And how do you know the Polish economy would collapse? Give us your reasons and your evidence for your predictions? That would be a start.
You don't like criticism of the duplicity and deception and cowardice of the Dutch people which is well documented (Srebrenica springs to mind), yet you claim to be able to predict the future???? And how without your glorious help countries would simply implode. The Dutch machine-gunned THOUSANDS of Indonesians to death in their quest to control that neck of the woods yet you have the audacity to bitch about Germans confiscating your bicycles all the while you were informing on Jews. Get lost with your idiotic smugness. Better still....look in the mirror!

The dutch are lying, the east europeans didn't do anything, are just slaves here. The whole thing is just a cover because they need excuses for murdering and robbing migrants. It should be issued an international warning on this country.

This has little to do with "tolerance" or "intolerance". I am almost equally concerned by the lack of understanding of democratic processes some readers reveal here.

What we see is a typical collision of mutually exclusive interests, as it often happens when people (are forced to) share habitats. It has to do with personal concernment of 'real people' on either 'side', no matter if these people are ethnic Dutch, Poles or others.

In this case it is indisputable for an outsider that - up to a certain extent - "domiciliary rights" exist, as everywhere in this world where a 'domestic people' is affected.

And please, dear Central Europeans, don't try to tell readers here that the citizens of your countries are not aware of these 'domiciliary rights' in your own home countries. One only has to look at the countless, never-ending ethnic clashes on these former communist territories.

. . . And, BTW, domiciliary dues are usually juridically as well as morally more secured than those of 'guests' or passer-bys. And this is a good thing, too, don't you think so?

Thus, concerns of people should be heard and addressed in a functioning democracy and, insofar problems exist, remedial action be taken by those who's job it is to listen and to act.

Nobody is arguing against taking measures to remedy the problems that arise.
People are arguing against hate, racism and misinformation.
And the people who try to gain on these, as well as by exploiting the economic problems of the locals. This Wilders guy has no solution to the problem. And solving the problem is not his intention. All he wants to do is gain power by exploiting the lowest human tendencies - xenophobia.
Whether you're a local or an immigrant, being a bigot is not a human right. Being treated justly and as an individual, not a mob, IS (at least in my opinion) - and this right is being denied to Eastern Europeans.
It wasn't EE who forced themselves on WE, it was nowhere in their plan to infringe on anybody's rights - it was Western European leaders who opened the borders, and yet the hate of their countrymen is not directed as strongly at them as it is at Eastern Europeans. It's not the leaders who fall victim to hate crimes at worst and verbal abuse at the very least.
And why is that? Because the economics, and the poor unemployed Dutch man is for many just an excuse to be bigoted and hateful against the people whom they've already considered subhuman for a long long time.
Just read the comments here: supremacism, stereotyping, invectives, dehumanising comparisons. These things are not created by economic struggles, they're just brought out by them. They crawl out when they're allowed to, because a good enough excuse has been found.
Hate against Eastern Europeans didn't appear with the recent immigration. It existed before that, and it is partially responsible for the tensions. EEs, just like Africans and Asians before, are subject to special scrutiny BECAUSE they are viewed as "less". If you expect and look to see negatives, you will find plenty. Always.
Political correctness shuns racism against Black and Asian people already (with only superficial results of course, racism is alive and well, but oh so many people in the West pretend it's a thing of the past, it's sad), it doesn't do so yet with Eastern Europeans. Just do this mental experiment: imagine if Wilders - or any other politician in Western Europe - created a website that called on white people to complain about Black people. What would happen? Would it gain him any support? How strong would the protests be? Would he even dare to do that? Would it pay off to him in any way?

And by the way, throwing abuse at EEs is not yet seen as racial/ethnic hate, it is seen as LOGICAL argument, as FACT... but remember: so was the "inferiority" of non-Caucasian races, so was the "inherent" laziness and stupidity of Africans, so was the "natural" inferiority of the female brain, and the "biological" need of all but a white man to be bossed, "for their own good"... All of these things were once obvious, true, perfectly reasonable to the white man, the educated white man. Hardly questioned. In similar vein you see certain characteristics being given to Eastern Europeans: rude, fundamentally different and "alien", thus not even really European, no contribution to the world, stupid, Homo Sovieticus essentially, less civilised, anti-Semitic, with weak almost nonexistent primitive pseudo-cultures, no "respectable" talents, inherently always and forever working class - education in Eastern Europe is not real education after all, working for slave wage and OK with it (because of stupidity?), feeble minded and always in need of a master and a guide. These things, in more "polite" form of "arguments" are being stated as FACTS. It takes a quick look in the comments below. Yet god, aren't you lot reminded by this list of the colonisation period, up until the end of slavery? Wasn't the justification for colonial de facto genocides very similar? We're in the 21st century. Some people still believe in inherent superiority, just maybe less of genes (that would be too Nazi for them, right?), and more of mentalities, cultures, languages, and histories. Again, just look in the comments.
If reading the list (!) anyone finds hirself thinking "but this one is true" and/or forming a defensive "argument" - please don't bother. You didn't get the point. You're doing the exact thing I'm writing about here, and maybe you need to read again and give yourself a few days to process these words. Thank you in advance if you do, that's very mature of you (even if you don't end up rejecting your initial attitude).

I think you got it totally right, your comment is so good that I would even cite it when needed. What I can say from a position of a polish student in the Netherlands-sometimes it can be felt that many think polish people are those picking strawberries (like it is the only job we can do). Luckily, I am talented enough to be better than many dutch students and I hope that if they had ever had an image of a Polish person being slow and stupid, they are going to forget it.

I m not surprised it happens in Netherlands. Dutch tolerance is a myth, it s a mercantile society. This country is simply totally unpredictable, unstable. Once, they let stay in the country everyone who like to live there and few years later they deporting gay people to Iran. From wall to wall. Silly.

O, I’m flattered. Kantianism considers human being as the purpose and all other factors as means while Hegelianism and Benthamism/utilitarianism necessarily takes human being as a means and one of the other factors as the purpose. You can tell the former from the latter by the criteria, which is a relatively easy task to carry out in the field of politics. Let me cite a couple of examples:

When someone believes that some ought to be more equal than others, he is thinking that way to pursue a factor outside human being as purpose to accomplish. That purpose is often wealth, power or authority. The pigs in Orwell’s animal farm were seeking to retain all the three by using other animals as means. Hegel and Bentham’s way of political thinking would thus always result in a form of radicalism or an alienation of human being. After all, radicalism is a political thought that forgets or denies taking human being as the purpose.

On the contrary, the Polish-Lithuanian 1791 Constitution, even in contrast with the French or American bourgeoisie revolution, regarded human being as the purpose and itself as a means to gradually and determinedly attain the purpose by active practical measures such as the world’s first ministry of education and the budget for the ministry established and secured in anticipation to educate all the people within the Republic so that they would be sufficiently educated to discreetly conduct voting rights, which would be given even to peasants after a while, and the strict imposition of heavy duty and responsibility upon the King in exchange for the throne’s wealth, (administrative) power and authority, and, in addition, those three were largely limited. The Constitution’s background thinking was that no one ought to be more equal than others but that in consideration of fixed factors inevitably existing in the society social changes such as giving voting rights should be given with time and preparation in a gradual but determined manner to avoid political conflicts that could possibly result in nullifying the foundation for the long-term human development project from the ground (with reference to the Bar Confederation’s and PiS’s excessively combative and uncompromising stances, albeit possibly patriotic, against everything that they find not of theirs taste).

Wilders’ exclusionist activity lacks the above thought, and the issue in question is not a matter of give and take: It’s within Wilders’ personal discretion whether to feel indebted to the Polish nation for their past fights for the freedom of the Dutch and other Europeans. The most important point is not there but in it that he doesn’t in effect have the thought to put human being (NB: human being without an article) as his political purpose (i.e. Kantianism), and that’s what he lethally misses as politician. The result of his precarious political activity could hence turn into a thorough loss of the reason of recognising true freedom whether or not the existence of God is a metaphor of the demand from the practical reason as he says.

The weakness in your argument can be found in the The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.

"What every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it, or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. That this is really the foundation of the exchangeable value of all things, excepting those which cannot be increased by human industry, is a doctrine of the utmost importance in political economy."

Not all are born equal, I am far fairer than thou, for example. Though what thine fairer being is worth to society, is the measure by thee acquires the measure of wealth.

The easterner is seen as a rude and ugly tool, used only to promote the a further measure of wealth by the already wealthy. What you miss in your crude and simplistic set out cranial fart, is that all peoples will support their own rather than be undermined, sooner or later. The problem with the influx of labour from abroad, is that it makes harder the endeavours of the domestic labour.

"As every individual, therefore, endeavors as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

The mass immigration of rude eastern labour to the west, is not of benefit to the fair labourers of the west. The situation is made worse still that there is no really economy in this, as there can be no like for like exchange. The eastern economies are backward in comparison to the fair western labour is used to and of little interest.

In your former quote of Smith’s words, he was only talking of individual labour or toil and trouble as the source of increasing a person’s wealth, with adding that saving and making others perform labour would decrease a person’s wealth in exchange for some goods or services the person enjoys. In the latter, he was only advocating a system of laissez-faire. Both seem irrelevant to your argument that some are more equal than the others.

Hence, in the quoted words Smith is only assuming that the aggregate of individual labour would increase the collective wealth of an economy in the long run and no other than that.

With reference to Smith’s account of economy, the migrant workers from the CEE region are only following the principle of laissez-faire and executing their respective individual labour to acquire their respective individual wealth. Hence, Smith as an advocator of the principle of laissez-faire thinks that no one is more equal than others. After all, Smith’s model necessarily requires an eternal state of full employment. An eternal state of full employment could be real if the economy was fully malleable such that there was no fixed factor of production in there. If some were equal than others as you wish, that would make a fixed factor of production, because more equal people couldn’t become less equal people and vice versa. Thus, Smits contradicts you, and fundamentally.

For your reference, on the contrary, the perspective of Keynes’ account of economy, which I follow in analysing the real world, requires a Copernican change in thinking to recognise a meta-framework by which the whole of the European Union should be considered as a single economic entity. There, what you call immigrants from other EU member states could not really be regarded as immigrants in this context but as living components of the economic entity. This is the same as what the people are within a country. That is, the perspective requires the European Union as a country of which no one among its people is more equal than others. Europeans were determined decades ago after reflection upon their bitter experiences of deadly conflicts among themselves that they would not cause a war from inside, and decided that they would incorporate the German nation, which had caused many wars due to its megalomania intermittently emerging out of its overwhelming population and collective wealth, into a large, integrated federation of states that consists of it and the other nations. Hence, federalism is the state of default of the European Union, and no one among its people is more equal than the others by default.

In conclusion, it is a great pleasure for me to be able to prove in such an elegant manner (despite my poor vocabulary in English) that your idea contradicts both Smith and Keynes (as Smith’s opposite in vision) and that you are only distorting Smith’s words. Be a more skilful troll if you really want to. (To be honest, I am rather preoccupied with the battle Poland vs Portugal today, and neither Britain nor Holland matters to me now.)

Jasiek, your response is flawless. Truly there seems to be a major misunderstanding of "purpose" in your opponent's view, which of course serves a (sorry) purpose of its own - allows for the defence of tribalism. Cutter seems to reject any ideas that don't come from the Anglosphere, which matches his continuous - dare I say it - nationalism leaking from every post he made on this article, both in distortion of historical facts, as well as his de facto expansion of "all are not born equal" into a pathetic "and it should stay that way".
If one cares only - and Cutter clearly does - about his "tribe" (in this case the UK, or more accurately - England, it seems) to remain equal-er, then it is absolutely understandable that he will not like the idea of the European Union, there's no doubt about it. Advancement through the progress of ALL is what the Union has tried to do (and yes, it does clearly apply to economic despite my non-economic wording), which is totally against Cutters... interest? Or at least he thinks so. In earlier comments he displayed clear British separatism, which in itself is NOT at all bad but all of his attempts at "argumentation" are nullified with recurrent remarks which boil down to "you there on the continent are troublemakers" as well as a less explicit but still quite clear "the UK is better than you".
Of course, his "ideology" is very convenient from the British point of view, as it can be very easily used to justify to oneself (and free onself of "beneficient guilt" too) the English colonialism with all its atrocities and disastrous consequences. It's just a step away from saying colonialism isn't evil. And THAT sentiment I will always and forever find laughable.
Thus I find it quite fascinating that people engage politely with someone whose hate and prejudice leaves a disgusting stain on his every comment. Sad attempts at ad hominem, stereotyping, borderline Fascist ideals, very narrow knowledge probably gained in class at a British school - and yet some of us still treat whatever he spews seriously and respond...
I doubt people of this sort change their mind, as I fail to see any openness here. I sound pessimistic, don't I? Well, in fact I do have hope, because minds sometimes open quite suddenly.
But if someone rejects as nicely worded arguments as yours, Jasiek, then I doubt they'll ever be convinced :).
Still I'm glad you shared, I found your post a pleasure to read. Thank you.

A first class comment!
The Netherlands have done remarkably well out of the EU from the very start. The Dutch economy is heavily based on exports of both goods and services across Europe and elsewhere. Its high time that Dutch neo-Nazis like Wilders crawled back into the sewer from which they came. Wilders' predecessors collaborated massively with Hitler. They should remain a part of Dutch history that the Dutch themselves should not forget and should be ashamed of.

Hate-preaching is not a solution, we all agree. But if the concerns of the "concerned" are not met now, when this is still rationally possible, it will force radical solutions on politicians once Holland's economy reaches unemployment figures like they exist in other parts of Europe.

West Europe has a saturated, shrinking population. There is absolute no guarantee that Europe's economies will continue to grow in output and demand for ever, especially not in the 'saturated West'.

However, we have to be aware that in 'voting-democracies' the question will eventually be decided at the voting box . . . and it was the Hollanders who toppled the European Constitution once before, for very similar reasons as they are voicing them now.

There is not much Brussels can do about unpleasant results, as we've learned in the past.

What people need to understand and yet do not is that when people from Poland go to another country within the eu "they don't go there to change their nationality, they go there to make money." So if an opportunity arises to make money in say Holland or Belgium, then people will go there. We go after the money not after the culture. We have our own culture. Even when abroad we read our own newspapers, watch our own tv, listen to our own radio, speak in our own language to each other and we go back to Poland very frequently. We are Poles not immigrants who want to change who we are. Similarly, when no money can be made we simply go back to Poland.

In a way you could say we are a very "cosmopolitan nation," a bit like the jews before WW2, a type of "mobile workforce." And we are very successful at this. So for example i know people who have left London and moved to Switzerland because there are more jobs and better paid ones.

I guess this is why people in the western contries don't like us, they think we are immigrants who are there to serve them, whereas in reality we are serving only ourselves.

Secondly, a commentator has suggested that our wages and social security should be made the same as in western Europe. My response is simple, if other European countries didnt colonise, exploit and bomb us on so many occasions then we probably would have these things already.

I really wish pundits would stop reaching back to WWII in cases like this. Sure the Poles fought heroically in the Netherlands. Doing the right thing is its own reward, and if they could have gone straight to Warsaw, they probably would have.

Immigrant bashing is wrong, often counter-productive, and in this case just bad economics. EL made that case, why lead off with Nazis, Dutch collaborators and a military side-show from 70 years ago?

>la.výritý : these concerned Dutch ARE victims; victims of yet another sad act of EU-pseudo-togetherness; victims of a half-baked free-labor-movement policy, which was in the past, also, strongly promoted by this magazine <
Hi la.výritý! I strongly disagree. There's nothing half-baked here. Rather a well-thought long-term mechanism of making the Union prosper. Were Poles to stay at home instead of working in NL, teh job would have been undone. Certainly it wouldn't have been done by the jobless Dutch father of three (I almost wept reading that emotional passage of yours :). There'll be no income and no taxes to pay of the workless pensions. The growth of Dutch economy would be 0.3 % less. Add to that - were there no free movement of workforce in EU, there would be no special provileges for Dutch capital in Poland. Subtract more percentage from Dutch GDP. And so on.
Dutch father of three, even if he does not have a job, is not a victim, he is a beneficiary of the excellent paneuropean project and lives in one of the most affluent societies social security-wise. Also thanks to EU expansion to the CE.

@Forlana, I doubt that the jobless "Dutch father of 3", who has to feed his family and meet his mortgage payments sees it that way. He sees himself as the "victim of the failures" on the part of Dutch and EU authorities. Read the readers' comments in Dutch newspapers, then you would understand the indignation. Their opinions may be ill founded in YOUR opinion . . . but certainly not in theirs.

The “low-skilled Dutch father of 3” stands for the "disadvantaged citizens of the Netherlands", those who don't take part in "the growth of Dutch economy". 'They' don't care about "special privileges for Dutch capital in Poland". This is NOT their world.

They care about their "personal growth", concerning "making a decent living" in their own home-country. Their beliefs might be obscure and even unfounded, but this doesn't change the fact that these people have the right to express themselves - especially in their own country.

They are the ones who feel being 'let down' by their 'leaders' . . . and by the EU. They are they ones who actually bear the brunt of ill-conceived or outright false decisions made by the powers that be, with no competent authority to whom they can turn . . . except for ‘radical’ political parties.

That’s exactly why these “Pipers of Hamelin” are becoming successful in the first place.

Hi again.
>I doubt that the jobless "Dutch father of 3", who has to feed his family and meet his mortgage payments sees it that way<

Agreed.
EU-wide failure to inform the 'fathers of 3' (FO3) and not just them about the benefits of EU expansion is obvious. However, it would be imprecise or simply unjust to assume that every 'FO3' who is misinformed turns to PVV. I would say the whole situation may turn out to be benefical - if used properly to make the knowledge about obvious and vast profits of EU expansion, free movement of workorce, capital and goods, thus the basics, more widespread.

And exactly what are the benefits? I would hardly call mass immigration from poor countries to richer ones beneficial to the locals of the richer ones, particularly to those citizens of richer countries who do the lower skilled jobs. Those citizens would have been on a better wage than just the minimum, which would have been reserved for those new to the workforce. How exactly is the rise in rents (driven by demand) and the strain put on public services and infrastructure beneficial to the local citizen, that mass immigration creates?

Mass immigration from poor countries does not contribute to the public purse, as they tend to be low paid and therefore pay little in tax and have little purchasing power, there is very little gained by richer members economically.

The €U is a burden, it is only the poorer members and the €U bureaucrats that benefit from the €U in any substantial and real way.

Nonsense, we have more unemployed than that there are Poles here doing jobs. Substitute Dutch for Poles and not only would the money stay here, we'd have less unemployed too so less burden in welfare and unemployment benefits.

The lower middle class has only seen its jobs disappear, because of immigrants from eastern Europe who only come here to work a bit and send most of that money home, thus effectively stealing from our economy.

>Tomas Marny: denouncing the Netherlands or boycotting Dutch products because of PVV's actions<

Hi Tomas! I must say that neither in his marvellous article on this issue in the European Voice nor here I have found E.L. suggesting that the "boycott" was induced by PVV's actions. Both the "boycott" (which is of course nonsensical inside EU) and the actual, tangible actions of both diplomacy and behind the scenes are performed due to lack of reaction of Dutch PM, Mark Rutte.

Hi Forlana! Well, I understand that the Dutch PM does not want to risk fall of his government because of this webpage. But I definitely think that it is good that issue of the benefits and troubles of the liberalized job market has been opened and some solutions are being discusses.

In fact, you (and also ChrisFrance) seem to reduce the whole issue only on economic terms. But that is too simplifying abstraction. The open job market has many associated consequences (sociological, psychological, cultural, educational, etc.) that must be also taken in account. Remember how Germans are desperate now because of the decision to invite people from Turkey in 1970th ("we have expected workforce, but it was full-scale people who came") and also Britain seems to be reconsidering her "multi-cultural" society approach.

For the open job market to work, people, especially if migrating, must simply a little bit weaken their national identities and become more generically "European" or at least accept some of the local habits because of coexistence with the local environment is part of the opening European borders.

Tomas, are you sure you are talking about the migrant workers inside the EU?
There are about 200 000 migrant workers from 'new EU' in the Netherlands (Poles are the largest group, but all other nationalities are present). They do not have to weaken their national identities as their national indentity is of no importance here. Neither do they have to adjust to local habits in a way exceeding the requirements for a good, civil citizen in their home countries. Those who fail to do so, should be treated by the police, jurisdical system if they fail to behave out of work. If they fail to adjust to local habits in their workplace, they should be/are refuted by the owners. This is really very simple. We don't need another bunch of clerks to implement 'teaching programmes'.
I have a growing impression that you (and also e.g. Cutters) tend to think that ALL migrant workers pose a problem. Which is exactly what Wilders seems to argue (though he maintains that in a cynical manner, for political reasons, he is too intelligent to believe so). While the truth is - a small per cent of migrants pose a problem (misbehave, overuse social security, commit crimes). The vast majority are benfecial. In contrast to what you seem to think (if I understood you correctly) the keys to solving the issue of problematic migrants are mainly on Dutch side, not on the Czech or Polish side.

...are mainly on Dutch side, not on the Czech or Polish side. Just as we had to fix the problem of a small margin of unhonest Dutch investors, workers, and all kinds of 'smart Alecs' from the Netherlands which wanted to take benfit from opening our markets since pre-accession time.

While I agree in general with your comments, there is a vast difference between immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe and the ones from predominantly Muslim countries. Based on my personal experiences and observations, Poles, Czechs etc. are usually much better integrated with the host societies (in Canada and in the US) and I'd presume in the EU as well. As far as I've seen they're quite successful at blending their own national identify with that of Dutch, Brits or Canadians etc. Of course, there is a fraction of them who will happily abuse the system and be a general nuisance, but it's (again, based on my own observations) relatively small group. So, to get to the point, I believe that in case of Poles, Czechs and some others the discussion can be limited to economic arguments.

Actually, what is considered "a good, civil citizen in their home countries" can be considered lacking in others. It is always a good idea to adapt to local customs and habits as a foreigner. The same goes with playing down ones national identity, particularly in countries which have a strong sense of self.

Reasonable immigration that can be monitored and tailored to the needs of the country, can often be a good thing and actually have a positive social impact. That has not however been the case in those western countries that opened their doors. 2 million easterners arrived in the UK alone between 2004 - 2008, and the numbers still arriving are tens of thousands more then those leaving. That is the kind of immigration that is bad in all kinds of ways, without any substantial positives, and has led to the situation where we now have Wilders website.

Only because we have had such discussions before, and you have embarrassed yourself with your rampant ideological pro-€U stance, which is the basis for all your criticism of Wilders website, not one based on actual economics.

But then irrational ideological views tend to break down in the face of reality... like the €Uro for instance.

''For the open job market to work, people, especially if migrating, must simply a little bit weaken their national identities and become more generically "European" or at least accept some of the local habits because of coexistence with the local environment is part of the opening European borders''.
Of course that must happen Tomas, that is non-negociable. I would go further: those who emigrate to another country must behave as much as possible as the locals do. Well, one's religion, tastes, personal views, etc, remain unchanged but the things that one is used to do in his homecountry and sees that in his guest country those same things are frowned upon, the emigrée must leave them aside. If he's not capable, then he should return. If it would be possible to discuss coldly only these aspects, nobody would mind: the problem is, the lack of education and information on both sides of(the artificial partition) Europe, and any such discussions give vent to all the rasism, xenophobia, stupidity that Europe is full of, inspite of it being presumably the most advanced in human development (sic)

To what extent do you mean "the artificial partition"? There are very real partitions, language being the easiest identifier. The 3 biggest are those of Latin, Germanic and Slavic. Here's a map, as you seem a bit lost:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Languages_of_Europe_map.png

That the languages differ quite largely from each other do not represent that these partitions are artificial, but real enough to create such differences. Otherwise we would be speaking a variation of each others language instead of ones that are unique enough to have their own classification.

However India works, and has been a single country far longer than some European ones have existed.

Hindi is taught in all schools, and English is considered the second official language in India. The is no official language that unites the €U that is taught in all schools, just like their is no official flag or national anthem (these were dropped from Lisbon).

The mistake here is not treating humans as humans, separating the person from the work. If you think of people as just "a work force", you'll be very surprised.
It's very arrogant to expect people to only come with their energy and skill to be used, but without their minds, cultures, and problems. Very arrogant, and frankly quite disturbing.
If Germans, as you say, are indeed "desperate" because they didn't expect the Turkish to come as a nation, a people, then it's shocking to me, as I see no other reason for such a mistake in thinking than "good old" racism.
You can't pick and choose parts of a person. If this is what Western Europe desires, then perhaps investments should be made into robotics.
I wonder how good this crystallised work force, this ideal profit-maker free of humanity, how good a job it will do as a caretaker for the elderly, a nurse, a babysitter. It sure will be the perfect next door neighbour because... it won't be one, it won't have to live anywhere, it won't have to buy groceries at the local store.
What those governments and/or societies seem to want is the comeback of the slavery so efficiently used in Nazi Germany. There was no problem with how the people taken into slavery behaved - because "people" they were not. They were fully dehumanised. They were silent and separate. Perfection?
But we won't go back to that. Sorry, we won't.
Investment in robots, I'm telling you, is the way to go if you want a work force without a people.
Good luck.

While Mr. Wilders' hate-creating approach is intolerable, the course of events indicates that there are several more skeletons in the EU's hidden closets.

Mr. Wilders wouldn't beat his drums so blatantly if he couldn't hope his noise will fall on sympathetic ears: You cannot have free movement of labor without bringing the respective "social contracts" into line as well.

Of course, it creates resentment and rejection if a low skilled Dutch father of 3 loses work and income because laborers from another part of the same common labor-market offer their services for half the price or less.

While the Dutch father of 3 has to make sizable payments on his mortgage and a family to feed in land-lacking, over-crowded Holland, a country where every square meter of the land is expensively extracted from the sea, the laborers from the East return home after they’ve earned enough to squat cheaply on their rural plots of land which is available in abundance and affordable enough, not only to live on it but to raise 'conveniently' chicken, goats and pigs as well.

That such - not only unequal but dangerously 'unjust' - socioeconomic conditions create frustration and tensions on behalf of the thus economically deprived Hollanders is more than comprehensible.

It seems that not only the Economist editors act deliberately ignorant, but some readers as well. By 'crying wolf' and finger-pointing not merely at Wilders, but at the justifiably concerned Dutch victims as well, this ill-conceived EU policy becomes "xenophobia in reverse".

Yes, these concerned Dutch ARE victims; victims of yet another sad act of EU-pseudo-togetherness; victims of a half-baked free-labor-movement policy, which was in the past, also, strongly promoted by this magazine . . . back then -as today- without any savvy, logic or justified reservations.

It is this kind of short-sighted 'dimwittedness' which will finally destroy noble ideas from within.

So, la.výritý, what solution do you suggest? De-liberalization of the job market or rather complete liberalization of the free movement (including social-welfare and healthcare issues as I was always suggesting) so that the "Dutch father of 3" could settle in the "cheap rural East" too without any practical burdens? ;-))

BTW, this is not easily reversible. The 'Polish Plumber' enters (meanwhile) a semi-Polish environment in Holland (this is what makes it so attractive for Polish newcomers), while the low-skilled Dutch father of 3 would feel like a floundering fish in rural Poland. Thus, the low-skilled "Dutch father of 3" is pretty much confined to his homeland, Holland.

The only practicable 'solution' would be if Polish wages and benefits would become comparable with those in Holland. Only then the wage differentials wouldn't be the main reason for Poles to head westward. As long as it is so exceedingly rewarded to undergo cultural barriers and individual hardships to seek temporary work somewhere away from home (where he is rather seen as someone who overstayed his welcome) this problem will persist and even intensify.

If these Polish laborers would seek fully fledged immigration, including assimilation and the sharing of national fate and disadvantages, then resentment and rejection would be less severe, I think.

I really don't know where you get datas, of ''easterners'' coming to ''westerners'' countries' and stealing jobs because they accept to be paid half the wage! From what I know, countries in EU have minimum wages, apart from that interprofesional minimum wages, so it is imposible for a Polish worker, for instance, to come to Netherlands and do a job for 800 euros a month for a job that the wage is normally 1800 euros. If he would find the employer willing to do that, breaking the law and all that, then it is the fault of the employer, of the authorities who do not check the facts and the Unions who do not cry ''injustice''. That a Polish worker may accept 1600 instead of 1800 seems more credible, but then, the employer would not be willing to save 200 euros a month just for saving 200 euros; he would only do that if he is really sure the Polish, Romanian, Bulgarian worker would do the same job as well, but usually better is expected, as the Dutch one. So I don't see many disruptions in the labour market there, except if the employers, authorities and unions don't do their job.
As for ''Polish wages and benefits would become comparable with those in Holland'', I say, ok, let them become on par: let all the wages in ''Eastern'' Europe be on par with those in the West. But in order to do that, you should ask your companies and multinationals, who own practically the entire economy of Ex-Communist Europe (they did what you asked of them, they privatised the whole of their economy and sold it to their partners in the West), you should ask them to pay the same wages in the East as in the West. Get out in the street and ask that. When your companies will pay the same wages for the same work those people do in Poland as in Netherlands, then, things would be morally correct and the exploitation and the disruption would stop.

Going by these sources, especially the study of “Netherlands Social and Cultural Planning Bureau”, there were, by the end of 2010, 77,000 Poles registered in the municipal personal records database of the Netherlands (GBA).

However, according to Dutch newspaper reports, based on different surveys and information from a popular ‘telecom’ provider in Poland, the real number is more than twice as high, which means another 75,000 to 150,000 Poles are living in Holland ‘unregistered’. It seems that the problems addressed in Dutch media result from these groups of people.

Nevertheless, I agree with you: The ‘inflamed situation’ in Holland is the result of a chain of failures on the part of Dutch and EU authorities (btw, this is what I said in my initial comment also ... if you have read it).

However, the “low-skilled Dutch father of 3” is the one who bears the brunt, with no competent authority to whom he can turn . . . except for ‘radical’ political parties.

That’s exactly why these “Pipers of Hamelin” are becoming successful in the first place.

Ok, I got your point, although, susceptible and akeptical as I am, I couldn't believe that you were truly concerned about the ''FO3'', as Forlana put it (by the way, the tears part was hilarious) and all I saw was another guy trying to bash the ''Easterners''. Let's say you really are the concerned yank, who deplores the state of the underprivileged in Netehrlands- (I can grasp that, you living in US and all, a country full of inequalities, often lack of minimum wages, lack of social protection, unlike in socialist Europe, but I assure you, the number of FO3's in W. Europe, without any means of living, is not high)-well, let's say you are the concerned one, the voice of those FO3's, then, by defending them, you and others like you, PLEASE stop making it look like bashing the Poles & co, and make it obvious from your expression and your tone that you are only against those institutions, like the work conditions inspectors, politicians, police and employers in Netherlands, and make it be obvious you are not against the Poles...I mean, everybody is sensitive here and when you see everybody cry, blindly, against Poles, Lithuanians,Romanians, Bulgarians, a new altruistic, desinterested, christian voice like yours may be misunderstood.

Yep, living space and shelter is so cheap in Eastern Europe, which is why people live in crowded little flats, often married couples have to stay with their parents for years, people pay their loans off for 40 years just to buy a shitty little scrap of floor to live on, and so on. You must have stopped your brain clock around the 80s, Western money no longer makes you a king in the East. It just makes life liveable.
Actually, why am I even replying, seeing as you have an image of the Eastern European as chicken breeding farmer, haha. Oh jokes, oh jokes...

Oh Mr Wilders, you picked the wrong nation to f*ck with. We never forgive, and we certainly never forget. There are a number of countries you don't say s*it like this about: Italy, Poland, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine.

Anyway I apologize, I'm getting sidetracked. The point is that there are a lot of powerful men that read this paper and you can rest assured that you will pay for your slander (career wise, of course).

I understand people's skepticism about the helpfulness of discussing WWII battles during European policy analysis. Several defences come to mind however. As Eastern Approaches seems to admit by referencing their "polemic" article they are clearly frustrated and upset with the current rhetoric coming from the Netherlands.

Mentioning the brave sacrifices of the Polish soldiers who fought in Holland (and who liberated France) serve to remind us of Western Europe's historic debts. More importantly however, it may make the case for pan-European interdependence more poignantly than Eastern Approaches' accurate depiction of interdependent GDP and exports.

In either case I share a growing disgust with the anti-foreigner rhetoric and policy coming from all parts of Europe and even my native America. For the Jobbik Party in Hungary, Marine Le Pen in France or the Republicans bashing "Socialist Europe" I would recommend picking up a copy of Cornelius Ryan's "A Bridge Too Far" to be taught why we all must rely on each other.

MarineCanuck, the key issue is not that Western Europe has historic debt but that "Western Europe" and "Eastern Europe" (with capital W and E) are artificial notions reflecting the bi-polar world that was created by allies as a result of WW2 and lasted about 40 years. There was no such division before - central Europe consisted of a large multi-national empire (that was quite accidentally - see e.g. Battle of Marchfeld - ruled by Hapsburg dynasty), eastern part of Europe primarily Ottoman Empire (Muslims who defeated mighty Byzantine Empire in 1453) and Russia... After WW1 the multinational empires were divided into smaller national states but still acted as a European countries, some of them democratic, some of them dictatorships. The exception was Russia where overthrowing tzar in 1917 lead to the entirely new social-economic system and they took advantage of being winner of WW2 to extend this system to selected CEE countries. That's all there is to it.
That's why I think it is education in broader historical context that can help mutual understanding among European countries. Looking down at fellow EU citizens only because of relatively short (what is 40 years in the context of history) post-WW2 arrangement is foolish, as well as, on the other hand, whining that our great-great-grand parents helped to great-great-grand parents of somebody else therefore he must tolerate our misbehavior now. This, is in fact, widespread attitude of people from colonies - "you bullied our ancestors generations ago and so you are now obliged to feed us and allow us to colonize your homelands".
We must focus on current implications. Free movement of people within EU has many advantages (flexibility, increased competitiveness, freedom) but it also brings some troubles - criminals can easily exploit free borders (that's why cooperation of police forces within EU is necessary) and too fast/massive migration can cause socio-economic instability to both source (brain-drain and incompleteness of society if some age/social groups are missing) and target (insufficient infrastructure, increased criminality, change of employment habits for locals - increased unemployment, decreased wages - loss of historic spirit of the place, etc.) places. Duty of European politicians is to understand the issue in its complexity and maximize the advantages while minimizing the disadvantages!

I certainly agree sir and that was why I referenced the GDP numbers. I find however that sometimes an intense visceral perspective can help sharpen people's understanding. Perhaps what I should have said is that many Europeans must recognize that they worked together to defeat Hitler and endure the Soviets. Continuing that trend of working together to overcome obstacles will bring many advantages.
Part of what I appreciate about the EU is that is has attempted to eliminate those historic divisions (whether it has been successful or not is another question).
For me it comes down to an intolerance towards intolerance; I am tired of hearing racist derogatory rhetoric from politicians which is frighteningly similar to the past. If reminding everyone of that past helps change attitudes for the better than we should continue to use it.

''the key issue is not that Western Europe has historic debt but that "Western Europe" and "Eastern Europe" (with capital W and E) are artificial notions reflecting the bi-polar world that was created by allies as a result of WW2 and lasted about 40 years''...the pure, shining truth. And to whom we owe this partition and its consequences, the abandoning of the Central&Eastern half of Europe, against her will, at the hands of the ''lovely'' Russians and their ''wonderful'' system that was imposed on her: to the cowardess, indifference and stupidity of Churchill and Roosevelt (they gave it all up to the brute Bear, with the complicity of all the ''Western Europe''...So, how dare they? just that, how dare they? And when you think that the likes of Bohemia and Moravia were among the richest parts of the world, with a thriving industry,etc...How dare they?

"Europeans must recognize that they worked together to defeat Hitler and endure the Soviets"

What a quaint and novel notion... inaccurate, but quaint and novel.

Barring Russia which only survived because of British aid, there was not one continental country that wasn't occupied. Those that reinforced the Great Britain numbered in a few thousand, compared to the millions that could (if they had the back bone) have joined the fight. Those that joined the Germans numbered far more than those that joined Britian.

As for who kept the Soviets out of Western Europe, that was mostly a British and American venture, and later NATO.

You're right, Yalta conference was a sad event indeed, but considering that the allies were exhausted by WW2 operations and Soviets gained the plans for atomic bomb too, it is obvious that nobody wanted to risk additional confrontation between nuclear powers.
From the Czechoslovak perspective (other countries of the region may have different views): after every major war, hopes are usually put to radical changes of the system that should ensure prosperity and permanent peace. The events in USSR between world wars (famine due to forced collectivization and Stalin's brutal experiments against his own people - e.g. cleaning cities from reactionary forces by sending them to Siberia) could have been a serious warning that something was wrong with the new socioeconomic system, but I can understand that having just endured terrors of WW2, many common people could have put their hopes in the new progressive world order and were enthusiastic to participate in it. That's why the major disappointment in Czechoslovakia was in 1968 when majority of people wanted democratic changes back but were subdued...
Obviously, the path chosen by countries of newly formed Western Europe - capitalist economy with social-welfare accents and fair cooperation leading to Treaty of Rome and foundation of EEC in 1957 was much better way to securing that goal, especially because it was not imposed externally and fair play ensures stability as nobody has grievances.
But again, who could have guessed after experience of post-WW1 arrangement that European countries will be able to fairly cooperate after WW2? So my point is that if I had been a common citizen of Czechoslovakia in 1945, I would have probably supported the transition to the new socioeconomic order too but would have corrected my view by 1968.

You are right, you may have been subdued, but that would be plausible for you, because you, being a Czech, and knowing that back then what is now Czech Republic, was an extremely industrialised area, with a consistent industry working class, well, back then working classes were having harsh lifes in all the world, because, as you mentioned it, the social welfare wasn't invented yet...so I say, as Czech area back then had a hughe industry work force and as it was on the par with the working force of let's say Uk or Germany back then, it is possible that the Czechs had the same concerns as the workforce in Germany, Uk, France, etc, and it is well known that what we call now communism has its roots in the working class mentality of the west, particularily Uk, because of the discrepancies in income back then, between working class vs bourgeoisie...anyway, most of what they call Eastern Europe wasn't even close industrialised as Czechs were, most countries were mainly agricultural, and were step by step catching up with the Czechs,so, as they lacked the industry, they lacked the workforce employed in industry, so communism and its idealist new world order wasn't appealing in these countries. In Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, etc, support for communist parties was extremely low, mainly because these were nations of small owners of lands, who didn't want to lose thei lot..these were deeply religious countries, where the traditional right wing parties and ideologies were predominant. In consesquence, except for the likes of the Czechs who were much more western Europe back then than many Western Europe countries today, and who, the Czechs, may have been lured into believieng in communism, a flaw common in many social classes in Uk or Geramny, back then, most of the other ''Easterners'' hated communism and weren't even by far lured into admiring it and communism was totally imposed upon them, against their will, and the brainwashing and destruction of the spirit commenced...

Yes, you're right that it is related to the structure of employment and also previous experience in foreign politics (Czechoslovakia was let down by Western Powers in 1938, while USSR was viewed as the key liberator from the Nazi occupation).
Yet, of course, private land-owners were deeply touched by forced collectivization too and the communist party later (in early 1950th) had to arrange spectacular political trials with "subversive elements" to threaten opponents.
However still, the last free elections in Czechoslovakia in 1946 were won by communists gaining 43% in Bohemia, 34% in Moravia and 30% in Slovakia (where it scored second).

And, out of curiosity, I understand that you are a Romanian citizen - how the communism was viewed by common Romanians? I heard that until the Ceausescu rule who was prone to build his personality cult, the Romanians had quite relaxed form of communism...

Well, exactly my point. I do not know exactly how the electoral process worked in Czechoslovakis back in '46, but in most countries the elections were totally rigged, beccause of the presence of the russian Army in those countries, who took care of the results of the elections, so taht in all countries where communism ''won'' it was usually by a large margin, ridiculously large, and that was done through violence and coercion on the part of the Russians...well, that's ancient history, for some. I tend to believe that maybe in Czechoslovakia 40-50 percent of the people may have voted for the communist with honest hearts, because of the social structure of the country and because of the aspects you mentioned, but then, if it wasn't for American intervention, Italy, Greece, etc, would have been communists at the same time with us, France back in 1871, La commune de Paris, that would practically make it the first communist state in the world, Spain back in 1937 and if it were to listen to the numerous working class in Uk, Uk would have been communist already during Dickens's life...so, even if the Czechs truly believed in communism at the beginning, they may be pardoned, because every other industrialised country commited the same sin. of course, the Czechs didn't know back then that except for the fact that communism as a social and economical system was a failure, they would also be under the Russian opression, they didn't know that the ''anti-imperialists'' where the most imperialistic of all, and once they grabbed you in their claw, there eas no way out, and the Czechs thought they would be free to revise their own system of govern, but the desilusion was tremendous after the horrible, criminal invasion of 1968. The thing is, if russia wasn't so strong back then, in front of a crumbled Germany and a coward, uncaring US+UK, nowadays Czech republic should be , socialloy and economically, on par with Austria, Denmark or Holland, to a lesser extent Hungary and Poland too, and south east europe would have had levels of life similar to Italy, Spain, Geece...and now we would only talk about the north-saouth division of Europe, the Czechs woud have been the rich, neutral, smug, nordic style country, criticising the spenders, waisters of the South...that's it. I salute you.

Well, You may say I'm Romanian, although it's complicated...well, as I told you, Romania, at the end of WW2 was mostly an agricultutral economy, with some industry, but not too much, which was concentrated mainly around the oil exploitation, being well known that Ro had considerable oil resources. So, back in 48, when communists ''won'' the elctions by a large margin, it was through coerccion and violence that they convinced many to vote on their behalf, plus they applyied the motto: it doesn't matter who is voting, but who is counting. before the russian Army occupied romania, there weren't even 10 communists in all country. Anyway, from this period, '48, and through most of the '50, communism was extremely harsh in Romania, with hundreds of thousands killed, lands and goods confiscated, etc, and Roamanians hated communism, but as many know, Romanians are passive and easy to dominate, well, that is a result of the special status they had under Ottoman Rule, which didn't annex Romanian principates like it did with the balkans, instead they Ruled them through a weird system of taxes and interferences which destroyed the people's pride and dignity, hence the saying ''polenta doesn't explode'' which is to say, romanians can endure anything (funny, isn't it) Well, romanians hated communism, except for a few chosen, who understood they could make a career out of it- But then, a genral secretary called Dej eas a bit more enlightened and got Rid of the russian Army in 1958, the firs communist state to do that, and the situation in Ro was improoving and then came young ceausescu in 1965, he seemed a nice guy, he opposed the invasion of Czechoslovakia (I'm so glad for that, he tightened ties with western world, he made huge infrastructure works, standards of living in Ro were pretty ok, you could find books and art from the west to buy, it seemed loke Romania was becoming a model communist state and many thought it would transition towards democracy...but everybody eas wronng...Ceausescu was a fool, and after some visits to China and North Koreea, he so much liked the discipline snd abedience, the personality culta he saw there, that he imposed allthat in romania, and everything else is history...this happened intensely after 1973. Well i was a small kid when communism fell, i was in Ro back then and I still recall things first hand, don't you imagine i'm some old and experienced guy. well, I put you through some Romanian history now. I did this for you, because I really like and respect everything you write. Cheers.

Intelligent analysis! I would also add the fate of Austria - it was not until entire 10 years after WW2 when it was decided that Austria would not be split into Western and Eastern parts as Germany was but would become neutral.

In case you were curious: Czechoslovakia was set to belong to Soviet sphere of influence in Yalta, but Czechoslovakia already had officially acknowledged exile government/president in London and so after the war, the pre-war democratic president Beneš returned and elections were held in 1946. It resulted into coalition government with communist but also democratic politicians. Soviets had initially practiced influence indirectly through the Czechoslovak communist party that started building private militia and on February 25, 1948 they made putsch and forced resignation of democratic ministers from the government. That was the end of democracy in Czechoslovakia for another 41 years... Anyway, the truth is that after the liberation in 1945, Soviet military troops withdrew from Czechoslovakia and were permanently stationed there only after the 1968 invasion. That's why people were very upset because they didn't consider Soviets as occupants before... So between 1945 and 1948 only NKVD and other secret services operated in Czechoslovakia and secretly coordinated subversive actions like assassination of Jan Masaryk (son of the first Czechoslovak president, a foreign minister and promising democratic politician)...

Yes, Czechs and Slovak very appreciate attitude of countries like Romania and Yugoslavia that supported people of Czechoslovakia in 1968. There were also admirable actions of solidarity in other countries of Eastern Block like Poland where a brave citizen has set himself on fire in protest of Polish participation. That's why the Czech Republic now tries to support people of Cuba, Belarus, etc. who must still endure injustice in return.

But back to situation in communist Romania: do you think that the communism in a relaxed formed without Soviet influence like in Romania or Yugoslavia would be acceptable and competitive enough: As you mentioned, the economic situation of many south-eastern European countries was not good even before communism that's why the materialistic pro-industrialization nature of the Marx-leninist ideology could have contributed to the faster development of the country? In Czechoslovakia, an important issue in worsening the situation was that all the industries had to re-orient themselves on heavy-industry and military production due to the Cold War, but the consumer production was neglected.

To answer your question: NO, I don't think Communism in a relaxed form, without Soviet influence would help any country, ever. Communism and any form of accentuated socialism are doomed, impossible to successfully apply on this Earth (well, you'll say, Capitalism too seems to have failed: well, that is exactly the problem: I still believe in Capitalism, but combined with some ethics, social responsability, respect for the other, etc).It is true that countries that were a long time under Ottoman influence were consistently less developed than the countries that were longer under Austrian influence, but I tell you, things were going on well, for instance Romania in 1860 was some 400 years behind countries in Central Europe, but in 1938 we were talking about at the most 2 decades away difference, Romania had progressed immensely, starting from very low base, GDP per capita in 1860 was 20, 30 times less than that of central Europe, in 1938 it was half that of Austria and almmost equal to that of Spain or Italy...remember they were poor, Spain, Greece, Italy were before WW2, compared to Germany for instance, or France. Romania, just as Greece or Spain, would have achieved high standards of living, I have no doubt about it (I'm also afraid it would have made the same mistakes of the PIGS, but hey, that's another story). I mean, lokk at Spain and Greece: high standards of living, agree, due to construction, services, turism, agriculture, structural funds, and some weaker industry, compared at least to that of Germany and France. I'm not saying this is ok, now the PIGS have to rethink their entire system and economy, they have to be more efficient, more educated, etc, and the results are yet to be known (anyway, I say that at the end of the decade Czech republic will surpass all Pigs in GDP per capita, both nominal and PP) So No,I don't think communism would have functioned, by any means and I think the poorer states of ''Eastern Europe''would have been on par at least with the PIGS right now, if they wouldn't have been sold to the Russians. On a personal note, I have always been fond of Czechoslovakia, actually my grandfather worked there in the 60's, and when I was a kid he told me nice things about it and later on, I studied things myself. Well, he got there through the Catholic Church, I come from a catholic background (although not religious myself, to the dismal of my family) I belong to a small ethinc group tied with a Central European nation, anyway, we were minority in Romania, and that is why I do not feel like simply Romanian, I identify myself more like Central European because of my education, feelings, sympathies, etc. Anyway, I digress, and it's late! But, as I told you, I sympathize with the czechs, I knew some very nice ones in my life, and I sympathize with you. And I really hope you don't really envisage Communism, even in an edulcorated form, as a viable system of government.

Don't worry, I don't envisage communism as a viable alternative now after the experience of our countries ;-) But the ideology was generally invented as a natural successor of capitalism (that was itself successor of feudalism) at least by its early evangelists like Engels (who himself came from the capitalist family and thus surely cannot be suspected to opportunistically support it for personal profits).

In this sense, it might have been genuinely tempting for many people as an alternative to the early capitalism (i.e. that without social accents) after WW2. But the flaws are obvious: focus on class fights (until complete elimination of classes) which inherently leads to subduing plurality and thus freedom of individuals, lack of manageability due to central planning and lack of personal interest and responsibility in "common ownership". Current China, however, shows now that a relaxed form of communism with some capitalist elements can be very efficient in increasing economic development of the country (but at the expense of people whose freedoms are restricted, of course)...

Thank you for sympathizing with Czechs. In fact, Romania is one of the few places with some (small) traditional communities of ethnics Czechs (they moved to Banat during the AH Monarchy) so many tourists from the Czech Republic spend their holidays in their families and admire their historic folklore that was preserved intact for centuries as well as charming romantic Romanian countryside...

"Current China, however, shows now that a relaxed form of communism with some capitalist elements can be very efficient in increasing economic development of the country (but at the expense of people whose freedoms are restricted, of course)..."

Have you been to China? To me, China appears much like the actualization of a national socialist utopia of the Albert Speer kind.

You're right, China does not have communism of European style but adapts it for its reality - in particular having 1.3 billion workforce at disposal is tempting for building spectacular projects.

But China still has continuity with the past as the democratic protests that took place in China at the same time as in CEE in 1989 were suppressed on Tiananmen Square and despite some generational changes and reforms, it's still the (same) Communist Party that rules China.

My point was that if we compare state-supervised development in China and fairly decentralized development in India, the Chinese development is much faster but not much stable (and thus probably not sustainable for the long time)...

Your analysis of Communism, plus current China's form of Communism is very pertinent. The guy who criticised you for your remarks on China didn't understand your point: it's not that you admire, accept or tolerate China's for of goevernement: you just understand it, and objectively evaluate it. it is true that in China, at least, the form of Communism they adopted, it seems to function economically, at least for now, and at least at a macro-economic level, taht is something that cannot be denied: they experienced astronomical GDP growth, and tha has been happening for 3 decades already. However, it functions in China because they are a huge country with a huge market, plus their innate discipline and automatism, and some other factors: of course, they pay a huge price for their system, which has many, many disadvantages, apart from loss of freedom and great social divisons, and as a consequence by no means it should represent a roll model to follow by anyone (I'm sure you envisage it that way).
As for the Romanian romantic countryside, well, yes, that may be true, well, at least for areas in Transylvania, Banat and Bucovina, but, unfortunately, the poverty of most of the people, the lack of hope, are not quite so romantic. It's been many years since I don't live there anymore, but everytime I go there, one in a while, more than nice things and romanticism, I see sad things and I always leave there with a sour heart; and what I realize is that country primarily lacks a decent political class, the entire political class back there lacks even the most basic patriotism, they have that mentality of slaves of the Ottomans, as I bitterly ''metaphorise'' it, and if that would remedy, things would improve there with supersonic speed. unfortunately, changing an entire political class it is very difficult. Well, anyway, what I see is that some of the most intelligent, warm hearted, most intersting people I always meet, they come from ex-communist Europe, so i still think there are chances for serious improvement.

Well, everything must be taken in its context. People must satisfy their basic needs but beyond that, finding sense and happiness of their lives depends on them alone or their community. Therefore if they have lived relatively independent lives in secluded villages and were happy for generations, there is no reason why it should suddenly change. If people have their own housing and farmstead (food), the number of bills they must pay is surely reduced and intensive work and traditional way of living can give them sense of lives.

That's why even more secluded communities that even reject technology like Amish can be often more happy than a middle class metropolis dweller who lives a hurried life in a dirty and noisy environment, has to pay great number of bills, has to pay mortgages that make him a slave of the "rat race" for his whole life.

So basically, the worst thing that you can do when you visit your homeland is tell the people there: look what I have, you need this and this and this to be happy in your lives. Because then you make them surely unhappy ;-)

And so this is also true for politicians - if the main goal of their lives is bonanza hunt for accumulation of assets on their account (and post-communist society is raised in a fairly materialistic ideology), then their management of the "polis" will be very bad and/or neglected indeed. The general mood in society must change, different values put forward and politicians must set improvement of conditions of their communities as their raison d'être in politics. Then a change can happen.

In the meantime, it should be the civic society that should be formed as the herald of the change - forming non-governmental, volunteering organizations consisting of common people genuinely and altruistically (without ulterior motives) interested in improvement of one or more aspect of the society can partially substitute bad governance and press on changes of the generally skeptical and selfish mood in the society. And, of course, it should happen both on the local and nation-wide levels...

I hope that post-communist countries will be eventually able to finish this spiritual transformation, even though it will not be tomorrow ...

That is what a call a good insight...I agree with everything you say, heart and mind. The essence of all problems in our hoemecountries and the logical, ideal solutions to all of them.This is inspirational discourse. I copied your comment :) If the civic society had more and more people thinking like you, your hope from the end of your comment would stop being a hope and become a fact. If only most of us could stop being skeptical and often selfish and weak...

Civic society is a notion where we can get inspired by traditional capitalist countries (especially Anglo-Saxon), where various kinds of volunteering, fundraising, etc. is very widespread. That's also why even austerity measures and spending cuts do not have such negative effects there as in countries where people rely solely on the state.

But relying on the state is a heritage of communism and its central planning and state ubiquitous management of people's lives (in early years of communism in Czechoslovakia, young people couldn't have even chosen their future occupation but were given fixed "job assigments"). A very negative consequence of this approach is, of course, nepotism, bribes and other forms of corruption because if somebody had a suitable "acquaintance" in the proper places in the state administration (or simply bribed them), (s)he could achieve a preferential treatment or get other unfair benefits compared to others.

Unfortunately, these social structures have persisted in the society even after the fall of communism, and, what is the worst aspect, as various cases of corruption (in particular unfair tenders for state purchases) are discussed in newspapers everyday, even young people who haven't experienced communism consider proper "connections" as the way to succeed in their lives (as a sociological survey on Czech secondary schools has shown). So it looks that the mental transformation of the society will require more than one generation, but there are even positive examples and we should be glad for them.

In fact, if you are interested in economics and ethics, I can recommend a book that I have read recently: Economics of Good and Evil by a young Czech economist Tomáš Sedláček. Based on numerous historical excursions, he concludes that the only scarcity that we have today is scarcity of scarcity and the ubiquitous quest for growth is rather funny! Let's hope that politicians and various "businessmen" realize this soon too...

Thank you for the recommended book. Yes, that is a very terrible problem, of the young people in post-communist Europe, which consider ''proper 'connections' as the way to succeed in their lives''...that makes it pretty hard for things to change on short or medium term. I may add that there are 2 main types of young people in these countries: those who rely on connections and bribes and the whole shabane and those who become entirely individualistic, skeptical, cynical on the outside but very sensitive and secretly idealistic, who reject the system, oppose it and often they lose or get pushed away, or, they simply emigrate. In my opinon emigration is not bad, it broadens horizons, makes one see the world through different eyes, makes one get rid of one's sense of provincialism and inferiority, makes one understand different points of view and if the emigrée ever decides to go back to the country he once left, he will enrich it (hopefully). But that is a real tragedy, of the young generation perpetuating the wrong mentalities of the older generations brought up under communism...and that is a common recurring theme in all conversations of the elites in Ro for instance...and most see it as a problem that will be very hard to solve.

I don't think the support for the communism system after WW2 could be justified, especially when it comes to the Soviet version of it. It was already clear that it led only to death and destriction.

Maybe this idea could've sounded promising in the 19th century, though it was already dead back then. The reason is, it was directed against the European culture, if not the human nature as our societies can't develop and function in the long term on a collectivist basis and without freedom. It's lure was that it opened ways for a big change and social engineering, which excited both part of the "elites" that liked the idea of having a near-total control of the society and obviously the "damned of the Earth" who had nothing to loose. Yet any hopes it'd bring a positive change were futile from the very begining.

As for the symphaty for the Czech...ha, ok, I have to admit that my dear grandpa, may he rest in peace, held this nation in the deepest contempt:P I remember him saying that even in their anthem they only sing about hiding behind their forests and mountains (while the Polish one is obviously about facing the enemy face to face with sabre in hand:)) and everything they ever do is surrendering to the occupiers and kneel. He loved to hold forth about their passivity in 1938, (pretty ridiculous given the fact that when Benes wanted to oppose Hitler and was gathering up allies, when he called Warsaw the response he got from the foreign minister Beck was an ultimatum on giving back Zaolzie) lack of serious guerilla resistance during the world and then giving their country to Soviets on a plate "like a mouse goes straightly to the mouth of a snake tantalized by its hissing".

I see things quite differently, after all the net result of all these differences in "national behaviour" is that the Czech people still have their Prague while our capital was utterly destructed and they also weren't subjected to years of dysgenic practices (regular slaugthering the best sons of the nation) that still do and will continue to haunt Poland, but that election and relative lack of resistance to the sovietization of the country in the 1940s remain a tain on Czech image. Obviously, the Soviets would install their system on Czechoslovakia either way but, as you mentioned, it wasn't all that clear for the general public back in that days the fact that the Czechs themselves sealed their destiny is quite disturbing.

I don't want to give you a wrong impression, Czechs and Slovaks are actualy THE most respected and liked nations in Poland currently, according to official polling, followed by Spaniard who are up to loose a lot of this symphaty if the crisis continues:) Ironically, Romanians are amongsts the least liked, probably due to ignorant people confunding them with gypsies.

It is a fact, though, that many (though not the majority) people were genuinely lured to the Soviet system in Poland as well, and all that in spite of the invasions of 1920 and 1939 which should've opened everybody's eyes.

But enough talking of the past, the real question is what to do in present.

In agree that the "historical" arguments are of postcolonial nature and therefore should not be used. Western public should be made aware of both the East-Central European contribution to their culture, liberty and well-being as well as their own role at puting those CEE nations into misery BUT that's not the reason for the unrestricted and uncontrolled influx of citizens of aftermentioned CEE countries into their lands. They had some sense of "moral debt" but it was largely payed back by providing the former Eastern Block countries with an opportunity to become full members of the Western institutions like NATO, the EU or OECD.

The free movement of people is also a great thing, but how to minimize its negative effect on the local population? The key thing to understanding the problem is becoming aware that most Poles do not want to become Dutch or English - they want to make money and return home. This may sound harsh, but it becomes increasingly obvious to me that the only solution could be...a form of labour camps with hotels, restaurants, stores etc., separating the gastarbeiters from the locals together with an opportunity for the host country to deport the troublemakers. This is already happening, but in many cases the hostels the immigrants are located are in the near neighbourhood of the locals which causes predictable problems. Thiss will mean gettoization, but it will be a controlled and willingfull one, not the chaotic we're dealing with today. People will come for a year or two, make money and go home (or to the other place where their services are needed)

For those willing to integrate, an offer of language and culture courses should be provided. This could faciliate their adaptation to their new home.

Yes, indeed, the risk of spoiling the young generation is very high but I would not be that skeptical - there is the third group of people genuinely trying to do something about it and form more or less formal non-governmental organizations and activities, etc. The recent protests in Romania can be an example. And even in Russia, young people started to dislike local conditions and protest against Putin's re-election - which was something unimaginable only several years ago. So let's hope that the things will get better, even though not as quickly as people hoped in 1989.

I fully agree that foreign experience is definitely good - various exchange programs for students like Erasmus are very important, as well as work experience because, as you nicely mentioned, people can learn new ways and their horizons can expand. But it is rather about individual-style approach with open mind to accept new things and learn. Returning home, eventually, and applying this experience home is very important part of this too... But if this foreign experience/migration is approached with closed minds for the only reason of arbitraging level of salaries (or worse, welfare benefits, or worst performing criminality) elsewhere, and if this happens massively, then it becomes a problem for the target (but also source due to brain-drain) environments. That's why this issue should be approached with empathy for both sides of the story...

Your grandpa had very good point about the Czechoslovak national anthem indeed. I have personally noticed this before too and, as a patriot, I'm quite sad about it ;-) But the reason was very simple: Czechoslovakia was originally a multi-national state with almost 30% of German-speaking inhabitants who didn't consider themselves Czechs, thus, it was fair to choose a neutral text (two separate parts of the hymn were enough). In fact, there was a German translation of the anthem, see here.

And so, it's quite understandable that the differences between Czech and Polish political strategies were based on different histories and national structures of their lands. This may have formed even about typical national qualities, but it is an over-generalization because every individual is different. I personally belong to self-confident frank people (often attributed to Poles) rather than guileful defensive ones (often attributed to Czechs).

However, the national historical experience makes me understand the Dutch worries that they do not like large minorities who do not want to adapt. Czechoslovakia experienced this between wars with the German-speaking minority and it was definitely very frustrating.

In fact, I've just recently read about history of foreign radio broadcasting and one of the key reasons why German speaking inhabitants betrayed Czechoslovakia in 1938 was that they were listening to "Berlin" radio broadcast (since 1933 Nazi propaganda) instead of "Prague" and thus they lived in a completely different reality than it really was. That's why I understand that large communities of people ignoring the local environment but rather living in their own world must be very annoying for the locals (fortunately, in case of intra-EU migration not dangerous because individual European nations do not plot wars against one another anymore).

But I definitely think that an acceptable positive solution should be looked for before it grows to deeper misunderstanding and I'm glad that representatives of all new EU members joined the letter appealing on dealing with the issue.

And, BTW, Czech state and Polish-speaking citizens of the Czech Republic have found fairly constructive modus operandi. Members of Polish minorities have basically all the rights they require including Polish-language schools and bilingual names of villages (where they exceed some threshold) but they also speak Czech and are interested in the local culture and environment. So they are very flexible and can "switch" their identity based on context.

But, of course, it applies for minorities who are permanent citizens of another country, not for temporary migrants as is the Dutch case...

Now we are fighting the undemocratic EuroSoviet in Brussels, who want to destroy our democracy and steal our money to give to their banker buddies or to eastern European countries. Our government should continue the veto over Romanian and Bulgarian workers.

This might be breaking the record for the longest thread of replies...
Well, dear Tomas, I feel like I have to specify that I am an extremely individualistic person. Being like that, I despise crowds, ad-hoc, spontaneous manifestations, I hate generalisations and I definitely hate uniformisation, ''one size fits all'' stuffs and assuming merits or punishments for other's actions. I believe that a human being, in all interactions, must guard its individualism and it has to pay or receive its due for its actions. I don't believe in groups, let alone nations, as homogenous masses, but rather as a sum of individuals. That has kept me always from being a rasist and also made me believe that for a change to come, one must change the individuals. On that point, I am much alike the libertarians.
Well, that said, regarding your comment refering to the street movements in Moscow or Bucharest: man, I was sooo happy to see that things are changing in Russia, and although I was brought up to despise and fear the Russians, as one fears viruses, one dream of mine is to see Russia a democracy, with freely elected presidents, and with a Swiss mentality :). Anyway, can you imagine that, a free, democratic Russia? That would be one of the best things that would happen during our lifetimes...or a crazier dream: Russia inside EU and we are all a big,happy, democratical family.
My thought is that in Moscow, at least, the change in mood was brought by the appearance of a middle class, a pretty affluent class, who simply wants a change. My ideea is that as long as in post.communist Europe there won't be a very strong middle class, things will go wrong: no matter the romanticism of the nature, the humility of the people, the philosophical despisal of the riches. Poor people hve less means, less education, less knowledge of what is good and what is wrong for the environment, etc, they are easier to buy for scrap. The idea for developing countries is not for them to remain poor, but to become mainly middle class countries, where education should play the central role, where the relative wealth of the society is spent on education, on health, on things that are decent and eco-friendly: and if amidst this society some choose to break up from all accomodations modern society offers, amish-style, well, that is fantastic, but let them join willingly, not forced by incompetence. Educated, conscious people, middle clas, will buy electrical cars instead of the classical combustion ones, will use bycicles, will use renewable energy, will recycle, will avoid harmful substances (alcohol, tobacco) and, being consciuos and all, will avoid falling victim to corporative consumerist propaganda, to stupid politicians and will not fear anything(well, all that mixed with some sensitivity training, as to avoid the nordic model, which seems to correspond to the model above mentioned, minus the many glitches they have with high incidence of mental disturbances).
I agree that emigration and imigration signify ugly instances as well. I don't think that emigration for purely economic reasons is bad or condemnable, as long as the emigrée adjusts to the country he has emigrated to and respects the law and adapts to the local customs. My theory is, one should be free to chose if one wishes to emigrate or not, as long as one is willing to accept the adjustments and by no means disrupt, embarass or bother the receptacle country.
As for the Pole who said that in Poland Romanians are not well seen because they are believed to be gipsies, I :-). Come on, people, search any resource you find on internet and you will see that Roma population in Romania are around 3.5% of the general popuation...ther are many more Hungarians than Roma. Now, that might be rasism on the part of some poles: they being somehow homogenous concerning the color of the skin, which is fair, blond, and in Romania one finds the northern half population more like the poles and the southern part more like the greeks :)Anyway, in Romania, from what I know, the only peoples who are not well seen are the Russians and there is an utter indifference to the Bulgarians. Romanians have even overcome their historical hatred towards the hungarians, which now enjoy European rights (being I of origin from a subgroup of Hungarian settlers in Ro). Anyway, having told you these things about me, you can imagine how much I despise people who throw away despicable words towards nations and groups...unfortunately, being impulsive, sometimes I can't restrain and I answer to them with the same tone. Unlike you, who are always so calm and patient.

Hello 9v9iv2XG5F! Maybe, but there may have been even longer threads in the Charlemagne section...

Generalization is often dangerous, on the other hand, some kind of "aggregation" is often necessary if someone wants to understand some relations in a complex world or observe some trends or derive global models. That's why we can afford this kind of simplification when talking on the abstract level, but it is tricky when judging individual cases.

I think that Russia has a democratic and rational opposition (gather around Gary Kasparov) as well as often brave intellectuals like the assassinated journalist Anna Pulitkovska. It would be great if they came to power, on the hand, I also understand arguments of common Russian majority: "We have already tried weak liberals (Yeltsin) and how it ended." Considering that Russia is geographically huge (and thus created by relatively secluded settlements, it may be dangerous to give too much power to local "gubernators" who then act as absolutist rulers. In this sense, I guess that Russians will continue to be voting for strong central leaders for relatively long time...

You have very good point about the middle class - this is core of the civic society in the US and many countries of WE. In the Czech Republic, most people form lower-middle class due to the communist egalitarianism (and quite strong welfare state) but fairly lower salaries than in WE. That's why there are numerous examples of civic society activities already, but of course, a little bit limited than in WE due to lower amounts of available funding. That's also why it is important for people who have gained foreign experience to return to their homelands (with both money and know-how) and actually perform the changes. Who else would form the middle class and do the changes if not them?!

Also note that the assumption associated with creation of EU and the single currency was that no barriers and similar conditions will lead to fast convergence of individual European countries. It looks that is assumption seems to be refuted by the debt crisis and also by the fact that convergence of CE is not as fast as expected. It should be just the weaker countries that should grow fastest (as they do so from lowest base) but still it's strong countries like Germany and Scandinavian members were growth was fastest (of course, fastest is Poland but they are special case thanks to investments by returning citizens and efficient drawing of cohesion funds).

As for Romani communities, it's a sad chapter because there is no working formula what to do to improve their situation unless they are willing to change themselves (now I don't me activists who only use this topic as an opportunity for persuading their interests). But, I can comfort you, it's not only Romania and Bulgaria whose reputations are being damaged - Canada has, for example, re-introduced visa duty to Czech passport holders several years ago due to increased migration wave of Roma people with Czech passport...

As for the ranks of nations - I think it changes quite quickly as people usually draw information from mass-media. I bet that many people will now consider Greeks as the least popular Europeans as they are presented by media all the time as a nation who is guilty for the Euro debt crisis. Tomorrow, it can be somebody else who gets in troubles. In fact, c'est la vie - successful people are usually admired, those in troubles are usually despised (which worsens their situation even more). That's why it can't be take seriously.

Cutter, sorry, but your knowledge of WW2 history needs to be refreshed. It was American aid (in war materiel and food) that helped (and quite likely saved) Soviet Union AND the UK. Regarding the help that the UK received in manpower - let's see: "By March 1944, the Polish armed forces in the west fighting under British command numbered 195,000, 165,000 at the end of that year, including about 20,000 personnel in the Polish Air Force and 3,000 in the Polish Navy." And that's Poland alone. Add Czech and Free French contributions plus other nations and you really end up with a bit more than your "few thousand". So you really need to do more research before you start making claims like that. BTW, add the fact that Polish resistance movements was the largest in Europe (For example, Norman Davies wrote "Armia Krajowa (Home Army), the AK, which could fairly claim to be the largest of European resistance"; Gregor Dallas wrote "Home Army (Armia Krajowa or AK) in late 1943 numbered around 400000, making it the largest resistance organization in Europe"; Mark Wyman wrote "Armia Krajowa was considered the largest underground resistance unit in wartime Europe". Certainly, Polish resistance was the largest resistance till German invasion of Yugoslavia and invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941), add Polish forces fighting alongside the Soviets and you end up with the fourth (after US, Soviet Union and the UK) biggest contribution to the Allied effort in the WW2. And kindly remember that despite that, Poland was not even invited to the parade of victory in London by Churchill... and was instead sold (along with the rest of EE) to the Soviets.
All right, end of this brief history lesson. In the future stay with the facts please.

Compared to the 2.5 million men of India and numerous others from the Commonwealth and Empire, the Polish contribution was a drop in the ocean. You seem to forget that the US did not join the war till it was half way through. That aid to Russia was brought by the UK, it was not a freebie. That is 5,000 tanks and 7,000 aircraft plus other supplies.

225,000 Polish fought for the Nazis, 18.2 million joined the Wehrmacht throughout the continent. 35,000 French of the Vichy French Milice, and who knows how many of the Service d'ordre légionnaire, the French SS and Gestapo. But sticking with Easterners... Hungary fully cooperated, Romania sent 800000 to fight for the Nazis against Russia, Bulgaria took part in taking Yugoslavia and Greece, Slovakia was with the Nazis from the start... there there were Serbia, Albania, Macedonia, Croatia.

Yes, I watch horrified Greece's fate nowadays, and get sad at the way they are pictured in the mass-media...I was rather indifferent towards them before, now i sumpathise with them, because they are the victims of a circus: I do not want to get into details you already know, but it's cynical, Greece has a foreign debt much lower than Japan, USA and many other countries, but everybody picks on them, suddenly they are junk, just because Merkel wanted it to be like that, when with just 2 sentences 3 years ago: Greece, EU & Germany is with you'', there would have been no Greek crisis, no risk of default, debts would have continued to be paid by the Greels without external help, you know what I mean. When times were high, German banks were loaning billions and billions without asking questions, they created the problem in the first place, seeking to invest their excess of money that were impossible to invest in a tired, austere German economy.
About the gypsies, it is true that any change must begin with their own willingness to change, but that won't happen untill the host country won¡t acknoledge them as its own citizens, ok, problematic and all that, but all the more reasons to treat them with more care, with positive discrimination, untill they reach levels of integration similar to the average (Eastern Europe should learn some things frim US, what they did with the African-American comunities in the las decades). I also knew about the row with Canada...but I say: That doesn't affect too much Czech Republic's image, which, overall, is ok :).
Lastly, I read one of our last comments and I came to me that I had to tell you that it would be wrong to compare Romania to Russia, or the protests in these 2 countries. Romania is a real democracy, in the sense that: opposition is not silenced, it has its own mass media, actually, those in power have no mass media means in their power, and one could say in Romania opposition is stronger than those in power. If you, Tomas, would go tomorrow in Romania, and go in front of the government's building and start criticising the government, or the president, you would not be arrested. You could express your dissenting views on the street, in the government's building, on TV, without fear. All day long, on tv, there are debates, well, southern Europe style, where one can say what one thinks, without fear of political opression. Now, that in order to get some contracts to do some jobs for the government you might sometimes be able to by an official to rig the adjudication, you might find a cop willing to let you escape with a traffic offense by offering a bribe (now much less than before, Romania, from what I noticed, is, on many fields, rather less corrupt than, let's say, 10 years ago...joining Eu, I've noticed, improved many things), in a hospital, ypu might find doctors, not all, of course, but some, who would expect to be bribed in order to give you proper medical attention (more so in small towns)...but I remember how it was back in the 90's, and now, it is much, much better. Freedom is present, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, there is no fear for the state apparatus (on the contrary). Those people who got on the streets in Bucharest want for the corruption to dissapear, ask of their government to be competent and in this particular case, they also protested against some neoliberal decisions the president was willing to take and which the protests seem to have made him give up. In Russia they were demanding freedomm fair elections, things that in Romania were aquired some time ago...

My point with the Greek example that mass-media can worsen perception of events or even whole nations very quickly because the whole debt crisis is rather virtual and if there had been no mass-media, general public would not have known much about it. On the other hand, no information can preserve stereotypes for long time. That's why the rankings cannot be taken too seriously, but as they can have practical impacts (as the PVV webpage suggest), it is good not to give opportunities for misunderstanding or condemnation.
In this context, I think that Romania and Bulgaria are often underestimated which surely does not contribute to further development (e.g. discourages foreign investments), so it's a kind of vicious circle. Anyway, I wish you were able to break through it soon!
By stating examples of Russian and Romanian protests, I have never meant to compare them except that both are rather rare (as you said, Romanians are historically not much prone to protests, Russian public was not much used to it). So if public (i.e. especially younger generation) in those two countries decides to massively protests, it means that a significant generational change of behavioural patterns has been taking place in CEE. I may add Slovakia to those examples as Slovak young generation has recently been protesting against political and business interferences in their country in protests probably unseen since 1989. That's why, let us only hope that this "third group" (in the sense discussed above) of citizens may become larger than only several years ago may have seemed...

Well, when I was nuancing that comparizon between Russian vs Romanian protests, I knew you didn't mean that both had commmon causes. If you permit me some other nuances, as I know you might be interested, well, Romanians see themselves as the kind of slow starters when it comes to protests, revolutions, etc, I mean, they really endure much untill they protest, but when they do, my God, they can be really cruel, they really take their revenge (see the Revoultion of 1989-I call it diverted revolution ending in coup d'état, and nowadays historians think the same). One explanation me and other i give for that lack of propensity for revolt is: Romanians are not used to expect too much of those who are their leaders, they know about accountability of the elected but they didn't see it in their country so they don't expect it; as a consequence, they elect their leaders (when they do it, elections in Ro register extremely low participation), government, based on subjective factors, not based on what the candidates offer in their programme, because they do not expect them to keep it. The educated usually vote the guy who seems the least ridiculous, least extremist, they pick, as they say, the smallest evil. They crave for responsable leaders, but it seems that this country wasn't yet blessed with them. Also, although Romanians are alike latin people in temperament--although that is rather limiting affirmation, unlike Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, etc, who are somehow more uniform as nations, in the sens that they are defined by some similarity in temperament, outlook, character (I do not know if I make myself understood without seeming to contradict earlier affirmations), etc, Romanian people is a rather divided, heterogenous nation, I'm telling you that also because apart from what I've noticed or studied,I've been talking to Spaniards, Italians, French, Germans, one Dutch, a Polish girl, who all visited or lived in Romania for a certain amount of time..so, Romanians from the southern parts of the country are mostly balcanic in temperament, those in Transilvania and Banat (the arrogant Romanians:)) are much colder, calmer, less temperamental, more like the central Europeans and the Easterners are melancholic, enjoy drinking wine, are more spiritual, dreamers (the national poet of Ro and the main writers come from that region).
So, we speak about at least thre major types of people back there...But, apart from that, Romanians are one of the most individualistic peoples in Europe, the more educated a Romanian, more individualist he seems to be; of course, that has to do with the lack of trust in the leaders, politicians and lack of trust in the other. They do not expect to be handed out anything from the state and know that they got to make it on their own. Well, that many also give in to the corrupt system, or that to many this individualism goes to far, as to make them unkaring of their neighbour, uncaring of the common good, of the garbage standing next to their gate, well, that's another story. Because of this individualism, coupled with distrust of almost everybody,and big differences in mentality and outlook on things between the different regions of the country, it is very difficult to mobilize Romanians to protest, to make them gather together and fight for something: thei're used to fighting on their own. The problem is, on your own you are infinitely weaker than acting as a nation...

Thank you for explaining me intrinsic rules that form Romanian political life. It will allow me to understand events in Romania better.
It is easy to govern a nation that is fragmented and divide-et-impera policy can be used with success. Nonetheless, I believe that the situation may change sooner that we may expect due to technological advancements. In particular, it looks like the current representative democracy based on elected MPs or senators who are supposed to be sent to their roles by people but actually work only for interest of their party/friends/family (which is an inherent flaw that has started in the very beginning in ancient Rome), will become obsolete soon and ancient Athens-like agora-style direct democracy will be introduced.
This shift was heralded by changing the ways communication technologies are used - first, there is a shift from euphoria of good old days when Internet was a mean for living anonymous "second life" (various IRCs, BBS, etc.) towards using it as a direct extension of real life with spreading social networks like Facebook where people are supposed to act with their true identity. And we can see that especially generation Z takes this modus operandi as a natural way of their existence. Second shift has been happening as a consequence of developing the technologies for ubiquitous computing - people can now be online wherever and whenever they are - using phones and ultra-books connected to various wireless networks.
That's why sooner or later the part of state administration will be online identity for every citizen which will allow "agora-gathering" of citizens for performing various political duties (elections, referenda, etc.) without any effort and costs, thus every individual will be more active participant in public affairs, they will be more frequently voting for various issues and the civic supervision will be more efficient than non-transparent intrigues of political backstage. Another consequence will be elimination of the fragmentation as geographic isolation will not play any role anymore.
That's why I'm sure that despite already fairly revolutionary events of last year (including the Arab spring), we're still in the very beginning of the technology-induced revolution of ways public life operates...

I was reviewing the last 2 comments of mine and I just noticed that the ''edit'' square one presses after posting the messaage, although it allows one to correct spelling, ortography, etc, in the end it is useless, because the initial text is left the way it was before one tried to improve it...as a consequence I've seen enough spelling errors and I disown them :).
I might seem a bit of a sycophant, but I have to say I again agree with your last comment. It is bewildering, when one comes to think of it, how much technology(particularily telecomunications) is shaping the world today, beyond the expected increase in comfort and increased productivity, it seem like technology is shaping politics, government, mentalities of nations, behaviors, etc. Who would have imagined 5 years ago the Arab Spring? ok, there might have been idealists imagining it, but placing it much, much later. Thanks to the internet,to the broad circulation of information (virtually anywhere on earth) and in record time, mobilisation, spontaneous revolutions, instant universal uncovering of dirty secrets (wikileaks) are now possible. Bad things are difficult to hide, everything and everybody is in the public domain. That has some negative potentialities also: manipulation might be easier, discrediting and calomny also...well, nowadays one must develop and nurture a very keen sense of observation, one must have educated filters for all the huge bulk of information one receives on many channels. Now, more than ever we must know how to discern between fake and truth, good and evil, etc. Let's hope generation Z won't become the superficial, easily manipulable generation that many predict now, but rather that it will be this ultra informed, ecologist, aware, benign generation you and me hope. And I really hope to see that attractive evlution af the political class that you predict.

You're right that there are already dozens of ways technology shapes politics. But so far mostly indirectly. We can, however, expect that some kind of "digital citizenship" becomes integral part of civil citizenship. For example, there are countries that have already started to organize electronic elections (e.g. Estonia) which can have direct impact on results (more voters/different groups vote). It will also make various elections/referendums cheaper and thus possibly more frequent.

I also agree with your pointing out negative aspects but I'm an optimist. Fake news and various manipulations appear but they can be demented as there is no monopoly for information sources (at least if not restricted by the state as in China, N.Korea or Belarus). That's different from television - the number of channels is limited and TV viewers are passive receivers of information, and thus it is easier to monopolize and influence people (e.g. communist regimes have mastered it perfectly).

I also believe that generation Z will not become easy to manipulate because the Internet users are usually active - in addition to actively working with information, they are also active creators of content. This approach changes their view of the world - they are not used to passively wait what happens to them, but are active in protesting against it, etc. So they seem a little bit more cheeky than previous generations but that's part of the change of paradigm.

This is also why I started this topic - you said that in Romania and many other countries people are resigned for long time and then suddenly explode. But this attitude will surely change in the future as people will continually be able to watch and participate in events. Also note that the information monopoly social class-wise (higher classes) or geographical-wise (Western society) has been crumping and there is a kind of global convergence happening (see e.g. who was reading The Economist in the past and who has been doing it now).

Everybody thought that the 20th century with two global wars and global totalitarian regimes was the peak of civilization when the history was made. But I assume that 21st century will bring even more substantial changes and will not requires wars for it at all ...

Right, who was reading the Economist 10 years ago and who is doing it now? Not to speak of the numbers. Well, me, I started reading it in 2006, when I considered myself mature enough to understand things :) Even then there were less readers and especially less from Post Communist Europe. Well, up untill not many years ago, this newspaper wasn't too keen on writing articles concerning that part of Europe. Of course, as the number of readers from ''East Europe'' increased, now one tends to see more immature, pathetic comments on the comment thread, and I started commenting more myself :), although I do it sporadically, with periodic high pitches, as when I'm in the mood to ''attack'' some trolls or talk to intelligent, well intentioned people like you :)(I use this double faced personae, like dr Jekill and mr Hide, one of my favourite books). Anyway, one tends to see an improvement, year after year, in the level of comments on Eastern Europe topics, which is good. When I read Romania topics, I tend to see an improvement in commentaries, before I used to see the typical pathetisms I remember from my adolescence, the same small thinking, inferiority complex, provincialism...So you are right, improvement is steady, but, as we convened, it is slower than people expected 22 years ago, and some of us, especially those who got used to the calm, reasonably affluent, reasonably settled western societies(well, up untill now, 'cause now, this stability in the west tends to bust, hence our reevaluation of things), well, to those of us, sometimes this slowness seems more infuriating than to those back where we were born. One thing is certain: this decadence experienced these last years in the 'Western world' somehow discredits it, makes easterners a little less awkward, but unfortunately also makes dictatorial regimes around the world more powerfull, giving them the oportunity to bash the humanistic values of the West. I just saw yesterday on TV something about a G20 meeting where emergent countries, like BRIC, were asked to give money as loans to impoverished EU countries...that's surreeal, isn't it? It's good that the richness in this world stops to be the privilege of the west only, the problem is that most of these new superpowers to be are not too democratic(understatement), are investing a lot in military spending and atomic bombs, and do not believe too much in Human Rights and Humanism. And the apparent falling of the Western World doesn't doesn't hel in this equation...

Tomas and 9v9iv2XG5F, thank you! This was the most polite and informative internet discussion I've read in a LONG time, I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but we all know what usually happens in comment threads... I'm genuinely grateful, I learned a lot from you.
Sad that some people seem to be immune to facts, twisting numbers and mumbling half-truths in support of their agenda, without providing - or indeed knowing or understanding - any context. Unfortunately this misinformation begins at school, while you should never trust imperial education to teach you anything but what's convenient, (post)imperial nations do just that. We can see some prime examples below. And yet these are the people - those schooled in ancestor worship and self-importance - whose scholarly output is treated by default with more respect and seriousness than that of less powerful nations... It's a vicious circle of myth creation, isn't it?

Thank you zzzennn for the beautiful compliment...I can say, from my side, that this large comment thread between me and Tomas is the result of my sincere admiration I feel for Tomas, whose comments I've been reading for some years now and I've always admired his wisdom, his objectivity and open mindedness, and his willingness to share some thoughts to me. I really feel that he is a superior human being, and I felt proud and happy for his sharing information with me and listening to what I have to say. I don't know, conversing with people like Tomas enriches you in many ways. There is so much bad will, terribilism, racism, xenophoby, calomny in many comments posted on these threads, to which we sometimes adere or fall victims, that talking desinterestedly and constructively, to the extent of one's knowledge, is very refreshing. Of course, one has to find the proper ears. So, thank you Tomas for sharing your thoughts.

Thank you both 9v9iv2XG5F & zzzennn for nice words! I find it enjoyable to discuss with intelligent people like you too. Cultivated discussion is not difficult: We only have to assume that people are not a-priory bad and conflicts stem from misunderstanding. That's why a little bit empathy is needed.

Like in this case: Making a decision to leave homeland and try to make living abroad is not easy and those who do sacrifice a lot. And if situation of such a person is made even worse due to hostility of local people, then they deserve support...

On the other hand, especially in case number of foreign people in a concrete place high, a local citizen is not in an enviable situation either. Environment of his town where he have lived for long time suddenly changes by habits of foreigners, he has to deal with people who do not fully understand his language and habits (which is acceptable in some cases but in healthcare and social-care, etc. it can be very dangerous), market wages go down due to external competition, etc. That's why these people deserve support too.

Therefore solutions must be sensitive. I suggest that we closed this thread with constructive proposals that could ease the situation for both sides and make people more happy. As for me, I suggest:

1)Full liberalization of the business environment within EU so that businesses could transparently migrate rather than potential employees (politicians have already appealed to EU president to progress with the issue)

2) To monitor/restrict conditions for various agencies that take advantage of naivety of people and make big money exploiting their compatriots.

3) Introduction of requirement for special adaptive educational courses for people who would like to work in healthcare and other sensitive sectors because professional education does not teach local terminology, habits and approaches.

4) A more coordinated way of fighting against criminality within EU (loss of borders gives great advantages to criminals)...

I look forward to your proposals and also reading your comments on other threads soon ...

[1/2]
Britain was no doubt conscious that its policy (Thank you, Neville.) would induce Germany to conclude the invading Poland would be the best choice possible. Had Britain been really serious about the alliance with Poland and France, it wouldn’t have conducted the phony war. Rather, a lot in Britain would be sympathetic with Hitler’s exclusionism. Britain allowed its ally to be invaded. (Remarkably, the only reason why Japan, at war with the Chinese, allied itself with Germany was that it wanted collaboration against communism or the Soviet Union and not against the peoples in CEE. Recently, a lot of evidences and proofs have been being ‘excavated’ that Japan was against Nazi Germany’s exclusionism and even secretly collaborated with Poland against Germany and the Soviet Union. Even Emperor Hirohito was overtly suspicious that the then Foreign Minister Matsuoka, who had rushed into the alliance with Germany, had been ‘bought by Hitler’ [sic].)

It indeed was widely believed in Britain that the terms of the Versailles Treaty were unfair. But, those who believed so in Britain didn’t actively protest. It is called inaction, and this is the same kind of inaction that Radek Sikorski is in fear of about Germany and the euro area. The motive of the inaction must have come from the abovementioned sympathy with Hitler from among the British society.

Exclusionism is not defined by whether they advocate that minorities should be identified with literary a patch with an icon upon it. Simply encouraging locals to single out a certain minority group and report to their website is the sufficient condition, because this is usually called discrimination. Locals are free to feel negative or positive about those migrant workers, as they like. But, when an immigrant’s behaviour is unfavourable to them, those have to be treated in the same way as when a person who is among locals behave in the same manner, especially when the immigrant is given the same social status as every local is given in this regard.

It is the Dutch and British people that agreed through the process of democracy that they would accept (or welcome when the economies were in a good mood) migrant workers from CEE and that were making light of the fact that those workers were legitimately as fixed a factor of production as local workers were, because both are human beings, while classical economists refuse to accept the concept of labour force being legitimately a fixed factor of production and often demand to drastically reduce the wages-level for the sake of it due to their comparative-static analysis of the total product curve based on what Keynes would call the first postulate of the classical economics (i.e. the wage is equal to the marginal product of labour). It was irresponsible of the Netherlands and Britain to open the domestic labour market all of a sudden (without setting a transition period) indeed, but on the other hand it is also irresponsible of them if they cancel this openness. This explains why Japan’s immigration policy is cautious and gradual whatever radial liberals may say about it. In case of Europe, the European Union’s ultimate purpose is, based on the bitter experiences of the past, to eliminate protectionism or a radical form of mercantilism and thus the danger of a war by incorporating Germany or the Germans into the broad system as deeply as possible, which appears to have largely been forgotten these days, especially by the Britons, who have obviously been conspiring against the euro, and Wilders’ sort of people due to some short-sighted utilitarian way of thinking or radicalism.

[2/2]
It is essential for the parties concerned to forget whether to cancel what has already been a framework along the way towards the above ultimate purpose. And it is important for them to think how to cope with the status quo or given framework and to think what to do with immigrants from other economies than CEE. Hastiness and haphazardness out of utilitarianism are the culprits. Here, still Kant versus Bentham or Hegel. The European Union is a framework to pursue Kantianism and Burkeanism (and true Keynesianism as opposed what you usually call Keynesianism on the Anglosphere). The thought happens to be identical with the thought behind the 1791 Polish-Lithuanian Constitution. (Wikisource is where the Constitution’s English translation is easily available, and I recommend you to find it and read it through if you suspect that the thought is impractical or idealist. Luckily, the European Union, unlike the Polish-Lithuanian Republic, hasn’t a Russian Empire, a Prussian Kingdom or a Hapsburg Empire around it while those foreign military powers would crush the thought, and hence an attempt to materialise the same thought today is not impractical or idealist even by the meta-criteria).

Nazis didn’t support an interdependent Europe. They supported a system of exploitation or Labensraum, which they might have called an interdependent Europe by evaluating their neighbours in the west and those in the east. (i.e. a unit of utility of a person in the west and the Germans themselves is more valuable than that of a person in the east, and hence those in the east should contribute more to the Germans and others in the west in an ‘interdependent Europe’ in which it must be fair to balance utilities throughout Europe. This contorted form of assumption, which doesn’t elaborate why a WE person’s utility is more valuable than a CEE person’s and just assume so by the Hegelian ‘ought-to-be’ deduction, is still alive among some people in WE.) In author Edward’s recent entry, I compared Lithuanians’ imaginary world order to Koreans’ traditional world order. Now, the then Germans’ world order is also comparable to Koreans’ traditional. You and Wilders hold the same world order somewhere deep in mind. It is crucial for Europeans to marginalise you and Wilders or your and his world order.

In his ‘fear of German inaction’ speech in Berlin, our Radek deliberately mentioned Kant and his categorical imperative. That is not only about the euro: It is not at all irrelevant but deeply interconnected between the abovementioned factors because both the issue of immigration and the issue of euro are part of the broader question by which thought Europeans should develop Europe – Kant’s or Bentham and Hegel’s. I find the latter flawed.

You lost all of any respect I may have had for you at your mention of being a of a like mind with Kant. But will will put forward a reply. I prefer John Locke, Adam Smith, A.J. Ayer, G.E. Moore et al.
I suggest you do your research on Great Britian after WWI, as this played a huge part of why there was a reluctance to take on Germany. The continental willingness to go to war, cost Great Britian dire, and did so only on honour of its agreements. The Economic costs and the drain on its workforce through deaths and disability from the fighting. There was little appetite for another war.
Then you also have the question asked from this side of the English Channel... Why the hell do you expect us to sort out your problems, they are your neighbours. Quit dragging us into your petty squabbles.
The question should be: Why was Poland so unprepared? It knew its neighbours were building up their armies, yet did nothing to upgrade its own.
Exclusion from society is often many fold. Usually it is down to the actions of the excluded, sentencing those that break the law to prison is a form of exclusion. As for immigrants, British studies have found that a lack of ability to speak English and inability to abide by social norms, often leads to immigrants basically excluding themselves, particularly if they fail to adjust. While social inclusion programmes exist, it is down to the immigrant community to fit in with the local one. Blair also had other reasons for opening Britain:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8786632/Labours-embarrassing-immigration-secrets-revealed.html
Again, a little bit of research goes a long way. The present British government is doing what it can to fix the problem, but in the mean time, social strife is expected. "IMMIGRANTS will be expected to learn English and understand the British way of life":http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/45495/immigrants-must-learn-english-and-join-common-uk-culture
The Dutch mainstream may want to follow this example, as it would cut deep into any support for Wilders. It is their failure that has lead to Wilders rise.
As for a single European Nation, I have given the sources, go take a look and come back when you have done your study. The first person to write a treatise on an independent Europe and single European state, after WWII, was Oswald Moseley. It is very close to his vision that the present €U exists and acts.
As with a large number of Brits, while being all for free trade and the common market, you can stick what ever thoughts about Great Britian being part of your "ever closer union" where the sun don't shine.

I wonder if you realise that the same - the exact same arguments about "self exclusion", lack of adjustment, the actions of the excluded etc. have been used by bigots since forever to justify antiSemitism. Good job, brother. You sound truly enlightened.
But what am I talking about, you've already embarrassed yourself with your "unprepared" bit - clearly you "know" your history from British text books, don't you? Adorable :).

Much as I like being reminded of real Polish generals, like Maczek and Sosabowski, I agree with those who argue that harking back to WWII is hardly relevant here. If we were to use historical arguments, it'd be fair to point out that after the war these two marvellous leaders of men were not treated shabbily so much by the Dutch as by the British establishment, who refused to pay them their well deserved generals' pensions. Maczek, who lived to the grand old age of 102, worked in as barman in an Edinburgh hotel, whereas poor old Sosabowski was forced to work in factories and on building sites. The establishment never forgave him for being absolutely right when they were so terribly wrong.

But that's history, and as far as I know, the Dutch of those generations were genuinely grateful.

As for Geert Wilders, well, that's just a nasty little racist and attention seeker. His attacking Romanians, Bulgarians or Muslims is just as bad. Incitement to hatred is wrong in all cases, full stop. As far as I'm concerned he's a nobody. I mean, even Britain has it's Daily Mail "journalists". And the sad truth is that every country has such nasty target audiences. May they never prevail.

I'd much rather talk about the nasty and incompetent ones who have already got to positions of power. Neelie Kroes is a case in point. No friend of Poles or Hungarians, and powerful enough to do much more harm.

I must review what I wrote above. Geert Wilders might be little more than a nasty little hate stirrer to me, but he obviously means much more to that country's current PM, Mark Rutte, who hasn't got the courage to say anything against such outrageous actions. Shame on you, and shame on such an electorate. Still, hardly surprising when you consider Rutte's the leader of a party whose manifesto is a grotesque travesty of the American Declaration of Independence, stating that they have an inalienable right to bump their grandmothers off (euthanasia). Should have left you the Nazis and then more Dutch people would picking tomatoes in green houses.

O sure, you could have left us to the nazis. But then you too would have been left to the nazis. And the nazis planned to eliminate all Poles, forever. Is that what you want? I think not.

And as for intolerance and bigotry. Look no further than religion (especially the brutal catholic church) which is totally made up and the #1 cause of death in the last 2,000 years. And look at bigots like Kaczynski and Lepper.

But we were left to the Nazis, and Stalin's Soviet Union, too. And, indeed, both wished to annihilate us. But you should also know (though you probably don't) that Poles fought just as hard against the Nazis in the east than they did in the west. Gen. Sosabowski's 1st Polish Independent Parachute Brigade was supposed to be deployed in Poland. At the time of Operation Market Garden, Warsaw was again in flames, his son was involved in the biggest uprising launched against the Nazis. You should also know (but you probably didn't) the Polish flag was the only one other than the soviet red flag to be hoisted on the ruins of Berlin when it fell in May 1945. So Poles fighting and dying in the Netherlands were doing it for your benefit, not, as it soon turned out, ours.

Won't even bother to discuss any of the other nonsense you mentioned - such offensive ignorance is a sure sign of your bigotry, not anyone else's.

Indeed, Dutch (and French, and Norwegian, and Swedish, and Austrian, and Italian) collaborators with the Nazis all ended up in safety, freedom and prosperity, despite, or maybe because of what they were. I always said Poland chose the wrong side in that war.

From the moral point of view, yes, nazism isn't the right side. It's the wrongest side of history.
But looking at present day economics and lack of consequences - and at what happened to the nazis in Germany after the war - it paid off to be a nazi (if you can shut up your conscience and sleep at night, that is).
Nazi scientists, for example those who ordered killings of select concentration camp victims in order to have their body parts shipped for them for research - they got great jobs in German universities after the war, they received awards, they were welcomed, they were at home. I often wonder how the supposedly non-nazi, supposedly good, supposedly "converted" Germans could sit together with the scum, learn from nazi professors, be friends with them? How is one not disgusted to see a hate-filled criminal face to face? How doesn't one - at the very least - spit at these people and refuse to give them any respect?
We are fed lies about how Germans denounced nazism after the war - they didn't. It's shocking how many nazis got away with their murders, even without running away to South America. It's terrifying how well accepted they were by the German society.
When the nazi scum were receiving awards, former anti-Nazi fighters and heroes were being slaughtered by the Soviets as they were too patriotic for Stalin's liking.
More people should know about the reality of Germany's "dealing" (or lack thereof) with nazism after WW2.

The European Union is not an organisation by privilege or a gentlemen’s exclusive club but a practical framework by duty to restlessly forestall a war. Hence, excluding a member-state is a contorted choice.