European Politics

Turkey is in deep grief, after 16 soldiers and 13 policemen were killed by the PKK the last two days. The death toll of PKK attacks has reached 100 this month. Erdoğan, meanwhile, has gone way off the rails with his speeches lately. Not that he was ever on the rails, but he went as far as to say "If we were able to change the constitution, this wouldn't happen", implying AKP not receiving absolute majority and power to change constitution for a presidential government with Erdoğan as the leader is a main cause of the recent comeback of terror. He went even further and said "There are martyr fathers with disorderly personalities.", attacking the parents of dead soldiers who stood up and asked for answers by the government. Erdoğan then praised the parents who "sacrificed their sons for the country".

There's a tragicomical story about his first aforementioned statement. He uttered those words on a live TV interview where he was asked about the attack. Hürriyet, a major newspaper in the country, were the first major press association to publish his words on their website. Then some AKP trolls on the internet gathered around (AKtroll is a widely used name nowadays, has been used by opposing MPs in the parliament), went to Hürriyet's building and attacked it. Erdoğan then accused Hürriyet of twisting his words, which they had not done, and being terrorists. Hürriyet, and all other press was forced to remove his statements from their websites. Erdoğan went so far, that his advisors and deputies had to censor his own words to avoid backlash.

Martyrdom is probably the highest merit you can reach upon the eyes of the Turkish population. It's very well respected and bad-mouthing anything in relation to it warrants significant backlash. This is why "Erdoğan went off the rails". His ideals were insane anyway, but he's doesn't even feel the need to be politically correct about his authoritarianist, heartless, sickly ways anymore.
 
Last edited:
I have some understanding for the fact Syrian refugees don't want to stay in Hungary (it doesn't seem like they are feeling very welcome there). However, I find it hard to understand that Denmark is so bad for them that some are marching along motorways to get to Sweden ...

it isn't a viable solution to let everyone seek to the European country they fancy the most. That will place an unproportionate burden on the countries that have the softest (or most friendly, to use a nicer word) policy. At the same time, the Dublin agreement sends us into the opposite ditch - an unproportionate burden on the border states.

I can't see any other solution than that all European countries have to come to an agreement on how to distribute the task of helping. I don't have insight in how this is approached in other European countries. @national acrobat, @Brigantium - what are the sentiments in the UK right now? @Forostar - what about Holland?

In Norway, the debate about numbers has been a hot potato earlier this year, but remains so now during the election campaigns (local elections the upcoming Monday). Currently we are in the middle of the bunch when it comes to asylum seekers (relative to population), but high when it comes to accepting refugees on the UN quota.
 
The sentiments are very diverse in the Netherlands. Here is a recent government plan:

Only refugees that have applied in appointed safe areas in the region of war areas (e.g. Turkey, but also other Balkan countries) will be admitted. Migrants which have not applied there first, and have come directly to Europe, will be sent back.

This will be the Dutch contribution in the European Council next Monday in Brussels (hoping it will be the next European plan).

Admitted refugees would get a permission to stay in a specific European country where they have to go and stay. They can't travel to another European country. Our goverment expects that this part will increase support for the plan. This solution cannot be realized soon and needs backing from more European countries.

Short term solution:
The division of refugees over the European countries (a report that still has to be published has already leaked and mentions 7214 extra refugees).

PvdA (Dutch Labour Party) have said that the Netherlands and other European countries should make a fair division of refugees. The difference in attitudes that can be seen with various European countries on the matter, is said to be scandalous.

The other government party, VVD (more right wing, liberal party) want to close the outside EU borders to stop immigration. Because the current situation facilitates human smogglers and let's in terrorists.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
However, I find it hard to understand that Denmark is so bad for them that some are marching along motorways to get to Sweden ...
Click to expand...

It's not about the country being bad or not. It's about the established structures in the countries. Denmark is a tiny country with few immigrants, whereas countries like Sweden, France, Germany, The Netherlands and a few others have established networks of people from the refugee's home countries. It's only natural that they would turn there to look for help.
 
Denmark has started a campaign to deter refugees:
COR-vMYWsAAtSvp.jpg:large


The Danish government has put an advert in four Libanese newspapers with a clear message: refugees, do not come to Denmark. In Arabic and English language.
 
Last edited:
Mixed response, Wingman. The Government has said the UK will accept about 20,000 refugees directly from the camps surrounding Syria by 2020. A minister also suggested child refugees would be deported on reaching their 18th birthday. Personally, I think they're hoping the issue goes away somehow. The Government has been talking about possible air strikes against IS in Syria, too. At least one opposition party has said Britain needs to do more for refugees and sooner.

The Government will be scared of losing more Conservative MPs to UKIP, and they hate being on the wrong side of populist outcry, which is usually critical of anyone coming into the country for whatever reason. One of my local MPs (Conservative) has attacked the idea of taking in Syrian refugees. There's been some public anger about media coverage and various statements of politicians recently about refugees, though - namely categorising refugees, migrant workers, prospective immigrants, and illegal immigrants as alike, and claiming refugees are in Europe for the perks, not out of necessity. The Government only responded when it became clear there was significant public opinion in favour of helping refugees.

Perun said:
It's not about the country being bad or not. It's about the established structures in the countries. Denmark is a tiny country with few immigrants, whereas countries like Sweden, France, Germany, The Netherlands and a few others have established networks of people from the refugee's home countries. It's only natural that they would turn there to look for help.
Click to expand...

That makes a lot of sense. I gathered that's why Germany in particular was one of the places people were heading for. I don't know of large Syrian communities in the UK, the established Muslim communities tend to be Pakistani in origin.
 
Still about Denmark:

Terrible, badly timed right wing politics.

I have been to the country recently and there is a helluvalot of room out there. They do not have an excuse to not help with this problem. Instead, they're letting in less people. :/

Political will is what this is about the most, more so than structures.
 
I am really bothered by the Middle/Eastern European countries (however we want to call this bunch) that have profited from the EU but keep resisting against helping out with the refugees, in a reasonable manner. I am specifically talking about Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slowakia. These countries have united in the so-called Visegrad group.

864x486.jpg


If they don't give in, I feel these countries should be cut financially.


Hungarian police feed refugees "like animals in a pen", disturbing new footage shows, exposing the way migrants are being treated inside the country's main refugee camp on the Serbian border:
 
Last edited:
I am not in the EU, but I am here presently and I can say that even in a country like Sweden, many people do not want the migrants because they are very much possessed of the opinion that migrants are somehow bad. To me, it is a foolish suggestion. Unfortunately not every migrant should be able to go to a country they want - but they should be migrated about the ease of travelling within the EU once they are integrated, to see family and such.
 
These countries, that Foro mentioned, are quick to forget that Germany/West gave life opportunities to them too, while they were fleeing from the iron curtain.
There's a Facebook group of some right-wing Croats thanking Croatian diaspora "for their support of anti-immigrant cause". These people have no brain.
 
LooseCannon said:
I wonder if they can articulate why?
Click to expand...
Fear, perhaps (partly) based on ignorance, and strong nationalism and perhaps religious preferences. Fear that these refugees rape and do other criminal activities. Based on nothing.

Look, Poles have killed Dutch when they drove their car with their drunken head against innocent people. Does that mean that only they do this? No, Dutch also drive with alcohol and make accidents. Dutch also rape. It doesn't mean that all the Poles are not welcome anymore.
 
Refugees didn't cause a single incident in Serbia so far, dunno about other countries. But our authorities treated them way better than any other country they passed through, so there's that.
 
I feel like a lot of Europeans, especially those who live in welfare states, are afraid that refugees and immigrants are leeching off the state thus promoting a culture of expectance of services without contribution. But when you go into the depths of it, the so-called leeching off is often caused by racial/religious/nationalistic discrimination itself, due to social pressures, biased employments and what have you. It's a case of perceived reaction actually being the causation. (Not exclusively, there are people leeching off the state but they're merely an exception to the rule from where I see it)

Then again, I'm not European and I may well be misinformed about the place immigrants have in developed European societies culturally and economically.
 
The UK will be taking 20,000 Syrian refugees over the next 5 years (4,000 per year).
They will mostly be families selected by UNHCR officials.
Our leader, David Cameron, was in the Lebanon today and has promised that the UK will do it's utmost to provide humanitarian support for the refugees.
There is also a greater will within the governing Conservative Party for military action against ISIL in Syria.
This is going to be a protracted conflict.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top