Juncker’s mother of all Faustian bargains
One might have thought that the hour of crisis would demand its prince. Daniel Cohn-Bendit, clown-narcissist, aggressive liberal, and most natural candidate not having responded to the call, we have to make do with Archduke Jean-Claude Juncker, President until 2019 of the European Commission.
Note the mandarin’s ‘economy with the truth’ over the use of the word supplementary, in this piece from Le Figaro.
Alexis Théas | Three million arrivals: how the European Commission fosters migration chaos | 2015-11-06
❝ Alexis Théas — academic, jurist, and specialist in immigration — considers that the Commission encourages an open invitation to migrants: instead of dealing with the question, it intensifies the problem in order to pose as the last bulwark [of humanitarian decency] against the [recalcitrant] member States.
“In total, three million supplementary migrants are expected to arrive in the European Union” during the period 2015-17, so the European Commission reveals today in its report on economic forecasts. According to the Commission, the effect of these arrivals should be “weak, but positive”. The words employed are ambiguous. According to figures published by Eurostat, every year for the last twenty years well over one million non-EU nationals have installed themselves in the EU: 1.455M in 2010, 1.399M in 2011, 1.170M in 2012. The new announcement from Brussels therefore seems paradoxical. Given the huge number of clandestine arrivals in Europe—without historical precedent and in addition to a regular intake expected to be one million for 2015 (250,000 for the month of October alone)—how could an overall drop in immigration be conceivable for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017? The key to the mystery probably lies in the word “supplementary”. The three million “supplementary” migrants over three years announced in the report published today, are probably to be understood as being in addition to the normal intake. Accordingly, we should see from 2015 onwards an approximate doubling of migration to Europe, which would place it—on this hypothesis—in the neighbourhood of 2M to 2.5M people each year, taking into account all forms of mass immigration.
Most surprising was the tone of the announcement: as though it were a banal event, of no great consequence except that it would be somewhat positive for the European economy. For a long time, the Commission has made it its business to accelerate migration to the European continent. On 3rd June, 2003, in a paper on immigration, integration and employment, it declared, “the rate of immigration will continue to increase and will be more than ever necessary”. The Commission declared itself supportive of the right to asylum and safe-haven in Europe for victims of persecution, which it has favoured in numerous rulings and directives. However, until now, Brussels has kept to a balanced narrative, supporting an increase in regular immigration and a scrupulous respect for the right of asylum, but accepting the principle of an implacable struggle against clandestine immigration.
In 2015, a spectacular ideological shift occurred. In the summer of this year, the doors were forced open. The usual distinctions were erased. Everything is now confused—legal immigration for work or family reunion; refugees fleeing persecution; and illegal immigration by sea, air, and land, which until now was furiously resisted. From now on, all who enter Europe in the general influx of people are termed “migrants”, and considered without distinction as a benefit that Europe should accept, if not encourage, for various reasons—demographic, economic, moral, humanitarian, and as a means of increasing diversity. The barriers have been lifted. Goaded by the Commission, Europe has renounced control of its borders and the capacity to deport clandestine migrants to their countries of origin. “It is time to demonstrate [our] humanity and [our] dignity”, proclaimed the president of the Commission, Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker, on 9th September, 2015, before the European Parliament, and in full accord with the German Chancellor, Mrs. Merkel’s call for a bold opening up of Europe. A gigantic open invitation was therewith sent, and nobody can see when or how it is to be ended or reined in.
Why this sudden accommodation of official Europe, till now prudent, to the prospect of receiving massive immigration flows unconditionally? We have to recognize first of all an admission of impotence. When events escape our control, look happy! Otherwise, the press, the media, the humanitarian lobbies, some captains of industry, will exert constant pressure on the European ruling elite and their agencies to convince them of their duty to open the borders out of economic and demographic necessity.
From now on, unconditional open borders is part of one of the Commission’s strategies. When Mr. Juncker demanded of Europeans that they share out the migrants by quota, it was in the context of power. The Commission is on a quest for a new, absolutely decisive role, arrogating to itself a colossal power, without historical precedent: that of orchestrating the apportionment of whole populations across the continent. When the Single Market is achieved, it [the Commission] will attempt to plant itself at the heart of European decision-making.
Finally, in the long term, in a Europe in crisis, the acceptance, even encouragement of mass movements of people towards the Old Continent will be felt as a lever with which to relaunch the European dream: if national passions do not subside of themselves, then the huge waves of migration, the arrival of novel cultures and new ways of life in Europe, will contribute little by little to the disappearance of the old national reflexes to the advantage of a New Man, virgin-blank, conducive to the emergence of a European culture, variegated and founded on diversity. In the same text of 3rd June, 2003, the Commission called for “a clear engagement with and promotion of pluralistic societies”.
The Palaces of Brussels are light-years away from the concrete issues raised by the brutal rise of migration into Europe: the proliferation everywhere on the continent of squats and shantytowns, such as the ‘Jungle’ at Calais; the drama of ghettoised suburbs; the huge rate of unemployment amongst migrants; the social costs, such as state-funded medical aid (AME), running at €1Bn a year in France for clandestine migrants; the signs of disintegration, of chaos, of loss of national and religious identity; the risk of violence linked to the difficulties of integrating migrants that European societies have absolutely no capacity to integrate, above all into their labour markets.
Faced with the prospect of a British exit from the EU; the state of high tension in Central and Eastern Europe, particularly in Hungary, Slovenia and Austria; the construction of barbed-wire fences between states; recourse to armies in order to contain migrants; incoherent, erratic and knee-jerk policy changes in Germany; the explosive increase in racism and support for the extreme Right throughout Europe;—the Commission might well be troubled by the tragic, grievous spectacle of this Europe in full political implosion under the impact of immigration that it never ceases to encourage. This is not at all the case. Today, it has adopted the strategy of making things worse. Consciously or unconsciously, the Commission thinks it can manage to survive in a chaotic Europe of paralysed national governments, thereby becoming the ultimate recourse amongst the ruins of the Old Continent. The gamble is risky. ❞