Central Europe and the U.S.: The New Alliance
- Even German Chancellor Angela Merkel recognized that multiculturalism has failed. All scientific studies show that a significant number of Muslims in Europe are fundamentalist; and that thousands of young European Muslims went to Syria to join ISIS. And yet, it is insufferable to Brussels and Berlin to hear that the people of Central Europe have no intention of following the same path.
- The European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the EU have made sure, through ruling after ruling, that it is virtually impossible to expel a “refugee” after his asylum request has been rejected.
- The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines itself as a scientific body, although in reality, unsurprisingly, it is a purely political body. In composition, competence or functioning, there is not a shred of science in the IPCC. Yet, in the name of this “science”, European politicians are extracting from their people trillions in additional taxes, building pyramids of new regulations and inflicting prohibitions in every sphere of human activity.
On immigration, on sustainable development and on many other subjects, the convergence between the United States and Central Europe is now as evident as the new divide between Western Europe and Central Europe.
The European mindset is shifting. Twenty-three of the 28 governments of the European Union now have parliamentarian majorities on the center-right of the political spectrum. Everywhere in Europe, the “left” is on the run.
This is particularly true in Central Europe. The soon-to-be Austrian Prime Minister Sebastian Kurz (pictured) won the election on an anti-immigration platform and is on the verge of forming a government with the right-wing Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) which owes its own success to the same topic.
In the Czech Republic, political parties on the right now hold 157 of the 200 seats in the Parliament and tycoon Andrej Babis — “the Czech Trump” — is set to be the next prime minister.
All in all, the “Visegrad Group” peoples — Czechs, Hungarians, Poles and Slovaks — plus the Austrians have voted in the most conservative governments we have seen in Europe for almost 30 years, since the fall of Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom.
Pictured: The Prime Ministers of the Visegrad Group countries meet in Prague on December 3, 2015. From left to right: Slovakia’s Robert Fico, Poland’s Beata Szydło, Czech Republic’s Bohuslav Sobotka and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. (Image source: Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland)
These people and parties have much more in common — in terms of values, priorities, Weltanschauung — with the American Right than with the milder Western-European right. To state, as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has repeatedly, that people in Central Europe do not want Muslim refugees because they do not want their cities to look like Brussels, Paris or London, is Trumpian and in no way EU-compatible.
If we go to the bones of the contention, we see that these differing perspectives between Western Europe and Central Europe are no mere trifles, temporary divergences in wait of the next synthesis. They are existential. The world view of Central Europe looks increasingly irreconcilable with that of Western Europe and the EU. Let us focus on just two matters: immigration and environmentalism.
The political elites of Western Europe have not only fully embraced the concept of “no borders”; they would also dub any form of dissent as ignorance, discrimination or racism. Merkel herself has recognized that multiculturalism has failed. All scientific studies show that a significant number of Muslims in Europe are fundamentalist; and that thousands of young Muslim Europeans have departed for Syria to join ISIS. And yet, to hear that the people of Central Europe have no intention of following the same path is insufferable to Brussels and Berlin.
Bearing in mind that under EU law — the Dublin Regulation — these countries have a legal obligation to welcome their “quota” of refugees who are overwhelmingly Muslims coming via Greece and Italy, you can understand that Europe, that is the EU, has a real problem. It is also worthwhile to note that the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee has just adopted a draft EU regulation to augment this obligation, stipulating that the refugees should be distributed throughout the whole of the EU immediately following their arrival on EU soil.
The more “moderate” European Commission has proposed to streamline and supplement the current rules with a corrective allocation mechanism:
“This mechanism would be triggered automatically were a Member State to be faced with disproportionate numbers of asylum-seekers. If a Member State decided not to accept the allocation of asylum-seekers from a Member State under pressure, a ‘solidarity contribution’ of €250 000 per applicant would have to be made instead.”
€250 000 per applicant! Let us say should Poland refuse a mere 1000 refugees, the penalty would be a staggering 250 million euros (which may come as a surprise since the official ideology prevalent in the EU is that refugees are of benefit to the economy).
Of course, everybody agrees that “asylum applications should be processed much quicker so those in need of protection get it sooner, while those with no right to asylum can be returned to their home country swifter,” in the words of MEP Cecilia Wikström. The plan is unfortunately of little consequence as the EU is living under the law of the infernal twins: the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the EU. They have made sure, through ruling after ruling, that it is virtually impossible to expel a “refugee” after his asylum request has been rejected: no collective deportation, no deportation if the country of origin does not want its national back, no deportation if the country of origin is not a nice democracy, no deportation pending the appeal, no deportation if there is a medical condition, etc. All of these exceptions are reliant upon the “refugee” not seeing fit to destroy his or her own documents, as in that case he cannot be expelled at all.
If the US system of justice regarding immigration is, in Trump’s words, “a joke,” then the EU system is a monumental joke. “Deportation of a quarter of a million failed asylum seekers is almost impossible,” said Horst Seehofer, Minister President of Bavaria of Bavaria and reluctant ally of Merkel in her last coalition.
“The question of deportation is a great illusion in Germany. It is almost impossible to send back the migrants once they are in the country. There are mass complaints against courts for deportation. In most cases, papers are missing and without papers, the country of origin does not take people back. In other cases, there are health certificates missing.”
Central Europe, on the other hand has declared that it has no intention whatsoever of playing its part in the extreme policies and grotesque failure of “open borders” and forced multiculturalism of Western Europe.
And that was before there was “sustainable development”. Self-anointed moral leader, Europe, has decided to become the global poster boy for green policy…
ER recommends other articles by The Gatestone Institute
About the author
Drieu Godefridi, a classical-liberal Belgian author, is the founder of the l’Institut Hayek in Brussels. He has a PhD in Philosophy from the Sorbonne in Paris and also heads investments in European companies.
Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com
The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.
TLB has other above the fold articles, videos and stories available by clicking on “HOME” at the top of this post. Never miss a new post, sign up for E-Mail alerts at the bottom of the Home page and get a link dropped right to your in-box.
TheLibertyBeacon.com contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.