A question for the Eurosceptics

Fausto asks for more punditry, more issues and less “narcissism”. He is entitled to believe that other issues have priority than having your right to vote freely hijacked. He is right insofar as we have concentrated on this issue and let other issues like the reception class, MEPA reform, Rent reform and economic maneuvers like the surcharge and overtime tax on the wayside. I’d like to begin with a question to the Eurosceptics. I’m assuming that most of them form part of the Labour camp – it having been the only party to have actively objected to accession.

This is how the Maltese European No Campaign reported its hopes that the Labour party would in some way force the hand of the Nationalist government to a referendum regarding ratification of the Constitution on their site:

27 June 05 – latest update from Kevin Ellul Bonici:
Although the Maltese PM has been hammering at his intention to ratify the Constitution through Parliament, he has also stated that he would prefer to have the opposition Labour Party in agreement for a unanimous vote(he had already postponed ratification due to Labour’s postponement on the vote in November 2004). Although the Labour Party leadership, led by Alfred Sant, has pronounced itself in favour of the Constitution and its ratification, the issue is far from settled. The final vote that would determine whether Labour is in favour or not will be taken at the party’s General Conference starting on 30 June and concluding 3 July. Many of the 900 delegates are said to be against the Constitution, with a faction publicly uttering its disapproval at the leadership’s U-turn. The outcome is still open and the battle is fierce. If the Labour Conference votes No, then the Labour opposition cannot vote in favour in parliament and it is not known what the prime minister would then do – whether to move on and call Labour “eurosceptics” , or decide to postpone in view of his earlier pronouncements. The former would be expected, but eurosceptism at party level would survive in Malta.

Let us see what happened when it came to ratifying the reformed Treaty… an EU Business report at the time:

(VALLETTA) – Malta on Tuesday became the third European Union member state to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon, which EU leaders hope all countries will endorse well before European Parliament elections in 2009. The Mediterranean island state’s House of Representatives voted unanimously to approve a motion of ratification put by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, who said the treaty was a strong instrument for Europe to move forward. “We began this legislature in 2003 following a referendum which approved EU membership. We are at the end of the legislature with the approval of this treaty,” he said. Opposition leader Alfred Sant said that through the treaty, “the ideals of a social Europe are being implemented.”

The Maltese Eurosceptics would have wanted Labour to remain consistent and force a more legitimate way of ratifying the constitution or the revised version. In this they are being consistent with the Eurosceptic movement across Europe (and probably even a good amount of not so Eurosceptic people who would have preferred to be consulted on this issue). The Labour party consulted its delegates and proceeded to vote in favour of the ratification and avoiding any talk of referendum. Admittedly the current Labour leader has often gone on record that consulting the people on referendum is useless for him and the only valid measure for mandates is a General Election. Which is not surprising seeing his uncanny way of interpreting referendum results.

Here is European No Campaign’s comment upon ratification (author Kevin Ellul Bonici):

On 2 July 2005 the Malta Labour Party (MLP) general conference approved 86% the leadership’s proposal to vote in favour of the ratification of the EU Constitution in the Maltese Parliament. The parliamentary debate is to start on 6 July. In his closing address the Labour Party leader, Alfred Sant, maintained that the party cannot turn the clock back. He confirmed that the party had been right in opposing EU membership, but now withdrawal is not advantageous, he said, completely ignoring the fact that not one opponent of the EU Constitution had mentioned withdrawing from the Union. Those who disagree, however, are still welcome in the MLP, added Sant, without specying whther they will be able to speak their miond or follow party dictat. The MLP is therefore expected to join Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi’s PN in a unanimous parliamentary vote to ratify the Constitutional Treaty. The prime minister has insisted this would be Malta’s clear message to Europe. Meanwhile, while Malta’s parliamentary representatives hug the EU Constitution, the majority of the population remains sceptical according to polls.

Now my question is – and here I am sure the Vivamalta crowd will revel in the discussion and try to avoid sidetracking mudslinging… How does a convinced Eurosceptic vote in this election? On what side of the equation will someone like Kevin Ellul Bonici (of the No Campaign) sit? Does the Labour slap in the face to the calls for referendum mean that the Labour Party is no longer a good platform for Eurosceptic campaigns? Does it affect a vote on national level seeing that the Labour Party is trying its best (within reasonable constraints) to play ball with the EU?

Before any PN Sant-basher comes back with the Labour party’s record let us remember that on issues such as Hunting, Funding, and renegotiation, the Labour party now claims to operate WITHIN the EU framework and not without. I am sorry I have not fallen for the spin of withdrawing Malta from the EU. Like PN, the MLP has recognised the value of using the EU as a screen for difficult tasks. Like the PN, MLP will bow to an ECJ decision on hunting. Unlike the PN but in a similar fashion, Sant claims he will renegotiate the situation viz drydocks and agriculture. What PN are trying hard not to admit is that every leader of State CAN try to renegotiate issues with regards to national interest. What PN SHOULD be pressing on is the impossibility of what Sant is proposing to achieve – something I suspect Sant himself knows, but then again the promise is to negotiate and does not necessarily mean he believes in a positive outcome. Childplay… but that too is a result of MLPN politics.

So. Let’s hear some Eurosceptics. What choice for a convinced Eurosceptic? I’m not sure that they will repeat “Definitely not Labour” but while we are at it… will the real Kevin Ellul Bonici please stand up?

Advertisements

29 responses to “A question for the Eurosceptics

  1. Euroscpetics, hunters, racists, xenophobes and chauvisists…Eddy Privotera, Lino Farrugia and the whole lot.. an unholy alliance if there ever was one under the AN tent..will these special interests follow through on their threats or, in true kannol bla krema fashion, scamper back to the safety of mummy on election day? Fascinating question… my hunch is that ex-PN will follow through whilst the herd instinct for pro-MLP types would be just too great..which would leave PN once again the losing end.

  2. I would answer this question, but then again I’m not that keen on being put in the same basket as “racists, xenophobes and chauvinists”

  3. Jacques, x’jikwalifika bhala eurosceptic? xi hadd li hu kompletament kontra dak kollu li hu EU? xi hadd li ma jemminx li s-soluzzjonijiet tajbin ghal pajjizna jistghu jigu BISS mill-EU, hu eurosceptic ukoll?

    f’pajjiz fejn kollox abjad u iswed hafna drabi ninsew li l-verita hi griza. NIxtieq inkun naf, fejn ghalik u ghal min qed jaqra, fejn tahsbu f’dan il kaz, jibda l-iswed u jispicca l-abjad

  4. “Now my question is – and here I am sure the Vivamalta crowd will revel in the discussion and try to avoid sidetracking mudslinging… How does a convinced Eurosceptic vote in this election?”

    Would you kindly clarify what you mean by the statement made? I personally object to VivaMalta being associated with sidetracking and mudslinging – especially in the context of the mainstream parties’ electoral campaigns proving to be a textbook example of both phenomenons.

    That being said – I shall respond to the question made.

    Regardless of whether one is Eurosceptic or not, ‘even’ if one is of the opinion that none of the candidates on offer (let alone parties) is sufficiently representative of their particular viewpoint – the logical thing to do is to vote for any and all minority entities.

    Why? This is because it is in the interests of such persons to reduce the aura of “permanency” that MLP and PN have accumulated amongst themselves.

    Reduced permanency will provide incentive for other platforms to surface – operating outside the “party lines” of the two parties previously seen to be permanent.

    Thus opportunity for change becomes more real.

    I, personally, am of the opinion that the best hope for change exists not outside of the EU (which should never be confused with an ideal – We are placing it tantamount to a demigod in doing so…) but within it. This is what I would like to see our MEPs work towards.

    I would like to see a greater degree of collaboration between MEPs and MEP hopefuls across the EU to influence the EU into changing for the better – with a greater respect of the member nations – so that we may not become the equivalent of Hawaii as one of the States of America… A member of something but far from influential.

    We have to rise beyond this – recognize the present and work towards the future. This belief shall probably motivate my candidature for MEP – should I fully decide to head into that fray. ^_^

  5. Isn’t it the only real political home now left for Eurosceptics, if they want to gain some leverage? Strange bedfellows, true..but don’t take it personally.

    And it’s time to call a spade a spade where AN is concerned..it’s being treated too much with kid gloves for my liking by the other parties…a cordon sanitaire would have been more appropriate.

  6. AN’s Euroscepticism stems froom xenophobia and a deep desire to avoid our international obligations – but there are other reasons for Euroscepticism.

  7. Our international obligations should not include being burdened by thousands…

    Surely we agree that it is not fair on the Maltese people. :c|

    I am not AN but Josie’s suggestion (an uncanny echo of my own 2006 suggestion) that it is fair for individuals given shelter to pay their share makes a lot of sense – not only economically but ethically also.

    After all – part of the objection to illegal immigration is the sheer burden represented. Josie suggests burden sharing… (again seemingly echoing myself) but lacks direction (I do not).

  8. MALTATODAY – page 10

    Wednesday, 27th February 2008

    DAPHNE REPORTS BLOGGER TO THE POLICE OVER ‘JOKE’

    THE Malta Independent columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia has taken issue with the comments of a blogger, whom she reported to the police according to comments she herself posted on an internet blog debating the general elections.

    Caruana Galizia told blogger Sandro Vella – previously associated with satirical website Maltafly.com – that his name had put on record with the police “in case there are further developments” after Vella posted a ‘joke’ which portrayed Daphne in the afterlife, after having been supposedly killed in a bomb attack.
    “A quick search,” Caruana Galizia told Vella in her comments on the blog, “has revealed that you have already faced one police investigation and ensuring court case for malicious and vindictive harassment of two individuals. Because this kind of leopard rarely changes its spots, and in view of the violent and abusive language you are using towards me here, I thought it best to make things clear. You are not just another blogger, but somebody with a problem.”

    While the joke itself was nothing to write home about, it was the comments penned by Daphne herself that have been come the centre of attention on the blog, pitting the columnist against those bloggers whom she accuses of being AD and Labour voters.
    Caruana Galizia intervened at the point when one commentator expressed scepticism regarding the alleged bomb threat to journalist, who already suffered arson attack on her house in 2005. Police officers have also been deployed to guard her residence.
    In her blog entries, Caruana Galizia described Labour leader Alfred Sant as a “bewigged marionette”, to the other bloggers’ annoyance. “`Bewigged marionette`” is not name-calling,” she replied, “but a factual description.”

    She also defended her son over the One News footage at the University debate between the four political leaders, who warded off a One News cameraman while filming Caruana Galizia. In the blog, Daphne said the footage had been used by a party trying to form a government “to intimidate, through its broadcast, Internet and print media, a newspaper columnist who that political party regards in the Stalinist manner as Public Enemy No. 1 – by harassing her son.”

    But her most controversial comment was arguably the one reserved for those who expressed their intentions to vote for AD: “I’m sorry, but in your desperate attempts at convincing yourselves and anyone else who is listening that if Sant becomes prime minister you have nothing to do with it, you are on your own,” she warned in a comment on Jacques René Zammit’s blog. “If you had the slightest bit of political savvy or psychological nous, you would know that you are setting yourselves up as hate objects…”

    The controversy continues…

  9. That’s neither here nor there. The point is: quo vadis for the real Eurosceptics (as opposed to those who werre parroting MLP lines during the last election but are now waving flags wlth MLP and EU logs embedded together during MLP mass rallies)? MLP views the EU as a vote-loser, period. In politics, the only way to trasmit your views effectively is by gaining power, and power can only be gained by political parties.

    If by Eurosceptics we mean those who are williing to jeopardise Malta’s membership in the EU – only one viable party remains for this swathe of voters, irrespective of the origins of the party’s Euroscepticism. But how many shall put their money where their mouth is? Every time I see CNI on TV, it’s clear that their hatred for the EU is overrided by their loyalty to the tribe. Pathetic.

  10. I cannot understand why Daphne is so pissed off all the time.

  11. typo: I meant logos (not logs!)

    Daphne has “issues”, clearly.. and the reference to hate objects seems eerily prescient in view of recent events.

  12. James, on the matter of international obligations, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.

    Dispassionate; Power is not related only to political power; the media has power – but it’s power is derived from influence, NGO’s have power too and so do many organisations.

  13. I’ve blogged about this cause it’s a bit too complex to discuss in blog comment.

    Regarding the newspaper article, I think it’s a bit off topic in this thread…

    J’accuse note: link: http://confessionsofanatheist.blogspot.com

  14. Andre – Agreeing to Disagree sounds fair enough to me. My viewpoints on the matter are up for debate however (though probably best on fora other than this blog naturally). :c)

  15. Andre..not in Malta, I’m afraid. Which NGOs have ever served to really make a difference in term of policy decisions…from envronmental movements campaigning against ODZs and hunting, rent referedum campaigns, even the ANR protests of 2005 – did they change anything ? The only NGO with any power in Malta is the GWU – and that’s due to its power of mass mobility, which is in turn related to its allegiance to MLP. The only other instuments of power (or influence) are mass media – which are also (apart from Malta Today) linked to the two main parties. And obviously, let;snot forget the Church.

    Conclusion: to get someting done in Malta, you need to have either PN, MLP/GWU, or the Church (that’s where Gift of Like fits) on your side. All the others are voices in the wilderness..including the Euroscpetics, unless they somehow get a seat in Parliament.

  16. I for one am a Eurosceptic, although I am actually employed by an EU institution. I am sceptical of the direction the EU is taking. I totally abhor the sleight of hand manoeuvres to get the constitution in through the lisbon treaty backdoor. I am against this obsession with European citizenship, which I find contrived and unrealistic, as well as sinisterly exclusive.

    But I am also a Eurosceptic who voted Yes in the referendum 5 years ago. Yes because the Partnership camp offered no real alternative to the inevitable tide of history which the PN was lucky enough to find itself riding at the time

    As a side note: arguably it was the PN which initiated this “tide of history” but I beg to differ. At some point Malta would have joined the EU whichever party was in power. Sant’s partnership was simply his only was to deal with being on the wrong side of the fence – which does not mean being wrong by the way. In Nazi Germany being anti-Hitler meant you were on the wrong side of the fence, completely at odds with the tide of history at that particular time and that particular place.

    But I digress.

    As a Europsceptic I find myself in a terrible dilemma. Most Eurosceptics seem to originate in the Far Right camp, and there is no way I can be associated with them. Even when they are very articulate about their position and when it is one I wholeheartedly agree with. They stand for a philosophy I am completely against, so this Eurosceptic cannot stand by their side. As for the CNI, their reaction to the above mentioned tide of history did not convince me then, and it doesn’t convince me now. This dilemma recalls the one faced by the through leftist who has seen the European left hijacked by the centrists.

    So what does this Eurosceptic do?

  17. “Conclusion: to get someting done in Malta, you need to have either PN, MLP/GWU, or the Church (that’s where Gift of Like fits) on your side.”
    What about the Jesuit order? Do they fit in anywhere?

    J’accuse note: And the Carmelites, and the Dominicans? What’s the point being made here? Is it a prod to start the usual hate talk about the jesuits? The Jesuits are an order that performs a social role they believe in. What are you criticising exactly? Are you advocating a policy that prevents the Jesuits from exercising a social role BECAUSE their inspiration is different from something you would agree with?

  18. Hallelujah!

    Two points:

    Hijack voting freely? Limited choice may have been reasonable but it seems you seem incapable of not being dramatic.

    Nobody said Sant CANNOT go and try to negotiate just as nobody said that Canute cannot try to stop the tide. But Sant’s chances of success to change matter that is a Treaty are about as good as Canute’s.

  19. Matthew Aquilina

    dispassionate you want to why Daphne is pissed off all the time?
    Since her writing over recent years has not had the desired effect and Fredu her man in shining armour stands a chance.

  20. Those short comments were actually quick email replies to requests for updates on the situation in Malta. They were then cut and pasted straight onto the website with typos and all…

    That said, here’s my response to Jacques’ piece.

    First, the term “eurosceptic” is used in a disparaging way on the continent. Conversely, many UK sceptics still use that term to describe themselves. Nowadays, the term “eurosceptic” is used to describe withdrawalists as opposed to reformists.

    So there are 2 camps in the EU-critical field (that’s the term I prefer at this stage). One camp comes from the past, the other is going to the future.

    The first camp is the old one. The “nationalistic” side. These are usually found on the right of what’s left of the political spectrum. They are not necessarily “far-right” (these are malicious labels), but they have a type of love for their country that dissonates (or have been caused to dissonate) with today’s “internationalism” and “cooperation”… which in any case is at least as old as Soviet communist ideology. Moreover, many of these never object to State tyranny in their beloved nation-state, only when it comes from the EU bureaucracy (which will eventually inherit all these new, ostensibly terror-related draconian laws at a federal/centralised level).

    The second camp is a more recent development, and it transgresses the whole left-centre-right spectrum, comprising all ages, but mostly the younger generations. This camp is not against the EU per se, especially the “four freedoms of movement”, yet they recognise the advent of totalitarianism when they smell one. These are progressives who believe in freedom, civil liberties and free democracies, as opposed to the centralised, bureaucratic, totalitarian hybrid of a USA-cum-Soviet Union. Those who laugh at this comparison make a fool of themselves for they show how little they know of state systems’ behaviourisms and the direction the EU has taken. The political structure of the EU is very similar to that of the SU, supreme soviet and all… and if you think we really have a “free market”… why, then read the Lisbon 10-year plan AGENDA… the one which promises jobs for all Europeans by 2010 – and compare it to the Soviet 5-year plans. Freedom of speech? Refer to the increasingly intrusive code of political correctness.

    As for those who still believe that the US is the “land of the free and home of the brave”… well, after checking what the Patriot Acts I and II say, and the Military Commissions Act and, more recently, the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007” one might view things differently. Or simply check into the empty, huge FEMA camps in the US and look into the OFFICIAL plans to “relocate” US masses in these gulags if martial law were to be imposed. It’s all official.

    Now this second Freedom perspective is not fully understood by the mainstream.
    Communicators like Daphne, though quite intelligent, believe the illusion that the mainstream media itself propagates. Just like many intelligent people do not understand how the “war on drugs” has caused so much hidden misery, devastation and corruption, and how mythical most of the “war on terror” is. These are all wars whose sole purpose is to take away our civil liberties and regulate our lives. Create fear and impose control!

    I will not delve further, since this would require more than just a comment. But I’ll just say that more and more people are slowly but surely waking up, especially in the West, and in particular in the US. There is a revolutionary air of freedom against tyranny developing…

    Did I go on a tangent? No. All this is related to the EU-critical field that I form part of. Globalization, one world government, political “blocs”, world organisations… these are all mechanisms that erode our freedoms.

    Don’t forget that ‘democracy’ is only a recent European political tradition. The Inquisition, the French tyrannical republic, communism, Sovietism, Nazism, fascism… these are ALL European traditions and their seeds still exist among us. Also, don’t forget that millions upon millions appluaded Hitler and Stalin… that’s the blind mainstream for you. How many Daphne’s thought there was nothing wrong with Nazi Germany before the illusion was removed?

    Alex briefly described how the Lisbon Treaty is being deceitfully imposed, brushing aside referendum results and reneging on promises of a referendum in at least 5 countries.

    I can assure you that in the institution where I work, the European Parliament (which is the ONLY directly elected EU institution), I can breathe and feel the air of totalitarianism – it is the same air I breathed when I studied in the former Soviet Union between 1979-83. I went there as an 18-year old “euro-communist” and returned with theories of Bastiat and Hayek racing inside my brain.

    As for the Malta situation?

    With the Lisbon Treaty the Maltese republic will be promoted to an EU Province. Our government is already acting like a local council. Given that both Labour and PN are on the mainstream EU bandwagon (the bandwagon that brushes off democracy and freedom), the choice can hardly be related to our new masters in Brussels. The choice is about which party can best administer our debts… er, finances… it is about how much money is going to be stolen from A, B and C, to be given to X, Y and Z… That is the Gonzi-Sant contest – a Lilliputian farce.

    As for Labour’s U-turn, I hardly ever doubted that they would turn tail on the EU-critical field. I mean, when you see people like Gorg Vella acting like a sheepdog toward their new masters in the Socialist (federalist/centralizationist) group one expects very little. Labour has a phobia. It does not want people to be made to think that Labour would withdraw Malta from the EU (which is unthinkable since they’ll make a lesson out of us and isolate us into oblivion… yes, the bastards!). And, also, Labour cannot be critical of the EU because they’ll have problems with their masters here, who already treat them very dismissively (same goes for Casa and Busuttil). As for Sant re-negotiating the Accession Treaty? Pastaz! He voted in our parliament in favour of the totalitarian Lisbon Treaty, which is the constitutional Treaty in disguise and now he proposes to do the impossible? To open up an old treaty for re-negotiation? Hallina Dos Santos, ghax ma tmurx tahrat ghalqa patata u forsi sservi ta gid!

    So, to conclude, Labour has no EU-critical voices within it, even if many of its supporters still feel they should be EU-critical (not always for the right reasons). Labour’s strategy may seem tactful, even if unprincipled, but they’re being very short-visioned. Consider the Danish Liberals, a hugely europhile party that also includes an EU-critical faction which it FUNDS. I know members of the Liberal Party who are also members of leftist anti-EU organisations, like the People’s Movement Against the EU (which differs from Bonde’s reformist June Movement).

    But the EU-critical field is NOT dead in Malta. Indeed, the beginning will soon come into sight… but I’ll stop here for now…

    Just watch this recent video on EU totalitarianism:

    Enjoy and keep healthy, as Norwell would say.

    KEB

    Note to Daphne: I agree with you only on one thing – your stance against inquisitive moralists and neo-moralists. Yet we’ve been there since at least the mid-1970s – you need updating and you need it fast, cos otherwise you’re just another naive, mainstream pundit complaining about trivial matters, missing the wood for the trees… pity, cos you could be much smarter than that. (Ironically, the moralistic values of the pre-70s is what the Labour party fought against in the 70s… but for you the 60s, 50s… never happened because it does not suit your agenda).

  21. QUITE intelligent, Keb? You flatter me. Of course if I were REALLY intelligent I wouldn’t be here in the first place.

  22. Yes, Daphne, you do have a point there.

    And I also note your emphasis on “QUITE”… I would have inserted a smiley at this point, but Jacques’ smileys are too wide.

  23. BTW, Alex, I believe I answered your question to a point.

    So just wait and see. Forget the Right (and don’t always believe the MSM when it labels someone “Far Right” – do your own research).

    EU-critical movements are increasingly flourishing from the progressive Left, Greens and freedom-lovers who do not believe in Left and Right any more.

    You see, there is also Up and Down – Up toward FREEDOM and Down toward TOTALITARIANISM.

  24. I concur with most of what Alex said in his post, save for the ‘inevitable-tide-of-history’ argument, a view I consider it somewhat historicist. As much as I am keen on historicism, I feel that as an individual I am entitled to stand in the way of the supposed logical unfolding of history if I truly feel that it is heading in the wrong direction.

    Personally, I still hold that the option of partnership camp was more suited to the circumstances of our country, but I also believe that this issue now has become practically obsolete. For all I know, the CNI might be acting in good faith, but I believe that pulling Malta out of the EU at this stage would certainly put the country in an unprecedented crisis. In such a state of affairs, the real-politique dictates that we should strive to reform the UE from within.

    Having said that, in my view the small Member States (and very often even the ‘medium sized’ Member States) have little say in the big decisions. We just have to put up with anything that our Big Brothers decide for us. Besides, I am afraid that those who are pushing for further integration are now seeing the peoples of Europe as a threat to their federalist projects. The Lisbon treaty was a case in point: as soon as some countries rejected the European constitution, they choose to thrust aside the will of the people – just like that. So much for democracy!

    As a radical leftist, however, my greatest concern with the EU has always been its ‘free-market’ economy. As it stands, this market is not free at all, as they are always the richest who run the show. Jekk tiflaħ thallas tajjeb, kemm għalik u kemm għalina; jekk le, kriepa . I cannot condone such cutthroat competition that allows no state intervention whatsoever. This is not a Social Europe – in my view it is just another dictatorship of capital.

    In this regard, Alex was right to suggest that the European Left is being hijacked by centrists, as we seldom hear the PES condemning such a state of affairs. Just consider the prices of property. How can a true Socialist let property prices soar this high to the unarguable detriment of all the working people? How can I support the European Left when in principle it is giving its blessing to a Neo-Imperialist Europe of wage slaves?

  25. Kevin, actually the REAL European Left is (in the European Parliament) with GUE/NGL, which opposes the Lisbon Treaty. What are today known as Socialists and Social Democrats are opportunists on the mainstream Centre bandwagon.

    As for the old socialist ideals, things have changed drastically. While the working class flourished into what is now (or was?) the middle class, Big Government (created for the benefit of society) colluded with Big Corporations to cheat the people further. That is why we have had never ending inflation, when the law of the market says that prices should go down (as in PCs and mobile phones). When governments meddle with the market, prices go up (as when they print more money).

    So, Big Government (a consequence of socialism) has become the tool for Big Corporations to legislate according to their needs and determine how taxpayers’ money is spent.

    Government should only be there to protect our rights, not regulate our lives and waste our wealth.

    The EU is neither liberal (in the European sense) nor capitalist. It is in fact very socialistic as far as the nanny state is concerned. The problem is that whatever government does it does it inefficiently and ineffectively – it is wasteful and often counterproductive, Bureacrats cannot plan society. That is why the EU is more like the Soviet Union than the USA – alsthough the USA too has become a Nanny State, and Big Brother thrives too. With EU supra-governance we just added a huge, costly layer of shit over our freedom, security and prosperity.

  26. “The problem is that whatever government does it does it inefficiently and ineffectively – it is wasteful and often counterproductive, Bureacrats cannot plan society.”

    Would I be correctly informed that Brussels has hired a “Bureacrats Terminator”, who already cherishes political differences with Jose Manuel Barroso?

  27. I agree that Big Government has colluded with Big Corporations, but wouldn’t call that Socialist. Rather than colluding with them, a Socialist Government should at least be in a position to keep them in check. In the context of such a market it is impossible, illegal even.

    True, governments should be there to protect our rights. And I guess that workers and consumers have the right to be protected from being exploited by a handful of entrepreneurs whose sole interest is to enlarge their pockets. It really amazes me that our European Left would like us to believe that this is the only way to go.

    No matter what the apologists of capital say, social inequalities in Europe are on the rise. If we really want to give freedom to the European peoples, we have to make sure that wealth is distributed as reasonably as possible.

    These champagne socialists, however, have betrayed the cause of the working people – the European working class today is totally leaderless.

  28. Pingback: En rysk knorr på EFDD-skandalen | EUbloggen

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s