• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UN says Europe is 'on cusp of self-induced crisis'

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pezking

Member
And when they can't handle anymore and there's millions more coming, what then?

How about trying to handle it in the first place? Way too many member states still just ignore the problems at hand and flat out refuse to help.

The vague possibility that the influx of refugees might be too much to handle sometime in the future is by no means no valid reason to deny aid to the refugees that are actually on our doorsteps NOW.
 

Pezking

Member
You'll have to build an infrastructure for people to live, work and be save while the war is going on, a place for refugees to go to. And you can only leave when a proper power structure is in place, so either colonize it or find somebody to take over with enough local support to be the next dictator. And don't make the same mistake again in believing that democracy can work in the middle east.

You actually think that colonizing Syria is a good idea? Or installing a new "popular" dictator?

How exactly is that NOT making the same mistake again?
 
How about trying to handle it in the first place? Way too many member states still just ignore the problems at hand and flat out refuse to help.

The vague possibility that the influx of refugees might be too much to handle sometime in the future is by no means no valid reason to deny aid to the refugees that are actually on our doorsteps NOW.

I'm sorry but that is a poor argument. Whilst I agree that nations should take these people in, the concerns are valid and your suggestion that they should 'try', with the implication that if it doesn't work out, no harm done, is asinine. If they take the refugees and their concerns are borne out, there is no going back.

As I said, I agree that nations should take their share but they should do that because the opportunity to alleviate human suffering trumps the negative consequences of doing so, not because those consequences don't exist (they clearly, obviously do).
 

Sadist

Member
but that hearsay also drives economic migrants which shouldn't be encouraged. Fundamentally, a genuine refugee shouldn't care where they go, and arguably shouldn't have the right to settle where they want (within reason - they should try and be accommodated so families etc aren't split up).

If, instead of Merkel going 'come in everyone, the water's lovely' - it was simply 'if you are fleeing persecution and fear for your life, we will provide shelter, but you may end up in Finland', then I think you'd see some drop in the numbers coming over the border.

Also, is this supposed to be a temporary thing? I don't know how this works with refugees but I assume there isn't any requirement or expectation that they'll return to their home country if/when the environment improves? Or does that just happen naturally in part, as most people don't actually want to be away from their home country?
There is that risk; but the numbers I've seen seem to imply that a lot of the economic migrants are people from the Balkans; countries like Albania and the like, but those applications are mostly shot down from the get go. Going back to Syrian refugees, I believe that a certain portion might have financial reasons to flee their country, but the majority wants to be safe and ask around in which country it's possible to get a temporary permit pretty quickly. That's mostly the reason why refugees want to flee to Germany. "if Auntie Merkel says we are welcome, well, why go to another country? We should be safe there"

I agree that Merkel could have said that, but I believe she would have angered the European community who'd berate Merkel for making decisions that are not hers to make. I don't believe we would have seen a drop in refugees crossing the border.

Regarding it being temporary... it's hard to say. I know that in the Netherlands you'll receive a status for five years if the department of immigration deems you a refugee. After five years they well review the situation in the country of origin and if it hasn't improved you could receive an extention. If the situation improves and Syria would be declared safe by the international community, the Dutch government has the right to revoke one's status and ask the refugee to return to their country. But it's really hard to tell how the current stream of refugees think about returning home.
 
We are independent nations within a trade federation though. The EU is not one unified nation and, for a lot of people, that's the way it should stay. The UK just secured an exemption from this exact principle.

The ultimate aim shouldn't be to remain independent nations, but rather like sates with a federalist union. The UK didn't really secure anything of substance. It secured privilleges for itself, but did not address any of the need for reform in the EU.

Ehhh, which stats? Sure the EU has a big GDP, but I thought one of the requirements of a superpower was power projection. I don't think the EU in its current form really has this.

Looking for where I saw the stats, if I can find them I'll respond with the link.

We'd have one of the largest Armed Forces in the world. We still wouldn't beat the US in carriers (We'd be ahead of China) or nuclear weapons, but we would still have one of the largest in the the world.
 
How about trying to handle it in the first place? Way too many member states still just ignore the problems at hand and flat out refuse to help.

The vague possibility that the influx of refugees might be too much to handle sometime in the future is by no means no valid reason to deny aid to the refugees that are actually on our doorsteps NOW.

Your vague possibility is a reality. The situation is already bad because Merkel decided to take a million refugees without a logical plan.

Germany has already lost control: crime waves on NYE, nationalism and far right on the rise, mass media censorship, and then this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35667858

It is a GLOBAL crisis and Europe should not be the one solving it. There are no simple solutions like "share all immigrants and bingo", there will be no end to the immigrants from Northern Africa and The Middle East. Sweden and UK has the same responsibility as USA or Japan when it comes to refugees.

I understand that this is a weak argument, but if countries (especially the ones who destabilized the region) aren't going to help, then why should Europe? We didn't arm extremists and militia to topple Assad, it was a wonderful CIA plan.

Trump would be a president if Hillary suggested taking 500k refugees.
 

Maedre

Banned
because they've only been coming since then...

thats a point many don't want to hear. Merkel can say what she wants and she is a good scapegout, but these refugees from syria and iraq are there. There were there before and they will be there in the future. They want to escpace and not just because merkel said that germany will help.

She is the perfect scapegout but why does nearly nobody talk about the reason that there are so many refugees from Afghanistan, iraq and syria?

Who created the power vacuum in their region? Who startet a fucking war over ten years ago because of..."reasons"? Who invaded these countrys? The fingers are pointing in the wrong direction.

This whole discussion is useless as long we blame the ones who try to help and ignoring the ones who startet this fucking mess.

I understand that this is a weak argument, but if countries (especially the ones who destabilized the region) aren't going to help, then why should Europe? We didn't arm extremists and militia to topple Assad, it was a wonderful CIA plan.

Trump would be a president if Hillary suggested taking 500k refugees.

funny isn't it? Must be nice to play war when there is an Ocean between home and the consequences.
 
The ultimate aim shouldn't be to remain independent nations, but rather like sates with a federalist union

that may be your ultimate aim but it's not a vision shared by everyone. Even amongst pro-Europeans in the UK the appetite for completely unified Europe is close to non-existent..

The UK didn't really secure anything of substance. It secured privilleges for itself, but did not address any of the need for reform in the EU. .

The UK secured an exemption from the commitment to ever-closer union, which is what we are discussing.

I am curious which country you come from.

edit: You're from the UK?? What are you on about you mentalist! LOL
 

nib95

Banned
Britain's fastest growing newspaper, not some tabloid.

Is this a joke post? Being popular doesn't prevent it from being a trashy tabloid. It's actually depressing these sorts of vile papers are the most popular in the UK. Likewise with Fox News being by far the most popular TV news channel in the US. Right wing xenophobia, racism and fearmongering is apparently in demand, and the general populace is becoming more ignorant and hateful as a result.
 

pswii60

Member
You can bet your bottom dollar that the UK will be that naysayer.

Admittedly, that might not be a problem much longer.
The U.K. has net migration of over 320k/annum, is it any surprise that there is a little reluctance? In a country that already has all services stretched way beyond capacity and limited housing. If there were fewer immigrants from Eastern Europe (which UK has no control over) then the UK will have more room for Syrians.

The argument is that immigration is good for the economy, but in the case of the U.K. it isn't good if it doesn't increase the economy enough to fund additional schools, hospitals, GP surgeries, social housing etc to cope with the increased population.
 
thats a point many don't want to hear. Merkel can say what she wants and she is a good scapegout, but these refugees from syria and iraq are there. There were there before and they will be there in the future. They want to escpace and not just because merkel said that germany will help.

She is the perfect scapegout but why does nearly nobody talk about the reason that there are so many refugees from Afghanistan, iraq and syria?

Who created the power vacuum in their region? Who startet a fucking war over ten years ago because of..."reasons"? Who invaded these countrys? The fingers are pointing in the wrong direction.

This whole discussion is useless as long we blame the ones who try to help and ignoring the ones who startet this fucking mess.

The reasons and execution might have been bad but every genocidal dictator less is a good thing ultimately. The follow up and rebuilding of the countries is the issue.

Pointing fingers is also futile, we can't just depend on the US to play world police. Sending humanitarian aid won't solve everything either.

I understand that this is a weak argument, but if countries (especially the ones who destabilized the region) aren't going to help, then why should Europe? We didn't arm extremists and militia to topple Assad, it was a wonderful CIA plan.

Trump would be a president if Hillary suggested taking 500k refugees.

we let the situation in syria linger so long that the rebel groups that were more moderate got superseded by extremists.


Many european countries had profitable deals with dictator regimes in the middle east. They were condoning them in favour of their own interests and now that the populace is in need because they desired the same freedom we've enjoyed all our lives we shall have nothing to do with them because once again of our own interests?
 
So the alternative is to just stand by and let IS wipe entire peoples out, taking many thousands of sex slaves so we can keep the current peaceful conditions?
Yes, you can't half ass it like some of the wars you're referring to, and yes the costs will be massive. You'll have to build an infrastructure for people to live, work and be save while the war is going on, a place for refugees to go to. And you can only leave when a proper power structure is in place, so either colonize it or find somebody to take over with enough local support to be the next dictator. And don't make the same mistake again in believing that democracy can work in the middle east.


Europe have already tried that. Go to wikipedia and have a look when syria, egypt, algeria, lybia and tunisia got their independence from european colonisation.

But ofc we (europe) wanted its perferred leaders, like mubarak in egypt, heavily supported by eu and usa before the revolution.

After these countries got their independence they still are in heavy debt to europe for the freedom we "gave" them. Its like we sold the countries back to their people with a huge interest rate.

Maybe thats to far back in history to matter for some. For comparison Europes developed countries took more than 400 years after their independence to get democracy, and then we say "why cant egypt have democracy? They dont want It in the middle east"

Just like europe i think it will take the middle eastern countries a couple of centuries to build a decent democracy.

How can they do that with western countries electing their leaders.

Ghadaffi and Mubarak were the western choice for power and for protecting its interests in the middle east.
 

I think ultimately, the UK will and should become a member of a united Europe. Same argument for why Scotland should stay in the UK, can be used why the UK should remain in the EU.

Do I agree with the EU though? Not really. In it's current form, it's way more beneficial for the UK to keep it's distance. I disagree with Cameron achieving anything worthwhile. It's way more beneficial for us to origanise reform in the EU, then to exist as a cling-on.
 

nib95

Banned
The U.K. has net migration of over 320k/annum, is it any surprise that there is a little reluctance? In a country that already has all services stretched way beyond capacity and limited housing. If there were fewer immigrants from Eastern Europe (which UK has no control over) then the UK will have more room for Syrians.

The argument is that immigration is good for the economy, but in the case of the U.K. it isn't good if it doesn't increase the economy enough to fund additional schools, hospitals, GP surgeries, social housing etc to cope with the increased population.

The migrants make a net contribution to the income of the UK, British natives actually make a net loss. Whether the funds are properly re-introduced or distributed to develop social institutions such as the one's you've described, is a governmental decision and priority.
 
Looking for where I saw the stats, if I can find them I'll respond with the link.

We'd have one of the largest Armed Forces in the world. We still wouldn't beat the US in carriers (We'd be ahead of China) or nuclear weapons, but we would still have one of the largest in the the world.

Well yeah, "would" have...

Edit:

The U.K. has net migration of over 320k/annum, is it any surprise that there is a little reluctance? In a country that already has all services stretched way beyond capacity and limited housing. If there were fewer immigrants from Eastern Europe (which UK has no control over) then the UK will have more room for Syrians.

The argument is that immigration is good for the economy, but in the case of the U.K. it isn't good if it doesn't increase the economy enough to fund additional schools, hospitals, GP surgeries, social housing etc to cope with the increased population.

You're preaching to the choir mate

Edit2:

that may be your ultimate aim but it's not a vision shared by everyone. Even amongst pro-Europeans in the UK the appetite for completely unified Europe is close to non-existent..

The UK secured an exemption from the commitment to ever-closer union, which is what we are discussing.

I am curious which country you come from.

edit: You're from the UK?? What are you on about you mentalist! LOL

Dave "secured" fuck all. That "ever closer union thing" is merely a proposed treaty change needs to be approved by national parliaments and in some cases electorates via referendum. See my post here in the EU referendum thread.
 
I meant to ensure there's no Brexit. You think the UK budget in a couple of weeks will make people vote Leave?

Could do, depends on how well the leave campaign spins it.

My city doesn't even have a Citizens Advice bureau anymore because of cuts. The idea of accepting refugees would cause a riot. There won't be any charities around to help them here.

I'm still on the fence myself.

It's the poor who are suffering here and it will be the poor who will have the biggest say on if we leave or not. They aren't going to care about increased prices or lack of jobs because in their eyes they're fucked anyway.


With that said, if we pull out of Europe and British eyes become solely focused on this Tory government and what they do here to its people. Well, not sure they'll want that.
 
The U.K. has net migration of over 320k/annum, is it any surprise that there is a little reluctance? In a country that already has all services stretched way beyond capacity and limited housing. If there were fewer immigrants from Eastern Europe (which UK has no control over) then the UK will have more room for Syrians.

The argument is that immigration is good for the economy, but in the case of the U.K. it isn't good if it doesn't increase the economy enough to fund additional schools, hospitals, GP surgeries, social housing etc to cope with the increased population.
Eastern European immigrants can at least go straight to work. A Syrian refugee would not be allowed to do so. So if we are talking about impact on the economy, it would be more costly to allow 300.000 Syrians a year compared to EU citizens.

How can they do that with western countries electing their leaders.

Ghadaffi and Mubarak were the western choice for power and for protecting its interests in the middle east.
Big problem with these countries is that there is no good choice. We saw in Egypt that after the elections the Islamists gained power and it wasn't a good thing also.

Yes, Gadaffi and Mubarak might be the West choice, but what is the alternative? I can't see a "good dictator" suddenly gaining support there and it seems otherwise extremists are elected or if a moderate government is elected, extremist groups are not willing to back down. All those situations lead to either slaughter or oppression. And when that happens the world again calls for "the West" to intervene, because we also can't stand by doing nothing.

You'd need to redraw the whole map among ethnic groups and tribes. But that will lead to another round of chaos about that.
 
Merkel isn't a dictator like some are making out to be.

Germany WANTS the refugees. Why? Because of their economy. They need a growing population and more skilled workers. And Syrians are perfect for this. This is a mutually beneficial transaction.

Just as Germany's economy is largely run off the Turkish German minority, the new immigrants are needed to prop up and keep Germany's economic superiority.

The immigrants aren't that much of a crisis for Europe, compared to what is already here. The bigger problem is, the flawed EU Zone, which will collapse almost no matter what. And of course, the growing Neo Nazi governments, that threaten to consume EU.

Neo Nazism and an economy guaranteed to fail.
 
Russia bares a lot of responsibility for this entire crisis and, if I were in anyway conspiracy minded I might say this was intentional on Russia's part, destabilise the EU with millions of migrants and refugees landing on its shores. One things for sure Putin is laughing his ass off at all this.


Migrants have been inundating Mediterranean countries and Greece for nearly a decade now.

Those Russian barrel bombs are truly the most horrific weapon ever devised, one dropped in Syria sends people from as far North Africa and Pakistan scurrying for German shelter.
 
I think ultimately, the UK will and should become a member of a united Europe. Same argument for why Scotland should stay in the UK, can be used why the UK should remain in the EU.

Do I agree with the EU though? Not really. In it's current form, it's way more beneficial for the UK to keep it's distance. I disagree with Cameron achieving anything worthwhile. It's way more beneficial for us to origanise reform in the EU, then to exist as a cling-on.

Agree with second point whole heartedly. Disagree with the first point just as strongly. The UK is not going to be a member of a United Europe in our lifetimes. Why? Lots of reasons.Amongst them is the fact that Germany, France and many other EU nations have their own particular, yet different, reasons for wanting a united Europe. Some of those reasons are to do with the world wars, some are to do with economics but none really apply to the UK. The UK is never going to join a federation that would inevitably be dominated by Germany and run by eurocrats. It wouldn't be in our national interest (unless we completely fucked ourselves somehow)
 
Germany WANTS the refugees. Why? Because of their economy. They need a growing population and more skilled workers. And Syrians are perfect for this. This is a mutually beneficial transaction.

Just as Germany's economy is largely run off the Turkish German minority, the new immigrants are needed to prop up and keep Germany's economic superiority.
There might be some different opinions about this looking at crime and welfare stats.

And I don't know if importing cheap labor to replace your own more expensive workers is a mutual beneficial transaction. And even then, why do we suddenly look at Syria for this as some kind of "solution". If Germany needed new works so badly, they could have easily get them from other EU countries or Balkan countries, but that didn't happen in these numbers the past years. Those people are sent back (for example is they are from Albania) and for good reason.

Because they are fleeing war? And Germany needs them for their economy? " The throng". Wow.
Fleeing a war does not give you the right to settle in whatever country you want after you have reached safety. It is up to the receiving countries to decide if they let people in.
 

liquidtmd

Banned
It's way more beneficial for us to origanise reform in the EU, then to exist as a cling-on.

Ive lost faith this will happen though.

I've read many arguments for and against. My fundamental dilemma is that I believe in the ideals of a Union, but I am deeply unhappy with core elements. If we Vote in, I don't believe anything will change and nothing will be learnt. Conversely I believe voting out is not the right call.

Conflicted.
 

nib95

Banned
Yes.

The throng currently battering down the gates of macedonia are all screaming "Merkel save us!" Merkel where are you!". They're all heading for Germany for a reason.

They're heading to Europe full stop, because they are fleeing a barbaric war, where their homes and lives have been utterly decimated, and now they're seeking better fortune elsewhere. It's what any sensible minded person would do in the given situation.

Fleeing a war does not give you the right to settle in whatever country you want after you have reached safety. It is up to the receiving countries to decide if they let people in.

Obviously, but that wouldn't prevent you from trying. At the end of the day, these people just want a better life, with more potential for themselves and their families.
 
Obviously, but that wouldn't prevent you from trying. At the end of the day, people just want what's best for them and their families.
True. But then there is a limit and unfortunately that will come with people being sent back to lesser circumstances. Which is what we are beginning to see now.
 

nib95

Banned
True. But then there is a limit and unfortunately that will come with people being sent back to lesser circumstances. Which is what we are beginning to see now.

Right, but that is the risk they take and part and parcel of it all. Some people fear the life they're leaving behind enough that they're willing to sacrifice drowning to death or worse, so I think being turned away is the least of their worries. I'd do exactly the same in their situation. No way in hell would I take my chances with ISIS or Assad, and given the millions that have already been taken in, in places like Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan etc, I probably would also rather try my hand in Europe, especially given it's even further from danger.

Like I said, the problem right now is much of the world simply isn't doing enough to help out, and an insurmountable amount of pressure is being left to bare by Germany and other countries.
 
There might be some different opinions about this looking at crime and welfare stats.

And I don't know if importing cheap labor to replace your own more expensive workers is a mutual beneficial transaction. And even then, why do we suddenly look at Syria for this as some kind of "solution". If Germany needed new works so badly, they could have easily get them from other EU countries or Balkan countries, but that didn't happen in these numbers the past years. Those people are sent back (for example is they are from Albania) and for good reason.


Fleeing a war does not give you the right to settle in whatever country you want after you have reached safety. It is up to the receiving countries to decide if they let people in.

No it's a fact, the reason Germany decided to take so many refugees is because of economic reasons.

It's also an economic fact the Turkish population has had a HUGE net effect, in fact, Germany's manufacturing sector would be much much smaller. According to the economist, the German economies gains would've been very minor without immigration.

If you have studied economics, it's an obvious fact. This is why Merkel and Germany COURTED and INVITED the Syrians. They are not replacing ANYONE. They are adding. Immigrants are the lifeblood of Germany's economy. They cannot get it from other EU countries easily. Other EU countries are also contracting population wise, and Germany is not the top destination for educated EU immigrants like UK.

No one said fleeing war gives you the right to settle in whatever country you want. But fleeing war does give you refugee rights, enshrined in EU law, built by Germany itself. And let's not forget Germany literally courted and invited these people. And, invited these people, for their own selfish reasons.

Seems like you should be angry at EU and German laws, and angry at Germany wanting to keep a powerful economy. Lots of rightwing movements have been birthed through these feelings. But the rationale isn't strong, imo.
 
Ive lost faith this will happen though.

I've read many arguments for and against. My fundamental dilemma is that I believe in the ideals of a Union, but I am deeply unahppy with core elements. If we Vote in, I don't believe anything will change and nothing will be learnt. Conversely I believe voting out is not the right call.

Conflicted.

If we leave, their might be new consequences with Russia. The sanctions against Russia hurts him. The sanctions against Iran also helped a lot.
EU has done some admirable things. The EU Food administration has been a vigilant fighter from invasive pharma and predatory corps in the US.
Without the EU it will be much harder to travel around, passports and so on will be much more...
But is it even this crisis fault? Yes we didn't have a plan, but I think even the way we handled Greece. It shows no political will to unify Europe. It's a trade union that fails at trade. At least in that case!
 
They're heading to Europe full stop, because they are fleeing a barbaric war, where their homes and lives have been utterly decimated, and now they're seeking better fortune elsewhere. It's what any sensible minded person would do in the given situation.

They're IN Europe. They're in Greece.

Why are they trying to smash Macedonia's fence in? Fleeing from the war in Greece now?
 

Jenenser

Member
It is not humanitarian to cause people to drown in the Mediterranean. She indeed is the greatest villain of our time, a person that doubles down on past mistakes causing countless to suffer in order to not lose face.

Right now the focus is on the problems the migrants cause in Europe, but you might remember that before that there was already a huge increase smugglers sending over people in small boats across the Mediterranean, with some of them flipping over and either drowning or needing rescue. This was already partially caused by EU policy to cripple the Italians from doing any proper border control.
The proper response to this was copying the Australian policy, where people don't drown on their way to Australia anymore: Tow everybody back and advertise that fact so that they know there's no point in risking their lives.
Instead, Merkel made a speech stating that we'll accept everybody that comes, luring many people that were safe and sound, killing more people and making it more difficult to provide proper conditions to people fleeing from the horrors of IS. At the same time the EU has done nothing to stop Turkey from supporting IS.
Had she pushed for towing back people coming with boats and communicated clearly that the agreed upon policy of returning everybody to the EU country where they entered Europe would be in a completely different position now and the hundreds of people that drowned (many not from IS territory) would still be alive.

As for Syria and Irak, that is where you need to invest, this is where Europe needs to show that we're not some soft, lazy, rich kids who don't know how the world works but a powerful player that will not tolerate genocide, slavery, mass rape and torture on our doorstep. Here's were we should have mobilized a large part of our armed forces and fix the problem at its origin. This will cost us both in money and lives lost, but it is our moral obligation and the costs will pail in comparison on the long term costs of the current policies.

History, how does it work.
*shakes head*
 
No it's a fact, the reason Germany decided to take so many refugees is because of economic reasons.
And people in Europe and from Germany are complaining that they shouldn't have done so, because you should spread out immigration over a longer period of time, not take in a million people every year.
 
The idea that Britain can reform the EU is such a joke. Such a joke.

First off, Cameron is hated. Flat out, hated. In fact, he is hated so much he pretty much single handedly ruined our relationship with America. It's actually incredible and unprecedented. This is why we did the big China deal, because we have been completely isolated from America, and the EU.

It's been a very long time since Britain has been this isolated, forced to bow down to China, who will be taking over some of our infrastructure now. And this idea, that we should leave the EU because of its flaws is also ridiculous.

In theory that is a good idea. But, people seem to be forgetting, all those flaws, which we can simplistically boil down to being too neoliberal at times, would be a million times worse with the Tories making all the plans. We would have far less rights and protections, that's what Cameron is after. EU will always be better than what the Tories have in plan for us.
 
I meant to ensure there's no Brexit. You think the UK budget in a couple of weeks will make people vote Leave?
I know this isn't what you're talking about, but I actually think this budget will be more like a pre-election budget, because Cam and George won't want the referendum to end up being a referendum on the government. Having a vote a month and a half after a load of cuts will, I think, make people who basically.don't care about Europe vote to leave just because Cameron is telling them to vote to stay (this is similar, in a way, to how UKIP always do better in council and European elections than general elections - bit of a protest on something that doesn't matter much).
 
And people in Europe and from Germany are complaining that they shouldn't have done so, because you should spread out immigration over a longer period of time, not take in a million people every year.

Uhm, no.
The criticism Merkel faces in germany is mostly based on racism, its not constructive criticism.
Erika-Steinbach-630x353.jpg

"Germany in 30 years" *indian people watching a blonde kid* "Where are you from?"

Even the SPD and the Greens are pretty incoherent in their message. They basically agree with Merkel is doing, but since they're opposition they have to act like they disagree. As a result you hear them complaining all the time, but you never really know what they're complaining about exactly and what they would do differently.

From within Merkels own party you get stuff like the in picture above: racist fearmongering.
And then you have the CSU, whos sole purpose is to be populist and right wing in order to keep voters away from actual right wing parties. They've been doing that for years now and they never actually pulled through with anything, but everytime the CSU is acting up again people think something will come from it...

The thing is that you have to take in refugees or you have to use force at some point to keep some of them away.
Like the AfD says: "Shoot them", they later clarified "Only men and women, because kids don't know what they're doing." Aren't they merciful?


The reason Merkel is so unfazed by everything(she was incredibly calm in her last interview on national TV) is because she knows that there is no one who has plan. Peoples criticism is shallow.

And thats not only true for germany but the EU as a whole.
Everyone is bitching, but nobody is actually proposing alternative ways to deal with the situation. In fact, its Merkel who is constantly trying to get other countries involved in the process of finding a solution.
The problem is that a large part of europe doesn't want to find a solution, they want to ignore the problem.

She going through all this for the 3rd time now. During the financial crisis everyone was bitching about her actions, everyone was talking about how everything will collapse, and in hindsight you might say that germany navigated the crisis better than anyone else, thanks to Merkel. Unemployment didn't even rise, most germans wouldn't have known there is a financial crisis if they hadn't read it in the paper. Economy recovered quicker than in any other country.

During the greek crisis everyone was bitching, everyone was talkng about how the EU will fall apart, everyone talked about how Germany can't afford to bail anyone out. At the end of the day german economy wasn't even affected.
Some people said you can't cut your way out of a crisis(greens for example) and Merkels response was that the system in greece failed, so if you pour money into it, this money will just vanish like the money before it. So you need to fix the system first and then you can invest. End of discussion. Nobody in germany or the EU had a better plan. And none of the fearmongerers predictions actually came true.

And now Merkel is going through the same shit again. Everyone is against her but nobody has a better plan.
She sees the bigger picture and knows what is right and doesn't cater to temporary populist right wing trends like so many leaders in other countries.

She has been asking the EU from the very beginning to come together and find a solution together. But except a few countries nobody wanted to. Its beyond how anyone could blame her now.

Show me one country that has proposed a plan worth discussing?


Tbh, I think Merkel will go down in history as one of the greatest chancellors germany has ever had. I never voted for her, but at the moment I couldn't imagine anyone better for germany and the EU.
I just wish she'd implement Eurobonds. Germanys trade surplus is other countries deficit and thats hurting the EU a great deal. There needs to be a mechanism to account for that if you want the EU to be stable.
 
Show me one country that has proposed a plan worth discussing?
Dutch politicians proposed sending people back to Turkey from Greece, paying Turkey for their efforts in this whole mess and then taking in people from there in manageable numbers.

The UK and Canada (which for some reason is much praised for their limited effort) take in people from UN camps. That is also a better approach.

I don't think saying the only criticism people have is based on racism is a fair point.

And yes, you have to use force at some point if people are trying to get places they are not allowed to go. That does not automatically mean deadly force. That's how borders work mostly.
 
Dutch politicians proposed sending people back to Turkey from Greece, paying Turkey for their efforts in this whole mess and then taking in people from there in manageable numbers.
Thats exactly what Merkel wants to do, too. The netherlands are one of the few allies she has atm.

The UK and Canada (which for some reason is much praised for their limited effort) take in people from UN camps. That is also a better approach.
Unless they're taking hundreds of thousands thats not really going to help.


I don't think saying the only criticism people have is based on racism is a fair point.
I think it is. The cost of taking these people in, providing them with housing, food, and eventually integration programs and education, is tiny compared to the cost of recent events europe went through.
Yet, these other event never triggered reactions even close to the ones the refugee crisis triggered.
People don't like these people. Thats the reason they're opposing everything.


And yes, you have to use force at some point if people are trying to get places they are not allowed to go. That does not automatically mean deadly force. That's how borders work mostly.
I don't think this is in line with european values.

Also keep in mind that most of these people flee war zones and risc their lives to get to the european borders. Don't trick yoursef into thinking that teargas or similar measures will keep them away.
If you start using force it will eventually end up in deadly force. Thats the nature of the situation.
 

linsivvi

Member
It's like you consciously ignore part of my post, oh wait you both did.
Yes I ignored the part where you suggested rebuilding someone else's country with a completely different culture and where you are not welcomed in the first place.

It's not like we didn't have decades of history from multiple continents to know that it doesn't work.

Meanwhile, millions of people are suffering and the country that started all this has a presidential candidate running on the platform of kicking all brown people out.

And here we are arguing which EU leader is the worst.
 
Yes I ignored the part where you suggested rebuilding someone else's country with a completely different culture and where you are not welcomed in the first place.

It's not like we didn't have decades of history from multiple continents to know that it doesn't work.

Meanwhile, millions of people are suffering and the country that started all this has a presidential candidate running on the platform of kicking all brown people out.

And here we are arguing which EU leader is the worst.

I didn't suggest anything, I said those efforts were where they failed. I don't have the solution either and I never claimed I did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom