Europe's passport-free travel zone is now nine countries bigger. Is it safe?


Traveller 21 December, 2007, 10:49	They can have steel fences, they can have patrols, dog teams, electronic beepers et all, but can they break the human will to improvise and the daring of those that dare! A serb has already been suspended, I suspect many others could come too. In all advantages, come laden a few unpleasant disadvantages too. Europe better watch out for them, or this regime is bound to encounter its pitfalls in some years! Those that dare to cross will not hesitate to strike too. permalink quote 0 Traveller
Sevodnya_Net 21 December, 2007, 11:58	It's a good thing. Yes there are security issues but security co-operation is actually growing across the Schengen community, and it also means easier travel for non-EU residents as well. Maybe one day even Britain and Ireland will cast off their paranoia and join in :-) permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
David 22 December, 2007, 00:52	Why is England not in Schengen? permalink quote 0 David
David 22 December, 2007, 11:04	Re. my last post - I need to answer my own question. With the amount of people coming into England with no clear and proper immigration procedures there is no need for England to be in Schengen - why does England need immigration control anyway! Apologies permalink quote 0 David
Sevodnya_Net 22 December, 2007, 11:12	"Why is England not in Schengen? " Britain doesn't participate in the border-control part of Schengen because it doesn't want to give up its own controls. This leads to an interesting situation with Ireland, which is effectively also prevented from joining, because Britain and Ireland have their own "mini-Schengen" agreement. If Ireland joined Schengen on its own it would be forced to introduce border controls between Northern and Southern Ireland which would be a nightmare, as well as political dynamite. permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
fred 22 December, 2007, 21:08	i agree very much with you sevodnya . anyway what is the ^point to secure border with tight controls , the only ones to be disturb are allways the ones meanning no arm ! the ones looking for for troubles do not go thru normal borders , so controls or not , yhey just do not care .! permalink quote 0 fred
Nyon 22 December, 2007, 23:12	For England to join the Schengen agreement would require the English to, at least tacitly, admit that they, the English, are not the pinnacle of human physical, intellectual, and moral development, and it would also negate their foundational principle that English civilization is, and always was, the highest form of civilization to be found upon planet earth, And, in addition, would obviously require the English to allow undocumented subhumans into their "Eden", and from there it would not be long before young English ladies would all be found to be carring non-English unborn children in preference to those of their own dysgenic sub-race. permalink quote 0 Nyon
Gregory 23 December, 2007, 12:55	With unemployment running at 10%+ in the Eurozone compared with 5% in the sterling zone, and unfettered immigration issues swept under the carpet the question remains unchanged. How can anyone be pleased with this mess? This is a house of cards. A "nice" concept but not one which treats east europeans as anything other than "cheap labour" for the West. permalink quote 0 Gregory
Marzipan6 28 December, 2007, 03:44	“Europe's passport-free travel zone is now nine countries bigger. Is it safe?” Safe for what?? Having travelled in Europe before and after Schengen, both within the zone and into and out of it, I have never noticed safety to be an issue. As long as the external Schengen border remains adequately controlled, the passport-free travel within the zone is wonderful. And the external border does seem to be appropriately administered. I understand that there are a total of approximately 700,000 people who are on the banned list of the various Schengen countries. All of these people are unable to enter neither the country that banned them in the first place, nor any other country within the zone. This has the potential of possibly making criminals, obnoxious chauvinists and other unlovely types think twice about their behaviour in any one country, as a banning by that country will exclude them from virtually all of Europe. permalink quote 0 Marzipan6
Gregory 28 December, 2007, 15:27	"I understand that there are a total of approximately 700,000 people who are on the banned list of the various Schengen countries. All of these people are unable to enter neither the country that banned them in the first place, nor any other country within the zone. This has the potential of possibly making criminals, obnoxious chauvinists and other unlovely types think twice about their behaviour in any one country, as a banning by that country will exclude them from virtually all of Europe." I disagree completely with your rose-tinted analysis. More crimes have been easier to commit precisely because of the lack of stop and searches. I strongly suggest you use your english language skills to peruse British and dare I say it German and French and Spanish and Italian newspapers to see the amount of crime committed by the new "wave" of non-indigenous drifters. Type stormfront into google and follow the links for a comprehensive catalogue of issues in the fabulous West. permalink quote 0 Gregory
Sevodnya_Net 28 December, 2007, 18:44	"I disagree completely with your rose-tinted analysis. More crimes have been easier to commit precisely because of the lack of stop and searches" A further advantage of the Schengen arrangement is the freedom law enforcement agencies have to pursue criminals across borders. Also, countries have the right to re-impose border and passport controls where necessary. Undoubtedly criminal elements try to take advantage of any perceived security weaknesses, but these exist everywhere in free societies. Stormfront sounds like one of many unpleasant organisations doing the rounds, and they also sound like the sort of people who would like sealed borders. permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
Gregory 28 December, 2007, 21:22	I hear tell that Belarus has a sealed border and it works quite effectively for Russia. I don't hear many people complaining about it in Moscow. Schengen is not effective, you seem to be confused as regards something being written on paper and then the same pipe dream being applied to real life. I dare say you found Marxism a wonderful idea, that too was unapplicable in real life. I could list many examples of the police failing to do their jobs across western europe (sangatte, calais) and the recent amnesty in Spain. Eastern Europeans (the decent ones) will be used as cheap labour. This is the only thing that will work with a passport-free exploitation zone. I would give many internet links to support the lack of safety in passport(less) EU. However I am not a spam agent like you. I would like to know why you are so enamoured with Schengen: do you work in the public sector on a nice inflated Bruxelles salary? Please give examples of concrete everyday advantages for the readers. permalink quote 0 Gregory
Gregory 28 December, 2007, 21:37	A further nine countries can now watch their young, unmarried work force (18-30 year olds) dissappear 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 social engineering on the same scale as post-revolutionary Russia. However no chekists are involved, just anonymous pencil pushers in Bruxelles playing with peoples' hopes for the future. There is no historical precedent for this. This sounds like a mess waiting to happen. But it could be fine if you just want to travel for tourism. permalink quote 0 Gregory
Marzipan6 29 December, 2007, 00:27	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?? permalink quote 0 Marzipan6
Marzipan6 29 December, 2007, 00:54	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. permalink quote 0 Marzipan6
Gregory 29 December, 2007, 09:36	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. permalink quote 0 Gregory
Marzipan6 29 December, 2007, 11:43	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. permalink quote 0 Marzipan6
Gregory 29 December, 2007, 16:44	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. permalink quote 0 Gregory
Marzipan6 30 December, 2007, 01:46	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. permalink quote 0 Marzipan6
Marzipan6 30 December, 2007, 01:55	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? permalink quote 0 Marzipan6

Traveller 21 December, 2007, 10:49

They can have steel fences, they can have patrols, dog teams, electronic beepers et all, but can they break the human will to improvise and the daring of those that dare! A serb has already been suspended, I suspect many others could come too. In all advantages, come laden a few unpleasant disadvantages too. Europe better watch out for them, or this regime is bound to encounter its pitfalls in some years! Those that dare to cross will not hesitate to strike too.

permalink quote Traveller

Sevodnya_Net 21 December, 2007, 11:58

It's a good thing. Yes there are security issues but security co-operation is actually growing across the Schengen community, and it also means easier travel for non-EU residents as well. Maybe one day even Britain and Ireland will cast off their paranoia and join in :-)

permalink quote Sevodnya_Net

David 22 December, 2007, 00:52

Why is England not in Schengen?

permalink quote David

David 22 December, 2007, 11:04

Re. my last post - I need to answer my own question. With the amount of people coming into England with no clear and proper immigration procedures there is no need for England to be in Schengen - why does England need immigration control anyway! Apologies

permalink quote David

Sevodnya_Net 22 December, 2007, 11:12

"Why is England not in Schengen? " Britain doesn't participate in the border-control part of Schengen because it doesn't want to give up its own controls. This leads to an interesting situation with Ireland, which is effectively also prevented from joining, because Britain and Ireland have their own "mini-Schengen" agreement. If Ireland joined Schengen on its own it would be forced to introduce border controls between Northern and Southern Ireland which would be a nightmare, as well as political dynamite.

permalink quote Sevodnya_Net

fred 22 December, 2007, 21:08

i agree very much with you sevodnya . anyway what is the ^point to secure border with tight controls , the only ones to be disturb are allways the ones meanning no arm ! the ones looking for for troubles do not go thru normal borders , so controls or not , yhey just do not care .!

permalink quote fred

Nyon 22 December, 2007, 23:12

For England to join the Schengen agreement would require the English to, at least tacitly, admit that they, the English, are not the pinnacle of human physical, intellectual, and moral development, and it would also negate their foundational principle that English civilization is, and always was, the highest form of civilization to be found upon planet earth, And, in addition, would obviously require the English to allow undocumented subhumans into their "Eden", and from there it would not be long before young English ladies would all be found to be carring non-English unborn children in preference to those of their own dysgenic sub-race.

permalink quote Nyon

Gregory 23 December, 2007, 12:55

With unemployment running at 10%+ in the Eurozone compared with 5% in the sterling zone, and unfettered immigration issues swept under the carpet the question remains unchanged. How can anyone be pleased with this mess? This is a house of cards. A "nice" concept but not one which treats east europeans as anything other than "cheap labour" for the West.

permalink quote Gregory

Marzipan6 28 December, 2007, 03:44

“Europe's passport-free travel zone is now nine countries bigger. Is it safe?” Safe for what?? Having travelled in Europe before and after Schengen, both within the zone and into and out of it, I have never noticed safety to be an issue. As long as the external Schengen border remains adequately controlled, the passport-free travel within the zone is wonderful. And the external border does seem to be appropriately administered. I understand that there are a total of approximately 700,000 people who are on the banned list of the various Schengen countries. All of these people are unable to enter neither the country that banned them in the first place, nor any other country within the zone. This has the potential of possibly making criminals, obnoxious chauvinists and other unlovely types think twice about their behaviour in any one country, as a banning by that country will exclude them from virtually all of Europe.

permalink quote Marzipan6

Gregory 28 December, 2007, 15:27

"I understand that there are a total of approximately 700,000 people who are on the banned list of the various Schengen countries. All of these people are unable to enter neither the country that banned them in the first place, nor any other country within the zone. This has the potential of possibly making criminals, obnoxious chauvinists and other unlovely types think twice about their behaviour in any one country, as a banning by that country will exclude them from virtually all of Europe." I disagree completely with your rose-tinted analysis. More crimes have been easier to commit precisely because of the lack of stop and searches. I strongly suggest you use your english language skills to peruse British and dare I say it German and French and Spanish and Italian newspapers to see the amount of crime committed by the new "wave" of non-indigenous drifters. Type stormfront into google and follow the links for a comprehensive catalogue of issues in the fabulous West.

permalink quote Gregory

Sevodnya_Net 28 December, 2007, 18:44

"I disagree completely with your rose-tinted analysis. More crimes have been easier to commit precisely because of the lack of stop and searches" A further advantage of the Schengen arrangement is the freedom law enforcement agencies have to pursue criminals across borders. Also, countries have the right to re-impose border and passport controls where necessary. Undoubtedly criminal elements try to take advantage of any perceived security weaknesses, but these exist everywhere in free societies. Stormfront sounds like one of many unpleasant organisations doing the rounds, and they also sound like the sort of people who would like sealed borders.

permalink quote Sevodnya_Net

Gregory 28 December, 2007, 21:22

I hear tell that Belarus has a sealed border and it works quite effectively for Russia. I don't hear many people complaining about it in Moscow. Schengen is not effective, you seem to be confused as regards something being written on paper and then the same pipe dream being applied to real life. I dare say you found Marxism a wonderful idea, that too was unapplicable in real life. I could list many examples of the police failing to do their jobs across western europe (sangatte, calais) and the recent amnesty in Spain. Eastern Europeans (the decent ones) will be used as cheap labour. This is the only thing that will work with a passport-free exploitation zone. I would give many internet links to support the lack of safety in passport(less) EU. However I am not a spam agent like you. I would like to know why you are so enamoured with Schengen: do you work in the public sector on a nice inflated Bruxelles salary? Please give examples of concrete everyday advantages for the readers.

permalink quote Gregory

Gregory 28 December, 2007, 21:37

A further nine countries can now watch their young, unmarried work force (18-30 year olds) dissappear 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 social engineering on the same scale as post-revolutionary Russia. However no chekists are involved, just anonymous pencil pushers in Bruxelles playing with peoples' hopes for the future. There is no historical precedent for this. This sounds like a mess waiting to happen. But it could be fine if you just want to travel for tourism.

permalink quote Gregory

Marzipan6 29 December, 2007, 00:27

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??

permalink quote Marzipan6

Marzipan6 29 December, 2007, 00:54

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.

permalink quote Marzipan6

Gregory 29 December, 2007, 09:36

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.

permalink quote Gregory

Marzipan6 29 December, 2007, 11:43

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.

permalink quote Marzipan6

Gregory 29 December, 2007, 16:44

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.

permalink quote Gregory

Marzipan6 30 December, 2007, 01:46

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.

permalink quote Marzipan6

Marzipan6 30 December, 2007, 01:55

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?

permalink quote Marzipan6

Name*
Country, City
Valid e-mail*
Text*
Enter digits below*

	*Required fields