eurealist.co.uk

They used to say you could always tell you were in a tough area if you saw two policemen walking the beat together; one was there to back up the other. Well it would appear the EU professors are now writing in tandem, as if by jointly writing an article would in some way shield it from too much scrutiny, well I have news for them, if what they write is wrong, it does not matter how many other high priests they can gather to their flag it is still wrong.

The Professors are at it again! At what! I hear you cry! Well for goodness sake do you really not know what has been happening in our Universities for the past several years? The EU has been munificent with massive financial nourishment for our education system, piling money in to our universities as if there is no tomorrow. I suppose when you actually stop and think about it, from the EU perspective there is no tomorrow, unless they can control the future through educating our young people in the ways of the internationalist, and to listen to some of the students that pass through the doors of the EU funded centres of brainwashing they are succeeding in their endeavour.Modernity is the term they like to use for their new way of looking at the world, of course that must by their own terms imply that any who oppose are not modern, they must then be, old fashioned, out of date, inward looking, reactionary, nationalist, isolationists.

This is the proposition advanced by EU backed professors Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens in their article which was launched on the world this last week, suggesting as the title points out that “Nationalism has now become the enemy of Europe’s nations” they argue that paradoxically “in the contemporary world, nationalist or isolationist thinking can be the worst enemy of the nation and its interests”….. Whoops! Lets just back up a bit there dobbin…… did any of you notice that little myth that just slipped in there;”nationalist or isolationist thinking”? Is thinking nationally, the same thing as being an isolationist? I do not think so; Thinking from a national perspective would surely entail deciding what was best for the nation, from the nations viewpoint, and that, in this “contemporary world”, (I see we are back to “modernity”) would not be to espouse isolation, that is what happened to the old USSR, and when the real world did eventually make itself felt, it collapsed the whole system.

Thinking from a Nationalist point of view would probably mean exactly the opposite of isolation! For Britain to survive as an independent nation state we would have to continue to do what we always have done and that is to be outward looking, and to trade openly on a world wide stage.

Anyway to continue, our professors would like us all to belive that “The EU is an arena where formal sovereignty can be exchanged for real power” Where “national cultures can be nurtured and economic success improved.” And belive it or not that “The EU is better placed to advance national interests than nations could possibly do acting alone” not only in “commerce” but in immigration, and law and order, and the environment, and defence and many other areas.

Now just to be clear the professors are discussing “National sovereignty” how on earth then can they conclude that exchanging something they call “formal sovereignty” enhances National Sovereignty, well of course they have their answer already polished up for display to the dear reader, who one assumes must be to dim-witted to know that National Sovereignty does not mean having “real power to influence the wider world”. For those who do not know, and in this I must include our professors, sovereignty is the concept that a nation has the ability to make its own decisions, for sovereignty to exist the final say, must rest within the state, if it does not then sovereignty is not present, it is gone, departed, no longer in existence defunct, in fact one could say it is as dead as a Dodo.

This is the EU playing word games again; Democracy does not exist in the EU! OK let’s change the meaning of Democracy; State sovereignty can not exist in the EU! OK let’s change the meaning of the word sovereignty.

Exactly how would membership of the EU enhance national cultures, would the EU decide that it needs new laws that forced everyone in Britain to dress up in strange clothes and dance around the maypole, or hop around bashing sticks together, exactly how does it help us “nationally” to pass control of our borders and immigration to the EU? It may well enhance the powers of the EU, but that is at the expense of our own national power to decide whom and who not to allow into our country. How is our national interest on law and order advanced by passing control of our Laws out of the hands of our own government, when the people we elect cannot pass laws that we want and are forced to pass laws we do not want, just to satisfy and internationalist agenda.

The professors tell us that “For a long time the process of European integration took place mainly by means of eliminating difference. But unity is not the same as uniformity. From a cosmopolitan point of view, diversity is not the problem; it is the solution.” So If I understand this correctly, now that we have been forced to unify, we are now going to be allowed to diversify, all well and good, accept that we will only be allowed to diversify under the auspices of the EU and only as far as suits the EU.

Our Professors say that “Despite its other successes, the European Union is simply not performing well enough economically. It has much lower growth levels than the US, not to mention less developed countries such as India and China. There are 20 million unemployed in the EU, and a further 93 million economically inactive people, many of whom would want to work if they could.” And the answer is that “Europe simply must gear up for change.” I belive it is the EU! Europe is a landmass. Now how must the EU change? Well oddly enough our professors suggest that to overcome its problems we must have even more EU, bigger EU and deeper EU with more powers going to the EU from the nation states thus obviously also enhancing National sovereignty.

“If Europe is to be heard and valued on the world scene, we cannot declare an end to enlargement; nor can we leave the EU’s system of governance as it is. Enlargement is the union’s most powerful foreign-policy tool, a means of promoting the spread of peace, democracy and open markets. There is virtually no hope of stabilising the Balkans, for example, if the prospect of EU accession is cut off. The EU will also lose massive potential influence geopolitically if it decides to keep Turkey out”.

This argument for enlargement simply does not make sense, just a moments thought would expose the stupidity of such a claim; If enlargement were the key to a successful future, then that would imply all states must have a process of constant enlargement to survive, so the USA should also strive for enlargement India and China would also be in the same position, if that were the case, in a few years time, all of those enlarged states would start to rub up against each other, and then what happens, well we have seen what happens when one state starts to get in the way of another’s enlargement policies! I think it is called war! So at some point to avoid war, the EU is going to have to call an end to enlargement, if the professors are right, then at that point the EU would collapse, because it must keep enlarging to survive.

They go on to say “Similar considerations apply to governance. The EU cannot play an effective global role without more political innovation. The proposal to have a single EU foreign minister should be kept in play. More effective means of taking mutual decisions are needed than the cumbersome method left over from the Nice agreements. And the proposals in the constitution to have more consultation with national parliaments before EU policies are instituted are surely both democratic and sensible.”

Democratic and sensible would be to recognise that the proposals in the Constitution were rejected and to stop trying to bring them in through the back door, that is not only un-democratic it is anti-democratic.

The problem the EU has is one of democratic legitimacy, you cannot keep ignoring the people for ever, it is time to face up to the facts that the EU method of unifying has been exposed, the people know what is happening they know the end result is going to be a United States of Europe.

Ulrich Beck the German sociologist who holds a professorship at Munich University and at the London School of Economics.
Professor Anthony Giddens ex Director of the London School of Economics which is an established EU “centre of excellence” The “centres of excellence” are “a label including scientific and human resources dealing with European Integration studies and research within the university and/or at a regional level”.
Funds are awarded on a co-financing basis for a start-up period of three years, in exchange for a commitment from the university to teach on European integration for a period of at least seven years. The project is managed by the European University Council for the Jean Monnet Project, composed of representatives of university institutions elected by the Confederation of European Union Rectors’ Conferences and representatives of professors specialising in European Integration Studies, who are elected by the European Communities Studies Association (ECSA)
Altogether, the Jean Monnet project is huge. It has led to the setting up of 2319 new university teaching projects throughout Europe, all dealing with “European integration issues”. There are 47 European Centres of Excellence, 491 Jean Monnet Chairs, 800 Permanent Courses and 641 European Modules.
Hansards Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, many people have been concerned about the intrusion into schools, universities, public libraries and the media of what can only be described as one-sided propaganda by the European Union to promote political integration, rather than to provide balanced and factual information about the European Union. The Bruges Group, of which I am an associate member, has conducted research into the matter and has produced a pretty comprehensive brief, which the Minister has seen, showing the extent to which the European Union propaganda machine has penetrated our schools, universities and other institutions. We should be grateful to it for having produced such in-depth research from its own resources.

Let me be clear. There can be no objection to the European Union or the Government providing impartial and unbiased information. What is objectionable—indeed, in some aspects, illegal—is that taxpayers’ money should be used to promote European integration, which is a highly sensitive and contentious issue that divides people throughout the European Union, not simply in Britain. It is also objectionable that it should be used to promote one side of the argument about British membership of the euro.

It is little wonder that so many people are worried and outraged by the European Union’s use of taxpayers’ money to promote European integration, while the same time denigrating, insulting and subverting the nations of Europe and, in the case of the United Kingdom, promoting the abandonment of sterling. The European Union propaganda budget—which is large, about 105 million euros—is used to fund all sorts of organisations: youth organisations, women’s groups, youth parliaments, Europe Day, television programmes, press contacts, campaigning in candidate countries for a yes vote—you name it, they do it.

One area of greatest concern is EU propaganda in the classroom, where both European integration and the euro are being promoted. Indeed, it is Commission policy to influence young minds. A paper endorsed by DG 22 welcomed the opportunity to implant the idea of European citizenship by placing the euro in its historic perspective and supports the use of teachers to inform children, so that they can be used as go-betweens to influence older generations to embrace the European ideal and, of course, the European currency.

To achieve its aims, the Commission has produced teaching aids and modules that are completely one-sided and made no attempt to achieve balance. One booklet, entitled Let’s Draw Europe Together, designed for older primary school pupils, contains an opening section entitled, “My Country: Europe”, implanting the idea in young minds that they are not British but European. The Government protest that they are in favour of a Europe of nation states—not a European superstate—yet, our children are being taught the reverse by the European Union and encouraged to turn their backs on Britain.

I turn now to the universities, where the Commission is setting out to extend its influence, and the promotion of integration through so-called research and development projects and the establishment of university departments of EU integration. In this connection, the Jean Monnet project of establishing chairs devoted entirely to European integration is a major problem in itself. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, who has taken a close interest in this subject, will deal with it in some detail when he comes to speak.
However, a host of other research and scholarly organisations are assisted through EU funding and, indeed, by the United Kingdom Government through matching funds over which they have no real control, with the object of promoting the European project and integration, and creating networks to assist in this process. Again, the research, all paid for with taxpayers’ money, is often one-sided, although it is represented as being impartial. This ploy has certainly been used in relation to the highly political issue of scrapping the pound in favour of the euro when articles by academics in receipt of EU funding have been represented as coming from impartial sources.

In a short speech it is impossible to list all the examples of that dubious practice, but I intend to place a copy of the Bruges Group research paper in the Libraries of the House of Lords and the House of Commons so that information is made available to all Members of both Houses and their researchers. For those who do not have access to either of the Libraries, the Bruges Group website is www.brugesgroup.com.
The tentacles of the Commission do not stop at schools and universities. They embrace public libraries, the press and the sound and vision media, especially the BBC. A one-sided Goebbelsesque picture is therefore being presented to British society and I ask the Government to take some remedial action. For example, they could require the European Commission to adopt guidelines similar to those of the United Kingdom, to include a commitment to impartiality and objectivity, and to prevent taxpayers’ money being used to promote only one side of politically contentious issues.
In the United Kingdom, consideration should also be given to the appointment of a watchdog to monitor the European Commission’s propaganda activities. In any event, the Commission should be told that its methods are unacceptable in any democratic society.

More information of EU Propaganda in Universities can be had from here