PDA

View Full Version : How has the EU changed Europe?



Brooker
12-03-05, 11:22
When I first heard about the formation of the EU, I gotta admit, I was skeptical. I couldn't believe that European countries that had fought so much historically, could unite and work together, but it seems to be working. How do you think the formation of the EU has changed things in Europe?

Maciamo
12-03-05, 11:38
Well, it has been over 50 years since the European Coal and Steel Community, the first predecessor of the EU, was founded in 1951. The EEC was founded in 1957, and the Eu in 1992. it's 17 years that the European nationality and parliament exist and that Europeans are free to live and work anywhere inside the EU without visa. Likewise the university exchange programme of the EU Socrates (http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/socrates_en.html) came into being in 1994 (altough preceded by Erasmus since 1987), so it's over a decade that most European uni students have the opportunity to study one or several semesters in another EU country at minimum cost.

All these things have helped the younger generations to feel more European, and understand and appreciate their neighbours better than ever before. This has been further reinforced by the Euro.

I think that in spite of differences in languages and cultures, European people share a lot together. There are common European values, and there certainly is a sense of community created by sharing a common history, continent and similar political and educational systems (now also a common currency). Of course, Sicilians will never be like the Finns or vice versa, but that's what makes Europe interesting. :-)

Brooker
12-03-05, 11:59
I was going to ask which countries were members, but then I found this site. (http://userpage.chemie.fu-berlin.de/adressen/eu.html)

Maciamo
12-03-05, 14:55
Well, I also wrote this page : http://www.eupedia.com/fact_sheet_europe.shtml

You can find out more details about the EU on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union) or even better, the newly redesigned EU's official website (http://europa.eu.int/) (available in the 20 official languages)

I think that this particular page page (http://europa.eu.int/abc/12lessons/index9_en.htm) will answer a lot of questions regarding Europe's common values. Here are some excerpt :


Fundamental rights
...
The European Union's commitment to citizens' rights was confirmed in Nice in December 2000 when the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was solemnly proclaimed. This Charter was drawn up by a Convention composed of members of the national and European parliaments, representatives of the national governments and a member of the Commission. Under six headings - Dignity, Freedoms, Equality, Solidarity, Citizens' rights and Justice - its 54 articles spell out the European Union's fundamental values and the civil, political, economic and social rights of the EU citizen.
...
The Charter also promotes equality between men and women and introduces rights such as data protection, a ban on eugenic practices and the reproductive cloning of human beings, the right to environmental protection, the rights of children and elderly people and the right to good administration.
...
Europe means culture and education
...
First steps include the EU's educational and training programmes such as Erasmus (which promotes student mobility), Comett (technological education and training) and Lingua, which encourages people to learn foreign languages. More than a million students have been able to study abroad thanks to the Erasmus programme.

The European Union has set itself the target of having 10% of its students spend one year in another European country taking a higher education course. To achieve this, more EU funds will have to be invested in education policy. Further progress in this direction should be possible thanks to the Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth programmes.

The Directive on Television without frontiers gives viewers better access to television programmes produced in Europe: European broadcasters must include a certain percentage of European programmes in their schedules. The Directive introduces stronger measures to protect young viewers and to support programmes by independent producers, and it lays down rules on advertising and teleshopping.
...
A sense of belonging

The idea of a 'citizens' Europe' is very new. Making it a reality will mean, among other things, rallying popular support for symbols that represent shared European identity. Things like the European model of passport (in use since 1985), the European anthem (Beethoven's Ode to Joy) and the European flag (a circle of 12 golden stars on a blue background). EU model driving licences have been issued in all member states since 1996.

Since 1979, the European Parliament has been directly elected by universal suffrage.
...
To help bring the EU closer to its citizens, the treaty on European Union created the post of Ombudsman. The European Parliament elects the Ombudsman and his term of office is the same as Parliament's. His role is to investigate complaints against EU institutions and bodies. Complaints can be brought by any EU citizen and by any person or organisation living or based in an EU member state. The Ombudsman tries to arrange an amicable settlement between the complainant and the institution or body concerned.

Another important link between citizens and the EU institutions is Parliament's well-established practice of accepting petitions from any person residing in an EU member state.

Brooker
03-04-05, 22:33
Have there been changes in the daily lives of European people or changes in their ways of thinking?

Duo
04-04-05, 00:03
Well yeah, look at the Euro for one. Prices have gotten higher in many european countries, but mobility has been eased up. Now travelling from country to country within the EU due to the euro and to these new low rate companies such as ryanair etc, moving around has been much more facilitated. Also, with the joining of the other countries, poland, hungary, slovenia and the baltic ones, the EU is expanding and is slowly building the idea of a european identity, something new. Also now we have EUropean standards on living costs, marketed and fabricated goods, we have a stronger cohesion in areas such as trade and also in more administrative aspects. the European standards thing i would argue is makin europe more alike without really afflicting culture that much.

Maciamo
04-04-05, 06:41
I support what duo said. Let me add that pan-European bus companies like Eurolines (http://www.eupedia.com/cgi-bin/dir/jump.cgi?ID=133783) or airlines like Easy Jet (http://www.eupedia.com/cgi-bin/dir/jump.cgi?ID=133784) or Virgin Express (http://www.eupedia.com/cgi-bin/dir/jump.cgi?ID=35). or international bullet-trains like Thalys (http://www.eupedia.com/cgi-bin/dir/jump.cgi?ID=9559) and Eurostar (http://www.eupedia.com/cgi-bin/dir/jump.cgi?ID=38) have also facilitated mobility within the EU, and they were made possible thanks to EU laws and better cooperation between the countries.

I am also of the EU generation. I already had my ECU (European Currency Unit, predecessor of the Euro) collector coins when I was a child, and waited fervently for the coming of the Euro since it was announced in 1992.

You may want to have a look at How the Europeans see themselves - Looking through the mirror with public opinion surveys (http://europa.eu.int/comm/publications/booklets/eu_documentation/05/index_en.htm)

There are big differences between countries. Generally speaking people from the Benelux, Germany, France, Spain and Italy feel the most European, while the British, Irish, Nordic and Greek feel the least so (island or peninsula mentality).

In every country there is at least 1% of the people who feel only European (max. is 20% in Luxembourg), 2% (Greece. Portugal) to 11% (Luxembourg) of the people who feel first European, then their country's nationality, 24% (UK) to 56% (Italy) of the people who feel first from their country, then European, and and 23% (Luxembourg) to 67% (UK) of the people who do not feel European, but only from their country.

Brooker
04-04-05, 23:43
I heard that the richer countries were paying to build infrastructure (like roads) in the poorer countries. That shows a good spirit of cooperation and unity. :cool:

Maciamo
05-04-05, 02:58
I heard that the richer countries were paying to build infrastructure (like roads) in the poorer countries. That shows a good spirit of cooperation and unity. :cool:

Yes and no. The EU does not work at a national level but a regional one. The poorer regions or even cities get EU subsidies, paid by the richest. But there are poor regions in almost every country. Take some Midlands cities in the UK, most of East Germany, the South of Italy (while the North has some of the highest GDP per capita in Europe), etc.

Brooker
05-04-05, 06:13
The poor areas in America get the most money in federal aid and then talk about how they want to government out of their business and taxes are too high. :okashii:

Shas
06-04-05, 00:36
well in general you can say is that the EU basically gives all the small countries (since europe is a bunch of little countries compared to America) the advantage that all the US States get. trading inside the EU is easier (open borders, less tax, etc.).

solidarity. I like beeing a european instead of a german. why? because i believe we are between russia and china and the us and if we wanna make a stand we need to stick together. and if you see the german-french friendship you can also see that former enemies can hug and make trade not war :)) :lol:


the only bad thing is that the EURO made everything more expensive and that the open borders make drug trading more easy but that's still not a big issue because they catch most of the drugs when they come INTO the EU. (theres not much drug production (except pot) in europe.)

hm


right now berlusconi is presiding over the eu which many people dont appreciate because he's a crook but of course he's just in the formal position of president and not really leading it

bossel
06-04-05, 00:54
the only bad thing is that the EURO made everything more expensive
Not really, that's more an urban myth than anything else. What has become more expensive are services (restaurants, etc.), but eg. food is partially even cheaper now.


right now berlusconi is presiding over the eu which many people dont appreciate because he's a crook but of course he's just in the formal position of president and not really leading it
You're quite behind the facts (more than a year). Since January Luxembourg has the EU presidency.

BTW, have you made some special friends in here or why is your rep red?

Shas
06-04-05, 01:49
Not really, that's more an urban myth than anything else. What has become more expensive are services (restaurants, etc.), but eg. food is partially even cheaper now.


You're quite behind the facts (more than a year). Since January Luxembourg has the EU presidency.

BTW, have you made some special friends in here or why is your rep red?

well i dont know usually i feel like paying 40 % more on normal things like a coke or so :)

i left germany for a year in the usa and when i left berlusconi was the big boss :))

about my rep: i posted in the "what do you know about denmark" thread, that danish girls like beer (a one liner) and somebody deemed it worth -9 points without saying anything at all (i dont even know who did it)

Duo
06-04-05, 10:37
well i dont know usually i feel like paying 40 % more on normal things like a coke or so :)

i left germany for a year in the usa and when i left berlusconi was the big boss :))

about my rep: i posted in the "what do you know about denmark" thread, that danish girls like beer (a one liner) and somebody deemed it worth -9 points without saying anything at all (i dont even know who did it)

ajjjjjjaaa, my friend is ok, it happened to me as well, i said jokingly that in this pic the fat geisha was ugly and bam i was redflaged, so dont worry about it to much :wave:

@ topic, well you could say that the richer countries are kind of helping the poorer ones along, but they also are makin profits by having now access into their markets with goods that these poor countries can't produce. So it goes both ways, i'm sure the big nations wouldn't have let the others join just out of good will and sentimentalism. But ummm I agree with you that europe needs to be united in order to make itself heard in the world. Furthermore, i think what really unites europe is that most nations in the continent have fought each other so much over land and what not, so all through fighting a special bond has been established. Furthermore, there have been so many wars, nation making, border changes, etc etc, that the gene transfusions in Europe have been many and I think can't be tracked any longer, so in actuality there is probably nothing like a pure european country, each of them has been genetically and culturally penetrated by other european nations, therefore, it makes only sense that europe be united.

Maciamo
06-04-05, 15:03
Furthermore, there have been so many wars, nation making, border changes, etc etc, that the gene transfusions in Europe have been many and I think can't be tracked any longer, so in actuality there is probably nothing like a pure european country, each of them has been genetically and culturally penetrated by other european nations, therefore, it makes only sense that europe be united.

I think that Scandinavia remains quite pure genetically. The rest of Western Europe certainly has a mix of Celtic, Roman and Germanic blood (even Greek, Phoenician and Arabic in Spain or Southern Italy).

Duo
06-04-05, 16:55
I think that Scandinavia remains quite pure genetically. The rest of Western Europe certainly has a mix of Celtic, Roman and Germanic blood (even Greek, Phoenician and Arabic in Spain or Southern Italy).

Well true they are a bit more sheltered but if you look at most of the countries there now u will see the great number of immigrants that have flocked there.

phantasmagoria
08-04-05, 23:39
Well, in the UK it's a bit of a waste. We should move the the euro, it would make life a lot easier in the long run... Bloody politicians (though I say this not knowing much about politics, so it's not fully justified)!

I figure if we've joined a bit we might as well do it right, ne?

Dutch Baka
09-04-05, 23:07
for sure the Euro did...

especialy the prices... Prices are the same just they changed the sign behind it..

beer price changed from 1 euro to 2-4 euro in just 2 years time... what the F*7k ....
some thing made it easyer, like traveling, you dont need to go to the exchange office anymore, and you dont need to get visa's , also you are able to live in another country much more easy.... i geuss it got his good things and bad things... euro sucks, travel go up

Brooker
09-04-05, 23:35
I personally think the formation of the EU is a good thing. It's nice to see that countries that have historically not gotten along very well can come together, put their differences aside, and learn to cooperate. I also think America needs a strong rival. I don't trust American politicians to have restraint. If there's no one around to kind of keep them in check, who knows what they'll do. I don't think America is evil, but it's easy for anyone to get drunk on their own power if there's no balance. Having another super power around keeps things a little more moderate. However, I hope Europe growing in power, wouldn't create too many tensions between America and Europe. America gets uneasy when another country starts to grow in power (U.S.S.R., China, even Japan in the 80's) but maybe we need that.

Here's a question... Do you think the E.U. was created in order to balance out the power of the U.S.? Or are the reasons seperate from that? Be honest.

Dutch Baka
10-04-05, 03:09
seperate reason.... us is an important country in the world but i dont believe that important hehe

Brooker
10-04-05, 03:25
What are some other reasons?

Maciamo
10-04-05, 04:02
Here's a question... Do you think the E.U. was created in order to balance out the power of the U.S.? Or are the reasons seperate from that? Be honest.

No. The first reason for the formation of the EU was to avoid wars between the countries by promoting trade, then mutual understanding and cooperation between the countries. Unifying Europe is not a new idea. Charlemagne tried (at least France, Germany, the Benelux, Switerland, Catalonia and Northern Italy) in the 9th century, Charles V of Habsburg in the 16th century hoped to conquer France and England so that all Europe would be his, then Napoleon had the clear purpose to unify Europe and harmonise the laws, measure unit and create a common currency.

The US has had little to do with the EU until recently (especially since Bush came to power, as many Europeans feared that the US had gone to the "dark side of the force" and needed to be held in checks). In the aftermath of WWII, the US was seen very positively in many European countries, while now it isn't.

Brooker
10-04-05, 04:13
Unifying Europe is not a new idea. But it's never worked before because they tried to do it by conquering, not by cooperating. So, this is a very historic time.


as many Europeans feared that the US had gone to the "dark side of the force" and needed to be held in checks
That's what I'm saying. It's not motivated by a desire to cooperate with the U.S., but rather motivated by a desire to compete and oppose the U.S. (which may not necessarily be a bad thing unless things get out of hand).

I'm not trying to say that everything revolves around the U.S., and I'm sure there are reasons for the formation of the E.U. that have nothing to do with America, but it seems logical that Europe might want to band together as a reaction to the U.S. being the lone super power in the world and, with Bush in office, the U.S. isn't trusted to make wise decisions or decisions that much of Europe will approve of.

The thing that makes me the angriest about what Bush has done while in office is that he's been "The Great Divider," ruining America's relationships with so many former allies, and that makes the world a more dangerous place. The world is safer when countries get along and work together. As a diplomat, he's a complete failure.

Sorry about the Bush rant, this is supposed to be about Europe. I just haven't ranted about Bush in a while. The Dems have pretty much crawled into their caves waiting for the next four years to be over.

Maciamo
10-04-05, 05:14
That's what I'm saying. It's not motivated by a desire to cooperate with the U.S., but rather motivated by a desire to compete and oppose the U.S. (which may not necessarily be a bad thing unless things get out of hand).

But the EU's origins are in the aftermath of WWII. The EEC was founded in 1957, when people didn't see the US as a competitor or evil power at all. Maybe the problem is that you see the EU as a new thing because of the recent introduction of the Euro. That is usually what people outside Europe can see as a unifying factor. How many people outside Europe know that the EU dates back to the 1950's, the EU Parliament was founded in 1979, and the EU citizenship and removal of the borders within the EU took place in 1992. The Euro was originally intended to replace national currencies in 1992 as well, but they got 10 years behind schedule. Anyway, most of the planning for the big project that the EU is took place when the relations with th US were at their best. The idea of the EU as a counterbalance to the US has only become popular in the last few years.

Brooker
10-04-05, 21:40
Oh, well I guess it's just good timing then. So, the E.U. has been around since the 50's, but it's been growing in influence and now the countries share the same currencies?

Duo
12-04-05, 15:22
I think that in a way the EU is today a natural evolution to counter weight the power of the US. As Maciamo stated the idea of a united europe is nothing new, we only need to go back to the early 19th century where Alexander the I of Russia was in favor of united europe and where even some french thinkers wanted a european parliament etc, and that the EU itself only got started in the 50's but after the fall of the USSR i would argue that on that moment there Europe and America split on their needs and desires for the future. For America it was a chance to establish dominance, whereas for Europe finally a chance to start something right. And as history has taught us one single power can't stay in power forever so the EU as it is developing now I would argue is the natural rival of the US in economics and political terms. Europe is mainly a socialist system of goverment, the majority of countries anwayys, whereas the US still remains highly capitalistic, furthermore there are deep rooted cultural differences that were overshadowed by the USSR and the US and Europe were forced to act only on the common values, but now with no enemy everything is begining to surface. Europe has become a very secular place whereas the US still remains highly religious. Natural differences like these are bound to give rise to the EU as the potential rival of the US. Although the EU initially may have not had that purpose it is certainly gaining it now. I think that we are living in a very interesting era here in Europe but I also have some reservations on how the EU will develop although I'm an optimistic person and I like to think that the the EU could be something very new and unique.

Brooker
12-04-05, 22:33
I would argue is the natural rival of the US in economics and political terms.At the moment I'd say the US is much more concearned politically and economically with China. Although America and Europe don't always agree, that relationship is much more stable than America's relationship with China.

People here were filling their pants when that American spy plane and Chinese fighter plane collided, killing the Chinese pilot, or the time America accidentally bombed a Chinese embassy. Everyone feared that the tensions might lead to war and America doesn't want a fight with China. It'd be like two heavyweights beating the crap out of each other, both sides would come out bloodied and bruised.

alexriversan wrote...

brooker, i do not know if you have been in europe. now, we have one currency, people can travel more easily between all european countries. The last time I was in Europe was about a year before they made the change to using the Euro. Someone on the street even handed me a sample of what the bills would look like, which I still have.

Meiki
01-05-05, 23:34
I don't really believe in the EU, they came up with the idea, because no single country in Europe can ever stand up against the US or some upcoming Asian superpowers. But even then, we lag 20 years behind the US.
Well, 'we' isn't a good word.
I just feel that each country has its own culture and history. I mean dutch people are different from spanish, italian from french. We are different.
We can form an economical union, that's it.
There are always the lesser countries in Europe.
Some have an own identity, some are more established.
There will never be an European cuisine. I love Italian food, not European.
Like there's french cuisine, and there was a famous american restaurant-critic who said about the dutch "yes, they cook, but it isn't cuisine".
I wouldn't want other people, countries to lift on my country's succes.
Yes, there are collaborations between countries in Europe, but we don't share the same cultural aspects.

Duo
02-05-05, 01:42
That's crap. There is no such thing as a pure culture. Look at France, they were heavily influenced by the british ideas during the enlightment that led to the French revolution. Look at socialism, wouldn't you argue that most western european countries run on a socialist ideology? Yes of course every country has different things, but look at the states in the US, even though they are the same country, things are different like day and night in certain areas, east coast and west coast, north and south. Also, every country in Europe has its own history but it is closely related to that of the many other European countries. Both World Wars were most heavily fought in Europe, if that doesn't bring historical relations together i dont know can. The Roman Empire, the Catholic Church, all things that were common for most European countries. The middle ages, the renaissance, the industrial age, colonialism, imperialism, I mean what more do you want :lol: Population influx and emigration and whatever have you, european countries are related in many many ways; they are more similar than different. The idea of a united Europe is a very old one, so don't think that this is just some new development, is something that has been deeply intrinsic in the European sub-concious and we are slowly letting it surface. About other countries living off the work of your country, aren't you exagerating there? There are certain standards and requiremetns that countries have to meet in order to enter the EU, just so that they wont ride on the coat tail of the powerful countries. You think that France and Germany are stupid and want the less developed European countries living off their work ? Working together makes simple sense, united we can do way more than alone.

Brooker
02-05-05, 02:01
Yes of course every country has different things, but look at the states in the US, even though they are the same country, things are different like day and night in certain areas, east coast and west coast, north and south. Also, every country in Europe has its own history but it is closely related to that of the many other European countries.

Various places in America aren't exactly the same, but they're pretty close. The main difference is varying political views. Countries in Europe are far more different from each other than American states are to each other.


Both World Wars were most heavily fought in Europe, if that doesn't bring historical relations together i dont know can.
This seems like a reason European countries would have trouble uniting.

Economically is one thing, but I do think Europe has some big hurdles to overcome if they're ever going to see themselves as one whole rather than many serperate units.

Duo
02-05-05, 03:16
That's how it all starts. You are underestimating the power of economics. It drives everything, or so Marx would argue. The economical incentives are great drive for countries to join the EU and give up rights in order to be part of this Union. I'm not saying the EU will become a closely united federal organization, not yet at least, that may take as much as 100 years to happen, if at all. However, I see that the biggest hurdle that the EU had, uniting west and east, is now over and with Romania and Bulgaria suprisingly enough signing up to join up in 2007, the road is paved for the rest of the remaining countries. It seems that the EU has geared things up, in terms of membership anyways. I think that people are overexagerating these differences between nations in Europe. I've travelled enough through Europe to notice big similaraties especially amongst different regions of it. The Italian will closely relate to the Spaniard and southern french person, whereas the flemish in belgium can have close ties to the Dutch, the scandianavians amonsgst themselves and so forth, so is just a matter of realizing that the similarities in europe go further than just regionalism. The Italian and the Belgian both expect good public higher education, pensions, etc etc, they are used to a certain similar lifestyle even though their cultures are different, they share common things. Plus the cultural difference is a good thing, it provides more and more sides to the European facade. The chaotic south and the orderly north, things dont have all to be 100% the same. And even look at many projects like the Eurofighter, Airbus, the channel under la manche. Things like this will bring nations together because the ruling class will realize the benefits. The common man in France and Germany doesn't necessarily know how his country should behave, what direction to go into. He will listen to the ruling class, the politician and the bureaucrats, who have started to realize the benefits of being together. And furthermore, with the younger generations being born into this reality, a reality of Europe, the feeling of being a European citizen will consilidate itself more and more as the old makes way for the new citizens of Europe.

Maciamo
02-05-05, 04:31
I don't really believe in the EU, they came up with the idea, because no single country in Europe can ever stand up against the US or some upcoming Asian superpowers. But even then, we lag 20 years behind the US.

Funny that we should hear this from someone who is not even ethnically European, but Chinese. You seem to have little knowledge about the origins of the EU. The concept of unifying Europe is much older than the feeling of counterbalancing the US. The US wasn't the first world power until the 1950's, when Britain and France lost their colonial empire. The idea of unifying Europe already existed 1200 years ago with Charlemagne, then 500 years ago with Charles V of Habsburg, then again 200 years ago with Napoleon. Napoleon did a lot to faciliate the unification, mostly by making every country he conquered ride/drive on the same side of the road (on the right), making everyone use the Metric system, giving all those countries the fundamental rights of the French Revolution (Human Rights, Civil Rights, etc.), reform and uniformise the institution, etc.


I just feel that each country has its own culture and history. I mean dutch people are different from spanish, italian from french.

Different of course. There has never been any talk of making the EU a single culture. That would be horrible, but anyway virtually impossible. The values of the EU is "unity and diversity", i.e. share the same fundamental values and rights, while preserving our cultural differences as a asset. Usually people who have lived in many European countries (like me) tend to be the most pro-EU, while the most Euro-skeptic usually don't know much about othe countries, or cannot see how similar European are compared to the rest of the world. Well, some Brits maybe cannot see that because they think that North Americans or Australians are closer as they share the same language - but not necessarily the same values, history and geography.



There will never be an European cuisine. I love Italian food, not European.

You visibly have no idea of what the EU is about. The EU's concept will never be to have a single European cuisine, but to be able to say that Italian pasta, French cuisine, Spanish tapas, German sausages, British Fish'n Chips, etc. are an integral part of European culture. It's like you were against the unification of Italy in 1860 because everybody would be forced to eat the same dish, and local specialities would disappear. Well, it didn't happen (e.g. pizza in Rome and Naples are noticeably different).

Maciamo
02-05-05, 04:36
but look at the states in the US, even though they are the same country, things are different like day and night in certain areas, east coast and west coast, north and south

True, and the US is a new country with virtually no deep-rooted regional dialects, cuisine, habits, etc. These things are only starting to appear nowadays, as people develop their own regional culture within the US, albeit coming from different parts of the world and not being the least ethnically homogenous. That's why I am not afraid that Europe becomes a monolithic culture. There will never be a nation-wide habit of siesta in Sweden like in Spain or Italy.

joel.lindgren
02-05-05, 11:40
I think that Scandinavia remains quite pure genetically

Swedish population: 9 million.
Number of people who aren't Swedish (biologically, say from another race or country): over 1 million.


Genetically pure? We've got a ton of jews who escaped from Germany, we also have alot of Finnish who fled to Sweden during the war with Russia. That was a couple of generations ago, and now we're up to well over 1 mill non-swedes, and that is not countring how many "original" Swedes who' s got bloodlines from other European countries, and there seems to be more people in Sweden with wallonian blood than without.

Just because we've got a little water between us an Germany doesn't mean were all white,tall, blond and all that crap.

Maciamo
02-05-05, 16:03
Swedish population: 9 million.
Number of people who aren't Swedish (biologically, say from another race or country): over 1 million.

Genetically pure? We've got a ton of jews who escaped from Germany, we also have alot of Finnish who fled to Sweden during the war with Russia. That was a couple of generations ago, and now we're up to well over 1 mill non-swedes, and that is not countring how many "original" Swedes who' s got bloodlines from other European countries, and there seems to be more people in Sweden with wallonian blood than without.

People from other countries could be from the same race. Other Scandinavians, as well as Germans, Dutch or Belgians are ethnically Germanic, so the same race. To give you an example, I am from walloon descent, but every time I meet Swedish or Danish people they think I Scandinavian too from my looks. They often say that I look more Swedish than many Swedish (or more Danish than many Danish). If you can't tell people apart physically, consider them as part of the same ethnic group. I can immediately recognise people of Italian or Arabic descent in Belgium, but not those of German, Dutch or North French (=Frankish) descent.

Having a look at the statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden), I see that 329,000 of the 1 million "foreign-born Swedish" are from Finland, Norway, Denmark , Germany of the UK. I won't consider them as ethnically different. Add to this about 200,000 other Europeans, and that's only about 500,000 people really ethnically different (5.5% of the population).

Brooker
06-05-05, 23:26
The concept of unifying Europe is much older than the feeling of counterbalancing the US.
The fact that the concept has been around for a long time is kind of irrelevant. What is relevant is that it's finally happening now and in much larger steps than ever before. If the idea has been around for so long, why now? I think things have changed in recent years to make such a change both possible and advantageous.

joel.lindgren
31-05-05, 14:49
Maciamo: In sweden when we talk about immigrants, if you've lived in Sweden since birth or most of your life and are a Swedish citizen then you are Swedish. The Swedish-Finnish mostly came to Sweden like 50-60 years ago, and most of them now are 1 or 2 generations following that time, they are as much Swedish as I am and when saying "immigrants" they aren't counted in that statistics, neither are a chinese person who's parents moved here 30 years ago. And now when we're in the EU, people who move from within that union aren't immigrants either, most immigrants are from the arab world. (And I'm not saying that THAT'S why they're immigrants)


If your're talking about Non-swedes in Sweden (no matter what ethniticity), what I've read there's about 20% that aren't "pure" Swedish.
But then what is a Swede? Sweden isn't very pure in that way, We're far up north and the whole country was sort of founded on people moving up here from different places. It's not an old civilization that has been "ethno pure" since the beginning, maybe with the exception of the Viking days.

And furthermore I wrote saying "from another race or country", not that you have to be from another race to be non-Swedish. I don't see a black or asian person being less of a Swede than somebody white from another country, I've grown up with people from Korea, Bangladesh, Thailand etc. and they are as Swedish as I am.