THE UNELECTED DICTATORSHIP Definition of the European Commission. (Fourth Reich)

THE TRUTH ABOUT EUROPE ^

[swilhelm73]

Mosley was the most important British fascist. As such I would call him a leading European fascist. Especially after the death of all the fascist leaders on the Continent (save Franco) after WWII.

As for NAZIism I would say it was just a fascist varient, not a seperate ideology. Most notably, fascism as a whole does not have to be anti-semitic a la NAZI Germany. Mussolini's Italy, for example, was certainly not anti-semitic, or any more then Europe as a whole, before pressure was brought to bear from NAZI Germany.

As for the modern European Left supporting the EU, I would say it is clear their are two reasons they do so...

1) To create another power to "balance" the US.

2) As a way to get around restrictions placed on them within traditional nation states.

You are indeed right that the transfer of power from nation states to the EU is a good vehicle for promoting an ideology, and it could be used to promote any ideology. save one caveat. The EU is *not* a good vehicle for promoting representative government. Every nation joining the EU already has a representative government (well, except arguably Belgium since the Vlaams Blok issue). Adding another layer of government on top of the national, at best, or superior to the national, as it will almost certainly become, can only move European society away from this current democratic paradigm.

I should point out too, that to much of the Left the EU project goes hand and hand with strengthening the UN as a governmental body. Oh, the arguments I've had with the members of the Left as to why the UN isn't a democratic body even if it "votes".

[tjwmason]

Mosley was the most important British fascist.

Yeah, but that don't mean diddly-squat. We just don't go in for loony extremism over here, he had a following, but no impact on government.

As for NAZIism I would say it was just a fascist varient, not a seperate ideology. Most notably, fascism as a whole does not have to be anti-semitic a la NAZI Germany.

This is my point. I conceive of ideologies as having a fundamental unit upon which they focus, the conservative considers society (the two primary societies being the family, and the nation); liberalism considers the individual (I mean real liberalism not what Americans call liberalism); marxism considers class. Fascism considers the state, whereas nazism considers the race.

There was a book printed in Italy in the 1930s about fascist ideology, it claimed to have been written by Mussolini but was almost certainly ghosted by a fascist intellectual; in it the statement is made that race is 95% imagination. On the other hand, in Nazi Germany the entire focus was on the purity of German blood; it was not mere anti-semitism (though clearly this was its principal focus), but was an entire ideology constructed on the concept of the Volk.

The EU is *not* a good vehicle for promoting representative government.

True, and this is one of my main reasons for opposing its very existence.

[tjwmason]

in only Portugal, Ireland, and Denmark will the people have a final say on the loss of their soverignty.

Not so, other countries will be holding referenda, the difference between a binding referendum and a consultative one is essentially semantic in this case.

Secession? Apparently you are not a student of history. Look for example at the American experiment where the right to secede was considered implicit within the Constitution...until someone actually tried to leave the Union

A point which is definitely pertinent, though the legal situation regarding the War of Northern Agression is not as clear as it might be - for example Confederate President Jefferson Davis was not put on trial because it was acknowledged that he had broken no law (i.e., that the war was a war of agression), which further leads to the point that in the ultimate the more powerful will win.

A number of differences do exist, especially as regards the times as we find them. For example, a well established nation state redeclaring independence is a very different situation from a state which has never had an existence apart from a particular body (the 13 colonies fought together and quickly moved to the Articles of Confederation, and then the Constitution - England has a 1000 year history of independence from Europe).

[tjwmason]

VERY different? What are the differences that amounts to "very"? National socialism, fascism, marxism, and communism are all the same ideology with small variations.

Just because several ideologies result in the destruction of human nature does not alter the fact that they are separate. My post #22 should make my views on the difference between ideologies clear.

[rogermellie]

as tj has pointed out, most countries of the EU will have a referendum on the 'constitution' - those governments that don't will have to face their electorates.

because the EU is a political organisation it is subject to politics, in politics anything is possible.

as for ceceding - theres a little thing called the english channel.....

[swilhelm73]

Amazing.

I cited the EU's own admission to you...and you scoff it off???

Only three nations will have a binding referendum. Three. No others. The rest, apparently, know the dangers democracy poses to just such a theft of sovereignty. Certainly, removing such restrictions is one of the two motive forces for the whole fiasco.

I guess though that I can understand your support for the EU if you refuse to face the actual reality of the enterprise.

[swilhelm73]

Oh, please. This is assinine. Anything less then a binding referendum is not ...BINDING... That is indeed the specific point of differentiation. And, when it comes to handing over political power it is not only unacceptable, but illegitimate for the people to not have the final say.

As for your belief that the right to seceed would be respected, I must admire your trust in the future leaders of the EU, seeing as a right to secession* is historically only accepted by force of arms, not custom, law, nor tradition. Just ask the Dutch. Or the Confederates. Or the Belgians. Or the Portuguese. Or, well, the list is not a short one.

Frankly, I can already see more then plentiful grounds within the EU "constitution" to deny secession - irrespective of whether the right is also granted within the documentation. Leftists within the American judicial system have shown how easy such corruption of law is to enact without the strictest of restraints. The underlying philosophy is hardly uniquely American, obviously, and if anything thing more common, if not dominant, within Europe.

Of course the specific example of England you seem most interested in (English I presume?), brings up an another question. England is not joining the EU, at least not as such. The United Kingdom is. As a matter of fact, England has not existed as a seperate political entity since what...1700? or so when it was united with Scotland. So, even under the nominal exemption within the "constitution" what grounds would England have to leave the EU?

Oh, and one quibble. England certainly does not have a thousand year history of independence from Europe. Henry V came within a hair's breath of being recognized as the king of England and France, both because of a claim to the throne, and more importantly, possession of a good deal of France.

England would rule part of France until losing Calais in 1558.

England/Britain would also include Hannover until 1837, Malta until 1964, and Gibraltar for the forseeable future.

* Interestingly, outside of Britain post George III

[tjwmason]

Oh, and one quibble. England certainly does not have a thousand year history of independence from Europe. Henry V came within a hair's breath of being recognized as the king of England and France, both because of a claim to the throne, and more importantly, possession of a good deal of France.

England certainly does have, though France does not have thousand year history of independence from England (note the difference). Henry V's possessions in France and claim to the French throne, or indeed the union of the British Crown (as it was then) with the Electorship of Hanover makes no difference at all; the case of Hanover being particularly clear on this, when Queen Victoria came to the British throne, she did not come to the throne of Hanover because their law of succession prohibited female accession, the two thrones simply parted company.

Oh, please. This is assinine. Anything less then a binding referendum is not ...BINDING... That is indeed the specific point of differentiation.

What, do you seriously think that is a consultative referendum had a vote against the Constitution the government of that country would still accept it? What planet are you on? Even when the Danes rejected Maastricht they had to run it again to get (as they perceived it) the right result. When (this is almost certainly when not if) the British chuck out the constitution by a large margin nobody will be able to do anything about it.

As for your belief that the right to seceed would be respected

Given a choice between accepting secession, or engaging the British military I suspect that our independence would be recognised.

[jb6]

And if they vote "no" will they continue to have revotes until they get a "yes" as did Ireland on the issue of the EURO?

[rogermellie]

our referendum will be binding - as will those of the rest of europe, because our governments are in parliment. no european government can - or will - ignore a referendum decision by the electorate.


moreover with most of european governments being headed by a prime minister rather than a head of state, were a government to ignore the result of a public referendum they would almost certainly be dismissed by their head of state.

the EU is a political organisation, it is subject to politics, nothing in politics lasts forever and we can leave if we want to. i do not have any fear that were holland to decide to leave the EU the french and germans would invade - as you may have noticed recently, the nations of europe occasionally have fundamental disagreements over future policy, but we 'just' manage to avoid going to war with each other because we're adults and can live with people dissagreeing with us.

[Durus]

Your distinctions and/or definitions of ideologies are childish and wildly innacurate.

[tjwmason]

Your distinctions and/or definitions of ideologies are childish and wildly innacurate.

It was a briefly stated thesis, I wrote a few thousand words on the topic at university and got a damn fine mark. If you want, I might be able to dig out the essay, then we can have a decent chat about it.

[hellinahandcart]

read later