German foreign minister threatens legal action against EU nations that refuse refugees
58 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Darkus;49360435]So what you are saying is that Germany and those already involved, are responcible for every single refugee coming into Europe?
How will that work, when Europe should be considered as "The America abroad" in a sense that all Countries could be seen as Counties (like in the U.S).
This whole Situation is completly fubar.[/QUOTE]
It's important to note, that the EU is not a federal country. Each respective country still defines it's own foreign policy.
On top of that, on a purely EU standpoint, the quota does actually go against one of the core tenets of the EU as those refugees are denied their freedom of movement within the EU.
The problem Germany is facing is in part due to going and trying to make it's foreign policy apply to all EU countries.
On top of that, this is the same Germany that has had until 2011 a large number of opt outs concerning new member nation workers. If you don't see how this might create an incredibly large amount of resentment you're kinda blind.
What exactly was/is Germany's plan with all of this?
It seems like all this would do is put even more strain on the EU's solidarity.
It would at least make sense if there was some sort of gain to be had by Germany but it just seems like slashing everyone's life rafts and sinking the ship.
Is this really the best time to be weakening EU ties while Russia relatively recently expanded it's boarders aggressively?
Looks like it was a binding agreement which the member states agreed to and part of it were quotas on how many refugees they need to take (some quotas being very very low). To renege on a deal after only receiving the benefits, then crying foul when someone calls you out on it is a maggot move. Hopefully people can be sensible about this and not let emotion/stupidity/nationalism/bigotry spoil the future of the EU.
Just so this is clear- people agreed to refugee quotas and are now trying to back out so they don't have to meet those quotas.
[QUOTE=uber.;49360763]I expected to see a lot of people here confusing refugees with immigrants. Can't say I'm disappointed, really.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Slovakia said last month that it would complain against the EU quota plan to distribute [B]160,000 [/B][B]refugees and migrants[/B] across the bloc.[/QUOTE]
The difference doesn't matter anymore.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49367216][quote]160,000 refugees and migrants[/quote]The difference doesn't matter anymore.[/QUOTE]
If it were done by percentage of population alone (its not, slovakia would likely get less) then slovakia would only need to take 1700 refugees.
To put that into perspective, and to help people appreciate the how small the number is, here is a list of football stadiums in slovakia.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_football_stadiums_in_Slovakia[/url]
31 stadiums are big enough to hold that. 23 of those are big enough to hold that twice. 10 of those are big enough to hold that 4 times. Its not a large number of people compared to the population of the country (or the EU for that matter)
Thats like 0.03%. If you were at a festival with 10000 people and 3 other people come in. You wouldn't even notice unless a bunch of guys at the door start mouthing off.
This is just a successful attempt from euroskeptics/nationalists to rile up hatred and fear of the EU. You've (facepunchers) all bought into it sadly, the media are all displaying it as "Slovakia, which has a population of 5.4 million, objects to the relocation of 120,000 migrants and refugees from Italy and Greece throughout the EU." Which at first glance looks like slovakia will be taking 1/4-1/5 of its population in refugees. Look at the actual figures on how much they will be required to receive, the EU is give and take, slovakia wants to be all take and no give and is throwing a tantrum when something is asked of them.
This is just a proxy argument against the steady centralisation of the EU. Its necessary. You can't have free trade without free movement (that would cause countries to lower the standards for their workers to produce more junk and out compete countries with better standards, that is why protective tariffs exist in the first place) You can't have combined monetary policy without combined fiscal policy (or greece happens).
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49367186]Looks like it was a binding agreement which the member states agreed to and part of it were quotas on how many refugees they need to take (some quotas being very very low). To renege on a deal after only receiving the benefits, then crying foul when someone calls you out on it is a maggot move. Hopefully people can be sensible about this and not let emotion/stupidity/nationalism/bigotry spoil the future of the EU.
Just so this is clear- people agreed to refugee quotas and are now trying to back out so they don't have to meet those quotas.[/QUOTE]
You're missing that this was a majority vote, not a unanimous decision. Sure, it's probably still legally binding, but people have every right being pissed of.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49367304]You're missing that this was a majority vote, not a unanimous decision. Sure, it's probably still legally binding, but people have every right being pissed of.[/QUOTE]
If democracy required unanimous decisions then nothing would ever get done. 4 in 28 voted against the quota, thats an overwhelming majority. Even better if you looked at the population of those countries, if anything slovakia is getting more than fair representation.
Honestly I think people are getting the wrong end of the stick (or have been handed it by euroskeptics/the anti refugee crowd) (see posts above saying its undemocratic or a german dictatorship). As I said the EU is give and take and democracy HAS to be about compromise.
1700 refugees/migrants/whateverelseyouwanttocallthem aren't worth the whining, the ruckus they are causing is either irrational or is being used to attack the EU as a whole.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49367375]If democracy required unanimous decisions then nothing would ever get done. 4 in 28 voted against the quota, thats an overwhelming majority. Even better if you looked at the population of those countries, if anything slovakia is getting more than fair representation.
Honestly I think people are getting the wrong end of the stick (or have been handed it by euroskeptics/the anti refugee crowd) (see posts above saying its undemocratic or a german dictatorship). As I said the EU is give and take and democracy HAS to be about compromise.
1700 refugees/migrants/whateverelseyouwanttocallthem aren't worth the whining, the ruckus they are causing is either irrational or is being used to attack the EU as a whole.[/QUOTE]
Dude, read my posts in the thread, I'm not saying these are totally unfair numbers. I'm just saying that if Germany (or anyone else) wants the EU to work out, they can't hardline these kinds of decisions - you're only going to push these people away.
If you had a democracy with 24 rich guys voting to tax the remaining four, poor guys, would that be democratic? It doesn't matter that that isn't what's happening here, the principle is the same and the remaining four nations are going to resent the rest afterwards.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49367427]Dude, read my posts in the thread, I'm not saying these are totally unfair numbers. I'm just saying that if Germany (or anyone else) wants the EU to work out, they can't hardline these kinds of decisions - you're only going to push these people away.
If you had a democracy with 24 rich guys voting to tax the remaining four, poor guys, would that be democratic? It doesn't matter that that isn't what's happening here, the principle is the same and the remaining four nations are going to resent the rest afterwards.[/QUOTE]
Tyranny of the majority is a problem with democracy. The solution isn't to have people opt of of things. If you could opt out of laws you didn't like then people would opt of out paying taxes, then others would feel it unfair that they pay while others don't, eventually nobody would pay taxes and you would have a failed state.
Likewise the the EU. Its not fair for a country to cherrypick the advantages and shirk all the disadvantages and burdens. In this scenario (and im using it, the example of paying taxes since thats what you used) Slovakia is the nob who decides he doesn't have to pay taxes (when nearly everybody else agreed to and is paying fair tax - that is where your [sp]strawman[/sp] post fails btw, everyone who voted for it is willing to take share the burden) but still wants to use the healthcare system, still expects the bin men to collect his rubbish and still uses roads.
the current system just doesn't support the ability to opt out of thing. You take the good with the bad or get out, stop whining and watch your country go to shit because you lose the advantages as well (free trade + subsidies + easy to do business)
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49367505]
the current system just doesn't support the ability to opt out of thing. You take the good with the bad or get out, stop whining and watch your country go to shit because you lose the advantages as well (free trade + subsidies + easy to do business)[/QUOTE]
Dunno, Switzerland and Norway seem to do pretty well economically despite them not being in the European Union.
Also, you can talk all you want about it just being 1700 refugees/immigrants, we got promised that we would only get 10000 too at the start since that was how much space our refugee centers could officially hold with our usual standards, and we got 54000 now, which means most of them are being transported between gym halls every week or being put in tent camps since we are all out of space to hold them. And yet the gaggle of retards that is the current government here is okay with it if that number gets doubled next year despite the whole asylum seeker system already very clearly not working now. If you don't do anything about it, they just keep on coming and coming. I can totally see why countries are opposed to taking them in, or why Hungary shut down its borders after the first wave passed through, and disrupted the country for several days while leaving loads of rubbish behind.
Not to mention, good luck finding 1700 refugees/immigrants who actually opt to get placed to Slovakia, since we are talking about the same group that refused to get placed to Luxembourg since they never heard of said country. Since the likes of Merkel, Lofven and Turkish human traffickers have promised them everything on a silver platter in Germany and Sweden. I gotta say though that Denmark is handling it extremely well in a sneakingly way in that they made applying asylum there as unappealing as possible. After all, Germany and Sweden said that they could take in so many, so let them deal with it instead of countries who didn't want that at all.
[QUOTE=Jordax;49367581]Dunno, Switzerland and Norway seem to do pretty well economically despite them not being in the European Union.
[/quote]
Slovakia/other states aren't Switzerland or Norway. Switzerland has banks and is sort of a tax haven. Norway has oil + other resources. Both have good, strong, stable, well established economise and are in a good position and have bargaining power with the EU. Slovakia isn't anywhere near as wealthy and it is unlikely to be in the top 10 GDP per capita ever. Slovakia and other countries have done well from the EU but don't have the power to say "we're leaving but we are keeping bla bla bla"
[quote]
Also, you can talk all you want about it just being 1700 refugees/immigrants, we got promised that we would only get 10000 too at the start since that was how much space our refugee centers could officially hold with our usual standards, and we got 54000 now...
[/quote]
Other countries know this yet they agreed. Is the Slovak government more intelligent and well informed than other EU countries? Unlikely. Its about sharing burden. You have a problem with migrants so its in your interest to see other countries take their fair share and potentially reduce the load your country is taking. The refugees will come regardless of laws, sharing them out via quotas is the best way to deal with the crisis, to minimise the impact per nation.
[quote]
Not to mention, good luck finding 1700 refugees/immigrants who actually opt to get placed to Slovakia, since we are talking about the same group that refused to get placed to Luxembourg since they never heard of said country. Since the likes of Merkel, Lofven and Turkish human traffickers have promised them everything on a silver platter in Germany and Sweden. I gotta say though that Denmark is handling it extremely well in a sneakingly way in that they made applying asylum there as unappealing as possible. After all, Germany and Sweden said that they could take in so many, so let them deal with it instead of countries who didn't want that at all.[/QUOTE]
Not really part of the same issue, you've gone off on a tangent from the discussion about quotas. Quotas are a proposed solution to the issue, not a cause. Like I said before refugees will come regardless of quotas, laws, rules and barriers, quotas just force countries to help distribute them in a more sustainable manner. Without quotas those countries (looking at you slovakia) will just pass on refugees westwards to germany, sweden, netherlands, france and say not our problem. With quotas they shouldn't be able to do that.
I'll say this again, just incase it gets buried under the rest of the post.
Refugees are coming regardless of laws and quotas. Quotas are to minimise the impact and fairly distribute. If anything they are a solution to your gripes that your home countries gets too many refugees.
Nobody is taking refugees because they think it will be fun. Everybody would prefer that there were no refugee crisis. The fact remains that there is, however, and one of the biggest of modern history. This isn't a problem that can be ignored until it goes away, and you can't simply choose to not be affected by it. EU countries refusing to take their fair share are making a decision that is hurting their neighbors. In refusing to step up to the plate during this global crisis, they are forcing the other countries in the EU to take MORE than their fair share, increasing the strain on them to an unreasonable level.
While it would obviously be preferred that we weren't in this situation, we are. What else can be done? Yes, it is a huge economic and social strain, and I wish there were a way around that, but it doesn't make it something that can just be ignored. Like any other disaster, the effects simply must be dealt with.
All the fun but none of the burdens.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49367761]Nobody is taking refugees because they think it will be fun. Everybody would prefer that there were no refugee crisis. The fact remains that there is, however, and one of the biggest of modern history. This isn't a problem that can be ignored until it goes away, and you can't simply choose to not be affected by it. EU countries refusing to take their fair share are making a decision that is hurting their neighbors. In refusing to step up to the plate during this global crisis, they are forcing the other countries in the EU to take MORE than their fair share, increasing the strain on them to an unreasonable level.
While it would obviously be preferred that we weren't in this situation, we are. What else can be done? Yes, it is a huge economic and social strain, and I wish there were a way around that, but it doesn't make it something that can just be ignored. Like any other disaster, the effects simply must be dealt with.[/QUOTE]
It's not "refusing to step up to the plate" whatever the hell that prideful term means, it's a decision based upon a conclusion that was made on every single possible factor, not just "how much of a fucking badass we are look at us with a million refugees"
It's faar too easy for Americans to have this opinion and I'm sick of seeing it rammed down European's throats. If we accept refugees, that means our borders are open, if our borders are open, we get a LOT more than you stand to bloody get, we get a more impactful economic crash than you stand to get, we get a lot more terrorists, we're getting more conflict from letting refugees in than you are (See: The Netherlands, Sweden, France).
So now anybody who disagrees with you looks like a person who is anti-refugee, which is not the case. But to blindly just insinuate that every European to just adhere to the "step up to the plate" rhetoric for the sake of penis length is assuming every country is like the United States -most of the Balkans are in the EU, imagine a million refugees floating around there. It's a way larger risk for any of us to take in refugees than it is for you.
How's the Mexican wall coming though?
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49367505]Tyranny of the majority is a problem with democracy. The solution isn't to have people opt of of things. If you could opt out of laws you didn't like then people would opt of out paying taxes, then others would feel it unfair that they pay while others don't, eventually nobody would pay taxes and you would have a failed state.
Likewise the the EU. Its not fair for a country to cherrypick the advantages and shirk all the disadvantages and burdens. In this scenario (and im using it, the example of paying taxes since thats what you used) Slovakia is the nob who decides he doesn't have to pay taxes (when nearly everybody else agreed to and is paying fair tax - that is where your [sp]strawman[/sp] post fails btw, everyone who voted for it is willing to take share the burden) but still wants to use the healthcare system, still expects the bin men to collect his rubbish and still uses roads.
the current system just doesn't support the ability to opt out of thing. You take the good with the bad or get out, stop whining and watch your country go to shit because you lose the advantages as well (free trade + subsidies + easy to do business)[/QUOTE]
Actually the EU has an opt out system build directly into it. The UK is opting out to a very large segment of things. And a number of western nations have opted out of a lot of things concerning new members in the past.
On top of that, you need to remember that the EU has a limited segment of things it can actually make rules about. The slovakians are basically planning a suit which prescribes among other things, that the council doesn't actually have a right to make an order based on this problematic (which they have a right to)
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;49368061]It's not "refusing to step up to the plate" whatever the hell that prideful term means, it's a decision based upon a conclusion that was made on every single possible factor, not just "how much of a fucking badass we are look at us with a million refugees"
It's faar too easy for Americans to have this opinion and I'm sick of seeing it rammed down European's throats. If we accept refugees, that means our borders are open, if our borders are open, we get a LOT more than you stand to bloody get, we get a more impactful economic crash than you stand to get, we get a lot more terrorists, we're getting more conflict from letting refugees in than you are (See: The Netherlands, Sweden, France).
So now anybody who disagrees with you looks like a person who is anti-refugee, which is not the case. But to blindly just insinuate that every European to just adhere to the "step up to the plate" rhetoric for the sake of penis length is assuming every country is like the United States -most of the Balkans are in the EU, imagine a million refugees floating around there. It's a way larger risk for any of us to take in refugees than it is for you.
How's the Mexican wall coming though?[/QUOTE]
What's annoying is you using the fact that I'm an American to off-handedly disregard my position. Let's refrain from such silly fucking shit as that, yeah? It's a global age, geographic differences don't mean as much as they used to, and just because my country has completely dropped the ball on this does not mean that I am of the same mind as my country. Yes, I fully believe that America should also be doing its part to aid in this crisis, and I am personally disgusted at the fact that we're not doing more. I also think that building a wall to Mexico is stupid as hell, so don't lump me in with that crowd. This was a pointless and embarrassing assertion all around, to be honest. You can do better than this childish shit.
Furthermore, I am not saying "step up to the plate" as a measure of your country's "penis length." I am saying that countries need to "step up to the plate" in a sense that [I]this situation has to be dealt with.[/I] Shutting down your borders and pretending that there is not currently a global crisis is not a personal economic decision, it effects everybody else. The refugees Nation X would be taking in do not just disappear if Nation X shuts its borders. They go to Nation Y, and now Nation Y is dealing with twice as many people as it initially was, resulting in far greater strain. Every nation needs to do their part, not because it's the right or moral thing to do for the disenfranchised refugees, but because it [I]needs to be done,[/i] and because we are all affected by this. This crisis does not belong to one country. It will not impact only one place. How this is dealt with affects everybody in the continent, and even abroad. This is a crisis on a massive scale, and it will not just go away. If a superstorm rolled through your country, you couldn't just pretend that it hadn't and wait for the effects to blow over. You would have to immediately start putting together a plan to deal with the impacts of that. It is much the same situation as we are currently in. Like it or not, there are millions of displaced people who are not just going to quietly disappear because it is isn't convenient to our global economy. Everybody must work together on this so that the impact can be managed appropriately.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49368183]What's annoying is you using the fact that I'm an American to off-handedly disregard my position. Let's refrain from such silly fucking shit as that, yeah? It's a global age, geographic differences don't mean as much as they used to, and just because my country has completely dropped the ball on this does not mean that I am of the same mind as my country. Yes, I fully believe that America should also be doing its part to aid in this crisis. I also think that building a wall to Mexico is stupid as hell, so don't lump me in with that crowd. A pointless and embarrassing assertion all around, to be honest.
Furthermore, I am not saying "step up to the plate" as a measure of your country's "penis" length. I am saying that countries need to "step up to the plate" in a sense that [I]this situation has to be dealt with.[/I] Shutting down your borders and pretending that there is not currently a global crisis is not a personal economic decision, it effects everybody else. The refugees Nation X would be taking in do not just disappear if Nation X shuts its borders. They go to Nation Y, and now Nation Y is dealing with twice as many people as it initially was, resulting in far greater strain.
Yes, the world needs to step up to the plate on this. Not because it's the right or moral thing to do, but because it [I]needs to be done.[/i] This is a crisis on a massive scale, and it will not just go away. If a superstorm rolled through your country, you couldn't just pretend that it hadn't and wait for the effects to blow over. You would have to immediately start putting together a plan to deal with the impacts of that. It is much the same situation as we are currently in. Like it or not, there are millions of displaced people who are not just going to quietly disappear because it is isn't convenient to our global economy.[/QUOTE]
I am not referring to your nationality to insult you, I am simply stating that your isolated pacific region puts you in different circumstances to us, where we're a collection of countries with Schengen borders on a large land mass connected to the Middle East where the German chancellor has invited them all our way. I'm not referring to your country's short-coming's either. I think it's great that the US is trying to take in as many refugees as possible despite fierce internal opposition.
Shutting our borders is not meant to tell everybody to fuck off, it's more of a "wait there a second we don't even know if we can accept 800,000+ refugees, give us a second to find out who is a terrorist and who is not, to get our heads on straight and we'll get back to you" while still accepting our initially agreed quota of refugees.
The reason they're so stranded in Europe is because Merkel went absolutely batshit crazy thinking they could accept so many, and then closed their borders once they realised their mistake, so now we're all in a situation where we look underprepared and like the bad guys.
Like you said, nothing is black and white. It all happened way too fast and way too intense for any country really to be a beacon of "how to act during the refugee crisis". We're trying, believe me. As a people we absolutely want peace and harmony between the refugees and ourselves -they're stressed (of course they are after what they've been through) and we're stressed out all of the time because our media are absolutely having a field day right now) -our government cannot represent us anymore, so what do we do? Revolt? I would, but fighting instability with instability will never work.
[QUOTE=MrBacon;49360036]Yeah fuck off, nobody should be forced to take in refugees if they really don't want them.[/QUOTE]
Except Turkey, Italy and Greece, apparently.
The idea that you can opt out in favor of some "out of sight, out of mind" approach and expect those people to disappear on their own is ridiculous.
I don't see why Southern Europe would continue supporting Russian sanctions when the eastern states have been consistently and openly setting themselves against them.
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;49368230]I am not referring to your nationality to insult you, I am simply stating that your isolated pacific region puts you in different circumstances to us, where we're a collection of countries with Schengen borders on a large land mass connected to the Middle East where the German chancellor has invited them all our way. I'm not referring to your country's short-coming's either. I think it's great that the US is trying to take in as many refugees as possible despite fierce internal opposition.
Shutting our borders is not meant to tell everybody to fuck off, it's more of a "wait there a second we don't even know if we can accept 800,000+ refugees, give us a second to find out who is a terrorist and who is not, to get our heads on straight and we'll get back to you" while still accepting our initially agreed quota of refugees.
The reason they're so stranded in Europe is because Merkel went absolutely batshit crazy thinking they could accept so many, and then closed their borders once they realised their mistake, so now we're all in a situation where we look underprepared and like the bad guys.
Like you said, nothing is black and white. It all happened way too fast and way too intense for any country really to be a beacon of "how to act during the refugee crisis". We're trying, believe me. As a people we absolutely want peace and harmony between the refugees and ourselves -they're stressed (of course they are after what they've been through) and we're stressed out all of the time because our media are absolutely having a field day right now) -our government cannot represent us anymore, so what do we do? Revolt? I would, but fighting instability with instability will never work.[/QUOTE]
Well I can agree on these points. Merkel really cocked this up, making the entire situation exponentially more difficult to handle.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49368419]Well I can agree on these points. Merkel really cocked this up, making the entire situation exponentially more difficult to handle.[/QUOTE]
IMO those people would have come anyway, with germany's welcome message making no difference.
They were already coming to Greece and Italy, they complaining about other countries not helping them bear the burden long before Merkel announced "open doors". Those who don't come to Europe end up internally displaced or in camps in Lebanon and Turkey, both of which we're complaining about and trying to discourage refugees over a year ago. As more people flee turkey and lebanon can't and won't support those refugees (millions of people for 2 countries as opposed to the 100000s of people for the whole of europe). So where else will they go? Europe. Its inevitable that they're coming and naive to think you can just "close the borders" as some people seem to believe.
So I don't think Merkel made much difference at all, cept making herself and germany a convenient scapegoat for people to pin the blame on. The most sensible thing to do is try to minimise the economic and cultural impact, do that by spreading them out and making sure 1 or 2 countries don't have to bear the burden alone, which is what the vote was to do via quota (so they can't just hand them off to the next EU country). Its like the farmers/prisoners dilemma, the socially optimal solution is for all countries to take a fair percentage of refugees to make sure the others don't get overwhelmed; the prisoner who rats out the other/the farmer who refuses to cut down the grazing are the countries who refuse to help with neighbour countries.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49368853]IMO those people would have come anyway, with germany's welcome message making no difference.
They were already coming to Greece and Italy, they complaining about other countries not helping them bear the burden long before Merkel announced "open doors". Those who don't come to Europe end up internally displaced or in camps in Lebanon and Turkey, both of which we're complaining about and trying to discourage refugees over a year ago. As more people flee turkey and lebanon can't and won't support those refugees (millions of people for 2 countries as opposed to the 100000s of people for the whole of europe). So where else will they go? Europe. Its inevitable that they're coming and naive to think you can just "close the borders" as some people seem to believe.
So I don't think Merkel made much difference at all, cept making herself and germany a convenient scapegoat for people to pin the blame on. The most sensible thing to do is try to minimise the economic and cultural impact, do that by spreading them out and making sure 1 or 2 countries don't have to bear the burden alone, which is what the vote was to do via quota (so they can't just hand them off to the next EU country). Its like the farmers/prisoners dilemma, the socially optimal solution is for all countries to take a fair percentage of refugees to make sure the others don't get overwhelmed; the prisoner who rats out the other/the farmer who refuses to cut down the grazing are the countries who refuse to help with neighbour countries.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, yeah. Merkel certainly didn't [I]cause[/I] the refugee crisis, but it's at least a valid argument that she made a serious political gaffe in her comments that may well have led to increased tensions throughout the European Union, and unrealistic expectations among the refugees themselves.
I agree completely with spreading the burden, however. As I've said, this crisis doesn't belong to only one or two countries. It is on everybody's doorstep, and each country that turns its back and shirks their responsibility to lend aid is directly increasing the burden on the others.
[QUOTE=Plaster;49360428]Yeah really good idea, its not like Germany is already loosing so much money because of this so imagine what would happen to countries that don't have that amount of money ready. Fuck your shit.
What is up with the German government being so fucking awful lately[/QUOTE]
What about all the burdens germany takes on itself to financially support economically weaker countries. Should that also be dropped then? Germany can't always take the brunt of every crisis.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49368906]Perhaps, yeah. Merkel certainly didn't [I]cause[/I] the refugee crisis, but it's at least a valid argument that she made a serious political gaffe in her comments that may well have led to increased tensions throughout the European Union, and unrealistic expectations among the refugees themselves.
I agree completely with spreading the burden, however. As I've said, this crisis doesn't belong to only one or two countries. It is on everybody's doorstep, and each country that turns its back and shirks their responsibility to lend aid is directly increasing the burden on the others.[/QUOTE]
Except this idea that somehow everyone's responsible is kinda hilarious because half the European nations didn't even send any bloody military or spend any money on the fuckhole mess Saudi Arabia and the United States caused.
This isn't about 'its our responsibility' if anything this is smearing the responsibility on everyone instead of placing it soley on those that deserve it.
Just invade Germany, problem solved.
[QUOTE=phaedon;49368299]
I don't see why Southern Europe would continue supporting Russian sanctions when the eastern states have been consistently and openly setting themselves against them.[/QUOTE]
Being forced to accept refugees while being at 20-30% unemployment is just evil.
steinmeier why
[QUOTE=Swilly;49373277]Except this idea that somehow everyone's responsible is kinda hilarious because half the European nations didn't even send any bloody military or spend any money on the fuckhole mess Saudi Arabia and the United States caused.
This isn't about 'its our responsibility' if anything this is smearing the responsibility on everyone instead of placing it soley on those that deserve it.[/QUOTE]
It's not a matter of who caused it, but who it affects. It doesn't matter how this happened. It's here, it happened. It needs to be dealt with. We don't sit around denying responsibility during natural disasters, because we recognize that it is pointless and will do nothing to unfuck the situation. Same deal. Worry about how to deal with our present crisis, and point fingers later.
Countries like Hungary are already facing significant economic problems and population declines.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.