Tomorrow’s EU

Inquiring minds are reading an article by Peter Oborne entitled, “Euro crisis: The only way to save the euro is the destruction of its members“. Mr. Oborne seems to say that there really is a conspiracy underway…but agrees with it. Ulitmately, Mr. Oborne and these European visionaries are so hell-bent on their quest that they are not looking at the eventual consequences of their ‘success’.

The ultimate objective of the EU (outside, of course, of the uniting of 27 different countries) is otherwise very familiar to students of the four previous attempts at a European empire: no internal boundaries; a single currency; one parliament; one central government; one army; one foreign policy and a single political unit stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals, and from Mediterranean to the Arctic Circle.

These nations currently comprising the EU would merge into one huge state: about 500 million people; approximately one fifth of global wealth; and an even higher percentage of the world’s trade.


This project, in its way both noble and visionary, is surprisingly close to realisation. Many people fail to grasp this point because they have been distracted by the headlines on financial pages signalling daily woe and disaster for the eurozone countries.

But these setbacks were long ago foreseen by the architects of the EU. Jacques Delors, the French politician who more than anyone else was the architect of the single currency that is used today, is a highly intelligent man. He was warned many times by critics such as Margaret Thatcher that it was hopelessly premature to set up a monetary union without full political unification. He knew very well there would be problems.

Problems? Well, as any true dreamer does, Mr. Delors saw opportunities instead of problems:

But Mr Delors saw these problems as opportunities – what have been called “beneficial crises”. These economic crises, he believed, could be exploited by the European governing class to expedite with extra urgency and dynamism their over-riding project of integration, and the creation of a single European state.

An understanding of this background is essential for anyone wishing to come to terms with yesterday’s speech in the City of London by the French prime minister, François Fillon. Most of the guests listening to Mr Fillon would surely have expected at the very least a substantial measure of alarm and contrition in the wake of the devastating setbacks for eurozone countries such as Greece and Ireland over recent months.

Yet there was no sign of retreat, or even judicious contemplation. Mr Fillon could hardly have been more bullish, upbeat or confident. “Europe is at a historic turning point,” declared the unchastened French premier. “The real question right now is whether to keep building on this adventure, or whether we leave it at that.”

His answer could not have been clearer: “We are going to move towards greater integration.” That means a deepening of the common social and economic regime which already binds Europe – as well as one potent extra element. Governments are to be stripped of their ability to tax and spend according to the democratic demands of their own voters. Instead (though Mr Fillon did not explain this), their budgets will be set for them by a greatly empowered common European government in Brussels.

It must be acknowledged that, strictly within his own terms, Mr Fillon is right. There is only one way to save the euro, and it is finally to resolve the problem so lucidly analysed by Mrs Thatcher in her conversations with Mr Delors 20 years ago. Europe cannot survive with a single currency but a pluralist and diverse political system. So long as member states enjoy local autonomy, the currency is guaranteed to collapse. The euro will only survive if the power of national governments is destroyed.

So, in the end, this is no different than any other attempted conquest of the European continent. It is just a political campaign instead of a military one. Interesting how the only way this could be achieved is by the constant distruction of the European education system over the last hundred years by the Leftist/Progressive/Socialists. From Kindergarten to Secularization, the drumbeat continued until this:

So 2011 is the year of the “beneficial crisis”, when the EU will try to exploit short-term economic hardship in order to eliminate the powers of national governments and to create a new pan-European political structure. If it succeeds, it may go on to become a great world power. If it fails, it will start to revert to a collection of nation states.

European leaders are fully aware they face this moment of decision. Two of the most basic ingredients of this new order were first discussed at a meeting between Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy last October, as the scale of the Irish financial crisis was starting to become apparent.

Mrs Merkel and Mr Sarkozy accepted that it was no longer possible to respond to eurozone crises in the ad hoc way with which they had responded to the Greek meltdown of May 2010. They recognised the need to create a new and more enduring structure. They decided that this meant, first, the creation of a massive fund to bail out failing members of the eurozone (later agreed at a European summit). Second, they discussed (but did not agree) the creation of common eurozone government bonds. These would prevent the markets focusing on the solvency of embattled individual states. Instead, traders would be obliged to focus on the creditworthiness of the eurozone as a whole. As a result, the kind of crisis which afflicted Greece and Ireland last year, and threatens Portugal today, would be prevented.

Leftist/Progressive/Socialists always think they are completely control…or, in the least, can control society as catestrophic changes occur. It they can diagram it, it is so…

In theory, these new structures would work easily. But they mark a fundamental and revolutionary change in the structure of the EU. Mr Delors’s Maastricht Treaty envisaged each member state taking responsibility for its debts. The common bail-out fund and eurobond set out by Mrs Merkel and Mr Sarkozy abandon that principle, though Germany has yet to fully acknowledge this killer point.

Once implemented, all member states (and Mrs Merkel in particular is agonisingly aware of this) will take responsibility for each others’ debts. From that moment, Europe will transform once and for all into one country. This is the historic turning point Mr Fillon was discussing yesterday, and he asked for Britain’s assistance. David Cameron pledged that Britain “will be a helpful partner”. But our true interests lie elsewhere. Europe is our greatest trading partner and we have a visceral interest in its prosperity and growth.

Already the dogmatic adherence of the European elite to the single currency has had a devastating impact on many eurozone countries, converting Greece and Ireland (to quote my colleague Ambrose Evans-Pritchard) into economic protectorates of Brussels, a fate likely to befall Portugal and Spain.

Where have these Leftist/Progressive/Socialists got it wrong?

That is easy, if you look to the future…

The demographics of Europe show that these bureacrats won’t be leaving this new EU Empire (EUE?) to ‘the long suffering citizens of Europe’.

Austria has not had a replacement birthrate since 1961 and their population is beginning to plunge. Germany is losing approximately 200,000 native Germans per year, Italy is to lose 48% of its population over the next 35 years. Spain is to lose 50%+ of theirs. Literally, every country in Europe has a collapsing native population.

The effects are already being seen. For instance, in France there are 1400 ‘no go’ zones for native French. In Malmo, Sweeden, there are virtually no blonds left because young native women fear for their safety. They dye their hair black to ‘fit in’ the immigrant’s world.

What is very evident to anyone watching closely with some perspective, is where this is heading. Any unbiased observer can see exactly where this is headed…Europe will be given over to immigrants. And, by far the largest immigrant group is Muslim from the middle east. Europe will transform into EuroArabia.

This is not some wacked out theory. It is as done of a deal as knowing that a concrete patio will be once it is poured. Demographics are slow. Very slow. But because of that slowness, certainty nears 100%.

Disagree? Don’t argue with Argue with any insurance company. It is the “Law of Big Numbers” and is as certain as tomorrow coming. Insurance companies have never lost money because of demographics. Bad investments, yes. Demographics, no.

Look at it this way: If you didn’t have 1 million babies born 20 years ago, then today you don’t have 1 million 20 year olds starting to begin life…and having their own babies.

The unfortunate thing about demographics is that this glacial slowness creates a trap impossible to escape from…no one notices until it is too late.

Europe has painted themselves into the ultimate corner. May we suggest this as the symbol of the new European Union:

It would perfectly symbolize the triumph of liberal/progressive/socialist ideals throughout the continent.

The only question remaining is once this new nation-state faulters, how will they blame conservatives? Will there be a Euro Tea Party to blame it on?

This post dedicated to Fjordman.


2 Responses

  1. There is no “logical” reason that a falling birthrate would equate to or require an increasing immigration rate. What is really going on is some groups, lets call them unions, have made contracts that are now not sustainable and they want to keep the goodies they bargained for. So someone at the top has made a new with the unions to “import” people to keep the number of worker bees up and thus keep tax revenues up and keep paying those contracted retirements. Germany could easily decide to live within their means and allow zero immigration. They do not NEED more people to survive they simply need to live within their means. I can guarantee you that someone and some group is benefitting from all the immigration.

  2. The ‘logic’ is because workers were, and are, needed. Germany has imported Turks since the 70’s. I remember family friends from Germany saying about the Turks then the same things Americans are saying about illegals here today.

    I used the ’20 year old’ example for a reason. That is about when a country begins to experience a return on its investment of its youths. Austria, Germany, et. al. began importing workers in the mid-to-late 70’s which is basically 20 years after they didn’t have the children that should have been there.

    An economy needs workers. It isn’t a question of ‘living within their means’. It is a question of who is going to do the work. The problems that arise are varied and completely different. For instance, there is the rather infamous story of East Germany sewage.

    The de-populating going on there is so bad that sewer lines were clogging up because of a lack of flushes. New, smaller piping was required due to fewer people using the system.

    Japan is having this same problem. Yet they have refused to import workers. Instead they are attempting to solve the crisis robotically.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: