The Proposal for a ‘Fundamental Law of the European Union’

The ‘Boiling Frog’:

has a link to the matter in the heading to this post:

This ‘Fundamental Law’ is a dream concocted by federalists within the EU. Essentially, they want a fully integrated ‘United States of Europe’.

I haven’t read the whole thing. It is very long. But I have read enough of the preamble to say roughly what they intend. It can easily be understood simply by one statement that I came across:

In stylistic changes, ‘Member States’ become ‘States’, and ‘national parliaments’ become ‘State Parliaments’

I do not think that that is a mere ‘stylistic’ change. It is an absolutely fundamental change. Greece would become known as ‘The European State of Greece’, and the UK would become ‘The European State of The United Kingdom and Northern Ireland’.

There was some lip-service to ‘democracy’. Interesting, because, in my small, limited reading so far, there is no reference to the ‘status’ of this new entity – What would be the fundamental nature of the United States of Europe?

I was reading something else earlier also (h/t to whoever) about the USA. The founding fathers deliberately refused to call the USA a ‘democracy’. The avoided that word completely. They were conscious of history which has shown that ‘democracies’ do not last long because they tend to become chaotic and lead to anarchy. Imagine a situation which depends upon votes for and against. It is quite easy to see how the votes of  ‘the majority’ in each case could lead to contradictions. What the founding father did was describe their country as ‘A Republic’.

What is the difference between a republic and a democracy? Essentially, it is that the republic lays down constitutional laws which all agree to right from the beginning. These laws limit the powers of those who govern the republic and guarantee the rights of free citizens to do as they please as long as they do not take advantage of or injure other citizens. The laws are above ‘democracy’, and that is the difference. In a so-called ‘democracy’, it would be possible for a majority to be manipulated into passing very unjust regulations. Also, the founding fathers were aware that democracies inevitably finish up as autocracies since the chaos demands firm control – witness the French revolution, the communist revolution, the nazi revolution and the fascist revolution. All failed as governing systems rapidly and were replaced by autocracies – Robespierre, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini.

It is reasonable to ask what the UK is. The words ‘Constitutional Monarchy’ are pretty meaningless. All they do is describe the position of the Queen and not the government. The phrase bandied about is ‘representative democracy’, but I’m not sure that phrase means much either. So what DO we have?

We seem to have a series of ‘Government Departments’ which are autonomous. Each seems to have some sort of internal ‘ruler’, or a ‘committee’ which is the ruler. If the only people on the committee are people who agree with each other, then there might as well be only one person – the king (small ‘k’). MPs who become Ministers have only token control of these ‘kings’ since they have put themselves into the position where the only policy which is acceptable is ‘evidence based’ policy. Who produces the evidence? THE KINGS!! That is why this saying has become popular:

Whomsoever you vote for, the government always gets in.

It seems to me that we have a permanent government consisting of ‘The New Aristocracy’, which itself is dominated by a ‘meritocracy’, aka ‘experts’.

There is a massive fault-line in that system which revolves around the idea of ‘evidence based policy’. There are all sorts of reasons for the adoption of policies which cannot be based upon evidence. For example, when Argentina invaded the Falklands, did anyone do a survey of the people of the Falklands to check whether they saw rule by Argentina as beneficial or not? No. Those considerations had to be put aside. The decision to fight was a political one, and only a political one. The only ‘experts’ that were required were the military who were able to say if it was possible to take back the Falklands and how best to do it. No academics were involved.

The EU has become a massive ‘evidence based’ policy machine which is costing incredible fortunes and, for the most part, is producing ‘standardisation’ which is the antithesis of competition.

It has to stop. It is a complete failure. The UK must pull out of the political union part. If Germany and France want to submerge their identities as individual peoples beneath a welter of Eurovision song contest values, so be it.


Having said all that, there are aspects of human life on this planet which scream out for massive intervention. Of what concern is tobacco consumption when compared with the plight of ordinary Africans? Why are the UN and the WHO so bothered about death rates in the healthy, wealthy West (life expectancy c. 80 years) when Africans have no dependable water supply?

I call Africa ‘the dark continent’, but only because of the ‘hits’ that this blog gets. It gets ‘hits’ from all over the world. Not a lot, but from almost everywhere – except Africa. Apart from South Africa, the whole continent is blank, blank, blank, dead, dead, dead. What riches of resources lie beneath the land of Africa, including the Sahara desert?

I have said before, humans have only just started to scratch at the available resources in the Earth.

What can be done?

I have said before, the UK should pay only lip-service to the UN. Stop funding it, and the same goes for the WHO. Both those organisations have been taken over by commercial interests and are thoroughly corrupt. The same applies to any EU organisation which is connected to the UN and WHO. Also, the World Bank, IMF, etc are corrupt. States like Greece and Cyprus were tempted into borrowing more than they could sustain, and are now being bullied into surrendering their nationhood.

They must fight, and fight again, and the UK should be supporting them.

Excuse typos – I’m off to bed.


%d bloggers like this: