Brexit delayed

[belgarion]

You’ve made an incredibly diffult piece of diplomacy sound incredibly easy. I’m struggling to think a situation where govts have sat on the commission to change one of the pillars.

I'm also only talking about migration external to the EU and not internal movement

Ah, ok. I’m not really sure we’re that bothered about external immigration, by dint of being almost the furthest away from the entry routes, and current EU rules meaning that legally external immigrants should register/seek asylum at their point of entry.

Can I have some of what your drinking Mells. You do remember all the fuss about the Calais 'Jungle' camp & the fact that it was made up of
mostly people from Afghanistan/Iraq & North Africa. Somehow I dont't think France would have been the point of entry of most of them

[Mellsblue]

I'm also only talking about migration external to the EU and not internal movement

Ah, ok. I’m not really sure we’re that bothered about external immigration, by dint of being almost the furthest away from the entry routes, and current EU rules meaning that legally external immigrants should register/seek asylum at their point of entry.

Can I have some of what your drinking Mells. You do remember all the fuss about the Calais 'Jungle' camp & the fact that it was made up of
mostly people from Afghanistan/Iraq & North Africa. Somehow I dont't think France would have been the point of entry of most of them

No. I paid for it and I'm drinking all of it.

EU law is that on entry to the bloc, the country of entry must register them and the migrant won't have freedom of movement until they are granted asylum plus X number of years. What more would you have the EU do? I also remember most of the fuss was made daily mail readers rather than the government themselves. In the grand scheme of things, the jungle makes very little difference to immigration numbers and I doubt the govt will spend much political capital on it, mainly as they haven't at any point so far. It's also a tiny percsntage of illegal immigrants in the bloc and if Italy etc struggle to get help from other EU countries I can't see our pleas of help to stop the handful getting in from France gaining much traction.

[Digby]

Is it an actual law on seeking refugee status in the first safe country reached, or is that specifically EU law?

Certainly there's a convention, sort of. In future the EU may have little incentive not to give all refugees a train ticket to Blighty, I would if I was them, I'd even ask Turkey if they wanted to join in such fun, as we see the law of unintended consequences meshing with the will of the people

[Mellsblue]

Is it an actual law on seeking refugee status in the first safe country reached, or is that specifically EU law?

Certainly there's a convention, sort of. In future the EU may have little incentive not to give all refugees a train ticket to Blighty, I would if I was them, I'd even ask Turkey if they wanted to join in such fun, as we see the law of unintended consequences meshing with the will of the people

I'm no expert but I believe it's EU law. Your second point is a very Trumpian approach to diplomacy.

[belgarion]

Ah, ok. I’m not really sure we’re that bothered about external immigration, by dint of being almost the furthest away from the entry routes, and current EU rules meaning that legally external immigrants should register/seek asylum at their point of entry.

Can I have some of what your drinking Mells. You do remember all the fuss about the Calais 'Jungle' camp & the fact that it was made up of
mostly people from Afghanistan/Iraq & North Africa. Somehow I dont't think France would have been the point of entry of most of them

No. I paid for it and I'm drinking all of it.

EU law is that on entry to the bloc, the country of entry must register them and the migrant won't have freedom of movement until they are granted asylum plus X number of years. What more would you have the EU do? I also remember most of the fuss was made daily mail readers rather than the government themselves. In the grand scheme of things, the jungle makes very little difference to immigration numbers and I doubt the govt will spend much political capital on it, mainly as they haven't at any point so far. It's also a tiny percsntage of illegal immigrants in the bloc and if Italy etc struggle to get help from other EU countries I can't see our pleas of help to stop the handful getting in from France gaining much traction.

How about sending them back to their point of entry & following their own rules

[Puja]

Can I have some of what your drinking Mells. You do remember all the fuss about the Calais 'Jungle' camp & the fact that it was made up of
mostly people from Afghanistan/Iraq & North Africa. Somehow I dont't think France would have been the point of entry of most of them

No. I paid for it and I'm drinking all of it.

EU law is that on entry to the bloc, the country of entry must register them and the migrant won't have freedom of movement until they are granted asylum plus X number of years. What more would you have the EU do? I also remember most of the fuss was made daily mail readers rather than the government themselves. In the grand scheme of things, the jungle makes very little difference to immigration numbers and I doubt the govt will spend much political capital on it, mainly as they haven't at any point so far. It's also a tiny percsntage of illegal immigrants in the bloc and if Italy etc struggle to get help from other EU countries I can't see our pleas of help to stop the handful getting in from France gaining much traction.

How about sending them back to their point of entry & following their own rules

The issue is that the countries which are the point of entry are the ones who are either poorer, hit hardest by the EU's obsession with austerity, or both, so they don't have the budget or political will to deal with all of the immigrants. The northern EU states won't reach any agreement on sharing the responsibility for refugees or providing funding for the refugees, so when the southern states run out of money/room/energy/political capital, they shove the overflow of people onto a bus or a train to the border and tell them, "Go to that country; they'll take you in!"

The same process happens in the next country along, and the next and the next, until they reach a point at which they can't physically be shovelled on any further - the Channel.

It's all very well saying they should go back to their point of entry, but no-one's willing to take them in, no-one's willing to spend money on them, no-one's willing to do anything to make sure that the countries they're coming from aren't war-torn death-traps so they can go home, and everyone's willing to turn a blind eye and hope they go away and become someone else's problem. What's the solution?

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Taking them into Europe also makes it harder to rebuild the war shattered countries they have fled from.

Solution is to minimise the conflict and let refugees return home.

[Puja]

Taking them into Europe also makes it harder to rebuild the war shattered countries they have fled from.

Solution is to minimise the conflict and let refugees return home.

Solution is stop people from having wars and scrapping for power and wealth. Sounds so simple!

Puja

[Sandydragon]

This is where the small mindedness of people is so frustrating.

Its none of our business to interfere in conflicts near our borders, which results in refugees that it’s not our business to take in, resulting in human misery and increased risks to our society as vulnerable people from other countries see us as uncaring, not without some justification.

If the international community had any balls, it would interfere where humanitarian disasters are imminent and restrain the conflicting sides, guarantee safe havens and then work towards s peaceful resolution where refugees can return home and rebuild their own countries. There will always be exceptions. I was chatting to the son of an Ugandan Jew the other day and refugees like that should be made welcome. But where the number of refugees is so high and we see the signs of human misery in refugees dying to cross the med, and the follow on issues within Europe regarding racism and threats from refugees who aren’t moving to seek a peaceful new life, then the solution must be to resolve the initial cause.

Economic migration is different again. I’d personally tackle that by looking at the supply and demand.

[Puja]

If the international community had any balls, it would interfere where humanitarian disasters are imminent and restrain the conflicting sides, guarantee safe havens and then work towards s peaceful resolution where refugees can return home and rebuild their own countries.

It's a great idea in theory, but interfere how? Restrain how? It's hard to stop two armies who believe they've got a really good reason to fight from fighting. - no-one's invented the bullet shield or the gun nullifier and armed forces aren't really designed for stopping people having wars. Even if you've got a military force on hand that's definitively strong enough to trounce both of them, you're likely to have to fight them to prove that and then everyone's cross at you because you've invaded their country and killed people. And then, quite apart from the manpower and ordinance required to hold down a country that was determined to fight each other and now hates you as well, you've got to get everyone who hates you to discuss a mutually acceptable idea of peace, which will survive after you've gone (and preferably doesn't throw too many minority groups under the bus).

Plus, international community? Do we even have one of those anymore?

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Most of these conflicts are internal ones which are always more difficult but it’s possible to enforce no fly sanctuaries and other humanitarian provisions if the will is there. Sadly the will is rarely there unless there is another reason to intervene.

[Mellsblue]

No. I paid for it and I'm drinking all of it.

EU law is that on entry to the bloc, the country of entry must register them and the migrant won't have freedom of movement until they are granted asylum plus X number of years. What more would you have the EU do? I also remember most of the fuss was made daily mail readers rather than the government themselves. In the grand scheme of things, the jungle makes very little difference to immigration numbers and I doubt the govt will spend much political capital on it, mainly as they haven't at any point so far. It's also a tiny percsntage of illegal immigrants in the bloc and if Italy etc struggle to get help from other EU countries I can't see our pleas of help to stop the handful getting in from France gaining much traction.

How about sending them back to their point of entry & following their own rules

The issue is that the countries which are the point of entry are the ones who are either poorer, hit hardest by the EU's obsession with austerity, or both, so they don't have the budget or political will to deal with all of the immigrants. The northern EU states won't reach any agreement on sharing the responsibility for refugees or providing funding for the refugees, so when the southern states run out of money/room/energy/political capital, they shove the overflow of people onto a bus or a train to the border and tell them, "Go to that country; they'll take you in!"

The same process happens in the next country along, and the next and the next, until they reach a point at which they can't physically be shovelled on any further - the Channel.

It's all very well saying they should go back to their point of entry, but no-one's willing to take them in, no-one's willing to spend money on them, no-one's willing to do anything to make sure that the countries they're coming from aren't war-torn death-traps so they can go home, and everyone's willing to turn a blind eye and hope they go away and become someone else's problem. What's the solution?

Puja

The EU did try and get all member nations to take their ‘fair’ share but it was blocked and there is now more money and resources being sent to Italy, Greece etc and obviously the EU paying Turkey to take some immigrants back etc. The latest is to help the nation’s that hold the migrants before they get in to the EU. (Remember all the grinding of teeth when the horrible UK didn’t accept enough migrants whilst sending a lot more money than any other EU nation to the refugee camps in Jordan etc?) However, the main problem at the jungle isn’t really that the initial country of entry hasn’t bothered with their responsibilities but that those pesky migrants didn’t wander in to the first police station or town hall they came across to register themselves. That when they do arrive in the jungle they don’t have any documentation saying where they are from or where they first entered the EU so the French don’t know what to do with them. That when they do try and disperse them round the country, as they tried recently, the migrants just make their way back to Calais. For all our (disproportionate) wailing about the jungle the French are a hundred times more desperate to solve the issue. It’s also worth remembering that the jungle was there before the surge of migrants over the last couple of years so isn’t just a symptom of Italy, Greece etc being overwhelmed but rather that keeping your borders secure is a bloody hard thing to do. Considering we have an estimated 400,000 - 500,000 undocumented immigrants in the U.K. it’d be a bit rich to chastise others for the fact that an estimated 3,000 make it across the channel each year.

[belgarion]

No. I paid for it and I'm drinking all of it.

It's all very well saying they should go back to their point of entry, but no-one's willing to take them in, no-one's willing to spend money on them, no-one's willing to do anything to make sure that the countries they're coming from aren't war-torn death-traps so they can go home, and everyone's willing to turn a blind eye and hope they go away and become someone else's problem. What's the solution?

Puja

Sod that. According to the EU rules are rules & all member states have to follow them but in reality they only apply the rules when it suits them.
This is one of the reasons people voted for UKexit co they were fecked off with seeing other countries mot following the EU's rules (France in
particular) & the Commision doing nothing yet when the UK did anything that only broke the spirit of the rule no the rule itself they got kicked in
the nuts

[Mellsblue]

Sod that. According to the EU rules are rules & all member states have to follow them but in reality they only apply the rules when it suits them.
This is one of the reasons people voted for UKexit co they were fecked off with seeing other countries mot following the EU's rules (France in
particular) & the Commision doing nothing yet when the UK did anything that only broke the spirit of the rule no the rule itself they got kicked in
the nuts

I'm not normally one to defend the EU on whether they are consistent but that simply isn't true. Google 'Who's afraid of the ECJ? The Institute for Government'.

[Puja]

Sod that. According to the EU rules are rules & all member states have to follow them but in reality they only apply the rules when it suits them.
This is one of the reasons people voted for UKexit co they were fecked off with seeing other countries mot following the EU's rules (France in
particular) & the Commision doing nothing yet when the UK did anything that only broke the spirit of the rule no the rule itself they got kicked in
the nuts

I'll give you that the EU is hardly the paragon of consistency, but how exactly are they supposed to follow these rules? It's literally just not possible without massive funding and an agreement to share the load, neither of which the northern states are willing to sign up to.

Puja

[Stom]

Sod that. According to the EU rules are rules & all member states have to follow them but in reality they only apply the rules when it suits them.
This is one of the reasons people voted for UKexit co they were fecked off with seeing other countries mot following the EU's rules (France in
particular) & the Commision doing nothing yet when the UK did anything that only broke the spirit of the rule no the rule itself they got kicked in
the nuts

I'll give you that the EU is hardly the paragon of consistency, but how exactly are they supposed to follow these rules? It's literally just not possible without massive funding and an agreement to share the load, neither of which the northern states are willing to sign up to.

Puja

Hence things like the border wall in Hungary. It's a political stunt primarily and it worked in that respect. But it was portrayed very, very negatively (even by those building it).

[Which Tyler]

Sod that. According to the EU rules are rules & all member states have to follow them but in reality they only apply the rules when it suits them.
This is one of the reasons people voted for UKexit co they were fecked off with seeing other countries mot following the EU's rules (France in
particular) & the Commision doing nothing yet when the UK did anything that only broke the spirit of the rule no the rule itself they got kicked in
the nuts

I'm not normally one to defend the EU on whether they are consistent but that simply isn't true. Google 'Who's afraid of the ECJ? The Institute for Government'.

Yup - that's just a narrative we're sold on this side of the channel.
When we break the rules; we pay the set fine, and generally try to meet the rules in the future; except sometimes when we object to the rules, and would rather keep paying the fine.
When France breaks the rules, they pay the set fine, and generally try to meet the rules in the future; except sometimes when they object to the rules, and would rather keep paying the fine.

Of course, often the rules we're "bending over backwards to meet" whilst "the French are ignoring" aren't actually rules at all, but pure myth being spread by Europhobes (eg straight bananas etc etc)

[belgarion]

Sod that. According to the EU rules are rules & all member states have to follow them but in reality they only apply the rules when it suits them.
This is one of the reasons people voted for UKexit co they were fecked off with seeing other countries mot following the EU's rules (France in
particular) & the Commision doing nothing yet when the UK did anything that only broke the spirit of the rule no the rule itself they got kicked in
the nuts

I'll give you that the EU is hardly the paragon of consistency, but how exactly are they supposed to follow these rules? It's literally just not possible without massive funding and an agreement to share the load, neither of which the northern states are willing to sign up to.

Puja

If a rule cannot or will not be enforced whats the point of it?

[Puja]

Sod that. According to the EU rules are rules & all member states have to follow them but in reality they only apply the rules when it suits them.
This is one of the reasons people voted for UKexit co they were fecked off with seeing other countries mot following the EU's rules (France in
particular) & the Commision doing nothing yet when the UK did anything that only broke the spirit of the rule no the rule itself they got kicked in
the nuts

I'll give you that the EU is hardly the paragon of consistency, but how exactly are they supposed to follow these rules? It's literally just not possible without massive funding and an agreement to share the load, neither of which the northern states are willing to sign up to.

Puja

If a rule cannot or will not be enforced whats the point of it?

That's kind of my point and the situation we're in now - the rule is unfeasible and unenforceable and so is achieving nothing but annoying you.

However it's not one where the UK is getting shafted -if anything, it's one where we're getting the best end of the stick as we're furthest away from the problem and protected by the sea.

Puja

[belgarion]

But enforcing some rules but not others leaves you open to the daft situation of subject A refusing to abide by Rule 1
on the grounds that subject B is breaking Rule 2 & you are refusing/can't do it, to apply it

[Digby]

Name a country anywhere that enforces all rules consistently

[Mellsblue]

We can’t catch every burglar or indeed afford to investigate every reported burglary. We can’t afford or even try to catch every speeding motorist. Should we not have those laws? You have laws even if you can’t always enforce them. Plus, the EU are doing their level best to help enforce them by trying to stem the flow of migrants. There’s also a point in any law where if an actor is trying their level best to comply but extreme circumstances mean they are failing there must be some leeway.

[Puja]

But enforcing some rules but not others leaves you open to the daft situation of subject A refusing to abide by Rule 1
on the grounds that subject B is breaking Rule 2 & you are refusing/can't do it, to apply it

Who says they're not enforcing the rule? Hungary are getting fined, as are Italy and Serbia (no idea about Greece, but I suspect it'd be counterproductive to give them money and then fine it back off them).

So far it is cheaper and more politically acceptable to take the fine and shovel the refugees on with a train ticket and a promise that the next country will be delighted to see them.

Puja

[canta_brian]

Just to add to the Brexit wins for GB. Seems there will be less of those pesky bankers around paying tax in the UK. Deutschebank are to move their euro clearing division to Frankfurt.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06g28bh

[Sandydragon]

Just to add to the Brexit wins for GB. Seems there will be less of those pesky bankers around paying tax in the UK. Deutschebank are to move their euro clearing division to Frankfurt.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06g28bh

Yes. Damn them for paying so much tax.