Category Archives: European politico-administrative élite

Centripetal and centrifugal forces in doomed Europe


The centripetal forces, writes Dalrymple,

are those that would lead to the ever closer union proclaimed to be the purpose of the EU (eventual total union),

while the centrifugal forces are such as the following.

  • Flanders nationalists want independence from Belgium. The status and prestige of the French and Flemish languages created resentment: the Flanders aristocracy or haute bourgeoisie spoke French not Flemish; the educated Flemish speakers learnt French but the French-speakers did not learn Flemish. Many Flemings have neither forgotten nor forgiven that while Belgian army officers in the Great War were French-speaking, the Belgian infantrymen, the cannon-fodder, spoke Flemish and could neither understand the officers nor be understood by them. (Today the Flemings subsidise the Walloons.)
  • Scottish nationalists want independence from Britain. (Scotland receives subsidies from London.) Unlike the Irish, the Scots have little to complain of at the hands of the English, at least in the past two centuries. The Scots were among the greatest advocates and beneficiaries of the British Empire; and far from being an anti-imperialist movement, Scots nationalism is a consequence of the decline and fall of empire rather than a rejection of British imperialism.
  • Catalan nationalists want independence from Madrid. Catalonia is more prosperous than the rest of Spain, and its taxes subsidise other parts of the country. Catalans felt oppressed by the Franco regime.
  • Basque nationalists want independence from Spain.
  • In Wales within living memory, children could be punished for speaking Welsh on the playground. There were Welsh-speaking parents who did not want their children to grow up speaking Welsh (those of Dylan Thomas, for example) — they felt that speaking Welsh was not merely useless but harmful to the prospects of young Welshmen. The experience of being punished for speaking one’s native tongue in one’s native land is bound to create resentment. (Cardiff is a recipient of subsidies from London.)
  • Corsican nationalists recently won local elections. (Corsica receives subsidies from Paris.)
  • A northern Italian movement wants to disembarrass that prosperous part of the country of its perpetually impoverished south, which it must subsidise.
  • Many Bavarians want independence from Germany.


Dalrymple points to factors in the rise of separatist movements.

  • People dislike their near-neighbours more than they dislike distant ones. Since hatred is by far the strongest political emotion, it is not surprising that people in search of an identity find it in distinguishing themselves, usually with dislike, from their nearest neighbours.
  • There is the search for identity in modern conditions, in which even in supposedly small countries, large cities make anonymity the normal daily experience of the majority. In such conditions nationalism, like tattooing and piercing, becomes a shortcut to personal identity.


Why are the separatist movements strongly pro-EU? (This appears strange in so far as the EU would destroy or replace national sovereignty.) Why are nationalist centrifugalists so eager to form an alliance with EU centripetalists, who wish to efface the very thing the nationalists claim to be seeking? Dalrymple examines three hypotheses.

  1. The nationalists might not be aware of the contradiction. Few of us are logical calculating machines who work out the full implications of our beliefs, let alone always act in our own best interests.
  2. Out of the frying-pan into the fire: nationalist dislike of immediate neighbours may loom so large that it overcomes thought.
  3. Leaders of the nationalist parties or separatist groups want there to be more places at the top table—vacancies that they would then fill. They might even rise to the dizzying heights of the former prime minister of Luxembourg, who has long bestridden the world, or Europe at any rate, like a colossus. This he could never have done without the existence of the EU. In other words, personal ambition and the megalomania of petty potentates.


What should be the attitude of leaders of the EU towards the potential fracturing of the EU member states as they are at present constituted? Dalrymple explains.

In the short term, EU leaders have to pretend to support the current arrangements, because for the moment power is concentrated in the hands of the leaders of those member states. If the power in Madrid or London begins, however, to seep away, the path to a Europe not of the nations but of ‘the regions’ is cleared.


The giant error that is the European Union

Dalrymple notes that proponents of the unitary European state

always talk about the European project. But they never tell you what it is.

In fact the European oligarchs are building

a new Yugoslavia,

or, if we are very lucky, a new Belgium,

a dysfunctional country that somehow functions.

But Dalrymple points out that

it is much harder when you have 27 countries.

The Eurocrats, he notes, are

determined to keep it together, because it is their jobs and their power that are in danger.


nobody likes to admit that they have made a mistake.

Macron’s manifold flaws

Jumping into a taxi in Paris, Dalrymple gets talking to the (Vietnamese) driver about the presidential election. The driver says he is not a fan of Marine Le Pen, but if in the second round she is pitted against Emmanuel Macron, he will vote for her. Dalrymple asks what puts him off the male aspirant. The driver points out that Macron

  • is an unknown quantity
  • has an unpleasing face — not exactly ugly, but hard, ruthless and predatory
  • is too young
  • is a bungler
  • has enjoyed a too meteoric rise
  • is a half-cocked tinkerer at the margins rather than the radical reformer needed in these times
  • lacks experience
  • has a personal life that is rather odd (maybe he is his wife’s puppet)
  • is too plainly the candidate of the European political élite, something which of course counts greatly against him

Why corrupt élites so love the unitary European state

Screen Shot 2016-02-21 at 11.03.45 A ‘project’ that no one but the political class wants

To bypass the wishes of the people, writes Dalrymple, politicos

reintroduced the constitution as a treaty, to be ratified by parliaments alone. Only the Irish had the guts—or was it the foolhardiness?—to hold a referendum on the issue. Unfortunately, the Irish people got the answer wrong. They voted no, despite their political leaders’ urging that they vote yes. No doubt the people will be given an opportunity in the future—or several opportunities, if necessary—to correct their mistake and get the answer right, after which there will be no more referenda.

What could explain the Irish obduracy?

Several explanations came forth, among them Irish xenophobia and intellectual backwardness. The narrowest economic self-interest was also said to have played a part.

Another explanation

was that Irish citizens had been frightened by the proposal of the French finance minister to equalise tax rates throughout Europe, thus destroying unfair competition (all competition is unfair, unless the French win). No prizes for guessing whether the high tax rates of France or the low rates of Ireland would become the new standard.

Anyway, what does it matter if referendum after referendum, in Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Ireland, and just possibly Britain, defeats the proposals of the European political class?

The proposals can always be enacted regardless, by other means. What the people of Europe want is irrelevant.

The political class

loves the unitary European state precisely because it so completely escapes democratic or any other oversight (let alone control).

For this class the superstate is also

a giant pension fund.

However, Dalrymple warns that

tensions and frustrations in Europe have a history of expressing themselves in nasty ways.

The shame of being German

Cologne is noted for its vibrant nightlife

Cologne is noted for its vibrant nightlife

The European Union, writes Dalrymple, is

a bureaucratic monster, unaccountable to anyone resembling a normal human being.

It is also a

vast pension plan for ageing or burnt-out politicians who cannot any longer face the inconveniences of having to be elected.

Why are the Germans so keen on it? Why do they yearn so much for a European identity? Dalrymple’s answer:

So that they can stop being German. This, of course, will deceive no one.

Screen Shot 2016-01-09 at 07.12.44

Feeble-mindedness of the European federalists

Screen Shot 2015-06-20 at 09.56.03Harnessing hippos to a stagecoach

Europe, writes Dalrymple, is again

sleepwalking to cataclysm.

European federation is a bad idea, but

the mere badness of an idea does nothing to halt its progress.

The arguments of the European federalists

Screen Shot 2015-06-20 at 10.31.46are trotted out with monotonous regularity, like the stories of someone with Alzheimer’s, and anyone who raises objections, however obvious and unanswerable, is compared to a rabid nationalist, as if to be attached to a national identity were a symptom of hating everyone else. There are such rabid nationalists, to be sure: forced federation is the best way of ensuring their increase in numbers and influence.

Such pooling of sovereignty as has occurred in Europe

Screen Shot 2015-06-20 at 10.45.40has held its prosperity back. The currency union without any kind of fiscal union has proved disastrous for several countries, and is economically deleterious for all.

The further step of fiscal union

could only be imposed by an unelected, authoritarian bureaucracy upon countries unwilling to comply, and whose interests might not be served by compliance.

Sooner or later, a federation

would lead to war, or at least to revolution.

Screen Shot 2015-06-20 at 10.26.32

Dangerous excitements of a Sunday afternoon in Aberystwyth

Screen Shot 2015-06-07 at 16.20.51

Dalrymple says (from 7:04) that Herman Van Rompuy, former president of the European Council and the ‘finest flower’ of the European élite, makes ‘a Sunday afternoon in Aberystwyth seem dangerously exciting’


Die Nationalsozialistische Schottische Partei

From the British magazine Private Eye

From the British magazine Private Eye

The Scottish National Party, writes Dalrymple, are national socialists.

In economics, they are socialist, or at least corporatist; in politics, their rhetoric is nationalist. They are, in fact, national socialists.

Self-determination is not their true goal, of course. Dalrymple observes that the SNP’s real, though unacknowledged, aim is

increased access of the Scottish political class to the European politico-administrative élite.

This explains why, Dalrymple writes, the SNP are

firmly in favour of the European Union, an entity dedicated to extinguishing national sovereignty in Europe, and the formation of a superstate with few effective checks on the politico-administrative élite.

What they really want

What they really want

The SNP’s policies are, naturally, highly statist.

All private companies would operate, in effect, by licence from the government.

The SNP would hold

Welcome to Scotland

Welcome to Scotland

all the levers of political power, including powers of indoctrination.

Even before the last referendum,

an atmosphere of mild intimidation prevailed, such that those who opposed independence felt it better not to voice their opposition too loudly