New EU members

[Maniac]

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?

There are usually long transition periods before you have to meet certain standards.

Originally posted by Last Conformist
All.

That doesn't sound like a thoroughly thought through opinion to me. Would I be right to assume then that the fear against meddling is mostly based on irrational feelings instead of rational considerations?

That word is so very Danish.

Does it not describe the Swedish system well?

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

Because right now, due to Sweden's high social and environmental protection, Swedish business is suffering a disadvantage in competing with other EU countries. The more you can export your own system, laws, norms to other EU countries, the less disadvantage Swedish companies suffer.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Maniac
That doesn't sound like a thoroughly thought through opinion to me. Would I be right to assume then that the fear against meddling is mostly based on irrational feelings instead of rational considerations?

If not mostly, than to a large degree - kneejerk brusselophobia is certainly common here.

Does it not describe the Swedish system well?

It doesn't describe anything well - it's a perky slogan for the Danish social model, which happens to be pretty similar to the Swedish one.

Because right now, due to Sweden's high social and environmental protection, Swedish business is suffering a disadvantage in competing with other EU countries. The more you can export your own system, laws, norms to other EU countries, the less disadvantage Swedish companies suffer.

Sweden's economy is consistently ranked among the most efficient and competitive in the Europe* - if the Germans, say, adopted our system, why should we expect them to become less competitive?


* The latest OECD ranking of competitiveness had Finland, Sweden, and America as the top three in the world. The year before, if I recall, it was Finland, America, and Sweden.

[Dinner]

The worker output per hour is high in Scandinavia because they have to be very efficient because their total cost per hour is relatively high. The end result though is it does cost considerablely more to employ a Swede then a Pole even when you take into account the higher productivity of the Swede. I believe that's the disadvantage which was being spoken of.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Not that the apetite for federation among present members is notable. Maybe the French would swallow it - the Brits and Scandinavians would rather quit the EU altogether, and that attitude won't change anytime soon.

We need a two-tier EU. One that goes on with politics, and which actually has the opportunity to integrate. And sovereignist states should remain in some free-trade area or something....

[Pekka]

This EU thing is turning out to be a bigger mistake than first estimated. Not because of this enlargening, rather, it's becoming a huge system, a jungle of rules and regulations, none of which makes much sense.

There's EU hegemony, which is system hegemony, which is the same as worshipping the book of rules.

I find it highly dangerous. We are the new UN soon, ineffective, useless, it's nothing but a puppet system, where no one pulls the strings, because the system will suffocate itself.

It will be highly elitist soon, too. This won't be serving the people in the future at all. It is getting too complicated. It's like the visible force that was once there isn't, but the force still is, no one knows the direction, no one even can define what is good for us. We are just marching like sheep, with blinders on, and this train will stop once we hit the wall, which is when the jungle is so complicated that you have to fill two forms just to take a crap, you wait 10 hours to get clearance, but even then 4 times out of 10 the request to take a crap will be denied because of errors in the process.

Thanks a bunch, ****ers. ****ed up big time. Hooray for ... meatheads.

[Pekka]

"The latest OECD ranking of competitiveness had Finland, Sweden, and America as the top three in the world. The year before, if I recall, it was Finland, America, and Sweden."

Exactly, yet the 'competitivness' does not show anywhere in here. Why is that? Because, the salaries are super low comparing to other good countries.

You compare to Sweden, we are PISS ****ing poor. Why is that? We have lower salaries, and what's even more, we have WAY less ownership and actual property or savings. We can not afford to invest in anything, the average citizen makes so crap money, that yeah, considering the folks are highly educated, and they have to compete to get a job, it is a good situation if you are an employer. You can choose from highly qualified people and pay them nothing.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The worker output per hour is high in Scandinavia because they have to be very efficient because their total cost per hour is relatively high. The end result though is it does cost considerablely more to employ a Swede then a Pole even when you take into account the higher productivity of the Swede. I believe that's the disadvantage which was being spoken of.

Yet, somehow, we get more FDI/capita than the Poles.

The most visible impact of cheap Polish labour is that labour-intensive manufacturing relocates there, pushing Sweden up the value ladder, in accordance with long-standing socdem policy.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Spiffor



We need a two-tier EU. One that goes on with politics, and which actually has the opportunity to integrate. And sovereignist states should remain in some free-trade area or something....

It's mentioned from time to time I know, but I'm not convinced that it is a good idea. It could cement the two different "systems" event more.

[Pekka]

Here's some indicators of actual wealth, where we are supposed to be on top fo the world. What? Not true? Wasn't actually a surprise..

[img]http://www.finlandforthought.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/finland_poor_as_****.gif[/img]

The real GDP numbers are 'awesome'. Then figure out the tax rates, and the level of what things cost in here, what you get is a buying power similar with Mexico. I'm sorry, that's the way it goes.

Still, top tier in the west? Not quite.



But it's competitive, yaay! I wonder why that is? Must be good policy making

[Ecthy]

Some people here are too deep into weird "ideals". Of course we need the two-tier because if we don't nothing is going to work, never. So there will be a European Federation or something integrating CFSP and the rest can join or not.

[Pekka]

the pic again

[BeBMan]

Nothing is going to work now because decision making is ****ed up in the EU. Just with a two-tier system that works like the EU now nothing is won.

[Pekka]

So any of you claiming but uug stop whining rich people, no mfers, you're the rich people, stop keeping us down, oppressors

[Ecthy]

Finland has a higher real GDP p/c than Germany.

What is "net worth"?

[Pekka]

BeBro, not only that, but I'd welcome regional tiers as well. For example, Nordic tier, I would welcome that one.