Борисов категоричен в Брюксел: ЕС да затвори външните си граници за бежанци!
Премиерът Бойко Борисов съобщи, че е настоял пред своите колеги от Европейския съвет за затварянето на външните граници на ЕС, предаде БТА от Брюксел. Защо тази гореща точка трябва да е вътре в ЕС. Това попита премиерът Бойко Борисов пред журналисти в Брюксел във връзка с направеното от него предложение да бъдат затворени всички външни граници на ЕС.
Надявам се след този тежък съвет да се намери консенсус. Дори и заключенията, които вчера приехме по миграцията - в моето изказване аз обясних на колегите, че то е заключение, което ще звучи до днес. Не случайно на 5 март ни събират пак, защото няма технология и никой не иска да се замисли върху технологията. Технологията е много простичко нещо, за да работи една машина. Да работи един организъм или завод ако щете има главен технолог”, даде за пример премиерът, цитиран от "Фокус".
„Аз зададох въпроса: след като не се съгласявате на моето предложение, което още от година съм го дал. Вече всички на практика се съгласиха с това, но не го приемат, че трябва незабавно да затворим незабавно всички външни граници на ЕС. Не вътре, всички външни”, категоричен е премиерът.
„Да останат само официално КПП, защото първо без да искат колегите постепенно узаконяват незаконията. Какво значи нелегален мигрант?”, попита премиерът Борисов. „ Кой в света приема нелегален мигрант или го счита за нещо правилно. САЩ направиха ограда с Мексико заради подобно нещо”, даде за пример Борисов.
„След като узаконяваме темата нелегален мигрант - за моите колеги вече се счита абсолютно нормално всеки откъдето иска да влиза, в която иска държава на Европа. На практика ние това узаконяваме”, заяви Борисов.
„ Не, че съм съгласен, но колективът така реши. Аз зададох на колегите въпрос: От днес Австрия казва ние ще пускаме по 80 човека, имаме само едно КПП. Унгария казва не искам, Полша казва няма да приемам, Словакия, Чехия, Швеция и др. Приемаме, че като сумирате всички тези 80 +1 000+20, които могат да дойдат в Европа става една цифра да кажем 10 000-20 000 няма значение. Какво се случва с тези, които са влезли в България, или в Гърция, или на друго място по външните граници, които в момента са отворени за нелегални мигранти считаме, че е нормално”, попита премиерът.
„Става малко като на рецепцията на хотел. Идваш в България, добър ден искам да отида в Австрия. Искаш ама няма места. Ама искам в Германия и там няма места. Искам в Полша – и там няма места, и в Чехия няма. Задавам въпроса, защо този hot spot или тази гореща точка трябва да е вътре в ЕС. Ако има КПП и твърди граници, тези за които няма място ще чакат отвън. Ние сега си ги вкарваме вътре в Съюза, вече са на наша територия и започва спор от държавите кой колко да вземе от тях. Защо да го правим като с едно движение, с много по-малко пари, защото ако направим само външните граници, няма България да харчи само пари за границата”.
„Няма Унгария да се гради, няма Австрия да се гради, няма Словения да се гради с техните пари ние можем да направим и на Финландия границата, и на България и на Гърция”, уточни премиерът.
„Задавам следващ въпрос като вкараме НАТО сега в Егейско море между Турция и Гърция къде ще дойде потокът от тези мигранти, след като не дават или считаме, че е неправилно моето предложение да затворим границите външните в случая с Турция. Как да се съглася с това нещо”, попита Борисов.
„Помолих колегите, ако може някой да ми обясни как си го представя ако дойдат 200 000 мигранти и няма място в Австрия, Германия и т.н. аз какво ще ги правя, след като не искат да приемат да не ги допусна да влязат”, каза още Бойко Борисов.
3
Коментара по темата
3.
Бургас Р.Христова
20.02.2016 10:44:57
изпратено от Георг Сорос:
The Case for Surge Funding
Project Syndicate, February 17, 2016
By George Soros
MUNICH – Important progress was made at the donors’ conference for Syrian refugees convened in London on February 4. But much more remains to be done. The international community is still vastly underestimating what is needed to support refugees, both inside and outside the borders of the European Union. To deal with the refugee crisis, while putting the EU’s largely unused AAA borrowing capacity to better use, requires a paradigm shift.
Rather than scraping together insufficient funds year after year, it is time to engage in “surge funding.” Spending a large amount of money up front would be far more effective than spending the same amount over several years. Frontloading the spending would allow us to address the most dangerous consequences of the crisis – including anti-immigrant sentiment in receiving countries and despondency and marginalization among refugees – more effectively. Making large initial investments would help tip the economic, political, and social dynamics away from xenophobia and disaffection, and toward constructive outcomes that benefit refugees and the recipient countries alike.
Surge funding has been used often to finance immunization campaigns. The International Finance Facility for Immunization (IFFIm), which borrows against future government contributions to immunization programs, has raised billions of dollars over the past several years to ensure that vaccination campaigns are successful as soon as possible. In the long run, this is more effective than spending the same amount of money in yearly installments. IFFIm provides a convincing precedent for the current crisis.
A sudden large influx of refugees can cause panic that affects the general population, the authorities, and, most destructively, the refugees themselves. The panic breeds a false sense that refugees are a burden and a danger, resulting in expensive and counter-productive measures, like erecting fences and walls and concentrating refugees into camps, which in turn breeds frustration and desperation among the refugees. If the global community could fund large-scale, concentrated programs to address the problem, the general public and the refugees would be reassured.
A surge in spending is needed both in Europe and in frontline states like Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. The necessary investments include an overhaul of the EU’s asylum policy and improvement of its border controls. In frontline states, money is needed to provide refugees with formal employment opportunities, health care, and education. If life for refugees is made tolerable in frontline countries, and they believe that an orderly process is in place for gaining entry to Europe, they are more likely to wait their turn, rather than rushing to Europe and overwhelming the system. Similarly, if the refugee crisis can be brought under control, the panic will subside and the European public will be less prone to support anti-migrant policies.
Jordan could provide a test case. A country of 9.5 million people, it is providing refuge to 2.9 million non-citizens, including 1.265 million Syrians, and facing the influx of additional Syrians uprooted by Russian bombing. A combination of massive upfront direct financial assistance, enhanced trade preferences, and temporary debt relief is needed. A successful program for Jordan could demonstrate the international community’s ability to bring the refugee crisis under control, opening the way to similar programs for other frontline states, adjusted on a case-by-case basis, depending on local conditions.
The approach suggested here would cost more than EU member states can afford out of current budgets. A minimum of €40 billion ($45 billion) needs to be spent annually in the next 3-5 years; but even larger amounts would be justified to bring the migration crisis under control. In fact, so far, lack of adequate financing is the main obstacle to implementation of successful programs in any of the frontline countries, particularly in Turkey. While Germany has an unallocated budget surplus of €6 billion ($6.8 billion), other EU countries are running deficits. German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble has proposed a pan-European fuel tax, but that would demand either unanimous agreement or a coalition of the willing.
This enhances the merits of having recourse to the EU’s largely unused AAA credit. The migration crisis poses an existential threat to the EU. Indeed, with the north pitted against the south, and the east confronting the west, the EU is coming apart at the seams. When should the EU’s AAA credit be mobilized if not at a moment when the EU is in mortal danger? It is not as if there is no precedent for this approach; throughout history, governments have issued bonds in response to national emergencies.
Tapping the AAA credit of the EU, rather than taxing consumption, has the additional advantage of providing much-needed economic stimulus for Europe. The amounts involved are large enough to be of macroeconomic significance, especially as they would be spent almost immediately and produce a multiplier effect. A growing economy would make it much easier to absorb immigrants, whether refugees or economic migrants. In short, surge funding is a win-win initiative, and it must be undertaken urgently.
The Case for Surge Funding
Project Syndicate, February 17, 2016
By George Soros
MUNICH – Important progress was made at the donors’ conference for Syrian refugees convened in London on February 4. But much more remains to be done. The international community is still vastly underestimating what is needed to support refugees, both inside and outside the borders of the European Union. To deal with the refugee crisis, while putting the EU’s largely unused AAA borrowing capacity to better use, requires a paradigm shift.
Rather than scraping together insufficient funds year after year, it is time to engage in “surge funding.” Spending a large amount of money up front would be far more effective than spending the same amount over several years. Frontloading the spending would allow us to address the most dangerous consequences of the crisis – including anti-immigrant sentiment in receiving countries and despondency and marginalization among refugees – more effectively. Making large initial investments would help tip the economic, political, and social dynamics away from xenophobia and disaffection, and toward constructive outcomes that benefit refugees and the recipient countries alike.
Surge funding has been used often to finance immunization campaigns. The International Finance Facility for Immunization (IFFIm), which borrows against future government contributions to immunization programs, has raised billions of dollars over the past several years to ensure that vaccination campaigns are successful as soon as possible. In the long run, this is more effective than spending the same amount of money in yearly installments. IFFIm provides a convincing precedent for the current crisis.
A sudden large influx of refugees can cause panic that affects the general population, the authorities, and, most destructively, the refugees themselves. The panic breeds a false sense that refugees are a burden and a danger, resulting in expensive and counter-productive measures, like erecting fences and walls and concentrating refugees into camps, which in turn breeds frustration and desperation among the refugees. If the global community could fund large-scale, concentrated programs to address the problem, the general public and the refugees would be reassured.
A surge in spending is needed both in Europe and in frontline states like Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. The necessary investments include an overhaul of the EU’s asylum policy and improvement of its border controls. In frontline states, money is needed to provide refugees with formal employment opportunities, health care, and education. If life for refugees is made tolerable in frontline countries, and they believe that an orderly process is in place for gaining entry to Europe, they are more likely to wait their turn, rather than rushing to Europe and overwhelming the system. Similarly, if the refugee crisis can be brought under control, the panic will subside and the European public will be less prone to support anti-migrant policies.
Jordan could provide a test case. A country of 9.5 million people, it is providing refuge to 2.9 million non-citizens, including 1.265 million Syrians, and facing the influx of additional Syrians uprooted by Russian bombing. A combination of massive upfront direct financial assistance, enhanced trade preferences, and temporary debt relief is needed. A successful program for Jordan could demonstrate the international community’s ability to bring the refugee crisis under control, opening the way to similar programs for other frontline states, adjusted on a case-by-case basis, depending on local conditions.
The approach suggested here would cost more than EU member states can afford out of current budgets. A minimum of €40 billion ($45 billion) needs to be spent annually in the next 3-5 years; but even larger amounts would be justified to bring the migration crisis under control. In fact, so far, lack of adequate financing is the main obstacle to implementation of successful programs in any of the frontline countries, particularly in Turkey. While Germany has an unallocated budget surplus of €6 billion ($6.8 billion), other EU countries are running deficits. German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble has proposed a pan-European fuel tax, but that would demand either unanimous agreement or a coalition of the willing.
This enhances the merits of having recourse to the EU’s largely unused AAA credit. The migration crisis poses an existential threat to the EU. Indeed, with the north pitted against the south, and the east confronting the west, the EU is coming apart at the seams. When should the EU’s AAA credit be mobilized if not at a moment when the EU is in mortal danger? It is not as if there is no precedent for this approach; throughout history, governments have issued bonds in response to national emergencies.
Tapping the AAA credit of the EU, rather than taxing consumption, has the additional advantage of providing much-needed economic stimulus for Europe. The amounts involved are large enough to be of macroeconomic significance, especially as they would be spent almost immediately and produce a multiplier effect. A growing economy would make it much easier to absorb immigrants, whether refugees or economic migrants. In short, surge funding is a win-win initiative, and it must be undertaken urgently.
2.
Tapanari
20.02.2016 08:40:11
Edin masov grob na granicata i strelba na meso.I bez tva nikade ne se vodiat niamat dokumenti mn gi znaish kvi sa.Zaraviash gi v gorata i gotovo.
1.
kolkoto pove4e po dobre
19.02.2016 23:34:14
AZ 6ti kaja Ko 6i GI praiM Kato GI fanem da vlqzat prez granicatA nezakonno ebane na vsi4ki xui oprqva xui razvalq Koito izdarji mu kazvame na kade iska6 da prodalji6 I Kato kaje germaniq Pak ebane I go vra6tame v nqkoi xomobanditski lager SAS sebepodobni da razpravq Te sami Sa varnat ot kadeto Sa do6li da I'm dadem Koto iskat ebaneeeeessss