Skip to main content

Origins of the EU (1)

(Pamphlet 9 of The European Economic Community - Berlin 1942)

"It cannot make sense to join all the European countries through a customs union just to build a smaller version of the English global economy full of the same mistakes. Customs unions are a useful means of  removing unnecessary difficulties between two national economies of the same level,  if required."

Few people realize that the project of a European Union began in earnest after World War I.  It had two powerful strands, the International Socialist Pan Europa movement of Count Coudenhove-Kalergi and the German National Socialist plan for an EEC.  In many ways WWII, including the holocaust, can be seen as a civil war between the proponents of these two views.  The Pan Europa movement survived WWII and is still very active. At the opening of the Strasbourg Parliament it was credited with a major role in the movement towards the creation of a European Union.  However, it was the German experience of running a united Europe after 1940 that provided some of the practical background for the first efforts towards a united Europe, especially the integration of coal and steel industries in the 50s.  A translation of Pamphlet 9 of the German plan for a European Economic Community (Europaische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft) is presented below.

Few people understand that the fascist Axis was composed of a number of voluntary members:  Italy, Germany, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Austria, Finland, Japan and Vichy France.  Countries such as Spain were ideological fellow travellers and Yugoslavia was briefly a member.  It was a European ideological movement, not just the Germans.  The Lesson to be drawn from the fact that Fascists and Nazis found an EEC to be acceptable is that the EU is not an antidote to fascism and fascism can be Internationalist.

The Basic Question: Europe – Geographic Concept or Political  Fact?

by Prof. Dr. Heinrich Hunke
Economics Committee Adviser of the NSDAP, President of  Germany’s Economic Publicity Agency.  [After WWII he was General Secretary, Academy for Spatial Research and Planning (ARL) in Hanover, advising the German Government on Treaty of Rome etc. and a member of the Lower Saxony State Parliament for the BHE and acted as a senior official in the Ministry of Finance of the State of Niedersachsen , most recently as Deputy Director.] 

New Learning and Thought

Since the start of World War I, Germany, Europe and the whole world has had an  object lesson in economics and economic policy full of truly bitter experiences for  all concerned and which, on the other hand, provides new perspectives of  unimaginable magnitude. True, crises happened before the world war; the wealth  of great nations’ had been wiped out by violent conflicts and in the American Civil  War, economic warfare emerged as a new weapon. But the last 25 years have  shaken the spiritual and practical structure of the economy in such a way as no  other period.

In August 1914, the world held as absolutely true the belief that the economy was  something that existed on its own and was a law unto itself. It was the President of  the Issuing Bank and the men of commerce, professors and lay-people who noted  from the inexorable increase in global trade both the signs and the nature of a new  economic era. Now, 25 years later, the economy has become controllable, one used  to serve its people, and now experts and theoreticians are involved in gaining more  knowledge about economic and political life.

We in Germany had to deal with the problems of economic reconstruction very  early on, so we were the first to get away from the idea of everything being  determined by the automatic laws of economics. It was National Socialism that  was first to recognise that work represents the foundation and wealth of a social  economy. This means that work has to be the corner stone of any future moral  order. Here, then, is the Archimedes Principle that can turn the whole capitalist  economy upside down. We have also learned that the main tasks ahead can be  recognised and affirmed without the belief that they can ultimately be achieved.  What is required is a clear understanding of what stands before us, without which  the desire to tread new economic paths will never be present.

In 1923 in Germany the ever-depreciating reichsmark created a feeling of  impossibility and moral derangement. The creation of the ‘stabilised mark’ was an  unexpected miracle for most of us. In 1932 we all saw that we had to solve  unemployment, but the old doctrine failed to see any possibility of doing this. It  started with the crystal clear understanding of a few people about economic  processes, then the faith of many people and the iron resolve of one individual who  sought the solution of this massive task, which flew in the face of all previous  experience.

Today we are faced with similar tasks together with the other European nations,  such as rebuilding the European economy, mobilising our agricultural sector,  industry and transport. Solving these problems keeps providing us with new  perspectives and challenging the theories and practices of the past.

Two things appear necessary to us now: firstly, everyone needs to be made aware  of the tasks that face us. Therefore it pleases me that it has been possible for our  leading experts to discuss here the economic problems of labour deployment,  agriculture, industry, transport, currencies and European co-operation. Then these  tasks have to be recognised, understood and carried out unanimously. This is the  most difficult thing. In this period of new thinking it is more important than ever  before to create a link between word and deed, because the effective solution of a  problem relies on it first being unanimously recognised.

Finally I want to make some basic observations about the situation today regarding  the economic problem in Europe and try to establish a direction for the solution of  the political and economic problems. In doing so, I hope to make a significant  contribution to the problem of our enlarged area. To me they appear all the more  important when this important concept lies hidden under other issues and is  exposed to the same dangers.

The Starting Point for the European Task
Three Eras

In considering this question what has to be held true is that the creation of the  European economic community is a totally natural manifestation of the  regeneration of the old continent. A quick look at the last 450 years since  Christopher Columbus landed on the Coral Island in the West Indies shows this  clearly.

Firstly there is an argument that Europe lived up to 1942 from its own energy and  built up its own great culture and economy. This fact remains beyond doubt.  In purely economic terms, the discoveries had absolutely no significance for the  European economy for the centuries preceding us. The only exception being the  importation of spices and precious metals.

In his book ‘Recent World History’, Dietrich Schäfer, in agreement with every  other historian, quite rightly says, “ The New World, which today is flooding the  Old World with its products and threatens to kill off production in Europe, has  nothing to offer its discoverers. The animals it uses to create a large part of its  wealth emanate from Europe. Maize was the only indigenous type of cereal to America,   which along with the potato were the only two crops that the New World  could supply to the Old World. It is well known that it took centuries until these  crops grew in sufficient quantities to feed local populations. Even the tropical and  sub-tropical produce, which America sells today, were totally lacking in the first  one hundred years after its discovery or were only available for export on too  limited a basis to produce a profit. Sugar cane brought over from Europe was first  grown in Tahiti, but after the three centuries of Spanish ownership the yields still  remained limited. Europeans, we know discovered tobacco in America, but took  time to develop a liking for it. So there was absolutely nothing in the beginning  that could be traded profitably or in sufficient quantities. Emigrating to India was  impossible, whereas to America it was possible on a limited basis.”

The exploitation of the overseas territories only actually happened in the last  century and a half, made possible by European people and their inventions, which  turned these territories in to an overseas Europe. White people crossed the “pond”  and were followed by machinery, the railways and other means of transport. All  European nations worked together in this task. Germany, above all others,  provided the New World with its organisers, soldiers and workers. It was  undoubtedly an impressive achievement within just a few generations to provide an  entire new world with a new population, a new spirit, a new culture and  civilisation.

We still believe that it was only in the 19th century that the overseas territories  became truly significant for Europe. What we must also accept is the fact that the  achievements of Europe overseas were accompanied by its disintegration.  Three facts immediately stand out: the emergence of the global economy spelt the  loss of Europe’s economic sovereignty; the amassing of huge colonial possessions  led to the destruction of the Reich; and the success of the Anglo Saxon economic  principles signified the end of the European economic community. Three theses,  then, that should be easy to demonstrate.

The Character of the Global Economy

I mentioned that Europe’s economic sovereignity was destroyed by the emergence  of the global economy. It cannot be denied that Europe lost all interest for its  people in a very short space of time due to the wonderful opportunities overseas.  Even at the start of the 19th century, it was possible to transport the entire cotton  crop of the USA on board one ship since the output was so small then. More and  more rapidly Europe’s food and raw material basis moved to the New World and to  other continents, so that we soon became dependent on that which we used to make ourselves.   Suddenly our cereal and our cotton became America’s cereal and cotton  and everyone said: “ What does America have to say?” For thousands of years  before, though, it had been very different!

This development would have posed no danger if the new global economy had  represented something real, something lasting, that gave all European nations the  same opportunities. Not so, this one lived off the world power of England and  turned the other European nations into provincial areas of the English Empire.  Today all this is evident to us, strange as this may sound, as we now recognise that  the creation of a global economy can never be equated with the society of any  nation. The domestic, urban and social economies are all supported and formed by  somebody. Family, community, nation. As long as mankind, in the political sense,  remains no more than a concept, the global economy will not become reality.  Instead it will remain dependent on political power for its foundation and order.  What the global economy means and how long it will survive depends on its  creator. We can see clearly that our efforts to establish labour division throughout  the world have undermined our very own existence.

Political Weakness of Continental Europe due to the Idea of English World Superiority

The decisive point is that Europe’s loss of economic sovereignty entailed the loss  of its political sovereignty. At the time of the discoveries around the world, the  political order of our continent began to decay. The German Reich had provided  this order for centuries, which had guaranteed its social, cultural and economic  values. As the Reich fell apart, the emphasis moved out to the nations on the edge  of Europe – to Spain, France, Holland and finally to Great Britain.  What is really decisive, though, is that Great Britain believed that the only way to  create and maintain order overseas was to render Europe politically weak. The  English Prime Minister, Salisbury, for example said in substantiation of the  Balance of Power Principle In Europe, “We do not seek to divide territories, but to  break down any dominant power.”

Mr. Eden echoed these words in November 1936: “The extent of the political  empire’s responsibility in the world necessitates its close involvement in European  affairs. Through its free position, England has come to accept three main principles  in its relationships with Europe.

1.    No power can be allowed to challenge its natural superiority in the North Sea  and the English Channel.
2.    Small nations must never be allowed to fall into the hands of large powers.
3.    Large powers must not be allowed to gain superiority in continental Europe, as  this would pose a threat to Great Britain.

Thus we see that England regarded European political weakness as a pre-requisite  for its economic dominance and also that the question of Germany does not feature  at all. Expressed more succinctly, all of England’s global economic plans will  endeavour to quash Europe’s attempt to regain its political and economic  sovereignty with every means available.

Britain’s Dominant Theory about the Modern National Economy

Following on from the above two points there then came the infiltration of Europe  by the Anglo-Saxon economic view, which disguised itself as the modern global  economic theory and was thus widely observed. It represented the following  principles:

1.    Market forces determine everything that happens on earth. Price is responsible  for regulating economic affairs and decides the fate of nations and individuals.  It replaces the need for social ideals, moral ties and state requirements.
2.    The owner of capital is in control of economic goods, production and  consumption. Capital represents the commanding position in our economic  life.
3.    International freedom of movement is the be all and end all. Everyone should  be able to settle where they see the best place for their commercial activity I.e.  where there seem to be the cheaper production conditions and the lowest  transport costs.

There is no doubt about the huge significance of these three principles. The world  has practically lived and breathed this view without looking at its foundation and  detecting its side effects – until they were revealed to everyone by the great  economic, political and spiritual crisis. In my opinion, the English economy is  determined totally by this prevailing Anglo-Saxon economic view, as England’s  economic greatness ultimately relies on the belief of its people in the rightness and  singularity of the British principles. Thus, either consciously or unconsciously,  England guided the economic development of all nations along it own lines.  Experts were dominated by this powerful theory. The dominance of the London  Stock Exchange and the hegemony of the English Pound were also the expression  of England’s spiritual power, just as the old economic science of England was. It is  also true that even up to our time there was the belief that capital shaped the  economy and that the theory of comparative costs was the pivotal instrument of  global economic theory.

As a result, people failed to recognise what really shaped their lives; and that is  people and room – not international markets. What also happened was the  automation of Europe. In a farming village it is taken as understood that everyone  depends on each other and help each other, but in Europe each nation, each person’s   job and each business lived just for its own interest. Europe had become a  geographic concept.

The Foundation of the European Economic Community

Now, though, Europe cannot exist purely as a geographical concept. Instead, its  foundation of existence lien in its political power and its consciousness of political  unity.

I will totally ignore the fact that geographers cannot even define Europe properly.  Carl Ritter, the old expert on geography, concluded that Europe, as the ruler of the  other continents, “could quite rightly provide the highest classification concerning  the world’s historical and political condition, placing it into two main categories:

a) the European world, to which even the europeanised one belonged.  b) the non-European world, which was not advanced to the level of European  civilisation.”

Regarding the question of the boundaries of the European continent he said, “ the  eastern border has been decided by the development of history” and “ Europe’s  natural border coincides with that of its people, its way of life and civilisation.”  Today our Leader himself has again pointed out that Europe has no geographic  definition, just a national and cultural one. To him, its borders are simply defined  by the West’s history to date and he pointed to Europe historical emergence, which  originated from that island in Greece, coming via the Roman Empire to the west.  To him, Europe was the area “of a family of people, amongst whom the political  organisation and objectives might be quite divergent and different. In blood and  cultural terms, though, it represents overall a unity that is complementary to itself.”  From this realisation that Europe is not a geographical concept a number of  conclusions have to be drawn, which are of crucial importance for the future  economic and political co-operation of the people of Europe.

1.    Theoretically, concepts such as an enlarged area and its economy have to be  rejected because they are vacuous and undefined. Nothing is said about the  area itself, other than it is of a particular size, one larger than has been  generally the case. We are not helped by the mere introduction of an  unsubstantiated concept in economic arguments.
2.    The decisive things in the new unity of Europe are the type of co-operation and  way of living within this unity. Important political conclusions stem from this  statement. Firstly, that it is only possible for Europeans to live a European life if the  struggle between nationalities of this area is limited to the spiritual sphere and nothing  else. Then there is the spiritual and political solidarity, even a community relating to  the area which is the decisive feature of the new structure. Finally, that the only aim of  economic co-operation can be the European economic community.
3.    The decisive economic and political conclusion, therefore, is that Europe does  not become, say, a so-called enlarged area in the sense of a smaller global  economy pervaded by the old Anglo-Saxon economic laws. Instead the  European economic community has to be shaped according to new political  categories, so it will look different to the economy of the past.

Categories within the European Economic Community

Europe, the geographical concept, is therefore in the process of making room for a  political fact. The decisive economic categories of this development will consist of  replacing the individual with society, global market with living area  (‘Lebensraum’), capital with organisation of the workplace. The success of these  three principles will herald an economic and political development of revolutionary  magnitude.

Three Principles

Society Replaces the Individual

This means that an economy’s objective becomes totally different and the unbridled  urge to earn money is no longer the regulator of the economy. In its stead is the  controlling authority of the community, which safeguards the tie between economy  and society. This must be kept separate from the organisational restrictions,  otherwise damage will be caused.

Living Area Replaces the Global Market

To clearly differentiate between these two concepts, it is best to compare the views  of their two great proponents: that of Adam Smith and Friedrich List. According to  Adam Smith’s theory of free trade through free competition each country produces  those goods which it can produce best I.e. most cheaply. Each country can then  buy most efficiently and sell to best advantage. Friedrich List, on the other hand,  held that division of labour within nations, and not between nations, brought about  the best performance. For him, an economy does not consist of mathematical  values or exchange values; rather it grows from the availability and use of latent  productive forces among the people and is synonymous with the awakening of all  the productive forces of the nation. The following table serves to show the two  opposing economic views:

Adam Smith: represents the market theory, whose highest value is the value of the market or the exchange value, international labour division is the route
to wealth, the aim of Adam Smith and of free trade is harmony between all individuals.

Friedrich List: represents the theory of productive forces, whose highest value is the productive force, confederation, I.e. the pooling of productive forces is the route to wealth the aim of Friedrich List is thedevelopment of the energy of the people.

Adam Smith’s thinking is cosmopolitan, Friedrich List’s and our thinking is  political.

There can be no doubt that the two economic views are theoretically and practically  poles apart and that is why the outcome of the present struggle will be of utmost  importance in economic and political terms for every European nation.  A note about the concept of living area itself, which I have briefly outlined as  follows: to Germany, its living area is:

1.    A sufficient area for it to be able to live and grow in an enclosed settlement in  Europe.
2.    The shift in focus of Germany’s economy to within its actual national area.
3.    The recognition of the development of a mainland European economic  community, which allows the utilisation of its inherent economic forces, and  ensures mutual supplementation through economic achievement between  friendly neighbouring nations.
4.    The extension of a colonial economic area, such as is common and possible  elsewhere in the world.

We see from this definition that living area is not identical to the area of the nation.  We also see that the liberal view, which says that economic supply is totally  independent of the politically governed area, is erroneous and can be rejected, in  the same way as the mercantile view of the identity of the national and economic  area is rejected. This view of living area clearly establishes the economic  relationship with the other nations of Europe, for if we demand living area for  Germany, this also affirms living area for other foreign nations. The aim of the  theory of living areas is simply to form a new European order, which guarantees all  nations its own living area.

Thinking in the Workplace Replaces the Theory of Capital

As I said before, here lies the Archimedes Principle, which gives us power to  construct once again a new culture, a new economy on our continent. For ages, it  has been recognised that work is the source of wealth, a fact only overshadowed in  more recent generations by a fateful superstition that said that capital somehow had  some determining influence on work. From this was born the unhealthy  consequence that a nation could have too many workers. Only falteringly do  people start to realise again that the limit of a nation’s wealth depends on its ability  to organise its work.

It is obvious that these three principles, mentioned above, will have their practical  effects. I have to point once again to the example of the revival of the south-east  European economies after 1933. This shows how new methods used in these countries   produced real indisputable successes. You see, Germany did not  suffocate its partners there with financial dependence, or make them financially  indebted. No monocultures were demanded or caused; prices were not held down.  Germany just bought goods, paid for them properly. Germany released and  developed the productive forces in these countries in the sense of Friedrich List.

A New Era

The final constitution of the European economic community could be something  along the following lines:

First of all there will be a general change in ways of production through the  utilisation of productive forces of the people. What is produced will be determined  by the energies of the nation and its area, not by the price that the world markets  will pay. One could perhaps say that freedom of work replaces freedom of the  economy meaning that those national monocultures that are controlled by price  would practically come to an end. It cannot make sense to join all the European  countries through a customs union just to build a smaller version of the English  global economy full of the same mistakes. Customs unions are a useful means of  removing unnecessary difficulties between two national economies of the same level,   if required. It would unnecessarily disturb and jeopardise the natural  coalescence of the European economies if customs barriers were suddenly removed  in Europe today.

On the other hand, the objective of future economic co-operation is to create a  community of living space i.e. it cannot be, say, the task of the new economic  policy to destroy monocultures and replace them with impossible insularities. If  the German Reich had pulled back the emphasis of its economy to its national area  then that would send a strong message to the rest of Europe. The small nations of  Europe must never remain in any doubt that they too are dependent on their  neighbours and must take them into consideration. In 1932 Sering rightly pointed  out that the strength of the American economy would break as soon as customs  barriers went up on all of the 48 states’ borders, as in Europe. Not only that, that  the European nations would run the danger of being suppressed economically and  losing their political independence if, one day, a new structural group came along  and stopped the economic deterioration of the individual nations.

There will be two fundamentally new manifestations in this European economic  community: full employment and self sufficiency in essential goods. For me, there  is no doubt that the experiences of the German people will lead them to teach other  nations ways to achieve higher employment. Nor do I doubt that the success of  European tasks, which are determined by the exploitation of large parts of the  continent, will call into play energies, which can be barely imagined today. In  doing so, as Bernhard Köhler once said in relation to the German people, the  people of Europe will liberate themselves from proletarian restlessness and build a  new life for themselves. Equally important will be the requirement that essential  goods must always be available if this requirement is adopted as a principle in  people’s consciousness, and thus adopted into the practice of the economy. The  requirement is itself final, because what other meaning could the concept of living  area have other than permanent access to essential goods! The development of all  inherent economic forces of a nation and their supplementation by friendly  neighbours are therefore the normal economic foundations and the necessary links  in the security chain of a nation.

Clearly, these effects of the European economic community will herald a totally  new era for Europe and the implementation of the new principles will have many  obstacles to overcome. The development of many processes of economic control  and economic trade between nations shows the careful approach to solving  problems that is necessary. The difficulties in Europe are in peoples’ mind, not in  the economic world.

Today it probably would not occur to anyone to take delivery of the earnings for a  community and divide it up until that money is used. It would all be worked out on  paper and each person allotted his amount. Even up to 100 years ago, for example,  brick workers had their earnings distributed, where the ‘Meister’ used to take  delivery all the money and place it in a pot before his colleagues. Then he and the  foremen would take what and this was kept separate from the amount in the ‘pot’.  Then, starting with the ‘Meister’, each worker would take their coin in turn. The  distribution of the small silver and copper coins continued until the money had  finished. The workers tended to watch the working out on paper with distrust, as it  could be wrong. However, there was no error in this method of calculation.  Nowadays we tend to laugh at this method of payment, because it is different to  what we are used to. Our attitude towards many management related issues related  is influenced by the same type of distrust, but eventually it will give way to a  greater level of understanding.

Going back to the problem of clearing peaks, it is understandable that there are still  those people who regard them with deep distrust. They would prefer to be in the  position of those brick workers, being paid bit by bit, whereas in reality the  situation is clear:

1.    It goes without saying Germany is at the moment struggling to meet its  contractual obligations in the way it did before, because it is striving to achieve a  final victory.
Besides that it must be observed:
2.    Early on in the war Germany trusted its neighbours to deliver later. Here the  word is ‘trust’.
3.    Even longer ago, the individual nations were creditors to foreign countries, but with the difference that settlement was to be in gold and foreign currency.  So basically nothing has changed except for the fact that today this type of  settlement system would be extraordinarily difficult, because very few nations  regard this method as acceptable and practical. If gold and foreign currency were  available then there would be no hesitation in entering these values in the balance sheet and to claim as cover for cash. An agreement made in a treaty is today  considered by individual partners as a risk or a burden because their expectations  have already been dashed.
4.    This is the decisive point. Today the German economy continues to supply  incredible quantities of goods and its capacities still easily exceed the demands  that are being placed on it.

The problem regarding clearing peaks that I mentioned basically relates to  decisions to do with the new Europe. The significance of the power of Germany’s  economy sets the conditions for the game that has now started. You see,  management is all about balancing out, but you can only do that if you have the  appropriate opportunities. Beyond that, the prerequisite for bringing about and  developing the European economic community is making people familiar with the  new world of ideas.

Taking a Look Back to the Past and to the Future

On our way to creating a community with living area we must not get diverted by  the minor obstacles. A quite unusual stage has been reached on our way to the new  Europe. Looking back we can clearly see as follows: we could recognise common  European problems through our shared plight. It started in November 1932 with  the Europe Congress in Rome to discuss the subject “The European Crisis” and to  review spiritual unity, economic domination and the continent’s cultural questions.  Then last year in the autumn the anti-Comintern Pact was formed in Berlin. That is  real progress in engendering the physical forces of Europe in the fight to maintain  European culture! For me there is no doubt that no nation in Europe can avoid the  great question which is being fought over today.

More importantly though, our shared plight brought about spiritual and political  movements of the same orientation throughout the diverse nations in Europe.  Almost simultaneously and independently of one another, men in all European  nations rose up and formed groups, fronts and movements. This was simply an  expression of the time that had come. They formed new ideas and, in the most  important countries, gave the state a new face. I deliberately refrain from citing  examples. Agreement is so profound that the one party system is the new political  form that is right for Europe, in contrast to the multi-party one. In the area of  economic control such unity also prevails.

In this time of disruption, difficulties and defence that we have to face it is only  natural that we keep remembering our shared past. Our common cultural basis will  slowly grow into a European consciousness.

The decisively important thing that is going to happen on our way to a new future  for our old continent is co-operation. Prussia, and with it the Reich grew from the  colonisation of all those of German origin. I believe that nothing will promote and  shape the European economic community more than future co-operation with the east European nations.

There is no doubt about the seriousness of the hour, nor the great opportunities that  exist for the whole of Europe. Today we are fighting for our very lives. Much of  what was created overseas by European people is now lost. Fate has left us with  home, family and work, which are now being defended in Europe by us. It now  depends on us whether we can once again build a new world and safeguard a new  life and wealth for ourselves. Ahead of us the outlines of this new world can be  made out. Whether we build that land ourselves, or not, is up to us. It depends on  our will and how we develop and utilise our strength.

See also Secret report shows Nazis planned fourth Reich in EU

Link to this article in Twitter with


Bill Rollo said…
"The difficulties in Europe are in peoples’ mind, not in the economic world."

I tend to stand back and look at the bigger picture, who gains and in fact has been gaining, in these changes since 1969? The Corporates, who did a deal on 'Free Trade' in 1969 and just after, sent all their manufacturing overseas, for bigger profits. What the working man did, was sell his job, UK lost hundreds of thousands of jobs; Ship building, Steel workers, Coal mining, the sell off, of 'Utilities' to foreign corporations, led to job cuts. Car manufacturing went as cheap foreign manufacturers where allowed in, something that didn't happen to USA till 1995, which is why 'Detroit' is now a 'dead' city!
Here we are looking at TTIP, allegedly a 'deal for Trade', yet the biggest growth nations, BRICS, aren't involved in the talks? The TTIP will see all power handed to Corporations, including Public Service rights, this again will see mass job losses in the public sector, as they look to maximise profits, which makes this a policy for Slavery. This is my mind, lets look at the 'economic world'. UK and US are both suffering mass immigration, for different reasons, but the same plan. UK need immigration because of the way the economy is set up, 'Debt' is growth and the more people that borrow create debt. The UK government have failed to build houses in order to create a property bubble, as the 'high mortgages' increase GDP, we have 19m people classed as 'Economically In-Active', this includes 'housewives & students', now why would it include these people, especially when students have to 'pay' for tuition? Could it be these 19m can't 'borrow', they are deemed Economically In-Active?
Bill Rollo said…
Present day, US are being squeezed from their hegemony, back in 2001 after 'Desert Storm', Saddam Hussein asked UN if he could sell his Oil in Euros, in 2002 the UN said yes, under the 'Food for Aid' program, 12 months later the US went in, murdered Saddam and placed Iraqi Oil back on the market in 'dollars'! They did the same thing to Gaddafi, obviously slow on the up-take, in 2011. He wanted the whole ME to sell it's Oil in 'new' Gold-Dinar coins, this gold has never been found?
Now China have moved into top slot as the largest economy, 3 years before prediction, and along with Russia and the rest of the BRICS nations, want OUT of the 'dollar' system, as they feel it's 1. Fraudulent and 2. It destroys local business as the big Corporations move in. To this end, the US find themselves in a dilemma, two of the biggest nations, who between them hold a vast majority of US Debt, are in direct opposition to US concerns. This is the reason for the Ukraine coup and why they also threaten Syria, Venezuela and Iran. They have found Putin wont play ball and fire the first shot, so they now challenge China, in the South China Seas, as they need a war to hide their collapse behind!
Why does one think IMF keep finding 'Greek accounts' with money in that Greece knew nothing about? Last Friday 5/6/2015, they found a further €1.3bn that stopped Greece 'defaulting'. You see, when Goldman Sachs cooked the Greek books, they then sold masses of CDS [Credit Default Swaps] If Greece defaults, half the US banking nation collapses and EU falls. If Greece are allowed a 'hair-cut', Spain, Italy and Portugal will demand similar and EU falls. They want the EU to remain after the 'reset', so will keep finding pockets with money in with Greece's name on it?
lasancmt said…
What I find amazing is that people like @JohnSydenham on twitter introduce this sort of Nazi propaganda as 'evidence' that the EU is a force of evil, a fourth reich foisted upon unsuspecting Europeans by the evil Germans. But then people like him in the same breath rant against rampant capitalism, how Brussels is in the pocket of big corporations, how TTIP will destroy the UK's precious National Health Service. That makes the position of the 'out camp' inconsistent to say the least.

We in The Netherland have an appropriate saying which literally translates: The bite of a cat is just as painful as a dog's bite. In other words "who gives a damn"?

In western democracies it is the job of our elected politicians to protect us against the excesses of either system, whether the Anglo Saxon free market or the National Socialist model.

But there is a third trend at work here, which is globalisation, The Anglo Saxon model is better suited exploiting this trend. That means the sovereignty of the nation state has become more illusion than reality. Kippers and Tory Eurosceptics still dreaming about their long lost empire hear all this talk about being the 5th or 6th economy in the world and think Britain can whether the storm alone. Reclaim it's role as a superpower, sitting at the top table of every international body.

Others (Including the late Sir Winston Churchill I dare say) think that it is time to poole sovereignty to pack a bigger punch together in a united Europe against emerging global powers threatening to overwhelm us.

Coming from a small nation state as the Netherlands, us Dutch have no illusions that our old colonial past, somehow means we can still punch above our weight. Being the fifth economic power in GDP terms might sound to kippers they can still have a go, but if you look in terms of geography and population size we in Europe are all dwarfed by the shape of things to come..

That is why the EU is not an outdated fifties concept, it is more relevant today than it ever was. It can be our anti-dote against the excesses of both world views expressed above and a buffer against storms we haven't even anticipated yet.

Just as the Dutch increase the level of their sea defenses against rising tides, we member states need to make the EU's democratic processes stronger, not weaker because we see them as a threat.
John said…
You sound tired, as if the only solution that you can imagine is total capitulation.
Cooperation on defence does not require total loss of sovereignty, moderate global trade does not require total globalisation. We can cooperate and trade without handing over our democracies to the EU Council. See

Popular posts from this blog

Practical Idealism by Richard Nicolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi

Coudenhove-Kalergi was a pioneer of European integration. He was the founder and President for 49 years of the Paneuropean Union. His parents were Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi, an Austro-Hungarian diplomat, and Mitsuko Aoyama, the daughter of an oil merchant, antiques-dealer, and huge landowner family in Tokyo. His "Pan-Europa" was published in 1923 and contained a membership form for the Pan-Europa movement. Coudenhove-Kalergi's movement held its first Congress in Vienna in 1926. In 1927 the French Prime Minister, Aristide Briand was elected honorary president.  Personalities attending included: Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann and Sigmund Freud. Figures who later became central to founding the EU, such as Konrad Adenauer became members . His basic idea was that democracy was a transitional stage that leads to rule by a new aristocracy that is largely taken from the Jewish "master race" (Kalergi's terminology). His movement was reviled by Hitler and H

Political Thoughts

Politics is the struggle for power. The fundamental power struggle is between the people of a place and the mobile classes.  Few people would turn their own garden into a motorway or commit their next door neighbours to slave working.  The mobile classes can do these things without conscience because their garden and their neighbours are not fixed. Locality is central to politics because it separates real issues from ideological issues.  Real issues such as being unable to find work, having insufficient money to pay for the basics of life, having poor schooling and healthcare etc. are all local.  If you are mobile you can move to somewhere that has work and good wages, schools and healthcare. If the answer to any problem is to change locality then the problem is not solved, it is avoided for you personally but the problem remains for others.  If politicians must live among those who suffer the results of their political decisions then those decisions must be humane but if they can move

The Report on Racism

The " Report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities " has just been published.  The Commissioners were nearly all from BAME backgrounds and have produced a robust and fair Report. The Report identified a class divide in which the cycle of advantage maintains a section of the population in wealth and leaves the large bulk of the population in relative poverty.   The wealthy class is largely white British but the poorer class consists of large numbers of white British and other ethnic groups.  This class divide causes a bias in the crude statistics on disadvantage so that majority, poor white British are labelled as "white supremacists" etc. when it is the small wealthy class that actually creates the disparity that causes this analysis. The most striking finding is that different ethnic groups had very different experiences and outcomes.  Educational outcomes demonstrate this at a glance: Red text added for this article Most ethnic groups had better outcome