It is almost enough to make me feel sorry for them:
European leaders will meet with intellectuals and business leaders to discuss Europe’s core values in a high-level conference later this year.
EU heads of state and government will be invited to attend a special conference on European values at the beginning of December- an event organised at the personal initiative of the Dutch prime minister, Jan Peter Balkenende.
It is hoped the conference – to be held in the Netherlands – will be the culmination of a half-year long EU-wide debate on the meaning and political relevance of the European idea, initiated by the upcoming Dutch presidency which takes office in July.
Writers, artists, policy-makers and business leaders from all over the world are set to be present at the public event, where up to 1000 people will be able to attend.
If they are harvesting “intallekchools” from all over the world to come to Europe to tell Europeans (a) who they are, (b) what they are supposed to be doing and (c) why they are supposed to be doing it, then said Europeans have, shall we say, some issues with self-esteem.
Mr Balkenende hopes the event will provide an ideological underpinning for Europe.
The only thing the event will produce is several hundred pages of repetative cant and nauseating PC pieties, liberally sprinkled with terms like ‘respect’ and ‘solidarity’.
He recently remarked that embarking on a European discussion on values such as respect, freedom, integration and solidarity would give a “new dynamism” to the reunified Europe.
See, it’s started already and if ever anyone tells you that that are seeking a “new dynamism” you can be cast-iron sure that their get-up-and-go has got-up-and-gone. Probably never to return.
What does it say about the great ‘European Project’ if its political leaders are prepared to prostrate themselves before a gathering of the global great-and-good and admit that they do not have single moral imperative on which to hang their hats?
Umm, just a note to say that there are a lot of Europeans scattered across the globe. And don’t you know that the thing that defines you are the eyes of your enemy? Sheesh, haven’t you heard of Sun Tzu?
Umm, I have read Sun Tzu, Alex, I just happen to think he is a waste of time. And whilst you might be happy to be defined by, say, Al Qaeda (on the questionable assumption you think Al Qaeda is your enemy), I rather think I am not so unwise as to allow my enemies to define me.
No need to bring good ol’ Al into this. Your enemy, if you choose to have one, is the very thing that observes you in a negative manner. It would be wise to find out what that is all about. If you don’t, if you choose to define yourself as you wish, you might just find yourself in a situation similar to … umm, nations that aren’t so popular these days?
So after 50 years of the European Project, we are finally going to do some brand storming on what it is all for. It rather goes to prove what some of us having been saying all along.
The EU is a pointless project, that exists simply because it has built up a kind of unstoppable momentum.
What it means is: they want to suck up to the “intallekchools” — and the proven best way to do that, is to grovel and ask them to bless you.
I’m kind of hoping they’ll emerge from this conference, bewildered looks upon their faces, admitting that a united Europe is a pointless crock and shuffle off, crestfallen, to dissassemble the project.
Jonathan L:
“The EU is a pointless project, that exists simply because it has built up a kind of unstoppable momentum”
You forgetting the beginning of the EU, probably because it’s too far back in history. The EU was born in the wake of two catastrophic European World Wars, and it’s good, laudable intention was to avoid a third one.
It is not such a disastrous project; it has a lot of logic and good features, which is why many new countries are clamoring to be admitted.
It’s tendencies toward socialism, welfarism, collectivism, pacifism and anti-Americanism are to be deplored, but they are not different in this from most of the rest of the world, i.e. these tendencies are not EU-specific.
When institutions and organisations begin talking about “core values” get out the KY Jelly.
*The right to freedom of conscience, expression, and assembly…
*The right to security of person, property and the free use thereof…
*A government whose powers are defined by the uncoerced consent of the governed and limited by the rights of individuals…
*The rule of law and the equality of individuals before the law…
If I’m missing something, let me know. I think the above list is pretty salient, and I sure as hell didn’t have to corral the global literatti do produce it.
–ME
Theo – Very good! Ha ha ha!
Jacob – What on earth are you talking about? Surely to god Germany and France didn’t have to be saved from themselves? Did Germany scrawl across the mirror in lipstick- “Stop me before I kill again!!”?
Why didn’t these two clowns simply sign a treaty and stick with it? What is everyone else doing in on the act? What the hell does regulating the size of tomatoes have to do with Germany and France never having another fight? And stamping eggs with the personal details of each layer? And having a “constitution” (you should excuse the term) and a foreign minister over countries which have been formulating their own successful foreign policies for centuries?
It is worth noting that all these people – with an exception I’m just coming to – have never known real democracy. The plan is for countries which have no gut feeling for democracy to govern countries which have had democracy in place for centuries. Those countries which specifically do not need lectures on democracy from Germany and France are Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Holland and (it’s wisely not in the EU) Norway. Oxymoronic, isn’t it, that these countries with the longest and most stable history of democracy are all monarchies?
Anyway, whether you care about what France and Germany get up to, the idea is creakingly out of date. The notion these days of one “democracy” invading another is too bonkers.
Also, Jacob, the latest suckers have been sluiced in because their economies need access to our protectionist markets. If we abolished the protectionism (get up off the floor from laughing! I was only kidding!) they would be able to sell us their products and services without signing away their independent futures. And so would those poor African producers who are cruelly kept out and are reduced to begging for aid instead. How revolting! And their produce is tastier than the regulation apples, pears, peaches and whatever other fruit and vegetables, which are distinguishable only by shape and colour, not taste, are on sale here.
I hate the EU for its socialism, its levelling down, its murder of enterprise, its hatred of capitalism, its profound lack of real democracy, the elitism that would not formerly have been tolerated, or even thought of, in the countries above I mentioned. Also for its corruption, which is virulently infectious. Tony’s Blair’s government is the most corrupt in British history.
Here, let’s save a lot of time and blather, and whittle everything down to a six word EU mission statement:
“Whatever America is for? We’re against.”
Pithy and a perfect summation.
No it’s not.
Anti-Americanism is integral to the deal, of course, but only because the endgame is the suppression of freedom.
Jacob:
How many of these countries are wealthy and successful (= eligible to pay), compared with how many are relatively poor and under-developed (= eligible for subsidy)?
Verity:
Or perhaps more plausibly because every European country has accepted that is is no longer a first-rate power – except France, the most anti-American of them all? EU anti-Americanism is motivated by French jealousy and denial, and has been allowed to become dominant because French interests have historically dominated the EU. This is, however, likely to change.
Personally, I think the EU takes its current form because the French and the Germans are trying to achieve through bureaucracy what they have both failed repeatedly to achieve through force of arms. Interestingly enough, the general ethos of the EU in terms of its conception of the state and its approach to commerce are distinctly Fascist (which is not the same as Nazi). A powerful, centralised, corporatist state is essentially what Fascism is all about, forget all that crap about racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic purity – that’s just Teutonic paranoia, not Fascism.
EG
Well, Euan, yes. I agree with your whole post. And yes, the continent of Europe is founded on fascism.
If Howard wins the election, we will turn our faces to the sun and cleave to democracy (however truncated Americans feel it to be). If the Tories lose, I think we are drinking in the Last Chance Saloon. Labour would not only take us further in – which in the long run doesn’t really matter if we have the will to get out – but will pick apart the final vestiges of free Britain and thus destroy the will.
Tony Blair has already enervated Britain with his mad, destructive cleaver. It will take a tremendous concerted effort of will to get the less destructive Tories back in.
I fail to see what all the fuss is about. I know you don’t take this seriously, but I think if you’d taken a closer look on how our PM is viewed, you would’ve gotten a much better perspective. And you’d know much better what to expect of this conference. The PM’s been derided for his attempts of re-moralising the country and rightly so. One of last year’s most popular tv-shows included a panel of impersonators, questioned by the host. The ‘PM’ returned every week.
I think that if you focused on humor, you’d get a better idea of shared values. German humor is almost nonexistent, Chirac is a walking French joke and the Belgians (certainly the Flemish) share British-Dutch humor. The new EU-members are still recovering, but they are getting there.
Anyway, whoever the PM’s going to invite, it will not include those pesky impersonators and comedians.
ps. the PM’s supposed to be a great practical joker.
I hate the EU for its socialism, its levelling down, its murder of enterprise, its hatred of capitalism, its profound lack of real democracy, the elitism that would not formerly have been tolerated, or even thought of, in the countries above I mentioned.
I’m sorry, but the EU has nothing of a socialist state : its free trade credo (ex. no protectionism between EU member states, efforts to prevent enterprises to become monopolistic et.), that is re-affirmed in its would-be constitution, have nothing to do with Socialism.
But I agree with you : the EU lacks real democracy, thre can’t be a single rule for 25 countries with different opinions and Histories etc. But be reassured : 1) The EU does respect the sovereignty of its member-countries, and takes decisions solely when it is more practical to establish measures on the level of the EU. 2) EU member-states being lead by politicians (that is to say by people who, by definition, do not want to leave their power to anyone else – especially a supra-national technocracy – and are judged solely by the citizens of their countries), the EU won’t become a Terry-Gilliamesque susperstate.
A French euro-skeptic
[I hate the EU for its socialism, its levelling down, its murder of enterprise, its hatred of capitalism, its profound lack of real democracy, the elitism that would not formerly have been tolerated, or even thought of, in the countries above I mentioned.
I’m sorry, but the EU has nothing of a socialist state : its free trade credo (ex. no protectionism between EU member states, efforts to prevent enterprises to become monopolistic et.), that is re-affirmed in its would-be constitution, have nothing to do with Socialism.
But I agree with you : the EU lacks real democracy, thre can’t be a single rule for 25 countries with different opinions and Histories etc. But be reassured : 1) The EU does respect the sovereignty of its member-countries, and takes decisions solely when it is more practical to establish measures on the level of the EU. 2) EU member-states being lead by politicians (that is to say by people who, by definition, do not want to leave their power to anyone else – especially a supra-national technocracy – and are judged solely by the citizens of their countries), the EU won’t become a Terry-Gilliamesque susperstate.
A French euro-skeptic]
This is quite wrong. Limiting who a company can trade with without attracting extra tarriffs to within the highly regulated EU is hardly ‘free trade’… and neither are laws to prevent monopolies. A harmful monopoly cannot exist for long without government interference causing market mnechanisms to fail, so excuse me if I can unimpressed by the notion that the EU is all that is standing between my business and a world filled with monopolists. I don’t think so.