Europe - The Official Thread

Johnnypenso
Sometimes you have to tailor your responses to your intended audience. CNN is a trusted news source for people of a certain political persuasion.
Click to expand...
Given that you used it in in reply to my post, I can assure you that assumption is wrong.

But don't worry, I know what you mean.
 
Scaff
Given that you used it in in reply to my post, I can assure you that assumption is wrong.

But don't worry, I know what you mean.
Click to expand...
The intended audience is the forum as a whole. It wasn't a PM.
 
Scaff
So quoting me was an accident, got it. A bit odd however as it seemed to be an attempt at a rebuttal!

Don't worry I really do know what you mean.
Click to expand...
Didn't say quoting you was an accident but if you were the only intended audience I would have PM'd you. Unless you think that when someone quotes you they are having a personal and private conversation? That would be odd, more than a bit actually. The audience for every post here is the entire forum.
 
Johnnypenso
Sometimes you have to tailor your responses to your intended audience.
Click to expand...
One individual's tailoring is another's cherry picking.

Johnnypenso
CNN is a trusted news source for people of a certain political persuasion.
Click to expand...
What political persuasion is that? Surely you mustn't mean democrat, as I'm such and I trust CNN's reporting no more than I do Fox's.
 
TexRex
One individual's tailoring is another's cherry picking.


What political persuasion is that? Surely you mustn't mean democrat, as I'm such and I trust CNN's reporting no more than I do Fox's.
Click to expand...
CNN is the most trusted name in news according to CNN. Surely if they are the most trusted we can trust their position that they are the most trusted.
 
Johnnypenso
Didn't say quoting you was an accident but if you were the only intended audience I would have PM'd you. Unless you think that when someone quotes you they are having a personal and private conversation? That would be odd, more than a bit actually. The audience for every post here is the entire forum.
Click to expand...
So I was part of the intended audience and as such my reply was perfectly valid. In particular given that the use of CNN as a source was a direct reply to my post in the form of a rebuttal.

Let's not forget in all this avoidance the small fact that your rebuttal was wrong.

The hoops people have to jump through to get a straight answer these days......
 
Scaff
So I was part of the intended audience and as such my reply was perfectly valid. In particular given that the use of CNN as a source was a direct reply to my post in the form of a rebuttal.

Let's not forget in all this avoidance the small fact that your rebuttal was wrong.

The hoops people have to jump through to get a straight answer these days......
Click to expand...
My rebuttal was that CNN disagrees with you. Are you saying that CNN doesn't disagree with you?
 
Scaff
Refugees are not migrants, don't conflate the two.
Click to expand...

ok, so refugee quotas, we have legal process for both. Refugees can fill asylum application which will be reviewed by particular state agency, point about sovereignty is the same.
 
novcze
ok, so refugee quotas, we have legal process for both. Refugees can fill asylum application which will be reviewed by particular state agency, point about sovereignty is the same.
Click to expand...
I quite agree, the point is that the two have very different numbers, processes and impacts.

We can talk about them all, but conflating them into a single mass is missleading.
 
Johnnypenso
My rebuttal was that CNN disagrees with you. Are you saying that CNN doesn't disagree with you?
Click to expand...
goodgrief.gif
 
The EU have, apparently, struck a deal on migration that keeps Italy happy (for the moment) - however it remains to be seen how they will address the thornier issue of having 4 member states who refuse to even discuss quotas for accepting a share of migrants and refugees.

The plans announced last night seem pretty sketchy to say the least, with the idea of setting up 'closed migration centres' in EU states on a voluntary basis (although no-one has volunteered yet!). This would be in tandem with setting up holding centres in North Africa in a bid to minimise the number of migrants and refugees attempting the dangerous crossing of the Meditteranean Sea, as well as tackling the human traffickers.

This latter idea seems fraught with problems, however - not least as it involves the co-operation of countries such as Libya (as if the situation wasn't difficult enough already!) and as yet there are no volunteers for hosting these facilities either.

Meanwhile, Germany's government stands on the brink of collapse if Angela Merkel doesn't respect the Dublin regulations (which state that asylum seekers can be returned to the first EU country they landed in e.g. Italy and Greece), while Italy (and Greece) insist that other countries in the EU must take more responsibility for asylum seekers and effectively scrap the Dublin regulations...
 
Regarding CNN article, since they acknowledged the difference it sounds to me like they are trying to justify use of word "migrant" in their news. I mean they need something short to use, like there is full boat of people from Africa and because their status is unknown you need to call them somehow and migrants is probably ok choice. Or anybody have a better idea on how to call them in short?
Maybe more fitting will be "immigrant" because they all come into EU to settle and of course some of them are refugees and some are illegal immigrants.

Touring Mars
- however it remains to be seen how they will address the thornier issue of having 4 member states who refuse to even discuss quotas for accepting a share of migrants and refugees.
Click to expand...

According to our prime minister, quotas are not part of the deal.
 
Touring Mars
The EU have, apparently, struck a deal on migration that keeps Italy happy (for the moment) - however it remains to be seen how they will address the thornier issue of having 4 member states who refuse to even discuss quotas for accepting a share of migrants and refugees.
Click to expand...
IMO, 100% of the migrants should go to the countries that caused the migrant problem in the first place. The would primarily be the US, Britain and France. The other innocent EU countries should accept only those whom they so desire.
 
The ink on the agreement is barely dry and already there's a big problem - Austria, France, Germany and Italy all say that they have no plans to host any of these 'controlled centres', while the Visegrad group (another 4 EU member states) remain exceedingly unlikely to cooperate even on a voluntary basis.
novcze
According to our prime minister, quotas are not part of the deal.
Click to expand...
Yes - and, perhaps more tellingly, the Visegrad group are hailing this agreement as a great success, and that the EU are waking up to the 'fact that the migrant crisis must be resolved outside Europe'... (source). The trouble with this idea is pretty obvious - if the EU cannot even count on the support of its own member states, how can it expect full cooperation from countries like Libya (a failed state) and Turkey?! I must confess that I really do not understand how they can believe this approach is going to work.
 
Touring Mars
Yes - and, perhaps more tellingly, the Visegrad group are hailing this agreement as a great success, and that the EU are waking up to the 'fact that the migrant crisis must be resolved outside Europe'... (source).
Click to expand...

Yes and it is. I'm saying it for years that I'm a fan of Australian model where status of people is resolved outside. It's better for them too, they don't have to pay smugglers and undertake risk at sea. This and direct help in regions from which they are emigrating.


Touring Mars
how can it expect full cooperation from countries like Libya (a failed state) and Turkey?!
Click to expand...

because big money are going their way?
 
baldgye


Is there any logical reason for Trump to attack the EU that doesn't stem from him being in the pocket of Putin?
Click to expand...


He could literally believe what he says to be true. He is incredibly isolationist, and it doesn't strike me as entirely implausible that he's paranoid enough to believe that the entire world is out to get the US.

Dotini
IMO, 100% of the migrants should go to the countries that caused the migrant problem in the first place. The would primarily be the US, Britain and France. The other innocent EU countries should accept only those whom they so desire.
Click to expand...

I'd get on board with that. If you go in and wreck up a place and cause a refugee crisis, you become responsible for looking after them.

I imagine if that were a rule then that would calm a lot of the more interventionist military policies. Not to mention basically solving Israel all on it's own. ;)
 
Imari
He could literally believe what he says to be true. He is incredibly isolationist, and it doesn't strike me as entirely implausible that he's paranoid enough to believe that the entire world is out to get the US.
Click to expand...

I mean, there is isolationist and then there is just lying.
The thing that astounds me, is that he gets a round of applause... I mean, us Brits haven't exactly covered ourselves in glory with Brexit, but not even morons like Farage made speeches saying the EU was founded to attack us...
 
Trump is trying to wreck the EU - he sees the collective power of the EU as a threat to US growth. He even told Macron that France should leave the EU... and he will host the Italian PM at the White House a month from now - no prizes for guessing what will be on the agenda there.

The EU is, obviously, in peril - and that is before you even consider the very real possibility that outside actors (namely Trump in the US, Putin in Russia and Farage/Brexiteers in the UK) are actively trying to break it up - unity within the EU needs to be stronger than ever right now, and I'm afraid to say that it is very far from being united enough right now.

The Guardian published its view on the migration deal thrashed out at the EU summit this week - while not scathing (like the right-wing press is), it paints a very pessimistic picture of the deal, pointing out that the deal "may not last, may not work and the political sting has not been drawn"... and that is coming from the Guardian - for those who don't already know, the Guardian is about as pro-EU/anti-Brexit as it gets...
 
Touring Mars
Trump is trying to wreck the EU
Click to expand...
I can certainly appreciate that perspective being adopted by people in that part of the world, and I don't necessarily disagree, but I genuinely believe his intent is to play the part of the little idiot kid on the playground who doesn't like the way things are going for him so he takes the ball and leaves everyone much worse off than before he started playing the game.
 
TexRex
I can certainly appreciate that perspective being adopted by people in that part of the world, and I don't necessarily disagree, but I genuinely believe his intent is to play the part of the little idiot kid on the playground who doesn't like the way things are going for him so he takes the ball and leaves everyone much worse off than before he started playing the game.
Click to expand...

I genuinely believe that the Obama .vs. Trump roast was the moment that Trump decided to take everything apart whatever the cost.
 
TenEightyOne
I genuinely believe that the Obama .vs. Trump roast was the moment that Trump decided to take everything apart whatever the cost.
Click to expand...
That wouldn't surprise me one bit. And I'm sure he thought it was an entirely uninstigated attack even after the birther issue that he pushed so jackassedly.
 
novcze
yeah, they were recognized because people claimed their right to self-determination and a country was created. So it's people who have that right and sovereign country is sovereign, so what is "self determination of a country called the EU" as @Mr Tree said? btw. the EU is not a country.



That's a question for international lawyers/politicians/historian, not sure why you want me to answer it.




No. We object against immigration qoutas as tool for solving migration into the EU. We are sovereign country and have legal process for taking in migrants which will not be replaced by ridiculous EU policy.
Click to expand...

On the first part you qouted me. I ask you because you felt it's justified as it currently stands. I disagree because I play devils advocate. I find it quite 'insulting' you find yoyr countries etnicity so important to be souvereign but deny my village's etnicity diffrence from neighbouring villages and think I shouldn't have a right to souvereignity with my village. ;) ow yeah and I will continue until my house is a souvereign state I don't have to listen to those people living around me..

To be clear I don't agree with above statements but I'll gladly push it there if you can't give me a reason why a state has a right to be souvereign or not or why I as a inhabitant and voter of the (hypotetical) country EU have less souvereignty then I have now.

So I wanted you to answer that question because I want to know YOUR opinion not that of a historian or someone else. I stated this before I don't.want to know how things are currently I want to know why you support the current status quo.

If your process can only handle less then 1000 people seeking asylum in a year your system is either **** or deliberatly slow to stop people from entering.
And you realise the qoutas are there because all refugees come from the same place and your and our country send refugees back to the point of entry in the eu due to the dublin treaty. So actually your souvereignty is forcing Iraly and Greece to leave their souvereignty and take back the refugees. Also why do you act like your country want to help refugees while the numbers show the exact opposite?


Edit: sorry I reply so late I was at 'jera on air' this weekend.
 
Denmark doing something radical to try and "integrate" those from predominatly non-European backgrounds:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/world/europe/denmark-immigrant-ghettos.html

COPENHAGEN — When Rokhaia Naassan gives birth in the coming days, she and her baby boy will enter a new category in the eyes of Danish law. Because she lives in a low-income immigrant neighborhood described by the government as a “ghetto,” Rokhaia will be what the Danish newspapers call a “ghetto parent” and he will be a “ghetto child.”

Starting at the age of 1, “ghetto children” must be separated from their families for at least 25 hours a week, not including nap time, for mandatory instruction in “Danish values,” including the traditions of Christmas and Easter, and Danish language. Noncompliance could result in a stoppage of welfare payments. Other Danish citizens are free to choose whether to enroll children in preschool up to the age of six.
 

Latest Posts

Back