Is The EU Dead?

Janet Daley in the Telegraph:

What is left of the European idea? Whatever indeterminate reassurances emerge from however many EU “summits” on security and shared intelligence, everybody must know that Paris was the end…

She lists the shambles and the failures, and continues:

So, to return to my original question: what’s left? If national borders may be reinstated by individual governments either with hasty barbed wire or officially reconstituted checkpoints, and EU budget rules can be thrown out whenever circumstances require, what does the authority of the EU Commission and Council and Parliament amount to? Possible answer: a largely useless, self-perpetuating, massively overpaid bureaucracy presiding over Potemkin institutions whose deliberations count for nothing when the lives of real people living under real governments are at stake.

It comes down to this: why couldn’t the EU with all its self-important, overweening officialdom produce a realistic plan for securing its external borders and dealing with the migrant influx? Possible answer: because that would have involved exactly the cooperation, solidarity and mutual support that the EU was supposed to represent but which we now know evaporates under pressure.

The conclusion is inescapable: the institutions of the EU are not fit for purpose and its conception of democracy is a sham. There is a good reason why member states cannot simply put aside their own interests and the concerns of their own populations for the sake of a Europe-wide policy: because their internal democracy is the real thing.

All that’s needed next is for the dysfunctional euro to be replaced by national currencies, and the entire EU project of ‘ever closer union’ will be at an end.

Perhaps what really needs to be asked now is: What will replace the defunct EU? Does there need to be a European parliament or a European Commission? Shouldn’t the innumerable rules and regulations that have poured out of Brussels be revoked en masse, and the Brussels bureaucracy disbanded? Perhaps we can go back to the old EEC trading arrangements, which seemed to work pretty well?

The UK is having a referendum on membership of the EU next year, but will the EU still exist in any meaningful sense by the time Britain votes to stay or leave?

The one thing I noticed about Janet Daley’s article is that it included a photo of the inside of the French Parliament at Versailles. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it before.

versailles-holland_3502488b

I suspect I’ll be seeing a lot more of it from now on.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Is The EU Dead?

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    Merkels NAZIs in the new 4th reich the EU is trying to create can go blow a fucking hole in their heads right now. The whole world is awaiting the UNs collapse and all its BULLSHIT like the EU!

    • DICK R says:

      How can it be referred to as a Nazi fourth Riech ,it is something far worse, being much harder to combat .
      What we are witnessing is an insane rush to national suicide motivated by a fear of appearing “racist” by a treacherous Eurofanatical Marxist , German government all too eager to sacrifice their own country on the alter of “Diversity” and drag us all down with them ,Cameron is doing his best to keep us part this madness , by carrying on in the footsteps of Blair’s deliberately destructive mass immigration.

  2. jaxthefirst says:

    In answer to your initial question … oh, I do hope so!

  3. junican says:

    The EU project lost its way when it became urgent. But just as bad is when it claimed authority over Health and Wellbeing, Tobacco Control, Global Warming, gender marriage, and multiple similar things. As we know, many of those things were directed by the UN. The UN has no authority whatsoever.
    The misconception that the UN has authority is amply illustrated by ASH Scotland’s demand that the Scottish Parliament should obey Article 5.3 of the FTCT, which demands that Tobacco Company’s submissions should be thrown into the bin. I am not the least bit surprised that SMPs were grumpy about being told what to do by ASH and the WHO. I see it clearly. MSPs are elected by the People and not the WHO and ASH. MSPs will decide as they wish.
    The UK ratified the FCTC. It did not ratify the ‘guidance’. It is odd that no MSP did not see that difference. But what can one expect? One of the committee members said that he knew nothing of the FCTC.

    But we must understand that all the palaver and the costs do not matter. The Scottish Parliament committee will do what it is told.
    I do not know why.

  4. waltc says:

    Her mouth—-> God’s ear.
    Meanwhile, OT, Simon Chapman rakes Siegel

    http://taking-liberties.squarespace.com/blog/2015/11/16/never-trust-an-anti-smoker.html

  5. garyk30 says:

    Brussels, home of theEU, is in lockdown due to a ‘clear and imminent’ threat and the EU is capable of doing nothing to help.

    The EU is not able to protect it’s own people!!!!

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    Only in Australia would this happen

    A Sydney landlord has been ordered to pay more than $11,000 in compensation to a tenant whose flat was made unliveable by a chain-smoking elderly neighbour living in the flat below.

    Lynette Laming moved into the Potts Point apartment with her 13-year-old daughter last December and within weeks had raised the issue of “very strong smell of toxic cigarette smoke permeating the apartment”.

    Ms Laming approached the managing agent and the building manager to fix the problem.

    But when the smoke didn’t stop, Ms Laming took her landlord, Raj Bhandari, to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, claiming he did not provide a safe place to live.

    Advertisement

    “There is no dispute that the smoke was emanating from the apartment below where an elderly, sick occupant, who was chain smoking, resided,” a tribunal judgment found.

    “The owner of the apartment below was apparently reluctant to evict the tenant or stop her from smoking given her ill health.”

    Smoking was allowed in the apartments and the owners corporation declined to intervene, suggesting instead that the owner, Dr Bhandari, take action against the owners of the flat below.

    By May, Ms Laming, herself a real-estate agent, had moved out of flat 401, claiming the smoke was making her child unwell, and sought about $14,000 including for rent reduction and packing costs calculated at $240 an hour.

    The tribunal heard that “most afternoons and evenings the leased premises were affected by smoke from downstairs and to quite a considerable extent”, noting that “somehow there is a mechanical problem in the internal ventilation passages of the strata that is allowing the smoke to pass from the downstairs unit into the inside areas of the upstairs unit”.

    “Obviously it is going to be a complex problem to rectify and probably expensive. However, this does not lessen the landlord’s responsibility to provide premises which are fit for habitation.”

    The tribunal noted that “although this was of no fault of his own, he [Dr Bhandari] still has the responsibility to undertake the necessary steps to ensure” a habitable premises, ordering him to pay damages of $11,681, including rent reduction, packing and removal of $2800 and a refund on Ms Laming’s blinds of $900.

    “It is unacceptable for a tenant and a child to live in an environment which smells of tobacco smoke, and particularly where the smoke is so strong it is causing the tenant and her child to feel unwell,” the tribunal said.

    “I accept that this was a unit she would have much rather lived in, than had to leave, and this explains all the steps she took prior to bringing this application. Her desire was clearly to try and stay there if she could.”

    Dr Bhandari appealed against the decision earlier this month, arguing that the alleged failure to provide premises fit for habitation was “outside [his] control” and he had made reasonable attempts to resolve the issue.

    His appeal was dismissed.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-landlord-ordered-to-pay-11000-to-tenant-because-of-chainsmoking-neighbour-20151122-gl5b4p.html#ixzz3sKbJHdcd

  7. slugbop007 says:

    The judges are also on the side of Tobacco Control. Too many of them.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Been that way since judges were invented,they are all politically connected and have to tow the agenda their party belongs too,besides judge shopping and jury shopping across America. That’s how you get ahead,people to stupid to question authority or their claims and judges who shut up defense when they go to disprove what was claimed……….Yes that happens all the time judges suppressing critical evidence to make sure the political agendas propsaganda stands.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Or they set up Kangaroo cases where both sides act like opposing sides but are in fact in cahootz together to get court case law invented for others to use across the country in America,

  8. harleyrider1978 says:

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s