The current refugee wave in Europe

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Yes the EU, which Germany has a good deal of influence on, is clearly not pursuing a neoliberal agenda that has done severe damage to the economies of PIGS while benefiting Germany. And past experience has shown that these refugees will not be used as a source of cheap labor and will get along splendidly with the locals. It's got to be crazy talk that neoliberals would bend over backwards to accommodate corporations.

 

 

There are subtle differences hidden between the following groups of statements. Can you find them all?

 

Group A:

"Germany is purposefully trying to destabilize Europe!"

"The EU is conspiring to erode people's national identities because people without a strong sense of belonging to a national community are easier to control^{[citation needed]}!"

 

Group B:

"The EU has implemented neoliberal policies, possibly due to the influence of Germany."

"The EU's track record with the integration of migrants so far has been less than stellar."

Edited September 9, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Malcador]

 

Well, that is one way to do crowd control

[obyknven]

It's good time for bringing Jihad into Europe! Allahu Akbar brothers!

[Longknife]

 

But graphs are just graphs, lets check how the situation is at the greek island of Lesbos

 

Legit thought you were dissing on some island Greece has where they keep all their homosexual women. I think my interpretation would've been waaaay more entertaining.

[BruceVC]

Neither of those is similar to arming or being the air force for rebels in another country.

Actually they are very similar, they both are about the humanitarian precedent 

 

 

In Libya the West intervened initially because of the Siege of Misrata 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Misrata

 

That was the catalyst and it should be an easy sale to understand that Western intervention in the beginning of the Syrian conflict and assisting to remove Assad cannot be seen as a bad thing if you look at the reality of Syria now 

 

And I'm not suggesting for a second that there arent other factors that influence the West but we cannot ignore the humanitarian aspect 

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

its all part of a bigger plan to destabilize Europe.

 

Wait what.

Germany is planning on destabilizing Europe so German businesses can buy up capital and the EU can push neoliberalism as hard as possible.

 

You missed the part with political "normalization", meaning that a federalization of the states in the EU and more centralized power. People without a strong sense of national community are more passive and will be easier to control in the power vacuum that it creates....or the leaders are simply completely clueless and we are riding the chaos-train.

 

Both of you sound suspiciously like you're spewing tinfoil-hat nonsense, do you have any extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claims?

 

(Also, I somehow doubt Woldan meant to allude to that. I'm kinda curious about his insane conspiracy theory as well.)

Yes the EU, which Germany has a good deal of influence on, is clearly not pursuing a neoliberal agenda that has done severe damage to the economies of PIGS while benefiting Germany. And past experience has shown that these refugees will not be used as a source of cheap labor and will get along splendidly with the locals. It's got to be crazy talk that neoliberals would bend over backwards to accommodate corporations.

 

 KP I'm sorry to have to disagree with you but you have to stop seeing Germany as the " bad guys " in the whole PIGS austerity reality

 

Germany are not the bad guys, Germany are a very important and indispensable foundation of the EU...they aren't the only relevant part of the EU. Of course many other countries are part of the system but I really don't understand why some of you guys think the PIGS were somehow mistreated. All the PIGS countries were the architects of there own economic woes ...thats on them...not the Germans

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

its all part of a bigger plan to destabilize Europe.

 

Wait what.

 

Germany is planning on destabilizing Europe so German businesses can buy up capital and the EU can push neoliberalism as hard as possible.

 

 

You missed the part with political "normalization", meaning that a federalization of the states in the EU and more centralized power. People without a strong sense of national community are more passive and will be easier to control in the power vacuum that it creates....or the leaders are simply completely clueless and we are riding the chaos-train.

 

 

Both of you sound suspiciously like you're spewing tinfoil-hat nonsense, do you have any extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claims?

 

(Also, I somehow doubt Woldan meant to allude to that. I'm kinda curious about his insane conspiracy theory as well.)

 

 

Lets turn it around, what kind of people benefit from nations giving up their sovereignity and the erosion of the nationstate with no distinct ethnic groups?

 

But no matter, here's a carrot for you:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nikolaus_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi

 

 

 

The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

its all part of a bigger plan to destabilize Europe.

 

Wait what.

 

Germany is planning on destabilizing Europe so German businesses can buy up capital and the EU can push neoliberalism as hard as possible.

 

 

You missed the part with political "normalization", meaning that a federalization of the states in the EU and more centralized power. People without a strong sense of national community are more passive and will be easier to control in the power vacuum that it creates....or the leaders are simply completely clueless and we are riding the chaos-train.

 

 

Both of you sound suspiciously like you're spewing tinfoil-hat nonsense, do you have any extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claims?

 

(Also, I somehow doubt Woldan meant to allude to that. I'm kinda curious about his insane conspiracy theory as well.)

 

 

Lets turn it around, what kind of people benefit from nations giving up their sovereignity and the erosion of the nationstate with no distinct ethnic groups?

 

But no matter, here's a carrot for you:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nikolaus_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi

 

 

 

The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.

 

Meshugger do you honestly see the EU as that ? I may be missing something but do you see the EU as " nations giving up their sovereignity and the erosion of the nationstate with no distinct ethnic groups" ?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Yes the EU, which Germany has a good deal of influence on, is clearly not pursuing a neoliberal agenda that has done severe damage to the economies of PIGS while benefiting Germany. And past experience has shown that these refugees will not be used as a source of cheap labor and will get along splendidly with the locals. It's got to be crazy talk that neoliberals would bend over backwards to accommodate corporations.

 

 

There are subtle differences hidden between the following groups of statements. Can you find them all?

 

Group A:

"Germany is purposefully trying to destabilize Europe!"

"The EU is conspiring to erode people's national identities because people without a strong sense of belonging to a national community are easier to control^{[citation needed]}!"

 

Group B:

"The EU has implemented neoliberal policies, possibly due to the influence of Germany."

"The EU's track record with the integration of migrants so far has been less than stellar."

Ah yes, because clearly this continued austerity is doing wonders for PIGS. Look at Greece, unemployment there should be down to a low 20% if they just take a little more from citizens and give a little more to the private sector to boost confidence! And this TTIP being championed will do even more wonders, with giving corporations the right to sue states if they feel profit was negatively impacted and more privatization. The EU only has everyone's best interests in mind and isn't a shady attempt to assert corporate dominance over memeber states and you're a filthy commie if you think otherwise.

[HoonDing]

Behead those who oppose immigration.

 

It's good time for bringing Jihad into Europe! Allahu Akbar brothers!

already debunked

[Malcador]

 

Neither of those is similar to arming or being the air force for rebels in another country.

Actually they are very similar, they both are about the humanitarian precedent 

 

 

In Libya the West intervened initially because of the Siege of Misrata 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Misrata

 

That was the catalyst and it should be an easy sale to understand that Western intervention in the beginning of the Syrian conflict and assisting to remove Assad cannot be seen as a bad thing if you look at the reality of Syria now 

 

And I'm not suggesting for a second that there arent other factors that influence the West but we cannot ignore the humanitarian aspect

 

Not quite sure sanctions is akin to airstrikes and funneling arms to rebels in an attempt to change a regime just because you dislike them, nor is intervening to stop a verified mass slaughter of people (heh, in practice this is when you dislike a regime, I suppose).

 

How can we look at Syria and the rise of ISIS and figure this wasn't a bad idea. As for Misrata, well, those rebels started a war.

[Raithe]

Just to throw in the metaphorical looksee here..

 

If you see the guy in the house next to you beating up his wife, are you morally obliged to interfere in some way? Whether by calling the police or going over yourself to try and calm the situation down or put a stop to it?

 

If your answer is yes, does that change if that neighbour just happens to be in a house across the border and thus in another country?

 

Does it change if its a group of men beating up their wives, or shooting people who disagree with them, or say.. using chemical weapons on civilians?

 

Of course, if you then happen to make it a question of if its actions being committed that you deem immoral for one reason or another so you have to smite them to stop it.. That's the same reasoning a bunch of terrorist groups give for conducting attacks on the imperialist and immoral western world.

 

It's a fun slippery slope isn't it? It becomes a wonderful matter of perspective, opinion, armchair quarterbacking, and political ravings of left wing and right wing back and forth.

 

The simple answer is, there is never a simple answer to that discussion, and there's always going to be too many emotions involved and a heavy weight of history on all sides.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Behead those who oppose immigration.

 

It's good time for bringing Jihad into Europe! Allahu Akbar brothers!

already debunked

 

I don't know about this particular case but there have been some arrests of ISIS terrorists infiltrating as immigrants.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Ah yes, because clearly this continued austerity is doing wonders for PIGS. Look at Greece, unemployment there should be down to a low 20% if they just take a little more from citizens and give a little more to the private sector to boost confidence! And this TTIP being championed will do even more wonders, with giving corporations the right to sue states if they feel profit was negatively impacted and more privatization. The EU only has everyone's best interests in mind and isn't a shady attempt to assert corporate dominance over memeber states and you're a filthy commie if you think otherwise.

 

 

 

Neoliberalism is a filthy thing, and I find the idea of corporations trying to destabilize entire regions in the name of profit entirely plausible, but do we have actual proof of this going on here?

 

 

 

Lets turn it around, what kind of people benefit from nations giving up their sovereignity and the erosion of the nationstate with no distinct ethnic groups?

 

 

 

Depends on how you define "benefit", I suppose.

 

I do find it weird that you, a self-proclaimed libertarian, are now worried about the prospect of the erosion of the state. Aren't you supposed to be all about that?

 

 

 

The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.

 

 

...And this is supposed to be relevant how?

[BruceVC]

 

 

Neither of those is similar to arming or being the air force for rebels in another country.

Actually they are very similar, they both are about the humanitarian precedent 

 

 

In Libya the West intervened initially because of the Siege of Misrata 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Misrata

 

That was the catalyst and it should be an easy sale to understand that Western intervention in the beginning of the Syrian conflict and assisting to remove Assad cannot be seen as a bad thing if you look at the reality of Syria now 

 

And I'm not suggesting for a second that there arent other factors that influence the West but we cannot ignore the humanitarian aspect

 

Not quite sure sanctions is akin to airstrikes and funneling arms to rebels in an attempt to change a regime just because you dislike them, nor is intervening to stop a verified mass slaughter of people (heh, in practice this is when you dislike a regime, I suppose).

 

How can we look at Syria and the rise of ISIS and figure this wasn't a bad idea. As for Misrata, well, those rebels started a war.

 

Yes I can completely understand this view

 

But lets go back a few years, when the Syrian war started we need to remember the reality of the political and military reality of Syria. Assad and the Syrian military were not a weak or disorganized organisation, the Syrians have always had military. Assad had the entire resources of his army on his side, plus a large percentage of the population and the Iranians were completely supportive of him and I do consider them formidable in the context of the ME

 

And what were the Syrian rebels....seriously? They were thousands of very  ideologically anti-Assad people but they lacked the weaponry of the Assad regime. So yes the West funneled weapons through the Saudis but to be honest would that really be enough against air power and the likes of artillery. You are a military man ...do you think the odds were fair ?

 

Which is why the Syrian rebels asked for the West in the beginning to destroy Assads military armaments ...they were quite prepared to do the hard ground to ground fighting.

 

So where I'm going with this is the West did everything it could do but it predictably didnt make much difference. And then you may feel "but why get involved at all" 

 

Syria was an enemy of the Sunni states and a friend of Iran. Back then this was meaningful to the West because of the perceived political dynamics of the region so I can understand the West helping the rebels 

 

And then yes ISIS is undoubtedly the most destabilizing  outcome of the whole Syrian conflict but once again ISIS wouldn't exist today if the Syrian war hadn't dragged on. Think about it there stronghold is considered Al-Raqqah which is a city within Syria....if there was no civil war in Syria do you think this would be possible? Groups like ISIS can only really flourish in failed state 

 

So if the Syrian war has ended in 6 months that it could have if the West have intervened ISIS wouldn't be any where as near as prolific or successful 

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

 

 

its all part of a bigger plan to destabilize Europe.

 

Wait what.

 

Germany is planning on destabilizing Europe so German businesses can buy up capital and the EU can push neoliberalism as hard as possible.

 

 

You missed the part with political "normalization", meaning that a federalization of the states in the EU and more centralized power. People without a strong sense of national community are more passive and will be easier to control in the power vacuum that it creates....or the leaders are simply completely clueless and we are riding the chaos-train.

 

 

Both of you sound suspiciously like you're spewing tinfoil-hat nonsense, do you have any extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claims?

 

(Also, I somehow doubt Woldan meant to allude to that. I'm kinda curious about his insane conspiracy theory as well.)

 

 

Lets turn it around, what kind of people benefit from nations giving up their sovereignity and the erosion of the nationstate with no distinct ethnic groups?

 

But no matter, here's a carrot for you:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nikolaus_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi

 

 

 

The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.

 

Meshugger do you honestly see the EU as that ? I may be missing something but do you see the EU as " nations giving up their sovereignity and the erosion of the nationstate with no distinct ethnic groups" ?

 

 

In it's current form, yes. Although it didn't start this way of course. It was quite innocent 50 years ago with the foundation of the coal & steel union, which was based on the idea that countries that are economically interdependent would not so quickly declare war upon another. After the Maastricht-agreement it all went to hell however.

 

Look, we have the following scenarios ahead of us:

 

1) The current situation is allowed to happen in according to financial and political self-interests, which will end up with civil wars and a balkanization of Europe for future generations

2) The current situation is allowed to happen in according to financial and political self-interests, which will end up with a slow erosion of nations and ultimately a collapse like Rome

3) The current situation has happened because of ineptitude, misplaced altruism and general apathy of the leaders, which will end up with civil wars and a balkanization of Europe for future generations

4) The situation has happened because of ineptitude, misplaced altruism and general apathy of the leaders, which will end up with a slow erosion of nations and ultimately a collapse like Rome

 

I really hope that i am wrong. I really do. But i see little signs of any other thing happening.

[Meshugger]

 

Lets turn it around, what kind of people benefit from nations giving up their sovereignity and the erosion of the nationstate with no distinct ethnic groups?

 

 

Depends on how you define "benefit", I suppose.

 

 

I do find it weird that you, a self-proclaimed libertarian, are now worried about the prospect of the erosion of the state. Aren't you supposed to be all about that?

 

 

 

The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.

 

 

...And this is supposed to be relevant how?

 

You have me confused with someone else. I want as much constitutional freedom at a local level, but at the same time i recognize the right of families, ethnic groups and to extent nations to be allow to exist and determine their future themselves. Removal of borders will destroy everything and will only leave a mono-culture with a few shades of color, aimless consumerists that serve no higher purpose than what materialism can buy. It's the death of the human soul and will bring a total collapse. Call me a Traditionalist with a love for freedom if you wish to label my thinking.

 

The quote is relevant because one of the most influencal people in the european elite dreamed about a world without frenchmen and germans, and in extent, a world without France and Germany. Mass-emigration in times when the native population is dwindling is simply genocide built into the system.

 

See KP's post about the economic aspect of such future.

[Raithe]

From a BBC radio advert for a debate on the migration crisis..

 

 

 

 

And for the further elements..

 

BBC - EU Migration in Graphics

 

 

 

Asylum applications in Europe have surged this year - with numbers for Germany and Hungary already exceeding their totals for 2014. Altogether, 438,000 refugees had applied for asylum by the end of July - compared with 571,000 for the whole of last year.

According to figures from the UNHCR, Germany continues to be the most popular destination for migrants arriving in Europe. It has received the highest number of asylum applications, with more than 188,000 by the end of July 2015 - 15,416 more than in the whole of 2014.

But Hungary has moved into second place, as more migrants have tried to make the journey overland through Greece and the Western Balkans.

Although Germany had the highest number of asylum applications, Sweden tops the list when the data is viewed per 1,000 of the local population with a rate of almost 8 applications per 1,000.

 

The UK has a rate of 0.5 per 1,000 - one asylum application for every 2,000 residents.

Where do the migrants come from?

The conflict in Syria continues to be by far the biggest driver of the migration. But the ongoing violence in Afghanistan, abuses in Eritrea, as well as poverty in Kosovo are also leading people to look for new lives elsewhere.

The EU is due to hold an emergency meeting in Brussels later this month - it has so far failed to agree on how to deal with the crisis. A proposal for quotas on the distribution of refugees has been rejected and tensions have been rising because of the disproportionate burden faced by some countries.

 

The UK has opted out of any plans for a quota system and, according to Home Office figures, has accepted 216 Syrian refugees under the Vulnerable Persons Relocation scheme since it began in January 2014. Prime Minister David Cameron says the UK will accept up to 20,000 refugees from Syria over the next five years.

 

Hungary has built a 175km (110-mile) fence along its border with Serbia, to try to slow the flow of asylum seekers into northern Europe.

Under the EU law known as the Dublin regulation, refugees should apply for asylum in the country in which they arrive and are first registered. But as the numbers have increased, the rules have been ignored and many migrants have been allowed through borders.

Although huge numbers have been applying for asylum, the figures do not tell the whole story.

The number of people being given asylum is far lower. In 2014, EU countries offered asylum to 184,665 refugees. In the same year, more than 570,000 migrants applied for asylum - although applying for asylum can be a lengthy procedure so many of those given refugee status may have applied in previous years.

 

There were more than 25,000 asylum applications in the UK in the 12 months up to June 2015. Most applications are typically rejected and in 2014, more than 60% of initial decisions on asylum applications were refusals.

 

In the same period, 6,788 asylum seekers and their dependents were removed or departed voluntarily from the UK.

How do migrants get to Europe?

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimates that more than 350,000 migrants were detected at the EU's borders between January and August 2015, compared with 280,000 detections for the whole of 2014. The figures do not include those who got in undetected.

The EU's external border force, Frontex, monitors the different routes migrants use and numbers arriving at Europe's borders.

The eastern Mediterranean route has overtaken the central route as the most commonly used this year - with Syrians forming by far the largest migrant group.

The 350,000 total detected so far this year at the EU's borders includes almost 235,000 who arrived in Greece and nearly 115,000 in Italy. About 2,100 arrived in Spain.

 

Most of those heading for Greece take the relatively short voyage from Turkey to the islands of Kos, Chios, Lesvos and Samos - often in flimsy rubber dinghies or small wooden boats.

Migrant deaths

The voyage from Libya to Italy is longer and more hazardous. According to the IOM, more than 2,500 migrants are reported to have died trying to make the crossing this year - altogether, 2,643 people have died in the Mediterranean in 2015.

The summer months are usually when most fatalities occur as it is the busiest time for migrants attempting to reach Europe.

But so far this year the deadliest month for migrants was April, which saw a boat carrying about 800 migrants capsize in the sea off Libya. Overcrowding is thought to have been one of the reasons for the disaster.

Syrian crisis

Asylum applications from Syrians in Europe have surged in 2015, fuelled by the country's vicious civil war which began more than four years ago and shows no sign of ending.

 

The vast majority of refugees have fled to neighbouring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, and the number of Syrians there far outweighs those who have made the difficult journey to Europe.

Resettlement plan

Some 120,000 migrants will be resettled in EU member states, under proposals from the EU Commission.

The plan - which would see 60% of those now in Italy, Greece and Hungary moved to Germany, France and Spain - will be discussed by EU home affairs ministers on 14 September.

Within Germany

Germany is currently the preferred destination for tens of thousands of migrants in central Europe. More than 800,000 people are expected to claim asylum there this year, four times the figure for 2014.

 

Germany has a quota system which redistributes asylum seekers around its federal states based on their tax income and existing population density.

 

 

Although I do note that these seem to have a lot more statistics for those who apply for asylum, not necessarily those who don't apply and just attempt to move illegally into various countries....

Edited September 9, 2015 by Raithe

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

its all part of a bigger plan to destabilize Europe.

 

Wait what.

 

Germany is planning on destabilizing Europe so German businesses can buy up capital and the EU can push neoliberalism as hard as possible.

 

 

You missed the part with political "normalization", meaning that a federalization of the states in the EU and more centralized power. People without a strong sense of national community are more passive and will be easier to control in the power vacuum that it creates....or the leaders are simply completely clueless and we are riding the chaos-train.

 

 

Both of you sound suspiciously like you're spewing tinfoil-hat nonsense, do you have any extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claims?

 

(Also, I somehow doubt Woldan meant to allude to that. I'm kinda curious about his insane conspiracy theory as well.)

 

 

Lets turn it around, what kind of people benefit from nations giving up their sovereignity and the erosion of the nationstate with no distinct ethnic groups?

 

But no matter, here's a carrot for you:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nikolaus_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi

 

 

 

The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.

 

Meshugger do you honestly see the EU as that ? I may be missing something but do you see the EU as " nations giving up their sovereignity and the erosion of the nationstate with no distinct ethnic groups" ?

 

 

In it's current form, yes. Although it didn't start this way of course. It was quite innocent 50 years ago with the foundation of the coal & steel union, which was based on the idea that countries that are economically interdependent would not so quickly declare war upon another. After the Maastricht-agreement it all went to hell however.

 

Look, we have the following scenarios ahead of us:

 

1) The current situation is allowed to happen in according to financial and political self-interests, which will end up with civil wars and a balkanization of Europe for future generations

2) The current situation is allowed to happen in according to financial and political self-interests, which will end up with a slow erosion of nations and ultimately a collapse like Rome

3) The current situation has happened because of ineptitude, misplaced altruism and general apathy of the leaders, which will end up with civil wars and a balkanization of Europe for future generations

4) The situation has happened because of ineptitude, misplaced altruism and general apathy of the leaders, which will end up with a slow erosion of nations and ultimately a collapse like Rome

 

I really hope that i am wrong. I really do. But i see little signs of any other thing happening.

 

Thats interesting. Your view is obviously relevant because you are a European, I may not agree with it but end of the day I'm keen to understand where this apparent dislike of the EU comes from 

 

So I would just like you to consider two points which hopefully may change your mind

 

• Lets get the obvious out the way. The EU is considered for millions of people who live outside of it the perfect place to live and settle down in ...look at all the Syrians and other immigrants who risk death just to get there. Of course this doesn't mean you should change your view but there must be something good if people want to immigrate there?
• The next point is more important. An economic and political  union like the EU is actually much harder to get working and functional  than I think you guys realize. Think about the reality, you have all these countries with different governments and different economic models that suddenly had to now be aligned under common rules, a common currency  and more importantly under a common economic framework. The criteria to join and stay in the EU has to be very strict or else it will fall apart. Now you may say  " nonsense...it can't be that hard  " but trust me there is NO other union in the history of mankind that has brought so many disparate countries together to achieve economic prosperity. Look at the abject failure of AU .....one of the main reasons for its failure to transform the continent is the fact that the AU doesn't enforce its own rules and this means there isnt real consensus or political will to make the hard choices. So I know you guys feel the EU is draconian but it has to enforce rules and structures or the entire EU will fall apart. 

 

You will always have your own cultural  identity and that is something to be proud of but you have to realize that rules are really needed to make the EU work 

Edited September 9, 2015 by BruceVC

[HoonDing]

Sweden, Sweden, Sweden...

 

[Raithe]

Bruce, I think one of the key issues here that you might not be understanding...

 

To a lot of people over here, the EU isn't seen as a form of democratic government. It's pretty much a bureaucracy we didn't elect, that we have no direct representation to, but still gets to have power over us. It's a bureaucracy that keeps expanding itself, keeps inserting further and further into our lives, and seems to have it's own professional career bureaucrats keeping it going in ways that feather their own nests. 

 

Now, I'm perfectly willing to admit that that might not be the reality. But that happens to be the rather common perception of it. And frankly, that's the way it seems to ACT to the people who are inside it.

 

You might have this rosy view of what the idea is meant to be, but the perception of how it acts within it.. is where a lot of us are coming from.

[BruceVC]

Bruce, I think one of the key issues here that you might not be understanding...

 

To a lot of people over here, the EU isn't seen as a form of democratic government. It's pretty much a bureaucracy we didn't elect, that we have no direct representation to, but still gets to have power over us. It's a bureaucracy that keeps expanding itself, keeps inserting further and further into our lives, and seems to have it's own professional career bureaucrats keeping it going in ways that feather their own nests. 

 

Now, I'm perfectly willing to admit that that might not be the reality. But that happens to be the rather common perception of it. And frankly, that's the way it seems to ACT to the people who are inside it.

 

You might have this rosy view of what the idea is meant to be, but the perception of how it acts within it.. is where a lot of us are coming from.

I appreciate your  honest view but I do understand what most of the issues are but as I explained the rules of the EU have to be driven from Brussels in order for it to succeed

 

But let me ask you a different question because I may be missing something, what are your primary issues with the EU?Can you list a few points from a UK perspective that bother you ? Please go into detail so its clear

[Meshugger]

Thats interesting. Your view is obviously relevant because you are a European, I may not agree with it but end of the day I'm keen to understand where this apparent dislike of the EU comes from 

 

So I would just like you to consider two points which hopefully may change your mind

• Lets get the obvious out the way. The EU is considered for millions of people who live outside of it the perfect place to live and settle down in ...look at all the Syrians and other immigrants who risk death just to get there. Of course this doesn't mean you should change your view but there must be something good if people want to immigrate there?
• The next point is more important. An economic and political  union like the EU is actually much harder to get working and functional  than I think you guys realize. Think about the reality, you have all these countries with different governments and different economic models that suddenly had to now be aligned under common rules, a common currency  and more importantly under a common economic framework. The criteria to join and stay in the EU has to be very strict or else it will fall apart. Now you may say  " nonsense...it can't be that hard  " but trust me there is NO other union in the history of mankind that has brought so many disparate countries together to achieve economic prosperity. Look at the abject failure of AU .....one of the main reasons for its failure to transform the continent is the fact that the AU doesn't enforce its own rules and this means there isnt real consensus or political will to make the hard choices. So I know you guys feel the EU is draconian but it has to enforce rules and structures or the entire EU will fall apart. 

You will always have your own cultural  identity and that is something to be proud of but you have to realize that rules are really needed to make the EU work

 

 

Vaclav Klaus, former president and prime minister of the Czech Republic gives a better summary: http://blisty.cz/art/78797.html

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Václav_Klaus

Edited September 9, 2015 by Meshugger

[BruceVC]

 

Thats interesting. Your view is obviously relevant because you are a European, I may not agree with it but end of the day I'm keen to understand where this apparent dislike of the EU comes from 

 

So I would just like you to consider two points which hopefully may change your mind

• Lets get the obvious out the way. The EU is considered for millions of people who live outside of it the perfect place to live and settle down in ...look at all the Syrians and other immigrants who risk death just to get there. Of course this doesn't mean you should change your view but there must be something good if people want to immigrate there?
• The next point is more important. An economic and political  union like the EU is actually much harder to get working and functional  than I think you guys realize. Think about the reality, you have all these countries with different governments and different economic models that suddenly had to now be aligned under common rules, a common currency  and more importantly under a common economic framework. The criteria to join and stay in the EU has to be very strict or else it will fall apart. Now you may say  " nonsense...it can't be that hard  " but trust me there is NO other union in the history of mankind that has brought so many disparate countries together to achieve economic prosperity. Look at the abject failure of AU .....one of the main reasons for its failure to transform the continent is the fact that the AU doesn't enforce its own rules and this means there isnt real consensus or political will to make the hard choices. So I know you guys feel the EU is draconian but it has to enforce rules and structures or the entire EU will fall apart. 

You will always have your own cultural  identity and that is something to be proud of but you have to realize that rules are really needed to make the EU work

 

 

Vaclav Klaus, former president and prime minister of the Czech Republic gives a better summary: http://blisty.cz/art/78797.html

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Václav_Klaus

 

No offense but Vaclav Klaus doesn't even seem to understand the history behind conflicts like Syria ...seriously how can we take what he says as relevant when he wont admit the impact of the Arab Spring?

 

Also I read on that link you posted " His appointment was terminated in September 2014, due to his views on the Ukrainian crisis, his hostility to homosexuality, and support of European far right parties" 

 

He doesn't sound very liberal or reasonable 

[Meshugger]

 

 

Thats interesting. Your view is obviously relevant because you are a European, I may not agree with it but end of the day I'm keen to understand where this apparent dislike of the EU comes from 

 

So I would just like you to consider two points which hopefully may change your mind

• Lets get the obvious out the way. The EU is considered for millions of people who live outside of it the perfect place to live and settle down in ...look at all the Syrians and other immigrants who risk death just to get there. Of course this doesn't mean you should change your view but there must be something good if people want to immigrate there?
• The next point is more important. An economic and political  union like the EU is actually much harder to get working and functional  than I think you guys realize. Think about the reality, you have all these countries with different governments and different economic models that suddenly had to now be aligned under common rules, a common currency  and more importantly under a common economic framework. The criteria to join and stay in the EU has to be very strict or else it will fall apart. Now you may say  " nonsense...it can't be that hard  " but trust me there is NO other union in the history of mankind that has brought so many disparate countries together to achieve economic prosperity. Look at the abject failure of AU .....one of the main reasons for its failure to transform the continent is the fact that the AU doesn't enforce its own rules and this means there isnt real consensus or political will to make the hard choices. So I know you guys feel the EU is draconian but it has to enforce rules and structures or the entire EU will fall apart. 

You will always have your own cultural  identity and that is something to be proud of but you have to realize that rules are really needed to make the EU work

 

 

Vaclav Klaus, former president and prime minister of the Czech Republic gives a better summary: http://blisty.cz/art/78797.html

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Václav_Klaus

 

No offense but Vaclav Klaus doesn't even seem to understand the history behind conflicts like Syria ...seriously how can we take what he says as relevant when he wont admit the impact of the Arab Spring?

 

Also I read on that link you posted " His appointment was terminated in September 2014, due to his views on the Ukrainian crisis, his hostility to homosexuality, and support of European far right parties" 

 

He doesn't sound very liberal or reasonable 

 

 

We have native populations going down and immigration going up, an unelected commission Brussels that tries to dictate more power to themselves and a global industry reaping the benefits. And now we have illegal settlers running around central europe trying to find which country that gives them most money. It has to be reversed, otherwise another Caesar, Napoleon or Hitler will rise, you can bet on it.

 

It is you, who is fixated on Klaus' level liberalism in this situation, who is unreasonable.