EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1058
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Why are we giving money away to governments who at the same time disrespect European institutions and values? | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9262 Posts
I don't expect anyone to change their mind about this but I do appreciate you saying that those conditions are of political nature. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 24 2018 01:01 Nyxisto wrote: that 'economic threat' is essentially just making the handout countries receive dependent on political conditions. Poland receives about 100 billion between 2014-2020. That's pretty much 2% of their GDP annually in transfers alone. Why are we giving money away to governments who at the same time disrespect European institutions and values? From across the sea in a Nation of States who all do not “pull their weight”; the alternative sucks. But that doesn’t mean you can’t give them a slap on the wrist for being obstinate brats about it. | ||
|
Yurie
11975 Posts
On February 23 2018 06:20 Sent. wrote: There is no one main cause. • Russia being Russia isn't a direct cause, but it made the already poor Ukraine even poorer, so lots of Ukrainians migrate. Not just to Poland, I remember reading somewhere that far more people with Ukrainian passports moved to Russia. Seems like Ukraine isn't a good place to live in right now. • Lots of Poles moved to Western Europe while our economy kept on growing, so we have a lot of jobs to offer. Especially shitty physical jobs nobody wants, like those the stereotyipcal Polish immigrants have in the West. • Short travel distance, similar language and culture make Poland attractive for seasonal workers from Ukraine (and Belarus to a lesser extent). Some of them choose to stay, but I think the majority doesn't plan to settle here permanently. • There are laws that make it easier for people from former USSR to get visas. Recently the EU made it even easier for Ukrainians to migrate West. This is a good summary. Talked to one of our Polish suppliers a while ago and salary increase is around 10% there and you can no longer find Polish people willing to take bad work conditions. They are starting to expect more modern plants and actually heated factories during winter. (I agree with them.) Queue the Ukrainian workers. They have no other options so end up taking the work the Polish workers don't need to take any more due to a labour shortage in many regions. The normal shortage type where you have a few % that won't work for whatever reason and thus no more employable people. Same as in any other western countries. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On February 24 2018 01:41 Sent. wrote: Because it's mutually beneficial and the treaties don't say anything about net contributors getting to unilaterally define the European values. I don't expect anyone to change their mind about this but I do appreciate you saying that those conditions are of political nature. I think the EU is in a bad limbo because of that tension. We could have mutually beneficial trade agreements and support without a parliament or other EU institutions, but we made a union and those values while only really coming to the forefront now where implicitly there from the beginning. The current status is like a bad marriage of sorts, there is not much commitment to the values in countries like Hungary, and likewise there is animosity in the West. Or between Greece and Germany say. Stronger commitment would also in exchange mean greater solidarity. If there was more political unity and control there would be less distrust that money is 'wasted' on governments who are not going to implement reforms. Looking at the world at large, especially China which has used this divide to for example advance their 16 + 1 strategy, I really do think we should ponder whether differences on the cotinent are really that large. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10825 Posts
Give it time. Imho the EU grew too fast and a europe of 2 speeds wouldn't be a bad thing. Until very recently the countries were allways at each others troats and taking away sovereignity from a country that had it for barely 30 years doesn't play well for very understandable reasons. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22008 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On February 24 2018 01:01 Nyxisto wrote: that 'economic threat' is essentially just making the handout countries receive dependent on political conditions. Poland receives about 100 billion between 2014-2020. That's pretty much 2% of their GDP annually in transfers alone. Why are we giving money away to governments who at the same time disrespect European institutions and values? Here I thought all EU28 defined those things. EDIT: "Wir schaffen das"... Merkel stared at the situation unfolding and chose the second dumbest approach available to her. EDIT2: Well, probably not literally the second dumbest, but it was pretty far up there. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
This ought to apply to larger countries like Germany as well. We've been skirting the rules way too often especially on military responsibility and dragging out unfavorable legislation. At some point everybody needs to get their crap together and get over their pet peeves. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
Latest numbers places the cost of non-western immigration to Denmark at 4.84 billion euros per year (Unlike Germany we actually keep tabs on such numbers, along with crime statistics, education, and usage of hospital and social services - none of these numbers will help your usual argument of "all immigration is a benefit to the country" in the slightest). To put this into perspective: If Poland experienced the same costs due to non-western immigration as Denmark it would eat up a fifth of the support Poland receives from 2014-2020. Realistically the cost would be much greater for a country like Poland though as 1) the absolute numbers of refugees/immigrants would be much higher for them due to population size, 2) they have to first establish a system to handle the applicants. At this point, the funds they receive suddenly seem a lot less attractive - especially when you consider the reason for them receiving money in the first place. Sure countries should follow decisions made by the Union, but all EU28 (or well EU27) has a say in that. And the Union certainly should keep out of quite a lot of things. And it's getting gruesomely tiresome to have a hypocrite try to dictate. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Benefits that who gain? Gotta love right-wing and left-wing authoritarian emphasizers fighting about "costs for countries". | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On February 24 2018 15:59 Nyxisto wrote: you probably are aware that I don't share that narrative about her decisions and don't consider them dumb, but regardless of what the specific issue at hand is, the EU needs to be able to act together and countries need to be able to accept unpopular decisions at home if they're made by the union at large. This ought to apply to larger countries like Germany as well. We've been skirting the rules way too often especially on military responsibility and dragging out unfavorable legislation. At some point everybody needs to get their crap together and get over their pet peeves. Based on what democratic legitimity? Having a substantial bonus system for countries who welcome refugees is fine, a supranational institution with weak legitimacy forcing nations to welcome refugees at times where the far-right is rising sounds fairly stupid. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On February 24 2018 20:48 Ghostcom wrote: Yes, I am fully aware. I also remember your ardent defense of her decisions and ridicule of the more sensible approaches (which ironically we are now apparently heading towards despite the delay caused by "wir schaffen das" - too bad so many had to suffer/die meanwhile) Latest numbers places the cost of non-western immigration to Denmark at 4.84 billion euros per year (Unlike Germany we actually keep tabs on such numbers, along with crime statistics, education, and usage of hospital and social services - none of these numbers will help your usual argument of "all immigration is a benefit to the country" in the slightest). To put this into perspective: If Poland experienced the same costs due to non-western immigration as Denmark it would eat up a fifth of the support Poland receives from 2014-2020. Realistically the cost would be much greater for a country like Poland though as 1) the absolute numbers of refugees/immigrants would be much higher for them due to population size, 2) they have to first establish a system to handle the applicants. At this point, the funds they receive suddenly seem a lot less attractive - especially when you consider the reason for them receiving money in the first place. Sure countries should follow decisions made by the Union, but all EU28 (or well EU27) has a say in that. And the Union certainly should keep out of quite a lot of things. And it's getting gruesomely tiresome to have a hypocrite try to dictate. The numbers of refugees that the EU expects countries like Poland to take in is already extremely limited. Nobody expects them to take in the equivalent of a million people, that was a national commitment on our part (which I btw defend on humanitarian grounds, not profitability, I'm well aware that it costs us money). The EU has five hundred million members. If we had, from the beginning, spread a million people across all states we would not have had any problem. The problems occured because basically three or four countries shouldered the entire thing. Based on what democratic legitimity? Having a substantial bonus system for countries who welcome refugees is fine, a supranational institution with weak legitimacy forcing nations to welcome refugees at times where the far-right is rising sounds fairly stupid. Being a member of the EU is a voluntary decision. It's not the warsaw pact, countries don't need to be in it as the UK has proven. That's what legitimises collective decision making. And for the second part, giving in two far right demands has never ever helped. It's only legitimizing them. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On February 25 2018 04:12 Nyxisto wrote: Being a member of the EU is a voluntary decision. It's not the warsaw pact, countries don't need to be in it as the UK has proven. That's what legitimises collective decision making. No it does not. If 15 countries want Country A to do something against the expressed will of people living there, the legitimacy is still null. The Greek example illustrates quite well how the antidemocratic methods (both from the EU and the government) go hand-in-hand with catastrophic decisions. And you cannot seriously justify this kind of behavior by saying "well you can always leave anyway". Unless you want to increasingly push everyone towards the sortie that is. And for the second part, giving in two far right demands has never ever helped. It's only legitimizing them. Well, if the far-right campaigns on "Brussels is imposing us (Muslim) migrants!1!1!1!" and "Brussels" does that, it could also help their narrative? The hospitality also depends on how well the decision is accepted. Honestly I am more thinking about refugees themselves than countries, which will obviously not collapse with a few thousands or dozens of thousands of extra people. But if this means being placed in camps with next to no rights and no perspectives, and being eyed coldly by people in the streets because the local demagogue said that you were a foreign invader... Incentives rather than constraints and punishment is the way to go here. | ||
| ||
