Today in Brussels People Protest Adoption of the UN Migration Pact

The UN Migration Pact was unknown about by me until mention of it was posted here on ATS , I guess it's still unknown to many in my country as so little has been said about it but today people in Brussels have taken to the streets to protest the adoption of the pact.
No information on numbers but from small acorns mighty oaks do grow.

Arbour argued that although the pact is not legally binding, it is still worthwhile. “The pact is a major cooperation project ... a political initiative to align initiatives for the common benefit,” she said.

But such arguments cut little ice with the WerteUnion ("Union of Values"), a group of thousands of conservative members of the CDU and its Bavarian sister party. It takes issue with multiple sections of the pact, such as a declaration that migrants "regardless of their status, can exercise their human rights through safe access to basic services." The group argues that as German social benefits are high, such a commitment would encourage migrants to come to Germany.

In Belgium, the pact has put liberal Prime Minister Charles Michel's coalition government at risk. The Flemish nationalist N-VA, the biggest party in government, has demanded Belgium withdraw from the agreement. Michel is caught between his commitment to the pact and his coalition partner's rejection of it — while seeking to fend off a Francophone opposition that will take any opportunity to portray him as a puppet of the Flemish nationalists ahead of federal, regional and European elections next May.
www.politico.eu...

Of course Mrs May has signed up to it because why not !
Chip chip chipping away.

Saw a bit of this on Sky, then they cut as soon as the camera picked up cops throttling and knocking people over who were just waving and shouting.

I didn't even know there was a demo planned.
Be interesting to see the makeup of people there, whether they are general people or far right nutters.

just sad

a reply to: SprocketUK

Saw a bit of this on Sky, then they cut as soon as the camera picked up cops throttling and knocking people over who were just waving and shouting.

The oh so democratic governments of Europe don't seem to like democratic protest do they.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: SprocketUK

Saw a bit of this on Sky, then they cut as soon as the camera picked up cops throttling and knocking people over who were just waving and shouting.

The oh so democratic governments of Europe don't seem to like democratic protest do they.

I don't think any of them do. Unless people are demonstrating for whatever their side is on.

Anytime I hear “Brussels” the words Six foot Four and full of muscles immediately enters and takes over my mind. Followed by flute noises.
On topic, this whole keeping partisan legislation on the down low (on both sides) seems to be an increasing trend. From local business level, to local government, to international levels and it is total bs and it needs to stop now! Kudos to them.

It's been going on for a few days apparently, but at it's worst today. Water cannons and tear gas being used.
Thank you for posting as I've been hunting for a video clip to share.
Rainbows
Jane

I posted about this.

It’s a complete disaster to democracy.

a reply to: gortex

So, part of the pact is around "minimizing "adverse drivers and structural factors" that force people to leave their home countries" - do you consider that a bad thing?

Do you think "creating conditions to allow migrants to contribute to sustainable development in all countries" is also a bad thing?

They sound like the kind of things I would want the leader of my country to sign up to, is there a reason you wouldn't?

Anyway, it's non binding and doesn't actually place any additional obligations on any countries that sign up to it, but hey, I bothered to look at what it actually is before posting.

originally posted by: TexasTruth
Anytime I hear “Brussels” the words Six foot Four and full of muscles immediately enters and takes over my mind. Followed by flute noises.

On topic, this whole keeping partisan legislation on the down low (on both sides) seems to be an increasing trend. From local business level, to local government, to international levels and it is total bs and it needs to stop now! Kudos to them.

In Belgium the government fell because of the signing of the UN Compact, as the right-wing side of the government coalition withdrew from the government after the prime minister ignored their opinions and signed the Compact.

Source

originally posted by: uncommitted
So, part of the pact is around "minimizing "adverse drivers and structural factors" that force people to leave their home countries" - do you consider that a bad thing?

Do you think "creating conditions to allow migrants to contribute to sustainable development in all countries" is also a bad thing?

Exactly, the compact includes many of the things people have been complaining about, like uncontrolled immigration, but some people appear more worried about that part that says that migrants should be treated according to internationally recognised human rights.

People only see what they want to see, not what is really there, specially if they heard it from one of those sources that, instead of giving clear facts give their own opinion as if they are facts.

a reply to: uncommitted

Anyway, it's non binding and doesn't actually place any additional obligations on any countries that sign up to it, but hey, I bothered to look at what it actually is before posting.

I think you'll find I posted a quote in the OP that stated that , perhaps you should have bothered to read the OP before posting.

Arbour argued that although the pact is not legally binding, it is still worthwhile. “The pact is a major cooperation project ... a political initiative to align initiatives for the common benefit,” she said.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: uncommitted

Anyway, it's non binding and doesn't actually place any additional obligations on any countries that sign up to it, but hey, I bothered to look at what it actually is before posting.

I think you'll find I posted a quote in the OP that stated that , perhaps you should have bothered to read the OP before posting.

Arbour argued that although the pact is not legally binding, it is still worthwhile. “The pact is a major cooperation project ... a political initiative to align initiatives for the common benefit,” she said.

I did read the OP, you sounded very critical that May had signed it - why was that?

ETA, and why have you ignored the parts of my post that talk about what the pact aims to cover?

a reply to: ArMaP

People only see what they want to see

I see that while I'm out working 10 - 12 hour days someone can illegally enter my country and assume the rights to housing , benefits and medical care while I happily pay for them through my taxes , our public services are stretched already but hey , why not invite more people to take advantage of them.

It takes issue with multiple sections of the pact, such as a declaration that migrants "regardless of their status, can exercise their human rights through safe access to basic services.

a reply to: uncommitted

I did read the OP, you sounded very critical that May had signed it - why was that?

Because I'm critical that May has signed it , the UK already takes in refugees and migrants from all over the world we don't need to sign up to a UN agreement that is no doubt more than the sum of its parts.

Legal rights for illegal immigrants is not a sensible move but it is part of a political agenda run by the Elites , it is for their benefit not ours , the people.

originally posted by: gortex
I see that while I'm out working 10 - 12 hour days someone can illegally enter my country and assume the rights to housing , benefits and medical care while I happily pay for them through my taxes , our public services are stretched already but hey , why not invite more people to take advantage of them.

Ignoring that "illegally" part that is not on the Compact, if those are human rights then you have the same rights to them as they have. If they are not considered human rights then they do not have direct access to them.

It takes issue with multiple sections of the pact, such as a declaration that migrants "regardless of their status, can exercise their human rights through safe access to basic services.

It means that they should not be refused access because of their country of origin and/or status.

Basically, what the Compact says is that there should no be any discrimination against immigrants and that the countries should cooperate to stop the reasons behind mass immigration. It doesn't say any thing that makes it easier for people to immigrate to other countries, it says nothing about immigrants having more rights that the citizens of the receiving countries.

a reply to: ArMaP

Ignoring that "illegally" part that is not on the Compact

"regardless of their status, can exercise their human rights through safe access to basic services.

I think it is.

it says nothing about immigrants having more rights that the citizens of the receiving countries.

I didn't say it did.

originally posted by: gortex

"regardless of their status, can exercise their human rights through safe access to basic services.

I think it is.

You're right, I was not thinking of "status" as having that meaning.

I didn't say it did.

You didn't, but the way you were complaining it sounded like they have the right to things you do not have, if they have the same rights what's the problem?

a reply to: ArMaP

You didn't, but the way you were complaining it sounded like they have the right to things you do not have, if they have the same rights what's the problem?

The problem is that our public services are under funded and under strain following the 08 financial crisis and the austerity measures implemented following it.

The influx of European migrants has also added to the strain on housing services , schools and hospitals , giving illegal immigrants legal rights to use those services should they manage to enter the country will just add more strain to our already stretched public services , it will also act as a green light to illegal immigration.

I'm all for helping people in need but the needs of the people of this country must come before the needs of someone who just wants to come here for a better life.

a reply to: gortex

Well, that's a local problem that your government needs to solve, and, according to the Compact, each country can act according to their laws and needs, so it's on your government's hands.

From an non-biased point of view I see nothing wrong with this Compact, in fact I see it as, in general, a good idea, mostly because it's not legally binding.