Tuesday
(6)If there are any talented graphic designers out there perhaps they might want to grasp this opportunity to design a symbol that will, from now on, represent the 'Country formerly known as Britain'.
The instrument of conquest, the draft EU constitution, was presented in Brussels today. For those of your with the time and fortitude all 148 pages (yes, 148!) of this document can be found here.
Fortunately, the Telegraph has an edited version which sets out the 'money' clauses (the ones that British federasts would rather nobody spoke about). Among these are:
Article I-2: The Union's values
The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, liberty, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights.These values are common to the Member States in a society of pluralism, tolerance, justice, equality, solidarity and non-discrimination.
Meaningless, empty prattle that might have been drafted up by the editorial team of the Guardian. What 'solidarity'? What does that mean? And 'equality'? Does this mean Mao suits for everyone? If not, then what? And why on earth the prohibition on 'discrimination'? Discrimination just means 'judgement'. Are we supposed to live without it?
2 The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, and a single market where competition is free and undistorted.
Which means that Anglo-Saxon common law and Habeas Corpus are out to be replaced by Napoleonic Code and Corpus Juris.
The Union shall work for a Europe of sustainable development based on balanced economic growth, with a social market economy aiming at full employment and social progress.
Semi-planned economies with rigid labour laws and an omnipresent dead-hand of state.
It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and protection of human rights and in particular children's rights, as well as to strict observance and development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.
Euro-sclerosis for the whole world!!
Article I-5: Relations between the Union and the Member States 1 The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, including for regional and local self government.2 The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives set out in the Constitution.
The potemkin clause. This is the one the federasts will refer to in an attempt to rebut concerns over loss of sovereignty. As per usual, they will be lying. It only says that 'national identities' will be respected, not sovereignty which is clearly abolished by Part 2 of the clause.
Article I-6: Legal personality The Union shall have legal personality.
So no question that this is any longer about 'co-operation of sovereign states for mutual benefit'. The EU will exist as a formal entity separate from the national governments.
3 The Union shall have competence to co-ordinate the economic and employment policies of the Member States.4 The Union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy.
Need I add more?
The Union shall have exclusive competence to establish competition rules within the internal market, and in the following areas: monetary policy, for the Member States which have adopted the euro; common commercial policy; customs union; the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy.Shared competence applies in the following principal areas: internal market; area of freedom, security and justice; agriculture and fisheries excluding the conservation of marine biological resources; transport and trans-European networks; energy; social policy; for aspects defined in Part Three; economic and social cohesion; environment; consumer protection; common safety concerns in public health matters.
Well, that just about covers the lot. Even the term 'shared competence' only means that national governments decisions can only extend to areas not covered by Brussels and since Brussels legislates for pretty much everything that doesn't leave a lot of scope.
The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence.Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the acts adopted by the Union in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness.
The end of an independent British foreign policy and independent British security. Goodbye 'special relationship' with the USA. Goodbye Britain as a sovereign nation.
There is more but it is all more of the same. In short, it is the foundation of the 'Superstate' that the federasts have always gone to great pains to tell us was never on the table. Of course, the same people will re-double their tactics of lies, smears and evasions in order to try to muddy the waters long enough to smuggle all this through.
And I can sort of understand their sense of urgency. After all, this is the fruition of the Jacobin dream of a whole world unified, ordered and under total state control, where executive power is both unaccountable and unchecked and where nobody will be able to do so much as change their socks without first obtaining bureaucratic approval.
As for Blair, well all I can say is that you can pretty much dismiss all the plaintiff, indignant denials emanating from his office. His grand proclamation (that he has convinced the Convention to drop the word 'federal' from the document) is a pure piece of political theatre, designed to give the British the impression that he is not signing away this country's independence. The truth is that the 'federal' was never going to be included in the first place because it is superfluous. The document as drawn is sufficiently breathtaking in scope and ambition without the need to rely on 'trigger' words.
The constitution is due to discussed at an EU Heads of State conference planned for 2004. Tony Blair will perform the usual pantomime by going to Brussels, pretent to exact 'concessions designed to preserve our sovereignty' and sign up to the whole package in return for what he earnestly hopes will be a shot at the Presidency of 'Europe'.
Blair's ambitions are not unopposed. Fortunately, there are signs of uncomfortable stirrings among the famously bovine and indifferent British public and even in the ranks of the usually-useless Conservative Party. The calls for a referendum on the new constitution are growing and will not be silenced. Blair wants no such thing. He knows he will lose and the one prospect neither he nor his federast toadies cannot entertain is the British people getting an opportunity to interfere with the 'democratic process'.
So, a thousand years of independence and the struggles against Phillip II, Napoleon and Hitler will all boil down to the next 12 months of struggle against Blair.
Chilling...
Especially these excerpts:
"The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom..."
"The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.
"Its citizens"? "Its peoples"? It's as if "The Union", the government, now owns each and every one of you, and can "offer" you the freedoms it sees fit.
In America, as Steven Den Beste has said, we think of our elected representatives as leading us, while it seems Europe sees theirs as ruling them.
In the edited draft, I see no mention of the people directly electing members of government.
And then there's this:
"Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the acts adopted by the Union in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness."
In other words, The Union's foreign and security policy is completely unquestionable, and mustn't be debated, under a "spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity".
Kiss your soverigenty goodbye.
Posted by RyMaN600 at May 27, 2003 05:35 AM
Whoa momma....
I was just searching through the actual PDF of the constitution, and found an edit:
"The Union shall be open to all European States Whose people share Which respect the values referred to in Article 2, and who respect them and are committed to promoting them together.
I guess "the people" don't really count...it's the state that really matters...
Wow...and this is backed up in the revision comments:
The first sentence added to this Article takes over the first sentence of former Article 43. The words "whose peoples" have been deleted to take account of amendments calling for respect of Union values, as a condition for accesssion, to be an obligation on the candidate States themselves, and not their peoples."
There you have it. The state takes precedence over the people.
Posted by RyMaN600 at May 27, 2003 05:51 AM
Here's my lazy (but subtly appropriate, I think) idea for a new flag.
The unsovereign flag of the country formerly known as the United Kingdom
Posted by Andrew Duncalfe at May 27, 2003 06:37 AM
The fact that the Constitution needs to be 148 pages should raise eyebrows alone. To me it indicates a grouping of countries that lack a common intellectual heritage, meaning things such as "common law" could be taken for granted and the size of the document reduced. It also indicates that the EU is prepared to screw everything to death and to do it in a document that is not easily modified, as opposed to legislation.
If adopted, this will mean a sorry end to a proud country with a rich intellectual heritage that spawned the Enlightenment and the United States, albeit by force of arms on the latter. The U.S. will lose her best friend as well. Sad.
Posted by Robert Prather at May 27, 2003 06:53 AM
I don't think I've seen such a brazen misuse of the term "free trade" up to this point. The EU with have an "undistorted" market? That's such a comical misapplication of what the EU would actually have (and what is called for mere sentences away!) that it makes me wonder if there is any non-violent debatable way to change the minds of people who support this stuff.
Posted by Charles Hueter at May 27, 2003 07:43 AM
This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back.
You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.
You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
Posted by Morpheus at May 27, 2003 08:15 AM
Bye-bye, baby
EU lied to me, baby
I must have been crazy
Baby, bye-bye
It's EUr turn to cry
Cry, cry, baby
EU lied to me, baby
I'll survive without EU, baby
Baby, bye, baby, bye-bye
Posted by David Packer at May 27, 2003 08:44 AM
Nice to know who our friends are.
For your readers in the US, it appears to be a case of "It's been nice knowing you", rather than "How can we help?".
So much for the special relationship. It's 1940 all over again.
Posted by Philip Chaston at May 27, 2003 10:20 AM
Philip,
I don't believe that is quite fair. What do you expect our US readers to do? Even the US federal government is hardly going to intervene in what is, on the face of it, the decision of a democratically elected British PM? What can they possibly do?
Besides, there are few enough of our fellow Brits prepared to put up a fight, so why should the Americans do something for Britain that most Brits are not willing to do themselves?
Posted by David Carr at May 27, 2003 10:27 AM
Interesting comment, Philip, and it certainly looks that way. But perhaps we overestimated our importance to our American cousins. And where are the Ozzies?
Posted by Liberty Belle at May 27, 2003 10:31 AM
They could lobby their Congressmen to offer asylum to those of us who refuse to live under the yoke of tyranny. If Blair uses our birthright as freeborn Britons as a bargaining chip for being named the unelected (except by fellow dictators) president of "Europe", this ought to count as a war crime. Blair doesn't own us. Our birthright is not his to sign away.
No, of course no one would expect the Americans to invade Britain, but they might be generous enough to offer an escape route to those of us who never got a vote on our future.
Posted by Liberty Belle at May 27, 2003 10:37 AM
Liberty Belle,
Yes, that they could do. They could (and I hope they will) open the immigration doors for Brits who do not want to live under occupation.
I wonder if they realise just how much that would benefit America.
Posted by David Carr at May 27, 2003 10:41 AM
Despite my disagreement with your apparent support for the 'special relationship' which has been all one way and leads us into all kinds of trouble, I do agree with much of what you say.
The EU, in its current form, is a fundamentally undemocratic institution. They should have abolished the Council of Ministers and reduced the Commission to an advisory role, and made the Parliament the most important and powerful body, as it as after all the only one we directly elect.
Who's in charge of all these 'common competencies'?
Take the example of economic policy - setting interests rates etc. For Eurozone countries it's the European Central Bank. We don't elect them, yet they control our economy. It's such a centralising document I can barely believe it.
For people who have commented on the 148 pages, remember that most of that is commentary and amendments. It's actually only 40.
Oh, and the British public are bovine are they? I notice you have 'London' in brackets after your name. If you hate the British and love America you know what to do. Heathrow's just around the corner....
Posted by Chris at May 27, 2003 10:59 AM
So....what is the plan for stopping this?
Is there one?
Does anyone know?
Can we push for a referendum?
Can we pressurise the government (Hah!)
Anyone got any ideas?
Or do we need to start planning to emigrate now?
Posted by Huw at May 27, 2003 11:09 AM
Oh! Ach! It mentions the United Nations right in the constitution. <koff><hack>
Really, I don't know what anyone expects American readers to do about it, when you haven't the foggiest idea what to do about it yourselves. It's like trying to keep your drunken friend from getting a tattoo.
Of Chairman Mao.
On his forehead.
Posted by S. Weasel at May 27, 2003 11:16 AM
Chris,
I was going to respond until I took a look at the 'news sources' linked on your blog. They tell me pretty much all I need to know about you and your opinions (which are not worth responding to).
Posted by David Carr at May 27, 2003 11:18 AM
I believe there already is a rather good symbol free-for-use at the moment. It consists of a hand-scythe, to represent the occasional toiling of the French peasant, in between subsidy cheques, and a panel beating implement, to represent the industrial muscle of the German auto industry.
The Hammer and Sickle is the obvious choice of a New Generation of serfs. Welcome to the Napoleonic code, a legal framework designed by a tyrant, for the tyrants, of the tyrants.
Is what I've just written illegal yet?
Posted by Andy Duncan at May 27, 2003 11:23 AM
David,
Why should I be fair? I'm not fighting for their country, but for mine. If all I hear from US libertarians and conservatives is "Gee, that's dreadful" and nothing more, I think I have a right to criticise them as fairweather friends. If they are not going to be of any use to me or mine, then au revoir.
It is because of the enormity of our task that some help would be appreciated rather than an exit strategy for would-be emigrants. You know, more than anyone, that the responsibility lies on our shoulders, not theirs, but with their resources, the conservative movement in America could provide strong influence and pressure in this area, both in the arena of ideas and policy. They haven't.
Philip
Posted by Philip Chaston at May 27, 2003 11:31 AM
Bad, bad, and bad. I was already on my way out of the suburb (Sweden) to Brussels, and this gives me more reason to get the hellybelly out of here.
In the very end, we have no control over who's going to "rule" over us (because it's only a matter of ruling in this case). First, we elect politicians in our own countries, and that choice is always limited to what everyone else wants (which is almost always not what you want), and then those politicians (whom you most likely dislike) are supposed to sit in Brussels and decide this and that. And whatever they and the rest try to decide is most likely not what you want either. Or what the EU President wants. So we have this chain of dislike over what's happening - and most importantly: you can not stop it or change it. Because:
"2 The Member States [us included] shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives set out in the Constitution."
And we would not be acting "in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity", thus we are a threat and should be excluded from the Union. (I hope they send me away to USA then!)
Stalin&Lenin&Mao couldn't have done it better.
Posted by Johan at May 27, 2003 11:36 AM
Wow. You guys give conspiracy theorists a good name. The EU is the new Soviet Union? The U.S. should provide asylum? You guys wouldn't know what real oppression is if it fucked you up the arse. "Rational" libertarians? Excuse me, I'm wanted back on planet Earth...
Posted by Becky at May 27, 2003 11:39 AM
David Carr: My news sources are a bit of a mess and I don't look at all of them all the time. They need sorting as there are some not very good ones in there. I don't know if you had a particular objection to one or two of the sites I list, or if it's the general left-wing theme of some of them that you don't like. Fair enough, anyway, I often think the same about people who watch Fox News.
My opinions not worth responding to? You never know you might convert me - I could be dragged away from the dark side.
Posted by Chris at May 27, 2003 11:55 AM
Huw writes:
So....what is the plan for stopping this? Is there one? Does anyone know?
It's like Atlas Shrugged coming true to life, with the sheep of Britain walking to the meat plant whispering to each other "it must be OK, we all voted Labour didn't we?".
I asked the same question myself over the weekend: What the hell can we do, except throw rocks and pot plants at the Radio every time Peter 'Wormtongue' Hain comes on?
(BTW, why will nobody quote Peter Hain back to himself, from his book which slated the EU, and told us that they'd use all sorts of verbal trickery to get us in the Superstate? The continuing failure of interviewers to put him on the spot, and show him up for the paid-for hypocrite he is, is driving me loopy!)
These are the options, as I see them:
Riot, get arrested, give them all the ammunition they need about 'right-wing' nutters
Organise MASS Riot, get arrested, get lectured by the Guardianistas about how "those who profess the Rule of Law, are always those ones who break it..." etc, etc
Organise MASS peaceful demonstration - Errr..., if a million won't change Blair's mind, how many would we need? Two, three, four million? Chances of getting that? Not high.
Leave the country, hoping the US will take us, but this is a big step, and virtually impossible for some of us with wives who won't leave until the 3am Europol knock, when it's too late - anyhow, I want my country back, I don't want to give it to the looters. OK, so you might say change wives, but it gets tricky with children.
Form a new political party, or join UKIP, and take part in Britain's wonderful political process - an absolute no-hope, sorry, just won't work, hasn't worked, isn't working
Buy lots of copies of the Mail, the Telegraph, and the Sun, and leave them lying around areas where cheapskate Labour voters might pick them up in preference to the Independent (Ha!), the Guardian, and the Daily Mirror. Not exactly direct.
We each write, phone, harrass local and national media outlets, and make Peter Hain hoarse from having to defend the EU. Problem: There's always plenty more Peter Hains, and the Govt have our unlimited cash to publicize their views.
Stop moaning about the uselessness of the Conservative Party (boo, hiss), and get in there, sort it out, and give Blair the resultant huge Westminster headache, and slipping polls.
I can't think of any others, but I want to man some kind of barricade to fight back. Before I head down the track of that last option, is there something else I should be considering? Please, help.
Rgds,
Man Going Out Of His Mind
Posted by Andy Duncan at May 27, 2003 11:55 AM
Oh dear, "federasts" again.
Well done, Becky, I only come here to appease my dark side, it's a fairly harmless way of acting out.
If David Carr & co do cross the pond, I think we can assume they won't be settling in the "clean government" states (the ones that border Canada), Dixie sounds more like their bag.
Posted by Innocent Abroad at May 27, 2003 12:17 PM
Actually, the Americans (save the highly erudite, well-informed Becky) who have posted are quite right. Why should the US be moved to take action when the British won't act themselves?
Even hearty EU haters like The Telegraph don't seem to have any fire in their bellies. This morning, they discussed various clauses of this piece of ordure. Why bother? The whole thing is totally repugnant and should be condemned wholesale. Picking through clauses gives the impression that if only the wording were tweaked around a bit, it might be more to their liking. We have to make it clear: Constitution for a federal Europe: Out of the question. End of story. No.
But I feel the mendacious, slippery Blair and the gang of thugs and chancers who surround him, will pretend to be arguing about wording. It's not the wording that's the problem. It's the concept.
And the mendacious, slippery Blair is going to talk about "getting the best deal for Britain". We don't need a deal in federal Europe. There is no question of us bargaining our way through this garbage. We simply have to reject it. But how?
Posted by Liberty Belle at May 27, 2003 12:18 PM
Your course of action is not yet against the EU constitution, but against Tony Blair himself. I am unfamiliar with the British constitution, but I suggest you implement your rights against the government while you still have the chance. Signing away soverignty is nothing less than treason.
Posted by Kathleen at May 27, 2003 12:42 PM
Your course of action is not yet against the EU constitution, but against Tony Blair himself. I am unfamiliar with the British constitution, but I suggest you implement your rights against the government while you still have the chance. Signing away soverignty is nothing less than treason.
Posted by Kathleen at May 27, 2003 12:42 PM
Andy,
Write and campaign. If it gets through, then its a long hard slog to get our country back. If you want a good fictional exploration, try John Christopher's "Bad Dream" - he of the Tripods fame.
Becky,
And no, the EU won't be like the Soviet Union, because the elites understand that a huge decline in living standards would end their legitimacy. It is that the current European set-up is inherently authoritarian and unaccountable, vulnerable to the weak nostrums of the Left now, or possibly the tool of a revitalised far right a few years down the road.
Without checks and balances, how do you constrain these people. Answer, you cannot. With the rise of the far right in Europe, what happens if they take over? Then, you really will see "internal security"!
Whether it is the right or the left, this Constitution is a "vile steaming pile of ordure" and should be swept away, becaiuse it dramatically widens the scope of the state, when we want to whittle it down to the bare minimum
Posted by Philip Chaston at May 27, 2003 12:44 PM
Philip Chaston: you are bordering on sounding French. "Oh USA! Please save us, even if we haven't the resources or fortitude to defend ourselves". We rounded up and sent you weapons so your people could defend themselves in the event of a channel invasion 60-someodd years ago. Why? Because your laws and culture saw to it there were not enough guns to go around. Meantime we have at least what is left of the 2nd Amendment.
Your socieity has slipped to the point that gangs rule your streets worse than they do here. At least here we have the right to defend ourselves, rather than being hauled off to the clink (the nick?) for holding off burglars with a toy gun, or smacking one of them in the jaw with a fist.
If you folks won't stand up for yourselves, don't expect the US to come barging in there to do it for you.
Posted by bear, the (one each) at May 27, 2003 01:08 PM
JohnJo,
Beautiful flag.
David
Why don't you print some copies of it and give it to every person or business willing to hang it in prominent places and in their windows ?
Posted by Jacob at May 27, 2003 01:16 PM
Can anyone tell me what happens if, when it realises the actual implications of the EU, Britain, having signed this thing, decides later on not to abide by it?
Do we get thrown out of their club? (Ooooh, I'm so scared)
Posted by Alice Bachini at May 27, 2003 01:22 PM
If you folks won't stand up for yourselves, don't expect the US to come barging in there to do it for you.
Do you really, honestly believe that we expect you to do anything of the sort? And I resent the implication that we are not standing up for ourselves. You have no idea of the considerable effort that some of us put into our positions and, indeed, the risks that some of us take when voicing our opinions.
If you want to chastise someone, please go ahead, but leave the rest of "us folks" out of it.
Posted by JohnJo at May 27, 2003 01:22 PM
Andy Duncan writes:
"can't think of any others, but I want to man some kind of barricade to fight back. Before I head down the track of that last option, is there something else I should be considering? Please, help."
I think Mr. Duncan has, not for the first time, put his finger on it. For all that posting here is a fine way to let off steam, there's no point pretending that it achieves very much. Ignoring the basket cases who come here from the Left because, like psychic moths, they can't help being attracted by the light - even though it blinds them - the rest of us are all of the same mind. And small wonder.
The problem is, what do we actually do? The political parties are a complete wasteland (has anyone heard a peep out of the UKIP in months?) so what options are open to us? There is no point lobbying our MPs. Minds are made up and Parliament is stuffed with robotic representatives of the pasta-gobbling political classes, who think the EU is A Good Thing. How can you change minds where there are no minds to change?
The greatest tragedy in all this is the way it has exposed an almost complete lack of democracy at the rotten political heart of this country. A government elected simply because people were sick of the previous incumbents, claims that it is thus endowed with a mandate to surrender our sovereignty to a foreign power. With an insensitivity so profound it must be mockery, it appoints two foreigners (Peter Hain and Gisela Stewart) to negotiate the document of surrender and there is nothing the people can do about it. Hain, whose swaggering arrogance seems to grow with every day, declares that we are not to be allowed to even voice an opinion in a referendum.
Back at Runnymede in 1215 we had powerful barons who could put a metaphorical dagger to the king's throat. Sadly, the only barons riding to our defence now are of the press variety. We may yet need to sharpen daggers of our own - but, short of quite literally taking to the streets, at whose throat do we point them?
Posted by G Cooper at May 27, 2003 01:27 PM
JohnJo, Beautiful flag.
Thanks Jacob, but looking at it again I don't think that it really puts across the idea that David wants it to (ie represent the 'Country formerly known as Britain').
If you look at it in isolation it is confusing and makes it look like the EU has invaded and shot the place up. Heh.
I am a narrow thinker when it comes to this kind of thing and usually approach things from the point of view of that minority know as the shooting sportsman (hence the bullet holes - I was aiming at the middle BTW).
Posted by JohnJo at May 27, 2003 01:29 PM
Hi Becky,
Hey wow, you've gotta tell me where you went to school. If my children ever show signs of failing to express themselves either succinctly or effectively, I'll know exactly where to send 'em! :-)
Hi Philip,
"Bad Dream", on the way, but won't get it for at least five weeks. In the meantime, the "Tripods Boxed Set" looks good and should be with me in 24 hours! :-)
Judging by the blurb, maybe the new icon for the EU should be a Tripod? (Or perhaps a three-legged Swastika?) I'm currently flogging my way through Frank Herbert's "Dune" series, at the moment. Whaddya think of this for a cast list?
Baron Harkonnen: Gordon Brown
Dr Yueh: Tony Blair
The Beast Rabban: Dr John Reid
Piter de Vries, House Harkonnen Mentat: Peter Hain
Padishah Emperor: Valery Giscard d'Estaing
Count Fenring: Jacques Chirac
Duke Paul Atreides: F.A.Hayek
Bene Gesserit Imperial Truthsayer: Richard Littlejohn
Oh, I could go on...! :-)
Thanks for the book recommendations. Anything to excuse myself from reading Popper's "Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach". Crikey, it's taken me two days just to get to page 14! ;-)
Rgds,
AndyD
Posted by Andy Duncan at May 27, 2003 01:32 PM
Alice,
As things stand, Britain can leave the EU or, indeed, be booted out (in some ways a better option - it is always cheaper to get fired rather than resign).
But, the real problem here is our own political classes. They intend to enforce every bit of Euro-rule in this country and, if they did not so intend, they would already be drawing up plans to leave. In a very real sense our problem is not so much Europe as our own governing elite.
However, once this constitution is nailed down, competence will gradually transfer to Brussels in all remaining areas including (within a few years) the legal right to withdraw. After that, the only way out is by a war of independence ( a real war!)
Posted by David Carr at May 27, 2003 01:33 PM
Kathleen, We have no written constitution and we therefore have no real guaranteed rights. My father was always appalled that we didn't have a written constitution and he foresaw a tragedy of this magnitude taking place.
Posted by Liberty Belle at May 27, 2003 01:33 PM
No matter whether the raving mad Blair wants to "allow" us a referendum, there seems to be a movement for having one anyway. The Daily Mail is going to hold its own, and I believe Boris Johnson is involved in trying to get a referendum together.
Also, I have to question Blair's legitimacy to sign this foul piece of ordure, because so few voted for him. If I remember rightly, only 28% of the electorate voted for him. This is not a mandate. Are there any constitutional lawyers reading? Can Blair sign away our country with only 28% of the popular vote?
Posted by Liberty Belle at May 27, 2003 01:37 PM
Gee, "Innocent Abroad", thanks for the bigoted slur regarding the imcompetence, backwaterness and general Badness of the South. We hadn't had our Ten Minutes Hate yet today, and the American South seems to be the last safe target. Certainly it always seems to be the preferred one...
Posted by damaged justice at May 27, 2003 01:39 PM
David Carr writes:
" After that, the only way out is by a war of independence ( a real war!)"
Do you know, I really do believe it could come to that?
One of the enduring ironies of this absurd situation is that the EU only came about because of France's terror at the prospect of having Germany stomp up the Champs d'Elyse for the third time. Thus the Europhile cant about it being a brake on future European war.
Certainly once the more volatile political cultures of Eastern Europe wake up to the reality of having swapped one hegemony for another, I can certainly see it leading to conflict.
Posted by G Cooper at May 27, 2003 01:41 PM
Bear (one of each)
Why don't you read what I write instead of launching into arguments about the 2nd amendment. The reason why we had no weapons 60 years ago was because we left a lot of them on the beaches at Dunkirk, defending the French. Read a history book.
What I clearly stated was that assistance from US conservatives and libertarians would be gratefully and would be better than the "well your culture's degenerate, apathetic and useless now because you don't stand up for your rights so it's been nice knowing you but you've served your purpose and we can't see any reason why we should help you" arguments that were set out in your comment.
BTW, Americans do not owe their British counterparts any assistance and, to be quite honest, if none is forthcoming, we shall still be campaigning. I want assistance because it is useful for Britain, and mainly, by raising the profile of the subject in the United States.
Oh, and gangs don't rule our streets. There's a problem with crime but I suggest you visit the UK and see for yourself.
Posted by Philip Chaston at May 27, 2003 01:45 PM
damaged justice writes:
"Gee, "Innocent Abroad", thanks for the bigoted slur regarding the imcompetence, backwaterness and general Badness of the South."
Isn't it strange how the Left, which claims it is motivated by nothing more than love of humanity, is always the first to resort to this sort of empty, mindless vindictiveness?
They just can't help revealing their true natures.
Posted by G Cooper at May 27, 2003 01:47 PM
Another victory for the tranzy pansies. What a sad defeat. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Posted by AussieJoeJr at May 27, 2003 01:57 PM
JohnJo,
Your flag might not be very nuanced, expressing exactely David's theme, but it is very clear and starighforward, and easy to understand without explanations or captions, and therefore conveys very clearly it's message, which makes it effective and powerful as a propaganda tool.
Nobody loves to see his flag rddled by bullets.
Could you please add some blood drops, dripping from the holes ?
Posted by Jacob at May 27, 2003 02:10 PM
Hands up anyone here who feels defeated yet?
Anyhow, here is another attempt at fulfilling Davids difficult image criteria. This one has rude words in it so you have been warned. It will probably only make sense to UK people:
Posted by JohnJo at May 27, 2003 02:12 PM
This European Union Constitution is the sort of thing that can be imposed willy-nilly only upon a disarmed people. Sadly, that describes Britain.
To all Britons who fear the approach of this new Leviathan: I intend to agitate for the lifting of all quotas on immigrants from Britain to the United States. Failing that, maybe Americans who would like to see their British cousins remain free can arrange for an ungodly big trans-Atlantic airdrop of small arms and ammunition for them.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto at May 27, 2003 02:31 PM
Philip Chaston wrote:
Oh, and gangs don't rule our streets. There's a problem with crime but I suggest you visit the UK and see for yourself.
New Labour isn't a gang? You could have fooled me. :-)
Posted by Ted Schuerzinger at May 27, 2003 02:35 PM
The Soviet constitution,BTW,was also high on utopian rhetoric about what the Soviet Union was supposed to achieve and what it stood for."It is a society in which the law of life is concern of all for the
good of each and concern of each for the good of all",says the preamble.(http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/r100000_.html)
Which was nothing but a cruel joke,after all.But the problem with utopianism is,these kind of statements usually refer to the kinds of things that no one in their right mind could oppose.Whose against freedom and equality,for example?
The big question is,what can a citizen do if the Great Experiment turns out to be a hoax?The "citizens" of Soviet Union had no recourse when the State failed its promises.The proposed EU constitution has all sorts of vague statements like "The Union shall respect the national identities of its member states" and it will have "a social market economy aiming at full employment and social progress".Which we don't have now,if you have noticed.How can I sue the EU?And while we are at it,what the heck is 'social progress'?
It could be the case that it is enough for the Union to 'aim' at full employment,in which case actual results don't matter,after all.
Posted by JH at May 27, 2003 02:47 PM
Philip--
I for one would like to help. Please post suggestions about what Americans can do--and no, I am not being sarcastic.
Posted by Brian at May 27, 2003 03:05 PM
As (one) originator of the "so long, its been nice to know you" quip, believe me, Brit libertarians, I feel your pain. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a goddamn thing I, or my government, can do about it. Even if I were President of the US, I really can't think of anything that I would do to interfere in England's internal affairs and relationships with its neighbors. Oh, I might let slip that I think the EU is misguided, etc., but really, what are we supposed to do?
The EU is the logical culmination of 60 - 70 years of leftward drift and erosion in England, which drift has been ratified, if not insisted upon, by the voters of that fair land. I can't imagine what English libertarians could do to straighten out the US dreadful immigration policies, for example, so I can't imagine what it is we are supposed to do.
Other than keep the torch burning until England emerges from its long leftist nightmare, of course.
Posted by T. Hartin at May 27, 2003 03:08 PM
:) well said Becky. Superbly put.
I'm glad to see that furthermore, most of the UK's population (with the exception of the Sun's editorial team) seems to be avoiding the hysteria prevalent on this site. Not to say the EU's faultless, but come on! Perspective needed.
Posted by A_t at May 27, 2003 03:08 PM
Hi bear,
I love the United States perhaps more than some Americans (Michael Moore and Ralph Nader spring to mind), and I would never want to beg you to come to our aid, unless the bombs were falling.
Before that (as I see it inevitable) situation occurs, if we get locked into the EU, I would only ask you to consider your own position, and look after your own long-term interests. If you did help us throw off this menace, I think it would be entirely in your interests.
If we do get locked into the EU, and become a Franco-German province, you're on your own fighting Al Quaeda, and other fascist ne'er-do-wells.
For instance, under the EU constitution we'd have been blocked from doing anything in Iraq. Ok, so no great shakes, you'd have sent another armoured division, but I reckon you lost Vietnam because you were on your own, not because your military weren't capable of winning it, and won/held the line in Korea, because you had the figleaf of British (and other) support. I reckon this is because if outsiders don't support you, your own internal Naderish socialist idiots become far more powerful, and eat your military away from the inside. Think of Britain as a spray-on anti-idiot termite killer, if it helps, while you tackle the nest! :)
The Franco-German elite will try to build up a military power to rival the US, not complement it. Ok, so that's laughable right now, but give it 20 years, and who knows where we might end up? You wouldn't be borrowing the SAS, the SAS would be your enemy (though I should imagine the SAS would lose all of its morale, kudos, and fighting effectiveness, as part of a Franco-Belgian brigade :)
If your enemy's enemy is your friend, the new French Empire could even join with the Wahhabist Arab world, to fight against you.
The French Empire, cowards that they are, will attempt siege economic warfare against the US, before military warfare, which will cause you to lose markets, lose jobs, and lose trade.
The US will lose all of its military bases in Europe, and surrounding areas, including access to Cyprus, Turkey, and other sensitive spots. Your own security will then be compromised, not much, but the march to take America starts with a single base closure.
The French Empire will attempt to ring you with hostile blocs. You may remain strong, but you will feel under an increasingly constant siege.
If Russia should grow in power again, they will ally naturally with the French Empire, may even join the EU/French Empire. I'll let you work out the US security implications in that can of maggots.
You may not realise just quite how much the French hate you. Imagine you're a man, with a girlfriend, and you're taken hostage by German terrorists, say in 1940. Your friendly American bypasser helps you out, locks up the terrorists, and frees you both. And then steals your girl, and keeps reminding you that without him you'd be Gulag food. Given sixty years of increasing chip-on-your-shoulder inferiority-complex paranoia, McDonalds takeovers of Paris, and the anglicisation of your precious language, how much would you resent and hate that friendly American? Multiply it by about ten times, and you may be about there.
The EU has three main purposes:
To stop Germany invading France.
To extend the secondary Marxist dream of creating a Social Democrat Nirvana, without (initial) bloodshed.
To create a French Empire to rival the US.
Again, I would only ask you to think about helping us if you considered it to be in your own interest. At some point I'm confident, if things continue their downward slope over here, that I'll be over there with you, holding my hand up to the US flag, if you'll let me in, and extending my Dr Suess collection (I already have most of them). And I won't be voting for Mr Nader.
But even when I learn how to drive naturally on the wrong side of the road, and spell "colour" without a "u" (I may struggle with "through" as "thru"), and my US children are at a US High School, and I consider myself as American as George Washington (Jesus, I'm already most of the way there), then I will still consider it folly to let the French Empire continue its growth unmolested.
I would consider it in my US children's long-term interest to squash that bug, before it gets too big.
Rgds,
AndyD
Posted by Andy Duncan at May 27, 2003 03:08 PM
Philip Chaston;
What exactly would you want US conservatives and libertarians to do? It seems to me that large numbers of Europeans have found and find common cause in anti-Americanism. American anti-EU agitation could backfire by creating even more support for the EU than currently exists.
Posted by Ellie at May 27, 2003 03:11 PM
Brian writes:
"I for one would like to help. Please post suggestions about what Americans can do--and no, I am not being sarcastic"
Actually, I think there is something Americans can do - or at least their politicians could.
It is an unfortunate fact that encouraging British membership of the EU has been official US government policy for many years. This may have changed, but the US has exerted no small influence in this respect.
If US politicians would publicly reverse that policy and, even better, disparage the statist drift of the EU, that would be a great help.
Failing which, the offer of a small arms drop would be much appreciated. Put me down for a Glock, would you? And yes, I do know they're Austrian...
Posted by G Cooper at May 27, 2003 03:12 PM
David and Company,
God this is a long thread! Can't resist adding to it though, as a lifelong Anglophile and British Historian.
First piece of advice: use your best assets (i.e. humor and lack of respect for authority) to wake up your compatriots. Replace (or cover over) road signs and highway overpasses with Burma-shave type messages
Jacques Chirac wants to thank you
for saving France on the beaches of Normandy
by giving you
10% unemployment
the Napoleonic code
a Franco-Belgian style military defense
vive le UK
Second suggestion: organize something (not riots, something peaceful) to which we Americans who support you can come lend support. Stress the proud history of the British Isles as utterly distinct from that of the continent (except for moments of intense pain and suffering).
Third: if all that fails, put out a call on this website for people to sponsor Brits who want to emigrate. I'll sign for one. You can stay in the guest room.
Cheers!
Posted by Clio at May 27, 2003 03:14 PM
And so the end of the United Kingdom ends, not with a bang, but with a whimper or, perhaps, not even that.
Query: Has the stiff upper lip been criminalized yet or just gone out of style?
Posted by Uncle Bill at May 27, 2003 03:17 PM
A_t (who else?) writes:
"I'm glad to see that furthermore, most of the UK's population (with the exception of the Sun's editorial team) seems to be avoiding the hysteria prevalent on this site"
And by the use of what mystical powers do you claim know this?
Please do share - it can come in handy having a soothsayer around.
Posted by G Cooper at May 27, 2003 03:17 PM
If all else fails, let's start a campaign in the US "A Briton for a pet" or "Every Household Needs A Brit" or "The English Keep Your Humour Fresh" or...
Posted by Gabriel Syme at May 27, 2003 03:25 PM
Ellie, Brian,
I think that G (Gary?) Cooper has put his finger on what could be achieved in the United States.
I agree that US funding of British Euroscepticism would be a real no-no and would provide a real fillip to anti-Americanism. However, it is a shame that Andy Duncan can provide a list of what the United States stands to lose and conservative thinktanks in Washington or elsewhere cannot.
The State Department, of course, prefers the stability of Brussels to having to deal with fiddly national capitals and have won the foreign policy debate for the moment. It is about creating a climate of political and official opinion in the US that will favour Euroscepticism and Britain's withdrawal from the EU, hence, the importance of conservative and libertarian opinion in bringing about that change.
Philip
Posted by Philip Chaston at May 27, 2003 03:37 PM
Philip: Okey doke. Let's make a deal. We'll control our politicians, and you control yours.
Oh, wait...if we could do that neither one of us would have a problem.
Sheesh.
Posted by S. Weasel at May 27, 2003 03:39 PM
There is something America can give Britain.
A written Constitution.
Other than that I can't help.
Posted by M. Simon at May 27, 2003 03:54 PM
David,
OK, so, say the worst happens, we get fully signed up, quagmire, etc etc.
If we try to get out of the EU, in X years time Europe will launch a war against us?
Really??
I'm almost rather excited about that idea.
Very interesting.
Posted by Alice Bachini at May 27, 2003 03:55 PM
For Americans who have young English relatives interested in obtaining a green card or know of people who do, tell them to get the sponsorship ball rolling before the person in question turns 21. Before 21, the process is relatively straightforward and brief (a one year wait). After 21, it's more complicated and the wait is much longer. They are currently processing applications from 1999.
One thing that Americans could do is to write to their congressmen encouraging the participation of the English in the green card lottery. It is (to use a polite word) ironic that they cannot, but the French can.
I enjoy seeing the British flag on the cars of the many British citizens who already reside in Florida. Freed from association with skinheads and football hooligans, it is again the proud symbol of one of the greatest nations on Earth. The heartbreaking thing to me is that the British want to be patriotic. When I lived in London, I hardly saw the flag anywhere. Here, I see it everyday.
Posted by Nancy at May 27, 2003 04:06 PM
"The EU has three main purposes:
To stop Germany invading France.
To extend the secondary Marxist dream of creating a Social Democrat Nirvana, without (initial) bloodshed. [and without working hard].
To create a French Empire to rival the US."
It has at least another main, or founding, purpose:
to make Germans pay fat subsidies to French farmers.
The French will not advance the causes of fraternity, socialism and empire without a bribe.
Which is why the whole EU enterprise is doomed.
So I cannot share the desperate alarmism exspressed in this thread. Britain will survive, I'm sure, and outlive the EU. Or the EU will turn into another UN-like empty carcass.
The problem with Britain is the socialist trend of it's own people and government, which has nothing to do with the EU, and is a bigger threat.
Posted by Jacob at May 27, 2003 04:08 PM
Clio's Napoleon theme is good: "He tried it once before", "This time he's playing for keeps", or whatever.
Remember that Ayn Rand essay about the Red Army vs. the Whites in the Russian revolution. The Whites, she recalls, were simply against the Bolsheviks, and why? In the name of such not-very-arousing things as "tradition" and "birth-rights" and "heritage". They had nothing they were really fighting FOR. Meanwhile the Reds were full of passionate intensity to remake the world. No need to tell you who wins a fight like that.
The conservative movement is the US is a vast network of think tanks, local parties, fundraising groups, universities, journals, yada yada yada. The UK conservative movement seems to consist of Margaret Thatcher and maybe Denis.
To quote Travis Bickle, "You gotta get organizized."
Posted by Brian at May 27, 2003 04:15 PM
I find much of the commentary pitiful.
If you dislike the EU proposal so much, organize. Find others like yourselves. Start education programs. Raise funds. Hold protests.
Pls do not whine. Yell, cry, whatever -- then get to work. It's your nation, and your turn to defend it.
Assumming you have no power makes it so. Assuming the cause is hopeless means that it is so.
Posted by Larry at May 27, 2003 04:26 PM
I know I'm showing my ignorance, but can anyone tell me how member country representatives are elected to EU parliment seats? And how are the number of seats allocated? Would the EU president be elected by popular vote or something similar to the electoral college (usa model), or more similar to the British majority party governs? I realize the new constitution is supose to be federal "style", but from what I've read the actual specifics of governing have not been included in this new constitution. Possibly, this has already been covered in prior "agreements"? Again showing my ignorance, to me a constitution is the exacting rules by which people grant power to and restrict power from the government. The limilted sections I've read above seem to be full of banal, subjective language like"respect" and "solidarity" . Please enlighted me if you can. Thanks.
Posted by Stacy at May 27, 2003 04:27 PM
It is ironic and sad right at the time Britons are reminded of how the loathe the French (French duplicity with regards to Iraq.), you Brits are going to sign over your liberties to French bureaucrats.
The Right over here does want to try to help you save yourselves, but problem is Tony Blair is so popular over here. About the only thing we could do is to offer you membership in NAFTA. I am not sure Churchill's idea of creating common citizenship across the Anglosphere would fly today, though many on the Right here would probably support it.
Posted by Mark at May 27, 2003 04:48 PM
The essay I referred to BTW was "The Lessons of Vietnam" in The Voice of Reason.
Posted by Brian at May 27, 2003 04:50 PM
While it's very pleasant to hear the US spoken of as a last refuge of individualism, we are, in truth, struggling to hold what liberties we have. Britain has the immediacy of the EU breathing down her neck, which highlights her dilemma, but the US still breeds one of the world's hardiest varieties of nanny statists. In the infamous words of Claire Wolfe, "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
So, while we'd be happy to absorb all your bloody-minded libertarian political malcontents, it's not a real solution for either of us.
Stage one: arriving on forums like this one and realizing we are not alone.
Stage two: ??
Stage three: profit!
Posted by S. Weasel at May 27, 2003 04:50 PM
Larry writes:
Pls do not whine. Yell, cry, whatever -- then get to work. It's your nation, and your turn to defend it.
By God, Harry, England and St. George, Larry is right. This £20 million quid someone is trying to raise, to create a fully kosher electoral-society-run independent postal ballot referendum.
Can we help whoever's trying to organise this, by providing bodies, letter lickers, fund raisers, telephone callers, odds and sods, etc?
Sounds a damn sight more useful than wearing a blue rosette and knocking up old ladies in Sonning Common.
If that referendum were to come off fully kosher, we'd stick Blair on the traitor's spike he'd deserve. He'd twist in the wind (to mix my metaphors) trying to figure out how to get out of that one.
Who? Where? When? Why? What? How?
Anyone know anybody who's got £20 million quid going spare? What's Mick Jagger's position on the Euro constitution? ;-)
I haven't heard that rat Hain mentioning this potential postal ballot. One suspects his silence means they're running scared on it. Let's take the sods down.
Posted by Andy Duncan at May 27, 2003 04:59 PM
I am not sure why Philip Chaston is getting quite so upset that the US is not helping us out on this one. What, in all sense, can the US do? Send B-52s to bomb the crap out of Brussels?
Er, let's not pursue that.
Posted by Johnathan Pearce at May 27, 2003 05:06 PM
Stacy,
"I know I'm showing my ignorance, but can anyone tell me how member country representatives are elected to EU parliment seats?"
Direct elections from regional party lists every five(?) years. They aren't appointed by national governments or anything, but unfortunately they seem to have the least power of all the EU institutions. Something like the US House of Representatives really.
"And how are the number of seats allocated?"
By the population of each region.
"Would the EU president be elected by popular vote or something similar to the electoral college (usa model), or more similar to the British majority party governs?"
I believe the idea is for the Council of Ministers to choose the President internally. It's not quite as undemocratic as it sounds because they are just President of the Council, not head of state or anything.
"I realize the new constitution is supose to be federal "style", but from what I've read the actual specifics of governing have not been included in this new constitution. Possibly, this has already been covered in prior "agreements"? Again showing my ignorance, to me a constitution is the exacting rules by which people grant power to and restrict power from the government. The limilted sections I've read above seem to be full of banal, subjective language like"respect" and "solidarity"."
The aim of the Constitution is to consolidate all the previous treaties. They have always set out the specifics of governing, but the Constitution will do that now. It includes articles outlining which areas of decision-making are 'exclusive competence', 'shared competence', or whether the Union performs a purely co-ordinating role. The respect and solidarity stuff is from the beginning where it talks about the aims of the Union etc.
That's my understanding of it all anyway.
Posted by Chris at May 27, 2003 05:24 PM
Johnathan Pearce writes:
"What, in all sense, can the US do? Send B-52s to bomb the crap out of Brussels?
Er, let's not pursue that."
Spoilsport.
Posted by G Cooper at May 27, 2003 06:01 PM
Johnathan,
I wasn't upset. I was exasperated, but you're right, we should bomb Brussels... with the animal carcasses killed by their regulations over the last decade.
I suspect that's vicious, even by my standards
Posted by Philip Chaston at May 27, 2003 06:06 PM
T Hartin is correct. The Brits have done this to themselves, through their passivity, their docility, their complacency, through their smug assumption that everything would turn out fine because they're British. There are millions out there who still haven't twigged what is happening to them (read the lefty postings on the BBC's Have Your Say). These are the soma people. Easy to control.
Posted by Liberty Belle at May 27, 2003 06:22 PM
I've only taken a quick skim through the draft constitution so far (the annotated bits are very useful), but in answer to the question,
What 'solidarity'? What does that mean?
I think that rather than the dictionary definition of "unity based on community of interests, objectives, and standards" it means "not actively being at each others throats". The only part which discusses what that solidarity means in terms of relations between member states is in Article I-42,
Article I-42: Solidarity clause
1. The Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State
is the victim of terrorist attack or natural or man-made disaster. In application of the
principle of solidarity, tThe Union shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including
the military resources made available by the Member States, to:
(a) – prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of the Member States;
– protect democratic institutions and the civilian population from any terrorist
attack;
– assist a Member State in its territory at the request of its political authorities in the
event of a terrorist attack;
(b) – assist a Member State in its territory at the request of its political authorities
in the event of a disaster.
Posted by Eddie Cochrane at May 27, 2003 06:26 PM
Pluralism is the number one aim of the new EU Society. That is really scary when you try to look into what the eurocrats might mean by that word.
Visit the Blog http://ironies.blogspot.com for more on what that concept really means!
Posted by Martin Cole at May 27, 2003 06:45 PM
Stacy, The EU "president" would be "elected" by other heads of state; not the populace. In other words, the premiers of 12 countries would vote for someone (behind closed doors). Tony Blair has all his fingers, all his toes and his lazy eye crossed.
Posted by Liberty Belle at May 27, 2003 06:48 PM
I'll spread the sad word here in Canada...which I am sure would gladly join the EU if it was possible...
Posted by Tim G. at May 27, 2003 07:01 PM
The Brits have done this to themselves, through their passivity, their docility, their complacency...
Come here and say that!
Posted by JohnJo at May 27, 2003 07:28 PM
I have linked this article and talked about it in my blog.
Posted by Sharon Ferguson at May 27, 2003 08:18 PM
BTW, Americans do not owe their British counterparts any assistance and, to be quite honest, if none is forthcoming, we shall still be campaigning. I want assistance because it is useful for Britain, and mainly, by raising the profile of the subject in the United States.
Philip, this American, for one, will be rooting for the English to shove the EU down the hell-pitt where it deserves to go. I for one will be rooting for you.
Posted by Sharon Ferguson at May 27, 2003 08:33 PM
JohnJo - It's gone this far. Whose fault is that? They could have found a way to stop it. They could have chucked Tony Blair out of office at the last election; it was evident by then what he is. They could have called his many lies; they could have called the lies of their supine elected representatives and the pyramids of government ministers and secretaries of state - but they didn't. They could have insisted on grilling Peter Hain. They could have insisted on knowing what the hell is twice-disgraced Peter Mandelson's role in all this (and why, as an ordinary MP, is he still being swanked around in a taxpayer funded limousine after having been [I repeat] twice forced to resign in disgrace as a government minister?). There are many sinister aspects to this government ... But it began to creep in on little cat feet 30 years ago. The British gave their government a pass on the lies. They gave them a pass when the Spanish illegally depleted our fish stocks. They gave them a pass when they made a trumped up song and dance about BSE (and, whoaaah, this is of karmic proportions) and the French still have commercials from a national fast food restaurant promising that they don't serve British beef. And the French have never paid their massive daily fines for their illegal embargo on British beef - now the safest beef in the world - and no one has forced them to. Because, of course, no one can. The French are above the law. Pass after pass after pass. No one demanding answers, except as suave debating points. So the increments inched up - oops! centimetred up. And they didn't notice, didn't care, didn't call the government on it. Lazy. And more and more politicians got embedded, like worms, burying into the rich soil and then concealing themselves. The layers of functionaires built up ...
You can challenge me, and I welcome it, but the evidence is all against you.
However, the chippy British public - in my view - handed out so many passes because it was such a thrill to feel superior to those who were ringing alarm bells - xenophobics! Little Englanders! (unlike us sophisticates who take cheap holiday flights to Spain and never have to say one word in Spanish, but demonstrates how how frightfully "European" we are). After reading today's threads, I am persuaded that they deserve to disgrace and dishonour their ancestors and be subsumed into a fascist, thought-controlled dictatorship. And if you think that's too dramatic, visit France. Oh! You can't! The air traffic controllers and the train drivers are on strike. As they were last week. As were the teachers and the Post Office today. And as they are scheduled to be three days next week. So, with the public holiday on Thursday and the "bridge day" into the weekend that they are allowed, plus the three public holidays this month, plus your mandatory strike days, they will have worked out at around, ohhhh, 12/13 days. But their pensions are secure. The work-orientated Brits will be paying them.
Posted by Liberty Belle at May 27, 2003 08:42 PM
Johnjo,
Liberty Belle is right. This constitution thing has not just popped out of the woodwork all of a sudden. It is the culmination of a process that has been developing for the last 3 decades which has seen competencies gradually handed over to Europe, sometimes by stealth and sometimes in great wadges. However, the famously indifferent British public have stood for it, muttering barely a word of discontent while they let each successive travesty just slide.
Now, finally, there are some stirrings and discontented grumbles but only at the point where national extinction is, quite literally, staring them in the face.
Once again, though, the real problem lies with our own political classes. Boy, is that some Augean mess.
Posted by David Carr at May 27, 2003 09:28 PM
My recent suggestion that the EU bears a similarity to the USSR seems to have irritated and annoyed some folk. Well how about this glimpse into my crystal ball. ---
Uproar over the proposed 'Constitution' causes Blair to reject it, but the Franco-German axis goes ahead anyway, they admit all of the former communist bloc countries, and proceed to play at being a world power of some consequence. UK in the meanwhile has embraced Socialism to such a degree that we may as well have accepted the EU Constitution in the first place. As is usual with any socialist inspired scheme, we end up with the worst of all possible worlds. Shunned by both friends and enemies.
The scene fades with th UK playing Yugoslavia to the EU's USSR.
Meanwhile the US treats the EU with the contempt it richly deserves, and concentrates it's attention on the Pacific Rim countries, where incidentaly, the market just happens to be about three times that of the EU.
Posted by ernest young at May 27, 2003 09:56 PM
Liberty Belle,
Just couldn't have put it better myself..... that is apart from the very last sentence, or was that meant as a joke?...
Posted by ernest young at May 27, 2003 10:01 PM
Excellent post, Liberty Bell!
And yes, you are entirely right. This has happened to us because we have been complacent and if Gt Britain does end up stuffed and mounted in a glass case as a museum exhibit, then we'll only have ourselves to blame.
Of course, there is a temperamental factor at work here. Britons tend to be slow to anger and in the 1930s this nearly cost us dear.
We can only hope that the turning point has been reached and that the political and media jackals who have led us to this will soon be on the receiving end of some very traditional treatment.
Posted by G Cooper at May 27, 2003 10:19 PM
See - The French really do have something to contribute......
"Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the acts adopted by the Union in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness."
Straight out of Dumas's 'Three Musketeers', "One for all, and all for one".
Only difference in the story it took only three to defend French sovereignty, in socialist EU it takes at least fifteen....
Posted by ernest young at May 27, 2003 10:25 PM
Can some one tell me why the Brits don't want a constitution?
Posted by M. Simon at May 27, 2003 11:37 PM
American here, from Texas even. Worse, I'm new to Samizdata. I find this whole thing fascinating. But I just have no idea what to think or which