What Will Be Left Out of the EU? by Richard Hubert Barton
(2024-01-01 at 20:44:27 )

What Will Be Left Out of the EU? by Richard Hubert Barton

The trend of Europeans becoming a minority in Europe under Muslim majority seems impossible to be reversed and is widely acknowledged.

"Hordes of irregular migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa have come to Tunisia, "with all the violence, crime, and unacceptable practices that entails". This is an "unnatural" situation and part of a criminal plan designed to "change the demographic make-up" and turn Tunisia into "just another African country that does not belong to the Arab and Islamic nations any more."

Tunisian president Kasir Saied on 21 February 2023

Cosmopolitan Mobility and Migration in Sight

The first decisive attempt to flood Europe with mostly Muslim migrants took place in 2012. In January that year, the unelected, cosmopolitan EU leadership pushed ahead with its scheduled integration within EUROMED. First a Barcelona seminar under the telling slogan: War and Peace in XXI century. The Arab Spring a year later took place. During the seminar the EU Special Envoy, Bernardino Leon urged the EU to offer a "a new relationship" to Arab countries that underwent the Arab Spring. This new relationship was to be based on equal treatment between the European Union and the Arab partners. In the presence of the former, High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy in Europe, Javier Solana, Leon assured Tunisia of being granted a relationship similar to other European countries outside the EU like Norway, Iceland and Switzerland.

This push was further reinforced in February 2012 by a Brussels Press Briefing. This took place to give information and significance to the meeting of the Prime Minister of Tunisia, Hamadi Jebali (the same one who announced to his countrymen that they possibly were in the Sixth Caliphate) and the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso. The latter within his Press Briefing mentioned a number of priorities to be dealt with. Significantly, one of them involved the resumption of the dialogue on mobility and migration.

Orban Versus Soros

Further developments related to influx of Muslim migrants to Europe are related to Chancellor Angela Merkel. Despite the fact that yet in 2010 she erupted in reference to multi-culti integration calling it an utter failure her decision to accept over a million refugees mainly from the Middle East marked a profound change in her policy. Watching closely the 2015 migrant crisis billionaire financer George Soros welcomed her decision.

The same cosmopolitan George Soros prepared his plan of bringing up to 1 million Muslims to Europe annually. The plan was among other things reported on 22 July 2017, in Tusnadfürdo (Baile Tusnad, Romania) by the prime minister of Hungary, Victor Orban and vehemently opposed by him. A few words on the plan may give some insight into Soros thinking and the European Commission readiness to cooperate.

The plan comprises of four points and the Soros Empire published it and began recruitment for implementation of it. The second point envisaged that upon arrival every Muslim migrant should be given an amount in euros equivalent to four and a half million forints which the author of the plan would be glad to finance.

The essence of the proposal is the so-called "pull factor" to maintain a continuous influx. After all, the received sum in euros by each migrant upon arrival would be higher than the Hungarian annual average wage. The third point of the plan stated that the migrants arriving in the EU would have to be distributed among the countries of Europe as part of a mandatory and permanent mechanism. And interestingly, the fourth point is about setting up a European immigration agency which would take all the decision-making powers related to migrant affairs away from the nation states and hand them over to Brussels.

The opposition to massive migration and Soros-like proposals on part of Orban is loud and firm. His not very widely publicised statements clearly indicate what is at stake. I shall quote just three of them:

Over the next few decades the main question in Europe will be this: will Europe remain the continent of the Europeans? Will Hungary remain the country of the Hungarians? Will Germany remain the country of the Germans? Will France remain the country of the French? Or will Italy remain the country of the Italians? Who will live in Europe?"

Social democratic parties are not what they once used to be. They have married themselves to global business interests representing neoliberal economic policy, and now they have a single policy area, they are concentrating on a single area: preservation of their influence over culture. This is the second important element in Europe today. And the third important thing is that Europe is currently being prepared to hand its territory over to a new mixed, Islamised Europe.

If you are raped legally, forced to accept something you do not like, how would you like to have a compromise and agreement? It is impossible.

Only two months after Orbans speech in Tusnadfürdo in Romania as if to counter Orbans opposition to Muslim migration the European Commission financed and open an exhibition entitled "Islam, it is our history too." Comments as to the exhibition were of a mixed kind. Europeans support peaceful coexistence of Christians and Muslims but it is rather hard to hide its purpose i.e. affirmation of Islam and its values. By the way, can anyone imagine financing and organizing by Muslims in a Muslim-majority country an exhibition called "Christianity, it is our history too"?

Immigration Dominates Politics in the EU

The trend of Europeans becoming a minority in Europe under Muslim majority seems impossible to be reversed and is widely acknowledged. The Muslim lacking assimilation, their higher than European fertility rates, the already existing numbers of Muslims in the EU and their large numbers coming legally and illegally to the European Union they all are well-known and come in support of the tendency.

No wonder, large part of European politics is about immigration. Examples abound but I will mention just a few.

The pact, which will result in member states taking in a quota of migrants, was in an unwavering manner opposed by the Polish government that has put migration at the forefront of its campaign for the October 15 2023 general election. Prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki wrote on Facebook: Europe today faces an essential choice - to choose either security or mass, illegal migration.

In the Netherlands November 2023 elections migration was the key issue and Gert Wilders Freedom Party (PVV), won 35 seats in the 150-seat Dutch parliament. Mr. Wilders advocates to stop Muslim migration and ban construction of new mosques.

In another development, the Danish government has shut the country to migrants and concentrates on deporting refugees back even to war-traumatized Syria. In this context it should be recalled that in 2019 The Social Democrats of Denmark were the first ones to promote the "Rwanda solution" advocating deportations of asylum-seekers supposedly for their own protection, with the option of settling in Rwanda. Fancy that, imagine a refugee dreaming about Denmark, one of the best countries in the world - standard of living and welfare wise - and unexpectedly ending up in Rwanda! The British Conservative Party thought that it was an effective way of discouraging illegals and aping the Danes proposed the "Rwandan option."

On 19 December 2023 Frances Parliament just toughened some rules and introduced new laws for migrants. The new law on immigration was a compromise between President Emmanuel Macrons government and the right-wing Les Republicains party. The adoption of the new laws was described as an "ideological victory" by far-right leader Marine Le Pen.

The picture of migration in European politics is far from full without taking into account Germany. After all, the highest numbers of foreign-born migrants (nearly 16 million) live in Germany and the biggest factor driving German voters into the arms of the far right is the influx of asylum-seekers. More than 200,000 people applied for asylum in Germany between January and August-a 77 percent increase from the same period last year.

Generally speaking, many German voters have a feeling that their mainstream parties do not represent their interests in several areas, above all, in migration affairs.

In view of this, more and more German politicians are becoming vocal against asylum seekers. For instance, in 2020, in Thuringia, CDU leader Friedrich Merz told the gathering that Syrians could not be accepted in the country. That was in stark comparison to the welcoming words of his predecessor Angela Merkel, who widely opened doors to refugees in 2015 and said, Wir Schaffen Das, or "we can do this." This year Herr Mertz went one step further endorsing cooperation with the AFD (Alternative for Germany).

According to a recent survey of Deutschlandtrend, more than 70 percent Germans were unhappy with the distribution of refugees, nearly 80 percent felt that asylum-seekers were not sufficiently integrated while two-thirds favored limiting their numbers.

Victor Orban against European Commisions Pact

By the time the New Pact on Migration and Asylum was approved and elaborated on 20 December 2023 premier Orban was alone in his opposition to it. His Polish allies were no longer with him as Poland had a new government of premier Donald Tusk. The latter facilitated the Pact formulation and approval.

The short summary of the Pact as propounded by the Commission:

1) Screening Regulation: creating uniform rules concerning the identification of non-EU nationals upon their arrival, thus increasing the security within the Schengen area.

2) Eurodac Regulation: developing a common database gathering more accurate and complete data to detect unauthorised movements.

3) Asylum Procedures Regulation: making asylum, return and border procedures quicker and more effective.

4) Asylum Migration Management Regulation: establishing a new solidarity mechanism amongst Member States to balance the current system where a few countries are responsible for the vast majority of asylum applications, and clear rules on responsibility for asylum applications.

5) Crisis and Force majeure Regulation: ensuring that the EU is prepared in the future to face situations of crisis, including instrumentalisation of migrants.

The above points are of a general type. The picture becomes clearer when the Commission turns to aims. The aim of the agreement is to reduce the amount of irregular migration to the European Union. The reform includes provisions for faster vetting of irregular arrivals, the creation of border detention centers and quicker deportation for asylum seekers whose requests are rejected. The EU countries that refuse to take them in will make a financial or material contribution to those that do accept them.

How high is the expected flow of asylum seekers? Up to the end of November this year, the EU border agency Frontex had registered more than 355,000 irregular border crossings into the bloc, an increase of 17%.

What was Orbans reaction to the Pact? He said that the pact was certain to fail. He did not dwell much on the issues involved he simply advocated one principle: those who want to enter the EU must submit an asylum application from outside the borders and wait there for a final decision. All this sounded reasonable. His model for accepting political asylum seekers can be described as reliable and orderly.

Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó was straightforward and said that his country reject the migration and asylum pact in the strongest possible terms. He added, that no one could force Hungary to let anyone in. Out of at least 30,000 refugees a year to be distributed between Member States, only those we want to come to Hungary or allowed to come and stay in Hungary can come. So, despite pact being approved the Hungarian stand is crystal clear.

The part of the Pact dealing with compulsory deportations seems to be most questionable. For the countries of asylum seekers may not be willing to cooperate. They may simply refuse to take them back or demand the money for repatriations. And there is not much the European Union can do. The situation in many mother countries is unstable, to put it mildly, and what in Europe call asylum seekers in their original countries they are often considered criminals and trouble makers that the embattled or unsteady regimes are happy to get rid off. In other words, the continuous outflow of such elements in those countries takes on a role of some sort of a safety valve. What may be worse, some of those arriving may be undocumented people.

Obviously, in these hundreds of thousands of co-called asylum seekers an overwhelming majority are people enticed by the promise of better life "there" (Germany, Sweden) and in some cases to avoid military service. When in 2015 I visited the Island of Lesbos in Greece to investigate uncontrollable arrivals of the refugees none of those I met tried to hide their objectives such as getting apartments and decent social benefits. I did not come of any cases of persecution though I was aware of the fact that in other groups of arrivals genuine asylum seekers could indeed appear.

I think that some elements of thinking confirming correctness of Orbans views on the Pact appeared yet at an earlier stage when it was being debated. Then Meloni, Morawiecki and Orban suggested that the emphasis should be not on distribution but on preventing asylum seekers from coming. They were ignored.

Above all, what is hard to grasp is von der Leyens confidence. The Pact stated: "The reform includes provisions for faster vetting of irregular arrivals, the creation of border detention centers and quicker deportation for asylum seekers whose requests are rejected." The words that arise particular doubts are "faster vetting and quicker deportation." How one can believe that nearly the same people who had been in charge of migration (including deportations) will be able to change their extremely high proportions of the failed deportations? It is not a secret that only 21% of the roughly 300,000 migrants told to leave the EU every year actually go!

How difficult negotiations about deportations can get one can be given a foretaste from talks on that matter between Frau von der Leyen with Tunisian President Kasir Saied. She flew to Tunisia before coming back to Europe for signing the Pact. Meeting with von der Leyen and earlier with prime minister of Italy President Saied made it clear that his country would not be a "reception centre" for returns of sub-Saharan migrants from Italy or any other country in Europe. All this despite a €1bn deal signed 16 July 2023 and promises of future purchasing solar energy from Tunisia. All that he was ready to accept were Tunisian nationals. The figures available for April 2023 was about 8 thousand Tunisians arriving and returned, in April 1,000 in May and 5,000 in June.

The End of the EU as We Know It

As the demographic assessment of Associated Press demonstrates white, or native, birthrate in France are at 1.4 children per woman, compared with a Muslim rate of 3.4 to 4 children. In view of this, it concludes that in 35 years France will become a Muslim-majority country. Charles Gave, an economist, fund manager and political commentator, wrote in 2017 about the "disappearance of the European populations: as native populations shrink and Muslims continue to exhibit a robust fertility rate. Perhaps it is not accidental that the possible new, very important development may take place in France and is associated with possible coming to power by Marie Le Pen in 2027. The article 6 of the French constitution, states that the president cannot "exercise more than two consecutive periods in office." Therefore, Emmanuel Macron is no longer eligible to run in the election for a third consecutive term. Thus, one may dismiss Macron as her presidential opponent.

How much chance does she have to win? On the shock poll conducted in April 2023 Le Pen would beat Emmanuel Macron if the presidential election of last year were repeated now. Le Pen would score 55 percent and President Macron 45 percent if they faced each other in a run-off vote.

It would be wrong to assume that she is certain to win in 2027. Winning a presidential race depends on many factors and circumstances an above all on the changing dynamics in French politics. Things are certain when they happen. What can be said at this stage is that she has a good chance to win.

Why so much consideration to Marine Le Pen? Let us have just a quick look at some parts of her electoral program which in time have undergone some changes. Her proposals are if not revolutionary they are nonconformist to say the least,

Starting with sovereignty she argues that "Frances sovereignty cannot coexist with EU authority; it must supplant and overtake it." She stands firmly for the abolishment of the European Commission, by transforming it into a Secretariat to rubber-stamp legislation agreed by the Council of EU heads of state. She will immediately reduce Frances contribution to the EU budget by 5 billion per year. What will be left from the Pact and the present day EU structure? Perhaps Frau von der Leyen will have to retire?

The litany of changes she wants to introduce is long. They include the possibility of pulling France from NATO, introduction of severe restrictions on migration, state border controls and Frances opposition to isolating Russia. If so, maybe the world will become more orderly and peaceful? What is more, President Donald Trump might choose to congratulate her for making France Great Again!

Another development which is extremely important is related to a strong Influx of African populations because of demography and economic gaps as compared with Europe and other highly-developed countries. It impossible to analyze it in ordinary words. Its impact is unheard of, nearly catastrophic and absolutely massive. Serbian economist Branco Milanovic outlines the future drama as follows:

These trends look even more unmanageable for Europe when one takes a longer-term view and realizes that the sub-Saharan African population which is currently only a bit higher than that of all of Europe is expected to be almost six times greater by 2100. Consequently, regardless of cultural and religious differences economic migration is bound to increase sharply.

The only solution to the problem would be directing huge finances and resources to the Sahel countries to build their economies, infrastructure and educational systems. But no-one of the affluent countries is considering anything like that or ready to assign resources. Obviously, should anything like that taken off the organizers would have to fight corruption and to convince the impoverished populations to have much less children. But the main problem is that nothing like that is in the making.

The West wants to preserve a unipolar world and endanger security of such countries as Russia and China. What has hit the headlines lately is further military expansion of United States in Scandinavia.

As Arne O. Holms reports, Norway, Sweden, and Finland have opened 36 military bases for United States forces and weapons. The agreements are bilateral, i.e., between the United States and the individual country, and not a NATO agreement. What do they amount to? - To encircling Western Russia as much as possible at an explosive pace?

"This relevant article, its pictures, and its links are here:"

Reprinted here from the "Strategic Culture Foundation" provides a platform for exclusive analysis, research and policy comment on Eurasian and global affairs. We are covering political, economic, social and security issues worldwide. Since 2005 our journal has published thousands of analytical briefs and commentaries with the unique perspective of independent contributors. SCF works to broaden and diversify expert discussion by focusing on hidden aspects of international politics and unconventional thinking. Benefiting from the expanding power of the Internet, we work to spread reliable information, critical thought and progressive ideas.