European Politics Thread.

[xawery 0]

We already have many poles coming all over the richer EU countries looking for jobs.

And that's a bad thing? They're doing all the shitty jobs the Dutch refuse to do, and they've been doing it for decades. Furthermore, the vast majority has no desire to settle in the Netherlands.

[Necromancer- 0]

And that's a bad thing? They're doing all the shitty jobs the Dutch refuse to do, and they've been doing it for decades. Furthermore, the vast majority has no desire to settle in the Netherlands.

Not if it's just the Poles (no racial offense what so ever)... Neither am I implying about permanent settlement as a factor of my argument.

There is a danger that the entire Labor labor market could get overwhelmed by cheap labors from Romania and Bulgaria.

[EiZei 0]

And that's a bad thing? They're doing all the shitty jobs the Dutch refuse to do, and they've been doing it for decades. Furthermore, the vast majority has no desire to settle in the Netherlands.

Not if it's just the Poles (no racial offense what so ever)... Neither am I implying about permanent settlement as a factor of my argument.

There is a danger that the entire Labor labor market could get overwhelmed by cheap labors from Romania and Bulgaria.

I doubt a country with 22mil population could overwhelm all those big rich EU countries.

[GoOB 0]

They're doing all the shitty jobs the Dutch refuse to do, and they've been doing it for decades.

And that's a good thing? They work their asses of here in Sweden, get no social benefits whatsovever, get used for almost non-existing paychecks and have unstable employment contracts. (all of this assuming they are not working legally and paying income tax) I don't really care how it effects the economy, what I do care about is that the Poles get shittier deals than the Swedes doing the same kind of work.

[denoir 0]

Also, am I the only one who finds a yugoslavia-shaped hole in the map of the EU somewhat amusing?

Slovenia is already in - they actually introduced the euro this year. AFIK they are doing quite well - they're economically better off than a few of the EU15 countries and the richest of the EU+10 bunch.

Croatia, that is doing economically better than say Poland and several other EU25 and much better than Romania and Bulgaria, will probably join 2009 or 2010 barring that they don't join the Swiss and Norwegian teams and stay out. IIRC they were one of the most euro-sceptic countries in Europe.

Bosnia & Herzegovina as well as Serbia have a long way to go as they are economically broken and not entirely politically stable. My guess would be somewhere between 2015-2025.

Macedonia is even poorer and you can count on the Greeks making trouble. Macedonia is however an official candidate - although in their case membership talks won't be completed for at least a decade.

Monte Negro is small enough to be able to do a fairly rapid transformation. I'd guess 2015 perhaps.

It might take some time, but I'm pretty much sure that all of former Yugoslavia will join within the next say 20 years. There are some primarily political obstacles and there are economic obstacles (although not much greater than in the case of Bulgaria). Still, there is no real cultural obstacle like with Turkey for instance.

Goob:

Quote[/b] ]

They work their asses of here in Sweden, get no social benefits whatsovever, get used for almost non-existing paychecks and have unstable employment contracts. (all of this assuming they are not working legally and paying income tax) I don't really care how it effects the economy, what I do care about is that the Poles get shittier deals than the Swedes doing the same kind of work.

That is a load of propaganda that we have been fed by the Swedish unions that fear the erosion of their power.

I recommend you to read "Den polske rörmokaren" article series in DN that explores the topic. (Note the articles in the series are listed in reverse order). Start with "Våldnaden från öst".

[Baff1 0]

And that's a bad thing? They're doing all the shitty jobs the Dutch refuse to do, and they've been doing it for decades. Furthermore, the vast majority has no desire to settle in the Netherlands.

Not if it's just the Poles (no racial offense what so ever)... Neither am I implying about permanent settlement as a factor of my argument.

There is a danger that the entire Labor labor market could get overwhelmed by cheap labors from Romania and Bulgaria.

I doubt a country with 22mil population could overwhelm all those big rich EU countries.

All those big rich countries were overpopulated to start with.

How many does it take to tip a balance? Just one.

Immigration brings a whole host of problems from integration to infrastructure. The roads are already jammed, the housing already in short supply, the water reservoirs already undersupporting their maximum populations. The electricity generators maxxed. Unemployement already high.

At no time in the history of my country has immigration ever been at this level. 1/2 a million a year. (Almost 2% population growth a year).

The nearest equivalent being the Saxon invasion, which divided the country in two and sparked a series of civil wars.

Our society has spent the last 20 years practising birth control and green ecology to minimise polution and reduce the strains on society and the enviroment that too large a population has brought.

In one year alone all this effort has been thrown out the window.

[EiZei 0]

Immigration brings a whole host of problems from integration to infrastructure. The roads are already jammed, the housing already in short supply, the water reservoirs already undersupporting their maximum populations. The electricity generators maxxed.

Surely that infrastructure didnt just grow out of the ground one day? If it is'nt enough you build more, it's that simple.

Quote[/b] ]

Unemployement already high.

Since when the amount of jobs was a fixed number?

Quote[/b] ]

At no time in the history of my country has immigration ever been at this level. 1/2 a million a year. (Almost 2% population growth a year).

You could have said the same thing for hundreds of years now. What makes this point of time in particular different?

[xawery 0]

They're doing all the shitty jobs the Dutch refuse to do, and they've been doing it for decades.

And that's a good thing? They work their asses of here in Sweden, get no social benefits whatsovever, get used for almost non-existing paychecks and have unstable employment contracts. (all of this assuming they are not working legally and paying income tax) I don't really care how it effects the economy, what I do care about is that the Poles get shittier deals than the Swedes doing the same kind of work.

Even if they make less money than the 'natives', it's still much more than what they would make back home, which is nothing or very little. As Denoir said, your reasononing is the oldest trick in the unions' book. "We can't say outright that we don't want them here just because they endanger our vested interests... Hmm... I know! Let's just say we couldn't possibly stand by and watch them toil away for little money. Yes, that's sounds better. We must thus forbid foreign labour! ...for their own good."

[PainDealer 0]

And that's a bad thing? They're doing all the shitty jobs the Dutch refuse to do, and they've been doing it for decades. Furthermore, the vast majority has no desire to settle in the Netherlands.

Not if it's just the Poles (no racial offense what so ever)... Neither am I implying about permanent settlement as a factor of my argument.

There is a danger that the entire Labor labor market could get overwhelmed by cheap labors from Romania and Bulgaria.

I doubt a country with 22mil population could overwhelm all those big rich EU countries.

All those big rich countries were overpopulated to start with.

How many does it take to tip a balance? Just one.

Immigration brings a whole host of problems from integration to infrastructure. The roads are already jammed, the housing already in short supply, the water reservoirs already undersupporting their maximum populations. The electricity generators maxxed. Unemployement already high.

At no time in the history of my country has immigration ever been at this level. 1/2 a million a year. (Almost 2% population growth a year).

The nearest equivalent being the Saxon invasion, which divided the country in two and sparked a series of civil wars.

Our society has spent the last 20 years practising birth control and green ecology to minimise polution and reduce the strains on society and the enviroment that too large a population has brought.

In one year alone all this effort has been thrown out the window.

I hear ya!

@EiZei: of course the amount of jobs isn't a fixed number. if you haven't noticed we have a decreasing amount. Salo, the "Silicon Valley of Finland" is letting everything go. all factories that could still run and make profit are being shut down. paper mills are being shut down everywhere. Stora Enso Kotka mill shut down #2, Summa mill won't last another year, UPM Voikkaa went down in flames... two areas in Finland are in serious need of workers. medicals and the police force. still no one gets hired to those cos there's no money (they say). pure bs. still every year we pay millions to the EU and get nothing in return.

[EiZei 0]

@EiZei: of course the amount of jobs isn't a fixed number. if you haven't noticed we have a decreasing amount. Salo, the "Silicon Valley of Finland" is letting everything go. all factories that could still run and make profit are being shut down. paper mills are being shut down everywhere. Stora Enso Kotka mill shut down #2, Summa mill won't last another year, UPM Voikkaa went down in flames... two areas in Finland are in serious need of workers. medicals and the police force. still no one gets hired to those cos there's no money (they say). pure bs.

Is this purely anecdotal or do you actually have any real hard numbers? According to the Statistics Finland there were 54000 more people employed compared to last year.

Quote[/b] ]

still every year we pay millions to the EU and get nothing in return.

It was not THAT long time ago we were getting net gain from the EU.

[PainDealer 0]

I have to admit that I don't believe in statistics but I have to ask how many of those 54000 have a real job that is in any way related to their training? and how many of them are full time?

[EiZei 0]

I have to admit that I don't believe in statistics but I have to ask how many of those 54000 have a real job that is in any way related to their training? and how many of them are full time?

Damned if I know, maybe it's you who ought to prove that things are getting worse somehow.

And I also fail to see what immigration has to do with the fact that were moving beyond industrialization.

[PainDealer 0]

I have to admit that I don't believe in statistics but I have to ask how many of those 54000 have a real job that is in any way related to their training? and how many of them are full time?

Damned if I know, maybe it's you who ought to prove that things are getting worse somehow.

it's just that the statistics don't always tell the whole truth numbers might sound cool if you don't know what's behind them. to tell the truth, I don't know what's behind them cos they refuse to tell us in detail.

[EiZei 0]

I have to admit that I don't believe in statistics but I have to ask how many of those 54000 have a real job that is in any way related to their training? and how many of them are full time?

Damned if I know, maybe it's you who ought to prove that things are getting worse somehow.

it's just that the statistics don't always tell the whole truth numbers might sound cool if you don't know what's behind them. to tell the truth, I don't know what's behind them cos they refuse to tell us in detail.

I'd say it's still a lot more reliable indicator than individual subjective experiences. And what makes you think they "refuse" to tell? The methodology is actually quite strict and based on laws, standards and directives. It's not like they can just slap some number together and expect every labour organization, EU, financial institutions etc. to swallow them without having any idea how they are compiled.

[PainDealer 0]

And what makes you think they "refuse" to tell?

cos there are many things that had been kept secret until someone who cared dug 'em up?

[EiZei 0]

And what makes you think they "refuse" to tell?

cos there are many things that had been kept secret until someone who cared dug 'em up?

Care to elaborate? What kind of things are kept secret when it comes to unemployment statistics?

[PainDealer 0]

And what makes you think they "refuse" to tell?

cos there are many things that had been kept secret until someone who cared dug 'em up?

Care to elaborate? What kind of things are kept secret when it comes to unemployment statistics?

I didn't point to unemployment statistics. just wanted to say that seeing the way our government hides some things and ignores people's opinions gives me enough reason to doubt nearly everything they say. hiding things that might raise a general fuzz among the crowd is how they try to keep everything cool. it's like sweeping all the dust under the carpet and

[fardwark 0]

[Donnervogel 0]

@PainDealer

What you are describing is not an indication of a failing economy. Actually it is a very positive sign. What your economy is undergoing from your description is what it need to stay healthy. It's called structural change. And guess what, you are not the only country that faces this "problem" and some countries had it already in the past. In some cases it was a terrible thing for the people affected because the government foolishly tried to keep those industries alive for too long even though there was no hope of it ever doing profits and it just swallowed a lot of money. See the German and English coal industry as an example for this. Especially in England it was a terrible time when Tatcher "closed down" the national coal industries. That is an example of what comes if you don't react in time.

On the positive side, by investing in structural change those regions now have very solid economies, sometimes even the leading economies in the country.

Of course it's hard for the workers to not be able to do the job that they were trained for. And after working 20 years in a coal mine not everyone can manage to do the necessary change and education to find a new job that is totally unrelated. But the majority can do it and although it not as good for them as it once was it is good enough to lead a decent life. And the next generation won't face this problem anymore. Because they won't get trained as coal miners anymore but rather find some job in the the new industries or service jobs. Besides. The era for most industries in Europe is coming to an end. We simply can't compete with worldwide competition in low-skill industries that rely on many people. Because the social security payments alone are more than the wages for those workers in other countries. There's no way we can compete with them and they are catching up in technology so what is high tech today may become low-tech in 5 years...

[PainDealer 0]

In some cases it was a terrible thing for the people affected because the government foolishly tried to keep those industries alive for too long even though there was no hope of it ever doing profits and it just swallowed a lot of money.

I'm talking about industries that are actually making profit. shut down the mill, build five new mills in China. that's how the companies fuck their workers straight up in the ass (I apologize for the harsh expression but unfortunately that's how it is). they just move the production somewhere else to avoid taxes and expensive professionals. skilled workers aren't just valued anymore and it's sorta sad.

and now that I remember my original intention was to point out that people should first take care of their own problems before taking in other people's problems. and now we're back to immigration

[Donnervogel 0]

I'm talking about industries that are actually making profit. shut down the mill, build five new mills in China.

you do realise that you just contradicted yourself?

Why do they move it to china? Because it's cheaper there. Now think one step ahead. Let's say paper mill A stays in Finland, pays 2500 € for it's employees (I have no idea about the real wages). It pays let's say a fictional amount of 5000€ to distribute a truckload of paper in Europe trough it's local freight company.

Now paper mill B goes to china. It has huge investments to build a new plant there. OK so they are in debt. But they can build almost the same quality of paper there. They have to pay 10 € of wages for an employee. Knowing that they build a bigger plant that they ever would have in Finland. They hire a lot more Employees. Let's say twice the number. Since they also got more modern machinery they can produce paper more efficently. Their producing costs per unit of paper are hence lower. Now they hire an international freight company to get the stuff to to any place in Europe. This costs them maybe a fictional 3000€ per truckload.

So what have we got. Cheaper wages, cheaper production, (cheaper resources), cheaper transportation, higher supply.

Which paper mill do you think will sell it's paper better to customers in Europe? And what do you think paper mill A would look like in 5 years assuming that it gets no government subsidies.

[xawery 0]

@Paindealer:

That's a legitimate concern, which is why statistical research pertaining to government policy is conducted by quango's, which in turn are supervised by independant commissions to safeguard impartiality. Part of these safeguards is the full disclosure of methodology. If you want to find out how things are being calculated, you need only to visit the website of Statistics Finland. As it happens, Statistics Finland was the first European statistical organisation to grant public access to its figures via the internet (in 1995! ).

Incidentally, I can strengthen my argument with personal experience. My MSc thesis involves a lot of statistical analysis. Various European and non-European countries make up my research sample, and I must say that the Finnish governmental bodies keep the best, most easily accessible statistical records. Of course, from a statistical point of view, this is an isolated and negligable experience

Oh, and if you're wondering what you gain from EU membership, reliable statistics are exactly that: the EU imposes strict rules and standards with regard to disclosure and statistical analysis. Rejecting statistics simply because they do not coincide with your opinion is uncalled for.

Having established that statistical figures can and should be trusted, let's return to the topic at hand.

Let's not forget that economic migration isn't limited to low-skilled labour. Polish nurses are in demand with Dutch retirement homes, because the number of Dutch citizens willing to take care of the elderly is dwindling. Many Polish dentists open clinics in Sweden because they can offer the same quality for a much lower price. Is this bad? For the incumbants, perhaps, but not for the general public. They receive the care they demand at more favourable rates.

Unfortunately, the professional lobbies have a much louder voice than the consumers. They realise that their comfortable position is at stake and raise a ruckus. Most politicians are more than happy to pamper to their demands out of some misguided economic patriotism (Italy and France being the most obvious culprits). This only helps to feed the myopic anti-globalisation sentiment. "Oh noes, the free market is endangering our vested interests with its foul competition! ZOMG!!11!" Of course, everybody carefully ignores the fact that it's the EU with its free market policies which has opened up new markets for our Western European companies to peddle their products on. A clear case of hypocrisy and wanting the gains without the burdens.

Another good example of such protectionism is ABN Amro's battle for Antonveneta. The head of the Italian central bank did all he could to prevent ABN Amro from entering the Italian banking sector, again out of some xenophobic sentiment. It was truly sad to see that the government, supposedly acting in the interest of the general public, supported his line of action. The fact that an Italian consumer was paying five times us much as a Dutch one for a simple paying account due to the stagnant and inefficient nature of Italian banks was carefully kept secret from the general public. Thankfully, the European Commission intervened, Fazio withdrew, and the merger went ahead.

What is the moral of this story? Protectionism, whatever its guise, is harmful to the economy and the public. Its only beneficiaries are industries with vested interests.

[PainDealer 0]

I'm talking about industries that are actually making profit. shut down the mill, build five new mills in China.

you do realise that you just contradicted yourself?

of course. but like I said I don't understand why they have to shut down the mills that are already making profit. they can build new mills around the world but why in earth should they shut down the old one's that still make profit too bad I don't get it. otherwise I might be a ripoff capitalist.

[Donnervogel 0]

I'm talking about industries that are actually making profit. shut down the mill, build five new mills in China.

you do realise that you just contradicted yourself?

of course. but like I said I don't understand why they have to shut down the mills that are already making profit. they can build new mills around the world but why in earth should they shut down the old one's that still make profit too bad I don't get it. otherwise I might be a ripoff capitalist.

because those paper mills are not going to make profits once the cheaper ones come into the market. It's partly greedy capitalism by the responsible ones but unwillingly it's also preventing the worse situation that arises when you do not close them down in time as described in an earlier post.

[scary 0]

All those big rich countries were overpopulated to start with.

How many does it take to tip a balance? Just one.

Immigration brings a whole host of problems from integration to infrastructure. The roads are already jammed, the housing already in short supply, the water reservoirs already undersupporting their maximum populations. The electricity generators maxxed.

None of which have anything to do with immigration. In fact, these are mostly only an issue in the South East and the London commuter belt.

The roads are jammed because of a lack of investment in public transport, especially rail, in the 80s; hugely increased car ownership; the typical car has five seats but an average of 1.6 occupants; in most urban areas the streets were designed for pedestrians and the occasional horse/mule/cow - they are simply not capable of accommodating two lanes of traffic and on-street parking; Mummy insists on driving Jocinta and Tarquin to school in her Chelsea tractor instead of making the lazy twunts walk/cycle/get the bus.

Reservoirs are drying up because of lack of investment in infrastructure in the 80s (again), resulting in much leakage; increased urbanisation and drainage into waterways reduces ground-soak resulting in the aquifers not being topped up; climate change - the wet stuff falling from the sky is notable by its absence.

The current batch of generators are reaching the end of their service life. Degradation is the issue, not capacity.

Lack of housing is the result of over-inflated property prices caused by the internal migration to the South East. That internal migration also compounds the other problems. More people live in London than live in Scotland and Wales combined, by the end of the decade it may well be possible to add Northern Ireland to that. York isn't suffering from a water shortage and the M1 is rarely jammed.

Quote[/b] ]Unemployment already high.

Britain has one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the world and is currently around the lowest it has ever been. Most of those that are unemployed are not seeking employment - full-time carers, the medically unfit, etc. Moving away from a manual workforce seems to be resulting in a lot of people with back pain and living in a peaceful, affluent democracy is causing many to suffer from stress - there is definitely not a malingerer among them.

At any one time there are around a million job vacancies in the UK, if there were no jobs for immigrants to come to they wouldn't bother.

Quote[/b] ]At no time in the history of my country has immigration ever been at this level. 1/2 a million a year. (Almost 2% population growth a year).

The nearest equivalent being the Saxon invasion, which divided the country in two and sparked a series of civil wars.

That figure completely disregards those emigrating from the country. The more important thing is the comparative demographics of those entering the country and those leaving - both are of great financial benefit to the UK.

I'm not sure how you concluded that Britain has never had a higher level of immigration than this. The only natives of this isle are the Welsh and the Cornish, everyone else is of immigrant descent, and I highly doubt there are any Welsh and Cornish left that haven't had their native blood heavily diluted. The British are the mongrel population of Europe.

I assume when you mention the Saxon invasion dividing the country in two you refer to Danelaw and Wessex?

If you do that was the Vikings ~400 years after the Saxons, and it eventually brought a comparative period of peace to the region. Prior to that, post-Roman Southern Britain was divided into the various guises of the Heptarchy and spent most of its time in a perpetual state of war. Without the creation of the Danelaw it is unlikely Edward the Eldar would have been able to establish the Kingdom of England. The North/South divide still exists to some extent today and I would draw it roughly along the old Danelaw/Wessex border.

Quote[/b] ]Our society has spent the last 20 years practising birth control and green ecology to minimise polution and reduce the strains on society and the enviroment that too large a population has brought.

In one year alone all this effort has been thrown out the window.

Two World Wars are what kept the UK population in check, Governments like births to maintain a workforce large enough to support an ageing population. The immediate financial wellbeing of the country will always be put before the long-term physical wellbeing: the former gets a party re-elected, the latter gets them abandoned.

Immigration is only an issue because the tabloid press makes it one. Personally I'd prefer it if Rupert Murdoch kept his nose out of the running of this country.