The European thread, EU etc.

[Ytterbium]

There's nothing that brings up more love and hatred than the European Union. So what's your viewpoint on the subject? Do you like it, don't you like it? What do you like, what's wrong? Are there any issues in your European country?

Just shoot, there's no place more with so different cultures and so many wars fought. Let's just make a mess of this, shall we?

[EsoteriEccentri]

I'd vote to get England straight out of the EU via UKIP if I were at an age where I were allowed to vote.

But I know nothing about politics and I'm sure there would be many complications and drawbacks to being out of the EU.

I guess I've just been influenced by my Grandparents' ranting on how the EU sucks our money and closes our post offices. ^^

[jesse]

The European Union does have many positive aspects, but the future plans and discussion taking place are reasons for concern. Very often you hear from politicians and other peers how the EU will _never_ become a federal state, but a supra-national organization.

In my opinion the EU should be nothing more than a massive economic zone where people, products/services and resources can move freely and reside where they best see fit. Rather than having a useless parliament, all this would essentially need is a minor buraucracy to ensure certain ground rules apply.
The parliament is largely a useless and now the Lisbon treaty seems to push th e EU even closer to a united states of europe model while blatantly denying such initiatives. Having a "president", a parliament, and a common foreign policy do have the obnoxious stench of large state in the making.

[thod]

Where will it all end. Turkey wants to join too. So now we have borders with Iran and Iraq. What the heck has that got to do with Europe. They wont want to be the edge so then we have to bring in Pakistan etc. There has to be some limit to it. Europe was what used to be called Christendom in the middle ages. I can handle uniting with the Germans, no probs at all with Dutch and Swedes, I can even manage to to take the French but there is no way I want the middle east involved. I simply dont have anything in common with those cultures.

[You]

The EU is dangerous. If it was less open to corruption than our current government then I would be for it but it's more open to corruption, and with the amount of corruption going on at the highest levels of government around the world, the last thing we want is to open ourselves up to a more corrupt system. They didn't even ask if we agreed... I've seen how the Spanish police treat football fans in Spain, don't want that sort of shit in my country thanks.

[Ytterbium]

Looks like a general eurosceptism here. Well I'm one too.
I don't want an United States of Europa. It seem like we have few things in common with central and southern European countries. Everything revolves around the big ones in the middle. The EU is full of contradicting things. It says it promotes free trade etc. But our trucks are "too long" and large to enter any other country than Finland. Then we have the agricultural policy. Don't get me started.

[Marcus]

I tend to liken the EU to democracy. It's full of flaws, but nobody has ever came up with something better.

[schwartzie]

Where will it all end. ... There has to be some limit to it. Europe was what used to be called Christendom in the middle ages. I can handle uniting with the Germans, no probs at all with Dutch and Swedes, I can even manage to to take the French but there is no way I want the middle east involved. I simply dont have anything in common with those cultures.

*hearing no mention of Norway, and how very welcome it would be (if it would get its act together) prepares to launch a smart missile at Thod*

[Octavianus Caesar]

The EU will prevent another European War, like WWI and WWII.
The bad part is that with the secularization of Europe and the rise of Muslims, I fear there will be a clash between them, even a possible war between Europe and the Muslim World in the future.

[Ool]

In my opinion the EU should be nothing more than a massive economic zone where people, products/services and resources can move freely and reside where they best see fit.

Ah, but without also laying down pan-European labor laws you’d get something like NAFTA, in which blue collar workers in the affluent nations suddenly compete with sweatshops paying slave wages in the poorer nations…





Ool added to this post, 3 minutes and 59 seconds later...

Where will it all end. Turkey wants to join too. So now we have borders with Iran and Iraq. What the heck has that got to do with Europe. They wont want to be the edge so then we have to bring in Pakistan etc. There has to be some limit to it. Europe was what used to be called Christendom in the middle ages. I can handle uniting with the Germans, no probs at all with Dutch and Swedes, I can even manage to to take the French but there is no way I want the middle east involved. I simply dont have anything in common with those cultures.

Well, döner kebap is great fast food. Can’t hold a candle to the Subway diet, though…





Ool added to this post, 6 minutes and 36 seconds later...

You know what I can’t stand about the EU?

No common language, that’s what.

I mean, how hard can it be to start speaking English all over Europe? I’m game. But no chance of that, I guess.

Even my parents suck at English…

Then again, I didn’t use to believe the euro was ever going to happen, and yet it did. So I guess all it takes is time…

[Marcus]

No common language, that’s what.

Why to have one? I mean, I understand the advantages, but I don't think it is a necessity. Europe is about cooperation, not cultural uniformism.

[jesse]

Looks like a general eurosceptism here. Well I'm one too.
I don't want an United States of Europa. It seem like we have few things in common with central and southern European countries. Everything revolves around the big ones in the middle. The EU is full of contradicting things. It says it promotes free trade etc. But our trucks are "too long" and large to enter any other country than Finland. Then we have the agricultural policy. Don't get me started.

"Free trade" is a popular buzz word these days. In principle everyone is for it, but the old Not in my Backyard mentality hits home quickly, or when they know they stand to lose. Agreeing in principle tends to only mean empathy, it has nothing to do with implementation.

The EU will prevent another European War, like WWI and WWII.
The bad part is that with the secularization of Europe and the rise of Muslims, I fear there will be a clash between them, even a possible war between Europe and the Muslim World in the future.

Turkey views itself as more European and secular than a few other nations in the Middle East. Maybe it would be a reasonable comparison to say Turkey can be compared to Spain since both countries are largely comprised of Muslims and Catholics, respectively. Despite this, both states are secular, although both have groups who think otherwise about this.

I don't think the EU is any more adept at preventing wars than the UN is at the present. There is another component here, namely that many EU member nations have downgraded their military capacities, and one country, Germany, remains occupied by the US. Wars can and will happen as history has an abundance of this notion.

[Marcus]

Muslism are much more against the American imperialism than anything else. Moreover, most of them personally value western lifestyle. For me the conflict is much more of a social problem than religious or ideological one.

A bigger problem is the integration of immigrants which is a mixture of social problems and cultural differences. And the biggest problem is aging. Europeans are going to die out, but life will be bitter for sure when we will no longer be able to support the eldery population.

[zoophilia]

I like that in some of its member countries university is available for free.

[Octavianus Caesar]

Turkey views itself as more European and secular than a few other nations in the Middle East. Maybe it would be a reasonable comparison to say Turkey can be compared to Spain since both countries are largely comprised of Muslims and Catholics, respectively. Despite this, both states are secular, although both have groups who think otherwise about this.

I don't think the EU is any more adept at preventing wars than the UN is at the present. There is another component here, namely that many EU member nations have downgraded their military capacities, and one country, Germany, remains occupied by the US. Wars can and will happen as history has an abundance of this notion.

Turkey is almost 95%+ Muslim, where Spain i think is 95% non-Muslim, so i am not sure if you can equate the two countries.

Right now there is a move by Justice and Development Party (AKP) in Turkey, to move the country away from Secularism toward Radicalism, the court right now is going to determine if the AKP is an illegal party, which is also the party of the President and Prime Minister as well as many in their "Parliament".

The EU will prevent wars within the members, so at least a WWII will never happen again, but it a fight breaks out it will be contained, instead of a Continent War.

The Fear of many Europeans is that Turkey be admitted into the EU, that means 250M more Muslims will have free travel across Europe. With their inability to integrate into society as is now, what will happen if 250M more enter in? That will speed up the Islamization of Europe.

[jesse]

Turkey is almost 95%+ Muslim, where Spain i think is 95% non-Muslim, so i am not sure if you can equate the two countries.

Right now there is a move by Justice and Development Party (AKP) in Turkey, to move the country away from Secularism toward Radicalism, the court right now is going to determine if the AKP is an illegal party, which is also the party of the President and Prime Minister as well as many in their "Parliament".

The EU will prevent wars within the members, so at least a WWII will never happen again, but it a fight breaks out it will be contained, instead of a Continent War.

The Fear of many Europeans is that Turkey be admitted into the EU, that means 250M more Muslims will have free travel across Europe. With their inability to integrate into society as is now, what will happen if 250M more enter in? That will speed up the Islamization of Europe.

You don't hear of many cases where a constitutional court will investigate the current leading political party on grounds they are violating secularism. Take for instance the US Republican Party, there's plenty of suspicion they are driven by christian evangelism and support many dubious programs which could be deemed contrary to the separation of church and state.

Now IF there would be a surge of 250M muslims into Europe, I doubt the majority would stay permanently. Regarding Islamization in the EU, this has much more to do with spineless leaders who are more than happy to commit cultural suicide to accomodate muslims.

[Antares]

I guess I'm mainly pissed off that I don't have full UK citizenship for being a citizen of its former colony. Obviously Hong Kong was never *officially* a part of the British Empire for us to have BNO passports. Meaning: I think BNO holders should be granted full citizenship.

[Ool]

Why to have one? I mean, I understand the advantages, but I don't think it is a necessity. Europe is about cooperation, not cultural uniformism.

Yeah, you try to cooperate with folks who think it isn't necessary to know any language other than the one they happened to pick up through osmosis as children...!

I don't know, I just have an allegric reaction to non-Anglophones. Traumatic, provincial childhood. There are few things worse than people whose force of habit renders them incapable of adjusting to global standards.

So don't get me started on countries refusing to adopt the metric system and crashing Mars probes as a result...!

[Moriarty]

So don't get me started on countries refusing to adopt the metric system and crashing Mars probes as a result...!

"People sometimes make errors," said Edward Weiler, NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Science in a written statement.

:stunned:

[Homini Lupus]

It's hard to treat europe as a whole in just a thread since there are many problems on the table. I don't have much time so I'll make some quick shots:

A) Turkey. Sure it is a secular state since the Ataturk revolution, but accepting Turkey in would lead to some identity problems (wich is to say "what's Europe?").
B) Balkans. They're probably the most problematic area of all Europe and it may lead to new problems now that Serbia is losing more territories (and there's still Vojvodina wich claims independence) and we're admitting Croatia and Macedonia.
C) Language. I attended a lecture about that problem wich proposed a lot of possibilities (from latin to esperanto to swaili (What did they smoke?)) but I have more pragmatic views and I think english is working well as "common" language (and I don't want to end up like my parents who learned just french when it was the most important language of Europe and now have a lot of problems since they don't speak english (wich it is more and more present in our lives).
D)Polish plumber terror and new states. In Italy we have problems right now because of rising hatred between roms and Neapoli's dwellers, and it's probably just the point of the iceberg. If we go on like that we're going to have a diplomatic accident. The polish plumber "problem" to me looks more like a resource (work that needs more capital to become more productive).
E)Russia. We're getting near their doorstep. We need them and they need us, but it's no easy business (and we had a cyberattack in Estonia last year).
F)The "I want my money back" problem. The money paid by EU countries get partially back to the taxpayers in the form of european projects and in part (if you are from a statistically rich country or region) to the less rich.
G)Agriculture. It may not be so evident outside of EU but it's always one of the main problems of continental Europe.

I'm not sure about problems of corruption since, from an italian point of view, it's difficult to see any foreign politicians as corrupt (most of our politicians would probably have already gone to jail in a more fair and just system). Anyway, from what I heard from one of my professors its bureocracy is quite light (and the real money eater are agricultural funds).

[Marcus]

and there's still Vojvodina wich claims independence
It's not true. Some Hungarians (10-20% of the population), and maybe some others would like to have autonomy, not independence. And Hungarians are peaceful folks.

F)The "I want my money back" problem. The money paid by EU countries get partially back to the taxpayers in the form of european projects and in part (if you are from a statistically rich country or region) to the less rich.

That's the point. Helping to develop the less rich regions pays off in the long run. Doesn't the Marshall Plan tells you something?





Marcus added to this post, 30 minutes and 23 seconds later...

D)Polish plumber terror and new states.
Sorry, what does the "Polish plumber terror means and what's the problem with the new states?

Reading the posts here, I would also add: Europeans don't know Europe at all.

[Homini Lupus]

I esplain better the problem of the feared "polish plumber".

The common market doesn't just mean free circulation of the goods but also of the production means wich is to say work (wich means workers) and capital (wich means funds, machines, resources...). The practical application of this idea was dveloped in the Bolkestein proposal of 2004. Among the other things this proposal asked the elimination of bureaucratic walls against the circulation of workers. This created the fear that low qualified foreign workers (identified in the "polish plumber") could outnumber local workers and "steal" their work or cause their wages to lower.
The proposal encountered a lot of resistance and was approved in a different and partial form wich let more power to the single states to control work (I don't know the details).
Now nobody thinks anymore to that proposal but there's still some fear of foreign work and foreigners. For what I see those foreigners apply for works that the local population wants to avoid (like masonry or factory work, but also animal husbandry) and most fear and attrition comes from countries outside the EU (particularly muslim countries because of the different and quite assertive religion) even if problems with rom communities are growing (I'm not sure if their number has increased or it's just how the problem is perceived). We also had a chinese riot in Milan one year ago or so, but that's a different problem.
Another problem with the new states is that some "poor" regions of the 15 countries EU have become "rich" for statistical effect with the enlargement. That doesn't change much for the regions wich were already relatively rich but can change in the distribution of funds for those who live in ex-poor zones.

[Marcus]

The avaliability of cheap working force makes production cheaper and allows the industry to remain competitive vs. Chinese products, for example. Jobs would be lost, and are lost because of the globalization anyway (the same is true in the US). The development of new states incited economic growth in certain old ones, especially in Germany, which is fair given that they are the biggest netto payers in the EU. Further, the relocation of a manufacturing industry (cars, electronics, etc) to the new states allowed those industries to remain competitive and generated GDP growth in the new states. Also, the majority of workforce in the new states is not low qualified and was tapped by these industries. Even in Hungary, additional cheap workers from neighboring poorer states were hired in the manufacturing industry, and there are a lot of semi-legal foreign workers in the construction industry.

Some regions in the older states get less money because of the redistribution, but they received development fundings for decades. East German regions get funding, and it's the Germans who contrubute the most fianancially. But I agree that this is a limiting factor for expansion. On the other hand, you gain much by the vastly increased political and economic stability in the new states. Europe is currently not strong enough to integrate Turkey, and they are a way less developed than any of the new states, but creating stability and economic growth there is European interest.

The majority of Roma population did not get integrated in any of the European states. With the borders open, some of them started migrating to the richer states (and their birth rate is much higher than the average in any country), but their numbers are probably much less than the number other unskilled migrants coming from outside Europe. Not to speak about the existing ethnic ghettos (e.g. French suburbs) in the old states with unskilled workers born in Europe, without hope for social integration which makes them unwilling to integrate culturally. Now the trend seems to be that workers from new states are returning home because of the improved chance of finding jobs home. Workers from outside Europe have no intention to return home.

[thod]

Your argument about manufacture is not quite what is happening though. Those industries should shut up shop and relocate to the cheaper zone rather than replacing workers at home.

The fact is if wal-mart sacked its entire staff and replaced them with Mexicans for half the wages you would have the Americans unemployed and claiming welfare. They could not keep up mortgage payments and would sell up to the Mexicans. Overall the incumbent staff would end up with a very poor deal. It would be better to simply half their wages.

The mistake you make is the one that governments often make of doing what is the best for the economy and not what is best for the people. You see it doesn't matter if you have a better economy if the people are worse off. The government says that all the migrant workers have increased GDP. They fail to mention that spread among the increased number of people they are individually worse off. The government is there to improve the lives of the people, not the economy or the interests of big companies. The company may do better by replacing its staff, the government has done a poor job in allowing it. The layed off people are voters the migrants are not. They have become wedded to an ideal and forgotten why they exist.

In the case of plumbers you cannot export it to China since it is location specific. Factories you can, these should be relocating to Eastern Europe not bringing in cheap workers. There is not the housing or support structures for the extra people. The government needs to address this problem. Restrict the numbers to protect the local populace, they are our government. It is better to be unemployed than to be unemployed, have no house, and no community.

[Marcus]

I was confusing then. The majority of manufacturing industry was indeed relocated to cheaper zone (i.e. new states in Eastern Europe, or even to China). Foreign workers were hired in Hungary in factories relocated there, because the wage expectation of the local population quickly increased with the economic growth. Now they do not relocate here anymore (there are some exceptions like call center based services), as they directly go to the even more cheaper regions, but wages started to increase quickly in those regions, too. Cheap workforce in the construction industry can generate growth, especially when the local population is not willing to take up relatively low paying jobs requiring hard physical work. Also, in the richer states in Europe, the benefits for unenmployed people are quite generous and they are quite selective about taking up a work.

Forget about plumbers, that was the invention of politicians. You don't see lot of foreigners in the European service sector (i.e. Wal-Mart type stuff) because of language difficulties. Also, I have not much idea in what sectors all those polish people work in England, neither I have idea about housing problems.

The other side of the problem is that a lot of highly skilled workers (e.g. doctors, engineers) permanently leave the poorer states. Also a lot of highly skilled Europeans from richer (and from poorer) states immigrate to the US.

PS: Bringing lot of foreign workers to Western Europe (e.g. from Turkey and North Africa) was done in the sixties to have enough workforce in the insustry. The children of these workers are socially and culturally not well integrated.

[Colette]

The anti-EU sentiments on this thread surprise me.

Free borders and trade, a single currency, common food and environmental protections, housing assistance in poorer regions, cooperation in criminal and terrorist investigations, a huge negotiating clout...are just a few of the advantages offered to EU member states.

As far as I can see the EU as an entity doesn't operate as a dictatorship -that's why there is an elected Parliament. Certain member states may by their powerful nature be more influential within the EU, but that's inevitable in any kind of collective.

Personally I don't see the downsides; only huge opportunities (especially for poorer and less influential countries, or countries with weak defence or international trade connections). Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why this is such an evil institution?

[Aronnax]

Personally I don't see the downsides; only huge opportunities (especially for poorer and less influential countries, or countries with weak defence or international trade connections). Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why this is such an evil institution?

The downside of the EU is the same as the downside of the US, it's a large Democracy. The size diminishes the strength of your individual vote and tends to whitewash regional/cultural issues.

Size lends strength but it also makes the body more callous and rigid.

[Colette]

The downside of the EU is the same as the downside of the US, it's a large Democracy. The size diminishes the strength of your individual vote and tends to whitewash regional/cultural issues.

Size lends strength but it also makes the body more callous and rigid.

Isn't this just an inevitable consequence of an individual state deciding to belong to a collective? States must decide that the benefits they will accrue, outweigh any disadvantages. Can you provide an example of the EU whitewashing an individual member state's interests?

I suppose I can see some disadvantages to wealthier countries around the enormous enlargement of the EU in 2004 to include former communist bloc countries (and the resulting need to share the economic burden of these countries among member states), and I also think the squabbling around the Lisbon Treaty, and the lack of a constitution, is likely to be an impediment to principled decision-making as the EU gets larger. I think the EU will rise to both these challenges though, in the long run.

[Marcus]

The size diminishes the strength of your individual vote

I guess you mean the individual vote of a member state. The individual vote of one person does not influnce anything in any sized country. The problem is the different (supposed or real) interests of the member states and that each government have to deal individually with their voters. E.g. how to sell French voters that the system of agricultural subventions needs a change? Also some economies are traditionally more regulated (e.g. France, Germany), some are less (e.g. Great Britain). That makes a contradictory need for more and less rules. Moreover it is hard to take into account regional differences/interests within one single rule.





Marcus added to this post, 4 minutes and 11 seconds later...

I suppose I can see some disadvantages to wealthier countries around the enormous enlargement of the EU in 2004 to include former communist bloc countries (and the resulting need to share the economic burden of these countries among member states)
The burden is not bigger than before, only the distribution is different. Formerly relatively poor regions are now considered relatively rich. Moreover the biggest share of the burden is paid by the biggest benefactor of the expansion (i.e. Germany).





Marcus added to this post, 3 minutes and 21 seconds later...

I also think the squabbling around the Lisbon Treaty, and the lack of a constitution, is likely to be an impediment to principled decision-making as the EU gets larger. I think the EU will rise to both these challenges though, in the long run.
Decision making in the enlarged EU is a big problem. It was already a problem before the expansion. You have to sell politically any change in the decision making process in all of the individual countries.

[Aronnax]

Isn't this just an inevitable consequence of an individual state deciding to belong to a collective? States must decide that the benefits they will accrue, outweigh any disadvantages. Can you provide an example of the EU whitewashing an individual member state's interests?


Sure, how about the current method for financing and distributing agricultural subsidies. Manufacturing/information/service based economies (like the UK) are getting rolled under the ag subsidy system and aren't happy about it at all. Their specific interest is being ignored because of the desires of the other member states.

I guess you mean the individual vote of a member state. The individual vote of one person does not influnce anything in any sized country.

The smaller the population the more your representative's vote counts and the easier it is to access your representative. The size of the voting pool matters more than you'd think. Many politicians see themselves as public servants, they're just disconnected. It's up to the citizenry to engage them and smaller population sizes make that possible.


The problem is the different (supposed or real) interests of the member states and that each government have to deal individually with their voters. E.g. how to sell French voters that the system of agricultural subventions needs a change? Also some economies are traditionally more regulated (e.g. France, Germany), some are less (e.g. Great Britain). That makes a contradictory need for more and less rules. Moreover it is hard to take into account regional differences/interests within one single rule.


That's what I was getting at when I said: "...tends to whitewash regional/cultural issues."

[Solus]

Sure, how about the current method for financing and distributing agricultural subsidies. Manufacturing/information/service based economies (like the UK) are getting rolled under the ag subsidy system and aren't happy about it at all. Their specific interest is being ignored because of the desires of the other member states.

Leaving aside the implied suggestion that France that benefits the most from the Common agricultural policy is not a "manufacturing/information/service based economy" aren't you forgetting the so-called UK rebate worth billions of euros? Incidentally, didn't the UK secure a right to the rebate in the early 80s when it was one of the least productive economies within the EEC? If so, it may come as shock that the UK tried to pressurize several of the former east-european countries into agreeing to a smaller allocation from the EU budget just so that the UK would not have to give up too much of the rebate. :huh: Surely that can't be fair?





EasilyIrritated added to this post, 23 minutes and 47 seconds later...

You know what I can’t stand about the EU?

No common language, that’s what.

I mean, how hard can it be to start speaking English all over Europe? I’m game. But no chance of that, I guess.

Even my parents suck at English…

Then again, I didn’t use to believe the euro was ever going to happen, and yet it did. So I guess all it takes is time…

The motto of the EU is "united in diversity" and many Europeans would probably argue that your proposal would go against it. In any case why English? Isn't German a mother tongue of as many as forty percent more EU citizens than English? French and Italian are used as mother tongue by as many as English. Moreover, according to the Eurostat French and German are used as second language by more people than English.

In a nut-shell to an average European his/her language is an extremely important part of his/her identity.

[merid]

French and German are used as second language by more people than English.

Yet in French political correspondence within the EU they refuse to use English.

So because language identity is important, why try and have a United Europe?

[Marcus]

Yet in French political correspondence within the EU they refuse to use English.

French will be French, I would say. Who killed Jeanne d'Arc, BTW? :)



So because language identity is important, why try and have a United Europe?
You can have a United Europe without lingustic unity. More jobs for translators.

[Solus]

Yet in French political correspondence within the EU they refuse to use English.

Why should they use English? It's one of over 20 official languages of the Union. BTW it's been ages since I last heard a British cabinet minister (Dennis McShane) using a language other than English.

So because language identity is important, why try and have a United Europe?

It all depends on your definition of what "united" Europe is. I don't think the language is the obstacle to creating an entity which will be able to argue the interests of its citizens on the international stage. Look at Switzerland for example. It looks perfectly united to me.

[thod]

The attitude of the French to speaking English is odd. I just got back from France and nobody at all would speak English. Now I have met lots of Frenchmen on my travels outside Europe and they do speak English. It seems to be only when in France they refuse to do so. It seems odd that they would expect a visiting Dane to know French, he has already made the effort in learning English to talk when abroad.

Why should they use English? It's one of over 20 official languages of the Union.

Because English is the second language that most learn in order to communicate. Learning all 20 of the languages to be able to talk in mother tongue is not an option. Since most people speak English it provides that common language. When you travel the world, outside Europe, you are addressed in English. Groups of backpackers converse in English etc. It may not be justified, but it is fact, if you are going to travel, then English is what you need.


BTW it's been ages since I last heard a British cabinet minister (Dennis McShane) using a language other than English.


Tony Blair's French was excellent. They wouldn't show that on UK TV of course.

I wish there was a big language worth learning in Europe other than English. Trouble is you knowing Dutch doesn't help you in Hungary and Hungarian is useless in Greece. So they are not worth learning for a weeks visit. Clearly if you are going to stay a long time you do learn the local language.

[Solus]

The attitude of the French to speaking English is odd. I just got back from France and nobody at all would speak English. Now I have met lots of Frenchmen on my travels outside Europe and they do speak English. It seems to be only when in France they refuse to do so. It seems odd that they would expect a visiting Dane to know French, he has already made the effort in learning English to talk when abroad.

You can't really blame them, now can you? They are in their country and not everybody will speak or feel confident enough to speak English. In any case why should they try to accomodate you if you can't be bothered to learn as little as "Bonjour. Je suis desolé mais je ne parle pas le français. Est-ce que vous parlez l'anglais?"?

Because English is the second language that most learn in order to communicate. Learning all 20 of the languages to be able to talk in mother tongue is not an option. Since most people speak English it provides that common language. When you travel the world, outside Europe, you are addressed in English. Groups of backpackers converse in English etc. It may not be justified, but it is fact, if you are going to travel, then English is what you need.

I agree that English is unparalleled in its usefulness if you travel outside or for that matter inside Europe. When it comes, however, to the EU, it's the right of every EU citizen to address and be addressed by any EU institution in his/her language. Why should those who don't use English as mother tongue give up on one of their basic rights? In any case, isn't the UK one of the most sceptical countries in relation to the EU project? Has it not decided to stay out of the eurozone? Has it not insisted on a number of opt-outs in relation to the treaties signed in the 1990s and in this millenium? Why should then the EU adopt English as a single working language?

Tony Blair's French was excellent. They wouldn't show that on UK TV of course.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think it's very good despite some unkind comments.

In any case, a very nice gesture on Tony's part. :thumbsup:.

[Aronnax]

Leaving aside the implied suggestion that France that benefits the most from the Common agricultural policy is not a "manufacturing/information/service based economy" aren't you forgetting the so-called UK rebate worth billions of euros? Incidentally, didn't the UK secure a right to the rebate in the early 80s when it was one of the least productive economies within the EEC? If so, it may come as shock that the UK tried to pressurize several of the former east-european countries into agreeing to a smaller allocation from the EU budget just so that the UK would not have to give up too much of the rebate. :huh: Surely that can't be fair?


None of this shocks me, in fact it only helps to illustrate my point.

When you grow the size of a Government it becomes more difficult to deal with regional issues in a equitable manner. This isn't about how "the EU hoses the UK and gives too much to France" it's about the inherent problems with a large system of Government.

It's up to the member nations to decide if the increase in strength is worth the sacrifice of autonomy. It seem that many are willing to make that sacrifice and I'm not attributing a value to it either way. I'm just pointing out that a sacrifice exists.

[Ool]

In a nut-shell to an average European his/her language is an extremely important part of his/her identity.

Ah, that’s just another way of saying, “my brain has ossified when I reached puberty.”

As for why English rather than German or French, it’s because you wish to be able to communicate with as many people outside Europe as possible as well. But it doesn’t really matter which one it is as long as it’s one single language. If suddenly everyone decided to use French, then fine! I’d learn French. If they decided to all go for German I could live with that, too. But as long as everyone does their own thing we’re getting nowhere.

Meanwhile I’ll just keep scoffing at people with a college degree whom I can’t talk to in English, of which there are many—even in Germany…

[Homini Lupus]

Language is a tool, but it's not totally neutral, it has grown over time to meet the specific needs of the speakers. But I don't see why english can't be a common language, for the mere fact that it's the most spoken second language around the world and Europe. By example I don't have any problems using that language here and it allows ma to communicate with people from very different places, wich would be unthinkable if everybody used a "my language is better than yours" attitude.
Probably the problem with France is that theirs was the most spoken second language until a few years ago (by example my parents both speak french and no english). French people are generally proud of their language (wich has its good sides, by example their language has always new words for new concepts while many others just import foreign words) and don't see why it shouldn't be the prominent european language (they founded europe, not Great Britain).

[thod]

Language is a tool, but it's not totally neutral, it has grown over time to meet the specific needs of the speakers. But I don't see why english can't be a common language, for the mere fact that it's the most spoken second language around the world and Europe

It is not that English is a superior language, it is the very fact that we need a common tool. I would be perfectly happy, indeed relish, learning a common language, such as pan galactic, if one existed.

The idea that languages support certain ideas and ways of thinking is certainly true. There is the classic example of Eskimo having 100 words to describe different types of snow. English with its Germanic syntax and half romance vocabulary continues to evolve. It pulled words for India and rest of the old empire. This seeded it around the world. It is not Britain that has driven its usage recently but the US. Nowadays it is neither, it is the need to communicate globally with the internet.

Probably the problem with France is that theirs was the most spoken second language until a few years ago (by example my parents both speak french and no english).

It was at one time hence the phrase "lingua franca", before that it was Latin. That wasn't a few years ago. They lost that position 200 years ago. Britain emerged the dominant power in Europe after waterloo, it then went on to produce the industrial revolution and build a global empire, making its language the new lingua franca.

French people are generally proud of their language (wich has its good sides, by example their language has always new words for new concepts while many others just import foreign words) and don't see why it shouldn't be the prominent european language (they founded europe, not Great Britain).

I don't have a problem with that. But when I as a tourist, visit for a week, visit a tourist place, I cant communicate. They want my cash, they can learn, the customer is always right because he is paying the bills. If they can understand I have ordered a burger and frys, but refuse to take my order until I learn to say it in French, then I will take my money elsewhere, there loss.

The French did not found Europe, its been around a long time. If you are referring to the EU then we should all be speaking Dutch, the dominant language of Benelux. If you wish to take the first big expansion, which brought in the big countries of France and Germany, then we should speak German, they are more numerous.

Overall I don't care which language is picked. I just want to be able to travel around and communicate at a basic level.

[Solus]

When you grow the size of a Government it becomes more difficult to deal with regional issues in a equitable manner. This isn't about how "the EU hoses the UK and gives too much to France" it's about the inherent problems with a large system of Government.

An oversized government, be it national or supranational, is always a bad idea. There may be more efficient ways of dealing with the problems that fall within the EU's ambit (though probably not without some suprational structure). However, we shouldn't forget that the EU is relatively inexpensive. It takes a mere 1 percent of the gross domestic product of a member nation. In return you get a market of around half a billion people, a harmonised business environment in 27 countries, a system that has provided a sufficient supply of agricultural products for almost half a century etc. etc.

It's up to the member nations to decide if the increase in strength is worth the sacrifice of autonomy. It seem that many are willing to make that sacrifice and I'm not attributing a value to it either way. I'm just pointing out that a sacrifice exists.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. My problem is that some believe that there is. Some countries may pursue a closer integration extending the number of areas they surrender to Brussels. An opposite tendency, however, is unrealistic despite the wishes of some. After all, a number of the countries that would favour a large free-trade area (the UK, Scandinavian countries) already had such a "forum". It was called the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) but they left it, at some point, to join the EEC/EC/EU.

Ah, that’s just another way of saying, “my brain has ossified when I reached puberty.”

That is a bit harsh. How well dou you think the English speaking world would fare if you applied the same logic to it? The UK, perhaps with the exception of Portugal, has less bilingual speakers than anyone else in the EU. And what about the US? :thinking: It's probably safe to assume that the situation there is much worse.

As for why English rather than German or French, it’s because you wish to be able to communicate with as many people outside Europe as possible as well. But it doesn’t really matter which one it is as long as it’s one single language. If suddenly everyone decided to use French, then fine! I’d learn French. If they decided to all go for German I could live with that, too. But as long as everyone does their own thing we’re getting nowhere.

As I said, your language is an exceptionally important part of you whether you're aware of it or not. It represents your culture, your past; in short it's part of your identity. This may be more so in Europe than in the New World. In any case, the EU seems to be doing just fine with its myriad of languages. Choosing one would be a precedent and quite impracticable. The continent did not use a single language since the Roman times.

Meanwhile I’ll just keep scoffing at people with a college degree whom I can’t talk to in English, of which there are many—even in Germany…

I can understand this provided you're stationed at an American military base in Germany. If not, it's a remarkable stance.

The French did not found Europe, its been around a long time. If you are referring to the EU then we should all be speaking Dutch, the dominant language of Benelux. If you wish to take the first big expansion, which brought in the big countries of France and Germany, then we should speak German, they are more numerous.

Sorry but France was one of the founding countries of the EEC. West Germany too. It was the UK which was in fact a part of what you call "the first big expansion" of the EEC.

[thod]

Sorry but France was one of the founding countries of the EEC. West Germany too. It was the UK which was in fact a part of what you call "the first big expansion" of the EEC.

Yep it wasnt called the EEC at first, just as now its the EU. I was taught as school the start was Benelux.

Its founding contributed to the founding of the European Union (EU), though the immediate precursors to the EU were founded later (the ECSC in 1951 and the EEC in 1957)[3]. The three countries were also founding members of these organizations, together with West Germany, France, and Italy. Article 306 of the EC Treaty stipulates that The provisions of this Treaty shall not preclude the existence or completion of regional unions between Belgium and Luxembourg, or between Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, to the extent that the objectives of these regional unions are not attained by application of this Treaty.

[Solus]

Actually the paragraph you cited is quite instructional and you should read it carefully. The first community that was founded was the ECSC. Why was the ECSC important and why was it essential that France and West Germany create it? Try to find more information about Robert Schuman. It's an interesting story. Incidentally Schuman was born in Luxembourg, a lovely place with people who communicate in a number of languages.
As for Benelux I'm afraid it was not the core association on which the EU was founded nor does the paragraph / article you cite say it is. What it basically says is that the three countries can integrate beyond what is required by the provisions of the Treaty of Rome. Benelux still exists today but has in reality been rendered obsolete by the EEC/EC/EU.

[Ytterbium]

The anti-EU sentiments on this thread surprise me.If you knew better it would not.

Free borders and trade, a single currency, common food and environmental protections, housing assistance in poorer regions, cooperation in criminal and terrorist investigations, a huge negotiating clout...are just a few of the advantages offered to EU member states.Open borders means that criminals can roam freely too. A single currency means central planning and it follows the largest countries. Common food and enviromental protection means that the standard is lowered on some places. Agricultural support means that all money indirectly goes to huge fertilize corporations. Everything has it's downsides and especially from my point of view it haven't been done any good for my country.

As far as I can see the EU as an entity doesn't operate as a dictatorship -that's why there is an elected Parliament. Certain member states may by their powerful nature be more influential within the EU, but that's inevitable in any kind of collective.The EU can be compared to a oppressive dictatorship. As people and goverments aren't allowed to choose how they want to run things. They have to conform to a common ideal. The trouble is that the politicians in Brussels don't live in the reality like the common man.

Personally I don't see the downsides; only huge opportunities (especially for poorer and less influential countries, or countries with weak defence or international trade connections). Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why this is such an evil institution?My country's defence have been weaker and weaker the past years. As the fall of the Soviet union and the end of the cold war. The goverment has cut defence spending. I rather see the money my goverment spend on the EU, is spent on the defence instead (where it probably does more good).

[thod]

The goverment has cut defence spending. I rather see the money my goverment spend on the EU, is spent on the defence instead (where it probably does more good).

Why would having more tanks and soldiers do good?

Why would Sweden need this big army, who would want to invade Sweden? OK, in the summer someone may want to invade. Yet after the first Swedish winter they would leave and go invade Italy to spend the next winter.

[Ytterbium]

Why would having more tanks and soldiers do good?

Why would Sweden need this big army, who would want to invade Sweden? OK, in the summer someone may want to invade. Yet after the first Swedish winter they would leave and go invade Italy to spend the next winter.Sweden have a long tradition of peacekeeping. Currently Sweden has troops in Afghanistan, Chad and Kosovo.

No I'm not a warmonger.

[denaria]

As one who can remember Britain joining the EEC as it was then (and indeed, one who voted for continued membership in the referendum a couple of years later) I can point to a few reasons why the UK is so very eurosceptic now.

1) The main way it used to be funded was to tax food importing countries to subsidise food production. As the UK was far and away the most industrialised (and hence least agricultural) of the member states this represented a huge transfer of funds from us, particularly to France and also Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland (which unsurprisingly tend to be more pro-European countries).

2) We lost control of our fish under the Common Fisheries Policy, which didn't exist before we joined, and which was invented as a final, late in the game, hurdle for us. As a result other nations, particularly the Spanish, have turned the seas around us into marine near-deserts.

3) Although the concept of the EEC was sold to us as a Common Market, ie a Free Trade Area, Europe has steadily abrogated more and more functions to its own central control. Unfortunately there is a major democratic deficit at the heart of the EU; the Commission, which is the real decision making area, is not elected, and can only be controlled by the elected Parliament by throwing out its budget. The auditors have refused to sign off on the budget for the past something like 14 years without any loss of power and control by the Commission...

4) The whole system is riddled with fraud and corruption. Whistleblowers, at best, are fired.

5) Many countries simply ignore directives which don't suit them. Unfortunately Britain, like the Scandinavian countries, has a long tradition of benign law-making and law enforcement, and hence full compliance with the law. As a result all directives are implemented in full, with a few extra refinements of our own, thus making UK commercial activity increasingly less competitive even within the EU, let alone worldwide.

You will gather that I could drone on about this for a lot longer....

[Homini Lupus]

There is indeed what is called a lack of democracy in the EU institutions sice it still works more as a intergovernal entity rather than a super-state. The main error, as I see it, was to try to sell more democratic institutions as an inflated (those who have ever seen the proposal of constitutional treaty should understand) constitution wich is the last thing EU needs right now (we are trying to make Europe before making europeans, and a nation has to be invented while there's been very little invention of Europe).

About the standards the national governments can still impose standards to national industries but it is forced to accept foreign products in its stores. This means that if I am the government of country A (by example Tomania) and consider produtct B (by example beans) important to my population I can impose my standards and then my industries can sett them as "real tomanian beans" or something like that. Obviously it's not all simple and smooth (and there is a lot of politics in those standards), but I would not see a better situation in going back to boundaries and limitation to commerce.

[SmileyMan]

WIKIPEDIA QUOTES

With more than €610 billion in circulation as of December 2006 (equivalent to US$802 billion at the exchange rates at the time), the euro is the currency with the highest combined value of cash in circulation in the world, having surpassed the U.S. dollar.[3]

The euro is a major global reserve currency, sharing that status with the U.S. dollar (USD). The U.S. dollar still continues to enjoy its status as the primary reserve of most commercial and central banks. [2]

Since its introduction, the euro has been the second most widely-held international reserve currency after the U.S. dollar. The euro inherited this status from the German mark, and since its introduction, it has increased its standing, mostly at the expense of the dollar. The increase of 4.4% in 2002 is due to the introduction of euro banknotes and coins in January 2002.

The possibility of the euro's becoming the first international reserve currency is now widely debated among economists.[34] Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan gave his opinion in September 2007 that the euro could indeed replace the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. He said it is "absolutely conceivable that the euro will replace the dollar as reserve currency, or will be traded as an equally important reserve currency."[35] Additionally, there has been suggestion that recent weakness of the US dollar might encourage parties to increase their reserves in euro at the expense of the dollar.[36] In the second term of 2007, euro as a reserve currency has reached a record level of 25.6% (a +0.8% increase from the year before)- at the expense of US dollar which dropped to 64.8% (a drop of 1.3% from the year before).[37] By the end of 2007, shares of euro increased to 26.4% as the dollar slumped to its lowest level since records began in 1999, 63.8%.[38]

After the introduction of the euro, its exchange rate against other currencies fell heavily, especially against the U.S. dollar. At its introduction in 1999, the euro was traded at US$1.18/€, but by October 26, 2000, it had fallen to an all-time low of $0.8228/€. After the appearance of the coins and notes in January 2002 and the replacement of all national currencies, the euro then began steadily appreciating, and soon reached parity with the U.S. dollar on July 15, 2002. Since December 2002, the euro has not fallen below parity with the U.S. dollar but began an unprecedented ascendency. On 23 May 2003, the euro surpassed its initial ($1.18) trading value for the first time. At the end of 2004, it reached a peak of $1.3668 (€0.7316/$) as the U.S. dollar fell against all major currencies, fuelled by the so-called double deficit in the US accounts. The dollar temporarily recovered in 2005, rising to $1.18 (€0.85/$) in July 2005, and was stable throughout the second half of 2005. The steep increase in U.S. interest rates during 2005 had much to do with this trend. But on November 2005 the dollar again began to fall steadily until the present day hitting one record low after another. On 23 April 2008, the U.S. dollar fell to an all-time low of $1.5940 (€0.6273/$) against the euro.[39] On 16 April 2008, the pound sterling fell to an all-time low of £0.80610 (€1.2405/£) against the euro.[40]

DAILY TELEGRAPH COMMENTS

Most British opposition to the Euro and the EU has absolutely nothing to do with economics, the economic debate is just the supposedly safe ersatz quarrelling ground for the deeper issues of nationalism, sovereignty and centuries of distaste for everything continental.

Ah, how great to read the Daily Telegraph, the paper that never lets facts get in the way. The EU-15 country that has been doing best economically is Ireland, which joined the euro. The problems of the French, German and Italian economies are mostly unrelated to the euro (rigidity of labour market is a good summary of them). The funny thing is that despite presenting itself as an 'economic' argument, the real reasons for DT's objections to the euro are, well, symbolic. The leader writers of the DT still long for the days of the Empire on which the sun never sets, and by supporting their 'sterling' currency they hope to maintain that little shred of Good Old Britannia.
All this instead of realising that if Britain is to have some influence over the world is only through Europe. The UK has some benefits over most other EU countries - its language is English, it has a strong economy, and London is virtually the (financial) capital of Europe. Instead of using all that to strengthen UK's position, DT still looks suspiciously at all those strange Europeans... UK has two options: to have influence through Europe and to go at it alone, and have pretty much the same influence in the world as Canada - in many respects an enviable country but one that no one cares much for.

In the summer of 2001, I asked three leading
financial pundits to predict the future of sterling, the dollar and the euro. Unanimously, they concluded that sterling was heading towards parity with the dollar, the dollar was a sure bet over the next decade and the euro would sink without trace.

How funny to look back at their predictions. Had
these three been City forecasters, they would all
now be out of a job. But, for some reason, we
continue to invite them to pontificate in the
press and defer to them. Odd, really. Don't you
think?

(Regarding the "Unfair Competition") If the Common Agricultural Policy is removed, it is going to ruin the lives of a lot of farmers all over Europe. The africans should stop whining and either pay the tariffs, find another trading partner or get another job.

[thod]

If the Common Agricultural Policy is removed, it is going to ruin the lives of a lot of farmers all over Europe. The africans should stop whining and either pay the tariffs or find another trading partner.

With food prices at record highs, I think not. Agricultural land is shooting up in value because the returns from farming are currently so high. They do not need support atm. They will of course always claim they need more cash, I need more cash too.

It may provide jobs by having a peasant farm his acre of land and harvest wheat with a hand sickle but that is not efficient farming. They can get the hell off the land, as happened in the UK hundreds of years ago. We need efficient farms to produce cheap food not make work schemes that produce expensive food.

If the farmers dont like it tough, I am willing to step in and buy up some cheap farms. They dont give a crap when my industry close down and I am made redundant. That happens a lot, why should I pay for them to stay in work. Give me cheap food or get off the farms.

[Ool]

The trouble is that the politicians in Brussels don't live in the reality like the common man.

Since when does the common man live in reality? Have you talked to any common men lately…?





Ool added to this post, 6 minutes and 27 seconds later...

The goverment has cut defence spending. I rather see the money my goverment spend on the EU, is spent on the defence instead (where it probably does more good).

Yeah, why build infrastructure that actually gives you a return on your investment when you can build bombs instead, which either lie around and rot and are gone in a couple of decades or which are deployed, in which case they are gone in an instant.

I’m not saying that you don’t need military spending. It’s a dangerous world out there. But if all you do is invest in defense then soon you may have nothing worth defending because your bridges at home collapse from out under you. This isn’t an either/or thing…

[Ytterbium]

Since when does the common man live in reality? Have you talked to any common men lately…?They live in their reality, others in their realities. Things have to be put into perspective for others to understand. There're places which is larger than Belgium in which only have one patrolling police car. That said, when it's patrolling for that matter.
Some people are without any forms of communications. Because the EU thinks state monopolies are bad. Do you think international capitalistic corparations will plow money into something which don't make $ profits?
The EU might be superduper ompf good for some countries on the continent, border areas and densely populated areas. But just as the laws of physics it won't work everywhere. And you say it's democratic that we can't change our situation to a better?

Yeah, why build infrastructure that actually gives you a return on your investment when you can build bombs instead, which either lie around and rot and are gone in a couple of decades or which are deployed, in which case they are gone in an instant.Yes I certainly want to build infrastructure. But we can't, as it don't make profit for the actors on the free market. When I was doing my military service. We had a exercise on a air base. We were told not to use our cell phone for safety reasons. As the base station only could handle 5 calls at the same time. And it was only those who had subscription at the state owned phone company that could place calls. As it was their station. The competion is somewhat skewed as the state owned company has a legacy of providing services which other companies don't have to.

I’m not saying that you don’t need military spending. It’s a dangerous world out there. But if all you do is invest in defense then soon you may have nothing worth defending because your bridges at home collapse from out under you. This isn’t an either/or thing…Yes I would rather spend my tax money on roads, defence etc. Not give them to French farmers which will start to whine, block the highways and spreading manure everywhere just becuase they don't get things their way. It's up to the French goverment to do that, not mine or any other EU country's goverment.

[Ool]

Yes I would rather spend my tax money on roads, defence etc. Not give them to French farmers which will start to whine, block the highways and spreading manure everywhere just becuase they don't get things their way.

Yeah, well, the whole agricultural subsidy argument is a complex one, though. It skews the market quite a bit, and maybe certain subsidies are counterproductive. But the point is, a steady food supply is essential for the stability of a nation or a community of nations.

And if you leave basic food supply up to market forces then two things can and will happen cyclically whenever there’s a glut or a scarcity of food.

First of all, if there is a glut, then farmers will get very little for what they produce. Since they have to live, however, and to invest in purchases of seed, fertilizer, and farming tools and in their maintenance, that means that they will react to meagre returns on their product by using every last bit of arable land at their disposal—with the effect that food will become even more plentiful, their return, because of even lower demand, even more of a trickle, and that they are ever more forced to utilize their land unsustainably, with dustbowls, ecological devastation, etc. as a long term result.

This or other factors might lead to a food shortage, in which the people go hungry and suffer. And in a democracy, where hungry, unsatisfied people can throw the powers that be out of office, that would be lethal for the government of the country.

That is why you will always have agricultural subsidies in a democracy, or otherwise the democracy won’t be around for long, or at least the incumbent administration within that democracy. Even if voters know nothing about politics at all and can be made to believe in the most ridiculous spin, you couldn’t spin their growling stomachs away.

And because of the environmental and humanitarian reasons above that I’ve listed there also should always be agricultural subsidies. Trust me, the chaos that could ensue in a country where food production isn’t cushioned against speculative market forces is not something you would wish to see from close up…!

Even the socially Darwinist thinking Americans are smart enough to have realized that piece of wisdom, implemented it, and never touched it since their Great Depression and the Dustbowl, caused by farmers left to their own devices…

[thod]

First of all, if there is a glut, then farmers will get very little for what they produce. Since they have to live, however, and to invest in purchases of seed, fertilizer, and farming tools and in their maintenance, that means that they will react to meagre returns on their product by using every last bit of arable land at their disposal—with the effect that food will become even more plentiful, their return, because of even lower demand, even more of a trickle, and that they are ever more forced to utilize their land unsustainably, with dustbowls, ecological devastation, etc. as a long term result.

This is not an issue for subsidy but for law. The need to overproduce is a response to other farmers overproducing. The resultant glut can be removed by ensuring that only 80% of the farmland may be cultivated by law. You do not have to pay the farmers not to produce. Both achieve the same result in removal of the glut and higher prices for crops. The subsidy is simply free cash for the farmers, it is far cheaper to analyze some satellite photos and fine the offenders than to hand them free cash.

This or other factors might lead to a food shortage, in which the people go hungry and suffer. And in a democracy, where hungry, unsatisfied people can throw the powers that be out of office, that would be lethal for the government of the country.


The only way to prevent shortage is to plan to overproduce. We cannot remove risks such as no rain or crop disease. When these do not occur we have a glut and prices fall. However the lower price is offset by the farmers higher quantity. When things go badly prices rise and his lower quantity is offset by higher prices. The farmer does not have to take risks himself in that he is able to pre sell his crop in the futures market to investors that will take on that risk. You cannot eliminate risk, all financial risk instruments do is spread it around.

The problem with using subsidy to ensure marginal land is farmed, to increase production, is that you also apply that to prime land. Most of the money ends up going to the farmers on the prime land that could have produced anyhow since they have higher yields per acre. This could be rectified by offering the subsidy on an acreage basis rather than yield. Yet the farmers insist on minimum prices for yield. This is against the public interest and is simply handing tax money to the fattest of the farmers.

The current system of subsidy is thus corrupt.

[jesse]

The problem with using subsidy to ensure marginal land is farmed, to increase production, is that you also apply that to prime land. Most of the money ends up going to the farmers on the prime land that could have produced anyhow since they have higher yields per acre. This could be rectified by offering the subsidy on an acreage basis rather than yield. Yet the farmers insist on minimum prices for yield. This is against the public interest and is simply handing tax money to the fattest of the farmers.

The current system of subsidy is thus corrupt.

The agricultural subsidies system in place used within the European Union might have started with a good idea in the very beginning. Unfortunately, many leaders and those militant, whining farmers do not want change and they will not go down peacefully without a proper fight. I can imagine this subsidy system being a miserable exercise in bureauratic inefficiency which eventually leads to a corrupt, failing system which should have been burried a while ago.

If the agricultural subsidy would not exist, farmers would have to start finding ways to improve productivity and perhaps concentrate on a full scale solution, rather than purely farming ingredients and then selling them forward in the value chain, unprocessed. You can say there are an excess of middle men in the production chain, which would require a change either in vertical or horizontal integration, whatever keeps farming going and the farmers motivated.

Notably if this would become some form of a monopoly, it would not be very long before the EU commission would be finding a moment of weakness and impose their brand of free (err I mean fair) competition into this sector as well.

Ytterbium is correct regarding the scenario where a large, international FOR-PROFIT company would interact with a farm that is not productive. Of course it would not pump too much money into it, especially if the prospects of return on investment are bleak. Companies rarely do think in the long run, especially if they are listed in stock exchanges. They want the profit yesterday, everything else is simply a means to and end and it is not too difficult to imagine a company putting under utilized farm land to other use, or even selling it because it does not add to their profit.

[Ool]

This is not an issue for subsidy but for law. The need to overproduce is a response to other farmers overproducing. The resultant glut can be removed by ensuring that only 80% of the farmland may be cultivated by law. You do not have to pay the farmers not to produce. Both achieve the same result in removal of the glut and higher prices for crops. The subsidy is simply free cash for the farmers, it is far cheaper to analyze some satellite photos and fine the offenders than to hand them free cash.

So in other words if farmers are doing a good job supplying the populace with plenty of food and are subsequently punished by market forces with lower prices, the government should punish them even more by prohibiting them from planting more crops than a certain amount. And the only thing that’s in it for them is that they won’t go to jail.

And all this while the country is doing well, is well fed, and hence shouldn’t have a problem paying the farmers a little extra…

There is an expression, called “penny-wise, pound-foolish.” I think it applies in this case. So does “having the punishment/reward system ass-backwards…”


The only way to prevent shortage is to plan to overproduce. We cannot remove risks such as no rain or crop disease. When these do not occur we have a glut and prices fall. However the lower price is offset by the farmers higher quantity.

Only if the farmers can sell it.

When things go badly prices rise and his lower quantity is offset by higher prices. The farmer does not have to take risks himself in that he is able to pre sell his crop in the futures market to investors that will take on that risk. You cannot eliminate risk, all financial risk instruments do is spread it around.

Exactly, thus preventing either farmers going bankrupt or poor people going hungry, thus ensuring a content populace, thus giving the incumbent administration a chance of not being thrown out of office.

The problem with using subsidy to ensure marginal land is farmed, to increase production, is that you also apply that to prime land. Most of the money ends up going to the farmers on the prime land that could have produced anyhow since they have higher yields per acre. This could be rectified by offering the subsidy on an acreage basis rather than yield. Yet the farmers insist on minimum prices for yield. This is against the public interest and is simply handing tax money to the fattest of the farmers.

The current system of subsidy is thus corrupt.

Look, the whole point of subsidies is to ensure yield, no matter where it’s from and to also ensure that farmers are financially secure. It is nothing to do with marginal land and prime land. You want prime land to be used. You want marginal land to be used only in emergencies, or at least only as much as it can be used without turning it barren.

If you’re making the point that in their details subsidies are tricky to apply and that there is a big opportunity of mismanaging them then I do not disagree with you. But if you did away with them then you’d be gambling with your country’s food supply, and hungry voters would not forgive you for losing that gamble…





Ool added to this post, 9 minutes and 53 seconds later...

The agricultural subsidies system in place used within the European Union might have started with a good idea in the very beginning. Unfortunately, many leaders and those militant, whining farmers do not want change and they will not go down peacefully without a proper fight. I can imagine this subsidy system being a miserable exercise in bureauratic inefficiency which eventually leads to a corrupt, failing system which should have been burried a while ago.

Really? I haven’t had to wait in long lines for produce of my choice yet. Nor did I have to pay out of my nose for food.

I could actually kill myself by overeating with very little of my money spent. So excuse me for not getting the “failing” part of your assessment.

As for “inefficient,” I’ve said it before: It’s better to be inefficient than ineffective…

[thod]

So in other words if farmers are doing a good job supplying the populace with plenty of food and are subsequently punished by market forces with lower prices, the government should punish them even more by prohibiting them from planting more crops than a certain amount. And the only thing that’s in it for them is that they won’t go to jail.

The original point was a "tragedy of the commons" leading to land degradation. As each farmer produces more, prices drop, this forces them to plant even more next year giving yet lower prices. We end up with lots of food and very low prices. This is what happened with the butter mountains and wine lakes which were bought up by the EEC for minimum price and discarded. Since they had an infinite market in the EEC they produced ever more.

The solution to this expensive problem was to prevent overproduction thus leading to higher prices for their product. The limits were imposed by law in the form of quotas.

The demand side for their products is fixed since we can only eat so much. The supply side is fixed by the quota. With fixed supply and demand there are no market forces to "punish" the farmers. If further production is required then you raise quotas. The land is not overused and turned to dust since the farmer cannot sell more than his quota.

These quotas are traded on the open market. The profit you can make from a quota depends on your costs in fulfilling that quota. So they are more valuable to efficient farmers. If the EU consumes a gigaton of wheat per year then you only issue a gigton of quotas.

If rains are poor then the farmer will be unable to produce his quota. So he plants slightly more in order to cover this position. If he then has a good year he sells his quota in the EU. The idea was the excess is dumped to countries outside the EU as cheap food, destroying their native farming industry and leaving them in famine when that supply stops in a bad production year.

What we have is a system of price stability. Production stability is the same as ever, dependent on the weather. We are rich enough to be able to take variable food prices. If you guarantee the price for his quota then he will produce that and needs are met. If you allow him to sell his excess on the EU market then he still has incentive to overproduce which negates what we were trying to achieve. If the farmer produces three times his quota, then two thirds of it is sold at market price and one third at quota price. So the farmer is now being paid a premium for his quota which he would have produced anyhow. This is where the taxpayers money is going, we get price stability and sufficient food. But that stable price is much higher than market price.

I am not prepared to pay farmers to produce more than I can eat. I would rather spend that money myself, and be able to walk through woodland, than pay a farmer to chop down the trees, to make milk, that is poured down the drains.

[Ool]

The solution to this expensive problem was to prevent overproduction thus leading to higher prices for their product. The limits were imposed by law in the form of quotas.

Yes, granted, we’re not in disagreement here. But the point is, you shouldn’t just punish farmers for growing too much. You should actually pay them for growing less, and that’s what subsidies are about. Otherwise you’re basically biting the hand that feeds you.

[Aronnax]

I am not prepared to pay farmers to produce more than I can eat.

Assuming the level of subsidies are mild you get most of it back in the form of depressed food prices. There's also something to be said about the importance of maintaining a certain level of domestic food production as a matter of national security.

It only gets ugly when the subsidies are excessive (I'd deem the current level of EU ag subsides as excessive).

[Ytterbium]

Ool: You can talk about benefits and subsidies as much as you want. I'm a social-democrat and I know that you have to throw some money here and there. The problem is that it should be the states or municipalities doing that not the EU. Just look at other non-CAP nations, they don't seem to starve do they? Just what thod wrote earlier the EU dumps it's food in Africa instead, good? As I said before it's up to the countries doing whatever they want. If goverments are scared of running dry on supplies, then build some silos to store it. I'm tired of countries in which their population always turn to the EU to solve things for them. Stop running to daddy and do something yourself about it. Just look at Italy and their garbage.

I rather see the Nordic council as a counterweight to the EU. As it don't force it's members to fit an ideal. It's merely an open forum. Instead of a huge far away oracle without any insight into.

[thod]

We have the same atm with French fishermen complaining about fuel costs. Being French the solution is to burn a few shops and set light to tires in the street.

Don't these people understand business at all. If your costs go up, then you raise the prices of your output to cover it. You don't riot for the government to give you fuel subsidies.

Sure some people will eat less fish as the price goes up, they wont eat less food though. Some other food producer will gain. Its a fact that we have too many fishermen raping the seas. The fisheries are collapsing, the best thing that could happen is they stay on strike and the fish stocks get a chance to recover.

I would guess that soon they will argue that we should pay them not to fish in the same way we pay farmers not to farm. I should look into how to register as fisherman since I don't fish, I should be payed for not it doing it too.

I give them the finger gesture. Let the worst of them go broke. The ones left are so because they are the best fishermen. With the worst fishermen out of the way, the good ones can expand into their space. Thats why market economies work, it allocates capital to those that are best at it.

[Ool]

I give them the finger gesture. Let the worst of them go broke. The ones left are so because they are the best fishermen. With the worst fishermen out of the way, the good ones can expand into their space. Thats why market economies work, it allocates capital to those that are best at it.

Well, it allocates capital to those that are best at raising money for obscenely expensive election campaigns and lobbying for earmarks with the politicians that are subsequently in their debt…

[thod]

Saw interviews on the news yesterday with some British yachtsmen that had broken out of Cherbourg harbor. They had string cables across the harbor to keep them prisoner. The police were nowhere in sight of course. They grouped up and 20 of them ran the blockade managing to escape.

It amazes me that they think they can hold people prisoner like this and the police wont do a thing. If I approached the cables and they boarded me it would be piracy. I would like to know what would happen when I start firing an AK47 over their heads. I reckon they would back off quickly then. No doubt the police would appear out of nowhere. Just drift up and cut the cables. It should be possible to fit a V to the front of the boat to catch and cut the cables with momentum alone.

Perhaps the British navy should be headed to Cherbourg harbor to rescue our citizens. They can cut the cables and machine gun the fishermen. We could have special forces land on the dock to ensure the escape. This would be quite justified, if the French cannot, or are unwilling to maintain the rule of law then someone else will.

Holding innocent people prisoner is not a valid form of protest. If the French wont police it then expect people to take matters into their own hands.

[jesse]

We have the same atm with French fishermen complaining about fuel costs. Being French the solution is to burn a few shops and set light to tires in the street.

Don't these people understand business at all. If your costs go up, then you raise the prices of your output to cover it. You don't riot for the government to give you fuel subsidies.

(snip)

I give them the finger gesture. Let the worst of them go broke. The ones left are so because they are the best fishermen. With the worst fishermen out of the way, the good ones can expand into their space. Thats why market economies work, it allocates capital to those that are best at it.

Trade unionists often live in their own little world where big labor dictates the terms, and they tend to take the marxist view on the state being the benevolent factor during tough times. This is inherently incompatible with a modern market economy and probably even EU principles.
Everyone is in favor of a market economy, until signs of trouble emerge.

All this is part of a market economy: there will be good times and there will be bad times. Shifts happen all the time, but the current problem stems from a system which turns a blind eye to greed regarding policies on loans. There is no legislation in the world which would stop this.

Regarding the undestanding of a market economy, most don't have a working idea imo. The notorious difference being that the nordic region gets passive-aggressive on you, southern European states, namely France and Italy have no guilt disrupting everything when they are dissatisfied.

Lastly, any statist solution will take much too long to fix anything, and when it does get implemented, it will have other repercussions.

[Ytterbium]

There have been protests about the petrol costs too. Stupid people, sometimes I wonder if they just want to vandalize instead of making change in a civilized way. I can't make a living out of fishing/trucking boowho. Then make something else, moron.

Then I don't think it everything can be based on market economy. Such elementary things as networks such as roads, electricity supply, communcations. These should be run by a state-owned monopolies. Which are responsible to make it work. Instead of having small actors as net owners, as they're rarely riable.

[jesse]

There's an important event happening today which concerns the future of the European Union. Why is it that only ONE member of the EU, the Republic of Ireland, is actually voting on whether to accept the Lisbon Treaty (or the renamed, somewhat rewritten previously failed proposed Constitution).

I highly doubt even those in power fully understand the document written in what I like to refer to as a sadistic experiment in dense legalese. Finland's parliament accepted the treaty with little opposition, and even less public debate. (The country is in a political scandal regarding campaign funding at the moment and the treaty has been ever-so-conveniently whisked under the carpet.)

Yet again there is further lies and deception regarding the intetions of the European Union. "It will not become the United States of Europe!" yet the new posts envisioned in the Lisbon Treaty make it painfully obvious the organization is becoming rather state like. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?
The ruling class must be pissed at the pesky prospect of the small nation of Ireland grinding the ratification to a halt. Not to worry, they will try again in a couple of years with a fancy new name.

For the record, I do not view the excessive concentration of power into Brussels with plenty of bureaucrats as positive, all the while they keep on yammering about further democracy and transparency. Someone is bullshitting us all at some point upstream. I also cannot claim I fully understand the implications of ratifying and implementing the Lisbon Treaty as it currently stands.

Fate of EU treaty hangs on Irish referendum (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Ireland in crunch EU treaty vote (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[SmileyMan]

There was no rational reason to vote NO to the Lisbon Treaty. It would've balanced out the powers of votes; national parlaments would've been given the ability to qualify passing laws for veto; the Union would've been organised in to larger sections, resulting in faster decision-making less cost of money; the Union would've opened an option for a law proposition backed by +1 mio. EU citizens to be considered by the commission; and many other positive things.

I believe most of the NO-voters were misled by anti-EU "missionaries" twisting facts into fiction. Voting no for the sake of being anti-EU and not actually considering what's in the treaty is simply disgusting.

[Marcus]

People saying always no will end up having someone else to decide for them.

[SmileyMan]

I wrote this to a major eurosceptic on YouTube:

Did you even bother to RESEARCH the treaty? You're a bunch of conspiracy theorising oxymorons. You shout and scream for democracy, and yet you don't really use it. The goal of democracy is for people to make up their own minds and not be brainwashed into believing something is true. You look at both sides. The problem is that the NO-voters of Ireland had been misled by anti-EU "missionaries" twisting facts about the treaty into harmful fiction; even irish ministers say this. The Lisbon Treaty would've amended the existing Treaties in order to make the changes needed to make an EU of 27 work more effectively. It would allow the EU to move on from debating institutional changes and focus on issues which matter to citizens: energy security, organised crime and terrorism, globalisation, further enlargement and making Europe’s voice more effective internationally.

The treaty would've granted more power to the demographically smaller nations by changing the voting system. It'd also grant the individual nations more power in the deicision-making considering laws, thanks to the Yellow-/Orange-Card system. It gives national parliaments a voice in making European laws for the first time. Every national parliament will receive proposals for new EU legislation directly. They may judge whether the proposal conforms to the principles of “subsidiarity” (that the EU should only act where it adds value). If one third of national parliaments object, then the proposal will be sent back for review by the Commission (the ‘yellow card’). If a majority of national parliaments oppose a Commission proposal, and national governments or MEPs agree, then it can be struck down (the ‘orange card’).

It'd have increased the number of policy areas where elected MEPs in the European Parliament also had to approve EU legislation, alongside national ministers in the Council (known in the EU as “co-decision”). This would also give more power to the individual nations.

But you (The irish people) didn't know all this, as you were only fed lies and bullshit from anti-EU activists. You have ruined something with great possibilities because of your ignorance and/or lazyness. I hope the fate of such a big thing will never be put in your hands again, as you obviously can't handle the responsibility. I challenge you to find just ONE negative thing in the treaty.

Democracy is, unfortunately, a double-sided blade.

[Ytterbium]

Debate Europe (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is an official forum of the EU to discuss things, in your own mothertongue if you like.

[Ool]

I'd vote to get England straight out of the EU via UKIP if I were at an age where I were allowed to vote.

Why? What do you have against the English...?

And what's a UKIP?

Wait a moment... This is an old thread, right...?

[MaleVolentworld]

The EU, they have cleverly managed to create a concentration of power while boring the pants off everyone in doing so. They didn't kill millions like the Soviets or Nazis, they just bored us to death.

But how will they use this power? to tell Mugabi that he should not be so naughty?

[Ytterbium]

Why? What do you have against the English...?

And what's a UKIP?

Wait a moment... This is an old thread, right...?The forum which I linked to is overcrowed by them. It's a political party in the UK.
And then there's the Greeks battling about Macedonia all the time. In a nutshell, check it out.

[zibber]

I'm sure it's all been said, but I just want to voice this Dutchman's aversion towards policies "from Brussels". I have seen too many examples of entirely context-insensitive, oversimplified legislation leading to ridiculous situations. We have enough of that internally (ask me about the smoking ban), let alone with a giant, crude organ like "Brussels" sticking its nose in. It's nice to have some general agreement across the union, but recognize when legislation is context-sensitive and leave that to those within the context.

So, in the famous words of Mr. Horse: No sir, I don't like it.

[Ytterbium]

So it doesn't work in the Netherlands either? What exactly?
I though EU was good for the most central European countries. As it's where it all spawned.

[thod]

The UKIP, or UK independence party, is hardly a political party. They have one issue and one stance and that is that everything European is bad and everything British is good, they have no positions on any other issue. Every country has these nationalist groups and the UK is no different. However they are tiny group and have no represent in Parliament since they haven't won any elections.

I don't know the name of the German equivalent group but you will recognize the rhetoric, Germany first, oppose the foreigners trying to tell us what to do, tradition and heritage, "this great nation", etc.

[Alcatar]

I live in England, I hate England, Scotland deserves independance but can't sustain itself well, N. Ireland cannot be given up because we are basically protectorates of the inhabitants, and we should have wholely joined the EU ages ago while we could have joined as a powerful member, now the euro cripples us. England is based on self-interested liberty and tyranny, how could the govt expect Brits to keep their money in our fail-not-safe system.
EU is the way forward, emissions are the new enemy, and we are the EU's largest military spender, which requires troops to buy their own back-armour. We follow countries like Bush into wars? I would have sooner joined Saddam.

Don't get bitchy with me over small comments. But american misinformation is typical, how can any nation sport a news channel like Fox news - that just makes america's society into some black-comedy subject.

England fails hard, English society is getting worse, English economy is fa-fa-failing, and I actually want to see the PM use the British heritage of not having a constituon, and go radical to solve the island of fail.





Alcatar added to this post, 3 minutes and 39 seconds later...

I don't know the name of the German equivalent group but you will recognize the rhetoric, Germany first, oppose the foreigners trying to tell us what to do, tradition and heritage, "this great nation", etc.

If you are trying to critise germany - the most left-ist nation of the world - would you please declare it to me, I will wipe the floor with your tongue.





Alcatar added to this post, 8 minutes and 34 seconds later...

Since when does the common man live in reality? Have you talked to any common men lately…?





Ool added to this post, 6 minutes and 27 seconds later...



Yeah, why build infrastructure that actually gives you a return on your investment when you can build bombs instead, which either lie around and rot and are gone in a couple of decades or which are deployed, in which case they are gone in an instant.

I’m not saying that you don’t need military spending. It’s a dangerous world out there. But if all you do is invest in defense then soon you may have nothing worth defending because your bridges at home collapse from out under you. This isn’t an either/or thing…

Good point, Roosevelt's isolationism was great for USA. But almost led to the world's unification under Nazism. Either the USA should sit back and do nada, bask in the presence of it's arms pile and just concentrate on economic issues, or continue it's global "you-have-money = I-fuck-you" policy. And I say bask in the arms pile because it has a deficit in prestige now - infact if things don't change, the world will deal with the USA as US comics dealt with "evil communist russia" - thy shalt be shit on.

But if isolationism is the choice made, the USA better declare it isn't international policeman anymore and sit the hell down, or the USA will continue to be blamed for escalations.

p.s. yes the USA has made it's policing more efficient, but it's like they are paying a lower price for their policeman role now, but lack all effort.





Alcatar added to this post, 4 minutes and 19 seconds later...

The downside of the EU is the same as the downside of the US, it's a large Democracy. The size diminishes the strength of your individual vote and tends to whitewash regional/cultural issues.

Size lends strength but it also makes the body more callous and rigid.

The EU accepts (atleast now..) variation of action country-to-country, and state-to-state (as in province). eg. current actions undertaken by Germany, which could perhaps become the West's China. They deserve it.





Alcatar added to this post, 11 minutes and 57 seconds later...

Isn't this just an inevitable consequence of an individual state deciding to belong to a collective? States must decide that the benefits they will accrue, outweigh any disadvantages. Can you provide an example of the EU whitewashing an individual member state's interests?

I suppose I can see some disadvantages to wealthier countries around the enormous enlargement of the EU in 2004 to include former communist bloc countries (and the resulting need to share the economic burden of these countries among member states), and I also think the squabbling around the Lisbon Treaty, and the lack of a constitution, is likely to be an impediment to principled decision-making as the EU gets larger. I think the EU will rise to both these challenges though, in the long run.

Indeed, even the nobel prize winner Joseph Stiglitz and many other believers of the uncommon economic theory that I also trust in, say the more poor countries become rich, the richer every1 will become (this is not in correlation to globalization which is also talked about his book "Making Globalization Work"). Poor nations cannot create products we want to buy from them, at the scale we can make products they want to buy from us, yes in history this is what made us (the West) rich - processing. But apply history to the future climate, there is no room for inefficiency, and one collapse could cause wars with the modern increasing tensions - mainly the one of Western idiocy to believe channels such as Fox News and others such as Bush...
We hold the power, we don't use it wisely (except Germany and those following Germany's suite), and if other nations are to take over economically in the future we cannot expect any mercy, understanding or consideration from them. Create humanity into a collective, and advance. Nationalism has no use lest nations expect to own their own planets and such.

The West has many champions of virtue, and although they are not hugely outweighed by the tyrannts (in all), the masses of morons which follow the tyrannical means of nationality etc, threaten to end the world.

[Ytterbium]

What about Scotland? I'm not into it. But they have a larger population than Norway so why can't they be on their own?

[thod]

Originally Posted by thod
I don't know the name of the German equivalent group but you will recognize the rhetoric, Germany first, oppose the foreigners trying to tell us what to do, tradition and heritage, "this great nation", etc.


If you are trying to critise germany - the most left-ist nation of the world - would you please declare it to me, I will wipe the floor with your tongue.


In post 71, Ool wrote "And what's a UKIP?", hence my reply was to him, he is German.

[Alcatar]

Aha, didn't think he was German...

[Ytterbium]

How about the upcoming elections this summer? How are you going to vote? Or do you just give a damn?

[jesse]

I live in England, I hate England, Scotland deserves independance but can't sustain itself well, N. Ireland cannot be given up because we are basically protectorates of the inhabitants, and we should have wholely joined the EU ages ago while we could have joined as a powerful member, now the euro cripples us. England is based on self-interested liberty and tyranny, how could the govt expect Brits to keep their money in our fail-not-safe system.
EU is the way forward, emissions are the new enemy, and we are the EU's largest military spender, which requires troops to buy their own back-armour. We follow countries like Bush into wars? I would have sooner joined Saddam.

1. Surely there is enough nationalist sentiment in both Scotland and Northern Ireland, possibly even Wales to begin functioning as independent nations IF the UK were to be dismantled. ... Then again, it might become a rather peculiar love-hate relationship like the one currently between the Irish republic and the UK. What I mean by this is that UK calls the shots, the rest follow in stride to a great extent, more or less.

The former mighty English kingdom has lost its territorial possessions, therefore it clings to whatever it can, namely the current area within the UK. They tried throwing their weight in the EU, too bad their subversive tactics proved fruitless. They are just one of the endless voices, each desperate for their 15 minutes of fame to spew their rhetoric around a bit more.

Give the EU a couple more years and it will have become an unbelievably thick, inefficient mammoth like bureaucracy where nothing gets done _because_ it tries to control and mandate everything. Seems they keep on doing more and more and saying the following mantra: "WE ARE NOT A SUPER STATE, WE WILL NOT BECOME A SUPER STATE, BUT WE WILL HAVE MANY FUNCTIONS OF ONE WITHOUT CALLING IT SUCH".

All in all, while there are numerous good things about the EU, it is becoming a bloated super state with all the trappings of one, which does one thing and then proceeds to deny and say the complete opposite. I'd say its in the same condition as using a match to see if there's anything left in the fuel tank.