Limits of globalisation and limits for EU commision

I have read the Jean Claude Juncker speech and I must say that I am glad that someone stirred some debate in the European countries.
This speech made me think about decisions,globalisation,speed and stability.
The cheap transports made the globalisation possible and world much more instable.
The systems to be stable they must have a negative feedback loop, for example in order that a car to stay on the road, it must have a driver to look a the road and to turn the wheel.
But if we have a delay in this feedback loop, driver reacts too slow for example, at high speeds the system (car) will become unstable, because the driver will try to overcompensate. The only solution is to drive slower.
But the international competition doesn't allow you to drive slower.

A good example of instability created by delayed feedback is the Iran SUA relation.
USA overthrow Iranian prime minister Mossadegh in 1953, replacing him with the Shah. Shah was overthrown by Islamic revolution in 1979, and the Iranian-US relations are sour since then.
Between cause and effect was a delay of 26 years.
If the delay was shorter, let's say that Iranians somehow would punish USA for overthrowing Mossadegh, the USA wouldn't overthrow the democratic elect Iranian government and would start a negotiation about oil reserves in 1953 not about the nuclear program of Iran in 2016.
Another example is from nature: the trees give oxygen,regulate weather and fix soil.
If we cut 1 tree nothing happens because we have a buffer, the rest of the trees produce enough oxygen and drain enough water.
We cut 1000 trees, nothing happens, we get money and we develop a forestry industry and we cut trees for decades without something to happen.
Till one day the soil starts eroding, we have flood and droughts.Now we have a feedback that is telling us that we should stop cutting trees. Too late.

The best example of instable situation kept stable by a good and fast feedback is the nuclear threat during Cold War: if one side launched missiles the other would do the same.
The feedback was very fast in few hours after you pressed the button you received the feedback in the form of enemy nuclear missiles.This made th e rulers think twice.

What would happen if we would have the same feedback for damaging the environment? What if when we spill chemical wastes on a field we would lose our crop and die of hunger?
This type of feedback we have it before the railroads, the local communities survived with the local agricultural products. Then and now in poor rural communities from Romania, people take more care about their land.
Coincidently, now  the demand for local products rose with the awareness of the environment impact. Maybe, we as a society we organize our self to be stable.

Maybe the fact that we have in the world long feedback loops with delays, which determine instability, determines an isolationism in some countries such as USA and UK.
What the Europe shall do?
First define which feedback loops have delays.And decide where to act and where to give freedom to national governments.
For example: unemployment  in Romania it is a long feedback loop for Bruxelles: it must gather data, discuss within among other  issues, then implement some measures to be carried out by local authorities.
The feedback loop between national government  it is faster, the collection of data is faster, the interest is immediate and te measures can be implemented faster.
So the national government should replace the EU commission, and EU to be only a trade agreement?
Not at all. There are some issues, like defense and foreign policy where the national government might react slow
For example: Russia attacks Finland, and the French government should take a position.
Finland is far from France and it is not of interest, second France has some special relation with Russia (see armament deals), why should they bother?

Till the situation becomes worse for France, the situation will become worse for Finland and for members of EU from the Baltic Sea.
An supra national organization like EU, or NATO, will feel threaten faster because its border is at the Baltic sea not at the Rhine, and it will react faster.

In my opinion that EU should do few things but well, for more countries.
A 2 speed EU will drive to disintegration of EU due to economic polarization.
EU could become a supranational state with economic discriminations between its citizens.
Habsburgic empire was a supra national state with discrimination between nationalities and it collapsed after WW1, when the nations didn't want to fight for it.
The only multinational state that is working is Switzerland.
Switzerland started as treaty between cantons with equal rights, and the first topics that they agree were extradition of criminals,freedom of trade and common defence.
Let's learn from swiss modesty and start small.

From United States to disunited Europe

I have read a recent article which describes the 6 rebellions, before the American Revolution. One of the main grievances of the rebellious colonists against British government was that it took no actions against of the native Americans who attacked colonies.
So the rebels took the matters in their own hands and massacred every native American that they encounter, including the peaceful native Americans that were baptised and tried to adopt English customs.
Now the people from Western Europe are complaining that the government don't do enough to stop the attacks of the terrorists.
It is the danger that people will take matter in their hands and start to attack Muslims.
The trend is started, in East Germany the refugee from Syria are attacked by extreme right, despite the fact that all the terrorists attacks from London,Madrid,Paris and Bruxelles were done by citizens born and raised. in that countries.
In 1775 a complacent British government and support from France and Spain for rebels, split the 13 colonies  from British Empire.
Now a complacent European Commision and a right wing movement fuelled by Russia can split the European Union.
The cracks appear, an old member of European Union, Britain is asking itself if it worth pursuing the dream of European Union.
The Eastern Europe integrated itself in EU because of Russia scare, the Western powers accepted them because they sought economic expansion, cheap labour,new resources and new markets.
Now the western powers are upset because the ungrateful ragged child who begged to be received in EU, doesn't obey orders and doesn't align to the interests of the West, and doesn't want refugees.
The difference between British Empire and EU is that between the actors it is a dialogue and no one can use force, I think that Europe will be reorganized and strengthen. What we see now is a powershift from its centre in Bruxelles, to Poland in East and to the Britain in West.
The problem will be in Eastern Europe where the only check for corrupt politicians is the Bruxelles.

Lasati mortii in pace

Cred ca PSD-ul este bantuit de necrofilie, deoarece dupa inhumarea lui Carol al-II-lea cu onoruri militare, si trimiterea la vot a mortilor din Teleorman, a aparut pe afisele lor un mormant.
Este vorba de Mausoleul de la Marasesti unde odihnesc osemintele eroilor ce au aparat tara.
Totusi ce vor sa ne promita cu acest afis?
Vom avea garantat o noua batalie de la Marasesti in viitorul razboi mondial?
Este de presupus ca da, deoarece batalia de la Marasesti a avut loc dupa ce a fost pierduta aproape toata tara, datorita incompetentilor numiti pe pile (vezi cazul generalului Socec) si a politicii externe cretine de cucerire a unor teritorii fara valoare (ma refer la Cadrilater), iar PSD-ul are potentialul de a infaptui conditiile aparitiei unui Marasesti in urmatorul razboi. Din pacate taranii sunt plecati prin Spania, si nu vor putea sa apere tara.

Pentru PSD-isti cu afisele lor demagogice am o dedicatie din partea altui mort:

"Peste toate o lopată de ţărână se depune.
Mâna care-au dorit sceptrul universului şi gânduri
Ce-au cuprins tot universul încap bine-n patru scânduri...
Or să vie pe-a ta urmă în convoi de-nmormântare,
Splendid ca o ironie cu priviri nepăsătoare...
Iar deasupra tuturora va vorbi vrun mititel,
Nu slăvindu-te pe tine... lustruindu-se pe el
Sub a numelui tău umbră. Iată tot ce te aşteaptă.
Ba să vezi... posteritatea este încă şi mai dreaptă.

Neputând să te ajungă, crezi c-or vrea să te admire?
Ei vor aplauda desigur biografia subţire
Care s-o-ncerca s-arate că n-ai fost vrun lucru mare,
C-ai fost om cum sunt şi dânşii... Măgulit e fiecare
Că n-ai fost mai mult ca dânsul. Şi prostatecele nări
Şi le umflă orişicine în savante adunări
Când de tine se vorbeşte. S-a-nţeles de mai nainte
C-o ironică grimasă să te laude-n cuvinte. "

Mihai Eminescu "Scrisoarea I"