EU Vote down Far Right in Hungary

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Finally, on the issue of Juncker and Orban both being authoritarian, there's a difference between expressing an opinion (as Juncker did) and acting on an opinion in violation to EU rules (as Orban did). In short, Juncker made a speech, Orban changed laws. Big difference.

Orban was elected by his people. He is a legislator. His job is to change laws.
Who elected Junckers?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Far right parties who aren't in power outside the Visegrad group?

Your definition of "far right" may well be the same as my definition of "nationalist".
Check out this video of Salvini on a recent walkabout.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1036707247446020096

Now, I know the mods here don't like Salvini, and will be itching to delete this link. But before you do that, I ask you this simple question.
Can you imagine any Irish politician walking through any Irish town and getting a reception like this? I can't.
Pretending its not happening will not make it go away.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Democracy works by electing people to act on the electorate's behalf.

So what do you call it when people are chosen by people who were elected by people who were elected by the people?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If you have a problem with it, why not contact your local MEP?

I've no idea who they are, or what country the are in. They probably have multiple addresses for best tax and expense account advantage.
In fairness, whoever they are, I'm not interested in them, just as they aren't interested in me. Once they get onto the pigs back, they disappear.

Salvini has the votes to match his undoubted popularity.


Meanwhile in Hungary, it seems that Brussels is in technical breach of the EU rules this time. Two can play at this game.

The European Union’s basic treaty clearly states that a two-thirds majority is required for a procedure to be valid, he noted, insisting that this was not achieved and therefore the procedure should not go ahead.
Guly said it was the first time the EP had held a vote on Article 7. He said house rules dictated that abstentions could be set aside in ordinary procedures but this rule did not apply in the case of special procedures.

You won't get more than about 75% turnout in a democracy unless something terrible is happening. Or you make voting a legal requirement, as it was in Italy up until the mid 90's. I'm not a fan of that idea, because people will vote randomly even when they don't understand the issues. Leave it to those who want to vote.

For those who say these attacks on Hungary by Junckers and his eurocrat buddies are nothing to do with migration policy, have a look at the timeline.


Summer 2015 Greece overrun with migrants. Hungary holding them back and starts building a fence. Merkel unilaterally decides to abandon The Dublin system, which required that asylum applications be dealt with by the first country of entry. "Open the borders, Let them all through" she says.


Winter 2015; Germany swamped with millions of migrants looking for free homes, free money, and a good time. Germans shocked at the unprecedented crime and mass groping at New Years Eve parties. Talk of mandatory migrant relocation policy for the EU.


2016; Numerous terrorist attacks around the EU. Brexit referendum result shocks Brussels and London. Hungary finishes its fence and pre-empts mandatory migrant quotas by organising a referendum against the measure. 98% support Orban against the mandatory relocations, but technically the referendum fails because turnout is only 44%. Opposition groups who knew they would lose the referendum in a fair vote called for a boycott instead, knowing that would invalidate it. Orban continues to refuse the Brussels quotas, and is joined by other Visegrad countries.



2017 Brussels takes Hungary to the ECJ for breach of EU treaty rules, and wins.

Complaints by Hungary and Slovakia about EU migration policy have been dismissed by the European Court of Justice.
In affirming that the two member states must accept EU-agreed quotas for the resettling of refugees, the European Union’s court has saved, and provided an important new underpinning to, the difficult principle of mutual burden sharing in the EU.
The reluctance of both countries to accept their share of 40,000 refugees who were to be resettled from camps in Greece and Italy in 2015 had been justified by their governments on the grounds of security, and in Hungary’s case because they would dilute its Christian essence. The Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orb has described immigration as a “poison” that increases the risk of terrorism.

Hungary still refuses to comply.
Brits invoke Article 50 to leave the EU.



2018; Juncker and co. try to isolate Hungary and treat it as a pariah state. But its too late. The Visegrad countries are now meeting regularly and presenting a united front. Govts. in Austria and Italy have been turfed out and the new govts. are now aligned with the rebel eastern countries. Voters in Sweden and Denmark also getting fed up.

The EU quietly abandons the mandatory migrant scheme.
Decides to give Hungary a symbolic rap on the knuckles instead, by triggering Article 7 censure, accusing Hungary of breaking EU rules and generally being cheeky.
Hungary responds immediately. It turns out Juncker hasn't read the rules himself :pac:



to be continued....

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

It should be worth pointing out that while the Dublin convention entitles a Member State to return an asylum seeker to the Member State they entered irregularly for consideration of their application, it does not oblige them to do so. Article 17 states:



By opting to receive refugees who entered through other countries, Germany wasn't abandoning the Dublin Convention.

Returning an asylum seeker to the first country is only an option if the seeker had failed to register in that country originally. In other words, if they had slipped through a transit safe country on their way to a more appealing safe country.
So, while its an option in that circumstance, the default conventional procedure is that the asylum seeker "should" still register in the first country. In abandoning that default, Germany did alter the convention which had been the norm prior to 2015.

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's simply not true. If you believe it to be true, point to the specific provision in the Dublin Regulation that says so. It shouldn't be hard to find; it's only ten pages long.

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE MEMBER STATE RESPONSIBLE
Article 7
Hierarchy of criteria
1. The criteria for determining the Member State responsible shall be applied in the order in which they are set out in this Chapter.
2. The Member State responsible in accordance with the criteria set out in this Chapter shall be determined on the basis of the situation obtaining when the applicant first lodged his or her application for international protection with a Member State.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/604/oj
As Greece was not bothering to register them, Hungary was the first EU country that attempted to do so. But Merkel said they were being too slow about it. Orban said they were just being thorough. We wouldn't want jihadis slipping through, would we. Innocent Europeans might get killed if that happened.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've claimed that asylum seekers "should" do something.

I am, yes. They should register, but its up to the country they are entering to make them register.

We can't have them wandering around using multiple aliases, and getting up to mischief like that Berlin truck driver.
You're saying the Dublin regulation does not oblige the seekers to register. That is quite true. Its scope and purpose is to decide which EU country is responsible for processing them, which, as I pointed out, should be the first country that registered them. Which is exactly what the Hungarians were at before Merkel instructed them to open the borders. They could have said No to her of course, but sometimes you just gotta let people learn the hard way.
Greece was not exactly violating the Dublin agreement, it was more a case of evading it. If every EU country behaved like that, none of the migrants would be registered anywhere. They would be wandering freely and anonymously throughout the Schengen area.