Wednesday, August 28, 2013

The More the MerrEUr

Of course the European Union central apparatchiki would prefer small European states!

I'm late on this bloody giveaway by EU autocrats pining for their own empire, but just became aware via National Review's The Corner:

In Europe, where the mini-states are concentrated, we can begin to draw a chain of analogies. It starts with those frontier-hugging outliers. It continues with states that are somewhat larger but also have their own peculiar tax and banking laws (Cyprus, Luxembourg, Malta) and then onwards to Switzerland, the grandest rogue jurisdiction on the continent. Nothing stops us from advancing one step further and scrutinizing the particular tax arrangements in Ireland, or Austria, or the Netherlands, or even the City of London. The broader point is that an absence of tax harmonization makes it easy for the states of Europe to undercut one another. It would be ideal to modify the behaviour of the strongest countries, but perhaps more practical to start with the smallest. ...

These mini-states have no usefulness for the European (or global) population. They exist to serve the elites of the states that protect them. In the interest of an ever-closer union and a fuller democracy, they should all be abolished.

Got it? Small states representing their own people (including Switzerland's 8 million! Before moving on to Austria's 8.4 million or The Netherlands' 17 million!) obstruct the larger "democracy," so abolishing them serves the interests of the "European" "majority" who can more easily order about the minorities!

Given that the writer would like to--for efficiency's sake--bring the large states to heel, what "majority" is he talking about? If even the strongest (and most populous) countries aren't in favor of this "harmonization" just who is the majority being denied their wishes?

Clearly, since the only "Europeans" are the evolved, transnational EU elites insulated in Brussels and the other EU castles around Europe, the author is speaking of a majority of this tiny royal family in the making.

But as I've noted before, the EU prefers their states small so they can be pushed around (heck, even I wasn't thinking that they'd be so bold as to simply liquidate abolish the undesirable minorities!):

Why should the Brussels bureaucrats care if they ignore Belgians or Flemish and Walloons? Hell, the more the merrier. If larger states have difficulty moving the central proto-state, how will little specks on the map have any impact at all? Only the nation-states smart enough not to subdivide will retain any influence at all. But they will likely be swamped by population numbers. And who will be smart enough to resist the lure of their own flag!

There could be a Flemish Oblast and a Walloon Oblast to join with scores of other administrative entities.

This is classic divide and conquer.

Consider this incentive to divide a feature of the European Union rather than a bug. The Brussels transnational elites will laugh all the way to their new undemocratic empire while the silly people atomize their once-influential nation-states into little ethnic theme parks.

Let the people have their postage stamps and flags, the EU overlords likely think! The power will lie in Brussels, and who will be large enough to stop them?

The EU royalty doesn't even want to allow the postage stamps, now. How long before there is a European Spring with Twittering youngsters demonstrating for their freedom from Brussels?