It’s pretty rare to hear anything profound from a politician these days. But this week, it’s come thick and fast from across Europe.
Our first candidate tried to be polite and civil about things. But failed miserably. Because the numbers are just too harrowing to be politically correct:
“I’m honestly calculating very, very conservatively here. To take out any acrimony. But if it goes on like this, we’ll have more refugees this year than last.
“Now add in family reunifications. Of those who calculate these matters, I’m on the extremely conservative side. I’m calculating based on a per refugee factor of 0.5. Yesterday experts have told us we could easily use figures of 2,3 or 4. I’m calculating based on a factor of 0.5, which means, for every two refuges, one will bring a single family member. Then they’ll be at three million.
“What that means for security, integration, the ability to finance our government, for the function of our government including the judicial branch – that is a different country. And the population doesn’t want Germany or Bavaria to become a different country. And I’m understating things.”
Horst Seehofer is the leader of the Bavarian political party that supports Angela Merkel. (The Bavarians have always been a little different, so they get their own version of the same political party in that state.)
His point is that immigration is simply out of control. It’ll completely change Germany. And those statements are numerical, not opinions.
I didn’t hear much German when I walked the streets of Munich recently. In Berlin, the street signs banning skateboarding and football are not in German.
But it’s what Seehofer finished off with that really made things click. He told the electorate that he’d been so understated about the figures to discourage the populist upstart parties from profiting politically from any outburst on his part. But “you do not stop the [right wing] agitators from profiting politically by staying silent.”
And that, my dear readers, is the end of the EU as we know it. If the Germans have had enough, and even their politicians have cottoned on, radical change is coming in Europe.
The existing EU powerbase in the heartland of Europe is turning on its policies to avoid further electoral defeat. This is precisely the change that Britain’s leaders made on Brexit. They decided to defer to the electorate’s voice instead of their own views on Europe. And it spared them the electoral debacle of the Alternative for Germany party (AfD), 5-Star, Lega, Marine Le Pen, and so many more.
German politicians want a piece of Britain’s comparative political stability for the two major parties. Merkel’s open Europe has led to too many defeats for its supporters across Europe. Recently, Seehofer told the world he simply couldn’t work with “that woman” any more. It was a Freudian slip given the likelihood of being in government without a change in policy.
Not that policy changes come without a price. Merkel’s government wobbled thanks to her coalition partner’s outburst. She was given time to set the immigration debacle straight at an EU meeting, but failed.
And it was the new Italian government which saw to that. It called the EU’s entire immigration system into question instead of spending its time searching for political solutions. It wants the rules to be overhauled, so negotiating minor changes seems pointless.
Instead, the Italians have acted. They’ve closed their borders to ships carrying migrants across the Mediterranean.
Hungary’s foreign minister told the BBC why the Italians and others are so upset: “The current migration policy of the European Union can be very easily translated as an invitation in the minds of those people, who can easily make a decision to head towards Europe.”
But only some nations actually bear the resulting burden thanks to geography – something the EU has failed to change so far. Why does Hungary have to accept refugees from countries to its south, which are perfectly civilised and safe for refugees?
In other words, do Europe’s open borders extend to refugees, or just Europeans? Are you free to travel through Europe, no matter how you get in in the first place? Are you still a refugee when you’re crossing a border inside the EU, or just when you cross into the EU?
It seems simple, but having refugees welfare shop across Europe isn’t a stable solution. With two family members working in the German welfare system, I’ve hear about how this works out. So has Seehofer, apparently.
The Hungarian foreign minister also pointed out exactly what is going on in places like Hungary, Italy and Austria, where voters are lashing out. “I understand that the liberal mainstream doesn’t like our laws. But we have nothing to do with them in this regard because it is the Hungarian voter whose expectations we have to fulfil.” He could be talking about Brexit, Austrian borders, Donald Trump’s wall and Italy’s new border policy.
But he was definitely talking about Brexit, with this clever follow-up barb for his BBC interviewer: “What we don’t want is a massive illegal influx coming from the south to us. We want to keep Hungary a Hungarian country and we don’t think by definition that multiculturalism is good… If you think so, if people in this country think so, we respect that, but please don’t put pressure on us.”
In Austria, the borders are coming back up again in anticipation of a migrant column making its way through the few open border countries left. More than 700 police and defence forces staged a training exercise named “Pro-Borders”, which is not a translation into English. It’s a term used by right-wing extremists in their online campaigns.
The Austrians estimate that 80,000 refugees are waiting in southern Europe to move north. The Italians estimate 170,000.
In the Mediterranean, there’s been a huge drama about the ships which pick up refugees. Figuring out who should take them in caused a ruckus between Italy, Malta, Portugal, France and Spain.
This is deeply confronting to Germans. Each ship carries mere hundreds of refugees while Germany is inundated by millions.
The EU’s efforts to spread the burden have failed miserably. Less than a fifth of President Jean-Claude Juncker’s target have been resettled from countries who initially take them in. And the trend is to lock up shop even more.
Even in Sweden, the tide has turned from an “open your hearts” speech by the prime minister to discussing the “problem” and how to force immigrants to learn Swedish.
Over in the US, the hatred over Trump’s immigration policies boiled over spectacularly. But even against Trump, the pro-refugee campaigners can’t win. Several of their online campaigns used emotive pictures which were exposed as false, alongside Time magazine’s cover. And American voters support Trump’s policies. The Supreme Court also approved his travel ban policy recently.
In another epiphany, similar to when he told leaders at the G7 that they should discuss the option of completely free trade, Trump pointed out to US politicians that immigration policy should be straightforward: “It’s so simple. It’s called, ‘I’m sorry you can’t come in.'” That is, after all, the implication of having a border in the first place.
Another interesting side to all this is the willingness of upstart leaders to undermine established leaders. Italy’s Lega leader Matteo Salvini pointed out that Emmanuel Macron’s popularity is crumbling. Merkel’s troubles were well established in the run up to the meeting and Italy took advantage. Trump loves pointing out his popularity compared to his critics around the world.
Here in Japan, the country is debating opening its borders just a little. They want to encourage foreigners and women on to company boards and into the workplace. Given the state of the EU, I can imagine what opponents are saying and the evidence they’re providing.
The EU is at a breaking point
The current leadership group of Europe is completely at odds with the electorate. Some of the national leaders have figured this out. Others are doing so now. A complete course change is on the cards. But where would this leave Europe?
Could the EU itself be taken over by leaders promising a different direction? Where the EU takes care of its citizens’ fears and grievances instead of pursuing more power over a bigger area.
Or perhaps Europe’s nation states will make a comeback. They’ll be allowed to decide policies for themselves.
Which makes sense. Different people want different policies. That’s why the US has its states and their carefully guarded powers. It’s why road rules aren’t the same across Australia – some people like to indicate coming off roundabouts, while others don’t. In Europe, some nations are willing to accept more refugees than others. But having to accept the refugees invited by other nations is not agreeable.
The real threat is that the immigration problem is one of many for the EU. Economic disparities between nations are growing. Immigration might be the hot topic, but that’s just an outlet for the overall anger.
If the EU ignores the valid grievances, or tries to push a higher level of integration than populations are willing to accept, it could trigger a broader crisis altogether.
In May next year, Europe elects its new MEPs. What will the new parliament look like? And what will it mean for Britain?
Some of the EU’s leading eurosceptic MEPs will leave with Britain. But if national elections inside the EU are anything to go by, they’ll be replaced with even more sceptical politicians. And those will be motivated by the immigration debacle, which Britain was far less affected by.
Spain’s foreign minister told the Guardian that “There are many European countries who would support the UK’s [recent Brexit proposal]. Because they are against free movement of people. But not the big, powerful ones.”
This is of course precisely why those small nations have such an issue with the EU. It ignores that the tide is changing in Germany. And with Germany will go the EU.
Until next time,
Nick Hubble
Capital & Conflict
Category: The End of Europe