We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

And at the going down of the sun

At this very moment, a coterie of bureaucrats and politicians are holding an intense round of meetings and negotiations on a matter of great international significance.

In actuality, what they are doing is plotting the destruction of a nation. Several nations, in fact. But the only one that matters to me is the one of which I am citizen: Britain.

No cruise missiles are involved. No smart bombs, no fighter jets, no artillery and not a single soldier will be deployed on the ground. Instead, the Weapon of Mass Destruction to be employed is called the EU Constitution.

Imagine, if you can, a constitutional document that has been drafted by the editorial team of the Guardian. Well, now you have some idea of what it contains. It is currently in the draft stage under the stewardship of former French President (and those words alone should be enough to raise the hackles on your neck) Valery Giscard D’Estaing. Once completed, it is the instrument by which Europe will be governed.

For a more detailed analysis of exactly what these people regard as the essential missions of European governance, I recommend this essay for the Cato Institute written by Patrick Basham and Marian L. Tupy (who also blogs splendidly from his University at St.Andrews):

“Conversely, the EU constitution is filled with “positive” rights for Europeans that can only be guaranteed by limiting the freedoms of other Europeans. As Hans Werner Sinn, director of the Munich-based Institute for Economic Research, notes: “The document ignores the free-market economy. There is not a word about the protection of property and no commitment to free enterprise and the division of labor.”

But the EU constitution does vow to protect “social justice,” “full employment,” “solidarity,” “equal opportunity,” “cultural diversity,” and “equality between the sexes.” It claims to desire “sustainable development,” “mutual respect between peoples,” and the eradication of poverty.”

Bear in mind that the precise terms of this document are still in negotiation which means they could conceivably get worse. As it is it condemns every European to a sullen and proscribed existance under the velvet whip of a honeycomb of pettyfogging, authoritarian bureaucracies. Some future!

At this point it is appropriate for me to extend my thanks to Philip Chaston who has painstakingly charted the progress of this melancholy circus and, most importantly, the enthusiastic role being played in it by everybody’s ‘war hero’ Tony Blair.

It does give us cause for a deeply ironic chuckle when we see him being compared to Winston Churchill in the foreign press. Janus is nearer the mark, for while he struts the world stage bleating about ‘freedom’ he is quite knowingly pushing this country towards the trap-door. Oh yes, he is being seen to quibble about some of the details but there is no doubt about his commitment to the project.

I suppose we must take a portion of the blame for the misapprehension. Perhaps we should have made it clearer that this man is not trustworthy. Anyway, for the record, this man is not trustworthy. How ironic that he should be instrumental in liberating the Iraqis from their baleful tyrant whilst simultaneously glad-handing the British people into bondage. Sorry, irony is not the quite the word. Tragedy, more like.

We have taken our eyes of this ball for too long. Maybe mesmerised by the spectacle of this man defying much of his own party to do the right thing on the War on Terror, we have scandalously overlooked the fact that he is also busy writing the final chapter of this country’s glorious history.

30 comments to And at the going down of the sun

  • I’m one of the big Tony Blair fans over here in America and I think it would be tragic if Britain joined the EU fully. First, Britain already has an excellent currency and is a world financial center as a result. Second, there’s that abomination of a constitution you mentioned. I had no idea they were building it completely backwards. Hopefully the Brits will stay wise and avoid final membership.

  • Hep Cat

    I’m for the Anglos-sphere but if Blair sells you into E.U. slavery I would emigrate to the U.S. or Australia.

  • Shaun Bourke

    Err….Tony Blair is looking for a “closed shop” empire that encompasses the whole of Europe,with himself as the titular head,ofcourse,and thus insulating itself from the hords of cheap labour and/or competition.
    Therefore,the proper comparision would be to Sir Oswald Mosley.

  • Robert Prather: Britain is already a ‘full member’ of the suicide pact EU, alas.

  • Of course any EU constitution would be a horrible, slippery slope, yes. These are the people who impose things without referendums [the euro] and insist countries hold referendums again if their people vote the “wrong way” [Denmark & Ireland on EU expansion].

    The slimy eurocrats now have a well-tried system for neutralising opposition too. They claim all views will be consulted, explain there is a decision process, wait for opposition to tire itself out, and then introduce what they wanted to introduce anyway. Like many statists, they are prepared to wait years to slowly ratchet up their measures, which apparently are too complicated to ever be reversed.

    I think we should go on the attack.

    Let’s start talking about removing the Single European Act from our legal system, and make this our first demand. First we have to decouple the leeches that are already attached, rather than being diverted, and tired into apathy, by the imminent attachment of new leeches. We can say “We’re still interested in playing a part in European affairs, of course, but we intend to remove this law, now.” and just keep repeating that.

  • Hep Cat

    Jefferson said, “Revolution now and then is good for democracy.” And with the undemocratic nature and structure of the E.U. armed civil war in the future could be a very real possibility. That is if you had personal weapons to protect yourselves from tryanny. Man, you folks are screwed.

  • David: Thanks for the heads-up and for providing some much-needed publicity on these other aspects of Blair’s glorious reign.

    Much appreciated.


  • Liberty Belle

    Mark, fine. I’ll sign on. Now what do we do.?

  • Chris Josephson

    When I first started to read about the EU, I was hopeful that it would enable businesses to grow and flourish to give US businesses competition. I happen to believe that competition benefits the consumer. In addition to consumer benefits, I felt the world would be more stable with a strong and vibrant Europe.

    However, as I started to read about the laws being passed I came to view it as some super state that would strip the individual member countries of their rights. It also seemed the citizens of the EU’s countries were going to be ruled by an elite bunch of bureaucrats. Instead of the citizens being in charge, it would be the elites.

    It seemed that Germany and France were positioning themselves as the hub of this new ‘EU Universe’. What those two countries could not achive via war (European dominance) they would achieve via bureaucracy.

    I can’t understand why the UK’s citizens have stood by and allowed this to happen. Where are the protests? Why give up rights your ancestors fought and died to ensure you have?

    I understand regulations are needed for the EU to act as one economic block and to enable citizens of the various member countries to pass freely back and forth. But why the need for all the regulations and why must member countries yield up so many of their rights?

    Canada is one of the US’s biggest trading partner. Some citizens of the US and Canada work for companies located across the border and commute to another country for work each day. Neither country has had to yield its sovereignty for this to work. There are laws, etc.. but they are not as intrusive as the laws the EU has enacted.

    Why are the UK’s citizens going along with this?

    Can you have the more intrusive laws and regulations removed or modified? Can you use the creation of this constitution to prevent further erosion of your sovereign rights?

    Curious & Puzzled in Boston,
    Chris J.

  • Bill

    So where’s your competing document? Yes, I know you have to be French or Belgian to be taken seriously in the EUs hereditary bureaucracy, but Geez, guys, isn’t it sort of incumbant on you to at least offer a competing constitution?
    I believe it would be a newsworthy event to hold a free-market convention of your own, out in public, and challenge the Eurocrats to do the same. The folks in the Vilnius group would be watching the official and public reaction to this quite closely, especially if you invited representatives from their countries to help you and pointed out that none of their help was solicited by the others.

  • PortugueseGuy

    As a Portuguese farmer said, back in 75 when the Communists were taking over in Portugal: “Don’t worry…Let them come! We’re here to screw it up” And we did! Hope history repeats itself this time…

  • PortugueseGuy

    As a Portuguese farmer said, back in 75 when the Communists were taking over in Portugal: “Don’t worry…Let them come! We’re here to screw it up” And we did! Hope history repeats itself this time…

  • PortugueseGuy

    Oops, sorry for the double post!

  • Kolya

    This Anglo-Spanish Joint Statement of 28 February 2003 seems, if anything, to exculpate Blair of the charge that he is enthusiastically supporting the Valery Giscard D’Estaing project:

    “The starting point for the UK and Spain, in voicing their opinions on the Union’s future institutional framework, is the maintenance of the basic balance of the “institutional triangle” (namely, the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament) and the preservation of the essential characteristics of the present “Community method”. It must be made clear that these conditions or requirements are incompatible with a classical division of powers similar to that existing in Member States.”


    I don’t see the entrenchment of the Franco-German worldview in future EU treaties as inevitable. Especially in the light of the recent emergence of Weaselism, the split between Old and New Europe, the forthcoming humiliation of France (and Germany) following victory in Iraq, Britain’s impending postponement of any referendum on the Euro, the failure of the Germans to liberalise their economy, and France and Germany’s likely morality-inverting reactions to all these setbacks.

  • Kolya,

    Perhaps you missed this:

    Mr Aznar has indicated that the British-Spanish proposal is essentially the same as the Franco-German proposal, except for the election of the Commission president. The Franco-German proposal from January is in favour of a dual presidency of the EU, with a Commission President elected by the European Parliament, and a President of the European Council elected by the European Parliament for a renewable mandate of 2.5 years or 5 years.

    This can be referenced here.

  • Steve Lassey

    As I see it, the EU authorization document is a test run for the eventual move to subjugate the entire world under the bureaucracy of the UN. Amazingly, many of those who support a defensive war against terrorist states think “with UN sanction” is a reasonable requirement. As a libertarian I am skeptical enough of unrestricted democracy, but I am even more scared of an organization that allows nations to have a vote on my future when the nations are not required to respect the opinions of their own citizens. The US and UK are the last best hope of the world and our respective leaders are barely possessed of a working majority. I still twitch at the thought of the words “president Al Gore”, and that prospect very nearly became a reality. Perhaps more than the threat of international terrorism the threat of voluntary surrender of national sovreignty is to be feared.

  • Kolya


    Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Franco-German proposal that Mr Aznar was apparently referring to, completely unrelated to the Valery Giscard D’Estaing project that David expressed concern about in his post?

  • Kolya,

    The Franco-German proposal is the contribution from these two countries to the debate on the European Constitution and, as such, differs from D’Estaing’s draft, since it was submitted in early January. However, their support for an elected Commission President and an intergovernmental structure for the European Union is supported with some criticisms by Britain, Italy and Spain. Therefore, Britain is inclined to adopt the same position as France and Germany in this endeavour. All of these submissions are focussed upon influencing the draft of the European Constitution published in February. It is, as yet, only a draft and will be formally adopted by an intergovernmental conference.

    D’Estaing’s draft from the Convention (not France or Germany) is supported by the Commission and the small countries.

    David Carr and many others (including myself) attack Blair for considering the adoption of a European Constitution. Its very existence is an affront to national sovereignty.

    If you wish to follow the developments from here on in, read EUObserver, Euractive, British newspapers, Samizdata or Airstripone.

  • It sounds like you’d as well rename it the EUSSR now and be done with it. Sad.

  • s.r.judah

    The travesty in all this is, that there has been no discussion among the people of Europe regarding a constitution that may well change their lives.

    Any document that purports to speak for the people but disregards them completely, is bound to end up in the dust bin of history. So far so good, but in the process it will ruin a generation.

  • jacob

    “Any document that purports to speak for the people but disregards them completely, is bound to end up in the dust bin of history.”
    I fully agree.
    The EU is already starting to break apart, there are too many internal contradictions, too many conflicting interests. There is no way this union stays united.
    The USSR was kept together by brute force, a lot of it. There is no force supporting the EU.
    The EU exists because it has brought some benefits to it’s peoples: freedom of movement and trade. If it tries to advance too far on the road to oppresion it will disintegrate.

  • The beginnings of what is capable of leading to disaster do not necessitate disastrous ends. There are all sorts of reasons why David’s doom-laden scenario may never occur. Disasters are averted every day in every sphere of life, politics, the universe and everything.

    Nothing is inevitable, least of the destruction of the UK. If we accidentally sign up to bad things, we can always get out of them again. France and Germany aren’t going to bomb us into submission.

  • I’ve commented on my blog.

  • Sandy P.

    One of S den Beste’s readers likened the future to the European Soviet Socialist Republic.

  • John J. Coupal

    Is it still possible for the British people to tell their elected officials that Britain MUST contribute British concepts of government to any “European constitution” that is being drafted?

    If the “constitution” is a fait accompli, Britain has no alternative but to opt out of the EU. Otherwise, Britain is delegated to has-been status by the EU.

    France, Germany, and Belgium have neatly excluded Britain from any decision-making role.

    If Britain accepts that status now, its domestic governmental consequences will be terminal. And Anglo-Saxon heritage will continue its decline, to irrelevance. That’s a scenario to warm the heart of any EU afficionado.

  • Kolya


    I see in today’s Independent that Bruce Anderson, former political editor of the Spectator, disagrees with your and David Carr’s perspective on Blair’s future European policy:

    “So there are two competing models of Europe: the French one, and the alternative. The alternative involves enlargement and co-operation with America. The French one involves a narrow little Europe, based on subservience to Paris. Tony Blair may still be trying desperately to invent a third way for Europe, but even the finest circus master in British political history cannot go on riding two strong horses which are determined to gallop in opposite directions. He will be forced to choose, and he will be obliged to choose against France.”


  • Hello Liberty Belle! Sorry to be slow responding.

    “Now what do we do?” I think we try to get reasoned, calm-sounding comment articles in sympathetic print media [the type most people still read] about decoupling the Single European Act as soon as possible. I’m a feature journalist myself, so I can do some of this unaided, though offers by friendly editors to consider comment article ideas on this topic would obviously help!

    Liberty Belle, what do you do by day [if I can put it that way]? That would be helpful to know regarding any next step….

  • Dave Farrell

    I have to agree with Johnson’s remarks as quoted by Kolya above. The French are right now making their big play to saw off the limb containing Bush and hopefully Blair and lead a “coalition of the unwilling” that will turn the EU into a rival superpower.

    The problem is that they don’t have the muscle to do it. The war starting next week will leave the French and Germans sawing off their own limb.

    I think Russia will waver, and China will simply abstain. That leaves M Dominique de Gritpipe Thynne and M Jacques Chirac (not forgetting Herr Hairpiece) the choice of either backing down and showing they have no more superpower potential than Mickey Mouse — or standing firm and be left in the ruins of the UN and what remains of the EU when Britain and others find themselves more closely aligned with the US. And let’s see what turns up about French connections to Saddam’s war machine once the dictator takes his cyanide pill and the allies turn over his rock.
    The emperor really does have no clothes, and a Constitution that’s simply a lot of posing covers nothing.

  • Kolya,

    I read Bruce Anderson’s article with interest. He stated that France’s model for Europe was narrow and based upon subserviance to Paris, was opposed to enlargement and viewed as a desperate attempt to recreate the comforts of Vichy! Never let facts undermine a collective of preconceived prejudices.

    France is allied to germany in this endeavour and, opposing enlargement, would cost them far too much. All of their actions within the EU are designed to give the bigger countries more power (including Britain, Spain and Italy), whilst delaying any change to those institutions that support their power such as the CAP. Their actions are those of a country losing, rather than gaining influence. The French are less important within the EU than they are within the UN.

    Now, I quoted from Blair’s and Aznar’s statement. You quote a columnist. Which is more credible?

    Blair’s government, in action and statement, for the last month and a half has supported, with some criticisms, the Franco-German proposals put forward in January. The process of European integration has been effectively decoupled from the Iraqi crisis. The only effect of this crisis noted in the statements of the Blair adminstration is an unwillingness to support a common foreign policy wholeheartedly anymore.

    If these two models exist (and, reading the submissions to the Convention, Parliament, Commission etc., I would suspect there are at least two others), the Blair’s actions demonstrate that he is still supporting a version of the Constitution similar to the French and the German.

    But, if his proposals change, I will assuredly examine and comment on them.