EU Vote down Far Right in Hungary

Stephen15

I can't believe people criticize Orban and Salvini two politicians that don't want their countries turning to sh1t because of migrants. They say what people in this country are too afraid to say because of political correctness. If an Orban or a Salvini was to run in Ireland they would get my vote hands down.

recedite

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....

Chips Lovell

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 way of derogation from Article 3(1), each Member State may decide to examine an application for international protection lodged with it by a third-country national or a stateless person, even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation.

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

recedite

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

recedite wrote: »

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.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?

recedite wrote: »

...the default conventional procedure is that the asylum seeker "should" still register in the first country.

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.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

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.

Your "timeline" is rather selective and misleading. No mention of orbans reduction of press freedom, the conservative constitution , or attacks on the judiciary,

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/01/world/europe/hungary-viktor-orban-judges.html

BabyCheeses

recedite wrote: »

So there is some sort of cold, indirect democracy going on there. That's what you're saying. I seem to remember there were 3 or 4 MEPs being elected for Ireland last time round, but I can't remember who they were, or why they were on the ballot paper.


Just a few degrees of separation between the people and Junckers, but enough to make him totally unaccountable.

Can you tell us what percentage of the vote Orban got in the election for prime minister?


I don't get what you are trying to achieve, you've decided Orban is god, EU is bad and will through anything at the wall in the hopes that something will stick.


Orban should take Hungary out of the EU to be a shining example of their potential.

recedite

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

recedite wrote: »

As Greece was not bothering to register them, Hungary was the first EU country that attempted to do so.

Nope. You're pointing to some random bit of text that says something that if you squint at it in poor light and if you have an agenda to drive, could almost be construed as coming close to meaning something vaguely like you claimed. Except it can't.

It's not a question of a country "registering" asylum seekers; people apply for asylum.

You've claimed that asylum seekers "should" do something. The Dublin Regulation imposes no such requirement on asylum seekers. In the immortal words of the late, great Hans Rosling: these facts are not up for discussion. I am right, and you are wrong.

recedite

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.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

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

I don't know why you're introducing arbitrary terminology, unless it's also agenda-driven. They don't "register", and countries don't "register" them; they apply for asylum. It's not complicated terminology.

You're saying the Dublin regulation does not oblige the seekers to register. That is quite true.

Well, that's a start.

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.

Let me rephrase your loaded terminology to be more accurate: the Dublin Regulation clarifies that the first country in which someone applies for asylum should be the country that processes that asylum claim, unless there are reasons why another country should do so.

Greece was not exactly violating the Dublin agreement, it was more a case of evading it.

You were doing so well.

Greece wasn't "evading" the Dublin Regulation by not "registering" asylum seekers, because the only obligation imposed on Greece by Dublin is to process any asylum applications made to it.

You've either misunderstood (possibly wilfully) the purpose of the Regulation, or you're peddling a falsehood.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

Greece wasn't "evading" the Dublin Regulation by not "registering" asylum seekers, because the only obligation imposed on Greece by Dublin is to process any asylum applications made to it.

You've either misunderstood (possibly wilfully) the purpose of the Regulation, or you're peddling a falsehood.

Its a game of two halves, and two halves make a whole.
The first half; anyone walking into a country without a valid immigration visa or permit is an illegal immigrant, unless they declare themselves to be a refugee and register an application for asylum. So either they are an asylum seeker, or they are an illegal immigrant, depending on whether they have decided to register. This half is not covered by the Dublin Agreement, but every country has their own laws, which amount to basically the same thing; you don't allow unidentified randomers to just wander into your country, and then, if they don't like the look of it, to just wander off somewhere else.

The second half; if they did register as an asylum seeker, the first country that registered them is the one that processes the claim and looks after them. That is where the Dublin agreement comes in.
Two halves gives the whole picture.

Hungary was doing everything by the book. Greece was not.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

The first half; anyone walking into a country without a valid immigration visa or permit is an illegal immigrant, unless they declare themselves to be a refugee and register an application for asylum. So either they are an asylum seeker, or they are an illegal immigrant, depending on whether they have decided to register.

I can see you've decided to make a habit of being wrong.

You're an illegal immigrant in a country when you've taken up residence in that country in contravention of that country's immigration laws.

This half is not covered by the Dublin Agreement, but every country has their own laws, which amount to basically the same thing...

No. Just no. You don't get to say that two unrelated things "amount to the same thing" - a country's immigration laws, and how it chooses to enforce them, has pretty much nothing whatsoever to do with a Regulation that determines which country should process an asylum application.

The second half; if they did register as an asylum seeker, the first country that registered them is the one that processes the claim and looks after them. That is where the Dublin agreement comes in.
Two halves gives the whole picture.

If you're going to continue using loaded language about "registering" people, I'll be forced to stop postponing the inevitable conclusion that you're more interested in relentlessly pushing a xenophobic agenda than in having a meaningful discussion.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're an illegal immigrant in a country when you've taken up residence in that country in contravention of that country's immigration laws. No. Just no.

Come off it, these guys are not tourists. If you don't like the term "illegal immigrant" you can use whatever terminology you like - unauthorised migrant, irregular migrant, whatever.

They don't have residency because, well, they are migrants not residents. Every country has its own immigration rules.


For example in Germany; the law refers to "unlawful entry; foreigners not possessing a necessary residency title and a right of residence are required to leave the federal territory" (from the Aufenthaltgesetz or Residency law)


or in Poland; the law refers to "Nelegalni (illegal) crossing of the border". (from the Act on Aliens)


The only way for them to avoid this is to register as an asylum seeker. Anyway, you are taking us down a rabbithole with all this. Lets try to stay on topic.

FreudianSlippers

recedite wrote: »

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.

This is extremely misleading and, I don't believe purposely so; I think you don't understand what you're talking about here.

The section you quote deals directly with "normal" asylum applications where a person crosses a border seeking asylum. There is clear provision for "irregular border crossings"

Article 13 wrote:

1. Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 22(3) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation (EU) No 603/2013, that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. That responsibility shall cease 12 months after the date on which the irregular border crossing took place.

2. When a Member State cannot or can no longer be held responsible in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article and where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 22(3), that the applicant — who has entered the territories of the Member States irregularly or whose circumstances of entry cannot be established — has been living for a continuous period of at least five months in a Member State before lodging the application for international protection, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.

If the applicant has been living for periods of time of at least five months in several Member States, the Member State where he or she has been living most recently shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.

ancapailldorcha

Can we get back to Hungary and the EU please? Thanks.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

You seem to have a bizarre view on how the world should work. Apparently being able to appeal to a crowd gives an elected leader the right to unilaterally ignore the terms of a treaty to which his country has freely signed up, because "democracy".

You also appear to have the strange idea that democracy is a function of cheering crowds, not of boring old voting.

Salvini's party is the most popular in Italy. Orban's party is the most popular in Hungary.

Before a witty person like yourself who doesn't have an agenda might retort that Salvini's party only has the second largest number of seats, i'll save the necessity of the post by pointing out, in advance, that Salvini's coalition is the largest in Italy, and were there an election tomorrow, would increase their share of the vote.

I'm not really sure why democracy is being brought up in relation to the EU. The decision by the commission has nothing to do with democracy, it is the sparring of two different political alignments. Poland and Bulgaria aren't backing up Hungary because they support the will of the Hungarian people, no more than France and Germany wish to protect Hungary's rule of law.

We all know this, but the dance goes on, because most people seem to think that everyone but themselves is naive enough to take things at face value.

recedite wrote: »

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

Rules are only as good as their interpretation. This is why independent courts are usually used for such.