A good reference: How the First World War Inspired the EU
Now, why would this be of any importance?
Two reasons: Firstly it shows the anti-democratic bent of Monnet (and of his followers). It wasn't the fact that the Germans had voted in Hitler, but the fact that the Germans (and other peoples in Europe) had (in Monnet's warped mind) forced the politicans to start the Great War. Monnet considered that terrible tragedy a consequence of popular governance, and wanted to return to a rule by experts and unelected bureaucrats. Anyone who has read anything about the start of the first wold war knows that all decisions leading to the war was taken by a few politicians, crowned heads, and generals, and the citizens of the warring states had absolutely no say in the matter.
Even in democratic England the final decision was taken by a small number of government ministers (and possibly king George V) after a very short debated in the House.
So, the "Establishment" made a mess of things, but the common man was given the blame....
Secondly, from the real history of the beginnigns of the EU it is evident that the idea was to hinder a new WWI. But much had changed after the second world war; the Cold War, the nuclear deterrence, and NATO made a fourth war between Germany and France not only unlikely but actually impossible. Thus, the raison d´être of the EU - to prevent a new European war had already been overtaken by events.
Thanks for your comment.
I was surprised to see Forsyth writing for such a low brow publication such as the Express.
It all boils down to the divide with roots in Ancient Greece, doesn’t it?
I wonder if people here have read “The Open Society and Its Enemies” by Popper.
Should the people have the right to govern themselves, or should the people be governed by philosopher kings (EU bureaucrats)
It’s been a long time since I read the book, but if I remember correctly Popper came down on the side of liberal democracy comparing it to science. It allows a government to try different things, but the society can reject the hypothesis as it were.
Personally as an addendum to the debate...
I feel the sort system of ethics you have is important. If a benevolent non-democratic government gave the most happiness to the most ammount of people, aka utilitarian ethics, would that be preferable to liberty and a free society.
Now most empirical evidence seems to suggest democracies do work the best, but we don’t have centuries of data to analyze.
But, in my experience a lot of people only vote for their own pocket book, hence the scaremongering in this referendum has been effective, especially on younger people. They would sacrifice liberty for short term economic gain.
ok, enough rambling.
Good to see you Scaniaboy :)
Congratulations!