# The recent expansion from 25 to 27 EU countries



## robbie_SWE

Since Tuesday of this week the EU has acquired 30 million new inhabitants, due to the approval of Romania and Bulgaria to join the EU. This made me very happy, because I know how hard it is to become a "member" of this exclusive club and I know how many sacrifices Romania (probably Bulgaria too) has done to become a part of the EU. 

I was indeed happy when I heard that they would become members, but my enthusiasm disappeared when I read the newspaper. 

Ireland, Great Britain and Sweden are the only countries today from the EU, who don't have specific rules concerning migration thus making it possible for "new" EU citizens to come and work in their countries. These countries have decided to inflict a law prohibiting free migration from the two new EU countries before the admittance date of January the 1st 2007. 

My question is, why this "we" and "them" mentality? Statistics showed that migration from the 10 new EU countries did not drastically rise, as it was feared. What signals are we, the 25 EU countries, sending to less fortunate countries? It wouldn't surprise me if the countries that aren't members now will decide not to join in the future, because of the torment of knowing that "they think that they are so much better than us". Aren’t we supposed to work together to avoid this mentality? 


 robbie


----------



## Alxmrphi

Your post confused me a bit, can you explain what Sweeden, Ireland and GB didn't do? What does it mean? I read that part a few times and still didn't make sense of it. It looks like I would have an interesting POV on it, but I just need you to clarify that sentence.



> but my enthusiasm disappeared when I read the newspaper. Ireland, Great Britain and Sweden were the only countries that did not have specific rules concerning free passage (jobs), thus making it possible for "new" EU citizens to come and work.


----------



## maxiogee

robbie_SWE said:


> Since Tuesday of this week the EU has acquired 30 million new inhabitants, due to the approval of Romania and Bulgaria to join the EU. This made me very happy, because I know how hard it is to become a "member" of this exclusive club and I know how many sacrifices Romania (probably Bulgaria too) has done to become a part of the EU.
> 
> I was indeed happy when I heard that they would become members, but my enthusiasm disappeared when I read the newspaper. Ireland, Great Britain and Sweden were the only countries that did not have specific rules concerning free passage (jobs), thus making it possible for "new" EU citizens to come and work. These countries have decided to inflict such rules prior to Romania’s and Bulgaria’s join date (January 1st, 2007).
> 
> My question is, why this "we" and "them" mentality? Statistics showed that migration from the 10 new EU countries did not drastically rise, as it was feared. What signals are we, the 25 EU countries, sending to less fortunate countries? It wouldn't surprise me if the countries that aren't members now will decide not to join in the future, because of the torment of knowing that "they think that they are so much better than us". Aren’t we supposed to work together to avoid this mentality?
> 
> 
> robbie



Am I misreading you Robbie? You seem to be saying that that three countries you named don't allow free passage.
I cannot speak for Sweden or the UK, but the Irish situation is as follows. (Bear in mind that the two new countries are not going to join until 2007, they have not become members yet.)

If you are a national of the European Union (EU), of one of the other EEA member states (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) or of Switzerland, you have the right to stay in Ireland, and your family members have the right to stay here also. There are some limits to this right, however.

You can stay in Ireland for up to three months without restriction. If you plan to stay more than three months, you must either:

be engaged in economic activity (employed or self employed) or
have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that you do not become a burden on the social services of Ireland or
be enrolled as a student or vocational trainee or
be a family member of a Union citizen in one of the previous categories.
Seeking employment in Ireland

If you are an EU/EEA national, you can stay in Ireland if you are unemployed and looking for work. You can transfer your unemployment benefit from your country of origin and it will be paid to you in Ireland for up to 3 months. After that period, you may qualify for Unemployment Assistance if you satisfy the conditions, which include an Habitual Residence Condition.​ (source)

I don't see anything which impedes freedom of travel there.


----------



## Tatzingo

robbie_SWE said:


> I was indeed happy when I heard that they would become members, but my enthusiasm disappeared when I read the newspaper. Ireland, Great Britain and Sweden were the only countries that did *not* have specific rules concerning free passage (jobs), thus making it *possible* for "new" EU citizens to come and work. *These* countries have *decided to inflict such rules* prior to Romania’s and Bulgaria’s join date (January 1st, 2007).



Robbie,

Good question but ALex is right. Your post contradicts itself here.
The pink part suggests we have no rules, the green part suggests that we do... which is it? Does "these" refer to the UK, Ire and Sweden or to all the other EU countiries?

Tatz.


----------



## robbie_SWE

Ok, maybe I was a bit unclear  . It's more like a law allowing any citizen from the new EU countries to come to, lets say Britain and make a living. This means that they are allowed to receive benefits or start working. A law regulating migration was approved in countries like France and Germany, because they were afraid of "social migration". Social migration means that people would come to a country just to receive social welfare or benefits. Sweden has the best benefit policy in the world, but we decided not to inflict such a law. The result turned out to be quite amusing. The migration did not skyrocket as it was presumed and a law proved to be unnecessary. This has however changed now due to the admittance of Romania and Bulgaria. 
 
Did this help??

 robbie


----------



## Alxmrphi

So Britain and Ireland and Sweeden are open to this migration to receive benifits? Or not?


----------



## robbie_SWE

maxiogee said:


> Am I misreading you Robbie? You seem to be saying that that three countries you named don't allow free passage.
> I cannot speak for Sweden or the UK, but the Irish situation is as follows. (Bear in mind that the two new countries are not going to join until 2007, they have not become members yet.)
> 
> If you are a national of the European Union (EU), of one of the other EEA member states (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) or of Switzerland, you have the right to stay in Ireland, and your family members have the right to stay here also. There are some limits to this right, however.​
> 
> You can stay in Ireland for up to three months without restriction. If you plan to stay more than three months, you must either:​
> 
> be engaged in economic activity (employed or self employed) or​
> have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that you do not become a burden on the social services of Ireland or​
> be enrolled as a student or vocational trainee or​
> be a family member of a Union citizen in one of the previous categories.​
> Seeking employment in Ireland​
> 
> If you are an EU/EEA national, you can stay in Ireland if you are unemployed and looking for work. You can transfer your unemployment benefit from your country of origin and it will be paid to you in Ireland for up to 3 months. After that period, you may qualify for Unemployment Assistance if you satisfy the conditions, which include an Habitual Residence Condition.​(source)
> 
> I don't see anything which impedes freedom of travel there.


 
You're completely right Maxiogee. I should have started a new paragraph there. 

I intended to say that Ireland, Great Britain and Sweden were the only countries who didn't have a specific law. This is however going to change by the time Romania and Bulgaria become members and that's what made me loose my enthusiasm. 

robbie


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ahh, so we are changing our laws to stop an influx of migrants? That's, well, an issue I can see points on both sides for. Hmm.


----------



## sound shift

If I remember correctly, a British government representative was quoted as saying that while Britain believes in free movement, it is sometimes necessary to base policy on public opinion. Call me cynical if you like, but I believe "public opinion" is often code for scaremongering articles in the tabloid newspapers, constructed of half-truths and pandering to emotions.

Some of those who make a living out of studying migration have said that Germany, Italy and Spain are more attractive than Britain to Ro(u?)manians and Bulgarians, not least (and here I concur) because Britain is very expensive.


----------



## maxiogee

We are a thriving economy.
We have a population of about 4 million.
We have a limited 'kitty'

At the moment we have X people receiving an average of Y euro in social welfare benefits. (I'm not going to go into whether or not these recipients have ever paid into the kitty!!)

To whom *should* our social welfare benefits be available, and at what level *should* they be set?

Ouch, my brain itches!

However, I don't think that the addition of two extra countries is going to make a huge difference to the numbers of migrants who land on our shores.

What I do see as an eventual necessity is the standardisation of regulations across all of the EU. It cannot be right that if, of two brothers from state A, one can go to state B and receive entitlements, but the other cannot go to state C and get them also. That runs totally counter to the whole concept of "a single market". But although that thought springs immediately from this thread I think it had better be a whole thread to itself - not that I want to go there right now anyway.


----------



## Talant

Hi,

I'm from Spain, and we have certainly received some Polish migrants, and also from other countries. However, the total amount is almost negligeable compared with southamericans and africans. We might receive more Romanians as there are already a lot in here. However, I don't think this is a problem. It bothers the local people, but I would do the same in their place, so I'll never say anything against them.

To stop migration, make life in their countries better. That's one of the best things of the EU. The "poorest" countries receive a boost. Ireland, Spain,... have grown a lot inside the EU. Now it's time for other countries. The problem is that they're a lot to share the help, and won't receive as much.

The main problem of the EU-27 is that nothing changes nowadays as they need to many countries to agree. It's become a dead weight whose inertia is big, and who tries to move in 25 (soon 27) different directions.


----------



## Brioche

When 10 new members joined the EU in 2004, Britain opened the job market to citizens from the new members. No-one anticipated the numbers that came looking for work.

Over the last two years, 600,000 Eastern Europeans, mostly Poles, have come to work in Britain. 97% of these Eastern Europeans have found jobs.

This is causing some tensions in Britain, as unemployment among Muslims in 13%. The London bombings have raised barriers of suspicion, so employers are more likely to pick Mieczyslaw, who doesn't speak English, than Mohammad, who does.

British politicians are wondering whether they should open the door as wide to Bulgaria and Romania.


----------



## sound shift

The figures need to be approached with caution. Some of the Eastern Europeans who came to Britain were on temporary contracts and have returned to their countries of origin. Some British farmers are saying that they could not have got the harvest in without Eastern European labour because the local population won't touch such work.

There may be a negative effect on employment but if the economists are to be believed there is a positive effect on prices: by working for wages which are high by the standards of their countries of origin but low by British standards Eastern European labour helps to keep the lid on inflation.

Let's not forget that it's a two-way process: Western Europeans can go and work in Poland.


----------



## englishman

sound shift said:


> by working for wages which are high by the standards of their countries of origin but low by British standards Eastern European labour helps to keep the lid on inflation.



A cynic may say that's a euphemism for reducing wages for the British working class to keep them in their places.



> Let's not forget that it's a two-way process: Western Europeans can go and work in Poland.


Let's be honest here: given the disparity in wages, and the lack of jobs in Poland, there's unlikely to be a huge flow in that direction. 

And if there were a huge flow in that direction, we'd have set up a pretty strange market, with thousands of Poles coming to the UK to work, and thousands of Brits going to Poland for the same thing.


----------



## karuna

Speaking about Latvia and emigration of workers from the Baltic states in general, people go to the UK and Ireland explicitly for work and higher wages, not with the hope to receive social benefits. They are not only unskilled workers but even engineers, doctors, nurses and other specialists. There is no evidence of large emigration to Spain or Italy which recently opened their job markets to us too. Probably, due to language barriers. I believe that the protective measures still in force in Germany and France are completely unnecessary.

Now there is an acute shortage of such workers in Latvia so that it has become bigger problem for us than for the countries they emigrate to. But it could be seen as benefitial influence because wages in Latvia are going up much faster than inflation. It is predicted that the reasons to look for jobs in the Western Europe will disappear completely in 5 years.


----------



## Brioche

sound shift said:


> Let's not forget that it's a two-way process: Western Europeans can go and work in Poland.


 
What jobs would be available in Poland for people who don't speak Polish?
The CIA world fact book says Polish unemployment is 18.3%. The same source gives the UK rate as 4.7%.


----------



## robbie_SWE

I think that Sound Shift does have a point there. What jobs would be available? The high-paying ones. I think that the mentality in Eastern Europe is that of underestimating the indigenous workers. It would actually not surprise me if for example an educated Swede would be offered a high-paying job in Poland instead of Agneska with the same merits. 

It's "reverse racism/unracism" as I call it. This is what I mean (from a Swedish point of view): John is from Britain and receives the job as manager for a retail company in Malmö. Anders with the same merits does not get this job, because the company believes that John can contribute more due to the fact that he is a "good" foreigner. 

 robbie


----------



## maxiogee

Brioche said:


> What jobs would be available in Poland for people who don't speak Polish?



Same jobs as are available in almost every economy for those without the local language, one's which, for whatever reason, the locals don't want.


----------



## Brioche

maxiogee said:


> Same jobs as are available in almost every economy for those without the local language, one's which, for whatever reason, the locals don't want.


 
I reckon I could get paid more cleaning khazis in Coventry than in Krakow - which is why the traffic is mostly one-way.


----------



## maxiogee

Brioche said:


> What jobs would be available in Poland for people who don't speak Polish?





maxiogee said:


> Same jobs as are available in almost every economy for those without the local language, one's which, for whatever reason, the locals don't want.





Brioche said:


> I reckon I could get paid more cleaning khazis in Coventry than in Krakow - which is why the traffic is mostly one-way.



Aaaah yes, but you didn't ask about the financial attractiveness of the Polish jobs. 
And anyway, there's more to non-native-language employment than cleaning. There are many non-English speakers in Ireland in call centres, and in the upper echelons of the catering industry.


----------



## cuchuflete

Way back in the first post, we have this:



> These countries have decided to inflict a law prohibiting free migration from the two new EU countries before the admittance date of January the 1st 2007.


  What is the logic that supports granting EU rights to citizens of countries that are not yet EU members?  Do countries that have been accepted for future EU membership immediately take on all EU responsibilities and obligations?


----------



## robbie_SWE

cuchuflete said:


> Way back in the first post, we have this:
> 
> What is the logic that supports granting EU rights to citizens of countries that are not yet EU members? Do countries that have been accepted for future EU membership immediately take on all EU responsibilities and obligations?


 
Look, Swiss people and Norwegians are also allowed to come to any country in the EU without any problems. They aren't members and probably will never be members! I was refering to the situation after the admittance, why have a law preventing Romanians and Bulgarians coming to other EU countries for job purposes?! Why not allow them having the same evolution as Latvia??

robbie


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm confused.

First you wrote, "...a law prohibiting free migration from the two new EU countries *before the admittance date* of January the 1st 2007."

and now you say, " I was refering to the situation *after the admittance,"

*It's a little difficult to figure out what situation you object to.


----------



## maxiogee

robbie_SWE said:


> Did this help??



Frankly Robbie, it doesn't.

I think that many readers here would be of the impression that you are saying that Sweden, the UK, and Ireland have (or are about to introduce) laws which will prevent people from Bulgaria and Rumania having free access to them when Bulgaria and Rumania become EU members.
This is not true.

--edit--
Also, there are currently 25 member states
Austria
Belgium
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Poland
Portugal
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
The Netherlands
United Kingdom

The following are "Candidate countries" or "Accesssion states
Bulgaria
Croatia
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Romania
Turkey


----------



## choppy seas

Going through the entire debate on the inclusion of new members, into this most exclusive of  clubs, the European Union, gives me the impression that it is much like a car. What I mean is, just as a car has different gears,the European Union seems to set differing standards for its respective members. I must however state at this juncture,I have nowhere come across the stipulation raised in this debate, that citizens of members of prospective new nations, Bulgaria and Romania,would be debarred entry into the U.K. 
  While the B.B.C.,perhaps the most reliable source on the subject,has voiced trepidation over the prospective influx of Romanians and Bulgarians into the U.K.,nowhere has it stated that legislation is existent, or being planned to be introduced, to debarr them.There are already substantial Romanian populations in Italy and Spain,owing to the apparent similarities of these countries languages with Romanian. Therefore as far as Romania is concerned,I think nationals of that country do not intend to arrive in large numbers in the U.K.
  Having said that, the insularity and exclusiveness that the European Union represents, may well prove its undoing. The public in Ukraine for example, are against membership,despite the fact that that country is a much more promising member for membership.
  The attitude of members in the European Union is something akin to that of the ancient Indians,in that they believe they know best and are totally closed to outsiders. Such an attitude would be a tragedy for the outside world and for Europeans, as history shows us that societies and communities that are insular, perish in the long run. What I ask is whether European Union membership signals also the arrival of a Fortress Europe mentality?


----------



## cuchuflete

> ...this most exclusive of  clubs,





> ...the insularity and exclusiveness that the European Union represents,



That is a very strange understanding of exclusivity.  When the predecessor group, the EEC began, it had only six member countries.  In recent years, far more than six have been admitted.  The current population of EU countries is near 500 million people.  That doesn't seem particularly exclusive to me.

Nearly all of Europe is included today.  How is that insular?

If your standard is a single community, including a customs union, common currency, common agricultural and defence policies...for the entire world, then today's EU is a rather substantial minority of that.  It is hardly exclusive or insular.
If I were from Turkey, I might feel like the EU was behaving in a somewhat insular way, but what about the thirteen nations that have joined since 1995?  

I smell a hidden agenda in your use of words like exclusive and insular.  Why not come right out and say what you mean?


----------



## karuna

Even if Ukrainians were willing, Ukraine is far from ready to join the EU.  Turkey also has difficulties to join simply due to its socioeconomic factors that has little to do with the geographic situation or their religion. The EU is a great idea but it is already becoming too bureaucratic and slow in reaching concensus. It may not be capable to accept any new members in the future.


----------



## cuchuflete

karuna said:


> The EU is a great idea but it is already becoming too bureaucratic and slow in reaching concensus. It may not be capable to accept any new members in the future.



That it is slow and burrro-cratic is obvious, but do you really believe it would not accept Switzerland or Norway with great haste, were they to apply for membership?


----------



## andym

Can I register my disquiet at the aggressive and arrogant tone of many of the responses to Robbie's intial post. 

Robbie's intial post makes perfect sense. He made a mistake in talking about restrictions on immigration before 2007 when the proposal, at least in the UK, is for restrictions on immigration from Bulgaria and Romania from the date of accession in 2007. The government has not announced any proposals on this but has made it quite clear that this is under discussion.

It is true that all of the other countries in the EU have restricted immigration from the accession states. The threat of the influx of Polish plumbers was used to persuade French voters to vote against the new EU treaty. Agricultural imports from Poland are restricted.

Given that the freedom of movement of people and the free movement of trade are at the heart of the Treaty of Rome the new accession countries are being treated as second-class citizens. They are expected to fulfill their responsibilities under community law but at the same time they don't receive the same rights as the old members.

Robbie raised some serious issues in an intelligent post. What a shame that the quality of the discussion that followed was so poor.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> Tony and Robbie are both trying to confuse me.  Post #24 has this statement:    and that has below it a list of 25
> countries.



My bad! My bad bad! Sorry. I meant to say "There are currently on 25 member states and 5 'accession' states."{


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:
			
		

> My bad! My bad bad!


 Not so bad as my typing, most of the time. Why not just edit it, and then I can delete my post pointing to a non-existent typo?


----------



## karuna

cuchuflete said:


> That it is slow and burrro-cratic is obvious, but do you really believe it would not accept Switzerland or Norway with great haste, were they to apply for membership?



They would, but I think that the citizens of these countries already have more freedom and opportunities to travel and work in the EU than those from the candidate countries like Romania and Bulgaria. The European identity is not very strong yet. The EU idea is not about how much it will give to or take from each country individually but that we are getting much benefit all together. 

Many fear that migration from these poor countries will erode their culture and quality of life but it didn't happen when Poland and Baltic countries joined. Probably politicians are underestimating Easter European countries. It is true that people there are poor but actually they are very cultured and tend to be well educated, comparing with African refugees (no offence meant to Africans).


----------



## cuchuflete

You may register your disquiet if you find attempts at clarification aggressive and arrogant.   The initial question was not clearly stated.  Some of us asked that it be made more clear.  If that strikes you as aggressive and arrogant, then  that is your interpretation.   Disagreement is not the same things as aggressivity, much less arrogance.  

There are a few things in your post which are also unclear. 





			
				andym said:
			
		

> Can I register my disquiet at the aggressive and arrogant tone of many of the responses to Robbie's intial post.
> 
> Robbie's intial post makes perfect sense.  Therefore, he had to re-state it, that we might understand the perfect sense of it. He made a mistake in talking about restrictions on immigration before 2007 when the proposal, at least in the UK, is for restrictions on immigration from Bulgaria and Romania from the date of accession in 2007. The government has not announced any proposals on this but has made it quite clear that this is under discussion. If I am understanding you correctly, there is not yet a law specifically limiting immigration from Bulgaria and Romania once they become EU members, nor is there yet a proposal for such a law.  There are discussions among the ruling party about the topic.
> Is that correct?
> 
> The initial post gave the impression that things had moved far from discussions and proposals, and that a law was already in place.
> 
> It is true that all of the other countries in the EU have restricted immigration from the accession states. The threat of the influx of Polish plumbers was used to persuade French voters to vote against the new EU treaty. Agricultural imports from Poland are restricted. Are restrictions on agricultural imports from member states consistent with the CAP? Can exceptions be made, within the constraints of EU law, for new member states?  I seem to recall that when Greece, Spain, and Portugal joined some decades ago, there were also special provisions, for fixed periods of time, that were not consistent with regulations for prior members.
> 
> Given that the freedom of movement of people and the free movement of trade are at the heart of the Treaty of Rome the new accession countries are being treated as second-class citizens. They are expected to fulfill their responsibilities under community law but at the same time they don't receive the same rights as the old members.
> 
> Robbie raised some serious issues in an intelligent post. What a shame that the quality of the discussion that followed was so poor.  That's a matter of opinion.  If you don't like what someone says on an issue, your dislike doesn't make the quality of the discussion poor.



If the 'free movement of trade [is] at the heart of the Treaty of Rome', then how can the CAP continue to exist in anything like its present form?  It is all about subsidies and restrictions, especially for the benefit of a few of the earliest member states, and not the promotion of free trade.


----------



## robbie_SWE

maxiogee said:


> Frankly Robbie, it doesn't.
> 
> I think that many readers here would be of the impression that you are saying that Sweden, the UK, and Ireland have (or are about to introduce) laws which will prevent people from Bulgaria and Rumania *ROMANIA* having free access to them when Bulgaria and Rumania become EU members.
> This is not true.
> 
> --edit--
> Also, there are currently only 20 member states
> Austria
> Belgium
> Cyprus
> Czech Republic
> Denmark
> Estonia
> Finland
> France
> Germany
> Greece
> Hungary
> Ireland
> Italy
> Latvia
> Lithuania
> Luxembourg
> Malta
> Poland
> Portugal
> Slovakia
> Slovenia
> Spain
> Sweden
> The Netherlands
> United Kingdom
> 
> The following are "Candidate countries"
> Bulgaria
> Croatia
> Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
> Romania
> Turkey


 
This is true!!! The Swedish government is discusing an introduction of a new law to limit the migration from Romania and Bulgaria, incase "social migration" proves to be a problem. All the Swedish newspapers say so and they also say that Ireland and the UK are doing the same. 

If you count the countries you have listed, they amount to 25, with Romania and Bulgaria 27. 

robbie


----------



## robbie_SWE

cuchuflete said:


> I'm confused.
> 
> First you wrote, "...a law prohibiting free migration from the two new EU countries *before the admittance date* of January the 1st 2007."
> 
> and now you say, " I was refering to the situation *after the admittance,"*
> 
> It's a little difficult to figure out what situation you object to.


 
Sorry for my ambivalence. It was stated in Swedish newspapers that new laws will probably be approved in accordance with the admittance of Romania and Bulgaria to control migration from these countries. It’s to this fact that I object! 

robbie

PS: thank you Andym! Why should everything be typed out? Can't people read between the lines anymore!?


----------



## choppy seas

cuchuflete said:


> That is a very strange understanding of exclusivity. When the predecessor group, the EEC began, it had only six member countries. In recent years, far more than six have been admitted. The current population of EU countries is near 500 million people. That doesn't seem particularly exclusive to me.
> 
> Nearly all of Europe is included today. How is that insular?
> 
> If your standard is a single community, including a customs union, common currency, common agricultural and defence policies...for the entire world, then today's EU is a rather substantial minority of that. It is hardly exclusive or insular.
> If I were from Turkey, I might feel like the EU was behaving in a somewhat insular way, but what about the thirteen nations that have joined since 1995?
> 
> I smell a hidden agenda in your use of words like exclusive and insular. Why not come right out and say what you mean?


  To see hidden agendas in the useage of words,represents to my mind, a warped perspective.What I have stated, is simply a matter of perspective.   
  The European Union by its attitude towards living and working on your continent, is insular. Muslims in Paris,I read some time back, are confined to ghettos on the suburbs where no Frenchman dares venture,for fear of attack! This is excluding the argument trotted out in the U.K. that multi-culturalism is a failure and the preferance for Westerners in various fields. The debate in the B.B.C. vis-a-vis the clear distaste evinced for Bulgarians and Romanians migrating to the U.K. is another clear example. Racism in various European countries is but a manifestation of this insularity.
  Similarly one does not carry a brief for Turkish membership in the E.U.However the recent remarks of the Pope on Islam,hardly represent a very enlightened approach towards other cultures. This represents an additional example of the insularity of the European mindset. I am saying this despite the fact I am non-Muslim and my own culture has been much influenced by the Greek and British cultures in your continent.
  As far as exclusivity goes,what I meant is that the European Union is very fussy about whom it admits. For example Turkey is definitely more prosperous than Bulgaria, Romania,or even Greece, but is kept out as a member. Can you therefore deny prejudice and the baggage of history is in-built even into the selection process? 
  Nobody is claiming other countries outside of Europe should be admitted into the E.U. They have their own regional bodies,such as for example the SAARC in S.Asia or ASEAN in the Asia-Pacific. My country,India,is a member of the former and an associate member in the latter. India alone has a middle-class which in numbers and purchasing power now outstrips the E.U. So where is the quote unquote hidden agenda?!


----------



## karuna

choppy seas said:


> India alone has a middle-class which in numbers and purchasing power now outstrips the E.U.



That is exactly the problem that while there is a sizeable middle-class and even great numbers of wealthy people at the same time most of the population live in utter poverty, in poluted areas, with little access to clean water or medical services, or let's say from lingustic angle, access to the higher education in their native languages. 

I am not critisizing as India is probably doing whatever they can to improve the situation. But the disparity of population was one of the reasons why Turkey was not deemed ready for the EU yet. Bulgaria may be poor in total numbers but I am sure that as a post-soviet country it takes care about its citizens more in a "European" way.


----------



## cuchuflete

Are you speaking of the EU--an organization, or of a single individual leader, or of attitudes and actions of individual citizens or groups of citizens?  The answer is clearly both yes and no to all of the above.  Your post confuses an organization with both individual citizens, and with the Pope, who is neither!

The reasons for delay in admitting Turkey have been discussed and argued in so many other places that it is not useful to conduct that debate over again here.  

Some more totally unrelated stuff in your post:

1- India's membership in international organizations.  What has this got to do with your characterizations of the EU?  Nothing!

2- The size of India's middle class is absolutely as pertinent to this discussion as a football score.

3- The condition of Muslims in Paris has nothing to do with EU policy or practices.  That is entirely an internal matter within a single EU member state.

4- The purchasing power of the India middle-class?  Would you care to enlighten us as to how this relates to the EU and its practices of allowing workers from one member state to seek employment in another?  

You wrote:  





> What I have stated, is simply a matter of perspective.


  It is a perspective, for certain.


----------



## broud

Hello,
*choppy seas* said: 


> For example Turkey is definitely more prosperous than Bulgaria, Romania,or even Greece, but is kept out as a member.



Do you have any base for this claim? I don't know anything about economics, but in a list of countries by their gross domestic product (at purcharsing power parity) per capita:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

We observe that Greece is in the 30th position while Turkey is in the 75th. So even if they have a greater gross domestic product I don't think they can be considered "more prosperous" than Greece.

Your statement about India (the 122th) is different because you only speak about its middle class. Having a lower GPD than Spain solely (one of the poorest UE countries and many many times less populated than India )   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

I find that the middle class in India should be really really small (Upper class I guess) to , individually , beat those of  richest UE countries  and in now way they could do that in 'absolute figures' I think.

So what am I missing? Cause I find this information quite difficult to interpret, quite probably I'm getting something wrong, aren't I?

Cheers


----------



## maxiogee

robbie_SWE said:


> Ireland, Great Britain and Sweden are the only countries today from the EU, who don't have specific rules concerning migration thus making it possible for "new" EU citizens to come and work in their countries. These countries have decided to inflict a law prohibiting free migration from the two new EU countries before the admittance date of January the 1st 2007.


That's a very emphatic assertion.
It makes it seem as if they are acting in concert.
It makes it seem as if the law is about to be passed.

1. No such legislation is before the Irish parliament.
2. No discussion of any such legislation is current in Ireland.




robbie_SWE said:


> All the Swedish newspapers say so and they also say that Ireland and the UK are doing the same.





robbie_SWE said:


> Can't people read between the lines anymore!?



It's difficult to do when people source facts from newspapers and the facts are wrong.


----------



## Talant

Hi Choppy Seas,

I see that you've read a lot of things which confuse you. Please stop believing all that you read in newspapers, magazines,... They sometimes just try to sell themselves. Have you read the Pope's lecture? If so, you're welcome to comment it. If not, you're not. Have you lived in France? Have you talked to French muslims? I've lived in France, and suburbs problems are not that easy to explain just by racism. No law ever stated that they should live in there. 

Yet, I agree that there is a growing problem of racism, or better said "xenophobia" as Bulgarians or Romanians are still white. Take a look at Front National results in France. People in the EU want to keep its privileges. UK is just an example (however, UK has maintained it's insularity from other EU members since the beginning, why should Romania and Bulgary be treated better?)

Turkey has many problems regarding humans rights. They are solving them really quickly, but they just have to do more. A few days ago, a writer was finally acquitted from a grievious crime: saying that Turkey did wrong to the Armenians!!! The problem is, why was he ever brought to court for his opinion?

Another reason for the lack of effort in the EU, is that Turkey would become one the the most politically powerful countries in the EU as its population is really big. No one wants a new member to lessen his own power.

More or less that's want I want to say, don't believe that a single thing causes anything so big. No problem concerning 500 million people will have only one cause.


----------



## ireney

Ok I can admit to be totally confused about what we are talking about. I've read all of your posts robbie and I am still confused!

choppy can you too clarify your latest post? 

for example



choppy seas said:


> The European Union by its attitude towards living and working on your continent, is insular. Muslims in Paris,I read some time back, are confined to ghettos on the suburbs where no Frenchman dares venture,for fear of attack!



No they are not "confined"and the whole issue is rather complicated.




> This is excluding the argument trotted out in the U.K. that multi-culturalism is a failure and the preferance for Westerners in various fields. The debate in the B.B.C. vis-a-vis the clear distaste evinced for Bulgarians and Romanians migrating to the U.K. is another clear example. Racism in various European countries is but a manifestation of this insularity.



I do admit that there are some (or even a few) citizens of EU members being xenophobic. EU however is going to admit these two countries; it wouldn't if it was really a xenophobic, insular organisation would it?



> Similarly one does not carry a brief for Turkish membership in the E.U.However the recent remarks of the Pope on Islam,hardly represent a very enlightened approach towards other cultures. This represents an additional example of the insularity of the European mindset. I am saying this despite the fact I am non-Muslim and my own culture has been much influenced by the Greek and British cultures in your continent.



a) I don't think the Pope speaks for the EU! He didn't last time I checked
b) He doesn't speak for me, personally, either. Actually our own Archibishop or even the Patriarch of Constantinople/Instanbul don't either. 
c) Turkey has a lot of issues to solve befor becoming a member of the EU, one of those being recognising the legal status of one of the newest members of the EU, Cyprus. I don't consider this excessive. How can you be a member of EU if you don't recognise the legal status of one of the country-members?
d) What does the widespread influence of ancient Greek and British cultures to do with it (I doubt the modern Greek variety has such an influence around the world  and more's the pity )




> As far as exclusivity goes,what I meant is that the European Union is very fussy about whom it admits. For example Turkey is definitely more prosperous than Bulgaria, Romania,or even Greece, but is kept out as a member. Can you therefore deny prejudice and the baggage of history is in-built even into the selection process?



Are you _sure_ it's more prosperous than Greece? It wasn't last time I checked. Much bigger yes. With a much bigger population true. 




> Nobody is claiming other countries outside of Europe should be admitted into the E.U. They have their own regional bodies,such as for example the SAARC in S.Asia or ASEAN in the Asia-Pacific. My country,India,is a member of the former and an associate member in the latter. India alone has a middle-class which in numbers and purchasing power now outstrips the E.U. So where is the quote unquote hidden agenda!




Good for India and thanks for the information! Can you explain how this proves that the EU is insular?

P.S. One has to think of other issues too when referring to countries like Greece. For instance check _when_ they were admitted. Some times different times means different priorities etc  (I bet many members of the EEC groaned inwardly and outwardly when they thought about Greece already being a member)


----------



## robbie_SWE

I'm ready to give up! I have rewritten my intitial post many times, would somebody please (where are you Andym when I need your help!) help clear things up! 

 robbie


----------



## ireney

OK I re-read all your posts and what I get is the following:
 You are not saddened by the fact that other EU countries have immigration restrictions of the kind that these 3 countries are going to pass soon (supposedly at least; it's not that I doubt what you say about Sweden, it's just that I don't know if it holds true about the UK and Ireland).

Did I get it right or is it that having any kind of restriction that saddens you?


----------



## robbie_SWE

ireney said:


> OK I re-read all your posts and what I get is the following:
> You are not saddened by the fact that other EU countries have immigration restrictions of the kind that these 3 countries are going to pass soon (supposedly at least; it's not that I doubt what you say about Sweden, it's just that I don't know if it holds true about the UK and Ireland).
> 
> Did I get it right or is it that having any kind of restriction that saddens you?


 
The restrictions that will "probably" be accepted soon (in Sweden, maybe in the UK and Ireland too, _only time will tell_), controling migration from Romania and Bulgaria, saddens me because it did not exist when the last 10 countries entered the EU. 

robbie

PS: I was also saddened by the fact that the other EU countries inflicted a law controling migration when the last 10 countries joined the EU. But this however has nothing to do with this thread.


----------



## maxiogee

robbie_SWE said:


> The restrictions that will "probably" be accepted soon (in Sweden, maybe in the UK and Ireland too, _only time will tell_), controling migration from Romania and Bulgaria, saddens me because it did not exist when the last 10 countries entered the EU.



Robbie, a few questions for you to ponder (I'm not looking for your actual answers, just your overall impressions)…

How much do you contribute to the Swedish central exchequer each year?
How many people contribute to this 'kitty'?
Current social welfare entitlements in Sweden are, I imagine, based on three things…
the expected number of recipients
the amount of money they are deemed to need
the amount of money contributors are prepared to see taken from their incomes.

Now, if there is to be an influx of applicants for a share of this welfare money, only one of three things can happen
the amount of money claimants are given will diminish
the amount of money contributors are asked to give will rise
the number of claimaints will be lessened in some way to allow for payments to be made to the new claimants.

Now I don't think it right to change one's laws to exclude certain groups from entitlements which other groups (which were no different, but came earlier) were entitled to.
But, we elect politicians to manage our states, to extract taxes from us and to manage those funds wisely so that we do not pay unnecessarily high rates of tax. Why should any person who has no connection with Xyzland be allowed to arrive there and expect to claim a share of that country's limited resources?


----------



## robbie_SWE

maxiogee said:


> Robbie, a few questions for you to ponder (I'm not looking for your actual answers, just your overall impressions)…
> 
> How much do you contribute to the Swedish central exchequer each year?
> How many people contribute to this 'kitty'?
> Current social welfare entitlements in Sweden are, I imagine, based on three things…
> 
> the expected number of recipients
> the amount of money they are deemed to need
> the amount of money contributors are prepared to see taken from their incomes.
> Now, if there is to be an influx of applicants for a share of this welfare money, only one of three things can happen
> 
> the amount of money claimants are given will diminish
> the amount of money contributors are asked to give will rise
> the number of claimaints will be lessened in some way to allow for payments to be made to the new claimants.
> Now I don't think it right to change one's laws to exclude certain groups from entitlements which other groups (which were no different, but came earlier) were entitled to.
> But, we elect politicians to manage our states, to extract taxes from us and to manage those funds wisely so that we do not pay unnecessarily high rates of tax. Why should any person who has no connection with Xyzland be allowed to arrive there and expect to claim a share of that country's limited resources?


 
I completely agree with you Maxiogee, well on most things! But my anger is directed towards the fact that the countries that accepted a law did it in vain, because "social migration" never did happen. What makes the Romanians and Bulgarians more inclined to do so than the Hungarians and Poles??

 robbie


----------



## choppy seas

Talant said:


> Hi Choppy Seas,
> 
> I see that you've read a lot of things which confuse you. Please stop believing all that you read in newspapers, magazines,... They sometimes just try to sell themselves. Have you read the Pope's lecture? If so, you're welcome to comment it. If not, you're not. Have you lived in France? Have you talked to French muslims? I've lived in France, and suburbs problems are not that easy to explain just by racism. No law ever stated that they should live in there.
> 
> Yet, I agree that there is a growing problem of racism, or better said "xenophobia" as Bulgarians or Romanians are still white. Take a look at Front National results in France. People in the EU want to keep its privileges. UK is just an example (however, UK has maintained it's insularity from other EU members since the beginning, why should Romania and Bulgary be treated better?)
> 
> Turkey has many problems regarding humans rights. They are solving them really quickly, but they just have to do more. A few days ago, a writer was finally acquitted from a grievious crime: saying that Turkey did wrong to the Armenians!!! The problem is, why was he ever brought to court for his opinion?
> 
> Another reason for the lack of effort in the EU, is that Turkey would become one the the most politically powerful countries in the EU as its population is really big. No one wants a new member to lessen his own power.
> 
> More or less that's want I want to say, don't believe that a single thing causes anything so big. No problem concerning 500 million people will have only one cause.


 I dont get what is the basic point you are making! If it is problems,everycountry has a fair share.Turkey does not enjoy a monopoly in that respect. Human rights are a very broad and subjective term. Considering the history of some European powers,I am surprised you raise it at all with regard to Turkey...
  Also I find your perspective on Bulgarians interesting,when we note that these are originally a Turkish tribe which were subsequently Slavicised. A number of them can pass for S.Asians, atleast the pictures of some of them I saw on the B.B.C. website! 
  Apparently you seem to hold that only you know what the Pope said and are aware of realities in Paris. On racial segregation in Paris, we are not talking of law but conscious state policy. 
  There is no confusion in mind about the issues. Media outlets are run by individuals with their own perspectives but they are our primary source of information on other cultures. As far as you are concerned what is pertinent is twisting facts to form specious and baseless arguments.
  As far as your last para is concerned,I dont have a clue what you are talking about.


----------



## Outsider

choppy seas said:


> Also I find your perspective on Bulgarians interesting,when we note that these are originally a Turkish tribe which were subsequently Slavicised.


I've started a new thread about that claim. Please contribute.


----------



## choppy seas

ireney said:


> Ok I can admit to be totally confused about what we are talking about. I've read all of your posts robbie and I am still confused!
> 
> choppy can you too clarify your latest post?
> 
> for example
> 
> 
> 
> No they are not "confined"and the whole issue is rather complicated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do admit that there are some (or even a few) citizens of EU members being xenophobic. EU however is going to admit these two countries; it wouldn't if it was really a xenophobic, insular organisation would it?
> 
> 
> 
> a) I don't think the Pope speaks for the EU! He didn't last time I checked
> b) He doesn't speak for me, personally, either. Actually our own Archibishop or even the Patriarch of Constantinople/Instanbul don't either.
> c) Turkey has a lot of issues to solve befor becoming a member of the EU, one of those being recognising the legal status of one of the newest members of the EU, Cyprus. I don't consider this excessive. How can you be a member of EU if you don't recognise the legal status of one of the country-members?
> d) What does the widespread influence of ancient Greek and British cultures to do with it (I doubt the modern Greek variety has such an influence around the world  and more's the pity )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you _sure_ it's more prosperous than Greece? It wasn't last time I checked. Much bigger yes. With a much bigger population true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for India and thanks for the information! Can you explain how this proves that the EU is insular?
> 
> P.S. One has to think of other issues too when referring to countries like Greece. For instance check _when_ they were admitted. Some times different times means different priorities etc  (I bet many members of the EEC groaned inwardly and outwardly when they thought about Greece already being a member)


   From this post I get the impression that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.Buttress your counter-claims with perspective or facts.Simply denying the arguments I am making is not going to make me accept yours. I enjoy debating provided it is based on facts or a properly developed perspective,not argumentation for the sake of argumentation.This applies to others as well.
  Only two points are understandable from your post. 
    A member of this forum accussed me of a quote unquote hidden agenda,I counter argued by bringing up the example of my country,India. 
   On Greek culture I am not referring to the modern variety.Apparently you are ignorant of the history our two countries,India and Greece,share. I am referring to the Indo-Greek kingdoms established on the subcontinent subsequent to the invasion of Alexander the Great. This interaction influenced various facets of Indian life from linguistics to the development of Hinduism. For example Greek and Sanskrit share common words. To cite an instance, your kalamos is our kalam,meaning pen.


----------



## cuchuflete

It is unclear to me how any of the remarks about India have anything to do with EU policy towards current member states,
members accepted for admission, candidate nations, or rumored or proposed policies about intra-EU migration.  

Whether or not France has a "...conscious state policy." promoting "racial segregation" might be an interesting topic for another thread, but its relationship to rumored or proposed policies regarding Roumanian and Bulgarian work permits in Sweden is not obvious.   If there were such a state policy, which is a matter for debate, exactly how does that
influence the actions of Swedish lawmakers?  

Somebody wrote that the European Union is, "very fussy about whom it admits.  That suggests a very strange understanding of the word "fussy".  A very large majority of
Europe's countries and people have joined the EU.  Some of the EFTA countries, including Switzerland and Norway, have declined to apply for EU membership, though it is extremely likely that it would be promptly granted if applied for.  Greenland has withdrawn.   Four other countries are on the road to near-term membership.  Hence, the claim of so-called "fussy" admittance criteria is unjustified, and totally without factual basis.  

Let's be clear: there is serious contentiousness about the application of a single country, Turkey.  That is a matter unto itself, and has nothing to do with rumored or proposed laws about who can work in Sweden as of January of next year.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> Let's be clear: there is serious contentiousness about the application of a single country, Turkey.  That is a matter unto itself, and has nothing to do with rumored or proposed laws about who can work in Sweden as of January of next year.



I wouldn't be so sure. 
How better to mask anti-Turkish legislation than by tagging Turkey onto the end of what would then be existing legislation apparently aimed at other communities?
There is a wealth of evidence in Germany of anti-Turkish sentiment aroused by the apparently large Turkish guest-worker community. In an effort to prevent such a thing happening in another community country, would it not appear, to some shades of political opinion, to be sensible to introduce legislation such as this?

Let me state that this is not an anti-Turkish post, it is an attempt to try to deduce the likely purpose of the Swedish legislation.


----------



## cuchuflete

That's not a totally unreasonable speculation, Tony, but as most people seem to feel that Turkish membership before 2015 is highly unlikely, it's not all that obvious that Sweden is considering a policy change now in preparation for something that might happen more than a decade from now.  

If, on the other hand, most of the larger EU members were to move from possible discussions, to proposals, to laws restricting immigration by member states' citizens, then we would have something concrete to discuss.   As you point out,
Germany has a great many Turkish citizens on its soil already, so the current lack of any such legislation in Germany itself makes me wonder how this might all fit together.


----------



## choppy seas

cuchuflete said:


> It is unclear to me how any of the remarks about India have anything to do with EU policy towards current member states,
> members accepted for admission, candidate nations, or rumored or proposed policies about intra-EU migration.
> 
> Whether or not France has a "...conscious state policy." promoting "racial segregation" might be an interesting topic for another thread, but its relationship to rumored or proposed policies regarding Roumanian and Bulgarian work permits in Sweden is not obvious. If there were such a state policy, which is a matter for debate, exactly how does that
> influence the actions of Swedish lawmakers?
> 
> Somebody wrote that the European Union is, "very fussy about whom it admits. That suggests a very strange understanding of the word "fussy". A very large majority of
> Europe's countries and people have joined the EU. Some of the EFTA countries, including Switzerland and Norway, have declined to apply for EU membership, though it is extremely likely that it would be promptly granted if applied for. Greenland has withdrawn. Four other countries are on the road to near-term membership. Hence, the claim of so-called "fussy" admittance criteria is unjustified, and totally without factual basis.
> 
> Let's be clear: there is serious contentiousness about the application of a single country, Turkey. That is a matter unto itself, and has nothing to do with rumored or proposed laws about who can work in Sweden as of January of next year.


     Nor do I have the least idea how someone raising the issue of hidden agendas is germane to this discussion. This is in response to your accusation of having raised the subject of India. 
    On Swedish work permits, apparently you have your wires crossed as I never referred to it. However as you have brought up the issue of Sweden, what I have to say with reference to it is that it is a pretty reactionary country and epitomises the shift to the Right in various European countries. What is particularly intriguing about  the Swedes is that they voted out a government that was delivering them economic growth and also delivered them one of the lowest unemployment rates.I dont know what you can make of such a polity? If anyone has an explanation for that,it would be interesting to hear.
   The European Union is indeed fussy as to whom it admits. For example the exclusion of Turkey has no reasonable basis. Stipulations for admittance are put  and when some of these are met additional ones are put. Therefore I agree hundred percent with Maxiogee on this! 
  Also the guidelines for various members varies in terms of their economic development. This atleast was the case a couple of years back. The fact of the matter is that not everyone is on the same wavelength in the European Union. Also it is, as someone here put it earlier, pretty ineffective and bureaucratic in its functioning. What prospective new members should consider is as to whether it really is the Mecca of effective economic functioning, it is made out to be,by some.


----------



## maxiogee

choppy seas said:


> What is particularly intriguing about  the Swedes is that they voted out a government that was delivering them economic growth and also delivered them one of the lowest unemployment rates.I dont know what you can make of such a polity? If anyone has an explanation for that,it would be interesting to hear.


That's easy - it's a democracy. They vote governments in and out for a wide variety of reasons.
Not everyone believes that governments are the sole deliverers of economic growth and low unemployment - outside agencies are at work on all economies over which governments have no control at all. Sometimes changing the government has no particularly noticeable effect on these things - beyond the superficial changes which come with any change of administration. 

You seek reasons - have you never asked people around you why they vote the way they do? They don't all give the same answer - or worse, when they do they turn out to have voted differently!


----------



## robbie_SWE

Since you no longer seem to be living in Europe Cuchuflete, I would like to enlighten you and others who don't live in Europe. Here's a link to a EU website concerning the law controlling free movement, not the current question concerning ROMANIA (no other spelling in English, please!) and Bulgaria, but the "_transitional rules governing the free movement of workers from, to and between the new member states_" approved by most countries (except the UK, Ireland and Sweden) to control free movement of workers from the countries admitted in May 2004. 

http://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp?&acro=free&step=0&lang=en

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5381990.stm 

This last link should be informative of the British point of view and line of action. 

Hope this sheds some light in this rapidly dimming thread! 

Choppy Seas, even if I am one of the many who does want Turkey to join, there still is a long way to go. The massacre of Armenians, the Kurdish province's struggle for independence, the economical problems, the infrastructure and judicial system (with the Human Rights in mind) are all problems that Turkey has to deal with before becoming a member. There is no doubt in my mind that Turkey will prosper and eventually join the EU, but I doubt that 2007 or 2008 will be those awaited years. 

robbie


----------



## maxiogee

robbie_SWE said:


> Since you no longer seem to be living in Europe Cuchuflete, I would like to enlighten you and others who don't live in Europe. Here's a link to a EU website concerning the law controlling free movement, not the current question concerning ROMANIA (no other spelling in English, please!) and Bulgaria, but the "_transitional rules governing the free movement of workers from, to and between the new member states_" approved by most countries (except the UK, Ireland and Sweden) to control free movement of workers from the countries admitted in May 2004.
> 
> http://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp?&acro=free&step=0&lang=en




Robbie,
Can I ask you to select Ireland in that link and tell me what is says. When I select Ireland I get

*Which rules apply in: Ireland*
The country you have selected does not apply any restrictions on the access to its labour market by citizens of other EEA countries. 
You will find below a short general description of the policies concerning the free movement of workers applied by this country. 
We also suggest that you check the "Living and Working Conditions" section, by clicking in the left hand column, where you will find, among other things, information on administrative procedures etc. to be followed by EEA citizens who want to live and work in this country.​
– and nothing else.

This does not appear to be the case for any other country. Most countries get a pop-up menu asking which country the job-seekers are citizens of.

I don't know why you insist on portraying Ireland as a country with some xenophobic problem with the concept of free movement of peoples, but I am asking you to either show evidence or stop.


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks for the links Robbie,

According to the second one to the BBC--



> The UK was one of the few countries to allow unfettered access to its Labour market to new Eastern European member states in 2004. To date an estimated 600,000 workers have come to the UK.



That's a pretty impressive figure--roughly 1% of the population of the country has come from the newly admitted East European member states.   If any nation were to have such large and rapid immigration of workers from any given region, it would not be at all surprising to see some serious discussions about its impact on the society and economy.

As I don't live in the UK, and have no personal awareness of the effects of such large-scale immigration, I think it would be best to let UK citizens comment further on the benefits and costs to their nation resulting from such an open arms policy.

The accession treaties signed by earlier and more recent EU members have included many "transitional" provisions.  The act of accepting these seems to make clear that the joining countries see overall benefits in membership.  As a broad generality, most of the states that joined the original six were less well-off economically, and the enlargement of the EEC, and later the EU, imposed a cost on earlier members.  Is it unreasonable for those bearing the costs to debate and possibly limit the schedule and extent of such costs?  


PD- Thanks for the spelling correction.


----------



## robbie_SWE

maxiogee said:


> Robbie,
> Can I ask you to select Ireland in that link and tell me what is says. When I select Ireland I get
> 
> 
> *Which rules apply in: Ireland*The country you have selected does not apply any restrictions on the access to its labour market by citizens of other EEA countries.​
> You will find below a short general description of the policies concerning the free movement of workers applied by this country.​
> We also suggest that you check the "Living and Working Conditions" section, by clicking in the left hand column, where you will find, among other things, information on administrative procedures etc. to be followed by EEA citizens who want to live and work in this country.​
> – and nothing else.
> 
> This does not appear to be the case for any other country. Most countries get a pop-up menu asking which country the job-seekers are citizens of.
> 
> I don't know why you insist on portraying Ireland as a country with some xenophobic problem with the concept of free movement of peoples, but I am asking you to either show evidence or stop.


 
Maxiogee, you're totally misunderstanding me! I don't want to portray Ireland to be xenophobic at all, you made it very clear that Ireland is not planning any such law and I have accepted this fact. I published this thread because some people don't think that ANY European country has a law controlling migration. That's the only reason, if you feel offended in any way, I am sorry since it isn't my intention. (I quite like your green island and its culture  ). 
Robbie


----------



## Outsider

Interestingly, though, the U.K. _does_ have special rules for immigrants from Eastern European member states of the E.U., according to that website.


----------



## cuchuflete

In response to the raising of the subject of India,  I don't find a word to explain what India has to do with this conversation.

I don't find a word to explain what intercultural relations between India and Greece, many centuries ago, has to do with this discussion.

I don't find a word in anything provided by Choppy Seas to indicate why an opinion--unsubstantiated-- about French government policy regarding alleged racial segregation has to do with this discussion.

Yes, I must have my wires crossed!  I asked how any of the disparate jumble of unrelated facts and opinions, mostly opinions, has any bearing on the thread topic, which directly concerns Swedish policy towards immigrant workers, and no, you most certainly have not referred to it.  Most of what you have stated is quite thoroughly unrelated to the thread topic, which is grounds to assume that you have a different agenda than to discuss what robbie put on the table for discussion in the first place.  

Fulminations about how nasty Europeans are, how "fussy" the EU practices are, and all the other mud you continue to sling randomly at any and all targets European suggest that you have little interest in the thread topic, and are simply using this thread as a pretext to batter whatever you disagree with and dislike, and it appears to be a very long list.  


So...still waiting for a sensible, factual explanation of what India has to do with Romania, Bulgaria and Sweden.

Still waiting for you to stop the national and personal name-calling and insults, and try to provide something of factual value in regard to the issue raised in the first post.



> For example the exclusion of Turkey has no reasonable basis.   Many Europeans think that there is more than one reasonable basis, and they have stated reasons in this thread, to which you have not responded with any facts.
> Also the guidelines for various members varies in terms of their economic development. This has been true since the earliest expansion of the EU, and is not only understandable, but necessary, unless one expects current members to provide limitless subsidies to newer, poorer members.  The fact of the matter is that not everyone is on the same wavelength in the European Union. Bravo! You have taken note that the EU is composed of dozens of countries, and hundreds of millions of people.  You are correct on this point.  They do not all think and behave in lockstep.  Such is the way of freedom of thought and democratic process.






choppy seas said:


> Nor do I have the least idea how someone raising the issue of hidden agendas is germane to this discussion. This is in response to your accusation of having raised the subject of India.
> On Swedish work permits, apparently you have your wires crossed as I never referred to it. However as you have brought up the issue of Sweden, what I have to say with reference to it is that it is a pretty reactionary country and epitomises the shift to the Right in various European countries. What is particularly intriguing about  the Swedes is that they voted out a government that was delivering them economic growth and also delivered them one of the lowest unemployment rates.I dont know what you can make of such a polity? If anyone has an explanation for that,it would be interesting to hear.
> The European Union is indeed fussy as to whom it admits. For example the exclusion of Turkey has no reasonable basis. Stipulations for admittance are put  and when some of these are met additional ones are put. Therefore I agree hundred percent with Maxiogee on this!
> Also the guidelines for various members varies in terms of their economic development. This atleast was the case a couple of years back. The fact of the matter is that not everyone is on the same wavelength in the European Union. Also it is, as someone here put it earlier, pretty ineffective and bureaucratic in its functioning. What prospective new members should consider is as to whether it really is the Mecca of effective economic functioning, it is made out to be,by some.


----------



## cuchuflete

ireney said:
			
		

> Turkey has a lot of issues to solve befor becoming a member of the EU, one of those being recognising the legal status of one of the newest members of the EU, Cyprus. I don't consider this excessive. *How can you be a member of EU if you don't recognise the legal status of one of the country-members?*



This question has remained unanswered. 

 It deserves an answer.


----------



## robbie_SWE

cuchuflete said:


> This question has remained unanswered.
> 
> It deserves an answer.


 
I agree, this question should be answered!


----------



## maxiogee

choppy seas said:


> What prospective new members should consider is as to whether it really is the Mecca of effective economic functioning, it is made out to be,by some.



Europe - a "Mecca", surely some mistake here?


Surely the purpose of the EU, an extension of the old Treaty of Rome, was to create a more stable Europe. Economic effectiveness was the method through which this was to be achieved. What was being sought was a way to ensure that the militaristic convulsions of earlier years did not recur. 
It seems to be working, as the only convulsions which have happened within Europe since then have been in non-EU states.


----------



## ireney

robbie in the link you provided it says that Greece from May 1 2006 has no restrictions for the 8 new members and 



> Job-seekers from the new Member States will be treated on an equal footing with those of the old Member States. It follows that they can register at employment agencies and receive a job-seeker’s allowance



No word on Romania or Bulgaria of course since they are still not members but it seems that we've abolished any laws restricitng immigration from any EU country member therefore I can't understand the claim that apart from the 3 countries mentioned in the first post all other have active legistration restricting movement from some EU country-members.  




choppy seas said:


> From this post I get the impression that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.Buttress your counter-claims with perspective or facts.Simply denying the arguments I am making is not going to make me accept yours.



There's a limit to how off-topic I will go choppy seas. Providing facts for these claims would mean making subsequent posts on things that are irrelevant to the thread-question. Make separate threads like "Does Pope speaks for the EU?", "Is France policy xenophobic and does it reflect the EU policy?" and I will answer.

I repeat myself; These two countries were accepted in the EU. EU cannot be called xenophobic as an institution since the EU didn't accept them with a special status in regards to this matter at least.



> On Greek culture I am not referring to the modern variety.Apparently you are ignorant of the history our two countries,India and Greece,share. I am referring to the Indo-Greek kingdoms established on the subcontinent subsequent to the invasion of Alexander the Great. This interaction influenced various facets of Indian life from linguistics to the development of Hinduism. For example Greek and Sanskrit share common words. To cite an instance, your kalamos is our kalam,meaning pen.



Thank you for your insulting tone (really above "stiff"  ) No I am not ignorant but I still fail to see how the wide-spread influence of ancient Greek culture is relevant to the question in hand _as I mentioned before_.


----------



## choppy seas

ireney said:


> robbie in the link you provided it says that Greece from May 1 2006 has no restrictions for the 8 new members and
> 
> 
> 
> No word on Romania or Bulgaria of course since they are still not members but it seems that we've abolished any laws restricitng immigration from any EU country member therefore I can't understand the claim that apart from the 3 countries mentioned in the first post all other have active legistration restricting movement from some EU country-members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a limit to how off-topic I will go choppy seas. Providing facts for these claims would mean making subsequent posts on things that are irrelevant to the thread-question. Make separate threads like "Does Pope speaks for the EU?", "Is France policy xenophobic and does it reflect the EU policy?" and I will answer.
> 
> I repeat myself; These two countries were accepted in the EU. EU cannot be called xenophobic as an institution since the EU didn't accept them with a special status in regards to this matter at least.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your insulting tone (really above "stiff"  ) No I am not ignorant but I still fail to see how the wide-spread influence of ancient Greek culture is relevant to the question in hand _as I mentioned before_.


   The subjects of the Popes remarks on Islam and French xenophobia, are very relevant in my view.They have been made use of, to illustrate the insularity in the European temperament and the evident intolerance evinced towards other cultures.Therefore while they may make interesting subjects for new threads,I do not see how they are not germane to the current discussion.Let us not rigidly compartmentalise issues, with the casus belli of providing material for new threads.
   On your second para,I dont get the meaning at all. I fail to see what is the point you are making there.
   On the last para of your post,I regret if any expression of mine has caused offence.Nevertheless your reference to modern Greek culture,when I was referring to antiquity,does indicate an ignorance of the past. I had originally brought up the issue of the impact of not only Greek but also British culture, to give credence to my perspective as a neutral observer on the Islam/Christianity tension,evinced by the Popes statement. Hope you understood the point now. In the same light, may I mention, that your reference to modern Greek culture having a negligeble impact on other countries,could itself be the subject of another thread.


----------



## choppy seas

cuchuflete said:


> In response to the raising of the subject of India, I don't find a word to explain what India has to do with this conversation.
> 
> I don't find a word to explain what intercultural relations between India and Greece, many centuries ago, has to do with this discussion.
> 
> I don't find a word in anything provided by Choppy Seas to indicate why an opinion--unsubstantiated-- about French government policy regarding alleged racial segregation has to do with this discussion.
> 
> Yes, I must have my wires crossed! I asked how any of the disparate jumble of unrelated facts and opinions, mostly opinions, has any bearing on the thread topic, which directly concerns Swedish policy towards immigrant workers, and no, you most certainly have not referred to it. Most of what you have stated is quite thoroughly unrelated to the thread topic, which is grounds to assume that you have a different agenda than to discuss what robbie put on the table for discussion in the first place.
> 
> Fulminations about how nasty Europeans are, how "fussy" the EU practices are, and all the other mud you continue to sling randomly at any and all targets European suggest that you have little interest in the thread topic, and are simply using this thread as a pretext to batter whatever you disagree with and dislike, and it appears to be a very long list.
> 
> 
> So...still waiting for a sensible, factual explanation of what India has to do with Romania, Bulgaria and Sweden.
> 
> Still waiting for you to stop the national and personal name-calling and insults, and try to provide something of factual value in regard to the issue raised in the first post.


   There is no name calling or insults. I regret you fail to see the subtlety inherent in my alternative perspective. Evading arguments by stating they are irrelevant or not pertinent is a fine tactic,but does it address the issues under consideration?I have an alternative perspective whether it agrees with your feel good one or not. 
   Your talk of qoute unqoute hidden agendas does credence to the Orwellian world of the novel 1984,but to me represents baloney,in the context of this discussion.
This is aforum for the exchange of views. What I have to say to your crap is that the compartmentalisation of politics makes a mockery of the subject under discussion. 
 Your own perspective evinces a woeful ignorance of the nuances of politics.


----------



## choppy seas

maxiogee said:


> Europe - a "Mecca", surely some mistake here?
> 
> 
> Surely the purpose of the EU, an extension of the old Treaty of Rome, was to create a more stable Europe. Economic effectiveness was the method through which this was to be achieved. What was being sought was a way to ensure that the militaristic convulsions of earlier years did not recur.
> It seems to be working, as the only convulsions which have happened within Europe since then have been in non-EU states.


    The use of Mecca here is as a figurative expression and not to be taken in the literal sense! It is often used as such in the English language.
    I am unaware of the Treaty of Rome and would not like to comment on that. However we had other bodies to prevent the convulsions you talk of,such as the League Of Nations,in the past and the United Nations today.Therefore would you call these additional bodies irrelevant or repetitive of the Treaty Of Rome?
   As for there having been no convulsions inthe manner you talk of in Europe,how would you describe the break-up of Yugoslavia or the convulsions in East Europe and the former Soviet Union in 1989 and thereafter? Perhaps as days at the beach?
   On your earlier post on the Swedish elections, your alternative perspective was interesting and gave a new dimension of looking at the issue.Would you recommend total laissez-faire free market economics with people sleeping on park benches,as in the United States? 
  You have also asked me to enquire about how people in my country vote.What does that have to do with the way the Swedish people voted? I dont see how that or your comment on people voting contrary to how they say they voted are relevant. Both these statements of yours appear to contradict one another.On the one hand you ask me to enquire how voters vote and then say they may not be voting as they said they did! What is this but an exercise in semantics?


----------



## maxiogee

choppy seas said:


> The subjects of the Popes remarks on Islam and French xenophobia, are very relevant in my view.They have been made use of, to illustrate the insularity in the European temperament and the evident intolerance evinced towards other cultures.


Some comments…

The Pope speaks on Islam's propensity for violence and you call it intolerance — Islam, in its very name "submission" is intolerant of questions, of difference, and of western society's traditions and customs.
The Pope heads a religion with adherents in every country in the world, and you mention insularity
The Pope is the head of a religion. He does not speak for Europeans, and he does not speak *for* Catholics. He speaks *to* Catholics.
You say that the Pope's remarks "have been made use of" to illustrate — who did the illustrating? Muslims? Who don't allow anyone to say anything less than 100% positive about their religion and their prophet without violent and angry protests spontaneopusly springing up across the Islamic world.


I fail to see any connection with this and the suggested by Robbie that some countries might treat differently the citizens of two countries which are about to access full EU membership! 




> Let us not rigidly compartmentalise issues, with the casus belli of providing material for new threads.


Let's do as the rules require - stay on topic. You have failed so far to relate these points to the topic.

Should you require a new topic to make these points, you are more than welcome to start one.






choppy seas said:


> There is no name calling or insults.


I would disagree, I quote these fine examples of polite discussion 

Apparently you are ignorant of the 
Your talk…  represents baloney
What I have to say to your crap
Your own perspective evinces a woeful ignorance



choppy seas said:


> I am unaware of the Treaty of Rome and would not like to comment on that. However we had other bodies to prevent the convulsions you talk of,such as the League Of Nations,in the past and the United Nations today.Therefore would you call these additional bodies irrelevant or repetitive of the Treaty Of Rome?


There are other ways of looking at bodies which have other aims. The League of Nations and the United Nations were global bodies, and had aims other than the re-generation of Europe. Why do you only offer me two negatives to judge them by?





> how would you describe the break-up of Yugoslavia or the convulsions in East Europe and the former Soviet Union in 1989 and thereafter? Perhaps as days at the beach?


No international organisation can prevent internal strife in a discrete political entity.
The EU did not include Yugoslavia or the countries of the former Soviet Bloc and could not have been expected to hold any potency in the situations which arose.



> As for there having been no convulsions inthe manner you talk of in Europe,


If you think that the troubles you mention above can be compared to the protracted and all-encompassing nature of World War I and II, across Europe, then you must have been seeing a different series of conflicts than I.





> Would you recommend total laissez-faire free market economics with people sleeping on park benches,as in the United States?


I fail to see what gave you the idea that I might. I haven't brought my own political thinking into this discussion at all. (And by the way, one doesn't need to go to the United States to see people sleeping on park benches, or shop doorways!)





> You have also asked me to enquire about how people in my country vote.What does that have to do with the way the Swedish people voted? I dont see how that or your comment on people voting contrary to how they say they voted are relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say that. Read what I wrote…
> 
> You seek reasons - have you never asked people around you *why* they vote the way they do? They don't all give the same answer - or worse, when they do they turn out to have voted differently!​
> You stated "I dont know what you can make of such a polity?"
> A: People don't all cast their votes for the same reasons. the electorate of any country have all got different primary concerns when casting a vote. I am surprised at an adult being perplexed at an electorate's decision.
> 
> B: You ask three people who they vote for and whay they chose the party they supported. Each one is likely to tell you that they voted for a different party, and yet each can tell you that they did it because they are the best party to support to see full employment, or economic stability, or xyz reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both these statements of yours appear to contradict one another.On the one hand you ask me to enquire how voters vote and then say they may not be voting as they said they did! What is this but an exercise in semantics?
> 
> 
> 
> No. You mistake my use of the word "why" for the word "how". Please read my words with more care as it reduces misunderstandings.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## invictaspirit

I would like to give a rather fence-sitting response.

I live in a heavily-populated commuter county, just 60 km from Central London.  Despite this proximity, there is a lot of agriculture here (mainly fruit production).  There is also a lot of light industry and a fairly affluent population.  The number of Poles and Lithuanians who have moved here to work in these sectors is VAST...there are tens of thousands of them in Kent alone.  If you drive on one of our local motorways, you will pass 10 or 20 Polish or Lithuanian licenced cars and vans in just a few kms.

I have not seen any of this as any kind of problem.  I really welcome these European neighbours.  They work hard, they are law-abiding, they are friendly and if they stay, they will give our county an interesting new flavour.  Every supermarket here now sports a 'Polish aisle'.  We have started trying their food too.  The only people who complain about the Poles here are a small number of complacent, expensive business/trades people who charge way too much, and yes, are being undercut and bettered by the Poles.  Ehmmm....good!  I had a Polish guy lay a load of new wooden flooring for me and he did a fantastic job and cost half what the lazy, incompetent local guy did the year before.  If you're a socialist, you'll feel sorry for the lazy, incompetent local guy...who rips everyone off and is a bad craftsman.

Having said all of this...the numbers of Eastern Europeans is huge here.  600,000 new arrivals even in a country with 60 million people is a lot to arrive in 2 years.  Economically and socially I think it has been a success. But I'm not sure how many more Eastern Europeans the UK economy could absorb.  I might worry if a similar number of Bulgarians and Romanians arrived and perhaps wish there could be a system of 'turns' in Europe.  GB, IRL and S took well over a million Poles, Latvians and Lithuanians and in general have welcomed and absorbed them.  Perhaps the focus of more new entrants could be elsewhere.


----------



## choppy seas

maxiogee said:


> Some comments…
> 
> The Pope speaks on Islam's propensity for violence and you call it intolerance — Islam, in its very name "submission" is intolerant of questions, of difference, and of western society's traditions and customs.
> The Pope heads a religion with adherents in every country in the world, and you mention insularity
> The Pope is the head of a religion. He does not speak for Europeans, and he does not speak *for* Catholics. He speaks *to* Catholics.
> You say that the Pope's remarks "have been made use of" to illustrate — who did the illustrating? Muslims? Who don't allow anyone to say anything less than 100% positive about their religion and their prophet without violent and angry protests spontaneopusly springing up across the Islamic world.
> 
> I fail to see any connection with this and the suggested by Robbie that some countries might treat differently the citizens of two countries which are about to access full EU membership!
> 
> 
> Let's do as the rules require - stay on topic. You have failed so far to relate these points to the topic.
> 
> Should you require a new topic to make these points, you are more than welcome to start one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would disagree, I quote these fine examples of polite discussion
> 
> Apparently you are ignorant of the
> Your talk… represents baloney
> What I have to say to your crap
> Your own perspective evinces a woeful ignorance
> There are other ways of looking at bodies which have other aims. The League of Nations and the United Nations were global bodies, and had aims other than the re-generation of Europe. Why do you only offer me two negatives to judge them by?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No international organisation can prevent internal strife in a discrete political entity.
> The EU did not include Yugoslavia or the countries of the former Soviet Bloc and could not have been expected to hold any potency in the situations which arose.
> 
> If you think that the troubles you mention above can be compared to the protracted and all-encompassing nature of World War I and II, across Europe, then you must have been seeing a different series of conflicts than I.
> 
> 
> 
> I fail to see what gave you the idea that I might. I haven't brought my own political thinking into this discussion at all. (And by the way, one doesn't need to go to the United States to see people sleeping on park benches, or shop doorways!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have also asked me to enquire about how people in my country vote.What does that have to do with the way the Swedish people voted? I dont see how that or your comment on people voting contrary to how they say they voted are relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say that. Read what I wrote…
> 
> You seek reasons - have you never asked people around you *why* they vote the way they do? They don't all give the same answer - or worse, when they do they turn out to have voted differently!​You stated "I dont know what you can make of such a polity?"
> A: People don't all cast their votes for the same reasons. the electorate of any country have all got different primary concerns when casting a vote. I am surprised at an adult being perplexed at an electorate's decision.
> 
> B: You ask three people who they vote for and whay they chose the party they supported. Each one is likely to tell you that they voted for a different party, and yet each can tell you that they did it because they are the best party to support to see full employment, or economic stability, or xyz reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. You mistake my use of the word "why" for the word "how". Please read my words with more care as it reduces misunderstandings.
> 
> 
> 
> No religion espouses violence. I am not a defender of Islam, but may I point out that the Crusades were begun by the authorisation of a Pope. These were a series of military ventures begun by the Christian world. The Popes recent statement on Islam,saying it espouses violence, seems therefore like a throwback to earlier times.
> Similarly nowhere have I mentioned Catholics. This is something you have brought up of your own volition.
> Secondly on the Swedish electorate having voted in the manner it did, I find your response unsatisfactory. I asked whether you are a votary of laissez faire free market economics as you discounted the role of governments in economic decison making. Secondly the Scandinavian model of economics has,I have heard a high degree of state interventionism and welfare economics.That is what makes the electorates decison to vote out a government that was delivering the goods, inexplicable.It has nothing to do about being or not being an adult,which has more to do with the realm of biology. Stick to the point instead of engaging in semantics questioning peoples intelligence.Your remark on not having to go to the U.S.  to see people sleeping on benches, does still not address the issue. Your perspective,though you like to claim otherwise, is highly coloured by your political perspective.
> Similarly I did not refer to the League of Nations and the United Nations as being responsible only for the maintenance of peace in Europe,but rather of global peace. Nobody is asking you to judge these bodies in the negative, but your observation on the Treaty of Rome,appears to undercut the raison d etre of these bodies.
> What do you mean by discrete political entity? This is the first time I am coming across such a term. Contrary to what you choose to project, the European Union could not get its act together on Yugoslavia, or the post-Soviet states. Europe went bootlicking to Washington. The Yugoslav carnage saw scenes which your continent has not seen since the end of the Second World War. Millions perished and others were rendered homeless. I fail to see how you could brush that under the carpet,and call it of secondary importance.
> Similarly through structural adjustment programmes, the European Union could have,considerably alleviated economic misery in the post Soviet bloc,particularly eastern Europe.As far as I know it did not.The only people who took some initiative were the Germans.
> To say,these issues are of secondary importance in comparision  to the world wars, to my mind, evinces a high degree of insensitivity. We are seeing the same set of conflicts but from very different perspectives.
> In short you have addressed unsatisfactorily all the issues I have thrown-up. Seeing you have no satisfactory explanations to proferr you have instead embarked on the high road,of some others,namely accsuing one of introducing irrelevancies into the debate, of being rude and even of misreading! This represents nothing but an exercise in the lowest form of polemics on your part. What I have to ask is, you can run from the issues but how long can you hide?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## robbie_SWE

invictaspirit said:


> I would like to give a rather fence-sitting response.
> 
> I live in a heavily-populated commuter county, just 60 km from Central London. Despite this proximity, there is a lot of agriculture here (mainly fruit production). There is also a lot of light industry and a fairly affluent population. The number of Poles and Lithuanians who have moved here to work in these sectors is VAST...there are tens of thousands of them in Kent alone. If you drive on one of our local motorways, you will pass 10 or 20 Polish or Lithuanian licenced cars and vans in just a few kms.
> 
> I have not seen any of this as any kind of problem. I really welcome these European neighbours. They work hard, they are law-abiding, they are friendly and if they stay, they will give our county an interesting new flavour. Every supermarket here now sports a 'Polish aisle'. We have started trying their food too. The only people who complain about the Poles here are a small number of complacent, expensive business/trades people who charge way too much, and yes, are being undercut and bettered by the Poles. Ehmmm....good! I had a Polish guy lay a load of new wooden flooring for me and he did a fantastic job and cost half what the lazy, incompetent local guy did the year before. If you're a socialist, you'll feel sorry for the lazy, incompetent local guy...who rips everyone off and is a bad craftsman.
> 
> Having said all of this...the numbers of Eastern Europeans is huge here. 600,000 new arrivals even in a country with 60 million people is a lot to arrive in 2 years. Economically and socially I think it has been a success. But I'm not sure how many more Eastern Europeans the UK economy could absorb. I might worry if a similar number of Bulgarians and Romanians arrived and perhaps wish there could be a system of 'turns' in Europe. GB, IRL and S took well over a million Poles, Latvians and Lithuanians and in general have welcomed and absorbed them. Perhaps the focus of more new entrants could be elsewhere.


 
Very interesting Invictaspirit and WELCOME TO THE FORUMS! But I doubt that Romanians would be inclined to move to the UK or Ireland. The reason being that they have much more in common with Italy, Spain and France than with the UK, Ireland and Sweden. Non the less I agree with you, but I can't see a law restricting migration from Romania and Bulgaria as a good solution. Even if no country has yet moved from the discussion table, it wouldn't surprise me if it does. It's only a matter of time. 

Reading a discussion in the BBC forums, has brought a new thought into mind. Apparently many people think that Romania and Bulgaria aren't ready for the EU. What do you guys think?? I think it still is a part of the scope of this thread, but if a moderator thinks differently/otherwise you're more than welcome to open a new thread. 

 robbie


----------



## robbie_SWE

Choppy Seas, if you want to discuss the reason why we voted out a government that *"apparently gave us so much"*, please start a new thread. You don't live here and you have NO idea what kind of reality we Swedes live in. Please get some information before you publish your opinion and then open a new thread!

 robbie


----------



## choppy seas

robbie_SWE said:


> Choppy Seas, if you want to discuss the reason why we voted out a government that *"apparently gave us so much"*, please start a new thread. You don't live here and you have NO idea what kind of reality we Swedes live in. Please get some information before you publish your opinion and then open a new thread!
> 
> robbie


  We all are not necessarily resident in the places,on which we have perspectives. My perspective is very much based on facts. Would you deny you just voted out a government which gave you one of the lowest unemployment reates amongst major European countries and delivered high economic growth?
  In this age you do not have to be resident in a country to have access to the facts.We seem to be living in different ages,you and I. Elucidate us on these wonderful realities you talk of. Why should I start a new thread,by your own logic, only you are entitled to do so ,being presumably resident there, and being cognisant of these wonderful realities,whatever they may be.


----------



## robbie_SWE

choppy seas said:


> We all are not necessarily resident in the places,on which we have perspectives. My perspective is very much based on facts. Would you deny you just voted out a government which gave you one of the lowest unemployment reates amongst major European countries and delivered high economic growth?
> In this age you do not have to be resident in a country to have access to the facts.We seem to be living in different ages,you and I. Elucidate us on these wonderful realities you talk of. Why should I start a new thread,by your own logic, only you are entitled to do so ,being presumably resident there, and being cognisant of these wonderful realities,whatever they may be.


 
Even if this has nothing to do with the thread, I would be more than happy to elucidate you Choppy Seas. 


Recent studies show that the unemployment rate in Sweden is between 10-14 %, not the 6 % presented by the government. 

The healthcare system is so rotten that Swedes are going to Poland for major surgeries since the waiting list for a hip operation could be up to 10 months (!). 

The economic growth was 4 % this year, in comparison Romania had over 7 %. 

Two out of three young people with academic diplomas do not receive a job in their line of work. 

The school system ranks Sweden in the bottom five countries in Europe in a recent study. 
So these are only a few points and I am almost sure that some moderator will be inclined to delete it or start a new thread. Do you still think we were completely mental to change the government or do you feel rather more ENLIGHTEN! 


robbie


----------



## cuchuflete

You have still not answered direct questions put to you by a number of members.   

You persist in characterizing a continent, nations, and individuals in an insulting tone.   It is neither pertinent nor persuasive.

Subtle?  No.  

It would be useful to direct attention to the thread topic:

robbie asked a question in the first post:



> My question is, why this "we" and "them" mentality? Statistics showed that migration from the 10 new EU countries did not drastically rise, as it was feared. What signals are we, the 25 EU countries, sending to less fortunate countries?



The size of the middle class in India has nothing to do with this question.  It is not an expression of an alternate perspective.  It is part of a collection of random ramblings.
The Pope, as has been pointed out over and over again, is neither a formal nor an informal spokesman for the EU or its
citizens.  Calling a country, Sweden, "reactionary" does nothing to address the question robbie posed.   Stating that Bulgarians may "pass" for S. Asians does nothing to address the question robbie posed.  The list could go on for pages.

There is a simple difference between compartmentalizing and focusing.  It eludes some people, who just won't look at the current motives for a few of the 25 EU members to consider the pace at which they will accept foreign workers in their economies.  

If one doesn't know what the Treaty of Rome is, one doesn't know what the EU is, or intends to be.   That is a shameful state of ignorance to bring to a discsussion of EU member policy.  By EU law, restrictions on the number of workers from a new member seeking employment in another member country disappear entirely after a few years.  Does one know how many years that is?  If not, one might benefit from reading the appropriate EU law.  

The utterly absurd statement, "    The European Union is indeed fussy as to whom it admits. " remains unsupported.   

For reasons understood only by the person who said it,  "fussy" was applied to a confederation that has a long history of accepting every country that has applied for membership.  Some applications have been acted on more quickly than others, but no country has applied for membership and been denied. By January of next year, about five of every seven Europeans will be part of the EU.  Fussy?  Nonesense!  The statement is an illogical as it is untrue.  


If that is what "fussy" means, then more fussiness means more members!  The lack of logic is astounding.  





			
				choppy seas said:
			
		

> There is no name calling or insults. Then, I suppose it is just polite chit-chat to call a nation 'reactionary', and apply such collegial and friendly terms as these:
> 
> "...they believe they know best and are totally closed to outsiders"
> 
> "...the insularity of the European mindset."
> 
> [In reply to Talant's questions, which went unanswered:]
> "As far as you are concerned what is pertinent is twisting facts to form specious and baseless arguments."
> 
> "Apparently you are ignorant of the history our two countries,India and Greece,share."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I regret you fail to see the *subtlety* inherent in my alternative perspective.   It is not subtle.  It is blatant.  Evading arguments by stating they are irrelevant or not pertinent is a fine tactic,but does it address the issues under consideration?
> This is most interesting, given that the source has repeatedly failed to answer simple questions posed repeatedly, or has
> thrown up masses of diversionary opinion without giving a simple "yes/no" answer to a question such as, 'Have your read the speech?'.
> I have an alternative perspective whether it agrees with your feel good one or not. I cannot find any perspective other than
> the harping on how nasty Europeans are.  If you don't like Europeans, that's your right.   It doesn't have diddly-squat to do with the question robbie posed.
> Your talk of qoute unqoute hidden agendas does credence to the Orwellian world of the novel 1984,but to me represents baloney,in the context of this discussion. If one contributes a welter of disparate stuff, and refuses to address a question, this suggests a hidden agenda or massive confusion.  Calling it subtle or 'an alternate perspective' is not useful.
> This is aforum for the exchange of views. What I have to say to *your crap* So much for civil discourse.
> 
> is that the compartmentalisation of politics makes a mockery of the subject under discussion.
> Your own perspective evinces a woeful ignorance of the nuances of politics.



OK, you have made it all clear now.

1- Those who dare to disagree with you write baloney and crap, and are woefully ignorant.
2- You bring erudition, wisdom, a clear perspective.
3- Nobody should want to join the EU, as it is made up of fussy, exclusivist, reactionary people.
4- It is fair game to comment incisively on things one hasn't read.
5- Direct questions should be avoided at all costs.

With all due respect (and you are able, I trust, to determine exactly how much is due...)


----------



## cuchuflete

Going back to robbies initial question....

Paraphrasing..."Why a 'we' and 'they' mentality?"

Is it really that at all?  Invictaspirit has given an insight into
what may really be the underlying issue*s.

*There has been a great deal of immigration among EU nations, obviously mostly from the poorer countries to the richer ones.  Millions of people have migrated, earlier from south to north, and more recently from east to both west and south.  Such large-scale migration brings economic benefits to both source and destination countries, and also creates some new social and economic pressures--along with cultural benefits-- within the destination countries.  A few of these destination countries are discussing or taking action to control the numbers of migrants over the first years of EU membership.  EU law removes any potential restrictions after seven years.  

Is this really a we/they question, or is it more a matter of saying, "OK, we have voted to let countries X and Y and Z join us, and that means their people can come here to work.
But, realistically, how many can we absorb at first, without causing social disruption?  We accept that by having voted them in, within a few years there will be no limits, but should we try to control the pace of inward migration during those seven years, especially given that we have already accepted a very large number of other migrants recently?"

As has been discussed at great length in other threads, some people are narrow-minded and anti-immigration; they don't like "outsiders" for any number of reasons.   Whether it's xenophobia, racism, ignorance or the underlying fear of 'otherness', all nations have some of it.  But the majority of Europeans, through their elected governments, seem to have embraced the opposite view, resulting in the enlargement of a community that will effectively be without borders. By the year 2014, about 70% of the European population will be EU members who will have the unrestricted right to work in any EU country.  The EFT nations make this a still higher number.

This doesn't look like a we/they matter, so much as an attempt by a few states to manage the social and political issues that come with large scale migration.  Whether such management is (a) needed; (b) effective; (c) beneficial to destination countries; or (d) beneficial to the whole of the EU
is subject to a variety of perspectives and opinions.


----------



## robbie_SWE

Very beautifully stated Cuchuflete! You have really changed my perspective on things and you're totally right. 

Take care!!! 

 robbie


----------



## maxiogee

choppy seas said:


> No religion espouses violence.


Check out the concept of jihad, the fatwa on Salman Rushdie and the many other calls on Muslims, by their religious leaders - citing the Qu'ran -  to kill unbelievers in the name of their religion.




> but may I point out that the Crusades were begun by the authorisation of a Pope. These were a series of military ventures begun by the Christian world.


Indeed, and an effort to regain Christianity's holiest of cities. I do not support the concept, and I doubt that you will find anyone who does. (I think that the whole concept of "holy city" loses the essence of religion, a contact between a human and its supposed creator.)




> Similarly nowhere have I mentioned Catholics. This is something you have brought up of your own volition.


Perhaps you migth like to explain in easy terms how mentioning the Pope is not mentioning Catholicism.




> Secondly on the Swedish electorate having voted in the manner it did, I find your response unsatisfactory. I asked whether you are a votary of laissez faire free market economics as you discounted the role of governments in economic decison making.


My personal politics is not involved in this discussion. You have attempted to draw it into the discussion. What I said was …
Not everyone believes that governments are the sole deliverers of economic growth and low unemployment - outside agencies are at work on all economies over which governments have no control at all. ​… my personal opinions are not relevant.




> Secondly the Scandinavian model of economics has,I have heard a high degree of state interventionism and welfare economics.That is what makes the electorates decison to vote out a government that was delivering the goods, inexplicable.It has nothing to do about being or not being an adult,


You seem not to be able to grasp that people would have their own reasons for voting out a government - reasons which, to outsiders such as yourself, appear inexplicable. I tried to explain how politics works, but you seem to have a child-like belief that the electorate must make what appear to you to be rational decisions. Adults know that electorates act for a wide variety of reasons, some personal, some nationalistic and some altruistic.




> Stick to the point instead of engaging in semantics questioning peoples intelligence.


I was only copying your apparent willingness to question forer@s' intelligence.




> Your remark on not having to go to the U.S.  to see people sleeping on benches, does still not address the issue. Your perspective,though you like to claim otherwise, is highly coloured by your political perspective.


But my 'perspective' as you put it doesn't affect my grasp of facts.




> Similarly I did not refer to the League of Nations and the United Nations as being responsible only for the maintenance of peace in Europe,but rather of global peace. Nobody is asking you to judge these bodies in the negative,


You offered me two comments ("Therefore would you call these additional bodies irrelevant or repetitive of the Treaty Of Rome?") which are negative views.




> but your observation on the Treaty of Rome,appears to undercut the raison d etre of these bodies.


No it doesn't. They have charged themselves with world affairs, the Treaty of Rome was about Europe looking after its own affairs, and trying by economic means to ensure that there was a semblance of peace and order amo0ng its member states. It never purported to be able to influence the affairs of non-members.




> What do you mean by discrete political entity? This is the first time I am coming across such a term.


It's not a difficult concept. It means a single state, or group of states.




> Contrary to what you choose to project, the European Union could not get its act together on Yugoslavia, or the post-Soviet states.


"Europe", by which I assume you mean the EU, was not established to interfere in the affairs of non-member states, and had no mechanism to do so. It has no army. It had no "act" to get together. The states of Europe went to the UN to se4ek intervention. I fail to see your difficulty in understanding the role of the EU. For someone who writes so much about it, you might benefit from reading about it.




> Europe went bootlicking to Washington.


It's hard to know who you despise the most there, Europe or America.




> The Yugoslav carnage saw scenes which your continent has not seen since the end of the Second World War.


Indeed. And which could so easily have flared up many times but which never did - possibly thyanks to the sort of minds which founded the EU.




> Millions perished


Millions? Would you care to give a figure and a source, please?




> I fail to see how you could brush that under the carpet,and call it of secondary importance.


I'm sorry, you'll have to show me where I said that. I don't recall it.




> To say,these issues are of secondary importance in comparision  to the world wars, to my mind, evinces a high degree of insensitivity.


Again, you are ascribing words to me which I do not recognise.
I have never said that Yugoslavia, or the collapse of the Soviet bloc, was of secondary importance.




> In short you have addressed unsatisfactorily all the issues I have thrown-up.


I think it could be said that I have answered satisfactorily, but that you have failed to be satisfied.




> Seeing you have no satisfactory explanations to proferr you have instead embarked on the high road,of some others,namely accsuing one of introducing irrelevancies into the debate, of being rude and even of misreading!


Yes, you have misread me. 
a. I wrote "ask people why they vote" and you read "ask people how they vote"
b When I wrote "If you think that the troubles you mention above can be compared to the protracted and all-encompassing nature of World War I and II," you interpret that as saying that A was less important than B




> What I have to ask is, you can run from the issues


From what have I run?




> but how long can you hide?


People here will tell you that I hide from nothing - except rubbish and stupidity.


----------



## ireney

choppy read again what I wrote before calling me ignorant again



> What does the widespread influence of ancient Greek and British cultures to do with it (I doubt the modern Greek variety has such an influence around the world   and more's the pity )



If you can't understand what I mean and what the emoticons are there to point out  I'm afraid I can't help you on this matter.

By my second paragraph in your post #66 I assume you refer to:



> I repeat myself; These two countries were accepted in the EU. EU cannot be called xenophobic as an institution since the EU didn't accept them with a special status in regards to this matter at least.



In my post #42 I wrote:


> I do admit that there are some (or even a few) citizens of EU members being xenophobic. EU however is going to admit these two countries; it wouldn't if it was really a xenophobic, insular organisation would it?



And I explain myself. If EU was against the people of these countries, insular and so on and so forth, would the EU have admitted them? EU is not UK, Greece or any other one country. It's not even two or three countries.

Now to the topic (I am using my own country as an example and just that):

Now Robbie as I say in my post #65, it seems that Greece has no laws of immigration regarding the immigration from the last 8 countries to joing EU. 
I wouldn't be surprised however if we make a law _for a small, defined period of time_, restricting immigration from the two new countries, especially since they are both in our neighbourhood and, although Greece is *ahem* not one of the wealthiest EU countries, it is extremely close.

Such laws however do make some sense. In the recent past, having no such laws and no infrastructure/mechanism to deal with a great number of immigrants Greece faced an amazing bruhaha. We don't have the capacity to intergrate a large number of fresh immigrants. Both they and us would be in dire straights if such a thing occurred. 
Making a temporary law doesn't necessarily mean that you either consider the people of these countries inferior or that you believe there IS going to be an en-masse immigration. It might just be a way to avoid the possibilty of maybe facing problem cause by a big wave of immigration.


----------



## robbie_SWE

Hi! 

I know that it has been a while, but I had to write one last post. You guys don't have to respond to my post (if you don’t want to), I just want to inform everybody who has posted in this thread about the most recent turn of events. 

It was announced this Monday (could have been last week, not sure about the precise date) that the Swedish government will not approve a new law preventing workers from Romania and Bulgaria to come and apply for a “green card”. My initial assumption has hence proven to be faulty. I apologise! 

But the Irish and British governments on the other hand, will approve a law restricting "uneducated" workers from Romanian and Bulgaria to come and work in their countries. The argument is quite plausible; due to the fact that the UK received more than 400 000 workers from the countries that joined the EU in 2004.

I'm not posting this to point fingers or to gloat. I just wanted to let you guys know about recent events. 

 
Respectfully,

 robbie


----------



## Outsider

Gloat? 

Excuse me, but at the start of this thread you were painting most of the EU as evil, and the UK and Ireland as the brave exceptions. I hope you've learned a lesson.


----------



## robbie_SWE

Outsider said:


> Gloat?
> 
> Excuse me, but at the start of this thread you were painting most of the EU as evil, and the UK and Ireland as the brave exceptions. I hope you've learned a lesson.


 
The gloating part is referring to the fact that my initial fears were unfortunately confirmed. I said that the UK, Ireland and Sweden were the only countries that didn't have a law when the new countries entered the EU in 2004, but that I was afraid that they were going to approve such a law now that Romania and Bulgaria are to enter. I was right when it came to the UK and Ireland, wrong when it came to Sweden. Many doubted that Ireland and the UK would approve that law, they were obviously wrong. 

And by the way, I'm all for the EU! Never been against it, just a bit hurt by some things they've said and done. I've learned a lesson, maybe not the same you thought that I would learn. 

 robbie


----------



## Tolovaj_Mataj

robbie,

why I have a feeling you started to point out this problem of inequality among the EU citizens only now when two new coutries are joining? Did you rise your voice also two and a half years ago, when 10 countries joined and 8 of them were punished by limited right of work?

I live and I am a citizen of one of these eight countries. A tiny country. There are only 2 million residents. If all of us would try to move... lets say to France... nobody would even notice.  

But we have been punished as well because as they said they were afraid of us because we are too poor. Hmmm... if those numbers are correct, we suppose to have biggest GDP than Portugal. Or was it Greece?
Anyway. After May 2004 I could only go to Ireland, UK or Sweden of the old members plus 9 other new members and tried to find a job without asking for working visa. This May 2006 four old members freed their labour market: Portugal, Spain, Finland and Greece. So there are still other 8 old members who limite us the right of working anywhere in the EU without visa (Italy, Austria, Germany, Luxemburg, France, Belgium, Netherlands and Denmark). Italy only increased the number of available visas. France, Belgium and Luxemburg opened only some sectors. Austria, Germany and Denmark don't want even to think about.

But this didn't happened for the first time. At the time when Portugal and Spain joined the EU, their citizens were also limited in their right to work in the other EU members. And they survived.

And we will as well.

So, dear Robbie, stop crying. Nothing will change. 
You live in Sweden and you are a Swedish citizen belonging to the better group. I am a second class EU citizen. How do you think I feel? Maybe this is a very good reason why I don't even want to move abroad.


----------



## ireney

Tolovaj_Mataj  Greece was a second class country for ages too within the European Union and for the longest time for good reasons.  A good way for things like that NOT to caus grief would be for both sides to look things from the others perspective. Yes, "developed" countries should see how bad this sounds for people from new country-members. New country members should see why some countries feel they should take measures before a problem arises.


----------



## maxiogee

Hiya,

It is with deep regret that I must apologise to robbie who seems to have been closer to the truth than I was regarding workers from the candidate countries of Romania and Bulgaria. Whilst I am happy to make the apology, I regret that the facts are as they are.
The Irish Government has announced a decision - not a statute, mind, but a decision - thatv workers from these countries will need, for seven years after their countries join the EU, to apply for work permits in Ireland. This announcement was made moments after a similar one was made in England.

This saddens me, and is something I have difficulty in understanding a need for. Ireland has almost full employment - we can accommodate more people with ease and the arrival of a further labour force would likely attract more overseas investors who would employ them. We do not need to limit the numbers of arrivals from anywhere.
The only need I can see for this is if Britain asked us to implement it. They have concerns about immigration which we do not. They have a public which is more immigrant-aware than ours, and they have a greater unemployment problem than we. This would not be the first time that we have moulded our immigration policies to suit their's. We routinely ask non-white arrivals at our ports to show passports, but we don't require this of white people - they only have to state their nationality and they are admitted willy-nilly. This has been shown in the past to have been done at the request of the British Home Office.

So robbie, my sincere apologies!


----------



## robbie_SWE

Hi Tolovaj_Mataj! 

I really, honestly feel for you! I joined this forum in May of this year and my thoughts concerning the countries that joined the EU in 2004 were not so developed. You're completely right that we actually are in the same boat, in some way. The thing that made me angry (mind you, I never shed a tear just punched my fist on the table  ), was that the countries I admired for not approving restrictions in 2004, suddenly started having doubts. Today the only country that I admire is my own, in other words Sweden. I do nonetheless respect the decisions made by the UK and Ireland, but it still feels like it's political and economical bullying. 

Tolovaj_Mataj, another reason why I reacted to these two countries is because that I was born in one of them and still have a part of my family there. My cousin for example has a university degree in PR. Her dream is to experience life working abroad, France was one of her dreams. She is probably unable to do so now, and that's the thing that pisses me off! As a Swedish citizen I'm able to go wherever I please, meanwhile my cousin and to some extent you too are restrained. Were has the European dream/spirit gone?? We keep pushing each other away instead of helping each other. 

Best Regards, 

 robbie


----------



## robbie_SWE

maxiogee said:


> Hiya,
> 
> It is with deep regret that I must apologise to robbie who seems to have been closer to the truth than I was regarding workers from the candidate countries of Romania and Bulgaria. Whilst I am happy to make the apology, I regret that the facts are as they are.
> The Irish Government has announced a decision - not a statute, mind, but a decision - thatv workers from these countries will need, for seven years after their countries join the EU, to apply for work permits in Ireland. This announcement was made moments after a similar one was made in England.
> 
> This saddens me, and is something I have difficulty in understanding a need for. Ireland has almost full employment - we can accommodate more people with ease and the arrival of a further labour force would likely attract more overseas investors who would employ them. We do not need to limit the numbers of arrivals from anywhere.
> The only need I can see for this is if Britain asked us to implement it. They have concerns about immigration which we do not. They have a public which is more immigrant-aware than ours, and they have a greater unemployment problem than we. This would not be the first time that we have moulded our immigration policies to suit their's. We routinely ask non-white arrivals at our ports to show passports, but we don't require this of white people - they only have to state their nationality and they are admitted willy-nilly. This has been shown in the past to have been done at the request of the British Home Office.
> 
> So robbie, my sincere apologies!


 
Thanks Maxiogee, but there's no need for an apology. I suspected that the UK had something to do with it. 

 robbie


----------



## Tolovaj_Mataj

Robbie,
I knew you were somehow involved into this, but I didn't want to drag deeper.  

I do agree with your last post.

Ireney said we must look from both sides. I can add that there's also something positive in a negative.
The fact that almost nobody from the old countries want to come to the new countries causes national homogenity. It's so funny to listen to France complaining the french nation will die out because of the low birth rate and the higher birth rate of their immigrants, when on the other side they bane eastern Europeans to help them survive as they are close relatives by appearance, culture and religion.

Robbie, about your cousin. If her wish is really strong, she'll make it. It is not forbidden for her to look for a job in France, she only needs to find a convience a potential employer she is their best choice and then the employer will arrange all necessary paperology for her.


----------



## robbie_SWE

Tolovaj_Mataj said:


> Robbie,
> I knew you were somehow involved into this, but I didn't want to drag deeper.
> 
> I do agree with your last post.
> 
> Ireney said we must look from both sides. I can add that there's also something positive in a negative.
> The fact that almost nobody from the old countries want to come to the new countries causes national homogenity. It's so funny to listen to France complaining the french nation will die out because of the low birth rate and the higher birth rate of their immigrants, when on the other side they bane eastern Europeans to help them survive as they are close relatives by appearance, culture and religion.
> 
> Robbie, about your cousin. If her wish is really strong, she'll make it. It is not forbidden for her to look for a job in France, she only needs to find a convience a potential employer she is their best choice and then the employer will arrange all necessary paperology for her.


 
Thank you Tolovaj_Mataj! I wish you all the luck in the world! 

 robbie


----------



## distille

I understand that many countries of the Eu make regulations to prevent high numbers of workers from new member states to come. When the last 10 countries joined, UK, Ireland and Sweden didn't make regulations. Other did. If you look at it, those countries (France, Germany, Italy and so on) have a real problem with unemployement. 

 When there is a large discrepancy on wages for similar jobs between different countries, it seems logical to think that free circulation will not happen as quietly as between countries with (more or less) similar wages.


----------



## Tolovaj_Mataj

distille said:


> When there is a large discrepancy on wages for similar jobs between different countries, it seems logical to think that free circulation will not happen as quietly as between countries with (more or less) similar wages.


Well, but where the wages are high also the costs of living are high, so basically you don't gain much. Only if that is a border region: you work where the wages are high and live across the border where the living costs are lower. Maybe this is a reason why we can't make any aggreements with Italy and Austria no matter how hard our politicians try.


----------

