ECJ tells Hungary and Slovakia to stuff it

[Risottia]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41172638

So, basically the ECJ told Slovakia and Hungary to stuff it about their rejection of the asylum-seeker quotas system instituted by the EU. Which also means that any similar objection - likely coming from the other two V4 pals, Poland and Czechia - is very likely to be rejected as well.

I'm so bloody happy that the ECJ made clear that EU directives are to be followed by all members, and that special snowflaking isn't going to be considered a valid argument. Hungary, for one, hasn't accepted a SINGLE refugee on his territory - EU directive notwithstanding. And now, according to ECJ's ruling in Francovich vs Italy, the countries who didn't take their part of refugees are liable to pay damages to the individuals who were negatively affected by their refusal. YAY!

[Dumb Ideologies]

EU needs to be careful. Their goal of further federation needs buy-in from Eastern countries or the entire thing will grind to a halt. Cultural homogeneity is an important part of national identity for many in Eastern Europe and the constant drive to impose one-size-fits-all solutions, particularly at a time when there are overlapping security concerns, smacks of the EU's typical single-minded blindness to diversity.

If the Eastern countries are forced against their will to accept migrants there will be a great deal of hostility that is likely to culminate in widespread hate crime and resultant radicalisation on both sides, posing a wider security threat to the EU in future when elders and second-genners embittered against the West can freely walk across all the European borders and strike at your major cities.

It appears to be only the Western and some of the Southern European nations that believe these migrants should be granted asylum. If they have more than they can manage, they should stop accepting any more rather than trying to palm them off to other countries who have been against them all along.

Draconian enforcement measures would be very short-sighted and I hope that more sensible heads prevail.

[Storhjaltland]

I bet you the Slovaks, Hungarians, Poles and Czechs will love the incoming refugees and immigrants.

[Lyras]

I bet you the Slovaks, Hungarians, Poles and Czechs will love the incoming refugees and immigrants.

Indeed. What could possibly go wrong?

[Alvecia]

The outcome I was hoping for.

[Japan and Pacific States]

You know I love OP's post and a good percentage of others in this thread assume just because ECJ gave their whole spiel on the matter of these apparent refugees they think that Hungary or Slovakia would just automatically do a 180 and start accepted refugees. That's not likely to happen at all. Let's be realistic here, if threats of kicking them out of the EU didn't work this won't either.

[Ifreann]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41172638

So, basically the ECJ told Slovakia and Hungary to stuff it about their rejection of the asylum-seeker quotas system instituted by the EU. Which also means that any similar objection - likely coming from the other two V4 pals, Poland and Czechia - is very likely to be rejected as well.

I'm so bloody happy that the ECJ made clear that EU directives are to be followed by all members, and that special snowflaking isn't going to be considered a valid argument. Hungary, for one, hasn't accepted a SINGLE refugee on his territory - EU directive notwithstanding. And now, according to ECJ's ruling in Francovich vs Italy, the countries who didn't take their part of refugees are liable to pay damages to the individuals who were negatively affected by their refusal. YAY!

All this nonsense of the rules applying to everyone is tyranny I tell you.

[The Isle of Axeholme]

This is just going to hasten the disintegration of the EU. ECJ tells them to stuff it, they tell the ECJ to stuff it, eventually they leave the EU.

[Polar Svalbard]

What a sad day. They have a right not to subject their populace to this, if the other EU countries wanna drown themselves in refugees so be it. I believe France is a good point in the favor of these countries.

[Colbert Super PAC]

Oh no, they have to follow an agreement they themselves choose to sign! How horrible!

[Alvecia]

Oh no, they have to follow an agreement they themselves choose to sign! How horrible!

"We didn't think we'd have to actually honor our agreements!"

[Dooom35796821595]

Oh no, they have to follow an agreement they themselves choose to sign! How horrible!

If you read the article, this was passed by a majority, and they all voted against it.

[Sovaal]

Oh no, they have to follow an agreement they themselves choose to sign! How horrible!

"We didn't think we'd have to actually honor our agreements!"

"What next, actually honoring our other treaties? Meeting our quotas for NATO? The horror!"

[Proctopeo]

Surely this will go smoothly and cause no problems at all. You see, Western Europe is always right. No exception. You just need to... redraw the borders between Eastern and Western Europe sometimes. How does using the 52nd meridian west as the Eastern boundary and the 178th meridian west as the Western boundary sound this time?

[Purpelia]

Oh no, they have to follow an agreement they themselves choose to sign! How horrible!

It is a perfectly valid thing to back out of an agreement if the situation under which it is to be enacted differs dramatically and beyond any possible prediction at the point of signing. To claim otherwise is to be acting against the spirit under which the agreement was made. You would not expect, for instance, a construction firm to keep building a structure it was contracted to do if the area they are working in got flooded or the zoning laws changed. And the same thing applies here.

The various treaties regarding refugees were all signed under the assumption that they would be addressing relatively small temporary migrations within the continent caused by localized conflicts or natural disaster. Nobody could have predicted the current situation where you have millions of people flooding in. So it is unreasonable to demand that the letter of the treaty be respected "no matter what".

Bottom line is that treaties are just contracts between nations. And when unexpected disaster strikes the thing to do is not double down but renegotiate. Doubling down only makes one side look dictatorial (as if the EU needed help with that) and the other resentful.

[Genivaria]

What a sad day. They have a right not to subject their populace to this, if the other EU countries wanna drown themselves in refugees so be it. I believe France is a good point in the favor of these countries.

Why do some people think that treaties only matter when it's convenient for them?

[Ifreann]

Oh no, they have to follow an agreement they themselves choose to sign! How horrible!

If you read the article, this was passed by a majority, and they all voted against it.

I hear a lot of people voted against Brexit, too.

[Purpelia]

What a sad day. They have a right not to subject their populace to this, if the other EU countries wanna drown themselves in refugees so be it. I believe France is a good point in the favor of these countries.

Why do some people think that treaties only matter when it's convenient for them?

Because treaties are contracts signed with the intention of providing a mutually beneficial arrangement for both sides. If there is a radical change in the situation and the treaty is no longer beneficial to one or more of the parties they have every right to break it off or demand renegotiation just like with any other contract.

[Proctopeo]

If you read the article, this was passed by a majority, and they all voted against it.

I hear a lot of people voted against Brexit, too.

I fail to see how this is relevant.

[Herskerstad]

Would not be surprised if the entire east Bloc will return the favour.

[Ifreann]

I hear a lot of people voted against Brexit, too.

I fail to see how this is relevant.

That's okay, my comparison of one decision made by a majority vote and another made by a majority vote is pretty subtle.

[Proctopeo]

I fail to see how this is relevant.

That's okay, my comparison of one decision made by a majority vote and another made by a majority vote is pretty subtle.

I think it's a different type of situation.

[Gloriana Americana]

Well, y'know, if the EU would handle the refugee crisis properly then maybe these countries wouldn't be violating these agreements in the first place.

[Ifreann]

That's okay, my comparison of one decision made by a majority vote and another made by a majority vote is pretty subtle.

I think it's a different type of situation.

You know, I think it just might be. After all, British voters never agreed to a system whereby they might be pulled out of the EU after losing a referendum. But on the other hand, Hungary and Slovakia did agree to the system the EU operates under. They got into this knowing that there would be votes and they wouldn't necessarily get their way every time.

You've opened my eyes, Proctopeo.

[Trigori]

I'm from Slovakia. What's the point of forcing us to do this? They will literally leave as soon as they can, because there's a much more prosperous country just around the corner. The EU doing is also just helping the neo-nazi party gain in popularity because it presents the image of a "dictate from Brussels." Why must they force this? Why can't get the EU just say "alright, you object, no hard feelings, we want to keep Union together, we'll just send these elsewhere, have a nice day" ?