Hey UK: European Union invites Canada to become first ever ‘associate member’ – now would that be something for you?

@Khenpal1 40 trillions = 40,000 billions = 40,000,000 millions, right??

@helenS using USA term trillions One trillion is 1,000,000,000,000 (10¹²).To get 40 trillion in other units:In billions: 40 trillion × 1,000 = 40,000 billion.In millions: 40 trillion × 1,000,000 = 40,000,000 million.The 10-Year Mark (2036): The CBO projects public debt will climb to 120% of GDP (roughly $56 trillion). This eclipses the previous all-time U.S. record of 106% set immediately after World War II.The 20-Year Mark (2046): Over the long run, the CBO projects public debt will accelerate to roughly 144% of GDP within 20 years, on its way to 175% by 2056, Goldman Sachs have actively raised their long-term bond forecasts, projecting that 10-year yields could easily remain anchored between 4.5% and 5.5% over the next decade, If inflation gets stuck closer to 2.5% or 3% rather than the Fed's 2% target, the 10-year bond must sustain a yield near 5% to offer any true "real" investment return.A nominal yield near 6% is exactly the threshold required to secure a meaningful "real" (inflation-adjusted) investment return in a structurally higher-inflation economy, especially after accounting for the hidden impact of taxes.if inflation averages 4%, a 6% bond provides an exact break-even point (+0.08%). If inflation spikes to 5%, an investor buying a 6% bond is actually losing over 1% of their purchasing power every year.If structural forces like supply chain shifts, localized energy transitions, and permanent $2+ trillion federal deficits keep core inflation locked at a 3.5% floor, the old market playbook of accepting 3% to 4% bond yields is fundamentally broken.To entice large institutional funds, retirement systems, and foreign sovereign wealth to hold long-term U.S. debt, the market must demand a nominal yield near 6% to ensure those investors achieve a baseline 1.5% to 2% real net profit. Without that 6% cushion, investors will aggressively shift capital away from government debt and into hard assets like real estate, infrastructure, or equities that naturally rise with inflation.The Fed's Breaking Point: If inflation tests the 5% to 6% range, the Federal Reserve is forced into emergency intervention. They will raise their benchmark interest rates past 6% or 7% to intentionally induce an economic recession, crushing consumer demand to force prices back down.The relationship between a 6% bond yield and inflation is a structural loop. The market forces a strict barrier on how far they can drift apart:The Rational Floor: Long-term bond investors demand a "real return" (yield minus inflation). If 10-year bonds are yielding 6%, it means the market is pricing in a structural inflation expectation of roughly 3.5% to 4.0%, leaving a 2% profit margin.The Runaway Trigger: If inflation suddenly spikes to 8% while bonds are at 6%, investors face a guaranteed -2% loss in purchasing power. They will instantly panic, dump their bonds, and demand a much higher premium. This forces bond yields to rapidly climb to 9% or 10% to match the new inflation reality, Inside the United States, a steady inflation rate of 4% to 6% rapidly destroys the cash value of the dollar. When inflation sits at these levels, your money loses purchasing power at a compounding speed:At 4% Inflation: The U.S. dollar loses half of its purchasing power in roughly 18 years. A $100 grocery bill today scales to $200.At 6% Inflation: The dollar loses half of its purchasing power in just 12 years.When the U.S. national debt expands toward $60+ trillion and requires high interest rates to sustain, foreign central banks begin to worry about long-term stability. If they believe the U.S. government is intentionally letting inflation run hot at 5% to "inflate away" its debts, they will view holding U.S. dollars as a losing strategy.This accelerates de-dollarization, prompting international trade networks and central banks to diversify their reserves out of the dollar and into alternative structural backstops like gold, hard commodities, or a basket of regional currencies.

@Khenpal1 Thank you – please do not be upset but I didn't read it all.

@Strictmichael75 General de Gaulle steadfastly did not want Great Britain to join the EU's predecessor, the European Economic Community that Edward Heath called "the Common Market" - not his only lie about it.

De Gaulle's public objection was that the EEC and the UK were just not suited to each other, and with hindsight I think he was right. Britons are, or were, too free-spirited for the common though not universal European cultural trait of conformity, which the EEC/EU relies on by the ISO-standard ton[ne].

To be fair he may have had other reasons. This was the French wartime leader who did not particularly like Britain and was even minded to keep the V3 guns the Nazis had been building near Calais.....

We did not try to "pick and choose" from the EU, or no more than any country does. The French for example, despite their love of bureaucracy and the horrible Napoleonic Code judicial principle, are famous for discreetly ignoring many EU regulations, or perhaps more accurately applying them as lightly as they can get away with.*

The more the centre tries to weld everyone together into a homogeneous political lump instead of concentrating a co-operative exchange alliance we could be proud to support, the more picking and choosing they will try. Hence the entire entity is by no means as popular around the bloc as them in Brussels like to think and their fans to portray.

++++

*There is a bizarre story that one EU country was fined for not enforcing the EU standard length of...condoms. Their national standard fell short by a mere 2 or 3mm. How the EU decided upon the official length is not known - probably secret. That country is reputed by folk-tradition as one of Europe's most sex-mad: Italy!.

@ArishMell De Gaulle was right !

@Strictmichael75 The sad thing is it could all have worked if the EEC really was only a "common market" and the politicians had not let the Commission take control.

@meJess Our right-wing populists are very much pro-Putin (of course, he's a right-wing extremist tyrant) and their influence is considerable. It's frightening. They may be Putin's most powerful weapon against the republics of the West.

@Khenpal1 @OldBrit I think that's because it is trying to be something it need not and should not be, is not over-manned but is far too complicated and costly, and is incapable of doing something basically simple, in a simple way.

Despite it having politicians with arch-fedweral ideas, the EU is not trying to make an empire by taking over other nations. It is designed in the hope that countries find it more advantageous to join than stay out; then to find it very hard to leave if they change their minds; to deter others with the same idea. Notably, the EU has never asked it citizens' views, despite spending their nations' tax-revenues, and has occasionally demanded countries re-run referanda resulting in anti-EU majorities.


Really, it's a good idea gone wrong. The notion of a bloc of neighbouring, democratic nations with considerable geographical, linguistic and cultural differences, forming mutual co-operative agreements is fine.

That though needs only a basic constitution and a set of enabling treaties; overseen by perhaps twice-yearly meetings between member-nations' representatives; and an "EU" office in each nation's embassies to helpo day-to-day administration. (With power of Extraordinary General Meetings for eventualities like wars, which may affect nations not involved directly in that war.)


Instead it has become a end in itself: run ridiculously inefficiently and extravagantly.

Why for example physically move its Parliament, filing-cabinets and all, alternately between Brussels and Strasbourg at six-month intervals?

Why a President and Presidential Palace?

Why no investigating the EC's active ban on the EU's auditors investigating why the books never balanced for years? Our own ex-PM, Neil Kinnock, was one of the Commissioners who created that ban, in response to one auditor being brave enough to investigate and intending to report it to the EP. That was Mrs. Marta Andreasen, and she left Brussels employment over it, but I don't know if by resignation or dismissal. Kinnock could not have expected her next move: she became UKIP's auditor, then intended to become a UKIP MP; but fell out with Nigel Farage and left the Party.


It's lost its way. I don't know if it still has a strong thread of Federalists (as was Edward Heath for its EEC predecessor he deceitfully called "The Common Market"), but it has become a gigantic and extremely expensive exercise in Management for the sake of Management, by Managers who do not understand what they try to manage.

So they end up mis-managing it.

@ArishMell It still OK , the old imperial ways is not a success in todays world.

@ArishMell I never said I thought it doesn't need significant improvement. But we can't change it from outside and regardless the economic benefits it gave us still vastly outweigh it's current problems in my opinion.

@SunshineGirl There's no tariffs with Spain. All trade with Spain has been suspended since they are China's and Iran's ally. The Premier of Alberta, Daniel Smith seems to agree.

@TexChik Earlier this year you asserted that Trump was going to impose punitive tariffs on Spain after its prime minister voiced mild criticism of his illegal war in Iran. You got rather annoyed when I pointed out that this is a legal impossibility as Spain is part of a united trading bloc of 27 nations.

The article below explains why a trade embargo of a single EU nation would be impossible to enforce:

https://time.com/article/2026/07/09/can-trump-cut-off-all-trade-with-spain-here-s-what-experts-say/

Strength in numbers!

@ShenaniganFoodie Errr...no!

@ArishMell I remember there was some cherry-picking in the contracts.

@helenS Possibly, but contracts for...?