Friday, 16 April 2004

“Europa moet bestaan, Europa is het beste dat ons ooit is overkomen” of toch niet?


In reactie op sommige cliché-uitspraken over de voordelen van de EU, wanneer men de mening verkondigt dat de Europese Unie een belemmering vormt voor de vrijheid van mensen. Of wanneer men vindt dat de soevereiniteit van landen gehandhaafd moet worden. Of wanneer men afscheidingen van provincies of regio’s toejuicht…

De links-intellectueel heeft hier een antwoord op. Deze antwoorden zijn echter niet degelijk onderbouwd en spelen in op emotie in plaats van ratio. Zo stond er onder het artikel van Boniek Falicki: “Polen en de EU: The Big Takeover” een reactie die typerend is voor de intellectuele armoede van de voorstanders van de EU. Ik wil in dit artikel de beweringen in deze reactie, weerleggen op een rationele manier, gebaseerd op feiten. Niet op losse kreten, die appelleren aan een gevoel van saamhorigheid tussen de Europese volken, volgens het alles of niets principe: ‘we moeten wel meedoen in de Europese Unie, anders wordt het oorlog, of op z’n minst kijkt niemand ons meer aan’. De reactie op het artikel van Boniek Falicki was, ook al was dit op het Nederlandse gedeelte van Free-Europe geplaatst, in het engels. Vandaar dat ook mijn verweer Engelstalig is.

Reactie op: “Polen en de EU: The Big Takeover”

Renee schreef op 10-04-2004 13:09:
Europe isn’t becoming a United States. Every member state will have enough freedom to take some decisions or to keep its own identity. That is where it is all about, identity, but do you really know what identity is? Nobody. Europe has to rise in order to prevent terrorist attacks and Europe has to form an answer to the United States’ power over the world. If we hold on to pathetic patriotism, terrorism will be supported en we will end up to live in a miserable world. People have to learn to see the advantages of the EU.
It is very positive that Poland and 9 other countries, in the future 4 more, will join the EU. And of course it is a difficult period, but after a while, we will all accept each other. We have to. Of course it will cost a lot of money, but so what, solidarity is one of the keywords of the European policy. Remain this please. By the way, the total cost of the extension will only be Û20 a year per European citizen, within 5 years. Not very high this way isn’t it.
Europe has to exist; Europe is the best thing that has ever happened to us. But the major problem of Europe is the fact that people hardly know anything about it and we get hardly any correct information, nor in the media, nor on the Internet. That had to change if we want people getting interested in the EU. It is necessary.

Verweer:

1 “Europe isn’t becoming a United States.”

True, more then 70% of all legislation is made by the EU in Brussels this percentage is far lower in the United States. The federal government in Washington doesn’t have as much power as the European government in Brussels. In the U.S. the way of appointing senators etc. is far more democratic then the way EU-commissioners are appointed. And the most important difference is the fact that all U.S. citizens speak the same language, so they can actually understand everything a government official says directly, instead of via translations!

2 “Every member state will have enough freedom to take SOME decisions or to keep his own identity.”

As pointed out above more then 70% of legislation comes from Brussels. I would like to point out that when you look at this at a personal level, meaning someone else, for example your boss, takes more than 70% of your decisions, on all fields (personal and on the job), you are actually his SLAVE. Whit no more then 50% of all decisions made by you, but by someone else, you do no longer control you’re own actions!

3 “… identity. That is where it is all about, identity, but do you really know what identity is? Nobody.”

What do you mean with this? Do you perhaps mean YOU don’t know what it means? Or that the word ‘identity’ doesn’t really exist, or DOES exist but doesn’t apply to any situation we know. But for all of us who DO believe in words and their meaning I looked it up in a dictionary:
“Identity.”
- The collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which a thing is definitively recognizable or known.
- The set of behavioral or personal characteristics by which an individual is recognizable as a member of a group.
- The quality or condition of being the same as something else.
- The distinct personality of an individual regarded as a persisting entity; individuality.
- An equation that is satisfied by any number that replaces the letter for which the equation is defined.
This unfortunately means I’ll have to be coming back on the issue about legislation. Even within one country there are many different identities. So by making laws about their behavior, for all those identities, you’re making them equal. This for itself is not the problem, when laws are only made to protect a person from actions taken by somebody else to harm this person. But as we all know government regulations don’t end there. There are laws for practically everything, as Sabine pointed out in her remark about ladder-use for window cleaners. So laws restricting personal liberties are always interfering with identities.

4 “Europe has to rise in order to prevent terrorist attacks”

On this subject I can be very short: “how?” And beyond this I would rather say that superpowers tend to create an opportunity for terrorism. Almost all terrorism is pointed to superpowers, in smaller or larger scale, with super-power meaning bigger-power or greater-power. Whereas terrorism is in almost all cases a tool, for the terrorist movement, to try to get rid off the control of this larger power.

5 “and Europe has to form an answer to the United States’ power over the world.”

This statement is not clear to me, are you suggesting we should start a new cold war of opposing superpowers, such as in the period after WW2. In which The U.S.S.R. formed an answer to the U.S.?

6 ‘If we hold on to pathetic patriotism, terrorism will be supported en we will end up to live in a miserable world.’

‘Patriotism’ means: ‘Love and devotion to one’s country’ I can’t think of anything wrong with this. What do you suggest? That I should feel love another country more? Or that I should love any country at all?

7 ‘People have to learn to see the advantages of the EU.’

Again I can be very short on this one: ‘Give a few examples please’

8 ‘It is very positive that Poland and 9 other countries, in the future 4 more, will join the EU. And of course it is a difficult period, but after a while, we will all accept each other. We have to ‘

Difficult one, don’t we accept each other now? Or do you perhaps mean that we have to except the EU government? Or do we have to accept each other in a way the Dutch should have had accepted the German occupiers in 1940-1945? Please specify.

9 ‘Off course it will cost a lot of money, but so what, solidarity is one of the keywords of the European policy. Remain this please.’

Apart from the money issue, on which I will later come back. Solidarity in policy, explain this to me please! When you LET someone pay for someone else’s costs, is this solidarity? Or is this oppression? When you do not allow a Muslim-woman to cover her head, is this solidarity? Or is this oppression? Should I continue? In my point of view, one is showing solidarity when helping someone else with anything, anything at all, at one’s own free will.

10 ‘By the way, the total cost of the extension will only be 20EUR a year per European citizen, within 5 years. Not very high this way isn’t it.’

Another difficult statement to react to. Where did you get this figure? I’ll try anyway. When taking only the current population total of the EU on the first of January 2004 this number is 380,8 million. So 380.800.000 * 20 * 5 = 38.080.000.000. We can also do this with the population figure after the first of may 2004, because your remark doesn’t say anythi
ng about this. I’ll try: 455.000.000 * 20 * 5 = 45.500.000.000. We are talking about 38 billion euros, best-case scenario! Where is this money going?

11 ‘Europe has to exist, Europe is the best thing which is ever happened to us.’

I do not really see a point in reacting to this absurd point of view. I will however at the end of my reply make some alterations to your entire reaction to see if it rings any bells.

12 ‘But the major problem of Europe is the fact that anybody hardly knows anything about it and we get hardly any correct information, nor in the media, nor on the Internet. That had to change if we want people getting interested in the EU, it is necessary.’

I fully support this claim!

Now as I promised, I made a few very small alterations in your fine piece of intellectual writing:

…That is where it is all about, identity, but do you really know what identity is? Nobody does. The Third Reich has to rise in order to prevent terrorist attacks and Germany has to form an answer to the capitalist power over the world. If we hold on to pathetic patriotism, terrorism will be supported and we will end up to live in a miserable world. People have to learn to see the advantages of The Third Reich.
It is very positive that Poland and 9 other countries, in the future 4 more, will join Germany. And of course it is a difficult period, but after a while, we will all accept each other. We have to. Off course it will cost a lot of money, but so what, solidarity is one of the keywords of the German policy. Remain this please. By the way, the total cost of the extension will only be 20 Reichsmark a year per German citizen, within 5 years. Not very high this way isn’t it.
The Third Reich has to exist; Germany is the best thing that has ever happened to us. But the major problem of The Third Reich is the fact that people hardly know anything about it and we get hardly any correct information, nor in the media, nor on the Internet. That had to change if we want people getting interested in the Third Reich. It is necessary.

I think this doesn’t really need any explanation! But if you do need some explanation I would like to point you to the fine article written by Peter Verkooijen, “Het Europese Model – aflevering III : Nazi’s voor de vrede” and another article by Albert Spits, “Het geweld van centrale planning” Or in fact a great number of articles on this website.

Ik hoop met mijn verweer de schrijver van bovenstaande beweringen aan het denken te zetten, ik nodig diegene dan ook van harte uit met concrete onderbouwde uitspraken te komen die mij op andere gedachten kunnen brengen.

Marick Baars