The European Union. Everyone keep calm. Be civil.

[Nega-Brutus]

The EU is a project with the aim of creating an open European market, with institutions to facilitate that process. It doesn't have even have an independent revenue-making budget. If you have a problem with free markets or the distribution of wealth, you can either reject capitalism or take it up with your national government.

And he was absolutely correct to identify that the EU inherently favors countries with capital (ie, central countries), which usually is complemented by countries with cheap labor (ie, periphery countries). But because the EU has free movement of capital and labor, periphery countries cannot benefit as much because their labor simply moves to central counties.

 

[Life_Erikson]

The EU is a project with the aim of creating an open European market, with institutions to facilitate that process. It doesn't have even have an independent revenue-making budget. If you have a problem with free markets or the distribution of wealth, you can either reject capitalism or take it up with your national government.

And he was absolutely correct to identify that the EU inherently favors countries with capital (ie, central countries), which usually is complemented by countries with cheap labor (ie, periphery countries). But because the EU has free movement of capital and labor, periphery countries cannot benefit as much because their labor simply moves to central counties.

I too don't think economically powerful countries competing with economically weak countries in an open market is a good idea.
As you mentioned: the economically poor countries will loose their skilled labour and will have difficulties selling their inferior products when the market is swarmed with high quality products from economically powerfull countries. But this is how the EU is set up and it benefits companies located in these economically powerful countries. Here you are correct I think.

However this does not change the fact that this doesn't translate to the living standard of people. Compare everage wealth, tax rate and pension age for exemple. On all these italy is better off than germany. In italy you own more money on everage, pay less tax and receive a higher pension at a much earlier age. This only works because italy is constantly taking debt. Debt which is ironicaly payed by the tax payers of the "central countries".

This is exactly what I mean. The EU doesn't care about "central countries" and "non central countries". It cares about big companies. And they just happen to be located mostly in those central countries. The EU is set up for these, not for the people of specific nations.

 

[Nega-Brutus]

I too don't think economically powerful countries competing with economically weak countries in an open market is a good idea.
As you mentioned: the economically poor countries will loose their skilled labour and will have difficulties selling their inferior products when the market is swarmed with high quality products from economically powerfull countries. But this is how the EU is set up and it benefits companies located in these economically powerful countries. Here you are correct I think.

Economics isn't a zero-sum game. We opt for trading in open markets on the national or international stage because it's beneficial to all parties. Periphery countries' GDPs have grown thanks to participation in the EU, but have not redistributed the won wealth and invested in the people. That's a failure of national authorities due to poor institutions and local corruption.

However this does not change the fact that this doesn't translate to the living standard of people. Compare everage wealth, tax rate and pension age for exemple. On all these italy is better off than germany. In italy you own more money on everage, pay less tax and receive a higher pension at a much earlier age.

What does this have to do with the EU?

This only works because italy is constantly taking debt. Debt which is ironicaly payed by the tax payers of the "central countries".

This is not how debt works.

This is exactly what I mean. The EU doesn't care about "central countries" and "non central countries". It cares about big companies. And they just happen to be located mostly in those central countries. The EU is set up for these, not for the people of specific nations.

It doesn't have to care. Your government is supposed to care about redistribution.
Economic internal market policies - delegated to the EU
Social policies - delegated to Member States

I'm not sure why this is confusing.

 

[Life_Erikson]

1)Economics isn't a zero-sum game. We opt for trading in open markets on the national or international stage because it's beneficial to all parties. Periphery countries' GDPs have grown thanks to participation in the EU, but have not redistributed the won wealth and invested in the people. That's a failure of national authorities due to poor institutions and local corruption.


2)What does this have to do with the EU?


3)This is not how debt works.


4)It doesn't have to care. Your government is supposed to care about redistribution.
Economic internal market policies - delegated to the EU
Social policies - delegated to Member States

I'm not sure why this is confusing.

No Idea how to quote this correctly since the new forum interface is ****, but here we go:

1) I never claimed economics is a zero-sum game. If one country is good at producing A and another is good at producing B, both will of course benefit from free trading. But if one country is good at producing A and B and the other is weak at producing A and B and doesn't have any other valuable resource or service that it can provide, it will suffer.
Romanias doctors and nurses are all leaving for western europe because pay is higher there. Do you think that is good for romania?

2)Italy having a higher median wealth, younger pension age and lower taxes has something to do with the EU as the higher government spending for social programs and lower income from tax causes debt to accumulate which puts the euro at risk. To circumnavigate that, "richer" EU countries have to pay for that debt, so it doesn't get so large as to inflict damage on the value of the euro.
I'm not sure why this is confusing.

3)How does debt work then?

4)How is the national government supposed to deal with "redistribution" (whatever you mean by that) if it cannot control import/export tax and migration? Imagine china competing with ethiopia in a free market with free movement of wares and people. Do you think ethiopia will profit from that?

Since when does the EU only care about economical issues?

 

[Nega-Brutus]

1) I never claimed economics is a zero-sum game. ...both will of course benefit from free trading.

''I too don't think economically powerful countries competing with economically weak countries in an open market is a good idea.
As you mentioned: the economically poor countries will loose their skilled labour and will have difficulties selling their inferior products when the market is swarmed with high quality products from economically powerfull countries. But this is how the EU is set up and it benefits companies located in these economically powerful countries. Here you are correct I think.''

I don't understand how your mind works.
i) Periphery countries come out short in an open market
ii) Despite that, both periphery and central still benefit from free trade
iii) But the open market is not preferred because nurses are leaving Romania or because companies capture a lot of the wealth (this is every market economy ftr)

???

If one country is good at producing A and another is good at producing B, both will of course benefit from free trading. But if one country is good at producing A and B and the other is weak at producing A and B and doesn't have any other valuable resource or service that it can provide, it will suffer.
Romanias doctors and nurses are all leaving for western europe because pay is higher there. Do you think that is good for romania?

No I think investing in human capital and increasing wages among other by means of national policy is good.

2)Italy having a higher median wealth, younger pension age and lower taxes has something to do with the EU as the higher government spending for social programs and lower income from tax causes debt to accumulate which puts the euro at risk. To circumnavigate that, "richer" EU countries have to pay for that debt, so it doesn't get so large as to inflict damage on the value of the euro.
I'm not sure why this is confusing.

You have to assume one of the following positions.
i) The EU is only advantageous to central countries
ii) The EU is a burden on the central countries
iii) The EU is not beneficial to central nor periphery economies
They cannot be all true at the same time because it's convenient for you to switch whenever, and I can't address what you're saying until you've clearly made your choice.

3)How does debt work then?

You loan money and pay it back with interest.

4)How is the national government supposed to deal with "redistribution" (whatever you mean by that) if it cannot control import/export tax and migration? Imagine china competing with ethiopia in a free market with free movement of wares and people. Do you think ethiopia will profit from that?

You are conflating different things.
a) Redistribution is usually whatever you spend on in terms of public goods and social policies.
b) Your ability to impose duties on trade does not take away from your GDP. In fact, relaxing those duties usually has beneficial effects on your economy. It's telling how your mind works when you have to grasp for straws this hard if I'm honest
c) A Chinese-Ethiopian free movement of goods and labor would definitely be incredibly beneficial to both given certain conditions.

Since when does the EU only care about economical issues?

Well, it cares about liberal values too but I'm not going to explain those.

 

[BenKenobi]

Poland today decided to throw away pretty much 50 years of European integration.

In a judgment being read from 17:30 today, the Constitutional Tribunal stated that Art 1 and 19 TEU (Art 1 TEU says pretty much that there is the EU, Art 19 says that the EU has its own Court of Justice), hence better: that European Union / European integration is contrary to the Polish constitution in so far that EU law allows Polish judges to disregard Polish constitution and law. The issue at stake is the primacy of EU law - a principle that when provisions of EU law and domestic law are in conflict, the EU provision is to be used and the conflicting national provision cannot be applied in that particular situation.

That is the standing doctrine guiding EU law since 1978 and it has never been attacked so strongly and on such a wide front (there has been objections raised by Constitutional Courts before, but only twice did the dog actually biten instead of barked (I think CZ definitely did this and I think also Denmark), and only in very minor and isolated issues.

What Poland effectively stated now is that their own Constitutional Court rulings will decide the applicability and scope of the primacy principle.

There will be much academic coverage in the following days, especially once the text of the decision is made public, but yeah, Poland is such a mess.

The only somewhat helping thing about this is that Poland's Constitutional Court is not really considered to be an independent court. Which, funnily enough, some Polish constitutional judges emphasised in their dissenting opinions.

 

[Mad Vader]

It's okay as long as they don't go further with this, like if they murder the EU Commission as part of their New Black Deal.
But seriously, I expect EU to do something about this because that's chipping at the foundation of its authority. Maybe something more than a lawsuit this time, right EU?
Edit: lol, it's already called "Polexit"

 

[BenKenobi]

*Laughs in the Commission's infringment completely missing the central point of the issue*

 

[Adorno]

Poland would sooner implode the union from the inside than leave.

Poland's top court ruling marks major challenge to EU laws

Poland's top court says its judges should not use EU law to question the independence of their peers.

www.bbc.com

In its statement, the European Commission said, "EU law has primacy over national law, including constitutional provisions."
"All rulings by the European Court of Justice are binding on all member states' authorities, including national courts," it added, warning that it would "not hesitate to make use of its powers under the treaties to safeguard the uniform application and integrity of Union law".

 

[Mad Vader]

@BenKenobi So what are the next EC steps? They are pissed and they are going to do something, but what? The withholding of the Covid recovery package is already a half-spent card and possibly made Poland go all in (foolishly).

 

[BenKenobi]

I have no idea. But if I am certain of one thing, it is that the Commission's steps will disappoint.

So far, they have reached the DEFCON level of deeply concerned. They will almost surely launch infringement proceedings (they usually do, even against France or Germany in these matters) which may end up with a financial fine. The Commission will win, Poland will pay and the Commission will call it a day. Anything beyond that will be good news.

If the future rule of law funds requirement rules will have any teeth, they may use that. Freezing recovery package is another option. Article 7 TEU procedure has already been launched against Poland (and Hungary) but is on hold due to Covid and nothing is happening. Not sure if they can launch a separate Art 7 procedure while one is already taking place. Also, Art 7 procedure is not in the Commission's power - apart from its initiation -, since it is dependent on the European Council and the Council, ie. the Member States themselves.

 

[Mad Vader]

If the future rule of law funds requirement rules will have any teeth, they may use that. Freezing recovery package is another option. Article 7 TEU procedure has already been launched against Poland (and Hungary) but is on hold due to Covid and nothing is happening. Not sure if they can launch a separate Art 7 procedure while one is already taking place. Also, Art 7 procedure is not in the Commission's power - apart from its initiation -, since it is dependent on the European Council and the Council, ie. the Member States themselves.

Okay, I understand that countries only need a majority in the Council to escalate the punishment on Poland and force it to make a choice, so Hungary and (cringe) Slovenia won't be able to help.

The European Council can vote to suspend any rights of membership, such as voting and representation as outlined above. Identifying the breach requires unanimity (excluding the state concerned), but sanctions require only a qualified majority. The Council acting by majority may alter or lift such sanctions. The state in question would still be bound by the obligations of the treaties.

After withholding the Covid funds, they should try banning the Polish Space Force from orbit and strike at the heart of Polish pride. Also, only non-winged hussars would be allowed free movement in the common market and "kurwa" won't be translated anymore in EU legal texts.

 

[Do not look here]

At this point I'm just glad that I live 2 hours of brisk walk from Czech border, even if heavily encumbered (tested with beer, although I was younger back then).

 

[BenKenobi]

@BenKenobi So what are the next EC steps? They are pissed and they are going to do something, but what? The withholding of the Covid recovery package is already a half-spent card and possibly made Poland go all in (foolishly).

While not directly connected to the recent Polish ruling (instead to an earlier case concerning the disciplinary chamber), Poland has just been issued a penalty of 1 million EUR / day until they are in compliance with EU law. There is also an earlier fine of 500k EUR / day due to disrescpecting CJEU decision in regards to allegedly illegal coal mining.

 

[Mad Vader]

This is about something Poland did in Dec 2019, and the EC began proceedings in Apr 2020, only to bear fruit now. So allow 2 years after the fact for any sanctions... gg EC,

 

[BenKenobi]

I would say this was technically quite fast proceedings.

 

[BenKenobi]

Since there are no brakes on Poland's legal destruction train, a few minutes ago another case was decided on by the Polish Constitutional Tribunal who now found not the EU's founding treaties to be incompatible with the Polish constitution, but Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Specifically, Polish Constitutional Tribunal does not think it is bound by the European Court of Human Rights rules on the standards of fair trial.

Yay!

 

[Mad Vader]

Be free, or be a member state of a political and economic union!

 

[Adorno]

I assume they're systematically looking at all loopholes to avoid abiding by EU law,
like the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park looking for weak spots in the fence.

---

Germany has a new Social Democratic chancellor, Olaf Scholz, with "green" policies.
The government is not in place yet.

Germany's Scholz seals deal to end Merkel era

Olaf Scholz will head a three-party coalition with broad plans for transition to a green economy.

www.bbc.com

 

[BenKenobi]

I assume they're systematically looking at all loopholes to avoid abiding by EU law,
like the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park looking for weak spots in the fence.

More like abiding anything but its own government. European Convention of Human RIghts and the European Court of Human Rights are children of the Council of Europe which is unrelated to European Union.