politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson says the Migrant crisis has laid bare the EU’

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson says the Migrant crisis has laid bare the EU’s big delusion

Ever closer union: three words that have caused interminable difficulty for those who wanted – those who want – a European Common Market. Three words that are now superfluous, though not for the reasons that the Marketeers would like.

Read the full story here

JackW

Good Morning Herders.

Mortimer

Wonderful piece David.

What has worried me over the past few years is that the democratic deficit seems to be widening- and without any real attemp to fix it...

JackW

Agreement on PB before breakfast is to be severely deprecated.

Accordingly in contrast to @Mortimer I find this Herders offering to be absolute tosh and it should have been censored in favour of a thread on the wonders of AV that has long merited the attention of PB worthies.

philiph

David uses the expression :Ultimately the Union must unite or perish.

I think Ulitately the Union must unite, and then perish or perish. Ever closer union are the words that are the death warrant for the EU.

There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.

foxinsoxuk

Some of the EU"s response to the migrant crisis is inadequate and some poorly co-ordinated, but would it look much different if the EU or Shengen did not exist at all?

The main stream of migrants cross an external border into Greece, then leave the EU and Shengen to enter FYR Macedonia, then enter another Non-EU state in Serbia, then re-enter the EU into Croatia before running into border controls at Slovenia, Austria or Hungary, and again into Germany.

The problem is not the EU, it is the collapse of functioning states across the Muslim part of the world, the lack of effective policing of borders whether in the EU or not and the Refugee Convention. The problem is happening in Europe but is not caused by the EU and would look much the same if all countries were completely autonomous.

But I am not sure that even tearing up the refugee convention would halt the flood.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/time-to-tear-up-the-refugee-convention/17436#.VgYsRhBwaBY

TCPoliticalBetting

JackW said:

Agreement on PB before breakfast is to be severely deprecated.

Accordingly in contrast to @Mortimer I find this Herders offering to be absolute tosh and it should have been censored in favour of a thread on the wonders of AV that has long merited the attention of PB worthies.

I agree with Mortimer and David Herdson.
So jackw you disagree as all europhiles would. But what is your view on what the EC should do?

foxinsoxuk

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

Agreement on PB before breakfast is to be severely deprecated.

Accordingly in contrast to @Mortimer I find this Herders offering to be absolute tosh and it should have been censored in favour of a thread on the wonders of AV that has long merited the attention of PB worthies.

I agree with Mortimer and David Herdson.
So jackw you disagree as all europhiles would. But what is your view on what the EC should do?

What should the countries do if the EU did not exist? The problem would not go away and would not be managed any better.

NickPalmer

There's a lot in David's logic, but I'm afraid that he overestimates the will to change. I like the EU, but its tradition of muddling through is far stronger than any reformist zeal, to the annoyance of federalists and anti-federalists alike. In most countries, too, the electorate sometimes flirts with radical ideas but usually ends up coasting along. The entire crisis has seen no change in German opinion polls: Merkel remains exactly as popular as before and all parties have support unchanged within MOE (http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/ ). Even a country in the direct grip of economic agony like Greece ultimately votes for the status quo, rejecting parties that favour leaving the Euro (which even Europhiles might agree would have been reasonable for them). The only real push for radical change is in some of the East European countries, and they are too new to the EU and too weak to act as influential levers.

That sounds complacent, but I don't like it any more than David does, for different reasons: I'd like to push ahead with greater integration and greater joint democracy (elected President etc.). But for all of us, an expectation of a grand redesign is a delusion, and it's important that reluctant Inners don't pin their hopes on it. There will be a series of rows followed by a fudged deal and warm words. It's possible that there will be something concrete on migration, and no doubt the City will get reassurance, but there just isn't a will for a massive rethink, or for any final deal at all before 2019.

I suspect that we too will vote for the status quo in the end, but if we let voters think that a cathartic moment of change (either to greater union or some sort of new structure) is coming, we are kidding them. This isn't unique to the EU - with the Scottish referendum we've had our own moment of existential crisis, but how much has actually changed in the way we organise Britain? Are we hurrying ahead with a grand redesign of how the UK is structured? No, we're muddling through. It's what governments do.

CarlottaVance

foxinsoxuk said:

The problem is not the EU

No - but the EU (or more specifically Merkel) has exacerbated the situation with the initial 'come one come all' - the people smuggler's patron - and the parsimonious response to the crisis in the first place (honourable exceptions US & UK).

Until we stop the 'get to the border and you're home free' the problem won't go away. We need to start shipping economic migrants out pronto and find some way of processing refugees in circumstances which make getting to Western Europe in the first place irrelevant to the out come. Australia has seen a collapse in people smuggling......

Mortimer

NickPalmer said:

There's a lot in David's logic, but I'm afraid that he overestimates the will to change. I like the EU, but its tradition of muddling through is far stronger than any reformist zeal, to the annoyance of federalists and anti-federalists alike. In most countries, too, the electorate sometimes flirts with radical ideas but usually ends up coasting along. The entire crisis has seen no change in German opinion polls: Merkel remains exactly as popular as before and all parties have support unchanged within MOE (http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/ ). Even a country in the direct grip of economic agony like Greece ultimately votes for the status quo, rejecting parties that favour leaving the Euro (which even Europhiles might agree would have been reasonable for them). The only real push for radical change is in some of the East European countries, and they are too new to the EU and too weak to act as influential levers.

That sounds complacent, but I don't like it any more than David does, for different reasons: I'd like to push ahead with greater integration and greater joint democracy (elected President etc.). But for all of us, an expectation of a grand redesign is a delusion, and it's important that reluctant Inners don't pin their hopes on it. There will be a series of rows followed by a fudged deal and warm words. It's possible that there will be something concrete on migration, and no doubt the City will get reassurance, but there just isn't a will for a massive rethink, or for any final deal at all before 2019.

I suspect that we too will vote for the status quo in the end, but if we let voters think that a cathartic moment of change (either to greater union or some sort of new structure) is coming, we are kidding them. This isn't unique to the EU - with the Scottish referendum we've had our own moment of existential crisis, but how much has actually changed in the way we organise Britain? Are we hurrying ahead with a grand redesign of how the UK is structured? No, we're muddling through. It's what governments do.

Nick - every previously reluctant inner that I know has recently become an Outer. Myself included.

Shocked, but not altogether surprised to read yesterday that the EU tariffs hit us more than he rest of the EU - we trade less with the common market than outside of it.

One thought I had was that if exporters from post-EU UK would be able to export without VAT - probably negating any impact our withdrawal would have on UK- EU trade.

Bring it on, I say.

philiph

Mortimer said:

NickPalmer said:

There's a lot in David's logic, but I'm afraid that he overestimates the will to change. I like the EU, but its tradition of muddling through is far stronger than any reformist zeal, to the annoyance of federalists and anti-federalists alike. In most countries, too, the electorate sometimes flirts with radical ideas but usually ends up coasting along. The entire crisis has seen no change in German opinion polls: Merkel remains exactly as popular as before and all parties have support unchanged within MOE (http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/ ). Even a country in the direct grip of economic agony like Greece ultimately votes for the status quo, rejecting parties that favour leaving the Euro (which even Europhiles might agree would have been reasonable for them). The only real push for radical change is in some of the East European countries, and they are too new to the EU and too weak to act as influential levers.

That sounds complacent, but I don't like it any more than David does, for different reasons: I'd like to push ahead with greater integration and greater joint democracy (elected President etc.). But for all of us, an expectation of a grand redesign is a delusion, and it's important that reluctant Inners don't pin their hopes on it. There will be a series of rows followed by a fudged deal and warm words. It's possible that there will be something concrete on migration, and no doubt the City will get reassurance, but there just isn't a will for a massive rethink, or for any final deal at all before 2019.

I suspect that we too will vote for the status quo in the end, but if we let voters think that a cathartic moment of change (either to greater union or some sort of new structure) is coming, we are kidding them. This isn't unique to the EU - with the Scottish referendum we've had our own moment of existential crisis, but how much has actually changed in the way we organise Britain? Are we hurrying ahead with a grand redesign of how the UK is structured? No, we're muddling through. It's what governments do.

Nick - every previously reluctant inner that I know has recently become an Outer. Myself included.

Shocked, but not altogether surprised to read yesterday that the EU tariffs hit us more than he rest of the EU - we trade less with the common market than outside of it.

One thought I had was that if exporters from post-EU UK would be able to export without VAT - probably negating any impact our withdrawal would have on UK- EU trade.

Bring it on, I say.

Exports are VAT exempt (or outside scope of VAT) now.

Mortimer

philiph said:

Mortimer said:

NickPalmer said:

There's a lot in David's logic, but I'm afraid that he overestimates the will to change. I like the EU, but its tradition of muddling through is far stronger than any reformist zeal, to the annoyance of federalists and anti-federalists alike. In most countries, too, the electorate sometimes flirts with radical ideas but usually ends up coasting along. The entire crisis has seen no change in German opinion polls: Merkel remains exactly as popular as before and all parties have support unchanged within MOE (http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/ ). Even a country in the direct grip of economic agony like Greece ultimately votes for the status quo, rejecting parties that favour leaving the Euro (which even Europhiles might agree would have been reasonable for them). The only real push for radical change is in some of the East European countries, and they are too new to the EU and too weak to act as influential levers.

That sounds complacent, but I don't like it any more than David does, for different reasons: I'd like to push ahead with greater integration and greater joint democracy (elected President etc.). But for all of us, an expectation of a grand redesign is a delusion, and it's important that reluctant Inners don't pin their hopes on it. There will be a series of rows followed by a fudged deal and warm words. It's possible that there will be something concrete on migration, and no doubt the City will get reassurance, but there just isn't a will for a massive rethink, or for any final deal at all before 2019.

I suspect that we too will vote for the status quo in the end, but if we let voters think that a cathartic moment of change (either to greater union or some sort of new structure) is coming, we are kidding them. This isn't unique to the EU - with the Scottish referendum we've had our own moment of existential crisis, but how much has actually changed in the way we organise Britain? Are we hurrying ahead with a grand redesign of how the UK is structured? No, we're muddling through. It's what governments do.

Nick - every previously reluctant inner that I know has recently become an Outer. Myself included.

Shocked, but not altogether surprised to read yesterday that the EU tariffs hit us more than he rest of the EU - we trade less with the common market than outside of it.

One thought I had was that if exporters from post-EU UK would be able to export without VAT - probably negating any impact our withdrawal would have on UK- EU trade.

Bring it on, I say.

Exports are vat exempt now.

Not to EU. It is classed as moving and VAT needs to be charged at usual UK rates.

JohnLilburne

philiph said:

David uses the expression :Ultimately the Union must unite or perish.

I think Ulitately the Union must unite, and then perish or perish. Ever closer union are the words that are the death warrant for the EU.

There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.

Nothing exists permanently. The UK has existed formally for 300 years, in practice a little bit longer. The Russian Empire and then the USSR for quite some time (Central Asia was incorporated in the 19th century). Spain since Ferdinand and Isabella. India fell apart as the Moghuls lost their power, was reunited under the East India Company and the British Empire and is a united country of many nationalities and religions of over a billion souls. All have had bits that split off, but are not arguments for stating that the EU can't last for quite a bit longer.

foxinsoxuk

CarlottaVance said:

foxinsoxuk said:

The problem is not the EU

No - but the EU (or more specifically Merkel) has exacerbated the situation with the initial 'come one come all' - the people smuggler's patron - and the parsimonious response to the crisis in the first place (honourable exceptions US & UK).

Until we stop the 'get to the border and you're home free' the problem won't go away. We need to start shipping economic migrants out pronto and find some way of processing refugees in circumstances which make getting to Western Europe in the first place irrelevant to the out come. Australia has seen a collapse in people smuggling......

Merkel could have made the same statement outside the EU and with the same consequences. She did not use any EU structure to make it.

Australia has more defensible borders, with hundreds of miles of sea, Kos or Lesbos are a few miles off the Turkish coast.

Stopping the flow would not be easy or palatable. It would be possible to build internment camps for the migrants rather than roam freely, it would be possible to deny them any relief at all, it would be possible to use our navies to sink boats rather than rescue them. It would be possible to land any arrivals back in Turkey or Libya, or even Assad controlled Syria. None of these are very palatable solutions, and are not going to happen.

We are experiencing globalisation.

JackW

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

Agreement on PB before breakfast is to be severely deprecated.

Accordingly in contrast to @Mortimer I find this Herders offering to be absolute tosh and it should have been censored in favour of a thread on the wonders of AV that has long merited the attention of PB worthies.

I agree with Mortimer and David Herdson.
So jackw you disagree as all europhiles would. But what is your view on what the EC should do?

I find all even handed discourse on the EU before breakfast to be reprehensible and so am most contrary to the given position of the thread leader.

Bring back TSE and give us want we crave - An EU sponsored poptastic AV thread to settle the stomach before gluttony overcomes us in the coming minutes.

DavidL

To coin a phrase I (largely) agree with Nick.

David is right that the migration crisis has exposed some of the weaknesses and delusions of the EU. David is also right that the de facto leadership of the EU by Angela Merkel (who in fairness successfully steered the EZ through a series of crises in recent years) has been badly, perhaps fatally damaged by this crises.

But, in my view, David is wrong to see the issue in apocalyptic terms. The options for the EU are not either becoming a single country or breaking up. They never were. It is perfectly possible for the EU to continue in its current form indefinitely. It is the kind of thinking that concluded logically the Euro was bound to fail and break up. Well, apparently not.

If it is not to be the United States of Europe what is the EU's function? Well, ideally, it is a constitutional structure which allows the many small countries in this divided continent of ours to work together to address problems that affect them all. The European Arrest Warrant is a good example. If we are to have free movement of goods and people the opportunities for crime are almost endless and the authorities need to be able to act against those who exploit that movement for criminal purposes.

The EU also allows the small countries of Europe to have some say in international standards and gives EU companies a domestic market exceeding even the US in size. I think people underestimate how important that market is to the UK. It goes beyond simple free trade and a lack of duties. It creates standards that mean that a car built in Sunderland meets all of the standards and emission requirements (VW notwithstanding) throughout a market of 600 million people without alteration or local specialisation. Nissan simply could not be one of the most efficient factories in the world without that.

So if we did not have something like the EU I think we would need to invent it. It is a very, very long way from perfect. The dominance of the EZ bloc is a concern for the UK as is the reluctance to extend the free movement of goods to services (which we are much better at) to the same extent. There has to be more realism about what the EU can do and what it can't. Larger countries like the UK will have different views about that than smaller ones and some compromises will be necessary. But Europe is simply too small in the modern world to have 30 independent non co-operating countries without a single market and all that that entails.

CarlottaVance

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

foxinsoxuk said:

The problem is not the EU

No - but the EU (or more specifically Merkel) has exacerbated the situation with the initial 'come one come all' - the people smuggler's patron - and the parsimonious response to the crisis in the first place (honourable exceptions US & UK).

Until we stop the 'get to the border and you're home free' the problem won't go away. We need to start shipping economic migrants out pronto and find some way of processing refugees in circumstances which make getting to Western Europe in the first place irrelevant to the out come. Australia has seen a collapse in people smuggling......

Merkel could have made the same statement outside the EU and with the same consequences. She did not use any EU structure to make it.

No, but as a result of her mess the EU is seeking to impose a solution of quotas against the will of democratically elected governments on pain of financial sanction - they have taken a bad situation and made it worse.

Mortimer

DavidL said:

To coin a phrase I (largely) agree with Nick.

David is right that the migration crisis has exposed some of the weaknesses and delusions of the EU. David is also right that the de facto leadership of the EU by Angela Merkel (who in fairness successfully steered the EZ through a series of crises in recent years) has been badly, perhaps fatally damaged by this crises.

But, in my view, David is wrong to see the issue in apocalyptic terms. The options for the EU are not either becoming a single country or breaking up. They never were. It is perfectly possible for the EU to continue in its current form indefinitely. It is the kind of ....
If t is not to be the United States of Europe what is the EU's function? Well, ideally, it is a constitutional structure which allows the many small countries in this divided continent of ours to work together to address problems that affect them all. The European Arrest Warrant is a good example. If we are to have free movement of goods and people the opportunities for crime are almost endless and the authorities need to be able to act against those who exploit that movement for criminal purposes.

The EU also allows the small countries of Europe to have some say in international standards and gives EU companies a domestic market exceeding even the US in size. I think people underestimate how important that market is to the UK. It goes beyond simple free trade and a lack of duties. It creates standards that mean that a car built in Sunderland meets all of the standards and emission requirements (VW notwithstanding) throughout a market of 600 million people without alteration or local specialisation. Nissan simply could not be one of the most efficient factories in the world without that.

So if we did not have something like the EU I think we would need to invent it. It is a very, very long way from perfect. The dominance of the EZ bloc is a concern for the UK as is the reluctance to extend the free movement of goods to services (which we are much better at) to the same extent. There has to be more realism about what the EU can do and what it can't. Larger countries like the UK will have different views about that than smaller ones and some compromises will be necessary. But Europe is simply too small in the modern world to have 30 independent non co-operating countries without a single market and all that that entails.

To be honest, David, I've never understood than standardisation argument - though it is peddled by all my commercial law mates.

The reality of the European market would mean a degree of standardisation would likely exist even without the largely non democratic institutions of the EU.

Or, perhaps the better alternative, less stringent regulations would be passed.

Th EU is a typically flabby and over legislated European response to globalisation. And it has been acheived really rather poorly.

Richard_Tyndall

foxinsoxuk said:

Some of the EU"s response to the migrant crisis is inadequate and some poorly co-ordinated, but would it look much different if the EU or Shengen did not exist at all?

The main stream of migrants cross an external border into Greece, then leave the EU and Shengen to enter FYR Macedonia, then enter another Non-EU state in Serbia, then re-enter the EU into Croatia before running into border controls at Slovenia, Austria or Hungary, and again into Germany.

The problem is not the EU, it is the collapse of functioning states across the Muslim part of the world, the lack of effective policing of borders whether in the EU or not and the Refugee Convention. The problem is happening in Europe but is not caused by the EU and would look much the same if all countries were completely autonomous.

But I am not sure that even tearing up the refugee convention would halt the flood.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/time-to-tear-up-the-refugee-convention/17436#.VgYsRhBwaBY

A comment that conveniently ignored that by accepting and encouraging migrants to settle in Germany - and consequently in the whole of the rest of the EU within 5 years - Merkel has sent out an open invitation to hundreds of thousands of more people to risk their lives in the hands of the smugglers. It is a criminal act which has been made possible by the German dominance of the EU.

DavidL

Mortimer said:

DavidL said:

To be honest, David, I've never understood than standardisation argument - though it is peddled by all my commercial law mates.

The reality of the European market would mean a degree of standardisation would likely exist even without the largely non democratic institutions of the EU.

Or, perhaps the better alternative, less stringent regulations would be passed.

Th EU is a typically flabby and over legislated European response to globalisation. And it has been acheived really rather poorly.

If you look at the early key cases of the ECJ most of them were about standardisation. There is a natural tendency of local politicians to impose specific standards for their area. That creates barriers to trade and has the happy effect of giving a competitive advantage to the local producer. EEC law is largely there to stop that. So a French beer, for example, could be sold in Germany even if it did not meet German purity standards or contained things that the Germans did not think could be in beer.

This is what makes the common market work. It is not about tariffs or free trade, it is about the right to sell your product which meets the common standard anywhere inside the market without restraint.

If we left the EU we would still have to comply with all those standards set by the remaining countries without our input for all of our trade with our European partners. Of course we don't have to comply with such standards when trading elsewhere but even there EU standards are pervasive and persuasive in allowing access to local markets. We would not be able to press for such standards in the supply of financial service products, for example, which are really important to us.

I am exasperated by the EU and frustrated by its undemocratic nature, its bureaucracy, the self serving way it is exploited by countries like France, the way more and more QMV decisions are going to be made by the Euro bloc, the sheer cost of our membership, I could go on all morning. But I think this unified country or bust argument is tosh.

Richard_Tyndall

Mortimer said:

To be honest, David, I've never understood than standardisation argument - though it is peddled by all my commercial law mates.

The reality of the European market would mean a degree of standardisation would likely exist even without the largely non democratic institutions of the EU.

Or, perhaps the better alternative, less stringent regulations would be passed.

Th EU is a typically flabby and over legislated European response to globalisation. And it has been acheived really rather poorly.

Indeed. If you look at the analysis by Richard North and others you find that standardisation long ago moved away from the EU level of competence and now rests at a far more global level.

MikeK

At least the Continental Convention spoke the same language and had the same basic beliefs and understandings. Europe has none of these things, and bullies not statesmen at the head of the EU.

foxinsoxuk

Richard_Tyndall said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Some of the EU"s response to the migrant crisis is inadequate and some poorly co-ordinated, but would it look much different if the EU or Shengen did not exist at all?

The main stream of migrants cross an external border into Greece, then leave the EU and Shengen to enter FYR Macedonia, then enter another Non-EU state in Serbia, then re-enter the EU into Croatia before running into border controls at Slovenia, Austria or Hungary, and again into Germany.

The problem is not the EU, it is the collapse of functioning states across the Muslim part of the world, the lack of effective policing of borders whether in the EU or not and the Refugee Convention. The problem is happening in Europe but is not caused by the EU and would look much the same if all countries were completely autonomous.

But I am not sure that even tearing up the refugee convention would halt the flood.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/time-to-tear-up-the-refugee-convention/17436#.VgYsRhBwaBY

A comment that conveniently ignored that by accepting and encouraging migrants to settle in Germany - and consequently in the whole of the rest of the EU within 5 years - Merkel has sent out an open invitation to hundreds of thousands of more people to risk their lives in the hands of the smugglers. It is a criminal act which has been made possible by the German dominance of the EU.

Merkel could have made the same remark outside the EU with the same result. Indeed she made the statement as leader of Germany, not representing any organ of the EU.

I am out for the day before the big match, but cannot see that the current migrant crisis would be much different if the EU did not exist.

It is like the borders of Rome in the 4th century. A lot of people want what civilisation has achieved, but without the discipline and freedoms that created it. We have new Huns in the form of IS etc.

malcolmg

foxinsoxuk said:

Some of the EU"s response to the migrant crisis is inadequate and some poorly co-ordinated, but would it look much different if the EU or Shengen did not exist at all?

The main stream of migrants cross an external border into Greece, then leave the EU and Shengen to enter FYR Macedonia, then enter another Non-EU state in Serbia, then re-enter the EU into Croatia before running into border controls at Slovenia, Austria or Hungary, and again into Germany.

The problem is not the EU, it is the collapse of functioning states across the Muslim part of the world, the lack of effective policing of borders whether in the EU or not and the Refugee Convention. The problem is happening in Europe but is not caused by the EU and would look much the same if all countries were completely autonomous.

But I am not sure that even tearing up the refugee convention would halt the flood.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/time-to-tear-up-the-refugee-convention/17436#.VgYsRhBwaBY

close the borders properly and stop the boats landing. Would soon stop if they just owed all boats back for a few weeks and anyone reaching land/crossing borders was immediately given choice of return to where they wanted to go or a camp on some barren island.

CarlottaVance

foxinsoxuk said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Some of the EU"s response to the migrant crisis is inadequate and some poorly co-ordinated, but would it look much different if the EU or Shengen did not exist at all?

The main stream of migrants cross an external border into Greece, then leave the EU and Shengen to enter FYR Macedonia, then enter another Non-EU state in Serbia, then re-enter the EU into Croatia before running into border controls at Slovenia, Austria or Hungary, and again into Germany.

The problem is not the EU, it is the collapse of functioning states across the Muslim part of the world, the lack of effective policing of borders whether in the EU or not and the Refugee Convention. The problem is happening in Europe but is not caused by the EU and would look much the same if all countries were completely autonomous.

But I am not sure that even tearing up the refugee convention would halt the flood.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/time-to-tear-up-the-refugee-convention/17436#.VgYsRhBwaBY

A comment that conveniently ignored that by accepting and encouraging migrants to settle in Germany - and consequently in the whole of the rest of the EU within 5 years - Merkel has sent out an open invitation to hundreds of thousands of more people to risk their lives in the hands of the smugglers. It is a criminal act which has been made possible by the German dominance of the EU.

Merkel could have made the same remark outside the EU with the same result.

No. Her promise of a welcome in Germany was a promise of a welcome throughout the EU in 5 years. Thats the problem. She's made a promise others will have to keep - and indeed is trying to force them to keep it now well ahead of the 5 years.....No EU, none of that.

malcolmg

foxinsoxuk said:

CarlottaVance said:

foxinsoxuk said:

The problem is not the EU

No - but the EU (or more specifically Merkel) has exacerbated the situation with the initial 'come one come all' - the people smuggler's patron - and the parsimonious response to the crisis in the first place (honourable exceptions US & UK).

Until we stop the 'get to the border and you're home free' the problem won't go away. We need to start shipping economic migrants out pronto and find some way of processing refugees in circumstances which make getting to Western Europe in the first place irrelevant to the out come. Australia has seen a collapse in people smuggling......

Merkel could have made the same statement outside the EU and with the same consequences. She did not use any EU structure to make it.

Australia has more defensible borders, with hundreds of miles of sea, Kos or Lesbos are a few miles off the Turkish coast.

Stopping the flow would not be easy or palatable. It would be possible to build internment camps for the migrants rather than roam freely, it would be possible to deny them any relief at all, it would be possible to use our navies to sink boats rather than rescue them. It would be possible to land any arrivals back in Turkey or Libya, or even Assad controlled Syria. None of these are very palatable solutions, and are not going to happen.

We are experiencing globalisation.

Should be able to work, we pay a fortune for all those people to play at soldiers, why not make use of them and get them over there to stop the flow and ferry people back to source.

Sean_F

NickPalmer said:

There's a lot in David's logic, but I'm afraid that he overestimates the will to change. I like the EU, but its tradition of muddling through is far stronger than any reformist zeal, to the annoyance of federalists and anti-federalists alike. In most countries, too, the electorate sometimes flirts with radical ideas but usually ends up coasting along. The entire crisis has seen no change in German opinion polls: Merkel remains exactly as popular as before and all parties have support unchanged within MOE (http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/ ). Even a country in the direct grip of economic agony like Greece ultimately votes for the status quo, rejecting parties that favour leaving the Euro (which even Europhiles might agree would have been reasonable for them). The only real push for radical change is in some of the East European countries, and they are too new to the EU and too weak to act as influential levers.

That sounds complacent, but I don't like it any more than David does, for different reasons: I'd like to push ahead with greater integration and greater joint democracy (elected President etc.). But for all of us, an expectation of a grand redesign is a delusion, and it's important that reluctant Inners don't pin their hopes on it. There will be a series of rows followed by a fudged deal and warm words. It's possible that there will be something concrete on migration, and no doubt the City will get reassurance, but there just isn't a will for a massive rethink, or for any final deal at all before 2019.

I suspect that we too will vote for the status quo in the end, but if we let voters think that a cathartic moment of change (either to greater union or some sort of new structure) is coming, we are kidding them. This isn't unique to the EU - with the Scottish referendum we've had our own moment of existential crisis, but how much has actually changed in the way we organise Britain? Are we hurrying ahead with a grand redesign of how the UK is structured? No, we're muddling through. It's what governments do.

People vote for the status quo.....until they suddenly don't. As Labour discovered in Scotland.

CarlottaVance

Jeremy is on to the lizards:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11892383/Jeremy-Corbyn-911-was-manipulated.html

Jonathan

The EU lacks democratic engagement, a robust modern press and the vibrant political culture that goes with both.

Serious problems.

But withdrawal is not the way to solve them. And retreat to Westminster/Whitehall is hardly the answer.

SquareRoot

CarlottaVance said:

Jeremy is on to the lizards:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11892383/Jeremy-Corbyn-911-was-manipulated.html

The article says it raises questions about his suitability.. frankly it raises questions about his sanity..
Can't see anyone wanting to share secret info with Corbyn. It would be like offering David Icke a quick look.

watford30

malcolmg said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Some of the EU"s response to the migrant crisis is inadequate and some poorly co-ordinated, but would it look much different if the EU or Shengen did not exist at all?

The main stream of migrants cross an external border into Greece, then leave the EU and Shengen to enter FYR Macedonia, then enter another Non-EU state in Serbia, then re-enter the EU into Croatia before running into border controls at Slovenia, Austria or Hungary, and again into Germany.

The problem is not the EU, it is the collapse of functioning states across the Muslim part of the world, the lack of effective policing of borders whether in the EU or not and the Refugee Convention. The problem is happening in Europe but is not caused by the EU and would look much the same if all countries were completely autonomous.

But I am not sure that even tearing up the refugee convention would halt the flood.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/time-to-tear-up-the-refugee-convention/17436#.VgYsRhBwaBY

close the borders properly and stop the boats landing. Would soon stop if they just owed all boats back for a few weeks and anyone reaching land/crossing borders was immediately given choice of return to where they wanted to go or a camp on some barren island.

'Stop the boats landing' How? The migrants and smugglers will simply scuttle them either out at sea, or close to land, within sight of patrol vessels. And those fortunate enough not to drown will be rescued.

Sean_F

watford30 said:

malcolmg said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Some of the EU"s response to the migrant crisis is inadequate and some poorly co-ordinated, but would it look much different if the EU or Shengen did not exist at all?

The main stream of migrants cross an external border into Greece, then leave the EU and Shengen to enter FYR Macedonia, then enter another Non-EU state in Serbia, then re-enter the EU into Croatia before running into border controls at Slovenia, Austria or Hungary, and again into Germany.

The problem is not the EU, it is the collapse of functioning states across the Muslim part of the world, the lack of effective policing of borders whether in the EU or not and the Refugee Convention. The problem is happening in Europe but is not caused by the EU and would look much the same if all countries were completely autonomous.

But I am not sure that even tearing up the refugee convention would halt the flood.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/time-to-tear-up-the-refugee-convention/17436#.VgYsRhBwaBY

close the borders properly and stop the boats landing. Would soon stop if they just owed all boats back for a few weeks and anyone reaching land/crossing borders was immediately given choice of return to where they wanted to go or a camp on some barren island.

'Stop the boats landing' How? The migrants and smugglers will simply scuttle them either out at sea, or close to land, within sight of patrol vessels. And those fortunate enough not to drown will be rescued.

Return the people to their point of embarkation. The Spanish did it, when faced with an influx of boat people from West Africa, some years ago.

MarqueeMark

David, an excellent thread - and already some quality comments.

I thought this central: "Europe has wanted it both ways: to play at Union by giving up what are essential national powers without handing that power up to anyone. It has simply been lost." The trouble with the EU is everybody wants it both ways. The commitment to the European superstate exists with many in Brussels, and a handful in national capitals. The rest of Europe looks at the UK like it is some spotty teenager, reluctantly dragged along by the parents to a party, where it insists on hogging the music with its favoured death metal that no-one else wants to listen to. But we are starting to see the spotty teenager in many EU members. And Merkel and Juncker are the parents every spotty teenager rages against.

To function as a superstate, the EU needs a common currency and secure borders. (Everything that wishes to call itself a state needs respected borders.) The bold thing to do would be for Brussels to grab the referendum initiative itself. Each country should take new vows. The Euro and Schengen. And ever closer union. And a European army. And a Constitution. All the stuff it wants, all the stuff it is trying to do by stealth. Call national bluffs. Are you in - or are you out?

Bet the farm that all bar the UK would cling to nurse for fear of something worse.

And those nations that do vote to fold into a European superstate will probably prosper in a reinvigorated Europe, shorn of so much of the pretence and subterfuge. The UK and those that don't join could still be offered some associate status (in reality, a non-aggression pact on tariffs and trade).

Chances of it happening? Nil.

felix

malcolmg said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Some of the EU"s response to the migrant crisis is inadequate and some poorly co-ordinated, but would it look much different if the EU or Shengen did not exist at all?

The main stream of migrants cross an external border into Greece, then leave the EU and Shengen to enter FYR Macedonia, then enter another Non-EU state in Serbia, then re-enter the EU into Croatia before running into border controls at Slovenia, Austria or Hungary, and again into Germany.

The problem is not the EU, it is the collapse of functioning states across the Muslim part of the world, the lack of effective policing of borders whether in the EU or not and the Refugee Convention. The problem is happening in Europe but is not caused by the EU and would look much the same if all countries were completely autonomous.

But I am not sure that even tearing up the refugee convention would halt the flood.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/time-to-tear-up-the-refugee-convention/17436#.VgYsRhBwaBY

close the borders properly and stop the boats landing. Would soon stop if they just owed all boats back for a few weeks and anyone reaching land/crossing borders was immediately given choice of return to where they wanted to go or a camp on some barren island.

Totally agree - but on this issue none of the politicians are willing to do it.

JosiasJessop

Sean_F said:

watford30 said:

malcolmg said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Some of the EU"s response to the migrant crisis is inadequate and some poorly co-ordinated, but would it look much different if the EU or Shengen did not exist at all?

The main stream of migrants cross an external border into Greece, then leave the EU and Shengen to enter FYR Macedonia, then enter another Non-EU state in Serbia, then re-enter the EU into Croatia before running into border controls at Slovenia, Austria or Hungary, and again into Germany.

The problem is not the EU, it is the collapse of functioning states across the Muslim part of the world, the lack of effective policing of borders whether in the EU or not and the Refugee Convention. The problem is happening in Europe but is not caused by the EU and would look much the same if all countries were completely autonomous.

But I am not sure that even tearing up the refugee convention would halt the flood.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/time-to-tear-up-the-refugee-convention/17436#.VgYsRhBwaBY

close the borders properly and stop the boats landing. Would soon stop if they just owed all boats back for a few weeks and anyone reaching land/crossing borders was immediately given choice of return to where they wanted to go or a camp on some barren island.

'Stop the boats landing' How? The migrants and smugglers will simply scuttle them either out at sea, or close to land, within sight of patrol vessels. And those fortunate enough not to drown will be rescued.

Return the people to their point of embarkation. The Spanish did it, when faced with an influx of boat people from West Africa, some years ago.

In some cases that would be easier said than done.

We have to tackle the smugglers. Get the UN to pass a law stating that people smuggling of any sort will be tackled rigorously internationally, with the perpetrators dealt with at the Hague. Maximum sentence (for the people really making the money) would be death (*). Which is what they are condemning many of the people they are smuggling to.

(*) For the people who are against the death sentence, we can make it fair. Put the people smugglers into a rubber dinghy in the middle of the Pacific a few thousand miles from any land.

stodge

Morning all

Once again, as I often find with a David H piece (for which, as always, many thanks), there are areas of profound disagreement.

One event, completely unforeseeable and wholly outside the EU's control, has shaped where we are today and have moved the European ideal far beyond where it was conceived to be in the 1940s and 1950s.

The fall of Communism in 1989 is, as I've often said, an event whose reverberations are being felt to this day and whose consequences were not well understood or appreciated at the time. The world was profoundly different before the Wall fell - it would be profoundly different if it had stayed up and we were "celebrating" the 70th anniversary of the Cold War.

The desire to bring the ex-Communist states of central and eastern Europe "back into the fold" radically altered the balance of the EU. The overhasty inclusion of distorted economies such as Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic as well as the unification of Germany created new tensions and inbalances. Ultimately, it offered prosperous but inflationary western Europe a potential source of cheap labour which could choke off that inflation while the end of the threat of war in Europe gave a huge fiscal boost to the whole Continent as swords were turned into luxury goods or welfare payments.

The end of the Cold War killed the inflation which had ended previous economic booms. Defence spending became "the peace dividend" and the EU was forced to accept an influx of new members for which it was unprepared. We also pushed NATO eastward but the EU isn't NATO and never has been.

I don't see a solution to the mess we have made for ourselves through our own shortsightedness. To her credit, Margaret Thatcher (and to his, Francois Mitterrand) were cautious about German re-unification but everyone assumed they were WW2 dinosaurs - they weren't. They saw, through the mass movement of peoples in 1989-90, a vision of the future.

So what happens ? If we vote to leave, will others follow ? Perhaps - I've always thought a German-based ring of northern European and Scandinavian economies in a Union could and would work pretty well. There are obvious synergies for France and some of the Mediterranean economies but the current waves of migration from the Middle East and North and Central Africa would challenge even the most robust economies and that requires a whole different line of thinking and solution for which the EU isn't the only provider.

As for the Referendum, as I see it, neither side has any answers to the big questions.

Sean_F

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

watford30 said:

malcolmg said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Some of the EU"s response to the migrant crisis is inadequate and some poorly co-ordinated, but would it look much different if the EU or Shengen did not exist at all?

The main stream of migrants cross an external border into Greece, then leave the EU and Shengen to enter FYR Macedonia, then enter another Non-EU state in Serbia, then re-enter the EU into Croatia before running into border controls at Slovenia, Austria or Hungary, and again into Germany.

The problem is not the EU, it is the collapse of functioning states across the Muslim part of the world, the lack of effective policing of borders whether in the EU or not and the Refugee Convention. The problem is happening in Europe but is not caused by the EU and would look much the same if all countries were completely autonomous.

But I am not sure that even tearing up the refugee convention would halt the flood.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/time-to-tear-up-the-refugee-convention/17436#.VgYsRhBwaBY

close the borders properly and stop the boats landing. Would soon stop if they just owed all boats back for a few weeks and anyone reaching land/crossing borders was immediately given choice of return to where they wanted to go or a camp on some barren island.

'Stop the boats landing' How? The migrants and smugglers will simply scuttle them either out at sea, or close to land, within sight of patrol vessels. And those fortunate enough not to drown will be rescued.

Return the people to their point of embarkation. The Spanish did it, when faced with an influx of boat people from West Africa, some years ago.

In some cases that would be easier said than done.

We have to tackle the smugglers. Get the UN to pass a law stating that people smuggling of any sort will be tackled rigorously internationally, with the perpetrators dealt with at the Hague. Maximum sentence (for the people really making the money) would be death (*). Which is what they are condemning many of the people they are smuggling to.

(*) For the people who are against the death sentence, we can make it fair. Put the people smugglers into a rubber dinghy in the middle of the Pacific a few thousand miles from any land.

It would indeed be easier said than done, but governments aren't even making an effort at this stage.

Jonathan

@stodge. If you're arguing for a German bloc competing with a French bloc with Britain on the side, I urge you to think again. It's been tried before and didn't end well.

isam

In theory, shouldn't the existence of the EU make it easier to stop the migrants entering Greece or Italy? If the will was there, all member states could club together and defend the borders of the bloc, whereas if Greece were independent it might struggle

On the other hand I don't reckon the migrants would make the journey if there were no EU and I don't think merkel would have made her offer either

david_kendrick1

I've seen two daft statements by the Europhiles on here.

If we weren't in the EU, we would not be able to co-operate with our European neighbours.
What? You can have excellent relations with your neighbour, without sharing her housekeeping.

We would need to put something in its place, were we to leave the EU. Wrong. Nothing would be fine (though in practice, during the two year notice period, 'deals would be done'). BMW, JLR and all firms downwards in size would continue to trade across borders, much as they do now. Who thinks German car companies would be too stupid/straight-laced to continue to export to the UK?

Dair

JohnLilburne said:

philiph said:

David uses the expression :Ultimately the Union must unite or perish.

I think Ulitately the Union must unite, and then perish or perish. Ever closer union are the words that are the death warrant for the EU.

There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.

Nothing exists permanently. The UK has existed formally for 300 years, in practice a little bit longer. The Russian Empire and then the USSR for quite some time (Central Asia was incorporated in the 19th century). Spain since Ferdinand and Isabella. India fell apart as the Moghuls lost their power, was reunited under the East India Company and the British Empire and is a united country of many nationalities and religions of over a billion souls. All have had bits that split off, but are not arguments for stating that the EU can't last for quite a bit longer.

The UK, in it's current form has existed for less than 100 years.

ydoethur

stodge said:

Morning all

The fall of Communism in 1989 is, as I've often said, an event whose reverberations are being felt to this day and whose consequences were not well understood or appreciated at the time. The world was profoundly different before the Wall fell - it would be profoundly different if it had stayed up and we were "celebrating" the 70th anniversary of the Cold War.

I take it by those remarks you are referring to the migration out of the DDR via Czechoslovakia and Hungary in 1989? Because Communism itself didn't 'fall' in 1989 - the withdrawal from Eastern Europe (including Hungary) was in 1990, and the USSR of course lingered on until 1991. That may have been a harbinger of today's crises - however, there is one very important difference. The East Germans could argue that they were technically citizens of the BDR (as it claimed sovereignty over all of Germany and claimed to be the successor state to Weimar) so they could say they were going 'home' to their own country. The current migrants are very clearly heading away from their own country (although many of them clearly have excellent reasons for wanting to leave Syria in particular).

stodge said:

The end of the Cold War killed the inflation which had ended previous economic booms. Defence spending became "the peace dividend" and the EU was forced to accept an influx of new members for which it was unprepared.

Well - possibly. But I think you overstate the impact of other deflationary pressures, particularly the rise of manufacturing in China and south-east Asia using labour on starvation wages. It is also worth considering that much of the low inflation boasted about by Brown (among others) was achieved by various con tricks - for example, living on a low fixed income from 2001-2011 as a student, later supplemented by various minimum wage jobs, I was interested to note that the price of basic foodstuffs and fuel more than doubled (bread went from 52p per loaf in 2002 to £1.19 per loaf in 2011). But because white goods and consumer goods were dropping in price very quickly, these were offset in the overall economy, where most people had more purchasing power than I did, and spent it on these luxuries. And don't forget that housing costs were rocketing, but adjustments to the measurement of mortgages disguised it very well.

I think the EU has had a very bad year - but I think it's a long way from being destroyed. The key problem, as Mr Herdson notes, is that it is simply incapable of deciding if it is a strong, centralised state or a union of sovereign nations. I think the Continental Congress analogy has merit, but the fact is, that was designed to be almost a state, but the EU has never even made that decision for itself, and is now paying the price for such confusion.

malcolmg

watford30 said:

malcolmg said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Some of the EU"s response to the migrant crisis is inadequate and some poorly co-ordinated, but would it look much different if the EU or Shengen did not exist at all?

The main stream of migrants cross an external border into Greece, then leave the EU and Shengen to enter FYR Macedonia, then enter another Non-EU state in Serbia, then re-enter the EU into Croatia before running into border controls at Slovenia, Austria or Hungary, and again into Germany.

The problem is not the EU, it is the collapse of functioning states across the Muslim part of the world, the lack of effective policing of borders whether in the EU or not and the Refugee Convention. The problem is happening in Europe but is not caused by the EU and would look much the same if all countries were completely autonomous.

But I am not sure that even tearing up the refugee convention would halt the flood.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/time-to-tear-up-the-refugee-convention/17436#.VgYsRhBwaBY

close the borders properly and stop the boats landing. Would soon stop if they just owed all boats back for a few weeks and anyone reaching land/crossing borders was immediately given choice of return to where they wanted to go or a camp on some barren island.

'Stop the boats landing' How? The migrants and smugglers will simply scuttle them either out at sea, or close to land, within sight of patrol vessels. And those fortunate enough not to drown will be rescued.

When rescued take them straight back, simple. Called tough love.

ydoethur

Dair said:

JohnLilburne said:

philiph said:

David uses the expression :Ultimately the Union must unite or perish.

I think Ulitately the Union must unite, and then perish or perish. Ever closer union are the words that are the death warrant for the EU.

There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.

Nothing exists permanently. The UK has existed formally for 300 years, in practice a little bit longer. The Russian Empire and then the USSR for quite some time (Central Asia was incorporated in the 19th century). Spain since Ferdinand and Isabella. India fell apart as the Moghuls lost their power, was reunited under the East India Company and the British Empire and is a united country of many nationalities and religions of over a billion souls. All have had bits that split off, but are not arguments for stating that the EU can't last for quite a bit longer.

The UK, in it's current form has existed for less than 100 years.

Within its current borders, it has existed since 1922. In its current legal and constitutional form, it has existed since 1801. The Kingdom of Great Britain has existed de jure since 1707, although only on rare occasions between 1603 and 1707 had Scotland attempted to assert its independence, usually with disastrous consequences (the Battle of Dunbar, the Darien scheme). England has not existed as a whole, single and unadorned entity since the Battle of Hastings in 1066.

Don't you just love the complexities of history?

Dair

CarlottaVance said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Some of the EU"s response to the migrant crisis is inadequate and some poorly co-ordinated, but would it look much different if the EU or Shengen did not exist at all?

The main stream of migrants cross an external border into Greece, then leave the EU and Shengen to enter FYR Macedonia, then enter another Non-EU state in Serbia, then re-enter the EU into Croatia before running into border controls at Slovenia, Austria or Hungary, and again into Germany.

The problem is not the EU, it is the collapse of functioning states across the Muslim part of the world, the lack of effective policing of borders whether in the EU or not and the Refugee Convention. The problem is happening in Europe but is not caused by the EU and would look much the same if all countries were completely autonomous.

But I am not sure that even tearing up the refugee convention would halt the flood.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/time-to-tear-up-the-refugee-convention/17436#.VgYsRhBwaBY

A comment that conveniently ignored that by accepting and encouraging migrants to settle in Germany - and consequently in the whole of the rest of the EU within 5 years - Merkel has sent out an open invitation to hundreds of thousands of more people to risk their lives in the hands of the smugglers. It is a criminal act which has been made possible by the German dominance of the EU.

Merkel could have made the same remark outside the EU with the same result.

No. Her promise of a welcome in Germany was a promise of a welcome throughout the EU in 5 years. Thats the problem. She's made a promise others will have to keep - and indeed is trying to force them to keep it now well ahead of the 5 years.....No EU, none of that.

How many German Turks are in the UK?

That's right, virtually none. This is the most bogus of the patriarchal arguments.

foxinsoxuk

@stodge

The other important thing about the collapse of communism is that it removed the alternative world view to liberal capitalism. Apart from a few Corbynites there has not been an alternative philosophy, until the rise of Islamism at least, which has stepped into that space.

Disenfranchised youth now become Islamists across much of the world where formerly those wanting to bring down the established order would have been communists.

richardDodd

OT...FIFA...Is corruption the new norm now

ydoethur

Somewhat off-topic, but I have read rather a good article on Corbyn in the FT which is worth sharing:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/63553bf2-622f-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html

Jeremy Corbyn: how long can he last?

Apologies if it has been mentioned before, but it has some very interesting inside information which, if accurate, suggests that the upheaval in Labour is a long way from finished, while George Osborne's smugness may actually become unbearable.

Omnium

SquareRoot said:

CarlottaVance said:

Jeremy is on to the lizards:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11892383/Jeremy-Corbyn-911-was-manipulated.html

The article says it raises questions about his suitability.. frankly it raises questions about his sanity..
Can't see anyone wanting to share secret info with Corbyn. It would be like offering David Icke a quick look.

It's simply baffling that he should even broach the subject. No need for Camp Corbyn to buy tickets to Washington any time soon.

richardDodd

Dair .. not too many Eskimos either..WTF

Richard_Tyndall

Dair said:

CarlottaVance said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Some of the EU"s response to the migrant crisis is inadequate and some poorly co-ordinated, but would it look much different if the EU or Shengen did not exist at all?

The main stream of migrants cross an external border into Greece, then leave the EU and Shengen to enter FYR Macedonia, then enter another Non-EU state in Serbia, then re-enter the EU into Croatia before running into border controls at Slovenia, Austria or Hungary, and again into Germany.

The problem is not the EU, it is the collapse of functioning states across the Muslim part of the world, the lack of effective policing of borders whether in the EU or not and the Refugee Convention. The problem is happening in Europe but is not caused by the EU and would look much the same if all countries were completely autonomous.

But I am not sure that even tearing up the refugee convention would halt the flood.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/time-to-tear-up-the-refugee-convention/17436#.VgYsRhBwaBY

A comment that conveniently ignored that by accepting and encouraging migrants to settle in Germany - and consequently in the whole of the rest of the EU within 5 years - Merkel has sent out an open invitation to hundreds of thousands of more people to risk their lives in the hands of the smugglers. It is a criminal act which has been made possible by the German dominance of the EU.

Merkel could have made the same remark outside the EU with the same result.

No. Her promise of a welcome in Germany was a promise of a welcome throughout the EU in 5 years. Thats the problem. She's made a promise others will have to keep - and indeed is trying to force them to keep it now well ahead of the 5 years.....No EU, none of that.

How many German Turks are in the UK?

That's right, virtually none. This is the most bogus of the racists arguments.

Nope, that argument has already been comprehensively demolished on here in the past. The Turkish community was well established in Germany before the UK joined the EU. If you want a proper comparison look at what happened to the Dutch Somali community who moved in very large numbers to the UK after they had initially been accepted for asylum in the Netherlands.

ydoethur

foxinsoxuk said:

@stodge

The other important thing about the collapse of communism is that it removed the alternative world view to liberal capitalism. Apart from a few Corbynites there has not been an alternative philosophy, until the rise of Islamism at least, which has stepped into that space.

Disenfranchised youth now become Islamists across much of the world where formerly those wanting to bring down the established order would have been communists.

Well...possibly. But don't forget Islamism originally started as a riposte to Communism in the 1970s and especially the 1980s. In particular, both the Taleban and al-Qaeda began life as groups formed to resist the invasion of Afghnistan in 1979, and they built on earlier groups founded to protest at Soviet influence over the secular Afghan monarchy.* The Iranian revolution was also both anti-American and anti-Communist, although ironically few regimes have been so socialist in practice as the Ayatollahs. So the alternative worldview was in place long before the Great Bear keeled over, although possibly the discrediting of socialism has attracted more people especially violent young men towards it. (Elisions with the earlier Palestinian conflict are somewhat misleading as a result.)

I would recommend this video for an exploration of the growth of Islamism in Afghanistan: it was so annoying for the Americans after 9/11 that they reclassified the material it was based on and you still can't get it on DVD in this country so far as I know (warning - it's quite graphic):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bdE1D_fbV0&list=PL8hNHC9nbLlzb4miGp5pZPYCk9Zw0dGke&index=20

*They were also of course given considerable financial and technical aid by the CIA, which the Americans later found rather embarrassing for some reason.

Dair

ydoethur said:

Dair said:

JohnLilburne said:

philiph said:

David uses the expression :Ultimately the Union must unite or perish.

I think Ulitately the Union must unite, and then perish or perish. Ever closer union are the words that are the death warrant for the EU.

There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.

Nothing exists permanently. The UK has existed formally for 300 years, in practice a little bit longer. The Russian Empire and then the USSR for quite some time (Central Asia was incorporated in the 19th century). Spain since Ferdinand and Isabella. India fell apart as the Moghuls lost their power, was reunited under the East India Company and the British Empire and is a united country of many nationalities and religions of over a billion souls. All have had bits that split off, but are not arguments for stating that the EU can't last for quite a bit longer.

The UK, in it's current form has existed for less than 100 years.

Within its current borders, it has existed since 1922. In its current legal and constitutional form, it has existed since 1801. The Kingdom of Great Britain has existed de jure since 1707, although only on rare occasions between 1603 and 1707 had Scotland attempted to assert its independence, usually with disastrous consequences (the Battle of Dunbar, the Darien scheme). England has not existed as a whole, single and unadorned entity since the Battle of Hastings in 1066.

Don't you just love the complexities of history?

The 1801 state was dissolved by the ending of the Kingdom of Ireland in either 1937, 1949 or 1962 depending on your point of view. I don't see how you can argue the UK has existed since 1801.

CIA factbook currently considers the current UK's formation as 1927 based on the name change.

Dair

richardDodd said:

OT...FIFA...Is corruption the new norm now

The most recent revelations certainly explain why Platini went from a firebrand reformer, to a party line toer when it came to FIFA.

ydoethur

Dair said:

ydoethur said:

Dair said:

JohnLilburne said:

philiph said:

David uses the expression :Ultimately the Union must unite or perish.

I think Ulitately the Union must unite, and then perish or perish. Ever closer union are the words that are the death warrant for the EU.

There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.

Nothing exists permanently. The UK has existed formally for 300 years, in practice a little bit longer. The Russian Empire and then the USSR for quite some time (Central Asia was incorporated in the 19th century). Spain since Ferdinand and Isabella. India fell apart as the Moghuls lost their power, was reunited under the East India Company and the British Empire and is a united country of many nationalities and religions of over a billion souls. All have had bits that split off, but are not arguments for stating that the EU can't last for quite a bit longer.

The UK, in it's current form has existed for less than 100 years.

Within its current borders, it has existed since 1922. In its current legal and constitutional form, it has existed since 1801. The Kingdom of Great Britain has existed de jure since 1707, although only on rare occasions between 1603 and 1707 had Scotland attempted to assert its independence, usually with disastrous consequences (the Battle of Dunbar, the Darien scheme). England has not existed as a whole, single and unadorned entity since the Battle of Hastings in 1066.

Don't you just love the complexities of history?

The 1801 state was dissolved by the ending of the Kingdom of Ireland in either 1937, 1949 or 1962 depending on your point of view. I don't see how you can argue the UK has existed since 1801.

CIA factbook currently considers the current UK's formation as 1927 based on the name change.

The Kingdom of Ireland was not dissolved - it was renamed the Kingdom of Northern Ireland to reflect geographical reality in 1926. So the constitutional arrangements remained. As so often, the CIA has got it wrong.

EDIT - it is of course worth pointing out that new constitutional arrangements were brought in in 1922 for Northern Ireland as well. But those were bestowed by London, rather than being part of a new statute. They were not very good either and were shockingly badly implemented, although I appreciate that isn't really relevant to your point.

Dair

richardDodd said:

Dair .. not too many Eskimos either..WTF

There are THREE MILLION Germans of Turkish origin, almost entirely post 1960s immigrants.

This is a significant, large population and yet, despite the arguments that Germany is some stepping stone to the UK (despite better wages, better employment opportunities, better pensions, better state support, better living standards) is fundamentally wrong.

It is based on the old British patriarchal attitude that Britain is Best and any facts which suggest otherwise can be ignored.

Dair

ydoethur said:

Dair said:

ydoethur said:

Dair said:

JohnLilburne said:

philiph said:

David uses the expression :Ultimately the Union must unite or perish.

I think Ulitately the Union must unite, and then perish or perish. Ever closer union are the words that are the death warrant for the EU.

There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.

Nothing exists permanently. The UK has existed formally for 300 years, in practice a little bit longer. The Russian Empire and then the USSR for quite some time (Central Asia was incorporated in the 19th century). Spain since Ferdinand and Isabella. India fell apart as the Moghuls lost their power, was reunited under the East India Company and the British Empire and is a united country of many nationalities and religions of over a billion souls. All have had bits that split off, but are not arguments for stating that the EU can't last for quite a bit longer.

The UK, in it's current form has existed for less than 100 years.

Within its current borders, it has existed since 1922. In its current legal and constitutional form, it has existed since 1801. The Kingdom of Great Britain has existed de jure since 1707, although only on rare occasions between 1603 and 1707 had Scotland attempted to assert its independence, usually with disastrous consequences (the Battle of Dunbar, the Darien scheme). England has not existed as a whole, single and unadorned entity since the Battle of Hastings in 1066.

Don't you just love the complexities of history?

The 1801 state was dissolved by the ending of the Kingdom of Ireland in either 1937, 1949 or 1962 depending on your point of view. I don't see how you can argue the UK has existed since 1801.

CIA factbook currently considers the current UK's formation as 1927 based on the name change.

The Kingdom of Ireland was not dissolved - it was renamed the Kingdom of Northern Ireland to reflect geographical reality in 1926. So the constitutional arrangements remained. As so often, the CIA has got it wrong.

EDIT - it is of course worth pointing out that new constitutional arrangements were brought in in 1922 for Northern Ireland as well. But those were bestowed by London, rather than being part of a new statute. They were not very good either and were shockingly badly implemented, although I appreciate that isn't really relevant to your point.

No, it wasn't.

The Kingdom of Northern Ireland was never created. Perhaps stupidly, the Crown decided to try to maintain it;s influence over the Republic of Ireland by giving it the mandate over the Kingdom of Ireland. A mandate they chose to end permanently and finally in 1962.

Plato_Says

Is a *disloyalty payment* one where you're bribing someone to do something against your interests? I've never seen the term before.

Blatter looking at 5yrs in jail apparently if found guilty.

richardDodd said:

OT...FIFA...Is corruption the new norm now

Dair

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

How many German Turks are in the UK?

That's right, virtually none. This is the most bogus of the racists arguments.

Nope, that argument has already been comprehensively demolished on here in the past. The Turkish community was well established in Germany before the UK joined the EU. If you want a proper comparison look at what happened to the Dutch Somali community who moved in very large numbers to the UK after they had initially been accepted for asylum in the Netherlands.

You don't debunk anything by going off topic.

The claim is simple, the patriarchists believe that immigration to any EU country is a stepping stone to immigration to the UK. It is not.

The specific reason the Dutch Somalis moved to the UK was because of the UKs ridiculous attempts at the Multicultural model whereas Netherland was and is Integrationist. Multiculturalism let them concentrate and continue the practise of revolting "cultural traditions" like FGM which they found increasingly difficult in the Netherlands.

isam

Makes JCs non singing of the anthem look Churchillian

"An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.

In an explanation to his family, hospital workers were said to have claimed ‘they didn’t want to upset people’ because they ‘have lots of different cultures coming in’.

Sergeant Prendeville’s father, Jim, said: ‘Mark was moved because of his uniform – he was told that twice' "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249717/Hospital-told-RAF-sergeant-leave-waiting-room-case-uniform-upset-patients.html

Plato_Says

I'm justing catching up with Kipper Central's conference fun. http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/major-ukip-donor-says-partys-only-mp-is-borderline-autistic

BuzzFeed News: “Douglas Carswell has just issued a statement saying that today’s events more than ever have convinced him that the group to get official designation is the one headed by Business for Britain…”

Arron Banks: “[laughs] He’s borderline autistic with mental illness wrapped in…”

Aides: “Say it’s off the record, say it’s off the record…”

Their donors seem to think rather like Ashcroft that they can buy a great deal of influence - Arron Banks is a complete plonker re Carswell and gate-crashing Farage's own press briefing.

And isn't another donor pissed off that their donation was used to pay off a loan made by another one?

More http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/09/exclusive-ukip-split-widens-as-douglas-carswell-backs-other-leave-campaign/

Richard_Tyndall

Dair said:

richardDodd said:

Dair .. not too many Eskimos either..WTF

There are THREE MILLION Germans of Turkish origin, almost entirely post 1960s immigrants.

This is a significant, large population and yet, despite the arguments that Germany is some stepping stone to the UK (despite better wages, better employment opportunities, better pensions, better state support, better living standards) is fundamentally wrong.

It is based on the old British patriarchal attitude that Britain is Best and any facts which suggest otherwise can be ignored.

Nope. As I said previously, you are making an entirely false analogy given that large parts of the Turkish migration and certainly the establishment of Turkish communities happened before the UK joined the EU.

SquareRoot

isam said:

Makes JCs non singing of the anthem look Churchillian

"An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.

In an explanation to his family, hospital workers were said to have claimed ‘they didn’t want to upset people’ because they ‘have lots of different cultures coming in’.

Sergeant Prendeville’s father, Jim, said: ‘Mark was moved because of his uniform – he was told that twice' "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249717/Hospital-told-RAF-sergeant-leave-waiting-room-case-uniform-upset-patients.html

If its true then the hospital authorities are a disgrace.
Already considering emigrating. This country is going to the dogs.

richardDodd

SR The Sergeant should have told them where to go..

Charles

philiph said:

There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.

The formation of the United States?

The federation of the USA with the Republic of Texas?

India's a pretty good example as well. Yes, Bangladesh and Pakistan were hived off, but the multiplicity of Hindi princely states were combined despite their differences (e.g. I spent a couple of days this week in Ahmedabad which, as a dry, vegetarian, state is very different to, say, Mumbai)

Scrapheap_as_was

The first thing I think when I see a Labour party riven with policy fractures and conflicts...

Respect.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34366569

Plato_Says

WTF?

Jeremy Corbyn has claimed that 9/11 was "manipulated" to make it look like Osama Bin Laden was responsible to allow the West to go to war in Afghanistan.

In comments that will raise questions about his suitability to lead the Labour Party, Mr Corbyn appeared to blame George Bush and Tony Blair for using the September 11 attacks in New York to allow them to go to war.

In a series of further articles, Mr Corbyn also appears to endorse controversial conspiracy theories about a “New World Order”.

SquareRoot said:

CarlottaVance said:

Jeremy is on to the lizards:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11892383/Jeremy-Corbyn-911-was-manipulated.html

The article says it raises questions about his suitability.. frankly it raises questions about his sanity..
Can't see anyone wanting to share secret info with Corbyn. It would be like offering David Icke a quick look.

Richard_Tyndall

Dair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

How many German Turks are in the UK?

That's right, virtually none. This is the most bogus of the racists arguments.

Nope, that argument has already been comprehensively demolished on here in the past. The Turkish community was well established in Germany before the UK joined the EU. If you want a proper comparison look at what happened to the Dutch Somali community who moved in very large numbers to the UK after they had initially been accepted for asylum in the Netherlands.

You don't debunk any example by providing a completely different example.

The claim is simple, the patriarchists believe that immigration to any EU country is a stepping stone to immigration to the UK. It is not.

The specific reason the Dutch Somalis moved to the UK was because of the UKs ridiculous attempts at the Multicultural model whereas Netherland was and is Integrationist.

Nope. That is a straw man argument and you know it. I note you changed your original posting from 'racist' to 'patriarch', perhaps betraying what you really think about this argument.

The argument made is not that we think they will all want to come to the UK. It is that there will be significant numbers who will want to spread out around the EU rather than remain in Germany.

This applies not just to the UK but to France, Spain, Denmark and any other country in the EU. If you are talking of tens of thousands of people arriving in Germany then that would not be an issue. When you are talking about in excess of 1 million in one year with a German policy of encouraging many more in subsequent years then it does become a problem, not just for the UK but for the whole of the EU.

I know with your hatred for the UK and your fanatical Europhilia you are desperate to paint this as just the UK and its supposed 'patriarchal' (or racist as you seem to believe) views, but in fact it is about the whole German policy of encouraging large scale migration into Europe assuming that if it gets too much for Germany they can just palm it off on the rest of the EU.

Dair

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

richardDodd said:

Dair .. not too many Eskimos either..WTF

There are THREE MILLION Germans of Turkish origin, almost entirely post 1960s immigrants.

This is a significant, large population and yet, despite the arguments that Germany is some stepping stone to the UK (despite better wages, better employment opportunities, better pensions, better state support, better living standards) is fundamentally wrong.

It is based on the old British patriarchal attitude that Britain is Best and any facts which suggest otherwise can be ignored.

Nope. As I said previously, you are making an entirely false analogy given that large parts of the Turkish migration and certainly the establishment of Turkish communities happened before the UK joined the EU.

Again you just ignore the facts.

Over half of German Turks still retain their Turkish citizenship indicating that vastly more have been post 1973 and given the age profile, significant numbers post 1992.

ydoethur

Dair said:

No, it wasn't.

The Kingdom of Northern Ireland was never created. Perhaps stupidly, the Crown decided to try to maintain it;s influence over the Republic of Ireland by giving it the mandate over the Kingdom of Ireland. A mandate they chose to end permanently and finally in 1962.

I think you will find if you double-check that actually the original treaty of 1922 allowed for the Irish Free State to contain all the counties of Ireland, but gave six an opt-out clause where those powers would be 'suspended' after one month if the inhabitants of those counties so wished, which option was exercised by all six. (This was of course particularly contentious in areas like Fermanagh and Tyrone, which had large Catholic areas contiguous with the Republic, but whose vote was swayed by very slightly larger Protestant communities to the north - it was also somewhat difficult in Donegal, which had a large Protestant minority).

Although Ireland never officially gave up its claim to the North until the Good Friday agreement, when the Boundary Commission failed in 1926 it was accepted that Ireland would remain partitioned and that was when the Kingdom of Ireland was renamed the Kingdom of Northern Ireland and it was tacitly accepted the Free State would go its own way as a new Dominion of Ireland, not a kingdom. In response, its share of British debt was written off and at that point it really became a new country in its own right, although for various reasons it did not officially become a republic until 1949.

I know very little about Irish history after the fall of de Valera in 1948, and I have no idea what happened in 1962. So I can't comment either way on that point. The simple fact is that there is a clear Kingdom, in Ireland, united with the British crown since 1801 that can be traced without difficulty to the present day, and that is why I would argue the UK dates from 1801 although its boundaries have changed over time.

Hope that helps.

Theuniondivvie

SquareRoot said:

isam said:

Makes JCs non singing of the anthem look Churchillian

"An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.

In an explanation to his family, hospital workers were said to have claimed ‘they didn’t want to upset people’ because they ‘have lots of different cultures coming in’.

Sergeant Prendeville’s father, Jim, said: ‘Mark was moved because of his uniform – he was told that twice' "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249717/Hospital-told-RAF-sergeant-leave-waiting-room-case-uniform-upset-patients.html

If its true then the hospital authorities are a disgrace.
Already considering emigrating. This country is going to the dogs.

Lol.
Will you define yourself as a migrant?

isam

SquareRoot said:

isam said:

Makes JCs non singing of the anthem look Churchillian

"An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.

In an explanation to his family, hospital workers were said to have claimed ‘they didn’t want to upset people’ because they ‘have lots of different cultures coming in’.

Sergeant Prendeville’s father, Jim, said: ‘Mark was moved because of his uniform – he was told that twice' "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249717/Hospital-told-RAF-sergeant-leave-waiting-room-case-uniform-upset-patients.html

If its true then the hospital authorities are a disgrace.
Already considering emigrating. This country is going to the dogs.

Incredible. Seems to be true from this

https://twitter.com/toryboypierce/status/647690396001267713

Dair

Charles said:

philiph said:

There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.

The formation of the United States?

The federation of the USA with the Republic of Texas?

India's a pretty good example as well. Yes, Bangladesh and Pakistan were hived off, but the multiplicity of Hindi princely states were combined despite their differences (e.g. I spent a couple of days this week in Ahmedabad which, as a dry, vegetarian, state is very different to, say, Mumbai)

The USA (and to an extent China) provide a counter-point to the general trend but they do seem quite exceptional in history and the stability of a post-Authoritarian China is pretty questionable.

India is a very young country, it's long term stability is yet to be proven.

Meanwhile we have all the examples from history of multi-national states which have all fallen apart and this continues today in Europe and Africa.

Scott_P

@HuffPostUKPol: David Miliband is the preferred candidate to replace Jeremy Corbyn among Labour voters http://t.co/g8eIZi91VJ http://t.co/4f6u2Kudv3

Richard_Tyndall

Dair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

richardDodd said:

Dair .. not too many Eskimos either..WTF

There are THREE MILLION Germans of Turkish origin, almost entirely post 1960s immigrants.

This is a significant, large population and yet, despite the arguments that Germany is some stepping stone to the UK (despite better wages, better employment opportunities, better pensions, better state support, better living standards) is fundamentally wrong.

It is based on the old British patriarchal attitude that Britain is Best and any facts which suggest otherwise can be ignored.

Nope. As I said previously, you are making an entirely false analogy given that large parts of the Turkish migration and certainly the establishment of Turkish communities happened before the UK joined the EU.

Again you just ignore the facts.

Over half of German Turks still retain their Turkish citizenship indicating that vastly more have been post 1973 and given the age profile, significant numbers post 1992.

Not so. There is no requirement for any Turk to lose Turkish citizenship if they take German/EU citizenship and there won't be until 2023. The law to give newborns automatic German citizenship only came into effect in 2000 and they can still retain their parent's nationality until they reach the age of 23. So the first enforced choice between German and Turkish citizenship won't happen for another 8 years.

ydoethur

Charles said:

philiph said:

There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.

The formation of the United States?

The federation of the USA with the Republic of Texas?

India's a pretty good example as well. Yes, Bangladesh and Pakistan were hived off, but the multiplicity of Hindi princely states were combined despite their differences (e.g. I spent a couple of days this week in Ahmedabad which, as a dry, vegetarian, state is very different to, say, Mumbai)

Don't forget Sri Lanka!

The best example of the lot might be China - a civilisation state with innumerable different nationalities and indeed two roughly equal dominant languages (Mandarin and Cantonese) not including dozens of others. And how long has China endured as a major state, leaving out the weakness of its first republican government from 1912 to 1925 (or perhaps 1949)?

http://www.martinjacques.com/articles/civilization-state-versus-nation-state-2/

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Very good piece, Mr. Herdson.

F1: frustrating about Sainz's tyres, good that Kvyat seems ok. Pre-race piece will likely be up around midday.

Dair

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

You don't debunk any example by providing a completely different example.

The claim is simple, the patriarchists believe that immigration to any EU country is a stepping stone to immigration to the UK. It is not.

The specific reason the Dutch Somalis moved to the UK was because of the UKs ridiculous attempts at the Multicultural model whereas Netherland was and is Integrationist.

Nope. That is a straw man argument and you know it. I note you changed your original posting from 'racist' to 'patriarch', perhaps betraying what you really think about this argument.

The argument made is not that we think they will all want to come to the UK. It is that there will be significant numbers who will want to spread out around the EU rather than remain in Germany.

This applies not just to the UK but to France, Spain, Denmark and any other country in the EU. If you are talking of tens of thousands of people arriving in Germany then that would not be an issue. When you are talking about in excess of 1 million in one year with a German policy of encouraging many more in subsequent years then it does become a problem, not just for the UK but for the whole of the EU.

I know with your hatred for the UK and your fanatical Europhilia you are desperate to paint this as just the UK and its supposed 'patriarchal' (or racist as you seem to believe) views, but in fact it is about the whole German policy of encouraging large scale migration into Europe assuming that if it gets too much for Germany they can just palm it off on the rest of the EU.

While there are racist aspects to the debate, the specifics of the "they all want to come here" nonsense is Patriarchal not Racist, hence the edit.

You bring up France - another fine example. How many French Algerians are there in the UK? Very few.

The irony here is that you are against something I am also against. But your argument is fundamentally flawed and based on age old Patriarchal biases which are completely alien to the real world.

HYUFD

Charles said:

philiph said:

There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.

The formation of the United States?

The federation of the USA with the Republic of Texas?

India's a pretty good example as well. Yes, Bangladesh and Pakistan were hived off, but the multiplicity of Hindi princely states were combined despite their differences (e.g. I spent a couple of days this week in Ahmedabad which, as a dry, vegetarian, state is very different to, say, Mumbai)

Germany too, Bavaria and Prussia and Saxony used to be separate Kingdoms. In Italy so do did the likes of Naples and the city state of Venice. Spain obviously had Castile and Aragon and Catalonia. Canada had Quebec and in Australia even Western Australia once had an independence vote. Belgium had Flanders. In fact France is probably the only major nation which has been effectively unified since the middle ages

Charles

CarlottaVance said:

foxinsoxuk said:

The problem is not the EU

No - but the EU (or more specifically Merkel) has exacerbated the situation with the initial 'come one come all' - the people smuggler's patron - and the parsimonious response to the crisis in the first place (honourable exceptions US & UK).

Until we stop the 'get to the border and you're home free' the problem won't go away. We need to start shipping economic migrants out pronto and find some way of processing refugees in circumstances which make getting to Western Europe in the first place irrelevant to the out come. Australia has seen a collapse in people smuggling......

It seems to me that the problem is the apparent inability to deport asylum seekers in a timely fashion.

The issue (AIUI) is (1) the process takes too long & then they claim right to remain under family ties or some such; and (2) they destroy identity cards making it hard to identify their country of origin (often leading to suspect CoO rejecting deportees).

It seems to me that (1) can be fixed by speeding up the process and limiting the ability to appeal - perhaps just to one appeal on the facts. Additionally an application for asylum should explicitly disclaim the right to any further appeal. It's in everyone's interests that decisions are made quickly. (2) can then be fixed by having deportation to the country of *entry* not country of origin. Hence people coming via Calais get deported to France (who can then track them back to their country of entry), by plane will be known.

Perhaps we should also limit the places asylum can be claimed to significant ports and airports?

ydoethur

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

philiph said:

There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.

The formation of the United States?

The federation of the USA with the Republic of Texas?

India's a pretty good example as well. Yes, Bangladesh and Pakistan were hived off, but the multiplicity of Hindi princely states were combined despite their differences (e.g. I spent a couple of days this week in Ahmedabad which, as a dry, vegetarian, state is very different to, say, Mumbai)

Germany too, Bavaria and Prussia and Saxony used to be separate Kingdoms. In Italy so do did the likes of Naples and the city state of Venice. Spain obviously had Castile and Aragon and Catalonia. Canada had Quebec and in Australia even Western Australia once had an independence vote

And Hanover - indeed, until 1837 the King of Britain/the UK was also separately King of Hanover, which caused more than a few problems in the Napoleonic wars.

PS - wasn't Venice a republic rather than a Kingdom until it was splurged by Napoleon?

richardDodd

So Corbyn thinks that Bush persuaded the Islamic crews of four passenger jets to take off..within an hour of each other..two of them to fly into the TT ..One into the Pentagon and the other into a field...killing well over 3 thousand innocent people, mainly US citizens..just so he could declare war...That makes a lot of sense.. yep .. I could buy that....Go Corby, you have a winner there....WTF...How long does it take to fly to Mars..or anywhere out there...

taffys

'Incredible. Seems to be true from this'

What a fool Pierce is. The poor staff at the hospital are working in a poisonous atmosphere and simply don't want trouble. This comes from far higher up.

Morris_Dancer

F1: press release due next week on a Renault-Lotus deal:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/34368181

Dair

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

philiph said:

There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.

The formation of the United States?

The federation of the USA with the Republic of Texas?

India's a pretty good example as well. Yes, Bangladesh and Pakistan were hived off, but the multiplicity of Hindi princely states were combined despite their differences (e.g. I spent a couple of days this week in Ahmedabad which, as a dry, vegetarian, state is very different to, say, Mumbai)

Germany too, Bavaria and Prussia and Saxony used to be separate Kingdoms. In Italy so do did the likes of Naples and the city state of Venice. Spain obviously had Castile and Aragon and Catalonia. Canada had Quebec and in Australia even Western Australia once had an independence vote. Belgium had Flanders. In fact France is probably the only major nation which has been effectively unified since the middle ages

Germany and Italy were made up of sub-national States not Nations.

The concept and idea of being German or Italian exists long before the Nations became unified. They are not good examples.

Richard_Tyndall

Dair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

You don't debunk any example by providing a completely different example.

The claim is simple, the patriarchists believe that immigration to any EU country is a stepping stone to immigration to the UK. It is not.

The specific reason the Dutch Somalis moved to the UK was because of the UKs ridiculous attempts at the Multicultural model whereas Netherland was and is Integrationist.

Nope. That is a straw man argument and you know it. I note you changed your original posting from 'racist' to 'patriarch', perhaps betraying what you really think about this argument.

The argument made is not that we think they will all want to come to the UK. It is that there will be significant numbers who will want to spread out around the EU rather than remain in Germany.

This applies not just to the UK but to France, Spain, Denmark and any other country in the EU. If you are talking of tens of thousands of people arriving in Germany then that would not be an issue. When you are talking about in excess of 1 million in one year with a German policy of encouraging many more in subsequent years then it does become a problem, not just for the UK but for the whole of the EU.

I know with your hatred for the UK and your fanatical Europhilia you are desperate to paint this as just the UK and its supposed 'patriarchal' (or racist as you seem to believe) views, but in fact it is about the whole German policy of encouraging large scale migration into Europe assuming that if it gets too much for Germany they can just palm it off on the rest of the EU.

While there are racist aspects to the debate, the specifics of the "they all want to come here" nonsense is Patriarchal not Racist, hence the edit.

You bring up France - another fine example. How many French Algerians are there in the UK? Very few.

The irony here is that you are against something I am also against. But your argument is fundamentally flawed and based on age old Patriarchal biases which are completely alien to the real world.

Again, a straw man argument given the history between France and Algeria and the shared language. And just as importantly given that both Turkish and Algerian migration to their respective European hosts took place over an extended period of time - not 1 million in a single year. And since significant numbers of those travelling to Germany are not Syrians but are from places like Pakistan, I wonder where they will eventually want to settle?

Plato_Says

It sounds like he's been listening to too much Prison Planet radio as well - all this NWO stuff.

Whilst I'm not beyond being open to the odd conspiracy theory, talking about POTUS/CIA killing their own people in order to go to war...errr...

richardDodd said:

So Corbyn thinks that Bush persuaded the Islamic crews of four passenger jets to take off..within an hour of each other..two of them to fly into the TT ..One into the Pentagon and the other into a field...killing well over 3 thousand innocent people, mainly US citizens..just so he could declare war...That makes a lot of sense.. yep .. I could buy that....Go Corby, you have a winner there....WTF...How long does it take to fly to Mars..or anywhere out there...

Charles

DavidL said:

If it is not to be the United States of Europe what is the EU's function? Well, ideally, it is a constitutional structure which allows the many small countries in this divided continent of ours to work together to address problems that affect them all. The European Arrest Warrant is a good example. ...

The EU also allows the small countries of Europe to have some say in international standards and gives EU companies a domestic market exceeding even the US in size. I think people underestimate how important that market is to the UK. ...

So if we did not have something like the EU I think we would need to invent it.

... But Europe is simply too small in the modern world to have 30 independent non co-operating countries without a single market and all that that entails.

Your logic is correct, your conclusion absolutely wrong. I'd go so far as to say it's a straw man, which is unusual for you.

The EAW is a good example of how countries should cooperate.

International standards and free trade are a good thing.

Neither require a structure like the EU. The EEC, certainly, but no need to sublimate our sovereignty.

ydoethur

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

Charles said:

philiph said:

There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.

The formation of the United States?

The federation of the USA with the Republic of Texas?

India's a pretty good example as well. Yes, Bangladesh and Pakistan were hived off, but the multiplicity of Hindi princely states were combined despite their differences (e.g. I spent a couple of days this week in Ahmedabad which, as a dry, vegetarian, state is very different to, say, Mumbai)

Germany too, Bavaria and Prussia and Saxony used to be separate Kingdoms. In Italy so do did the likes of Naples and the city state of Venice. Spain obviously had Castile and Aragon and Catalonia. Canada had Quebec and in Australia even Western Australia once had an independence vote. Belgium had Flanders. In fact France is probably the only major nation which has been effectively unified since the middle ages

Germany and Italy were made up of sub-national States not Nations.

The concept and idea of being German or Italian exists long before the Nations became unified. They are not good examples.

The key unifying factor there would of course be the language, even allowing for some dialectic variations. You could perhaps mention Spain as a similar example, although there were a number of different factors at play in forming the kingdom including the remnants of the Reconquista. (And of course, there is the question of Catalonia and the Basque region so Spain can't be considered particularly stable at the moment.)

Recidivist

Mortimer said:

Wonderful piece David.

What has worried me over the past few years is that the democratic deficit seems to be widening- and without any real attemp to fix it...

A good point. If they don't solve that it won't matter if they get everything else right.

taffys

.How long does it take to fly to Mars..or anywhere out there...

The fact remains that the West's response to 9/11 was to destroy one of the bulwarks against Islamic radicalism - Saddam Hussein.

He may have been guilty of many things, but blowing up the twin towers was not one of them. Going to war on that pretext was a giant lie.

Plato_Says

@ydoethur - great FT piece - this made me laugh

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/63553bf2-622f-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html#ixzz3mpiihbGv

“There’s nothing to gloat about,” says Sajid Javid, business secretary. “It’s the election of a serious person. He has shown he can motivate people. We should take him seriously.”

Privately the Tories say something else. “This is proof that God is a Conservative,” says one Cameron ally. The Cameron/Osborne strategy is to hope that Corbyn remains leader as long as possible and that years of leftwing-inspired chaos will cause irreparable damage to the Labour brand.

“We haven’t even started going back through his Morning Star columns,” adds the Cameron friend, referring to the Labour leader’s writing in the far-left newspaper.

richardDodd

taffys..Do you actually believe it was deliberately set up by 9.11..honestly..whatever the subsequent actions..do you really believe that..

ydoethur

taffys said:

.How long does it take to fly to Mars..or anywhere out there...

The fact remains that the West's response to 9/11 was to destroy one of the bulwarks against Islamic radicalism - Saddam Hussein.

He may have been guilty of many things, but blowing up the twin towers was not one of them. Going to war on that pretext was a giant lie.

Was that the pretext? As I recall (and I was quite young at the time, only 19-20 so I would be willing to be told I was wrong) he was a threat to the world because of his weapons of mass destruction that could either be used by him or fall into the wrong hands and the United States, after 9/11, was unwilling to tolerate such threats. So he was compared to al-Qaeda rather than linked to them.

As we all now know, the WMD issue was the most rubbish to the square second since The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but I think that was the case rather than a direct responsibility for the Twin Towers.

If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it.

isam

Dair said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Dair said:

You don't debunk any example by providing a completely different example.

The claim is simple, the patriarchists believe that immigration to any EU country is a stepping stone to immigration to the UK. It is not.

The specific reason the Dutch Somalis moved to the UK was because of the UKs ridiculous attempts at the Multicultural model whereas Netherland was and is Integrationist.

Nope. That is a straw man argument and you know it. I note you changed your original posting from 'racist' to 'patriarch', perhaps betraying what you really think about this argument.

The argument made is not that we think they will all want to come to the UK. It is that there will be significant numbers who will want to spread out around the EU rather than remain in Germany.

This applies not just to the UK but to France, Spain, Denmark and any other country in the EU. If you are talking of tens of thousands of people arriving in Germany then that would not be an issue. When you are talking about in excess of 1 million in one year with a German policy of encouraging many more in subsequent years then it does become a problem, not just for the UK but for the whole of the EU.

I know with your hatred for the UK and your fanatical Europhilia you are desperate to paint this as just the UK and its supposed 'patriarchal' (or racist as you seem to believe) views, but in fact it is about the whole German policy of encouraging large scale migration into Europe assuming that if it gets too much for Germany they can just palm it off on the rest of the EU.

While there are racist aspects to the debate, the specifics of the "they all want to come here" nonsense is Patriarchal not Racist, hence the edit.

You bring up France - another fine example. How many French Algerians are there in the UK? Very few.

The irony here is that you are against something I am also against. But your argument is fundamentally flawed and based on age old Patriarchal biases which are completely alien to the real world.

French Algerians and German Turks are similar to British Jamaicans though aren't they? The immigration was pre EU and so there were established communities (as well as colonial history in two cases). There aren't many Jamaicans in Europe outside of Britain

I can't see that's the same as the migrants travelling from Syria now, who are not all from one country and would be arriving en masse rather than gradually

Charles

Dair said:

Charles said:

philiph said:

There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.

The formation of the United States?

The federation of the USA with the Republic of Texas?

India's a pretty good example as well. Yes, Bangladesh and Pakistan were hived off, but the multiplicity of Hindi princely states were combined despite their differences (e.g. I spent a couple of days this week in Ahmedabad which, as a dry, vegetarian, state is very different to, say, Mumbai)

The USA (and to an extent China) provide a counter-point to the general trend but they do seem quite exceptional in history and the stability of a post-Authoritarian China is pretty questionable.

India is a very young country, it's long term stability is yet to be proven.

Meanwhile we have all the examples from history of multi-national states which have all fallen apart and this continues today in Europe and Africa.

Can you imagine a musical being made about Merkel and Juncker?

This is from the current smash hit on Broadway - Hamilton: the Musical

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wboCdgzLHg

TCPoliticalBetting

foxinsoxuk said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

JackW said:

Agreement on PB before breakfast is to be severely deprecated.

Accordingly in contrast to @Mortimer I find this Herders offering to be absolute tosh and it should have been censored in favour of a thread on the wonders of AV that has long merited the attention of PB worthies.

I agree with Mortimer and David Herdson.
So jackw you disagree as all europhiles would. But what is your view on what the EC should do?

What should the countries do if the EU did not exist? The problem would not go away and would not be managed any better.

Well it is the Schengen Act that is the facilitator of the land routes through Europe.

Charles

Sean_F said:

watford30 said:

malcolmg said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Some of the EU"s response to the migrant crisis is inadequate and some poorly co-ordinated, but would it look much different if the EU or Shengen did not exist at all?

The main stream of migrants cross an external border into Greece, then leave the EU and Shengen to enter FYR Macedonia, then enter another Non-EU state in Serbia, then re-enter the EU into Croatia before running into border controls at Slovenia, Austria or Hungary, and again into Germany.

The problem is not the EU, it is the collapse of functioning states across the Muslim part of the world, the lack of effective policing of borders whether in the EU or not and the Refugee Convention. The problem is happening in Europe but is not caused by the EU and would look much the same if all countries were completely autonomous.

But I am not sure that even tearing up the refugee convention would halt the flood.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/time-to-tear-up-the-refugee-convention/17436#.VgYsRhBwaBY

close the borders properly and stop the boats landing. Would soon stop if they just owed all boats back for a few weeks and anyone reaching land/crossing borders was immediately given choice of return to where they wanted to go or a camp on some barren island.

'Stop the boats landing' How? The migrants and smugglers will simply scuttle them either out at sea, or close to land, within sight of patrol vessels. And those fortunate enough not to drown will be rescued.

Return the people to their point of embarkation. The Spanish did it, when faced with an influx of boat people from West Africa, some years ago.

I think that's the only way to stop it

flightpath01

Dair said:

JohnLilburne said:

philiph said:

David uses the expression :Ultimately the Union must unite or perish.

I think Ulitately the Union must unite, and then perish or perish. Ever closer union are the words that are the death warrant for the EU.

There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.

Nothing exists permanently. The UK has existed formally for 300 years, in practice a little bit longer. The Russian Empire and then the USSR for quite some time (Central Asia was incorporated in the 19th century). Spain since Ferdinand and Isabella. India fell apart as the Moghuls lost their power, was reunited under the East India Company and the British Empire and is a united country of many nationalities and religions of over a billion souls. All have had bits that split off, but are not arguments for stating that the EU can't last for quite a bit longer.

The UK, in it's current form has existed for less than 100 years.

'He would say that wouldn't he?'

taffys

''taffys..Do you actually believe it was deliberately set up by 9.11..honestly..whatever the subsequent actions..do you really believe that..''

Of course not. And neither does Corbyn, if you look at what he says.

He simply claims that this event was used to attack an enemy that had zero to do with that attack.

There was zero link between Hussein and Al Quaida, except that Hussein opposed AQ, like he opposed all islamist groups with a vengeance.

Attacking Iraq after 9/11 is a little bit like attacking China after Pearl Harbour.