Friday, September 8, 2017

Germany Heading for Four More Years of Pro-EU, Open-Door Migration Policies

Germany Heading for Four More Years of Pro-EU, Open-Door Migration Policies





Germany Heading for
Four More Years of Pro-EU, Open-Door Migration Policies

 

by 

 

September 8,
2017 at 5:00 am

..


§  The policy positions of Merkel and Schulz on key issues
are virtually identical: Both candidates are committed to strengthening the
European Union, maintaining open-door immigration policies, pursuing
multiculturalism and quashing dissent from the so-called far right.

§  Merkel and Schulz both agree that there should be no
upper limit on the number of migrants entering Germany.

§  Merkel's grand coalition backed a law that would
penalize social media giants, including Facebook, Google and Twitter, with
fines of €50 million ($60 million) if they fail to remove offending content
from their platforms within 24 hours. Observers say the law is aimed at
silencing critics of Merkel's open-door migration policy.
§   
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, leader of the Christian
Democratic Union (CDU), is on track win a fourth term in office after polls
confirmed she won the first and only televised debate with her main election
opponent, Martin Schulz, leader of the Social Democratic Union Party (SDP).

A survey for the public broadcaster ARD showed that 55% of
viewers thought Merkel was the "more convincing" candidate during the
debate, which took place on September 3; only 35% said Schulz came out ahead.

Many observers agreed that Schulz failed to leverage the debate to
revive his flagging campaign, while others noted that Schulz's positions on
many issues are virtually indistinguishable from those held by Merkel.

Rainald Becker, an ARD commentator, described the
debate as, "More a duet than a duel."

"Merkel came out as sure, Schulz was hardly able to land a punch," wrote Heribert
Prantl, a commentator at Süddeutsche Zeitung. "The candidate
is an honorable man. But being honorable alone will not make him
chancellor."

Christian Lindner, leader of the classical liberal Free
Democrats, compared the debate
to "scenes from a long marriage, where there is the occasional quarrel,
but both sides know that they have to stick together in the future, too."
Television presenter Günther Jauch, writing in Bildsaid he had hoped
to "at least understand what differentiates Merkel and Schulz in political
terms. Instead, it was just a conversation between two political professionals
who you suspect could both work pretty seamlessly in the same government."

Radio and television host Thomas Gottschalk said that the two
candidates agreed with each other too often: "They were both always
nodding their heads when the other was speaking."

Germany's general election is scheduled for September 24. If
voters went to the polls now, Merkel's CDU, together with its Bavarian sister
party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), would win 39%, according to a
September 4 Politbarometer survey conducted for the public broadcaster ZDF.

Coming in second, Schulz's SDP would win 22%; the classical
liberal Free Democrats (FDP) 10%; the far-left Linke 9%; the Greens 8% and the
anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) 8%.

The poll also found that 57% of respondents said they preferred
that Merkel serve another term; only 28% favored Schulz to become the next
chancellor. Nevertheless, half of Germany's 60 million voters are said to be
undecided, and some pollsters believe that the
country's huge non-voting population may determine the outcome.

As Merkel's CDU/CSU is unlikely to emerge from the election with
an absolute majority, the 2017 vote effectively revolves around the issue of
coalition-building. If current polling holds, Merkel, who has vowed to serve a
full four years if re-elected, will have two main options.

Merkel could form another so-called grand coalition, an alliance
of Germany's two biggest parties, namely the CDU/CSU and the SPD. Merkel
currently governs with a grand coalition and has done so during two of her
three terms in office.

Both the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats have said they
hope to end the grand coalition and lead the government with smaller partners
after the September election. After the debate, however, many observers believe
a grand coalition between Merkel and Schulz is more probable than not.

Merkel's second option would be to form a three-way coalition with
the Greens and the FDP, which served as junior coalition partner to the CDU/CSU
for almost half of Germany's post-war history. Merkel has already ruled out
forming a coalition with either the Linke or the AfD.

In any event, the policy positions of Merkel and Schulz on key
issues are virtually identical: Both candidates are committed to strengthening
the European Union, maintaining open-door immigration policies, pursuing
multiculturalism and quashing dissent from the so-called far right.



German Chancellor Angela Merkel (right)
and her main election opponent, Martin Schulz (left), whose policy positions
on key issues are virtually identical. (Image source: European
Parliament/Flickr)


Merkel and Schulz are ardent Europhiles and both are committed to
more European federalism. During an August 12 campaign speech in Dortmund, for
example, Merkel described the
European Union as the "greatest peace project" in history and vowed
that she would never turn her back on this "wonderful project."

Previously, Merkel said:

"We need more Europe, we need not only a monetary union, but
we also need a so-called fiscal union, in other words more joint budget policy.
And we need most of all a political union — that means we need to gradually
give competencies to Europe and give Europe control."

Merkel has also endorsed the idea
of a European Monetary Fund to deal with sovereign defaults by eurozone
countries:

"It could make us even more stable and allow us to show the
world that we have all the mechanisms in our own portfolio of the euro zone to
be able to react well to unexpected situations."

Schulz has argued that the EU
must be preserved at any cost:

"We are at a historical juncture: A growing number of people
are declaring what has been achieved over the past decades in Europe to be
wrong. They want to return to the nation-state. Sometimes there is even a blood
and soil rhetoric that for me is starkly reminiscent of the interwar years of
the past century, whose demons we are still all too familiar with. We brought
these demons under control through European structures, but if we destroy those
structures, the demons will return. We cannot allow this to happen."

Schulz has opposed the idea of
holding national referendums on leaving the EU:

"Referendums have always posed a threat when it comes to EU
policy, because EU policy is complicated. They are an opportunity for those
from all political camps who like to oversimplify things."

Schulz has also voiced optimism that
the British decision to leave the European Union would facilitate the creation
of a European Army:

"In the fields of security and defense policy, although the
EU loses a key member state, paradoxically such a separation could give the
necessary impulse for a closer integration of the remaining member
states."

During the September 3 debate, Schulz declared that he
would end Turkey's accession talks to join the European Union because of
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's authoritarianism. Merkel initially
said she opposed such a move but then suddenly changed her mind. Unexpectedly,
Merkel said: "The fact is clear that Turkey should not become an EU
member."

On the issue of migration, Schulz and Merkel differ on procedure,
not principle. During the debate, for example, Schulz accused Merkel of failing
to involve the European Union in her 2015 decision to open German borders to
more than a million migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Merkel said
that although some mistakes had been made, she would take the same decision
again.

In fact, Merkel and Schulz both agree that there should be no
upper limit on the number of migrants entering Germany: "On the issue of
an upper limit, my position is clear," Merkel toldARD television.
"I won't accept one."

Schulz has said:
"A numerical cap is not a response to the refugee issue, even
if it is agreed upon in a European context. What do we do with the first
refugee who comes to the European frontier and has no quota available? Do we
send him back to perhaps a sure death? As long as this question is not
resolved, such a discussion makes no sense."

Schulz believes the
European Union should have a greater role in migration policymaking:

"What we need is a European right of immigration and asylum.
The refugee crisis shows us clearly that we cannot give a national response to
a global phenomenon such as the refugee movements. This is only possible in a
European context."

Merkel has criticized Hungary
for failing to show "solidarity" in aiding refugees. She has also
vowed to punish Poland for
its refusal to take in more migrants from the Muslim world:

"As much as I wish for good relations with Poland — they are
our neighbor and I will always strive for this given the importance of our ties
— we can't simply keep our mouth shut in order to keep the peace. This goes to
the very foundations of our cooperation within the European Union."

Schulz vowed that, if
elected chancellor, he would push for the EU to cut subsidies to countries that
do not take in refugees: "With me as chancellor, we won't accept that
solidarity as a principle is questioned."

Meanwhile, Merkel's grand coalition backed a law that
would penalize social media giants, including Facebook, Google and Twitter,
with fines of €50 million ($60 million) if they fail to remove offending
content from their platforms within 24 hours. Observers say the law is aimed at
silencing critics of Merkel's open-door migration policy.

Like Merkel, Schulz has reserved his worst vitriol for the
anti-immigration AfD, whose leaders he has described as
"rat catchers" (Rattenfänger) who are "trying to profit
from the plight of refugees." He has also called them "shameful and
repulsive."

In an August 22 interview with Bild, Merkel answered critics of
her desire to continue in power by saying that the
longer she rules, the better she gets: "I've decided to run for another
four years and believe that the mix of experience and curiosity and joy that I
have could make the next four years good ones."


Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at
the New York-based
 Gatestone Institute.

© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The
articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of
Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents
may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of
Gatestone Institute.



Thursday, September 7, 2017

European Court Orders EU Countries to Take Migrants

European Court Orders EU Countries to Take Migrants




European Court Orders EU
Countries to Take Migrants


"Politics has raped
European law and values."

by 


§  The September 6 ruling, which has been hailed as a
victory for European federalism, highlights the degree to which the European
Union has usurped decision-making powers from its 28 member states. The ruling
also showcases how the EU's organs of jurisprudence have become politicized.

§  Many so-called asylum seekers have refused to relocate
to Central and Eastern Europe because the financial benefits there are not as
generous as in France, Germany or Scandinavia.

§  "Let us not forget that those arriving have been
raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most
of them are not Christians, but Muslims. This is an important question, because
Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity. Is it not worrying in
itself that European Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian?
If we lose sight of this, the idea of Europe could become a minority interest
in its own continent." — Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.


The European Union's highest court has rejected a complaint by
Hungary and Slovakia over the legality of the bloc's mandatory refugee quota
program, which requires EU member states to admit tens of thousands of migrants
from Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the European Commission, the
powerful executive arm of the European Union, has the legal right to order EU
member states to take in so-called asylum seekers, and, conversely, that EU
member states have no legal right to resist those orders.

The September 6 ruling, which has been hailed as a victory for
European federalism, highlights the degree to which the European Union has
usurped decision-making powers from its 28 member states. The ruling also
showcases how the European Union's organs of jurisprudence have become
politicized.

Opponents of the relocation scheme say that decisions about the
granting of residence permits should be kept at the national level, and that by
unilaterally imposing migrant quotas on EU member states, unelected bureaucrats
in Brussels are seeking to force the democratically elected leaders of Europe
to submit to their diktat.

The dispute dates back to September 2015, when, at the height of
Europe's migration crisis, EU member states narrowly voted to relocate
120,000 "refugees" from Italy and Greece to other parts of the bloc.
This number was in addition to a July 2015 plan to redistribute 40,000
migrants from Italy and Greece.

Of the 160,000 migrants to be "shared," nine countries
in Central and Eastern Europe were ordered to take in around 15,000 migrants.
Although the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia voted against the
agreement, they were still required to comply.

Since then, several states have refused to accept their assigned
quotas of migrants. Poland, for example, has a quota of 6,182 migrants, not one
of whom has been admitted. The Czech Republic has a quota of 2,691 migrants, of
whom only 12 have been taken. Hungary has a quota of 1,294, none of whom has
been admitted.

In the EU as a whole, so far only around 25,000 migrants have been
relocated (7,873 from Italy and 16,803 from Greece), according to the
EU's latest relocation and resettlement report, published on July 26, 2017. Of
the 28 EU member states, only Latvia and Malta have taken in their full quotas
— a combined total of 469 migrants.

Many so-called asylum seekers have refused to relocate
to Central and Eastern Europe because the financial benefits there are not as
generous as in France, Germany or Scandinavia. Hundreds of migrants who have
been relocated to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which rank among the poorest
countries in the EU, have since fled to Germany and
other wealthier countries in the bloc.

Hungary and Slovakia, backed by Poland, argued that the European
Union broke its own rules and exceeded its powers when it approved the quota
system with a "qualified majority"
— around two thirds of the bloc's members. They also argued that the relocation
scheme is a direct violation of the European Union's Dublin Regulation, a law
that requires people seeking refuge within the EU to do so in the first
European country they reach.

The European Court of Justice ruled that a qualified majority vote
was sufficient because the EU "was not required to act unanimously when it
adopted the contested decision." The ruling, which did not mention the
Dublin Regulation, concluded: "The mechanism actually contributes to
enabling Greece and Italy to deal with the impact of the 2015 migration crisis
and is proportionate."

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto called the court
ruling "outrageous and irresponsible" and "contrary to the
interests of the European nations, including Hungary." He added: "The
decision puts at risk the security of all of Europe and the future of all of
Europe as well."

Szijjarto vowed that Hungary
would continue to challenge any attempts by the EU resettle migrants in Hungary
without its approval. "The real battle is only just beginning," he
said, adding that the decision was political: "Politics has raped European
law and values."
Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico said that while he
"respected" the court's decision, his government's opposition to the
relocation plan "has not changed at all." He added: "We will
continue to work on having solidarity expressed in different ways other than
forcing on us migrants from other countries that do not want to be here
anyway."

Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydło also was defiant: "I was convinced that the court
would make such a decision, but this absolutely does not change the stance of
the Polish government with respect to migration policy."



After the ruling of the European Court
of Justice that the EU has the legal right to order member states to take in
so-called asylum seekers, and that member states have no right to resist
those orders, Polish PM Beata Szydło was defiant, saying, "this
absolutely does not change the stance of the Polish government with respect
to migration policy." (ECJ photo by Transparency International/Flickr;
Szydło photo by Polish PM Chancellery)

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said that the
ruling means Eastern European member states must abide by the refugee sharing
scheme: "I always said to our Eastern European partners that it is right
to clarify questions legally if there is doubt. But now we can expect all
European partners to stick to the ruling and implement the agreements without
delay."
EU Migration Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos welcomed the ECJ
ruling: "ECJ confirms relocation scheme valid. Time to work in unity and
implement solidarity in full." He warned holdouts of legal action if they
do not comply with the refugee obligations "in coming weeks."
The European Commission has already initiated legal
action against the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland for failing to take in
their quotas of migrants. The so-called infringement procedure,
which authorizes the Commission to sue member states that are considered to be
in breach of their obligations under EU law, could lead to massive financial
penalties.
The ECJ ruling and the continued threats from Brussels are likely
to help Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orbán in his campaign for re-election
in 2018. In a recent opinion survey, Orbán's Fidesz party polled at 53%,
followed by the nationalist Jobbik party, at 21%. He has said that his
campaign platform would focus on boosting the economy, improving security and
preserving national identity.
Orbán, who has emerged as the standard-bearer of European
opposition to German Chancellor Angela Merkel's "open-door" migration
policy, has repeatedly warned that Muslim
migrants are threatening Europe's Christian identity:
"Let us not forget that those arriving have been raised in
another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are
not Christians, but Muslims. This is an important question, because Europe and
European identity is rooted in Christianity. Is it not worrying in itself that European
Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian? If we lose sight of
this, the idea of Europe could become a minority interest in its own
continent."
At a September 3 campaign rally in the town of Kötcse, Orbán cited expert
predictions that more than 60 million people are expected to make their way
from Africa into Europe during the next 20 years — thereby pushing Europe's
Muslim population to above 20% by 2030. "The Islamization of Europe is
real," Orbán warned.
Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at
the New York-based
 Gatestone Institute.

©
2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved.
 The
articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of
Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents
may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of
Gatestone Institute.



Thursday, August 31, 2017

Has France Been Bought by a State Sponsor of Islamic Terrorism? by Drieu Godefrid iAugust 31, 2017

Has France Been Bought by a State Sponsor of Islamic Terrorism?




Has France Been Bought by a
State Sponsor of Islamic Terrorism?







§  It
is through these tax breaks that the Qataris are buying the "jewels"
of France. The U.S. is not selling its defense companies to Qatar.
§  Thanks
to its huge gas and oil reserves, Qatar has the highest per capita income in
the world and huge reserves of cash to invest everywhere, whereas France,
thanks to 40 years of socialism, is in dire need of cash.




The state of Qatar has been officially labelled as a "state
sponsor of terrorism", and an active supporter of Islamic terrorist
organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and the Islamic State --
not by Western governments, but by Saudi Arabia, the
cradle of Islamic faith, and the other Islamic regimes of the region.

Knowing the facts of Qatar -- 11000km2, one-third the
size of Belgium, population 2.5 million -- the question may seem far-fetched:
How could France, the great France, possibly be bought by a tiny state such as
Qatar?

For the single reason that, thanks to its huge gas and oil
reserves, Qatar has the highest per capita income in the world and huge
reserves of cash to invest everywhere, whereas France, thanks to 40 years of
socialism, is in dire need of cash and has a tradition of corruptible officials,
to say nothing of a propensity for "collaboration".

On August 4, the English press -- not the French press -- revealed that
French prosecutors are actively investigating two events: the awarding the 2022
World Cup of football (soccer) to Qatar, and the purchase by "Qatari
Diar", a state-owned investment company, of a stake in the French utility
firm Veolia.

At the center of the investigation is former French President
Nicolas Sarkozy. To be sure, Sarkozy has not been formally indicted (and he may
never be), but the evidence is overwhelming.

First, the World Cup. That the State of Qatar, known for decades
for its active support of Islamic terror organizations, and with a temperature
among the highest in the world -- in addition to zero tradition in the world of
football -- was awarded the 2022 World Cup is, of course, a source of wonder
ever since the award was announced by FIFA, the international governing body of
football.

French investigators are now looking into a meeting that took
place between then-President Sarkozy, Michel Platini -- the French former
president of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), who sat on the
FIFA committee that chose Qatar -- and Qatari officials on November 23, 2010
(10 days before the vote). It is alleged that Platini was dead-set against
Qatar and that Sarkozy urged him to
change his mind: "They're good people."

The "deal" is said to have been sealed when Qatar agreed
to buy the biggest French soccer team, the Paris-Saint-Germain (PSG). It is
alleged that huge bribes were paid by Qatar to high-ranking French officials,
to secure these two deals: the World Cup and the Veolia investment. Although no
evidence has 

yet been presented, the case would not have been opened by French
prosecutors without it. In addition, no one has ever denied the meeting of
November 23, 2010.

In April 2010, the "Qatari Diar" fund bought a 5% stake
in Veolia. Investigators are tracking 182 million euros suspected of having
been used to bribe French officials. Investigators are also looking into a
possible link between these two operations: Qatar investing in Veolia as a
favor to France, possibly in exchange for France's support for Qatar to host
the 2022 World Cup.




France's then-President Nicolas Sarkozy
(left) greets Qatar's then-Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor
al-Thani (right) on March 19, 2011 in Paris, France. (Photo by Franck
Prevel/Getty Images)


It is doubtful if the French investigators will ever get to the
bottom of these two cases. The judiciary in France has a long tradition of
submitting to the government. Since 1789, the French judiciary has not even
been an independent power -- as are the Legislative and the Executive
-- but a mere authority with a more limited scope.

It is revealing that these two investigations were exposed, not by
the French press, but by the English press.

What we already know for sure is the following:

1.   
A state sponsor of terrorism, Qatar, was allowed to buy France's
leading soccer team, Paris-Saint-Germain, with the help of then-president
Nicolas Sarkozy. The former owner of the PSG was a private fund controlled
in Europe by one of Sarkozy's close friends. There would have been no deal
without the direct consent of Sarkozy -- that is the way France functions.

2.   
A state sponsor of terrorism, Qatar, was not only allowed, but
actively courted, by French
officials to invest in some of France's largest companies, including defense
companies, such as Veolia, as well as the Airbus parent company, European
Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS); the energy group EDF; the
construction firm, Vinci; and the media and defense group Lagardère.

3.   
A state sponsor of terrorism, Qatar, was actively supported in its
2022 bid for the World Cup by the government of France and Nicolas Sarkozy,
who declared after the
FIFA vote in 2010: "Sport does not belong to a few countries. It belongs
to the world... I don't understand those who say that events should always be
held in the same countries and the same continents."

4.   
There is a significant part of the French political class that
seems to consider the Embassy of Qatar in Paris some sort of automatic teller
machine (ATM), as has been showed by renowned journalists Christian Chesnot and
Georges Malbrunot in their book, Nos très chers émirs (Our
Very Dear Emirs
) and deplored by the new
ambassador of Qatar in France, Meshaal al-Thani.

5.   
Since 2008, a state sponsor of terrorism, Qatar, has benefited
from a huge tax break in France: the exemption of
profits on property sales. In France, profits on property sales are not only
taxed at 19%, they are subject to a further CSG/CRDS and social tax (15.5%),
resulting in a combined total minimum tax rate of 34.5%. The
rule is the same for everyone, whether a person or a corporation. Everyone,
that is, but the State of Qatar, when the administration of Nicolas Sarkozy
decided to exempt it from the tax. As a result, Qatar's royal family and
sovereign fund have since built up a huge portfolio of assets in France, one
that dwarfs the portfolio of a state such as Saudi Arabia. Qatar's portfolio
ranges from a Champs-Élysées mall to the Lido Cabaret. "Our deficit has
destroyed our freedom," said Nathalie Goulet, a
centrist senator from Lower Normandy, in 2013.


 "The Qataris are here to
buy, while we are selling our family jewels." Which they did. [1]
Qatar and other Gulf states try to benefit from tax exemptions
everywhere in the world, but this convergence of facts -- the selling of
assets, sports clubs, defense companies and governmental representatives -- is
unique to France. It is through these tax breaks -- this is only one of them --
that the Qataris are buying the "jewels" of France. Of course, the
U.S. is also selling arms to the Qataris --
the U.S. has a military base in Al Udeid -- but the U.S. is not selling its
defense companies to Qatar.

We therefore probably do not even have to wait for the results of
the latest investigations to note that France, particularly but not exclusively
under the auspices of Nicolas Sarkozy, has literally been bought by a state
sponsor of terrorism, Qatar.

At the same time, Islam in France has been spreading. France has
been deeply infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood terror
organization, which is not categorized in France -- unlike the UK -- as a
sponsor of terror. This organization, since it was overthrown by Egypt's
current president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, is now the darling of Qatar. Without
Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood would be without a home-base. Given its huge
financial, corporate and political dependence on Qatar, it is clear that France
-- in the name of "stability" -- would not do anything to displease
its darling.

Although France is a member of NATO and a nuclear power, nowhere
else in the West is Islamism so deeply embedded in the fabric of the
institutions, mind and zeitgeist of a country as it is there.
Even in the UK, you still find very powerful counter-powers (see the
governmental report on the Muslim Brotherhood). Not in France.

Consider the case of the Palestinian official Jabril Rajoub -- sentenced to life in
prison in 1970 for throwing a grenade at an Israeli army vehicle, but released,
along with others, in exchange for three Israeli soldiers taken hostage by the
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). Rajoub is now chairman of
the Palestinian Football Association -- another illustration of the deep
infiltration of FIFA by Islamists and Jew-haters sponsored by Gulf States,
beginning with Qatar. Would that position even be thinkable without France's
sponsorship of Qatar in FIFA? Probably not.

It is true that Qatar is buying assets from
around the world, including politicians, not only in France. And it is true
that the U.S. is also selling arms to the Qataris, as are many other countries.
It is one thing, however, to sell arms, but another to sell your defense
companies. It is one thing to be open to foreign investment, but another to
give huge tax breaks to a state sponsor of terror so it can acquire the
"jewels" of your country.

It is also not an accident that the main face of Islamism in
Europe, the Muslim Brother Tariq Ramadan (from his base in Oxford, England) now
sees France as the future of Islam in Europe,
and not the UK (still number 2 on the list).

The U.S. and other countries may be selling things, but France is
selling herself.

Drieu Godefridi, a classical-liberal Belgian author, is the
founder of the l'Institut Hayek in Brussels. He has a PhD in Philosophy from
the Sorbonne in Paris and also heads investments in European companies.




[1] The
6th of December 2014, Nicolas Sarkozy was invited and paid by
the "Qatar National Bank" to give a lecture in Doha. Subject?
Investment opportunities in France.

© 2017
Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved.
 The articles
printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of
Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents
may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of
Gatestone Institute.