EPTThere is no real solution to it either.
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 240
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
There is no real solution to it either. | ||
|
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
On August 19 2015 01:19 Incognoto wrote: It's a pretty disgusting and tasteless affair overall. There is no real solution to it either. The solution is quite simple and humane: you return them to their point of origin. As Australia has shown, it works very effectively. The issue is that enforcing your own laws properly happens a lot less when the elites aren't effected or there isn't enough room for graft. And there's no humanitarian issue, either. Encouraging more illegal entries, via sailing the Med no less, produces a huge amount of deaths, false hopes for a new life and a massive human smuggling operation. Which, always, leads to direct human trafficking. So not preventing the situation leads to functional slavery for a population that's trying to escape their terrible country. But it's not the "nice" solution. And if "nice" trumps defending your own countries proper interests, your country is going to have a whole lot of problems. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22373 Posts
On August 19 2015 01:45 Taf the Ghost wrote: The solution is quite simple and humane: you return them to their point of origin. As Australia has shown, it works very effectively. The issue is that enforcing your own laws properly happens a lot less when the elites aren't effected or there isn't enough room for graft. And there's no humanitarian issue, either. Encouraging more illegal entries, via sailing the Med no less, produces a huge amount of deaths, false hopes for a new life and a massive human smuggling operation. Which, always, leads to direct human trafficking. So not preventing the situation leads to functional slavery for a population that's trying to escape their terrible country. But it's not the "nice" solution. And if "nice" trumps defending your own countries proper interests, your country is going to have a whole lot of problems. Last I checked you couldn't sail from the middle east to Australia in a dingy row boat. "Just send them back" doesn't work when they have nothing at home and can (relatively) easy make the journey over and over again until they finally slip through or drown in the Mediterranean. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22373 Posts
On August 19 2015 01:55 cLutZ wrote: Well, if you don't people will continue to attempt such journeys because you are making the payoff so high and so probable. That could be fine, because by American or Chinese standards calling this an immigration crisis is laughable. I'm not saying we shouldn't be sending them back/keeping them out but to compare the EU with Australia in this regard is frankly laughable. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On August 19 2015 01:58 Nyxisto wrote: The EU received 500k refugees last year, will probably be more this year but anyway, 500k is 0.1% of the European population. This wouldn't be a crisis if it would be properly managed and funded. You state the problem right there: it is being managed and funding everything but properly. It also doesn't help that practically all of the EU is going through a phase of budget consolidation. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
On August 19 2015 02:04 Gorsameth wrote: I'm not saying we shouldn't be sending them back/keeping them out but to compare the EU with Australia in this regard is frankly laughable. At the peak, 20k filed for asylum in Australia, of which 12k were refugees/boat entries. (I believe I'm reading this right) Australia has a population of roughly 24 million people. Given the EU's roughly 500 million members and the possibility of around 270k boat-based refugees this year, on a per-capita basis the comparison isn't off. And where the comparison is definitely not off is what happens when this isn't actively discouraged: the body count rises very quickly. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22373 Posts
On August 19 2015 05:46 Taf the Ghost wrote: At the peak, 20k filed for asylum in Australia, of which 12k were refugees/boat entries. (I believe I'm reading this right) Australia has a population of roughly 24 million people. Given the EU's roughly 500 million members and the possibility of around 270k boat-based refugees this year, on a per-capita basis the comparison isn't off. And where the comparison is definitely not off is what happens when this isn't actively discouraged: the body count rises very quickly. How about geographical location? Australia is not next to Libya, a complete hellhole The shitty no cost boats they use to try and cross the Mediterranean are not going to get you to Australia. The comparison is useless not because of political situation but because one is an inland sea away from some of the biggest hell holes on earth and the other is an island continent nicely off on its own away from people. You claim the body count rises sharply because its not being discouraged. Has it accord to you that maybe the giant instability of the middle east is a reason why the EU is seeing such a large increase in refugees? | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28797 Posts
Sure, I can totally accept that if I were a self-serving asshole whose main care in the world was the economic prosperity of my country, I would be better off forcing these boatloads of refugees to instantly return to their point of departure. Insisting on accepting refugees is not a choice taken because I think it's better for Europe (at least not on a short term basis), it's a choice taken due to humanitarian principles that which I want to be the main governing philosophy of the country I reside in. Frankly, I don't care if Norway's GDPPC shrinks by 1% due to accepting 8000 refugees (which isn't even a projection, but even if it were), I want us to accept more than that anyway because I want to live in an inclusive society which tries its hardest to help the poor, desperate and downtrodden. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 19 2015 01:50 Gorsameth wrote: Last I checked you couldn't sail from the middle east to Australia in a dingy row boat. "Just send them back" doesn't work when they have nothing at home and can (relatively) easy make the journey over and over again until they finally slip through or drown in the Mediterranean. Lets not even talk about the fact that most of them are refugees from amazingly violent conflicts. If you listen to reports, people landing on Greece sometimes come in wounded by gunfire or shrapnel. I know people don't like refugees, but they are there because their countries are so dangerous they will die if they stay. | ||
|
Evil_Sheep
Canada902 Posts
On August 19 2015 01:45 Taf the Ghost wrote: The solution is quite simple and humane: you return them to their point of origin. As Australia has shown, it works very effectively. The issue is that enforcing your own laws properly happens a lot less when the elites aren't effected or there isn't enough room for graft. And there's no humanitarian issue, either. Encouraging more illegal entries, via sailing the Med no less, produces a huge amount of deaths, false hopes for a new life and a massive human smuggling operation. Which, always, leads to direct human trafficking. So not preventing the situation leads to functional slavery for a population that's trying to escape their terrible country. But it's not the "nice" solution. And if "nice" trumps defending your own countries proper interests, your country is going to have a whole lot of problems. Your solution may be simple but not humane. A large number of the migrants to Europe are fleeing brutal wars going on in the Middle East and Africa. The EU has a legal obligation to accept refugees fleeing conflicts, and they don't dispute that. The UN Convention on Refugees was signed following WWII in response to the events of WWII, which included boatloads of Jews fleeing the Holocaust arriving in places like America, where many were turned back, recaptured by the Nazis, and put to death in the gas chambers. Obviously, on learning the consequences of their actions following the war, many Americans were rightly horrified. This is a difficult situation and there are no easy answers. However it is easy to say that "just send them back" is not one of them. edit: "Germany says it could receive as many as 750,000 asylum seekers this year." UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres: "It is unsustainable in the long run that only two EU countries, Germany and Sweden, take in the majority of refugees." [link] | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
On August 19 2015 06:00 Gorsameth wrote: How about geographical location? Australia is not next to Libya, a complete hellhole The shitty no cost boats they use to try and cross the Mediterranean are not going to get you to Australia. The comparison is useless not because of political situation but because one is an inland sea away from some of the biggest hell holes on earth and the other is an island continent nicely off on its own away from people. You claim the body count rises sharply because its not being discouraged. Has it accord to you that maybe the giant instability of the middle east is a reason why the EU is seeing such a large increase in refugees? You would be surprised how much of a hellhole some parts of southeast asia are. I'm not sure what refugees you think Australia gets, but they also arrive in shitty fall-apart boats and cross largely from Indonesia having made their way there from various parts of SEA, and sometimes the middle east. It's not like they can just go back home; that's why they're refugees. However, I'm not sure our solution is an example you want to follow. It's a difficult situation. You want to help people, but at the same time you can't afford to encourage people-smuggling operations. Our government's stance has been to absolutely block people-smuggling, and it has achieved that aim very effectively. The problem is that in doing so, we have failed our international and humanitarian obligations on a vast scale. | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On August 19 2015 01:58 Nyxisto wrote: The EU received 500k refugees last year, will probably be more this year but anyway, 500k is 0.1% of the European population. This wouldn't be a crisis if it would be properly managed and funded. Excatly. Instead of doing this, the EU rather invests millions of Euros to fund Frontex, an organisation notorious for human rights violations and inhumane treatment of refugees | ||
|
RapidTiger
59 Posts
| ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6274 Posts
A good piece on the currency action imo: China’s central bank took a potentially major step toward a more market-determined exchange rate on August 11, when it announced a revision in the process for fixing the central parity exchange rate, the starting point for daily trading of the renminbi (RMB) in the onshore market. While the reform has set off alarm bells in some quarters, it is unlikely that this move will usher in another chapter of currency manipulation to support Chinese exports and thus its economic growth. China may well be concerned about an economic slowdown accompanied by a slump in exports, but its motivation for this move is almost certainly tied to another objective: China’s aspiration to have the RMB join the four other major international currencies (the dollar, the euro, the pound sterling, and the yen) that comprise the so-called special drawing rights (SDR) basket of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF executive board will decide in November whether to include the RMB in that basket. In a special report issued last week, the IMF evaluated the suitability of including the RMB in the basket. One concern raised was deviations between the offshore (CNH) and the onshore (CNY) rates. Moving toward a more market-determined onshore market is designed in part to address this concern. We should also expect the central bank in the near future to further liberalize access by SDR users to the onshore foreign exchange market. The action taken by China, far from being a step to manipulate its currency, is actually an effort to let the RMB fluctuate according to the dynamics of the exchange markets. For months the RMB has weakened almost daily from the central parity rate. Every time it does so, the next day the central bank almost invariably sets the new parity rate at a level almost unchanged from the previous day. And on many days the central bank has intervened in the market (selling dollars and purchasing RMB) to prevent the RMB from weakening beyond the 2 percent trading band. In short, up until now the central bank has been largely overriding the market. In its latest step, the bank has announced that, when setting the central parity rate, it will take into account the closing rate of the previous day, the supply and demand conditions in the foreign exchange market, as well as the exchange rate movements of major currencies. Thus the central fixing on August 11 was at a level reflecting a 200 basis point depreciation of the RMB from the previous day’s close. China’s move is consistent with long-standing advice from the IMF and from the US Treasury, both of which have repeatedly called for China to adopt a more market-determined exchange rate policy. We should expect this to lead to greater volatility and two-way movement in the value of the RMB vis-a-vis the dollar. blogs.piie.com | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
Tsirpis out. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22373 Posts
I imagine the ECB is pretty pissed right now. | ||
| ||
