PDA

View Full Version : Britain is losing the arguments in Europe



Carl
Tuesday, November 13th, 2007, 04:48 PM
Britain is losing the arguments in Europe



13 Nov 2007 Telegraph Blog.

--Daniel Hannan MEP .

Tags: EU, British press, Nicolas Sarkozy, EU constitution, majority voting

So we’re winning the arguments, eh? The EU is coming round to our way of thinking, is it? ---??:rolleyes:

Nicholas Sarkozy is not a French Thatcher

Anyone who thinks that reformers are now running Europe, and that Nicolas Sarkozy is one of them, should look at the speech I have just sat through in the European Parliament.


Sarko was Old Europe incarnate: an unreconstructed 1950s palaeo-federalist. The French people he said, had not voted “No” to the EU. On the contrary, they wanted Europe to do more. Still, just to be on the safe side, ratification of the constitution would now be without a referendum.

Warming to his theme, he argued that the EU should decide things by majority, not by unanimity, which gave the power of veto the most reluctant. The Union should defend its farmers as “other nations” did. And, on the subject of protectionism, the EU mustn’t leave capitalism unrestrained. The capitalism that he was interested in was that of the workers and producers, not that of the speculators and rentiers. So much for the notion, sedulously disseminated and credulously repeated, that Sarko would prove a kind of French Thatcher.:D!!


He sat down to a near-unanimous standing ovation including, I am ashamed to write, from British MEPs in all three main parties. :o


Don’t get me wrong. I like Sarko and, if I had been French, I might well have voted for him. He’s as entitled to his opinions as anyone else. :rolleyes:
My problem is not with him, but with the self-deceit of the British commentators who keep claiming, against all the evidence, that the EU is becoming less federalist and more free market. We’ve been telling ourselves this for 50 years, during which time Brussels has steadily agglomerated more and more powers.

-------------------------

well I am not deceived. For all the bluster and activity, The EU gathers all up before it and procedes rather like a Tank disregarding mostly what is in its way. We are being entirely incorporated and - whatever the arguments it is very hard to see a way out!

Sometimes I think that resistance is futile .............:(:rolleyes:
carl.

Carl
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 05:24 PM
Why aren't we shocked by a corrupt EU?By Daniel Hannan
DT 14/11/2007


The shocking thing is that we're no longer shocked. Yesterday, for the thirteenth consecutive year, the European Court of Auditors refused to approve the EU budget.

Daniel Hannan:Will the Tories offer a Euro-referendum???

If this happened to a government department, it would be front page news. If it happened to a private corporation, directors would be facing prison terms. But, because it's Brussels, we flex our shoulders in a shrug so disdainful as to be almost Gallic. Yup, the EU is corrupt. Et alors?

It's true that the story has become familiar: the Court of Auditors has never once signed off on the accounts.

It's true, too, that the auditors' report is long and detailed, and no longer gives an aggregated figure for the spending for which it cannot account - although, on my maths, around 60 per cent of the budget fails to meet approval. It may even be true that things are slightly improving, at least in agriculture. But, even so, we ought to be outraged.

The amount being lost in outright graft is higher than Britain's net contribution. A still larger sum is being "irregularly" allocated - to take one example, millions of euros intended to support farmers are being claimed by golf clubs. And even the bits that are being properly spent often go on boondoggles: a Labour council in my constituency recently advertised a six-month EU-funded sabbatical "to study the impact of gender mainstreaming in the field of waste management".

Why, then, are we so fatalistic about the whole business? After all, it's hardly as if the sums involved are small. Britain's gross contribution to the EU budget is more than £12 billion a year - enough to scrap inheritance tax, stamp duty and capital gains tax. Why aren't we angrier?

Partly because we have come to understand that corruption, in so large a bureaucracy, is institutional: a product of how the EU is structured.

"To tax and to please, no more than to love and to be wise, is not given to men," wrote Edmund Burke. Accordingly, the European Commission worked out a system where it would get the credit for spending money, but the member states would have to raise the necessary taxes. In consequence, Eurocrats tend to spray their grants around indiscriminately, hoping to buy popularity with every cheque.

The national authorities, for their part, have little incentive to police the system. Because the grants come from Brussels, it is not "their" money that is being wasted. And so a whole class of people is brought into existence whose livelihoods depend on the existing European budgetary arrangements: civil servants, big landowners, council leaders, Jean Monnet professors, lobbyists, contractors, aid agencies and pressure groups.

This class is larger than is generally supposed. A couple of weeks ago, I hosted a meeting at the European Parliament for a network of towns from around the EU. There were perhaps a hundred people present, of whom only four were elected representatives. All the others were functionaries. And not just any old functionaries: they were, by and large, the "European Officers" of their respective municipalities - people, in other words, whose mortgages were being informally underwritten by the EU.

Whenever I asked them to give me examples of what they did, they would reply that they liaised with the Commission, drove innovation and spread best practice. Fair enough, I'd say, but what do you actually, you know, do? "Didn't you hear what I just said? We liaise with the Commission, drive innovation and spread best practice!"

This is what we're up against. The EU is no longer an ideological project, but a racket - a mechanism for redistributing wealth to people who, directly or indirectly, are on its payroll.

And these people, of course, include MEPs, who are notionally in charge of scrutinising the budget. Some do so with exemplary assiduity.

My colleague James Elles, for example, is constantly looking for ways to reduce expenditure. But most Euro-MPs balk at the idea of withholding money from the project. They know that their own expenses regime is far from exemplary and so, their own house being made with panes of the flimsiest crystal, they are reluctant to start lobbing rocks.

As for the taxpayers, they seem to have subsided into a resigned funk. For a long time, voters' apathy depressed me. Then I had a conversation with someone who used to be a marriage guidance counsellor. A marriage, she said, can sustain any number of rows: as long as you're arguing, it means your partner's opinion matters. It is when the rows give way to scorn, she said, that the marriage is over.

What a perfect description of Britain's attitude to the EU. When I was first elected eight years ago, I used to get furious letters about Euro-fraud. Who the hell were these shameless Euro-creeps? Could no one control them?

But those letters have gradually dropped off. Anger has turned to contempt.

People have given up on any hope of reform: they know that Brussels will never change and, in truth, they no longer much care. Sooner or later, almost matter-of-factly, they will initiate divorce proceedings.

• Daniel Hannan is a Conservative MEP for South East England

---------------

Unless we can escape - the future is a FEDERAL EUROPE ACCORDING TO THEIR RULES....OK?

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=2974

------------

stormlord
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 05:45 PM
Choo Choo! All aboard the gravy train, next stop The United States of Europe! :D

Carl
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 06:53 PM
""Unless we can escape - the future is a FEDERAL EUROPE ACCORDING TO THEIR RULES....OK?""

--- thinking aloud - if we are all chopped up into bits and ruled from the centre - then the central power in the new Greater Europa will be the the German speaking block - the Central Power . England - or rather its regions - will be offshore.... the Central Power , too wise to be overly fragmented - will direct events in their own best interest. Its all be said before -- and so what !

IlluSionSxxx
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 12:28 AM
""Unless we can escape - the future is a FEDERAL EUROPE ACCORDING TO THEIR RULES....OK?""

I'm afraid they've been planning this much too long for us to be able to escape it.

sophia
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 12:50 AM
I'm afraid they've been planning this much too long for us to be able to escape it.
There is always a way.

IlluSionSxxx
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 12:53 AM
There is always a way.

If you can come up with one, fill me in. Until then, I prefer to prepare myself for what comes next.

sophia
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 12:58 AM
If you can come up with one, fill me in. Until then, I prefer to prepare myself for what comes next.Thinking of ways is easy. Thinking of ways that cost small enough that most people would accept those ways is the problem :(

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 07:09 AM
All they would have to do is withdraw from the EU right? It shouldn't take a genius to figure out that countries which are not in the EU (Norway and Switzerland) do better than their neighbors which are

IlluSionSxxx
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 10:33 AM
Thinking of ways is easy. Thinking of ways that cost small enough that most people would accept those ways is the problem :(

Of course, I was referring to just realistic options :p


All they would have to do is withdraw from the EU right?

Not quite. They'd first have to get rid of their corrupt leaders and replace them by a sincere government that truely means well for the population. The EU and multi-culturalism are but mild symptoms of much more serious diseases called "democracy" and "capitalism".

sophia
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 11:07 AM
Of course, I was referring to just realistic options

I think its an important distinction to make. Always there are people around me pessimistically talking about how everything is impossible, hopeless, blah blah, playing the victim and claiming to be powerless, but really no-one is powerless, they are just ashamed to admit they don't want to pay certain costs. Which is not really so shameful imho, I my self am very weary about - especially opportunity costs - money when I have it is not something I cling to, I am too young to care about security too much, but opportunity costs bother me I am always thinking "but if I do this, and it fails I have missed my chance to do that which might succeed". And not all costs are worth paying, but its hard to tell in advance which ones are and are not.

I also think realistically a lot more is possible than what is apparent, its just that to achieve what is possible involves paying a huge opportunity cost, taking an enormous risk that it might not work (which is a very real risk and why most people, even "activists" put their eggs in several baskets).

Carl
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 02:36 PM
Not quite. They'd first have to get rid of their corrupt leaders and replace them by a sincere government that truely means well for the population. The EU and multi-culturalism are but mild symptoms of much more serious diseases called "democracy" and "capitalism".


THAT'S just the point . They, the "corrupt" as you put it - will not want to declare independence -- they would be too frightened of all the legal implications we have already signed ourselves into. Nor are there effective mechanisms in place to bring this about -- could one even begin to trust the tories to keep their word?? :( Look at the mess Britain is in -- its taken decades to get this way....it is almost unfair to blame labour for the lot.

Alas - I can see little change to the system - which means that the status continues with the every closer federation, the demise of Britain - and the rise of the German central economic power !


http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=2974

IlluSionSxxx
Thursday, November 15th, 2007, 02:50 PM
Look at the mess Britain is in -- its taken decades to get this way....it is almost unfair to blame labour for the lot.

Actually, we can see the first decline in Cromwell's days.

The origins of the current situation we can backtrack to the end of the battle of Waterloo. Their prior knowledge of the outcome of the battle of Waterloo (proven fact !) allowed the British Rothschild branch to multiply its vast fortune many times and thereby almost gain complete control of the nation's economy. It would also mark the beginning of the Imperial Century, known for extreme poverty and exploitation of the labor class, extreme poverty and exploitation of the colonies and bizarre supermacists movements such as the British Israel Movement.

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, November 16th, 2007, 04:07 AM
The origins of the current situation we can backtrack to the end of the battle of Waterloo.

Wouldn't that have just advanced things by 150 years or so? The result of the EU (centralization of power and suppression of Germanic values in favor of Latin ones) would have just happened 150 years earlier under Napoleon's continental system. I don't see how the defeat of the 2 primary standard bearers of Germanicism (Prussia and England) could possibly have been good for Germanics. The most likely result of a French victory at Waterloo would have been a continued subjugation and eventual latinization of the western German areas. Even if Prussia survived it would have been suppressed and certainly blocked from unifying Germany under its banner. Napoleon's 'continental system' would have put intense pressure on England, even if England maintained independence they would be unlikely to have the influence in the rest of the world that they did, with France taking their place, and may eventually have been forced into an EU-like agreement by economic pressure.

IlluSionSxxx
Friday, November 16th, 2007, 10:34 AM
Wouldn't that have just advanced things by 150 years or so?

Since the battle of Waterloo, Europe has graduately declined into senility and decadence until the '60s, where the process rapidly accellerated.


The result of the EU (centralization of power and suppression of Germanic values in favor of Latin ones) would have just happened 150 years earlier under Napoleon's continental system. I don't see how the defeat of the 2 primary standard bearers of Germanicism (Prussia and England) could possibly have been good for Germanics.

I never said that Napoleon's loss of Waterloo was to blame. The Rothschilds gaining control of the English economy is what we should focus on. I only mentioned the battle of Waterloo, because the Rothschild scam could not have worked without it.

SwordOfTheVistula
Saturday, November 17th, 2007, 07:23 AM
Since the battle of Waterloo, Europe has graduately declined into senility and decadence until the '60s, where the process rapidly accellerated.

The century following Waterloo was the time of the greatest influence of Europe on the outside world, especially for Germanic Europe. Since it was the order which existed at the end of the 19th century which was overthrown by the revolutionaries of the early-mid 20th century, I don't see how it could possibly be seen as a continuation of the same.

Carl
Monday, November 19th, 2007, 09:46 PM
So much seems to have happened since the days of Waterloo ( when the Prussians and the English were victorious allies) !! A great pity that the topic was lost -- ie . The destiny of the EU .

I fear that if we cannot leave the EU, we will indeed become "the Island of Apes" -- a substandard , offshore hell -- with the German(ic) speaking central powers --- (" at the heart of Europa" ) having the good wits to pull themselves together and begin to sort things out for themselves. And Could I then blame them ?

All that remains is to be questioned is how much the new Russia will be involved in this process.....

Soldier of Wodann
Monday, November 19th, 2007, 10:20 PM
Since the battle of Waterloo, Europe has graduately declined into senility and decadence until the '60s, where the process rapidly accellerated.



Woah woah woah, WHAT? Europe has accelerated into darkness since the establishment of the Third Estate, thanks to the people who lost Waterloo. The defeat of Napoleon was a blessing, certainly.



I never said that Napoleon's loss of Waterloo was to blame. The Rothschilds gaining control of the English economy is what we should focus on. I only mentioned the battle of Waterloo, because the Rothschild scam could not have worked without it.


England's problems, IMO, arose after the parlimentary system, another development towards the Third Estate (not nearly as bad as Napoleon though).

IlluSionSxxx
Monday, November 19th, 2007, 10:43 PM
The century following Waterloo was the time of the greatest influence of Europe on the outside world, especially for Germanic Europe.

The 19th century is commonly known as the British century, like the 20th century is known as the American century. That's because Jews shifted their focus.

Both the 19th century and the 20th century are really the Jewish centuries : the centuries of unlimited capitalism and unlimited communism, the centuries of economical and cultural imperialism, the centuries of mass production and consumerism, the centuries of the Dreyfuss case and the (fake) Holocaust, the centuries of Benjamin Disraeli and Albert Einstein, the centuries of the British Israel Movement and the foundation of the state of Israel, ...


Since it was the order which existed at the end of the 19th century which was overthrown by the revolutionaries of the early-mid 20th century, I don't see how it could possibly be seen as a continuation of the same.

American invaders helped the old corrupt political class back into their seats in 1945, as real patriots were destroyed physically or mentally.


Woah woah woah, WHAT? Europe has accelerated into darkness since the establishment of the Third Estate, thanks to the people who lost Waterloo. The defeat of Napoleon was a blessing, certainly.

Had Napoleon won the war, the Jews would probably have made the 19th century the French century instead of the British century. The end result would have been little different.

You see, Britain was still largely independent from Jewish power... until Waterloo.

Also, let's not forget that the French revolution was inspired the American revolution.


England's problems, IMO, arose after the parlimentary system, another development towards the Third Estate (not nearly as bad as Napoleon though).

Again, Cromwell was the first step. Waterloo was the second.

Soldier of Wodann
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 02:00 AM
You see, Britain was still largely independent from Jewish power... until Waterloo.


And why did Waterloo change that? I've never heard this argument before, I don't really know what to say.

SwordOfTheVistula
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 04:54 AM
Both the 19th century and the 20th century are really the Jewish centuries : the centuries of unlimited capitalism and unlimited communism...the centuries of the British Israel Movement and the foundation of the state of Israel

That's 2 pairs of movements who are totally opposed to eachother, so how could they be the 'century of' both?


the centuries of economical and cultural imperialism, the centuries of mass production and consumerism, the centuries of the Dreyfuss case

What's wrong with those? Those would indicate the power of the native European peoples



American invaders helped the old corrupt political class back into their seats in 1945

Aside from maybe Iberia and Scandinavia, none of the political class in power in Europe in 1914 remotely resembled that in power in 1946