comment: >
  
  
  And just see the UK v EU as unequivocally good/right v wrong.
  
  The thing is that when people are speaking about this, they're talking about Brexit. And Brexit is a special case because the UK wasn't affected by the biggest issues with the EU (namely, the monetary ones) because Britain was not on the Euro and had a special status within the EU. The reason why people ignore most of these things when they're talking about the EU is because they're mostly talking about it in the context of Brexit in which most of these things weren't relevant. They aren't ignored when people are talking about the EU in other contexts in my experience: e.g. when discussing the Greek economic situation the fact that they can't engage in monetary policy is a major talking point.
context: The single currency and economic integration are not issues, they're tradeoffs. You give up one thing and gain another, in this case: higher growth and more comfort for the people.
  
  Southern countries held to harsher standards. 
  
  What harsher standards are asked of southern countries that northern countries don't meet?
  
  Racist immigration policy (favouring uneducated europeans over skilled foreigners)
  
  A zone where everyone living in it can move where they want is now... racist? Because it's not worldwide?
  
  Uneven movement of people, assets and capital
  
  Please explain the actual problem you see.
  
  Trade diversion and over specialisation (so more vulnerable crises etc) 
  
  Please definitely elaborate, because I have no idea what you're trying to say.
  As for the democratic deficit, I see it mentioned all the time. >
  
  I would say single currency is a trade off. But the current apparatus around economic integration is very flawed. Unlike in the US, where weak states are given direct aid from the federal government, richer nations in the EU don’t help weaker nations in these crises (not to the required level anyway).
  Hasher conditions? Both Germany and France knowingly and willingly broke the stability pact (past entry) when it was still in practice, and received no pushback. While Southern europe has generally been stipulated harsh economic polices very clearly to their detriment etc.
  My bad, it’s not racist just imo stupid. skilled Economic foreign migrants have far more to offer than uneducated europeans (not necessarily members of the EU). (in other comments i go back and argue the opposite)
  Uneven movements? Basically brain drain, loss of human capital, movement of manufacturing to lower unit labour cost nations etc. Generally very uneven and unequal.
  Trade diversion is basically the trade that is pushed away from trading blocs because of the common external tariff (my mistake again also a trade off not an issue). But over-specialisation isn’t, basically nations over specialise in a specific sector because of the nature of custom unions+ and are more vulnerable to shocks. i.e financial crash, UK is fucked. and commodity exporters with a drastic change in price (gdp and commodity price becomes closely linked).
  Sorry for the essay. My bad i get what you’re saying some of my points were trade offs not issues. But still. >
  
  
  richer nations in the EU don’t help weaker nations in these crises (not to the required level anyway).
  
  They do help. The amount being too much or not enough is opinion, but a lot of financial aid has been given, and is routinely given every year.
  
  Both Germany and France knowingly and willingly broke the stability pact (past entry) when it was still in practice, and received no pushback.
  
  I do remember the pushback. However, the pushback is generally minor when you're violating a formality vs when your government is at acute risk of going bust because you flaunted the rules too much. Outcomes matter.
  
  My bad, it’s not racist just imo stupid. skilled Economic foreign migrants have far more to offer than uneducated europeans (not necessarily members of the EU).
  
  The EU isn't going to create a framework of free movement for the top 60% of educated workers in the EU. Shockingly. The EU does permit for significant amounts of educated non-EU migrants, though.
  Like, what are you even trying to say here? Abolish freedom of movement because it also applies to simple workers? And then you complain about brain drain in your next line?
  
  basically nations over specialise in a specific sector because of the nature of custom unions+ and are more vulnerable to shocks.
  
  Can you give any concrete example of what you're talking about? >
  
  They don’t help enough (especially where is counts during crises). Germany was massively criticised for not backing debts for Greece during the debt crisis etc. The ECB refused the alter the € so the south were forced to internally devaluate (which is NEVER pretty).
  ? I’m talking about the Stability pact not the exchange rate mechanism. 
  ? i also gave examples, Uk & financial market - it was so overly specialised in finance that it was disproportionally effected by financial crises etc
  I think you confusing my argument. I’m saying the EU shouldn’t give preference to NON-EU europeans over non europeans. >
  
  
  They don’t help enough (especially where is counts during crises).
  
  That is, again, a question of opinion. What is enough or too much? When do you go from helping to creating a moral hazard? 
  
  I’m talking about the Stability pact not the exchange rate mechanism. 
  
  Please use the quote function to at least some degree so this looks like a coherent reply referencing a specific point and doesn't leave me guessing what you're taking offense to.
  
  i also gave examples, Uk & financial market - it was so overly specialised in finance that it was disproportionally effected by financial crises etc
  
  That's not a EU thing. The City being a major financial exchange precedes the EU considerably. If you're looking to complain about the manufacturing sector as its counterweight disappearing, that's also not the EU. That's Thatcher. No one made her do that, least of all the EEC.
  
  I’m saying the EU shouldn’t give preference to NON-EU europeans over non europeans.
  
  Do you mean EFTA nations? In which case, that's a total non-issue. Otherwise, I don't see the EU doing this, and I'm not sure who, specifically, you'd be talking about. Immigrants from the Balkans? Is there any favored status for Albania or Bosnia? I haven't heard of any such thing. >
  
  i’m going to reply to you tomorrow, i seriously need sleep it’s really late for me (need at least 3 hours 🥲). >
  
  None of these are ignored. They are all public and openly discussed issues and often seen as negative sides of being in union. But they are also the cost these nations are publicly willing to pay for getting all the good things that comes with being in single market and EU.
  
  Generally, smaller deviant nations are often on the ‘loser’ side of the EUs pros and cons
  
  If we actually look into in dept analysis of the situation every country except Greece have benefited from the union. Nobody has been a loser in this venture and everyone is better off working together in EU than without it.
  System has flaws and cons but the pros outweigh them for everyone. >
  
  My bad, i was trying (badly) to also say that some of these issues aren’t just trade offs but issues that do not need to be there. I think the issues are discussed academically etc but not in a particularly wide spread manner (then again i’m from the UK so i might not see it).
  Also, the issues with southern europe are not just monetary based. But also in human suffering etc (increases in suicides amongst PIIGS during the debt crisis), and their positions in the hierarchy of members. All of which have easy (in theory)  solutions. >
  
  
  single currency preventing nations from effectively responding to crises.  
  Lack of economic sovereignty (lose control of monetary policy)  
  
  Those are both clearly trade offs. Also balance of power and giving something to EU is also a trade offs. Same with trade diversion and movement of people. Those are trade offs in being a single market.
  But the underlying fact remains. Despite failures, flaws and trade offs, EU has been a net positive chose for every country including the southern Europe. >
  
  I think we are confusing each other. I’m saying SOME of these are trade offs, but many are just issues which can be fixed.
  If you read the beginning of my post, i say exactly what you said. So i’m not really sure who you are arguing with? >
  
  6 out of 7 items on your list are trade offs.
  This why argument "Benefits outweigh those trade offs" is a valid argument. >
  
  i’m going to reply to this tomorrow, i’ve been replying to people for like 2 hours now and need to go to bed >
  
  
  single currency preventing nations from effectively responding to crises.
  Lack of economic sovereignty (lose control of monetary policy)
  
  I mean this is frequently talked about - it is one of the major tensions within the Eurozone and “monetary union without fiscal union” is literally one of the major economic criticisms of eurozone as a whole. 
  There is progress in this area though as seen by Eurobonds issued for covid recovery - there was talk of similar approach during financial crisis but it was rejected. Obviously this is slow progress but that is to be expected given it is a very loose, multilateral organisation not a unified state.
  
  Democratic deficit (far more serious imo than people afford it) - unelected European commission, 2008 Ireland referendum (egregious imo) etc
  
  This I dont agree with at all. 
  European commission is most analogous to ministers in a national government - it is an executive arm. In any parliamentary system you don’t elect the executive. If I dislike certain ministers, my option is to vote for another party in next election - if I dislike certain commissioners, I can vote for different party in next national election or another party for European parliamentary elections.
  Irish people voted against treaty change, Ireland went back to EU and negotiated further legal guarantees that treaty wouldn’t affect national taxation powers, military position or abortion. People voted again with these legal guarantees and approved the treaty. This seems entirely reasonable. When you say no to one offer, next step isn’t to leave the shop and burn it down - its to go back and see what else you can get. Regardless this is a issue for Ireland not EU.
  
  Arguably hierarchical nature of the EU. Southern countries held to harsher standards. Paul Krugman's position on Germany etc
  
  How are they held to harsher standards? 
  
  Racist immigration policy (favouring uneducated europeans over skilled foreigners)
  Uneven movement of people, assets and capital
  Trade diversion and over specialisation (so more vulnerable crises etc)
  
  The whole raison d'etre is to promote trade and movement within EU. 
  Would you apply same standard to national migration - or indeed bilateral free movement or free trade treaties? 
  Is Irish-UK common travel area racist for excluding third countries? Is NAFTA bad for promoting internal trade over external one? >
  
  i’m going to reply to this tomorrow, i’ve been replying to people for like 2 hours now and need to go to bed >
  
  Yeah, sending several messages is hard work. You make sure to get a good 12 hours in. >
  
  Honestly, fuck you. 
  Don’t know why you feel the need to be a dick, we were having a calm and constructive argument. >
  
  Careful you don't reply to me too often, you might need another nap there champ. >
  
  what a wonderful person 🙄 >
  
  Sorry, typing those two messages has really taken it out of me. Will get back to you after I've slept, had several therapy sessions and a week at the spa.