Europe's great problem

In Elsevier today well-known opponent of radical islam and professor of international law, Afshin Ellian had a magnificent op-ed (NL). I am reproducing a translation in full below.

There are many points that have been made here and elsewhere. But this is the first time I have seen these made so uncompromisingly in the Dutch MSM. That in and of itself merits some attention. But it is a great read as well. Key sentence: "Hysterical europhiles are a huge problem for Europe". Prof. Ellian has the floor:
Dangerous Europhilia - Afshin Ellian

The European EUnion has arrived at a new phase. French minister of Foreign Affairs, Alain Juppé, fears that the debt crisis may lead to an 'explosion' of the EUnion and to armed conflict on the European continent.

Now that is robust language! The French minister actually means to say that the debt crisis is a 'existential crisis' for Europe: 'Everything that has been achieved in the last twenty years, since the Maastricht Treaty, and even since the founding of the European Union, is put in doubt'.

That is why he warns that the crisis might cause armed conflict to break out in Europe:'Over the lest decades we have deluded ourselves into believing that conflict has disappeared from the continent. But I am not so sure about that.'

Armed conflict on the continent? Are hooligans and European commandos standing ready to attack each other. Weird that we haven't noticed this.

Is France planning to attack another country? How, with what weapons? Aren't we all NATO members? This strange use of language is symptomatic for the condition of the European Union. It is a diseased condition. A condition where for the first time since 1945 some dare to speak of war and armed conflict.

It is harmless but ignorant language. because there isn't even half a European thinking of war or conflict.

Really mad
Some politicians have gone mad. And that is the problem in Europe. Hysterical europhiles are a huge problem for Europe.

Under certain conditions nationalism can be dangerous. But the important question is: what is the breeding ground of current nationalism? At the moment the euro is a strong breeding ground for feelings of nationalism and nostalgia. Leading politicians from the period when the euro was introduced, have stated that the introduction was a miscarriage. Will they be the guilty ones if a European war breaks out?

Volkskrant-editors Martin Sommer and Paul Brill have studied the birth of the euro. They talked to various politicians, resulting in a wonderful report about the coming into being of the euro. Almost all of the godfathers of the euro are now distancing themselves from it, that is: from the miscarriage.

Martin Sommer writes: 'Hans Hoogervorst, then financial spokesperson for the VVD-fraction and familiar with Italy, raised the ire of D66 by stating that the Italians, once part of the euro, would let slip the [fiscal] reigns. Saying that out loud was indicative of a lack of respect. The europhile D66 would not allow any doubts about the introduction of the euro'.

D66 thinks everyone must be respected. Corrupt, Mafia-like states and communities must be respected, if D66 has any say. I am so glad that the Italians themselves are more democratic and critical then Democrats 66.

Criticism could lead to disrespectful situations, that is an inherent aspect of politics. The party for bureaucrats wants to establish an order that transcends all criticism. That is a blatantly totalitarian utopia.

One shouldn't make threats of war. But D66 and their southern soul mates should be held accountable for the miscarriage of the euro and the current dominion of bureaucrats.

Martin Sommer - correctly - calls to account reporters and journalists for their uncritical love for the European Union. Using reason and nuance, trademarks of NRC Handelsblad, as their excuse, a number of journalists collaborated with the undemocratic abuses in Europe.

Ideologically driven reporters of the so-called quality press should be ashamed of their lack of professionalism and critical eye.

Sommer draws a fully justified conclusion: 'Journalism as a whole, to the extent it was involved, fought on the side of those politicians that wanted the euro. Europe was good, because it was the answer to the Second World War. And even now you still hear the pompous view that now is the time to "seize the opportunity" to transfer as much competences to Brussels as possible. Everything to prevent the Netherlands and this horrible government from "retreating behind the dikes". It is not a valid argument but the thirst for being morally correct is unquenchable. And now we're stuffed.'

This shamelessly careless group of europhiles is beyond shame. Anyone who does not believe me should read a couple of editorial commentaries by NRC. They're horrible.

After the bankruptcy of a few banks, the bankruptcy of this type of politician and media would be a blessing for democracy.

But there is still a problem: The silent battle between north and south.

French president Sarkozy spoke again in apocalyptic terms: Without the euro European economic cooperation would no longer be possible. But monsieur le président, how did European countries - without the euro and under threat from the Soviet Union - cooperate so successfully in the past? That blackmailing language of southerly charlatans is appallingly ridiculous.

Geen opmerkingen: