Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
One of the best books ever written on the EU, April 6, 2006
This is a new edition of the authors' 2003 classic history of the European Union from its origins immediately after the First World War to the present.
They show that the EU is not about sharing or cooperation between sovereign governments. It is not inter-governmental, but supranational. The dividing line is the veto: where there are vetoes, there is still inter-governmentalism, still independent, sovereign nations; with vetoes gone, there is only a new, supranational form of government beyond all democratic control. Governments and parliaments are left in place, but are subordinated to the EU.
The EU's founder Jean Monnet described the EU's method: "Europe's nations should be guided towards a super state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation." The single currency was the most important of these steps: as Monnet said, "Via money Europe could become political in five years."
Giuliano Amato, Vice-President of the Convention that drew up the EU Constitution, said, "In Europe one needs to act `as if' - as if what was wanted was little, in order to obtain much, as if States were to remain sovereign to convince them to concede sovereignty ... The Commission in Brussels, for example, should act as if it were a technical instrument, in order to be able to be treated as a government. And so on by disguise and subterfuge."
How has EU membership affected Britain? Our industries have become expendable. For example, when we entered the EEC, a senior civil servant in the Scottish fisheries department advised ministers not to go into any detail on the damage caused to the fishing industry: "The more one is drawn into such explanations, the more difficult it is to avoid exposing the weaknesses of the inshore fisheries position, the only answer to which may be that in the wider context they must be regarded as expendable."
We do not need the EU. The National Institute for Economic and Social Research found that withdrawing from the EU would not lose us jobs. The Independent reported this as, `8 million jobs could be lost if Britain quits EU' (18 February 2000). The NIESR's director, Dr Martin Weale, described the report as "absurd ... pure Goebbels. In many years of academic research I cannot recall such a wilful distortion of the facts." Subsequently, Gordon Brown claimed, "750,000 British companies export from Britain to Europe": the government's own figure was 18,000.
The EU has created a system of agencies, over-ministries, which are already directing national governments and civil servants: Europol, Eurojust, the European Human Rights Agency, the European Fisheries Agency, the European Railways Agency, the European Chemicals Agency, the European Aviation Safety Agency, the European Maritime Safety Agency, the European Environment Agency, the European Food Safety Authority, the European Health Protection Agency, the European Health and Safety Agency and the European Defence Agency.
The EU Constitution was designed to give these bodies legal authority, but the EU carries on regardless of the French and Dutch peoples' rejection of the Constitution. A leading military journal, DefenceNews, said, "voters cannot so easily put the brakes on destiny." The head of the European Parliament's defence sub-committee, Karl von Wogau, said, "I am not discouraged for the European Security and Defence Policy because it has its own fixed agenda and that will move ahead even if the constitution is not in place." As Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Council, said, "If it's a Yes we will say `on we go', and if it's a No we will say `we continue.'"
The authors tell us about the EU-wide network of academics who propagandise against their nations, on behalf of the EU, the 491 Jean Monnet professors, 102 in British universities. The `Jean Monnet Project' co-finances 2,319 teaching schemes in universities to `promote European integration'.
The British working class's resolute hostility to the euro defeated that EU attack. The EU's rulers and their quislings still want to impose their Constitution. We must respond by demanding that we leave the EU, to save all the EU member nations' national interests, our democracy, and our sovereign independence, our right to govern ourselves.
|
|
|
5.0 out of 5 stars
CELEBRATING THE END OF THE EU - FINALLY!!, October 22, 2009
I am overjoyed to be the first person to my knowledge in human history to my knowledge at present at present to simply declare that it's permanently over for the European Union. I have been stating this over and over and over and over and over in Iceland for months now even though Johanna Sigurdardottir , our current prime minister and one of my many friends has refused to acknowledge openly that the European Union is a failure at best , and part of a global conspiracy at worst , which had ineviteably to collapse on it's own weight due to the vast number of supporters , membership states , and almost anything else. I am so pleased to have this inner sense of knowledge that I can just say something like this on a place like amazon.com that I really cannot describe this pleasure in detail. All I can say is that this is the best moment for the European Union to come to it's ineviteable end and for all of it's currently operating politicians to face the truth and admit it - that it is indeed over.
So what's to come after? I think that Europe is going to return to it's original states but that there will be little or no violence. The process of change may take a very long time to pass. Many currently extinct languages will be rediscovered , with Old Norse being only one of them.
Many cultural traditions such as the famous Russian werewolf king will come back to life , and everything will change - but change will be for the good. It's already ineviteable. In the far future , people will look back the way they do today and ask themselves why the heck bother in the first place with creating something as stupid and silly as the European Union and wait for over fourty years till everyone would begin to predict that it was going to end anyway? 10 years ago David Oddsson told us the truth , that the European Union was in it's collapsing stages and that it was going to collapse 10 years later. Today it is over 15 years later I think , and he proved right. How could he know? I am not a 'political supporter'of David's politics , I know almost nothing about him , but he had studied prophecies made by economical experts who had indicated the same - that the EU would collapse. That does not mean that neo - nazism will be on more rize than it has been because it is also collapsing , otherwise they wouldn't be so violent and afraid of anybody who is different than them , let alone themselves for that matter. The collapse of the European Union came like a thief in the night , and I had every right to declare that it is permanently and finitely collapsed like one of those cards that collapse alongside all the others in the house of cards. You can't build your world on a house of cards but the whole point with EU politics was to give it a try - before a slow wind would be enough to blow it all on the table and thus smash the house of cards in an instant.
This statement of mine will be immortalized because it is the first serious statement that has been made about the collapse of the European Union this year - and so far it has been over 10 years when people have been predicting that the EU is collapsing - not just going all the way and say it out loud - that it's no more already!
It's collapsed because there were too many member states , too many voters , too many supporters , and too much nonsense and lies. It's good to know it is collapsed - but few will dare to embrace this view when they hear it - but the many that will come later will know that it was predicted over 10 years ago that the EU would collapse anyway. Sometimes some decisions can be so stupid that their conclusion is foreseeable before they are made , and the European Union is in my view a good example of that kind of stupidity. Many people have told me you cannot be a supporter of Europe without supporting the European Union but I have always remarked that before the European Union there was , well , Europe! I couldn't care less if Al Gore goes mad at me when he hears these words or if the whole global warming cultist movement decides to go after me because I had the bravery to put an end to the EU once and for all by simply explaining how easy it was to realize that it had collapsed from it's base. I felt it for years before I decided to write this criticism of mine on this brilliant and hugely important book that the EU was going to collapse. But do not therefore automatically assume that it's author may agree. That is an entirely different story. We who opposed the EU were called 'those who are against Europe', but the European Union was precicely one of the many thingies that were being faught against during WWII. The EU had to come to an end - everyone knows what happens when too many people enter a house - there's too little space! If the EU had been built on the assumption that many enough people could hold the base then maybe it might have survived it's crisis , but it didn't. There was no manpower in the entire European Union that could prevent one man from coming forth to state his assertion that he or me believes that the EU is collapsed. I also believe that the United Nations are collapsing. But I am yet to read this exciting book and do plan to read it alongside it's author's other EU book. I MUST read books like this if I am to be able to comprehend or fathom something like the European Union. You can feel it's collapsed - but to understand it's mysteries and secrets requires serious study and I won't be disappointed when I have finished reading both books.
Bravo! Brilliant scholarship!
|
|
|
6 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Well researched but too selectively reported, June 21, 2006
A 600+ page, heavily footnoted polemic against the European Union, and particularly Britain's EU membership.
While I share the authors' general view about the EU, I found the book ultimately unconvincing. Part of the problem is just that there's too much of the negative here. The way the authors tell it, there are seemingly no benefits whatsoever to Britain being part of the EU - and that's just not credible. Britain must be getting something out of it (even if not enough, on balance) otherwise why would each of the major political parties support its continued membership? The authors could present the evidence on both sides and then argue why the negative outweighs the positive, but they don't, and the end result is that I wonder what they left out and why.
And there are other reasons to question their credibility. On the few occasions they have to mention the Balkan Wars, their references are almost comically one-sided. They offer an out-and-out falsehood to explain why the Irish people ultimately supported the Nice Treaty. And they refer to an avowedly anti-immigration pressure group merely as a "specialist thinktank" when citing a rather apocalyptic prediction it makes about Britain being flooded by migrants.
Amusingly, for all the authors' expressions of distaste for "supranationalism", it never seems to click with them that the country they feel so passionately about is itself a supranational state ... and nor, of course, does the irony even occur to them that they are so fiercely defending the sovereignty of a country which has denied the same to so many others.
The EU deserves criticism and the European people need books written from this perspective. Pity this isn't a better one.
|
|
|
|
by Antony C. Sutton
