Is the EU not good for Europe as a whole?

[Deleted]

I think the trade aspect of it has been very good. Unfortunately I think they pushed it too far trying to expand it's power and reach.

I'm glad my country (Norway) stayed out. It allowed us to mostly negotiate for only the things we wanted, rather than being forced to accept all of it. Amazingly, despite not being in the EU, we haven't gone to war or fallen into ruin.

The rhetoric from within the EU seems to be that Norway is a member in all but name, thus accepting the regulations, legislation etc. while not sitting at the decision table or voting to parliament. At least that's what pundits observe on what type of deal could be reached with the UK post exit.
How much truth do you think this narrative has?

[ati87]

I don't like tax money going to some poor EU countries, and I don't like having no choice.

I never got this argument

At one hand you have the Anti-EU crowed saying how the big guys are hurting the little guys because of the Euro but then they go around and complain about how the big guy is paying for the little guy

[Revi]

No, but the ability to draw conclusions from norway and project on other EU countries is limited, because of the Oil.

I didn't draw any conclusions other than that we've been alright without. As I said, the EU trade aspect of the EU is good.

As for discarding an example because of their industry, should we discard Germany as an example of the benefits of EU, because they make cars?

There's plenty of piss-poor countries with lots of natural resources. You need the trade agreements, infrastructure and expertise to exploit them if they're going to be the foundation of your economy. All of that is possible without the addition power countries currently give the EU.

[Morae]

Without reading much of the thread, here is my opinion.

I personally have never liked EU to begin with. Over time this feeling has just strengthened. That just my opinion, though. We are too deep in, cant go back. My feeling is that EU will eventually collapse due to its internal problems...... that or it unifies into something like US.

[Revi]

The rhetoric from within the EU seems to be that Norway is a member in all but name, thus accepting the regulations, legislation etc. while not sitting at the decision table or voting to parliament. At least that's what pundits observe on what type of deal could be reached with the UK post exit.
How much truth do you think this narrative has?

Certainly true to an extent, we accept the regulations and legislation we need to be able to trade efficiently with the EU, and tend to adopt the rest when they make sense (like banning ingredients in food production found to be harmful, etc.), but not everything.

The biggest downside to not being member is the toll costs associated with exporting to EU countries, so purely financially it would be advantageous to join. The price you pay for accepting that financial incentive is of course giving up quite a lot of power to other, larger nations.

What bothers me is that it wouldn't be necessary for trade to force UK post-brexit to accept so many of their legislation and pay them so much money, but it will be demanded to dissuade others from leaving as well. It's putting financial pressure on nations in order to keep them under EU "control" - maybe a necessary tactic to keep the EU, but also the very reason they're growing increasingly unpopular, imo.

[Deleted]

The eastern expansion was a mistake.

That and the southern countries too.

A North-Western union would've worked wau better.

[Deleted]

When you say east, what do you mean? The Baltics? Poland? Romania and Bulgaria? Greece joined the precursor of the EU in 1973 if I remember right, so you can't be meaning them, since they joined the EU before it existed. Yet Greece had some of the worst problems economic-wise.

It refers to the 2004 and 2007 enlargement. So all of those plus a few more.
At the time it was seen as too speedy, and raised concerns about worker mobility. "They'll take our jobs" kind of thing.
In a vacuum, it's no different than the Mediterranean expansion back in the 80s. But the time at which you joined proved to be different.
Economically the 2008 crisis, and subsequent defaults put a lot of strain in the institutions. Propping up eastern Europe, while a generally good thing, is politically subject to controversy, since people during a crisis develop a strong sense of prioritizing their country.
The expansion through the Med was seen as successful because what followed were years of economic boom (at the time, though the bailouts seem to be causing people to second-guess that as well). This didn't replicate with the eastern expansion.
The refugee crisis didn't help. Several eastern countries, for better or worse, adopted very hardline attitudes that made international cooperation a mess. Given what triggered it was Hungary (and Greece) being overwhelmed, plus most eastern countries being the effective border of the EU, I understand why it developed the way it did. But it's thrown a lot of shade on the EU from every angle: for being sympathetic to the refugees on one end, and for being incapable of building a comprehensive refugee procedure.
Back to the "took our jerbs" and "polish plumber" angle, brexit took that and cranked it up to 11. The UK has had the debate open on every angle for about 20 years already, but the freedom of movement was a major point for the most recent opinions.
It's been a rough ride.

I don't think any of it can be blamed in any of the eastern countries. And I doubt many people have problem with what you do; after all, these countries are simply trying to make the best of what they're given. But that won't stop people from questioning if it was the right moment, or if the standards required for joining should be higher or whatevs.
I'm happily employing people from Romania and Hungary. Also have a bit of a Bulgarian community developing in my area. I'm not very used to their culture, but they're nice people overall.

- - - Updated - - -

What bothers me is that it wouldn't be necessary for trade to force UK post-brexit to accept so many of their legislation and pay them so much money, but it will be demanded to dissuade others from leaving as well. It's putting financial pressure on nations in order to keep them under EU "control" - maybe a necessary tactic to keep the EU, but also the very reason they're growing increasingly unpopular, imo.

The people vs bureaucracy: the debate of the century.
I worry that the EU can all too easily be seen as overreach in that sense. People don't like external powers deciding on their governance, their legislation, and where their money goes. I'm not sure how they can fix that opinion.
I often see myself arguing that the unpopular opinion people have is a result of not being sufficiently integrated. And then I realize this sentiment polarizes them even more. Given how easily we fall into that rhetorical trap, the EU quite frankly amazes me at keeping it together so far. Anyway, thanks for your clarification, it's rare that I get to speak with a Norwegian =).

[Puupi]

Hmm... per capita luxembourg is winning this by a far, ireland is also pretty high up. Switzerland barely manages to be top 10 and norway is usually around where ireland is placed being behind it on two out of three lists.

Luxembourg doesn't count, it's so small. Switzerland is #1 if you don't count Luxembourg.

There's something sketchy about Ireland's numbers. Does someone know why it's showing like that in GDP listings?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...al)_per_capita

[Deleted]

Luxembourg doesn't count, it's so small. Switzerland is #1 if you don't count Luxembourg.

There's something sketchy about Ireland's numbers. Does someone know why it's showing like that in GDP listings?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...al)_per_capita

There's a huge number of international companies, specially American, that base their headquarters in Ireland. A 12.5 corporate tax, plus them speaking English helps quite a bit.

[Puupi]

There's a huge number of international companies, specially American, that base their headquarters in Ireland. A 12.5 corporate tax, plus them speaking English helps quite a bit.

But why did it jump from ~40k to 60k-70k in a couple of years?

A couple of years ago the country was bankrupt and needed saving by EU.

This is very fishy.

[Cybran]

This is very fishy.

Junker was the prime minister of Luxenbourg, a notorious tax evasion duchy, now is the unelected president of the EU. Of course tax heavens will thrive under him.

[Deleted]

Junker was the prime minister of Luxenbourg, a notorious tax evasion duchy, now is the unelected president of the EU. Of course tax heavens will thrive under him.

No he was elected by the European parliament just like Theresa May is - They are Equally Elected.

[Azadina]

There's a huge number of international companies, specially American, that base their headquarters in Ireland. A 12.5 corporate tax, plus them speaking English helps quite a bit.

Maybe on paper, but they aren't paying it. Apple was doing like 0.005% tax rate there.

[Deleted]

But why did it jump from ~40k to 60k-70k in a couple of years?

A couple of years ago the country was bankrupt and needed saving by EU.

This is very fishy.

It was a sovereign default. But the country was rich af. I mean, the bailouts happened to several of the most successful economies on Earth, only not so much compared to the rest of the EZ. Sovereign default was, far as I understand it, the result of unsustainable policies.
Ireland had a high GDP/capita before the crisis. It was seen as unfair having to rescue a country that was richer than for instance Germany. But it was expected that their economy would bump up back again, so their bail out was not very controversial, as they'd be able to easily and speedily pay back.
But you're right that the ~25% growth (not sure of the exact number) in 2015 raised some questions. To which I'm not exactly sure what the answer is. Some companies have been under fire for evasion. So yeah... some numbers don't add up.

[Mayhem]

Luxembourg doesn't count, it's so small. Switzerland is #1 if you don't count Luxembourg.

There's something sketchy about Ireland's numbers. Does someone know why it's showing like that in GDP listings?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...al)_per_capita

Guess i had older numbers or looked at some other lists put out by these 3 that are in your link aswell.

[Raakel]

The EURO and in some extend the EU in its current state was part of a deal in the German reunification process. Maggie Thatcher was against the reunification (she resigned afterwards) and France insisted in the establishment of the EURO!

Please go ahead folks and blame Germany for everything that happens. Seems whatever we do it's always wrong - so fuck it.

The current EU just needs a new agenda. Every other state could be as good and powerful as Germany (it's in their own hands) and yet they're just whining about hegemonial Merkel. It's pathetic.


PS:

Poland and Greece giving us shit and look where they get the money from....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8036097.stm (bit dated)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...contributions/

If you bury the EU you bury your wealth. Simple as that.

[Cybran]

Please go ahead folks and blame Germany for everything that happens. Seems whatever we do it's always wrong - so fuck it.

The problems is that not enough people blame Germany for running a ponzi scheme and syphoning money from the rest of EU.

[Raakel]

So how exactly does it work? You seem to know a lot more than the rest of us?

[Slant]

the EU has done allot of things that single countries could never achieve.

I don't see people in the EU getting roughed up because they refused to leave their flight

That wasn't a country, that was an airline and local airport security, wasn't it? It's a bit harsh to blame an entire country for the wrongdoings of one company. And they received the shitstorm of the month for it, too.

But yes, the EU has achieved a shitton of things without which nobody here would want to live anymore.

[Akka]

The eastern expansion was a mistake.

/thread

That being said, look at the history of Europe before the EU, and after the EU.
Now count the amount of wars and dead.

Now ask the question again.

EU didn't stop wars, what stopped wars is that wars became so terrible that people don't want another war. 63 million dead, cities destroyed, etc.

Yeah, WW1 certainly prevented WW2 from happening.

Greece, Italy and Spain not ?

Italy is a founding member FFS...