Heartland

My, you three have been busy! Interesting stuff all round though. Looks like none of us feels sufficiently well informed on the existing political systems of our neighbours or of the proposed EU constitution, though there must be plenty of *ahem* interesting websites out there explaining the pros and cons from all sides.

From what I can gather, immigration would seem to pose the same 'challenges' across Europe. I'm as susceptible to the knee-jerk 'why don't they try to assimilate more' reaction as the next person. Though I can't say I've ever felt threatened by them stealing our jobs and houses, but that's probably due to my relative security in those regards. When all's said and done, I doubt any of us have to look too far back into our family trees to discover we're all the progeny of immigrants somewhere down the line. My maternal grandfather came to England from the Swiss/ Italian border and my paternal grandmother came here from Eire.

Oh yes, Andy, you forgot to mention habeas corpus.

Francis wrote:My, you three have been busy! Interesting stuff all round though.

Just trying to keep all of you up to date, don't we

Francis wrote:Looks like none of us feels sufficiently well informed on the existing political systems of our neighbours or of the proposed EU constitution, though there must be plenty of *ahem* interesting websites out there explaining the pros and cons from all sides.

Indeed, the information deficiency keeps us from making the 'right' decisions... A very economical thing, you won't have perfect markets until each side is equally well informed... Sadly, this is mainly a pro for the 'offer' side, which is, in this case, undoubtably policians, we, as voters, at the 'demand' side, will just have to do our best and try to make the choices as right as possible
I think the Euro-constitution was also mainly about making things 'abroad' (but within the union) more understandable to everyone, less research to do if you want to do business, go live elsewhere, etcetera...

Francis wrote:From what I can gather, immigration would seem to pose the same 'challenges' across Europe. I'm as susceptible to the knee-jerk 'why don't they try to assimilate more' reaction as the next person. Though I can't say I've ever felt threatened by them stealing our jobs and houses, but that's probably due to my relative security in those regards. When all's said and done, I doubt any of us have to look too far back into our family trees to discover we're all the progeny of immigrants somewhere down the line. My maternal grandfather came to England from the Swiss/ Italian border and my paternal grandmother came here from Eire.

I think all of our ancestors are the answer number one to the 'why don't they try to assimilate more'-question... Before, we took the 'strangers' into our own 'ranks', filtered out the stuff we could use the best, threw the rest away and kept a (more or less) healthy portion of 'doing it our way'... So instead of them adapting, more like us adapting, or is this but an illusion of mine?
Again very economical, but also slightly Darwinistic methinks, everything that makes you stronger in the struggle for life, you've got to use against 'the others'...

So, in an attempt to broaden my understanding of European politics, how do our other mainland members feel? I know you're out there. I'd name names but that would only offend those I left out. As far as I can recall, pretty much every European nation is represented here. Even the French. And I'm sure the non-Europeans have a thought or two on this or a similar local subject.

I would really like to hear your opinions, no matter how unconventional they may be. Perhaps we can make up for the politicians' failings in informing the debate. Be it a one liner or a dissertation, all contributions are welcome. If we can't have a frank discussion about differences with our close neighbours, how can we expect to understand completely different cultures?

Over to you. I'm off to Merlin's Burrow tomorrow for ten days. I look forward to reading this thread when I get back.

I thankyou in advance.

Immigration:

a) Yes, it's true, Switzerland has a very severe policy. You find racists and nationalists in every country, but I guess that the fact that our laws are stricter than those in other European countries might have to do with the fact, that the xenophobe can express their wishes in initiatives which might result in these laws. And you must not forget, that contrary to Britain, France, The Netherlands, Belgium, and even Italy and Germany, Switzerland has never had colonies or an Empire. So in a way, there's no background history to explain why "all these immigrants" come to us, and we have a rather high percentage of them in european comparison. Besides, in 2003 our worst populist (Christoph Blocher) has been elected into the Bundesrat by our parliament (Bundesversammlung), and he now is the head of the justice and police department, which also deals with immigration and the like. So imagine the damage he can do, before anybody in this country (or the EU or the UNO) can stop him....

b) Obviousman, you asked about the different immigrant/sans-papiers policies the french speaking and the german speaking part have adopted: Every canton is sovereign in its cantonal political decisions, which has positive and negative aspects.. The french speaking are more open towards immigrants and less xenophobe. They manage integration far better. The good news about this cantonal sovereignty is that the german part might learn from the successfull french speaking part, like we have learned from the Netherlands how to deal with our drug addicted people. The down side being that as an immigrant you have different chances of being allowed to stay or not: If you enter Switzerland in the french part, you have good chances to be allowed to stay, in the german part you haven't. This is unfair and it discriminates immigrants, because they're not allowed to move freely within Switzerland, so they can't increase their chances to be allowed to stay by moving to a "friendlier" canton, because as long as they don't have a C-permit (permanent permit), they have to stay living in the canton they've been assigned to. This also explains why I am reluctant to your idea of quota. The aim of mixing society and sharing the responsability and everything for immigrants is a good idea, but the idea of assigning them here or there puts me off. Sounds like moving cattle to me...

c) Europe: If Europe indeed has an immigrant-friendlier policy, I'd be the first to welcome an Europeanisation of these policies in Switzerland too. My fear though is that Europe will (like Switzerland in a way) become something like a fortress, where it's only possible for EU citizens to move about, but people from further east or south don't have a chance to get in legally. This reminds me too much of "the boat is full", an expression coined in Switzerland during WW II, when we didn't want to let the Jews into our country, where they would have been safe (or at least safer than in Germany and Austria). What we need is a humanitarian policy to deal with refugees, wether it is Europe teaching Switzerland or vice-versa, I don't care, but we need to become more humanitarian again.
The Netherlands seemed to have a fairly progressive and successful immigration policiy until very recently, if I remember correctly. I don't know the details, but as the Netherlands are or used to be very progressive in many ways, I'd like to hear about their policies.

As to what Francis said, that none of us here knows enough about the European countries and the EU: Of course there are sites on the internet and everything, but I think forums like this one, Heartland, can play a major role, because as one is in contact with people from different countries, and I assume we trust each other up to a certain point, because we share a common interest (in a band who's name I've forotten now ) we might be more inclined to listen to each other and think about expressed opinions here, because we're not complete strangers. I think that only in personal contact one can grow together and stop perceiving each other as "those who will steal my job". This effect is the great potential of the European - and the people worldwide -. Watching myself I realize that I'm far more inclined to read an article in a newspaper, let's say about elections in Britain or immigration policies in Belgium, if I'm at least vaguely familiar with the different attitudes and have been given some informations from you, people I "know"....

....I think I should have become priest....

Francis wrote:So, in an attempt to broaden my understanding of European politics, how do our other mainland members feel? I know you're out there. I'd name names but that would only offend those I left out. As far as I can recall, pretty much every European nation is represented here. Even the French. And I'm sure the non-Europeans have a thought or two on this or a similar local subject.

I'm just affraid for most people look more at it in a 'I don't give a s**t' kind of way... We're far from being the model Europeans, I'm think... Although I would certainly welcome more (fresh) thoughts on it all too...

Francis wrote:...Perhaps we can make up for the politicians' failings in informing the debate ... Over to you. I'm off to Merlin's Burrow tomorrow for ten days. I look forward to reading this thread when I get back

Meanwhile a new political party will get founded: Heartlands of Europe Party Bound by music of the past, united with thoughts for the future

@Eva (I'll stick to your alphabetical order ):

a) All the immigrants coming to Switzerland, I probably think they do that because of the fact Switzerland is portrayed as a very wealthy country abroad, with an economy based on banking and all that...
The news Bloch was elected, made it into Belgian news too, I don't know how big those parties are in Switzerland by now, but (and I detest what I'm about to say) you're (most probably) better off to take the right-wing parties into a government when small and break people's illusions about them that way, instead of trying to stop them for over 15 years (like they did in Belgium)... Because of us waiting this long, they've become so well-organised by now that they won't show their real faces the first time, don't ever fail, until they get to the 'real power', at least, that's what I'm affraid of...
Only thing contra: Look at what those parties did in eg. Holland (LPF), they made an enormously tolerant system into a right wing country without any securities left (in half a year!) ...

b) Very interesting what you say on the cantonal system, but in eg. Belgium, such a thing would not work, because two big Flemish parties have separation explicitly in their party programmes, whereas the biggest Walloon parties are more or less unionist, and I think in Europe you would get the same sort of problem (in long term of course), with pro- and contra-EU governments (especially without the constitution, but that's another discussion)...
About my 'quota'-system, I don't see it so much as a moving cattle, more like 'not everyone has EU borders, so lets share the burden between those who don't and those who do', and I don't believe it is wrong (personally) to not let the immigrants choose, because, after all, they're looking for a better life, more or less regardless if that better life is in Italy or Finland...

c) That's one of the main reasons of 'sharing the burden', because if we divide those people honestly over the whole of Europe, no-one will have the right to complain...
'The Boat Is Full', that's the exact translation of what Pim Fortuyn used to get to power, and what got his party to power after his killing, so that shows what climate Holland is in now very much... When I look at Dutch television, I get the feeling they live in some sort of passive war, a war against imaginary fears... I don't know how or what Fortuyn did, but he changed this nice, progressive and open country into a narrow minded, right wing country... This hurts me a lot, because, in the end I liked Holland a lot, but now I don't know anymore what to do, I'd even be inclined towards changing my nationality to the Belgian one because of this. This regardless of the fact I was against this for years because I always believed in some sort of 'European nationality' (somehow I still like the thought of it, but I don't know anymore)

Interesting things you pointed out towards Francis, didn't think of it that way yet, but very true!

Now I'm off to do some mathematics, yeah

I'm a bit worried that I'm going to end up explaining England to the rest of Europe based purely on my own prejudices here. I was hoping someone might join in with some other versions of life in the UK to balance me out.

@ Francis: habeas corpus is one of those things I read, I think I can literally translate from latin, and I have no real understanding of what it's all about That's (among) the reasons why I ignored it. /shrug/ nobody's perfect.

On immigration:

Dispersal sounds good in theory, but remember that people often have good reasons for why they want to go to one area. Within the UK there is some discussion about whether we immigrants should stay near their port of arrival (usually London for the airports, or the channel ferry ports), or move them around the UK to 'spread them around'.

But 'dispersal' has not been a success. The headline-grabbing incident was the murder of a Turkish (? maybe Kurdish ?) man in Glasgow a few years ago, but the feeling is that people find it harder to settle in 'British' communities, and are not always welcomed into them.

Where people move as they choose immigrant communities grow up and provide a local support group for new arrivals. The danger of an imposed dispersal, whether it is nationwide or Europe-wide, is that you shatter that informal 'self-help' network. In turn, you increase the burden on the state(s) involved, because people have fewer other places to turn.

@ Obviousman: Fortuyn was a real surprise to the British. Holland has been a famous example of 'tolerance' and an illustration of a successful liberal society.

But his rise could be seen as underlining the growing switch to the right across Europe (possibly the world). It was around this time that le Pen was in a run-off against Chirac for the French presidency; Denmark (another totem of liberalism) was passing ever more strict anti-immigrant laws (which resulted in someone torching a government minister's house being burned down yesterday); eastern Germany is seeing a resurgence of neo-nazism (Saxony has been mentioned, IIRC); Italian football stars are turning up at funerals of far-right hooligans; Britain's 'left-wing' party moves ever more towards the centre-right.

Perhaps the depressing fact (for a democrat) is that Europe's electorates seem to be buying the conservative (small 'c') message and endorsing it. It's difficult to work this one through, without running the risk of telling the majority that they are wrong and we know best.

Maybe that's the Euro-dilemma in a nutshell.

@obviousman: Please don't get me wrong about immigration in Switzerland - I'm not the one saying "what the fcuk do they want here?!" - I was merely pointing out something I perceive as a common attitude here: "What do we have to do with the rest of the world? We're here, safe, behind these mountains, what are they coming to disturb us, those strange people?". I see perfectly well why they come here (well, to any european country): it's peaceful, you might find a job, and yes, Switzerland is wealthy and it has a low rate of unemployed people so far.

@andymackem: Regarding quota I agree with you, although there is a certain risk of "ghettoes" and therefore "parallel societies" and their dangers developping.

As to Blocher being in the executive, I felt ashamed as a Swiss citizen, because he's not one you'd like to be remembered for. The good side about it is that his party, the SVP, is having serious trouble now, because he was their guru, and now he's too far away to play his role propperly (still causing enough collateral damage though). It seems as if they're loosing popularity already, also because they've had 12 years time to show that while they're bigmouths, they don't get anything done. And they won't be able to win a majority of the Swiss votes, which is a relief.

The drift to the right indeed seems to be a general European - or even global - tendency, and I tend to think it's a consequence of the "fat years" being over. People feel betrayed. And though in my opinion it was the private economy which has betrayed people - and all that neo-liberal nonsense people believed in - people tend to blame the weakest in any society.

But I doubt that things would be any better if the EU didn't exist. I think the problem lies deeper, it lies in capitalism itself. I'm not to say we need communism back, but the "invisible hand of the market" just doesn't work as theory would like us to believe.

Having spent quite some time with my fave math book the last few days, I'm (temporarily) back (that's for now +5mins )... Anyway, it seems to have worked since I could write down a whole 3page long mathematical proof right out of my head ... Amazed me quite a bit ...

Anyway, here's the answer to all your questions

andymackem wrote:On immigration:

Dispersal sounds good in theory, but remember that people often have good reasons for why they want to go to one area. Within the UK there is some discussion about whether we immigrants should stay near their port of arrival (usually London for the airports, or the channel ferry ports), or move them around the UK to 'spread them around'.

But 'dispersal' has not been a success. The headline-grabbing incident was the murder of a Turkish (? maybe Kurdish ?) man in Glasgow a few years ago, but the feeling is that people find it harder to settle in 'British' communities, and are not always welcomed into them.

Where people move as they choose immigrant communities grow up and provide a local support group for new arrivals. The danger of an imposed dispersal, whether it is nationwide or Europe-wide, is that you shatter that informal 'self-help' network. In turn, you increase the burden on the state(s) involved, because people have fewer other places to turn.

Didn't hear about that one yet, and quite a good point you've made... In Belgium, there is some sort of dispersal system, every town has to take X immigrants (I think it's related to the population count, not sure), and accomodate them within the town... Before, there was the same system, but they did just put the guys in some hovel in Antwerp or Brussels, and give them some money every month to pay the rent and get some food... IIRC, they now have to give a decent place to live plus food, rather than money...

So, I still like the idea of the 'self-help' network, plus understand it's more diffucult to settle in certain areas, but you should not forget most immigrants (to stay within their own group) will indeed concentrate themselves in rather small areas, and therefore, you'll be in trouble with the locals, which will undoubtably lead to populism, right wing-nonsense, etcetera...

andymackem wrote:@ Obviousman: Fortuyn was a real surprise to the British. Holland has been a famous example of 'tolerance' and an illustration of a successful liberal society.

But his rise could be seen as underlining the growing switch to the right across Europe (possibly the world). It was around this time that le Pen was in a run-off against Chirac for the French presidency; Denmark (another totem of liberalism) was passing ever more strict anti-immigrant laws (which resulted in someone torching a government minister's house being burned down yesterday); eastern Germany is seeing a resurgence of neo-nazism (Saxony has been mentioned, IIRC); Italian football stars are turning up at funerals of far-right hooligans; Britain's 'left-wing' party moves ever more towards the centre-right.

Not only a surprise to the British
Though I do need to emphasise the thing different from other countries (France, Belgium,...) is that it practically came out of nothing, there was no structured far-right stuff before Fortuyn... There used to be the Centrumpartij (Centre Party, to me the name is a hell of a joke ) of Janmaat in the eighties, but it got nowhere thanks to a well structured 'cordon sanitaire' (don't know if that term is used in English, if it isn't, ask ), but then, suddenly, Fortuyn came up, he used to be a columnist in a newspaper before, and had declared before he wanted to take part in the elections, and then joined Leefbaar Nederland (Livable Holland), but had to leave the party soon after (they had boomed in polls), because he said the famous 'the Netherlands are full' thing in some interview... Anyway, the thought of populism popping up right out of nowhere anytime is very scary to me...

andymackem wrote:Perhaps the depressing fact (for a democrat) is that Europe's electorates seem to be buying the conservative (small 'c') message and endorsing it. It's difficult to work this one through, without running the risk of telling the majority that they are wrong and we know best.

Maybe that's the Euro-dilemma in a nutshell.

I think that's because conservatives tend to hold to certain securties, which actually are everything but sure to last, but people like to keep securities as long as possible, instead of taking a risk, I'm affraid... Still, if you're really conviced you're right, don't be affraid to say so, but just let the people know, after a while, they'll be getting your theories and they will make sense to them too, but that is if they are sensible indeed of course

Eva wrote:@obviousman: Please don't get me wrong about immigration in Switzerland - I'm not the one saying "what the fcuk do they want here?!" - I was merely pointing out something I perceive as a common attitude here: "What do we have to do with the rest of the world? We're here, safe, behind these mountains, what are they coming to disturb us, those strange people?". I see perfectly well why they come here (well, to any european country): it's peaceful, you might find a job, and yes, Switzerland is wealthy and it has a low rate of unemployed people so far.

Has much to do with the securties I mentioned a bit above, I think, they might fear because of others coming in, they won't be certain anymore to keep their work, because the others are cheaper (or that's what they think) perhaps...

Eva wrote:As to Blocher being in the executive, I felt ashamed as a Swiss citizen, because he's not one you'd like to be remembered for. The good side about it is that his party, the SVP, is having serious trouble now, because he was their guru, and now he's too far away to play his role propperly (still causing enough collateral damage though). It seems as if they're loosing popularity already, also because they've had 12 years time to show that while they're bigmouths, they don't get anything done. And they won't be able to win a majority of the Swiss votes, which is a relief.

Be pleased to be relieved ... Now all you've got to make sure is that he doesn't tear down the system like they did in Holland, Italy (not that Italy had much of a system before ) or so...

Eva wrote:The drift to the right indeed seems to be a general European - or even global - tendency, and I tend to think it's a consequence of the "fat years" being over. People feel betrayed. And though in my opinion it was the private economy which has betrayed people - and all that neo-liberal nonsense people believed in - people tend to blame the weakest in any society.

I'm affraid I have to disagree on that one... Fat years never last forever, whatever system you use, and that has to be realised by the people... Actually, politicians can do very little about the economy, they're only a tiny element in the big system... There's so many systems going on, market tendencies, Kondratief waves, etc, these global moves over a large timeframe just cannot be stopped...
Of course you don't have to liberalise on to the rediculous (like UK railways), because, some things just can never pay if you want to serve the entire economy...
But the global system is one leaning towards a free market, and to be able to compete in that free market, you'll have to evolve into a certain degree of free market in each country. If you don't, you'll be doing nothing but paying enormous bills to your industry in order to keep them more or less competitive, which gives another non-existent security, which brings us back to right wing and populism...

Eva wrote:But I doubt that things would be any better if the EU didn't exist. I think the problem lies deeper, it lies in capitalism itself. I'm not to say we need communism back, but the "invisible hand of the market" just doesn't work as theory would like us to believe.

Capitalism doesn't work, but you can't be giving the same things to everyone either, like communism would because of the fact they both are extreme forms, and to get something really working, you have to have compromises up til a certain point...

Still , the idea of (decent) liberalism (not liberalisation) is in giving everyone the same chances and the ability to start likewise, instead of (like socialism/communism) making sure everyone arrives at the same point after so and so many years... So that's what makes me think it makes more sense to ask for liberalism instead of being asking for equality of every human being, because there will always be supreme persons standing at the top of the system anyway...

@andymackem: Today I found out about another pro of the EU

I had to go to the vet, to get some injections against rabies for my dog, and since a couple of years there is a European passport for animals, which you always have to take along when travelling... Because of this passport, you won't have to worry about all the different rules on injections and so every country has, but now there's just one general rule, which makes life a whole lot easier...
Now that's a pro, isn't it

Haven't read the posts since last Thursday cos I'm at my parents' and they're not on broadband so a) it's painfully slow and b) it costs them money, but will do when I get back to Leeds at the weekend. Meanwhile, I remembered snippets of conversation which I thought were relevant to the immigration issue.

My Auntie: (Lovely woman, lives on a council estate in Windsor) When you walk down Slough High Street you feel like you're in Calcutta.

My Mum: (Lovely woman, homeowner in a sought after part of Wiltshire) But it's all part of our rich multi-cultural society.

A couple of days before:

My Mum: I have a lot of respect for our town council for the way in which they've preserved the individuality of our High Street.

Me: Hmmm...

Obviousman wrote:

Eva wrote:The drift to the right indeed seems to be a general European - or even global - tendency, and I tend to think it's a consequence of the "fat years" being over. People feel betrayed. And though in my opinion it was the private economy which has betrayed people - and all that neo-liberal nonsense people believed in - people tend to blame the weakest in any society.

I'm affraid I have to disagree on that one... Fat years never last forever, whatever system you use, and that has to be realised by the people... Actually, politicians can do very little about the economy, they're only a tiny element in the big system... There's so many systems going on, market tendencies, Kondratief waves, etc, these global moves over a large timeframe just cannot be stopped...
Of course you don't have to liberalise on to the rediculous (like UK railways), because, some things just can never pay if you want to serve the entire economy...
But the global system is one leaning towards a free market, and to be able to compete in that free market, you'll have to evolve into a certain degree of free market in each country. If you don't, you'll be doing nothing but paying enormous bills to your industry in order to keep them more or less competitive, which gives another non-existent security, which brings us back to right wing and populism...

Of course the fat years never last forever, and people have to get used to that. What I was talking about though is this: In previous recessions (does that word exist in english?) in Switzerland unemployment increasing could be avoided, because a) immigrants who had been invited to Switzerland for working purposes ("Gastarbeiter") could be made to go to their home countries again, and b) mostly Swiss women lost their jobs, the employers using the excuse "You're married, your husband works full time, therefore you don't need a job as much as a man." These women would not appear in the unemployment statistics, because they would just be "housewives" again, and neither would the former immigrants, as in their case unemployment was exported by Switzerland.
In the recession of the early/mid 1990ies the situation was very differnt. For the first time larger parts of the Swiss male population lost their jobs too, and unemployment could not be exported. For the first time the people here confronted a situation, where it didn't count anymore, that they'd spent most of their lifetime in the same company etc. This, and the fact that people at the age of 45 upwards didn't have much chances to find a new employment anymore thouroughly traumatized the people here. Now, although the recession is mostly over, these same people still have difficulties finding a job, PLUS - and this is the worst IMHO - a lot of youngsters (especially immigrant children from former Yugoslawia, because they're stigmatized) don't find apprenticeships and jobs either.
Companies tell you that they have to save money, to lower the costs and throw you out into an uncertain future, and at the same time their managers get paid ridiculously high salaries and bonuses.
It might be that this is an experience which has already been made by the rest of Europe previously, and only Switzerland is the last to face the new situation, but it really shocked people. At the same time for example in GB or the USA you already have laws that force companies to show, how much their managements earn, to protect share-holders etc. In Switzerland such a law doesn't have a chance at the moment.
So people do feel betrayed, and they're not entirely wrong.

On one hand you're right, politicians can't do much about the policies of private companies, on the other you're wrong, regarding the protection of people in case of unemployment. Denmark has found a solution regarding this, and surprisingly their solution is supported not only by the people, but also by the companies: Everbody agreed to increase the taxes, so in case of unemployment people are quite well protected, or rather, there is enough money around to help them survive.
Another thing politicians can do - and used to do here until this shift to the right came - was "anti-cyclical investments". The State would invest when the economy had a down, and when the economy was strong again, the State would save money. This way the effects of recessions can be made less strong (sorry, my English leaves me).

I've got nothing against free markets, but what happened here during the 90ies is that the private economy has shifted the costs for human capital onto the State, but at the same time the State here - unlike Denmark - didn't get the money to cover these costs. Rather the opposite: Taxes haven't risen, but shifted from the "Haves" to the "Have-nots" here in Switzerland. That's where one of the problems lies.

Obviousman wrote:

Eva wrote:But I doubt that things would be any better if the EU didn't exist. I think the problem lies deeper, it lies in capitalism itself. I'm not to say we need communism back, but the "invisible hand of the market" just doesn't work as theory would like us to believe.

Capitalism doesn't work, but you can't be giving the same things to everyone either, like communism would because of the fact they both are extreme forms, and to get something really working, you have to have compromises up til a certain point...
Still , the idea of (decent) liberalism (not liberalisation) is in giving everyone the same chances and the ability to start likewise, instead of (like socialism/communism) making sure everyone arrives at the same point after so and so many years... So that's what makes me think it makes more sense to ask for liberalism instead of being asking for equality of every human being, because there will always be supreme persons standing at the top of the system anyway...

Capitalism here in Switzerland used to be modified insofar, as there was a slight mechanism to shift some of the wealth of the "Have's" to the "Have nots", just like the richer cantons subsidise the poorer. That works fine, doesn't hurt anybody that much, but at the same time keeps social peace.

Thus some kind of "chance-equality", what you called "giving everbody the same chances" was ensured, and vertical social mobility was made possible. But this has changed considerably. To explain it I'll stick to education, because as Switzerland doesn't have any natural resources, it can only rely on humal resources.
Equal chances regarding education are only given, if young people have good chances to find an apprenticeship, and if everybody can afford university. For a long time this was the case, but now companies are increasingly less willing to offer apprenticeships, and due to vearious tax-reductions for very wealthy people the State has less money to support universities. Fees go up, scholarships and grants are severely restricted and changed to loans, that make poorer people shy back (how can you cope with debths of sFr. 150 000.- = 100 000 Euros an more after you finished uni, when you're not at all certain you'll find a job?). Besides, educational costs don't lower your taxes anymore, so education becomes a very expensive good, while there are no jobs for people with low education, as there has been a strong shift towards service-industries.

Obviousman wrote: Also one has to keep in mind, about the Eastern countries joining, everyone complains they are too poor and they take the level of the union down. Okay, right now we have to invest, but you'll see, in a couple of years you'll get a great return. We will never have to go to their level, they'll get to ours, look at Spain and Portugal for example, when joining, they were way under the level of the rest of the Union, but right now, they share in welfare and their pices are getting very much on the same level as the rest of the Union...

So coming to the point of this rather long post: You don't have to take everything the Union wants you to do, but still, look at the long term returns, and think of the advantages you will get in 10 or 20 years. When we come at that point, you most probably will be content not to have chosen the egoistic "Lets protect the country against all others"-point of view but instead have gone for the "lets share the wealth and see what return we'll get in x years"

Well, I didn't lie when saying I'm pro Union, isn't it

Thank you, thank you, thank you, you know we exist!!!
Yes, we had great benefits from joining the Economical European Union. The Euro is the best invention since the wheel.
And now I understand what Eldritch means by "flood France" (not really, no, but almost).
I'm also for the enlargement and the Constitution. I don't trust my own politicians to the point I'd rather have a German ruling this country. This is how far I'm not pleased with internal politics. I see no way out except in an Union.
As for the big countries, big as they are, the bigger the better. Union is strength and so on.
This does not mean I won't support the Portuguese team in the Championship but that's about anything Portuguese I'm about to support. I'm not a patriot, I wasn't raised to be one, and I'm not one bit pleased with the s**t politicians have done to our country. f**k Portugal. Long live Europe.

There. I had if off my chest.

andymackem wrote: So, returning to my original point, since living in the UK is (compared with most of the rest of the world) a good thing, how do I benefit from paying to build roads in Poland?

I don't know about Poland. Let them speak for themselves. As for paying for building roads in Portugal, well, lots of British tourists have benefited to get to Algarve faster.
British, German, Dutch, you name it.
Sunshine, baby, sunshine. Blue water. Blue sky. No mist. No rain. Picture that.

Of course, I could use the very same roads to get to Britain and see some real mist and some real rain, but I can't afford it so I can't picture that. (And I'd like to, believe me.)
I'd say you get the best deal out of it.

Eva wrote:
Besides, if we want this planet to survive, we'll have to work together. If the citizens did work together closer, across countries, for shared interests, they'd have more power against governments and global threats too.

So nicely put!
(Sorry about answering this post by post but the thread is too long for me to go quoting everybody.)

Cheers! It's good to have one more who gives her opinion - from yet another corner of the EU - brilliant!

Everybody else is afraid of the British. And rightfully so.
Not me. Like I said, I'm not a patriot. I'm so ashamed of this country it should be banned OUT of the European Union. Or be governed by an impartial government. I don't care if it's Brussels as long as it isn't our own. Lots of people are saying nowadays we should not have fought the Spanish in the first place.
Before you worry about corruption in Africa, worry about corruption here. I've said it many times and I'll say it again. Portugal is Africa with monuments. Even the Italians are better than us because they have their corruption ORGANISED. We don't.
Money came and went directely to the pockets of some. A lit bit was left to build roads (just to pretend it had been put to use). A common government is in MY best interest if we ever going to achieve European standards at all.

But this is a very special case. An unique case in the entire "old Europe". Eastern countries that have joined last year (?) have already surpassed us. Shame.
I hand it over to Europe anytime.

'Rightfully afraid of the British?'

What have we done now?

And, should you ever get enough cash together to use those roads to come and enjoy our mist and rain (we have a specially fine display of it today, just what we like in the middle of June ), please tell some of our locals that you'd rather have a German running your country.

Don't think you'll find many takers for that idea. I'd love to know more about Portugal's corruption problems, though.

But welcome to the debate, and enjoy. Despite appearances I'm quite fond of Europe. I just worry about the people I end up agreeing with if I support the EU too vociferously.

And speaking of roads, you are absolutely right. Portugal is the only foreign country I've driven into. Obviously I flew to Spain and went from there, but I do take your point.

andymackem wrote: 'Rightfully afraid of the British?'

What have we done now?

You speak English too well!!!
Why is that so?

andymackem wrote:
And, should you ever get enough cash together to use those roads to come and enjoy our mist and rain (we have a specially fine display of it today, just what we like in the middle of June ), please tell some of our locals that you'd rather have a German running your country.

I said my country. But hey, it could be rotative. I didn't mean only a German but also a Brit, a Dutch, even a French. (Just keep away the Russians, that is unthinkable.) I meant a rotative government, of course. Instead of the clowns we've been having in office in the last 20 years.

andymackem wrote:
Don't think you'll find many takers for that idea. I'd love to know more about Portugal's corruption problems, though.

It all said, really. Subsidies are "diverted" to important needs like new jeeps and luxury palaces undercovered by faked (ghost) projects that never see the light of day. I hope to God one day European officials come check them and a lot of people go to prison for their nerve. But, alas, for that we need something more... federal.

andymackem wrote:
And speaking of roads, you are absolutely right. Portugal is the only foreign country I've driven into. Obviously I flew to Spain and went from there, but I do take your point.

Hope you have enjoyed. It's a beautiful country we (still) have. I wouldn't mind visiting your misty environment, however. Opposites attract.

I'll try to speak worse English, if that helps. If I'm feeling really brave I might try some French, but don't get excited.

I suspect if you asked any European whether he thought his government was corrupt, he'd probably agree. I'm not hugely fond of most of the people we've elected over my lifetime. But I don't look at Chirac or Schroder (or especially Berlusconi and the unlamented Aznar) and feel envious of those countries. Maybe I just don't want to be governed - untamed England, wild and free (God, what a frightening thought!).

Russia, for all its obvious faults, might be the ideal country to lead a unified Europe: hugely centralised, used to dealing with a large geographically and socially diverse territory and fervently commited to big projects thought up by the boss. That could also be a neat illustration of why a unified Europe should never be allowed! I love Russia greatly, but I couldn't live there.

It seems odd that criticise your own country for corruption, and yet Europe is at least complicit in this. You admit it is Euro-money which is being wasted. One of the major issues with Europe that emerged earlier was the 'Brussels gravy train': a feeding trough for failed domestic politicians to get fat at our expense, eating in expensive Strasbourg restaurants. I fear you'll have a long wait for those inspectors.

And finally, a confession. My trip to Portugal was for barely an afternoon. It rained, which made us feel at home Not misty enough, though.

We were staying near Pontevedra, in Galicia, and decided to take a drive over to Portugal largely because it was there. Unfortunately this was pre-Euro, on a Sunday afternoon. With lots of peseta and no escudo We did get some nice bottles of Port, though I've no idea how we paid for them.

I'll come back and visit properly some time, if you can promise me no boring ex-pat Brits playing golf and moaning about property prices. You'll come to regret those roads in time, you know

andymackem wrote: Russia, for all its obvious faults, might be the ideal country to lead a unified Europe: hugely centralised, used to dealing with a large geographically and socially diverse territory and fervently commited to big projects thought up by the boss. That could also be a neat illustration of why a unified Europe should never be allowed! I love Russia greatly, but I couldn't live there.

That was funny.

Seriously, I don't think another euro should come to Portugal. Therefore, I agree with the countries that have been paying most for the EU and their right to say that's enough.
What is necessary is that funding goes to the right place. I would like to see those subsidy leeches panic if the subsidies were immediately cut.
I may seem too harsh with my own country but it's time people here learn a new word that is "merit". We have the word but it's hardly ever used.
Besides, I hate to see my country begging. Maybe I am a patriot after all. Maybe that's why I want a more centralised EU that controls what the money goes to and punish waste and corruption so that ordinary folk can also have a chance.
What happens is that only the powerful and the friends of the powerful have had any access at all to the best financing for business and/or education and training. Because the best financing is not even publicly known. So it's not surprising it is the son or daughter of a minister who gets the chance of a good scholarship abroad and I don't. Merit has nothing to do with it. It's all about who you know.
I'm sick and tired of it. Surely it happens a bit in every country but in Portugal that's the rule, not the exception. People have conformed and are too apathetic to do anything about it. Not that they can, really. Either they vote left or right, it's the same.
Italians have the mob, we have something called "amiguismo" (friendshipism). A new word for you. It means that you won't get anywhere unless you have friends. Maybe you even have a good idea for a business, or for scientific research, or whatever. But you'll never access any fundings.
So I say stop it and get it controlled. And, unfortunately, this chain of mentality has to be stopped from an outside power.

I don't doubt this idea sounds absurd to other Europeans but they don't have what we have. It's hard to believe but it's true. Like I said, the Portuguese aren't patriots at all. The idea of putting the nation's best interest above their own is alien to our people. (We're not German, you see?) I'm surprised we have a nation at all.
While other European countries are worrying about loss of national identity, Portuguese politicians are worried about the loss of "fundings".
Oh really? We've had enough fundings already. We have enough roads and infrastuctrures. It's time to put them to use. No more "fundings" to personal bank accounts.
And yes, I can see why the biggest contributors are tired of giving. I would be too.
You have my deepest solidarity.

Still going strong and with a Portugese entry to boot. I've only skimmed the recent posts due to being bandwidthly challenged at the moment, but thought I would try to help Andy out by offering my view on the often perceived negative British position with regard to the EU. Of course there are many fervent pro-Europeans in the UK, Charles Kennedy and his supporter to name but two. As stated earlier I myself am pro in theory, and expect it will happen eventually but the change has to be much slower and not forced by non-entity politicians who are the only ones set to gain by it. I don't have a problem losing the Queen's face off my currency, but I do have a problem with the prospect of losing my language, culture and sovereignty. I think it's worth remembering that my generation were raised by parents who were, allegedly, happier and healthier as a result of rationing during WWII. Economic arguments alone are not going to convince us that we will be 'better off' in a federal Europe.

@Andy: you wrote 'we immigrants' earlier and have referred to yourself as 'little yellow fella' before, so am I to asssume you are of far eastern extraction?

on another thread dead stars wrote:After our 1974 revolution, they were independent.

I had no idea Portugal's democracy was so young. I have long suspected that many of the major European countries' democratic traditions don't exceed that of the much maligned US of A. Can anyone confirm this?

Eva wrote:On one hand you're right, politicians can't do much about the policies of private companies, on the other you're wrong, regarding the protection of people in case of unemployment. Denmark has found a solution regarding this, and surprisingly their solution is supported not only by the people, but also by the companies: Everbody agreed to increase the taxes, so in case of unemployment people are quite well protected, or rather, there is enough money around to help them survive.
Another thing politicians can do - and used to do here until this shift to the right came - was "anti-cyclical investments". The State would invest when the economy had a down, and when the economy was strong again, the State would save money. This way the effects of recessions can be made less strong (sorry, my English leaves me).

Well, yes, I agree I was a bit taking it out of its proportions, but I just wanted to make clear politicians are but one small wheel in the entire system, and they just have to roll along, although they have influence indeed...
Never heard about the Danish protectionsystem before, and it sounds like it makes sence, but, my question is, how will new companies, that plan to invest into two countries eg. Denmark and Switzerland feel about this, will they choose the country with high taxes or the one with lower taxes? I'm affraid they'll go for option number two, but of course, I could be missing something here

On anti-cyclical investments: That theory (invented by J.M. Keynes), has indeed proved to be very succesful in the past, the majority of Belgian wealth comes from this type of investments in the sixties... The problem though is the world has grown to be much more complicated since then, and the immense debts of Belgium originate from Keynesian investments back in the eighties... So that theory used to work very well, but its days are numbered, I'm affraid...

And I came up with this: If we have Europe, the government will have much more influence on this entire system, and it'll be easier to influence the whole of it, because you'll have less macro and much more micro environment... You cannot influence macro environment, but you can do this with micro, ...

Eva wrote:Capitalism here in Switzerland used to be modified insofar, as there was a slight mechanism to shift some of the wealth of the "Have's" to the "Have nots", just like the richer cantons subsidise the poorer. That works fine, doesn't hurt anybody that much, but at the same time keeps social peace.

I was talking about the extreme form of capitalism, which does not know the concept of solidarity, but indeed, up til now, modified capitalism, is one of the systems with the most succes...

Eva wrote:Equal chances regarding education are only given, if young people have good chances to find an apprenticeship, and if everybody can afford university. For a long time this was the case, but now companies are increasingly less willing to offer apprenticeships, and due to vearious tax-reductions for very wealthy people the State has less money to support universities. Fees go up, scholarships and grants are severely restricted and changed to loans, that make poorer people shy back (how can you cope with debths of sFr. 150 000.- = 100 000 Euros an more after you finished uni, when you're not at all certain you'll find a job?). Besides, educational costs don't lower your taxes anymore, so education becomes a very expensive good, while there are no jobs for people with low education, as there has been a strong shift towards service-industries.

It is a terrible thing not everyone has the same chances to go to uni, and I find it one of the most important things EU should do something about... I presume that's one of the things the Bologna-agreements were about, it makes you can go all over Europe with diploma, and so makes chances more equal on that...
Luckily in Belgium Uni is quite cheap (I think tuition fees are between 1000 and 1500 euros a year) and you can get scholarships quite easily (the income of your parents have to be below €# and you have to live in a house with low Cadastral Income, that's some tax on your house), so chances are quite equal on that for Belgium, but in Holland, scholarship is a loan too, and I have an uncle who still has to pay back that... So I'm in favour of the Belgian system for that...

dead stars wrote:Thank you, thank you, thank you, you know we exist!!!
Yes, we had great benefits from joining the Economical European Union. The Euro is the best invention since the wheel.

Congratulations, you're about the first person ever more euro-enthusiast than me
Welcome to this thread indeed

dead stars wrote:I'm also for the enlargement and the Constitution. I don't trust my own politicians to the point I'd rather have a German ruling this country.

Most people rather won't, especially not if he has a little moustache and some strange tic with his arm

dead stars wrote: I'm not a patriot, I wasn't raised to be one, and I'm not one bit pleased with the s**t politicians have done to our country. f**k Portugal. Long live Europe.

Well, I must say, I admire Barroso, he seems to be the only one left with enough realism and will to carry on... Find it's funny how someone elected as head of the commission because he isn't really pro Europe is the only one who doesn't want to see the ship sinking and is about the sole person keeping me on the right side of a Euro-depression

Francis wrote:... but I do have a problem with the prospect of losing my language, culture and sovereignty...

Being British, you're actually about the only one not to be affraid of losing language and culture, since everyone wants to do everything in English nowadays (or something trying to look like it is English )...

Francis wrote:

on another thread dead stars wrote:After our 1974 revolution, they were independent.

I had no idea Portugal's democracy was so young. I have long suspected that many of the major European countries' democratic traditions don't exceed that of the much maligned US of A. Can anyone confirm this?

Most European 'democracies' (actually countries/states) only were founded somewhere 1800ish, had to do with some 'nationalist' tendense... Most of them weren't even real democracies, women only could go voting mid-1900s in most countries, in Belgium before let's say 1890 you could only go voting if you were wealthy enough, etcetera etcetera, plus just before WWII, most countries got themselves a dictator, so that's not really democratic too, isn't it...
How about the UK? House of the Lords, still exists, doesn't it

Obviousman wrote:

dead stars wrote:Thank you, thank you, thank you, you know we exist!!!
Yes, we had great benefits from joining the Economical European Union. The Euro is the best invention since the wheel.

Congratulations, you're about the first person ever more euro-enthusiast than me
Welcome to this thread indeed

Obviousman wrote: Well, I must say, I admire Barroso, he seems to be the only one left with enough realism and will to carry on... Find it's funny how someone elected as head of the commission because he isn't really pro Europe is the only one who doesn't want to see the ship sinking and is about the sole person keeping me on the right side of a Euro-depression

Well, Durão Darroso is also Portuguese. I know exactly where he is coming from.
Actually, he quit being a Prime-Minister here to go to Brussels and was widely criticed for that but I agree he simply had to go. Europe is more important.
(That's right. Portuguese are not patriots. Understand that.)

Obviousman wrote:

dead stars wrote:I'm also for the enlargement and the Constitution. I don't trust my own politicians to the point I'd rather have a German ruling this country.

Most people rather won't, especially not if he has a little moustache and some strange tic with his arm

I must admit my choice of a German wasn't innocent.
But yes, preferably not that kind of German. I really meant a rotative government.

As for losing the Queen's face on your currency, that doesn't have to happen. The euro coins have national characteristics. Example, Spanish coins have the face of the king Juan Carlos. Our have the Portuguese shield of arms.
As for losing you culture, don't make me laugh. Like thousands of years of history could be swept aside like that. Never gonna happen!
And as for the language, well, unless in the next years we'll all need to learn Chinese, I don't think English language will suffer much. On the contrary, it will probably be the Chinese learning English. After all, Chinese is very complicated and only Mr. Eldricth can use it properly... Ahem.
As for sovereignty... I don't know how much sovereignty will be lost. I have no idea. On what concerns my country, I couldn't care less. We're Europe and NATO's puppets at the same time as it is... (Barrroso wanted to send the army to Iraq; it was the president of the Republic that stopped him. We have a semi-presidencial regime: prime-minister AND president.)

Obviousman wrote:How about the UK? House of the Lords, still exists, doesn't it

Sorry Obviousman, I wasn't being ignorant, just spent a week on a very slow connection at my parents'. Everything's very slow where they live actually, just what I needed. Back to reality now though.

Anyways, yes the House of Lords still exists, though its makeup can be influenced by the government of the day creating its own life peers. My understanding is that their role is as a 'reality check' to the elected House of Commons, the idea being that they're not just going to curry favour with public opinion becasue they don't need to get re-elected in four years time. They make ammendments to Bills proposed in the Commons and can stall legislation for upto three readings in each House. But at the end of the day, even if they reject a Bill at the third reading the Government can invoke the Parliament Act and over-ride their opinion. Due to various behind-the-scenes machinations, this happens rarely, but did so recently over the infamous fox-hunting debate.

I guess when talking about length of democracy in Europe/ US, we should compare like with like and take it from universal suffrage, i.e. men and women over a certain age (18 in the UK) having the right to vote in free and fair elections. Which dates back to the early 1900s here. I can't remember exactly when but I do remember Emily Pankhurst was instrumental in gaining women's right to vote.

@Anybody: Please feel free to correct me on my 'O' Level history.

Francis wrote:I guess when talking about length of democracy in Europe/ US, we should compare like with like and take it from universal suffrage, i.e. men and women over a certain age (18 in the UK) having the right to vote in free and fair elections. Which dates back to the early 1900s here.

I'll get back later when I have more time, with Francis' definition Switzerland has only become a democracy in 1971, because that's when women were given the right to vote too - against their will!