Solid plan, solid procurement strategy. But after that procurement, nothing. No coordination of national campaigns with manufacturers, no planning on local and regional level, no operational procurement plan. And the list goes on.
The UK had a head start (due to earlier approval of the AZ vaccine, they were the second ones after the Russins and before the US), of one and a half months or so. The UK gotlucky that AZs prodution in the UK went smoother than the one in Belgium. And cirumstances are in favour of the UK, initial deliviery volumes are low accross the board, regardless of supplier, and a smaller population allows higher per capita numbers in these cases.
The main reason so, IMHO, is the UKs approach and management of the campaign. With NHS, theUK coud build upon one entitiy to run things, the UK streched the second shot and didn't hold inventory back for it. And the UK seems to have proper operational supply chain management in place.
The EU (meaning individual member states) on the other hand has a larger population, at least 27 individual entities (Germany adds 16 individual states to that), o central planning (Germany has none on the federal level and I haven't seen any on state level so far neither), no coherent strategy. Appointment managment doesn't work. The EU also screwed up supply by ordering more in january (volumes that weren't needed) which resulted in further delays. And the list goes on.
In a nut shell, the UK didnt screw with the suppliers supply chains up to end f production and has a grip on the down stream supply chain up to peoples arms. The EU screwed with suppliers and has zero plan about everything after doses are delivered to a national distribution hub.
EDIT: The EU has to coordinate 27 nations and has to avoid an EU-internal bidding war. The UK doesn't.
And after contract signature, the EU basically took a step back. The EU did tell member states that logistics will be critical, and that logistics will be up to member states to sort out. Kind of right, but also kind of lazy. Even lazier are member states that failed to sort logistics out. Especially those that were fast to blame the EU for that.
The procurement, and the procurement alone, was something the member states decided ad-hoc to pool in this particular instance, in order to avoid exactly the kind of situation between member states that we currently have with the UK.
And that has actually worked remarkably well: all the EU member states have essentially the same percent of their population vaccinated. Solidarność! They are also actually doing quite well internationally, with only the US/UK and Israel significantly better (and some Gulf states).
And of course the US/UK achieved this by not playing fair. Trump tried to buy Biontech outright, and you can bet he would have denied Germany access to the vaccine developed in Germany had he succeeded. Oxford wanted to partner with Merck, but the UK government forbade this and forced them to go with Astrazeneca instead, exactly because they could then foist UK-first contracts on them.
Coming back to the EU procurement process: there simply was no precedent for this, no EU jurisdiction, no EU body that regularly does this, and thus no expertise. Thus the contracts :-/
"The EU took a step back" is incorrect, as there simply wasn't and isn't a role for the EU here at all, even the procurement wasn't really an EU thing.
See also:
https://twitter.com/davekeating/status/1372897635577761803?s...
"Until a few days ago" because the US just recently agreed to send some vaccine to Canada. For the first time. Canada had been getting vaccine produced in the EU. UK is still at 0.
USA has effectively banned export. UK signed a better deal (https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...), three months earlier, and as a result all AZ vaccine produced domestically in the UK is going to UK Citizens, and they are higher up the queue for AZ product manufactured in the EU. This produces the same effect as an export ban (i.e. domestic production used entirely by country), but is really just the result of competent procurement.
https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2021/01/26/news/interview_...
EU shat the bed by penny pinching. Don't paint incompetence as "humanitarian efforts"
and of course the UK did as well, as the previous poster kindly pointed out:
> This produces the same effect as an export ban
How exactly you achieve being an egotistical sociopath seems a secondary concern.
Now of course both the US and the UK were in extremely dire straits at the tine, with by far the worst outcomes. So I guess that behavior is at least somewhat understandable when you have your back against the wall. Doesn't really make it any better, though.
If you care about equitable access you should be praising the UK, and in particular Oxford, for making its vaccine available at cost, and for having dedicated supply chains already established for poorer nations.
There's still plenty to criticise, but the current framing demonstrates the egocentrism of all of the actors.
The UK: 0%
The US: 0% until a few days ago.
I think your 50% figure is also too high, though it is a high proportion, but these doses are primarily going to wealthy countries.
If the EU were asking for U.K. doses to be routed to other (particularly poorer) countries I would be sympathetic to the position, but this spat is about getting the EU doses, not about equitable access.
Whereas the UK is getting the doses it ordered, at the EU's expense, and has not actually exported any.
So.
Not exactly the same.
We need some massive reforms and rebuilding after this. There already was a lot of EU scepticism, and instead of taking this opportunity to shine, they completely squandered it and destroyed trust.
Forgive me for picking on this, but I see it regularly come up whenever the deficit of democracy in the EU is discussed and I completely disagree with that assessment.
The President of the US is not elected by "the people". The PMs of most countries are invited to form a government by the head of state, not directly by the people. This is a common feature in many democracies, executive roles are not directly elected and are instead picked based on support by parliamentary majorities. The President of the European Commission is elected by the Parliament, which is itself elected directly by the people of the EU. I see absolutely no problem there.
There are other things which deserve more attention, like the disproportionate amount of power the Council has vis a vis the Commission and the Parliament.
They promised before the election that the candidate of the strongest party would get the job.
The whole plan was to strengthen the parliament, and the whole promise was broken after the election, _because_ the council wanted to make sure the parliament and commission are kept weak.
Whenever I have this discussion people for some reasons assume I don't know even the most basic mechanics of the system I critize.
And the same people always conveniently forget what we were promised during the election campaign. All parties agreed to make the candidate of the strongest party after the election the commission president. They all promised that.
Von der Leyen is the council and national governments taking a dump on the parliament. And it didn stop there! During the backroom deals that lead to this, the parliament negotiated that they will only play along if they finally get more power.
Fast forward a couple of months and they got stiffed and insulted again. The brexit deal i.e. was an affront to parliament, because they didn't even get to vote it on it. The vaccine deals were kept secret from them. And on and on and on.
The only directly elected body in the EU is constantly being disrespected.
You act like these are separate problems, but the fact that we got von der Leyen, who didn't even run in the election, IS THE SAME thing as the problem of Power of council vs. Commission vs. Parliament. The later caused the former.
(Sorry for the tone, I got angry, but not at you. Please read it in mickey mouse voice to take the edge off.)
Personally, I think that the Commission should be directly elected by the Parliament from it's members, which would make it much more similar to the national governments.
I'm not sure the Council (i.e. the member states) would agree to that though.
At least since Lisbon, the EP has some (not enough) power over Commissioners.
Generally, blaming all bad things on the EU and acting like it's a foreign power whenever it servers their needs, obfuscating the the national governments are the ones with most power over EU decisions.
I reckon this was a major reason Brexit went the way it did. Supporters of the EU liked to point to the fact that actually, our government was behind a lot of the unpopular EU actions to argue that Brexit supporters had been tricked into wanting to leave the EU. What they didn't get was how completely unconvincing an argument that is. The politicians who were busy undermining and blocking any attempt to leave the EU also used it as a way to pass laws that the people they represent didn't want, shielding themselves from any kind of accountability to the general populace, and that was meant to make everyone fall in line behind them and want to remain in the EU? Ridiculous.
Just like in the UK where the PM is elected by each democratically elected MP
That's not the case. The PM is appointed by the Monarch, who will almost always choose the leader of the party able to command a majority in the House of Commons. That leader will be chosen according to the rules of their party. Boris Johnson won an election where all eligible members of the Conservative Party had a vote; it is the case that the shortlist of two was decided by MPs.
The PM is also a regular MP and has to be elected by their local constituency voters.
If we're being technical the PM does not have to be an elected MP, and can be from the house of lords.
It was all a big deuce dropped on the parliament, really. The parliament is the only directly elected body in the EU, and the nations governments hate the idea that it could gain any kind of real power.
The move was caused by the democratically elected heads of government of the member nations (including the UK at that time), not by the commission.
P.S. in the UK the last time someone became PM the morning after winning a majority in a general election was 1997. The time before that was 1979.
Major, Brown, May, Johnson were all selected by their party members
Thatcher, Blair led parties that won an election (although less than 50% of the vote)
Cameron won a plurarity of the seats in parliament but required both Tory and Lib Dem agreement
The idea in the UK of the PM being elected is very rare.
We were promised that the candidate of the winning party would get the job!
All parties in the election agreed to that. We had debates between the candidates rooted on that promise. The whole election was based on that.
The EU has serious problems with democratic legitimacy, it has serious problems with Trust, and yet people defend those moves because they are technically legal.
The voters were told one thing and they got another thing.
And then the EU does an about-face and wonders why there is so many people distrusting it.
Do you want the EU to succeed or not? If you want it to succeed, like I do, we have to call out the issues and fix them, instead of defending broken things because we still believe in the whole.
The EU will never reach its potential if we don't mature it's political system and give the people some direct, visible control.
In the US Congress you can vote for, or against, both your district’s representative in the House and your entire state’s representatives in the Senate.
But, more important, the EP, while it is involved in some legislation, doesn't have the preeminent lawmaking power that you'd expect of a parliament; the European Commission has legislative initiative, and their legislation must be confirmed by the European Council and in some cases the European Parliament.
So, great, the electoral system for the EP is arguably more effectively representative than that for the IS Congress, but that would matter a lot more if the EP had the legislative role of the US Congress or a normal parliament.
With the result that candidates aren't accountable to voters, only to party bureaucracy, since their chances of reelection depend much more on where they are on the party list than on how many voters approved of their voting.
Not to mention that MEPs don't get to write the laws - the laws are written by the unelected commision.
Depending on the country there may be a party list system, but in somewhere like Ireland you vote for the individual members via a very democratic STV.
That some national governments have instituted a closed list system instead is a failing of those national governments, who want to keep the power with themselves rather than with the people.
If 30% are voted out then that suggests more (perhaps 60%?) were at risk of being voted out to the point where it would influence their decisions.
> The only threat to the majority of Tory and Labour MPs at a given election is the threat of deselection by about 300 local party members.
Which is again a big improvement in accountability over what MEPs face.
> Depending on the country there may be a party list system, but in somewhere like Ireland you vote for the individual members via a very democratic STV.
By which you mean every country in the EU except Ireland and Belgium uses a party list system, and even the Belgian system is mostly party list based (just split by language as well).
No, that's not how elections in the UK work
> Which is again a big improvement in accountability over what MEPs face.
MPs get to be voted out by their local parties
MEPs in Ireland get to be voted out by the voters without the failures of the undemocratic FPTP system
That's not a problem with the EU, it's a problem with the individual countries. Just like the power resting with the council (like nominating head of commission. The rest of the commissioners are more like US Secretarys who are nominated by the president and approved by congress)
This is a failure with the nation states, similar to the days when states appointed electoral college directly from their senate rather than via popular vote.
Incumbents losing 100% of elections would not be a sign of a healthy democracy; the obvious candidate for an ideal target would be 50% (given that the post-2010 UK is a de facto two-party system). So 30% is not so bad relative to that.
> MEPs in Ireland get to be voted out by the voters without the failures of the undemocratic FPTP system
Ireland's 13 MEPs are democratically accountable (though even then, an individual voter must split their attention 13 ways). The other 692 aren't.
> That's not a problem with the EU, it's a problem with the individual countries. Just like the power resting with the council (like nominating head of commission. The rest of the commissioners are more like US Secretarys who are nominated by the president and approved by congress)
So what's the practical fix? The EU passed a lot of unpopular measures for which no-one was visibly accountable (and it really doesn't matter if there was some legal mechanism for the UK to avoid implementing them, given that actually exercising any such mechanism was outside the Overton window of UK politics). Leaving the EU was a crude sledgehammer that's had a lot of collateral damage, but how else could UK voters have got away from laws written by party cronies and voted on by other party cronies? The EU's lack of accountability is not a superficial flaw that they're working on fixing; it's deep-rooted and it's hard to escape the idea that the powers that be like it that way.
Depends on the country. Germany sure, it's a single bucket. Ireland and Belgium are split in 3, Italy in 5, Poland in 13
The laws themselves are proposed by appointees of the national governments, same as domestic laws.
Almost no one would argue that because AFAIK that never happened. Pretty sure people would argue that way as soon as this happens.
We were promised that the candidate of the strongest party in the parliament election will get the job.
Every time this comes up people explain to me again what I already know, and never ever they seem to remember what the people were promised before the election.
So yes, it was a bit of deception, created as part of of a fight between institutions. Just about nobody decided their vote based on these candidates, anyway.
But in the long run, wouldn't it be bad for all of us, if it takes eastern European countries a lot longer to reopen?
It would be hard for individual countries to do any worse.
Tiny Israel did vastly better that the EU, so the size of the EU clearly didn't help.
It would be pretty easy for any individual countries that don't actually produce vaccines to do worse.
Just look at Canada, for instance. It's a rich country that hoarded vaccine pre-orders (Enough to vaccinate its population three times over), and what was the result? A lower vaccination rate than the EU. That's because Canada does not control any part of the R&D or manufacturing process, so its orders got pushed to the back of the line. And neither do most of the countries in the EU.
What makes you think Slovakia or Greece, or Italy are going to be any better off? What makes you think that if vaccine procurement were up to each individual country, that any of those countries would see a single dose before, say, Belgium reached 100% vaccination?
This trick only works for one small wealthy country. Nobody cares so much about the second fastest set of vaccination health data that they will prioritize shipments to your country. Slovakia and Greece would still be shit out of luck.
It's like pointing at a lottery winner, and saying - 'look, this is the strategy you all should be emulating to get out of poverty.' The problem is, there is only one winner, and there is only one guinea pig of a country that will commit itself to being a case study for a fast, full rollout, as long as it gets priority on vaccines.
Also, Israel's impressive vaccination statistics conveniently ignore its Palestinian population, which is not getting those doses.
I come from Central Eastern Europe i.e. the poor people of the great EU. Our government is incompetent, corrupt, all the stereotypical attributes, and somehow, the most incompetent, lazy and corrupt end up Europoliticians (note: this is not a rule, there are exceptions). It's almost like a status symbol of when you beat the system; you get a nice cozy place where you do nothing. I am highly skeptical that we are alone in this.
Then, from a ground level, as someone that wants to love the European Union and can see the great economic benefits it brought us since joining, I can't help but stare in awe as all the brain gets drained from my country. Every single capable person has to decide whether they want to stay here and basically fight for scraps or go to the west where they get money they couldn't dream of here.
Sorry for the rant, your mention of a super government made me irrationaly angry at something I can't have, or don't want in its current form, and your deconstruction point is very much aligned with what I think needs to happen' currently.
As long as you have precisely pinpointed the issue with supplying EP with incompetent MEPs (a common problem among most members of the bloc today, arguably including the appointment of Ursula von der Leyen), you've resorted to a completely destructive resolution of deconstructing the EU. As a punishment for the failures of your homeland, I suppose? "Bad EU did it, not our fault" is such a common trope among local politicians (hallo Österreich[1] from the latest news) and some citizens.
The solution is in fixing your domestic politics, not dragging your capable citizens and fellow European neighbors down. It's solely thanks to the European Union's common approach[2] that the small/poor members of the bloc have truly equal access to vaccines. Otherwise small countries would have never been able to outbid rich Germany, France, UK, Netherlands and other power states on the free market. As you understand, there are no benefits for Germany, France et al. in this collective decision, they're literally paying with the lives of their citizens for the idea of the EU. A little gratitude.
By being in the same boat, we will together overcome pandemic, poverty and political incompetence. You're free to disagree, just don't pretend that your local brexit will go swimmingly — it isn't rosy even for such a developed country as the UK.
[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/austria-seeks-to-pin-blame-o...
[2] https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/commissions-centralis...
Oh please, rich EU countries haven't accepted the eastern block countries in the EU out of charity, they did it because it benefited them massively.
Big French and German businesses could now export their products to millions more people without tariffs and relocate production there lowering the cost and making insane profits.
Danish, French, Dutch and Austrian banks took over the banking business in the eastern block offering the citizens there much higher fees and interests than they would in their home countries, again, making massive profits which got funneled back "home".
IKEA, German and Austrian furniture and logging companies are heavily involved in illegal deforestation in Romania via bribes and corruption.
Austrian construction companies are often involved in corruption scandals for shitty and massively overpriced infrastructure projects in the Eastern Block, some with EU money even.
And not to mention the workforce and 'brain drain' that moved to the west benefiting the businesses, both white collar and especially agriculture, and also the landlords there on a huge scale.
The EU expansion has been a massive wealth transfer project of taxpayer money from rich countries to the big businesses and asset owners of the same rich countries, funneled through the newer poorer members in form of various EU projects. And of course the poorer members then get the blame by the populist politicians in the richer countries because they're "stealing your tax Euros and your jobs" even though their policies directly enabled and supported this wealth and job transfer in the first place as it benefited the big and well connected businesses in their countries.
Oh, you know perfectly well which paragraph you pulled this sentence from. Nothing will sell the idea of exchanging tens of thousands of lives for some kind of commercial benefits for some large companies to the citizens of advanced European countries, if the citizens themselves didn't believe in the European Union. It just doesn't work like that in Europe.
> Big French and German businesses could now export their products to millions more people without tariffs and relocate production there lowering the cost and making insane profits.
Yeah, these pesky businesses optimize costs and seek profits, who would have thought. They do it while developing the industry and create a pool of high-grade (Germany and Western Europe is known for quality goods) specialists in regions where such competencies have often never existed. It's all obvious, the same thing is repeated again and again. You know who else benefits? Competitive companies from the poorer/newer members of the bloc, which now have a massive open market to compete due to the lower OpEx/labor costs, and essentially pushing stagnant players out of their home markets. E.g. my customers are a small factory supplying manufactured goods and high quality services all over the EU, especially Sweden, Germany and Switzerland—for a much lower price. My company is able to provide SWE solutions for companies in France and Finland just like to local businesses. Some of my partners run a 3-employees SWE consulting company from home offices in Estonia, providing services for a particular Spanish fintech enterprise as if it were across the street. It wouldn't be possible without the EU, the market is truly open and transparent without red taping.
> Austrian construction companies are often involved in corruption scandals for shitty and massively overpriced infrastructure projects in the Eastern Block, some with EU money even.
I don't get it, this is just ridiculous. You do realize that corrupt governments and institutions are exploited by foreign forces all the time, it doesn't have to be European? China[1][2] and Russia[3] are heavily involved in such activities, both are outside the EU. What's your point? It's not EU's fault that some Eastern politicians/institutions are corrupt, but this is its prospect problem and responsibility[4], I'd agree with that.
> The EU expansion has been a massive wealth transfer project of taxpayer money from rich countries to the bg businesses and asset owners of the same rich countries, funneled through the newer poorer members in form of various EU projects.
These allegations run counter to the economic growth charts of almost all countries that have joined the European Union. This definitely contradicts the economic situation in Estonia (again, Eastern Europe); also below is a reply by an Irish citizen, country which got richer after joining the bloc.
You're clearly reaching the anti-EU narrative with your exploitation/corruption claims, and you do it quite lazily. As I said, start by putting things in order in your home country, and then threaten or moan at the "oppressive" European Union. If you don’t change your mind by then.
[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/18681026209631...
[2] https://www.amo.cz/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/AMO_central-eu... (PDF)
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Laundromat
[4] https://www.iwkoeln.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Studien/Report/... (PDF)
This logic is akin to forcibly beating someone with their own hand and asking "why do you beat yourself". When the best people leave then it's blindingly obvious they aren't available to fix domestic politics, isn't it?
And as eastern europe does not have colonial past, there isn't large pool of brains that know local language and can be drained from third world to replace people who left.
I think it's in interest of whole EU that best people stay in their countries. Instead of just sending money via cohesion funds, it should think about creating local opportunities for them.
However, because of the EU, we were able to get a lot richer, and now people actually come to Ireland for work (which still blows my mind, even though it's normal now).
I type this reply from my home office in Estonia, Northeastern Europe. I did witness massive brain drain before 2003 when Estonia joined the EU, and I have many (some are exceptionally well educated) friends who left the country afterwards. Just recently a very well educated young neurosurgeon I know made the decision to leave for pursuing the postgrad in Canada and then Switzerland, both countries outside the EU (oh snap, "bad EU" is not guilty this time). Should I blame Canada for a local provincial academic/research landscape? How can I punish them, maybe cheer for some of their trade block to collapse? Pathetic.
I'd rather double-think about my domestic electoral preferences and what can I personally do to transform my country so that more people (many already do) would consider returning. I don't follow who's forcibly beating Eastern European countries with their hands and how exactly: people move all the time in all directions for better opportunities. That's how it is, people move from Finland to Sweden, from Sweden to Norway, from Norway to Germany, etc. It's fine. It provides a much larger landscape of opportunities for different population slices. The EU has made this movement much easier, but Estonians supplied Finland with labor well before joining the EU. Today Russia/Ukraine/Belarus does the same to us, if you're entrepreneurial enough to take advantage of it.
At the same time, English is the main working language in a massive number of local technology companies[1], incl. Pipedrive, Transferwise, Starship Technologies, foreign offices of Twilio, Skype, etc. You meet well educated people from all over the EU (a lot of Spaniards, Portuguese, Swedes) and outer world (from Russia to Brazil) in the foyers of these offices. For some reason they reach Estonia with mediocre salaries by DE/SE/NL and even FI standards. Apparently, you being a tiny Eastern European country, still able to compete for talented brains, if you actually make efforts. So do efforts, don't look whom to blame.
> And as eastern europe does not have colonial past, there isn't large pool of brains that know local language and can be drained from third world to replace people who left.
LOL so what? The most ridiculous excuse I've heard. You don't have colonial past, but you have a pretty huge open bloc of well educated people all over the EU. Compete for them! And yes, this may require adjusting language and cultural requirements, just as Amsterdam is a booming international hub and pretty much an English speaking city today[2][3]. People don't learn German, Dutch, Finnish and Swedish overnight, and it's more often not really required.
> I think it's in interest of whole EU that best people stay in their countries. Instead of just sending money via cohesion funds, it should think about creating local opportunities for them.
No doubts in that, fully agreed. But it's not EU's obligation to supply your country with profitable enterprises and (say) Polish-speaking citizens. You have to make efforts to achieve this, not seeking to destroy the union for everyone else, because you couldn't.
[1] https://e-estonia.com/estonia-is-ranked-the-third-in-europe-...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-netherlands-fo...
[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-02-16/amster...
I so wish I could improve matters by choosing in elections...except parties/candidates I vote for regularly end up outside of government, if not completely outside of the parliament. How then can we attract competent people when we always end up with incompetent/corrupt politicans? Everyone who makes the effort in this environment, ends up burned out.
And don't let me even start about adjusting the cultural norms of general population :(
> Just recently a very well educated young neurosurgeon I know made the decision to leave for pursuing the postgrad in Canada and then Switzerland, both countries outside the EU (oh snap, "bad EU" is not guilty this time).
Well, where I come from, everyone leaves right about now. There is no one to take care of our old people because they make 10x as much elsewhere. There is no one to pick up our berries and our grain, because they get paid so much more doing the same thing in Germany. Romania for example, in Eastern Europe, is the 2nd country after Siria in terms of emigration rate...
Yes, UE is 'guilty' in the sense that other regions are draining the talent because for some reason, talent found no root here. The EU should create ample ground for innovation, whether we are competing internally or globally.
> How can I punish them, maybe cheer for some of their trade block to collapse? Pathetic.
Cheering for some of their trade block to collapse could be something, if it indeed benefited a large segment of the population. I find the word pathetic to be rather insulting, and somehow an indicator of your openness (or lack thereof) to conversation.
> I'd rather double-think about my domestic electoral preferences and what can I personally do to transform my country so that more people (many already do) would consider returning. I don't follow who's forcibly beating Eastern European countries with their hands and how exactly: people move all the time in all directions for better opportunities. That's how it is, people move from Finland to Sweden, from Sweden to Norway, from Norway to Germany, etc. It's fine. It provides a much larger landscape of opportunities for different population slices. The EU has made this movement much easier, but Estonians supplied Finland with labor well before joining the EU. Today Russia/Ukraine/Belarus does the same to us, if you're entrepreneurial enough to take advantage of it.
You treat all emmigration and movement of human capital as a natural consequence. We're talking levels near Syria, where they are in conflict for a decade... This is not the natural, people move in and out. It's people move out. Period. From a member state of the EU. In numbers similar to outside the EU war torn regions.
I am writing this from an enterpreneurial seat. I have businesses, employees and work in tech. I vote with my head. I am politically engaged in my local community and try to make things for the best. I create code camps and internship oportunities for young people. I get involved in state level politics. Your high horse is astounding.
> Apparently, you being a tiny Eastern European country, still able to compete for talented brains, if you actually make efforts. So do efforts, don't look whom to blame.
Efforts without context are just...
> You don't have colonial past, but you have a pretty huge open bloc of well educated people all over the EU. Compete for them!
I'm going to put this up on my wall. "Compete for them!" must be the best advice I've heard for my business in the past years...
> No doubts in that, fully agreed. But it's not EU's obligation to supply your country with profitable enterprises and (say) Polish-speaking citizens. You have to make efforts to achieve this, not seeking to destroy the union for everyone else, because you couldn't.
I can't even begin to understand how getting some things that we complain about handled would be a 'destroying the union for everyone else'. Why would we give up slaves? It would destroy industry for everyone else!
--
All in all, I think your sourced comment is both uninformed and malicious, given from a high horse without any real insights, solutions and or at least, things to build upon.
>> your deconstruction point is very much aligned with what I think needs to happen' currently
Let's get some facts straight. By your's "EU needs deconstruction" I read what it is: EU needs to be deconstructed. Like, gone. Or at least seriously crippled in some way. You mention migration as your prime concern, when freedom of movement is one of the fundamental rights of the European Union[1] since Treaty of Rome (1957), a crucial condition of the free trade zone. So I understand this is the part you want to deconstruct first.
Well, I reject this proposition and wholeheartedly find it outrageous, to put it mildly. Initially I wanted to reply that if life in your country is so unbearable within the bloc, then you should probably rather deconstruct yourself from the EU. But I thought it was better to give arguments instead, in case I misunderstood something. Apparently I got you right.
You follow your argument with accusing me of "uninformed and malicious" opinions and "high horse" attitude, but honestly you could try your luck with finding a rapport with a Brit or American, telling them that UK needs to be deconstructed for the common good of some poor, corrupt country. Then, after an honest outrage, you're going to play a victimhood drama with high horse accusations. Amazing hypocrisy.
> All in all, I think your sourced comment is both uninformed and malicious, given from a high horse without any real insights, solutions and or at least, things to build upon.
Please spare your moral assessments of my arguments. It's perfectly fine to be a part of Frugal four[2] within the EU, but you have clearly not yet invested enough in the construction of what you intend to destroy. In my opinion you got accustomed to the non-conflict, diplomatic and lulling attitude of the EU; and enjoy playing drama when facts are presented in the direct manner.
I'm also from the Eastern European country, I run tech business for nearly 15 years. I'm politically active and do read local, European and international press. I also know exactly how people in Ukraine flee country since 2014 (not quite Syria, but two of my high-skilled SWE/SRE friends are refugees from Donbass). We had hell of a lot troubles during 90's in my region, but solution is always the same: fair courts, free elections, competitive entrepreneurship. See that you have absolutely no way to currently influence this? Well, get out of the country. Just spare your flawed life lessons, we have already gone through this, and you still have to.
I don't get why you've decided that the EU owes you "solutions" other than providing you with the same freedoms we all equally have; Balkans war is not EU's fault. Of course we (as EU) could always do better and I sincerely wish prosperity to your nation. But EU freedoms is the "thing to build upon", and it's a damn good start.
The goal of this political and economic union is to help countries develop more easily under the same dome. There's no free lunches. This means that your country has to make own efforts, and there's no way around it. EU won't elect your politicians, won't cure your poverty and corruption, won't jail all your crooks. It's your responsibility, EU is not the La-La-Land. Apparently, you don't understand where you got into and for what reason.
> I'm going to put this up on my wall. "Compete for them!"
Please do! Good competition will lead your businesses and homeland to financial success.[3]
Cheers.
[1] https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/45-freedom-movem...
But there is small, but worrying enough probability that some countries will fail because of this emigration. And then it will be not only their but whole EU's problem. That has nothing to do with victimhood drama or us wanting EU deconstruction or whatever strawman you came up with.
I understand your concerns and generally sympathize with your position. I hope that we won't allow such a development of events, that no country will be squeezed out of talented people and resources. While I personally find this scenario completely unrealistic, I agree that it's important to articulate such concerns, it's an important feedback for EU.
I want to be able to freely roam/live in a safe and highly developed Eastern Europe countries. To enjoy some fancy mineral SPAs in Czech's Karlovy Vary again. To use Romanian high-quality software services, and to buy Bulgarian-produced tasty cuisine in my local Estonian grocery shop. To welcome ground breaking scientific researchers, just as I admire Hungarian scientist Katalin Karikó[1] who pioneered the mRNA research and is now VP in BioNtech. And I mean it, that's the European Union I long for.
> That has nothing to do with victimhood drama or us wanting EU deconstruction or whatever strawman you came up with.
It's not me who came up with blatant "EU needs deconstruction not more construction", take a look a couple replies above which I directly reply to. If not for this outrageous combination of words, I wouldn't even bother commenting in this thread.
https://www.politico.eu/article/czech-republic-slovakia-grap...
On the other hand it's also no surprise considering how it evolved: a producer's cartel for the coal and steel, and later agricultural, industries.
It's a miracle it even works so well as it does.
"However, the key lies in an earlier agreement that AstraZeneca made back in May with the U.K., which was a binding deal establishing “the development of a dedicated supply chain for the U.K.,” an AstraZeneca spokesperson said."
Quote is from this article: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...
Of course I don't know the accuracy of such statements. But if that is true, you could certainly argue it would unfair that the EU should benefit from production capacity that only exists because of commitments made by the UK, and the location of the factories is fairly irrelevant to that.
You could counter argue that I am mistakenly treating the "EU" and "UK" as a single individual person each who deserves to suffer the consequences of their actions, when in fact the people suffering are individual citizens who had almost no control over the negotiation process. But, on the flip side, if companies cannot rely on agreements made during difficult negotiations to be honoured then it will be harder to secure such agreements in future.