News / EU confirms it will take action against Poland over court reforms [554]

@Dirk diggler


Out of all the stupid arguments against the EU by the Europhobic press, this is probably one of the most outstanding.

Somehow some people claim that the idea of a political Union is some sort of nefarious ploy that has only been implemented after countries joined because they were promised economic benefits.

Nobody who has any knowledge about the postwar European integration would ever come up with such an idea. Because political integration was always the idea behind the project, in fact the political founding fathers of the EU (Schuman, Jean Monnet, Konrad Adenauer among others) saw this as the most important long-term goal, because a United Europe would guarantee that there would be no further wars in Europe.

The European Coal and Steel Community was born out of the desire to control the ressources that could be used for war. Of course the politicians knew that European integration would also aid the economic recovery of the continent, and they used this as an argument why European integration was helpful, but if you read their speeches, they have made no secret behind their intentions (and a lot of people agreed and are still agreeing with them). I honestly don't know if the British people really voted to join because they were told this was exclusively an economic Union, certainly this was an important argument for the impoverished UK. But that would mean that the British people were willfully ignorant to the idea behind the EU (and its' predecessors) and if anything, reflects poorly on them. This is even more true for the Eastern European countries who joined even later. If you still believed that the EU was a solely economic project, I'd seriously question your judgement.

News / EU confirms it will take action against Poland over court reforms [554]

@gumishu

I was talking about the Supreme Court since this is in Poland a point of contention.

News / EU confirms it will take action against Poland over court reforms [554]

@Dirk diggler

Juncker was elected by the European parliament which was in return elected by the European people, end of discussion. Just because you don't like him doesn't change his democratic legitimacy.


Sure, just like millions of Polish people have since the 2000s emigrated to other European countries. This has however nothing to do with the refugee situation.


When, in 2050? Maybe Poland will become a net payee in a few decades, but not sooner.

And yes, Poland will receive almost certainly less money from the next structural funds next time, which in return will last for several years. So the Polish people will have to suffer the consequences even after the current government is out of power. Which is sad, but a logical consequence.

News / EU confirms it will take action against Poland over court reforms [554]


This is not true. In Germany, each judge needs to be approved by 2/3 of the members in both chambers of the German parliament.

@ Dirk please inform yourself about how the Eu works before you write your posts. Juncker is for example democratically elected, and the Visegrad group (with the exception of Hungary, but they might get under fire as well) have already stated that they won't back Poland over this.

News / EU confirms it will take action against Poland over court reforms [554]

@gumishu

Because the other EU members still had hope that Poland would return to sanity, but patience is obviously running out.

News / Roman Polanski accused of unlawful sex with a minor [403]

@ygb


You can look it up, but I sincerely doubt that he got her parent's consent and even if he did, I doubt it was illegal. From what I remember, he only made those pictures after he sent her mother away.


The law is supposed to reflect real life. The intention behind this is e.g. that a school couple doesn't get into legal trouble because e.g. the boyfriend is 18 and his girlfriend is 17. It also covers people who are even older, but this can raise eyebrows and if someone reports you, the police would probably look into it. Not so long ago we had the case of a politician who had a relationship with a 16-years old girl and who was reported to the police. The police found no evidence for any foul play, but his public career was obviously over.


You can't see the difference between having a private relationship and posing for pictures which thanks to the internet will be around possibly forever and doings this as a job? Nevermind that this would open a lot of loopholes for child pornography, (which have unfortunately only been closed a few years ago), the law recognizes that people need to be of certain age before they can make such decisions and act responsible. You would have some serious issues, if you don#t acknowledge this.

News / Roman Polanski accused of unlawful sex with a minor [403]


I don't know if you are really serious about this, but I'll humor you.

If she is under 18, you'll need the written consent of her parents to whom you'll have to show every picture before you sell it. None of those pictures are allowed to be in any way sexual suggestive, and there are also rules how much skin someone below 18 is allowed to show (as in only a bikini or a bathing suit is strictly forbidden).

News / Roman Polanski accused of unlawful sex with a minor [403]


I am not sure how the situation is in Poland (though I suspect it is comparable) but in Germany, the age of consent for sexual relations between minors is 14.

If you are over 18, he/she needs to be 16. And it is illegal to biy the service of a prostitute who is not at öeast 18 years old.

News / Roman Polanski accused of unlawful sex with a minor [403]


Sure, if you want to get arrested.

News / How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland. [1114]


That was offered to Greece several times as far as I know. They always refused, citing their sovereignity as reason.

And even if Greece accepted, Turkey refused to take any refugees back.

News / How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland. [1114]


You claim that Merkel said that all people who reach Germany were refugees and that the German government would change the criterias for political syslum on a whim. Both are objectively false, or can you provide us with a source for these claims. You are either lying or intentionally misinformed.@Dirk diggler

@Dirk diggler


Yes, because those buisness men exploit a desperate situation. We had cases like this when e.g. a hotel owner charged for completely run down rooms more than 200€ per night. And why do we have this situation? Because a few countries have to deal with all refugees.


Another false claim. The Taliban were only recognized by two countries: Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia.

@gumishu

News / How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland. [1114]

@Dirk diggler

I think we would all be very interested in your sources.... .

News / How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland. [1114]

@SigSauer


You aren't. As explained before, refugees from Syria are no more likely to become criminal than others. Going that logic, you would have to ban immigration alltogether.


I don't know where you are from, and like you I don't want to make any assumptions, but it seems to me that your assumptions are based on a very distorted picture of the migrant situation, probably based on media coverage. I have noticed this while studying the media coverage of the refugee crisis in the British tabloids that most of them paint a completely exaggerated or even wrong picture of the situation here. Starting with the supposed content of Merkel's "invitation" in 2015. I recently talked with a few people from Sweden who told me something similar about the press coverage of their countries.

I mean honestly, two weeks ago an American student asked my professor whether or not it was safe for him to travel to Germany "because of the terrorists". Just after an American had killed almost 60 people, several times the number of Germans who have died so far because of Islamic terrorism.

There are certainly challenges here, but none that would qualify as "existential" to our culture. And a few thousand refugees would certainly be no threat to Poland's culture. This is just something eurosceptic parties are using as a pretext of rallying against the EU. By doing that they are betraying everything European values stand for (rule of law, morality).I just wished they would stop pretending to adhere to christian values at least.

News / How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland. [1114]

@Ironside


You are either misinformed or lying here. Merkel never claimed that all people reaching Germany were refugees. In fact she stated already in September 2015 that only those who suffer from political prosecution and are fleeing from a warzone have any claim for political asylum. Something the English speaking press failed to draw attention to.


Another lie or misconception.


Another objectively wrong statement. When did Germany break the law with impunity? Poland is of course violating European law by not honoring the refugee deal.

Is this how you like to argue? With lies and wrong accusations?


Poland cares currently for 6000 refugees from the Ukraine. Not more, no less. All the others have not been acknowledged as refugees and are thus not entitled to any help by the Polish state.

News / How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland. [1114]


False. Poland has accepted approx. 6000 refugees as this article points out: ft.com/content/aeda9ebe-3afa-11e7-ac89-b01cc67cfeec



Those who were arrested/suspected paint a very clear picture. This is also important because Syrians are genuine refugees who might stay permanently, whereas less than 1% of the North Africans qualify for asylum. Those who have a claim for asylum are less likely to commit crimes than the average citizen, since they don't want to spoil their chances.

dw.com/en/are-refugees-more-criminal-than-the-average-german-citizen/a-38371284


And as sovereign country it decided to join the EU with the implicite consent to adhere to its' rules.

News / Polish-German Reconcilliation Seminar [491]

Diesel submarines produce less noise and are thus better suited for the Baltic Seas anyway, since we need stealth there.

News / How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland. [1114]


Refugees are those who can prove that they have claim for political asylum, those who don't have claim are not refugees. The welfare tourists from Eastern Europe are not refugees (and they don't claim to be ones, since they have access to the welfare system of Germany simply because they are EU citizens). But well, this is the wrong thread to discuss this.

News / How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland. [1114]

@Dirk diggler

Please read a book about the negotiations. Wikipedia is nice, but it gives only a very short overview.
This is all very well documented. It was Germany to overcame French objections, if Germany had sided with France, the enlargement would not have happened.


I have never said that they were the only resposnible party, just they key responsible party. If France and Germany had objected enlargement, it would not have happened. Simple as that.

News / How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland. [1114]


Not an exaggeration, just the truth. There are many books out there that describe the negotiations before the EU enlargmenent. I once wrote an university paper about this. The UK wanted an Eastern Enlargement, because they needed more workers and more crucially, wanted to prevent deeper European integration. France was fiercely opposed because the wanted deeper European integration before further enlargement. It was up to Germany to act as tie breaker. If Germany had sided with France, the EU enlargement would not have happened so soon.

News / How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland. [1114]


Germany is still welcoming Polish migrants while the UK has decided to curb Eastern European imigration and even threatens the rights of Polish residents. Interesting that you believe that they played a more positive role than Germany in this.


Poland has to live up to its' obligations to the EU. It won't be able to avoid this without consequences. Consequences that will be far more expensive than caring for a few thounsand refugees. Poland receives several bns each year because of European solidarity. It demands Nato troops on its' territory out of solidarity. Yet when Southern European faces a refugee crisis, it has no intention to show solidarity. This might cost Warsaw dearly in the future. Why should countries like Italy show any interest in increasing their defence budget, or agree to more Nato troops on European soil when they were betrayed by Eastern Europe?

I didn't intent to argue about Poland and Germany in this thread. I just wanted to point out that one key argument of the Brexit campaign was based on a deliberate lie, it was not he EU who forced on them Eastern European migrants, it was the British government who made this decision. This argument is even more nonsensical if you consider that most of their muslimic immigrants are from the former Commonwealth (the culprits in Rotterdam were Pakistani) and that the Brexit campaign promised closer ties to the Commonwealth (which seems very unrealistic to me in the first place).

News / How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland. [1114]


A fear that was fully justified though. Germany had already high unemployment in the earls 2000s when the decision was made, and considering the problems we already have with welfare tourists from Eastern Europe even now (there is currently a debate about homeless Eastern Europeans in Berlin parks), it was a necessary step.


Poland would not have been able to join the EU without the support of Germany, that alone should have earned Polish gratitude. Nevermind that even with this limitation, Germany has become the main destination for Eastern European migrants, and with Brexit will probably see a further surge of immigration.

However we were talking about the UK here, and as pointed out, that so many Polish migrants came to the UK was not due to the EU, but thanks to the British government.

News / Polish-German Reconcilliation Seminar [491]


It helps that the Nazis used the swastika as insignia whereever they could and that it has a history that goes back several centuries ago.


We don't use soldiers for police duty in Germany and ther e is no need for this anyway.

News / How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland. [1114]


The UK could have chosen to limit the movement of people for several years like many other countries did, e.g. Germany. But the British government wanted cheap labour and thus decided against it. So blaming the EU for this is objectively wrong.

News / Polish-German Reconcilliation Seminar [491]

I'll write a longer response tomorrow. Here is a recently published article that might be very interesting for the topic at hand:

NATO Grapples with Serious Organizational Shortcomings
spiegel.de/international/world/nato-faces-serious-shortcomings-in-command-revamp-a-1173947.html

Germany might very well become the host country for the facilities that would be needed to organize the defence of Eastern Europe.

News / Polish-German Reconcilliation Seminar [491]

@G (undercover)

At its' peak Germany had a contingent of 5500 soldiers in Afghanistan. Germany also undertook offensive operation in which it suffered casualities. It is true that initially German soldiers were very much restrained in what they were allowed to do, but those legal restraints - which were in place partly due to the experience of WWII - have been gradually lifted. Afghanistan certainly was an important learning experience for Germany and in the end they lead a large Counterinsurgency Campaign.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterinsurgency_in_Northern_Afghanistan

German special forces also participated in military operations with the USA and others:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora

We can argue about numbers all we want. And I am not going to downplay American involvement in Europe during the Cold War, because it was certainly crucial and expensive (although I would argue that the wars America fought elsewhere, e.g. the Vietnam War were significantly more expensive). That being said, the USA didn't protect Europe out of charity, but because it realized that the Cold War would be won in Europe. It's commitment there lead to the downfall of the SU and American global hegemony for more than a decade. And my point is, that the USA are the only member state who asked others to come to there defence, to which every country obliged. American soldiers didn't die in Combat Operations in Europe during the Cold War, but European soldiers died in Afghanistan on behalf of the USA. I understand that the USA wants higher defence spending in Europe, but I find it disrespectful to the soldiers who died in Afghanistan to marginalize their efforts. Btw. Germany will probably again increase its' number of soldiers again for mission Resolute Support.


It just shows you how nonsensical a firm adherence to the 2% target is. Not that paying soldiers more to attract the number of recruits needed is a bad idea mind you. The question is not how to spend more money, but how to spend it more efficiently.


I very much doubt that this is the plan of the German political elite. I don't think hardly anyone is more unhappy about the decrease of American investment in Europe than the German politicians. That being said, we must be realistic. Even without Trump, even without the 2% debate, I believe that it would have been only a matter of time until the USA were to reduce its' activities in Europe in order to deal with the rise of China in Asia. The USA is not being pushed out, but decided to curb its' engagement in Europe of its' own free will. So down the line, Europeans will have to learn how to defend themselves, and a proper European army would be the best way to do it. As for the equipment part, it is way too soon to make any speculations about this. Fact is, that French and German military equipment, including tanks are already vastly used by many European Nato members, and e.g. Germany has recently sold a lot of armored vehicles to the Baltic states, so its' not like we need this competetive advantage. Furthermore even if things turned out like you describe - what I very much doubt - it would still be benefical for the smaller states, since they would not able to afford most of the stuff otherwise, and in a shared battalion would not have to pay in full for maintenance. Again, the main problem of European defence spending is not that it is too low, it is simply spread too thin because every country has to pay for their own air force et al.


Aside from the fact that this would violate so many EU regulations that no sane government would try to attempt this, it is also very unlikely. It is not like the USA tried the same during the Cold War when Europe very much depended on it, so it is no realistic scenario for a European army, in which France and Germany would play a significantly smaller part, (there are e.g. other major countries like Italy and Spain) that their governments would use economic blackmail on other fields as well.


I very much doubt that. Ideally an EU army would also include nuclear weapons (by France) and should be large enough to deter Russia from any agression. it doesn't need to be as large as Russia's, it should simply be enough to mount a serious defence that would make an invasion far too costly to consider.

Also I contest that Germany and Poland have no common security interests. Poland wants security towards Russia. Germany wants Poland secure, because it is an important trading partner, and more importantly protects its' Eastern flank. Berlin is less than 100km from the Oder river away, and nobody wants the Russians on our border. The problem is however that their attitude towards Russia differs. Poland has lived under Russia's heel for more than 4 decades and is thus very hostile. It doesn't help that Poland's most powerful man believes in conspiracy theory that Russia killed his brother. Germany on the other hand was Russia's potential enemy during the Cold War, but it also made the experience that negotiations, diplomacy and trade policy can significantly reduce the risk of war and ease geostrategic rivalries in general (Ostpolitik). Of course we can argue that Putin's Russia is far more belligerent than the SU, but this experience is still important. We have to make a stand against Russia, but we also have to make sure that there is room for a diplomatic solution.

There are measures we can introduce that have a purpose, and those that are needlessy antagonistic. We stationed an international brigade in each Baltic state. This would be enough to combat any attempt of Russia to replicate the "Hybrid warfare" concept tested in the Ukraine. But it would not be sufficient to deter a full Russian invasion. However, not even a significantly larger group of soldiers (let us say 10.000 instead of 1000) would be enough in this case. Russia would close the Sulwaki gap, overrun the Baltics and probably try to defend its' new territory without invadind Poland. By stationing soldiers in the Baltics the Nato send a mesage that it would be willing to fight and die for those countries, but it did so in a size that would not be seen as provocation to Russia. The latter point is important because we must be honest here: Particulary in Western Europe, not only in Germany, public opinion is very much divided on those issues. Nato made a compromise that so far worked out.

News / Polish-German Reconcilliation Seminar [491]


The usual conspiracy theories, I see.

Also, there are no "unelected" EU commissars, despite of what the Brexit press claims.


Not that Germany is a particulary socialist country by European standards, but I hope you are not one those guys who believe that the Nazis practiced any sort of genuine socialism?

thoughtco.com/was-adolf-hitler-a-socialist-1221367


Don't worry, we are all cuckhuld wimps after all.


Or we just have a group of friendly democratic states pooling their ressources together to get the most of it. Germany was asked by countries like the Czech Republic and Rumania for cooperation, because in times when equipment becomes more and more sophisticated and thus expensive, it becomes more and more difficult for smaller countries to maintain capabilities. The current problem is not that Europe does not spend enough on defence in total, it is simply done way too inefficiently. The Netherlands are highly trained in naval and landing operations, Germany has a lot of experience in tank warfare. So Germany will in the future probably provide tanks while the Netherlands will command Marines.

News / Polish-German Reconcilliation Seminar [491]

@Crnogorac3


This is not true. The German constitutional court ruled in 1994 that the Bundeswehr could participate in missions that were included in a system of "mutual collective security " This includes Nato, but also a possible Common European Defence Policy. This is e.g. the reasoning for the Bundeswehr mission in Iraq and elsewhere after France triggered the European defence mechanism after the Paris attacks.


It doesn't have to be for Germany to act, although it certainly helps.

If you are interested, an English translation of the entire ruling is here:

germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=3720


The ICJ decided otherwise. And frankly, although we know that fears of massacres were exaggerated, the outcome of the intervention has been so overwhelmingly positive for the stability of the Balkans, that this a moot point anyway.


I usually try, but when the first few words are something like "Freudian cuckhold fetishism" I don't bother.

News / Polish-German Reconcilliation Seminar [491]


The issue of reparations was adressed in talks between Kohl and Mazowiecki and an agreement that was intented to be final was reached. There are very good books about this where you can read a lot of details. Hence why the issue of reparations is closed according to every neutral observer you may find.

News / Polish-German Reconcilliation Seminar [491]


It was however not a binding agreement. That was only decided in 2014 and will only count starting 2024. How much each country spends before 2024 doesn't matter. The only reason why the USA brough it up because all that warmongering the ME became to expensive and they suddenly felt like the Europeans did not spend enough on their defence.


Not true, Germany has already increased its' defence budget during the last years and will continue to do so until it reaches 2% by 2024.


Schulz party the SPD is out of government, so what he said during the campaign doesn't matter. The SPD is traditionally Russian-friendly, it was SPD-chancellord Schröder who negotiated North Stream.


Merkel has defended the military build-up during the campaign, although it is highly unpopular in Germany, so there is no reason to believe that she would not stick to it. The budget for next year is already passed and will again see an increase.


Could you please give some more details about this, because I have so far found no information about this. I know that Germany and Poland made a final agreement regarding the border and reparations in two treaties between 1990/91, but I have not read anything about a Polish government seeking reparations afterwars in the same decade.

News / Polish-German Reconcilliation Seminar [491]

Poland would be significantly worse off without all the assistance it received from Western Europe since the end of the Cold War. Arguing about this is pointless, only people who have obviously their own agenda would deny this. it is all written in the history books, how Mazowiecki and other Polish politicians asked mainly for German money, expertise, credits et al.