Why must Europe accept the German World View as the EU view?

This Wednesday morning Colonel Gadaffi has taken flight, while the world awaits his capture, perhaps now is a perfect moment to pause and consider, in the light of the Gadaffi years, when and why morality disappeared from the EU’s world view.

The economic domination of the EU by a re-unified Germany was always inevitable, as foreseen at the time by both Margaret Thatcher and François Mitterand. The French eventually locked Germany into the EMU with the Euro currency and thereby insured that for the medium term their deficit economy could thus be supported and underwritten by German industriousness. This era seems to be about to end this evening when Prime Minister Fillon is scheduled to announce further austerity measures for France. Britain, which became the clear loser in this tripartite European power play, saw its wealth, independence and assets, be obtained and divided between France and Germany.  Thus today nearly all Britain’s strategic industries and utilities can be seen to be owned by French and German corporations, and middle income British citizens now live only barely above the bread line, as reported in The Independent, of this Wednesday morning.

Many readers might imagine, that the primary concern of my recent postings on this site, centred upon the democratic deficit that now exists within the EU, and while this has recently clearly been an ever growing worry, it is noteworthy that my very first post to Ironies, illustrated below, was on the obvious tendency of Europe’s larger states to turn a blind eye to tyrants and despots, in that particular case concerning Saddam Hussein and Iraq but also relating to President Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

Ironies first post

By their friends shall we know them!    (First posted 23rd February 2003)

Germany’s Bild newspaper reported the following last Monday.

“Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz praised German leaders for their anti-war stance, saying they were doing “a good job,” Aziz called German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder “a clever politician” and said Fischer was doing “a good job” by upholding his country’s position in the U.N. Security Council, which Germany is chairing this month.”

Yesterday it was the turn of President Chirac of France to bask in the praise of a despot.

The Washington Times reported the following “President Robert Mugabe, an international pariah for his increasingly authoritarian rule, yesterday ended a visit here for the Franco-African summit hailing the “tremendous hospitality” he found in France.

“We’ve had tremendous hospitality. We felt at home,” he told Radio France Internationale (RFI), praising French President Jacques Chirac for inviting him despite a global outcry over Mr. Mugabe’s poor human rights record.

“We leave with a very good impression of France,” he added.

In Mugabe’s view Mr Chirac is not just a great leader, but apparently of the sort of which the world needs more, the paper’s article continues “Chirac insisted that we attend, because some members of the EU didn’t want Mugabe to attend,” the Zimbabwean leader told RFI, speaking of himself in the third person. “He put his foot down on principles,” Mr. Mugabe added, saying the world needed more leaders of great stature such as Mr. Chirac.

“That is the kind of leader we regard as very important for this stage … in the international community,” he noted. Unquote

Chirac recently tried to scare the world with the prospects of multiple mini Bin Ladens, now we have another self-opinionated bully terrifying us with the prospect of many Little Jaques Chiracs cropping up all over the place, telling us all to shut-up, wearing their bleeding hearts on their sleeves and waving their UN vetoes.

posted by Martin at 2/23/2003 03:33:00 PM



The first visitor to Gadaffi’s Desert Tent after the West had decided he was worthy of re-habilitation, after decades of sponsoring terrorist murderers across the globe, not least the IRA, was German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, see the photo gallery here. This week Canada’s Globe and Mail carried a photograph of Gadaffi being greeted by President Sarkozy at the Elysée Palace. Yet the corruption of politics by the EU and the lust for cash at any cost, had by then spread most worryingly to the UK, where it was a British Government, that undertook who knows what, to curry favour with the Libyan leader, even to the extent of releasing the biggest mass murderer ever found guilty of his crimes upon our shores. We must hope that he is now soon returned to his Scottish cell and all the details of the undertakings made by Brown, Salmond and any others are fully revealed.

One small element of hope comes in this sorry story, unlike in the EU economic crisis where no glimmer of light can be discerned.  It was President Nicolas Sarkozy who first grasped that a massacre of the citizens of Benghazi would be unacceptable and credit goes to David Cameron for grasping the nettle and joining with him to prod the UN into action, subsequently at first largely undertaken, by these two almost totally bankrupt nations. The attitude of Angela Merkel’s Germany, since February, has surely given further proof, that a Europe run on German lines, (now obviously the desired destination across mainland Europe,) is not anything at all to be desired! Who can doubt what would have taken place in Benghazi had majority voting on foreign policy already prevailed within the EU Council?

Can any EU citizen be proud of this institution, whose name compulsorily appears on their passports, as they travel, heads bowed, in the wider world? When has the EU, in anything it does or attempts, become a source of pride?

THUS Britain will never be able to hold its head up amongst the nations of the world, as long as it remains within the EU. Having destroyed our fisheries the EU now uses its economic muscle to impose onerous fishery regimes onto small island nations, even as far as into the Pacific Ocean. Its CAP and especially its sugar regime, where most of the proceeds are targeted at huge conglomerates, condemn third world small farm producers to poverty across the globe. Were we gaining enhanced income for the people of our country, or increased exports, or building a worthwhile asset base, some of the constraints from betraying our Commonwealth partners, who in the main share our most basic gut reactions and basic beliefs, might be seen to have some value – but they clearly do not.

The UK has been within what is now the EU, for almost forty years, almost as long as the Libyan people suffered under Gadaffi. Yet the Libyans have contrived to break free. Britons remain constrained, increasingly impoverished and condemned to impotence in every sphere of life, even domestic politics, where the three main parties are all subservient to EU diktat, and all significant decisions are taken beyond our shores.

In spite of looming economic collapse across the EU, its corruption, its false Parliament, the terrible consequences to our democracy and independence of decision-making, the betrayal of those with whom we share roots and value sets across the Commonwealth, and elsewhere in the world such as the USA, our leaders have no intention of granting the British electorate a chance to have a say whether they wish to stay in harness to a concept that is bankrupt not only in the economic sense, but in morals, ideals and the human attributes that generally serve to make living life worthwhile, the striving towards a better world for our children and grandchildren.

I posed one question at the head of this posting, I would welcome commentators to refute my arguments and if possible list some tangible benefits Britain has derived from forty years (next year) within and controlled from Europe?


14 comments for “Why must Europe accept the German World View as the EU view?

  1. john in cheshire
    August 25, 2011 at 7:12 pm

    There are no benefits. I know it, you know it, UKIP know it, even the BNP know it. I just wish the majority of our country knew it.
    Lib/Lab/Con, the bbc, and the MSM are culpable in preventing the hoi poloi from knowing what is being done to them, by those entities who have been elected, for the past 50 years, to protect and defend our liberties.

  2. gladiolys
    August 25, 2011 at 10:26 pm

    I might take you seriously if you knew the plural of nation did not need an apostrophe.

    To compare membership of the EU with life under Libyan dictatorship is fatuous.

    Benefits to the UK: I have seen the standard of living improve in this country since membership; I have seen us help newly joined nations become stronger democracies after emerging from dictatorship; I have seen our cities become more relaxed and cosmopolitan; I have seen increased trade between members. I have seen no war between EU members; I have seen no war between ourselves and EU members.

    No, it’s not Utopia. Yes, it needs radical reform. Yes the democratic deficit is deplorable. But we are better off in than out.

    Please be gentle when you throw verbal brickbats at me.

    • John
      August 26, 2011 at 1:48 am

      None of your supposed benefits require the EU.

      The standard of living might have improved even further if we were outside the EU. The EU had nothing to do with foreign policy until recently. The EU does not make cities cosmopolitan. We haven’t gone to war with Canada, or the Ukraine, and neither has any other EU country. Do you think we would have if we were not in the EU?

      This is the problem with propaganda. Yes, it is possible that the EU has benefited the average Brit, but it’s impossible to say whether the average Brit would have benefited even more by not being in the EU for all those years.

      Look – Switzerland and Norway are doing fine outside the EU, and everyone inside except Germany is not. In fact, Switzerland has most of the benefits of the EU, including Schengen (which shouldn’t apply to the UK and Ireland), they speak 4 main EU languages (English being the 4th), the Euro can be used in many places and Swiss citizens enjoy the same rights in the UK as any EU citizen. I don’t see why we couldn’t have an agreement with the EU in the same way as the Swiss.

    • August 26, 2011 at 8:08 am

      The typo has been corrected. I hope you will now be able to read the post again and consider the points it made, free of that irritation.

      John, in his reply seems to have adequately responded to your list of imagined benefits. Interesting the deafening silence from elsewhere is it not?

      After I wrote this post, but before it appeared here, a writer in Der Spiegel, provided his own list, it is quoted in my reply, which also has a link to the orignial article:


      I trust no stray apostrophes distract you from the points being made!

      • gladiolys
        August 26, 2011 at 9:03 am

        Thank you for your correction – I know it was picky and sniffy… it’s a (bad?) habit I picked up from an English teacher (the best one I ever had) who would cross through entire essays and write “don’t waste my time” if he found an error in the first paragraph. I learned very quickly no matter how good my points were, they became diminished by poor grammar and spelling. But apologies for knitpickery… (and the apostrophe vs no apostrophe infuriates me, as done less when used incorrectly instead of fewer… enough about my inanities).

        You, John and Ironies are both right. Those benefits I listed could have occurred while not in the EU… but unless we have access to a parallel universe in which a control UK did not join the EEU (as it was), then we won’t know. There can only be conjecture on both sides. And as those changes occurred at the same time as EU membership, for me I see a correlation and don’t feel I am succumbing to propaganda.

        Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU, and are as you say in some ways better off, but many of the problems we have that some like to blame on the EU – immigration, multiculturalism etc, – are present in those societies.

        The point I made about war was specifically European – our competition to run the world in a bid to control resources from our nation states is now historical and a good thing, no?

        Having said that, the EU is a corrupt and undemocratic behemoth and needs re-booting from the bottom up, but I’m still for, rather than against. I trust you won’t hold it against me in any other discussions…

        • Lord T
          August 26, 2011 at 12:01 pm

          Your teachers reading lists must be down to a few books now.

          I find it interesting that someone could consider a valid point invalid because of some grammatical error. Sounds like he would have fitted into a government job in the EU.

          • gladiolys
            August 26, 2011 at 12:18 pm

            This was pre-EU. He was a harsh taskmaster but it taught me that accuracy in all details of presentation enhances credibility, and grammar and punctuation are essential to clarity in communication. A good lesson?

        • August 26, 2011 at 12:02 pm

          Given your admitted attention to detail, perhaps you would explain your chosen identity of “gladiolys”. If it has any connection with the flower, then the plural would be gladiolus, gladioli or even gladioluses. Or perhaps there is a missing apostrophe, but that begs the question as to how one could be of a sword lily?

          I would question whether the Swiss problems with immigration are worthy of consideration when put against those of many EU countries. Personally, having spent much time in Switzerland, with a German speaking majority and French, Italian and Romansh speaking minorites, I believe it offers a superb blueprint (especially in its constitution and referenda) for a reformed EU for the land-locked Continental countries of Europe.

          I believe if you consider the EU track record in the Balkans (particularly Kosovo) your remarks on peace will give you pause for thought.

          Competition for rare earth resources will only cease to be a factor in international relations as long as humans remain on the earth or among the planets of our solar system. See here on Lithium:


          Will our subservience to Germany better serve us than our support of NATO in Afghanistan, especially when you consider other recent reports that Germany has been attempting to buy huge quantities of Lithium, surely you do not presume to believe that is for the benefit of Britain or France?

          Have a look at this report on China’s activities:


          Do you believe for one moment the EU serves any role in countering such threats, split as it is in dividing an ever reducing wealth pool and constantly regulating to further reduce gdp in all its member states.

          All this has been rehearsed again and again, but the point of my posting upon which you first commented, is the lack of a moral basis to EU foreign involvement. The sucking up to despots and dictators in the sole pursuit of cash. Since it was written the debate is underway in Germany itself, with reports on CNBC this morning that Angela Merkel herself may no longer be Chancellor come September.

          Why have we British apparently abandoned any discussion of our place in the world? Again I would blame the EU!

          Surely in agreeing that the “EU is a corrupt and undemocratic behemoth and needs re-booting from the bottom up, but I’m still for, rather than against” you must now address why Britain should expend more of its remaining time, wealth and energy on recreating a new EU, when we have a Commonwealth, historical ties across the globe and the open seas at our shores?

          Please on this occasion, forgive any typos as I proceed in haste with truly momentous events underway today. As to holding anything against you, I would never do so, exchanging ideas is essential in finding the best way ahead – after all I am certain that such is the objective we both share!

          • gladiolys
            August 26, 2011 at 12:38 pm

            The identity gladiolys is an elision of gladys, a name I like, and gladioli, flowers I like.

            Switzerland recently held a referendum on the building of minarets in the country – I was referring to how they appear to be grappling with the same problems as the EU with regard to non-EU immigration. You may know better than me if this was mis-represented in our media but if it needed a statewide plebiscite, it would seem to be regarded as a serious issue.

            I’m not sure how Kosovo or the Balkans figure in your argument, as none of those countries were in the EU during their post Yugoslav conflicts. It is ironic that many of them now want to, or have already, become part of it. Would conflict have been avoided if they had already been in the EU? Again, we’ll only know by visiting that parallel universe.

            With regard to competition for resources: agreed – but isn’t that part of the reason behind the push for globalisation?

            As for sucking up to despots and dictators – we British are not exactly fussy about who does what to their people as long as we get what we want from them (provided of course they have something we want). That would be the same within or outside the EU – it’s called realpolitik.

            The Commonwealth… does it mean anything? Australia is more interested in trade around the Pacific Rim, Canada sees its interests in NAFTA and the rest of the Americas and in Russia… India doesn’t need us. The Commonwealth is like a lovely dotty old uncle – all nostalgia and great stories and warmth but I wouldn’t trust him to fix my computer.

            So, given our greatest asset – our language and our people – is it enough to go it alone? We’d need that parallel universe again to find out. I think becoming insular is more dangerous than trying to engage with everyone around us.

            All the best


          • August 26, 2011 at 2:43 pm

            Hmmm I wonder what your English teacher would have made of that!

            I think your final sentence has grabbed the essence of the EU’s problems, it is insular with imperial pretensions.

            Looking at our exchanges I can only discern insularity in your own comments, that and a somewhat warped view of Britain’s history. 🙄

          • gladiolys
            August 26, 2011 at 3:35 pm

            OK, that reply is suitably gnomic that I’ll persist.

            How do my comments display insularity?
            What is it about my view of Britain’s history that is warped?

            Given that I stipulate that this country’s greatest assets are its people and its language, and we should looking outwards, what leads you to draw those conclusions?

          • August 26, 2011 at 6:13 pm

            As you appear not to respond to what others actually say or ask, I will reply to your last comment by restricting myself to quotes solely from your own remarks, and let matters rest there:

            On Insularity

            “The Commonwealth… does it mean anything? Australia is more interested in trade around the Pacific Rim, Canada sees its interests in NAFTA and the rest of the Americas and in Russia… India doesn’t need us. The Commonwealth is like a lovely dotty old uncle – all nostalgia and great stories and warmth but I wouldn’t trust him to fix my computer.”

            On Britain’s history you offer “As for sucking up to despots and dictators – we British are not exactly fussy about who does what to their people as long as we get what we want from them (provided of course they have something we want).”

  3. Uncle Badger
    August 26, 2011 at 1:22 am

    Perhaps our little Europhile friend could point us to the raging wars between European nations post WWII and prior to the UK’s capitulation to the plutocrats of Brussels?

    Perhaps he might like to try explaining just who he thought was likely to make war on whom if not constrained by the might of the EU? Italy versus Norway, perhaps?

    Away with you and this pusillanimous nonsense! We’re heard too much of it and the cost is rising every day.

  4. Andrew
    August 27, 2011 at 3:24 am

    “Why must Europe accept the German World View as the EU view?”

    Because that was the plan all along?

    Because our leaders couldn’t give a shit about anything other than themselves?

    Because otherwise there’d be jackboots marching through all the European capital cities?

    I’m sure it’s some combination of all the above.

Comments are closed.