|
DAILY MAIL
-COMMENT
May 1-2017
WHY THESE EU BULLY BOYS
FEAR
DEMOCRACY
There was
more than a hint of the bizarre about the meeting at
which 27 EU leaders set out their negotiating position
on
Brexit.
After
getting round the conference table in Brussels, they
deliberated for just four minutes before issuing a set
of absurdly draconian demands.
Then, like
some 1970s meeting of the Chinese Communist party, they
erupted into a protracted round of applause and
self-congratulation, as if they had done something
terribly clever.
In fact, what they presented was
not so much a negotiating position as an ultimatum to
Britain – pay a £50billion penalty, guarantee the rights
of all EU citizens living in the UK, give Spain a veto
on the future of Gibraltar and promise not to enforce
border controls between Northern Ireland and the Irish
Republic.
And they
continued talking tough after the meeting, both directly
and through a series of carefully choreographed media
briefings. Britain would have to pay a huge price for
leaving, they said, and Theresa May was ‘delusional’ if
she thought the EU would enter trade talks before the
cash was stumped up.
Jean-Claude
Juncker, the insufferably pompous, cognac-loving head of
the European Commission, spoke gravely of an ‘early
crash’ in negotiations unless we acquiesced. European
Council president Donald Tusk said it was time for
Britain to ‘get serious’.
But Britain
is already deadly serious, Mr Tusk. Serious about
leaving the EU, regaining control of our borders and
throwing off the shackles of the European Court. If we
have to do that without a trade deal in place, as Mrs
May stated again yesterday, we will do so and no amount
of bullying or empty threats from Brussels will change
that.
Unlike Mr
Tusk and Mr Juncker, Mrs May has a democratic mandate
and she intends to honour it.
These
ludicrous blowhards should also remember that Britain
imports billions of pounds a year more in goods and
services from the EU than we export to them. So German
car makers, French wine producers and Irish farmers have
more to lose from a trade war than UK manufacturers.
Of course,
there is another agenda. With Euroscepticism rampant
across the continent, the EU high command wants to
punish Britain for leaving as a warning to other member
states not to follow suit. They are terrified that a
blast of democracy could soon destroy their cosy little
club.
The Mail is
confident Mrs May will not be deflected by these cynical
tactics but she needs the full support of the British
people in the difficult negotiations to come.
The
best way to strengthen her hand is to give her a
resounding majority on
June 8.
Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4461436/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-EU-bully-boys-fear-democracy.html#ixzz4fpOSBgaw
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter
|
DailyMail
on Facebook
Full
article
MAY 1,2017
* * *
DESPOTISM!
When there are too many individuals involved in making a
decision as with the 27 within the EU it was inevitable
that each member would suffer with loss of control
over its culture and identity as shown by the growing
revolt among the once Free Independent People's of
Europe. They were warned that they would be part of a
SUPER-STATE of REGIONS - one happy family? One must
remember that Angela Merkel the GERMAN CHANCELLOR was an
official in the East German Government and well-trained
for her future position in WEST GERMANY.
Trapped within its despotic embrace the once FREE NATION
STATES are now within a
COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC-UNACCOUNTABLE-GODLESS BEAST
where the
PEOPLE are the SERVANTS!
and those part of the SOVIETISED MACHINE
within the EU HIERARCHY are the
MASTERS!
*
...If
there is a lesson of our times, it is that we need
simultaneously both society and the State. So long
as men think and feel in terms of nations, society will
be national society and the State will be a national
state. Both in national society and in the
national State, and in both simultaneously, men find
their free fulfilment. Both exist for that
purpose: both are necessary for that purpose.
If we imagine a State which is all in all, and leaves no
room for voluntary social co-operation, we imagine
something which instead of promoting will tend to defeat
the free fulfilment of individuals. If we imagine
a society which is all in all, and leaves no room for
the action of the State, we imagine something which will
also tend to defeat that fulfilment - whether the State
be really abolished, and its necessary services of
securing civil and political liberty really cease to be
rendered; or whether the State be only nominally
abolished, and the society which professes to take its
place be simply a new and illiberal State. The
variety of man, with his many purposes and his different
methods, must flow in more than one channel if it is to
flow at all.
But what must flow
freely, and what must be free, is always man himself -
the individual man - the human personality.
Thinking of the multiplicity of channels, and of the
possibility that one channel may steal the waters of
others, we sometimes talk of the freedom of the channel.
We speak of the freedom of the State: the freedom of the
Church: the freedom of this or that other group-class,
occupation, profession, or party. But a free
State, or Church, or party. or class, is simply a
channel along which individuals can flow freely.
It is simply a group in and by which they can attain
their freedom the only true and ultimate
freedom. Ultimately, as also originally, the
only freedom is that of the individual; and if we speak
of freedom of groups, it is only derivatively and
secondarily that we speak. Their freedom
exists, or should exist, in so far as they promote
individual freedom, and in consequence of their
promoting that freedom. A group can proclaim
the cause of liberty only in so far as it is a condition
of the liberty of its members.
Organizations always tend to
be regarded especially by their organizers as ends in
themselves. No organization is ever that.
Any organization is ca means to the freedom of its
members. But no organization is absolutely
justified even if it promotes the freedom of all its
members -but promotes their freedom only.
It may do that, and yet be inimical to a broader
liberty. That is why each partial organization
needs the criticism of some higher organization, and
why, ultimately, all other organizations of men must
come to the bar of the organization of all men, if that
can ever come to pass. We can imagine a high
measure of general liberty under a system of national
societies and national States. We can imagine a perfect
liberty only in a world society and a world State.
Meanwhile, as long as we
think and feel in terms of the nation, we may well
accept the criticism of the national State, with its
general scope and concern, as a criticism which which is
a necessary service to the general cause of liberty in
the nation - provided always that the criticizing State
is so built and so constituted ( by its system of civil
and political liberty) as to be a servant of that cause.
For the national State is the most general and the most
comprehensive, if it is not, and should not be, the only
organization of the nation.
Pages-27-28-29
REFLECTIONS
ON
GOVERNMENT
BY
ERNEST BARKER
Honorary Fellow of Merton College,
Oxford and of Peterhouse, Cambridge
-DEMOCRATIC
GOVERNMENT- NAME AND NATURE OF LIBERTY
1942
[IN TIME OF WAR-AGAIN AGAINST GERMANY.
[OUR
SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT CARRIED US THROUGH TWO WORLD WARS
IN THE 20TH
CENTURY YET TRAITORS
WITHIN WERE EVEN IN 1938
PLANNING THE DOWNFALL OF OUR LONG- LASTING AND
UNIQUE PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY - CONSTITUTION AND
COUNTRY.]
*
* *
Almost everything, which is
precious in our Civilization, has come from small
States.
by LABOUR PEER-Peter Shore.
*
|
Labour IS plotting a 'coalition of
chaos' and wants an... 
Theresa bites the bullet: Mrs May
risks upsetting Tory...