Blog Archives

A nationalist view of the EU

The word nationalist is often thrown about when a europhile argues against those who oppose political union in europe. In fact, when the french, dutch and irish had referendums and all rejected the lisbon treaty, some MEP’s called the results nationalist, as to mean being nationalist is something bad!

A nationalist is someone who believes in democracy, who believes in one-man-one-vote and believes that government should be carried out by and for the people. However, he also raises the question: what people?

Representative government works best within a population whose members feel enough in common with one another to accept government from each other’s hands. After all, a policy functions best when there is a shared identity.

The unelected president of the European Commission, Jose Barroso, has argued that nation states are dangerous precisely because they are excessively democratic:

Governments are not always right. If governments were always right we would not have the situation that we have today. Decisions taken by the most democratic institutions in the world are very often wrong.

The EU now treats public opinion as an obsticle to be overcome rather than a reason to change direction.

Marxists used to contend that, if only the workers were in full possession of the facts, and free rationally to advance their own interests, they would vote for socialist parties, but in practice they were led astray by bourgeois interests. It was therefore necessary for good communists to act in the real interests of the majority.

This is the same argument the eurocrats support. Because they think people are unable to make an unclouded decision, eurocrats are entitled to disregard their desires in pursuit of their own preferences.

Even Tony Blair thought this: 

The British people are sensible enough to know that, even if they have a certain prejudice about Europe, they don’t expect their government necessarily to share or act upon it.

And finally, the EU has so much power, that to save the dwindling euro currency in 2011, it effectively halted democracy in italy and greece ‘for their own good’ through brussels appointed apparatchiks.

A nationalist, is someone who wants what is best for his country, through democracy. Not someone who thinks they know what is right for everyone.

The fact is, if the EU were a country applying to join itself, it would be rejected on the grounds of being insufficiently democratic by its own rules. 

Image

 

ps. please read Dan Hannan’s book:

A Doomed Marriage: Britain and Europe

Advertisements

The golden rules

Dan Mitchell has come up with simple but effective rules which should be adhered to by every single nation on this planet.

Firstly, his golden rule:

Image

 

Good fiscal policy exists when the private sector grows faster than the public sector, while fiscal ruin is inevitable if government spending grows faster than the productive part of the economy.

Secondly, Mitchell’s law:

Image

 

This term, which I am modestly calling Mitchell’s Law, describes what happens when government intervention (Fannie and Freddie, for example, or Medicare and Medicaid) causes problems in a particular market (a housing bubble or a third-party payer crisis), which leads the politicians to impose more misguided intervention (bailouts or Obamacare).

Dan Hannan and the single worst thing about the EU

As you will come to learn, I am a massive Daniel Hannan fan. His latest Telegraph article is a passage from his new book: How We Invented Freedom & Why It Matters

He rightly singles out the defining problem of the way the EU functions: Its ability to ignore the rule book.

Shall I tell you the worst thing about the EU? It’s not the waste or the corruption or the Michelin-starred lifestyles of its leaders. It’s not the contempt for voters or the readiness to swat referendum results aside. It’s not the way that multi-nationals and NGOs and all manner of corporate interests are privileged over consumers. It’s not the pettifogging rules that plague small employers. It’s not the Common Agricultural Policy or the Common Fisheries Policy. It’s not the anti-Britishness or the anti-Americanism. It’s not even the way in which the euro is inflicting preventable poverty on tens of millions of southern Europeans.

No, it’s something more objectionable than any of these things – and something which, bizarrely, doesn’t exercise us nearly as much as it should. Put simply, it’s this: the EU makes up the rules as it goes along.

He goes on to give many examples of why this is the case. One of the best involves Article 125 of the EU treaty “The Union shall not be liable for, or assume the commitments of, central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of any Member State.” Thus, every single euro-bailout was illegal. Christine Lagarde admitted: “We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straightforward. No bailouts.”

If the EU is proud of bending the rules, how can it be trusted?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100248388/the-single-most-objectionable-thing-about-the-eu-in-a-crowded-field/

 

%d bloggers like this: