[B0ycey]

Liberal 'double think'. You confuse Liberalism with Democracy and freedom.

Liberalism? How? It is you who implies a dictatorship is democratic, not me. I just believe the courts should be free from government. Trump and his fake news outbursts are affecting your gullible mind.

Poland will leave the EU before giving up all they have recently achieved. I don't see how the EU could be so blind to their foolishness in pushing Poland, of all places, on this issue.
Their hubris blinds them to obvious choices that will be made.

You don't know nothing. Poland will not leave the EU. It's citizens aren't stupid and remember previous times. When pressed a government will always look after itself. I doubt they want protesters pushing them out of office because they destroyed their economy. They will talk tough to please voters and fold when they run out of options. Because as I said earlier, the economy is the only yardstick to use.

[One Degree]

@B0ycey Sorry about not fully responding before, but had to switch to ipad as computer keeps refusing to cooperate. We will see how this goes...

Liberalism? How? It is you who implies a dictatorship is democratic not me. I just believe the courts should be free from government. Trump and his fake news outbursts are affecting your gullible mind.

See, this ^ is a Liberal argument based upon liberal morals using emotional words meant to imply facts where none exist.

You don't know nothing. Poland will not leave the EU. It's citizens aren't stupid and remember previous times. When pressed a government will always look after itself. I doubt they want protesters pushing them out of office because they destroyed their economy. They will talk tough to please voters and fold when they run out of options. Because as I said earlier, the economy is the only yardstick to use.

Again, Liberal arguments. You choose 'protesters' as your weapon of choice because you actually know the majority will not support your view. This is your argument for Democracy against Dictatorship.
You also choose economic hardship, again admitting you know that the Polish people do not want what you insist they accept.
Do you see how you reject Democracy and insist it be replaced by Liberal morality against the wishes of the people?

[Rugoz]

Note: I did not use PPP per capita because it undervalues the whole argument of stability and progress.

PPP certainly has its flaws, because non-tradable goods are difficult to compare across countries (quality etc.) and because there's no neutral basket of goods for comparison (tastes and hence demand and prices of particular goods vary). In other words, it's a big mess and not an accurate economic measurement. BUT, nominal GDP does overestimate the living standard of countries that are more competitive internationally (they can afford lots of tradable goods but domestic goods are comparatively expensive). Anyway, economics 101.

In the case of Russia, they have lots of natural resources, which can be a curse but adds to GDP obviously. You can look at other stats, inequality, innovation etc. etc.

[B0ycey]

Again, Liberal arguments. You choose 'protesters' as your weapon of choice because you actually know the majority will not support your view. This is your argument for Democracy against Dictatorship.
You also choose economic hardship, again admitting you know that the Polish people do not want what you insist they accept.
Do you see how you reject Democracy and insist it be replaced by Liberal morality against the wishes of the people?

I can only assume from this you don't know what Liberalism means? It means supporting equality and liberty. Using terms like protesters and dictatorship is not liberalism. They are words in the English language that I used to make my point. And my point has not changed. By supporting that Poland is right to allow it's government to influence it's courts you are supporting principles of a dictatorship. This is undemocratic. This has nothing to do with Liberalism. If you learn one thing today, please learn this.

[One Degree]

I can only assume from this you don't know what Liberalism means? It means supporting rquality and liberty. Using terms like protesters and dictatorship is not liberalism. They are words in the English language that I used to make my point. And my point has not changed. By supporting that Poland is right to allow it's government to influence it's courts you are supporting principles of a dictatorship. This is undemocratic. This has nothing to do with Liberalism. If you learn one thing today, please learn this.

A dictatorship is a government that disregards the wishes of the people. The EU is the one disregarding the wishes of the people while Poland is listening to them. How do you invert this and actually believe you are being logical? Never mind, I actually answered this in a post in another thread. You still believe you are pursuing original goals that have actually gradually been replaced by their opposites. I, understand your goals are admirable. It is just they have been discarded and you do not recognize it.

[Rugoz]

A dictatorship is a government that disregards the wishes of the people. The EU is the one disregarding the wishes of the people while Poland is listening to them.

According to a recent poll, 55% want president Duma to veto the bill while 29% want it to pass. Is the Polish government a dictatorship now?

[B0ycey]

A dictatorship is a government that disregards the wishes of the people. The EU is the one disregarding the wishes of the people while Poland is listening to them. How do you invert this and actually believe you are being logical? Never mind, I actually answered this in a post in another thread. You still believe you are pursuing original goals that have actually gradually been replaced by their opposites. I, understand your goals are admirable. It is just they have been discarded and you do not recognize it.

Why do you think Polish people support this move? Would you support Trump (or Clinton) having complete control of US courts? The Polish want EU membership actually so you need to clue yourself up before you type.

[One Degree]

According to a recent poll, 55% want president Duma to veto the bill while 29% want it to pass. Is the Polish government a dictatorship now?

I don't have enough knowledge to hazard a guess on the accuracy of the poll, but polls as evidence are pretty much out of fashion today. I am content to rely on the Polish people and their representatives to make their own choices. If their representatives do not represent their wishes, then it is up to the Polish people to change that and not anyone else.
I just see the EU making the same mistake I believe the US made. Both should be a coordination of their autonomous members and should not be a higher level of government. Everything should be voted on by the members, and refrain from interfering in internal affairs.

Edit: @B0ycey I believe the above also responds to your post.

[Ned Lud]

I don't have enough knowledge to hazard a guess on the accuracy of the poll, but polls as evidence are pretty much out of fashion today. I am content to rely on the Polish people and their representatives to make their own choices. If their representatives do not represent their wishes, then it is up to the Polish people to change that and not anyone else.
I just see the EU making the same mistake I believe the US made. Both should be a coordination of their autonomous members and should not be a higher level of government. Everything should be voted on by the members, and refrain from interfering in internal affairs.

Edit: @B0ycey I believe the above also responds to your post.

Either the EU has principles or it doesn't. If Poland wants to turn fascist it should be expelled from the EU. The UK will have to grovel to get back in, so it will be nice to have company.

[One Degree]

Either the EU has principles or it doesn't. If Poland wants to turn fascist it should be expelled from the EU. The UK will have to grovel to get back in, so it will be nice to have company.

Again, you are giving moral reasons for political problems. Think 'Crusades' and the inherent evils.

[Ned Lud]

Again, you are giving moral reasons for political problems. Think 'Crusades' and the inherent evils.

I can only go back to the obvious - the EU is intended to lead to a European Federal Union. If it's not democratic, who wants it?

[One Degree]

I can only go back to the obvious - the EU is intended to lead to a European Federal Union. If it's not democratic, who wants it?

Where is the Democracy when every statement from the unelected voices of the EU are on the news saying how they do not need input from the various governments to make their decisions?
An organization starts with goals that people support and then the organization changes to enhance it's own importance. It's followers still support them for the original reasons which the organization no longer represents. Any organization places it's own interests first. This is why autonomy is so important. You either keep control of the government close to you or you lose control.
It is not Democratic and no one should want it.

[Ned Lud]

Where is the Democracy when every statement from the unelected voices of the EU are on the news saying how they do not need input from the various governments to make their decisions?
An organization starts with goals that people support and then the organization changes to enhance it's own importance. It's followers still support them for the original reasons which the organization no longer represents. Any organization places it's own interests first. This is why autonomy is so important. You either keep control of the government close to you or you lose control.
It is not Democratic and no one should want it.

Until you limit the local parliaments to their proper, minor function, you are bound to have this problem.. At the moment, these governments have entered into legal agreements, and if they don't observe them they should be expelled, clearly.

[One Degree]

Until you limit the local parliaments to their proper, minor function, you are bound to have this problem.. At the moment, these governments have entered into legal agreements, and if they don't observe them they should be expelled, clearly.

That is certainly the position to take if your own power is what is important. I fail to see how alienating Britain, the US, and now Poland will be beneficial to the people who live in the ER EU..They choose China because of moral differences with the US. The hypocrisy is apparent to many. Poland will definitely not be blind to it.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

A graph, stat, chart etc can tell you whatever you want it to tell you. You look long enough (and it won't be long) you'll find a chart that contradicts this.

Charts can certainly deceive, but I doubt whether you'll find data that contradicts the point I wanted to make: the recessions of several former SU countries was much deeper, so even if their growth rates were similar to those of Eastern European countries during their EU membership, their GDP per capita would be lower today.

You could of course argue that the SU countries should have recovered faster and should have caught up in the meantime, or that the prospect of EU membership somehow incentivised early reforms in Eastern Europe that prevented deeper recessions. Even if the latter argument was true, the data is still noteworthy and somewhat surprising to me, as it would mean that all the benefits of EU membership in terms of GDP so far have been almost exclusively accrued more than a decade before actual EU-membership.

Here are the annual average growth rates based on the same data. 1996 is the first year for which data was available for all countries. Data is missing from 1991-1995 for Moldova and the Baltic countries, and data for the first two years/the first year is missing for the Slovak Republic/Hungary respectively. Hence the blue bars of these countries almost certainly show higher than actual growth rates for the period from 1991, as all of them presumably had some negative growth in the early 1990s.


IMF growth data is a bit different but the overall picture is the same. I couldn't find per capita growth, so this is just average GDP growth at constant prices.

What you should really be doing is asking yourself another question. Which side of the iron curtain are former Soviet states better on? Poland aren't looking at Article 50 any time soon are they? Why would they? They have it good at the moment and are having money spent reversing years of deprivation and improving its infrastructure.

Perhaps the EU isn't this Eastern European monster that you wish it was. Poland could easily avert to Russia if it wanted to. But somehow, we both know this will never happen.

Old wounds take time to heel. And charts do not show living conditions for the ordinary public very well do they?

I am mainly interested in countering the myth that the EU is some magical force without which we all would live a wretched existence.

[JohnRawls]

Charts can certainly deceive, but I doubt whether you'll find data that contradicts the point I wanted to make: the recessions of several former SU countries was much deeper, so even if their growth rates were similar to those of Eastern European countries during their EU membership, their GDP per capita would be lower today.

You could of course argue that the SU countries should have recovered faster and should have caught up in the meantime, or that the prospect of EU membership somehow incentivised early reforms in Eastern Europe that prevented deeper recessions. Even if the latter argument was true, the data is still noteworthy and somewhat surprising to me, as it would mean that all the benefits of EU membership in terms of GDP so far have been almost exclusively accrued more than a decade before actual EU-membership.

Here are the annual average growth rates based on the same data. 1996 is the first year for which data was available for all countries. Data is missing from 1991-1995 for Moldova and the Baltic countries, and data for the first two years/the first year is missing for the Slovak Republic/Hungary respectively. Hence the blue bars of these countries almost certainly show higher than actual growth rates for the period from 1991, as all of them presumably had some negative growth in the early 1990s.


IMF growth data is a bit different but the overall picture is the same. I couldn't find per capita growth, so this is just average GDP growth at constant prices.




I am mainly interested in countering the myth that the EU is some magical force without which we all would live a wretched existence.

You bring up a valid argument actually. The problem is that, EU membership as you mentioned kicks in before the actual membership also since it makes you follow certain guidelines even before the actual membership.

Hence is the recession situation, which allowed pro-EU countries to recover faster from the collapse. On top of that maintaining gdp growth on the same level as less developed countries is harder when you are more developed which is also an abnormality. (Percentage wise)


A good example of this is America and China. Everybody understand that America will grow slower compared to China because America is already heavily developed. (Percentage wise)

[Kaiserschmarrn]

You bring up a valid argument actually. The problem is that, EU membership as you mentioned kicks in before the actual membership also since it makes you follow certain guidelines even before the actual membership.

Hence is the recession situation, which allowed pro-EU countries to recover faster from the collapse. On top of that maintaining gdp growth on the same level as less developed countries is harder when you are more developed which is also an abnormality. (Percentage wise)

A good example of this is America and China. Everybody understand that America will grow slower compared to China because America is already heavily developed. (Percentage wise)

I'm sure there is some truth to this. Yet, there are other factors which could plausibly have contributed to the different experiences of Eastern Europe vs former SU countries. First, the latter were more integrated into the Soviet Union and hence would have been more negatively affected by its disintegration. Second, the Eastern European countries, especially those closer to Central Europe, would have been attractive destinations for investments and outsourcing regardless of EU-membership. This is not only due to geographic proximity, but also long-standing ties and cultural similarities between these countries (the same effect can be observed in former Yugoslavian countries).

And third, if you look at the growth rates starting in 1996, which as mentioned is the first year for which data is available for all countries and at which point pretty much all of them had returned to growth, you can actually see a moderate catch-up by most of the former SU-countries. But even if you discount this, your argument about maintaining GDP growth fails to explain why Bulgaria and Romania are still lagging behind and why, for instance say, Ireland, despite its troubles during the eurozone crisis, has managed the most stunning catch-up of all EU-countries. In fact, if you include Ireland in my above IMF chart, it outstrips all Eastern European EU-members in terms of average GDP growth despite being more developed during the whole period.

Hence, I would argue that, while it's certainly possible that EU-membership had a positive effect of GDP growth since the fall of the iron curtain, we need to take these other factors into account, at least as a possibility.

[B0ycey]

Charts can certainly deceive, but I doubt whether you'll find data that contradicts the point I wanted to make: the recessions of several former SU countries was much deeper, so even if their growth rates were similar to those of Eastern European countries during their EU membership, their GDP per capita would be lower today.

No, but you could show a chart that emphasises living standards or disposable income. A chart in a way is misleading. It shows one ingredient in a pie, not the recipe to make it. But we both agree on this so...

I am mainly interested in countering the myth that the EU is some magical force without which we all would live a wretched existence.

Well I gathered that by now. But it is the glue that keeps the continent from breaking apart and spreads the wealth more evenly. There is a reason why Baltic nations won't be leaving the EU any time soon. And even though I agree nobody will be living a wretched life without the EU, you can assured with the knowledge that living standards and personal wealth will be lower without it. Hense why every nation seems to want to remain in the EU since Brexit and not in a rush to leave.

[Ter]

And even though I agree nobody will be living a wretched life without the EU, you can assured with the knowledge that living standards and personal wealth will be lower without it. Hense why every nation seems to want to remain in the EU since Brexit and not in a rush to leave.

The price to stay in is becoming unbearable for certain countries.
They do not want their country to be Islamised and they do not want a bunch of unelected overpaid arrogant untaxed bureaucrats telling them what to do and what not to do, with an authority higher than their own national government and parliament.

[Rugoz]

The price to stay in is becoming unbearable for certain countries.

The rules regarding democracy and the rule of law have not changed since Poland joined. If you join the EU, read the fucking rules.

Well I gathered that by now. But it is the glue that keeps the continent from breaking apart and spreads the wealth more evenly.

The East receives transfer payments from the EU, but I would argue it doesn't make up for the loss of human capital to the West. That's speculation from my part though.