Hacker News Reader

Comment by zakk | Hacker News Reader

Very debated issue, but many think that the Souther countries (Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal) may have a lot of benefits from a weakened Europe.

View on HN

Reduced trade and tourism would only deepen their inability to make payments on their Euro-denominated debts and receive additional financing. Keeping their sovereign currencies was probably wise for Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, etc., since they can devalue to match trade imbalances.

Maybe you misread my comment. Weaker Europe does not mean collapse of EU and collapse of Eurozone.

Slovakia has euro. Maybe you meant Hungary?

Sure but those benefits pale in comparison to all of the problems.

Weaker Europe means less money for business subsidies e.g. agriculture, less travel and tourism, less household income to spend on consumables, less trade.

And how exactly does a weaker Euro benefit those countries ?

Italy contributes more money to Europe's balance than it gets back. So a weaker, smaller Europe would mean that more money remains in Italy.

Also weaker EU does not mean collapse of EU, so tourism would be the same, as would be trade.

I am not necessarily an advocate of this solution, however, just pointing out that the current status of EU is not the best possible world for each one of its 27 members States.

Is it possible to have a 27 state (or 50 state) situation that benefits all members equally though? History would seem to say no.

Some say that the free market is an advantage to everyone.

Other say that that in the end it's always a zero sum game, as you do.

However, in the latter case, given that participation to the EU is on a voluntary basis, more and more countries may decide to exit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com