PERMISSIONS:
You may link to my blog but if you want to copy my article to your own blog, please give the following credit: From "Ampers' Rants" at www.ampers.me.uk. Thank you.

APOLOGIES
I have been over zealous with political comment lately so have now accepted the offer to assemble and write for two blogs on the WatchingUK website. The "Good News" blog is for items where we have benefited from the Brexit referendum vote and the "Bad News" blog is where others have tried to damage our chances of leaving the EU.

SUBSCRIPTIONS:
If you like what you see, why not subscribe to the blog? You can follow Ampers' Rants by adding your email address in the box below (left) Notifications are also shown in my Twitter account: AmpersUK.

Thursday, 3 November 2011

The EU - where did it all go wrong?


Where did it all go wrong?

 First of all, N.A.T.O. Was formed in 1949 for two purposes, one was to protect Europe from Russia and the other was to protect the European countries from each other as an attack on any one country in the organisation would be seen as an attack on all the countries in the organisation.
Tripod.com states: "The "North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a military alliance consisting of the United States, Canada, and 14 other Western countries [since this publication, 5 other countries have joined NATO, making 19 member states in all: see links below.] The 14 countries are Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. … NATO was established not only to discourage Communist aggression but also to keep the peace among former enemies in Western Europe. In World War II, for example, Italy and Germany had fought most of the other countries that later became NATO members. In forming NATO, each member country agreed to treat an attack on any other member as an attack on itself."
So the argument by the EU Commissioners that, through the formation of the European Union, there have been no more wars in Europe can be dispensed with.

So why has everything gone belly up? 

Is it megalomania? Is it wanting to keep all the peasants in order? Is it wanting to be a bigger fish in a bigger bowl? Is it wanting to siphon off more ill-gotten gains? Or is it a combination of all four?

Gordon Brown, a man lacking in intelligence, at least knew we should never join the Euro. He may have been useless, especially the way he sold our gold and even warned the market in advance before doing so, but his saving grace was not taking us in. And as for saving the world! I supposed he made us laugh which was, at the time, better than weeping!
President Charles De Gaulle knew us better than Brown ever did, he had served in Britain with the Free French during the second world war and, when he vetoed our application to join the Common Market in January 1963, quite correctly said:
"England, in effect is insular. She is maritime. She is linked through her trade, her markets, her supply lines to the most distant countries. She pursues essentially industrial and commercial activities and only slightly agricultural ones. She has, in all her doings, very marked and very original habits and traditions. In short England's nature, England's structure, England's very situation differs profoundly from those of the Continentals."
I think one of the real reasons was that like Hitler, the Commissioners of the EU have never believed in democracy. Most European democracy only came to being in the 19th or 20th centuries, and the actual plans for the EU were drawn up in Germany in 1941 when Hitler was in power.
I attended a lecture in a Committee Room in the House of Lords many years ago on how the EU was formed--and how proven ex-Nazis were the original leaders of the Common Market. Here is the entire video but it is rather long and you may want to bookmark this page to come back to it.
So where has it all gone wrong? In their unseemly haste to settle old scores, and to ensure success in their own lifetimes, the leaders of the EU, with their limited intelligence, actually thought they could be like America, and have one currency and one state. They didn't realise that America was a new country full of people who had flown Europe, determined to start a new life. It was not a collection of individual states of whose leaders decided to form a mammoth state all in a few years.
Because our present democracy goes back to the Magna Carter (Great Charter) in June 1215 between the barons of England and King John ...
Wikipedia states: “Once the infancy of Henry III ended and he took full control of the government of his kingdom, many leading nobles became increasingly concerned at his style of government, specifically his unwillingness to consult them on the decisions he took and his perceived willingness to bestow patronage upon his foreign relatives in preference to his native subjects. Henry's decision to support a disastrous papal invasion of Sicily was the last straw. In 1258, seven leading barons forced Henry to agree and swear an oath to the Provision of Oxford, which effectively abolished the absolutist Anglo-Norman monarchy, giving power to a council of fifteen barons to deal with the business of government and providing for a thrice-yearly meeting of parliament to monitor their performance."
… we have a far longer tradition of democracy than the Continentals and thus are more protective to our rights. The recent flood of immigrants from countries without such safeguards do not feel the same way as the old English – people who were born in this country pre the sixties.
For the English, I would surmise that although loss of sovereignty is an important issue, the main distaste for the European Union is their hatred for democracy. The Union is firmly ruled by the unelected Commissioners who make all the rules and all the laws and the European Parliament are full of elected MEPs who have not the ability of making any laws. There job is to vote and pass the laws.
The pro EU brigade used to tell us that Winston Churchill was all for us being part of Europe. But these were even more lies as I have Churchill's quote:
Winston Churchill is often quoted out of context by people who want us to lose our sovereignty and join the EU. They tell us that Winston Churchill wanted us to go into Europe. He did, but then, the war then came to an end! These people are not interested in the truth, but I am, and take pleasure in listing exactly what he said at that time.

"We are with Europe, but not of it.
We are linked, but not combined.
We are interested and associated, but not absorbed.
And should European Statesmen address us in the words which were used of old -
'Shall I speak for thee to the King or the Lord of the Host?'
- we should reply with the words of the Shunamite woman:
''Nay sir, for we dwell among our own people.'"
In addition to this, they don't even know what the laws they vote for are. A number is called out, which is the number of the law and this is all the MEP hears. He, or she, then looks to the “boss” of their group down in the front and if his thumb is pointing up, they vote “yes” and if they get the “thumbs down” signal, they vote “no”. How democratic is that?
Another reason people have doubts of the EU, especially nowadays, is all the billions we are pouring into Europe when they could be used to help business and industry create new jobs for our ever growing unemployed force.
Many pundits are looking at the history of the EU, all trying to be the first to spot where it all went wrong. But, the answer is a lot simpler than that. It went wrong right from the beginning when the leaders all wanted to play in a bigger pond so that they could feel more important whilst being able to milk a much larger fund!
There are 111 Brits in Parliament who voted for a referendum on the EU, agaist a powerful three-line whip with the threat of instant dismissal if they held a government post, or the promise of never being able to get on the ladder (these were the Tory threats) So, out of 650 MPs we have 111 MPs who may know how to do the decent thing. I say “may” as, after all, they are Members of Parliament!.
And how can we take the EU seriously, when all Jacques Chirac could say to the Brussels Press Corps in Spring 1998, when announcing a 'successful outcome' to negotiations over the presidency of the European Central Ban:
''Please don't laugh...''
Ampers

No comments: