Cameron's wrong demands

We learn today of the issues which David Cameron is pursuing in the renegotiation of the UK's membership of the European Union.  They are, as quoted in the Sunday Telegraph:

1. Forcing Brussels to make “an explicit statement” that Britain will be kept out of any move towards a European superstate. This will require an exemption for the UK from the EU’s founding principle of “ever closer union”.
2. An “explicit statement” that the euro is not the official currency of the EU, making clear that Europe is a “multi-currency” union. Ministers want this declaration in order to protect the status of the pound sterling as a legitimate currency that will always exist.
3. A new “red card” system to bring power back from Brussels to Britain. This would give groups of national parliaments the power to stop unwanted directives being handed down and to scrap existing EU laws.
4. A new structure for the EU itself. The block of 28 nations must be reorganised to prevent the nine countries that are not in the eurozone being dominated by the 19 member states that are, with particular protections for the City of London.

That's it.  Nothing on the key issues that are impacting Britain's relationship today.  Nothing, for example on the subject of immigration and the free movement of peoples.  Nothing on the refugee crisis.

Let us though, examine these in more depth.

Why do we need any kind of 'explicit statement' from Brussels?  Is Britain a sovereign nation or not?  Does Britain really need the permission of the European Union to not join in the 'European Project' for ever closer union?  Who exactly could force us into a European superstate?   I seem to recall that the UK has stood against 'ever closer union' a few times, already in history - Waterloo, 1914-18 and 1939-45 spring immediately to mind.

The reality though is that any such statement will be meaningless.  The whole modus operandi of the EU is to achieve movement towards ever closer union by any means possible.  Don't believe me?  Consider, what were Britons told about the first referendum that was held, in 1975?  We were joining a Common Market.  This was a trading bloc.  No mention that we were signing-up to an EU Foreign Service or an EU army or EU anything but that is where we have come to.

So, 'an explicit statement that the Euro is not the official currency of the European Union'.  We are demanding, banging the table, crossing our arms and refusing to talk about other things unless the European Union issues a statement of the bleeding obvious.  Really?  We are going to stamp our feet in order to get the EU to confirm what anyone with access to the internet could establish in a couple of nanoseconds - as I just did!

ec.europa.eu › European Commission › Economic and Financial Affairs7 Aug 2015 - The introduction of the euro in 1999 was a major step in European integration. It has also been one of its major successes: more than 337.5 million EU citizens in 19 countries now use it as their currency and enjoy its benefits. The euro is not the currency of all EU Member States.

The euro - European Commission

Of course, I would seriously question - along no doubt with more than a few Greeks, Irish, Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese  - the Euro being a 'major success' but that's another discussion.

With demand #3 we are starting to get somewhere.  This is a demand that is an absolute must. The United Kingdom has to have the power to pass its own laws - and only the democratically elected government of the UK can pass these laws.  Not at the behest of or on orders from the European Union.  Only when the UK parliament has debated and voted and decided upon proposed laws, should they become the law of the UK.  Not because the unelected bureaucrats from Brussels say that a law must be passed but because the elected representatives of the people of the United Kingdom vote for it.  I half-apologise to those pro-EU readers who will be offended by that four-letter word - vote - but until the EU adopts democracy, I have to keep using it as in my view, Britain and not Greece,  'invented' democracy (Take a look at Daniel Hannan's excellent 'How we invented freedom and why it matters') 

The fourth demand - relating to a revised power structure simply follows on and is an absolute requirement, from #2.  Since we know very clearly, that the Euro is not the official currency of the EU, then obviously the power  structure and organisational apparatus has to reflect that.

I gather, that David Cameron will, if he gets his own way on these four demands, consider that he has 'batted well' for Britain and he will then campaign for a Yes vote, for Britain to remain in the EU.  Not me though. Since the demands are largely false, to begin with and, let's face it, should be extremely easy for the other EU members to accept (#3 probably less so) then the whole re-negotiation is seen for the farce that it is.  

I know that the Euro federalists consider that the free movement of labour is a condition sine qua non of membership.  They equally want an EU superstate and they are not going to get that.  So, this free movement issue needs to be discussed.  

In the recent refugee crisis, Angela Merkel had indicated Germany's willingness to take in 800,000 refugees.  A few days afterwards she started to row back on this but the message was received very loudly and very clearly by the invading hordes in Turkey, Lebanon and Libya.  What often gets lost in the consideration of this story is that these refugees almost 100% want resident status.  This then means that they can travel to and work in any other EU member country.  I am not suggesting that all 800,000 will come to the UK, but it absolutely cannot be right that any of them, should be able to come to Britain.  Clearly this would call for discussion on the creation of a different category of resident - native resident - born in the particular EU country prior to 2000 or to parents born in an EU country prior to 2000, say, and temporary resident which would include all of the refugees and economic migrants.  This latter group would not have the rights for free movement.  If Mrs Merkel wants to take in 800,000 refugees, fine, but don't expect the UK, Netherlands, Italy, Spain etc., to become economically or in any other way responsible for Germany's lunacy.

Another issue that needs to be negotiated is for the UK (or any other member state) to be able to conclude its own trade treaties with nations outside of the EU.  Also, its own military alliances.  In brief, to be able to act like the independent sovereign nation, which it is.  

I opened this piece by talking about Cameron's four demands.  For me the question is much simpler.  One simple requirement (well, simply stated, anyway).  The return to the UK of all of those powers that have been ceded to or taken by, the EU since we joined back in 1973.  To those who will say that it is unfair for Britain to have the advantages of EU membership without having to follow the rules, I say.  I agree!  Britain needs to comply with EU regulations but only, repeat only, when and where those regulations have been implemented by the UK parliament (and post referendum, all such directives and rules, laws and regulations, must be voted upon, again.)

For me, timing is also important.  Part of these negotiations must include a timeline.  If the decision is taken to leave the EU, then this must be implemented within 12 months of the date of the referendum.

Finally, given the EU's reluctance to accept the will of the people and past referenda, there can be no re-run at the behest of Brussels.  If the British people vote to leave, we leave.  

What think you? 

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!’

EU Immigration - The solution

The European Union is facing an unprecedented invasion, right now.

Hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East are swarming into the EU, or are poised to do so.  Germany is said to be facing an influx of more than 800,000, this year.

This solution might work for some of them.

Many of these migrants are Muslims, fleeing war in Syria and Iraq or in Somalia or Eritrea or Ethiopia or Afghanistan.

Surely it would be far, far better for these migrants to be re-housed in a culture that is more in keeping with their own?

So why don't the EU authorities turn these people around and send them to Saudi Arabia or Iran - depending upon which Islamic sect, they follow.

Both are rich countries, both are strongly religious and won't persecute the migrants for practicing their religion - so long as they chose the right country.  Both are large countries with plenty of room for settling large numbers.  Saudi Arabia has a large population of immigrants from the Indian sub-continent - mainly Pakistan, it could simply replace these with the immigrants that are most in need.

This solution would reduce the burden on European countries and stop the indigenous people from feeling swamped and for their ailing economies being even more strained.  Plus, it gives the Saudis and the Iranians the opportunity to show charity and compassion to their co-religionists.  Win/Win really!

This would also take away the opportunity of those in Europe to say that these are merely economic migrants - just looking for a better life in Europe, than they can achieve at home.

If this is successful and these masses of Muslims could be accommodated within these two stalwarts of the Muslim community, then perhaps those Muslims that have migrated to Europe, during previous upheavals, could also leave and settle there, as well.

Too simplistic?  Consider how many Greeks and Turks moved in opposite directions when those nations moved apart in the 1920's.  Consider how many Muslims moved from what was to become India to what was to become Pakistan, in 1947 (and Hindus in the opposite direction.)  Mass migration can work, indeed has worked but has been most successful, when the people moving, move to an area with which they are culturally familiar.

Maybe the Americans could try this with their non-Mexican immigrants?  Let them stay in Mexico rather than take them into the USA and put them, (in an effort to disperse the large numbers) into alien environments.

If something isn't done though, watch for the further rise of far Right parties in Europe.  The French National Front is already in the ascendancy and will only be stopped from taking the French presidency by a coalition of Socialists, Communists and Conservatives.  We see, in Spain, Greece and Germany, a backlash building.  Even in my beloved UK, the UK Independence Party garnered a lot of support, in the last General Election, because of it's anti-immigration policies.

Doing nothing, isn't really an option!