December 22, 2016

Berlin: The eurocrats still don’t get it

Berlin: The eurocrats still don’t get it

The attacks in Berlin demonstrate that now, more than ever, the importance of the UK taking back control of our borders, argues Rory Broomfield.

The tragic events in Berlin over the past few days is the latest instance of Islamic terrorism across Europe. Those in the EU and across Europe have their heads in the sand and still believe the falsehoods of the past.

What happened in Berlin this week was a disgrace. The attack in the Christmas market that killed 12 innocent people was, along with other attacks, yet more evidence that we in the West should outwardly declare that we are at war with Isil, their values and their peoples and start to do more about tackling the root of this evil.

Indeed, Isil themselves believe they are at war with us. They call their terrorists ‘soldiers’ for a start. We need to act in kind.

But whether it be from the 7/7 attacks in London, the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris or this latest attack in Berlin the policy response from the liberal elite has failed to quash the genuine threat to our freedoms, our culture and civilisation.

The policy of multiculturalism has failed. So has the open door policies that some people are still so intent on keeping. ‎These two areas of policy – expressed most accurately in the Blair Government in the UK – has been pursued with vigour in Merkel’s Germany.

But those politicians that have allowed this evil to spread across Europe ‎are not prepared to accept that they were wrong and to redeem themselves by taking a different approach.

This was shown by both Guy Verhofstadt and Martin Schultz in tweets straight after the Berlin attack. Euro-federalists both of whom have climbed the greasy pole of EU politics by praising ‘the European project’ – or ‘dream’, as they see it – to the hilt, are not changing their tune. Unfortunately, that so-called dream has become a nightmare‎ – and it’s been allowed to become so because they have their heads stuck in the sand. What they’ve called for, along with EU Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, is more EU‎.

It’s like both Europe and the European Union have a serious but curable disease and they are the doctors prescribing the wrong drugs. Not just the wrong drugs though: they, along with leaders across the EU like Merkel, continue to give out a drug that helps the disease spread, allowing it to go faster and further than it ever could without.

‎The idea of more of a failed project like the EU can only signal more disaster for the people of Europe. We in the UK are thankfully planning to leave the EU, however, we also need to lead from the front in setting the right example.

Gone are the days of the Blairite agenda, but there is still more to do. The excellent work by Michael Gove while Education Secretary was just one way to tackle extremism (in this instance in schools). We need to adopt a similar approach in other departments and, at the same time, junk the failed agenda of the Eurocrats.

If the government does not push on ahead, then I fear that we will be engaging in a process of self-harm. If we take a proactive approach in ensure people are effectively integrated into our communities and culture, and if we take back control over our borders, then this will be a good way of mitigating the threat. If, however, we do nothing, or continue the way of Merkel’s Government, then there undoubtedly be more pain to come.

4.86 avg. rating (96% score) - 50 votes
mm
Rory Broomfield
Rory Broomfield is Director of The Freedom Association and the Better Off Out campaign. He is an authority on the EU and has written a number of books including his latest, co-authored with Iain Murray, Cutting the Gordian Knot: A Roadmap for British Exit from the European Union. He has previously worked in the City of London and in Westminster for a number of Members of Parliament, including the current Prime Minister, Theresa May; the current Chairman of the 1922 Committee, Graham Brady; and Sir Richard Shepherd.
  • Muttley

    It’s no good expecting these polticians to reform and nobody would believe it was genuine even if they did. The fact is that for a new order to take over, the old guard will have to be swept away completely by the tide of opinion, just as Clinton was and just as the Remain campaign was.

  • Ken

    You can’t expect those that created the problem to fix it. The solution requires fresh thinking from fresh individuals.

  • Pozieres

    Their intransigence may well be a blessing in disguise. If the EU does not change radically it will collapse. These blinkered idiots are trying to ensure that, if the EU changes at all, it changes in the wrong direction of more multiculturalism, freedom of movement and open borders. I hope they keep it up. If they do, we may be spared the trouble of having to leave the EU as there will be nothing left to leave.

  • TNL

    Couple of points I am not clear on – how does the 7/7 bombing relate to your argument? Three of the four killers were from the north of England. Open borders had nothing to do with them being here. It is also worth noting that their attacks and the attack on Charlie Hebdo were not undertaken by ISIL / ISIS / Daesh.

    Your talk about integrating people is somewhat troubling. How would you have integrated Hasib Hussain et al? And how would your approach lessen the possibility of radicalisation?

  • AlecM

    Juncker proves beyond doubt that unchecked by democracy. Big Shits always rise to the top. Once in Power, they haven’t got a clue how to adapt to reality.

    I met such a person once, a retired Lieutenant Commander, one of the founders of the first civilian diving school at Fort Bovisand. He drove the organisation’s launch directly into the breakwater. The launch sank, as did the reputation of the commander. Juncker is an equally disastrous Turd.

  • Rob

    “Three of the four killers were from the north of England. Open borders had nothing to do with them being here.” Since when did the indigenous population of Yorkshire hail from Pakistan? For fairly obvious sociological reasons, second generation Muslim immigrants are a well known source of new Jihadists. The 7/7 instance shows that the real dangers of open borders may only manifest themselves fully many years down the line. Hence we should be afraid, very afraid for our country’s future.

  • RingedPlover

    Sadly, those who created the problem don’t seem think there is a problem. And anyone who even suggests there is a problem is still immediately accused of being Racist, Xenophobic, a Populist, a Bigot &c. &c. The hole has been dug and I don’t think it can be filled in now.

  • Leo Savantt

    The Eurocrats do get it and are getting what they want. A few people being murdered on the streets of Europe is a crisis for them, but of the beneficial kind. Just as the economic woes caused by the Euro allowed for the greater centralization of power, so too is the security crisis an opportunity for the centralization of security capacity. The EU’s para-military forces and soon to be established all out military are being given impetus by each terrorist attack.

    Don’t think that Eurocrats will shed anything but crocodile tears over the murder of their “citizens”, who are simply pawns to be sacrificed on the altar of ‘ever closer union”. These people are neither decent nor benign, the worse our security is the better it is for them and the more likely their nefarious agenda can be prosecuted,

  • Loz Daines

    Unfortunately, spot on Leo.

  • Baron_Jackfield

    In science it often happens that scientists say, “You know, that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,” and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. — Carl Sagan

  • Owen_Morgan

    Why do you fetishise terrorist nomenclature? The difference between islamic terrorists who belong to one faction and those who serve another faction is immaterial. They are all hell-bent on murdering non-muslims. What is “troubling” about integrating people? If integration fails, that’s another matter, but you seem to have a problem with even attempting to integrate outsiders.

  • PARVUS

    I think the medical analogy you’re striving for is that of ‘bleeding’, the sovereign remedy for all ailments for many centuries.
    Therefore the Elite (so self-perceived…) are akin to some 18th century surgeon who insists on continuing to bleed his visibly dying patient, since blood-letting is all he knows and what pays his fat fee. And like that reactionary surgeon they should just be shouldered aside and a real cure prescribed.

  • Speedy

    Even the old hard left-wing were better than these deplorable apologists who have an inexplicable soft spot for a highly regressive illiberal religious ideology.

  • Notrut .

    Here is the Liberal Muppet Cecilia Malmstrom, strengthening Trade links with Tunisia after Europeans were massacred on a Tunisian beach …

    https://ec.europa.eu/commissio

    Then the folk of Nice were MASSACRED on a beach promenade by a Tunisian.

    Then the folk in Berlin were massacred by a Tunisian …

    Just exactly what kind of deluded psychosis drives these EU Commissioners?

    There’s just no cure for EPIC STUPIDITY.

  • Doctor Crackles

    A multiracial and multicultural society is inherently unstable. One culture will always seek to dominate and control the others. In the UK traditional British culture must be dominant. This means that there must be the primacy of Crown, Christian religion, Common Law and English language.

  • MrVeryAngry

    Agreed

  • disqus_54Dk4MKqmm

    The cure is certainly bleedin’, as in bleedin’ obvious.

  • Take Back The Streets

    Our government, it’s institutions and the liberal media seem more concerned about these atrocities causing Islamophobia than about the victims and their families let alone about the safety of the rest of us.

  • ratcatcher11

    Merkel’s action in inviting these people to the EU was criminal in the extreme and she should be held personally responsible for the deaths of these innocent shoppers for her insane actions. In the face of objections from Britain and other countries she opened the floodgates and triggered a massive terrorist response. She needs to be standing alongside other criminals in the ICC for her unbelievably stupid actions and those who cheered her on from the sidelines ie Corbyn, Clegg the BBC and Guardianistas should join her because they would wish the same upon this country.

  • morbidfascination

    I wish you were totally off-your-rocker with this. But you’re almost certainly not.

  • ratcatcher11

    In other words the EU is now a fully fledged fascist state willing accede to State Sponsored Terrorism to achieve their ends, which is the subjugation of the democratic ideal and freedom of expression.

  • Bosanova

    There is no political or economic problem in Europe or the World today to which the answer is “more EU” – full stop.
    The EU is a lame horse. Continuing with that Equine metaphor: we should be calling for its humane destruction before the current problems aflicting Europe propel its peoples to more desperate and less humane actions.

  • Bosanova

    The writing has been on the wall for the EU for a good while before the Brexit referendum (Greece anybody?). I’m sure Brexit has hastened its demise by depriving them of their 2nd largest net contributor. Sadly, continued political stubborness is quite likely to keep the project limping along for a good while longer – I do hope to be proved wrong. So I think that Brexit gives the UK the luxury of leaving and getting our house in order before all hell breaks lose when the EU collapses. At that point 27 nations will be fighting it out over which currency to use (and printing new currencies in a big rush), how to honour Euro denominated debts and contracts, rapidly enforcing boarder control, etc… We’ll be very glad to be a relative oasis of calm, stability, and democratic sovereignty.

  • Odo Saunders

    I am afraid that Frau Merkel and the other Euro-federalists have blood on their hands, first on account of the Schengen Agreement and then the irresponsible open-door policy, which was exercised without first putting in place suitable vetting procedures. The longer that these “leaders” bury their heads in the sand, the more likely it is that we shall start to see the fabric of Continental Europe came apart. They need to re-read their Homer!

  • SonOfGud

    Not only giving the wrong drugs.. but seemingly doing so, knowing what damage its doing.
    This is like a Münchhausen-by-proxy attack inflicted the progressive globalist elites.

  • Derek

    See “Why Conservatives Can’t Understand Liberals (and Vice Versa)” http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/why-conservatives-cant-understand-liberals-and-vice-versa
    …Haidt found is that both conservatives and liberals recognize the Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity values. Liberal-minded people, however, tend to reject the three remaining foundational values— Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, and Sanctity/degradation —while conservatives accept them. It’s an extraordinary difference, and it helps explain why many liberals and conservatives in America think “the other side” is bonkers…Haidt is not suggesting conservatives are superior to liberals. He points out that conservatives tend to value order even at the cost of those at the bottom of society, which can result in morally dubious social implications. Liberals, however, often desire change even at the risk of anarchy….

    Liberals desire change EVEN at the risk of anarchy. Liberals own the EU and therefore anarchy is on the rise. Rising populism is the first symptom.

  • janetjH

    Yes, Blair has been quite successful in his aims, hasn’t he?

  • Dr Evil

    Perhaps what we should be doing is to kick out all Muslims from the UK and then from Europe. The root problem is Sunni Islam and Wahabi’ism and salafism. These are rooted in Saudi Arabia. That is the festering sore that needs to be lanced.

  • weirdvisions

    It took an Italian copper to do the job of his German counterparts. He shot the bastard responsible for the Berlin atrocity dead. The man should be awarded a medal for services to western security.

  • Liberanos

    Speaking as an infidel, it’s rather concerning that allah’s openly-written dedication to wiping me out, and detailed instructions on doing it the most painful way, have seemingly gone unnoticed. I wonder if the koran is simply ignored by infidels on the continent.

  • TNL

    Sure, that’s fine, as long as your plan is to remove all second generation migrants. After all, the second generation migrants from Ireland could be about to become terrorists too. And the multiple generations of migrants from India and the Caribbean have been so problematic in terms of terrorism, haven’t they?

    Open borders are not so much the problem as the failure to think about how different cultures can live together even as the weft and weave of aggressive foreign policy creates global then national conflict.

    And we don’t really have open borders by the way. I doubt that will change with Brexit.

  • TNL

    I have an issue because the failure to understand why different terrorist organisations who share the same religion group themselves differently has been one of the biggest problems with dealing with global Islamic terrorism. And it isn’t just non-Islamic people that the extremists which to kill. A basic knowledge of history would show you that the Iran – Iraq war was about different forms of Islam conflicting with one another (much like the “troubles” in Northern Ireland were about different sects of Christianity) while ISIS have no problem with murdering anyone – Muslim or not – who does not adhere to their antediluvian views.

    What is troubling is what the phrase “integrating” actually means. If it is about adhering to the rule of law of the host country then that is fine. If it is anything more than that – such as changing their religion or legally compatible customs – then no, I don’t think it is something we should aspire to. It would, if nothing else, destroy our attempts to be a nation that embraces liberty.

  • Dynamo11

    Legislate against Islam in this country and I guarantee in 20 years they’ll either integrate or leave. Ban the Hijab/Niqab/Burqa and the Madrasses for a start.

  • noobsy6

    At least we get a message of Christmas wisdom from Saint Joe’s husband this year. My panties are all of a tingle.

  • noobsy6

    I think you are arguing against the purpose of banning religion/culture all together…something I would love to see with religion, but understand the civil liberties that would be lost legally in doing so. However breaking down the barriers forcibly of a culture that is deliberately opposed to the nations customs where they are living, often supplemented a great deal too, is perfectly rational. Especially if those involved have large numbers of factions dangerous to the indigenous population. To argue against that, to me, is almost as damaging as encouraging them to carry on. Just my tuppenny bits worth.

  • TNL

    Your argument is inherently illiberal. I would back ensuring anyone who backs any religion – or political belief – is forced to obey the law but the law already does that. Anything else is dangerous nonsense more likely to inflame than calm a situation down.

  • noobsy6

    Adding labels to an argument does not make it any more right or wrong. Liberal, Illiberal. It is just common sense….or the best way to function. The law does not..for example….stop weirdies teaching children there is an alternative to evolution…..or brainwashing many with religious nonsense. The law is also helpless to battle against the extravagances of extremist views of any nature due to freedom of speech. This is when it needs to tighten up and come down hard when legitimate issues occur, as opposed to wrist slapping and grandstanding in fear of inflaming a situation. If the situation gets inflamed from simply imposing common laws and maintaining order in as fair a way as possible…..then you have a bigger issue than you thought from the beginning and protecting from inflammation just becomes cowardice. .

  • TNL

    Sorry, your response is largely nonsensical. Labels help to define an argument, and therefore if you’re being accused of being illiberal you can’t just recourse to “common sense” as a comeback. It is the rhetorical equivalent of “I’m not listening.”

    The there is an alternative to evolution that children should be taught so they can make up their own minds. Yeah, I think that alternative is utter garbage but nonetheless it is out there. To deny the teaching of it is just you forcing your own views on the world because they happen to be your views. And I believe that the law can be applied regardless of any potential controversies – that’s why it is the law. Your talk of banning religions and of protecting indigenous populations is the sort of inflammatory rhetoric that does cause harm and we would do well without quite frankly. And yeah you are free to say what you want to say, just as I am free to tell you you are talking arse. But based on what you are saying in your world people who not be free to say what they believe. Which is – wait for it – illiberal.

  • noobsy6

    You are just being largely obnoxious. My point was clear and concise, I understood the political implications, I was speaking from the premise of an ideal. As for teaching children absurd alternatives, why stop at religion. We could add space aliens and magic fairies. Your point is as irrelevant as the rest of the snowflake apologists trying to appease everyone and getting little right. Banning religion publicly is possibly the most advanced thing the human race could do as a civilisation actually. We ban people from saying stuff all the time, if deemed to be inciting of violence etc…just those parameters are blurred when politically suitable. So your point about free speech like the rest of your argument is just more impotent and emotional drivel. Nothing illiberal about protecting yourself or your citizens in the most efficient and fair way possible. After all the framework of law and order is supposedly dependent on that isn’t it?

  • TNL

    Ah the recourse of the failed debater to the ad hom attack.

    “We ban people from saying stuff all the time” is demonstrably false and almost the definition of illiberal. It doesn’t matter whether I or you would agree that banning religion would be a step forward intellectually for the world; it would still be a massive attack on both freedom of speech and belief. And it would cause so much carnage across the globe.

    You don’t seem to engage with reality – so stick to your ideals and the rest of us can deal with the world as it is.

  • noobsy6

    In other words you are wrong and have been found out. It may cause carnage across the globe, stopping Nazis certainly did and this is much the same in many cases. It may not however. It all depends how much you have invested in that religion within your borders I suppose. Christianity shrivelled rather well from no more than scrutiny and humour. Pretty sure that that would work again without the need for a massive disruption…..save from those countries the most invested in those religions. I think you are a slippery little lefty who would rather work hard in order to promote false security and surrender common sense, as opposed to work hard to grow as a population. Shame….but this seems to be what many in the minority are thinking now. My reality seems to win elections and carry a popular vote….not so sure about the want to be intellectuals like yourself….who may do better actually learning an thing or to to become genuinely intellectual perhaps?

  • TNL

    Sorry, this again is nonsense. Bordering on gibberish I am afraid. You know nothing about me, or my political beliefs, or how I have voted in the past. It has always been grudgingly right wing because that vote was closer to defending liberty that voting for the nominal left. “Slippery little lefty” shows the paucity of your argument; you have no idea what you are talking about.

    And I don’t know what reality you buy into that wins popular votes and elections. As for my intellectual background, I have three separate degrees in politics. I could be wrong, but I doubt you have the same.

  • noobsy6

    Blah blah nonsense . You tried to obnoxiously argue against my comment to try and establish a sense of superiority. One that soon rightly diminished. As for being right wing…..I doubt it.

  • TNL

    You can’t even articulate your argument so there is little point in continuing. You are illiberal; you are just too arrogant to care about the opinions and beliefs of others or even to realise how much you reject freedom.

  • noobsy6

    Nope, there is no such thing as freedom really unless you are an anarchist. It is all about what management style works. When you get a bit older you will realise this.

  • TNL

    There is such a thing has freedom hence us talking about it. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the terms of debate and the basic premises around it before trying to engage with it?

  • noobsy6

    some yes, who said there wasn’t?

  • TNL

    You: “Nope, there is no such thing as freedom” before conflating freedom with anarchy, an intellectually vacuous statement.

  • noobsy6

    Some freedom…..not total….can you read posts?

  • TNL

    Yes I can. Can you? Because you’ve not displayed that so far. And the addition of “some” was a clear backtrack. Look, you’ve been boxed into a corner by someone who has thought about these sort of things far more than you. You should just give up. Enjoy your Christmas. Sorry, “Holidays.”

  • noobsy6

    You cannot have total freedom without anarchy….you have possibly thought about something but not this. You are just trying to argue for its sake and your posts are really obnoxious twaddle. You are wrong.. I have proved this. Accept it and enjoy Christmas.

  • TNL

    Nope, anarchy is anarchy and freedom is freedom. That is why they are different words. I mean this is a very, very basic point. If you don’t get it then I genuinely don’t know how to communicate with you. Your argument has been nothing more than ad hominem attacks that lead nowhere. You have proven nothing. You are nothing other than another ignorant illiberal. So happy holidays – chose holidays rather anything else as I know you want to ban religion.

  • noobsy6

    Nope. Total freedom equals anarchy. You are the one arguing and going nowhere. You have been dismantled, accept with good grace and learn something. Happy Christmas.

  • TNL

    Straw man argument from your “good” self across the course of an exchange where you reveal nothing but utter ignorance and a refusal to engage with the actual points being made. Sorry, but you are profoundly ignorant and unengaged – you need to read more, think more and hopefully be able to assemble a decent argument. At the moment you are are nothing but a failure as this.

  • noobsy6

    You lost the argument. Insults are irrelevant from you as you are not bright enough to carry any importance. Just be glad you learned something.

  • TNL

    Lol, you are good at jokes if nothing else. You never really made any meaningful arguments so defeating them were very easy for me. Now go away you silly little man!

  • noobsy6

    I simply destroyed your inane prattle…because I am smarter than you and wiser.

  • TNL

    Bless you. I mean you don’t but I hope you are happy in your little fantasy world.

  • noobsy6

    Bless you too

x
Like us on Facebook: