How Does the EU Plan to Handle Insubordinate Members?
- Thread starter Commodore
- Start date
Italy or Greece (or Spain, or whoever) can give those refugees citizenship and even pay their fees to fly to other eu countries if it comes to that, cause we don't have to host them all here as if they are fleeing to our countries instead of the entire Eu. And actually the eu supposedly has a set of principles, which afaik being uber-racist is not officially part of. It is just that currently it is ok to be racist, cause some racist countries have their own clique and the usual suspects play along just fine.
Basically the bulk of the 2003 new countries are racist to a ridiculously high level - and so are a couple others (like Austria).
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
It would be interesting! if Greece and Italy were to start giving citizenship to people then paying for there here flight's here.
Not interesting; just more of the same garbage the eu is already. Might as well rename it to ww2 axis & their allies, minus Italy and adding Netherlands.
Verbose
Deity
Yes, well, occasionally when plans have been made, it's claimed to be a conspiracy.
The EU has always has this tendency to be reactive to external events unfolding. It never progresses unless there is a crisis forcing people to make some hard decisions.
The relative new thing is the dogged refusal to cooperate at all about certain things by certain (newer) members. Before they would usually at least work out a formal agreement, and then fudge things so that implementation wouldn't be to onerous (or sometimes even actual).
Zkribbler
Deity
More likely, there's systematic repression, rejection, and oppression of migrants, causing anger and resentment. Some of the more unstable ones then lash out.
The EU is more than the sum of its parts, but not much more, certainly not in the sense that a federal nation-state is more than the sum of its states/provinces. The question of how the EU deals with its recalcitrant members is in no small part a question of how those recalcitrant members deal with themselves.
EnglishEdward
Deity
Rumour has that one of the reasons the 1968 and 1971 Immigration Acts were passed in
the UK was that when PMs Harold Wilson and Ted Heath were entering discussions about joining
the EEC, the EEC expressed concern that if the UK joined the EEC, the EEC 6 would get many
non white commonwealth immigrants via the UK. I.e. those Acts were in part, like decimilisation
of the currency; designed to placate the EC and convince them that we were good Europeans.
Barbara Castle claimed the 1970 Equal Pay Act was needed because the EEC required it.
EnglishEdward
Deity
Well exactly, and they could hardly formalise that sort of pre-requirement, and the individuals involved in such dialogue are all dead now.
But back to the main topic, examples and others' comments.
I understand that the EU has various mechanisms for disciplining members who don't follow the rules.
The problem seems to be more of, perceived crises such as less neo liberal democracies develope or inward migration occur and they
find that they don't have any good EU rules e.g.about compulsory retirement ages for Polish judges or that the rules they have (Dublin
convention on refugees) don't work so well. At this point certain member states want to invent new rules. In which case the constitutional
question is whether unanimity is required (whether individual states have a veto) or the practice of qualified majority voting should apply.
I am bound to say that promulgated approaches whereby the big states and the EU commission threaten to withhold funds on unrelated projects
and for that matter the US example of witholding funding for roads from states not implementing a legal drinking limit of 21, are appalling precedents.
Verbose
Deity
Things in the EU tends to work when the individual member states decide to make them work. When certain member states decides to take the piss instead, things don't work so well at all.
And Hungary, Poland et al. are quite safe. It takes unanimous action by the other member states to actually do anything as per the EU regulations in place. Hungary and Poland have each others backs and will veto any such attempt.
And Hungary, Poland et al. are quite safe. It takes unanimous action by the other member states to actually do anything as per the EU regulations in place. Hungary and Poland have each others backs and will veto any such attempt.
It doesn't take unanimous action; that is another rule only in theory, and way past by now. Remember Cyprus/Greece.
Maybe face up to the fact that this eu doesn't care much about fascism, instead of trying to invent excuses or accepting those spewed by politicians.
Cyprus/Greece were in the beginning not EU decisions but Eurogroup decisions and really only were agreements between individual states (which by the way were unanimous in either case) and later were transferred to EU policies within the EU framework (there is a lot to be said about how the treaties were or were not enforced with regards to the situation - but votes if any were had were performed as required by the treaties, you are welcome to provide counterexamples though) - the Situation with Hungaria / Poland is different as it is actually quite explicitly defined within the treaties and explicitly requires a unanimous decision.
Oerdin
Deity
This just goes to show how out of touch the Eurocrat elitists are from the regular people of Europe. The sooner the EU is burned to the ground the better.
So am i, apparently. In my case though it is due to this eu itself
No
You never claimed anywhere in any of your posts AFAIK that you speak for the regular people of Europe.
For many people of Greece.... yes, but not of Europe
Similar threads
