EU Could Scrap "Divisive & Ineffective" Refugee Quota Scheme

The Guardian reports that EU could scrap a divisive scheme that compels member states to accept quotas of refugees, one of the bloc’s most senior leaders will say this week.

The president of the European council, Donald Tusk, will tell EU leaders at a summit on Thursday that mandatory quotas have been divisive and ineffective, in a clear sign that he is ready to abandon the policy that has created bitter splits across the continent.

Jennifer Rankin reports that Tusk will set a six-month deadline for EU leaders to reach unanimous agreement on reforms to the European asylum system, but will propose alternatives if there is no consensus. 

“If there is no solution... including on the issue of mandatory quotas, the president of the European council will present a way forward,” states a draft letter from Tusk to national capitals, seen by the Guardian.

In effect this means scrapping mandatory quotas, because Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic are fiercely opposed to the idea of dispersing refugees around the bloc based on a formula drawn up in Brussels. Tusk is likely to face opposition, however, from other EU bodies, including the European commission.

EU leaders introduced compulsory quotas in 2015 at the height of the migration crisis, as thousands of people arrived daily on Europe’s shores, many of whom were refugees from Syria, Iraq and Eritrea.

Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and the Czech Republic voted against the move, but the policy was forced through by a majority vote.

Hungary and Poland have defied the rest of the EU by not taking a single refugee under the scheme, which aimed to relocate about 120,000 refugees, mainly Syrians. The Czech republic has taken in only 12.

All three countries were referred to the European court of justice last week for failing to implement the policy, the usual procedure for flouting EU rules.

Despite the backlash against the emergency scheme, the European commission proposed making quotas a permanent feature of EU law in 2016. Under its proposal, countries that refuse to take part in a “corrective allocation mechanism” to take the pressure off member states bearing the brunt would have to pay a “solidarity contribution” of €250,000 (£220,000) per asylum seeker.

The idea has been stalled for months, as home affairs ministers who make the law have been unable to agree on it.

Tusk will call on EU governments to take charge, rather than leaving Brussels to set the pace in managing refugee policy.

“Only member states are able to tackle the migration crisis effectively,” Tusk’s letter says. “The EU’s role is to offer its full support in all possible ways to help member states handle the migration crisis. But the EU has neither the capacity nor legal possibilities to replace member states.”

Any move to drop the plan is likely to upset Italy and Greece, countries that have urged the rest of the EU to help them cope with large numbers of refugees and migrants in recent years. Germany and Sweden, backed by the European commission, are also likely to contest any plan deemed to reduce the help offered by other member states.

One EU diplomat said some member states were surprised by Tusk’s letter “because it doesn’t seem to be in sync” with work undertaken by home affairs ministers working on the file.

We suspect we know one other 'European' that will not be pleased... George Soros.


HenryKissinger… A Sentinel Wed, 12/13/2017 - 11:47 Permalink

why would they temporarly pause the EXECUTION of the KALERGI PLAN???didn`t Tusk get his Soros paycheck last month? acording to plan...nothing to see here, it is just a plan to turn europe into a future race of mongrel (((bolshevik)))-worshippers... check also:-KALERGI plan™ (miscegenation into low IQ brown mongrels) / also Hooton plan™-George Soros leaks on the Merkel plan™ Merkel Plan™ Compassion and Control… Charlemagne Prize™ BEARERS list™ professional rapefugee smuggler operation… divörsity™ Lerner Spectre"I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive." ~ Barbara Lerner Spectre…"Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit...The man of the future will be a mongrel.  Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian–Negroid race of the future, similar in its outward appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals."Practical Idealism - by Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi… Must Perish: A Plan For Permanent Peace Among Civilized Nations"I believe that the Jews have a mission in life. They must see to it that the nations of the world get together in one vast federation. "Union Now" is the beginning of this. Slowly but surely the world will develop into a paradise. We will have perpetual peace. And the Jews will do the most to bring about this confederation, because they have the most to gain" Theodore Newman Kaufman…"it does not get any better than this" ...…"Merkel Lego"™:… 

In reply to by A Sentinel

HenryKissinger… HenryKissinger… Wed, 12/13/2017 - 11:57 Permalink

Under its proposal, countries that refuse to take part in a “corrective allocation mechanism” to take the pressure off member states bearing the brunt would have to pay a “solidarity contribution” of €250,000 (£220,000) per asylum seeker.ok then what is the "contribution" if accidentally, a EU country KILLS a rapefugee? is that fee maybe BELOW €250,000 ?

In reply to by HenryKissinger…

Gorgeous Mementoil Wed, 12/13/2017 - 12:02 Permalink

/* Style Definitions */
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
You can bet that Poland Hungary and the Czech Republic have been bribed, extorted, and threatened, and yet they are standing firm to preserve their country’s national identity and safety.  That’s what leaders do.

In reply to by Mementoil

kellys_eye GUS100CORRINA Wed, 12/13/2017 - 04:32 Permalink

The EU doesn't need a Refugee Quota Scheme.Germany (and/or all other 'willing' countries) only need to register the immigrants they freely accept as EU citizens to thereby give them the RIGHT to move around Europe at will.  Freedom of movement for ALL EU citizens remember?As soon as you're 'registered' you will be encouraged to 'travel'........

In reply to by GUS100CORRINA

wildbad kellys_eye Wed, 12/13/2017 - 04:50 Permalink

This is a backdown by the €U tyrants. They threatened and bribed and did everything but ask nicely or democratically.

Theorhetically Germany should have the same immigration laws as Poland et al but the benefits offered the immigrants were never harmonized betweeen countries and so the freeloaders naturally gravitated to where the pickin was best.

When walls began springing up, the burden fell most heavily on the countries on the southern border due to the simple fact that the rules said they could only pass the buck in a regulated and fair way.

The €U couldn't get agreement on how to enforce that other than bribing and threatening again and the refugee centers in Greece and Italy and Spain flourished.

This is a great day.

In reply to by kellys_eye

webmatex wildbad Wed, 12/13/2017 - 05:54 Permalink

Probably the only good decision Tusk ever made.He probably considered the rift with Poland and Hungry would eventually become a "leave" issue.So Orban is the hero of the day.Lets hope that Farages Soros Probe (very long and sharp) will translate to a real investigation by the EU Parliament.Round them up... the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small

In reply to by wildbad

JDFX Wed, 12/13/2017 - 03:43 Permalink

Yes, cause they realise it will collapse the EU. And shows how nations need to retain their own legal Supremacy to make, change their own laws. Globalisation of legal systems to control different tribes and cultures of people will never work.   

kellys_eye Ghordius Wed, 12/13/2017 - 04:36 Permalink

Despite a desperate media attempt to cover over the cracks even you can't be so arrogant as to believe there aren't serious problems with maintaining this charade of a 'United Europe'?When push comes to shove it is ALWAYS Germany and France that get the benefits - so much for 'co-operation' amongst nations eh?  The internet (thank God and despite efforts to 'control' it) is still the place to go for the truth about European opinion.  No-one comes to 'you' (Ghordius) for that....

In reply to by Ghordius

Escapedgoat Ghordius Wed, 12/13/2017 - 06:19 Permalink

The Greek Referendum of 2015.The one result of NO that became a "Yes" inside of two hours. By the Eurocommunists of the Tsipras Cabal.Of course there is the other Communist Party the  KKE, that DOES NOTHING. orrather has the same policies as the "Golden Dawn" but WITH A DIFFERENT COLOUR.

In reply to by Ghordius

HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 Wed, 12/13/2017 - 03:52 Permalink

What took so long? Jeezus there aren't any Syrians showing up now! All of the gimmigrants are Nafricans and sand niggs looking for a hand out, free rent, and to rape as many European women as possible.

Joe A Wed, 12/13/2017 - 03:53 Permalink

What the author apparently does not know is that the EU's LIBE committee is devising a new plan which ties taking in migrants/refugees to EU subsidies, among other things. So, if a country does not show "European solidarity" by accepting migrants, then they could receive less subsidies. And since Soros is very amicable with the EC as well as with many MEPs, you can bet that if it ever comes to a vote in the EP, this proposal stands a fair chance of getting accepted by the EP. Then it would still need to be approved by the EU council of ministers (which is currently presided by Tusk) and the last time the council voted on the now scrapped migrant deal, they voted in favor. Including by Poland that was then still governed by.....drum rolls please....Donald Tusk. And -and this is important to note- that vote was for the first time in history conducted by a majority vote, not by unanimous vote. And if the new proposal will be put to the vote you can bet your bottom dollar/euro/bitcoin is will be done again in that manner.In the case of the EU as anywhere else in politics, the motto is: if at first you don't succeed, try and try again. But using EU subsidies (of which everybody profits in the EU, both the giver and the recipient) as a form of political arm twisting could very well backfire. 

Ghordius Joe A Wed, 12/13/2017 - 04:16 Permalink

subsidies are solidarity, too

meanwhile... yes, it's first a matter for the EU Council

how many countries voted for that scheme? 24? out of 28?

what you regularly forget/dismiss is how EU politics really function. if you would, you would note that Tusk is affiliated to the "EU Liberals"

the key party groups involved are the EU Conservatives (EPP including Hungary's Orban, Germany's Merkel, Spain's Rajoy, etc.) and the EU's Social Democrats

but yes, they are indeed discussing it

In reply to by Joe A

Joe A Ghordius Wed, 12/13/2017 - 04:37 Permalink

Subsidies are indeed solidarity but as I said, also the donors benefits. At least the companies that reside in the countries that are donors. The Strabags, Tescos, Del Haizes, Lidles, C&As, Raiffeissens of Western Europe profit bigly from the transition of former centrally led economies to market economies.As I said before and say it again: Leaders of EU MS without consulting other leaders of EU MS making unilateral decisions is not European solidarity. It is why we are in this mess. And then once of a sudden countries need to show European solidarity with the threat of denying access to Europen solidarity in the form of subsidies.And the thing is, Ghordius my friend, that it is you who is regularly forgetting how EU politics really functions, as in any political arena. Because behind all the pleasantries, structures and procedures etc. there is the backroom politics, the soft power, the allure of personal advancement. You believe in an EU of equals. I think that some are more equal than others.24 out 28 is not much but with the die was cast. Tying subsidies or voting rights to compliance is a very big mistake. It will lead to feelings of disfranchisement.

In reply to by Ghordius

Ghordius Joe A Wed, 12/13/2017 - 05:01 Permalink

one million Muslim war refugees from Turkey's opened gates

either trapped in the Balkans (with oil oligarchs arming them) or trapped in Hungarian camps paid with EU funds

yes, the German Chancellor took a decision. yes, PM Orban immediately organized trains and buses

that was 2015. now, two years later, that decision looks increasingly better by the day

now... show me US, Russian and Gulf States efforts to have them ASAP back in Syria. note that Turkey would be delighted, they have another 3 millions of them, waiting

all because of War(s) that we all warned about, note. starting with Paris, Berlin and Moscow chanting "don't invade Iraq, you'll destabilize the whole region", to which the answer was... "Freedom Fries" in the Congress Cafeteria

In reply to by Joe A

Joe A Ghordius Wed, 12/13/2017 - 06:00 Permalink

Don't forget, after Merkel spoke these words, the camps literally started emptying. People were put on boats and buses by Soros funded organizations. Frontex just coordinated with NGOs.Actions have consequences. Merkel unilateral actions had consequences for the whole of Europe. Now she wants other to bear these consequences. The others saying "meh, if you like your refugees, you can keep them. If you don't like them you can keep them as well".Other consequences are crimes committed by migrants (and a lot of that is kept out of the news), thousands of people that can't be or won't be integrated into our societies (in NL a report recently said that it is a complete and utter failure), increased security problems, burden on the social security systems, changing demographical and political landscapes (with potential problems for the future), etc. So I don't think that Merkel's decision (as she now herself feels as well) is looking increasingly better with many more people on the way.Just wishing that we all will get along, does not make it so.European countries against the US invading Iraq? Yes, very much so. Did they learn? Not really, from Sarkozy kissing US Congress ass to him, Chirac and the UK supporting the wars in Libya and to some extend Syria. The EU also guilty in that ("Assad has to go").

In reply to by Ghordius

SDShack Ghordius Wed, 12/13/2017 - 12:41 Permalink

Yes, because the 2003 Iraq war was the cause of the 2015 Syrian exodus because there wasn't any thing that happened in between these dates. Your stupidity knows no bounds or you are just a paid EU Shill. Just because the Turks opened their gates, doesn't mean that the Greeks had to open theirs. Oh wait, yes it does. Because the Greeks traded their sovereignty to their German and Brussels overlords and became serfs.If the "decision looks increasingly better by the day", like you say, then why are you bitching about no one solving your little immigration problem? Can't have it both ways idiot. Typical European hypocrite, always wanting someone else to bail you out for your mistakes. Sorry no Normandy Invasion, no Marshall Plan, and No Berlin Airlift for you this time. You voted for your German and Brussels overlords, and to quote 0zer0, the idol of Europe, "elections have consequenes".

In reply to by Ghordius

Ghordius Joe A Wed, 12/13/2017 - 05:09 Permalink

"Tying subsidies or voting rights to compliance is a very big mistake. It will lead to feelings of disfranchisement."

they have a Vote. it does not guarantee a Majority. it never does

they have... Options. China, the US are calling, are offering

the EU is an Offer. for "Grown Ups". they are Sovereign Nation States with their own tax bases and armed forces. they... qualify as such

Freedom to Join, Freedom to Sulk, Freedom to Leave, Freedom to Deal

it's the EU, not a federation, not something like the Warsaw Pact

those subsidies? that were Voted, too. Vote for Vote, Deal for Deal

if Sovereigns can't cope with such... who can?

In reply to by Joe A

SDShack Ghordius Wed, 12/13/2017 - 12:58 Permalink

"Soverign Nation States", "Freedom", "Voting" LOL a thousand times! Why according to you its EU Utopia! So why are so many Europeans voting for parities that want to leave this Ghordius Union and why do Germany and Brussels fight to the death to prevent it if there is so much "freedom"? Your failure is your inability to either see or acknowledge there is no soveriegnty in the EU. You are like Dorthy in the Wizard of Oz, only you keep repeating "There is no place like the EU, There is no place like the EU!" There is no point in debating with someone who chooses to be willfully ignorant. Good luck with your "freedom" serf.

In reply to by Ghordius

Joe A Ghordius Wed, 12/13/2017 - 06:14 Permalink

NL diplomats are very good in using soft power. Also, often they are used by others to "get the chestnuts out of the fire". To handle situations that other don't want to burn their hands on. The Dutch want to play along with the big boys. And while they are good at that, they will never be one of the big boys. Not an EU thing but remember Srebrenica? NL wanted to play important there because "somebody has to do something". Big boys played (US, FR, UK), people got massacred, NL got the blame for failing to protect.Peerhood in the EU? Sorry but differences between MS are too big to call everybody peers. And players are gonna play. The trouble with Europe is that rather sooner than later one player wants to impose its system onto others.

In reply to by Ghordius

alus Wed, 12/13/2017 - 04:07 Permalink

1st lie: "aimed to relocate about 120,000 refugees, mainly Syrians." - nope. 90% of the rapefugees were from such countries like Nigeria, Sudan, Pakistan etc. definatelly not Syria. Most of them were men between 20 and 40. No families. Almost no children2nd lie: "Poland has not take any refugees". Poland in fact took 2mln refugees from Ukraine. Ukraine - where the war is on part of their territoryCommunistic Cavenhove-Kalergi plan to mix nations to create mass with no common roots, language, culture will fail. At least in eastern part of Europe. So this is the reason of rage attacks onto countries that dare to resist against stupid idea promoted by Soros-like neocons.

Mimir alus Wed, 12/13/2017 - 05:13 Permalink

FALSE FACTS, LIES AND RANTS !!!Real facts are:Between 2006 and 2016 some 1.25million refugees have applied for asylum in the EU (40% of the applications have been rejected)Origins of people applying for asylum in the EU yearly 2015 and 2016 (rounded figures):Syria: 350.000 Afghanistan : 180.000Iraq: 140.000Pakistan: 50.000Nigeria: 40.000Iran: 30.000Some 23% were children age 0-13 years of age10%  (14-17)50%  (18-34)17%  (35-64)You might be adviced to read the following report:… concerning Poland, the country received asylum demands for some 600 Ukrainian refugees in 2016. Poland has rejected 95% of asylum demands. Only some 20 Ukrainians have received refugee status (and 18 of them only after appeal). Your "two million" Ukrainian refugees in Poland is pure fantasi and more than the double of what even the Polish government propaganda has said. 

In reply to by alus

alus Mimir Wed, 12/13/2017 - 10:10 Permalink

You're funny. You know the definition of "refugee"??Regufee is (according to official definition): owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.1. after crossing the border to first safe place, he can receive asylum. In case of any longer "journey" he shouldn't be treated as refugee but just immigrant (and probably illegal...)2. You cite official data of people submitting the application for asylum. According to DECLARED nationality. After checking situation look different. Danish i.e. checked unofficialy and 80% of the rapefugees were not children as declared but adults, sometimes long in their 40s...These statistics are more related to reality, despite counting only short time period: 11,3%Syrian Arab 10,7%Guinea 7,9%Cote d'Ivore 7,8%Marocco 6,2%Bangladesh 5,8% (!!)Gambia 5%Mali 4,5%Iraq 4,5%Algieria 4,2% (!!)Sirians are about 10%!!!! Where is the war in the countries like Nigeria, Marocco or Algieria???3. Ukrainian refugees are better or worse than african ones. Why? Because they would qualify to this definition, and better qualify to the new-political-correctness-wording used lately in EU. Lies lies lies everywhere. But in official propaganda Ukrainians don't exist. Fact of taking millions to Poland is avoided in the media. Because official propaganda of EU only counts.…

In reply to by Mimir