Just my European rant

I don’t want to go on a rant here, but……. The Socialists, former PDS leaning, heel clicking “Leaders of Europe” are now Goose stepping arm in arm together to enslave the new European democracies into their diminishing economic quagmire. The revolutionaries Schroeder/Fischer, together with “King” Chirac and the opportunistic Putin are trying to reset the old Pinball game that the U.S. has forced into Tilt mode for the last 58 years. They believe that their anti-American rhetoric will show the world that it is better to be dominated by the old aristocratic class conscious ruling elite, which will let them eat cake, than being able to determine their own destiny by setting their own agendas, laws and purpose. Their goal is so transparent that it would have to anticipate a great amount of stupidity on the part of the former Eastern block countries not to notice their true intent. Gone would be self-determination, freedom of speech and liberties associated with the normal democratic concept. The only purpose would be to milk these new countries for their Tax Euros and to be indoctrinated into the socialist melting pot that is called the EU ? The “old Europeans “have shown time and time again, that their goal is to create different classes within their societies. The Master race concept was a failure and reinstituting it won’t work again this time around. The “Krautiots” for instance want to have someone else work for them while they can collect the ample Government subsidy, just like it should be awarded to these Super humans. They determined to abandon Atomic Energy, only to encourage other countries to build new reactors from which they can purchase cheap energy. They will do anything to show the world that they are ecologically pure and socially just. Well, History does have a way of repeating itself, it won’t work this time either. The idea of taking over Europe without firing a shot to create Lebensraum has hurdles that neither Chirac or his new Komrades: Schroeder, Fischer and Putin will be able to overcome. To bank on the stupidity of others for your own gain has always been futile. Of course this is only my opinion and I could be wrong.

The E.U. objective is a common currency. The rest of the troubles is all the challenges of trying to get that working.

Socialists have trouble with each other by nature, and with the lessening of political opposition from their supposed enemies, will kill each other to be king of Mt. Utopia.

The more aristocratic socialists (whether they were born wealthy or "earned it" through massive taxation --- either way, they got it off the backs of "the working class" with whom the very same socialists are supposedly "one") ... may wish to have all dirty work performed beyond their sense of smell, such as in the more far off "junkyards of Europe" in [meaning out of] their view.

While the activist socialists (whether they were born wealthy or "earned it" through massive taxation --- either way, they are "making a living" off the backs of "the working class" with whom the very same socialists are supposedly "one") ... wish for very specific unity that is a hard thing for them to grasp. Because their weapons of choice are all about destruction of unity as a means to get control; hence, they work against what they work for, the commonality.

Basically, every day, socialists are trying to destroy themselves and take as many with them as they can.

What your race is, has no bearing among socialists, other than how the distinction is, again, a weapon of choice with which to destroy by way of pitting people against each other.

The problems are not French, nor German, nor Russian ... the problems are all the disruptions invented by socialists, temper tantrums, "acting out," whatever it takes to get attention, to have somebody else pay the bill, to have somebody else give them what they want.

What they want, through all this, is a more visible means of support to help them face the incredible reality of life, that we are each faced with trying to stay alive and well enough. For which challenge, many humans resort to faith. Yet socialists are people who are scared enough of what may come tomorrow, that they are drowning and will lash out to grab whatever can be taken in order to hold themselves up.

Well, that is a tax upon us all, because they do not appreciate our efforts to build foundations upon which we can establish at least some mutual support --- because they do not appreciate the work that goes into the foundations in addition to the maintenance required.

They only see the foundation as something from which to take a piece of buoyancy; whereas to contribute to the foundation means giving of themselves; that is not their nature.

The Germans are fighters who did not fight for NAZI-ism, instead, they fought for their fatherland.

The Russians are fighters who did not fight for communism, instead, they fought for the motherland.

But I am certain that the wheel was invented in France, because, while the French love liberty, they will not fight for freedom until they have lost it. They like the very wide mood swings. C'est la guerre. C'est la vie. Non!?

War may not be such a bad thing, because it has somewhat prevented, over the long haul, in-breeding.

The present trouble for us all, is that socialism is "internationale" and sort of a pox which recognizes no boundaries (except where, again, boundaries are useful for socialists to work the crowds against each other). There is a lot of in-breeding among socialists; we call it communism.

Chiraq, Schroeder, and Putin, are communists, their public personae notwithstanding; they are aristocrats; they are the new royalty; because in the end, it will not be socialism, it will instead be fuedalism.

And yes, there is the harkening back to the good ol' days.

Found this ops-ed piece Makes the German/French love fest more understandable.

Allez, Giscard! Europe is not a home for slaves
William Rees-Mogg

The draft Constitution for Europe which was published last Thursday is a shameful document, destructive of democracy, disastrous for Europe, disastrous for Britain and for all the other present and prospective members of the European Union. It has even been drafted in a disorderly and undemocratic way.
I would not want anyone to take my word for it. The website address of the European Commission is www.europa.eu.int. From that website one can get to the home page of the European Convention. The draft Constitution, in its present form, runs to 19 pages, which can be downloaded. Those who do so are likely to be as astonished as I have been, and as horrified. Even a Euro-fanatic such as Peter Hain said that: “The first draft could have been a lot better.”

The draft Constitution would establish a United States of Europe. The main differences between this Constitution and that of the United States of America are that the new Europe would take more power to the centre, leave less independence to the individual states, have fewer and weaker constitutional safeguards and would be undemocratic.

If ratified, the new Constitution would change the whole legal basis of the European Union. The EU would cease to be a confederation of independent states, each retaining its ultimate sovereignty, and would become a new “legal personality”, with common citizenship, a “duty of loyal co-operation”, primacy of its laws over member states, areas of “exclusive competence” — that means power — and dominance in areas of “shared competence”. It would also have areas of “supporting action” and in case all these powers proved insufficient, “flexibility” to add new powers. It would not have a democratic government.

The new state would be responsible for co-ordinating economic policy and for “defining and implementing” foreign and defence policy. That alone would give the European institutions power over three of Britain’s chief offices of state, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary for Defence.

The United States of Europe would have exclusive competencies in six areas, including the movement of persons, goods, services and capital, and competition rules. The EU would decide whether any proposed merger was legal or not. It would also have exclusive competencies, with no democratic recourse, over the customs union, common commercial policy, monetary policy for euro nations — which we would soon have to join — common fisheries and international agreements. That is only the beginning.

The 13 “shared” competencies are almost as powerful as the exclusive ones. The individual nations would be the junior partners in shared competencies, left to do the jobs the European institutions assigned to them. Europe’s powers would include the internal market, freedom, security and justice, agriculture and fisheries, transport, trans-European networks, energy, social policy, economic and social cohesion, environment, public health, consumer protection, research, technology and space, development and human aid. Altogether these powers include virtually of the central matters of modern government. Under the proposed Constitution, they would all be determined by European bureaucrats not by elected national politicians.

Some may think I’m arguing this too much in local national terms. It may be better to put the question in the terms of some other European countries. Do you think that the interests of Denmark will be better cared for by a democratically elected Danish Government or by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels? For “Denmark”, one can read France, Germany, Poland, Spain, or any other of the 25 present or prospective members of the EU. One can, of course, ask the same question about Britain.

Nor is this the lot. The Charter of Fundamental Rights, that self-contradictory bundle of legal aspirations, is to be incorporated into European law, which takes precedence over national law. This hits home to the press. British newspapers may find freedom of speech ranked well below respect for the privacy of Europe’s great statesmen. We shall all have to be extra careful of the tender sensitivities of Chancellor Schröder.

There are also six areas in which the European institutions will be entitled to take “supporting action”. Now that we can see Brussels’s full hunger for power, we should be as reluctant to accept supporting action from the Brussels bureaucrats as from the wolf that ate Little Red Riding Hood’s grandmother. These areas include employment, on which the EU’s record is very poor, industry, education, vocational training and youth, culture, sport and the prevention of disasters. These vital areas of public life are added on as an afterthought to the main banquet of powers.

These proposals would destroy European democracy. The European nations would cease to be self-governing. The individual European parliaments are still sovereign; in Britain, the House of Commons, which is democratically elected, is the seat of government. The European Parliament is not sovereign, it is elected on the party list system — which is only too easy to manipulate — and it is not the seat of government. After enlargement, Britain will have approximately 13 per cent of the seats in this weak European Parliament. We would never again be able to change our real government by our own votes. Never. Nor would any other European country. The outrage is that this Constitution would destroy the democracy of all the nations of Europe.

On January 30 Tony Blair lunched with Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the author of this arrogant document. On November 28, 2002, Blair had made a speech in Cardiff which endorsed Giscard’s European approach, if not all the details. Whatever he now says, we cannot afford to trust Tony Blair on the European Constitution. Nor can Conservatives trust Kenneth Clarke, who has already said that he expects to be at odds with his party over the Constitution. If the Tories do decide to change their leader, they cannot and will not accept a leader who wants to destroy British independence and democracy.

The only safeguard would be a referendum. This Constitutional change is too important to be ratified by Parliament under the whips. If we have referendums on Scotland, Wales, local mayors and the euro, the future of our national independence surely requires one as well. That is the only way to force the Government to negotiate on the basis of the reality of British opinion.

This, however, is a great difficulty. Giscard has done his damnedest to destroy European democracy. There is virtually no possibility of negotiating this document down to a level at which it would be acceptable to European democrats, once it has been properly understood, once enough people have downloaded the text or read their newspapers.

The Giscard Constitution stands Europe on its head. In democratic theory, power belongs to the people. They elect their government; the governments make mutually beneficial arrangements to co-operate. That is how the European Union ought to be. In the actual Europe, and in this proposed Constitution, power belongs to the rulers, to a bureaucratic class, of which Giscard is a member, which claims, “L’état, c’est moi”. The answer to that is: “Oh no, it’s not.”

The French Government has suggested that there ought to be Europe-wide referendums on the Constitution, held on the same day. There are strong arguments for that. There is no European country which does not value its own independence and democracy; every country in the EU is democratic at the national level. The Giscard Constitution would, in my view, certainly lose a referendum in Britain. We have a consistent majority against the euro in the polls; this is far worse than the euro.

The French voted for Maastricht by only the narrowest margin; they voted Giscard out when he was President, because they could not stand his condescension. I expect they will do so again. The new members, including Poland, Hungary, and the Czechs, have only recently regained their freedom and do not want to lose it again. Perhaps Giscard’s bureau-Fascist Constitution could win a referendum in Belgium or Luxembourg — I do not know where else. Let all Europe put this nonsense to a vote; the peoples of Europe do not have the mentality of slaves.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.