Germany’s heavy involvement with the UN Migration Pact…and the globalist’s intent to avoid debate.
It was not until the campaigns of social networking opponents raised such public attention that individual states began to rethink their participation. Remember this.
Matthias Herdegen, an international law expert, says that this kind of contract, although legally non-binding, serves as a “soft law,” a standard according to which future changes in laws tend to evolve, and that legal consequences will certainly follow.
Great information from Realisté Praha and kechlibar.net (CZ)
The post is long but we translated as best as we could because of its great content. The V4 Report believes it is a must read:
* Two weeks before the planned signing of the UN Migration Pact in Marrakech, it is being talked about as intensely as it has never been before.
Probably our readers have received a Sunday report that Slovakia will refuse to support the migration pact. It was the last country of the Visegrad Four that had done so.
Slovakia had previously announced the intention to sign the Pact . A month ago, Emmanuel Macron came to visit our brothers, and French newspapers wrote that his intention was to divide the V4 states (an article on iDnes).
Last week, Israel rejected the pact, in the words of Prime Minister Netanyahu because of the “duty to protect his own borders.” Almost simultaneously with Israel, Australia confirmed the final rejection of the Pact.
Bulgarian and Estonian counterparts are now among them. Estonia’s president declared that he will only go to Marrakesh if the entire government coalition agrees – and they did not agree. The Swiss government postponed the decision to sign until a parliamentary debate takes place, and it will not be possible by mid-December.
In neighboring Bavaria, the pact’s signature was rejected by Freie Wähler, which is sitting in the Bavarian government with the CSU, and has called on its coalition partners from the CSU to do so as well. Federal MPs of the CSU are advised on the Pact this week. However, Bavarian Prime Minister Söder stands to sign the pact. Indeed, the Bavarian nationalist position cannot influence much, but I consider it a useful probe into the mood of the population.
All this rapid development raises the question: how could the debate have been practically nothing for months or years?
I consider myself well informed about politics, but I have not heard of the preparation of any pan-European pact on migration until the United States had withdrawn from it . At that time negotiations had already been running for over a year. But even then it was not a hot topic in the paper. It was not until this autumn, when the campaign of social networking opponents raised such public attention, that individual states began to rethink their participation.
Suddenly, the Migration Pact is a theme for the whole of Europe. At the upcoming CDU Congress, which takes place only a few days before the planned signing of the document in Marrakesh, the debate will surely be thwarted; given that the same congress is to elect a new party leader. All candidates will have to stand up to the topic, which will probably influence the vote.
How did they not talk about it before? Welt am Sonntag brings a long article on the fact that the German government participated far more actively in the preparation and formulation of the pact than it sighted publicly – citing the 144-page internal report of the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the reporters had somehow received.
Matthias Herdegen, an international law expert, says that this kind of contract, although legally non-binding, serves as a “soft law,” a standard according to which future changes in laws tend to evolve, and that the legal consequences will certainly follow.
But all this had to fly under the radar of the public. Without the Internet, this tactic could have succeeded. This is one of the reasons why I oppose the construction of giant transnational political structures: they are already so far away from the population that it is difficult to carry out effective civilian supervision over them.