web analytics

“IT’S JUST A TRADING BLOCK”

By Pete Moore On July 2nd, 2019

That von der Leyen is under investigation in the Bundestag shouldn’t worry her. Christine Lagarde is in to become President of the European Central Bank, and she’s a convicted criminal. Some Spanish communist is in to become High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (what a bloated, silly title), and he’s a criminal too.

What a rancid outfit this is. Thank God we’re leaving.

45 Responses to ““IT’S JUST A TRADING BLOCK””

  1. “My goal is the United States of Europe – based on the model of the federal states of Switzerland, Germany or the US”.

    That was always the goal, and not here saying that it’s good or bad. My Irish relatives told me that 30 years ago or so.

  2. Thank God we’re leaving

    We’re not leaving until Parliament is composed of people who actually want to leave. That much at least has been made abundantly clear recently. It’s simply a question of how we get that Parliament. Perhaps we need to go a bit Francais at this stage?

  3. It isn’t just a trading bloc. Since the nineties it’s evolved into a trading, political, economic bloc.

    On what von der Leyen allegedly said. That’ll be for each of the national heads of government on the European Council to determine if and when it ever comes to it, not her.

  4. She’s an insider if ever there was one. Her father was the top dog in the state of Lower Saxony, and Ursula was born in …er… Brussels.

    There was never a need to make money for the young von der Leyens, it seems. First Ursula studied archeology for three years, then studied economics in Münster, she later went to London to study several years at the LSE. After that she started studying medicine in Hanover, and in the end got her PhD. Later she spent several years in California with husband and kids, and when she returned to Germany she studied to become Master of Public Health.

    Studying all these different fields must have confuser her somewhat, because three years ago she was the subject of a major plagiarism investigation, after it emerged that almost half the pages in her medical dissertation contained plagiarisms, She certainly knew how to help herself to the fruits of other people’s research, without as much as giving them a nod of recognition – on 9 pages of her “work”, around 75% was directly copied from papers of other researchers.

    She’s a member of the Union of European Federalists, but that’s a cross-party and international group within the EU and doesn’t necessarily reflect government or EU policy.

  5. Well done Pete.

  6. The goal of the EU is to create a Federal European state. It has been an open secret denied by Europhiles here in the UK. But people are beginning to wake up and, if we are out at the end of October then the acceleration to that goal will increase.

  7. The goal of the EU is to create a Federal European state

    Mark, are you aware of the policy process of the European Council and who the EC consist of?

  8. “The goal of the EU is to create a Federal European state. It has been an open secret denied by Europhiles here in the UK.”

    Doesn’t matter what the goal of the EU (if such an independently thinking organisation existed – which it doesn’t) is. Any attempts to increase the competitiveness of the European Union are subject to national vetoes.

    So the people in the UK are not beginning to wake up. They are continuing to be conned by snake oil salesmen.

  9. I don’t think this comes as much surprise. It’s an open secret that many of the EU bureaucrats want a federal USE. They want to see the ending of the individual European nation state. It’s why I love Bunreacht na hÉireann so much as it will ensure that the Irish people get a say before we get swallowed up into that pipe dream.

  10. It’s unquestionable that there are those within the EU who would like to see a federal EU state. Wheither this is acheivable is questionable and if it were it is highly, highly unlikely that it would be the EU we recognise in its present form.

  11. A federal Europe has always been the agenda. Understated in discussions with the public, but always there.

    That’s why so many Brits voted out. They were promised one thing, delivered something else, and were on the way to the third thing.

    And they weren’t told any of that in 1973.

    Even if you’re without any sympathy for British causes, you should understand where the other fellow comes from.

  12. Phantom

    I think that a concern about a federal Europe is a legitimate concern but I doubt that was the concern for the vast majority of Brexit voters. I think a mixture of working class resentment of unchecked globalised capitalism combined with little englander syndrome (People who still don’t realise the Empire is gone) and naked racism and xenophobia were much more potent motivators.

    The masses of sheep were convinced it would be the land of always honey with billions more for the NHS and their communities if they voted to leave.

  13. Hugely complex issue.

    Brexit won’t be bringing back the shipyards and coal mines. I don’t know if the loss of those jobs has to due with unchecked capitalism, unless global competition and technological advance ( including vast new pools of natural gas, and high tech factories that need a fraction of the workforce ) is some sort of unchecked capitalist golom.

    But I hear you.

  14. A federal Europe has always been the agenda.

    By who Phantom? While there are undoubtedly those whithin the EU who envisage such a concept are you stating that a serreptitious plan existed since 1951 when the Treaty of Paris established the European Coal and Steel Community? That sounds very Aberdonian.

    Whose agenda is it? Are you aware the Euro Council policy process neccesitates unaninimity from each national head of government for such a transformation to occur?

    And they weren’t told any of that in 1973

    I’d say that’s because such a notion didn’t exist in 1973:

    It isn’t just a trading bloc. Since the nineties it’s evolved into a trading, political, economic bloc.

    That’s why so many Brits voted out

    You think so? I disagree. I’d suggest a slim majority voted to leave because of a number of factors but mostly I’d say it was because of the massive emotive disinformation they were fed by the majority of the British gutter tabloid press on how the EU worked, (clue, why do you think they always concentrated on ‘Ze Commission?’, the appointed body of the EU infrastructure and not the elected ones?). If there’s one positive that’s come out of Brexit it’s that there is now more awareness of the machinations of the EU.

    They were promised one thing, delivered something else

    Like 350 million quid a week for the NHS, the easiest trade deals in history, holding all the cards etc?

    What are they going to do when they leave and realise they were promised one thing yet got delivered something else?

  15. Count me in as a Little Englander!

    “Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State!
    Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
    Humanity with all its fears,
    With all the hopes of future years,
    Is hanging breathless on thy fate!”

  16. //Count me in as a Little Englander!//

    Surely being born and bred in the Lone Star state such a perspective would make you a ‘globalist’ Charles? 😉

  17. I don’t know anything, but again my country relatives told me ages ago that the EEC would become a “United States of Europe “, that would be ” like the United States of America ”

    Not said with hostility to the concept, but with great certainty.

  18. Charles

    To each their own! I always preferred

    “We serve neither King nor Kaiser, but Ireland.”

  19. I was five when Ireland & the UK joined the EU so prety much can’t remember anythin prior to it and while I agee that there are those within the EU who think there should be a federal Europe I’ve never had the sense that that’s what it was about.

    Another thing is if a federal Europe was to be establshed no one knows what shape it would take.

    On Brexit, if you think the Brits think that they were promised one thing and delivered something else. You aint seen nothing yet.

  20. Paul

    As someone who voted for Brexit in an attempt to throw a political petrol bomb into the British constitutional arrangement everything that has happened thus far has been more or less what I expected.

    To see the British political establishment rush like lemmings to commit hari kari wasn’t as anticipated, that has been quite a surprise. To watch the DUP, who claim that the Union is their entire raison d’être, do so much damage to that same union has been a joy to watch.

  21. When the referendum on joining the EEC was presented to the British electorate in 1973, the PM Ted Heath had been told that a federal Europe, where each country has power similar to that ofa component state of the USA, was the intention.
    Who doesn’t know that?

  22. Allan

    Do you have a text of his exact words?

    That would be exceptionally interesting reading

  23. I largely agree Chris. I know three ex prisoners who voted to leave for entirely the same reason.

    I heard a great comment the other day about the DUP on LBC. That they were engaging in ‘recreational Britishness’

  24. Much like your relatives it was the prediction of a Tory MP Phantom.

  25. That they were engaging in ‘recreational Britishness’

    superb quote!

  26. Paul

    Unionism has always been loyal to the Crown, the half-crown.

    Looks at the history of Ulster Unionism; its why I always chuckle when they talk about being democrats and upholding the rule of law

  27. //Unionism has always been loyal to the Crown, the half-crown//

    Preaching to the converted here cuz.

  28. I think that a concern about a federal Europe is a legitimate concern but I doubt that was the concern for the vast majority of Brexit voters.

    I think it was.

  29. “When the referendum on joining the EEC was presented to the British electorate in 1973, the PM Ted Heath had been told that a federal Europe, where each country has power similar to that ofa component state of the USA, was the intention.”

    Well I doubt it was the intention in 1973 (never mind in the actual year of the referendum in 1975) because the Werner Plan had been rejected in December 1970 due to opposition of the Member States, primarily France.

  30. Phantom –

    Ted Heath lied to the country, like all pro-EU types have lied to the country. Even now they deny the central point of the EU: “ever closer union”.

    When he spoke on Television in January 1973 about joining the Common Market, Prime Minister Edward Heath told the nation, “There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”

    As he spoke these words Edward Heath, and some of his closest colleagues, were concealing an extraordinary secret; a secret that the public and most MPs did not know, but which was to emerge into the light of day 30 years later when previously sealed official papers were opened.

    The secret that Heath and his colleagues kept quiet in 1973 was revealed in January 2001 with publication of the Cabinet Papers relating to Heath’s application to join the Common Market in 1970. They tell an extraordinary story.

    Cabinet and other documents which have since been declassified have revealed their lies. They knew from the start that the end result would be a vast loss of sovereignty and national self-determination. This is from 2012:

    I am reminded of a document I discovered in the National Archives at Kew in January 2002, when sifting through papers released under the 30-year rule relating to Britain’s negotiations to join the Common Market. It was a confidential 1971 memorandum, clearly written by a senior Foreign Office official, headed “Sovereignty and the Community”.

    With chilling candour, this paper (from FCO folder 30/1048) predicted that it would take 30 years for the British people to wake up to the real nature of the European project that Edward Heath was about to take them into, by which time it would be too late for them to leave. Its author made clear that the Community was headed for economic, monetary and fiscal union, with a common foreign and defence policy, which would constitute the greatest surrender of Britain’s national sovereignty in history. Since “Community law” would take precedence over our own, ever more power would pass to this new bureaucratic system centred in Brussels – and, as the role of Parliament diminished, this would lead to a “popular feeling of alienation from government”.

    It would therefore become the duty of politicians “not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures… to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community”. Politicians of all parties should be careful to conceal the fact that controversial laws originated in Brussels. By this means it might be possible to preserve the illusion that the British government was still sovereign, “for this century at least” – by which time it would no longer be possible for us to leave.

    In other words, here was a civil servant advising that our politicians should connive in concealing what Heath was letting us in for, not least in hiding the extent to which Britain would no longer be a democratic country but one essentially governed by unelected and unaccountable officials.

    One way to create an illusion that this system was still democratic, this anonymous mandarin suggested, would be to give people the chance to vote for new representatives at European, regional and local levels. A few years later, we saw the creation of an elected European Parliament – as we see today a craze for introducing elected mayors, as meaningless local figureheads.

    But where the author was perhaps shrewder than he knew was in predicting how all this would eventually lead to “we the people” feeling alienated from the whole process of how we are governed. We now see a gulf yawning between, on the one hand, the consensus government of our new nomenklatura and, on the other, all the rest of us, aware that we are democratically powerless. To the growing groundswell of contempt and resentment that this is creating, those who rule us with such sublime incompetence will eventually find they have no answer.

  31. Deputising Christopher Booker into your arguments now Pete?

    The Great Deception: Can the European Union Survive?

    A review of the book in the academic journal The Historian described his “skewed portrayal” of European integration “against the will of a bamboozled European public”, as “not so much false as ludicrous”, noting “the book loses whatever credibility it accrues in its better chapters by its persistently exaggerated language.”

    Princeton University’s Andrew Moravcsik, whose research is heavily cited in the book, has accused the authors of “misconstruing” his work as supporting their narrative and failing to demonstrate that there were any viable alternatives to European Union membership, with Booker and North’s economics being “even dodgier than their history”. He further argues that their “Eurosceptic dogma” of an “”undemocratic” scheme of centralised regulation” is undermined by their own examples; that it is largely “British officials exercising their own discretion” and juggling the fate of special interest groups against the wider economy.

  32. Seamus –

    You play the man if you can’t deny his argument.

    Booker is right.

  33. Booker’s argument is that he saw secret files in the Foreign Office that said there was a secret nature of the EU. I’m call bullshit on that one. That Booker has form on this issue is even more reason to call bullshit on it.

  34. Seamus –

    He names the document. First line, second paragraph: FCO folder 30/1048. It’s been public for years now. Swivel-eyed loons like me have read it. Anyone can read it.

    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=FCO+folder+30%2F1048

  35. Anyone can read it which is why it was particularly stupid of Booker to list the document. Because it doesn’t say what he says it says.

  36. Paragraph 22 (which is what he seems to be aiming at in FCO 30/1048) lays out that “even in the most dramatic development of the Community the major member stats can hardly lose the last resort ability to withdraw in much less than three decades”. So even in the most extreme version of European unity at the time the UK would still be able to withdraw. It was not laying out what was the plan but the most extreme version of what any plan could look like.

  37. ” Politicians of all parties should be careful to conceal the fact that controversial laws originated in Brussels.”

    No. It counselled politicians not to attribute all that is bad in the world to the European Communities. Which is what happened. If the EU does something good and popular it will be a national decision. And if the EU does something unpopular it will be an EU decision. Even look at the recent British Government decision over solar panels which they tried to cloak as an EU measure in order to convince the sheep that it was all the EU’s fault. And like a good little sheep you bit on that Pete.

  38. Seamus seems to be arguing that the documents cited by Pete and below don’t say what they says – a position that only true leftists can hold:

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/06/what-is-the-metaphysics-of-the-left-part-one/

    Anyway, back to reality and here is an excellent article on the entire Euro-conspiracy…..

    https://campaignforanindependentbritain.org.uk/britain-europe-bruges-group/

    Such a political and economic union, possibly also including a common defence policy, would thus involve a massive loss of national sovereignty, which would ultimately leave member states with somewhat less power “than the autonomy enjoyed by the states of the USA”. But what alarmed the Foreign Office was not the contents of the Werner Report. Mr Heath and his ministers did not throw up their hands in horror and say “good heavens, we had no idea this was what the Common Market is about. We could not possibly accept such a thing”. On the contrary, when Geoffrey Rippon, the minister in charge of our negotiations, went to see M. Werner on October 27, the minutes of their discussion show that Rippon went out of his way to congratulate him on his report, which he said “well stated our common objectives”. Privately, Her Majesty’s Government had no objection to the political union Werner was proposing. (PRO/CAB 164/771)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/9233096/Europe-alienates-us-all-as-foretold-40-years-ago.html

    All across Europe, from riots in Greece to those protest votes for Marine Le Pen and George Galloway, we see signs of how alienated people now feel from the “political class” which rules over our lives, out of touch with the rest of us, without meaningful opposition, no longer responsive to any democratic control. I am reminded of a document I discovered in the National Archives at Kew in January 2002, when sifting through papers released under the 30-year rule relating to Britain’s negotiations to join the Common Market. It was a confidential 1971 memorandum, clearly written by a senior Foreign Office official, headed “Sovereignty and the Community”.

    With chilling candour, this paper (from FCO folder 30/1048) predicted that it would take 30 years for the British people to wake up to the real nature of the European project that Edward Heath was about to take them into, by which time it would be too late for them to leave. Its author made clear that the Community was headed for economic, monetary and fiscal union, with a common foreign and defence policy, which would constitute the greatest surrender of Britain’s national sovereignty in history. Since “Community law” would take precedence over our own, ever more power would pass to this new bureaucratic system centred in Brussels – and, as the role of Parliament diminished, this would lead to a “popular feeling of alienation from government”.

    It would appear that enough Britons learned from experience – the bastards

  39. So even in the most extreme version of European unity at the time the UK would still be able to withdraw.

    The decision to Leave was taken 3 years ago: the UK is still in the EU. Does anybody dispute this?

  40. “Seamus seems to be arguing that the documents cited by Pete and below don’t say what they says – a position that only true leftists can hold:”

    I’m saying the documents don’t say what Christopher Booker says. Which is a position that only people who can read can hold.

    And you don’t need to link to articles. As Pete says the documents themselves are available online.

    https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/acft/FCO+30+1048.pdf [Warning: The file is over 200 MB and will take a while to load]

  41. “The decision to Leave was taken 3 years ago: the UK is still in the EU. “

    Due to the UK’s own actions. It is the UK Government, and the UK Parliament, who decided to extend their membership in the European Union.

  42. Seamus – the UK political system is a siamese twin to the corrupt Euro-systems, and they’re just playing their roles in the farce. Do you really believe that the political system is honest and that results which are adverse to the program would be respected?

  43. https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/acft/FCO+30+1048.pdf

    page 15 of 24, item 8 – lays out the intentions of fiscal and currency unions, and weakening of national institutions which surely means consequentially stronger EU powers

    item 9 – “public anxieties masquerading as concern for loss of sovereignty…..” So much for the British public, yeah?

    page 16 of 24, item 9 (i) – “after entry, to ensure that unpopular measures or unfavourable economic developments are not attributed to the remote and unmanageable workings of the (European) Community”. How to use media to lie?

    On the matter of sovereignty, on page 20 of 224, there is written…….

    “To take an extreme example, while the Central American Republics are sovereign states recognised as such by other states, inpractice they are limited by their nrelations with the US government, and perhaps more critically with private US interests, both in their freedom of international action and in their ability to regulate their affairs within their own boundaries”

    I have written about that several times whilst linking to the writings of General Smedley Butler who made clear that he was an enforcer in central and south America for big business and it was called a ‘conspiracy theory’ – yet there it is within UK government documents.

    https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/115545.Smedley_D_Butler

    “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
    ― Smedley D. Butler, War is a Racket:

    I’m looking forward to reading those documents…..

  44. https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/acft/FCO+30+1048.pdf

    page 36 of 224, item 9

    “By the end of the century (this is written in 1971) with effective defence and political harmonisation, the erosion of the international role of member states could be almost complete”

    That doesn’t read as policy of a trading bloc – it’s clear intent to eliminate the nation state.

    Page 80 of 224, a letter from Anthony Fisher to Geoffrey Johnson Smith MP:

    “For the umpteenth time in history, a relatively few people are confusing and betraying a very great number” (Parliament betraying people, as in Brexit)

    “You are using devious means to give away the sovereignty of Parliament in perpetuity” – and nothing has changed. The political class i.e. those who select themselves to become MPs, are inherently treacherous.

  45. Page 6 :3

    By entering the European Communities would the UK cease to be regarded as a sovereign independent state in International Law?

    No, there has been no question of the present members of the European Communities ceasing to be regarded as soverign independent states because of their membership of the European Communities.