IGX

So Merkel has been in power in Germany for 13 years, and in that time has had a notoriously open policy toward mass migration from areas outside of the EU: Syria sure, but also Afghanistan, Libya, and other portions of Africa which our President helpfully glosses as "shitholes".

Recently, she won reelection, but had to form a government coalition using the help of another party, the center-right Christian Social Union, led by a fella named Seehofer. As it goes in parliamentarian societies, that entitled him to a juicy cut of the government, and he in turn was made Minister for the Interior. He has used that position to resist Merkel's immigration policy which would allow people who have entered other, non-German states illegally, to travel unchallenged to Germany using the EU's open border policy. He and his supporters in Bavaria have been demanding that they be kept out and not allowed to enter Germany via this technical loophole.

They came to a compromise: detention at the border. Any migrant who was found to have entered and claimed status in some other country will now be immediately deported to that country. Those who have not applied for status elsewhere will be allowed to enter. This process will require the monitoring of borders that the EU was intended to make obsolete, as well as the segregation of entrants (i.e., whitey gets in, darkie not so much). The problem is that if Germany does that, every country bordering Germany will have to do it too, or they become holding grounds for these migrants.

It also proves what the right wing have been saying all along; that stricter border control is necessary. Thus, this is a victory for conservatives, right wingers, and nativists and cedes to them the political center of gravity. Combine that with the general shift of the Eastern European countries to the right, such as you see in Poland and Hungary, and what have you got?

I think, in many ways, it is one of the first big cracks in the EU, the other being Brexit. The shine is off the apple and I don't think that, in 20 years, there will be an EU. As crazy as that sounds, remember the USSR? Gone in a day.

Does anyone follow this stuff or have any thoughts? I'm just one person, and I'm limited to observing from afar.

Pretty much calling it.

Problems that are Over There that you think you can ignore have a way of becoming problems Back Here. Syria and Africa for Europe, Central America for us.

A couple years back I used to track this when I was overseas. It was when it was going really hot and heavy. A few thoughts:

1. Governments have treaty obligations to refugee/asylum seekers. They also have pretty broad discretion on how they implement them. There are a lot of ways to deny requests.
2. Keeping refugee/asylum seekers out is a huge foreign policy issue for Europe-- it's a major factor for the major states that act as a border (north African states and Turkey). It's probably a big unspoken part of the Iran nuclear deal too-- Iran's part of the path most Afghan and Paki asylum seekers take on their way to Europe. Movement to Europe by Afghan and Paki asylum seeker movement really slowed down in the months before the nuclear deal. Maybe that was a coincidence.
3. Europeans don't care nearly as much about middle eastern asylum seekers as they do about African ones. That might be changing.
4. The EU countries on the borders tend to be broker than Germany, especially Greece. It's a huge factor in the Greek financial negotiations, and in financial negotiations for every EU country on the path to Germany.
5. The big spike in middle eastern asylum seekers happened during the winter of 2015-6-- generally this is the slow season for people trying to get from Turkey to Greece by boat because the seas are so nasty. It coincided with the time when the UN World Food Programme cut food rations by about 50% because of a funding shortage. I don't think the correlation between aid funding and border control can be overstated.
6. From a practical perspective, border control for Europe is far harder than it is for the US.
7. The groups who smuggle people tend to be evil bastards. Especially the Bedouins in the Sinai.
8. Even the left wingers in power in Europe are probably doing a lot behind the scenes regarding border control. They just don't talk about it. Syria was a tougher nut to crack in the court of public opinion because of the active conflict, but by early 2016, Afghans and Pakis were being sent back home with one way plane tickets with German efficiency. It's also a foreign policy issue-- countries don't have to necessarily accept returnees quickly, and they can make the process difficult (unless they get something in return of coarse).
9. IMHO whether or not the EU survives will likely be primarily based on whether or not the Germans and the French think it's worth it.

My old neighbors were Brits and they told me that one of the main reasons they left for the US in the late 70's was the big influx of Muslims into their country, primarily "Paki's". I didn't give it much thought back then. EU has been on borrowed time.

With 20/20 hindsight, it would have been in either the UN's or NATO's interest to establish & enforce "safe zones" in/near Syria.

johno wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:52 pm With 20/20 hindsight, it would have been in either the UN's or NATO's interest to establish & enforce "safe zones" in/near Syria.

Could we establish "safe zones" in Central America where people could live without fear of gangs and violence?

nafod wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 4:09 pm

johno wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:52 pm With 20/20 hindsight, it would have been in either the UN's or NATO's interest to establish & enforce "safe zones" in/near Syria.

Could we establish "safe zones" in Central America where people could live without fear of gangs and violence?

Utopian visions don't have the greatest history down there.

Turdacious wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 4:28 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 4:09 pm

johno wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:52 pm With 20/20 hindsight, it would have been in either the UN's or NATO's interest to establish & enforce "safe zones" in/near Syria.

Could we establish "safe zones" in Central America where people could live without fear of gangs and violence?

Utopian visions don't have the greatest history down there.

On the contrary, greaseball socialist lunatics removing themselves to the jungle to off themselves is as utopian as it gets.

To my intellectual betters...

I only paid a tiny bit of attention at the onset of the EU. My understanding was that the EU would make Europe a united economic powerhouse on par w/the US. Common currency (mostly), open borders, goods moving freely hither and yon; it was gonna be great.

Some countries were reluctant to cede sovereignty and they were given many assurances that the bureaucrats in Belgium would be kept on a tight reign to get them to sign on.

Then, as bureaucracies are wont to do, more and more control was ceded to the faceless masters of Brussels. Populations became less European and more Middle Eastern & African. Bureaucrats did lots of micromanaging. Germans got all Germanic and and poorer nations (Greece, etc.) got pissed. Hungary and Poland are saying that they're not going to allow mass cultural suicide. England said, fuck this shit. And here we are today.

My question is this; so what?

We can still lead NATO to hedge against Russia and we can cut trade deals with individual countries. The leverage will be mostly in our favor, yes?? The end of the EU isn't the end of the world.

Corrections and personal invective are welcomed.

Barriers to trade are in the large barriers to prosperity, and the EU was all about lowering those barriers. Unfortunately a rising tide may not raise all boats, and easy times can lead to laziness with a bill to pay later (Greece).

Friction between each other’s markets hurts both parties overall. We can only eat so much wheat, and they’re all driving Mercedes already.

It’s easy to leave behind people, though, and hell have no wrath like a citizen scorned.

It’s a hard balance. One that the rich are willing to endure?

No it's not the end of the world, and it may even be desirable. Time will tell.

I think what you are seeing is the slow death of the post-WWII order. It began with the fall of the godless communists, the unification of Germany, and some other notable mile markers but is now accelerating. Russia is no longer the real threat the USSR was. While it is still militarily powerful, it no longer has any ability to draw people in ideologically and its own population is withering, both economically and demographically. With that center of gravity (i.e., communism and countering the threat of the USSR) gone, you are seeing much of the impetus behind NATO and European solidarity fade away, and the old regional antipathies come to the fore. Northern Europe vs. Southern Europe, East vs. West, etc. It is compounded by the erosion of many of Europe's more cohesive institutions, such as the Church and the demographic drop-off that attends industrialization and affluence. Europe has lost its vitality, its will to fight.

Meanwhile, the Chinese, Africans, and Arabs have not.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:52 pm

Turdacious wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 4:28 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 4:09 pm

johno wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:52 pm With 20/20 hindsight, it would have been in either the UN's or NATO's interest to establish & enforce "safe zones" in/near Syria.

Could we establish "safe zones" in Central America where people could live without fear of gangs and violence?

Utopian visions don't have the greatest history down there.

On the contrary, greaseball socialist lunatics removing themselves to the jungle to off themselves is as utopian as it gets.

What if they'd waited to throw their party until after their guests arrived? Then we wouldn't have to hear about a near death experience on a rafting trip.

nafod wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:59 pm Barriers to trade are in the large barriers to prosperity, and the EU was all about lowering those barriers. Unfortunately a rising tide may not raise all boats, and easy times can lead to laziness with a bill to pay later (Greece).

Friction between each other’s markets hurts both parties overall. We can only eat so much wheat, and they’re all driving Mercedes already.

It’s easy to leave behind people, though, and hell have no wrath like a citizen scorned.

It’s a hard balance. One that the rich are willing to endure?

The EU IMHO was an interesting experiment-- because you don't need to unify a currency and allow easy border crossing to have free trade.

So if everyone jumps on the close your border bandwagon Italy will explode sooner or later being the gateway to Europe from Africa.

Turd, I didn’t know Germany borders with Greece

nafod wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 4:09 pm

johno wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:52 pm With 20/20 hindsight, it would have been in either the UN's or NATO's interest to establish & enforce "safe zones" in/near Syria.

Could we establish "safe zones" in Central America where people could live without fear of gangs and violence?

The safe zone is California, which seems preferable to Central America from the refugees's perspective. To California's detriment.

Gav wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 9:14 pm So if everyone jumps on the close your border bandwagon Italy will explode sooner or later being the gateway to Europe from Africa.

Turd, I didn’t know Germany borders with Greece

If they had their way it would.

nafod wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 4:09 pm

johno wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:52 pm With 20/20 hindsight, it would have been in either the UN's or NATO's interest to establish & enforce "safe zones" in/near Syria.

Could we establish "safe zones" in Central America where people could live without fear of gangs and violence?

Yeah, end the War on Drugs.

I never thought I would agree with you Gene my boy, and yet here we are.

Let's hope. The commie movement must die

Sat Cong