EU Tries to fine Poland $75 Mil. Poland sends Germany $1Trillion bill for WWII

[Pannonian]

You don't have to take them.

Poland signed a deal to take them, now they don't want to. This is what this is about. We could argue that imposing refugees on a country is a bad idea, but they already agreed to it. Pacta sunt servanda.

[Freighter]

Poland signed a deal to take them, now they don't want to. This is what this is about. We could argue that imposing refugees on a country is a bad idea, but they already agreed to it. Pacta sunt servanda.

So? They're exercising their national sovereignty and you have a problem with that, why? Do you think national sovereignty shouldn't exist?

[Shadowmelded]

there should have been a more prompt response to this whole crisis, with literally every country in the EU taking in refugees (permanently), proportional to their own populations, and weighted by how rich a country is (capable of actually supporting these people). Why these people were just allowed to enter the EU and then go wherever they wanted - as if they're EU citizens and already have the right to go anywhere and apply for asylum - is beyond me. Tens of thousands of them flowed through Croatia and we took in maybe hundreds, I believe (not because we didn't want to, but because they literally didn't think of staying here, Sweden and Germany sound too nice for them to not go there).

That was literally the plan until some nations started throwing their toys out of the pram (particularly the V4 although Austria didn't help either). It's why Merkel waived Dublin for Germany, as a sign of good faith towards the smaller nations in the EU. The numbers the east were looking at were trivial anyway but even that was too much for them.

[Freighter]

Then what do we do?

What's that even supposed to mean? You don't have to even help them, you certainly don't have to take them. You want to help them, you want to take them. There's a big difference there. A governments moral responsibility is towards its own people, not people outside the nation.

[Noradin]

How would it hurt the union even more?

Because it would mean that the member states of the union went back on their word, thus damaging their ability to deal with foreign nations.

[Freighter]

Because it would mean that the member states of the union went back on their word, thus damaging their ability to deal with foreign nations.

Hahaha, no it won't.

[Noradin]

So? They're exercising their national sovereignty and you have a problem with that, why? Do you think national sovereignty shouldn't exist?

National sovereignty does not mean that a country's word on a deal is worthless.
A necessary part of "sovereignty" is the ability to make deals with foreign nations, breaking their word damages that ability and thus effectively detracts from their sovereignty.
A nation that cannot seem to keep its word is less sovereign than one that keeps to what it promised.

[Freighter]

National sovereignty does not mean that a country's word on a deal is worthless.
A necessary part of "sovereignty" is the ability to make deals with foreign nations, breaking their word damages that ability and thus effectively detracts from their sovereignty.
A nation that cannot seem to keep its word is less sovereign than one that keeps to what it promised.

It would seem that you do not know what national sovereignty actually means.

- - - Updated - - -

I wish there wasn't a worldwide crisis.
But there is.
And people are coming here.

So? You don't have to take them. Just refuse them entry or deport them if they make into the country.

[Shadowmelded]

So? You don't have to take them. Just refuse them entry.

How do you propose they do that?

[Sakki]

Poland signed a deal to take them, now they don't want to. This is what this is about. We could argue that imposing refugees on a country is a bad idea, but they already agreed to it. Pacta sunt servanda.

More accurate is that they signed a deal which allowed others to change a deal and forced it against their will.

I have no problem with punishing countries which dont follow refugees quota, but it should be applied to all countries that failed to do so and not just some of them. Because right now, it is that you accept few refugees as token and thats it, you are safe. 160 000 refugees were supposed to be relocated from Greece and Italy to other member states and by the end of 2016 only 5% of that number were relocated. So, It is not just Poland and East not meeting thier quota.

[Freighter]

How do you propose they do that?

It's not really my concern how they do it.

[Slant]

Poland is a fascist state? Do elaborate.

Well, they have crippled their version of the supreme court. There is basically no legal oversight over what the Government does. Or at least that was the plan last time I checked. Poland is heading towards a state where checks and balances don't exist. Not sure what the current internet definition of fascism is, but it's in the neighborhood at least.

- - - Updated - - -

It would seem that you do not know what national sovereignty actually means.

- - - Updated - - -

So? You don't have to take them. Just refuse them entry or deport them if they make into the country.

Which would violate core principles of the EU and cripple Greece back into a recession that Germany just spend hundreds of billions of getting her out of. Big picture. Look at it.

[Noradin]

It would seem that you do not know what national sovereignty actually means.

Back to you.

- - - Updated - - -

It would seem that you do not know what national sovereignty actually means.

Back to you.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not really my concern how they do it.

Yes, reality wouldn't be, not would any facts.

[Pannonian]

So? They're exercising their national sovereignty and you have a problem with that, why? Do you think national sovereignty shouldn't exist?

You cant just cancel a treaty one-sided. If you think that should be possible the whole international law would be void.

[Freighter]

You cant just cancel a treaty one-sided. If you think that should be possible the whole international law would be void.

International law is already void and has no legitimacy due to its inability to be enforced.

[Shadowmelded]

It's not really my concern how they do it.

Then why should anyone listen? It's easy to say "Oh we should just never have refugees" but without a practical proposal, it's just sentiment.

[Pannonian]

International law is already void and has no legitimacy due to its inability to be enforced.

Now of course if you're an anarchist i suppose this doesn't make sense, but we here in the EU have rules that we play by. Poland wants to have their own way, which is legitimate, but this wont help their advance inside the EU.

- - - Updated - - -

International law is already void and has no legitimacy due to its inability to be enforced.

Now of course if you're an anarchist i suppose this doesn't make sense, but we here in the EU have rules that we play by. Poland wants to have their own way, which is legitimate, but this wont help their advance inside the EU.

[Wikiy]

Morally? No.

Erm, when there's millions of people who have literally nowhere else to go but to the EU (and don't expect countries west, south or east of Syria to take in refugees, they're quite poor as well and mostly ruled by people who don't really have morals, or good ones), and if EU not taking them in entails them dying, then yes, by the moral standards of current Western society (and the EU specifically), the EU is morally obliged to take those refugees in, give them food and some sort of settlement on the short term. On the long term, the EU should also be obliged (and it's in its own interest) to provide them with jobs and permanent settlement. But this latter part is obviously a bit harder to achieve.

[Freighter]

Now of course if you're an anarchist i suppose this doesn't make sense, but we here in the EU have rules that we play by. Poland wants to have their own way, which is legitimate, but this wont help their advance inside the EU.

It's not anarchist to say that international law is bullshit due to lack of enforceability.

- - - Updated - - -

Erm, when there's millions of people who have literally nowhere else to go but to the EU (and don't expect countries west, south or east of Syria to take in refugees, they're quite poor as well and mostly ruled by people who don't really have morals, or good ones), and if EU not taking them in entails them dying, then yes, by the moral standards of current Western society (and the EU specifically), the EU is morally obliged to take those refugees in, give them food and some sort of settlement on the short term. On the long term, the EU should also be obliged (and it's in its own interest) to provide them with jobs and permanent settlement. But this latter part is obviously a bit harder to achieve.

You only have a moral obligation to your own people, not outsiders.

[Okacz]

What's that even supposed to mean? You don't have to even help them, you certainly don't have to take them. You want to help them, you want to take them. There's a big difference there. A governments moral responsibility is towards its own people, not people outside the nation.

People with the status of a "War refugees" should granted asylum in any country that is a part of the UN. I'm not sure whether there is a similar set of rules countries had to sign before entering EU, but the UN stands since, like, WW2.

When it comes to moral responsibility, yeah, the country should always prioritize its peoples wellbeing. However, a part of this wellbeing is being a member of the EU, since it has and keeps helping Poland since we entered it, mostly financially and economically. Deciding to break the rules we agreed upon while entering, and discarding the promises of granting asylum to a number of refugees in my country leads to further decline to our status in the EU. Perhaps to our abandonment of EU as well. Which would mean no more financial support which has helped Poland a great deal.

In short, if Polish government has moral responsibility towards its own people, it now has to choose between our status (and with perhaps financial stability) in EU and granting asylum to a miniscule amount of refugees.