[Rugoz]

Italy tried to continue stopping in the same way (by returning people to Libya) the immigration flow and this caused Italy being deferred to the European Court of Human Rights in 2012 and then being judged guilty for violating basic human rights of people (by leaving them in Libya).

This. You cannot prevent Italy from dealing with immigration because of human rights, and then blame them for not properly registering immigrants.

Nitpick: You didn't leave them in Libya, you pushed them back.

[Atlantis]

It was the Franco-British unfortunate decision to wage war to Libya which opened the Mediterranean route. Under Gaddafi regime Italy had agreements to keep immigrates out.

There is no doubt about that. Apart from poverty, the root causes for the influx of refugees are the British-French bombing of Libya and the Anglo-American regime-change wars in the ME. Continental Europe has to pay the price for Anglo-American imperialism.

That needs to be taken into account in the Brexit talks and the trade talks with Trump.

After that Italy basically gave up any attempt to control the immigration flow and instead tried to use it as a justification for additional budget deficit; the situation however rapidly collapsed after the German ill-fated decision to accept anyone how was making to to Germany. This set hundred of thousands of people in motions toward Europe, and, after the closure of the Balkan route, increased enormously the pressure on Italy.

That's not correct. Italy sent migrants North long before Merkel’s statement. And the inflow of refugees increased from the Spring of 2015 when the Syriza government started to send all refugees arriving in Greece to the North. The news that the refugee route through Greece was open spread rapidly in the refugee camps of Turkey and the ME. The number of refugees increased through all of the summer of 2015. Merkel only made the decision to accept the first 10,000 refugees from Hungary on September 5th because the small Balkan countries and Hungary were in no position to deal with the inflow of refugees. Already 2 months later, the inflow peaked and was then substantially reduced by the agreement with Turkey and the closure of the Balkan route. If the refugees can't move on from Greece or Italy, they won't come in the first place.



Dublin II was made for normal immigration and not for a refugee crisis of epic proportions. To change Dublin II so as to assist the Schengen border countries is not possible as long as East European members don't cooperate. Italy complains, but the fact is that Germany is taking more than 60% of all refugees in the EU, even though, without external borders, it wouldn't have to take any under Dublin II rules.

This brought to a new Italian policy: you wanted'em, now you get'em.
You cannot ignore border countries when you set your foreign policy and then ask them to protect you from the mess you created.

That is obviously false as I have shown above. Better than creating this sort of false narrative is to cooperate with those who are prepared to help Italy with the refugees.

Mid of 2017 Italy reversed back to it's original policy by forging a new agreement with Libya. Migrants are now detained in camps over there. The ECHR hasn't said anything yet, and you don't want to ask what is going on in the Libyan camps.

The basic problem is that the universal validity of human rights is a myth. Today it serves the regime-change narrative of imposing “Western values” abroad, but Europe has no means of bringing human rights to all humans.

It is understandable that Italy doesn’t want to become a refugee camp. However, once the refugees are distributed across Europe, it becomes harder to send them back. There needs to be entry points (hot spots) were a pre-examination is made. All those who don’t have a chance of refugee status ought to be sent back at the external borders. The rest could be distributed to other countries for a substantial examination.

Italy’s geographical position is not the fault of the EU. If the flow of refugees can’t be controlled at the maritime external Schengen borders, then we have to control them on the Balkans or in Austria, which would effectively place Italy outside of Schengen.

[noemon]

That's not correct. Italy sent migrants North long before Merkel’s statement. And the inflow of refugees increased from the Spring of 2015 when the Syriza government started to send all refugees arriving in Greece to the North. The news that the refugee route through Greece was open spread rapidly in the refugee camps of Turkey and the ME. The number of refugees increased through all of the summer of 2015. Merkel only made the decision to accept the first 10,000 refugees from Hungary on September 5th because the small Balkan countries and Hungary were in no position to deal with the inflow of refugees. Already 2 months later, the inflow peaked and was then substantially reduced by the agreement with Turkey and the closure of the Balkan route. If the refugees can't move on from Greece or Italy, they won't come in the first place.

It takes a special kind of person to blame Greece and Italy for the refugee crisis by accusing them for not caging tens of millions of refugees.

I am sure Syriza in a couple of months of government is to blame for the increase of refugees in Europe when the entire government was in Brussels "negotiating" being threatened by Germany and having the banks of the country ordered closed by the ECB. Syriza is to blame for everything and Mutti for nothing.

Guardian Article 1st of September 2015

Mama Merkel: the ‘compassionate mother’ of Syrian refugees
Her stance over Greek debt earned comparisons to Hitler, but Syrians have taken to social media to post heartfelt tributes to the German chancellor

https://www.theguardian.com/world/short ... n-refugees

Independent Article 24th of August 2015

Germany opens its gates: Berlin says all Syrian asylum-seekers are welcome to remain

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 70062.html

Independent Article 21st of August 2015

Syrian refugee family who found safety in Germany name their baby Angela Merkel

Merkel used the migrants as a PR stunt to get her Nazi treatment of Greece out of the headlines with old Greek people queuing to get their pensions out of ATM's that run out of money because the ECB was given orders by the Eurogroup(dominated by the German Schauble) to cut supply to its own subsidiary in Greece and of course instead of newspapers talking about that tectonic-shifting decision unique in history, they got to talking about Mutti instead. The fact that this destroyed European politics leading to the rise of the far-right all across Europe, shifted the Brexit vote in the UK and caused people to confuse the EU migration policy with Merkel does not bother Merkel or Atlantis one bit. They did their little PR stunt and a few months later they announced the doors closed because the stunt was no longer required plus they got a whole new underclass to work for below minimum wage so that was like Christmas came twice in Germany. Merkel who has been ruling Germany since 2005 with no opposition party is second only to Putin and Erdogan. Merkel at this point has no difference with any other dictator who will do anything to stay in power even if that involves destroying Europe and other European countries. Atlantis is a fanboy of Schauble, Merkel's right hand man and finance minister for the past couple of decades.

[Atlantis]

@noemon, no need to get all excited. Nobody wants your refugees. You can keep them. The lot of them. And if you want to spread your lies instead of cooperating for jointly controlling the flow of refugees, that's fine too, because Mr. Kurz in Austria will control them for you. You can't have it both ways, wanting others to help you with the refugees and then turn around and blame them for it. Don't believe you can pull that off a second time.

[noemon]

@noemon, no need to get all excited. Nobody wants your refugees. You can keep them. The lot of them. And if you want to spread your lies instead of cooperating for jointly controlling the flow of refugees, that's fine too, because Mr. Kurz in Austria will control them for you. You can't have it both ways, wanting others to help you with the refugees and then turn around and blame them for it. Don't believe you can pull that off a second time.

This whole thing is your projection, you want the good press of being the warm, kind and fuzzy Germans who want to help the poor refugees while at the same time pretending that you are helping Greece and Italy when in fact Mutti's PR stunt led to Greece and Italy receiving hundreds of thousands per day and then locking them down in these countries via Merkel's Austrian lapdogs who have always been at her side during her Greek escapades. Fact is you are not fooling anybody and indeed you cannot have it both ways nor can you pull this a second time around. What "lie"? and what exactly is "cooperating" for you? Participating in your PR stunt? Worshipping Merkel? Blaming ourselves for your mess? What exactly it is you are asking here from both myself and Varilion I am honestly curious.

Greece and Italy want to change the Dublin Regulations so that they do not carry on being the open-air prisons that they have become. Merkel's PR stunt did not help anyone in that regard.

[Beren]

It's typical that the topic has changed to the refugee problem. Threat to Eurozone my arse. Salvini is a cunning politician.

[noemon]

IThreat to Eurozone my arse

Anyone who disagrees with Germany's austerity religion is called a "threat to the eurozone", Syriza who promised to protect first home owners from having their houses taken from them after losing their public jobs and being unable to pay their mortgages, that was "a threat to the eurozone", Savona who promised to maintain the minimum wage was "a threat to the Eurozone", the Italian President objected against Savona not Salvini, as long as Savona does not get the Ministry of Finance and talks about protecting the minimum wage, then all is well. In the eurozone, the right-wing German-Dutch religion of austerity has prevailed since 2009, any eurozone politician that disagrees is called "a threat to the eurozone", "a beggar", "someone who is expecting German taxpayers to pay for generous multi-billion benefits" because that is a threat to the German-Dutch dominance in the eurogroup. It is a well-known recipe that is parroted across all media and repeated until it becomes religion, that way noone bothers to look on what these "threats" actually said or that their program does not involve anyone's charity. The fact that even George Soros got tired of the bullshit and came out to defend the Italian allegedly "eurosceptic" Savona from slander should tell you something.

The refugees were never the issue as it can clearly be seen with Salvini taking the Interior Ministry and noone objecting.

[Beren]

I actually mean that M5S and Lega let Conte deal with Merkel and the Eurozone, so it will be him backing down, while Salvini will be a gloriously effective interior minister deporting refugees and solving the crisis (with the help of the EU, of course).

[noemon]

That is the job of non-elected Prime Ministers to take the heat away from the others. But your point is completely moot because Conte was proposed by the coalition partners the first time as well. He was not a compromise that came out the second time around. The compromise was the removal of Savona from the finance ministry, the guy who had the audacity to say that the minimum wage should be maintained. Just like Syrizas compromise with Germany was the removal of Varoufakis who had the same audacity after the minimum wage had been reduced 10 times already.

The modus operandi has been identical for the past decade.

[Beren]

That is the job of non-elected Prime Ministers to take the heat away from the others.

And resign.

But your point is completely moot because Conte was proposed by the coalition partners the first time as well. He was not a compromise that came out the second time around.

Dumping Savona as finance minister following a short melodrama was the compromise. M5S and Lega backed down to Mattarella pretty quickly, so Merkel doesn't even have to deal with that. Italy won't get much from the Eurozone, Conte will have to bear the consequences, and Salvini will rise.

[Atlantis]

@noemon, I'm sure the Germans have learned not to interfere with your refugee problem. It's up to you to find a consensus among the 28 if you want a solution. I'm sure Mr. Kurz knows how to contain the problem, if need be with the help of FYROM.

[hartmut]

Pretending to have mind reading abilities instead of addressing the content of a post is sadly increasingly common but not convincing either, sorry.

I am optimistic we can read each other minds in this case quite well.
Btw. the "content" of your post was equally addressed.

If somebody draws a conclusion from what was said, that cannot be derived from it,
but turns it against the point of a different view, ...than this can be named a basic rhetoric trick.
Similar kind is maybe found in your posit „The range of allowed opinions with respect to the EU has definitely narrowed.“
Because, opinions of course are not restricted, and the therm “opinion” is mixed up with necessity and other aspects.

What I'd like to ask you:
Do you want to imply, that freedom of everybody's opinion in Europe is in shaky or bad condition?
Or do you think your opinion is unduly restricted?

(To get back to „mind reading abilities“:

You think United Europe is a bad idea because it has few proof of identity, and is in tendency organizing badly, even autocratic.
On the other side: I am glad, that we have our wonderful Europe which at last brought peace, prosperity and freedom in unprecedented amount to its citizens. ...which is not properly appreciated.

If I am wrong, tell me.)

[Albert]

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I am optimistic we can read each other minds in this case quite well.
Btw. the "content" of your post was equally addressed.

If somebody draws a conclusion from what was said, that cannot be derived from it,
but turns it against the point of a different view, ...than this can be named a basic rhetoric trick.
Similar kind is maybe found in your posit „The range of allowed opinions with respect to the EU has definitely narrowed.“
Because, opinions of course are not restricted, and the therm “opinion” is mixed up with necessity and other aspects.

What I'd like to ask you:
Do you want to imply, that freedom of everybody's opinion in Europe is in shaky or bad condition?
Or do you think your opinion is unduly restricted?

I think that freedom of expression is restricted at more than one level in Europe (e.g. hate speech laws), but in my previous post I was referring to opinions on policy expressed through a democratic vote where the available options have become narrower with ever more bilateral and multilateral treaties, the EU and the Euro.

Related to this, Brexit is a litmus test in my view, as this is a case where for the first time the political class has to implement a democratic vote which the majority of them strongly oppose. If Brexit is not implemented or watered down beyond recognition, then democracy has lost. I hope very much that the Brits live up to their historical reputation on this.

(To get back to „mind reading abilities“:

You think United Europe is a bad idea because it has few proof of identity, and is in tendency organizing badly, even autocratic.
On the other side: I am glad, that we have our wonderful Europe which at last brought peace, prosperity and freedom in unprecedented amount to its citizens. ...which is not properly appreciated.

If I am wrong, tell me.)

I do think the EU in its current form is a bad idea. Europe needs something much more flexible. I'd be happy with an EU that can accommodate countries like Switzerland and the UK and that doesn't push for "ever more integration" by default.

I don't believe that the EU is responsible for peace, prosperity and freedom in Europe. That's predominantly due to the Cold War, NATO, US dominance and capitalism/free markets, although the EC/EU probably made a contribution, especially to prosperity.

[hartmut]

I think that freedom of expression is restricted at more than one level in Europe (e.g. hate speech laws), but in my previous post I was referring to opinions on policy expressed through a democratic vote where the available options have become narrower with ever more bilateral and multilateral treaties, the EU and the Euro.

Related to this, Brexit is a litmus test in my view, as this is a case where for the first time the political class has to implement a democratic vote which the majority of them strongly oppose. If Brexit is not implemented or watered down beyond recognition, then democracy has lost. I hope very much that the Brits live up to their historical reputation on this.


I do think the” Europe needs something much more flexible. I'd be happy with an EU that can accommodate countries like Switzerland and the UK and that doesn't push for "ever more integration" by default.

I don't believe that the EU is responsible for peace, prosperity and freedom in Europe. That's predominantly due to the Cold War, NATO, US dominance and capitalism/free markets, although the EC/EU probably made a contribution, especially to prosperity.

Little surprise: I see contradictions in your post.
Let's take freedom.
Portugal had dictatorship when it joined NATO, and Greece had dictatorship in between times, while being member of NATO.
NATO is less a community of freedom, than one of common security interests, which of course are important.
NATO is a shield, but is not the essence of that what is shielded.
EU was able to give hope for freedom and prosperity, which NATO can protect, but not create.

You claim that lasting peace, longer than ever, is “predominantly due to the Cold War”.
Let us assume you are right to a certain extend in the timeline.
But Cold War ended some 30 years ago. And CW-peace was achieved by brinkmanship with the vivid risk of MAD (mutually assured destruction).

Moreover: “US dominance” is now overstretched and waning in different kinds.
One of them is “ capitalism/free markets”.
“Free markets” e.g. free competion, is clearly a base of economic growth to enhance prosperity.
Yet “capitalism” is not the same. As the “capitalist” is not by nature prone to free competition, but has equally the wish to erase it. US is now, more than ever, percepted as such a “capitalism”.

And O.K., Europe should be more flexible.
But it remians remarkable, that those who call for more flexibity are them same,
who do not want to surpass authority enabeling EU to act in their sense.

The idea, that Brexit would be a failed litmus test for democracy,
in the case Brexit fails, is without any validation.

[Unthinking Majority]

Italy should be able to let in whomever it wants into its borders. It doesn't have to let in a never-ending stream of impoverished African migrants into its borders.

Italy might do just fine...
Look after their own people, not the bankers.
Screw the EU and especially Germany.
And send the illegal immigrants back.

Let's see.

Italy has enough economic problems. It doesn't need to add poor African migrants sucking off the government's teet to the list.

The west can try to help out people across the world, but it can't save everyone. There's 7.6 billion people in the world for pete's sake and the vast majority live in poor and authoritarian countries. We will try to help you, but we are not your welfare program, and you don't have endless right to enter our countries.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Little surprise: I see contradictions in your post.
Let's take freedom.
Portugal had dictatorship when it joined NATO, and Greece had dictatorship in between times, while being member of NATO.
NATO is less a community of freedom, than one of common security interests, which of course are important.
NATO is a shield, but is not the essence of that what is shielded.
EU was able to give hope for freedom and prosperity, which NATO can protect, but not create.

You claim that lasting peace, longer than ever, is “predominantly due to the Cold War”.
Let us assume you are right to a certain extend in the timeline.
But Cold War ended some 30 years ago. And CW-peace was achieved by brinkmanship with the vivid risk of MAD (mutually assured destruction).

Moreover: “US dominance” is now overstretched and waning in different kinds.
One of them is “ capitalism/free markets”.
“Free markets” e.g. free competion, is clearly a base of economic growth to enhance prosperity.
Yet “capitalism” is not the same. As the “capitalist” is not by nature prone to free competition, but has equally the wish to erase it. US is now, more than ever, percepted as such a “capitalism”.

My argument is that the Cold War, NATO, the US and free market capitalism combined were the main reason for peace, freedom and prosperity in post-war Western Europe. The first three were also a driver of unity. As you say, there were exceptions until the 80s, however, the EC had already existed for a long time by then as well. At the same time, the post-war boom was already well underway and peace and freedom established in most countries before the EC came into existence. Note also that Japan and Taiwan (and later South Korea) had a very similar experience. The fact that countries outside Europe had a comparable trajectory on all three measures should give you pause in attributing this simply to the EU.

And O.K., Europe should be more flexible.
But it remians remarkable, that those who call for more flexibity are them same, who do not want to surpass authority enabeling EU to act in their sense.

Right, ceding sovereignty is obviously a major aspect of the resistance to the EU and more integration. Further, more integration in one area will often require more of it in other areas later, although this is hardly ever openly and candidly discussed - see eurozone and assurances that it won't be a debt or transfer union, or Schengen and Dublin and the lack of common external border defence. I'm not saying it will be easy, but it's the only type of EU I'm willing to accept.

The idea, that Brexit would be a failed litmus test for democracy, in the case Brexit fails, is without any validation.

Not sure what validation I could offer that would satisfy you. I've explained why I think this is the case.

[hartmut]

...
Right, ceding sovereignty is obviously a major aspect of the resistance to the EU and more integration. Further, more integration in one area will often require more of it in other areas later, although this is hardly ever openly and candidly discussed - see eurozone and assurances that it won't be a debt or transfer union, or Schengen and Dublin and the lack of common external border defence. I'm not saying it will be easy, but it's the only type of EU I'm willing to accept.
...

?
What did you like to say about the type of EU you would accept?
I failed to extract any meaning from that.

[Varilion]

Please allow me to pop up this post, there are two interesting news from the "southern front":

1. Prime Minister Conte has applied for a position at University of Rome (La Sapienza, he is currently Prof. in Florence). Considering how precarious is the job of prime minister in Italy, it's always good to keep an eye of the future career possibilities... Monday he has the English language test (it's part of the fake bureaucratic procedure set in place to pretend that the best candidate is selected).
http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/notizie/ ... d=AESl5MlF (sorry no link in English yet)

2. While Salvini and Di Maio scream respectively that they will lower taxes and increases subsidies, senior members of the government ensured that anyway EU Rules will be respected (also because Mr Monti in 2012 managed to intruduce a clause in the constitution which says explicitly that "the budget shall comply with EU rules")

[Beren]

We also have photos of Orban and Salvini.







There are even more if someone's interested.

As Orban gets gray he tends to resemble David Icke more and more. They both were football players.