Angela Merkel Steps Down

[notaterran]

Not exactly news, but I wanted to tackle this in the larger trend/context of traditional parties taking a beating in this day and age (e.g. Sweden, France).

The announcement is a sign of Merkel's weakened power within her own party, and waning popularity in the country. Both parties under Merkel's ruling coalition -- the CDU and the Social Democratic Party (SPD) -- suffered heavy losses in a regional election over the weekend.

Link

The French President gets points for recognizing the obvious:

[Macron] pointed out that there is “nothing reassuring" about the fact that Merkel’s announcement has come as the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party grows in prominence. He also pointed to the trend of populist and ultranationalist sentiments surging throughout Europe, especially in France.

Link

And here's an article suggesting that we accept this new reality:

Voters' flight from the political middle “is a lasting trend that makes Germany similar to its neighbors in Europe,” says Gero Neugebauer, who teaches politics at the Free University of Berlin. “It’s a trend to normalization and we have to get used to it.”

Link

What do you think? Is this the new normal? Do you see this as political instability or as a much-needed correction?

[Morkonan]

...What do you think? Is this the new normal? Do you see this as political instability or as a much-needed correction?

But, she'll still be there up through 2021, right?

I don't see it as a "correction." I think it's just a political decision that makes it easier for the party to take advantage of whatever public sentiment emerges.

Political parties don't seem to be carrying political messages to the people, anymore. Instead, they try to adopt their stance to suit whatever public sentiment there is in order to gain votes. That's... not the point of having multiple "political parties" is it?

"Our way is the best way!"

"What is "our way?""

"Whatever the voters want it to be!"

That sort of backwards-inspiration just doesn't make much sense, but it's effective.

[Mightysword]

Heh, and to think there was someone in the Trump thread trying to argue with me that most of these things are not happening.

What do you think? Is this the new normal? Do you see this as political instability or as a much-needed correction?

Depend on who you ask. Only one thing that is obvious: things is changing. Now, if you are someone who approve these change, then clap your hand and fap away. If you disapprove, and ESPECIALLY if you disapprove of these changes, then the very first you should do is acknowledge that these change is happening. Then try to understand why it happens, so you can devise the steps to reverse the trend.

Denying it's happening, or simply complaining about the fact it's happening will not keep it from continuing.

[Aye Capn]

@Morkonan:
I get that you're an open borders guy, but if the people have decided they've had enough would you rather all parties stay locked into their respective positions, leaving AfD the naturally ascendant party, or would you rather one or more of the other parties adapt, co-opt AfD's one issue, and leave AfD to fade away?

If open borders are off the table which do you consider the next best outcome?

[notaterran]

But, she'll still be there up through 2021, right?

Coalitions can fail:

Niemand kann derzeit garantieren, dass die Große Koalition bis 2021 hält - angesichts der ständigen Unruhe in der SPD. Ein vorzeitiger Bruch mit Neuwahlen, ohne Merkel, ist eine Option in den kommenden Monaten. Alles ist derzeit im Fluss.

Link

Basically, this says that there is no guarantee that the coalition will continue because things are less stable now. New elections (without Merkel) are not impossible. Instability seems to be the new normal. For example, Sweden is having a hard time forming a government.

[Morkonan]

@Morkonan:
I get that you're an open borders guy...

I'm not sure how you mean that, but just to make it clear - I am not in favor of unrestricted borders. Historically speaking, in this forum, one can find many posts of mine in which I assert across a wide variety of relevant topics that controlling one's own borders is a critical factor that defines whether or not a nation is a "Sovereign Power" in its region. And, it's one of the qualifications necessary for any state to be recognized as being a sovereign state by the UN. (Or, at least, it's one of the prime factors when determining whether or not an existing State recognizes the sovereignty of another.) Unfortunately, being able to easily search in order to confirm my statement is problematic, though Google can site-search reasonably well.

So, no, I am not in favor of "open borders" in the general sense of the term. I am, however, in favor of controlled borders, but also States that are receptive of immigrants and foreign travelers or those seeking citizenship in their country. Nations must have some sort of process in place for immigration. But, if an entire nation of people wish to "close" their borders, so long as they're not hurting anyone, then I'm fine with that because I think they're allowed to make their own decisions. It had better be unanimous, though, since I'm wholly against tyranny.

I am not up-to-speed with German politics, unfortunately. But, if I was to opine on what I think Germans should do, it would be that they need to work against the Nationalism that has been burning up European countries and they need a moderate leader that does not inflame the situation with garbage-talk about the "dangers" that immigrants pose. They're people that pose dangers just like other people who are already there. They do need some special considerations, but they aren't evil aliens with terrifying mass-rectal-rapist powers...

No matter how one slices it, Merkel has been the preeminent European leader these days. One might not like her, but she's helped bring Germany to the forefront in any discussion about the EU. That's no small feat, though Germany's economy and capability is, of course, exemplary, and some other members are struggling. As a 'Murican, I have to admire her ability to maintain such an image when compared to others in EU politics.

[notaterran]

I blame traditional parties for this. AfD, Le Pen or the Sweden Democrats would not be causing so much concern today if center-left and center-right parties hadn't ignored the clear signs of discontent. For example, Le Pen was recently defeated at the ballot box but the voting trends indicate that she's not going away any time soon. Same goes for the Sweden Democrats or AfD. These parties have immigration as one of their rallying cries, but there are already workable solutions to deal with immigrants who refuse or have a hard time assimilating. Switzerland has implemented a few things (in case someone doesn't know what I'm talking about, I can post links). Why the parties in power allowed these problems to fester defies explanation.

[Aye Capn]

@Morkonnan:
I can't pretend to understand what your actual position is. Theory seems to favor sovereignty while practice seems to favor open borders.

As a baseline would you say legals should be welcomed and illegals deported?

[Morkonan]

@Morkonnan:
I can't pretend to understand what your actual position is. Theory seems to favor sovereignty while practice seems to favor open borders.

As a baseline would you say legals should be welcomed and illegals deported?

My position is that National Sovereignty is necessary for a State to be recognized and that Sovereignty is defined, for now, by the region of land that nation actually controls. That means that "Border Control" is necessary.

HOWEVER, they could control their border by enforcing a law that says that border is "open." The critical point is that the border is controlled, not the country's laws concerning their own borders, which they enforce.

Personally, if there are legal means for immigration, then certainly they should be enforced... I don't understand why that wouldn't seem reasonable, especially if it's a "law." If they don't actively enforce the law governing their own borders, they are relinquishing control of them in a very loose sense of the concept. If they try to enforce their border laws and fail, that doesn't mean they do not have a claim of Sovereignty.

IMO, it seems people are redefining this issue however they want and it's turning into a moot discussion, impossible to be resolved. There are "legal" immigration means and "illegal" ones. I am against the "illegal" ones and am in favor of "legal" ones. I will also say, however, that someone manipulating immigration laws to make it nearly impossible for people to legally immigrate may as well not try to pretend they have a nation where legal immigration is largely possible.

Refuges and asylum seekers are commonly covered under different laws. In some cases, like with refugees, there are treaty considerations that enable nations to work together to solve migration issues. Those must be legally upheld, too, or the State risks reneging on their agreements, which is A Bad Thing ™.

[Aye Capn]

What if the asylum process is abused by choking the courts with so many bogus asylum cases ("there's crime in my home country", etc) that "catch and release" becomes the only legal option, whereupon the illegals promptly cut away their ankle bracelets and disappear?

What if we know before the invaders even cross the border that asylum has already been foreclosed by the offer of asylum in one of the countries being crossed (like, say Mexico)?

Should we keep allowing ourselves to be illegally invaded by anarchists who "don't believe in borders", or should we build a wall, send a few thousand troops, repel the invaders, and defend our sovereignty?