Who will it benefit to tear apart Europe with squabbling, except the opponents of Europe and European culture?
Reversing political integration won't tear apart Europe.
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods
Who will it benefit to tear apart Europe with squabbling, except the opponents of Europe and European culture?
Ever heard of Black Wednesday? If so you then should be able to know why Britain is cautious about this monetary experiment.
So under your logic Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Denmark, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and many more countries should be vetoed just because they didn't take part in the creation of the EC.
That's why French farmers get a lot of the CAP.
Poland can ally with a future British Conservative Government and then this evil French-German axis can be counter-attacked for the benefit of all.
UK should have done the same if they wanted a more important role.
But anyway I don't think that's what they want because they will loose this particular relationship they have with the US.
UK has always been involved both with Europe and the US and they never could make a choice.
But the US didn't just extend capitalism to easter europe, they extended their way of life
and most of all their products
Products that make you now dependant of the US Economy.
Imports - partners:
Definition Field Listing
Germany 29.6%, Russia 8.7%, Italy 6.6%, Netherlands 5.9%, France 5.7% (2005)
You should be happy for USSR when they were dominating your country if you are happy with the American dominion.
Being invaded in 3 days is not what i call "standing up against".
Also you didn't really have a choice.
I have gathered, from a very reliable source, information which allows me to assert that, by way of compensation and in order to draw Poland into their game, the National-Socialist leaders have hinted in their conversations with the Poles at the possibility of sharing in a partition of the Russian Ukraine.
In the same connection the Polish Military AttachÃ©, when he received one of my collaborators yesterday, gave some significant indications on the great plans which even recently the leaders of the Third Reich had been hammering out, and in the realization of which they had hoped, until March 26, to enlist Polish complicity.
It is said that when Chancellor Hitler received M. Beck in Berchtesgaden, he had spread out before him a map of Europe corrected in his own hand. On this map Danzig and the Corridor were again attached to the Reich; as to Poland, she was to annex Lithuania and receive the port of Memel. (The interview of Berchtesgaden took place on January 5.) M. Beck is reported to have been astounded at this sight.
European Union Budget Contribution per Year:
Germany: 22 218 438 772 Euros
France : 17 303 107 859 Euros
Italy: 14 359 479 157 Euros
United Kingdom: 13 739 900 046 Euros
Poland: 2 099 087 114 Euros
Rest of the list
Well if France and Germany are so evil, if they are such self-centered control-freaks, why did Poland joined the EU in the first place?
Didn't they knew Germany and France where the countries with the most weight in the EU?
Look the number of who benefit the most from the EU budget before saying such things
Poldand as a newcomer benefits a lot from it tho
And British hate the EU because they are castaways
Shade2 wrote:Germany invaded on 1st September, not on 3rd October. As the invasion ended on 6th October that are 55 days of fighting. Where did you learn maths ? In the same school that made you believe they are CIA divisions in American dominion of Poland ?
Because they are interested in new open markets, extending their political control over new members and GDP growth of their countries fueled by lowering of tariffs, customs by the new members.
France and Germany. Instead of using military agression to expand their political and economical control, they use policies of EU to do the same.
All those pesky countries siding with USA rather then the glorious martyrs for "European common good" France and Germany.
Apart from the fact that you need to work on your mathematics skill (30+6(8) = 36(38) days of fighting ),
The invasion pretty much ended on Sept 17 when the Red Army marched into East Poland
Without leadership your whole system collapsed with the Warsaw capitulation on Sep 28 marking the end
The Battle of Kock was the final battle of the Invasion of Poland at the beginning of World War II. It took place from October 2 through October 5, 1939, near the town of Kock, Poland.
really hate to point out obvious facts, what you are describing and criticizing is pretty much modern Capitalism.
The countries benefitting most from the EU are the UK and the Eastern European countries.
If you don't believe me check the official EU budget Click Me
Now look for a column called "EUR pro Einw." (-> Euro per Citizen). Red marks net payers, blue marks those benefitting from the net payers -> e.g. every Dutch citizen is investing around (-â‚¬162) into the EU while every Greek citizen is receiving (+â‚¬352) in return. Of course, the discrepancy between - for example - Poland (+â‚¬48) and Ireland (+â‚¬271) is most unfair and one of the most criticized aspects of the budget planning process.
your economy wasn't worth anything before joining the EU.
Your dependency on imports and negligible export sector were of no use to anyone.
Joining the EU gave you access to a huge market
And opening the so called "labor" doors resulted in many new jobs for Poles created in Poland itself and its surrounding countries.
Or how would you explain the + ~5% GDP growth after joining the EU? Mere coincidence? ^^Polish growth rate in 2005 was 3,2 % learn something before posting false information.
This is irrelevant and does says nothing about increased poverty since 1989, stagnant wages, high unemployment. Plus, every poor country has high GNP growth. Nigeria's economic growth is 7%
STILL GOING STRONG
Two Years in the EU
26 April 2006
The economic balance of the first two years of Poland's European Union membership is definitely positive. Most fears voiced by opponents of integration came to nothing, while Polish companies have been doing well in the enlarged European market.
There were many expectations linked to Poland's EU accession, but many fears as well. The greatest economic fears about the initial period of membership included those concerning the negative impact of the suddenly increased competitive pressure on domestic economic trends, combined with difficulties Polish companies would have adjusting to the requirements of the Internal Market, as well as weakened economic growth. Other fears were related to the negative effects in foreign trade (sudden growth of imports and worsening of the balance of trade), drastic inflation growth, deterioration in the situation of the farming population, negative effects on financial flows between Poland and the EU budget (with Poland becoming a net payer).
The first two years in the EU turned out to be a success. Fears of worsened economic trends in Poland and poorer economic growth as a result of the "accession shock" never came true. On the contrary, the acceleration in the development of the Polish economy observed since 2003 has visibly strengthened and consolidated, and strong macroeconomic foundations of growth have been in place.
In 2004 the Polish economy developed at its fastest pace in seven years. The GDP growth rate was 5.3 percent for the whole year. In 2005 GDP grew by 3.2 percent, 2.1 percentage points less than in 2004. It needs remembering, though, that this was a special period. Before Poland joined the EU in May 2004, the Poles got scared of price hikes and went on a huge shopping spree, buying mainly household appliances, cars and building materials but also food. To meet this growing demand, companies increased production and amassed huge reserves. This led to an artificial economic growth of over 6 percent in the first six months of the year.
Poles did not buy so much in 2005. It's no wonder that GDP growth slowed down. The year started off weakly (2-percent economic growth), but this was largely due to the high statistical base. Subsequent quarters of 2005 showed the economy to be regaining its feet. Consumption as well as investment grew, and exports contributed greatly to the growth. The last three months of 2005 were excellent. The start of the year was the worst for the economy, while increased economic activity was reported in the second half. This was particularly visible in investments, whose value grew systematically in the course of the year. On average, they increased by 6.2 percent, but growth in the fourth quarter was somewhere around 9-10 percent. In comparison: in the first quarter of 2005 investments grew by just 1.2 percent. It is a good sign for investments that throughout 2005, companies dealing with preparing land for construction increased their sales by 84 percent and this growth accelerated month by month. That capital outlays are growing means that businesspeople expect the demand for their products to grow. There is every sign that the positive trends in the economy will continue this year.
The economic results achieved by Poland in 2004-05 and those forecast for 2006 look good, especially when the unfavorable external conditions of development are taken into account. They also look good when compared with the development growth rate of the old EU member states and the new member countries from Central and Eastern Europe. Poland's GDP growth rate was among the highest in the region (a slightly larger rate was only reported in the Baltic states-Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. It was also much higher than in the EU-15, which means that in 2004-05 there was a certain decrease in the developmental differences between Poland and those countries.
One of the greatest fears connected with Poland's EU accession was that prices would rise significantly. In particular, these expectations concerned price hikes caused by changes in the VAT and excise tax rates, by the implementation of EU Common Agricultural Policy instruments (increasing the prices for basic agricultural raw materials, especially grains, meat, milk and sugar), and by changes in the costs of production. At the same time, the possibility of price decreases in some cases was emphasized, especially in connection with increased competitive pressure and market demonopolization.
Initially inflation actually did grow, quite substantially. Between April and August 2004, 12-month inflation grew from 2.2 percent to 4.6 percent, and by February 2005 had decreased again to 3.6 percent (compared to 1.6 percent in February 2004). In subsequent months, the inflation rate decreased consistently, and was 0.7 percent in February 2006.
Polish companies on the EU market
With previous EU enlargements, one negative trend was a deterioration in the balance of trade in those countries joining the EU where labor productivity and general economic development levels were lower than those of existing member states. Two years ago there was little reason to fear a "liberalization shock," as the economies of the new member states had been integrating with the European economy for well over 10 years, eliminating any barriers to the free movement of goods long before EU accession. Despite this, many people in Poland said that the inadequate preparedness of Polish companies, high costs of adjusting to functioning on the Internal Market and aggressive competition from foreign businesses could lead to a substantial deterioration of Poland's trade with EU countries. This especially concerned the possible collapse of exports from some industrial sectors, for example the meat processing and dairy industries.
Events in the first few years of accession clearly contradicted these fears. First of all, after EU accession only a short-term acceleration of import growth was noted, not exceeding the growth rate of Polish exports. Unquestionably these were speculation-type imports, especially in the case of goods whose prices were, according to widespread belief, supposed to rise upon EU accession, such as new cars. In general, though, import dynamics remained at a normal level, confirming there was no "liberalization shock."
Secondly, accession was accompanied by a high growth rate for Polish exports, which means that the predictions of substantial problems that Polish companies would have with adjusting were unfounded. Exports grew also for goods as to which such fears were the greatest, to mention meat and dairy products.
Analyzing the impact of EU accession on Poland's foreign trade, one should speak not of a "liberalization shock" but just the opposite-an "EU effect" that resulted in Poland's trade deficit decreasing and exports increasing. This disproved earlier forecasts that the balance of trade would worsen after Poland's EU accession and that many Polish companies would go under due to increased competitive pressure.
Polish companies prepared so well for "defending" their market positions that not only was there no problem with this, but they also launched a successful "attack" on European markets, thanks to which exports increased substantially. Another reason for export growth is the growing importance of large companies with foreign capital in Poland, which are contributing more and more to exports.
The export growth rate was not even hampered by the unusually high exchange rate of the Polish currency. Exporters kept searching for ways of reducing costs and improving quality at the same time. Thanks to the strong zloty, they are now bringing in the latest technologies at extremely advantageous prices. This in turn allows them to expand their range and meet the needs of new markets.
Polish exports have not been harmed by the strong zloty or by the problems of European economies. It has turned out that poor market trends elsewhere in Europe do not necessarily mean problems for Polish exporters. On the contrary, in times of a downward trend, people begin seeking cheaper substitutes for goods they bought previously. This is a gap that Polish companies can fill successfully.
Exports, the driving force of Polish economic growth for the past few years, keep growing. In 2005 Polish companies sold goods worth 71.4 billion euros abroad, which was their best result ever. According to the Central Statistical Office (GUS), the value of exports has doubled from 34.4 billion to 71 billion euros over the past five years. Calculated in U.S. dollars, Polish companies exported goods worth almost $89.3 billion. The value of exports in 2005 grew by 21.1 percent in dollar terms compared with 2004.
Central and Eastern European countries are gaining importance in Polish exports. GUS reports that their share in Poland's total exports has increased from 9 to 10 percent. The share of the EU has decreased by 2 points, to 77.2 percent, though exports to these markets have increased by almost 17 percent. This seemingly contradictory trend stems from the fact that after EU accession it is easier for Polish companies to export to third countries. Sales to Central and Eastern Europe and developing countries grew the fastest in 2005-by more than 30 percent.
Polish exports are founded on a few key industrial sectors. The value of agri-food exports grew by 20 percent in 2005. In the same period, as a result of foreign investment and international cooperation in production, the automotive industry increased its exports by 21 percent.
Analyses show that exporters are the elite of Polish companies. Their better-than-average financial results were no surprise when the euro cost almost zl.5. Today, though, the common currency is more than one-fifth cheaper while exporters are still doing much better than other companies. Profits are reported by 73.3 percent of exporters, while the rate for all companies is 70 percent. Exports also ensure greater profitability of operations than limiting oneself to the domestic market alone. Trade profitability is higher for exporters than for companies overall. That's not all; the more specialized an exporter is, the more profitable their operations. Those who rely on foreign markets-with exports accounting for at least 75 percent of sales-are in a better position than companies that sell up to 25 percent of their goods outside Poland.
Greater confidence in Polish currency
The efficient process of Poland's EU accession was accompanied by a consolidation of growth trends in the economy and continuing healthy foundations of growth. This resulted in a substantial increase in the confidence in Poland's economic policy shown by financial markets, which in turn led to a strong appreciation of the Polish zloty.
In general, a country's currency strengthens when confidence in its stability improves and demand for assets denominated in that currency increases (this leads to an increase in portfolio investment). One trend creating additional pressure on currency appreciation is rapid growth of labor productivity and competitiveness, leading to high export dynamics. Another factor is the increased investment attractiveness of a given country, leading to a larger scale of direct investment coming into the country from abroad. In Poland after EU accession, all these trends appeared simultaneously.
Combined, they resulted in a significant increase of confidence in the Polish currency, leading to a strengthened exchange rate. This trend was clearly visible from May 2004, from the very moment of accession (though accession is not the only factor responsible for it). In April 2004 the euro cost zl.4.76, and in March 2006 it could even be purchased for zl.3.76.
The zloty's strong appreciation was often observed with unease, as excessive demand for the zloty and a too sudden strengthening of the currency can have a negative impact on export expansion. On the other hand, this is mainly the effect of the market's growing confidence in the currency and a reflection of the improved evaluations of Poland's economic development prospects. It should also be remembered that currency appreciation is not an exclusively disadvantageous trend: it limits export competitiveness but also makes imported goods cheaper, encouraging consumption and investment. Thanks to the zloty's appreciation, Polish companies felt the consequences of growing oil prices much less.
The Polish currency's high exchange rate, maintained for months, is not the only indicator of growing confidence in the Polish economy. Poland is once again becoming attractive to foreign capital. Foreigners' level of satisfaction with the possibility of making investments in Poland is also growing. A recent survey of 706 companies with foreign capital, conducted by Indicator Marketing Research Center and commissioned by the Polish Information and Foreign Investment Agency (PAIiIZ), showed that the main factors influencing foreign investors' decisions to start business in Poland include the size of the Polish market and economic development prospects.
The survey results also show the positive impact of Poland's EU accession on the operations of companies with foreign capital. Almost 75 percent of investors say that Poland being included in European structures has improved the conditions for their companies' operations. Investors consider harmonization of Polish law with EU regulations as the greatest benefit of Poland joining the EU.
According to PAIiIZ estimates, the value of foreign direct investment in Poland in 2005 will be comparable to that achieved in 2004, when it was $7.86 billion. This was the highest value since 2000. In 2004 foreign investors created almost 15,000 new jobs. Last year, this figure may have grown to as much as 20,000.
The good investment climate will probably be maintained in Poland in the coming years. Investors' growing interest in Poland is proved by the high places Poland occupies on investment attractiveness ranking lists.
For example, 17 percent of entrepreneurs polled mentioned Poland as the most attractive location for new investments in a survey conducted by consulting firm Ernst & Young. This allowed Poland a ranking of fourth place in the world. In 2005, Poland outpaced the previously three most attractive European countries (Germany, the UK and France) in this ranking. Prospective investors give Poland positive marks for accessibility of land for investment projects and for land prices-from third place among European countries a year before, it is now the leader on the list.
Poland is also competing effectively with its labor costs. Investors appreciate the potential for labor productivity growth as well-in this respect, Poland is outpaced only by the UK, being ahead of the Germans, Czechs and Spanish. Though the value of Polish direct investment in European Union countries cannot yet be compared to foreign investment in Poland, it is clear that the number of Polish companies not afraid to develop their operations on EU markets is growing. Data sent to the Ministry of the Economy by the economic and commercial departments of Polish embassies show that Polish entrepreneurs invest the most in Germany and the Czech Republic (investment in both these countries is estimated at 500 million euros) and other countries in the region.
Most often, Polish investors are small businesses, even single-proprietor ones, active in trade and services. In Ireland for example, especially since Poland joined EU structures, incoming Poles mostly set up small businesses in the construction, trade and catering sectors.
Not only the volume of Polish investment in the EU is growing, but also the number of tenders that Polish companies are winning in EU countries. In 2005 Polish companies won 42 contracts, and only 13 in 2004, according to data from the Public Procurement Office. The value of contracts won by Poles in 2005 reached 124 million euros.
Europe opens up
Economic growth has had a positive impact on the labor market. After seven years of decreases, 2005 brought an increase in employment and a drop in unemployment by 1.4 percentage points, to 17.6 percent in December. Despite a certain improvement, this is still the worst result in the European Union, and the situation was not improved by the Poles' substantial migration to EU countries in search of jobs.
Before enlargement, the problem of opening up labor markets caused a lot of controversy. Many countries of the "old" EU feared that citizens of the new countries would destabilize their labor markets, and therefore introduced transition periods. These fears turned out to be groundless. A European Commission report published at the start of February shows that the movement of workers from the new, Eastern and Central European EU member states to the "old EU" mostly had positive effects. Workers from the new EU-10 helped satisfy the needs of the labor markets and contributed to better economic results in Europe.
This report shows that the countries which did not introduce restrictions as of May 2004 (the UK, Ireland and Sweden) reported high economic growth, a drop in unemployment and increased employment. In the 12 countries which introduced interim regulations, integration of workers who managed to gain legal access to the labor market progressed efficiently. There were some undesirable side effects, though, such as higher levels of illegal labor and fictitious self-employment. Overall in the EU, worker migration was quite limited in scope.
The statistics in the report show that in most countries, the influx of workers from Central and Eastern Europe was lower than expected. There are no signs of growing employee numbers or increased welfare spending after enlargement, compared to the two previous years. Citizens of the new EU-10 accounted for less than 1 percent of the work force in all the countries except Austria (1.4 percent in 2005) and Ireland (3.8 percent in 2005). Ireland reported relatively the largest influx of workers, which contributed to the country's excellent economic results. According to the report, workers from the EU-10 had qualifications which were in demand, while unqualified workers accounted for a smaller percentage among them than they did among local employees in a given country.
From May 2004 to September 2005, 290,000 citizens from the EU-10 started work in the UK, constituting 0.4 percent of all employees. In the same period, Sweden took in 25,000 workers from the EU-10 (0.2 percent of the work force), and Ireland-160,000 (2 percent).
The free movement of employees is one of the four fundamental EU freedoms. The report shows clearly that this free movement does not upset the EU-15 labor market. On the contrary, individual countries and Europe as a whole benefit from it. The report proves that national restrictions have little impact on controlling the flow of workers. According to the report, interim regulations have had little influence on the volume of work force flow from the EU-10 member states; the factors that do have an impact on the flow are related to supply and demand. Many labor permits were issued in the short term or for seasonal work.
Evidence that, contrary to fears voiced before EU enlargement, there was no great worker migration nor any disturbance of labor markets in the old EU countries can be found in Germany, where only 3.5 percent more work applications were reported than the introduced quota for workers from new EU countries. In Italy, the quotas for new EU countries were only 40-percent filled. The old EU countries have seven times more employees from third countries than from new EU countries. According to the Accession Treaty signed in April 2003, member states have until April 30, 2006 to decide whether to abolish national restrictions on the free movement of labor in the EU. The restrictions were introduced in May 2004 by all the EU-15 countries except Ireland, Sweden and the UK for workers from the eight new Central and Eastern European members. Similar restrictions on worker flow in the opposite direction were introduced by three new member states: Poland, Slovenia and Hungary. According to the European Commission, citizens of the new member states could not only make up for shortages in sectors like construction. Highly qualified staff from the EU-10 can also contribute to the creation of new companies and to economic growth in the longer term. Even so, the EC has not found the courage to appeal directly to the old EU to abolish the interim periods for workers from Eastern countries of the EU provided for in the accession treaty. The report states that the EC recommends that the countries analyze thoroughly whether maintaining the restrictions is necessary in the light of the situation on their respective labor markets.
Out of the 12 old EU countries involved, Austria and Germany have already suggested they will extend the interim periods for another three years. Finland, Portugal and Spain are thinking of opening up their labor markets as of this May. The Netherlands decided to lift the restrictions as of January 2007. France has also announced a gradual opening up of its market.
As of May 1, 2006, Iceland will open up its labor market to the new EU members. Though Iceland is not an EU member, it is part of the European Economic Area which accepts most of the EU's directives.
By becoming economically and politically dominated by Germany and flooed with their products ?
I really hate to point out obvious fact, but modern capitalism works with customs and tarrifs also
just to prove you wrong about a good many details:
Open market means OPEN market.
What you want is some old Communist market system which defies the very idea of an free and open market.
We sell more than any other country in terms of total value
If YOU had a similiar, strong economy would you harm yourself (or more specifically your economy) by not selling products to your neighbours?
could you explain to me how EU subsidies are politically strengthening German influence in other countries?
Makes no sense at all as this money is used to keep your own industries working
help in normalizing standards
thus making them more competitive on a global basis.
ou seem to be suffering from extreme cases of German/French-Phobia.
or refuse to apply US introduced principles, such as an open and free market, to other countries.
In which French farmers receive MORE money then Polish farmers.
This seems like unfair advantage.
Considering the fact that it is the EU that sets limits on what Polish farmers can produce it is the EU that resembles communist market.
Yes for example death.
If I had as strong economy while having the same past, I would first compensate for the enourmous destruction I made in WW2.
Making Polish administration and firms going into debt to German banks while paying credit money to German firms of course doesn't strenghten German position towards Poland.
Not at all.
I don't recall Polish industry being put on total hold before EU accession. In fact it has been doing quite well.
I could argue that it should be West Europe that should start normalising standards and become as competitive as Central European countries with their lower taxes, and less welfare state.
EU regulations make firms less competitve because of the high cost of social standards and enviromental standards they set.
No I am afraid it is you that suffers from typical German arrogance and stereotypes against Poland.
If it would, there would be no barriers for Polish workers in EU and French farmers wouldn't receive more money then Polish ones.
If you had bothered to check the actual EU budget numbers you would have realized that Poland receives much more money than France for almost all other sectors, such as infrastructure etc.
But farmers insist there have been downsides to joining the CAP. Their chief complaint is that they only receive 30% of "direct payments" - the cash handed out per hectare of land - that go to farmers in older EU members. Polish farmers will have to wait until 2013 to receive the same level of "direct payments" as those in Germany.
But hey, we're doing everything we can to prove our ignorance, e.g. ignoring facts. ^^
I think you don't understand basic economic theories and treaties yet.
Fact is: The Polish, no the whole EU agriculture sector is totally useless. Subsidization here is a relic of the past and equals Protectionism par excellence with French famers already totally depending on those subsidies. African and South American countries produce goods far superior in terms of costs than we do. Anyway, you joined the club (EU), so now you have to deal with it - or feel free to leave Wink
Anyway, you joined the club (EU), so now you have to deal with it - or feel free to leave Wink
I think this proves your German/France antipathy
Germany compensated most countries up until 1953 when there was a general agreement (which includes Poland) to drop any further form of compensation/reparation.
You got your money and now you're bitching like a 3 year old child.
did you realize almost all (except maybe Liechtenstein or San Marino) countries have a national public debt which depends on foreign loans?
And i don't recall Polish industry being put on total hold now -
Anyway, they were doing well compared to what? Western countries? Hardly.
noone cared about those markets before some of them joined the EU.
Now, commerce and new industries result in constant growth for all countries involved.
but i'd rather keep the West European welfare system.
t is doing quite well for most Nordic countries and if Germany wasn't suffering from Past-Reunification effects
Central and East Europe isn't competitive at all right now
Atomic waste, who cares?
And social standards .. who needs that nonsense anyway?
My ancestors (grandparents) were living near Pszczyna,
Once Poland pays as much money for the EU as France, Polish farmers will have the right to complain.
Germany has the second biggest Polonia population on this planet -> around 3 million Poles or people of Polish origin living and working in Germany, so i somehow doubt Germany is THAT evil wrt Polish working permits (
Yaaawn, the propaganda again.You are only mentioning structural funds. Try to learn something before you post.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,73 ... 17,00.html
Well of course, I am a Pole, and we are known by our stupidity.Thankfully we have the ubermensch Germans to explain to us that we receive more then they, although Polish farmers get 70% less...
Well, of course. I am just a subhuman.
I don't see in your whole post there any responce towards the fact that EU sets the limit of what farmers can produce,thus making it look more like communism then free market.
Gladly, just give us 630 bilion of war compensations, so we can rebuild our country by using them instead of taking credit from German banks in EU.
Well I am very sorry that I can't evoke any enthusiasm for your benevolent slaughter of milions of Poles, who were likely too "ignorant" of their place under the Sun according to Germany.
There was no such agreement.
Now it is you who bitches like mad that Germany is soo generous because it gives Poles credit to pay German firms.
I can only hope they don't take loans from countries that are as hostile to them as Germany is to Poland.
And I don't recall writing it is. But I do recall you boasting in your usuall show of German arrogance that it wasn't existing before we joined EU
Shade2 wrote: don't recall Polish industry being put on total hold before EU accession. In fact it has been doing quite well.
Your bloated welfare system and high taxes make it a child's play to compete with Western Europe.
Of course. In eyes of German nationalists Germany is so very superior that it never makes mistakes. It only fails because of Jews or Reunificatio, never because of failed policies or bad governmence.
Yes that is why Polish firms move to Germany.Right ?
Yes because Poland has 40 nuclear reactors. I see your German education pays off.
Social standards were quite ok before we joined EU.
Maybe they were part of Selbstschutz ?
Care to point me to EU regulation that ties EU rights to size of payments to EU budget ? Where is it ?
Sure Germany treats Poles in Germany with the usuall love it is known for:
are you just .. you know .. totally ignorant or not capable of processing (reading) replies?
Again you post an article dealing with farm subsidies when we (or at least i was) were talking about EU total subsidies which includes other sectors.
You are the one who constantly brings up hate tirades, constantly flames and attacks.
Thankfully there are other Poles who actually understand facts and understand the importance of a free market and basic economics.
. As the majority of Poland supports the EU you ARE part of a Polish minority
and actually wants to strengthen German <> Polish relations,
OMG, those quotas exist .
For the third time ... you didn't want anymore money in 1953/70 and now you do? LOL
You do really have a problem you know ...
There was, check the quote above.
If we were hostile we would have stopped you from joining the EU
re, let me quote you once again as it seems you forgot what you wrote:
List of countries by GDP (nominal)
1 Luxembourg 76,215
2 Norway 45,449
4 Ireland 45,135
6 Denmark 37,406
8 Austria 36,409
9 Switzerland 35,067
10 Finland 34,162
11 Belgium 33,908
14 Netherlands 33,079
15 United Kingdom 32,993
17 Germany 32,684
50 Poland 14,609
I think i don't need to comment on this.
Err, your reply has absolutely nothing to do with my original argument.
It was an exaggeration.
So leave the EU.
Oh yeah, that's rich - more insults and comparing my grandparents to Nazis in disguise.
If you're moving to Germany, living and working here you are treated as a German. Why should you be treated as a Pole?
nor do i see the need to have foreign minorities becoming part of a German government and vice versa. You shouldn't have German minorities as part of your adminstration.
I want it to become a loyal partner to USA and to contain German imperialism.
This post is devoid of argument. Kinda like you[…]
So, we have evidence that migrants often voted in […]
I don’t think that is what he was referring to. I[…]
it is very difficult to determine who the stupid[…]