Google Ad

Eurosceptic Bloggers

Monday, September 27, 2004

The Case of the Inevitable

In the absence of any real arguments in favour of a European super state, most of its supporters fall back on the question of inevitability. As it is going to happen anyway, why fight against it? Aside from the fact that the same argument could have been used in the context of the Nazi invasions or any number of other horrible historic events, what is it about the EU that makes it so inevitable? It is after all to the best of my knowledge a totally unique experiment. In our favourite love to hate rag today, one of the most underwhelming politicians of the last 30 years is banging on about swimming against the tide of history and other cliches. God these Europhiles should come with a warning. The Lost Boys of the Tory party are planning another excursion into Never Never Land. John Redwood, the Eurosceptic who never grew up, has once more raised the prospect of renegotiating Britain's membership of the European Union. His stated objective is a relationship which is "more closely modelled to what we originally joined". Its funny that so called never never land is an actual situation from just a few years ago. It is painted however as a situation that could never exist. Forget the weird syntax. Just estimate the possibility of France and Germany, not to mention the other member nations, agreeing to turn back the clock by 30 years or accepting that Britain alone can pick and choose among the aspects of the union from which it benefits and the obligations which it prefers to avoid. Yes lets not mention the other 22 (yes that twenty two) members of the union that include people much more likely to look favourably on measures to reform the EU. Lets also not mention the fact that many of the members citizens are also fed up with the surreal bureacratic nightmare that the EU has become. No only the Leaders, the Elite of the premium members are important. Picking and choosing are terrible things are they not. That undermines that whole socialist principles on which the union is based. Over the next 20 years Europe will become more integrated not less. All the pressures, internal and external, make that inevitable. If you doubt it, read Stephen Haseler's latest book. It sets out a series of self-evident truths that other Europhiles have been afraid to express. Its title is Super-State and superstate is what, sooner or later, Europe will become. Which pressure these are is not stated, but no doubt this is the typical left ignorance of the free market. But with a single market we need a single government to control it. Uh Wrong, free markets are not supposed to be controlled, thats what makes them free. Oh if you don't believe me read this book that also says it is all inevitable. Oh clever Mr Hattersley you've really got me now. The world's largest economy with a stable common currency and a successful single market is, he rightly argues, bound to pursue policies that conflict with the interests of the US. That makes the two "superpowers" competitors but not enemies. It also means that "core Europe" - the Franco-German alliance which Britain should join and make into a troika - is certain to lead the way towards distinctive defence and foreign policies. The only way we can maintain the worlds largest economy in the face of socialist stagnation is of course by continuing to accept more members. As for distinct defence and foriegn policies, I am forced to admit that neglecting the defence of the realm and snuggling up to dictators is certainly distinct. Whether it is wise is of course the subject of another discussion entirely. Thirty years ago, we joined a common market that was little more than a free trade area. Foolishly, Ted Heath promised no reduction in national sovereignty - instead of emphasising the strength that comes when sovereignty is pooled. Ted Heath's foolishness was no more than plain lies. He knew the British public would not accept his inexplicable wish to destroy their nation so he pretended that there was nothing to fear. As for pooling sovereignty its a poetic turn of phrase that means absolutely nothing. So far pooling sovereignty has given us hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations and little else. Economic and political union cannot be separated. The free movement of capital and labour have to be politically defined and legally regulated. That is a necessity, not a matter of choice. Let me define Free for you Roy. It means that interfering gits like you don't have the opportunity to run our lives. Its not in the least bit a necessity. Is it possible that John Redwood, sometime fellow of All Souls, does not recognise that obvious fact? Is it possible Mr Splattersley that Mr Redwood is several notches up the evolutionary ladder from you?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Good stuff, keep going! How is it that we never heard this script from the Hattersly of mid-late seventies. Come to think of it, did the geezer voice these thoughts during the '75 referendum campaign? No easy way of checking, but I'll take a bet on it (joking!).

Sam Roony