5 ms·

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. Fra

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.
      - lmm 6y ago
        A lot of it was simple cost-of-living arbitrage. A worker sending money home to a family in Poland or especially Bulgaria/Romania can undercut someone who's trying to support the same family at UK prices. On a global scale that may be "fairer", but you can understand why the UK populace would be against it.
        mrtksn 6y ago
        Of course there's a cost of living arbitrage but that's everywhere. Many people work in London but live out of London, it's a choice you can make and it comes at a cost(travel times) that you may or may not want to take just as the Polish don't see their family for long time. In Turkey there used to be the argument against Women working, they said professional women are making man unemployed or underpaid causing social problems. It's not that different from the argument that Polish employment are causing British social problems. What about doing better job than an immigrant who can barely speak yor language? But no, they banning competition is easier.
- 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.

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.
    - lmm 6y ago
      A lot of it was simple cost-of-living arbitrage. A worker sending money home to a family in Poland or especially Bulgaria/Romania can undercut someone who's trying to support the same family at UK prices. On a global scale that may be "fairer", but you can understand why the UK populace would be against it.
      - mrtksn 6y ago
        Of course there's a cost of living arbitrage but that's everywhere. Many people work in London but live out of London, it's a choice you can make and it comes at a cost(travel times) that you may or may not want to take just as the Polish don't see their family for long time. In Turkey there used to be the argument against Women working, they said professional women are making man unemployed or underpaid causing social problems. It's not that different from the argument that Polish employment are causing British social problems. What about doing better job than an immigrant who can barely speak yor language? But no, they banning competition is easier.
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.