The European Union

There seems confusion over the terms migrant and refugee. A migrant moves from one place to another of their own free will. A refugee is running for their life from a dangerous place with the sole aim of finding a safe haven, i.e. the first place they reach where they are no longer in danger. Just as one example those in France long since ceased being refugees from the moment they arived in Europe, and have become migrants by choosing to move on. This is of course if they were ever refugees in the first place

 

For me, there is no confusion, but I admit I die inside a little when I see someone interviewing someone who voted to leave to kick out the refugees and says something like 'send em back to Syria' or something, IDK.
If... Germany and Greece are giving refugees citizenship that they use not to stay in Germany or Greece, but to head to the UK then... IDK.
Shame on the system.

It is British history to have masses of immigration.
But as time moves on, they become British just like anyone other England shirt/'national soccer jersey' pint drinking/'beer drinking' Brit, from England.
Growing up in a South London terraced house between neighbours who both fled Uganda from Idi Amin, Have been in England and their children now middle aged men with families of their own with children born and bred in England. They left India during the Haj, went to Uganda, and got kicked out in the most horrid of ways and so fled to England (when half the world was British)? Not too long before I was born and came by the masses. I don't think any head of state in Uganda have ever apologised to all these people for doing that.

 

Contrary to popular belief, that hasn't just been invented; there were instances of violence against Belgian refugees in Perth, because they were seen as "skivers"-
"The UK was home to 250,000 Belgian refugees during World War One, the largest single influx in the country's history. So why did they vanish with little trace?
Little could have prepared Folkestone for 14 October 1914. The bustling Kent port was used to comings and goings, but not the arrival of 16,000 Belgian refugees in a single day.
Germany had invaded Belgium, forcing them to flee. The exodus had started in August and the refugees continued to arrive almost daily for months, landing at other ports as well, including Tilbury, Margate, Harwich, Dover, Hull and Grimsby.
Official records from the time estimate 250,000 Belgians refugees came to Britain during WW1. In some purpose-built villages they had their own schools, newspapers, shops, hospitals, churches, prisons and police. These areas were considered Belgian territory and run by the Belgian government. They even used the Belgian currency.
Few communities in the UK were unaffected by their arrival, say historians. Most were housed with families across the country and in all four nations.
But despite their numbers the only Belgian from the time that people are most likely to know is the fictitious detective Hercule Poirot. Agatha Christie is said to have based the character on a Belgian refugee she met in her home town of Torquay.
There is little else to show they were here apart from a church, some plaques, gravestones, the odd bit of wood carving in public buildings and a few Belgian street names dotted around the country. There is a single monument in London's Victoria Embankment Gardens given in thanks by the Belgian Government.
"It was the largest influx of refugees in British history but it's a story that is almost totally ignored," says Tony Kushner, professor of modern history at the University of Southampton.
"A group of Belgians detraining in Northampton were met by 'kind-hearted ladies [who] were ready at the station with steaming coffee, buns and sweets'. Such refugees arriving in the English Midlands 'brought home to us the tragedy of their martyred country'."
This was partly by design. When WW1 finished the British government wanted its soldiers back home and refugees out, he says.
"Britain had an obligation to help refugees during the war but the narrative quickly changed when it ended, the government didn't want foreigners anymore."
Many Belgians had their employment contracts terminated, leaving them with little option but to go home. The government offered free one-way tickets back to Belgium, but only for a limited period. The aim was to get them to leave the country as quickly as possible.
Within 12 months of the war ending more than 90% had returned home, says Kushner. They left as quickly as they came, leaving little time to establish any significant legacy."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28857769

 

????
Into conspiracy theories much?

 

Good if you are not confused maybe you can sort this for me. A Syrian leaves Syria due to fear of being killed for their beliefs and lands in Southern Italy by boat. No problem they are if the story is correct a refugee. But on landing should they not report their arrival and claim asylum at that place and time? thus confirming they wish to be treated as a refugee. My point is if they do not claim asylum at that first point of arrival they become a migrant. They are no longer running from harm but solely seeking a home in a country of their choice. As such every so called refugee in Calais and those elsewhere moving across Europe have become migrants. An explanation as to how these people can still be refugees when they failed to claim asylum at their first opportunity may put my mind at rest.

 

Come on, I think you know me better than that. Im surprised you are unaware.

"As this newspaper first reported when the treasure became available, one memorandum dated July 26, 1950, reveals a campaign to promote a full-fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the Central Inteligence Agency.
The key CIA front was the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE), chaired by Donovan. Another document shows that it provided 53.5 per cent of the European movement's funds in 1958. The board included Walter Bedell Smith and Allen Dulles, CIA directors in the Fifties, and a caste of ex-OSS officials who moved in and out of the CIA."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/27/the-european-union-always-was-a-cia-project-as-brexiteers-discov/

 

Seriously you are quoting efforts made in the 50s with the creation of the EU. Get real.

 

Am I missing something?

 

Apparently. The CIA funding efforts decades ago for a united European Government has little or nothing to do with the formation of the EU.

 

Two points

#1 Here is what Churchill said, in Zurich in 1946....

This noble continent, comprising on the whole the fairest and the most cultivated regions of the earth; enjoying a temperate and equable climate, is the home of all the great parent races of the western world. It is the fountain of Christian faith and Christian ethics. It is the origin of most of the culture, arts, philosophy and science both of ancient and modem times.

If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance, there would be no limit to the happiness, to the prosperity and glory which its three or four hundred million people would enjoy. Yet it is from Europe that have sprung that series of frightful nationalistic quarrels, originated by the Teutonic nations, which we have seen even in this twentieth century and in our own lifetime, wreck the peace and mar the prospects of all mankind.
.................
Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the strength of the United Nations Organisation.

Under and within that world concept, we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe.
The first step is to form a Council of Europe.
If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can.
The salvation of the common people of every race and of every land from war or servitude must be established on solid foundations and must be guarded by the readiness of all men and women to die rather than submit to tyranny.
In all this urgent work, France and Germany must take the lead together.

Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America, and I trust Soviet Russia - for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine

One question is whether Churchill envisaged the UK as part of the United states of Europe. he certainly envisaged Britian supporting a united Europe and not wishing its demise.

#4 The EU is a club that countries want to join. Not sure which dictators admitted the baltic states? Surley you mean the council of ministers of the democracies which form the EU member states. Surely it was the British who pushed hardest to extent the EU. Perhaps it was that dictator Margaret Thatcher who wanted a broader not deeper Europe?

#5 By and large the immigrants have added to our economy. We have a low unemployment and an aging population. Eastern European immigrants are from European culture and tradition. There is no question of Turkey joining the EU.

 

Haha. That my friend is your opinion.

 

The earliest embryo I know about is the BENELUX which was decided as early as 1944. There was even an economical union between Belgian adn Luxembourg in 1921. This is way befroe the the steel union of 1951 and the 1957 creation of the EEC .

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benelux

 

What worked for the US isn't the same for Europe. Get real, because this tells me you're no longer German first, but European.
Like turning back on your own country for a dream based on television ignoring reality.
There is no United States of Europe and the difference between the US and the EU is many.

 

Of course one can be German first and European too, or British and European . ( many Texans are Texans first and Amercans too ). Local specificities make our respective cultures so rich and are a protection against mondialisation. And yes, I'm fully aware there are differences between the EU and the U.S., that's the challenge. If the Americans did it, so can we . 250 ago the Virginians hated the Bostonians and during the 19th the North fought the South etc...Today they world power one.
The European Union precisly avoids us from turning back on your country while preserving our cultures and peace among its members .
I'm afraid your statement has contradictions . I thought you Brexit voters were the ones turning back on your own country.

 

You seem to be confused. There is no United States of Europe. There's a United Kingdom and a United Germany, but the EU is not a country.
What language would Europe speak?
This need for an identity has seen Beethoven hijacked and used as poison to delude that seems to have you dreaming of a united European nation but also says Germany isn't big enough and has you dreaming of emulating another some 3,000 miles away on the other side of the world because of a few Hollywood movies and TV shows.
You could be Prussian First, German second if you want, (Or Bavarian or whatever).

 

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SkN1h5fJKM[/video]



The EU is like NAFTA if NAFTA were on steroids.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo_-KoBiBG0[/video]
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq6kgxYOmiE[/video]

 

I'm not confused, but rather optimistic about the future. There were 13 colonial American colonies prior to 1776 and the USA wasn't recognized until 1783. so why not have a United European Federation which would eventually become one entity? (with one large respected army rather than the crummies we have nowadays) . It has happened before (the Romans, Charlemagne, the Habsburg Empire etc...) . The Language ? We"ll see. In New Amsterdam people spoke Dutch and in Pennsylvania the majority were German speakers and yet they all became English speakers . The Englsih language itself is mix of many civilisations that influenced British history. So why not think about a future lagnuage that would progressively be adopted in a natural way by the Europeans.? It has happened before. French is derived from Latin for instance.

 

You seem to be obsessed by Germany expanding , not me. The European Union is not meant to be the fourth Reich.

 

You mean if English was spoken everywhere? The United States history was a bloody struggle that almost tore itself apart over slavery and expanded signing treaties which Presidents ignored and killed off a lot of the native lands because gold was discovered. Is there any more gold to be discovered in the Alps? Germany is like the USA, like the UK is. The EU is like Canada, Mexico and the USA, you feel where I'm going with this reality...
No history's perfect, we all have blood on our hands, but fore that we all have values, flags, and cultural identities that the EU is trying to replace.

 

Rome fell.