“Firing” for migrants: Mach started counting. Austrian as if he lived on another planet

What do you think about the current debate on the migration pact of the European Union?

It’s absurd. We as the opposition, but following our arguments also many politicians of the government camp, say that the migration pact contains quotas and does not contain any exception for the Czech Republic due to the fact that we have hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians here. The Minister of the Interior and his supporters claim that there are no quotas, and even if there were, the Czech Republic has an exception. At the same time, the regulation has already been approved and is hanging black and white on the Internet. As if the Austrian minister lived on a completely different planet, in another dimension.

Do you think the Austrian interior minister’s argument regarding the “Ukrainian exception” is convincing?

survey

Are you happy that the aid package for Ukraine passed in the US?

voted: 12247 people

Not once in that long text is the word Czech Republic, not once is there the word Ukrainians. In the Migration and Asylum Management Regulation, there is Article 44fa, which says that a state that thinks it already has a lot of migrants can ask the Commission for an exception. The Council then decides on that by voting. The Council can, of course, reject our request by the vote of the other ministers of the interior. And we can easily imagine that many countries will argue that our migration situation is not as dire as theirs. So there really is no exception.

The Minister of the Interior also downplays the amount that we might have to pay under the relocation mechanism as possible compensation. They say it wouldn’t be fifteen billion as feared, but only 450 million a year, so it’s not that bad. What would you say to this as an economist?

This is not even a question for an economist, it is quite clearly written in that regulation. In Article 7c, paragraph 2, it is written that the Commission determines annually the estimated number of migrants to be distributed for the following year and that it should be at least 30,000 and that a quota will be applied to each country according to its share of the population and GDP of the Union. So we would have a quota of about 3%. If it were a million migrants like in 2015, 30,000 migrants would come to us. If we wanted to redeem ourselves, it would be thirty thousand times half a million, that’s 15 billion. Yes, if there were only 30,000 of them to distribute, then we would have a quota of 900 migrants or a burning fee of 450 million. But if there were a million of them to be redistributed, as in 2015, then it would be 15 billion. These are simple numbers.

Vít Rakušan says that the migration pact is good because it is a joint solution, and rejecting it for one’s own interests would be un-European. What to say about that?

In reality, those countries that have pushed the redistribution of migrants into the Migration Pact are behaving completely selfishly. They want to transfer the consequences of their inability to protect borders to other countries. The Minister of the Interior of the Czech Republic only served them. Unlike him, the representatives of Poland or Hungary defended their interests and were against it.

This opens up the most general question: What do we actually want and expect from the EU? Should we “pass the European baccalaureate” and be the most responsible members possible, as the Austrian minister repeatedly explains, or rather strive to defend our own interests?

All countries perceive the EU as a tool to promote their interests. Unfortunately, only the governments of our country tend to behave towards those big countries like Hujer in the famous Czech film.

When I read German newspapers, I see a constant emphasis on the economy, prosperity. In our country, the president of the Senate mocks it as “counting pennies”, and with regard to politics, the current coalition talks more often about values than about the economy. Isn’t this our main problem?

We see the result. Our economy is declining and the government doesn’t seem to care because it is of no value to them. The German economy is also stagnating. But Germany is starting to wake up a bit. Not yet in the actions of their government, but in what people think and what the media begins to write.

Let’s go back to the migration pact. Commissioner Johansson said there was no written exception in the document, but that the EU authorities “can decide” on it. From your experience as an MEP – how much weight do similar verbal guarantees have in Brussels?

This is no assurance. Ms. Johansson just told it exactly how it is. There is no exception, but it is possible to ask for it and we may not be granted it. In other words, the Austrian negotiated a complete… bare nothing. Mrs. Johansson confirmed what I say about the migration pact and the alleged exemption from the beginning.

This document we are talking about does not change the open door policy or “willkommenkultur”, as it is called in Germany. Do you think its continuation is sustainable?

Denmark, Finland and, outside the EU, Great Britain are gradually starting to reassess this policy. As the Czech Republic, we never had it. We just have to become its victim through quotas. This policy is a consequence of the ideology of multiculturalism, which has spread like a plague in people’s thinking and subsequently laws for the past twenty years. Someone calls it multiculturalism, someone neo-Marxism, someone in English “woke culture”. It is a pernicious ideology that, if not defeated, will destroy us. And the big battle in this field will take place across the European Union in the elections to the European Parliament.

Add PL to your favorite feeds on Google News. Thank you