I sympathize with the anguish of the people whose jobs are under threat. But I would like, nonetheless, to recall labor markets during post-communist transition in the countries which joined the EU after 2004; millions of individuals have had to seek other jobs, sometimes under terrible duress. What puzzles me somewhat is the way the Nokia affair is portrayed by some German politicians. For, whatever political persuasion a person who believes in democracy espouses the logic of markets, which is also the logic of the EU as a single market, dictates where a company chooses to produce in the end. From a broader perspective this is the logic of globalization, with its pluses and minuses. And the qualification of "nomad capitalism" is not of much help in this regard. What also gives pause for thought is the intensity of the reaction in a country which, economically, is the most powerful in Europe and its largest manufacturing exporter. What shall we expect then from ?I give an example? Italy, from where many companies have outsourced production to the East, in Romania included? And not least, the question posed to President Barroso by some German politicians opens the door to a misdirected path in judging EU policies. For structural funds, apart from a sense of solidarity among EU member countries and a practical means to formulate a cohesion policy across frontiers in the UE, can be seen as an overall subsidy provided by the EU to its least developed member states. Shall we understand that this regional (cohesion) policy is questioned by those who link the transfer of the Nokia plant to Cluj-Napoca with what they call "unfair competition" via, allegedly, the use of structural funds? Should Romanian cities stop the development of infrastructure (roads, airports" etc) so that they should not be accused of unfair competition? Or, shall we, in Romania, be incensed and re