Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Macron advocates sanctions for EU members refusing to accept migrants

What business do sanctions have in a politico economic bloc like the EU?

Published

on

686 Views

Just before an informal meeting convened to discuss Europe’s approach to the ongoing migrant crisis, French President Emmanuel Macron advocated economic sanctions against EU member nations which refuse to admit migrants into their country in comments which drew the ire of Italian government ministers.

Macron advocates setting up closed centers to accommodate migrants at locations where they most often appear while they await for their asylum applications to be processed.

Meanwhile, a drafted document which advocates that migrants be restricted to the nations in which they initially applied for asylum has been floated about, but which Angela Merkel has assured the Italian Prime Minister, Giuseppe Conte, was being shelved.

Merkel is presently in a very tight spot politically as her government coalition is rapidly falling apart, threatening her post as the German Chancellor, hence her haste to at least verbally placate Conte on the issue in order to assure his participation in this weekend’s informal migration summit in Brussels.

But France’s hypocrisy on the matter was highlighted by Italian officials who pointed out that France often turns migrants back to Italy rather than assuming responsibility for admitting them.

The informal summit is being boycotted by the four Visegrad nations of Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic.

The Associated French Press reports:

French President Emmanuel Macron came out Saturday in support of financial sanctions against EU countries which refuse to accept migrants.

“We can not have countries that benefit hugely from EU solidarity and claim national self-interest when it comes to the issue of migrants,” he said at a press conference in Paris alongside Spain’s new Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez.

“I am in favour of sanctions being imposed in the event of no cooperation,” he said.

Reacting to Macron’s comments, Italy’s co-deputy prime minister and head of the populist M5S party, Luigi Di Maio accused the French leader of being totally oblivious to the scale of the problem.

“Macron’s statements on the fact that there is no migration crisis in Italy show that he is completely out of touch with reality. Evidently, the previous Italian governments told him that the problem did not exist…,” he said on Facebook.

“In Italy, the immigration emergency… is also fuelled by France with its constant rejections at the border. Macron is making his country a candidate to become Italy’s number one enemy on this,” he said.

Far-right Interior Minister Matteo Salvini also reacted furiously in remarks reported by Italian media.

“Six-hundred-and-fifty thousand landings in four years, 430,000 applications…, 170,000 apparent refugees currently housed in hotels, buildings and apartments at a cost exceeding five billion euros.

“If for the arrogant President Macron this is not a problem, we invite him to stop the insults and to demonstrate generosity by opening the many French ports and ceasing to push back women, children and men to Ventimiglia.”

On the eve of a mini-summit about the divisive migration issue, Macron and Sanchez also declared support for the creation of closed reception centres where migrants would be held while their asylum claims are considered.

The centres would be set up near to where migrants often arrive first in Europe.

“Once on European soil, we are in favour of setting up closed centres in accordance with the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees)… so that each country takes people who are entitled to asylum in an organised way,” Macron said.

There are currently no closed migrant centres where applications are processed, with the exception of a few cases in Greece and Italy managed by the UNHCR.

For migrants not entitled to asylum, they should be returned directly to their country of origin and not via other countries, Macron added.

Numerous areas of the EU’s core achievements appear to be under threat, at least verbally, as EU member nations squabble amongst themselves about how to handle the migration issue, which has become a sort of political dodge ball issue in Europe. Elections have been won and lost over the matter as the European public reacts to the issue of foreign migrants popping up in their neighborhoods, altering the demographics and presenting novel economic and political concerns not just on a nation level, but on the ground level in many European states.

As long as the battle continues, and the lack of agreement persists, the likelihood of a solution coming to light in a timely manner casts a shadow over Merkel’s political prospects as her time is running out to present a solution before the hot water that she finds herself in reaches the boiling point.

For the EU, this matter presents a growing challenge to the right of unhindered passage between member states, and, with the prospect of sanctions, the economic benefit of belonging to the Union. Macron’s position, could hypothetically renew Italy’s interest in exiting the Euro, further threatening its stability. The German question also presents a growing concern as to how its relationship with the rest of the Union will appear if an amiable solution to the migrant matter is not decided, as right wing nationalist sympathies gain ground on the German political landscape.

What seems to be eluding many of these states is the root causes of the migration, in the first place. The issue would seem to be that of political instability, war, and poor economic conditions in their home countries, many of which face these issues due to crises initiated by NATO members meddling in their politics and economies for their own political gain, at the expense of the stability of the nations so affected.

The EU, presently taking the brunt of the outcome of this meddling, which includes America’s regime change wars and political meddling, has been, and continues to be, actively involved in such activities, for which reason the migration issue persists and will do so for the foreseeable future. That EU nations should stop bombing, invading, and exploiting African and Middle Eastern nations for political and economic gains, in an undemocratic fashion, I might add, appears to go over their heads like a distant cloud.

But the question is, what business do sanctions have in a politico economic bloc like the EU? What business does France have lecturing other nations on taking migrants from countries which France is presently bombing? And, will the migration issue lead to more Trump-like thinking in Europe, as walls become more popular, inter-bloc travel more regulated, and talk of sanctions thrown about in willy-nilly fashion? What are to be the short term and long term effects of migration from war torn Middle Eastern and African nations, not just domestically, but geopolitically?

 

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
10 Comments

10
Leave a Reply

avatar
10 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
John Masontibetan cowboymikhasGio ConAkit Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
John Mason
Guest
John Mason

OK, proof is in the pudding, another pea brain President.

tibetan cowboy
Guest
tibetan cowboy

Macron is now Trump’s mouthpiece and puppet in Europe and the beginning of the EU collapse. This is and was directed and caused by the USA’s invasions in the NE and the migration of massive numbers of refugees fleeing those countries, with France and UK also helping create their own destruction. Germany will do much better on their own, as will Italy and Spain. EU is breaking up visibly with this Macron b.s., like Trump dropping out of G-7 by making insults.

mikhas
Guest
mikhas

Wolfgang Schäubler, President of the Bundestag said in an interview in Die Zeitung 2016 that if “we didn’t have migrants, Europe would descend into incest” (he used that word). Similarly, German President Joachim Gauck said that “We need migrants to get rid of the idea that being German means being white and Christian”. What this shows is that the reason for importing and injecting young angry muslim males and families is ideological, a cult-like Eurofag ideology based on one of the the founding fathers of the European integrationist movement, Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, who in 1925 called for “European races to… Read more »

Gio Con
Guest
Gio Con

One of the very few — maybe the only article on this crisis that actually mentions the wars and economic policies that have precipitated it. The Europeans have no one to blame but themselves. For decades they meekly went along with every US president’s regime change wars and unfair trade policies, and now they are feeling the heat. Every European leader who persists in these murderous politics ought to be thrown out. And just FYI, those “closed reception centres” are actually the beginning of the Gazification of Europe. Macron should ask the Palestinians how it feels to be locked up… Read more »

Gio Con
Guest
Gio Con

It’s so much easier to divert attention by screaming “open borders” and labeling anyone who disagrees “racist” and “xenophobic,” than it is to deal with the economic and war policies that actually create massive legal and illegal immigration. “Open borders” is an oxymoron — if they’re open, they aren’t borders. Liberals had better come up with a better sound byte. Or, better yet, they could come up with a rational plan to stop the wars, repatriate refugees, rebuild war-torn states, and institute fair trade policies. Nah — much easier to scream and accuse.

Akit
Guest
Akit

Haha……a man who thinks he is the reincarnation of the mythical God, Jupiter and spends 26,000 euros a month on cosmetics, is bound to be out of touch with ” reality,” but joking aside, perhaps RT could do their homework and look up the Barcelona Declaration along with the Nazi roots of the EU in collusion with the NWO in order to cease speculating as to why Europe ( including Britain) is being flooded with young male invaders. The EU forcing financial blackmail upon it’s unfortunate members is nothing new – it is becoming well known for being an anti… Read more »

Guy
Guest
Guy

Kind of a sign of a sick world political atmosphere IMHO.Let all the nations of the world all sanction each other ? Scheech what a crock.

DenLilleAbe
Guest
DenLilleAbe

Le Garcon Terrible hits again. Mini Napoleon is steadily alienating himself in the EU, is he preparing a Frexit?
Or is he preparing a new French Republic, sorry, Caliphate to dominate the EU? Of couse he can call for sanctions, this teenager, last time Franch got a bloody nose, was the boycott of French produce because of Nuclear tests back in the day.
Let the Bellboy air his antics, he is irrelevant, as is France.

Le Ruse
Guest
Le Ruse
Linda Wren
Guest
Linda Wren

You, the EU will lose the Hungry 4 plus more. EU will definitely collapse then

Latest

European Court of Justice rules Britain free to revoke Brexit unilaterally

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that Britain can reverse Article 50.

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT…


The UK is free to unilaterally revoke a notification to depart from the EU, the European Court has ruled. The judicial body said this could be done without changing the terms of London’s membership in the bloc.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) opined in a document issued on Monday that Britain can reverse Article 50, which stipulates the way a member state leaves the bloc. The potentially important ruling comes only one day before the House of Commons votes on Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal with the EU.

“When a Member State has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, as the UK has done, that Member State is free to revoke unilaterally that notification,” the court’s decision reads.

By doing so, the respective state “reflects a sovereign decision to retain its status as a Member State of the European Union.”

That said, this possibility remains in place “as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between the EU and that Member State has not entered into force.” Another condition is: “If no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period from the date of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU.”

The case was opened when a cross-party group of British politicians asked the court whether an EU member such as the UK can decide on its own to revoke the withdrawal process. It included Labour MEPs Catherine Stihler and David Martin, Scottish MPs Joanna Cherry Alyn Smith, along with Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer.

They argued that unilateral revocation is possible and believe it could provide an opening to an alternative to Brexit, namely holding another popular vote to allow the UK to remain in the EU.

“If the UK chooses to change their minds on Brexit, then revoking Article 50 is an option and the European side should make every effort to welcome the UK back with open arms,” Smith, the SNP member, was quoted by Reuters.

However, May’s environment minister, Michael Gove, a staunch Brexit supporter, denounced the ECJ ruling, insisting the cabinet will not reverse its decision to leave. “We will leave on March 29, [2019]” he said, referring to the date set out in the UK-EU Brexit deal.

In the wake of the landmark vote on the Brexit deal, a group of senior ministers threatened to step down en masse if May does not try to negotiate a better deal in Brussels, according to the Telegraph. The ministers demanded that an alternative deal does not leave the UK trapped within the EU customs union indefinitely.

On Sunday, Will Quince resigned as parliamentary private secretary in the Ministry of Defense, saying in a Telegraph editorial that “I do not want to be explaining to my constituents why Brexit is still not over and we are still obeying EU rules in the early 2020s or beyond.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Seven Days of Failures for the American Empire

The American-led world system is experiencing setbacks at every turn.

Published

on

Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


On November 25, two artillery boats of the Gyurza-M class, the Berdiansk and Nikopol, one tugboat, the Yany Kapu, as well as 24 crew members of the Ukrainian Navy, including two SBU counterintelligence officers, were detained by Russian border forces. In the incident, the Russian Federation employed Sobol-class patrol boats Izumrud and Don, as  well as two Ka-52, two Su-25 and one Su-30 aircraft.

Ukraine’s provocation follows the advice of several American think-tanks like the Atlantic Council, which have been calling for NATO involvement in the Sea of Azov for months. The area is strategically important for Moscow, which views its southern borders, above all the Sea of Azov, as a potential flash point for conflict due to the Kiev’s NATO-backed provocations.

To deter such adventurism, Moscow has deployed to the Kerch Strait and the surrounding coastal area S-400 batteries, modernized S-300s, anti-ship Bal missile systems, as well as numerous electronic-warfare systems, not to mention the Russian assets and personnel arrayed in the military districts abutting Ukraine. Such provocations, egged on by NATO and American policy makers, are meant to provide a pretext for further sanctions against Moscow and further sabotage Russia’s relations with European countries like Germany, France and Italy, as well as, quite naturally, to frustrate any personal interaction between Trump and Putin.

This last objective seems to have been achieved, with the planned meeting between Trump and Putin at the G20 in Buenos Aires being cancelled. As to the the other objectives, they seem to have failed miserably, with Berlin, Paris and Rome showing no intention of imposing additional sanctions against Russia, recognizing the Ukrainian provocation fow what it is. The intention to further isolate Moscow by the neocons, neoliberals and most of the Anglo-Saxon establishment seems to have failed, demonstrated in Buenos Aires with the meeting between the BRICS countries on the sidelines and the bilateral meetings between Putin and Merkel.

On November 30, following almost two-and-a-half months of silence, the Israeli air force bombed Syria with three waves of cruise missiles. The first and second waves were repulsed over southern Syria, and the third, composed of surface-to-surface missiles, were also downed. At the same time, a loud explosion was heard in al-Kiswah, resulting in the blackout of Israeli positions in the area.

The Israeli attack was fully repulsed, with possibly two IDF drones being downed as well. This effectiveness of Syria’s air defenses corresponds with Russia’s integration of Syria’s air defenses with its own systems, manifestly improving the Syrians’ kill ratios even without employing the new S-300 systems delivered to Damascus, let alone Russia’s own S-400s. The Pantsirs and S-200s are enough for the moment, confirming my hypothesis more than two months ago that the modernized S-300 in the hands of the Syrian army is a potentially lethal weapon even for the F-35, forbidding the Israelis from employing their F-35s.

With the failed Israeli attack testifying to effectiveness of Russian air-defense measures recently deployed to the country, even the United States is finding it difficult to operate in the country. As the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War confirms:

“Russia has finished an advanced anti-access/area denial (A2AD) network in Syria that combines its own air defense and electronic warfare systems with modernized equipment. Russia can use these capabilities to mount the long-term strategic challenge of the US and NATO in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and the Middle East, significantly widen the geographic reach of Russia’s air defense network. Russia stands to gain a long-term strategic advantage over NATO through its new capabilities in Syria. The US and NATO must now account for the risk of a dangerous escalation in the Middle East amidst any confrontation with Russia in Eastern Europe.”

The final blow in a decidedly negative week for Washington’s ambitions came in Buenos Aires during the G20, where Xi Jinping was clearly the most awaited guest, bringing in his wake investments and opportunities for cooperation and mutual benefit, as opposed to Washington’s sanctions and tariffs for its own benefit to the detriment of others. The key event of the summit was the dinner between Xi Jinping and Donald Trump that signalled Washington’s defeat in the trade war with Beijing. Donald Trump fired the first shot of the economic war, only to succumb just 12 months later with GM closing five plants and leaving 14,000 unemployed at home as Trump tweeted about his economic achievements.

Trump was forced to suspend any new tariffs for a period of ninety days, with his Chinese counterpart intent on demonstrating how an economic war between the two greatest commercial powers had always been a pointless propagandistic exercise. Trump’s backtracking highlights Washington’s vulnerability to de-dollarization, the Achilles’ heel of US hegemony.

The American-led world system is experiencing setbacks at every turn. The struggle between the Western elites seems to be reaching a boil, with Frau Merkel ever more isolated and seeing her 14-year political dominance as chancellor petering out. Macron seems to be vying for the honor of being the most unpopular French leader in history, provoking violent protests that have lasted now for weeks, involving every sector of the population. Macron will probably be able to survive this political storm, but his political future looks dire.

The neocons/neoliberals have played one of the last cards available to them using the Ukrainian provocation, with Kiev only useful as the West’s cannon fodder against Russia. In Syria, with the conflict coming to a close and Turkey only able to look on even as it maintains a strong foothold in Idlib, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States are similarly unable to affect the course of the conflict. The latest Israeli aggression proved to be a humiliation for Tel Aviv and may have signalled a clear, possibly definitive warning from Moscow, Tehran and Damascus to all the forces in the region. The message seems to be that there is no longer any possibility of changing the course of the conflict in Syria, and every provocation from here on will be decisively slapped down. Idlib is going to be liberated and America’s illegal presence in the north of Syria will have to be dealt with at the right time.

Ukraine’s provocation has only strengthened Russia’s military footprint in Crimea and reinforced Russia’s sovereign control over the region. Israel’s recent failure in Syria only highlights how the various interventions of the US, the UK, France and Turkey over the years have only obliged the imposition of an almost unparalleled A2AD space that severely limits the range of options available to Damascus’s opponents.

The G20 also served to confirm Washington’s economic diminution commensurate with its military one in the face of an encroaching multipolar environment. The constant attempts to delegitimize the Trump administration by America’s elites, also declared an enemy by the European establishment, creates a picture of confusion in the West that benefits capitals like New Delhi, Moscow, Beijing and Tehran who offer instead stability, cooperation and dialogue.

As stated in previous articles, the confusion reigning amongst the Western elites only accelerates the transition to a multipolar world, progressively eroding the military and economic power of the US.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Is Silicon Valley Morphing Into The Morality Police?

Who gets to define what words and phrases protected under the First Amendment constitute hate — a catchall word that is often ascribed to any offensive speech someone simply doesn’t like?

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Adrian Cohen via Creators.com:


Silicon Valley used to be technology companies. But it has become the “morality police,” controlling free speech on its platforms.

What could go wrong?

In a speech Monday, Apple CEO Tim Cook said:

“Hate tries to make its headquarters in the digital world. At Apple, we believe that technology needs to have a clear point of view on this challenge. There is no time to get tied up in knots. That’s why we only have one message for those who seek to push hate, division and violence: You have no place on our platforms.”

Here’s the goliath problem:

Who gets to define what words and phrases protected under the First Amendment constitute hate — a catchall word that is often ascribed to any offensive speech someone simply doesn’t like?

Will Christians who don’t support abortion rights or having their tax dollars go toward Planned Parenthood be considered purveyors of hate for denying women the right to choose? Will millions of Americans who support legal immigration, as opposed to illegal immigration, be labeled xenophobes or racists and be banned from the digital world?

Yes and yes. How do we know? It’s already happening, as scores of conservatives nationwide are being shadow banned and/or censored on social media, YouTube, Google and beyond.

Their crime?

Running afoul of leftist Silicon Valley executives who demand conformity of thought and simply won’t tolerate any viewpoint that strays from their rigid political orthodoxy.

For context, consider that in oppressive Islamist regimes throughout the Middle East, the “morality police” take it upon themselves to judge women’s appearance, and if a woman doesn’t conform with their mandatory and highly restrictive dress code — e.g., wearing an identity-cloaking burqa — she could be publicly shamed, arrested or even stoned in the town square.

In modern-day America, powerful technology companies are actively taking the role of the de facto morality police — not when it comes to dress but when it comes to speech — affecting millions. Yes, to date, those affected are not getting stoned, but they are being blocked in the digital town square, where billions around the globe do their business, cultivate their livelihoods, connect with others and get news.

That is a powerful cudgel to levy against individuals and groups of people. Wouldn’t you say?

Right now, unelected tech billionaires living in a bubble in Palo Alto — when they’re not flying private to cushy climate summits in Davos — are deciding who gets to enjoy the freedom of speech enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and who does not based on whether they agree with people’s political views and opinions or not.

You see how dangerous this can get — real fast — as partisan liberal elites running Twitter, Facebook, Google (including YouTube), Apple and the like are now dictating to Americans what they can and cannot say online.

In communist regimes, these types of folks are known as central planners.

The election of Donald Trump was supposed to safeguard our freedoms, especially regarding speech — a foundational pillar of a democracy. It’s disappointing that hasn’t happened, as the censorship of conservative thought online has gotten so extreme and out of control many are simply logging off for good.

A failure to address this mammoth issue could cost Trump in 2020. If his supporters are blocked online — where most voters get their news — he’ll be a one-term president.

It’s time for Congress to act before the morality police use political correctness as a Trojan horse to decide our next election.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending