Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abolish The European Union | 5 June 02 | Robert Locke

Posted on 06/05/2002 7:44:02 AM PDT by LavaDog

AMERICANS SUFFER FROM A CURIOUS DELUSION. Reading their newspapers and perusing their atlases, they continue to believe that such geographical entities as France, England, Italy and Germany are nations. But in fact they are, or more accurately are rapidly becoming, mere provinces of the Holy Belgian Empire: the European Union (EU). This empire has been getting continually more malignant for years without attracting significant conservative opposition on this side of the Atlantic. But American conservatives should realize that it represents the European manifestation of the odious ideology of globalism, or the liquidation of nations. It should therefore be abolished forthwith.

The EU seems to have a unique talent for bringing out the worst in its member states. It is like the universal alloy of medieval alchemy: a mixture of all metals that turns out to have the liabilities of each and the virtues of none. Each of its member states has its own dishonorable reasons for participating in it.

For example, one motivating factor behind the ongoing attempt of the EU to become a superstate is the colossal unresolved guilt felt by Germany about her Nazi past. Germans would very much like to abolish Germany as a nation and declare themselves citizens of "Europe" so that their consciences wouldn’t have to bear the burden of being Germans. After having tried to liquidate the other nations of Europe by the sword twice in one century, they are now trying it a third time to weasel out of their well-deserved guilt over the first two. It is an utter scandal that nations like Britain, France, and soon Poland, which sacrificed millions of lives fighting German aggression, are being asked to liquidate their nationhood to expiate German crimes.

Another motivating factor behind the EU is the determination of French bureaucrats to rule Europe. France, because of her history, the structure of her government, and her educational system, produces the most ambitious bureaucrats in the world. Her tradition of dirigisme or state-directed capitalism is precisely suited to present world economic conditions, in which competitive pressures make expanding socialism impossible but the inexorable will of the state to grow has not gone away. They are convinced that the expanded powers of the EU will by nature fall into their lap, the Germans being too shy about asserting their power, the British not being statist by instinct, the Italians being too disorganized, and everyone else being too small.

Those Italians who like the EU like it because it absolves them of the need to get their own national act together and fix the most chaotic government and economy in Europe. Rather than fixing their own budget deficits to save the ever-falling lira, they adopt the euro. Rather than fixing their own government, they prefer to sign away their sovereignty and with it, the ability of future generations of Italians to be masters of their own political destiny. The idea of an Italy governed in all essentials by foreigners in Brussels doesn’t seem to scare them or bother their national pride at all.

Other nations, like Spain, Portugal, and Ireland, have knuckled under to the EU essentially on a basis of bribery. They have been paid billions in subsidies to support obsolescent farming sectors in exchange for compliant votes to expand EU powers. It is a classic case, writ large, of the old warning about selling one’s freedom in exchange for welfare.

The other openly admitted motivation for the EU is to create a political entity large enough to blunt "American hegemony." Given that it is US hegemony over Europe since WWII that has given the continent the greatest peace and prosperity it has known in the 20th century, this is for a start monumentally ungrateful. Given that Europe cannot even deal with local crises like the wars of the Yugoslav succession without American help, it is pathetic. Despite all talk of a common foreign policy, the minute bullets start to fly, pronouncements of European unity vanish and the member states go their separate ways. And what wonderful geopolitical agenda does Europe intend to pursue once it stands tall next to America? What terrible harm at our hands does it propose to rectify? No one has answered this question because frankly, the motivation here is pure ego, leavened only by the cynicism that passes for political sophistication in Europe. Fortunately, Europe is unlikely to ever match American military power, since it cannot afford to match our defense budget and maintain its bloated welfare states. This is not even to mention our 40-year technological head start; the European armies, with the limited exception of the Americanized but very small British military, are perfectly nice 1960s-era militaries, a joke compared to our Star Wars forces. All of Europe put together cannot field a single state-of-the-art stealth aircraft.

The other great aim of EU supporters is that it be their last chance to salvage the statist, over-regulated, socialistic economic policies that have been pushed to the wall by the worldwide free-market revival of the ‘80s and ‘90s. It is no accident that the movement to turn the EU from a free-trade area to a superstate rose with this free-market revival. Their essential premise is that these failed policies will work if the political unit of their operation is large enough. Naturally, this is absurd: the Soviet Union had nearly 300 million people and couldn’t make socialism work. The justification for this claim is the idea that there is no real superiority to free-market policies and that these policies have only been offering them competition because they are embodied in the United States, which uses its vast size to bully other nations into adopting them. (I have discussed the tendency of the world’s losers to see their self-inflicted problems as caused by America in another article.) So if the EU is large enough, it will be able to sustain these discredited ideas by hiding behind a protectionist shield. They will of course eventually discover that this won’t work, that mistakes are mistakes regardless of scale, but the attempt could doom a generation of Europeans to continuing economic sclerosis.

Some examples of the dirigiste economic policies of EU nations:

1.High taxes on everything from incomes to retail goods. 2.High social charges on employers. 3.Legally-entrenched labor union power. 4.Laws against firing people, which just cause employers not to hire them in the first place. 5.Massive subsidies for obsolescent industries like agriculture and steel. 6.Cozy cartels to restrict competition and divide up markets. 7.Massive government intervention in business decisions. 8.Outright government ownership of sectors of the economy. 9.Anti-business cultural attitudes. 10.Protectionism against American and Asian goods.

There is no meaningful doubt that the nations of the EU pay a high price for its dirigiste practices. For the last decade, the EU’s unemployment rate has averaged roughly double that of the United States. Since 1980, the US has created 30 million new private-sector jobs; the European Union a net of zero. (Source: National Center for Policy Analysis).

Fortunately one of the saving graces of Europe has traditionally been competition between governments. For example, the most economically free nation in Europe (thanks to Margaret Thatcher, not the current Labor government) is currently Britain, which has been attracting investment away from more regulated economies in Europe as a result. The French fume about this and call it "social dumping." British workers call it an unemployment rate far below that of France. The EU would like to end this ability of nations to compete by having lighter tax burdens. It would like to "harmonize," as it says in its inimitably dishonest eurobabble, tax rates across nations. It also raises taxes simply by having a budget, which taxpayers of the member states ultimately finance.

Like every undesirable thing in politics, the EU has its own characteristic varieties of sophistry that are used to justify it. The key piece of sophistic reasoning used to justify the European Union is the claim that opposition to the political construct that is the EU constitutes opposition to the existential fact that is Europe. Anyone who opposes expansion of the powers of the EU is tarred as "anti-Europe," which has become an epithet exceeded only by "racist" in its ability to both mean nothing and brand its victim a pariah. But Europeans have been benefiting from their relations with other European countries for millennia without the benefit of this superstate. It is entirely possible, indeed desirable, to be pro-Europe and anti-EU.

Another EU sophism: the benefits of free trade within the EU require its existence. False: all they require is the absence of tariffs between the member states, as the old Common Market, predecessor of the EU, used to provide. The European Union uses the promise of free trade as a tool to bribe the nations to its East to submit to its political control. I am not Polish, but it makes me want to cry to see this proud, nationalistic nation, which has suffered so many cruel affronts to its independence in its history, being prepared for subjugation to Brussels, along with Hungary and the Czech Republic. All the preposterous claims about the economic benefits of membership in the EU crumble on contact with the fact that some of Europe’s most successful economies, like Norway and Switzerland, are outside it, and one of the most successful countries inside the EU, Britain, has the least degree of economic submission to it, having not adopted its currency, the euro.

The lies spouted in favor of the euro are a rich topic in their own right. The fundamental premise underlying the euro is the same bald empirical falsehood that underlies most EU thinking: bigger is better. When it comes to economics, one can compare the success of the currencies of Russia and Singapore, or Brazil and Switzerland, and come to one’s own conclusions. Supposedly, having a common currency is necessary to weld the individual economies of Europe into one big economy. Naturally, since the euro is backed by the sagging over-regulated economies of Continental Europe, it has been sinking relative to the dollar and the pound since it was established. It was issued at parity to the dollar; it is now trading at 94 and has been lower. This loss in value is not an abstraction: it has wiped billions off of the value of pension funds, especially German ones, which used to be denominated in the rock-solid mark. Britain, which remains outside the euro, has less inflation, less unemployment, and more growth, than the average of those nations within it. And the euro does not promote foreign investment: in 1999, Britain attracted a grossly disproportionate 40% of all US and Asian investment into the EU.

However smoothly its spokesmen would deny it in public while admitting it in private, the EU is a threat to the national sovereignty of its member states. Sovereignty sounds like an abstraction, but in fact it refers to the ultimate ability of a nation to control its own destiny rather than being dictated to by others. For example, EU laws override the laws made by the parliaments of the member states. This means that the entire body of English common law, for example, a treasury of liberty, which has grown up over nearly a thousand years, is now disposable. The British parliament cannot legislate for its own people without the permission of bureaucrats in Brussels.

The EU is exceptionally dishonest in how it goes about coercing its member states. Its fundamental modus operandi is what has been called "union by stealth," namely the surrender of national sovereignty to the new superstate so gradually that the electorates of the member nations don’t notice until it is too late. Stealth combines with the narcotization of European electorates by bloated welfare states to make this possible. It is the same tactic of "progressive" revolutionaries that we have seen in America: push through fundamental changes not by arguing that they are good, but by pretending that they don’t matter. It is government by anesthesia. The politicians responsible have consistently lied about the nature of the changes they have made. It is well understood that the EU could never survive real democratic debate. Claude Cheysson, the former French Foreign Secretary who subsequently became one of France's European Commissioners, famously observed that the superstate-building Maastricht Treaty could only have been constructed "in the absence of democracy."

Politicians as a class love the EU. It gives them the ability to wield power through insider wheeler-dealing, without the accountability of pesky national electorates or judiciaries.

Leftists especially appreciate its ability to impose laws that would never be passed by their national legislature. The EU is governed by an unelected Commission; the "European Parliament" is an inert joke. The issue is usually fudged by resorting to the kind of technical discussion of the structures of government, rife with meaningless phrases like "pooled sovereignty," that have come to be known as eurobabble, but the blunt fact is, the EU has no democratic legitimacy. The legal basis for the imposition of its laws on its member states is only a series of treaties that they have signed, starting with the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The treaty that contained the fundamental basis for surrender of sovereignty was that of 1972, but this was not given its full force until the treaties of Maastrich of 1993 and Amsterdam in 1997. The fundamental problem with these treaties, as a matter of basic sound political philosophy, is that they surrender or alienate the right of self-government of the nations that sign them. Our Declaration of Independence rightly observes that the right to self-government is "unalienable;" i.e. that no government elected by the people can abolish that right or surrender it to someone else, for the fundamental reason that no government owns the right to self government, but merely holds it in trust temporarily for its owners, the people It follows that the treaties that form the basis for the EU are fundamentally invalid on philosophical grounds and the EU superstate should be considered an illegitimate government against which patriots have a right to rebel.

The EU is a mortal threat to the civil liberties of those who live under it. It is currently trying to impose on those member states, like Britain, whose citizens currently have a right to trial-by-jury, a legal system known as Corpus Juris - a judicial system under which Trial by Jury and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty will be abolished. The EU is trying to extend the preposterously strict and anti-free speech hate crimes laws of Germany, a product of that nation’s unique and horrifying history, to all the other nations. It would like to make such acts as "disparaging" another religion illegal. Magazines like this one are probably already in violation of the law in some member states and could soon be illegal in the whole Union. Thank God, I must say, we are Americans. Almost needless to say, like all other non-democratic governments the EU has no respect whatsoever for gun rights. It is trying to impose a requirement that communications providers snoop on their customers’ communications and store them indefinitely for police use. It is trying to abolish Europe’s network of extradition laws. It is trying to create a central register of "troublemakers" called the Schengen Information Registry which will be used to deny demonstrators freedom of movement between member states.

The fundamental form of the political order that the EU is trying to impose can be described as soft totalitarianism. Soft totalitarianism shares with the various forms of "hard" totalitarianism that have been tried (fascism, nazism, communism) the aspiration of total government control over the life of its citizens. But soft totalitarianism does this by means of bribery (i.e. the welfare state) and bureaucracy, rather than by means of concentration camps and the knock on the door at 3 AM. Those who would scoff at this, I challenge to name one thing that the EU is not trying to regulate. This is an entity that regulates how curved a banana can be.

The bureaucracy of the EU has a well-earned reputation for heavy-handedness, arrogance, incompetence, and deafness to the public. The European Commission is seriously corrupt. So much so, in fact, that in the Spring of 1999 the entire commission had to resign due to corruption charges. After this, of course, many of them kept on working for the EU in other posts. The Brussels headquarters has become a feather bed for the unelectable political cronies of all the member states.

There should be no mystery why the EU is the way it is: most continental European states have no indigenous traditions of democracy. What democracy they have was imposed at the point of American bayonets. Or if they do have a democratic tradition, it is one of unstable, ineffective democracies that destroy themselves. Since one of the fundamental requirements of a viable democracy is the rule of law, it comes as no surprise that the EU is utterly lacking in this quality. It compiles governing statutes that run to thousands of pages, and then casually flouts them for brazen political reasons. For example, it established elaborate convergence criteria for national debt levels of member states being admitted to the European Monetary Union (an institutional arrangement that led the way to the euro) and then ignored them in order to get Germany, Belgium and Italy in. And the supposed independence of the European Central Bank crumbled when the French government demanded a special say over things.

The cultural agenda of the EU is to liquidate the sense of national identity in its member states and replace it with enthusiasm for "Europe." But not Europe as a meaningful pan-European culture in its own right, Europe as a bloodless bureaucratic construct. As a result, emotional attachment to this new superstate is weak. The EU's own surveys show that only a tiny minority (5%) of the EU's inhabitants consider themselves essentially "European" in identity, 85% instead viewing their nation as their sole or principal affiliation. As the EU survey ruefully admits, "a sense of sharing a common identity does not appear to have become more widespread over the years."

Tony Blair, whom Margaret Thatcher rightly described as animated by "a doomed ambition to rule Europe," would like to be the first president of a united Europe. In pursuit of this ambition, he has, to be perfectly blunt, become the greatest traitor in the history of Britain, selling out to foreigners contemptuous of Britain’s blood-bought political values not just her secrets or her interests but her very sovereignty. He has almost certainly made a private deal with the rest of the EU to be given this post in exchange for eventually submitting Britain to the euro. Margaret Thatcher’s greatest regret, she has said, is that she allowed the EU to acquire too much power. Americans should consider the threat to Britain as a threat to themselves, as the EU, with its incoherent but lethally mischievous foreign policy, is a threat to the special relationship between America and its most loyal ally. The European Union, by funding the Palestinian Authority, has directly and knowingly financed terrorism. Its member states continue to trade with Iraq, Libya, Cuba, and other nations implicated in the support of terror.

It is a distinct possibility that, in the long run, the EU will not be content with governing only Europe. Because of its lack of respect for, or foundation in, real concrete European identity, it is quite capable of redefining itself at some point to embrace the nations at its fringe, like North Africa, and then amorphously expanding to include them. Naturally, anyone who opposes this will be labeled a racist. The EU is quite plausibly the nucleus of an aspiring soft-totalitarian world state; it is in fact far more likely to fulfil this role than the justly-despised UN. I apologize if this sounds alarmist, but history clearly teaches us to think ahead to the logical implications of things that are just beginning.

Fortunately, there are signs that Europe is awakening to the monster in its midst. A number of right-wing politicians like Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (closest American equivalent: Ross Perot) are actively fighting to curb the EU. Poll evidence regularly indicates that a narrow majority of British voters now favors outright withdrawal from the European Union under certain circumstances and 60% favor leaving the EU if the alternative is joining the euro. A majority of citizens in eight of the European Union's 15 member states are dissatisfied with the way the EU is progressing towards closer unity. Unfortunately, the welfare machine constructed to narcotize European electorates after WWII produces a far more passive electorate than in the US, far more used to being fed faits accomplis by their political masters so long as the public teat keeps giving.

So what’s the solution to the EU? Simply disband it.

TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

1 posted on 06/05/2002 7:44:02 AM PDT by LavaDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LavaDog
A great number of Europeans are coming to the conclusion that they receive much less than they are gaining by joining the EU. For most, the EU is a costly pain in the derriere.
2 posted on 06/05/2002 7:51:55 AM PDT by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LavaDog
I fell asleep after the author spit out paragraphs about Germany's "well-deserved guilt". Pretty much voids the article altogether. Guilt of some senile ex-nazi's in a old folks home in Berlin maybe, but not a deserved guilt of the nation as such.
3 posted on 06/05/2002 8:12:35 AM PDT by anguish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LavaDog
The biggest mistake the EU made was not writing down the relationship between Federal Europe and the individual countries and the relationship between the individual countries with each other. This was where the US Constitution started. The result is that the Federal Government in Europe can grow itself without any restraints.
4 posted on 06/05/2002 8:18:50 AM PDT by DrDavid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrDavid
The result is that the Federal Government in Europe can grow itself without any restraints.

Please explain how this is different than the US model?

5 posted on 06/05/2002 8:24:21 AM PDT by 2banana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
The US Federal Government has to ignore and violate Constitutional restraints to give itself power. I agree this is only a slight inpediment instead of a blank check that Federal Europe has.
6 posted on 06/05/2002 8:29:21 AM PDT by DrDavid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LavaDog
While the decision, of course must be made by the people involved, my views on the EU were set forth in An Open Letter To The Conservatives Of Europe.

I found this paragraph in the essay you posted of some interest, in view of the essay I just completed on Cult Of "The Holocaust"--Golden Calf Of The 20th Century:

For example, one motivating factor behind the ongoing attempt of the EU to become a superstate is the colossal unresolved guilt felt by Germany about her Nazi past. Germans would very much like to abolish Germany as a nation and declare themselves citizens of "Europe" so that their consciences wouldn’t have to bear the burden of being Germans.

It is idiotic for Germans to seek to atone for following one pack of Socialists by following another pack of Socialists. Germans should rediscover pride in the heritage that Marx and Hitler tried to destroy. They need to look at substance and forget the word games that the Left has played to create misunderstanding of where the Nazis actually stood in terms of the ideological spectrum. (See The Lies of Socialism.)

Let me put this all another way. Hitler and Marx were about new world orders. The EU is about new world orders. The brutality of the Twentieth Century was all about people pursuing new world orders. It is time that someone woke up and spoke up for the old evolving traditions of Western Civilization. They were not always perfect, but they were getting to be the best that man had ever known, in the Nineteenth Century. Then came the egalitarians, the Socialists, the power seekers with a vision for abolishing human nature, human traditions. It is time we stopped the nonsense and returned to rooted values--everywhere that civilized men reside.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

7 posted on 06/05/2002 8:33:53 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LavaDog
Another EU sophism: the benefits of free trade within the EU require its existence. False: all they require is the absence of tariffs between the member states, as the old Common Market, predecessor of the EU, used to provide.

This is a bad argument. A European company trading in Europe had to exchange currencies. The exchange was not just between their home currency and other countries, but between all the countries in which they do business. American and Asian based companies could minimize this. The result is that each time a product or service crossed a border 10% had to be added to its price to pay the moneychangers and uncertainties in exchange rates.

Also many European currencies had less money than many US pension funds. These funds could be used to leverage against the currency and push exchange rate to "pump money" out of central banks. This happened to Britain when the Pound devalued 15% overnight. Britain is one of the largest currencies in Europe. I think George Soros was one of the people who profited by billions UKP from this forced devaluation.

8 posted on 06/05/2002 8:42:50 AM PDT by DrDavid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LavaDog
What is the EU and why do we care?
9 posted on 06/05/2002 8:46:18 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LavaDog
Unfortunately, the welfare machine constructed to narcotize European electorates after WWII produces a far more passive electorate than in the US...

...and THAT'S saying something!

10 posted on 06/05/2002 8:55:40 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrDavid
I think George Soros was one of the people who profited by billions UKP from this forced devaluation.
He's also one of those who sent the Swedish Krona into tailspin. This is why I, a conservative Swede, am for the euro (even though we're still clinging on to the Krona). This, as I call it, "economic terrorism" does not need any national backing, but can be executed by single or a few big players to make enormous amounts of money. Small currencies are especially vulnerable to this kind of abuse.
11 posted on 06/05/2002 9:05:04 AM PDT by anguish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
If the European citizens are more passive than the american citizens, then that is REALLY passive, wow!!!
12 posted on 06/05/2002 9:10:53 AM PDT by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LavaDog
The EU government is animated by evil. It is not in the interest of anyone to give them power.

A few years ago I read that massive amounts of money (10% of the budget even) were disappearing in the EU and that corruption was to blame. Then there were a dozen or so bureaucrats that had to resign because it was revealed that massive amounts of money had disappeared. These bureaucrats who the news said were responsible for 'losing' billions of dollars were simply allowed to leave without any further punishment.

The EU is a tyrant completely beyond the control of ordinary Europeans.

But remember this. Some years ago a newly elected president of spain told reporters on his first day in office that he had just had a meeting with Henry Kissinger and that Henry had explained to the new president that spain would prosper if he goes along with their agenda because the banking system would smile on spain if he did go along. And HK further explained, according to the president of spain, that if he did not go along with the agenda that manipulations would be made through the banking system to harm spain during his tenure.


13 posted on 06/05/2002 9:21:51 AM PDT by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Jones
Between 80 and 90% of those eligible to vote (all 18yrs or older) in Sweden participate in the elections, and it's been like that since after WWII. Similar stats are common in Europe, so I guess that's not what the author is refering to.
14 posted on 06/05/2002 9:25:40 AM PDT by anguish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: anguish
At least Soros can afford to buy a beer in Sweden!

When I visited Sweden a .25L cost twice as much as a pint in London!

15 posted on 06/05/2002 9:31:04 AM PDT by DrDavid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DrDavid
At least Soros can afford to buy a beer in Sweden!
That's right. Hit me where it hurts! ;) Stupid no-good "sin-taxes".
16 posted on 06/05/2002 9:35:59 AM PDT by anguish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LavaDog
It's going to be an interesting experiment in government, at least, and a cautionary tale for wouldbe nation-builders. The usual pattern is for a bureaucracy to grow out of a smaller local government, generally in conjunction with similar growth in industry, defense requirements, and overall economy. Here we have an existing bureaucracy expanding rapidly and taking over an existing economy of questionable efficiency, and expanding defense requirements with questionable assets to meet them and questionable will to expand them. Some serious re-prioritizing is going to be necessary in order for this extranational entity to take its place in the world power structure, and the ability of an entrenched bureaucracy to accomplish this is...well, it's also questionable. It'll be interesting to watch.
17 posted on 06/05/2002 9:45:54 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam
"A great number of Europeans are coming to the conclusion that they receive much less than they are gaining by joining the EU. For most, the EU is a costly pain in the derriere."

They are learning the same lessons America has been learning over the last 40-70 years...that is, the centralization of decision-making power benefits only the Effete Elite who grant themselves this power and the BureaucRATS who serve the Almighty Guv'ment.

Welcome to FR, Mr./Ms. bwam...MUD

18 posted on 06/05/2002 9:52:16 AM PDT by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: anguish
Fantastic article. All points that cried out to be published. A long but worthy read, and should be required reading for every American and European citizen.
19 posted on 06/05/2002 9:53:39 AM PDT by Gargantua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: anguish
I live in Minnesota and our government is doing everything in its power to catch up to you in Sweden!

I'm afraid that in a few years I'll have to join you in Sweden to escape the high taxes here! Then maybe we can pool all our resources and share one beer.

20 posted on 06/05/2002 10:02:26 AM PDT by DrDavid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson