Trump - 6 February

Since President Trump came into office, just over two weeks ago, his decree on immigration has stirred up a storm of controversy. In my postings on Facebook, I have attempted to formulate a balanced opinion on this issue. That is proving to be difficult, particularly with the strong emotions at play, emotions which resound here in Europe. In a BBC report this morning regarding the on-going battle between the President and his judiciary, one line stood out.

Public opinion on this issue is sharply divided

When a controversial figure like Trump becomes popular and gets voted into office, the first question to be answered is WHY. It almost always signals that there is an issue in society which the previous administration has failed to deal with adequately, or that a large section of society feels is not being dealt with properly. Immigration has become such an issue, and not just in America, by the way.

The illegal immigration from Latin America is something that Trump thinks he can stop in its tracks by building a wall along the Mexican border. That, many people feel, would be a way of dealing with that problem. Legitimising the many 'latinos' in the USA is not held as acceptable, and there is a lot of irritation in the USA, as I understand it, about the multi-lingual options on government phonelines.

The second aspect of immigration is intermingled with the Muslim contingent of migrants or refugees (lumped together in one category by many). Since the 9/11 attacks on the WTC in New York, there has been a lot of hostility against Muslims in the USA - and this is what I mean by high emotions - and not just in the USA. Every time there is another terrorist attack, claimed by people who say (!) they're Muslims, the flames of hostility are fanned. Trump's edict against immigration from certain Muslim countries is designed to allay those fears.

The president feels that his loud protestations that he is acting in the best interests of national security justify all means and methods. The judiciary see fit to disagree.

The Dutch referendum

The Netherlands went to the polls in a referendum yesterday, which was to advise the government how the people felt about the EU trade deal with Ukraine. About two out of every three people said 'nee', [no], they didn't like it. This coming from one of the founding members of the European Economic Community of the 1950s is profoundly disturbing. My personal assessment is that this no-vote was brought about on the back of the migrant crisis, currently gripping Europe, as well as the political uncertainty in Ukraine. Don't forget that that is a deeply divided country, where the western part would like to be more integrated with Europe, whereas the eastern part would like to be more integrated with Putin's Russia. The civil war in Ukraine, fomented by Putin, has subsided after our Vlad decided that it wasn't getting him anywhere and it was all backfiring on him - I refer to #MH17.

However, there is more to this issue than just the EU and Ukraine. It is about dissatisfaction with the European bureaucracy, which is held to be undemocratic and not properly held to account. The UK is going to the polls on its membership of the EU on June 23rd, and this result will be viewed with interest this side of the North Sea.

Further analysis is given on the link to the BBC news story.  

Denmark

Like most European countries, Denmark has been subjected to a large influx of migrants fleeing the upheavals in the Middle East, southwest Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The country feels overwhelmed by the flood of people, and has reinstituted border controls on the sole land border it has, with Germany. There are also more stringent checks on the border with Sweden, at the Øresund bridge across the sea strait between the two countries. 

Yesterday, the Danish parliament approved measures that grant police officers powers to seize valuables from migrants, if valued over £1,000 and not of sentimental value, to pay for their keep in Denmark. Whilst acknowledging that the current situation is unprecedented, and outwith any experience of such an inflow in recent times, I have serious reservations. Put it bluntly, to my mind it is daylight, state-sponsored theft and robbery. Never, ever, have migrants into any European country been forced to hand over money to be able to stay. The migrants that are flocking into Europe usually have had to pay thousands of dollars for their passage across the Mediterranean, in leaky, rickety, unsafe craft, donned with lifevests that (in some instances) help you sink, rather than keep you buoyant in the water. 

As I have written before, the current migrant crisis has to be resolved internationally, involving all parties involved. Not just the European Union, but also Turkey, Russia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya (and other countries from which people flee). Turkey has turned a blind eye to the floods of people passing through its territory en-route to Greece. Russia is exacerbating the Syrian crisis by supporting the dictator Assad by bombing his opponents, under the pretext of fighting Daesh. Within a few months, weather conditions in the Mediterranean will improve as spring arrives. Unless something is done, 2016 will become a worse repeat of 2015. It will jeopardise the lives of the migrants, threaten the stability of Europe - something that would benefit nobody.

Migrants

A surge of the desperate, or a surge of desperados. How many villains in that piece.

The Turks? For standing by and doing nothing, most likely profiting from it to an unimaginable degree.

The French? For standing by and doing little about the Jungle Camp, the successor to the camp at Sangatte in the 90s and 00s, and allowing the UK-bound migrants to congregate there, jeopardising the lives of all involved, including their own.

The EU? For falling apart and falling out in ostensibly formulating a response to the flood of people - and never speaking with one voice.

EU should go back to being the EEC, an economic trading pact, rather than a failed attempt at political unity. Another summer like 2015, and the EU will cease to exist, and David Cameron doesn't need to hold his in/out referendum, as all member states will be headed for the door.

Migrants

In amongst the furore of the large numbers of migrants, refugees and what else, that are coming into southeastern Europe, one question remains unanswered. It is not why all those people are on the move. That is pretty well documented, hashed up on our television and computer screens day in day out. A brutal civil war in Syria, unrest in Afghanistan (tell me something I didn't already know), repression in various parts of the Middle East and griding poverty in large swathes of Africa. I am slightly non-plussed why all those people are united in their desire to go to Germany. But even that is not relevant.

The question is: how do they come to Europe's shores, and more to the point, who is organising it. Who stands to pocket a million pounds a boatload, and doesn't give a pin for the fate of those on board, whether they reach the other side or just Davy Jones's locker? Who has the logistics to organise hundreds of boats and thousands of lifejackets? Seen those pics of the mountains of lifejackets that are accumulating on the Greek island of Lesbos? A lot of the Middle Eastern migrants arrive through Turkey, which (on the surface at least) doesn't bat an eyelid at what goes on on its western shores. I do not point the finger at the Turkish government persé, by the way, although their role does not stand up to scrutiny. A similar people smuggling exercise was occurring between Libya and Italy, with countless numbers of boats and thousands of people ending up on the Mediterranean island of Lampedusa.

In the fierce debate over the numbers of people that have to be housed across Europe (do they?), the question of transportation and logistics is not being addressed.

Who are the people smugglers, who supports them, bankrolls them (if they need bankrolling by now), and what do they stand to gain by Europe's discomfiture; in plain English, what is the political angle.