RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14970/turkey-europe-migrants

The Greek government has said that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan personally controls the migration flows to Greece and turns them on and off to extract more money and other political concessions from the European Union. In recent months, the Turkish government has repeatedly threatened to open the floodgates of mass migration to Greece, and, by extension, to the rest of Europe.

“If they [the European Union] do not give us the necessary support in this struggle, then we will not be able to stop the 3.5 million refugees from Syria and another two million people who will reach our borders from Idlib.” — Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

“If we open the floodgates, no European government will be able to survive for more than six months. We advise them not to try our patience.” — Turkish Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu.

More than six million migrants are believed to be waiting in countries around the Mediterranean to cross into Europe, according to a classified German government report leaked to the newspaper Bild… More than three million others are waiting in Turkey.

Greece has once again become “ground zero” for Europe’s migration crisis. More than 40,000 migrants arrived in Greece during the first nine months of 2019, and more than half of those arrived during just the past three months, according to new data compiled by the International Organization for Migration (IOM).

The surge in migrant arrivals to Greece during the third quarter of 2019 — 5,903 arrivals in July; 9,341 in August; and 10,294 in September — has coincided with repeated threats by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and other members of his government to flood Europe with Muslim migrants.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14964/boris-johnson-brexit-proposal

It must be acknowledged that Johnson’s proposal for a replacement Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland has evident merits. But if EU leaders do agree – even against expectations – that Johnson’s proposal is the way forward, why rush to complete all the legal complexities of that agreement in a few days instead of gratefully accepting an extension of time in order to let a good job be done?

If Johnson’s approach does not get off the ground, the UK could still fall back to one last attempt to leave without no-deal. It is to demand a change to Article 20 of the original Protocol, the so-called “Backstop,” such that instead of enduring for ever unless both sides agree to terminate it, the Protocol will endure for only an initial year, but can be renewed annually if both sides agree to continue it. If the EU refuses even this minimal demand, then it will have made it clear to the UK government, Parliament and the public that no-deal is indeed the UK’s only way of escape.

In the turbulent weeks since Boris Johnson became prime minister of the United Kingdom, he has registered his first comparative success with his proposal for a change in Theresa May’s Brexit deal. On the one hand, he has forced the EU negotiators to abandon their adamant refusal hitherto to reopen the wording of that deal; on the other, his proposal – with its firm emphasis upon the UK’s essential interests – has united almost all Conservative MPs behind it.

The contrast with his previous missteps is striking. There was his unprecedented, unlawful and unnecessary attempt to prorogue Parliament for a whole month instead of the customary few days. This, in turn, prompted opponents of a no-deal Brexit to rush through legislation on the one day left before the prorogation: the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act 2019, which orders Johnson to request from the EU a deferral of the looming Brexit day from October 31 to January 31 if there is still no agreed Brexit deal on October 19. Johnson then expelled from the party 21 Conservative MPs who voted for that legislation – also unprecedented in recent times. Remember that dozens of Conservatives, including Johnson himself twice, had voted against May’s deal earlier in the year, yet she did not even think of punishing them. With their expulsion, moreover, Johnson lost a majority in the Commons for anything.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14979/iran-trump-elections

The second initiative in which the Iranian government is engaged is to increase tensions in the region, destabilize the region, target the global energy market, cause oil and gas prices to increase, and then blame all these problems on the Trump administration.

The threat Iran poses to US presidential elections is real and urgent — for Iran to be stopped, it should finally be held accountable.

Do not underestimate the power of the Iranian government to influence public opinion in the US, interfere in elections, and sway the 2020 presidential elections in its favor.

Iran began its post-Islamic-Revolution era by taking 52 American diplomats and citizens from the US Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979 and holding them as hostages for 444 days.

The newly established theocratic government evidently wanted to project the new power it possessed to manipulate its new enemy, which it called the “Great Satan.” Minutes after President Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, however, on January 20, 1981, Iran released the hostages. It was obvious that Iran’s move to create the hostage crisis and the inability of President Jimmy Carter to bring the American citizens home was doubtless one of the reasons for his defeat in the presidential election of 1980.

Similarly, with recent developments in President Donald J. Trump’s administration, the ruling mullahs of Iran are taking concrete steps to try to make him just a one-term president.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14906/britain-guidance-journalists

Policy Exchange’s report on the leaked guidance gives rise for concern. In the words of the report, the guidance, “seems designed to bind the hands of UK newspapers when it comes to reporting on stories relating to Islam and Muslims – with potentially serious long-term consequences for the workings of a free and independent press”. — Policy Exchange Report, “Eroding the Free Press,” by Will Heaven and Sir John Jenkins.

As the Policy Exchange authors write, “In all of this, there seems to be a suggestion that journalists should take a different approach to covering Muslims than that employed towards other faith groups. This all seems remarkably ill-conceived. If we ruled out reporting on matters specific to Muslims not only would we miss some big issues – not least the threat from Islamist extremist terrorism, which continues to dwarf other global terrorist threats – but we would also be unable to report properly on discrimination against Muslims. More generally, we must ask: is it really the role of journalists to consider community cohesion before truth and accuracy? And what are the potential consequences of such an ethos?” — Policy Exchange Report, “Eroding the Free Press,” by Will Heaven and Sir John Jenkins.

“As Policy Exchange has previously pointed out, one of the things that makes the APPG’s attempts to institutionalise an illiberal definition of Islamophobia so unpalatable, is the fact that it resembles a form of blasphemy law, protecting Islam specifically, implemented by the back door”. — Policy Exchange Report, “Eroding the Free Press,” by Will Heaven and Sir John Jenkins.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14962/johnson-prorogation-supreme-court

After Johnson’s advocate lost the argument on a crucial point, the likely Judgment of the Court was evident. Surprising, at most, was that all eleven judges unanimously backed it.

A ComRes poll has found that interviewees agreed 50% to 29% (with 21% unsure) that “the Supreme Court was right to rule that Boris Johnson’s prorogation of parliament was unlawful,” while nevertheless 49% agreed that “the UK should leave with or without a deal by 31st October 2019.” That is, the public tends to agree with Johnson’s aims but thinks that he went the wrong way about them.

In this Judgment, the Supreme Court has clearly delineated the proper relationship between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary in the Constitution of the UK. The US Constitution had such a delineation from the outset, of course, since it was a prime concern of the Founding Fathers. The Judgment may become the key precedent for all future cases in which such a delineation is required.

For the most part, public reactions to the Judgment of the UK Supreme Court to declare Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament unlawful were predictable. Those who opposed Johnson’s Brexit stance were jubilant, while those who supported that stance decried the Judgment as an unwarranted judicial interference in the political realm. So there is no need to record all those reactions, but rather a need to understand how and why the Court reached its conclusions. For sure, the Court issued a summary of its Judgment, but the summary covers so many points with so few words that crucial details lack prominence.