July 30, 2012

Despite the coming economic explosion, Brussels is still plotting to create a single European superstate

The farce continues, despite looming disaster
The determination of Our Masters in Brussels to create a European superstate ruled by the Commission should not be underestimated. Although the single European currency was always sold as an economic policy to bring greater prosperity to the peoples of Europe, it must surely be clear now that it was and is a weapon to create political union.
Not even my old friend and colleague Ken Clarke can now deny that there can be only one Chancellor or Chief Finance Minister for any currency. Countries cannot pursue independent economic policies from within the eurozone. The woes afflicting countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal come from trying to do so.
Time and time again the Masters of Europe have done just enough to hold off the eurozone crisis for another few weeks and allowed the depth of that crisis to deepen and deepen. Rather than defuse the economic explosion to come, they have let it grow and just lengthened the fuse. Now, even some quite rational economists are beginning to mutter that the potential damage from the eurozone explosion might be so great that it would be better to pay the price of political union without the consent of the European peoples than to risk the economic damage of the collapse of the euro.

The mantra of the Commission is One State, One (collective) Leader, One Currency. There has not been a failure to solve the problems of Greece, Italy, Portugal and now Spain. There has been, and there is again this week, a wilful refusal to do so. The Masters of Europe need the threat of another Great Depression of the kind which led to the Second World War to cow the peoples of Europe into giving up their rights to self-rule and self-determination. The German Constitution, designed to protect their post war democracy from another putsch like that of Hitler's National Socialist Workers' Party, is now beginning to look as though like France's Maginot Line it will be outflanked by a Blitzkrieg of politico Euro bankers leaving a Vichy-style administration in office but not power in Berlin and indeed every other eurozone capital.
It is time we re-read the words of Gladstone in a speech at Hastings on 17 March 1891. “The Finance of the country is intimately associated with the liberties of the Country. It is a powerful leverage by which English Liberty has been gradually aquired … it lies at the root of English Liberty and if the House of Commons can by any possibility lose the power of the grants of public money, depend upon it your liberty will be worth very little…”
We can guess at what he would be telling the people of Germany and the other eurozone states today.
It would be tedious to list all of those who were strongly critical of Mr Cameron in their comments on my blog post of last week. Sufficient to say that the score was clear of 40 of you, mostly ex-Conservative voters, who were highly critical, to no more than three or four who took his side. There were some unflattering comparisons even with Ted Heath, but perhaps most damning was Zapp _brannigan's characterisation of the Prime Minister as “Blair-light”.
Apart from the issue of the EU a number of you expressed concerns about the priority being given to issues such as gay marriage and the abolition of the House of Lords, though assagai and lorrinet disagreed over whether Tory voters are really angry about these matters or, as lorrinet believes, simply could not care less.
I found it none too easy to follow the arguments put by sodit about our relationship to the EU. I think Allectus is right to say that the establishment of the EU is now clearly determined to hasten progress towards a single European state. That might (or more likely not) be a democratic state in that a parliament elected by voters across the union could make or break  its government, but quite clearly even if every British elector voted to dismiss the government it would have no effect unless they had sufficient support from foreign electors to make up a Europe-wide majority. In short, we would not be masters in our own house.
I thought that darkseid had got out of bed the wrong side again this week to accuse me of advocating policies against the national interest in the interest of my Party. Clearly that is plain silly. He may think that what I might advocate would not be in the national interest and is entitled to do so. To suggest that I think that it would be an advantage to my Party is plainly a different matter.
It was a pleasure to be corrected byreaguns for calling him an old foe, and he underlined that by agreeing that there are large majorities on the “common ground” of tougher action against crime and on the provision of decent welfare for those in need and an effective NHS.
I thought that David in Rome was struggling to disagree with me with his accusation that I “play to the stalls”. Not so. I sing my song and those in the stalls, the dress circle, the boxes or the Gods can like it or not. That is up to them. On the whole during my career most of the audience did like it.
Then Jes 79A asked, did I not support the Single European Act and was I not “agnostic” on the ERM? It is a pity that I have to repeat what I have written many times before. The SEA was designed to enforce the rules of the single market on our trading partners who had been simply ignoring their obligations to open their markets to our goods and services. In that it was largely effective. There was at that time no swell of opinion in either the Conservative Party or the country at large in favour of leaving the EEC. Perhaps it was a pity that Kinnock had proposed that we should leave (before he was given a job in Brussels) since he was and is regarded by any reasonable person as a mountebank.
On the ERM I was agnostic because I respected both Nigel Lawson, Thatcher’s Chancellor, who was in favour and Alan Walters, one of her unofficial advisers, who was against. Lawson's objective was to stabilise Sterling against the DMark and Dollar and achieve lower interest rates. In the end it all came unstuck during the time of Norman Lamont as Chancellor.
Finally, I should again thank all of you, not least olcrom, who sent good wishes to my wife, who continues to make progress.


No comments: