Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Merkel encourage the crisis initially by encouraging the immigrants?
Well there's that argument but also the argument that responsibility should be shared because countries like Italy and Greece are currently taking the brunt of the crisis and, despite the cries from the rest of Europe for humane migrant treatment, they're receiving pitiful assistance. A big problem of the migrant crisis is how people are shoving their fingers in their ears and singing loudly to avoid facing the reality.
No, by the time Germany became vocally pro-refugee, the crisis was already well underway and italy and greece were taking hard hits.
Although you can say she screwed up by not foreseeing other countries throwing such a bitchfit and the opportunistic infections of right populism.
Nope.
Italy and Greece were already complaining. Merkel proposed other EU countries sharing the burden (with Germany leading by example) to take pressure off of Greece and Italy.
Migration crisis was already a migration crisis before Merkel's famous speech.
Perhaps if countries like Hungary weren't concerned about the "bad brown people" we'd all be in a better position
of course now the Italian government is run by populists and quasi fascist, and the people fall for it, just like they did for Mussolini
I want out of this shithole. anyone willing to get me a place in denmark or ireland?
That's the ultimate irony of all this. The real strain on the EU isn't migrants, it's countries like Italy, Greece, and Hungary who expect Germany to take on all of the responsibilities.
It's easy to cooperate when everything is going well.
This is the greatest test of the EU, how do countries cooperate when times are tough.
Countries are happy to reap the rewards but refuse to do their part to help. They want to have the cake and eat it.
Our government is also pretty shite at the moment
eh, I'll take it anyway dont worry
The immigration crisis is more one of unpreparedness than anything. Back when Merkel gave her speech about everyone sharing the burden countries in the EU should already have been prepared for the numbers of people coming in.
Even if you argue that Europe shouldn't be responsible for taking in immigrants and refugees there should have been systems set up to manage the people. Find out who is an immigrant, who is a refugee, organise whether or not they'd be allowed in and where they go.
Not that any of that would be easy, or cheap, but by the time Merkel was calling for countries to share the burden the crisis was well underway.
Eh, for what it's worth, I'm on Merkel's side in this. She's right, member states have to pull their fucking weight.
You do realize that Italy and Greece are in the top 5 countries that take the most asylum seekers, right? Seems a bit rich to blame exactly them out of all countries in the EU.
Agreed, but that's unfortunately unlikely to become easier to achieve as more and more of Europe shifts towards the right and anti-immigration.
Denmark just approved a bill that will set aside more money for developed countries (and thus, indirectly, immigration), but it's already been met with harsh response because people, even
though they're constantly crying "do something about it!", this still isn't enough for them.
I still don't know where to stand with this whole thing, it depends whether or not taking part in potential refugee crisis's is something they agreed to when they signed on. If not I can sympathise with them, I'd be angry too if I joined an economic union and suddenly they told me I need to take in 30,000 people from the third world because Europe ruined their countries a hundred years ago.
EU and its member states cannot and likely refuse to sustain an unlimited stream of refugees. It will just create more instability as people become more displeased by them, fueling the right-wing popularity. EU and the world isn't a paradise, there is no unlimited money. Not everyone on the planet can be helped. This is a reality we must face.
Boosting stability in the north african states could prevent people from taking advantage of the refugees, namely putting them on shitty ships that they will drown in. Yet no one talks about that. Or the fact that they are used like slaves in north africa. We either fix the problem there or just let them drown by the thousands in the sea.
I believe EU must survive, even if we must make difficult decisions.
"Fun" fact: the number of refugees have been decreasing quickly since 2015. This continent of almost 300 millions can sustain them, we just needed a proportionate share of them among all the countries.
All of this could have been avoided if the east wouldn't pulled the "our culture is in danger!!" card, forcing the middle and especially south europe to bear alone this.
And then we have the ruling right wing politicians at the EU who weren't too kind on this and sees with good eyes the "just let the north african countries keep them away from us" plan.
What is more troublesome is the re-rise of fascism, on which the people are falling for their lies blaming on the refugees for the economic problems rather than the previous economic situation enforced by Europe during the last decade "to exit the economic crisis" because you know, austerity is totally what a country full of jobless people needs.
At this point, it's unlikely quotas will be enforced at all. Only Merkel seems to stick with it for some reason. Macron has called it a flawed idea (also just today he said that he doesn't want it to be forced on anyone), Tusk called it ineffective, and both of them are pretty far from being a right-wing populist. It's just a waaay too unpopular piece of policy, along with its flaws. Constantly fixating on it does more harm than good, preventing the discussion of other, arguably more effective solutions.
The first, crucial step is to actually handle is the protection of the external borders of Europe. This is a topic where most member states are in agreement regarding a lot of points, and are very willing to contribute. For what Macron proposed recently was an option for member states to show solidarity by eg. providing financial contribution to Frontex, training North African coast guards, helping with development projects there. All of this sounds great to me.
FYI we (secretly) adopted 1300 refugees last year, which is actually somewhat more than what was necessary for us per a previous quota decision.
Then they got their documents and 90% of them immediately left the country through our open Schengen border with Austria.
There is no crisis anymore though. It’s over. The amount of migrants coming in is about the same as before the crisis now iirc. Anyway, I can’t speak for the whole of Europe, but in my country a silent majority of citizens want refugees to be able to receive asylum here and integrate. A very, very loud minority dominates the debate though. It’s currently a popular frame in politics that ‘the people’ want fewer refugees, but that’s not true at all.
I'm not accusing you of anything but do you have a source for that? It's easy to say that the silent majority is with you and the loud voices are just a minority but looking only at what you posted there I wouldn't be surprised if someone who was anti-immigration said the same thing except with the sides switched.
Hungary decided to admit two asylum seekers per day, and they have overall 6500 refugees, which is basically nothing. And yes, many refugees don't want to stay in Hungary, but who can blame them considering the politics there?
The politics aren't why they are leaving
77% of the adult population thinks the Netherlands should shelter refugees who have fled from war or persecution in their own country according to the Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics: Opvattingen over vluchtelingen in Nederland
Most of you are fascists in denial.
Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
Extraordinary from your ignorant point of view, not extraordinary for anyone who is aware of where your prosperity comes from.
soo would you care to explain or
Mogherini meets my dictator for some oil contracts, slaps him in the wrist for human rights abuses and they exchange a set of smirks then you go on to Euronews to show how great my country is.
Go read some books, I can't be arsed to explain basic politics and how the world works just to be dissected by some brainwashed teens that are vying to save their illusion of whatever.
Seems like you can't do your own research and want to be spoonfed.
If you are still interested then let me know and I'll put some effort into less emotionally-charged and more evidence-based post as to why we, as a country, got the Congo deal -- how it affects the locals living here, and why you are all personally guilty. ("Democratic Republic" of Congo has some important resources but can't put its own price on them because their government is a puppet dictatorship that only exists to allow the first-world countries to easily and cheaply siphon out the resources, usually even indirectly employing child miners).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
