The E,U Are Trying To Force Poland Into Taking

[royfromaus]

a share of the mass influx of migrants into Europe.
The Polish don't want the migrants and Premier has shared this video in support of why they don't want them.
(Why else share it?)

https://twitter.com/MorawieckiM/status/1674855346387537920?s=20

Opions
is he right?
Or should he accept the migrants?
Any other thoughts welcome...

[New Judge]

//Is it possible the super democratic EU will try and put an end to the veto?//

The EU has already abolished the power of veto in many areas and decisions are now taken under "qualified majority voting". Moves are now afoot to end it entirely:

https://www.reneweuropegroup.eu/news/2022-12-14/the-abuse-of-national-vetoes-in-the-eu-must-end

I have a certain sympathy. It would be like trying to run the UK if any one of the regions (say London, Scotland or the South West) could veto any decisions taken by the Westminster Parliament.

That's why it's best that we're out.

[New Judge]

And I forgot to add that vetoes are not democratic. It is hardly recognising the will of the people if 26 of the 27 countries (with a combined population of some 450m people) can be stymied if, say, Malta (population, half a million) objects.

[webbo3]

fender@14:07
\\gulliver loves the eu, so he must be in favour of this edict.//

Where is he/she, its very quiet.

[retrocop]

Oh no Webbo . Just when I was enjoying posting on AB today. Please don't tempt providence. :-(

[Old_Geezer]

Not quite the same as the UK, judge. At least the UK sees itself as a single nation. The EU isn't, but tries to act like a federal block.

[New Judge]

//The EU isn't, but tries to act like a federal block.//

Yes I realise that, OG. And it is one of the enduring criticisms (among many) I have of the EU which others seem not to appreciate and one of the principle reasons why, 30 years ago, I decided I would vote to leave if ever given the chance. I'm glad I did and I'm glad we're out.

But if you a citizen of a member nation you must appreciate this. If you've allowed (or even encouraged) your government to sacrifice many of its decision making powers (which EU membership requires) it is hardly fair if you want majority decisions vetoed by a very small minority. That's can happen when a veto is available.

If you dislike being a member of a wanna-be Federal State, there's only one answer.

[Gromit]

// one of the principle reasons why, 30 years ago, I decided I would vote to leave if ever given the chance. //

I expect your vote in 2992 put John Major into No.10, just in time for him sign us up to the EU (without any referendum or consultation with the public).
:-)

[Gromit]

*1992 (General Election.

[royfromaus]

Strewth

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1675143484792086528?s=20

[New Judge]

//I expect your vote in 2992 put John Major into No.10, just in time for him sign us up to the EU (without any referendum or consultation with the public).//

Just on a point of pedantry, the Maastricht Treaty was signed on behalf of the UK by Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude (though obviously with the agreement of that Nice Mr Major, who was already in No 10, having become PM on the resignation of Mrs Thatcher in 1990). It was signed on 7th February that year whereas the General Election was not until 9th April.

I did vote Conservative in that election (as I have done in every GE I have voted in). The Tory manifesto of that year promised great things of our membership of the EU - none of which I believed and little, if any, of which eventually materialised. However, the alternative, which would have seen Neil Kinnock in No 10, would have made little difference to any of that. However, as much as any Labour supporter could not vote for the Conservatives, I cannot vote Labour under any circumstances. The only difference is I don't insult Labour supporters by referring to them as "Labour Scum" (or similar).

[Gromit]

// The Tory manifesto of that year promised great things of our membership of the EU - none of which I believed and little, if any, of which eventually materialised. //

And the same for the next 25 years. But you still kept betting on the losing horse.

[dave50]

Of course they will take Ukrainian refugees, it's obvious. They don't want Muslims, they will never mix and fit in. They never will in any Western country.

[New Judge]

//And the same for the next 25 years. But you still kept betting on the losing horse.//

The politics of the UK in that quarter century had no accommodation for anything other than the UK's continued membership of the EU. No party likely to form a government proposed any policy to the contrary. There was no question of asking the electorate what they wanted despite the widespread and building disquiet that was obvious across the country with the UK's continued membership. It didn't matter who you voted for; according to all the politicians who mattered, the UK's future was to remain in the EU. There was no "winning horse" to back if you wanted the UK to leave.

Of course we all know how and why that changed. But to suggest that anybody who wanted the country to leave the EU had an option to get that done via a General Election is ridiculous. The UK is possibly unique among mature democracies in seeing a major constitutional change effectively forced by a party that had virtually no representation in the national Parliament (though, ironically, a considerable presence in the Parliament they wished to have no part of).

It is testament to the arrogance of the main parties that they should all ignore the obvious concerns of half the country. It is also disappointing that none of them chose - until virtually forced - to ask the country what they wanted. However, the end justified the means. I don't particularly care how the mechanism to extract the UK from the EU worked, so long as it did,