EU Agrees on Refugee Camps in Africa: One Problem, Africa Doesn't

Mike Mish Shedlock

A deal has been worked out at the last moment. Whether it satisfies CSU or is in accordance with rules is in debatable.

Via translation from SZ, EU States Agree to Tighten Asylum Policy.

  • After a 12-hour negotiation marathon, the member states agree to set up reception centers for boat refugees in the EU.
  • Italy had previously threatened with a blockade of summit decisions and demanded concessions from the other EU countries.
  • It is unclear whether the result achieved by Chancellor Merkel and her EU counterparts can point the way out of the bitter asylum dispute in Germany.
  • The partners also decide to extend the economic sanctions against Russia.

The member states agreed on refugee reception centers within the EU. Maritime rescued migrants should be "based on joint efforts" in voluntary "controlled centers" established by Member States, it said. It should check "with full EU support" whether it is "irregular migrants being returned" or those in need of protection. Asylum seekers will then apply the "principle of solitarity" among EU Member States, the summit stated. They could then enter other EU countries, but only if they agreed voluntarily. Which EU members are doing that is still unclear.

At the same time, according to the will of the EU states, mass transit camps are also to be established in North African states so that fewer migrants make their way illegally across the Mediterranean. However, the affected countries reject this so far.

Turkey receives another three billion euros from the EU to provide for refugees from Syria. After months of discussion, the heads of state and government agreed to finance the aid. According to this, two billion euros will be taken out of the Community budget. National budgets are expected to generate another billion.

The Wall Street Journal reports Euro Jumps After EU Leaders Reach Migration Deal.

“The details are fairly thin at the moment…but it seems that most parties are content with the deal and it’s averted a potential significant conflict in the EU.”

There are quite a few details. the WSJ simply did not have them.

Perhaps this buys Merkel time. I am not convinced.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Comments (29)
No. 1-29
Greggg
Greggg

Here's what the average EU reader will see in the news: "EU Agrees on Refugee Camps in Africa". It will keep them satisfied just reading the headline and will never know the real story.

Yancey_Ward
Yancey_Ward

This sounds like a fake out to me. The goal of the agreement seems to be to convince the masses that the refugees will be processed in Africa before being allowed to come to the EU. However, without any such camps in Africa, the refugees will just continue to sail out into the Mediterranean and get picked up by the NGOs who will then bring them to these reception ports. The vagueness of what happens then is deliberate since there was no actual agreement about what to do with them once they were in the port facility.

caradoc-again
caradoc-again

Merkel knows German demographics are awful. She needs headcount. Once there a while each will receive an EU passport and will be able to go anywhere in the EU. Eastern European nations won't be able to do anything except be against Europeans that look different, as each will have a passport, and then be vilified as rascist.

The masses fail to understand that the EU wants people as the demographics are heading off a cliff. Merkel at al know this. The dependency ratios will become weaker and weaker without a mass influx of heads.

caradoc-again
caradoc-again

Europe colonised. This is another form of it in reverse where they will give their hind teeth to get any qualified young person out of other countries into the EU. Syria, and many other places, will need theirpeople. How else will they develop?

If the EU cares they could help development that encourages Africa to become wealthier across the board and reduce the impetus to move. Instead they would rather have their tariffs to agriculture and take people in.

There is hypocriscy in this.

caradoc-again
caradoc-again
(deleted message)

They havent thought through the whole thing. Politicians everywhere are fighting the last war. Population reductions neednt be bad. However, look what Greece is doing in Macedonia to see the future of EU nation's and identity. Mass migration is part of this to reduce national identity and forge an EU one instead.

caradoc-again
caradoc-again
(deleted message)

Tell Schauble.

Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
(deleted message)

The only thing that somewhat worked in Africa is drugs developed elsewhere which indirectly led to the current population explosion which spills over to Europe. But since there is no sense of responsibility in the culture, there is no end in sight and no solution.

Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
(deleted message)

I would not project current trends so far ahead as 2100. At some point, there will be a population collapse just like with any species that overpopulate and destroys its environment. There will be human population, but it will not be civilization. Happened before on a local scale, most notably on Easter islands.

ML1
ML1

I think this deal will be enough for CSU because after having read it I note it has clauses concentrated on stopping secondary movement (aka going to germany because of it's benefits and large acceptance rates for even dubious asylum claims) and it has clauses stopping the smuggling business by getting Libyan Coast guard to save all people in the Libyan sea area and help from IOM and UNHCR (IOM probably pays for flights back home for economic migrants from Libya and UNHCR takes those who might have a claim to UNHCR refugee camps from Libya) and thereby stopping the flow of people to EU in the first place. . The deal also envisions disembarkation platforms in third countries so many people saved at sea (most likely in international waters) will be taken back to Africa (when previously they were always brought to Europe) Also it has a clause that these centers supposedly being created somewhere in EU for those saved on european area are voluntary and relocation from them is also voluntary and the centers will be CLOSED (previously Italians just let people straight to Italian streets without even registering them most of the time leading to hundreds of thousands going to other EU countries with welfare to seek asylum or disappearing in to the underground economy in France or causing crimes in Italy) . Furthermore this deal does NOT include CRAZY and INSANE demands Italy made of starting to give out asylums to Europe from EU centers in Africa that would have caused inter-African migration crisis with millions coming for those centers and millions getting asylum in Europe from them. . This deal also does NOT include INSANE and CRAZY demands by Italy that there should be mandatory and automatic EU relocation system for asylum seekers that would have re-started a 2015 style crisis because Greece and Italy would have been as desirable places to come to Europe as open borders and not registering people made them in 2015 because EU would have provided the onward movement with EU relocation from Greece and Italy mostly to Germany and Sweden and other welfare countries leading to millions coming again. Also Italy's demand to have mandatory and automatic EU relocation of asylum seekers would have made Spain a third front with hundreds of thousands coming because it would have opened a way from Spain to EU welfare countries that is currently closed because Spain registers all people and does not allow onward movement and has effective returns of economic migrants including having return agreements with Morocco and Algeria. . This deal also avoids breaking the EU because it does NOT force Eastern European countries to take migrants and asylum seekers as previously demanded by Merkel, Macron and Italy. . Since what Seehofer demanded was almost a non-issue because what Seehofer wanted was stopping previously registered asylum seekers at the German border and Dublin returns of previously registered asylum seekers already work in a few days according to current Dublin agreement this agreement by EU is actually better because this deal will lead to frontline countries like Italy and Greece registering all people and keeping them in CLOSED centers because reasons for the 2015 rush of millions was Greece and Italy NOT registering people and allowing people to freely move north. . I am happy because this deal is first sign that sensible solutions by EU are being found after EU worsening the 2015 crisis by it's own actions and EU commission proposing fixes in 2016-2017-2018 that would have caused more problems and re-started a 2015 style rush. . The 2015 rush was stopped by closing borders by Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia and Macedonia to close the route from Greece to welfare Europe in early 2016 AND France and Austria controlling their borders and closing the route from Italy into welfare Europe with France closing borders to Italy for migrants in June 2015 and Austria enforcing their borders in 2016 with fences and getting Italy to stop movements of migrants to Austria before they left Italian soil by threatening to close the Brenner pass if Italy does not act.

MorrisWR
MorrisWR

It doesn't matter if Africa agrees, the EU can always pull another Libya and destroy those countries which do not comply. However, I also believe this is just for show to buy Merkel time.

JLS
JLS

Quite right, except that the Easter Islanders had nowhere else to go. The Africans only need a dinghy to get them beyond the 12-mile limit and they'll get a free lift to Europe (plus free jackets, sneakers and other desirable goodies). And at some point, some eejit in the US will open their sanctuary cities and the days of MS13 will be just a fond memory.

This, in variation, happened in 1917 and 1941,when the US finally realized that when Europe sneezes, America gets pneumonia.

Murk Le Sneak
Murk Le Sneak

So, on the one hand, economic protectionism is "assinine". But, on the other hand, border protectionism is just fine and must, impositionally, be paid for by those who cannot afford it. I'm struggling to see a consistent libertarian narrative here. Borders are an impediment to the free market in the movement of people. Forcing someone else to pay for it is anti-libertarian. Correct me if I am wrong.

caradoc-again
caradoc-again

ML1, agreed but politicians don't see it that way. It's what they perceive as the output that matters until the electorate threaten to oust them and then they wake up, or whomever does wake up is called populist.

"Bringing people who are working age but are mostly NOT working in EU countries which give welfare or who are working a low wage job supported by welfare does NOT help the dependency ratios it WORSENS them."

caradoc-again
caradoc-again
(deleted message)

Correct me if wrong but EU population is due to fall. Japan MK2.

MissionAccomplished
MissionAccomplished

Due process for 3 billion refugees from exploding global socialism. That will work out fine.

I see dead civilization...but it doesn't know it's dead.

WildBull
WildBull

A return to colonialism.

Stuki
Stuki
(deleted message)

Merkel, for all here ills, still isn't quite dumb enough to believe "robots" will "take" anything. The clowns preaching that nonsense, should do some simple comparisons of a Mexican gardener and a robotic lawnmower.... Or simply try replacing ANY of their workforce with Asimo; the most developed robot around.

Neither is Merkel pulling her lines out of thin air. She's just doing what she's told by Germany's powerful manufacturing industries. Both owners and the unions representing the world's most spoiled workers. The latter wants to retire at 65 to some of the world's highest pensions. After enjoying the world's highest salaries and the world's longest vacations. You can't do that if there are noone filling in the lower rugs of the pipeline, to eventually take over your job.

Reality is, that in order to enjoy long, well funded retirements, there has to be new generations of workers keeping the ship that produces the value supporting them afloat. When native German's have decided to follow the Japanese into voluntary sterility; they have no choice but to get those youngsters from abroad. Even if that does pose some risk to the underlying culture that laid the golden eggs to begin with.

Stuki
Stuki
(deleted message)

It will end the way it ended for Native Americans, when they were faced with a similar demographic deficit vis-a-vis Europe..... The future belongs to future generations, after all. Not past one, no matter how impressive their achievements may at one time have been.

Stuki
Stuki

The only way your conclusion could be "wrong," is if one could somehow classify immigrants as an existential threat that needs to be stopped at the border; kind of like a suitcase nuke. Even some libertarians aren't strictly opposed to a government preventing threats like the latter from being freely imported.

Stuki
Stuki

Civilization died with the ascent of progressivism, almost a century and a half ago. It has just, as with most things for those guys, taken awhile for less than perceptive practitioners of ostrichism to catch on to that obviousity.

Stuki
Stuki

After seeing Israel's experience with refugee camps at/inside her borders; how could intended host nations possibly have any objection to such things.....?

Also, does anyone really believe that Mexicans jumping the border into the US, would somehow decide to just head to some Mexican refugee camp instead, if one happened to be there? Compared to that nonsense, Trump's wall seem positively well reasoned..

Kinuachdrach
Kinuachdrach

Murk: "I'm struggling to see a consistent libertarian narrative here. Borders are an impediment to the free market in the movement of people. Forcing someone else to pay for it is anti-libertarian."

The most level-headed libertarian I ever met described Libertarianism as a very restrictive philosophy – each individual is free to do whatever he wants, PROVIDED THAT his actions do not interfere with any other person’s liberty to do what he wants.

In that libertarian view, the burden is on the immigrant to make sure that he does not negatively impact any other person in the destination country, e.g. by taking taxpayer handouts or by taking a job which a citizen could have done.

But what happens if the immigrant does not play by those libertarian rules? This is the big weakness in Libertarianism, since it depends on each individual in effect policing himself. Maybe Libertarianism, like a constitutional republic, works only for a moral population?

Tengen
Tengen

I'm seeing a lot of misrepresentation in this thread. Libertarianism has nothing to do with this migrant crisis. Does anyone seriously believe that career EU bureaucrats are libertarians?

The problem is that, at best, US/EU elites care nothing about their own populations and are seeking short term benefit from cheap labor, with the greater effect of beating down wages for the rest of the plebes (think H1Bs in the US).

At worst, they are intentionally destroying the fabric of society by bringing in foreigners quickly and discouraging them from assimilating. Divide and conquer, anyone? If they think the current kakistocracy is about to push up daisies, this strategy makes sense. Given how many people are easily distracted by the immigrants themselves, or any number of pet issues, it certainly appears to be working. Many would rather fixate on diversity, abortion, religion, gay rights, or just about anything else besides confronting their own corrupt elites.

Tengen
Tengen
(deleted message)

What about corrupt Europeans who willingly destroy this supposedly great culture for profit? Where do they fall into this spectrum of humanity, or are we intentionally ignoring them?

Stuki
Stuki
(deleted message)

It wasn't an overabundance of "advanced culture and technology" that reduced the natives to a bunch of drunks corralled together on barren reservations. It was simply the sheer number of Europeans that arrived, compared to the size of the native population.

Point being, no matter how proud it may make you feel to stand on your rooftop proclaiming to all that care to listen that you are with "those guys", the guys who wrote Shakespeare plays and, like, stuff; it doesn't matter.

You're 100 years old, childless and dumb enough to have fallen lock, stock and barrel for every disarmament scam ever invented by a wannabe totalitarian looking to make it easy on himself (not necessarily you personally.) Armed 20 somethings from the opposite side of the planet owe you exactly nothing. And have exactly zero reason to give a toot about whether someone vaguely looking like you dabbled in "advanced technology and culture" a few centuries ago.

Instead, like Europeans coming to America saw something they valued (Gold, arable land) and took it; so will Africans coming to Europe take what they like upon settling there. They've got the numbers, the aggression and the proper age to be militarily useful. A bunch of disarmed geezers sufficiently indoctrinated to believe the newcomers somehow "owe" them something, don't.

Stuki
Stuki
(deleted message)

"The most level-headed libertarian I ever met described Libertarianism as a very restrictive philosophy – each individual is free to do whatever he wants, PROVIDED THAT his actions do not interfere with any other person’s liberty to do what he wants.

In that libertarian view, the burden is on the immigrant to make sure that he does not negatively impact any other person in the destination country, e.g. by taking taxpayer handouts or by taking a job which a citizen could have done."

If that is the highpoint of "level-headed" you have experienced, you need to upgrade your circle of associates.... Talk about abject nonsense!

First, according to this "interpretation" of what libertarianism is about, exactly where does "immigrant" come into the picture? Does Sir Level-Headed also believe that in libertarian societies, noone whatsoever can "take" a job as a burger flipper, just because somoene else may also have "wanted" it, as long as it paid a quadrillion a millisecond and came with benefits worthy of a king?

And, where would "taxpayer" handouts even come from, in a libertarian society, unless they were literally voluntary handouts from individual taxpayers? In which case, noone is "taking" anything, now is he?

Libertarianism is a Political ideology. It's about restrictions on State power. Has nothing to do with restricting voluntary hirings, firings and handouts between free individuals. Just with restricting the State's ability to interfere in any of it.

Harmy
Harmy

Australia has had, and still has, one of the most generous migrant immigration policies in the world but that policy was abused by people smugglers who started to ship boatloads of claimed asylum seekers to Australia. Some were but most were simply economic migrants who wanted to enter the country illegally. In the end the Government had to act.

Bear in mind that it was Australia with a population of only seven and a half million after WW2 accepted more than a 200,000 people kept in the DP camps because the countries in Europe, including Britain, refused to accept them.

In the end the only way Australia stopped this recent illegal flood was to deny them entry and ship them offshore where some of them remain to this day. It was controversial but it stopped the people smugglers from making money.

The African problem is simple. As long as the EU allows illegal migrants to land on EU territory, regardless of where they are processed, the more people smugglers will pursue their trade. It's a lose/lose situation which the EU cannot win with the present policies


Global Economics

FEATURED
COMMUNITY