More Erdogan madness

[Aimless]

He's saying that this was the case, in principle, even before the refugee crisis and even when taking planes or ferries from countries other than Greece. You guys just never noticed it because you're nerds from European countries rather than being bearded turban-wearing pop-concert loving jihadi sexual predators and there wasn't such a pressing need to be particularly strict. Both temporary controls under extenuating circumstances as well as domestic laws requiring you to carry papers etc. are provided for by the agreement.

[earthJoker]

So he's actually only disagreeing with the "anymore" part. Well then, I can live with that. How does that make the deal with Turkey necessary again?

[Hazir]

So he's actually only disagreeing with the "anymore" part. Well then, I can live with that. How does that make the deal with Turkey necessary again?

Greece still is in the EU, and even if we could get it out of the EU we couldn't get it out of Europe. And if the Turks can cause a crisis in Europe by merely sitting back as it developes, they can do so even more effectively, since there is no sea separating most of the country from the continent. That makes things a little bit more complicated than ''Never deal with people you despise'. In general I think failed states are trouble, one should not try to create them if it can be avoided.

[earthJoker]

And if the Turks can cause a crisis in Europe by merely sitting back as it developes, they can do so even more effectively, since there is no sea separating most of the country from the continent.

I really don't know what you are trying to say to me with this sentence. There is no sea separating Asia and Europe? Is that what you trying to tell me. Guess what, I knew that before.

[Hazir]

I really don't know what you are trying to say to me with this sentence. There is no sea separating Asia and Europe? Is that what you trying to tell me. Guess what, I knew that before.

No what I am telling you is what you could already know; these refugees came because they wanted to come and because nobody cared to keep them back. If your solution is to make Greece the new Turkey I say that solution isn going to work even less than with the actual Turkey.

[RandBlade]

If you think Turkey is seriously going to hold back all migrants then I have a bridge to sell you ...

[Hazir]

If you think Turkey is seriously going to hold back all migrants then I have a bridge to sell you ...

They basically did actually, because doing so puts them in a position to demand counter prestations. Just compare the number of people arriving in Greece these days with last year.

Last year they sat on their hands as the dinghies took off from their beaches and refused to work together with the Greeks. Making it near impossible for the Greeks to intercept even a fraction of them.

[Aimless]

If you think Turkey is seriously going to hold back all migrants then I have a bridge to sell you ...

We should be able to expect Turkey to "hold back" a number of migrants, somewhere between 0% and 100%. We can expect Greece alone to do worse than Turkey alone and with worse consequences to the country. If you'd like to sell a bridge you should make sure that its cost and expected utility are comparable to that of the strategy involving using Turkey to manage the refugee crisis.

[Hazir]

We should be able to expect Turkey to "hold back" a number of migrants, somewhere between 0% and 100%. We can expect Greece alone to do worse than Turkey alone and with worse consequences to the country. If you'd like to sell a bridge you should make sure that its cost and expected utility are comparable to that of the strategy involving using Turkey to manage the refugee crisis.

Exactly, and then you hold your nose and make a deal with somebody you'd rather not be in the same room with.

[earthJoker]

No what I am telling you is what you could already know; these refugees came because they wanted to come and because nobody cared to keep them back. If your solution is to make Greece the new Turkey I say that solution isn going to work even less than with the actual Turkey.

The Austrian government at least understood it, it doesn't doesn't matter where you close the pipe, the water will stop flowing anyway. No I don't see Greece as the new Turkey, currently Macedonia and Bulgaria are the countries that control the gates to Europe.

We should be able to expect Turkey to "hold back" a number of migrants, somewhere between 0% and 100%. We can expect Greece alone to do worse than Turkey alone and with worse consequences to the country. If you'd like to sell a bridge you should make sure that its cost and expected utility are comparable to that of the strategy involving using Turkey to manage the refugee crisis.

Even if it would cost more, it would still be money spent in Europe and not spend on Erdogan.

[Hazir]

The Austrian government at least understood it, it doesn't doesn't matter where you close the pipe, the water will stop flowing anyway. No I don't see Greece as the new Turkey, currently Macedonia and Bulgaria are the countries that control the gates to Europe.



Even if it would cost more, it would still be money spent in Europe and not spend on Erdogan.

Well if you want to believe that, be my guest. My version of reality is that Greece is barely coping because Turkey turned off the supply. The countries after Greece are only coping because the supply is cut off in Turkey and the pressure on Macedonia and others decreased. If Turkey would not have kept its word, we would have been dealing with anywhere between 100.000 and 250.000 people wanting to cross the border.

I hope you realise that we can build a fence, but that even a fence will only hold back so many people. Even if you'd go whole hog and start shooting I'd not be certain that you could hold back that many people.

[earthJoker]

Numbers already went down between the closure of the West Balkan and the reachment of the Turkey Deal.
And if fences don't work. How should Turkey hold back the people? Why should the EU give money to Turkey for something it believes it is not possible. It just doesn't add up.

[RandBlade]

Exactly, and then you hold your nose and make a deal with somebody you'd rather not be in the same room with.

Not if that deal involves sacrificing your own civil rights. As Franklin said, "those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Free speech is essential Liberty and Erdogan provides no more than temporary Safety.

[Hazir]

Numbers already went down between the closure of the West Balkan and the reachment of the Turkey Deal.
And if fences don't work. How should Turkey hold back the people? Why should the EU give money to Turkey for something it believes it is not possible. It just doesn't add up.

Well, unlike what people think, Turkey actually has a pretty good control over its borders. They also use CCTV a lot, so very often are well aware of groups of people being on the way to places where they shouldn't be. The Turkish land-border has been locked down from long before the refugee crisis (which is why people paid THOUSANDS, not hundreds of dollars to be smuggled accross that border).

The sea-route though, to the Greeks islands the Turks decided not to touch for various reasons; first of all they got rid of an excess of Syrian refugees that their citizens were getting less enchanted with already, second it generated an estimated $4bn in collected fees for crossing over to Greece. And the last few years the AKP government has been less effective *cough* in fighting corruption. The week the deal with the EU came into effect the police in Turkey suddenly managed to clamp down on suspect behaviour on Turkish beaches. And in the process made it harder for Syrians to travel to the Aegean coast.

[earthJoker]

So Turkey can control its borders the EU can't. Interesting.

[Hazir]

So Turkey can control its borders the EU can't. Interesting.

Well, that's something of a mess we created ourselves when the 'Das Boot ist voll' attitude became discredited. The asymetry here is that Turkey doesn't recognize people as refugees unless they are from Europe. We on the other hand do not have such a territorial reservation which means that we - according to our own rules - can't send anybody who claims to be a refugee back to Turkey. Because Turkey isn't a country where their rights as refugees are guaranteed.

That makes Turkey 'unsafe' and by definition a place you can't send people back to. One step on EU soil makes that a fact.

So Turkey only needs to do what a normal country does to guard its borders, we on the other hand need a 100% score on the refugees and false claimants to never set a foot on our soil. If we don't then we'll have to treat them like at least asylum seekers.

Besides that legal conundrum the Greeks in particular didn't want the EU to guard their borders, and the Greeks.. well they are the Greeks.

[earthJoker]

Part of the deal is to send back people to Turkey. Did you forget that?

[Hazir]

Part of the deal is to send back people to Turkey. Did you forget that?

No I didn't, but in order to be able to send people back to Turkey you need Turkey to change its own rules first. Like actually change legislation so that you can reasonably say Turkey is a safe country.

And guess what's the last step but one before anything has force of law in Turkey? It involves a pen and the hand of the President. Have a wild guess what it is. Also know that the only way to overturn a presidential veto is a referendum in Turkey. I give the Brits joining the euro a bigger chance than the majority of Turks voting against their President to overturn a veto that keeps Syrians from having more rights.

[earthJoker]

As if that signature actually changes the situation for Syrians in Turkey.

[Hazir]

As if that signature actually changes the situation for Syrians in Turkey.

It does. It changes them from temporary residents with no status into residents with a permit to live and work in Turkey, use public health services and send their children to schools on the same basis as Turks. Not exactly refugee status, but pretty damn close to it.

For what it is worth to be treated as a Turk it's still a huge improvement for a Syrian in Turkey.

[Aimless]

Even if it would cost more, it would still be money spent in Europe and not spend on Erdogan.

I wouldn't have much of a problem with your alternative if it could be persuasively argued that, even though it would cost more, the results would be comparable as far as the refugee situation is concerned and not devastating as far as Greece's situation is concerned. That's the other part of the calculation--whether or not you actually get something close to what you're trying to buy and whether or not you do so without completely wrecking things in the process.

[Aimless]

Not if that deal involves sacrificing your own civil rights. As Franklin said, "those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Free speech is essential Liberty and Erdogan provides no more than temporary Safety.

Given that this case involves (potentially but probably not) a negligible short-term risk to freedom of expression in Germany while something of greater and more immediate importance hangs in the balance that's no a very applicable quote. They key word is "give up" and the key to understanding the situation is to look at the extent to which this case and its expected outcomes differ from the status quo in Germany. Compared to the egregious and far less useful restrictions on free speech in the UK, this is nothing.

[RandBlade]

What is the something greater? To keep migrants in poor conditions in Turkey rather than to keep them in poor conditions in Greece? Why is that Germany's problem that's worth sacrificing liberties for?

In case you've forgotten I've said Parliament should change the law on free speech in the UK. Judicial activism being wrong is no excuse for the Chancellor of Germany being wrong.

[earthJoker]

I wouldn't have much of a problem with your alternative if it could be persuasively argued that, even though it would cost more, the results would be comparable as far as the refugee situation is concerned and not devastating as far as Greece's situation is concerned.

The border of non-EU is controlled with the help if Austria, while EU country Greece is trying hard to avoid any help.

That's the other part of the calculation--whether or not you actually get something close to what you're trying to buy and whether or not you do so without completely wrecking things in the process.

I don't think the damage done to Greece is the problem, it's the condition and the political situation of Greece as it currently is.

[Hazir]

The border of non-EU is controlled with the help if Austria, while EU country Greece is trying hard to avoid any help.

I don't think the damage done to Greece is the problem, it's the condition and the political situation of Greece as it currently is.

Despite agreeing with you on putting a lot of the blame on Greece, I think still that the damage of that state really collapsing is the bigger evil.

In Holland we have a similar article about insulting foreign heads of state, but we've got the important distinction that it only applies if that foreign head of state actually is within the borders of the Kingdom.

[earthJoker]

I know you don't agree, but I still believe that closing of the border from Greece would actually get pressure from the Greece. Because it is not the goal of anyone to get stuck in Greece.

[Hazir]

I know you don't agree, but I still believe that closing of the border from Greece would actually get pressure from the Greece. Because it is not the goal of anyone to get stuck in Greece.

Indeed, it is no-ones goal to get stuck in Greece. Yet, that is still the case for roughly 50.000 people and even that Greece is not coping with very well. All it takes for them to collapse under the weight is the Turks stopping their cooperation.

[earthJoker]

Of which many entered under the asumtion that they will travel further with relative ease.

[LittleFuzzy]

The expected impact on feedom of speech in Germany from Merkel's authorisation is either negligible or net positive (negligible because no real change from status quo, net positive if it gets tossed out or the court gives a strong negative opinion or if it gets appealed to higher instances including at the European level, certainly positive because this case has reminded the Germans they need to repeal the law asap).

The net positive is meaningless because there was discretion to not exercise this in the first place. All well and good if the case gets tossed but we've talked before about how just prosecuting (or throwing lawsuits) at a person or behavior has a chilling effect even if they fight it off. And it doesn't matter if there is no real change in the status quo because it demonstrates that the status quo is BAD, that the Chancellor is willing to stifle free speech, to stifle comic commentary for political policy and the laws apparently fully support this.

The case fulfils all the major requirements of the law which in itself is largely consistent with German law as it pertains to regular German citizens (in other words if a private German citizen would have been the target of the "poem" and accused on TV of eg. "slapping Christians while watching child-porn," he may have been able to press charges on similar grounds).

I want citations, but frankly, if this is true it just worsens my opinion and strengthens my stance that the problem is the rotten status quo.

If Merkel were to use her discretionary power to deny authorisation, she'd find herself in the extremely awkward position of explaining/justifying her decision on shaky and unsatisfying grounds. This way, the matter was handed over to higher authorities.

She'd find herself in an awkward position of having to try and justify herself to Erdogan, yes, since he is not going to be inclined to be satisfied. You know what's even more awkward? Campaigning to repeal something she is actively exercising her discretion to require. The former is socially awkward and potentially damaging to her policy. The latter is damaging to her policy and to domestic politics, not to mention for her personally. There's a third way, of course. Wait for a conviction and THEN push for repeal, the "have cake and eat it too" approach. And that one is morally reprehensible.

If she'd denied authorisation it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect Erdogan, who'd be negotiating from a comparatively strong position on the refugee issue, would become uncooperative. Merkel would then have risked something of extremely great immediate importance in order to obtain something trivial.

Erdogan is not actually a moron. Saying no could make him become uncooperative, yes. Saying yes and working to undermine the "yes" runs the same risk. And if Merkel and the German government isn't actually doing the latter at the very least, then my condemnation that the democratic republic in question has worse problems than Schengen and the refugee crisis stands.

[Hazir]

Of which many entered under the asumtion that they will travel further with relative ease.

I think close to a 100%.