The Metamorphosis of Europe

A few days ago I wrote:

I don’t know why the EU is antismoking. I just know that it is. I only found out early in 2010 that the EU had declared war on smokers. And I only found out a few months ago that it had been at war with smokers since at least 1989, 30 years ago. For all I know, it’s been antismoking from its very inception, 70 or more years ago. In fact, for all I know, the EU’s sole purpose is to stamp out smoking in Europe.

Why is the EU antismoking? Surely, if you’re putting together a political project, you want to include as many people as possible? Isn’t it rather crazy to exclude all the millions of smokers in Europe from your project? I’ve been trying to figure out why the EU is so crazy that it’s actually destroying itself.

My tentative explanation goes like this: If you want to ban something, it doesn’t matter what it is – smoking, turkey twizzlers, or turf-burning -, you’re going to want to be in government, because it’s only governments that can pass laws to ban stuff. And if you can’t be part of the government, you’ll want to get as near as you can to it in some quasi-governmental organisation. So banners and bansters are attracted to government like moths to a flame. Most normal people aren’t interested, because most normal people don’t want to ban everything left, right, and centre. So you never find normal people in government. And you certainly don’t find them in the EU.

Most likely, the founders of the EU “project” didn’t want to ban smoking or turkey twizzlers or anything else. They probably just wanted to unite the peoples of Europe. But once their project got a head of steam behind it, they began to attract smoke-banners, twizzler-banners, and turf-banners. And once this army of bansters began to fill it. their views gradually came to permeate it, and to change its direction and aim.

It’s probably true of all organisations that they attract people who don’t really share the values and principles of the founding fathers, but who have slightly different ones, and who lead the organisation in a different direction. So the Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party isn’t the same Labour party as that of Tony Blair, or that of James Callaghan, or Harold Wilson, or Clement Attlee. The same is true of the Conservative party. And probably the same is true of the British Civil Service, the British Medical Association, the World Health Organisation, the United Nations, the Ford Motor Company, and the Roman Catholic Church.  They may keep the same name, but they’re actually always changing.

And in fact, it might even be suggested that every organisation attracts people opposite to it. So, for example, churches might attract atheists, and science might attract artists, and armed forces might attract women, and so on. And after a while you end up with atheist bishops, pseudo-sciences, and amazons. You end up with a world turned upside down.

And this is what happened to the EU. The original EEC (European Economic Community) project gradually metamorphosed into the very different EU (European Union) project. And it’s still changing:

Leader of the left-progressive group in the European Parliament Guy Verhofstadt has said that in order to compete with the rest of the world, the European Union must become an “empire.”

The leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe (ALDE) told CNN that proposals by European populist-patriots to reform the EU and devolve power from Brussels back to the nation-state would mean that the bloc “will die inside.”

“The world is developing into one not of nation states, but of empires. China is an empire. India is an empire. The US is an empire. We need to create a European Union that is capable of defending our interests,” Mr Verhofstadt stated

First it was a “community” and then it became a “union” and now it wants to become an “empire”. History has gone full circle. Why not just call this new empire the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the Holy Roman Empire, and be done with it?

Anyway, this centralised antismoking empire has now attracted a new set of opposites in the form of nationalists (as opposed to imperialists) and populists (as opposed to elitists), many of whose leaders happen to be smokers as well (Farage, Le Pen, Salvini). And with this new tidal wave of nationalists and populists (arriving either today or tomorrow), the EU empire is about to metamorphose into something else again. It won’t be centralised, and it won’t be an empire, and it won’t be antismoking either.

About Frank Davis

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

8 Responses to The Metamorphosis of Europe

  1. decnine says:

    If they’d been really smart, they should have joined the British Empire…

  2. RdM says:

    armed forces might attract women, and so on.

    Oh yes, all sorts, lesbian gay queer, why not, the narrative goes

    “The NZDF is a force for all New Zealanders,” Pearce said.

    Except for smokers, of course …

    • Mark Jarratt, Canberra, Australia says:

      Isn’t the role of a defence force, umm, defence, rather than a vehicle for virtue signalling and social engineering…underemployed garrison troops?

      As for the arbitrary and unjustified smokefree NZDF and nation targets by 2025, they will no longer be permitted to love the smell of cordite or napalm in the morning, or smoke as a final request before the firing squad.

  3. waltc says:

    How odd. The original stated purpose of the EU was said to be to avoid wars by uniting Europe (and implicitly to do so by killing nationalism). But empires are the very fonts of wars–empires are imperialist (which is what the EU has become, at least within Europe) and then, of course, it comes down to empire vs empire.

  4. waltc says:

    And you’re quite right about banners working their way into government, as in the US did both Glantz and Repace. The other way is to have an inside track to a powerful legislator. That. IIRC, is how the cholesterol banners got in.

    • Frank Davis says:

      working their way into government, as in the US did both Glantz and Repace.

      And of course Michael Bloomberg.

      • waltc says:

        Of course. In a different way. Both the others got into the federal regulatory bureaucracies. The story on Bloomberg is that he didn’t start out with that as a cause until he hired Tom Freiden as his health dept head and F said he’d only take the job if he could make antismoking his major crusading issue. Bb agreed and then out-zealoted even Frieden.. Freiden later became head of tne CDC. My personal irony is that I voted for BB in his first term because the Democrat he was running against was a nanny and I figured a capitalist/entepreneur wouldn’t screw around with the “hospitality” industry of NYC or busy himself with nannying.

  5. Beansie says:

    “All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.”
    – O’Sullivan’s law
    He could have formulated this for the EU alone.

No need to log in

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.