Only several days ago, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that Germany would accommodate 800,000 migrants from MENA (Middle East North Africa).

By last weekend, her utopian vision went up in smoke after 25,000 arrived. Germany reimposed border checks and closures to those without papers even though it is part of the Schengen group of countries guaranteeing ‘freedom of movement’.

During that time, Merkel and Jean-Claude Juncker called for the formation of an EU army to cope with this crisis and others in the future. Few EU citizens want an EU army which would not respect national borders or identity.

Meanwhile, it is unclear what is happening to migrants turned away from the German border. Are they being held until they can be taken elsewhere, e.g. France, with the consent of that country? Or are some quietly disappearing? If so, how many are wandering around unaccounted for?

What was Merkel thinking? Does she have a grand plan in mind or was her migrant pledge an unrealistic knee-jerk humanitarian response which has intractable knock-on effects across Europe?

It seems that the Chancellor has jumped the shark. (The phrase comes from the Happy Days episode where Fonzie rode a shark. Viewers found the scene so absurd that they stopped tuning in. Ratings plummeted and the show was cancelled.)

How can Merkel retain any credibility after this?

Two Telegraph readers offered these observations (emphases mine):

Telfennol: I think that Merkel has panicked over Pegida [in Greece], the cracks widening in the single currency, and the rise of nationalist parties right across Europe. She’s not an idiot, she can see that the EU is starting to look increasingly rickety, and she’s decided to force a “beneficial” crisis in the hopes of being able to use it to impose more Europe, or at a minimum dilute down the national identities of the constituent nations of the EU.

burberryblue (in reply): I think everything you say here is accurate. And I also think that Merkel has shot herself in the foot with this one, because she expected the other EU inmate nations to be shamed into accepting millions of criminals into their borders, no questions asked.

So far, other EU inmate nations aren’t taking that bait.

Indeed, border checks have been reinstituted in Austria and barbed wire fences have gone up in Hungary. More countries are following suit.

Housing and employment

Frontex announced today that 500,000 migrants landed in Europe between January and August 2015. 156,000 arrived in August alone.

Germany aside, European taxpayers are asking where the migrants will live and work.

Europeans resent having to pay for new arrivals when they are having enough trouble keeping their own heads above water. That might sound uncharitable but it is a realistic concern. Last week, news reports and radio discussions in the UK and France stated that even primary school children are worried about earning enough money to survive once they reach adulthood.

There are not enough jobs to go around. Millions of young people, including university graduates, have a hard time finding full-time employment. We also have homeless people and young families waiting for public housing.

Another worry is that a sizeable number of migrants might be on the dole for months and, possibly, years to come.

A further question occurs to many Europeans. How many migrants will turn to crime and rape? How will we be able to vet who comes into our countries? There are no clear-cut answers. This isn’t like Europeans arriving at Ellis Island for no-nonsense processing at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century.

It is also doubtful that many migrants will be able to integrate into European society. Most will be lumped together in large cities retaining the habits and values they grew up with in their homelands.

Finally, how many terrorists will be among the migrants? We have no idea. Nor do our leaders.

Europe unravelling?

When the Common Market came into being in the 1970s, the idea was to harmonise and facilitate trade among European countries.

In the 1990s, when the Maastricht Treaty was signed, Europeans understood that a stronger European Union meant flexibility for her people (travel, residency, jobs) as well as mutual co-operation among governments.

Twenty-five years on, Europeans see a disconnect between what they — the ‘little people’ — were promised and what was delivered. National sovereignty is evaporating whilst a largely faceless and unelected elite in Brussels tells us all what to do.

And the project is getting larger, with less of a say for individual nations and citizens. Philip Johnston has a good analysis in The Telegraph:

the migration crisis has again highlighted the EU’s essentially undemocratic nature. This was most obviously on display with the imposition of economic austerity measures upon indebted eurozone countries and the removal of elected governments that would not, or could not, accept the constraints on their sovereignty. But this is what they signed up to. A single currency is one of the building blocks of a single state; but without true fiscal and political integration, it just means the biggest country, ie Germany, imposing its will upon the others. Similarly, free movement of people is a necessary condition of a union; but to remove borders while retaining separate national governments is to risk a backlash when voters in member states object to decisions on who should live where being taken out of their hands. Look what is happening in Hungary – the necessary popular mandate simply does not exist. Sooner or later, this will be the EU’s undoing.

In fact, the only way to avoid it unravelling was set out by Jean-Claude Juncker, the EU Commission president, in his “state of the union” address last week. “There is not enough Europe in this Union. And there is not enough Union in this Union,” he said. In other words, his solution is greater political integration, with democratic accountability exerted through the European Parliament. So even as the borders are going up again all over Europe, the elites who run the EU see this crisis as an opportunity to accelerate momentum towards “ever closer union”.

A former Soviet Union insider-turned-dissident, Vladimir Bukovsky, has examined the way the EU project developed. He noted the similarity to the USSR in structure. As he discovered by reading previously classified documents, this was the original objective.

Bukovsky explains that the idea for a European federal state developed in the 1980s in an attempt to a) keep hard-left ideology alive and b) create a rapprochement between the USSR and Europe. Emphases in bold in the original, those in purple are mine.

Briefly (more at the link):

In 1992 I had unprecedented access to Politburo and Central Committee secret documents which have been classified, and still are even now, for 30 years. These documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home.”

The idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the Italian Communists visited Gorbachev, followed by the German Social-Democrats. They all complained that the changes in the world… were threatening to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of generations of Socialists and Social-Democrats – threatening to reverse it completely. Therefore the only way to withstand this onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try to introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once. Prior to that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union had opposed European integration…. From 1985 onwards they completely changed their view. The Soviets came to a conclusion and to an agreement with the left-wing parties that if they worked together they could hijack the whole European project and turn it upside down. Instead of an open market they would turn it into a federal state.

According to the [secret Soviet] documents, 1985-86 is the turning point. I have published most of these documents. You might even find them on the internet. But the conversations they had are really eye opening. For the first time you understand that there is a conspiracy – quite understandable for them, as they were trying to save their political hides. In the East the Soviets needed a change of relations with Europe…. in the West the left-wing parties were afraid of being wiped out and losing their influence and prestige. So it was a conspiracy….

In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included [former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro] Nakasone, [former French President Valéry] Giscard d’Estaing, [American banker David] Rockefeller and [former US Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank….

the original idea was to have what they called a convergency, whereby the Soviet Union would mellow somewhat and become more social-democratic, while Western Europe would become social-democratic and socialist…. This is why the structures of the European Union were initially built with the purpose of fitting into the Soviet structure. This is why they are so similar in functioning and in structure.

It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similarly, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all. 

When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan… an organisation which was planning everything in the economy, to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU. When you look at the type of EU corruption, it is exactly the Soviet type of corruption, going from top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top.

If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union. Of course, it is a milder version…. It has no KGB – not yet – but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB…. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity?

Most Europeans do not know this. That is not what they voted for in national referenda 40+ years ago.

This is why the current crisis is so perplexing. For us, Angela Merkel has jumped the shark. For her fellow Europeans at the top of the heap, however, imposing her will on other nations is in line with the blueprint.