3 ms·

I don't think the claim is that the EU is colonizing people, but rather the impulse for the large European countries was basically "we can't be relevant by havi

by Macha 3y ago

I don't think the claim is that the EU is colonizing people, but rather the impulse for the large European countries was basically "we can't be relevant by having huge colonies any more so let's try being relevant by being a unified block" Which is basically true, though the primary motivator was to interlink economies to avoid another war in Europe as started ww1 and ww2

alephnerd 3y ago
Ok. That can be argued (and was a major impetus behind the Benelux Pact which turned into the EEC), but you cannot deny the amount of development the EU brought to countries that ascended to it. Just look at Croatia versus Serbia despite having the same ethnicity, language, and civil war, or Romania versus Moldova, or Poland versus Belarus despite both sharing the same HDI in the early 1990s.
- Macha 3y ago
  Sure, small European countries had a different motivation than the large ones, but also having a say on the world stage was even less possible for them disunited. Imagine how little the US might care about possible threats to the Baltic states from Russia if the borders to the EU and NATO were still at Germany.
- quotz 3y ago
  Croatia is hugely dependent on tourism. Serbia does not have access to nice beaches and islands on the Mediterranean. In addition, its exports to the EU are taxed quite heavily
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    Yet the average Croatian has a higher household income, life expectancy at birth, and literacy rate than Serbia - despite Croatia having a lower HDI than Serbia in the 1990s, and lacking any major cities or industries (which were concentrated in Bosnia and Serbia during the Yugoslav era)
    - quotz 3y ago
      Not sure how your argument refutes mine but okay.
    - quotz 3y ago
      Oh also to add, regarding literacy rates, even before WW1 because Croatia and Slovenia were Austro-hungarian, and the rest was Ottoman, the literacy rates were way different, with the former being much much higher. Currently, its probably about the same with Croatia and Serbia.

by Macha 3y ago

alephnerd 3y ago

Ok. That can be argued (and was a major impetus behind the Benelux Pact which turned into the EEC), but you cannot deny the amount of development the EU brought to countries that ascended to it. Just look at Croatia versus Serbia despite having the same ethnicity, language, and civil war, or Romania versus Moldova, or Poland versus Belarus despite both sharing the same HDI in the early 1990s.

Macha 3y ago
Sure, small European countries had a different motivation than the large ones, but also having a say on the world stage was even less possible for them disunited. Imagine how little the US might care about possible threats to the Baltic states from Russia if the borders to the EU and NATO were still at Germany.
quotz 3y ago
Croatia is hugely dependent on tourism. Serbia does not have access to nice beaches and islands on the Mediterranean. In addition, its exports to the EU are taxed quite heavily
- alephnerd 3y ago
  Yet the average Croatian has a higher household income, life expectancy at birth, and literacy rate than Serbia - despite Croatia having a lower HDI than Serbia in the 1990s, and lacking any major cities or industries (which were concentrated in Bosnia and Serbia during the Yugoslav era)
  - quotz 3y ago
    Not sure how your argument refutes mine but okay.
  - quotz 3y ago
    Oh also to add, regarding literacy rates, even before WW1 because Croatia and Slovenia were Austro-hungarian, and the rest was Ottoman, the literacy rates were way different, with the former being much much higher. Currently, its probably about the same with Croatia and Serbia.