Immigration: fraying at the edges
Saturday 8 June 2013
 German communities, we have told, have complained for years about Romanians and Bulgarians immigrating specifically to take advantage of the country's social welfare system. And yesterday, the federal interior minister, Hans-Peter Friedrich, promised tougher measures, including expulsions and travel bans. The minister was speaking to his counterparts in Luxembourg, including Theresa May and Iain Duncan Smith, who were afforded a friendly reception. He told the assembled ministers that Germany will take measures to prevent poor immigrants from the two Eastern European countries from entering the country under false pretences to collect welfare benefits. Friedrich says he wants to "align the issue with our current national legislative initiatives" and give these new arrivals a message: "If you are working here illegally - no matter how - then please go back to where you came from!" The issue has been prompted by complaints from German communities claiming that an increasing number of people are arriving from Romania and Bulgaria with the help of organised gangs, obtaining a business license and applying for benefits a few months later under the pretences that the business has been unsuccessful. Friedrich says that those who are found defrauding social services will be expelled from the country, and will be banned from returning to Germany for a certain length of time. The interior minister adds: "Then, if they are picked up somewhere, they can be kicked out of the country again with little hassle, and this is crucial". In theory, this is entirely with the ambit of EU rules. A German legal advice site writes of EU citizens not being permitted entry unless they are in "gainful employment", with pensioners and students only having full right to freedom of movement if they also have sufficient means to cover their subsistence and adequate health insurance. Family members joining migrants already in the country must not become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State. These qualifications are set out in Directives 2003/86/EC and 2004/38/EC, augmented by innumerable judgements from the ECJ. But, while the law is one thing, enforcement is quite another. Here, the problem for the Germans is satisfying the Commission that this the new movement is strictly proportionate to the problem, directed specifically at fraud, and not just responding to "populist" sentiment. EU Home Affairs Commissioner, Cecilia Malmström, is taking a tough line, arguing that there is no good evidence of any increase in social security fraud. In December 2012, only 9.6 percent of Romanians and Bulgarians in Germany were registered as unemployed, which is substantially lower than the unemployment rate of 16.4 percent among foreigners in general. "We have not yet received any figures or examples," she said in Luxembourg. "It must be concretely shown what the exact problem is". Restricting the free movement of EU citizens, she added, is "out of the question". Friedrich remained uncompromising, telling the Commission to "take a look at these problems on-site". He adds, "If they want proof, the Commission ís more than welcome to visit the big cities in Germany where they can be readily observed". There is, of course, nothing more fundamental to the treaties than freedom of movement and freedom of establishment, and this brings the Commission right to the edge. It cannot afford to give ground on this. Yet, try as it might, the very fabric of the treaties is fraying at the edges. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 08/06/2013 |
Energy: that's telling 'em
Saturday 8 June 2013
 Nevertheless, Greenpeace Muppet Leila Deen is reduced to complaining that, "Wind farms may seem like a scam to a Government minister who questions the science of climate change and who's pushing for his Shropshire constituency to be fracked for shale gas". Says the outraged Deen, "The public disagrees - two thirds of people would rather have a wind turbine near their home than a fracking site". She adds: "Onshore wind powered almost 2.5 million homes in 2011, is falling in cost and will play a key role in our future energy mix". One has to admire the "straw man" technique here. Presented with some of the environmental horrors that US residents have had to put up with, it is probably fair to say that most people would prefer a wind farm to a poorly-regulated drill site. But, in all probability, most people would prefer to have neither. The interesting thing is that the minister in charge of environmental standards for gas drilling is none other than Mr Paterson, and he is in a position to make sure that the abuses seen in the United States are not repeated here. But it does come to something when the main argument that Greenpeace can offer for wind is that something else might actually be worse. And speaking of fracking, British Gas owner, Centrica, is close to signing a deal to partner Cuadrilla Resources in fracking for shale gas in the north-west of England. Centrica has been negotiating with the Cuadrilla's controlling owners, Riverstone Holdings, the private equity firm, and AJ Lucas, the Australian engineering group, for months but is now understood to be just weeks away from agreement. The deal would see Centrica buy a minority stake in Cuadrilla's Bowland shale licence, which the company has said could contain 200 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of gas. COMMENT: COMBINED WIND THREAD Richard North 08/06/2013 |
UK politics: Builder Burgers rampant
Friday 7 June 2013
And yes, this is the same Gerald Batten who believes invoking Article 50 is a "humiliating and dishonourable course of action".
With a hitherto unrealised sense of humour, though, David Cameron is today to attend the meeting in Watford, driving the wuzzies to new heights of frenzy as they declaim the "New World Order" unfolding in front of their very eyes. But, in fact, there are any number of such meetings of the rich and powerful – many so secret you don't even know they are happening, or where they are held. And it has always been the case since the dawn of civilisation, that rich and powerful men (and women) get together on occasions to chew the fat, and rig things to their advantage. In truth, what makes this group so sinister, and gets the likes of Batten fulminating, is that it has a mysterious-sounding name, even if it is an accident of history. The name comes from the Dutch hotel at Oosterbeek, near Arnhem, where the first meeting was held in 1954. Worse still - horror of horrors - it is a foreign name. But just imagine how it would have been regarded if, say, it had first met in the Old Swan Hotel, and taken its name from that establishment. The thing is, if you want to get worked up about the New World Order, there is plenty to go at. And for a conspiracy of world bankers try the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision where dangerous forces are truly at work. As always, though, the wuzzies go for the cheap, superficial shot. Any passing conspiracy theory will do – anything to save the effort of actually finding out how the world really works and where the real threats lie. Whether it is "trilaterals", the "illuminati", the "bob-the-builder-burgers", or even shape-shifting lizards, there will always be a constituency ready indulge in their fantasies about mysterious forces ruling the world. The irony is, however, that we do have a New World Order in the making but, as Booker points out, it is readily visible, hiding in plain sight. This is the real world, but it is far to difficult for the wuzzies to understand. They find it so much easier to parade outside a Watford hotel and hyperventilate. Then they wonder why we don't take them seriously. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 07/06/2013 |
UK politics: a change in dynamics
Friday 7 June 2013
 Now, according to a new poll, for the first time since he assumed the leadership, David Cameron is less popular than his party. The survey was conducted for the former Conservative treasurer Lord Ashcroft, and shows a "noticeable shift" towards dissatisfaction with the prime minister's performance, while the Tories have also lost ground on key issues such as crime, immigration, welfare reform and the economy. Overall, we are told, 37 percent of those questioned said they would vote Labour, 27 percent Conservative, 15 percent to UKIP and 9 percent Lib-Dem, giving Ed Miliband's party a "comfortable" 10-point advantage, though Ashcroft notes that this was "not much of a score for an opposition party expecting to sweep to power in 23 months' time". Of special interest to us, though, is the segment of the poll on sentiment on the EU. Those expressing themselves "positive" about UK membership amount to 19 percent of the sample. Those who are "negative" about the EU but think we would be worse off leaving amount to 17 percent. Straight "outers" account for 33 percent of the sample. Thus, "inners" account for 36 percent of the sample, compared with "33" percent who want to withdraw, a three percent majority in favour of staying in. This compares with the December 2012 survey, when "inners" numbered 38 percent, against 34 percent "outers", a four percent majority for staying in the EU. What changes most, and then by only four percent, is the percentage of people having no strong views either way. That increases from 28 to 32 percent, suggesting that concern about the EU might be diminishing. But with so many uncommitted, clearly, there is everything to play for, although – asother polls show us, we are nowhere near close to winning a referendum. While Ashcroft tells us that UKIP is the only party with momentum on its side, with more voters saying they are moving towards it than away from it, they are not necessarily moving because of concern about the EU. With Farage attempting to reinvent the party as a mainstream political grouping, shedding the "single issue" image, we cannot say that support for UKIP necessarily equates to opposition to the EU, or a desire to leave. For the Conservatives, Ashcroft believes the first half of 2013 represents a time of stagnation "that we could hardly afford". "We have a good case to make on many of the policy areas on which we have lost ground", he says, "including crime, immigration, welfare reform and the economy", then adding: "people will only hear that case if we use the available air time to make it". COMMENT THREAD Richard North 07/06/2013 |
EU politics: decline and fall
Friday 7 June 2013
We've been watching the growing trade dispute between the EU and China over the solar panels, with China retaliating by launching an anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigation against European wine.
Not too much should be made of this - we've had this sort of thing before – remember the "bra wars"? But what is so very different this time is the attitude of China. Some may call it arrogant, but instead of being cowed, the Chinese government has warned Europe the EU that "its failure to recognise its power is declining" is inviting even more retaliation from Peking. This comes from China's People's Daily, the ruling party mouthpiece. It says, "The change of the times and the shifts of power have failed to change the condescending attitude of some Europeans", adding that, "China doesn’t want a trade war, but trade protectionism cannot but trigger a counterattack". So much for the "soft power" of the European Union, and the greater world influence we gain from membership of the EU. The reality, though, is that we are shackled to a corpse. The decline of the EU is now a fact of life and, when the Chinese make it so plain, it is irrecoverable. Richard North 07/06/2013 |
Posts
