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]
|
Brian Micklethwait asserts that Americans ought to be anti-EU then finds some Americans who are anti-America (you can see where ‘Un-American’ came from).
I’ve got news for you. Plenty of Europhiles love the institution of the USA. They wish to copy bits of it. In fact there is a love affair between the liberal vision of the US (‘liberal’ as in anti-gun, federal welfare programme, political correctness agenda) and the socialist vision of the EU (anti-gun, euro-welfare state and political correctness): hence Blair’s popularity in Washington when Clinton was in charge.
‘The EU’ doesn’t hate America anymore than the board of directors of Manchester United Football Club hates Real Madrid. The people who are trying to complete the creation of a European Unionist state see the USA as a competitor, a rival, a model and a partner, often all at the same time. The relationship is love-hate between the EU builders and the edifice that is the US federal government.
What does ‘anti’ mean? I don’t think that Schadenfreude over the short-comings of the US in trying to crack Islamic fundamentalist terrorism (nasty, spiteful and short-sighted as it might be) is the same thing as wishing Euro-fanatics had flown passenger jets into the World Trade Center. The most paranoid EUnionist probably doesn’t expect a gang of Montana militiamen to fly an Airbus into the Europol HQ, though I’ve heard some wonderfully wacky conspiracy theories about the US programme to destroy Western (European) civilisation. Do the Yanks really rig the EU Common Agricultural Policy to suit mid-west farmers? Did the Yanks really push Saddam Hussein into invading Kuwait in 1990 in order to have an excuse for stopping the French armaments industry from selling kit to Iraq? Did the Yanks really bomb Serbia as part of a Zionist plot to create an Islamist state in the Balkans? They’d love the US anti-cold war stuff put out by isolationist Libertarians if they knew about it. I think the European parliament is the most vocal opponent of the Echelon mass surveillance project around (for a mixture of good and bad reasons).
In France I’ve heard several conservatives claim that the EU is a Yankee plot. I’ve also been assured by a social-democrat politician that the British opt-out from Maastricht and Tony Blair are CIA operations, but that the US will follow the EU and go completely metric by the end of 2002, and the UK adopt the €uro by 2004. He was very good at forecasting the weather in the mountains so I’m not completely confident that he’s wrong on all counts. You don’t have to be a Europhile American to prefer a European Union (as long as it can hold together), to a bigger version of the break-up of Yugoslavia, where the US ends up taking sides and making enemies.
I suspect that a European Unionist state would break-up, possibly in a major war. For this reason I am skeptical about the outcomes proposed by the Euro-unionists. The reason however that I am not affiliated to any Euro-sceptic organisations is that I see no automatic salvation in nation states. Cuba is a nation state. Unification in a NAFTA super-state (with USA, Mexico and Canada) wouldn’t obviously be worse for the Cuban population than independence under Castro and his successors. Germany was a real nation state in 1939: it would take some doing for the EU to be worse. The UK did badly enough as a nation state between 1945 and 1973, not just in the economic sphere.
A question I’m pondering is whether a global market creates a market for a “government standard” with a single currency, single police force, one body of contract law, single crime database, single language, etc. There is a problem of “no exit” from such a state without space travel. There is also the problem of lack of innovation in a monopoly. Absence of tax and regulation competition is another issue. My question is whether ‘government’ is a natural monopoly. If true, this suggests a pragmatic libertarian objection to economic globalisation. As I’m opposed to ‘anti-trust’ law and ‘perfect competition models’ which ‘justify’ state regulation of businesses, this makes my opposition to a world government weak, if this order emerges peacefully, consensually, and with a generally economic liberal agenda (i.e. by a market process).
Only the anarcho-capitalist option of voluntary exchange and contract seems capable of offering a peaceful alternative to a World State. I’m left with the choice of opposing all government, and making the best of the largest chunks of state possible (to reduce the number of border disputes).
This letter not just to, but in, today’s Daily Telegraph is worth reproducing in full. Its relevance to earlier posts here about “joined up government” is obvious.
Re: Government assists sinister Euro plans
Date: 13 June 2002
SIR – The Government intends to give public sector bodies the capacity to find out what we access on the internet, who we e-mail and who we phone.
This is part of a broader drive by the European Union to give its fledgling police force, Europol, the capacity to accumulate information on all EU citizens. The Europol Convention gives that organisation the right to keep a database of information on any individual, including “sexual orientation, religion or politics”. Europol was also charged last August by the Council of Ministers with adding the names of “troublemakers” to the Schengen Information System, so they could be “tracked and identified” with a view to preventing them leaving their home countries shortly before major EU summits.
Under the existing EU Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance, Europol and any national police force can request information on any citizen living in another member country. The legislation being introduced by the Government will greatly assist this sinister process.
On May 30, the European Parliament voted for a new directive granting the police and others the powers referred to above. The Labour leadership instructed its MEPs to support a measure that, until recently, the group had rhetorically opposed. Only Arlene McCarthy abstained. The Tories also voted for it, with the honourable exception of Lord Stockton. To their credit, the Greens, the Lib Dems and UKIP voted against it.
From:
Marc Glendening, Democracy Movement, London SW6
Marc Glendening was one of the speakers at that Liberty Conference we’ve been going on about. According to what people said to Chris Tame, who was also a speaker but didn’t hear Marc’s talk, it was extremely good.
For as long as I can remember, every change of importance imposed upon Britain by its political rulers has been (a) something to do with European integration, but (b) announced without the European Union being so much as mentioned. This joined-up government crap seems to be no exception to that rule.
Pellerito wants more links from this to other blogs. Here’s a good one. It’s a better-late-than-never (I hope) link, culled from dodgeblog (dodgeblog June 5, sorry, couldn’t f**king get it to go straight to the dodgeblog reference and gave up in a rage), to a nice big dose of American anti-EUism.
All Americans should be anti-EU because the EU is anti-US.
As reported by The Brains Trust in their latest edition, hundreds of notes from across Europe are breaking through flimsy currency exchanges and fleeing across the Channel Tunnel into the UK. Two desperate refugees known only as ‘Frank’ and ‘Mark’ explained their plight:
“There was a time when we were welcome throughout our homelands. In every home in the country people would be delighted to let us in. Shops, restaurants, banks – even politicians – they couldn’t get enough of us. But then suddenly some sinister extremist forces began to take over in the heart of Europe.
At first it was a bit of a joke, no one thought it would ever happen. But then people began to talk about a single currency, a master race that would sweep throughout Europe. Then discriminatory laws began to appear. We could only meet each other at fixed exchange rates. There were maximum numbers of us that could work in government. Adverts appeared denouncing us and calling for people to hand us over to the authorities. I felt completely devalued.”
However, the currencies are also having a hard time finding solace in the UK. Many locals are handing them in to the authorities to be transported back to an unknown fate at home. They also face opposition from “nationalist currency activists”. One such hard currency supporter, known only as “Sterling”, explained his position:
“We’re being overtaken by a tide of foreigners. We should only allow in ones that look like us – ones with a Queen’s head on them. And they should be forced to swear allegiance to the Bank of England and leave their foreign markets at home. We should chuck all the rest back. Before you know it they’ll be taking over here.”
As the Government promised swift action against the “immigrants” Tony Blair declared that the UK need not fear for its own currency especially as it was going to get a nice, lovely, shiny new one “very, very soon.”
There are days, and today is one of them, when I think this is the only way to deal with the current affairs. For more ‘solutions’ to international and domestic problems visit The Brains Trust. I especially recommend their new peace plan offering Palestinians ‘virtual statehood’… 
It was bound to happen. Writers in Europe have woken up to the fact that Americans do not regard the European chattering classes with particular fondness and respect. Paul Gottfried in a singularly bad-tempered article in this week’s edition of The Spectator magazine, broadly tries to argue that there is a right-wing smear campaign in American intellectual and political circles to discredit Europe and to portray Europeans as anti-Semitic, cowardly, cynical, socialistic idiots.
Well, Gottfried makes a few decent points, and it is undoubtedly true that there has been a strain of hostility towards Europe in some of the commentary emanating from Jefferson’s Republic (den Beste at USS Clueless and some of the Weekly Standard writers are particular offenders). But Gottfried does not pause to consider why this hostility has arisen. It is not because Americans are jealous of Europe, why should they be? It is not fear of us…that’d be the day! It is a lack of patience with the sneering, dishonest rubbish coming out of the lips of the likes of Chris Patten and the rest. From what I read, I get the impression that all but the most bigoted paleo-conservative commentators appreciate that most European folk like and are sympathetic to the U.S., want it to beat terror, and will help in that cause.
God Save the Queen and God Bless America.
The Council of the European Union is pushing to introduce measures that would force internet service providers and phone companies to keep records of all communications for many years. The Internet bill is supposed to aim at protecting the confidentiality of electronic communication to boost confidence in e-commerce. But it also contains provisions to allow police access to phone, fax and email records, something that governments view as a useful tool to fight crime and terrorism in the wake of the 11 September attacks in the United States.The information recorded and archived would consists of URLs of web pages visited, news groups and numbers dialled. It would then be made available for the police and other security agencies in gathering criminal intelligence.
Despite strong opposition from civil liberty groups and the industry, the bill is likely to include the data retention rules because of support from the European Socialist Party and the European People’s Party, the assembly’s main political groups. Also, documents leaked to civil liberties groups, reveal that powerful lobbying is taking place on behalf of power-grabbing thugs law enforcement agencies to try to destroy existing data protection and privacy laws in member states.
“These proposals would allow fishing expeditions into the only activity, browsing habits, and internet associations of every citizen in the EU for up to seven years. They could do this without any warrant or court order.”
Civil liberties groups such as Statewatch and the Foundation for Information Policy Research warn that this would give police and other security forces the powers normally expected of an oppressive regime:
“Authoritarian and totalitarian states would be condemned for violating human rights and civil liberties if they initiated such practices. The fact that it is being proposed in the ‘democratic’ EU does not make it any less authoritarian.”
This is all rather standard and predictable given what we know about the EU and its practices. However, there is a rather worrying twist to the story. Instead of the usual heavy-handed, freedom-quashing bill drafting by the EU, the latest version of the bill has been made more oppressive at the request of none other than the good HM Government! Originally, the EU Parliament had drafted the law to limit access to electronic data by public authorities to the strict minimum. But this move was criticised by member states, notably Britain, which wanted greater power to monitor the Internet. US officials also criticised the bill, fearing that the request to erase data would hinder prosecution of criminals. Fearing that this legislative clash would ultimately kill the bill, the two biggest parliamentary groups have now aligned themselves with the member states.
What is going on here?!
Well, nothing much, actually, just the usual state stuff. The fact that the system of government in the member states is democratic does nothing to stop them from abusing an undemocratic institution such as the EU. In fact, they are being democratic, using the powers of the EU to reduce the liberties of their citizens, just like the majority of their citizens use domestic institutions to do the same to individuals.
So predictably, for me, democracy – the rule of the majority – has negative connotations as it has for Perry de Havilland. Democracy is far from the political and social panacea it is made out to be. It does not bring about the kind of fluffy bunny utopia socialists would like us believe in. Although the un-democratic EU together with its democratic member states are doing their best to have the bunnies stuffed… And just like Mr Franklin, I do want to see the bunny (or the lamb) well armed.
Paul Marks read David Carr‘s article and points out that one can regard the remarks being made by the leaders of the EU…rather differently!
The honesty of Mr Prodi and Mr Chris Patten should be welcomed.
It saves a lot of time if, instead of going through a big debate on whether the E.U. is aiming at setting up a superstate and crushing as much liberty as it can, leaders of this organization stand up and boast of their ambitions.
If the only the Chancellor in the latest Star Wars film and been so honest. Picture the scene – he stands before the Senate and says “I am a Lord of the Dark Side of the Force – I am behind both sides in this new war. I plan to use the war to place the whole galaxy under my heel and grind it into the dirt”.
Real life is often odder than fantasy.
Paul Marks
According to the BBC website, 11,990 people have voted on whether Roy Keane, the captain of the Republic of Ireland team at the soccer world cup in Japan (who can’t play England unless both sides win or lose in the semi-finals) should have been dropped by his manager or not.
Last week about 3,000 voted on whether Britain is ready to join the euro and 55 per cent said yes. If England are knocked out playing badly, by a EU country, I predict a swing to the euro. If England win, then Mr Blair can bamboozle us in during the celebrations (he’ll have about three years if the last time is anything to go by). Go the Eurosceptic should hope for dignified defeat at the hands of Brazil in the semi-final.
Anglosphere writer Jim Bennett weighs in with another fine salvo against EU Commissioner Chris (oh no, not him again!) Patten. Rather than repeat my earlier comments last week about the wretched Commissioner, just take a look at what Mr Bennett has to say. What impresses me so much about Bennett’s writing is that he manages to maintain a civil, pleasant tone even when trashing ideas he regards as dumb.
Oh, and changing the subject, another excellent article, if one has the time, is Andrew Sullivan‘s Sunday Times column on the vast wealth of what he calls the Western world’s “overclass”. Sullivan makes the point – obvious to we libertarians if not to collectivists – that the tremendous wealth of Bill Gates and the like is not made at the expense of we humbler mortals, but is part of an ever-increasing pie. However, Sullivan frets that the growth of such an overclass” is a problem, since society can become fragmented if the very rich are seen as detached from the mores and concerns of the middle class. A sort of mirror-problem of the “underclass”. I am not entirely sure he is right, but agree this is worth thinking about. It is also instructive to look at what Sullivan says about the proportion of tax paid by rich Americans. Completely undermines the idea that supply-side tax cuts are unfair. If anything, the rich were entitled to a bigger cut than that which Bush gave them last year.
However, Sullivan backs away from the obvious conclusion – the moral tax rate is Nil!
Romano Prodi wants tax harmonisation in the EU and a single foreign policy. Does it mean we will all have to surrender simultaneously?
Meanwhile Chris Petain calls for all Europeans to discard their national identities and learn to love the EU and the Blair government is busying itself with it’s plans to ‘regionalise’ England (both matters liberally linked to in the ‘sphere).
All of a sudden, the EU looks like a project in a big hurry; sort of like campers desperately trying to get their tent erected in double-quick time ‘neath brooding storm clouds.
Perhaps, with one big puff, we can blow their house down.
The world is a complex and confusing place oftentimes. It can be so hard to know for sure whether or not one is doing the right thing. There are, though, some yardsticks and one of them is the ‘European street’ which has risen up in protest at a visit to Germany by George Bush.
I’m not entirely sure what track Mr.Bush is on, but when he induces rent-a-mob to take to the streets with slogans like ‘Nature Before Profits’ we can all be pretty sure that he’s on the right one.
Personally, I’d like to see him rub some salt into the wounds while he’s about it. Perhaps he could play up the ‘cowboy’ image? (Is this Germany? Where are all them folks wearing them leather pants?). Better still he could echo Reagan in the 80’s but instead of calling for the end of the Berlin Wall, he could call for the end of the Welfare State. Then he could fly back to the US, chuckling to himself, while watching Berlin explode in his rear-view mirror.
EU Commissioner Chris Patten, who has famously chided George W. Bush for his stance on the war on terror and who stated the September 11th attacked were ‘the result of globalization’, turns his attention to matters closer to home in The Spectator, namely how to forge a common European political identity where none now exists.
Patten is no doubt troubled by the rise of various anti-establishment political forces in EU member states, notably that of the National Front in France and that of murdered libertarian Dutch nationalist Pym Fortuyn. But Patten, in his usual delusional way, misses the essential point that one cannot impose a national or supranational identity where none previously exists. For a man who once was chairman of the Conservative Party, Patten seems curiously ignorant of the insights of such conservative thinkers like Edmund Burke and Michael Oakshott that national feeling is something that grows from below and takes organic form rather than be imposed from above. Patten thinks of national or supranational identity like a technocratic engineer. In this sense, then, he is heir to that strain of thinking which has been a key part of the French political system since the 1789 Revolution.
And there, of course, is the problem. The EU creates undemocratic institutions with considerable power like the European Central Bank and the European Commission, but then once problems present themselves, the likes of Patten scramble to figure out how to generate some kind of popular legitimacy for these bodies. That is surely putting the cart before the horse.
In his final paragraph, Patten writes: “A healthy European democracy will develop only when people begin to feel an emotional commitment to their European identity.”
But Mr Patten, people don’t WANT to be part of a European nation, hence they feel no need to create a common European polity. Until the elite political class of which Patten is a classic specimen grasp this obvious point, European countries will continue to be roiled by characters such as the ghastly Le Pen.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
