Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Drones replace patrol ships on Mediterranean (theguardian.com)
34 points by seapunk 74 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 71 comments



"Experts condemn move to aerial surveillance as an abrogation of ‘responsibility to save lives’"

The EU does not have a duty to just let in anyone who shows up. It's morally irresponsible to encourage people to make the dangerous trek to pay smugglers who put them on inflated crafts unable to make the journey that depend on them getting picked up by the coast guard. As Australia's example shows, the way to stop drownings is to give no benefits to taking the journey.


It is a lot more complex than you make it seem.

Your position can be rephrased as "It is better to let refugees drown in the Mediterranean than think Europe might welcome more of them." I agree - it is likely over the long term that the more dangerous and hopeless the journey, the fewer might attempt it.

So now, we pit the "moral responsibility" to Europe to minimize population growth via immigration vs. the moral responsibility to save the lives of those in your backyard who have risked it to get there.

OR the EU could make/force an agreement that Libya/Algeria/Morocco take back migrants recovered in the Mediterranean.


I think the point is to stop these people taking dangerous journeys not to send them to the bottom of the sea. It both moral and more efficient.


They obviously aren't going to stop the moment EU declares a cease to rescue operations. It will need to taper off, which will mean death in the short term.


I think this really isn't the case. It's just that "rescue" has a different meaning. Instead to wait for migrants get into european waters and bring them on EU shores they use drones to alert neighbouring countries (i.e Libya) and stop them taking these dangerous journeys before getting in EU waters. Otherwise what use would the drones have? Watch and bet whether the migrants make it or not on EU shores?


They're using the drones to conduct other patrolling duties, not to save migrants.


Obviously they look for any illegal cargo but I believe now the migrants make the bulk of incidents. Isn't this supposed to detect migrants ships faster(i.e before they get into EU waters) ?


> OR the EU could make/force an agreement that Libya/Algeria/Morocco take back migrants recovered in the Mediterranean.

There is also a third option, which is to send them somewhere else. There are a number of countries in Africa that are poor, but still aren't in the midst of any active war or genocide. If you're from a country that is, why not go there?

The answer is that the real reason so many want to come to the EU isn't the humanitarian crisis at home, it's for the better money. But when that's their primary motivation, and they have the same alternative as anyone from any of the other countries they could live in, then their claim is no better than anyone else's.

It's fair to not want to be in Libya right now, but when you have the option to move east, west or south, there is a lot less moral force in the argument that you have a right to move north.


I don't know why you get so down-voted. It's a known fact that a big part of migrants from the mediterranean area are economic migrants. I remember when they refused to seek asylum in less wealthy countries from Europe and traveled on foot. Some chose to take dangerous and illegal journeys even from France (via Calais) to UK. Now tell me these people deserve asylum.


These. People. Deserve. Asylum. Let's say you have to flee the U.S., will you go to Russia ("they have cell coverage!") or will you go to France? My money is that you'll pick France and you'll fight for it.


> These. People. Deserve. Asylum.

Why? Those people are _economic migrants_, we don't have a duty to welcome them (unlike, say refugees from Syria)


Have you seen photos from these countries? Everything is destroyed in some cities and they have lost everything they had Including family members.

Some countries in the Middle East are already hosting as much as total EU is hosting and even more.

They just don’t complain as much as some of our politicians do to get voted.


> Have you seen photos from these countries? Everything is destroyed in some cities and they have lost everything they had Including family members.

Which is why they want to leave, but has nothing to do with the point that there are many other places for them to go.

> They just don’t complain as much as some of our politicians do to get voted.

Because they don't have redistributive social assistance systems based on assumptions about what proportion of the population are net recipients that accepting large amounts of indigent immigration would violate.

A poor and rural country can accept almost arbitrarily large numbers of refugees because they're also a labor force, so you give them jobs building housing and growing food and they support themselves.

That doesn't work in urbanized countries because there isn't any cheap land available and in a lot of places there is already an oversupply of unskilled labor, so in that environment they can't support their own weight and it limits the number you can accept.


>> Everything is destroyed in some cities and they have lost everything they had Including family members.

I think most of us agree that migrants traveling long and dangerous distances to Europe don't have much to loose back home. Now the question is if their lives are not in danger anymore why should Europe host them and pay them a better life ? Is this supposed to be a solution to world's poverty? As we've seen if support is provided or better said lack of counter-measures you may experience a continuous stream of migrants(i.e millions). Even if we want, we can't welcome everybody, I fear we can't coup even with the people who really need help, let alone the economic migrants.

On the other side there is also the cultural issue. Millions of people change the landscape for sure and the natives don't want to compete with migrants(why would they?). UK is leaving EU because of european "migrants" so it's not something to ignore.


Indeed that’s really a problem and there is even more to it. But perhaps building a wall or letting them to die is not a good solution for it.


>> But perhaps building a wall or letting them to die is not a good solution for it.

Well I don't think "anyone" in Europe wants to send these migrants to the bottom of the sea. A solution currently worked on is to pay other countries closer culturally, socially and even geographically (i.e Turkey) to host these people.

The lack of border security gives a sense of unease especially if you expect people from a war torn country or a country where crime is high so I fully support securing the borders.

However the deshumanisation of migrants and treating them as criminals (or worse) is totally wrong and has no place in a civilised country. You can have both border security and immigration. Just be honest who is allowed in and who is not, put in place agreed quotas and that's it. At least everyone knows(including the migrants) what your stance is.



> There is also a third option, which is to send them somewhere else. There are a number of countries in Africa that are poor, but still aren't in the midst of any active war or genocide. If you're from a country that is, why not go there?

Because if you're going to uproot your life, you're not going to simply go to another miserable country like Bulgaria, you'll go to a country where it's worth moving to. When you buy a new phone, do you buy last year's phone ("it's good enough!") or do you buy the damn best phone you can afford ("it'll last me a long time!")? France will "last" someone a longer time than Bulgaria.


If everybody would rather live in France than Africa but not everyone will fit, we have a supply shortage -- a problem that markets like phones would solve with pricing. So are you suggesting that governments start auctioning off immigration slots?


It certainly didn’t help that the US, France, Italy and the UK deliberately destabilized some of these countries (Libya in particular)


Italy had no interest to destabilize Libya, in fact it had a good relationship with Gaddafi. It intervened only after US and France started, as a sort of damage control, since France was set to replace the Italian-friendly government with a France-friendly one. (I will add that US, France and Egypt are _still_ making a mess in Libya by providing weapons to the opposition to the UN-recognized government).

In any case, I don't think it would change too much, since most of the migrants are not Libyans running away from the civil war.


Regarding France, I though our gov publicly supported the UN-recognized government, with the French equivalent of 'thoughts and prayers' and not much more. But from reading the news, it seems it's a little more complicated.


This is the new version of Western Exceptionalism: Everything - bad - that happens in the world, is always fault of Europe or the US.

The people that live in those countries, the warlords they support, the wars they fight, the human atrocities they commit, their ethnically motivated conflicts, are never their fault, we are supposed to treat them as infants when it comes to all the shortcomings of their actions.


I'm sympathetic to your annoyance at reflexive anti-Americanism. We sure have had a bad string of making the same mistakes though over the past twenty years.

The pattern is: There is a dictator that is oppressing his people, we feel bad about it and want them to be able to have democracy. We overthrow the dictator, and then things get complicated and we walk away, leaving the place in civil war and ruin.

Often the problem is that the only reason it's a country at all is that some guy in London drew a line on a map a couple of hundred years ago, and the borders do not reflect ethnic or religious loyalties. In this post colonial situation, often the only thing holding the country together was the violence of the dictator. We then swoop in with fighter jets and maybe even ground troops, maybe stick around a while to run a few elections, but generally without the understanding of what's left of the power structure in the country.

This is precisely what happened in Libya, and after Iraq and Afghanistan it's shameful that we just continue to do the same thing. Bomb Gaddafi and let the chips fall where they may, which turns out to be years long civil war.

If you want to look for a relatively successful model of U.S. intervention, it's what we did in Yugoslavia. Just recognize that the country doesn't have enough holding it together to be a functioning democracy, break it up along ethnic lines, institute democracy in the statelets, and then let them all join the EU when they're ready.


> the borders do not reflect ethnic or religious loyalties.

Wouldn't the diversity give them strength?


Plenty of borders in Europe, Asia, and even Africa have mixed nationality and religions too and there isn’t constant violence and repression by the biggest tribe. There’s far more positive examples than not around the globe.

I’m actually in favour in smaller nation states and redrawing lines as a solution to the failures of centralized mega states and old world borders, such as lack of representation and cultural differences which cause policy conflicts (the smaller stuff, not just violence which is atypical in most places). Plus smaller states = way more experimentation, which the US states were supposed to be with Federalism but has had that slowly taken away.

But that’s another story which doesn’t help explain the contradictions of this common explanation used selectively in Africa.


There are a number of stable prosperous multiethnic states. In the specific examples of Iraq, Syria, and Libya though, part of the specific rationale for the U.S. moving in to overthrow the dictator was that the dictator and his ethnic group were oppressing the rest of the country.

If democracy is instituted, and the ruling group was a minority, there will be resentment on the side of the majority for past treatment, and resentment on the side of the formerly ruling minority for their diminished status. This has a tendency to boil over into civil war.

This is exactly what happened in Yugoslavia, and we solved it by breaking up the country, and it has been fairly peaceful for twenty years. The main place where there are still problems is in Bosnia, and specifically because we left Bosnia together and the Bosnian Serbs want out.


To keep it short, if you don't want migrants think twice before starting a war(i.e is it worth it? What after we win?) or just stop pretending you care about human rights(i.e people dying of hunger, abuse etc) even if you are indirectly responsible.

I agree with you that many countries had flawed leadership to begin with it's not really the case with many others(i.e much of the middle east). Removing the government of another country by military force and destroying the social and physical infrastructure is the direct reason for the current situation. Arming various extremist groups does not help either. As we know Al-Qaeda was armed and trained by the U.S in the first place.

Why did US invade Iraq? We know it's for the oil now but at least it should have had the decency to provide security/safety transition to a democracy in exchange for their resources. Not to mention that US vets their leaders/administration. They are not infants but have little choice in the face of the world's most powerful country/countries.


Regarding Lybia, the Western intervention just finished Khadafi's regime, the social and physical infrastructure were already well damaged from the existing conflict; without intervention, the conflict would have dragged on like in Syria. But now since there's a new war, the Western intervention seemed to have changed nothing, just with a new set of leaders.


>> Western intervention seemed to have changed nothing, just with a new set of leaders.

That's why I believe the world starts loosing its faith in the West. The latest interventions brought nothing good.


> Why did US invade Iraq?

Why did Iraq invade Kuwait? Start a fight with a US ally and then complain when the US intervenes.


Wrong war. Iraq didn't invade Kuwait the second time around; we blamed him for arming terrorists and maintaining weapons in violation of the terms of the ceasefire ending the first Gulf War.


The Iraq-Kuwait war was settled 20 years before the Iraq invasion. So to answer your question Iraq invaded Kuwait for the same reasons U.S invaded Iraq: oil. Thus the reason we have a U.S invasion of Iraq, not a U.S-Iraq war.

The pretext of invasions were different though. Busch said it was because Saddam was evil and had weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was more decent in its allegations and said Kuwait was stealing Iraqi petroleum through slant drilling.

Btw Saddam Hussein regime was "created" by the US and the UK...


It’s not Western Exceptionalism. It’s about being empathetic as a human being.

Unfortunately some politicians are harming the way we feel about each other for the sake of their own game.


Please explain how blaming Europe/US for all the problems non western countries face, is "empathy". Because it really looks like "ideology", not like "empathy".


EU replacing patrol ships with Drones is not different than building a wall in the boarder.

EU is already rejecting many refugees. It’s not like someone that makes it to the shore is going to stay without a good reason.

That’s not just a good solution to this problem.


My comment you were responding to, had absolutely nothing to do with drones.

The comment was about perpetually blaming the EU/US for whatever bad happens in 3rd world countries.


I wonder who the “experts” condemning this are, and what they are experts in. I’m an expert, and I support the decision.


Who are you and what are you an expert in?

The article cites: Gabriele Iacovino as the expert. His bio via google translate https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&...


Experts are people who, by agreeing with the writers premise, have demonstrated their knowledge and expertise. You are definitely not an expert; at least not inasmuch as the term is used in this article by this writer.


Another way to stop drownings is to go and pick people up with rescue boats. There is no disadvantage to allowing them to enter the EU.


There is a disadvantage if it turns out that these people make on average a negative contribution to the economy (i.e. if the aid they need and damage they cause via crimes is higher than the surplus created by them aiding others, and producing useful labor, good and services), which would mean that they make the people already there worse off and worser off the more of them are allowed to enter.

I'm not sure whether they are a positive or negative contribution, and this also depends on how good the accepting state is at integration and education.


Or they could bring them back to their port of departure on the South of the Mediterranean, so they can try to enter legally. (or better not at all.)


People without work permits are either dependent on government support or contribute to worsening working conditions for everyone by working illegally. More resources have to be spent to make them productive.

In the best case, taking in random people off the boats is still worse than a capability based immigration policy that encourages people with qualification to immigrate safely.


It is not like EU is hosting most of the refugees. It’s just media coverage and some politicians talking more than anyone about it.

In fact countries hosting much more refugees aren’t complaining as much.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil...


This article is about migrants/human traffickers leaving from Libya, and does not mention Syria. It is very incorrect to conflate the two situations.

Here is a vague overview with a map if you are unaware: http://www.msnbc.com/specials/migrant-crisis/libya


I believe the "burden" is felt differently by countries closer geographically, socially and culturally. How much do they get paid in benefits compared to the UK for example? What are the housing costs and conditions offered there?


Considerably lower but probably it matches to GDP-PPP margins.

Perhaps illegal immigrants who are just seeking economic benefits should be returned after checking their cases even if their skills are needed simply because they have entered illegally. But, Mediterranean sea is not the right place to filter them.


Saving someone that is about to drown, if directly faced with the situation, is clearly a moral (and probably legal) duty.

But I world argue, that supporting a solution to actively prevent someone from putting themselves in a situation where they can drown, is not a duty.

I.e.: I have the duty to help my neighbor if I see that she fell off the stairs and needs medical attention. But I don't have the duty to go check on her door every hour to see if everything is fine.

EDIT: Disagreeing with someone's comment because it goes against your political ideology, is not supposed to be a reason to down-vote a comment in HN.


1) Under EU law, if they had been using boats, they would have had a legal duty to save drowning migrants. This is why they switched to drones--no legal duty.

3) This actually depends on where you are. In the US in most states, your only duty is to call 911 so that she can be attended to by professionals. In 3 states, the duty extends to actually rendering aid to the best of your abilities. Outside of the US, Australia, and the UK--which all have "Good Samaritan laws", I'm not sure many other countries have laws protecting "rescuers", and correspondingly no duty to "rescue" a person in need of aid.

That last bit is correct. There's no affirmative duty to checkup on someone else unless you have a legal duty to do so, such as if you are a paid caretaker.


Who pays for so many boats? The drones are used to make the security more efficient. If the drones see migrants they alert nearby ships that turn the migrants back. If they see them drowning you can be sure they send boats anyway. It's really an efficiency solution, I'm not sure why you try to make this an evil conspiracy.


I'm not making this a conspiracy, you are. They've stated they don't use boats because drones are cheaper and don't trigger rescue responsibilities.


Also perhaps preventing human traffickers from loading people on boats that can't cross the sea, leading them to their death.


I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this. It's a work-around, not a solution. There is a legal duty, when at sea, to render aid as necessary to ships in distress. If EUFOR or the coastguard don't have an asset nearby, this doesn't absolve the responsibility, it just transfers it. We're going to end up with commercial shipping being diverted to render aid instead (as long as they've already left Libyan waters). It's not solving anything, it's just shifting the cost and burden.


I think the plan is to cut costs and intercept these boats before they enter European waters. Flying multiple drones is definitely more efficient than patrol boats.


EU and each european country are responsible for the deaths of thousands refugees and migrants in Mediterranean sea and many more rot in concentration camps.

The EU has financed walls (yes the same EU that makes fun of Trump) like the one at Evros river at greek-turkish borders, a place that could be used as a safe passage, away from risky sea smuggling.

While supposedly it's illegal to return migrants back to countries that could risk their life, still the EU made a deal with Turkey to do exactly that.

Same wise they paying the Libya to keep refugees and migrants in awful concentration camps away from the EU, yes the same Libya that is under civil war is considered by EU a safe country. In fact a few days ago such a concentration camp was bombed and many lost their lives.

EU's Frontex and local forces keep pushing back the boats with refugees, something that's totally and universally illegal.

It is high time to stop this immunity that EU enjoys to the public talk, childhood's end has arrived long ago for that particular organization.


These migrants have to stay somewhere(in a EU country), be fed and taken care of for a long time. Is you or your country willing to do that? It seems that Frontex does a good job at stopping shaky boats taking dangerous journeys, thus less people die so I'm not sure why this bothers you. Securing the border seems a sensible thing to do especially after the terrorist attacks, however as far as I'm aware once the people reach the border they are treated humanly(i.e not put in cages, separated from children etc).

People who come here for economic benefits should be returned(unless they have skills that can bring a positive contribution).

Everyone is responsible for its own life especially when the risk is known.


I think i was pretty clear right from the beginning. "EU and each european country"

As for the rest of it how sensible closed borders policies are i will rephrase old Smullyan, it's only sensible to your satisfaction and to the satisfaction of those who share the same right-wing values, but without hearing the argument of why this is a sensible policy i can assure you that it carries not the slightest conviction to the people of the left.

Open borders and free, safe passage.


>> open borders, safe passage

Safe passage to where? Bringing people in is the easy thing to do, taking care of them and keeping the same standards of living for the "natives" is not so easy. I'm all on board welcoming as many people as possible as long as there is a plan for them once they get here. Nobody provided a such plan.

We've seen what happens with open borders: countries that welcomed massive numbers of migrants found themselves unable to coup and started looking at their neighbours to distribute them. Good plan, right? That's what I call "responsibility".

>> i can assure you that it carries not the slightest conviction to the people of the left.

Yeah sure, until their benefits are hit or when they see migrants doing better than them in their own country. Tell that to the people who voted Brexit and UKIP and keep in mind they voted against "european migrants" who made a net positive contribution to the economy.

My point is that people change their stance on "open borders" when the reality hits(i.e they no longer get access to benefits, get mugged by a migrant, loose their low skilled job to a cheaper migrant etc).


Uhm, those countries that got "some" amount of migrants which wasn't massive (only Jordan has more than 600k refugees) and certainly they weren't welcomed despite the rhetoric by EU (i mean they are welcome AFTER they survived and weren't drowned?), they NEVER tried to integrate migrants and refugees. At the entry countries most of them simply thrown in concentration camps financed by EU, later on they were getting returned back to Turkey, Libya etc.

Now of course there was a plan about distributing some migrants BUT let me remind you that those quota NEVER achieved, most european countries never received the amount of refugees they were "obligated" to.

The distribution plan wasn't because refugees gathered for example here in Greece and they wanted to stay here, not at all, most of them wanted to leave the country. It was only a passage for them to other countries. Many people had family waiting for them. What happened? Walls were raised. Borders were closed and Greece almost kicked out of schengen (informally it was suspended). Obviously the government was forced to accept the EU plan about keeping the migrants in concentration camps and distribute some people around the europe (that again never really happened other than a small extend). Later on the EU-Turkey deal happened.

Nowdays that xenophobic, anti-immigration feelings are in rise you can hear that plain and simple even by moderate politicians that when syrian war is over refugees are out of here.

In other words, there never was an open borders and integration policy that failed. It is the same fascist policy by EU that getting people killed or rot in prison.


Most of them had no family in the country seeking asylum. If they had family members there they could apply for visa at any embassy in the world and most likely won't arrive by boat. Truth is they were looking for better conditions.

>> Uhm, those countries that got "some" amount of migrants which wasn't massive (only Jordan has more than 600k refugees)

Germany got about 1.5 million migrants. The question is what is the plan? Most of the EU governments dodged the question and thus the reason people voted far right. In Germany they have tried to integrate them[1] but the truth is that not all of them integrate and of course all this integration comes with a cost. Now keep in mind that not all the countries are run like Germany and even Germany has found itself overwhelmed by the task thus asking for "solidarity" from the other member states. Greece can't manage its own unemployment let alone train, educate and integrate migrants.

I think you confuse refugee camps with concentration camps which are entirely different things. There is no need to dramatise it any further.

>> In other words, there never was an open border...

There was an open border policy but it didn't work[1]. It proved that letting people in freely won't end the migration issue, it only makes it worse. I would even say this open border policy is the reason why migration from Africa through mediterranean sea intensified and we see so many drowned now.

>> It is the same fascist policy by EU that getting people killed or rot in prison.

I think it's just not fair to say that. You can see anti-immigration feelings all over the world where you have mass immigration. I don't even mention the leader of the free world(U.S). Even in Turkey, Istanbul which is closer culturally with the migrants they started deporting illegal immigrants with the exception of Syrians(due the EU agreement). Truth is that I don't see why anyone would want to integrate millions of unskilled immigrants from conflict zones. Some of them don't even want to integrate. We have a responsibility to offer food and shelter but not to make them european citizens. There is a different path for that(i.e skills based visa).

[0] https://www.thelocal.de/20181214/germany-integrating-migrant...

[1] https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-germany-merkel-re...


I think you really mix things up, refugees, migrants, numbers. I think you just hiding behind that excuse for an integration plan for something that has happened before again and again even to countries with pretty much no infrastructure.

>> Greece can't manage its own unemployment let alone train, educate and integrate migrants.

It's funny you saying that because Greece is a good example of open borders back to 90s and the influx of hundreds thousand of migrants from Albania. Was there any plan? Absolutely nothing. There were tensions and racist attacks but in perspective they did have a positive effect to the greek economy that wasn't back then any better than it is now. And they did integrate to society.

>>I would even say this open border policy is the reason why migration from Africa through mediterranean sea intensified and we see so many drowned now.

That's exactly what right wingers are saying. And makes absolutely no sense. Offer to those people safe and guaranteed passage and they will not be drowned, won't be killed, won't be raped on their way to wherever they want to go. Why do people have to make this complicated?

"As mood sours, Syrians report forced deportations from Turkey" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-syrians/as-mood-so...

"Greek Coast Guard caught on video pushing a boat full of refugees back to Turkey" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k2THtF9h6M

"EU border force Frontex implicated in migrant abuse" https://www.dw.com/en/eu-border-force-frontex-implicated-in-...

https://twitter.com/_sophiamaier/status/1151484044095496192


Why don't you clear up these numbers? I think you are a denier and simply refuse to see the other side of the coin. Even refuse to accept that Europe has faced a massive immigration issue. Turkey got almost 4 million refugees. Were not the EU agreement these people would be heading towards Europe.

The issue it's not really complicated. You just have to admit that massive immigration has some social and economic costs. Maybe not for the wealthy but surely for the leas fortunate "natives". Right wing wins because of deniers like you who can't provide a compromise solution. "Let them all in and we see afterwards how we handle it" doesn't put people at ease. Not to mention the security risk.


UNHCR - 2018 report [1]

"During 2018, the refugee population in Germany continued to increase, numbering 1,063,800 at the end of the year. More than half were from Syria (532,100), while other countries of origin included iraq (136,500), Afghanistan (126,000), eritrea (55,300), the islamic Republic of iran (41,200), Turkey (24,000), Somalia (23,600), Serbia and Kosovo (S/ReS/1244 (1999)) (9,200), the Russian Federation (8,100), Pakistan (7,500) and nigeria (6,400)."

Do you see anything weird in those data? 24.000 turkish people have been granted asylum by Germany. The same country that EU acknowledge as a safe place for refugees to return them back. I think that speaks a lot about EU's totally despicable deal with Turkey that has been criticized again and again by so many organizations. [2] [3]

Sadly, we always return back to Smullyan. Whatever i show or tell you won't change your mind about how the little way of life of natives must be protected over human rights of others.

I only hope that pro-europeans, left or right, stop ridicule themselves by criticizing Trump's ICE while they are responsible for far worse atrocities.

Same pig, different color.

[1] https://www.unhcr.org/5d08d7ee7.pdf

[2] https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/20/eu-dont-send-syrians-bac...

[3] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/03/eu-turkey-ref...


>> 24.000 turkish people have been granted asylum by Germany. The same country that EU acknowledge as a safe place for refugees to return them back. I think that speaks a lot about EU's totally despicable deal with Turkey that has been criticized again and again by so many organizations.

I think you deliberately ignore the details for these asylum seekers. We all know that after the failed coup Erdogan started to persecute political opponents. Does this mean is an unsafe country for syrian refugees? Maybe you should ask yourself why the west supported the military coup(media included) in the first place?

There are 50-70 million refugees over the world. How many should Europe take to be considered a good protector of human rights? Should we go all in? Let them settle in and see how we handle it afterwards?


> it's only sensible to your satisfaction and to the satisfaction of those who share the same right-wing values, but without hearing the argument of why this is a sensible policy i can assure you that it carries not the slightest conviction to the people of the left.

And since we all live in open, participative democracies here in the EU, you are absolutely free to elect left wing parties that defend your views, while the other people are free to elect right wing parties thet defend theirs. In the end, the position assumed in the EU, will be determined by the outcome of that democratic process.

What you are not entitled to do of course, is to impose the views of the minority of the population uppon the majority with the argument that the minority holds the "morally correct view".


Of course, i don't have any illusions about how democratic EU is, we just saw it how democratically EC president elected (through a closed auction).

Anyway, i'm mostly referring to the people of the left when i'm saying that they have nothing to gain out of this reactionary silence about the massive human rights violations in EU.

It's obvious that the parties chose by the majority are drowning people in Mediterranean sea.


> Of course, i don't have any illusions about how democratic EU is, we just saw it how democratically EC president elected (through a closed auction).

The EC is elected by a voting by your elected representatives in the European Parliament. In a representative democracy (which is basically how it works every democratic nation in the planet) you are not supposed to vote for every decision taken, you vote for a representative and those representatives then pass resolutions observing a majority. This is why it is called a "representative democracy".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

> reactionary silence about the massive human rights violations in EU

Well, that the EU is engaging in a "massive human rights violations" is clearly a position held by the reactionary left, that is not shared by the majority of the population.


What can i tell you, back to EU elections i'm pretty sure i watched a debate on TV with a bunch of politicians arguing why each one of them must be the new EC president. Somehow no one of those people turned to be the president.

Do you by any chance have any wikipedia link explaining that?

https://youtu.be/He1srJG18T4


That was quite a bad move indeed. I personally watched the debates as well and was quite disappointed to see a totally different "winner". Still the solution was a compromise and this is what really defines the EU. I'm not sure how much the televised campaign mattered as the head of EC was voted by the European Parliament not by people back home but yeah more transparency would be welcome.

Now let's review another twist of democracy. How is that a "remainer"(May) become the person to deliver the victory of the "leave" campaign? There wasn't much televised campaign either if I recall correctly.

Would a direct election of the EC make EU more democratic? Should the UK elect the PM that way as well? Not many voted for Boris either, right?


Didn’t read the article, but the title sounds very much like something I would support.

No need to add to the gigantic amount of money Europe wastes on social care.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: