What EU should immediately do is to start building charter cities. Either on sparsely populated areas within EU or by making long term rental agreements outside EU. Or likely both.
The rules of charter cities would be roughly as follows:
- Anyone (literally anyone) would be welcome to move to charter city if they just want so.
- EU guarantees funding for basic infrastructure like education, legal system, security, health care and tax authorities.
- Everyone moving in is allowed and expected to work in the society.
- All refugees coming to EU are directed to these charter cities.
- Charter city citizenship does not mean access to EU.
I am not saying that this would be a problem-free solution. I am saying that it is extremely important that we start to solve the problems that arise here. Because they are the problems we need to solve to take pressure away from the refugees to flood Europe. They are the problems we need to solve when suddenly there is an environmental catastrophe and there are suddenly a lot of people looking for a new place to live. They are the problems we need to solve to make the coungries still living under bad governments to improve their governance.
And no, most people in the world would absolutely not move immediately to these cities. Most people actually want to live in their homes.
What happens once charter cities have a large enough population to influence elections and change direction of the country in objection of the citizens of that country?
What I don’t understand is why we don’t treat these mass exodus of people from one country to another country like we do datacenter failovers and failbacks. Give people refuge, let them carry on productively with their life and the condition is that they failback once the situation has stabilized in the country they fled from.
To allow a select few to stay, you can create a merit based program based on contribution to adopted society and assimilation to provide an incentive to become part of the adopted host country and be allowed to stay instead of failed back.
Without failbacks, we absorb good people willing to work for a better life and deprive that country of those people long term. That never allows those countries to get better because most of the good people leave and never go back. Failbacks would be the healthiest form of nation building since it would be done by citizens of the country in need of being built up.
Furthermore, refugees should not change the country that graciously hosted them in a way that many of the citizens of that country dislike. That’s being a bad houseguest.
And there are tons of space for this: Sahara, Gobi, Siberia, Northern Canada, the central part of Australia, Antarctica, quite a few places in South America, etc. etc.
Economic prosperity is about institutions and their "source code". For a world afflicted with so many problems, it's just insane that we have got no way to try out blank-slate constitutions.
Because decades ago during the early stages of the cold war, the US needed a place close to Russia to plant nukes and Eastern Europe was taken, so Turkey was the best option at the time.
But now, with Eastern Europe and the Baltics part of NATO there are better options and Turkey's membership should be reviewed.
Take a look at the number of Syrian refugees each country hosts, compare it to their population and GDP if you feel like it.
Turkey have many problems dealing with its minorities, neighbours, even its own citizens, sure - but on this issue, maybe its time to get off your high horse, before calling any country nefarious. Are we really worse than Spain, worse than France, worse than UK? Why do they have a say in it without helping the problem in the slightest?
If Turkey leaves NATO, they will further ally with Russia.
Considering Turkey's strategic location, it's better to have Turkey in NATO instead of as an adversary, even if its leadership doesn't align with the values of other NATO members.
Erdogan knows that he has a ton of leverage and chooses to maximize his advantage.
There are a lot of moving pieces here. He's overcalculated a bit and his nationalist policy has hurt the Turkish economy.
Likewise, many European countries rejecting Turkey's EU bids last decade on thinly-veiled Islamaphobic pretenses only strengthened his nationalist message at home.
The west knows it, but they also know that they would rather have Turkey nominally on their side than not.
It will probably take cooler heads and or a major economic downturn to shift that sentiment. Until then, Turkey maintains its seat in NATO.
It cuts both ways, I am not sure US's sketchy and inconsistent behavior in Syria was in the interest of NATO either. This whole affair is a clusterf* and I don't think pushing Turkey further away will do any good to anyone. Also thankfully organizations like that are operated slightly better than HN and Reddit armchair strategists.
because:
a) Turkey is the (almost literal) culture gate between Europe and the Middle East, this is in itself very valuable.
b) Largest army in Europe.
c) Erdogan still has to restrain himself because he has treaties with NATO allies. Otherwise we might get a second unhinged Putin. That would cause a real headache for the EU that tries to stop immigrants from reaching its borders by millions.
Nothing against helping refugees but EU and NATO should cancel any further economical and military cooperation with Turkey ASAP until they have a more sane leader in charge.
Its hilarious when citizens of “western” countries are happy with invading countries blowing up children to pieces and then expect other countries to bare the burden. Lay it off!!!
Isn't it that according to the law, the refugees are allowed to get the shelter in the first country they manage to get to? In this case it's Turkey, right?
How do Europeans feel about the Kurds these days? When I was growing up in Germany in the 70s and 80s they weren't super popular but I'm guessing with Turkey turning to fundamentalism the attitudes have changed?
I don't have any personal Kurdish friends, but generally I see a lot of sympathy for the fighting spirit they showed in past years against strong enemies and also perceived 'fairness' of their struggle (I mean they fought ISIS, they face turkish army and Turkey is evil player these days).
This covers fight in Syria, and Iraq. The stuff they did/do within Turkey is I think more complicated but I don't feel I know enough to judge.
Yet another reminder of how old colonialism was properly evil force and how it fucked up the world for centuries when state lines were drawn by clueless and/or evil politicians.
Hard working people, family oriented, mostly (but not all) muslim, they tend to be moderate about religion.... especially compared with the craziness that goes around them....
They got the short stick of the dividing of the area, and their lands were used as a 'loot' to divy up by the great powers...
They ended up as a nation without a country. They have faced great persecution over times, even mass gassing (in Iraq by Sadam)
They have every-right should form a their own country... and they have been a good ally to the US, but Trump is messing it up and just letting Erdogan have free rein the area....
Wouldn't this work to the benefit of Putin-Erdogan interests?
The refugee situation is one of the polarizing issues in EU/Brexit politics. The Turkey-Syrian conflict pushes a new wave to exacerbate internal polarization within the UK & EU - a side effect of the conflict but still furthers a broader agenda. Pretty crafty.
[+] [-] beefield|6 years ago|reply
The rules of charter cities would be roughly as follows:
- Anyone (literally anyone) would be welcome to move to charter city if they just want so.
- EU guarantees funding for basic infrastructure like education, legal system, security, health care and tax authorities.
- Everyone moving in is allowed and expected to work in the society.
- All refugees coming to EU are directed to these charter cities.
- Charter city citizenship does not mean access to EU.
I am not saying that this would be a problem-free solution. I am saying that it is extremely important that we start to solve the problems that arise here. Because they are the problems we need to solve to take pressure away from the refugees to flood Europe. They are the problems we need to solve when suddenly there is an environmental catastrophe and there are suddenly a lot of people looking for a new place to live. They are the problems we need to solve to make the coungries still living under bad governments to improve their governance.
And no, most people in the world would absolutely not move immediately to these cities. Most people actually want to live in their homes.
Edit, small changes in looks.
[+] [-] delfinom|6 years ago|reply
So tell me, how does the EU magically drum up money for all of this?
[+] [-] ohduran|6 years ago|reply
> EU guarantees funding for basic infrastructure like education, legal system, security, health cate and tax authorities.
That doesn't even happen for actual EU citizens, why on earth would an EU taxpayer allow for this?
> allowed and expected to work in the society
or what? are you throwing them back?
> Charter city citizenship does not mean access to EU.
I could use an expert to figure out the difference between this plan and living in any city in Hungary, for example.
[+] [-] malandrew|6 years ago|reply
What I don’t understand is why we don’t treat these mass exodus of people from one country to another country like we do datacenter failovers and failbacks. Give people refuge, let them carry on productively with their life and the condition is that they failback once the situation has stabilized in the country they fled from.
To allow a select few to stay, you can create a merit based program based on contribution to adopted society and assimilation to provide an incentive to become part of the adopted host country and be allowed to stay instead of failed back.
Without failbacks, we absorb good people willing to work for a better life and deprive that country of those people long term. That never allows those countries to get better because most of the good people leave and never go back. Failbacks would be the healthiest form of nation building since it would be done by citizens of the country in need of being built up.
Furthermore, refugees should not change the country that graciously hosted them in a way that many of the citizens of that country dislike. That’s being a bad houseguest.
[+] [-] nec4b|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aivisol|6 years ago|reply
This seems to be problematic IMHO. Who would want to go there instead of already build, well run city. Would you?
[+] [-] theflyinghorse|6 years ago|reply
How do you stop them? We're talking about extremely motivated people here.
> Everyone moving in is allowed and expected to work in the society.
How do you make them? What do you do if they refuse?
> EU guarantees funding for basic infrastructure like education, legal system, security, health care and tax authorities.
Like another poster said - who pays for it, and what funding gets cut in Europe to pay for it? Education budgets or maybe R&D?
[+] [-] dsign|6 years ago|reply
And there are tons of space for this: Sahara, Gobi, Siberia, Northern Canada, the central part of Australia, Antarctica, quite a few places in South America, etc. etc.
Economic prosperity is about institutions and their "source code". For a world afflicted with so many problems, it's just insane that we have got no way to try out blank-slate constitutions.
[+] [-] chewz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unclesams-uncle|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thefz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bognition|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nlitened|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adwww|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] remarkEon|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckNorris89|6 years ago|reply
But now, with Eastern Europe and the Baltics part of NATO there are better options and Turkey's membership should be reviewed.
[+] [-] sahinabi|6 years ago|reply
Turkey have many problems dealing with its minorities, neighbours, even its own citizens, sure - but on this issue, maybe its time to get off your high horse, before calling any country nefarious. Are we really worse than Spain, worse than France, worse than UK? Why do they have a say in it without helping the problem in the slightest?
[+] [-] zwieback|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unclesams-uncle|6 years ago|reply
Considering Turkey's strategic location, it's better to have Turkey in NATO instead of as an adversary, even if its leadership doesn't align with the values of other NATO members.
Erdogan knows that he has a ton of leverage and chooses to maximize his advantage.
There are a lot of moving pieces here. He's overcalculated a bit and his nationalist policy has hurt the Turkish economy.
Likewise, many European countries rejecting Turkey's EU bids last decade on thinly-veiled Islamaphobic pretenses only strengthened his nationalist message at home.
The west knows it, but they also know that they would rather have Turkey nominally on their side than not.
It will probably take cooler heads and or a major economic downturn to shift that sentiment. Until then, Turkey maintains its seat in NATO.
[+] [-] throwaway5752|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mda|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yalph|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pi-victor|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MeteOzturk|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yalph|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckNorris89|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yalph|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yalph|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AnimalMuppet|6 years ago|reply
Because you think those things are wrong? Then they're wrong when Erdogan does them, too.
Because you think that we think that those things are wrong? Then we think that they're wrong when Erdogan does them, too.
I don't think that there's an argument you can make on these grounds that helps you very much...
[+] [-] pleasecalllater|6 years ago|reply
Isn't it that according to the law, the refugees are allowed to get the shelter in the first country they manage to get to? In this case it's Turkey, right?
[+] [-] zwieback|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darkhorn|6 years ago|reply
https://www.dailysabah.com/investigations/2018/11/08/pkk-con...
[+] [-] saiya-jin|6 years ago|reply
This covers fight in Syria, and Iraq. The stuff they did/do within Turkey is I think more complicated but I don't feel I know enough to judge.
Yet another reminder of how old colonialism was properly evil force and how it fucked up the world for centuries when state lines were drawn by clueless and/or evil politicians.
[+] [-] supahfly_remix|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ardit33|6 years ago|reply
They got the short stick of the dividing of the area, and their lands were used as a 'loot' to divy up by the great powers...
They ended up as a nation without a country. They have faced great persecution over times, even mass gassing (in Iraq by Sadam)
They have every-right should form a their own country... and they have been a good ally to the US, but Trump is messing it up and just letting Erdogan have free rein the area....
[+] [-] norin|6 years ago|reply
The EU is going to throw billions at Erdogan, because they the EU cannot agree on how to deal with refugees. another wave could tear the EU apart.
[+] [-] dadarepublic|6 years ago|reply
The refugee situation is one of the polarizing issues in EU/Brexit politics. The Turkey-Syrian conflict pushes a new wave to exacerbate internal polarization within the UK & EU - a side effect of the conflict but still furthers a broader agenda. Pretty crafty.
[+] [-] ericras|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ThinkBeat|6 years ago|reply
Individuals might feel that way but governments are happy to have then detained in Turkey.
Even Sweden would probably not open up for so many refugees and several Eastern European countries refuse any. (EU might be able to force them).