Dear Giovanna,

I perfectly understand your nausea and most of your criticism seems to be compelling. However, your answer - as you see - belongs more to public discussion than to "scientific" analysis. And I wonder whether the social and human sciences can only often our heated political opinions, or whether there are tools with which we can get a clearer picture of the issue without getting involved in politics.

But you may be right that honestly one cannot avoid political engagment in trying to make sense of situations like this.

I which case I am the more disappointed because it would show the serious limits of our professions.

Best,

Ferenc

Dear Giovanna,

this sounds rather terrifying, and I would like to hear more about it, but perhaps it is beyond the aims of this sort of public forums. I certainly know that art history is further away from the problems I mention in my question, but I know that the politics of science can be rather disgusting. Which paper by Denécé do  you mean?

Best,

Ferenc

Consider the objectives of each European states to enter in the Union and you will see clearly a huge difference between the first members and the ones entering after 1990. Then add the background of the actual economic slow down of Europe, the lack of vision of most European heads of states and governments more state-centered  and you might find part of an answer.

Definitely, it is a painful situation for people who believed in the ideals of Jean Monnet et al 

Elisabeth E.

To arrive at a more "scientific" answer you need to sort out the subject matter, so that you can focus more precisely on what seems to be your main interest - the mass immigration from the Middle East and the disputes about its handling between the states you refer to. You need to decide for your analysis whether you will assume that the present disputes are linked up with prior disputes between these countries (as you seem to suggest), or whether today's conflicts are specifically about mass illegal immigration as such. My personal guess would be that the Dublin regulation is the chief culprit.

Dear Olav, thanks for your suggestions, they seem to be rather helpful. SO let me follow your line.

Indeed, I am interested in the Middle East (and perhaps even further) immigration to Europe and the disputes it causes in neighbouring countries in Central and Eastern Europe.

Indeed, I think that these disputes cannot be taken to come out of the blue, they must have their historical roots, I guess.

Indeed, I too think Dunblin regulations are among the chief culprits. But then the question is, why do these countries not attack that regulation, instead of accusing each other? WHich brings us to a question whhich seems to me even more relevant: what consequences might have of this crisis to the relationship of different EUropean countries, regions, and interest spheres (including the evident conflicts between the dominating countries and the rest, and those between the old and the new Europe).

Can I ask your views on that particular question as well?

Best,

Ferenc

Your latest question seems to me to be more speculative than "scientific". The only certainty is that the recent EU decisions in this matter will shape the further actions of the member states, and that the EU's methods of implementing these decisions will be crucial in this regard. As you know, EU decisions are often not fully implemented, and in difficult cases not implemented at all. Still, the EU Court and its legal system is a force to be reckoned with. Hungary's threat of legal proceedings against the EU points to the possibility of a complete breakdown of the basic consensus on which the EU after all depends. 

So, given these uncertainties, I would suggest (once more) that you narrow down the question, or that you rephrase it. A systematic social science perspective demands that the question lend itself to empirical answers, not guesswork about the future. Alternatively, you can model your conjectures to set out in principle what the various consequences might be. In any case, you need to think this over again from the start.

Best of luck,

Olav

Dear Olav, perhaps your conclusion runs a bit too fast. It seems to me that I followed your earlier suggestions, so as long as you do not point out why I should go back deeper, I cannot see it validated.

As for your present intervention in general, let me first of all state, that I am not a social scientist, but a political philosopher and historian of political thought. So I have to tell you I do not share the presupposition of a distinction of any more and less scientific questions in matters relevant for political philosophy and the histoy of political thought. Add to this, that both as a philosopher and as a European citizen I am certainly interested in the consequences of the recent situation. I am perfectly happy if a social scientist helps to see more clearly about this issue by her empirically validated description of the present, but if you do not mind I would stick to the future oriented question, too. 

Let me tell you, why. I have the impression that the gut reactions of politicians from the Old and the New Europe seemed to be very far away. But I am perfectly happy if you or someone else can calm me down, and argue that this is not the case. For I think that the common European standard requires that the two sides try to make sense of each other's meaning witn a bit more sympathy. 

But I agree, that my second question is not closely related to the first one, directly. However, I think that a more harmonised European Union  could tackle huge challenges like the present one, or the Ukrainen situation, or the Greek crisis better, while a Europe divided along historical, political or economic lines would be a disater for the whole region, And let me add to this, that my first qeuestion (about the causes of the conflicts among the new European members) has a significance far beyond the present moment, and confronts the future of the Euopean Union, and the region in general.

Dear Ferenc, let us agree to disagree. Your perspective is different from mine. I am not out to impose my ideas on you, just trying to make sense (as I see "sense") of your questions. 

Regards, Olav

Dear Olav thanks for your kind and generous offer. Certainly, platforms are meant to give chance to express differences of views. This is because we learn from these disagreements, like I do from your self-reserve to keep focus on present (and therefore verifiable) "facts". And I certainly welcome your efforts to make sense of my questions. I am still interested in your answer to my questions - like in  your view on how dividing lines run across Europe (at the moment, according to verifiable data).

Best,

Ferenc

Dear Ferenc,

I don't know if it is can be useful to you, but I send you 

a link to my editorial published in the last issue of the Journal of Health

and Social Sciences where I discuss the recent migration crisis

and some political and Health implications of this crisis in Europe.

Francesco

Below the link

http://journalhss.com/wp-content/uploads/JHHS13_165-172.pdf