‘Hubris’ and the EU

‘Hubris’ is defined as ‘pride’ by the Cambridge dictionary. But I have seen that word used to describe ‘over-confidence’, which is much the same thing as ‘pride’. You could combine the two words and say that ‘pride begets over-confidence’.

For decades, the EU Establishment has bathed in hubris. Little by little, it has got its own way. When countries like France and Ireland had referenda which rejected EU proposals for a constitution, the EU merely turned those proposals for a constitution into treaties, which did not need referenda. I may be wrong about the detail, but why was Gordon Brown, the UK’s PM, obliged to fly, at great expense, to Lisbon just to sign a piece of paper? Why was the piece of paper not just emailed to him, in his office in Downing Street, for him to sign? What was the point of all the ceremony? I hold that the point of the ceremony was to make the signing seem to be more important than the referenda – and it worked.

I think that we have been seeing the effect of ‘hubris’ for the last decade or so. The EU aristocrats have become more and more daring. They dared to take over the Government of Italy and of Greece, and got away with it. How long will it be before they take over the Government of the UK?

“Carthago delendum est”, said Cato. “Carthage must be destroyed” is the translation. And, indeed, after the failed invasion of Italy by Carthage, that city was eventually destroyed by the Romans.But what is important is that there was conflict and a wish to exert control. 

But there is another aspect. It suits the USA’s plan for a World Government (dominated, of course, by itself) for there to be a European Empire. I was reading earlier about how the CIA, and thus the USA, was instrumental in setting up the fledgling EU during the 1950s. But who can blame the Yanks? Twice, in the last century, they were obliged to shed American blood in conflicts thousands of miles away from their homeland. In fact, if you count Vietnam, they have been obliged to shed blood in many areas of the world. Who can blame them for wanting to ensure that American blood will only be shed in the interests of the American people, and for no other reason? Thus, support for the EU from the USA is natural for the USA. When I say, “Support for the EU”, I mean support for an eventual “United States of Europe”.

I have said, again and again, that it is likely that a USE (United States of Europe) will emerge, but that it must be a slow process. That is the problem with ‘hubris’ – it is not content to wait until THE PEOPLE of Europe are ready for it.


It does not really matter all that much whichever way the vote goes since the EU, and States generally, have little control over trade. It does not matter what regulations are imposed. Sooner or later, those regulations will be circumvented, either criminally or legitimately, or be seen to be inconsequential.

What really matters is THE COST of implementing the regulations. Thousands of pubs shut down as a consequence of the smoking ban. Hundreds more, in Scotland, will close down as a result of the new law which has reduced the blood/alcohol limit to 30 ml per l (or something like that). That law will not reduce drinking, but it will kill pubs as people change their habits.

It strikes me that Governments have to create problems. You would think that, as time passes, Governments would get things more and more perfect, so that there would be less and less for them to do. The opposite seems to be true.


So, let us assume that the original intention of the fledgeling EU was to put an end to European wars. Why did that idea require the involvement of the CIA and all the subterfuge? Why did they not say so in the first place? Why all the secrecy? Why have we Europeans been forced to adopt a massively, massively costly Bureaucracy, divorced from Democracy?


The fact is that, whether we ‘Brexit’ or not, the matter is not settled. If we vote ‘Brexit’, then nothing will immediately change. It would be foolish to expect that. If we vote ‘to remain’, then nothing will stay precisely the same. What might come to an end is the ‘hubris’ of EU aristocrats.

But not a lot will change until our own politicians put a stop to lifestyle interference.  Questions must be asked about what we pay academics for. Do we pay them to pontificate, or do we pay them to teach FACTS?

A serious investigation of the use of taxpayers’ money is long, long overdue.


2 Responses to “‘Hubris’ and the EU”

  1. smokingscot Says:

    In Scotland we have:

    Local government.

    Regional government.

    Central government.

    The EU.

    My grandparents’ didn’t have two of those and while the Scots themselves don’t actually pay for the people they have in Regional government nor the EU, those people do cost all British taxpayers an enormous amount of money.

    What you’ll be aware of is each level of government is restricted to operate within certain spheres, so we have an awful lot of politicians with time on their hands. Frankly Holyrood could function just as effectively if they simply had fortnightly meetings.

    We’re over-governed big time and – if we do quit the EU – we need to do some serious navel gazing.

    This is why on 24 May 2016 they actually had a discussion about a f….. cat.


    • junican Says:

      An amusing tit-bit about the cat. But I see your point. The bigger government gets, the more work that it needs to create to maintain itself. Osborne keeps talking about cutting costs, but these people can never see the elephant – government itself.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: