Why were people from one of the richest, freest and most secular countries in the middle east trying to get to Europe?
What reports?
italian election results: will brussels finally listen to the people
- Thread starter joe sod
- Start date
Just to bring this back to the Original Post;
I'll ask again; what, specifically, should the EU do which it is currently not doing and not do which it is currently doing to stop people trying to get to Europe from war-torn parts of the world?
I'll ask again; what, specifically, should the EU do which it is currently not doing and not do which it is currently doing to stop people trying to get to Europe from war-torn parts of the world?
People who claim to have been in the boat when it overturned. Turkish police took him in for questioning.
It's not exactly a secret or an item that wasn't covered in the media
Can you post a link please?
Oh, and Why were people from one of the richest, freest and most secular countries in the middle east trying to get to Europe?
Oh, and I'll ask again; what, specifically, should the EU do which it is currently not doing and not do which it is currently doing to stop people trying to get to Europe from war-torn parts of the world?
Absolutely impossible to debate a subject like this with someone who takes it very personally and ignores anything that doesn't suit their agenda.
I mean, talk of 'stealing content'
. I googled the subject earlier, found the FT link at the top of the page and went in and read the article. No black magic involved. But if that's where this is at, enjoy the rest of the discussion with yourself.No I am not. Where I am saying that? I am sorry but hundreds of people have lost their lives crossing the sea and you seem to think that the EU should just risk them drowning rather than provide 'Ferries'. What was the phrase you used? Build it and they will come??? Do you think the parents of children taking that journey value the life of their child less than you do that they would undertake that journey to chase a few euro? Would you do it unless you were completely desperate? Just because I have sympathy and understanding for the plight doesn't mean I believe that we should allow everyone in. I wish there was zero refugees and zero economic migration.
But the problem is not going to be solved by letting people kill themselves trying to get in. Why not try and get rid of the reasons why so many people want to leave their homes and risk their children's lives in the first place? How about we talk about EU and western foreign policy? The role of Russia and China. The supply of weapons by our Governments to poor countries and countries run by dubious regimes. The restrictive trade policies of western world that keep developing countries down. The inadequacy and in some cases corruption of organistions like the UN and so called aid agencies. The implicit support of corrupt regimes by large western corporations. Child Labour. Sweat shops producing our goods as cheaply as possibly.
Okay, so I take it from that you can't/won't answer any specific questions.
If so at least admit it. A debate involves answering questions.
By the way, this in the internet. Nothing said here is personal.
The thing is, even if we assume the problem can only really be solved by tackling the deeper issues you touch upon, do you think that the mainstream Italian parties were talking about any of those things?
Do you think any of your suggestions would be advanced by the 'status quo' non populist Italian parties... whose mantra seems to be, ignore any complaints about immigration, continue the same failing economic policies...
So, for the average Italian voter, I can completely understand why, given the alternatives presented to them in 2018, they turned away from the busted mainstream and moved towards 'populism', and I utterly reject the notion being circulated around the Western World that populism = racism. If it is, Europe & America may as well give up now trying to hold back its tide because given the number of people voting for populist parties and propositions it would imply a critical mass of racism has been reached in US, UK, Australia, Germany, France, Austria, Italy, Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia... and Ireland, given that 80% of Irish voters, in a populist referendum, voted in favour of narrowing citizenship rights.
Last edited:
It is comments like this that have been used to shut down debates on immigration for years now. Just because you highlight the valid issues got to do with immigration into europe does not make you a racist. It is a valid issue that is affecting people and it should be voiced by politicians if they are doing their jobs properly. The reason why this issue has been met with silence especially in countries like ireland is fear of being branded racist or right wing. Italy has had its economic problems and the popular misrepresentation is that they are blaming their economic problems on migrants, this is false. The UK has had a very strong economy albeit before the brexit vote but they still voted for brexit with immigration being the key issue. I think immigration is healthy but must be controlled and numbers must be discussed . Again using Canada as an example it is regarded as an open and welcoming country and their is little racism. Why is this because they have strict controls on immigrants with yearly quotas on how many migrants can enter per year. Therefore the canadian people do not feel threatened by immigration.
Yes I really think that.
While I don't think that there can be any evidence produced either way I do have an anecdote which I think supports my view. The father of a school friend was the HR manager in one of the first FDI factories in Ireland. The factory employed over a thousand people in a production environment. It was notorious for strikes. There were newspaper articles about future investment being endangered because of this. The HR manager had the opinion that Irish workers from a farming background were culturally unsuited to factory work. They had no culture of accepting direction from a boss. So I think it is reasonable to believe that culture has a huge role in economic progress.
Not "nothing" but very little. Although I believe that protectionism is wrong, it hinders their economies and ours.
The people of the Middle East are responsible for their own destiny, they are not children to be protected from their own choices. (as an aside neither are the Brits, and boy are they going to find out about that).
The Ottoman Empire kept the Middle East in the Middle ages up until the early 20th century. It is not anyone else's fault that their societies did not develop politically. Nor is it any outsiders fault that the people of the middle east were unable to make any political progress from the Arab Spring.
The corollary of this is that if Middle Eastern & North African countries are not ready for 21st century liberal democracy at home, it is is entirely valid to have concerns about how large numbers of individuals from those countries might be integrated successfully into Western countries - an entirely different scenario to migrations between say Ireland - UK - Australia.
I work in a manufacturing environment and we always like getting guys from a farming background because we find that they generally have a good work ethic. Maybe your friends father just wasn't very good at his job.
That shows a complete ignorance of the history of the region. Did you know that the first independent Kingdom in Arabia as the Ottoman Empire declined was a moderate Hashimite one? They had a representative parliament and gave women the same sort of rights they had in Europe at the time. Their women went to school and college. The problem was that the Hashimites, who are descendants of the Profit Mohammed and had the strongest political, historic and cultural claim over the region, were also political and were interested in Pan-Arab Nationalism. That means they would not be easy to control. Therefore the extremist Wahhabi Tribe was armed and trained and supported in an incredibly bloody conquest of the region in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed and maimed. They were then put in charge by the British and kept in place by the Americans, plunging the region back into the Middle Ages. Now, tell me again how it's nothing to do with us and they have always been backward.
Syria was a relatively moderate, wealthy and free country by the standards of the region. In order to remove the reliance by Europe on Russian gas, the main source of hard cash income Russia has, we (the West) tried to force a pipeline from the Gulf through Syria. Syria was supported by Russia and so was between a rock and a hard place so said no. We then started a war to change the government and get the pipeline built. That war has killed up to a half a million people and plunged the country into anarchy. It also caused the refugee crisis in the region and the refugee inconvenience in Europe as well as allowing ISIS etc to flourish. Now, tell me again how it's nothing to do with us and they have always been backward.
I could go on but I won't both, though I suggest you google a bit on Yemen and what's happened to it since the British decided they wanted a coaling depot in the region to get to India and how British weapons are being used to murder children there by the Saudis, all that while the Saudi Crown Prince is in the UK having his ring kissed by Teresa and Lizzie.
We could start by not trying to overthrow their democratically elected governments.
We could also try not starting wars in their countries.
We did it when they were colonies, we did it when they stopped being colonies and we haven't stopped since.
The idea that they are free agents with every chance to be free and democratic, if only they could just be like the white man (I'm paraphrasing), is, at best, incredibly ignorant.
If anything, populist parties seem less keen on foreign misadventures than the alternatives...
I don't think the Western intervention in Syria can be laid at the door of populists? Though I think the Russian one could be, in the sense that Putin is a populist.
I could be wrong on this, but Western populist parties seem more keen on fortress Europe \ fortress America \ fortress Australia idea than going out into the world, whether for 'noble' or material motives. Maybe this comes across as them as being less 'caring' towards the rest of the world than mainstream parties, but I would also interpret it to mean, less likely to screw up another country. I can see a populist party cutting all foreign aid, for example.
If you want the West to 'stop' doing the things you have mentioned, vote Populist!
The reason that the Arab Spring failed is that the region is religious and conservative and so it was inevitable that the well organised and popular Islamist movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood won popular elections. We in the West don't want to accept political Islam and so did everything we could to undermine it, and in doing so the democratic will of the people.
I agree that the populist parties are generally isolationist. My point is that it is nonsense to suggest that we in the West have not been instrumental in the creation of the current situation in the Middle East, Persia and North Africa.
I won't vote populist because they conflate issues in order to lie to their supporters. In this country they are Solidarity and the Shinners and, to some extent, FF, who want more money spent but no taxes levied on their supporters. In Italy it's 5Star and other extremists who ignore unsustainable debt and welfare rates, cronyism and corruption, but blame "the Elite" who are only part of the problem and immigrants who are irrelevant in a national economic context. In the UK they are UKIP and the Tory Brexiteers who harken back to days of empire and would rather throw their lot in with the Saudis than the French.
Not entirely serious here... but that prompted a similar thought in me about the EU, the euro, austerity and the Irish and southern european economies. The democratic will of the people would be to have the option to devalue rather than knuckle down to the euro & austerity.
Therefore by this you accept that the problems now mostly lie within the region itself, the failure of the Arab spring is not the fault of Europe. With regard to European colonialism that is over effectively a century ago. I think we are doing these countries a disservice by telling them that everything is the fault of colonialism and stopping them from looking at what is wrong internally in their own countries. After all China was colonized to an extent and Japan was destroyed in the second world war, yet these countries still went on to become the Asian tiger economies. So there is something different going on in middle east that is not got to do with colonial history and that's where they need to focus. Bill gates has said that it is a mistake for Europe to continue to take in economic migrants from Africa as it basically stops these people looking to change their own countries, their main focus now is how do I get to Europe
All the talk of austerity while we continued to borrow far more than we earned in order to sustain a lifestyle we couldn't really afford. Some knuckling down that was!
Read post #52