There are of course a lot of things doable fully in English. But when running a company not mastering the native language (even when all of the people you talk to speak English!) can be a big drawback.
[0] admittedly she was starting to develop signs of Alzheimer’s at the point she called it that around me, but that was a legitimate use of the phrase when she was young.
"Trickle down" in the US is a term used to disparage the idea that a strong economy benefits the poor even in the absence of explicit redistribution.
It should not be too surprising, given that Scots in large part derived from Northumbrian Old English, with various admixtures including from Scandinavia.
The versions of English spoken in Northern England also had a large input from Norse due to the Dane Law period, and that is part of what drove the change to modern English.
That said, in viewing un-dubbed (but subtitled) Dutch, Belgium, and Swedish TV programs, I have been surprised by the amount I get the gist of directly from the speech. Generally from the core Germanic portion of the languages. Belgium was also interesting due to the occasional mix of stock French phrases and words.
There were a non trivial quantity of 'English' words used, and usually for identical meaning, or a similar gloss.
So 1.5m out of 5.1m, which works out as 29%. I'd suggest these being folk who learnt it as their 'mother' tongue, since Scots is not taught as such in the school system.
I'm not sure how that and the 1.1% figure for use at home can be reconciled.
So if we take that 29% figure, despite being a minority, it is still in a better overall position than Gaelic.
One would expect that Scots could be fairly easily saved from extinction if it got official support, but there seems little political will within the Scottish establishment (Parliament and Government) to do so.
I still remember hearing two Dutch guys speak in Dutch, I thought there were speaking in English but then I realised I dont understand what they are saying.
This means the significant other has to find a job and fit it, kids have to go to school.
While many countries have a very decent proficiency in English, you're whole family must fully invest in learning the local language. And that in addition to using English in the office of at least one of the adults (since many big companies use English officially)
Like e.g. Berlin, the large Dutch cities are very much internationally-oriented and usually it's not problem to get a job and integrate if you don't speak Dutch. Sometimes the issue is quite the opposite -- my wife wanted to learn Dutch, but people would just switch to English or German and she would have to ask them explicitly to speak Dutch.
This means the significant other has to find a job and fit it, kids have to go to school.
Kids pick up other languages in no time. A lot of friends/colleagues moved between countries (academia) and the kids would usually pick up a language in 2-3 months. I have lived in Australia for six months when I was four. When we returned, I spoke English with an aussie accent (though that's gone now ;)).
Some people can deal with this, even long term, but it's definitely not for me.
However most of us naturally switch to some variation of RP (or as heard on the BBC) while interacting with non locals. It has often been said that there is more variation in the way that English is spoken within the UK, than there is in the rest of the world.
I once had an experience in the USA while sitting at a Restaurant bar and conversing with the barman. He eventually asked where I was from, presumably due to my manner of speech (in English).
I then went through the rigmarole of asking him if he believed I was a native speaker, or knew it as a second language. He picked native, but was unable to enumerate the short list of countries where I was possibly from, and could not guess the answer.
At no point did he try England. He was surprised when I eventually told him I was British, and from England.
It seems too many folk in the US expect that all of us sound like Hugh Grant.
Most schools teach in English and teach Irish as a second language. Irish is rarely used in normal day to day interactions and never at work unless you work in an Irish language related area or government department that supports Irish as an official language.
There are some niche exceptions:
- "All Irish" schools where you optionally learn through Irish
- "Gaeltachts" which are pockets of Ireland where Irish is promoted and spoken. Even here the locals will happily switch to English if you prefer.
I like Irish and wish it was more widely spoken as an everyday language but in reality you have to make an explicit effort to experience it.
My colleagues all said that all the good schools were Irish spoken (as in everything taught through Irish). I extrapolated this to the rest of the country which is clearly incorrect. Sorry. But I wasn't too much into this as I don't have any kids myself.
If I did have kids I would have left Ireland anyway... At least in the area where I lived most schools were Catholic and I would never accept my child being raised with religious values. I wouldn't want to constantly have to deprogram them.
In fact one of my colleagues had a child who was giving a presentation about the dinosaurs. His parents were called to the school and told off because this was a subject that could not be discussed because evolution was "unscientific" and they shouldn't spread this kind of "nonsense" to the other pupils. Another colleague was shunned for being a "lone parent".
And this was actually a colleague who was living in Athlone, not in the Gaeltacht at all. So forgive me if I hold the Irish education system in low esteem :) Perhaps in Dublin it's better but I've only lived in the more remote areas.
Speaking as a former Irish language teacher in a English speaking school in Ireland (now a software engineer in a tech multinational), I don't think most schools teach in Irish, not English. Perhaps you meant it the other way round?
2019 Irish Times: "Number of primary school pupils taught through Irish at record level". Article notes that Irish as primary language of education has risen from 6.4% in 2000 to 8.1% in 2018/19. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/number-of-primary-...
Repeated surveys have shown that secondary students taught through Irish have higher Irish language exam results, but not significantly lower English (or French, German, or Spanish) results. The vast majority of adults in Ireland cannot speak Irish fluently, or at all except for some school-learned phrases. It is not the common language of commerce.
For anyone thinking of relocating to Ireland and confused by my comment or the school system, there is a difference between 'Irish is a subject everyone does in primary/secondary school' to 'Every subject is taught through Irish in schools'. In over 90% of schools, Irish is just one subject across 7 curriculum areas in primary: https://www.curriculumonline.ie/Primary/Curriculum/ and one of 3 mandatory subjects at secondary (with English and Maths).
But indeed Galway is exceptionally focused on Irish. I didn't know the rest of the country was different. Sorry for that.
I did notice that most Irish people have almost no grasp of the Irish language at all, which I found very weird because everyone is forced to learn it for many years (12 even according to one colleague)
Flemish people might be an even more logical choice for the EU. Similar English, Dutch and basic German fluency, plus with most uni educated people there, pretty decent French.
And if you recruit me, you'll get fluent Latvian on top :-)
- Most native Latvian language speakers born in Latvia post-1991 will have low or non-existent Russian language skills, especially in the west (Kurzeme) or north. Very few native Russian speakers there. The situation in and around Riga is a little bit different. Try getting a customer-facing job in the private sector around Riga if you don't speak any Russian...
My significant other is young and speaks Russian fluently by accident. Native Latvian language, but raised in a "Khrushchevka" (Soviet apartment block) full of native Russian speaking families. Playing with the other kids meant learning Russian...
- Very very large differences amongst native Russian speaking youths in Latvia's three largest cities. A significant number hardly speak any Latvian. I've asked kids for directions that had trouble finding the words for "left" or "right". Which is somewhat surprising, given that officially, they're taking a significant part of their school in Latvian. Another group speaks both languages fluently. I've had chats over lunch with people I could hardly detect their native Russian background.
- Surprisingly, _a lot_ of young people in both groups speak abysmally bad English too.
That’s a non-trivial issue.
A big difference between the larger and smaller EU countries though is unrelated. The smallest countries don't have the budget for dubbing movies and TV series. This really helps with English proficiency in the smaller countries such as the Netherlands.
So while what you're saying is technically true, a lot of shows were only subtitled instead of being dubbed, it is also factually false, that is not the main reason for the proficiency.
I do think the subtitling really helps with proficiency though. School can only teach you so much. Consider Ireland where people get taught the Irish language for 12 years and hardly speak it.
The understanding of different accents, slang, drunken conversation etc can only happen with exposure to native speakers. Content in the original language really helps with that.
Half of English is Latin based, the other half is Germanic based. Dutch is a Germanic language so maybe that's where you're getting the idea from.
This is a bad comparison.
Texas is a rich, stable state with access to the U.S. federal court system and unambiguously subservient to the U.S. Poland is unchecked, unbalanced, and much, much poorer. Its lawless regime is legitimately popular, evoking comparisons to pre-collapse Russia and Venezuela.
In an alternate timeline, Warsaw could have rivalled Berlin or Amsterdam. Not in ours.
In terms of GDP, the ranking goes California, Texas, New York, Florida, and then Illinois.
As much as Florida gets dunked on in the US, it's still an economic powerhouse of the region. Orlando is a major financial centre, there's a number of major ports, there's a strong agricultural base, and the state has a considerable amount of high tolerance manufacturing industry (primarily electronics, biomed, naval, and aerospace).
The state gets ragged on a lot (justifiably so for some of our political leadership) but it's still one of the strongest states in the US by a pretty healthy margin.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories...
Edit: forgot to mention that the state is surprisingly progressive once you get through all the election suppression. There's quite a bit of gerrymandering (not quite as bad as Texas), the state makes every effort to strip poor or predisposed people of their voting rights, and we have a lot of other issues but the state by and large despite that has been considered a split/swing state. And despite the voter suppression, the state continues to grow a strong/dedicated voting populace particularly with focuses on environmental protection.
Edit 2: Sorry if this seems a bit defensive.
Just looked at the linked list and when sorting by GDP per capita, Florida is rank 38. Not exactly what I'd call an economic powerhouse, just a state with lots of people?
In what way? A ton of businesses are moving to Texas for more favorable tax treatment, fewer regulations, and lower cost of living. Is that a happening with Poland, too?
That's very weird? Wouldn't the state legislature, being elected by local people be more likely to be popular with local people than the federal government with is largely elected by people outside of Texas?
(Or do you mean 'unpopular' with people outside of Texas?)
Gerrymandering is a problem, yes. But even a gerrymandered state would arguably have more democratic legitimation within the state, than the federal government, which is still largely voted for by non-Texans and also with somewhat idiosyncratic election rules.
Oh, EU has got ways to screw Poland all right, don’t you worry.
Like right now lots of local governments there are reverting certain anti-LGBT laws to get to EU grants or whatever it’s called.
What I'm saying is that EU has means of causing negative consequence for Poland (and any other member) should they decide to engage into activities that are incompatible with EU values (like violating human rights, breaking trade agreements made by EU, etc).
If Poland’s government doesn’t like that, it should resign its membership like Britain did.
You can read the treaty here: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/enlargement_new/treaty/defaul...
Take all the time you need. You'll find lots of specific agreements on wheat subsidies, travel restrictions, etc. But a general claim that EU courts can override Polish courts or EU law to supercede Polish law? It's not there.
If you think it is, please go ahead and cite the passage in the treaty. Otherwise please withdraw the claim.
1. The Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic hereby become members of the European Union and Parties to the Treaties on which the Union is founded as amended or supplemented.
2. The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded, entailed by such admission, are set out in the Act annexed to this Treaty. The provisions of that Act shall form an integral part of this Treaty.
3. The provisions concerning the rights and obligations of the Member States and the powers and jurisdiction of the institutions of the Union as set out in the Treaties referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply in respect of this Treaty.
See also: Treaty of Lisbon, which Poland also signed. Specifically, Declaration 17: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...
17. Declaration concerning primacy
The Conference recalls that, in accordance with well settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States, under the conditions laid down by the said case law.
Edit:
You may want to also have a look here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM...
"According to the precedence principle, European law is superior to the national laws of Member States. The precedence principle applies to all European acts with a binding force. Therefore, Member States may not apply a national rule which contradicts to European law.
The precedence principle guarantees the superiority of European law over national laws. It is a fundamental principle of European law. As with the direct effect principle, it is not inscribed in the Treaties, but has been enshrined by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)."
From the treaty: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
"To the extent that a provision of the Charter refers to national laws and practices, it shall only apply to Poland or the United Kingdom to the extent that the rights or principles that it contains are recognised in the law or practices of Poland or of the United Kingdom."
Rather, it is an agreement in which national parliaments agree to pass national laws in harmony with certain EU laws, or face some penalties. The reason why national parliaments need to do that is because national laws and national constitutions as interpreted by national judges remain the supreme law of the land, and so this treaty was required in order to provide a framework to urge members states to harmonize or give up various EU funding perks.
Look, I get that a lot of people want a Federal Europe, but you can't get there by pretending you've already arrived and being outraged at those who point out you haven't. The EU as presently constituted is basically the articles of confederation, where states need to pass local versions of EU laws, rather than something like a true Federal Europe.
This does not read ambiguously. You asked for a citation, it was given, and now you're ignoring it. Unless you specifically show why this doesn't say what we think it does, you've lost your audience.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
" 1. The Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or any court or tribunal of Poland or of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of Poland or of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms.
2. In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to Poland or the United Kingdom except in so far as Poland or the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law."
I believe you’re confusing this reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights — a separate document — with the treaty itself.
You can see this from the (lengthy) title:
"Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union - Protocols - Declarations annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, signed on 13 December 2007 "
Now you are right that what prompted these carveouts was fear that the EU would promulgate various human rights provisions and force them on Poland, specifically abortion/gay marriage and other measures inconsistent with Polish Catholicism.
This is part of the strategic ambiguity of the Lisbon treaty, with conflicting claims in the treaty meant to satisfy different parties. Thus in one section it states that national laws will be respected, and in another it has a supremacy clause, and in a third it says the area of competence is subordinate to national parliaments.
All meant to create strategic ambiguity to get the thing signed.
But even more importantly for Poland as well as other countries, national Supreme Courts must enforce the constitution of each nation and that constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. A treaty cannot abbrogate a constitution. Thus Polish judges cannot side with a treaty when it conflicts with the Polish constitution. Recognition of this is respecting the rule of law, not violating it.
And when there is a conflict between a law and a treaty, the judges need to side with the law rather than the treaty. The treaty is an outward promise to the rest of the EU and the EU can find that Poland violated its treaty obligations, which would be a matter for the Polish Ambassadors and representatives to deal with, but unless the Polish constitution is amended to recognize the acts of the EU parliament as having the force of law in Poland, then the judges have to enforce the Polish law as enacted by the legitimate law creating mechanisms spelled out in the constitution.
Ironically, this insistence on enforcing the law and the constitution is what the EU calls "violating the rule of law".
And the same thing is true in the Czech republic -- when there is a conflict between an EU law and the Czech constitution, then judges have to side with the Constitution:
https://journals.muni.cz/cpvp/article/view/6637
This came up as the Czechs are seeking to enshrine the right to bear arms in the constitution, so it is very relevant to know who ends up winning: EU gun regulations or Czech regulations. Well, the Czech regulations win.
This should be obvious, if the EU requires its rulings to override national law without being enacted by the national Parliament, then it should have required Constitutional changes to delegate the creation of lawmaking to the EU before letting the nation sign the treaty.
But then no nation would join the EU.
Therefore you have this strategic ambiguity and feigned outrage whenever a supreme court says it is beholden to its national constitution rather than to a treaty (in those cases where there is a conflict).
There is a process for changing the constitution, and it is much harder than the process for signing a treaty. This is because the constitution specifies how laws are to be created and interpreted, not treaties.
Treaties are agreements between nations, but within a nation, the constitution is supreme, and that will remain the case unless the Polish constitution is changed. Polish judges are expected to enforce that constitution, and if the EU finds that Poland has not respected its treaty obligations, it can try to withhold aid or take some other EU specific measure against Poland, but it's not the job of judges to allow treaties to change constitutions.
Both of these were established by the treaties that were in place when Poland joined, and further reaffirmed in the Treaty of Lisbon (which was supposed to be the clarified and rewritten European Constitution, but that was a bridge too far for some countries’ voters, so instead it became a web of amendments over the existing treaties).
1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
"To the extent that a provision of the Charter refers to national laws and practices, it shall only apply to Poland or the United Kingdom to the extent that the rights or principles that it contains are recognised in the law or practices of Poland or of the United Kingdom."
" 1. The Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or any court or tribunal of Poland or of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of Poland or of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms."
"In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to Poland or the United Kingdom except in so far as Poland or the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law."
The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties.
The provisions of the Charter shall not extend in any way the competences of the Union as defined in the Treaties.
So the Charter is about human rights, and as the treaty makes clear, doesn’t extend the competences of the Union. Poland and UK wanted to put a further point on this for some reason. It is not a carve-out from the treaty.
Hint: the reason why the structure of the EU was designed so that national parliaments would pass their own versions of laws agreed to in the EU parliament was precisely because it is the national laws that are binding. Similarly the EU courts rule on actions of the member states in the context of the EU, whether the member states are living up to their agreement. They do not directly rule on laws or override laws in the national parliaments.
Read these two pages. They are fairly clear, contain references to primary sources, and disagree with your claims:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/types-eu-la...
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM...
Article 288 Treaty on Functioning of the EU
(ex Article 249 TEC)
To exercise the Union's competences, the institutions shall adopt regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions.
A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. [...]
The grandparent is right and you're wrong.
Also, be very wary about quoting sources that end in a domain .EU, they're obviously biased.
17. Declaration concerning primacy
The Conference recalls that, in accordance with well settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States, under the conditions laid down by the said case law.
"Yes, but I choose to ignore those parts."
Democracies are often very convenient for coercing minorities into living the way the majority wants them to live.
As to Poland, there are no publicised plans for changes to laws that directly affect gays, and they actually have many legal protections that you'll find lacking elsewhere. No same sex marriage or civil partnerships though.
If you think stripping away democracy so that Polish gays can marry is worth it then you're entitled to that view, but I'd hazard a guess that they've got long enough memories to avoid that kind of short term thinking and will carry on with the long term effort of persuasion, which is going well[1].
> Meanwhile, support for the legalisation of same-sex partnerships – which are currently not permitted in Poland – now stands at 36%, up six percentage points since 2019 and ten since 2015. Surveys by other pollsters have in recent years found a growing majority now in favour of same-sex partnerships.
[1] https://notesfrompoland.com/2021/08/06/poles-becoming-more-s...
Ah, a straw man. Please don’t do that, it’s tiresome.
I’m not a fan of “stripping away democracy” per the words you tried to put into my mouth. I am however rather clear eyed about the drawbacks of democracies in how they tend to treat minorities. If that reads as being anti democracy to you, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.
Conservative policies including strong stance against any abortion.
Anti abortion laws.
— Davy Crockett…and also me
"But, Mr. Crockett Texas is hell."
In a similar vein, this also from the 19th Century: A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke.
"But, Mr. Kipling a good woman is a ... oh wait."
They voted with their feet.
So why not?