New EU members

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Yeah, the hire and fire policy in scandinavia would certainly cause serious riots in those countries.

You hire them and then set them on fire?

[GrumpyOldMan]

Look on the bright side: cheap plumbers and faster pizza deliveries - and they will all be grateful for miserly tips.

[Last Conformist]

[Heresson]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Congratulations to new members on becoming members of the Union

Best of luck.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Now it's time to stop all these enlargements

QFAboutF***ingTime. From a purely selfish Western-Europe perspective, the EU involves large transfers of money to deprived areas, mostly in poorer countries; the CAP, which I'm guessing will help Eastern European agriculture a lot at the expense of African and Asian economics; and hordes of people emigrating to richer countries in the false hope of a better life. Rarely do they get it - London isn't somewhere I'd want to be without decent qualifications and a good level of English. Finding work that pays a liveable wage without those is near-impossible. The unemployment it generates is large and both a burden on the taxpayer as well as causing lots of crime - I add this isn't because immigrants are by nature more likely to commit crimes, but because immigrants are more likely to be unemployed, and the unemployed commit a lot more crimes.

The EU is an economic disaster for richer countries if there is a large disparity in income level between nations. It means richer countries pay more into it and get less out. Which is good for the countries overall, as the money does more good there. But has the perverse effect of having huge negative effects on non-EU poor countries. Which means there's no efficiency reason for the EU to let in poorer countries, and no equity one either.

Originally posted by Sir Og
Even if you don't like the prospect of poor Bulgarians flooding your countries you might take the opportunity and visit Bulgaria instead.

Though I'd have preferred it to still be out of the EU for this. Getting a visa isn't usually much of a problem, and that way I get to take advantage of duty-free. Switzerland-style-Europe

[Heresson]

You forget that by enlarging EU, richer countries get free access to markets, making them richer and creating jobs there. A LOT eastern-european companies have fallen because they were not used to free market that You, the West, advised and often demanded.

You showed no great mercy or generosity in accession talks and rules. New members are not treated as full-right members from the start. Polish farmers get 1/4 of the money the western Europeans get, and polish gouverment had to pay for the right to pay them more from its own fund.
Growing economies of new countries are forced to adapt high standarts fitted for highly developed ones. Countries dealing with continuous falling apart of old, adapting to new conditions companies are banned from helping them, from lowering taxes, from giving special incentives for investment etc.

When it comes to immigrants, sorry, but with natural growth in western Europe, it needs immigrants. And it's better for You when they are easily assimilated and culturally adaptable eastern Europeans.

Also, it's not like the bad son coming home and taking use of his brother's effects of work - it's because of your - british, french appeasement politics, and egocentrical isolationism when it comes to America, and later selling eastern Europe to USSR that eastern Europe is in its current state.

Anyway, Europe is not only, and should not even be mostly, about economy. Ukraine, Byelorus, Serbia, Montenegro etc share history and culture with the rest of Europe and that is why they should be in.
Admission of new members is definitely NOT economically good for Poland. Yet Poland supports EU enlargements for higher causes.
But it seems imponderabilia are something allien for You.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Swedes aren't particularly worried about "unfair" competition

You should be though.

witness the fact that unlike most of the EU 15, we didn't slap artificial restrictions on immigrant labor from the previous batch of new entrants.

Do you have lots of immigration?

Swedes do fear meddling by Brussels.

On what fields do Swedes fear meddling?

I think you're overestimating Sweden's leftishness. Parts of our economico-political system would be perceived as insufferable liberalization in France or Germany.

IIRC, while the hiring/firing system is flexible, the Scandinavian countries also have a strong social safety net, so that it isn't immediately a disaster if you're without work for a period. "Flexicurity" and all that. The Scandinavian system is actually more or less the official goal to strive towards for the whole EU. Though in reality unfortunately politicians try to push through hiring/firing flexibility without improving the social safety net, which obviously causes riots.

In any case, there is no huge discrepancy between the Scandinavian system and the official EU goals.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Heresson
Anyway, Europe is not only, and should not even be mostly, about economy.

I'm glad you say that, but Poland is one of the strongest supporters of a weak economics-only Europe.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Heresson
You forget that by enlarging EU, richer countries get free access to markets, making them richer and creating jobs there.

Yes, except that our national accounts show clearly this happens better the other way. We don't export much to Eastern Europe, yet import a lot from there. Free trade is good, don't get me wrong, but we have far more immigrants than extra jobs due to EU expansion. A free trade area I would agree with, it's the free employment and EU money that I disagree with.

Originally posted by Heresson
You showed no great mercy or generosity in accession talks and rules. New members are not treated as full-right members from the start. Polish farmers get 1/4 of the money the western Europeans get, and polish gouverment had to pay for the right to pay them more from its own fund.
Growing economies of new countries are forced to adapt high standarts fitted for highly developed ones. Countries dealing with continuous falling apart of old, adapting to new conditions companies are banned from helping them, from lowering taxes, from giving special incentives for investment etc.

Which, IMHO, is wrong on both sides. Investment incentives from government are very useful. The issue is that French and especially German governments are worried about losing industries to Eastern Europe where it's cheaper. But that's efficiency, that means your people get cheaper goods, wages rise there and it becomes more even. I like that idea, and have no problem with free trade areas. What I don't like is the free employment and flow of money.

Originally posted by Heresson
When it comes to immigrants, sorry, but with natural growth in western Europe, it needs immigrants. And it's better for You when they are easily assimilated and culturally adaptable eastern Europeans.

Yes on the latter, but a huge big NO on the former. What we need is sustainability. Immigrants come now and pay taxes, which helps the current demographics, but is storing up future problems when the next generation retire. We don't need a continually growing population at all, that's unsustainable. What we need is a stable population and a stable workers/non-workers demographic. Immigration solves the latter and wrecks the former.

Originally posted by Heresson
Also, it's not like the bad son coming home and taking use of his brother's effects of work - it's because of your - british, french appeasement politics, and egocentrical isolationism when it comes to America, and later selling eastern Europe to USSR that eastern Europe is in its current state.

I'm not saying it's not. I support the move to capitalism. However I think the EU works better as a body of relatively-equal countries, when it comes to wealth and standard of living. I think we need a free trade agreement with limited reducing tariffs for infant industries.

Originally posted by Heresson
Anyway, Europe is not only, and should not even be mostly, about economy. Ukraine, Byelorus, Serbia, Montenegro etc share history and culture with the rest of Europe and that is why they should be in.
Admission of new members is definitely NOT economically good for Poland. Yet Poland supports EU enlargements for higher causes.
But it seems imponderabilia are something allien for You.

No, I see those reasons, but that's not what the EU is, that's what Europe is. I disagree on the culture though, Western Europe has a very different history and culture to the Balkans. I do accept your point, but to me, the EU *is* an economic institution, in large part. The EU is a free trade, free movement area with a budget for development and agricultural policies. There is the legal side too, but the majority of it is about economics. And on that count, expanding it is the wrong thing to do for my country.

Most of your points I agree with - free trade, protectionism, allowing investment incentives, etc. These are all good. But free movement and a centralising of economies, standards and currencies, when the nations have completely different levels of per capita income, is a huge mess.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Drogue
But that's efficiency, that means your people get cheaper goods, wages rise there and it becomes more even.

Doesn't that also happen with immigration? Poles moving here work at higher wages than they would in Poland (thus more "equality"), decreasing the price of goods, and creating unemployment for the Western Europeans. Same effects as with mere free trade, no?

[Zkribbler]

Someone educate me on this point....

IIRC, the E.U. has certain minimum standards which a country has to meet before it is admitted. I wouldn't have thought that Eastern European countries would have recovered from decades of communism fast enough to have sufficient robust economies to merit admission to the E.U.

Am I just being pessimistic about these admitees,
or is the EU easing standards for membership?

[Datajack Franit]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Someone educate me on this point....

IIRC, the E.U. has certain minimum standards which a country has to meet before it is admitted. I wouldn't have thought that Eastern European countries would have recovered from decades of communism fast enough to have sufficient robust economies to merit admission to the E.U.

Am I just being pessimistic about these admitees,
or is the EU easing standards for membership?

You see, there's a problem in the EU when Romania and Bulgaria combined have a lower GNP than Belgium

[Sir Og]

My understanding is that the EU keeps making it harder for countries to join, not easyer.

There are a lot of restrictions being imposed on Bulgaria and Romania including in the free movement of labour department. As far as I know any EU country may choose not to open it's labour market for Bulgarian or Romanian workers. A lot of countries don't chose to do so however and there is a good reason for that.

I think that there won't be a huge wave of emigration because all those who were willing to go abroad already did so. In that context the most popular destinations for Bulgarian emigrants are Spain, Greace, Cyprus, Italy. Bulgarians don't seem to like the North European climate

[Sir Og]

One more note for those who don't like low skilled Easties getting their jobs.

You should either reject all workers or take all. Western countries were more than happy to take our computer specialists, engineers, doctors etc. so you should also welcome the janitors and waitreses.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Maniac

Do you have lots of immigration?

Define "lots". Something like 11% of our population is foreign-born, FWIW.

On what fields do Swedes fear meddling?

All.

IIRC, while the hiring/firing system is flexible, the Scandinavian countries also have a strong social safety net, so that it isn't immediately a disaster if you're without work for a period. "Flexicurity" and all that.

That word is so very Danish.

The Scandinavian system is actually more or less the official goal to strive towards for the whole EU. Though in reality unfortunately politicians try to push through hiring/firing flexibility without improving the social safety net, which obviously causes riots.

In any case, there is no huge discrepancy between the Scandinavian system and the official EU goals.

That's an argument against federation - why give more power to nameless Brussels bureaucrats if they'll only give us what we already have?