RT

GET IT OFF YOUR CHEST - Europe's passport-free travel zone is now nine countries bigger. Is it safe?

Notification. Thank you for visiting our Forum pages. We always appreciate your thoughts, but please note that Russia Today reserves the right to edit, exclude or paraphrase any messages. Please be polite - rudeness won't be accepted. Also keep in mind that it takes some time for your posts to appear in the threads.

Gregory January 6, 2008, 19:13: Thanks for the polite responses Marzipan6. I guess we will have to agree to differ on the whole Schengen thing. Have a good week.
Marzipan6 January 5, 2008, 15:29: Gregory, read about the GULAG, and read about Nazi concentration camps. That's slavery. What you see in some parts of the European labour market is economic opportunism. Ugly for sure, but a long, long, long, long way from slavery.
Marzipan6 January 5, 2008, 15:25: Gregory, I don’t hate Russians and I don’t hate Slavs. Over the years I have had good Russian friends, and have some Russian work colleagues now. On a personal basis I have never had anything other than good relations with Russians, including with many Russians whom I have met and with whom I have interacted in the former Soviet region. I enjoy Russian music and have a fairly good collection of it. And I enjoy Russian ballet, theatre and literature, although unfortunately, I can read it only in translation, as I do not speak Russian.

Do I hate Communism? I certainly abhor what Communism has done to people, Russians and their neighbours alike, in areas where it has ruled. I have seen the poverty that it caused, and understand the terrible human suffering that it imposed.

My country of residence is a complete irrelevance. My posts either stand or fall strictly on their own contents, and not on anything else. And don't worry -- I can pick far more holes in my country's policies and record than you ever could. But none of that is relevant to Russia's hoped-for better future.
Gregory January 5, 2008, 00:15: Polish people working on low wages and living in substandard accomodation in the UK: read andy Britsh newspaper on-line this year for the stories
eg The Daily Mail, The Times, The Independent, The Guardian.

The EU making decisions and making up new jobs for the boys: read David Milliband's recent speech on expanding the EU to include African countries.

David Miliband comes from a family with strong bolshevik convictions.

The advent of Schengen is providing a further wave of malleable slaves for the West.

Former Soviet Countries can start blaming communism and stop crying. I don't see how Russia sorting out the mess in Chechnya has anything to do with Marzipan6 and his anti-slavic diatribes on this website.

In fact I challenge Marzipan6 to state if he hates Russians or if he hates communism? And if he thinks 63 years of atonement or possibly 126 years of atonement will finally clean Germany's record and if he expects the same for Russia?

And finally what country are you based in and what country are you from?

Because Marzipan6...unless it's Luxembourg I am pretty sure we can pick holes in your ideologoy/country/nation/tribe/religion etc.

EU = a fake invention running out of steam and built on the pomposity of the post-ww2 generation. The same generation who emasculated european men and promote degenerate "lifestyles" and PC censorship.
Marzipan6 January 1, 2008, 09:53: Gregory asks, “Do you see a heinous economic slave pattern at work here?” Nope.

Gregory also finds Russian worldviews “damn refreshing”. Many of Russia’s neighbours find them “damn worrying”, because they used to find them “damn murderous”, and Russia has never brought appropriate closure to its Soviet-era adventures at their expense.

Gregory also thinks that European countries were “bullied” into joining the EU. He should read about the Soviet-era history of the countries of the Soviet bloc some time. THAT’S “bullying”.
Gregory December 31, 2007, 13:44: Thanks for taking the time to answer Marzipan6. I am sure you appreciate that posting do not allow for the exchange of information that real-time conversations do. And also a big thanks to this host site for encouraging conversations.
(1) I am glad you admit that Europe and Turkey are not mutually compatible.
(2) Eastern Europe should grow organically. They can all go work in Estonia. Polish workers in Poland are now being replaced by Romanians and Ukrainians who work for lower wages. Do you see a heinous economic slave pattern here Marzipan6?

(3) Marzipan6 wrote: While a part of Russian territory is in Europe, its soul is not. Nor does Russia really belong in Asia. It is an entity unto itself, neither Asian nor European, though influenced by each to a degree that neither Asia nor Europe is.

And this is why I find their worldview so damn refreshing. One of the few honest people left.

(4) Why is there low election participation for electing European MPs? Because the whole concept and the organisation has been hyped up totally out of proportion. Even worse than the meagre quality boxing matches on American satellite TV.

(5) The EU should learn the concept of thrift. As should the “suits” who milk the system.

(6) Why have prices been rounded up with the Euro? Marzipan6 wrote: Who knows. But greed might have a little something to do with it.

I agree with this. No politican stated this beforehand. This discredits the hype associated with the euro.

(7) Why do I need an additional pseudo-government somewhere else telling me what to do?
Marzipan6 wrote: If you and enough of your fellow citizens think this is unreasonable or is not worth the gain, you can either bring democratic pressure to have the matters changed, or ultimately, to leave the EU.

People were bullied into this. The EU has just turned into the lowest form of peer pressure. It really is just a funny “school” of sorts. Many people feel there is nothing democratic about it. Even the often promised referendum has been avoided.

Except in Switzerland. Referendums are a way of life for them. Every other western country fudges the issue or waves a magic wand in the mainstream media to distract the sheep oh sorry I mean the public. No-one is suggesting the complete elimination of the EU, but I cannot see how blind optimism and expansion plans worthy of the Ottoman Empire and a Tony Blair-esque "make it up as you go along" mentality will improve the future.
Marzipan6 December 31, 2007, 03:32: Gregory asks me to answer seven questions. Not having any role personally with the EU, I’m able to comment on them only as an interested private observer, and my comments carry no particular weight. However, to make Gregory happy:

(1) What happens when Turkey joins the EU? This probably won’t happen unless Turkey first significantly reforms many areas of its national life and values. Given its largely Central Asian/Middle Eastern orientations, in my view it is unlikely to do so. Therefore Gregory’s scenario is not likely to become actual.
(2) How will the EU decrease unemployment? I’m not an economist. But the traditional way is to stimulate internal consumer spending by appropriate monetary and fiscal policies. Incidentally, some newer EU members, like Estonia, have the very opposite of an unemployment problem. It has a severe labour shortage which threatens to curb its established level of growth, and has therefore further opened its labour force to foreign workers.
(3) What are the geographical boundaries of Europe (for you)? In my personal view, Turkey’s sliver of European territory does not make it a European country. Geographically Europe extends to the Urals, but these are a pretty unimpressive feature as far as mountains go. Politically, Europe extends to the border of Russia. While a part of Russian territory is in Europe, its soul is not. Nor does Russia really belong in Asia. It is an entity unto itself, neither Asian nor European, though influenced by each to a degree that neither Asia nor Europe is.
(4) Why is there low election participation for electing European MPs? Because people are complacent, because European politicians have not related closely to their electorates, and because neither Europe nor individual European countries are under any external threat.
(5) How do we measure “value for money” of this organisation? The same way as the value of all freely floating currencies is determined, by the buying and selling of the currency in the currency markets.
(6) Why have prices been rounded up with the Euro? Who knows. But greed might have a little something to do with it.
(7) Why do I need an additional pseudo-government somewhere else telling me what to do? If you live in a desert island somewhere, you need no one at all telling you what to do. If you live in a local community, then just like everyone else you need to observe local rules, or the community cannot exist to deliver its benefits to you. The same in regard to a national community. And if you live in a supra-national community such as the EU, certain uniformities need to be in place for it to function as a community, and to deliver the benefits that its size and resources make possible. This may impact on aspects of your life that otherwise you may organise differently. If you and enough of your fellow citizens think this is unreasonable or is not worth the gain, you can either bring democratic pressure to have the matters changed, or ultimately, to leave the EU.
Gregory December 30, 2007, 13:58: This thread is about the farce that is incorporating more countries. There is no political or psychological mileage left in WW2. The Germans will no doubt continue to be the whipping posts of people like you. The Russians are made of psychologically more robust matter. Hopefully they will patent this and sell it in bottles to Berlin one day.

Anyway back to more important and modern matters.

There is an alternative to this drifting that is called EU policy. It can be summed up in one magical word. A “referendum” will determine if this unaccountable abuse of taxpayer’s money in expenses and paperwork actually serves a purpose.

The results? A streamlining of an obese monster. An end to unrealistic dreams of expansion. A move away from this “one-size fits all” diktat. Snake oil salesmen beware.

There will be a return to the traditional roots of the European Union: co-operation, transparency and respect for neighbours.

Like doctors administering a placebo (a pill which has no medicinal effect) time and time again the same old gang parade in front of TV cameras in their best suits. People are starting to ask questions.

I would like to ask you 7 questions. You do not have to wear a suit to answer them. These are questions which go unanswered as we enter 2008.

1 What happens when Turkey joins the EU?
2 How will the EU decrease unemployment?
3 What are the geographical boundaries of Europe (for you)?
4 Why is there low election participation for electing European MP’s?
5 How do we measure “value for money” of this organisation?
6 Why have prices been rounded up with the Euro?
7 Why do I need an additional pseudo-government somewhere else telling me what to do?

If the EU ever had a “value for money” audit…some people would be for the high jump. Let’s not forget the saying “good fences make good neighbours”.
Marzipan6 December 30, 2007, 04:55: By the way, Gregory, it is no bad thing that Germany feels appropriate historical guilt for the Nazi era. Russia feels no historical guilt at all for the Soviet era. Do you notice the difference in the quality of relations which the two countries are able to have with their neighbours as a result, and the difference in international esteem and respect that flows to each from this?
Marzipan6 December 30, 2007, 04:46: Gregory writes that the EU had no plan, and that its 50-year history is that of a snowball rolling down a hill. Snowballs roll down the hill, and “snowball” all by themselves. I think even Gregory might concede that the EU hardly happened all by itself, automatically. A lot of extremely difficult negotiations and changes have had to be hammered out and implemented by every one of its member countries, much of which went against their grain of entrenched positions and traditional ways of doing things. Keeping the EU together and adapting to changing realities is also a very, very hard job, as the often fraught record of EU negotiations demonstrates. But the countries of Europe persist with it because on the basis of both their vision for the future and of the runs already on the board, they are convinced that the gain is much more than worth the pain.

As for the “no plan” bit, I think we need to differentiate between a vision on the one hand, and the tactical steps of implementing it on the other. The fundamental vision of Europe has been pretty constant over the decades, but this has expanded as existing goals were accomplished and as new possibilities opened up. I doubt that the founders of the European Economic Community foresaw in 1957 an EU stretching from the Baltic to the Mediterranean, and encompassing a large part of Eastern Europe, but this result is entirely consistent with the vision that they did have of a Europe with common institutions, based on democratic values and serving as a way out of the extreme nationalism that had devastated the continent. As European realities continued evolving and changing, obviously new instruments of administration needed to be put into place to deal with these.

Some might say this is “ad-hoccery”. But what’s the alternative? No one had a crystal ball in 1951 or 1957 and could, with the benefit of a God’s-eye view, lay down the law for the next century. No one still has a crystal ball, and some of the administrational attempts to respond to challenges and to map a path for the future are misguided. The EU isn’t like the Soviet Workers’ Paradise was, where no one ever made a mistake and where everything was perfect from the word, “go”.

Europe’s history is pretty long, and exceptionally bloody. A true measure of the worth and achievements of the EU cannot really be gained from a vantage point that starts with 2004 or 2007 (the dates of the two eastward expansions), but from a perspective that takes in the centuries. From such a perspective, the nearly 57 years since the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community, which was the womb of the EU, have been truly amongst the most peaceful, prosperous and brilliant of Europe’s long and tortured history. The future, of course, is up for grabs – it always is. But the momentum of the past 57 years gives more hope for the future of Europe than has existed for a very long time. Indeed the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Gregory December 29, 2007, 19:44: Marzipan6: wrote "I believe that the EU is currently at a bit of a watershed; it has successfully seen through the first fifty years of its existence, and must now grapple with precisely the fruits of its success. A larger community makes the decision-making processes more complicated, and there are challenges. In this regard they are a bit like the original Common Market countries were in the 1950s and 60s – they are still appalled at what a divided Europe did to them, and realize that their future can best be guaranteed in a different kind of continent."

The EU had no plan, it's 50 year history is that of a snowball rolling down a hill. Gathering size and momentum and now the hill will run out or the snow will slowly melt. The EU is being used as an illusionary "catch all" ideal. At no point has there been any serious attempt to tackle unemployment in France or East Germany. Both of these member countries have unemployment running at 12 plus per cent and higher in many areas. I do not think it is any business of someone based in Italy, Austria or Belgium to have any say on my country. Just as I would have no interest interfering in somebody's life in Poland, Estonia or Albania.

You write exceptionally polite paragraphs & I believe you must work for the consulate of some country because you continually paint a positive upbeat image with out answering any questions. Did you work with Tony Blair or Peter Mandelson by any chance?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And this pudding doesn't taste too good. Nine new countries brings additional red tape, additional problems and additional jobs for bureaucrats. And this mess will be unsatisfactory for many. In fact it already is.

The time has come to consolidate west europe and not to expand eastwards (or southwards). If you build a house made of straw it will blow away. And this is precisely what is happening. Parity of esteem can exist if the 9 countries are left to find their own path. Dangling carrots in front of people when France is experiencing regular riots, Germany is so wracked with war-guilt it will say "ja" to anything etc is a recipe for disaster.
Marzipan6 December 29, 2007, 14:43: Gregory tells of the imperfections of market forces, and I agree with him. The Industrial Revolution was the product of more or less unrestrained market forces, and it produced a mixture of both good and shockingly bad results. Market forces have to be managed and directed, not allowed to run amok. Don't really know how you would do this without, amongst other things, a bureaucracy.

But I find no reason to believe that the EU, as it is presently administered, would lead to the destruction of national cultures, national languages or of the nation state. Where is a national European language or country that has been destroyed? National states, cultures and languages are actually thriving in the context of the EU. Not only that, but the EU is also materially supporting the development of minority cultures in many European countries, and in some cases bringing these back from danger of extinction.

Of course, countries must change on an ongoing basis. That’s part of life, and always has been. Every country in Europe has changed over time. But change is hardly extinction. In fact, it can be argued that a refusal to adapt is rather a herald of extinction. And of course one can point to EU bureaucratic excesses and bungles – just as one can point to bureaucratic successes and benefits. That, too, unfortunately, is part of life.

Gregory, you seem to be focussed on the notion that the only “sponge” that absorbs everything around it is Western Europe, and you seem to feel that this spells doom for the West. If that is what you believe, you are mistaken; eastern countries are also absorbing western values, western business enterprises, western languages and administration systems and an increasing number of western immigrants. And of course, there are people there, too, who think that all this spells doom. But doom is not falling on either half of Europe. (Almost) all European countries are adapting and changing and prospering – while still also remaining uniquely themselves.

I believe that the EU is currently at a bit of a watershed; it has successfully seen through the first fifty years of its existence, and must now grapple with precisely the fruits of its success. A larger community makes the decision-making processes more complicated, and there are challenges. But along with the obvious problems that they inherited from the old divided Europe, the new EU members bring with them a very bright and energetic enthusiasm for the European ideal. In this regard they are a bit like the original Common Market countries were in the 1950s and 60s – they are still appalled at what a divided Europe did to them, and realize that their future can best be guaranteed in a different kind of continent. To illustrate, Poland huffed and puffed (France used to, too, and perhaps still does) but it came to the party in the end.
Gregory December 29, 2007, 12:36: Marzipan6: many thanks for the polite reply and presentation of your arguments.
For your information I believe in pan-european solidarity and a homogenous society. I just don't believe in social chaos which is exactly what you have described. West Europe is not a sponge that will absorb everything and to pretend so is insulting the intelligence of the inhabitants and it's neighbours. The Schengen agreement is the same pipe dream that was sold to Russians in the immediate collapse of the USSR ie market forces will change society for the better. Your arguments are reasonable and and written in good english however it does read like a political speech for television. Once again people paint a nice picture with big ideas that sound so reasonable. But this is called "blue sky thinking". Unfortunately it would be suicidal to compare Europe to the N.American Continent or even to the USSR. There has always been and there will always be differences in language, history, expression, outlook and ethnic make up between countries. What you suggest is to destroy, dilute and alter these facts which are symbols of historical survival that stretch back centuries.

But leaving aside that part of your speech let us now concentrate on something you did not answer. Where are all the jobs for all these people? Why was Turkey not accepted into this grand plan? You no doubt believe that rampant market forces can only be a good thing. We now have a three tier europe with an underclass of marginal criminals and religious fifth columnists, a slave-like drone class (please read British papers on-line for the nationalities) and a moneyed elite which doesn't have to live in the same areas as groups one or two.

You continue to criticse island mentalities. Condemning them as isolationist. If this is such a bad thing how come certain islands have the oldest democratic parliaments and the strongest economies. I suggest that certain landlocked neighbours stop the social engineering (and stop promising that such experiments work) and study their history books a little more.

You state that this is democratic...when most Bruxelles bureaucrats are not voted into office, have a budget which is unaccountable and they make up posts and job titles without consulting any population. The EU is now flying in the face of logic. It was only a nice alternative to the USSR anyway. It has lost direction and will continue to do so. What next? Maybe an pan-european army with an unelected general to intervene in Africa? I believe they regard this as feasible as well.
Marzipan6 December 29, 2007, 03:54: Gregory wrote, “A further nine countries can now watch their young, unmarried work force (18-30 year olds) disappear abroad, as will their hardened criminals (no background checks are carried out on those coming from abroad via Interpol). What will be left in East Europe? Will it become depopulated?”

This is very much a “the sky is falling” panic view of things. Almost anyone in the new EU member countries who wanted to travel or work in most of the rest of the EU has already been able to do so for years, and no countries, not even the very smallest, have been depopulated. However, all countries have had a motivation to improve conditions at home, and the fact that living standards are sharply increasing in the east show that they are successful in this. If memory serves correctly, analyses show that by 2012, for example, the standard of living in Estonia (hardly a European giant) will have reached the average for the EU as a whole.

The old East Germany “solved” the problem of depopulation by building the infamous Berlin wall, and establishing Orwellian anti-personnel installations throughout the length of its western border, as part of Soviet Moscow’s paranoia about freedom and the free movement of people. What a great success that was in contributing to the well-being of ordinary people in the Soviet empire.
Marzipan6 December 29, 2007, 03:27: Gregory, obviously no law enforcement system is or ever can be perfect. Nor does law enforcement exist as an island all by itself, but is an integrated part of the overall social, economic and political management of society. There must be give and take to achieve the optimum outcome in the context of the entire picture, and there will always be some plusses and minuses, no matter how you cut it. In the judgement of most European countries, with a variety of cultures, economic levels and experiences of history (and they’re not all fools or captive to some shadowy international conspiracy) the Schengen arrangement is considered to be the best response to Europe’s needs of the 21st Century.

Europe has a land area approximately the same as that of the United States, and a population size that is in the same general league. But unlike the US, it is divided into dozens of different nation states If Europe wants to compete successfully with the United States, it has to have a single economic, legislative, political and labour space – else it is just not in the race. And if Europe wants to defend itself from powerful nations, either within or externally, picking it off piecemeal country by country, it must also unify.

All this was clearly apparent in 1918 already, but the measures that were attempted to be put into place at that time proved incapable of providing a common European entity. The need for pan-European institutions to prevent recurrences of the bloody European nightmare became desperately obvious in 1945, but the fact that half the continent was then held captive by Soviet Russia made it possible for only Western Europe to work towards unity. Since 1990 the way has been open for most of the rest of Europe to be included in the European ideal, and it is to the credit of most European leaders, from East and West alike, that they have not hesitated to grasp the opportunity of building a better future for their people.

Unlike throughout most of European history, including its 20th Century history, a common Europe is being built on an entirely voluntary basis, without forcing anyone to become or to remain part of it. Nor have individual European countries, languages or cultures been destroyed, likewise in sharp contrast to the experience of last Century. The pace and nature of European unity is in the hands of individual sovereign governments, which in their turn are in the hands of the people of those countries, who can democratically vote their governments out of office if they choose to, and install new governments with different policies. The outcomes achieved in this way will never please everyone -- that is the nature of people living in community, as distinct from living as hermits in an island. But if they please a majority, society can exist successfully.

In the United States, I suppose crime in California might be decreased if there were several international borders and border controls between it and New York State. But at what overall cost??