Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Morrigi]

Yeah, I have no love for Turkey but that is an excellent diplomatic move.

[Rolepgeek]

Turkey has put Sheb in charge.

We're all doomed.

[ChairmanPoo]

Hungary has blocked the deal.

[smjjames]

Hungary has blocked the deal.

Did they give a reason? Just wondering.

[andrea]

That looked like a really sweet deal.

[Vilanat]

Yeah, really good for Erdogan!

He knows very well that even if the EU so desire, it wont be able to send back the refugees that already arrived back or forward to turkey and it's meaningless to talk about sending new refugees if the EU is supposed to redistribute the 4 million refugees that are now in Turkey. Turkey obviously wont encounter too much troubles sending their refugees to Europe. this is a complete net gain in refugees exchange for the EU even if we wrongly assume the EU could deport the ones who already arrived.

The Visa free travel to Europe will make sure more Turkish immigrants move into Europe, including lots and lots of Turkish ISIS fellas and suddenly-turned-Turkish other nationals.

All of Turkey's gestures and actions are just empty. i don't know if the EU is in it for the propaganda of it all or if they are that incompetent to consider this a good one, but if the EU accepts this deal, and if i would have been british, i would have voted out just for this shady deal.

Besides, after Erdogan's recent armed and violent take over of an opposing news paper, he shouldn't get rewards, he should get severely punished.

[wobbly]

Well currently Turley & Erdogen are major pains in the butt to their allies. If they can become vital to solvong an EU problem there's a lot more they can get away with.

[Loud Whispers]

Quite unexpected, the Turkish government proposed a new plan to the EU in Brussels today.
Not only are they willing to take back into Turkey any migrants that are not war refugees (which is what the EU was trying to negotiate), they offered to take back into Turkey every migrant down to the single last one that crosses the Mediterranean in the future, including Syrian war refugees.
Basically, they are saying "we will completely stop your immigration problem, just send them all back as soon as they make landfall"

That is not what Erdogan is saying. Do I need to remind you this is the man who accused the EU of taking him for a fool?

In a statement, EU leaders said they broadly supported a deal that included:

• The return of all new irregular migrants crossing from Turkey to the Greek islands with the costs covered by the EU
• The resettlement of one Syrian from Turkey to the EU for every Syrian readmitted by Turkey from Greece
• Speeding up of plans to allow Turks visa-free travel in Europe, with a view to lifting visa requirements by June 2016
• Speeding up the payment of €3bn ($3.3bn; £2.2bn) promised in October, and a decision on additional funding to help Turkey deal with the crisis. Turkey reportedly asked for EU aid to be increased to €6bn ($6.6bn; £4.64bn)
• Preparations for a decision on the opening of new chapters in talks on EU membership for Turkey

Speaking at a news conference after the summit, Turkish PM Ahmet Davutoglu said Turkey had made a "bold decision to accept all irregular illegal migrants... based on the assumption that for every one Syrian readmitted by Turkey from the Greek islands another Syrian will be resettled by Europe."
But he said it was important to see the refugee deal as a package, to include progress on Turkish integration within the EU.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the proposals could be a major step forward if realised, stressing that "irregular migration" needed to be turned into "regular migration".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35749837

Merkel wants to turn illegal migration into the exact same thing, only legally so the nations like Hungary cannot block it - that's why Hungary is opposed. This is without a doubt a net loss in migrants for Turkey, and to top it all off the EU is now being used as Turkey's big stick - the proposal to put "safe zones" in Syria is meant to preserve Turkey's influence in a hostile Syria whilst keeping the Kurdish Rojava separated (which would be a big issue, as they just united meaning Turkey would have to put their safe zones through a united Kurdish front, one way or another). Excluding anyone using Turkish passports to travel to Europe (Lord knows fake Syrian document black market is large enough) this deal doesn't even cover Med or Black sea traffic, just Greece =/= Turkey. On the bright side this might help Greece, but everything Vilanat's said is poignant.

It's no coincidence that Turkey only started NATO "humanitarian patrols" in the sea or proposed safe zones when they wanted to ward off Russian influence.

[martinuzz]

it's not that beneficial for Turkey qua immigrants. Sure, they want to trade Syrians 1:1. But it will still keep out the majority of the refugees, because those are not Syrian.
Syrian war refugees are only a part of the migrants crossing the mediterranean.
A deal with the Turks should (at least on paper) stop the influx of economic migrants via that route.

[Sergarr]

it's not that beneficial for Turkey qua immigrants. Sure, they want to trade Syrians 1:1. But it will still keep out the majority of the refugees, because those are not Syrian.
Syrian war refugees are only a part of the migrants crossing the mediterranean.
A deal with the Turks should (at least on paper) stop the influx of economic migrants via that route.

With visa-free travel for Turks? No. It's only going to legalize it.

[Loud Whispers]

it's not that beneficial for Turkey qua immigrants. Sure, they want to trade Syrians 1:1. But it will still keep out the majority of the refugees, because those are not Syrian.

For each illegal migrant they get from Greece they give Europe a Syrian and however many Turks, not including any illegal migration through the Black or Med sea.

Syrian war refugees are only a part of the migrants crossing the mediterranean.

I know, from the start I contended this. This is not a solution for Europe, this is giving Turkey everything they want in exchange for nothing. EU support for strikes against the Kurds, EU support for Turkish membership, EU support for Turkish humanitarian crisis and a net loss in migrants to be resettled into Europe with no legal opposition allowed.

A deal with the Turks should (at least on paper) stop the influx of economic migrants via that route.

Certainly not this deal and certainly not stop it, not even on that one route - one of many.

it's not that beneficial for Turkey qua immigrants. Sure, they want to trade Syrians 1:1. But it will still keep out the majority of the refugees, because those are not Syrian.
Syrian war refugees are only a part of the migrants crossing the mediterranean.
A deal with the Turks should (at least on paper) stop the influx of economic migrants via that route.

With visa-free travel for Turks? No. It's only going to legalize it.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the proposals could be a major step forward if realised, stressing that "irregular migration" needed to be turned into "regular migration".

This way European states cannot legally stop it.

DUDE MERKEL LMAO

[smjjames]

You guys let foriegn banks have influence over your elections? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-19/le-pen-party-taps-russian-banks-to-fund-2017-election-campaign Pfft........

[Sergarr]

Well, you see, the only other alternative is to get domestic banks to influence your elections, and that's, like, bad.

The third variant, self-financed parties, is 1) not usually possible, and 2) tend to result in complete uncompromising madmen coming to power in the party (in modern USA's elections, for example, the current self-financed candidates (which in conditions of a two-party systems, are mini-parties in themselves, and so can be used for purpose of this analogy) are Trump and Sanders, which are both incredibly bad in new and exciting ways)

[smjjames]

Well, you see, the only other alternative is to get domestic banks to influence your elections, and that's, like, bad.

The third variant, self-financed parties, is 1) not usually possible, and 2) tend to result in complete uncompromising madmen coming to power in the party (in modern USA's elections, for example, the current self-financed candidates (which in conditions of a two-party systems, are mini-parties in themselves, and so can be used for purpose of this analogy) are Trump and Sanders, which are both incredibly bad in new and exciting ways)

Let me ask you this, would you like it if, say, American banks, were financing one of your presidential candidates?

Also, neither Trump or Sanders are actually self funding. Sanders isn't a billionaire, but his funding comes from lots of small donations, grassroots donations pretty much. Trump isn't completely self funding (though he says he does), but his style of fundraising is similar to that of Sanders.

[Loud Whispers]

You guys let foriegn banks have influence over your elections? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-19/le-pen-party-taps-russian-banks-to-fund-2017-election-campaign Pfft........

The anti-euro, anti-immigration party, whose loan requests are turned down by French banks

That seems to be your problem

Consider our UKIP tried to avoid having any alliance with FN but after our Czechi breki got poached by the Pres the alliance was forced, and here too the FN was forced into alliance with Moscow

Hilariously the EU is making the FN grow stronger by trying to stamp it out, instead of merely trying to control it themselves

dood Merkelmao