211–220 of 422 posts
I am surprised Hungary agreed. And Poland. The governments in those nations are not shy to touch on the freedoms of their population, and often disagree with the EU when the EU points these things out. Also Poland being directly next to Belarus will affect their relations.
It feels like the ban hits ordinary citizens more. The rich and the powerful (including politicians) won’t be affected as much. :(
Irritate citizens enough and they will start revolting. Tho life there is bad enough that they ain't got time for that when your instinct calls for survival.
Like in Cuba?
Worth noting in all of this that Belarus recently closed their land borders to citizens [1], under the guise of COVID, but in reality to stop people leaving. The only way out was flying from Minsk, which is now even less of an option if there are no flights to the EU. As others have said these sanctions will likely do more to harm the repressed citizens of the regime than Lukashenko [1] https://www.bnt.eu/cs/zpravy/p…
I'd like to see a worldwide agreement that no country will ever stop a citizen from leaving, as long as they have permission to enter another country. Even if the person is in prison or debt, they can always leave with just themselves to another country willing to take them. If all nations agreed to that, we could stop worrying about most other human rights abuses, and country governance becomes more of a free market…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The free market has a pretty terrible track record when it comes to human rights, though. What would countries stand to gain from this, realistically? No country wants economic refugees.
Why does Germamy willingly accept so many then? Genuinely curious
Worth noting in all of this that Belarus recently closed their land borders to citizens [1], under the guise of COVID, but in reality to stop people leaving. The only way out was flying from Minsk, which is now even less of an option if there are no flights to the EU. As others have said these sanctions will likely do more to harm the repressed citizens of the regime than Lukashenko [1] https://www.bnt.eu/cs/zpravy/p…
Only half-related detail, the European track cycling championships are in Minsk next month: http://www.uec.ch/en/event/149/2021-uec-track-elite-european... The Dutch cycling union is now recommending its athletes not to compete there.
I'm not familiar with all of the bureaucracy and hierarchies of the organising bodies, but it looks like a Belarussian and a Russian were elected to the management board of the UEC in March [1]. It will be interesting to see how that affects decisions. [1] https://minskeurotrack.com/en/news/news/20210329-the-chief-o...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then go after their offshores. Then start targeting their ties inside russian elite
> Then go after their offshores. What, specifically, does this mean? The EU sanctions, idk, the Bahamas? Who? And how?
Worth noting in all of this that Belarus recently closed their land borders to citizens [1], under the guise of COVID, but in reality to stop people leaving. The only way out was flying from Minsk, which is now even less of an option if there are no flights to the EU. As others have said these sanctions will likely do more to harm the repressed citizens of the regime than Lukashenko [1] https://www.bnt.eu/cs/zpravy/p…
I'd like to see a worldwide agreement that no country will ever stop a citizen from leaving, as long as they have permission to enter another country. Even if the person is in prison or debt, they can always leave with just themselves to another country willing to take them. If all nations agreed to that, we could stop worrying about most other human rights abuses, and country governance becomes more of a free market…
It's in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 13 Section 2:
>Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Of course, it's not clear how much legal force the UDHR has.
This is not exact, the EU ban decision is not taken yet. see link here: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021... "- calls on the Council to adopt the necessary measures to ban overflight of EU airspace by Belarusian airlines and prevent access to EU airports of flights operated by such airlines;" decision has still to be made by the council, and then - to my understanding - implemented by all m…
> This is not exact, the EU ban decision is not taken yet. see link here: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021 ... The decision is taken. You are misunderstanding what you are reading. The press release follows an urgent meeting from the Council. The Council is the reunion of all the EU heads of state. They have already agreed to the ban. The sentence you are quoting just means that they now h…
That's not what the quoted sentence ("calls on the Council to adopt the necessary measures to ban overflight of EU airspace by Belarusian airlines and prevent access to EU airports of flights operated by such airlines") means. The quoted sentence is the European Council calling on the Council of the European Union to act. The two bodies are distinct despite their very similar names. In the European Council, the member states are represented by their heads of state or government; in the Council of the European Union, the member states are represented by lower-ranked government ministers (finance ministers, foreign ministers, agriculture ministers, transport ministers, etc). The European Council sets the political direction, but (with rare exception) lacks legislative powers. So here the European Council is calling on the Council of the European Union to enact legislation. Of course the Council of the European Union is going to do what the European Council says. But the Council of the European Union needs to wait for the Commission's lawyers to draft the legislation, etc.
The Council of the European Union actually has legislative powers in this area. Based on the wording of the European Council conclusions, I think we can expect formal legislation from the Council of the European Union to enforce the ban. That doesn't stop the member states from acting themselves (under emergency powers they retain) before the ban has formally passed at the EU level. And of course the member states have to enforce the ban, and the EU has only limited recourse if member states refuse (in many but not all cases, the Commission can take the member state to the European Court of Justice). But I doubt that's going to be an issue here, I think there is a clear political consensus in this case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to see a worldwide agreement that no country will ever stop a citizen from leaving, as long as they have permission to enter another country. Even if the person is in prison or debt, they can always leave with just themselves to another country willing to take them. If all nations agreed to that, we could stop worrying about most other human rights abuses, and country governance becomes more of a free market…
That seems like it would give carte blanche for criminals to flee the country to avoid justice.