How can we bring down the European Union?
|
|||||
|
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] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
68 comments to Discussion Point XXVIII |
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. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Form an enormously succesful corporation, make shitloads of money, buy as much of the media as we can, and start pumping out propaganda.
Failing that, we’re fucked.
Refuse to implement directives. Many countries do this by stealth – ie just don’t get around to implementing them. A public refusal could only be made by a contributing member since it could deduct any fine from its contribution.
This would bust the whole QMV thing: it would not get us thrown out, as there appears to be no procedure for doing so. The 5 core countries and maybe Italy would have to form another union.
The people? The government? Who?
Bring in Turkey, Israel and Morocco.
Voting UKIP in June 2009 will be a step in that direction
A quick glance at history would suggest that war is a possibility, but since the we hardly have a decent sized army between us, that looks a bit unlikely.
Joining the Ummah may be a better bet as that project seems well under way, but that seems to be a bit of a frying pan/fire deal. Although if some of the member countries do join the Ummah, it may prompt the rest to split.
Democratic rejection of the EU project doesn’t look likely to work as the commission is bribing too many people with our money to let a boring thing like a popular vote get in the way of their project.
Voting for a party opposed to the ‘community’ will simply change the main targets of the bribery.
In the long run, it will self-destruct, as such empires always do, but the long run could take quite a while.
With any luck we won’t have to as it collapses under the weight of its own bloated bureaucracy.
The whole thing?
The directives refusal would be tricky – most go nowhere near Parliament and just go straight to the statute book. You’d probably have to change how the Civil Service operates to stop that. Once they’re made law (and we’ve added our own frills to them), how’d we know which ones to avoid? It’s not like there’s anyone out there pointing out that Post Office privatization is an EU requirement, or all the other things we no longer control or that happen behind the scenes.
Nothing will bring it down as long as we keep picking spineless clueless brainless useless politicians – painful as it may be, they’re the ones who’d have to stand up and say ‘no more’. They won’t do that unless there’s votes in it, or some with principles somehow slip through.
Become the 51st state.
Wait?
Well, I’m new to this site and haven’t much of a history as a plotter (nor am I, I admit, entirely against the EU, but neither am I overly fond of it), but I hope no one will mind a couple guesses at what might work…
1. I think Poland is really important here, and Poland with the other recently-added member states could really put their foot down on some things. They may be unwilling to jeopardise the funding they get for right now, but while communism didn’t foster people who can get a long without government, it certainly didn’t breed tons of trust for it either. If the EU forces social agendas on those countries, they may reach a point where they won’t take it anymore. Ireland is likely to agree with them on it, too, in my uneducated opinion.
2. The Euro hasn’t proven so great for France and Italy with Germany running such a tight ship.
3. Maybe we don’t need to do anything — the more laws they come up with, the less effective they’ll be. Thousands of pages for a constitution is ridiculous, and while bureaucracies have some momentum, they can’t last forever. Even the Soviet Union couldn’t maintain itself indefinitely, and it had the gulags as back-up.
4. How about co-optation? Co-opt a few key issues and it will take the wind out of their sales. If someone with Vaclav Klaus’ mentality were to become the new conservation poster-child, the eco-tyranny would suffer a blow it wouldn’t even recognise until much later. All of a sudden, we could make money off green products and use it to fix real, pressing problems (or just make sure banks stayed solvent). I hate the eco-tyranny, and its co-optation of my favourite colour, but I like trees, too, so I’m prepared to compromise: I recycle, and they lose their fearmongering, misprioritised power. There are other issues I think could suffer a similar fate..
Every time you see a large sign at the entrance to any place of learning, any road project, any vacant piece of land which will be built upon ‘helped by EU’ funding, you scrawl across it: ‘We pay the EU £30million per day and this is all we get’.
It will take time but if enough people do it, regularly, then the message will get through.
Of course, you can all discuss the intellectual posturing, the need to fight back effectively and the requirement to fight the good fight at an esoteric level and lose.
May I remind you of two things: during WWII the then government had an ex pornographer, ex alcoholic as spinmeister general and lo and behold so did the socialists in1996.
To those who do not get it, the only way to beat these people is by constant repetition and exposure of their misdeeds, mistakes, manipulation and lies.
You do no do it, you do admit it has to be done and you do nothing but spout wishes that someone, anyone should do it as long as you are not involved and can still travel the world and put up a regular photo shoot annually.
In other words, I have watched, looked, learned what you all want but none of you actually do anything.
You may think my ideas trite but I come from the same background as the former two.
If you want my help, just ask.
M2
We are entering a global recession. That is the perfect pretext to justify relentless pressure to reduce public budgets and expenses, especially in an “extra-governmental” body such as the EU.
Cutting off its head, i.e., any form of violence, is pointless and unnecessary.
Starve the beast. Cut its funding. Money is the life’s blood of any political entity—apply a tourniquet at the source.
“No tax revenue to any foriegn power” might make a fetching battle cry.
Can’t hurt to try it.
I don’t think there is anything we (i.e., the public) can do bring down the EU, short of all voting for UKIP, which aint gonna happen.
As long as the media and politicians are happy to keep up the pretense that Westminster politics is the be-all end-all of British politics, there is nothing we can do. The EU will remain a fringe issue for supposedly right-wing fanatics like Freddie Forsyth and Jimmy Goldsmith to blow their gaskets over, but of no great significance to the wider population. The fact that this is complete bollocks won’t matter – the BBC and every politician will say otherwise.
Track the pork going from Western Europe to Eastern Europe, and track the failing infrastructure (NHS, roads, etc) within Britain.
Put every major new dairy farm or bureaucratic teepee in Czechoslovakia or Poland or Ireland paid for by British largesse, and put it on Google Maps.
Put every major British hospital or school or city with unacceptable death/failure/crime rates on Google Maps.
Use that as a marketing tool to let people know that the XXX million/billions sent east cost the British XXX number of lives lost, impoverished, and ruined.
Spring a Coup D’etat upon the EU like Augusto Pinochet and establish a European Junta of Capitalism.
How can we bring down the European Union?
There are some dependent questions first:
Who constitutes we?
Does “bring down” mean utterly erradicate, or simply to lower it to some basic (non-intrusive) institutional functions?
If we are a broad spectrum of the electorates of the member states, and wish to undo what has been done in bringing this structure into being here are some steps:
First, build up a strong and effective we.
Next, determine what are the adhesives that hold the structure(s) (which are largely bureaucratic) together. One basically, is money, but there are others. Weaken and ultimately dissolve those adhesives. That usually is begun by making the surfaces inhospitable to the adhesives (surgical tape will not adhere to an oily surface). Frictions and disorder within and between bureaucracies can be generated.
It may sound a bit esoteric, but, if the EU is regarded as an enemy, that enemy must have intent. Thus, the most effective tactics would probably resemble those of SunTzu, SunBin and Shih – deceptions matched to thwart the intents. That requires gaining understanding of the intentions.
To achieve the deceptions, create and control the vehicles that are the interfaces with the electorates, then so foul up the execution of the intentions (which should not be hard to do) rather than wait for the usual failures and follies – accelerate them. Otherwise, the balance of the electorate will never be moved to act.
Tell Hamas that Brussels is full of disarmed Jews.
We can’t.
In short, the only people who would theoretically be able to ‘bring down the Union’ are the very people who have absolutely no incentives to do so.
A united Europe in some form or another is a desirable thing. Unfortunately, the least successful states are the ones demanding that everyone else cripple themselves to avoid “unfair competition”, and are demanding that these demands be enshrined into what they’re calling a constitution.
Perhaps some young, upstart political party (several come to mind) somewhere could try floating an alternative constitution for a federal republic of strictly limited powers in most areas. I, personally favor a flat tax, but whatever minimizes the burden will do. Make sure you include a TABOR clause, limiting increases in taxation to equivalent increase in population and inflation, and term limits for everybody elected to federal office. Make sure that these parts are notably NON-NEGOTIABLE, now or ever.
When allowing the new government to regulate trade between the states, make sure that this phrase is clear enough that it doesn’t get interpreted as allowing the government to micromanage all commerce to death.
When writing this, you are allowed 5 pages, A2 size, one sided, with single spacing, and a type font no smaller that 12 point. If it suits you, make that double spacing. Anything else is flim-flammery. A constitution should lay down the ground rules, anything else belongs in the statute books, assuming it’s permitted to be there.
I realize that suggestion that Europe become anything even remotely like the US is a heresy akin to suggesting that Mohamed made the whole thing up while stoned on hash, but based on results, I’d have to say THE US constitution has worked out fairly well over the years, at least until the socialists began re-interpreting it. I would not wish the US constitution upon any one as it’s currently written, but with a few changes and updates, it should serve as a good model.
Be VERY careful.
Which is precisely the problem with it. It was a good try, but failed to do its intended job, which was to act as a limiting device. It’s much like saying “the handrail worked wonderfully until somebody leaned on it”.
As to the EU- there’s no particular merit to any form of federal Europe. If we compare the EU and USA, we note a stark historical difference. The USA formed a federation as mutual defence against outsiders. The EU is supposedly some kind of defence against war between our states. I’m entirely dubious about that. Frankly, if Germany and France want a fight every few decades fuck it, leave them to it. We’re an island, we can just nuke them if they get too close. That’s just me though.
And, the EU is not going to allow any kind of rational debate about the best kind of constitution. That’s not the game. It’s not on the table. The EU is an elite project, for elite purposes. The last thing they’re going to do is let the people get involved. They’re collectivists creating their perfect corporate state, not a bunch of idealists who’ve just won their independence.
Supposedly, when Ronald Reagan was president, he started off each day with the thought: “What can I do today to weaken the Soviet Union?”
You folks are in a fight for survival, and it looks like a long haul.
That assumes that there are a list of commandments that, if put together in a single cherished document, have the talismanic ability to create a libertarian paradise.
I disagree.
The USSR had a constitution too, but they roundly ignored it for most of their existence.
The problem of government is a problem of people, and no tight cluster of rules can forever bind people to a just and righteous path. Besides, the US Constitution can always be amended to keep up with times.
The problem with the EU is that it is a gale of hot aristocratic wind, while the libertarian minded are scattered, refreshing droplets.
No configuration of rules will pull a crowd like that to respect freedom – besides their own – or the rights of man – except those they can themselves give. As Aristotle said, the Virtuous Man is the only true minority.
I offer two thoughts:
1) AgitProp as outlined by Maggra2 above, and more, much more. The goal would be to arouse both outrage, and humorous contempt. It would be a bonus if the EU and its UK satraps could be provoked into doing something to anger the populace. Repeat as often and as inventively as possible.
2) General Karl von Clausewitz, Vom Krieg, Book 1, Chapter 1, #24. and the Book of Judges 3:12-30.
Mind you, I see absolutely zero chance of Western Europeans of whatever country being willing to fight for their freedom in any way. They already are unwilling to fight for their survival. They will go quietly into that Long Night.
Subotai Bahadur
“A united Europe in some form or another is a desirable thing. ”
Err, no.
Europe is a geographical term, ‘united Europe’ is nonesense.
If you mean it is desirable that there is one government only in geographical Europe, I strongly disagree. One strength of the present variety is that we can see how certain things are done better in for example Switzerland. Another argument is that tyrants across the millenia have sought to impose a single government in Europe – we should not think it in the interests of the people to allow such a thing
It was encouraging the other day to see Will Self on BBC’s Question Time describing himself as a late convert to EU-phobia. The reason he gave is that he has been persuaded that the EU is anti-democratic.
Opposition to the EU has generally taken the form of a) exposing particular policies (bendy bananas) and b) raising awareness of cost (someone mentioned £30m/day). These are good arguments because they’re generally negative towards the EU and keep the pressure on in a vague ‘don’t like the EU’ sort of way. But they’re not decisive.
‘£30 million a day’ sounds a lot. But split between 60 million people it doesn’t sound too bad and frankly I’ve no idea if this delivers value given the amount I see the EU in the news. On a more general note re statistics, I’ve seen news articles about how much Britons spend/waste/lose/booze etc. and they’re always huge figures…which make absolutely no impression on me. Why should they? £30m to a bank or a Defence Budget is trivial. £30m to an individual or a small business is immense. We’ve heard Gordon talking about “investing billions” for too long — people know that when it comes to money context is everything.
Bendy banana stories can be blamed on “gold-plating” whereby the British Government misinterprets, twists and adds its own gloss to sensible EU directives (Of course this is a bogus argument since the electorate is stuck in the middle, with the EU on one side and the British Government on the other, each blaming the other for madcap policies and thus neither accountable for them.). Bendy banana stories can also be dismissed as ‘the sort of thing you read in the Daily Mail’, which non-argument, unfortunately is perfectly sufficient for many of the country’s intelligentsia.
While the constant noise of bendy banana and ‘30m quid a day’ stories have kept the pressure on, kept the argument alive and created a general atmosphere of EU-scepticism alive in Britain (and let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater), they clearly haven’t worked. There have been stories like these for years and here we are, still in the EU. The problem is that over time such stories made EU-phobes sound shrill. I saw the comedy show News Quiz a few years ago, and one of the jokes was that in order for an immigrant to fit in, he needed to learn how to blame everything on the “bloody EU”. We may be right to go on about it all the time, but if we’re perceived as bores then no one will listen to us. The Tories have ‘learned this lesson’ and now the one major institution, the Conservative Party, that should be opposing the EU on every level is scared to talk about it.
The gold-plating argument gives the EU plausible deniability and EU-phobia’s association with the Daily Mail allows our ‘obsessive shrillness’ to be depicted among Guardianistas as right-wing extremism. The effect is that we have failed to win them over but like it or not, they are a decisive part of the political landscape.
Patriots and those with a penchant for Friedman, Popper, Reagan, Thatcher etc. are all onside. But little has been done to win over the likes of Will Self which is why I was pleasantly surprised to see him nevertheless won over. We need to stop preaching to the choir and consider what is likely to win over people who perceive practical benefits of common EU policies and those who have philosophical sympathies for a united Europe (socialists, Fabians, anti-Americans, post-nationalists, Hegelians, Marxists, environmentalists etc.).
I think the decisive constituency we need to win over is the liberal BBC/Guardian-reading elite and the decisive argument we should make is that the EU is undemocratic. This is a principled argument based not on right-wing thinkers and politicians of whom they wouldn’t approve in any case, but on the progressive agenda of increasing rights for the British underdog. Don’t think Hayek and Ayn Rand. Think Levellers, Wilberforce, Suffragettes etc. We need to persuade lefties that the EU is the enemy of their progressive agenda, an attempt by those who would exploit us to hand over in a cheap feckless way, the hard-won rights of democratic involvement in the political process.
How to do it? No idea; sorry.
That it desperately needs to be done? No question. Absolutely.
And SOON – before their Global Warming focus finishes what Tony Blair and Gordon Brown only just started.
Whay happened to good old treaty abrogation?
What will these unelected authoritarians do?
Fine us?
Invade us?
Fact is, if I know my average European, they would be glad to see the back of us…the loss of “30 million” notwithstanding.
Thank you, dear Tories, for shovelling us into this midden in the first place….and even if it were possible to get out, where the hell would we go? We have nothing to offer anybody.
I don’t think the EU needs to be brought down.
It needs to be mended, to make it less intrusive and collectivist, more free. In general – the EU is a good idea, it’s the implementation that is flawed.
It’s not the EU alone that is responsible for the statist, intrusive, anti-democrativ practices that are wide-spread in the world. It’s the socialist, neo-marxist ideology that is prevalent also in countries not in the EU (see Obama).
The EU is not the problem. Socialism is.
The question should be: how do we bring down socialism?
Jacob, why do you think that the EU is a good idea?
Therein lies the problem. Before the EU can be tackled, there has to be a general recognition of the problem. The EUnionists recognise this, which is why it is being constructed by stealth. I firmly believe that if more people understood what the EU is and how it operates – like, as philmil mentioned, Will Self – the more opposition there would be. As long as people believe it to be an excercise in beneficial co-operation gone awry, which it is not and has never been, opposition will be an uphill struggle.
Sadly, with the BBC in the tank and other mainstream media lacking any interest in investigating the reality of “Europe”, I’m not sure what can be done. For all that the internet has advanced over the last decade, these tradtitional channels are still strong. maggra2’s idea would be a start, but it’s far from enough, and still slightly misses the point.
Sam, that’s why I’ve been saying of late that our fundamental problem is we need lots of money. Once you’ve got that, you can set up media channels to disseminate your propaganda and so on. Come to that, you can set up your own schools. All sorts of things.
We’re not going to get anywhere talking about how unfair it is that the media etc are in the collectivist tank. It is unfair, but the only way we’re going to do anything about it is to create alternatives. Which will require a lot of money.
Much of the seed capital for collectivism came from wealthy industrialists, and much of the funding still does come from their legacies, funds bequested by the likes of Ford and Joseph Rowntree. They didn’t win the argument, they bought it. We must look at how to do the same. There is a massive opportunity coming up right now regarding who will own the media as it transfers online. If it’s not at least partially people sympathetic to the cause of freedom, we’re stuffed. Again.
Easy. Free movement of people and goods across former borders. More political stability in the periphery (Greece, Italy, etc.). Less funny currencies (liretta, peseta, drachama). And: the main reason it was established: less chance of an European war – a worthy end.
And: the EU is not totalitarian and not murderous. No small feat for Europe.
Jacob: these are all good things indeed, but when I say “EU”, I mean an arch-government with the ability to make laws and levy taxes. All those good things you mention could (and most were) easily achieved on the basis of mutual agreements between independent European states.
They’ve already probably done the job for you by bringing in so many disparate countries. You can probably doom it even further by bringing in Turkey and whoever else.
Course, the question is how much damage will be done to your own countries in the meantime.
It doesn’t even really need that… Before WWI there was tremendous free (or free enough) movement of goods people and capital around Europe. All the EU has done on this score is allow people to do what they were doing a century ago and claiming this was down to their own invention.
And the model still exists. There is the EEA which is EU plus countries like Norway and Switzerland. The EEA is simply a free-trade area and bugger-all else. The else of course being thoroughly obnoxious.
“In general – the EU is a good idea, it’s the implementation that is flawed.”
Just which aspect of the EU do you think is a good idea?
“In other words, I have watched, looked, learned what you all want but none of you actually do anything.”
Pardon me your lordship but you bloody well haven’t been watching, looking and learning hard enough. This is Samizdata and it should not be necessary to point out what the – 6/7 years now? – existence of this little pet of Perry De Havilland’s means. For instance, it means Ian B’s initial suggestion is largely irrelevant.
On the point of action with regard to the EU, civil disobedience is one form with successful historical precedents. Philmil mentions the Levellers and the Suffragettes, but these are inappropriate because the Levellers were vague and the Suffragettes merely wanted democracy.
As to pointers for how to remove the monstrosity of the State under which European culture is melting, the likes of MLK and Ghandi are perhaps the most relevant since the movements which these men led acted in a distinctly moral character – and in outright defiance of potentially overwhelming State power – in the clear name of individual freedom.
The difficulty I see with this is that the movements of MLK and Ghandi succeeded partly because they were both moving against already largely civilized populaces and rulers in which moral statements could still register with force. Can we really say the same of Europe today?
“Easy. Free movement of people and goods across former borders. More political stability in the periphery (Greece, Italy, etc.). Less funny currencies (liretta, peseta, drachama). And: the main reason it was established: less chance of an European war – a worthy end.”
The existence of the EU is not necessary to achieve any of those things.
What do you mean by that? Are you suggesting that a few libertarian blogs are adequate propaganda against the mass media/state juggernaut? If not, I apologise, but that seems to be what you’re saying.
These are useful places for the committed to meet and exchange ideas. But look, give me pencil and paper and I could name the majority of the British libertarian blogosphere’s inhabitants from memory. Any movement needs to reach out to the masses, and the masses are getting their ideas from MSM, the education system and mass government propaganda. They aren’t going to all turn to some form of small government libertarian whatever on their own. The Enemy got where they are by a continual, persistent campaign of propaganda and political subversion.
Blogs are great, but we need a shedload more than blogs.
How can we bring down the EU? Wait, its internal contradictions will blow it apart in time. How to speed up this process? Get it to enlarge as fast as possible, the more countries inside each with their own different objectives will chock up its abilities to adapt (as can be seen by the struggle to get the EU Constitution ratified) and push up the internal tensions until they hit breaking point.
I think that Ian B has a much more interesting point than the main discussion. Why is the ‘Right’ and particularly the Libertarian right so incredibly bad at propaganda?
With yet another movie deifying mass murderer Che Guevara opening, why is it that a mass murdering thug like him gets a free ride. Exactly like every left wing mass murdering thug gets a free ride. The same way that the BBC is going to be pumping out propaganda for Hamas, like it did for Hezbollah. Left won the propaganda part of the cold war so decisively means that this kind of thing barely even gets questioned anymore. It seems that a cultural bias which says ‘OK so he killed millions, but he was a lefty therefore he meant well and that makes it all right.’ has completely taken over.
Ian B, Vercingetorix: The founders of the US recognized and commented extensively on the propensity of government to expand to occupy the available wealth. When they wrote the constitution, they intended to slow this expansion as much as possible.
All things considered, I think they did fairly well, having prevented the government from completely destroying the country for 225 years or so. In hindsight, some things should have been done differently, but it’s hard to fault a political scientist of 1787 for failing to anticipate the clever machinations of 1910 or 1933 or even later. It is up to us to note the evolution of the disease, and construct new antibodies for it rather than throw up our hands and declare the disease incurable.
Steve-roberts: The US federal republic was intended to be a union of sovereign states, each a generally independent incubator of ideas. Of the ideas tried, the most successful would be expected to be adopted by the others. It is, as they say, a free country, and the populace are free to vote with their feet, much as many businesses in England and France are doing by moving to Ireland.
It is a uniquely European view of the EU that it was created to prevent its myriad states from going to war with one another. As an American, I was believed that 50 years of Cold War had convinced the Europeans that in some form of unity, lies strength, and the larger problem was to encourage the creation of wealth. I believe that the addition of the East European states will advance this viewpoint.
Indeed, these new members should be your best allies in attempting to redefine the EU from a simple peace treaty between the remnants of feudal states to a wealth-producing engine.
Make the most of it folks, and remember it’s an economic union you’re trying for, not another re-hash of Westphalia.
“Form your own corporation, make a shitload of money…..etc ….etc” Cogently and delicately put ! Of course to make a shitload of money is a lead-pipe cinch, at least in the feeble mind of some total ignoramus (read intellectual) who never had to make an honest living in his/her life ! Mind you, in principle he/she is right, it is just the execution of the plan that leaves a bit of, shall we say, elucidation.
What an utter and total asshole !
Fritz
Fritz. I could trade insults, but instead-
=sigh=
Of course that’s an extremely difficult thing to do. I was highlighting the necessity for (a) money and (b) a means into the media for our point of view. You might be too dim to understand that, I appreciate, but do give it a try once you can pull your head out of your rectal orifice.
As to that boorish bar-room bollocks, I have spent my life working in the private sector, mostly at the rather hard-working blue collar end. I currently own my own small business. Go fuck yourself.
*calms down*
About this money thing. I know F all about the city and investments and bulls and bears and things, but I understand that some of the Samizdatista cabal are rather more clued up on such matters. What would be the practicalities of setting up some kind of city investment fund whose profits could be used to award grants to organisations and groups who we wish to prosper- e.g. overtly libertarian groups, anti-prohibitionists, and so on?
My general thrust of thinking here is the idea of creating our own networks, rather than sitting outside trying to think of ways to break into the Enemy’s.
Mr Olssen, if your definition of an “utter and total asshole” is someone who puts forward a desirable plan that he personally cannot put into practice, then I envy you your sheltered life. Please rein in the insult in any further comments.
Black flag operations.
The EU are depending on subjugating us one step at a time. Like the proverbial frog in a pan of water.
If we boil the water ourselves…
All governments levy taxes and make laws. It doesn’t matter if it’s the national government of, say, Greece, or the gov of the EU. I don’t see how one is better than the other. On the contrary, small states tend to be governed by dismal goons, who act much worse than the EU. The EU inserts some stability and responsibility that governments of small countries often lack. I don’t think that the idea of a nation-state is sacred, certainly not by libertarian principles. The idea of having a super or multi-national-government isn’t bad in itself – it all depends on what kind of super-government it is.
And I don’t see how the government of a big country, like say Britain, is any less socialist and statist than the EU gov.
Maybe not, but it did help with those things. That’s what happened. You might imagine some fancy universe were things happen differently, but in Europe – the EU brought with it some positive developments.
I repeat my advice to libertarians: fight socialism, not the EU. It’s not the EU that hinders Britain from going free-market. It’s it’s own, home-bred socialists.
Right. My point was that there is no need for another one on top of the others.
Yes it does. An individual citizen has better chance of influencing a government that is “closer” to him.
Not really, all of them tend to be dismal goons.
Maybe it did, but things might have worked out even better without it. But god forbid we dare imagining anything better than what we have now.
BTW, the problem is not always socialism. Read the next post by Natalie and the link in it.
Its like if you see a vampire sneaking up on someone, you don’t stay still and hope they go away, you gotta plunge astake through their heart as quickly as possible, and failing that, take down the curtains and let sunlight shine on them as brightly as possible.
Videos like this of MEPs fiddling their expenses
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xnMtc_QJ4-E
If the media is full of stories like it, and youtube is full of stories like it, and people are writing to their politicians asking about stories like it, the tide will turn.
Jacob wrote: The main reason it was established: less chance of an European war – a worthy end.
Billll wrote: It is a uniquely European view of the EU that it was created to prevent its myriad states from going to war with one another.
No, the war argument is propaganda spewed out by the EU in order to justify its own existence. If the EU and its supporters are to be believed, it was the creation of an intrusive undemocratic unaccountable conspiracy of civil servants that prevented war. The absurdity of this claim is obvious when you consider the state of the world in 1945 and the continual threat of mutual destruction that characterised the Cold War. The correct explanation for Europe’s sudden conversion to peace after 1945 is the reality of a new world order. Before ww2 it was pragmatic for European powers to contest each other in the pursuit of global ambitions. With half the continent in the hands of the Soviets and the other half ravished by war it was obvious that West Germany had more important things to worry about than border disputes with France.
Billll & Jacob: Your contributions to this discussion are off topic. The discussion point is: “How can we bring down the European Union?”, not “Ought the EU be brought down or not?”.
The EU threatens to destroy all the independent sovereign democracies of Western Europe and replace them with a socialist, anti-American, undemocratic technocracy. The EU is not an economic project designed to increase the wealth of its citizens, it is a very particular point of view about how governments ought to be, ossified into a permanent set of institutionalised policies. This is the very opposite of the polities of Britain, USA, Australia (even France and Germany after the war). In these states, there are/were guidelines about how power ought to be distributed — written or unwritten — in the form of a Constitution, but the particular policies of any given administration are the free choice of citizens to elect when they vote for politicians to represent them.
The EU is founded on the principle that individual citizens should not be trusted with the momentous questions of government. The EU is already considering ways it can prevent bloggers from “irresponsible unregulated” chatter, following the Irish referendum last year in which they answered wrongly (that the whole purpose of referendums is precisely to allow people to choose more than one option seems not to have occurred to them). We vote for MEP’s but all the legislation is initiated by unelected Commissioners, the likes of Neil Kinnock (who stood as a candidate to be PM in an election that was almost impossible to lose, but nevertheless single-handedly lost it for the Labour Party because he was such a pompous incompetent windbag). More recently we’ve had the pleasure of Peter Mandelson, disgraced twice when in Government, so he gave up his position as an MP (wasn’t grand enough apparently), and became Trade Commissioner. So he, one of the most distrusted and disliked political figures of recent times wielded more power than most the British Cabinet. And we didn’t even vote for him.
Nice one philmil
And ?!
You seem to run out of steam at the end there.
With regard to the ultimate failure of U.S. Constitution, and at the risk of saying the obvious, governmental structures and constitutions are only so good as the people. The best theoretical system in the world means nothing if the people are not up to snuff. Good systems can hold back the decay, but only for so long.
Which is one of the reason our political and institutional “tranformative” enterprises in Iraq and Afghanistan are fucked in the medium-long term, no matter how enterprising and fantastic the U.S. soldier.
We’re (speaking, regretably in the terms of a collectivist, since of course, not all of “we” either voted or supported it) now going to get what we’ve allowed and deserve, good and hard. Like Ian, however, I have no optimism that misery will lead to any great epiphany. Individual freedom is the outlier.
It was a good run. Perhaps in a hundred, or few hundred years some other enterprising people(s) will rediscover the flame.
“Are you suggesting that a few libertarian blogs are adequate propaganda against the mass media/state juggernaut? If not, I apologise, but that seems to be what you’re saying.”
Don’t apologize Ian. What I am saying is that the likes of Samizdata are just about all that remains possible. For someone so seemingly pessimistic as yourself, I’m a little surprised you even think it will be possible to just go and ‘buy as much of the media as we can’. Given that newspapers have been run on a loss for years and years, what makes you think that any one of us would even be allowed near a newspaper regardless of how much cash we had? Politicians would be straight on the legislative drawing board as soon as they even thought they heard a mere whisper that someone like you was going to buy a major newspaper or TV news station.
Look at Alex Singleton – gets the odd piece about ‘free trade’ in the Telegraph now and then and what of it? He isn’t exactly calling for the outright destruction of the European or British States is he? I’m not saying his job is a waste of time – not at all – I’m just saying that there is a reason why the standard goes no higher than him, and it isn’t simply a matter of cash.
The “independent sovereign democracies” of Western Europe are already, on their own, socialist, anti-American, undemocratic, etc. It’s not that they were different until the EU came along…
False. You don’t appreciate the state of mind, the deep trauma the Europeans were in after WW2. The top fear of everybody was another war. They were really, really afraid of it. Everybody, the French, the Germans, the Russians, and all the smaller ones too. That has changed over time, and you can now say, with the benefit of hindsight, that the fear was unfounded. But, at that time the Europeans were traumatized and afraid, very afraid.
Of course, to prevent war, the EU didn’t have to be socialist. I repeat: it’s the socialism that is the problem, not the union.
Make a thought experiment: suppose the EU adopted and promoted free market reforms – would you oppose it still on the ground that it impairs the sovereignty of the member nations?
Alisa,
I think that some EU members are better off within the EU than independent. For example: Romania, Greece, Italy – possibly. In theory you don’t need a super-state, in practice it sometimes helps.
By the way: the US is also a Union, it even fought a bloody war over it….
The British weren’t. And, Germany was devastated and crushed. There was no chance of another war of that type; Germany as a nation with imperial dreams was finished. Remember, there had been no armistice. Germany was completely under the power of the allies.
And neither was the EU set up to “prevent war”. It was set up- well, everyone has a different idea. But the plan, the Monnet Plan, was always a USE by stealth. Which is where we are. Which is why your next question is not worth askiing-
There is no hope of that. It is not a free trade area, it is a customs union. A customs union, which has a common border and common tarriffs, requires as a matter of necessity a central government managing trade. From there, sovereignty leeches away to that central government. You can’t have a “free trade” EU. It can’t be done.
Neither is it a question of “socialism”. The pan-european nation state being constructed by the EU is not “socialist” in any meaningful sense (if you mean by socialist, some kind of marxist economics). It is a corporate state. The only guiding principle of it is centralised power and control; it may use that to impose “socialist” policies or “liberal” policies, and indeed each of those sides see the other happening (socialists complain it is too free market, liberals complain it is too socialist).
The simple thing that is wrong with it is that it is a government which is not subject to the will of the people, nor even constructed with their consent. It is as if Canada was, by stealth, surreptitiously drawn into the USA. It wouldn’t be an issue of whether this is by some arbitrary measure “good” or “bad” for Canadians. It is that Canada would, gradually, cease to be Canada. Bit by bit, canadians would find policies imposed upon them by a distant government in Washington over whom the individual canadian would have so little influence as to be meaningless.
The most basic right regarding government is for citizens to choose their form of government. The EU is designed to be the exact opposite, and nothing can reform it to be any different.
Germany was crushed and under occupation, still people were afraid of it. There were other reasons too for the European union, France got “agricultural” subsidies (i.e. money), Germany got a new legitimacy, respect. But the fear of another war was acute, maybe for psychological reasons more than actual ones, but it was there, and it was one motive.
The EU not subject to the will of the people? Why ? It is subject to the will of the constituent governments, which have veto power. And those governments are elected by the people in their respective countries. I think that the establishment of the EU is supported by a majority of the people in all countries, even in Britain. There is also opposition, but also solid support. You might not like it, but that’s how it is. If there were opposition to the EU in Britain, for example, Britain could quit. There is no majority for this.
France and Denmark and Ireland voted against the proposed EU constitution, for many it wasn’t socialist enough, they didn’t vote against the idea of a EU.
The EU might stink, for many reasons, but it isn’t blatantly undemocratic. You can opt out.
(In the US the southern states were denied this privilege, and ruled, undemocratically, for half a century, from the north).
Indirect democracy of the EU kind is fundamentally flawed, that’s kind of liberty 101. The committee elected by a committe elected by a committee elected by the people principle. For instance, there is no way for “the people” to throw out a government (the Commission), indeed, nobody votes for them in the first place. Neither are their policies voted for, or directed by, the people. But, reams have been written about the fundamentally oligarchical nature of teh EU and it’s hardly worth me rehearsing it again. If you can’t see what’s blatantly undemocractic about the EU, I have no idea what you would classify as “blatantly undemocratic”.
Is there a majority opposition to the EU in Britain? Probably not, but then neither is there a majority in favour. On any issue the public will break down into- Pro, Anti, Undecided and Don’t Care, and those last two categories are usually the majority. They are probably 80% or more on most issues. Best guess is that if a referendum on membership were held, the “Get Out” faction would probably win; which is why it’s never held. There’s certainly a general low level resentment of the EU, and it’s rare to meet people who really love it. They’re largely confined to that class which prospers from it, who are clustered around and in the oligarchy, read the Guardian, and primarily think of democracy as a rather quaint anachronism whose time has passed.
What we can say with confidence is that at best the EU serves no useful purpose. Were we not already members, there would be no rationale for joining it; far less even now than when we were tricked into it by the traitorous Tories.
Back when the EU was first formed, a friend of mine was gushing enthusiastic about it and was ready to move back to Scotland, from whence she came. I counseled her to wait, as I saw the EU effort differently. What used to be a bunch of small, heavily protected, socialist (to one degree or another) duchies were about to get together and form a large, heavily protected, socialist (to one degree or another) duchy.
Everyone agreed that the protectionism had to go, or at least be reduced, if anyone was to make any money, but the governments were bothered that lower taxes across a border would cause an exodus of the cash cows. Both were right.
What passes for an EU government today justifies its existence by publishing 5,000,000 pages of regulations daily covering such earth-shattering issues an the proper number of teeth in an edible frog.
Is a re-constituted (pun intended) EU not a different enough entity from the existing one? I was rather hoping so.
The EU didn’t end general war in Europe.
The US and the USSR did. One, by squeezing out continental competition in Western Europe, and other by making it pallatable to Western Europeans.
Of course, for all the bloviating it is also certainly temporal in nature anyway (Talk to you in a hundred years), and reliant on attitudes that are not in anyway dependent on the EU superstructure.
The US and USSr did, and the EU helped, too.
But the question is less who did end the war, than what were the people thinking at the time. They were afraid of war, and tried various remedies, the EU being one of them.
So, blame your gov. for it, not the EU.
That’s easy: if they prevent leaving the EU by war. If the send people to concentration camps or murder them like in Russia.
All democracies are indirect democracies, where a commitee, designed by a commitee decides things, not the people.
Jacob: I cannot agree with you that up to the present the EU was beneficial to the member countries in the long run, at least because there is no way of knowing how the alternative (i.e. no EU) would have played out. Would there have been another war? Who knows? But the other point you are making seems to be that the EU is more of a symptom than a cause. With that I can agree. With all that said, and as things stand now, the EU seems to be more a problem than a good thing, and seems to be on the way to becoming even more of a problem.
You cannot end the EU while so many people – notably our politicians and ‘leaders’ – see membership as being personally beneficial. The desire to get on the Brussels gravy train ensures there is a constant stream of people with no intention of doing anything but maintaining the whole thing and, if necessary, enlarging it to ensure the money keeps flowing in to their bank account.
After all, when you are wealthy you can find ways to circumvent any difficulties imposed by rules and regulations you don’t like.
The whole EU is increasingly concerned with propping itself up, no matter how unstable it becomes. Fantasies it will collapse or even face up to ‘reality’ on its own remain just that. So long as it can (and does) spin and adjust and hide it will keep going, because too many people need it to ensure their own futures.
The question then is how do you make those people willingly renounce personal benefits gained through the EU?
I said it was beneficial to some (many) of the member countries. About that I’m pretty sure. If it is beneficial to all ? I don’t know. Maybe. It has positive aspects and negative ones, hard to tell which is bigger.
Playing with alternative history (what would have happened if there was no EU) is tricky.
It is far from being the pure evil monster that many, like Natalie, say it is.
Fascinating discussion!
(Off topic, but I don’t visit this blog as often as I might, because the white-on-blue text is very irritating to read. Do other experience this?)
Most people seem to like it. if you do not, just read the black and white print version (link in the sidebar)