Back in 2010, the Directorate-General for Home Affairs of the European Commission published a report entitled, “Study on the feasibility of establishing a mechanism for the relocation of beneficiaries of international protection.” It was prepared under something called the European Refugee Fund and includes some truly remarkable considerations and language that will sound familiar.
For instance, the purpose of this 144 page-long report is to find a “way in which Member States can show solidarity towards each other in cases where a Member State is under specific and disproportionate asylum pressure. A possible way to support these Member States could be through the relocation of beneficiaries of international protection from such Member States to others” (emphasis added).
The Commission’s report ponders two options for Member States to “show solidarity towards each other”. Under Option 1, “an EU legislative instrument creating a relocation mechanism would be adopted, allocating a quota for each Member State based on the country's GDP per capita and population density”.
Hungary’s population stands at roughly ten million inhabitants. But this Brussels study, calculating how the redistribution could work based on a population “density threshold,” says Hungary could handle a population of 82.9 million.
If that weren’t enough, the report itself declares that under the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (specifically, Articles 78 and 80), the European Union has no legal basis for the quota system at all.
“Our goal,” said Prime Minister Orbán at last week’s press conference, “is that opponents of immigration become a majority in the institutions of the EU.” He said that because for many it’s clear that today that’s not the case, the pro-immigration forces are deeply embedded in EU institutions.
And this document provides proof, serving up unequivocal evidence that the European Commission was already developing a plan for a migrant quota back in 2010, years before the migrant crisis really began. And they were scheming about this “mechanism” even though they recognized that it would be of dubious legality.
Once again, that’s back in 2010. Any further questions?