The EU’s new migration pact is intended to neutralise the far right – it risks empowering it
The Oscar-nominated Io Capitano, now showing in cinemas, is a sensitive and moving portrait of the trials faced by two teenage boys as they attempt to reach Europe, via unofficial migration routes, from their homes in Senegal. The film is unsparing in its depiction of the violence and danger they face along the way – but what it doesn’t show is how the boys’ journey is shaped by European border policy from almost the moment they set off.
Their first stop, the people-smuggling hub of Agadez, ****, is the capital of a country into which the EU has poured millions of euros in recent years to combat smuggling. It hasn’t halted the trade entirely, but it has forced it further underground. In Libya, where the boys are tortured and trafficked by armed gangs, European governments have striven to keep migrants in place – as painstakingly documented by Sally Hayden in her recent book My Fourth Time, We Drowned – despite the dire threat to their safety. When the boys eventually make it on to a rusty boat and set off across the Mediterranean for Italy, they enter a space where the EU has curtailed search and rescue operations, and where volunteer rescuers have faced persistent harassment from European authorities. And as migrants’ rights activists in Italy have pointed out, should the passengers reach Italian shores alive, then Seydou – the protagonist of the story, who ends up piloting the boat – may well find himself labelled a smuggler and threatened with prison.
Seen in this light, the EU’s long-awaited pact on asylum and migration, which passed a knife-edge series of votes in the European parliament last week, continues an established trend towards deterrence. Ahead of European elections in June, in which rightwing populist parties are predicted to make significant gains, the pact’s centrist supporters have hailed the legislative package as a victory for the traditional EU values of compromise and moderation. Yet with a heavy focus on security screening and the removal of migrants deemed undeserving, the pact highlights how far Europe’s centre has already shifted to the right on migration – and risks further empowering the radical right it aims to neutralise.
The EU’s problem was never really a lack of common standards on asylum – but a lack of will to enforce them
The pact is an attempt to fix some of the problems that have bedevilled European politics since the refugee crisis of 2015. The new laws allow for enhanced screening and surveillance of irregular migrants at EU borders, with a “fast track” process for asylum applications and greater powers to return people ineligible for asylum to their countries of origin. At the same time, “solidarity” measures aim to set basic accommodation standards across the EU and relieve the pressure on states at the bloc’s physical frontiers. During sudden spikes in the number of people arriving – for instance, if there’s a refugee crisis in a neighbouring region – asylum seekers can be relocated elsewhere in the EU. If hostile states use migration to foment chaos on the EU’s borders, as Belarus and Turkey have both done in recent years, then EU member states will be allowed to take emergency measures to detain migrants or turn them away.
In the words of the European Commission vice-president Margaritis Schinas, it will create “not a fortress Europe, but a well-guarded house, with more secure external borders and clear rules on who is entitled to enter”. Human rights NGOs, on the other hand, warn that in combination, these measures will lead to the increased use of detention at EU borders – for example in the kind of “closed” reception centres that Greece already operates – and an increased risk that people will be sent back to countries where their lives are in danger.
The logic of these measures is that tougher controls will reduce the sense of chaos at the EU’s borders and allow Europe to more efficiently give asylum to those in genuine need. But the plan is undermined by a series of misconceptions. The first is that tougher measures, focused on removing those deemed ineligible for asylum, will lead to the appearance of greater control. The majority of people who take smuggler routes to Europe do so, as official statistics show, because they are fleeing violence and persecution. They do so for a lack of safe, legal options. A record 114 million people are displaced by conflict worldwide today, according to UNHCR, the UN refugee agency.
Second, the EU’s problem was never really a lack of common standards on asylum – but a lack of will to enforce them. Think, for instance, of the revelation last year that the Greek coastguard was abandoning refugees at sea. Greece has faced no real sanctions for this violation. If human rights standards are not respected, then a measure that looks good on paper – a fast-track asylum procedure, for example – can become a recipe for unfair treatment. The UK’s experiment with “fast track” immigration detention, ruled unlawful in 2015, is a cautionary tale here.
Third, the political compromise that the pact represents – it was supported by most centre-right, centre-left and liberal MEPs, though not the Greens or the left, who opposed it on human rights grounds – risks reinforcing the radical right’s framing of migration. Radical right MEPs were perfectly happy to vote for the package’s deterrent measures, while stridently opposing the more humanitarian elements like the proposed EU-wide “relocation” scheme, which they see as an unacceptable constraint on national sovereignty. (France’s Rassemblement National, for instance, said the pact “imposes the distribution of migrants” on EU member states and called for a “defeat” of the project in June’s elections.)
It’s dangerous to try to split the difference on this. The radical right don’t oppose migration because it’s not efficiently managed; they oppose it because they see it as a threat to European identity. Support for these parties is rooted in a widespread sense among some voters that conventional politics has failed, not a mere kneejerk reaction to recent immigration. Without a more comprehensive challenge to their worldview, then the pressure to shift the dial even more towards migration deterrence is only likely to grow.
Even in these circumstances, there is what some human rights NGOs call a “glimmer of hope”. The pact will take several years to implement – the commission doesn’t expect to get going until 2026 at the earliest, and it must still be approved by national governments. It contains some progressive measures, such as a proposal to expand safe, legal routes to asylum with the support of the UNHCR. It’s not too late to argue for measures like these to be expanded, and for the pact’s more authoritarian elements to be reined in. But to do that, Europe needs politicians who are up for the fight.
Slovakia will not implement new EU migration rules, says PM
Approved last week by the European Parliament, the bloc's new migration pact promises to shorten security and asylum procedures and increase returns to reduce unwanted immigration from the Middle East and Africa, a high priority for the EU.
Fewer than 48,000 people got in so far this year, according to U.N. data.
Opposition calls for boycott of Moldova EU referendum
Polls credit Sandu with 35.1% first-round support if an election were held today to 15.8% for Dodon.
They also say that 50.9% of respondents believed that EU membership would improve Moldova's economic prospects, while 30.4% believed the opposite. The EU last December agreed to start membership talks with both Moldova and Ukraine.
Sandu told a meeting with small business owners on Thursday that Moldovans would live better inside the EU.
"Joining the EU is the best thing we can give this and future generations," she said.
Parliament speaker Igor Grosu said the plebiscite was a chance for Moldovans to "show loudly and clearly that we are Europeans. ... We are not entering Europe, we are returning to it."
UK to delay start of health and safety checks on EU imports – report
The UK government has reportedly told port health authorities it will not “turn on” health and safety checks for EU imports as new post-Brexit border controls begin this month.
A presentation prepared by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) highlighted the risk of “significant disruption” if the new measures were implemented, according to the Financial Times. It made clear that the systems would not be fully ready on time.
In a move designed to avoid big delays, the government said it would ensure the rate of checks was initially “set to zero for all commodity groups”.
The border controls have already been delayed five times over fears that they could cause disruption and further fuel price inflation. In its presentation, Defra admitted to port health authorities that “challenges” still remained within its systems for registering imports of food and animal products.
These challenges could trigger unmanageable levels of inspections, overwhelming ports, it was reported.
“There is a potential for significant disruption on day one if all commodity codes are turned on at once,” it said.
It was not made clear for how long border checks would be suspended but the presentation was said to indicate that the systems would be “progressively turned on” for different product groups.
Business organisations have repeatedly called for the introduction of the new border checks to be delayed until at least October.
The final big change will come in October, with the government requiring safety and security declarations for medium- and high-risk imports, while also introducing a single trade window, which the government says will reduce the number of forms needed for importers.
As of yet, goods coming from the island of Ireland will not require physical checks but the government has said these will be introduced at some point after 31 October this year.
Oh dear, it would appear that all is not rosy in Poland.
No.
As of 2023, Poland has a notable contingent of citizens who express a desire for their country to leave the European Union. Approximately 28% of respondents in Poland either partially or completely agree that their country would fare better outside of the EU1. However, it’s essential to note that this sentiment is not shared by the majority of the population.
Historically, Poland’s stance on EU membership has been relatively stable. Regular polls conducted by the Centre for Public Opinion Research (CBOS) indicate that no more than a quarter of respondents have ever supported leaving the EU. In recent years, this support has gradually waned, reaching a mere 5% in 2019 and 6% in 20212.
Despite occasional political rhetoric, the majority of Poles remain committed to EU membership. For instance, a recent opinion poll found that 81% of respondents would vote to stay in the EU if a referendum were held3. Additionally, 73% of Poles support linking the rule of law to the EU budget3.
While eurosceptic sentiments exist, they do not represent the prevailing view in Poland. The country’s strong ties to the EU, economic benefits, and positive attitudes toward intra-European cooperation have contributed to maintaining its membership within the union14.
Public support in Europe for leaving EU collapses since Brexit, new survey shows
There has been a significant decline in support for leaving the European Union within its member states following the United Kingdom’s Brexit vote, according to a new survey by the European Social Survey.
The period covered by the survey coincides with the tortuous negotiations between the UK and Brussels over Brexit as well as a period of political and economic turmoil in the UK which has been partly blamed on Britain's hard divorce from the EU. It also coincided with the Covid pandemic which saw EU countries working together over the vaccine roll out and travel regulations.
Eurosceptic parties such as Marine Le Pen's far-right National Rally in France, as well as parties in Italy and the Netherlands have in recent years dropped calls for their countries to leave the EU or the single currency but instead advocated for the union to reform.
And yet it would appear that both Poland and Sweden have growing political movements calling for the leaving of the EU Polexit and Swexit.
Growing to what levels in the polls would you say? 20%?
Surely all the calls for reformation by those who are in the EU proves that the model is broken, flawed and therefore no longer fit for purpose.
Support for the EU by members has grown since we left. I wonder why?
They barely squeezed the new immigration policy through and if that's any indication of the friction within, the edifice is starting to look a little iffy.
Have you thought of doing a bit of stand up. Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds? The EU have 27 members. That is 27 countries with their own governments. They have reached an agreement.
You usually refer to the unelected bureaucrats, but didnt the new immigration policy squeeze through as a result of a vote?
Compare that to us. Rwanda. Stopping the boats. Literally taking years to process asylum claims. Allowing asylum seekers to make any number of applications. Asking failed asylum seekers if they would like to be deported. Spending billions on their accommodation. We have around one and a half million illegal immigrants living here. We dont even know that those arriving on visas ever leave. We accept sex offenders, because they may be treated badly if deported. 8 years on from the referendum, we are still unable to implement border controls Controlling our borders is a joke.
It must be difficult to focus wearing both rose tinted glasses and blinkers at the same time Tony, how do you manage.
You should maybe concentrate on your own glasses, rather than worrying about mine.
I find it difficult to believe that you don't understand the anti EU sentiment that is prevalent in many of the member countries. It's the same ignorance that led to the referendum result going the way it did here.
20 -25 % is NOT a small number, that was roughly the amount of people supposedly wanting the UK out prior to the campaign.
I find it difficult to believe that you don't understand the anti EU sentiment that is prevalent in many of the member countries. It's the same ignorance that led to the referendum result going the way it did here.
20 -25 % is NOT a small number, that was roughly the amount of people supposedly wanting the UK out prior to the campaign.
Seems sometimes that's all it takes.
It is obviously not all it takes. It usually requires a majority in favour, and a referendum. There always has been some anti EU sentiment, and probably always will be. There will always be EU criticism, sometimes justified, other times not. You seem to latch onto every little bit of criticism of the EU, whether justified or not, and whether it is true or not. I am not that bothered about the EU, since we have left.
My personal view is that anything Farage is knocking, is probably a good thing.
For instance one of the goals of this bit of legislation, is for them to process asylum applications in 12 weeks. Its a pity we cant do that. We take years. My point really was that the EU has 27 member countries, all of whom have governments, as well as numerous parties, and plenty of politicians, as well as 450 million voters. It is therefore no surprise to me that the odd politician occasionally voices some dissent about the EU. Whether it is true or not, or whether it is justified or not. Or maybe just opinion. Some people listen to nonsense in the press. You yourself were of the opinion that they forced us to buy coal from Poland. You may still be of that opinion. The EU generally gets blamed for stuff they are clearly not responsible for. You latch on to every bit of it.
You are keeping on about this immigration legislation. Yet you havent actually said anything about it. What is your point? It was voted through by a majority. What were you expecting?
The polls since Brexit have shown an increasing majority in favour of staying in. I wonder why?
Here are some notable findings:
Finland: The largest decline in leave support was observed in Finland, where 28.6% of respondents favored leaving in 2016-2017, but only 15.4% expressed the same sentiment in 2020-20221. Netherlands: Support for leaving dropped from 23% to 13.5% between 2016 and 20221. Portugal: Leave support decreased from 15.7% to 6.6% during the same period1. Austria: The percentage of those favoring leave fell from 26% to 16.1%1. France: A similar trend was observed, with support declining from 24.3% to 16%1. Even in countries where leave support remains relatively high, such as the Czech Republic (29.2%), Italy (20.1%), and Sweden (19.3%), there has been a decline since 2016-20171. Spain currently has the lowest leave support at 4.7%1.
Several factors contribute to this shift:
Brexit: Britain’s negotiations to leave the EU and subsequent political turmoil have been widely reported across Europe. Covid pandemic: The pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have prompted many EU citizens to view membership more favorably. Anti-EU parties: Some parties have abandoned Frexit or Italexit policies in favor of reforming the EU from within1. While some countries have expressed interest in leaving, such as Hungary and Poland, the overall trend indicates decreasing support for EU exit2. Italy, in particular, could be the most likely of the “Big Four” member states to consider exiting if Brexit proves beneficial to Britain3.
In summary, the desire to leave the EU has waned significantly across member states, reflecting changing attitudes and geopolitical events in recent years1.
I find it difficult to believe that you don't understand the anti EU sentiment that is prevalent in many of the member countries. It's the same ignorance that led to the referendum result going the way it did here.
20 -25 % is NOT a small number, that was roughly the amount of people supposedly wanting the UK out prior to the campaign.
Seems sometimes that's all it takes.
It is obviously not all it takes. It usually requires a majority in favour, and a referendum. There always has been some anti EU sentiment, and probably always will be. There will always be EU criticism, sometimes justified, other times not. You seem to latch onto every little bit of criticism of the EU, whether justified or not, and whether it is true or not. I am not that bothered about the EU, since we have left.
My personal view is that anything Farage is knocking, is probably a good thing.
For instance one of the goals of this bit of legislation, is for them to process asylum applications in 12 weeks. Its a pity we cant do that. We take years. My point really was that the EU has 27 member countries, all of whom have governments, as well as numerous parties, and plenty of politicians, as well as 450 million voters. It is therefore no surprise to me that the odd politician occasionally voices some dissent about the EU. Whether it is true or not, or whether it is justified or not. Or maybe just opinion. Some people listen to nonsense in the press. You yourself were of the opinion that they forced us to buy coal from Poland. You may still be of that opinion. The EU generally gets blamed for stuff they are clearly not responsible for. You latch on to every bit of it.
You are keeping on about this immigration legislation. Yet you havent actually said anything about it. What is your point? It was voted through by a majority. What were you expecting?
The polls since Brexit have shown an increasing majority in favour of staying in. I wonder why?
Here are some notable findings:
Finland: The largest decline in leave support was observed in Finland, where 28.6% of respondents favored leaving in 2016-2017, but only 15.4% expressed the same sentiment in 2020-20221. Netherlands: Support for leaving dropped from 23% to 13.5% between 2016 and 20221. Portugal: Leave support decreased from 15.7% to 6.6% during the same period1. Austria: The percentage of those favoring leave fell from 26% to 16.1%1. France: A similar trend was observed, with support declining from 24.3% to 16%1. Even in countries where leave support remains relatively high, such as the Czech Republic (29.2%), Italy (20.1%), and Sweden (19.3%), there has been a decline since 2016-20171. Spain currently has the lowest leave support at 4.7%1.
Several factors contribute to this shift:
Brexit: Britain’s negotiations to leave the EU and subsequent political turmoil have been widely reported across Europe. Covid pandemic: The pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have prompted many EU citizens to view membership more favorably. Anti-EU parties: Some parties have abandoned Frexit or Italexit policies in favor of reforming the EU from within1. While some countries have expressed interest in leaving, such as Hungary and Poland, the overall trend indicates decreasing support for EU exit2. Italy, in particular, could be the most likely of the “Big Four” member states to consider exiting if Brexit proves beneficial to Britain3.
In summary, the desire to leave the EU has waned significantly across member states, reflecting changing attitudes and geopolitical events in recent years1.
Firstly regarding the EU immigration policy. I don't care as we are no longer in the EU however, it seems that having just squeezed it through, some countries are already saying that they aren't going to meet the supposed obligations. Mind you at $25,000 per person penalty that was quoted in the press release, it's probably good economics compared to the long term cost of taking them.
As an aside where does all that money go? I'll wager it doesn't go back into helping the poorest members.
That hardly shows a unified approach.
Secondly, you seem to believe that every scare story in the UK associated with Brexit is true instead of realising that Brexit is simply a convenient excuse for every failing.
No drugs, blame Brexit. Higher cost of living, blame Brexit. Awful weather, blame Brexit.
I voted leave and maybe had remain actually campaigned I may have understood more of the ramifications of leaving. However, the continual bleating of the Europhiles about every ill in the UK being down to leaving puts my BS detector on maximum.
I feel that the remainers doth protest too much.
You often, although not always, post salient, erudite, articles in this thread many of which require a great deal of effort to understand. I represent the alternative and post stuff as such. I am in effect the one sentence response to your deep, thoughtful missives.
However, let me finish by saying that as much as I disagree with much of what you post in this thread, I am always happy to read your opinions and absolutely respect them and you.
Comments
The Oscar-nominated Io Capitano, now showing in cinemas, is a sensitive and moving portrait of the trials faced by two teenage boys as they attempt to reach Europe, via unofficial migration routes, from their homes in Senegal. The film is unsparing in its depiction of the violence and danger they face along the way – but what it doesn’t show is how the boys’ journey is shaped by European border policy from almost the moment they set off.
Their first stop, the people-smuggling hub of Agadez, ****, is the capital of a country into which the EU has poured millions of euros in recent years to combat smuggling. It hasn’t halted the trade entirely, but it has forced it further underground. In Libya, where the boys are tortured and trafficked by armed gangs, European governments have striven to keep migrants in place – as painstakingly documented by Sally Hayden in her recent book My Fourth Time, We Drowned – despite the dire threat to their safety.
When the boys eventually make it on to a rusty boat and set off across the Mediterranean for Italy, they enter a space where the EU has curtailed search and rescue operations, and where volunteer rescuers have faced persistent harassment from European authorities. And as migrants’ rights activists in Italy have pointed out, should the passengers reach Italian shores alive, then Seydou – the protagonist of the story, who ends up piloting the boat – may well find himself labelled a smuggler and threatened with prison.
Seen in this light, the EU’s long-awaited pact on asylum and migration, which passed a knife-edge series of votes in the European parliament last week, continues an established trend towards deterrence. Ahead of European elections in June, in which rightwing populist parties are predicted to make significant gains, the pact’s centrist supporters have hailed the legislative package as a victory for the traditional EU values of compromise and moderation. Yet with a heavy focus on security screening and the removal of migrants deemed undeserving, the pact highlights how far Europe’s centre has already shifted to the right on migration – and risks further empowering the radical right it aims to neutralise.
The EU’s problem was never really a lack of common standards on asylum – but a lack of will to enforce them
The pact is an attempt to fix some of the problems that have bedevilled European politics since the refugee crisis of 2015. The new laws allow for enhanced screening and surveillance of irregular migrants at EU borders, with a “fast track” process for asylum applications and greater powers to return people ineligible for asylum to their countries of origin. At the same time, “solidarity” measures aim to set basic accommodation standards across the EU and relieve the pressure on states at the bloc’s physical frontiers. During sudden spikes in the number of people arriving – for instance, if there’s a refugee crisis in a neighbouring region – asylum seekers can be relocated elsewhere in the EU. If hostile states use migration to foment chaos on the EU’s borders, as Belarus and Turkey have both done in recent years, then EU member states will be allowed to take emergency measures to detain migrants or turn them away.
In the words of the European Commission vice-president Margaritis Schinas, it will create “not a fortress Europe, but a well-guarded house, with more secure external borders and clear rules on who is entitled to enter”. Human rights NGOs, on the other hand, warn that in combination, these measures will lead to the increased use of detention at EU borders – for example in the kind of “closed” reception centres that Greece already operates – and an increased risk that people will be sent back to countries where their lives are in danger.
The logic of these measures is that tougher controls will reduce the sense of chaos at the EU’s borders and allow Europe to more efficiently give asylum to those in genuine need. But the plan is undermined by a series of misconceptions. The first is that tougher measures, focused on removing those deemed ineligible for asylum, will lead to the appearance of greater control. The majority of people who take smuggler routes to Europe do so, as official statistics show, because they are fleeing violence and persecution. They do so for a lack of safe, legal options. A record 114 million people are displaced by conflict worldwide today, according to UNHCR, the UN refugee agency.
Second, the EU’s problem was never really a lack of common standards on asylum – but a lack of will to enforce them. Think, for instance, of the revelation last year that the Greek coastguard was abandoning refugees at sea. Greece has faced no real sanctions for this violation. If human rights standards are not respected, then a measure that looks good on paper – a fast-track asylum procedure, for example – can become a recipe for unfair treatment. The UK’s experiment with “fast track” immigration detention, ruled unlawful in 2015, is a cautionary tale here.
Third, the political compromise that the pact represents – it was supported by most centre-right, centre-left and liberal MEPs, though not the Greens or the left, who opposed it on human rights grounds – risks reinforcing the radical right’s framing of migration. Radical right MEPs were perfectly happy to vote for the package’s deterrent measures, while stridently opposing the more humanitarian elements like the proposed EU-wide “relocation” scheme, which they see as an unacceptable constraint on national sovereignty. (France’s Rassemblement National, for instance, said the pact “imposes the distribution of migrants” on EU member states and called for a “defeat” of the project in June’s elections.)
It’s dangerous to try to split the difference on this. The radical right don’t oppose migration because it’s not efficiently managed; they oppose it because they see it as a threat to European identity. Support for these parties is rooted in a widespread sense among some voters that conventional politics has failed, not a mere kneejerk reaction to recent immigration. Without a more comprehensive challenge to their worldview, then the pressure to shift the dial even more towards migration deterrence is only likely to grow.
Even in these circumstances, there is what some human rights NGOs call a “glimmer of hope”. The pact will take several years to implement – the commission doesn’t expect to get going until 2026 at the earliest, and it must still be approved by national governments. It contains some progressive measures, such as a proposal to expand safe, legal routes to asylum with the support of the UNHCR. It’s not too late to argue for measures like these to be expanded, and for the pact’s more authoritarian elements to be reined in. But to do that, Europe needs politicians who are up for the fight.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/the-eu-s-new-migration-pact-is-intended-to-neutralise-the-far-right-it-risks-empowering-it/ar-BB1lGYA6?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=719bcd9d5dd641268accc90de4ee9d85&ei=68
Approved last week by the European Parliament, the bloc's new migration pact promises to shorten security and asylum procedures and increase returns to reduce unwanted immigration from the Middle East and Africa, a high priority for the EU.
Fewer than 48,000 people got in so far this year, according to U.N. data.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/slovakia-will-not-implement-new-eu-migration-rules-says-pm/ar-BB1lIBsc?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=77974c34bc5f4b07b82129871ea2df67&ei=78
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/farage-spoke-crowds-dashed-exit-193212542.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/political-storm-erupts-police-told-172418457.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/betrayed-poll-reveals-brexit-and-partygate-fuelled-public-bitterness-towards-uk-politics/ss-BB1lMh6m?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=fdb612e976fc4c0393d2b9254d1c9910&ei=61
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/brussels-natcon-mayor-was-barred-by-socialists-for-meeting-far-right-turks/ar-BB1lMGqg?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=d4eba6425b334f059ad9828ebba7b063&ei=25
Polls credit Sandu with 35.1% first-round support if an election were held today to 15.8% for Dodon.
They also say that 50.9% of respondents believed that EU membership would improve Moldova's economic prospects, while 30.4% believed the opposite. The EU last December agreed to start membership talks with both Moldova and Ukraine.
Sandu told a meeting with small business owners on Thursday that Moldovans would live better inside the EU.
"Joining the EU is the best thing we can give this and future generations," she said.
Parliament speaker Igor Grosu said the plebiscite was a chance for Moldovans to "show loudly and clearly that we are Europeans. ... We are not entering Europe, we are returning to it."
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/opposition-calls-for-boycott-of-moldova-eu-referendum/ar-AA1ngq8w?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=c659d26e28ee448df604776bd0d7fe8c&ei=30
The UK government has reportedly told port health authorities it will not “turn on” health and safety checks for EU imports as new post-Brexit border controls begin this month.
A presentation prepared by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) highlighted the risk of “significant disruption” if the new measures were implemented, according to the Financial Times. It made clear that the systems would not be fully ready on time.
In a move designed to avoid big delays, the government said it would ensure the rate of checks was initially “set to zero for all commodity groups”.
The border controls have already been delayed five times over fears that they could cause disruption and further fuel price inflation.
In its presentation, Defra admitted to port health authorities that “challenges” still remained within its systems for registering imports of food and animal products.
These challenges could trigger unmanageable levels of inspections, overwhelming ports, it was reported.
“There is a potential for significant disruption on day one if all commodity codes are turned on at once,” it said.
It was not made clear for how long border checks would be suspended but the presentation was said to indicate that the systems would be “progressively turned on” for different product groups.
Business organisations have repeatedly called for the introduction of the new border checks to be delayed until at least October.
The final big change will come in October, with the government requiring safety and security declarations for medium- and high-risk imports, while also introducing a single trade window, which the government says will reduce the number of forms needed for importers.
As of yet, goods coming from the island of Ireland will not require physical checks but the government has said these will be introduced at some point after 31 October this year.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/uk-to-delay-start-of-health-and-safety-checks-on-eu-imports-report/ar-AA1ngiJO?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=c659d26e28ee448df604776bd0d7fe8c&ei=149
As of 2023, Poland has a notable contingent of citizens who express a desire for their country to leave the European Union. Approximately 28% of respondents in Poland either partially or completely agree that their country would fare better outside of the EU1. However, it’s essential to note that this sentiment is not shared by the majority of the population.
Historically, Poland’s stance on EU membership has been relatively stable. Regular polls conducted by the Centre for Public Opinion Research (CBOS) indicate that no more than a quarter of respondents have ever supported leaving the EU. In recent years, this support has gradually waned, reaching a mere 5% in 2019 and 6% in 20212.
Despite occasional political rhetoric, the majority of Poles remain committed to EU membership. For instance, a recent opinion poll found that 81% of respondents would vote to stay in the EU if a referendum were held3. Additionally, 73% of Poles support linking the rule of law to the EU budget3.
While eurosceptic sentiments exist, they do not represent the prevailing view in Poland. The country’s strong ties to the EU, economic benefits, and positive attitudes toward intra-European cooperation have contributed to maintaining its membership within the union14.
You should maybe concentrate on your own glasses, rather than worrying about mine.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/eu-eyes-fresh-brexit-talks-with-labour-as-brussels-hopes-to-reintroduce-freedom-of-movement/ar-AA1nhAdu?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=902483d25d824814b7858b28e50ca599&ei=9
20 -25 % is NOT a small number, that was roughly the amount of people supposedly wanting the UK out prior to the campaign.
Seems sometimes that's all it takes.
It usually requires a majority in favour, and a referendum.
There always has been some anti EU sentiment, and probably always will be.
There will always be EU criticism, sometimes justified, other times not.
You seem to latch onto every little bit of criticism of the EU, whether justified or not, and whether it is true or not.
I am not that bothered about the EU, since we have left.
My personal view is that anything Farage is knocking, is probably a good thing.
For instance one of the goals of this bit of legislation, is for them to process asylum applications in 12 weeks.
Its a pity we cant do that.
We take years.
My point really was that the EU has 27 member countries, all of whom have governments, as well as numerous parties, and plenty of politicians, as well as 450 million voters.
It is therefore no surprise to me that the odd politician occasionally voices some dissent about the EU.
Whether it is true or not, or whether it is justified or not.
Or maybe just opinion.
Some people listen to nonsense in the press.
You yourself were of the opinion that they forced us to buy coal from Poland.
You may still be of that opinion.
The EU generally gets blamed for stuff they are clearly not responsible for.
You latch on to every bit of it.
You are keeping on about this immigration legislation.
Yet you havent actually said anything about it.
What is your point?
It was voted through by a majority.
What were you expecting?
The polls since Brexit have shown an increasing majority in favour of staying in.
I wonder why?
Here are some notable findings:
Finland: The largest decline in leave support was observed in Finland, where 28.6% of respondents favored leaving in 2016-2017, but only 15.4% expressed the same sentiment in 2020-20221.
Netherlands: Support for leaving dropped from 23% to 13.5% between 2016 and 20221.
Portugal: Leave support decreased from 15.7% to 6.6% during the same period1.
Austria: The percentage of those favoring leave fell from 26% to 16.1%1.
France: A similar trend was observed, with support declining from 24.3% to 16%1.
Even in countries where leave support remains relatively high, such as the Czech Republic (29.2%), Italy (20.1%), and Sweden (19.3%), there has been a decline since 2016-20171. Spain currently has the lowest leave support at 4.7%1.
Several factors contribute to this shift:
Brexit: Britain’s negotiations to leave the EU and subsequent political turmoil have been widely reported across Europe.
Covid pandemic: The pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have prompted many EU citizens to view membership more favorably.
Anti-EU parties: Some parties have abandoned Frexit or Italexit policies in favor of reforming the EU from within1.
While some countries have expressed interest in leaving, such as Hungary and Poland, the overall trend indicates decreasing support for EU exit2. Italy, in particular, could be the most likely of the “Big Four” member states to consider exiting if Brexit proves beneficial to Britain3.
In summary, the desire to leave the EU has waned significantly across member states, reflecting changing attitudes and geopolitical events in recent years1.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/12/support-for-leaving-eu-has-fallen-significantly-across-bloc-since-brexit
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/brexit-plans-in-complete-disarray-as-eu-import-checks-delayed-say-businesses/ar-AA1njfqj?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=e6032b566ff94a27876b7fc54d8f9b5a&ei=20
Firstly regarding the EU immigration policy. I don't care as we are no longer in the EU however, it seems that having just squeezed it through, some countries are already saying that they aren't going to meet the supposed obligations. Mind you at $25,000 per person penalty that was quoted in the press release, it's probably good economics compared to the long term cost of taking them.
As an aside where does all that money go? I'll wager it doesn't go back into helping the poorest members.
That hardly shows a unified approach.
Secondly, you seem to believe that every scare story in the UK associated with Brexit is true instead of realising that Brexit is simply a convenient excuse for every failing.
No drugs, blame Brexit. Higher cost of living, blame Brexit. Awful weather, blame Brexit.
I voted leave and maybe had remain actually campaigned I may have understood more of the ramifications of leaving. However, the continual bleating of the Europhiles about every ill in the UK being down to leaving puts my BS detector on maximum.
I feel that the remainers doth protest too much.
You often, although not always, post salient, erudite, articles in this thread many of which require a great deal of effort to understand. I represent the alternative and post stuff as such. I am in effect the one sentence response to your deep, thoughtful missives.
However, let me finish by saying that as much as I disagree with much of what you post in this thread, I am always happy to read your opinions and absolutely respect them and you.