Germany Tightens Control on Immigration from EU Countries
Germany is preparing to restrict the period in which immigrants are allowed to stay in the country without a proper job.
A three-month deadline could be imposed upon a recommendation by a German government committee, Dnevnik.bg has reported.
The proposal itself is to be made Wednesday, but preliminary information reveals further measures to fight the so-called "social tourism", e.g. expulsion of people who have committed benefit frauds and barring them from entry into Germany for a certain period.
According to the draft proposal, sanctions could await companies hiring unregistered people as employees.
Aid for towns and cities most affected by immigration is also envisaged and it could amount to EUR 200 M.
Over the past months Germany has cautiously moved toward siding with the UK on some issues regarding European free movement, insisting that efforts should be stepped up to protect social systems at a European level.
Both in the UK and in Germany, fears have been on the rise that Bulgarians and Romanians, who have considerably lower living standards than Western and Cenral Europe, could flock en masse to richer countries and pose a threat to their citizens' well-being.
German government has presented statistics showing that most EU citizens of Romanian and Bulgarian origin settle down in the country after they have received a job proposal.
Populist leaders nevertheless take advantage of fears in society, helping to incrise discontent from rules of movement that are described by them as too liberal.
- » Turkey Gets EUR 3 B, Visa Waiver to Deter EU-Bound Migrants
- » Turkey to Hand Over Body of Pilot of Downed Su-24 to Russia
- » Leaders of EU, Turkey to Hold Summit on Migration Crisis
- » Clash Between Macedonian Police, Migrants Leaves Scores Injured at Border with Greece
- » Russian President Signs Decree Introducing Sanctions Against Turkey
- » Turkey Tells Its Citizens to Delay Travel to Russia
" Because the system of the UK is capitalism, along with direct centralised help, the EU can do other things to help the UK using their capitalist approach. The easiest thing in this direction is to heavily purchase British products. Nothing will happen to the West Germans to replace their Mercedeses with Jaguars."
You are right, it's a system called capitalism. But somehow I have the feeling that it slipped your attention what capitalism means: supply and demand - producers offer goods and consumers buy them. And amongst different producers it is the price, the quality of the product, its suitability to the costumer etc. that matters. The one with the better products wins, the one with the worse products loses. And in your example, it's the Germans that win and Brits that lose (you could have chosen almost any other product, the result would be the same - sorry). It's called competition, and Britain has a financial sector but very few competitive industrial products.
Now you come and say: hey, dear Germans, please be so kind and buy British cars because you are good guys and should buy our shitty and expensive stuff (I am exaggerating of course), so that we also can have an industry and everybody is happy. You can do that, but then it's not capitalism anymore.
And by the way, as a starter Brits could start to buy their own products (Jaguars). What about that? (That also the rest of the world prefers to buy Japanese and German cars instead of British one's has a reason about which you should think again).
Continuation of the previous message due to length limitations :
More : to release the pressure of the UK, the other countries should do something too. Because the system of the UK is capitalism, along with direct centralised help, the EU can do other things to help the UK using their capitalist approach. The easiest thing in this direction is to heavily purchase British products. Nothing will happen to the West Germans to replace their Mercedeses with Jaguars. The Germans should know, regardless of who says what, Jaguars and Mercedes' as well as the other British and German cars are the same shit, different name.
Thus, heavy subsidising of the British Industry would release the pressure on the UK. The same applies to the Eastern Europeans : why purchase so much German? Purchase British as well as German. The same shit, different name. Of course, the Brits must match the prices which would not be very difficult as the German car prices are hell high to make the British manufacturers in South Africa happy campers.
Now, there is something to be said to the whole Western ( mainly ) Europe with some Eastern parts too : do NOT manufacture in China as much. Use Eastern Europe instead. Same price, better quality. Inexpensive transportation, I hope.
Support yourselves instead of fighting each other. The war was long forgotten in the 60's.
As far as Africa goes, yes, of course, Africa must be supported and helped too AS LONG AS THIS IS NOT THE COUNTRY OF SOUTH AFRICA. THE SAID COUNTRY HAS TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES. Other African countries are OK to be supported.
True, China has to be supported too. But NOT by the EU. Not as much by the EU. US, on the other hand, can purchase from China as much as they want and can destroy their economy as much as they want as I don't care at all how much the US self destroys. As long as this does not happen in the EU.
So, start a campaign : " Purchase British Mainly When Not Overpriced ". Or " Purchase British When Fair ". Hope, them Brits would not sell a 6 cylinder Jaguar for a million Euro. In case, they do : Do Not Purchase as Price is not Fair " campaign.
I am sick and tired of typing but here is another problem : who destroyed the EU economy? Western Europe in the 90's. Why? Because they did not support the Eastern European economy in the 90's but destroyed instead. Had they not, EU was going to be a different place now. And they did in order to push their economies which they did or did not. But they tried : they preferred to be better for a few years in order to suffer for a few tens after.
Hence I reached one of the main problems of the Western Europeans and, now, the Eastern Europeans as well : they do NOT have long term thinking. Hence the results. I think the Europeans now need as big glasses as the USers. Unlike the US, however, hopefully the EU would give them glasses for free. STILL.
I understand the frustration but I, personally, would not play so hard. The UK is a highly desirable member of the EU by the EU. In case not for anything else, the UK is only one of the two countries which speaks English as a first language, the other one being Ireland with a population of a few million people only not counting the Irish Americans.
In case I was in charge, I would say to the UK : go out whenever you want, come back whenever you want. Thus there is a dilemma in front of the UK : The EU wants needs them now. However, in case they want to go out, no one can stop them. Then, when the things are better, they would want to come back. Fare, enough. They are welcome. However, the disadvantage to them of this ( although not very strong disadvantage ) is : when they come back and when they need help in the future, the EU can tell them : Do you remember what you did when we needed your help. Unlikely for the EU to play so hard but, certainly, this game may be hard but fair.
One way or another, The UK may wish to think differently : Shall we stay and try to build our country ( EU ) now or shall we go. Which one is better for the UK, selfishly. They leave now, they leave the burden of building a country and they do not suffer. They stay now, they help build the country, which will be their own country too, much faster and, hopefully, better.
Of course, the EU shall not leave The UK suffer but must share the overburden they experience as well. Take the example with English language :
Every school everywhere in the EU, including The UK must offer English as a Second Language mandatory classes for free with the teacher's salaries paid by the EU. OBVIOUSLY, THE NATIVES OF THE UK AND IRELAND ARE EXEMPT OF THESE CLASSES. This is why the classes are called English as a Second Language.
Along with this, everyone in the UK must study English as a First Language which pupils in the UK have been doing since education was created. Thus, English as a Second language does not replace a traditional British subject but, rather, complements and boosts this.
Of course, fair is the EU to pay for the teacher's salaries.
"Also, under the present rules, the UK can withdraw from the EU whenever they want and come back whenever they want."
True, they can leave whenever they want (although that case is not mentioned in the EU treaties), but they cannot come back whenever they want. They could come back whenever they want only if all other EU member states without a single exception would agree to that, and it is highly unprobable that all the other EU members would agree to re-admit a "partner" that from the very first day when they joined the EU tried to have special rules for them that didn't apply to the others and nevertheless until the present day is complaining all the time about the EU membership. They want to get out: ok - good riddance for bad garbage. They want to come back one day? No f*cking way!
Also, under the present rules, the UK can withdraw from the EU whenever they want and come back whenever they want. In case they do NOT want to be part of the USE ( United States of Europe ), no one can force them.
However, this should not be the case in the future. No country ( including The UK ) of the EU should be allowed to seek independence just the same as New York would have a very great difficulty to separate from the US. Well, this example is not exactly 100% as I and most normal people would be happy to see this shithole ( New York ) get the hell out of the country and make the world a better place.
Although your point is for and not against, I would like to say you are right : what you say is TRUE but MUST NOT BE true.
In other words, yes, the UK is a sovereign country but MUST NOT BE. The UK, as well as any other country in the EU, should be a PROVINCE of the EU, just as much as Ontario is a province of Canada, even less.
The UK MUST LOOSE their independence as well as all EU countries and not less and not more.
However, knowing what hell Europe is, this process WILL happen for sure BUT this process will take a long while. There are two reasons for this : dumb people and, most importantly, dumb politicians.
Most people in the world do not care at all as to who speaks what language. People go to the UK to stay and work and not to read Shakespeare.
English and French are the dumbest languages in the world as far as linguistics is concerned : how come the rest of the world have to speak the dumbest languages of them all instead of speaking far more advanced languages as simplified Latin for example? Thus, the language factor can go either way : Brits think to teach English as a foreign language is not right. True. The rest of the world thinks they have to learn the dumbest language of the world instead of, say Latin ( the most advanced and correct ), which is also true.
Another question is whether the Indians and Africans have the right to stay in the UK JUST BECAUSE THEY SPEAK THE LANGUAGE OR A VARIATION THEREOF as opposed to, say, Germans or Eastern Europeans who do NOT. The answer I would give is 100% NO! The correct logical but not necessarily physical way is : People can stay in the UK according to two factors only :
1. Belonging to an entity
Belonging to an entity is the correct way : all people belonging to the COUNTRY United States of Europe ( a. k. a. EU ) are allowed to stay into the UK and are equal to all UK citizens ( this term is still available but incorrect : in the future the term would be UK original ( prior to EU ) inhabitants ).
Genetics : this factor has been used by various politicians in various scenarios. Usually, this factor is associated with some unpleasant periods of the history as well as more normal. People have decided to divide themselves into genetical groups ( tribes ) and each tribe occupied a given land and proclaimed they own what the Universe has created. Some genetic groups allowed certain combinations. Thus, The UK land has been decided to belong to a few tribes with allowed combination in between : Angli, Saxi, Briti, Celti, Welsh, Irish, Latin.
Most historians think genetics is not the best factor to use in divisions, other think otherwise.
The point is : The Single Country factor is logical. Genetics, although nasty. is also logical. LANGUAGE IS NOT.
Here is another example : What do the UKers think when they go to a given country and even a dumb taxi driver speaks their language and them Brits don't need to give even a taxi driver's fart to learn a foreign language.
And here comes another question : HOW MANY BRITS KNOW WHAT TO LEARN ANOTHER LANGUAGE MEANS? HOW MANY BRITS KNOW WHAT TO SUFFER TO MAKE AN EXCRUCIATINGLY PAINFUL EFFORT TO LEARN ANOTHER LANGUAGE MEANS?
Countries like the UK have already been forced to accept immigrants from countries with far lower social expectations - eg from Africa and Asia. In fact I heard recently that UK schools have started teaching English as a foreign language because there are more non English speakers in their schools than English speakers. How do Bulgarians feel if their children had to be taught Bulgarian as a foreign language to suit immigrants?