4 ms·

At some point, the EU has to see a pattern of degradation and corruption, and start engaging actively with the people of the countries, instead of just expectin

At some point, the EU has to see a pattern of degradation and corruption, and start engaging actively with the people of the countries, instead of just expecting places such as Bulgaria and Romania to wake up and decide to be rich and developed out of nowhere.

random3 6y ago
Great point! I'd generalize this and say you have to do this with any minority group that is "below" some desired level (within a country, community, etc.). And concretely, you need to invest in access to money and high quality education first.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  You’re both right. You have to empower the disenfranchised through active engagement and investment, but also use financial repercussions against those who would continue to subjugate another class. Without both, success is much more difficult. Fight corruption with a financial boot. I imagine Bulgaria needs the EU more than the EU needs Bulgaria. This requires more spine in Brussels though.
  - Ar-Curunir 6y ago
    The non-elite in Bulgaria need access to the capital and economic opportunities of the EU; the Bulgarian elite already have access. Also, economic sanctions inevitably hurt the poor more than the rich; this is the case in Venezuela, Iran, and many other countries across the world
krastanov 6y ago
You are right, but I would like to point out that this very article lists multiple ways Bulgaria is already improving. It is not all doom and gloom, even if there are outstanding serious problems.
jariel 6y ago
The EU has also created conditions to move the health, young workers and the educated class out of there, and into the the West, which is an existential shock to their system. It's hard to institute reform when the people most able to commit to it have been given 2x their paycheck to go elsewhere.
mschuster91 6y ago
The EU knew the state of Bulgaria and Romania before inviting them to join. The general idea was that a certain amount of nation-scale wealth transfer (e.g. via infrastructure projects, ag subsidies) and individual wealth transfer (e.g. remittances of people working abroad) would help bring the former Eastern Bloc countries up to speed, gradually remove corruption and transform towards democracy. Let's keep it at "the idea was nice, the actual execution was... flawed".
- kavalg 6y ago
  Just out of curiosity, when you say actual execution do you mean the execution done by EU bodies or the execution of the government(s) of Bulgaria?
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    Both to be honest, and that's not just for Bulgaria/Romania but all former Yugoslavian and USSR countries, and even Western-allied countries such as Greece and Italy. The EU failed to predict local government's corruption or outright destructive behavior (e.g. Visegrad blockade in refugee questions), its foundational assumption was that member states were all aligned towards one common goal and not behave actively destructive. Local governments failed to uphold their values and more often than not saw the EU as a cash cow waiting to be exploited.
motomoto 6y ago
Romania GDP per capita grew more that 6 times in the last 30 years. Talk about being clueless: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locations=RO-MD-HU-RS-BG-UA&name_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locat... Still on the subject of Romania, no, it's not the mythical EU funds that fuel this growth, because the funds are tiny compared to the size of the economy and 2/3 end up not being spent at all because extremely strict anti-corruption measures that make it a massive pain in the ass to try and access EU funds. Government debt is at 35% of GDP, growth rate is constantly among best 3 in EU, constantly over 5%, unemployment under 4%, wages grow between 5-7% annually, inflation is under 3%, criminality is way lower than the West etc. Is that bad? And I think Romania could do even better if not for EU's idiotic trade policy and regulation bullshit.
- bad_user 6y ago
  Hi, I'm a Romanian. It may not be EU's funds that fuel our growth (although they help), however not sure if you're aware but the growth you're talking of happened after we entered EU, not before. Before EU we were at the same level as Moldova. Our growth is perfectly correlated with our EU membership. If you want to see what would have happened without EU, look at Moldova. And it's easy to see why. In spite of regulations, compared to the 90s we have a market to sell our products to. We no longer build tractors that nobody wants. And we exported our poverty, the poor and uneducated becoming seasonal workers, that no longer need a passport and visa to travel and that then send money home. Also the anti-corruption policies you mentioned have been fueled by EU membership too, things moving under foreign pressure. Speaking of which it's not actually anti-corruption measures that prevent us from accessing EU's funds but our government's incompetence. We disagree. I think Romania would be the shithole that it was in the 90s if it wasn't for EU and its "trade policy and regulation bullshit". The arrangement was and continues to be mutually beneficial.
  - virgilp 6y ago
    Romanian too. > If you want to see what would have happened without EU, look at Moldova. Heck - if you want to see what would have happened without EU, look all around: Ukraine, Moldova, Serbia. Serbia and Ukraine were miles ahead of us until we joined the EU.
mrtksn 6y ago
Not going to happen, especially in this climate with sovereignty and nationalism demands in rise. In EU, countries preserve most of their sovereignty and all EU can do is cutting funds and no country will give up sovereignty to enable EU interfere with domestic matters. Bulgaria is like that because Bulgarians like it this way, EU cannot enforce anything because it doesn't have the authority to make Bulgaria being governed like Germany or Netherlands.
econcon 6y ago
In a union, how can poor exist without rich, how can rich exist without poor? See, people will leave their country for better country if there is opportunity to do so which is plenty in EU when you compare the average quality of life of a German Vs Bulgarian If Bulgaria is losing its people, maybe it's the intended effect of the free movement of labor?

random3 6y ago

Great point! I'd generalize this and say you have to do this with any minority group that is "below" some desired level (within a country, community, etc.). And concretely, you need to invest in access to money and high quality education first.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
You’re both right. You have to empower the disenfranchised through active engagement and investment, but also use financial repercussions against those who would continue to subjugate another class. Without both, success is much more difficult. Fight corruption with a financial boot. I imagine Bulgaria needs the EU more than the EU needs Bulgaria. This requires more spine in Brussels though.
- Ar-Curunir 6y ago
  The non-elite in Bulgaria need access to the capital and economic opportunities of the EU; the Bulgarian elite already have access. Also, economic sanctions inevitably hurt the poor more than the rich; this is the case in Venezuela, Iran, and many other countries across the world

krastanov 6y ago

You are right, but I would like to point out that this very article lists multiple ways Bulgaria is already improving. It is not all doom and gloom, even if there are outstanding serious problems.

jariel 6y ago

The EU has also created conditions to move the health, young workers and the educated class out of there, and into the the West, which is an existential shock to their system. It's hard to institute reform when the people most able to commit to it have been given 2x their paycheck to go elsewhere.

mschuster91 6y ago

The EU knew the state of Bulgaria and Romania before inviting them to join. The general idea was that a certain amount of nation-scale wealth transfer (e.g. via infrastructure projects, ag subsidies) and individual wealth transfer (e.g. remittances of people working abroad) would help bring the former Eastern Bloc countries up to speed, gradually remove corruption and transform towards democracy. Let's keep it at "the idea was nice, the actual execution was... flawed".

kavalg 6y ago
Just out of curiosity, when you say actual execution do you mean the execution done by EU bodies or the execution of the government(s) of Bulgaria?
- mschuster91 6y ago
  Both to be honest, and that's not just for Bulgaria/Romania but all former Yugoslavian and USSR countries, and even Western-allied countries such as Greece and Italy. The EU failed to predict local government's corruption or outright destructive behavior (e.g. Visegrad blockade in refugee questions), its foundational assumption was that member states were all aligned towards one common goal and not behave actively destructive. Local governments failed to uphold their values and more often than not saw the EU as a cash cow waiting to be exploited.

motomoto 6y ago

Romania GDP per capita grew more that 6 times in the last 30 years. Talk about being clueless: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locations=RO-MD-HU-RS-BG-UA&name_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locat... Still on the subject of Romania, no, it's not the mythical EU funds that fuel this growth, because the funds are tiny compared to the size of the economy and 2/3 end up not being spent at all because extremely strict anti-corruption measures that make it a massive pain in the ass to try and access EU funds. Government debt is at 35% of GDP, growth rate is constantly among best 3 in EU, constantly over 5%, unemployment under 4%, wages grow between 5-7% annually, inflation is under 3%, criminality is way lower than the West etc. Is that bad? And I think Romania could do even better if not for EU's idiotic trade policy and regulation bullshit.

bad_user 6y ago
Hi, I'm a Romanian. It may not be EU's funds that fuel our growth (although they help), however not sure if you're aware but the growth you're talking of happened after we entered EU, not before. Before EU we were at the same level as Moldova. Our growth is perfectly correlated with our EU membership. If you want to see what would have happened without EU, look at Moldova. And it's easy to see why. In spite of regulations, compared to the 90s we have a market to sell our products to. We no longer build tractors that nobody wants. And we exported our poverty, the poor and uneducated becoming seasonal workers, that no longer need a passport and visa to travel and that then send money home. Also the anti-corruption policies you mentioned have been fueled by EU membership too, things moving under foreign pressure. Speaking of which it's not actually anti-corruption measures that prevent us from accessing EU's funds but our government's incompetence. We disagree. I think Romania would be the shithole that it was in the 90s if it wasn't for EU and its "trade policy and regulation bullshit". The arrangement was and continues to be mutually beneficial.
- virgilp 6y ago
  Romanian too. > If you want to see what would have happened without EU, look at Moldova. Heck - if you want to see what would have happened without EU, look all around: Ukraine, Moldova, Serbia. Serbia and Ukraine were miles ahead of us until we joined the EU.

mrtksn 6y ago

Not going to happen, especially in this climate with sovereignty and nationalism demands in rise. In EU, countries preserve most of their sovereignty and all EU can do is cutting funds and no country will give up sovereignty to enable EU interfere with domestic matters. Bulgaria is like that because Bulgarians like it this way, EU cannot enforce anything because it doesn't have the authority to make Bulgaria being governed like Germany or Netherlands.

econcon 6y ago

In a union, how can poor exist without rich, how can rich exist without poor? See, people will leave their country for better country if there is opportunity to do so which is plenty in EU when you compare the average quality of life of a German Vs Bulgarian If Bulgaria is losing its people, maybe it's the intended effect of the free movement of labor?