• 1 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
« on: November 15, 2018, 06:39:15 PM »
This ‘Pact’ is a complicated disgrace: the way it has been formulated, the way it has been reported (not!), the way it has been debated in our Parliament (not!) and the way it will influence our lives. To make the most important point first, the outcry used everywhere by those who love this Pact: it is not legally binding anyway, so why not sign it – whereupon the opponents keep saying: if it’s not legally binding, why sign it? Obfuscation by TPTB reigns supreme …
Have you heard of the “Marrakesh Pact”? If you are a regular consumer of our wonderful British MSM, you might think this about a hot holiday destination for the next summer,  hotels offering a package deal.
If you regularly scan the “alt” news sites, you may have heard that this is a UN proposal, to be signed next month by all UN members, to ‘regulate’ Migration, but will have wondered why we have heard nothing about it either from our government or in our MSM. This isn’t strange because as usual, since the online national papers from across the Channel – from Le Monde to the ‘Neue Züricher Zeitung’ – only reported in October that Austria would not sign our MSM followed suite.
So – what is it about? And why are some countries not signing up to it?
Of course, the actual text was not precisely disseminated – one had to dig for it. Here is the text of the final draft:
Why, you might ask when you see that title, is such a ‘Compact’ a bad thing? Surely we’re all good people and want to help? Surely it’s high time to deal with migration? And refugees? Well, yes – and you might also ask why our MSM didn’t see fit to report on this, given that our Government is poised to sign it next month in Marrakesh.
These are valid questions, especially since one of the top Nations to undersign this pact is Germany which was deeply involved in negotiating this Pact.
In contrast to here in the UK, there the debate has been kicked off with a vengeance since Austria’s chancellor Mr Kurz declared his country would not sign. Suddenly people learned that the USA and Australia had withdrawn already … and that was in July this year: summer holidays, heatwave: people surely had other things on their minds, thought our Establishment, so why waste air time and pixels. Better not to stir things up, especially as people might ask inconvenient questions, such as how did this Compact come about? Were there negotiations, and why was that not reported?
There are thus three aspects to the story of the disgrace that is this Compact. One is the history of it, of how it came about, which I’ll look at in Part I. The other two aspects are the way the governments involved and their handmaidens, the MSM, have kept us informed, and the actual text itself. I’ll address those points in Part II, published tomorrow.
First, take a look at the IOM – the International Organization for Migration. Here is their ‘mission statement’, and here you’ll find a bit on its history. Like many organisations founded on noble ideas, it evolved and became the unashamed promoter of migration from poor countries to the rich it is today. From the map provided in the wiki page it looks as if only Antarctica is not a member.
On the basis of the work of the IOM and under its auspices, other countries organised themselves, mostly as NGOs, and received financial help from humanitarian billionaires. It is fair to say that the IOM has encouraged economic migration for some time. In the wake of 2015 (we all remember what happened …), the UN General Assembly decided to take action:
“In September 2016 the General Assembly decided, through the adoption of the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, to develop a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration.The process to develop this global compact started in April 2017. The pages in this section detail 18 months of consultation and negotiation, and provide the relevant documentation for each of the events. On 13 July 2018 UN Member States finalized the text for the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (Text available in all official languages). The Intergovernmental Conference to Adopt the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration  will be held on 10 – 11 December in Marrakech, Morocco.” (Source).
Other agencies also got involved, e.g. the UN’s Refugee agency UNHCR stepped up to the plate, as did a group calling itself “Rabat Process – European-African Dialogue on Migration and Development”.
The UNHCR submitted their final draft (read it here) on the “Global Compact” on June 26th 2018. The “Rabat Process” on the 2nd of May 2018 – you can read their proposals, and the list of participants here.
When the final draft of this ‘Global Compact’ was on the table in July this year, President Trump withdrew the USA’s participation. So did Australia. This is the list so far of countries who will not sign this Global Compact, a.k.a Marrakesh Treaty:
United States, China, Japan, Canada, Australia, Austria, Poland, Italy, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Greece, Croatia, Denmark, Norway, Slovenia, Israel and South Korea. Bulgaria is the latest state to announce its withdrawal. Other countries may well join this list. Estonia is debating it and so are the Swiss. Both countries’ parliamentarians believe this decision should be made in their Parliaments and not done behind closed doors by their governments.
However, Brussels is all for it. France will sign, opposition notwithstanding. And so will Germany. However, because of Austria’s withdrawal, publicly announced by Chancellor Mr Kurz, the German MSM had to report on this Pact – and were suddenly overwhelmed with comments from irate readers as to why they hadn’t reported on this sooner. Then the AfD insisted on a debate in the Bundestag, which followed the usual spectacle of the rest of the German Parliamentarians ganging up on them and declaring that all opposition to this fine treaty was pure neonazism. It didn’t help – the floodgates opened and the text was handed around …

[To be continued in Part II tomorrow – don’t miss it!]


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2018, 06:57:28 PM »
Part I was published here on UKIP Daily yesterday. I would like to add the warning that if we stay in the EU, this Pact will affect us without any of us having had a say.
While everything was and still is quiet on the GCM (Global Compact for Migration) front in our country this hasn’t meant that people are totally unaware. A goodly number of links to sites reporting on this have been handed around. But we all know how it is: if it’s not on the BBC, it hasn’t and didn’t happen. Of course, to be fair, our massed commentariat in the MSM and our politicians of all rosette colours do have something which has been occupying their minds: Brexit. One cannot, after all, expect them to multi-task and look at what’s happening outside Brussels and our country, can one! And anyway, only nasty racists on their horrible alt-news sites were chattering about it: just disregard it.

The same happened in Germany until the Austria-Bomb burst. Suddenly there were reports and people delved into the actual text of that GCM, finding one horror after the other. Even the readers of the predominantly green-left papers were horrified, especially when they heard one of their top Green politicians demand that the points of the still-to-sign GCM must be instituted in Germany immediately.
A prominent Green politician stated publicly that he hadn’t seen the thing before now and thought it was all something stirred up by the AfD, but now, upon reading it, had to concede that the points raised by them demanded debate in Parliament  at the very least.
And then another German paper found something rather nasty. (If you have a good machine translator, it’s worth taking a look here). This is not a right-wing, conservative paper and the readers are firmly on the green-red spectrum, but this was too much even for them. A reporter of the paper had investigated and asked the German Foreign Office for information, especially on the involvement in and compromises made by the German Government.
Not only did the German FO refuse point-blank – because → ‘confidentiality’. This, according to the president of the German Journalists’ association is a common but bad practice because the journalists thus become part of the political business. But at least there were some reports, unlike here in the UK.
So – what did the UN delegates negotiate? What was their final draft which made so many countries withdraw or debate a withdrawal? Let’s take a look.
The whole GCM is 34 pages long. So let’s start at the beginning, with a quick look at the Preamble. In Point 2 we read with amazement that a whole host of worthy UN declarations – from Universal Human Rights to Climate Change – influenced the creation of this document. The Points following are mainly self-congratulatory, until we come to the last point, Point 7:
“This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, cooperative framework that builds on the commitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. It fosters international cooperation among all relevant actors on migration, acknowledging that no State can address migration alone, and upholds the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law.”
And there we have the first main contention I mentioned in Part 1: the GCM is not legally binding and ‘upholds the sovereignty of states and their obligations under international law.’ So – why sign such framework in the first place? Are the existing UN declarations not sufficient? If not, why not? Because, as Judith Bergman points out in her analysis (see here):
“[…] the agreement propagates the radical idea that migration — for any reason — is something that needs to be promoted, enabled and protected. […] The UN has no interest in admitting that the agreement promotes migration as a human right; until recently there has been little debate about it. More debate might risk jeopardizing the entire project. The wording of the agreement […] leaves little doubt, however, that with the signing of the agreement, migration will indeed become a human right.”
Therefore, signing up to the GCM means our government signs up to yet another ‘Human Right’ which our human-right-lawyers will be delighted to enforce. The sovereignty of our state is consequently neither here nor there.
Let’s move on to Points 8 to 15 where the drafters describe their ’Vision and Guiding Principles’. Once you’ve got over the well-meaning fluffy words and look at single points you’ll find that the cat – to make migration a human right protected by the UN – has indeed been let out of the bag, e.g. in Points 11 and 12. In Point 13 there are these gems:
“[..] we must cooperate to respond to the needs of migrants in situations of vulnerability, and address the respective challenges. […] We must save lives and keep migrants out of harm’s way. We must empower migrants to become full members of our societies, highlight their positive contributions, and promote inclusion and social cohesion. […] To achieve this, we commit to facilitate and ensure safe, orderly and regular migration for the benefit of all.”
IAW – to ‘save lives’ states must receive migrants with open arms, or something like that?
Point 15 then takes the proverbial. Here, the drafters have listed “Cross-Cutting and Interdependent Guiding Principles”:
“People-centred […]; International cooperation […]; National sovereignty […]; Rule of law and due process […];  Sustainable development […]; Human rights […]; Gender-responsive […] Child-sensitive […]; Whole-of-government approach […]; Whole-of-society approach. […].”
These headings document nicely that this text is using all the preferred labels with which our PC Left has strangeld our society already. But there is worse to come.
The next part sets out “Our Cooperative Framework”, under the heading of “Objectives for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration”, listing them separately under Point 16. There are 23 ‘Objectives’ and I’ll quote them in full:
(1)  Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence-based policies
(2)  Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin
(3)  Provide accurate and timely information at all stages of migration
(4)  Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation
(5)  Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
(6)  Facilitate fair and ethical recruitment and safeguard conditions that ensure decent work
(7)  Address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration
(8)  Save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants
(9)  Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants
(10)  Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration
(11)  Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner
(12)  Strengthen certainty and predictability in migration procedures for appropriate screening, assessment and referral
(13)  Use migration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
(14)  Enhance consular protection, assistance and cooperation throughout the migration cycle
(15)  Provide access to basic services for migrants
(16)  Empower migrants and societies to realize full inclusion and social cohesion
(17)  Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration
(18)  Invest in skills development and facilitate mutual recognition of skills, qualifications and competences
(19)  Create conditions for migrants and diasporas to fully contribute to sustainable development in all countries
(20)  Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants
(21)  Cooperate in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as sustainable reintegration
(22)  Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits
(23)  Strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships for safe, orderly and regular migration
I draw your attention to Objectives Nos 13 to 23 which indeed will ‘empower’ migrants, the states they migrate to – not so much …
These Objectives are fleshed out in more detail in the following pages. I suggest you open the whole document (here’s the link again) to see for yourselves to what the signatories to this pact will commit their governments, highfalutin words about sovereignty notwithstanding.
Items g) and h) under Objective 1 (Point 17) on data collection are especially worrying, as is item a) under Objective 3 (Point 19). Wasn’t there some directive recently about privacy and data security?
Details for Objective 5 (Point 21) read like a programme for a global labour market, as does Objective 6 (Point 22). Objective 8 (Point 24) looks like exonerating all the various NGO ‘rescue’ ships who’ve picked up migrants in the Mediterranean these last years.
Objective 13 (Point 29) is there to prevent the establishment of detention centres for migrants because —> Human rights! Objective 15 (Point 31) is a demand for all migrants to have access to social benefits, including health provisions and education, unto the ‘establishment of ‘National Human Rights Institutions’ to ‘receive …and investigate … migrants’ complaints’. Objective 17 (Point 33) demands legislation to combat hate speech and racism … ah, we have that already, well done us!
Moving along to Objective 20 (Point 36) we find that it’s all about money: facilitating remittances, i.e. the easy transfer of money from migrants in a host country to the country they migrated from. One wonders if the esteemed drafters of this GCM have ever heard of money laundering … A less kind view might be that this is yet another scheme to facilitate money flowing from Western countries’ taxpayers to Third World countries.
Objective 21 (Point 37) is meant to prohibit the deportation of migrants; Objective 22 (Point 38) is about allowing migrants to ‘port’ their benefits (‘applicable social security entitlements’) to other countries. Use your imagination as to what this implies … Finally, Objective 23 (Point 39) is a framework for future international agreements between states to implement all these objectives.
The concluding sections (Points 40 to 47) are about ‘Implementation’ and ‘Follow up and Review’ (Points 48 to 54).
I’ll finish with these two observations: anyone who says that this GCM is not legally binding should be shown Objective 23. This gives the lie direct to that claim because our government obeys International Laws. The GCM provides the framework for creating such laws.
Additionally, the expression ‘commit’, as in ‘committing states to ..’ occurs 88 times in the text! You draw your own conclusions, based on our experience with EU Directives.
I also regard this innocent-looking GCM as a huge machine to lock the world into unending migration from poor to rich countries, creating a world-wide Migration Industry. It reminds me of the UN Climate Change Declaration, so innocent when it was first set up, and see where we are now.
I applaud all countries who withdrew from signing this Pact and wish our benighted government would do the same.

Share:           Rate:
Mary’s Revelation
About The Author
Vivian Evans
Vivian is a UKIP patron, Vice Chair of UKIP Cardiff and Editor in Chief of UKIP Daily

Related Posts

Ukip Can Save the High Street
October 30, 2018

On November 15, 2018 at 12:57 pm
If we are made to stay in the EU then the UK will not just be a signatory to this GCM, we will be made to fulfil it according to EU “Directives” to come. The German Greens are already lobbying Merkel’s government to implement various ‘Options’.
Remember all the “Climate Change Directives” which we are faithfully fulfilling? It’ll be like that, only worse.
ipz on November 15, 2018 at 12:33 pm
Very interesting reading, I agree with your arguments and let us not forget that this Compact explicitly states that it rests upon the 2030 Charter and a score of other UN accords none of which have been passed before Parliament. Its plan to protect “sustainability” is obviously not true, since unleashed immigration which actually places the human rights of immigrants above those of indigenous people is obviously totally unsustainable for the latter!
Its promised guarantees 9, 10, 11, etc. are clearly meaningless when we look at what really happens (including no 22).
We all know that having strong borders and defending their integrity while promoting free trade abroad and good investment and training opportunities at HOME is what benefits people the world over, not the kind of soviet-style ideology, redistribution and bureaucratic insanity we see promoted by the UN and the EU.
Hard to avoid the conclusion there is a darker agenda behind it.
flyer on November 15, 2018 at 10:15 am
“This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, cooperative framework that builds on the commitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants.”
Don’t forget that UN Agenda 21/2030 is also a non-legally binding cooperative framework, but it is a nightmare that is starting to manifest itself and this global compact is more of the same.
Stout Yeoman on November 15, 2018 at 10:14 am
First class research and reporting. These articles should be kept prominent on UKIP D so that more people will get a chance to read them. May’s deal and today’s resignations will be getting the attention but by next week UKIP D will be more widely read again.
Leave a Reply

Our Civil Service Have Committed Treason
I’ve Had Enough – Part I
Let’s turn back the clock on white poppies
I’ve Had Enough – Part II

Article 50 Barnier BBC Boris Brexit Brussels Cameron Conservatives Corbyn David Cameron Davis economy Ed Miliband education EU EU Referendum Europe European Union Farage Foreign Aid general election Germany immigration Ireland ISIS Islam Juncker Labour Labour party May NEC News newspapers news roundup NHS Nigel Farage referendum Russia Scotland Theresa May Trade UK UK Independence Party UKIP United Kingdom

Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk