Sorry if that came across as preaching at you @BloodyBattleBrain wasn’t my intent. I think we’ve all been guilty of parroting things we’ve heard and not doing a little fact checking, myself included.
Not to worry, was well deserved.
I would argue that it has less to do with the expense of having children than with the time consumption. Children just dominate the lives of their parents, and I suspect as people become more affluent, they are more and more jealous of their time.
I really have gone out of my way to be respectful to May, but she makes it very difficult. She is so bad at this.
CraigM
3850
I mean the whole ‘trigger article 50 before defining and coming to a consensus of what the form of Brexit would look like’ and ‘execute a fundamental shift in the trade and political system that will have impacts for decades based on a slim majority vote with very ambiguous and unclear framing and bolstered by lies’ were pretty monumental screw ups to begin with.
Also another in the ‘why binary voting choices for complex problems’ is shit, and ranked choice voting superior in every way. Because if you put the choices, as they exist today, of hard Brexit, May’s deal, Norway deal, or remain up for a vote in a ranked system? I suspect the results do not support the ‘hard Brexit’ narrative of ‘the will of the people’
A little high on the rhetoric there. Forcing a policy which was opposed by large numbers of people in just about every single EU member nation over their heads was the height of arrogance and certainly did increase anti EU sentiment across Europe including the UK.
Whether it was the morally right thing to do is a separate matter. Her process was arrogant and its certainly silly to accuse everyone of being concerned about how that was handled as Nazi’s, come on now.
If ever there was a problem which required an inclusive tolerant process of discussion across the EU the migrant crisis was it.
I should note I am not suggesting Merkel created Brexit, that’s absurd, just that her handling of the migrant crisis was arrogant and counter productive.
I have some sympathy for May as the problem is basically intractable, but the sympathy is leavened by her dogged determination not to admit that.
How would she have done it un-arrogantly?
Well firstly it wasn’t her call to make. She decided it was time for her to lead on the issue, nobody else did. So the first thing she could have done is recognize on this issue Germany had an equal voice with Switzerland or Hungary, not a bigger one.
She should have been compassionate. Instead she treated the real concerns of vast numbers of EU citizens as if they were just little people in little countries to be ignored.
I think it deserved several EU summits about the issue to gain consensus. In particular the border states who had to deal with this first hand should have been the voices most listened to. Merkel didnt listen to them.
Freedom of movement (the jewel in the crown of the EU) must be, by definition the most collaborative process. If the UK for example invites several million immigrants from say Hong Kong then the rest of the EU simply must have a say because those new immigrants can move to other EU countries.
The same net migration (or more) could have been achieved with a lot less rancor if it had been done that way. Also hopefully some lives could have been saved with an actual consensus plan.
Its easy to think of solutions looking back of course I recognize.
Naturally being an immigrant myself I see immigrants as an opportunity not a problem, but I recognize that I speak from a position of privilege. I have very marketable skills and freedom of movement is a massive opportunity for me. For EU citizens who have different jobs or perhaps are reliant on already strained social services mass new immigration to their country is a perceived threat. Whether they are right or wrong, as we have learnt, ignoring a significant segment of your democratic population will have consequences.
So yeah thats my grab bag of thoughts if it makes any sense. A difficult issue no doubt.
Why would Germany have to get consensus of the border states? Those million asylum seekers where at Germany’s border, not in an EU border state. Those refugees where already in the EU. They were not invited, they were just allowed into German territory from refuge camps. Germany, if anything, eased other countries responsibilities towards the refugees (you simply can’t deport 1m people).
As for freedom of movement: asylum seekers do not have freedom of movement.
It was a purely German decision for Germany to make. It had no consequences in any other European country (other than having to deal with less refugees since Germany took so many).
But they do if German & so EU citizenship is granted. I mean nobody is suggesting withholding citizenship from German asylum seekers I would hope?. That would be crazy and create a serf class in Germany.
As explained above, that can take up to 7 years on average. Only half of those refugees will apply (the other half eventually returning). Against a background of 1.2 million net migration a year, 500k in 7 years is negligible and within the numbers Germany needs to absorb itself. Thus a vast majority will stay in Germany (having most likely acquired the language helping, btw. Moving to another country after 7 years means learning yet another language).
Again, no measurable consequence to other EU countries.
This was a German issue (and many Germans didn’t like it, but from other EU countries all Merkel did was cast our own leaders in a bad light).
Aceris
3858
Is a unicorn, as it does not fulfil the EU’s requirements re: Irish border.
Half are not going to return. In 2018 for example 437 Syrian refugees returned. They all had to be paid by Germany to do so, and also they are insistent they will not encourage refugees to return.
"This was a German issue "
Again as I mentioned I respectfully disagree. Mass immigration within the EU which has (rightly) freedom of moment is an issue for all member states and they all have an equal voice.
Mid term half will return. The EU gets 2.4m gross immigration from outside our borders and a net 1.2m, meaning more than half return.
Syrian refugees might want to wait until a regime change, but statistics show 50% of immigrants do return. This is just the reality of big numbers immigration.
CraigM
3861
True, but it is at least a defined relationship outside of the EU.
Problem is that’s an intractable issue, vis a vis Ireland. Any arrangement that does not violate the GFA is not Brexit enough for the hardliners. And anything sufficient for them is unpalatable for those who aren’t ultra nationalist ‘British Culture’ types.
Again I feel quite confident that there is not unanimity among the Brexit voters that a deal less hard Brexit is preferable to remaining in the EU. And had the choice on the referendum been between hard Brexit and status quo, it would not have won as such.
But they were already in the EU!
Maybe you should be more clear about what you think Merkel did. I’m not getting how the German government can’t decide whether to admit refugees to Germany or not, and I’m not really seeing any adverse consequences to any other EU country. If the worst thing that happens is that 7 years later all those people become German citizens and have freedom of movement, so what? Does every EU country not have its own citizenship regime?
Oh if you were referring to net migration numbers thats definitely possible. Its just not the same people leaving who came recently perhaps? EG: Those are not fresh migrants returning, but EU citizens emigrating to the USA/Canada or wherever?
