Another two bite the dust.
This week gone past has seen both Hungary and Malta vote to become vassals of the Belgian Empire.
Not without significance, though, is the embarrassing lack of popular mandate apparent in both of these soon-to-be-smothered-in-regulations countries. A high turnout in Malta produced only a wafer-thin majority in favour. In Hungary, a very large majority in favour has to be read in the context of a pitifully low turnout. One can only imagine the extent of the bribes offered, favours invoked and threats implied in order to get the ‘right’ results. From North to South to East to West, the Empire continues its joyless advance with the all prosaic, depressing predictability of a tumour.
Where is it heading? Well, some of us have already guessed as much but British Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan provides a sobering confirmation:
A false and dangerous idea is taking hold in Britain, especially among Euro-sceptics. It goes something like this. The Iraq war has wrecked plans for closer European integration. It has set Old Europeans against New ones, driven Britain back on the Anglo-Saxon world, reminded everyone of how much they rely on the Americans, and made the idea of a European Army seem laughable….
The trouble is that Euro-fanatics are prone to the same impulse. For them, the war is the strongest demonstration to date of why Brussels needs a unified foreign policy. Never again, they say, should the EU be enfeebled by internal divisions. Never again should Europeans be forced to watch in frustration as the Americans give some tinpot dictator a good kicking. Never again should London be allowed to behave in so non-communautaire a fashion…
“But it won’t happen,” say British commentators. Really? Two weeks ago, almost unreported, the EU army was deployed for the first time in Macedonia. “But it can’t work,” object the critics. This, of course, is what we all said about the Soviet Union and, in the long term, we were right. But it wouldn’t have been much fun to have been born in Russia in, say, 1910, and lived through the process of it not working.
It may well be that the European Army, like European taxation, European criminal jurisdiction and European monetary union, “can’t work”. But that won’t stop it happening. Just watch.
Not really any great surprises here. Just further confirmation that the 21st Century will see a new Cold War. The phrenology may be a little different but the lines are already being drawn. I have no doubt whatsoever as to which side will emerge triumphant but what worries me deeply is that Britain is already more than half-way signed up to the wrong side.
Now that dust is beginning to settle on Baghdad, the enarques of Europe and their toadying federast stooges in the UK are going to be putting volcanic pressure on Tony Blair to sign away the last remaining vestiges of British independence and offer up this nation in tribute to the secular Cardinals of Brussels. I am not at all sure that he will be able to resist this pressure. Worse, I am not at all sure he even wants to.
[My thanks to Philip Chaston for the link to the Daniel Hannan article]
Well, I suppose it’s about time the rest of Europe joined the EU. After all, without Brussels, there’d be nobody to tell us how to travel properly with our ferrets, and no referees for the football matches that are sure to ensue now that all pigs must have footballs. Though, to be fair, equipping pigs with cricket bats and wickets would probably meet the requirements of the new regulations — so long as the pigs could abstain from eating said sporting kit.
Frequently, I think that Brussels must have seen the whole run of Monty Python… and some devious French philosopher convinced the washed up socialists of the EUP that it was a serious political thesis. Yes, that would explain the whole thing.
As a Yank I can’t buy your prediction of a new cold war. The EU features atrophied economies and military forces, combined with shrinking native populations and growing taxes. To me this signals that the EU isn’t going to pose anything more than a nuisance to the U.S. The day to day oppression of an overreaching and micromanaging Brussels government might pose quite a threat to the citizens of Europe, however; no incident of daily life is deemed too small to be exempt from the EUnuch’s regulations. As Hayek showed, and the Soviet Union, China and Cuba have proven, a state that tinkers with the little details of life must eventually resort to police power to enforce its abundant edicts. This bodes ill for the freedom loving French and their continental pals.
I too would be a little sceptical about another cold war, because that would require the other side to have some sort of plausible military power, which ultimately requires a vibrant economy.
(Unless, I guess the EU could manage to have a nuclear arsenal without all that much trouble even if it doesn’t have much of a military otherwise).
As someone from the US, could someone explain to me why nations (and, allegedly, the citizens of these nations) would even want to join the EU? What do you get for it? Free trade? I don’t get it. Is it just thought to be “the thing to do” among the transnational elites of the various european nations?
The 2nd Cold War is already underway, but it’s not gonna lead anywhere. The more nations join the EUvil Empire, the less power will Brussels have. I just don’t see how nations that have good relations to the U.S. (Poland, Czechia) will deliberately join France in its fruitless search for dominance.
Is the concept of federalized EU dangerous and evil? Yes. Will we be so stupid to allow that to happen? I hope not.
I think Britain is the country having an opportunity to keep the U.S. involved in Europe, and to actively oppose the negative trends being invented in Brussels and Paris. This war showed us, among other things, the coherence and will of the coalition of the willing, and the absolute lack of these qualities among the Weasels.
David Carr writes:
“Now that dust is beginning to settle on Baghdad, the enarques of Europe and their toadying federast stooges in the UK are going to be putting volcanic pressure on Tony Blair to sign away the last remaining vestiges of British independence and offer up this nation in tribute to the secular Cardinals of Brussels. I am not at all sure that he will be able to resist this pressure. Worse, I am not at all sure he even wants to.”
I can’t claim any personal knowledge of the man, but my impression is that he very clearly does not want to resist the pressure (on the contrary) and that he is pushing hard against an unwilling Chancellor.
Blair’s essential messianic vanity should never be under-estimated. He positively glows with self-belief and his success in holding at bay the yapping anti-war brigade in recent weeks is unlikely to have dented his confidence. This irritating little man is one of those who is absolutely certain of his own rightness and that he knows what is best for the rest of us. These are the most dangerous of all politicians – far more so than the devious political shape-shifters, like Chirac.
And yes, a new cold war seems very likely to me, as well. To those who have suggested you need two strong economies to do a convincing military two-step, sadly that is not true. The USSR never achieved anything even remotely like a strong economy. All it had was size and a willingness to commit. The same is true today of China and N. Korea. Both are primitive, yet both are capable of menace. Look forward 30 years and a stand-off between the EU and the USA doesn’t seem at all unlikely.
All of which is a key reason why the UK should get out of this mess before it congeals any further. Blair’s zeal, aided by the lying toads who pretend ‘Britain has no choice’ so as to bamboozle the public, will have us cemented into this statist madhouse inside two years if they can.
To those who argue that we can work better within the EU to prevent this, on the contrary. An EU without Britain has a major problem for reasons including the financial, strategic and political. Sucked-in, we might drown in the swamp. If we stay out they are more likely to collapse under their own inertia and thus avoid the formation of this evil, stagnant empire. To put it another way – we need to get out for their sakes, let alone ours!
Britain leaving the EU is a fine idea, like Hayek’s private money, but it ain’t gonna happen.
EU expansion into the newly free transition states is gonna revitalize the EU economies, in the 4-15 year time frame, while most of the econ growth goes to the new EU countries (50-110% same quality of hourly work, 30% of wage cost. BIG growth coming.)
“Everybody” in Slovakia wants to “go West”, except the communists. Even ex-commie, triple-ex Prime Minister Meciar wants Slovakia to join the “civilized” countries. And Nato (Slovakia should have been in the first expansion in 97, but missed because of Meciar, pronounced Mechiar).
But they do NOT want to become Brussels’ vassals — even if it appears to more in that direction than otherwise.
Britain has the opportunity to lead the EU back into an appropriate confederation of sovereign states, with most decision power at the (more) local, same national language level. Having MORE national power, and less central power in Brussels should be the goal — most new nations will prolly support this.
The EU as a cold war opponent? Hah hah hah. Their (unfunded) pension burdens alone doom almost any future econ growth … BUT, just as they were little real help to the US before, but great political help, they could soon be very helpful to a resurgent Russia.
Russia’s mess is being sorted out fast enough that they could seriously start thinking about rearming in another 5-10 years, if they chose — and the Russian people will have grown fit, emancipated, and confident after their prior emaciated state, as Putin’s mostly benign demo-dictatorship produces significant growth. They already have a flat rate tax, for instance… While the EU’s bureau-flabocrats will be calling for years of studies to study the prior studies (since some studies called studies worthless, claims that must, surely, be studied…), and continuing their attempts at micromanaging.
The Iraq rebuilding, and what’s next in the Middle East, and what about N. Korea — all are bigger variables than ex-commie CEE countries joining the EU. But most ex-commie countries are fans of the Gipper (Ronald Reagan), which has to be somewhat positive for that org’s future.
I’ll second brian’s question. Can someone explain to me just what the appeal of the EU is? For the life of me, I can’t figure out why people would give up so much sovreignty to an unelected government. What’s the appeal? I must be missing something.
What is the appeal of the EU for the candidate countries? I’ll speak for us, Czechs:
1. Most people honestly believe they’ll receive a huge pay raise upon joining the EU. Or soon thereafter.
2. ALL political parties except the Commies support joining the EU one way or another. “Eurosceptics” are badly organized and have no substantial funding.
3. State uses taxpayers’ money to wage a campaing that’s supposed to convince us that joining is the only choice we have.
There might be many more reasons, these are just typical examples.
Ummm…other than number 1, which is clearly a fantasy, I’m still missing something.
Pro-Europeans fall into four groups 1) Germany/France want to rule Europe (Charlemagne/Napoleon) 2) Small Countries want to have a say in what the big countries decide e.g. Belgium 3) Poor Countries want money from the EU e.g. Greece. 4) Some would rather be ruled by the EU than their own corrupt politicians e.g. Italy. At this point you may ask how does the UK fit? We do not want to rule Europe, we are not a small country, we pay more out than we receive, and we have greater confidence in our own political and legal system than we do in Continental European systems. So why did the UK join? Well if you consider that the enemies of the UK are using the EU as a base of operations to undermine the Anglosphere, that EU regulations are impairing our economic growth, that together with Germany we largely fund the EU (stamping the word EU on our wads of money means they can pretend it is not from the UK) and that European political and legal systems are undermining our political and legal systems, we must be mad. The reason why we voted for EU membership is because politicians told us that the EU is simply a way of co-operating with other countries in the pursuit of the end of free trade. The reality is different. Most of its members are not even very keen on free trade; they are keener on trade barriers, especially towards the Great Satan the United States. So why are some British politicians obsessed with defending the EU? I have no idea. You had better ask them! Why do people do any absurd thing? In the meantime we are meant to sit here quietly listening to the endless propaganda of the thought police treating anybody that disagrees with them on this issue as just this side of being a criminal. I want a vote! I want a vote! I want a free vote on the EU now! Not a chance in hell mate.
D Smith writes:
“I’ll second brian’s question. Can someone explain to me just what the appeal of the EU is? For the life of me, I can’t figure out why people would give up so much sovreignty to an unelected government. What’s the appeal? I must be missing something.”
Most people are too busy living their difficult lives to trouble overmuch about politics – which, in many cases, they feel unable to exert any influence over anyway, even were they to stir themselves. What this means is that, by and large, the majority of a population is swayed and governed by those who take the trouble to make a fuss and, even, grasp the reins of power. Let’s call them the political classes.
In the UK (and I can only speak about the UK) the political classes have a love affair with things Continental. Just as Australians are sometimes said to have towards the UK, there are those in the UK who have a cultural cringe towards the Continent – in particular to France. You could (if you were a little fanciful) trace it back to the Norman conquest, but mostly it’s nothing more than a vague sense that French intellectuals are somehow more intellectual, that French food tastes better, that the French countryside is prettier, that the French are generally more cultured and sophisticated. It’s balls, of course, but it is the prevailing wisdom among what Peter Simple calls ‘Hampstead Thinkers’.
To this, add a pathological dislike of the USA among the self-same PC members, most of whom are on the soft liberal/Left and who thoroughly approve of the EU’s statist way of doing things. They regard the USA as brutally capitalist, generally nihilistic and (at least in part) responsible for the post-war decline of the UK’s world influence.
Finally, there is the myth of the Continental cousin – that people in the UK have more in common with Italians, Germans, Austrians, Belgians and the Dutch than they have with Americans. For the PCs this may, in some senses, be true. For the millions of ordinary Britons who lap-up American TV programmes, wear Nikes and holiday in Florida or Colorado, it’s rot.
Convinced (quite rightly) that a world dominated by the Anglosphere would be too .. umm… Anglo-Saxon for their tastes, the PCs have created a series of myths and lies with which they ply the electorate, all, in effect, saying that there is simply no alternative but for Britain to be a part of the EU. We will, no doubt, explore the detail of these lies at some other point but, for now, suffice it to say that the average Briton doesn’t want to be ruled by the EU and, if we were told the truth, would be out of it as fast as our little Wellington boots could carry us.
But we are not told the truth. We are fed lies by the PCs and their fellow travellers in the media and, because, as I said, most people are more worried about how to feed their kids, look after granny, fix their marriages and keep their jobs, than they are about politics, they simply shrug and let the PCs lead them, sleepwalking, toward the grinding knives.
Slovenia has also voted to join and look as if they may be the Belgium of the Balkans. We can’t allow Americans through here because we might be different from Austria.
The battle royal is, of course, the up and coming Constitution. We do want a vote and if this govt tries to ram it through parliament, they should be tried for treason.
Labour is the enemy and Blair is a poodle, the poodle of Brussels.
David,
I must mind my manners.
Thanks for the heads up.
Philip
Thanks for the explanations. A couple of comments.
“1) Germany/France want to rule Europe (Charlemagne/Napoleon)”
Ok, that seems clear. It was never managed successfully before, why does France/Germany think it will be now? Especially if the EU “goes east”?
And, if the above motivation is true, why would anyone else sign up for that?
“2) Small Countries want to have a say in what the big countries decide e.g. Belgium”
Um, what? I mean, I understand the desire, but so far as I can tell NO ONE has any say on what the EU decides other than…the unelected EU politicians/bureaucrats. Are there checks on the EU that I haven’t seen? An honest question.
“3) Poor Countries want money from the EU e.g. Greece.”
Also understandable, but you can only play that game so long. How is that going to be sustained long-term? Do they really believe in the free lunch?
“4) Some would rather be ruled by the EU than their own corrupt politicians e.g. Italy. ”
Now that’s disgusting. In that case, they deserve what they get. Sheesh, grow some spine.
“It was never managed successfully before”
True (except the Romans of course) but this time the plan is to agree a union rather than have one imposed by military force on the grounds of the benefits of joining the Belgian Empire.
“Unelected EU politicians/bureaucrats”
A Europe run by the European parliament would be like the USA being run by the UN.
“Do they really believe in the free lunch?”
No, but in the meantime the money comes in handy.
“they deserve what they get”
Well Greece/Portugal/Spain until relatively recently were ruled by military dictatorships, and the Prime Minister of Italy was funded by the Mafia. Eastern Europe was run by Communists.
The pay raises won’t be double, but the rates of increase to college educated employed, will be much greater in the CEE than in the West — admittedly from a lower base. But growth trends are where the poli – action – talking is, not absolute changes.
“Employed” is a key word; but capital investment is quite important, too. Already EUrope is (quietly) growing much more slowly because relatively greater investment is going East. Yes, the markets are opening up, too — but the mass of folk are too poor to afford most of the unneeded mass consumption offered. As a group, CEE countries will prolly be exporting to W. Europe more cars, fridges, & washers than importing from EU.
But the most important thing for wealth creation is that there IS lots of trade. And CEE does NOT want to be on the outside of any EU trade barriers.
“Grow some spine” indeed. Corruption and wimpy money are entrenched realities. EU membership may be a false panacea, but nothing else is working or even likely to help much. (So it seems to the voters. I think there is a lot of unseen preliminary progress — like defining laws…)
“The battle royal is, of course, the up and coming Constitution. We do want a vote and if this govt tries to ram it through parliament, they should be tried for treason.”
Dream on, Philip.
The Constitution is a done deal. Blair will harrumph a bit, extract a few token (and meaningless) changes to the wording, and then claim it was what he wanted all along.
The British people won’t be consulted, as they haven’t been since the fraudulent referendum under Harold Wilson.
Try them for treason?
You’re about three decades too late for that, mate.
Ted Heath was the one you should have started with.
Feh.
As for how the UK fits the E.U., I’d suggest two words:
Tax Base
On the other issue, the ghastliness of federation… well, a federation can be a good thing if it serves to improve economic efficiency and allows people to raise their standard of living – i.e. increases freedom and potential to accumulate wealth.
The tension we have in the U.S. between state and federal governments allows the states to be the “laboratories of democracy” as one Supreme Court justice phrased it. It’s hard to see how any economic or political variation will occur under Brussel’s top-down beaureaucracy.
The problem with the superstate is that it can accrete too much power to itself. This has happened in the U.S. as a result of executive branch overreaching, and judicial and congressional acquiescence. In some cases, the three branches have been complicit in illicit power grabs by the Fed. We are fortunately swinging in the opposite direction right now… I say fortunately because local control is almost always better for dealing with the 90 or 95% of problems that plague our daily lives. Central government fixes are bad because, if for no other reason, they are unwieldy and “one size fits all” fixes often fix few problems or none at all.
From the sounds issuing out of Brussels, the Euro superstate will not have the possibility of evolution and devolution as we have in the ‘States because it does not appear to feature counterbalances in its governmental structures. The component states are expected to be harmonious and comply to an overweening EU agenda, rather than reaching compromise and common grounds from a position of enlightened self interest. Nor have I heard any peeps about setting the EU’s governing mechanisms in opposition to each other. The negativist U.S. attitude, assuming that men in power will do their worst, and setting them in balance against each other – works better because people and their representatives can generally be counted upon to look out after their own best interests. That means that no single interest gets a permanent upper hand over the others. The negativist U.S. attitude is absent in bureaucracies, which are only interested in performing their mission and expanding their own reach.
In the end, I don’t think it will matter, because a top-down superstate along the lines of the EU has never been successful before. Large states have great weight, as Gibbon pointed out. Moreover, such states must have some supporting structure underneath the surface. Gibbon (again) pointed out that Rome staggered on, living off acquired political and cultural capital for a good two or three hundred years as a headless body, before collapsing under its own weight… and Rome was a vibrant and growing state. A coalition of sclerotic welfare states of old Europe will not last as long as Rome did, as they are more heavily burdened with major debts (social security, pension, welfare, health care), they have a shrinking population (and labor pool and tax base); and one gets the sense of a culture that has lost its “oomph” and stopped growing. Thanks to Thatcher & Blair’s Thatcherization, Britain has fought off this trend and returned to vibrancy, for a while at least. In the long term, the nanny state looks as if it has no visible means of support. This, in the end, will kill it off faster than any error Chirac or Schroeder might make.