After the borders came down
Sait Vakmeta misses and watches a video about the motherland he has left.
It isn't exactly scenery or holiday snaps. But an explicit celebration of
Stirring music underlays graphic pictures of rocket launchers being fired and Russian military vehicles exploding, quickly intercut with pictures of men and children performing a dance both wild and stiffly formal, that I in my ignorance would have identified as Cossack dancing.
A tiny boy in a green shirt whirls around, his hand above his head before we are shown a shot of a tank blowing up, the soldiers' bodies thrown in the air. Chuckles of approval.
As a helicopter gunship is bathed in fire, he says: "They landed in a minefield. Their people could not save them."
His wife Kameta adds something to the effect that Chechnya will not be beaten. As he turns to talk to me his son takes over the computer and puts on a game that involves firing big weapons at vehicles.
Not usually one to be bothered by such games, it's a bit more disturbing in view of the real life carnage that preceded it.
We are on the outskirts of .
The couple and their six children, aged between six and 19, have applied for asylum in Poland and now live in a state-run centre for people waiting for their cases to be heard.
There's no doubt it's pretty crowded. Two rooms for eight people. In one we are in, a large triple bed takes up much of the space.
There's a one-ring cooker with a big pot on it, and a makeshift wardrobe by the door. A table and the windowsill serve as a larder for a loaf of bread and some cheese and butter.
They share a big bathroom with the rest of the people on their floor. "It's hard," they say but better than their life in Chechnya where they say there is no medicine, no chance for their children and conditions are much worse than this tiny and rather run down flat.
They are among 245 people living here, almost all of them in families. 
The numbers have increased recently. Last September there were 170; by November 209 and by December 241.
Veoletta Kedziercka, a jolly if cynical Polish woman who runs the centre is in no doubt.
"The number of people here has significantly increased," she says.
"We've seen this since the begining of the autumn. A large influx happened in December and most likely it's connected with Poland joining the Schengen zone."
She adds: "We rather think that they tie up their future with countries a little bit further west than Poland. They dream of going to England. . Mind you, my dream is to live in Norway. But I haven't gone."
Sait and Kameta say they like Poland, but feel they could do better. They think if they made it to England their sons could be trained as sportsmen.
They have lots of talent, they say. Some of their friends have already made it to France and Austria. But they say as a family of eight it is not so easy to travel.
"Sait says the risks are high, with all the kids. ," says Kameta.
All this is pretty much what I expected to hear, and indeed it's why I am here.
But I have a shock coming. I expected them to tell me how they got past the border guards into the country, and after entering illegally claimed asylum.
Not a bit of it. They took a train to the border and went up to the guards and claimed asylum.
"Poland welcome us," they say. They were then granted the right to live in Poland while their case is considered. 
Last year more than 9,000 Chechens did exactly the same thing.
Although they make up the vast majority of people claiming asylum in Poland this way, the Polish Government is quite clear that just about anyone who turns up at the border and claims asylum has to, by international law, be let in.
Around fifty were refused entry last year.
And the same apparently applies to any of the countries along the European Union's long eastern border.
Until the end of last year this was nobody's business but Poland's. But now is complaining of an "avalanche" of Chechens coming into his country.
This isn't legal. Those claiming asylum in Poland aren't allowed to travel elsewhere. But it is happening.
The Polish police are just setting up mobile units to search trains and buses for people attempting to leave Poland into Germany or Slovakia, or indeed on one of the many coaches that leaves everyday for Britain.
But there are, I am told, 30 such units, and an awful lot of buses and trains. And indeed there is no barbed wire or fences along much of the now open border with other EU countries.
Officials rightly point out that once someone has claimed asylum in one EU country, they can't claim it in another.
And what they say is a new, efficient finger-printing system means that if they try, they will be deported back to the country where they first entered the European Union.
Of course that doesn't stop them disappearing into the black economy.
These are early days, less than a month since the borders came down. But it will be interesting to see how efficient and how effective that finger-printing system is.
Or whether, as several of you suggested after yesterday's piece, it matters a jot.
I鈥檓 Mark Mardell, the 大象传媒's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Of course it matters! To desperate British people who have been waiting years for social housing and who are unable to ever buy their own place it matters an enormous amount how many asylum seekers make it to this country! Is that so hard for affluent-and-oh-so-liberal Brits to grasp?
There will naturally be abuses of the Schengen system in this manner. However, the advantages brought to ordinary citizens, particulary those living in Schengen areas, are enourmous.
I grew up in Luxembourg within 25 minutes of the French, German and Belgian borders and it is not just day shoppers who take advantage. Hundreds of thousands of people from those three countries work in Luxembourg everyday and return home in the evenings save enourmous amounts of time. I used to go out for nights out accross the borders too.
I think this is an aspect that some of the more nationalistic of your UK readers forget when discussing Schengen
Schengen is a wonderful thing and Britain should joim as soon as possible. As it is we have to be the only people (along with the Irish and that's only because they are next door to us) who are kept out of enjoying its benefits. What's keeping us out is not nationalism. It's the racist rantings of a few idle do nothings. Have a look at the first post on this threat "desperate British people who have been waiting years for social housing". They couldn't perhaps stop "waiting" and do something about it, instead of blaming foreigners for their own failings? The British people are having to put up with increasingly annoying restrictions on their freedom of movement just to keep these couch potatoes happy.
I don鈥檛 think the Schengen states need worry too much about the influx of illegal immigrants to open borders. The obvious destination for any illegal immigrant into Europe is England. Here we are not part of Schengen, so the government cannot make use of the central immigration database to help find out if they had entered the EU through some other state or made duplicate asylum claims. It has also excluded itself from any access to other resources that may help with illegal immigration. Once here illegal immigrants can easily disappear as the authorities are incapable of keeping track of anyone except maybe legal residents & motorists. Even those they do find are pretty safe as the courts make it virtually impossible to deport them, even if it is to another safe EU state. Social security of course will provide them with sufficient money to stay in reasonable comfort, which is also unlikely elsewhere in the EU.
So the countries which enjoy the open borders need not worry too much, its dear old England, with its closed borders, which only seem to be a hindrance to legal travellers, that is the obvious choice for any illegal immigrant.
"desperate British people who have been waiting years for social housing" could perhaps make an effort to get a job and stop being so desperate.
The only people who have anything to fear from immigration are those who are too lazy to compete for jobs. We are all Europeans and as a hard working British European, I'd rather Britain had a hundred hard working 'immigrants' than even one "desperate British [person] who have been waiting years for social housing". They should stop waiting and do something about it. There is no excuse not to have a job in Britain these days.
Chris, could you tell me what is "racist" exactly about being unhappy with foreigners, who have paid no UK tax, going to the top of the social housing queue ahead of British people - the very people social housing was built for and paid by? Who mentioned race? Not me. And why must such people be "idle do nothings"? You may not be aware of it but there are millions of British tax-paying people on very low incomes who don't have the slightest chance of ever buying their own home. Could you explain to me how you would go about buying a home on around 拢6 per hour anywhere in the UK but especially in the South East? Get real.
I'm an Australia, living in Australia and have traveled and lived in Eastern Europe and Europe.
I do not like Europe simply because it is full of immigrants and has lost that European flavor. I'm not being racist- it's a fact. The same is happening here in Australia! Please if you come to another country, please learn the language and history i.e. if it is a Christian country with Christian values etc, then learn it and show you respect as we would.
Unfortunately it is a lot easier to gain entry into Australia if you are an illegal rather than applying and going through correct procedure. Just look at the rate of Anglo Saxons leaving Britain, it's an amazing statistic.
Simple solution- Countries should spend money and use more political weight in those where the majority of refugees are coming from. Fix the problem at the core. It will take decades but might just preserve Europe. Instead of sending tanks and soldiers to Middle East and Africa perhaps parcels of food, doctors etc?
Children enjoying soldiers being blown into the air, families bearing more children into poverty than they can manage, then expecting someone else to provide for their lively hood? Yes, come eat my bread, I can do without. Come take my home, I will move into the cold. Come fill my schools, my child does not need an education.
There are no more magical places left in the world for the poor and suppressed people to escape to. The currency the woman spent to be driven out of her country in the second article should have been spent on making a better life there, at lest her children would be alive.
Even the illiterate should realize the environment they are born into can only support so much human life, yet so many continue to over populate the earth as if it has no bounds and expect the rest of mankind to make comfort their lives.
It is a sad story, but then, wasn't that the point?
England and America are both targets for liberal journalist.
Dear Mark,
the 大象传媒 is present all over the world and probably has a knowledge base second to none. The stories you tell from Poland are indeed sad, who wouldn't agree with you. Only I do not wish you to get a reputation for telling only sad stories about Europe. You might think about comparing it to the many years of Latinos (many millions by now) entering illegally the US and indeed living there illegally and being exploited. The integrationist policies of the EU, for all their shortcomings, might be a better solution, don't you think?
It is only a few months ago that you where somewhere in Greece reporting critically (quite right) on Olive trees on what I consider to be one of the best programmes on the 大象传媒, the TODAY programme on Radio 4. On the same day however there was a General election taken place in Denmark, you had not a single word to say about that. To talk about "rotten" Olive trees is on thing, "the rotten state of Denmark" as of yore is obviously not rotten enough nowadays for you visit and report about. I suppose, as Danes, we should be grateful for being ignored by you on such a day.
Jorgen
I couldn't agree with Chris (above) more. All those hairdressers, cleaners and bus-drivers complaining about asylum seekers being a priority for social housing and the cost of buying your own home. Really! You're on 12k a year and the average home costs 180k? Why aren't you people re-training to work as solicitors and architects? I'm sure you all have the contacts, money, time and natural ability to triple your salary with a bit of application. Don't tell me you you're disabled or you have kids or relatives to look after or that you're already working 50 hours a week to make ends meet! Get your priorities right - people like Chris want more convenient European travel. And above all, don't expect your own country to give you priority over people from other countries when it comes to social housing.
Mark,
As per my previous post around Christmas, your 10 o鈥檆lock news report never used the word 鈥淪chengen鈥 even though the female Polish border guard said it at least twice, but you chose not to translate it, and the average British viewer will have been left completely in the dark about border free travel across Europe. You didn鈥檛 mention (still) any of the benefits of the barbed wire being removed across frontiers forged in two world wars and cemented (literally in some cases) during the Cold War. By all means discuss concerns over movement of people, but for goodness sake, at some point show a few images of the euphoria from December when towns were reunited as frontier barriers were sawn apart, or show some footage from only 20 years ago when people couldn鈥檛 easily cross even the Slovak-Hungarian border between for example the towns of Komarno (SK) / Komarom (H), one town divided in two in 1919 and reunited for the first time in December 2007 after 90 years of separation. Or of Guben (D) / Gubin (PL) split in 1945. Why not do a report from those towns and show something positive 鈥 the end of history, if you like, for vast swathes of central Europe?
It seems that there needs to be room for compromise. The UK needs to join the Schengen DATABASE - this will be a major step in controlling illegal migration and to work more closely with the EU in sharing and exchanging infomation on unwanted undesirables. These people are not stupid and exploit every loophole possible - the UK is their destination because they know they cannot be sent back to their country of origin or to another EU member.
Once news filters through to such people that after entering an EU member, it will not be possible to be given asylum in Britain, they'll have to think again.
In exchange for the UK joining the Schengen database, we could have the right to control our own borders. If we can work with the EU and Schengen members on this issue, I'm sure they can work with us.
Europe is becoming exasperated with the amount of illegal immigration and organised crime. Working with our EU partners will be a big step in resolving this issue.
With each new arrival, the EU will have to consume just a little more energy it will have to buy from Russia, a little more food whose production it will have to subsidize, a little more medicine its taxpayers will pay for, a little more housing to drive the cost of the rest of the housing stock up. And what will they produce in return? A little more CO2 to help the EU miss its Kyoto targets and the next round of empty promises to reduce CO2 emissions it signs up for. Then after millions of them arrive makeing the EU even less competitive on the world market than it already is, the EU will demand that the US do something to comparably damage its own economy. If there's one thing I love about Europeans, it's how consistently irrational they are. Like the sun rising in the East every day you can always count on it.
Poor and desprate political refugees, as the battered and desperate Chechens, fleeing first Jeltzin's and later butcher Putins genocidial war, are not "illegal immigrants". They are people in deep need for humanitarian aid and support, regardless of any Schengen dispute. Seems to me that most of the postings totally ignore such humanitarian distinctions here ?
Apart from that, the whole Schengen system has a lot of indeed worrying features, when it comes so-called free movement for organized crime, and ond the other hand a very Orwell-like intransparent "Big Brother Registration" system, administered by the Europol and other institutions, but that's another problem of its own.
Schengen is a disaster for everyone but the arrogant 'progressive' pro-EU class. We the regular peoples are burdened because we have to pay more and more taxes to fund not just the armies of bogus asylum seekers but also the increasing armies of government and EU jobs these 'progressives' take up (EU jobs come income tax free).
They are deliberately undermining the national sovereignties and identities of the western countries so they can slowly build their anti-democratic supreme government and control all our lives to the last detail without being subject to democratic control.
In the first half of 2007 German border guards stopped some 470 illegal immigrants on the Polish and Czech borders. Now, only 18 days after the borders came down, some 650 illegals (mostly of Chechen nationality) are already under arrest. And since these are random pick-ups (systematic controls are not allowed anymore) the actual numbers are much higher.
Everybody with a brain could foresee that. Except our Home Secretary and representatives in Brussels because they are too busy with things of higher importance. Sch盲uble with development of new citizen monitoring systems (and 'appropriate modifications' of the German constitution) whereas Brussels is maybe working on a better law concerning the correct bend of import-bananas.
debate call has a hollow ring
Thursday, 10 January 2008
On the day that Europe Minister Jim Murphy called for a "mature debate" on the EU, his Prime Minister was working behind the scenes to make sure the Portuguese would not hold a referendum on the constitutional treaty.
Gordon Brown and French President Nicholas Sarkozy both made phone calls to the Portuguese Prime Minister urging him not to give the people a say.
"This is another clear indication of how democracy is not welcomed by the new state of Europe,鈥 commented Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party.
"Not only is Mr Brown breaking a blatant promise by denying the British people a right to vote on the Constitutional Treaty, but Mr Sarkozy is on record as telling a group of senior MEPs that the French would not be having a referendum or Britain would have to hold one 鈥榓nd then the Treaty would fail.鈥
"Surely the alarm bells are ringing throughout Europe when the leaders of two powerful countries are devoting their time to denying democracy and allowing people to be bulldozed into a new superstate.鈥
As for Mr Murphy calling for a "mature debate", Mr Farage added, 鈥渉e should learn the difference between his left hand and his right hand. While he is claiming that three million jobs would be lost if we withdrew from the EU, a written answer from the government admits they have no such a figure.
"That's not a very mature debate, Mr Murphy."
The government鈥檚 admission on supposed job losses came in answer to a question from UKIP peer Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has drafted three bills in the House of Lords calling for an open and fair cost benefit analysis of British membership of the European Union.
Lord Pearson says he wonders about the government鈥檚 ability to have a proper debate on the EU:
"They are defying reason when they say that the Lisbon Treaty is not the Consitution, even when leaders across the EU openly say that it is.
"I dare the government to have a proper debate on this, rather than dismissing every attempt to let the public know the truth about our membership of the EU."
(Truth of decomcracy from Gordon brown)
Hand them over to the Russian authorities. Also, change the stupid law that everyone can claim asylum. We are no paradise for the poor and needy. We too, had wars but instead of fleeing, we fixed it.
It is easy to complain about immigrant workers entering the EU in general and, as mentioned by JB, the UK in particular, and "stealing the jobs" of European citizens. Meanwhile, multitudes of European discouraged workers-those most likely to complain-do little to make themselves more attractive in the job market. Perhaps some of the money being put into pampering the unemployed of Europe could be redirected to assisting other nations in improving conditions, such that emigrants are less likely to want to leave their homelands. This has the potential to serve the triple purpose of reducing unemployment at home, curbing immigration and improving standards of living abroad. Of course, this is a highly idealistic scenario, but to some degree could form the basis for feasible policies.
France is part of the Schengen area and has its share of entrants from other countries' asylum seekers. Immigration police are pretty active in searching these out and sending them back to their country of entry.
Interesting point is that Jacques Attali is about to propose to the government that such immigrants are a necessary part of the economy (France has one of the highest unemployment figures in Europe!). They do the jobs locals don't want to, or won't do. This argument is also made in the States, in an unpublicised report, apparently. I understand that, if it weren't for Polish lorry drivers, supermarkets in the UK would find it difficult to have necessary night-time and weekend deliveries (how many illegal workers are still picking vegetables, etc in the UK?).
Time for a bit of honesty from politicians (joke).
Mark, I feel disappointed that you seem to pander to the British 鈥榠mmigration hysteria鈥 by picking on examples of illegal immigration 鈥 which has happened since time immemorial and will continue to happen until the end of time, with or without Schengen 鈥 but remain silent on the key issue of the UK being the only EU member, out of 27, to have (voluntarily) opted out from Schengen. Admittedly, Ireland is also out, but NOT voluntarily, having been 鈥榝orced out鈥 by the British opt-out, for obvious reasons related to Northern Ireland.
As you and the rest of the media and politicians seemed to have agreed on a 鈥榩act of silence鈥 on the issue, other posters and myself have to fill this gap. So in this respect I would like to say that the British opt-out from Schengen, in my opinion, amounts to double hypocrisy and has little, if any, democratic legitimacy.
First, it amounts to double hypocrisy because,
1. This country is part of the European UNION, not part of the EEC anymore. There cannot be real union (and no, I am not talking about a superstate!) between the UK and the EU if there is a policed border separating them, which only certain people can cross.
2. Being part of a SINGLE market is incompatible with a border. Freedom of movement has to apply to ALL the elements that make up a single market: 1. Goods, 2. Workers, 3. Capital, AND 4. PEOPLE, i.e. consumers of goods and services. As there is no TRUE freedom of movement of PEOPLE between the UK and the rest of the EU (e.g. somebody legally resident in France but non-EU national, cannot cross the border to the UK without a visa, which costs time, money and they are not too likely to obtain anyway...) the UK is the facto part of a free TRADING BLOCK with the rest of the EU, but not part of a SINGLE market anymore, contrary to what was voted by the British people by referendum in 1975.
And this brings me to my second point: The democratic legitimacy of the UK鈥檚 opt-out is more than questionable, as the original British referendum of 1975 to join the then EEC could perfectly be, from a strictly legal point of view, interpreted as a mandate to opt-in to Schengen - and even more, to the euro - as both these key EU pillars are related, in one way or the other, to the development of a true and authentic SINGLE market in the EU, but definitely not as a mandate to opt-out from either of these pillars. And, even more importantly, let鈥檚 not forget the 鈥榮mall print鈥: In 1975 this country agreed to abide by the Treaty of Rome, which contains the famous clause of 鈥楨VER GREATER UNION鈥. Perhaps the majority of British people didn鈥檛 read the small print. It happens: very few of us do read the small print on their mortgage or credit card terms and conditions, but are still bound by it! Therefore, there is little democratic legitimacy in the British opt-outs from Schengen and the euro, as they were decided purely by politicians, rather than by the British people in referenda. In fact, Denmark and Sweeden have a lesson in democracy for the UK: They only opted out from key EU pillars, e.g. the euro, after popular referenda.
Needless to say, the British government and the opposition are totally uninterested in these democratic subtleties. As perfectly put by Chris at #3, they prefer to pander to the racism and xenophobia of the powerful anti-immigration lobby and media, whose 鈥榣ogic鈥 is the following: 鈥楤ritish people have the God-given right to emigrate whenever and wherever they choose (and they do so by the millions, with far more British people living abroad than non-British living in the UK) but that doesn鈥檛 apply to foreigners wanting to come to Britain.鈥
All of you who grumble about the UK not being in Schengen should remember that it is in order to keep these dangerous Norwegian, Icelandic and Luxemburg terrorists out of your beloved country
Isn't it a bit strange that all those Chechens choose to come to Poland rather than to oil/gas-rich Russia proper?
After all, according to state-controlled Russian media situation in Chechnya is getting better and better with every passing day and that's why 99% of Chechens voted in the recent election for Mr. Putin and his party.
The idea that Schengen would be a benefit to travellers to the UK is not reflected in practical reality. Having lived on the edge of the Schengen area for a while, I agree that the removal of border checks on land is a useful thing. But when you have to fly, travel by boat or train to the UK, which all require security checking anyway, how much more hassle does checking identity documents add? In most cases you have to do it due to the nature of the method of transport!
I am a non-monolingual, committed British European who has benefitted from the acquis in terms of mobility, but I am glad the UK is strengthening its border rather than abolishing it. The UK joining Schengen would be a deterimental and somewhat pointlessly symbolic gesture.
People !
What borders ? What politics ?
What "Us" and What "they" ?
Realise that we are ALL ONE
JoeHoch #8
"Dear Mark,
the 大象传媒 is present all over the world and probably has a knowledge base second to none."
Earth calling Joe Hoch, Earth calling Joe Hoch. Time to come down out of the clouds Joe and return to the ground, nap time is over.
"You might think about comparing it to the many years of Latinos (many millions by now) entering illegally the US and indeed living there illegally and being exploited. The integrationist policies of the EU, for all their shortcomings, might be a better solution, don't you think?"
Denmark has done a great job integrating all those Moslems who came there. They hardly minded those cartoons portraying Mohammed as a suicide bomber published a while back at all and the shooting of Van Gogh because he was producing a film about the way Moslem men treat women like animals and the murder of the politician Pin Foteyn who wanted a moratorium on Moslem immigration were just flukes. European Moslems all embrace freedom of speech and welcome all opinions being voiced publicly even those they don't agree with. They don't care that they can't get jobs or ever be treated as equals. Can five million happily unemployed French Moslems be wrong? And what about those British Moslems who blew up the underground or the doctors who wanted to blow up the airport? Just minor exceptions hardly worth mentioning.
BTW Joe, the Latino Governor Richardson of New Mexico just dropped out of the race for President of the United States. That leaves only an African American and a woman as candidates from minorities still in the contest....oops, women are not a minority in the US, they are the majority sex.
I'm disappointed that so many people know so little about the European Union. The Europhobes should be informed before the complain. They could for example: buy a book about the European Union or searching the internet. Then they will find out the following:
- The European Union has Three Pillars: EC, CFSP, PJCC. The EC pillar is mainly supranational and other two are mainly intergouvernmental.
- Schengen is NOT a part of the European Union, but a seperate traety.
- With the help of Schengen and Schengen database it will be very simple to track down criminals.
- The European Pariament is elected by the Citizens of the European Union.
- Every State has one represantative in the Council and the Commision.
- Without the European Union, you would be 5%-10% poorer.
Just some facts for the people who are to lazy to inform themself.
@ JorgeG (20)
you forgot one thing. The democratic legitimacy of the EU itself is very close to zero. We have the scandalous situation that the elites are frantically trying to block referendums everywhere. Wheres the democracy in that?
Another thing, there is no mandate for a political union or 'ever closer union' everywhere. Polls clearly indicate the majority in EVERY member state want a referendum. Why do the socalled 'progressive' elites want to deny us one so desperately?
Also, with the 'new' treaty, legislative powers are effectively being moved FROM national parliaments to government ministers (via the European Council). How on earth can anyone stand back to see the national parliaments being rendered effectively useless? That is a fact!
National parliaments have almost no powers left to block Commission/Council legislation. Therefore we can say, the legislative branch effectively doesn't exist anymore as the executive branch has usurped its powers. Already some 85% of legislative powers reside with Commission/Council (Council = national government ministers). Their legislation cannot be blocked by any national parliament. This amounts to a blatant violation of the separation of powers (or rather, effectively eliminating one of the branches, leaving just executive and judicial).
Transferring legislative powers from parliaments to executives has historical precedent. In Germany, 1933, the parliament 'voluntarily' gave its powers to the executive. The phrase was "Enabling act". Therefore, we should refer to the new treaty as "Enabling treaty".
Mark, or anyone, please explain why transferring legislative powers from parliament to executives (government ministers in the European Council) is such a grand idea?
It is revealing that you prefer to blog on an obscure immigration problem than on the Eurobarometer survey of European citizens' opinion about the EU
maybe the british now understand better how we west australians feel about hundreds of british people arriving every week in western australia and taking our jobs and pushing our house prices through utterly unreasonable levels just so they can have their home by the seaside. they refuse to integrate into australian society and segregate their kids and won't even drink with us and complain about our schools because the other kids don't meet with their standards of approval. it's disgraceful, really.
EU debate call has a hollow ring
Thursday, 10 January 2008
On the day that Europe Minister Jim Murphy called for a "mature debate" on the EU, his Prime Minister was working behind the scenes to make sure the Portuguese would not hold a referendum on the constitutional treaty.
Gordon Brown and French President Nicholas Sarkozy both made phone calls to the Portuguese Prime Minister urging him not to give the people a say.
"This is another clear indication of how democracy is not welcomed by the new state of Europe,鈥 commented Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party.
"Not only is Mr Brown breaking a blatant promise by denying the British people a right to vote on the Constitutional Treaty, but Mr Sarkozy is on record as telling a group of senior MEPs that the French would not be having a referendum or Britain would have to hold one 鈥榓nd then the Treaty would fail.鈥
"Surely the alarm bells are ringing throughout Europe when the leaders of two powerful countries are devoting their time to denying democracy and allowing people to be bulldozed into a new superstate.鈥
As for Mr Murphy calling for a "mature debate", Mr Farage added, 鈥渉e should learn the difference between his left hand and his right hand. While he is claiming that three million jobs would be lost if we withdrew from the EU, a written answer from the government admits they have no such a figure.
"That's not a very mature debate, Mr Murphy."
The government鈥檚 admission on supposed job losses came in answer to a question from UKIP peer Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has drafted three bills in the House of Lords calling for an open and fair cost benefit analysis of British membership of the European Union.
Lord Pearson says he wonders about the government鈥檚 ability to have a proper debate on the EU:
"They are defying reason when they say that the Lisbon Treaty is not the Consitution, even when leaders across the EU openly say that it is.
"I dare the government to have a proper debate on this, rather than dismissing every attempt to let the public know the truth about our membership of the EU."
get brown out come on Torys
#25, Jan, 鈥楽chengen is NOT a part of the European Union, but a separate treaty.鈥
I鈥檓 afraid this is not totally correct. It started as a separate treaty mainly because of the reluctance of certain then EEC members to go down that route (I suspect the UK was the main reluctant 鈥榩arty鈥, now left as the only 鈥 voluntary 鈥 opt-out). But it was incorporated into the EU legislation by the Treaty of Amsterdam. If in doubt, check here
#26, Marcel 鈥楾he democratic legitimacy of the EU itself is very close to zero鈥. It really depends how you look at it. Perhaps you may be right. The defunct EU Constitution was ratified by 18 out of 27 EU members (i.e. a two thirds majority), including 鈥榊es鈥 votes in popular referenda in two countries, but still it was rejected. True democracy, in my opinion, would only happen in the following scenario: Popular referenda across the EU in one single day for all countries, with a qualified majority of EU countries and citizens required to approve the Treaty (or whatever the subject of the referendum may be). That would be true democracy, and I don鈥檛 think you or the major British parties would like it, because with that true democracy the UK would be now inside Schengen and the euro, as the majority of countries and EU citizens approve of them, or alternatively, it should have had to leave the EU, which is what it should have probably done long ago.
In any case, I still struggle to understand what the Eurosceptics want. The position of the Tories is something along these lines. 鈥楬ate the EU, but don鈥檛 really want to leave it, fancy instead being a spanner in the works鈥. The position of the Labour party is: 鈥榃e want to be at the heart of Europe, but first we have the following list of 100s of 鈥榬ed lines鈥 and opt-outs: some of them because we want them and most of them because the unelected bureaucrats of the Sun and the Mail demand them.鈥 Not very coherent or grown up policies I must say.
Marcel, you say the EU is undemocratic. OK, that is debatable but you are entitled to your opinion, but what you don鈥檛 say is what you would like to see done about it. I suggest that you have two options: a) If the majority of the British people are against remaining in the EU, then the democratic deficit is happening here. You should go out to the streets to demand an 鈥業n or Out鈥 referendum. If, on the contrary the majority of British people want to stay in the EU, then you should abide by the majority. It鈥檚 quite simple, isn鈥檛 it?
To Tommy R
What do you know about Chechens really? Apart from what mass media was feeding you for years? Did you know that in late 80s and beginning of 90s they killed, robbed, raped, enslaved, discriminated the whole non-Chechen population of Chechnya? And that was well before war has started. There were in between 350 000 and 400 000 non-Chechens: Russians, Ukrainians, other Caucasian ethnic groups, Jewish, Polish, Tartars etc. Today officially there are 5000. In fact much less than that - does it worry you a bit?
No-one is prosecuting Chechens in Russia, there are huge Diasporas of them everywhere. They have housing, support and they are receiving lots of money from the Russian Government.
This people want to come and sit on the necks of the EU taxpayers. If you happy with that - why not to take a Chechen family to live with you in your house? I wonder how many days we have to wait until you will sing the different song?
The need for common measures at external borders derives from the changes introduced by the Single European Act in 1987, approved by Margaret Thatcher and largely implemented under the guidance of a Commissioner from the UK (Lord Cockfield) under QMV (also introduced at the time).
The text (Article 13) reads "The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty".
The UK and Ireland are bound fully by this provision other than in relation to "control of persons" at their external frontiers.
All aspects of migration need to be taken together: (i) genuine asylum-seekers (ii) illegal (economic) migrants (iii) legal migrants and (iv) EU citizens moving freely within the EU, although each category is subject to specific rules.
All Member States try to carry the minimum burden e.g. the decision by Germany and Austria (arguably the two countries benefiting most in economic terms from enlargement) to delay free movement of labour until the last possible momement (2011 and 2013 in the case of Romania and Bulgaria).
The issues are inter-connected e.g. the "regularisation" of illegal migrants in any one Member State allows them to move - in theory at least - between Member States.
Member States need to get their act together. The Lisbon Treaty will help them to do so.
The 1987 decision remains a momentous one, the full historic significance of which is only now being fully recognised.
@pampero (27)
No one takes the Eurobarometer seriously, and not without good reason. Once the Eurobarometer says 'X', you can usually bet on 'Y'.
Its like polling Labour party members asking them if they approve of the existance of Labour.
Mark (24)
Dear Mark,
thanks for putting your finger on it, on the state of present day Denmark, that is. It should and must not be ignored nor indeed other events and developements here around us. The American example, you give has a good ring about it. Considering that the US is the immigration country "par exellance" in modern times, it seems not to have "followed through". On the subject of president you will know that anybody aspiring to this office has to have been born in the US. Istn't it funny that even the most oldfashioned in Europe accept foreigners in their Royal Houses. When it comes to presidents, what about "the Hungarian" (famed for "his Fair Ladies") now residing at the Elisee Palace. Or what about the Ukrainian born, sometime immigration camp dweller in Germany and now President of that country Mr. K枚hler.
Darwin and Wallace have tought us about Evolution. Misguided people have interpreted this as the survival of the fittest, meaning the strongest. "Cultural Evolution" rather than the "Confrontation of Cultures" must be the solution. This very Blog, may I humbly suggest, is part of the solution.
Europe chose to ignore the slaughter in Chechnya so now it shouldn't be surprised that people run away from there. Same story applies to other conflicts. Stop moaning, as you would do the same in their place, get your head out of the sand (or another celebrity tv show)and show some interest.
Especially next time when you ask what is our army doing in Darfur or Afganistan.
Also, stop confusing illegal migrants and asylum seekers. This really isn't the same thing.
@ somebody (27)
Some facts about your 'facts'.
-The European Parliament may be elected, but it is not democratic. It has no powers, little influence, cannot impose an agenda or form some sort of 'executive'. The EU is not at all democratic and the parliament exist solely to enable the EU to cloak itself in a veneer of democracy. The real power lies with the unelected unaccountable class.
-The claim that we'd be 5-10% worse off without the EU, is utterly ludicrous. In fact, most of us would be better off without all those 'one size fits all' directives and regulations. The EU is a wealth drainer, not a wealth generator.
The problem with EU-philes such as yourself is, that you know fully well that you are lying. I know exactly how the EU works and I don't like it. I always find that EU-philes are shockingly uninformed about how the EU really works, and most of the time the EU-phile crowd rehashes the same propaganda over and over again. As I explained before, the EU is a direct attack on parliamentary democracy.
I'll ask the questions specifically to you: how is it a good thing that legislative powers are removed from the national directly elected parliaments and subsequently 'given' to the European Council and Commission, which consist of unelected politicians? How is this not a major step back for democracy? Why should government ministers now also enjoy near full legislative powers through the European Council and should they be able to overrule national parliaments? Is that a good thing?
I am awaiting your answer. Please enlighten us how it is a good thing that national parliaments have little legislative power left.
joehoch #36
I wasn't just talking about the current state of Denmark, I am talking about all of Europe. IMO, it is one vast racist, sexist, boiling pot ready to explode. While the terrorists who destroyed the WTC and part of the Pentagon on 9-11-01 were ALL from foreign countries sent to the US for the explicit purpose of committing these crimes, many of the terrorists acts in Europe and not just by Islamofascists are by people who are born and spend their lives there, utterly disenfranchised with no hope of ever becoming an integrated part of the larger society. Yes America has its small number of Timothy McVeighs but that is different besides just being a tiny minority outside the mainstream, these mentally ill people could be part of the society as a whole if they wanted to, McVeigh and his conspirators were white average people of no racial or ethnic distinction.
When I lived in Europe about 35 years ago, America was in the throes of dealing with its longstanding racial problems. Europeans chided me about what a racist nation America was but were completely convinced they had no such problem because they were so much "better" than America. Actually, what they did was ignore the reality of their situation and of the prevailing attitudes pretending they just didn't exist. This is not tolerance, it's stupidity. At this point, the US is probably about 50 to 75 years ahead of the EU in race relations, not perfect but much better.
Islam has no problem in the US as a religion. It will be tolerated and accepted as just one more of many so long as it remains a system of beliefs and rituals between individuals and their god. If and when it manifests itself as a political movement or in any other way challenges the system of laws which exist in the US, those involved will become enemies of the state and will be captured and prosecuted. In America's democratic society, it is not legal to advocate the violent overthrow of the US government and the only way any laws relating to religion for or against can be passed would be for an amendment to the Constitution, something very unlikely.
The office of President of the United States of America is the ONLY office which requires that the office holder be born in the US. This is one of the elements those who crafted the most ingenious system of government for infinitely diverse people to live with each other incorporated into the structure. It could be amended but that is not likely either. By contrast, the so called EU Constitution and its pared down "Son of EU Constitution" the treaty now being shoved down European throats is a vast clumsy incomprehensible and probably inconsistent prescription for a bureaucratic dictatorship. I'm happy to stick with the one we've got here.
The goverment as let us down with EU by not telling us the truth what it intails and it means the loss of the nation state democracy as gone through the window and Britain is sleep walking into the trap and is now controlled by foreigners.It only fair for the goverment to tell the british nation the truth about what the EU is really about.pro Eu OR anti we should have a say.
As stated by another contributor, the Schengen acquis was integrated into the legal order of the Union (first and third pillar) by the Treaty of Amsterdam. It was at this point that the UK (with Ireland in its train) sought their by now notorious opt-out/opt-ins.
The Treaty of Lisbon will abolish the distinction between the first and third pillars and ensure that only the one set of legal instruments is used (subject to a full supervision role for the Commission and control by the European Court of Justice).
There is a good possibility that the UK (and Ireland, which has attached a declaration to the Treaty of Lisbon that it will do so) will opt-in to many of the more important measures as they will be on solid legal ground rather than bogged down in the current legal imbroglio. (An example would be the European Arrest Warrant which has been implemented in a very disjointed way and been the subject of constitutional challenge, notably in Germany)
The difference in attitude between the "Continent" and the UK/IRL can be attributed to a great extent to the fact that the latter are islands whereas for other Member States what was mainly at issue was freeing up land borders. The main motivation for all parties (including the UK) was economic. One could hardly allow the truck to pass a land border and still insist on checking its driver.
A strong argument can be made that, had Schengen been applied only to land borders, a lot of subsequent difficulty could have been avoided. Because of the need for security and ticketing for travel by sea or air, formal passport checks have been replaced by other identity checks (and Schengen makes provision for this, also in the case of land borders but away from them).
Some poetry to fit the occasion. (Seumas Heaney; "The Cure at Troy" - translation Sophocles).
History says, Don't hope
On this side of the grave
But then, once in a lifetime
The longed-for tidal wave
Of justice can rise up,
And hope and history rhyme.
I understand these words were written in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Of course, the only land border the UK has is with the Republic of Ireland.
And before this they had only to get to the Finnish border (with Russia - even less borders to sneak across than getting to Poland) or to the German border and ask for asylum... the expansion hasn't changed anything much. Okay, the authorities are slightly more accomodating - but is that really such a big difference?
* 33.
* At 10:12 PM on 14 Jan 2008,
* nfb wrote:
"What do you know about Chechens really? Apart from what mass media was feeding you for years? Did you know that in late 80s and beginning of 90s they killed, robbed, raped, enslaved, discriminated the whole non-Chechen population of Chechnya? And that was well before war has started. There were in between 350 000 and 400 000 non-Chechens: Russians, Ukrainians, other Caucasian ethnic groups, Jewish, Polish, Tartars etc."
Actually, I'm a little confused by this. What, for example, where all these non-Chechens doing in Chechnia -and why were they there? In this context, what exactly defines "Chenians" from "non-Chechians"?
If the Chechens invited these people to their country -or these people went there voluntary -why did they go (or stay) if they knew they were so unwanted and in such a dangerous position?
The legal problems surrounding the ivasion of Iraq -and perhaps the invasions of Afghanistan (by both Russian and later "international" forces) suggests that international law is not really mature enough (or enforcable enough) to prevent genocide in various ways. Sometimes a country will invoke "national sovereignty" to prevent outside interference -while at another time the same country may well destroy the national sovereignty of another country in its own interests.
Prsumably, various "invasions" in a range of forms -and the resulting resistance against them -is the cause of many international problems and unresolved violence.
Is there any point when immigration numbers are just too high?
For overcrowding reasons?
Every time there is a domestic war Britain gets the load of immigrants fleeing.
How many hospitals and hotels do we have? How many fruit pickers do we need?
Then liberals complain when we send in troops to try to sort out these countries.
Thanks for all your comments and a belated happy new year. I particularly wanted to reply to Alex and JoeHoch who make similar points: that often my coverage of the European Union is negative. The trite response first: news is often negative. It鈥檚 the one plane that crashes that gets reported not the thousand that don鈥檛. Similarly it is our job to report potential flaws, loopholes and errors in systems rather than just their benefits.
That is precisely the reason I chose to highlight the 鈥渙live tree issue鈥 with the intention of showing why the EU fails its audit year after year, and to raise the question of whether it was the fault of the nation states rather than the EU itself, rather than a Danish elections which although might have fascinated me and a few others didn鈥檛 raise any big issues outside Denmark (and so would not have got on the Today programme or Ten O鈥機lock News).
It鈥檚 true I haven鈥檛 done a piece on the benefits of Schengen but I did a feature before Christmas about my experience of borders and dislike of what they can involve. I think had Britain been directly involved I definitely would have done a piece on the day. Although personally I think the benefits for individual travellers are so obvious that they hardly need stating on the news.
But whether it is Schengen or plane crashes, I agree it is important we journalists put things into context and don鈥檛 suggest that the exception is the rule. And JorgesG, yes I am worried about what you call 鈥減andering to the immigration hysteria鈥. I went to Poland with some misgivings about the way the debate on immigration is handled in the media and the way it is an easy sell as a story.
But I think you can see from some comments here that it is of great concern to many people. Frank F is right - the Czech, German and Austrian papers are full of stories about this. It's my job to inform the debate, tell people the facts and in this case, highlight one way in which illegal immigration may be a bit easier. Then it鈥檚 up to people to make up their own minds what they think about it.
But I am not so na茂ve as to deny that a concerted push by the media highlighting an issue can encourage people to think of it as a serious problem. If we reported day after day the increasing number of cats in Essex you might assume we thought it was an unappealing state of affairs, even if we didn鈥檛 say so directly.
I think it is very important that people (whether it鈥檚 The Economist in their end of year issue or our own Evan Davies) put the counter argument and raise the potential benefits of migration as a balance to the assumption of some that it must be a bad thing for the host nation. Illegal immigration is slightly different. It is, after all, illegal and so presumably deemed harmful by governments and people.
But while I will heartily protest when ever the 大象传媒 is described as having the values of the 鈥榣iberal left鈥 we also should not adopt the values of the 鈥榠lliberal right鈥 or anybody else.
Just a very quick point to those who argue Chechens don鈥檛 need to leave their homeland, and if they do they must be terrorists or bandits. I have no doubt that the migration of the families I spoke to were economically motivated, although they would say that was because of the collapse of their society. I haven鈥檛 been there and haven鈥檛 the right to make a judgement. But 9,000 of them arrived in Poland last year. That鈥檚 an awful lot of terrorists or bandits.
Mark,
I do not think that the point being made was that your coverage is often negative but that it may sometimes lack an appropriate historical perspective, admittedly difficult to conjure up at short notice.
Also, could some definitions be agreed for the debate?
One country's immigrant is another country's emigrant. What people moving have in common is the description of what they are literally; migrants. These include millions of UK citizens enjoying retirement in the sun courtesy of the provisions of the EU treaties. ("Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty - Article 18 EC - and by measures adopted to give it effect").
Countries that are a magnet for migrants should be lauded for their courage in following through on their treaty commitments to allow free movement and encouraged in whatever steps are necessary to make it work, balancing appropriate security measures with the necessary protection for civil liberties.
Just as the internet has made it feasible for the present unwieldy Union to function - your blog is a testament to that - various technological innovations described under the general term of "e-borders" are also coming into existence.
One is reminded of the words attributed (although never, apparently, uttered) by the UK delegate at the Messina conference (1955) ""Gentlemen, you are trying to negotiate something you will never be able to negotiate. But if negotiated, it will not be ratified. And if ratified, it will not work." before, supposedly, he walked out.
As many other contributors have pointed out, the position of some in the UK seems to be nearing this type of watershed.
To Denis O鈥橪eary,
While your contributions to this blog are among the most articulate, one doesn鈥檛 quite know where you stand in the argument. Although your name sounds Irish, at times you seem to be stating the 鈥榦fficial鈥 British position, for example:
鈥楾he difference in attitude between the "Continent" and the UK/IRL can be attributed to a great extent to the fact that the latter are islands whereas for other Member States what was mainly at issue was freeing up land borders. The main motivation for all parties (including the UK) was economic. One could hardly allow the truck to pass a land border and still insist on checking its driver.鈥
With regards to the 鈥榠sland excuse鈥 for the British opt-out, I would say the following:
1. The Euro tunnel works, to a large extent, as a land border with the continent. The only difference is that you cannot cross it by foot, but other than that I really cannot see the difference. Needless to say there are plenty of trucks crossing this tunnel every day and I am absolutely sure that the UK border officials (even more now with the revamped border police, the BIA) 鈥榮till insist on checking the driver鈥.
2. What about Malta, Iceland and Cyprus (the latter technically in Schengen but pending implementation)? They are all islands and, contrary to the UK, there is no 鈥榯unnel鈥 connecting them with the continent. Also, they don鈥檛 seem to have any problem being part (in the near future in the case of Cyprus) of Schengen. With regards to Ireland, does anybody in their right mind think that they would have opted out were it not for the UK (see wiki link below in this respect)? So that leaves four islands 鈥榦ut of sync鈥 with your argument.
The 鈥榠sland鈥 factor is an interesting alibi, officially made by the FCO in 2005, but in reality, it seems to me that there really are other factors behind the British opt-out:
1. Xenophobia. This could be only MY opinion, but I am glad to say that a beacon of the British establishment that could never be accused of anticapitalist or libertarian, the FT, has published this in its pages: 鈥楾he UK's failure to join the Schengen agreement is an example of costly xenophobia.鈥
2. The 鈥極rwellian tradition鈥. It is no coincidence that the UK has the largest number of CCTV cameras per head of population in the world AND it is also the only EU country, out of 27, that has a problem with Schengen. Both policies are in the same 鈥極rwellian鈥 wavelength. And to those of you who are cynical about this opinion, perhaps it would be useful to highlight the fact that the ONLY aspects of Schengen in which the UK has expressed any interest are police cooperation AND, in particular, getting its hands on the Schengen Information System database. Sounds familiar?
3. UK not sharing basic EU values. Mr. O鈥橪eary, you say that 鈥楾he main motivation for all parties (including the UK) was economic.鈥 This is a half truth or even an untruth. You quote an article from the Single European Act that is related to the internal market. But in the Treaty Establishing the European Community, article 61 states the EU aim 鈥榯o establish progressively an area of freedom, security and justice鈥, i.e. irrespective of the single market. The simple truth is that this ideal of the EU as an 鈥榓rea of freedom, security and justice鈥 is not shared (to its full meaning, i.e. Schengen) by the UK, as it (its dominant political forces) sees the EU mainly as a glorified 鈥榯rading block鈥 and 鈥 to a large extent, given its opt-outs from the euro, Schengen and the Rights Charter 鈥 this is basically what the UK has or is part of.
What about Malta, Iceland and Cyprus (the latter technically in Schengen but pending implementation)? They are all islands and, contrary to the UK, there is no 鈥榯unnel鈥 connecting them with the continent. [#47]
Do you know how many illegal immigrants from Sahel get to EU via Canary Islands?
[Been there, seen that]
Replying to JorgeG, the distinction I make relates to the physical differences between land and sea/air borders. You can walk across a land border. There is no need for a means of transport (which invariably implies a ticketing or security control).
The point was illustrated in reverse by another contributor (Gareth #24). The fact that the UK maintains passport controls makes little or no real material difference as, were it to abandon them, this would remove little from the inconvenience of the ticketing and security checks that would remain.
As to Cyprus and Malta, as their main sources of income is tourism from mainland Europe, I assume that this outweighed any other consideration. In any case, they will maintain ticketing and security controls.
Iceland is in Schengen as it is the only means of maintaining the long-standing Nordic travel area.
Incidentally, the Association of Senior Police Officers in the UK is on record as saying that it sees no benefit in maintaining passport controls i.e. it would welcome full membership of Schengen.
I am not trying to justify the position of any Member State. The facts can speak for themselves. I do not doubt that a wide range of considerations lie behind the stance of the UK (as evident from other contributions by me).
As to the motivation driving the EU, it is overwhelmingly, in my opinion, economic, across all areas of policy. An example would be the environment. Member States are less concerned about protecting the planet than they are their own economic interests cf. the recent entertaining and informative discussion on CO2 standards for motorcars.
As to the Area of Freedom Security and Justice, the Member States willed it but did not provide the necessary means (i.e. the Community method and legal instruments) to bring it into existence. And they are still unwilling to do so having retained a right of proposal for Member States even under the Lisbon Treaty. This will inevitably see competition to see who can first table a proposal, or cook one up beforehand (as happened, de facto, in the case of the Schengen Treaty and more recently, the Prum Treaty).
It simply is not a case of UK (and a reluctant Ireland) versus the rest. The situation is more complex than that. Why, for example, should some 90,000 Poles find employment in Ireland and be denied the opportunity to work in the countries right beside them?
The problems have to be tackled in terms of migration (which, a contributor from the Australia has underlined, Chris Pannell #30, are not confined to Europe) and appropriate compromises found. It is on the basis of economic self-interest, and the recognition that this requires compromise and the rule of law (i.e. an impartial referee), that Europe has been built.
Forget the vision thing. The voters of France and the Netherlands have shown that they do not like it (and neither do other electorates).
to trevor batten
It is NOT the matter of what they were doing in Chechnya. To kill a child, a teacher, a doctor for just been Russian - is an unforgivable and hideous crime. Yet you trying to justify it.
No-one would go to live and work there on their own will. Majority were sent by Stalin's order after the war from the ares devastated by Hitler's army. Some been sent to work there as a specialists in the industry. And please, don't forget, that Bolsheviks gave Chechnya vast amount of land were the Russian Cossacks used to live. Now these areas completely Russians-free.
In fact, this is extremely complicated issue, by taking one side you will not make it easier to understand the truth.
To Mark Mardell:
9000 per year? That is not much - Dudaev had 200000 men - most of them were murderers and bandits. And they are coming to live in Europe with their large families, so the figures are accurate. Most of so called 'refugees' are bandits but you don't believe it. Well, residents of Lintz and Ostende learned it in the hard way. You will see it sooner or later yourself too. Good luck!
Because of evident technical difficulties with the 大象传媒 website, one is uncertain whether or not a blog contribution has been received.
Allowing for this, the following is an adjunct to my posting #49.
According to press reports (Irish Times 19 January 2008), UK Asylum and Immigration Minister Liam Byrne, in a written repy, and referring to Section 14 of the Police and Justice Act 2006, which introduced a new power that will allow police to collate passenger, crew and service information on air and sea journeys within the United Kingdom, said "It is expected that this police power will only apply to air and sea routes between Great Britian and Northern Ireland. Passengers will not be required to use passports, but may be required to produce one of several types of documentation, including passports, when travelling, to enable the carrier to meet the requirements of a police request".
Leaving aside the political implications of the foregoing (which is not the focus of this discussion), the information underlines the general point that I have been making viz. that passport controls are now rather archaic as such and that it is the use of data capture electronically that will lead eventually to the introduction throughout Europe of so-called
e-borders.
The immediate difficulty for the UK is that there is no general system of identity cards in operation(as in Ireland) although such is planned.
It will be interesting to see which "of several types of documentation, including passports" will prove acceptable. A driver's licence perhaps!
@Denis O'Leary (49)
if you are referring to the ECJ EU Court of Justice, then please lose the illusion that it is 'impartial'.
The ECJ is extremely partial and biased when it comes to furthering 'integration', it will in such cases always side with whichever of the arguments would 'further integration'. The ECJ is stuffed with nothing but rabid federalists.
To nfb,
Thank you for your comments. I was not trying to justify anything -although I can understand why you thought I was.
Indeed, I was simply seeking clarification within this complex issue. An issue which as you suggest is perhaps not the result of "victims" on one side and "perpetrators" on the other -but perhaps "victims" on all sides.
It seems that both "democratic" governments and dictators sometimes push people around in ways that can cause suffering for generations to come. Often in the name of "progress" and economic (self) interest. Calling people "bandits" perhaps does not help to understand the complexity of the issues involved. Clearly some groups of people do have collective habits that can be destructive to others. Personally, I'm not too fond of agressive American policies when they act on a global scale. Perhaps one day, such people will also understand that their behaviour is not always in their own best interests -as indeed perhaps those that suffer from "bandits" might also need to ask themselves how such problems arose -and perhaps if they too are not complicit in creating their own scourge.....
To JorgeG,
Yes it does seem worrying the way Bush and Blair (and perhaps Brown now too) have used the "Orwell" factor to clamp down on all opposition -without apparently bothering too much about removing the root causes of dissent.
However, it rather looks as if the current US/UK colonial system is breaking up anyhow..... Indeed, compromise and the rule of law did once seem to be part of British tradition -until somehow it all got lost. "Enlightened self-interest" was once a British philosophy -but now there is no philosophy except short term greed. No wonder the system is collapsing.
What's the point in chasing others -when it is one's own mistakes that are causing the problems?
Denis O鈥橪eary,
I have taken a while to answer, due to technical BT problems, but some of your comments really deserve a 鈥榗ounter response鈥.
鈥楾he fact that the UK maintains passport controls makes little or no real material difference鈥
WRONG. The lack of passport controls are part of a common EU (less UK & Ireland) policy of huge importance: The common Border, Asylum and Immigration policy. Together with the euro and the single market they arguably constitute the most important EU policies. Little wonder then that the Public School elite that run this country is so exercised / fascinated about the common EU foreign policy. It is about the only EU policy of any note, if we leave the Single Market aside, in which the UK participates, subject of course to a strict 鈥榬ed-line鈥 negative to the introduction of QMV in this policy area.
Mr. O鈥橪eary did you know that there are a lot of people that have been legal residents and taxpayers in the UK for years, yet have to apply for a Schengen visa just to cross the channel to visit Paris? This is a costly bureaucratic procedure and by no means, of guaranteed result (what I can guarantee, based on personal experience, is that it is far easier to obtain a visa to go from the UK to Schengen than it is to obtain a UK visa coming from the Schengen area). I know a few of these people; in fact my partner is one of them. While they are legally residents, workers and taxpayers in this country they are made to be second class citizens by virtue of the shameful British opt-out from Schengen.
You may think that 鈥榩assport controls makes little or no real material difference鈥. Well, last summer I had an experience of a 40 minute queue at midnight coming back from an EU country. To me, that is reminiscent of the dark old days of the Iron Curtain, not at all compatible with what the EU of today stands for.
鈥楢s to the Area of Freedom Security and Justice, the Member States willed it but did not provide the necessary means to bring it into existence.鈥
This is interesting, so what is the Schengen Convention (incorporated into the EU acquis by the Amsterdam Treaty) but the 鈥榤eans鈥 to bring the 鈥榓rea of freedom, security and justice鈥 into existence?. Or am I perhaps missing something?
鈥業t simply is not a case of UK (and a reluctant Ireland) versus the rest. The situation is more complex than that. Why, for example, should some 90,000 Poles find employment in Ireland and be denied the opportunity to work in the countries right beside them?鈥
It is not a case of UK / Ireland vs. the rest. It is a case of 25 EU countries IN (now or in the not too distant future) Schengen and 2 OUT of Schengen, one voluntarily, the other, forced by the British opt-out. Anything else is trying to put a political spin on things. As for the 90,000 thousand poles, this has nothing to do with Schengen, but rather with the decision by most EU countries to apply a transitional period in relation to the freedom to work in their countries by citizens of the 2004/2007 EU entrants, a transitional period that the UK (with or without Ireland鈥檚 intervention in this decision, don鈥檛 really know) decided not to apply, clearly for economic reasons (i.e. a source of cheap labour).
Denis O鈥橪eary,
Due to technical problems (which include the 大象传媒, of course) I have taken a while to answer, but some of your comments deserve a counter response.
鈥楾he fact that the UK maintains passport controls makes little or no real material difference鈥
WRONG. At the political level, the elimination of passport controls is part of a common EU (less UK & Ireland) policy of huge importance: The common Border, Asylum and Immigration policy. Together with EMU (i.e. the euro) and the single market they arguably constitute the most important EU policies. Little wonder then that the Public School elite that run this country is so exercised / fascinated about the common EU foreign policy. It is about the only EU policy of any note, if we leave the Single Market aside, in which the UK fully participates, subject of course to a strict 鈥榬ed-line鈥 negative to the introduction of QMV in this policy area.
At the ordinary people鈥檚 level did you know, Mr. O鈥橪eary, that there are a lot of people that have been legal residents and taxpayers in the UK (and Ireland) for years, yet have to apply for a Schengen visa just to cross the channel to visit Paris? This is a costly bureaucratic procedure and by no means, of guaranteed result. I know a few of these people; in fact my partner is one of them. While they are legally residents, workers and taxpayers in this country they are made to be second class citizens by virtue of the British opt-out from Schengen.
You may think that 鈥榩assport controls makes little or no real material difference鈥. Well, last summer I experienced a 40 minute queue at midnight at Luton airport passport controls, coming back from an EU country. To me, that is reminiscent of the dark old days of the Iron Curtain and not at all compatible with what the EU of today stands for.
鈥楢s to the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, the Member States willed it but did not provide the necessary means to bring it into existence.鈥
WRONG. This is interesting, so what is the Schengen Convention (incorporated into the EU acquis by the Amsterdam Treaty) but the 鈥榤eans鈥 to bring the 鈥榓rea of freedom, security and justice鈥 into existence?. Or am I perhaps missing something?
鈥業t simply is not a case of UK (and a reluctant Ireland) versus the rest. The situation is more complex than that. Why, for example, should some 90,000 Poles find employment in Ireland and be denied the opportunity to work in the countries right beside them?鈥
No, it is not a case of UK / Ireland vs. the rest. It is a case of 25 EU countries IN (now or in the not too distant future) Schengen and 2 OUT of Schengen, one voluntarily, the other forced by the British opt-out. Anything else is trying to put a political spin on things. As for the 90,000 thousand poles, this has nothing to do with Schengen, but rather with the decision by most EU countries to apply a transitional period of a few years in relation to the free movement of workers from the 2004/2007 EU entrants, a transitional period that a small group of countries, including the UK and Ireland decided not to apply, clearly for economic reasons (i.e. a source of cheap labour). A lot is said here about the many Polish immigrants but if you go to Spain or Italy, you will find a similar amount of Rumanians and Bulgarians (and in the case of Italy, Albanians), even if they are (if I understand it well) still subject to the transitional period mentioned above. The problem with the UK is that 鈥榤iddle England鈥 thinks that all the immigrants in the world want to come to their country (or they are already in it); if only they made the effort to get to know other European countries (not just their 鈥榓ll inclusive鈥 hotels or beach resorts) they would find out how wrong they are.
A closing reply to JorgeG.
Of course, it would be better if the UK and Ireland joined Schengen. The entire thrust of what I have been saying is that, if they are eventually to do so, there must be an equal "burden-sharing" across all aspects of migration. Whatever the motivation for opening up labour markets, the fact that some Member States have not done so has increased the pressure on those that have. This explains why even the UK and Ireland had to pull in their horns and impose restrictions on Romania and Bulgaria.
I also try to distinguish between the issue of the physical control of persons and free movement (including the rights of third country nationals living legally in a Member State) within the European Union. If we can solve the second set of problems, there must be a better chance of dealing with the first.
Of course, there is widesperead illegal immigration across Europe. This is a reflection of a lack of a coherent European policy in the matter and nothing else.
You may not have noticed that I agree with you that passport controls are inappropriate, indeed archaic. But the choices are also obvious. One must assume that in the absence of a requirement to have an identity card, passports will have to serve. As it seems from press reports that the issue of identity cards to all UK citizens is both impractical and/or prohibitive or politically not feasible, the likely eventual option will be the introduction of an identity card requirement for third-country nationals to provide evidence of living legally in a Member State (to avoid the "regularisation" of illegal migrants - as recently in the case of Spain - allowing them to move elsewhere within the European Union)cf. EU 'Blue Card' proposal.
The reason the Lisbon Treaty proposes transferring police and judicial cooperation from the so-called third pillar to the Community method is that the present rules - especially the requirement for unanimity - makes any real movement impossible.
The European Union is a cooperative undertaking within which all Member States defend their interests. I see no point in moralising about which is right and which is wrong. What I marvel at is the ability of the Union to eventually find solutions.
Interesting your Blog is much more balanced than the story on the 10 pm 大象传媒 News Jan 10th. Here is the complaint I submitted re that story:
大象传媒 News 10:00pm Jan 11th.
I was surprised by some of the alarmist tone and language as well as lack of context of your report on increasing migration to Poland (reminiscent of tabloid asylum reporting). You used language such as an "avalanche" of illegal immigrants entering Poland that were all trying to get to Western Europe. There is no actual number mentioned/estimated or context in terms of the Polish population that I had to look up to find out was 39,000,000. Interestingly 大象传媒 Scotland this week reported on the more than 2,000,000 Polish workers that have migrated (legally) to other parts of Europe leaving Poland with labour shortages and speaking of needing to get workers from China. Perhaps this is one of the reasons people are migrating there and or the poverty of countries east of Poland?
> You speak of 9,000 asylum seekers from Chechnya with no mention of the war there or the reasons Poland does not grant them refugee status yet does not deport them due to the ongoing conflict and humanitarian reasons. How long has the family you featured (or others) lived in limbo in those two rooms? Where are they living (isolated rural camps I understand)? Are they allowed to work?
> I wonder how many times has 大象传媒 put a camera in some suffering person's face asking them if they would like to come to the West or the UK and they have said no?
> Given the story was about 5 minutes more context and less use of tabloid alarmism is what I expect from the 大象传媒. I have not complained before but this type of poor reporting seems to becoming a disappointing pattern.