jboldie, I would agree that the EU debate is so difficult because it sits right on the faultline between globalism, federalism and nationalism - their most enthusiastic proponents have different ideas of where the boundaries lie to the rest of us.

I would suggest that Blairite New Labour is economically Globalist, bureaucratically and culturally Federalist, Brownites are economically Globalist, bureaucratically Nationalist and culturally Federalist, whilst Cameron "progressive conservatives" are economically Globalist, bureaucratically undecided and culturally Nationalist. Thatcherites were economically Globalist, bureaucratically and culturally Nationalist. Hence all the battle-lines we see today.

One thing to ponder - UK has the most popular social system in Europe (everyone wants to come here, despite some mewling to the contrary once they have arrived). This is placing intolerable population pressure on our economy, infrastructure and governance. Europe, by contrast is resource rich and not yet net overpopulated, especially if Russia comes into the fold.
...

Originally Posted by jboldie

Originally Posted by lsquared

Originally Posted by jboldie

Sorry to take issue but the EU isn't actually an empire nor is likely to become one on its own.

Definition of empire:

1. An extensive group of States or countries under a single supreme authority.

2. Supreme dominion often followed by absolute control.

In 1 above - the current constituents of the European Soviet Union

In 2 above - the absolute control of the unelected and unaccountable commissioners.

Your argument is interesting but flawed. It dismisses the wishes of populations; it ignores language and cultural issues; it fails to take accurate account of geography; it assumes that the human spirit will be permanently vanquished and subjugated by a series of 'all powerful' beings (vide 2 above) in the mould of Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Kim-il Jong, Giscard D'Estaing, Emperor Bokassa, Mugabe, Napoleon, Robespierre, Bliar and other mentally unstable monsters.

Thank you for your insight into the quoted post(no, NOT being sarcastic)-I stated that the EU would not become an empire on its own,much more likely that it would become another component block of the worldwide and central administration that the globalists want.It is they who would cheerfully "dismiss the wishes of individual nations and ignore language and cultural issues".Their belief is that there would be no such thing as national sovereignty,simply blind,unquestioning obedience to the central government.In contrast to the comprehensive list you provided of past and present despots,the difference this time is that corporations would be in the vanguard of such a global takeover and not the respective military elements of countries/continents.I wonder if that was the idea after WW2 when the idea of a 'New World Order' was mooted.Thoughts please.....

Apologies for not understanding precisely the thrust of your argument.

I have bolded the serious and fast approaching danger in your response above.

Whilst I agree that corporations are powerful, especially in America and increasingly in India and Brazil, the 'democratic process and protections' are still able to control them. Ultimately, the state will become all powerful because, unlike the corporations, it controls the military. Fear and force are powerful tools in the 'control' business - observe China and consider the size of the Indian Armed Forces.

When a 'state' tastes the ultimate power - remember Soviet Russia - it becomes less and less inclined to forego that power - consider mad Mugabe. Seldom, if ever, does a state wield this power but rather an individual within that state - Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot to name but a few.

It is commonly acknowledged that the European Soviet Union has plans for an Army. It already has an overarching police organisation and by stealth it has granted itself powers that permit the 'centre' - the unelected and unaccountable commissars - to 'police' the outer 'regions' - European Arrest warrant for example.

When the European Army is founded - brass and bands to France and Germany, fighting to Great Britain - and the 'President' finds his or her feet, then the stage is set for that person to become 'All Powerful'. Bliar has shown a propensity to deploy 'his' Armed Forces willy-nilly about the globe, what is to prevent a recurrence when he has a new Army - other than an assassin's bullet?

Poorly expressed I admit but it scratches the surface of my fears. We never, ever, seem to learn from history.

We don't,do we?Thanks for your take on my post,although if Bliar DID become EU President and was assassinated there would be no shortage of candidates to get their feet 'in the trough'.Totally agree with your point on his penchant for ill-considered taskings for HM Forces-but as Prez would he have the final say where any EU forces were sent,given the current reluctance of SOME countries to commit to,for example,Afghanistan?I'd like to witness some of the internal arguments which could arise about that sort of thing;would be almost entertaining were it not for the seriousness of the subject concerned.

Point taken on the threat, but the question of Europe is to some extent about "Lebensraum", as it always has been.

Britain is socially, economically and culturally very advanced, but overcrowded. Western Europe is close behind in most respects and also either overcrowded (Netherlands) or with at best demographic parity (Germany and France).

Shorn of the niceties, the future for Europe lies in the huge, underpopulated and economically underdeveloped East. The immediate result of European integration has been a flood of migrants from the East seeking work in the West and what we perceive to be intrusive legislation. The long term EU game plan however, will be to use the same integration process to reverse that flow and create a unitary level of economic success and living space, allied to limited cultural independence, across Europe as far as the Urals - without going to war.

As a net long term beneficiary - UK is a pretty tough dog in any fight, after all; the federalist argument is that we can only gain from being a key player in Europe (for instance - lots of potential jobs for our underclass upgrading the road systems of European Russia, etc).

A high risk strategy however...

A high-risk strategy indeed-let's hope that it works.

Originally Posted by jboldie

A high-risk strategy indeed-let's hope that it works.

While we have politicians like Brown and Cameron there is no chance at all. Do not make the mistake of thinking that any of our politicians have anyhing other than their own personal interests at heart.

Originally Posted by jagman

Originally Posted by jboldie

A high-risk strategy indeed-let's hope that it works.

While we have politicians like Brown and Cameron there is no chance at all. Do not make the mistake of thinking that any of our politicians have anyhing other than their own personal interests at heart.

'Tis a forlorn hope at best...

the problem with the EU strategy as it stands, is that it is un-democratic. When the people realise what has happened there will be a backlash. I for one will not cooperate with any dictats coming from the supreme soviet.

Hopefully this backlash will destroy the EU as it stands and a democratic organisation can be built in its place.


P.S. I used to be pro EU until the breached my democratic rights.

If anyone needs any more reasons not to welcome Teflon Tony to the helm of the EU, see this quote

“We face an aggressive secular attack from without. We face the threat of extremism from within.” Arguing that there was “no hope” from atheists who scorn God, he said the best way to confront the secularist agenda was for all faiths to unite against it. “Those who scorn God and those who do violence in God’s name, both represent views of religion. But both offer no hope for faith in the twenty first century.”

What has this man been smoking? Atheists are clearly a big threat, what with their quietly getting on with life, not exploding bombs etc etc

Last weekend I was dismayed that David Cameron failed to promise a UK referendum if the EU Treaty was fully ratified by the time the Conservatives come to power. Given the strong public support for a referendum, it seems that Cameron had failed to score in an open goal. A week later it looks as though, at risk of mixing sporting metaphors, Cameron may have boxed extremely clever after all.

Now the Irish have ratified, it looks as though both the Poles and Czechs will follow-on and ratify much quicker than everyone anticipated. Had Cameron committed to a referendum come what may, it is likely that both the Poles and Czechs who have strong Euro-sceptic factions would have delayed ratification. There would then have been a strong arguable case that the Conservatives were influencing the constitutional affairs of other countries. These arguments if coming from Labour and the Lib-Dems could have been brushed aside, however the pro- EU faction of the Tory Party could not be easily ignored and the approach could have re-opened the alleged split in the Party.

The over-riding priority for all the Political Parties in the conference season prior to an election has been to present a credible united front. A division over Europe could have been catastrophic for the Tories. At the end of the week, there has been a united stance in Manchester; something not seen at Conservative conferences for nearly 2 decades. The “wait and see” approach used by Cameron and derided by the Left has headed off any split and has cleared the ground for the next phase.

So what next? The hated EU Treaty will be ratified in weeks and the key symbol of the new EU Super-state will be created shortly afterwards – a President. If, as has been widely predicted, Tony Blair and Cherie Booth are anointed as President and First Lady there will be a massive groundswell of public opinion against the ne EU. We will then have a few months to see the impact of the new full powers of the European State before we start a full blown general election campaign in the UK. We will witness the grandstanding of the President on the world stage, see the costs and feel the new empowered EU Parliament flex its powers.

The Conservatives can present a clear option on Europe. “We disagree with the Treaty and believe the people of Britain should be given a vote on remaining a part of it – we propose a negotiated exit from the Treaty”. The Liberal Democrats can be exposed for offering a meaningless poll on leaving the EU completely – a course of action they don’t even support themselves. The Labour Party will offer no choice or say at all – despite having a significant if suppressed minority of sceptics themselves.

The whole issue is clear-cut and should not even dominate the election debate. That debate is for the referendum and the Conservative Party can allow a free debate and vote once elected and terms of exit are set. The general election should be decided on the key issues facing the country, the economy, NHS, education, defence, law and order.

Our terms of exit from the treaty should be discussed quickly and by someone with the intellect and gravitas to make the EU listen. William Hague if appointed as Foreign Secretary would seem ideal. Once the terms are agreed the British Public should have their say.

If Britain withdraws from the Treaty the whole thing collapses and Europe will have to think again about what we really want from the EU. Is it a way for free countries to trade easily with each-other and others for the collective and individual countries good or do we want and increasingly powerful super-state to manage all aspects of our life. The UK can show its commitment to the EU as a trading alliance by sending appropriate representatives as EU Commissioners – Ken Clarke springs to mind as it is certain he will not get the key appointments of Chancellor or Foreign Secretary. He may choose to vote with his feet and take his hush puppies to the Lords or into retirement.


So in the end perhaps the cautious Cameron wait and see approach will pay dividends. It headed off a public spat at Conference, it will allow the British public to witness the creation of an authoritarian European State under the possible leadership of a man discredited in his own country. We can give the Eurocrats a chance and then send them a resounding message of rejection; it is long overdue and the people of Britain will give a firm lead to Europe – again.