Europe--is it working? is it a success?

[Pure]

The topic seems to drive Americans crazy. Does Europe work, i.e., function successfully? Or, from the opposite perspective, is it repressive through socialist bureaucracy, stagnant in economic terms, and a mainly negative exemplar of developing human potential?

I have in mind particularly the 'advanced', high standard of living countries such as Sweden and Finland. I'm not mainly talking about SouthEastern Europe, e.g., problems in Romania and Bulgaria.

The West European health systems drive American conservatives to apoplexy; which might mean they are working. Are they, or not?

Recently Charles Murray, perhaps conceding material prosperity to Europe, offered a moral critique: the populace are lax hedonists, undone by socialism.

In Europe, he[Murray] says with evident disdain, ``the purpose of life is to while away the time as pleasantly as possible.''

[[Correction apr 5: In Murray's description of a state that makes life too easy, the 'welfare state', he asserts such a politics involves an assumption that, in Murray's word's 'the purpose of life is to while away the time as pleasantly as possible.' I infer, as did at least one reviewer [Ferguson], that Murray had the West European social democracies in mind.]]

Are Europeans corrupted? or are they--at least in W. Europe and Scandinavia-- living well as human beings, enjoying the relative success of democratic 'solutions' to social problems.

So this is a Europe thread, designed to call upon Lit. members living in Europe or familiar with it (other than by reading Human Events).

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Sorry to jump the line in front of the real Europeans (what do you expect from a bumptious yank?)

"Europe's loss of power, influence and importance continues to this day; and however much one's material circumstances may have improved (just take a look at photographs of daily life in France or Britain in the 1950s and compare them to daily life there today), it is always unpleasant, and creates a sense of deep existential unease, to live in a country perpetually in decline, even if that decline is merely relative."

Theodore Dalrymple, Is “Old Europe” Doomed?
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/02/06/theodore-dalrymple/is-old-europe-doomed/

Sorry again - It's "Cato Unbound," not "Human Events." Close enough?

 

[Liar]

Does Europe work, i.e., function successfully?

Compared to what? Compared to the US? SOME parts run about as smoothly. But Europe is as politically, eceonomically, buerocratically and corruptionally diverse as North America from the polar cap to Panama. Including Cuba.

Western Europe as in Germany, BeNeLux, Britain, France, Spain, Scandinavia et al?

Well, at least the trains run on time.
Sometimes.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

There is some truth to most, if not all, of those choices. Corruption, spinelessness in the face of international strategic menaces, excessive America-bashing, inefficiency, wedded to incredible freedoms in civil liberties that we are still having to fight for over here. The truth is more complex than either Europhiles and Euro-bashers care to admit.

 

[oggbashan]

The topic seems to drive Americans crazy. Does Europe work, i.e., function successfully?

Ask us in 100 years time. At present the European Union is still developing and trying hard to absorb the recent expansion. There is conflict between the models of a future Europe that will continue for years.

The European health systems drive American conservatives to apoplexy; which might mean they are working.

Yes they are in general. There are problems in specific areas. UK dentistry is going through another crisis as from 1 April.

The significant differences are better state funded systems for those who cannot afford insurance or who are bad risks; and much lower costs for medical treatment. Travel insurance health cover of one million pounds, or even a quarter of that would be adequate anywhere in Europe for any eventuality. Five million is considered essential for travel to the US.

A road accident victim in the UK will be treated free even if a foreign visitor. How the bill, however large, would be settled, if it all, is not a consideration. The cost MIGHT be recovered from the car insurers.

Recently Charles Murray, perhaps conceding material prosperity to Europe, had a moral critique: the populace are undone by socialism.

In Europe, he[Murray] says with evident disdain, ``the purpose of life is to while away the time as pleasantly as possible.''

That is not true of all countries, or even of most. It is a different approach. Almost all European countries expect that their economically weaker citizens should be supported by those who are economically stronger. There are arguments about 'freeloaders' in general but very few actual individuals are sponging off the system compared with the popular assumptions. Those that are, are probably unemployable anyway, and making the best of their situation. One of our disabled charities put it very well recently - they portrayed a wheelchair-bound man who had offensive views with the message 'Not all arseholes are physically perfect'. A person can be disabled and objectionable (and objectionable and not disabled). What they were trying to convey is that state or voluntary charity is not necessarily welcome even if essential to the individual.

So this is a Europe thread, designed to call upon Lit. members living in Europe or familiar with it (other than by reading Human Events).

Europe is an idea more visible from outside than in. Many UK citizens would never think of themselves as 'European' - Europe starts the other side of the Channel. Many UK citizens do not see themselves as part of the UK - for examples, they are English, Scots, Welsh or even Bangladeshi-descended English. The ability to see oneself as part of a much wider community than one's family, friends, immediate community etc. is rare.

Og

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Ask us in 100 years time. At present the European Union is still developing and trying hard to absorb the recent expansion. There is conflict between the models of a future Europe that will continue for years.




Yes they are in general. There are problems in specific areas. UK dentistry is going through another crisis as from 1 April.

The significant differences are better state funded systems for those who cannot afford insurance or who are bad risks; and much lower costs for medical treatment. Travel insurance health cover of one million pounds, or even a quarter of that would be adequate anywhere in Europe for any eventuality. Five million is considered essential for travel to the US.

A road accident victim in the UK will be treated free even if a foreign visitor. How the bill, however large, would be settled, if it all, is not a consideration. The cost MIGHT be recovered from the car insurers.



That is not true of all countries, or even of most. It is a different approach. Almost all European countries expect that their economically weaker citizens should be supported by those who are economically stronger. There are arguments about 'freeloaders' in general but very few actual individuals are sponging off the system compared with the popular assumptions. Those that are, are probably unemployable anyway, and making the best of their situation. One of our disabled charities put it very well recently - they portrayed a wheelchair-bound man who had offensive views with the message 'Not all arseholes are physically perfect'. A person can be disabled and objectionable (and objectionable and not disabled). What they were trying to convey is that state or voluntary charity is not necessarily welcome even if essential to the individual.



Europe is an idea more visible from outside than in. Many UK citizens would never think of themselves as 'European' - Europe starts the other side of the Channel. Many UK citizens do not see themselves as part of the UK - for examples, they are English, Scots, Welsh or even Bangladeshi-descended English. The ability to see oneself as part of a much wider community than one's family, friends, immediate community etc. is rare.

Og

Similar to America in many ways during the Articles of Confederation. Except for the socialism.

 

[oggbashan]

Similar to America in many ways during the Articles of Confederation. Except for the socialism.

The major difference is that many of the countries making up the European Union have been fighting each other for centuries, apart from internal conflicts.

Many of the countries now part of Europe did not exist in their present form when the Declaration of Independence was signed e.g. Germany, Italy.

A Scot may not think of him/herself as British and the step beyond that to European?

The socialism? Part of it stems from the impact of World War 1 and 2. There were many disabled men after WWI who deserved well of their community. After WWII both soldiers and civilians had been injured; homes and businesses had been destroyed wholesale - countries needed help to recover and some got it through Marshall Aid.

It was difficult not to see the need to look after the disabled when there were so many of them. The US never had to suffer the destruction that Europe endured in WWII. When your town/city has been reduced to rubble, helping yourself and your neighbours is essential. Economic activity alone could not rebuild when so much was in ruins.

Socialism is not a dirty word even if Socialist political parties have done their best to make it so. There are so many words that have lost their original meaning because they have been adopted by politicians. 'Caring for your neighbours when they need help' is what most European socialism (small 's') is about.

Og

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

It's certainly going to be a struggle. It would be like the CSA rejoining the Union after centuries of independence, or Mormon Deseret, if either had actually gained their independence.

 

[oggbashan]

One of the most controversial subjects in Europe is 'subsidiarity' - the idea that individual state's and regional cultural identities can be maintained while still co-operating as a European whole.

It is a problem that faces all large scale organisations - the conflict between central driven initiatives and local parochial interest.

Unfortunately the original members of the European Union never settled that conflict and it still continues, exacerbated by the addition of many new members who have differing ideas of what they expect from a united Europe and what they can bring to a united Europe.

There is goodwill. There are also severe problems with the administration and political structures.

Og

 

[neonlyte]

The topic seems to drive Americans crazy. Does Europe work, i.e., function successfully? Or, from the opposite perspective, is it repressive through socialist bureaucracy, stagnant in economic terms, and a mainly negative exemplar of developing human potential?

I need to break this down to begin to provide my answers.
First off, I divide my time pretty equally between the UK and Portugal. In the last couple of years, I've visited - to work, not holiday - Poland, Ireland, Spain, Iceland and Norway (the latter two are not in EU but in the Economic Trading Extension of EU).

Does Europe work / function successfully?
Yes it works. Whether it works in a way we desire or optimally is a matter of interpretation. The Poles, the ones I speak with, are pretty mixed about Europe. They have huge benefits, travel, ability to work abroad, tourism, investment and corruption on unprecedented scales. But their infrastructure lags so far behind the standard of the developed countries of Europe that almost anywhere looks 'economically' better than Poland. Last year they only managed to spend 30% of their allocated EU capital budget, they simply lack the basic administrative infrastructure to plan, organise and develop major programmes. What will and is happening is 'foreign' EU companies move into Poland and take on the planning and development programmes, ensuring EU funds are spent and profits repatriated out of Poland. In a sense this doesn't matter, the money effectively comes out and stays within the same pot. Many workers have left Poland 350k to the UK alone in 2005. You will not find many non-white people in Poland. I asked Poles about this last year - they tell me no Pole would employ a non-white person, Poland is racially segregated by the simple expedience of not providing employment. On the other hand, they are the most religiously integrated nation in Europe. In the city of Lublin, where I had the good fortune to stay, there are Polish Catholics, Russian Orthodox, Ukranian, Jewish, Franciscans and Protestant Churches, there appears to be no desire to dwell on religious difference, and a desire to share Christian experience.

Similarly, there are very few non-white people in Ireland, not in employment. Dublin yes, you will find a few, but go outside of the capital and you non-whites are both a rarity and an oddity. Ireland is prosperous. The once poor Ireland is all but vanquished, it has played the EU card superbly - except in its food which I found for the most part to be crap, shop food I'm talking about, not restaurants. The big UK supermarkets are investing heavily in Ireland (and Poland), they will rationalise the food distribution chain in the next few years and most of the appauling fare offered for sale will disappear - along with the shops and small family businesses.

Norway - fabulously wealthy through North Sea oil, culturally supreme in Europe, you have to take my word for this, I'm not talking about Norse culture but the ability to economically support a thriving artistic community nationwide of home and foreign talent, new talent whose impact will be felt in future generations. Norway is the only place where I've every seen female road workers - and I do mean women digging up the road. There seem to be few problems with ethnicity, except with their fellow Scandinavians, and they take in their stride the worlds highest, number per head of population, of children born out of wedlock. But the thing that really impresses me about Norway is the relationship between men and women at the family level - they are absolute equals and if it isn't working the man gets kicked out, replaced or 'educated' to get his act together. What I dislike about Norway is the tendency toward overt Nationalism, May in Norway can be Nationalistically challenging with a proponderance of national flags, uniforms, national dress - I'm told it less to do with nationalism than it is to do with 'keeping up with the Jones's' an English expression which comes down to 'my flag is bigger than yours'.

Iceland - worryingly rich and no one seems to know how. Elections soon, essentially on shall we join the EU and how do we keep their stinking hands off our fish. I had a strange experience when in Iceland during Xmas 2004 - big family gatherings and I was being introduced, mostly to women, who greeted me with a twinkle in their eyes. Years before I'd passed to my Icelandic friend my recipe of Chocolate Moouse, this recipe has made me famous in Iceland, it is printed in newspapers and magazines, it is on Lit somewhere.

That leave UK and Portugal. Well Portugal has sold itself to Spain. Can you blame them. There is nothing here except the sea and the sun and the Portuguese are banned by the EU from fishing - I kid you not. We (in Portugal) are in the midst of a great cultural change - in twenty years the Portugal I love will have all but vanished. Bits will linger on, but the cultural heritage of Portugal is heamorraging away, and nobody seems to care. I have great friends here, huge figures in the Arts - they are all looking for a way out. We are culturally broke - and yet... Portugal receives more money per head of population than any other EU state. Where does it go?

As far as the UK goes... I prefer Portugal, I'll leave it at that.

So does it work? Yes, but it depends what you want. If you want peace and stability it is great. If you want medicine, Portugal is great for diagnosis but have your operation in UK. If you want medicine in the UK - get insurance, the National Health Service will crumble and rise again. God help you if you are ill during the crumble phase. My own treatment cost £8k over two months - thank God for insurance. My daughters boyfriend has been ill with severe stomach pains since Christmas, he has a 4 week cycle of analysis and consultant, he's lost his job, will have to repeat his last college year, he's reduced to a shell and no one, not my daughter whose a Manager with the NHS or his mother who works in the NHS can do anything to speed his treatment.

So is it successful? Yes - for the moment it has brought peace and stability, it suceeds for Europe, for the whole, I'm yet to be convinced that it works for the individual.

 

[TheEarl]

What is Europe? I'm not European. I very rarely feel British and I would never describe myself as a European. As Liar said, that's like asking whether the continents of America run smoothly.

For a start, the talk of socialism is a nonsense in England. Technically we have a left-wing government in, but they're blatantly not, at least by English standards. England works pretty well, although the public services are being choked by 'Big Government' and unnecessary bureaucracy. A lot of money is being poured in, but not a lot is coming out by the time it's filtered through the committee and workshops.

I personally would favour a more right-wing government, as per that proposed by the Conservatives at the last election. However, that opposition party was tainted by past sins and so never stood a chance, no matter how good the policies were, so we're left with Blair.

So, generally good, but could do better. I'll let the other nations decide on their summary.

The Earl

 

[amicus]

Dear Ogbashan, permit me to state that I do consider 'socialism' large or small s, as a dirty word, as an obscene concept.

You take on the role as a modern day apologist for abject human slavery, as did those in Germany in the 20's and 30's and those in the Soviet Union during the same time period and later into mid century.

We were told how magnificent the 'fatherland' was and how the great socialist dream was being realized by the Russian people. Lies then, lies now, just as your apology for the slow disentegration of Europe continues to this day.

Socialism is a sickness of the human spirit and should be treated as a disease, eliminated ruthlessly with extreme preventative measures taken to forestall any other outbreaks.

Socialism is comparative to Christianity in its debilitation of the human spirit. Christianity demands you sacrifice your individual soul and existence to God and be reborn, Socialism demands you sacrifice your individual soul and identity to the 'greater good'. In either case, the individual ceases to exist and merges into the faceless crowd.

My graduate thesis in political science was an assertion that human freedom as expressed through art and literature, would thrive in a free society and be minimal in a controlled or 'socialist' society.

It really pissed my professors off big time, but the thesis was valid and provable.

You might make a similar comparison between european socialist nations and the free nations of the world; and, you might be surprised at what you find.


amicus...

 

[TheEarl]

Addendum to say: I don't believe Britain should be in the EU. We don't make use of it, because the majority in Britain do not want to be European. So we fudge and go halfway and end up worse off than if we'd stayed out.

I'd be far more in favour of us being in a European Trading Area like Switzerland, Iceland and Norway.

The Earl

 

[Pure]

thanks, neon, (note to theearl)

that's very informative stuff. though from a distance, i'm greatly impressed by Norway as vibrant, creative, and high living standard.

i'm quite informed about Finland, since I know more than a dozen people there, and some come to visit Canada each year. i think it leads in the availabilty and applications of communication high-technology, internet hookups per person, and so on.



PS to the Earl.

I particularly used the word Europe, so as to leave the British issue as possibly separate, though of course Britain pioneered in National Health Care.

 

[TheEarl]

Dear Ogbashan, permit me to state that I do consider 'socialism' large or small s, as a dirty word, as an obscene concept.

...

You might make a similar comparison between european socialist nations and the free nations of the world; and, you might be surprised at what you find.


amicus...

By your standards, that would mean I consider you a murderer and an apologist for genocide by supporting the death of people who cannot afford treatment for their easily cured medical problem. I would also consider you an advocate of slavery, as you support no free education, which means the poor will get poorer, as their children cannot be schooled and eventually end up unemployed or in virtual slavery for coppers.

That's by your standards. By mine, I consider you someone who holds a differing political opinion, which I think is far more civil.

Maybe you could try and keep your conversation at my level, rather than descending into inflammatory rhetoric?

The Earl

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Addendum to say: I don't believe Britain should be in the EU. We don't make use of it, because the majority in Britain do not want to be European. So we fudge and go halfway and end up worse off than if we'd stayed out.

I'd be far more in favour of us being in a European Trading Area like Switzerland, Iceland and Norway.

The Earl

That must take guts to admit these days. I'm not really sure who is right about European unity. I can see both sides' points (not wanting to be dragged down by the East's troubles vs. wanting to combine economic strengths). I am still not sure how that will work out with the Queen and all. Can a united Europe include both monarchy and republics? Anyway, I respect your courage in expressing your doubts.

 

[Pure]

Question for those living in Europe

Have the people been drained of life? I supposes this is a variant of the longtime assertion of Americans that Europe is effete, lacking in drive, and innovation, locked in the past, and so on. [ The implication is that America, by comparison is vigorous, dynamic, creative. But lets leave the US comparison aside.]


I would like to hear comments on this statement:

[Interviewer] LOPEZ: What does this statement mean? “The welfare state drains too much of the life from life.”

[Charles]MURRAY: A meaningful friendship does not consist of sharing backyard barbecues; a satisfying marriage does not consist of two people living together; a vibrant community is not created by yard sales. All of these relationships are given weight and consequence by the elemental events of life — birth, death, raising children, paying the rent, comforting the sad, joining together to do things that need getting done and (crucial point here) having responsibility for getting those things done. The welfare state says of too many important functions in life, “We’ll take care of that.” The natural human response is to say, “Okay, you do it.” And in this transfer of responsibility the welfare state has drained too much of the life from life.

[excerpt fron In Our Hands:]
In Europe, the purpose of life is to while away the time as pleasantly as possible.

[[Correction apr 5: In Murray's description of a state that makes life too easy, the 'welfare state', he asserts such a politics involves an assumption that, in Murray's word's 'the purpose of life is to while away the time as pleasantly as possible.' I infer, as did at least one reviewer [Ferguson], that Murray had the West European social democracies in mind.]]



[end]

 

[Equinoxe]

I am still not sure how that will work out with the Queen and all. Can a united Europe include both monarchy and republics?

A good percentage of EU member nations are monarchies, in addition to the United Kingdom: Spain, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg (Grand Duchy).

However, most of the member nations, and most of the major nations (three of the four trillion dollar plus economies), such as France, Italy, Germany, are not.

 

[oggbashan]

Addendum to say: I don't believe Britain should be in the EU. We don't make use of it, because the majority in Britain do not want to be European. So we fudge and go halfway and end up worse off than if we'd stayed out.

I'd be far more in favour of us being in a European Trading Area like Switzerland, Iceland and Norway.

The Earl

I have used European initiatives, in conjunction with many others, to bring money, employment and regeneration to my town and the towns twinned with us in France and Germany.

How? By understanding and working the systems to help deprived areas. None of the towns involved were or are deprived by African standards but suffered from unemployment that could not be solved by 'getting on your bike and looking for work'.

We still have some way to go to offer employment to all local undereducated young men. Whether we will ever achieve that? I doubt it. What we can do is try to get them back into education with a prospect of meaningful employment afterwards.

European funding is still bringing hope to parts of my county affected by major changes in industry. It may be the UK's money coming back from Europe but it does help - to the tune of many millions of pounds, just as US government funds go to help parts of the US suffering from major changes in employment structures. Is the US government 'socialist' when it spends money in states that have lost industries? What is so different?

Amicus always confuses socialism and communism. The UK is not and never has been a Socialist state even under Labour governments. The current Labour government is not regarded as 'socialist' (again lower case 's') by socialist parties in the rest of Europe.

I still believe that it is possible to change Europe for the better from within. It would not be possible if we were outside it.

Og

 

[TheEarl]

That must take guts to admit these days. I'm not really sure who is right about European unity. I can see both sides' points (not wanting to be dragged down by the East's troubles vs. wanting to combine economic strengths). I am still not sure how that will work out with the Queen and all. Can a united Europe include both monarchy and republics? Anyway, I respect your courage in expressing your doubts.

It's not really a doubt as a flat out opinion, to be honest and I'm fairly certain I'm not alone. The EU is not overly popular in Britain and the majority are still very much against the Euro, a European charter, a European defence force, unified taxtion or any of the things that will need to come into effect to make the bloody thing work.

The UK Independence Party had a fairly good run over the last round of elections, although it then shot itself in the foot by infighting.

I would like to hear comments on this statement:

[end]

Short answer: He doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm very happy not to have to worry about whether I'll get taken care of if a car runs me down. Surprisingly, I don't consider becoming instantly broke through a car accident a fun part of life.

The only times you get something for nothing is when that is an essential something. To me, pain and shortage of vitals isn't part of the juice of life.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

I have used European initiatives, in conjunction with many others, to bring money, employment and regeneration to my town and the towns twinned with us in France and Germany.

How? By understanding and working the systems to help deprived areas. None of the towns involved were or are deprived by African standards but suffered from unemployment that could not be solved by 'getting on your bike and looking for work'.

We still have some way to go to offer employment to all local undereducated young men. Whether we will ever achieve that? I doubt it. What we can do is try to get them back into education with a prospect of meaningful employment afterwards.

European funding is still bringing hope to parts of my county affected by major changes in industry. It may be the UK's money coming back from Europe but it does help - to the tune of many millions of pounds, just as US government funds go to help parts of the US suffering from major changes in employment structures. Is the US government 'socialist' when it spends money in states that have lost industries? What is so different?

Amicus always confuses socialism and communism. The UK is not and never has been a Socialist state even under Labour governments. The current Labour government is not regarded as 'socialist' (again lower case 's') by socialist parties in the rest of Europe.

I still believe that it is possible to change Europe for the better from within. It would not be possible if we were outside it.

Og

I keep looking out to the amount taken out compared to the amount put in by Britain. There's a significant imbalance.

At the risk of sounding self-centred, I'm not sure it's worth trying to improve Europe. Britain as a country will function better (IMHO) from outside, trading within. We share few of their values, economic or political, we hate them and we hate the idea of being subsumed into the State of Europe. Britain should look after its own interests and they are not being served by being inside Europe.

The Earl

 

[3113]

The EU is not overly popular in Britain and the majority are still very much against the Euro.

So you don't think the UK will switch to Euros anytime soon? How is the Euro working out?

 

[oggbashan]

I would like to hear comments on this statement:

[Interviewer] LOPEZ: What does this statement mean? “The welfare state drains too much of the life from life.”

...
In Europe, the purpose of life is to while away the time as pleasantly as possible.

[end]

Bullshit!

There is no such thing as a 'welfare state' that is common across Europe. The European countries have very different systems that can vary even within countries. In some countries the 'welfare' systems are much less generous than in the US.

The 'welfare state' in the UK is still evolving and changing. Most of our working population would disagreee with both statements quoted above. We work the longest hours in Europe, often without payment for overtime, and our leisure time is reducing yearly. It is likely that many of our current workers will have to continue in work until their 70s if they are not to be reduced to relative poverty in retirement.

It is difficult to make any statement about 'Europe' without qualifying it with many exceptions. 'Europe' is still an idea, not a reality. Even the UK 'United Kingdom' isn't much more than an idea. The Scots and Welsh have their own parliaments and then there are the tiers of local government. The differences between a lowland Scot and a Londoner are immense and they wouldn't necessarily recognise each other as citizens of the same country (and in sport they usually aren't).

Og

 

[amicus]

TheEarl]By your standards, that would mean I consider you a murderer and an apologist for genocide by supporting the death of people who cannot afford treatment for their easily cured medical problem. I would also consider you an advocate of slavery, as you support no free education, which means the poor will get poorer, as their children cannot be schooled and eventually end up unemployed or in virtual slavery for coppers.

That's by your standards. By mine, I consider you someone who holds a differing political opinion, which I think is far more civil.

Maybe you could try and keep your conversation at my level, rather than descending into inflammatory rhetoric?

The Earl

[/B]
~~~~~~~~~

Inflammatory rhetoric? Moi? Say it ain't true.

A murderer and an apologist for genocide because I think medicine should be a free market enterprise and not forced by government? Slavery because I don't advocated forcing children to attend forced taxation supported schools?

That is what can happen when one does not define ones terms. Doublespeak, wasn't that part of the novel 1984? I advocate freedom, you call it slavery.

Do you think all who read here are deaf dumb and blind? They know, as well as I do that you simply 'don't get it', on most issues.

amicus....

 

[neonlyte]

Have the people been drained of life? I supposes this is a variant of the longtime assertion of Americans that Europe is effete, lacking in drive, and innovation, locked in the past, and so on. [ The implication is that America, by comparison is vigorous, dynamic, creative. But lets leave the US comparison aside.]


I would like to hear comments on this statement:

[Interviewer] LOPEZ: What does this statement mean? “The welfare state drains too much of the life from life.”

[Charles]MURRAY: A meaningful friendship does not consist of sharing backyard barbecues; a satisfying marriage does not consist of two people living together; a vibrant community is not created by yard sales. All of these relationships are given weight and consequence by the elemental events of life — birth, death, raising children, paying the rent, comforting the sad, joining together to do things that need getting done and (crucial point here) having responsibility for getting those things done. The welfare state says of too many important functions in life, “We’ll take care of that.” The natural human response is to say, “Okay, you do it.” And in this transfer of responsibility the welfare state has drained too much of the life from life.

[excerpt fron In Our Hands:]
In Europe, the purpose of life is to while away the time as pleasantly as possible.

[end]

The problem from my perspective is that you cannot begin to answer this question for 'Europe'. You can discuss the condition that prevail within the individual nation states that comprise Europe - the variation is collosal and has deep cultural and social roots, much more so than might be imagined at cursory glance.

This gives rise to all manner of misunderstanding about the functionality of 'life' within Europe and the roles individuals perceive themselves to have in perpetuating an identity within the European context. Put broadly, most of 'us' wish to retain a national idenity even within the EU nation state, the political structure of the EU effectively perpetuates nationhood almost because it is the single marker left - everything is scacrificed to the economic and political idenity of the whole except those cultural nuances which serve to idenitify the nation within the whole. Thus we have the farcical situation last week when the French President walked out of an EU presentation on Energy because a Frenchman was addressing the assembly in English.

The reason I find myself uncomfortable in UK is not because I can travel through vast parts of London and not hear English spoken. It's not because I get charged a fortune to park my car just because I need to go to my bank. It's not because indiviualism is culturally frowned upon. It's not because statistically a man can rape fifty women without being charged by the police, and it's not because the qualities that make for a good life are rapidly becoming the preserve of the wealthy.

It is because - taken as a whole - and I mean no offence to the many English members of this Forum, we are a bunch of two faced selfish, self centred gits, who practice hypocracy as if it were the calling card for the afterlife. Recent UK government figures show we have an immigrant population of about 8%, that 8% produces 10.5% of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) ie - without the immigrants we'd be fucked. So what does the latest YouGov survey tell us? 59% of 'us' want a limit on immigration. 29% of us want the immigrants sent back. And if you go into any public building or restaurant in London and take a look at the workers - they are immigrants, virtually every last one of them.

And yet on one in the England I know holds these views. It is a paradox - a nationalistic paradox like the French and the language, like the Begians and chocolate, like the Finns and mobile phones.

If I werte younger and could chose anywhere to live, I'd live in Norway. There education is the founding stone upon which everything else is based. It is not perfect but it is a start, an essential start because everything else stems from what you tell
your children.