Turn on thread page Beta

European Union Expansion watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    Economics is not a zero-sum game. Both the "poor" and the "rich" partners in a trading alliance profit from it.

    Besides, there is strong political ground to welcome the expansion: The new Eastern European members (+ Bulgaria & Rumania) are now most likely to be more attracted by Europe than by Russia. 10 years ago this was not that self-evident; there was a huge danger of a backlash and Eastern Europe aligning itself strategically with Russia. That would have been a catastrophe for the whole of the Western world.

    Even if this expansion were not economically profitable, the political reasons for it to happen are so strong, that they outweigh any economic considerations.
    It is econically profitable for multi-national corporations perhaps, benefiting from the expanded labour market enabling them to pay lower wages. It is not economically profitable for the indigenous populations of 'rich' countries as there are more people willing to do their job for a lower wage, more people wanting to live in the council house they also want, more people willing to do their job in the informal sector of the economy, more people wanting to benefit from the welfare state funded by them etc.

    What about cultural reasons? Sustainable immigration isn't a problem, but large quatities of people belonging to the 'travelling community' immigrating to this country will not be willing to adapt to their new nations culture and will instead create thier own sub-communities, displacing indigenous communities. This has occured in the past with rapid large scale immigration resulting in communities such as Bradford and Sparkhill.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3518347.stm
    "Hundreds of Roma "gypsies" have looted shops and clashed with police in the past week to protest against the government's benefit cuts. "
    The same gypsies that will be eligible to migrate to Britain May 1st.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, "No **** Sherlock" wasn't the response I expected or deserved.
    There's a difference between "No **** Sherlock" and "****".

    Besides, I think you deserved it, because your comment was just stating the obvious and hence not helpful.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    did the expansion of the EU into Spain and Portugal harm anyone?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, I just thought you might like to back up your statement about the importance of political union and how that exceeds any economic disadvantage that might be suffered.

    ****.
    Politics is ultimately more important than economics.
    If you lose at politics, it means you're dead or you lost your sovereignty.
    If you lose at economics, it means you're poor.

    Better poor than not sovereign.

    Example: The widely criticised (and rightly so!) CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) has one overwhelming advantage: It makes Europe agriculturally partly self-sustainable.
    Obviously the economic costs are huge, but that is a pain the EU is willing to take if the alternative is being dependent on Russia, China or the US for instance as far as your food supply is concerned.

    Another example: During WWII, the British economy was nationalised. From an economic point of view, that was not profitable, as market was not free enough anymore, but politically it made sense to make the war effort.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    It is econically profitable for multi-national corporations perhaps, benefiting from the expanded labour market enabling them to pay lower wages. It is not economically profitable for the indigenous populations of 'rich' countries as there are more people willing to do their job for a lower wage, more people wanting to live in the council house they also want, more people willing to do their job in the informal sector of the economy, more people wanting to benefit from the welfare state funded by them etc.

    What about cultural reasons? Sustainable immigration isn't a problem, but large quatities of people belonging to the 'travelling community' immigrating to this country will not be willing to adapt to their new nations culture and will instead create thier own sub-communities, displacing indigenous communities. This has occured in the past with rapid large scale immigration resulting in communities such as Bradford and Sparkhill.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3518347.stm
    "Hundreds of Roma "gypsies" have looted shops and clashed with police in the past week to protest against the government's benefit cuts. "
    The same gypsies that will be eligible to migrate to Britain May 1st.
    Free trade is always preferable to protectionism. For everyone.

    Britain cannot just walk away from international competition; it has to face up to it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    Besides, there is strong political ground to welcome the expansion: The new Eastern European members (+ Bulgaria & Rumania) are now most likely to be more attracted by Europe than by Russia. 10 years ago this was not that self-evident; there was a huge danger of a backlash and Eastern Europe aligning itself strategically with Russia. That would have been a catastrophe for the whole of the Western world.
    Yeah. I think Russia supplies all of Poland's gas and it got cut off last year because Belarus didn't pay the bill or something.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elpaw)
    would you rather have them forming socio-political alliences with russia?
    I thought they were on the agenda of joining but not until a lot later on. I think it's a good thing in the long run, as shown by the previous expansions of the EU helped. As with rich and poor countries what about acting as a power to counteract against the USA on trade?

    Speaking of the Russian Commonwealth, many former Soviet countries are joining the EU sooner or later. I wonder how it's going to work out?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Where a rich country unites with a poor country there is only one way for the money to flow; from rich to poor; and one way for the people to flow; from poor to rich.
    The problem here is that you do not take into consideration that money is not equivalent to wealth. In the short run, you may see economic damage to western countries. However, in the long run better standards in the east and increased efficiency will lead to a much greater production potential in Europe as a whole. Thus, the eastern european countries will become major trading partners. This is quite similar to what happened after WW2. America realised that they would benefit greatly from a developed western Europe as a trade partner, and so the Marshall plan was implemented. In short, you may look on the eastern expansion as an investment. We have payed some in order to plant the seeds in poland, but in time the fruit will grow. I think the expansion of teh EU will have extremely important long-term effects and so it is not sufficient to evaluate it from merely a short-run perspective.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    The problem here is that you do not take into consideration that money is not equivalent to wealth. In the short run, you may see economic damage to western countries. However, in the long run better standards in the east and increased efficiency will lead to a much greater production potential in Europe as a whole. Thus, the eastern european countries will become major trading partners. This is quite similar to what happened after WW2. America realised that they would benefit greatly from a developed western Europe as a trade partner, and so the Marshall plan was implemented. In short, you may look on the eastern expansion as an investment. We have payed some in order to plant the seeds in poland, but in time the fruit will grow. I think the expansion of teh EU will have extremely important long-term effects and so it is not sufficient to evaluate it from merely a short-run perspective.
    I agree fully.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, I just thought you might like to back up your statement about the importance of political union and how that exceeds any economic disadvantage that might be suffered.

    ****.
    Howard - will you stop using that obscene word please?

    Putting a wide- grinned smiley after it does not make it any less offensive and you have done this on more than one occasion.

    There are forum rules against the use of obscene language. I am surprised that no mod has picked you up on it so I will instead. Consider yourself well and truly told off. :mad:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    SAY NO TO FULLY FLEDGED MEMBERSHIP OF THE EU! The EU is a f**king disgrace- their policies are outdated-rarely make economical sense and GB has a better standing alone than as part of the EU.

    There...now I got that out the way- these new countries well benefit from some of the frameworks in the absence of their own. Eg EU Company Law(even though it i complete poo!)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Big Sister)
    SAY NO TO FULLY FLEDGED MEMBERSHIP OF THE EU! The EU is a f**king disgrace- their policies are outdated-rarely make economical sense and GB has a better standing alone than as part of the EU.

    There...now I got that out the way- these new countries well benefit from some of the frameworks in the absence of their own. Eg EU Company Law(even though it i complete poo!)
    You care to elaborate what it is that is so stupid about teh EU?

    (Original post by Jonatan)
    You care to elaborate what it is that is so stupid about teh EU?
    It's a New Moscow both in ideology and bureaucracy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanctus)
    It's a New Moscow both in ideology and bureaucracy.
    Except that it is democratic, beleives in free trade and has a rather pacifist agenda of course...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    You care to elaborate what it is that is so stupid about teh EU?
    You tell me something successful (lets turn it around) apart form the ECHR. (European Court of Human Rights) You tell me where Britain has had a positive influence on EU directives(that does not mean getting their own way). And the restrictons on food size/appearance does not count!(we have them to thank for perfect bananas) and GM foods.

    You persuade me otherwise... I am still open minded!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Except that it is democratic, beleives in free trade and has a rather pacifist agenda of course...
    But surely there is a bias- Is there such a thing as free trade? (Playing devils advocate here!)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Big Sister)
    You tell me something successful (lets turn it around) apart form the ECHR. (European Court of Human Rights) You tell me where Britain has had a positive influence on EU directives(that does not mean getting their own way). And the restrictons on food size/appearance does not count!(we have them to thank for perfect bananas) and GM foods.

    You persuade me otherwise... I am still open minded!
    Well, first of all it is now much easier to move abroad and find work. There are no customs meaning you can do your shopping wherever you want. There are no longer passportcontrolls when you travel overseas. Living standards are likely to increase in eastern european countries. Theres practically no chance at all that there will be a war within Europe. Companies may now sell their products in whatever European country they want, without having to bother about customs. It has caused the EU to cooperate better. Education can now flow more freely across teh borders and universities have an easier time recruiting personell and students from other countries ( In Britain the lack of Science students has been a problem as an example) and much more. I am no fan of the Є, but thats another thing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Big Sister)
    But surely there is a bias- Is there such a thing as free trade? (Playing devils advocate here!)
    well, I am just saying that comparing the EU with Moskow is quite ignorant. I think the EU is more likely to become some United States of Europe.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Well, first of all it is now much easier to move abroad and find work. There are no longer passportcontrolls when you travel overseas. Living standards are likely to increase in eastern european countries. Theres practically no chance at all that there will be a war within Europe. Companies may now sell their products in whatever European country they want, without having to bother about customs. It has caused the EU to cooperate better. Education can now flow more freely across teh borders and universities have an easier time recruiting personell and students from other countries ( In Britain the lack of Science students has been a problem as an example) and much more. I am no fan of the Є, but thats another thing.

    These are apparent benefits but,
    There are no customs meaning you can do your shopping wherever you want- you still pay tax and upon leavibng a country you can claim it back- more paperwork due to the lack of fiscal harmonisation-whats the point? There are still restrictions on movements of certain goods.
    Living standards- how will they increase?- there is a big chance of modernisation but only to the equilibrium(which will change). That requires investment that may not be forthcoming.
    Companies may now sell their products in whatever European country they want, without having to bother about customs. -what is the source of this? (I am not being faceatious but am unaware of the lack of tax implications-ok granted the M&S case is awaiiting verdict)
    Education recruitment has nevr been a problem- so what has it overcome?

    Sorry you have still not won me over? What is the point of the EU if it is not harmonising (and therefore removing certain economic anomolies?)

    Some say the lack of border control has contributed to the amount of smuggling and organised crime...but lets save that for anothe rthread!

    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Except that it is democratic, beleives in free trade and has a rather pacifist agenda of course...
    Where is the EU "democratic"? The only democratic element of the EU is the EU Parliament and that's just a talking shop.

    With regards to "free trade", it's closer to Socialism than Capitalism.

    But it is peaceful.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.