Some thoughts on recent events

No, this is not about David Bowie about whom my feelings are lukewarm, at best. I refer to the events of New Year's Eve in Cologne and other Continental, particularly German cities as well as subsequent developments. My intention was not to write about it because there were so many people pontificating already but an exchange I had with a very well known journalist (no name, no pack drill, as they say) who thought that the official report, which confirmed that the Cologne attackers were "of migrant origin".When I asked why that is a surprise, given what we had heard from the women victims and why is it worse than if the attackers had lived in the country for a while, the reply was "because it plays into the hands of those wanting to sow division".

What can one make of that attitude? Can this journalist really think that the crimes are less important than the need to prevent "dissension", which cannot possibly be sown who think it is all right to attack women in the streets? Could this journalist have possibly preferred that the story of Cologne as many other similar but smaller stories had been buried by unsympathetic police officers and politicians? One cannot help suspecting that with this and many other journalists. After all, the media has been entirely complicit in the mess.

Other discussions I have had yielded some interesting moments as well. On a personal basis I can confirm that a good many people on the left are or are trying to be in denial about this. The number of assertions I have seen that this must have been a plot put together by the extreme right and other opponents of immigration is extraordinary. What that shows is the usual left-wing contempt for the people they allegedly support and a reluctance to understand that there are other cultures around and some of them are incompatible with ours. The notion that only Europeans or Americans are capable of deciding to do anything and everyone else simply follows instructions or gets caught up in a conspiracy is laughable but also dangerous. Yet there are many people around who do not even see anything wrong with that.

There have been the inevitable comments and articles about "feminists" being ready to sacrifice other women for their own rather skewed politically correct attitudes. That, I keep pointing out, is true only if we all accept that Guardian-type definition of a feminist being left-wing. Then it all becomes a general problem for the left. There are, however, many of us feminists, who believe in freedom and equality and who are not on the left. We have been discussing these issues for some time and intend to go on discussing them. Nobody, in my opinion, is more of a feminist than the Baroness Cox, who is fighting for the rights of women against Sharia law and who is much disliked by the left, including the so-called feminist left.

There are the inevitable arguments that we should look at male violence in general and not assume that some cultures encourage it more than others. Any discussion of that kind would take away attention from recent events and criminal activity and bog us down in pointless meanderings. Of course, there is something to be said for looking at the male violence angle but not quite what these people mean.

One of the big arguments against the decision to allow in refugees/migrants in large numbers (a decision that almost all European countries have been rejecting) was the fact that the majority of them were young men though enough women and children could be found for moving pictures in the media. Not only does that raise uncomfortable questions as to whether these are really refugees but should remind us that a sudden influx of tens of thousands young men is not that good a development and is unlikely to be conducive to keeping peace and law and order. When those young men come from societies, which have a very different attitude to women, then big trouble could be expected.

Unfortunately, having committed themselves to a certain series of actions, politicians together with the media that supported them and those entrusted with the preservation of law and order, preferred not to acknowledge that trouble was on its way. When it came (and that happened some time before this last New Year's Eve) official reaction was to dampen the fires, dismiss complaints, bury the news story and hope it will all go away. They may have feared a backlash, dissent, even violence aimed at the migrants but most of all it is their own position that was at risk and up with that they could not put.

As my friend and wise mentor John O'Sullivan put it on his Twitter feed:

Official silence, meant to prevent a backlash, fueled a backlash which, btw, is a racist term for critical opposition to foolish policies.

The story of violence against women at various occasions and in various parts of Europe (with Britain not exactly being exempt, what with our tales of gangs grooming young girls and years of official denial) has now become too big to suppress. The Police Chief of Cologne was thrown to the dogs and the Mayor of that city, having made some very stupid statements that basically blamed the victims, is whining that she has been attacked and criticized. The interview is well worth reading in full to see the political helplessness and need to blame everyone else. None of it is new but people have become less tolerant.

What we see here is quite normal for the political establishment. They make a colossal mistake or two, refuse to look at valid criticisms and discard any opposing ideas. When those criticisms turn out to be correct they find it impossible either to acknowledge it (with some exceptions) or to admit that the mess is now too big for them to deal with and they have no idea how to get out of it.

This has happened over and over again, the whole appalling mess of the eurozone being just one example. In the case of this particular mess there were two catastrophic decisions: one is to take in very large numbers of migrants/refugees from societies that are run on different principles without even a perfunctory check beyond the odd newspaper story; the other, older decision (and really it is hard to tell whether it was a decision or something that just happened) was not to insist that those who come to our countries and societies abide by our laws and our own cultural norms. That does not mean people cannot worship in their own way, wear clothes they prefer (though I have a rooted objection to the veil) or eat the food they like (that, above all). But there are more important issues such as the position of women in society. The decisions were challenged and criticized all along and these criticisms were dismissed as emanations of racism or xenophobia. Well, now the whirlwind is upon us.

Don't hear much about this

Yes, yes, yes, I am still avoiding the subject of Thursday's resounding victory won by the Sod Off Party. Even the sight of Lord Prescott (that well known socialist and egalitarian) drooping with fury and discontent as the victorious Conservative candidate speaks cannot inspire me enough to analyze it. Maybe tomorrow, if the dinner that celebrates 20 years of the Maastricht rebellion offers sufficient cheer.

Now then. Back to the House of Lords (where there was a Maastricht rebellion of its own). Lord Stoddart of Swindon (a good egg, as readers of this blog know) asked the following Written Question:

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Statement by Lord McNally on 1 November regarding the European Union Justice and Home Affairs Council, what are the implications for the United Kingdom of the opt-ins to the Dublin (III) Regulations and the new EURODAC Package.

Before we look at the response we need to work out exactly what this is about and the best way of doing so is to have a look at the Written Statement made by Theresa May on November 1, about the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Luxembourg on October 25 and 26. (In parenthesis, I may note that at least the Minister did attend. They don't always.)

The EURODAC Package is there to facilitate the provisions of the Dublin (III) Regulations, which as both the Statement and the reply to Lord Stoddart's question explain have to do with asylum seekers who make multiple applications in different EU member states.

Originally the UK had an opt-out but that has now been given up and we have opted in.

On the common European asylum system (CEAS), the presidency said that the reception conditions directive was due to be approved under the Council’s legislative items; only technical questions remained on the Dublin (III) regulation; negotiations with the European Parliament continued on asylum procedures, and COREPER had agreed the EURODAC package. The UK has opted in to the Dublin (III) regulation and the new EURODAC proposal. The UK has not opted in to the three other directives on reception conditions, asylum procedures and qualifications.

That was part of Mrs May's Statement. Lord Taylor of Holbeach's minions responded to Lord Stoddart:

The Dublin (III) and EURODAC (II) Regulations will between them govern the continued operation of the Dublin system by which member states determine who is responsible for dealing with an asylum claim. The Government are committed to the Dublin system, as it helps tackle the problem of people abusing asylum systems across Europe by making multiple claims in different EU member states. Since 2004 the Dublin system has enabled the UK to remove over 10,000 asylum applicants. This has resulted in significant financial savings and has also sent a powerful message that the UK can and will act against those who try to abuse our asylum system.

The Government will continue to consider the application of the UK's right to opt in to forthcoming EU legislation in the area of justice and home affairs on a case-by-case basis, with a view to maximising our country's security, protecting Britain's civil liberties and enhancing our ability to control immigration.

The point I should like to make here is that far from challenging various "European" bodies and authorities, far from seeking to repatriate power, far from giving Parliament more control, HMG continues to opt into various agreements to do with Justice and Home Affairs without bothering to make much of a song and dance about it. All in the name of " maximising our country's security, protecting Britain's civil liberties and enhancing our ability to control immigration". Of course.

That elephant is being ignored again

Damian Green has decided to wade into the immigration pillow fight. British business, he says, is "addicted to foreign labour" and should be hiring British, even if it means training those British. This is putting the cart before the horse, needless to say, as business owners will point out to him unless they prefer to ignore him completely.

Perhaps, he and his colleagues should try to find out why it is that British business is "addicted to foreign labour" and then discuss solutions to the problem, if it is, indeed, a problem.

However, I note with some interest that certain words are missing from that diatribe. I expect readers of this blog have guessed what they are: European and Union. I wonder how it is that Mr Green failed not notice the elephant yet again.

Nothing has changed - Part 1

In the light of the stupendous and misguided hysteria about the Boy-King's "fantastic achievements" in the recent European Council, which just confirms my view that an IN/OUT referendum would be a disaster, I have decided to start a series of the various ways in which Britain's position has not changed one iota. For those who are thinking along the lines of the UK being like Switzerland, I can say one thing: there is a difference between being outside the EU and signing bilateral agreements and being inside it and having to obey all the laws that flood towards us and will continue to flood.

First up: levels of immigration. I rarely get involved in that debate as I think it is almost entirely misguided. The problems are to do with our welfare and education systems not with immigration. Nevertheless, it is interesting to hear what HMG has to say on the subject.

On December 7 Lord Roberts of Conwy asked: "what steps they are taking to reduce net immigration".

HMG's response was the usual waffle and not entirely unexpected:

My Lords, we are committed to reducing net migration to tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands, by the end of this Parliament. We have already introduced an annual limit on the number of non-EU workers, overhauled the student visa route and increased enforcement activity. Our next steps are to break the link between temporary and permanent migration by restricting settlement rights and to reform family migration.

The relevant part of the discussion comes some way down when Lord Willoughby de Broke asks:

My Lords, if the aim is to reduce net immigration, will the noble Lord say whether he is going to repatriate the power over immigration from the EU? It would surely help to reduce net immigration if we controlled immigration from the EU.

The answer?

My Lords, there are no plans to do so.

Of course not. We cannot do anything about it as we have no right to change EU rules.

Was this not one of those matters on which repatriation of powers was discussed in the dim and distant past (last week or so)? Yes, but you see, you can only change structures and repatriate powers by having a new treaty and that is something the Boy-King will not have.

So where are we on those resignations?

Talks to form a unity government in Greece have collapsed and there ain't no Sanity Clause either.

In a day that was bizarre and chaotic even by Greek political standards, Papandreou wished his successor well and headed off to meet the president -- only for it to emerge that there was no successor due to feuding in the political parties.

Earlier, party sources said senior members of the socialist and conservative camps had settled on the speaker of parliament, veteran socialist Filippos Petsalnikos, barring last-minute snags.

But snags did indeed emerge, with large sections of Papandreou's PASOK party and the conservative New Democracy refusing to back Petsalnikos after a three-day hunt for someone to lead the coalition until early elections in February.

So who is the Greek Prime Minister? Do we even care? It appears that talks will start again tomorrow.

Meanwhile, we are assured that the eurozone has not plans to rescue Italy, which was never on the cards anyway. Whether Italy is too big to fail or not is a moot point but it is certainly too big to rescue.

French and German officials are discussing a smaller eurozone. It is not immediately clear whom they will shed but they might start with France. Of course, a smaller eurozone is as good as no eurozone, given that this was a political project from the very beginning, aimed at a fiscal and economic unification of however many countries there might be in the EU at any given time. That project has, to all intents and purposes, been abandoned.

The Italians hope to avoid the Greek political mess and a possible successor to Silvio Berlusconi when he finally goes has been mooted. Then again, it looked like the Papandreou succession was all stitched up as well, yet here we are.

Theresa May is definitely not resigning. Not today, anyway.

Just checking

Berlusconi is still promising to step down but that, apparently, is not going to save Italy and her economy.

Italy's borrowing cost has soared to a record high, despite Silvio Berlusconi's promise to step down as prime minister.

Mr Berlusconi had said he wanted to show global markets that the country was "serious" about sorting out its finances.

But on Wednesday morning, Italy's 10-year government bond yield - the rate the country pays in interest to borrow money - rose above 7% for the first time since entering the euro.

Italian President Giorgio Napolitano called for an immediate commitment to economic reforms to restore confidence in panicked financial markets.

Bond yields of more than 5% are considered unsustainable in the long term as governments cannot afford to pay that much over a long period.

Would it have been different if the man had paid any attention to his job and/or stepped down earlier? Quite possibly.

The Boy-King has come out fighting (well, sort of) for the beleaguered (I believe that is the correct expression) Theresa May. Her position thus becomes unassailable. Let me say that again, unassailable.

Hereditary Prime Minister Papandreou is all set to resign and this time he will really, really, do it. Well, he has to; after all, he told Sarko. In the fullness of time he will tell the people of Greece as well.

What with all this going on plus the IAEA officially announcing that Iran is becoming something of a problem, it is not surprising that the students' march for more money to be handed out against those terrible cuts in education has somehow disappeared from people's consciousness. Bad luck chaps and chapesses. And just a hint: try not to display Socialist Worker placards quite so prominently.

Are they going? Not on your life

Berlusconi "vows to resign". What on earth does that mean? The man has lost the vote, has lost his majority. Just go already. Nope, the BBC doesn't say he has resigned either just that " has confirmed he intends to resign after key economic reforms have been approved". Goodness me, I remember a time when Italian prime ministers went down like ninepins and there was none of this vowing around the place.

According to Reuters, he will resign after a new budget law is approved in parliament.

No, Papandreou hasn't gone either.

Greek political leaders failed to wrap up coalition talks as planned on Tuesday night, raising fears the deal could start to unravel after two missed deadlines.
The country’s president had been set to appoint a new cross-party government headed by Lucas Papademos, a former vice-president of the European Central Bank who previously served as Greece’s own central bank governor.

George Papandreou, the outgoing prime minister, was supposed to announce his resignation at the same time, according to an official from his PanHellenic Socialist Movement.

“There’s radio silence from our side, let’s see what happens in the morning,” said a senior socialist. The government spokesman could not be reached for comment.

An official from the conservative New Democracy party said:”Contacts seem to be over for today.” He added that there were “no indications” that Mr Papademos had pulled out of the discussions.

OK, I'll say it again: just go already.

That leaves Theresa May who has managed to pass the blame for her incompetence on to the head of the UK border force. He has resigned but in a Parthian shot has accused Ms May of misleading Parliament. As if she would. So the heat is on. Theresa May has already announced that she will not resign but we have not had a public pronouncement of support from the Boy-King. When that happens we shall know that her days are numbered.

Not nobody is going to resign

Theresa May is not resigning. Berlusconi is being urged by his "key ally", Umberto Bossi of the Northern League, to resign but is singing the Italian equivalent of "la-la-la-la, can't hear you". Greece is still "inching towards a deal" while

an emergency cabinet meeting -- the last likely to be held by the present government -- was postponed owing to a meeting between outgoing Prime Minister George Papandreou and Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos, state television channel NET said.

That means that Papandreou has not resigned either.

As you were.

Sauve qui peut

The Centre for European Reform, which used to be a perestroika europhiliac think-tank but has dropped the perestroika bit or passed it on to Open Europe has published a short paper about the forthcoming European Council in June.

Time was there were only two European Councils a year, one at the end of each six-monthly presidency. Then, in the late nineties, they started having the odd emergency Council half-way between the regular ones. It did not take a genius to work out that those emergency Councils would become regular ones and we shall end up with four jollies a year instead of two. It's not their money, after all.

According to Hugo Brady author of the paper that predicts what will happen in June, the biggest, most overwhelming problem will be immigration, with thousands, though not that many thousands apparently pouring into Italy from Tunisia and Libya (and who knows from where else by then.

This could easily become a bad tempered, inconclusive affair. First, the summit is supposed to take a broad strategic view of EU immigration and asylum policies. But instability in North Africa will inevitably skew discussion towards the present. Italy is adamant that it needs help to manage what it calls a "human tsunami" from Tunisia and Libya. Demands for greater "solidarity" from fellow EU countries essentially mean their agreement to take in some of the 20,000 or so migrants currently housed in tent camps on the islands of Lampedusa and Sicily and in the mainland region of Puglia. The EU has committed money, a humanitarian mission and border guards from Frontex, its border agency. Nonetheless, the Italians feel entitled to more. The EU-supported rebellion against Muammar Gaddafi's regime and the Tunisian uprising against President Ben Ali have left its realist immigration policy, heavily reliant on the two dictators, in tatters.

More in tatters than Mr Brody appears to realize. In response to the crisis shaping up around refugees in Italy, France has abandoned Schengen and resurrected its border with that country.

The crackdown is sowing tensions between the two neighboring countries. "There's a hostile attitude coming from Paris," Italian Interior Minister Roberto Maroni told the Italian Senate on Thursday.

French Interior Minister Claude Guéant lashed back, saying France "is completely within its rights to send these people back to Italy."

The dispute ultimately stems from the European Union's failure to forge a common policy for dealing with migrants, ranging from political refugees to undocumented job seekers who enter the EU from countries along its periphery but are determined to settle in richer economies to the north.

Another day, another crisis and another crack in that famous European solidarity.

Actually, no, there is nothing we can do

Readers of this blog will undoubtedly recall a certain Mr Gordon Brown (who he? ed.) promising that British jobs will be primarily for British people. Setting aside the sheer stupidity of that statement, we need to point out that it is not an idea that can be implemented within the EU, being against the four freedoms that are the basis of the project and have been so since its inception.

So, what now, that we have a new government that is determined to do its best for Britain and be in Europe but not ruled by Europe? Well, Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked:

whether, in light of the rise in unemployment predicted in the Budget, they intend to follow the statement of the previous Prime Minister about "British jobs for British workers"

Lord Freud or the civil servants who write those responses pretended that the question was something completely different:

The Government will be taking action to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands it has been in recent years to the tens of thousands it used to be. A consultation process on the implementation of an annual limit on the number of non-EU migrants who come to the UK to work is currently under way.

We are committed to tackling the nearly 5 million people claiming one of the main out-of-work benefits, by reforming welfare and ensuring resident workers have the skills, attributes and help they need to be able to take up work.

Or, in other words, no because that is not something we can decide on. Then again, as I said above, it is an idiotic promise.