Learning about the EU is a very complicated topic, and it really depends on what topic areas you want to learn about and how far you're willing to go. It's a very complicated mess of exceptions.

---

A Brief History

The project of European integration started in 1951 with the Treaty of Paris, setting up the European Coal & Steel Community. Basically, it was intended to put issues relating to the production of coal and steel under a supranational authority (High Authority) and make it so France and Germany were so integrated in this field that going to war would be virtually impossible, whether they wanted to or not. It set up a High Authority, a Common Assembly, a Court of Justice and a Council of Ministers.

In 1957, the 6 founding countries (France, West Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg) then set up the European Economic Community (the single market) & the European Atomic Energy Communities via the Treaties of Rome which were supposed to create a single market by integrating the countries economically and the handling of atomic energy specifically. These shared the Common Assembly and court of the ECSC, but not the Commission and Council (there were 3 separate Commissions and Councils for each "community").

In 1965, the 6 countries agreed to merge the 3 separate communities into 1 via the Merger Treaty. The 3 communities were still legally separate, but they had the same Commission and Council overseeing them. This was the birth of the "European Communities".

In 1970, the Treaty of Luxembourg gave the Parliament its first real powers over budgetary matters. The Parliament could reject so-called "non-compulsory" spending.

In 1973, the first Community enlargement took place, when Denmark, the United Kingdom and Ireland joined. In 1981, Greece then joined. The 3rd expansion then followed in 1986, when Portugal and Spain joined.

In 1975, the Treaty of Brussels gave the Parliament the power to reject the budget as a whole for the first time, and set up the European Court of Auditors (which audits the EU budget yearly).

In 1979, the first elections to the European Parliament took place, which the Treaty of Rome had provided for. They have been held every 5 years since then (the next election is in 2019).

In 1986, the Single European Act was signed, with a primary aim of completing the "Single Market" by 1993. It gave the European Parliament more power by making enlargement and association agreements require EP consent to come into force, and it gave the EP minor power on some proposed laws via the "cooperation" procedure, though the Council could overrule the Parliament.

In 1990, the Schengen Agreement abolished internal border controls between Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands and West Germany, though this wasn't part of the EU legal framework at the time.

In 1992, the Maastrict Treaty was signed, which established the "European Union" as it's now known, giving the EU more powers in certain areas, and it led to the process that created the euro. It also expanded the Parliament's power. The "co-decision" procedure was introduced to some areas, meaning the Council and Parliament now legislated on an equal footing for those areas and laws required the approval of both to come into effect.

In 1995, the EU was enlarged again, when Finland, Austria and Sweden joined, bringing the EU up to 15 members.

In 1998, the Amsterdam Treaty was signed, which expanded the "co-decision" procedure to more laws. It also brought the Schengen Agreement under the EU framework.

In 2002, the Nice Treaty was then signed, with a view of reforming the internal structures of the EU so it would be ready for a large expansion just a few years later. This again extended the EP's powers.

In 2004, the EU had its largest expansion yet, adding 10 members (Cyprus, Malta, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia, Czechia).

In 2005, the Constitution for Europe was rejected by referendums in France and the Netherlands. It was supposed to incorporate all Treaties into 1 Constitution and gave the EU more powers.

In 2007, Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU, making it the EU27. The Lisbon Treaty was also signed that year, which formed the EU as a separate legal personality and expanded the EU's powers even more. It also expanded the Parliament's power, giving it "co-decision" (now known as the 'ordinary legislative procedure) over most laws, and EP consent was required for virtually all international agreements.

In 2013, Croatia joined the Union, bringing the EU up to its current 28 member states.

In 2016, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union by 52-48, which it is currently in the process of doing.

In 2017, 60 years after the Treaties of Rome were signed, the current Commission started a debate on the Future of Europe, which is still ongoing and is expected to go on until 2019, right after the UK leaves the EU and right before the 2019 Parliament elections.

---

The Institutions

The European Commission is the closest to an executive of the institutions. It is made up of 28 Commissioners, one from each member state, and is supposed to represent the overall interests of the EU. It proposes almost all laws, and it monitors the application of law in the EU to make sure it's all being followed.

The European Council is the body where heads of state/government (e.g. Merkel, Macron) meet at least 4 times a year to tackle the most politically difficult questions. It sets the overall political direction of the EU, but it's not a body that decides on legislation.

The Council of the EU (Council of Ministers) is comprised of government ministers from the 28 member states, split into 10 different configarations. Justice ministers will meet in the Justice and Home Affairs Council, for example, while foreign ministers meet in the Foreign Affairs Council. It represents the views of the governments, and it decides on EU legislation and the EU's foreign policy.

The European Parliament is directly elected every 5 years by the voters of Europe, and it supposed to represent them. It decides on most, but not all, EU legislation. It has committees and plenary sessions.

The European Central Bank is where the monetary policy of the Eurozone is conducted, among other things, with its primary aim being price stability in the Eurozone (inflation rate close to but below 2%).

The Court of Justice of the EU obviously rules on disputes between institutions and member states, as well as whether certain EU laws are compatible with the Treaties. National courts also can ask the CJEU to intepret EU law when it affects a national case.

Finally, the European Court of Auditors is the body that audits the EU's spending each year and makes sure it's spent correctly/not wasted. It works with the European Parliament to scrutinise the Commission here.

---

How the Parliament "Works" (Basically)

Direct election are held every 5 years in each member state. There is a cap of 751 MEPs, with member states having at least 6 (e.g. Malta) and no more than 96 (e.g. Germany). Elections to the Parliament have to use some form of proportional system.

National parties affiliate themselves to European parties. For example, Angela Merkel's CDU is part of the European People's Party, which then form groups at the European level (the EPP Group in the European Parliament, for example).

The current composition of Parliament is:

• European People's Party (centre-right, pro-EU): 214
  
• Progressive Alliance of Socialist and Democrats (Centre-left, pro-EU): 189
  
• European Conservatives and Reformists (right wing, somewhat Eurosceptic): 74
  
• Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (centre, pro-EU): 68
  
• Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left (quite left wing, somewhat Eurosceptic): 52
  
• Greens/European Free Alliance (left wing, pro-EU): 51
  
• Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (quite right wing, Eurosceptic): 41
  
• Europe of Nations and Freedom (quite right wing, Eurosceptic): 40
  
• Non-Attached (no European party): 18
  
  For the vast majority of EU laws, the "ordianry legislative proceedure" is followed. This means that both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament co-legisislate on an equal basis, after a proposal from the Commission. They both have to agree on a text for a law to come into force, and both can reject said proposals should they so wish. For more info, check here.
  
  Other EP powers include:
  
  
• Having to consent to the conclusion of intentional agreements (e.g. the CETA trade deal between Canada and the EU couldn't have come into effect without EP consent)
  
• Being a joint budgetary arm of the EU, making decisions on the yearly EU budget on an equal level with the Council of Ministers
  
• Electing the Commission President, and having to confirm the entire College of Commissioners (like a Cabinet) before it takes office
  
• Being able to remove (censure) the Commission at any point during its office (this was nearly done to the Santer Commission in 1999, but it resigned before that could happen)
  
• Normal scrutiny work of the Commission and Council, tabling written/oral questions, scrutiny by committees/reports etc.
  
  ---
  

  For More Detail
  

  
  

• EP Factsheets
  
• A Concise Introduction to the European Union
  
• Wikipedia
  
  The New European Union series are quite good generally, but a lot are tailored for those doing study at University rather than for more 'casual' reading.
  
  If you're confused about anything, want any more detail, feel free to ask!

I published several studies from the US Energy Department, several economists journals, Brookings & the World Bank commenting on its non affordability. I'll take their data over your word.

The word "over the long horizon" is key there. Research on recycling is in its infancy. And you can't judge the actual by the ideal.

If you don't know about the role of nuclear energy programs in the implicit maintenance of nuclear weapons I don't know what to tell you. If it's tinfoil hat, so then so are most US policy journals who explicitly advocate it for that reason..

You actually didn't dispute my claims about Cheronbyl or Fukushima, as my claim was they were due to the confluence of corruption and other factors or as you call it "a string of bad decisions by very arrogant people". The fact is, though, we live in a world where arrogance, corruption, bad decisions, short sightedness, human error, dishonesty, asymmetric information, competing normative goals, competing evaluative frameworks & competing bureaucracies.

If we lived in a word where the human, political, social & corruption aspect of a socio-technical system could just be assumed away, we wouldn't need politics or economics, just technocracy & central planning. Again you're confusing actually-existing nuclear with its ideal posited form.

---

We're talking about the construction and support for valid alternatives, that's the point. Green energy & investment already has very high labor induction & a high spending multiplier. Nuclear's spending multiplier is 1.04 locally, 1.2 state & 1.8 nationally in the US and is 1.5 in UK. This takes into account its dynamic effects over a longer period and its implicit positive externalities.


Nuclear energy is so capital intensive, only 7% ends up as labor income--it creates very few long term jobs relative to other capital investment. It has enormous fixed costs of investment, but very low variable & unit costs of production. It requires highly specialized knowledge, immense amounts of credit, asymmetric/incomplete information, intense government regulation & massive human capital outlays.

Furthermore, nuclear plants must be de-commissioned after about 60 years. Many, if not most, never--once subsidies are included--actually compensated for their costs. Their high cost of construction & induced fixed costs means that productivity gains almost always happen exogenously to the plants and are embodied in new plant construction rather than improvements in old ones. As with any firm, it sees some endogenous productivity growth the first few years as it 'breaks in' and then it steadies.

In addition, to this plants take up large amounts of space, require lots of land & infrastructure, require sophisticated & safe mechanisms of storage, transport, waste, security, backup systems, grid connection, warning systems & so on. People in the US generally support nuclear power in the abstract, but people in the US do not like living near nuclear plants and especially not nuclear waste. You may say that they should be willing, but the fact is they currently aren't. This means two things: nuclear plants & waste end up near those with the least political or economic capital to prevent it, and nuclear plants and waste are not necessarily allocated to their optimum location.

High fixed costs, low variable costs, sunk costs, specialized knowledge, high regulation, asymmetric information, need for credit, and need for subsidies each independently predict monopolistic competition & economic discontinuities. Regulation, information, energy, political capital, geo-politics, infrastructure, cost structure & knowledge base also make it rife for corruption, human error, capture of state regulation by industry, capture of industry by the state & rent-extraction. This is not a good nexus to be at.

The fact is for nuclear to be viable it needs to be heavily subsidized, in a highly regulated energy market, with stable energy prices & a low constant social discount rate.

In liberalized energy markets and/or markets with either highly variable or low energy costs and/or in the presence of large or hyperbolic discount rates, the efficiency characterizations just don't add up.

---

As I already stated I support R&D into nuclear--especially waste recycling, fusion & nuclear-power space travel. I also don't think it wise to just decommission every plant. I am not anti-science and my problem with nuclear is not the belief that all plants are accidents waiting to happen, nor do I think that environmental concerns are as bad as many critics say.

What I do believe that facts about the social, cultural, political, economic, epistemic, institutional & infrastructural world are still facts; even if some or all are contingent & plastic, this says nothing about the costs entailed in changing them.

Both critics and boosters of nuclear tend to refer to idealized worlds. The critics point to the possible outcomes, to things which haven't happened, like terrorist dirty bombs or nuclear war, to potential excessive waste contamination, and to high profile meltdowns. The boosters discuss nuclear always by its idealized theoretical version, or its best case practices in the world--the best cases already don't match the theoretical optimum & the 'average' does not approach the best case.

All the errors that scientists point out cause nuclear crises--arrogance, corruption, poor communication, vested interests, ignorance, behavioral rationality, poorly informed actors--are, its true, contingent facts about human life, but they are, nonetheless, facts--we are not doing away with them any time soon. Nuclear boosters also often pointed to the 'potentials' of nuclear, long off in the future. While renewables boosters do this too, they do so based on quantitative rates of productivity, capacity, storage & other growth. Nuclear energy innovations are very slow from the university to the plant--there's no simple linear innovation there.


---

Anyway, another point is this. Of 19 nuclear power countries, 15 are present, former or sharing nuclear states, 2 have plants in development or pseudo-operation, 1 (Italy, a sharer) bans it, 1 (Israel) doesn't say. Of 31 nuclear energy countries, 15 are nuclear powers, 12 partake in a direct nuclear power alliance or the militaries of states with nukes. Of the remaining 4 peaceful, unconnected ones, Brazil & Argentina's are insubstantial at <3% of energy, Taiwan's is being decommissioned & existed to challenge China's. Only 1--Switzerland, is substantial (@ 33%), viable, and peaceful. In other words, 27/28 viable current nuclear energy states are nuclear weapon connected states. If 17/19 (~89.4%) of nuclear weapon countries are, have been or are building nuclear energy and if 27/28 (~96.4%) of substantial, long term nuclear energy are also nuclear weapon connected, it strains credulity to not think they're connected.

Why else would Italy ban civilian production? Why else does the world aim to prevent Iran from producing nuclear energy? Why else is the US Nuclear Weapon's program under the department of energy? Why does the international agency regulate both weapons & energy? Why else are policy makers so terrified of nuclear plants in reach in Pakistan, Afghanistan & elsewhere? Why else would Saudi Arabia AND UAE--two countries abundant in two energy sources: oil & solar--be pursuing costly nuclear energy (for them it's costly & low benefit). Why do North African states, also abundant in solar, and some in oil, want nuclear energy? Why does Indonesia? The answer is weaponry--its a gateway program to weapons and everyone knows it. Nuclear energy & weaponry are complimentary, your "if its used in one, it's not used in the other" is disingenuous consider the comparative amounts required, and the different stages & qualities involved.

Nuclear weapons are as big a threat to human existence as climate change, so trading one catalyst for the other is advisable only where absolutely necessary.

---

A carbon tax is not more politically unlikely than a de-liberalized, state controlled, energy market--it's in fact much MORE likely. This means for capitalist countries with non state control (America, Canada, Australia, UK, Mexico etc) renewables are far more viable. For state capitalist countries (China, India, Brazil, South Africa) or mixed & regulated economies (France, Germany, Scandinavian countries) nuclear energy is more viable but so are renewables--especially hydro-electric, geothermal (where it exists) & somewhat wind. R&D into solar, wind & water power is making great strides.

The biggest need though is refabbing & declines in energy use & waste--and improvement in storage. On 80% of refab jobs, the turnaround is 2 years to compensate cost, the maximum is 10 years or so. For nuclear, they take 10 years to break in alone. If you exclude their subsidies, their profits just break even or don't compensate--subsidies to nuclear in the US amount to 100-120% of energy produced! Refabbing is highly labor intensive--80-90% and has a LARGE spending multipler, up to 2.0 (not including induced job creation, positive externalities & cost savings!)

Vaclav Smil (Author of Energy & Civilization) points out that more than new energy we need to use current energy better.

Most nuclear plants are state-owned, that's fine if you're into it, but try getting it passed in the US, Canada, Australia, UK & other such countries.

Cheers.

I'm sure I'm to the left of this sub, but that's irrelevant.

You've misquoted me, I didn't say Islam is incompatible with Western culture, I said
>Maher's anti-religiosity isn't Islam specific, Islam just has the most incompatibilities with western culture of the popular religions at present.

Yes, there are plenty of Muslims who have had incredible contributions to systems used in the West and to western nations generally but the values and ideas that shape the west have had a lot more time to brush up against Judaism and Christianity which have been popular in the west for centuries. Both Judaism and Christianity also have had popular interpretations with huge volumes of incompatibilities with western culture but over time both religions have morphed into less regressive / oppressive versions of themselves through cultural combat with enlightenment values.

A strict reading of significant parts of the Torah and New Testament will result in a very long list of incompatibilities with our current culture as well but these readings have been depopularized over time while coexisting with liberal values. Interpretations that de-emphasize the areas of incompatibility and emphasize the areas of compatibility are possible within Islam just as they were possible with Judaism and Christianity.

It's inarguable that Western culture and Islam have developed largely in separate ecosystems which has given Islam less time for creative destruction with enlightenment values that are needed to reconcile some of these conflicts. Short of taking a cultural relativist approach to this disconnect, I'm not sure how any liberal could contest this. That relativism would also come with strings attached that prevent criticism of the repression present in many of these countries in which the more harmful or regressive interpretations of Islam are popularized as well which I'd hope liberals would find unacceptable.

At this point there aren't really any Christian theocracies that are burning witches or holding inquisitions, but there are still Muslim theocracies that are killing apostates and pushing sexist, homophobic, and anti-pluralistic policies and laws that need to be directly addressed and condemned. Maher is right to call out these injustices and those who've followed him for any length of time are aware that he's an equal opportunity offender in that he criticizes illiberalism (as he sees it) whether it's in Utah or Riyadh. Maher uses the 'American Taliban' label to refer to the Tea Party and other Christian conservatives who try to tear down the barrier between church and state; 'Religious' his documentary-of-sorts on the subject went through all sorts of pseudo-science and focused far more on Christiainity than Islam.

I don't think Maher is the best voice on the subject, but I do think he gets more flak on the subject than he deserves and I think liberals make themselves look bad by dismissing some of what he says in the way they do with derisive claims of 'Islamophobia' conflating his beliefs with those of actual Islamophobes.

Maajid Nawaaz is a fantastic source for quality writing on the subject and he frequently raises these challenges in productive conversations. The book, Citizen Islam does a very good job of establishing how the incompatibilities between some interpretations of Islam that are popular today are not fundamental to Islam itself and how Muslims can integrate into western society very successfully without having to give up on their cultural and religious heritage.

>So its totally fine that they put him in jail for teaching an idea?

No, of course not. The condemnation was certainly unjust. But nevertheless the idea is not that the Catholic Church was opposed to science as such (it was, on the contrary, the greatest sponsor of scientific progress until the Enlightenment and even today still tries to advance science) but rather that the Church grows quite irritated when people present as scientific fact that which has not been demonstrated to be fact.

There was also a political dimension to Galileo's trial and condemnation:

>As a scientist, Galileo was perfectly correct in rejecting this half baked philosophizing. But he grossly miscalculated Urban's tolerance by writing the great Dialogue. There he not only made it clear that he considered the defenders of Aristotle and Ptolemy to be intellectual clowns, but he made Simplicio, one of the chief interlocuters of the dialogue, into a silly mouthpiece for Urban's views on cosmology. Galileo was mocking the very person he needed as his protector, a pope whose hubris did not take such barbs with equanimity. At the same time, Galileo alienated the Jesuit order with his violent attacks on one of its astronomers, Horatio Grassi, over the nature of comets (and, in fact, the Jesuit was right — comets are not exhalations of the atmosphere, as Galileo supposed.)

And as for this:

> how is favoring one religion not somewhat harmful to the rest?

For the reason that I have stated: within a society in which the right to freedom of religion is respected, the establishment of an official religion creates the structural and systemic environment in which religion itself can contribute more fully to the public good. In this way adherents of minority religions (especially those who are immigrants) are made to feel welcome in the host society. The data seems to corroborate this claim: in England, which has an established church, accommodation for the rights of minority religious groups is high; in Germany, which has a "public corporation" system that kind of half-institutionalizes religions, accommodation is moderate; and in France, which subscribes to a strict conception of secularism that is defined by the exclusion of all religions from the public sphere, accommodation of minority religious needs is pitifully poor. The multicultural model therefore seems to be functioning best in the society where there is an established church.

The act of treating religion as something that is to be welcomed into the public discussion instead of excluded actually enables greater societal cohesion.

Well, regarding your question about why more men didn't die, Cavalry is the arm of the Army that would pursue and actually inflict the majority of casualties on a retreating Army. Caesar's Cavalry was totally blown out and tired, so they couldn't actually chase very far. When an Army is totally defeated, they tend to scatter. Especially in this case, because Pompeius literally left the battlefield when he saw his army start to falter, gathered some things up, and fled. Caesar ordered his men to continue to push until they seized the camp of the Pompeians by night, which meant that the retreating army had nowhere to hide and regroup. This wasn't always the case, and it all totally depends on circumstances. For instance, at Canae, the entire Roman forces save some people that were able to escape, were massacred in the Carthaginian double envelopment. It was the perfect battle, the one every commander dreams of, because trapping the entire enemy army on the inside of your own for a slaughter is incredibly difficult and rare. In the case of Pharsalus, the Pompeian Army had plenty of time to retreat before Caesar could cut them off, therefore they just ran and ran.


The only thing Caesar could do was to take the camp. You can't pursue thousands of stragglers or you will throw your own army into disarray when it comes to command and control. He didn't know Pompey had fled yet, and his troops needed to eat. Badly. Basically, once Caesar did that, Pompey's Army practically disintegrated or joined him. Politics plays a huge part in this, because Caesar wanted to shed as little Roman blood as possible, so he spared every last troop that he could, and spared every Roman senator he defeated the first time. So minimizing casualties was actually a political tool in that entire war, as well as in that battle. Even if the Cavalry could chase the retreating Pompeians down, I don't think Caesar would have let the dogs loose, unless it was for the purpose of capture. Propaganda was a tool that Caesar used daily, and what better way to sell yourself as the good guy in the conflict than to end it as bloodlessly as possible and spare everybody you defeated? He had to convince people that he was not going to be the next Sulla, or Marius.



As for reading, there are a ton of books. You can get some basic ones for general tactics, but if you want in-depth study, you basically need specialized books.



http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Medieval-Warfare-Military-History/dp/0895292629
This is one of the first that I bought. It goes over the basic timeline, and outlines the battles. It also has maps of the battles that will help piece it together with the text.


For Caesar, Goldsworthy's book is the best I've read. http://www.amazon.com/Caesar-Life-Colossus-Adrian-Goldsworthy/dp/0300126891/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427748435&sr=1-3&keywords=adrian+goldsworthy



I would honestly recommend just rolling over to Half Price Books and finding the Military History section. Or Ancient History. Look for books that are a bit more specialized, unless you just want a basic introduction to it all from a book that spans a long timeline. I would recommend more, but all my books are in storage at the moment because I'm in a bit of a weird living situation after moving states. If you find some good stuff, and burn through them, feel free to message me again a few months down the road and I should be able to access my books easily at that point and give you some recommendations.

You are just seeing the tip of the iceberg friend. As many as they deport, round up, lock up, or let them be beaten by Golden Dawn members, the influx of immigrants won't stop.

EU law has deliberately turned Greece into a buffer zone of immigration while they (edit: I mean the states of EU) also struggle with maybe the biggest issue in the planet nowadays. These waves of immigrants were created by the western economic system and civilization that capitalized and exploited for centuries the third world. Now that there is a surplus of people there are no more places for them to go. So now they knock on your door but you say "I don't care, let them go somewhere else" while your country contributed to this (as a western country and a member of the EU - and even practically, we are in the NATO you know, NATO attacks Afghanistan and Iraq, immigrants fled to Greece). We buy our iPhones and iPads and our cool trendy shoes that are made by child labor in Asia but when these people knock on our doors, no, no, we don't want them here.

Who are you and our politicians to deem a human being as "legal" and "illegal'? Have you ever thought about that?

I can't really use a reply on reddit to convince you to see the bigger picture. I will link some books for you to read though and maybe these will change your mind:


Wasted Lives: Modernity and Its Outcasts

The End of Human Rights

Europe's 21st Century Challenge

Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life - this book really sheds a light on the "legal" and "illegal" issue for humans.


Guests and Aliens

>[...] our freedom depends on the severity of other states, especially, but not only, neighbouring states whose populations wish to leave their own country. Our freedom supposes more controls at the borders and more suspicion against tourism of the poor. Tourism as the freedom to move is for the rich but the poor are by definition a threat against the order as they are supposed to want to stay in a host state in order to profit from social benefits.

EU (and the western civilization in general) speaks a lot about freedom and liberty but it can only comprehend that freedom in a context of banishment of the "others". Raising walls, patrolling the borders stricter, rounding up people to lock them up in hideous detainment centers all around Europe won't stop them from coming. We are only making their road more difficult resulting in more of them being drown or frozen to death.

Oh and by the way even if you drive away from Greece all the "foreigners" that won't solve the crisis. Immigrants in Greece nowadays are just the scapegoats for anger to be unleashed and votes to be gained by the same people that brought you here and by the people that today are speaking of driving away "foreigners" but after will also speak of driving away the ones that aren't "pure Greeks" - if you catch my drift.

>I find it hilarious that you used Germany in 1945 as good example for a deflationary economy. You may want to give this a read:

Why? The source you sited refers to the hyper-inflation of 1923; not the collapse of the Reichsmark in 1945.

You need to read good sources instead of The Zionist Monthly. If want to see the brilliance of how the Nazis set up their economy, read this book. The author was the last American journalist in Germany prior to the beginning of WW2.

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Europe-John-Gunther/dp/B0008665CS#

If you want a good grounding in European Union politics, since that is my speciality, I can help you there.

Firstly, I would avoid all of the 'airport' read books written by journalists of a particular bent pushing their narrative on today's politics or Brexit, so "All out War", etc. (This goes for whether you want more info about Westminster politics, or UK interaction with EU politics.) Whilst they may be entertaining, they're written to "push" a narrative or viewpoint of the author, and aren't meant to be neutral accounts or fact laden at all.

For EU affairs I recommend two textbooks that would be required reading for any undergraduate studying EU politics, and serve as a core quick reference texts for any postgrad looking at it too. These will help you to actually base your opinions on the EU on some core facts and/or well established arguments (something that is sorely lacking on here).

• European Union Politics (Fifth Edition) by Michelle Cini and Nieves Pérez-Solórzano Borragán
  
  
• The Government and Politics of the European Union (8th edition), The European Union Series by Neill Nugent
  
  Both of these should be fairly cheap to pick up second hand, but I do not recommend purchasing earlier versions than those I have listed, since a lot has happened in the intervening years since their previous editions were published.
  
  Both of these textbooks are laid out in a concise and simple to follow manner, with key infoboxes for further reading and detail. They both look at theories of integration (why member states chose to integrate/who are the actors), the history and evolution of the Union, and the logic behind certain policies, how its institutions operate and have evolved, how they interact with each other both in theory and practice, arguments as to what the "Union" is, and finally critiques (and counterarguments to them) of the Union and its policies.
  
  You can either read through them chapter by chapter, or keep them at hand, and when something comes up, flick through and examine them.
  
  I can recommend further text books if you so wish.
  
  Edit: PS. I see others on this post are recommending several political theory texts from 17th century authors and later. My tip is to find textbooks on political theory if that is something you want to look into. Whilst those texts are important, there are many interpretations of them and their often flowery, and to put it bluntly longwinded prose, (Hobbes taking several pages to discuss what is "power" springs to mind) can make digesting them difficult. A good textbook will digest the key arguments from political theory texts and lay them out in a nice concise manner, with critiques and counter arguments. You can then go and read the actual texts that stand out if you so wish.

> Almost half our country voted for independence. What's that if not a radical idea?

Ha! Great point. It renewed my faith in people a little too. Though still a ways to go!
I was referring to the book mentioned here.
I hereby promise I'll start it once I'm done reading Honourable Friends? by Caroline Lucas

There are no books that can adequately cover British politics to the extent that you're asking. Also, politics and economics are intertwined to the point that you cannot understand one without the other. Freakonomics, for example explains how the two cannot be meaningful separated and is an interesting place to start any political journey.

Depending on your background knowledge 30-Second Politics can give you a grounding of what all the different terminology means and Sex, Lies and the Ballot Box provides useful insight as to the difference between how politics is preached and practiced. Also, The Plan is essential reading to understand our current government.

You've already mentioned Douglass Murray's Neoconservatism: Why We Need It, which I would also thoroughly endorse. Further to that I'd recommend Thomas Pikkety's Capital in the 21st Century which although about economics is so closely tied to current political thought that it really is extremely useful reading

Found a article for some context on her... will post more as I find it:

Link to Heavy.com article

> From 2001 to 2008, Farkas worked on the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee. And in the late 1990s, Farkas worked in Bosnia as a human rights officer for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Link to Fox article

> Retired Army Major General William L. Nash, a former commander of U.S. forces in Bosnia who was reportedly known for his "bluntness and political acumen," worked with Farkas on the Council on Foreign Relations and speaks highly of his former colleague.

Link to her book on Bosnia

> This timely study constitutes an outstanding contribution to the literature on ethnic conflict and contemporary U.S. foreign policy. Based on meticulous research, first-hand work in Bosnia in 1996

As in 1996 the same year that Hillary visited Bosnia and reportedly claimed she came in under sniper fire.

It's not evidence, but this book (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Unleashing-Demons-Inside-Story-Brexit/dp/1473652480/) does give an interesting insight. Sir Oliver writes that the the prime minister had to plead with May to come off the fence about Brexit. There were serious concerns in the Cameron camp at the time that she was an "enemy agent" that would join the Boris/Gove team and come out publicly in support of Brexit.

I'm not sure how she can screw the public (or 52% of the public anyway). Article 50 has been triggered. She has spoken publicly several times that she's only interested in pursuing a hard-brexit.

EU leaders have also said repeatedly that there can be no single-market access without accepting free-movement of EU citizens. It would be political suicide if she agreed to free movement at this point. And if they cave on it, there would be strong precedent for any number of other countries to leave and expect to retain their single market access.

I can't see any alternative to a hard brexit at this point.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0198749953/?coliid=I1VZM8NH4D8427&colid=2ZKBN4RSJSYJV&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it - Catherine Barnard - The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0198789130/?coliid=I3FQZDCZWZQQW7&colid=2ZKBN4RSJSYJV&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it - Catherine Barnard and Steve Peers (as mentioned above, he is really very good)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0198708939/?coliid=I2G9WKHW05Z4U3&colid=2ZKBN4RSJSYJV&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it - EU Politics.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Institutions-European-Union-New/dp/0198737416/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524610636&sr=1-2-fkmr1&keywords=dermot+oleary+eu - Dermot Hodson, John Peterson 9eds) - Institutions of the EU.

A simple look on Amazon or Oxford University Press/Routledge etc will give you a great start for this type of text book and references will point you to further reading if you find yourself interested. The links I posted are most recent versions which I have read a bit but this type was my UG and PG essentially.

Respectfully, you are woefully oversimplifying Putin and his geopolitical game.

I recommend you check out Putin's Master Plan, which was written by a scholar on Russian affairs. This guy has been warning the world about Putin and his agenda since before it was fashionable to do so. Putin's agenda is far more complex, nefarious, and brilliant than you think.

That said, I do agree that he won't be successful and that ultimately, he'll fail... provided Western powers (especially NATO) stand up to him.

As I expect we can agree, the minds behind the official Leave campaign are not this generation's brightest.

The problem with their brag about how it was one of their soundbites that won it is that the public was already opposed prior to the campaign.

It's not my field of expertise and I haven't these books:


Financial Market Imperfections and Corporate Decisions: Lessons from the Transition Process in Hungary (Contributions to Economics)

Amazon

Download

Hungary: The Politics of Transition (Postcommunist States & Nations)

Amazon

Download

The Politics of Pact-Making: Hungary’s Negotiated Transition to Democracy in Comparative Perspective

Download


(Mods, is it ok to post download links? The rules don't seem to prohibit them)

I think this is the only main study of the subject so far: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Populist-Radical-Central-Eastern-Europe/dp/1138839876

You might be worth looking at books about Franco's Spain as well.

Sth like that? I actually mistook one author for the other as I just noticed...
https://www.amazon.de/Gr%C3%BCnde-die-AFD-zu-w%C3%A4hlen/dp/1520837364/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1489593068&sr=8-2-spell

Found this on Cummings' wish list.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1118971507

Please send to Mr B Johnson, c/o Houses of Parliment, Westminster, London. SW1A 0AA.

OP isn’t writing the articles. The author of the article is also author of the book Putin’s Master Plan. So clearly he means Democrats should make bipartisan deals to stop Putin.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/British-Politics-Dummies-Julian-Knight/dp/1118971507

This is from a book they are charging £50 for not real research.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Brexit-Britain-Voted-Leave-European/dp/1316605043