Category Archives: unitary European state

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.

Why the British shunned the European superstate

Screen Shot 2016-06-27 at 23.11.50Dalrymple writes that the precise nature of the so-called European Project is

never spelt out or even demanded.

However, the purpose of the project is clear. It is

the creation of a United States of Europe whose main object is to be powerful.

This empire-building, Dalrymple notes,

is the obsession of the European political class, not of most of the people.

To create a unitary European state in the hope that identity will follow

seems to me to court a Yugoslav-type dénouement.

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.