Category Archives: megalomania

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.

 

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.

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.

The unspeakable folly of ‘ever closer union’

Union with a man like you? Er, no thanks

Union with a man like you? Er, no thanks

Dalrymple 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.

Faiblesses de l’architecture européenne

The European construction

The European construction

Dalrymple was having a good day until he picked up the Paris newspaper the Figaro and came across the following sentence:

This [No vote in the Greek referendum] opens a new period in the history of the European construction, in so far as, for the first time, the exit of a country from the eurozone appears as a possible, some would say desirable, outcome.

Dalrymple fumes:

I don’t know how many times I have seen the words European construction used without it being said what exactly, or even approximately, was being constructed: indeed, I have never seen them used in so frank a manner. You can, perhaps, go on a journey without knowing your destination (just about), but you cannot construct anything without knowing what it is that you are constructing.

Under construction: the Berlaymont in happier days. It was completed in 1967

Under construction: the Berlaymont, Brussels, in happier days. It was completed in 1967

It is obvious, says Dalrymple,

what those who use the words European construction in a positive sense mean: a European superstate that will, on account of its size and economic weight, be a superpower. How otherwise could a former prime minister of Luxembourg take his place in the sun of power?

How best to characterise the European construction?

Megalomania? Fascism without the boots (so far)?

The European construction euphemism should, says Dalrymple, be banned.