EU Chief Calls For Open Borders

[esmith]

I guess I just don't understand what you are proposing as an alternative.

I think, and possibly wrong, is that Nationalism is now the preferred choice. And nationalism with closed/controlled borders was the norm until the EU came along.
Ask a person from say Germany or France or any other country in the region what nationality they are and you probably would hear that they are German, French, Dutch, or whatever but not " I'm a European"

 

[LuisDantas]

I think, and possibly wrong, is that Nationalism is now the preferred choice.

It has certainly been on the rise, dreadfully. What good could anyone see in it, I can't tell. It seems to me to be just fear speaking over reason.

And nationalism with closed/controlled borders was the norm until the EU came along.

And we have two world wars to give witness to how flawed that norm was.

Ask a person from say Germany or France or any other country in the region what nationality they are and you probably would hear that they are German, French, Dutch, or whatever but not " I'm a European"

So?

 

[Father Heathen]

Let Europe do it's thing, and then let the results (be they negative or positive) be a learning lesson for the rest of the world.

 

[Jumi]

I guess I just don't understand what you are proposing as an alternative.

The same border control that existed before (for us, before we joined EU in 1995) and same control over local markets, jobs, universities... national banks that can react faster to crises instead of being forced to follow.

I'm proposing we don't destroy our education system, jobs and safety or go ears deep into debt to fix things that could be easily avoided. I'm proposing not trying to bully Russia.

You like Scandinavia? You might not see it as it was in 20 years time. What we are doing now, is taking money from universities making them tie in with big business. We already dumbed university down to "EU standards" in 2005 so our bachelor would equal a bachelor somewhere else. Vocational education is right now under the axe, with teachers and students protesting and walking out this monday. Health care is worse than it used to be. Only thing is that we seem to have unlimited amount of money (or actually taking more debt and further lowering our credit rating) to save the EU that is the cause for many of the problems. That, and the recent refugees. Although I don't know where that money is going to, since they are also unhappy, both with what they are getting and with the country.

 

[LuisDantas]

The same border control that existed before (for us, before we joined EU in 1995) and same control over local markets, jobs, universities... national banks that can react faster to crises instead of being forced to follow.

I'm proposing we don't destroy our education system, jobs and safety or go ears deep into debt to fix things that could be easily avoided. I'm proposing not trying to bully Russia.

You like Scandinavia? You might not see it as it was in 20 years time. What we are doing now, is taking money from universities making them tie in with big business. We already dumbed university down to "EU standards" in 2005 so our bachelor would equal a bachelor somewhere else. Vocational education is right now under the axe, with teachers and students protesting and walking out this monday. Health care is worse than it used to be. Only thing is that we seem to have unlimited amount of money (or actually taking more debt and further lowering our credit rating) to save the EU that is the cause for many of the problems. That, and the recent refugees. Although I don't know where that money is going to, since they are also unhappy, both with what they are getting and with the country.

I'm not sure most of that can be attained at all, least of all by retreating into nationalism and closing borders. For instance, affordable health care is IMO something of a mirage until and unless population levels are kept in check, if even then. And regugees... tempting as it may be to chalk them up as someone else's problem, that is not really defensable, nor a true viable strategy.

But I want to ask what you mean by "destruction" of your educational system. Do you mean the pressure to end vocational education?

And what are those debt-causing things that could be easily avoided?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How is it that "border control" is supposed to be a solution but yet "gun control" allegedly will never work? Americans should know damn well by now that if you built it--a wall--they will come and go under it.

 

[Jumi]

How is it that "border control" is supposed to be a solution but yet "gun control" allegedly will never work? Americans should know damn well by now that if you built it--a wall--they will come and go under it.

Some will when there is the feeling that there is a lot to gain by stealing in.

 

[Jumi]

I'm not sure most of that can be attained at all, least of all by retreating into nationalism and closing borders.

You're talking two extremes, I'm talking middle. Do you leave your door open in your country? If you have family or possessions, I doubt it. Is it extreme to lock your door and let people in who you have some idea who they are? And would you let in rebels who you know murdered others for their religion and haven't had any legal consequences for it? Would you let them "hang out" with your kids posting their pictures on facebook without you knowing, while also posting themselves posing with decapitated heads on facebook? Because that, to give one example, is what's going on here.

Here's just one piece of news this week:
http://yle.fi/uutiset/iraqi_detained_in_vaasa_on_suspicion_murder_terror_and_war_crimes/9116789

I don't think that if I say that I don't want these people coming and going freely that I'm being an extreme nationalist. Do you?

Giving these people free pass is cause for a huge rise in nationalism that you don't see. So you and the "wide open borders" people are the ones feeding the new rise of nationalism.

For instance, affordable health care is IMO something of a mirage until and unless population levels are kept in check, if even then.

In many badly managed countries, yes. It still works here, though government is taking money from that to save the EU. Do you think it's wrong for us, to keep an exemplary system up and running? EU seems to think so, we need to dumb down on our priorities.

And regugees... tempting as it may be to chalk them up as someone else's problem, that is not really defensable, nor a true viable strategy.

Prioritize families instead of young military age men who've lied about their age and printed their own passports. There is a common joke about "bearded children" here..

But I want to ask what you mean by "destruction" of your educational system. Do you mean the pressure to end vocational education?

No, just huge cuts in all higher levels of education which has been our selling point.

http://www.finlandtimes.fi/education/2016/08/23/29526/Cuts-in-vocational-training-protested

We used to basically guarantee that every kid gets either vocational education or extra 3 years general education(if they want to go to university, which is still free of charge by the way...). That seems to be in the past now, you can say "goodbye Scandinavian dream". We used to be known for quality work, but without people educated for their jobs or with bad education there's no way to keep that up.

And what are those debt-causing things that could be easily avoided?

In short, the EU. There are also economic options not available because of it.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Jumi , my issue with the idea of nationalism is that it lacks substance, yet promises much.

Borders can't really solve anything. They can hardly deny the reality of a world outside them, building pressures that will need some form of release if left unattended. Nationalism is glorified neglect, and it invariably ends up creating and building extremes rather than avoiding them.

 

[Jumi]

You make it sound like borders and nationalism are the same thing, hence your confusion.

 

[LuisDantas]

You make it sound like borders and nationalism are the same thing, hence your confusion.

The difference being?

 

[Estro Felino]

The difference being?

You do have a point. There is no difference. But you misinterpreted the meaning of the word nationalism. It just means "national sentiment", and it's thanks to this sentiment that European nations have prospered culturally and economically.
The concept of borders is sacred because a territory belongs to a specific nation, and to nobody else. And each nation has a specific Volksgeist, and we European nations want to preserve this Volksgeist. Because there's a reason why Swedes are Nordics, Austrians are Alpines, and Italians are Mediterraneans. It's a natural process, involving genetics and climate. And we Europeans have preserved it for centuries. And we will keep doing that.

 

[LuisDantas]

You do have a point. There is no difference. But you has misinterpreted the meaning of the word nationalism. It just means "national sentiment", and it's thanks to this sentiment that European nations have prospered culturally and economically.

Sorry, I don't think I am the one misinterpreting it. Nationalism is an appeal to denial of foreign territories, It is the full acceptance of permanent conflict. Appealling to one's lower instincts, as so richly illustrated in 1914 and 1939, as well as by the current trends, but ultimately and by necessity an utterly destructive instinct.

In the end, it is just tribal thinking with pretensions of greatness. Fine for living in ways that value pride and purpose over long term thinking. Entirely unworkable if one hopes to avoid calamity while living in a world with a population of billions.

The concept of borders is sacred because a territory belongs to a specific nation.

Sorry, Luca, but you are mistaken. There is no such thing as land ownership in any meaningful sense. It is only social convention by way of laws and customs that sustains the appearance of same. And keeping that delusion, understandable as it is, opens the way for more serious, often bloody and inhuman ones.

We all need land to live in and it is understandable that we want assurance of having it protected from interference of uncooperative people. But lying to ourselves about what can be assured is not a workable solution.

And each nations has a specific Volksgeist, and we European nations want to preserve this Volksgeist. Because there's a reason why Swedes are Nordic, Austrians are Alpine, and Italians are Mediterraneans. It's a natural process, involving genetics and climate. And we Europeans have preserved it for centuries. And we will keep doing it.

Every people is as detailed as we dare to look, being exposed and a part of many simultaneous cultural trends at any given time - and that is definitely a good thing, besides being unavoidable to boot.

Declaring nationalism as a real thing is ultimately an attempt at denying it out of political immediate convenience, attempting to decree some conception of "national" culture as truer than the many, often more vital and at least as legitimate alternatives.

It is not defensable from an ethical view, and destroys a whole lot of the basis of continued survival that humanity needs to deal with the challenges of this huge, unwise, uncooperative population. We won't conquer the challenges of dealing with others by declaring them less significant than those in the immediate vicinity according to static, arbitrary frontiers.

 

[Estro Felino]

Sorry, I don't think I am the one misinterpreting it. Nationalism is an appeal to denial of foreign territories, It is the full acceptance of permanent conflict. Appealling to one's lower instincts, as so richly illustrated in 1914 and 1939, as well as by the current trends, but ultimately and by necessity an utterly destructive instinct.
In the end, it is just tribal thinking with pretensions of greatness. Fine for living in ways that value pride and purpose over long term thinking. Entirely unworkable if one hopes to avoid calamity while living in a world with a population of billions.
Sorry, Luca, but you are mistaken. There is no such thing as land ownership in any meaningful sense. It is only social convention by way of laws and customs that sustains the appearance of same. And keeping that delusion, understandable as it is, opens the way for more serious, often bloody and inhuman ones.
We all need land to live in and it is understandable that we want assurance of having it protected from interference of uncooperative people. But lying to ourselves about what can be assured is not a workable solution.
Every people is as detailed as we dare to look, being exposed and a part of many simultaneous cultural trends at any given time - and that is definitely a good thing, besides being unavoidable to boot.
Declaring nationalism as a real thing is ultimately an attempt at denying it out of political immediate convenience, attempting to decree some conception of "national" culture as truer than the many, often more vital and at least as legitimate alternatives.
It is not defensable from an ethical view, and destroys a whole lot of the basis of continued survival that humanity needs to deal with the challenges of this huge, unwise, uncooperative population. We won't conquer the challenges of dealing with others by declaring them less significant than those in the immediate vicinity according to static, arbitrary frontiers.

All this reasoning of yours practically ignores one basic fact: that the resources of a country are not unlimited.
If you are able to show me scientifically that they are unlimited, we can go on arguing. Otherwise, we cannot.

 

[Sees]

Open borders seems to appeal to politicians interested in creating a struggling state, one which needs Big Government to "fix" (hugely profit from) the issues it generates. Meanwhile, getting support from good-hearted folks who are excessively idealistic, dreaming of a Liberal utopia.

It will lead to further separation of classes - those who benefit and thrive at the top of the system and those at the bottom, with even less than they ever had before. Big Government is consistent with this stuff.

 

[Jumi]

Indeed, those who have least suffer most with the no borders approach. What the people on top gain, may turn out to be rather temporary as well. Unchecked aggressive multinational companies, large groups that maintain commonality come on top and make "new borders".

I have nothing against controlled immigration. If that's nationalist then so be it.

 

[LuisDantas]

All this reasoning of yours practically ignores one basic fact: that the resources of a country are not unlimited.

One of the consequences of those limitations is that we can not afford to ignore "outsiders"... tempting as it can certainly be.

 

[LuisDantas]

Open borders seems to appeal to politicians interested in creating a struggling state, one which needs Big Government to "fix" (hugely profit from) the issues it generates. Meanwhile, getting support from good-hearted folks who are excessively idealistic, dreaming of a Liberal utopia.

It will lead to further separation of classes - those who benefit and thrive at the top of the system and those at the bottom, with even less than they ever had before. Big Government is consistent with this stuff.

It seems to me that nationalism leads to the perception of a need for big government far more than the crumbling of borders does.

 

[Sees]

It seems to me that nationalism leads to the perception of a need for big government far more than the crumbling of borders does.

Not bigger government...just a smarter, more focused, honest, and loyal one.

 

[Parchment]

I'd say it's the last burps and farts of of the EU just like the media smear campaigns in many countries against any anti-EU center or center right politicians that have a chance automatically become labeled far-right digging up the old Hitler/nazi boogeyman out of the closet because what upstanding European would vote for nazis? fortunately that ploy seems to have backfired. It just shows how weak they see their position in which is good, they need to be scared every once in a while but the difference here is that the right has made major gains in many countries in Europe in the last 5-10 years and is gaining new ground every day, I can honestly say that I would put my money on Marine Le Pen in 2017.