I'm saying they should change policy not leave.
Yeah I would mostly agree with that but I'm very pessimistic about how much change can actually happen in the EU, there constant warning signs of a rising far right and well nothing is happening.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Name a country anywhere in the world where racism or xenophobia is not present. That includes the Americas, Asia, Australasia and Africa
In eight months time the Uk will no longer be part of the EU, what will be different in 8 months time with regards racism and xenophobia,all that has changed since the referendum is that their racism and xenophobia is more in the open
I see a lot of criticism from the so-called experts but do I see a solution? As I said allowing smugglers to load people into unseaworthy boats and then having to rescue them is not a solution.
Yet you’re saying there are downsides to the EU, when in reality the situation is probably improved not diminished by the EU’s existence. We’ve seen many times how single countries tend to veer more towards closed borders and anti-immigration policy when the demands on them increase due to a crisis.
The EU allows the burden to be spread, and policies to be enacted that use the combined resources of member states to try and solve major international issues. What the EU cannot do however is enact policy that the member states would find completely unacceptable, like instituting a basically open door policy.The EU has to reflect the main desires of its member states, otherwise anti-EU sentiment will spun out of control. We’re already seeing the refugee crisis fueling a huge group in nationalist groups.
Just read the article I posted or my other posts when there's quotes from the article. Because I'll just be repeating myself.
What exactly are you proposing? There is no popular support for increased immigration in Europe. Nor is there anywhere else in the world for that matter (including where there is no obvious race issue, like Zimbabweans going to RSA). It’s a desperate situation where thousands and thousands of people are willing to risk their life to get to the promised land but I don’t see how providing a fallback rescue service to unsafe smuggler boats is really helping the situation, even though I am sure it helps the white people running it feel good about themselves. I firmly believe that Merkel’s complacent “wir schaffen das” wrecked the Remain campaign and similar action in future will only pile up the votes for Orban, AfD, Le Pen, Farage/Tommy Robinson etc. Any long-term solutions have to involve the global community (particularly the US and China) in some kind of development plan. Until then, it’s not reasonable to expect the immediate neighbours to bear the burden.
So where exactly is this ‘safe disembarkation’ supposed to take place exactly? Which country is the EU supposed to tell they have to accept additional refugees?
Countries from the EU doesn't allow ships like Aquarius and Open Arms to enter to any port to unload refugees saved to be drown in the sea, even in Italy they wanted to prosecute the sailors but they finally released them.
Read about the dark side of the Operation Sophia, where the EU funds Lybian guardcoast that sometimes turn to be warlords that grabs refugees from the sea and bring them to XXI slave markets. The EU knows that but only retires the fundings to the groups that they get caught. Not to mention the refugees that piles up in european countries and european countries that don't accept the agreed numbers of refugees.
The problem are not the smugglers. People that flee from war will try it anyway. The smugglers are just the channel and blame them doesn't have anything to do that the EU could do much better in helping them instead of participating in destroying their country or pay off turkey to contain them there (just an example)
The Aquarius is a perfect example, it's on France and Italy, no one else.
An Spain and Malta, and asking anywhere
The eu allows the burden to spread? Good grief.
Allows burden to spread between Greece and Italy.
What critical situations have the eu handled well?
Just think when the UK leaves the EU next year and are no longer under their constraints, the UK could then accept to take a million refugees or two.
Would go nicely with bringing back the old empire ties...
Not really answering the question Paul is it?
You said about the EU sharing the burden. They do amongst most of the countries but the UK doesn't because they don't want the refugees and as we're in the Brexit thread and comparing the UK with the EU, which one is deficient in your opinion?
They don't share the burden equally tho, Italy has decided they've had enough, to the delight of my Italian colleagues, Malta wont take any. On a political level there are country leaders that are utter tossers, far far worse than the UK's PM.
nopeBut we are talking about individual country's decisions , I'm so far away with agreeing with the Italian leader but how many refugees have Italy taken and how many have the UK taken, in fact tell me which European country has taken less than the UK. If you, an anti-Tory, can't see how much the UK PM obviously dislikes foreigners there's something wrong.
The Eastern Europeans have surely taken least.
“I think the public can differentiate between people who come here with a job and will be contributing to the economy and those who, under free movement, were able to come to the UK and use our public services without ever having contributed to them,” Fox told LBC radio.
Fox is a moronic piece of scum.
Fox is a moronic piece of scum.
http://www.euronews.com/2017/09/26/fact-check-how-many-refugees-has-each-eu-country-taken-in
It was vaguely related to article similar to this that this discussion started and started the row with EU and Poland/Hungary.
The UK and Denmark were not part of the scheme and didn't take any.
How accurate these figures are/were is open to question.
Well no-one has to take any cos eu only give recommendations and cant enforce shit, then you have the kind greeks and italians forced by proxy to take everyone, i dont get your sharing of burden at this point.
And thats why the germans are allowed to run a massive budget surplus, against eu recommendations. You get the picture right? If you dont then you are blind. I get why budget surplus should not be so high, do you get the idea behind it?
You live in a country run by a big eu fan and its failing in many ways. Apart from trade, what is it about the eu you find so fascinating?
I remember the Hungarian PM was pretty strident in rejecting refugees. The Swiss too.
Defo no easy answers to solving this tbf.
It's not me that said we live in a United States of Europe, think that was the Brexiters if I recall, it's a union of individual countries. Rhetoric moves around to suit. As the UK is supposedly governed by the EU how come they don't have to take any.
Let's imagine that the EU doesn't exist. What now happens to the refugees in Italy and Greece?
You're talking about the surplus of Germany, terrible to be successful . Which country has taken the most refugees, ah that'd be Germany.
France's failing in so many ways in what sense. They're not allowed to issue zero hours contracts to reduce unemployment figures.
I think Britain will find out next year what was so fascinating about the EU.
Most of the countries are reluctant to take them tbf, how do you solve it, no idea.
Simplistic solution, stop the cause, more delusional than a Brexiteer in a real world.
As far as I know, EU agreed on a quota for each country and many don't comply. If I remember right UK HAS to take refugees, as the eastern european that they refuse (and other countries). Or at least is what I understood 2 years ago. I don't know if it changed.
Is not working, Portugal for example had the socialist government saying they could take 10000 refugees but end up with about 2500 and after they moved to Portugal churches and non governmental social organizations are tge ones helping them not the government .... over 40% of the refugees end up trying to reach Germany.
wrong thread
Last edited:
Merkel's irresponsible rhetoric encouraged vast number of migrants to try to get to Europe. By the EU's own figures, the vast majority of the migrants were not refugees but opportunistic economic migrants buoyed by the promise of a new life in Europe from the German leader.
To compound matters an EU delegation led by Germany reneged on their humanitarian stance and decided to pay Turkey billions to take millions of refugees when the situation became politically impossible, knowing that the treatment the refugees will get in Turkey is highly likely to be poor.
Turkey have taken 3.5 million refugees so far.
The policy has been a major failure on every level. It made genuine refugees prospect of getting the help they need very difficult and cost Merkel in a big way on a political level in Germany.
I said at the time I thought Cameron was right in trying to discourage refugees from making the crossing and improve refugee camp conditions in safe zones in the Middle East.
You miss the point yet again mate. Germanys surplus defies eu rules. Yes, they cant do anything right. So apart from trade and not following eu rules, what is it about the eu that you like?
Cameron called it right for me too, which isn't a thing I often say.
If you look at the link regarding this subject I posted just before your post it lists the numbers each country were asked to take and how many they took in 2017. As stated the UK and Denmark were not in the scheme and did not take any.
As a percentage NL breaks the rules much more than Germany, it's just that Germany is a much bigger country it is noticed more. Also they are talking of defining how the surplus is calculated.
Countries make surplus and some have defecits. Maybe everyone should be the same and everyone not have surplusses or defecits and everyone can be the same and everyone becomes equal but some become more equal than others , that sounds like the USSR.
Sorry but I haven't got the time to list all the benefits of the EU, would be too many pages, but have probably covered a lot of them over the past couple of years or so.
Maybe a shorter list would be yours as to the benefits of the UK leaving the EU. One line would probably cover it
.Not exactly very detailed is it.
Last edited:
Less than half that of Germany but that's not the point is it, It's like one of the govt's failed IT projects.
You are talking about the Syrian and other ME refugees who are in Iran, Lebanon, Turkey etc who have fled their country due to the conflicts caused by...
Lebanon for example is about the size of Wales, has a population (6m) of double that of Wales (3m) but have taken in 1m refugees. Sounds like NIMBY. Safe and a long way away. Where would that be.
The latest discussion was about those crossing over from Libya which the EU have suggested to Libya to process the refugees/immigrants/asylum seekers in Libya which Libya refused.
I am not saying who is right and wrong or what the solution is. There are more than 25million refugees worldwide. What happens to them and where do they go?
Double actually - 12% (NL) against 6% but who said I agree with every one of the EU rules, as I've said it's not perfect but much better than the alternative.
Good luck to NL and Germany. You said you didn't like stagnation.
Trump is complaining that the USA have such a big deficit with the EU and especially Germany, one reason why he's annoyed but fails to take into account services which balances it up.
Britain might not have been part of the scheme but they have taken refugees at numbers higher than those quoted for all those countries with 10000 from Syria alone.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43826163
On your other point. I would argue that its best to keep refugees as close to their homeland as possible and strive to give them the best conditions possible in their temporary homes until they can return home.
The streets being paved with gold in Europe invariably proves to be a myth for them for a variety of reasons.