EU Court: Countries must listen to EU

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I can't see how this ends well for the EU's unity when they start forcing decisions upon countries regardless of their will. It's looking like Poland/Hungary/Slovakia are all getting fed up with the EU and the UK made their vote already. Are we witnessing the collapse of the EU? Hopefully it's a peaceful collapse. F another European war.

I'm still amazed anyone okayed a system where complaints about EU decisions are heard by the EU. It's about as stupid as NFL players letting Goodell suspend players with low burden of evidence, and then their appeals are heard by him/people he appoints.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/eu-wins-legal-battle-on-refugee-quotas/ar-AArnPpL?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Quote:The EU on Wednesday won a legal battle against eastern European countries that rejected a quota scheme to force member states to admit tens of thousands of asylum seekers.

The European Court of Justice, the 28-nation bloc's top court, threw out the challenge from Hungary and Slovakia against a scheme Brussels launched two years ago to ease the burden on overstretched Greece and Italy.

Europe has been grappling with the worst migrant crisis since World War II, with hundreds of thousands of people fleeing war, persecution and poverty in the Middle East and Africa.

"The court dismisses the actions brought by Slovakia and Hungary against the provisional mechanism for the mandatory relocation of asylum seekers," the Luxembourg-based court said.

"That mechanism actually contributes to enabling Greece and Italy to deal with the impact of the 2015 migration crisis and is proportionate."

The continuing crisis peaked in 2015. More than 1.6 million people have landed on Greek and Italian shores since 2014.

The verdict was welcomed by the European Commission, the executive of the 28-nation bloc.

"ECJ confirms relocation scheme valid. Time to work in unity and implement solidarity in full," said EU Migration Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos.

However, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto slamed the verdict as "irresponsible," saying it "threatens the security of all of Europe".

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has called migration the "Trojan Horse of terrorism."

The top court's press office told AFP there is "no onward appeal for Hungary and Slovakia" when asked about Szijjarto's comment that Budapest will use "all legal means" against the scheme.

In its verdict, the court upheld the right of EU institutions to respond "swiftly to an emergency situation" over the massive migrant influx.

It also held that the European Council, the body of member states, "was not required to act unanimously when it adopted the contested decision".

A majority of EU member states decided in September 2015 to relocate 120,000 Syrian and other asylum seekers from overstretched Greece and Italy to most of the other 28 EU member states.

It is part of a scheme to relocate a total of 160,000 asylum seekers.

Officials in Brussels have argued that the scheme is legally binding on member states, including those that voted against the quotas like Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Romania.

Poland initially supported the plan but has come out strongly opposed since a right-wing government came to power.

The court statement said Poland intervened in support of Hungary during the proceedings, while the European Commission, along with Greece, Italy, Germany, Sweden and several other member states, argued for the relocation plan.

Eastern European member states opposed the plan, saying they were not equipped to integrate people from mainly Muslim countries.

Brussels launched the relocation scheme in September 2015, the year more than one million migrants arrived in Europe by sea.

It was introduced as an exception to the so-called Dublin rules under which migrants must apply for asylum in the member state where they first land.

Under international and European law, countries are required to grant asylum to people fleeing war or persecution but not those classed as economic migrants.

Political pressures have eased with a sharp decline in migrant flows.

This is mainly a result of a controversial deal the EU signed with Turkey in March last year to send back migrants in return for billions of euros in aid and for admitting asylum seekers directly from refugee camps in Turkey.

However, the scheme has faced trouble from the start.

EU figures show that just under 28,000 people have been relocated since the two-year scheme was launched in September 2015.

In addition to outright opposition from eastern member states, other EU member states have dragged their feet despite having voted for the plan.

Under the plan, Hungary must admit more than 2,300 asylum seekers, while Slovakia must in the long term take in 1,400.

[StLucieBengal]

The EU has jumped the shark from its original intent. A trade union.

It needs dissolved and allow countries to trade with one another and control their own borders.

[GMDino]

Seems that all parties are represented fairly and agreed to this system where the court has the final say.

I'm sure some will be mad about it, but if you agree to the rules is there any more you can do when you lose fairly?

Maybe they should have watched some Youtube videos on negotiation before agreeing to this setup?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-07-2017, 10:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: Seems that all parties are represented fairly and agreed to this system where the court has the final say.

I'm sure some will be mad about it, but if you agree to the rules is there any more you can do when you lose fairly?

Maybe they should have watched some Youtube videos on negotiation before agreeing to this setup?

You're really going to stalk me into another thread with negotiation just because I refused to keep replying to you in the other thread?

[GMDino]

(09-07-2017, 10:16 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You're really going to stalk me into another thread with negotiation just because I refused to keep replying to you in the other thread?

I was commenting on the story in the OP.  And was referring to you at all.

[hollodero]

(09-07-2017, 01:08 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I can't see how this ends well for the EU's unity when they start forcing decisions upon countries regardless of their will. It's looking like Poland/Hungary/Slovakia are all getting fed up with the EU and the UK made their vote already. Are we witnessing the collapse of the EU? Hopefully it's a peaceful collapse. F another European war.

Meh, we don't want to fight each other as of now. Not even the British, and they nefariously left us. Something the eastern countries, as the ones who actually get money and access to the European market and other things they quite need to catch up to western standards, probably are not willing to do. If they do, the EU will live on.

(09-07-2017, 01:08 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I'm still amazed anyone okayed a system where complaints about EU decisions are heard by the EU. It's about as stupid as NFL players letting Goodell suspend players with low burden of evidence, and then their appeals are heard by him/people he appoints.

Hm.
Don't the United States work exactly that way? Where can Texas complain when it's unhappy with something in the United States? It's not like we have impartial third parties around that could solve these things. Should we ask the US to be our judge?

[GMDino]

(09-07-2017, 11:04 AM)hollodero Wrote: Meh, we don't want to fight each other as of now. Not even the British, and they nefariously left us. Something the eastern countries, as the ones who actually get money and access to the European market and other things they quite need to catch up to western standards, probably are not willing to do. If they do, the EU will live on.


Hm.
Don't the United States work exactly that way? Where can Texas complain when it's unhappy with something in the United States? It's not like we have impartial third parties around that could solve these things. Should we ask the US to be our judge?

Around these parts if anyone talks about a "world court" there is much beating of breasts and gnashing of teeth about the "overlords" taking away American freedom!

And don't even mention the UN....

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-07-2017, 11:04 AM)hollodero Wrote: Meh, we don't want to fight each other as of now. Not even the British, and they nefariously left us. Something the eastern countries, as the ones who actually get money and access to the European market and other things they quite need to catch up to western standards, probably are not willing to do. If they do, the EU will live on.

This is true, but the more developed nations that weren't part of the Soviet Bloc equally benefit by utilizing a currency tied to so many undeveloped economies.  Germany makes far more money on this current arrangement than all the Eastern European countries receive in subsidies, likely combined.

Quote:Hm.
Don't the United States work exactly that way? Where can Texas complain when it's unhappy with something in the United States? It's not like we have impartial third parties around that could solve these things. Should we ask the US to be our judge?

Not an apt comparison at all.  The United States is a single country.  Europe is not, and likely never will be.  Not only that, we're talking national cultures that go back over a thousand years in some instances.  Also, you're ignoring (not deliberately) the fact that individual states complain about federal law, and sue the federal government, all the time.

[hollodero]

(09-07-2017, 11:27 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is true, but the more developed nations that weren't part of the Soviet Bloc equally benefit by utilizing a currency tied to so many undeveloped economies.  Germany makes far more money on this current arrangement than all the Eastern European countries receive in subsidies, likely combined.

There certainly is some truth to that, although I'm not so sure about your comparison. Currencys can be influenced either way, and the D-Mark didn't harm German exports too much either before there was an Euro, and then before we took the weaker economys in. Also, if Germany benefits, that doesn't mean Eastern countries don't also benefit.

(09-07-2017, 11:27 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not an apt comparison at all.  The United States is a single country.  Europe is not, and likely never will be.  Not only that, we're talking national cultures that go back over a thousand years in some instances.  Also, you're ignoring (not deliberately) the fact that individual states complain about federal law, and sue the federal government, all the time.

It isn't an apt comparison, sure. We're not a single country, but we need to work together and not breed out different approaches in 20+ single small countries, or we will get lost in this world. We are a solidary group, and everyone has to play by the rules that were agreed upon, that's how a group works.
And sure, individual states complain in the US too, that's no surprise - and who ultimately settles these disputes is the US Supreme Court. The EU just has a similar aproach - the European Court of Justice (which was called "the EU", which I think is misleading) decides. Who else could?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-07-2017, 11:27 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not an apt comparison at all.  The United States is a single country.  Europe is not, and likely never will be.  Not only that, we're talking national cultures that go back over a thousand years in some instances.  Also, you're ignoring (not deliberately) the fact that individual states complain about federal law, and sue the federal government, all the time.

Not to mention that even as a single country, we still had a civil war over it. That is even without adding all those separate countries and separate old cultures.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-07-2017, 11:04 AM)hollodero Wrote: Meh, we don't want to fight each other as of now. Not even the British, and they nefariously left us. Something the eastern countries, as the ones who actually get money and access to the European market and other things they quite need to catch up to western standards, probably are not willing to do. If they do, the EU will live on.


Hm.
Don't the United States work exactly that way? Where can Texas complain when it's unhappy with something in the United States? It's not like we have impartial third parties around that could solve these things. Should we ask the US to be our judge?

I'll do it.

[hollodero]

(09-07-2017, 02:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'll do it.

Fine with me.

So, we have a lot of refugees amassing across EU borders, a humanitarian emergency. Some countries take refugees in, others refuse to do so. A quota for every country (acknowledging these country's means) was agreed on within the political institutions of the EU (not unanimously), yet some countries still refuse to carry their share. Which, in the end, wouldn't help the super-rich countries as much as countries like Greece and Italy, that bear the heaviest burden.

What's your judgment?

[Millhouse]

(09-07-2017, 11:10 AM)GMDino Wrote: Around these parts if anyone talks about a "world court" there is much beating of breasts and gnashing of teeth about the "overlords" taking away American freedom!

And don't even mention the UN....

Since you mentioned it, the UN is about as useful as a **** flavored lollipop. 

[masterpanthera_t]

(09-07-2017, 02:28 PM)hollodero Wrote: Fine with me.

So, we have a lot of refugees amassing across EU borders, a humanitarian emergency. Some countries take refugees in, others refuse to do so. A quota for every country (acknowledging these country's means) was agreed on within the political institutions of the EU (not unanimously), yet some countries still refuse to carry their share. Which, in the end, wouldn't help the super-rich countries as much as countries like Greece and Italy, that bear the heaviest burden.

What's your judgment?

On a very tangentially related note, I heard that one of the reasons for the Brexit was open access to outsiders to come in to England for better opportunities (which ironically was supposedly going to affect Polish immigrants' access the most, more than any asylum seekers). Is this so? And if yes, I would like to hear your views on Poland wanting the benefits to go their way without bearing any of the agreed upon "costs" that said benefits will bring.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-07-2017, 02:28 PM)hollodero Wrote: Fine with me.

So, we have a lot of refugees amassing across EU borders, a humanitarian emergency. Some countries take refugees in, others refuse to do so. A quota for every country (acknowledging these country's means) was agreed on within the political institutions of the EU (not unanimously), yet some countries still refuse to carry their share. Which, in the end, wouldn't help the super-rich countries as much as countries like Greece and Italy, that bear the heaviest burden.

What's your judgment?

The only refugees this court recognizes are the Family Von Trapp.  We must get them out of Austria before the Captain is forced to fight for the Nazis.

[GMDino]

(09-07-2017, 04:04 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The only refugees this court recognizes are the Family Von Trapp.  We must get them out of Austria before the Captain is forced to fight for the Nazis.

But what about the good Nazis and the bad Von Trapps?  We have to look at both sides!  

[*michaelsean*]

(09-07-2017, 04:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: But what about the good Nazis and the bad Von Trapps?  We have to look at both sides!  

I think hollodero would consider all the Von Trapps bad since that's the only thing American's seem to know about Austria.  Therefore he would consider Rolf a good Nazi for turning them in.

[hollodero]

(09-07-2017, 03:00 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: On a very tangentially related note, I heard that one of the reasons for the Brexit was open access to outsiders to come in to England for better opportunities (which ironically was supposedly going to affect Polish immigrants' access the most, more than any asylum seekers). Is this so?

It sure is. That was quite a major topic, the inflow of EU citizens into GB without restrictions. Which of course also touches the refugee and muslim issue, but at least as much the "Polish" issue as Polish workers were said to be on the move to GB (if this is true, I do not know). Also quite a major topic was the amount of money GB has to pay to the EU as one of the rich countries.
All of course major talking points of the British portion of the right-wing populists, Nigel Farage, who immediately after Brexit admitted that he overblew things - and then completely jumped ship. You didn't ask, but sure this destructive force that is this movement played its part, like it does everywhere these days.

In the end, why Brexit happened I can't answer either. The British alsways had some kind of distanced relationship to Europe, and had some kind of attitude so to speak. I guess they never felt that heavy bond to the mainland; I think that aspect is not to be underestimated.

(09-07-2017, 03:00 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: And if yes, I would like to hear your views on Poland wanting the benefits to go their way without bearing any of the agreed upon "costs" that said benefits will bring.

Hm. It would be easy to give a simple answer, but in the end it's not that simple. To oversimplify it, the Polish (and other Eastern Europeans) are different people. And the EU somehow tries to assimilate the Eastern countries a bit too quickly. It probably takes time to go from communistic country to advocate of western values and principles. And the one thing you want to get rid of as a Pole is heteromony, and the EU is more on a "take away countries' souvereignty for the common goal" path.

There are two sides to that, and I would take the EU side, and also not because I'm a fan of the EU, but there's no viable alternative then for it to exist and evolve in something more efficient. Poland and other eastern countries are roadblocks right now, but I can also understand them in some ways. The EU being as flawed as it is doesn't help.

The rise of the ultra-conservatives (not so much Nigel Farage demagogue types, more real reactionaries) in Poland and other Eastern countries makes things very difficult right now. The polish government Trump praised so much wants to get rid of the Supreme Court, journalists are faced with repression etc, it all has the authoritarian touch, which the EU sees quite sceptical. And this government is on a very EU-sceptical course too. Poland will not leave and we won't kick them out for obvious reasons, but the climate is tense and agreements aren't easily reached. And one partner doesn't seem to be willing to reach agreements with a political adversary. So, as for your question. Under the current government Poland is a problem and won't be a helpful partner; the reason your question kind of gave away being a major part of that. Kaczinsky (I probably spelled that name wrong, and I show my disrespect by not caring) and Duda, those I am very critical of. As for Poland as a whole, in the end the people have to decide to change course - or keep their leaders in power. If it's the ladder for the foreseeable future, a consensual divorce might be an option.

[hollodero]

(09-07-2017, 04:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: But what about the good Nazis and the bad Von Trapps?  We have to look at both sides!  

You clearly don't get Austria. We are not bound to that kind of duality. Here almost everyone was an ok, maybe even good Nazi who was utilized and betrayed by a few bad Nazis. Our Nazis didn't need any Antifa or any equally evil counterpart, we have intrinsic victimhood built into the whole being a Nazi concept. It's genius, really.

In the end, our whole country was just a victim full of Nazi victim Nazis. Something this country actually believes, by the way. How I wish I could draw a   to all that.

(09-07-2017, 04:41 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I think hollodero would consider all the Von Trapps bad since that's the only thing American's seem to know about Austria.  Therefore he would consider Rolf a good Nazi for turning them in.

Nah, you got that wrong. So you only know the Von Trapps. I know that's not exactly perfect for my country, but I also know it really doesn't get much better from there. Knowing more Austrians probably wouldn't turn the tides in Austria's favor. So keep only knowing the ridiculous singing family.
Plus, Rolf is an awful, awful name. No decent person is named Rolf. Only Germans.