Switzerland decisively rejected any restriction on the influx of immigrants in a recent referendum. The referendum comes with the advance of the right-wing conservative Swiss People’s Party (Schweizerische Volkspartei or SVP), which also sought to terminate individuals’ free movement within the European Union. Both SVP measures failed in Sunday’s vote.

What Happened in the Swiss Referendum?

According to the final result, 61.7 percent of participants in the referendum voted against the SVP’s plan. The SVP had argued that the influx of too many people reduces prosperity while also being too expensive for the country’s social welfare system. Since 1990, the population of Switzerland has increased by around 25 percent to 8.6 million.

The SVP had started the so-called limitation initiative, which demanded that Bern severely curbs migration to Switzerland. The bill “For moderate immigration” stipulated that the government in Bern ought to negotiate the end of free movement with the European Union within one calendar year. If this did not succeed, the government would have had to unilaterally terminate the freedom of movement within a further 30 days. As a result of the defeat of this motion, EU nationals can continue to move to Switzerland without significant restrictions. 

An End to Free Movement Would Have Damaged Swiss Economy

An end to the agreement would also have ended the free movement of the Swiss within the EU. Above all, however, it would have jeopardized the Swiss economy’s direct access to the European internal market. However, global corporations such as the pharmaceutical companies Roche and Novartis, the food producer Nestle or the major banks UBS and Credit Suisse rely on foreign workers. In addition, the EU is the most important trading partner of the export-focused nation.

The SVP routinely denounces mass immigration into Switzerland. It argues that too many people reduce the citizens’ prosperity and security and are too expensive for social services. They argue that the large number of immigrants had led to increased unemployment and polluted the environment and infrastructure.

Switzerland’s Big Population Increase Since 1990

Since 1990, Switzerland’s population has increased by around a quarter to 8.6 million, including more than 2.1 million foreigners. Almost 1.5 million of them come from an EU country, from Great Britain, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein. In addition, there are hundreds of thousands of people who commute to work in Switzerland every day from other EU countries.

In contrast, the government, parliament, the other parties, employers’ associations, and the trade unions reject the requested termination of persons’ free movement with the EU. The economic impact would be catastrophic and severely damage relations with the EU, they argue.

Switzerland’s Economic Relationship with the EU

The Swiss Confederation and the EU negotiated a package of seven bilateral agreements in the 1990s which the Swiss accepted by a large majority in a vote in 2000. The agreements provided Swiss companies access to the EU market. An agreement includes the free movement of people. In principle, Swiss citizens can live, work, and study in the EU. In return, citizens of EU countries can live, work, and study in Switzerland. If Switzerland were to terminate the agreement on persons’ free movement, the other six agreements would also automatically expire.

The weekend results are likely to bring new momentum to the lengthy cooperation negotiations between Switzerland and the European Union. The EU seeks to put all bilateral agreements under a framework agreement. This is also intended to weaken some of the privileges previously negotiated by Switzerland. If it refuses, Brussels threatens disadvantages for Switzerland. As a warning, it has already suspended recognition for the Zurich Stock Exchange and the Swiss government is calling for improvements to the proposal from Brussels.

L'articolo Switzerlands Rejects Immigration Restrictions via Referendum proviene da InsideOver.

The controversial reorganization of the migration system in Europe is imminent. Due to its Council Presidency, Germany may even possess more weight than usual. However, a consensus among the member states remains inconceivable.

The Common European Asylum System

The EU is standing on the precipice regarding its Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Negotiations over this new approach have stalled since 2016, as several member states do not concur with the many of the plans CEAS includes.

Germany plays a crucial role in the negotiations, particularly now due to its presidency and Berlin has changed its stance on immigration as of late. Instead of insisting on a mandatory admission quota for all 27 EU countries, as it has for years, Berlin is now also in favor of “flexible solidarity”.

The pending reform is primarily about establishing the most uniform standards possible within the EU to process and assess asylum applications. Besides, there is a fair distribution of refugees, common standards for legal migration, and a coordinated and reinforced deportation policy in the event of illegal migration. Time is of the essence, as for the first time since the 2015 refugee crisis, the number of people coming to the EU and five other European countries has seen an increase over the previous year.

Seven Proposals for EU Asylum Reform

The EU asylum reform comprises seven legislative proposals, 5 of which find consensus among the members.

1. Reform of the Dublin Regulation. It is the most controversial point. The critical question is which country is responsible for examining the asylum application in the event of strong migration movements. According to the previous law, the country where the migrant first sets foot on European soil must take care of it. However, this leads to an utterly unequal burden on the member states.

2. An expansion of the Eurodac regulation identification database to prevent secondary migration and illegal migration better. In addition to fingerprints, facial images will also be stored in the future.

3. Strengthening of the EU’s asylum agency and support the member states in asylum procedures.

4. A new recognition regulation that ought to ensure that asylum seekers have the same chance of asylum under the same conditions. The aim is to achieve uniform protection criteria and greater consistency in terms of recognition rates. In addition, severe penalties for “asylum shopping” should be enforceable.

5. Europe’s Reception Conditions Directive aims to ensure that asylum seekers are received decently and treated equally throughout the EU.

6. Human traffickers should be combated through resettlement programs. Special selection processes are intended to enable legal migration for those in particular need of protection.

7. A new asylum procedure regulation aiming to make asylum procedures more efficient, including harmonized rights for asylum seekers and more severe penalties for abuse. The aim is also a common list of safe third countries. So far, no consent has been reached.

Juncker’s Big Mistake

Besides these points, the services are to be harmonized within the EU — naturally taking into account the respective cost of living. The penalties for illegally escaping from another EU country to Germany — which continues to be the most sought after destination of many asylum seekers because benefits are comparatively high — would also be significantly increased.

The EU Commission, led by Jean-Claude Juncker, had made numerous proposals for a modern European asylum system in recent years. Together with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, however, Juncker made the grave mistake in the spring of 2016 of submitting a proposal to reform the distribution of refugees (Dublin Regulation) without a significant vote, which obliged all member states to admit refugees by way of quota.

Massive resistance came from numerous Eastern, and Central European countries as these did not want Brussels to dictate which and how many refugees they would take in. This dispute continues to this day and continues to weigh heavily on sentiment within the EU.

The Heat is On Von der Leyen

The EU Commission knows how toxic the issue is and has postponed its reform proposals several times since the spring. Ursula Von der Leyen is under massive pressure. In early summer, they received several letters from the EU capitals: Austria and Denmark warned that there should be no “automatic and compulsory distribution” of refugees.

The interior ministers of seven Eastern European countries have also announced: “fierce resistance” to mandatory distribution. In contrast, five southern European countries demanded in a letter that a “compulsory redistribution mechanism” was “essential.” The reason is obvious: the Mediterranean countries are usually the first point of contact for migrants and therefore, according to the Dublin Regulation, have to process the applications and take care of the asylum seekers – which does not seem like a fair way of sharing a burden many European states have never asked for.

Nevertheless, Europe needs to find answers and quickly.

Most importantly, however, Europe also needs to find answers for the growing number of European states and citizens who have learned from 2015 and want better solutions this time around.

L'articolo Europe’s Last Stand on Immigration Reform proviene da InsideOver.

During a NATO exercise on Friday, an inciting incident occurred over the Baltic Sea. A Russian fighter jet chased a US bomber into Danish airspace. Only when the Danes sent their F-16 jets into the air did the Russian plane turn back.

Details of the Incursion

During a NATO exercise, a Russian fighter jet chased a US bomber into Danish airspace, triggering an alliance protest. The NATO statement said: “The incident on Friday is the first of its kind in several years and indicates a new level of provocative behavior by Russia.”

An American B-52 bomber took part in the “Allied Sky” exercise on Friday, during which six of these aircraft flew across all 30 NATO member countries in one day. Above the Baltic Sea, the Air Force plane was suddenly accompanied by a Russian SU-27 plane, which followed the US plane over the Danish island of Bornholm. Only when the Danes sent their F-16 jets into the air did the Russian plane turn back.

NATO: ‘Russia is Disregarding International Norms’

NATO’s Allied Air Command put out a statement on the incident on Monday. “This incident shows that Russia is disregarding international norms and the sovereign airspace of an allied nation.” The alliance said it will remain vigilant, prepared, and ready to keep NATO airspace secure “day and night.”

Denmark immediately launched its rapid reaction alarm aircraft to counter the violation. However, the aggressive Russian fighters returned before interception, NATO confirmed and stating that “the unauthorized entry into the sovereign airspace is a serious violation of international law.”

Denmark: Wants to Ensure Similar Incident Doesn’t Recur in Future

Denmark’s Defense Minister Trine Bramsen said on Tuesday regarding the incident that the intrusion into Danish airspace was utterly unacceptable. Denmark will now “as soon as possible” discuss this incident with the Russian authorities, “to avoid repetition.”

Russia has denied the incident. The Russian Su-27 fighter plane used to intercept the US Air Force’s B-52 bomber did not violate Danish airspace and flew over the Baltic Sea’s neutral waters, the Russian state media reported on Monday, citing Tass, a spokesperson for the Russian Defense Ministry. “The Ministry of Defense has denied the North Atlantic Alliance’s statement that the Russian Su-27 fighter violated the Danish border,” the official said, according to Tass.

US-Russian Tensions

The incident occurs amid heightened tensions between the US and Russia. Washington has accused the Russian military of several provocative actions in the past few days, including the unprofessional interception of a US B-52 bomber over the Black Sea and responsibility for a collision between Americans and Russian armored vehicles in Syria in which seven US troops were injured.

When asked about the apparent increase in incidents with the Russians, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo referred to the vehicle collision in Syria on Monday and said the incident was seen last week in which a Russian vehicle deliberately rammed an American vehicle. These were the types of issues that Washington has been monitoring closely while staying in contact with the Russians to say that was unacceptable behavior. Pompeo said that the US will respond to every single incident.

In terms of the incursion over Danish airspace, the Russian plan returned to Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave between Poland and Lithuania that has a significant Russian military presence. Bornholm Island is in the Baltic Sea, less than 90 miles east of Copenhagen. Denmark is one of the Nordic region’s states that has witnessed increased Russian belligerence over these last years, which has put NATO on increased alert.

L'articolo Russian Military Violates NATO Airspace proviene da InsideOver.

The closure of consulates the previous week will not have been the apogee in a series of clashes between Washington and Beijing. Instead, the last remaining hegemonic power and the aspiring superpower will keep the world busy with its ongoing showdown — while the European Union is destined to watch.

Beijing

Since the violent suppression of the democratic movement on Tiananmen Square in 1989 and the fall of the Soviet Union, the Communist Party of China (CPC) has waged an ideological war against enemy forces. Under the new head of party and state leader Xi Jinping, the conflict is intensifying. In a 2013 speech on “Defense and Development of Socialism” to members of the CPC Central Committee, he said that the Chinese system would ultimately triumph over capitalism. However, the party had to prepare for “long-term cooperation and debate between the two systems.” In the end, the CPC also tries to win the duel between the political systems in order to legitimize its authoritarian rule in China.

Of geostrategic importance are China’s claim to Taiwan — a democratic state that is not recognized by China and supported by the United States — as well as Beijing’s territorial aggression in the South China Sea and the East China Sea. Here, China is attempting to extend its sovereign rights over the internationally determined airspaces and territorial waters.

It builds infrastructure on uninhabited or artificial islands in order to claim sovereign rights and natural resources in the South China Sea —  despite an international court ruling that puts China in violation of international law.

As a result, several dangerous military situations with warships and military jets from neighbouring countries as well as the United States and European countries have occurred during attempts to force China to respect international airspace and international trade waters. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made a keynote speech to democracies in Europe and Asia asking to oppose China in a joint effort with the United States.

Washington

Compared to previous US governments, President Donald Trump has tightened the approach towards China – albeit not in regard to human rights and religious freedom. President Barack Obama acted more conciliatory and sought cooperation with Beijing in the global financial crisis. Trump, on the other hand, is using punitive tariffs to exert pressure on China to open its markets to Western products, just as China claims access to its goods in western economies. Trump’s constant attacks on China regarding COVID-19 — though justified — have further exacerbated the situation.

In addition to Trump’s combative course, the objective situation has also changed. Two decades ago, China had still been seen as a developing country, the kind of which does not question the technical and geostrategic dominance of the West — which is why one can react with caution if China does not adhere to the same standards in terms of trade rules, social regulations, environmental and climate requirements hold. Today China is technically and economically as strong as the USA or the EU. Unequal rules are considered a competitive disadvantage at the expense of America and Europe. Whoever believes that the conflict between China and the US will disappear once Joe Biden is in office, might be in for a rude awakening.

Brussels

The EU, meanwhile, is a bystander in this clash between the world’s two dominating forces. Its member states have such different interests that it is difficult to position them jointly on key issues. It would have been Germany’s task in its current EU presidency to find a common position for the EU-China summit initially planned for September. However, the summit has now been postponed due to the pandemic, and without a joint declaration, there will be no common European position – a further increase in tensions between Washington and Beijing notwithstanding.

The previous EU commission was cognizant of these aforementioned issues. In March 2019, it published a ten-point paper that aimed to counter China’s political and economic struggle for power in many fields. China is a partner, competitor and systemic rival, it says. However, national governments are often not guided by the EU decision, which emphasizes the importance of human rights and demands a level playing field. At the same time, China is influencing and dividing the EU. Investments from Beijing are very welcome in Italy, but also in other southern and eastern European countries. These investments make these governments mildly friendly when it comes to criticizing China.

The EU’s Lack of Unified Foreign Policy

When it comes to geopolitical interests, the EU does not fulfil the global political role that ought to be expected from an economic powerhouse. It simply is not capable. Accordingly, the idea that the EU could act as a global political pole between the United States and China is utterly preposterous, mainly as no real EU foreign policy even exists.

It also explains why Germany is not inclined to follow the US blindly. Berlin has emphasized that China remains an important partner in international politics, such as climate protection and the nuclear deal with Iran, and an important economic partner. The USA, on the other hand, is essential for Germany as a guarantee of security and shares common values, even if the friendship has suffered severely under the current administration.

With that being said, the conflict between China and the US will continue to exacerbate in the foreseeable future. And while the tone and decorum in the White House could significantly elevate from January 2021 onward if Biden is elected, American geopolitical interests will remain the same.

L'articolo US-China Relations Get Tenser, while Europe is Doomed to Watch proviene da InsideOver.

So far, the EU summit in Brussels has not made any progress. Austria and the Netherlands continue to oppose the current COVID-19 aid proposal worth 750 billion. Particularly Austria’s Chancellor Kurz is not inclined to transform the European Union into a transfer union – and rightfully so.

Real Disagreements Won’t Disappear Easily

The gap between the member states in the question of how the funds ought to be paid and whether stipulation ought to be attached to them remains substantial. Netherland’s Prime Minister Rutte and Austria’s Chancellor Kurz have proven to be hardliners, who are prepared to accept the failure of the plans rather than succumbing to a plan that, could turn out to become rather expensive of the member states.

That plan envisages that the total amount of Corona aid of € 750 billion will be taken up as joint debts of the member states by the EU Commission in the financial markets. The money will be paid to EU countries hit particularly hard by the pandemic, especially in southern Europe. Only € 250 billion are to be granted as loans that would have to be repaid by the recipients.

What Does Rutte Want?

Rutte rightfully seeks to tie the funds to the implementation of reforms. Moreover, he has advocated for a mechanism that requires a unanimous decision of the EU countries for any payment. Southern states such as Italy and Spain categorically reject the latter.

From an economic point of view, there is a strong argument for the package on the table. It would be a sign of European solidarity and nobility. However, the current circumstances are unique. One currently cannot predict the economic impact of the pandemic on the individual countries. Nevertheless, first indications have been witnessed on the labour market. With unemployment rising across the continent, governments have to find answers for people, answers that will not be cheap. Balanced budgets and reserves will thus be essential.

At the same time, the current situation shows one of the biggest fiscal problems in the European Union. While it has a common monetary policy, it does not possess a transfer system to support countries that are victims of an isolated event, such as COVID-19. Although the latter is a pandemic, it has had different effects on the individual states to date. For example, while Germany has been able to weather the crisis well so far, the Italian and Spanish economies are suffering severely.

The Austrian and Dutch Perspectives

For Austria and the Netherlands, payments are only fair if the European Commission monitors the quality of the respective proposals and only distributes the money if a country adheres to its commitments. However, this cannot be achieved under the current rules. In addition, and the Netherlands and Austria have this in mind, a country could not meet its requirements and still receive further financial injections later – based on the principle of solidarity. Their caution is hence justifiable, particularly as some countries are apparently inclined to utilize corona payments to balance budgets that had been handled inaptly for years prior to the COVID-19 occurrence.

It is not merely a question of whether or not the EU transforms into a transfer union. The latter de facto – albeit in infinitesimal form – is already in existence as transfer mechanisms are part of the current EU budget, i.e. in the EU’s structural funds. The issue is thus, to what extent the EU is willing to solidify the principle of joint debts amongst the member states.

Given the investment, the EU is about to make, certainty regarding subsequent use of the funds is a necessity. Corona payments must not be spent on a country’s crumbling structures. Governments that have not demonstrated a proclivity to balance their budgets should not receive funds without stipulations and enforceable guarantees. And thus Rutte and Kurz comprehend, perhaps better than any other European leader, that solidarity needs to work both ways.

L'articolo Rutte and Kurz Versus the Transfer Union proviene da InsideOver.

Considering how her reputation was tarnished by the 2015 refugee crisis, the coronavirus has provided German Chancellor Angela Merkel with an opportunity to secure a positive legacy during her final days in power. 2021 will mark her last year as Europe’s most powerful woman having presided over Germany’s chancellorship for over 15 years already.

Euronews reports on a poll that the news organization conducted which found that Merkel’s handling of COVID-19 made her popular with seven out of ten Germans that were polled at the time. This is due to the low number of COVID-19-related deaths that Germany has had. Both the French and the Italians who were polled at the same time also had a positive view of her when asked to rate their own respective leaders’ performance during the coronavirus crisis.

Will Markus Soeder Succeed Merkel?

However, the timing of Merkel’s popularity boost is poor and it has not stopped many from anticipating who her successor could be. The German Chancellor’s recent visit to Bavaria has sparked speculation in the German press that the state’s Prime Minister Markus Soeder could become Merkel’s successor.

Nonetheless, she has publicly refused to endorse the Bavarian Premier as her successor. The German Chancellor commented that Soeder is a good Prime Minister, but she refused to comment further. Merkel’s comments have not prevented Bild, Germany’s largest newspaper, from referring to the Bavarian Prime Minister as “the crown prince.”

It is understandable why many in the German media view him as Merkel’s natural successor. Soeder managed to establish himself as the coronavirus started to cripple Germany. He was among the first of Germany’s 16 state premiers to impose lockdowns and introduce mass testing programs.

Soeder is an Established Figure

By inviting the German Chancellor to Herrenchiemsee, a castle on an island in a lake where Germany’s constitution was drafted in 1948, this could be portrayed as a purely calculated move for the Bavarian politician to present himself as a national leader, as opposed to a regional one.

Soeder’s consistent national television appearances contrasts with those of Armin Laschet, the Prime Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia, who is also considered to be the other front-runner for the conservative nomination. According to Reuters, she has had a tougher time mastering the pandemic, with a number of outbreaks occurring at a slaughterhouse in Guetersloh, which infected thousands of workers.

Until Merkel clarifies who her successor is, these reports are just rumors for now. It was widely anticipated that Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, who succeeded Merkel as the Christian Democratic Union’s (CDU) party leader, would also become Chancellor as soon as Merkel retires. Regardless, she resigned earlier this year and said that she would not run for Chancellor in the 2021 federal election.

Merkel’s Reputation is in Tatters

As Merkel proceeds with persuading her European counterparts to support a €750-billion package to rescue the EU’s economy from the economic fallout caused by the coronavirus, these rumors about her successor seek to undermine her leadership during a critical time for the rest of the EU. With the Netherlands stating that a deal is unlikely over the weekend, this could have devastating consequences for her chancellorship and speed up the process of succession.

Even if Merkel succeeds in negotiating an EU-wide rescue package over the weekend, her longer-term legacy in Europe is in tatters. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte met Merkel last week and pushed for EU-wide financial reform, but as Euractiv’s Kenneth T. Stiller argues, she has had a considerable period of time to implement EU reforms that could have deepened European solidarity. For example, in 2011-12 she could have urged her counterparts to support steps toward a fiscal union to prevent the eurozone from exploding back then like it is now.

Although Merkel’s popularity is riding high overall, it could be short-lived depending on the outcome of this weekend’s European Council meeting. Either way, many in the German media are concentrating on the future. Although that damages the CDU in the short-term, it is important to highlight that Merkel’s successor has some substantial challenges ahead in preserving European solidarity. It is no wonder many journalists are speculating who could become the next German Chancellor in 2021.

L'articolo Rumors of Merkel’s Successor are Undermining Her Leadership proviene da InsideOver.

A dark cloud has fallen upon Spain! Old ghosts and hungry vultures that have stayed in the shadows for decades are now putting their claws in the throat of the Iberian country. It is no exaggeration to write that Spain is currently facing an existential threat.

The Political Crisis in Spain

Exactly two years ago a coalition of losers put forward what became the first successful no confidence vote in Spanish history. Spain’s communist party Podemos, separatists such as Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya (ERC) and Junts per Catalunya (JxCat), the Basque nationalists PNV, led by the Socialist leader Pedro Sanchez, came together to oust the governing center right Partido Popular led by Mariano Rajoy. What followed was a government, nicknamed Frankenstein. This government was comprised of many forces whose core purpose was to break up Spain and lead it into ruin.

The vote of no confidence, as all events that disrupt the status quo, changed the political landscape of Spain and brought three major changes that have significantly impacted Spanish political life.

First, Partido Popular changed leadership and for the first time in its history had internal elections. Rajoy resigned from his post as party leader and announced his intention to retire from political life. Differently from his predecessor, Jose Maria Aznar, Rajoy did not choose his successor, allowing the party base to choose its next leader. It was thus, that Pablo Casado came to the helm of the biggest center right party in Spain.

The young leader marked a generational change for the Party leading it away from the Rajoy centrism and towards a more conservative line. He was seen more as an ideological successor of Aznar’s rather than Rajoy’s. However, the newfound conservatism of the Party proved to be short-lived. After losing the elections after the no confidence vote, the so-called Barons of the Party, i.e. the regional leaders, forced Casado to return towards the centrism of Mariano Rajoy. Nevertheless, Casado is proving to be his own man, as he is charting his own path for Partido Popular (PP), one that is a peculiar mix of the ideologies of both Rajoy and Aznar, which proved more successful in the second elections that took place after the no-confidence vote.

Spain’s Post-Franco Bipartidism Era is Over

After 2016, and especially in the last two elections that happened in 2019, it was apparent that the bipartidism of the post-Franco era had come to an end. The current political landscape in Spain is fragmented with several parties on the right and the left. Due to this, it has been more difficult for clear majorities to come out of elections. So, the first coalition government was formed after the elections of November 2019. After saying many times that he would not make a pact with the communist Podemos, the socialist Sanchez formally entered into a coalition with them, and by January they were governing together, in what is the most left wing government in Spanish history. This has emboldened separatist parties such as ERC and JxCat which provide support to the left-wing government from time to time.

Lastly, until 2018, Spain had appeared immune from the rise of conservative forces that had erupted elsewhere in Europe. However, Vox – a party formed from members who had left PP – went from 0.2% in 2016 to becoming the third political party in the country in a matter of three years. Vox is a patriotic force, who was born precisely because the Partido Popular had abandoned the right. It espouses similar values and beliefs as the Republican Party in the US, defending traditions, culture, strengthening the individual, national unity, cutting taxes, deregulating and free markets. However, the media, the Socialist party, and even the Partido Popular until very recently treated it as an extremist force, rejecting and ignoring it and spreading fake news.

The same who sit with the communists and separatists who want the destruction of Spain, feel threatened by the rise of this Party that speaks to the men and women who love their country, live paycheck to paycheck and have been abandoned by the establishment. Vox has risen because the Partido Popular was unable to do its duty and defend the values it pretends to uphold before the socialist aggression. That is why Vox gained a popularity and enthusiasm similar to Donald Trump’s in a matter of two years and now is a decisive factor in Spanish politics. The rallies of Vox remind one of Trump’s rallies, so it would not be a surprise if the charming Abascal saw himself as Prime Minister of Spain. He already made the impossible happen when his party won in the left-wing Andalusia and is part of the governing coalition. This would be similar to Trump winning in California.

Spain Under Threat

In this context, Spain finds itself before threats whose nature can be summed into economic and constitutional.

It is enough to see the unemployment rate in Spain from 1990 to 2018 to get an idea of the impact of Partido Popular and Socialist Party in the lives of the Spanish. From 1990 to 1995 the Socialists were in government and the unemployment rate reached a high of 24.1%. The PP followed from 1996 to 2004 and the rate of unemployment went down to 10.6% in 2001. Afterwards, under the government led by the socialist Zapatero the housing bubble occurred, the unemployment rate jumped to 22.6% in 2011, the highest since the previous socialist government and the GDP fell 3.7% in 2009, coupled with a loss in competitiveness, huge deficits and high indebtedness. Zapatero first denied that there was any crisis and then made it worse in the last mile of his irresponsible tenure as Prime Minister.

The subsequent recovery that took place from 2012 until 2018, under the leadership of Mariano Rajoy is considered unanimously from economists as nothing short of miraculous. Rajoy’s government implemented supply side measures by reforming the labor market, cutting corporate and income taxes and deregulating. The result from 2012 to 2017 was a recovery of more than half of the jobs lost during the crisis – more than 1.5 million jobs in three years were created, a decrease of 70% in the fiscal deficit, a reduction in trade deficit through the increase of exports by 33%, and a reduction of public debt to sustainable levels. Government revenue, as a result of tax cuts, increased to record highs, with corporate tax receipts rising 29%. In 2019, thanks to the reforms of Rajoy, the economy grew faster than the rest of the European Union.

Sanchez Steps in

As soon as Sanchez came to power he announced increases to all corporate and income taxes. When he was done with them, he declared his intention to add new taxes. His communist allies of Podemos, propose introducing a wealth tax which has failed in every country it has been tried. The new government’s intention is to increase spending and expand the deficit. The Spanish GDP is expected to fall 22% in the second quarter. In April, the industrial production fell 34% year on year. The automobile industry fell 92%, while the textiles dropped 77%. Instead of providing accommodating policies to enable companies to rehire again, the Sanchez-Iglesias government wants to raise taxes and spend without limit. The socialist government want to implement a living wage for all citizens, a wealth tax and more spending in welfare policies that are unproductive. So, more dependence on government, less productivity and higher debt. If allowed, they will push Spain in a deeper and more painful crisis than all the previous left-wing governments.

Sanchez Makes COVID-19 Worse

Sanchez’s incompetence made Spain the worst hit country in Europe from the coronavirus after Italy. Some would say it is even worse, with tens of thousands of deaths, accusations of a deep lack of transparency, political assaults and vengeful acts towards the Community of Madrid governed by the right, and no plan for the future. According to an ABC survey, only 27.7% of Spanish citizens believe Pedro Sanchez is acting accordingly and efficiently.

On the other side, the constitutional threat is even more deadly for Spain. ERC, JxCat and other separatist parties want to break up Spain. If they were to succeed the Kingdom of Spain would cease to exist. Many are right to propose that these parties are unconstitutional because they openly talk and advocate for the secession of Catalunya, the abolition of Monarchy and the destruction of Spain as a nation. Yet, the Socialist Party negotiates with them and seeks their support. The parties know they will never get a majority. It would be impossible. However, they hope to cause enough trouble that the government will sit down and listen to their unconstitutional demands. Sanchez, lacking a majority of his own, is dependent on them to pass laws. He cannot govern simply by decree, albeit that is what he has been doing in most cases.

Pay Attention to Podemos

The other risk comes in the form of Podemos, led by the communist Pablo Iglesias. Podemos as well is against the Monarchy, and some may say against Spain itself. Partido Popular, Vox and many in the media have accused Podemos of being funded by Iran and Venezuela. The spokesperson of PP in Congress, Cayetana Alvarez de Toledo has accused Iglesias’ father of being a communist terrorist, related to his involvement in the radical terrorist Marxist organization the Revolutionary Antifascist Patriotic Front (FRAP). Iglesias himself, through social media, has mentioned his pride for his father’s political activities.

So, Spain today is governed by a socialist prime minister with the backing of communists and separatists whose aim is to overthrow the King and break up the Spanish territory into different states. They openly speak against the King, and the Constitution. Yet, the media do not call them out and there is no political will to make them illegal, even though there is plenty of will to act against Vox which defends Spain and its unity relentlessly. The Partido Popular as well joined votes with the Socialists and Podemos to keep Vox out of the Parliamentary committees when Vox is the third political force in Spain. The establishment is willing to negotiate and consult with the enemies of Spain, but not with conservatives. Sanchez and Iglesias are using the long forgotten civil war and the polarizing figure of Generalissimo Francisco Franco to divide the Spanish and force them into taking sides. Divide and conquer is a strategy the left knows only too well.

The EU Won’t Face the Reality of Spain’s Situation, but Vox Will

Nobody in Europe is raising the concern that Spain is facing economic and constitutional threats that put at risk its very existence, because the European establishment is a globalist one that does not believe in national identity, traditions, national unity, fiscal responsibility and free enterprise. So, it will continue to turn a blind eye and accept in its bosom communists and socialists.

Luckily, Spain has a true opposition in Congress, in the form of Vox. Santiago Abascal is an eloquent leader, with a deep charisma, quite likable and totally original in his language. He is the true novelty in Spain, where politicians are stiff and thoroughly politically correct. He speaks with a clarity that is missing from all other leaders. More importantly, he has ideas that lead to success. Economically, his party is close to Partido Popular. Where he makes the difference is in his social policies, in awakening national dignity, unity, traditions and all the special things that make Spain unique. Abascal does not allow the left to intimidate him or Vox. He is not complexed by the right’s history with Franco. Partido Popular, on the other hand, has not been able to overcome this complexity and that is why it appears weak every time the left uses history as a weapon.

Abascal is credible when he speaks against the communists and separatists, because he and his family were persecuted by the terrorist separatist organization ETA in his native Basque region. His family’s small business was destroyed by radicals, in similar attacks happening currently in the US.

The Next Step to Save Spain

Spain needs to go into early elections as soon as possible. A strong, working coalition between PP and Vox can win and make sure the success of the years 2012-2018 is repeated, to pull Spain out of the abyss in which it is currently falling. To do this, Pablo Casado must not fall into the trap of the left and spurn Vox as the evil stepbrother. A Vox-PP government would be able to continue the economic supply side pro-growth and pro-market measures of the Rajoy government and prevent the destruction of Spain by appealing to the individual responsibility of the majority of the citizens, awakening their national pride, Christian roots and traditions, all of which the left wants to erase in its eternal pursuit of a world without any heart, soul or unique identities.

L'articolo The War for Spain’s Soul proviene da InsideOver.

Europe is a peculiar entity! It is an ailing would-be super state with a deep identity crisis, which does not know where it wants to go and what its place is in the world. In the current geopolitical arena, it is impossible to talk about a European superpower, or at the very least an international actor, as we do for the United States, China, Russia and so on. Yet Europe has a vital microcosm inside itself – a variety of cultures, civilizations, giants that have made made and shaped our planet’s history.

The Great Role of Europe

For ages, the Old Continent was the center of the World. It gave our planet irreplaceable art, science, fair laws, and a political system — democracy — that most countries yearn to implement. The Greek and Roman philosophers of antiquity, the warrior-kings of the Middle Ages, the Christian faith and its teachings, traditions, food and ways of life, are all studied and followed today all over the world. Europe had empires that conquered the world, from Alexander the Great, to the Romans, to Napoleon to the British Empire.

On the other side, Europe was the battlefield of fierce and bloody wars, fought for conquest, petty rivalries and ideological differences. It is also the continent of deeply unfair decisions, absolutist rulers, terrible massacres, behind-the-scenes deals and arrangements among certain countries that hurt and destroyed others. It is the continent of rivalries that run so deep, that even after centuries they have not been forgotten.

It has been the continent of profound contrasts, of pride and prejudice, of magnificent achievements and deserved failures, of generosity and mercilessness. Thus, in a word, it was alive! Yet, for some time now, Europe has slowly been losing its relevance. It is withering away and living with an oxygen mask.

Europe 70 Years Ago

Seventy years ago, at the prospect of fading away as the new superpowers of the United States and USSR were dividing the World between them, many saw this was the fate Europe was heading towards. Thus, they decided that the path forward would be a common market, a United Nations of Europe, trading without tariffs or barriers, fighting for no land, and cooperating on their security. Men of great wisdom understood that to keep the world stable and fight off the threats of communism and any other evil that would emerge, a strong European continent in collaboration with the US was necessary. These two pillars today are more needed than ever. Yet, Europe is divided and weakened. Those great leaders have been succeeded by lesser men. Greed and vanity have replaced farsightedness and courage.

During the past decades, the inescapable mistake has been to try and transform Europe into a political union, with a common government eliminating all that make it special: its diversity. Worse, everyone has been led to believe that it is necessary and what the founding fathers had wanted. So, in the pursuit of this fantasy, unelected bureaucrats have been trying to substitute national identities with a European one. That is why Europe is dying. Imagine stripping a human being of his identity, of his history, tradition, culture and his roots. That person would be nothing but a faceless ghost wandering around aimlessly. That person would also be susceptible to others’ orders, having no will of its own. Europe has been led deceitfully down this road.

European Identity

The error many make is to believe that the national and European identities are mutually exclusive. However, one can be Italian, German, Spanish or French and European at the same time. Europe’s value added is in its various identities and cultures. It is its history that makes it valuable today, with the lessons learned from wars, betrayals, failures, defeats and also magnificent achievements. There will always be a sense of kinship among the peoples of Europe. No political Union has forced it. This kinship has been gradually and naturally built throughout the centuries, despite of wars and conflict.

During the past few decades, a false Europe has been created, replacing its authentic virtues and remaining blind to its own vices. By trying to transform Europe into something that it is not, by imposing on it a hypocritical multiculturalism and by trying to make it part of a global community, the bureaucrats working for agendas set in the corridors of power have condemned the Old Continent to asphyxiation. Those that lead Europe today, through their actions, have proven that they repudiate all that is European. It is the only logical reasoning that explains why they want to destroy Europe and substitute it with a tyrannical utopia. It is also what can explain decades of wrong economic policies that have impoverished a considerable proportion of the continent.

Pan-European Dreams

Many have tried to rule Europe and, in the end, they have all failed, because we as Europeans try in vain to repeat an unsuccessful model: that of absolute monarchies. That is why the project to forcefully unite the continent in a political way will always fail. In contrast, the reason Britain’s system has succeeded is because it has rejected Continental Europe’s model, choosing instead freedom of expression, representation and strong institutions. The British, and the Americans, have understood that being ruled upon goes against human nature, which yearn to be free to pursue its own aspirations.

Furthermore, any comparison with the US is wrong. The United States was born out of a desire for freedom. The War for Independence is the only fair revolution because it was driven by a desire of freedom, instead of conquest or power. It was not to overthrow a regime or to depose a ruler. The founding fathers of the US fought against taxation without representation. In Europe, currently, we actually have taxation without representation, a detached elite and an unsustainable economic system. George Washington was given the chance to be a King, and he chose to help build a Republic. In Europe, everyone now wants to rule, from Brussels, Berlin or the Elysée Palace, through unelected bureaucrats who push for agendas that have no relation to the needs and desires of the citizens. Thus, Europe has been led astray from the visions of Schuman, Monnet, De Gasperi and Adenauer.

The EU’s Future is Not Looking Good

Unless it changes course, Europe will be crushed by its enormous debt, choked by over-taxation and buried by Brussel’s bureaucrats pushing for a globalization without identity and socialist ideas. It is still in time to heal itself. It needs responsible governments that will restore the EU countries dignity, history and tradition. The EU needs to make a complete overhaul of its institutions. Nobody that is in a position to take decisions should be unelected, otherwise they are unaccountable, increasing the propensity for abuse. There can never be a United States of Europe in the style of the USA, because when the United States were created the differences, the culture and the history between the members was not as different between European nations. It is just as unimaginable, unachievable and unsustainable as a world government.

However, there can be a confederate of sovereign European nations of an economic nature, without trade tariffs, with a common market, with fairness and reciprocity between each other. The nation state has always been a part of the identity of Europe. As the nations have become stronger and wealthier, so has the cooperation increased and the shared European identity strengthened. Nations that value democracy, individual dignity and rights, protect and ensure freedom of thought, expression and religion, guarantee low taxation, far less bureaucracy and regulation, and encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. Reforms should be implemented to reduce substantially the burden of debt, pursuing balanced budgets, freeing the individuals’ entrepreneurial spirit and encouraging their investments.

How Can Europe Survive and Prosper?

This way Europe can rise to the challenges of our century and lead together with the United States of America, just as it did during the last century, through cooperation and innovation. Europe should be decentralized on matters of a national nature, with each country free to decide the policies that affect the everyday lives of its citizens, but cooperate closely on matters of security and trade, with a common free market.

This chaotic leftist Europe resembles the Soviet Union of the 1980s, when it was gradually nearing its end. A Europe in such a state is of no use to anyone who seeks a world in which the balance of power remains in the West. It is up to the citizens of each country to vote for worthy successors to Schuman, Adenauer, De Gasperi, Churchill or Thatcher that will make sure a prosperous Europe lead for the next century.

Let us hope that in the next anniversary, 70 years after, we have a strong united Europe of nations, true to its real identity.

L'articolo The European Dream 70 Years Later proviene da InsideOver.

On Thursday, Germany announced it has designated Hezbollah as a terrorist organization effective immediately. It banned all of the group’s activities while conducting raids in several cities. Among the targets were mosques and cultural associations where Hezbollah supporters frequently met.

Germany: Hezbollah Haven

In recent times Germany has become a safe haven and retreat for Hezbollah. It is a place where the organization collected money and conducted propaganda against Israel, Jews, and the United States. Now, Interior Minister Horst Seehofer has banned all Hezbollah activities under Germany’s Association Act.

According to the ban, the Shiite-Islamist organization was promoting armed struggle via terrorist methods. It was directed against the idea of ​​international understanding and not only rejected Israel’s right to exist but called for the violent elimination of the state and its citizens.

Past Discussions of Banning Hezbollah

A ban on Hezbollah has been discussed repeatedly in recent years. In 2013 the European Union put Hezbollah’s military arm on a terrorist list. In many countries, the so-called civil arm of the organization was still not prohibited. Germany was one of these. The latter had been repeatedly criticized by Israel and the United States.

However, after the USA and others had already classified the entire organization as a terrorist group, Great Britain also issued a ban in 2019. Germany, under pressure from the Union parties, the SPD, and the FDP, the government, followed in December, stating its special historical responsibility for Israel.

An assessment by Germany’s security authorities such as the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution followed, which compiled all the necessary information and evidence to identify Hezbollah’s organizational structures and supporters in Germany.

How Much Support Does Hezbollah Have in Germany?

The Office for the Protection of the Constitution concluded that Hezbollah has at least 1,050 supporters in Germany from the extremist spectrum. Some of these supporters are organized in cultural and mosque associations and use social networks and events to promote Hezbollah and its goals. However, through “deliberately conspiratorial behavior and isolation,” a recognizable connection to the terrorist organization was mostly avoided. Hezbollah did not want to attract attention and fear the pressure of persecution.

According to the Ministry of the Interior, the associations are said to have supported Hezbollah financially, and propaganda and have now been searched include the Imam Mahdi Center, El-Irschad e. V., the Al Mustafa Community and the Community of Lebanese Emigrants e. V. Their integration into Hezbollah was so narrow that they are viewed as “sub-organizations.”

As proof of this, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution lists several postings from social networks in which members of the association use symbols of Hezbollah or the organization whose fighters or leadership cadres are said to have glorified.

The ban on Hezbollah that has now taken place should also serve to enable appropriate activities to be carried out during anti-Israeli marches. For example, at the “Al Quds Day” planned for May 16 in Berlin, the Iranian revolutionary founder Ayatollah Khomeini launched an annual protest at the end of the Islamic fasting month of Ramadan. Here, Hezbollah flags and symbols were repeatedly shown, and anti-Semitic slogans were chanted.

Hezbollah and its Hate is Not Welcome in Germany

There had been previous bans against Hezbollah supporters in recent years. In November 2008, the Ministry of the Interior banned Hezbollah’s TV station Al-Manar, whose programs regularly glorified suicide bombings and disseminated anti-Semitic content. Now, the final step has been taken.

Israeli Vice Prime Minister Benny Gantz expressed his appreciation for the German ban on Hezbollah via Twitter. The decision was an “important step in the global fight against terrorism,” Gantz wrote. Israeli Foreign Minister Katz also spoke of Germany’s step as a “valuable and important step in the global fight against terrorism.” Germany’s Jewish Council meanwhile called the step “long overdue” while also asking for Germany to facilitate a Europe-wide ban on Hezbollah.

L'articolo Germany Bans and Raids Hezbollah proviene da InsideOver.

Although Germany’s nightmare of eurobonds has been averted, the concessions and the commitments Berlin has made to further aid are historic. However, solidarity carries a substantial risk for Germany.

What Happened?

The negotiations between the EU heads of state that were needed in order to facilitate a package and thus marginalize the economic consequences of the COVID-19 crisis were intense. Ultimately, the heads of states concurred upon the €540 billion that the Eurogroup had previously established. However, considering the circumstances of the European Union, and indeed the world currently finds itself in, it appears inconceivable that the sum can be sufficient.

Over the next years, every member state will cast aside its primary concern of the supranational European Union and focus on itself first and foremost, the nation-state. As a result, what is going to follow will likely overshadow the at times controversial negotiations between Central and Southern Europe. Particularly Italy, Spain, and France are currently suffering the most and were thus, as Italy’s head of government Giuseppe Conte said, “in the front row” for help.

Unprecedented European Economic Stimulus

Besides the now agreed upon aid package, the heads of states and governments also agreed that there should be an unprecedented European economic stimulus package for the reconstruction of the severely damaged economy. A large part of the funding for it is intended to be generated via a “European Recovery Fund” in excess of €1500 billion. It is a staggering amount that eclipses the EU’s budget for the next seven years combined (1,082 billion).

However, many key questions relating to this fund are still unanswered, and considerable disagreement between the Member States on many points remain. As a result, the EU Commission was asked to prepare a detailed proposal for the fund by mid-May.

Germany’s Big Risk

The risk for Germany, meanwhile, is not diminishing, despite the proposal for joint liability of debts via eurobonds has been rejected for the time being. The current agreements still result in substantial liability for Berlin.

For example, the currently adopted €540 billion package provides that loans are to be granted to the states that request them, with liability risks for Germany varying — depending on the instrument and organization — since Germany has different shares in each of the European institutions. If Spain, for instance, receives a loan via the ESM, Germany would guarantee almost 27 percent of the loan amount. If a Spanish, or any European company applies for a European Investment Bank loan under the agreement, Germany guarantees at least 16 percent of it.

The now discussed Recovery Fund also begs considerable risks for Berlin. With ways of financing remaining unclear, the different option to deposit the fund all carry their own risk. For example, one option on the table is via member states’ contributions. In this scenario, Germany would have to conduct payments for its share of the EU budget – which amounts to 25 percent, despite 26 other members.

Questions Remain

The exact amount of future deposits and loans remains unclear, however, because the volume of the fund is not yet known, despite the repeatedly reported €1.5 trillion, one point seems certain: If debtors do not repay the loans granted by the fund, Germany would inevitably lose billions of euros. With the likely result of raining taxes to mitigate any losses.

Meanwhile, eurobonds have still not wholly disappeared from the discussion. If the €540 billion package that has now been decided is insufficient to avert the economic crisis, the demand for eurobonds will become louder again.

For Germany, meanwhile, its solidarity is alive and well. However, Berlin has learned its lesson from the past — keyword “Greece” — and thus continues to consider joint debts to be inappropriate. Despite the risks for its own economy and potential failed payments, Germany has again demonstrated its leadership role in Europe. Not by dictating the agenda, but by the example it sets, and the willingness to once again putting the union first – any dissent on the “how” notwithstanding.

L'articolo Eurobonds or Not: Germany Takes Big Risks proviene da InsideOver.