In the case of Romania, should European decisions give more importance to social or economic benefits?

By choosing to let Romania join the European Union, there are economic advantages because they have low cost labor and their tax system is brilliant for new businesses.





However, on the social hand we have been invaded by gypsies and the criminality ratio invonving Romanians skyrocketed throughout Western Europe.





So what is better for Europe? Economic or Social benefits? According to the EU, it seems like they don't give a damn to social factors when they bring changes to any European agreement.In the case of Romania, should European decisions give more importance to social or economic benefits?
Did you know the Nazis massacred gypsy's during the holocaust.





';The sterilization of Gypsies was started as early as 1933 while camps were being established by the Nazis to contain Gypsies at Dachau, Dieselstrasse, Mahrzan and Vennhausen.





The vast majority of Jews were to suffer the same indignities as the Roma. Scholarly estimates of deaths in the Sinti and Roma genocide range from 220,000 to 500,000 [8] although Ian Hancock challenges this figure and puts the estimates as 500,000 to 1,500,000.[9]';





I think you should remember this before stereotyping all gypsys, thats dangerous and has lead to genocide before. Have the gypsys committed genocide against your ppl? I think not.In the case of Romania, should European decisions give more importance to social or economic benefits?
1. Romanians is not another word for Gypsies or Rroma people


2. dont label a whole nation cuz of some individuals.

Report Abuse

Economic advantages..?? What Economic Advantages..?? I'm much worse off now than I was 2 years ago.





Social benefits for me should always come first... as this is something money cannot buy. I don't personally see any benefit if whole communities are disgruntled by changing demographics.





My view is that it should be controlled. Free borders allowing potentially anyone in their millions to flock to Western Europe is not sensible. The government should stand firm against EU laws which will have negative bearings on the country. So my answer is take both. Take the economic benefits with the social factor in consideration also. There is no reason why both cannot be implemented.








P.S. You mentioned Romania in a negative view. There are only 1 country and if all the other new EU countries have freedom of movement rights it's a little unfair to say crime etc. is down to that population. Just my view to keep things balanced.





Edit: Ok... looks like I am wrong with all the thumbs down. Let's change things then to make others happy. No need to have fixed quotas to permenant immigration. Romania is the only EU country we should blame for crime in western Europe. And social implications of other east european countries do not matter.
I think EU decisions should focus primarily on social issues. every country should have the right to take its own stance on things like employment, taxation, traditions on how much the state gets involved. Take France and the Uk for instance, we're a free market of the laissez faire tradition, they favour a mixed economy (and so do I, but this is besides the point) and it would be wrong to impose one countries approach on another when that countries inhabitants are the ones who will reap the consequences, not those in wherever the other approach is coming from





Social issue involve more morality , whats right and wrong, ethical and not etc, eg. a common bill on human rights. This is where I think there is more room for agreement and debate as a whole continent, as these are things that, more or less transcend nationality, although immigration is possibly an exception to that due to large differences in demographics.
well the fact of the matter is, that all those that make the decisions are very rich people. they don't have to live with the theft and the crime. and any way its our taxes that pay for the increase in security to cope with it. not their personal money....so they couldn't give a dam as long as the increased population increases their profits. its the fault of the people. they keep voting within a system that is screwing them over year after year. its time for a peoples political system that puts the ordinary people first. its time to throw out the rich from decision making....they only represent about 2% of us. so how is it democratic...or even sensible to have them making decisions for us? they are all selfish @rse holes with no loyalty to any thing or any one but them selves. to continue with the same stupid brainless system shows just how stupid and brainless most people are.

facial oil