text:
"Despite the betrayals of the past (Yalta, Katyń)"
Sikorski should know that Britain and France went to war with Germany, because Germany invaded Poland. It astonished Hitler that Britain would go to war just for Poland and certainly did not expect it. Sikorski doesn't seem to be aware of that.
"Despite the betrayals of the past (Yalta, Katyń)" - Sikorski.
Extraordinary statement, isn't it?
This is also the sort of desperately revisionist ignorance also submitted here by Forlana and similar east European pro-"EU" hoorays on this thread, to justify their "EU" subsidies.
It is also the blackmail strategy that had been and still is used by the net benficiary states of Europe effectively against the Germans for their invasion of and behaviour in Poland (France, Belgium etc etc you name it) to assure financial support via the "EU".
The average Brit finds this monstrous, naturally.
Forlana (who is anti-UK and pro-German as regards her "EU") actually wrote something in the following sense on this thread. I paraphrase: "are we supposed the follow the 'London model' (for the "EU" - and I presume she means the'free trade only' one) or the German one"?
Apart from the extreme crassness of comparing one nation (pro-"EUrope" guilt-brainwashed Germany) with one like the UK (a nation that obviously wants as little to do with her wonderful "EU" as possible), the hundreds of thousands of Poles and other eastern Europeans in the UK claiming welfare benefits certainly don't seem to mind UK welfare or the absurd net contributions to the "EU" budget that the UK is required to find for Poland etc.
The result of course is that her wonderful "EU" has done nothing but poison international relations in Europe, quite the opposite of the stated intention of this self-serving organisation.
Where there used to be sympathy in Britain towards those from the "eastern bloc" of the continent there is now hostility, thanks entirely to this imaginary union.
> "Despite the betrayals of the past (Yalta, Katyń)"
> Sikorski should know that Britain and France went to war with
> Germany, because Germany invaded Poland. It astonished Hitler that
> Britain would go to war just for Poland and certainly did not
> expect it. Sikorski doesn't seem to be aware of that.
Oh please, this is your knowledge of history?
So well, this is true, Britain started the war (at sea) in 1939 (France claimed the same but their "strange war" without any real activity doesn't matter) and I am somewhat surprised by the quoted response by Sikorski. But please, stop pretending it was simply due to keeping the pacts. After British betrayal of Czechoslovakia GB knew that this war would need to start pretty soon.
But Yalta and Katyń? These are the obvious British betrayals and either quit your denial or simply educate yourself.
In case of Katyń Churchill was well aware about the crimes committed by Soviet regime and further murders yet to come if Poland is left alone - but Brits chose to activily deny the truth in order to get friends with Soviets.
The same was done in Yalta, where half of Europe was given to Soviets on a silver plate due to far-to-old Roosevelt and far-to-weak Churchill. Fortunatelly for the continent, in Potsdam US had a new leader with a new card - nuclear weapon - which saved some parts of the continent from the grim perspective (Austria, Finland?). But for Poland, Czechs, Hungarians etc. it was too late.
Of course these were only two in a long series of hostile actions of British Government. Let's only mention only stopped recognition of the legal Polish government-in-exile or the lack of Polish military in the British victory parade and expressed unwillingness to keep Polish immigrants in England (many of them were welcomed in Scotland, thank you, it's remembered). Moreover, Britain is STILL unwilling to finally show many classified documents from WWII. I don't think they would paint a nice picture of British "Empire", would they.
To the list of horrible British betrayals don't forget to add couple of millions displaced Russians who were forcibly returned from Western Europe to Stalin - and consequently murdered, of course.
Britain was only full well aware that a lot of them have even never been Soviet citizens (whole kozak regiments in Austria, among others), and even mass suicides committed by whole families didn't stop the extraditions. (Victims of Yalta by Nikolai Tolstoy. 1977).
"The average Brit finds this monstrous, naturally."
The "average" Brit believes in Yeti, psychic powers or tabloid journalism as it is an undereducated, fry-making chap fed by as lecturing media as "the Sun", "the Daily Mirror" and TV&radio for "sex and violence classes".
Yet you haven't even given any reference for your claim so please, find some better argumentation.
"anti-UK", "as littile to do as possible"
Have you consulted your besieged tower attitude with anyone?
I'd like to remind you that your country ceased to be a real power some 100-50 years ago.
Now it commands a strong budget deficit, diluted Pound (quantitative easining, they called it), cuts in expenses and dim perspectives.
What is more, maybe you've omitted the fact that due to the terms negotiated by Ms. Thatcher Britain did not really put much into the potluck.
However, the terms need to be constantly adapting to the world. If you think that GB alone has strong chances with competition with China, India, unified Europe and U.S. than please provide us how you think it happens. :)
And regarding your hostility against other nations - nice you have expressed your nationalism. I am curious, how do you feel in, say, Luton? :)
Aegis Maelstrom - your historical accuracy is clouded by your anti-British attitude. If you furnish us with your nationality/residence, then we might be able to see where your problems arise and maybe provide you with some help. At least it will level the playing field a bit.
"I'd like to remind you that your country ceased to be a real power some 100-50 years ago .... I am curious, how do you feel in, say, Luton? :)"
I am sorry, is this supposed to be an enticement to be more committed to the "EU" which has seen to the progressive decline of the European nation states' respective shares in world trade?
Whatever the UK's real defects may be (there are plenty - and ours to sort out), you cannot create a "union" by coercion with such absurd propaganda. Leaving the "EU" dictatorship would certainly help the UK.
"I'd like to remind you that your country ceased to be a real power some 100-50 years ago."
Your point is?
"regarding your hostility against other nations - nice you have expressed your nationalism. I am curious, how do you feel in, say, Luton? "
You've lost me: I pointed out that the *"EU"* was encouraging hostility towards "other nations".
The UK has not yet reached the extremes we have witnessed in The Netherlands, another traditionally tolerant democracy, with eastern European guest workers being fire-bombed and hounded out of the country, extremist behaviour - entirely the fault of "EU" policy.
As for Sikorski's statement about Katyn and Yalta - this has as much to do with the unpopularity of the UK's membership of the "EU" as your odd comment as "your country ceased to be a real power some 100-50 years ago".
You really will have to find better "EU" propaganda than this.
It is a cold fact that the "EU" has poisoned international relations in Europe in its attempts to coerce a "union".
You would probably term any individuals who are concerned about and object to this, and who prefer the sovereignty of enabling them to hold their own parliaments to account, as "nationalists" or a "demogogues" - straight out of the little blue book of tinpot dictators like Borossa who want to remove democracy as an obstruction to their unworkable dictatorship by their unaccountable organisation.
Look at the evidence "A Maelstrom", (an ironic choice of moniker given the growing unrest engendered by the "EU"), before hurling abuse at the concept of the nation state, which is what I assume you were trying to formulate with the irrelevance of your appraisal of one of them.
"your historical accuracy is clouded by your anti-British attitude. If you furnish us with your nationality/residence, then we might be able to see where your problems arise and maybe provide you with some help"
I am not sure if that is a wise path. You may notice that many of these pro-"EU" fanatics seem to be obsessed with promoting their own nationalities and those of others which always seemed a bit contradictory for these "EU"-hoorays who propose the abolition of the soveriegn nation state:)
I appreciate what you mean by "at least it will level the playing field a bit", but don't be surprised if objectivity takes a nosedive once the discourse explores the nationality of one such as "Aegis Maelstrom"!
(Just a hunch: since the thread concerns Poland .... something to do with squealing for subsidies?)
Aegis Maelstrom is Polish. Guess he must have some hang-ups or shoulder chips. Anyway, many Poles were welcomed in the UK after the war. I know several worked in the N Skelton mines where my ancestors worked and were welcomed there. But the Poles had some trouble adapting to life here - I think it was due to their traditional conservative Catholic background. I once met a Polish girl in Bradford, where many Poles settled and her father refused to even shake my hand when I was introduced to him at a Polish club - I will never forget that - she said it was his prejudice against the UK even though he'd been there for years. Anyway, to get back to Sikorski, I agree with your point about so many Poles now in the UK for employment and benefits - the UK and Ireland were virtually the only countries that welcomed them when they entered the EU in 2004 and up to 2 million settled here and may stay for good. So Aegis Maelstrom's emphasis on Katyn and Yalta, without even mentioning the start of WW2 and recent emgration does show starkly that a serious blurring chip does exist, for whatever reason.
What is most interesting to me is the Balkans style holding of grudges for events that happened so long ago.
Still living in the past. The cult of "victimhood" will ultimately do more damage to them than anybody else.
"Aegis Maelstrom - your historical accuracy is clouded by your anti-British attitude."
Oh my! The facts are anti-British? Bad, bad facts, we all should fall into denial and live happily ever after in some Neverland...
Well, sorry for ruining your party but there is one problem - this magazine is called "the Economist", not "the Delusionist".
Let's stick to the facts as one Briton said, an acre in Middlesex is better than a principality in Utopia... =)
I came across some Poles also in Germany: they were bitching about them too, yet here they are preaching some lovely cuddly "EU" family, receiving lots of subsidiarinojsk yet hating our guts.
And all these weird, irrelevant reference to the days of the British Empire as if it were yesterday! It is hardly a surprise to me now, that one Polish blogger here even took exception to my having mentioned in passing that the ancient common homeland for the Slavs (North, South, East and West) was on the borders of White Russia (Byelorus) and Ukraine, in the Pripet Marshes.
Perhaps the Poles are so punch-drunk through their position in history that they are unable to recognize "friend or foe"?
Jom33's comment above has echoes what I have heard in England: "the UK and Ireland were virtually the only countries that welcomed them when they entered the EU in 2004 and up to 2 million settled here and may stay for good". That's gratitude for you.
Yet here they are either throwing mud at British posters who want nothing to do do with the "EU" - or throwing mud at them as a way of saying "thank you" for all the handouts.
Weird crew,eh?
Balkan, Catholic, Slav - I have no idea what produces this mentality, but it does seem to be preoccupied with their version of the past.
Meanwhile we have to look to the future - towards a friendly trading relationship with the continent without crazed continental ideology of all extreme persuasions, and no "EU".
Birtnick. I travelled around Poland in 1973 at the height of its communist past. It was surprising how many girls were willing to sell themselves in exchange for a pair of genuine Levis. Not that I took advantage of it. My jeans were cheap ones and they weren't interested in them.
How civil of you, Jom33! This is what they call a colonial mentality and I didn't need to go to a museum to see it!
Next time we talk about United Kingdon, everybody describes their experiences with British prostitutes (and how they needed to avoid them as they were awful).
Sikorski failed to mention the obscene trade done (and initiated) by Churchill with Stalin in Moscow when the whole E and SE Europe were divided between UK and Russia.
Churchill insolently mentions it in his memoirs.
The deal was consecrated in Yalta two years later.
Birtnick. Birtnick! Don't disappoint, please :( Lying is not permitted even in my cathlic-facist-slavo-balkan-authoritarian mindset. I thought in your enlightened democratic mind the more so... We will gave to part now :) You are now sherryberryzied :))
"Churchill insolently mentions it in his memoirs."
That is a very narrow-minded assertion. Churchill knew full well he was making a pact with the devil to fight fire with fire with no American help available at that time. He acknowledged this in "History of the English Speaking Peoples" and elsewhere, and was totured by the memory for the rest of his life.
Have any of you "eternally victimised" East Europeans ever paused to think what would have happend to the Slavic populations of Eastern Europe if Churchill had not supplied and supported the Red Army? Have you ever thought about the British lives sacrificed on the Murmansk convoys? Some of you will hold Britain repsonsible for the murders in Katyn forest and the Jewish populations next (maybe not the latter group since you don't seem to like those much even now).
What depths of propaganda will the eurobot sink to next?
"due to far-to-old Roosevelt and far-to-weak Churchill."
Roosevelt was only 63 years at Yalta. Churchill was not weak, he still had an Empire.
The hard cold facts was that Soviet troops had conquered half of Europe at Yalta and was already under Stalin's control. Nothing was given to Stalin, he already had eastern Europe at Yalta.
Forlana Oct 1st, 07:06
"Don't disappoint, please" etc.
Catholics are reared to deceive themselves. That explains much of why this culture have fallen willing prey to a Brussels dogma that plainly will not work no matter how Brussels tries to dictate it by subverting the democratic process or inventing a synthetic currency.
Brussels is popular with Poles because it provides the means to extract taxed wealth from member states to redistribute throughout this fictitious "family" of nations with little in common, and without democratic accountability, making itself and the other nations deeply unloved in the process.
Both from catholic cultures, you and your chum PP (an empty-headed bore who I doubt ever had a thought of his own in his entire life and is troubled by very personal issues in England according to his repetitive facebooking - probably explaining his constant boorish personal observations about posters) even hurl abuse at those who will not go along with the self-deception that rears you people.
That is why Catholics always make good fascists (especially when paid), perfectly suited to the purposes of your regressive "EU". It is no coincidence that modern democracy never grew deep roots in catholic countries.
It's pathetic for Mr. Sikorski to trot out the old tired drivel about Katyn and Yalta "betrayals". In case he, or Aegis Maelstrom, hadn't noticed, the Soviets had already created facts on the ground. It is naive in the extreme to suggest that Britain could have changed something at that stage... Poland may as well have tried to do it. Similarly, in 1939, Britain had quite a job thinking of defending itself. Poland wasn't really a priority. Poland has a great propensity to portray itself as the victim betrayed by literally everybody around, a "messiah of nations". Why didn't it think of preparing and defending itself rather than winging and balming everybody else.
'trot out', 'drivel', 'in the extreme', 'quite a job', 'propensity'
Footprints and fingerprints everywhere, oh couragious "Don Matteo", this time with Latin-sounding name, why not some -ski ending again? Don Matteo who is not totally un-aware of some of Polish long past literary tradition --->'Messiah of nations", thus does indeed know something about Poland. Unfortunately totally lacks the spine to say what he really thinks under usual nick. Such a deficiency of character.
TE blogs are real fun!
As to the point - Poland was betrayed, in addition to being attacked by three enemies at the time, Germany, Soviet Russia and Slovakia.
Last time Soviet Russia tried it alone, it failed misereably. Slovakia was a joke. It is not clear if Germany on her own would succeed, as Poland was not unprepared for war,in spite of Nazi German propaganda lingering in the minds of some to this day. What is most important Poland stood for agreed time - two weeks, to let the allies invade Germany from the west. What actually happened we all do know.
And no mole's work under new nick on the TE blog in 21 century will ever have a chance to change that, my dear chickenschit.
I admit I have to habit of klicking on my favorite posters's (of which you are one) nicks to see how (and what;-)) they are doing.
And I very much hope you don't think I'm behind this Don Matteo fellow. I found some of the characteristics you attribute to him fit my profile ("does indeed know something about Poland") - of course only the good ones... . But I disagree with what he says.
Na razie.
I too used to have several commentators in my little "TE" folder,long time ago. Unfortunately it is becoming very thin, as most informative/entertaining have left. And some have changed- like you who have devoted himself totally to explaining Joe Milovan why he's on the road to Inferno's eighth circle. So I too Klick on this folder much more rarely. Boring learning from few actual economists - that's all what is now left from the once glorious The Economist.
Your absence is very good for the Economist.
It can surely do without naval gazing types who think the whole world sits and rises on their part of the world.
Not to mention their astonishing ignorance about the world outside of CE which causes them to live in a world of self serving stereotypes and cliches.
Albright gave a brilliant snapshot of the CE character - they go on massive shopping sprees as soon as they land on American soil while disparaging "American materialism". They seem to be very blind to their own faults.
Talking about lying, the biggest lie we ever heard was from you insisting that Poland was keeping its military spending requirement under Nato while Poland spends less than the 2% Nato requirement. Once again your blind spot towards your own lying ways is amazing is it not?
@ Forlana (1):
Forlana, seriously: You deplore that we have regressed – and in your despair you've turned to ... Birtnick? Now, that's an - ehem – inte-RE-sting (as NBC's Brian Williams would pronounce it) choice.
But yes, we aren't what we used to be. But that has mostly to do with the new layout, I would argue, which has compartmentalized the debate to the degree of stifling it, and thus killed the dynamic. So I simply scan the monickers in my little folder and reply to the most thought-provoking and/or provocative comments. And those are almost always Joe's, because he's reliably over the top, and because most of the rest of you guys are in hibernation or off to discuss the history of the Dnjepr swamps. Your Dante comparison is grossly exaggerated, though. I'm just having fun paying like with like. It's "l'art pour l'art" - enjoying the debate for debate's sake.
@ Forlana (2):
Speaking of Joe:
There's a guy from Trieste who has climbed the cupola of Saint Peter's with an anti-austerity banner yesterday, and who has so far refused to surrender himself to the Vatican's authorities. Vatican/Trieste/anti austerity/neckbreakingly stubborn: I have an inkling who that could be LOL:
Anyhow, the reason for my intervention here was to underline I'm N-O-T Don Matteo, about whom you've all these nice words to say. Ciao, ciao.
"Albright gave a brilliant snapshot of the CE character - they go on massive shopping sprees as soon as they land on American soil while disparaging 'American materialism'. They seem to be very blind to their own faults."
What a load of racist bile.
I gather the truths is always a load of "bile".
And since Albright herself is of CE ancestry that destroys your lie about racism to shreds.
Germany itself is also a central european country in its mentality. lying seems to be epidemic in that part of the world.
>Josh: off to discuss the history of the Dnjepr swamps.<
I don't have the time now, but next time I will demonstrate something you miss: direct link between Truce of Andrusovo and Soviet occupation of GDR. That is the problem with almost all of you Americans :) you don't understand Europe, miss the whole process in your NAVAL gazing, and think it is just about GB-FR.
Everybody knows Josh is a German, including you.
So why continue with this pattern of deceit pretending to believe Josh's lies about his nationality.
It is hugely entertaining to watch the two CE characters Josh and Forlana interacting with each other. Josh pretends to believe Forlana, and she pretends to believe Josh.
Aegis Maelstrom wrote:
"So well, this is true, Britain started the war (at sea) in 1939 (France claimed the same but their "strange war" without any real activity doesn't matter) and I am somewhat surprised by the quoted response by Sikorski. But please, stop pretending it was simply due to keeping the pacts. After British betrayal of Czechoslovakia GB knew that this war would need to start pretty soon."
Poland's participation in the Second World War, both qualitatively and quantitatively, has been underrated or forgotten, no doubt, and this is very unfair. This said, five countries were responsible for what happened to Poland in and after 1939. In this order:
1st) Germany, of course, for invading Poland and using the Gleiwitz/Gliwice fake "incident" as an excuse. Their treatment of Poles, especially the intelligentsia, was criminal and abominable. Poland was and is a valuable European country, cultured and civilized, and did not deserve that. I think that Friedrich Nietzsche himself (he thought he was of Polish descent and was proud of it) would have been thoroughly ashamed of his compatriots had he lived until his 100th year.
2nd) The Soviet Union, for taking advantage of the Russo-German Non-aggression Pact invading it 16 days later and partitioning it with Germany, like in the 18th century. Plus the Katyn monstruous crimes and the like. By the way, this is an an example of double standards: Britain and France declared war on Germany for invading Poland, guaranteed by them, but did not declare war on the Soviet Union for doing the same thing.
3rd) Poland itself, for refusing to reach an agreement over the Danzig corridor and sign the anti-Russian alliance Germany had sincerely proposed them, and for believing naively that Britain and France would really help them and thinking optimistically that their infantry and cavalry divisions and brigades could defeat the German armoured forces and the Luftwaffe Stukas, like they had defeated the Soviet Russians in the early 1920s.
4th) The United Kingdom, for having unilaterally and gratuitously issued a guarantee to Poland on March 31, 1939. This virtually obliged Britain to go to war with Germany if Germany and Poland went to war and encouraged the Polish military to confront Germany. Robert J.G. Boothby, MP, told Churchill: "This is the maddest single action this country has ever taken". Liddel Hart agreed and said that the Polish guarantee was "foolish, futile, and provocative... an ill considered gesture [that] placed Britain's destiny in the hands of Polish rulers, men of very dubious and unstable judgement." To dramatize his protest of Chamberlain's folly, he resigned as military correspondent for The Times. When war came, Britain did not help Poland in any substantial way http://www.historytoday.com/nicholas-henderson/fatal-guarantee-poland-1939
5th) France, for having imitated the UK and made the same mistake (Kasprzycki-Gamelin Convention, signed May 19, 1939), which obliged France to go to war as well. To a Phoney War, for the time being, but a war, and you know how a war begins, bur not how it ends, as the French in 1940, the Italians in 1943 and the Germans and Japanese in 1945 learned painfully. Thus, a local German-Polish war over a small corridor became the Second World War, which destroyed much of Europe, including Poland and Germany, and eventually gave Stalin —the bastard who ordered the Katyn massacres—virtually the whole of eastern Europe. Big deal!
"That is the problem with almost all of you Americans :) you don't understand Europe, miss the whole process in your NAVAL gazing, and think it is just about GB-FR."
I know. We just LOVE to look at ships! Although I bet Emmasherryfake prefers gazing at chips. LOL
"... next time I will demonstrate something you miss: direct link between Truce of Andrusovo and Soviet occupation of GDR."
Please do so. I know very little about pre-partition Poland, but I can imagine where you are heading. (And no, I won't debate history in a confrontational way - I leave that approach to current issues;-).)
And it seemt to me that RACISM is endemic in whatever part of the US you are hailing from (my guess: Midwest).
Apparently, you have a problem with Central and Eastern Europe. You have also claimed over and over again that recent immigration from Poland etc. was to blame for raising UK unemployment, which is demonstrably wrong: immigrants from these countries have - directly and indirectly - created considerably more jobs in the UK than they took.
I used to work in a related field, so unlike you I know what I am talking about.
Here are some facts about who exactly has problems with Europeans like Forlana.
Germany is one of the most intolerant & racist country towards immigrants from the former communist bloc as this PEW survey shows. Looks like your lame attempt to smear me has backfired once again. lol
PEW Global surveys
Favorable view of eastern European immigrants
Britain = 56%
France = 53%
Germany = 34%
What a pathetic attempt to cover up your own continued anti-Central and Eastern European slurs. -
In the same report (of 2007, btw), 75 % of US citizens were against ANY further immigration, one of the highest such number polled anywhere in the Western world (and higher than in Germany), and that was before the anti-immigration sentiment literally exploded among GOP rank and file.
Unfortunately, you are a perfect example for those Americans for whom immigration has become a dirty word.
Oh dear got caught lying red handed again? and once again your attempts to smear the USA has backfired. lol
"Americans and Canadians continue to be generally more welcoming to newcomers than Europeans. As in 2005, solid majorities in both countries say it is a good thing that people from Asia and from Mexico and Latin America come to live and work in their countries."
Favorable views of immigrants from Latin America & Asia
Canada = 72% & 71%
This is getting funnier by the day:
First you are all over the place with YOUR USUAL RACIST SLURS against Central and Eastern Europeans - and when called out on them, you cite an unrelated study on attitudes towards immigration, in which your own country, the US, fares worse than the countries you are trying to smear?
Making sense was never your strong suit, but it seems you are reaching new lows by the day.
Sherry, your surveys are outdated. Germans were scared that hordes of immigrants from new EU members would go there after fully opening the job markets in 2011 and since nothing like that happened, the have surely changed their mind. In fact, Germany is already dealing with problems of immigration from outside EU which is more serious problem for them.
However, I fully agree that excessive immigration is indeed bad because it fragments nations, destroys traditional communities and changes way of living for locals. (BTW, it's believed that Republicans cannot win any elections anymore in the US due to shifts in demography in favour of Latin-American immigrant communities who vote for leftists...)
That's why one of the goals of EU is "convergence", i.e. making comparable living conditions all over EU so that people would not be pushed to massively migrate between regions for economical or political reasons but only individually those who are really interested in the target country / region. Reaching this goal should be achievable because the population size in post-communist EU is relatively small (compared to huge Asian, Latin American or African regions) and thus guaranteeing good quality of life for everyone in the region could be possible. But major corporations (that dominate economy in the globalized world) must change their perception of the territory - most of them still consider them as European China (where hordes of people can be exploited in cheap production) but we need companies with that focus on "social responsibility" (as is common in Scandinavia, for example) - and such companies should be protected by EU against socially irresponsible competition taking advantage of operation cost, environmental and wage dumping in countries outside EU...
As for Madeleine Albright - her family escaped because they were of Jewish origin. So blaming her to be "Central European" is bizarre when the "Central Europeans" have made her flee.
As for naval gazing - it's natural that everybody talks primarily about news from his/her region that watches most closely but parochial citizens would not surely be interested in reading the global newspaper, would they? Anyway, I guess that EU should really give priorities to programs like Erasmus that is now jeopardized by shortage of funding) to support give especially young people opportunity to see the world from multiple perspectives....
Well all you have do now is prove your claims with surveys showing that Germans have suddenly become more tolerant towards eastern European immigrants.
And 2007 is not outdated. This is a good 3 years AFTER the former communist bloc joined EU.
I was referring to this:
"The moment was apt for business, so I said [to Stalin], "Let us settle about our affairs in the Balkans. Your armies are in Roumania and Bulgaria. We have interests, missions, and agents there. Don't let us get at cross-purposes in small ways. So far as Britain and Russia are concerned, how would it do for you to have ninety percent predominance in Roumania, for us to have ninety per cent of the say in Greece, and go fifty-fifty about Yugoslavia?" While this was being translated I wrote out on a half-sheet of paper:
The others %
Great Britain
(in accord with U.S.A.)
The others %
I pushed this across to Stalin, who had by then heard the translation. There was a slight pause. Then he took his blue pencil and made a large tick upon it, and passed it back to us. It was all settled in no more time than it takes to set down…After this there was a long silence. The pencilled paper lay in the centre of the table. At length I said, "Might it not be thought rather cynical if it seemed we had disposed of these issues so fateful to millions of people, in such an offhand manner? Let us burn the paper". "No, you keep it", said Stalin.
@ Tomas:
As you will have noticed, Emmafinney excels in maliciousness, and that's about it. Other than that, she's not exactly the brightest bulb:
1) It takes a good dose of brazeness on Emmafinney's part to accuse Central Eastern Europeans such as Forlana of "naval [!] gazing" when she dares discussing Central and Eastern European topics on a thread devoted to the subject. (And I'm even ignoring the fact that Emmafinney keeps misspelling navel gazing as "naval gazing", as if it had anything to do with ships, and not with someone's belly button - public education in the US is sub-standard, so that's really not her fault, I guess.)
2) As anybody remotely familiar with the topic of EU enlargement knows, and as you point out as well, EVERYTHING changed between 2007 and 2011 in terms of labor immigration from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) to Germany:
Until 2011, the German labor market was closed, since 2011, it is open. Add to that the fact that in 2007, Germany's unemployment rate was nearly twice as high as right now and people were afraid to lose their jobs, while now, Germany is recording all-time record employment, and you get the idea.
At present, immigration from CEE to Germany is higher than to the UK, and nobody gives a hoot. There ARE advantages to EU integration, and open borders are first on my list.
And on that note.
According to your PEW poll, 75 % of Americans are against ANY further immigration, even from NAFTA member Mexico, while borders among EU member states are entirely open and unguarded, and people aren't even checked when crossing into a neighboring country any more. Meanwhile, the US-Mexican border looks more and more like the Berlin Wall of old. And that's all the difference.
No need to lie Josh, you are only making a fool of yourself.
"Americans and Canadians continue to be generally more welcoming to newcomers than Europeans. As in 2005, solid majorities in both countries say it is a good thing that people from Asia and from Mexico and Latin America come to live and work in their countries."
Favorable views of immigrants from Latin America & Asia
Canada = 72% & 71%
We are still waiting for the proof that Germans have suddenly became more tolerant towards eastern European immigrants.
No such poll provided because it doesn' exist.
PEW Global surveys
Favorable view of eastern European immigrants
Britain = 56%
France = 53%
Germany = 34%
Josh, you're right that Emmafinney enjoys chaffing "continentals" but needs more education. But at least she shows willingness to learn more about the subject matter...
Open borders are an important advantage of EU integration but everything must be commensurate to be sustainable in long term. I consider massive migration to be harmful because it causes bubbles - the societies in source territories become incomplete and drained which leads to slower development than normally. On the other hand, target territories are being unnaturally suddenly changed and their traditional societies pressured and so people have rightful feeling that their homeland becomes hijacked. Britain - which is a society where locals were pushed out of the economic activities that were taken over by "Commonwealthers" and "Eastern Europeans" are a deterrent example.
That's why exactly opposite approach is what I find even more important role of EU integration: It should contribute to spreading zones of prosperity (good quality of living) to all the member states so that people felt happy at home and didn't create artificial bubbles - that's why I find the federative tendencies positive because obviously national politicians were not always capable of good governance.
As for current job migration numbers: Do you have current numbers? I guess that Britain and Switzerland (and maybe Luxemburg?) are still more favourable places for temporary job migration. Germany has relatively low salaries and high taxation in exchange for good public services and healthcare - so she's favourable destination for those who would like to stay there permanently (and used the services), which I guess most CEE job migrants don't plan. That's why I think that the CEE migration to Germany is lower than originally expected.
Sherry, accession treaties allowed for a 7 years long transition period in which other members were allowed to have their job markets closed. So it has expired in 2011 for members who accessed in 2004 and it will expire in 2014 for members who accessed in 2007.
I don't come from any recent survey but I'm deductive: If somebody is afraid of something but the fear appears to be unjustified, I guess that they will subsequently change their mind about the issue (at least to some extent).
I am still waiting for proof that Germans have suddenly became more tolerant of immigrants from the former communist bloc.
And you seem to be getting confused and mixing up official German/EU policy on open job markets and how the people of Germany feel about immigrants from communist bloc countries.
The only way to find out how the German people feel about these immigrants is from surveys.
Ok so you have no proof such as surveys or polls to back your claim that German people have suddenly became more tolerant towards immigrants from eastern European countries.
Case closed.
"I am still waiting for proof that Germans have suddenly became more tolerant of immigrants from the former communist bloc."
How about you bring a proof for your groundless claim that they are not?
In absolute numbers, annual immigration from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) to Germany is now nearly 1.5 times as high as to the UK (about 150,000 v 100,000). If the whole period since EU enlargement in 2004 is considered, the numbers are roughly even (around 500,000 for both Germany and the UK – not everybody who immigrated to either country stayed). Switzerland and Luxemburg almost certainly have a higher percentage of CEE immgrants in relative terms, but obvioulsy not in absolute numbers.
I, too, think that the gradual liberalization of the western EU labor markets for CEE citizens was a very sensible approach. I had a debate with Forana about this a while back, who disagreed and would have preferred full liberalization from day one. But I think the advantages are obvious: In 2004, the income gap between CEE and old-EU countries was still so wide that a massive brain drain would have occured in the case of immediate full labor market liberalization - and the destination countries would have had to cope with large labor market shocks. Both was avoided. The approach was modelled on the conditions set in place after the accession of Portugal and Spain, btw.
I am unhappy with EU policies often enough, but this was a very sensible approach which worked just fine. Nowadays, CEE countries are already wealthy enough to make emigration an option, but not a necessity.
PEW Global surveys
Favorable view of eastern European immigrants
Britain = 56%
France = 53%
Germany = 34%
Hello Josh.
>Josh: I had a debate with Forana about this a while back<
I remeber I had such a conversation with a nickname 'Hermitter'. I maintained and still maintain that:
1. German restrictions had a populist background and were counterproductive. My view were later confirmed, as Germany after improving own economy felt/feels badly the past mistakes and implements special programmes to lure worforce from abroad,including Poland. To no avail in the latter's case as almost all eager to move are in UK already.
1'. Notion that the then German authorities resticted free movement of workforce between Poland and Germany in order to protect Poland from brain drain is a bit ... stretched, to say the least.
2. UK takes _agreed_ rules and treaties more honestly than Germany as demonstrated by their attitude to free movement of capital, labour and so on, introduced at the first possible term. And they won in terms of an additional spur for the economy just prior to the Southern Euro crisis. In spite of the blinded British 'UnderCutted' party's suggestions .
3. The average income/level of life gap between Germany and Poland in 2004 was indeed considerably larger than in 2011, it was/is overly optimistic that seven years could make up for the whole period 1939-1989/2004. What is more those leaving Poland for western parts of EU (UK mainly) did not do it beacuse of the gap, but beacuse of lack of workplaces in Poland.
Now the TE blogs fun part.
Nickname 'Hermitter' retired soon after that conversation. Weakling. His last post was on
Nov 23rd 2009.
On the next day
Nov 24th 2009, 21:19
we have welcomed brand-new commentator in our little TE family.
On the next day he wrote:
>Nov 25th 2009, 09:33
BTW, sanmartinian, you addressed one post to commentator 'Hermitter' (Nov 21st 2009 10:13 GMT) in the context of "grey economies" in Europe. I tried to read Hermitter's original post but was unable to find him anywhere on this magazine . . . do you know what happened to him?. Maybe he was too critical for this magazine. So it seems that "big brother" has clamped down on him . . . Talking about 'KGB-Russia' silencing writers, lol.
Do you know, sanmartinian, if Hermitter is on Twitter?<
and he has received his from now on usual 50-some recommends.
Isn't TE comments section greater fun than the real TE, Josh?
I cannot speak to a conversation you had with some "Hermitter" in 2009, because I only joined this illustruous board in fall of 2010. You and I had this debate about a year ago.
But I'd appreciate if you would stop suggesting that everybody sharing my views on certain issues was me - it's getting a bit exasperating, and I really hope were not witnessing the first stages of classical TE paranoia on your part;-)... .
Just kidding. As for the remainder of your post:
1) re your point # 1:
That's incorrect. Poles make up for nearly 2/3 of all post-2004 CEE immigrants in Germany. But yes, the UK is drawing from the bigger pool of potential immigrants, as more people in Poland speak English than German. Good for the UK.
2) re # 1' (?):
That's also incorrect. There were no bilateral German-Polish restrictions. The framework was set up by the EU for all member states, and it read as such: 7 yrs transition period, countries could opt for full liberalization after 2 and 5 yrs, and must fully liberalize after 7 (2+3+2 formula). They could introduce prior exceptions to restrictions. Whatever regime they chose, they had to apply it to ALL CEE member states alike. So no bilateral German-Polish restrictions.
Actually, by the end of the 7-yr period, there were so many exceptions in the German regime that Germany attracted only slightly less CEE immigrants than the UK (300,000 v 400,000 net), more than half of them from Poland.
3) still re # 1':
Yes, there was a degree of populism involved in the decision to keep restrictions in place until 2011 (and effectively circumvent them by ever more exceptions) - not surprising when you have 5 million unemployed, nearly twice as many as now, and are pushing through pay an welfare cuts across the board (Schroeder reforms) IMHO. It was a bit of political camouflage designed for the home audience.
4) re # 2:
That's your perception, and I'm not going to challenge it. But as a matter of fact, all EU member states kept to the agreed-upon rules.
5) re # 3:
Most studies show that for migration between countries of different languages to be attractive, GDP per capita (in PPP) must be less than 40-50% in the country of origin in comparison to the destination country. That was the case between CEE and old EU in 2004, but isn't now. So the past 7 yrs were crucial. -
See, we won't agree on this bit. That's fine with me. I'm not a friend of macroeconomic shock treatments in general, and if you are, that's OK. I think this EU-designed transition period served all countries involved pretty well and limited tensions among them.
And on that note.
May I add that there are still transition periods in place right now - such as the one made conditional by Poland upon joining the EU in 2004, which prohibits foreigners from buying land in Poland until, I believe, 2016?
In 2004, Poles were understandably concerned that their land would be bought up by foreign investors. Now, property prices in Poland are only marginally lower than in e.g. Germany.
As with the labor market transition regimes, these restrictions made sense in the beginning, but don't anymore. Populism as well as real concerns played a role in both cases.
See a parallel?
Sherry, I have offered common sense, isn't it enough for you?!
Actually, I find any survey that ask questions about "favourbable view of immigration" as dubious - because virtually NOBODY can honestly have favourable view of immigration (except some greedy businesses who focus only on exploiting cheap resources). In Anglo-Saxon countries people try to look "positive" so they often lie in public but their genuine opinions are different.
The real question should be how serious problem the immigration is. And here I'm convinced that immigration from post-communist countries to Germany is not a serious problem.
Especially compared to immigration from non-EU countries. In fact, especially Turks now represent a very strong (several million) community that has been uniting around Fethullah Gülen islamic religious sect and represent a sleeping "fifth colony" that will soon have power to take over Germany... I should know best because in the good old time when European nations could afford mutual rivalry, Sudeten Germans were such a "fifth colony" that subverted Czechoslovakia by uniting around ideologist Konrad Henlein who was obeying orders of "his master's voice" Hitler. So if a minority is numerous enough and united enough, the power they have is enormous. But post-communist CEE immigrants are fragmented and relatively compliant with the local traditional society if they learn the language. Of course, there are issues there - in particular increased criminality, increased unfair behaviour and fraud (those who migrated somewhere for economic reasons don't hesitate to do anything to get huge money ASAP instead of focusing on long term perspective) but there is nothing irreversible.
Josh, if there had ever been a necessity, we would all have been long dead here ;-) It is always an option but the level of attractiveness has been changing overtime.
In fact, the major economic transformation in post-communist CEE countries has been finished by the end of 1990th and most of the assets were privatized from state hands to the hands of private owners - especially cheaply to foreign-based investors due to lack of local capital. And so now it's their responsibility - if they don't hesitate to exploit locals by not giving them equal conditions as they are used to in "civilized" countries, this will be offset by the attempts of workforce to look for opportunities in those "civilized" countries. The "Eastern European discount" that managers of MNCs expect is often more than 50% which is amoral if these companies operate on a single market run by the same rules. That's why I hope that soon both stakeholder (potential employers and employees) realize that by playing such games neither gets more than if both were fair.
However, I don't think that it has to do anything with nationality or "racism" - because AFAIK, even lands of former East Germany reach only 70% of GDP (and similar percentage of average salaries) compared to the lands of former West Germany.
So it's primarily issue of greedy corporations that cheaply privatized assets in post-communist territory but don't hesitate to get even more and farther squeeze the new acquisitions.
Forlana, I usually find speculating about identities to be rather childish but yes, I think too that Hermitter has transformed into la.výritý ;-) But I find it understandable if he said that at that time he definitely retired from Continent to a ranch in Mid-West US, so his European perspective would become rather indirect and deserved a new avatar. But if you suggest that he also manages the Josh's avatar then hats-off, it would be a perfect disguise that I definitely haven't uncovered...
As for German approach to opening the job market, I have more empathy to their view. There was a huge internal migration after re-unification in 1990 and so they were not ready to absorb yet another shock.
In general, I think that CEE territory is underestimated - especially now with production industry being outsourced to Asia, CEE can be good at 2 out of 3 areas that can make money: agriculture (important of which is growing with the steep rise of global population) and science as CEE generally has flexible educated inhabitants that are not restricted by cultural and religious rituals. The third profitable area - financial services - is unfortunately already established elsewhere ;-). That's why I can't see many reasons why the convergence is so slow (except greed and bad governance).
Hi Tomas and Josh,
>Tomas: As for German approach to opening the job market, I have more empathy to their view.<
I'm perfectly okey with that. What I object is draping German interest into something else. And interest seen in a rather short-sighted manner, as later years have demonstrated: they are now looking for workforce and cannot find it, they have to look for workers in more far-away regions, differing culturally, which cannot, don't want to, aren't wanted to fully join local society, and the whole vicious circle is perpetuated. No such with Poles, Czechs and so on.
Add to that the strange situation that Poles and Czechs etc. ready to migrate, almost all went to the UK, creating expected psychological problems in local society due to abrupt showing up of high concentrations of foreigners. In short - Germany, the greatest and the most consequent proponent of Iron Wall's vicious remnants liquidation post-1989, has created one of the most peculiar imbalances in the union. They have, still are, wasting a very short window of opportunity for creating the new status quo in _the world_, the one more resembling the really old, old times when all western-civilaztion Europe was in fact one. From Lisboa to Dniepr marshes;) Many quite serious commentators here, with few notable exceptions like you Tomas or Jasiek and few others, don't even notice this opportunity, this necessity, including those we are talking about now, and including you Josh. For a while I thought Pumpernickel is on the side of light here, but he obviously has chosen/always was(?) following another path.
Now to the fun part. You are right, having fun is usually associated with children. However, neither you (as you have shown) nor I, the long-timers here, with one and the same nickname, cannot help but automatically note the morphing of the nicknames, right :)
I have never suggested that Josh was Hermitter, but of course lavyrity was. So hermitters words (also about Poland) are lavyrity's and where he lives at the moment does not change it. He just does not get it or is totally un-empathic for Europe's longstanding prosperity and power, US is to lead forever and Europe is to be just an addendum to Germany ;-) And don't you see fun in his asking about himself >I tried to read Hermitter's original post but was unable to find him anywhere on this magazine . . .<.
Well, Tomas and Josh, - on a certain level TE blogs IS great fun even for the most demanding customers :)
on this topic topic, you ae pulling a "Joe Solaris", so to speak – that is, you simply repeat your position without ever debating arguments brought forward against it. And the facts are not your friend, I am afraid;-).
On the great goal (one job market from the Algarve swamps to the Dnjepr swamps, including every wetland in between), we agree. We differ about whether the way taken there in the past was a good one or a bad one. Because that's what you seem to overlook: since May 1st, 2011, this big swamp-to-swamp labor market already exists. So this is all spilled milk anyway.
Two short points befoe I'll give it a rest for good:
"Add to that the strange situation that Poles and Czechs etc. ready to migrate, almost all went to the UK, [...]."
- Again: No. You somehow always skipped my objection that that simply hasn't been the case. Even before 2011, Germay took nearly 3/4 as many CEE immigrants (most of them Poles) as the UK, thanks to the ncreasing number of exceptions in the German regime - and since then, more: In the year following full labor market liberalization (May 1st, 2011/2012), more than 1.5 times as many CEE nationals emigrated to Germany than to the UK (150,000 v below 100,000), with Poles again accounting easily for half of them. Poles generally constitute the biggest group of post-1990 immigrants in Germany.
You are always quick to point to political hindrances to faster integration when Poland is concerned (e.g. when explaining why euro accession is kicked further and furthe down the road) - and that's OK with me.
But the same political obstacles exist for other governments, as well.
In 2003/4, the UK boomed, and Germany recorded the highest post-unification unemployment ever, while Schroeder had trouble pushing through pretty deep social security cuts. In that context, pushing for more labor immigration wouldn't exactly have been an election winner, so the opening of the labor market was done step by step by way of exceptions for an ever greater number of branches, thereby avoiding a big public debate. Now, Germany's economy is in a very solid phase, while the UK's is flatlined at best - and while immigration from CEE is not an issue in Germany at all, it is making headlines in the UK. Bottom line: These sentiments change with the economic trends: in the UK and in Germany, Greece (Golden Dawn!), and in Poland. Wouldn't you agree?
Yes, some of the avatars are "morphing". There's, for example, a lot of morphing taking place around the Emmafinney, Birtnick and also one more character, which I'm not going to mention but who could indeed be the on you suggest. The only morphing in my character was adding a bit of "light" after Big Charly kicked me out sometime last year. He's so shockingly anti-American!
"I have offered common sense, isn't it enough for you?!"
Commonsense is not a substitute for proof.
If people were guided by commonsense than there would be no anti-semitism as this talented and industrious group of people would have been welcomed with open arms as immigrants right throughout European history.
Stereoptypes and prejudices against peoples is blind to commonsense.
So I ask you once again to provide the proof for your claim that Germans have suddenly became more favourable towards immigrants from eastern Europe.
And sorry but discrediting surveys and polls because they don't give the results you desire is a cheap shot.
And you Josh as everybody has pointed out is a German who takes on a fake American nationality for manipulative purposes thinking an American voicing pro-German views would carry more weight than a German. A German voicing rabid pro-German views would rightly be put down to biased German chauvnism so you chose to pose as an foreigner.
Do you think nobody has noticed that you go berserk whenever there is any criticism of Germany? Very strange behavior for an "American". Just take a look at how crazy you went when Forlana pointed out Britain in a more favorable light to Germany in the case of open job markets for CE when they first joined the EU.
You have also created a number of another monikers with very American sounding names which pop up to lavish praise on Germany. They pop up and disappear after a little while..but I see that you are stil using "prowler" peridically.
That episode with Prowler was hilarious, you were exchanging remarks with me as 'Prowler' and than unwittingly logged on as Josh while still chatting with me in the guise of Prowler.
Simply hilarious!
I'm so sorry to hear that you still havn't gotten over the fact that half of my family is German. I know that's a big annoyance for someone whose worldview can be summed up like this:
@ Tomas:
That's a Czech cartoon, btw;-).
Than why don't your put "Josh-Germany" on your moniker.
Instead you want to loudly advertise your so called American nationality with 'Josh-US' while going berserk everytime the USA is shown in a better light than Germany.
Very strange behavior for an "American".
Here is a better one
Europe according to Germans.
Forlana, I'm not sure that I understand well what's your point about massive economic emigration from new EU lands (and thus leaving those lands barren or to immigrants from different territories)? Is it an assumption that those migrants would send money home or several years later establish locally-funded businesses?
My view is that old and new members are now a single economic block, they should quickly converge. The price-levels (i.e. living costs) quickly converge (market prices are dealt at exchanges or set by distributors "for EU") and so should also converge incomes. That's why the new EU members should not be perceived as source of cheap workforce (which the massive economic migration suggests) but rather as attractive place with stable macro-economic, judicial and political systems (which should be guaranteed by the EU membership), educated and compatible inhabitants, etc. and thus be attractive even at conditions comparable to old EU.
Unfortunately, this is still far from truth. I can provide a concrete example: a major City investment bank has established and further expands back-office operations centre in Prague. A friend of mine works there as a software engineer and he says that they work on projects as virtual teams - i.e. directly cooperate with colleagues in London, New York, etc. rather than with local colleagues in an office next-door (who similarly work on different expert area). So basically the employees in Prague offices do exactly the same things, have exactly the same productivity as their London colleagues, except the crucial fact that their annual gross salary £30.000 - £40.000 while their London colleagues have £70.000 - £90.000 for exactly the same work. That's more than 50% "Eastern European discount" that is automatically assumed by foreign investors - because they perceive the territory as the source of cheap migrants who should be glad that some investors are interested at all rather than members of the same economic block with the same capabilities and mentality.
So those who want to live in new EU members must accept that they are second-class citizens even in virtual team. Or they can move for job to old EU but be there hated as intruders and be unhappy living in a foreign environment. And, yes, mostly they choose the former but sometimes the latter that's why there is this bizarre situation that London offices are full of Indian, Polish and Czech employees while Warsaw and Prague offices are full of Ukrainian and Russian employees. And I bet that neither of them is happy living out-rooted from their native environments....
So my point is that single economic block should mean comparable conditions but more flexibility (bigger territory means that employers can sooner find the most suitable employees and vice versa). But it's on individual basis, not in blind flocks.
Flexibility also needs the transparency in the social, healthcare and maybe even tax issues as I suggested (either unification or a simple coordination to prevent switching and abuse of different welfare payments programs)......
As for the avatars: I guess that it was clever from LaV. to ask about himself as a way to mislead others and to find out whether others would bad-mouth him ;-) I also considered changing my nickname for a more neutral one but it's better to keep consistency and history.
"That's a Czech cartoon, btw;-)."
Well, interesting blog indeed - I didn't know it. Obviously, this is what emigration does - makes people homesick. Well, she betrayed her homeland by moving to the U.S. so let her suffer ;-))
Well, what you described is not common sense but rather weighting pros and cons. Stereotypes and prejudices should be debunked but various issues must be judged in their contexts. All gardeners would tell you that weeds can be nice plants per se but not if they get into their flowerbed and oust their own laboriously and with great emotional care long planted flowers, wouldn't they?
You can surely find newer polls but I don't have time to look for them at this moment. If I come across any later, I will be sure to post them on Charlemagne or EA blogs...
That poll was taken in 2007, some years after CE joined the EU.
I don't think deeply held prejudices can be wiped out in a mere 5 years so don't hold your breath. Even if you find newer polls the figures wouldn't have changed much because prejudices which have built up over centuries don't change overnight.
That poll was taken in 2007, some years after CE joined the EU.
I don't think deeply held prejudices can be wiped out in a mere 5 years so don't hold your breath. Even if you find newer polls the figures wouldn't have changed much because prejudices which have built up over centuries don't change overnight.
>Josh: since May 1st, 2011, this big /.../ labor market already exists. So this is all spilled milk anyway.<
I am afraid that you miss the point here. The reason is simple: you concentate on defending short-term, populist-driven decision of German authorities. And in this respect you are doing well but there's absolutely no need to convince me that this decision had a well-thought and rational background ,too. Including 'avoiding debate' as you delicately put it. But there was another way, right? Making own populace familiar with the fact that it is in a long-term benefit to 'go liberal' here. To make the local populace aware that this whole story with EU and EZ especially is for the great benfit, greatest since many decades if not more, to them, to Germany.
Where we differ is when you are trying to drape this decision with protecting CE from brain drain.
And most of all we differ when you fail to see the long-term political and economical detriment this decision has inflicted EU-wise. And Germany-wise too, but you prefer to skip this part. You prefer to sherrycutterize the discussion about long-term problems with "accountant's objections". Resembles unspiring discussion on Sikorski's speech in Oxford somewhere in this thread.
Sikorski: City is our port. This port will not succeed without the hinterland of EU. Half of your (British) export goes to EU. You are with us this way or another.
Choir of TE blogs' reckoners: rubbish, it's 47 per cent!
Somehow nobody in Oxford had problems understanding what Mr.Sikorski has in mind, do you think the listeners and the speaker did not know that it is in fact this 49 or 47 or whatever number?
So, do you really want to further sherrycutterize the TE blogs, Josh? When I say 'all Poles, Czechs etc --> meaning all Central European folks eager to move looking for work (btw, one of fundamental ideals of EU, very US-like and one of the wisest) are already in UK, you return with an answer 'the facts are not your friend'. It is not all. Yes, not all Josh. So what do you want to talk about with me? Percents and numbers? To disprove the obvious that UK received some 2 million non-UK EU workers in one shot? Almost one shot Josh, please don't produce data pointing that 'the period of intensive relocations of EU citizens from CE to UK was in fact bla-bla, so the facts are not your friend, F.'. :-)
The decision to prolong the period till the last day was a nightmare also politically, which you inadverently strenghten with your argumentation: the 'old-EU', German partners are only reliable/trustworthy in times of prosperity. Add to that lack of responsibility in managing the needlessly prolonged crisis in southern Eurozone countries. And here we have a new issue: slowly but consequently rising wave of trust in the largest new-comer to the EU. Is that what is in EU and German interest? You want Merkel to discuss things with Kaczyński again? JOsh, your mother's country is an absolute world record holder in changing from a deeply despised, murderous state into one of the best run, stable, predictable and neighbour-friendly counties, and all that in relatively short time taking into account the past horrors. With post-Coldwar unification she has become the strongest economy etc. etc. You know what I mean. But being the primus inter pares requires a lot. It is a heavy burden of responsibility. I know, you may be, Germans may be, fed up with this constant song. Some are sure it is all about their money onlu. It is not about their money. It is about a single chance , first since eons (don't retrun with the precise nubers here either,please Josh) of creating a prospering, liberal economically, multinational union of state, each seperately and in concord with local traditions administering the mundane parts of life of happy, affluent societies. If you like it or dislike it (I understand very well the latter stance) it requires a lot of responsibility and far-sight. These are badly missed. No just in Germany...
Contrary to what you say the particular problem we have started with (what was it?;) does not belong to the past, as it created a situation that still exists. Even if it belonged there, deliberating over spilled milk is sometimes quite good. It may help future responsibility. This is becoming a major problem here in Poland: while looking into 'old-EU' into EZ we see too little responsibility, too little wise,long-standing decisions 'you' (your mother :) have used us to just a short while back.
Ooops, that must have been an extremly chaotic, gilry-like blabber :) But don't have time to improve it. Hope you are able to decipher the ideas, though.
Hi Tomas, I read your post thouroughly. Please excuse the brief and perhaps too light answer. Blame Josh, who took all my time ;)
So: I too would wish that it was all nice and good,including those bloody corporations who pay easterners less than the westerners. But they do pay? To otherwise unemployed?
I too would like that people could live where they were born - if they wish to. But I am a real, true Eu-philic bot as Birty says. I believe in free movement of labour, capital etc. as the fastest method to human prosperity. As you see I am also pretty much pro-American bot :)
Best to you.
"Ooops, that must have been an extremly chaotic, gilry-like blabber :) But don't have time to improve it. Hope you are able to decipher the ideas, though.
Witam serdecznie,
your INDEED "extremly chaotic, gilry-like blabber :)" is very charming, and gives credence to your claim that you really are a "forever young" (your words) maiden from the Vistula swamps, eh meadows (something your TE fan club - of which I am of course one of the steadfastest members - would never doubt).
But could you maybe tune down the drama just a litte bit? I'm getting a headache! LOL
Will answer tomorrow, if I'll have managed to get to the bottom of your diatribe by then.
That's one way of looking at it;-)... .
Tomas, I don't think the Czech lands will have much to worry about in terms of migration losses etc. - you are on your way to becoming a top economic region in Europe once again, as you were more or less forever before 1939, and even if it may take a little longer than expected in the euphoria of 1989/90, so far it looks like you are on track.
Oh Forlana, where is your Polish pride - better hungry than abased? ;-) Anyway, my example described top-level experts in their fields who could be employed elsewhere - and the point was: convergence was supposed to be achieved by promoting education and focus on profitable fields - yet if even experts in profitable fields fail to be converged, what else can be done in countries that privatized most of their assets to foreign capital and are dependent on its sense of fair play. I like the Irish example: unlike CE, Ireland was a country where economic emigration was necessity in the past due to the famine, yet they have bet on attracting foreign corporations from profitable fields - and these corporations ask relatively fair discount of 10%-20% (compared compensations paid in England or the USA) and so Ireland has quickly gained convergence.
That's why I still think that the better option for all is mobility of the businesses within the economic block. If they cannot find suitable employees or subcontractors in the country of registration, they can freely do it anywhere else in the block on fair conditions - and they would get what they need, the states of registrations (if in EU) would still get corporate income tax without facing the downsides of the economic migration, the countries where the subsidiaries or subcontractors are would be able to develop full-featured society.
As for being EU-bot: I understand that we all have different concepts that all may be somehow valid. If I should continue using the garden metaphor that I started yesterday: If EU is a garden and national states the flowerbeds representing individual flower varieties (cultures): Birtnick's vision, probably assuming that English lawn is the nicest, suggests to have a special gardener and fence around every flowerbed and let all gardeners compete who gets best plants. Your vision is to mingle all the flowers on the most fertile soil gradually creating one big mixed flowerbed. And my vision is to have a single fence around the whole garden and a single wise and fair gardener who will let shine individual varieties in their flowerbeds and smartly complement their colours and cycles in a single impressive mosaic.... Obviously, Birtnick's concept is the safest - let's have 30 independent attempts so that at least some of them succeed - which may result in several nice flowerbeds but the overall garden will not be aesthetically pleasing... Your concept is the easiest - let's have no assumptions and see what happens if individual varieties mingle in selected flowerbeds. This may give nice results, but probably not and you definitely lose the individual strength of each of the variety.... My concept is the most managerially laborous and demanding - it takes plenty of coordination and strategic thinking of all stakeholders to get all the varieties shining and design the nicest mosaic - but if it succeeds, the garden will look most impressive and be most respectable.
So, let's see which concept actually wins in the end! Although my concept has now been losing now a little bit due to lack of understanding and coordination in the gardeners head, I'm not giving up yet ;-)
What do you mean by "over centuries"?! It took only 45 years and half of this time has already passed in the recovery phase ...
So, Josh, what realistic measures would you suggest for CEE (and currently also southern Europe)? It seems that the existing recipes don't work as expected especially considering the global situation....
Fortunately, at least Greece is saved for some time as they are said to have found rich oil-resources....
Prejudices against eastern Europeans has existed for centuries in Germany.
Hi Tomas,
lovely metaphor indeed :) As every metaphor has it's limits and traps. Anyway, it is much nicer to talk about flowers and a garden. So let us walk this Gregor Mendel's of Brno path for a while.
Birtnick's vision misses the fact that his gardner is totally inefficient on his own and needs water and fertilizer supply from another parts of the garden. He thinks his gardner is still young and independent, thar he still travels around the globe where he has many friends and may get new sidlings and bulbs for free, which then make his garden best kept and beautiful. While in fact his gardner is an old man, his friends overseas keep their own gardens now, and some much more beautiful.
Your vision requires from all the gardners too much, as you did have noticed.
My vision is to let the gardners freely exchange all they can, while looking after their part of the garden, each using own wit, imagination and experience.
Now to Polish pride :)
1. no honest work is an abasement
2. what is an abasement is remain workless while on the other side of the town there's a work to do.
Further. The trends are slowly changing. Italians, Greek, Portuguese and most of all Spaniards are already well noticeable on the work market here in Poland. A German close to the Odra river working on the Polish side becomes everyday sight. Are they all abased? Am I still talking with Tomas Marny, the EU supporter? :))
Tomas, one more important question. Isn't migration of workforce nowadays due to lack of work in specific field and/or regions? The income gap does not explain migration anymore: the _cost_of living in Poland (not sure about CZ) is so much smaller than almost anywhere in old-EU. Look at eg. Spaniards looking, and obtaining! work in Poland. They earn less but spend so much less that they can still plan for future, invest etc. For workless Pole from eastern voievodeship makes little difference if he moves so Poznań, Wrocław, Warsaw or to London, Berlin, Amsterdam. He make the decision to move beacuse he has no work at all, not because there's an income gap.
As to relying on the sense of fair play in pay imbalances. We don't have to rely solely on the sense of fair play. That would be suicidal strategy. The red-lines are draw. And we can invest in R@D on our own. Much shorter way to convergence, though seems much too far to embrace for our local politicians in Poland.
sorry for using space for typos corrections, but this one may be misleading:
drawn not draw in last paragraph
@ Forlana (1/2)
Hi there,
still with me?
Forgive me my sarcasm in my first impromptu reply to your post, but I felt entitled to "pulling your leg" (as Pumpernickle would put it) after you went into overdrive in your post;-). Let me precede ceremonies by stating (once again) that I think you are the poster with whose views I generally agree the most, but that you have a tendency to get me wrong on occassion. Such as this time.
We entirely agree about the goal, but disagree about the path taken there.
So here we go:
1) In my lifetime, I have witnessed two large-scale shock liberalizations/integrations, and they were messy, both economically and politically, and ultimately achieved at too great a cost. I'm speaking of German unificiation and of the creation of the euro zone. In both cases, I am in favor of the ultimate outcome (united Germany, and a unitary European currency), but I think the road taken there was economically flawed in both cases. I am since convinced that gradual integrations are preferable.
The EU labor market transition regime, to the contrary, allowed countries to adapt gradually and according to their respective needs, while setting a clear deadline, and worked perfectly.
2) In 2004, the German economy (record unemployment, tough welfare reforms) was simply in no shape to absorb large numbers of additional labor immigrants (it is now, and it does now). So weren't the economies of another ten of the 15 old EU member states. Only 4 decided to liberalize their labor markets instantly, and all of them boomed at the time: UK, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark. Most of the remaining countries fully opened their labor markets after 5 years, in 2009. Germany and Austria waited two more years, until 2011, but liberalized individual sectors.
Even with this sectoral liberalization, Germany registered nearly 3/4 of permanent immigrants from CEE as the UK. You can of course choose to ignore this and instead chase chimeras, but I think you are actually too smart and too honest for that.
3) I think the German government at the time actually did a pretty good job in promoting (gradual) labor market liberalization despite high unemployment. There was no scaremongering in Germany – the "Polish plumber" was a French invention.
4) I have never said that the German government's decision to open the labor market step by step was motivated by the desire to protect CEE (Poland, Czech Republic etc.) from brain drain. Of course it was not. Within the framework set by the EU, the German government did what was best for Germany, just as all other countries looked after their own interests, as well.
That brain drain is a danger if labor markets of vastly different income levels (and that was the case in 2004) undergo shock liberalization is MY OPINION. Paul Krugman has said so (and received the "Nobel" for it), and Tomas Marny seems to be on board, as well - not a bad company;-). I could also give you the examples of branches in Poland where there are now important labor shortages due to massive emigration of qualified personnel (hospitals, engineering, construction, and a few more).
@ Forlana (2/2)
And finally, in the proud tradition of TE blogs to keep the wheel turning by adding a little extra spice: If you are so in favor of demonstrating leadership by throwing yourself head-on into the next phase of integration even if all signs suggest you should tread carefully, why do you defend Poland's endless dithering on euro introduction?
The original date for euro membership was 2007, now we are talking about 2017, and even that is uncertain. According to your logic, if Poland wants to be the regional leader that it aspires to be, now would be the time to step forward and join, regardless of the economic and social costs.
I'm personally not in favor of rushing things, and believe Poland should take the time it thinks it needs - but you seem to apply a double standard here.
Tomas, Forlana took all my time! Will answer next time around.
Josh, I have explained my point in the earlier comment.
Now, to the new subject you bring forward - my supposed double standards concerning Poland's accession to the EZ. You surprise me.
In the previous issue that we have just finished discussing, you demonstrated and defended indeed impeccable from both legal and economical pov, strictly down-to-earth approach. While now you climb on the belfry and exclaim to the gathered villagers the most inspiring words which include such terms as 'leadership', 'regardless the costs'.
Exactly something you ridiculed when I tried to explain the political losses related to looking only to the ground under one's feet and never to the horizon.
And you speak of double standards.
Yes, Poland is presently looking to the ground under her feet, too rarely to the horizon. And - in contrast to your stance, increasingly tiring to be frank, when you always defend the moves of the country of your mother, I will not defend Polish Hamletian stance. What is more I find this stance in my mind too: to be there or not to be. And it gets on my nerves :)
I'm not sure I understood you right, but if you apply the same standards to Poland and to the question whether it should join the euro, your position is ... still dangerously (!) naive, but at least consistent;-). LOL
And mine is consistent as well, I would claim (it's simply the opposite from yours): I am for realism all around, for substance over symbolism. No more grand projects that later turn out to be built on quick sand.
I'm for preparing the ground first and laying the bricks later. You instead want to skip the tedious part so you can move into the house quickly - and that's OK. I hope your last thought will be of my wise words when the house comes tumbling down on you;-).
And no, my position has nothing to do with defending mother- or fatherland (thanks for the sherycutteresque cheap shot), but with the experience of the past 20 yrs. Otherwise I wouldn't have criticized the way German reunification was managed.
And on that note.
Hi Forlana! You have nicely developed the metaphor and I understand you point. The trouble is that when the starting positions of every gardener are different, there would soon appear dis-balances. Every system can be stable only if it is in basic balance. This is why opinions regretting fast expansion (of both EU and EZ) are becoming stronger in many WE countries, in particular France and the Netherlands. This was proved by fast unification of Germany that creating ghost towns in former GDR lands that became inhabited by immigrants from Asia and former USSR. This is why my position is that it was OK if selected countries chose to apply the transition period for closing job market but, at the same time, foreign investors in new EU members should have applied the same standards (including compensations) there as in the countries of their registration in order to contribute to the fast convergence....
Thanks for explaining the Polish perception of pride. It makes sense. I, however, believe that it is better (and fairer) for everyone to do job one likes (motivating, fulfilling) and be proud of results rather than being forced to do something only because it is there (or for existential reasons), hating it and trying to chisel it (slave mentality)....
I guess Poland still belongs to one of the least immigration-hit country in EU and don't have to deal with older immigration heritage like the Roma community, so you can't see all the consequences. Now, when the things start changing, as you suggest, you may change your opinion soon. In fact, I heard how many Poles were upset when Ukrainians in Poland wanted to setup their lobby organization to promote their interests in Poland...
What makes you think I'm not EU supporter anymore? Well, yes, I'm idealist who wants to have it both at the same time (or how you like to say it ;-) even if it is difficult to achieve. The unique (and great) thing about EU is long history and development of European nations and their cultures developed on their territories. I believe that it would be pity to irreversibly lose it by uncontrolled mingled and thus getting something like USA where you can travel from one member state to another without sensing difference. When I go to England, I want to feel like in England, when to Poland, like in Poland, etc. And honestly, when I go to England and half of the neighbourhood are Commonwealther and the second half "Eastern Europeans", I can hardly feel like in England because it's the people who form the culture and the genius loci of the place given by generations-long continuity... But at the same time, unlike Birtnick, I think that the EU umbrella can help making European nations flourish rather than suffocate them - which has now becoming obvious as numberous smaller nations would like to have independence withing the EU context. The idea is if issue that are not nation-specific are coordinated / complemented, the stronger economy in EU will be and the more time people in individual nations will have to develop specifics of their culture... It is, of course, challenging to find the best formula for cooperation because there are so many things to envision and coordinate. But the challenge itself may be a rewarding task for new generation of 21st century politicians who would like to be written down in annals of history as the ones who contributed to the new dimension of European coexistence, don't you think?
As for the living costs - unfortunately, the convergence in this aspect is almost perfect in the Czech R. It is to large extent caused by heavy privatization in 1990th of even assets that should have never been privatized like basic utility monopolies - gas and part energies to German RWE and E.ON, water supplies to French Veolia, telephony to Spanish Telefonica, chemistry to Polish PKN Orlen, major food sector company to Slovak Agrofert, major pharmaceutical company to French Sanofi-Aventis, and so on. And even the only the company where Czech state has majority - energetic CEZ corporation - sells energy to customers for market prices derived from prices on European energy exchanges. So there are really very few areas where the Czech prices are lower (only some services provided by locals), the rest is "Euro-prices" corresponding to the single market.
As for investment into R&D - if the applied research is done by academy, they later must sell the result to a big corporation that can finalize and put into market - e.g. prof. Holý who invented important AIDS inhibitors but the benefit for the Czech state is minimal as the main profit gets US pharmaceutical company who bought the license - see here.
Moreover, now with the economic crisis in the West, this corporations are being purchased by Chinese and oil-emirates shaikhs so basically they bring profits outside our civilization completely. Therefore, R&D is nice but does not help much.
Good morning Tomas and Josh,
Please allow me to express my final point in one message.
By no means I propose throwing ourselves head-on, without any plan and rules. If you really think so I am surprised again :)
I opt for, and in case of politicians, I demand, that they take a balanced approach. A mixture of down-to-earth attitude and of the most audacious vision. Yes, vision always tinted with pragmatism, but never cynicism. That is why - I don't really feel well in 'great politics' and 'grand economy', if you know what I mean.
In my life I had an opportunity to live through two miracles, two times the most audacious visions came true. First, when Poland was becoming free. Second, when in a relatively short time she became economically prosperous part of world economy. Neither of the miracles would have happened if only down-to earth arguments would have been taken into account.
It was economically unwise to oppose the pre-1989 status quo. Post-1989 it was socially extremely risky to go through Leszek Balcerowicz's economical shock-therapy and Jerzy Regulski's quickly laid foundation of a truly free, civil society.
Does it mean that I oppose the validity of 'golden middle way', the need to meticulously balance the financial sheets with planned strategy? Not at all. All I am trying to say is that sometimes in history the real, meaningful steps forward are done when vision prevails. It did prevail when EU was enlarged. It did prevail when Germany was united. Just as it did prevail when Poland in three years 1989-1993 laid foundation for healthy economy. Today, we are becoming the full members of the western club, as it is today, no vision, always defensive, dithering over things that could be fixed in almost no time.
Finally, I fully agree with you Tomas, that the work done by a human being should be fulfilling and inspiring. Could you please tell that to the unemployed without means to live? Or - for that matter, to the millions of people all over the world spending their life in the modern office at the lower positions.
Thank you for inspiring discussion.
Why didn't England prepare itself for the Battle of Britain? If it weren't for the Polish pilots that you so welcomed after they escaped France, you'd prbably be eating sauerkraut with your bangers and England would've surely won more than one World Cup by now.
@ Tomas:
"[It] was proved by fast unification of Germany that creating ghost towns in former GDR lands [...]. This is why my position is that it was OK if selected countries chose to apply the transition period for closing job market but, [...]"
I'm glad you mention the intra-German example, because for me, it's not about "west versus east" or "Germany versus Poland", as Forlana suspects, but about finding the least economically and socially disruptive way to integrate labor markets of different standards.
Put plainly: I would have been greatly in favor of having had the same labor market transition regime in place IN GERMANY, that is, between West and East Germany after reunification that was later applied during EU eastern enlargement - it would have made it easier for East Germany to develop more quickly, with less unemployed, and at lesser costs. East Germany still suffers from the brain drain of the 1990s, when it lost about 15% of its population to the West. (That doesn't sound all that much, but it means that a lot of small towns and villages in remote regions lost up to 30% of their pop. - the big centers such as Dresden and Leipzig are thriving.)
And yes, most East Germans would have felt as insulted by the mere idea as Forlana aparently was by the 2004-11 transition regime. But sometimes pride isn't the best guide to follow.
@ Forlana,
I fully agree that in Central and Eastern Europe, two dreams have come true: freedom and wealth.
What you overlook however, is that the realization of the latter was a managed process. Effectively, it took 15-20 years until Poland was fully integrated into the EU markets (1989-2004/11).
On a semi-personal;-) note: Be so good and stop the cheap shots. This is not a German – Polish thing. I would have been very happy had the same transition regime been in place between West and East Germany from 1990-1997 (see my post to Tomas). It would have been better for all involved.
By accident, I read an article on p. A2 of today's edition of "Dziennik gazeta prawna" today a few minutes ago (I am in Poland this week), which gives you a good breakdown of the reasons why the step-by-step integration of Poland etc. into the western economy was better than the shock treatment which the GDR underwent:
Happy blogging everyone. I'll take it easy for a few days. I've clearly blogged too much of late. (Of course I'll read eventual answers - I'll just reply later.)
Hi Forlana, you are somehow melancholic today ;-) Yes, there are hardly any politicians with visions these days - maybe it's because the two main visions of the 20th century - Nazi and Communist - were promising so much to the German nation and the progressive working people respectively, but they failed and ended with enormous damage left behind. So now the driving force is not to build something presumably better but to protect what's left from European civilization. That's why the progress is pragmatic and cautious.
But it's true that Europe already spent half of the time that was reserved for communism (except USSR) and the fears that the current development in EU ends up infamously like the previous two visions are growing. But at least the people will not be disappointed - after WW2, many people were really enthusiastic about rebuilding the world in a better way (see collage from contemporary social. movies), that's why the end was bitter for them.
Thus, in a sense, the lack of enthusiasm and lack of unifying ideology may be good. But still, in hundred years when our current period will be independently judged by history, it would be pity to say we were a lost/ generation. That's why speeches like your foreign minister's one are important...
As for the fulfilling-work - it's relative because, fortunately, every individual is different and considers different things fulfilling. So not everyone is happy to work "in offices in high positions" - in fact, I have recently read a study that people in high managerial positions share a fairly unflattering psychological profile simply because emphatic and fair people would not be able to survive there. But that's for another discussion...
See you soon on another thread!
Hi Josh! I would add that the point is not only how many people have left but the structure - usually young people did, and so the whole generation was missing which had negative effect on the smooth running of the society and lead either to gradual abandonment/extinction or necessity to fill the gap externally (foreign immigrants).
That's why I think that the key aspect of the healthy development of any society is that it is necessary to focus on development of all countries/regions and all types of settlements (city and rural) as suitable places for living for all generations in order to keep the places alive and flourishing. Maybe it's not most efficient in the short economic viewpoint, but in long term it's desirable for sustainable development. Fortunately, EU-crats realize it too and regional development and rural areas support is heavily donated even from EU budgets.
But we should realize that not everything can be paid out of EU budget and what is easy in small and heavily inhabited countries like BeNeLux is very laborous and expansive in big, primarily rural countries like Poland and thus it's not always successful. That's why the temptation to leave these rural regions and move to city regions or other places in EU is logically stronger...
Hello Tomas and Josh, excuse coming back to the thread, very funny these thousand of come backs after the final bye-bye, isn't it Josh :)
OK, now seriously. Josh, please keep your temper for a while :))
All the three of us have reached some agreement here. In essence: transient inhibition of one of EU's fundamental 'four freedoms' by one of EU's core country, though legally allowed and economically/socially, thus politically understandable, lacked the vision and long-term perspective. Tomas provided one possible explanation for that: German fear of failure. Though IMO wrongly linked it to totalitarian systems of the past, post hoc ergo propter hoc mistake, as German fear of failure is independent from political situation, more primal so to say. And, incidentally, it is the source of their enormous success in engineering, managing and team work, while for instance Poles, as we all know, lack this fear :-)
Anyway, this delicate consensus was abruptly and brutally shattered by Josh. Who must be a top manager if we take into account some data provided by Tomas. We cannot blame him, as half of his blood is pure Black Forest Teuton, and only half is more restrained non-'continental' one. Plus, how could a Pole ever blame someone who is one of the only two foreigners on TE blogs who ever mentioned such sweet trend in Polish literary traditions as Messiah of Nations? No way!
So, coming back to the main thread of my comment. This consensus was ruined by bringing into the focus of this astonished gremium the issue of GDR. Where that insatiable lust to destroy comes from, Josh?
[Oh, Forlana, but you said 'now seriously' and you are still joking! :)
OK, OK, I stop immediately, be serious, be serious]
Josh, it is very good that you read Polish 'Forsal' portal. It is independent, very sensible, objective and critical. I read it very often,too. However, I am not sure if you understood correctly set of two articles about mistakes of German unification and lessons for Poland. Annexation, as jokes my Ossie friend, now living happily close to the picturesque Gate of Westphalia, though she should be and indeed is the last one to complain.
In short: the transition of GDR is incomparable to Polish one. And especially regarding the basic freedom of the EU, which we have been discussing. GDR became part of Federal Republic, there was no new 'value' created, as GDR and FRG did not form a new entity. Which is the EU. The same German language, exactly the same rights etc. One cannot prohibit the citizens of a democratic country to freely travel and look for work throughout it, unless you are Soviet Russia, where all that was controlled and strictly supervised.
In spite of the present, and transient (who will remember about it in 20 years) certain degree of disillusionment on the 'Wessi' side, the reunification as one 'old' country was a great achievement that required vision and far-sight from the politicians and solidarity from the population. Especially Poles understand that, as they were too partitioned in the past. And especially Poles know how much is needed to fully unite, they did it with great success in only 20 years between WWI and WWII. So – congratulations to Germany. No to Josh's comparing apples and oranges.
And for all interested, in my next post I wil post article from Forsal portal translated (a bit clumsily) into English .
P.S.Tomas, have you heard your president speaking yesterday in Warsaw? How to not love the Czech people :)
P.P.S. Have a great time in Poland, Josh. Hope your business goes well.
>Jędrzej Bielecki: Billions sunk in subsidies for the GDR
The per capita aid for East Germany from West Germany is already 35 times larger than all aid from European Union for Poland.
But the effect is similar, if not worse - according to the latest data of the Ministry of the economy of Berlin. This signal, how much of the subsidies paid to help the former East Germany was simply wasted.
As part of the pact of solidarity, which will last until 2019, 18 million eastern states (former GDR 16 million plus 2 million West Berlin) has so far received 1.5 billion euros of aid. Big money for the 38-million Polish started much later, about 10 years ago. But still the amount immeasurably less: less than 90 billion euros .
However, as noted Dennis Snower, director of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, where the majority of EU assistance goes to investments, as many as 2/3 support for eastern states have been drowned in the current social grants.
With the help of such colossal stream of quality of life in the former East Germany jumped to 33 percent. the then West German average (taking into account the real purchasing power) in 1991 to 71 per cent. today. This corresponds to 84 percent. the average income per capita in the EU.
But in recent years this indicator not only stopped growing, but actually falling. For example, in the first six months of this year, former GDR economy grew at a rate of 0.5 percent., While the western lands twice as fast.
This year, the immeasurably less support from outside the standard of living in our country has reached 70 percent. of the EU average. In the fall of communism, national income per capita, taking into account the real purchasing power per capita was only 25 percent. Community average. Stroke, which for the past 22 years has made our country, so it is comparable to what has made former GDR.
Other indicators , however, are already worse for our neighbors across the Oder. Since the unification of the eastern population of states (including West Berlin) declined by 10 percent., From 18.1 million to 16.3 million. At that time, even though the population of Polish emigration decreased only slightly (from 37.9 million, according to the census of 1988 to 37.2 million actually living in Poland, according to last year's census).
Also, unemployment in the former East Germany (10 percent.) Is much higher than in the western Länder (6 percent.) And is comparable to that which is in Poland (12.4 percent)..
- 20 years ago, everyone was under the influence of enthusiasm. Today we realize that the eastern Länder probably never reach the standard of living of the western states - says Dennis Snower.
This, however, differences in the mentality of the greatest call into question the effectiveness of reunification. As is clear from this week published survey "Bild" until three quarters of the country's residents believe that East Germans and West Germans have a completely different mentality, and only two-thirds Wessis would have the marriage of Ossi (but three quarters ossis poślubiłoby Wessi) . Still, every fifth inhabitant of the western states never exceeded the former Iron Curtain, and every tenth citizen of the former East Germany was neither immediately to the west.
What's more, as long as two decades ago, paying a special tax, solidarity was something quite natural for 62 million people in the western states, today on this issue is growing opposition. Experts agree that these grants can not be renewed beyond the agreed 2019 deadline now but doubtful that this time former GDR economy alone could reduce the distance to Western citizens.<
Hi Forlana, so I'm making the re-appearance too ;-)
Former GDR shares the same mistreatment by businesses as other post-communist countries. The economic transformation was based on this idea: companies run and managed in centrally-planned economies would not be competitive in liberalized market economy, therefore most of them would be cheaply privatized - usually to strategic investors who were supposed to give them know-how and smoothly incorporate them into their operations - the rest would bankrupt and replaced with green-field investments. East Germany had good level of industrialization (even though I remember from my school German lessons a lovely phrase "Weit und breit ist kein Betrieb!" ;-)) Since the state was not supposed to be the investor again, it was privatized usually by wealthy private corporations due to lack of local private capital.
But the general silent assumption was that since the private investors get the assets cheaply and often get tax breaks or other incentives for green-field investment and get the new markets, they provide in return know-how, access to their old markets and incorporate the new acquisitions as "first-class" citizens. But obviously due to both greed and arrogance (see the attitude to Ossis you quoted), the new owners often haven't fulfilled the expectations and behaved like in a conquered territory. Therefore, the slow convergence is primarily their responsibility.
The state-guaranteed intra-German solidarity money went mostly to improving infrastructure, revitalizing buildings, etc. to make the towns nice-looking but it only indirectly affected the economic performance, which the state cannot much influence.
The major advantage of transformation in former East Germany compared to other post-communist countries was that they didn't have to invent new approaches, facilities, legislation, etc. For example, some of the major failings of this big coupon privatization in Czechoslovakia was that it was done in rush and started before the capital markets were fully/efficiently functioning, and made possibly for crooks like "pirate from Prague" Viktor Kožený to exploit holes in legislation to cause enormous damages. Since Germany has united and adopted most original FRG legislation and used their well-proved exchanges and other facilities, East Germany was spared of these trial-and-error methods during transformation.
So again, it shows that the main problem is in the privatizers - the major corporations that are key players in economy are not socially responsible enough in post-communist Europe (and, of course, non-EU destinations where the labour-related legislation is even worse) - at least to the extent as they are in Scandinavia and other WE countries...
... and here I go as well;-).
@ Forlana,
let me get the answer out before this thread will be closed: In very unteutonic;-) fashion, I'll mix the serious with the not so serious. You'll manage to tell them apart, I'm sure;-).
1) So Tomas and I agree on something, and you disagree with it – and now it's me who "destroys" the consensus? Hm, wait a minute... . (Why do women ALWAYS win fights, even if they don't make sense?! LOL)
2) Here is what I believe: German-Polish relations are so stable today PRECISELY for the reason that the adjustment shocks that occured during German reunification were avoided (seriously - think about it). Within the same nation, people's solidarity is usually bigger than between nations, so the one comparing apples and oranges is you;-).
3) With your love of vision and distate for all practical considerations, you remind me of former German chancellor Helmut Kohl who was also great on the vision thing. Here you can see the visionary meeting his real-life East German constituents in April 1991, half a year after reunification. Note the number of security forces needed to keep the bull from breaking thru the fence and stomping all over his voters LOL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZazG0nxexU
5) Good observation about the German "national character". Contradict me if I'm wrong, TOMAS, but it appears to me that being (overly) cautious is a trait that Czechs share with Germans. In that regard, Poles are indeed more mediterranean. (Let's pray Joe will never read I said this!)
6) Did I ever mention the "Christ of Nations" myth? I can't remember. I'm of course familar with it, but if you really think I'm "Don Matteo": You are wrong. I'm posting under this one monicker only, Ms Suspicious Sherry II. (My hand to God.) I would also never write such nasty stuff about other countries.(Well, maybe about Italy, just to keep Joe spinning round and round. But that's just the devil inside playing games with my mind;-).)
@ Tomas:
You are at a structural disadvantage to Forlana here - not because she's a woman (that, too, of course;-)), but because I'm basically in agreement with what you say. -
Ex-GDR: I think the exodus stopped around the year 2000, when East German per capita GDP reached about 70% of West German levels (it should now be at 80%, and productivity at 90%, so the situation has stabilized - East Germany kept shedding jobs when per-capita GDP (as % of the West German figure) was higher than wage per capita (as % of W. G. figure).
But I'm being boring here.
Let me bring up one fun fact: I read somewhere a few years ago, that East Germany has a "testosteron issue": After reunification, no group emigrated in higher number that women between 20-30, while men were less mobile (and less sought after by West German women). And that only confirmed what we knew all along (didn't we?): Women tend to marry socially upwards, and men downwards.
And on that note.