The EU: Just a Different Form of Nationalisation?

Smoking Scot made a comment which caused me to think.

Long ago, shortly after WW2, the ‘European Coal and Steel Community’ was formed. The word ‘Community’ gives a sense of ‘togetherness’, does it not? In all my years, I must admit that I have not, and never have had, any idea whatsoever what the ECSC did or does, but I do know that the idea was to have a system where those resources were reasonably evenly distributed so that nations did not go to war to obtain those resources.

It has been said that the deep reasons for WW1 were that Germany was locked out of Africa; that Britain and France had Africa sewn up. I suppose that the same applied to most of Asia. Was something similar true about WW2? How did the German war machine get into North Africa? We know about Montgomery and Rommel, but we do not know how Germany got a huge army into North Africa, or why they bothered? Via Italy, I suppose, and  to gain control of oil supplies, I suppose. I read somewhere that Germany invaded the Balkans to get oil supplies, but I do not know if that is true.

What is important is that, in order to stop the most powerful nations in Europe using that power to grab the resources of their smaller neighbours, the idea was formed that a fair way of controlling the distribution of those resources would remove that ‘causus belli’.

But what else was the ECSC but a form of nationalisation on a European scale? There must have been some sort of bureaucracy to administer it. What form did that bureaucracy take, and what were its powers?

I cannot help but feel that over-production of coal and steel was encouraged,and that coal and steel mountains existed, just like the butter mountain and the wine lake. The over-production would guarantee a ready supply, even if the economics were not up the shoot. Production subsidies took care of ‘the price problem’. Bureaucratic control took care of who got what and when. Provided that Germany and France got what they needed, sod the rest.

And it worked. Which is why it became a template for further ‘nationalisation’ all over Europe. By ‘nationalisation’, I now mean ‘regulation’. “Health and Safety”, in an unspecified and generalised sense, have become the means of regulating. Allied with global ‘sustainability’, you have two extremely powerful ideologies which are ‘in control’. ‘Health, Safety and Sustainability’ justify any amount of totalitarian and fascist action. There is no room for ‘the individual’ in that scenario, except, of course, engaging in such dangerous acts as playing rugby, climbing mountains, swimming in the sea, importing terrorists, etc. Those things do not matter and crocodile tears can be shed over them. Only a few individuals are involved, and they do not matter.

The State, or European Union, does not need to own industries. It can achieve the same objectives by regulating them, and making them pay for the regulation. Why does Tobacco Control call for more and more regulation but never calls for prohibition? Its behaviour is obviously hypocritical, and its spokespersons, like Arnott, are confidence tricksters. How do they get away with it?

I read somewhere today that Cameron is toast, regardless of the outcome of the EU referendum. There is going to be a leadership contest because of the unhappiness of many Tory MPs. To counter that, it has been put about that Cameron has no intention of standing for a third term as PM. ‘Peace be upon you’, says Cameron, while slavering over a top EU job.

Little will change over most of Europe as a consequence of Brexit. What will change is that UK politicians will become responsible, once again, for the government of the UK. Think about it. If we vote for ‘Leave’, the Treaties that the UK has signed will still exist. What will have to happen, after Brexit, is that those Treaties will have to be reconsidered and ‘powers to regulate’ will come back home. The EU will have no power to ‘regulate’ the UK; no power to ‘Euronationalise’ the UK; no power to demand that the UK obeys the UN, of which it is an offshoot.

It seems to me that the most immediate consequence of Brexit would be the cessation of UK financial contributions. Such contributions would have to be individually justified. All the buggering about with ‘refunds’ would cease.

There have been two events in the recent past which have convinced me that our politicians have no idea what they are doing. The first was the statement by Milton MP, who was a health minister at the time, that the UK was ‘legally obliged’ to enact regulations demanded by the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. What rot!  Any nation can withdraw from a Treaty at any time. The other was the statement by another health minister, Soubry MP, when she said that she thought that ecigs had been dropped from the tobacco products directive. How many other ‘directions’ have slipped through? How hard is it for a politician to admit to have made a mistake? On the face of it, they do not give a shit. In Japan, it is not uncommon for a politician to weep on TV and prostrate himself before the people when he cocks up. That would never happen in the UK. Milton was sacked, but Soubry was promoted. And now we have Allison sucking up to ASH. Milton, Soubry and Allison, joyfully throwing smokers under the bus. And now throwing vapers under the bus. Why? It is because of the “Health, Safety, Sustainability” ideology.

===

These forces are too big for any individual to counter. It is sad that, for politicians generally, it is easier to go along with the current ‘received wisdom’ than to battle against it. Weird, is it not, that the beacons of freedom are in places like the Chech Republic and Greece?  Weird, is it not, that the least free are the countries which did not experience the Nazi jackboot. Maybe it would do Australia good to be invaded by the Chinese. Perhaps the Chinese would ‘liberate’ Australians from the totalitarian and fascist hegemony. Perhaps they would fructify the Australian desert ‘outback’. Obviously, tobacco controllers cannot do that. They live in universities and occupy government desks.

What Government has not yet understood is that the demands of TC come with a cost. The ‘Savings’ which TC claim are ephemeral. For example, the reduction of cig ends in the streets. Would such a reduction mean that the streets would not have to be cleaned? Of course not! The filter tips of cigs pose no danger – they are just bits of paper – and they are very small. They are as nothing compared with the shit emitted form hospital chimneys where body-parts, surgically removed cancer lumps, aborted foetuses, etc, are incinerated. And what about the effluence from the chimneys of crematoriums? The ‘particles’ which are emitted spread far and wide and fall to the ground. People are breathing the particles of dead bodies.

===

I have drifted, as I usually do.

My proposition is that the EU has been promoting ‘nationalisation’ on a Europe-wide scale via ‘regulation’. There is not a lot of difference between ‘nationalisation’ and ‘regulation’. If the “Health, safety and Sustainability” trope goes on for much longer, then no one will be able to invent anything without coming up against some sort of ‘regulation’, aka ‘prohibition’.

Will oil supplies run out? Perhaps they will, in which case some other means of providing energy will supplant oil.There is nothing odd about that idea.We stopped burning wood when it became harder to find wood to burn and easier to find coal to burn, and then easier to find oil to burn. If a way was found to use atomic energy, on a small enough scale and safely, then all other forms of energy production would fall by the wayside. The important thing would be ‘damage limitation’.

I think that it is true that the human population of the planet has a limit. I also think that human beings are not animals, which limit populations by the food supply. We are intelligent. We no longer have families with nine children. My own grandparents, on my mother’s side, had six children; on my father’s side, there were four or five. Those days of many offspring are gone.

It is ridiculous for politicians to demand an influx of immigrants to sustain economic growth. Such an idea is idiotic. What is required in a smaller population and greater productivity. By that I mean, exploitation of creativity.

Politicians create nothing, but they could, if they could stop themselves from banning things, enable a lower population to become more productive. It never seems to occur to them that growth does not depend upon more people.

 

 

Advertisements

2 Responses to “The EU: Just a Different Form of Nationalisation?”

  1. smokingscot Says:

    One thing I’ve got imprinted in my grey matter is one role of management.

    Enable

    Very superficially that means clearing the decks, get the right equipment so you can get the very best out of your people.

    Another was

    Filter

    So if you get bollocked by your boss, you take the heat. Don’t pass it on to your co-workers.

    It’s something Trump does naturally. It’s something our politicians haven’t the slightest clue about

    • junican Says:

      I have a definition of ‘Managing’ which has stuck in my mind for decades. It is:
      “Plan, Organise, Lead and Control”.
      Simplistic and generalised, but not without value. Your ‘enable’ would come under ‘organise’, and your ‘filter’ would come under ‘lead’.
      But you will notice that, in that definition, there is no mention of ‘create’. It is entrepreneurs who ‘create’ and not managers. Note how the EU etc jumped on ecigs. The EU did not ‘create’ ecigs, but it wants to gain ‘ownership’ via regulation.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: