Thoughts on Schengen

I’ve had a long-percolating idea to provide regular commenters with a platform for semi-off-topic feature-length opinions that stay between the rails of what we’re doing here (regardless of whether the opinion is entirely congruent with my own). Jeppo’s comment below fits this well, and so is being elevated to a post.

This is interesting:

In France, the former centre-Right president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has called for the accords to be revised as migrants fleeing war and political repression in the Middle East and Africa continue to stream into Europe.

“Schengen must be suspended immediately and replaced by a Schengen II which member-countries could only join if they first agree to the same immigration policy,” Mr Sarkozy said recently. “Europe is not meant to organise social and migratory dumping.”

Of course Sarkozy is a consummate liar`so anything he says should be taken with a Rock of Gibraltar-sized chunk of salt. But this is an excellent idea, which will, unfortunately, be attacked by the very same nationalists who should be most supportive of it. Why? Because it transfers power from the nation-states to the EU.

There is an impossible-to-kill myth out there that the EU mandates open borders to non-European immigration, and requires the acceptance of virtually unlimited numbers of “refugees.” This is untrue. The Schengen Agreement only guarantees free movement within Europe, and it is the nation-states, not Brussels, who have sole responsibility for non-European immigration.

So when a particularly treasonous regime comes to power in any given nation (like Blair-Brown in the UK, Zapatero in Spain, or any government in Sweden), the immigration floodgates are opened wide. Brussels has no say in the matter.

And when the milquetoast centre-right (like Sarkozy or Cameron) gains power by promising to drastically cut immigration, almost nothing is ever done to stem the tide. Even when an actual patriotic party comes to power in a coalition government (like in Denmark and the Netherlands) and immigration really does get reduced, those governments will eventually, inevitably lose an election at some point, and then immigration gets ramped up once again.

So what Sarkozy is proposing, as I understand it, is to de-politicize immigration so that competing political blocs can’t ramp it up or down at will, and to centralize its control in Brussels, so that treasonous national politicians can’t import a new people for narrow partisan reasons.

I’d like to see him flesh out this idea, maybe propose a hard ceiling of non-European immigrants and refugees allowed into the EU per annum. I think I can speak for everyone here when I say that number should be zero. But realistically, a hard cap of 250,000 would be acceptable, which is fewer immigrants than Canada allows in every year. Population of Canada: 35 million. Population of the EU: 510 million.

This is actually achievable because popular opinion is turning against the Schengen Agreement, mainly because of the recent flood of phony “refugees.” Freedom of movement along with monetary union are the two main pillars of the EU, so the Eurocrats and the true believers will do *anything* to prevent the breakup of the Schengen Area. If it means sacrificing their beloved project of white-to-nonwhite population replacement in order to save freedom of movement within Europe, they’ll do it. They won’t like it, but they’ll do it.

And this can only be pushed forward by a mainstream stooge like Sarkozy (or Cameron, or Merkel). Marine Le Pen would never agree to transfer immigration powers to Brussels. But what she and other nationalists don’t get is that even if she miraculously becomes president, with an FN majority in parliament, and manages to reduce immigration to zero, that at some point her government will eventually be replaced by one that will ramp up immigration yet again. And so the cycle continues.

Only by de-politicizing immigration policy and centralizing its control in Brussels can this problem be solved, or at least ameliorated, once and for all. Conservatives and nationalists tend to view the EU as the fount of all evil. But it’s actually the nation-states that have been entirely responsible for the Third World invasion of Europe, and EU control of immigration policy may be the only permanent solution to this ongoing disaster.

11 thoughts on “Thoughts on Schengen

  1. As an observation of human nature rather than Schengen mechanics, less malign results will typically flow from decisions made closest to home. The most obvious example being liberals who robotically bark racist! from the sanctuary of meticulously groomed Good Schools. Though when offered their own generous diversity suddenly find themselves blurting Call Donald Maloney! I hold these people in basest contempt.

    Though the point is man’s sanctimony, and commensurate malevolence to his fellows, almost always increases with distance. Every man is a staunch immigration restrictionist in his own home. So in instances where a far away supranational bureaucracy actually labors for the benefit of local native interests, I’d consider it a happy stroke of luck.

    • Porter- yes. the EU wants a standing army of its’ own; what better justification than putting down race riots and food riots in all the EU countries. I am thinking that, just like our own traitor fedgov, the EU would soon be importing even more sub saharans. LePen is France’s only current hope; far right nationalism is our only hope.

      • It’s also doomed to fail in the face of center-right politicians who move just enough to the right in their rhetoric to pull away many who would defect to right-wing parties, depriving them of support. These politicians then moderate while governing to keep the center quiet.

  2. This may be a silly idea, but if EU member states cannot trust each other to not issue Golden Ticket Passports to tirds from the tird world (and thus, gain free passage and gibs anywhere in the Zone) then maybe, perhaps, they should consider thinking about possibly dissolving their union.
    A fix might work, if they could mandate members to issue Restricted passports to tirds, and leave it to other members’ discretion to honor them or not. But why chance it?
    It’s also funny to hear the French complain about “those other countries” importing too many muslims and Africans. Next we’ll hear the Brits complain about France sending too many pakis across the Chunnel. And Sarkozy’s “Europe is not meant to organise social and migratory dumping” is laughable. The EU is absolutely meant to tell its members what to do, and to smile while doing it.

  3. Excellent post, Porter. I’d like to expand on this:

    “Freedom of movement along with monetary union are the two main pillars of the EU, so the Eurocrats and the true believers will do *anything* to prevent the breakup of the Schengen Area. If it means sacrificing their beloved project of white-to-nonwhite population replacement in order to save freedom of movement within Europe, they’ll do it. They won’t like it, but they’ll do it.”

    Main pillars indeed. But let’s talk about that monetary union. Most think the euro currency was created to encourage free trade within Europe and to discourage the fratricidal wars that plagued Europe for centuries. While this was important, the main reason the euro was created was to have a currency that was big enough to be there when the U.S. Dollar’s timeline was up as the world’s reserve currency. As former head of the Bank of International Settlements and early EMU-architect, Jelle Zjilstra once said…

    “When we left the pound, we could go to the dollar. But where could we go from the dollar? To the moon?”

    European Monetary Union was in the works decades before it became a reality. It was a long thought out plan that ensured economic continuity after the U.S. Dollar’s reign was over. Without a currency that big to be there, then the world goes back to Bartertown. And if there’s one thing that benefits elites, it is continued stability in the realm of commerce. The grubby masses tend not to buck the system as long as the checks are flowing.

    A lot of folks think the euro is in trouble because of Greece and other debtor nations. But ask yourself this… When California couldn’t make it’s bond payments and were issuing IOUs, was anyone saying they were going to leave the Dollar zone? No, of course not. And did the Federal Reserve bail them out by buying their bonds? No. This is no different than the euro zone. Governments can go bankrupt within the euro. And they will, whether it be in real or nominal terms.

    That said, there is one thing that can harm the euro and that is nationalist movements taking charge and forcing an exit of their country from the EMU, even if it meant they were negatively affecting their country’s economy. Because as you know, real nationalists realize there are some things more important than The Economy. In order to keep these nationalist movements in Europe at bay, the foreign invasion of the savage horde is going to have to be quelled or greatly curbed at the least. Continued economic stability cannot be risked.

    For more on the history of how the euro was hatched, it’s a long one, but well worth the time to read it:

    http://fofoa.blogspot.com/2011/09/once-upon-time.html

  4. I think it’s good and proper not to trust a transnational organization like the EU to do the right thing when it comes to immigration, or anything else for that matter.

    But I think the evidence shows that it has been much easier for nationalists to make progress at the EU level rather than in the constituent nation-states. In the 2014 European Parliament elections, parties to the right of the Christian Democratic bloc won 22% of the seats, significantly higher than in most national parliaments, particularly in the three biggest and most important EU nations, Germany, France and the UK.

    In France the Front National finished first with 23 of 74 seats, or more than 30%, compared with only 2 of 577 seats in the 2012 national legislative election. In the UK, UKIP also finished first with 24 of 73 seats compared with no seats in parliament in the 2010 national election, and only 2 seats in the 2015 election. In Germany three rightwing parties (AfD, NPD and Familie) won 9 of 96 seats compared with no seats in the Bundestag in the 2013 election.

    Due to the proportional representation rather than first-past-the-post electoral system, and the willingness of European voters to take a chance on rightwing parties at the EU (but not the national) level, nationalists are much better represented in Brussels than they are in Paris, London, Berlin etc. So from a nationalist point of view it would make a lot more sense to strengthen the powers of the European Parliament, and hence the EU, at the expense of the national parliaments and nation-states rather than vice-versa.

    Ironically, the transfer of power from the periphery to the centre is most vehemently opposed by the most likely beneficiaries of such an action, the nationalist parties themselves. But if the eurozone is to hold together, and most Europeans–even the Greeks–want it to, then a fiscal union and a move towards a true European federation is inevitable. So it could be a case of nationalists losing the battle (against the EU and the euro) but winning the war (for more power and influence at the highest levels of European politics).

    And if there’s one thing–maybe the only thing–that the various European nationalists can agree upon, it’s severely limiting or completely shutting off non-European immigration. Which can be best achieved at a Europe-wide level. It was treasonous regimes in the nation-states that opened the floodgates to mass Third World immigration, not the faceless bureaucrats of Brussels who have no power to do so even if they wanted to.

    But in a future, much more powerful European Parliament with nationalists holding the balance of power, Brussels could stop or greatly reduce non-European immigration into the EU once and for all. Perhaps a great trade-off could be made between nationalists and the centre-left European establishment: in exchange for the continued free-flow of people within the EU (i.e. the Schengen Agreement) immigration from outside Europe would be halted completely and permanently. So, for example, Poles and Bulgarians would still be allowed to migrate to the UK, but Pakistanis and Nigerians wouldn’t.

    This is the type of bargaining that I think European nationalists should be engaging in. Instead of reflexively opposing the EU on every issue, they should be thinking about further empowering it and then using it to advance their primary goal: stopping non-European immigration. Conservative nationalists, broadly defined, already hold 22% of the seats in the European Parliament, so a more powerful EU would necessarily translate into significantly more power and influence for nationalists. It’s not working for them at the national level so why not think big instead and start planning on how to take over the entire EU (they’re almost halfway there now) in order to use it for their own ends.

    • This might well be the best, or the least bad, option for indigenous Europeans. One problem, however, is that the EU Commission, the executive body, is unelected, and its composition usually reflects the traitorous character of national politicians and civil servants.

      Another thing that European countries urgently need to do is withdraw from the Council of Europe, or at least from the jurisdiction of its Court of Human Rights. This is separate from the EU, and is working tirelessly to thwart any efforts to cut immigration.

  5. Make the League, but associate it not with Brussels, the EU. Make the League, headquarter it somewhere else if it must be headquartered at all. HQ it in Luxembourg. Andorra. Lichtenstein. Switzerland. I don’t know enough to say where. But keep it away from the taint of the maybe already past=prime (like Wilson’s League of Nations, thus UN instead) Brussels EU. Make it separate, like the Hanseatic League or Catholic Church were their own things. Taking it to the EU serves the EU, makes a conflict of interest. It’s like Pournelle’s law of bureaucracy. It must surely will be corrupted on contact. It’ll be like Tea Partiers going to Washington.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s