Eurozone Sovereign Debt Crisis part 2 - Ireland

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,812
Points
333
Location
Greece
Not popped into this thread in months. I would have no problem with another referendum. I voted to remain because of fear around the consequences for what I do for a living, but the sky hasn't fallen in the meantime despite Carney's warnings.. I'm fairly certain I would vote to leave if another referendum takes place. There were scare tactics and misinformation on both sides. The vocal remainers seem to think it only worked one way.

I agree that Osborne was far too chicken-licken. However many of the downsides will take years to unravel. The first and most obvious one was the devaluation of Sterling by up to 20%. I felt this one immediately because of what I do and because I live out of the UK for a lot of the year now. But for most, the consequences are coming through six months later. Retail sales are down and inflation is on the way up.

The next big threat is to inward investment. As part of the EU, the UK was a massive winner in this critical area for jobs and investment. I doubt very much that Theresa will get a deal that will enable the UK to keep this leading position.

Finally we are holding our breath over what impact Brexit will have on London's financial primacy and other businesses that trade predominantly with Europe.

These are real issues that I just don't think were addressed properly in the debate. I felt that any discussions were hijacked by puerile hyperbole and the infamous, "we have had enough of experts". It is probably also true that many people just don't know or understand how these things work and how they ultimately impact their lives. Essentially there are macro issues that got lost because of micro ones.

I am afraid that the European xenophobic vote beat the Europhile vote and we didn't even get to consider the role of supra national organisations. Essentially Trump's policy for the supremacy of the nation state versus Churchill's vision of a United Europe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joll and eurotop40

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,812
Points
333
Location
Greece
Do the maths for me, how many MP's should ukip have with their 4 million votes?

Ironically the voting system of the EU Parliament gave them a good number of seats which brought them to everyone's attention in the first place.

If Mr. Nuttall fails to establish them as a party of more than just anti EU membership, then they will sink to obscurity under the UK system. I am not sure that being the UK party of Donald Trump is going to get them into power. Famous last words :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: eurotop40

englad

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Posts
2,892
Media
28
Likes
7,958
Points
468
Location
Germany
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Well, I guess if they didn't agree with it, they probably wouldn't have voted for it? Likewise here.

I don't see how you can construe a vote win as something the UK 'doesn't agree with'. You're being fundamentally dishonest.



Yeah so many of them really knew what they were voting about and why they voted the way they did....
 

chrisrobin

Mythical Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2016
Posts
10,304
Media
0
Likes
26,632
Points
183
Location
Bournemouth (England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It has to do with the fundamental arrogance of the UK government (and its prostitution towards the US).
It has all to do with the steadily eroded fundamental freedoms of nations.
It has to do with the fundamental dishonesty of the Brussels Elite who slowly added, drop by drop.
It slowly increased to number of countries till it became unwieldy and unmanageable but all in the search for bigger is better.
Funny how you think that having a trading partner win America the UK has prostituted itself, look inwards towards prostitution to the way Switzerland had prostituted itself to the world with its secret bank accounts and previously looking after ill gotten war gains - how much money did Switzerland make from German War gold when it prostituted itself by looking the other way?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joll

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
he voted remain not leave ;)
Right.... and he said currently he would change his vote IF there would be a second referendum (so he changed his vote already once) - and I said, he should wait till past Brexit, then he will change his vote again (from current leave back to remain)
 
7

798686

Guest
But now they are challenged. The thing about a sovereign parliament is that it is not bound by anything which happened in the past. Leave did demand a sovereign parliament?

No one has been able to tell me what these new opportunities are. What are they?

Moreover, by the time it could happen they are likely to have changed their minds. Woe betide any politician who chooses to exit the EU against the wishes of the voters!

It wasnt Joll. If it was clear we would not be having this debate now, and you know it.
Yes, Leave demanded a Sovereign Parliament, so why would they want the first thing it does to be reversing the vote to make themselves un-sovereign again?

We've been giving you a running commentary on these opportunities for months - you've chosen to ignore them. What you mean is no-one's yet been able to get you to acknowledge them.

They don't seem to be changing their minds, Dandy. And exiting was the choice of the voters - Parliament will not be 'going against them.'

We wouldn't be having this argument if Remain had won, you mean?
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It has all to do with the steadily eroded fundamental freedoms of nations.
Right, lets have some fun. nations have total freedom to do what they want. Just look at North Korea. If you dont care about trading with the rest of the world, its perfectly easy. Unfortunately if you are a country which has to trade to make its living, then you are forced to make international agreements to trade. The more you want to trade, the more complex these are, and there have to be international agencies to act as referee. Leave keep saying they want to make more of these agreements, not less. So choose. either accept the rules which stop you doing what you want, or be North Korea. If we leave the EU, we will just make similar agreements with others. very likely we will still keep most EU rules anyway so as to be able to trade with them.

All those immigrants want to come here because we have made a great life for ourselves through engaging with others, so if you do go for the north Korea route, it should solve the immigration issue too. No one will want to come. We will not want to stay either.


It has to do with the fundamental dishonesty of the Brussels Elite who slowly added, drop by drop.
Nope. It has to do with the fundamental dishonesty of UK governments who were happy to push their own policies onto the EU, but simultaneously say they were forced to do it by Brussels. They were not. All EU rules were agreed by Uk governments, most of them we pushed for.

It slowly increased to number of countries till it became unwieldy and unmanageable but all in the search for bigger is better.
It was the UK pushing to expand it when others were doubtful. Thats our policy you are attacking.

Funny how you think that having a trading partner win America the UK has prostituted itself,
What I think is the US will make just as many rrules as the EU, but it will expect us to do everything its way. In the EU we are a big player and have always changed the rules to suit us. The US will not tolerate that.

look inwards towards prostitution to the way Switzerland had prostituted itself to the world with its secret bank accounts and previously looking after ill gotten war gains
Gosh, sounds like the UK. Did you know the Uk government runs some of the worlds best tax havens?

how much money did Switzerland make from German War gold when it prostituted itself by looking the other way?
I don't know. How much money did the US make from WW2 selling armaments to the rest of the world?
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Finally we are holding our breath over what impact Brexit will have on London's financial primacy and other businesses that trade predominantly with Europe.
I agree the implications are very far reaching. There are going to be difficulties finding enough skilled immigrants, that will be ironic. I am also concerned, as we all learn more about how this works, that our trading relations with countries outside the EU are also going to suffer because we no longer enjoy EU negotiated deals. UK productivity seems poor by international standards, and I am skeptical we are going to do well in an open market.

And austerity will continue, depressing growth, the national debt will increase faster and servicing it will be more difficult given worsening market sentiment.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Do the maths for me, how many MP's should ukip have with their 4 million votes?
I'm not denying them MPs. The conservatives are.

Yes, Leave demanded a Sovereign Parliament, so why would they want the first thing it does to be reversing the vote to make themselves un-sovereign again?
Parliament and the crown, acting together, were, are and will be sovereign. It was a lie to claim it was ever otherwise. OH, another leave lie.

We've been giving you a running commentary on these opportunities for months
No Joll you have not said one single concrete thing. Lots of aspirations about being able to make fantastic trade deals, but no detail whatsoever. No explanation how you will suddenly persuade nations to give us better terms than when we traded with them through the EU. What with us now having a worse bagaining position being as we are desperate. Sure they all want deals, because they think they will get better ones than now! We are the party which is going to lose each and every time. Its far more than just leaving the EU, we will have worse terms with everyone!

Immigration is not going to change unless the Uk economy collapses, in which case of course we shall no longer need immigrants. Though we could well still end up importing critical skills despite rising UK unemployment. That was and is government policy.

They don't seem to be changing their minds, Dandy.
Now I agree there. They always only favoured leaving the EU if we benefit financially from doing so, and this has not changed.

We wouldn't be having this argument if Remain had won, you mean?
Oh yes we would. Another big leave lie is that they would have accepted a vote to remain. They had already been planning how to continue fighting. Remember that multi million parliamentary petition for a re-run? Leave started that!
 

eurotop40

Admired Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Posts
4,430
Media
0
Likes
982
Points
333
Location
Zurich (Switzerland)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
It has all to do with the steadily eroded fundamental freedoms of nations.
It has to do with the fundamental dishonesty of the Brussels Elite who slowly added, drop by drop.
It slowly increased to number of countries till it became unwieldy and unmanageable but all in the search for bigger is better.
Funny how you think that having a trading partner win America the UK has prostituted itself, look inwards towards prostitution to the way Switzerland had prostituted itself to the world with its secret bank accounts and previously looking after ill gotten war gains - how much money did Switzerland make from German War gold when it prostituted itself by looking the other way?

Let's look at the present situation, otherwise I can come up with the crimes of British colonialism. And they are not negligible.
 
7

798686

Guest
Parliament and the crown, acting together, were, are and will be sovereign. It was a lie to claim it was ever otherwise. OH, another leave lie.

No Joll you have not said one single concrete thing. Lots of aspirations about being able to make fantastic trade deals, but no detail whatsoever. No explanation how you will suddenly persuade nations to give us better terms than when we traded with them through the EU.
Well of course they're not concrete - they're proposals. Negotiations haven't even started yet remember?

I've repeatedly explained to you that being inside the EU prevented us from striking deals with third countries. You know this. You also know that countries would find it far more daunting and tricky to strike a deal with the EU than with the UK. There are a line of countries waiting to work on a deal with the UK. The 5th biggest (at the last count) economy in the world, is not an insignificant market to want to do a deal with.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Well of course they're not concrete - they're proposals. Negotiations haven't even started yet remember? I've repeatedly explained to you that being inside the EU prevented us from striking deals with third countries.
Technically the Uk did not do any negotiating. However aside from this the UK must know what it might want from a trade deal, and it must know what trade deals a particular potential partner has made with other nations. It should be pretty clear what is possible. No one has said a dicky bird. We know what the EU will offer: no deal, given May's stated position. We know what anyone else will want. What the government must know by now is that it will not get any deals better than what the Uk has now as an EU member, and no doubt has a top secret dossier detailling where all sorts of problems are going to arise undermining UK trade with nations outside the EU.

If they could identify real opportunities, they would have done so by now. The best they could find is Trump, and we have already seen how that is going.

You also know that countries would find it far more daunting and tricky to strike a deal with the EU than with the UK.
What are you saying? You seem to be saying they will get a better deal with us, which means we will get a worse deal. That is how it works.

There are a line of countries waiting to work on a deal with the UK.
of course, they cant wait to have better terms than now. I heard a joke yesterday, lets make a deal with new zealand and sell them the lamb we will no longer be selling to the EU.

An interesting analysis I read today said that there will be an inevitable customs barrier between the Uk and other EU states. This will in effect mean it is impossible to operate 'just in time' supply for companies operating in the Uk from the Eu. Which means any manufacturer using this model could not operate part in and part out, but will have to choose. Which means they will choose the EU.

Another interesting suggestion I heard was just why the government is being so difficult about EU citizens already here and their right to stay. It seems there are a lot of EU citizens with families here, married to Uk people and with children, who will have no right to stay if we leave the EU. It is utterly absurd to say such people should be thrown out, and the government should for many reasons immediately make it clear they can stay. unfortunately, a big chunk of diehard UKIP -the frankly racist end of the spectrum - will not accpet this and therefore would part company with the conservatives over this. So these people are being left in limbo to boost the electoral chances of the conservative party.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,639
Media
62
Likes
5,013
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Greece will NOT be reviewed at tomorrow's Eurogroup meeting, presumably because no-one wants a review to crystalise the issues.

The big question is whether the IMF will contribute to a bailout, and if so by how much. The EU wants E16bn. There's a story that the IMF may offer E5bn. Personally I cannot see how the IMF can justify this as it is supposed to lend in circumstances where it expects its money back, and it seems to me that this criterion is no longer valid. The IMF is refusing to comment.

I think we're in a position where either:
* The IMF will not contribute. This puts into doubt the legitimacy of continue Greek bailout.
* The IMF contributes, but E11bn short of what the EU wants. Presumably the EU would find the difference. It's a measure of how enormous past bailouts have been that another E11bn looks like small change.

The USA has a voting share on IMF of 16.73% and contributes funds of 17.68%. The suggestion is that Trump is not happy with a Greek bailout. Clearly the USA would need a lot of support to reach a blocking majority, but there are nations that will take heed of the view of the USA. If the USA opposed a bailout (which seems possible) I don't know how the UK would vote, 4.09%. For that matter how would France and Italy vote? Japan and China, each just over 6%?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joll and chrisrobin

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It has all to do with the steadily eroded fundamental freedoms of nations.
It has to do with the fundamental dishonesty of the Brussels Elite who slowly added, drop by drop.
It slowly increased to number of countries till it became unwieldy and unmanageable but all in the search for bigger is better.
Funny how you think that having a trading partner win America the UK has prostituted itself, look inwards towards prostitution to the way Switzerland had prostituted itself to the world with its secret bank accounts and previously looking after ill gotten war gains - how much money did Switzerland make from German War gold when it prostituted itself by looking the other way?
It is funny that you blame Brüssel for the increase of members, while it was Britain who pushed the most, to expand the number of members...
And while Germany choosed to have one of the longest time span to keep polish labour out of the German market, Britain instantly opened all boarders...

You shouldn't blame others, for things you don't like.


Do you ever asked yourself why the EU east expansion happened so fast?
Did you ever put it in connection to the NATO east expansion?

Sorry that I have to write it. But for me it looks like Britain and the USA were (are) still in old school thinking, of areas of influence... and the collapse of USSR was the petfect moment to expand the own influence and limit the influence of Russia.

It barely has anything to do with an EU agenda, but with a British US agenda.




The Swiss NAZI gold is always a topuc on this thread. To blame Swiss for accepting NAZI gold isn't far away from accepting money from the Russian maffia or Arabian dictators, to build a house in the city of London...
No one is innocent
 
  • Like
Reactions: eurotop40
7

798686

Guest
Another interesting suggestion I heard was just why the government is being so difficult about EU citizens already here and their right to stay. It seems there are a lot of EU citizens with families here, married to Uk people and with children, who will have no right to stay if we leave the EU. It is utterly absurd to say such people should be thrown out, and the government should for many reasons immediately make it clear they can stay. unfortunately, a big chunk of diehard UKIP -the frankly racist end of the spectrum - will not accpet this and therefore would part company with the conservatives over this. So these people are being left in limbo to boost the electoral chances of the conservative party.
No, what is clear is that a portion of UK people, such as yourself, are willing to throw British expats under the bus in order to secure the rights of EU citizens living here.

We're more than happy to allow EU citizens to stay here, if they arrived before the Brexit vote - as long as UK citizens have the same rights in the EU. Once this is certain, there should be no problem.

On the other hand - you're happy to neglect the rights of our own ex-pat citizens, for some unknown reason. Why is it ok to safeguard EU citizens, with no regard to Brits abroad whatsoever? Seems racist.

It should be pretty clear what is possible. No one has said a dicky bird. We know what the EU will offer: no deal, given May's stated position. We know what anyone else will want.
There's plenty been said about joint deals, including press conferences which you've commented on yourself - from the likes of NZ, Australia, Turkey, USA & India. What leads you to conclude 'not a dicky bird' has been said? Obviously we can't hammer out the details until we leave, since that would breach our obligations as a current EU member, or announce specifics before they've been agreed to.

...and no doubt has a top secret dossier detailling where all sorts of problems are going to arise undermining UK trade with nations outside the EU.
I expect they do - highlighting problem areas they want to avoid. I expect other nations will do the same for their own key industries. The idea is to get a win-win deal, where there's a logical fit, and each country supplies what the other is lacking, and makes use of cheaper imports where it doesn't have a thriving industry of its own.

If they could identify real opportunities, they would have done so by now. The best they could find is Trump, and we have already seen how that is going.
You've already written it off as a none-starter, you mean? The idea for the US is they get a free trade deal with a similar country, which won't necessarily undercut them in terms of costs (such as China would), or take endless liberties, as the EU would. For the UK, we get access to a large market.

I heard a joke yesterday, lets make a deal with new zealand and sell them the lamb we will no longer be selling to the EU.
What's the punchline? Why can't we do both?

An interesting analysis I read today said that there will be an inevitable customs barrier between the Uk and other EU states. This will in effect mean it is impossible to operate 'just in time' supply for companies operating in the Uk from the Eu. Which means any manufacturer using this model could not operate part in and part out, but will have to choose. Which means they will choose the EU.
There may be a customs barrier - but there may also be some sort of deal - especially in areas of key interest to both parties. The just-in-time model is especially an auto industry thing, where the UK has a large supply chain. The UK market is essential to the EU in cars, as the EU market is to the UK. Both sides will want to avoid as many barriers as possible.

Re: your comment about choosing - it's for the companies to decide, not you. And also for the EU and UK to reach their own agreement in trade, also not your decision. They have yet to begin negotiations, please don't keep referring to it as a done deal, when it is far from clear what the outcome will be.

You may have concluded that the whole thing is hopeless - and that's your prerogative. We're under no obligation to persuade you otherwise. However, Brexit is happening, and if you intend to shout abuse from the sidelines for the next 30-40 years, that's up to you - but the only person you'll harm is yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: chrisrobin

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,639
Media
62
Likes
5,013
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Do you ever asked yourself why the EU east expansion happened so fast?
Did you ever put it in connection to the NATO east expansion?

Sorry that I have to write it. But for me it looks like Britain and the USA were (are) still in old school thinking, of areas of influence... and the collapse of USSR was the perfect moment to expand the own influence and limit the influence of Russia.

It barely has anything to do with an EU agenda, but with a British US agenda.

Years ago I spent time rattling around Eastern Europe and what had been USSR. I've experienced the east-ward drive. Back then there were 12 EU nations, and the EU was still new. Much of the thinking was still that of the EEC.

What I think the UK wanted and indeed everyone wanted was a push east of western values and western freedoms, particularly market freedoms. In Eastern Europe and the USSR I encountered - as did everyone who tried to work there - traumatised individuals deeply damaged by the experience of socialism. The need felt by every decent person was some form of outreach. The UK certainly had a policy of encouraging an eastward expansion. What made no sense was the attempt at the same time to deepen the EU. The ECU had failed; the euro was an absurd concept. I think the UK's view was coherent: a broad and open block of independent, sovereign states.

Yes I'm sure that the eastern drive was a UK and US agenda. It was also a German agenda. Germany took the DDR from the eastern sphere and made it an integral part of the new Germany. Germany wanted Poland in (and Lithuania) to push the border well away from the eastern edge of Germany.

The problem comes back to the same problem as ever: the euro and the attempt to use the currency to create a single sovereign state in defiance of the will of the people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: southeastone
7

798686

Guest
I agree that Osborne was far too chicken-licken. However many of the downsides will take years to unravel. The first and most obvious one was the devaluation of Sterling by up to 20%. I felt this one immediately because of what I do and because I live out of the UK for a lot of the year now. But for most, the consequences are coming through six months later. Retail sales are down and inflation is on the way up.

The next big threat is to inward investment. As part of the EU, the UK was a massive winner in this critical area for jobs and investment. I doubt very much that Theresa will get a deal that will enable the UK to keep this leading position.

Finally we are holding our breath over what impact Brexit will have on London's financial primacy and other businesses that trade predominantly with Europe.

These are real issues that I just don't think were addressed properly in the debate. I felt that any discussions were hijacked by puerile hyperbole and the infamous, "we have had enough of experts". It is probably also true that many people just don't know or understand how these things work and how they ultimately impact their lives. Essentially there are macro issues that got lost because of micro ones.

I am afraid that the European xenophobic vote beat the Europhile vote and we didn't even get to consider the role of supra national organisations. Essentially Trump's policy for the supremacy of the nation state versus Churchill's vision of a United Europe.
Agreed.

The role of supra-national organisations was more important than the immigration issue, imo - but may have gone over the heads of many.

Not sure Churchill wanted Britain to be a part of a United Europe - nor would he have wanted (I suspect) an all-powerful supra-national EU rather than an intergovernmental one.
 
7

798686

Guest
It is funny that you blame Brüssel for the increase of members, while it was Britain who pushed the most, to expand the number of members...
And while Germany choosed to have one of the longest time span to keep polish labour out of the German market, Britain instantly opened all boarders...

Do you ever asked yourself why the EU east expansion happened so fast?
Did you ever put it in connection to the NATO east expansion?

Sorry that I have to write it. But for me it looks like Britain and the USA were (are) still in old school thinking, of areas of influence... and the collapse of USSR was the petfect moment to expand the own influence and limit the influence of Russia.
Agreed Eastern expansion was a UK (and German) idea. From the UK, widening the EU to dilute the Franco-German influence (which worked), and from a German point of view, expanding the group of nations to which you could export tariff-free goods (again, which worked).

What neither expected, was the cost of supporting them and bringing them up to the European average in terms of wages, infrastructure and living standards (altho both UK & Germany paid huge amounts towards this). The mistake Britain made (and many were worried about at the time) was not putting transitional barriers up. Germany was wiser in this regard.

Other problems have been immigration (for both) and the need to support financially weaker Southern nations (Germany).
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Years ago I spent time rattling around Eastern Europe and what had been USSR. I've experienced the east-ward drive. Back then there were 12 EU nations, and the EU was still new. Much of the thinking was still that of the EEC.

What I think the UK wanted and indeed everyone wanted was a push east of western values and western freedoms, particularly market freedoms. In Eastern Europe and the USSR I encountered - as did everyone who tried to work there - traumatised individuals deeply damaged by the experience of socialism. The need felt by every decent person was some form of outreach. The UK certainly had a policy of encouraging an eastward expansion. What made no sense was the attempt at the same time to deepen the EU. The ECU had failed; the euro was an absurd concept. I think the UK's view was coherent: a broad and open block of independent, sovereign states.
A deeper union always was on the agenda. But the EU definitely would have needed more reforms. It's simply not possible to make desition with 100% agreement of all members only. A simple majority, or up to a 2/3 majority, what ever would have been better.
We also should have created an EU of different levels and speed.

Where we start with trade facilitations, when a new member meats some standards in democracy, freedom and justice and they would have to accept all standards in products and services.

The next step would be a free access to the market. This step is only temporary and no one can stay there for long. It's meant for members who are belowe the EU standard of living. They get total access, but no free movement, but special conditions for investments and extra money from the EU.
As soon as noticeable increase of "wealth" shows up, the have to do the next step.

Now they can choose, become a full member or more like Sweden or Switzerland. If they choose to be a member, they would be inside the EU but not inside the Euro or defence union. The defence union, just like the Euro are free to choose and both have several steps, before you become a full member.
The final step is to become part of the USE.

If you choose not to become a member, you have no right to vote, still have to pay into the EU budged and accept all freedoms vut don't have to be part of schengen.
Yes I'm sure that the eastern drive was a UK and US agenda. It was also a German agenda. Germany took the DDR from the eastern sphere and made it an integral part of the new Germany. Germany wanted Poland in (and Lithuania) to push the border well away from the eastern edge of Germany.
I wouldn't call the reunification an east agenda...
I also doubt that Germany's intention was to push the border away from itself.
My point of view is, that Germany tried to repeat history. What worked with France, should now work with Poland as well.
The problem comes back to the same problem as ever: the euro and the attempt to use the currency to create a single sovereign state in defiance of the will of the people.
Defiance of the will of the people... mmmhh... not so really.

Yes, I agree, I didn't liked the idea of the Euro, in the 90s (I knew about the problems and feared a lire like curreny). So as many, but if you ask the people if they would like to return back to the national currency, the majority would say NO. Even in Greece...
Never the less, was it a failure to create a currency, without a way closer union. But this doesn't mean it will have to fail... it will be as always. As soon as the pressure is big enough, the EU will start to move.