Filed under: Bureaucracy, European Union, Free Markets, Freedom, National Security, Politics, The United States, United Kingdom | Tags: Labour's Jeremy Corbyn, Prime Minister Theresa May, The British House of Commons
Jeremy Corbyn, Labour party leader, is neatly put in his place by Prime Minister Theresa May. Nice work!
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Economics, Europe, European Union, Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Freedom, History, Immigration, National Security, Politics, Regulation, Unemployment, United Kingdom | Tags: BREXIT, Prime Minister Theresa May, Trading Partners
The British People voted last year to leave the European Union in a vote that has come to be called “BREXIT” or British exit. Mrs. May said forthrightly that she was not in favor of leaving, but if that is what the British People voted for, that is what she would do.
The British High Court said the Prime Minister would have to get a vote of the Parliament in order to do so, and on Wednesday they voted to allow Prime Minister Theresa May to start Brexit negotiations with the European Union. The European Union Bill passed with 498 votes to 114. The Bill will still have to go to the House of Lords before becoming law. May has set a March 31 deadline for invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and beginning exit formalities with the European Union.
The Scottish National Party attempted to block the bill before the vote. Forty-seven members of the Labour Party MPs revolted against the Labor Party’s leadership and voted against the bill.
Staying in the single market would require Britain to continue contributing to the Brussels budget, accept EU economic rules and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and admit levels of immigration that have become politically unacceptable. Remainers said these concessions were worth making, but voters disagreed and they must be respected.
Some European countries want to punish Britain, and drive the hardest bargain possible. Mrs. May has argued for a clean break, as that is the only way for London to negotiate its own trade deals with the rest of the world.
The smart play is for both to help the other succeed….The biggest threat to the EU isn’t a Britain that succeeds outside the common market. It is an EU that keeps failing to provide the economic prosperity demanded by its frustrated citizens. What drove Britain from the EU was the Continent’s failure on immigration control, fighting terrorism and delivering jobs and rising incomes.
To put it another way, Mrs. May is telling Britons they’re embarking on another great chapter in self-government. The Brits helped invent the idea, so they know what it takes.
Daniel Hannan is a member of the European Parliament who went to the European Parliament urging the abolition of the place. He said “It’s difficult to begin to understand the imbalance of forces in our recent debate and referendum. Every broadcaster, every political party, every bank, every big corporation, every trade association, every think tank, every EU-funded university, the whole of the establishment was telling us that it was a matter of national survival to stay in the EU. That it would be calamitous for us if we left. And people didn’t believe it. On June 23, they politely disregarded all the advice, all the bullying, all the hectoring, all the threats, and they voted to become a self-governing country again.”
He added “Americans voted Leave in 1776, and from where I’m standing, it seems to have worked out OK for you.”
Filed under: Crime, Europe, European Union, Immigration, Intelligence, National Security, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, Politics, Progressivism, Syria, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Austria, German BND, ISIS Fighters Smuggled Into Europe
A huge raid by about 800 Austrian police officers in Vienna and Graz, have rounded up fourteen Islamists, including three women and a handful of Imams connected to ISIS, after a two-year long investigation into the radical Salafist network. They will be charged with membership in a terrorist organization and the creation of a criminal organization.
The head of the criminal justice department of the Ministry of Justice said the Islamists spoke of creating a “State of God” or an Islamic Caliphate theocracy. Police also allege that the group had recruited at least 40 people to engage in jihad. Previous reports indicate that around 270 Islamists were under active observation by Austrian intelligence services.
The German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) and the Austrian government reported last November after the attack at the Bataclan theater in Paris that hundreds of ISIS fighters have been smuggled into Europe as “refugees.”
Filed under: Bureaucracy, European Union, Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Freedom, History, Middle East, National Security, Politics, The United States
The Obama administration has planned to admit 110,000 refugees to the United States during the next fiscal year, a 57% increase over the 70,000 refugees admitted in FY 2015. Only 36% of the American people believe we should admit any Syrian refugees at all.
Americans have watched the surge of migrants into Europe and the subsequent terrorist attacks, rape and sexual attacks on women and girls, and the problems the Europeans are just beginning to learn about. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was at first extremely welcoming, and many Syrian refugees are refusing to work saying that they are now the guests of Angela Merkel and they don’t have to work.
Turns out many of the Syrian refugees in Europe are not from Syria and are not even “refugees.” Chancellor Merkel has recently admitted that she was mistaken, and the polls don’t look good for her continuation in office. The European Union has been very politically correct, with emphasis on compassion as a virtue. People at first came out with flowers and food to welcome the migrants. After the discovery that they were indeed somewhat dangerous, complained about the housing and food provided, executed terrorist attacks, most notably in France, and regarded sexual gratification as an entitlement, Europeans began to lose their enthusiasm.
We cannot vet refugees from Syria. There is no government to which we can apply. Syrian passports are easily copied and widely available. For many, the simple opportunity to move to a more prosperous country is very appealing, and for others, the welfare and free goodies are the defining element.
A professor of economics at the University of Munich has said that 65% of Syrian refugees are “functionally illiterate — they fail to have basic reading and writing skills in accordance with international standards.” 73% have dropped out of job training classes.
According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, more than 90% of Syrians applying for refugee status are approved despite the lack of any ability to verify their identity. The Federal government is going to spend $4,6 million to give “emotional wellness” to refugees. The Department of Homeland Security is allegedly refusing to release an immigration study “pinpointing the number of illegal immigrants who successfully sneak across the southern border” because it might help Donald Trump’s campaign.
Since 2013, the Obama administration has allowed 300,000 criminal aliens to return to the United States because their home countries will not take them back. Hillary Clinton had the power to stop it cold, but chose not to. CIS estimates that it costs twelve times as much to resettle refugees here rather than in a neighboring country in the Middle East. The wealthy Arab-Islamic countries near Syria aren’t accepting refugees because of “security concerns.”
The Center for Immigration Studies (cis.org) is a think tank devoted to the issue of immigration. They are pro-immigration and pro-immigrant, but they want immigrants to be legal. It is a very useful website for all things concerning immigration and immigration law. It’s an enormously complicated matter.
George Soros, who backs the Democratic Party with major funding, believes in completely open borders. Apparently so does Hillary, who Trump has accused of wanting to resettle 1 million in her first term. At the other extreme are those who want the flow of immigrants completely stopped. Which does not bode well for much in the way of compromise.
Every time we offer amnesty, it is an open invitation to the world that we have open borders and they are welcome. One can favor admitting legal immigrants and even refugees. Our laws favor those refugees who face religious persecution, and getting immolated in a cage by ISIS would seem to be a major incentive, but President Obama rejects admitting Christians as the law requires.
For the most part, once refugees are admitted, they’re on their own. Homeland Security has no idea where they are, nor how they are doing. nor does anybody else except for the school districts that have to provide for them, and the police departments who cannot get any help in deporting them because of “sanctuary cities.” By failing to deal with jihad and terrorism, President Obama has created the backlash all by himself from Americans, who do follow the news.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Europe, European Union, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Law, National Security, Progressives, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: A Borderless World, Controlled Borders or, The European Union
Americans have watched the influx of millions of young, Muslim, and mostly male refugees into a European Union poorly prepared to deal with them. The European Union, envisioned as sort of a United States of Europe, has been troubled from the start with an oversupply of political correctness. The Schengen Area agreements which gave free rights of movement within Europe were not planned to deal with the migrants or their numbers. A popular revolt has arisen. Europeans apparently wish to accept Middle Eastern immigrants only to the extent that they arrive legally and promise to become European in values and outlook, and they are learning that their own values and outlook are quite different from what prevails in the Middle East or North Africa.
President Obama has effectively planted a big welcome sign on our Southern border. Since 2012, the U.S. has essentially quit policing the border entirely. He has, by executive order, reduced the requirements for citizenship, scattered illegals across the country inflicting hundreds of new students on unprepared school districts. This has directly led to the rise of Donald Trump and his “great big wall.” It may be as much that someone is finally taking notice of the problem, as the actuality of a promised wall. Victor Davis Hanson, whose home is in California’s great Central Valley has written often about immigration and its resulting problems. He wrote yesterday:
Driving the growing populist outrage in Europe and North America is the ongoing elite push for a borderless world. Among elites, borderlessness has taken its place among the politically correct positions of our age—and, as with other such ideas, it has shaped the language we use. The descriptive term “illegal alien” has given way to the nebulous “unlawful immigrant.” This, in turn, has given way to “undocumented immigrant,” “immigrant,” or the entirely neutral “migrant”—a noun that obscures whether the individual in question is entering or leaving. Such linguistic gymnastics are unfortunately necessary. Since an enforceable southern border no longer exists, there can be no immigration law to break in the first place.
Today’s open-borders agenda has its roots not only in economic factors—the need for low-wage workers who will do the work that native-born Americans or Europeans supposedly will not—but also in several decades of intellectual ferment, in which Western academics have created a trendy field of “borders discourse.” What we might call post-borderism argues that boundaries even between distinct nations are mere artificial constructs, methods of marginalization designed by those in power, mostly to stigmatize and oppress the “other”—usually the poorer and less Western—who arbitrarily ended up on the wrong side of the divide. “Where borders are drawn, power is exercised,” as one European scholar put it. This view assumes that where borders are not drawn, power is not exercised—as if a million Middle Eastern immigrants pouring into Germany do not wield considerable power by their sheer numbers and adroit manipulation of Western notions of victimization and grievance politics. Indeed, Western leftists seek political empowerment by encouraging the arrival of millions of impoverished migrants. …
Few escape petty hypocrisy when preaching the universal gospel of borderlessness. Barack Obama has caricatured the building of a wall on the U.S. southern border as nonsensical, as if borders are discriminatory and walls never work. Obama, remember, declared in his 2008 speech in Berlin that he wasn’t just an American but also a “citizen of the world.” Yet the Secret Service is currently adding five feet to the White House fence—presumably on the retrograde logic that what is inside the White House grounds is different from what is outside and that the higher the fence goes (“higher and stronger,” the Secret Service promises), the more of a deterrent it will be to would-be trespassers. If Obama’s previous wall was six feet high, the proposed 11 feet should be even better.
It’s a long article, but very worth your time. Dr. Hanson has clearly given the matter of borders a great deal of thought.
Clearly delineated borders and their enforcement, either by walls and fences or by security patrols, won’t go away because they go to the heart of the human condition—what jurists from Rome to the Scottish Enlightenment called meum et tuum, mine and yours. Between friends, unfenced borders enhance friendship; among the unfriendly, when fortified, they help keep the peace.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Economics, Economy, Europe, European Union, Politics, United Kingdom
Daniel Hannan is a British politician, author, and Member of the European Parliament representing South East England, who will, I guess, shortly be losing his job to BREXIT, which I believe he favored. Here he is clearing the air a little, about the wonders of socialism.
He is a very clear speaker, and I wouldn’t want to be on the opposing side of a debate with him. Good guy, always interesting.