It wasn't so long ago
that any discussions relating to Europe would have centred around maybe half a
dozen of the region's different sovereign states, rather than the continental
federation of 28 which now constitute the comparatively new economic and
politically driven construct, which is the European Union. Where once the
international community spoke about and dealt with the likes of France,
Britain, Germany, Holland, Sweden and Denmark, along with a raft of other
ancient nation states, now the international community commonly speak to and
deal with faceless appointees of the EU, rather than the national
representatives of the individual sovereign countries, which for the most part
have willingly allowed themselves to be subsumed by the growing continental
monstrosity, with its unerring mantra of "ever closer unity".
It's hard to imagine that
impoverished Portugal once led the western world in sea-borne exploration of
the globe, producing some of European history's greatest ever maritime
explorers and opening up the western coast of Africa, along with parts of South
America, for trade, for settlement and yes for exploitation too! But who will
remember all of that rich cultural history, now that Portugal has agreed to
sell itself, its people, its future employment prospects, its national
currency, all for the prospect of being good little Europeans, rather than
remaining proud and independent Portuguese, or even Iberians?
The same might be said of
their larger neighbours, Spain, the only European nation to have ever truly
rivalled Britain on the global stage, in terms of its own imperial ambitions;
and that but for the vagaries of the Atlantic weather, might well have become
one of those small number of foreign states ever to successfully invade
England. Alongside its Iberian neighbours though, Spain too has chosen to
essentially abandon its rich cultural and nationalistic past in favour of
becoming just another region of the proposed United States of Europe, sacrificing
control of its currency, its jobs markets, its national borders and its
traditional fishing grounds, simply to become a fairly unremarkable member of
this new socio-economic club.
As for France! Well, what
can one say? For hundreds of years, France and England have shared a love/hate
relationship that generally defies rational explanation. Whether we have been
fighting one another, or fighting against a common foe, our mutual and
traditional antagonisms have never been that far away, but still our political
leaders have managed to put them to one side, if only for as long as it takes
for disaster to be averted, or for the danger to be confronted and overcome.
From a purely French perspective, one can well understand that the emergence
and development of the European Union, with its ethos of ever closer union, is
generally not regarded as a threat or a danger to France itself. Why would it
be, when France was one of the chief architects of the post World War II
proposals that brought the first incarnation of the Union into being? Added to
that is the fact that France commonly treats EU rules and regulations as a
buffet of choice, picking out the bits that it likes and disposing of, or
ignoring those parts that it doesn't quite like the look of. Even though France
has been called upon to surrender its national currency, its border controls
and a multitude of other national competences, in order to comply with the EU's
myriad of new rules and regulations, overall, by benefiting from them directly,
or by just ignoring those that don't add benefit to their economy or society,
one can well understand why France would actually regard the EU as a worthwhile
experiment.
As regards Britain's
attitude to Europe generally and the European Union specifically, one supposes
that it depends on who you ask? For the most part, it seems highly likely that
a majority of Britons are largely indifferent to "Europe" as a
general subject, either because they haven't given the matter a great deal of
thought, or don't know enough about the subject to offer an informed opinion
about it either way. Likewise, one would assume that most Britons don't really
care that much about the EU as an organisation, unless of course it happens to
be mentioned with regard to immigration, or the Human Rights Act, both of which
tend to receive a significant amount of attention in the British media, often
for the most negative sorts of reasons. The truth is though that if someone
were to suggest filling in the Channel Tunnel and building a high wall around
the southern coast of Britain, the vast majority of us probably wouldn't be
that bothered by the plan, providing that some sort of reasonable justification
was offered for doing it. We simply don't care enough about Europe, the EU, or
anything else on the other side of the Channel, why should we?
Okay! So some poor souls
might miss their Brie, their Champagne, their French Wine, their Swiss
chocolate, but so what? Shit happens! For all such losses though, if someone
were to justify the move by telling the British people that virtually all
immigration from the continent would stop, or that they wouldn't be seeing any
more Islamic clerics abusing our welfare systems through the use of the Human
Rights Act, most people would welcome the move; and some would even help build
the wall, or fill in the tunnel with their bare hands. Europe was, is and will
always remain a nuisance to most Britons, as it simply represents a reminder of
the complete waste of British lives, influence and money that have been invested
in the place for the past two hundred years or more.
In fact, it might well be
argued that it is not the success of the European continent or the European
Union that has seen Britain attach itself to this particular political
experiment, but rather the failure of our own British politicians to come up
with a viable alternative. It's little wonder that the British people are so
unenthusiastic about Europe and the EU when most of them recognise that in
reality it is and always has been a really, really bad idea, but one that we've
been forced to choose, because there isn't another on offer. To put it into
some sort of perspective, the EU as an idea, is a bit like pretending that a drainpipe is a bucket; and
the user being constantly surprised when the water keeps pissing out of one
bottom of it!
Of course the initial
concept of the EU, a European trading bloc, where tariffs and duties were
removed for member states, was a pretty good idea, but as with most
politicians, the architects behind the scheme just couldn't stop tinkering with
the idea. Clearly never having heard the old adage "if it ain't broke,
don't fix it" they did try and fix it; and screwed it up entirely! Then
when they found themselves in a socio-economic hole, they just kept digging,
presumably on the basis that if they dig long enough and deep enough, then
they'll emerge into daylight at some point in time?
Although we'd all like to
think that the EU is being run by the brightest and the best, clearly nothing
could be further from the truth. Small men having small minds can be the only
explanation as to why what started off as a straightforward customs union, has
subsequently morphed into a continental sized economic and bureaucratic
nightmare that even the likes of Dr Steven Hawking would struggle to explain;
and he's a clever fellow, unlike some of the political pygmies who seem to
think they're in charge of the EU.
The less charitable
amongst us might choose to believe that the EU is little more than a giant
spider's web of deceit, woven with strands of financial impropriety, political
shenanigans and sheer human vanity, at the centre of which sits the likes of
Angela Merkel and her political associates in Germany. "She who pays the
piper, calls the tune", so they say and there can be little doubt that
financially strong and industrially active Germany is definitely pulling all of
the various strands that constitute this particular web. There's nothing wrong
in that of course, provided that Frau Merkel and her political cohorts are honest
enough to admit that they're in charge, because they can be and choose to be,
as well as admitting what their true intentions are. If their long term goal is
to create a United States of Europe, similar to the USA, then tell people that.
If they're determined to recreate some form of Socialist Federation, similar to
the old Soviet Union, then they should tell people that also. Because, sure as
eggs is eggs, people are going to figure it out for themselves at some point
and if they don't like what they see, then what's going to happen then?
Obviously I can't speak
for other countries, but here in the UK it has become something of a standard
joke that most of our failed politicians are simply exported to Europe in order
to work for the EU in some or other role, Lord and Lady Kinnock, Lord
Mandelsson, Baroness Ashton, to name but a few of the so-called worthies that
we've managed to off-load to the continent. Bearing in mind that they've hardly
covered themselves with glory on this side of the Channel, therein perhaps lies
a clue as to their actual abilities, after all one rarely disregards a star
striker, whereas a clapped out old fart is another matter entirely. Sadly
though, the fact that the EU accepted them in the first place is noteworthy,
suggesting that the entire organisation is being manned and run by a variety of
national rejects, has-beens and second stringers, with the odd few political
exceptions , like Nigel Farage, Paul Nuttall and Godfrey Bloom, thrown in.
The nearest comparison
that one could point to when describing the EU and the European Parliament is
probably the Eurovision Song Contest, which may in fact be fairly indicative of
the way things work on the continent. The judging panel (in this case the
Parliament) sits and listens to the individual song (in this case, the
particular piece of legislation); and then when it's finished, they consult
with their neighbour (in this case, representatives with a similar political
outlook); and once they're sure that it's of mutual beneficial interest to them
they vote in favour. However, as with Eurovision, any legislation connected
with or of benefit to the United Kingdom, is automatically greeted with a
"nil" point, so good luck to Mr Cameron when he attempts to recreate
that "Bucks Fizz" moment between now and 2017.
Of course there's no good
reason why our European neighbours should do us any favours, after all they're
as indifferent about us, as we are about them. The only people who keep
wittering on about being good Europeans are those EU employees, who generous
salaries and over-inflated egos are entirely dependent on the project carrying
on indefinitely, so a certain amount of self interest needs to be taken into
account when considering such things. It would represent a massive failure for
the EU project if Britain were to withdraw from the European Union, not least
to those countries who are equally exasperated with its excesses, but too timid
to say so publicly. Better to let Britain get all of the political grief, while
they might gain some of the benefits, from any blood that the UK may be able to
draw from the European Parliamentary stone. That's assuming of course that
whoever we have as Prime Minister doesn't allow themselves to be as easily
hoodwinked as Mr Cameron obviously was over the last round of European budget
cuts, or his veto that wasn't a veto, until someone with a bit more commonsense
explained it to him, although even then he still believed that he'd scored a
victory, which just goes to prove what an embarrassment he really is!
Ultimately, the European
Union may well have begun life with the noblest of intentions, that of
preventing any future wars between Germany and its continental neighbours. The
fact that this common treaty eventually evolved into a Common European Market
was perhaps inevitable and laudable, had it remained simply that, a common
customs union, or common marketplace. Sadly, earlier ill-conceived continental
dreams of a Europe wide federation of states have subsequently been adopted by
various politicians, often as much for their own personal vanity, or their individual
nation's interests, without any real thought being given to how such radical
socio-economic developments might impact on those less advanced nations who
willingly chose to join the project.
One might well regard the
European Union like a set of child's building blocks. Typically, the child on
first use might simply continue to place the blocks on top of one another,
unaware or indifferent to the instability affecting the structure, until
eventually it falls over and crashes to the floor. It might take a child a few
attempts to figure out that they need to secure the foundations of the pile of
bricks, in order to ensure its stability, but eventually they'll work it out
and no-one gets hurt in the process (unless of course they happen to be using real
house bricks, in which case it's probably not a good idea to let them play with
them in the first place) In a sense though that's exactly what the architects
of the EU have been doing, allowing children to play with real house bricks,
which in real life has resulted in the peoples of Greece, Cyprus, Portugal,
Spain and Ireland getting hurt. However, rather than taking the bricks off the
child, they're currently in the process of inviting even more children to join
in the game, including those from Macedonia, Montenegro, Turkey and Serbia. One
wonders if they too will be enticed by the supposedly cheap money, the new
roads, the shiny new cars, as were their Greeks, Cypriots and Spanish
counterparts, who are now busily extracting themselves from the mountain of
debt that engulfed them?
It cannot be a
coincidence that Germany, one of the chief architects of the European Union and
the central financier of the project, also happens to be one of the main
beneficiaries of this enlargement and the ongoing European indebtedness. Could
it genuinely be the case that the entire EU project is little more than a
glorified Ponzi scheme, where new members are constantly required in order to
feed the financial rewards given to earlier participants? If that's the case
then what happens when you run out of European countries who are desperate to
join? Do you move into Asia, Africa, the Middle East? And where do you stop?
Maybe
a simpler answer, is that the EU is a big project being run by small men, who
have neither the capacity, competence, or the personal integrity to handle such
a massive undertaking, always assuming that it should have been started in the
first place. Big, old countries like Portugal, Spain, France, Holland, Denmark,
Sweden, Germany and Britain haven't become easier to govern, they've become far
more complicated, so quite why, the likes of Catherine Ashton, Herman Van
Rumpoy or Jose' Manuel Barroso believe they can represent them, understand
them, let alone solve their problems is a complete nonsense. Why would Angela
Merkel, David Cameron, or Francoise Hollande care about the day-to-day problems
of Greece, Cyprus, Spain, Portugal, Denmark or Sweden, when they're elected and
paid to look after the interests of their national electorates? And if the
answer is that Catherine Ashton, Herman Van Rompuy or Jose' Manuel Barroso are
paid to do that job, then I'll pose the obvious question, how on earth would
they do that? Small minded men and women dealing with big national and
international issues....why would we rely on them to solve what are fairly
insurmountable problems? That would be as stupid as asking a history graduate
to run the entire British economy, wouldn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment