Why is Poland developing so slowly or in the wrong direction? Who is responsible ?

I would say the exact opposite. Individual countries with individual control over their monetary supply have the power to deal with fiscal issues through things like devaluation. That is nor possible under the Euro.

Why? Take Greece or Ireland.

Without much influence on the intern economical policies we are required to bail them out but if there had been a closer observation, a common economical policy, a close cooperation, a common development of industry, of taxes, of labor, a synchronisation of welfare laws etc. the catastrophes could have been avoided.

As it is Germany is asked to bail out without being able to make sure to change the same structural failures which led to the need for the bailout in the first place.

Of course we balk at that! It's like throwing good money out of the window.

With common economical policies these building of the banking-, credit- and housing bubbles would have been avoided!

And what with all that talk about devaluation. It doesn't help your economy in the long run. It's a sign of weakness, of resignation...you can't build a future on devaluation... how often do you plan to do that?

Does that help with your corruption, with your tax fraud, that your main export are olives??? Nooo, of course not!

Devaluation is for an extreme case only and it helps nothing against the real problems. No, it is not possible under the Euro but it is hardly an argument against it.

Devaluation allows a country to pay off investors in national debt. That in turn makes the debt less attractive to borrowers which forces a country to stop reckless spending, you can't magic money afterall.

So post bailout, how is Greece in a better position fiscally? There is a huge moral hazard when you bail out a country.

I know what devaluation is! ;)

But you won't make a country more successfull as all the structural problems don't vanish magically because of that.

The happens as a result of their debt becoming unattractive to investors, thereby forcing the country in question to reform. Everyone takes a hit for the stupid investment and spending of money that was never available in the first place. Bailouts perpetuate the status quo....by design.

It isn't and won't be for a long time!
It is in for a long, hard time...Germany had a dreary 10 years during the nineties as long needed structural changes had been made....Germany was even called the "sick man of Europe" as other countries wallowed happily in their credit bubbles, throwing around their fake paper money.

Greece too belonged to those without a sensible economical policy...now they are forced to restructure and it isn't pretty.

What if Greece would had been within and under a real economical union? Probably they wouldn't have to go through that now...because they wouldn't had let them go off so far.

How would the needed reforms have been implemented? What reforms would have been implemented? Do you find it all interesting that the countries which were not a part of the Eurozone or members of ERM2 weathered the "crisis" better than the ones that were?

You mean the US and the UK???

There are not many countries outside of the EU...and countries like the Swiss and Norway have possibilities most other countries just don't have so they are not quite usable as models.

The rest is actually tetering with Iceland running under the EU umbrella to not stay out alone in the cold.

You don't want to make the anglo-saxon economy crisis, the biggest one since the 30's, an Eu-made crisis, won't you!

No, it wasn't, there were no informations about pro and contra of joining EU, just propaganda, pure propaganda !

Well, Poland is one of the countries outside of ERM2 and the Eurozone...


What was the message to voters? What were their expectations when they joined the EU? Curious what that 80% signed up for. Ignorance is of course no excuse, but I'm curious how it was sold.

On both sides as I recall.

Actually, I remember that at the time none other than Lech Wałęsa was putting forward a quite nuanced and well-informed argument against accession - perhaps the fact that W was never exactly renowned for such qualities meant he didn't get the ear he deserved. Either way, he was for sure not a lone voice in the wilderness at the time.

EU membership has worked out well for PL on any objective measure, even if the transport ministry has lacked the competence to spend its infrastructure grants effectively and wisely (rail privatisation, for example, was NOT mandated by Brussels).

Joining the Euro, however, would be a whole other can of sh1t. Don't go there, Kowalski - there be dragons.

Indeed - Poland could have easily followed the German system, which seems to be working very well. They could even copy the French system to ensure that PKP Intercity would continue to dominate ala SNCF.

I will answer later
!

That's the catch. ;-) They call you, invite you, but no explicite info given. I mean they give, but the ones THEY want to.

EU was/is not a band thing, but instead of keeping the ball low in terms of who is strongest(leader aspirations), the 'big three' are doing their own thing, completely forgetting that they need the 'small' ones.

Ego always first. Sad story...
The thing, that mandate of leader is changing every 6 months is some sad in the eyes...pure cosmetic.

Who knows if reforms will help the EU construction. Time will tell..until the next crisis is around the corner. ;-)

Well, basically, they (EU) country's are rich, if we join up eventually we get rich as well eventually/soon, we will go back to our rightful place after being in Soviets camp!

Everyone will gain, there will be more businesses and investments, ergo more work places,especially that polish worker being cheaper will make Poland competitive place for setting up a factory, people will be able to travel without visa and get a legal job in any EU country !

EU will give ! (forgetting there is no free lunch)
Everything will be good or even goodier !

Expectations of voters? I think you should ask somebody from those 80%!
Generally people were saying that it cannot be worse than being govern by those as-holes- politicians in charge ! What about real motivation? I guess everybody expected more monies - this way or the other ! Don't really know !

This joining NATO and EU motive was there (in mass media) for ever ....I guess programing indifferent people is the way of nowadays democracy!

It was always the way of democracy. Thucydides saw that 400 years BC. At root, indifference is the fault neither of governments nor the mass media - it's the fault of the individual who fails to take an interest. Having said that, both governments and mass media are only too keen to exploit the fact that such indifference exists.

The arguments against EU accession (be that in PL or elsewhere) have always there for anyone to find - sometimes people just have to go look for 'em.

Actually, the information campaign in my country was very decent and informative. The pro-EU propaganda in the media wasn't though! It was basically fear-mongering about how Holland wouldn't survive without the EU currency. They actually delivered pamphlets door-to-door, or you could pick them up somewhere else. We could actually read the whole EU constitution in those pamphlets, which is exactly what made us vote against the EU. We voted against the Euro currency as well before they presented the EU constitution to us, and we all remembered how that currency got shoved down our throats anyway, eventhough an overwhelming majority voted against. Which is also why an overwhelming majority voted no. (We don't respond too well to non-democratic tactics.) Same with the EU constitution. I think about 70% voted against. It got shoved down our throats anyway, when our leaders decided to sign the Lisbon treaty behind our backs anyway. Which is also why Geert Wilders gained popularity. (Eventhough our hard left is also firmly against the EU.) Bottom line is: The majority of the people in the other EU countries feels the same. It's obvious they had no say in this.