Category Archives: European project

Why Dalrymple voted for Brexit

Dalrymple spends part of every year in his house in Shropshire

Despite the fact that the European Union is far from being the cause of all the country’s problems, the outcome of the 2016 UK EU membership referendum steers Britain away from a potential monster, Dalrymple tells an interviewer.

Although no sensible person would liken it to the Third Reich or the Soviet Union, the EU nevertheless bears the seeds of an unfree state. It wants to force different peoples together in an artificial union. Dalrymple notes that Belgium is such a union: it holds together, more or less, but to do such a thing on a larger scale is to court major problems.

And the argument that the EU is the only way for Europe to play a role on the world stage can be swept aside. The EU has shown only weakness.

The European project, says Dalrymple, is little but misplaced megalomania.

 

Advertisements

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.

Plus,

nobody likes to admit that they have made a mistake.

The crumbling EU soft-dictatorship

screen-shot-2017-01-08-at-09-45-45Dalrymple suggests that many of the 52% who voted for Brexit in the UK European Union membership referendum might have done so

because they feared that the ‘European project’ was the creation of a vast sovereign state to slake the thirst for power of megalomaniacs of the political class, impossible of even minimal democratic oversight, a giant Yugoslavia.

The leaders of France, Germany, and Italy have said that they want to push forward to closer political union. Dalrymple comments:

Consider the following. The French government, whose legitimacy no one will deny even if he denies its competence, is attempting some weak reforms of the rigid French labour market. This has resulted in months of conflict and continued violence. But at least the reform is the work, or attempted work, of a French government. Imagine if the reform were imposed by fiat of a European government despite the opposition of the French government and members of the European parliament.

The hydra is genderqueer

screen-shot-2017-01-05-at-20-34-09Dalrymple writes that

if genderqueerism spreads, one can only hope for the future of the human race that the biotechnologists find a way of turning Man into a kind of hydra, the simple coelenterate that reproduces not sexually, but by budding.

Being genderqueer, he says,

is a bit like being a European according to the projectors of the European Project: that is to say one identifies not as German or French or Portuguese, but as European.

Man and meaninglessness

screen-shot-2017-01-02-at-10-27-27Lack of meaning is a serious problem in modern Man, says Dalrymple. This is so particularly in Europe.

Dalrymple asks us to consider the possible sources of meaning in people’s lives:

  • the struggle for existence. This no longer applies. It is impossible to starve in the West.
  • religion. In England, and certainly in France, it is nearly dead. England is a very irreligious country, and France is an anti-religious country. (The English are too lazy to be anti-religious; they’re just not religious.)
  • politics. Whatever you say about Marxism, it provided people with a transcendent purpose. They thought they were taking part in something bigger than themselves. They were. Unfortunately, it was something very bad.
  • Participating in or contributing to culture. There has been an almost deliberate cutting-off of people from any sense of continuation of a culture. It’s not as bad in France as in Britain.
  • patriotism. In Europe this is shunned. It is equated with the worst of excesses.

What is left? Advocates of the unitary European State try, says Dalrymple,

to make the European Project (as they call it — they never tell you what it actually is) a source of meaning, but it is no source of meaning.

Superior rationality of the Eurocrats

screen-shot-2016-12-05-at-19-45-29Thwarted élites, Dalrymple points out,

are not good losers. They resort to any manœuvre to ensure that they prevail.

Brexit

is by no means a certainty.

But just say that Britain were able to effect the departure from the European Union that most of its citizens want. In that case,

the EU’s hopes for survival would rest on catastrophe for Britain. If it were able to prosper outside the Union, or maintain its level, the value of the Union would be called into question by the peoples of Europe even more than it is today.

screen-shot-2016-12-05-at-19-47-28Imperative that the British be made

  to suffer for their impertinence,

as Admiral Byng was shot pour encourager les autres. This could not be done

without causing harm to European companies that do a lot of trade with Britain; but when it comes to the EU, politics overrides economics. If it did not, the common currency would not have been created, for there was little justification for its creation; to the contrary, there were many obvious disadvantages for most member countries.

screen-shot-2016-12-05-at-19-49-44The ‘European project’, Dalrymple explains,

is a political rather than an economic one. A prosperous economy is only desired insofar as it is necessary to produce a strong and powerful polity. The aim of the EU is not peace but power. The driving force of the Union and its so-called project (never spelt out) is megalomania.

The wishes of Europe’s people not only must not be followed,

but should be neither consulted nor even known. This contempt for the opinions of the ruled was inherent in the European ‘project’ from its inception, its founders believing in the incapacity of populations to know what was in their best interest, and that a cadre of the enlightened knew their interest better than they.

screen-shot-2016-12-05-at-19-52-24‘Democratic oversight’

should be appearance rather than reality,

that the masses might believe

they are ruled by consent. Any pretence of such oversight must not be allowed to interfere with the serious business of benevolent, wise, but bureaucratic or technocratic control of society. Politics is to be abolished in favour of administration: the dream of every utopian from Plato to Marx and anarchists of every stripe.

But Dalrymple notes that

riding roughshod over a population’s opinions and sentiments in the name of a supposedly superior rationality is not a very wise policy.

A public flogging

That is the proper penalty, writes Dalrymple, for any man

who uses the phrase European project without spelling out its denotation.

screen-shot-2016-09-24-at-19-12-06

For the European élite, high tax is an intrinsic good

Screen Shot 2016-07-24 at 10.15.00

Not a happy ending

Every country, Dalrymple points out, ought to

use the means at its disposal to solve its own problems that arise from history and culture.

Yet a large part of the so-called European project is the plan for a

fiscal straitjacket, accompanied by transfer payments from one country to another.

Glancing at the newspaper the Monde, Dalrymple comes across an article on the subject of la tentation du paradis fiscal that carries the heading

Après le Brexit, le Royaume-Uni fait le choix des charmes dangereux du dumping fiscal

This is a reference to an idea floated in some parts of the UK government that corporate tax might be cut to 15%. ‘Fiscal dumping’ here means

levying a tax rate on corporate profits lower than that of other nations.

Some people, Dalrymple ventures,

might call this competition.

The Monde‘s use of the term ‘fiscal dumping’ is telling, says Dalrymple, about

the dirigiste European political élite mindset. They cannot say a priori what rate is ‘correct’, but terming a 15% corporate tax rate ‘dumping’ implies that there is a correct rate.

The implication is that national differences in tax rates are inherently wrong, and that the tax rate ought to be high, even if a lower rate results in a higher take.

One might think that the main attraction of high tax rates is the distress they cause to those who pay them.

Dalrymple explains that the belief in a ‘correct’ tax rate

can only mean a belief in the uniformity of tax rates in Europe, and in overruling each individual country’s preferences and needs. Uniformity implies the need for a centralised authority over which there could never be the slightest democratic oversight. There is no European people to elect a European government, and never will be.

Official tax rates and effective tax rates may differ.

A system of concessions, exceptions, and bribery is likely to flourish where rates are high and it is worth avoiding and evading tax. A corrupt or flexible polity with a high tax rate may impose less tax in reality than an honest one with a low tax rate.

Screen Shot 2016-07-24 at 10.06.32

The real meaning of the European Project

Screen Shot 2016-07-20 at 22.58.13The vote of the British people to leave the European Union has been characterised by some of the losers, such as the BBC or

the left-liberal mouthpiece of the pensée unique, the Guardian,

as

nothing but an eructation of primitive prejudice.

Dalrymple reports that a survey has found that nearly half of young people who voted to remain either wept, or felt close to weeping, afterwards. This survey suggests either their depth of feeling or, more likely, says Dalrymple, their

emotional incontinence.

Many young people selectively interviewed by the media said that they felt that their future had been stolen from them by those who voted for Brexit. Dalrymple comments:

The fact that the youth unemployment rate in Belgium and France is 25%, in Portugal 30%, in Italy 39%, in Spain 45% and in Greece 49% did not seem to worry them. They were not of the youth-unemployment class.

The correlation between relatively low levels of education and a vote to leave was remarked upon. Dalrymple points out that

  • educated people initiated and carried out the Terror in the French Revolution
  • the Russian Revolution, and the joy that it brought to the Russian people, was the dénouement of decades of propaganda and agitation by the educated élite
  • there was no shortage of educated people in the Nazi leadership
  • the leaders of the Khmers rouges were relatively highly educated (in France, as it happens)
  • the founder of Sendero Luminoso was a professor of philosophy who wrote his doctoral thesis on Kant

The campaign to leave the EU may have appealed

to xenophobes. But it is an elementary error of logic to argue that if xenophobes voted for leaving, then those who voted for leaving were xenophobes. The fact that so many supporters of Britain remaining made this error suggests that education and the ability to think are not identical.

The implied corollary

was that there was nothing to choose between continued support for, and submission to, a corrupt and self-serving political élite on the one hand, and beating up foreigners on the street on the other.

You may wonder what the need for such a union is at all,

other than as a free trade area, which it was when it was mendaciously sold to the British electorate as being in 1975.

Well, it is this, says Dalrymple:

The abuse and the complicity, the secretive rule by decree by career politico-bureaucrats without any real oversight, is not the consequence of the so-called European Project, it is the European Project.

Lies of the British political class

Screen Shot 2016-07-13 at 08.17.57Dalrymple explains that in the run-up to the Common Market referendum in 1975, the British government, which was in favour of remaining,

lied to people.

The main argument of those who wished to leave the EEC, Dalrymple reminds us,

was that remaining would destroy British sovereignty and therefore parliamentary democracy.

The government distributed a pamphlet to every household in which it claimed, inter alia:

No important new policy can be decided by Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament.

Screen Shot 2016-07-13 at 08.18.34This was, of course, a falsehood. Everyone knew, Dalrymple points out,

that the EEC was never intended to be merely a free-trade area (or rather, customs union), and that it was, from the very first, a political project more than an economic one. The falsity of the claims in the government’s pamphlet was soon evident, but there was no demand for another referendum.

British membership of the EEC thus

continued on a foundation of false promises by British leaders.