The real present populism
The SPD, the social democratic party of Germany has nominated a new chancellor candidate to run in the German national elections this year September. His name is Martin Schulz, quit unknown nationally, as seated in the EU parliament before. The dry alcoholic started his propaganda on the most populist way. He said:"We have a lot of catching up to do in regards to incomes"; and this sounds very populist, as one, Germany is already on a high income level, and two it disregards Germany to remain competitive. The SPD and lefts generally are known to have demands out of proportion, and basically not possible to finance; be it on government or the private sector. Martin Schulz is in need of higher tax income, as he runs the same course as Angela Merkel in regards to the 'so called refugees". All this open door policy needs to be paid for. And who will shell out the needed Euro? The tax payers of course.
Germany knows that this election year is unique and critical, with The Netherlands and France having anti-EU parties running. Merkel is the chancellor that claims to be without alternative; but there is the AfD (Alternative fuer Deutschland - Alternative for Germany). The social democrats, that are on a 'dying' path, as the CDU (The German center right party of Angela Merkel) is quit social democratic, and the Green and Left party haven secured former SPD voters, are in need to gain value through support and voters. The SPD has always been criticising parties they claim to be populist, but with Martin Schulz, it seems they are jumping on exactly that wagon. On top of all, having betrayed their own original ideology, the SPD is like a cornered rat. Martin Schulz seems to be the last shot doctors give to keep the patient alive, even experimental.
It is important to point out, that the SPD now says it needs to run with own stances and 'against' the CDU. But the SPD has been the coalition partner of the CDU since, and what is suddenly criticises now, is basically a part of its own politics agreed with the coalition; hence the SPD is not coming from the opposition, but from the ruling. "... we have to combat the embarrassingly high rate of youth unemployment."
Martin Schulz, who was the EU parliaments president now complains, that the EU member states and their leaders have become more arrogant stating:"The heads of state and government are becoming increasingly arrogant and making more decisions for themselves, debating and making decisions behind closed doors and ignoring the community method."
Maybe he should ask the question towards himself why this happened. National interests remain the most important value for its citizens, and a undemocratic bureaucrat Brussels, not really the wanted governing of the people. Fact is that the EU has left its original path, has become very political and disregarding to the nations needs, to the extend that is has failed to protect its borders, no even opened them widely.
The fundamental purposes of the European Union are to promote greater social, political and economic harmony among the nations of Western Europe. The EU reasons that nations whose economies are interdependent are less likely to engage in conflict. These goals are pursued through the unification of European markets under a single currency, the Euro, and through sets of legal standards to which all prospective and member nations, are held. Supranational institutions work with national governments to govern the implementation of these standards and help the EU to act as a unified body on the world stage.
Leaving the question of the EURO currency out, it originally doesn't say that the EU will dictate all members in its national affairs, by 'now' Germany and Luxembourg, or personified, Merkel and Juncker. The European countries are friends, yes, can do projects together and have agreed on so many simplifying acts for its citizens; but Italians remain Italians, and Dutch remain Dutch, far before they call themselves Europeans. Like the UK saying through Theresa May:"We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe." All European countries will remains European of course, but not necessary EU members. The Airbus project, as European competition towards the American Boeing was not a result of the present EU, but the result of European countries joining together to launch this aeroplane business. Europe was needed, but not the EU.
The next irrational nonsense Martin Schulz stated is:"The collapse of the European Union may be a "realistic scenario", in view of the increasing xenophobia, the ever-increasing demands of the member states for the return of power to them and calls for the reintroduction of border controls."
In this way, the President of the European Parliament reacted in the Franco-German demand for border controls.
"This is an extremely dangerous development, an attack on freedom of movement is an attack on the foundations of the European Union." he said.
First of all "Xenophobia" is again a ridiculous and out of place term used by Mr. Schulz. The present opposition has never attacked foreigners or a certain race destroying or harming the society. Europe has weel integrated people from other European countries, and fully integrated Asians. Its about Islam and the collision of western values with Islamic values. If the EU cannot control its borders, of course the countries will start to do so. Its a natural instinct to protect ones house.
Further, it is not an extremely dangerous development, an attack on freedom of movement, as he says, as the freedom of movement was meant for the people belonging to the EU member states; NOT for people coming from outside, and specially not for those who aim to undermine and slowly change society, or at least build parallel communities that don't want to integrate, honour the countries laws and constitution, but rather the religious and hence imaginary divine laws of an antiquated book. That surely has no place in a free society with human rights, and even not in a secular society where religion is meant to be kept private, and not a part of the law, government or structure of society.
It cant be repeated often enough; the leftist parties, on one hand want to show their support for Human Rights, LGBT Rights, Woman Rights and the freedom of speech and expression, yet then they are supporting an incoming group that completely opposes these values and rights. They live a dream world of where it is thought that any and everybody can coexist without problem. It sounds nearly like a religious absurdity, where animals were portrayed to peacefully enter an ark in pairs and without wanting to eat or run from each other; the wish for a fairy tale to come true. If we want to know what Islam has achieved and what it stands for and how developed it is, we have the entire middle east to look at as example.
Maybe Martin Schulz has gained some popularity with his leftist popularism for a short while, but the path is clear and the results of the present political situation clear. Maybe the Leftists should accuse others of something they are doing and using themselves to grow; Popularism.
By Thomas Fleckner
Comments powered by CComment