MinBane

I write what I like.

Archive for the category “Europe”

A Rebuttal to Friedman: There is no “lid on Africa” also addressing his misconception on Migration!

The Cambridge Dictionary defines “taking the lid off” as: “to cause something bad that was previously kept secret to be known by the public” (Cambridge Dictionary, Cambridge University Press). A writer like Thomas L. Friedman in the New York times should know this perfectly well, as he used this term in his column ‘ Opinion Can I Ruin Your Dinner Party?’ published on the 7th August 2018. This is the reason for why I writing this. Because of two paragraphs that needs to be addressed, I will first let his words speak, before showing what the EU says about the matter. As a European, the American writer doesn’t make sense.

The key part was:

Toppling Qaddafi without building a new order may go down as the single dumbest action the NATO alliance ever took. It took the lid off Africa, leading to some 600,000 asylum seekers and illegal migrants flocking to Italy’s shores in recent years, with 300,000 staying there and the rest filtering into other E.U. countries. This has created wrangles within the bloc over who should absorb how many migrants and has spawned nationalist-populist backlashes in almost every E.U. country” (Thomas L. Friedman – ‘Opinion Can I Ruin Your Dinner Party?’ 07.08.2018 link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/07/opinion/can-i-ruin-your-dinner-party.html).

I don’t know in which world Friedman is residing, but the words of the EU, Zelesa and MPC are clearly not opening any jars of uncertainty. Yes, there been a growing amount of illegal and non-asylum seekers through the United Nations or Bilateral Organizations, which they have come from War-Zones as in the past. As the EU Member States takes their quota of refugees and asylum-seekers as a global task of helping people in need, as that cannot happen where they are or they are living in temporary shelters awaiting hopefully a helpful nation to become their guardian. However, no else is saying it is NATO fault or even the fall Qaddafi, which is the reason for crossing across the Mediterranean sea. There is more porous borders as well as the conflict in the Sahel Region that has continued. These are all reasons for the transport of refugees from the rest of the Sub-Saharan Africa. However, there was never a lid to be taken of the continent.

The EU Science Hub states:

Between 2008 and 2016, the total annual number of African migrants remained stable. However, legal immigration was declining in this period, while the number of irregular arrivals and asylum claims of Africans increased. Irregular arrivals of Africans via the Mediterranean started to decline again in 2017.In Europe, the majority of African immigrants come from North Africa, with most people making the move to reunite with family members already settled in a European country” (EU Science Hub – ‘New perspectives on African migration’ 01.07.2018 link: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/new-perspectives-african-migration).

EU Project opened more nations for Immigration:

Clearly, African immigration to Europe was marked by increasing diversification both in the number of countries sending and receiving the immigrants. Particularly remarkable was the emergence of the southern European countries, principally Italy, Portugal, and Spain, themselves longstanding emigration countries, as immigration countries. This was as much a product of the improving economic fortunes in these countries and their integration into the prosperity and political sphere of Western Europe as it was of mounting immigration pressures on their borders to the east and the south. Enclosed in a new European transnational space, new identities of ethnicity and citizenship began to emerge that entailed creating both symbolic and material borders to keep away or distinguish the immigrants. The Europeanization of these countries and the rebordering of the Mediterranean that it implied required the separation and stigmatization ofimmigrants from the global South (Suarez-Navaz, 1997; Royo, 2005)” (Paul Tiyambe Zeleza – ‘Africa ‘s Contemporary Global Migrations: Patterns, Perils, and Possibilities’ P: 39, June 2010).

Migration Profile – Libya:

Despite Libya being, first and foremost, a country of immigration, the deterioration of immigrants’ conditions in the country has also made it an important country for transit migration and particularly for the many migrants trying to reach Malta and the Italian Isle of Lampedusa As to emigration patterns, Libya has never recorded significant outward migration flows. However, during the 2011 unrest, there was an upsurge of Libyan nationals fleeing the country. According, though, to the authorities in neighbouring countries, the great majority are believed to already have returned to Libya” (…) “To conclude, two considerations can be made about the impact of the Libyan crisis on international migration movements. On the one hand, Sub Saharan nationals were without any doubt the people most at risk, both in Libya and at the borders (where repatriation activities led to an impasse). On the other hand, the capacity of neighbouring African countries to manage the crisis in terms of the reception of migrants was remarkable. (IOM, 2012)” (Migration Policy Center – ‘MPC – MIGRATION PROFILE Libya, June 2013).

As we can really see, is that what Friedman is saying is wrong. The African Migration to Europe has lasted long. That is not new and has usually followed to the previous Colonizers of the ones migrating. However, with the change of he European Union, has changed that pattern, but not opened up something. The Libyan Crisis and fall of Qaddafi have had is effect. However, the results by the EU and the IOM are stating not as bad as previously stated. Also that the “illegal” are rising, but less of the direct asylum-seekers, meaning their means and ways has changed, but the end-game are more of the same. They are still fleeing from crisis and wars in Sub-Saharan Africa, but they doing so by the shores of Northern Africa crossing into EU Countries.

So, the taking the lid off by invading and deposing Qaddafi seems like far-fetched. That is a lie, also a relic of the past, as Friedman sounds like they opened a box with a box-opener. This was simply done with getting rid of one dictator. He seems like that is the reason for the whole transit in Libya, not the whole conflict within the continent and neither the true nature of it all. As people are doing whatever they can to get shelter and hope for the future, because the International Community isn’t reacting or caring about the oppression in their nations. They are forgotten and know they will not get help, as the Western Powers are boasting these leaders who oppress and then people want to flee from these shores.

No lid was taken, it was never a lid there to begin with? Are there a lid that was opened so that United States could have space for all the slaves in the past? Or is there a lid taken of the brain of Trump? We all, the rest of the world really want to know.

Enough of this nonsense. Peace.

Advertisements

Brexit: A “No Deal” will be hurtful to the UK!

Surprise, Surprise, not really though, but for someone this will be insights into an open field May-Day, and we are not talking strong and stable Conservative Party government. No, we are talking May Day, as in all aboard a ship sailing in stormy waters without any significant captain into the abyss. Theresa May, if she goes for the No-Deal with the European Union, she is risking a lot and will not gain much for the Kingdom, except for keeping the Brexiteers on her side and if that is worth it is another bargain.

Today, the European Commission published ‘Preparing for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on 30 March 2019’, which is various amount of document saying what will happen, other than the notices of withdrawal, which they have made for all types industries and stakeholders within the Union. Today, they have unleashed documents showing possible outcomes if the negotiations fails.

What is most striking was ‘Main consequences of scenario 2: withdrawal on 30 March 2019 without a withdrawal agreement’, where the arch nemesis of possible soft transition from being a member state to become a third country to Union appear. The results are devastating at least and at best a big blow to everyone who thought it would be genuine good idea to do it in that way.

First assessment as a third country, the EU Laws Cease to apply in the United Kingdom, which is cool in itself and gives, added freedom as a sovereign. The rocks starts to hit the boat, when the second assessment hits, that is “Citizens: There would be no specific arrangement in place for EU citizens in the United Kingdom, or for UK citizens in the European Union”. Meaning, there are no plan or any legal framework for how to take of or, if the UK citizens in the EU has to leave or the EU citizens has to leave as well. This is putting many lives of expats into limbo in the EU, but also in the UK.

The Third assessment by the EU concerning a no deal is: “The European Union must apply its regulation and tariffs at borders with the United Kingdom as a third country, including checks and controls for customs, sanitary and phytosanitary standards and verification of compliance with EU norms. Transport between the United Kingdom and the European Union would be severely impacted. Customs, sanitary and phytosanitary controls at borders could cause significant delays, e.g. in road transport, and difficulties for ports”. Therefore, it is not like this will frictionless either, the EU will with all means put up a hard-border with checkpoints, to secure the transit of goods, it will be like in the past and the duty on goods will appear. The goods will be going through a massive check compared today and prolong the travel-time of the goods going into the Union. In addition, it will also be more costly, be more time consuming and add costs to the consumers, as the taxes on the products will come in the aftermath too.

The Fourth assessment: “Trade and regulatory issues: The United Kingdom becomes a third country whose relations with the European Union would be governed by general international public law, including rules of the World Trade Organisation. In particular, in heavily regulated sectors, this would represent a significant drawback compared to the current level of market integration”. This is yet another blowback, as the financial businesses and banking industry, will be left behind, not only the goods transiting to the Union, but all business will be left with WTO rules and tariffs as a third country, they will not have specialized agreements or securing trade between the Union and UK. This will surely hit industry, financial inclusion and all other cross-border businesses there are today between the parties, this will surely be costly and make it less accessible for Union Companies to access UK and vice versa.

The fifth assessment: “Negotiations with the United Kingdom: Depending on the circumstances leading to the withdrawal without an agreement, the EU may wish to enter into negotiations with the United Kingdom as a third country”. This is implying that the UK will have to configure their deals with Union and will come as a third country into negotiations, as they are outside and will not have benefits of previous membership. This meaning that they will come to Brussels as an outsider. They are really left with nothing and will start fresh negotiations without any pre-empty strikes or significant advantage, as they are not involved internally within the Union or based on the principals of the Union as whole.

The sixth assessment: “EU funding: UK entities would cease to be eligible as Union entities for the purpose of receiving EU grants and participating in EU procurement procedures. Unless otherwise provided for by the legal provisions in force, candidates or tenderers from the United Kingdom could be rejected”. This is showing the first cuts of funding and spending directly as a third country, as the Union funding and grants dries up. Therefore, the programs and the sudden closure of these will hit the UK. The collective spending on UK will stop and this will be costly for the UK. The UK will also not pay into these funds as a Member State, but will lose vital parts by the end of the membership.

Therefore, nothing good comes out of the no-deal. No securities of the citizens, goods will hectic and time consuming, the borders will be hard and the transit will take more time, the WTO laws put into effect and the trade regulations of free movement without tariffs will be gone, also trade in general across borders will be stifled. The final negotiations will be in another narrative, than today as the measures will be for a third country and not former member. The last issue that funding will cease, as much as the legal framework of the Union will stop too. There are little good news in this, other than becoming a sovereign, but all alone, which loose the benefits of today and have to pay a lot to gain anything positive in the future. Which is all but uncertain, the EU puts barriers, but as their protocol for a third country, the Tories cannot pick and mix. Even as they are putting legislation in, who knows how this will hit.

But this should be a reality check for those who says “No-Deal” is a no problem, because the EU certainly have protocols they will follow and the consequences are dire. Peace.

Brexit: Vote Leave is now fined, but the Vote Leave/BeLeave Campaign was murky at best!

You would think high-ranking officials, Members of Parliament and other dignitaries like Lords would be careful about campaign laws before the Referendum in 2016. These Brexit elections has really shown how shoddy British politics can be. Especially, when the Tories own MPs are mishandling and misusing the public trust. This being Vote Leave and BeLeave, who at one point shared offices, while using Cambridge Analytica (CA) and Aggregate IQ (AIQ) for collecting public data to hit the electorate. They even have collected same program from the get-go and only had different heads as leaders. While Matthew Elliott and Dominic Cummings ran Vote Leave, BeLeave was run by Darren Grimes. However, the Vote Leave team had massive suction with the politicians. As proven by their committee lists. See under!

Vote Leave Campaign Committee:

Rt Hon Michael Gove MP (Co-Convener)

Rt Hon Gisela Stuart MP (Co-Convener)

Matthew Elliott (Chief Executive)

Dominic Cummings (Campaign Director)

Steve Baker MP

Ian Davidson

Nigel Dodds MP

Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP

Rt Hon Frank Field MP

Lord Forsyth

Rt Hon Liam Fox MP

Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP

Dan Hannan MEP

Boris Johnson MP

Paul Keetch

Lord Lawson

Andrea Leadsom MP

John Longworth

Lord Owen

Rt Hon Priti Patel MP

Dominic Raab MP

Graham Stringer MP

Rt Hon Theresa Villiers MP

Rt Hon John Whittingdale MP

(These names are copied directly from the Vote Leave Page: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/campaign.html).

That the mix-match of both organizations funding and operations, shows the disgraceful attempt to trick electorate for a purpose. What is worse is the level of high ranking officials, even cabinet members, whose been in the Campaign Committee of the Vote Leave, that was in-directly and working closely.

That the Electoral Commission are finding not only breaches of economic fashion, but also into others shows what they have attempted to do. This should not be a shadow of doubt. You know they have done some serious errors and misuse of electoral laws, when the EC are transferring their findings to London Metropolitan Police while filing finds to the campaigners two years after the effect. This proves the dire need for reform and change, as these campaigners misused the public trust and tricked the population.

Fair Vote report it like this: “The whistleblower evidence suggests Vote Leave coordinated their work with BeLeave and AIQ, the company closely linked to now disgraced Cambridge Analytica. BeLeave team members sought approval for activities, BeLeave team members and AIQ staff worked from Vote Leave headquarters and BeLeave team members took part in Vote Leave campaigning activities”. The Whistleblower being Shamir Sanni, who worked within the campaigns in 2016. Therefore, the proof of the manner of operations, isn’t only the breeches of funding and capacity these organizations did, but the deliberate activity to use different campaigns and organizations under one roof to spread the message. As well, as the use of AIQ and Cambridge Analytica. However, this sort of allegations and whistleblowing was not important in the case documents and report from the EC delivered yesterday, which is mind-blowing.

This sort of thing is insulting, that they did this deliberately and used the public trust. Not only with spending, but being so murky with their campaigns, that they are using two fronts, one with politicians and another supposed to be grass-root, but clearly controlled by the big-one. This is all a play of guards.

The fine from the Electoral Commission is bad enough, but the idea itself and that the these politicians have been apart of this sort of operations is making it worse. That they have the nerve to do this ploy and think they can get away it. This should really make the British blood boil over of anger and dismay, that the people could be fooled like this.

Hopefully the Metropolitan Police can take it further and also use the whistleblowers like Shamir Sanni and Christopher Wylie to uncover certain truths. So that the organizations and people behind this can answer for their crimes. Not only pay a mediocre fine and get scotch-free. Peace.

Brexit: Darren Jones MP letter to the members of House of Commons asking for a Public Inquires into the Brexit Referendum (17.07.2018)

Brexit: Scott Mann MP Resignation Letter as PPS to the Treasury (16.07.2018)

Statement by the Brexit Steering Group on UK Government White paper (12.07.2018)

Statement by the Brexit Steering Group on the Chequers Statement of 6 July 2018 and on the White Paper released by the UK Government.

The European Parliament’s Brexit Steering Group (BSG), chaired by Guy Verhofstadt, met today and had an extensive exchange of views on the Chequers Statement of 6 July 2018, as well as on the White Paper just released by the UK Government.

In a first reaction, it welcomed both the Statement and the White Paper by the UK Government as a step towards establishing a new relationship between the UK and the EU once the UK is no longer a Member State.

In particular, the BSG welcomed that the UK is proposing that the future EU-UK relationship take the form of an Association Agreement. Given this has been the Parliament’s position from the very beginning the BSG agrees with this approach which would place the future EU-UK relationship in all its dimensions – economic, sectoral, security, foreign policy – on a firm footing within a coherent governance structure.

The BSG reiterated that negotiating a new relationship with the UK post-Brexit is conditional on an orderly withdrawal of the UK from the EU on the basis of a Withdrawal Agreement (WA). It reconfirmed the Parliament’s position expressed in its resolutions that it will not consent to a WA, including a transition period, without a credible “back stop” provision for the Northern Ireland/Ireland border to prevent a hard border and safeguard the integrity of the single market, faithfully reflecting the commitments entered into in the Joint Report of 8 December 2017. It urged the UK Government to clarify its positions on the “back stop” so that the WA can be finalised as quickly as possible.

Other important elements of the WA, including its governance provisions, in particular a credible dispute settlement mechanism, also still need to be agreed. Moreover, regarding the implementation of the WA, the Parliament expects a positive response to its letter to Home Secretary Sajid Javid on 3 July 2018 and especially concerning the independent authority and the smooth registration of all EU citizens.

The BSG noted that negotiations on the WA and the framework for the future relationship will continue next week. It recalled its position for the closest trade and economic partnership possible while respecting among others the principles of the non-divisibility of the four freedoms, the integrity of the single market, avoiding a sector-by-sector approach and safeguarding financial stability, the preservation of the autonomy of EU decision-making, the safeguarding of the EU legal order and the balance of rights and obligations which any future EU-UK relationship will need to respect. In this framework there will be, for example, no space for outsourcing EU‘s customs competences.

The BSG stated its readiness to provide its input to the negotiation process at any time over the coming weeks and it will carry out a further assessment of the White Paper in the coming days and weeks.

Cambridge Analytica becomes AUSPEX International: Launch of New Geopolitical Communication Consultancy (10.07.2018)

Brexit: Andrew Bridgen MP letter to Graham Brady MP – “No Confidence in the PM” (10.07.2018)

Euro Chambres: ‘UK Government Brexit White Paper: time running out for a trade-oriented Brexit’ (11.07.2018)

Brexit: Maria Caulfield MP Resignation Letter (10.07.2018)

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: