U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Login ] [ Active ]

Europeans turning their backs on EU project

Log-in to remove advertisement.
Post 01 Dec 2013, 20:35
Interesting article on how Italians, Spaniards, and other Europeans are turning their backs on the European Project. ... pe/281928/

Any thoughts on the situation in Europe and the future of the EU?
Post 02 Dec 2013, 01:04
In recent months there's been a lot of talk here in the UK, on whether or not we should leave the EU. I believe the Conservatives want to hold a referendum on the matter.
Post 02 Dec 2013, 01:17
Szabo wrote:
In recent months there's been a lot of talk here in the UK, on whether or not we should leave the EU. I believe the Conservatives want to hold a referendum on the matter.

Talk from many quarters over a considerable time:


Don't be fooled by the EU Trojan horse

Tuesday 12 September 2006 DOUG NICHOLLS
TUC Congress 2006.

AT last year's TUC Congress, a motion was carried overwhelmingly which committed the TUC to campaigning against the then proposed EU constitution and against the various increasingly neoliberal directives coming from the commission.

Such commitments cannot be overturned by the general council statement this year. The motion represented a step forward in thinking among trade unions and, especially, the TUC. Since 1988, when Jacques Delors seduced delegates with promises of milk and honey in a land of plenty, the TUC has been used by the European and British Establishment as a Trojan horse for pro-federalist ideas.

While the overwhelming majority of trade unionists, like the British population generally, were against membership of the euro and against further integration, the TUC leadership continually pretended that such things were in our interests.

Reality and the struggles of European trade unionists were ignored and the EU was painted as an idyllic illusion of utopia.

Of course, illusions have a habit of fraying at the edges and thinning. For workers on the ground, a number of harsh problems began to occur.

EU procurement policies requiring all substantial tenders to be opened across the EU meant that more and more British manufacturing firms were going bust. Manufacturing jobs have been lost at a higher rate under the Blair government since 1997 than they were under Thatcher.

'The struggles of trade unionists were ignored and the EU was painted as an idyllic utopia.'

EU competitive market policies meant that British government appeals to invest in Peugeot's Coventry factory, for example, were delayed while the EU poured millions into Croatia to enable Peugoet to open up there with a third of the labour costs. Result, a further hole in Britain's manufacturing skill base.

The EU drive to privatisation meant that increasing swathes of British public services were up for grabs. In fact, 16 unions got together in June for a national rally against the tidal wave of privatisation in everything from probation services to schools.

This represented unprecedented unity among the unions concerned and challenged practically every European directive on services and industries.

The well co-ordinated attack by the EU on final-salary pension schemes and the raising of pension ages, workers contributions and lowering of employers benefits reached a fever pitch in Britain earlier in the year, with the largest-ever strike action in defence of pensions since the 1926 General Strike.

Yet few made the link with the European directive on occupational pensions which started it all.

Trade Unionists Against the EU Constitution produced a widely distributed pamphlet on the sources in the EU of the Europe-wide pensions attack.

'Trade unionists are beginning to realise we should leave the EU federalist project altogether.'

The EU open market in capital and labour led immediately to the dispute at Irish Ferries in which eastern European labour replaced Irish seafarers and to the Gate Gourmet dispute in which, again, eastern European Labour replaced British airport workers.

A similar situation is faced by building workers in Sweden, who are challenging the undercutting of their rates in the Vaxholme case that is currently being considered by the European Court of Justice.

Nevertheless, the EU has already shown on a mass scale that it considers it legal for migrant labour to create skills gaps in the country of origin and lower wages and worse conditions in the countries of destination.

There has also been a huge influx of other migrant labour which is sharply undercutting wages in many areas and putting new strains on public services, to a point where local government is having to consider high local taxes.

The government has lost count of legal and illegal immigrants. Recent research has indicated the full scale of the problem and capitalist spokespersons have revelled at the resulting suppression of wage levels.

In this severe overall context, two things are happening. First, more and more trade unionists are coming to realise that we should leave the EU altogether and abandon the EU federalist project in favour of peacefully co-existing and co-operating independent nations.

What various Latin American countries have done in this regard to escape the power of the dollar is considered by many to be a serious option here.

Second, and, predictably, just as the EU attack on workers intensifies across the continent and very sharply in Britain, the good old TUC, this time aided by rank confusion by the so-called left, is renewing its drive to pretend that the fangs of European capitalism can be blunted by attention to the social agenda.

Just as the illusion of a social Europe collapses, so the TUC seeks to resurrect it and fly in the face of reality.

A ludicrous statement on the EU will be put to this year's TUC and delegates will sit in stunned silence as the general council, yet again, pretends that the emperor is wearing clothes. It is a statement of which Ted Heath and Margaret Thatcher would have been proud.

Doug Nicholls is secretary of Trade Unionists Against the European Constitution and general secretary of GFTU
Post 03 Dec 2013, 06:19
Discussion over a possible independent Scotland, followed by an independent Northern Ireland, Wales, and even Cornwall may heat up if the U.K. did leave the EU. One can easily picture a scenario involving "back door" negotiations between Eu reps and the various nationalist groups to orchestrate a quid pro quo where (for example) Scotland breaks off, followed by UN recognition and immediate application for EU membership.
Post 06 Dec 2013, 03:05
Szabo wrote:
I believe the Conservatives want to hold a referendum on the matter.

Is it the Conservative's interest to leave the EU or is it to curb losing interest to Nigel Farage and UKIP?

Comrade Gulper wrote:
One can easily picture a scenario involving "back door" negotiations between Eu reps and the various nationalist groups to orchestrate a quid pro quo where (for example) Scotland breaks off, followed by UN recognition and immediate application for EU membership.

How many nationalist groups that have substantial power and recognition can there be? I mean outside of the UK, I can only think of Catalonia.
Post 05 Jan 2014, 21:45
Is it the Conservative's interest to leave the EU or is it to curb losing interest to Nigel Farage and UKIP?

Frankly, I imagine Tories/Labour/Kib Dems are all rattled by the workers obduracy. We oppose mass immigration. The EU is seen as the author along with the usual suspects in Westminster. Many in trade union movement have campaigned long and hard for referendum. As have others in Labour and Tory party, alike. Labour treachery enacting privatization and overseeing floods of immigrants to our shores have not been forgotten. Hence Milliband and Cameron offering up sops while doing next to nothing. Not in housing extra health provision or education resources. A million youth unemployed, why the 'need' to import labour. One reason and one reason only to cheapen the price. A race to the bottom. A successful meeting in London well attended, told it like it was: ... ement.html

So Canute like, Milliband is trying to turn back the tide along with Cameron.

Milliband has to respond and he has:

Digest this:
Post 06 Jan 2014, 15:02
Piccolo wrote:
Interesting article on how Italians, Spaniards, and other Europeans are turning their backs on the European Project. ... pe/281928/

Any thoughts on the situation in Europe and the future of the EU?

A graph confirming what we know already:
Post 06 Jan 2014, 15:30
Inside the EU or out of it...its not really a matter for the working class of Europe. Either way they face exploitation by the capitalist class.
Either position is 2nd best to World socialism.
Post 06 Jan 2014, 20:00
Easy enough to say, Yami, but how should we get there?
Post 06 Jan 2014, 20:09
Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:
Easy enough to say, Yami, but how should we get there?

By getting off our arses and trying to convince the working classes it's their best bet. How else can we do it?
Post 06 Jan 2014, 20:21
You're not likely to get anywhere without a platform and a coherent vision. I have grown to deeply distrust anybody who simply says "socialism or barbarism" and expects that to be enough of a reason to push on to socialism, you appear to be doing nothing more than that.
Post 06 Jan 2014, 20:24
Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:
You're not likely to get anywhere without a platform and a coherent vision. I have grown to deeply distrust anybody who simply says "socialism or barbarism" and expects that to be enough of a reason to push on to socialism, you appear to be doing nothing more than that.

Not at all. I do have a clear vision but accept that socialism can only come about once the majority understand it and want it.
Though I accept that is a long, hard struggle. But I'd rather wait than end up with the Stasi, the politburo and the Trabant!
Post 06 Jan 2014, 21:05
Strangely, had the Nazis, Americans and Adenauer listened to Stalin, Germany would not have been split. Thanks Obama.
Post 15 Sep 2015, 04:09
EU migration shambles and the drive to war ... -drive-war

What’s behind the misnamed “migrant crisis” and what does it say about the European Union? This is not something new. We have to look at how it started to understand what’s going on and what British workers should do.

Capitalism is waging war against workers worldwide to wreck countries and uproot their peoples. The NATO powers, especially Britain and the USA, instigated the “Arab spring” risings across the Middle East and North Africa. The NATO powers attacked Iraq and Libya as well as fuelling the war in Syria. The EU has backed all NATO’s wars of aggression. That’s the main reason for the huge number of migrants on the move.

The Syrian people have fought to save their country from US-instigated terror. President Assad refused to be overthrown by the US-backed mercenaries of ISIS (an organisation which grew out of the US/British invasion of Iraq). The NATO powers tried even harder to arm and train enough ISIS and al-Qaeda fighters to seize the country. This failed, so they are now threatening even more open intervention. Take NATO support away and Assad would end the war and defeat ISIS in weeks.

Some in Syria, instead of resisting NATO’s war of aggression, choose to flee to Europe. The EU, wedded as it is to the free movement of labour, encourages this and gives carte blanche to people smugglers. The impact of escapees from the Syrian war has been widespread, drawing in many people from other countries.

For some years prior to the 2011 bombing of Libya by NATO, Libya had agreed to prevent people traffickers ferrying African migrants from along the Libyan coast, to Italy and the EU. Those who reached Libya instead found work in Libya’s bustling economy. It was a win-win arrangement for the EU, the migrants and Libya.

NATO bombing of Libya put an end to that deal and created a failed state run by competing Islamic militias. The people traffickers are now back in business following the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, the emergence of ISIS and the 2014 Israeli bombing of Gaza.

The Islamists in Libya metamorphosed into Islamic State (ISIS). They saw they could make huge amounts of money from the people trafficking racket, which they joined and sometimes took over. Desperate Syrians, and Palestinian refugees from Gaza, were invited to join the African migrants in this human trafficking for substantial fees.

Most Syrian refugees were living outside their own country, in Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey. Turkish and Afghan gangsters developed the routes from Turkey to Greece, and on to Germany. For 1,500 euros you could have a place in a small boat from Turkey to a Greek island. And 5,000 euros would get you smuggled from Greece to Germany, the favourite destination.

The same Afghan and Turkish traffickers then saw a new market. Bangladeshis and Pakistanis had been trafficked to Indonesia and Malaysia, after their attempts to get into Australia were blocked. After also being blocked by Malaysia, those traffickers decided to use their routes through Turkey to the EU instead.

Why Germany?
One significant event has led to the recent spike in numbers trafficked. Germany is suffering from an acute labour shortage, a declining and an ageing population. It has a relatively low rate of unemployment. German capitalism desperately needed an influx of skilled, educated and young workers. Those factors would normally shift the balance of power from employers to workers, not something the German capitalists wanted.

Industry heads lobbied the German government and Chancellor Merkel herself, not only for more immigration but to drop legal constraints on setting those migrants to work as soon as possible. Eventually Merkel announced to the world that Germany would take 800,000 migrants, soon raised to 1 million. Finally Merkel announced that Germany would take in all Syrian refugees.

Why Syrians? Because the only Syrians who could afford to make that journey were those with money, currently living in Turkey and Lebanon. They were mainly young men, well educated and skilled. They were civil engineers, teachers, doctors, IT workers and so on. Some were promised university places to complete their studies.

Opening the floodgates
Merkel’s stance was a green light for the traffickers; the floodgates opened. Pakistanis now pretended that they were Syrian, so did Iraqis and Afghans. As the columns of humanity moved through the Balkans, they were joined by Kosovans, Albanians, Serbs and Macedonians. Syrians became a minority in this population movement.

The migrants became live TV with film crews following them everywhere. When a group of migrants were being registered in Kos, one Greek woman was heard to shout at the Syrian young men “Why aren’t you fighting ISIS?” When some Syrians were asked why they were going to Germany, a few said it was because of ISIS or escaping the destruction. But most young men answered “For a new life”, meaning they had no intention of returning.

The Schengen Agreement abolished passport and other border controls within the EU, but it imposes controls on the EU outer border. At the end of August Hungary tried to enforce EU asylum regulations and Schengen outer border controls. It was swept aside, with Merkel shouting her encouragement to the migrants. The Schengen controls are in tatters because of Germany. Yet there were calls for Hungary to be “dealt with”.

Merkel then realised she had opened Pandora’s Box as there was no end in sight of this surge of humanity towards the EU. She called on all member states to show solidarity and accept a quota of migrants. When nearly half of EU countries quite rightly refused, a shaming campaign was launched to blackmail them. So much for EU solidarity!

Britain and the war

Cameron found himself on the receiving end of this shaming, which turned into a numbers game about which country would take the least or the most. Cameron was forced to announce that Britain would take 20,000 Syrian refugees over the course of the parliament, hoping the war would have ended by then.

Cameron also announced an RAF drone attack in Syria that took place last month, killing a couple of British jihadis. This vainly tried to give the impression that Britain was contributing to solving the problem at source. That’s what Chancellor Osborne had demanded, arguing that Britain must take on the “evil Assad”. The Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, said the RAF strike was a “perfectly legal act of self defence”.

The British media, who usually struggle for a sensible story during the summer, have been at fever pitch. They have whipped up hatred, not against migrants but against all those who rightly oppose the EU dogma of the free movement of people. And demonization of anyone who opposes an attack on Syria has begun.

The Independent ran a page about how to offer a spare room to a Syrian refugee, ending by saying that those offering were more likely to end up with an Eritrean or Pakistani! Another newspaper ran the banner headline “Drone strike kills Jihadi to save the Queen”.

Britain and Ireland are the only EU member states outside the Schengen area. Now Merkel says Britain should accept more refugees. But we already have record high immigration – 636,000 in the year to March 2015, 94,000 more than the previous year. A record 269,000 came from the EU’s member nations, 56,000 more than the previous year.

Solving the problem
Who is really trying to solve the problem at source? The answer is Russia. The Russian foreign minister has visited Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and Iran to try to assemble a military coalition against ISIS. And the Iranian foreign minister visited Saudi Arabia as part of this process. Syrian President Assad announced his government was happy to share power with the non-jihadist opposition and move towards new elections.

This was the basis for a broad anti-ISIS coalition that would include the Syrian Government and regional forces, exactly what was needed. Russia had made the simple truth clear to all those countries involved. If Assad falls, then ISIS will take over Syria and the refugee exodus would make the current “migration crisis” look trivial.

US air strikes against ISIS were having no effect as the US would not attack ISIS forces when they were attacking the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), which by now has lost an estimated 80,000 soldiers dead. The SAA has little chance of reinforcements because hundreds of thousands of young Syrian men of military age are being encouraged to head to Germany.

Impact in Europe

German capitalism is exploiting the Syrian civil war for its own benefit. It is taking the cream of Syrian professional workers who would eventually have been needed to rebuild Syria, as well as the young men and women of military age who should be fighting ISIS.

The rest of the EU is squabbling over numbers. Hungary is building a fence to keep out migrants beckoned by Merkel. Slovakia says it will accept only Christians. The EU Schengen agreement and free movement of labour principles have collapsed. Cameron lost a key vote in the UK parliament on the EU referendum rules, which will prevent the government campaigning for Britain to stay in the EU.


Meanwhile Germany and Merkel, who weeks earlier had ruthlessly condemned impoverished Greece to penury in the role of a German protectorate, are now hailed as unlikely heroes by the liberal elite. You couldn’t make it up!

What should Britain and British workers be doing in this shambles? Three things:

Support the Russian initiative for a regional coalition, including the Syrian government, to destroy ISIS and the other Islamist terrorists in Syria. That would be a good start.
Vote to leave the EU so that we can control our own borders. That would be another positive step.
Walk away from NATO; its bombing of Libya helped to precipitate this disaster.
Post 15 Sep 2015, 04:19
EU referendum: first moves

A referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU will happen with the next couple of years. It was promised in the Conservative election manifesto and Prime Minster Cameron has said it will take place by the end of 2017. The Labour Party initially said it would oppose a referendum unless there were plans for the EU to return powers to Britain. Now it has dropped that stance.

The TUC view remains, as it has been for some time, that membership of the EU is a way to ensure workers’ rights are protected. It also agrees with the argument that leaving the EU would be bad for Britain’s economy. The main point the TUC made about the prospect of a referendum was that the franchise should be extended – to include EU citizens living here and Britons living abroad! Our class is going to need a clearer view of the issues and our choices than that.

Shifting views
Last year Cameron told the Conservative Party conference that he had just one thing to say to the EU: “the biggest issue today is migration from within the EU”. Cameron admitted he would need to achieve “full-on treaty change” to curb EU immigration. But EU President Juncker has said that free movement is a sacred and unbreakable EU principle, so treaty change is out of the question.


Now Cameron has changed his tune and the issue of migration is no longer “at the very heart” of his renegotiation strategy as he declared last year. Instead he is promising us that he will reduce the EU’s powers and stop all further integration. But these steps too would need treaty changes and we know that the EU has never given back a single power to its member states. It has no reverse gear.

The British government has admitted that there will be no EU treaty changes before the referendum, so Cameron cannot achieve significant reform of the EU before then. Yet he has been talking up the chances of reform, inflating people’s hopes and his party’s hopes. But as the EU will not reform as Cameron says he wants it to, why should he then urge that Britain stays in?

Government backs down

On 8 September, the government backed down on three key issues relating to the EU referendum. First, the timing: clauses were added ruling out holding the referendum in May 2016 or May 2017 at the same time as other local or assembly elections. This means that the issue of our EU membership will get the full and focused debate that it deserves.

Second, the question: the government has changed the question from a formula that contradicted all recent referendum precedent that the change option should be the “yes” side of the question. But the Electoral Commission agreed with the view that was too weighted to the current status. It proposed a more neutral “remain or leave” choice that Cameron will probably have to accept.

Third, the so-called “purdah”: the government was defeated in parliament by a big Conservative revolt, restoring rules to ensure that public authorities cannot use their resources or public money to sway the result in the last four weeks before the vote. A Labour amendment, further toughening these rules to the same extent as apply for general elections, was also approved.
Post 21 Sep 2015, 16:47

When Britain leaves the EU
Tuesday 22 September 2015 19:30
Add to Calendar

CPBML Public Meeting, Tuesday 22 September, 7.30pm

Brockway Room, Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL

Over the past 50 years and more, Britain’s ruling class has battled to enmesh Britain in the European Union. With the euro in meltdown, come and discuss why Britain can only thrive outside the EU, and what Britain needs to do to retain its integrity, sovereignty and unity as an island of labour. All welcome.
Post 27 Sep 2015, 04:31

The holy freedoms of capitalism


The 2014 TUC Congress motion against the EU’s proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) free trade treaty, said, “Congress notes that free trade agreements rarely, if ever, benefit working people and are pushed by corporations who use them as a means to maximise profits and further their own interests.”

Precisely. That is why the ruling class and the EU push free trade. Perhaps we should stop calling it “free” and call it by its true name, “out of control” trade.

The EU is built on the “free movements” of capital, labour, goods and services, that is, on uncontrolled movements of all four. Capital needs these “freedoms” in order to maximise its profits, and for no other reason. Alexander Stubb, Finland’s prime minister, recently called the EU’s “free” movement principles “holy”.

So where do the organisations of our working class stand on these holy principles? They are starting to understand that the uncontrolled movement of goods and services, “free trade”, is not good for workers. It’s taken longer than it should have, but the realisation is dawning that the working class has to oppose free trade. Free trade policies stop us rebuilding Britain, and endanger the NHS and our education system.

In what could turn out to be a huge step forward, Unite has acknowledged that it was wrong to support the EU-US trade agreement . Other unions should follow, and force the TUC to stop its shameful support for the principle of TTIP.

The free movement of capital allows companies to disinvest at the drop of an interest rate. It also enables capital to hide in tax havens like Luxembourg, the EU’s in-house tax haven, run for 15 years by the new European President, Jean-Claude Juncker.

The Labour Party (along with the others) lauds “inward investment”, defined as capital flowing into Britain. Never mind that this capital is used to speculate in housing, or to buy up football clubs, or to buy industries and asset-strip them. We don’t want inward investment, we want the money made in Britain from our work to stay in Britain and fund proper investment.

The greatest backwardness appears when it comes to the free movement of labour. Holy or not, it has become a sacred cow for most unions. Never mind that this “freedom” encourages the modern slavery of workers moving at the orders of people traffickers, gang masters and cheapskate employers. Or that it means the theft of scarce skilled workers from across the world. (See November’s Workers, “Ebola: capitalist health exposed”.)

In December, the GMB organised a day of celebration of immigration, oblivious to the fact that the only winners from uncontrolled migration are the employers, who lower wages, boost profits, make employment ever more insecure.

The losers are the countries whose educated workforces are plundered by countries like Britain that no longer need to worry about training their own population – just steal skills from abroad. And of course those in Britain who will not live 12 to a house in order to survive on poverty wages – or who find that all the jobs are advertised in Poland anyway and never come up at Job Centres (yes, it happens, frequently).

As the capitalist press gloats, the EU is an insurance policy against any government deviating from “austerity” (poverty) policies. So to rebuild our industries, protect our services, draw up our own trade policies and decide our migration policy, we have to leave the EU.
Post 27 Sep 2015, 06:42
Hiya dodger.
Post 29 Sep 2015, 06:02
hello Dagoth Ur--fellow pariah-- hope life is treating you well
Post 29 Sep 2015, 16:39

Refugees: how to create a crisis


20 September, Bregana, Slovenia: Police watching refugees and migrants on the blocked border between Croatia and Slovenia.
Photo Photoman20/

NATO governments, led by the Obama and Cameron administrations, are scheming to win the support of the peoples of Europe for intervening in Syria, an illegal war of aggression. They are using the refugees to create social and political chaos in Europe in an effort to whip up popular pressure for NATO to deal with the “source” of the problem.

Early in the war, NATO member Turkey set up huge refugee camps which at one point housed two million refugees from Syria, with $6 billion of US aid. The Turkish government was not holding the refugees out of altruism, but to use them for various purposes.

The refugees could be sent into Syria as human shields for NATO-enforced “safe zones” there, which would be bases for attacking Syrian forces. Or they could be sent into Europe to put pressure on Europe’s peoples, causing a “refugee crisis”, which could then be blamed on President Assad, in order to create a pretext for NATO intervention in Syria.


The Turkish government forcibly kept the refugees in these camps until suddenly this April it not only allowed but encouraged them to leave. It has assisted the huge people-smuggling operation being run from several coastal Turkish cities. Also, the Turkish government allowed ISIS terrorists to recruit in the camps and it allowed them free movement across the border from Turkey into Syria.

The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees says that some 219,000 people made the journey into Europe in 2014, up from around 60,000 in 2013, while around 478,000 people have arrived this year already. Almost 400,000 people claimed asylum in the EU in the first six months of 2015.

Between January and June, according to European Commission figures, Syrians only accounted for 18.4 per cent of asylum claims in the EU. Other nationalities were Afghans, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Eritreans, Ukrainians and Somalis. The six countries of the Western Balkans accounted for 26.6 per cent of the total asylum claimants. Those seeking asylum in the EU are largely young and male. 55.8 per cent are aged between 18 and 34; 72.4 per cent are male and 27.6 per cent are female.

It’s no accident that destabilising flows of refugees are being channelled through the Russia-friendly countries of Greece, Macedonia and Serbia rather than through US allies Albania and Bulgaria. This shift to the Eastern Mediterranean and West Balkan route has been triggered mainly by refugees leaving their temporary accommodation in neighbouring countries to try to get into Europe. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees found that 60 per cent of the refugees arriving in Greece had previously been in Turkey, so their lives were not in danger.

Just as in the early 1990s the German government took a unilateral decision to recognise Croatia, which led directly to the war that destroyed Yugoslavia, now the German government has taken a unilateral decision to admit 800,000 refugees, breaking both EU law and international law.

Merkel has opened the gates for mass migration into the Schengen area. She says she needs a million new migrants, but Germany has 1.97 million unemployed already. Clearly, she wants to use mass immigration to maintain downward pressure on German workers’ wages (stagnant since 1995).

The OECD forecasts that more than a million people will arrive this year. Germany will be accepting one million, or so it says. The German government says it will spend an extra £4.4 billion to cope with this year’s record influx of refugees. But under the Schengen rules, it is impossible for a country to keep people in the country to which they have been assigned.
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Privacy.
[ Top ]