3 ms·

"When did the EU try to crush the UK?" Loss of sovereignty as it pertains to 'migrant quotas'. A country should be able to say - 'no, we have decided to not re

"When did the EU try to crush the UK?" Loss of sovereignty as it pertains to 'migrant quotas'. A country should be able to say - 'no, we have decided to not receive these migrants. These people need to go from where they came'. Someone will have to provide links on whether migrant quotas were part of the original agreement in the formation of the EU. So if Britain decides its more important to retain their ability to make this decision vs. remaining in the EU, that's a decision Britain can make. And they did. The African Union/OPEC (probably the only actual authority with any economic leverage in the ME) should designate areas where refuges can be returned. Morality aside, might/power defines reality in this world. The reality is that the US stirred the pot in the ME, and the EU suffers because of it. In the absence of war crime charges/damages brought before the ITC, this is the only recourse that is within Britain's best interest, based on the election they held.

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
>> Loss of sovereignty as it pertains to 'migrant quotas'. A country should be >> able to say - 'no, we have decided to not receive these migrants. These >> people need to go from where they came'. The refugee quotas you're talking about were decided by the EU interior ministers voting in the Justice and Home Affairs Council. The UK (along with Denmark and Ireland) has an opt-out so although its interior minister (at the time, Teresa May) did participate in the vote [1] it was not allocated any refugees [2]. Not a single one. The UK instead had volunteered to take in 20,000 people [3], primarily children from Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. Despite volunteering, as far as I'm aware it's still prevaricating about actually taking them in. They're still languishing at Calais, or being held at detention centres in the UK. I don't see how any of this shows that the EU "crushed" the UK, or that it caused the UK to lose sovereingty. The UK absolutely said "no, we have decided not to receive these migrants"- via the opt-outs I mentioned. A very British thing, opt-outs. The UK has opt-outs for every little EU regulation, it seems. Yet the UK is always "losing its sovereignty" in the EU. How does that work? ___________________ [1] List of participants in the 22 September 2015 Justice and Home Affairs Council: http://www.european-council.europa.eu/media/22968/2015-09-22-jai-liste-de-presse.pdf http://www.european-council.europa.eu/media/22968/2015-09-22... [2] Council decision estabilishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece; see Annexes I and II, with allocations from Italy and Greece, respectively, to member states: http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12098-2015-INIT/en/pdf http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12098-2015-I... [3] For a sense of perspective, France offered to take in 24,000; Germany famously has thrown its gates wide open; and about 2.7 million refugees are currently in Turkey, willingly or not.
- karpodiem 9y ago
  Different topic, but on the subject of immigrants - would you say the majority of Muslims living in London are legal British residents?

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago

>> Loss of sovereignty as it pertains to 'migrant quotas'. A country should be >> able to say - 'no, we have decided to not receive these migrants. These >> people need to go from where they came'. The refugee quotas you're talking about were decided by the EU interior ministers voting in the Justice and Home Affairs Council. The UK (along with Denmark and Ireland) has an opt-out so although its interior minister (at the time, Teresa May) did participate in the vote [1] it was not allocated any refugees [2]. Not a single one. The UK instead had volunteered to take in 20,000 people [3], primarily children from Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. Despite volunteering, as far as I'm aware it's still prevaricating about actually taking them in. They're still languishing at Calais, or being held at detention centres in the UK. I don't see how any of this shows that the EU "crushed" the UK, or that it caused the UK to lose sovereingty. The UK absolutely said "no, we have decided not to receive these migrants"- via the opt-outs I mentioned. A very British thing, opt-outs. The UK has opt-outs for every little EU regulation, it seems. Yet the UK is always "losing its sovereignty" in the EU. How does that work? ___________________ [1] List of participants in the 22 September 2015 Justice and Home Affairs Council: http://www.european-council.europa.eu/media/22968/2015-09-22-jai-liste-de-presse.pdf http://www.european-council.europa.eu/media/22968/2015-09-22... [2] Council decision estabilishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece; see Annexes I and II, with allocations from Italy and Greece, respectively, to member states: http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12098-2015-INIT/en/pdf http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12098-2015-I... [3] For a sense of perspective, France offered to take in 24,000; Germany famously has thrown its gates wide open; and about 2.7 million refugees are currently in Turkey, willingly or not.

karpodiem 9y ago
Different topic, but on the subject of immigrants - would you say the majority of Muslims living in London are legal British residents?