The future of Europe

[Arakan]

Since 2015 Europe has seen almost two dozens of major and minor Islamist terror attacks, the most notorious ones being 
1. Charlie Hebdo shootings (France, 12 deaths)
2. Paris November 2015 attack (137 deaths)
3. Brussels bombings (35 deaths) 
4. Nice attack (87 deaths)
5. Berlin Christmas market attack (12 deaths)

As I said, those are only the major ones within the European Union, at least a dozen smaller jihadi inspired attacks have plagued the EU within the last 2 years. We don't know when and where the next major incident is happening but that it will happen is almost a certainty. 

Additional to the fear of homegrown terrorists, we also face jihadists coming back from Syria and radicals among the asylum seekers/refugees who came to Europe since summer 2015. The case of the Berlin attacker, Anis Amri, is insofar frightening because he already was a convicted criminal back in Tunisia, was a known Islamist radical in Italian prisons (where he spent most of his 4 years in Italy) and still managed to enter Germany and apply for asylum. 

Now, I do not want to focus on the same old Islam debate or on "why they hate us" but much more on the consequences for Europe, be it of political, cultural or societal nature. 

Things are obviously not working. We see the rise of populists with apparently easy answers, we see calls for the state "to do something". How will all this form Europe over the next 4/5 years? I am not very optimistic and I would never have thought it possible but now I even can imagine the re-emergence of "light" fascism in Europe as significant force. One just has to take a look at Hungary or Poland to see the rise of openly xenophobic nationalism. 

And then of course, we have elections in France and Germany this year. And while in both cases, rightwing populists will not win, they sure as hell will influence the winners by constantly pushing them. See Farage/UKIP. 

[Rippounet]

What's your question?

3 hours ago, Arakan said:

Things are obviously not working.

What "things" ?
Sometimes when you don't like the solution to a problem, it may mean the problem was not what you thought it was...

[Arakan]

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

What's your question?

What "things" ?
Sometimes when you don't like the solution to a problem, it may mean the problem was not what you thought it was...

Unvetted mass immigration from MENA Region for example. Doesn't matter if you are pro or contra, the political climate in Europe is changing due to this. 

Rising radicalism, be it rightwing or salafism, as another example. 

[Rippounet]

3 minutes ago, Arakan said:

Unvetted mass immigration from MENA Region for example. Doesn't matter if you are pro or contra, the political climate in Europe is changing due to this.

That is factually incorrect for several reasons.
You can't have a discussion on a problem if you fail to properly describe that problem to begin with.

3 minutes ago, Arakan said:

Rising radicalism, be it rightwing or salafism, as another example. 

Rising radicalism is always worrying. But we know that radicalism feeds on ignorance, anger and fear. At its roots, radicalism is the desire to over-simplify complex problems in order to identify "enemies" to fight.

The way you frame the "problem" (and, tbh, your interventions on the forum these last few weeks) shows that you have no desire to address what the real problem is.

Because, simply put, if immigration or salafi radicalism are a "problem," then from an intellectual point of view,  "light fascism" or xenophobic nationalism are decent solutions to those problems.

If, on the other hand, rightwing radicalism and xenophobic nationalism are the problem, then the solution lies in the way we are to talk about immigration and terrorism.

It's quite simple really. But quite honestly, Arakan, I don't believe you are here to discuss solutions.

[Arakan]

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

That is factually incorrect for several reasons.
You can't have a discussion on a problem if you fail to properly describe that problem to begin with.

Rising radicalism is always worrying. But we know that radicalism feeds on ignorance, anger and fear. At its roots, radicalism is the desire to over-simplify complex problems in order to identify "enemies" to fight.

The way you frame the "problem" (and, tbh, your interventions on the forum these last few weeks) shows that you have no desire to address what the real problem is.

Because, simply put, if immigration or salafi radicalism are a "problem," then from an intellectual point of view,  "light fascism" or xenophobic nationalism are decent solutions to those problems.

If, on the other hand, rightwing radicalism and xenophobic nationalism are the problem, then the solution lies in the way we are to talk about immigration and terrorism.

It's quite simple really. But quite honestly, Arakan, I don't believe you are here to discuss solutions.

What is factually incorrect? That since summer 2015, roughly 1.5 million immigrants from MENA came to Germany alone, without a proper vetting process? Is this factually incorrect? 

Anyway, pray tell me what the "real" problem is? If you wanna tell me, it's the meddling of some European countries (actually it's UK and France) in MENA, you preach to the wrong person. I would agree. 

The reality on the ground is as follows: 

- many if not most of the MENA immigrants are not a refugees from the Syrian Civil war

- many if not most MENA immigrants come without legal documents, making it very difficult to send them back 

- many if not most MENA immigrants will have a very hard time to find good paying employment 

- from many if not most MENA immigrants we have no background information to filter out criminal or radical elements amongst them

Things like the Cologne mass sexual assault, criminality or terrorism conducted by those MENA immigrants is fuel for the rise of the rightwing populists. And I don't like this. The political climate in Europe is getting uglier. A few more terror attacks, a few more Cologne incidents and who knows what will happen. 

Yes, there are quite a few Islamophobes nowadays in Europe which is a bad thing. But just pretending that the last two years in Europe were business as usual, will surely not help do de-escalate. 

[Savannah]

It's hard to argue against policies of Hungary or Poland because they have managed 

to keep their citizens safe. That's after all the number one priority of any government.

 

Future for Europe?

Union will collapse and there will be massive civil unrest. 

Probably more wars at least in the eastern parts of Europe.

[Arakan]

12 minutes ago, Savannah said:

It's hard to argue against policies of Hungary or Poland because they have managed 

to keep their citizens safe. That's after all the number one priority of any government.

 

Future for Europe?

Union will collapse and there will be massive civil unrest. 

Probably more wars at least in the eastern parts of Europe.

With regards to Hungary and Poland, well it's "easy" to manage the MENA migrant crisis when those immigrants actually don't want to stay there in the beginning. You can criticize Merkel all you want but her realistic options in September 2015 were limited. 

I do not think that the Union will collapse, as long as in no major European country anti-EU folks come into government. From a security aspect, a stronger integration of the trans-European security apparatus would make huge sense. 

 

[Mr Fixit]

36 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

If, on the other hand, rightwing radicalism and xenophobic nationalism are the problem, then the solution lies in the way we are to talk about immigration and terrorism.

Ok then, talk. What is your solution to mass immigration in Europe from the Middle East?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Define major European Country.

Italy? I give the 5 star movement a realistic chance to take over. And that is a major European country, by any reasonable measure.

France is hopefully save from Le Pen and her ilk for now. But we also thought the US wouldn't be stupid enough to elect that orange blowhard. 

Hungary is beyond the pale, Poland is atm stuck with those piss party trolls. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Is an absolute immigration ban feasible?  Wouldn't such a ban just push all the immigrants to Turkey, which will piss off Turkey and perhaps further radicalize Turkey?

[Arakan]

5 minutes ago, Notone said:

Define major European Country.

Italy? I give the 5 star movement a realistic chance to take over. And that is a major European country, by any reasonable measure.

France is hopefully save from Le Pen and her ilk for now. But we also thought the US wouldn't be stupid enough to elect that orange blowhard. 

Hungary is beyond the pale, Poland is atm stuck with those piss party trolls. 

Major European countries: basically the big 5 (obviously without the U.K.): Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland. 

[Werthead]

One would hope for a return of rationality, namely that accepting that blaming millions of people for the actions of a vanishingly tiny lunatic fringe is illogical and merely achieves the very ends that the jihadists want to bring about. When 9/11 took place, Al-Qaeda to some extent was hoping for a massive retaliation against Muslims to drive recruitment to them. Initially that didn't happen, as the Americans (somewhat cannily) instead funded local fighters and provided logistical and air support instead (supported by the likes of Russia). That went completely balls-up when when they decided to invade Iraq and led in a direct sequence of events to the rise of ISIS and the modern chaos afflicting much of the Middle East. There are lessons there which it appears no-one has really learned from.

You'd also hope that maybe some of these fundamentalists would look at a map and some figures and worked out that killing dozens or even hundreds of people in nations of tens of millions achieves absolutely nothing in helping them further their long-term agendas, and they'd be better off focusing more on the Middle East. Sadly, that won't happen either.

The primary challenges facing Europe will be management of the financial crisis, particularly the freshly-burgeoning financial threat in Italy, France and Germany avoiding the far right in their upcoming elections, how Russia is handled wrt the Baltic States and Britain's Brexit negotiations and exit from the Union, all of which have dangers for major social unrest or outright military conflict. One of the biggest challenges will be the position of the United States. If the USA chooses to withdraw from NATO or to not support it, suddenly Britain and France are left holding the only nuclear deterrant against Russia, and Russia may be tempted to risk far more than it would have done if American retaliation was still guaranteed.

Quote

Is an absolute immigration ban feasible?

No. Turkey has indicated that if the EU closes its borders altogether, refuses to take more refugee or provide more help, it will happily tear down its borders and allow refugees to cross over en masse.

I think the West needs to accept at this point that the conflict in Syria needs to be brought to an end, and if that means Assad stays in power so be it. With an absolute shitstorm melange of "moderate" rebels, Islamic fundamentalist nutjobs and mercenaries forming the resistance, I think it's now clear that there is no viable opposition in Syria that could take power. If the "moderate" factions - if they even still exist in any coherent form (the general consensus seems to be they don't) - did somehow take power, then we'd likely see a repeat of either Egypt or Libya: the fundamentalists would quickly gain power or the country would simply collapse into anarchy.

Once the conflict ends, repatriation of refugees in Europe can be looked at. However, if you have a situation where the Assad regime may look unfavourably on those who fled as potential rebels and traitors, very few of the refugees may wish to return home. But ending the war will massively reduce the flow at the source and open up future possibilities, as well as allowing a greater focus on eliminating ISIS.

[Arakan]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is an absolute immigration ban feasible?  Wouldn't such a ban just push all the immigrants to Turkey, which will piss off Turkey and perhaps further radicalize Turkey?

No normal minded person can be for an absolute immigration ban. Only rightwing neo nazis talk like this. 

But the case of Anis Amri is a great example of the madness we have now. The details are shocking. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

@Ser Scot A Ellison

An absolute immigration ban is about as realistic as stopping any immigration from Mexico to the US.

Of course you can also go for a different solution, Namely combine the Naval forces of the European countries and sink any refugee ship on sight. Which is obviously not a serious suggestion.

With regards to Turkey. How would that radicalize Turkey further? That needs some explanation. Unless you are suggestion the refugees are itself (in large chunks) itself radicalized muslims. The EU-Turkey deal is disaster one way or another. The EU is basically paying Erdogan to play to bouncer. Turkey gets a shitload of money to deal with refugees from Syria, and keep them in very poor circumstances in some camps or on the street, as a bonus the EU turns a blind eye to his ongoing human rights violation, and even talks with him about an EU membership (which he won't get - but that talks have not been aborted a long time ago is by itself a statement). 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Arakan said:

Major European countries: basically the big 5 (obviously without the U.K.): Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland. 

From your big 5 (sidenote I usually use big only in terms of personality but anyhow): Poland is already run by anti-European crowd. With Italy there's as I said before a fair chance that Beppe Grillo and his five star movement will take over. They are not favorites to win the election, but their chances are definately much bigger than zero.

[Arakan]

2 minutes ago, Notone said:

@Ser Scot A Ellison

An absolute immigration ban is about as realistic as stopping any immigration from Mexico to the US.

Of course you can also go for a different solution, Namely combine the Naval forces of the European countries and sink any refugee ship on sight. Which is obviously not a serious suggestion.

With regards to Turkey. How would that radicalize Turkey further? That needs some explanation. Unless you are suggestion the refugees are itself (in large chunks) itself radicalized muslims. The EU-Turkey deal is disaster one way or another. The EU is basically paying Erdogan to play to bouncer. Turkey gets a shitload of money to deal with refugees from Syria, and keep them in very poor circumstances in some camps or on the street, as a bonus the EU turns a blind eye to his ongoing human rights violation, and even talks with him about an EU membership (which he won't get - but that talks have not been aborted a long time ago is by itself a statement). 

Oh yes...so much "homework" for Europe to do, how the EU wants itself to position towards Turkey is a major factor. The Turkish EU membership negotiations must  finally be put to an end. Let's be honest a Turkey under Erdogan will never be member of the EU. Furthermore, as you described it, Turkey is basically blackmailing the EU right now and uses the Syrian refugees as leverage. Erdogan plays a disgusting game because he knows he can. 

[Arakan]

3 minutes ago, Notone said:

From your big 5 (sidenote I usually use big only in terms of personality but anyhow): Poland is already run by anti-European crowd. With Italy there's as I said before a fair chance that Beppe Grillo and his five star movement will take over. They are not favorites to win the election, but their chances are definately much bigger than zero.

Poland won't leave, same as Hungary because they are massive net profiteers of EU membership. 

I used big due to the influence factor. It's a difference if a country like Poland wants to leave the EU than a country like Slovenia or Slovakia. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Notone,

Turkey is already in a pretty dark place with Erdrogan silencing opposition and jailing opponents.  Forceing further refugee problems on Turkey will just make things worse.