Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "TLDR News EU"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
@Fresh Turkey Yes, but there were many more other terrorist attacks, you can't just ignore them. Also between 2006 and 2013 most stopped and not stopped terrorist attacks (and arrests around it) were planned by seperatists or anarchists.
If you want the people to commit to it, ask the soviets and its republics to do it first. If they are still here.
This is a stupid notion. Just because you don't hold yourself to standards, doesn't mean I wouldn't/shouldn't. This way nothing moves forward or improves.
Millions came into the EU illegally in the past ten years.
And millions have been deported or were given status to stay as refugees (you know, because at home it is not safe). Furthermore many terrorist attacks are executed and/or planned by people who came here much earlier, illegally (and did not start a procedure, even with strong border enforcement, which for the record is a national power, people would slip through) or were even born here.
And I don't turn a blind eye to it, there are problems, terrorism just isn't caused by the refugee crisis of the last few years, it is just like that crisis a consequence of a broader problem/cause: the destabilisation of Libya and the Middle East from the last decade.
And to me the main way to deal with the refugee crisis is
1) a strong European outer border control instead of leaving it to the members, but certain members are opposed to this, some even having outer borders themself.
2) a European immigration policy instead of the several different immigration policies and systems, which sometimes get played against eachother (being denied in one country and starting a procedure in another)
3) the long time it takes to go through a procedure (1 year should be enough, now it often takes longer, so that even children who grew up only knowing europe have to be deported)
4) a proper European integration policy, because often times integration is lacking, both due to the immigrants, but also due to the lack of possibilities to integrate/learning to integrate.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Problem is that her party was far right and the softening has happened only recently. Furthermore where did all those previous voters go that voted for the party before it took a more soft stance? If they remained with the party (which seems most likely) one can't be blamed for being sceptical and fear that the softened stance is more a political ploy of somekind, one that when it comes down to falls away the moment this far right backbench start raising trouble after the party was able to get more power. We saw this in the UK, with the ERG, who essentially pushed the conservatives even more to the right and even more eurosceptic once they were able to do so.
There is a similar problem here in Belgium with VB, a softened stance with a rebranding and some older far right people being "pushed out", but still retaining this far right base, while also gaining extra votes with their softer stance.
One can wonder if it wasn't better (though more difficult) to just create a new party instead of trying to rebrand it, causing the far right voters to remain with the old party (in the first round), but the more soft voters turning to that new party, at the very least this would have taken away some of the fear/doubt.
For example it seems Marine Le Pens voters are still more than half made up of voters who also voted for her father (in the first round), who most certainly is considered far right and with whom Marine seems to have broken (politically at least) because of that. Even in the 2017 second round Marine only got around just less than 2 times the votes her father got in the 2002 second round, so possibly around half of her voters might have voted for her father.
Her father created his own new party, but fully supported his daughter in the presidential election.
There were no (other) Far right parties running during the 2012 and 2017 presidential elections, so the far right voters stuck with the 'reformed' RN, still forming its strong backbone, which they could leverage if MLP wins the presidency, even if she wanted to have fine policies, she might be forced to take on bad (far right) policies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@AlanHernandez-jn2mp I can't immediately find it, but I think it came more out of context than him actually openly saying it. As for why? Like I said, an EU army would make the EU less reliant on the US, less inclined to remain silent when they believe the US does something stupid or right out illegal (like the assassination of Soleimani) and instead of buying US weaponry (like the F-35 and other), it would be more inclined to research and develop its own fully in house, immediately removing a large market for US manufacturers.
Sure, the EU and US are allies, but alliances rarely last forever and if it at some point sours, you can be damn sure the US government wants every influence it can get (hell, the US spied on allied leaders). A superpower like the US want often one thing (or at least the US of the last 70 years): influence, power, control both over allies and enemies and everything in between.
It is just like Trump like the UK leaving the EU, it weakens the EU and opens an opportunity for the US to take advantage of the UK's future really weakened position.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thepax2621 You clearly have no idea how people outside Germany view it if you think people laugh with it. Maybe the only thing that is laughed with in regards to Germany is its military, something most people never even think about when mentioning Germany.
Considering Merkel is respected all over (getting better polling numbers in other countries than even popular leaders from that country), I don't see how you could think she made Germany a laughing stock. If Germany is a laughing stock anywhere, it is despite Merkel, not because of her.
I am sorry, but there isn't a euro crisis anymore. Are there possible financial problems? Yeah, but these are present at all times. The Euro crisis as a crisis has been over for years. The same with the refugee crisis. Just compare the moment it was a crisis with how it is now. If you feel these are still crisis, it is your subjective opinion, not a objective fact.
And to say Merkel 'accumulated' crisis is just ridiculous, these crisis just happened while she was a leader, not because of her. They would have happened whether she was chancellor or not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@herculeskoutalidis1369
the only part of EU legislation that I (and Le Pen's party) find negative, is the "freedom of movement"
Which is an integral part of the single market and probably one of the advantages most people will not want to give up. Even the swiss voted against ending free movement and they are probably one of the countries most affected by it (negatively). And well, according to polls 74% of EU citizens say that the EU is not worth it without free movement. This obviously is shortsighted imo, but it shows the popularity of it and ending it will not be easy. And before saying "well, the eastern countries were the ones voting in favor of free movement" or something similar, in that poll Polish people were least likely to agree with that statement (ie. they think the EU is worth it even without freedom of movement).
which leads to a (very) higher immigration from eastern and southern Europe
Many people coming from eastern Europe don't emigrate here, they work a few years and then go back home. They normally are a net benefit to the economy, since they still pay taxes, help spur economic growth and don't require as much 'investment' (no education, no healthcare during their childhood, no healthcare costs when they grow old, ...), moreover they usually take on lower paying jobs many people don't necessarily want to do.
Besides there are already rules countries can use to minimise the impact of low payed eu immigrants. Can that be improved? Yeah probably, but I don't think this is what Le Pen wants when I look at her EU stance.
by starting some EU-wide conversation about this
This is under the assumption there wasn't already a conversation about it, there was/is. This has been a rather large issue for many years now. I don't remember the outcome, but a few years ago they were already talking on the EU level to put out more regulation/national powers in terms of controlling eu migration and cheap foreign labour.
is that in countries like France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and also the UK, indigenous population is projected to be less than 50% of their population, by 2050
You do understand that people of neighbouring countries also fall under this, right? For example for Belgium the Dutch, French, German and people from Luxembourg are also seen as 'foreigners' in those predictions. And if at the same time people from Belgium emigrate to these neighbouring countries, the proportion of people with foreign origin will grow even more, despite not necessarily a larger influx of foreigners.
People of foreign origin from eastern Europe only make up less then 10% of all foreigners in Belgium. there are more southern EU foreigners (people with Spanish and Italian origin make up 15% of foreigners), but these mostly emigrated pre-1975. At this moment people from neighouring countries make up 20% of people with foreign ancestry in Belgium.
Also you need to be aware of how these predictions might determine people from foreign origine. Is it up to the grandchildren, great-grandchildren or maybe even further down the line? It could be that in this way one foreigner can have a large family of 'foreign' children and grandchilden, even if his kids have a mother of Belgian ancestry and mary people with Belgian ancestry, ...
And then there is the fact of globalisation. In the past you didn't have many people of different origin because travelling and communicating was much more different. Even without the EU free movement, this globalisation isn't just going to end.
This is lowering the quality of the population of these countries day by day
You do realise this is a very racist thing to say and is actually close to, or exactly how Nazi's looked at/talked about 'intermingling' with slavs and jews? By insinuating that foreigners lower the QUALITY of the population you are essentially saying these foreigners are of lower quality/value/lesser.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@csuporj It would be awkward to let Russia-s enemy build military bases in a russian speaking territory.
And like I said, NATO wouldn't built military bases there, they are not stupid.
Russian is the most common first language in the Donbas and Crimea regions of Ukraine, and the predominant language in large cities in the east and south of the country.
And? German was the predominant language in Sudetenland, Austria and Danzig, so are you saying that Nazi-Germany was justified in taking those regions and when Poland refused, to invade it? France is the predominant language in Southern Belgium, does this mean it has the right to take it? Spanish is the predominant language in most parts of South/central America, does this mean Spain can claim it? Ofcourse not, purely talking about language is non-sensical.
The Alps didn't stop the occupation of South Tyrol.
You do realize there already were German troops in Italy before the occupation as allies, right?
A buffer btw doesn't necessarily stop a war/invasion, rather makes it more difficult.
2