A Considered Opinion on the European Union


by Roger Dewhurst

Democracy can work only with small populations, a few millions or less. Only then can the electors know their elected representatives and their elected representatives be so few in number that they can have any influence on outcomes.

An elected representative is someone you can telephone, someone you can email, someone who has regular meetings with his electors, someone whose address is listed in the telephone directory, someone on whose door you can knock without being assaulted by the fucking gestapo. It more or less works in New Zealand with a population of four million. It worked a hell of a lot better when I first came here when the population was around two million. In those days I could knock on the door of the Prime Minister and he would open it himself. On one occasion he did just that, for me. There was no policeman standing outside.

If you think democracy can work in a federal Europe with many different languages, many cultures, armed gestapos, many traditional hatreds, several hundred million people, and next to no countries which have actually experienced ‘democracy’ for more than a generation, you have nothing but shit between your ears.

About these ads

25 responses to “A Considered Opinion on the European Union

  1. It would work under proper classical liberal minimal-statism. In this model of a civilisation, there are not only “representatives” who know what their proper place is, but what I’d term “better people”. This is a people approximating I guess to what you’d have found in Britain in the late 19th century, before the FabiaNazis had got their teeth into out ankles and universities and institutions. This model would work on a massive scale, as well as the mini-leve described.

    In effect, everyone agrees on the terms of public discourse and the rules for going about discussion and agreement.

  2. Agreed.

    And to those why say “that is why the Federal government will be strictly limited by the European Union Constitution….”

    The United States Constitution is a lot shorter (and a lot clearer) than any European Union document. Yet it has broken down – and (really) broke down many decades ago.

    There is no effective limit on what the American government can spend money on or how much it can spend – the words “common defence and general welfare” (the purpose of the specific spending powers then listed in Article One, Section Eight) have been taken out of context to justify any “general welfare spending” (and this trick has been normal since at at least the 1930s).

    Nor is there any limit or control on the number or extent of Federal regulations – the vast majority of which (more than 99%) are never even voted on by Congress (the “delegated legislation” trick).

    Perhaps “a few million” people is too gloomy – after all Texas (a State of some tens of millions of people) still has regulations that, bad as they are, are still (just about) understandable – one of the great horrors of the modern Federal govenrment is that it has so many regulations (and they are drafted so vaguely) that no one can read and clearly obey them (so everyone, yes everyone, may be “criminals”).

    I would say that even as late as 1964 British law (technically English and Welsh, Scots, and Ulster law) was still, just about, understanable, and still, just about, obeyable. Government was vastly too big in 1964 (just compare it to 1874) – but it was still understanable (and most people, sadly, seem to have supported the various expensive schemes the British government offered people at that time – so it was “democratic”), Personally I would prefer a level of taxation similar to that of Sark – but I would (I suspect) be outvoted.

    And the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland had a population of about 50 million people in 1964.

    But democracy in the European Union?

    Not a chance. It can not be a fuctioning polity of that type.

  3. I should say I mean “agreed” to the original post – not to David’s comment.

    I do not belive the European Union could be a functioning democracy (I leave aside whether “democracy” is a good or a bad thing) even if the people supposedly in charge of it.

    It can not be so for STRUCTURAL reasons – some of which the post explains.

    People who (like the present head of the Institute of Economic Affairs) believe the European Union would be a good thing if true believers in the free market were in charge of it, are just wrong.

    As Ropke said many decades ago “this is not a free trade association – this is a Customs Union”

    And a Customs Union with a built in (pre designed) trend towards “ever closer union”.

  4. If true believers in the Free Market (and there has not been one yet) were in charge of the EU, then it wouldn’t look like it does, or even exist.

    As the irishman who was asked the way by a lost traveller said…”If I was you, I wouldn’t be starting from here”.

  5. I am rather puzzled as to where the original proposition came from – “If you think democracy can work in a federal Europe….”. Who ever suggested that it could? The whole point of the EU is not that it is undemocratic, but that it is anti-democratic, and we are now living in what is described as the ‘Post-democratic age’.

    The archictects of the EU stated quite openly that they could never have achieved political union with the consent of the people – it had to be done by stealth, one slice at a time, while pretending it was all about Free Trade.

    What was it Arnold Toynbee said in 1931? – ” …. all the time we must deny with our lips what we are doing with our hands”.

    The difficulty is that the British do not know or care that our country is now governed by unelected bureaucrats who meet in secret and issue no minutes. Rodney Atkinson describes the European Commission as ‘one of only three legislatures in the world that meets in secret – the other two being Cuba and North Korea.’ I do not know if that is correct or not, but how many Commissioners can you name? How many Commissioners are there? Nobody knows and nobody cares, but these are the people who make the laws which pour onto our Statute Book irrespective of whether our own elected Parliament is sitting or not.

    They are careful to preserve the appearance of a democracy by having an elected EU Parliament (which trundles up and down the road between Brussels and Strasbourg every month at great expense), and indeed we maintain our elected Parliament at Westminster for the same purpose, although they do little other than rubber-stamp EU Directives.

    The EU has now got us where it wants us – since adopting the EU Constitution (a.k.a. Lisbon Treaty) as our own, we are in a position where we can do little to effect our escape. Prior to Lisbon, the EU was an intergovernmental organisation of sovereign nations. The ‘new’ (post-Lisbon) EU is a Unitary State – a quite different animal. Paul, please bear with me here – I know I’ve been over and over this with you, but I just had a ‘lightbulb moment’ and I would like to try and explain it better: – Prior to Lisbon we could, as a sovereign country, easily have repudiated the Treay of Rome (by repealing the 1972 European Communities Act) and we would have been out – just like that. If the EU had tried to use force to keep us in (as I have always maintained they would be quite prepared to) they would not have been able to do so. They could not send in the paramilitaries – the EU Gendarmerie Force – without the consent of the Home Secretary. And if they had sent tanks through the Tunnel, that would have been an invasion of a sovereign country – an act of war.

    Now, however, everything has changed. The Lisbon Treaty, for the first time, provides for an exit mechanism. We simply invoke Article 50 and say we want to leave. Job done. This is currently UKIP’s policy. But there is a snag. There would then ensue a two year moratorium, during which we would remain in the EU but be excluded from all talks. I am convinced that by the end of that two year period we would wish we’d kept our mouths shut.

    Some people seem to believe that we can somehow by-pass the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty and get out ‘with the stroke of a pen’ (that was your phrase, Paul – and please bear with me here – I am going to try to explain it a bit better this time). If we tried such a trick, the EU would then be absolutely justified in sending the EGF over here to ‘maintain order’. Since Lisbon they no longer need our permission. And if they sent their tanks through the Tunnel, it would no longer be considered an act of war. They would be merely quashing a rebellion, which they would be quite entitled to do, just as King George did with his troublesome Colonials in the 1770′s. Do we have a George Washington in our midst today?

  6. The logical conclusion to be drawn, from what Hugo says, is that “there is no provision for a nation leaving the EU”. This is rather like the Roman Empire – in fact exactly so. But in 411 Britian was “decolonised with the permission of the Emperor” … of course at a time when he had rather more pressing concerns.

    These concerns will of course reasert themselves and soo as we all predict. It may be that Cameron is stalling on the EU just for the moment when he can quietly slide us out while their backs are turned as the fight bigger fires internally. It would be nice if it was true, but I tend to doubt it and think we may have to force the door open and run.

    What does anyone else think?

  7. Quite the opposite – the Lisbon Treaty does, for the first time, provide a mechanism for withdrawal, in Article 50. Trouble is, it is deliberately designed to make it all but impossible. I am told Stalin had a similar clause in thew Soviet Union. What I find interesting is that both Christopher Booker and Nigel Farage are proposing the use of Article 50, apparently oblivious to the two year moratorium that would ensue (during which we are excluded from a ny participation in the EU while remaining bound by its rules). Booker suggests invoking Article 50 to give Cameron ‘leverage’ to strengthen his negotiating position; Farage proposes to use Article 50 to leave the EU in the prescribed manner. Neither of these men are stupid, yet they both seem to be ignoring the provisions of paragraph 3 and 4 of Article 50. Or else I am missing something. I have e-mailed Chris Booker to ask him exactly this question, and I’ll give Nigel a call as well & see what he says about it (if he’s not too busy being interviewed by leggy blondes on RT these days!). I do know they talk to each other (Booker & Farage) & it will be interesting to see which of them has come with this idea. I just don’t think it is feasible however.

  8. …you want true democracy? why vote for representatives, it would be better if this representation was won by lottery, quite like how a Jury is selected for Criminal cases.

  9. Well, er. Ummm.

    The whole problem with the EU, which it itself knows – or it wouldn’t have gone about ensnaring nations in the way that it actually did – is that the whole shebang, scam, concoction, nostrum, witch-doctormedizin or shennannigan is a complete fraud-or-slitherplan. The buggers who did it, know it: they have admitted it cheerfully.

    On this basis, we have the absolute right to repudiate the entire thing, “treaties” and all, whether agreed by us or not.

    All bets are off, all paper is torn up, and all “contracts” are voided: while leaving, refusing to co-operate in any further acts, and _/turning off the money/_ – all of it, now – , we can therefore simultaneously give the bastards co-ordinated advice that refers to the combination of far foreign travel with the sexual act of procreation. (You can infer what that is, yourselves – this is a “family blog”.)

    It is not clear who will come after us, and for what.

    (1) We will of course pay our bills to private suppliers of goods. This goes without question, since these are commercial contracts made between willing buyers and sellers. We owe them far more than they owe us, since our exports to the world are in surplus and to the EUSSR territories are in deficit. No problem, squire!
    (2) Which countries have the military capability to threaten us, and which ones then would? Let’s do a list…
    Austria (1995) (can’t get here)
    Belgium (1952) (has nothing)
    Bulgaria (2007) (probably actively against the bastards in their proposal to invade us, see “Romania” below)
    Cyprus (2004) (ditto)
    Czech Republic (2004) (ditto)
    Denmark (1973) (very ditto)
    Estonia (2004) (does not give a stuff)
    Finland (1995) (ditto)
    France (1952) (jittery, and feeling guilty about being such ungrateful smelly scumbags in 1914 and 1945)
    Germany (1952) (don’t think so, do you? We owe them too much dosh)
    Greece (1981) (paralysed)
    Hungary (2004) (probably would like to cheer us but don’t dare)
    Ireland (1973) (we’ll offer them Sterling 1:1/euro on our leaving)
    Italy (1952) (bust)
    Latvia (2004) (probably would support us)
    Lithuania (2004) (ditto)
    Luxembourg (1952) (what? where?)
    Malta (2004) (probably would send soldiers for us if it had any)
    Netherlands (1952) (would want to keep well out of it)
    Poland (2004) (Radek Sikorsky would probably put his armed forces at our disposal, the mad fool)
    Portugal (1986) (bust)
    Romania (2007) (wants to send 5 million workers here so it needs us to be functioning)
    Slovakia (2004) (probably would send a few “military decontamination squads” in our support)
    Slovenia (2004) (has nothing)
    Spain (1986) (bust)
    Sweden (1995)(too involved financially with us to see us trashed)

    So there you have it. Obama will certainy side with the EUSSR, as he is a fascist pig. He sides with fake countries against real ones (as you know) so he has form there But we can simply order him to remove his USAAF bases from East Anglia, to the chagrin of both the personnel and the locals (but that’s life and war) and see what will happen. He will turn off the master-keys to our Tridents, but we can buy decrypts from the Iranians, the Israelis, or shootinputin187, all of whom will know what these are.

    Of course, the EUSSR could always enlist the aid of Argentina. We may well lose the Falkland Islands in a diversionary-spoiling-action, timed exactly to hurt us just at a critical time. Prompted of course by Spain: indeed, we might have to evacuate Gibraltar for a bit. If I was the Argentine War secretary, that’s precisely what I would do, to try to cause pain, humiliation, a few dozen dead civilians for the Daily Mail to video, and embarrassment. But we would have to be strong, grit our teeth, and quietly sink particular identified cargo vessels unannounced, outside Buenos Aires’ territorial waters, until the point where insurance rates for Argentine-related shipping go mental and worse, and its govt falls under money-pressures.

    There will be no need to nuke the ski-lift power units at Bariloche: the Argentine government will respond much earlier than this point, to the “right kind of suggestive prompting”.

    We could simply “go”. We would inform the EUSSR that we’ve gone, that we’re not interested in “taking part for two years more while not being able to talk or infulence”, (so much ofr being at the heart of Europe) that there’s no more money coming from us”, and that would be that.

    It’s not exactly clear to me how or why any other countries or “trading blocs” would care much about the fortunes of the EUSSR, we having gone (and simultaneously knocked its credit-rating for six) since all they’d rightly care about is that we continue trading with them and their firms.

    “I pause for a reply.”

  10. “I would not start from here” – I have heard that one a few times…..

    As for the European Union.

    I suggest the United Kingdom leaves.

    Neither the Power family (my mother’s people) or the Marks famiy really held with legal talk.

    And that is what presented saying “we can not do this” and “we can not do that”.

    The E.U. has no military and (more important) no will to fight.

    So it is NOTHING.

    The trouble is……..

    The British House of Commons is (mostly) NOTHING as well.

    Till they grow a backbone they will be urinated upon.

    If they grow a backbone (or are replaced by vertebrates) then the urination will stop.

    I am far more concered about the United States.

    Barack Obama is someone who will kill (or rather, order killings) for his beliefs.

    I respect him – whereas I do not respect the E.U. people at all.

    Saul Alinsky (the Communist in-all-but-name who is presently burning in Hell) used to get very upset when young Comrades quoted Mao about power growing from a barrel of gun.

    “The other side have most of the guns” he used to cry.

    That is why it is vital for the Comrades to take over THE GOVERNMENT – as in a stand up fight the local National Rifle Association people would kill the local “Weathermen” (or other Students for a Democratic Society types). If the Comrades control the government – perhaps that all changes.

    How much power does Comrade Barack (these days) have over the military these days?

    Will they obey his “Executive Orders” (and what not) or not?

    Well we will soon find out.

    We live in what the Chinese call “Interesting Times”.

  11. David Davis, I would love nothing more than to be able to agree with you, but with the greatest respect I fear you have not kept up with events. Prior to the 1st December 2009 I would have agreed with every word you say. The EU was then an intergovernmental association of sovereign nations, and as a sovereign nation we could have easily repudiated the Treaty of Rome and left. Any reprisals on the part of the EU would have been illegal.

    But the moment we subordinated ourselves to the Lisbon Treaty, a.k.a Constitution for Europe, on 1.12.09, we effectively abandoned our own ancient Constitution and placed ourselves under a foreign jurisdiction. This is, I would imagine, the first time a country has ever done this without being conquered militarily first. Our position is now exactly as though we had fought a war and lost. Our Queen has blatantly broken her Coronation Oath by handing over her subjects to a foreign power in what I regard as the greatest (probably the only) act of treachery ever perpetrated by a monarch against her own people.

    The good news, as I said earlier, is that the Lisbon Treaty does, for the first time, contain an exit clause. But as I explained earlier it has a sting in the tail. You appear to be arguing that we should follow this approved, legal, method of withdrawal, and then ignore the legal consequences, which I fear would be physically enforced.

    We would still be bound by EU Directives, however we left the EU. It is very important to understand that this would be the case WHATEVER course of action we took. All EU Directives have been incorporated in to UK Statute Law, and that is where they will stay until they are individually repealed. When it comes to EU Regulations, it all starts to get interesting. They will, in law, remain in force for two years after we invoke Lisbon Article 50. You are saying we should ignore them? I say, and have always said, that we can only do that if we are prepared to back our actions with force. We would be acting illegally; – the EU, as I said earlier, would be legally justified in sending in the paramilitaries to restore order, and we would have to repel them by force.

    We cannot simply repudiate the Lisbon Treaty as we could the Treaty of Rome. Lisbon is just another name for the EU Constitution. Whereas the ‘old’ EU derived its authority from the agreement of sovereign nations, the ‘new’ (post Lisbon) EU derives its authority from the Constitution itself. No longer is it an intergovernmental organisation, but a Unitary State, and we now have the status of a colony.

    The EU has a paramilitary force with guns and immunity from criminal prosecution. The only thing they can be held liable for, curiously, is if they damage your car in a road traffic accident. If they shoot you while resisting arrest, well that’s just too bad. And they do already have powers of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment without charge. And the French will soon have their hands on the main circuit breaker which will cut off electricity supplies to these islands. We would have our windmills, of course, so let’s pray the wind keeps blowing.

  12. Paul Marks, I have to disagree with you when you say “The E.U. has no military and (more important) no will to fight.”. The whole starting premise of my argument is that if we leave, the EU is broke, and will crumble as others leave. The combined forces of the EU and successive traitorous British governments have spent more than half a century manoeuvring us into this position, and they are simply not going to let us go without a struggle after all that effort.

    And how can you say they have no military? They were establishing a European Army when Blair was in office, although Blair denied this. Romano Prodi rather blew the gaffe with his bizarre comment that “you can call it Margaret, you can call it Mary Anne, but it is still a European Army”.

    The major EU ‘internal security’ force is the EGF, the European Gendarmerie Force. They were formed precisely to suppress trhe kind of dissent you are advocating. Lisbon also establishes a Common Foreign and Security Policy, and in addition there are dozens of different organisations such as the 60,000 strong Eurocorps; Eurofor (the EU’s rapid reaction force); Europol (the EU police force), and so on.

    My starting premise, as I have said, is that the EU cannot survive without us, and my finishing point, assuming we ever elect a patriotic (i.e. UKIP) government, is that this will ultimately boil down to a conflict between the government and the European Court of Justice. If we repudiate the Lisbon Treaty; the ECJ will not recognise our repudiation, and we will not recognise the ECJ’s repudiation of our repudiation.

    You may believe that will be as far as it goes. I wish I had your confidence. Or should that be complacency?

  13. “Democracy can work only with small populations, a few millions or less. Only then can the electors know their elected representatives and their elected representatives be so few in number that they can have any influence on outcomes.”

    Your figure of “a few millions or less” is already outrageously high. Your argument makes little sense on its own terms. How can millions of people “know” their elected representatives? Presumably a large minority of them won’t have voted for “their” representative at all – if the representative will do what the fellow at the door asks anyway, why have an election?

    In the unlikely scenario that everyone voting agrees to abide by the results of the vote no matter what, then you have a democracy. This works when say, five people go together to the cinema and agree to all watch whatever the majority chooses. Outside of arrangements of that sort, the word “democracy” is meaningless.

  14. Hugo some men will always find a reason not to do what needs doing.

    “complacency”?

    Actually I do NOT think United Kingdom will leave the European Union,

    Not because we can not – actually it would be as easy.

    But because people like yourself keep saying we can not because of…… lots of Moonshine and other such.

    It is like Sean and Scottish independence.

    Sean says that he supports Scottish independence (he has never suggested that Wales and Ulster should be kicked out – so an “Independent England” is not the aim).

    Then he says that if they go for independence there should be no freedom of movement or of trade, indeed that an electric fence should be built along the border. And the Queen should be forbidden to be Queen of Scotland as well as Queen of England (as if Scots were less human than Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders and……).

    If independence came with such add-ons it is rather unlikely that the Scots would vote for it.

    So am I cynical to suspect that Sean does not really want to break up the United Kingdom at all?

    Turning to the E.U.

    I suggest we leave.

    You reply “I would love Britain to leave the E.U. Paul – but the Lisbon Treaty and the ECJ and Europol, and Blair’s Euro Army and…..”

    It reminds of a young lady saying “I would love to come out with you – but I am washing my hair”.

    Sadly I suspect that most of Britain (certainly most of the House of Commons) is like that.

    So NO CHANCE of leaving the E.U.

    Not because they would do X, Y, Z. – actually the E.U. would do NOTHING.

    But because people here just grumble.

    They do not really want to do anything.

  15. Carl; “This works when say, five people go together to the cinema and agree to all watch whatever the majority chooses”. That is not democracy, that is anarchy. Democracy is when you have a prior agreement to go with the majority vote. There is a subtle difference!

    Now Paul, I must be giving the wrong impression, since you keep saying I am just looking for excuses to wash my hair – sorry, avoid leaving the EU. All I am doing is spelling out how the legal position has changed dramatically since the Lisbon Treaty was ratified. Incidentally this makes Gordon Brown the most successful Prime Minister of modern times. Blair had ten (?) years, during which he not only failed to get us into the Euro but also failed in his attempt to impose the EU Constitution a.k.a. Lisbon Treaty on us. Then along comes Brown and within five minutes Lisbon is signed, sealed and rammed down our throats without a murmur of protest. They can’t believe their luck.

    No, Paul, I am not making excuses for inaction. What I am doing is saying that ‘actions have consequences’ (to quote David Lynch’s ‘Inland Empire’ – one of the best movies ever made). And if we fail to anticipate and prepare for those consequences we shall just be swatted like flies, as were Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. They thought it would be simple, too.

    As for the House of Commons being too timid or making excuses, I don’t believe it’s like that at all. They simply do not understand the issues. They are (mostly) college kids who have been indoctrinated by their respective Parties and have no knowledge at all of the real world. They almost universally believe that we have to be part of ‘Europe’ because that is the Party line. That is as far as their thought processes stretch.

    You keep saying it would be ‘simple’ to leave the EU and indeed it would. We just invoke Article 50, as Nigel Farage proposes, and wait two years. I think that two year period is where the trouble lies, you apparently do not. Fair enough. But Paul, what would we do about all the Directives? Every single one of these Directives would remain in force even if we were to nuke Brussels tomorrow. Last time I counted them there were about 180,000 Directives and Regulations. I frankly have no idea what proportion of these are Directives, but it must be a lot. Probably half would be a reasonable guess. And more importantly, I have no idea what areas of life these Directives cover, but I’ll bet we would get some nasty surprises. We would think we had left the EU but the bulk of EU law would still apply! We would have to repeal all the Directives one by one, and that would take time. I am not ‘making excuses’ for anything by pointing this out. All I am saying is that we need to explore the consequences BEFORE we act.

    And you seem to believe that if we ignored the Regulations during the two year moratorium the EU would let us get away with it. Now THAT is complacency. They have been working on this for over half a century. They are not going to let us blow it now, not without a mighty struggle. I am sorry if that sounds as though I am ‘making excuses’ for inaction. My argument consistently has been in favour of doing whatever is necessary, but if we are going to act outside the law as you propose, we must be prepared to back it up with force if it is to have any credibility.

  16. Hugo – I wish I had hair to wash.

    What I am saying is not that the regulations you mention do not exist (they do exist) – but they DO NOT MATTER.

    Unless – you MAKE THEM MATTER.

    Telling people “we wil have to back it up with force” (and on and on) is really saying…..

    “Do NOT vote to leave the European Union – because there will be bloodshead if you do vote to leave”.

    You may not mean to – but you are actually HELPING the European Union.

    Much as Sean helps PREVENT the “independent England” he claims to favour – by saying that it would lead to an end to freedom of movement, freedom of trade (and even undermine the monarchy).

    If you tell people…..

    “Vote to leave the E.U. – but it will lead to terrible bloodshed and chaos, with Europol and the EuroArmy and ……”

    What you are really doing is saying….

    “Vote NO to leaving the E.U.”.

    I say yet again.

    The E.U. would huff and puff if we left, but they would do NOTHING.

  17. I repeat – when I see men of violence I admit it (Barack Obama is clearly a man of violence – any opposition to him should take account of that fact).

    But the E.U. leadership are not men (and women) of violence – they are NOTHING.

  18. Paul, I share your views about Obama, but I’m trying to stay focussed on the EU for now. And I share your hairstyle. But I do not share your views about the EU. Can you clarify what you mean when you say “What I am saying is not that the regulations you mention do not exist (they do exist) – but they DO NOT MATTER.” which regulations ‘do not matter’? Do you mean the regulations which would govern our exit from the EU if we left by the approved route (i.e. followed by a two year moratorium)? I think these matter very much indeed. We would be bound by all Regulations for that period. And worse still, all Directives would remain in force indefinitely until we repealed them one by one. Trouble is, that if we chose to ignore the Regulations and Directives during the two year moratorium, not only would we be acting illegally, but the country would collapse into chaos, as these now make up the bulk of the body of our laws and Statutes. Nobody would have a clue what is legal and what is illegal any more.

    And what would you do about all the Directives? I once calculated that if we repealed these at the rate of ten a day the task would take us forty years. I was probably including Regulations in this figure, so with a bit of luck just dealing with the Directives – which we would have to HOWEVER we left the EU, would take years if not decades.

    I believe the EU would in any case be prepared to enforce the law by any and all means at their disposal – I believe that you have misunderestimated the EU, as G W Bush might say. On that point we differ, and that is as much as can be said until events determine which of us is closer to the mark. I have been in this game for twenty-odd years now, and I have never wavered from the view that we would never get out without blood being spilt. If that conclusion deters people from attempting the task, that must stand as a condemnation of the British people, not a condemnation of my analysis. Do you think I should keep quiet in case I upset people? Do you think the American Revolutionaries would have thanked George Washington if he had assured them it was going to be a cakewalk?

  19. Even if a Euro”gendarmerie” was to fly in here, and let us say take over all the airports, all the port facilities, all the radio and TV offices, then(a) how many would this need, and (b) how long before people got pissed off with them and started to, er, (I have deleted what they would perhaps do.)

    How long would it be before other nations, perhaps not obviously on our side,such as EU nations including, say, Germany, or others like ArgiChIndoBrazilia, started to complain that their own people are sickened by the Youtube videos of ordinary chavs being lined up and shot in public squares in Manchester and Bootle and Wakefield and Reigate, as is the Prussian rebellion-suppression practice?

    Yes of course: the British Police are likely to support the EUGendarmeris in its work. The Norwegian chief of Police has recently just apologised for the deportation of 772 Jews to concentration camps under Quisling’s orders. Wwe cannot count on the Police. But what of the armed forces, whose muscle-power comes largely from the chav class? (It’s not offensive to state this: it’s merely true.) Will they obey their officers, not of the chav class but from somewhere in the middle) and open fire on their own brothers and sisters?

  20. Even I have to call a conversation at an end sometime. I have failed to explain these matters. And I am not going to try any more.

    So I leave the field to you Hugo.

  21. Paul – I have set out the legal position. Whether we left by legal or illegal means (via Article 50 or ignoring it) we would be tied up for years by EU Directives, all of which would remain in force. That is not my opinion, that is fact. As for the Regulations, I think the EU will try to enforce them and you don’t, which is as far as we can take that. But I would really like to know how you think we would deal with the legislative chaos that would ensue with regard to the Directives. Day after day the law would be changing as the Directives were disposed of one by one. They have come in gradually over forty years and that has been bad enough with the rules changing every five minutes. If we tried to repeal them in a hurry it would be mayhem. In fact some we would probably have to keep, and we would have to decide which those would be.

    David, you refer to “a Euro ‘gendarmerie’” as though this were some sort of fantasy. The EGF was established in 2007 by the Treaty of Velsen. They are based in Vicenza, Italy, and are ready to roll at a moment’s notice, precisely to deal with insurrections such as we are proposing. Theyu would not need to adopt the heavy-handed approach you describe. A few arrests of prominent troublemakers and it would soon fizzle out.

    And as for other countries getting involved, as I have said before (maybe on a different discussion), prior to 2009 if the EU had taken retaliatory action they would have been acting illegally and we could have called for help. Now, post Lisbon, we are living in a different country altogether. Lisbon provides a mechanism for a Member State to leave, which is what UKIP is proposing to use. If we decided to bypass or ignore this mechanism, we are the ones who would be acting illegally, and the EU would be fully justified (in law) in using force against us. That is the legal position.

    I have assumed a rather in depth knowledge on the part of readers as to how the EU works. In the absence of this knowledge much of what I am saying will probably make no sense, as the reality is very different indeed from the public perception. I would be delighted if anybody wishes to challenge any individual points I have made, and I will try to justify them. I am talking about factual rather than speculative claims. Indeed I would be equally delighted to be proved wrong. Any takers?

  22. I see that, bang on cue, the Obama administration is urging us not to hold a referendum and to stay in the EU.

  23. Pingback: Director’s Bulletin, 26th May 2013 | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

  24. Pingback: An Update from the Libertarian Alliance « Attack the System