• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

"Hold tight Europe,Turkey is coming to save you"


ManUnited

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
5,221
Can the EU get past its islamophobia before the Turks pull the pin themselves?
EUobserver / Economic realism will ease anti-Turkish feeling, Joschka Fischer says

"I am confident in the democratisation and economic prosperity of my country. To be honest, I don't have so much confidence in your economic prosperity. We are not coming with additional burdens to the EU, we are coming to take burdens from Europe. My new motto is: 'Hold on tight Europe, Turkey is coming to save you.'"
 

Telemachus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
6,565
Website
en.wikipedia.org
We come in peace!!

Fzzztttt.. argh!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsXnK0ouTL8&feature=related]YouTube - Hippies cause intergalactic war[/ame]
 

Sean O'Brian

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
900
Fischer is the worst kind of materialist reductionist who doesn't understand that to many people some things are more important than money.

Fischer's thinking goes something like this: the German people are declining in terms of population numbers which will eventually lead to economic decline therefore it is imperative to replace domestic economic units (Germans) with imported economic units (Turks).

What about the fact that the Germans are an historic people with their own language, culture and religion and the Turks who are being brought in to supplement them demographically have a different language, customs, religion etc.? Oh this won't matter, once people realise that we need the money.

The effect of right-liberalism/neo-liberalism, shorn of any particularist considerations, is to replace specific peoples with symbolic abstractions--to take away their humanity. But the German people are not going to forget themselves quite as easily as this man.

It is also thought in this vein that as long as the state is given a large amount of control over people's lives it can mould the citizenry to its needs--German or Turkish. Aside fromt the fact that instilling what to think in people is not an essential function of government, will this actually work? No, German (re-)education cannot seriously compete against Friday prayers at the local mosque.
 
Last edited:

ManUnited

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
5,221
Fischer is the worst kind of materialist reductionist who doesn't understand that to many people some things are more important than money.

Fischer's thinking goes something like this: the German people are declining in terms of population numbers which will eventually lead to economic decline therefore it is imperative to replace domestic economic units (Germans) with imported economic units (Turks).

What about the fact that the Germans are an historic people with their own language, culture and religion and the Turks who are being brought in to supplement them demographically have a different language, customs, religion etc.? Oh this won't matter, once people realise that we need the money.

The effect of right-liberalism/neo-liberalism, shorn of any particularist considerations, is to replace specific peoples with symbolic abstractions--to take away their humanity. But the German people are not going to forget themselves quite as easily as this man.

It is also thought in this vain that as long as the state is given a large amount of control over people's lives it can mould the citizenry to its needs--German or Turkish. Aside fromt the fact that instilling what to think in people is not an essential function of government, will this actually work? No, German (re-)education cannot seriously compete against Friday prayers at the local mosque.
I thought it is more to do with an aging population rather than a declining one.
 

whataday

Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
59
Absolute claptrap by both the Fischer (" a growing realisation that Europe needs to replenish its aging workforce is already altering perceptions and that it is Turkey") What rubbish...and Bagis.("we are coming to take burdens from Europe") more like to rip they eye out of our heads.. Obnoxious diplomacy at its worst.. Regardless of the view of Islam Turkey has nothing to offer the EU.. there are more pressing needs than to suck up to this flawed power.
 

Sean O'Brian

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
900
I thought it is more to do with an aging population rather than a declining one.
The two things are related. Every generation gets old but this generation of Germans has no one to take up the slack from them due to the decline in younger people being born and brought up.
 

ManUnited

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
5,221
The two things are related. Every generation gets old but this generation of Germans has no one to take up the slack from them due to the decline in younger people being born and brought up.
So why is immigration not a sensible solution?
 

ManUnited

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
5,221
Absolute claptrap by both the Fischer (" a growing realisation that Europe needs to replenish its aging workforce is already altering perceptions and that it is Turkey") What rubbish...and Bagis.("we are coming to take burdens from Europe") more like to rip they eye out of our heads.. Obnoxious diplomacy at its worst.. Regardless of the view of Islam Turkey has nothing to offer the EU.. there are more pressing needs than to suck up to this flawed power.
I think it's a bit naive to say Turkey has nothing to offer.(I am sure the UK,for example, is'nt supporting their membership just to be nice)
 

Sean O'Brian

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
900
So why is immigration not a sensible solution?
First of all because it fails to address what is a structural defect: why are people not having children? That is not normal. Historically it has been a sign of the decline of civillisation. There is Plubius's (I think? possibly Livy's) description of Athens at the time of the Roman conquest where he says that the Greeks had given up child-rearing in order to indulge themselves in pleasures.

Liberalism (as well as purely materialist factors like birth control) have released people from traditional family obligations and contributed to natal decline. Now, perhaps I am wrong and this isn't the reason. There must be a reason, and a solution. Otherwise what's to stop the next generation of Germans from declining also? So my first objection is that Fischer is avoiding the root of the problem which will not go away soon. His solution is a non-solution.

Now as to your question: why is immigration is not a sensible solution? It is an economic solution in purely abstract terms but it is not sensible because if Germans are replaced by Turks what will happen is that Germany as it is now constiuted will cease to exist, or at least split-up in war and partition. This is because different peoples, and we're talking here about vastly different peoples - European Christians (or former Christians) and Turkish Muslims - are not identikit replacements for one another. They have very real differences.

The differences between Scots-Irish Protestants and Irish Catholics are much less yet we have to be separated by a border on the same island. In Northern Ireland the two peoples work together in the same office buildings - they are truly Fischer's interchangable economic units. So why not replace all Irish Catholics with Scots-Irish/Anglo-Scot planters, if there's no difference? Because it would be objectionable in itself. Particular peoples have a right to exist, and citizenship in a state is only one aspect of their existence and not the defining aspect.
 

Dr Pat

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,219
Can the EU get past its islamophobia before the Turks pull the pin themselves?
EUobserver / Economic realism will ease anti-Turkish feeling, Joschka Fischer says

"I am confident in the democratisation and economic prosperity of my country. To be honest, I don't have so much confidence in your economic prosperity. We are not coming with additional burdens to the EU, we are coming to take burdens from Europe. My new motto is: 'Hold on tight Europe, Turkey is coming to save you.'"
Usual drivel promoting endless enlargement for materialist purposes. Fischer and the rest of the so-called Europhiles seem to be mouthpieces for the corporate vested interests who benefit from mass expansion of the EU.

Article is completely biased and pro-expansionist - note the reference to Turkey having "Europe's large Muslim and Roma populations". Apart from a small area, geographically Turkey is not even in Europe and no waffle about past Hellenic civilisations on Turkish soil, please. It is part of Asia Minor. We need more immigrants, be they Turkish or Kurdish Muslims or otherwise, like we need a hole in the head.
 

TradCat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
1,992
It must have made sense for many people not to have children. The welfare state abolished the need for children to care for you in your old age. The flaw was that if enough people believed this then there wouldn't be enough new taxpayers to meed the pension for everybody.

It will get worse because those who are born will flee the high taxes required to maintain the elderly. It's hard to see how Europe as we know it can recover. I watching the golf today and it occurred to me that my grandchildren were more likely to be American or Australian than Irish.
 

ManUnited

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
5,221
First of all because it fails to address what is a structural defect: why are people not having children? That is not normal. Historically it has been a sign of the decline of civillisation. There is Plubius's (I think? possibly Livy's) description of Athens at the time of the Roman conquest where he says that the Greeks had given up child-rearing in order to indulge themselves in pleasures.

Liberalism (as well as purely materialist factors like birth control) have released people from traditional family obligations and contributed to natal decline. Now, perhaps I am wrong and this isn't the reason. There must be a reason, and a solution. Otherwise what's to stop the next generation of Germans from declining also? So my first objection is that Fischer is avoiding the root of the problem which will not go away soon. His solution is a non-solution.

Now as to your question: why is immigration is not a sensible solution? It is an economic solution in purely abstract terms but it is not sensible because if Germans are replaced by Turks what will happen is that Germany as it is now constiuted will cease to exist, or at least split-up in war and partition. This is because different peoples, and we're talking here about vastly different peoples - European Christians (or former Christians) and Turkish Muslims - are not identikit replacements for one another. They have very real differences.

The differences between Scots-Irish Protestants and Irish Catholics are much less yet we have to be separated by a border on the same island. In Northern Ireland the two peoples work together in the same office buildings - they are truly Fischer's interchangable economic units. So why not replace all Irish Catholics with Scots-Irish/Anglo-Scot planters, if there's no difference? Because it would be objectionable in itself. Particular peoples have a right to exist, and citizenship in a state is only one aspect of their existence and not the defining aspect.
It is not just declining birth rates, people are living longer and healthier lives.This is not going to change.So a younger immigrant population is a solution.Using phrases like "Germans are replaced by Turks" and "why not replace all Irish" ect. is just rhetoric.Nobody is suggesting anybody be replaced.You obviously have no faith in multiculturalism.I was raised in a multicultural society(admittedly a small one) and know that it is not as scary or unworkable as you imply.Globalisation isn't just an economic phenomenon, it is cultural as well.I would say that the decision about Turkey and the EU wont be made by our generation but by the next one.A generation that has grown up in a smaller world and surrounded by people of different ethnicities, therefore they will not suffer from xenophobia to the same extent current generations do.I don't get what you are trying to say in your last sentence.
 

THR

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
1,010
You can't justify immigration by the argument of ageing population. You do realise that the immigrants also get older and therefore there would be a need for new immigrants in the future. No way, we must just bear the brunt of today's situation that the late 40's generation is so large in comparison with the younger people.

However, I understand that in Ireland you don't have that problem to the same extent as we elsewhere in Europe do. Your 1960-1980's born generation is quite large enough to sustain your society. Unfortunately that cannot be said of Finland but receiving illeterate immigrants from Somalia is certainly not the answer to the problems but one more problem.
 

ManUnited

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
5,221
You can't justify immigration by the argument of ageing population. You do realise that the immigrants also get older and therefore there would be a need for new immigrants in the future. No way, we must just bear the brunt of today's situation that the late 40's generation is so large in comparison with the younger people.

However, I understand that in Ireland you don't have that problem to the same extent as we elsewhere in Europe do. Your 1960-1980's born generation is quite large enough to sustain your society. Unfortunately that cannot be said of Finland but receiving illeterate immigrants from Somalia is certainly not the answer to the problems but one more problem.
Wasn't trying to "justify immigration by the argument of aging population".That is only one aspect of the debate about Turkey joining the EU, there are plenty more.
 

Sean O'Brian

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
900
So a younger immigrant population is a solution. Using phrases like "Germans are replaced by Turks" and "why not replace all Irish" ect. is just rhetoric.Nobody is suggesting anybody be replaced.
It isn't just rhetoric, it's the actual substance of what Fischer is prescribing.

You obviously have no faith in multiculturalism.I was raised in a multicultural society(admittedly a small one) and know that it is not as scary or unworkable as you imply. Globalisation isn't just an economic phenomenon, it is cultural as well.
No, I don't. Anglea Merkel has already told Germans that they will have to come to terms with having more mosques than churches throughout the German countryside, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Since there is no increase in Christian churches being built in the Islamic world the overall result of multiculturalism is not to increase the amount of cultural diversity in the world but to increase the spread of Islam in the non-Islamic world.

Besides which there is a contradiction between supporting multiculturalism and globalisation. The ostensible purpose of multiculturalism (also called "diversity") is to celebrate different cultures living together harmoniously whereas the purpose of globalisation is to meld all cultures together creating one global culture. How do you reconcile supporting these two opposite aims simultaneously? Have you ever thought about this?

.I would say that the decision about Turkey and the EU wont be made by our generation but by the next one.A generation that has grown up in a smaller world and surrounded by people of different ethnicities, therefore they will not suffer from xenophobia to the same extent current generations do.
That is not the same as Fischer's view which is that economic imperatives will force Germans to accept more Turkish immigration in order to sustain their prosperity and world influence.
 

Sean O'Brian

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
900
I was raised in a multicultural society(admittedly a small one) and know that it is not as scary or unworkable as you imply.
Where were you raised, if you don't mind me asking?
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
33
Wasn't trying to "justify immigration by the argument of aging population".That is only one aspect of the debate about Turkey joining the EU, there are plenty more.
Yes you were. "It is not just declining birth rates, people are living longer and healthier lives.This is not going to change. So a younger immigrant population is a solution."

Not only are you talking arrant claptrap, you are also denying what you have just written on an internet message board.

This "we need a younger immigrant population" is politically correct nonsense. Europe is already overpopulated and suffering high unemployment. Productivity gains will outstrip the aging of the population, many of whom will will remain healthy and chose to work to a greater age.

There are many problems we may face in the future, labour shortage will not be amongst them.
 

disgruntledcitizen

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
405
I think it's a bit naive to say Turkey has nothing to offer.(I am sure the UK,for example, is'nt supporting their membership just to be nice)
the UK (and some other countries inc the USA) support Turkish entry into the EU as they want to see the EU more as a free trade / travel area, this is not what France, Germany and some other countries want the EU to evolve into (something a kin to a federal super state).

their logic go's that Turkish ( and some even suggest Morocco in the future) membership would greatly weaken the desire / ability of a Federal europe and keep the EU as a single trade area (with freedom of movement, etc also)

the US of course wants a somewhat weakened europe with internal squabbles, etc as (esp since the fall of the USSR) it rather likes being the only super power globally* though China will rapidly diminish that status in the coming decade. If the EU were to act and speak in a single authoritative voice as the US does its perceived power in the world would be increased to the detriment of the US's, or so they think anyway.

* the EU is not and will probably never be a super power in the industrial military context but in trade, aid, and geopolitics it as great potential to be one
 

ManUnited

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
5,221
It isn't just rhetoric, it's the actual substance of what Fischer is prescribing.



No, I don't. Anglea Merkel has already told Germans that they will have to come to terms with having more mosques than churches throughout the German countryside, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Since there is no increase in Christian churches being built in the Islamic world the overall result of multiculturalism is not to increase the amount of cultural diversity in the world but to increase the spread of Islam in the non-Islamic world.

Besides which there is a contradiction between supporting multiculturalism and globalisation. The ostensible purpose of multiculturalism (also called "diversity") is to celebrate different cultures living together harmoniously whereas the purpose of globalisation is to meld all cultures together creating one global culture. How do you reconcile supporting these two opposite aims simultaneously? Have you ever thought about this?



That is not the same as Fischer's view which is that economic imperatives will force Germans to accept more Turkish immigration in order to sustain their prosperity and world influence.
No, I had not thought of this, and it is a very good point.But I would argue that multiculturalism is not celebrating different cultures living together, it is an idea which allows different cultures to share the same space without killing eachother.Globalisation does not have a purpose, it is not an aim, it is not a policy that someone has implemented.It is the end result of a large number of different forces working together.Just a few things off the top of my head.The internet, global finance and multinational corporations ect.,American hegemony (cultural,political and economic),cheap air travel, increasing wealth, mass immigration.But I do take your point, and agree that the two are contradictory.
By the way I never said I 'supported' multiculturalism.I meant that it wasn't impossible as you seemed to be implying.
 

ManUnited

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
5,221
Yes you were. "It is not just declining birth rates, people are living longer and healthier lives.This is not going to change. So a younger immigrant population is a solution."

Not only are you talking arrant claptrap, you are also denying what you have just written on an internet message board.

This "we need a younger immigrant population" is politically correct nonsense. Europe is already overpopulated and suffering high unemployment. Productivity gains will outstrip the aging of the population, many of whom will will remain healthy and chose to work to a greater age.

There are many problems we may face in the future, labour shortage will not be amongst them.
No I wasn't.I was discussing the article, Sean was talking about declining birth rates and I read it to be talking about aging populations.Whether immigration is a good solution or not, it is a solution.Your argument about increasing productivity is a good one.Demographics aside there are plenty of other good reasons to encourage immigration, not least the humanitarian ones.
 
Top