Poor migrants from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan

[Berberis]

Look, it's simple. I start off by saying that the EU keeps a rule until the rule becomes inconvenient, at which point it gets ignored. You query this.

 

As simple as you ignoring my question?

 

Which section of the treaty said there was a ban on bailouts?

 

[L00b]

Look, it's simple. I start off by saying that the EU keeps a rule until the rule becomes inconvenient, at which point it gets ignored.

Not quite, your forgot the context in which you said that, provided by your quote of tinfoilhat's post:

Germany has now closed her borders to Austria.

I love how in the EU, when a rule causes a problem, it stops being a rule and just gets ignored.

Your post very clearly referred to Germany's suspension of the Schengen free circulation rules.

You query this.

Too right.

 

Because the conditions under which the Schengen rules can be suspended are in the Schengen Treaty in plain back and white, Title II, Chapter 1, Article 2.2:

2. However, where public policy or national security so require a contracting party may, after consulting the other contracting parties, decide that for a limited period nationalbord er checks appropriate to the situation shall be carried out at internal borders. If public policy or national security require immediate action, the contracting party concerned shall take the necessary measures and at the earliest opportunity shall inform the other contracting parties thereof.

(source, see p.33)

 

And I merely pointed out that Germany was acting within EU rules when it suspended the effects of Schengen.

I respond by pointing out that the Lisbon Treaty said no bailouts; which was ignored.

I know the above was not what you wanted to hear or read, because it proves you to be wrong. Any number of questions trying to divert or deflect attention won't change the fact.

 

Anyhow, I'll indulge you. I'm not aware of the legal basis about bailouts in the Lisbon Treaty, only of the exiting clauses and conditions in Article 50. Perhaps you'll point it out for my benefit.

 

In the meantime, since you won't bother looking up my posts in the Greece/Tsipras thread, suffice to say that I was opposed to the Greek 3rd bailout, and disgusted by the politicking, tergiversations and eventual 'solution' (ho-hum) in Brussels. I think you'll also find the Greeks got well shafted in that deal.

 

Still...far from enough to turn me against the EU as a whole, and the UK's membership within it, which is geopolitically and economically far more significant and important than the problem of 'bailing out a club med' or not.

 

Whoever said the EU could no wrong? Not me, that is for sure.

That the Dublin agreement that determines the EU Member State responsible to examine an application for asylum is being ignored as we speak.

I'm aware of only Germany shelving the Dublin II regs, which I pointed it out days ago.

 

Hungary, Macedonia, Denmark and other EU Member States are all trying hard to apply them, and getting strong support from other EU Member States (Poland ahead) about it...

 

...and getting criticised for it by Merkel (and lapdog Hollande faintly in the background) for doing just that. Hollande himself has no lessons to give anyone, in view of the Calais problem nearly a decade old.

 

Meanwhile, as of yesterday Germany has restored border controls. Fancy that.

 

So, how are the Dublin II regs being 'ignored as we speak'? They're not. Except for anti-EU posters making false and self-serving claims, that is.

That the UK has an opt out on taking migrants, which we under pressure to give up.

That's an EU rule which is being ignored how, exactly?

 

Has the UK been forced by Brussels to give up its opt-out? Has a vote or motion been tabled by MEPs? Has Brussels landed refugees in King's Cross or Dover?

 

Are EU leaders (except Merkel and Hollande of course) not widely approving of the UK's proposal to import refugees from camps rather than open the doors wide?

I think that these are examples of EU rules being ignored; why would you think differently?

Because they're not being ignored, they're being applied (yes, even in the case of the Greek bailout: the EFSF and EFSM were never involved in the end, they did the deal -legally- on the back of the ESM).

 

Of course, for debating issues, usually the done thing is to inform oneself at least a little bit about facts, rather than grab red top headlines or political leaflet bullet points and run with them. Opening one's mind has also been known to be of some use.

Edited September 15, 2015 by L00b

[chalga]

But they haven't made it illegal to be a refugee, they have made it illegal to be an illegal immigrant. Surely even you can know the difference. They have a serious problem over there. They need to do something about it.

 

Looks like they are:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/14/refugee-crisis-eu-governments-set-to-back-new-internment-camps

 

European governments are aiming to deny the right of asylum to innumerable refugees by funding and building camps for them in Africa and elsewhere outside the European Union.

[Harrystottle]

Of course, for debating issues, usually the done thing is to inform oneself at least a little bit about facts, rather than grab red top headlines or political leaflet bullet points and run with them. Opening one's mind has also been known to be of some use.

 

Wow. Patronising, much?

 

How much did your high horse cost you?

 

---------- Post added 15-09-2015 at 11:41 ----------

 

As simple as you ignoring my question?

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I missed your question. Christine Legarde says it better than I could so here you go.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/18/us-france-lagarde-idUSTRE6BH0V020101218

 

Of course Loob will say no rules were violated.

 

Unless he says they were violated.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Harrystottle

[L00b]

Wow. Patronising, much?

Not by far, much further to go. But only if you insist

How much did your high horse cost you?

Sod all, I got it on social. And I'm grateful for the view with broadened horizons

Of course Loob will say no rules were violated.

Don't mind if I do, 'arry?

 

About the legal basis in the Lisbon Treaty for 'no bailout' to which you referred: since the Lisbon Treaty is public domain and a mere Google away, Google could have told you very quickly that it could well be Article 125 TFEU.

 

At which point, I would point you to the legal decision of the German Constitutional Court in the matter in September 2011. Far more authoritative than Lagarde's self-serving opinion at the time of your link, looking as she then was to (i) drop Sarkozy's minister of finance job and (ii) become head of the IMF instead.

 

Article 122 TFEU is the one you were looking for: no rules broken.

 

Tell you what: you start to show some debating honesty, and I'll reciprocate. In the meantime, you're still fair game. Fair enough?

Edited September 15, 2015 by L00b

[Berberis]

Sorry, I missed your question. Christine Legarde says it better than I could so here you go.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/18/us-france-lagarde-idUSTRE6BH0V020101218

 

Of course Loob will say no rules were violated.

 

Unless he says they were violated.

 

You have also still failed to answer my question. I don't want someone else's opinion, I want to know what part of the treaty you refer to backs up your assertion. Saying someone else said so is copping out. If you are so certain, you should now the exact part of the treaty to quote.

[harvey19]

What will happen to those people found to be illegal immigrants ?

How will genuine asylum seekers be identified ?

Who will look after those left behind to fend for themselves after all these young healthy people have left their country ?

These questions do not appear to be asked or discussed by the media or government statements.

Edited September 15, 2015 by harvey19

[Berberis]

What will happen to those people found to be illegal immigrants ?

How will genuine asylum seekers be identified ?

These questions do not appear to be asked or discussed by the media or government statements.

 

Asylum applications in Hungry are automatically being refused due to Hungry classifying Serbia as a safe country so anyone wishing to travel across the boarder is subject to normal immigration procedures. Those who break into Hungry are the ones committing the illegal act and could be imprisoned.

[harvey19]

What about those that have already crossed borders ?

[Harrystottle]

You have also still failed to answer my question. I don't want someone else's opinion,

 

Someone else's opinion? Christine Legarde was the Finance Minister in Sarkozy's government when the bailouts were deemed necessary. She is currently the head of the International Monetary Fund. I think she may be in a more informed position than anyone on SF.

 

She, a committed supporter of the EU has admitted that the rules were broken and you are getting upset because I haven't said btw it's article 14 sub-paragraph 12?

 

---------- Post added 15-09-2015 at 13:55 ----------

 

Tell you what: you start to show some debating honesty, and I'll reciprocate. In the meantime, you're still fair game. Fair enough?

 

Fair enough; but that goes both ways. Fair enough?