Barroso said nothing new, Cameron said nothing meaningful

Jose Manuel Barroso’s call for creating a ‘federation of nation states’ distinctly lacked novelty appeal. He did float a specific timeline for this, 2014, but that didn’t come across as something chiselled in stone. At a pinch, the federasts could wait another year – what’s a few months among friends?

As to the inexorable drive towards a single European state, the only amazing thing is the incredulous reaction to it. The idea has been bandied about since Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet first began to talk about Europe pooling its resources. At first, it was all backstage nudges and winks: they think it’s all about coal and steel, but bright chaps like us know better, don’t we, Robert? Mais bien sûr, Jean.

Gradually, the federasts became more forthright about their aspirations, and these were in any case evident from their actions: ‘Ye shall know them by their fruits’. The latest fruit falling off that rotten tree is the banking union announced last week. It doesn’t take a political genius of Machiavellian proportions to realise that a combination of monetary and banking union presupposes a single state. So what’s the big surprise?

The Trotskyite French newspaper La Liberation (described in our press as ‘respected’ – by whom?) proudly revealed its great scoop: Dave has privately warned François that any change in the existing EU treaties will force him to call a referendum. ‘In order for him to win it, and for his country to stay in the EU,’ say the comrades, we had better tread softly, ‘starting from the principle that not everyone in a Europe of 30 or 35 will do the same thing.’

Of course they won’t – why should the Fourth Reich be any different from the Third? The Germans will drive the lorry, the French collabos will navigate, everyone else will bounce up and down on the flatbed, occasionally falling out through the tailgate. Nothing new there, but, assuming the comrades didn’t invent the whole thing, which they’re eminently capable of, the story is still interesting.

If they quote correctly, Dave has abandoned the last pretence of being even a mild, wishy-washy eurosceptic. Should a referendum be called, he would regard as a victory Britain’s staying in the EU, even if she doesn’t ‘do the same thing’ as the Übermenschen.

True enough, Dave has stated on numerous occasions that on his watch Britain will stay in the EU no matter what. It’s from this position that he expects to negotiate with the Euro powers that be.

The position is weak to the point of being untenable. If the option of withdrawal were on the table, Dave could start by saying, ‘If you want us to remain in the EU, here’s what you must do…’ As it is, he has given the federasts the power to say, ‘If you want to remain in the EU, here’s what you must do…’ Note to Dave: Don’t ever play no-limit poker, mate. You’ll lose your custom-made shirt.

This of course hints at the kind of referendum we’ll get, if indeed we ever get one. I’d bet my bottom euro that the question put to the electorate will be nothing as straightforward as ‘in or out?’. In a slightly expanded form, this question could run something like ‘Should Britain leave the EU now that it is turning into a single federated state?’ Much more likely is a typical Dave prevarication along the lines of ‘Should we or should we not insist that more powers be repatriated to Britain?’

In the first example, a ‘yes’ vote would take us out of the EU. In the second, a ‘yes’ vote would mean a square root of zero. It goes without saying or voting that all countries within a EUSSR would retain some measure of local control.

For example, when half of European Russia was part of the Third Reich, local government was almost entirely in the hands of Russian collaborators – the Germans had only a few thousand men scattered around an area the size of Western Europe, clearly not enough to do anything other than provide the overall direction. But there was still no doubt as to who was in charge and who called the strategic shots.

In the closest, though not close enough, parallel, all American states have a great deal of autonomy within the federation. But when in 1860 some of them chose to push it to the logical extreme of secession, we all know what happened. Since then, the central government has been in total control whenever it chose to exercise it.

That’s how it’ll be should Dave succeed in keeping Britain at the outskirts of the European Federation. What’s worse, he knows it and doesn’t care. All he wants is for the federasts to toss him a bone he could then hold up, claiming it’s a fillet steak.

The very fabric of the EU is a tissue of lies, and has been from the beginning. We can’t expect the truth now; things have gone too far. What we must do is realise how grave the situation is and use every means at our disposal to put pressure on Dave and his likeminded colleagues in the other two parties.

We don’t want just any old referendum, the message should be. In the absence of a government capable of taking the right decisions without resorting to plebiscite, we want a clear-cut choice: do we or do we not want to be but a province in a federal Europe. How do you reckon the vote would go?











Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.