Should Mare Nostrum be restored?

realitykeeper wrote: »

As a matter of interest, the reason Gaddafi was suddenly removed after so many years of being "tolerated" by the west was because he wanted to reject the dollar as the reserve currency and use a specially commissioned gold sovereign which would be used a the new gold standard by the African Union (an initiative which may yet come about despite the removal of Gaddifi).

I take it that the nine-foot lizardmen who rule the World didn't like it?

In a free market, there is no such thing as "our" jobs. Let Europe compete in every way for the mutual benefit of all.

There's no such thing as a 'free market', to begin with. Secondly, it's easy to open the doors to a mass of immigrants when you know that they won't have degrees and thus won't be competing for the jobs held by the majority of those posting in this thread. We're one to propose no working visa requirements for anyone from the Indian subcontinent and their endless supply of IT staff, I suspect many would change their tune.

Finally, economies, in theory, can grow with increased population. But not overnight - that's called a shock to the system and it's not good. Dump a load of labour into the market and salaries collapse. Salaries collapse, consumption follows down that drain. Consumption falls, and indigenous companies see their sales plummet... you get the picture.

The billions of Euro being invested in Europe`s QE program would not be such a bad idea if the money was used to invest in Africa instead of buying European debt. Africa needs investment to develop, whereas Europe is already developed.

Sub-Saharan Africa has received a lot of investment and aid over the years. Care to tell us what happened to it and why it would be different if we poured some more down that particular drain?

Irish Stones wrote: »

As an Italian, I feel that my country is hugely involved in this operation, but I believe that this must remain a problem of ours. The migrants are trying to reach our coasts, so ours must be the problem. Our government complains everyday about the fact that nobody is helping us.
Other countries are reached by other migrants, but they do not whine constantly asking help from EU.
I think that our government sounds very pathetic.

Bollocks. Italy is simply in the unfortunate position of being the transit path for a much wider problem.

To begin with, a majority of those 'asylum seekers' are not seeking to stay in Italy - most are travelling to destinations further north in the EU, particularly France. So the problem is not simply an Italian one.

Then there is the fact that 90% of asylum traffic into Europe goes through Italy because of Libya. So, unless you're of the opinion that it's still la quarta sponda, or retain some bizarre moral responsibility for a former colony that has been independent twice as long as it was an Italian possession, and for which we have paid reparations in full to the satisfaction of even the Libyans, then it is also a Libyan problem.

And if Libya is a failed state now, who's to blame? God forbid the Libyans themselves share any responsibility; no doubt it was just the evil westerners - principally the French and British, who both were principle drivers of intervention during the uprising against Gadaffi.

All before we consider the origin countries of these people, many of whom are fleeing war, but many others are simply economic migrants.

No no, it is not simply Italy's responsibility by any rational sense of logic or morality. It is a problem that is either the product and/or affects every country touched by the journey of those smuggled.

realitykeeper wrote: »

Many African countries have now recognised this and are moving away from aid dependency and becoming market driven economies. That is why they are now seeing strong growth.

In all of Africa, like those countries where migrants are principally coming from? And how is this benefiting the average African? What value is strong economic growth when it is swallowed up by corrupt government officials before it manages to trickle down to the people?

As you didn't respond to the main points in my thread, I'll presume you accept them, btw.

Irish Stones wrote: »

The migrants who reach Italy can ask asylum here only, not elsewhere. So once they obtain the status of refugee they couldn't travel abroad, they would be illegal in other countries.

That's not actually the case. I think you should read up on the issue.

Should these migrants be sent to other European countries, would these countries be ready to do the same thing? Would them have enough room for thousands of people that do nothing all day long and cost much money?
I wouldn't share this burden with other countries, but above all I wouldn't whine and constantly ask/force other countries to take their part of responsibility.

I don't think you understand; most of these migrants don't want to stay in Italy - and don't. Most leave Italy the moment they necessary paperwork is done that allows them to travel. It's not a question of expecting other European nations to share the burden of taking them in, they're already doing this.

What Italy has been asking is for help in patrolling the maritime border to deal with the influx of people, most of whom will ultimately will end up in fellow member states. Not help hosting them. I think you're quite confused on what is going on.

Our fault is of being in the shortest path between Lybia and the rest of the continent. We always liked to be a "pier" in the Mediterranean, to have 8,000 km of sea coasts, etc.
Well, now it's the time to pay the consequences of this privilege.

Well, by that logic, those coming from dysfunctional, economically backward or war torn nations are at 'fault' for that. Unfortunate, if you're going to say chicca to Italy and suggest it's solely her problem for it's geographic location, then you must equally say the same for these countries and their situation and let them sink.

That is the natural end of your logic, I'm afraid.

stringed theory wrote: »

Of course, if they were all as honest as realitykeeper there'd be no problem at all...

I wouldn't confuse honesty with naivete.

realitykeeper wrote: »

In these times of instant gratification it is difficult for some people to understand the concept of delayed gratification.

The question of delayed gratification is irrelevant to the point I made; if corruption effectively blocks progress, then that delay will ultimately be infinite as it will never be resolved.

Corruption is everywhere but unlike Europe, Africa has finally begun to tackle the issue in a serious way.

So you claim, yet you've failed to demonstrate that it has.

stringed theory wrote: »

I think he's honest in outlining how large scale immigration could demolish the European social model.

I'm not entirely sure that was his/her intention.

Irish Stones wrote: »

Yeah, but before leaving Italy most of them wander along the country and do any kind of illegal actions.

That's got nothing to do with your earlier claim that it is solely Italy's problem, which is what I was addressing.

Irish Stones wrote: »

On the contrary, this is why it should be a problem of ours.
Who would like to have people who wander across Europe, doing nothing at their best, or acting illegally at their worst?
It's impossible to accpet and settle millions of persons. They need houses and jobs. Where do we get those things for them all when we haven't enough for us alone?

That makes no rational sense.

Not liking something does not stop it being a problem for nations other than Italy. That it is a massive problem does not magically mean it should be solely Italy's problem. And that is what you claimed and you appear to have no logical reason to explain why is should be.