Big boom in Germany

Merkel government has drawn up and paid for UN migration pact

Politicians of the AfD (Patriotic Party in Germany) have found documents of the German Bundestag which prove that the government under Merkel mainly worked out the migration pact and paid for it for the most part.

Once again, Merkel was caught with a dirty lie.

Merkel seems to be nothing more than the cheap dirty whore of Soros.

Sauce (so far only in German): https://www.theeuropean.de/petr-bystron-bystron/15079-auswaertiges-amt

translation of the article with Deepl.com:

''Federal government was driving force in migration pact

The Federal Government has been the driving force behind the controversial Global Compact on Migration from the outset, as documents from the Federal Foreign Office show. The "political initiative" for the drafting of the pact was not the sole responsibility of the German government. Germany also gave massive "personnel and financial" support to the work on the paper.

This fact contradicts the trivializing attitude with which the Federal Government has been trying for weeks to reduce the significance of the Pact in public to a mere marginality. All the key players in the Grand Coalition play down the Pact as "not legally binding" and therefore completely non-binding. In this context, Angela Merkel's statement "it is not legally binding and that is why Germany stands by it", with which she tried in Warsaw to explain the matter from a German perspective to the Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, is almost legendary.

The Federal Foreign Office's "Report of the Federal Government on Cooperation between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Nations" literally states: "Since 2016, the Federal Republic of Germany has been pressing ahead (politically, in terms of content, personnel and funding) with the processes for drawing up the (…) Global Compact on Migration, thereby underlining its international shaping role in the area of flight and migration.

This raises several questions at once:

First: Why should the Federal Government push ahead with an international agreement "in terms of content, personnel and funding" since 2016, if in the end only a non-binding piece of paper would emerge that is unimportant to it?

Secondly, what is the connection between the German government's 2016 initiative and the opening of the border one year earlier? The suspicion suggests itself that the German government is trying to present post-ex ante through the back door of an international treaty all violations of the law committed in 2015 as politically correct actions - and to codify them as such for the future.

This suspicion is confirmed by statements made by the Federal Chancellor - at a press conference in November 2015 Merkel had already issued the slogan "to turn illegal migration into legal migration wherever possible". Equally revealing is the statement in the Federal Government's report that the Pact is "not legally binding, but politically binding".

In short, the Federal Government says that since 2016 it has played a driving role in the drafting of the Global Compact. It has pushed ahead with its design "in terms of content, personnel and funding" so that the standards contained therein become "politically binding" for all signatories.

What "politically binding" means could be seen in the example of the Paris Climate Agreement. This paper, which is also "legally non-binding", is used by numerous NGOs and lobby groups to generate public pressure on policymakers to adhere to the targets agreed in the agreement. In this way, the actual implementation of legally non-binding agreements is forced.

As Roger Köppel aptly put it in the Swiss Weltwoche: "The problem with soft law is that it has a tendency to become hard as concrete. It is precisely this process that many constitutional lawyers fear. Ulrich Vosgerau predicts in the 'Junge Freiheit' that "after the signing of the pact, every measure terminating residence, every rejection at the border will be flagellated by the relevant NGOs and the so-called asylum industry (…) as a violation of binding agreements, international human rights standards and UN guidelines".

Then the pact will be "politically binding" - as desired by the Federal Government since 2016 and "driven forward in terms of content, personnel and funding".''