EU Rigor Tested As French Turn Against Immigration

The Daily Bell (Liechtenstin), April 27, 2011

France wants less integration . . . Eh bien, je jamais. The French government is demanding less European integration. President Sarkozy (left), furious at the sight of Tunisian migrants being waved through by Italian carabinieri, and uncomfortably aware that opinion polls put him behind the Front Nationale’s Marine Le Pen, is demanding that the Schengen Treaty be revised to allow countries to reimpose frontier controls. – UK Telegraph/Daniel Hannan

Dominant Social Theme: Scurrilous EU policies much be staunched, even if WE put them in place.

Free-Market Analysis: So the French political leaders are finally reacting to the discontent of the larger French electorate with various EU programs. As a publication tracking the dominant social themes of the elites and their successes and failures, we find this an extraordinary turn of events.

As in America, from our point of view, one of the main points of the elite agenda is to leaven existing populations with new ones. This destroys cultural cohesiveness and when coupled with public school educations is a most effective way of demoralizing national identities and generally making populations more docile and less prone to resist whatever iteration of the new world order the elites currently have in mind.

One of the most interesting moments of the George Bush presidency was watching hyper-right wing elements including conservative neo-cons fall silent when Bush toward the end of his term tried to ram through an immigration bill granting amnesty to Mexican workers in America–creating what amounted to a guest worker program in the US.

Bush did this after facing a firestorm of criticism over a NAFTA superhighway that the administration was trying to build surreptitiously between Mexico and Canada. This North American Union was supposed to compete with the EU and Bush made many direct steps to implement a potential merger by signing–very quietly–various trade and security pacts with both Canada and Mexico that are still extant.

Bush’s push regarding the immigration bill was a matter of sublime cognitive dissonance for the US right wing. This group had stuck with Bush despite his affinity for activitist government, had explained away his serial warfare by proclaiming that he was a decisive war-time leader at a time when the nation needed one, and had tried to deflect blame for the country’s late-term financial collapse onto the Democratic Congress.

But the immigration bill that Bush supported was a bridge too far. There was no way to explain it. No way to justify it. The final element of Bush’s support fell silent, quelled by Bush’s radical disregard of his constituency and general contempt for the American electorate that had (admittedly) twice put him in office. The media coverage of the Bush immigration bill was no less confused. Since there was no right-left angle to work with, mainstream media simply emphasized the groundswell of anger against the bill and against Bush.

But to cover the Bush immigration bill and its subsequent defeat as a personal repudiation of George Bush is to miss the point. The effort that Bush made was an attempt to continue to fulfill the larger elite agenda which is focused on leavening Western cultural cohesiveness with whatever immigrant populations are available. The defeat of the immigration bill in the US was a defeat of this elite program. As this same program unwinds in Europe, can we suggest a similar defeat is taking place?

Europe’s tribes, in fact, are increasingly rejecting their dilution. The Schengen Area Treaty is one such attempt. It is, as Hannan reports, a border-free zone that takes in most of the EU, but one to which Britain and Ireland are not signatories. Sarkozy fears that Italy’s granting of six-month residency permits to thousands of North Africans to travel without restriction in the Schengen Area will apparently deluge France with additional immigrants, as most of the refugees speak French.

But Sarkozy is merely reaping what he has sown. Having chosen to help destabilize Tunisia, the Ivory Cost and now Libya, what does Sarkozy in fact expect? The French president is apparently terrified that his pro-EU policies are going to cost him the presidency in the next French election and is doing some late-season pandering.

Hannan, the author of the immigration editorial excerpted above, is a high-profile British opponent of the EU experiment. He points out how the EU immigration policies have posed a challenge to Britain and derives some satisfaction from France’s current predicament. “Now, France finds itself on the wrong end of Brussels rules, and immediately demands that they be changed.”

But Hannan notes the bigger picture as well. “France’s demand could hardly have come at a worse time for the EU. Over the past six months, Eurocrats have become nervous and tetchy. Where they used to patronise Eurosceptics, now they lash out. The reason is plain enough. . . . Voters in the contributor states are reacting furiously to the idea that their taxes should reward governments that have been more profligate than their own.”

Here’s some more from the article:

The European project depends, far more than is generally appreciated, on a sense of inevitability. Voters might not care very much for the constant transfers of power to the EU but, as long as they believe that they can’t be stopped, they put up with them. The phenomenon is known in Brussels as the “occupied field doctrine”: once the EU has acted in any area of policy, its jurisdiction in that area is guaranteed in perpetuity.

Repealing a goodly chunk of Schengen would, of course, shatter that doctrine. People might start demanding the return of all sorts of powers. Why should the EU run agriculture given the disastrous mess it has made of the CAP? Or fisheries? Or monetary policy? As that canny Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, observed, the most dangerous moment for a bad government is when it begins to reform.

We have written a good deal about the elite’s “immovable rigor” of late. It is the outcome of a larger problem Western elites have, which is the erosion of the believability of its fear-based promotions. The elite generally utilized such promotions throughout the 20th century as a way of frightening Western middle classes into giving up more power and wealth to international facilities that the elites had created for that purpose. The idea was to create ever-closer global governance.

But the advent of the Internet has helped destroy these dominant social themes by revealing their nature and content. For this reason the elites have fallen back on far more authoritarian formulas to try to continue to make progress toward a “new world order.” The idea is to show in theory and practice that the elite’s goals are unimpeachable and unstoppable. This, as we have pointed out, has grave difficulties, as even a few minor defeats jeopardize the psychological whole. It is not easy to insist on inevitability when one’s program is being continually rejected.

Hats off to Hannan then for using the very word–inevitability–and for analyzing the ruse so efficiently. Setbacks do indeed shatter the notion, and it is why the elite is fighting so hard. It is insisting on global warming in the face of massive government skepticism, is forging ahead with a kind of creeping World War III despite much public opposition and is fighting every trace of a break-up of the EU itself.

Of course we have pointed out (just in today’s other article, again) that the elite may seek to sacrifice some of its promotional themes to create maximum chaos in order to usher in a new global currency and generally further its centralizing goals. But we don’t see the dissolution of the EU as something as a pawn that the elites will willingly sacrifice. Chaos may be a goal, but the EU itself is a major building block of global governance to come.

The immigration issue is most important as well. For the past 50 years, Anglo-American elites have sought to weaken national identities, specially racial and cultural ones, whenever possible. That Sarkozy, a major proponent of elite agendas, feels it necessary to step away from such a central EU priority shows how difficult these programs have become to sustain. The elite’s immovable rigor is meeting with increased and ever-stiffer resistance on number of fronts as the Internet Reformation continues to take root.

Conclusion: This is the danger of implementing a strategy of inevitability–that you will not be able to sustain it. Sarkozy’s sudden challenge on this issue is most important within this context and Hannon is right to seize upon it. If these sorts of elite programmatic setbacks continue to take place, what will become of this latest elite strategy? Elite programs have been exposed a thousand fold on the Internet. The idea now is to illustrate that the centralizing projects of the elite are inevitable. But if they are not, what then? Let loose “the dogs of war?”


Eh bien, je jamais. The French government is demanding less European integration.

President Sarkozy, furious at the sight of Tunisian migrants being waved through by Italian carabinieri, and uncomfortably aware that opinion polls put him behind the Front Nationale’s Marine Le Pen, is demanding that the Schengen Treaty be revised to allow countries to reimpose frontier controls.

He is reacting to Italy’s decision to grant six-month residency permits to thousands of North African refugees. Such permits, intended for tourists, allow the bearers to travel unhindered throughout the Schengen Area–a border-free zone that takes in most of the EU, but from which Britain and Ireland wisely stood aside. Since most of the recipients are French-speaking, it’s not hard to guess where they will end up.

Silvio Berlusconi, too, has opinion polls to think about. As he sees it, Italy is paying the price for France’s foreign policy. He was none too keen on the military action in Libya, fearing that it would propel migrants in great flotillas to the Italian island of Lampedusa. France, he maintains, should accept its share of responsibility.

It is difficult, from the British point of view, not to feel a batsqueak of satisfaction. Our geography ought to have made us an unlikely destination for asylum seekers. After all, the aim of a genuine refugee is to get out of a particular country, not in to one, and you generally have to pass through several safe countries to reach the Channel. Yet for the past 13 years, and as a direct consequence of European accords, we have had illegal migrants entering Britain from the Sangatte refugee camp near Calais.

The surge in inward migration happened from 1998. In part, this was because Labour repealed a law that had denied residence rights to spouses where there was reason to believe that the primary purpose of the marriage was to secure entry into Britain.

Mainly, though, it was because of the entry into force of the EU’s Dublin Convention, which meant that Britain could no longer return illicit entrants to France unless there was proof that France was where they had entered the EU (which there never was, of course, since the sans papiers had destroyed their travel documents). Now, France finds itself on the wrong end of Brussels rules, and immediately demands that they be changed. One is tempted to remark: “Sauce for the goose, sauce pour l’oie”.

Then again, France’s demand could hardly have come at a worse time for the EU. Over the past six months, Eurocrats have become nervous and tetchy. Where they used to patronise Eurosceptics, now they lash out.

The reason is plain enough. They face a double revolt over the euro crisis. Voters in the contributor states are reacting furiously to the idea that their taxes should reward governments that have been more profligate than their own. In Finland, the first such country to have held an election since the Portuguese collapse, every party lost ground to the True Finns, which had fought on a more-or-less single-issue anti-bailout ticket.

What is less widely appreciated in Britain is that the bailouts are even more hated in the countries that receive them. Our commentators tend to talk clumsily of “helping” Ireland or Portugal. In fact, these states did everything possible to resist being taken over, and with good reason. They understand what the bailouts mean in practice: the money goes to European bankers and bondholders, but the repayment comes from ordinary taxpayers. Greece, Ireland and Portugal have not been rescued; they have been sacrificed to save the euro.

Oddly, the country where there has so far been the least popular anger about the bailouts is the United Kingdom–despite the fact that, as the second largest net contributor, we shall probably have to pony up more to rescue the euro than almost all the countries that joined it. Our net payment to the EU rose by an almost unbelievable 74 per cent last year to £9.2 billion–considerably more than is being saved by the domestic cuts. Yet, for reasons that leave me utterly baffled, there have been no protest marches about that.

The European project depends, far more than is generally appreciated, on a sense of inevitability. Voters might not care very much for the constant transfers of power to the EU but, as long as they believe that they can’t be stopped, they put up with them. The phenomenon is known in Brussels as the “occupied field doctrine”: once the EU has acted in any area of policy, its jurisdiction in that area is guaranteed in perpetuity.

Repealing a goodly chunk of Schengen would, of course, shatter that doctrine. People might start demanding the return of all sorts of powers. Why should the EU run agriculture given the disastrous mess it has made of the CAP? Or fisheries? Or monetary policy?

As that canny Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, observed, the most dangerous moment for a bad government is when it begins to reform. For the Brussels nomenklatura, this isn’t about immigration or borders; it’s about mortgages and school fees. That is why they will be so reluctant to give President Sarkozy what he wants.

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Question Diversity

    One of the most interesting moments of the George Bush presidency was watching hyper-right wing elements including conservative neo-cons fall silent when Bush toward the end of his term tried to ram through an immigration bill granting amnesty to Mexican workers in America—creating what amounted to a guest worker program in the US.

    Bonk. Fail. Neo-Cons are not the “hyper right wing.” And there was no silence — The neo-cons were all for amnesty, while us on the “hyper right wing” made enough noise and made the right phone calls and wrote the right letters to the right politicians to get it stopped. I contend that the Tea Party Movement partially grew out of the “hyper right” effort to defeat Bush amnesty.

    This North American Union was supposed to compete with the EU and Bush made many direct steps to implement a potential merger by signing—very quietly—various trade and security pacts with both Canada and Mexico that are still extant.

    Gee, I thought the NAU was just some wacko conspiracy theory.

    Bush’s push regarding the immigration bill was a matter of sublime cognitive dissonance for the US right wing. This group had stuck with Bush despite his affinity for activitist government, had explained away his serial warfare by proclaiming that he was a decisive war-time leader at a time when the nation needed one, and had tried to deflect blame for the country’s late-term financial collapse onto the Democratic Congress.

    Wrong again. It didn’t “stick with Bush,” it largely stayed home in 2006 and 2008, leading to the blue waves of those election seasons. Unfortunately, it led to much worse politicians gaining power.

    The rest of that article drives home an important point to which we should all pay attention — Nothing, not even what the elite keep saying is “inevitable,” is truly inevitable.

    From the second article:

    Oddly, the country where there has so far been the least popular anger about the bailouts is the United Kingdom—despite the fact that, as the second largest net contributor, we shall probably have to pony up more to rescue the euro than almost all the countries that joined it. Our net payment to the EU rose by an almost unbelievable 74 per cent last year to £9.2 billion—considerably more than is being saved by the domestic cuts. Yet, for reasons that leave me utterly baffled, there have been no protest marches about that.

    Well, there is frustration about it. But the reason this writer for a Tory mouthpiece newspaper can’t see it is because he’s not comfortable with the sources of such indignation — The BNP, EDL and to a lesser extent, the UKIP.

  • Graham Richards

    Sarkozy’s only concern is “that opinion polls put him behind the Front Nationale’s Marine Le Pen, is demanding that the Schengen Treaty be revised to allow countries to reimpose frontier controls.

    I would never trust that Sarkozy. He is a socialist and is only reacting like this because he is worried about losing control.

    Do not believe a word he says.

  • ghw

    As in America, from our point of view, one of the main points of the elite agenda is to leaven existing populations with new ones. This destroys cultural cohesiveness and when coupled with public school educations is a most effective way of demoralizing national identities and generally making populations more docile and less prone to resist…

    But to cover the Bush immigration bill and its subsequent defeat as a personal repudiation of George Bush is to miss the point. The effort that Bush made was an attempt to continue to fulfill the larger elite agenda which is focused on leavening Western cultural cohesiveness with whatever immigrant populations are available.

    …………………….

    What an excellent article! Even in little Liechtenstein, they understand this problem far better than most Americans do.

    Of course, you could hardly get something like this printed in any MSM outlet here in the US. Those mysterious “Elites” would never allow it. God bless the Internet.

  • Anonymous

    There is only one way to reverse course. No one wants to mention it. We will fail until we try it.

  • Kenelm Digby

    At the barest minimium, Shengen must be repealed and seen for what it is – a dreadful mistake and dreadfully bad policy pushed through by a unrepresentative, blinkered elite, who were quite frankly, clueless.

    The wider point is that unless policy changes radically and very quickly (ie the dissolution of the EU), then the ancient nations of Europe have no defence against their ethnic and historic destruction.

    More Europeans must wake up and realise this.

  • olewhitelady

    Most Westerners are not going to stand by and allow their countries to become third-world wrecks. Most citizens do not dance to the tune of the tiny far-left cabal that manufactures the mainstream news and political commentary, and this includes people of all ethnicities. If Obama were not black, many more black Dems would oppose him openly. Why would American blacks want to be overrun by illegal Hispanics? The latter are taking their jobs, overtaking them as municipal political powers, and warring with them in the ghetto streets.

    If the West doesn’t control third-world immigration, our societies will be lost, and no other political issue will even matter. Politicians in North America, Europe, and Australia must do more than just talk, or they will find far-right parties in charge.

  • Browser

    olewhitelady wrote:

    “Most Westerners are not going to stand by and allow their countries to become third-world wrecks.

    Most citizens do not dance to the tune of the tiny far-left cabal that manufactures the mainstream news and political commentary, and this includes people of all ethnicities.”

    __ __ __ __

    On the contrary, most people DO dance (however unwittingly) to that lefty tune. That is what they have been doing all along, for many years and many decades now. That is exactly the problem! That is why we are in the fix that we’re presently in. Do you suppose this just “happened” by accident?

    If they truly refused to stand by and allow this, then none of this would be happening. Get it?

    PS. You may think is is just “a tiny far-left cabal” (as you constantly say) from where you live in west Virginia. But if you were to visit a large state like California, you would find that cabal is far larger and more powerful than you could imagine. They are actually running the country, right from inside the White House and the halls of Congress, while you dismiss them as “a tiny cabal”!

  • Anonymous

    The ‘globalized’ world is largely controlled by wealthy elites, who influence all governments to grow and take on more debt or face financial ruin.

    In our current financial condition, world currencies would collapse and trillions of dollars would evaporate if immigration to the industrialized West was suddenly halted.

    Mass Third World immigration is instrumental in keeping the global debt bubble of the last 30 years from deflating.

    We pay so billionaires can play.

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    #6 olewhitelady writes:

    Most Westerners are not going to stand by and allow their countries to become third-world wrecks.

    Have you ever been to California? It is already a Third World wreck. We Whites did not want this but were overpowered by forces stronger than we were that controlled the media, government and educational system. By the time the Internet came along it was far to late to turn back the process.

    We were legislated against and called Nazis and haters when we objected. Some of those who welcomed this change were other Whites who had been brainwashed by the media and schools.

    Most citizens do not dance to the tune of the tiny far-left cabal that manufactures the mainstream news and political commentary, and this includes people of all ethnicities.

    We are “dancing to the tune of the tiny far left” as I write this and have been for years. They control the media and educational system and actively squash any dissent. The Internet has been a tremendous help in getting out the other side and making Whites realize that we are not alone, are not crazy or mentally ill for objecting to our country being flooded with hostile, destitute non-Whites.

    If Obama were not black, many more black Dems would oppose him openly. Why would American blacks want to be overrun by illegal Hispanics? The latter are taking their jobs, overtaking them as municipal political powers, and warring with them in the ghetto streets.

    Tell that to black politicians at all levels, the CBC and black “spokesmen” such as $harpton and Jackson who continue to push for amnesty for illegal immigrants — and blacks who continue to vote for these fools at rates of 90+%.

    You see, for blacks, it beings and ends with race. The Alpha and Omega for blacks is race, race and race. Don’t think the pols don’t know this.

    If the West doesn’t control third-world immigration, our societies will be lost, and no other political issue will even matter. Politicians in North America, Europe, and Australia must do more than just talk, or they will find far-right parties in charge.

    The politicians are the problem, few work in the interests of Whites. It is the Whites who must put a stop to this.

    If you want to see what America will look like in 50 years, come to California.

    Bon

  • Bull Market

    Olewhitelady, you are clueless. Do you ever get out of West Virginia? Do you watch TV? Do you even bother to read the comments of other posters here? If you read them, you would learn something.

    The rest of the USA has been dancing to the tune of that tiny far-left cabal since Brown vs. Board in 1954. And even more so since the chaotic 1960s took over our culture. Maybe West Virginia remains a holdout, but much of the rest of the country has gone under.

    Get in touch with reality! You’re not in the 1950s anymore.