All Easter European countries massively profited from joining the EU.
Romanias GDP jumped from 122 billion to 214 billion from 2006 to 2008 after joining in 2007.
Poland had a similar jump.
In addition eastern countries receive immense financial subsidies.
Ireland and Luxemburg more or less monetise the fact that they can give companies access to the European market.
For larger countries ( Italy, Germany, France) the benefits are less visible, but being able to negotiate with large markets on eye level is of immense value to exporting economies.
In addition, if you read the Schuman address you might realise that the EU project never was about economics, it was and is about lasting peace. The only founding nation of the union that saw it as purely economic union was the UK.
Finally, anticipating the matter of immigration:
Countries like Hungary, Greece and Italy that keep complaining about EU immigration policies, fail to acknowledge that in the absence of the EU they would be left alone with the arriving immigrants from Africa, while the rest of Europe would close its borders.
The problem with this approach is that you're talking about the past. Yes, Poland and others did profit from joining the EU, initially, but once EU realized that they changed the rules of the game. EU is not about economic prosperity anymore, it is all about "climate change", immigration and similar bullshit. Lisbon Treaty in particular redefined how EU works. The best thing to do right now is to leave the EU before it collapses.
Somebody has to pay for the subsidies. If poorer countries get them, richer mebmer countries will have to pay for them. Richer countries, like Iceland, will never get subsidies.
What about the inner borders? Often times "illegal" (not authorized being in the country) aliens come from the inner borders, which can not be effectively controlled as per Schengen.
During the 2015 migrant crisis, did not refugees end up traveling to Germany while first entering Greece and Italy? If Dublin regulation really applied, Germany would not need to take the responsibility of the majority of the asylum seekers. At the same time, that only concerns for the asylum seekers and not the unregistered aliens.
If European NGOs are free to pick up (mostly) economic illegal migrants a few miles off Libia and drop them in Italy, the former interior minister is prosecuted for blocking them (finally absolved), you see it's not a lack of will
The important border for immigrants is the coastline, not the land borders with other EU countries. We can’t close them and forcefully repatriate like Australia does due to “humanitarian” reasons and NGOs.
While the benefits of the EU for countries that are somewhat economically weak (and I include Czechia to the list) are obvious, Iceland is a different story. Iceland would be joining a union that is, on average, both less rich and less economically dynamic than Iceland. This could be economically disadvantageous for them; and being very far from the EU core, there aren't that many network effects to benefit from.
> I preferred the culture and diversity that came from each country having its own national identity.
We still have or national identity. I live in Hamburg/Germany. Our identity is largely European since hundreds of years (see for example our history in the Hanse), before the German nation existed. We have a strong Regional and European identity.
> Why would we celebrate the EU's efforts to homogenise our national cultures?
The EU doesn't do that. In many ways it actually preserves local (and also regional) cultures. It sets a framework for democracy and law in Europe.
> I preferred the EU when it was a trading union as opposed to a utopian political experiment.
A trading union doesn't influence culture and politics?
The EU was never thought as just a trading union. It was set up as a process to get a peaceful Union for the European Countries after hundreds of years of wars. After the WWII which made clear that lasting peace can be achieved by deep cooperation.
Look at the thousands of years of Europe. People were moving in Europe, to Europe and from Europe. If they did not had the freedom to do so, it was often done by force. Wars, slave trade, migrations, ... that has been in our history for thousands of years.
Now EU citizens can do it peacefully.
Freedom of movement in the EU also does not mean "people can move freely in Europe". It's a right for EU citizens. Not for all people. It's also for people who can actually afford to live at a new place.
Preserving a cultural heritage does not mean regions are suddenly cultural museums. Cultural regions also are not by single nations, they span across several nations or nations have several cultural regions.
For example in Germany there wasn't a 'Nation' for much of the history. Much of the culture came out of changing regions. Visit Munich, Aachen, Lübeck, Danzig (not even a part of Germany today) and look at their history. Different. Look at their cultural history: different. They are now living in a FEDERAL republic of states (Danzig is even in Poland, now). A Bundesrepublik of Bundesländer. This FEDERAL republic is also a member of the EU. People from German regions can move freely in the German states. They also can move freely in the EU.
Cultures in Europe developed and mixed since the beginning of human settlement on this continent. Now it still happens, peacefully.
I live in Northern Germany. There was an intense cultural exchange for hundreds of years, spanning several regions. Do you think that this is suddenly not a part of my cultural heritage?
Don't you think that modern transportation, modern communication, change things? Don't you think we need to find answers to changes? That we cope with changes? This platform here is international in English, from the US, spreading innovations and discussions about it. Don't you think that this has effects? Deep cultural effects??? Freedom of Movement in the EU is one of the answers to these changes we see.
I linked a grandiose political project to bring Europe under a single government with a grandiose political project to bring Europe under a single government.
As a Portuguese, I'm 100% convinced that if we hadn't joined the EU, we would have impoverished ourselves to a worse standard of living than Morocco by now.
The EU has many, many, many faults but at least in our case it serves as a crucial dampener to our worst ideas about public financing and spending. Homogenisation is a good thing for the bottom 50% of participants.
> joining the EU has been national suicide for every other country that submitted to it
Care to elaborate with a couple of examples that can help me grok your POV? Honestly curious, because my personal perspective is nearly diametrically opposed.
Most of these issues have to do with EU immigration quotas, being unable to set competitive tax rates, and not being able to enforce borders, where if you don't have those, you don't have a nation.
I understand this is the point of EU policy, but if you are a country with a history and a future, given how it has gone for everyone else, why would you give that up?
The examples below are from giving up national accountability for their own policies to "harmonized" EU regulations:
- Greece's economic collapse as the consequence of predatory ECB lending
- Spain's economic collapse from related causes
- Germany's failure to manage its national energy needs due to EU "green" policies made it subject to Russian energy dependency. The US had to literally rescue Germany from itself by blowing up Nordstream
- Sweden's no-go zones
- Italy's costal humanitarian crisis'
- Ireland's collapse of their "tiger" economy and yet another serious migrant crisis
- In France, French people are treated as occupiers in their own cities, e.g. Bataclan, Hedbo, etc.
- general anti-family and anti-natalist policies have stopped replacement level birthrates in all EU countries.
With the exception of Italy's refugee crisis, which I agree is down to a failure of EU country to work together and take a joint responsibility, the rest are individual EU countries failing to govern themselves in a proper manor, and in some of those cases the EU stepping in is literally to only thing saving them.
Regardless of what I think about the actual issue, this is not honest depiction of the reality. At least in Finland, the politians keep saying that they are forced by international treaties and EU to keep the borders open.
There is some leeway within the EU regulation. Denmark have had some form of border control for years now. You can't do a hard border like previously, but that doesn't prevent countries from patrolling, checking checking passports or even turn away certain people.
The effectiveness of that type of border control is debatable, but it is already being done by other EU members.
Border patrol and passport checks exist in many places in the EU, including in my country, but in the public debate, the expression "open borders" refers to the fact that the countries cannot for example choose whether to turn away non-national asylum seekers, even if they are arriving from other safe EU countries, are clearly originally from safe countries but have "lost" their passport, lie that they are 10 when they appear as 18 etc. Other countries turn such people away, but our politicians claim it is not possible. Of course it could also be that our politicians follow the regulations more carefully than politicians in other countries. However, as Italy has not been able to control their border either, and italian politicians are not famous for following the regulations meticulously, it is more likely that there comes some heavy pressure from the EU.
The rest of your comment is similarly uninformed, just a random collection of irrelevant notions picked up from media; like arguing that the United States of America was a bad idea because traffic in Los Angeles is annoying and Florida has too many criminals.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the EU VAT Directive, which sets minimum tax rates?
And maybe you didn't know that the EU sets minimum Excise duties?
And be under no illusion, the EU is intervening in corporation tax rates. Read up on the 2020 Digital Services Tax and the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base.
My question was: realistiacally, which EU country would drop their rate to lower than the minimum 15%.
Most stay at above 20%.
Switzerland somehow balances own budget with lower VAT. I doubt any EU country can lower the VAT below the EU mininum of 15% and balance their budget
"general anti-family and anti-natalist policies have stopped replacement level birthrates in all EU countries."
This problem is present everywhere outside Subsaharan Africa and Afghanistan, it cannot be pinned down on the EU. If Tehran, Beijing and San Francisco have the very same problem, it must go deeper than just "anti-natalist policies": all sorts of societies, religions and systems tend to react to modernity by an almost identical crash in births.
Your arguments are making it hard to not be snarky when responding.
But your arguments are blaming "the EU" for clouds shadowing the sun, as to say - "the EU" doesn't have a strategy of maliciously importing migrants. And even if it did, migrants are not somehow magically bad. Having migration in Europe is not a new thing, it was so for thousands of years now - migrations of war refugees, religious and cultural groups, invasions and other restructurisations of countries...
To keep trade going + keep using internet, but also somehow stop people moving + culture changing is impossible. If you have freedom, you have freedom.
(And why do your arguments have a smell of "let's forget about Frontex"?)
> Germany's failure to manage its national energy needs due to EU "green" policies made it subject to Russian energy dependency.
Germany did not import EU green policies. It was a driver of those.
The offer of cheap energy from Russia combined with the corruption following that, caused German politicians (CDU/SPD) to make a series of mistakes, like expanding energy dependence from Russia without making sure energy needs are covered in times of a crisis (AFD and BSW are making the same mistake, only worse, worshipping the authoritarian & corrupt government of Putin). When Russia was invading the Ukraine, suddenly the Gas storages were not filled anymore - Russia trying to blackmail Germany. Putin influencers like Sarah Wagenknecht denied any Russian plans, just days before the invasion, when already a huge Russian military, ordered by Putin, at the Ukraine border. At the same time the US already warned allies about the Russian plans.
> The US had to literally rescue Germany from itself by blowing up Nordstream
The US did not blow up Nordstream. Actually the US warned their allies of planned attacks. There is zero evidence for US involvement. The Nordstream pipelines were also useless, since they did not transport gas at that time.
Careful, that alone would get others flagged as a Russian asset. The name is just "Ukraine" now.
> Putin influencers like Sarah Wagenknecht denied any Russian plans, just days before the invasion when already a huge military was waiting at the Ukraine border.
Jordan Peterson has been interviewing Frederick Kagan (of the Iraq surge strategy fame) days after the invasion. Kagan said that no one in the U.S. foreign policy circles thought there would be an actual invasion.
In the latest polls the two parties who want to reopen Nord Stream (AfD and BSW) have 25%. Many Germans (I'm one of them) still shy away from these parties and grudgingly vote mainstream, because obviously Nord Stream is just one of many issues:
So I'd estimate that in an honest poll to reopen Nord Stream and protect it militarily you'd easily get 60% in favor. That aligns with the 61% of Germans who are against delivery of Taurus missiles:
That 61% is in danger of being ignored yet again if Merz becomes chancellor in Feburary next year, though it will be Trump who is in the driver's seat by then.
Thanks, that's interesting, I didn't think numbers have changed so much.
What do Germans think about the fact that either Ukraine, which received tens of billions of euros in money and weapons from Germany, or the US, who is Germany's ally, blew up the Nord Stream?
Whenever there is a brief moment of free speech, they might find it odd. Similarly, they find it odd that Ukraine has kept its own transit pipelines open until just this week.
So to you the EU is evil? Advances like ECHR have curtailed the ability of countries to act against the basic interests of their citizens (like a supranational Bill of Rights)... what sort of evil is that?
Actions like directing money to deprived areas, when national government would not; supporting cultural projects; supporting major infrastructure projects. Encouraging nations to work together and increasing mobility of citizens, so far it's seemed to be a most beneficial project.
What are your top 3 examples of 'how the EU is evil' (or more correctly, to paraphrase your last paragraph 'has evil people at the levers')?
The main example is a bureaucracy that is trying by every means conceivable to get more and more power over national governments. Every crisis in the Eurozone is exploited so that the EU has more and more to say about how governments need to behave and which rules they need to follow. And of course, the EU controls the currency, which makes it easier to deal with smaller governments.
Hmm, the alternative of being a second class participant in trade with your biggest trade partners seems to be worse though. Britain is finding out just how bad Brexit was for them.
This is the underlying truth for all international trade.
Most countries don't have unique industry/resources in a globalized trade world.
Consequently, population size and economy are the final arbiters of relative trade power. The EU blocking up to create something of comparable negotiating power to the US and China is critical.
Nobody is ever thrilled with the sausage making of treaties and trade agreements -- that's the definition of compromise. But scale does give countries the best chance to strike the best deal possible.
This is a nice theory, but we can now see this is not how it played out in the EU. EU does have better bargaining power, but not everybody has gained. The larger states have been able to extract even more value from the growing bargaining power, while smaller states have lost all their ability for negotiation.
One can argue that this is a consequence of EU punishing Britain for Brexit to scare other nations from exiting the EU. Which means that if Iceland joins, it will have hard time leaving the EU. If you need to punish members from leaving, it does not give a very good impression. Iceland is better of by deepening their trade agreements with the EU without joining as a full member.
Britain was by far the most annoying of the two during the whole negotiation and didn’t even play fair. The Home Office is currently being sued by the EU for not respecting its engagements related to foreign nationals.
The current situation is not punishment. The UK wanted to leave the single market and is now out of the single market. Turns out that leaving a common market including your main import and export partners is somehow disastrous for your economy. Who could have guessed? Certainly not the experts who spent months explaining at length to the UK population before the referendum.
We cannot know what really happened, but we can look at the end result. Britain wanted to leave EU, not quit trade. Britain has worse trade agreements than before joining the EU.
This sentence doesn’t make sense. The trade agreements are part of being in the EU. Wanting to leave the EU is literally wanting to stop being part of the single market. Obviously they have worse trade. They decided to leave the trading union.
This is not punishment. This is literally what Britain asked for.
EU is much more than a trading union, to these people EU represents giving up on the sovereignity of your nation. I have not read that anybody would be opposed to trading. They were and are opposed to giving up on sovereignity, and against the laws passed as a consequence of that, but not against trading with other EU countries.
There are other trading unions and agreements that are possible besides EU, and it seems like EU has prevented UK from re-establishing the trading unions and agreements it had prior to joining the EU.
We can only speculate why, but it seems plausible and rational that EU is doing this as kind of a punishment and warning to other nations considering leaving the EU. UK benefits more from these agreements, while EU benefits less from these agreements.
On the other hand, EU is under an existential threat, and will disintegrate if other nations follow Brexit. So it is kind of rational (albeit only for the short term) for the EU leaders to think that EU benefits from preventing these agreements from happening if it prevents or hinders the disintegration.
yeah, this is a hot take that would be rejected by the great majority of Europeans. The only country to join the EU and then leave now regrets doing so. Incidentally, their economy is on fire - not the good kind, they still have lying liars who lie trying to push them into leaving the ECJ (not an EU institution, but certainly a surrender of some national authority for, you know, accountability).
I don't know if you live in the EU. I do, and I like it lots.
I have also lived in the UK during the Brexit campaign, and was exposed to such a shower of self-seeking arseholes - some of whom still apparently wish to take from others, but grant themselves exemptions - will I hope remain a unique experience in my life.
Yes, yes, the EU has no end of fuckery. Yes, it's true. But better that, than bend the knee to the US, or Russia (UK, Hungary. Delete as appropriate.)
The EU has actually been one of history's most successful projects for ensuring peace and prosperity in Europe. Looking at objective metrics like GDP growth, living standards, and decades of peace between former neighboring country adversaries over centuries, EU membership has broadly benefited its members. Poland itself has seen remarkable economic growth and development since joining in 2004. The single market, freedom of movement, and shared democratic values have created unprecedented opportunities for cooperation and development. While the EU isn't perfect, characterizing membership as 'national suicide' ignores the tremendous gains in stability, prosperity, and quality of life that integration has brought to member states. imho.
You're putting the cart before the horse. Countries only join the EU after they establish friendly relations with the rest of the EU members and become democratic.
Joining the EU is seen as desirable to these countries, so they work to establish friendly relations with the rest of the EU members and become democratic. The horse and cart are properly ordered.
Romania, Croatia and Bulgaria all introduced democratic reforms and resolved disputes specifically in order to meet accession requirements. Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia have all also made reforms and/or resolved disputes as part of their ongoing accession negotiations.
Ok, so let's compare the economy of Europe between 1950 and 1995 and from 1995 to 2004. What is the most prosperous? I think there is not even a fair comparison. The only places where you'll find any improvement are in the eastern countries because they literally left communism!
The stock market indices are useless for evaluating population wealth. Inflation numbers in Germany are an outright lie where the most expensive items are excluded.
You could support a family in the 1980s on one salary and live comfortably.
