• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hungary: Another EU problem state

Westphalian said:
Fair points Pete, and thank you for your reply. I am not knowledgable on Denmark's politics.

Regarding Hungary, Budapest is in favour of a common EU external frontier. What it objects to is not co-operation and co-ordination, but the idea of being forced to accept refugee quotas. Brussels does not need to link quotas to the border issue. They can be separate.
Click to expand...

No they cant.. excuses used by people like Orban. Italy, Spain, and Greece are on the front lines of the refugee/migration problem. They have spent billions on the problem while places like Hungary, Germany, Denmark and the UK have done nothing. Any deal would have to include burden sharing, including spreading refugees (not illegal migrants) across the EU to lessen the burden on the southern European countries. Now there can be negotiated something most likely... like massive financial aid to deal with it, but even that is off the table it seems when it comes to Orban and the UK and even Denmark.

So we come to what is really at the heart of all this. Germany made a terrible mistake in its 2015 open doors policy, and an even bigger one in expecting that all EU states would happily take refugees off its hands even though they never supported Germany's policy's in letting them all in. Brussels happily dreamt up a quota policy in conjunction with Berlin as a way of taking control over national immigration policies.
Click to expand...

What exactly should Germany have done instead? The people were coming up through places like Hungary and there was no agreements what so ever on what to do with the situation.. because people like Orban. So unless you are willing to start executing people at the border, then I dont see how it could have been done any different. The opponents of what Germany did.. have never ever presented what they would have done different.

What the EU needs to do is focus on what is in its competence - enforcing a common external border. From there, national governments must be free to either voluntarily take in a quota of refugees through an EU co-ordinated scheme, or opt out.
Click to expand...

External border is the jurisdiction of the individual member state. The EU can only give aid and organisational help.. which is the whole freaking problem! And Orban among others, refuses to change that.
 
The problem seems to be one of democracy.

Hungarians don't want their relatively homogenous society compromised by refugees. People don't want them. That's their sovereign right, not an EU competence.

So quota schemes are an imposition on democracy, they are an attempt by Brussels to impose on member states and to over-ride citizens' wishes. If ever you wondered why the EU is increasingly unpopular, take a look at the idea of imposing refugees on societies and national governments who don't want them.

The EU would do well to look at Hungary's role in enforcing the EU's external border. Hungary did a very effective job at cutting off a migrant route. It should be congratulated for playing such a community role.
 
Hungary did a very effective job of greatly adding to the problem that the migrant influx brought upon large parts of Europe. Firstly by NOT securing its border, secondly by passing the problem on to Austria and thirdly by causing Germany to finally open up, so as to alleviate the pressure on both Hungary and Austria.

To describe Hungary's actions at the time as fulfilling a community role is the height of lying.

But then what else is to be expected from anyone spouting this nonsense? This nonsense and other nonsense and practically spouted everywhere in the same dishonest fashion.
 
Westphalian said:
The problem seems to be one of democracy.
Click to expand...

No. The problem is one of war crimes.

If Russia wasn't reducing still populated Syrian cities to ashes, there would have been no massive outflow of war refugees to Europe.
 
Westphalian said:
And so the EU, a lumbering and sick giant, stumbles from one crisis to another.

From Brexit, to the disastrous Euro crisis, to the disastrous refugee crisis, to the rise of the far right, to the rise of anti EU sentiment, now we have Hungary - a member state the EU hates.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-hungary-sanctions-witchhunt-budapest-viktor-orban/

The parliamentary investigation on which lawmakers have been asked to base their decision — known as the Sargentini report — is misleading and riddled with factual errors. Based on liberal fundamentalism and tactical naming-and-shaming, it betrays a shallow, misjudged approach and ignores the will of the Hungarian electorate.
Click to expand...

Hungary is not the only country hating the eu, many of the former eastern block and soviet countries in the eu have had problems, not just with immigrants, but also with their wages and economy. Wages tend to stay low in many of those countries while cost of living is made higher by being in the eu, add to that they are on a currency with a high value, so manufacturing becomes a problem for them when another country can make the goods of better quality for near the same cost. The eu in general has not been very good on the poorer nations, bulgaria being an example as being the poorest nation in europe, despite being a eu member.

The same issues come to mind with nato, where many poorer nations have wanted to return to the russian sphere, mostly due to cost as russia usually just gives away gear to their allies while nato forces them to buy expensive gear they can not afford, many poorer nations are still running the mig29 from the soviet union since they can not even afford to replace them with newer aircraft or even afford to modernize their old soviet gear. Plus bulgaria has a nato member to it's south that thinks part of it's country belongs to them Cough turkey Cough.
 
Rogue Valley said:
No. The problem is one of war crimes.

If Russia wasn't reducing still populated Syrian cities to ashes, there would have been no massive outflow of war refugees to Europe.
Click to expand...

Have you heard of Libya, Afgghanistan, Somalia, Yemen and Iraq, or are you just trolling rather pathetically?
 
beerftw said:
Hungary is not the only country hating the eu, many of the former eastern block and soviet countries in the eu have had problems, not just with immigrants, but also with their wages and economy. Wages tend to stay low in many of those countries while cost of living is made higher by being in the eu, add to that they are on a currency with a high value, so manufacturing becomes a problem for them when another country can make the goods of better quality for near the same cost. The eu in general has not been very good on the poorer nations, bulgaria being an example as being the poorest nation in europe, despite being a eu member.

The same issues come to mind with nato, where many poorer nations have wanted to return to the russian sphere, mostly due to cost as russia usually just gives away gear to their allies while nato forces them to buy expensive gear they can not afford, many poorer nations are still running the mig29 from the soviet union since they can not even afford to replace them with newer aircraft or even afford to modernize their old soviet gear. Plus bulgaria has a nato member to it's south that thinks part of it's country belongs to them Cough turkey Cough.
Click to expand...

You're referring to the Euro of course, a currency which locks peripheral states like Greece into permanent penury. Let's be clear about Greece - mass youth unemployment, permanent recession or no growth, still massive indebtedness, and absolutely no hope of ever competing with Germany because it's on the edge of the single market, has high transport costs due to its island and mountain geography, and can't ever currency de-value relative to Germany. So its only hope is to cut labour costs even further.

Regarding NATO - yes, you make a great point. No wonder the US lectures about spending more on defence and insists on the buying of grossly expensive US weapon systems. It's shameless extortion, but states don't join NATO unless they have signed up to the rules of subservience.

Other than Turkey of course which seems to regard the US as more of an enemy than Russia, and much to the annoyance of Washington is buying Russian air defence systems. Perhaps we should ask how long NATO can hold together with Ankara seemingly moving out of the western orbit and itself eschewing liberal democracy.
 
or are you just trolling rather pathetically?
Click to expand...
priceless :lamo

not so much the question but where it comes from. :lol:
 
Westphalian said:
The problem seems to be one of democracy.
Click to expand...

No it aint.

Hungarians don't want their relatively homogenous society compromised by refugees. People don't want them. That's their sovereign right, not an EU competence.
Click to expand...

Also not true. The ONLY one talking like that are the far right racist neo nazi scum like Orban. They are the ones pushing anti-semitic and anti-Muslim views.. hell even anti-Roma and gay and all sorts of minorities.

So quota schemes are an imposition on democracy, they are an attempt by Brussels to impose on member states and to over-ride citizens' wishes. If ever you wondered why the EU is increasingly unpopular, take a look at the idea of imposing refugees on societies and national governments who don't want them.
Click to expand...

And that is the kind of language that pisses me off.. the EU does not impose anything. The national government does not want refugees because said refugees are being used politically to maintain power. It is what far right regimes have done through time.. Hitler did it with the Jews.

The EU would do well to look at Hungary's role in enforcing the EU's external border. Hungary did a very effective job at cutting off a migrant route. It should be congratulated for playing such a community role.
Click to expand...

What a load of bs. Hungary did nothing at first and then after the EU countries refused to pay for a border wall, Hungary built one anyways and taxed the **** out of its own citizens and blamed the EU. Funny enough the taxes were wayyyyy more than needed but it did help in the massive deficit they were running..
 
Westphalian said:
You're referring to the Euro of course, a currency which locks peripheral states like Greece into permanent penury. Let's be clear about Greece - mass youth unemployment, permanent recession or no growth, still massive indebtedness, and absolutely no hope of ever competing with Germany because it's on the edge of the single market, has high transport costs due to its island and mountain geography, and can't ever currency de-value relative to Germany. So its only hope is to cut labour costs even further.
Click to expand...

You can say that of any currency.. The Dollar is a burden on most US states and forces them to push labour costs down to compete. The pound hurts Scotland and Wales as they cant devalue against London. The Ruble in Russia is bad for most of Russia because they cant compete with Moscow and Saint Petersburg. And on and on we go.
 
beerftw said:
Hungary is not the only country hating the eu, many of the former eastern block and soviet countries in the eu have had problems, not just with immigrants, but also with their wages and economy. Wages tend to stay low in many of those countries while cost of living is made higher by being in the eu, add to that they are on a currency with a high value, so manufacturing becomes a problem for them when another country can make the goods of better quality for near the same cost. The eu in general has not been very good on the poorer nations, bulgaria being an example as being the poorest nation in europe, despite being a eu member.

The same issues come to mind with nato, where many poorer nations have wanted to return to the russian sphere, mostly due to cost as russia usually just gives away gear to their allies while nato forces them to buy expensive gear they can not afford, many poorer nations are still running the mig29 from the soviet union since they can not even afford to replace them with newer aircraft or even afford to modernize their old soviet gear. Plus bulgaria has a nato member to it's south that thinks part of it's country belongs to them Cough turkey Cough.
Click to expand...
Where there is much truth in all of what you list and where the EU has so far abysmally failed in addressing the obvious disparities, the idea of ANY former "bloc" country returning to Russia for alleviation is rather absurd. Not the idea of returning itself, but the delusion of bettering its plight by any such measure.

I nevertheless agree that imposing the common currency on just about everyone, better said inducing all to gleefully clamber aboard it in wild hopes of milk and honey to soon flow, was a terrible mistake.

Especially (since you cite it) in the case of Bulgaria which would have been far from fulfilling the eligibility criteria, had not both Bulgaria and the EU heavily twisted some screws.

And Bulgaria is of course not alone in this predicament but its special case can be best described as being able to get on top of the pot holes in its roads, yet not (so far) on top of the corruption that runs random. Nevertheless as of end last year 57 pct of its citizens regard the EU positively (second highest approval rate after Lithuania) but that does indeed take nothing from Bulgaria still being the poorest of the (still) 28 members.

Nevertheless Hungary (seeing how its the topic of this thread) has profited more from EU membership than any other EU member in that around 30 billion Euros have flowed into the country in the last seven years or so, making up around 4.5 pct of its total GDP.

The problem resting in the fact that the system there is so abysmally corrupt by now, that the greatest profiteers are those with their fingers on the honey pot, with Orban and his whole family leading the greedy pack and the EU so far comparatively toothless in doing anything about it.

Poland is another profiteer, although I wouldn't go so far as accusing it of the same level of corruption (misappropriation of funds) as seen in Hungary. Its' agrarian sector is by now very competitive (greatest exporter of apples and cherrys), total exports having quadrupled from 2004 to 2014, first eer achieved trade surplus in 2015, road system quadrupled, per capita income having risen from 49 to 69 pct of EU average and unemployment halved.

To name just a few factors.

Not to detract from any failings of the overall EU organization (of which there are many) I'd posit that both countries have been supplied with a convenient whipping boy for internal failures as well.

Conclusion being that the actual disparity often lies in the relationship of actual reality to "feeling".
 
Okay, so in Pete's world, Hungarians do want mass migration, even though two thirds of them vote for either Orban's Fidesz or the even more right wing Jobbik.

Forget those dumb voters who are taken in by right wing rhetoric. The poor fools don't understand what they are voting for. What they really want is more refugees, more immigrants, more diversity.


This is a charicature of the EU and its rabid supporters, but it's also a very clear thought strand evidenced in Pete's post #61. Fundamentally unable to accept that rational people wouldn't want immigration, the argument goes that the voters are ignorant and are being mis-led. From there it's a small step to arguing that voters should be ignored in the interests of some chimeric rational democracy which just happens to coincide with the views of Brussels.

Small wonder that the EU is increasingly un-loved by those voters who are objects of its disdain.
 
PeteEU said:
No it aint.......~
Click to expand...
one needs to remember (of become aware of) that Westphalian's interpretation of this term is of people having the democratic right to vote for democracy''s abolishment.

Says it all.
 
Chagos said:
Where there is much truth in all of what you list and where the EU has so far abysmally failed in addressing the obvious disparities, the idea of ANY former "bloc" country returning to Russia for alleviation is rather absurd. Not the idea of returning itself, but the delusion of bettering its plight by any such measure.

I nevertheless agree that imposing the common currency on just about everyone, better said inducing all to gleefully clamber aboard it in wild hopes of milk and honey to soon flow, was a terrible mistake.

Especially (since you cite it) in the case of Bulgaria which would have been far from fulfilling the eligibility criteria, had not both Bulgaria and the EU heavily twisted some screws.

And Bulgaria is of course not alone in this predicament but its special case can be best described as being able to get on top of the pot holes in its roads, yet not (so far) on top of the corruption that runs random. Nevertheless as of end last year 57 pct of its citizens regard the EU positively (second highest approval rate after Lithuania) but that does indeed take nothing from Bulgaria still being the poorest of the (still) 28 members.

Nevertheless Hungary (seeing how its the topic of this thread) has profited more from EU membership than any other EU member in that around 30 billion Euros have flowed into the country in the last seven years or so, making up around 4.5 pct of its total GDP.

The problem resting in the fact that the system there is so abysmally corrupt by now, that the greatest profiteers are those with their fingers on the honey pot, with Orban and his whole family leading the greedy pack and the EU so far comparatively toothless in doing anything about it.

Poland is another profiteer, although I wouldn't go so far as accusing it of the same level of corruption (misappropriation of funds) as seen in Hungary. Its' agrarian sector is by now very competitive (greatest exporter of apples and cherrys), total exports having quadrupled from 2004 to 2014, first eer achieved trade surplus in 2015, road system quadrupled, per capita income having risen from 49 to 69 pct of EU average and unemployment halved.

To name just a few factors.

Not to detract from any failings of the overall EU organization (of which there are many) I'd posit that both countries have been supplied with a convenient whipping boy for internal failures as well.

Conclusion being that the actual disparity often lies in the relationship of actual reality to "feeling".
Click to expand...

The idea of any former block member returning to russia is absurd, however as you should know people always think the grass is greener on the other side, those same people wanting to join the russian federation would have been the same people wanting to leave it during the soviet union, they always see what they do not have as better, and never rationalize their thoughts or think things through.
 
Westphalian said:
You're referring to the Euro of course, a currency which locks peripheral states like Greece into permanent penury. Let's be clear about Greece - mass youth unemployment, permanent recession or no growth, still massive indebtedness, and absolutely no hope of ever competing with Germany because it's on the edge of the single market, has high transport costs due to its island and mountain geography, and can't ever currency de-value relative to Germany. So its only hope is to cut labour costs even further.

Regarding NATO - yes, you make a great point. No wonder the US lectures about spending more on defence and insists on the buying of grossly expensive US weapon systems. It's shameless extortion, but states don't join NATO unless they have signed up to the rules of subservience.

Other than Turkey of course which seems to regard the US as more of an enemy than Russia, and much to the annoyance of Washington is buying Russian air defence systems. Perhaps we should ask how long NATO can hold together with Ankara seemingly moving out of the western orbit and itself eschewing liberal democracy.
Click to expand...

Nato's defense spending requirements are not extortion, however countries like bulgaria and poland should never have been part of nato, if they lack the funds to even keep antique soviet gear going it is doubtfull they could afford the proper defense spending for nato compliant gear. For example bulgaria still widely uses outdated soviet gear, poland still uses the t-72 tank, and other countries would break their bank buying 5 f-16's, those countries should never have been part of nato if they could not pay the bill, and if nato was so adamant about them being there they should have donated them the gear.
 
beerftw said:
Nato's defense spending requirements are not extortion, however countries like bulgaria and poland should never have been part of nato, if they lack the funds to even keep antique soviet gear going it is doubtfull they could afford the proper defense spending for nato compliant gear. For example bulgaria still widely uses outdated soviet gear, poland still uses the t-72 tank, and other countries would break their bank buying 5 f-16's, those countries should never have been part of nato if they could not pay the bill, and if nato was so adamant about them being there they should have donated them the gear.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

But NATO is not a charity, instead it's a club with one ruler which imposes its requirements on the subject states.

You must primarily buy our equipment.

You must spend x % on defence.

You must willingly host our forces if we so ask.

You must always support our foreign policy.

You should contribute men to die in our wars anywhere in the world.


Of course we respect your Sovereignty, but you know there are lots of rewards for good behaviour, and sanctions (Turkey) for bad boys.
 
beerftw said:
The idea of any former block member returning to russia is absurd, however as you should know people always think the grass is greener on the other side, those same people wanting to join the russian federation would have been the same people wanting to leave it during the soviet union, they always see what they do not have as better, and never rationalize their thoughts or think things through.
Click to expand...
Agreed and that was indeed my point.
 
beerftw said:
Nato's defense spending requirements are not extortion, however countries like bulgaria and poland should never have been part of nato, if they lack the funds to even keep antique soviet gear going it is doubtfull they could afford the proper defense spending for nato compliant gear. For example bulgaria still widely uses outdated soviet gear, poland still uses the t-72 tank, and other countries would break their bank buying 5 f-16's, those countries should never have been part of nato if they could not pay the bill, and if nato was so adamant about them being there they should have donated them the gear.
Click to expand...
good point (the bolded).
 
Westphalian said:
Indeed.

But NATO is not a charity, instead it's a club with one ruler which imposes its requirements on the subject states.

You must primarily buy our equipment.

You must spend x % on defence.

You must willingly host our forces if we so ask.

You must always support our foreign policy.

You should contribute men to die in our wars anywhere in the world.


Of course we respect your Sovereignty, but you know there are lots of rewards for good behaviour, and sanctions (Turkey) for bad boys.
Click to expand...

Spending x on defense does not mean much, when some poorer nato countries can spend well over 2% of their gdp and not have a meaningful defense. Russia is actually trying to capitalize on this, the mig 35 export is going to be nato and us data bus compliant, meaning they can use all nato compliant avionics with it. The export model seems geared towards countries who can not afford other gear and jets like the mig29 are not nato compatible, yet is still in use as the countries using them can not afford to replace them. The mig 35 is nothing more than a modernized mig 29.


So let's say a country like bulgaria buys 10 f-16's, that would pretty much break their budget as their military budget covers far more than aquisition, and with them exceeding 2% gdp would still not buy much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom