'Romanians take the jobs Britons on w...

'Romanians take the jobs Britons on welfare shun': The UK should be grateful says Bucharest minister

There are 309 comments on the Daily Mail story from Dec 3, 2013, titled 'Romanians take the jobs Britons on welfare shun': The UK should be grateful says Bucharest minister. In it, Daily Mail reports that:

Britain should be grateful that Romanians and Bulgarians take jobs shunned by local workers, according to a senior minister in Bucharest.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Daily Mail.

True European

Craiova, Romania

#117 Dec 7, 2013
supersonic boom wrote:
Wrong again Petru.
I have met and encountered quite a few Roma gypsies, all of whom have been thieving and scamming.
I know two Romanians not from Gypsy backgrounds that are very decent people.
You know as well as I do that the moment the UK opens its borders, your poxy government is going to make sure we get the shiit from Romania, the Roma gypsies.
Deny that me old carrot cruncher!
Yes, this is the first art theft from West, and the Romanians invented it, the art robbery...Arent you stupid enough? Keep repeating this BS, so everybody will know that you are a genius and a very honest person.
And Netherlands...buahaha! You make me feel the smell of a mountain of shit coming from their ”great” history. Holland, still the same criminal state that blackmails other countries to stole their goods and resources.
Shitty country like you.
You , trash, ALL of these western countries have more shit and crime in their history than one million of Romania...
You, lazy retard, living on welfare, begging the state for a shitty ”hamburger” with mutant soy, taking your food from many honest workers, many of them immigrants.
You stay in your shitty bed and keep eating your own diarrhea.Nobody cares, primitive.

Since: May 11

Reghin, Romania

#118 Dec 7, 2013
Once more, I will ask you to do some reading on statistics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_...

How many Roma can you see there? 262.000? Ok, it was in 2011, please do not tell me we are going to witness a variation of 100%.
Now, this is what it was censed. You can say it is wrong, as the the Gypsies' NGOs say, ok, let us take their values:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma_ (Romani_subgroup)

I think your mind is simply twisted by the confusion Roma and Romania. For God's sake, read the link above and notice the name Romani does not come from Romania, I mean this is elementary. You do not trust Wikipedia, then search somewhere else, but do search, please.

You will also notice there is not only Romania having Gypsies in Europe, but many other countries, nevertheless - and remember here an earlier post of mine - there are politicians who prefer using this confusion Roma/Romania in order to bring in unjustified fears in, sorry to say, non-informed people's minds.

And another thing: what does it tell you that you know fewer Romanians than what you (N.B.) saw Gypsies bagging on the street? I guess that in your social area, professional or not, there are not many, whatever that area is. And in general, UK was not a target migration country for Romanians. I mean, it is but for either higher end professionals, social workers, either maybe for a few gypsies who, anyway for centuries, could not find their place in our society. But there are many years since 1989, when Romanians could move easier in Europe, so, in principle who intended reaching UK, did. Who did not, maybe won't now either.

On the other hand, the only thing you are going to reach by this stiff and shi.t.ty propaganda promoted in a certain section of your medias, is pushing away the really good professionals who would make a difference in your society. As I said in my first post, the target of this type of propaganda will be missed, by default, since the ones you are targetting it against may even ignore its existence. What you would manage to accomplish is hitting straight against normal people and against people living there for many years, in normal conditions, who would suddenly feel threatened.

On the other hands, we say in Romanian, I guess these times of intense propaganda would calm down in time and will also reach only non-informed people there.
True European

Craiova, Romania

#120 Dec 7, 2013
Petru, dont bother anymore. The Gipsy ,actually, fit very well in UK. They dont know it yet, the Britons, but they are similar shity peoples. just see their people and tabloids and you get the whole picture . They are like brothers and the gipsy king and the british royal family can put it for a marriage and great alliance.
Both retards, both shitty.

Since: Apr 12

Gdansk, Poland

#121 Dec 7, 2013
Petru wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess if Russia/ex-Soviet Union would have been giving an impression of prosperity and fairness at least, maybe things would have been different. And if it would not have had a history of invading other neighbouring European countries...
This is isn't abut Russia it's about the EU. Look at what happened to other countries that joined the EU: Greece (1981) Spain and Portugal (1986) Hungary (2004). They are all bankrupt. Why would Rumania have a different outcome?
Second of all there is no prosperity in the West. They have,
- High taxes (twice as high as Rumania)
- High unemployment
- High property prices
- High costs of living
- High levels of debt
- People work more
- Higher crime rates than Rumania
- Cultural decadence (anti social behaviour, divorce, drinking etc.)
Which of these things do you want to import to Rumania?

Since: Apr 12

Gdansk, Poland

#122 Dec 7, 2013
Petru wrote:
And another thing: what does it tell you that you know fewer Romanians than what you (N.B.) saw Gypsies bagging on the street? I guess that in your social area, professional or not, there are not many, whatever that area is. And in general, UK was not a target migration country for Romanians. I mean, it is but for either higher end professionals, social workers, either maybe for a few gypsies who, anyway for centuries, could not find their place in our society. But there are many years since 1989, when Romanians could move easier in Europe, so, in principle who intended reaching UK, did. Who did not, maybe won't now either.
There are plenty of Rumanian Gypsies in the UK I've met some myself.
eresh

Trollhättan, Sweden

#123 Dec 7, 2013
the british have always been contemptuous of foreigners, including other europeans.

Since: May 11

Reghin, Romania

#124 Dec 7, 2013
Mary782 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are plenty of Rumanian Gypsies in the UK I've met some myself.
Your comments are usually bitter and I would avoid saying how further... If you met "some", it does not mean there are "plenty". Shoot them where you see them, none will cry after.

Since: May 11

Reghin, Romania

#125 Dec 7, 2013
Mary782 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is isn't abut Russia it's about the EU.
I think we were discussing also Russia here.
Mary782 wrote:
<quoted text>Look at what happened to other countries that joined the EU: Greece (1981) Spain and Portugal (1986) Hungary (2004). They are all bankrupt. Why would Rumania have a different outcome?
They are bankrupt due to their governments' history of bad public expenditure, not due to the EU.

And you mentioned several different situations there, you have a tendance to do lightweight analysis and not really in-depth.
Greece: what is the industry supporting their economy? Nothing beside tourism and shipping. As the second one decayed in time, you cannot expect to support an EU-like level of life mostly out of tourism. If you also spend money, at the government level, because I would not cry too much on the private level (Greeks live pretty fine in comparison with Eastern EU)

Spain: This is a different case, but also this country is also less industrial than many others in the EU. Nevertheless, it also spend money not always on the best directions, at the public level. Imagine only the high expenditure on high-speed railways, they have a network better than France. Could they really afford this?

Portugal: Somewhat similar with Spain, but even fewer industry.

Hungary: Ok, this is another different case, because they have some industry, but look at how much highway they built and how much money disappeared in different companies related to even the current prime-minister... Could they really afford that? It seems not. And they started at moment 1989 with a pretty high public debt, unlike Romania did.

Romania: Sorry, darling, to disappoint you, but our public debt is less than 35%, so even if our governments combine clumsiness with crookery they cannot get it much higher. Oh, here you can say that given that we need to pay more to EU than we are capable off using in structural funds in different EU projects, on long term, this would impact on the public debt.
Mary782 wrote:
<quoted text>Second of all there is no prosperity in the West. They have,
- High taxes (twice as high as Rumania)
- High unemployment
- High property prices
- High costs of living
- High levels of debt
- People work more
- Higher crime rates than Rumania
- Cultural decadence (anti social behaviour, divorce, drinking etc.)
Which of these things do you want to import to Rumania?
It depends on your definition of "prosperity". I think that in general terms, without starting an anti-Western speech, well known in certain areas of the World, they are pretty prosperous. Of course, I have not said "perfect".

But I am willing to read/hear from you about another better economic and social model than what the Western world has today.

Since: May 11

Reghin, Romania

#126 Dec 7, 2013
Mary, you keep puzzling me how you can give the worst possibly imaginable understanding to different combinations of facts, situations and concepts. Did someone influence you in this? Is some specific writer which influenced the way you process things, or was it your Romanian husband? He is strange, if not to say somehow else, you can tell him from me, if it is so.
Krypteia

Cheltenham, UK

#127 Dec 7, 2013
Shits going to bit the fan..
True European

Craiova, Romania

#128 Dec 7, 2013
Krypteia wrote:
Shits going to bit the fan..
When the british ”press” and ”politicians” use too much shit...

Since: Apr 12

Gdansk, Poland

#130 Dec 7, 2013
Petru wrote:
<quoted text>
They are bankrupt due to their governments' history of bad public expenditure, not due to the EU.
Because that is what the people expected when they joined the EU that they would get free stuff.
Petru wrote:
Greece: what is the industry supporting their economy? Nothing beside tourism and shipping. As the second one decayed in time, you cannot expect to support an EU-like level of life mostly out of tourism. If you also spend money, at the government level, because I would not cry too much on the private level (Greeks live pretty fine in comparison with Eastern EU)
And why did Greece not have an industry? Because they had to compete with Germany,
"In essence, European states are borrowing money (mostly from Germany) in order to purchase imported goods (mostly from Germany) because their own workers cannot compete on price (mostly because of Germany). This is not limited to states actually within the eurozone, but also includes any state affiliated with the zone; the relative labor costs for most of the Central European states that have not even joined the euro yet have risen by even more during this same period."
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100315_germa...
The same applies to Rumania,
"Unlike the postwar world, where the United States absorbed the imports of Germany and Japan without needing to compete with them, Germany remains an exporting country exporting into Romania and leaving precious little room for Romania to develop its economy.
At this stage of its development, Romania should be running a trade surplus, particularly with Germany, but it is not. In 2007, it exported about $40 billion worth of goods and imported about $70 billion. In 2009, it exported the same $40 billion but cut imports to only $54 billion (still a negative). Forty percent of its trade is with Germany, France and Italy, its major EU partners. But it is Germany where the major problem is. And this problem is compounded by the fact that a good part of Romania's exports to Germany are from German-owned firms operating in Romania."
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101115_geopo...
You can not industrialize if you have to compete with countries that are already industrialized.
Krypteia

Cheltenham, UK

#131 Dec 7, 2013
If we are going to take these people at least they are technically Christian as such,hopefully upset the muzz infestation we have here that we don't want..

Since: May 11

Reghin, Romania

#132 Dec 7, 2013
Mary782 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because that is what the people expected when they joined the EU that they would get free stuff.
Come on, darling, let us be honest here: who cares about what some barely literate as.shole thinks about the EU? The Romanian governments never expected anything for free from the EU. No matter how corrupt or clumsy they were. They knew it all along that any structural funds coming in, will need a local 30% and they are quite well supervised, so deturning them would not be allowed. This is why they used so few. Nevertheless, there is an EU fund where Romania must pay, each year, quite some money, proportional to its population. Overall, even such types of politicians noticed that without using the EU funds, like Poland did, for example, they will end up increasing holes in the state funds with years passing. So, finally we are reaching an inglorious 30% usage of this structural EU funds and I am positive this would increase, because... there is simply no other option.
Mary782 wrote:
<quoted text>
And why did Greece not have an industry? Because they had to compete with Germany,
Sorry to say but this is again a hoax.
They did not have an industry, because traditionally they did not have.
Please check before WW II. and you will notice that Romania at those years had a much more important industrial development than Greece had at those years.
Sorry, nothing to do with Germany here.

Since: May 11

Reghin, Romania

#133 Dec 7, 2013
About this part:

"...
At this stage of its development, Romania should be running a trade surplus, particularly with Germany, but it is not. In 2007, it exported about $40 billion worth of goods and imported about $70 billion. In 2009, it exported the same $40 billion but cut imports to only $54 billion (still a negative). Forty percent of its trade is with Germany, France and Italy, its major EU partners. But it is Germany where the major problem is. And this problem is compounded by the fact that a good part of Romania's exports to Germany are from German-owned firms operating in Romania."
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101115_geopo...
You can not industrialize if you have to compete with countries that are already industrialized."

It is in essence not wrong, but:
- it is valid not only for Romania, but all the other Central and Eastern EU countries, especially this part: "And this problem is compounded by the fact that a good part of Romania's exports to Germany are from German-owned firms operating in Romania."

- we are a part of the areas in Europe, where Germans traditionally held control

- Poland found also a good market in the ex-USSR countries, probably also supported by a sort of a Pan-Slavic approach, where it competes with Russia, especially in Ukraine or Belarus; Romania does not beneficiate of this, as it is not a Slavic country

Overall, do not worry, it happened worse in our history, as we were always at crossroads in Europe and we always managed to get through.

Since: Apr 12

Gdansk, Poland

#135 Dec 7, 2013
Petru wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on, darling, let us be honest here: who cares about what some barely literate as.shole thinks about the EU? The Romanian governments never expected anything for free from the EU. No matter how corrupt or clumsy they were. They knew it all along that any structural funds coming in, will need a local 30% and they are quite well supervised, so deturning them would not be allowed. This is why they used so few. Nevertheless, there is an EU fund where Romania must pay, each year, quite some money, proportional to its population. Overall, even such types of politicians noticed that without using the EU funds, like Poland did, for example, they will end up increasing holes in the state funds with years passing. So, finally we are reaching an inglorious 30% usage of this structural EU funds and I am positive this would increase, because... there is simply no other option.
Why did governments in Southern Europe engage in irresponsible spending? Because that is what the people wanted. It's an unspoken expectation that when you join the EU your standard of living should go up. If people didn't think so they wouldn't want to join the EU.
Petru wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry to say but this is again a hoax.
They did not have an industry, because traditionally they did not have.
Please check before WW II. and you will notice that Romania at those years had a much more important industrial development than Greece had at those years.
Sorry, nothing to do with Germany here.
But why has Greece not industrialized in the 30 years that they have been in the EU? Greece has been one of the biggest recipients of EU money. Why has Spain not industrialized? Because you can't compete with countries that are already industralized. You need trade barriers (and government investment) to protect your industry until it is big enough to compete. And since the EU doesn't allow trade barriers between member countries or direct investment from governments, non industrialized countries are going to lose.

Since: Apr 12

Gdansk, Poland

#136 Dec 7, 2013
Petru wrote:
About this part:
"...
At this stage of its development, Romania should be running a trade surplus, particularly with Germany, but it is not. In 2007, it exported about $40 billion worth of goods and imported about $70 billion. In 2009, it exported the same $40 billion but cut imports to only $54 billion (still a negative). Forty percent of its trade is with Germany, France and Italy, its major EU partners. But it is Germany where the major problem is. And this problem is compounded by the fact that a good part of Romania's exports to Germany are from German-owned firms operating in Romania."
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101115_geopo...
You can not industrialize if you have to compete with countries that are already industrialized."
It is in essence not wrong, but:
- it is valid not only for Romania, but all the other Central and Eastern EU countries, especially this part: "And this problem is compounded by the fact that a good part of Romania's exports to Germany are from German-owned firms operating in Romania."
Yes it is valid for all non industralized countries. So you have to be very stupid to join a common market that you have no chance of competing on. Your companies will go bankrupt, you will go into debt to pay for imports and then your state will go bankrupt and be forced to give up whatever assets are left.
Petru wrote:
- we are a part of the areas in Europe, where Germans traditionally held control
Germans controlled Hungary but they never controlled Rumania. What are you talking about?
rio

London, UK

#137 Dec 7, 2013
Mary782 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because that is what the people expected when they joined the EU that they would get free stuff.
And that included Poland too!!

After the Soviet Union collapsed, Poland looked for another milk cow to suck up to; no more cheap products and energy from Russia now, eh?

Since: May 11

Reghin, Romania

#138 Dec 7, 2013
Mary782 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did governments in Southern Europe engage in irresponsible spending? Because that is what the people wanted. It's an unspoken expectation that when you join the EU your standard of living should go up. If people didn't think so they wouldn't want to join the EU.
Once more, Italy was part of the kernel who was the ancestor of the European Union. You cannot claim a country like for example Italy did that just for the sake of getting something for free, unless you really know absolutely anything about Italy.
Greece did it for geopolitical reasons.
Spain and Portugal were just a normal and logical step in the enlargement, same as it was the case for Denmark or Sweden. They were in a very poor situation just after WW II. So, come on... let's get real here.
Mary782 wrote:
<quoted text>
But why has Greece not industrialized in the 30 years that they have been in the EU? Greece has been one of the biggest recipients of EU money.
Because this was most probably not a priority of their governments. I am not a Greek to give you the good answer here.
Mary782 wrote:
<quoted text>Why has Spain not industrialized?
Spain was, but still seemingly not enough. Again, my limits are here, I cannot talk more, as I am no Spaniard to be able to tell you the real situation there. I do not trust only the media at this point.
Mary782 wrote:
<quoted text> Because you can't compete with countries that are already industralized. You need trade barriers (and government investment) to protect your industry until it is big enough to compete. And since the EU doesn't allow trade barriers between member countries or direct investment from governments, non industrialized countries are going to lose.
Sorry, read about your North, darling: Norway was not industrialised before the discovery of oil and it is still not, Denmark was always mostly an agricultural country, only Sweden was more industrialised and even that mostly in the South, because in the North it was nothing more than coal. You can call that industrialisation, if you wish so, but... it is of a more limited scale. And you also know well that in Sweden entire towns from the North were moved in the South.
Still, all these countries were more conservative with their money and with credits. You cannot develop yourself out of credits, at private or at public scale neither. This was the error made in the South, they launched themselves into high crediting.

On the other hand, look at Iceland, they did the same, worse they did lots of money speculations, taking credits for only this sake. Which is even crazier.

And you forget me Ireland here. Ireland was also not so industrialised and suffered some difficulties. Again, I am not an Irishman to be able to tell what is the situation now, in depth, but it seems like improving.
Krypteia

Cheltenham, UK

#139 Dec 7, 2013
Sooner have twenty Petru than one Abdul Rio...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Nursing Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Test Banks for Sale!!! nice Prices!!! NO Scams ... (Oct '12) 15 hr XFX 4
News Whistle-blowing nurse wants action on Nunavut n... (Mar '15) Jul 25 anonymous 66
News A look behind the scenes of a kidney transplant... Jul 23 Jon 1
News Eating disorders on the rise Jul 23 One of Righteousness 5
News 'Disordered eating' rates troubling among young... Jul 23 Gremlin 15
News Columbus schools adding more Nationwide Childre... Jul 21 They cannot kill ... 2
News Al Franken: Health reform has made a difference... (Sep '10) Jul 21 Not True Franken 243
More from around the web