• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For Europe, the party's over. It’s not clear what comes next

Simpleχity;1065897632 said:

I do not think Pete will agree, but the article is relatively well balanced and correct on many points. That it does not list them all is quite okay, as it would otherwise be too long.
But as far as Germany goes, it painted itself into a horrible corner and has only itself to blame.
Simpleχity;1065897632 said:

It's been clear for years.
First balkanization, then sectarian violence, then collapse of governments, welfare systems, and basic human rights.
We are already at a stage of low level sectarian violence with no-go zones, gang warfare along ethnic lines and whatnot. If an Anders Breivik type walks into a mosque tomorrow and slaughters the congregation, the fuse will be lit. It could happen tomorrow or in 10 years. What matters is that at present no state in Europe is geared to handle what will happen if tempers flare and people start killing each other. Police forces and militaries have never been weaker. The bureaucracies and lawmakers are already unable to cope with the fairly minor problems we presently face, culturally, economically and politically, never mind the demographic problems lurking on the horizon and the fact that people no longer trust their lawful leadership. The EU, if it continues as hitherto, has pretty much ascertained that Europe will know war in our lifetimes.

Simpleχity;1065897632 said:

Interesting article, but it has its problems. He neglects to point out who is to blame and instead lays all blame at Merkels feet.. and that is frankly pathetic. For example.

Merkel’s calls for “European solidarity” in sheltering refugees largely fell on deaf ears, however. After all, Germany hadn’t shown the same solidarity a few months earlier, when Italy and Greece were overwhelmed by thousands of migrants arriving on their shores. Rules about returning asylum seekers to “safe third countries” were designed to keep them out of wealthy Northern European states. When Merkel decided to welcome Syrian war refugees stranded in Hungary, her unilateral action took her neighbors by surprise.

He fails to point out, that the reason Germany did not show "solidarity" was because there was a discussion going on between EU members to change the rules which he points out are rules to prevent asylum seekers from going to the wealthy Northern European states. But because of certain countries blocking changes (UK, Denmark, Poland among others), then she was forced into action when the **** really hit the fan.

Why is it every time journalists fail to mention who is against changing the current rules in the EU? Those are the countries who should be named and shamed, not those countries who actually help out.

Also the fact that he pushes the narrative that Europe is some kind of unified "country" like system.. it never has been and is not not, so why on earth do people think it is? Europe with the EU in the middle do not have common immigration, asylum or anything similar rules..They have a patchwork system that still means that the national state has pretty much all the power. There is no common border police and so on.

The irony is, that if Europe DID have more integration on things like immigration rules, asylum rules, border protection and so on.. then the situation would be much different.
Does anyone remember the contract on the change of the EU-Constitution? What it entailed for greater transparency and indeed democracy?

And how it failed to reach acceptance thus bringing along the Lisbon treaty that now has many grumbling ?

Does anybody at all know the reluctance of Germany at the time towards installing a European currency? And which parties held it over a barrel by otherwise refusing to allow German unification?

The reasons for Merkel opening the gates last year have already been addressed but all that's being bleated now is how Germany is engineering the fall of the Occident (against whatever dark conspiracy that neither authorship nor actual substance can be determined of, respectively for).

Where the opposition comes from towards a direly needed common Fiscal and Economic policy (as in common fiscal and economic government) that is needed to make the currency work?

It's just gotta be Merkel as well, never waste a good mad on anyone other than a bogeyman already established.

To avoid these question on the basis of the article, had it listed them as well, being too long and to then still call it well balanced is simply stupid. The main aim of threads like these (no offence to the OP who may not even have the intention) is to further a load of grumbles all the way to doomsday predictions.

Other than piping into the general brainless screech of either demanding or hoping for the dismantlement of the EU altogether, there's simply nothing constructive coming.

There're plenty of issues to criticize but most don't appear to know a single pertinent one of them.
Top Bottom