4 ms·

That’s certainly part of it. But the EU is certainly an imperialist block in the purely economic sense as well, just like the US or Britain. After all, wealth

by lucian1900 5y ago

That’s certainly part of it. But the EU is certainly an imperialist block in the purely economic sense as well, just like the US or Britain. After all, wealth is extracted towards the centre through the low wages of workers in the periphery (especially Eastern Europe).

laurencerowe 5y ago
The EU has always made substantial transfers from richer to poorer countries (though its budget is only about 1% of GDP.) Being in the EU has been pretty good for the Eastern European countries that joined, both purely financially and in securing their democracies, just as it was for Spain and Portugal which have made substantial progress in catching up with the likes of France and Italy since they joined in 1986. Sadly the same can't be said for the single currency - which many Eastern European countries haven't yet joined. Greece is perhaps the main counterexample in that its GDP per capita is no higher compared to France than it was when it joined (its GDP dropped by a huge amount since the 2008 crisis.) Imagine if something similar would have been possible in the Americas.
- lucian1900 5y ago
  The transfers don’t even compare to how much our labour is exploited. The difference in wage for the same work is the main tool used for this. Another is forcing our countries into privatisation, deregulation and austerity. We’re much worse off than before 89 and the EU is a large part of the reason why. Another is the IMF.
  - laurencerowe 5y ago
    At least in GDP per capita terms, Poland has caught up with Portugal and Czechia has caught up with Spain. Meanwhile Ukraine, which was not on the EU track and was about as rich as Poland in 1989, saw a much longer drop in GDP after 1989 and its GDP per capita is now just 1/3rd of Poland's. It's difficult to imagine how Eastern European countries would have fared better had they not joined the EU. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-2020?time=1968..2018&country=ESP~PRT~GRC~FRA~ITA~POL~CZE~UKR https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-2...

laurencerowe 5y ago

The EU has always made substantial transfers from richer to poorer countries (though its budget is only about 1% of GDP.) Being in the EU has been pretty good for the Eastern European countries that joined, both purely financially and in securing their democracies, just as it was for Spain and Portugal which have made substantial progress in catching up with the likes of France and Italy since they joined in 1986. Sadly the same can't be said for the single currency - which many Eastern European countries haven't yet joined. Greece is perhaps the main counterexample in that its GDP per capita is no higher compared to France than it was when it joined (its GDP dropped by a huge amount since the 2008 crisis.) Imagine if something similar would have been possible in the Americas.

lucian1900 5y ago
The transfers don’t even compare to how much our labour is exploited. The difference in wage for the same work is the main tool used for this. Another is forcing our countries into privatisation, deregulation and austerity. We’re much worse off than before 89 and the EU is a large part of the reason why. Another is the IMF.
- laurencerowe 5y ago
  At least in GDP per capita terms, Poland has caught up with Portugal and Czechia has caught up with Spain. Meanwhile Ukraine, which was not on the EU track and was about as rich as Poland in 1989, saw a much longer drop in GDP after 1989 and its GDP per capita is now just 1/3rd of Poland's. It's difficult to imagine how Eastern European countries would have fared better had they not joined the EU. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-2020?time=1968..2018&country=ESP~PRT~GRC~FRA~ITA~POL~CZE~UKR https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-2...