Europe - The Official Thread

[Johnnypenso]

Which would be why I asked a clarifying question!

To establish his exact view.

Normally when people have clarifying questions they just ask the question and wait for a response, they don't include a response to the answer they feel they are going to get anyway.

EDIT: Oops. Forget the necessary caveat.

Spoiler: Caveat

Of course you are free to respond any way you like so long as it complies with the AUP. This goes without saying but somehow I feel the need to say it because sometimes things that don't need to be said around here actually need to be said. And I am in no way saying you cannot include both the question and your assumption of his answer in the same response. I am in no way, shape or form telling you what you can or can't respond to. Just to be clear that I am not violating the AUP, intentionally or unintentionally.

 

[Scaff]

Normally when people have clarifying questions they just ask the question and wait for a response, they don't include a response to the answer they feel they are going to get anyway.

Oh dear, did taking the initiative cause confusion.

Nice white-knighting however, I'm sure you will get a big hug for it.

 

[baldgye]

Oh dear, did taking the initiative cause confusion.

Nice white-knighting however, I'm sure you will get a big hug for it.

Sorry @Scaff you have to follow the pre-defined rules on how to ask questions, but don't worry, you're not alone I also fell foul of the rules a little while ago!

 

[Johnnypenso]

Oh dear, did taking the initiative cause confusion.

Nice white-knighting however, I'm sure you will get a big hug for it.

I'm not familiar with all the cool internet colloquialisms or buzzwords but I should point out I added the usual caveat to my answer above with an edit..in case you missed it.

 

[UKMikey]

Normally when people have clarifying questions they just ask the question and wait for a response, they don't include a response to the answer they feel they are going to get anyway.

Where did @Scaff do that? It sounds like you mistook the question mark and the words "if that's the case" in his post for some kind of unqalified conclusion.

 

[Scaff]

Where did @Scaff do that? It sounds like you mistook the question mark and the words "if that's the case" in his post for some kind of unqalified conclusion.

It's OK, he's like my puppy. Follows me around and like to point out supposed errors and mistakes.

It's kind of cute in a weird way.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Where did @Scaff do that? It sounds like you mistook the question mark and the words "if that's the case" in his post for some kind of unqalified conclusion.

So if you have a query in this forum, and it's an honest query not a "gotcha" query, do you usually ask the question and wait for a response and then discuss, or do you ask the question and include a retort to the response you think you're going to get anyway?

 

[Scaff]

So if you have a query in this forum, and it's an honest query not a "gotcha" query, do you usually ask the question and wait for a response and then discuss, or do you ask the question and include a retort to the response you think you're going to get anyway?

It doesn't make a blind bit of difference, as to quote you 'go-to' the AUP doesn't give a hoot what approach people take in that regard.

So why not focus on the questions and the discussions, rather than attempting to make it a personal issue?

As quite frankly its become your go to logical fallacy with my posts and its really got quite tedious.

 

[baldgye]

Resolving as in the utterly inhumane camps Australia run as detention and processing centres?

If that's the case then quite frankly I'm now of the view you don't have a bit of human compassion remaining.

To be fair, the Australia model seems to be an abject failure. Not only does this simply shift the burden, but it leads to crimes against humanity and human rights abuses. Not to mention the fact, that it still hasn't solved the problem of immigration.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It doesn't make a blind bit of difference, as to quote you 'go-to' the AUP doesn't give a hoot what approach people take in that regard.

So why not focus on the questions and the discussions, rather than attempting to make it a personal issue?

As quite frankly its become your go to logical fallacy with my posts and its really got quite tedious.

Like this?

It's OK, he's like my puppy.

Nice white-knighting however, I'm sure you will get a big hug for it.

 

[Touring Mars]

OK chaps, time to take this issue out of this thread.

 

[Touring Mars]

When I hear anti migration right wing advocated talk aboyt european values what they really want to conveye is best read over multiple interviews. Francken the belgian asylum secratary. Interview one: Having people able to ask asylum in an ambasy is not feasable as that would extend out border to every abassy in the world. Interview 2: I thin we need to help people over there so they can go via legal routes instead of smugglers.

Ad those interviews statements and you get. Don't come via a smuggler, take the official routes. Oww yeah I want to close of official routes...

European values a4e pretty much let's act like we want to help people but **** them and.let them die in the dessert or the mediteranian. Thing is you'll.never catch them immoral people saying it out loud.

IMHO, the only humane way to reduce numbers of illegal migrants coming to Europe is to make them legal - but that means the whole of the EU agreeing to a framework that allows it to accommodate whatever numbers of migrants the rest of the world throws at them at any particular time, and that is looking very unlikely right now. The trouble is that the numbers are unpredictable, highly variable, and (it must be said) potentially overwhelming. The migration crisis of 2015-2016 was, in all likelihood, just a taste of things to come and Europe cannot go on much longer without formulating a coherent long-term policy, lest individual member states start closing their borders and putting at risk the core principles that underpin the union, specifically the Free Movement of People.

The EU is caught between aspiring to uphold its own values (which compels it to find a humane solution) and having to respect the views of its own citizens (which compels it to agree to limits, both in terms of absolute numbers and the amount of money it is prepared to spend). Unfortunately, while net migration is a good thing both in terms of demographics and long term economic benefits, it also comes at a (very) high short term cost, both financially and politically. With so many people out of work in countries like Italy, Spain and Greece, it is little wonder that hostility towards migrants is rising, and countries such as Sweden and Germany are already having big problems when it comes to social and cultural integration, fuelling support for right wing parties. This places a hard limit on how many migrants even the most liberal of EU member states are able to take before there is some form of political (or worse, civil) backlash, and makes it hard to see how the EU - who seem to like making rules that cannot be broken - can come up with a permanent solution to an ever-changing issue.

 

[baldgye]

IMHO, the only humane way to reduce numbers of illegal migrants coming to Europe is to make them legal - but that means the whole of the EU agreeing to a framework that allows it to accommodate whatever numbers of migrants the rest of the world throws at them at any particular time, and that is looking very unlikely right now. The trouble is that the numbers are unpredictable, highly variable, and (it must be said) potentially overwhelming. The migration crisis of 2015-2016 was, in all likelihood, just a taste of things to come and Europe cannot go on much longer without formulating a coherent long-term policy, lest individual member states start closing their borders and putting at risk the core principles that underpin the union, specifically the Free Movement of People.

The EU is caught between aspiring to uphold its own values (which compels it to find a humane solution) and having to respect the views of its own citizens (which compels it to agree to limits, both in terms of absolute numbers and the amount of money it is prepared to spend). Unfortunately, while net migration is a good thing both in terms of demographics and long term economic benefits, it also comes at a (very) high short term cost, both financially and politically. With so many people out of work in countries like Italy, Spain and Greece, it is little wonder that hostility towards migrants is rising, and countries such as Sweden and Germany are already having big problems when it comes to social and cultural integration, fuelling support for right wing parties. This places a hard limit on how many migrants even the most liberal of EU member states are able to take before there is some form of political (or worse, civil) backlash, and makes it hard to see how the EU - who seem to like making rules that cannot be broken - can come up with a permanent solution to an ever-changing issue.

I think, if the EU can weather the storm it will make it impossible to fail. At the moment Russia is trying to tear it apart, aiding the rise of right wing extremist parties and funding Independence movements. Not only that but America, a long time ally to most of Europe is actively attacking it while getting into bed with Russia.

The EU still has vast political power and I don't think it will break.
With Germany specifically I found this to be an interesting read, and might point out some of the reasons 'integration' might be difficult. I can't vouch for it's validity however as it's not a body/company I am familiar with.

 

[novcze]

Resolving as in the utterly inhumane camps Australia run as detention and processing centres?

If that's the case then quite frankly I'm now of the view you don't have a bit of human compassion remaining.

oh gee, like I wasn't concerned about their safety at the sea. Just because people are processed outside of the EU it doesn't mean it would be inhumane if run by the EU.

 

[Scaff]

oh gee, like I wasn't concerned about their safety at the sea. Just because people are processed outside of the EU it doesn't mean it would be inhumane if run by the EU.

It doesn't mean it would be either.

The reason why I asked the question is quite simple, the Aussie model seemed to almost engineer the hardship and inhumanity into the system under te impression it would deter people.

 

[baldgye]

It doesn't mean it would be either.

The reason why I asked the question is quite simple, the Aussie model seemed to almost engineer the hardship and inhumanity into the system under te impression it would deter people.

If it was outside the EU, then it would mean that whoever operated such places, could do so without having to abide by EU law.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If it was outside the EU, then it would mean that whoever operated such places, could do so without having to abide by EU law.

So you're saying the EU isn't capable of contracting out and supervising this type of operation in a way that would ensure the safety of all concerned?

 

[Touring Mars]

If it was outside the EU, then it would mean that whoever operated such places, could do so without having to abide by EU law.

That is what the EU are trying to avoid, but it will mean paying questionable regimes (like Algeria, Libya, Turkey etc.) vast sums of money to effectively turn their borders into EU-funded border zones, and there would still be the problem of what happens to those who are ultimately turned away.

The cynic in me also notes that these 'disembarkation platforms' are not merely for stopping people from setting off on their journeys to Europe, but would also serve as 'repatriation centres', where illegal immigrants who are already in the EU could be sent back to in the first instance, and then sent back to wherever they came from after that - the priority for countries like Italy is simply to get illegal immigrants out, and hence these proposed centres in North Africa as well as Balkan states (... yeh, because that won't end badly!) will solve the initial problem of where to deport people to.

 

[baldgye]

That is what the EU are trying to avoid, but it will mean paying questionable regimes (like Algeria, Libya, Turkey etc.) vast sums of money to effectively turn their borders into EU-funded border zones, and there would still be the problem of what happens to those who are ultimately turned away.

The cynic in me also notes that these 'disembarkation platforms' are not merely for stopping people from setting off on their journeys to Europe, but would also serve as 'repatriation centres', where illegal immigrants who are already in the EU could be sent back to in the first instance, and then sent back to wherever they came from after that - the priority for countries like Italy is simply to get illegal immigrants out, and hence these proposed centres in North Africa as well as Balkan states (... yeh, because that won't end badly!) will solve the initial problem of where to deport people to.

Or even worse, having something like G4S managing them... I can't see any situation where these 'centres' are anything but an appalling humanitarian disaster.

 

[novcze]

So you're saying the EU isn't capable of contracting out and supervising this type of operation in a way that would ensure the safety of all concerned?

I had basically the same thing written down before GTP went down.

"the EU would pay for the whole thing so why would be so hard to ensure some standards? After all purpose of such places would be to determine their status so EU representatives would be present to supervise whole operation."

... and there would still be the problem of what happens to those who are ultimately turned away.

IOM is driving people home in buses and planes, so why not the EU.

 

[Scaff]

"the EU would pay for the whole thing so why would be so hard to ensure some standards? After all purpose of such places would be to determine their status so EU representatives would be present to supervise whole operation."

I would have thought that would have been rather obvious, because they would not be operating in countries they have any legal jurisdiction to set, ensure or enforce any form of standards.

EU representatives would be subject to the laws of whatever country they are operating in, as such plenty of potential for it going wrong exist.

 

[novcze]

I would have thought that would have been rather obvious, because they would not be operating in countries they have any legal jurisdiction to set, ensure or enforce any form of standards.

EU representatives would be subject to the laws of whatever country they are operating in, as such plenty of potential for it going wrong exist.

of course ... but if you pay for something you expect that contractual terms will be met.

 

[SestoScudo]

Resolving as in the utterly inhumane camps Australia run as detention and processing centres?

If that's the case then quite frankly I'm now of the view you don't have a bit of human compassion remaining.

Im from Australia and I call those detention camps we have as our very own concentration camps.

Either in Australia we put them in detention centre or pull the boats away which most likely ends up sinking.

Nobody should be a fan of our way in dealing with asylum seekers and refugees.

 

[Scaff]

of course ... but if you pay for something you expect that contractual terms will be met.

Not if the violate local laws or the local government (if one exists) object.

 

[novcze]

Not if the violate local laws or the local government (if one exists) object.

wait what? ... are you saying that keeping humane conditions at the basis of some contractual terms can be against local laws?

The cynic in me also notes that these 'disembarkation platforms' are not merely for stopping people from setting off on their journeys to Europe, but would also serve as 'repatriation centres', where illegal immigrants who are already in the EU could be sent back to in the first instance, and then sent back to wherever they came from after that - the priority for countries like Italy is simply to get illegal immigrants out, and hence these proposed centres in North Africa as well as Balkan states (... yeh, because that won't end badly!) will solve the initial problem of where to deport people to.

I think you get it right, not sure why you think it is cynical or why it is destined to end badly. I would say it is generous. Illegal immigrants get free and safe ride home, what else would you do with them.

 

[Scaff]

wait what? ... are you saying that keeping humane conditions at the basis of some contractual terms can be against local laws?

I'm saying the EU has no mandate to even attempt to do so in other countries, I'm saying doing so in many countries is practically impossible without the use of force.

Libya springs to mind as a good place to try and give it a go if you think it's that straight forward.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Im from Australia and I call those detention camps we have as our very own concentration camps.

Either in Australia we put them in detention centre or pull the boats away which most likely ends up sinking.

Nobody should be a fan of our way in dealing with asylum seekers and refugees.

So more than 50% (most likely = >50%) of the boats pulled away sink? Do you have a link to that statistic?

 

[SestoScudo]

So more than 50% (most likely = >50%) of the boats pulled away sink? Do you have a link to that statistic?

Usually nowadays boats are longer being pulled away. Most refugees either end up in christmas island or nauru detention centres.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Usually nowadays boats are longer being pulled away. Most refugees either end up in christmas island or nauru detention centres.

So you just made up the part about most of them sinking or you're having trouble finding the link? Or are you saying most of them sunk in the past but they don't pull most of them away anymore? Links to any of that?

 

[novcze]

I'm saying the EU has no mandate to even attempt to do so in other countries, I'm saying doing so in many countries is practically impossible without the use of force.

umm, can "contractual terms" be anything else than result of a legal deal?

If no country in North Africa is interested then we are out of luck, but that's quite obvious.