Now both Angela Merkel and a senior member of the European Union have made noises about deporting criminal migrants and stopping the influx. But the timing is curious. Merkel made her statement right after it was clear that democracy wasn’t going to help her complete her project to destroy, well democracy. And for that matter, Germany.
After a series of shock defeats to the anti-mass migration AfD party, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has promised to “stop illegal immigration” and send failed asylum seekers back to their home nations. […] Two days after that result, the Chancellor finally admitted her policies during the migrant crisis were wrong, insisting that she wished to “go back in time to be better prepared”.
I’m pretty sure I know what she meant by “better prepared”.
It is highly unlikely that she changed her mind about anything. What is likely is that she wishes she had been more deceptive about her choice of language. Stopping illegal immigration for her likely means to change the laws so that it isn’t illegal.
As it was, she gave her opponents like Viktor Orban a weapon to use, as he repeatedly stated he was trying to obey EU laws on immigration while Merkel and her EU and leftist cronies are in fact breaking them.
As for “deporting failed asylum seekers”, that’s easy too. All you have to do is make sure none of them fail. “No migrant left behind” will be her next slogan. That way she gets carried on the Obama-Bush wagon and it sure sounds better than, “we can do it”.
In another staggering coincidence, one of the unknown number of presidents, chairmen and other senior staffers of the opaque European Union has made this statement in the immediate leading edge of the Hungarian referendum on accepting mandatory quotas on migrant resettlement in various EU nations.
(This article is in Polish but we have a reasonable hope that a proper human translation will be available later today.)
Hungarian media believe that the way to the demobilization of the electorate was the recent statement of the head of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker. He stated that Brussels withdraws its plans to fight the crisis, immigration , including EU countries to impose mandatory quotas. If it turned out to be true – according to some Hungarian journalists – a referendum would be pointless. Others say that one dignitary of the Brussels declaration does not mean the final abandonment of earlier plans, but may make some voters remain in their homes.
If this author understands the machine translation correctly, this Polish site has it right on the money. The EU is not above a little deception to maintain power. By one person making a baseless claim that they abandon their ambitions to force migrants on the peoples of the EU, they are likely hoping a lot of the voters who reject the forced resettlement of masses of African and Afghan and Pakistani muslims, pretending to be Syrian refugees, will stay home and not vote. Crisis averted.
This may be a good time to revisit the European Union’s modus operandi a little bit.
Let’s start with the jailing of a former Soviet dissident in England. Not for his criticism of the totalitarian communist state, but for the odd and unsubstantiated, no-lawyer permitted charges of having child pornography on his computer. Oh yes and he was a very vocal critic of the nascent totalitarian state of the European Union, which he argues quite convincingly is the Soviet Union West.
When Bukovsky, 72, who lives in Cambridge, UK, began his hunger strike on April 20, there was an initial flurry in the British press. It tapered off, and especially after the draconian measure taken on May 3 by the British High Court. The court went to the unusual and unusually totalitarian length of imposing a “reporting ban” on recent developments in Bukovsky’s libel suit against the Crown Prosecution Service, as explained here.
Another greatly disturbing development is that should Bukovsky be medically unfit for his separate criminal trial on May 16, the court has reportedly threatened to try him in absentia.
What is going on?
It all started on April 27, 2015, when the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced in an unusual manner — no, a unique manner, as I will show below — that it would be prosecuting Bukovsky for “making” and “possessing” child pornography, five charges each, plus one charge of possessing a “forbidden image.”
I have to pause for a moment to ask, incredulously: Is there a sentient person, naturally revolted by the thought of child pornography, even five or six images’ worth, going to believe for one minute that the British state, for decades having turned the blindest and hardest and most craven of eyes against the sexual despoilment and prostitution of generations of little British girls at risk at the hands of criminal Islamic “grooming” gangs, has suddenly developed some compelling interest in protecting the welfare of children, and thus turned its avenging sword on … Vladimir Bukovsky? The context, at least, is all wrong from the get-go.
…It certainly is. Please read the rest at Diana West’s site linked above.
And then this, also from Diana’s site:
A British court has ruled against Vladimir Bukovsky’s libel suit against the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
In brief (background here, verdict here, Bukovsky statement below), Bukovsky sued the CPS for libel over its public announcement in May 2015 that he was to be prosecuted for “making” five images of child pornography. This term of legal art, Bukovsky argued logically, implies to the average person that he was to be prosecuted as a child pornographer for “making” five images of child pornography. In fact, the state’s criminal case against Bukovsky, which will come to court in December, will turn on whether Bukovsky possesed five mages of child pornography on his laptop — which was very mysteriously seized by British authorities in October 2014.
Bukovsky denies all charges, and, further, sees his public torment as the latest phases in his 57-year-battle against the Russian intelligence behemoth.
A burning question remains as to why British authorities suddenly decided in October 2014 to seize the laptop of one of Britain’s leading citizens, a man of unsurpassed moral standing, living quietly, peacefully, lawfully in Cambridge. Who or what tipped them off?
What sot of message does Mr. Bukovsky have for the European public these days?
The movie, Brexit, was quite revealing in terms of the nature of the EU:
One Irish MEP, yes and actual member of the European Parliament, made his own video criticizing the EU, as he was stunned at the level of opacity of the European Union, even to him, an elected representative there.
So having one senior member of the EU bureaucracy make a claim they have no intention of keeping in order to circumnavigate the people’s will, first in Hungary but really everywhere in Europe, is an easy claim to make in the wake of this understanding.
Clearly the one thing the Eurocrats fear, is the people recognizing their own right to their own cultures and national autonomies. The plan was to erode it slowly at first, then once people started to figure it out, to move as quickly as possible. Maybe bring in a few million people as foreign and hostile as possible to wipe out the differences between a Spaniard and a Portuguese. After all, next to a hundred thousand Afghan Muslims in Burkas, Fado and Flamenco are both equally forbidden.
Remember, the person making the claim that suddenly the EU will not enforce the migrant resettlement a few days before the referendum in Hungary, is the same person, or certainly the same governing body, that secretly made deals with the cities in Hungary to take migrants against the will of the national government.
Chances are that if the Hungarian referendum vote is sufficiently against the EU’s forced resettlement/population replacement program, it will be seen as a mandate even if the results are not legally binding on Orban. But more importantly, it will be seen by the rest of Europe as permission to voice and launch their own opposition to the program. And that is what really frightens them.