Wednesday, 30 September 2009

The EU referendum: Yes or No?

Anon 19.50 asks me. 'are you going to vote Yes or No'?

Well, it might surprise you to know that I'm by no means as viscerally opposed to the EU as most of this blog's readers seem to be. The EU has made one phenomenal achievement which almost puts everything else in the shade: It created an environment and set of structures that makes war between member states inconceivable into the foreseeable future. Given Europe's history, that is no small thing. In fact it borders on magical.

In many ways it actually increases regional independence in that it provides a framework for a country to peacefully split up - e.g. like Czechoslovakia did. It could facilitate a similar development in Belgium and some other countries should the occasion arise. So paradoxically it could actually facilitate regional independence.

Even in terms of 'interfering' legislation, can anything be worse than the useless corrupt fools masquerading as legislators we have in this country, and in so many others?

And don't forget that the 'colossus' gets by on 1% of the EU's tax revenues - the rest is available to individual governments. Its power is actually far less than is commonly believed. Whether it will remain that way of course is hard to say - the bureaucrats sure have plans.

My big objection to 'Europe' is the European Convention of Human Rights. This was a noble and commendable initiative when it was introduced after WW II, but is now hopelessly out of date and being used today as a battering ram to enforce peecee multiculti social re-engineering, most notably by way of mass immigration. Most of the evil we see today actually stems from this, not the EU per se.

And on the this last topic, dear to my heart, don't forget that non-EU countries like Norway and Switzerland also suffer from mass immigration.

So, a tough call......


Munin said...

The Irish Savant wrote: "So paradoxically it could actually facilitate regional independence."


kulak said...

It created an environment and set of structures that makes war between member states inconceivable into the foreseeable future.

When the various white tribes were at each other's throats, they ruled the world; it was easier than ruling each other.

Somewhat similarly, China's warring states period gave China its most rapid period of technological advance.

There's nothing wrong with white tribal warfare, properly restrained by rules of war. Not only is war sometimes not wrong, sometimes it is a duty.

And on the this last topic, dear to my heart, don't forget that non-EU countries like Norway and Switzerland also suffer from mass immigration.

The Swiss have the Swiss People's Party, and a decentralized state run more along the lines of the American constitution than the American state. What do you have?

Vote no. It's just not worth it. I was SO damn proud of you lot the first time you voted 'no'. Because in hindsight, the American anti-Federalists were right, though this was masked for a long time by the fact of the unsettled frontier. Please don't make me any more ashamed to be an Irish-American than Ted Kennedy already has.

But what you've really got to do is revolt. If you simply vote 'no', you'll have to vote on it again. They will keep submitting it for a vote until they either get the answer they want or they are made afraid to bring it up for a vote.

W Baker said...


Couple questions.

What are the reasons that Ireland is voting again? I thought you turned 'em down once already and I've sort of forgotten the hoops Dublin and Brussels created to get another vote.

Secondly, how easy is it to get out? The last thing you want is a Federal behemoth like Washington, D.C. overseeing every minutiae. Worse yet, if the EU creates some sort of permanent president - like Blair is gunning for - and he promises EU troops to our bloodthirsty tinpot types in D. C.... Well, you see where I'm going. The last thing any good Irishman needs is to be snookered into another one of Uncle Sam's endless wars (Lincoln's use of the Irish comes to mind) on Eurasia or Eastasia...

siobhan 12 said...

Jesus kulak - you think regular war is a good thing? Get thee to a nunnery!

I'd much sooner we ruled nobody and lived in peace. You really have a warped mind.

Lol said...

Well Munin, which is it? A European super-state or a huge number of statelets that can never agree on anything.

SAVANT said...

W Baker - I don't deny that the 'improvements' are largely cosmetic. But I really don't see us ruled by a behemoth. We're a million miles from the US federal system, not least because the EU is made up of very different peoples who'd be reluctant to pool too much sovereignty.

Mind you, the way the US is going with its immigration policies you might get into a similar situation (e.g. those of European descent a minority in 20 years).

kulak said...

War is an ugly thing, siobhan, but not the ugliest of things.

Why Men Love War

kulak said...

Savant you asked: Even in terms of 'interfering' legislation, can anything be worse than the useless corrupt fools masquerading as legislators we have in this country, and in so many others?

I know you meant that rhetorically, but the answer is yes, for the very simple reason that the legislators in your country are within MUCH easier reach and have a much smaller base of resources upon which to draw.

Most of the evil we see today actually stems from this, not the EU per se.

One might not cause the other, but they might have the same cause: unwillingness to defend yourselves, fear of freedom, fear of having power, distrust of yourselves, all because of past mistakes. Surrendering sovereignty is surrendering sovereignty, whether to muslims or brussels. Same mental habits.

It created an environment and set of structures that makes war between member states inconceivable into the foreseeable future.

No, it is not the structures that make it inconceivable. The structures are merely the effect, the formalization of a mental surrender of sovereignty that has already happened. And those structures will not protect you in the slightest from the invaders.

New constitutions do not cause revolutions, they are the result of revolutions. And elections are not won on election night. Votes are counted after you've won.

Yes, of course, the white man screwed up immensely in the 20th century. Get over it. White wars like that aren't going to happen again, EU or no EU.

Munin said...

The Irish Savant wrote:

"Most of the evil we see today actually stems from [the European Convention of Human Rights], not the EU per se."


Few Europeans are familiar with the Kahn Commission=the consultative Commission on Racism and Xenophobia (CRX).

The Kahn Commission wrote (1995):

"The Europe of Fifteen is now faced with a new threat, sixty years after it was plunged into
barbarism by fascism, racism and anti-semitism.

Racism and xenophobia are again killing and wounding people in Europe, arousing anxiety and
fear. The victims are mainly foreigners from outside or inside Europe, but also national citizens
from minority groups.

Current events of the last few months show the urgency of facing up to these widespread
phenomena, whether they occur nationally or throughout Europe, whether violent or commonplace in daily life."

The consultative Commission on Racism and Xenophobia (CRX), was established in 1994, and also known as the Kahn Commission.

"The Kahn Commission (as it was to become known, after its chair, Jean Kahn, President of the European Jewish Congress) consisted of a representative from each of the Member States, two MEPs (16), a representative from the Commission and an observer from the Council of Europe.

The Commission's findings were unequivocal about the need to adopt binding legislation combating racial discrimination at the European level."

The CRX was transformed into the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), in June 1998.

"The EUMC was established in Vienna as an independent body of the European Union by the Council Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 of 2 June 1997 ..

The EUMC activities started in 1998 and ended on 28 February 2007", when the EUMC was transformed into the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) - with effect from 1 March 2007.

"The fight against racism, xenophobia and related intolerance will be at the heart of FRA's activities among the thematic areas laid down in the multi-annual Framework programme."

Do check out the FRA-newspage e.g. about the "freedom of movement and migration of Roma"..

The original report:

READ the original report! It explains a lot.

Nothing is overlooked - the report is even concerned that European "advertising fails to depict the day-to-day normality of
Europe's multicultural society".

Another taster

"13.Journalistic Guidelines

The Consultative Commission makes no attempt to disguise its opinion that, in drawing up
corresponding guidelines, consideration should be given to certain effective sanctions
mechanisms ..

The Consultative Commission encourages the efforts of the International Federation of Journalists and its creation of an International Working Group against Racism and Xenophobia ...

15.Media Monitoring

The systematic, critical monitoring of media reporting and media reception makes possible a
thoughtful assessment of what are often quickly formed prejudices...

The Consultative Commission requests that the European Commission continue to support the
European Institute for the Media and that the latter be expanded by creating a separate
department for media monitoring specializing in racism, xenophobia, foreigners and
. ...


10.Fighting racism and xenophobia through the police and judicial systems of Member States
should cover all the three principal manifestations: incitement to hatred, discrimination and racist violence.

[emphasis added by me]


The original report from the Kahn Commission --> EUMC --> FRA is the embyo of EUs race directive

and Ireland's recently adopted legislation against blasphemy.

W Baker said...

Interesting bit from the Wikipedia page on Withdrawal from the EU.

"There is at present (as of 2009) no provision in the treaties or law of the European Union outlining the ability of a state to voluntary withdraw from EU. The European Constitution did propose such a provision and, following the failure of the constitution, that provision has been carried over to the Treaty of Lisbon (it could come into force in 2009 or 2010 if a second referendum is passed in Ireland after the first one was rejected in the Irish referendum)."

Politics is somewhat like modern consumerism - albeit with only two or three choices. The salesmen only tell you the exciting, great things about the product. They never mention the built-in obsolescence or how to return a defective unit.

If I were in Ireland and in a position to ask publicly one of the talking heads, I would ask about an exit strategy.

It might be a good hitch for a few decades, but if the same idiots who control the immigration floodgates have their way, Turkey, Portugal, Yugoslavia, southern Italy (assuming it busts up north/south), etc., might be eating off the Irish dole when times get really tough.

Then the question will be should we subsidize them to not immigrate...

Pardon the ramblings.

SAVANT said...

This is interesting research Munin. I had heard of the kahn Commission but had not realises that its recommendations were so explicit. Especially noticeable is the media reference. We can see all right this 'fully representing multicultural realities' bullshit that really pisses me off.

Still though, the ECHR is where the rubber hits the tracks. That's where the legislation is institutionalised.

kulak said...

The provision for withdrawal may not mean anything either way.

It does not matter if you may (legally) withdraw if you do not have the will or ability to withdraw.

Permission to speak means little if your tongue is cut out. Permission to stand means little if you are hamstrung.

But this also works vice-versa. Words on paper are not a real constraint, except to the extent that we internalize them, and use them to inculcate constraints in our children.

Do not focus on the legal points. Those are for lawyers. The important question, in my opinion, is whether it makes one's nation stronger or weaker.

In this case, I do not claim to be qualified to judge.

But I am highly suspicious.

Final thought, before I leave to await the verdict with crossed fingers:

Most of the evil we see today actually stems from this, not the EU per se.

This is (not coincidentally?) the mirror image of the neoconservative creed: Everything about the 1960s in America was bad except for all that racial egalitarianism.

I believe it is not possible to have economic integration without also weakening national sentiment. Marx was right about that.

Anonymous said...

Savant, definitely NO.

eh said...

I think there are other ways to prevent war than subjecting yourselves to rule by some supranational organization. Which I think is what the EU and its re-packaged 'constitution' amount to.

For those who read German:

Sarrazin: Anfangsverdacht auf Volksverhetzung

Berlin's former Finance Senator tells the truth about immigrants, and now he's being investigated for the crime of Volksverhetzung, which I guess is comparable to inciting racial hatred in the UK -- I believe such laws exist there as well.

Under the EU expect more such laws and prosecutions to enforce the conformity that is the EU's creed and lifeblood; 'consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds'.

If you want that, then vote 'Yes'.

Of course Ireland has also received tons of money that was extracted from other EU taxpayers. But if you vote 'No' I don't think it means you have to give it back.

Anonymous said...

Wars happen when people are denied their right to self dtermination. Redrawing of the borders and ethnic cleansing solved this in the EU countries, except for Ulster and Basque country, so I don't really see the EU as having played a role in that.
The EU just represents more money and power to the poitical class. Sad.

cygan said...

Some of the commentators here remind me of the anti-UN fanatics. Don't get me worng: the UN is a complete waste of time and money. But it is nowhwre next or near being the 'World Governmeht' that neocons and others try to frighten us with.

The EU is something similar in my view.

Munin said...

Savant, you "had not realised that [the Kahn Commission's] recommendations were so explicit" because what goes on courtesy of the ever expanding powers of the EU is largely unknown to European citizens.

There is next to nil transparency and next to nil accountability.

You are probably aware of, that (90% of) the EU accounts have gone without a properly signed off audit for fourteen years.

"The auditors found, for example, that half of all cattle declared by farmers in Slovenia (in order to qualify for grants) did not exist, while a quarter of sheep and goats had similarly "disappeared". In Spain, Greece and Italy, payments worth over 2bn euros for olive oil producers were either inflated or wrong. Worse still, in Greece the statistics that are used to determine who gets what from the CAP are controlled by the Greek Farmers’ Union."

The evolution of the CRX-->EUMC-->FRA is unknown to Europe's citizen - as is its new mandate as "Fundamental Rights Agency".

"Over the coming year the new priorities of the Agency will be decided and the broader mandate will complement the EUMC’s existing work on racism. Monitoring racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism remains core business for FRA.

Placing the combat against racism into fundamental rights says loud and clear: Equality is a right, not a privilege."

CRX, EUMC, FRA is unknown to Europe's citizen - as is/was the Starting Line Group [SLG].

"The Starting Line Group began its campaign for the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. They also began working closely with the Consultative Commission on Racism and Xenophobia whose own proposed treaty amendment was similar to that of the SLG.

What is significant is that both of these proposals now included religious discrimination along with racial discrimination. The distinct problem of religious discrimination had been recognised.

.. with a proposal to amend the Treaty itself it felt it necessary to bring in religious discrimination because racial discrimination did not cover all the problems, particularly those caused 'by the growing sense of 'Islamophobia' throughout Europe'."

Note, that it is Ireland's national government which carries the can for legislation outlawing "religious discrimination"/blasphemy and not the EU...

"SLG was formed in 1991 at the initiative of the British Commission for Racial Equality, the Dutch National Bureau against Racism and the Church Commission for Migrants in Europe. Other national and European organisations soon joined the Group, including the Commissioner for Foreigners of the Berlin Senate, the Belgian Centre for Equal Opportunities and against Racism, Caritas Europa; the European Jewish Information Centre, the Migrants Forum and the European Anti-Poverty Network."

"Today, the Starting Line Group is an informal network of nearly 400 non-governmental organisations, semi-official organisations, trade unions, churches, independent experts and academics in the European Union whose principal aim is to promote legal measures to combat racism and xenophobia at the European level."

"For the Starting Line Group the adoption of the Racial Equality Directive marks the end of the beginning. An almost ten-year-long campaign for European legislative measures against racism has come to its end and with this publication the Starting Line Group discontinues its activities."


So the Starting Line Group (officially) "discontionues its activities" when the Racial Equality Directive has been achieved - while Europeans are unaware that this "informal network of nearly 400 non-governmental organisations, semi-official organisations, trade unions, churches, independent experts and academics" and "activist lawyers" ever existed.

Munin said...


A propos "activist lawyers"...

"In this paper, we argue that the [Racial Equality Directive] RED represents the culmination of efforts by activist lawyers associated with the Starting Line Group (SLG) who (1) concluded that in an increasingly hostile political environment courts could provide an arena within which they could more successfully advance a progressive social policy agenda; and (2) learning from cross-national experiences, concluded that certain rules and institutional arrengments would create legal opportunities to exploit courts to maximum effect.

... This study shows that activist lawyers not only seek to exploit existing legal opportunities and resources, but that they also seek to engineer new ones. Existing analyses of the RED have focused on the timing of the Directive’s adoption and on the role of the SLG experts in lobbying for it.

The substantive content of Directive has been attributed to a process of borrowing from preexisting European directives concerning gender equity. This study subjects the substance of the RED to further study.

It demonstrates that the Directive prescribes a number of national-level reforms that can facilitate strategic litigation as a means of advancing egalitarian and pluralistic goals.

It argues that the SLG devised these types of provisions and persistently lobbied for them throughout the European policymaking process in order to create new legal opportunities that could be exploited in pursuit of its broader goals."

[my emphasis]

Evans Case, Rhonda. "Engineering Legal Opportunity Structures: The EU’s Racial Equality Directive as a Blueprint for Strategic Litigation"


Europeans do not know what is going on (and cannot vote these people out). Lack ot transparency and accountability are their protection.

In contrast, the incompetence and shortcomings of the national governments are in (reasonably) full view. Some people (like the usually levelheaded Savant) are aghast and ask in exasperation: "can anything be worse than the useless corrupt fools masquerading as legislators we have in this country, and in so many others?".

Transparency and accountability thus works against national governments whereas LACK of transparency and accountability works for (!) the shadowy world of the powerful networks and politicians beavering away under the aegis of the EU.

Democracy R.I.P.


PS I fully agree, that conventions on human right (such as the ECHR) are deeply detrimental, since it enables "actvist lawers" in pursuit of "broader" "egalitarian and pluralistic goals" to circumvent the political process.

However, that is an argument against making the EU more powerful (and not for).

"Commission for Racial Equality Migration Policy Group" writes:

"Governmental and non-governmental actors could already prepare themselves for the period when the Racial Equality Directive will have been incorporated into national law. Institutions that are upholding the law of a country (police, magistrates) and those who could play a role in assisting victims of discrimination (lawyers, trade unions, employers, NGOs) should undergo training on how to apply and adequately use anti-discrimination legislation."

The political project to implement "broder goals" through "strategic litigation as a means of advancing egalitarian and pluralistic goals" is thus proceeding according to plan.

In my own poor country most people are hoodwinked - but that is not your excuse, Savant.

SAVANT said...

Munim, you make a compelling case. However, I'm not convinced it's against the EU per se.Even if we accept that transparency will decline and that bureaucrats will gain more power, this is not in itself a bad thing.

Your view presupposes that such bureaucrats support the 'liberal/progressive' (of course it's neither liberal nor progressive) agenda. But that's not necessarily true. Bureaucrats tend to be ideology neutral, and their efforts are directed towards protecting their own positions.

There's no reason why 'people like us' - if there were to be enough of us, couldn't use the bureaucracy against those currently using it against us.

We just need to organise ourselves the way the SLG and others have done.

makarska said...

@munim: These are just some of the people lobbying the Eurocrats. Everyone is at it. I agree with Savant - it's up to the rest of us to be as active.

Anonymous said...

Savant writes

"Bureaucrats tend to be ideology neutral, and their efforts are directed towards protecting their own positions." I would extend this idea to say that they will naturally *expand* their own positions. As is argued for other systems, existence without growth is impossible. This is used as justification for every manner of control, abuse and robbery.

What Munin has shared, in part, reflects a particular tactic with regard to the maintenance of bureaucratic power. It consists of the non-trivial implementation of acronym morphing and labyrinthine committee transmutations, all in a cascading effect that keeps everyone, even the bureaucrats, confused or off-base.

Who can make sense of any of these changes? Which is the result of the actions of sovereign government, a "faceless" cooperative board, an advisory group or semi-private foundation? The possibilities are endless, as are the opportunities for job changes amongst those who have made it into the hallowed circle.

Today I read a similar view of the media, and it struck me like a bolt. The MSM *deliberately* keeps their data bits and distractions jostled and confusing, never satisfying the listener. It creates a sort of psychological anxiety and dependence. The more I thought about it, the more it made sense.

It is well to remember that all of these people we are wary of, who have the resources to retain banks of lawyers, also have and exercise the ability to hire all manner of professionals to assess the common mind and its likely response to every new scheme, and to formulate strategic forward mapping accordingly.

I don't think any of this, to whatever degree it may be true, is a match for an astute and assertive polity. It can take years, however, for any significant percentage of the population to wake up. I would like to believe that today we are at the foot of a terrace leading upward to better self-governance.


Anonymous said...

There's no reason why 'people like us' couldn't use the bureacracy to our advantage.


one more time


Goodluck with that...tell me how it works out

I think you need to spend a few hours dwelling on what you just posted and the sheer stupidity of it.

Anonymous said...

@anon 8.02. Let me respind. What I'm saying is that if our opponents can do it so can we. You ask how? Well my respinse would be to look at what our opponents did and do.

My point is that bureaucrats tend to be non-ideological. They are out to protect and expand their own power and priveleges. It's because our opponents are making such a fuss that these developments are happening. WE can do the same.

kulak said...

Well it's now official.

The Jews are the only troublemakers left in Europe.

Too much too hope for, but it would be interesting to see a racial breakdown of the vote.

I understand Dublin (Today) had an exceptional turnout.

Munin said...

Savant, what can I say..

Your answer (if I understand you correctly) that it "is not in itself a bad thing", that there is next to nil transparency and next to nil accountability, exposes a fundamental difference between us.

It would seem you do not prefer democracy.

I do.

I share Churchill's view: democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

I am therefore firmly of the opinion, that lack of transparency and lack of accountability is a bad thing.

If I understand you correctly, you however think, that lack of transparency and lack of accountability could be useful for 'people like us' - IF 'people like us' somehow took control of the vast, sprawling structure that is the European project/union/superstate.

"I don't see how the movement [can be reversed that was] set in motion thirty years ago" says Bat Ye'or regarding the integration of Europe with the Arab world (for integration read subjugation).

"It is a project that was conceived, planned and pursued consistently though immigration policy, propaganda, church support, economic associations and aid, cultural, media and academic collaboration."

This comprehensive approach has been pursued with even greater vigour for the EU-project. It would seem that you discount that...


The Savant wrote: "Bureaucrats tend to be ideology neutral" and "bureaucrats tend to be non-ideological".

Savant, do you you regard the European Commissioners as bureaucrats? Presumably you do.

The European bureaucrats are tasked with "integrating" Europe.

That is NOT an "ideology neutral"/"non-ideological" agenda.

"The Comission must adapt its modus operandi to the new system in which ideas come from the top. It must insure against the risks involved - for risks are involved - by converting the Member States to its conviction that the real answer to the major problem facing them lies in the collective Community solution implicit in the construction of Europe. It must make vigourous and incisive use of its power of initiative when choices which are decisive for Europe's future are being made. It must not betray its own ideals.

This awareness of our role, this profoundly political attitude, this ambition to get Europe to change gear and direction, have inspired the programme I am about to present to you. It is an overall programme which we believe could herald a new phase in the construction of Europe."

Does this sound like someone who is "non-ideological"?

The author is Fran├žois-Xavier Ortoli - president of the European Commission between 1973 and 1977 - making a speech in 1975.

Another little titbit from the same speech (1975!):

"The Euro-Arab dialogue

The commission will do everything in its power to ensure that progress is made with this project - a joint political cooperation/community venture which was launched last year. In so doing the commission will be helping to set up and operate agencies of interest to both groups of countries with a view to a close and lasting cooperation."

"The Euro-Arab Dialogue was inaugurated in Paris in July 1974. Representing the European side were Mr Jacques Sauvagnargues, President of the Council, and Mr Francois-Xavier Ortoli, the Commission President; the Arabs were represented by Kuwait' s Foreign Minister and the Secretary-General of the Arab League."

Regarding The Euro-Arab dialogue and its objectives - unknown to European citizens - see

The Euro-Arab dialogue has morphed and proliferated e.g. the EuroMed Partnership, MEDEA, the Barcelona Process, the Euro-Mediterranean Foundation a.s.o - it is at least as sprawling and as difficult to grasp the extent of as Europe's monitoring of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-Roma etc.

Munin said...

This passage (from the article in NewsWeekly) is perhaps particularly astounding:

"At Alexandria in October, 2003, Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission (in 2006 elected Prime Minister of Italy) announced the Proximity Policy which would place the Euro-Mediterranean partnership on an equal footing [for Euro-Mediterranean read Euro-Arab/North-Africa, my comment]. The practical instrument would be the Euro-Mediterranean Foundation, enabling new policies and cultural and intellectual exchanges.

Prodi encouraged the advisory group to create a "friendly neighborhood policy" in which the EU would consider its "Mediterranean partners" on a par with the Eastern European countries that had entered the EU.

The ensuing report recommended that the new Eastern European member states could themselves become open lands for southern Muslim immigration. This influx would assist Arab states concerned about their rapid demographic growth.

The Muslim populations of Bulgaria, the Balkans, Turkey, and those of Turkish origin in Germany and Austria, could combine with Arab Muslims in bringing about the diversification of European Islam.

It was believed this new European Islamic culture would dispel the notion of a rampant Islamisation of Europe."

If you find the above a bit hard to believe... here is what the report said:

"Secondly, enlargement in the longer term to Bulgaria (where 10 % of the population is Muslim), and then to the Balkans (including Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has a Muslim majority), and finally to Turkey (combining a secular political regime with the Muslim religion, with 80 million inhabitants at present), will lead to the inclusion of a ‘historically’ European Islam. This, combined with the presence in Germany and Austria of populations of Turkish rather than North African origin, will contribute to the diversification of Islam in Europe.

These two future developments will have a number of positive effects on the prospects for immigration and on the place of Islam in Europe. First of all they will show that a European Islam has come into being, thus dispelling the image of a creeping Islamisation of Europe. This European Islam is developing its own characteristics which increasingly distinguish it from Islam as lived in Muslim countries."

(page 16)

So... a massive influx/inclusion of muslims in Europe will "[dispel] the image of a creeping Islamisation of Europe"?!

Yeah right... I suppose the operative word is "creeping".


Please READ this bizarre report e.g. "Recommended actions and decisions"

"We would also like to see a special effort by States on the north side of the Mediterranean to promote the learning of the languages of the southern shores of the Mediterranean, particularly Arabic, among their own school children. This sort of encouragement and commitment to giving the younger generations of Europeans a taste for these languages and a desire to learn them will be a decisive step in the direction of renewed dialogue between the two shores of the Mediterranean and a crucial element of the internal dialogue within Europe between the local populations and the new Europeans who are descended from migrants."

Munin said...

If the URL to the bizarre report "Dialogue between peoples and cultures in the Euro-Mediterranean area" does not work - here is another URL to a doc-file:

togo said...

Throughout the West bureaucracies are reflections and tools of the dominant ideology of PC-multicult-cultural Marxism. It's hard to see what-short of a revolution-could change that.

Anonymous said...


You've received a mildly "dis-honourable mention" in your stance with this EU vote, by none other than the highly respected U.S. immigration reform website seen HERE.

SAVANT said...

Well, I've certainly opened up a hornet's nest with my post. No support from anyone. Boo hoo!

Well, there's some really informative and compelling comment there, and I'm in headlong retreat!

However, I'll just take one parting shot as I disappear over the horizon. My basic position is that the top 'rulers', for want of a better word, have almost all been democratically elected politicians. If they're the ones calling the shots, well, we're the ones who elected them.

A second parting shot: The middle level bureaucrats are almost all non-ideological. I know this because I USED TO BE ONE OF THEM! (albeit on the scientific rather than political sphere).

By inference, if we the people elect the 'right' top guys, the Prodis et al, they will set the direction for the non-ideological apparatchiks. This is where 'we' are losing out. The peecee, multiculti mass immigration lobbies are blowing us away.

But that happens in all democracies, the USA is a prime example.

Last word, it's our own fault. It's not the EU per se, it's the EU WE created.

Anonymous said...

@leadpb: Cul you explain your point about the MSM please? I sense you're on to something significant, but I just can't really follow it.



Anonymous said...


Sorry I can't come up with the original reference, it was only in passing. The idea is that the MSM, by design, churns out a constant stream of fractional information that teases more than it informs. The newspapers are a little better about follow-up but most citizens get their "news" from TV. It is simply crap. About 25% is sensational news (fires, helicopter rescues and the like) that affects almost no one, 20% is sports and weather, 30% commercials and the rest can be called news on some nights.

At least where I live, the tidbits turned up by TV news are frustratingly incomplete, the result of atrocious management and even worse "journalism". Hired mainly for their looks, these people make *very* good money in the larger cities.

So the question is, is all of this deliberate? I think it is but probably more in a commercial way than anything psychologically devious. The end result is the same: viewers hooked on "junk" that serves no real purpose other than distraction. Depending on where you sit, anxiety-driven distraction can be of benefit in keeping minds off real issues. Such as the EU or health care "reform".

Think about it next time you watch the evening news. It is almost like that old Monty Python sketch of the newscaster going on and on about officious-sounding business that amounts to senseless drivel. Quite hilarious-- as a parody.

Anonymous said...


Welcome to another installation of Fabian Socialism. Same turnip truck, different day. The minute the EU became more than a trading block y'all were fucked. It will only proceed in pre-programmed linear fashion and it will never stop of its own accord.

Thanks, Munin, for posting some valuable and enlightening material. I loved this:

"The practical instrument would be the Euro-Mediterranean Foundation, enabling new policies and cultural and intellectual exchanges."

Ah, nothing like that brain-numbing bureau-speak. Boilerplate special. Language like that does not come before studious training, but once acquired the key words are inter-changeable. Just like the subject peoples who scurry under their musing eye.


Munin said...

The Irish Savant wrote: "..if we the people elect the 'right' top guys, the Prodis et al, they will set the direction for the non-ideological apparatchiks"

It would seem you have rather missed the point, Savant.

Every vehicle, project, enterprise need something that drives it forward and at the same time brakes to stop it going too fast, too far and in the wrong direction.

When (e.g.) Fran├žois-Xavier Ortoli 1975 spoke about "a new system in which ideas come from the top ... converting the Member States to its conviction that the real answer to the major problem facing them lies in the collective Community solution implicit in the construction of Europe ... this ambition to get Europe to change gear and direction" there was no formal opposition.

The European project/union/superstate has very weak (almost no) institutionalised brakes. There is no effective structure/institution which supervises, critically evaluates and opposes the agenda of the European Commission.

According to you this does not matter, "if we the people elect the 'right' top guys".

Precisely which European politician/s do you trust to be in charge of a project with next to nil transparency, next to nil accountability and without (hardly) any brakes??


You lay a guilt trip on "we the people" for electing the wrong guys. It is (according to you) thus the "we the people" who are responsible for the "top guys" being able to hoodwink the European citizens - "it's our own fault".

It is... how shall I say... an 'interesting' idea, that the electorate (!) in a democracy is responsible for the mistakes and actions of the government. Are you sure you want to go down that particular road?


There are good reasons for a limited integration of Europe. The keyword, however, is limited.

To standardize and harmonize e.g. the voltage in the distribution networks (electricity) in Europe made perfect sense.

To standardize and harmonize e.g. the shape of bananas (and other fruit and vegetables) made no sense at all. There is, however, no European bureaucracy/institution whose business it is to weed out and block those rules and regulations - devised by the merry European apparatchiks - which are unnecessary, cumbersome and/or downright bizarre.

To harmonize "the shores of the Meditarrean" (i.e. Europe with North-Africa) is something else alltogether...

kulak said...

Savant said: My basic position is that the top 'rulers', for want of a better word, have almost all been democratically elected politicians. If they're the ones calling the shots, well, we're the ones who elected them.

Most voters are presented a selection of candidates from which to choose, and are not involved much, if at all, in the selection of the selection.

To invert Stalin's maxim about counting votes, it does not matter if the votes are honestly counted if you get to pick the slate of candidates.

This is the trick of modern 'democracy'. The trick works because democracy doesn't scale. (Incidentally, the scaling exponent can probably be determined in a similar way to counting the number of animal species in a box of size L.) The bigger the polity, the more diverse it is, the less democratic it will be in fact, regardless of forms.

Multicultural / multiracial societies are ALWAYS tyrannies. End of story. Constitutions don't matter.

The task is not to get the right guy at 'the top'. The task is to define 'the top'. As long as you agree with your enemies on that, you'll never get anywhere.




Admit a superior class to which allegiance is owed, and you'll assuredly be paying it.

But that happens in all democracies, the USA is a prime example.

Absolutely. We blew it. Too bad you guys did too.

The USA is also far too big, and should be broken up.

Anonymous said...


I always enjoy reading your comments but cannot agree that the U.S. is "too big" and needs to be broken up. Size is not the problem, especially geographic size. The problem is the 1965 Immigration Reform Act which has drastically and senselessly expanded the diversity of the population.

We had serious issues before that of course, but nothing like today. Now things are so muddled it is easy for leftists to say "there are no meaningful distinctions in culture, race or national origin-- watch them continue to melt away". And equally easy for those on the right to advocate dismemberment. Either extreme is to be avoided.

As you say, when a society becomes more multicultural/multiracial, the more tyrannical its "democratic" government will become. Maybe that is a principle that needs a formal hypothesis, if it does not have one already. Still it is not an unmanageable position.


Tim Johnston said...

I am in agreement. Currently travelling so I didn't see this excellent post until now.

I also believe the EU is essentially a good thing (although it was the EEC once and I was happier with that, when it was just about money) as it should, in principle, provide for regional stability, and local independence within a framework or minimal interference, IF, as you admit, it stays minimal.

I only object to attempts to standardise taxation, culture or otherwise interfere with Europe's valuable diversity. As in true diversity, not "multiculturalism" - but the kind where regional and ethnic differences are actually recognised and not ignored.

SAVANT said...

Thanks Viking - I need all the support I can get! In support of your argument, I point out that the EU bureaucracy that is supposed to be taking us all over gets about 1% of tax revenues. Many constituent governments take up to 40%. You can't do a lot with just 1%.

Having said that I'm by no means an unqualified supporter. The EU is prey to a range of forces which support mass immigration. especially by Muslims. Those forces must be fought at every c orner.

Zngr said...

Like many things EU is a good servant (which it has been and was as EEC), but a bad master. In Finland, it encourage the state to more sensible tax schemes and even improved legislature here and there.

Then again in the new century, for example immigration policies are often justified (singularly on false terms, I might add) as simply adjustments demanded by (in reality non-existent) EU regulations. EU has become the explanation for administrative stupidity of incompetent politicians or those with other than national agendas, such as the believers in an stateless Europe, naturally full of immigrants. "Oh, you don't like this? Well the EU regulations say X and Y so we must do this".

There is great confusion regarding the Lisbon treaty. The gist of if is, from my very limited understanding of something as vast and complicated, this:

Does to Lisbon Treaty enforce the position of EU as a good servant (as it supporters claim)?

Or does it rather make EU the de facto ruler of the member states, in which the members would for example irrevocably lose control of their borders (such is it remains) and legislation?

Much of the opposition comes from the, quite often correct, perception we are being lead into the future by a non-elected bureaucratic organization which constitutes of an elite who are utterly distanced from the life of their future subjects.

What is worse, there is almost no transparency of the machinations of and operations of the Union. Critics say the current EU constitution is almost unreadable and unintelligible to the common man, which others say has been made so on purpose.

heraclitus said...

Good point from zngr. Many of the unpleasant things today are explaoined away by blaming 'the EU'. From direct experience I know that at least some of these excusies have been false.

Munin said...

Savant, are you unable to reappraise your rose-tinted perception of the European project/union/superstate?

Like Viking you adore the IDEA of an European Union - which you refer to as the EU per se (!) - without wanting to look too closely at what the REALITY of the EU (today) entails.

Few dispute, that it was (in theory) a good idea to try to prevent another war in Europe, by making it not in e.g. Germany's interest to attack its own export markets (in neighbouring countries). But what was devised (whether because of naivite or more sinister motives) was a construction without any checks and balances (brakes), with next to nil transparency and next to nil accountability. Such a creation is per se bad news.

Such a creation will (over time) adopt grandiose plans e.g. substitute "new Europeans who are descended from migrants" for "the local populations", harmonize "the two shores of the Meditarrean" (i.e. Europe with North-Africa) , actively promote the expansion of Islam in Europe a.s.o.

Such a creation will (over time) endeavour to control what is taught in the schools and what is disseminated by the media.

And such a creation will (over time) implement comprehensive monitoring, supervision and sanctions against those, who object to its grandiose agenda.


"RAXEN (RAcism and XEnophobia Network) was founded in 2000 and is coordinated by the EUMC (European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia) in Vienna. From 1 March the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) became the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).

The RAXEN network consists of 27 so-called National Focal Points (NFPs), each one of them representing a EU Member State."

By exploring this URL you can check which organisation is/was a "National Focal Point" in your own country.

It would not be surprising to learn, that the profile of the "National Focal Points" varies somewhat from country to country.

Britain's a "National Focal Point" is/was probably: http://

Munin said...


Let's look at Ireland:

The "Consultative Committee's on Racism and Interculturalism" reports of "Six-Monthly Racist Incidents" in Ireland can be studied here:

List of NCCRI staff members:

Anastasia Crickley, (Chairperson), Philip Watt (Director), Atinuke Achioya, Benedicta Attoh, Sinead Cullinan, Joe Leneghan, Zoe Thompson, Fiona McGaughey, Kensika Monshengwo, Kate Morris, Jennifer Wallace, Karla Charles, Carina Fitzgerald.

Can the Savant please give us the lowdown on these people?

Atinuke Achioya is Administrative Officer, Synergy Project. The Synergy Project is described as "a North/South intercultural initiative for the border counties of Ireland and Northern Ireland".

I am sure "Atinuke Achioya [who] arrived in Ireland 2000 [and] holds diploma in Architecture obtained from the Ogun State Polytechnic in Nigeria" was an obvious choice for an "intercultural initiative for the border counties of Ireland and Northern Ireland".... (irony).

However, Ireland (and most other countries) now have new "National Focal Points":

The Irish baton has been passed to The Irish Council for Civil Liberties.

"The European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) has appointed the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) and University College Dublin (UCD) School of Social Justice as the FRA’s new RAXEN National Focal Point on racism, xenophobia, islamophobia and anti-Semitism in Ireland.

The ICCL/UCD consortium will be assisted by a panel of the country’s top academic experts, as well as by the Immigrant Council of Ireland (ICI), which has been subcontracted to develop the communications work of the RAXEN National Focal Point."

"The RAXEN National Focal Point function was previously performed by the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism (NCCRI) which closed at the end of 2008, after the Government withdrew its funding."

Perhaps the Savant can shed some light regarding the people staffing the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL), the School of Social Justice at UCD and the Immigrant Council of Ireland (ICI).


Savant, you wrote perspicaciously: "‘It feels good’ for certain people."

You have made a correct anlysis.

"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm - but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves."/ T.S. Eliot

People, who are "absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves", are totally unscrupulous.

Neither you nor I (nor any of your regular readers) are of that ilk.

But as an ex (?) bureaucrat of the EU you have (regrettably) gone native (so to speak) and are therefore unwilling (or perhaps unable?) to take a long, hard, dispassionate look at the EU (and at the wisdom of voting yes to the Lisbon treaty).

SAVANT said...

Munin: Those people you mention are absolutely typical of the diversity quangos that infest the country.

This lady 'came to ireland'. I love that. What this means is that she came in pregnant, claimed asylum, and by the time the new cultural enricher was born gained de jure Irish citizenship through having an Irish born child.

She then went on to draw on the public teat by joining the diversity industry. Hopefully our economic crisis will result in these parasites being neutered.

I have to laugh - a 'diploma in Architecture from Ogun State University'. Hold on while I wet myself. I've been to Ogun State.... I can't go on!

Moving on, you refer to me as if I were an unalloyed apologist for the EU. I'm no such thing and have deep, deep reservations. But eqaully I think, make that know, that it's a long long way from being the kind of super state you and others refer to. It might happen, then again it might not and the thing could even unravel.

Anonymous said...

You obviously don't give any credence to all the net info about communism/fascism, the French Revolution and two world wars being funded by the Rothschilds and their globalist kin (just throw this in: all Windsor Princes circumcised by a Rabbi). People don't just go to war. And if there is no profit to be made the war doesn't happen (see Smedley Butler and others.) Now the EU is in the iron grip of these international Jews/Freemasons/globalists/Satanist. Brown is directed by international Jews Mandelson and the Millibands (grandsons of immigrant communists) who in turn take orders from the Rothschilds. Obama is surrounded, suffocated by International Jews, many of whom have US/Israeli citizenship. Sarkozy is an International Jew. Even Ahmadinejad has been revealed as a Jew (that was always obvious). I say to people: research, research, research. IT's not easy to get your head around the process of seeming enemies - who even try to destroy each other - being controlled by the same people, be they Freemasons, International Jews or whatever. Get your heads around the global power structure: The Committee of 100 at the top, then The Club Of Rome, The Trilateral Commission and the Council On Foreign Relations, then NATO, the UN, the EU, then the politicians who are no more than managers. At the grass-roots we now have people like the secretive Common Purpose in the UK who take orders from the globalist Trilateral Commission. The Fascists and Fabian Socialists wanted the same totalitarian Europe - they just disagreed about the modus operandi. The Fabians won - fascism by stealth.

Anonymous said...

eh said...

Dear Savant,

... that it's a long long way from being the kind of super state you and others refer to.

It doesn't have to be a "super state"; the European Parliament only has to exist for it to make laws which will then be imposed on Ireland. Isn't that clear?

I won't respond to all of it, but to me there is a lot of naivete here on this thread. Especially about how politics works -- the 'horse trading' that goes on. Politicians will trade a 'Yes' vote on a law they don't like -- e.g. some Europe-wide statute on 'inciting racial hatred', or 'denying the holocaust' -- for a 'Yes' vote (from another member) on some other law. This is the way it works, and is why people complain about unscrupulous politicians.

And I can guarantee you that, as an entity, the European Parliament will work toward the entry of Turkey into the EU. And to me that is reason enough to oppose any furtherance of its power and influence.

SAVANT said...

eh: I think you're overlooking one point in terms of the horse-trading. Politicians have basically one interest - the get themselves re-elected.

Up to now those proposing the mass immigration peecee agenda have encountered little opposition. But suppose a groundswell of opposition started growing at grass roots level. Are you telling me that the politicians would risk their own skins in order to (god forbid) get Turkey into the EU?

Maybe, but I don't think so. Again I say, it's up to us

Anonymous said...

I think you are wrong.

They want it so much it must be bad, just based on that fact alone.