True so if they want to ask for more help that would be understandable - though we're helping them out more than anyone else is.
True so if they want to ask for more help that would be understandable - though we're helping them out more than anyone else is.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Taking in millions despite the fact that they can't afford it and the social burden is tearing at the seams of society. There are 4 million people in those countries that need housing, food and a perspective. Germany and other countries in the EU are spending billions on the people they take in. Countries that can't hide behind a strip of sea water and don't have the luxury of acting like hundreds of thousands of people are a theoretical problem that 'shouldn't be there'.
And all those countries should stand in awe of the immensive efforts the UK makes.
Do we still do the 'NOT' thing nowadays ?
FYI : Holland already spends a billion euros on refugees a year and that's not taking into account that we already committed to taking in more than 7000 people extra this year alone. With Rand being so puffed up about the effort of the UK, I suppose that means my head should be splattered over the ceiling now.
Congratulations America
How many people did Dapper Dave take home to the UK today? Or couldn't he find anybody destitute enough amongst the 1,5 Syrans in Lebanon?
Congratulations America
You think those countries actually want to continue housing all those refugees? You think the money Britain gives makes a dent on the expenses? Or does anything to help the massive social problems caused by this refugee crisis?
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm sure those nations are very grateful for the billion pounds they have received from the UK, yes absolutely.
Sure beats the £70 million that France has contributed so far.
Yes I gave credit earlier to the Netherlands as being a nation that is only just not meeting its obligations. Did you miss that?FYI : Holland already spends a billion euros on refugees a year and that's not taking into account that we already committed to taking in more than 7000 people extra this year alone. With Rand being so puffed up about the effort of the UK, I suppose that means my head should be splattered over the ceiling now.
No, yes, yes.
Whether it is 5k (UK), 7k (Netherlands) or 10k (USA) does not make that much of a difference at all.
Whether it is £1 billion (UK) or £70 million (France) makes a world of difference.
Turkey alone is spending $5 billion a year (not counting UNHCR expenses), and that money isn't exactly providing an ideal life for the refugees.
Hope is the denial of reality
Puts the £70 million from the French into context doesn't it? Shocking.
The French aren't pretending to be God's gift to mankind on this issue. The Germans are budgeting $7 billion for refugees this year by the way.
Hope is the denial of reality
I don't see anyone pretending to be god's gift, just trying to do the right thing and frustrated with those who are pretending to be great reneging on what they've already agreed to.
I'd like to see the Germans actually spend $7 billion in Turkey etc but I'll believe it when I see it. As of August Germany had spent just £633bn which is far better than the French £70mn I agree but not great at all. Especially when they're failing to meet even their basic aid amounts already. Germany claimed they'd spend 0.7% of GNI on aid and are at about half of that, so lets not fall for what they'll claim they'll do until they actually do it. They have a track record here.
Actually you are doing next to nothing given the task at hand, and given that you didn't agree to anything at all it's fairly rich that you accuse others of not sticking to their promise. If everybody thinks you/your country/your prime minister is acting like you're God's gift, then maybe you should look in the mirror and try fo figure out as to why that happens to you all the time.
As for your money fetish; no amount of money is going to fix Syria or the fact that refuge in the region is a concept that loses its validity once millions start running away from war and don't want to stop untill they feel they are safe again. And being safe envelopes more than being out of range of the nearest gun.
Congratulations America
"Didn't agree to anything at all" - what on earth are you blathering on about? What we agreed was to spend 0.7% of GNI on aid and guess what? We are actually doing so! We didn't just agree to a promise, we have fulfilled our promise.
Unlike the Netherlands (who are only just reneging on their agreement), Germany (who aren't even coming close though they agreed to it) or France (who are pathetic and agreed to it). What other discussion is going on that's relevant?
There's no money fetish here, in case you've forgotten I'm against the government spending money if its not need. Money is desperately needed here and maybe if people honoured their existing commitments we'd make progress. Until people start meeting their existing commitments lets not have any BS talk of new agreements. Lets have people honour their existing promises rather than making commitment after commitment they have zero intention of following through on. Actions speak louder than words.
Looks like Hungary are attempting to enforce their border fully now, not impressed with some of the language used or way its being done but regrettably a far better solution (and one that may actually work) than Merkel's Duke of York Darwin Policy.
Not that anyone will thank Orban if he can regain some control over the border.
If Merkel wants to invite people into Germany then lets see her do it properly - offering transport to Germany and not just telling people to swim the Med and walk across Hungary first without discussing it with any of the nations on the way.
Ok, you asked for it; the coupling of the refugee crisis to the developement aid budget is the morally deepest you have sunk so far.
As for you making progress; you are not, you are not even making an effort.
Congratulations America
What Merkel wants is to honour the obligation to give people refuge from war. Unlike lowlives like your PM and Orban.
Congratulations America
No welching on your commitments is worse than pointing out that people are welching on their commitments. While we are by an order of magnitude making more effort than anyone else as I've already shown.
I didn't couple them, they are coupled inextricably and don't try and break that coupling like you break your commitments. If you think that pointing out that people are wrong is wrong then you have your head implanted so far up somebodies arse you must be about ready to pop up the other side. How's this for a bizarre idea - honour your commitments and then we nobody will point out that you're not doing so?
Bullfuckingshit. Don't tell lies how many have Merkel given safe transport to get to Germany so far? Give me a number Germany have transported from near Syria to Germany.
Our so-called low-life PM is doing the right thing honouring our commitments AND transporting refugees safely from camps is the right thing to do. Unlike low-lives who can't spend a dime to help those who need it despite already pledging to and then make promises they can't make like come here (but pay people smugglers first then march illegally through other people's nation first as we won't give you a visa). Orban has already said that if Germany gives these people a visa then they can travel to Germany - but Germany doesn't want to do that so don't pretend they are doing that.
I am looking forward to the day you vote your pathetic country out of the EU.No welching on your commitments is worse than pointing out that people are welching on their commitments. While we are by an order of magnitude making more effort than anyone else as I've already shown.
I didn't couple them, they are coupled inextricably and don't try and break that coupling like you break your commitments. If you think that pointing out that people are wrong is wrong then you have your head implanted so far up somebodies arse you must be about ready to pop up the other side. How's this for a bizarre idea - honour your commitments and then we nobody will point out that you're not doing so?
Bullfuckingshit. Don't tell lies how many have Merkel given safe transport to get to Germany so far? Give me a number Germany have transported from near Syria to Germany.
Our so-called low-life PM is doing the right thing honouring our commitments AND transporting refugees safely from camps is the right thing to do. Unlike low-lives who can't spend a dime to help those who need it despite already pledging to and then make promises they can't make like come here (but pay people smugglers first then march illegally through other people's nation first as we won't give you a visa). Orban has already said that if Germany gives these people a visa then they can travel to Germany - but Germany doesn't want to do that so don't pretend they are doing that.
Congratulations America
This is very puzzling. While it's embarrassing that Germany has yet to reveal its plan for meeting the 0.7% target by the end of this year, as it has pledged to do, that target shouldn't be viewed as having very much to do with the current crisis which goes beyond the basic problems that were intended to be addressed by the Official Development Aid target. Moreover, the UK only recently enshrined that target into law. It should also be noted that the costs associated with receiving and caring for refugees (at least for the first 12 months of their stay) count towards the 0.7% target, although I reckon it shouldn't. In any case regular old development assistance is only vaguely and indirectly relevant to a massive emergency such as the current refugee crisis. It's commendable, but let's stay on point, 'kay? If you find a dying homeless man on the street you don't just leave him to die after explaining to him that some of your income tax goes towards funding the NHS and that you give a small amount to charity every month and you organise regular workshops on exercise and healthy eating and even take on the occasional intern or apprentice from a working-class background. Sharing your wealth is nice, but it's kinda irrelevant in that particular situation. Of course, you can't just go and find and save every dying person out there, but if one should find himself at your feet, you kinda have to do something then and there. Even you should get that and the only reason you're being obstinate about this is because it stings to be insulted as well as to give Germany/the EU/Hazir any credit.
Hazir is hardly alone in his analysis of Merkel's moves btw. For example:
http://www.economist.com/news/europe...licies-germanyWhat may appear as a capitulation by Mrs Merkel, however, is at least in part also a tactical manoeuvre to press the rest of the EU to accept a quota system for asylum seekers—which they might do later today at a gathering of the EU’s interior ministers. Germany, Sweden and Austria, the countries that have been most welcoming toward refugees so far, have long demanded that all member states share the burden in the refugee crisis. Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Comission, last week put forth just such a plan. France has indicated support. But other countries, especially in eastern Europe, are balking.
In a press conference with Mrs Merkel on September 7th, Sigmar Gabriel, the vice chancellor and boss of the centre-left Social Democrats who are the junior partners in the governing coalition, had already—albeit subtly—nodded at the leverage Germany holds in the policy debate. Germany borders on more countries than any other state in the EU: nine in total, all in the Schengen area of document-free travel. “We Germans have a great interest in keeping these borders open,” Mr Gabriel said. But if Germany’s neighbours don’t help by accepting more refugees, he added, “the debate can very quickly change completely. That would be a politically dramatic reverse for Europe, and I think a mental one too. But it would also be heavy economic blow...especially for those states that are now saying: ‘We won’t participate.’”
The implication is that, barring an EU compromise, Germany may in future reimpose controls on other borders in addition to the Austrian one. Along with more border checks by other countries—the Czechs have also suggested they would begin policing their border with Austria—this could spell the end of the Schengen area and thus reverse one of the most visible achievements of European integration. The immediate consequence of Germany’s border controls will probably be new bottlenecks downstream in the refugee trails—in Austria, above all—and thus even more border closings. The second and intended consequence, however, might be that the EU finally gets its act together and adopts a new asylum regime.
Being a cynic, I suspect Merkel was not only keen to welcome Syrian refugees for humanitarian reasons but also because a large number of young middle-class Syrians may prove to be a valuable boost to the German economy in the decades to come. I'm a little curious about what she'll say the next time she meets a Palestinian asylum seeker threatened with deportation
Re. quota system and another proposal that would require states to either accept refugees or pay those who do, I'm a little conflicted. Feels unfair to condemn some poor sods to some under-developed racist hellhole in Eastern Europe and almost as unfair to force the same hellhole to pay developed countries that are likely to benefit from the influx of new citizens in the long term.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Syria is a war zone, Palestine is not. Are you really going to compare a situation where a few dozen people get killed every year (barring the occasional war) with one where nearly 300k have died in the last few years?
Hope is the denial of reality
Syria is a warzone, yes. However we're not only talking about Syrians who're rescued from a warzone but also about a large number of Syrians who make the journey from places that are not currently warzones, only hellholes. The incident I was referring to involved a Palestinian girl whose family had sought asylum in Germany after living in a refugee camp in Lebanon. And, incidentally, the family got to stay, because people are watching and the comparison is inevitable
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Except the reason the Syrians are given preference is because their home country is a war zone. There are millions and millions of people living in refugee camps worldwide. It's also a misnomer to call the Palestinian camps refugee camps. They are fully developed cities. Economic conditions are crap, but people aren't exactly dying from starvation.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm late to this party, so some general comments. In my view, it's entirely possible that RB and those who disagree with him are both right. I see the following arguments as all persuasive:
1. It is unconscionable that Europe as a whole continues to operate such a haphazard refugee settlement system given the scale of the crisis. The perverse incentives in place for refugees and migrants to make perilous journeys at substantial risk to their lives are only made worse by the impression that obtaining asylum is easier if they can only reach Germany. It feeds demand for the traffickers and is likely to further increase the migration.
2. Simultaneously, the scenes of destitute refugees from war-torn regions including Syria, Iraq, and Eritrea desperately trying to find a home in Europe are equally wrenching. It is unconscionable for European nations - whether a part of Schengen or not - to stand idly by and ignore the problem inside their own countries and on their borders. Much greater numbers of refugees must be given asylum, and those who will not be given asylum should be speedily processed and returned home. The current 'passing the buck' where Germany is one of only a few countries taking in substantial numbers is unreasonable.
3. The conditions in Syria-adjacent countries - notably Jordan and Lebanon, given their size relative to the refugee population - are dire, and more funds must be found to feed and shelter these refugees while their asylum applications and resettlement plans are processed. This is one of the largest refugee crises in modern memory, and the countries adjacent to Syria are groaning under the strain. The West can and must do more to improve conditions.
These can all be simultaneously true without giving us a good idea of where policy should go. I'm inclined to argue for a mix of policies - refugees already in European countries should be rapidly processed and resettled according to some sort of quota system. It will be hard to keep them in one place if they end up in Estonia and would much prefer to be in Germany or France, but it's possible you could tie benefits etc. to their resettlement location to keep the burden from growing too heavy on the most attractive nations in Schengen. Migrants who don't qualify for refugee status should have applications processed rapidly and be returned to their place of origin - importantly, this rapid and uncompromising review should be made clear to the many economic migrants (esp. those in the Balkans and N. Africa) to discourage further migration.
Importantly, though, things need to be done to stem the flow of migrants along unspeakably dangerous routes. The West should set up asylum processing centers in common ports of departure - Libya, Turkey, etc. - to discourage the use of traffickers. Furthermore, these applications should be given priority and expedited processing over those from migrants who illegally enter Europe in order to provide further incentive. To make this work, the West - not just Europe - needs to formally agree to take in far greater numbers of Syrian/Eritrean/etc. refugees than they have done until now - the US is, sadly, a bit of a laggard here, and I think we could easily handle 100k refugees over the next few years, quite possibly more. The combination of a safe route to resettlement that includes a reasonable probability of success in a short time frame should help stem the demand for traffickers from legitimate refugees.
Of course, that doesn't stem the flow of economic migrants, who will continue to use traffickers and dangerous routes, even with better processing of asylum applications and rapid repatriation of rejected applicants. To address this, there are two solutions, each imperfect. First, traffickers are the real evil here, and their networks should be aggressively hunted down using the not-inconsiderable tools at the disposal of the EU. That likely includes some level of cooperation/strong-arming/ignoring of the local governments, especially in N. Africa, but the EU has the muscle to do it, and they should absolutely do so. Thousands of people are dying trying to get to Europe, and that is unacceptable (there are similar problems with Central American migration routes into the US, though at least US interdiction has gotten pretty good and there isn't the same omnipresent risk of drowning). Deal with trafficker scum, and you'll at least slow the tide. It does nothing to address the demand-side of trafficking, though. For that, you'll need the painful long-term solution of improving conditions - economic, political, etc. - in the countries of origin for economic migrants to make a risky and illegal trip to Europe less enticing. This takes time and requires lots of money, but RB is correct that the vast majority of Western countries fall far short of their proposed development aid goals. Europe can and should share a small portion of its wealth with her neighbors from a moral perspective, but also to reduce the migration pressure.
The point is that we can't ignore either RB's points of those of everyone else - any solution needs to address them all simultaneously to try to find an optimum solution.
Oh, and Loki - about Palestinian 'refugees', remember that they are the only people in the world with their unique, idiosyncratic definition of the term to include not just actual refugees, but also all of their descendants without end. The actual number of legitimate Palestinian refugees is quite small (and getting smaller by the year), and most of those have long since been resettled in their current countries, though they often continue to suffer from political and economic discrimination in places like Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon (that, under some definitions, might qualify them for asylum in Western countries, but not because of a 'well founded fear of persecution' from Israel, but rather their current host countries). Interestingly, I'd bet that the largest current population of bona fide Palestinian refugees would be Palestinian-identified Syrians who have fled the civil war and are seeking a new haven.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
Then you must side with Putin here. He appears to be coming to the aid of an ally. Who the fuck cares if a dictator we disagree with keeps his dictatorship for his pathetic short life. Did getting rid of the Iraq dictator make things better? EU gets Assad as a neighbor (for his short little time on this planet) or they get a bunch of new consumers in their countries who will need jobs in order to be consumers. Why you all got to hate one little man so much that you fuck up the lives of so many innocent bystanders.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Thanks for the well written and considered post wiggin. Very sensible points.
Hazir get over your stupid obsession, this isn't anything to do with the EU for us. This is bigger than that. This is neither a reason to vote either leave or remain in the EU.
Bad analogy Aimless. In the instance of finding a sick homeless man on the street then rather than leaving him to die finding the funds to take him to the NHS and shelter etc is what he needs. That is what we're doing. While if Germany intends to start meeting its obligations I would commend that, the equivalent on the homeless man for Germany would be me saying if you are sick and homeless but make it inside my house then I will provide shelter and care but you have to find my house first and get inside it. By the way I thousands of miles away across the sea and there is no safe transport to get to my house. But if you make it you'll be fine.
I've said all along I'd commend Germany if they were taking migrants in large numbers. Waiting for migrants to get to them via traffickers
Absolutely. Germany has quite a low population density and a shrinking population. But if she wants to import people then she should say so and give them transport.Being a cynic, I suspect Merkel was not only keen to welcome Syrian refugees for humanitarian reasons but also because a large number of young middle-class Syrians may prove to be a valuable boost to the German economy in the decades to come.
If she is wanting large numbers of young middle-class Syrians though then the most effective and evil Machiavellian way to do that is what she's doing. This Darwinian survival of the fittest approach reliant on people traffickers and moving thousands of miles on your own means that the ones who can make the journey are not the ones most in need (the poor, sick, elderly, disabled etc) but the fit, young and well off.
So holding dictators to account for their crimes shouldn't be done if the costs are too high? The logic of appeasement has a long history of tragic failure.
Hope is the denial of reality
I think there are two things wrong with this. First, while Germany faces a demographic problem like every other European country (to varying degrees), they do not have a particularly low population density - it's middling for Europe and far higher than in a number of big Western countries (e.g. the US, Canada, etc.). Germany in fact was famously concerned about their population density being too high and the need for Lebensraum, though obviously that does not drive thinking in Germany today. IIRC Germany is quite a bit smaller than California but they have 80+ million population. Not as high density as the UK, but in the same ballpark.
Secondly, I seriously doubt that the overall German welcome to refugees, or the political echelon's echoing thereof, has much to do with a concern about demographics. I think that the German populace as many of their leaders just genuinely want to do the right thing about these refugees, and are not adequately considering the unintended consequences. As for Merkel, I suspect that her heart may also be in the right place, but as usual her policy positions are being driven by the gestalt of the German public, not some Machiavellian attempt to sort out the fittest refugees for resettlement. The results of their policies may not always be good, but I don't think there is any malice or calculation involved. They should be lauded for their generosity of spirit, even if they may be making things worse in some respects.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
USA and Canada are very different to Western Europe wiggin.
England has a population density of 413/sq km.
Germany has a population density of 226/sq km.
From my perspective Germany's is low. I appreciate the UK's is watered down by Scotland (68/sq km) which has one of the lowest population densities in western Europe but seriously, who wants to live in Scotland?
As for demographics some countries problems are worse than others - and I wouldn't say all countries have a major demographic problem. It may change this year but Germany's population is/was officially shrinking rather than growing. Same with a few other nations (off the top of my head I believe Italy). This is caused by a death rate far exceeding their birth rate and a very low net migration rate, and the elderly (35.36% over 55) dramatically outnumbering the young (23.26% under 24).
The UK by comparison has had the fastest growing population in Europe for over a decade with a bit of a baby boom right now so births are exceeding deaths combined with one the highest immigration rates in Europe - with the youth (29.78% under 24) exceeding the elderly (29.31% over 55). While Germany has empty homes, a shortage of workers and a shrinking population our major problem is a housing crisis as we're not building new houses fast enough to keep up with population growth and immigration.
EDIT: I'm still pro-immigration, my solution to our problem is to build more houses (about 300k a year are needed at this rate), which will require changes to planning laws. But although 15 years ago the received wisdom was that we were facing a demographic crisis caused by the retirement of the baby boomers that is not such a problem for us anymore thanks to this new baby boom and immigration. Germany needs migrants though which isn't popular and a cynic might think Merkel is trying to exploit one problem to fix another free of charge and in a Machiavellian manner.
Last edited by RandBlade; 09-16-2015 at 07:54 PM.
Quite a good article, its a few days old but I just read it - phrases well my thinking: http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...deaths-at-sea/
It is a standard of international relations though isn't it? I mean, why do you think e.g. the usa works with (and supports) so many questionable regimes?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
