EU to fine countries 'hundreds of millions of pounds' for refusing to take refugees

[Kalis]

So other countries are fine with giving up control of their national borders?
I doubt so.

Again, this is just my opinion. Since I don't know all the facts the only thing I can do is put together what I can see and draw a conclusion, which is that the UK is already discussing whether they should leave the EU or not, and FORCING them to accept immigrants which they wouldn't want, would NOT be a good idea as it would certainly make it much more appealing to exit the EU, so they excluded them from this whole ordeal. That's just how I see it.

The other countries gave them up with the Schengen Treaty to some degree, Britain got an exemption from that as well.

As I said Brexit was pretty much irrelevant, the UK negotiate exemptions from any border treaty they can - one of the advantages of being the second largest economy in the EU is that you can get what others can not and everybody knows there is little point in trying to strong arm the UK into border issues, as they will not agree to sign anything unless they get exemptions.

You have to understand that border controls have been a major issue in British politics for decades, it is one of the things that can lose you an election, so parties are extremely careful when it comes to border policy.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it's not suspended here. We just had certain loudmouths shouting that we can't do anything about people coming here due to treaties n shit, without them even knowing what is in the treaties. Shout louder than everyone so nobody can get any say and throw around "racist", "islamophobe" and "xenophobe" on just about anyone that suggests there should be a limit on how many we take and that we should enforce the dublin regulation more often.

They may have effectively suspended it, rather than officially suspended it. The results, i.e. the amount of immigrants in Sweden, suggest they did suspend it in some way, even if only through their actions.

As I have said before, Sweden is weird, I do not understand your politics at all. They do not seem to function in any logical way, it is like they just do whatever random shit they feel like.

[Deleted]

Collapse in what sense?Social? possible otherwise not.

If Britain can leave the EU, why not others? Poor countries will probably stick around as the benefits outweigh the consequences, but countries like France, Netherlands (who are already pretty xenophobic) and Hungary and Poland which have already made strong statements that they are NOT taking in refugees.

The EU will be tested and a handful of members may just leave. Not Germany, of course, since the EU is practically their new empire that Hitler dreamed about. So before long, the EU may just be Germany and the Eastern European countries.

[Kalis]

Ah, so border control has been a touchy subject for a longer time and the EU knows not to touch that subject.

Basically, yes.

The thing about Britain is, we have the mentality of an island nation who have been fighting off foreign invasions since the time of Julius Caesar, so 2,000 years.

We have not always been successful, but we like to give ourselves a fighting chance by making sure we keep control over our borders. That might seem odd, but things like the the Battle of Hastings, Spanish Armada, the threat of Napoleon and the Battle of Britain during WWII have shaped us as a nation, they are part of our national psyche and that is very hard to shake off even if we wanted to.

[Deleted]

And this is why UK will exit EU. GG lefties with your retarded suicidal ideology. If this goes thru EU is dead. 250k Euro per imigrant is more than an average Eastern European will earn throut his life...

Not only UK, a bunch of Eastern European counties like Poland and Bulgaria too probably.

[Grimbold21]

Refugees is a simple term to encompass everybody, the BBC uses migrants, some use immigrants. The terms in this particular scenario have become pretty much interchangeable, everybody knows it includes more than just refugees.

They were supposed to be just refugees.

Well i disagree with that simplification and think it's rather dangerous.

There's still a difference between a refugee and a (economic)migrant. Take the supposed afghan man that's waging the flag on that article. I'd wager he's the second.
That said, people have all the right to seek better living conditions, but that's not what's happening here. We all know there's economic migrants taking advantage of the overflowing current of refugees to get into Europe, excuse me, Germany and Sweden.

That's another thing i don't get. Why should we care how the refugees view us when we state you're going where we're telling you to go, or you're going back.

[Crispin]

No, it's not suspended here. We just had certain loudmouths shouting that we can't do anything about people coming here due to treaties n shit, without them even knowing what is in the treaties. Shout louder than everyone so nobody can get any say and throw around "racist", "islamophobe" and "xenophobe" on just about anyone that suggests there should be a limit on how many we take and that we should enforce the dublin regulation more often.

There is no doubt, that people labeling anyone who questions immigration in Sweden as racists etc. Kills a debate Sweden should have had more than a decade ago, Ive got uncles and cousins in sweden who are like that, and they ofcourse view Denmark as a bunch of racist islamaphobic, their arguments are usually bs like "we're all humans" and "we need to promote love and not hate" /facepalm.

No wonder youre sick of the "debate" in sweden.

[Deleted]

Not only UK, a bunch of Eastern European counties like Poland and Bulgaria too probably.

Doubtful Bulgaria and Romania will leave the EU, poor people can't be choosers. Also Bruxelles has deep rooted lackeys in the Romanian government and justice system, that will never move towards disobeying the Reich's orders.

[Kalis]

Well i disagree with that simplification and think it's rather dangerous.

There's still a difference between a refugee and a (economic)migrant. Take the supposed afghan man that's waging the flag on that article. I'd wager he's the second.
That said, people have all the right to seek better living conditions, but that's not what's happening here. We all know there's economic migrants taking advantage of the overflowing current of refugees to get into Europe, excuse me, Germany and Sweden.

That's another thing i don't get. Why should we care how the refugees view us when we state you're going where we're telling you to go, or you're going back.

You can disagree, but in the current situation it is how the terms are being used.

Everyone knows that a lot, probably most, of them are not genuine refugees, so arguing over semantics is not really going to get anywhere, all it does is open the possibility of endless debates from people who want to kill any debate on the problems. I prefer the to use the term refugees, as it is obvious I am talking about the current situation and it can not get confused with any other migrant issues.

[Deleted]

Should have sent them back when we could.
From Dublin regulation:
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...31:0059:EN:PDF)
Article 3
Access to the procedure for examining an application for
international protection
1. snip
2. snip
3. Any Member State shall retain the right to send an
applicant to a safe third country, subject to the rules and safe*
guards laid down in Directive 2013/32/EU.

And from EU directive 2013/32/EU
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...x%3A32013L0032)
Article 33
Inadmissible applications
1. In addition to cases in which an application is not examined in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, Member States are not required to examine whether the applicant qualifies for international protection in accordance with Directive 2011/95/EU where an application is considered inadmissible pursuant to this Article.
2. Member States may consider an application for international protection as inadmissible only if:
(a)
another Member State has granted international protection;
(b)
a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum for the applicant, pursuant to Article 35;
(c)
a country which is not a Member State is considered as a safe third country for the applicant, pursuant to Article 38;
(d)
the application is a subsequent application, where no new elements or findings relating to the examination of whether the applicant qualifies as a beneficiary of international protection by virtue of Directive 2011/95/EU have arisen or have been presented by the applicant; or
(e)
a dependant of the applicant lodges an application, after he or she has in accordance with Article 7(2) consented to have his or her case be part of an application lodged on his or her behalf, and there are no facts relating to the dependant’s situation which justify a separate application.

[Blayze]

The EU can fuck off.

[Slant]

You can disagree, but in the current situation it is how the terms are being used.

Everyone knows that a lot, probably most, of them are not genuine refugees, so arguing over semantics is not really going to get anywhere, all it does is open the possibility of endless debates from people who want to kill any debate on the problems. I prefer the to use the term refugees, as it is obvious I am talking about the current situation and it can not get confused with any other migrant issues.

It's not semantics when you have different legal consequences attached to the labels. But then, I can see how this is too complicated for the average person if they'd rather throw them all in a bag and hit it with a stick...

[Kalis]

It's not semantics when you have different legal consequences attached to the labels. But then, I can see how this is too complicated for the average person if they'd rather throw them all in a bag and hit it with a stick...

I could type out "genuine refugees, fake refugees who took advantage of the crisis, economic migrants and other assorted migrants" each time, but I can not be arsed to do that, so I shorten it to refugees. When I want to speak about a specific subset, then I clarify it, e.g. genuine refugees.

In English there is nothing wrong with generalising when referring to a group, even if it is not entirely accurate, e.g. in the Scottish independence vote we referred to Scottish voters, but not all Scottish people got to vote and some people who got to vote were not Scottish.

English is not German, we do not like words that are 100% accurate but have 67 letters in them.

[Deleted]

The thing about Britain is, we have the mentality of an island nation who have been fighting off foreign invasions since the time of Julius Caesar, so 2,000 years.

LOL, 2000 years ago you were still German. Britain was populated by the native Celtic Britons back then, the ones you have driven out about 900 years later.

[Kalis]

LOL, 2000 years ago you were still German. Britain was populated by the native Celtic Britons back then, the ones you have driven out about 900 years later.

The Celts bred with the Anglo-Saxons and later the Normans, there are no Celts, Anglo-Saxons or Normans left, we are a mixed bunch and anybody who tells you otherwise is spreading their horseshit purity fantasy.

[zealo]

Should have sent them back when we could.
From Dublin regulation:
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...31:0059:EN:PDF)
Article 3
Access to the procedure for examining an application for
international protection
1. snip
2. snip
3. Any Member State shall retain the right to send an
applicant to a safe third country, subject to the rules and safe*
guards laid down in Directive 2013/32/EU.

And from EU directive 2013/32/EU
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...x%3A32013L0032)
Article 33
Inadmissible applications
1. In addition to cases in which an application is not examined in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, Member States are not required to examine whether the applicant qualifies for international protection in accordance with Directive 2011/95/EU where an application is considered inadmissible pursuant to this Article.
2. Member States may consider an application for international protection as inadmissible only if:
(a)
another Member State has granted international protection;
(b)
a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum for the applicant, pursuant to Article 35;
(c)
a country which is not a Member State is considered as a safe third country for the applicant, pursuant to Article 38;
(d)
the application is a subsequent application, where no new elements or findings relating to the examination of whether the applicant qualifies as a beneficiary of international protection by virtue of Directive 2011/95/EU have arisen or have been presented by the applicant; or
(e)
a dependant of the applicant lodges an application, after he or she has in accordance with Article 7(2) consented to have his or her case be part of an application lodged on his or her behalf, and there are no facts relating to the dependant’s situation which justify a separate application.

The Dublin agreement doesn't mean shit, realistically. Practically everyone ignores it, and suddenly started yelling about it the moment the Nordic countries implemented border controls. Whether Schengen survives this would be the big question.

[Slant]

I could type out "genuine refugees, fake refugees who took advantage of the crisis, economic migrants and other assorted migrants" each time, but I can not be arsed to do that, so I shorten it to refugees. When I want to speak about a specific subset, then I clarify it, e.g. genuine refugees.

In English there is nothing wrong with generalising when referring to a group, even if it is not entirely accurate, e.g. in the Scottish independence vote we referred to Scottish voters, but not all Scottish people got to vote and some people who got to vote were not Scottish.

English is not German, we do not like words that are 100% accurate but have 67 letters in them.

This has nothing to do with language. If you're talking about actual refugees (be they fake, genuine or have other qualifying features), fine. But do not mix them with immigrants. Different legal consequences have jack shit to do with lazy language, so don't make excuses. You know perfectly well what I'm talking about.

[Kalis]

This has nothing to do with language. If you're talking about actual refugees (be they fake, genuine or have other qualifying features), fine. But do not mix them with immigrants. Different legal consequences have jack shit to do with lazy language, so don't make excuses. You know perfectly well what I'm talking about.

How I used it is perfectly acceptable in English, because it is being used to describe a particular group that is being discussed and therefore does not need to be entirely accurate.

[Noradin]

English is not German, we do not like words that are 100% accurate but have 67 letters in them.

Which one of the two words "migrants" and "refugees" has 67 letters in English?

- - - Updated - - -

How I used it is perfectly acceptable in English, because it is being used to describe a particular group that is being discussed and therefore does not need to be entirely accurate.

Then we should stop using that language for legal texts and news, it is obviously judged inadequate even by native speakers.
It is part of the reason why we have this problem anyway: Mistranslating Merkel's speech from German to English for the purpose of making a better headline left us with that allenged invitation for everyone she never gave in the original language.

[Grimbold21]

How I used it is perfectly acceptable in English, because it is being used to describe a particular group that is being discussed and therefore does not need to be entirely accurate.

There is no particular group. Both refugees and migrants are mixed in the camps.

[Kalis]

Which one of the two words "migrants" and "refugees" has 67 letters in English?

- - - Updated - - -



Then we should stop using that language for legal texts and news, it is obviously judged inadequate even by native speakers.
It is part of the reason why we have this problem anyway: Mistranslating Merkel's speech from German to English for the purpose of making a better headline left us with that allenged invitation for everyone she never gave in the original language.

Well stop using it then. Bye bye.