E.U. Democratic Deficit ?

View

recedite wrote: »

Proposals such as the Dublin Agreement, which said migrants should be registered in the EU country of first arrival, and which Hungary was implementing. Yet in Sept 2015 Merkel decided unilaterally that Germany would no longer comply with this rule,

The Dublin Regulation allows any member state to process applicants should it so choose. As such, Germany's actions are fully compliant with EU law.

recedite wrote: »

Then there was the Visegrad joint effort, where various countries sent police and soldiers to Hungary to help reinforce their EU external border,

The Visegard action wasn't an EU action but rather the four countries concerned acting "unilaterally" outside the EU framework. In other words, an example of the sort of action that you'd probably condemn if it were Germany & France doing it.

recedite wrote: »

I'm not sure that is accurate.

It is.

See the two columns showing where the people are being reallocated FROM:

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/press-material/docs/state_of_play_-_relocation_en.pdf

recedite wrote: »

Who said it hadn't been passed? Mandatory migrant quotas were an idea developed by the Merkel/Hollande partnership.
But they cannot be enforced because the Visegrad countries oppose them, and these countries are now too organised to be steamrolled over.

There is a reason the Hungary & Slovakia are in the CJEU trying to get the law overturned. They know that, should they lose their cases, the law absolutely enforceable. EU law doesn't cease being enforceable just because some politician decides he has a problem with it.

View

Sand wrote: »

The quota system for applicants was pushed for desperately by Merkel because it was in Germany's interests.

The quota system does not reallocate people from Germany but rather TO Germany, so your point is completely wrong.

Relocation: In May 2015, the Commission proposed a Council Decision for an emergency relocation mechanism to relocate 40,000 people in clear need of international protection from Italy and Greece. In July 2015, the Jus- tice and Home A airs Council adopted a decision to relo- cate 32 256 persons and adopted a resolution to this end. Ministers committed to agree on the distribution of the remaining 7 744 persons by the end of 2015

Link is here:

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/e-library/docs/20150814_balancing_responsability_and_solidarity_on_migration_en.pdf

Sand wrote: »

So don't mislead people by pretending there is no connection.

The misleading is being done by you as the link above and in my previous post show. Based on your reasoning, Germany should have strongly opposed the reallocation scheme, yet it (and a majority of the member states) voted in favour of it knowing that it (and they) would end up taking additional numbers from Greece and Italy.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

If you want to be pedantic about it, the rule that migrants should be processed in the country of first arrival actually preceded the Dublin regulation, whereas that regulation just clarified that a migrant who had travelled through the first country without stopping, could be sent back to it.

That's not being pedantic, that's being wrong. You can keep making up nonsense about the Dublin Regulation to your heart's content, and I'll keep pointing out that the Dublin Regulation imposes precisely zero obligations on asylum seekers.

Sand

View wrote: »

The misleading is being done by you as the link above and in my previous post show. Based on your reasoning, Germany should have strongly opposed the reallocation scheme, yet it (and a majority of the member states) voted in favour of it knowing that it (and they) would end up taking additional numbers from Greece and Italy.

What I would point out though is that the people to be relocated were overwhelmingly travelling *to* Germany to claim asylum there, at the invitation of Mrs Merkel.

They weren't hanging around in Greece or Italy, and both states were happy to look the other way while they went to Germany. The German motivation was to encourage the Greeks and Italians to clamp down on that unofficial transit to Germany by promising them the ability to hand-off applicants, while at the same time ensuring those people were relocated outside Germany. That is why Germany desperately demanded this policy, and why they continue to push for this failed policy to be implemented.

You're entitled to your opinion, but pretending that Germany was not entirely motivated by self interest is completely misleading. Germany made its bed with a stupid unilateral policy in 2015, it has to lie in it for the next century.

If you want to discuss the relocation/quota policy to this level of detail, I'd suggest opening a new thread and I'll happily talk about it there rather than continuing to drag this thread OT.

recedite

sameoldname wrote: »

If I recall correctly, it was actually Italy threatening to give migrants visa's to allow them to travel anywhere in the EU unless other countries helped out that lead to Merkel opening up Germany's borders.

First off, Germany's borders were already open due to their being in the Schengen area.
Secondly, if Italy had granted asylum/refugee status, and hence residency within the EU, why wouldn't the refugee be allowed to travel elsewhere within Schengen? Here's our rules on it. A simple document clarifying their status is all that would be needed, not a visa.

The problem for Germany is that Merkel sent out a message in 2015 telling the whole world that any migrant who made it across the EU's unsecured external borders would be allowed free passage across contries like Hungary and Italy to Germany.
And the migrants came, and the terrorists came with them.

Then later, as support for Merkels party dropped, she arranged for the EU border at Greece to be closed. Not by Greece though, or even by the EU. It was shut by Turkey and Macedonia. We don't know what Macedonia got out of it, but Turkey got Euro 6 billion of EU taxpayers money.

I don't remember being asked about any of this. More democratic deficit.

recedite

View wrote: »

The quota system does not reallocate people from Germany but rather TO Germany, so your point is completely wrong.
Link is here:

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/e-library/docs/20150814_balancing_responsability_and_solidarity_on_migration_en.pdf

I'm not seeing anything in the regulations that would prevent refugees registered in Germany being relocated from Germany to another EU country.

Obviously with Greece now hemmed in by Macedonian and Turkish security, and "temporary border controls" established within the Schengen area in 2016, the main relocation effort is going to be centred on those newly arriving in Italy, and those who have been stranded in Greece for over a year now.

But if the above security measures failed somehow, and Germany again experienced a mass influx as per 2015, then they could in theory use the relocation mechanism as devised.

Bit cynical

demfad wrote: »

Where possible local Governments tends to blame the EU for bad things that happen while taking credit for good things.
Immediately you have a grey area for people to explain the perceived failings of the EU through ideas like 'Democratic deficit' etc.

In fairness, Irish politicians often defend relatively unpopular EU measures and try to sell them to the public as good or necessary ideas. We know, for example, that Charlie Flanagan wants trade negotiations to be conducted in parallel with other brexit issues rather than have them at the end. This makes sense for Ireland as it maximises the possibility that there will be a good trade relationship between Ireland and the UK after brexit occurs. However we also know that if he fails to convince our EU partners that this approach makes sense, he (if he still holds his ministerial position), along with other members of the Government will present the EU approach to the Irish electorate as a good idea.

We've also seen the case of Irish water. Whatever the merits of it, I think it is fair to say that it was unpopular and controversial in the Irish context. The Irish Government initially avoided this controversy by obtaining a derogation against it. During the financial crisis, however, we were unable to resist pressure from our EU partners and agreed to introduce metering. But here again, initial reservations were put aside by Irish ministers, and the measures were presented as best they could good ideas in themselves.

A third example, also mentioned on this thread is the refugee crisis. Again, Ireland had obtained various opt-outs and were not obliged to participate in migrant relocation but relented under pressure and, having done so, the programme was then presented as a virtue to the electorate.

So it is not really a case of the Irish government saying "them EU lads made us do it" when forced to do something unpopular or impractical; there's usually a genuine attempt to present the thing as rational government policy. If it turns out completely unworkable, then recourse to EU commitments or law may eventually be made, but this is usually last resort - at least in the case of Ireland.

So we tend to hide the fact that we are acting under pressure from Europe. If we have to do something we rationalise it as good in itself; something perhaps we would choose to do anyway rather than admit to it being done under pressure.

We can speculate on reasons for why this is the case in Ireland. We are a small peripheral country and our politicians want to give the impression of having a voice in the EU. Maybe there are other reasons, but the important point is that this also constitutes a genuine perception of democratic deficit. The electorate in most cases doesn't know where the decisions are being made and who to blame if it goes wrong (or who to thank if it goes right). Democracy however depends on being able to do this.

Hippo

recedite wrote: »

And the migrants came, and the terrorists came with them.

That's a big statement, and a not entirely accurate one.

recedite

Hippo wrote: »

That's a big statement, and a not entirely accurate one.

If you mean that some terrorists were "home grown" that is of course true. But it does not make my statement inaccurate.

Merkels policies encouraged a petty criminal from a poor village in Tunisia (note; "poor", not "war torn") to travel to the EU, completely unvetted, where he was able to wander around freely from Italy up to Germany and then back down to Italy again.
Ultimately his incompatibility with European values led to his murdering 12 and injuring 56 random German citizens.
There were, and still are, a great many more just like him.

whatstherush

recedite wrote: »

If you mean that some terrorists were "home grown" that is of course true. But it does not make my statement inaccurate.

Merkels policies encouraged a petty criminal from a poor village in Tunisia (note; "poor", not "war torn") to travel to the EU, completely unvetted, where he was able to wander around freely from Italy up to Germany and then back down to Italy again.
Ultimately his incompatibility with European values led to his murdering 12 and injuring 56 random German citizens.
There were, and still are, a great many more just like him.

How does Merkels policies of 2015 cause a Tunisian to land in the EU( Italy) in 2011?

RDM_83 again

Anyway the point is glossed by the usual well established crowd here that the European Parliament lacks many of the powers that most national parliaments have.
If thats a good or bad thing is debatable given the disengagement most europeans have from the EP elections which creates a chicken and egg situation in terms of legitimacy.

To those that are arguing against the democratic deficit idea, shouldn't we see more significant changes in direction and ethos after EU elections.

This is a hefty read here, from page 18 is relevant to the point at hand (Research paper for House of Parliament)

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=18&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi7uZnNiP_TAhXqIsAKHdqNC74QFgiCATAR&url=http%3A%2F%2Fresearchbriefings.files.parliament.uk%2Fdocuments%2FRP14-25%2FRP14-25.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEe_yvzbqBmQTG9eIX_WBeC_2T4iQ

recedite

RDM_83 again wrote: »

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=18&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi7uZnNiP_TAhXqIsAKHdqNC74QFgiCATAR&url=http%3A%2F%2Fresearchbriefings.files.parliament.uk%2Fdocuments%2FRP14-25%2FRP14-25.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEe_yvzbqBmQTG9eIX_WBeC_2T4iQ

Interesting read, especially now in hindsight after the Brexit referendum.
The first few pages have great clarity, but later it becomes mired in too much detail.
In general though, the gist of it is that the more centralised power and authority become, the less democratic legitimacy it has. As power shifts from the nation state to the EU, then people disengage and become disenfranchised. The very last page of the document quotes a ruling from a German constitutional court which acknowledges exactly that. And so we have the basic conundrum at the heart of the EU.

Elsewhere in the document there is reference to the "cosmopolitans". This is an intriguing concept which perhaps holds the key to the future. Recently we have seen tensions between the cosmopolitans (eg Merkel, Obama, Hollande, Macron, Barroso, Sutherland) with their internationalist outlook, and their adversaries whom they are inclined to label as "populists"(Trump, Orban, Le Penne). The latter represent the people in their respective countries who are more firmly grounded in their national culture, and their own national interests (or at least they claim to represent them).
The cosmopolitans are too often seen to be in the pockets of multinational corporations and banks. Meetings at Davos and of the Bilderberg group help to reinforce confirm these suspicions.

But, as is hinted in the paper, if the cosmopolitans moved towards direct democracy, instead of supporting the centralised power of the superstate, all might again find some common ground on which to move forward.