5 ms·

You are at least partially right in saying the goal of the EU is to unify the markets. But not, I think, in attributing this to neoliberalism. There’s a much si

You are at least partially right in saying the goal of the EU is to unify the markets. But not, I think, in attributing this to neoliberalism. There’s a much simpler explanation that was very much in the minds of the architects of EU back in the day: to avoid another war. Making sure as much people as possible stand to lose as much as possible from a conflict with anybody is a pretty good way to avoid conflict. It has worked, too. Yes, it has consequences like everything. But I suppose it’s one of the most effective ways of conflict avoidance there is.

black_puppydog 7y ago
I should have really mentioned "there hasn't been an intra-european war in a long time" as one of the definite upsides. So I'll happily concede that this was one of the driving forces behind the very beginnings of the European project. But for the last 30-40 years, there has been a very clear neoliberal agenda throughout Europe, and as detailed above, it's not a good development for most people. For now, the nationalists have mostly focused on "non-Europeans" as the scapegoats, but e.g. in Germany, the "lazy Greeks" have had their (un)fair share of xenophobia too, and I don't see that getting better as we keep pitting the poor against the even poorer. So now we stand to lose what little unity we have to a market "religion" and its fallout.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > there hasn't been an intra-european war in a long time Former Yugoslavia aside, this is no guarantee there won't be and with the rise of nationalism things are not looking good.
  - svara 7y ago
    While you're certainly right that there is no guarantee in the strictest sense, do you really believe that? I'm German-French. I honestly believe I've never met anyone in my life in my age group (that I've talked to enough to say this) who would be willing to go fight a neighboring country. Where would these people, and support for them, come from?
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      > I'm German-French. I honestly believe I've never met anyone in my life in my age group (that I've talked to enough to say this) who would be willing to go fight a neighboring country. Just to give you one example: if a Trump type would gain the upper hand in any one of the larger European countries all of which have a strong representation of what I'd loosely term neo-nationalists the stage would be set for an 'us vs them' degrading of international relations. The UK is a prime candidate for this. If such an aggressor were to aim to go for retribution based on perceived sleights (for instance: the economy tanking because of 'them') then you just might have to defend yourself from that. Which would not cause you to have to fight in a neighboring country, it might cause you to fight in your own. Alternatives for this: the Baltics, Poland, Hungary, Moldavia and Romania are all sitting on Putin's doorstep and splitting Europe could be the precursor to Russia crossing its borders. Especially the Baltic situation is very much analogue to the Ukraine one with Kaliningrad in the role of Eastern Ukraine and the ethnic Russian population in Latvia and Lithuania potentially mobilized in the same way they were in Ukraine. Europe/NATO then has the choice to fall apart or come to the aid of their members; which more or less would set the stage for WWIII. None of this is fun to contemplate but I think these risks are real.
      - dfawcus 7y ago
        Don't worry - assuming the Tories do win a majority, and the UK leaves the EU: Then with the loss of the SM, and no trading relations (probably for 7+ years), our economy will take a serious hit, and we'll likely suffer some form of recession. There are plenty of us who know that such an economic impact is simply a consequence of our own choices. We're going to be too busy sorting out our own problems, with each domestic side blaming the others, and possibly successive governments from opposite sides of political spectrum. A return to the 70s. So I rather doubt we'll be a threat to any other European state. We'll be navel gazing for some time. Also our conventional forces are seriously eroded, we've wasted money on useless aircraft carriers, and other vanity kit. The real worry should be if the UK becomes a failed state, and some nutter finds the nuclear trigger.
        7y ago
- dfawcus 7y ago
  "there hasn't been an intra-european war in a long time" However is that really attributable to the existence of the EEC? Or was it the fact that the Cold War was ongoing, and that Germany was essentially disarmed and occupied? I'd suggest that the latter was sufficient to prevent a war between Germany and France (the feared intra-european war). Hence we can not make any claims as to if the existence of the EEC/EU was necessary for that peace in the period prior to 1994. The post 1994 period is more interesting (especially after 2008), and here the EU does provide forums for greater understanding between the nations of its member states. So if we want to measure the EU's ability to create peace within its bounds, I'd suggest we only start counting from 10 years ago. As to the neoliberal agenda, I'd suggest that started with the Single Market and its increased regulatory convergence, hence also from around 1994.

black_puppydog 7y ago

I should have really mentioned "there hasn't been an intra-european war in a long time" as one of the definite upsides. So I'll happily concede that this was one of the driving forces behind the very beginnings of the European project. But for the last 30-40 years, there has been a very clear neoliberal agenda throughout Europe, and as detailed above, it's not a good development for most people. For now, the nationalists have mostly focused on "non-Europeans" as the scapegoats, but e.g. in Germany, the "lazy Greeks" have had their (un)fair share of xenophobia too, and I don't see that getting better as we keep pitting the poor against the even poorer. So now we stand to lose what little unity we have to a market "religion" and its fallout.

jacquesm 7y ago
> there hasn't been an intra-european war in a long time Former Yugoslavia aside, this is no guarantee there won't be and with the rise of nationalism things are not looking good.
- svara 7y ago
  While you're certainly right that there is no guarantee in the strictest sense, do you really believe that? I'm German-French. I honestly believe I've never met anyone in my life in my age group (that I've talked to enough to say this) who would be willing to go fight a neighboring country. Where would these people, and support for them, come from?
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    > I'm German-French. I honestly believe I've never met anyone in my life in my age group (that I've talked to enough to say this) who would be willing to go fight a neighboring country. Just to give you one example: if a Trump type would gain the upper hand in any one of the larger European countries all of which have a strong representation of what I'd loosely term neo-nationalists the stage would be set for an 'us vs them' degrading of international relations. The UK is a prime candidate for this. If such an aggressor were to aim to go for retribution based on perceived sleights (for instance: the economy tanking because of 'them') then you just might have to defend yourself from that. Which would not cause you to have to fight in a neighboring country, it might cause you to fight in your own. Alternatives for this: the Baltics, Poland, Hungary, Moldavia and Romania are all sitting on Putin's doorstep and splitting Europe could be the precursor to Russia crossing its borders. Especially the Baltic situation is very much analogue to the Ukraine one with Kaliningrad in the role of Eastern Ukraine and the ethnic Russian population in Latvia and Lithuania potentially mobilized in the same way they were in Ukraine. Europe/NATO then has the choice to fall apart or come to the aid of their members; which more or less would set the stage for WWIII. None of this is fun to contemplate but I think these risks are real.
    - dfawcus 7y ago
      Don't worry - assuming the Tories do win a majority, and the UK leaves the EU: Then with the loss of the SM, and no trading relations (probably for 7+ years), our economy will take a serious hit, and we'll likely suffer some form of recession. There are plenty of us who know that such an economic impact is simply a consequence of our own choices. We're going to be too busy sorting out our own problems, with each domestic side blaming the others, and possibly successive governments from opposite sides of political spectrum. A return to the 70s. So I rather doubt we'll be a threat to any other European state. We'll be navel gazing for some time. Also our conventional forces are seriously eroded, we've wasted money on useless aircraft carriers, and other vanity kit. The real worry should be if the UK becomes a failed state, and some nutter finds the nuclear trigger.
      - 7y ago
dfawcus 7y ago
"there hasn't been an intra-european war in a long time" However is that really attributable to the existence of the EEC? Or was it the fact that the Cold War was ongoing, and that Germany was essentially disarmed and occupied? I'd suggest that the latter was sufficient to prevent a war between Germany and France (the feared intra-european war). Hence we can not make any claims as to if the existence of the EEC/EU was necessary for that peace in the period prior to 1994. The post 1994 period is more interesting (especially after 2008), and here the EU does provide forums for greater understanding between the nations of its member states. So if we want to measure the EU's ability to create peace within its bounds, I'd suggest we only start counting from 10 years ago. As to the neoliberal agenda, I'd suggest that started with the Single Market and its increased regulatory convergence, hence also from around 1994.