News0 min ago
Eu Leaders In Denial, How Can We Ever Trust Them?
17 Answers
http://
/// The exposure of the minutes by The Telegraph comes after Swedish police revealed they have dealt with around 5,000 incidents involving migrants since
October. ///
/// Two bomb threats, four rapes and more than 550 assaults were among the reported offences officers were called to, according to data obtained by SvD. ///
/// They also attended 450 fights, 194 violent threats and 58 fires involving migrants or asylum seekers. ///
/// It also comes after 22-year-old aid worker Alexandra Mezher was knifed to death at the child migrant centre where she worked in Molndal, Sweden, on Monday. ///
/// A 15-year-old boy from Somalia appeared in court on Wednesday charged with murder. ///
/// Around 1 million refugees are now thought to have entered Europe illegally. ///
/// The exposure of the minutes by The Telegraph comes after Swedish police revealed they have dealt with around 5,000 incidents involving migrants since
October. ///
/// Two bomb threats, four rapes and more than 550 assaults were among the reported offences officers were called to, according to data obtained by SvD. ///
/// They also attended 450 fights, 194 violent threats and 58 fires involving migrants or asylum seekers. ///
/// It also comes after 22-year-old aid worker Alexandra Mezher was knifed to death at the child migrant centre where she worked in Molndal, Sweden, on Monday. ///
/// A 15-year-old boy from Somalia appeared in court on Wednesday charged with murder. ///
/// Around 1 million refugees are now thought to have entered Europe illegally. ///
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
The Learned Justice Bernard McCloskey apparently is not in denial and seems to recognise them for what they are!
http://
http://
retrocop
/// The Learned Justice Bernard McCloskey apparently is not in denial and seems to recognise them for what they are! ///
I wouldn't heap praise on him too much, he also said this:
*** Mr McCloskey went on to explain that he had to balance the applicants' 'right to respect for a family life, under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention' against the 'secretary of state's refusal to admit the applicants to the United Kingdom with the full rigour of the Dublin Regulations ***
And by his ruling in allowing four Syrian refugees to come to Britain, this could also lead to hundreds more applications.
*** Speaking under the condition of anonymity, one said: ‘I’m very glad the case is now going to open the door to so many others to get here safely.’ ***
/// The Learned Justice Bernard McCloskey apparently is not in denial and seems to recognise them for what they are! ///
I wouldn't heap praise on him too much, he also said this:
*** Mr McCloskey went on to explain that he had to balance the applicants' 'right to respect for a family life, under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention' against the 'secretary of state's refusal to admit the applicants to the United Kingdom with the full rigour of the Dublin Regulations ***
And by his ruling in allowing four Syrian refugees to come to Britain, this could also lead to hundreds more applications.
*** Speaking under the condition of anonymity, one said: ‘I’m very glad the case is now going to open the door to so many others to get here safely.’ ***
//'secretary of state's refusal to admit the applicants to the United Kingdom with the full rigour of the Dublin Regulations //
strictly speaking, for those already in calais, the "Dublin Regulations" don't apply. unless, that is, France - and all the other EU countries bypassed in order to reach the channel ports, are "dangerous places" as defined in those regulations?
strictly speaking, for those already in calais, the "Dublin Regulations" don't apply. unless, that is, France - and all the other EU countries bypassed in order to reach the channel ports, are "dangerous places" as defined in those regulations?
He asked for next to nothing and it is already apparent that he will get considerably less than that. This will be lauded as “a major achievement which completely revises our relationship with the EU”
Mr Justice McCloskey’s need to perform the balance he cited is because of the pernicious impact of the ECHR and Article 8 in particular, AOG. If our own Human Rights Act was to be repealed and the UK withdrew as a signatory to the ECHR (which was yet another “pledge” made by Mr Cameron when he said it would be replaced with a UK Bill of Rights whilst scraping around for our votes) he would have no need. All he would have to do is consider the provisions of the Dublin Agreement and that would mean that no migrants from France are entitled to settle here.
Mr Justice McCloskey’s need to perform the balance he cited is because of the pernicious impact of the ECHR and Article 8 in particular, AOG. If our own Human Rights Act was to be repealed and the UK withdrew as a signatory to the ECHR (which was yet another “pledge” made by Mr Cameron when he said it would be replaced with a UK Bill of Rights whilst scraping around for our votes) he would have no need. All he would have to do is consider the provisions of the Dublin Agreement and that would mean that no migrants from France are entitled to settle here.
“strictly speaking, for those already in calais, the "Dublin Regulations" don't apply.”
Quite so, mushroom.
The Dublin Agreement states that refugees must apply for asylum in the first EU country they encounter. Of course it mentions nothing about danger or safety because all EU countries are deemed safe. Bar a very few that may have arrived in France directly all those in Calais will have passed through other EU nations and in most cases Greece or Italy was their first safe haven. It is those countries who should have “processed” them.
Of course, as I have said many times before, the Dublin accord is completely unnecessary anyway. The United Nations Convention on the Treatment of Refugees says exactly the same – that refugees must make their applications in the first safe haven they encounter. It goes a little further and says that refugees who fail to do so lose their right to claim asylum elsewhere, they lose the immunity they have from prosecution for entering a country illegally and henceforth can be treated as illegal immigrants in any country they subsequently travel to.
It was Frau Merkel who unilaterally decided to suspend the agreement and welcomed all and sundry to Germany to make their applications there – a decision she now seems to be regretting. This is very relevant to this question (“can we ever trust them”). Here we have the leader of the leading EU nation deciding that the EU rules by which, apparently, all member nations are bound, suddenly don’t suit her. So without any negotiation, consultation or even properly informing the other 27 “partners”, a major agreement is suddenly ditched for the sake of expediency. (Actually, because the EU had been so moribund in dealing with the crisis over the previous many months that the crisis had developed into a catastrophe). So, can we ever trust them? I think perhaps not.
Quite so, mushroom.
The Dublin Agreement states that refugees must apply for asylum in the first EU country they encounter. Of course it mentions nothing about danger or safety because all EU countries are deemed safe. Bar a very few that may have arrived in France directly all those in Calais will have passed through other EU nations and in most cases Greece or Italy was their first safe haven. It is those countries who should have “processed” them.
Of course, as I have said many times before, the Dublin accord is completely unnecessary anyway. The United Nations Convention on the Treatment of Refugees says exactly the same – that refugees must make their applications in the first safe haven they encounter. It goes a little further and says that refugees who fail to do so lose their right to claim asylum elsewhere, they lose the immunity they have from prosecution for entering a country illegally and henceforth can be treated as illegal immigrants in any country they subsequently travel to.
It was Frau Merkel who unilaterally decided to suspend the agreement and welcomed all and sundry to Germany to make their applications there – a decision she now seems to be regretting. This is very relevant to this question (“can we ever trust them”). Here we have the leader of the leading EU nation deciding that the EU rules by which, apparently, all member nations are bound, suddenly don’t suit her. So without any negotiation, consultation or even properly informing the other 27 “partners”, a major agreement is suddenly ditched for the sake of expediency. (Actually, because the EU had been so moribund in dealing with the crisis over the previous many months that the crisis had developed into a catastrophe). So, can we ever trust them? I think perhaps not.
1 to 17 of 17
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.