Austria joins Hungary and the US and will not sign UN migration pact

By   

The Global Compact for Sage, Orderly and Regular Migration was approved in July by all 193 UN member nations with the exception of the United States. The US pulled out last year.

Hungary have said they will not sign the final document in Morocco in December. Poland is also considering refusing to sign it, having conflicts with Brussels over refusing quotas for asylum seekers.

And now, “Austria will not join the U.N. migration pact,” Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has stated. Kurz is a conservative and leads Austria’s coalition with the Freedom Party.

“We view some points of the migration pact very critically, such as the mixing up of seeking protection with labour migration,” Kurz said, arguing that migrants rescued in the Mediterranean should not be brought straight to Europe.

Vienna is currently holding the rotating presidency of the European Union and their stepping back from the pact is more evidence of the dissolution of the 28-nation bloc over migration.

Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache, leader of the Freedom Party told a news conference after a cabinet meeting that Austria had concerns that thought the pact is non-binding, it could one day lead to deciding migrations is a human right. “We reject any movement in that direction,” Strache expressing their sovereignty issues.

UN officials have not made a comment on Vienna’s decision but Austria will not send an envoy to the signing ceremony in Morocco and will abstain from the General Assembly vote on the pact next year, according to Kurz’s office.

“FOOLISH FORM OF TOLERANCE”: BELGIAN ‘CHRISTMAS MARKET’ CHANGES NAME TO ‘WINTER MARKET’

"Foolish Form of Tolerance": Belgian 'Christmas Market' Changes Name to 'Winter Market'

Some claim change was made so as not to offend Muslims

 | Infowars.com – OCTOBER 30, 2018

Organizers of a Christmas market in the Belgian city of Bruges have changed its name to ‘Winter Market’, with some claiming the switch was made so as not to offend Muslims.

According to a report by HLN, instead of Christmas-themed lighting, the market will be lit up with “winter lighting”.

Senator Pol Van Den Driessche of the country’s opposition party called the change “unbelievable and incomprehensible.”

“From now on we can no longer speak of the ‘Christmas market’ in Bruges, but of the ‘winter market’,” he added. “This is not only a ridiculous decision, it also goes against our individuality. Bruges has a very beautiful and old tradition in terms of Christmas. Whether you are religious or not, it is part of our culture. I do not want to give in to this foolish form of ‘tolerance’.”

Some respondents to the article asserted that the change was made to avoid offending Muslims.

“Do we still live in Belgium?” asked one. “Our norms and values are eroding, our culture is disappearing and our feasts need other names. And we must respect their Ramadan and Sugar Feast.”

However, organizer Pieter Vanderyse said the change was made merely to make the market appear more “neutral,” adding that other Belgian cities had changed their ‘Christmas Markets’ to ‘Winter Markets’.

This is not the first time that the Christian foundation of Christmas has been hidden in order to avoid offending Muslims.

In December 2016, the Austrian embassy changed the name of its “Christmas delicacies” to “Winter delicacies” out of consideration for the feelings of Muslims.

Earlier this month, a school in Chesterfield County, Virginia banned Christmas carols containing word “Jesus” in fear they may be offensive to ‘diverse students’.

Last year in Germany, a school was forced to re-locate its annual Christmas party after a single complaint from a Muslim student.

A Christmas tree in the Italian city of Bolzano was also removed from the town hall after fears that it could “hurt the feelings” of or “offend” Muslims.

Last year, a Christmas movie set to be screened in the French city of Langon, where Muslims are allowed to pray on the streets, was banned, because it was “too Christian”.

FACEBOOK CENSORSHIP OF ALTERNATIVE MEDIA “JUST THE BEGINNING,” WARNS TOP NEOCON INSIDER

Facebook Censorship Of Alternative Media "Just The Beginning," Warns Top Neocon Insider

“We are just starting to push back.”

Max Blumenthal and Jeb Sprague | GrayZoneProject.com – OCTOBER 29, 2018

At a Berlin security conference, hardline neocon Jamie Fly appeared to claim some credit for the recent coordinated purge of alternative media…

This October, Facebook and Twitter deleted the accounts of hundreds of users, including many alternative media outlets maintained by American users. Among those wiped out in the coordinated purge were popular sites that scrutinized police brutality and U.S. interventionism, like The Free Thought Project, Anti-Media, and Cop Block, along with the pages of journalists like Rachel Blevins.

Facebook claimed that these pages had “broken our rules against spam and coordinated inauthentic behavior.” However, sites like The Free Thought Project were verified by Facebook and widely recognized as legitimate sources of news and opinion. John Vibes, an independent reporter who contributed to Free Thought, accused Facebook of “favoring mainstream sources and silencing alternative voices.”

In comments published here for the first time, a neoconservative Washington insider has apparently claimed a degree of credit for the recent purge — and promised more takedowns in the near future.

“Russia, China, and other foreign states take advantage of our open political system,” remarked Jamie Fly, a senior fellow and director of the Asia program at the influential think tank the German Marshall Fund, which is funded by the U.S. government and NATO.

“They can invent stories that get repeated and spread through different sites. So we are just starting to push back. Just this last week Facebook began starting to take down sites. So this is just the beginning.”

Fly went on to complain that “all you need is an email” to set up a Facebook or Twitter account, lamenting the sites’ accessibility to members of the general public. He predicted a long struggle on a global scale to fix the situation, and pointed out that to do so would require constant vigilance.

Fly made these stunning comments to Jeb Sprague, who is a visiting faculty member in sociology at the University of California-Santa Barbara and co-author of this article. The two spoke during a lunch break at a conference on Asian security organized by the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik in Berlin, Germany.

In the tweet below, Fly is the third person from the left who appears seated at the table.

Capture

The remarks by Fly — “we are just starting to push back” — seemed to confirm the worst fears of the alternative online media community. If he was to be believed, the latest purge was motivated by politics, not spam prevention, and was driven by powerful interests hostile to dissident views, particularly where American state violence is concerned.

JAMIE FLY, RISE OF A NEOCON CADRE

Jamie Fly is an influential foreign policy hardliner who has spent the last year lobbying for the censorship of “fringe views” on social media.Over the years, he has advocated for a military assault on Iran, a regime change war on Syria, and hiking military spending to unprecedented levels. He is the embodiment of a neoconservative cadre.

Like so many second-generation neocons, Fly entered government by burrowing into mid-level positions in George W. Bush’s National Security Council and Department of Defense.

In 2009, he was appointed director of the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a rebranded version of Bill Kristol’s Project for a New American Century, or PNAC. The latter outfit was an umbrella group of neoconservative activists that first made the case for an invasion of Iraq as part of a wider project of regime change in countries that resisted Washington’s sphere of influence.

By 2011, Fly was advancing the next phase in PNAC’s blueprint by clamoring for military strikes on Iran. “More diplomacy is not an adequate response,” he argued. A year later, Fly urged the US to “expand its list of targets beyond the [Iranian] nuclear program to key command and control elements of the Republican Guard and the intelligence ministry, and facilities associated with other key government officials.”

Fly soon found his way into the senate office of Marco Rubio, a neoconservative pet project, assuming a role as his top foreign policy advisor. Amongst other interventionist initiatives, Rubio has taken the lead in promoting harsh economic sanctions targeting Venezuela, even advocating for a U.S. military assault on the country. When Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign floundered amid a mass revolt of the Republican Party’s middle American base against the party establishment, Fly was forced to cast about for new opportunities.

He found them in the paranoid atmosphere of Russiagate that formed soon after Donald Trump’s shock election victory.

PROPORNOT SPARKS THE ALTERNATIVE MEDIA PANIC

A journalistic insider’s account of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, Shattered, revealed that “in the days after the election, Hillary declined to take responsibility for her own loss. Her top advisers were summoned the following day, according to the book, “to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up … Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.”

Less than three weeks after Clinton’s defeat, the Washington Post’s Craig Timberg published a dubiously sourced report headlined, “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news.’”The article hyped up a McCarthyite effort by a shadowy, anonymously run organization called PropOrNot to blacklist some 200 American media outlets as Russian “online propaganda.”

The alternative media outfits on the PropOrNot blacklist included some of those recently purged by Facebook and Twitter, such as The Free Thought Project and Anti-Media. Among the criteria PropOrNot identified as signs of Russian propaganda were “Support for policies like Brexit, and the breakup of the EU and Eurozone” and “Opposition to Ukrainian resistance to Russia and Syrian resistance to Assad.” PropOrNot called for “formal investigations by the U.S. government” into the outlets it had blacklisted.

According to Craig Timberg, the Washington Post correspondent who uncritically promoted the media suppression initiative, Propornot was established by “a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds.” Timberg quoted a figure associated with the George Washington University Center for Cyber and Homeland Security, Andrew Weisburd, and cited a report he wrote with his colleague, Clint Watts, on Russian meddling.

Timberg’s piece on PropOrNot was promoted widely by former top Clinton staffers and celebrated by ex-Obama White House aide Dan Pfeiffer as “the biggest story in the world.” But after a wave of stinging criticism, including in the pages of the New Yorker, the article was amended with an editor’s note stating, “The [Washington] Post… does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet.”

PropOrNot had been seemingly exposed as a McCarthyite sham, but the concept behind it — exposing online American media outlets as vehicles for Kremlin “active measures” — continued to flourish.

THE BIRTH OF THE RUSSIAN BOT TRACKER — WITH U.S. GOVERNMENT MONEY

By August, a new, and seemingly related initiative appeared out of the blue, this time with backing from a bipartisan coalition of Democratic foreign policy hands and neocon Never Trumpers in Washington. Called the Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), the outfit aimed to expose how supposed Russian Twitter bots were infecting American political discourse with divisive narratives. It featured a daily “Hamilton 68” online dashboard that highlighted the supposed bot activity with easily digestible charts. Conveniently, the site avoided naming any of the digital Kremlin influence accounts it claimed to be tracking.

The initiative was immediately endorsed by John Podestathe founder of the Democratic Party think tank the Center for American Progress, and former chief of staff of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Julia Ioffe, the Atlantic’s chief Russiagate correspondent, promoted the bot tracker as “a very cool tool.”

Unlike PropOrNot, the ASD was sponsored by one of the most respected think tanks in Washington, the German Marshall Fund, which had been founded in 1972 to nurture the special relationship between the US and what was then West Germany.

The German Marshall Fund is substantially funded by Western governments, and largely reflects their foreign-policy interests. Its top two financial sponsors, at more than $1 million per year each, are the U.S. government’s soft-power arm the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the German Foreign Office (known in German as the Auswärtiges Amt). The U.S. State Department also provides more than half a million dollars per year, as do the German Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development and the foreign affairs ministries of Sweden and Norway. It likewise receives at least a quarter of a million dollars per year from NATO.

The US government and NATO are top donors to the German Marshall Fund

Though the German Marshall Fund did not name the donors that specifically sponsored its Alliance for Securing Democracy initiative, it hosts a who’s who of bipartisan national-security hardliners on the ASD’s advisory council, providing the endeavor with the patina of credibility. They range from neocon movement icon Bill Kristol to former Clinton foreign policy advisor Jake Sullivan and ex-CIA director Michael Morell.

Jamie Fly, a German Marshall Fund fellow and Asia specialist, emerged as one of the most prolific promoters of the new Russian bot tracker in the media. Together with Laura Rosenberger, a former foreign policy aide to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, Fly appeared in a series of interviews and co-authored several op-eds emphasizing the need for a massive social media crackdown.

During a March 2018 interview on C-Span, Fly complained that “Russian accounts” were “trying to promote certain messages, amplify certain content, raise fringe views, pit Americans against each other, and we need to deal with this ongoing problem and find ways through the government, through tech companies, through broader society to tackle this issue.”

Yet few of the sites on PropOrNot’s blacklist, and none of the alternative sites that were erased in the recent Facebook purge that Fly and his colleagues take apparent credit for, were Russian accounts. Perhaps the only infraction they could have been accused of was publishing views that Fly and his cohorts saw as “fringe.”

What’s more, the ASD has been forced to admit that the mass of Twitter accounts it initially identified as “Russian bots” were not necessarily bots — and may not have been Russian either.

“I’M NOT CONVINCED ON THIS BOT THING”

A November 2017 investigation by Max Blumenthal, a co-author of this article, found that the ASD’s Hamilton 68 dashboard was the creation of “a collection of cranks, counterterror retreads, online harassers and paranoiacs operating with support from some of the most prominent figures operating within the American national security apparatus.”

These figures included the same George Washington University Center for Cyber and Homeland Security fellows — Andrew Weisburd and Clint Watts — that were cited as experts in the Washington Post’s article promoting PropOrNot.

Weisburd, who has been described as one of the brains behind the Hamilton 68 dashboard, once maintained a one-man, anti-Palestinian web monitoring initiative that specialized in doxxing left-wing activists, Muslims and anyone he considered “anti-American.” More recently, he has taken to Twitter to spout off murderous and homophobic fantasies about Glenn Greenwald, the editor of the Intercept — a publication the ASD flagged without explanation as a vehicle for Russian influence operations.

Watts, for his part, has testified before Congress on several occasions to call on the government to “quell information rebellions” with censorious measures including “nutritional labels” for online media. He has received fawning publicity from corporate media and been rewarded with a contributor role for NBC on the basis of his supposed expertise in ferreting out Russian disinformation.

Clint Watts has urged Congress to “quell information rebellions”

However, under questioning during a public event by Grayzone contributor Ilias Stathatos, Watts admitted that substantial parts of his testimony were false, and refused to provide evidence to support some of his most colorful claims about malicious Russian bot activity.

In a separate interview with Buzzfeed, Watts appeared to completely disown the Hamilton 68 bot tracker as a legitimate tool. “I’m not convinced on this bot thing,” Watts confessed. He even called the narrative that he helped manufacture “overdone,” and admitted that the accounts Hamilton 68 tracked were not necessarily directed by Russian intelligence actors.

“We don’t even think they’re all commanded in Russia — at all. We think some of them are legitimately passionate people that are just really into promoting Russia,” Watts conceded.

But these stunning admissions did little to slow the momentum of the coming purge.

ENTER THE ATLANTIC COUNCIL

In his conversation with Sprague, the German Marshall Fund’s Fly stated that he was working with the Atlantic Council in the campaign to purge alternative media from social media platforms like Facebook.

The Atlantic Council is another Washington-based think tank that serves as a gathering point for neoconservatives and liberal interventionists pushing military aggression around the globe. It is funded by NATO and repressive, US-allied governments including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Turkey, as well as by Ukrainian oligarchs like Victor Pynchuk.

This May, Facebook announced a partnership with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) to “identify, expose, and explain disinformation during elections around the world.”

The Atlantic Council’s DFRLab is notorious for its zealous conflation of legitimate online dissent with illicit Russian activity, embracing the same tactics as PropOrNot and the ASD.

Ben Nimmo, a DFRLab fellow who has built his reputation on flushing out online Kremlin influence networks, embarked on an embarrassing witch hunt this year that saw him misidentify several living, breathing individuals as Russian bots or Kremlin “influence accounts.” Nimmo’s victims included Mariam Susli, a well-known Syrian-Australian social media personality, the famed Ukrainian concert pianist Valentina Lisitsa, and a British pensioner named Ian Shilling.

In an interview with Sky News, Shilling delivered a memorable tirade against his accusers.

“I have no Kremlin contacts whatsoever; I do not know any Russians, I have no contact with the Russian government or anything to do with them,” he exclaimed.

“I am an ordinary British citizen who happens to do research on the current neocon wars which are going on in Syria at this very moment.”

With the latest Facebook and Twitter purges, ordinary citizens like Shilling are being targeted in the open, and without apology. The mass deletions of alternative media accounts illustrate how national security hardliners from the German Marshall Fund and Atlantic Council (and whoever was behind PropOrNot) have instrumentalized the manufactured panic around Russian interference to generate public support for a wider campaign of media censorship.

In his conversation in Berlin with Sprague, Fly noted with apparent approval that, “Trump is now pointing to Chinese interference in the 2018 election.” As the mantra of foreign interference expands to a new adversarial power, the clampdown on voices of dissent in online media is almost certain to intensify.

As Fly promised, “This is just the beginning.”

ITALY: FEMINISTS PROTEST ‘ALL MEN’ AFTER 16-YEAR-OLD GIRL RAPED & MURDERED BY MIGRANTS

Italy: Feminists Protest 'All Men' After 16-Year-Old Girl Raped & Murdered by Migrants

Call Salvini ‘racist’ for making the issue about mass immigration

 | Infowars.com – OCTOBER 29, 2018

Feminists responded to the sickening gang rape and murder of a 16-year-old Italian girl by three illegal African migrants by protesting against all men.

Earlier this month, the body of Desirée Mariottini was found in a derelict building in Rome notorious for drug trafficking. The girl was fed a cocktail of drugs and sexually abused before she died. Three migrants from Senegal and Nigeria were subsequently arrested by police.

Similar to how feminists reacted after the mass sexual assault of women by Muslim migrants on New Year’s Eve 2015 in Cologne, Germany, feminists responded to the murder by demonstrating against “the patriarchy,” while saying nothing about the threat to women’s safety posed by mass immigration.

Feminist group NonUnaDiMeno (Not One Less) claimed that the murder highlighted the problem of “patriarchal violence” while blasting Interior Minister Matteo Salvini as ‘racist’ for making the issue about immigration.

“ENOUGH of erasing for propaganda purposes the lives of women killed by patriarchal violence,” tweeted the group.

Capture

Another Facebook post made clear that violence against women “has no borders,” a clear attempt to absolve migrants of blame, despite the fact that they are routinely overrepresented in crime stats relating to the sexual abuse of women.

null

“Through the streets of San Lorenzo to shout once again together that masculine violence against woman has no borders, has no passport. Violence against women is done by men. Today we are here, we are many, we are all Desirée,” the group posted.

The entire farce again serves as a reminder that third wave feminism has nothing to do with protecting women and everything to do with pushing left-wing narratives about mass immigration that are actually harmful to women.

Merkel will not seek new term as chancellor & CDU chair as party faces support slump

Merkel will not seek new term as chancellor & CDU chair as party faces support slump

Angela Merkel has said she will not seek re-election as Germany’s chancellor as well as CDU’s party chair. The decision comes after a debacle for her ruling party in the local elections in the federal state of Hesse.

On Sunday, Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) received 28 percent of the votes. Although that was more support than other competitors received, it was a significant drop from the 38.3 percent won by the party in the state’s last election in 2013.

READ MORE: Merkel’s sister party CSU suffers worst election result since 1950 in Bavaria

However, Merkel claimed that her decision not to run for party chair again was made before the plebiscite and even before German parliament’s summer recess. Party chair aside, the top politician also would not be available for another term as a chancellor.

Capture

What’s more, if snap elections need to take place before 2021, Merkel would not run for the top post either.

A decision not to head for re-election as chief of the CDU and to not ditch the chancellorship “looks like a plan” that has been carefully devised, German lawyer Maximilian Krah told RT.

Merkel’s favored person to take over as party boss is Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer. If she gets in, Merkel will “have a clone of herself as a party leader so she can remain in the chancellor’s office… she could stay in power for the next five or six years!”

However, if a Merkel critic takes center stage as party leader, there will be a different outcome. But even if that were the case, the CDU is unlikely to publicly turn on its current leader, as it is “very submissive” towards the chancellor.

“It would give a development against Merkel, but not a revolution. The CDU is not a party that makes revolutions. In no way.”

As the CDU experiences losses in support, the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party is seeing a rise in popularity. It received 12 percent of the votes in Hesse on Sunday, and now holds parliamentary seats in every single German state.

Speaking to RT following the Hesse elections, independent political observer Steven Meissner said that Merkel “is getting weaker and weaker and more unpopular.” That brings her team more problems than benefits, he alleged.

Merkel’s popularity has indeed been slipping for a long time, with her handling of the 2015 migrant crisis being a major contributing factor. A July poll found that only one in five Germans were happy with her performance as leader.

Dr. Werner Patzelt, a political science professor at the Technical University of Dresden, thinks that the chancellor’s handling of migration issue is mostly to blame for her party’s reduced support.

“The core problem of the CDU is the migration politics conducted by Chancellor Merkel. For many years now, German voters have revolted against these politics and they voted for the AfD and defected from the CDU…” In fact, AfD has filled a representation gap that was left when the CDU began shifting towards the center-left.

Merkel, 64, chaired the CDU party since 2000 and has served as Germany’s chancellor since 2005.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Swedish musical star on niqab and burka: Stone Age ideas that don’t belong here

By Emma H.

When singer Tommy Körberg visited the latest episode of the podcast “Fördomspodden”, he revealed his attitude to garments like niqab and burka.

“Those stone Age ideas they can keep for themselves,” he said. In the podcast, guests get to respond to prejudice about themselves.

In the latest episode, Tommy was confronted with the claim that he “purely aesthetically” thinks the Ku Klux Klan “has something”.

He disagreed. Anyone who covers their face shouldn’t be here. One should show one’s face, he said. The host asked if this also applied to religious purposes.

“Yes, above all. We shouldn’t have it here anyway,” the singer responded.

“We should show who we are. This applies to anyone who comes here,” he continued.

“So people can’t bring their religion to Sweden, in your opinion?” the host asked.

“They can bring their religion, but one should follow local customs too. To sit in school and cover your face, no no,” replied Tommy.

When Aftonbladet got hold of the singer, he elaborated his thoughts.

“Religion has nothing to do with it. It is a purely patriarchal act – how men have treated women. Those Stone Age ideas they can keep for themselves, and not bring here.”

“Are you thinking about the burka and niqab, that have been discussed in for example Denmark?”

“You should not cover your face. What is this stupidity? Just remove it,” he concluded.

Merkel’s party suffers losses in Hesse elections as right-wing AfD enters parliament – exit polls

Merkel's party suffers losses in Hesse elections as right-wing AfD enters parliament - exit polls

The Eurosceptic Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has gained seats in Hesse and now holds parliamentary seats in every single German state, according to exit polls. Meanwhile, Merkel’s CDU has seen party support plummet.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel‘s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) suffered an electoral shock, winning only 28 percent. The results were quite a disappointment for the CDU candidate and Ministers-President of Hesse, Volker Bouffier, a Merkel man who has stuck with her through thick and thin.

The CDU result marks a huge drop from the 38.3 percent won by the party during Hesse’s last election in 2013.

“We are in pain because of the losses but we also learnt that it is worth it to fight,” Volker Bouffier, the incumbent CDU state premier in Hesse and a Merkel ally, told supporters.

READ MORE: Neutrality or censorship? RT’s look at AfD’s tool for students to report ‘biased’ teachers (VIDEO)

The AfD, meanwhile, gained 12 percent of the votes in Hesse, a state that is home to six million people and the German capital of finance, Frankfurt am Main.

The party’s parliamentary leader, Alice Weidel, took to Twitter to celebrate its success.

“We are the People’s Party!” she wrote, noting that the AfD is now “firmly anchored” in the German parliament and is “here to stay.”

Screen Shot 2018-10-28 at 4.41.37 PM

The nosedive in support for Merkel’s party in Hesse, known as Hessen in Germany, was predicted by polls ahead of the crucial election.  Back in 2013, the CDU had to make a coalition with the Alliance 90/The Greens after the election resulted in no clear winner. It’s not clear if the CDU will now again unite with the Greens to form a government.

The Social Democratic Party (SPD), which went toe-to-toe with the CDU for decades, secured 20 percent.

“This is a bad result for us, I can’t put it any differently,” SPD Secretary General Lars Klingbeil told broadcaster ZDF.

Screen Shot 2018-10-28 at 4.42.35 PM

The Greens placed third, just barely trailing behind the Social Democrats with 19.5 percent of the votes.

Germany’s political landscape has been visibly crumbling in recent weeks. Earlier in October, Merkel’s ruling coalition was shaken after the Christian Social Union (CSU) – the sister party of the CDU – gained 37.3 percent in Germany’s largest and second-most populous state of Bavaria. It represented the worst election result since 1950, and a loss of its absolute majority for only the second time since 1962. CSU General Secretary Markus Blume called it a “bitter day” for the party.

With the emergence of a fresh crisis, Merkel may face difficulties when she stands for re-election as the CDU chair at the party’s conference in December this year.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑