Trump EU German racket
European Union

Trump: Brexit will be a great thing; the EU is basically a German racket

“You look at the European Union and it’s Germany. Basically a vehicle for Germany,” says Donald Trump in Michael Gove’s scoop interview for The Times. It comes as a cyclone of fresh air: never in the post-war history of European unification has the President of the United States been opposed to Le Projet. It is well documented that the (pro-EEC) European Movement was financed and facilitated by the CIA (see Controversies from Brussels and Closer to Home, [Lee Rotherham, 2011]), yet now, the President-Elect of the United States is not only traversing CIA received wisdom (via Twitter), he is proclaiming that Brexit will be great for Britain, and, further, he prophesies the eventual break-up of the whole political union: “People, countries, want their own identity and the UK wanted its own identity,” he observes. And he’s not wrong.

Gove’s interview contains tasty morsels and nuggets and wotsits galore. Most of the MSM is running with the “Brexit great for Britain” line. A few are focusing on Angela Merkel’s “one very catastrophic mistake” of opening Germany’s (and so EU-Schengen) borders to an unlimited number of Syrian refugees (which Trump terms ‘illegals’, for some reason, which is odd because i] the vast majority were refugees; and ii] an invitation to immigrate manifestly makes them ‘legals’). This paragraph is naturally being adduced in some quarters as further evidence of Trump’s ‘racism’. But by far the most interesting geo-political comment he makes is in calling a Teutonic spade ein spaten.

Former Speaker of the House of Commons Lord Tonypandy wrote in 1997 that “we must call a halt to the defeatist submission to the openly avowed intention to gain by diplomatic intrigue an integrated Europe where Germany is dominant”. In this, he was echoing the observations of former Trade and Industry Secretary Nicholas Ridley, who, in a 1990 interview with Dominic Lawson in The Spectator, had said Economic and Monetary Union was “a German racket designed to take over the whole of Europe”. It cost him his job. “There was a reason, however, why Ridley felt able to say such things about the Germans,” Lawson explained 21 years later: “The reason was that Margaret Thatcher held exactly the same view.”

Margaret Thatcher certainly knew about Franco-German dominance. She commented at the Fontainebleau Summit of 1984: “The whole axis is France and Germany, and what they say the others agree with” (not in the FCO version [see: ‘The memoir as history‘]). Considering the economic dominance of Germany and the relative weakness of France, it is difficult to argue against Trump’s proposition that the EU is “basically a vehicle for Germany” – economically, if not politically, culturally and spiritually.

The European Union is essentially the recreation of the old Empire of Charlemagne. This is not the place to expound an academic thesis (see, for example, The Holy Roman Empire: A Thousand Years of Europe’s History [Peter H Wilson, 2016]), but from the moment the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1951, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) bound together the economic and political destinies of France and Germany, and this had echoes of a bygone European age. Charlemagne was crowned Imperator Romanorum (Emperor of the Romans) by Pope Leo III in AD800. He became Western Europe’s ‘Christian’ Caesar – a Roman emperor born of a Germanic race. The West once again had an emperor, and his coronation was to become the central event of the Middle Ages. He was proclaimed Rex Pater Europae (King Father of Europe) and espoused the ideal of a unified Christian Empire of the Frankish and Germanic tribes – albeit christianised at sword-point – in close alliance with the Pope.

In 962, Otto the Great revived Charlemagne’s Empire as the first German Reich, and was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope John XII. This Reich became known as the Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicae (Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation). Germany became the power centre of the Empire. Throughout the Middle Ages it was to be the kings of the Germans, crowned by the Pope, who would be named Holy Roman Emperor. Napoleon crowned himself with the ‘iron crown’ of Lombardy, the great historic symbol of Europe which had previously been worn by Charlemagne, Otto the Great and other European sovereigns.

Both France and Germany have been vying for control of the modern European superstate (the seat of the European Parliament in Strasbourg is not non-negotiable for nothing), with both sides claiming the heritage of the crown of Charlemagne. Former French foreign minister Hervé de Charette confirmed this when he declared: “The Franco-German axis must continue to fulfil its federating function… The single currency project is the principal and…only European federating project…the powerfully federalist character of this project has yet to be appreciated.”

Senior European economists also affirm that decisions are partly rigged in advance by the two largest member states – Germany and France – which are bound by the terms of their bilateral treaty of 1963 to reach “as far as possible an analogous position” ahead of meetings of the Council of Ministers. There was a curious symbolic expression of this continuing alliance – a union within the Union – at the Aachen summit of 1978, when the President of France Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt paid homage at the throne and burial place of Charlemagne – the federalists’ patron saint. Afterwards, the French President remarked: “Perhaps when we discussed monetary problems, the spirit of Charlemagne brooded over us.”

And so the spirit of Charlemagne still broods: the Franco-German axis has chewed and spat out Greece, the birthplace of democracy. ‘Ever closer union’ has alienated and lost the British. And there is still more to come: as Donald Trump prophesies, others will secede, for why should the proud nations and peoples of Portugal, Italy or Spain wait patiently for and be coerced to appreciate “the powerfully federalist character of this project”? The peoples and countries of Europe want their own identities; the restoration of national sovereignty to forge their own destinies. A European political and economic union dominated by Germany is neither an assurance of prosperity nor a guarantee of peace. It has taken 70 years for a US president to understand and appreciate this.

  • Your Grace argues that the purpose of ever closer union is to create an ever more powerful Germany. However, in The Hidden Hand: Britain, America and Cold War Secret Intelligence, Richard Aldrich writes:

    President Truman’s Marshall Plan was designed to encourage a federal Europe and this was even more strongly emphasised under his successor, Eisenhower. European unification also offered a way to solve the tricky problem of German rearmament, by absorbing Germany into a wider unit. The creation of a federalist United States of Europe was therefore a holy grail for Washington.

    The aim was to shackle Germany, not empower her. Gottschalk and Duker wrote in 1945 about the advantages of weakening all Europe’s nation states by federation and diversity. This from page 76 of Jews in the Post-War World

    The re-establishment of a nationalistic status quo ante in Europe may result in the continued oppression of the Jews, particularly in the economic field…if the status quo ante is established after this war, no brake on anti-Semitic tendencies can be expected. Indeed, anti-Semitism may become further intensified, if Europe is again ruled by reactionary governments.

    …and this from page 85:

    The federative system, composed, as it would be, of different nationalities, large and small, is likely by its very nature to discourage exclusive nationalism with its characteristic policies of intolerance towards minorities. In a federative system, national group differences would no longer be primarily political and nationalistic, but cultural, linguistic, and religious.

    • dannybhoy

      The great Sir Winston Churchill was in favour of a united Europe, but for Europe, not us…

      “There is already a natural grouping in the Western Hemisphere. We British have our own Commonwealth of Nations. These do not weaken, on the contrary they strengthen, the world organisation. They are in fact its main support.

      And why should there not be a European group which could give a sense of enlarged patriotism and common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this turbulent and mighty continent and why should it not take its rightful place with other great groupings in shaping the destinies of men?”

      He went on to say,
      “I am now going to say something that will astonish you.

      The first step in the re-creation of the European family must be a partnership between France and Germany.
      In this way only can France recover the moral leadership of Europe.There can be no revival of Europe without a spiritually great France and a spiritually great Germany.

      The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large
      ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause.”

      The problem was that France and Germany did not regain the moral leadership of Europe. They turned away from any spiritual vision and went for secular societies worshipping in the temples of consumerism and human rights.

      • @ dannybhoy—They [France and Germany] turned away from any spiritual vision

        In common with the rest of Western Europe, France and Germany had to be turned away from Christianity because it is seen as the primary source of anti-Semitism. The consequence of turning away from God was addressed in 2013 by the Christian convert Brother Nathanael (3:59 here), ‘In Dostoevsky’s Demons, he warns that when a nation loses faith in God, it is no longer a nation.’

        In some quarters, the death of nations is seen as an advantage. Brother Nathanael again (2:11 here), ‘Repeal the open immigration law of 1965, pushed by the American Jewish Committee and its frontman Senator Jacob Javits. Its aim was to bring a massive non-professional Third World immigration in order to destroy a homogeneous Christian society, in which Jews cannot rule supreme.’

        • dannybhoy

          He’s quite a character that Brother Nathanael..

          • Samuel

            Dude,

            Typically British understatement.

          • dannybhoy

            Well you’re British, what would you call him?

          • Samuel

            Dude ,

            Hmmmm…..watch several of” brother” Nathanael’s videos, especially his views on Jews. If not read his Wikipedia entry

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathanael_Kapner

          • dannybhoy

            I did a ‘Nathanaelfest’ about a year ago, having discovered him on youtube.
            Living in Israel you would often meet or see or read about ‘strange people.’
            I remember seeing a Joseph and Mary complete with donkey walking through Jerusalem, another guy who believed he was one of the two witnesses from Revelation and assorted people (including clergy), who had strange and unorthodox views of Scripture..
            There is also a phenomenon known as ‘The Jerusalem Syndrome’
            https://www.wired.com/2012/02/ff_jerusalemsyndrome/
            Read the article, note the guy in the photo….

          • Samuel

            Ok I will spell it out for you – an antisemitic conspiracy theorist is an antisemitic conspiracy theorist – not some harmless eccentric character suffering from Jerusalem syndrome. If you didn’t get that from his videos or his website where every other post is blaming this that and other on Jews , try reading his Wikipedia entry:

            “Brother Nathanael, born Milton L. Kapner[1] (5 September 1950), is an American Orthodox Christian street preacher and anti-semitic conspiracy theorist.[2][3]

            He believes that the Mossad was behind 9/11, and says “The Jewish House Of Rothschild has been in control of the world for a very long time, their tentacles reaching into many aspects of our daily lives beginning with their global financial power.”[2][6]”

            Also try this link :

            http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/special-report-untangling-the-anti-semitic-web-of-hate/

            This is the key bit :

            Brother Nathanael Nathanael Kapner, dressed in the robes of an Orthodox Christian monk, looks like a harmless eccentric wandering Times Square in New York City. Yet he runs one of the most popular anti-Jewish video websites in the world, called Real Jew News.

            He runs his anti-Semitism business from a tiny hamlet high in the Rocky Mountains above Denver, Colorado. Viewers and subscribers are urged to “Donate Now!” via Paypal, credit card or in Bitcoin. And as a US non-profit organisation, Nathanael even enjoys tax-deductible status.

            “If you walk in front of a synagogue, put a sign of a cross on you because there is demonic influence in there,” he asserts, when he consented to be interviewed. Asked to explain his antipathy to Jews, he said: “They have abundant, tremendous wealth. The economy is going to pieces here in America but Jews are still driving Cadillacs and living in their gated communities. “They have power. Tremendous, vast political power. They run the media. So if you take those three realms combined, then you have control over the political system.”

          • dannybhoy

            There are always anti semites, just as there are always those Christians (whose faith some find incomprehensible), but nevertheless love the Jews and support Israel both prayerfully and practically….
            A person who listens to antisemitic railings is usually disposed that way, and wants to believe it.
            In our country Jews are a part of our society and contribute to our economy and national life in different ways. By and large British people reject antisemitic propaganda.

          • Pubcrawler

            ‘Special’

          • dannybhoy

            Unique
            Eccentric
            Quaint
            Interesting..
            We English are so polite.. :0)

          • @ dannybhoy—After the submissive, endlessly apologetic Western churches he’s a real tonic.

          • Ivan M

            Bro Nathaniel is the Cranmer of the other side.

        • Samuel

          Dude

          *newsflash*

          According to Der Stürmer, Jews were responsible , 65 million years ago, for the end of the dinosaurs…

        • Samuel

          “In common with the rest of Western Europe, France and Germany had to be turned away from Christianity because it is seen as the primary source of anti-Semitism…..”

          “…. Its aim was to bring a massive non-professional Third World immigration in order to destroy a homogeneous Christian society, in which Jews cannot rule supreme.’”

          Three problems with this analysis, aside from the ridiculous premise that Jews want to “rule supreme” :

          1). Anti clericalism in France predates the end of WWII. In fact it goes back to 1793. Have a look at what the gentile revolutionaries did to the catholic church. In 1905 the third republic officially separated church and state , at the height of the Antisemitic Dreyfus affair. Ergo Jews had nothing to do with officially turning France “away from Christianity”.

          2) Turning to Germany , one would have to ask which version of Christianity were Jews trying to turn people from? In respect of Germany, that state has been bitterly split between catholic and protestant since the reformation. Were Jews responsible for that sectarianism? No, they were not.

          During Bismarck’s time as chancellor of the Reich he instigated a thing call the Kulturkampf against catholics and Catholicism. Bismarck was not a Jew.

          During the 19th century European Jewry was undergoing a bitter internal struggle , of which the reform movement was born. Jews simply didn’t have the time , effort or ability to turn anyone away from Christianity, even if there was some conspiracy to destroy Christianity.

          3). The United States of America has never been a religious or racially homogeneous state as it is a federation based around a civic constitutional government. It is based around civic nationalism and a “country of laws ,not men” to quote John Adams .

          In fact America in 1776 , alongside British and Dutch settlers , had native indigenous inhabitants, black slaves in the south and free blacks in the north & was further built upon wave after wave of different immigrant groups.

          In the 1840s and 50s anti catholic nativists attacked Irish catholic immigrants , who’d come after the great famine. There were many more immigrants who came in the 19th century: Japanese, Chinese , Jews, Italians, Germans, Slavs , Poles , Scandinavians etc etc . All of these groups were from different racial background , different religions or denominations of Christianity. Furthermore American gained a whole new religion called Mormonism .

          So the claim that prior to the 1960s America was somewhat uniform in religion or racial background is historically inaccurate .

          • @ Samuel—
            ● Anti-clericalism was an expression of ill-feeling towards the church, not Christianity. Despite anti-clericalism and church-state separation, France remained a Christian nation until relatively recently. Today, Islam is France’s most popular religion. Mass immigration is one of the methods being used to turn France away from Christianity. Ditto Germany and all the Western countries which used to be overwhelmingly Christian.
            ● Whatever squabbles Jews may have had in the 19th century did not stop them overturning American immigration policy in the 20th, see Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique.
            ● Until the 1960s, America was just under 90 per cent white, sounds pretty uniform to me. Whites in the US are predicted to be less than 50 per cent by 2040.
            ● A former Chief Rabbi of Israel had thoughts on Jews ruling supreme: ‘Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel.’

    • Ivan M

      The Germans were offered reunification on condition of neutrality by Uncle Stalin in 1952. Essentially a very large Finland. They rejected it – though it can be argued that West Germany was hardly an independent actor.

  • Dreadnaught

    A startlingly erudite and informed piece Cranny; very impressive in content and references. I’m no fan of attaching deregatory epithets such as ‘racist’, ‘homophobe’ and worst of all ‘Islamophobe’. All of which are first response defaults of the Leftwing Snowflakes and rabble rousers we have come to know and despise as termites in the foundations of free speech.
    Whether Trump is or is not racist is immaterial to his position as President-elect of the USA as it was to the slave owning Founding Fathers of the Republic.

    Just for balance and no inference on the content of your essay or unstated personal opinion of the man, as early as 2015 the following was being reported:

    Up to a third of asylum-seekers in Germany who claim to be Syrian are actually from elsewhere, German official says.
    |http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/germany-30-pct-refugees-falsely-claim-syrian-150925103349856.html

    Four out of five migrants are NOT from Syria: EU figures expose the ‘lie’ that the majority of refugees are fleeing war zone.
    Some 44,000 of the 213,000 refugees who arrived in Europe were from Syria.
    A further 27,000 new arrivals on the continent came from Afghanistan.
    Britain received one in 30 of all the asylum claims made by new applicants
    .

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3240010/Number-refugees-arriving-Europe-soars-85-year-just-one-five-war-torn-Syria.html

    • chefofsinners

      Yes – many of the people who entered Germany are there illegally, certainly under international law because they should have claimed asylum in the first safe country. Trump’s term ‘illegals’ refers to his experience of Mexicans in the USA. – Economic migrants, who are illegal there and ought to be in Europe.

      • Dreadnaught

        No shit Sherlock !

        • chefofsinners

          Alimentary, my dear Watson.

      • Anton

        Exactly.

    • James60498 .

      I wonder too, how many, particularly those not coming from Syria, are adult males?

      • Dreadnaught

        Well yes, this is the obvious stupidity of it all. All these fit and healthy (by all appearance) should be building their own countries, defending thier womenfolk or fighting to free them from the tyrrany of their fellow muslims.
        A million randy bastards let loose on the women of Europe … not much to wrong with that… we do after all have an aging demographic and diminishing birthrate. They might as well be aliens from Space for all the likes of Merkel know; but no matter.

    • rapscallion

      “we have come to know and despise as termites in the foundations of free speech.”

      What a wonderful turn of phrase !

      • Dreadnaught

        Why thank you Rapper.

        • rapscallion

          Not at all. Request permission to use it on other blogs.

          • Dreadnaught

            Granted

          • rapscallion

            Thank ye kindly Sire

  • alternative_perspective

    I wonder if the brute force of Trump’s observations will eventually force a common understanding of the nature of the EU both here in the UK and abroad? Will his opinions finally find gain traction in the minds of the Spanish and the Greeks etc. or will the EU-philes maintain their dominance with tales of Anglo-Saxon conspiracies and fears of extra-EU boogie men?
    Interesting times ahead.

  • chefofsinners

    Rejoice! The Teutonic towel has been whisked from the sun lounger of Europe by the Basil Fawlty of Brexit.
    And those who were last in the queue shall be first and many who were first shall be last.
    For the third time in a century Britain has thwarted the Hun’s lust for domination. The dark forces of Mordor are sent reeling by Bilbo Boris and Michael Gollum under the watchful eye of the orange wizard of the West.

    • Alanbungee

      Quality

    • rapscallion

      . . . and all made possible by Wizard Farage!

  • len

    Trump is not going to be a puppet of the Intelligence Community or respond to intimidation by the Media in the US.
    Quite staggering to see how the establishment elites(including all the’ celebrities’) all seem to form a cohesive mess and squeal in protest as their plans are thwarted.
    The EU, this Tower of Babel erected on the plains of Brussels, this home of every unclean thing, is starting to shake and its eventual collapse will be a thing to behold.

    • dannybhoy

      I think we have all forgotten what is was like to have leaders who stood for their nations first, and internationalism second.. This country of ours is a great country and we must do everything in power as Christians and citizens to see her honouring God and seeking justice and compassion through a strong economy and a strong military.

      • PessimisticPurple

        Which nation would that be, then?

        • dannybhoy

          United Kingdom

          • PessimisticPurple

            Ah, not England, then.

          • dannybhoy

            I believe in the Union.

          • PessimisticPurple

            Same thing.

          • dannybhoy

            Sorry then, but what’s your point?

          • PessimisticPurple

            You won’t understand. Ask a Scot.

          • dannybhoy

            Hold on.
            CLIVE! JACK!!
            What’s your man on about?

          • CliveM

            Not really sure DB. If he was Scottish I’d say he was making some nationalist point about Scotland being a different country. Although why he just doesn’t make clear his point, I’ve no idea.

            Ps he’s not my man!!

          • dannybhoy

            That was my guess. Not being terribly bright I do struggle with nuanced, oblique, subtle or ‘clever’ comments. Perhaps my stated support for the Union threw him?

          • CliveM

            I think he was being deliberately obtuse. Some think this a sign of intelligence.

            I’m not so sure.

        • Alanbungee

          Obviously not yours..

    • Alanbungee

      Looking forward to Mays speech tomoz.

  • Maalaistollo

    So we’re still confronted by the Axis and French collaborators, then.

    • chefofsinners

      The ax is at the root of the tree.

    • Alanbungee

      Always have been..

  • carl jacobs

    You look at the European Union and it’s Germany. Basically a vehicle for Germany

    Oooh! The French aren’t going to like that. Not at all.

    • The Explorer

      LInus won’t like it.

      • bluedog

        But his father was a Frank, so not really French but of Germanic descent.

        • Anton

          French means from France; France derives from Francia meaning land of the Franks. Even though they were Germanic once.

          • bluedog

            Understood. The point being made was about Linus’ sense of identity.

          • Royinsouthwest

            No, France was inhabited by the Gauls who were Celts. Then, after the collapse of the Roman Empire, they were conquered by the Franks who were Germanic and gave their name to the country.

          • Anton

            Agreed; I wasn’t going that far back!

        • Little Black Censored

          And my uncle was a Frank.

          • bluedog

            Frankly, we should all be Frank.

    • Alanbungee

      Le Pen won’t like it either..

  • The Explorer

    Peter Hitchens has defined the EU for years as “The continuation of Germany by other means”.

  • Inspector General

    Yes. Yes he’s right. The EU is a German hegemony vehicle. No doubt about it. However, it does look like one of the wheels is about to fall off thanks to Brexit. But worry not, the EU will continue to rumble on of sorts with its wonky wheel, and so will the UK’s trade with it. Even the immensely powerful production unit that is Germany would baulk at picking up our tab all by itself. And there are twenty something outstretched nations hands looking for their continued annual payoffs to remain being a member of this quasi Marxist corrupt failure. So much for ‘the spirit of European integration’ then. If the funds (bribes) dry up, so will the ever closer commitment of Europe’s economic also rans.

    They’re only in the thing for what they can get out of it. Greece might be the worst and the greediest of the lot, but the Irish Republic is not much better. That’s just the two that come to immediate thought.

    As for all this talk of hard Brexit and soft Brexit. There’s just Brexit and the continued paying in of our dues one way or another. That’s what it all comes down to. WE can call the shots on this though, and one is quite satisfied that our financial burden will immediately shrink back resulting. They’ll have to go on half rations, is all. So there you have it. It all comes down to hard cash. They want it, we have it, so on their knees they must go to receive it…

    {SNORT!}

    • dannybhoy

      • William Lewis

        Is that a reference to the Inspector or the EU?

        • Inspector General

          Have you been following the political pundits, William Lewis? Not one has twigged, as far as he knows, the simple truth the Inspector has provided tonight. No British hard cash, no more EU…

          WE tell THEM how it’s going to be…

          • William Lewis

            The scales do seem to be tipping more and more in our favour. I’m hoping that we have a PM with enough cahoonas, metaphorically speaking, to seize the initiative. I think we may.

          • dannybhoy

            Amen. She has a difficult task. There’s a lot of organised opposition to our leaving, and they aren’t giving up just yet. I respect her and I pray God gives her courage, wisdom and leadership.

          • William Lewis

            The big unknowns, for me, are how much economic pain are the EU 27 willing to inflict on themselves to preserve the current paradigm and how quickly can they actually implement an alternative arrangement.

          • Correct Inspector, BUT that’s going to take guts and guile, and a cool head.

        • dannybhoy

          Mainly the EU. Our dear Inspector still has two wobbly wheels on his old bone-shaker..

    • bluedog

      ‘The EU is a German hegemony vehicle. No doubt about it. ‘

      We need to be quite clear – this was never the intention of the French. It was the French who saw the merit in shackling defeated German to the ambitions of France, and throughout the rise of West Germany, all went well. As both Thatcher and Mitterand understood, it was the reunion of Germany that was the danger. So it has proved.

      • Inspector General

        The EU is now German hegemony by circumstance – it was theirs soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Which, by the way, was the very last excuse to support the EU. Them Reds out east…

  • CliveM

    Considering the contempt with which they have been treated, it surprises me that the PIGS don’t have a more voluble and active Leave movement. Especially in Greece and Italy. I suspect it’s like the abused spouse in an abusive relationship. Still hoping that they are loved, confused as to what to do, demoralised by being told that they wouldn’t survive on their own. To frightened to object.

    I suspect that by the end of the year, we will still be the only nation brave enough to leave.

    • Anton

      I suspect that by the end of the year there might not be much of an EU to leave, although my timescale is speculative.

      • CliveM

        Hmm I wouldn’t underestimate the stubborn stupidity of the EU political class.

        • Anton

          A banking crash would cause the end of the eurocurrency, at which point the game is up. And it is inevitable given the economic tensions induced by monetary without fiscal union.

          • CliveM

            I’m not a great believer in the theory of inevitability (with one or two obvious exceptions!). I can see a financial crisis, but with lumpen stupidity and obstinacy, the politicians will cobble together a deal that will keep some sort of union going, never mind the cost.

          • Anton

            That’s happened already; the problems get worse each time. I’m a believer in inevitability when it is predicated on an inherent contradiction, such as monetary without fiscal union.

          • CliveM

            I suppose what I’m saying is, if that is the scenario, then fiscal union it will be.

            Which is another good reason to get out.

          • carl jacobs

            There can’t be fiscal union without political union for the same reason the Bank of England won’t guarantee the budget of an independent Scotland. It becomes a method for one country to finance another country’s deficit. The Germans are not going to work well into their 60’s so that Greeks can retire at 50.

          • CliveM

            Carl

            There is already a parliament. Greece (and Italy) have already been neutered politically. If they don’t like being told what to do, they will be told to find a prime minister who does. Ask Berlesconi. Other countries understand the lesson. Maybe one or two peripheral countries won’t like it, but Germany won’t be unhappy see the back of them.
            Europe doesn’t do what’s right or sensible they have other agendas.

          • Anton

            I agree that it has to be breakup of the eurocurrency or fiscal ie political union. But I think that there would be revolutions in the streets of multiple European capitals if they tried the latter without consulting the people.

  • John

    The EU will always be run on France-Germany’s terms. It is their invention, their project and they still operate as a kind of Standing Committee, deciding the agenda and making sure it works in their interests. The UK was never permitted to be a truly equal partner. It was always a bit of a sham marriage. They’ll be fine without us. Good luck to them.

    • Alanbungee

      Not sure if they will be fine John.
      When other nations realise they will have to start contributing more money for the Project, instead of taking, I think the brown stuff might start to hit the fan.

  • Mike Stallard

    I think the idea of the EU sprang more from the disgust at the end of the first world war when an attempt was made (Spinelli) to unite the continent into one big unit. At the end of the second world war, this grew in intensity and became first the customs union and common market and then the EU. Now the Spinelli Group are planning to make this the United States of Europe under the Commission and with unified taxation, army, civil service, police and bureaucracy.
    It is imperative that we leave and apply Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty by the end of March. Then we need to join EFTA and rejoin the EEA.
    Which will allow: 1. free negotiation of trade deals currently forbidden, 2. freedom from CAP and CFP. 3. Freedom from the ECJ. 4. Discussion and negotiations on freedom of movement. 5. Ability to negate directives from the Commission.
    Why doesn’t anyone say it like that though?

    • Dominic Stockford

      We don’t *need* to join either EFTA or the EEA.

      • Anton

        Indeed. We tell the EU that open borders is off the table – which is in our power to enact unilaterally – and remind them that Germany exports more to the UK than vice-versa so it is in their interests to play ball, and if they don’t then they can’t impose tariffs on our stuff higher than the WTO limits anyway. They’ll crumble. Negotiation takes courage. If they are mad enough not to crumble then we can drop corporation tax and lure business to the UK, like Ireland did. Hammond has just been reminding them of this. We hold the cards.

        • CliveM

          All of which would work if they are being rational.

          I have my doubts as to that however.

          • Mike Stallard

            27 totally different countries, each with its own agenda, speaking different languages decide our future by qualified majority vote! And who could negotiate with that?

          • Anton

            I’d still rather be out.

          • CliveM

            Well yes, I’m simply saying its best not to expect rational behaviour!

      • Mike Stallard

        OK. So what if we do not join?
        Rather than writing a list of the thirty odd acquis, the thousands and thousands of Directives pouring out of Brussels, the documentations, the small print and so on, allow me an analogy.
        We have cancer.
        Either we blow the cancer away with dynamite – bang! Just as we didn’t decide to do in the referendum.
        Or we do a careful surgical operation, carefully diverting the blood supply from the cancer, then, blood vessel by blood vessel, we separate the deadly growth from the body on the table.
        Maddeningly, the Remoaners have muddied the water. But there could be a serious queue of lorries, ships, cars and planes if we get it wrong. Documentation in 2017 is everything and little men and women in uniform are not paid to question the law – they just obey it.

    • Alison Bailey Castellina

      If one talks to some Italian politicans in favour of “no”, they say that the former Italian communist, Spinelli is key to the EU, via his Ventotone Manifesto, which I have carefully read online. Its last act, mentioned rather in passing, is noteworthy (after the Suppression of Democracy and the creation of the European Army). All its earlier acts seem to have taken place already. Spinelli was imprisoned (during World War Two) and is buried (with regular venerating EU visitations) on the island of Ventotene, off Naples. Merkel, Hollande and the Renzi went there, on pilgrimage, last August, on the “HMS” Garibaldi, to reboot themselves after Brexit. Garibaldi united Italy completely against the wishes of its people (many Piedmontese in Turin were shot while protesting against it as they did not have bloodless referendums, in those days). See the Ventotene Manifesto: http://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/1997/10/13/316aa96c-e7ff-4b9e-b43a-958e96afbecc/publishable_en.pdf

      • bluedog

        Heroic stuff. Good ideas about the abolition of trade unions, not so private property. If the EU elites really believe this drivel, presumably they see the EU as a stepping stone to the world government Spinelli urges. If the EU finally implodes, there’s going to be a lot of broken dreams.

  • bluedog

    A good post, Your Grace, and with Mrs May about to repeat that Brexit means Brexit, timely.

    When one reads the latest utterances of Trump, the words Idiot Savant come to mind. He has that childlike ability to perceive truths that may have escaped the rest of humanity, and which discard years of precedent and practice. NATO? Pfft!

    If Trump isn’t a genius who will lead us all into the sunlit uplands of peace, prosperity and a new vision of sovereignty, it could all end in war. We’re in for a wild ride.

    • Dreadnaught

      I think the CIA may have a few ‘contacts’ they may call on before the latter portent materialises; if by a war you mean with Russia or China.

      • bluedog

        War with China seems to be an option, and a successful naval war would cement Trump’s place in history, as it did for Thatcher. Trump intuitively recognises that war with both Russia and China would be a mistake, for which we should be thankful. The kindest thing one can say about his infatuation with Russia is that he seeks to prise Russia and China apart, in itself a sound idea. Equally he is quite right to call a halt to Chinese expansionism, which is a serious threat to peace. It’s just that Trump’s habit of delivering inconsistent if not completely contradictory messages could easily lead to a dangerous misunderstanding. And this is where Trump’s personality is important. He gives the impression of taking things personally, being happy to dish out the insults, but reacting explosively to incoming. A great deal is going to depend on his cabinet and their ability to moderate Trump’s wilder excursions. We should be thankful that his Secretary of Defence is a very bright and very tough general. A civilian like Trump will be inclined to defer to a man like Mattis.

        • Anton

          I would be very glad to see a US-Russia rapprochement that would deal with militant Islam in its heartland.

        • Dreadnaught

          Trump’s action in opening direct dialogue with Taiwan has already caused a few ripples in Bejing and appeasing Putin’s expansionist dreams while rubbishing NATO (legitimate in my opinion and on which US funding is taken for granted by the EU countries) and will only ecourage him, especially if he is focusing only on China while talking about lifting sanctions on Putin.

          I dont think the US people would be happy with him doing a Dubya on either premise. The US hasn’t been successful in bringing peace through military action anywhere since WW2 and that was when Russia and China were part of the allied alliance. Even Mad-Dog Mattis has his limitations in how many fights he can take on at any one time and Trump seems to have put is trust in him for now.
          China would be more of a beligerent in an economic war than a military one with the US before possibly giving North Korea the go-ahead to ko SK and hurt the US that way.

          I see Trump’s greatest threat being a coup, civil war or Islamic insugecy on the Sauds from within, with ISIS refocusing its activities on its ideological homeland Saudi Arabia with AQ formenting trouble in Pakistan. Iran will be biding its time to jump in to a Middle East war between Shias and Sunnis (SA -Iran) before attacking Israel which may drag us all in because of our reliance on gas and oil.
          European countries bordering Russia and beyond, will have to consider either giving way or fighting Putin without the US.

          Whatever Trump may be he is not the complete idiot he is taken for: billionares are not billionaires because they are dummies.

          • bluedog

            The mindset that enables a man to make a lot of money is scarcely altruistic and committed to the service of the community. That comes later when the billionaire sets up a philanthropic foundation in his own name and bestows similarly named endowments in the fields of health, education and welfare. It’s a well worn path.

            Trump presents as surprisingly parochial. He has lived his life as a New Yorker and is a quintessential big city man. He does not appear to have any interests outside business, except of course, politics. Note his remarks about being bored after 30 minutes at the presidential retreat of Camp David. In this parochialism, Trump reminds one of Dubya, whose view reflected a lack of experience of anywhere beyond a narrow strip of the East Coast and Texas.

          • Dreadnaught

            Not yet quite made my billion – but I’ll go along with your comment re Trump/Dubya being parochial to a degree. At least Trump has a passport and used it.

        • IanCad

          I think bd, that President Trump would not seriously risk likely defeat in a naval war with China.
          The Monroe Doctrine set a precedent of which China is well aware, and would be justification for them to draqft one of their own.

          • bluedog

            The underlying problem with a Chinese Monroe doctrine is that it clashes with the security interests of Japan and South Korea, of which Japan has a security guarantee from the US, and SK implicitly so. Of course, the Chinese are acutely aware of the US exposure and are clearly pushing to see where the ‘red-line’ is. With Obama, they never found the point of resistance because there wasn’t one. Trump’s Taiwan gambit has the Chinese rattled and they will probably ratchet up the pressure to put Trump on the spot. Remember how they did the same thing with Dubya, forcing down a US maritime patrol aircraft shortly after his inauguration? They would have been confused by Trump’s reaction to the theft of a drone a few weeks ago. One suspects there is a part of The Donald which says, I think I’ll go to Taiwan and see what happens…

    • chefofsinners

      One of the words idiot savant comes to mind. I fear we know the truth: Trump couldn’t pour water out of a boot if the instructions were on the sole.
      It is a tricky thing when a man like Trump agrees with you.

      • Little Black Censored

        Off to the Guardian with you, quick!

    • dannybhoy

      Absolutely! But it also depends on whether he listens to his advisors, He’s used to making decisions but maybe not to being disagreed with..

    • Ivan M

      Farage has tutored him well. Tutored him well he has. If Trump careens this off it will be a German-Russian axis that dominates Europe. I’d be very worried if I were a Pole.

  • Anton

    So what should we call the million-person marches due this week in Washington against Trump? How about Democrats against democracy?

    • Dominic Stockford

      IF a million really turn up. Although even if its only 10 people who do the MSM will say it was a million.

  • Dominic Stockford

    The UK currently gives more money to the EU than all the other put together bar Germany.

    • Dreadnaught

      More than France cetainly.

  • ecclesiaman

    Peter Hitchens has said for a while that the EU is government by Germany under another name. The (former adviser to Mrs Thatcher) Christian and patriot Christopher Story (videos on you tube and on line PDF’s) makes the same point as Your Grace, that the EU is a construct of the CIA. His book, “The New Underground Order/ Dark Actors Playing Games”, delves deeper into the whole scenario. To read this is not for the faint hearted, and will be scarcely believable to many.
    I am reading in another place that the UK is funding EU military projects apart from other things not in MSM. The former could tie us into the EU budget apparently despite brexit.

  • David

    The EU is indeed a Franco-German political construct. But for say a decade, Germany has dominated France through the power of the German economy and the developing weakness of the French one. We joined the party very late by which time the basic architecture, including the “ever closer union” dogma was enshrined in the EU’s “creedal” statements.

    The Euro allows Germany to depress the value of “its” currency, and thereby sell its engineering products globally at competitive prices, in large volumes; this is achieved at the price of inflating the currencies of other industrial countries, like Italy and Spain, to levels that bring about empty factories and large scale unemployment, as their industries simply cannot compete using a currency, overvalued for their economies. Germany benefits, others suffer.
    France’s gain is the Common Agricultural Policy which props up their inefficient agriculture. Higher food prices result.

    Yup, the EU is a German scam facilitating political and economic domination. Ukip, plus a few from both the Conservatives and Labour, have maintained this position for two decades, but now the mainstream is catching up, at last.

    I can’t wait for a clean Brexit allowing us to trade where we wish on terms we can negotiate with other countries, freed from the dead controlling hand of Brussels. I look forward to that glorious day when we can slip the anchor, trim the sails and the good ship HMS Great Britain can sail away to the next phase of our island’s history.

    • chefofsinners

      Your analysis of the net effect of the Euro is spot-on.

      • David

        Thank you Chef.

    • michaelkx

      the Germany and France has for century’s tried to dominate Europe, what the two could not do by war, now turn to political subterfuge. and we as is our want stick two fingers up at them. but David has put it in better English.

      • David

        Thanks Michael.

  • Inspector General

    Help a fellow out chaps, if you can…

    Even an Inspector at times has trouble absorbing the truth of it. Usually this is a result of ECHR judgements, and who can blame him. They defy logic. Now, what intrigues the Inspector is this – with 27 member states of the EU, is it the case that the UK has no more clout on its own than the tiny island state of Malta?

    • Dreadnaught

      On the basis of the fact that ALL members have to agree on decisions, a dissenting State such as Malta could effectively block a decision on something the UK has voted for.

      • Inspector General

        As one feared. A ridiculous state of affairs…

        • IanCad

          Same thing basically, with NATO. Estonia riles Ivan; Ivan retaliates; we have to (by treaty) attack Ivan.

          • Inspector General

            {GROAN}

  • Politically__Incorrect

    I don’t believe the EU will be around in 30 years. The last socialist empire, the USSR, survived for 70 years. Like the USSR, the EU suffers from a particular ailment; the chasm between political ideology and the aspirations of the populace. The first thing to collapse will be the eurozone. This could happen quite soon. As Brussels realises it is losing its grip it will panic and respond with draconian measures to enforce and maintain ever closer union. The setting up of a European army is the first of these (ill-considered) panic measures. The whole house of cards will tumble under the weight of its own illegitimacy. What I am looking out for is someone with a vision for a post-EU Europe. That vision should include respect for national sovereignty, respect for borders, allowing free trade, and sharing of relevant security information.

  • IanCad

    I do hope Mrs. May does not play coy with the new US administration. I would suggest she assure to the new President that the parliamentary debate to ban him from our shores was an aberration. A disgrace in fact, and something not in character with a nation of honourable, intelligent, and free people.

  • ChaucerChronicle

    Your Grace

    There are many issues that need to be considered in preparation for a post-Brexit Britain (we cannot rely on the EU to give us a mutually beneficial deal).

    Britain needs to develop the Commonwealth and head a new economic ’empire’.

    Rather than keep giving financial aid to these poor nations, the money needs to be diverted to financing Judaeo-Christian missionaries: lawyers who know how to write constitutions separating out the judiciary from the government, the government from the legislature so that all three can act as checks to the exercise of power based on the rules of a constitution.

    The children of the elites of these poor nations need to be provided with scholarships at our public schools and then progressed to universities learning: law, administration, anti-corruption measures, agriculture: turning out Englishmen who go back to their countries develop them and in turn do business with us.

    There needs to be the formation of a British Foreign Legion composed of members who speak the diverse langauges of those Commonwealth countries to defend ‘collective imperial’ interests: anytime, anywhere.

    • bluedog

      ‘lawyers who know how to write constitutions separating out the judiciary from the government, the government from the legislature so that all three can act as checks to the exercise of power based on the rules of a constitution.’ Nice idea, but collision with reality mitigates against success. My son the lawyer was working in New York on the constitution of the Maldives a few years ago. Jeffersonian democracy was urged on a suitably progressive basis, but the Maldive government opted for sharia to keep things simple. We once had a base at Gan in the very southern end of the archipelago, which was foolishly returned to the Maldives govt. in the retreat from East of Suez in the early 1970s. It was a very useful stepping stone on the way to Singapore. Don’t think the Indians liked it much.

      • ChaucerChronicle

        Perhaps you ought to ask the lawyer where jurists find their ultimate source of law – and its implications for liberty, security and freedom.

        It may be that one of the reasons why these people in poor countries still walk around in sandals and togas is because its never been fully explained to them the source of the West’s success.

        For example, the Western idea of contract law compared to Islamic is superior because all men are made in the image of God and therefore equal before the law.

        The Muslim idea is that the writ of law runs from tribal chief to serf – and when there has been a breach of contract – we witness inequality before the law.

        • bluedog

          Entirely agree. But you talk of empire in an economic sense and its ability to change the metaphysics of tribalism. While we criticise the UN and other supra-national entities, one can argue that one of the functions of the UN was to pick up the white man’s burden and continue the transfer of European intellectual property to the formerly subject peoples. However, the UN is structured on broadly democratic lines, with the exception of the permanent members of the Security Council. If follows that this democracy enables Islamic and other backward nations to subvert the whole process and bend it to their regressive will. Which is pretty much what we see wherever and whenever Islam has the numbers. The most important thing for Britain and other western nations is to stop apologising and expressing guilt for our success. Post-colonial guilt has no place in the scheme of things so long after the demise of empire.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            The UN hadn’t crossed my mind at all. I was thinking about failed states.

            For example, in my opinion, former colonial powers need to think about solving the present ‘refugee’ crisis into Europe.

            In my view, these powers, as a short-term fix should re-invade their former colonies restoring law and order and establsihing democratic systems (foreign aid should be diverted to supporting missionaries to change their former mindsets).

            I can’t see another way of stemming the flow of migrants into Europe.

          • bluedog

            No, no, no. The refugee crisis is easily solved by rounding up the refugees and dropping them back in North Africa, irrespective of who they are and where they come from. Tunisia and Libya are weak states, dump them there. It only takes the will to do it and to ignore the editorials in the Grauniad.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            That would effectively make the UK a pariah state in the international community.

          • bluedog

            No more so than your own suggestions. In fact, less so. Invading whole sovereign nations and imposing your own values on the populace is generally considered bad manners, at the very least. My comment relates to the situation in the Med, where the UK does not have a coastline. Picking up drowning Africans who put out in deliberately unseaworthy craft in the confident expectation of being rescued by EU navies is pure folly. The EU must return them all to Africa so that their sponsors get the message and stop the journeys. The Greeks have a problem in so far as Turkey is not a failed state. But the message would get home if ‘Syrians’ found themselves in Benghazi. With the population of Africa growing exponentially this problem can only get worse. Tough decisions are needed.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Failed states are not sovereign nations.

            ‘Manners’ are irrelevant.

            The ‘sponsors’ are gangsters.

            Africa is not a state recognised by any state.

            Greek, problem: superflous to the discussion in hand.

            If Syrians found themselves in Benghazi they would be swimming towards Scilily.

            Either shut up, or read more.

            I would recommend the ‘American Spectator.’

          • bluedog

            ‘Failed states are not sovereign nations.’Says who? Nations are currently defined by their UN membership. If a UN member suffers from civil war or internal unrest it doesn’t cease to be a member of the UN. Invading a member state of the UN without UN sanction ensures pariah status for the invader. Your suggestion that former colonial powers do so and takeover the role of government is delusional. Whose children are going to put their lives on the line to implement your fantasies? Where do we start? Egypt? Pakistan? We’re right behind you, Sir, on you go.

            ”Manners’ are irrelevant.’ But not Judeo-Christian manners, one trusts.

            ‘The ‘sponsors’ are gangsters.’ Agreed. So don’t encourage them and their customers by underwriting the success of their business model.

            ‘Africa is not a state recognised by any state.’ Agreed. But the majority of the economic migrants crossing from departure points in North African appear to be sub-Saharan Africans. It follows that they are not refugees, whose status become compromised once they cross multiple borders, as these potential immigrants have.

            ‘Greek, problem: superflous to the discussion in hand.’

            Says who? Is it not important to take a holistic view of the economic migrant problem and identify parallels between those reaching the EU from different sources?

            ‘If Syrians found themselves in Benghazi they would be swimming towards Scilily.’ Ridiculous.

            ‘Either shut up, or read more.’ Happy New Year!

            ‘I would recommend the ‘American Spectator.’ Why do I need them to tell me what to think?

  • Samuel

    Well exactly. And specifically it’s the year 5,777.

  • Dreadnaught

    Ahead of the much leaked Prime Minister’s speech we need to be looking inward at the actual ability of the mechanics of national governance and social commitment to a state of British independence’.
    It would be wrong not to claim that many beneficial changes have come into being through fifty years of European involvement and exposure.
    I am thinking of imovable standards prevailing during the late sixties and seventies when self serving elitism and class barriers stunted social mobility and Unions vs Government and vice-versa
    predominated so much of our daily lives. They were not pretty times as far as I am concerned.

    True independence requires much more than jingoistic posturing and flag waving; it requires a far greater degree of unity of direction to build a nation capable of standing on it’s own abilities to create the degree of prosperity and security to call such a major change reversal or for some, an introduction, a success.
    Do we have that ability among the population, industry and civil service? Not yet I fear. There is no lingering patriotism as in the post-war Britain of the fifties. Too many have become so cosseted by the bloated welfare state provisions they could start a mini revolt of their own and the Left would support them.
    We have a major problem of compatability of ideologies now present within the popuation that is untested in its loyalty to our Nation State; a demoralised, skeletal Miitary and an a massive reliance on foreign investment in our industries and our energy supply.
    I am of the opinion that we are going to have to be a lot tougher on ‘ourselves’ to pull off the trick of re-invention: its going to take many years to achieve such and my big question is will the next generation have the guts to take the hardest decisions and make it work?

  • dannybhoy

    Of course. It’s easy to imagine everyone’s against you, but some Jewish people keep themselves so separate that they remain strangers and unknown. That can work against them.
    Take me. In the last twelve months or so I’ve been down to London twice to Jewish organisation conferences.
    On my own
    Didn’t know anybody
    People looking cos you don’t look very Jewish etc.
    But I get talking to people, listening to people
    Make a few contacts.
    Friendship is a two way thing.