The truth is something most human beings have problems with. We don’t like to be wrong, or at any rate caught out doing wrong. We don’t like to admit our faults. It’s human nature. But most people have enough maturity to acknowledge when they are wrong, and in their more sober moments to be honest about themselves.
Two types of people don’t respond in this way – I leave aside those who have yet to grow up; they’re are entitled to some consideration; we were all young once.
One type are just plain criminal. They have to be put behind bars for ten years before they’ll acknowledge what they are and what a downright pain in the neck they have been to others.
The other are the idealistically deceived. Their Ideal cannot be wrong. Their whole world view revolves around their god – be that a religious god or a philosophy or political ideology. They can be a pain in the neck because they’ll swear black is white and white is black rather than admit their god is not all they believe him [or her !] to be …
And what we see before us at this stage in the Brexit saga is evidence of both. The most obvious is the latter – the ideological obsession before which all reality must bend and bow.
Last week 3 women MPs left the Conservative party because they don’t like the situation Brexit is in. They along with the other Remainiacs in parliament and the Civil Service have brought about this mess with its national humiliation, and they avowedly want another Referendum to overturn the 2016 Brexit vote.
These are people who treat the EU as a religious cult, and regard the 17.4 million of us who voted to Leave as anything from deluded, through stupid [regardless of the numerous graduates and doctorates supporting Brexit] to utterly deranged.
We are, of course, none of these things but their religious obsession means that this is the only way they can cope, so they interpret reality accordingly.
Hence Anna Soubry calling Brexit MPs “extremists” – whereas in the real world they are simply seeking to abide by the democratic vote of June 23rd 2016.
Human beings in this state can get pretty hypocritical. This type routinely spout about Rights and about giving the people the chance to vote – again. [Of course that is because we all got it wrong the first time; that time, however, we were all promised faithfully – in writing to every household – that the government would implement the result: of course, at that time, they fully expected the vote to be Remain, hence the promise].
But when it comes to their own consistency with this, they fall remarkably short. The 3 ladies mentioned above all want another vote on Brexit, and they are very keen on social justice. But they have no intention whatsoever of submitting their own treacherous behaviour to the ballot box by resigning and standing again in a by-election. Even though they owe their positions to a party elected on a 2017 manifesto promise to go ahead and implement Brexit – leave both Customs Union and Single Market.
In taking this line, however, they are being remarkably consistent in another way.
They are reflecting the intransigent and undemocratic mindset at the heart of the EU project and at the heart of the EUtopian cult. They are reflecting the sort of self righteousness which condemns others for no reason, but refuses to admit its own blatant faults.
As far as a criminal mindset goes, at this stage I’ll only mention that EU accounts remain unapproved by the auditors for the last 20 years because of monies unaccounted for; the utter waste of money on projects deemed worthy by bureaucrats and the contracted big businesses, but no-one else; the opaque appointment of Juncker crony Selmayr, investigated and opposed by the powerless parliament.
Then there is the wilful betrayal of the Brexit vote by Theresa May’s misnamed Withdrawal Agreement, and the type of Remainiac mentality displayed by her civil servants like Ollie Robbins – a known EU fanatic from his Oxford days. Their machinations went behind the backs of the constitutionally created government departments whose job it was to handle Brexit. Because those departments were overseen by Brexit voting ministers – they were sidelined, their work binned, and replaced by a Remain product.
This “Deal” does not Withdraw the UK from the EU but establishes an unprecedented integration of our entire Defence – policy, procurement and capability – under EU control. These people evidently took the Brexit vote as the cue to hasten integration by the back door, and not for one minute allow the UK’s departure to cause the disintegration of their beloved project. Which is what would undoubtedly happen given the growing awareness among European voters that this is a democratic disaster.
All this leads up to this.
There is something very insidious, bureaucratic and disturbing at the heart of the critical EU planning and decision making process.
I can guarantee that 99% of Remain voters do not know this. And I suspect that most Remain minded MPs don’t realise it either.
With critical votes coming up in mid March in Parliament, MPs and Remain die hards really ought to wake up to the disturbing reality about the EU.
The reality of closed-doors decision-making by small groups of interested lobbyists and EU functionaries where no minutes are taken. Officially, they do not exist under the treaties. But the power is right there. No transparency. No record. Yet they have been in existence for 9 years and their influence is critical.
In March 2019 the UK Parliament has the opportunity to prove to itself and to us that parliamentary democracy is alive and well. Or it can subject us to an organisation with a deceitful ideological culture and a closed, unaccountable bureaucracy.
EUtopia or MittelEuropa ? Idealism or Imperialism ? Which is behind what is happening in Europe today ?
Let’s consider the Idealists – the EUtopians – first.
Idealists always believe in heaven on earth, regardless of the historical facts to the contrary. They have a blind faith which reality cannot change. The average British Remain voter has no idea what the EU is or how it actually operates. Indeed, they admit it’s not perfect yet go on trusting that somehow, some day everything will work out alright.
However, all the growing evidence says it won’t work out alright.
From the dubious appointment of Martin Selmayr as General Secretary; to the EU auditors refusing to sign off EU accounts for the last two decades; to the mass unemployment among young people in Mediterranean Countries.
We could go on, and on…
Personally I have heard nothing from EU Remain campaigners in Britain that could come remotely close to causing me to change my mind. What did come across to me loud and clear was the reliance on propaganda, especially Project Fear.
And Project Fear continues despite the evidence of history to the contrary. The UK economy did not collapse immediately after the Brexit Vote in June 2016. Nor will it after 29th March 2019.
Then there are those who see the EU as a front for German imperialism – Mitteleuropa.
Unlike the Europhiliac Idealists, they have some serious history on their side. The concept of a German Mitteleuropa took shape in the mid 19th century, was made feasible by Bismarck’s militaristic unification of the Germans, and then realised in the 20th Century – albeit briefly – by the Nazis.
But that is the problem. German militarism and two World Wars have so filled our understanding and perception that we fail to see the full historical picture.
So what is the truth about the EU if it is neither German imperialism nor the great Ideal of peace and harmony in Europe we’d all like to believe in ?
The truth about the EU project was made clear on Tuesday the 22nd January 2019 in a Treaty ceremony between France and Germany in Aachen [or Aix la Chapelle in French]. The ceremony, its treaty, its historic location, its timing – all these spoke volumes about the EU project.
That truth was summed up in these words from this report here.
French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel met on Tuesday in the German border city of Aachen, known in France as Aix-la-Chapelle, to sign a new partnership between their two countries – exactly 56 years after the Elysée Treaty, signed by their predecessors Charles De Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer, sealed Franco-German friendship after World War II.
In its own words, the new agreement – referred to in the French press as the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle – aims to “deepen [the two countries’] cooperation in foreign affairs, defence, external and internal security and development, and at the same time work on strengthening the ability of Europe to act independently”.
In so doing, its proponents hope to breathe new life into a partnership – dubbed the “Franco-German couple” in France – that has been a cornerstone of European integration, and offset the centrifugal forces that are tugging at the 28-member European Union amid mounting nationalism and Euroscepticism.
Here we have the answer to the question about what the EU is and where it is going.
The bottom line is this: it is a Franco German bid for European hegemony – they want to rule Europe.
It is a French initiative with which the Germans have fallen in line. They did so in 1950 when the French imposed their wishes on the European Coal and Steel community; in 1962 when Adenauer responded to De Gaulle’s overtures to co-operate [their ministers have met regularly ever since to fix their line on Europe]; and now Merkel has responded to Macron’s push for a further initiative.
Jacques Delors made it very clear in his 1992 book, Le Nouveau Concert Europeen that France is the guiding spirit in the EU project. On page 18 he states:
La France, par son sens de l’universel et par sa soif d’influence, a impregne, depuis le debut, l’esprit et la realisation de la construction europeene.
Delors should know. He restored the flagging vision for the EU project and ensured the foundation was laid for economic and political Union during his time as President of the Commission.
Several decades before Bismarck and the German notion of Mitteleuropa, came the French Revolution with its Enlightenment declaration, Les Droits de l’homme and du citoyen – and with that came the Dictator Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon guaranteed the French Revolution in the blood of Monarchist protestors. And when he pursued French hegemony in Europe he lost no sleep over the loss of European life necessitated by his imperial ambitions.
President Macron of France invited world leaders to Paris on the Centenary of the Armistice of 11th November 1918 – then gave them a lecture on how the world should be.
And the day before, Macron hosted a bi-lateral ceremony with Chancellor Merkel to celebrate the signing of the Armistice 100 years on from 11 November 1918.
But Macron and Merkel also chose that day of all days to review troops of the joint Franco-German Defence force; and just days later Merkel told the EU parliament it was time for a fully fledged European Army…
The British Imperial army in that War suffered almost a million dead, and twice that number wounded. The British were no less engaged in the Armistice of November 1918 than the French. But such facts were incidental details deleted from the Franco German event on November 10th 2018. The facts of history did not suit the political point being made.
Personally I find that chilling in light of the appalling numbers of British casualties on French soil in the First World War…
That should tell us something very sobering and very pertinent about the French and German political class and their ambitions…
The 2019 treaty establishes increased military and security co-operation between the two nations. And it commits them to mutual Defence in event of attack.
Even EUtopians might wonder: Why is this not being done at European level, and at that level only ? Indeed why are we talking about a European Army at all ?
Because the French and German governments have every intention of setting both the pace and the agenda for European integration. On their terms !
However, as the article cited above goes on to say, the distinct differences of mentality and culture between the two make this Treaty a wish list as much as much as anything else.
And that is the problem with the EU project. It espouses an unrealistic Ideal.
Ideals have a record of Napoleonic figures who foolishly try to make the unworkable work.
In War and Peace [chapter 38, Book Ten] Tolstoy cites these words written by Napoleon during his exile on the island of St Helena:
“The Russian war should have been the most popular of modern times: it was a war of good sense, for real interests, for the security and tranquillity and security of all; it was purely pacific and conservative. It was a war for a great cause, the end of uncertainties and the beginning of security. A new horizon and new labours were opening out, full of well-being and prosperity for all. The European system was already founded; all that remained was to organise it.
….. Europe would in this way have soon have been , in fact, but one people, and anyone who traveled anywhere would have found himself always in the common fatherland …..
On returning to France, to the bosom of the great, strong, magnificent, peaceful and glorious fatherland, I should have proclaimed her frontiers immutable, all future wars purely defensive, all aggrandizement anti-national. I should have associated my son in the Empire; my dictatorship would have been finished, and his constitutional reign would have begun.
Paris would have been the capital of the world, and the French the envy of the nations !”
After concluding this quotation, Tolstoy then comments:
“Napoleon, predestined by Providence for the gloomy role of executioner of the peoples, assured himself that the aim of his actions had been the people’s welfare, and that he could control the fate of millions and by the employment of power confer benefits.”
We know that Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812 to enforce the European economic bloc which he had created. He maintained that the Tsar was failing to comply with his Europe wide demand that every country strictly observe his continental system.
That system shut out the British whose economic power Napoleon intended thereby to break.
Napoleon rose inexorably to the place of Emperor as a result of his military and political aptitude. He came to notice when his strategic assessment broke the British siege of Toulon. He established himself as the guarantor of the French Revolution when he turned his artillery on civilian counter revolutionary demonstrators in Paris – manifestly heedless of the cost in human life. He deftly exploited the upheavals caused by the Revolution to establish himself as the Autocratic defender and promoter of the Great Cause.
In which position he exported the Cause all over Europe and of course thereby entrenched himself as Emperor of France and Master of Europe.
The Great Cause clearly served an even Greater EGO.
Little has changed in 200 years. Human nature remains the same. Idealism and idealists remain the same. Politics and politicians remain the same. The economic imperatives driving the great powers of the world to domination and war – yes, they too remain the same.
As does the refusal by human beings to face facts they don’t like.
In November 2018 the truth about a European Army was finally announced. Macron trailed it during his week long Centenary tour of the battlefields of the First Word War. On Tuesday 6th November, Macron spoke on Europe 1 Radio about a “true European Army”, and said that, “we have to protect ourselves with regard to China, Russia and even the United States of America”.
On 9th November his Finance Minister, Bruno Le Maire told an audience of German businessmen that Europe should become an Empire – a peaceful one of course – but an empire in the face of other empire type nations like China and Russia. He was talking about complete economic independence for Europe.
On 10th November 2018, President Macron and Chancellor Merkel reviewed units of the Franco-German army as they commemorated the signing of the armistice of November 11th 1918. Just the two of them. The costly British engagement was entirely removed from the record.
At this Franco German event, President Macron told a young person that Franco German co-operation had prevented war in western Europe since 1945, and that this co-operation had led to the founding of the European Union.
On 11th November, Macron lectured world leaders – including Presidents Trump and Putin – on the way forward for the world at the Centenary Armistice day commemoration in Paris. It was a very French take on the world …
On 13th November 2018, Angela Merkel told the EU parliament that it was time to think practically about an EU army…
These announcements were patently co-ordinated. It is naive to think that preparations for an EU Army have not been going on for some time. In fact, the Brexit vote in June 2016 appears to have been the catalyst for pursuing a thorough going EU military policy and capability. Andrea Jenkyns MP, a member of the UK Parliament’s Brexit committee revealed in August 2018 that the UK government has been pursuing negotiations with the EU to submit all UK military policy, supply and capability to the EU Army project – since the Brexit vote.
In other words, the UK’s ability to stand up for itself as an independent nation would be surrendered. Our entire defence and security would be dependent on the very organisation we voted to Leave. So much for democracy …
Were the people of Europe ever consulted about a European Army ?
What do they think ?
Were we not entirely misled by Remainiac’s like Nick Clegg who insisted that no such project existed ?
Just what does creating another super power Army do for the prospects of peace ?
Are we going to suffer the same fate as the USA whose government budgets and domestic economy are so Defence industry oriented ?
Who is the most likely candidate for Europe’s number One enemy ?
Just how will the world’s existing ’empires’ react to this development ?
What this has to do with a UK leaving the EU on 29th March 2019, you may ask.
The proposed EU Withdrawal Agreement deal negotiated by Theresa May and the proposed Declaration on the future relationship with the EU both make provision for UK subsidiarity to EU super power military forces.
Even if that Agreement and Declaration fail to be agreed by the UK Westminster Parliament in 2019, the UK government could still sign up to this under its prerogative powers. Whether such use of the prerogative can now be constitutionally or morally justified remains to be seen.
It is incredible that an ostensibly Right wing, UK Conservative government should have even entertained the idea, let alone pursued serious talks about the submission of all UK Defence capacity in such a way.
But it has happened.
In complete contradiction and denial of the clear direction given on June 23rd 2016.
The bureaucratic and autocratic mentality of the EU ideology is manifestly alive and well in the corridors of UK power…