditions, better access to health care, an overall healthier population, plus much more even with economic struggles.

I'm guessing subby figures "America, f*ck yeah" without actually looking at it. Or, of course, SOCIALISM!


But we have more guns and electronics. U-S-A, U-S-A
 
2013-01-01 09:53:21 AM  
The Daily Fail, the newspaper of choice for the xenophobic, functionally retarded, yet literate of the UK since 1914.
 
2013-01-01 09:54:30 AM  
www.carolinashootersclub.com

FREEDUMB!!!!!
 
2013-01-01 09:54:39 AM  

Serious Black: we threw out the Articles of Confederation (illegally I might add)


So there is precedent? Excellent!!
 
2013-01-01 09:58:43 AM  

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: firefly212: It isn't just Europe, the Chinese use valuation gimmicks of the yuan and artificial pegging of the yuan to understate their own spending and labor inflation problems, the US absolutely loves deferred costs wherein we pretend projects cost nothing the first 19 years, then pay for it in year 20, but year 20 gets shifted every year or two so it goes a little further down the road. Frankly, when the budget became a political football instead of a realistic accounting, it all went to shiat. From imaginary surpluses to phony baloney giant deficits caused by finally paying off wars that ended decades ago, from "balooning" debts that are really just x owes y and y owes x games to debts owed internally to the citizens of respective nations, the game has gone on so long that it's nigh impossible to say for sure who owes how much.... but that was really the goal all along.

Merry-go-round, broke down.


And now I have daffy duck in my head. Thanks.
 
2013-01-01 10:00:24 AM  
Not really speaking in terms of pro or con, I always thought that it was pretty obvious that the EU was meant to be a pseudo "country" to compete with the US and the USSR (at the time).
 
2013-01-01 10:02:00 AM  
From this outsider's point of view, the project of political consolidation should continue but include only Germany, Austria, France, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg; Belgium having been split and integrated into France and the Netherlands. Spain, Italy, and others would have a peripheral relationship and be encouraged to issue their own joint currency.
 
2013-01-01 10:03:51 AM  
The problem with this kind of thing is that it's really counterfactual and implies an unprovable assertion that Europe would be better off had they not created a common currency.  Economically, a common currency is extraordinarily helpful.  But whether that is offset by any downsides is pretty much pure speculation.
 
2013-01-01 10:04:19 AM  

dartben: Serious Black: we threw out the Articles of Confederation (illegally I might add).

Oh for fark's sake...is this the new talking point along the lines of repealing the 17th amendment?


It's sort of true, if you're a complete idiot, which is the most Republican version of truth possible.
 
2013-01-01 10:05:26 AM  

GentDirkly: Belgium having been split and integrated into France and the Netherlands


You didn't even have to tell anyone you're an outsider.
 
2013-01-01 10:05:26 AM  

dartben: Serious Black: we threw out the Articles of Confederation (illegally I might add).

Oh for fark's sake...is this the new talking point along the lines of repealing the 17th amendment?


Yes, I'm a Confederate and want to bring back slavery. Sheesh. Give me a farking break.

TheOther: So there is precedent? Excellent!!


Of course there's precedent for it. Ultimately, the law is whatever a consensus agreement concludes is the law. We could theoretically make it 100% legal to commit murder by enshrining it in our Constitution. That'll never happen, but it is possible.
 
2013-01-01 10:07:50 AM  

Serious Black: (illegally I might add)


Something can't be illegal if there isn't a governing body overseeing the operations.
 
2013-01-01 10:16:01 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Serious Black: (illegally I might add)

Something can't be illegal if there isn't a governing body overseeing the operations.


That's actually one of the arguments over what constitutes "International Law" (IL).  There are jurists who believe there cannot be such a thing as IL because there isn't such a governing body.  (No, the UN is not the governing body.)
 
2013-01-01 10:19:09 AM  

dumbobruni: ejwsod36: Then the UK should leave if it is so bad. There is a specific procedure that is outlined in the Treaty of Lisbon. shiat, or get off the pot.

despite the UK's handwringing over the euro, predicting the current mess....the country has not diversified its exports away from the eurozone.

the UK's exports to Spain are bigger than its exports to India and China combined. Oops....


Our bad. Geographical proximity and trade yada yada.

Should've floated the UK round Africa to the Indian Ocean.
 
2013-01-01 10:20:34 AM  

vygramul: Lost Thought 00: Serious Black: (illegally I might add)

Something can't be illegal if there isn't a governing body overseeing the operations.

That's actually one of the arguments over what constitutes "International Law" (IL).  There are jurists who believe there cannot be such a thing as IL because there isn't such a governing body.  (No, the UN is not the governing body.)


Isn't 'international law' just another word for codified treaties between multiple nations?
 
2013-01-01 10:21:31 AM  
Quick put pictures of sexy europeans!!! We have to maintain fark traditions.
 
2013-01-01 10:22:04 AM  

t3knomanser: dartben: Serious Black: we threw out the Articles of Confederation (illegally I might add).

Oh for fark's sake...is this the new talking point along the lines of repealing the 17th amendment?

It's sort of true, if you're a complete idiot, which is the most Republican version of truth possible.


I love being called a Republican. It's obvious who doesn't know me pretty well when they do.

Look, it's pretty obvious if you look at primary documents from the time that the Congress of the Confederation explicitly said that the Constitutional Convention was only supposed to come up with amendments to the Articles of Confederation. Building a brand new constitution was not the intent of the convention. Yet it's what we ended up with, and nobody ever complains about them not following the rules in the resolution. Why? Because the Constitution was just plain better.
 
2013-01-01 10:22:28 AM  

vygramul: That's actually one of the arguments over what constitutes "International Law" (IL).  There are jurists who believe there cannot be such a thing as IL because there isn't such a governing body.


A law is simply an agreement between parties for acceptable behavior. When managing the behavior of a large number of entities, like citizens, we prefer to have laws issue from governing bodies. This creates a published standard, which is preferred to letting every citizen renegotiate their social contract with every other citizen.

In the case of international law, nations can agree on acceptable behavior and enforce that agreement among themselves. The number of entities involved is much smaller. The idea that a governing body must issue laws need not hold true.
 
2013-01-01 10:24:12 AM  

Serious Black: dartben: Serious Black: we threw out the Articles of Confederation (illegally I might add).

Oh for fark's sake...is this the new talking point along the lines of repealing the 17th amendment?

Yes, I'm a Confederate and want to bring back slavery. Sheesh. Give me a farking break.


What the hell does that have to do with either the Articles of Confederation or the 17th Amendment?
 
2013-01-01 10:24:26 AM  

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: firefly212: It isn't just Europe, the Chinese use valuation gimmicks of the yuan and artificial pegging of the yuan to understate their own spending and labor inflation problems, the US absolutely loves deferred costs wherein we pretend projects cost nothing the first 19 years, then pay for it in year 20, but year 20 gets shifted every year or two so it goes a little further down the road. Frankly, when the budget became a political football instead of a realistic accounting, it all went to shiat. From imaginary surpluses to phony baloney giant deficits caused by finally paying off wars that ended decades ago, from "balooning" debts that are really just x owes y and y owes x games to debts owed internally to the citizens of respective nations, the game has gone on so long that it's nigh impossible to say for sure who owes how much.... but that was really the goal all along.

Merry-go-round, broke down.


LGT Book Link

The first part of the book deals with the debt situation at the end of WW1 where Germany paid England and France who then paid America who then loaned Germany the money to pay England and France. In a big merry go round that everyone knew about but refused to stop until it collapsed the economies of most of the major powers (not that the war debt defaults were the sole cause of the Great Depression, but they sure didn't help anyone get out of it).The rest is more like you said of how you can't just manipulate numbers and magically create a functional economy.

/not trying to Godwin the thread, just a good book
//interesting read about how economics are more important than military might
///it's almost like history has lessons we can learn
////slashies
 
2013-01-01 10:27:21 AM  

wildcardjack: Well, Panzers haven't rolled across France in the past 60 years, so it's got that going for it.


This. Europe is in it's longest continuous stretch of peacetime in recorded history.
 
2013-01-01 10:29:31 AM  

Serious Black: I love being called a Republican.


No, I called you an idiot. And I said that Republicans are also idiots. I leave where you fall in that Venn Diagram as an exercise to the reader.

Serious Black: Building a brand new constitution was not the intent of the convention


It was not the intent. But exceeding the scope of an assignment is not the same as doing something illegal. They were tasked with revising the AoC, and in closed-door meetings, decided that the best way to repair it was to reject it entirely. At worst, had the Constitution not been worth adopting, the Convention would have been a failure.

You could use the word "illicit", which would be more accurate than "illegal", but still doesn't accurately convey what actually occurred.
 
2013-01-01 10:35:22 AM  

Infernalist: vygramul: Lost Thought 00: Serious Black: (illegally I might add)

Something can't be illegal if there isn't a governing body overseeing the operations.

That's actually one of the arguments over what constitutes "International Law" (IL).  There are jurists who believe there cannot be such a thing as IL because there isn't such a governing body.  (No, the UN is not the governing body.)

Isn't 'international law' just another word for codified treaties between multiple nations?


There's been improvement in attempts to codify it, but the problem is that how can a treaty between the US and France govern how China governs?  There are few treaties to which EVERYONE is a signatory yet "International Law" is seen as universal.  One legal concept (obviously not accepted by anti-IL theorists) is, that which is custom among entities is law that governs those entities, and much of International Law is based on customary behavior.

A good example of customary and international law is states of war.  There are those who argue the US did not legally declare war on Iraq, or Vietnam, or Panama, and so on, so those weren't actually wars.  But they're conflating US law and international law.  IL doesn't give fark-all what your internal rules are for declarations of war.  In addition, whether a war is illegal in IL is also separate from whether war exists.  In IL, we were at war with Iraq, and we were at war with Afghanistan.  In IL, a strong argument can be made our war with Iraq was illegal.  However, no serious argument can be made that our war with Afghanistan was.
 
2013-01-01 10:35:29 AM  

vygramul: That's actually one of the arguments over what constitutes "International Law" (IL). There are jurists who believe there cannot be such a thing as IL because there isn't such a governing body. (No, the UN is not the governing body.)


The UN exists because of treaties signed by various nation-states. The UN fundamentally IS international law.
 
2013-01-01 10:36:13 AM  

phenn: andrewmoriarty: Most European countries are experiencing an unprecedented standard of living, despite the financial difficulties EU is currently facing. While Americans go bankrupt because they get sick, so working out for ya'?

Most European countries aren't spending their citizens into oblivion though never-ending military adventurism awe-inspiring ass-kicking awesomeness and nation-building international bootstraps training programs.

 
2013-01-01 10:38:27 AM  

vygramul: In IL, a strong argument can be made our war with Iraq was illegal. However, no serious argument can be made that our war with Afghanistan was.


We could have invaded Afganistan for no reason at all and it still would have been a legal war. There was no recognized government in power. From an international law standpoint, the country was in a state of anarchy in the most literal since of the term.
 
2013-01-01 10:40:13 AM  

t3knomanser: vygramul: That's actually one of the arguments over what constitutes "International Law" (IL).  There are jurists who believe there cannot be such a thing as IL because there isn't such a governing body.

A law is simply an agreement between parties for acceptable behavior. When managing the behavior of a large number of entities, like citizens, we prefer to have laws issue from governing bodies. This creates a published standard, which is preferred to letting every citizen renegotiate their social contract with every other citizen.

In the case of international law, nations can agree on acceptable behavior and enforce that agreement among themselves. The number of entities involved is much smaller. The idea that a governing body must issue laws need not hold true.


That's certainly the majority opinion.  I just found the legal theory interesting.  (My history undergrad would have had "genocide" as a concentration had UVA recognized such a concentration.  The international law & genocide class was really interesting.  The Rwanda Tribunal, for example, was the first formal recognition of mass rape as a form of genocide.)
 
2013-01-01 10:40:15 AM  
The Euro's less than 20 years old, fartmitty.  And it's only the official currency of approximately half of the European Union.
 
2013-01-01 10:41:08 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: vygramul: That's actually one of the arguments over what constitutes "International Law" (IL). There are jurists who believe there cannot be such a thing as IL because there isn't such a governing body. (No, the UN is not the governing body.)

The UN exists because of treaties signed by various nation-states. The UN fundamentally IS international law.


The UN's existence is international law, but the UN is not the governing body OF international law.
 
2013-01-01 10:42:35 AM  

Serious Black: I love being called a Republican. It's obvious who doesn't know me pretty well when they do.


Who would know you pretty well?
 
2013-01-01 10:42:36 AM  

firefly212: It isn't just Europe, the Chinese use valuation gimmicks of the yuan and artificial pegging of the yuan to understate their own spending and labor inflation problems, the US absolutely loves deferred costs wherein we pretend projects cost nothing the first 19 years, then pay for it in year 20, but year 20 gets shifted every year or two so it goes a little further down the road. Frankly, when the budget became a political football instead of a realistic accounting, it all went to shiat. From imaginary surpluses to phony baloney giant deficits caused by finally paying off wars that ended decades ago, from "balooning" debts that are really just x owes y and y owes x games to debts owed internally to the citizens of respective nations, the game has gone on so long that it's nigh impossible to say for sure who owes how much.... but that was really the goal all along.


You mean using imaginary financial tools to control imaginary currency? You know it's called money because everybody agrees to call it money.
 
2013-01-01 10:42:47 AM  

vygramul: The UN's existence is international law, but the UN is not the governing body OF international law.


Exactly. I was clarifying, not contradicting.
 
2013-01-01 10:44:50 AM  

thamike: Serious Black: I love being called a Republican. It's obvious who doesn't know me pretty well when they do.

Who would know you pretty well?


Your mom, for one.
 
Displayed 50 of 99 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report