Europe's refugee crisis

This blog is principally addressed to most politicians and those in the West who have been emotionally moved by the TV pictures of the so called ‘refugees’ now invading Europe. 

I must declare an interest.  I too was moved by the pictures of the dead child, lying in the gently lapping surf.   I did though have a slightly different take on this.  Like many people, I was angry.  Such a waste of a young life and what a way to die!  However, my anger was directed towards the child’s father.  Why would this father take his child from the safety of Turkey and risk himself and his family’s lives by taking them on board a flimsy boat, heading in the direction of Greece?  I fully understand why the father took his family out of Syria, though since he apparently came from Kobane, which is now controlled by Syrian Kurds, one has to wonder a little.  

However, this father and his family were in Turkey.  So why did the father take the risk?  Why are all of those politicians who emote so on TV, wringing tears and their hands on rolling news programmes, not asking what caused this man to act, as he did? 

If he was genuinely at risk in Turkey then why is this not being addressed?  He is a Kurd and Turkey has a long-standing and very active antipathy towards Kurds.  Was that his reasoning?  I can’t think of any other.  If Twitter is to be believed though, this family had remained in Turkey, for some considerable time, between fleeing Kobane and then moving on, which raises other questions about the level of fear and its immanency. 

So why then don’t Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande, David Cameron and others punish Turkey for this climate of fear that causes people to flee from a supposedly safe country?    Where are the politicians that are condemning Turkey?   Leave aside for a moment, Turkey using the guise of attacks against Daesh to launch brutal attacks on PKK Kurds and Iraqi Kurds  who themselves are fighting Daesh.  Where is President Obama taking Turkey to task?  Search the internet and see if you can find speeches railing against Turkey’s actions, from any Western leader.

So I come back to why the father took the known risk of moving his family out of Turkey and, let’s assume he thought it best, given the ‘persecution’ in Turkey.  Why then not head towards Armenia or Georgia, or take an overland route to Greece?  Why not throw themselves on the mercy of Saudi Arabia or the UAE or Qatar – why not invade their embassies in Ankara?  These countries share religion and other cultural ties, which would help the family to better assimilate.  Of course, there are far less ‘bleeding hearts’ in those countries, which may have coloured his judgement, but surely the safety of his family would come first?

Moving on from this particular family and the tragic outcome of this man’s decision, we then come to the farce that is the European Union.  I use the word farce, though in truth, there is nothing remotely funny about what is going on – please excuse my use but I cannot think of another that captures the idiocy and hypocrisy that is now on display.

The unelected President of the European Commission – Jean-Claude Juncker thinks that all EU members should take a share of up to 160,000 refugees, this year.  The quotas would be based on GDP  and other criteria.  Britain, Ireland and Denmark would be exempt from these ‘compulsory’ quotas because they have opt-outs under EU treaties.   It is not clear how this number marries up with Angela Merkel’s seeming acceptance of Germany taking in 800,000 refugees, this year. 

Mrs Merkel ‘s decision has been likened on Twitter, to those naïve teenagers who put a note on social media saying ‘party at my house’ and then are shocked to see that in addition to those they want to attend, they find their parent’s house being overrun by ‘gate crashers’ and being trashed by these people.  What seemed at first like a good idea, shows, in the cold light of morning a harsh reality. 

This though is a reality that has far and deep consequences for the whole of Europe. 

These ‘refugees’ are not some kind of homogenous group, fleeing war in Syria.  As others have said, included under this umbrella are economic migrants.  Also, we can clearly expect that Daesh will use this opportunity to infiltrate murderers into our midst.

Worryingly, these ‘refugees’ all seem to seek residency.  That is, they want to become permanent residents.  The assumption must be that were peace to suddenly descend upon Syria, they would not return.  Once they get into Europe, they stay in Europe.  And why wouldn’t they?  It isn’t as if, like with prior migrations, they are obliged to assimilate.  They can maintain, indeed, they are very actively and positively encouraged to maintain, their own separate cultural identity.  So they have many of the ‘benefits’ of their homeland, none of the drawbacks and they enjoy the fruits of a much better economic position.   Why would they ever return? 

Make no mistake, this migration is an invasion.  An alien culture is being foisted upon Europe’s peoples.   And this does affect all of the EU countries.  Once these ‘refugees’ become citizens of Germany, they have completely free movement and can go and work and live in any member state.  They can also claim welfare benefits just as if they were a local national resident.

Europeans, including countries like the UK, should not be relaxed about this.  Just because they are not opening their flood gates to a new wave of immigrants (some would say they are already wide open, anyway!), does not mean they will not be affected.  They will.  Denmark can close it’s rail links with Germany, in an effort to stop the tide but like that old Viking, King Cnut, they are wasting their time. 

Europe’s people need to stop and think.  It is no good depending upon politicians to solve this.  Do that and you get fools like Merkel and Juncker making their statements and other politicians sucking up to the liberal left and luvvies in the media.  People that never have to live with or be exposed to the consequences of their actions, on a day to day basis. 

I have a proposal for any of those media people or fools who say that they will take in a refugee family.  Will you do so, on the basis that you personally accept full economic responsibility for these people and all of their offspring, in perpetuity?   You will continue to house them, feed them, pay for schooling for them, pay for medical care for them and so on and on?  Not just today or tomorrow but for ever?  If not, why should any tax payer accept such responsibility so that you can salve your conscience and feel good at the next meeting of friends.  Can you look your children in the eye and convince them that their economic future will not be threatened by you taking on the economic burden of another family?

Of course, the reality is that caring for these refugees is about more than just passing over last season’s coats or putting a temporary roof over the head of a refugee family.  This is a long term undertaking.  Individual people doing this are grossly irresponsible.  They know that their involvement will always be short term.  They know that the burden, the true burden will be borne by the tax payer and society at large. 

What is there to suggest that these refugees have the economic resources to house and feed  themselves in the host country?  What is there to suggest that these people, many coming from an agricultural background, will find work?  Indeed, in a Europe that has very poor or non-existent economic growth,  where are the jobs to come from?  Juncker’s afore-mentioned plan calls for Spain to take a large part of the 160,000 compulsory quota.  Spain with youth unemployment at almost 50%! What is there to suggest that these people can pay for healthcare for themselves and their family? Or for education?

Consdider Britain (though most other countries would be equally applicable).  Does anyone believe that Britain has spare social housing?  Has, even with a growing economy, many spare jobs (particularly in the agricultural sector).  That the NHS isn’t already stretched and that schools have lots of free places? 

The reality is that any housing for these refugees will come from the private sector and will be funded by the tax payer.  The reality is that these refugees will not be able to find work or, if they do, will displace local nationals and so welfare payments will increase.  The reality is that the NHS will become more and more of a failure because it simply can’t cope.  The reality is that school class sizes will be increased and education outcomes will suffer.  And all of this with a further erosion of cultural traditions.  Trust me, it is not in the British tradition, to execute a serving British soldier on the streets of the country’s capital, by seeking to cut off his head.  Nor is it to mutilate young women or to blow-up fellow citizens (the murderous IRA, notwithstanding).

So I ask my readers, when you see the heart-string tugging pictures on TV or hear people prattling on about ‘we need to do something’ ask them  how much they are prepared to pay and how much they are prepared to give-up – not just money or material goods but also long-held freedoms and traditions. 

There was a very successful campaign against people giving a dog as a Christmas present.  The tag line was ‘A dog is for life not just for Christmas’  The way we now act, the phrase could be changed to ‘A refugee is for life not just for Christmas!’

Europe's choice - BREXIT

The leaders of the members of the European Union have made their choice as to who should be the next President of the European Commission.  They have chosen the very heavily pro-federalist Jean-Claude Juncker.  This EU insider is said to have a strong affinity for alcohol.  Like the rest of the politicians at the top of the EU, he is certainly drunk on power.  Other than being 'chosen' by the heads of government, of the member states, this functionary will wield great power over the people of Europe, who have had no say in his election.  The only vote on Mr Juncker was one that was forced upon the leaders by David Cameron, the UK Prime Minister. 

Cameron strongly opposed the elevation of Juncker.  Cameron knows that the re-negotiation of Britain's membership of the EU will be so much harder, with Juncker at the table.  The majority of British people want a smaller EU footprint and greater power resting in the national parliament rather than in Brussels.  Indeed, I would go further and say that people from many other EU countries want a similar loosening of the EU chain around their necks.  Look at the results of the recently held (May 2014) elections to the European Parliament, where there was a very strong swing in favour of anti-EU parties.

So Cameron forced a vote.  This is an almost (perhaps solely) unprecedented step at the top EU table.  Decisions here are almost always made by consensus and no dissent is allowed to filter out.  It seems that while many of the EU leaders were tepid at best, on Juncker's candidacy, all except for Hungary and Britain, supported it in the end.  Italy was said to be opposed, right up until just days before the meeting but then they were thrown an economic  bone or two and so fell into line.  Probably the same happened with other countries.  That's how the EU works!

So, what now?

Firstly, a Private Member's Bill will be re-introduced into the UK parliamentary process.   This would enshrine in law, the right for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU, being held before the end of 2017.  The previous one failed due to opposition by Labour and Liberal Democratic opposition in the House of Lords.  Labour and the Lib Dems also opposed the legislation in the elected House of Commons.  They did so by tabling masses of amendments and then trying to talk-out the bill.  They failed.  They also, incidentally, failed to vote for the amendments that were  proposed and over which they talked for so long.  Why?  Well they simply didn't have the courage to pin their colours to the EU mast.  They know that the people of Britain want a say.

This time, because of something called the Parliament Act, the Private Member's bill has a better chance of success, as traditionally, the House of Lords should not oppose it.  Wait and see though.  EU federalists are nothing if not incredibly wily!

Let's flip forward and envision a referendum on a British exit (BREXIT) from the EU. 

Already, we can see the arguments from the 'stay' parties.  These will be economic.  They will talk of the UK jobs and export markets that are at risk if Britain left the EU.  They may even remind everyone that this was the reason we joined the then, European Economic Community or Common Market, in the first place.  Britain joined in 1973 and in 1975 held a referendum o the subject. Yes, I know that is the wrong way around but don't expect logic or public engagement, from the political elite! 

So the economic arguments. 

Firstly, Britain is a net contributor to the EU.  This means that Britain puts into the EU cash bucket more than Britain gets out.  That is Britain puts in a huge payment and then some of this is returned to Britain via EU stipends but at the end of the day, Britain puts in, more than it gets out. 

So yes, certain businesses or community organisations or think tanks or whatever, that very much depend upon the largesse of Brussels might see their funding in jeopardy or they might see no change other than from where the payment comes!  Either way, there would be a net boost to the British economy.

Then there's jobs.  The EU represents a large export market for Britain and so jobs might be at risk.  Well let;s think about that.  Why wouldn't the EU negotiate a trade pact with an exiting Britain?  That would secure the export markets for Britain.  I presume that the EU-based purchasers of Britain's goods and services, do so on the basis of economic common sense rather than some kind of altruism - they buy British because the quality and price is acceptable!  Why would the EU sign a trade pact?  Well probably because the rest of the EU enjoys a trade surplus with Britain - they sell us more than we sell them! 

So for me, the economic arguments don't hold water. 

There is also talk about Britain losing its economic clout in the world and not being able to negotiate trade deals on its own.  Simply laughable!  Britain was a major trading nation before some of the EU members were even nations!  Yes, some of that trade was with Britain's colonies and Commonwealth nations but by no means all - statistics show around 27% with former colonies and Commonwealth, 12% with the USA, 43% with Western Europe (including the EC) and 18% with the rest of the  world-  .  In today's world, if you have what people want at the right quality and price, then trade will follow.  The ieconomy doesn't know national boundaries - look at all of the fuss about Amazon and their tax situation!

The EU as a force for peace?  Supporters of this argument point to the absence of continent-wide wars since 1945.  That's true but the EU has been remarkably ineffectual at stopping local conflicts and slaughter - remember Srebrinica?   Or more topically, what is happening in the Ukraine, where the EU has led the people up the path and given them the idea that they should look west to the EU and not east to Russia and then, when Russia flexed its military and gas supplying muscles, the EU abandoned Ukraine.  The Germans couldn't countenance that they couldn't cook Knödel or brew beer using anything other than Russian gas.  OK, so their idiotic closure of all of their nuclear power plants, post-Fukushima, was a monumental error but now they are stuck with Russian gas.  (Note too, that they also oppose Poland exploiting its shale reserves!)

Free movement of people?  Yes, this happens in the EU.  Problem is though, that this has meant a large influx of people into Britain and the indigenous population being squeezed out of employment.  That last comment is a little unfair, so let me explain.  We have seen significant numbers of East Europeans emigrate to Britain.  They have taken low-paying jobs that unemployed British people don't take.  The unemployed locals don't take these jobs because of welfare dependency and the fact that often times, the difference, between wages from employment and dole from the public purse, is not enough to 'justify' work!  If Britain took control of its borders and decided who could come in and who couldn't then Britain could start to tackle the cancer that is welfare dependency!  While the border is open to people who can dramatically raise their living standards by taking low-paying jobs in the UK, then the problem will persist.

Culture and History?  I hesitate to mention this but I don't think that Britons are Europeans.  Maybe it's because we have been at the democracy game for so much longer (see Daniel Hannan's excellent book - How we invented freedom and why it matters) that we view things differently.  Magna Carta (that's Latin for Great Charter, if you are reading this, Mr Cameron!) was signed in 1215 and this formalised previous English democratic 'institutions' and is part of a long tradition of British democracy.  As said earlier, many of the nations that are in the EU have come recently to the processes of democracy.  Perhaps that's why they accept the 'top-down' and 'centre knows best' that the EU offers - it's what they are used to and for the opposite reason, why Britain strains and rails against the undemocratic EU.  Britons have known what freedom means for so long, we almost take it for granted.  In our lifetime, many people now in the EU, had the Soviet jackboot on their necks.  The velvet-gloved EU hand around their neck which has replaced the boot, therefore appears somewhat more benign!

So, my conclusion is that the EU has gambled that there will be no referendum - since the British Labour party hasn't yet decided if it will offer one, that's a possibility.  If there is a referendum, the EU knows that all of the major parties, yes all, will push for Britain remaining a member of the EU.  Whatever is re-negotiated will be hailed as a significant British victory (even though nothing  will fundamentally change) and will be 'sold' to the British people as such.

I sincerely hope that the British people will be given the democratic opportunity to vote on membership and further, that they decide to leave the anti-democratic and wasteful EU.

What do you think?