Wednesday, 10 November 2010


"Liberty is always unfinished business."

Ian Parker-Joseph posts on a speech given in Berlin yesterday by Van Rompuy, EU President, in which amongst other points, he stated:
"The time of the homogenous nation-state is over.........We have together to fight the danger of a new Euro-scepticism. This is no longer the monopoly of a few countries. In every Member State, there are people who believe their country can survive alone in the globalised world. It is more than an illusion: it is a lie!"
To which the immediate point has to be made, namely that Norway and Switzerland are not surviving in the globalised world?

Van Rompuy centres his speech on the events of 1989, when the Berlin Wall - and the Iron Curtain - 'fell' and heralds it as the day that:
".....marked an end (to communism)....."
It may well be the day that 'old' communism died, however it also marked the dawn of 'new communism', one implemented by the European Union. Witness 'old communism' with its central directives and regulations, its rigid control of people's lives, its absence of 'democracy' - and the difference twixt the USSR and the European Union is........?

Wikipedia defines communism as:
"The exact definition of communism varies and it is often mistakenly used interchangeably with socialism, however, communist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the way to communism."
The entry also states that:
"Pure communism, or the stage in history after socialism, refers to a classless, stateless society, one where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made in the best interests of the collective society......"
Is not the EU the imposition of a creed in which 'decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made in the interests of a collective society'? Again, I have to ask where is the difference twixt 'old communism' and this 'new communism'? (The description 'collective society' must be qualified, in that context, as one being a collection of individual nation states, as against a 'collective society' being defined as the people of one nation, one that is 'governed' by democratic means, ie, its own parliament.)

Ian Parker-Joseph began his post with a statement - one with which I concur wholeheartedly - and with which I shall end:

"I was Born English, I will Die English. I will never be an EU ‘citizen’ – I do not consent."

No comments: