|
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. |
On January 06 2016 20:34 Maluk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 13:28 Nyxisto wrote:
Everybody knows that there are problems and that integrating millions of people will be a rocky task. But there isn't actually any easy solution to this. The reality is that people are willing to give up their life to come here, and we've agreed to not let them die, so that's that. Instituting bureaucratic "upper limits" doesn't actually do anything in the real world, and giving up every single one of our civil liberties probably isn't worth it either. Does there need to be a limit then ? You're apparently saying that every single person that is willing to "give up their life" (let's say that is actually what is going on) to come to Europe should be allowed to do so. Is there absolutely no limit to the number of people that should enter Europe this way ? Or is there still some sort of limit above which Germany cannot go ? If Germany maintains its generous policy for 20 years, it has to become the home of 20 million refugees, in theory. Would that still be reasonable ? And if not, does that not mean that some kind of limit has to be found, which implies that not everyone who wishes to enter Europe is immediately accepted, on the sole basis of that will to enter the continent ?
If we want to reduce the refugee numbers we need to do something about the war in Syria and about the extreme poverty and political persecution regarding other countries refugees are originating from. You can't turn Europe into a fortress, it has never worked in history and it probably never will. Until we manage to do that we will have to find realistic solutions here.
I think it's funny that people are ridiculing Merkel's "we can do it". There simply is no other option, what are we supposed to do? Say "nope we can't do it" and build a vault?
|
On January 07 2016 03:14 Trurl wrote:Show nested quote +Well, the funny thing is that the German-Polish border treaty goes in tandem with the 2+4 one. Which also settles the issue regarding any war reparations, at least according to the German government. The German government and reparations/restitutions is not a very glorious chapter though. I just looked up at which time the restitutions for forced laborers were paid, and a large part of it was paid as late as 2000. Other restitutions and reparations were delayed in a similar fashion. Still, discussing the Oder-Neisse-border or reparations in 2016 does not relate to any of the current problems. + Show Spoiler +But I don't see why we should not remind about it at times when Germany does something abusive to our country (such as: Nord Stream 1 & 2, which not only are a threat to our energy security, but also prevents us from upgrading some of our ports, German restitution claims or demanding truck drivers driving through Germany to be paid German minimum wages, which could make our transportation companies go bankrupt). The miminum wage law might be detrimental to some of your companies, but how is it "abusive"? And can you elaborate on the Nord Stream/port business please?
Nord Stream is bad for us (and other transit countries) because it allows Russians to stop sending us natural gas without losing their clients in Western Europe. As long as they can't send all their gas through other ways we have some ground in price negotions but we still pay more than other countries for the same amout of gas from Russia. That's why we built our LNG terminal in Świnoujście to get some energy security. Some of us keep bringing up Nord Stream whenever Poland is condemned for not showing solidarity with Western Europe (refugee crisis being the most recent example altough I dont get why we get the blame for Czech/Hungarian/Slovakian "no") because that's the most glaring example of Germany not showing solidarity with Eastern Europe.
I'm not sure but I also remember something about one of the undersea pipelines being too close to one of our Baltic ports which causes some technological problems.
|
On January 07 2016 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 20:34 Maluk wrote:On January 06 2016 13:28 Nyxisto wrote:
Everybody knows that there are problems and that integrating millions of people will be a rocky task. But there isn't actually any easy solution to this. The reality is that people are willing to give up their life to come here, and we've agreed to not let them die, so that's that. Instituting bureaucratic "upper limits" doesn't actually do anything in the real world, and giving up every single one of our civil liberties probably isn't worth it either. Does there need to be a limit then ? You're apparently saying that every single person that is willing to "give up their life" (let's say that is actually what is going on) to come to Europe should be allowed to do so. Is there absolutely no limit to the number of people that should enter Europe this way ? Or is there still some sort of limit above which Germany cannot go ? If Germany maintains its generous policy for 20 years, it has to become the home of 20 million refugees, in theory. Would that still be reasonable ? And if not, does that not mean that some kind of limit has to be found, which implies that not everyone who wishes to enter Europe is immediately accepted, on the sole basis of that will to enter the continent ? If we want to reduce the refugee numbers we need to do something about the war in Syria and about the extreme poverty and political persecution regarding other countries refugees are originating from. You can't turn Europe into a fortress, it has never worked in history and it probably never will. Until we manage to do that we will have to find realistic solutions here. I think it's funny that people are ridiculing Merkel's "we can do it". There simply is no other option, what are we supposed to do? Say "nope we can't do it" and build a vault?
If we want to reduce the refugee numbers we could also have invested in proper refugee camps instead of encouraging people crossing the Mediterranean in leaky boats or otherwise endanger their lives in the hopes of coming to Europe. Or we could turn away the @50% of the current "refugees" which are not actually fleeing war, but simply seeking a better living (which does not warrant them receiving asylum).
|
On January 07 2016 03:22 OtherWorld wrote:I also heard all German drive $100,000 Mercedes and that you can find Euro bills in their trash bins.
If I may add, what you just described in all its ridicoulness seems to be what many Africans are getting told in their home countries by human traffickers. Sadly, too many believe that bs. And I don´t make this up. I only repeat what I was told by Africans themselves in some of countless reportages I have seen in the last months.
It is not uncommon that some refugees arrive in Germany and expect, that they get a house to live in for free. Then they are surprised, that houses or flats are limited.
|
On January 07 2016 04:06 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2016 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On January 06 2016 20:34 Maluk wrote:On January 06 2016 13:28 Nyxisto wrote:
Everybody knows that there are problems and that integrating millions of people will be a rocky task. But there isn't actually any easy solution to this. The reality is that people are willing to give up their life to come here, and we've agreed to not let them die, so that's that. Instituting bureaucratic "upper limits" doesn't actually do anything in the real world, and giving up every single one of our civil liberties probably isn't worth it either. Does there need to be a limit then ? You're apparently saying that every single person that is willing to "give up their life" (let's say that is actually what is going on) to come to Europe should be allowed to do so. Is there absolutely no limit to the number of people that should enter Europe this way ? Or is there still some sort of limit above which Germany cannot go ? If Germany maintains its generous policy for 20 years, it has to become the home of 20 million refugees, in theory. Would that still be reasonable ? And if not, does that not mean that some kind of limit has to be found, which implies that not everyone who wishes to enter Europe is immediately accepted, on the sole basis of that will to enter the continent ? If we want to reduce the refugee numbers we need to do something about the war in Syria and about the extreme poverty and political persecution regarding other countries refugees are originating from. You can't turn Europe into a fortress, it has never worked in history and it probably never will. Until we manage to do that we will have to find realistic solutions here. I think it's funny that people are ridiculing Merkel's "we can do it". There simply is no other option, what are we supposed to do? Say "nope we can't do it" and build a vault? If we want to reduce the refugee numbers we could also have invested in proper refugee camps instead of encouraging people crossing the Mediterranean in leaky boats or otherwise endanger their lives in the hopes of coming to Europe. Or we could turn away the @50% of the current "refugees" which are not actually fleeing war, but simply seeking a better living (which does not warrant them receiving asylum).
To know who is fleeing a war and who is doing it for economic reasons you have to run checks and those checks take time. As people are found to be here under wrong pretenses they will be send back.
And yes I agree we should have spend the money on sheltering them outside the EU instead but that requires people to actually get together and agree on something.
Plus I think regardless of how much you try to properly take care of people in refugee camps at the border, a significant part will always try to get further in
|
On January 07 2016 04:06 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2016 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On January 06 2016 20:34 Maluk wrote:On January 06 2016 13:28 Nyxisto wrote:
Everybody knows that there are problems and that integrating millions of people will be a rocky task. But there isn't actually any easy solution to this. The reality is that people are willing to give up their life to come here, and we've agreed to not let them die, so that's that. Instituting bureaucratic "upper limits" doesn't actually do anything in the real world, and giving up every single one of our civil liberties probably isn't worth it either. Does there need to be a limit then ? You're apparently saying that every single person that is willing to "give up their life" (let's say that is actually what is going on) to come to Europe should be allowed to do so. Is there absolutely no limit to the number of people that should enter Europe this way ? Or is there still some sort of limit above which Germany cannot go ? If Germany maintains its generous policy for 20 years, it has to become the home of 20 million refugees, in theory. Would that still be reasonable ? And if not, does that not mean that some kind of limit has to be found, which implies that not everyone who wishes to enter Europe is immediately accepted, on the sole basis of that will to enter the continent ? If we want to reduce the refugee numbers we need to do something about the war in Syria and about the extreme poverty and political persecution regarding other countries refugees are originating from. You can't turn Europe into a fortress, it has never worked in history and it probably never will. Until we manage to do that we will have to find realistic solutions here. I think it's funny that people are ridiculing Merkel's "we can do it". There simply is no other option, what are we supposed to do? Say "nope we can't do it" and build a vault? If we want to reduce the refugee numbers we could also have invested in proper refugee camps instead of encouraging people crossing the Mediterranean in leaky boats or otherwise endanger their lives in the hopes of coming to Europe. Or we could turn away the @50% of the current "refugees" which are not actually fleeing war, but simply seeking a better living (which does not warrant them receiving asylum).
What does turning away mean? Telling them to turn around? I very much doubt they'll do that. Rejection rates for certain countries are already at 99% Naturally deporting people takes a lot of money and effort and will probably take years. The EU has no inner border, so "turning them away" can practically only happen at the European outer borders anyway.
|
On January 07 2016 04:12 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2016 04:06 Ghostcom wrote:On January 07 2016 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On January 06 2016 20:34 Maluk wrote:On January 06 2016 13:28 Nyxisto wrote:
Everybody knows that there are problems and that integrating millions of people will be a rocky task. But there isn't actually any easy solution to this. The reality is that people are willing to give up their life to come here, and we've agreed to not let them die, so that's that. Instituting bureaucratic "upper limits" doesn't actually do anything in the real world, and giving up every single one of our civil liberties probably isn't worth it either. Does there need to be a limit then ? You're apparently saying that every single person that is willing to "give up their life" (let's say that is actually what is going on) to come to Europe should be allowed to do so. Is there absolutely no limit to the number of people that should enter Europe this way ? Or is there still some sort of limit above which Germany cannot go ? If Germany maintains its generous policy for 20 years, it has to become the home of 20 million refugees, in theory. Would that still be reasonable ? And if not, does that not mean that some kind of limit has to be found, which implies that not everyone who wishes to enter Europe is immediately accepted, on the sole basis of that will to enter the continent ? If we want to reduce the refugee numbers we need to do something about the war in Syria and about the extreme poverty and political persecution regarding other countries refugees are originating from. You can't turn Europe into a fortress, it has never worked in history and it probably never will. Until we manage to do that we will have to find realistic solutions here. I think it's funny that people are ridiculing Merkel's "we can do it". There simply is no other option, what are we supposed to do? Say "nope we can't do it" and build a vault? If we want to reduce the refugee numbers we could also have invested in proper refugee camps instead of encouraging people crossing the Mediterranean in leaky boats or otherwise endanger their lives in the hopes of coming to Europe. Or we could turn away the @50% of the current "refugees" which are not actually fleeing war, but simply seeking a better living (which does not warrant them receiving asylum). What does turning away mean? Telling them to turn around? I very much doubt they'll do that. Rejection rates for certain countries are already at 99% Naturally deporting people takes a lot of money and effort and will probably take years. The EU has no inner border, so "turning them away" can practically only happen at the European outer borders anyway.
If I may add:
And even if they get deported, some will try again to get to Europe, even to countries they already got deported from. As you said, it takes a lot of time to get deported from Germany and people knew how to prolong the process.
It saddens me, because real refugees fleeing from war have to face worse conditions as a consequence.
|
On January 07 2016 02:07 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2016 01:34 maybenexttime wrote:On January 06 2016 21:06 dismiss wrote:On January 06 2016 20:52 maybenexttime wrote:On January 06 2016 20:29 dismiss wrote:Maybe because Poland was the recipient of vast quantities of money, a large part of which came from Germany, through the EU.  It's slightly ironic to expect the government of another country to have your best interests in mind, complaining when they don't, but taking their money regardless. Roughly 80% of the money that Germany gives to Poland through the EU goes directly back to Germany. Add to that the massive loans we have to take mostly in western banks (some of which are German) in order to be able to receive that EU money and the massive profits German companies are making in Poland thanks to the open market or the horrendous sums of money some German companies are illegally funneling out of Poland (some $30 bln during the past several years), and it suddenly stops looking like Germany is giving us charity money... I know it's ironic. You know what's also ironic (or rather hypocritical)? Germany preaching European solidarity while actually not giving shit about it. The funny thing is that our previous government did just that - it seemed to have Germany's best interest in mind, often taking priority over Poland's best interest. Those are some serious conspiracy theories you got going on there, sorry normal economic transactions apparently are Germany's plan to subjugate Poland. Those are facts, not conspiracy theories. The 80% is according to Johannes Hahn, the European Commissioner for Regional Policy. The $30 bln being funneled out of Poland by German companies over the course of several past years is according to Global Financial Integrity, Illicit Financial Flows from Developing Countries: 2004-2013. Go back to your Lala-Lang where Germany helps other countries out of the goodness of heart. On January 06 2016 21:21 Simberto wrote:On January 06 2016 20:52 maybenexttime wrote:On January 06 2016 20:29 dismiss wrote:Maybe because Poland was the recipient of vast quantities of money, a large part of which came from Germany, through the EU. It's slightly ironic to expect the government of another country to have your best interests in mind, complaining when they don't, but taking their money regardless. Roughly 80% of the money that Germany gives to Poland through the EU goes directly back to Germany. Add to that the massive loans we have to take mostly in western banks (some of which are German) in order to be able to receive that EU money and the massive profits German companies are making in Poland thanks to the open market or the horrendous sums of money some German companies are illegally funneling out of Poland (some $30 bln during the past several years), and it suddenly stops looking like Germany is giving us charity money... I know it's ironic. You know what's also ironic (or rather hypocritical)? Germany preaching European solidarity while actually not giving shit about it. The funny thing is that our previous government did just that - it seemed to have Germany's best interest in mind, often taking priority over Poland's best interest. I assume with "goes directly back to Germany" you mean "We buy German stuff with that money"? In which case you may no longer have the money, but you have the stuff you bought. Precisely. I did not mean that we don't get anything from the EU/Germany's financial support (although the funds were being wasted for many years, which is of course our own fault). My point was that this is hardly a sacrifice on Germany's part. While those funds are a boon to Poland's economy, they are also indirectly subsidizing Germany's own industry. When you take into account the interest from loans in German banks that we take to cover our share of the investments, as well as enormous profits German companies are making in Poland, then the outcome is easily a net positive for Germany. This is why all those comments that we should shut up because we get "free money from the EU/Germany" piss me off. On January 06 2016 22:56 silynxer wrote:On January 06 2016 22:33 Sent. wrote:
About those unpaid reparatons, I think its not Germany's fault that USSR made us reject the money. It would be interesting to see this case brought up in some international court though.
Seeing people calling our membership in the Union a German charity and telling us to shut up whenever the old Europe does something against our interests because of how the European budget works is annoying. Just out of curiosity (I really don't care either way) but wouldn't Germany automatically get a good claim to its former territories if the contract, where Poland forfeited reparations from the GDR, would be declared illegal? I am nor sure that it would be the case. According to Julius Stone, an expert on international law (this is pertaining to the Israel-Palestine conflict): "International law forbids acquisition by unlawful force, but not where, as in the case of Israel's self-defence in 1967, the entry on the territory was lawful. It does not so forbid it, in particular, when the force is used to stop an aggressor, for the effect of such prohibition would be to guarantee to all potential aggressors that, even if their aggression failed, all territory lost in the attempt would be automatically returned to them. Such a rule would be absurd to the point of lunacy. There is no such rule…" Although his views are considered controversial by some, the bolded part makes sense to me. Germany lost territory in a war of aggression. On top of that, Poland lost territory in the east of Europe (the net loss was roughly 1%, if I am not mistaken). Let's be honest, its only controversial because a lot of people hate Isreal. Territories ebbed and flowed for all of history until 1967, then it became very controversial.
What a completely distorted and false account of history.
|
On January 07 2016 04:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2016 04:06 Ghostcom wrote:On January 07 2016 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On January 06 2016 20:34 Maluk wrote:On January 06 2016 13:28 Nyxisto wrote:
Everybody knows that there are problems and that integrating millions of people will be a rocky task. But there isn't actually any easy solution to this. The reality is that people are willing to give up their life to come here, and we've agreed to not let them die, so that's that. Instituting bureaucratic "upper limits" doesn't actually do anything in the real world, and giving up every single one of our civil liberties probably isn't worth it either. Does there need to be a limit then ? You're apparently saying that every single person that is willing to "give up their life" (let's say that is actually what is going on) to come to Europe should be allowed to do so. Is there absolutely no limit to the number of people that should enter Europe this way ? Or is there still some sort of limit above which Germany cannot go ? If Germany maintains its generous policy for 20 years, it has to become the home of 20 million refugees, in theory. Would that still be reasonable ? And if not, does that not mean that some kind of limit has to be found, which implies that not everyone who wishes to enter Europe is immediately accepted, on the sole basis of that will to enter the continent ? If we want to reduce the refugee numbers we need to do something about the war in Syria and about the extreme poverty and political persecution regarding other countries refugees are originating from. You can't turn Europe into a fortress, it has never worked in history and it probably never will. Until we manage to do that we will have to find realistic solutions here. I think it's funny that people are ridiculing Merkel's "we can do it". There simply is no other option, what are we supposed to do? Say "nope we can't do it" and build a vault? If we want to reduce the refugee numbers we could also have invested in proper refugee camps instead of encouraging people crossing the Mediterranean in leaky boats or otherwise endanger their lives in the hopes of coming to Europe. Or we could turn away the @50% of the current "refugees" which are not actually fleeing war, but simply seeking a better living (which does not warrant them receiving asylum). To know who is fleeing a war and who is doing it for economic reasons you have to run checks and those checks take time. As people are found to be here under wrong pretenses they will be send back. And yes I agree we should have spend the money on sheltering them outside the EU instead but that requires people to actually get together and agree on something. Plus I think regardless of how much you try to properly take care of people in refugee camps at the border, a significant part will always try to get further in
Those checks are supposed to happen at the border, BEFORE, they enter your country. Not after they have entered your country where you are forced to take care of them. Enforcing the outer borders of EU is not turning EU into a fortress - unless you are seriously considering every single sovereign country in the world a fortress.
I do partly agree with the last part of your post, however I would also be rather ambitious in the construction of refugee camps to reduce this, and I would turn them away considering they are already in asylum in the camps.
|
On January 07 2016 04:39 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2016 04:12 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2016 04:06 Ghostcom wrote:On January 07 2016 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On January 06 2016 20:34 Maluk wrote:On January 06 2016 13:28 Nyxisto wrote:
Everybody knows that there are problems and that integrating millions of people will be a rocky task. But there isn't actually any easy solution to this. The reality is that people are willing to give up their life to come here, and we've agreed to not let them die, so that's that. Instituting bureaucratic "upper limits" doesn't actually do anything in the real world, and giving up every single one of our civil liberties probably isn't worth it either. Does there need to be a limit then ? You're apparently saying that every single person that is willing to "give up their life" (let's say that is actually what is going on) to come to Europe should be allowed to do so. Is there absolutely no limit to the number of people that should enter Europe this way ? Or is there still some sort of limit above which Germany cannot go ? If Germany maintains its generous policy for 20 years, it has to become the home of 20 million refugees, in theory. Would that still be reasonable ? And if not, does that not mean that some kind of limit has to be found, which implies that not everyone who wishes to enter Europe is immediately accepted, on the sole basis of that will to enter the continent ? If we want to reduce the refugee numbers we need to do something about the war in Syria and about the extreme poverty and political persecution regarding other countries refugees are originating from. You can't turn Europe into a fortress, it has never worked in history and it probably never will. Until we manage to do that we will have to find realistic solutions here. I think it's funny that people are ridiculing Merkel's "we can do it". There simply is no other option, what are we supposed to do? Say "nope we can't do it" and build a vault? If we want to reduce the refugee numbers we could also have invested in proper refugee camps instead of encouraging people crossing the Mediterranean in leaky boats or otherwise endanger their lives in the hopes of coming to Europe. Or we could turn away the @50% of the current "refugees" which are not actually fleeing war, but simply seeking a better living (which does not warrant them receiving asylum). To know who is fleeing a war and who is doing it for economic reasons you have to run checks and those checks take time. As people are found to be here under wrong pretenses they will be send back. And yes I agree we should have spend the money on sheltering them outside the EU instead but that requires people to actually get together and agree on something. Plus I think regardless of how much you try to properly take care of people in refugee camps at the border, a significant part will always try to get further in Those checks are supposed to happen at the border, BEFORE, they enter your country. Not after they have entered your country where you are forced to take care of them. Enforcing the outer borders of EU is not turning EU into a fortress - unless you are seriously considering every single sovereign country in the world a fortress. I do partly agree with the last part of your post, however I would also be rather ambitious in the construction of refugee camps to reduce this, and I would turn them away considering they are already in asylum in the camps. Show nested quote +On January 07 2016 04:12 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2016 04:06 Ghostcom wrote:On January 07 2016 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On January 06 2016 20:34 Maluk wrote:On January 06 2016 13:28 Nyxisto wrote:
Everybody knows that there are problems and that integrating millions of people will be a rocky task. But there isn't actually any easy solution to this. The reality is that people are willing to give up their life to come here, and we've agreed to not let them die, so that's that. Instituting bureaucratic "upper limits" doesn't actually do anything in the real world, and giving up every single one of our civil liberties probably isn't worth it either. Does there need to be a limit then ? You're apparently saying that every single person that is willing to "give up their life" (let's say that is actually what is going on) to come to Europe should be allowed to do so. Is there absolutely no limit to the number of people that should enter Europe this way ? Or is there still some sort of limit above which Germany cannot go ? If Germany maintains its generous policy for 20 years, it has to become the home of 20 million refugees, in theory. Would that still be reasonable ? And if not, does that not mean that some kind of limit has to be found, which implies that not everyone who wishes to enter Europe is immediately accepted, on the sole basis of that will to enter the continent ? If we want to reduce the refugee numbers we need to do something about the war in Syria and about the extreme poverty and political persecution regarding other countries refugees are originating from. You can't turn Europe into a fortress, it has never worked in history and it probably never will. Until we manage to do that we will have to find realistic solutions here. I think it's funny that people are ridiculing Merkel's "we can do it". There simply is no other option, what are we supposed to do? Say "nope we can't do it" and build a vault? If we want to reduce the refugee numbers we could also have invested in proper refugee camps instead of encouraging people crossing the Mediterranean in leaky boats or otherwise endanger their lives in the hopes of coming to Europe. Or we could turn away the @50% of the current "refugees" which are not actually fleeing war, but simply seeking a better living (which does not warrant them receiving asylum). What does turning away mean? Telling them to turn around? I very much doubt they'll do that. Rejection rates for certain countries are already at 99% Naturally deporting people takes a lot of money and effort and will probably take years. The EU has no inner border, so "turning them away" can practically only happen at the European outer borders anyway. What does "fortress Europe" mean? Enforcing the outer borders like every other sovereign country in the world? Why deport when you can refrain from letting them in? Look at Australia and how they stopped the flow of boating refugees - they LITERALLY towed them back to the country they came from.
We can't do that with the boats coming from Libya or Syria. I guess we could try stopping those from Turkey but how do you proove they came from Turkish and not Syrian coast?
|
On January 07 2016 04:39 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2016 04:12 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2016 04:06 Ghostcom wrote:On January 07 2016 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On January 06 2016 20:34 Maluk wrote:On January 06 2016 13:28 Nyxisto wrote:
Everybody knows that there are problems and that integrating millions of people will be a rocky task. But there isn't actually any easy solution to this. The reality is that people are willing to give up their life to come here, and we've agreed to not let them die, so that's that. Instituting bureaucratic "upper limits" doesn't actually do anything in the real world, and giving up every single one of our civil liberties probably isn't worth it either. Does there need to be a limit then ? You're apparently saying that every single person that is willing to "give up their life" (let's say that is actually what is going on) to come to Europe should be allowed to do so. Is there absolutely no limit to the number of people that should enter Europe this way ? Or is there still some sort of limit above which Germany cannot go ? If Germany maintains its generous policy for 20 years, it has to become the home of 20 million refugees, in theory. Would that still be reasonable ? And if not, does that not mean that some kind of limit has to be found, which implies that not everyone who wishes to enter Europe is immediately accepted, on the sole basis of that will to enter the continent ? If we want to reduce the refugee numbers we need to do something about the war in Syria and about the extreme poverty and political persecution regarding other countries refugees are originating from. You can't turn Europe into a fortress, it has never worked in history and it probably never will. Until we manage to do that we will have to find realistic solutions here. I think it's funny that people are ridiculing Merkel's "we can do it". There simply is no other option, what are we supposed to do? Say "nope we can't do it" and build a vault? If we want to reduce the refugee numbers we could also have invested in proper refugee camps instead of encouraging people crossing the Mediterranean in leaky boats or otherwise endanger their lives in the hopes of coming to Europe. Or we could turn away the @50% of the current "refugees" which are not actually fleeing war, but simply seeking a better living (which does not warrant them receiving asylum). To know who is fleeing a war and who is doing it for economic reasons you have to run checks and those checks take time. As people are found to be here under wrong pretenses they will be send back. And yes I agree we should have spend the money on sheltering them outside the EU instead but that requires people to actually get together and agree on something. Plus I think regardless of how much you try to properly take care of people in refugee camps at the border, a significant part will always try to get further in Those checks are supposed to happen at the border, BEFORE, they enter your country. Not after they have entered your country where you are forced to take care of them. Enforcing the outer borders of EU is not turning EU into a fortress - unless you are seriously considering every single sovereign country in the world a fortress. I do partly agree with the last part of your post, however I would also be rather ambitious in the construction of refugee camps to reduce this, and I would turn them away considering they are already in asylum in the camps.
There are some general problems. The Eastern border of the European Union is 4000 kilometers long. All external European land borders are about 8000km long. The Southern maritime coastline is 34.000 km long. One of the best protected borders on the planet, the American - Mexican border (which is about 3000km long) still permits half a million or a million illegals coming to the US every year.
So either you invent a new surveillance super robot or you hire twenty Donald Trump's, because I think it's very unrealistic to ever get a significant grip on our borders. Border security honestly is just a buzzword.
|
On January 07 2016 04:43 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2016 04:39 Ghostcom wrote:On January 07 2016 04:12 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2016 04:06 Ghostcom wrote:On January 07 2016 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On January 06 2016 20:34 Maluk wrote:On January 06 2016 13:28 Nyxisto wrote:
Everybody knows that there are problems and that integrating millions of people will be a rocky task. But there isn't actually any easy solution to this. The reality is that people are willing to give up their life to come here, and we've agreed to not let them die, so that's that. Instituting bureaucratic "upper limits" doesn't actually do anything in the real world, and giving up every single one of our civil liberties probably isn't worth it either. Does there need to be a limit then ? You're apparently saying that every single person that is willing to "give up their life" (let's say that is actually what is going on) to come to Europe should be allowed to do so. Is there absolutely no limit to the number of people that should enter Europe this way ? Or is there still some sort of limit above which Germany cannot go ? If Germany maintains its generous policy for 20 years, it has to become the home of 20 million refugees, in theory. Would that still be reasonable ? And if not, does that not mean that some kind of limit has to be found, which implies that not everyone who wishes to enter Europe is immediately accepted, on the sole basis of that will to enter the continent ? If we want to reduce the refugee numbers we need to do something about the war in Syria and about the extreme poverty and political persecution regarding other countries refugees are originating from. You can't turn Europe into a fortress, it has never worked in history and it probably never will. Until we manage to do that we will have to find realistic solutions here. I think it's funny that people are ridiculing Merkel's "we can do it". There simply is no other option, what are we supposed to do? Say "nope we can't do it" and build a vault? If we want to reduce the refugee numbers we could also have invested in proper refugee camps instead of encouraging people crossing the Mediterranean in leaky boats or otherwise endanger their lives in the hopes of coming to Europe. Or we could turn away the @50% of the current "refugees" which are not actually fleeing war, but simply seeking a better living (which does not warrant them receiving asylum). To know who is fleeing a war and who is doing it for economic reasons you have to run checks and those checks take time. As people are found to be here under wrong pretenses they will be send back. And yes I agree we should have spend the money on sheltering them outside the EU instead but that requires people to actually get together and agree on something. Plus I think regardless of how much you try to properly take care of people in refugee camps at the border, a significant part will always try to get further in Those checks are supposed to happen at the border, BEFORE, they enter your country. Not after they have entered your country where you are forced to take care of them. Enforcing the outer borders of EU is not turning EU into a fortress - unless you are seriously considering every single sovereign country in the world a fortress. I do partly agree with the last part of your post, however I would also be rather ambitious in the construction of refugee camps to reduce this, and I would turn them away considering they are already in asylum in the camps. On January 07 2016 04:12 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2016 04:06 Ghostcom wrote:On January 07 2016 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On January 06 2016 20:34 Maluk wrote:On January 06 2016 13:28 Nyxisto wrote:
Everybody knows that there are problems and that integrating millions of people will be a rocky task. But there isn't actually any easy solution to this. The reality is that people are willing to give up their life to come here, and we've agreed to not let them die, so that's that. Instituting bureaucratic "upper limits" doesn't actually do anything in the real world, and giving up every single one of our civil liberties probably isn't worth it either. Does there need to be a limit then ? You're apparently saying that every single person that is willing to "give up their life" (let's say that is actually what is going on) to come to Europe should be allowed to do so. Is there absolutely no limit to the number of people that should enter Europe this way ? Or is there still some sort of limit above which Germany cannot go ? If Germany maintains its generous policy for 20 years, it has to become the home of 20 million refugees, in theory. Would that still be reasonable ? And if not, does that not mean that some kind of limit has to be found, which implies that not everyone who wishes to enter Europe is immediately accepted, on the sole basis of that will to enter the continent ? If we want to reduce the refugee numbers we need to do something about the war in Syria and about the extreme poverty and political persecution regarding other countries refugees are originating from. You can't turn Europe into a fortress, it has never worked in history and it probably never will. Until we manage to do that we will have to find realistic solutions here. I think it's funny that people are ridiculing Merkel's "we can do it". There simply is no other option, what are we supposed to do? Say "nope we can't do it" and build a vault? If we want to reduce the refugee numbers we could also have invested in proper refugee camps instead of encouraging people crossing the Mediterranean in leaky boats or otherwise endanger their lives in the hopes of coming to Europe. Or we could turn away the @50% of the current "refugees" which are not actually fleeing war, but simply seeking a better living (which does not warrant them receiving asylum). What does turning away mean? Telling them to turn around? I very much doubt they'll do that. Rejection rates for certain countries are already at 99% Naturally deporting people takes a lot of money and effort and will probably take years. The EU has no inner border, so "turning them away" can practically only happen at the European outer borders anyway. What does "fortress Europe" mean? Enforcing the outer borders like every other sovereign country in the world? Why deport when you can refrain from letting them in? Look at Australia and how they stopped the flow of boating refugees - they LITERALLY towed them back to the country they came from. We can't do that with the boats coming from Libya or Syria. I guess we could try stopping those from Turkey but how do you proove they came from Turkish and not Syrian coast?
I'm actually encouraging that we stop those boats. I'm not suggesting that we then set them off in Syria/Libya (hence why I edited it out of my post again), but the entire point is to ensure that people do not go into those leaky prams and risk their lives. The current situation in which we see people risking their lives fleeing to western EU is so obviously not sustainable that it seems an incredibly inhumane viewpoint to consider it "the only realistic solution" - especially when you on top of that add the fact the EU is not in any way geared or able to receive so many refugees.
|
On January 07 2016 03:22 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 21:31 WhiteDog wrote:On January 06 2016 21:09 Velr wrote:On January 06 2016 21:06 dismiss wrote:On January 06 2016 20:52 maybenexttime wrote:On January 06 2016 20:29 dismiss wrote:Maybe because Poland was the recipient of vast quantities of money, a large part of which came from Germany, through the EU. It's slightly ironic to expect the government of another country to have your best interests in mind, complaining when they don't, but taking their money regardless. Roughly 80% of the money that Germany gives to Poland through the EU goes directly back to Germany. Add to that the massive loans we have to take mostly in western banks (some of which are German) in order to be able to receive that EU money and the massive profits German companies are making in Poland thanks to the open market or the horrendous sums of money some German companies are illegally funneling out of Poland (some $30 bln during the past several years), and it suddenly stops looking like Germany is giving us charity money... I know it's ironic. You know what's also ironic (or rather hypocritical)? Germany preaching European solidarity while actually not giving shit about it. The funny thing is that our previous government did just that - it seemed to have Germany's best interest in mind, often taking priority over Poland's best interest. Those are some serious conspiracy theories you got going on there, sorry normal economic transactions apparently are Germany's plan to subjugate Poland. Haven't you got the Memo? If a european country has a problem its allways germanies fault. The system is flawed, and germany is one of the few country that benefit from it, so they kinda attract (stupidly, they are not at fault) the blame. Again, the underlying reason as to why german accept that many migrant are economic, and not out of the pureness of their hearth, it's the only country that need that much labor (no unemployment, old population), and it is not limited to refugees : which country receive more greeks, french, spanish and italians ? Yeah sure, there's no unemployment in Germany, that's why Merkel got no opposition at all when she decided to welcome immigrants. I also heard all German drive $100,000 Mercedes and that you can find Euro bills in their trash bins.
Your response is hillariously dumb but it's okay, everybody does such thing once in a while. PS : up to 5% unemployment is considered full employment. PPS : German unemployment rate dropped by 1 % at least since 2013, so it's now closer to 4% than 5%.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On January 07 2016 03:32 Sent. wrote:
I'm not sure but I also remember something about one of the undersea pipelines being too close to one of our Baltic ports which causes some technological problems.
Yes, that is what I am interested in. Why did the Polish government got no say in the building of the pipeline if its close enough to affect your ports? And what kind of problems are caused?
|
We appealed against that decision to build the pipeline, appeal got rejected, I'm not sure if there was already official explaination to why it got rejected.
Shell lobby too strong. solidarity only matters when it's in Germany interest or w/e
Germany’s vice-chancellor Sigmar Gabriel in a recent visit to Russian president Putin declared that Nord Stream 2 is “in our interest; but it is not just in Germany’s interests, it is a very interesting project even beyond Germany’s borders”, adding that he hoped the project’s legal framework will remain under the competence of the German authorities. If it will, “then opportunities for external meddling will be limited”, he said.
Well, funny shit right there, but after Schreder hoax with first Nord Stream i had zero expectations that this will be solved differently.
So yeah, about that solidarity :D
|
On January 07 2016 05:38 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2016 03:22 OtherWorld wrote:On January 06 2016 21:31 WhiteDog wrote:On January 06 2016 21:09 Velr wrote:On January 06 2016 21:06 dismiss wrote:On January 06 2016 20:52 maybenexttime wrote:On January 06 2016 20:29 dismiss wrote:Maybe because Poland was the recipient of vast quantities of money, a large part of which came from Germany, through the EU. It's slightly ironic to expect the government of another country to have your best interests in mind, complaining when they don't, but taking their money regardless. Roughly 80% of the money that Germany gives to Poland through the EU goes directly back to Germany. Add to that the massive loans we have to take mostly in western banks (some of which are German) in order to be able to receive that EU money and the massive profits German companies are making in Poland thanks to the open market or the horrendous sums of money some German companies are illegally funneling out of Poland (some $30 bln during the past several years), and it suddenly stops looking like Germany is giving us charity money... I know it's ironic. You know what's also ironic (or rather hypocritical)? Germany preaching European solidarity while actually not giving shit about it. The funny thing is that our previous government did just that - it seemed to have Germany's best interest in mind, often taking priority over Poland's best interest. Those are some serious conspiracy theories you got going on there, sorry normal economic transactions apparently are Germany's plan to subjugate Poland. Haven't you got the Memo? If a european country has a problem its allways germanies fault. The system is flawed, and germany is one of the few country that benefit from it, so they kinda attract (stupidly, they are not at fault) the blame. Again, the underlying reason as to why german accept that many migrant are economic, and not out of the pureness of their hearth, it's the only country that need that much labor (no unemployment, old population), and it is not limited to refugees : which country receive more greeks, french, spanish and italians ? Yeah sure, there's no unemployment in Germany, that's why Merkel got no opposition at all when she decided to welcome immigrants. I also heard all German drive $100,000 Mercedes and that you can find Euro bills in their trash bins. Your response is hillariously dumb but it's okay, everybody does such thing once in a while. PS : up to 5% unemployment is considered full employment. PPS : German unemployment rate dropped by 1 % at least since 2013, so it's now closer to 4% than 5%. + Show Spoiler +
Yes, statistics are a great tool. Looking what's behind them is even better : Germany focused on getting low unemployment rates, at any cost, meaning that many people have low-paid (I guess the recent minimum wage law had an effect on that one, though), unstable, temporary jobs.
|
On January 07 2016 03:14 Trurl wrote:Show nested quote +Well, the funny thing is that the German-Polish border treaty goes in tandem with the 2+4 one. Which also settles the issue regarding any war reparations, at least according to the German government. The German government and reparations/restitutions is not a very glorious chapter though. I just looked up at which time the restitutions for forced laborers were paid, and a large part of it was paid as late as 2000. Other restitutions and reparations were delayed in a similar fashion. Still, discussing the Oder-Neisse-border or reparations in 2016 does not relate to any of the current problems. + Show Spoiler +But I don't see why we should not remind about it at times when Germany does something abusive to our country (such as: Nord Stream 1 & 2, which not only are a threat to our energy security, but also prevents us from upgrading some of our ports, German restitution claims or demanding truck drivers driving through Germany to be paid German minimum wages, which could make our transportation companies go bankrupt). The miminum wage law might be detrimental to some of your companies, but how is it "abusive"? And can you elaborate on the Nord Stream/port business please?
It is abusive, because it is meant to force our companies (and those of other East-Central European countries) out of business through some arbitrary regulation, all under the guise of caring about our workers (who are likely to lose their jobs). It is similar to using dumping and claiming that you're doing it so that the consumers can benefit from the lower prices, when in reality you just want the competition to go bankrupt. I wonder how German companies would react if they were forced to pay German level wages to their employees in Poland...
As for the ports:
http://www.pap.pl/en/news/news,447328,hamburg-court-rejects-polish-complaint-against-nord-stream.html
http://biznes.newsweek.pl/gazociag-nord-stream-blokuje-rozwoj-portu-w-szczecinie-i-gazoportu-w-swinoujsciu,97172,1,1.html
http://www.polskieradio.pl/5/3/Artykul/280342,Obietnice-Merkel-w-sprawie-Nord-Stream
Basically, two of our port would like to expand their capacity, which requires them to lower the level of the seabed, which Nord Stream apparently makes impossible. According to the second link (could not find a source in English), it also prevents us from connecting our LNG terminal in Świnoujście with a Norwegian pipe in Denmark. In December 2010 Angela Merkel supposedly assured Donald Tusk (then the PM of Poland) that Nord Stream would not interfere with any of those plans. She did not keep her promise on that (third link, Polish source again).
On top of that, the pipe by-passing Poland while limiting our options to diversify our energy sources makes us prone to blackmail from Russia's side, as we will no longer be a transit country.
|
On January 07 2016 06:06 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2016 05:38 WhiteDog wrote:On January 07 2016 03:22 OtherWorld wrote:On January 06 2016 21:31 WhiteDog wrote:On January 06 2016 21:09 Velr wrote:On January 06 2016 21:06 dismiss wrote:On January 06 2016 20:52 maybenexttime wrote:On January 06 2016 20:29 dismiss wrote:Maybe because Poland was the recipient of vast quantities of money, a large part of which came from Germany, through the EU. It's slightly ironic to expect the government of another country to have your best interests in mind, complaining when they don't, but taking their money regardless. Roughly 80% of the money that Germany gives to Poland through the EU goes directly back to Germany. Add to that the massive loans we have to take mostly in western banks (some of which are German) in order to be able to receive that EU money and the massive profits German companies are making in Poland thanks to the open market or the horrendous sums of money some German companies are illegally funneling out of Poland (some $30 bln during the past several years), and it suddenly stops looking like Germany is giving us charity money... I know it's ironic. You know what's also ironic (or rather hypocritical)? Germany preaching European solidarity while actually not giving shit about it. The funny thing is that our previous government did just that - it seemed to have Germany's best interest in mind, often taking priority over Poland's best interest. Those are some serious conspiracy theories you got going on there, sorry normal economic transactions apparently are Germany's plan to subjugate Poland. Haven't you got the Memo? If a european country has a problem its allways germanies fault. The system is flawed, and germany is one of the few country that benefit from it, so they kinda attract (stupidly, they are not at fault) the blame. Again, the underlying reason as to why german accept that many migrant are economic, and not out of the pureness of their hearth, it's the only country that need that much labor (no unemployment, old population), and it is not limited to refugees : which country receive more greeks, french, spanish and italians ? Yeah sure, there's no unemployment in Germany, that's why Merkel got no opposition at all when she decided to welcome immigrants. I also heard all German drive $100,000 Mercedes and that you can find Euro bills in their trash bins. Your response is hillariously dumb but it's okay, everybody does such thing once in a while. PS : up to 5% unemployment is considered full employment. PPS : German unemployment rate dropped by 1 % at least since 2013, so it's now closer to 4% than 5%. + Show Spoiler + Yes, statistics are a great tool. Looking what's behind them is even better : Germany focused on getting low unemployment rates, at any cost, meaning that many people have low-paid (I guess the recent minimum wage law had an effect on that one, though), unstable, temporary jobs.
Man, you have it so hard there. Thats why all those young Germans migrate seeking better live right?
|
On January 07 2016 05:38 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2016 03:22 OtherWorld wrote:On January 06 2016 21:31 WhiteDog wrote:On January 06 2016 21:09 Velr wrote:On January 06 2016 21:06 dismiss wrote:On January 06 2016 20:52 maybenexttime wrote:On January 06 2016 20:29 dismiss wrote:Maybe because Poland was the recipient of vast quantities of money, a large part of which came from Germany, through the EU. It's slightly ironic to expect the government of another country to have your best interests in mind, complaining when they don't, but taking their money regardless. Roughly 80% of the money that Germany gives to Poland through the EU goes directly back to Germany. Add to that the massive loans we have to take mostly in western banks (some of which are German) in order to be able to receive that EU money and the massive profits German companies are making in Poland thanks to the open market or the horrendous sums of money some German companies are illegally funneling out of Poland (some $30 bln during the past several years), and it suddenly stops looking like Germany is giving us charity money... I know it's ironic. You know what's also ironic (or rather hypocritical)? Germany preaching European solidarity while actually not giving shit about it. The funny thing is that our previous government did just that - it seemed to have Germany's best interest in mind, often taking priority over Poland's best interest. Those are some serious conspiracy theories you got going on there, sorry normal economic transactions apparently are Germany's plan to subjugate Poland. Haven't you got the Memo? If a european country has a problem its allways germanies fault. The system is flawed, and germany is one of the few country that benefit from it, so they kinda attract (stupidly, they are not at fault) the blame. Again, the underlying reason as to why german accept that many migrant are economic, and not out of the pureness of their hearth, it's the only country that need that much labor (no unemployment, old population), and it is not limited to refugees : which country receive more greeks, french, spanish and italians ? Yeah sure, there's no unemployment in Germany, that's why Merkel got no opposition at all when she decided to welcome immigrants. I also heard all German drive $100,000 Mercedes and that you can find Euro bills in their trash bins. Your response is hillariously dumb but it's okay, everybody does such thing once in a while. PS : up to 5% unemployment is considered full employment. PPS : German unemployment rate dropped by 1 % at least since 2013, so it's now closer to 4% than 5%. + Show Spoiler +
Actually right now (Dec 2015) it is 6,1 % according to the Bundesagentur für Arbeit. Thats the departement which should know it. Why you take a reference from 2014 I don´t know.
If you consider, that many people are additionally in "training programs" just such that they don´t appear in stastistics of unemployment, the rate will be higher.
|
On January 07 2016 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 20:34 Maluk wrote:On January 06 2016 13:28 Nyxisto wrote:
Everybody knows that there are problems and that integrating millions of people will be a rocky task. But there isn't actually any easy solution to this. The reality is that people are willing to give up their life to come here, and we've agreed to not let them die, so that's that. Instituting bureaucratic "upper limits" doesn't actually do anything in the real world, and giving up every single one of our civil liberties probably isn't worth it either. Does there need to be a limit then ? You're apparently saying that every single person that is willing to "give up their life" (let's say that is actually what is going on) to come to Europe should be allowed to do so. Is there absolutely no limit to the number of people that should enter Europe this way ? Or is there still some sort of limit above which Germany cannot go ? If Germany maintains its generous policy for 20 years, it has to become the home of 20 million refugees, in theory. Would that still be reasonable ? And if not, does that not mean that some kind of limit has to be found, which implies that not everyone who wishes to enter Europe is immediately accepted, on the sole basis of that will to enter the continent ? If we want to reduce the refugee numbers we need to do something about the war in Syria and about the extreme poverty and political persecution regarding other countries refugees are originating from.
If I understand you well Europe has to solve wars that are happening outside of its territory. First off that's a questionable statement to make because it could be argued that wars in another region of the world are none of Europe's business.
But even if it is actually Europe's duty to solve wars outside of its territory, how do you personally know that Europe is able to fulfill that task ? You seem to hold Europe in great esteem ; you believe that it has the tools necessary to "do something" about wars in another region.
Does it have such incredible military might that it is able to put an end to wars by sending its own troops and "establishing peace" by force ? Does it have such a deep understanding of diplomacy that it knows a way to reconcile contries or populations at war in that other region ?
If none of these things are true then what makes you believe that Europe "doing something" about wars outside of its territory would have any effect, let alone do any good ?
And if Europe has the duty to end wars outside of its own region, but doesn't have the tools to do so, then is it still reasonable to expect Europe to solve these wars, and is it a realistic political option ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/euro-unemployment-1024x1024.jpg)
