eurealist.co.uk

Yet another misleading statement from a professor linked to the Monnet propaganda project.

This time Professor Allan Walker Director, European Research Area in Ageing, University of Sheffield,

Writing in the Guardian attacking Mandelson for suggesting an EU economy of open markets and free trade as the only route to global success.

Not that I care one way or the other if anyone want to attack our latest version of a freeloader, they may do so with my blessing, however Walker not only attacks Mandelson but makes a claim that is totally unsubstantiated “The Dutch and French have already voted against the narrow economic logic that presently dominates the EU.” No Professor, the Dutch and French voted against the EU Constitution.

I understand that these Europhiles have to build a case for their version of the EU but they simply cannot use the rejection of the constitution as an excuse to explain away the fact that the people when asked do not like what is on offer for our lords and masters in Brussels.

Caroline Lucas MEP make the same basic mistaken claim in the Guardian when she says; “It is time for Mandelson and his fellow EU commissioners to stop lecturing us on the merits of free trade and start listening to the voters, who are clamouring for more social regulation and environmental protection, not less”. I wonder on what Ms Lucas bases her claim that people want more interference from Brussels in our daily lives, if she is so certain of her ground perhaps she will back the calls for the referendum in Britian.

Another letter in the paper on the same Mandelson speech from a Bridget Gavin “Brussels” asks us to look at the maths behind Mandelson`s claim that the EU is spending seven times more on agriculture than on science and technology.

Let’s look at the maths: the EU spends 40% of its budget on agriculture, which amounts to 0.4% of total European GDP. The EU’s budget is very small compared to its member states. Total EU budgetary expenditure is very slightly over 1% of the total EU GDP.
The EU is not a “technological community” and it has limited powers in research and technology. The member states are in charge here. According to OECD figures published last year, total spending on research and development as a percentage of GDP in the EU was 1.83%. What is the conclusion? The EU is actually spending 4.5 times more money on scientific research than on agriculture.

I am not mathematically minded but the point dear is the EU budget and how it supports the French farmer.

The final letter in the Guardian is from Harry Beresford someone who is not from Brussels and who does not benefit from EU largesse, makes the only point worth considering and the only point that the Eutocracy cannot accept;

It has obviously never occurred to him (Peter Mandelson) that people may not want any purpose and direction from the EU. They might instead prefer to shape their future through national and local government. They may accept painful reforms from national and local leaders whom they elect, but not from remote, condescending and unaccountable policymakers in the EU.

So when the Euphiles keep telling us that the member states are in charge do they mean that they are in charge only so long as they understand that it’s all heading in the direction of more Europe, and the direction of deeper integration.

EU development commissioner, Louis Michel, said “The British Prime Minister has the upper hand, but to run a good presidency, it’s necessary that every-one else helps … We’ll help him, but on condition that it’s all heading in the direction of more Europe, and the direction of deeper (integration].”

Mr Blair’s conduct during the EU summit - his defence of the British rebate from the Union budget, his wider demand for budget reform and his call for EU leaders to heed the lesson of the French and Dutch No votes to the constitution - were seen by many federalists as evidence of a British plot to reduce Europe to a giant free trade zone.

He said that if the British presidency was only about “constructing, or cementing a Europe that is just a free market, then it is going to be difficult for him”.
Michel said Mr Blair’s idea of Europe was “manifestly that of an economic free trade zone, where, rather stupidly, countries still give in to internal competition” “As long as the British do not understand what the European model and the European project really are, we will have a certain number of problems.”

According to the Telegraph when the EU development commissioner, referring to last week’s budget row, defended EU agricultural subsidies, said the underlying cause of such squabbling was the EU’s inability to raise its own revenues is a call for a Union tax, collected by Brussels. Well obviously that is the intention in long run and the more problems there are agreeing the budget the more clarion will be the calls for an EU wide tax, the constitution is very clear about that intention.

Mark Steyn in the Telegraph notes that Peter Mandelson is admitting the Common Market has been a failure. He points out that when Mandelson says “Europe is faced with a fundamental choice. One way, we sink into economic decline, losing the means to pay for our preferred way of life. The other way, we press ahead with painful economic reforms that can make us competitive once again in world markets.”

The big concession was so slyly done you may have missed it: the European Trade Commissioner is acknowledging that the one thing even Eurosceptics were in favour of - a “common market” - has been a failure.

But Steyn asks “Is it likely that “Europe” will muster the will for “painful economic reforms”? It was always a political project masquerading as an economic one, and thus the ruling class’s investment in it is more primal and less rational.

So the question is from the point of view of “the great permanent Eurocracy” can the Common market be described as a failure, as it was never intended to be an effective trading block, but rather a means to an end, of a united Europe. So paraphrase Steyn whatever the failure of common market means, it certainly doesn’t mean the failure of the common market.