WI: Morocco joins the EU

I very much suspect absolutely no one can "inflate their way out of recession", because I suspect this to be an economic quack remedy. The more inflation you have, the less a potential investor's returns on investments will be worth, which means the more inflation you have, the less incentive there is to invest.

Inflation is stealth austerity but since people hadn’t live true it,they don't see it for what is and take only the good part that it might boost exports which is a false assumption since production depended on inputs that more then often came form another country (And even inputs that came from within the country are evaluated in a hard currency )
and are paid in a hard currency or valued in one and then you need credits and with a ever shrinking in value currency that credit comes at a higher price.
The only think that changes is the value of the wages (they go down).

And it is more acceptable for politicians since in the case of printing they don't have to take responsibility as much as with regular austerity and reform.
 
Fat chance. The electorates in North-Western Europese won't stand for it. Human rights and economic reality be damned. They fear a culture clash. It's why Turkey will never join the EU.
 

katchen

Banned
Definitely wrong. If you have paid your contributions to unemployment insurance (as you are legally obliged to do when you are employed and earn over 450 Euros a month) for 360 days, you are entitled to unemployment benefits, when you are laid off, no matter whether you are a German, a foreigner from a EU country or a foreigner from outside the EU.

What you cannot do is immigrate into Germany just in order to get welfare payments.


I very much suspect absolutely no one can "inflate their way out of recession", because I suspect this to be an economic quack remedy. The more inflation you have, the less a potential investor's returns on investments will be worth, which means the more inflation you have, the less incentive there is to invest.
Excuse me. You're entitled to unemployment benefits but what about pensions or welfare when the unemployment runs out if you're a foreigner but still a European? Where does the European social contract end and the member nation social contract begin?
 

katchen

Banned
And yes, nations CAN deficit spend their way out of depressions--if they spend the money wisely and use the money to create jobs and invest in infrastructure.. Both Roosevelt and Hitler had policies that were effective at bringing their nations out of the Great Depression. And yes, even Roosevelt greatly eased unemployment before WWII broke out.
I will say that one of the biggest differences in social policy between nations like Spain, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland and nations like France and Sweden is that France and Sweden have lavish social payments for parents to have more children. As a result, France and Sweden have actually managed to gin up their birthrates to replacement level or slightly above replacement level. Southern European nations have not. And their economy is showing it.
 
Excuse me. You're entitled to unemployment benefits but what about pensions or welfare when the unemployment runs out if you're a foreigner but still a European? Where does the European social contract end and the member nation social contract begin?

I suppose that would depend on how each nation views it, Ireland for example pays out social payments like Child Allowance, unemployment to non Irish EU citizens. And might I suggest that you issues would be better off in another thread rather than the OP's Morocco in the EU question.
 
I see there is a danger that people are conflating the Eurozone and the European Union. They overlap but but are separate.
 
Excuse me. You're entitled to unemployment benefits but what about pensions or welfare when the unemployment runs out if you're a foreigner but still a European? Where does the European social contract end and the member nation social contract begin?
I can only speak for the German system, and even there I am no expert.

There is a basic distinction between:
- tax-financed benefits, to which you are entitled because of your need - child benefits or welfare payments for example. You don't have to have paid anything before to be entitled to them.
- various types of social insurances, to which you are entitled if you are in need, but even then only if you have paid contributions beforehand. Employees who earn anything from a certain amount upwards are legally required to pay contributions to health insurance, unemployment insurance, care insurance, accident insurance and old age pension insurance. Their employers are also obliged to contribute to the insurance of their employees and the insurances also receive certain amounts from the state. This is true for Germans and foreigners alike (irrespective if they are from a EU country or not), both pay the same contributions (depending on their incomes), and are entitled to the same insurance payments (depending on the amount of contributions) in case of need.

To the best of my limited knowledge, the only foreigners entitled to welfare payments in the narrowest sense (tax-financed and not contribution-financed) are people who are entitled to political asylum (the criteria for this are very strict) and people who are not entitled to political asylum, but who cannot be deported to their country of origin either, because they would be persecuted there. Foreigners with a legal permanent residency are entitled to the same child benefits as Germans.
 
Last edited:
Inflation is stealth austerity but since people hadn’t live true it,they don't see it for what is and take only the good part that it might boost exports which is a false assumption since production depended on inputs that more then often came form another country (And even inputs that came from within the country are evaluated in a hard currency )
and are paid in a hard currency or valued in one and then you need credits and with a ever shrinking in value currency that credit comes at a higher price.
The only think that changes is the value of the wages (they go down).

And it is more acceptable for politicians since in the case of printing they don't have to take responsibility as much as with regular austerity and reform.
Yes, all this is true.

One more argument against inflation of a re-introduced Greek or possibly other Southern European currency as a problem solver: the Greek government could not even "solve" its debt crisis in the horrible way that the German government "solved" its problem through inflation in the Twenties.

The German government owed a large debt of Reichsmarks to their own population, which it "solved" through printing huge amounts of Reichsmarks. The Greek government owes a debt of Euros, which it cannot possibly legally print, no matter whether it re-introduces the Drachma or not. If it did re-introduce the Drachma and the Drachma was devalued or depreciated against the Euro, the government would have to tax an even greater percentage of the population's income in order to pay the same percentage of their debt that they would have had to tax if they had stuck with the Euro.
 
Yes, all this is true.

One more argument against inflation of a re-introduced Greek or possibly other Southern European currency as a problem solver: the Greek government could not even "solve" its debt crisis in the horrible way that the German government "solved" its problem through inflation in the Twenties.

The German government owed a large debt of Reichsmarks to their own population, which it "solved" through printing huge amounts of Reichsmarks. The Greek government owes a debt of Euros, which it cannot possibly legally print, no matter whether it re-introduces the Drachma or not. If it did re-introduce the Drachma and the Drachma was devalued or depreciated against the Euro, the government would have to tax an even greater percentage of the population's income in order to pay the same percentage of their debt that they would have had to tax if they had stuck with the Euro.

True. A "new Drachma" implies that Greece would have to default on all its debt, with a massive haircut. The idea would be to devalue your currency, get rid of your debt through default, and then start anew.

I think it could have been the better solution, especially if after Drachma and default European help programs are set up. However, it would not have been a simple solution: millions would loose their pensions and property, the economy would be in shambles, the Greek banks were broke... On the other side, the situation right now is not that much different, without the prospect of a quick recovery.
 
True. A "new Drachma" implies that Greece would have to default on all its debt, with a massive haircut. The idea would be to devalue your currency, get rid of your debt through default, and then start anew.

I think it could have been the better solution, especially if after Drachma and default European help programs are set up. However, it would not have been a simple solution: millions would loose their pensions and property, the economy would be in shambles, the Greek banks were broke... On the other side, the situation right now is not that much different, without the prospect of a quick recovery.

No it will have not be a better solution to default,what the south needs is reform,a default will have give them a free start however there will be no incentive to reform(chance mentalities),for the politicians,or for the population in general. ( look at Argentina to see how the default have had work for them ),At least the current pact will force the to reform,at lest some of them (at least there still is hope).
And then a default might (very probably) will force the out of markets,and they will have to pay a premium for future credit,and since there will be no reform since there are no incentive to do so (or change mentalities for the populations ) all that it will be achieve it will be a vicious circle of defaults (and inflation)
 
Yes, Turkey was being seriously considered. It's not anymore though. Which has little to do with the Balkans countries, and much to do with prejudice from Germany and France, as well as a general unwillingness to expand in the southeast direction after the Greek economy fiasco.

If Germany and France were never on board, it was never seriously being considered.
 
What happens if the European Union accepted Morocco's application for joining the EU?

That is a huge if...

Anyway, what will happen: Normal negotiations, reform in Morocco, economic benefits for Morocco, up until the day Morocco becomes a full member. Probably will take decades. With Morocco on its way, there's really no reason to deny any other country access, so you'd likely have Tunisia, Georgia,, Armenia, maybe Israel... trying to join as well.
It is really a huge "if", though not ASB.

In some respects this almost looks like Operation Sea Lion to me: in order to give Germany the fleet to do it, you need so many PODs that the likelihood of Hitler or someone similar ruling Germany, and therefore even an opportunity for something like Sea Lion, becomes quite small. In order to make Morocco a EU member state, so many things have to happen that one cannot be absolutely certain whether by the time they have happened, there is any incentive to join the EU, or even if there still is a EU. Monty Burns mentions Tunisia, Georgia, Armenia and Israel also trying to become members, after Morocco undergoes the application process, but to me it looks more likely that these countries become members before Morocco does, Georgia and Armenia being Christian countries and still being geographically in Europe, Israel being the country which has most to lose from any aggressive tendencies in the Muslim world and Tunisia perhaps being the most westernized of Arab nations.

But, to repeat, it is not ASB. At the very least three things have to happen:
1. Morocco has to become a democracy or parliamentary monarchy in which the parliament has both legislative power and control over the executive
2. Prejudices among Europeans against Muslim immigrants have to be much reduced
3. Barriers to geographically non-European countries joining the EU have to be abolished or reduced.

As far as 1. is concerned, this excerpt from the wikipedia article on Morocco may be relevant:
The King of Morocco holds vast executive and legislative powers, including the power to dissolve the parliament. Executive power is exercised by the government but the king's decisions usually override those of the government if there is a contradiction. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the two chambers of parliament, the Assembly of Representatives and the Assembly of Councillors. The king can also issue decrees called dahirs which have the force of law.
If I understand things correctly, this is less democratic than the Germany of Kaiser Bill, who could not possibly rule by decree. Whatever else, the European Union has never given membership to a non-democratic country (and that's a good thing too). It might take decades to change from the present status to a democracy.

As for 2., the reduction of prejudices against Muslims immigrants, two important developments working in its favor might possibly happen, one among the Europeans, one among the Muslims, and more especially Arab Muslims:

Europeans should recognize that an economy is not a zero-sum game in which immigrants "take away" jobs or commodities from the natives. They should also become more aware of the fact that immigrants become especially valuable when the working population of your own country is dwindling.

It would also help to reduce prejudices against Muslim immigrants if fundamentalism and terrorism lost what appeal they have among some of the Muslims and if democracy became more firmly entrenched among the Arab countries. If the latter happens, this would also have a positive impact on point 1., democracy in Morocco itself.

But if the two developments mentioned above happened, there might just as well be a lot of immigration from Muslim and other countries into the EU without any Muslim country, let alone Morocco, joining the EU.

Similarly with point 3: a world where the barriers against non-European countries entering the EU (or whatever it is called then) have been removed, might possibly be such an internationalized world, that there are no incentives to join the EU, as becoming or remaining part of a pan-Arab or pan-African union might be more attractive for Morocco.
 
Let me repost my last post with emphasis for the people who never learnt to read in school...or were purposefully ignoring the key words that were in my post.

These bids take a lot of time for the 'lesser developed states' of Europe. For instance, Turkey began its bid back in the late 1980s, and might have to wait until the end of this decade before it can become a full member. That's around 40 years from bid, to member.

Expect this to be the same for any hopefully new state. However there are a small number of states that might get fast tracked EU membership should they ever want it; Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and the ex-Yugoslav states that do not yet meet criteria. Others even like Israel would have serious issues with joining the EU because of their histories, and the fact the EU doesn't want to open its borders to anti-arab sentiment via backing Israel with favouritism.
...


On a more positive note, what would Morocco gain from being part of the EU, and what would the EU gain from Morocco? Well the answer is not much, but also a great deal.

Like Turkey, Morocco is only 'just' a European state, yet if either joins the EU its a very big message for how Europe sees itself, as a supranational entity that is willing to incorporate any state that matches its ideals.

With that basis, the EU becomes as a whole a lot more desirable to many of the ENP nations. In particular Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. While Russia will no doubt want to maintain her sphere of influence, an intergrationist EU is an EU that Russia would want to be part of rather than oppose. This is because bi-lateral Euro-Russian trade is likely to be much more profitable than Sino-Russian trade, or Indo-Russian trade as the big economic centres of the world grow. This is because China sees more of its markets for resources in the pacific region, or from home grown industries, which under state capitalism can be more effectively monopolised, rather than being bought from abroad. However it is likely in the future 'gas and oil economic wars' Asia will be another big player.

There are other reasons due to foreign investment, the EU as a whole is very strong on investing into her neighbouring countries, and hence any country on the Euro-perifery is going to see that, they are also going to see the writing on the wall in an unstable century and note that its better to be 'inside or aligned' then it is to be fully independent.

For nations like Morocco if it gains entry to the EU, it then becomes the domino for Algeria, hence Morroco-Algeria trade booms, and so on. However Morocco may loose out in the currency and competitive trade, if she joins, then free trade agreements may make Moroccan agriculture less competitive, especially if it is forced to adopt the Euro. Indeed I think it is unlikely that any new states without the Euro as currency would adopt it, however far from being a 'weak currency' it is a very strong one! Indeed its 'strength' has been the very reason that weaker economic nations like Greece have suffered.

Hence for ENP states it is unlikely they would ever adopt the Euro, and hence the Eurozone would have to become a multi-currency zone more so than it already is. However if being in the EU allows it to peg its currency via member vote, then that opens up Morocco and any other 'weaker state' to massive investment and development since it allows devaluing the currency, but also with the relaxation of trade tariffs and barriers, which makes export/investment economics very strong.

An intergrationalist EU also quickly becomes 'the dominant economic centre on the planet' with a growing GDP from the collective nations. Also with states like Turkey and/or Russia aligned with it, the EU also becomes the defacto premier military power in the world, and not only that, geopolitically nations will be allowed to exercise their own foreign policy from within it (for the most part).

However this assumes that the Paris-Berlin axis is fundamentally weakened and the Paris-London-Berlin triangle becomes dominant.


Indeed an EU with Great Britain is an EU that is far more inviting to ENP states than one without. Over the last 60 years, the British Commonwealth of Nations has come to account for around 25% of global trade, while this might appear small compared to the ~30% of global trade that is Greater Europe, together with Britain and the EU they account for just under half (~45%) of global trade and not only that the ideals of the Commonwealth lead it to having the greatest proportion of liberal market economies with strong existing political, economic and cultural ties.

EU nations can 'piggy back' off Britain in a way that allows them better access to the Commonwealth via Britain, hence why London is such a global city. The ties don't however go as strong back the other-way.

In this aspect Britain could in principle loose the EU and be 'ok', but for the EU the loss of Britain would be the European Projects downfall. This is because with the German economy dominating the Eurozone, it becomes a lot harder for the other member states to influence and check German wishes without doing damage to themselves. Hence it becomes an unhappy marriage.

Furthermore, many European states look to British 'scepticism' for supporting their own 'scepticism', hence their position becomes eroded, and being the weaker states will be forced either into a defacto 'puppet arrangement' with Brussels, or will vote with their feet and leave unilaterally, whatever they previously signed. It would only take one nation to do this, most likely one of the Scandinavian ones and within a year or so the whole of the EU might fall apart.

For all German and French posturing, they know this to some degree, yet on the other hand, the Paris-Berlin axis doesn't like Britain’s attitude to the affair and are unlikely to give exceptionalism to cave to British demands.

If the Conservatives are the next British government, and a referendum is called, it could be a very risky business. Britain as a whole might have a fairly close vote and I would err on the side of a 'Leave' result from the people if things stand as they are. However if the EU gets its act together and the Conservatives can pull away a deal, unlikely, but who knows what might happen if other nations in Europe get onboard...then it might be a different picture, with the federalist 'Paris-Berlin' factions beaten down in favour of a much more loose supranational confederacy picture.


Anyhow, I ramble on, there is uncertainty in the future of the EU, but its the kind of uncertainty that we cannot call well, we can see what might happen, but also realise that things might go completely in other directions.
 
Let's presume that Morocco goes on a decade of cheap credit spending like pretty much every other E.U member did. Then following the Great Recession Morocco becomes a member of the PIGS that has to have its bank's bailed out by Germany and the IMF, suffers high unemployment, and the rise of Arab extremist groups who call for Moroccan independence from the Euro and the European Union. Basically a more brutal African version of current day Greece.

Oh, yes. Morocco would also become a immigration nightmare for the E.U.
 
Last edited:
Top