Is Europe tiring of its immigrants?
"I pity the poor immigrant who wishes he would've stayed at home," sang Bob Dylan. In many parts of Europe the welcome mat for immigrants is being withdrawn. Anti-immigrant parties are making considerable gains at the polls and influencing power.
The latest is the Sweden Democrats. With over 4% of the vote they passed the threshold to enter parliament and now have 20 seats and potentially hold the balance of power.
There was nothing coded about the campaign of the Sweden Democrats. In one advertisement they showed a white pensioner being edged aside by burka-clad mothers in the benefits queue. Their leader, Jimmie Akesson, described Islam as the biggest threat to Sweden since World War II. In his and his party's view, Islam is not compatible with Sweden's values. In a country famed for its tolerance the party has benefitted from a backlash against what is seen as liberal asylum laws.
Of course, the party's share of the vote was still small, and voters rated unemployment as a more important issue than immigration. It might be possible to dismiss the vote as a one-time protest - if it weren't for what is happening elsewhere in Europe.
In the Netherlands the anti-immigrant Freedom Party was the third largest in the June elections. Since then the country has been unable to form a stable government. Polls suggest that if an election was held now Geert Wilders, the leader of the Freedom Party, would do even better. He campaigned on shutting down Islamic schools and banning face veils.
In Italy, the Northern League - which is the fastest growing party - has embraced a tough new law enabling authorities to fine and imprison illegal immigrants.
In Austria, the anti-foreigner Freedom Party captured 17.5% of the vote two years ago and is now pushing in regional elections for a vote to ban minarets and Islamic veils.
In Germany the former member of the Bundesbank, Thilo Sarrazin, has attracted large audiences to hear him discuss his book Germany Doing Away with Itself. His main critique is directed at Islam.
"With no other religion," he writes, "is there such a fluid connection between violence, dictatorship and terrorism as there is with Islam." He goes on to argue that Muslim immigrants are "unwilling or incapable of integrating into Western society".
The German establishment has disowned him; the polls and his book sales suggest that many German people agree with him.
The French parliament has passed a law banning the burka and niqab. There is a debate about national identity, and President Sarkozy believes he has the majority of the people with him in expelling the Roma.
So what has brought about this mood? Firstly, there is the economy. There are fewer jobs. Fewer outsiders are needed. But the economic downturn provides only part of the answer. In both Germany and Sweden the economy is rebounding strongly.
There seems to be a growing fear about identity, of living in a fast-changing society where people's known world recedes.
Much of this new populism is built on questioning whether Muslims can ever successfully integrate into the West. If they can't, so the argument goes, then Europe risks developing into separate, parallel communities.
Many Muslims argue that they are barred from fully integrating into society, and so assert their own identity.
What is the political fall-out from this? Firstly, immigration is rising up the agenda as a political issue, and the European left is struggling to find a message on immigration.
Yesterday, in the Sunday Times of London, the Italian Professor Raffaele Simone was quoted as saying "what has damaged the left most, in recent years, is its silence on immigration".
This new populist movement should neither be exaggerated - but neither can it be ignored. At its root it raises fundamental questions about the type of society Europeans want to live in. These parties tap into a desire for new arrivals to become "European". They are often suspicious of EU officials whom they regard as elite and distant from the concerns of ordinary voters.
Hugo Brady of the Centre for Economic Reform said that "immigration has stepped into the post-Lehman Brothers world and the EU is probably seen by ordinary people as more part of the problem than the solution".
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~27~RS~)
I'm 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Would Mr Hewitt please explain why he made no mention of the position in the UK?
For example the British National Party, while gaining no MPS, did get 1.9% of the poll in 2010 and of course did better in the EU elections. Do the BBC accept now that the BNP shouldn't be ignored on the grounds that it is not a proper party and should not be given publicity?
Failing that, shouldn't Mrs Gillian Duffy of Rochdale at least have gained a mention to show how, even in the immaculately multi-cultural and multi-ethnic UK, immigration can cause a little local difficulty for politicians?
Complain about this comment
"""Hugo Brady of the Centre for Economic Reform said that "immigration has stepped into the post-Lehman Brothers world and the EU is probably seen by ordinary people as more part of the problem than the solution".""""
Oh oh oh there is a huge distinction here to make:
On the one hand, the capitalists and their chieftains: the liberals and the leftish who worked all these decades trying to convince the people in several European states that immigration is good, immigration creates development and other such blah blah, working in full speed to enforce the acceptation of these immigrants more often against all laws and against constitution than not.
On the other hand, there is the majority of citizens in these European countries that resisted (either in silence, either outspokenly) the massive immigration that was enforced undemocratically and unconstitutionally upon them since the first moment speaking of impoverishment of the middle class, technical unemployment, caste-isation of society, extremisation of the financial and social divisions between the "have" and the "have not".
The latter have changed not. They were against, they are still against. The former being the spin doctors they are, they were in favour and now they spin it and pretend they discovered a problem (themsleves have created) and try amazingly to put it on the back of the latter!!! This is pure poison!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
I think you are right Gavin that there appears to be a rise in anti-immigrant sentiment not only in Sweden but in much of the rest of Europe including the UK.
Such thoughts are often more prevalent at times of economic problems. With the euro zone crisis currently hitting Portugal and Ireland I guess we can expect more of this.Have you any thoughts on what is taking place there?
Complain about this comment
Schengen!
Is it a means of 'free movement' or a cunning method of destroying 'ever closer union'?
The laugh is on the EU!
Complain about this comment
3. At 12:20pm on 20 Sep 2010, Amysmythe wrote:
"""I think you are right Gavin that there appears to be a rise in anti-immigrant sentiment not only in Sweden but in much of the rest of Europe including the UK."""
There is no rise. That is how it always have been. Citizens were against massive unjustified immigration. That is all.
What has changed is that the spin financial and political leaders have created the problem and now they will come to us with the "remedy". But it is all about creating a caste society and then ruling by divide and conquer. Federating the disparate populations that are modern European caste societies is basically impossible since even if locals wanted it (in an imaginary world) the immigrants would not want it. Hence, caste society is here to stay with us and rulers are going to rule with the rule of divide and control.
Complain about this comment
You'd probably see more of this sort of thing in the UK and US if there was a system of proportional respresentation.
...or we could just pretend we are better than the Continentals.
Complain about this comment
What a fragile culture our European one must be, if it really feels threatened by Islam. What are they worried about? That they might wake up one day and reallise they accidentally converted?
For me the essence of European culture is freedom. Freedom to wear what ever silly hats, veils, scarves I choose to. To be able to choose my religion or be atheist. To choose my own lifestyle. These are the things that make Europe better than any culture accepting social autocracy. And it is exactly these values, this freedom, that these so called nationalists are putting at risk.
Right-wing populists are digging at the foundations of our common, European, post-WWII culture, more than any immigrant group ever could!
Complain about this comment
Gavin,
It may be worth pointing out that according to reports from Sweden Sweden Democrats have been harassed during the election process, with at least one physically accosted at his home and having a swastika curved out with a knife on his forhead.
[allegedly by a Muslim).
An action, predictably brings reaction; as it have in Netherland after van Gogh's assassination.
[Cf. an attitude of Malmoe's Swedes to their ever growing Islamic minority.]
Complain about this comment
"What a fragile culture our European one must be, if it really feels threatened by Islam. What are they worried about? That they might wake up one day and reallise they accidentally converted?"
Nope, more like waking up one day and realize there live (barely) in a Sharia-based caliphate.
Complain about this comment
#7. At 12:44pm on 20 Sep 2010, Makeze,
"What are they worried about? That they might wake up one day and reallise they accidentally converted?",
Ridiculous comment, there are passive religions and aggressive religions who are on a crusade and who consider themselves above the law as they are following 'gods' law. You rarely ever hear people commenting on Buddhism or the various Indian religions since they are passive and do not force themselves and their beliefs on others. This you cannot say about Islam as it is actively in various forms of crusade and therefore actually dangerous rather than theoretically dangerous. Pointing this out is not Right-wing populist speak but what you encounter amongst ordinary people in EU states, so stop denigrating it as being right wing when its simply the people have had enough.
I've heard as many hard line Socialists saying this in the UK when I visit as Conservatives, which is why the left wing is so disturbed there, it is working class Socialists who don't like what's happening in the EU as well.
Complain about this comment
Not anti immigrant, but anti immigration, especially of the Islamic variety.
Complain about this comment
For the most part, most immigrants are motivated to find a better life for their families. It is difficult to condemn that motivation. In times of economic uncertainty the immigrant is always the target of discontent by the native population. This is a historic reality and with this there are always politicians who will use the economic insecurity to create fear.
After the Great Depression societies responded with Hitler, Stalin and Mao, among others.
Everyone can thank their politicians and bankers for the current situation..both who seem to have escaped without accountability. Place the blame where it belongs.
Complain about this comment
What people often fail to mention is that immigration is an emotive issue used by politicians to distract from other often more important issues like the economy.
Nobody talks about the jobs the locals don't want to do and the fact that Europe's population is growing older with fewer young people to fill their jobs. Someone has to pay the taxes to feed the aging population's pension funds and without immigrants I don't know who is going to do that.
Complain about this comment
A very interesting blog, Gavin. I for one think that a healthy debate on the issue is required and for too long faceless politicians have carried on with their policies and ignored the rights of the individual countries to decide, either because they felt that it was 'right' to help immigrants to relocate or they cynically wanted cheap workers who wouldn't claim pensions in the host countries. Either way, I think that the societies are hitting back at these sentiments and making their voices heard. I don't agree with 'Islam-bashing' but i do agree with people caring about their society and changing it to suit them.
Complain about this comment
re #10
Confer unprecedented results of elections in Sweden.
Despite Sweden Democrats being discriminated against and even intimidated and harassed during election campagin.
Even double PC and double tolerant Swedes have clearly had enough.
And this trend will only grow.
Complain about this comment
9. At 1:20pm on 20 Sep 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
""""What a fragile culture our European one must be, if it really feels threatened by Islam. What are they worried about? That they might wake up one day and reallise they accidentally converted?""""
Go tell that to the French and Belgian gang-raped suburb girls, for being "infidel" and wearing a skirt.
Cheap rhetorics can be said about everyone. You have to live it to be able to have an opinion. Visiting it gives you no moral standing to speak, you have to go back home to it, to have on opinion. I have repeatedly spoken to people that indeed go back home to it and they all tend to have one and the same opinion. You are way out of reality.
Complain about this comment
#1 - Neverwas
"Would Mr Hewitt please explain why he made no mention of the position in the UK?"
I thought that was Nick Robinson's area. He is only a click away.
Complain about this comment
I don't know if there is a rise in xenophobia in Europe. It may just be asserting itself more vocally than before, it's always been there. I saw it when I lived there and I found it as repugnant then as I do now. But I'm hardly surprised, it seems to be an intrinsic trait that cuts across European cultures and boundaries.
"There seems to be a growing fear about identity, of living in a fast-changing society where people's known world recedes."
European nations are defined by people with a common history, culture, ethnicity, and attachment to the land. Those who arrive from outside can never become a unified part of the society they arrive in because they do not share those traits. By contrast, the United States of America only finds identity in a shared set of values. These are values anyone can adopt as their own and that is why people from all over the world can and do come to America to become full fledged Americans (although as I posted elsewhere until the first generation born here they rarely quite fully assimilate 100%.) This alone gives the United States an enormous advantage over every other large industrialized nation. It is one of America's greatest strengths. Over 99% of all Americans are immigrants or descendants of immigrants going back to the Mayflower. We in America will need a large influx of immigrants from all over the world in the coming decades. We will need over 100 million of them in the next 30 to 40 years. We will take those who are most ambitious and energetic that nobody else wants.
"Much of this new populism is built on questioning whether Muslims can ever successfully integrate into the West."
They have in the United States. Islam as a religion is not a threat to America so long as it remains a relationship between an individual and his god. But Moslems cannot break American laws with impunity. That means among other things no Sharia law courts supervening civil law courts, no female circumcision, no forcing women to wear special clothing aginst their will, no arranged child marriages, no revenge killings. Islam as a political movement in the United States that would replace our system of government is not acceptable nor are any laws which would restrict the freedoms other Americans enjoy. Those who would overthrow American law and take any actions in that direction either individually or as part of a conspiracy are guilty of a felony and are subject to prosecution and imprisonment. There are not many cases of it. The freedoms Moslems in America must accept includes the freedom of speech including insults and hate speech against Islam. If Moslems accept those terms, they are welcome to become Americans and live among us peacefully and fully integrated with us. And by and large they do having a higher level of education and higher incomes on average than the average for all Americans as a whole.
America can do these things, Europe can't. Europe cannot create its own version of the United States of America, it is not made in a way where that is a realistic possibility. All it can do is watch America in envy.
Complain about this comment
"Is Europe tiring of its immigrants?"
Perhaps now, but it won't last. In the next few decades the trend will be reversed when Western nations, with their ever increasing elderly populations and decreasing proportion of younger native workers, will be competing with each other to attract immigrant labour.
Complain about this comment
#3 - Amysmythe
"Such thoughts" are the godsend of all politicians. The far right have made gains now in Sweden, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Romania, Hungary and heaven knows where else. In the meantime, the established governments in France and Italy are playing the immigration card to try and recover their vote at a time of declining popularity.
The public, of course, are all to keen to join in. Already nervous in times of economic difficulty, they are very susceptible to the politics of fear. What we see here is an exercise in PR made all the easier by the twitchy nerves of the message recipients.
The politics of principle will be the victim as it becomes easier for lesser beings to gather the fruit.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
14. At 2:05pm on 20 Sep 2010, Peter White wrote:
"""I don't agree with 'Islam-bashing' but i do agree with people caring about their society and changing it to suit them."""
You are an ignorant. We have bashed so long the christian religion for having offensive practices and side-beliefs and managed to largely de-root it out of our social lifes. We have every right to bash an even more offensive religion, that is islam, which as even within its core belief offensive elements. We have every right to bash just any religion as we have the right to bash any ideology. If people do not want to see their religion bashed, then they have to keep it for themselves and not being it so offensively forward as the muslims do, as the christians did in the past.
"""I for one think that a healthy debate on the issue is required and for too long faceless politicians have carried on with their policies and ignored the rights of the individual countries to decide, either because they felt that it was 'right' to help immigrants to relocate or they cynically wanted cheap workers who wouldn't claim pensions in the host countries."""
There can be no healthy debate since it is out of very unhealthy procedures that the whole issue was created.
It has been the oligarchies that brought in immigrants in full knowledge that this move was not done for aiding the countries' economies since only 1 in 10 out of them since the majority of women are not contributing, the numerous children do not contribute for the next 20 years and form a burden, and from there one among the men only 1 in 5 has any meaningful job. For oligarchies, it was very much convenient to introduce say 1 million people so as to ensure a mere 100,000 cheap hands for the next 5-6 years (since after, these hands become more expensive and thus more and more are required...) all while the enormous bill of integration and support to that massive number had to be paid by the middle and lower classes of the indigenous - the latter being literally crushed. We are talking about the absolute minced-meat machine grinding everything on its passage.
Far above the so frequent illegality and unconstitutionality of the immigration policies, the most unhealthy process of all was the notion that passed permanently in the minds of citizens: that their state does not belong to them, that the land and property of the state does not belong to them, the citizens, but belongs to multinationals and their representative parliamentarians who are able thus to handle it and give it for free to anyone they wish.
The notion of a state explicitly includes the notion of property.
If the state is a traditional monarchy then all state land and state property belongs to the king and even the private land is nothing else than the king's land given to onwers after king's permission. Afterall, if a foreign state invades, the king will not yield any power in the invaded lands and the owners can as well use the title-papers as toilet ones.
If the state is a democracy (or republic to be more close to reality), then all the state land and property belongs to the citizens and even the private land is nothing else than the citizens' collective state which provides permission to own. In most cases, private land pre-exists the formation of the state and it is essentially to preserve it that the collectivisation comes into picture: if owners could guarantee themselves their property, they would not turn to form a state.
There should be no doubt on the above. Someone could ask "but property is not really state based" - well better check again your answer taking the example of Cyprus (where the Cypriot state ceased to exist the 100% of its citizens lost their properties, which were taken and given for free use to Turkish Anatolian emmigrants, and now sold to unscrupulous British investors and trourists for peanuts)... or the example of Jugoslavia, where the abolishement of the Jugoslav state saw millions of people losing their property, often it being a family property dating several 10s of generations...
Another could say "But currently, speaking of EU, states have lost part of their sovereignty". But he is wrong: the only country that saw massive post-EU immigration, that is Greece, a formerly very uniform country transformed into a social minced meat with grave results and an ominous future. However, the bulk of incoming immigration occured in post-WWII era and prior (much prior) to the formation of the E.U. Citizens had never been asked. Hence, all the question was not EU-built but predates it and hence the root of the problem has to be sought elsewhere. Theoretically EU can be both a problem as well as a solution - in reality it is standard a problem as EU citizens have not the right to speak on that. Yet, even in this supra-state formation, extending the notion of private-state property, EU citizens again they have to have the right to speak about the management of their property be it lands or state properties. Moreover, a simple research would suffice to see that the vast majority of European nations are actually holding very close views regarding the issue of immigration.
Some else will say "we anyway always had the case of foreign non-citizens that enter and buy property". Well again that is under the permission of the (monarchy-based or collective-based etc.) state and states do it in order to enable international commerce and mobility, however there are always limits into it and the most liberal state can (and will not hesitate to) intervene and alter the game at any time reminding you what really property is all about - just imagine a case in which the world's current most rich (or second most rich) person, that Mexican guy, decides that he wants to spend all his money to buy lands in Texas and there promote jobs that naturally will attract mainly Mexican people (either of US citizenship or of lawfully taken green card). Even if he does everything legally, you will see instantly a new law in Texas, and certainly a new federal law that will limit such purchases.
Hence, all that story of post-WWII immigration hides a blatant violation of the basics of democracy and even that cheap republican type democracy established in western countries: land and property was taken from the citizens without their consent and in 99% of times directly against their will, to be given to the coming immigrants so as to establish because an immigrant arriving would not survive for long without all that enormous aid given - all that decided by the oligarch plutocrats and being enforced upon citizens under various explanations:
1) immigrants do the work locals do not do
= big lie: there is no case in any western country where locals ever ceased to do any "lowly" job, only thing that happened is that unemployment among locals increased (while among immigrants was always kept sky-high) while locals are de-facto excluded by some sectors were "lowly" jobs are being given to the naturaly created "black market". Saying that a British worker would not accept to work 90 hours/7 days/week for 1000-1200 pounds without insurance and on a project were the basic health and safety standards are ignored and hence immigrants are "necessary" is not only immoral, it is criminal.
2) immigrants aid the economy:
= big lie: they aid the economy of the plutocrat oligarchs; reducing the the economy of the local citizens. There is not a single country where immigrations did not bring a vast widening of the rich-poor chasm with the middle class being sunk in it (the largest part falling down, a tiny part being benefited).
3) immigrants are accepted on humanist basis and as a pay-back for colonisation:
= perhaps the biggest lie: since when countries are Mother Teresas (they have not been nuns for their own citizens, so why all that humanism for foreigners?)? If anything, many of these countries of origin of immigrants where never really colonised by the host country.
A proper pay-back would be to leave these countries alone and unhindered to stand on their feat and develop and exploit their ressources and sell them at proper prices where they want instead of being looted, bombed and then taking a percentage of their population to be diffused. Immigration implies prolongation of exploitatoin. Plutocrats offering the immigrant the chance of the sad life of a european rotten suburb is no different to the chance of christianisation europeans offered the American natives - it was all for their own good evidently!
4) immigrants are accepted since there is nothing that can be done:
= another huge lie: None asked anyone to patrol borders, nor to pay a euro more than what is currently paid to army and police. A single law confiscating companies that employ illegal immigrants and imprisoning citizens hosting, aiding or dealing with illegal immigrants would suffice to end all illegal immigration once and for all. The remnants of such a human movement would be dealt as border intrustions and would be treated accordingly at a fantastically low cost.
5) immigrants provide a solution to demographics:
= a most evil life: on the one hand, for decades post-WWII governments actively limited the growth of population (despite of any laws in favour of large families) all while presenting the over-population as a huge problem on the planet only presenting the European falling demographics as problem only when that started as-if threatening the social system. Of course that is a huge lie since 1) the social system is collapsing not because of demographics but because of its own inner inefficieny 2) immigrants were called in much prior to the visible appearence of the "falling demographics" and their "associated issues" 3) immigrants are of course making the situation worse since they are a huge burden to the current social systems. We are talking about a view that hides successive huge lies altogether.
...
You understand that everything in this debate revolves around hiding the above basic truths and above all hiding the basic truth that the state belongs to the citizens and that such decisions have to pass from them, not the oligarchs.
I strongly believe that all the debate is extremely wrong, and falsely based: there is nothing to debate on whether European citizens want immigration or not. It is not even of any interest. There is no point it it. Either they do want it, either they do not. Or they might want something else. That is of no interest. Getting occupied with such a debate on European's views on immigration, is like organising a debate where you ask people of Vietnam to decide if they agree or not with the recent immigrational law of Arizona.
The real debate, and that is what is being tried to be hidden, is whether Eurpoean citizens may express themselves or not on such issues and whether they can really decide or not on such issues.
The answer to the above, is that up to now they have never decided upon anything and they hardly were ever questioned - on the opposite, they were reprimanded if they had any opinion at all.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re18: Marcus, whatever you say is cheap rhetoric. US citizens have no more saying and no more right to decide upon any immigrational policy than European citizens have inside their post-EU states or pre-EU states. In that sense, US citizens lack as much basic freedom as European citizens lack. All the rest is cheap rhetorics: the fact that in the US caste society they high-class nucleus wants to retain power and control using the masses of immigrants and the fact that due to the local conditions an important number of the fellow-men of that high-class will be also benefited out of it indirectly does not mean that the country can indefinitely fit in immigrants: you ignore the laws of nature. Europe is smaller than the US and has more than 550 million people. US has currently around 310 million people, it can easily continue to rise up to 700 million people. However, pass the 1 billion and you will see a step decline in the ability of the country to absorb immigrants and even if these will be small numbers inside the 1 billion. When out of the future 1 billion out of which 300 million will be latin americans and say 80-100 million muslims, there you will see Ohaians living in residential areas - proper armed camps, Cansas cowboys taking out their arms like the good old times and Texan rednecks hand-in-hand with the "blacks" demanding back Texan independence so as to enforce their own policies on the issue...
As I said: the question is not at all on the receptiveness of the European societies on immigration. That is for the sociologists but why study Europeans when you have Americans, Asians and Africans who form the 90% of the world? Is that the usual complex of inferiority of others towards Europeans or something?
The real debate dear Marcus is whether citizens of just any country and federal and alliance formation have the right or not to decide upon such matters. And in case we find out that they indeed have not - which should be apparent to anyone - the main debate is whether citizens should decide upon such matters or not.
I have referred this to a previous discussion and had another commentator here - Oulematu - who being cornered and asked this precise question openly told me that he is totally against the citizens having the right to decide upon such matters which of course is the prime example of what consists of oligarch fascism (while himeself refused it - true that anyone with oligarch-fascist ideals would never admit having such but would try to hide behind a cloth of "morality", "righteoussness", "humanity" etc. etc.).
Complain about this comment
As others have previously pointed out, the most vulnerable of the population will often be targeted as the scapegoat for all the wrongs of a country during troubled times.
Politicians will go to great lengths to stir suspicion and fear among the populace as long as it secures them a seat. They do this because it works.
To have an advanced and educated society being driven into the dark ages by such petty and largely unfounded assumptions makes me weep for the future.
Complain about this comment
Part 1
The mass migration of people is not a new thing. It is pure luck as to whether you are born in a reasonably prosperous country or born in a country that has no GNP, no economy and where to be poor is the norm
Before and during the Industrial Revolution in Europe, farm labourers and their families flocked to the cities where the expanding industrial processes of manufacturers and suppliers needed workers. Their mass migration actually caused resentment as the city-dwellers felt threatened and there were sporadic outbreaks of violence.
Were these migrants wrong - no? They were responding to an economic need and their actions were right for them as there were not enough workers in the cities and the coalfields to provide the labour or provide the services needed.
Along with the crowded cities came pestilence and other terrible conditions.
Complain about this comment
@ 18 MAII
"Over 99% of all Americans are immigrants or descendants of immigrants going back to the Mayflower. "
It's only 99% [citation needed] because those early "immigrants" killed most of the natives. But, you know, good for you. They where stupid to resist the pure distilled awesome that is the USA.
Complain about this comment
Part 2
If I were a person living somewhere other than the north-west of Europe or outside of the EU I would seek to emigrate to where it seems that if you cannot get a job, the government will house you, pay you and where everyone gets free healthcare - not social benefits you get in many parts of the World other than the USA or a few other leading nations.
The problem is that today, in the modern 21st Century, the jobs are there but not able to be filled because the capacity of education to train ALL people for a working life has not met the requirements so we have reached a situation where our political masters believe that immigration will solve Europe's problems. Unfortunately the new people arrive, are also unsuited for modern European work and either have to resort to welfare benefits or take menial task that 'civilised' people feel is beneath their dignity. I am not entirely convinced that many immigrants to Europe simply come because they get social benefits they would not get in their own countries.
I don't think that the indigenous populations of Europe really mind immigrants who come to Europe to better and enrich their lives by working hard and striving for all of our mutual advantage but I know that if I go to any of the major towns within 30 miles of where I live I will see immigrants living and breathing the air of British freedoms but also see they are not contributing to the economy of Britain.
The real problem is that unemployment continues to grow among the indigenous people of Europe and they will see the newcomers as job takers not job-makers.
The situation grows evermore comparable with the resentment between the city dwellers of the Industrial Revolution and the new migrants of that time.
Complain about this comment
18 Homer Simpson writes:
"Over 99% of all Americans are immigrants or descendants of immigrants going back to the Mayflower"
And of course the 1 % are the remnants of the original inhabitants of your country who were exterminated by those early settlers from the Mayflower onwards! Do you really believe you can convince the rest of the world that the murderous racism of your founding fathers and those that followed disappeared overnight because they went on to become good 'Americans'? Scratch the surface and remove those rose tinted spectacles when observing your fellow countrymen.
Complain about this comment
Part 3
The suggestion that immigration is the solution to meet the need of European nations that are seeing an ageing population, low birth-rate and a population educationally and technically ill-equipped to meet the challenges of employment in Europe has become somewhat spurious.
The great preponderance of new births in the United Kingdom are now to mother's born outside of the UK.
If the rest of the world is so educationally and technically better equipped to work in the united Kingdom than the indigenous population, why is it that so many more people in the UK go to University now than 30 years ago and why is it that so many foreign students seek their university and further education in the UK than in their own countries?
The ageing indigenous population of the UK is a fact of life but the shortfall in funding for the pensions is that they were set up 40to 60 years ago when people did not have such long life-expectancies and the problem of pension shortfall is more to do with poor planning and poor management as evidenced by the collapse of Insurance Funded Pension Companies like Legal & General and Equitable Life in the past 25 years losing pensioners somewhere in the region of £7bn in the process and leaving many people with pension shortfalls - not a problem of old age and insufficient contributions but more a case of poor business judgement. We have also had the scandal of Occupational Pension harvesting by the firms that 'owned' the Pension Trusts that ran the occupational pension schemes - the most renowned case being that of that pensioners belonging to the Mirror Group Pension Fund collapse caused by the pension funds being stripped bare by Robert Maxwell - again not a fault of the ageing pensioners but of illicit if not illegal pension fund misuse.
The fact is that parts of Europe which see massive immigration have finite resources, funds and capacity to continue to see immigration grow without limit and the impacts of mass immigration can have serious repercussions for us and if not us our children and their children long after we are dead.
We all need to seriously consider whether mass immigration to Europe remains a good thing or whether it has become perverted by political idealism and become a problem for us all.
Complain about this comment
Re 5, 16 & 22 & all the rest of that fellow's tosh!
Racial stereotyping & anecdotal, unverified conspiracy spectacle, plus the worst of urban myths are still the 'greek's' main counter-argument to anyone suggesting there is good, reasonable & bad in every society of every Nation irrespective of race, gender, faith etc.
"... gang-raped girls..infidel.." is undoubtedly a factor of every society though 'infidel' is less a reason than crude, brute chauvinism: In fact, to the appalling detriment of males, it is a phenomena enacted throughout History inc. modern day Europe, Africa, Asia & the Americas.
What this gross perversion of civilised behaviour between the sexes & people is NOT, is any indicator of the social norms of attitude & behaviour patterns within any of those societies/nationalities/religions when properly examined.
Of course that won't stop the 'greek' continuing to label & abuse entire peoples because he has heard/read/seen some instance of that sort of despicable activity: No, that would involve the 'greek' in the use of extensive, considered & substantive aquisition of knowledge in place of prejudicial innuendo & bias.
As has been amply demonstrated on everything from Greek history to World Wars, Feminism, Turkey's EU application, Roma, Albanians, English, Americans, Masinic society, uncle Tom Cobley & all THAT is an effort of intellect beyond the 'greek's' grasp!
Complain about this comment
Marcus Aurelius, do you live in a hermetically-sealed cave somewhere benenath the Rocky Mountains where you are strapped to a chair and forced to watch pro-US propaganda films all day? Your laughable outpourings on this issue might be taken more seriously were it not for the wave of anti-Muslim protests that has accompanied the so-called 'Ground Zero Mosque' affair. Cue the likes of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, whose rabble-rousing rhetoric appeals to the less intellectually-gifted half of the US population, most of whom don't know what a Muslim is but know it's a bad thing (with many of them also now believing their President to be one). Xenophobia and racism exists in all societies and it is puerile to adopt a holier-than-thou attitude when discussing these issues.
Complain about this comment
TPT;
""Over 99% of all Americans are immigrants or descendants of immigrants going back to the Mayflower"
And of course the 1 % are the remnants of the original inhabitants of your country who were exterminated by those early settlers from the Mayflower onwards!"
Those people you'd call murderers were....largely British...and French, and Spanish, and other Europeans. What would you like us to do about it now, give up the USA and all move back to Europe where most of our ancestors came from? Okay, be prepared for 309 million more migrants being repatriated from North America. Do you think you can handle it?
Complain about this comment
Great news Sweden Democrats!!! This follows a great trend all over Europe, of right-wing anti-immigration parties on the rise. Now the left, they'll just whine and go "oh the racists/fascists/nazis are on the rise, there's gonna be another holocaust or something" (not even knowing what a fascist or nazi is) bla bla bla, but the fact is, lefties like that are just misinformed and too moronic to admit the terrible state parts of our European cities and towns are in. See it's funny you see people like the UAF and SWP groups who believe in marxism/communism and campaign against nationalist groups like the BNP/EDL yet side with and protect islamists with far-right anti-democracy pro-islamism views, like with the left and Israel/Palestine, they always side with Palestine yet don't realise many Israel-hating muslims adore the evils of what Hitler did and support anti-jewish extremism. So you have the European left and far-left siding with strongly conservative or strongly islamist far-right muslims who vote for them just for their own advantage, to watch the left appease them even more so they can say and do what the hell they want all in the name of democracy and freedom of speech, something these far-right muslims if they had their way would completely eliminate under barbaric islamic law. That's it though, the only concerning thing on the rise in Europe is not the rise in right or far-right political parties, but the Islamisation of our societies hence the rise in parties like the freedom party in the Netherlands, the Sweden Democrats, France's Front National and the right in Denmark, Italy, Austria, Switzerland etc, it goes on, and it's all because of middle class leftist politicians who live in luxury and our totally out of touch with the electorate, especially the working class electorate, that these parties are growing and rapidly. I mean as much as UKIP and the BNP only got around 5% combined, the BNP still increased their average number of votes per constituency and UKIP increased their vote too. Of course you can't forget the 2009 euro elections where both of these parties did very, UKIP getting just under 20% I think and the BNP about 6%.
This is very good news though and until the left address immigration and islam properly, then the right will continue to gain votes until they possibly even get voted in, and we know that Geert Wilders in the Netherlands could be a real possibility next time round.
Saying this too, as a young, patriotic, middle class lad, originally from London, I've seen the state our "English" capital city has become and it is just totally immoral that lib/lab/con have let this happen over the past 60 years, especially since the 90's. Near to where I lived as a kid in London, the area now resembles mogadishu and half the white people there are either polish, australian, american etc, all the English have had enough and moved out, just like over in East London, with the vast arrivals of Bangladeshis who've literally colonised the East End now, loads of the English and probably Irish working class too are all moving out to places like Barking and other parts of Essex, and now what's happening in Barking?? There's been mass african settlement there from africans arriving from other parts of London like Hackney and Newham, and those people living in Barking are moving out to Essex and beyond, it's white flight and demographical genocide of indigenous Europeans, that's what all this mass immigration is. Also, you have families of 9 somalis who've just arrived here getting put first over real English pensioners who've paid taxes and worked hard all the lives, how is that moral?
I'm tired of the left using the terms "racist," "fascist," etc when if they looked closer in the mirror, the sort of authoritarian far-left politics they follow in marxism/communism is unbelievably similar to true fascism.
When will David Cameron and the British political elite take note of people like me who raise genuine concerns about the shocking state of this country, instead of sitting in his posh central london ivory tower and not giving a damn. Let's see David Cameron and people like Diane Abbott and Jack Straw go live on some East End council estate or some estate up north in Bradford, i'm sure they'd get on really well....
Complain about this comment
#33
"Those people you'd call murderers were....largely British...and French, and Spanish, and other Europeans. "
I recall you saying those people stopped being Europeans the minute they got off the boat, having voluntarily left for America. Which is it gonna be?
Complain about this comment
So many people taking an anti-Islamic stance - some in positions where they should know better - and yet I wonder how many of them have really studied anything about Islam. Even more, Sarrazin for example, has clearly not read what the far-right Christian movement stand for in the USA, never mind Islam. Otherwise he would not have made the stupid claims about violence, etc.
Politicians across Europe (and the US) are traumatised by the recent economic crisis and its overhang: so, to divert attention they play to the lowest common denominator, ie racialism. Let's be clear, this is a racialist game that's being played. The talk about values, etc, masks the proposal that Muslims are not European, come from exotic places, and are "not like us". The fact that Muslims were in Europe for over seven centuries (Yes, seven), allowing Jews and Christians to practice their own religions meantime, has been "airbrushed" from European history (like the Inquisition).
The arguments over immigration are nothing new - they surface every time there is an economic crisis. Yet few countries in the Western Europe or N America or even in Australia can do without immigrants. But if only they were more "like us" .......
Complain about this comment
Is this not a blog on European issues? Funny how one person here that probably hates himself because genetically he is European, has managed to steer every debate to Europe vs America.
I think that the whole population and pension problem that is always repeated should not be addressed by mass immigration. We are somehow assuming that current populations are what they should be. Populations rise and fall all the time. So a current generation of pensioners may have economic problems, in several decades they will no longer be alive and the problem goes away. It is a massive overreaction to simply allow mass immigration because we may have problems paying pensions for one generation of people.
Eventually, the same problem will recur, and it will be a bigger problem if mass immigration continues. The second generation of immigrants will have the same birthrates as everyone else, which will require even more people to come in to pay for social systems. Let the society naturally adjust, it will cause some pain, but it will be temporary.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps it is not the individual immigrant that Europeans fear but the culture the immigrants bring with them where religious fervour and a seemingly different morality appears to threaten European society. It seems that when one is anti immigrant, it is in fact anti Islamic. Islam and the perceived threat of violence if the tenets of Islam are not observed are what leads to the demands, (largely unheeded by government) that immigration from Asia and Africa be curtailed . We now, in Britain are in a situation where even to discuss immigration is regarded as racism, perhaps it is, but largely it is founded in fear of alien cultures which may rightly or wrongly appear to mean harm to our society.
Complain about this comment
29. At 4:14pm on 20 Sep 2010, margaret howard wrote:
18 Homer Simpson writes:
"Over 99% of all Americans are immigrants or descendants of immigrants going back to the Mayflower"
And of course the 1 % are the remnants of the original inhabitants of your country who were exterminated by those early settlers from the Mayflower onwards! Do you really believe you can convince the rest of the world that the murderous racism of your founding fathers and those that followed disappeared overnight because they went on to become good 'Americans'? Scratch the surface and remove those rose tinted spectacles when observing your fellow countrymen."
Further to this. MA2 promotes harmony and equality accross the pond. Only 50/60 years ago black people were actively discriminated against, indeed it was only in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that equality was truly reached. Only in 1965 were the voting rights of those same people protected under the Voting Rights act of 1965. Indeed it was aroundthe same time that Harold Wilsons government passed the racial discrimination act.
The fact is, whatever MA2 says he merely presents a rose tinted, fake portrayal of life in the US. Isnt it the case that there are now laws being debated that would see "immigrants" have to show their ID documents to law enforcement officers, whilst native (sorry, descendants of historic immigrants) do not? THat is hardly promoting the ideal he laid out below:
"These are values anyone can adopt as their own and that is why people from all over the world can and do come to America to become full fledged Americans"
I honestly believe that the vast majority of people, certainly in the UK, do not have a hatred of immigration, or those that under take the upheaval to move their lives to a different country. I believe that the problem arises from the inability to do anything about what many believe to be a problem.
Prime example: during the leaders debates prior to the general election we had both main parties declaring that they would "do something" about immigration (limits etc) however these are only for non-EU migrants. The issue is - those EU migrants, we can do nothing about. This creates the problem for many (I believe).
On a side note, I recently moved to Spain from the UK, I was looking at various countries before deciding upon Spain for the next few years. I actually looked at the US as I have distant family over there. It seems it would be easier to get a VISA if I lived in Afghanistan, than as a UK citizen - at the same time that those laws are being debated regarding non english speaking immigrants......their immigration policy certainly does not back up what their citizens are saying. I expect the issue therefore in the USto get worse over the coming years.
Complain about this comment
36. At 6:28pm on 20 Sep 2010, frenchderek wrote:
"So many people taking an anti-Islamic stance - some in positions where they should know better - and yet I wonder how many of them have really studied anything about Islam."
I haven't had time to study Islam, I only know Islam from the interaction that I had with Muslims in Greece, the UK and the Netherlands (people I still consider my friends too). They were never going to straight out condemn terrorist acts by their fellow Muslims (it would always be a "yes...but..." thing for them), they would love to have Sharia law in their communities (although they chose to move to Europe where freedom and liberties that they so much hate exist) and they were always there to judge us "westerners" for our moral corruption and way of life that did not go well with their religious morals and way of life. I mean, each to his own and they are entitled to their opinions but it is not us that do not wish for their integration. Ever wondered why there is no integration problems for Chinese, Thai and many other ethnicities in Europe?
"The fact that Muslims were in Europe for over seven centuries (Yes, seven), allowing Jews and Christians to practice their own religions meantime, has been "airbrushed" from European history (like the Inquisition)."
Yeah the presence of Muslims in Europe for 7 centuries (yes 7) was great for us Greeks, who were considered second class citizens and many if not most were forced to convert to Islam either for fear of their lives or for acquisition of full rights that came with the conversion. We do know how Muslims acted when they were in Europe before and we do know all about the Inquisition by the Christians. The difference is that Christianity has moved forward and Christians in Europe do not let religion dictate their way of life and actions against other religions anymore. The same thing cannot be said for Muslims, although I do know that there are moderates among them.
Complain about this comment
When it comes to the environment, PROTECTING BIODIVERSITY MEANS removing alien species from the environment. Simple? Simple. But surprisingly, when it comes to civilization, PROMOTING DIVERSITY seems to mean welcoming everybody in!
What people understand about animal diversity they do not understand about the human world. But in fact too much immigration from other cultures threatens the host culture in the same way as invasive alien species threaten the sustainability of a particular ecosystem.
Today's diverse world is an outcome of thousands and hundreds of years of largely separate development of cultures and civilizations. Now, when the contacts and exchanges between various cultures are wholly unprecedented, we face the risk of wiping out weaker cultures by the stronger ones (which happened a lot in the colonial period and is now happening with big business imposing its standards and values across the globe).
If some people think that the Western Culture is so strong that it cannot be overcome by cultural imports, they are wrong. We should protect cultures from excess alien influence, regardless of whether they are Amazonian tribesmen, Arab Muslims or Westerners. Otherwise the intermingling of cultures will be so thorough that we might end up with a bland mixture of disparate elements and there will no longer be anywhere interesting to go to.
Complain about this comment
#30 - Menedemus
#39 - BuckyOHare
- and others.
We all know, if we stop to think about it, mthat this is about money and the politics of fear. The immigrants destined to do the 'menial work' to which Menedemus referred were welcomed all the the time that we had 'never had it so good' (to quote the politics of another era) and the average WASP would not be seen dead with a bucket and mop in his hand. Then along comes recession and unemployment and suddenly these same cosy, middle class people are calling foul. What happens then? Politicians start mothing platitudes about 'British jobs for British workers' and workers start programs of industrial action to 'repatriate' the very jobs they would not have touched with a barge pole in better times.
The political classes milk it for all it is worth because it is a whole lot easier than aspiring to statecraft, the people fall for it in numbers because it is easier than thinking and, before you know it, the 'thought police' are banging on your door, fully supported by the mob.
"Oh look Fritz - there's the Reichstag. Anyone have any matches?" "When you have finished that horseshoe, Pierre, could you knock up a guillotine blade?"
Ignorance! Sheer blind prejudice!
BO'H
'Isnt it the case that there are now laws being debated that would see "immigrants" have to show their ID documents to law enforcement officers, whilst native (sorry, descendants of historic immigrants) do not?'
And just how on earth are the people who are not immigrants going to prove it without documents?
Complain about this comment
“The party won 20 of the 349 seats in the country's parliament”
Really good news and this on top of Geert Wilders success. Hopefully people of Europe are beginning to wake up .People are beginning to realise that nationalism isn’t a dirty word .Indeed to believe in Nationhood is to believe in a Great Britain ,in a France, in a Germany, in a Spain and so on . A country without effective borders and without a people with a shared history, culture and ancestry is not a country but merely a geographic area.
Complain about this comment
Nordicum:
It's not just pensions that are the problem. OK once the babyboom generation disappears, there will be fewer pensioners but arguing that mass migration will make the situation worse isn't necessarily so. It's a known fact that the wealthier people become the fewer children they tend to have so migrants may well have fewer children. But the question that also needs answering is who is going to do the dirty jobs that most Europeans/British feel over qualified to do? Many migrants come because there is work. If you want to stop that pay unskilled workers better and the locals will think again about taking up those jobs but which company is going to do that and who is willing to spend more on a product/service to guarentee a higher wage.
Complain about this comment
42. At 8:05pm on 20 Sep 2010, threnodio_II wrote:
"'Isnt it the case that there are now laws being debated that would see "immigrants" have to show their ID documents to law enforcement officers, whilst native (sorry, descendants of historic immigrants) do not?'
And just how on earth are the people who are not immigrants going to prove it without documents?"
I totally agree. Hey I'm not American, I have no idea regarding the subtlety of US politics. I regularly read these blogs however and can remember a previous one stating that Mark Mardell (the US correspondant) was stopped and required to present his documents whilst in Arizona (if I remember correctly), whilst their American guide was not. It would appear that they are profiling by accent.
Given all modern technology etc is it really a way to conduct the immigration policing policy in the "THE WORLDS BESTEST COUNTRY" tm? I doubt it.
I take your point regarding the recession and peoples perceptions of immigration policy during "tough economic times" (to quote a plethora of politicians). I do agree that on some levels this is case. I disagree though that this would be the case regardless of our ability to adapt the policy depending on the situation we find ourselves in.
During the good times people werent bothered that someone from Poland was doing a job they could do - they were all too happy to veg out on the sofa and watch Mr Kyle and Miss Goddard all day. Now though, we have the new government who are talking very tough on exactly those types of people - these people now are worried about what jobs they are going to get - if the Poles are all doing the labouring work, what will they do when Mr Osborne swings his overdue axe? After all.....I dont believe that many people aspire to be cleaners.
However, if we had control over EU immigration into the country, we would have been able to put controls in place to marry up with our own economic needs. We could have brought all the immigrants in while we were happy to pay for Britney and Jason to sit on the sofa all day. Now though we could have restricted that given the fact we need to get Brits employed again and made available those lower paid jobs that our less intelligent citizens could do. (Note that I make the distinction between the low paid jobs, and those for which there is simply no hope of Britney et al doing - like NHS jobs etc)
I do really think that had we the input to control this aspect of our immigration policy the public perception would be completely different, even if the numbers were not.
Complain about this comment
#43 - englishpicnic
Terminological confusion here, I suspect.
Patriotism is not a 'dirty word'. Nationalism is an obscenity.
Complain about this comment
Is Europe tiring of its immigrants?
The selfish and treasonous nature of capitalism created this magnet for mass immigration. Tied to that the 'bent' left/Labour Gov who think mass immigration is a great idea cos' it will hurt the Tories, are just another arm in this sickness the left played host to.
'Tiring of immigrants', that is a complete understatement.
I've believed for a long time now, that there are consequences to almost everything. Mass immigration is a hitherto uncharted territory .... there may well be trouble ahead, if something doesn't reverse this, at least in part.
Prevention is better than a cure .... simple.
Complain about this comment
nonsense offramp;
"I recall you saying those people stopped being Europeans the minute they got off the boat, having voluntarily left for America. Which is it gonna be?"
I decided TPT's imbecillic comment deserved an equally imbecillic answer. I've explained it many times, so many I'm tired of going through it again. As you full well know, the conflict between Native Ameicans and those who came to American shores later on was long, complex, multifaceted and ended in the 19th century. But for your purposes, when Europeans and their descendents were wantonly killing Native Americans, they were reverting to their ancestry. Not at all accurtate but good enough for you since this perpetual comment doesn't even merit a reply and you don't pay attention when I give you the real one anyway.
Complain about this comment
nmo:
Agreed that wealthy people have fewer children. The issue of pensions is a temporary issue, however, and I find that this one issue often trumps all others when talking about mass immigration. Pension system shortfalls are too often used for this purpose.
If there is work to do, jobs to fill, then great let's fill them. I am not anti immigration, if I were I would not be writing this in English. I am a product of it, but should be done for the right reasons.
Complain about this comment
I agree with GhostofShichuan who remembers Hitler, Stalin, and other dictators coming to power after or during the last Great Depression.
But, who will we blame ...the bankers????
Or shouldn't we be blaming the opportunistic fascist types who want to force their beliefs down the throats of the majority at ..yes....gun point?
Remember this... its not the cause--its the symptoms and how you treat them, in most cases. So fight against ignorance being lifted up to us like mana from people who despise "others." (NIK?)
They will be the purveyors of our new "right" Christian fascist governments that
could follow all this paranoia.
"Paranoia will detroy ya." The Kinks.
Complain about this comment
Bucktooth Wabbit;
"The fact is, whatever MA2 says he merely presents a rose tinted, fake portrayal of life in the US. Isnt it the case that there are now laws being debated that would see "immigrants" have to show their ID documents to law enforcement officers, whilst native (sorry, descendants of historic immigrants) do not?"
What do I know, I just lived all of my life here except for the two years I lived in France (where I had to always carry an identity card to show police if they asked for it.) The fact is for your information that immigrants have ALWAYS had to show their identity cards issued to them upon being granted entry to the US to Federal law enforcement officers when asked to. The recent law would only add that they must now also show them to local police in Arizona. BTW, all citizens must show the police identification of some kind when asked to present it although American citizens have never had and therefore don't have to show national identity cards the way people in other nations do.
BTW, what in hell does this have to do with the debate about Europe tiring of immigrants?
Complain about this comment
"Paranoia will detroy ya." Also see Jamiroquai.
Complain about this comment
@COOLBRUSHWORK
Re "Schengen!
Is it a means of 'free movement' or a cunning method of destroying 'ever closer union'?
The laugh is on the EU!"
It really gets boring your tirade against Schengen. And it doesn't belong in this topic either.
Schengen facilitates free movement, which is something completely different from having a liberal migration policy.
Schengen does not 'enable' migration.
Complain about this comment
David Stvn;
You said;
"...Hitler, Stalin, and other dictators coming to power after or during the last Great Depression."
From wikipedia
"After the death of Vladimir Lenin in 1924, Stalin rose to become the leader of the Soviet Union, which he ruled as a dictator."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
That was five years before the stock market crash which lead to the Great Depression.
Just taking your advice: "So fight against ignorance..." Carry on.
Complain about this comment
The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
http://www.libertystatepark.com/emma.htm
Emma Lazarus’ Famous Poem
A poem by Emma Lazarus is graven on a tablet
within the pedestal on which the statue stands.
My grandparents came through Ellis Island along with many other tens of millions of people who came to America to flee Europe and find a better life. That is how America was built into the greatest nation that ever was, with people the rest of the world rejected. In a sense, we, their descendants born here are their unwitting revenge on that world. Only I recognize it and rejoice every second of it.
Complain about this comment
#45 - BuckyOHare
I never had a lot of time for Britney and Jason either but then I am one of those who have bucked the trend and moved to eastern Europe so perhaps my perspective is rather different. On a light hearted note, I am in favour of western migration because it leaves fewer of us to share out the fruits of our labour here but, on a more serious level, the consequences on the ground of the rise of nationalism and the politics of the right give cause for concern on occasion.
Complain about this comment
"europe's elderly population", As far as Im aware we had a baby boom not so long ago. That was just another excuse of some dock worthy politicians. So the public would nod, and go along with it. I personally was 1 of 4 good British stock. When was the last headcount of the UK, there needs to be a thorough national census, because frankly I dont believe the media anymore nor politicians. We are well and truly on our own people. When are the British next having a protest over all the wrong doing of our government? Back to topic, this is excellent news for Sweden the public made the choice, the Swedish made the choice. But best of all it is a blow to the EU's multicultural "your a racist" game. Let there be light!!!!
Complain about this comment
#55 - MarcusAureliusII
So Mr.Sarkozy can confidently send his "tired, poor, huddled masses" of Roma to "breathe free" in the good ol' US of A secure in the knowledge that you will turn them into god-fearing, tax-paying pillars of society - right?
Yeah, Right.
Complain about this comment
threnodious, the only reason these migrants go to various nations in Europe is that they can't get to America. Send them here. In fifty years, their grandchildren will own your grandchildren. How? When things get back to normal and Americans stop allowing global corporations use them as patsies, Americans will be rich again and able to buy them from the Chinese.
Complain about this comment
@58 threnodio_II
Perhaps I'm a bit naive, but why not?
Complain about this comment
#53. At 8:59pm on 20 Sep 2010, Jean Luc,
Der, er, um, whatever it is you're taking go back to your doctor as if you haven't yet realised freedom of movement is an illusion you are more than blind.
Complain about this comment
55 Homer Simpson
Thank you for that nice Statue of Liberty poem. I hope you haven't forgotten that those horrid 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' from Europe gave it to you.
Incidentally at 48 you say:
"But for your purposes, when Europeans and their descendents were wantonly killing Native Americans, they were reverting to their ancestry. Not at all accurtate but good enough for you since this perpetual comment doesn't even merit a reply and you don't pay attention when I give you the real one anyway"
I really can't remember you ever giving us a real explanation concerning the sudden transformation of evil- Native American - murdering -slave-keeping European settlers into the world's greatest nation with goodness personified - a beacon to the rest of wicked mankind. I promise I won't comment on it ever again if you could just enlighten me one more time.
I don't think the world has ever seen such a metamorphosis before!
Complain about this comment
Islam is inconsistent with western values and immigrants in Europe do not even make an effort to assimilate. In the Netherlands there are parts of Amsterdam where people do not even speak Dutch. It is understandable why countries like Sweden, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Denmark would move to the right. They are small countries with small populations and their languages and cultures are under threat from globalization and mass immigration. If you want to live in a country with Mosques, Minarets and with Sharia law move to Saudia Arabia. If you want to live in Europe take off your head-dress, learn the language, work hard, and obey the law.
Complain about this comment
I'm sure you are right,...Marcus, (ewww) (wikipedia--now there is our new definition for fight winning source)
But, its true that these age old problems of scarcity and immigration and different peoples morphed into the use of totalitarianism (sp?)
in the 20th Century and whether that was the Depression, WWI or otherwise, these regimes caused much suffering and they are not..
figments of an imagination. And there were great similarities in Hitler's and Stalin's systems of regime. Terror was the motivator to keep people in line and probably in both systems
cultural (not military) ideas and intellectual ideas were basically in thrall to the regime and had to be approved or death/imprisonment would result.
And I do not want that world to be mine (the world of a totalitarian state)
Complain about this comment
Margeret Howard,
You have hit upon a truth. That this date of 1776 does not qualify as the beginning of the American/USA nation.
Thank you for that observation....it speaks volumes.
David
Complain about this comment
Hugo Brady of the Centre for Economic Reform said that "immigration has stepped into the post-Lehman Brothers world and the EU is probably seen by ordinary people as more part of the problem than the solution".
EUpris: Around here an awful lot of crimes have been committed by "EU"-foreigners.
The "EU" stinks!
Complain about this comment
TPT, why can't you just read an American history book or look it up on a web site that isn't prejudiced against the US and read it for yourself? It is a long complex story with many facets to it, many different eras, tribes, immediate causes of conflict, atrocities on all sides. It is part of American history, what we are, the good, the bad, and the ugly. We don't hide it, it's all there, the masacres, the march of tears, but also the scalpings, the kidnapping and rapes of white women, the burning of villages, farms, ranches, the murders of people just passing through Native American land on their way to somewhere else usually headed out west.
What do you think would happen when a large influx of people with the technology of firearms meets tribes of hunter gatherers armed with bows, arrows, hatchets, stone impliments who consider all of the land theirs and all outside intruders largely unwelcome? Exactly what Europeans did when they colonized the world. But the USA was largely empty territory with about one person per square mile on average. By the late 19th century the conflict was over, the Native Americans subdued.
Nobody can change history we can only study it, understand it, and learn from it. When I was young there was I thin a fairly widespread fascination with Native American tribes especially as it related to the early history of settlers in the 17th and 18th centuries. Today I'm not so sure anymore. In New York City there is a museum of the American Indian and the American Museum of Natural History has an immense collection of artifacts. I'm sure the Smithsonian has a large collection too.
Complain about this comment
I haven't analysed the problem in other coutries than the Netherlands, but things are developing fast here. The Freedom Party of Geert Wilders is probably going to give support to a centre-right minority coalition run by the conservative-liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) and the christian democrats. The model is more or less copied from Denmark, where the populist rightwing party has been supporting a similar minority government. Whether this is going to happen is not yet sure, but everything points in that direction.
Many in the Netherlands and abroad have asked about the causes for the rise of Geert Wilders and his Freedom Party. The answer is both simple and complex: it's all about Joe the Plumber, privatisation, globalisation and the Muslims.
Traditionally the Netherlands has had a strong civil society which decreased the differences between the social classes. Historically the Dutch society is also a relatively egalitarian society. As a result of having been a republic for over 200 years there is and has never been such a prominent nobility as in the UK or the strong class perception.
Nevertheless there was class difference. Workers were not entitled to vote before 1917 (1919 for women) and until WW II there remained significant class-differences. The large civil society has traditionally made the middle class relatively large, but the big growth of the middle class came after WW II.
Unlike in most countries workers were not united in one political party, like Labour. In a society in which religion dominated over socio-economic differences, people were first divided on the basis of religion: catholics, protestants and non-religious. The latter was split up in labour and liberal. Each of these groups had their own civil society: their own schools, universities, hospitals, newspapers, political party, broadcasting companies, churches, cemetaries, sports clubs, sporting competitions, anything in society, except government and its institutions. Four separate worlds in one country living fairly peacefully together thanks to agreements between their leaders.
As a result one could not speak about "the" workers, only of the catholic workers, protestant workers, socialist workers and (few) liberal workers.
In the period between the mid 1940s and 1970s, society changed dramatically. Most prominent of these changes is the rise and growth of the middle class. The welfare state and associated developments made (higher) education affordable to an ever growing number of people, causing working class families to become middle class families.
Meanwhile secularisation caused the system of separate worlds to collapse in the 1970s. Workers who were previously dispersed became increasingly united behind the Labour Party with the new middle class affiliating itself with the christian democrats, Labour and the conservative liberals.
Increasingly Labour had to balance the old worker's demands with the growing middle class demands. This was not very hard in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, but starting in the 1980s this became ever harder. The dominance of the middle class pushed the Netherlands and other western countries towards ever increasing globalisation. Economic prosperity required immigration. relatively small numbers of Italians, Greeks and Spanish immigrants were fairly easy to integrate, but not Turks and Moroccans. For their unskilled labour was room in previous decades, but less and less as time progressed. Yet they did not return home because of the generous welfare they could receive.
Ghettoes developed in which muslim immigrants came to live without work and only welfare. Children did not learn Dutch, received poor education and could not get jobs. Crime rose spectacularly among muslim youth.
in 1994, three years before Blair in the UK, the Dutch labour party decided to try a third way by forming a coalition with the conservative liberals and the smaller social-liberal party. For eight years these parties formed a government known for privatising about anything, from railway to mail telecomunication, to healthcare, care for the elderly, etc. The quality of the service decreased in several ways and the price rose. People got the feeling that while the government was carefully looking after its immigrant populations through welfare and other social projects, but left the original Dutch population in the cold.
More and more mosques were built and muslim schools were founded, receiving the same government subsidy all schools are entitled to. But the education was questionable and topics like the Holocaust or Christian and Dutch traditions and feasts, like Christmas, St. Nicholas, Easter and such were not taught at such schools.
The old working class people began to walk away from Labour in search for parties that could better serve their interests, feeling abandoned by labour. The ultra-left and semi-communist Socialist Party was the first to gain their attention.
Then there was 9/11 which was very much felt as the French newspaper Le Monde so aptly descibed: "Nous sommes tous les Americains", "We are all the Americans". Not an attack on America, but an attack on the West. Other terrorist attacks in Spain and London strengthened this perception.
Pim Fortuyn was the first politician to succesfully capitalise on the growing dissent among the old working class by rallying against immigration AND promising to restore the position of the working class. He was murdered days before the national elections of 2002 by an animal rights acrtivist. Labour suffered a terrible defeat and Fortuyn's party led by the second in line gained a huge victory.
Six months and one collapsed government later, Labour regained the loss with a new leader, but the right got the majority. All seemed to have quieted down, but it didn't. Filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered for insulting islam in his movies. Liberal politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali had was threatened and had to leave the country. More and more cultural clashes took place. Several works of art depicting nudes could not be shown in public after muslim protests. Several imams preached jihad and politicians like Geert Wilders had to go into hiding after serious threats to their lives. Homosexuals, having been embraced by the rest of Dutch society, became threatened by muslims.
In 2006 Geert Wilders got his first victory, but at the same time the Socialist Party won. Four years later the latter has lost consideraby, but is still the 5th party (it was the 3rd). Geert Wilders and his Freedom Party won a large share, becoming the 3rd party behind the conservative liberals and Labour. What is curious is that most of his gains are in the old catholic southern part of the country, where the christian democrats lost heavily. There, in the periphery that is not so very much affected by immigration, people feel deeply abandoned by both the christian democrats and Labour.
The story illustrates that the old working class in search for the securities of the past together with a strong sentiment against muslim-immigration are the pillars beneath the success of Wilders and his Freedom Party. One can, however, not be understood without the other, they are related, since one of the reasons the old working class and a growing number of middle class people vote for Wilders is because they feel abandoned by the other parties in favour of immigrants.
This also means that there is no easy solution the trust in the old politics is gone, the trust in compromise and in honesty. Cynicism rules. To restore this takes time. At the same time there is still the problem of globalisation. More and more people are turning their back on globalisation, regarding it as a threat. This partly explains the new ambivalent attitude of the Netherlands to the EU, being on the one hand part of globalisation and on the other hand increasingly a tool to defend against globalisation: fortress Europe.
If the rise of the populist parties is to be stopped, mainstream political parties must find a way to let the less wealthy in society, the working class and lower middle class to profit from globalisation or abandon it in favour of a renewed protectionism. Both are very tough to realise. Second, they must rebuilt the parts of civil society that were broken down by privatisation. Civil cohesion must be restored. Third and last they must change society from a cold heartless one back to one in which people care more for one another and do not try to profit over the backs of others, like the banks, malicious financial companies and insurance companies did, fuelling nationwide cynicism. That last requirement is probably most difficult to realise.
Complain about this comment
I applaud the Swedish Democrats , Geert Wilders Freedom Party and anybody else who is making a stand against the mass migration of peoples to Europe , who do not want to embrace European culture or fully intigrated with European people . Europe's failure to make a stand against this mass immigration from the south and east , is motivated by appathy , politics , human rights and political correctness ; economics and the labour force is just an excuse .
What is Europe without its culture that has developed over centuries ?
Today it is fast becoming just an uneconomic trade area , that will be no good to anyone . Perhaps one day Europe will deteriorate to become like one of the states the immigrants are coming from .
MAII may smugly sing the praises of the USA with its 99% immigrant population ; but that is where the US may succeed where Europe will not . Do we forget the poor whites in the southern states , who so bitterly resented living together with slave immigrants .
There is no female circumcision and forced child marriages in the USA ? I wonder , maybe it is illegal , as in Europe , but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen . What about the new homeless in the USA , who have no better option than to camp in the woods .
A large part of the US hotch potch culture is derived from Europe . I see Europe going the same way , will soon have no culture to speak of at all .
Call me Racist , Xenophobic , Islamophobic , what you like , I support anybody or political party who makes a stand against immigration of people who will not intigrate with the indigenous citizens .
Complain about this comment
I believe in an equal but fair policy system whaen it comes to immigration. Countries should be allowed to set their own immigration policies at all times, however, they should be hamstringed by that same policy when their citizens appy to be citizens of any other nation. To sum it up, sure go for a no immigration policy but don't act surprised when other countries deny your citizens that same right.
Complain about this comment
#68 Caspar
Thanks for this: it is indeed hard to understand Dutch politics if one does not know a bit about the country's social history. You might have mentioned the Dutch 2005 referendum on the proposed EU Constitution, which showed clearly that there was a problem with the EU agenda of globalisation.
"Economic prosperity required immigration"
Well, I disagree here: I always thought that the unskilled labour from Morocco and Turkey was brought in by unscrupulous employers ("undertakers", as the Dutch word "ondernemers" was so charmingly translated by Labour prime minister Den Uyl in the 1970s) in order to break the demand for higher wages from the local Dutch population. This was a choice exercised by the "liberal pillar", not a real economic necessity. In Germany, the ex-chancellor Helmut Schmidt is known for his criticism of the decision to import "guest-workers" into the federal republic in the 1960s. He thinks that a multicultural society is hardly compatible with democracy in the short term, partly because many of the immigrants don't want to integrate themselves. This is also the problem posed by the Romas.
Complain about this comment
Anyone can become American, (only if they marry a US citizen nowadays ), but noone can "become" Swede. Cultural identity in Europe is not just skin deep. It's where your greatgranparents were 1000 years ago. National pride is so sacred in Europe and so vulnerable that unlimited immigration can disrupt that precious balance and destroy that intimate feeling of closeness, of sharing a common past. Immigrants are not welcome because they unwillingly change the values the European society thrives on. And the most important of these values is Christianity. I haven't heard of any Swede protesting against Eastern European immigrants, it's always the Muslims they have a problem with. It's hard to identify yourself with people who share no common ground with you. So where is the surprise in the Swedish vote then?
Complain about this comment
Quite frankly,I believe that in light of the colossal problems that the constant influx of immigrants have caused,ie,over population,depletion of government money due to their dependency on state assistance,their inability to assimilate and conduct themselves in a manner which be speaks a desire,interest and loyalty to the language,customs,and dignity befitting the honour of the country migrated to.
"When in Rome,do as a Roman"should be universal,in England,speak English,in France,speak French,etc,etc,et al infinitum,the downfall of some of history greatest civilisations has been greatly attributed to the overall loss of national identity,
As well as financial ruin because they spread themselves to thin,if you want a millions of immigrants,check your country's bank account first,50 people and one apple pie is basically a feast fit only for famished mice. Soon we'll all have country's with abject poverty and its attendant woes,then we'll all be third world nations with 2 Billion people to find work for,I would say"sorry,nothing personal,were just full to capacity,perhaps some other country may have a vacancy,"
Complain about this comment
As usual, there is a "spontaneous" demonstration against election results when the so called right makes significant gain.
I guess that people who voted for them are considered as second class, despicable, citizens. Such arrogance is not likely to make them change their mind.
Their vote expresses serious concerns, deserving of consideration. If they are not addressed, the polarization of the society is going to worsen.
Prior to local elections last year, I was reading posters pasted by the various candidates in an area erected for that purpose. The poster from the far right was badly torn, while the others had been left intact. I was nevertheless attempting to read it when a young man approached me and started to tell me in an angry manner that this was trash and those people were trash and I should not even look at it. I felt threatened by his manners and I left.
This is not how you win friends and influence people is it.
Complain about this comment
What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum?
The barbarians are due here today.
Why isn't anything happening in the senate?
Why do the senators sit there without legislating?
Because the barbarians are coming today.
What laws can the senators make now?
Once the barbarians are here, they'll do the legislating.
Why did our emperor get up so early,
and why is he sitting at the city's main gate
on his throne, in state, wearing the crown?
Because the barbarians are coming today
and the emperor is waiting to receive their leader.
He has even prepared a scroll to give him,
replete with titles, with imposing names.
Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today
wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas?
Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts,
and rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds?
Why are they carrying elegant canes
beautifully worked in silver and gold?
Because the barbarians are coming today
and things like that dazzle the barbarians.
Why don't our distinguished orators come forward as usual
to make their speeches, say what they have to say?
Because the barbarians are coming today
and they're bored by rhetoric and public speaking.
Why this sudden restlessness, this confusion?
(How serious people's faces have become.)
Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly,
everyone going home so lost in thought?
Because night has fallen and the barbarians have not come.
And some who have just returned from the border say
there are no barbarians any longer.
And now, what's going to happen to us without barbarians?
They were, those people, a kind of solution.
by Constantine Cavafy (1864-1933)
translated by Edmund Keeley
Complain about this comment
" And of course the 1 % are the remnants of the original inhabitants of your country who were exterminated by those early settlers from the Mayflower onwards!"
"Mayflower" Pilgrims were hardly American.
And one can hardly talk about original inahibitants' estermination becasue:
1. So called Native Americans are not native but descendands of immigrants fro NE Siberia and Asian FE.
2. Come census time hundreds of thousands of US citizens proudly identify themselves as Apache, Cherokee, Choktaw, Iroquois, Kiowa, Komanche, Navajo, Ute, etc.
Many of them being not destitute alcoholics (another myth promulgated by America-haters) but accountants, engineers, lawyers, and, last but not least - succesful casino owners/operators.
Nice try, but no cigar.
Complain about this comment
JeanLuc
Re 53
My observations on 'Schengen' are no less attuned to reality than all Your 'pro-EU' assertions that everything is wonderful in the EU!
Frankly, if there's a "boring" repetition on these Blogs it is Your interjections denying the encroachment of the EU-Brussels entity into every sphere of National existence.
A fact the France Government has just woken up to with the wholly OTT allegations of pre-1945 policies: You & others will certainly now I am no friend of France's duplicitous Government, but in this instance it is clear 'Schengen' is a part of the problem and only You cannot see it!
E.g. Schengen most certainly does have a role in the passage of 'Roma' across EUrope - - to deny it as You do merely exposes Your wilfull denial of fact & experience of the Citizens of EUrope inc. the 'roma'.
Incidentally, I like You am totally opposed to pareties of the far-right in any Nation & the France, Sweden, Netherlands, UK, Germany moves to that more extreme area of 'Political' expression is very worrying.
However, such moves by portions of the Populace cannot be effectively countered for so long as 'pro-EU' display blind obedience & dogmatic attachment to the present EU framework, such as Your denial of Schengen being a part of the cause & consequence of supposed 'free movement'!
You deny it, but the France President & Foreign Minister, plus the EU's Reding appear not to agree with Your interpretation anymore than I do: All have mentioned 'free movement' of peoples in stating their cases for & against the repatriation of 'Roma'.
The rise of a Swedish 'far-right' (unsure this really is) is a profound warning to the EU-Brussels entity & to individual Governments that they have been ignoring the indigenous Citizens for far too long. Examples of this high-handed, overbearing denial of Citizens' wishes by the EU in conjunction with States can be found across EUrope:
In the UK/England it is 'membership' itself, in several western Nations it is 'immigration', in quite a number it is the imposition of Lisbon Treaty, in a few it is the EUro-zone bailout, & in a few more it is the realisation Brussels has supreme authority & power e.g. policy of Oversight of State Budgets/Fiscal management.
There is an immense & developing Democratic-defecit across the EU27: IMO these 'far-right' successes/advances are symptomatic of a rejection by a proportion of Citizens that they should not be consulted or represented by this relatively new (post-1992 Maastricht) Political colossus: An entity that pays lip-service to Accountability & is often patently dishonest in its claims about its effectiveness & popular support.
One has only to look at Barroso claiming widespread Citizen support after the 2009 MEP election & his recent claim that an EU Poll showed increasing support for the new Banking measures when Surveys by independent bodies including the Wall Street Journal revealed the exact opposite.
JeanLuc, it is ALL linked, inc. Schengen, & if You & other 'pro-EU' go on ignoring the Citizens & blindly proclaiming the myth of 'ever closer union' it is raising the prospect of Civil disorder on the streets of EUrope.
Lincoln had it right, 'You cannot fool all of the people all of the time..': That '..some of the time..' seems the EU method is a disaster and the disorder would be a tragedy, but it is not so far off, if the EU continues as it does at present.
Complain about this comment
Another "bright" contribution by CBW:
"""No, that would involve the 'greek' in the use of extensive, considered & substantive aquisition of knowledge in place of prejudicial innuendo & bias."""
Rape existed very much in French society prior to the influx of muslim immigrants. Gang-rape certainly existed but was extremely rare and certainly it was even more rare to see it applied on the local neighbourhood girl and absolutely certainly not on the basis of her wearing the wrong "cloth" or having the wrong "belief" (at least not since the 19th century!!! - earlier on it existed but the habit was eradicated). On the other hand, gang-rape was never eradicated and continues to be quite widespread in muslim societies from Turkey to Saoudi Arabia and Pakistan and of course Algeria would not be an excemption to that. Consult the statistics CBW. The influx of Algerians in France saw a steep rise in the gang-rape, especially of girls either French "infidel" girls or Algerian girls dressed the "infidel-way" (usually the Kabyl ones). That did not label every single Algerian as rapist. That says what it says: their influx saw a steep rise in that sort of crime. There is no labeling. This is pure statistics you want to hide and lie about. You also accuse me of using the title "infidel" but that is very much the title that the vast majority of muslims give to non-muslims. Again you want to hide it and lie about it.
"""As has been amply demonstrated on everything from Greek history to World Wars"""
You simply wish to hide away the dirty british role in these wars.
"""Feminism,"""
I do not remember commenting on the sport. Feminism was both a tool and an outcome of the enforcement of capitalist policies without this implying morally anything in favour or against it. What do you want to know about feminism in particular?
"""Turkey's EU application"""
Yes Turkey has made its EEC/EU application since the 1950s:
In the meanwhile and up today:
1) it denies having conducted any of the 3 genocides of the 1910-1922
2) it pongromed the last community of 250,000 "infidels"
3) it transformed its only 2 Aegean islands (on the mouth of Hellespont) habitated by "infidels" into open prisons so as to exterminate and cleanse completely all the "infidel" population
4) it invaded Cyprus killing more than 3000 POWs and citizens (i.e... "infidels") for which it gives no account and ethnically cleased the conquered part of the island bringing in colonists from Anatolia
5) it then went on to wage a war that costed some 50,000 lifes against Kurds who are the 25% of the country who till recently were denied even their existence as a culture
6) it openly demands earth, water and air from pretty much all its neighbours (Iraq, Armenia, Greece, Bulgaria) - 2 of which are EU countries
7) it violates the airspace of particularly 1 EU country (Greece)
8) it has repeatedly militarily invaded it (eg. 1987, 1996) with war being avoided by the EU country standing without hitting the Turkish forces.and waiting to retire.
Have you got anything to add dear CBW? Do you disagree with any of the above statements? Answer.
Sounds like a nice candidature to EU isnt't it CBW!!!!!!!!!! Oaou!!! Do you support it?
"""Roma"""
Charming nomadic tribe with ancient traditions and a way of life of their own. I have repeatedly spoken in favour of them only that you were not able to see. They are not a danger to society, they have just to be placed in the correct context otherwise their incompatible lifestyle creates a localised social nuissance. With little bit of will from all sides the problem is easily solvable - in fact, it is a non-issue used by politicians as a smokescreen. Have you got anything to add on that?
"""Albanians"""
I have never labelled them. Albanians themselves admit that as a nation that traditionally live out of it they have statistically a tedency to illegal. Check them out (leave Greece and Italy aside) in the rest of Europe. Do not take my word ask your police, they will give you all the statistics you need. Then come back and we discuss on it. Whatever you will find does not mean that the majority of Albanians are like that. It only means that due to the sociohistoric evolution of the Albanian state, following the collapse of the Hotza-communist dictatorship on which you have not the slightest clue (by far the most strict and isolationist communist regime in Europe which kept the country to middle ages), the country suddenly discovered the world and half its population walked out literally on feet and swimming crossing the borders (in Greece they enterred on feet walking several 100s of kilometers, in Italy they embarked 200 people on boats for 50 people etc....). It is 100% natural that this social process statistically will create more bandits, burglars and criminals. Do you want to argue with that remark? Albanians themselves do not, they agree with the above, do you really argue with them now?
"""English, Americans, Masinic society,"""
Hehe. Rage against the machine? English, Americans, masons... the triangle of evil? Whatever... Why don't you accept the fact that your dear country for the past 300 years was the major world power which was succeeded by its ancient colony, US, when your oligarchs (politicofinancial), together with French, German, Dutch and other oligarchs (with whom often they are related by more than money), invested there.
Well that is how it goes, there is nothing new in that. World powers are not mother Teresas, they rise to yield control over others, and that can be nasty at times. Britain like all others had its fair share of genocides and other crimes against humanity - with a beloved game of implicating others and dragging them into terrible wars. Now some countries might have benefited from the Anglosaxon (Britain, US) policies, others might have not. Greece finds itself on the second category: so why would you expect any Greek to be appreciative of it? What is so strange in that? From there on, nobody confused geopolitical games with the cultural, social, educational and scientific output of Britain of which there are several aspects I am highly appreciative. But you insist on me accepting an imaginary beneficial role of Britain and/or denying the crimes and that really escapes my logic. I too love Beethoven but should I deny the crimes of Germans in WWI and WWII?
"""uncle Tom Cobley"""
Your uncle?
"""all THAT is an effort of intellect beyond the 'greek's' grasp!"""
What intellect you talk? I never saw you adopting this sport! You never replied to any single point of mine, you just complain to complain cos you have nothing to say.
Leave the childish complains and comment at least on a real argument:
=> To whom does the land and property of the state belong?*
Complain about this comment
#70. At 05:07am on 21 Sep 2010, dahaye,
You are saying what most reasonable people would say, every country has the right to decide who enters AND who leaves, and it applies both to entrants and wannabe emigrants. I myself was in that category, I registered in Belgium, paid my taxes and social and now have applied for and been granted citizenship, all legally. But what I cannot accept is those that think they are above the law and have an inalienable right to go anywhere, do anything and live off others.
#74. At 08:58am on 21 Sep 2010, MariaTee,
I too have seen the defacing of the official poster boards in Belgium where the rights areas are torn off or defaced almost everywhere. I have encountered this sort of Socialist mentality before in London's Lambeth when the loony left ran it in the 60's and 70's, anybody to the right of them was considered a fascist and to be insulted etc and it didn't matter if they were Tories, Liberals or even Labourites. This by the way is the pedigree of a certain ex-mayor of London who wishes to be re-elected.
Complain about this comment
77. At 09:52am on 21 Sep 2010, cool_brush_work wrote:
You keep a blind eye on what I wrote above:
Immigration in countries like Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Spain and Italy has absolutely nothing to do with Shengen, the EU or even EEC. Absolutely nothing. It had been the national states' policies of the period 1945-1990 and for some states even earlier. The only country known for a post-Schengen immigration, that is Greece and even there the massive Albanian immigration is widely known to had been imposed by USA so as to trap socially the country from the inside.
Putting Schengen forward is logical as at some point it enters the picture but it is certainly not the root-cause of the phenomenon. Nor is there any common immigrational policy applied in Europe, Schengen or no Schengen.
It suffices not to talk about Schengen taking a part of the states' sovereignty. You are not in position to ask yourself where was your sovereignty lying earlier on. And I ask again:
=> to whom belongs the land and property of the state?
Complain about this comment
Re75: Christos, this is one of the best ever poems written in the 20th century full of irony and full of truth. You really have to have a sound knowledge of history to understand fully both the context and the meaning. Nontheless even without that knowledge you might notice that the ones who await the barbarians eagerly are mainly the emperor and the consuls, i.e. the high-class for the simple reason that the "immigration of barbarians" is wished always by the ruling classes. Equally today we see the same phenomenon. It is the higher classes that welcome the immigration, not the middle and certainly not the lower. "Barbarian immigration" is synonymous to Empire.
And that is why I will ask once again the basic question that sets this debate (until someone replies):
The one who owns the state land and property is the one who decides:
=> To whom belongs the state land and property?
Complain about this comment
One thing that has always puzzled me being a resident of Belgium is that in the Flemish Northern region the far right has long had a very high vote, whether it was as vlamms Blok or as Vlaams Belang as it is now called. There vote over the years is normally at least 20% and has got much higher at times and they have been in charge of Antwerp for a long time.
Yet considering that the centre of the EU, Brussels, sits in the middle of Flanders you rarely ever hear EU politicians expressing comments about their proximity to a significantly far-right region. Now, the Swedes vote by 4% for a right wing party and there are comments everywhere.
Two questions, 1) Anyone got an opinion as to why Flanders has never been ostracised for its far right voting patterns.
2) Why are there never adverse comments when a far left party gets 4%, as they do, and communism has been even more deadly in Europe than Fascism.
Complain about this comment
#80. At 10:23am on 21 Sep 2010, Nik,
As always you make a valid point, in this case that Shengen is nothing to do with immigration, and then lose the plot totally. It is true that Shengen has little to do with legal immigration from one member state to another but it DOES have a great deal to do with illegal immigration and the illegal movement of people who've illegally entered the EU. As for Greece being the only member state to have received post Shengen immigration, you have got to be joking, you might care to remember Albania is not yet in the EU so any immigration from there was entry into the EU and nothing to do with Shengen.
Complain about this comment
"Sarrazin for example, has clearly not read what the far-right Christian movement stand for in the USA, never mind Islam. Otherwise he would not have made the stupid claims about violence, etc."
Sarrazin's most recent book is selling in Germany as if there's no tomorrow (without Germany becoming a Sharia-based caliphate).
Moreover, according to recent polls, if Mr. Sarrazin would decide to create a new party (which he dosn't),on the order of Sweden Democrats, perhaps, he could count on support of almost 20% of Germans.
You may not like this news, just as results of Sunday election in Sweden, but facts are facts.
And more like them are sure to come.
Complain about this comment
re #50 " agree with GhostofShichuan who remembers Hitler, Stalin, and other dictators coming to power after or during the last Great Depression."
Just for the record: Neither Stalin, nor Mao, nor Kim Il-sung, nor Pol Pot, nor Mengistu Haile Mariam, nor Ceausescu, nor Ulbricht came to power during or as a result of Great Depression.
Complain about this comment
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
MAII You forgot to point out that your ancestors, having been processed at Ellis Island came to U.S. as LEGAL immigrants and a part of an orderly immigration controlled by the U.S. government.
Which has ceased to be the case decades ago.
[E.g.: who has processed ca 20 million of illegal immigrants from Latin America and issued them U.S. resident and work permits?]
Complain about this comment
#18 MarcusAureliusII
"....Europe cannot create its own version of the United States of America, it is not made in a way where that is a realistic possibility. All it can do is watch America in envy."
+++++++++++++++++++++
Altough I watched it several times, I did not envy you in the slightest when certain fanatics took out the WTC.
Complain about this comment
Nick: "Albanians"
Just wached a report from Kosovo about their young athletes, including female judo wrestlers, expressing hope of being able to participate in 2012 London Olympic Games as Kosovars.
However, more than one of them have stated with regret, that if not allowed to do so, they would opt to compete as 'Albanians' and march (out of necessity) under Albanian flag.
Here's wondering which one Nick the Greek would prefer to see happen?
[Milosevic's being already dead, Karadic captured, and Mladic on the run]
Complain about this comment
Re 72 "I haven't heard of any Swede protesting against Eastern European immigrants, it's always the Muslims they have a problem with."
And not only Swedes.
Which soundly defeats an argument that the current anti immigrant tide in Old Europe has been economic in nature.
[E.g. Hardly anybody in England or France complains these days about a proverbial Polish plumber, or in Scotland - about Polish policemen and bus drivers.]
Let's face it: it's a cultural clash and there is no way of avoiding it.
Complain about this comment
"And now, what's going to happen to us without barbarians?
They were, those people, a kind of solution.
by Constantine Cavafy (1864-1933)
translated by Edmund Keeley"
Don't worry: number of barbarians is constantly growing.
While numbers of civilized people are shrinking.
Complain about this comment
Re #83 "Why are there never adverse comments when a far left party gets 4%, as they do, and communism has been even more deadly in Europe than Fascism."
Communism has been even more deadly in Asia: compare number victims of Hitler and Mussolini's regimes with those of Mao-Tse-tung, Kim-Il-sung/Kim Jong-il and Pol Pot's Communist regimes.
Hundreds of millions, hundreds of millions...
Complain about this comment
Re82: Buzet23, your questioning is 100% natural. However you have to keep in mind that the vastr majority of "communist" and "fascist" organisations and political parties are all equally creations of the international capitalist regime. They are creations to be labelled "extremes" and to be promoted or bashed so as to drive the majority of people in the center (i.e. do not imagine any political center - the center is the "control" over a pre-constructed line). Another huge role of such organisation, especially the quite extreme ones (extra-right, extra-left) is the identification and trapping of potentially "dangerous" individuals, "dangerous" not to soceity but to the establishment. An important number of leading figures in these organisations are afterall common agents - a fact that has been repeatedly pinpointed by dissident lower positioned members who are usually delt with false accusations and find their way into prison, hospital or graveyard depending on the severity of their dissidence.
You have really to swallow and digest this information and from there on you will see how more easily you will understand such questions.
"""1) Anyone got an opinion as to why Flanders has never been ostracised for its far right voting patterns."""
Because they are mpainstream. From there on, if they say a thing or two more, none outside Belgium cares. Inside Belgium the majority of Flemish are pro-independence or pro-larger autonomy and hence see positively the existence of that party, not to mention that the wish for independence actually conceals a hidden hope to break away from what they see as a largely "immigrant-infested French south", let alone getting rid of the unbearable French that never respected their culture and language. Why not? Certainly that hidden hope of their won't be satisfied even in case of independence of Flandres for the simple reason it was never satisfied in any other country. They will be no exception in that case.
"""2) Why are there never adverse comments when a far left party gets 4%, as they do, and communism has been even more deadly in Europe than Fascism."""
Go back to my above comments: communism and fascism in the form they appeared 100 years back as well sa today they are both creations to permit the manipulation of the masses. Sometimes the one will be promoted, sometimes the other, sometimes the one will be bashed, sometimes the other. From 1950s onwards, the leftish (and thus indirectly the communists) were treated by the establishment as the "alternative" and at times as even fashionable. Who cares if some of these fashionable people had praised Stalin who slayed 50 million people inside his state, i.e. some 10 million people more than those died in the theaters of war in WWII!!!!!! It was Russkies afterall, none cares about dead Russkies, they do not count. The establishment promoted socialism and in general leftism so as to yield control over the masses directing them in the "correct" direction (i.e. forgetting about their sovereignty, accepting passively like sheeps the incoming immigration (anyhow you see it, it is also a form of invasion inflicted upon the masses), their freedom, surrendering all their rights in the over-ruling political parties, surrendering their professional interests in the political syndicates etc.). Further from the leftish (nowadays, the gache-caviar) the extra-left acted as the boogey man so as to bring half of the population more close to the promoted center-right and right populated by "moderate ones" and from there on the liberals, pro-capitalist etc. etc. who of course serve more openly (but no more or less than the leftish socialists) the establishment. The extra-right serves again as a boogey man and note that in ALL countries, the extra-right is filled with elements that have absolutely nothig to do with ideology (eg. why would an extra-right Romanian be attracted to Nazism when Nazis considered his nation as inferior by nature? - obviously because he has been taught to be attracted to it by a carefully selected propaganda that wants to deflect natural nationalism into a prefabricated fascism easily controlled and easily manipulable for individual filing purposes...).
I invite you to come into contact with extremist groups and target to have a discussion with long-standing low-position members, especially those that seem to bear some sort of grudge. Make them talk. You will find they - despite being simplistic people of usually lower education - have already a lot of questions and they do have a lot of suspicions. Only that since none ever cared about their opinion it rarely goes out. They will get older and new victims will get their place.
You really need to digest the above to comprehend.
Now, as to why socialism and leftism in general is and was always part of the international capitalist regime just take the following typical example:
You have a nice little country, somewhere between Europe, America, Asia and Africa. It is average sized, not particularly rich but has some own strong cards to play and can develop. However, there is a problem: on top of its government is some short of government, either a dictator or a long standing president, who refuses to "collaborate", i.e. to accept the role that the international financial games have prescripted for the country. On top, the president refuses to let the ocuntry's ressources pray to international corporations and keeps key sectors nationalised (energy sources, electricity, telecommunications) all while he wants to trade with the "wrong" side of the world creating new unwanted traderoutes and empowering the "wrong" people. The "wrong" people are not some short of terrorists of course, it is simply the "wrong" people according to international bankoinvestors mainly based in western countries.
Hence, what best? Induce social trouble (no matter if the country goes relatively well). Get the syndicates in action. Make a rebellion either successful or unsuccessful. Give momentum to leftish. Make them rise either by elections or by force. The leftish will:
1) end all existing traderoutes isolating the country
2) nationalise all useless industries inflating the state and causing it to fail
3) eventually they will need to borrow money to sustain the failed state
In a matter of years, the country will be ripe to fall pray. Everything will be privitised at the cheapest prices and the country's ressources will fall pray to corporations...
... and the story goes on. The above is a mere example. It has several other declinations, left wing and right wing of course (depending on situation). And that is how it goes. Remember: the true worst enemy of international capitalists are mainly the true-nationalists with mercantilist financial approaches emphasising on free internal market combined with taxes on imports and state control over energy sources, electricity, telecommunications and armaments.
Complain about this comment
88. At 11:20am on 21 Sep 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"""Here's wondering which one Nick the Greek would prefer to see happen?"""
You do two errors powemeerkat. First you pretend that I express the opinion of Greeks. Do I seem like doing so here? I am the most harsh critic of Greeks and their choices. Then you think that I am anti-Albanian and pro-Serbian by nature which again you do a blatant mistake. Serbians are Serbians, a slavic nation, we are Greeks a Greek (Hellenic) nation (and a cousinless one, unless you consider Italians, the closest population to us, our cousins). There is nothing that links me to Serbians or to Albanians (note I am not religious and even if I was, you know that orthodox people in general are independent and are not sticking together like mujahedins like the muslims, catholics or protestands...).
I have not the slightest of care about Kosovar athlets and their future. As far as I know they would compete for any country that gave them enough money.
"""[Milosevic's being already dead, Karadic captured, and Mladic on the run]"""
... all while guys like Tujman, Izefbekovic and Osic are free and treated as heros. All killers, half good half bad.
So? What was the point?
Complain about this comment
#92. At 11:39am on 21 Sep 2010, Nik,
Your assessment has some logic within it despite it rambling a bit and yes I have met extremists, both in the UK and in Belgium, as whilst in the UK I was active in politics for a while and came across many different views. I've also canvassed in a very poor and dangerous area of South London and that was an education in how ordinary people think. Your example of the evolution of a country once hard left (or right) gets into power was basically accurate and was reflective of the heady old days of Harold Wilson and old time Labour in the 60's, and how even now the damage he did has impacted on successive governments. Thatcher made a lot of mistakes but did manage to control the economy and the unions, Bliar just wanted to be liked so spent all that Major had astutely recovered, Brown, well, he had trouble even making two plus two equal to four.
Regarding your comments on Belgium and "not to mention that the wish for independence actually conceals a hidden hope to break away from what they see as a largely "immigrant-infested French south", let alone getting rid of the unbearable French that never respected their culture and language."
I'm not sure where you get this notion of the south being immigrant infested, there is an Italian community around Charleroi and Mons who came there as miners when the coal mines were working. Other than that the only area you see immigrants is around Brussels, both in Flanders and Wallonia, and it is that which is causing some annoyance to the Flemish Nationalists as those in the Flanders periphery are wanting to speak languages other than Dutch whereas to a Flemish Nationalist the whole world must learn Dutch. Your analysis made no mention of the fact that this dispute between the two communities was caused by Flanders being officially French speaking until relatively recently since it was the poor relation within Belgium when compared to the 'rich' South who controlled them. Now that the 'rich' status has been reversed old scores are being settled by a people that for decades have elected extreme politicians. Remember Antwerp has a very poor history regarding the treatment of Jews just before WWII.
As for respecting their language, that I cannot do, they even have a different dialect from the Netherlands and most Dutch people I've met have understood that Dutch is a small language and due to that it's vital to speak English as well if their country and people are to prosper in the world. Not so the Flemish who use their language as a form of discrimination in that it's very easy to deny legal immigrants jobs if you make strict and severe language requirements and do not recognise the qualifications the applicant has. That little trick is something few here have ever commented on, but it is increasingly wide spread and legal under EU law.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
59. At 10:45pm on 20 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"threnodious, the only reason these migrants go to various nations in Europe is that they can't get to America. Send them here. In fifty years, their grandchildren will own your grandchildren. How? When things get back to normal and Americans stop allowing global corporations use them as patsies, Americans will be rich again and able to buy them from the Chinese."
You sure? Maybe Europes free healthcare, generous welfare nets and job security appeal to Immigrants. Also, the fact that Europe provides the same oppurtunuties with regards to starting a business and making money as America?
Also... are you supporting slavery? In the land of the free?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
powermeerkat;
"MAII You forgot to point out that your ancestors, having been processed at Ellis Island came to U.S. as LEGAL immigrants and a part of an orderly immigration controlled by the U.S. government."
I also didn't add that although they came with only the clothing they wore and little else, they learned to speak, read, and write English fluently, got jobs, started and operated successful businesses, bought homes, started families, went on vacations, accumultated wealth, and lived full rich lives they couldn't possibly have hoped for had they stayed in Europe. More importantly, their story was not unique, it was the rule rather than the exception.
I don't care what some international study says about upward mobility or health care systems, ours here is by far the best. There are no comparable places anywhere else in the world, no more desirable place for people who are born into circumstances where they have no chances in life to better themselves to go to achieve anything like their full potential. If you are born with nothing which means in most places you are condemned to live a life that adds up to nothing, the best place to come to change that is the USA. And if you are sick with a serious illness, the place to go for your best chances of effective treatment and recovery is an American hospital.
Complain about this comment
"I have not the slightest of care about Kosovar athlets and their future. As far as I know they would compete for any country that gave them enough money."
Watching a pretty extensive correspondent report I would be inclined to think that those Kosovar kids didn't care about money, but simply about a right to compete in the Olympics, period.
And that they would rather compete as Kosovars if they possibly could.
Just as Macedonias would rather compete as Macedonians than as Bulgarians, Greeks or anybody else.
Now, what's wrong with that?
Complain about this comment
"Remember Antwerp has a very poor history regarding the treatment of Jews just before WWII."
And Paris and Vichy during WWII.
[I won't mention Berlin for obvious reasons]
Complain about this comment
Malefactor;
You live in lala land.
"You sure? Maybe Europes free healthcare, generous welfare nets and job security appeal to Immigrants."
Nothing is free. People pay for it in taxes in Europe. Taxes that crush every productive effort. It robs all ambition of its rewards. It is the thief that guarantees that nobody can make and keep a profit from runnning a business unless they are wealthy enough to shelter it in a Swiss bank account so conveniently located right in the middle of things.
"Also, the fact that Europe provides the same oppurtunuties with regards to starting a business and making money as America?"
Europe is just about the least business friendly place on earth. With its myriad laws, regulations, restrictions, taxes, forms, even large European companies don't want to make anything there anymore, which is why they've picked up shop and moved to other countries like China, Brizil, even America. Europe has been giving away all of those freebie social services paid for largely on credit. Now it is broke and guess what, the party is over.
Complain about this comment
" Europe provides the same oppurtunuties with regards to starting a business and making money as America?"
If that were the case how come that so many British, French, German, etc. scientists and physicians emmigrate to America as soon as they can get work permits in the U.S.?
[Inquiring minds want to know why both Merkel and Sarkozy speak about a brain drain and plan remedial actions to stop that trend.]
Complain about this comment
As an immigrant to the US, I find this issue extremely hypocritical. I am white and European, therefore, I am "allowed" to be here. This is not a political issue at all--it's based on race and ethnicity and the rampant racism that seems to be flooding the world. It seems to me that ever since Edward Said coined the term "othering" in regard to British Colonial India, it has only grown insipidly and is now rooted firmly within all societies. Islam is not a violent religion, at least, no more so than Christianity (which is to blame for some of the worst historical atrocities out there). We have all contributed to the violence of the current world--Muslims have undergone centuries of persecution, as have Christians, Buddhists, Jews and just about any other group out there. Since 9/11 and the "war on terror" (which is an entirely different argument) the hatred against Muslims has grown. The stereo-type of those few extremists has led to an illegal war, racism, and a rise in terrorist activities. Just who is to blame here? Did the racist xenophobic actions come before the thought? Or was it the thought first? France is an excellent example of this. In 2000 it opened it's doors to thousands of Roma fleeing from Hungary. Now, they have decided that they want to expel them all again. Since the expulsions (sorry, I mean 'voluntary repatriations') have stormed the media, anti-Roma sentiment has grown. A look at comments posted in the last month on YouTube videos about the Roma or on news articles here and other news sites, proves my point. The basic sentiment of the "West" (especially France, the UK, Germany and the US) seems to be "if you're not white (and nominally Christian) we don't want you".
Complain about this comment
#101
"Europe is just about the least business friendly place on earth. With its myriad laws, regulations, restrictions, taxes, forms, even large European companies don't want to make anything there anymore, which is why they've picked up shop and moved to other countries like China, Brizil, even America."
Eh? 50 of the top 100 companies in the world are HQ'd in Europe. 21 of the top 50 most competitive countries are in the EU. A full retraction is in order but I wont hold my breath.
Complain about this comment
#102
Some professionals move to the US from Europe to earn lots and lots of almighty dollars. One benefit of working in the US is that if you are already earning lots of money, you will be taxed much less than in poor old Europe. So the rich, and doctors and engineers can be considered rich in relative terms, will become richer in the US. The average American, however, does not have it so easily.
The average American, in fact, would never in their right minds opt to become unemployed in the US, if the alternative was a European country. They would never opt to get ill, they would never opt for 10 days vacation per year, if a comparable country in Europe offers three times that. Let's not talk about the fringes of employment here.
So yes, there is a brain drain for some sectors of some countries. Most professionals I speak to in Europe, however, find their quality of life infinitely better than what they would have in the US, and that the money is usually not worth it. Immigration is a very difficult undertaking, and there are more factors in deciding to move countries than simply money.
Complain about this comment
Good,hard working people all over Europe are beginning to wake up and realise that their so called elected peers are there to serve our wants and needs and not their own idealistic,self indulgent preferences.Its a day thats been a long time coming and they need to wake up to reality and thats quite simple.....here in the U.K the number one issue above all else is immigration.Some might not like to hear it but i assure you if a Nationwide questionnaire was sent out to all households asking what people most want sorted it would be immigration.Its the number one conversation topic wherever you go and with whoever you mix with(Native British of course).Go on Government give it a go if you dare.Send out the questionnaire.
Complain about this comment
Oh, here we go again. Europe is not competeing or trying to be USA. We have a cultural identity to preserve, Americans don't. They destroyed the local culture and threw the Natives in reservations(mild term for ...prisons). Ans stop talking about that Ellis Island and ho "legal" those newcomers were. They were refugees who would never make it to US of the 2010 laws were applied. NOW, in 2010 marrying a US citizen is about the only way to be legal in US. A hundred years ago anyone who showed up was welcome. Now Mexicans show up and they get nothing. How unfair. Why don't they show up legally? Green Card lottery excludes many countries like Mexico, so fake marriage is the way to go in US. I personally know many people on fake marriage-all legal citizens now. The illegals are the honest ones nowadays. No marriage fraud=no citizenship.
It's such a corrupt system! A professor speaking 5 languages cannot obtain US citizenship unless they marry a US citizen. BUt...an Albanian, who speaks no English WHATSOVER easily gets a Green Card thru the DV Lottery. So at least one consolation: US no longer attracts the best and brightest because of their anti-immigrant laws. So what is their problem with Sweden? Look at your own xenophobic America first.
Complain about this comment
It all sounds based on ethnicity (islam) and not on immigration!!!
Complain about this comment
It is not correct to blame these developments solely on the respective economies. Economic conditions may be a factor, but the overriding cause of this shift to conservatism has been the imposition of multiculturalism on European states. The citizens of these countries have the right to protect their cultures, but it is unfortunate that left-wing bigotry and zealotry is blowing this up into a storm of xenophobia.
Complain about this comment
Q Continuum;
"As an immigrant to the US, I find this issue extremely hypocritical. I am white and European, therefore, I am "allowed" to be here."
You are either an ignorant fool or a liar. The fact is that there are millions of people from all over the world in the US legally, many of them who are not white have become American citizens. Just look around you if you are really here and not making this up. However, if you feel that way, I invite you to leave to allow someone who is not white to take your place. Frankly from what you've said I think they'd make a better candidate for citizenship here than you'd make.
Complain about this comment
#103
The basic sentiment of the "West" (especially France, the UK, Germany and the US) seems to be "if you're not white (and nominally Christian) we don't want you".
I'm afraid that is simply not true, given the ethnic mix of both the UK and US, and the patterns of ongoing immigration. You should take those two countries out of that accusation.
Complain about this comment
Derska;
"A professor speaking 5 languages cannot obtain US citizenship unless they marry a US citizen. BUt...an Albanian, who speaks no English WHATSOVER easily gets a Green Card thru the DV Lottery."
So how many times were you turned down? Know of any particular reason? Were you ever a member of the Communist party or convicted of a felony?
Complain about this comment
MarkAurellius, there are very few RECENT immigrants to US "from all over the world". Yes, you see Indians, Asians, Africans, but they came DECADES to CENTURIES ago. In 2010 you cannot become a legal resident unless yoo win the DV Lottery( chances 1:10000000) or you marry a US citizen, or you already have a relative living in US. You have people who are highly educated leaving US, because the idea of fake marriage is not appealing to them and then you have people who are illiterates, do not speak English at all, who are pulled in thru family connections or the Lottery. That's USA 2010. Unwelcoming. If only these laws were valid 100 years ago. US would be no more than 20 M people- and superpower? Forget it. Immigration is the strength of US and because of mass xenophobia in 2010 you are rapidly losing it-economic boom without immigration is impossible. Keep on shutting those doors and you'll see.
Complain about this comment
#107
Thats why they call it a "lottery".
Complain about this comment
@ ptsa #40 you clearly mix with some extreme elements. These exist in every religion; and, like in every religion, the vast majority of believers do not support these extreme elements, though they will rarely disown them (eg try radical Christians, radical Jews).
Western societies (especially in Europe) are having problems coming to terms with both the EU (perceived as a government above national governments - though it's not), and with globalisation (which has upset the previous order of things). So, they look for scapegoats. In the UK they used to be West Indians, or Pakistanis; in Germany Turks or Yugoslavs; etc. Now they are Muslims. The angst is directed against immigrants (especially those with a defining characteristic - like their religion).
For the record, I do not share the beliefs of any religion but I respect those who do believe as human beings.
Complain about this comment
You know Derska, without you I think somehow America will survive. BTW, is one of those 5 languages Arabic? The US military and intelligence need people who speak Arabic fluently and can translate into English. Maybe you could get a job with them and get to the US that way. We don't need any though whose expertise is in French, German, Spanish, we have plenty of those already. Unfortunately, far more people want to come to America than we can absorb at an acceptable rate without severe impact to our society. Even we have our limits. Are you a rocket scientist or nuclear physicist? We might be able to use more of them.
Complain about this comment
"""economic boom without immigration is impossible"""
That is the biggest lie and hides yet another trap:
=> Economic boom depends on a large number of reasons. Historically the arrival of massive immigration most often provoked huge financial loss and social downfall rather than induced economic boom while in the latter case, apart the immigration in empty lands (which is more about colonising largely uninhabited lands), most often the economic boom was not actually provoked by the massive presence of immigrant people but rather it was the precursor to the arrival of immigrants. Immigrants can help and contribute to a economic boom but their presence is not a guarantree of a good economy and their absence not a fatality dragging economic downfall.
=> Who claims that the societies seek "economic booms". Usually economic booms are extremely short-lived periods where there is lots of activity for people, an activity however which enriched disproportionately the few and in the mid-run and sometimes even the short-run empoverishes the many. You have to realise that the economic boom is as much needed to a society as it was necessary for your grandfather to work 5 more hours per day (to make it a total of 12 hours per day) to produce not 5 tons, but 10 tons of wheat when yearly he needed only 500 kilos plus 1,5 ton security with all the rest being sold at extremely cheap prices much to the profit of the wheat merchant.
Just give this referendum to any country:
Choice A: Remain as it is, stable, not extremely poor but not at all rich
Choice B: Accept a 20% immigration and hopefully the country will get richer and a few will get quite very rich
Make an educated guess of what the bulk of countries would vote.
Keeping an "economy" striving to achieve "economic boom" is no religion and no mans' purpose on earth.
There is only one thing that makes the human being really happy and that is freedom. Not having a good economy.
Complain about this comment
Yet again MA2 has gone all doe-eyed and "land of the free, home of the brave (well, a bit brave, but mainly just very susceptible to flag waving propaganda)" on us and then wonders why America is brought in to the discussion -you raise it up and people will tear it down. But anyway, let's not follow him down that well-trodden and quite boring route.
I honestly believe it is an integration issue. For example, Ireland was a very homogenous society until the 90s then immigrants came in waves from different destinations. The Chinese were probably among the first to arrive en masse, people generally didn't mind, they didn't integrate well but they work hard and keep out of trouble. Various other nationalities came in different waves, usually countries 'mined' for students by English language schools and as the foreign nationals became more and more varied, more of the international groups integrated successfully. It is the groups that have not integrated that cause unease. Most Muslims won't be found in the pub or at the football stadium (and often the women remain at home in traditional households) nor will Roma, but Brazilians, Argentinians, Nigerians, Canadians, Americans etc. will, and these nationalities integrate better. It is unsettling that people will come to your home and ignore you from behind a veil or refuse to join in any activities that makes your nation a real nation, with a shared cultural life, rather than a nation in name only which is really just a country full of foreigners who may have one thing, capitalism, in common.
Complain about this comment
Paul in Dublin;
When did the Priests arrive? It seems to me that's when Ireland's real troubles started.
Complain about this comment
The priests arrived about 1500 years ago, and then thy went travelling around the continent in search of cuter boys. This was all shortly after the French threw a massive party when some yank moved on home to lick his wounds and waste his life trolling and attempting to get Europeans annoyed by the fact that he doesn't like them very much, or know anything current or relevant about them
Complain about this comment
#117:
Excellent Nick! It sounds perfectly reasonable.
Complain about this comment
51. At 8:51pm on 20 Sep 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
BTW, what in hell does this have to do with the debate about Europe tiring of immigrants?
It has everything to do with it when you decided to enlighten us poor Europeans that the US was all embracing and welcoming of all immigrants, which clearly is not the case. Whilst I have no doubt that the US may well be a very nice place to live, lets not pretend that there are no problems there either. The Ground Zero mosque, for example. Or Obama being a muslim. Or the demonstrations against non-english speaking migrants, the predominately white Tea Party folks etc etc, the list goes on.
You also mentioned that you experienced life in Europe. If I remember correctly having read some of your other posts that this was 40 years ago? I made the point that 50/60 years ago there was active segregation of blacks in some states in the US, they they werent allowed to vote, that they were effectively 2nd class citizens - at around the same time you experienced such horendous treatment of foreigners in France. So yes, whilst you may have experienced some of that in Europe, there was also active racial discrimination on your side of the pond, and yet you speak as though this is a purely European problem (bringing us back to the point of the debate) which is clearly (again) not the case.
Complain about this comment
"56. At 9:20pm on 20 Sep 2010, threnodio_II wrote:
#45 - BuckyOHare
I never had a lot of time for Britney and Jason either but then I am one of those who have bucked the trend and moved to eastern Europe so perhaps my perspective is rather different. On a light hearted note, I am in favour of western migration because it leaves fewer of us to share out the fruits of our labour here but, on a more serious level, the consequences on the ground of the rise of nationalism and the politics of the right give cause for concern on occasion. "
I left the UK about 2 years ago, just as the slide into recession started. I've benefited massively from the dying housing market here in Spain - although I havent experienced the poor employment market, I understand that the unemployment rate for young adults is pushing 40% down on the Costa's where I live.
I agree that the rise in nationalistic politics is worrying, as is the politics of envy which appears to be all too prevalent in nearly all the UK news bulletins I pick up here.
Complain about this comment
paul in dublin;
"The priests arrived about 1500 years ago, and then thy went travelling around the continent in search of cuter boys. This was all shortly after the French threw a massive party when some yank moved on home to lick his wounds and waste his life trolling and attempting to get Europeans annoyed by the fact that he doesn't like them very much, or know anything current or relevant about them"
Apparently you don't know much about us yanks either. 1500 years ago, there were no yanks. America wouldn't be discovered by the Norse for hundreds of years and by Columbus for a thouand years.
Although America is by far the most important country in the world while Ireland is a lot closer to being the least important country in the world, I'll bet I know a lot more about Ireland than you know about America. And BTW, who says there are no snakes in Ireland? Haven't you been listening to the news lately? How about a Papal visit next? I thought I'd heard a rumor that he was going to pay a visit there....until the scandal broke.
Complain about this comment
It seems to me as though the main bugbear of the Sweden Democrats is not just immigration but islamisation.
I personally admire anyone who speaks out against islam. People are so afraid to criticise it incase it offends yet christians regularly get a pasting. The media, politicians, comedians etc don't criticise islam for fear of the inevitable mediaeval backlash and death threats that will ensue, issued by some self appointed spokesman of allah in a youtube video.
Being liberal is all well and good, and I have good reason to be extremely grateful for the liberal society that I live in, but when it comes to large death worshipping cults i think we need to draw the line. Gadhafi's speech some years ago says it all, "We have 50 million Muslims in Europe," Gadhafi said. "There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords..."
This is indicitive of the muslim crusader mentality even if it takes a few generations.
I don't think it is all based on economic hardship just because people see jobs going to immigrants (although some of it no doubt is), I just think people see this particular religion for what it is, completely incompatible with European values and way of life.
Oh and this board is for posting your comments, not a thesis!
Complain about this comment
Nik wrote:
"There is only one thing that makes the human being really happy and that is freedom. Not having a good economy."
Well said, Nik. I would go further, and say that a good economy is the result of freedom, but it is perhaps better the way you have said it.
We worship the money god now, and we have forgotten the peace of mind that makes the pursuit of money possible. The only question is to define the meaning of "freedom".
Does it mean having the TV tell you that you are free, as in the US and British culture, or does it mean the freedom to participate in your local government and make laws which affect your life?
Complain about this comment
Marcus wrote:
"Although America is by far the most important country in the world..."
Yes, it is, in the same way as blue is the most interesting colour in the world.
Complain about this comment
@124, MAII
"America is by far the most important country in the world while Ireland is a lot closer to being the least important country in the world"
I don't know. I think that, right now, Ireland is the most important country in the world (or the West, including America). What the hell, I'm probably hallucinating. :p
Complain about this comment
Ireland is the most important country in ....Ireland...maybe. And then again maybe not. Perhaps the Vatican is more important there.
Complain about this comment
dt;
Switzerland is the most important country in the world....if you have money to hide or launder. Very clean place. They have inspectors to see to it that your house is spotless even inside the heating ducts before you are allowed to sell it and all money will be made spotlessly clean by the banks at no additional charge.
Complain about this comment
John might be right when he says it's not immigrant the swedish are tired of but muslims although I don't agree with his later sentiments. Most muslims don't see it as their life mission to conquer Europe.
I'm an immigrant, I moved from the country I was born in but when I hear my young students slagging off the immigrants I remind them of this but they tell me I don't count. If I don't open my mouth and speak my native tongue I could be one of them. It's difference people don't like and the more different you are the more people suspect you unless of course you have a bag of money with you. So let's be honest we don't like poor people from foreign countries.
So much for 'Vive la Différence!
Complain about this comment
really MA2? some christian mythology and a twist on "my daddy's bigger than your daddy"? that's what you got? good night
Complain about this comment
this blog is so fun,for some reason my previous post was deemed provoking. well that meant that it was as true as it can get. nonetheless what i meant was that first if potential emigree countries were better informed to what waits them once they move to eu they would think twice, second sticter policies and the lack of the possibility to stay in eu illegally would make them think twice, third a CLEAR message from elected rapresentatives and wider public would make them think again. bottomline would be that if it was clear what it is like in term of human price in years of life and loss of self esteem to bureocracy one would take another stand about choosing or not choosing where to move to. myself i would only move to a country inviting qualified immigrant through green card schemes and not only i would not stay other countries but i would do whatever in my power not to further their interests. long live the world without bordes.
Complain about this comment
The thing is "if they don't want you" why would you want them???
And the sick thing is no group will give anyone all the freedom to be one self. Ones own ethnicity can become very very boring very very fast--when you find out that they are so very very ordinary.
Diversity does help out with this problem. And that is why ...Id rather be in a mixture of people, myself, than with one ethnic group constantly.
For ...cultural (lack of boredom) reasons at least.
:)
Complain about this comment
stop obfuscating and trying to be politically correct.
the issue is not "immigration" per se....it is islamization & integration.
people in the uk welcome new blood coming into the country, so long as the numbers are manageable, and the people coming want to join OUR culture and abide by OUR laws and social norms.
the mass of people are angry at people who are coming to their country and flouting their social norms [particularly hiding their faces -i cant emphasize enough the impact this single thing has] and to add deep insult to injury, trying to use imtimidation, threats and riotous mob behaviour, to try to get all aspects of Islam exempted from criticism [trying to impose THEIR totalitarian religious norms on US!]
i see a huge swell of anger about this, and the public have just been waiting for someone to puncture the politically correct stifling silence on the subject. i think Geert Wilders has been the couragious person who has broken up that log-jam and he has initiated a political chain reaction across europe.
trouble is...the media [ie bbc] is trying to tar the groups and organizations who want to protect their culture, as racists islamophobes and "far right". if someone in government doest address this issue and reassure the public that people and groups with treasonous intentions are severely dealt with and prosecuted when the spout hatred or hold up placards that incite violence, then a powderkeg atmosphere is going to grow and grow, with who knows what consequences.
people have in large numbers woken up to the creeping islamization of their countries and to the slow quiet infiltration of sharia law into the western legal systems, that has proceeded unchecked due to political correctness ,and they are saying a loud NO to it.
Complain about this comment
Lets see, hmm, this problem is different in the UK and Europe than in the USA (where we see people worried that culture will be non-European, ...rather than Islamic)
And when was the last time I did something that felt European??....hmmmm. Oh, just now--blog--wait they do this in China--very difficult to grasp therefore....do they not use blogs in Islamic societies?....
I'd like to know... We should find out.:)
Good luck, Europe.
Complain about this comment
131. At 10:23pm on 21 Sep 2010, nmo wrote:
"Most muslims don't see it as their life mission to conquer Europe."
1) How do you know that?
2) It only takes a minority to be very dangerous.
Complain about this comment
131. At 10:23pm on 21 Sep 2010, nmo wrote:
"Most muslims don't see it as their life mission to conquer Europe."
EUpris: We have already seen how successful a sick, arrogant, megalomaniac minority of "citizens of the "EU" have been with the imposition of the despicable Lisbon Treaty. Maybe the minority of muslims who are sick, arrogant and megalomaniac could try something similar.
Clearly representative democracy isn't working in the "EU".
Complain about this comment
"It's such a corrupt system! A professor speaking 5 languages cannot obtain US citizenship unless they marry a US citizen. BUt...an Albanian, who speaks no English WHATSOVER easily gets a Green Card thru the DV Lottery."
Since starting college I've had professors from Bosnia, China, Japan, and Germany. My doctor is also from Romania and you would be surprised how many nurses around here are from Ghana. And as only one is married to an American I call bull
Complain about this comment
It seems the impact of Sarko's expulsions has reached Belgium, a friend told me Yesterday that the large car park of a closed down Carrefour in Jumet has been occupied by Roma from France judging by their number plates. Sarko as always has just shifted the problem elsewhere.
As for those who don't like any form of criticism of Islam then you really have missed the point, this is an aggressive religion in a state of crusade that is to all intents a cult. I see no difference between Islam and Scientology for instance, or the other dangerous cults that have existed. We regularly criticise the effect Scientology has on family life but for some reason it is taboo to say the same about Islam and its belief that all non-believers are infidels and sub-human.
So yes to the previous posters, this current furore is probably more to do with Islam than just immigration on its own, but it is very justified, the use of Sharia law and building of mosques for such a religion is dangerous to Europe and the European culture. The frequent threats made by its followers show it for what it is and no amount of trendy liberal/socialist thinking can hide the danger.
Complain about this comment
@COOLBRUSHWORK 77
Re "You deny it, but the France President & Foreign Minister, plus the EU's Reding appear not to agree with Your interpretation anymore than I do: All have mentioned 'free movement' of peoples in stating their cases for & against the repatriation of 'Roma'."
Exactly my point. Have a look at the Treaties again (or for once?):
Free movement of persons is something different from Schengen. Originally Schengen wasn't even part of the Treaties. Free movement was part of the Treaties since 1958, whereas Schengen was included only in Amsterdam (1997) after it was conceived only in 1985 (Schengen execution agreeement in 90).
To the case at hand: even without Schengen the Roma would have the right to go to France (and other countries) and refusing them entry into France would be a violation of the Treaties regardless of the application of Schengen.
I doubted quite some time whether or not I should write and post this reply, since I am just clarifying one of the basics of EU law. Basics which should obviously be known and understood before one tries to 'comment' on EU law and politics.
Complain about this comment
137. At 02:28am on 22 Sep 2010, EUprisoner209456731 wrote:
"""131. At 10:23pm on 21 Sep 2010, nmo wrote:"""
"Most muslims don't see it as their life mission to conquer Europe."
Yes. But they would not mind at all either such a scenario isn't it?
2) It only takes a minority to be very dangerous.
Precisely. Haven't the Jugoslav wars taught us a lesson? How many times more it has to happen for people to understand it?
Complain about this comment
127. At 9:32pm on 21 Sep 2010, democracythreat wrote:
"Marcus wrote:
"Although America is by far the most important country in the world..."
Yes, it is, in the same way as blue is the most interesting colour in the world."
Hehe, I laughed.
Complain about this comment
#141. At 08:49am on 22 Sep 2010, Jean Luc
Here is a comment from the European Commission :-
"Free Movement - EU nationals
Free movement for workers means that every EU national has the right to work, and at the same time live, in any other EU country.
This fundamental freedom (laid down in Article 39 of the EC Treaty) entitles you to:
* look for a job in another country
* work there without needing a work permit
* live there for that purpose
* stay there even after your employment has finished
* enjoy equal treatment with nationals in access to employment, working conditions and all other social and tax advantages that may help you integrate in the host country"
In the case of the Roma, the question has to be whether they are gainfully seeking work. They are certainly not conforming to some of the comments like integrating. As always with the EU this is a mess of conflicting directives and legal case law and one can never take any single directive on its own as it may be qualified by another directive and/or case law.
Complain about this comment
Message to the BBC programming team who have yet to understand the benefit of testing a new rollout of software.
When I enter a post today the screen that comes back is showing post #1 rather than some lines showing I've made a post.
Complain about this comment
@144
So what are you trying to tell us with that Commission quote?
1. Also note that article 39 does NOT lay down some kind of 'obligation' on part of the EU national to integrate in the member state.
2. Free movement of EU nationals is much broader than free movement of workers. The main legal piece for free movement now is directive 2004/38 (codifying legislation and case law)
From your post I would gather you assume there does exist some kind of obligation on Roma to 'integrate' according to EU law. Let us be clear, this is NOT the case.
Complain about this comment
#146. At 09:44am on 22 Sep 2010, Jean Luc,
Here is an excerpt from directive 2004/38/EC, you notice the explicit reference to degree of integration, this in every way can be interpreted to mean there is an obligation to integrate or risk expulsion. This is the EU law as written in the directive you pointed out.
(23) Expulsion of Union citizens and their family members on grounds of public policy or public security is a measure that can seriously harm persons who, having availed themselves of the rights and freedoms conferred on them by the Treaty, have become genuinely integrated into the host Member State. The scope for such measures should therefore be limited in
accordance with the principle of proportionality to take account of the degree of integration of the persons concerned, the length of their residence in the host Member State, their age, state of health, family and economic situation and the links with their country of origin.
Complain about this comment
#146. At 09:44am on 22 Sep 2010, Jean Luc
Another pertinent rule from that directive :-
(24) Accordingly, the greater the degree of integration of Union citizens and their family members in the host Member State, the greater the degree of protection against expulsion should be. Only in exceptional circumstances, where there are imperative grounds of public security,
should an expulsion measure be taken against Union citizens who have resided for many years in the territory of the host Member State, in particular when they were born and have resided there throughout their life. In addition, such exceptional circumstances should also
apply to an expulsion measure taken against minors, in order to protect their links with their family, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, of 20 November 1989.
Complain about this comment
@147
I am afraid you are totally misinterpreting that part of the directive.
"taking account of the degree of integration" is an obligation on the part of a (host) member state who would want to expulse an EU citizen. This means if an EU citizen is integrated in another member state it becomes even harder to send him back to his original member state.
The 'absence' of integration does not however make it easier to expulse a citizen and is certainly not a ground for expulsion. As article 27 of the directive states expulsion is only possible on grounds of public order, safety and/or health under very strict circumstances (e.g. even being convicted for a criminal offence in itself is not a sufficient ground!). Your post 148 actually confirms what I say: by default there is a high protection for EU citizens, this protections even becomes greater if EU citizens are integrated, but integration is not a condition for protection.
Again, these are really basics in EU law. So much so that it is quite impossible to have a proper debate about EU law and politics if the debaters concerned don't know or understand these basics.
P.S. You are also quoting the preamble instead of the real 'pertinent rules' of the directive.
Complain about this comment
103. At 3:40pm on 21 Sep 2010, Qristina wrote:
As an immigrant to the US, I find this issue extremely hypocritical.[...]
The basic sentiment of the "West" (especially France, the UK, Germany and the US) seems to be "if you're not white (and nominally Christian) we don't want you".
So, how come you're still in the U.S.?
Complain about this comment
Perhaps we should start to talk about anti-immigration parties in Netherlands and Sweden as well.
Not that the Danish ones are far behind.
And learn how to spell not only Pim Fortuyn, but also Geert Wilders.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps we should start to talk about anti-immigration parties in Netherlands and Sweden as well.
[Not that the Danish ones are far behind.]
And learn how to spell not only Pim Fortuyn, but also Geert Wilders.
Complain about this comment
Derska wrote:
"Oh, here we go again. Europe is not competeing or trying to be USA."
Oh really? What's the EU all about then? Why is so much pro-EU propaganda competitive towards America and anti-American?
"We have a cultural identity to preserve, Americans don't."
Come again? Europe is many different countries, with many different languages and culture. Europe is not a country and there is no such thing as a European cultural identity.
America, unlike Europe, is a country, in case you hadn't noticed. As with all countries it most certainly has a cultural identity.
"They destroyed the local culture and threw the Natives in reservations(mild term for ...prisons)."
First off, my anti-American friend, you need to look up the word native because anyone born in America is native! And as an American Indian I have to tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about. Most of what is now the country of America was actually uninhabited at the time of colonization. Even the highest estimated numbers of Indians and their way of living would have had them occupying a small fraction of the land.
As for your idea of what a "reservation" is I have to say, once again, that you have no idea what you are talking about. American Indians are Americans free to live and travel to whatever part of the country that suits them. We are some of the most patriotic Americans you could ever meet. Your description of a reservation as being "prisons" is disgusting and ignorant.
And as for "local culture" being destroyed you again have no idea what you are talking about. There is no such thing as some kind of unified Indian culture. There were many very different cultures and they were fighting a destroying each other long before the colonists arrived. Also, if you knew America well enough you would know that plenty of American Indian culture IS a significant part of American culture.
"Ans stop talking about that Ellis Island and how "legal" those newcomers were. They were refugees who would never make it to US of the 2010 laws were applied."
So? America has no obligation to take in whoever wants to come here.
"NOW, in 2010 marrying a US citizen is about the only way to be legal in US. A hundred years ago anyone who showed up was welcome."
Oh really? Since you brought up Ellis island then I would suggest you read up on what would get people denied entry into America.
"Now Mexicans show up and they get nothing. How unfair."
They don't "show up," they sneak across.
As I said, America is under no obligation to accept anyone it does not want, period. Mexico itself has much stricter immigration laws. You may want to look them up and see how they handle illegal immigration into the country on their southern border.
"Why don't they show up legally? Green Card lottery excludes many countries like Mexico, so fake marriage is the way to go in US. I personally know many people on fake marriage-all legal citizens now. The illegals are the honest ones nowadays. No marriage fraud=no citizenship."
America is under no obligation to accept anyone it doesn't want, period!
"It's such a corrupt system!"
You say that while endorsing the violation of the sovereign right of a country to enforce universal immigration laws and protect its borders? Is that a joke?
"A professor speaking 5 languages cannot obtain US citizenship unless they marry a US citizen. BUt...an Albanian, who speaks no English WHATSOVER easily gets a Green Card thru the DV Lottery."
If it's an Albanian that respects and appreciates American values and culture then I will take that Albanian over a foreign "professor" that doesn't and that thinks he knows what is best for America every time. I'm sure most of my fellow Americans would agree.
Just out of curiosity are you that professor?
"So at least one consolation: US no longer attracts the best and brightest because of their anti-immigrant laws. So what is their problem with Sweden? Look at your own xenophobic America first."
America has a problem with Sweden?? I thought this blog topic was all about Europe??
And if America is supposedly not attracting "the best" a "consolation" to you then why have you been arguing for things that through your own words would result in the opposite? That makes no sense, unless you are simply bitter that America is not catering to you.
I think my question of you being that professor has been answered. Bitterness and resentment fuels your anti-Americanism and your conflicting sentiments. My response to that is what I have already said a few times, that America is under no obligation to take in whoever wishes to come here.
Complain about this comment
99. At 2:23pm on 21 Sep 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"""Watching a pretty extensive correspondent report I would be inclined to think that those Kosovar kids didn't care about money, but simply about a right to compete in the Olympics, period."""
You tell me you are naif or something? These kids would prefer to represent a "greater Albania" than any country called "Kosovo". Of course when the British or German journalist will come to them they will say "yeah I want to represent Kosovo" etc. Yes, they certainly do not want to represent Serbia, we got the point. But if say France gives them 1 million more, there is no question about it, they will find something to say.
"""And that they would rather compete as Kosovars if they possibly could."""
Yes rather than Serbia. You are really intelligent aren't you? But why don't you ask them: "Would you represent Kosovo? Or a greater Albania?", then ask them "Would you represent Kosovo for 200 euros per month and a prime of 10,000 euros for a gold metal? Or Britain for 3,000 euros per month and a prime of 1 million euros for a gold metal?".
Then powermeerkat, come back and we discuss about athlets.
"""Just as Macedonias would rather compete as Macedonians than as Bulgarians, Greeks or anybody else.
Now, what's wrong with that?"""
What is wrong with that? Perhaps the freaking bones of FYROMians' Bulgarian grandparents who shed their blood for Bulgaria and who turn in their graves seeing their janissary-grandchildren having been brainwashed by their great enemies Serbians to pretend to be the descendants of the ancestors of their even greater enemies the Greeks.
Well that is wrong with that? Are you kiding me? Stealing a name, a history, an identity, a land. It is a crime. A crime against humanity. That is the problem. Never expected you to be particularly interested in such ethical issues powermeerkat: you are clinging from side to side like a ship in the usual divide and conquer anglosaxonic game.
Mind you, now that you reffered to the pseudomacedonians (or monkeydonians as Greeks and Bulgarians call them), you are not listening all the news dear:
...about half a million FYROMians (the 30% of the slavic population) have already declared Bulgarians and got the Bulgarian passport and nationality. In a few years it is believed that half the country will automatically be inside the EU without EU having done anything. Want to learn more? Ask generalissimo, he is Bulgarian he knows as good as me what goes on.
Note that Bulgaria gives the Bulgarian passport to people that make the demand saying 1) they are of Bulgarian ethnicity 2) who recognise that there is no macedonian ethnicity (as Bulgaria does not recognise any such hypothetic ethnicity and considers the term "macedonia" only as a region - not to mention that modern Bulgarians largely accept that this region is found in the south and is a Greek coastal region around and north of Olympus and around the Aegean corner and has nothing to do with FYROM, Kosovo, or Hungary and Finland...).
And if you ask me on the above, I say good thing they do. I agree with Jesus, Ceasar's coins must go to Ceasar and just like that, Bulgarians must turn to Bulgarians and be given Bulgarian passports, it is the most correct thing on all aspects. However I still find it funny when this lot of FYROMians applying for Bulgarian nationality includes even the ex-FYROMian president who 1-2 years after the end of his service in the FYROMian governmened applied and is now a proud Bulgarian citizen and even goes on in Bulgarian politics!!!
So you understand powermeerkat what is wrong here? Or would you like me to comment on the first row of countries that rushed to support FYROMians in their propaganda? It is a short list, again comprising of the usuall suspects. Eye-blinding!
Complain about this comment
Derska: Regarding post 72, would you say that the inhabitants of Skåneland have “become” Swedes, or have they “remained” Danes? Have the inhabitants of Åland “become” Finns, or have they “remained” Swedes? Are the descendants of Huguenots in the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, and beyond “still” French, since their ancestors lived in France fewer than 1000 years ago? Is Christianity itself an irrelevant cultural marker for Europeans such as Lithuanians, Granadans, and Sami, since they have not been Christian for at least one millennium?
Complain about this comment
"NOW, in 2010 marrying a US citizen is about the only way to be legal in US. A hundred years ago anyone who showed up was welcome."
Well, there were no Taliban and al-Qaida types then; or even pro-Communism 'useful idiots' and 'fellow travelers' from 'Old Europe'.
Complain about this comment
Nik
Of course there's a minority of muslims who see it as their mission to conquer Eurpe -the law of averages dictates that. Just like there's probably a minority of Catholics that would want to see England returned to the 'true faith' but you go and ask a muslim in the street if his/her mission in life was to conquer Europe and he/she would probably think you were mad. Most are economic migrants.
'It only takes a minority to be dangerous' -yes that's true but we have a miority of fascist too and they target immigrants but we don't mind that do we because they have the right skin colour and faith.
Generally the muslims that wish to conquer Europe don't just do it in the name of their faith but do it to revenge the wests policies in Iraq and Afganistan -if that isn't the west trying to conquer muslim nations I don't know what you can call it.
Complain about this comment
"Then powermeerkat, come back and we discuss about athlets."
Judging by their results, there's nothing to discuss about Greek athletes.
In any (Summer or Winter) Olympics category.
If you have records to prove otherwise - you're welcome to produce them.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I would suggest that most if not all the regularly posters on this blog would consider themselves evolutionist as opposed to creationist. Most have expressed that they are atheist of some sort or the other. So my question is why fight against what you believe.
The evolution of mankind has been the cause and effect of mass migrations for thousands of years. It appears all hominids came from Africa and they did so in different waves. The Neanderthal, a descendant of Homo Heidelbergensis, migrated throughout Europe. He did quite well thank you for thousands of years. There arose a second descendant of Homo Heidelbergensis called Homo Sapiens (so called Modern Humans) that decided to move into Ne's old stomping ground. This was part of the second wave out of Africa. Now these folks went everywhere and when confronted with the then inhabitants, well.... we know what happened even if we don't how it happened. We also know what happened when Europeans migrated to the Americas. Just how many tribes, groups, whatever invaded (migrated) the British Isles? There is no way to put a finger in the dike. Muther Nature will not be denied. She created a traveler.
Complain about this comment
158. At 1:09pm on 22 Sep 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"""Judging by their results, there's nothing to discuss about Greek athletes."""
I thought we were talking about Kosovars. What do Greek athlets have to do with that? You keep jumping from the one irrelevant topic to the other!
"""In any (Summer or Winter) Olympics category."""
Winter Olympics are no Olympics, they are simply a northern' countries conspiracy, eheheh!
Olympics are also a joke. I rarely ever watch any of them. I am much more Anglosaxon in these terms and consider the World Cup a more important event. Anglosaxon team sports - especially football - have a much more meaning in our modern world than solo classical sports, and that is one Britain's cultural contribution.
On Olympics, I share the view of many of my ancestors including my favourite, Alexander the Great, who said something like there is no more worthless class of people than athlets who do nothing productive in their lifes but eat and train and then run or fight serving no other purpose than gathering the crowd's claps. See, money laundering, drug-taking, cheating and over-paid athlets were part of ancient games - highest paid athlet of all times in the world is not alive, he has died some 2400 years ago and had been an ancient Syracusian athlet - paid the equivalent of what Tiger Woods, Michael Sumacher and Maradona earned prior to their equivalent divorces, retirement, drug abuse gone public.
What did you think? That I am a Greek and I would sell you all the stories about "the great Games, the fair game, the ethics, the fair competition" etc.? That is what we tell tourists to fool them thinking we were the examples of athletic morality on top of the rest almost extra terrestrial like properties we had - but me here I am not to sell you lies, nor do I care to spoil the "image". When Pierre de Coubertin worked to reinstall the games 120 years back, evidently he used the same rhetorics about the "fair games" the "ethics" the "ideals" but had he known a bit better the real story he would have known how the Games would evolve into their modern highly politicalised and commercialised form and might had thought of it again in the first place!
It goes withoutsaying that I was against the organisation of the Olympics by our country (smallest country to have ever organised a Modern Olympics) as it evidently would form the final rap on the already fallen economy. I admit back in the 1980s having wanted Greece to take the 1996 Olympics (given in 1988 to Atlanta, a complete failure on all grounds by the way) but back then I was underage and did not know how much it costed. By early 1990s finishing primary school I was mature enough to understand how lucky we were to have avoided it and by 1998 when we took the 2004 games I was swearing like more than half of the Greek citizens who demanded improvement not "spectacles" - the other half being divided into A) politicians and party members B) ignorant people feeling pseudo-pride C) people hopeful to find their way into some project and get some extra money.
1) Athletics are for the rich and powerful not for anyone. I am not rich, thus I am not interested.
2) There is no inherent honour in athletics themselves as there is no inherent morality in religion itself. It is people that attribute value to it. I do not find it interesting to get occupied with the sport.
3) Not a sportman but I personally go to gym 2 times per week, I like body-building for the excersie (i.e. weight lifting & running/bicycle - don't take proteins or other...) because it is the most hygenic and relaxed way to stay relatively healthy: I cannot be on the mountain or seaside every week and doing jogging in the city is particularly unhealthy (as you inhale all the wrong gases...you know us here in Europe with our diesels...their lower CO2 is good for the environment, their heavier particules bad for the humans).
"""If you have records to prove otherwise - you're welcome to produce them."""
Records of Greek athlets? Ehehe... evidently I am not occupied with the sport. Pyrros Dimas, was a great weightlifter and great guy. Kenteris was a great runner albeit attacked for drug use 3 days prior to Olympic games after the probe of the US team that they will cancel their whole team of runners if Kenteris competes!!!!! Evidently Kenteris was on drugs but so are ALL runners. US responsibles joked about how Kenteris along with co-athlet Thanou staged an as-if motorcycle accident to enter the hospital and avoid the control, finally getting excluded for this action of theirs (they were never controlled, but everyone knew the answer).
However, teacher who taught!!! US team which resided on the island of Crete (as-if for security reasons) being transferred by plane (on US citizens' expenses) was also probed by the Olympic Games controllers and guess what did they do....???????????????
Ehehe... as all of their runners were black/half-caste they set them out in a Cretan village and called in the police (paid some policemen) to arrest them as illegal immigrants and keep them for 3-4 hours inside the local police station during the time of the visit of the controllers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Evidently, there is absolutely no case where any US "black" people could ever been mistaken for African illegal immigrants by even the imbecile-of-the-village from the most remote regions of the country, let alone that happening in touristic Crete! I therefore should consider ourselfs lucky that Americans did not sue us for racism... hahaha!!!
There are lots of stories from the 2004 Olympics, arguably a nice fiesta but inarguably our catastrophe: the responsibles for undertaking the games should be executed.
Complain about this comment
I'm European and yes, I'm tired of immigrants because most of them are criminals or parasites. It's neither xenophobia nor racism. It's just the awful truth. They won't integrate into European society and what's even worse, they are turning our beloved Europe into what their nations of origin are. Some European countries resemble more and more Colombia, Nigeria, Romania, Morocco or Pakistan. Is that the Europe we want for our children?
Complain about this comment
Let's go on being sensationalist. Please, put things in perspective. Other countries' far right parties get far more than 4% of the vote. All we know is that at least 4% of the population is anti-immigrant enough to vote for this party. This is hardly a basis to conclude that the WHOLE COUNTRY is turning anti-immigrant.
Yes, the right wing parties have gained all across Europe but for all we know this is a temporary shift motivated by the economic crisis. There is no evidence whatsoever that this shift will be permanent.
Complain about this comment
157. At 1:05pm on 22 Sep 2010, nmo wrote:
"""Most are economic migrants."""
The fact that they are economic migrants does not mean they are human minced meat. They are people of their own culture and they own ideals which not only do not coincide with those of the bulk of Europeans but more often than not contrast. What can we do about it? Lie?
"""'It only takes a minority to be dangerous' -yes that's true but we have a miority of fascist too and they target immigrants but we don't mind that do we because they have the right skin colour and faith."""
You are blatatnly wrong in this:
Chinese and Hindu Indians have a different skin colour and faith but do not give birth to such reaction even there where they are largely occupied with financially illegal businesses. The introduction of muslims create identical reaction in ALL countries around the world be it Europe, China or Africa. You tell me why.
-------------------------
At last, people should learn to do a proper analysis first before presenting any argumentation. You are in the right channel to do so!
Complain about this comment
JeanLuc
Re #141
No, You hesitated to reply to my #77 because it is impossible to write an honest response that does not admit 'Schengen' is a part of the EU policy of evolving the 'free movement' of peoples.
Schengen is not 'free movement' per se, but then I never said it was: It was just Your attempt to gloss over the reality of the evolving implications & results of EU 'policies' on Citizens ability to move around the EU27.
No surprise at all You claim the term 'free movement' & 'Schengen' are divorced from each other: It is the 'double-speak' of 'pro-EU' & Brussels' apparatchiks in order to dissemble from the reality of linkage of EU policies.
It is as if someone is claiming a horse & cart would still move in unison without the harness in place!
Suggesting I look afresh at EU Law & Treaties is an amusing idea: Perhaps You could direct that advice to President Sarkozy & the France Government! Their policy appear totally at odds with the 'content' of the 'free movement'/'schengen' arrangements. If not, why the fuss?
As I have at times pointed out what You think is written is not necessarily the actuality on the ground: You may interpret & present what You believe to be the factual situation, however it is just Your opinion. By all means continue to recite chapter & verse (as to Buzet23), but at least try to understand the same words do not mean the same to every State, Institution, Citizen.
If there was one interpretation of EU Law/Treaty content there would be no dispute over France's conduct vis a vis the 'Roma' & indeed there would be no issues over 'immigration' (e.g. Sweden) weighing heavily in EU27 National elections over the last 12 or so months, to say nothing of the legality of 'bailout packages' etc.
Whether the 'preamble' or 'the basic Law' what You mean by hesitating to reply or impossible to have a debate is not that we are unfamiliar with the same content, but that You find it very difficult to conceive of Your views/perspective being challenged. Clearly that makes any discussion from Your lofty situation difficult for all of us.
That there is debate about the 'meaning' & 'use' of 'policy content' is what happens even in the tenuous links to democracy within the EU: It is positive evidence unfortunately for You there are Politicians & Citizens right across the EU27 with differing views on EU policy.
Complain about this comment
Re #126
"...TV.. tell you are free... as in American.. British culture.."
Aye!? That's so absurd an extrapolation it just beggars belief even DemocThreat could come up with it!
Quite apart from there now being 100+ TV Channels: Anyone else on here tried to watch 'State' TV in France, Germany, Belgium, Finland, Australia, South Africa, China & practically all of Eastern EUrope over recent years: They are awash with programmes implying the 'Our Nation great, All else not so!' & sur le continent it's ad infinitum, 'EU is good, All else is bad!'
Freedom & the expression of being 'free' means all sorts to all sorts of people: However, I suspect there isn't a 'culture' anywhere not influenced by 'TV', but I suspect even more of it is influenced by the individual Citizen's use of the TV's 'Remote' control.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The Sweden Democrats only got around 5.5% of the vote in the country as a whole, but look at the numbers in detail and you'll see that they were above 10% in southern and urban areas where the majority of the non-European immigrants live. And it's not just ethnic Swedes who support them, a lot of the immigrants who arrived in the 50s, 60s and early 70s, who had to integrate, also do. In Sweden, much more so than in the UK, it's become ugly to be of the opinion that immigrants should integrate with Swedish society. So they don't learn Swedish and live in what can only be described as immigrant ghettos where they don't get exposed to anything Swedish. Swedes who work and pay taxes see this and wonder why they're paying for this. A lot of the immigrants (mainly men as most muslim women are kept at home) drift around the major town centres during the day as they don't have jobs. Swedes see this and feel intimidated by these gangs.
One of the main reasons for the SD success in this election has little to do with the main parties' inability to follow the opinion of the majority that immigrants need to integrate into Swedish society. The reason is that the SD party has been stonewalled by the establishment throughout this entire election campaign. They haven't been allowed into school debates. They haven't been invited to TV debates. Other parties have refused to take part if the SD were invited. The SD party has campaigned as the underdogs, the poor politicians who haven't been allowed to speak in a free and democratic society.
Think back to the protests when Nick Griffin did Question Time. What happened in Sweden is exactly the reason why parties like the BNP and SD need to be allowed into the debate. Only then will people see how ridiculous some of these politicians are and that they're not a viable alternative to the established parties. But it also opens up the debate. Whether it's right or wrong to wish to reduce non-European immigration, politicians can no longer sweep the question under the carpet.
Complain about this comment
Re #126
"...TV.. tell you are free... as in American.. British culture.."
Aye!? That's so absurd an extrapolation it just beggars belief even DemocThreat could come up with it!
Quite apart from there now being 100+ TV Channels: Anyone else on here tried to watch 'State' TV in France, Germany, Belgium, Finland, Australia, South Africa, China & practically all of Eastern EUrope over recent years?
They are awash with programmes implying the 'Our Nation great, All else not so!' & sur le continent it's ad infinitum, 'EU is good, All else is bad!'
Freedom & the expression of being 'free' means all sorts to all sorts of people: However, I suspect there isn't a 'culture' anywhere not influenced by 'TV', but I suspect even more of it is influenced by the individual Citizen's use of the TV's 'Remote' control.
Complain about this comment
#149. At 11:28am on 22 Sep 2010, Jean Luc,
You'are totally right about it impossible to debate the laws of the EU when people like you can misinterpret even the most basic of English, no matter what the default is the statement is very clear, if you don't integrate don't expect the full protection of EU law, it cannot be more clear cut, and yes it is the preamble and yes it could qualified by case law, and yes articles 27 and 28 do give slightly more detail and article 28 point 1 says
"1. Before taking an expulsion decision on grounds of public policy or public security, the host Member State shall take account of considerations such as how long the individual concerned has resided on its territory, his/her age, state of health, family and economic situation, social and
cultural integration into the host Member State and the extent of his/her links with the country of origin"
Now I can't quite see how anyone can say that integrating into the country you've moved to is not expected and that in the case where people have not integrated their case for resisting expulsion is made less strong.
Complain about this comment
@102 powermeerkat
"If that were the case how come that so many British, French, German, etc. scientists and physicians emmigrate to America as soon as they can get work permits in the U.S.?
[Inquiring minds want to know why both Merkel and Sarkozy speak about a brain drain and plan remedial actions to stop that trend.]"
Two days ago I read in the "China Daily" that PRC experts are lamenting about brain drain from China to Europe and America.
I also have read several articles in US newspapers about brain drain from the USA to China.
:)
And while I am at it:
You probably know Europes birth rate and how experts are estimating us to die out.
Next fun story is that in Taiwan, a nation roughly of the size of the Netherlands (just imagine the Netherlands with a huge mountain chain in the center)) and with 23 million citizens, media is reporting that less and less children enter school and how this will be the downfall of the nation.
Makes you wonder about all the experts and the media.
Just remember the man made global warming hoax. Panic sells.
Complain about this comment
Mr Hewitt,
you named a fundamental problem with a specific migrant of islamic culture:
"Many Muslims argue that they are barred from fully integrating into society, and so assert their own identity. "
All their spokesmen, associations of muslims, etc do is to complain all the time about how we don`t do enough to integrate them.
But where does integration actually start? With a migrant who is willing to accept his new homes values and learn the language.
This should be the center of any productive discussion on this topic. If I move somewhere, it`s me who has to behave and respect the rules set by my hosts.
If someone moves to a country and cannot speak the language after 1 decade or more, that`s just _pathetic_.
Same for parents who fail at having their child learn the language of the country it grows up in. Pathetic.
If an immigrant doesn`t abide by the rules of his new home, and is kicked out, that`s not because that former new home is tiring of immigrants. However, it might be that the former new home is tiring of criminal immigrants.
comments like:
@103 Qristina
"The basic sentiment of the "West" (especially France, the UK, Germany and the US) seems to be "if you're not white (and nominally Christian) we don't want you". "
are just a petty excuse for people who think that a migrant has no responsibility whatsoever.
Ever read and notable quantity of negative sentiments about Asian immigrants in the mainstream media? After all, they are not white and they are not christian.
Please elaborate.
Complain about this comment
@COOLBRUSHWORK
Re "Suggesting I look afresh at EU Law & Treaties is an amusing idea: Perhaps You could direct that advice to President Sarkozy & the France Government! Their policy appear totally at odds with the 'content' of the 'free movement'/'schengen' arrangements. If not, why the fuss?"
When you look at the allegations against France you'll see that no one is mentioning the Schengen acquis. It's only about free movement and residence.
Re "By all means continue to recite chapter & verse (as to Buzet23), but at least try to understand the same words do not mean the same to every State, Institution, Citizen. "
Semantics, right. But when we are talking about a legal text like a directive, the interpretation of you and me is quite irrelevant if the judges in Luxemburg decide on another interpretation. All I did was give the interpretation the legislator and judges have given to the texts. This is the only RELEVANT interpretation judicially speaking.
@BUZET
Re "You'are totally right about it impossible to debate the laws of the EU when people like you can misinterpret even the most basic of English, no matter what the default is the statement is very clear, if you don't integrate don't expect the full protection of EU law, it cannot be more clear cut, and yes it is the preamble and yes it could qualified by case law, and yes articles 27 and 28 do give slightly more detail
Now I can't quite see how anyone can say that integrating into the country you've moved to is not expected and that in the case where people have not integrated their case for resisting expulsion is made less strong."
I am sorry to keep having to repeat this but it is you who are misinterpreting the directive. Integration is not a condition to protection under the treaties or directive.
Please cite us a case where the ECJ has accepted that a member state may expulse an EU citizen because the latter did not integrate.
Good luck with that and when you realize you misinterpreted something as basic as this in EU law, perhaps you should consider reading an introductory book to EU law.
Note how, contrary to what coolbrushwork claims, this is not about differeing opinions or semantics. This is about you giving an interpretation to EU law which is not validated by either legislation or case law. Therefore you are wrong.
Complain about this comment
Jean Luc #173
"Please cite us a case where the ECJ has accepted that a member state may expulse an EU citizen because the latter did not integrate."
I was reading the exchange between you and CBW and B23, and would like your cite for the ECJ case where a member state was prevented from expelling an EU citizen who failed to integrate. Interesting discussion.
Complain about this comment
Re #173
Ah, so now the much vaunted ECJ arbiter of all things 'aquis' is suddenly a tool of the EU and not the impartial compliment to an EU's pseudo-democratic system.
Jean Luc each time You condescend to join us in discussion Your illuminating take on what is & is not possible under the terms & conditions of membership of the post-Maastricht political construct and each Enabling & Accession Treaty it becomes clearer that You have not the slightest idea as to how 'politics' plays a crucial interpretative part in each & every article, codecil, protocol, directive etc.
You write as if the 'ink' on the paper really meant something immutable! You are mistaken in every facet of the EU's existence.
Complain about this comment
To whoever posted this heaven know how long ago -
"NOW, in 2010 marrying a US citizen is about the only way to be legal in US. A hundred years ago anyone who showed up was welcome."
This is absolutely untrue. Marriage to a US citizen confers no absolutely no right to residency, still less citizenship at all.
This from the US Embassy website in London -
"A U.S. citizen cannot transmit citizenship to a spouse. Your spouse would be required to apply for an immigrant visa and reside in the United States as a lawful permanent resident (LPR)."
Mind you, how seriously you should take a website which says "American citizenship is for life" in one paragraph then refers three paragraphs later to ". . . Supreme Court decisions mentioned above have opened the way for review of many loss of citizenship cases".
How the hell do you lose something which is yours for life? Amputation, possibly?
Complain about this comment
@103 Qristina
"The basic sentiment of the "West" (especially France, the UK, Germany and the US) seems to be "if you're not white (and nominally Christian) we don't want you". "
Just a petty excuse for people who think that a migrant has no responsibility whatsoever.
Ever read and notable quantity of negative sentiments about Asian immigrants in the mainstream media? After all, they are not white and they are not christian.
Please elaborate.
Complain about this comment
Mr Hewitt,
you named a fundamental problem with a specific migrant of islamic culture:
"Many Muslims argue that they are barred from fully integrating into society, and so assert their own identity. "
All their spokesmen, associations of muslims, etc do is to complain all the time about how we don`t do enough to integrate them.
But where does integration actually start? With a migrant who is willing to accept his new homes values and learn the language.
This should be the center of any productive discussion on this topic. If I move somewhere, it`s me who has to behave and respect the rules set by my hosts.
If someone moves to a country and cannot speak the language after 1 decade or more, that`s just _pathetic_.
Same for parents who fail at having their child learn the language of the country it grows up in. Pathetic.
If an immigrant doesn`t abide by the rules of his new home, and is kicked out, that`s not because that former new home is tiring of immigrants. However, it might be that the former new home is tiring of criminal immigrants.
Complain about this comment
Threnodious;
"How the hell do you lose something which is yours for life? Amputation, possibly?"
This undoubtedly refers to people who lied to the US government to obtain citizenship. For example, people who were Nazi criminals portraying themselves as victims. People who were memebers of the communist party, convicted felons, or other undesirables who denied it. Citizenship obtained under such false pretenses can be and should be revokable.
Someone who is born in the US who swears or demonstrates allegience to an enemy of the United States can also lose his citizenship.
Complain about this comment
#178 - DurstigerMann
You make a valid point but essentially, we are talking about the willingness and ability of the immigrant to provide for his or herself and not to be a burden on the social provision of the host nation. Generally, highly qualified and competent professionals with a job to do or a good business venture and the means to fund it will be welcomed regardless of race or colour.
A political party which opposes immigration as an article of faith is cutting off its nose to spite its face. Mobility of labour is, at least in part, about marrying skills to situations in which they are required. These are not the politics of race but the politics of the market. Going back to the previous thread, do you really thing the French authorities would care a damn if someone were Roma or Muslim if they happened to be a brain surgeon or a computer programmer? Of course not.
The problem is one of perceptions. All Roma are lazy, good for nothing thieves, all Muslims are potential Islamic terrorists. This is demonstrably untrue but it is excellent fodder for the cannons of would be politicians bereft of any original ideas. Economic migrants may relocate because they perceive the opportunity to milk the social system to better advantage than their place of origin are to be discouraged. Those who perceive an opportunity to do an honest days work for an honest days pay are in a different category altogether. And, of course, there are those of independent means who either are retired or simply do not need to work. Their investment into an economy is as welcome as anyone else.
The idea of being opposed to immigration as a matter principle are either being absurdly simplistic or shamelessly jumping on a convenient political bandwagon. Either way, they are unworthy of serious attention.
Complain about this comment
Marcus.
My quote was a response to a hypothetical question posed on the website as follows:
"I lost my citizenship long ago because I got a job with the British government. I have heard that things have changed. Can I be American again?"
Check it out - http://london.usembassy.gov/cons_new/faqs/faq_citizenship.html
Now I suppose you are going to tell me that anyone who takes a job with the British government is a liars, an ex-Nazi war criminal or an enemy of the United States.
Complain about this comment
Does anyone know why post No.1 keeps reappearing at the end of this thread every time someone posts something?
Complain about this comment
@PHILIPWX
re "I was reading the exchange between you and CBW and B23, and would like your cite for the ECJ case where a member state was prevented from expelling an EU citizen who failed to integrate. Interesting discussion."
Well, to my knowledge no member state has ever tried to invoke this reason.
Obviously this is because the directive (codifying pre 2004 case law) is very clear on which grounds a member state can decide to expulse an EU citizen: public order, public health, public safety and that is ALL.
An 'integration requirement' does not fall under either three and therefore can not be invoked by a member state.
To illustrate how far reaching the rights of an EU citizen are:
Obviously one could argue that a criminal conviction is a sufficient reason for expulsion (as it falls under public order). However the ECJ has clarified that a previous criminal conviction is not sufficient: there should be a serious threat to a fundamental interest of society.
Therefore a bulgarian/romanian roma adult who gets caught and convicted of pick pocketing can not be expulsed from a host member state because of this, since pickpocketing is not a serious threat to a fundamental interest of society.
I hope this makes it clear that since the ECJ does not even accept just any criminal conviction as a ground for expulsion (even considering this falls under public order) it would never accept an integration requirement (not falling under any of the possible grounds) as a reason for expulsion.
Again, this is basic EU law.
Complain about this comment
@COOLBRUSHWORK
Re "Ah, so now the much vaunted ECJ arbiter of all things 'aquis' is suddenly a tool of the EU and not the impartial compliment to an EU's pseudo-democratic system.
Jean Luc each time You condescend to join us in discussion Your illuminating take on what is & is not possible under the terms & conditions of membership of the post-Maastricht political construct and each Enabling & Accession Treaty it becomes clearer that You have not the slightest idea as to how 'politics' plays a crucial interpretative part in each & every article, codecil, protocol, directive etc.
You write as if the 'ink' on the paper really meant something immutable! You are mistaken in every facet of the EU's existence."
The ECJ is the court of the EU. No one ever claimed it is an impartial compliment (what is this supposed to mean anyways? a compliment to an international organization of which it is an integral part?) to the EU.
Thank you for pointing out to me I have not the slightest idea how politics plays a role in whatever.
You can go on and talk about your politics and dismiss every other opinion as 'just an opinion'.
I'll stick to more firm ground and look at it from a legal perspective. I have read the basic case law and legislation on free movement of workers, citizens and establishment and from this can tell Buzet's interpretation of the directive does not stand even a superficial scrutiny.
P.S. You might want to take account of this legal perspective, because even in the flexible world of politics, member states cannot escape from the Law. If they try the ECJ will simply rule against them.
Complain about this comment
Nik:
Can we get some perspective please. In the north of England were I used to live there have been communities of muslims for decades as there have been in many parts of Europe but suddenly post 9/11 they are the enemy now you tell me what's changed. Not the nature of immigrants but people's attitude because of course all muslims support Al-Quaeda.
As with many faiths there are different degrees of belief and no-one would argue that certain practices of some faiths when it is at the extreme end of the scale is acceptable. No we don't want Sharia law in Europe, nor do a lot of people want what the Pope advocates either -no sex before marriage, no use of condoms, making abortion illegal but are we going to throw the Pope out too.
So what were are really talking about is values not religions and as long as immigrants abide by the law of the country they live in and are punished if they don't (just as the locals would be)what's the problem. If a muslim or hindu doesn't send their daughter to school because of their religious belief they should be punished. Just as some Christain extremist might who also believes daughters are to be kept at home. So what are we arguing about -difference? Tell me.
Complain about this comment
Is Europe tiring of its Immigrants, or just those Immigrants who look like, act like, or are in fact Muslim?
Americans, once defined themselves as a nation built on immigration: “Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to be free..."
Muslim sentiment in Europe, embodied by protests against mosque minarets and headscarves, didn’t arrive in the USA till 9/11, and then it arrived like a sledgehammer.
Geert Wilders, anti-Muslim politician from the far-right "Freedom" Party of the Netherlands, was invited to speak at a memorial at Ground Zero. Geert Wilders who has declared war on immigration from Muslim nations, who was once banned from the UK for his stance, who has called an Islam "fascist" and who told the Guardian in 2008 that Islam was "the ideology of a retarded culture." was invited to speak at a memorial at Ground Zero.
Wilders is a symptom. Polled in early spring
- 55% of Austrians say they consider Islam a "threat to the West";
- 74% believe Muslims have an inability to assimilate.
In Switzerland, minarets were banned last November. In Warsaw, anti-mosque protests were held this past spring.
The European far right has expressed a feeling that floats between distrust and disgust at the Muslim presence.
Farhad Khosrokhavar is an Iranian. He is a professor at l'École des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales. He states that the Islamic culture is creating tension because westerners are coming face to face with many unnerving questions such as:
Is Islam compatible with democracy?
Can it be secularized?
Questions such as these have become important because Islam is now an 'internal' part of the West. Is it internally cancerous, destructive, neutral, or what?
At first, Muslims trickled into Europe in the postwar period - from colonial nations such as Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia; they worked in factories. But then European economies took a downturn (1960s and early 1970s). Immigration was cut but the immigrants stayed.
In France, entire populations of immigrants were housed in high-rises called "cites" - an experiment in urban segregation. The children born to these original workers found themselves neither Algerian (or Moroccan or Tunisian) nor French, neither European nor North African. The only identity that some could find was Islam.
In Eastern Europe, some of the anxiety has arrived with newer immigrants from Kosovo and Chechnya. In the United States, Muslim immigrants had a better time economically and professionally, but this ended with 9/11.
I wonder if the breach can ever be healed. I wonder what gives Europeans or Americans the right to judge that a Person of Islam is less than a European or an American?
Complain about this comment
At #147, Buzet23 has very properly pointed out the provision of Directive 2004/38/EC. He took pains to point out the limitations that subsequent ECJ decisions have place on this but it is the case that public policy may also be a lawful consideration. Your bland statement that '. . .grounds a member state can decide to expulse (expell?) an EU citizen: public order, public health, public safety and that is ALL' is simply not true. THAT is basic EU law.
Complain about this comment
threnodious;
""I lost my citizenship long ago because I got a job with the British government. I have heard that things have changed. Can I be American again?""
That might be possible. It might also be possible to have American citizenship re-instated now that dual citizenship is allowed by the US. In the past, to become a US citizen, you had to disavow all allegences to any and all foreign governments. By accepting a job with the British government without US government prior authorization, that was construed as avowing allegience to a foreign government. I don't know why that changed and personally I don't like it but the law is far more permissive now. Last time I looked, Britain was not considered an enemy of the United States but I'll be damned if I know why it isn't. So by a court ruling, a ruling by the INS or by re-application that might be possible. I think someone with greater knowledge of the law than I have would have to answer that. A call to the INS or the American consulate should also get a good answer.
"Now I suppose you are going to tell me that anyone who takes a job with the British government is a liars, an ex-Nazi war criminal or an enemy of the United States."
Not "or" threnodious, all three.
Complain about this comment
#184. At 9:36pm on 22 Sep 2010, Jean Luc,
"I'll stick to more firm ground and look at it from a legal perspective. I have read the basic case law and legislation on free movement of workers, citizens and establishment and from this can tell Buzet's interpretation of the directive does not stand even a superficial scrutiny."
Just go back to school and read and understand the language that is your maternal language, after that read again the directives that are not written in legal speak but in plain simple language for once. After that try, just try to understand what they are saying.
I repeat, if you do not try to integrate as a migrant your case is weakened as for each of the criteria you do not follow you lose points, is that so difficult for you to understand, if it is I suggest you register with the nearest psychoanalyst as you need one.
DurstigerMann, we seem to be of similar opinion on the concept of Muslims judging by your comments, I find it hard to accept those who wish to create their own little empire in someone else's country as I have always believed respect comes before rights.
Complain about this comment
#188 - MarcusAureliusII
"Not "or" threnodious, all three".
Well I guess I can forgive servants of the Crown for the first two providing they are true to the third:-)
Complain about this comment
#186. At 9:51pm on 22 Sep 2010, BluesBerry,
"I wonder if the breach can ever be healed. I wonder what gives Europeans or Americans the right to judge that a Person of Islam is less than a European or an American? "
I cannot believe you do not yet know the answer to that, it's called the ability to accept alternative life styles and integrate, on both scores the followers of the cult called Islam fail drastically. You may recall what an infidel is considered to be, less than a human, so how can you make the statement you have made about being less than an European. There are so many religions that are accepted without problem, simply because they are not aggressive and on a crusade. The majority in the world are not interested in being converted and wish simply to be left alone to follow whatever faith or moral code they wish, and that does not include being forced to put up with what is in effect an aggressive cult.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@186 BluesBerry
"I wonder if the breach can ever be healed. I wonder what gives Europeans or Americans the right to judge that a Person of Islam is less than a European or an American? "
And I was under the impression that religious muslims look down on us infidels who will all go to hell, because we don`t kneel before Allah.
Anyway, weare talking about the islamic culture here, not the individual.
And if that culture in its more extreme/conservative facets hinders its people from accepting the values of our secular and democratic European societies, then it is not compatible and not acceptable to stay with us.
When Germany decided to anchor German as the national language in the Grundgesetz, who do you think cried?
Muslim associations. No other immigrant or religious association. Only them.
Muslim associations and religious muslems in Europe sadly have established a culture of whining and complaining. And it`s always the others.
Complain about this comment
I've noticed that a lot of people claim that the growth of anti-immigration parties in Europe is due to the rise in unemployment and the financial crisis. This is the typical leftside way of seeing things. The social democrats of Europe do this every time the population starts to become fed up with the SD politics. They blame the mood of the people on the people being upset about something completely different.
The fact is that most of the parties with immigration on their agenda was formed long before the financial crisis. In Norway the biggest opposition party, the progress party, was founded in 1973 with anti-immigration being one of the big issues. The progress party has grown steadily since then and got 22,1 % of the votes in the last election. Now why has this got anything to with what I've mentioned above? Well, Norway is a hyper-developed social democracy with a steady flow of oil-money and almost no unemployment. My point is that in Norway there has been nothing to blame increases in anti-immigration feelings on. Still the progress party has grown throughout the years and continue to do so. So there must be a real problem with immigration itself.
I think that the level of immigration we have seen in Europe is nothing but a social experiment. Some decades ago politicians had a great idea. People should live in a multi-cultural society. For some reason this would enrich societies in all kinds of ways. Now we see the result. It's just an endless stream of problems, or small challenges as the lefties like to call them. I think that the reason why we see this new trend in European politics is because these problems are becoming more visible. The assumption that mixing cultures would create better societies has proven devestatingly wrong. This is of course due to the fact that one of the basic ingredients of society is a somewhat common culture and some degree of conformity. In western societies the most importent component of our culture is democracy and human rights. Of course there is going to be problems when cultures not accepting these basic laws are introduced into western society. I'm not saying countries shouldn't have people of different cultures, but there has to be some sort of cultural unity to act as a glue holding society together. What we see in Norway and elsewhere is that large groups from other cultures form paralell societies within their host society. Then the demands are starting to come. In Norway immigrants (read muslims) have suggested having ethnically separated retirement homes. One for muslims, one for norwegians and so on. This pruposal shows how poorly integrated immigrants really are. And now they have become so many that they are starting to have influence on the society. This, of course, is not welcomed by ethnic norwegians, swedes, danes, french, dutch or germans.
one example from norway is from a childrens hospital. On the walls in the hospital it was painted several farm-themed images to make the place nice for the children. On one of these walls there was painted a happy little pig. This painting had to go as soon as some muslims felt offended by the pig. The point of this example is of course that instead of them having to adapt to norwegian culture, Norway had to adapt.
Europeans don't want to adapt to immigrants. Immigrants should adapt to their new country. However, this won't happen as long as there are too big numbers of one specific ethnic group in one country. This is why Europe needs a much more strict immigration policy. Blending cultures is not a good idea, it's an experiment no one knows how is going to end.
Complain about this comment
#140 Buzet23
Spot on !!! I agree completely !!! So too with your subsequent interpretations of the directives under EU Law .
Jean Luc
In retrospect , the Anglo/American allies made a big mistake in winning WWII . If Germany had won the war , we might not have needed the EU as it is today . France and a heap of other countries would still be occupied by Germany . The Third Reich(sp) government would not have allowed people to wander from their country of origin to other countries , without they're having a job to go to . The key to free movement to live in other EU countries , is having a job or being legitimately self supporting . Being self supporting does not mean by robbing the indigenous citizens . Uncle Adolf would have known how to make a better Europe .
The EU has failed miserably in its lack of thought and judgement of the effects new laws , such as freedom of movement , will have , to the detrement of Europe .
The EU Commission , Law Makers , Politicians will destroy the " So Called " European Union , by their own ineptness and stupidity . The EU will fall apart because the majority of the citizens of the 27 European states will no longer suffer it .
Complain about this comment
bbc why is my comment not noted with your message about pre-moderation ?
Complain about this comment
bbc why is my comment not noted with your message about pre-moderation ?
NO I HAVEN'T ALREADY SAID THAT !!!
Complain about this comment
Jean Luc
Your argument is about freedom of movement . Freedom of movement means expressly movement . You may visit a country for thee months ; but if you wish to stay and settle there , you have to have a job or private financial means , not to be a burden on the state . Your argument really applies to France , Italy and other countries expelling the Roma who overstay their welcome , make insanitary encampments in the edge of cities , do not want jobs , houses , to send their children to school and who make a living by illegal means . The Roma are entitled to freedom of movement , but they have to keep moving .
This Blog is about the Swedish Democrats , Dutch Freedom Party and others that represent people raising an objection to Immigrants coming into Europe from outside , who do not want to integrate with the native of their country of choice ; who want to implant their own culture and religion as an overlay to the culture of the country they are in .
Europe ia fast being overun by outsiders who are changing the whole nature of European Culture and Christianism . Multiracial and Multiculturism does not work . MAII will argue that it does in the USA . It doesn't !!! Immigrants of different races and culture occupy their own zone in a city , speak their own language , have shops with their own foods , restaurants , everything pertaining to their country of origin .
Muslim did not become an objectionable word from 9/11 . There is a Muslim campaign to occupy and rule the world , which kindly politically correct people are are refusing to see .
Globalism and religion are the two biggest evils of our time .
Complain about this comment
#197. At 05:49am on 23 Sep 2010, Huaimek,
I have been laughing all Yesterday about the programming team that managed to re-invent the same problem this blog had a month or so ago, Yesterday kept getting post #1 when I posted something and if you then post something without refreshing the page, bingo, you get the 'you've already written this' message just like last time. As an ex IT person this amuses me no end, rofl.
Complain about this comment
@ 198 Huaimek
Ok, seriously, how long do you think the overrunning will take? & what shape do you think the newly overrun Europe will take?
Complain about this comment
@BUZET
Re "Just go back to school and read and understand the language that is your maternal language, after that read again the directives that are not written in legal speak but in plain simple language for once. After that try, just try to understand what they are saying.
I repeat, if you do not try to integrate as a migrant your case is weakened as for each of the criteria you do not follow you lose points, is that so difficult for you to understand, if it is I suggest you register with the nearest psychoanalyst as you need one."
I have studies EU law in my maternal language.
Directives are not written in 'plain simple language' since they are legal texts. This means they are only open to 'legal interpretation' (which does not lead to a single possible interpretation, but the interpretation by the ECJ is the sole to have coercive authority) and should not be read in your 'just a simple text interpretation kind of way'.
The interpretation you give to that sentence on integration in the directive is not supported by either the ECJ, the Commission or EVEN the Member States themselves!
Buzet, perhaps you should inform the Member States of the 'backdoor' you have discovered in the free movement of persons, so that they can organize expulsions based on 'the lack of integration'! Obviously when the Commission will challenge these measures before the ECJ, you can tell those judges that such policies are perfectly acceptable under EU law as is 'obvious from the plain simple language of the directive!'
You could also do what you advised me: go back to school and study, in your case study EU law. I'll help you with:
This is para 23 of the recent Jipa case before the ECJ (case C-33/07, avaible at curia website):
"the Court has always pointed out that, while Member States essentially retain the freedom to determine the requirements of public policy and public security in accordance with their national needs, which can vary from one Member State to another and from one era to another, the fact still remains that, in the Community context and particularly as justification for a derogation from the fundamental principle of free movement of persons, those requirements must be interpreted strictly, so that their scope cannot be determined unilaterally by each Member State without any control by the Community institutions (see, to that effect, Case 36/75 Rutili [1975] ECR 1219, paragraphs 26 and 27; Case 30/77 Bouchereau [1977] ECR 1999, paragraphs 33 and 34; Case C‑54/99 Église de scientologie [2000] ECR I‑1335, paragraph 17; and Case C‑36/02 Omega [2004] ECR I‑9609, paragraphs 30 and 31). The Court’s case-law has accordingly made it clear that the concept of public policy presupposes, in any event, the existence, in addition to the perturbation of the social order which any infringement of the law involves, of a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society (see, for example, Rutili, paragraph 28; Bouchereau, paragraph 35; and Joined Cases C‑482/01 and C‑493/01 Orfanopoulos and Oliveri [2004] ECR I‑5257, paragraph 66)."
As you can see, the nice thing about ECJ judgements is that the judges will always refere back to their previous caselaw when they cite established principles. If you read the Jipa judgement and the judgements cited, you will see your interpretation is wrong from a legal point of view. (and before a national judge deciding on a measure to expell an EU migrant, this is the only relevant point of view).
Complain about this comment
Jean Luc
Re #184
How You swap the authority & power of the ECJ to suit each argument You bring to these debates!
E.g. "..You (me) might want to take account of this legal perspective.. member States cannot escape from the Law. If they try the ECJ will simply rule against them."
Is that the ECJ You were trying to claim on previous debates only has certain 'competences'?
Is that the ECJ You denied only a few weeks ago could over-turn a Democratically Elected National Government piece of 'Legislation'?
An ECJ You insist cannot alter 'Democratic' Mandates such as a 'Policy' the Electorate had supported by their Election of that Political Party to Government?
You see where You are Jean Luc with all this blind faith in what is written down?
If Mr Wilders' Party or this Swedish Party (or God forbid, the BNP) were to enter a Coalition Government and introduce anti-Immigration Laws in the Netherlands, Sweden etc. what is it the ECJ will do Jean Luc: 15 Judges sit on their hands in Luxembourg whilst the stated/directed policy of the EU's 'free movement' (perhaps 'Schengen') are put to one side in favour of a National interest!?
I don't think so & neither I'm sure, do You.
Thus the ECJ IS the final arbiter for any and all EU27 States and the Democratic Free-will of 500 or 500,000,000+ Citizens can be declared nul & void by 15 (in practise as few as 5) Justices!
Jean Luc may regard that as the logical extension of 'democracy', but IMO many more people will see that as tyranny.
Complain about this comment
#200. At 09:12am on 23 Sep 2010, Benefactor,
There is one big pre-requisite before your question can be answered, the dismantling of the Human Rights legislation that has now become an interference in the normal reasonable governing of a member state. It needs to be returned to a much lower level where it cannot be used to cloak anti-social activities and where responsibilities are at the same level as rights.
When that happens, and the signs are beginning with such events as the Burqua ban, it will become clearer what shape Europe will have. As I'm curious to see the reaction of the aggressive Islamic fundamentalists when they are no longer treated as a special case and sacrosanct from the laws we have to follow.
Complain about this comment
@COOLRBUSHWORK
Re "How You swap the authority & power of the ECJ to suit each argument You bring to these debates!
E.g. "..You (me) might want to take account of this legal perspective.. member States cannot escape from the Law. If they try the ECJ will simply rule against them."
Is that the ECJ You were trying to claim on previous debates only has certain 'competences'?
Is that the ECJ You denied only a few weeks ago could over-turn a Democratically Elected National Government piece of 'Legislation'?
An ECJ You insist cannot alter 'Democratic' Mandates such as a 'Policy' the Electorate had supported by their Election of that Political Party to Government?
You see where You are Jean Luc with all this blind faith in what is written down?"
It seems you still don't quite understand how EU and national law relate to each other.
Let me answer your question:
Yes the ECJ would rule against these member states. (because they violate a principle of EU law, which is binding on them, since the member states themselves have bound themselves to respecting EU law by ratifying the EU treaties according to their own constitutional requirements)
Yes, it's the same ECJ which I claimed has only limited competences (in our hypothetical case: the ECJ has the competence (as it is the ultimate judicial authority in the EU legal order) to rule whether or not a Member State has violated its obligations under the EU Treaties (to which it iself has bound itself, cf. supra)
Yes, it's that very same ECJ which I claimed does not have competence to overrule a referendum organized by a Member State on leaving the EU. Since there is no obligation in the EU treaties to refrain from such referendums (on the contrary since Lisbon it is even foreseen that Member States can leave the EU).
I never insisted the ECJ cannot alter democratic mandates. That is something you must have dreamt. Obviously policies backed by a majority of the electorate can be overruled by any judge. This is inherent to the Rule of Law (Rechtsstaat, Etat de droit). This is not specific to the EU. Generally democratic policies (in the form of laws) need to respect the rules that are higher in the hierarchy of norms (e.g. national law needs to respect the constitution, the human rights, general principles of law, ECHRM and also EU law if the state is a member of the EU). Therefore a judge may strike down legislation which is racist(i.e. in breach of human rights), which gives unlimited powers to the executive (i.e. in breach of the principle of seperation of powers), which contraviens EU law (i.e. is incompatible with higher EU law), etc. (Note: from a technical judicial perspective; the ECJ will never annul a national law, it will simply state that law violates EU law which creates a new obligation on the member state concerned to amend or repeal that law (cf infra))
Welcome to our modern society where the rule of law applies coolbrushwork! Have you been asleep for 200 years or so?
Re "If Mr Wilders' Party or this Swedish Party (or God forbid, the BNP) were to enter a Coalition Government and introduce anti-Immigration Laws in the Netherlands, Sweden etc. what is it the ECJ will do Jean Luc: 15 Judges sit on their hands in Luxembourg whilst the stated/directed policy of the EU's 'free movement' (perhaps 'Schengen') are put to one side in favour of a National interest!?
I don't think so & neither I'm sure, do You.
Thus the ECJ IS the final arbiter for any and all EU27 States and the Democratic Free-will of 500 or 500,000,000+ Citizens can be declared nul & void by 15 (in practise as few as 5) Justices!
Jean Luc may regard that as the logical extension of 'democracy', but IMO many more people will see that as tyranny."
What will the ECJ do in case of violation? Very simple: the 27 (we haven't had 15 judges since 2004, get on with the program) will state the following: Through law X Member State Y has failed to fulfill its obligations under the provisions of directive 2004/38.
That's it. Following this according to art 260 TFEU "If the Court of Justice of the European Union finds that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties, the State shall be required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court."
Which means Member State Y has a (new) obligation under the EU treaties to do away with the violation.
I think you really have trouble linking the concepts of democracy and rule of law. In our modern societies democracy is also limited by rule of law (i.a. human rights can not be set aside even if a majority of the electorate elects a party which wishes to do so). Therefore your accusation against the ECJ applies not really to the ECJ/EU specifically but to our modern societies in general, which give the power to the judicial branch to keep a check on the legislative branch.
Complain about this comment
Coming back for a short moment I see that a couple of Americans continue their effort to make this a blog about USA, which it is not. I can also see that the epic contributions from Greece continue.
In the Federal Republic about 15% of all immigrants are considered poorly integrated, 85% the opposite, and there are about 16 million people in Germany with an immigration background. No bad record. Also the right wing populists known in almost all countries surronding Germany have no seats in Bundestag.
Complain about this comment
Jean Luc
Re #204
You are at it again quoting from this document, that raft of legality, those terms of 'endearment' etc.
It matters not a jot!
Look at these random samples from across the spectrum of EU sensibilities:
Did Greece qualify to enter the EUro-zone no? Did it enter? Yes!
Where were all the EU Laws?
Do the France Government believe it has the right to oust the 'Roma'? Yes. Does Brussels agree? No!
Where is the EU Law?
Does a 43% Electoral Citizen Voter Turnout for the 2009 EUropean Parliament constitute a Mandate to hold power & legislate for 100% of Citizens? Perhaps 'yes', perhaps 'no'!?
Where will the authority of EU Law be 4 years from now if the Voter Turnout falls even further!?
JL there is no "...very simple.." where the EU and of its institutions inc. the ECJ are concerned: There is interpretation and States 'X' & 'Y' as well as A, B, C, D... are subject of a tyrannical Judicial extension of centralised authority & power whenever their Democratically elected Government is made to alter its Legislation to suit an interpretation by ECJ of what Brussels has claimed as within its prerogative.
The EU's & Your problem is many Citizens are coming to the same conclusion & they do not appreciate their loss of Free-will and reduction of the exercise of Democratic Rights & Responsibility.
There is no other reason or logic to explain the complete lack of consultation of the Citizens for the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty to the 'bail-out package' etc.
It may be the moment of ultimate revelation of the denial of Democracy at the core of the EU comes about when the EU-Brussels attempts another significant incursion into National sovereignty: The present UK Coalition Government's declared policy is to hold a UK Referendum. This scenario only of course, if the EU policy is rejected by UK Citizens - - again, though I would prefer it, I'm not confident of that outcome. This will put UK at odds with the EU and at that moment Brussels will only have recourse to refer Nation G.B. to the ECJ for "..violating obligations.." at the highest political commitment level.
Any bets on how the British (plus Citizens across the EU as they realise the implication for their own Parliaments) will react to having their Vote & Government's 'policy' following a Referendum result even considered never mind over-turned by the ECJ!?
Here's a small hint: Read President Sarkozy's reaction to 2010 France merely being generally compared to 1941-44 France by an EU Commissioner.
It is JL that does not understand: You read the paperwork & think that is it - - again, I suggest You try informing the France Government of the meaning of the document/s on 'free movement' - - afterall, it is Sarkozy & France is "..member State 'Y'.." at this moment on an issue of Human Rights. Think France is going to appear on a charge of breeching 'Roma' Human Rights!?
Hmm, so much for the paperwork & documents!
Complain about this comment
MESSAGE TO BBC I.T. ETC.
THE COMPLAINT ABOUT THIS WEB PAGE NOT FUNCTIONING PROPERLY MADE BY BUZET23 IS STILL HAPPENING.
EACH COMMENT IS FOLLOWED BY THE NO.1 COMMENT & EACH COMMENT IS TOLD IT HAS 'ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????
HELLO!!! ANYONE AWAKE AT THE BBC.....?????????????????????????????????
MY ADVICE IS TO LEAVE WELL ALONE & STOP REINVENTING THESE I.T. PAGES.
Complain about this comment
These issues on immigration are a problem and I doubt whether we have seen the end of them Gavin.It is also true that the economic problems in the euro zone are gathering again with both Portugal and Ireland in trouble and it would appear they are fast deteriorating.
I read this analysis of her situation on a blog last week.
"As Ireland has strengths that Greece did not have for example she ran a much better fiscal policy before the credit crunch and took more decisive initial steps to respond she in my view could add to those strengths by again acting decisively and calling in the EU/IMF to help her."
It is starting to look as if this blog was rather prescient.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
205. At 11:46am on 23 Sep 2010, Mathiasen wrote:
"""Coming back for a short moment I see that a couple of Americans continue their effort to make this a blog about USA, which it is not. I can also see that the epic contributions from Greece continue."""
Yes we continue Mathiasen, why not afterall? Thanks for the "epic" I take it as a huge compliment.
"""In the Federal Republic about 15% of all immigrants are considered poorly integrated, 85% the opposite, and there are about 16 million people in Germany with an immigration background. No bad record. Also the right wing populists known in almost all countries surronding Germany have no seats in Bundestag."""
Mathiasen, you understand that the basic issue on immigration like other crucial issues that influence peoples' lifes much more than if they are going to have 10% more or less on their salary, does not lie on the information you pass to us. It has nothing to do with how well or bad the whatever percentage of immigrants integrate or not. The issue is whether the citizens of the coutnry have a saying on it afterall. And I see you and others are not interested in concentrating in this which is the heart of the issue.
Complain about this comment
Jean Luc
Your arguments re EU law and the ECJ are all very well on paper .
The ECJ has juridiction over individuals and technically over states .
If a state is found guilty of breaking EU law and decides to ignore the court's judgement , there is very little the ECJ can do about it .
I cannot see a country being thrown out of the EU for failure to comply .
If one country left it could have a domino effect and others leave to , end of EU .
Complain about this comment
@COOLBRUSHWORK
You can't cover your ignorance of EU law by repeating the law doesn't matter and all that matters is politics. Because the law does matter.
Re "Did Greece qualify to enter the EUro-zone no? Did it enter? Yes!
Where were all the EU Laws?"
Unfortunately the ECJ wasn't asked to give a ruling on the decision of allowing Greece to become member of the Euro.
Re "Do the France Government believe it has the right to oust the 'Roma'? Yes. Does Brussels agree? No!
Where is the EU Law?"
The Commission so far sees two violations (targeting of Roma, contrary to what France initially claimed and bad implementation of procedural guarantees included in the 2004/38 directve). Following the TFEU (article 258) the Commission will invite France to correct this situation. If France refuses or does not respond the commission will deliver a reasoned opinion. If France does not follow up on this opinion the Commission may take the case before the ECJ. So there is the EU law.
The law prescribes certain procedures to be followed since these procedures make up part the procedural guarantees (also offered to Member States). In a society based on the rule of law a defendant (in this case France) will have the possibility to make comments and invoke justifications before a prosecutor.
Re "Where will the authority of EU Law be 4 years from now if the Voter Turnout falls even further!?"
The legal authority lies in the Treaties, ratified by the Member States. The question on moral authority is indeed something quite else which cannot be addressed by refering to treaties or legislation.
Re "JL there is no "...very simple.." where the EU and of its institutions inc. the ECJ are concerned: There is interpretation and States 'X' & 'Y' as well as A, B, C, D... are subject of a tyrannical Judicial extension of centralised authority & power whenever their Democratically elected Government is made to alter its Legislation to suit an interpretation by ECJ of what Brussels has claimed as within its prerogative."
So how is this tyrannical judicial extension of centralised authority different from a national supreme (or constitutional) court striking down a national law passed by a democratically elected parliament?
Re "There is no other reason or logic to explain the complete lack of consultation of the Citizens for the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty to the 'bail-out package' etc."
Consultation of citizens on Lisbon treaty is a national decision. The EU is not competent here to force member states to hold (or not to hold) referendums.
How is the bail out package of may 2010 on eu level different from the bail out of banks in 2008 by national governments? Did my government ask me whether it should give money to Fortis, Dexia, KBC and Ethias (I don't know about which british banks needed to be saved, you'll know them). My government didn't and rightly so. Still how is this different from a same kind of bail out on european level?
Re "JL there is no "...very simple.." where the EU and of its institutions inc. the ECJ are concerned: There is interpretation and States 'X' & 'Y' as well as A, B, C, D... are subject of a tyrannical Judicial extension of centralised authority & power whenever their Democratically elected Government is made to alter its Legislation to suit an interpretation by ECJ of what Brussels has claimed as within its prerogative.
The EU's & Your problem is many Citizens are coming to the same conclusion & they do not appreciate their loss of Free-will and reduction of the exercise of Democratic Rights & Responsibility.
There is no other reason or logic to explain the complete lack of consultation of the Citizens for the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty to the 'bail-out package' etc.
It may be the moment of ultimate revelation of the denial of Democracy at the core of the EU comes about when the EU-Brussels attempts another significant incursion into National sovereignty: The present UK Coalition Government's declared policy is to hold a UK Referendum. This scenario only of course, if the EU policy is rejected by UK Citizens - - again, though I would prefer it, I'm not confident of that outcome. This will put UK at odds with the EU and at that moment Brussels will only have recourse to refer Nation G.B. to the ECJ for "..violating obligations.." at the highest political commitment level."
Your question on referendums on EU policy in UK depends on which kind of policy we are talking about. Supposing this is EU policy binding on the member states than it is obvious the ECJ will have to rule against the UK if the UK hasn't implemented that EU policy because a national referendum on this policy turned out to be negative. This is because the UK has taken on the obligation to respect the EU treaties. pacta sunt servanda. This is because by default (exceptions exist) the EU is not about cherry picking: member states respect to whole EU acquis the other option is leaving the EU (or renegotiating the EU treaties)
Therefore I don't really care how the British would react. The British asked to become member of the EEC and they British population confirmed its willingness in a referendum in 1975 when the basic principles of EU (than EEC) law where known.
Re "It is JL that does not understand: You read the paperwork & think that is it - - again, I suggest You try informing the France Government of the meaning of the document/s on 'free movement' - - afterall, it is Sarkozy & France is "..member State 'Y'.." at this moment on an issue of Human Rights. Think France is going to appear on a charge of breeching 'Roma' Human Rights!?"
If violations are established France will be convicted yes. However I think France will use the administrative procedure (preceding the possible judicial procedure before the ECJ) to alter its policy targeting Roma. It has already adapted that circular that originally stated that priority should be given to clean up Roma camps. In the new circular this Roma priority is omitted. So I don't really think France is going to appear before the ECJ, because it is already putting its official policy in line with EU requirements ;)
Complain about this comment
#201. At 09:38am on 23 Sep 2010, Jean Luc,
The problem with people like yourself is that you consider the laws to be sacrosanct, all the laws you mention can be overturned by higher authority or case law from a higher court. Plus, if one or more country decides by democratic vote in its parliament to de-ratify the Lisbon treaty and/or its predecessors what can your ECJ do, fine it, lol. If as I suspect, eventually parts of the HR legislation are de-ratified by member states, what will your ECJ do, fine them, rofl. Your beloved ECJ is a toothless tiger, living beyond its means and staffed by political appointees with no guarantee as to their legal qualifications and liability to bias. In the face of member states that are increasingly being held accountable by their electorate your ECJ judges have exceeded their remit on more than one occasions.
As to Directive 2004/38/EC as published by the EU, this is indeed the legal document but it has been written in plain language for once, your beloved legal beavers can indeed confuse and muddle the words in many ways but that does not mean their arguments cannot be qualified and dismissed by counter arguments based on the same concept of muddled thinking and interpretation. Case law that has followed the PC party line can easily be overruled, judges can be replaced in the ECJ far easier that in most democratic National courts since they are political appointees. Think on these points Jean-Luc.
Note also : The ECJ has changed somewhat recently and whilst there are 27 judges for some courts there are a lot less for others.
Complain about this comment
091980
'I've noticed that a lot of people claim that the growth of anti-immigration parties in Europe is due to the rise in unemployment and the financial crisis. This is the typical leftside way of seeing things.'
Actually it is more of a historical fact than a political perspective. Fascism gained a lot of ground after the depression and who did the fascists target but the ethnic minorities.
It's not irrational for people to worry that their jobs are being taken up by foreigners when jobs start to look scarce and it's no coincidence that rightwing anti-immigration parties who tend to play on this are more popular when there is an economic crisis. I'm sure there are statistics to back this up as well as historical evidence. Though this is not to say that that is the only reason why anti-immigration parties have gained votes.
Complain about this comment
@HUAIMEK
Re "The ECJ has juridiction over individuals and technically over states .
If a state is found guilty of breaking EU law and decides to ignore the court's judgement , there is very little the ECJ can do about it .
I cannot see a country being thrown out of the EU for failure to comply .
If one country left it could have a domino effect and others leave to , end of EU ."
Sorry, the ECJ doesn't really have jurisdiction over individuals. Only Member States and institutions can be brought before the ECJ.
If a country does not follow up on a judgment of the ECJ, national courts of that member state have the obligation of applying EU law directly (principle established in the Waterkeyn case before the ECJ). A second option is to start a second procedure where the Commission can propose fines to be imposed on Member States (fines already have been imposed on France, Spain and Greece for different violations).
Complain about this comment
Mama Adoration thrice post #55
"Only I recognize it and rejoice every second of it."
No god delusion there then...
All immigrants should seek to integrate with the existing population whilst offering that which is useful and relevant in their cultures in exchange.
Complain about this comment
#215. At 1:30pm on 23 Sep 2010, Jean Luc,
"If a country does not follow up on a judgment of the ECJ, national courts of that member state have the obligation of applying EU law directly (principle established in the Waterkeyn case before the ECJ). "
As I said in my previous post the ECJ can do squat, it is practically toothless as has been shown by the far larger number of member states that have or are being fined (not just three). The only question in my mind is what they will do if a net contributor like France turns round and says the ECJ is an ass and we won't pay the fine imposed by a judgement. As to the National courts, you need to remember that they follow law as enacted by their government, if their Government votes to not recognise any aspect of EU law then the National courts must follow that lead and ignore that EU law.
Complain about this comment
@214 nmo
"Actually it is more of a historical fact than a political perspective. Fascism gained a lot of ground after the depression and who did the fascists target but the ethnic minorities.
It's not irrational for people to worry that their jobs are being taken up by foreigners when jobs start to look scarce and it's no coincidence that rightwing anti-immigration parties who tend to play on this are more popular when there is an economic crisis. I'm sure there are statistics to back this up as well as historical evidence. Though this is not to say that that is the only reason why anti-immigration parties have gained votes."
Sooo, because people are losing jobs, they are starting to rage about not integrated immigrants of which most have a background of islamic culture.
Those not integrated immigrant groups, in Germany around 15% of all immigrants, are mostly living off welfare.
I can see how people could become jealous of those people for stealing their jobs. :)
*facepalm*
Complain about this comment
Jean luc
Re #212
"..your (my) ignorance of EU law.." plus, "..I don't really care how the British react.."
Never fail to let Yourself down do You and curiously always by that superiority tone!
Then there's Your very loose affiliation to Democratic principles: Apparently a Vote held in 1975 determines the political fate of 60,000,000 some 35 years later! Strange an Irish Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty wasn't allowed to stand for 12 months!?
From all Your previous contributions I know You really mean those quotes and it is probably the most troubling aspect of all: JeanLuc, the arch intellectual busy-body & anti-Democrat and thus of all Brussels represents!
I have read and examined just the same documents as You and nowhere on here have denied that the Law is very important: All along I have argued that You place too much reliance on it.
That is not 'ignorance', that is a common sense approach to the highly debatable issue of how EU Law is interpreted: Something You singularly lack because each of Your contributions keeps dogmatically repeating only 1 sort of action/response is possible/conceivable when it is patently obvious that often within the EU27 nothing of the sort is happening in reality. Particularly when it applies to the core Member States' National (France-Germany) concerns.
What You propose as the use of EU Law is of course the ultimate goal of the EU entity: That it should dictate to 500,000,000 without let or hindrance & the Democratic inconvenience of Consultation, Representation & Accountability. I know You feel very positive about that ideal, but a lot of us do not share Your enthusiasm for Government enabled by exploitative Legal Diktat.
You chose to give 'X' & 'Y' an airing: I chose to point out Your example is far too dogmatic and in essence is inoperable when a powerful entity such as France Government chooses to put its perceived National interest ahead of the EU Law.
I cannot help You stumbling from one Case Law to the next as though they were the only things that matter. The EU is more than Laws just as is any society worth the label - - I'm afraid "..pacta sunt servanda.." is the refuge of the Legal mind, but not of reality - - You admit as much when You concede France is unlikely to end up before the ECJ because it & Brussels will double-speak their way to a compromise. Sorry, but as France has already deported 'Roma' the EU Law has (possibly) been breeched & France has a Case to answer, but it won't even be charged!
This will not occur if my UK Referendum scenario were to occur: The EU must take the UK to the ECJ for Legislation that prevents a new Treaty or risk 'ever closer union' collapsing.
The ECJ will at that point be determining & possibly countermanding the Democratic Free-will of the British Electorate - - You know it though You have repeatedly denied it over the years - - such an eventuality is not based on my 'ignorance', but on my long-held & oft made comment that the ECJ will in time be called upon by Brussels to circumvent Democracy.
Once more I remind You (as several others have done in previous debates) that this debate is not about the relative strengths & weaknesses of the sovereign States' Governments procedures: It is about the EUropean Union and the claim of Brussels to be a more advanced, better equipped, more politically sophisticated supra-National organisation. States do not have to prove their worth; they are not the new-political construct-on-the-block, that is the EU - - it is claiming to be the political & economic future for all Europeans.
Brussels has a right to make the claims however, IMO in the absolutely vital function of genuine Democratic Accountability it is nearer a Soviet Union style of democracy than that already in place at State level: E.g. Brussels pompously spouting its Human Rights credentials via the Charter and yet those Rights & Duties had already existed in virtually every aspect across 27 National Legislatures.
Yet, when push comes to shove portions of France, Sweden, Netherlands, UK society have expressed views deemed hostile to those worthy principles - - if Democracy is to prevail those expression of discontent must be given a legitimate hearing - - at National level that occurs as the Governments are formed & reflect Citizens' aspirations.
Who, where, when, what is the 'Democratic' response at EU level? There is none: How could there be for it has a EUropean Parliament that cannot be removed, that does not have any recognised Constituency, and whose Membership are totally insulated from the concerns of the Citizens!?
What kind of supra-National EEC in 1975 or post-Maastricht EU can account for & deal with the Dutch, Swedish vote etc. If other 'pro-EU' are like You & think Case Law will be sufficient then JL I am happy to inform You all there is no saving the EU.
Complain about this comment
@215 Jean Luc
"If a country does not follow up on a judgment of the ECJ, national courts of that member state have the obligation of applying EU law directly (principle established in the Waterkeyn case before the ECJ). A second option is to start a second procedure where the Commission can propose fines to be imposed on Member States (fines already have been imposed on France, Spain and Greece for different violations)."
Do you really think that if nations like France or Germany decided to ignore what the ECJ or any other EU-institution says, there would be any consequences?
Who do you think finances the ECJ?
The treaties aren`t worth the paper they are written on.
Look at the huge bailout.
Complain about this comment
Huaimek
Re #211
The idea that Brussels would countenance even for a second the withdrawal of the 2nd/3rd largest Net Contributor, the UK is just laughable.
"..domino effect..'?
If G.B. were to exit the EU more like the whole House of Cards falling faster than the Twin Towers.
Complain about this comment
I am Argentinean, I live in the UK. Argentina has had migration from all over the world, including Muslim, many of them. I wonder why we don't have any problem. If a Muslim or any person goes to the hospital and ask for special food because of their believes, the hospital will tell them if the food doesn't affect your health, get over and eat it. Thinking of splitting women from men in the swimming pool because it is my belief, again, get over. Not even thinking of having social welfare if my religion does not let allow me to work, get a job!...call it brutal, whatever you wish, but they got adjusted to our culture and values in no time...there is no burka, everybody just melt away! I feel Europe is too soft and naive and sacrifices core values and a lot of money from tax payer. I reckon that this European model is likely to collapse
Complain about this comment
@BUZET
Re The problem with people like yourself is that you consider the laws to be sacrosanct, all the laws you mention can be overturned by higher authority or case law from a higher court. Plus, if one or more country decides by democratic vote in its parliament to de-ratify the Lisbon treaty and/or its predecessors what can your ECJ do, fine it, lol. If as I suspect, eventually parts of the HR legislation are de-ratified by member states, what will your ECJ do, fine them, rofl."
Quite revealing to see how you take my arguments, make a caricature out of them and then comment and laugh on the caricature instead of trying to address the issues I originally made. (hint: you might want to add more lol's and rofl's to add strength to your argument!)
I do wonder which higher authority you had in mind to 'overturn' an EU directive.
And no I don't think the ECJ will fine Member States if they de-ratify the EU treaties. Because if they do, it's because they have decided to leave the EU. As the only has jurisdiction on the EU treaties, it wouldn't have jurisdiction anymore over those countries which have left the EU.
Re "Your beloved ECJ is a toothless tiger, living beyond its means and staffed by political appointees with no guarantee as to their legal qualifications and liability to bias. In the face of member states that are increasingly being held accountable by their electorate your ECJ judges have exceeded their remit on more than one occasions.""
Beautiful rethorics! Almost as beautiful as COOLBRUSHWORK's rethorics who thinks the EU is deceitful, arrogant, anti democratic whatnot, but he of course thinks the ECJ is a powerful centralizing anti democratic monster and not a toothless tiger. Perhaps you two should sit together and discuss this so I can finally know what the ECJ really is
Re "As to Directive 2004/38/EC as published by the EU, this is indeed the legal document but it has been written in plain language for once, your beloved legal beavers can indeed confuse and muddle the words in many ways but that does not mean their arguments cannot be qualified and dismissed by counter arguments based on the same concept of muddled thinking and interpretation. Case law that has followed the PC party line can easily be overruled, judges can be replaced in the ECJ far easier that in most democratic National courts since they are political appointees. Think on these points Jean-Luc."
Clearly the language is not plain enough because you succeeded in giving an impossible interpretation to the text.
Re "As I said in my previous post the ECJ can do squat, it is practically toothless as has been shown by the far larger number of member states that have or are being fined (not just three). The only question in my mind is what they will do if a net contributor like France turns round and says the ECJ is an ass and we won't pay the fine imposed by a judgement. As to the National courts, you need to remember that they follow law as enacted by their government, if their Government votes to not recognise any aspect of EU law then the National courts must follow that lead and ignore that EU law."
Again, according to CBW the ECJ can do a bit more than 'squat'. Please discuss with him as well :)
'What if ' is so beautiful isn't it? The thing is France will never say this. Because saying this would threaten the whole idea behind the EU (Member States giving up sovereignty and respecting EU authority), this would end the EU and with the end of the EU would end all the benefits that flow from it.
And national courts uphold 'the law', not 'the national law'. The fact that national courts ask so many preliminary questions to the ECJ, but also the court in Strasbourg is in itself proof of the fact that national judges (even though they are 'national') in the end care more about 'the law' than what their government wants (hint: this is exactly why we have a seperation of powers, because a judicial branch which would just do whatever the legislative or executive branch would want it to do would be pointless).
Perhaps you should not only read up on EU law, but basic political philosophy (Montesquieu; l'esprit des lois) as well ;)
@COOLBRUSHWORK
Re "Never fail to let Yourself down do You and curiously always by that superiority tone!
Then there's Your very loose affiliation to Democratic principles: Apparently a Vote held in 1975 determines the political fate of 60,000,000 some 35 years later! Strange an Irish Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty wasn't allowed to stand for 12 months!?"
Well if you really want to know. I don't think international treaties should be the subject of referenda. And let me clarify (because you seem all to eager to interprete my comments one way only): I don't really care what the British decide. Therefore you are very welcome to organize whatever referendum you want on the EU. If you guys decide to leave the EU as a result of such a referendum, so be it.
Re "What You propose as the use of EU Law is of course the ultimate goal of the EU entity: That it should dictate to 500,000,000 without let or hindrance & the Democratic inconvenience of Consultation, Representation & Accountability. I know You feel very positive about that ideal, but a lot of us do not share Your enthusiasm for Government enabled by exploitative Legal Diktat"
Not without hindrance or democratic consultation my friend. In fact, the European Parliament is the only parliament in Europe which goes against the current evolution of marginalization of the legislative branch: the EP has seen its powers strengthen over the last decades. This implies more and more democratic consultation on Eu level.
Re "You chose to give 'X' & 'Y' an airing: I chose to point out Your example is far too dogmatic and in essence is inoperable when a powerful entity such as France Government chooses to put its perceived National interest ahead of the EU Law."
Perhaps you should charge money than for your 'clairvoyance'. The case has not even been brought before the ECJ and you already know France will get away with it?
It should be noted that in fact it was France who got imposed both a lump sum AND penalty payment based on this former 228 EC article "If the Court finds that the Member State concerned has not complied with its judgment it may impose a lump sum or penalty payment on it". It is clear the text says OR and not AND, but the ECJ has nevertheless imposed both on France for non compliance with the CFP.
Re "I cannot help You stumbling from one Case Law to the next as though they were the only things that matter. The EU is more than Laws just as is any society worth the label - - I'm afraid "..pacta sunt servanda.." is the refuge of the Legal mind, but not of reality - - You admit as much when You concede France is unlikely to end up before the ECJ because it & Brussels will double-speak their way to a compromise. Sorry, but as France has already deported 'Roma' the EU Law has (possibly) been breeched & France has a Case to answer, but it won't even be charged!"
Obviously case law isn't the only thing that matters. But it is very important in a legal discussion, which you started concerning the Roma. And I did not admit it would not be brought before the ECJ because of double speaking and compromises. Read my post again: if it won't be brought before the ECJ it's because France will have given in to the demands of the Commission, which won't compromise on these fundamental principles.
Re "Once more I remind You (as several others have done in previous debates) that this debate is not about the relative strengths & weaknesses of the sovereign States' Governments procedures: It is about the EUropean Union and the claim of Brussels to be a more advanced, better equipped, more politically sophisticated supra-National organisation. States do not have to prove their worth; they are not the new-political construct-on-the-block, that is the EU - - it is claiming to be the political & economic future for all Europeans."
I must have missed that document where 'the EU' (which does not exist, I told you before) is more advanced , better equiped and more sophisticated. Source on that?
Re "Brussels has a right to make the claims however, IMO in the absolutely vital function of genuine Democratic Accountability it is nearer a Soviet Union style of democracy than that already in place at State level: E.g. Brussels pompously spouting its Human Rights credentials via the Charter and yet those Rights & Duties had already existed in virtually every aspect across 27 National Legislatures."
One wonders than why the UK desperately wanted an opt out from the charter if virtually every aspect of it was already covered by national law ;)
Re "Who, where, when, what is the 'Democratic' response at EU level? There is none: How could there be for it has a EUropean Parliament that cannot be removed, that does not have any recognised Constituency, and whose Membership are totally insulated from the concerns of the Citizens!?"
How can the national MP's be removed in a way the european MP's can't?
@DURSTIGERMANN
Re "Do you really think that if nations like France or Germany decided to ignore what the ECJ or any other EU-institution says, there would be any consequences?
Who do you think finances the ECJ?
The treaties aren`t worth the paper they are written on.
Look at the huge bailout."
States are not monolithic. It's not because a French government does not want to implement an ECJ ruling that a french individual (who could benefit from implementing this ruling) can not ask the french judge to apply EU law instead of french law. And there is no reason why a french judge would automatically prefere french law over EU law. In fact this is exactly what happened in the Waterkeyn case which I have cited. If you would care to read a bit about it I wouldn't have to explain these basics.
And to my knowledge the ECJ has already imposed fines on numerous member states and they all have paid.
The reason is simple: member states may disagree with the commission or ecj on individual cases (e.g. roma) but these individual cases do not outweigh all the other benefits the EU brings. Therefore in the end Member states will accept the authority of the ECJ, because not doing so would endanger the EU and would ultimately end the EU and the benefits it brings. Again these are basics.
Complain about this comment
#210. At 12:38pm on 23 Sep 2010, Nik
1) Germany is a representative democracy.
2) You should read Ibsen's "Enemy of the People" on day. Or Dürrenmatt's "The Old Lady Comes To Town". Then let us discuss direct democracy and referenda.
3) Sweden and Germany are the most successful European economies for the moment, and in Germany unemployment is diminishing. So much for job competition argument.
Complain about this comment
See one message that is on the right direction (not because I agree with everything it says but because it tries to make a deeper analysis I usually see only in the texts of DT and a couple of others...):
194. At 02:21am on 23 Sep 2010, 091980 wrote:
"""...a lot of people claim that the growth of anti-immigration parties in Europe is due to the rise in unemployment and the financial crisis. This is the typical leftside way of seeing things...They blame the mood of the people on the people being upset about something completely different."""
Precisely. They do not blame the mood of people. They try to ridicule people themselves telling them they are "evil little men who when they are rich do not complain about the foreigners and when they are poor complain about the foreigners". Even the word "xenophobia" as well as the more recent "islamophobia" is a very devious one since it has the additif "phobia" showing utter contempt and creating the impression of: "you do not like foreigners because you are afraid of them, you are not a man, you are a little fearful worthless creature" etc. etc.
I send you back to Thucydides and his analysis on how demagogues played with empty rhetorics, how they turned the world upside down with their lies, how they went even down to the level of changing the meaning of words so as to distort reality and pass their harmful politics that served the interests of a few.
"""The fact is that most of the parties with immigration on their agenda was formed long before the financial crisis. In Norway..."""
Precisely. And you have an excellent example. Similarly, anti-massive immigration views are found all over Europe all over the regions and throughout all levels of society including lower, middle and higher classes with perhaps most prominent position among the lower-middle classes (what we call "common citizens") more than any other. The above derogatory propaganda evidently targets mainly them.
"""...I think that the level of immigration we have seen in Europe is nothing but a social experiment. Some decades ago politicians had a great idea."""
Hmmm... I am afraid it is not at all a social experiment conducted by the countries but an extremely sinister and offensive policy by international bankoinvestors. The view of the "experiment" had been the view of some semi-illiterate leftish idealists and a few self-convinced free-market liberals. However the reality is as I said much more sinister:
You have to reaslise that countries that do not want to have legal or illegal immigration, simply do not have it. There is not any greatest lie saying it is a "phenomenon of our times" and that "we can do nothing to stop it" and that "people did it always". All these are simply huge distortions of reality. Yes people did emmigrate massively at times but this was done only when the host land was either extremely sparsely populated or when the host nation was either too weak to resist (and hence was conquered) or when the host nation(s) was ruled by a leading elite anxious to control its internal masses seeing in the emmigrants new "conscripts" and an excellent tool of social pressure (divide and conquer etc.). If anything in 9 out of 10 times of massive emmigration sooner or later the situation ended up in violence, often extreme violence with the annihilation of the host. That is what history teaches us. There is a good reason for host people to be conservative about massive emmigration. If anyone knows better history then he may tell us what he knows.
Now, established states when working properly could stop immigration 500 and 1000 years ago - it goes without sayin that even modern mulfunctioning states can really do it today quite easily? Saying "we can't do anything" is a huge lie and a phrase that treats citizens like fools.
The sinister reality is that states (i.e. the ones who moves the puppets in the states) want this forces immigration and impose it upon the people under all imaginablme pretexts not only without the people being asked but also by fooling people when people ask their basic right to have a saying on this issue!!!
You might give the explanation that those who decided it did it "for the economy" and to maintain the provision of "cheaper hands". Well even that excuse is not enough since:
1) There is no proof that immigration is the one that brings financial development as in most cases immigration followed rather than gave birth the financial booms. The booming of an economy depends on other factors much more than the provision of cheap and untrained hands.
2) Immigration in a country brings whole new costs, their levelof whom has never been established for obvious reason of denying the right to provide proper information to the citizens but even a rough analysis containing the number of immigrants, their employment rates and their state aid consumptions is absolutely horrifying: it goes withoutsaying that it is the country that is paying this and that means the average citizen. If we start adding the enormous amounts of money spent on "security" issues, on "educational" issues and other such efforts that normally would not be made at all, then one may only wonder what is indeed the real price.
3) The "demographic/social security" justification is also not enough for a state to have any interest to introduce immigrants since as said above, the costs are higher than the payback and as suc hthey cannot provide any remedy at all for the whatever demographic problems in Europe create in the social security and pension systems. Evidently such issues stem out of the evident (and most possibly purposeful) mismanagement of the funds so as to drive violently societies under the constant tthreat of "risk of losing it all". Besides such questions one really wonders whether the lower demographics are bad or whether they can be extremely positive since if you design it carefully and avoid lazy people sitting around from the age of 50 or something (when their health permits them to do 80% of modern jobs till minimum the age of 70) you may have an excess of working people in contrast to underage people under care! Now, one might say "but that way economy cannot grow" - but that is another huge lie: what means "grow"? Grow in debt? Because I very much prefer to have a shrinking economy on the positive where I maximise the margin rather than a growing economy on the negative immersing itself in complete dependence
and fragility.
a) "cheap hands" is another great myth: they remain cheap for a maximum of 3-4 years. Then they naturally wake up and start wanting more. Hence, if the market becomes addicted to it the need for more and more immigrants will mean the final immersion of the country and complete loss of the country's soverignty may come really in a span of even 1-2 generations, no need to start choosing examples from the numerous that exist in history. Well more or less that is what happens to many countries.
------------
So why do states endorse legal and illegal immigration? They do it because these "cheap hands" are of course cheap ONLY for corporations and down to the basics if we follow the line this includes the end of the line: bankoinvestors. And since states are enslaved to them, they simply bend to their decisions. The immigration policies have been enforced in post-WWII societies and enforced in an openly brutal manner upon citizens tearing their most basic rights as well as the basic notion of citizenship, democracy, freedom of expression not to mention about other rights like the right to humanly paid and maintained employment, working conditions etc. etc.
"""I think that the reason why we see this new trend in European politics is because these problems are becoming more visible. The assumption that mixing cultures would create better societies has proven devestatingly wrong."""
Mixing of cultures has no particular temperature, it is neither cold or hot and it is not a guarantee of either success or failure. It all depends on the mix: a) what kind of people are mixed and b) under what circumstances they are mixed. Mixing large masses at a short time you may easily end up in a long period of caste societies and these are not necessarily what people have in mind as "progressive societies". What works for the US, Brazil or Australia does not necessarily work for Slovakia, Egypt or Nepal! Each region has its own particularities and there is no overuling "success path".
"""This is of course due to the fact that one of the basic ingredients of society is a somewhat common culture and some degree of conformity."""
That is something that is observed via societal processes and not imposed centrally. No matter how they impose the cohabitation non-muslim hosts are always feeling akward with the presence of massice muslim populations who massively support a religion that by nature divides people into superior (the fidel muslims) and inferior (the infidel others) even measuring that difference in the holy texts: eg. 1 fidel counts for 2 infidel dhimmies (other monotheistic). 1 fidel counts for 15 infidel non-dhimmies (non monotheistic)*.
* I give an example, this is not my point of discussion here (however, do not try to argue with the point prior to doing your research and referring to the koran etc.)
"""In western societies the most importent component of our culture is democracy and human rights. Of course there is going to be problems when cultures not accepting these basic laws are introduced into western society."""
Evidently. And in the opposite, other cultures' basic notions include the inequality of poeple eg. fidels against infidels, men against women etc. Them too have a problem with the large influx of western cultures in their hood.
"""I'm not saying countries shouldn't have people of different cultures, but there has to be some sort of cultural unity to act as a glue holding society together."""
"""...And now they have become so many that they are starting to have influence on the society. This, of course, is not welcomed by ethnic norwegians, swedes, danes, french, dutch or germans."""
You speak of Scandinavians and Germans. You have to rather pick up the example of Greeks who not even 100 years ago have been genocided by Turks in the name of islam and the death of millions of christians had been celebrated by most muslims around the world - I am aware of celebrations from Palestine down to Indonesia...*
(*don't you even think that Kemal used "Turkey" to mobilise the "Turks" - what was back then a random mix mass of ancient (800 years)-down-to-recently (even 200 years) islamified populations - his mentions of Turkey was only to the west. Inside he started doing it after he established his "presidency" after 1923.
Nowdays, Greeks are supposed to accept islamic immigration in Greece all while Turkey openly threatens it with war. And Greek citizens are supposed to accept the muslims as "Greek citizens": that means give them positions in the police and in the military evidently. Now I do not know if any from you (where is my friend Oulematu?) could ever convince me of the possibility of illegal immigrant muslims becoming "Greek citizens" would really become "Greek citizens", i.e. they would work hard and would even give their life to defend the interests of the country from an aggressive and invading muslim Turkey.
"""...This painting had to go as soon as some muslims felt offended by the pig. The point of this example is of course that instead of them having to adapt to norwegian culture, Norway had to adapt.""""
The pig is the minimum. There is action to force Greeks to stop mentioning the 1910-1922 genocides of 1,5 million Greeks, 1,5 million Armenians and 1 million Assyrochaldeans in Greek books, to stop mentioning the slaughters that Albanians did as part of the Ottoman army in the 19th century, to eliminate the term "turkalbanians" (refering to the Ottoman army comrpising of Turks & Albanians) as this was written in original texts of the fighters of our revolution as well as to write that no matter what the people of the times though with their 35 rebellions and 4 major revolutions (i.e. 1 rebellion/revolution every 10 years of a 400 Ottoman occupation) the Ottoman Empire was a positive evolution and beneficial to the Greeks and other European populations of the region!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
... you in Norway are still playing with drawings... we are dealing with the real deal: death of mind.
"""Europeans don't want to adapt to immigrants."""
Why should they want? Is there a single reason that they should?
"""However, this won't happen as long as there are too big numbers of one specific ethnic group in one country.""""
Choice and balance is the secret. Even 10 million Chinese in Norway would not provoke the problems 500,000 muslims provoke.
"""This is why Europe needs a much more strict immigration policy. """
It is evident we need a tighetining of the inflow, but again I underline:
The issue is not just what kind of immigration policy we need - the issue is: "Do citizens of countries have any saying about it?". Evidently they don't. "Should they have?".
My view point is that they should.
There are quite some people (eg. I have spoken before to a guy called Oulematu) who firmly believe that people must not have the right to decide on these matters because they are "unfit" and that such decision must be taken by the overruling specialists - and that is the way it is, I am not paraphraphrasing changing anything, that is the idea.
For me down to the basics there is no moral judgement at the end of the day: let citizens choose on what they want for their country. That is the way it has to be in any civilised society. We are far from reaching any close to that level.
Complain about this comment
Tiring? No we're not tiring - we're fed up to the back teeth.
Unfortunately a large amount of the resentment is caused by the immigrants, the rest by politicians.
I don't mind those that wish to come here following their religion, but I DO object to seeing posters held aloft outside my courts telling me freedom can go to hell and Islam will rule the world. I DO object to being told I have to cover up and obey Islamic law when visiting their countries but seeing NO attempt to blend in or work with us when they visit us.
On the political side, I hugely object to being endlessly asked my 'ethnic' roots when I apply only to NEVER get an interview, to seeing 'positive descrimination' being applied by councils, army, police etc. (positive to one is negative to another - and the ones on the negative side are ALWAYS the indiginous population).
I also find it annoys me no end to hear some 'politically correct left wing do gooder' telling me that we shouldn't have Bishops in the House of Lords because that descriminates against other faiths - SO WHAT THIS IS THE UK AND THIS IS A COUNTRY THAT IS CHISTIAN AND MORE OVER HAS A CHRISTIAN HEAD OF STATE. I don't see ANY Muslim country doing anything to protect Christians far less admit them to the corridors of power.
I find it massively offensive that people are arrested for burning a Koran, but not for burning or insulting a bible.
Complain about this comment
"It's such a corrupt system! A professor speaking 5 languages cannot obtain US citizenship unless they marry a US citizen."
If he is a European professor probably not.
We prefer much better qualified and competent Indians.
Complain about this comment
Nick claiming that Winter Olympics are a Nordic countries sham...
Sorry, but I'd rather watch a Swedish Nordic biathlonist, an American slalomer, an Australian aerial snowboarder or an Austrian downhiller than any member of Club Med pathetically trying to defeat an Ethiopian or Kenyan runner in a marathon or 10K.
[Life is too short]
BTW. I don't see any Club Med athletes in finals of even such ancient disciplines as discus and javelin throw. Or wrestling...
I wonder why that is.
Complain about this comment
#227
powermeerkat wrote: "We prefer much better qualified and competent Indians. "
I suggest you better hurry up and "snap up" the ones that build the Delhi Commonwealth Games sports facilities, they just finished with it, but as they are so "competent" they may not be available for long! :))
Complain about this comment
#225. At 3:51pm on 23 Sep 2010,
@Nik
Point 1, 2, you may need to rethink.
1) At least Australia, New Zealand, Germany, etc. "boomed" when they took immigrants not before, same goes for the US.
2) Social cost per immigrant are less than their contribution, at least that's what studies here in UK state
Complain about this comment
This phenomenon in Sweden is not really that shocking, of course the mainstream politicians are all on TV saying how appalled they are but the fact is that they have to respect that almost 6% of the votes went to the SD.There is reaon for this.It was part of a democratic process, albeit very different from the British model. In some ways there are too many political parties( Center, Liberal, Christain Democrats,Left (former communist) who will never get thier own mandate, so they have to build an alliance and you have then a concensus government. Put things into perspective just as many people voted for the former communist party as teh Swedish Nationals! As Sweden does not have the colonial history of say the UK or France the immigrants here are typically from the middle east Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iran ( 1979-) and Iraq. Also from Eritrea, Somalia and Ethiopia. There have been a number of high media profile "honour" killings of women, and this has spurned a lot of anti-muslim feeling here, the muslims themselves are partially guilty as I know of no Swedish-muslim marriage, typically each immigrant community marries thier own or tragically arranged marriages. They still have a long way to go, coupled with the culture shock and the language problem its not easy for them.Despite this Sweden to its credit is still a very tolerant society, but not in the way the Dutch or the Danes are!
Complain about this comment
#228
@meerkat
"than any member of Club Med pathetically trying to defeat an Ethiopian or Kenyan runner in a marathon or 10K."
you could add to the pathetic list Turk, Polish, US, Swedish Nordic, Australian, Austrian runners :)
don't limit your choise to just a few expand your horizon:)
Complain about this comment
227. At 4:16pm on 23 Sep 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"It's such a corrupt system! A professor speaking 5 languages cannot obtain US citizenship unless they marry a US citizen."
If he is a European professor probably not.
We prefer much better qualified and competent Indians.
******
You did manage to infiltrate somehow despite being neither.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen wrote:
"#210. At 12:38pm on 23 Sep 2010, Nik
1) Germany is a representative democracy.
2) You should read Ibsen's "Enemy of the People" on day. Or Dürrenmatt's "The Old Lady Comes To Town". Then let us discuss direct democracy and referenda.
3) Sweden and Germany are the most successful European economies for the moment, and in Germany unemployment is diminishing. So much for job competition argument."
1. The DDR was a representative democracy.
2. People who quote aristocrats who have been dead for a hundred years in order to shine light on a political system which exists very successfully right next door to the topic of their discussion are impossibly obtuse and take enormous liberties with a reasonable audience.
3. Sweden and Germany are successful economies for whom? The owners? Sure. But if you work in germany or sweden, you pay 50% of your non subsistence wage in income tax, then you pay another 22% VAT every time you buy something with the remainder. And of the remainder left over after that, the cost of what you buy is massively inflated by fuel taxes, which increase the price of everything that is moved in the country, every time it is moved.
No doubt Mathiasen would have us believe that germany is a rich country and one big happy family.
That is why hordes of poor germans are flooding over the border into switzerland to work, creating real tension between the countries. Because their economies are so superior to that which inhabitants of a direct democracy enjoy.....
You're claims are ridiculous, mathiasen. Germany is a party controlled state run by an elite of aristocrats who openly profess their divine right to rule by displaying titles they inherited from the dark ages.
Complain about this comment
329 ChrisArta
Thanks for giving us a good laugh!
Complain about this comment
Pompous Aristocratic goonery aside, I did have a reason for posting here today.
I believe the world has given us all a fascinating case study that sheds a huge amount of light onto the murky subject of why so many folks are angry with immigration. The topic of this fine blog, no less.
Today in Switzerland, the university of Basel published the first extensive study of Swiss judaism since the second world war. Now there have been other studies done, but this is the first to have been done in a proper scientific manner, over a long period of time. The results are curious in and of themselves, but what they show is of even more pertinence to the immigration debate. Why? Because according to the data, the swiss jewish community is in a state of rapid upheaval. Profound changes are occurring within the swiss jewish community.
First and foremost, nearly half of all marriages involving jews are with folks who are not jewish. Now you have to think about that for a moment to understand how many jews are marrying outside their closed society, but even so the fact is remarkable.
For most of the past couple of hundred years, Swiss jews have steadfastly REFUSED TO INTEGRATE.
Ring any bells?
Now, imagine for a moment that Sarko Fantastic or one of his merry men came out and started deporting jews to Israel because .... haha! ... they were not integrating into "french" society. Notwithstanding that he is of jewish decent himself.
What would the reaction be, from the media?
That this man has a right to define what is french, and to exclude a minority because of their insular culture?
That cultural groups owe a duty to the government of the day to prove their loyalty to their state by performing required tasks, INCLUDING RELIGIOUS RITUALS SUCH AS MARRIAGE BETWEEN FAITHS???
You see, there is absolutely no question that jews and other minority groups within european countries refuse to integrate with the demands of the mainstream. But we say that is their right, their freedom, and viv la difference.
So it seem to me that it cannot be the fact that immigrants have not integrated which allows folks to hate on them with such rapid and willful abandon. If that were the case, catholics who attend church in anglican or protestant areas would be facing massive pressure to integrate with their mainstream society, and so would anglican in catholic areas, and of course the jews.
No, the hatred towards the immigrants stems from a feeling of greater entitlement. Patriots like buzzsaw feel they belong to their land, and indeed that the land belongs to them.
But why? What possible justification could there be for such irrational feelings of entitlement? After all, this is Europe. This is the place that invented the concept of the titled lord with such extensive rights over land that the vast majority of folks were little more than serfs and, for all intents and purposes, mere visitors upon their prince's domain.
So how can a European sense of entitlement to land exist, when the very same folks who feel entitled to displace immigrants acquiesce to the overwhelming demands on European land set down by their titled, hereditarily entitled, "representatives"?
The answer, of course, is that the feeling of belonging is not just irrational, it is also borrowed from the television. The people who own none of europe's real property and yet feel entitled to preach as if they do, these people are living a dream fed to them by the REAL owners.
If you look hard at the party members who OWN the far right political corporations trading as political parties, you will find the disgruntled offspring of noble families. This is true across Europe. I'm waxing lyric here, I mean what I say absolutely literally. If you get off you backside and do the research and find out who owns the political parties of the far right across europe, you will find the descendants of nobility and royalty EVERYWHERE. It is their sport. It is what they do, when they get bored. And whipping up a frenzy of activity amongst their pet worker drones is also what they do.
Switzerland also shares this phenomenon. the far right fascist party over here, the SVP ("Swiss people's (volk) party" OF COURSE!!!!) is also owned by massively rich and bored industrialists who inherited their wealth and sense of entitlement. And they are supported by the drooling mass of folks who are too stupid to remember how to breath properly.
And they all share this delusion of being "owners". It is startling, at times.
Not long ago, by way of a personal anecdote illustrating the concept of fascist delusions, I was attending a local council office (the "geminde") in a town where I own an old house. The young woman serving behind the counter worked out I was an AUSLANDER, and began to behave in an incredibly rude fashion, speaking thick dialect and telling me how to behave, and that I must "integrate".
My response, which gave me immense satisfaction upon reflection, was to tell that young woman that I owned part of the town which employed her as a worker, and that she was only visiting.
It shut her up pretty fast, I can tell you. You can imagine her delight when i spoke to her for the rest of the conversation in english, too.
There is nothing worse than someone with no property rights holding court about who should do what with which property, on the basis that they belong to a party or a church.
Complain about this comment
As I said much earlier I do not answer Moscow plants.
Pretending to be something else.
Complain about this comment
237. At 6:12pm on 23 Sep 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
As I said much earlier I do not answer Moscow plants.
Pretending to be something else.
******
As I said much earlier, who's pretending?
Complain about this comment
#223. At 3:48pm on 23 Sep 2010, Jean Luc ,
"And national courts uphold 'the law', not 'the national law'. The fact that national courts ask so many preliminary questions to the ECJ, but also the court in Strasbourg is in itself proof of the fact that national judges (even though they are 'national') in the end care more about 'the law' than what their government wants (hint: this is exactly why we have a seperation of powers, because a judicial branch which would just do whatever the legislative or executive branch would want it to do would be pointless).
Perhaps you should not only read up on EU law, but basic political philosophy (Montesquieu; l'esprit des lois) as well ;)"
It is truly rare to find one so foolish as to ignore every tenet of both law and politics and keep on trying to convince the posters that you're right. You are like the old style bible basher preachers who were so narrow minded they were dangerous.
But to answer you extremely basic question about who makes the law, it is the government or rather the elected members of the government. If they decide a directive should be de-ratified they can and if they then tell the courts that is now the law they have to obey. At the moment they ask clarification from the ECJ where the directive is so confusing that it defies rational interpretation. In the case of 2004/28/EC the term INTEGRATION is used many terms, even a legal fool like you would have trouble convincing an intellectual idiot that the intention of the creators of that directive was not to make Integration of migrants a key point.
You may wish there was an European defence force or powerful paramilitary police force to enforce such de-ratification but thankfully that will never happen after the current crises, instead the left wing PC political appointees called ECJ judges will cry foul, fine the country and look after themselves. Meanwhile many of the countries will either thumb their noses at the ECJ or just pay up and carry on as before, which is what happens often now.
Complain about this comment
#222. Chacabuco:
"I am Argentinean, ... Argentina has had migration from all over the world, including Muslim, many of them. ... If a Muslim or any person goes to the hospital and ask for special food because of their believes, the hospital will tell them if the food doesn't affect your health, get over and eat it. ...there is no burka, everybody just melt away! I feel Europe is too soft and naive and sacrifices core values and a lot of money from tax payer. I reckon that this European model is likely to collapse"
You got it right.
If the EU laws don't fit the current situation, fix them, and stop telling hapless citizens that they must bend to foreigners' whims. The Swiss can do it (they had a referendum to forbid minarets), why can't we?
And, by the way, immigrants came to the EU because their coutries of origin could not offer them a decent life. Once they have transformed the EU into the same semi failed states as where they come from, where are they planning to go?
Complain about this comment
@BUZET
Re "But to answer you extremely basic question about who makes the law, it is the government or rather the elected members of the government. If they decide a directive should be de-ratified they can and if they then tell the courts that is now the law they have to obey. At the moment they ask clarification from the ECJ where the directive is so confusing that it defies rational interpretation. In the case of 2004/28/EC the term INTEGRATION is used many terms, even a legal fool like you would have trouble convincing an intellectual idiot that the intention of the creators of that directive was not to make Integration of migrants a key point."
Now now, no need to start calling names. As with your previous posts you make several legal errors, aside from addressing a point I never actually made (I never asked the very basic question of who makes the law):
1. Directives can not be de-ratified. Ratification applies to international agreemeents between states. A directive is secondary union law, therefore not a treaty and cannot therefore be 'de-ratified'.
2. Amending or withdrawing a directive is done by the Union legislator. This cannot be done by national legislators or governments.
3. Obviously integration is very important in directive 2004/38 for those EU citizens wishing to stay for periods exceeding 3 months in the host member state. As one of the aims of the directive is to do away with any kind of discrimination between the Eu citizen and the citizens of the host state, in that host state. However, unlike your previous claim, this protection against any kind of discrimination is NOT conditional upon the EU citizen meeting an 'integration-requirement'. I'll keep advising you (ad nauseam): read a textbook on EU law (before making these unfounded and simply untrue statements about EU law).
Re "You may wish there was an European defence force or powerful paramilitary police force to enforce such de-ratification but thankfully that will never happen after the current crises, instead the left wing PC political appointees called ECJ judges will cry foul, fine the country and look after themselves. Meanwhile many of the countries will either thumb their noses at the ECJ or just pay up and carry on as before, which is what happens often now. "
No idea what you mean by this.
Complain about this comment
re.#27. At 4:02pm on 20 Sep 2010, Benefactor wrote:
@ 18 MAII
"Over 99% of all Americans are immigrants or descendants of immigrants going back to the Mayflower. "
It's only 99% [citation needed] because those early "immigrants" killed most of the natives. But, you know, good for you. They where stupid to resist the pure distilled awesome that is the USA.
-----------
As opposed to the loving embrace of European colonizers? Spare Americans the sermons about our treatment of the natives please, our methods were but pale imitation of those employed by our "civilized" European forebears.
Complain about this comment
"And national courts uphold 'the law', not 'the national law'. The fact that national courts ask so many preliminary questions to the ECJ, but also the court in Strasbourg is in itself proof of the fact that national judges (even though they are 'national') in the end care more about 'the law' than what their government wants (hint: this is exactly why we have a seperation of powers, because a judicial branch which would just do whatever the legislative or executive branch would want it to do would be pointless)."
"As with your previous posts you make several legal errors, aside from addressing a point I never actually made (I never asked the very basic question of who makes the law):"
I have repeated two paragraphs from two different posts of yours since you seem incapable of understanding who makes the law, it is not the judges of a National court but the elected parliament of the Nation, the judges merely represent the laws the parliament have enacted and try to ensure that they are applied to the letter of the law, now that is not so difficult is it JL. In your EU paradise you seem to consider the EU has actually become the Nation and the member states just regions, or to put it another way the EU has become a Federation. This however is not the case as you well know and Nations are still able to reverse directives, treaties, whatever, if they should so wish, and there is nothing the EU or ECJ can actually do about that as firstly the laws and directives are vague and overlapping, and secondly the laws mean squat since they cannot be enforced in such a situation.
As for the use of the word Integration in directive 2004/38/EC I'll keep advising you (ad nauseam): read the directive, understand the language and realise finally that Integration is one of a number of tests that gain a person points if they are threatened with expulsion. Not Integrating in any way will harm their defence, now is that difficult to understand, what degree it will be harmed is a totally different argument and like any system will depend on the sum of this and the other key tests that are listed in the directive.
Complain about this comment
Democracy Threat
I understand that intellectuals are not your strong side.
“People who quote aristocrats who have been dead for a hundred years...”
The Swiss author Fr. Dürrenmatt died in 1990. Neither he or Ibsen were aristocrats, but considerable European dramatists. Next to Shakespeare Ibsen is probably the most played dramatist in the world notwithstanding that he died in 1906. You should perhaps consider this fact.
It is not necessary to comment on the rest...
Complain about this comment
I am originally French. The problem in France is that the left has allowed mass immigration of people who didn't have the smallest wish to integrate. And because of the EU, it is impossible to rapatriate them en masse.
I won't vote for Le Pen ever but if another anti-immigration party comes, I'll vote for them. As to the left, I won't ever vote for them. They have betrayed France by letting the Third world mass in.
Complain about this comment
#245. At 9:30pm on 23 Sep 2010, PatriciaBeauvais,
Unfortunately the left believed that by letting in people from poor countries these people will vote Socialist and ensure the continuity of Socialism in both the Nation and more importantly in the grand design for a Socialist Federal Europe.
I've never liked France because of the mentality even though I live in a French speaking area of Belgium and speak French, but whilst Sarko has made a lot of mistakes in his mode of application recently the basic principle is sound if it was applied to all migrants that have overstayed their three months and are a drain on society under directive 2004/38/EC. Bearing in mind the controlling influence France has in the EU it is imperative the French people do what they do best, protest about the negative effects of immigration as often as possible and as loud as possible.
Complain about this comment
I think Sarkozy is trying to buy time and to wear people out from the question of human rights or public safety – what prevails?
There was a plan to include biometric or fingerprints in passports. I even read that the Union signed a contract with an Israeli IT company just for that. Where does it stand now? HELP!!!! I know some embassies asked for fingerprints on the application form (passports). I even volunteered mine at a police station at first opportunity I had.
What is more important, the right of people to know who is sitting next to them when they board a plain or the right of others for privacy? Would you take the same position if you were on the plain headed towards the Twin Towers on Sep the 11th? Think.
Times are changing. In this blog peoples approach is running from fear to in deference. Both end up in doing nothing. But times are changing fast. Yesterday's “undone” is today's “done and gone and done with”. You can take my word for it. Times are changing real fast, economical stagnation or even......the weather may bring the worst in some cultures. From blowing up plains to Bio Terrorism. Public Safety must prevail. For some carrying poison is not an option – its a plague - for others its a legitimate means of expression – I FEAR THEREFORE I AM THEY SAY and no discussion, please. What would you say if you where the passenger sitting next to a woman with toxic hidden under her skirt (or worse) or a child? Wouldn't you like to discuss it?
Or do you think its the gipsies? In France they said human rights first. Safety later. That's Sarkozy's victory. No discussion. An invitation to all who discussions is no option to come aboard. An open door to un identical killers to walk into your every days' life. As it is in mine.
What happened to old Brendises light? Well Sarkozy has just turned it off. “I want more life F” said the passenger from the 11th. I mean he must have said it.
What is the difference between knowing about you and not knowing. A pill? Is the need to stay at a shade is a sexual perversion or a legitimate way to get ahead before others?
Why don't we call it a truss and say.....let the sun shine on us all.
Complain about this comment
I will tell you, ladies and gentlemen what would be a hard obsticle to overcome on the way to implementing the bio-matric programm......
On her way to an international conference on mathematics Prof shwart - e-haye was stopped by the immigration officer who looked at her bio metric and said "you cannot be a prof in Mathematics, its a miracle that you walk on two...you should better walk on your four....
Can you imagine the insult?
Complain about this comment
outsider;
""you cannot be a prof in Mathematics, its a miracle that you walk on two...you should better walk on your four....
Can you imagine the insult?"
And what did she bark in reply?
Complain about this comment
This bloke said to me:
"I used to like London but now about 40% of the people there can't speak English."
Complain about this comment
I was taught in high school OR college or I read about (can't remember which)..
the "race for Africa in the 1700s-1800s" by Imperialist type nations.
And wasn't the African continent plundered and then left in squalor? By whom?
And ..now..years, later....? Why are non-Europeans So unconcerned about this new problem in ..let's see...where?
Complain about this comment
I said to this other bloke:
"I don't want to throw all foreigners out. Just those who are criminals."
He replied:
"That's 90% of them."
I doubt very much that 90% of foreigners are criminals.
BUT
We have had a lot of criminal behaviour from foreigners.
Complain about this comment
I had a fracture and was on benefits for several weeks.
Whilst claiming one benefit, I looked around the room. I happened to know a number of people in the room. Over half, but just under two thirds were foreigners.
One was an African man who has said to me in the past: "You British are the worst people on Earth. I used to have a lot of respect for you British but not any more."
I happen to know which country he comes from. There are loads of things wrong with the UK, but compared with his country it is wonderful.
Apparently our benefits are good enough for him.
Complain about this comment
@230 ChrisArta
"1) At least Australia, New Zealand, Germany, etc. "boomed" when they took immigrants not before, same goes for the US."
For Germany, that information is absolutely wrong.
Migrant workers neither rebuilt Germany nor where they substantial to the economical miracle which happened years before the first migrant workers arrived.
Complain about this comment
@230 ChrisArta
"2) Social cost per immigrant are less than their contribution, at least that's what studies here in UK state"
So you want to keep the bad eggs, just because the good immigrants manage to make up for them?
In Germany, 15% of immigrants are poorly integrated. Is it that hard for the other 85% to make up for them economically?
Does that mean those 15% are no problem at all?
Complain about this comment
251. At 03:02am on 24 Sep 2010, DavidStvn wrote:
" And wasn't the African continent plundered and then left in squalor? By whom?"
EUpris: Africa was a shambles and a disaster before the British got there. The shambolism is home grown.
Complain about this comment
@223 Jean Luc:
"States are not monolithic. It's not because a French government does not want to implement an ECJ ruling that a french individual (who could benefit from implementing this ruling) can not ask the french judge to apply EU law instead of french law. And there is no reason why a french judge would automatically prefere french law over EU law. In fact this is exactly what happened in the Waterkeyn case which I have cited. If you would care to read a bit about it I wouldn't have to explain these basics.
And to my knowledge the ECJ has already imposed fines on numerous member states and they all have paid.
The reason is simple: member states may disagree with the commission or ecj on individual cases (e.g. roma) but these individual cases do not outweigh all the other benefits the EU brings. Therefore in the end Member states will accept the authority of the ECJ, because not doing so would endanger the EU and would ultimately end the EU and the benefits it brings. Again these are basics."
Nice basics, but they are sadly missing the point.
Those countries payed, because they wanted to.
Had Germany or France said no about the fines for breaking the stability pact, what would the EU have done? Fine more? And more?
Whew, good thing they payed right away, otherwise the _unavoidable_ fine would have been so much higher!
And if they decided to leave the EU, thus end the whole project, it would probably send an appeal to the national courts which will deny the national governments to regain their whole sovereignty?
Damn...
How the EU won`t get a common military. I can already see French soldiers sent out against the French government.
Complain about this comment
EU Pensioner;
"This bloke said to me:
"I used to like London but now about 40% of the people there can't speak English.""
That must be an improvement from Henry Higgins time. He'd have told you it was about 80%.
Complain about this comment
#215 Jean Luc
Of your own telling , in a previous post , you are a student , one presumes of Law . When we are young we believe in the absolute ; the law says and it is . When one is older one realises that not everything is perfect . Technically what you say may be correct ; but in practice may not happen . If a government defies the ECJ , the national lawyers may very well do so too . The British courts cannot MAKE the government do what it is determined not to do .
Complain about this comment
EU Pensioner;
"One was an African man who has said to me in the past: "You British are the worst people on Earth. I used to have a lot of respect for you British but not any more.""
See what happens when you educate people? If they hadn't gotten an education probably paid for by British tax payers they wouldn't have learned how to read history and they'd still respect you.
Complain about this comment
#63 Seedorf1023
--✄-- Islam is inconsistent with western values and immigrants in Europe do not even make an effort to assimilate.
If you want to live in a country with Mosques, Minarets and with Sharia law move to Saudia Arabia.
If you want to live in Europe take off your head-dress, learn the language, work hard, and obey the law --✄--
Saudia Arabia, Emirates, Katar etc. are not only countries with Mosques, Minarets and with Sharia law but also far more rich than the European countries they migrate...
BTW the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in 1997 said: “The minarets are our bayonets, the domes our helmets, the mosques our barracks and the faithful our army.”
This words actually belong not to Erdoğan. His exceptional minarets-are-bayonets line is from Ziya Gökalp, (godfather of Turkish nationalism) poem wrote in 1912, in the midst of the Balkan Wars.
Now...the last few days is being revealed a plain real example from the near past of such Turkish technique:
Turkish General Sabri Yirmibeşoğlu has inadvertently confessed that he ordered the burning of a mosque as part of psychological warfare military intervention on Cyprus in 1974 to fire up and increase Turkish public resistance.
Fatih Güllapoğlu in his book “Operation with No Tanks or Arms”...Yirmibeşoğlu is quoted as saying, “Sept. 6-7 (Istanbul Greek pogrom 1954) is the work of Special War [department], and it is a spectacular organization.”
Dear North Europeans and especially German citizens...beware of the "Turkish wolf in sheep's clothing - immigrants" they can and do dress like you, learn your language, work hard, and obey your laws but they will always plotting against you and your belongings as they fiercely do with ours:
Turkish Propaganda in Greece (English subs) - Greek elections in October
i.e. people driven by the Turkish government who dress like us, speak fluently Greek, work hard, and obey our laws.
So why don't you Europeans, joyfully, do as Erdogan said: "In Germany, it should be possible for high schools to be set up where the teaching is in Turkish,"...adding he also favored the idea of Turkish-language universities in Germany and dual citizenship
...in order to better control them from the Turkish homeland...
Complain about this comment
--✄-- The German establishment has disowned him; the polls and his book sales suggest that many German people agree with him. --✄--
Hewitt you are so childish in your thoughts...since when to buy a book means agree with his author don't you think they must read it at first.
--✄-- Yesterday, in the Sunday Times of London, the Italian Professor Raffaele Simone was quoted as saying "what has damaged the left most, in recent years, is its silence on immigration". --✄--
He must be jocking "what has damaged the left most, in recent years, is its fervor to protect immigrants at any cost...even against their own citizens"
--✄-- In Italy, the Northern League - which is the fastest growing party - has embraced a tough new law enabling authorities to fine and imprison illegal immigrants. --✄--
For the Northern League, to their thoughts, every Italian citizen below Bologna could easily be an illegal immigrant when come to "val padana"
Complain about this comment
#257. At 03:51am on 24 Sep 2010, DurstigerMann,
Quite so, I've been wondering if Jean Luc is a closet supporter of the way Hungary and Czechoslovakia were treated by the USSR when they dissented from the communist party line. Hopefully the concept of an European Defence Force has been buried for all time now as I think more and more countries will dissent from various directives and parts of treaties that are damaging for their Nation.
The bottom line is that a Nations courts may try to deny a Government from refusing to follow an EU law but the Nations government can just pass a new law to revoke the objection of the justices, after all it has the mandate of the electors to do just that. This seems to be what Jean Luc is having so much difficulty in understanding as he naively believes all EU laws, directives are written in stone and enforceable.
Complain about this comment
be gentle, be quick...
That sort.
Its a world of possibilities out there - if you live.
Complain about this comment
234. At 5:28pm on 23 Sep 2010, democracythreat wrote:
""""Mathiasen wrote:
"#210. At 12:38pm on 23 Sep 2010, Nik
1) Germany is a representative democracy.
2) You should read Ibsen's "Enemy of the People" on day. Or Dürrenmatt's "The Old Lady Comes To Town". Then let us discuss direct democracy and referenda.
3) Sweden and Germany are the most successful European economies for the moment, and in Germany unemployment is diminishing. So much for job competition argument.""""
"""1. The DDR was a representative democracy."""
Turkey is another too and very pluralist of representative democracy since in the past 30 years there has been an important number of political parties that gained access to parliament, hence it seems it works. Yet you can easily eat more than 5 years in prison (in the "midnight express") if you dare merely proposing theoretically that :"perhaps turkey should reconsider digging up in the past to examine the case of genocide and crimes against humanity". Of course that never hindered all those hordes of slavish westerners to call it a "democracy" and a "European country" and other such niceties. My point is not bashing turkey here, it is just giving an extreme yet everyday example that titles like "democracy" or "republic" mean little. What we talk in our discussion here is the freedom that citizens have in:
a) expressing their views on the subject of immigration
b) deciding on that important issue that affects directly their lifes.
From there on (and no matter my personal opinions on the issue that should not really matter), what is the choice that people make is their own problem. Some countries might push for plan A, some others for plan B and others for plan C - it is THEIR problem. And even if any decision of theirs turns out to be unproductive that is THEIR problem they will short it out. What is unimaginable is having people as "specialists" people who have absolutely nothing to do with the issue (i.e. rich people living in their quarters in multiple homes in multiple countries) telling people what is "right for them". Evidently their interest is to have loose borders no matter if this causes havoc and note in this that myself I am a person that has lived half his life in foreign countries. I am cpmpletely uncomplexed with it. There are 1000 ways to allow and even encourage a perfectly fluid mobility without ending up in massive immigration or negative phenomena and with immigrants of any background and education being regarded as ambassadors of their country of origin rather than being regarded as the waste they currently are regarded.
"""2. People who quote aristocrats who have been dead for a hundred years in order to shine light on a political system which exists very successfully right next door to the topic of their discussion are impossibly obtuse and take enormous liberties with a reasonable audience."""
... taking enormous liberties with a reasonable audience...
I certainly could not have written it better.
The "illiterateness" and the "irrationality" of the "masses" have been the age old justification to forbid them their right of expression and decision. But then if anyone is on that line, (and Mathiasen is on that line), he has to forget about any pretensions of "democraticity" and has rather to stick to his proposal of some form of "enlighted oligarchy", be it monarchy, be it dictatorship be it elected oligarchy that is the parliamentarian system.
My view is that if a society has reached a reasonable level of maturity (and many societies have reached that since the ancient times, others in post-Enlightment years, others quite recently in the late 20th century etc.), its citizens no matter their detailed educational background, are mature enough to decide at least on some very basic fundamendal decisions that will affect their lifes and the lifes of their children.
Where I do disagree with DT is in the "land ownership" thingie. DT, you reject the notion of "ownership" I do the exact opposite:
Human beings like all mammals are strictly territorial - and even the vast majority of nomadic people are well into controlling the territories they are passing by. Humans like all animals "mark their territory" - we are doing it by urinating like dogs and lions. Those who pass enter "our" territory. On a small scale, it is up to a every man to do so, on a larger scale it is up to the community and when things get bigger, communities gather together to form a state. The state is absolutely nothing else than the scaling up of the notion of private property.
Whether the communities are formed on the basis of tribal affinity (the most common) or religion (also common) or mere joint interest (has happened also) or by violence imposed by oligarchies (extremely common too) the state always is based on the notion of the property of land it encompasses.
Now, within the state there is the used/unused, private land & property and the used/unused state land & property. People usually do not think it that way until they are faced with a rifle on the head, but both private lands/properties and state lands/properties belong to the state since it is the state that permits the secure establishment of private property by its citizens. Otherwise, at the slightest of upheaval, the first foreign neighbours enters and gets your house. If you think this is ancient story, go talk to a Cypriot or any Jugoslav, they will explain it to you better than me.
So, when foreigners - no matter if rich foreign investors or poor destitute immigrants - enter the country for their own personal reasons and evidently any of them enterring the country they do inherently take up "space"... i.e. land and property. Unimaginably, in many European countries these people were even given even free land and property which equates to direct robbery of citizens and is absolutely no different to how late Roman Emperors state-aided the Goths while pushing down their own impoverished citizens.
"""3. Sweden and Germany are successful economies for whom? The owners? Sure. But if you work in germany or sweden, you pay 50% of your non subsistence wage in income tax, then you pay another 22% VAT every time you buy something with the remainder. And of the remainder left over after that, the cost of what you buy is massively inflated by fuel taxes, which increase the price of everything that is moved in the country, every time it is moved."""
Correct. Real property has to be "tactile". I.e. land & ressources. All the rest is built upon it is ficticious, controlled and can be turned upside down with a click of the finger. Do this and let financial experts to battle on "how" and "why". People are too much absorbed with their little wages and imaginary profits they will anyway lose in the next crash to see they are living by exchanging land for effort and toilet papers to get plastic cars and software happyness so they don't realise that the m² of "private owned land" per citizen have dramatically reduced in the last 2 centuries even if we do accomodate for the respective population increase: no matter what technological and cultural evolution we saw in the last 2 centuries, the social evolution has been absolutely minimal with the "real freedoms" actually on a constant decrease.
Complain about this comment
More than any other party and probably the only party in Germany politics the Greens are connected to multi-culti notions. In some few opinion polls the party, which for the moment has the smallest representation in Bundestag is passing SPD (Labour), which has the second largest fraction in Bundestag.
The Green party has the most varied coalition pattern of all parties in the Federal Republic, and it is likely that the place where The Greens have the best chances to get their first government leader is in Berlin and at the election in 2011. Members of the party have for decades asked foreigners to come to Germany, so that the Greens were not left alone. Despite such statements the party has never had a strength like that it now has.
What the change from outsider position to representative party will cause is difficult to say, but interested can read an analysis in the week’s edition of Die Zeit.
Complain about this comment
I said that "I don't answer Moscow plants"
And guess who answered?
A Moscow plant (although I haven't mention any names). :-))))))))))))))))
"Ech Anastasia, Anastasia
Europe you or Asia"?
Complain about this comment
Re #266
Re #266
Cf. position of Green Party in Sweden.
Unless Greens abandon their traditional allience with the Swedish Left the current ruling party won't be able to form a new government.
Due to unprecedented electoral success of an anti-immigration party only a year ago considered unelectable.
Complain about this comment
153. At 11:59am on 22 Sep 2010, AllenT2 wrote:
Derska wrote:
"Oh, here we go again. Europe is not competeing or trying to be USA."
Oh really? What's the EU all about then? Why is so much pro-EU propaganda competitive towards America and anti-American?
........................................................................
Well Allen it's actually about Europeans cooperating for the benefit of..... Europeans. Pro-EU propaganda???? Just what have you seen of this? Also the US is not the only beacon of freedom of speech which means that people are free to criticise the US if they feel there is a reason. After a quick look at you previous posts it's quite clear you enjoy tolling through HYS topics and disagreeing with anything that is critical of the US, decrying anyone who does so as anti-american. While at the same time hypocritically trying to make up your own negative propaganda about Europe (in particular). Your insinuation that the EU has formed just to compete with the US shows quite a high level of arrogance. The world does not revolve around the US you know, and if competition was an element for the EU then it would be looking forward to the superpowers of tomorrow in the East.
Specifically on this issue though, I think Europe like many developed richer parts of the world is starting to feel like there is a tide of poorer people migrating into the area to better themselves. As it is so difficult to voice opposition for this (cries or xenophobia/ racism etc) then it makes it feel like there is no way to offer any resistance. So once in a position that is effectively "these people are coming whether you like it or not and it's primarily for their own benefit", add to this a few hysterical stories in the media about immigrants then hey presto, you have what to many people feels more like an invasion!
Complain about this comment
#245 - PatriciaBeauvais
Yes but you are confusing two different things here. The issue in France at the moment is immigration from within the EU.
Complain about this comment
"""Unless Greens abandon their traditional allience with the Swedish Left the current ruling party won't be able to form a new government."""
Why people do find Greens interesting? And why do they think they are leftish ecologists?
In Greece the Greens used to be represented by a semi-lunatic (albeit a funny one) who was used to occupy the particular political spectrum until a more "serious" ecologist party appeared which was served in a combined package of Che, WWF and Angelina Jolie. They vehemently fought against:
1) They protested against the construction of the Greek northern highway. Evidently letting cars running for 10 hours in rural roads is much more ecological from letting them run in decent roads where they can cover it in 5 hours...
2) The Russian-Bulgarian-Greek gas pipeline because apparently the use of natural gas is bad for the environment all while pipelines are designed to leak gas and chemicals and destroy the nature.
3) The leasing of ports to Chinese - they did not tell us however how on earth the leasing of ports contributed negatively to the environment - did they imply the influx of numerous Chinese? Who knows?
4) They protested against Greece's opposition to the poisonous FYROM propaganda and said we should recognise them as they want. Now what this has to do with ecology? What does it have to do even with social policies really? Apparently we should recognise the absurd FYROMian territorial claims and we should even aid them by killing ourselfs (by itself an ecologic bonus apparently!) and give our lands to FYROMians who are more environmentally friendly than us at the end of the day.
The Greek Greens:
1) Did not at all oppose the plans but silently supported the plans for the new goverment on the import of Saoudi petroleum liquified gas and the linking pipeline to Bulgaria... Evidently they sat down and measured that the liquiefaction and ship-transfer and distribution of liquid petroleum gas is more ecological than the pipeline transfer of natural gas and that the use of petroleum gas is much more beneficial to the environment than the use of natural gas. Petroleum gas pipeline is according to them more environmentally friendly to natural gas pipeline.
--------------------------
Well well... the reality is that the Greek Greens are yet another US-funded vicious pseudo-political formation funded by a pro-US Greek business man, manned among "sheep" by 2 extremely rich people with huge connections to the banko-industrial and topped with an artist of known slave-master relationship with the "establishment". The lot appeared relatively recently to trap the specific political spectrum. Luckily in Greece not many people take them seriously and many are indeed aware of their real nature but then the Greens do create a problem since they shout badly and stick their ugly face everywhere only to serve the US interests in the region.
Complete paranoia.
Whenever you see and hear of Greens see and hear about complete destruction of human logic, let alone the poor environment. These people are paid agents, the last to care about you or your pathetically treated environment.
Complain about this comment
#268. At 2:20pm on 24 Sep 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"Unless Greens abandon their traditional allience with the Swedish Left the current ruling party won't be able to form a new government."
You obviously only have a superficial knowledge about Sweden.
It is not correct because
"the current ruling party won't be able to form a new government"
is not correct.
Correct is: If the Swedish political system remains unchanged, and that is overwhelmingly likely, the conservative party WILL be able to form a new government, and it WILL take place for a number of reasons it will take a contribution of epic dimensions to explain.
Complain about this comment
I live in Sweden, I see what I see.
Old people in homes pay about € 700 a month for care, the rest is payed by the government, but since the government says they cant afford it, care today means:
1. One glass of milk, one sandwich for breakfast. Lunch: Lot's of times raw potatoes 2 pieces, one pieace of meatloaf, water. Dinner a glass of curdled milk, a sandwich.
2. Diapers are changed, not the first time the person pee in it, no cutdowns/new rules makes the keeper change only 2 a day, no matter the "amount" in it.
3. No walking outside. Ppl have been sitting inside for up to 2 years.
This is how we in Sweden take care of the ones who built the country!
So as a antipole we have immigrants who are asylum seekers and get:
1. An apartment. In towns with no apartments available the government has bought houses and made apartments out of them, not to the homeless swedes tho.
2. Education, any chosen one.
3. Food, clothes, flatscreen tv, new furniture.
4. A keeper/person in the houses 24/7, who makes them dinners etc. To "learn" them about life in Sweden.
5. Money for games and fun.
So how hard is it to understand that the government is lying to the Swedish ppl? There is obviously only money to take care of people who are not even from here, who came here since they know how generous the system is.
And the old people are litterally starwing AND paying for it.
Ok so when they get their asylum, they are put in areas with other immigrants.
Sweden is built that way that no-one actually HAS to work, but its kinda unaccepted and very whitetrash to belong to such a population.
But to lots of the ppl who get stuck in these areas never get jobs, never learn swedish and just go into depression and lives their lives outside of the swedish community.
Since there are not jobs for ppl without an education, sure they can get an free education, but few of them does. They simply just dont care anymore. The gangs of criminality grows.
Policemen, firefighters and ambulances are not allowed in these areas, they are their enemies. Stones are thrown at them and some areas are actually now totally cut out from police-help.
And you wonder why almost 6 % of the swedes voted for Sverigedemokraterna?
Complain about this comment
@271 Nik
"Whenever you see and hear of Greens see and hear about complete destruction of human logic, let alone the poor environment. These people are paid agents, the last to care about you or your pathetically treated environment."
Never thought that I could wholeheartedly agree with you.
They seem to have real trouble with laws, constitutions and that kind of stuff.
On 20 September one leading politician from the greens demanded the introduction of a new tax to help migrants.
The party also demands a 10% quota for migrants in civil service.
This is clearly in violation of Grundgesetz (our constitution), art. 3, sec. 3 :
"No person shall be favored or disfavored because of sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith, or religious or political opinions. No person shall be disfavored because of disability."
But nevermind, nothing else to be expected from them.
Complain about this comment
274. At 4:52pm on 24 Sep 2010, DurstigerMann wrote:
"""@271 Nik
Never thought that I could wholeheartedly agree with you."""
Wholehearted agreement is rare among human beings but what made you think it would be difficult to find agreement with me? Leave my ironic style of language aside and talking about my points and proposals, I have never proposed anything which is outrageous by anyone's standards. I do not expect all people to agree with everything I say but I would find it strange if there was any majority of people having any particular problems with the basic notions I refer:
1) maximising freedom & maintaining the fundamendal to humans property
2) maximising social independence
3) involving of society in real decision making
Which should aim at the construction of coherent, just and reasonable societies of higher "gross-happyness" levels, not the build-up of rich/economy-driven societies where mathematically the few will control and keep down the mass.
Complain about this comment
nik:
"Where I do disagree with DT is in the "land ownership" thingie. DT, you reject the notion of "ownership" I do the exact opposite:"
I don't think we are actually that far apart on the subject of property and human tribalism. I agree with much if not of your subsequently articulated views on property.
Perhaps I have been a bit too oblique in my reasoning. Let me properly explain my position, with regard to property and the political economy of a state.
In fact, I believe that all inhabitants of a state SHOULD have property rights. Private property rights, enforceable against the state. But at the same time, this does not mean that all those who also think so are on a sensible course to achieve this noble aim.
My point about fascists who believe they belong but who actually own nothing of the property upon which they live is this: these idiots are manipulated into supporting regimes which DENY their aspirations.
The basis for the aspirations of fascists are often legitimate: they want to belong to a society where they have a voice. They want a share of their political economy, because this gives them a real share of the huge amounts of state property which, as you rightly pointed out, inevitably exist in every state.
But instead of focusing their energies and vocal demands for reform upon the POLITICAL ECONOMY, they allow themselves to be sidetracked into futile and ridiculous situations. Instead of demanding a vote on the law, and an end to representation, they demand that jews be burned, or gypsies persecuted, or cripples euthanized, or muslims demonized, or young people brutalized by police.
Instead of focusing anger and their sense of not belonging to their land upon the real problem, which is of course the political economy which shuts them out of their own land, they allow themselves to perverted into meaningless hatreds by exactly the same people who have what they want, and who will not give it up to them.
You can call it divide and rule, you can call it the politics of hate and fear, or you can call it the party system of choreographed representation. Whatever you call it, the facts remain the same: people want a right to share in their state's property, and they end up persecuting some poor powerless minority instead, BECAUSE those who have what they want suggest it as a clever and useful course of action.
The best analogy i can muster just now is that a starving crowd, all wearing blue shirts, marches towards a food stockpile controlled by a group of men in black shirts. Among the crowd of blue shirts are some 10% who are wearing short sleeved blue shirts. The rest wear long sleeved shirts.
As the crowd of blue shirts reaches the stockpile of food and the group of blackshirts, the black shirts start sowing discord. They convince the mass of blue shirts that the food is really being held by those who wear short sleeved shirts, regardless of colour. Curiously, not one of the black shirts is short sleeved.
The blue shirts, accustomed to doing what they are told and not being overly rational due to hunger and malnutrition, begin to identify the short sleeved blue shirt wearers and accuse them of having all the food. The short sleeved shirt wearers say they have done nothing wrong. After all, they HAVE NO FOOD. They say, "You can look, if you want. We don't have your food. We don't have ANY FOOD. We are just like you. We are hungry, too."
But the black shirts say that the short sleeved shirt wearers are lying, that they steal and hide food, and that if this were not so, how could they be wearing short sleeves? After all, everyone knows short sleeves are worn by those who steal food and hide it.
The long sleeved blue shirt wearers have heard this before, and so it rings true to them. And anyway, the black shirt wearers have guns and are powerful. Attacking them is a difficult proposition. So it doesn't matter that they heard this story before from the black shirts. SOMEONE must have the food. they can smell it. And then the black shirts say again that the real food hoarders are those who wear short sleeves. Not only that, but short sleeve wearers are liars, and they alway pick on the black shirt wearers because they are liars.
Now by this time, the blue shirts in long sleeves have heard the story of the short sleeve thieves THREE times. So it must be true. And anyway, the black shirts are very strong, and the short sleeves are very weak. It doesn't matter any longer that attacking the short sleeves cannot possible gain any food for them. The fact is that the short sleeves have stolen the food, and they don't have it because..... they are liars. They have made it invisible!
So when the black shirts play "Hail to the Chief", the long sleeves turn their cannons on the short sleeves, and when the black shirts give them the cannon balls the long sleeves know that their day has come.
After the carnage, everyone in blue shirts is still hungry.
But gee, they sure showed those food thieves something. They sure showed them who was boss around these parts.
Complain about this comment
#273. At 4:40pm on 24 Sep 2010, Jay,
#275. At 6:51pm on 24 Sep 2010, Nik,
Quite agree, DT please remove yourself to a far place as you prove that there are still people who are not capable.
Complain about this comment
From a number of people here I don't expect any consistence.
Yet another poll shows that there is no place for a right wing populist party in Germany. Instead CDU/CSU, SPD and the Greens represent an overwhelming majority of voters, here also labeled the masses.
To avoid this fact populists must use magic, which lets a minority become a majority.
We are wasting our time.
Complain about this comment
could you provide information as to where I can find that poll?
Not that I disagree with the outcome, but I`d like to read it in its entirety.
The dwindling participation in elections and faith in the system would be another factor which shouldn`t be neclected.
In that context, I`d see it as more of a statement against far right politics than support for traditional parties.
Complain about this comment
Jay
Re #273
I don't know how accurate Your anecdotal account of Sweden's Public Spending on the elederly & immigrants is, but I can attest that I have heard similar stories from here in Finland by similarly disgruntled, disillussioned indigenous Finns. On recent trips to Belgium & the UK I also picked up on an anecdotal underlying current of discontent among the indigenous populations and interestingly among 2nd generation immigrants resentful of more recent arrivals ruining/affecting their image in their relatively new homeland.
IMO it is important to remember in all these facets of this 'immigration' debate:
1) if there is (& who really can doubt it?) a problem with the apportioning of Welfare Benefits between the 'local' & 'newcomer' Citizens then,
2) it is the FAULT of the National Government's policies (& indirectly their Citizen Voter Constituents) and,
3) is NOT the fault of the immigrant communities who clearly did NOT create the policies of seeming largesse that so concern us all.
Were I 'down-&-out' in Roumania or anywhere else and heard I could access a much better living standard for myself & my family in some other region that also has 'free movement' & largely unchecked borders (Schengen) then I too would do all in my power to get there and enjoy the system for which I did nothing to contribute, but then neither did I ask for it to be there in the first place!
The supra-National EU & the individual States have created this mess by their liberal persuit of Welfare policies to all members of Society irrespective of their tenure/residence in the Region & Nation. This beneficient system can be barely paid for in good Economic times, but is exposed & under pressure almost at once whenever the cyclical Economic-Fiscal downturn occurs.
The wonder is why the EU & Nations have not yet grasped this very obvious state of affairs?
Why have the EU & States not adjusted their rules on Entitlement to Welfare Support etc. to make it less attractive and a magnet to the poorest, often least educated & unskilled of the prospective 'newcomers'?
Declaring a Charter on Human Rights applicable to all is a very humane gesture: Expecting & demanding only the indigenous, Economically active, Tax-paying Citizens of each State to FUND it in every area of their Nation's activities is the sort of twisted logic & ignoring of Citizens' perspective that enables the 'far-right' & 'far-left' to exploit Popular sentiment of hostility to assumed 'newcomers' etc.
Complain about this comment
#280. At 11:24am on 25 Sep 2010, cool_brush_work,
"Why have the EU & States not adjusted their rules on Entitlement to Welfare Support etc. to make it less attractive and a magnet to the poorest, often least educated & unskilled of the prospective 'newcomers'?"
The dreaded EU directives and law make this impossible as everybody must be treated equally under EU law, for member states to discriminate between their own citizens and EU citizens would mean EU treaties and directives being amended. They can however treat non-Europeans different but then we get into the realms of the human rights legislation and the hoards of money grabbing lawyers.
Unfortunately it will need a sea change of political direction if the inherently left of centre EU mandarins that demand a Socialist Europe at all cost, are to be forced to change. We all know how difficult it is for a Socialist to change as they are always obsessed with their own ideas and are never wrong, which is why Socialist countries inevitably have major problems. It is time the EU reverted to a Social Europe and ditched the failing Socialist Europe that tries to be all things to all people yet delivers unhappiness, inequality and strife.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23 wrote:
"#273. At 4:40pm on 24 Sep 2010, Jay,
#275. At 6:51pm on 24 Sep 2010, Nik,
Quite agree, DT please remove yourself to a far place as you prove that there are still people who are not capable."
What? What are you trying to articulate, buzzsaw? This effort at a sentence fails to convey meaning.
How can you be so inarticulate yet so sure of your own intelligence?
Seriously, who told you that you were clever? You've been sold a pup.
Complain about this comment
#279. At 11:22am on 25 Sep 2010, DurstigerMann
I suppose your contribution is addressed to me even if you didn't indicated so.
Take a look at ZDF news 19:00 Friday. You have every reason to be worried.
Complain about this comment
Re276: DT I will come back to take each of your fantastic points (you always write it better than me, I love to immerse myself into the details you see... ), one by one. Till then I have to redirect all interlocutors here to read and re-read 276, they can only learn a thing or two either they agree or disagree.
Complain about this comment
Re #284 and references to "..learn a thing or two.." from #276
Not if You have an active mind!
The domeciled Swiss sage pronounces on '..burning jews..' as though it were horrendous, but in a previous noble address regarded the 'Jews' of Israel as "..dregs of society" and only a week ago was calling 'Jews' the "..thieves.." of Europe.
The lesson, if there is one, is that nothing the fellow contributes can be relied upon to be consistent with previous positions taken up on other topics.
Of course, as #276 clarifies, the sage isn't a follower of 'Fascism', but my goodness what a dubious streak of prejudicial thought runs throughout the comments.
It goes some way to explain the 'greek's' enthusiasm for DT's contributions as they regularly share that bile & bias about entire peoples.
Complain about this comment
#282. At 12:50pm on 25 Sep 2010, democracythreat,
My the truth hurts DT as I guess I hit the nail on the head there, your effort at post #276 was quite low grade, yet you think you are capable of pronouncing on a multiple of things and especially the law. It's clear you did not understand my meaning, I expected that, but then you never understand anyone's meaning unless it agrees with whatever you're currently saying or rather misrepresenting. Both posts #273 and #275 were valid, interesting and contrary to the type of utterance that you normally come up with.
To coin your own sentence "Seriously, who told you that you were clever? You've been sold a pup."
Complain about this comment
Jean Luc
In my opinion , your views on EU law and the ECJ are hypothetical .
The EU is made up of 27 Nation states , with their own national governments . Although the EU dictates to national governments , in fact the EU is at the Whim of those governnments . Individual governments can if the wish tell the EU Commission to " Get Stuffed ".
If you had , as it seems you have , read up all the case law of an individual nation state ; it is arguable that the law must be upheld .
In the case of the EU , you seem to have made an extensive study of EU law ; but it is as if you are seeing all the trees in the wood , without realising that they have neither roots nor are planted in the ground .
The EU is only existent as a agreement by member states work together ; without their being a federal state of Europe replacing national sovereignty , the EU is hot air and has no binding legal control over member states that they do no voluntarily give it .
Complain about this comment
When the politicians of Europe and indeed the rest of the Western world first imposed these policies upon their citizens several decades ago I wonder if their citizens would have so easily submitted if they were to describe the present state of society? Would they have happily accepted the formation of ethnic ghettos and the effectual 'foreignization'of their societies? I think not. The situation Europe finds itself at these days has been completely decided by the ruling elite, with both centre left and right parties unquestionably following a similar line.
Let me make it clear that I do in fact believe that a level of immigration is of benefit to society, but not that of recent years. This situation has been a long time coming and it has taken the populist fringe parties to openly discuss it, insulted and brutalized all the way. People dismiss these parties current gains as 'right wing populism' but surely, if the parties are being voted for this is how people feel? Do we not live in a democratic society with the will of the majority been been acted upon? I note with bitter satisfaction how the elites of Europe cringed at Switzerland's recent vote on minarets. "The last time we let them decide" you can just hear them spit.
Even the former pm of the UK is of this outlook, as seen in his "bigot" comment, despite all his post-faux pas clamorings. It summed up perfectly the derision the establishment has long had for the opinions of the ordinary indigenous classes.
The 1965 Immigration Act in the US, long championed by Mr Ted Kennedy et. al. that it was to have "no significant effect to the current makeup of the US." I wonder if these heroes of the Left would have been able to push their agenda through if they had offered a true explanation of how the US would look 40 years later. The US however, I believe has a greater capacity to absorb immigrants from more "different" cultures than Europe, but I doubt most 1965 Americans would have wanted to find that out.
Complain about this comment
Whatever happened to the idea of staying in one's country and trying to change it for the better?
Yes, there are a lot of corrupt governments in the world, and yes, I can understand where many people living in those countries would like to leave it. But leaving would provide no long term benefit for their home country nor for the people living there. In the past few centuries, people from all over the world have fought against what they viewed as corrupt or unjust. Imagine what would have happened if, in the 1780s, the French peasants decided, en masse, to hijack several ships and sail to a warmer climate. Would the French Revolution have occurred?
I believe that there has been a change in the global mindset. Centuries ago, those that were faced with a dire predicament would have, either with words or weapons, fought for change. But now, those faced with equally poor conditions have opted to immigrate somewhere else. Have those living in extreme conditions become so impatient that they want solutions yesterday?
I don't think that most first world nations have a problem with immigration, but rather, that many immigrants refuse to assimilate. The need for all citizens to speak a universal language is tantamount to a country's survivability. And, if a group of people largely refuse to learn a country's language, they should be prevented from residing there.
Complain about this comment
Rob
Re #288
Some very pertinent points.
I especially agreed with the remarks on the 'eastablishment' and its anti-Democratic, high-handed approach to the views of the general Citizen.
Your example of Ted Kennedy for the USA is truly on-the-mark: Was there ever an ethical-ego based on more superficiality than his!?
So too for Jock Brown who never tired of telling us all how his upbringing & unfortunate rugby accident made him empathetic to the plight of ordinary Citizens until the moment 1 of them actually spoke up for herself & he didn't like it at all!
The '1965' USA comment about the disquiet of indigenous Citizens of the era in the 21st Century could be equally applied across the UK & Europe.
Still, we are all where we are and the clock cannot be turned back irrespective of the equally anti-Democratic postures of BNP, Wilders's Party, this Swedish lot etc.
However, it is really time for the National & supra-National Governments to grasp the painful nettle of 'immigration' policy. They must face upto the reality that it has gone thus far, but really must not be allowed to continue in this 'liberatarian' manner without regard to the Citizens. It is THEIR TAXES must FUND this high-brow instinct to do right by every fellow man/woman whilst the fabric of THEIR Society/Community is falling apart.
Complain about this comment
276. At 7:42pm on 24 Sep 2010, democracythreat wrote:
Cutting and pasting (I do try to respect the full meaning...)
"""...In fact, I believe that all inhabitants of a state SHOULD have property rights....enforceable against the state....all those who also think so are on a sensible course to achieve this noble aim....who believe they belong but who actually own nothing of the property upon which they live is this: these idiots are manipulated into supporting regimes which DENY their aspirations."""
Preeeeeeeeeecisely. Very eloquently said. Whoever understood understood.
Mind you I do seem too often getting occupied with the details. However, the above is crystal clear in my line of thinking.
"""...But instead of focusing their energies and vocal demands for reform upon the POLITICAL ECONOMY, they allow themselves to be sidetracked into futile and ridiculous situations. Instead of demanding a vote on the law, and an end to representation, they demand that jews be burned, or gypsies persecuted, or cripples euthanized, or muslims demonized, or young people brutalized by police..."""
Precisely. And that is why that the vast majority of such extra-right wing (and similarly to the extra-left wing) are actually pre-constructed entitities to trap people and side-track their political thinking at its basis.
"""...they allow themselves to perverted into meaningless hatreds by exactly the same people who have what they want, and who will not give it up to them."""
Precisely. And that is why the systemic application of power upon the people makes all effort to deflect all efforts to concentrate political discussion upon that. How then can anyone express himself and discuss when it is a far worse bet than betting in a game of poker where cards are marked by the opposite guy.
"""You can call it divide and rule, you can call it the politics of hate and fear, or you can call it the party system of choreographed representation."""
I prefer the first and the last.
"""Whatever you call it, the facts remain the same: people want a right to share in their state's property, and they end up persecuting some poor powerless minority instead, BECAUSE those who have what they want suggest it as a clever and useful course of action."""
What people can do when Napoleon and Hitler who led overall armies that considerably outnumbered the British inside Britain and who wanted to do war against Britain and soon ended up eating ice in Russia...
"""The best analogy i can muster just now is that a starving crowd, all wearing blue shirts, marches towards a food stockpile controlled by a group of men in black shirts. Among the crowd of blue shirts are some 10% who are wearing short sleeved blue shirts....
... But gee, they sure showed those food thieves something. They sure showed them who was boss around these parts."""
I got the example perfectly. However I do not know any solution there. And I have a slightly different angle considering the relationship of black sleeves, blue sleeves and short sleeves because short sleeves be it hungry like the blue sleeves are more often than not in some short of concious or unconcious connection with black sleeves. One cannot see the end of the game and even if he knows there "must be something out there pushing things to the extreme" at the end of the day it won't be the "black shirts" that will attack but the short sleeves. What to do? Either way you are doomed. Your only chance is to remain resilient and stick together between your group so you force the black sleeves see you under a different light. Best possible answer there is to make sure that your interests collate with those of the black shirts but then that is not always feasible, there is no case where anyone can do it. And when you fall on the "anyway loser's side" what can be your stance against the short sleeves who are already positioned against you? By seceding, your lot will disappear quietly. By resisting your lot will be exterminated to a large extend. You are anyway a loser, you were picked as such.
Take the example of Serbians - and I think they are a very good example of a blue shirt. They fought harsh wars to liberate not only themselves but the Slavic people (short sleeves) around them who were particularly unthankful by they way! In WWII they were exterminated at a rate of 1 million people in concentration camps yet Tito (the black shirt of the times - let us not forget he was Britain's boy there) thanked the killers Croatians, Bosnians and Albanians by chopping the Serbian lands and giving them to the others with Serbians having no way to react on that. Come the 1990s everyone wants to leave and make his own state taking the lands as Tito gave them to them. Now let us concentrate on the Bosnian case which is the "brightest" example:
Black shirts Americans, British and Germans decide that Serbians will be chopped and out and that the Bosnian state has to be independent while there is absolutely no historic, social and no legal case of it coming into existence as it was - otherwise we have to take as legal just any mad dictator's social experiment, including Hitler's and Stalin's ones!!!!
So the short sleeves, Bosnian muslims jump out and unilaterally claim the country as independent, them being not even any convincing majority (back in 1990s they were about 50% of the population, with Serbians being 40% and Croatians 10%). Bosnian muslim short sleeves claimed the WHOLE country as independent and in that they included the lands of the Serbians and teh Croatians which historically, culturally and by any other sense were not supposed to come into such a state. Even more the Serbians that occupied about 55% of the lands of Bosnia (as muslim numbers were more concentated in the center) had absolutely no interest in enterring in such a state, they had their historic lands and they naturally wanted to refuse the acceptance of such an illegal declaration of independence by a muslim self-acclaimed independent Bosnian government.
Even worse, Serbians knew precisely their future if the accepted the "black shirt-short sleeve" plan: they would enter under no condition inside the Bosnian state, the Bosnian state would open the doors to islamic influx and soon the ever increasing majority of the muslims would gradually kick them out in exactly the same manner the Albanian muslim majority kicked the 90% of Serbians of Kosovo out within 30 years of their rising autonomy within Titoic Jugoslavia (1950-1980). It goes without saying that this eviction of Serbians from Bosnia would be no war but would be 100% violent - we all know how muslims can evict other populations (ethnically targeted crime, rapes of women, attacks on schools, upheaval at cities and forcing of "infidels" to change way of life etc. so as the life of infidels becomes so unbearable that they are forces to leave...).
Hence, their fate sealed, they decided to give it a fight and fight against the short sleeves they had in front of them. They knew very well who was behind, but what could they do? They could not fight in anyway against the dark sleeves and it was shown when the NATO attacked, Serbians simply retracted all their forces (eg. NATO remained legendary in managing to drop a record of bombs to clear out a mere 13 Serbian old tanks out of the 300 as initially advertised). Serbians did not reply, since they had no means of fighting back the black sleeves.
They lost to black sleeves, visibly to black sleeves representatives, the short sleeves. Bosnia became independent and the 50% of the population with the aid of foreign mercenaries rule over the other 50% - albeir in name since Serbians managed for their side to maintain some form of autonomy hoping that in future the battle-balance between black shirts and grey shirts (Russians) might change and they can come back. Had they accepted the initial deal of doing nothing to resist the black shirts they would had secede all to a central Bosnian state where they would be mathematically outsted from their lands within years.
From there on one may say that at the end, the black shirts really aimed at the current situation of having a fragile balance of power among blue sleeves and short sleeves so that the next war can be prepared if needed. Well, even so that does not change the position and range of choice tha the blue sleeves have.
I hope that the example is descriptive of the choices people and groups of people have.
Complain about this comment
Re #291
Quote, "..Black shirts Americans, British and Germans... the Bosnian state has to exists while there is absolutely no historic, social, and no legal case of it coming into existence as it was - - otherwise we have to just take as legal any mad dictator's social experiment, including Hitler's and Stalin's ones.."
plus,
Quote, "..we all know how Muslims can evict other populations (ethnically targetted crime, rapes of women, attacks on schools, upheaval at cities..).."
Hmm, #291 yet another ill-informed, 'junk' History!
One-sided bias & bile about the break-up of one of the last post-USSR enclaves that has me ask about the 1990s 'Balkan Wars':
Who was besieging Sarajevo, Vukava, Screbenija etc.?
Could there have been 'land-grab' Civil Wars inside Faith Wars or vice versa?
Perhaps internecine memories, causes, faults long endured came to a fanatically bloody & criminal consequence on the part of all involved?
Maybe there never was a 'real' State inherited (circa 1919 & 1929) from the vagaries of the WW1 collapse of the Hapsburg Austria-Hungary regime?
When Serb, Croat & Slovene despite all their animosities were forcibly made to keep to the merger envisioned by Cabrinovic & Princip and post-WW2 engineered by Tito the multi-ethnic Citizenry never forgot their origins and ties nor all those myriad 'old' & relatively 'new scores' to settle at some date when/where -ever the opportunity arose?
But no! No according to #291 it was those damn Americans & British all over again!
Afterall, 'Josip Broz' was the "..the Brits' boy there (Jugoslavia).." as his adherence to all things 'west' & 'capitalist' during his regime so amply demonstrated! No, it was never that Tito was the most likely organiser of an effective Balkan opposition/resistance to the Nazi Germany occupation forces in WW2 and therefore, despite his professed Communist politics & at that time allegiance to the Kremlin, supplied with the weapons & training by London & Moscow.
No, all through WW2 the UK & USA just knew Josip was going to break with Moscow post-war & try a 'Non-aligned' form that met with hostility from Moscow & Washington.
Once more we read the 'greek's' version at #291 which is just tragically bereft of any verification or understanding of actual on-the-ground key personalities, policies & episodes.
Hmm, #291 yet another pretence of adherence to the ideals of Freedom!
Thus, the break-up of the Yugoslavia state is okay so long as no 'Muslim' peoples have the nerve to expect the 'Democratic' right of Self-determination that is applied to 'Christian' peoples in the same region?
Hang on, I'll apply that idea to the fundamental principles of Human Rights and see if the 'Catholic Irish', or the 'Armenians', or 'Kurdish', the Polish communities to say nothing of 'Palestinians' etc. appreciate the distinction!?
I wonder and I doubt DemocThreat if at times You realise just what sort of dangerously prejudiced people You find common cause with? Surely, even You cannot agree with #291!?
Complain about this comment
292. At 10:19am on 28 Sep 2010, cool_brush_work wrote:
"""Hmm, #291 yet another ill-informed, 'junk' History!"""
I see. Whatever unmasks your country's politics you call it junk-history, junk-opinion etc. etc. Serbians are bad. Russians are bad. Greeks are talking too much, they are bad too. CBW, you are picturesque.
"""One-sided bias & bile about the break-up of one of the last post-USSR enclaves that has me ask about the 1990s 'Balkan Wars':"""
One sided the paradigm of Bosnia? Really? On what two-sided angle can you deduce that the 50% of the population of Bosnia, the muslims, had the right to get out of Jugoslavia taking as hostage the other 50% of the population only because 50 years back a mad dictator of absolutely criminal nature chopped up the main country to give parcels of land to create artificial states?
You really have a lot of nerve CBW. But you amuse me.
"""Who was besieging Sarajevo, Vukava, Screbenija etc.?"""
In Serajevo Serbians lived not so much inside the city but in suburbs. Their lifes were directly threatened by the Bosnian militia (and they had been attacked already earlier, even earlier than the criminal one-sided declaration of independence of the criminal Izefbekovic artificial Titoic state of Bosnia supported by international thugs, among them, your governemnt too). Given that Serbians had initially more access to weapons they barricaded in their suburbs and exchanged fire with the muslims on the other side of the town at about the same level - only that Serbians bombed the city of Serajevo while muslims bombed the suburbs hence it was Serbians the bad guys I guess - nice logic! Had Serbians wanted to massacre the city or something they would had done it since the beggining far earlier than having muslims getting state of the art arms and mercenaries by their western and eastern friends. Yet Serbians were not up to that, they rather stayed and protected their positions in the suburbs and kept exchanging fire keep muslims who wanted a Serbian free zone in the center of Bosnia, at bay. It goes without saying that today Serajevo and its suburbs is an ethnically cleansed city. Other well known cases of "Serbian attacks against civilians", like the 1995 famous market case are long proved (and admitted even by western journalists) to had been fired by muslim forces (a large part of them of foreign origins) so as to provoke international indignation at a stage that still most countries had not taken position in favour of the one or the othe side. It worked. Do you want me now to start about the other famous case of "Serbian rape & pegnancy" where the little girl gave birth to a half-cast child? British, French and US journalists made the article but never went to check when the child was born - only Serbia, Bulgarian, Russian and Greek journalists were there though you know and asked to see the baby (curious interests eh?) and it was a a half-caste. Never heard of it eh? No wonder!
Vukovar. Yes it was attacked by Serbians. Just like Craina was bombed by Croatians as soon as they got military superiority. In a war you attack, in a war of attrition you also attack. Croatians - the responsible for the war on the basis of their illegal unilateral declaration of indepenence wishing to go out with Tito-gift lands chopped out of Serbian territories - did exactly the same and at a much greater extend given that more Serbians died and a tremendous number of Serbians were ethnically cleansed in the war of Croatia.
But no, for CBW Serbians do not count as victims.
Srebrenica: You do not even know where that is on the map and you want to open a discussion? Go get a google map and see where that lies (in relation to muslim and Serbian parts) and then come and talk. Nobody died at Srebrenica. The whole insident is about some 5,000 muslim militia (many of whom still lightly armed) who were killed on their escape route from Srebrenica to Serajevo by the Serbian forces who took revenge for the 2 years of Dutch UN-endorsed reign of terror of muslim forces led by criminal bandit Oric and containing scores of Afgans, Saoudis and Pakistanis. In fact about a thousand of those killed were Asiatic irregular militia of the Oric band. In Bosnia there were anything from 8,000 to 15,000 Asian muslims fighting there and that easily explains why we saw even crucifictions of people at villages victims to muslim onslaughts. By the way, now that you talked about Srebrenica, does "Red Christmas" tells you anything dear CBW? Doesn't matter. It was Serbians being slaughtered there not any human beings...
CBW honestly: Even a half illiterate by now should know that NO slaughter ever happened inside Srebrenica since when Serbians enterred the city the town was almost totally empty with all women, children, and armless civilians (among them... bandit Oric hiding...) evicted under Serbian forces protection! There remained around 50-100 lightly armed muslims who had not found a way to escape and who hid inside houses and when found were cleared by the Serbian forces at a relative cost of life and that makes it not any crime but a result of city warfare. The rest, was all about a chase of the muslim militia by Serbian militia. Most muslims were shot during low scale fights, others surrendered but would be shot as soon as a Serbian recognised the killer of his son, the rapist of his sister etc. etc. you know who war of attrition goes. As such, even that does not consist of any huge humanitarian catastrophe. Due to the Dutch dodgy arragement (and contrary to the demand of Serbians for total muslim disarming and surrender and the surrender to justice of bandit criminal Oric and his militia), Muslim forces had not officially surrendered, they were merely trying to exploit circumstances and escape after all what they had done in the area. As such the event cannot even legally in the room of a court cannot be termed "crime of war", let alone in real life.
But now dear CBW does not know, he needs the "mad Greek" to come and inform him.
"""Perhaps internecine memories, causes, faults long endured came to a fanatically bloody & criminal consequence on the part of all involved?"""
You are not wrong on the complex background escalating on these events but you should be aware that none of this would had happened unless the "west" had acted as it did. When Britain, Germany or US jump and recognise artificial constructions in full knowledge there will be war and massacre, the blood is on their hands.
"""Maybe there never was a 'real' State inherited (circa 1919 & 1929) from the vagaries of the WW1 collapse of the Hapsburg Austria-Hungary regime?"""
There existed a notion of Croatia but certainly there did not exist any Bosnian state - that notion did not exist either as nationality (there were only Serbians, Croatians and muslimified Slavs & Albanians. More than anything else no FYROMian state as they were Bulgarians (and quite nationalistic about it, Bulgarian nationalism was based there - have you ever noticed where Sofia capital of Bulgaria lies? Do you know where their ancient capital lies?). What existed however was the state of Serbia and it is clear where this was positioned. It is also crystal clear what state-engineering Tito did in 1945 and how he provoked all that.
"""...and post-WW2 engineered by Tito the multi-ethnic Citizenry never forgot their origins and ties nor all those myriad 'old' & relatively 'new scores' to settle at some date when/where -ever the opportunity arose?"""
Whatever the tensions things would had never escalated without western implication. This is a fact.
"""But no! No according to #291 it was those damn Americans & British all over again!"""
They took advantage of existing tensions and pushed for war. Why do you try to justify their stance? Because you are British? Does Durstinger tries to justify Hitler? And add Germany into the huge crime of the break up of Jugoslavia as Germany was as much criminal as Britain and US into it. Total failure of the pretentiously high EU's standards on the respect of international law etc.
"""...(Tito) his adherence to all things 'west' & 'capitalist' during his regime so amply demonstrated!"""
CBW forget about left wing and right wing. That thing does not exist in real politics, it is only the facade. You should be aware of the British connection with both Tito and the Greek communist party. In the one case they caused a civil war during WWII and aided Tito rise. In the latter they caused a civil war during WWII and turned finally to right wing to rise and govern. US later maintained and funded left wing propaganda in Greece for the usual "divide and conquer" which provides better control.
"""No, it was never that Tito was the most likely organiser of an effective Balkan opposition/resistance to the Nazi Germany occupation..."""
At the time Tito appeared, Chetniks had chopped badly the Germans. When Tito appeared he actually spent more time to fight the Chetniks than really do resistance against Germans.
AMAZINGLY the exact same pattern appeared in Greece where the British-paid KKE communist party appeared belatedly by late 1941 (before they called Greeks to surrender to Italians and to Germans!!!) when till then only the right wing patriotic organisations ha started the fight against Italians and withint 1,5 year they started the civil war attacking more right wing positions rather than German positions. 2 countries, British intervention, similar trend.
"""No, all through WW2 the UK & USA just knew Josip was going to break with Moscow post-war & try a 'Non-aligned' form that met with hostility from Moscow & Washington."""
You actually say to me know that Britain and US were "astonished pleasantly" to know that Tito broke away from Moscow in the late 1940s...
Very amusing!!!
"""Once more we read the 'greek's' version at #291 which is just tragically bereft of any verification or understanding of actual on-the-ground key personalities, policies & episodes."""
CBW, at the end, history is out there for you to explore and learn. Do not forget to take out your eye-covers.
"""Hmm, #291 yet another pretence of adherence to the ideals of Freedom!"""
Yes. freedom of mind.
"""Thus, the break-up of the Yugoslavia state is okay so long as no 'Muslim' peoples have the nerve to expect the 'Democratic' right of Self-determination that is applied to 'Christian' peoples in the same region?"""
If you ever made any proper research on the issue, christians, i.e. both Serbians and Croatians who formed about 50% of the population wanted antyhing else than to make a common state called Bosnia and ruled by muslims in which sooner or later WE ALL KNOW what kind of social ethnic cleansing would happen. On the contrary Bosnian muslims wanted not only their independence but to get out taking ALL of Bosnian territories as they were, i.e. taking hostages the 50% of Bosnian population!!! HAve you ever demanded yourself, "why muslims in Bosnia wanted to make war to be in a common state with Serbians and Croatians" - my rule of the thumb was that muslims wanted to take control of the maximum of land, i.e. all of the artificial state of Bosnia and then using any "legal" measure to press "infidel" populations out of it. You have to be extremely naif not to see the pattern. Serbians and Croatians did not take it to the arms, they took it to resistance when muslims from the center of this artificial state unilaterally declared independence of the whole state, i.e. unilaterally taking control of Serbians' and Croatians' lands. Now I am not even going to compare how on earth can Kosovars get independence from a recognised state and Serbians and Croatians not get independence and forced by arms to accept being integrated in a mockery of a state?
"""Hang on, I'll apply that idea to the fundamental principles of Human Rights and see if the 'Catholic Irish', or the 'Armenians', or 'Kurdish', the Polish communities to say nothing of 'Palestinians' etc. appreciate the distinction!?"""
I apply that idea to all. Saying that muslim demands were expansionary and Serbians and Croatians in Bosnia defended their positions does not deny the fact that all sides did their share of crimes. Serbians too had demands over muslim and croatian terrotories in Bosnia and Croatia which were the least dodgy. However, the moral side is found on the Serbian side, they were the ones that had the most reasonable position: 1) either maintain the status quo inside Jugoslavia or 2) get independence respecting the situation prior to Tito's engineering. What happened today is what refused the people (of all sides) their basic human rights of freedom and self-determination. The situation has been engineered to serve the interests of mainly US. Do you know what passed through Romania and Serbia? Some pipeline maybe? Well now you know.
"""I wonder and I doubt DemocThreat if at times You realise just what sort of dangerously prejudiced people You find common cause with?"""
For you I might be Satan. But if Satan says 1+1=2 do you say "no, 1+1=0"? Nice logic there you have.
Complain about this comment
Re #293
Unfortunately, as I wrote at #292 it's almost all 'junk History'; and that is the better portions - - most borders on gibberish!
As for 'not knowing' where Screbrenija is etc.: What the heck is the greek on about - - it is just pure, simple, fanciful trivia!?
I used the name alongside the others to highlight the conflict in the Balkans conflict was 'multi-ethnic' in origins, participants and results. I might just as easily have written Pristina, Mostar, Split!
Apparently the entire gist of my comment at #292 wherein I did a very shorthand outline of the multiplicity of regional causes & effects completely eluded this mastermind of strategic analysis! Those centuries of "..myriad 'old'... and relatively 'new scores'..(my #292).." is something the 'greek' appears to have no concept of from beginning to end his contributions.
Quote, "..the situation has been engineered to suit interests of mainly the US..".
The USA orchestrated the break-up of Yugoslavia!?
This is just such utter 'geo-political' nonsense as to be almost beyond finding any worthwhile response: Where & how does the present day division of the spoils of Balkan civil wars benefit the USA's longterm political-economic-military interests!?
I would suggest the 'benefits' such as they are seem so tenuous for US Foreign Policy as to bring into question is the 'greek' aware of ..where the Balkans are!?
#291 & #293 is 1 + 1 = 101 regional dalmations! The prejudicial spots infront of the eyes are too far gone for any successful intervention.
Complain about this comment
Apparently In Denmark first they were accused of criminality and them deported using an administrative procedure by the Police, all done without being brought to a court of law or having the possibility of defending themselves individually from the accusations. Shameful at so many levels.
http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article1033647.ece
http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article1030464.ece
http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article1011653.ece
http://jp.dk/uknews/article2143126.ece
http://cphpost.dk/news/137-eu-news/49638-expelled-romani-to-sue-state-.html
Complain about this comment
Neonomad,
Did you know?
The Danish government sold the "Virgin Islands"--in the Caribbean Sea to the United States some time ago (before I was born--way back when) and they are now named the U.S. Virgin Islands.
So, its too bad, because those islands could have been used for "extra people" ...
Complain about this comment
DavidStvn,
A good way to get rich is to sell what is not yours,In the case of Denmark, or in the case of the US to take advantage of the situation for a bargain...????
Virgin Islands, ah!!is that where they keep the hidden skeletons of Danish colonialism....?
What is your definition of "extra people"??????
Complain about this comment
The reaction of the public after the results from the voting in Sweden was of shock. It is too simplistic to lay social and economic problems on immigrants as scape goats.
There are all kinds of immigrants. However these politics are based on Huntington's theory claiming that there are some cultures that clash with the West, will never integrate, be assimilated by the Western countries and will always be seen as 'the others'. With Muslims it is even more so, thus they show cultural signs that differentiate them from their hosts.
However, it is very controversial for EU. How can member countries be against immigration and discriminate in cultural basis. Is not the EU supposed to be multicultural? or multicultural within a similar cultures?
Even more so, how will Turkey be placed in relation to the EU?
just to get back to the subject...
Complain about this comment
298. At 4:33pm on 07 Oct 2010, liniux wrote:
"""...However these politics are based on Huntington's theory claiming that there are some cultures that clash with the West, will never integrate, be assimilated by the Western countries and will always be seen as 'the others'."""
When I read Huntington's book back in the early 90s I had gotten the idea that what he described was not really the side-result but actually the constructed result. That different cultures compete and clash that is more than obvious but for it to happen the one culture must rise in sifficient numbers within the space of the other. And that "culture clash" was technically developed by technically calling in "tons of conteiners" of illegal immigrants aiming at creating the conditions for this social confrontation. There are bigger interests out there than the little trivial internal interests of states.
"""However, it is very controversial for EU. How can member countries be against immigration and discriminate in cultural basis. Is not the EU supposed to be multicultural? or multicultural within a similar cultures?"""
In the modern world we can talk of cultures and culture groups. All European states apart perhaps Albanians and Bosnians are belonging to 1 single culture group since sharing the same basis. Do you think that the difference between Serbians and Swedish is so enormous? Do you think that 1 million Serbians in Sweden would have provoked the same reaction as 100,000 muslims? I do not think so. Serbians in 2 generations would be dilluted inside the Swedish society, muslims even in 5 generations will go on as a group apart and of diverging interests that show the least interest in local interests. And that is what Europeans resent. Why would anyone expect locals to accept people that are evidently of a different thinking mentality and of contrasting interests? There is no reason to do it.
What is the difference between Austrians and
Even more so, how will Turkey be placed in relation to the EU?
just to get back to the subject...
Complain about this comment
"""Where & how does the present day division of the spoils of Balkan civil wars benefit the USA's longterm political-economic-military interests!?"""
CBW is a typical example of either an ignorant anglosaxon or a very knowledgeable anglosaxon who plays hide and seek.
No really the interest of US was to have a unified strong Jugoslavia with ready to use gas pipelines making the link to central Europe and Russia having its way in the region.
In what world you live CBW? In what world?
Complain about this comment
Re Nik, ## 24 and 225:
Since I have mostly achieved my dieting objectives as part of my jogging routine (and chewing over our exchanges was a psychological trick to make that more bearable), and morning jogging is anyway becoming increasingly unpleasant due to the morning chills of this year's cold autumn, I have no further motivation to engage in unremunerated discussions with persons who treat me with personal insults and refuse to read and consider my well-considered posts.
While I refrain from participating in these discussions, I expect you to refrain from misquoting me or spreading misinformation about my opinions.
In order to reply to your lies, I will simply use the words of a Czech UK-based constitutional law/legal theory scholar who put it like this in a recent newspaper article in a Czech daily (Lidove Noviny), as part of a public discussion regarding a planned restriction of the powers of the Czech Constitutional Court: "Our democracy is not a people's democracy, but a constitutional and liberal democracy, which means that sovereign power is defined by the Constitution and includes a catalogue of civic rights and liberties which the courts are required to defend even against any parliamentary majority... Even the Czech Parliament cannot harbor the illusion that it is the exclusive creator of the sovereign power of the people. ..."
Complain about this comment
Europe is fast becoming a continent of the "past". Since Europe can't see and solve problems within itself; it sees problems from outside i.e. the immigrants.
I think this is a dangerous precedent for a continent which was said to have been built on "democratic principles".
Despite all the rheotric however, immigration will continue in Europe as long as people outside feel they may have a better economic future here.
That said, with a fast insolvency of European countries, which intelligent brain would wanna come here ?
Complain about this comment
Most of the European immigration comes from it's colonial past where it exploited and imported those impoverished people.
Every action, good or bad leaves it's marks and has a a reaction. Immigration in Europe, is one of those marks!!
Now Europe has no choice but to stay with those immigrants and integrate them.
For integration to happen, Europe has to develop non discriminating policies for the minorities and the immigrants. That's sadly not the case with large, fast becoming fascist countries like France.
Complain about this comment
301. At 5:15pm on 11 Oct 2010, oulematu wrote:
"""In order to reply to your lies,"""
What lies? If you saw any you would pinpoint it directly instead of speaking vaguely...
"""... I will simply use the words of a Czech UK-based constitutional law/legal theory scholar who put it like this in a recent newspaper article in a Czech daily (Lidove Noviny), as part of a public discussion regarding a planned restriction of the powers of the Czech Constitutional Court:"""
Do not know how that fits on what I said in my latter messages, yet I know where you referring at....
""" "Our democracy is not a people's democracy, but a constitutional and liberal democracy, which means that sovereign power is defined by the Constitution and includes a catalogue of civic rights and liberties which the courts are required to defend even against any parliamentary majority... Even the Czech Parliament cannot harbor the illusion that it is the exclusive creator of the sovereign power of the people. ...""""
That is the definition of the "republico" or "parliamentarianism" which is a cheap excuse for a fascist type of government where the few govern the many. Nothing to do with a democracy. Parliamentarianism has as its greatest threat the citizen and as his ultimate goal to rule over the citizen and against the will of the citizen. Only that to achieve so instead of selling god-given leading rights, it demans every 4 years or so a yes/no from the people (who are not citizens but a mass) who will have to chose between the very few puppet-options that the oligarchy presents.
No Oulematu the majority does not have a saying. You prefer to live that to the specialists, the financial oligarchies, the corporations, in a few words to those who care to rule. That is what I call fascism. Do not use the word democracy in anything to do with that. Republico is the only fitting one.
Complain about this comment
303. At 10:55am on 12 Oct 2010, RK wrote:
Did Spain exploit Moroccans? Did Greece exploit Albanians and other muslims (or did it suffer slaughters under them?). When did Sweden have colonies in North Africa and I did not know it?
What you say refers to 2-3 countries. And is used as a cheap excuse. Nothing like that. If Europeans ever felt they needed to do something they would foster development in the countries - but that is not in the mind of the oligarchies who puss for more and more illegal/legal immigration in Europe to achieve their own personal interests. Immigrants of today play the role of the Goth in the late Roman Empire where Emperors were welcoming the Goths to use them as yet another tool for the better control of their own subjets.
Complain about this comment
Well Nik, yes right 2-3 countries, major colonisers like the UK, France etc. imported impoverished people of their ex-colonies, now immigrants.
As for the other countries, well have you ever seen a place where there is honey and bees don't come in for the party ? I have not!
If there would be differences in economic development between countries for whatever reasons, like it or not, immigration and migrations will continue.
So this problem is best dealt in great part at source through trade, good governance and other policies aimed at uplifting poor people. The World Bank, IMF, UN might be ideal platforms to discuss all that.
But guess what ? These institutions have been rigged by Europeans (and Americans) and have never really produced any significant results for the poor!! The best thing has been the miracle of Chinese and to a lesser extent India’s economic growth to lift millions out of poverty!
** Won't Europeans migrate to China or India tomorrow if these countries continue to become richer and Europeans poorer? **
Americans with their vast “defence budgets” haven't been able to stop Mexicans pouring in. There is no reason to believe that Europeans would be more successful!
Every country or continent needs new blood and ideas especially those growing old! Immigrants readily provide that! I believe the best thing to do is to have a coordinated policy of integrating immigrants rather than treating them as aliens!
That said, every recession brings with it anti-immigrants and xenophobes. That's the way it has been in western economies!
Complain about this comment
to Nik, #304:
You need not repeat your rants. I understand what you are saying but do not agree with it. You are saying that the democratic form of government requires that the legislator elected by the people can adopt and revoke any laws in its unfettered discretion without any checks or limitations and that to think otherwise constitutes fascism. However, constitutional democracy requires that the powers conferred upon the elected legislator by the people are subject to constitutional checks and balances including the natural rights that are acquired by humans upon their birth independently of any state power. It is your problem and not mine that you are either unable or unwilling to understand or accept this basic premise on which democratic regimes have been based since at least the end of the 18th century. This will become my problem only if the majority of voters adopt your position - unlikely but possible given Europe's political mood and the low degree of its electorate's civic awareness. There is not much I could do about that, other than working to ensure that I have options to emigrate if necessary.
Therefore, if you now allow, I would propose to discontinue our exchanges since we have made our respective positions sufficiently clear to the readers of this blog. By discontinuing I also mean that you will refrain from references to my person or my statements. If at any time I wish to interject my statements into a discussion on this blog, I will do so myself without the need to rely on your assistance. Thank you.
Complain about this comment
Lol Nik!!
Complain about this comment
By the way Nik if by god's mercy, Europe becomes more democratic and reasonably open to the outside world, where do you plan to immigrate ;) ?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS