Germany supports cutting EU funds to countries that refuse refugee quotas

[Deleted]

Right, so are you going to continue to play word games since you can't speak on the actual topic?

I already pointed out that believe refers to the word capacity while you believe it means capacity refers to purely infrastructure. If the word believe renders rational thoughts impossible you can replace it with another word such as find

I feel like you didn't even read what I said earlier. In Sweden we're gonna have to build a new stockholm like every 5 years to keep up with the intake + people already living here who are looking to move away from their parents. It's not feasible. We don't have the resources to do that.

[Mayhem]

Seeing as Sweden already have 142k refugees + 56k asylum seekers i would have to agree. It's more than several other countries combined.

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/v...f056&submit=GO

I doubt sweden will have to take more but think they can actually relocate some of the ones they already took.

[Toblat]

Well, that's the UK referendum on EU membership decided then, **** you Germany.

Dramatic much?

UK is one of the donor countries on most of the projects anyway. You guys are at 12th place in terms of receiving funds. You are down there in the list, along with those completely broke, and those too rich to care for extra funding.
Countries like Hungary and Romania are receiving twice the amount you guys are getting. Compare the population and the economic development levels of those two and that of the UK and the 11B you are supposed to be getting over 2014-2020 is like a drop in the ocean.
If anything, you should be relieved you don't have to bother anymore, not angry.

Then let Germany cut us off from our possible funds.
So we can stop paying EU while we are at it.

Netherlands did fine before.

Netherlands rank in 24th place out of 28 countries in terms of receiving euro funds ( or rather not receiving, `cos you don't need it).

[Deleted]

I doubt sweden will have to take more but think they can actually relocate some of the ones they already took.

We're going to be taking 20k from the quota iirc, they'll get stuck in the asylum facilities just like the people that are already stuck there, which are more than 10k.

[Acidbaron]

I feel like you didn't even read what I said earlier. In Sweden we're gonna have to build a new stockholm like every 5 years to keep up with the intake + people already living here who are looking to move away from their parents. It's not feasible. We don't have the resources to do that.

I never stated i agreed with the numbers, they aren't even final for that matter as it's just a proposal. I never said how much sweden has to take in, i only said that the numbers will be based on the capacity, which in turn you started to argue on what that word meant.
I'm not familiar with the standing of every country in this situation and won't do so unless i actually get paid to keep tabs on every country their immigrant situation

It is also important to note that the immigrant situation is treated as a temporary one as it should, as refuge status does not imply citizen status. However due to lack of action this temporary situation could take years.

[Deleted]

It is also important to note that the immigrant situation is treated as a temporary one as it should, as refuge status does not imply citizen status. However due to lack of action this temporary situation could take years.

If your application for asylum is accepted in Sweden, you become a citizen after 4 years because they all get permanent residency permits, with very few exceptions. So, yeah, it kinda does imply citizen status.

[Deleted]

If your application for asylum is accepted in Sweden, you become a citizen after 4 years because they all get permanent residency permits, with very few exceptions. So, yeah, it kinda does imply citizen status.

A rightwing parti (DF) came with a rather surprising announcement today. They are willing to take more refugees.
The condition is of course that they have to go home as soon as there is peace in Syrian. And perhaps it is a very good solution. A recent study showed that only 11% of Syrian refugees who have been in Denmark over 3 years have a job.
Unlike immigrants who have a green Card. They have self-evident a extremely beneficial effect on the economy.

[Deleted]

It's called blackmail. Woud like to see Jean-Claude Juncker being sued for his remark!

[Cyberowl]

It's called blackmail. Woud like to see Jean-Claude Juncker being sued for his remark!

It's called why pump more money into countries that are unwilling to return solidarity when you could use those funds on your own problems instead.

[Deleted]

It's called why pump more money into countries that are unwilling to return solidarity when you could use those funds on your own problems instead.

Because the funds were not "refugee hosing funds" they are funds for projects for EU citizens. It's like if your boss won't give you pay unless you share your house with an immigrant!

[Collegeguy]

Germany should take all of them since they're the dickheads that accepted them. Instead they put they're responsibility on everyone else.

[Deleted]

unless those funds were designated to be used to house refugees, what right does Germany have to cut them off?

[Cyberowl]

Because the funds were not "refugee hosing funds" they are funds for projects for EU citizens.

Yeah, but that's the point. Those funds are mostly used to fund important EU projects or used to fund projects in poor developed parts of the EU out of solidarity. Why should funds be used for the latter when the counterpart is not willing to return the solidarity?

[Dezerte]

I can understand it, even if it's not pretty. Being part of the EU means reaping the benefits, but it also requires a certain responsibility. If some countries outright refuse to take in refugees, not because they lack the infrastructure to handle, but because they don't want to then it seems to make more sense to cut that funding from these countries and put that funding into countries that are going to be forced to pick up the slack.

[Deleted]

Yeah, but that's the point. Those funds are mostly used to fund important EU projects or used to fund projects in poor developed parts of the EU out of solidarity. Why should funds be used for the latter when the counterpart is not willing to return the solidarity?

Because there are still poor parts in EU left, like in my country, Bulgaria and maybe soon to be Serbia/Macedonia, etc...

I'm sorry but when we can't fucking provide decent living conditions for our own romanian, EU citizens, the non-EU refugees can wait tbh!

[Cyberowl]

Germany should take all of them since they're the dickheads that accepted them. Instead they put they're responsibility on everyone else.

We accepted the ones that were already in the EU, because they were treated badly abroad. It's not like we shipped in more from Syria, the effects this had will be noticeable in some weeks, not now. This is such a bullshit argument you are trying to make.

- - - Updated - - -

Because there are still poor parts in EU left, like in my country, Bulgaria and maybe soon to be Serbia/Macedonia, etc...

I'm sorry but when we can't fucking provide decent living conditions for our own romanian, EU citizens, the non-EU refugees can wait tbh!

Who fucking cares? You may think you are entitled to those funds because you are an EU citizen, others think refugees are entitled to those funds because they are a human being like everyone else. People in the west had no reason NATO couldn't solve to help Eastern Europe develop, yet it did. And now you guys are not willing to even contribute towards a solution. Can't have the cake and eat it too.

[Mayhem]

Because there are still poor parts in EU left, like in my country, Bulgaria and maybe soon to be Serbia/Macedonia, etc...

I'm sorry but when we can't fucking provide decent living conditions for our own romanian, EU citizens, the non-EU refugees can wait tbh!

So wait, you´re more than happy to recieve money from other members to help your poor but not other poor people?

[Deleted]

So wait, you´re more than happy to recieve money from other members to help your poor but not other poor people?

Dude, the funds are not for people, aka literally giving them money. Is to develop areas so people won't have to spend as much to get basic things like water (yeah people still use wells in some areas)! Cutting funding from such projects in Romania/Bulgaria because we won't accept the imposed (set number) of refugees is being retarded.

And yes, the funds need to be used for EU poor people, because they are EU funds, not INTERNATIONAL funds and are actually taxes paid by EU citizens!

Want to help the refugees, go donate and help them, don't cut EU programs to cater to them!

[Deleted]

Germany should take all of them since they're the dickheads that accepted them. Instead they put they're responsibility on everyone else.

Are you kidding me?! The first EU country they enter has to accept them - thats the law. If you look at the world-map Germany is in the middle of Europe and the EU with no direct border for refugees to enter.

Its known practice for some countries like Austria and Italy to put the refugees in trains to Germany, because Germany is one of the few countries which takes responsibility and doesn't wave them to the next country.

Germany is taking in the most refugees by far and takes responsibility. EU countires behave as if its not their problem - they are asked to take a burden too.

Germany takes in the most refugees and is the EU's biggest money giver. And still some people like you talk that way - wtf?

[Deleted]

Germany is taking in the most refugees by far and takes responsibility.

Nooooooooooope. Sweden does.