comment: >
  
  
  depreciating actually increases the real debt owed
  
  Debts aren't typically denominated in "real debt", but in the currency of record. Depreciating pays back effectively less than was borrowed. 
  Of course eventually everyone increases their interest rates to compensate and it does get worse.
  I.e. it's basically never a good idea to do that intentionally.
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. >
  
  
  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. >
  
  I would say that’s generally the case, but it seems (to me anyway) that outside of conflicts among members people don’t talk about these issues. It seems like the vast majority of people do think that way, and don’t delve into the situation, and think that the EU is unequivocally right regardless of the situation. >
  
  I don't think people generally ignore every single problem. It's just that people agree with you that it's a net positive so dwelling too much on the problems isn't all that worth it. That said I want to focus on two points in particular I believe you're wrong about. 
  
  single currency preventing nations from effectively responding to crises.
  
  Some EU countries don't use the euro. In part because some aren't qualified do to not meeting certain criteria, and in part because some pretty much refuse even though they probably should have it. One country, Denmark, doesn't need to adopt it at all even if they meet the criteria. All others technically have to but, as I said, some are very resistant. That must mean that some do see this as a problem and are not ignoring it. 
  
  Racist immigration policy (favouring uneducated europeans over skilled foreigners)
  
  I know they're not at all the same thing but compare the EU, a cooperation of and agreement between nations, to the US, a cooperation and agreement between states. Is it racist that someone from one state can travel to another far easier than some from another country can? 
  Even if that comparison doesn't jive with you, basing immigration on skill alone would arguably be both classist and abelist which aren't actually that much better. 
  Most importantly though I'd argue that it really has nothing to do with race in the first place, but nationality. An Italian person can be of any race, so can a German or a French person or a person from any other EU country. So how can it be racist when it's not based on race? >
  
  I hope that these issues are addressed to make it even more so a vehicle for good. i feel like ignoring these issues just because it’s good enough isn’t a good idea.
  I kinda confused what you’re saying about single currencies, that countries do address these issues? 
  Dammit, i should edit my post to make it clearer. By europeans i mean NON-eu. So it’s just determined by skill (maybe heartless but more practical). And i called it racist because the policy chooses unskilled NON-EU europeans over also unskilled foreigners, so the only difference i see is race, religion etc >
  
  
  I hope that these issues are addressed to make it even more so a vehicle for good. i feel like ignoring these issues just because it’s good enough isn’t a good idea.
  
  My overall point is that the problems aren't necessarily ignored, they're just not the focus. In part because even though there are flaws it generally works and in part because there are bigger fish to fry. So people aren't ignoring the issues rather than talking more about other things. 
  
  I kinda confused what you’re saying about single currencies, that countries do address these issues?
  
  Yes. For example the general public opinion in Sweden is to not adopt the euro. Sweden is intentionally not meeting the criteria because of this, even though it wouldn't be very difficult for them to do so. Clearly that's at least one country that views the shared currency as problematic = it's not entirely ignored. (I'm not saying I necessarily agree but it's clear that some view it as a real problem and don't ignore it)
  
  Dammit, i should edit my post to make it clearer. By europeans i mean NON-eu. So it’s just determined by skill (maybe heartless but more practical). And i called it racist because the policy chooses unskilled NON-EU europeans over also unskilled foreigners, so the only difference i see is race, religion etc
  
  Aside from the fact that I already stated, skill based immigration also has problems of classism (which arguably somewhat ties into racism at times) as well as abelism, it might not be as practical as you think. Most countries base the majority of their immigration on kinship rather than skill. This is because a skill based immigration system is really difficult to set up and maintain, the cost may not outweigh the benefits. 
  As for non EU Europeans some may still have an agreement with the EU to be able to work and travel freely. That's why they're prioritized, their governments worked for and signed an agreement, not because of race. 
  But again though, how can it be racist if it has nothing to do with race? Nationality is not race. A white Christian from the US will have to get a visa whereas a black Muslim from France won't. The difference isn't race or religion, it's nationality. And heaps of EU countries are plenty diverse when it comes to race and religion. >
  
  i’m going to reply to you tomorrow, i’ve been replying to people for hours now. i need at least 3 hours of sleep god damit 😫 >
  
  No worries :) we all need sleep, take your time >
  
  
  single currency preventing nations from effectively responding to crises.
  
  I don't understand economics but I'm an EU student in the UK right now. So the pound has depreciated in value by 10%. If they were using euros, wouldn't the brunt of the inflation problems be absorbed by the fact that dozens of countries are also using it >
  
  i’m not an expert and i’m super tired rn.
  But i don’t think so no, the energy and fuel crisis wouldn’t be any different, we’d still have to buy wholesale gas in dollars (so it would actually be worse because £>€), and we’d still have cost push inflation due to the lack of gas. for the food shortage it also wouldn’t change much, we’d still have a shortage of labourers from Brexit and a shortage regionally.
  so no, imo the UK using the same currency wouldnt change much.
  sorry if that’s not what you asked, i am insanely tired. i’ll read this back tomorrow and see if i made a dumb mistake. >
  
  
  However, it seems like no one really addresses it’s issues (which - like everything else - it has). And just see the UK v EU as unequivocally good/right v wrong.
  
  Nobody lists off the whole cost-benefit analysis whenever they voice their preference on the matter, that would be impractical.
  
  Which are: (because people will ask for)
  
  Some of these are overblown.
  
  single currency preventing nations from effectively responding to crises.
  Lack of economic sovereignty (lose control of monetary policy)
  
  Why would this prevent an effective crisis response? The only thing it prevents is a devaluation, and those are quite exceptional, and when they do happen, they really don't have a good track record of making things better.
  Moreover, this also always applies to single nations: for example, Wales and London have the same currency despite having very different economic structures. They should have a different currency to be able to tailor their economic policy. The reason that they don't, is that the benefits of a larger currency generally outpace those of a smaller currency.
  
  Democratic deficit (far more serious imo than people afford it) - unelected European commission, 
  
  The EC is backed by a majority in the directly and proportionally elected European Parliament. If you ask me, that's far more democratic than FPTP. It's also far healthier to keep the legislative and executive powers separate instead of making the legislative chamber a glorified waiting room for a ministry. If it were up to me, I'd outright forbid elected legislative members from taking up an executive position for a decade after their mandate ends.
  
  2008 Ireland referendum (egregious imo) etc
  
  That was up to Ireland to decide, so you're actually saying that Ireland has a democratic deficit. What's the problem with that anyway?
  
  Arguably hierarchical nature of the EU. Southern countries held to harsher standards. Paul Krugman’s position on Germany etc
  
  What different standards?
  
  Racist immigration policy (favouring uneducated europeans over skilled foreigners)
  
  That's the same in every country. People inside the border can move freely. Or do you think that it's undemocratic to give uneducated Liverpudlians the right to move to London?
  
  Uneven movement of people, assets and capital
  
  That's plainly absurd. The whole EU project is to reduce that friction.
  
  Trade diversion and over specialisation (so more vulnerable crises etc)
  
  ... London is very much specialized in financial services, are you going to force it to diversify? >
  
  I mean I’d challenge this on two dimensions 
  
  First, ignored? These are constant critiques of the EU. You also forgot “completely unable to solve conflicts on its borders / runs to the US every time there’s a problem” but that’s fine.
  Second, you make it sound like the “issues” mean this some better solution.  There isn’t. You enumerate problems of being a federation while also acknowledging it a net positive.  You can be a closer federation (effectively the United States style union of States) or you can be a loose federation (the EU), of you’re almost nothing if you let go of freedom of movement and share currency. Fractured EU states weren’t as competitive economically. >
  
  I think it’s ignored at a mainstream level. True, i completely forgot about our over reliance on the US.
  I think SOME of the issues i raised can be improved upon, but yeah some of the issues i raised are trade offs. >
  
  Ignored at the mainstream level?
  The UK leaving the EU on all of those dimensions was huge international news.
  Ditto with Greece (and potentially others) threading the stability of the currency. >
  
  I mean stream outside of crises. But yeah fair point they do get a lot of coverage. >
  
  What's wrong with no economic sovereignty? >
  
  can’t control monetary policy. So countries can’t depreciate or appreciate their currency in a crisis, and instead have to resort to slow and ineffective measures like internal devaluation. >
  
  
  So countries can’t depreciate or appreciate their currency in a crisis
  
  Changing the value of your currency, phrased differently, is stealing from people you owe money to (or who loaned it). 
  Also, it's an enormous source of economic instability. 
  There's nothing good about that. >
  
  Countries depreciate their currencies so they import less and export more, to balance out their current account. 
  And depreciating actually increases the real debt owed. Which can be a double edged sword. But it’s FAR better than options like internal devaluation.