EU should 'undermine national homogeneity' says UN migration representative Peter Sutherland

EU should 'undermine national homogeneity' says UN migration chief

By Brian WheelerPolitical reporter, BBC News


Peter Sutherland's global migration forum brings together 160 nations to discuss policy

The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, the UN's special representative for migration has said.

Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.

He also suggested the UK government's immigration policy had no basis in international law.

He was being quizzed by the Lords EU home affairs sub-committee which is investigating global migration.

------------------------------------

A Daily Mail Sutherland biopsy:

The morally defensible, personally charming, highly intelligent, 'passionately Irish' grand panjandrum of globalization actually seems to be out of love with Irishness…also Englishness, Frenchness, Germannness, Italianness, and all the other nationalities which make up European-ness – to the extent that he would quite like to see them disappear. He has said that 'Europe for me is the most noble political process in 1,000 years', and he would dearly love to be the über-European – yet his ideal Europe might not have all that many indigenous Europeans. Europe for him seems not to be a place where Europeans live, but a wholly abstract entity, an entry in a balance sheet. 

In the chair: Peter Sutherland appeared before 

the House of Lords EU affairs sub-committee.

That is why he was peering at the House of Lords sub-committee like some well-fed but still peckish bird of prey, looking at the parochial parliamentarians from their dusty old-fashioned legislature – perhaps contrasting them unfavorable with the big-picture bureaucrats of his Global Forum on Migration and Development. He was there to answer questions about the government’s immigration policies – and from the outset it was plain that he disapproved. And not just of the policy – but Britain’s whole political structure, culture and national identity – all now, he broadly hinted, overripe for replacement. 

Migration was a 'crucial dynamic for economic growth' in some European countries, 'however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens'. The declining populations of some EU countries meant that multiculturalism was not only inevitable, but deeply desirable – 'It’s impossible to consider that the degree of homogeneity which is implied by the other argument can survive because states have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them.'

He concurred with the helpful suggestion of the (obviously unbiased) committee chairman, Lord Hannay, that UK policies on limiting student visas had no international legal validity. Limiting immigration risked Britain’s reputation for being a 'tolerant, open society', he claimed – and he contrasted Euro-intransigence with well-known social paradises like the United States, which '…accommodate more readily those from other backgrounds than we do ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others. And that’s precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine.' 'Should be doing' must have been a slip of the tongue, because obviously he really meant 'is doing' or perhaps 'has always done'. 

In any case, it came as little surprise to learn that he advocates a global approach to get rid of these dirty differences – an approach based on a wonderfully simple, wildly reckless premise – '…at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice.'

No-one enquired whether existing residents of countries would also have the freedom to choose what kind of country they lived in – nor whether he foresaw any kind of limits on human traffic from Asia or Africa into small countries like his own (pop. 3 million). Yeats bemoaned that 'Romantic Ireland’s dead and gone' – but if Mr. Sutherland and his many mini-mes have their way unromantic Ireland might soon follow. 

Nor was he asked whether he thought it possible that unlimited migration might endanger the 'tolerant, easy' characteristics he and most other Europeans value – nor whether his manic métissage might make the whole world rather less interesting and beautiful. Although he will be leaving the world a very much richer man than he entered it, the world he leaves behind will probably be poorer, in ways he cannot begin to comprehend. 

Unchallenged as usual, unmoved as usual, he rounded off yet another day dedicated to destroying difference by advertising the next Global Forum jamboree, towards which angst-fest Britain ironically makes significant cash contributions. In a late display of becoming gratitude for this, he remarked with lugubrious satisfaction 'The UK has been very constructively engaged in this whole process from the beginning and very supportive of me personally.'

It could be argued – but somehow it never is – that underwriting such an undertaker might not be a very shrewd investment.

Rem.  ´Undertaker indeed´!!

--------------------------------------------------------------

 BBC News continues ...

Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development , which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas.

He told the House of Lords committee migration was a "crucial dynamic for economic growth" in some EU nations "however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states".

'More open'

An ageing or declining native population in countries like Germany or southern EU states was the "key argument and, I hesitate to the use word because people have attacked it, for the development of multicultural states", he added.

"It's impossible to consider that the degree of homogeneity which is implied by the other argument can survive because states have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them. Just as the United Kingdom has demonstrated."

At the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice

Peter Sutherland, UN special representative for migration

The UN special representative on migration was also quizzed about what the EU should do about evidence from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that employment rates among migrants were higher in the US and Australia than EU countries.

He told the committee: "The United States, or Australia and New Zealand, are migrant societies and therefore they accommodate more readily those from other backgrounds than we do ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others.

"And that's precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine."

Mr Sutherland recently argued, in a lecture to the London School of Economics, of which he is chairman, that there was a "shift from states selecting migrants to migrants selecting states" and the EU's ability to compete at a "global level" was at risk.

'No justification'

In evidence to the Lords committee, he urged EU member states to work together more closely on migration policy and advocated a global approach to the issue - criticising the UK government's attempt to cut net migration from its current level to "tens of thousands" a year through visa restrictions.

British higher education chiefs want non-EU overseas students to be exempted from migration statistics and say visa restrictions brought in to help the government meet its target will damage Britain's economic competitiveness.

But immigration minister Damian Green has said exempting foreign students would amount to "fiddling" the figures and the current method of counting was approved by the UN.

Committee chairman Lord Hannay, a crossbench peer and a former British ambassador to the UN, said Mr Green's claim of UN backing for including students in migration figures "frankly doesn't hold water - this is not a piece of international law".

Mr Sutherland, a former Attorney General of Ireland, agreed, saying: "Absolutely not. it provides absolutely no justification at all for the position they are talking about."

'UK support'

He said the policy risked Britain's traditional status as "tolerant, open society" and would be "massively damaging" to its higher education sector both financially and intellectually.

"It's very important that we should not send a signal from this country, either to potential students of the highest quality, or to academic staff, that this is in some way an unsympathetic environment in which to seek visas or whatever other permissions are required... and I would be fearful that that could be a signal."

Mr Sutherland, who has attended meetings of The Bilderberg Group , a top level international networking organisation often criticised for its alleged secrecy, called on EU states to stop targeting "highly skilled" migrants, arguing that "at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice" about whether to come and study or work in another country.

Mr Sutherland also briefed the peers on plans for the Global Migration and Development Forum's next annual conference in Mauritius in November, adding: "The UK has been very constructively engaged in this whole process from the beginning and very supportive of me personally."

Asked afterwards how much the UK had contributed to the forum's running costs in the six years it had been in existence, he said it was a relatively small sum in the region of "tens of thousands".

----------------------------------------------------------

The West is at war with a death cult –


---------------------------------------------------------

Commentary:

HOW WRONG COULD HE GET ?   

These are the lies from the Devil´s advocate Peter Sutherland who has a completely different agenda for the homogeneity of a world population without national adherence,democracy or human rights,living on the bottom rung of a classless society without individual opinions,easily manipulated by a small,powerful,rich oligarchy controlling all aspects of human life. Namely the Bilderberg Group as the masonic servant of the ancient Illuminati Organization.

How ironic to employ Peter Sutherland as the UN special representative for migration,knowing that UN was created by the Bilderberg Group,and Peter Sutherland is an ardent Bilderberg representative.

People of the Muslim faith were chosen to become the fleeing migrants just for its incompatibility with other religions,which would ascertain disconcert and the eventual breakup of  national cohesion. 

The ideal,end product,is a race mix of Arab and negro,akin to the slaves who constructed the Egyptian pyramids.

God created us all DIFFERENT,located us in DIFFERENT countries and gave us DIFFERENT cultures. WHICH evil forces are doing their utmost to destroy it?

Peter Sutherland,as the Devil´s Advocate is promoting undermining our national homogeneity by consenting to chaos and fear,orchestrated by the Bilderberg Group,scaring millions of migrants with incompatible cultures into a border less Europe.

All this in the name of UN,created by the Bilderbergs,as their special envoy for migration into Europe. Could it be more evil?

You can find all these specifications and plans by doing a Google by Bilderberg, Illuminati and The New World Order.

STAND UP FOR YOUR COUNTRY! BE PROUD OF YOUR COUNTRY! NEVER LOOSE YOUR IDENTITY!

Administrator

THE OTIUM POST