Not really, it's just logical conclusion of believing in a project but then watching it fail repeatedly, and finally questioning whether it’s worth saving. His actual proposal is for a deeper democratic federalism, but he doesn't think that will fly, because he's disappointed.
No it doesn't actually. His argument starts at about 29:50 of the video. As far as I can tell, he argues that military Keynesianism (the idea of using military spending to drive economic growth) works in the US because it has a federal government and a unified military-industrial complex that redistributes contracts to stimulate weaker regions. Varoufakis criticizes this model as morally corrosive, saying it requires endless wars to justify continued production and spending. This is not a new criticism, that's just Truman. Next he says that Europe, lacking a federal structure or unified military-political command structure, cannot even replicate this system in any coherent or democratic way. He sees recent EU defense initiatives as a hollow imitation that is just political theater making the analogy with the "Green Deal", which was basically abandoned despite big promises. Basically, he says that military Keynesianism, like the Green Deal are both "smoke and mirrors", that don't offer neither real growth nor genuine security.
That's it. That's the argument. What is hypocritical about that?
Elsewhere in the interview, he makes the argument that the EU should either go towards some kind of democratic federalism (in which case, one could assume that there would exist the framework for controlling the military-industrial complex) or just call it quits, because the current model is just not viable. That's coherent with his view of military Keynesianism above.
His thinking on Ukraine is pragmatic and calling us on our own hypocrisy. He criticizes Western hypocrisy for arming Ukraine without committing troops and condemns attempts to mimic the U.S. military-industrial model, which he sees as both unethical and structurally impossible for Europe. That's where his Hitler line comes in, that if Western leaders truly believed Putin was a danger like Hitler, they would actually fully commit, instead of the tragedy we currently have. And that's a valid argument, right? If we truly believe that Russia is a real and present danger, enough pussyfooting, enough half-measures, go big or go home. Federalize, arm, fight. If not, what the fuck are we doing?
Your comment is a bit incoherent. Its first part seems to imply it's a needed thing that we should do, the second that it is a dangerous thing that we should avoid. Which is it?
Britain was already an integrated member that decided to exit. That's very different from opposing new deep integration.
We might not have a great Nazi gold to citizens ratio but our resources to citizens ratio is more than Iceland and Norway combined many many times over.
I never said that EU is an authoritarian institution, you made that up.
My argument is for keeping our existing sovereignty, such as for example being able to keep our own currency, and our more welcoming immigration policies. Canada doesn't need the Euro, doesn't need the ECB, we don't need the Dublin treaty and we don't need the Stability and Growth Pact.
Anything the EU does right (eg the GDPR) we can adopt and adapt for ourselves already. There is absolutely nothing holding us back from becoming better.
The EU is a complicated institution, parts of it are structurally neoliberal, in the same way that parts of Canadian institutions are structurally colonialist. So we really don't need the craziness of European politics internal dysfunction. We have enough of that of our own.
Keep the snark coming.
It's your father who should have pulled out.
So you're saying that the EU doesn't work in a way that allows closer cooperation and integration without membership. That's factually wrong. This model works for Switzerland, Norway and Iceland.
Got any more snark?
What part of what I wrote are you referring to?
Good luck hosting the world cup.
Russia has amazing culture. It's so sad to see it captive to a fascist nationalist.
We are fast approaching a point where is no way to preserve the kinds of democratic, liberal, tolerant, multicultural, humanistic and socially just standards that define our standards of what's good in Western civilization than to form a closer European Union.
The European far right, from Meloni to the AfD and the RN in France is poised to establish a MEGA hellscape in the next election cycle. Only a liberal social democratic revolution, basically, can stop this.
An EU with common eurobonds, with a common nuclear capable Union Army, with the French UNSC permanent position becoming a European one, with common European taxation of wealth to reduce inequality and a common European welfare state. We should also establish universal jurisdiction for human rights abuses and put some teeth behind it.
We have already taken what is good from the American federalist tradition, and we have built new ones. We should forge a closer union while avoiding American mistakes like the imperial presidency, gerrymandering, and the influence of money in politics.
The MEGA fascists are like American Tories during the American Revolution: they serve the interests of foreign despots and pirates (to reference Jefferson): MAGA USA and Putinist Russia, peddling nothing but resentment politics that will solve none of our problems.
19
Prominent Canadian activist and author arrested for pro-Palestinian activism
(www.middleeasteye.net)
340
Editorial: Trump underestimates how proud, united and, most importantly, petty Canadians are
(www.thebeaverton.com)
145
Syrian rebels unable to unlock Sednaya prison's underground cells but free hundreds
(www.middleeasteye.net)
This is an extraordinary claim. Please provide your extraordinary evidence.