The EU has been a nightmare of a disaster ever since it shed its mask of being ‘just an economic enterprise’ (EEC), and fully launched itself as a pan European federalized union through the forced ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. It’s worse than the Soviet Union. At least when the strong arm of the Soviet’s reached out and grabbed you, it was exactly clear who and what was robbing you of your liberty.
In the EU, it’s a softer form of tyranny, but it’s done with smile and a pat on the back, and through highly disingenuous language in the legislation it passes and the treaties it forces others to sign. It’s the robbing of your liberty through a thousand bureaucratic razor cuts, not with a long trip to a guglag in the outer reaches of the Soviet empire, nor with a single shot to the base of the skull.
When you look at how the EU was truly constructed, with the false facade of representational democracy, how can any single person with a fraction of common sense view it any other way than as an institution designed by statist technocrats, whose motto is “We aim to manage your lives so you won’t have to”? It’s Orwelian in scope and in intent, and yet we’re told that it’s for our own good, we need this leviathan to keep from being at war with ourselves.
Folks, you’ve been sold a bill of goods. It’s not the EU and the technocrats (you know, the geniuses) who keep Europe from embarking upon yet another full blown war, it’s true representational democracy, based upon the free market economic system coupled with the protection of property rights and individual liberty. Something that the EU, by the mere nature of its existence, is constantly at war with. KGS
The European Crack-Up
Greeks aren’t Germans.
A Belgian journalist who interviewed me recently about the European debt crisis asked me whether I believed in the European Project. I replied that I would answer her question—if she would tell me what the European Project actually was. By revealing my doubts, I proved to her that I suffered from the strange kind of mental debility known as Euroskepticism, a condition supposedly compounded of low intelligence and aggressive xenophobia.
The low intelligence manifests itself in the patient’s view of European institutions as a gravy train for a transnational nomenklatura, rather than as the beginning of a new, generous, and free-spirited type of postnational identity. The xenophobia manifests itself as a secret desire for conflict and war, the European Union and its predecessors supposedly having been responsible for the avoidance of war on the Continent over the last 65 years.
The journalist then asked whether I thought that nationalism was dangerous. The question implied that the choice before Europe was between the European Union and fascism: that all that stood between us and the ascension to power of new Mussolinis, Francos, and Hitlers were the free lunches of senior Eurocrats. I replied that dangerous forms of nationalism existed, of course, but that in the present circumstances, supranationalism represented by far the greater danger.
Not only was such supranationalism undemocratic, for it reflected no widespread demand or sentiment among the population; it also risked provoking the very kind of nationalism against which it was to stand as the bulwark. Further, the breakup of supranational polities in Europe tends to be messy, as history demonstrates.
I was not entirely fair, however, in implying that no one could say what the European Project was. José Manuel Barroso, a fiery Portuguese Maoist student leader who became the preternaturally dull president of the European Commission—perhaps not as great a change as one might suppose, many a revolutionary being a frustrated bureaucrat—once let the cat out of the bag.
Asked the same question that the journalist asked me, Barroso responded, “Sometimes I like to compare the European Union as a creation to the organization of empires.” He hastened to add that the E.U. was not a traditional empire. But it is surely the case that an empire in Europe, large, rich, and powerful, would assuage the feelings of a political class frustrated by having inherited a smaller role in world affairs than that of their predecessors, who ruled real empires many times larger than their own countries.