Back in the EUSSR

In the late 1980s the USSR, Ronald Reagan's "evil empire," imploded. America might soon be confronted with another evil empire. Tomorrow, Europe's politicians meet in Brussels to discuss how they can revive the constitutional treaty, often called the European Constitution, a bloated blueprint (more than 160,000 words in its English version) for transforming the European Union (EU) into a superstate.

Exactly two years ago, this constitution was rejected in referendums in the Netherlands and France. This came as a blow to Brussels, the capital of Belgium and home to the European Commission, the unelected EU executive, and its army of 54,000 eurocrats, a bureaucracy molded in the worst centralist and authoritarian French and German traditions.

Soon after the referendums it became apparent that the European politicians intended to ignore the people's verdict and proceed with their plans for constructing the superstate. During the past six months, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been busy drafting a so-called amended treaty. This bypasses the need for public referendums on the new powers for Brussels, but retains the substance of the constitution — granting the EU substantial powers over its member states, such as the right to override national legislation and to impose a common foreign policy.

The British have always distrusted grandiose political schemes more than the continental West Europeans. In order to get London's support for Mrs. Merkel's amended treaty, Nicolas Sarkozy, the new president of France, has offered Tony Blair the job of the first president of Europe. Mr. Blair steps down as British prime minister on June 27 and is looking for a new job.

Nigel Farage, the leader in the European parliament of the British "euroskeptics", those who oppose the centralization of powers in Brussels and defend the national sovereignty of the EU member states, is certain that Mr. Blair will accept the offer. Mr. Farage has already accused him of "sign[ing] away our future just days before he leaves [office]." It remains to be seen, however, whether Mr. Blair will, indeed, "do a Schroeder." Gerhard Schroeder, the former German chancellor, negotiated a controversial gas deal with Russia in his final weeks in office and, in return, got himself a high position at the Russian gas company immediately after he retired from office. If Mr. Blair "does a Schroeder," accepting to reduce Britain's EU voting rights and its veto on European legislation in return for his own personal advancement, it is far from certain that the English will take this in as docile a fashion as the Germans accepted Mr. Schroeder's despicable behavior.

If Mr. Blair dares to put his signature under the amended treaty, Mr. Farage warns, "his legacy will be a hand grenade with the pin pulled out." In Monday's (London) Times, William Rees-Mogg warned that "Any treaty along the lines of Mrs Merkel's draft could trigger a fundamental rethinking of British policy. The British electorate, if not our politicians, might feel they would be better off out of such a federalized Europe, dominated by the Franco-German alliance." Ambrose Evans-Pritchard announced in Monday's Daily Telegraph that "If Europe's political leaders succeed in ramming through a barely disguised remake of the same European constitution rejected by the French and Dutch people, I for one will come off the fence after years of hesitation and join the fight for total British withdrawal from the [European] Union."

The British, and in particular the English, are the most euroskeptic of all European peoples. If forced to choose, they seem prepared to opt for British sovereignty over the European Union. Some regard this as almost a criminal attitude. Last week, the president of Italy, Giorgio Napolitano, said that "those who are anti EU are terrorists," while his colleague Horst Kohler, the president of Germany, described the tactics of the "euroskeptics" as "populist, demagogic campaigning." It sounded almost as if Italy and Germany were blaming Britain for not having drawn lessons from the second World War, conveniently forgetting that it was England's love of freedom that saved Europe from dictators like Messrs. Napolitano's and Kohler's predecessors, Mussolini and Hitler. The latter, too, nursed dreams of European political unification.

Liberty and democracy require limited governments, while supranationalism by definition tends toward unlimitedness. The former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky refers to the EU as the "EUSSR." He does so, he explains, because the former USSR and the EU share the same goal: the obliteration of nations. "The European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot be democratized," he says. If the EU becomes a genuine state it is bound to be an evil empire, because there is no European nation.

"National loyalty is a form of neighborliness: It is loyalty to a shared home and to the people who have built it," says the conservative English philosopher Roger Scruton. Without this loyalty there is no freedom, because "national loyalties enable people to respect the sovereignty and the rights of the individual."

By seeking to extinguish national loyalty, the EU also destroys freedom, accountability and democracy. The eurocracy aims to extinguish the old national loyalties of the European peoples, and put a cosmopolitan indifference in their place.

This piece was originally published in
The Washington Times on June 20, 2007.

Give us examples, por favor !

Praetorian wrote: " Inevitably, this had deleterious consequences on its practical behavior. "

like what?

" followed by the realization that many European traditions, principles, or values may be double-edged. Some of them – if carried too far or abused in certain ways – can lead us to hell. "

Could you please give an example of a double-edged European tradition or value that can lead us to hell if carried too far?

"Oh no, the Palestinians are

"Oh no, the Palestinians are the cause of their own genocide/ethnic cleansing because, of course, nobody lived in Palestine when european jews decided to annex it, how american!"

Annex it? By that do you mean proclaim their independence?

Oh and let's not discuss the attempted Ottoman genocide against the Palestinian Jews in 1917 or the vicious Arab pogroms and lynchings of Jews encouraged by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in the 20's and 30's.

Is there a Europe?

Do Europe's peoples truly regard themselves as ‘Europeans', or is this a fiction which attempts to transform geography into a ‘state of mind'. This question is often posed in connection with debates concerning the amount of sovereignty that nation-states can, or should, transfer to the European Union. Many say that if national affiliation is pushed into the background too fast in favor of an unfamiliar, perhaps chimerical, concept of European affiliation, it might not end well.

Europeans, they are so intrinsically European that they are unaware of it. They do not call themselves Europeans. When asked in opinion polls, they show mild surprise that, all of a sudden, they should declare their European affiliation.

If Europe, until recently, paid so little attention to its own identity it was because it incorrectly saw itself as the entire world or, at least, considered itself to be so much superior to the rest of the globe that it felt no need to define itself in relation to others. Inevitably, this had deleterious consequences on its practical behavior.

Reflecting on Europeanism means inquiring into the set of values, ideals and principles that characterize Europe. It entails, by definition, a critical examination of that set of thoughts, followed by the realization that many European traditions, principles, or values may be double-edged. Some of them – if carried too far or abused in certain ways – can lead us to hell.

Another american moron Charles Boogle

"The Jews are responsible for all his troubles. How European."


Oh no, the Palestinians are the cause of their own genocide/ethnic cleansing becaue, of course, nobody lived in Palestine when european jews decided to annex it, how american!  Damn you idiots wear me down.

I suppose you could make a stretch and blame the germans but they are the ones funding you fanatics right now along with the US. I guess we need yet another world war but over religion this time to decide the one true G-d once and for all.

ethnic cleansing for Palestinians

that's funny. last I saw, it WAS the Palestinians doing their own ethnic cleansing...tossing shackled men off tall buildings, shooting others in the street in view of their families, killing school kids and anti-violence demonstrators.
funny how in spite of the genocide by Isreal, the numbers of Palestinians keep increasing by leaps and bounds.

Good Luck Blair!

Israel and the US hawks have no interest in "peace" in Israel.  The only thing that is certain is that more jewish settlements will be built in the occupied areas.  Blair used all his political clout after the Iraq war to try to get Bush to support a more fair policy and got zero.  This will end in nuclear war I am certain.

Middle east role

BBC radio 4's Today programme this morning seemed fairly certain that Blair is getting some sort of "peace envoy" role in the middle east.  Apparently he has already sought and obtained Bush's permission for it.


If true I wonder at his hubris; after so many better politicians than he have already failed, Blair (of all people) thinks he can bring peace to the region!


Of course, that is the BBC's view, so I won't be betting the children on it yet.

Blair is too controversial because of Iraq

I think he would if he could but Spain and Italy are going to hve problems with him in a high EU position. I bet he does more of a Clinton and takes a job with some aid foundation to try to resurrect his image.