The EU and Poland: What will the Outcome Be?

[Risottia]

If you join a club, follow the rules.

I covered this already, time and time again.

If you sign an agreement to do something you did so under conditions at the time of signing. If the conditions change in a way that can not be predicted at that time and that render said agreement harmful to you to the point where you would newer have agreed to sign it had you known it is perfectly legitimate to try and get out of it.

1.They knew perfectly well the rules they signed, WHICH INCLUDED a mechanism for the Commission and the Parliament to issue directives by majority and not by unanimity. They don't get to whine.

2.They can stay and follow the rules (which includes paying the fines when they fail to follow rules), or invoke art.50 of the Lisbon Tready, get out by paying their divorce bill just like Britain is going to do, trade with the EU at WTO rules, and kiss their freedom of movement into the EU goodbye. It merely means the EU taxpayers won't have to waste money on they any further.

[Proctopeo]

Countries should see to the needs and the safety of their own citizens before the citizens of other countries; a country that fails this fundamentally fails.
Some degree of selflessness is fine, of course. Just don't expect everyone in every country to support self-sacrificial altruism.

How much damage have refugees caused?

Never said anything about refugees
Just that if a government decides to dedicate more resources per capita protecting other people's citizens over its own, especially to the extent that its own citizens suffer for it, there's a problem.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

How much damage have refugees caused?

Never said anything about refugees
Just that if a government decides to dedicate more resources per capita protecting other people's citizens over its own, especially to the extent that its own citizens suffer for it, there's a problem.

Ah. So, more money to refugees than the own population. Got it. So, refugees.

Has this happened, then? Have citizens come to suffer?

[Proctopeo]

Never said anything about refugees
Just that if a government decides to dedicate more resources per capita protecting other people's citizens over its own, especially to the extent that its own citizens suffer for it, there's a problem.

Ah. So, more money to refugees than the own population. Got it. So, refugees.

Has this happened, then? Have citizens come to suffer?

There can be non-citizens who aren't refugees

And I'm not sure; a definitive "yes" or "no" answer would require trawling through incredible amounts of statistics. The best I can say is "maybe".
Either way, the point stands: it's okay for a country to be "selfish" and put its citizens first. That's... kinda how it should work, really.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Ah. So, more money to refugees than the own population. Got it. So, refugees.

Has this happened, then? Have citizens come to suffer?

There can be non-citizens who aren't refugees

And I'm not sure; a definitive "yes" or "no" answer would require trawling through incredible amounts of statistics. The best I can say is "maybe".
Either way, the point stands: it's okay for a country to be "selfish" and put its citizens first. That's... kinda how it should work, really.

Yeah, but this thread is about refugees, so...

And you have the burden of proof. Right now, your argument is based off nothing, and the statement lacks nuance. It's hollow, since you cannot prove it applies to this case.

[Proctopeo]

There can be non-citizens who aren't refugees

And I'm not sure; a definitive "yes" or "no" answer would require trawling through incredible amounts of statistics. The best I can say is "maybe".
Either way, the point stands: it's okay for a country to be "selfish" and put its citizens first. That's... kinda how it should work, really.

Yeah, but this thread is about refugees, so...

And you have the burden of proof. Right now, your argument is based off nothing, and the statement lacks nuance. It's hollow, since you cannot prove it applies to this case.

You're asking me to prove an argument I didn't actually make, and that you assumed I made based on other things I said.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Yeah, but this thread is about refugees, so...

And you have the burden of proof. Right now, your argument is based off nothing, and the statement lacks nuance. It's hollow, since you cannot prove it applies to this case.

You're asking me to prove an argument I didn't actually make, and that you assumed I made based on other things I said.

So you were just making empty statements that had nothing to do with the argument in this thread?

You said nations should not prioritise foreigners over nationals. I asked you to give examples where that has happened. Seems pretty straight forward.

[Proctopeo]

You're asking me to prove an argument I didn't actually make, and that you assumed I made based on other things I said.

So you were just making empty statements that had nothing to do with the argument in this thread?

You said nations should not prioritise foreigners over nationals. I asked you to give examples where that has happened. Seems pretty straight forward.

They were related to the context of a side discussion that was tangentially related, but distinct enough that assuming the context is the same as the whole thread would be wrong.
Then you jumped in and assumed the context was the same as the thread as a whole, and assumed I made an argument that I didn't.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

No country should be selfish.

Countries should see to the needs and the safety of their own citizens before the citizens of other countries; a country that fails this fundamentally fails.
Some degree of selflessness is fine, of course. Just don't expect everyone in every country to support self-sacrificial altruism.

That's not what I would consider selfish. Of course people gotta look out for themselves. But that doesn't mean "up yours" to those that need help.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So you were just making empty statements that had nothing to do with the argument in this thread?

You said nations should not prioritise foreigners over nationals. I asked you to give examples where that has happened. Seems pretty straight forward.

They were related to the context of a side discussion that was tangentially related, but distinct enough that assuming the context is the same as the whole thread would be wrong.
Then you jumped in and assumed the context was the same as the thread as a whole, and assumed I made an argument that I didn't.

Alright, from the beginning:

How much damage have refugees caused?

Never said anything about refugees
Just that if a government decides to dedicate more resources per capita protecting other people's citizens over its own, especially to the extent that its own citizens suffer for it, there's a problem.

This is literally the argument you made. Do you have any evidence this is happening anywhere?

[Greater Miami Shores]

"The EU has completely given up any hope of persuading Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to ruin their countries by taking in asylum seekers in the thousands as per EU directives, and have taken the decision to sue the three countries to the European Court of Justice, whose rulings the three are likely to ignore anyway"

Good, I hope they hang in tough, don't give in, and tell the EU to stuff it.

[Proctopeo]

They were related to the context of a side discussion that was tangentially related, but distinct enough that assuming the context is the same as the whole thread would be wrong.
Then you jumped in and assumed the context was the same as the thread as a whole, and assumed I made an argument that I didn't.

Alright, from the beginning:

Never said anything about refugees
Just that if a government decides to dedicate more resources per capita protecting other people's citizens over its own, especially to the extent that its own citizens suffer for it, there's a problem.

This is literally the argument you made. Do you have any evidence this is happening anywhere?

That... wasn't an argument? Just a statement of opinion?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Alright, from the beginning:


This is literally the argument you made. Do you have any evidence this is happening anywhere?

That... wasn't an argument? Just a statement of opinion?

Oh, and opinions are totally free from criticism. Got it.

It's an argument you made on how the world works. It being an opinion has no bearing on the world, so unless you can give some good arguments on its behalf, it's meaningless in a debate.

[Risottia]

Basically they're "gib gib" skiver countries. They can GTFO ASAP as far as I'm concerned.

The way the EU is going

"The way the EU is going" is "the whole EU is having a GDP growth".

I'm sure they feel the same.

Wonderful! Bye-bye! Don't let the door hit you!

Not everyone want their homeland to be transformed into one of those paradises the "asylum seekers" come from. Not everyone is happy with New Years mass rapes and "part and parcel" attacks.

Just like Germany became just like Bosnia, or Italy became just like Albania, when they took in the Bosnian and Albanian refugees and immigrants, right? Less bullshit, please.

[Trumptonium]

I covered this already, time and time again.

If you sign an agreement to do something you did so under conditions at the time of signing. If the conditions change in a way that can not be predicted at that time and that render said agreement harmful to you to the point where you would newer have agreed to sign it had you known it is perfectly legitimate to try and get out of it.

1.They knew perfectly well the rules they signed, WHICH INCLUDED a mechanism for the Commission and the Parliament to issue directives by majority and not by unanimity. They don't get to whine.

The European Union takes action against Italy for air pollution at Italy's biggest steel plant
The European Union takes action against Italy for unhealthy cleanliness levels of water
The European Union takes Italy to court for noncompliance with animal testing (voted by majority, Italy voted against)
The European Union takes Italy to court for noncompliance with waste management in Campania (voted by majority, Italy voted against)
Same as above, this time in Lazio
The European Union takes Italy to court for inadequate waste water treatment (voted by majority, Italy voted for)
The European Union takes Italy to court for noncompliance with air pollution limits (voted by majority, Italy voted against)
The European Union once against takes Italy to court for waste management, this time for all of Italy
Once again, the EU takes Italy to court over tap water unsuitable for human consumption

And hey Italy ignores EU financial rules and banking guidelines

Commission figures show EU has taken 474 legal actions against France (1st) for breaching regulations, compared with 436 against Italy (2nd), 407 against Spain (3rd) and 289 (12th) against Britain. Denmark was the best behaved country with 204 infringements.

When is Italy leaving?

get out by paying their divorce bill just like Britain is going to do,

What divorce bill?

The argument of the divorce bill is that Britain signed up to treaties up to the end of the 2022 budget which included around 70bn of net payments.

Until 2022, if Poland was to quit today, the EU is due to pay them around 110 billion euros.

Do you send cheques?

Also, Italy is hardly a model of a good EU member

[Vassenor]

"The EU has completely given up any hope of persuading Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to ruin their countries by taking in asylum seekers in the thousands as per EU directives, and have taken the decision to sue the three countries to the European Court of Justice, whose rulings the three are likely to ignore anyway"

Good, I hope they hang in tough, don't give in, and tell the EU to stuff it.

Well, considering they're pretty much dependent on EU handouts right now...

[Risottia]

1.They knew perfectly well the rules they signed, WHICH INCLUDED a mechanism for the Commission and the Parliament to issue directives by majority and not by unanimity. They don't get to whine.

The European Union takes action against Italy for air pollution at Italy's biggest steel plant
The European Union takes action against Italy for unhealthy cleanliness levels of water
The European Union takes Italy to court for noncompliance with animal testing (voted by majority, Italy voted against)
The European Union takes Italy to court for noncompliance with waste management in Campania (voted by majority, Italy voted against)
Same as above, this time in Lazio
The European Union takes Italy to court for inadequate waste water treatment (voted by majority, Italy voted for)
The European Union takes Italy to court for noncompliance with air pollution limits (voted by majority, Italy voted against)
The European Union once against takes Italy to court for waste management, this time for all of Italy
Once again, the EU takes Italy to court over tap water unsuitable for human consumption

And hey Italy ignores EU financial rules and banking guidelines

Commission figures show EU has taken 474 legal actions against France (1st) for breaching regulations, compared with 436 against Italy (2nd), 407 against Spain (3rd) and 289 (12th) against Britain. Denmark was the best behaved country with 204 infringements.

When is Italy leaving?

Italy isn't leaving. Italy is going to follow the directives or pay the fines, in the case the ECJ rules it must. Simple as that.

get out by paying their divorce bill just like Britain is going to do,

What divorce bill?

The inability to be a part of the Single Market or to emigrate to the EU, just to begin with, and then the inability to receive funds from the EU, which is what they want the most.
And no, it's not like they get to plunder our coffins once they're out.

[Trumptonium]

"The EU has completely given up any hope of persuading Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to ruin their countries by taking in asylum seekers in the thousands as per EU directives, and have taken the decision to sue the three countries to the European Court of Justice, whose rulings the three are likely to ignore anyway"

Good, I hope they hang in tough, don't give in, and tell the EU to stuff it.

Well, considering they're pretty much dependent on EU handouts right now...

That's not how economics - or EU contributions - work. They do not prop up public spending.

[Trumptonium]

The European Union takes action against Italy for air pollution at Italy's biggest steel plant
The European Union takes action against Italy for unhealthy cleanliness levels of water
The European Union takes Italy to court for noncompliance with animal testing (voted by majority, Italy voted against)
The European Union takes Italy to court for noncompliance with waste management in Campania (voted by majority, Italy voted against)
Same as above, this time in Lazio
The European Union takes Italy to court for inadequate waste water treatment (voted by majority, Italy voted for)
The European Union takes Italy to court for noncompliance with air pollution limits (voted by majority, Italy voted against)
The European Union once against takes Italy to court for waste management, this time for all of Italy
Once again, the EU takes Italy to court over tap water unsuitable for human consumption

And hey Italy ignores EU financial rules and banking guidelines

Commission figures show EU has taken 474 legal actions against France (1st) for breaching regulations, compared with 436 against Italy (2nd), 407 against Spain (3rd) and 289 (12th) against Britain. Denmark was the best behaved country with 204 infringements.

When is Italy leaving?

Italy isn't leaving. Italy is going to follow the directives or pay the fines, in the case the ECJ rules it must. Simple as that.

Yet it still has outstanding fines from 2012 it hasn't paid a cent towards.

What divorce bill?

The inability to be a part of the Single Market or to emigrate to the EU,

Both of these are benefits

just to begin with, and then the inability to receive funds from the EU, which is what they want the most.

Yes, it's the only use / utility of membership.

And no, it's not like they get to plunder our coffins once they're out.

Why not? The EU signed treaties, did it not?

Or are you arguing the UK shouldn't pay?

[Risottia]

Also, Italy is hardly a model of a good EU member
(Image)

Curiously enough, Italy gives more than it receives, according to your source. The average Italian contributes 85 €/year, it says.

While your beloved V4 is all in the "gib gib" yellow area. The average Pole leeches 355 €/year from the Union. The average Czech gets a 273 €/year cheque. The Hungarian horde hoardes in a lovely 569 €/year per capita.

I love when whiners prove themselves wrong.

[Risottia]

Italy isn't leaving. Italy is going to follow the directives or pay the fines, in the case the ECJ rules it must. Simple as that.

Yet it still has outstanding fines from 2012 it hasn't paid a cent towards.[/quote]
Got some source? Because Google doesn't seem to be very helpful about it.

Anyway nice attempt at a tu quoque. The problem with your argument is that Italy is still a net contributor, in terms of pure EU budget.

The inability to be a part of the Single Market or to emigrate to the EU,

Both of these are benefits

And not accessing a benefit such as free trade means paying the tarifs.

just to begin with, and then the inability to receive funds from the EU, which is what they want the most.

Yes, it's the only use / utility of membership.

Access to market and immigration isn't?
Lol.

And no, it's not like they get to plunder our coffins once they're out.

Why not? The EU signed treaties, did it not?

Those apply to members.

Or are you arguing the UK shouldn't pay?

The UK will agree to pay before it leaves, if it wants the soft Brexit they're trying to get.
Once it's out, there will be a treaty between the EU and the UK.
OR they can just leave without paying and become completely separated, and pay tarifs on everything they want to export to the EU, and ask for a visa when travelling to Calais or Dublin.

[Trumptonium]

Also, Italy is hardly a model of a good EU member
(Image)

Curiously enough, Italy gives more than it receives, according to your source. The average Italian contributes 85 €/year, it says.

While your beloved V4 is all in the "gib gib" yellow area. The average Pole leeches 355 €/year from the Union. The average Czech gets a 273 €/year cheque. The Hungarian horde hoardes in a lovely 569 €/year per capita.

I love when whiners prove themselves wrong.

The fact that you're proud that an Italian contributes a measly 85 while a Dutchman pays in over 4x that is funny.

Of course the V4 is in the gib gib area. Their final plan is to leave once the finances run out. The Czech Republic is already set to be a net contributor in time for the next budget in 2022, while Poland and Slovakia are set to be net contributors by the 2027 budget.

Whereas Italy is proud to be a financial burden. Italy was a net receiver until 2004 too, until poorer countries joined. The difference is that these new poorer countries want to leave, whereas Italy wants to stay. The average wage in the V4 is identical to the average wage in Molise/Sardegna, and miles above wages in Central Greece / Southern Italy / Northern Portugal.
Case in point

Yes, it's the only use / utility of membership.

Access to market and immigration isn't?

Some areas of the market yes, immigration no.

Why not? The EU signed treaties, did it not?

Those apply to members.

Oh. So the UK can leave then without paying, since it isn't a member.

[Celitannia]

As a side note, it's unlikely that tariffs will be very high between the EU and UK should the UK not remain in the single market. Indeed, the devaluation of the Pound Sterling should act to make British exports more competitive, even with tariffs. So it's not all doom and gloom and free trade with the EU isn't absolutely essential to existing outside of the EU. It's imports that are more likely to take a beating.

Similarly, the divorce bill isn't that big of a deal either, considering the UK will be allowed to remain in the single market for a transition period. So the UK does get something directly in return for filling the budgetary black hole of the EU it itself creates through Brexit.

So the bottom line I suppose is that leaving the EU isn't as bad as it seems?

But back on topic, in my personal opinion, the migrants should've never been let in in the first place. Especially since a significant number, perhaps even the majority, are not actually from countries in a state of war, but are rather economic migrants seeking to exploit the opportunities Europe presents, and whilst seeking to forge for oneself a better standard of living is a laudable goal, these migrants are doing so by leaving their own countries, thus forging a self-reinforcing cycle, whereby their native lands experience lessened economic growth owing to labour and brain drain. Meanwhile, western countries also suffer because of migrants artificially increasing the supply of labour, leading thusly to a fall in incomes and standards of living in the west, and perhaps more importantly, dilution of native homogenous culture, leading to lessened control of the host political system by said culture, and less decisive political action overall.

Therefore, I think those countries who've closed their borders are justified; indeed, it should be the policy of the entire EU to close borders to illegal migrants, with deportation and all, but that's unlikely to happen.

[Risottia]

As a side note, it's unlikely that tariffs will be very high between the EU and UK should the UK not remain in the single market. Indeed, the devaluation of the Pound Sterling should act to make British exports more competitive, even with tariffs. So it's not all doom and gloom and free trade with the EU isn't absolutely essential to existing outside of the EU.

Exactly!
I do hope that the Brits refuse to pay and just get out without any special agreement. WTO trade rules between Britain and the EU/EEA, and that's it.

[Risottia]

Oh. So the UK can leave then without paying, since it isn't a member.

The UK is a member until March 2019. Have you even understood what happened in the last two years, or are you just resorting to lying because you can't make up a sound argument?