13 ms·

I think that in a certain way Brexit could be beneficial for the EU. Britain was in basically just in for the economic side of the European Communities, and alw

I think that in a certain way Brexit could be beneficial for the EU. Britain was in basically just in for the economic side of the European Communities, and always rejected or scoffed at the idea of European integration, and with its large economy it allowed other Euroskeptical countries to get out of European projects without risking too much. For instance, I could well see a non-Brexited UK (maybe one where Brexit lost by less than 2%) rejecting the Recovery Fund as currently proposed due to how strongly it ties EU countries together, inadvertently strengthening the position of authoritarian eastern countries like Hungary and Poland.

JetSetWilly 6y ago
From this point of view, it should be good for France and bad for Germany. When the UK was in the EU it had a much more pro-market, pro-EU expansion agenda. France was at the other extreme and Germany was in the middle. This afforded Germany some flexibility as it could "choose" between these different axes as needed. With the UK gone that means that voice is much weakened and to some extent countries like Germany will have to make more concessions to France as there's less of a counterweight in the other direction. Whether this is "beneficial for the EU" depends on if you think increased integration is a good thing or not. If you are fully signed up lover of the European project then it is probably good, but if you're leery of further integration then it is probably bad.
- dmurray 6y ago
  > When the UK was in the EU it had a much more pro-market, pro-EU expansion agenda. Do you mean an anti-EU-expansion agenda? If so I totally agree: as someone who quite likes the EU but doesn't favour further integration, it was good to have the UK tempering any efforts in that direction.
  - arethuza 6y ago
    It seems that the UK was a very strong advocate for EU expansion until about 2013 or so when our government decided they didn't like East Europeans: https://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/news/uk-no-longer-advocates-for-eu-enlargement/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/news/uk-no-long... Edit: There was quite ridiculous scare mongering in the UK media at the time about Bulgaria and Romania. No doubt part of the general trend that eventually led to Brexit.
    - raxxorrax 6y ago
      Thing is that some candidates for expansion have questionable practices when it comes to democracy. This is why those countries often see the EU in a positive light as it isn't as corrupt as their local gov at least. I don't think current EU leaders really have any long-term plan, they just keep on steering in the same direction. Can be good or bad depending on your perspective.
    - fmajid 6y ago
      The UK was in favor of enlargement precisely because it would hinder integration. The best explanation of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE
      - lsllc 6y ago
        I knew precisely what this would be before clicking on it! Well done!
    - tharne 6y ago
      I don't think it was fear-mongering that led to anti-EU sentiment so much as basic economics. Since most Europeans learn at least some English in school, you have an asymmetry when it comes to jobs. Eastern Europeans can look for jobs in their home countries as well as in Britain. British folks, on the other hand, don't really get any more in the way of job opportunities unless they speak Romanian or Polish. So you have a situation where you have increased competition without increased opportunity.
      - mrtksn 6y ago
        Actually, being native English speaker is always a money making skill by itself. Seriously, having a western look and speaking English are marketable skills. There are people who literally make living out of it. When it comes to Easter Europeans, they need to have the skills to get the job in first place(Polish don't get the jobs because of their Polishness), they must be able to speak some English in addition to one or two languages that they already know and they must have the capital to move to UK(Usually means years of savings). If the British are having hard time to compete with Eastern Europeans they need to look into their education system. The government as the first step in HR will help with reducing the competition but in the same time that means that UK companies will have less options in hiring which is likely to reduce the output. In my opinion, companies should be allowed to hire whoever they want and work visa or nationality is not a skill, just blunt regulatory barrier for voter distribution.
  - paganel 6y ago
    There's not that much left to integrate, anyway. There's Montenegro, maybe Albania and North Macedonia next, a big maybe for Serbia (do they still want in?) and Bosnia and a definitely "no chance in hell" for Turkey (even though in the early 2000s it looked like a real possibility). Ukraine is too much of a hot potato to be touched by the EU. I forgot about Moldova, but for better or worse half of its population is already working abroad.
    - dmurray 6y ago
      To be clear, I wasn't talking about geographical integration, but further integration of national institutions. E.g. An EU army, a shared EU tax policy...
      - draugadrotten 6y ago
        No doubt, France is pro-EUarmy and pro-EUtax, as long as the army speaks French and the tax goes to French farmers.
        morsch 6y ago
        France contributes more to the EU budget than it gets out of it, including farming subsidies. With the UK gone, France is/will be the second largest contributor, in absolute terms. The largest beneficiaries, again in absolute terms, are the two countries that pretend to be Euro sceptic, Hungary and Poland. Go figure. Of course that's just the EU budget. The advantage that all countries but particularly France and Germany (and, for another couple of weeks, the UK) get from frictionless trade are enormous. https://m.bpb.de/nachschlagen/zahlen-und-fakten/europa/70580/nettozahler-und-nettoempfaenger https://m.bpb.de/nachschlagen/zahlen-und-fakten/europa/70580...
        Ericson2314 6y ago
        And don't forget Germany benefits form those countries dragging down the currency too, perhaps more than it does for trade barriers.
- yourapostasy 6y ago
  > If you are fully signed up lover of the European project then it is probably good, but if you're leery of further integration then it is probably bad. I wonder if further integration will give insight into the common claim that the integration of diverse cultures in the US emerges many kinds of challenges other more homogeneous nations face in a much more muted fashion. I'm not swayed by that claim standing alone, since with metrics compiled along linguistic rather than genetic diversity axes (arguably a larger determinant of culture influences) [1], the US ranks around middle of the pack among nations. What I suspect is happening is a form of the Resource Curse. Take a large, economically powerful great power (US end of 19th century), add generous immigration and assimilation policies, turn it into a superpower (US post-WW2), and it is possible the ensuing mayhem scramble for financial dominance within that economic windfall vortex (the Resource) creates fault lines in society that find their expression in culture differences. Lots of cultures, lots of differences. I also suspect if it wasn't cultural differences, it would have been some other differences leveraged; the incentives are misaligned to find commonality. If my suspicions are true, then China and EU would be prudent to decline ascending to a superpower role, multipolar world or not. If this is the real dynamic at work, then the superpower mantle is the ultimate appeal to a nation's people's vanity, containing a hidden poisoned chalice just like a Resource Curse. And would be better served by participating and "leading from below", charting a new direction in nation-state evolution. Some form like more open information sharing with less developed nations on what works but leaving them to their own devices unless they start destabilizing armed foreign adventures of their own, putting effort into a global tide lifting all boats through trade. Perhaps re-directing the centralizing destructive forces of extreme economic prosperity I suspect develop around a superpower into a wider, amortized net of network effects amortizing the prosperity into more internalized relationships into a diffuse commonwealth-style syndicate of powers, perhaps in turn re-directing to Big Hairy Problems like getting off planet. And the US and rest of G20 would be prudent to participate in such an evolution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_et...
- usrusr 6y ago
  If you break it down to quantity (wider integration of more countries, and more dissimilar countries) vs quality (deeper integration of a smaller core) then the "quantity" project is almost done anyways. There are still a few gaps on the Balkans but other than that, any considerable future widening (and thus weakening, as the quality position would call it) would involve pushing hard towards Russia, Arabia or not towards but into Africa. If there was some UK long game of shaping the EU into some form of smaller version of the UN paper tiger, brexit should be seen as a mission accomplished victory lap.
  - JetSetWilly 6y ago
    The UK was very for Turkey joining the EU and a major backer of that, but now Erdoganisation has put that beyond the pale. Similarly so for eastern europe it has been pushed about as far as it can go, so I think you're right. Unless neighbouring countries (Ukraine, Turkey etc) really massively up their game the EU is not expanding again for a while. The most likely new member state would be if Scotland became independent!
    - pjc50 6y ago
      Ironic given that the "threat" of turkey joining was a major vote winner for Brexit.
      - fakedang 6y ago
        Prior to that, Turkey was the possible counterweight to the German-French partnership in the EU.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  > it should be good for France and bad for Germany the permanent triangulation between France, Germany, and the UK in itself was harmful to the EU. It's always been a problem for us (speaking as a German citizen) that we were torn between pro-integration and sovereignty. At the end of the day the EU can only work if France and Germany, realistically being by far the two dominant countries in the union, have a clear, common vision rather than obstructing the institutions. With the UK out of the window I actually see this lack of choice as positive, because it finally forces resolution of the question where the EU should go. What I'm saying is, nothing that is bad for France and good for Germany or vice versa is good for either one of us in the long run.
- cm2187 6y ago
  France isn’t super pro-integration. The current president is, but the population isn’t excited about more losses of sovereignty. Cf the EU constitution referendum. And people forget the French voted for the creation of the euro with a razor thin margin.
woofwoofwoof 6y ago
I am far from being an expert, but on the other side now it might be easier for Britain to set up more favourable conditions for startups and tech companies since now they don't have to comply with EU laws.
- arethuza 6y ago
  Which EU laws were stopping people creating startups in the UK? NB Only thing I could think of as being relevant would the working time directive but everyone just opts out of that? Edit: I did co-found a VC-funded startup in the UK, but not recently, wondering what might have changed!
  - olalonde 6y ago
    Parent was probably referring to the General Data Protection Regulation.
    - the-dude 6y ago
      You still have to comply with the GDPR if you want to target the EU.
      - mrtksn 6y ago
        And not comply if you don't target EU I presume?
        the-dude 6y ago
        You don't have to not comply.
- youngNed 6y ago
  if 'startups and tech companies' is a euphamism, for shysters, con-artists, charlatans and crooks, then yes, i do believe that Britain is about to get EVEN more attractive
- 6y ago
jpcooper 6y ago
I don’t agree with your argument. Is there really any country in the EU which is not in it for the money and security of its citizens alone? What other motive would a country have to be in the EU, barring ostensibly moralistic arguments, which in themselves will be made with economic motives? Some people win from the recovery fund, and some people don’t. The EU is not a dictatorship. If a country stands to lose, it should be able to make an attempt to have its case accepted. The UK’s hypothetical rejection is no different from a country’s complaint against this very rejection. Both are done with the same motive, and should be treated in an equally sober way. Edit: I’ve tried to make a faithful argument. Please explain instead of downvoting.
- lmm 6y ago
  > Is there really any country in the EU which is not in it for the money and security of its citizens alone? Those are two quite separate concerns. Much of mainland Europe, France and Germany especially, want to build the institutions and integration that will prevent another war, even if it costs them economically. Simple geography means that's always been less of a concern for the UK.
  - jpcooper 6y ago
    Fair enough. If that is the case, both sides win. I took issue with the claim that the UK was just in it for the money, without mentioning that everyone is. How could it be any different? This argument has been a common theme I’ve noticed in Brexit debates from people across the EU.
    - Arnt 6y ago
      What makes you think everyone is in it just for the money? The EU started as a peace project, and I think it makes most sense to regard it as fundamentally that, even now. It is an implementation device for peaceful cooperation with your neighbours. It's an endless series of contracts and treaties that provide benefits from good neighbourship. If you accept that view, the EU's view of Northern Ireland in the Brexit negotiations becomes obvious. It's not about solidarity with the member country Eire, it's about keeping the peace (which the Irish also want, yes).
arethuza 6y ago
"I think that in a certain way Brexit could be beneficial for the EU" It would be nice to think that someone would benefit even if its not the UK. Sadly I think both the UK and the EU are going to be worse off because of Brexit.
- eldaisfish 6y ago
  I really wish more people realised this. The UK has tremendous soft power in addition to significant economic and diplomatic power. London was the EU's only truly global city. People may point to Paris, Frankfurt etc but those cities do not wield the influence and financial clout of London. Brexit is a loss for both sides.
  - arethuza 6y ago
    I'm pretty sure the UK won't exist in its current form in 5 years - directly as a result of Brexit.
    - tim333 6y ago
      The Poundland Kingdom of England and Wales.
      - arethuza 6y ago
        My suggestion was the Former United Kingdom.
        mywittyname 6y ago
        I've been hearing it called the Un-united Kingdom.
        tonyedgecombe 6y ago
        UUK or FUK, tough decision.
kstenerud 6y ago
"Yes, Minister" was a great show because they got so much of UK politics spot on, especially when dealing with Europe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zNTbDodjv4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zNTbDodjv4
- jpcooper 6y ago
  Also worth watching is the MP. Mr. Alan B’Stard’s case for Brexit (from the sitcom The New Statesman). https://youtu.be/xeiGLSy-1zU https://youtu.be/xeiGLSy-1zU
cromka 6y ago
> rejecting the Recovery Fund as currently proposed due to how strongly it ties EU countries together, inadvertently strengthening the position of authoritarian eastern countries like Hungary and Poland. This almost exact scenario has previously happened already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union#The_British_and_Polish_protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_... (those using mobile Wikipedia app, scroll down to "The British and Polish protocol") Also: > Britain was in basically just in for the economic side of the European Communities, and always rejected or scoffed at the idea of European integration The lecture of other opt-outs tends to confirm that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union Lastly: > authoritarian eastern countries like Hungary and Poland. While I understand that the situation there is a bit dire by EU standards, calling them authoritarian is an overstatement. They're not Belarus, UAE or NK. Yet...
mtgx 6y ago
Absolutely, UK has benefitted so much these past few decades not just because it was a well developed country on its own, but because it had English as national language, which basically made it the default location for any U.S. company wanting to establish another headquarters in "Europe" or the EU. With UK out of the picture, a lot more companies will switch headquarters to a bunch of other EU countries, even if the language barrier will be a bit of a pain to deal with at first. I for one with the EU mandated English as the 2nd official language in all EU countries to be taught in schools at all times, used in stores, all online services, etc. It would single-handedly create an economic boom in the EU, for the simple reason that all EU citizens would speak the same language.
machiaweliczny 6y ago
I am from Poland and I can assure you that we are 2nd oldest democracy in the world and not an authoritarian country.
- Twixes 6y ago
  5, 10, 20 years ago I'd say: sure, things aren't great but still better than ever. Now in the last 5 years top courts have been overtaken completely by the ruling party, district attorneys are on political leashes shorter than ever in the last 30 years, state companies are buying up property solely to increase the ruling party's power and give its zealots comfy places to receive inordinate salaries for nothing (like the recent massive newspaper publisher acquisition by the state oil company), all top state officials are openly devoted to pushing the Catholic Church's agenda and to providing the clergy with money and influence, LGBT Poles are demonized by the government just to convince people to vote for the party that will "protect the families" or whatever bullshit, and – the engine behind much of this – the state media apparatus is truly on par with the communist government one's in outright propaganda (it's incredible how similar the language is – Russia Today is subtlety in comparison). It's not outright authoritarian, but we're well on the way. Also, Poland is certainly not the 2nd democracy, nowhere near that. It was very early to the concept of constitutions, but that didn't even last a few years until the country was taken apart completely by neighbors for over a century.
pawelmi 6y ago
Majority of Polish people is pro European, however like in few other places in the world, unlucky series of events caused populists to reach to power. They used old divide and conquer techniques, seized media and manage to destroy some democratic circuit-breaker institutions. Since more then a month there are huge protests in the streets, despite covid. Worst case ee have to wait 3 years until next elections, but let's keep fingers crossed.
- xiphias2 6y ago
  In Hungary people are so desperate at this point that they don't even go to the streets. Orban was able to change the law that Hungarians outside Hungary's border who don't even pay taxes can vote (just get a small amount of money from Orban). I already moved my assets to safer places a long time ago, as I'm not too optimistic.
addicted 6y ago
Individual EU countries might be better off. But the EU overall is worse off. Also, having a worse off UK even if it’s outside the EU is not a good thing for EU countries. Contrary to what many believe, the global economy is not a zero sum game. For the most part, the UK doing better means the countries it has trade relations with will also do better.
- an_opabinia 6y ago
  > the global economy is not a zero sum game If there is any painful lesson of the last 4 years, it's that the economy might not be zero sum, but the accounting sure feels like it is.
rayiner 6y ago
If Brexit hadn’t happened, the Recovery Fund would’ve pushed the UK out. As proven by the American experience, on collective debt is the last step in becoming a single country. It seems insane to me that Europe would do this, with America out there as a warning sign, but it’s their funeral I guess.
- stkdump 6y ago
  Do you think America is worse off being a single country as opposed to many smaller nations?
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Economically it’s better off. Politically and socially I think it’s worse off. The federal government started as a vehicle for economic integration and has become a vehicle for social and cultural normalization. That’s a problem because while the US is more homogenous than say the EU, it’s more heterogenous than say France, Germany, or the UK. Here’s what I see as the basic problem. Most countries are ethnostates, including most European countries. The UK is still 80% ethnic British, Germany is still 80% ethnic German, Sweden is 80% ethnic Swedes, etc. Regardless of political differences, they have a strong common bond. Americans don’t realize just how strong this bond is. I’m a Bangladeshi immigrant raised in America. I have almost nothing in common with most Bangladeshis. But my ancestors are buried there and that means a lot. In the US, there is no common ethnic ties. (No ancestry makes up more than 15%.) As my wife says, America is a “credo nation.” In a way that’s a strength, allowing the country to readily absorb immigrants. On the other hand, that’s basically a political ideology disguised as a national culture. What do Americans that don’t share politics, and don’t have the close ties that come from living in the same geographic area, have in common? Culturally there are large divergences. The United States is the most religious developed country in the world, comparable to Poland or Iran in terms of people who pray daily. But large pockets are as secular as Paris. In fact possibly more so. In France, for example, the cultural Catholicism of French secular society mediates between Paris and the daily churchgoers in the rural areas (https://www.europenowjournal.org/2019/10/02/the-catholic-ness-of-secular-france https://www.europenowjournal.org/2019/10/02/the-catholic-nes...). What would happen if people in France got to control abortion or religious laws in Poland? That’s maybe even understating the distinction. France, perhaps as a result of cultural Catholicism, has abortion laws that would be unconstitutional in every US state (generally illegal after 12 weeks). 24 weeks is common in the US, and states like Massachusetts want to make it legal based on a doctor’s judgment up until birth. (However justified, it’s undeniable that law is based on sweeping moral premises regarding when personal autonomy or the judgment of a single expert can override the state’s authority to protect life). What would happen if a court in Brussels had banned schools in Poland or Italy or Spain (or heck, Germany or the Netherlands or the UK) from offering even religious education even on an opt-out basis? Or struck down nearly every country’s abortion laws? Would anyone still want further EU integration? The US has long papered over these differences with an exaggerated patriotism. Commonality through the belief in the goodness of America, it’s constitution, and its history. That hasn’t broken down completely but it’s breaking down. America has been more divided before. But the nature of the country was very different back then. In a country where the federal government is tiny and focuses mainly on defense and regulating interstate trade, these differences just don’t mean as much. But that totally changed in the 20th century. FDR killed federalism and fundamentally changed the nature of the country. Meanwhile, the Warren Court inserted the federal government into myriad social issues. Suddenly, the federal government had to power to decide that you couldn’t have prayer in schools and you couldn’t shut down strip clubs. World War II, the post-war economic boom, and the external threat of the Soviet Union provided a common identity and shared purpose for a long time. After the fall of communism, that evaporated. What’s left country of 330 million people, faced with the same economic challenge all developed countries are facing, but also deep cultural fissures. The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett was a stark example of this. She’s insanely popular among Republicans, with 95% of people approving of her. Democrats, meanwhile, didn’t just attack her judicial philosophy. (A sitting Senator called it just “another way of saying racism, sexism, and homophobia.”) They said she was a character from a dystopian science fiction novel. Whatever your politics you have to appreciate the significance of that. On one hand you have people who see her as a model of an exemplary life—and the values that produce such a person. And on the other hand you have people who see her as an attack on modernity itself. Now, you obviously have liberals and conservatives in every country, and political and social disagreements. I suspect, though, that the difference between Massachusetts and Louisiana is bigger than between Bavaria and Berlin. Regardless, Germans are still Germans. Americans don’t understand how powerful that bond is, because they don’t have it and don’t realize that maybe they need something else to fill the void.

JetSetWilly 6y ago

From this point of view, it should be good for France and bad for Germany. When the UK was in the EU it had a much more pro-market, pro-EU expansion agenda. France was at the other extreme and Germany was in the middle. This afforded Germany some flexibility as it could "choose" between these different axes as needed. With the UK gone that means that voice is much weakened and to some extent countries like Germany will have to make more concessions to France as there's less of a counterweight in the other direction. Whether this is "beneficial for the EU" depends on if you think increased integration is a good thing or not. If you are fully signed up lover of the European project then it is probably good, but if you're leery of further integration then it is probably bad.

dmurray 6y ago
> When the UK was in the EU it had a much more pro-market, pro-EU expansion agenda. Do you mean an anti-EU-expansion agenda? If so I totally agree: as someone who quite likes the EU but doesn't favour further integration, it was good to have the UK tempering any efforts in that direction.
- arethuza 6y ago
  It seems that the UK was a very strong advocate for EU expansion until about 2013 or so when our government decided they didn't like East Europeans: https://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/news/uk-no-longer-advocates-for-eu-enlargement/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/news/uk-no-long... Edit: There was quite ridiculous scare mongering in the UK media at the time about Bulgaria and Romania. No doubt part of the general trend that eventually led to Brexit.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    Thing is that some candidates for expansion have questionable practices when it comes to democracy. This is why those countries often see the EU in a positive light as it isn't as corrupt as their local gov at least. I don't think current EU leaders really have any long-term plan, they just keep on steering in the same direction. Can be good or bad depending on your perspective.
  - fmajid 6y ago
    The UK was in favor of enlargement precisely because it would hinder integration. The best explanation of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE
    - lsllc 6y ago
      I knew precisely what this would be before clicking on it! Well done!
  - tharne 6y ago
    I don't think it was fear-mongering that led to anti-EU sentiment so much as basic economics. Since most Europeans learn at least some English in school, you have an asymmetry when it comes to jobs. Eastern Europeans can look for jobs in their home countries as well as in Britain. British folks, on the other hand, don't really get any more in the way of job opportunities unless they speak Romanian or Polish. So you have a situation where you have increased competition without increased opportunity.
    - mrtksn 6y ago
      Actually, being native English speaker is always a money making skill by itself. Seriously, having a western look and speaking English are marketable skills. There are people who literally make living out of it. When it comes to Easter Europeans, they need to have the skills to get the job in first place(Polish don't get the jobs because of their Polishness), they must be able to speak some English in addition to one or two languages that they already know and they must have the capital to move to UK(Usually means years of savings). If the British are having hard time to compete with Eastern Europeans they need to look into their education system. The government as the first step in HR will help with reducing the competition but in the same time that means that UK companies will have less options in hiring which is likely to reduce the output. In my opinion, companies should be allowed to hire whoever they want and work visa or nationality is not a skill, just blunt regulatory barrier for voter distribution.
- paganel 6y ago
  There's not that much left to integrate, anyway. There's Montenegro, maybe Albania and North Macedonia next, a big maybe for Serbia (do they still want in?) and Bosnia and a definitely "no chance in hell" for Turkey (even though in the early 2000s it looked like a real possibility). Ukraine is too much of a hot potato to be touched by the EU. I forgot about Moldova, but for better or worse half of its population is already working abroad.
  - dmurray 6y ago
    To be clear, I wasn't talking about geographical integration, but further integration of national institutions. E.g. An EU army, a shared EU tax policy...
    - draugadrotten 6y ago
      No doubt, France is pro-EUarmy and pro-EUtax, as long as the army speaks French and the tax goes to French farmers.
      - morsch 6y ago
        France contributes more to the EU budget than it gets out of it, including farming subsidies. With the UK gone, France is/will be the second largest contributor, in absolute terms. The largest beneficiaries, again in absolute terms, are the two countries that pretend to be Euro sceptic, Hungary and Poland. Go figure. Of course that's just the EU budget. The advantage that all countries but particularly France and Germany (and, for another couple of weeks, the UK) get from frictionless trade are enormous. https://m.bpb.de/nachschlagen/zahlen-und-fakten/europa/70580/nettozahler-und-nettoempfaenger https://m.bpb.de/nachschlagen/zahlen-und-fakten/europa/70580...
        Ericson2314 6y ago
        And don't forget Germany benefits form those countries dragging down the currency too, perhaps more than it does for trade barriers.
yourapostasy 6y ago
> If you are fully signed up lover of the European project then it is probably good, but if you're leery of further integration then it is probably bad. I wonder if further integration will give insight into the common claim that the integration of diverse cultures in the US emerges many kinds of challenges other more homogeneous nations face in a much more muted fashion. I'm not swayed by that claim standing alone, since with metrics compiled along linguistic rather than genetic diversity axes (arguably a larger determinant of culture influences) [1], the US ranks around middle of the pack among nations. What I suspect is happening is a form of the Resource Curse. Take a large, economically powerful great power (US end of 19th century), add generous immigration and assimilation policies, turn it into a superpower (US post-WW2), and it is possible the ensuing mayhem scramble for financial dominance within that economic windfall vortex (the Resource) creates fault lines in society that find their expression in culture differences. Lots of cultures, lots of differences. I also suspect if it wasn't cultural differences, it would have been some other differences leveraged; the incentives are misaligned to find commonality. If my suspicions are true, then China and EU would be prudent to decline ascending to a superpower role, multipolar world or not. If this is the real dynamic at work, then the superpower mantle is the ultimate appeal to a nation's people's vanity, containing a hidden poisoned chalice just like a Resource Curse. And would be better served by participating and "leading from below", charting a new direction in nation-state evolution. Some form like more open information sharing with less developed nations on what works but leaving them to their own devices unless they start destabilizing armed foreign adventures of their own, putting effort into a global tide lifting all boats through trade. Perhaps re-directing the centralizing destructive forces of extreme economic prosperity I suspect develop around a superpower into a wider, amortized net of network effects amortizing the prosperity into more internalized relationships into a diffuse commonwealth-style syndicate of powers, perhaps in turn re-directing to Big Hairy Problems like getting off planet. And the US and rest of G20 would be prudent to participate in such an evolution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_et...
usrusr 6y ago
If you break it down to quantity (wider integration of more countries, and more dissimilar countries) vs quality (deeper integration of a smaller core) then the "quantity" project is almost done anyways. There are still a few gaps on the Balkans but other than that, any considerable future widening (and thus weakening, as the quality position would call it) would involve pushing hard towards Russia, Arabia or not towards but into Africa. If there was some UK long game of shaping the EU into some form of smaller version of the UN paper tiger, brexit should be seen as a mission accomplished victory lap.
- JetSetWilly 6y ago
  The UK was very for Turkey joining the EU and a major backer of that, but now Erdoganisation has put that beyond the pale. Similarly so for eastern europe it has been pushed about as far as it can go, so I think you're right. Unless neighbouring countries (Ukraine, Turkey etc) really massively up their game the EU is not expanding again for a while. The most likely new member state would be if Scotland became independent!
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Ironic given that the "threat" of turkey joining was a major vote winner for Brexit.
    - fakedang 6y ago
      Prior to that, Turkey was the possible counterweight to the German-French partnership in the EU.
Barrin92 6y ago
> it should be good for France and bad for Germany the permanent triangulation between France, Germany, and the UK in itself was harmful to the EU. It's always been a problem for us (speaking as a German citizen) that we were torn between pro-integration and sovereignty. At the end of the day the EU can only work if France and Germany, realistically being by far the two dominant countries in the union, have a clear, common vision rather than obstructing the institutions. With the UK out of the window I actually see this lack of choice as positive, because it finally forces resolution of the question where the EU should go. What I'm saying is, nothing that is bad for France and good for Germany or vice versa is good for either one of us in the long run.
cm2187 6y ago
France isn’t super pro-integration. The current president is, but the population isn’t excited about more losses of sovereignty. Cf the EU constitution referendum. And people forget the French voted for the creation of the euro with a razor thin margin.

woofwoofwoof 6y ago

I am far from being an expert, but on the other side now it might be easier for Britain to set up more favourable conditions for startups and tech companies since now they don't have to comply with EU laws.

arethuza 6y ago
Which EU laws were stopping people creating startups in the UK? NB Only thing I could think of as being relevant would the working time directive but everyone just opts out of that? Edit: I did co-found a VC-funded startup in the UK, but not recently, wondering what might have changed!
- olalonde 6y ago
  Parent was probably referring to the General Data Protection Regulation.
  - the-dude 6y ago
    You still have to comply with the GDPR if you want to target the EU.
    - mrtksn 6y ago
      And not comply if you don't target EU I presume?
      - the-dude 6y ago
        You don't have to not comply.
youngNed 6y ago
if 'startups and tech companies' is a euphamism, for shysters, con-artists, charlatans and crooks, then yes, i do believe that Britain is about to get EVEN more attractive
6y ago

jpcooper 6y ago

I don’t agree with your argument. Is there really any country in the EU which is not in it for the money and security of its citizens alone? What other motive would a country have to be in the EU, barring ostensibly moralistic arguments, which in themselves will be made with economic motives? Some people win from the recovery fund, and some people don’t. The EU is not a dictatorship. If a country stands to lose, it should be able to make an attempt to have its case accepted. The UK’s hypothetical rejection is no different from a country’s complaint against this very rejection. Both are done with the same motive, and should be treated in an equally sober way. Edit: I’ve tried to make a faithful argument. Please explain instead of downvoting.

lmm 6y ago
> Is there really any country in the EU which is not in it for the money and security of its citizens alone? Those are two quite separate concerns. Much of mainland Europe, France and Germany especially, want to build the institutions and integration that will prevent another war, even if it costs them economically. Simple geography means that's always been less of a concern for the UK.
- jpcooper 6y ago
  Fair enough. If that is the case, both sides win. I took issue with the claim that the UK was just in it for the money, without mentioning that everyone is. How could it be any different? This argument has been a common theme I’ve noticed in Brexit debates from people across the EU.
  - Arnt 6y ago
    What makes you think everyone is in it just for the money? The EU started as a peace project, and I think it makes most sense to regard it as fundamentally that, even now. It is an implementation device for peaceful cooperation with your neighbours. It's an endless series of contracts and treaties that provide benefits from good neighbourship. If you accept that view, the EU's view of Northern Ireland in the Brexit negotiations becomes obvious. It's not about solidarity with the member country Eire, it's about keeping the peace (which the Irish also want, yes).

arethuza 6y ago

"I think that in a certain way Brexit could be beneficial for the EU" It would be nice to think that someone would benefit even if its not the UK. Sadly I think both the UK and the EU are going to be worse off because of Brexit.

eldaisfish 6y ago
I really wish more people realised this. The UK has tremendous soft power in addition to significant economic and diplomatic power. London was the EU's only truly global city. People may point to Paris, Frankfurt etc but those cities do not wield the influence and financial clout of London. Brexit is a loss for both sides.
- arethuza 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure the UK won't exist in its current form in 5 years - directly as a result of Brexit.
  - tim333 6y ago
    The Poundland Kingdom of England and Wales.
    - arethuza 6y ago
      My suggestion was the Former United Kingdom.
      - mywittyname 6y ago
        I've been hearing it called the Un-united Kingdom.
        tonyedgecombe 6y ago
        UUK or FUK, tough decision.

kstenerud 6y ago

"Yes, Minister" was a great show because they got so much of UK politics spot on, especially when dealing with Europe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zNTbDodjv4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zNTbDodjv4

jpcooper 6y ago
Also worth watching is the MP. Mr. Alan B’Stard’s case for Brexit (from the sitcom The New Statesman). https://youtu.be/xeiGLSy-1zU https://youtu.be/xeiGLSy-1zU

cromka 6y ago

> rejecting the Recovery Fund as currently proposed due to how strongly it ties EU countries together, inadvertently strengthening the position of authoritarian eastern countries like Hungary and Poland. This almost exact scenario has previously happened already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union#The_British_and_Polish_protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_... (those using mobile Wikipedia app, scroll down to "The British and Polish protocol") Also: > Britain was in basically just in for the economic side of the European Communities, and always rejected or scoffed at the idea of European integration The lecture of other opt-outs tends to confirm that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union Lastly: > authoritarian eastern countries like Hungary and Poland. While I understand that the situation there is a bit dire by EU standards, calling them authoritarian is an overstatement. They're not Belarus, UAE or NK. Yet...

mtgx 6y ago

Absolutely, UK has benefitted so much these past few decades not just because it was a well developed country on its own, but because it had English as national language, which basically made it the default location for any U.S. company wanting to establish another headquarters in "Europe" or the EU. With UK out of the picture, a lot more companies will switch headquarters to a bunch of other EU countries, even if the language barrier will be a bit of a pain to deal with at first. I for one with the EU mandated English as the 2nd official language in all EU countries to be taught in schools at all times, used in stores, all online services, etc. It would single-handedly create an economic boom in the EU, for the simple reason that all EU citizens would speak the same language.

machiaweliczny 6y ago

I am from Poland and I can assure you that we are 2nd oldest democracy in the world and not an authoritarian country.

Twixes 6y ago
5, 10, 20 years ago I'd say: sure, things aren't great but still better than ever. Now in the last 5 years top courts have been overtaken completely by the ruling party, district attorneys are on political leashes shorter than ever in the last 30 years, state companies are buying up property solely to increase the ruling party's power and give its zealots comfy places to receive inordinate salaries for nothing (like the recent massive newspaper publisher acquisition by the state oil company), all top state officials are openly devoted to pushing the Catholic Church's agenda and to providing the clergy with money and influence, LGBT Poles are demonized by the government just to convince people to vote for the party that will "protect the families" or whatever bullshit, and – the engine behind much of this – the state media apparatus is truly on par with the communist government one's in outright propaganda (it's incredible how similar the language is – Russia Today is subtlety in comparison). It's not outright authoritarian, but we're well on the way. Also, Poland is certainly not the 2nd democracy, nowhere near that. It was very early to the concept of constitutions, but that didn't even last a few years until the country was taken apart completely by neighbors for over a century.

pawelmi 6y ago

Majority of Polish people is pro European, however like in few other places in the world, unlucky series of events caused populists to reach to power. They used old divide and conquer techniques, seized media and manage to destroy some democratic circuit-breaker institutions. Since more then a month there are huge protests in the streets, despite covid. Worst case ee have to wait 3 years until next elections, but let's keep fingers crossed.

xiphias2 6y ago
In Hungary people are so desperate at this point that they don't even go to the streets. Orban was able to change the law that Hungarians outside Hungary's border who don't even pay taxes can vote (just get a small amount of money from Orban). I already moved my assets to safer places a long time ago, as I'm not too optimistic.

addicted 6y ago

Individual EU countries might be better off. But the EU overall is worse off. Also, having a worse off UK even if it’s outside the EU is not a good thing for EU countries. Contrary to what many believe, the global economy is not a zero sum game. For the most part, the UK doing better means the countries it has trade relations with will also do better.

an_opabinia 6y ago
> the global economy is not a zero sum game If there is any painful lesson of the last 4 years, it's that the economy might not be zero sum, but the accounting sure feels like it is.

rayiner 6y ago

If Brexit hadn’t happened, the Recovery Fund would’ve pushed the UK out. As proven by the American experience, on collective debt is the last step in becoming a single country. It seems insane to me that Europe would do this, with America out there as a warning sign, but it’s their funeral I guess.

stkdump 6y ago
Do you think America is worse off being a single country as opposed to many smaller nations?
- rayiner 6y ago
  Economically it’s better off. Politically and socially I think it’s worse off. The federal government started as a vehicle for economic integration and has become a vehicle for social and cultural normalization. That’s a problem because while the US is more homogenous than say the EU, it’s more heterogenous than say France, Germany, or the UK. Here’s what I see as the basic problem. Most countries are ethnostates, including most European countries. The UK is still 80% ethnic British, Germany is still 80% ethnic German, Sweden is 80% ethnic Swedes, etc. Regardless of political differences, they have a strong common bond. Americans don’t realize just how strong this bond is. I’m a Bangladeshi immigrant raised in America. I have almost nothing in common with most Bangladeshis. But my ancestors are buried there and that means a lot. In the US, there is no common ethnic ties. (No ancestry makes up more than 15%.) As my wife says, America is a “credo nation.” In a way that’s a strength, allowing the country to readily absorb immigrants. On the other hand, that’s basically a political ideology disguised as a national culture. What do Americans that don’t share politics, and don’t have the close ties that come from living in the same geographic area, have in common? Culturally there are large divergences. The United States is the most religious developed country in the world, comparable to Poland or Iran in terms of people who pray daily. But large pockets are as secular as Paris. In fact possibly more so. In France, for example, the cultural Catholicism of French secular society mediates between Paris and the daily churchgoers in the rural areas (https://www.europenowjournal.org/2019/10/02/the-catholic-ness-of-secular-france https://www.europenowjournal.org/2019/10/02/the-catholic-nes...). What would happen if people in France got to control abortion or religious laws in Poland? That’s maybe even understating the distinction. France, perhaps as a result of cultural Catholicism, has abortion laws that would be unconstitutional in every US state (generally illegal after 12 weeks). 24 weeks is common in the US, and states like Massachusetts want to make it legal based on a doctor’s judgment up until birth. (However justified, it’s undeniable that law is based on sweeping moral premises regarding when personal autonomy or the judgment of a single expert can override the state’s authority to protect life). What would happen if a court in Brussels had banned schools in Poland or Italy or Spain (or heck, Germany or the Netherlands or the UK) from offering even religious education even on an opt-out basis? Or struck down nearly every country’s abortion laws? Would anyone still want further EU integration? The US has long papered over these differences with an exaggerated patriotism. Commonality through the belief in the goodness of America, it’s constitution, and its history. That hasn’t broken down completely but it’s breaking down. America has been more divided before. But the nature of the country was very different back then. In a country where the federal government is tiny and focuses mainly on defense and regulating interstate trade, these differences just don’t mean as much. But that totally changed in the 20th century. FDR killed federalism and fundamentally changed the nature of the country. Meanwhile, the Warren Court inserted the federal government into myriad social issues. Suddenly, the federal government had to power to decide that you couldn’t have prayer in schools and you couldn’t shut down strip clubs. World War II, the post-war economic boom, and the external threat of the Soviet Union provided a common identity and shared purpose for a long time. After the fall of communism, that evaporated. What’s left country of 330 million people, faced with the same economic challenge all developed countries are facing, but also deep cultural fissures. The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett was a stark example of this. She’s insanely popular among Republicans, with 95% of people approving of her. Democrats, meanwhile, didn’t just attack her judicial philosophy. (A sitting Senator called it just “another way of saying racism, sexism, and homophobia.”) They said she was a character from a dystopian science fiction novel. Whatever your politics you have to appreciate the significance of that. On one hand you have people who see her as a model of an exemplary life—and the values that produce such a person. And on the other hand you have people who see her as an attack on modernity itself. Now, you obviously have liberals and conservatives in every country, and political and social disagreements. I suspect, though, that the difference between Massachusetts and Louisiana is bigger than between Bavaria and Berlin. Regardless, Germans are still Germans. Americans don’t understand how powerful that bond is, because they don’t have it and don’t realize that maybe they need something else to fill the void.