The new EC President doesn’t start until November, but is already planning a Federal EU in which no opposition to directives will be tolerated. At the same time, more and more evidence of economic quicksand is available for those beyond ideological space cadets to view. If Great Britain wants to survive as a genuinely democratic, free-thinking, independently trading State and important financial centre, it is absolutely vital that we shed the leaden boots of a federalising Europe, and remain fleet of foot in a world that is about to change beyond all recognition.
Like some pantomime Cruella de Ville, incoming EU Commission “President” Ursula von der Leyen has wasted no time in ensuring zat orderss vill be obeyt at all timess. Her target – surprise, surprise – is social media and (quote) ‘the removal of illegal content, including racism and xenophobia from websites’. Even the Commission itself describes the new “rule book” as introducing ‘sweeping legal powers to regulate hate speech other illegal content and political advertising’.
Ostensibly, the move is being positioned as an ‘overhaul of how the EU treats tech companies’, but the rules will be applied to every last online commentator be they big or small. Von der Leyen gleefully promised that the new legislation “will upgrade our digital rules and complete our digital single market”. Or put another way, “our single point of view”.
My new nickname for this woman is Alice Klar.
To self-styled Leftlibbers, these insanely controlling ideas will not be feared in any way at all. But people with open minds, knowledge of political history and an awareness of how antilibertarians think will see this for exactly what it is: the next stage on from the infamous EU Data Protection Act.
The Commission announcement is predictably sketchy, and fails to address any of the following obvious questions:
- what is the definition of ‘racist’?
- Is every fear of an antithetical culture to be termed xenophobia?
- will Islamics use it to shut up what they cleverly call Islamophobia?
- can we define ‘other illegal content’ please?
- Will Verhofstadt be regulated in his role as a xenophobic, one-man hate advertising campaign?
- Is hate speech hate speech even if it is shown to be true?
But don’t hold your breath waiting for the European
Yes Machine Parliament to offer any kind of forensic analysis on the subject: this deconstruction of free speech will go through without touching the No-Button of MEPs (Misanthropic Euro Plonkers).
Several years on from the Data Privacy Act, that thinly-veiled secret cupboard has been used over and over again to hide all the grubby stuff going on behind our backs, and every last shred of ECB output likely to give a true picture of the eurozone’s disastrous state. We have all become used to the sight on every search engine of the immortal words ‘Some entries have been removed under EU Data Privacy laws’.
But not all member States have been quite as cooperative as (for example) our very own United Kingdom. Yesterday, the Commission anounced its intention to take Greece and Spain to the European Court of Justice for failing to pass the Act in its own legislatures.
I do not know the exact details of why they failed so to do, but I can understand why any genuine democrat would. Because the key words in the Act were (and still are – my italics) “that the data of victims, witnesses, suspects and perpetrators are protected in the context of a criminal investigation”.
I’m sorry to harp on about this, but that really does represent, to even the most simplistic legal mind, an unadulterated carte blanche to bury information about the innocent and what became of them, while letting the guilty disappear scott-free. I fully understand the need for wrongly accused suspects to retain their privacy; but the EU Data Privacy Act was the kind of thing that would’ve had the Soviet secret policeman Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria creaming his jeans.
Typically, the legislation was rationalised as being essential to the “accomplishment of an area of freedom, security and justice”. That is a classic of Orwellian Newspeak, and reminiscent of the despicable Nazi sign, Arbeit macht frei.
Allow me to put that kind of banal totalitarianism into the context of this post. I made reference at the outset to ‘orders being obeyed’ in a somewhat stereotypical satire at the expense of German culture. The proposed new von der Leyen Act would find me guilty there of xenophobia, or hate speech, or ‘other illegal content’ as yet undefined. So, the Nazis never existed then? There were no German Gauleiters plundering Europe in the Second World War then?
Purely by asking the question, ‘will Islamics use it to shut up what they cleverly call Islamophobia?’ could also catch me out as a phobic speaker of hate. So fear of Jihadism is a phobia then? Pointing out that Islamic culture is antithetical to European values is a crime against multicultural settled science then? I don’t know: maybe this is a question one should ask of Mr Yaxley-Lennon.
The central aim of the Soviet Union was to erase history prior to rewriting it. The European Union is at the exact same game – witness, for example, the EU Army that was a figment of the UKIP imagination one minute, and a joyously revealed Brusselian secret the next.
Of course, I recognise that the protection of liberty is a subject that bounces off the closed minds of fearfully conformist Leftlibbers. Sadly, almost exactly the same observation applies to economic and fiscal reality in the EU. Some weeks back, I put up a Slogpost on Facebook (the ancestral home of Remoanoid braindeath) pointing out that the German economy was entering a recession. It was nonsense, they said. More Leaver lies, they said. Hahahaha. Oh how they laughed.
Seven weeks on, the influential Ifo Institute in Munich says its business climate indicator for German manufacturing went into “free fall” in July. Forget the relative woes of the country’s car industry: today, more than 80% of Germany’s factories are in contraction….and manufacturing activity for the entire eurozone has dropped to levels last seen in the depths of the 2012 EU liquidity crisis.
Outgoing boss of the European Central Bank (ECB) Mario Draghi warned that the picture is getting “worse and worse”. I never saw Mario as much of an outgoing sort of chap, but I’m sure he is exceptionally glad to be outgoing right now. Whether the fiscally illiterate Christine Lagarde relishes her incoming status is unknown: luckily for her, she has a huge income and an inflation-proof pension to steady her nerves. That, and the knowledge that she can be found guilty of misuse of public funds, and be punished by becoming the incoming ECB President. What the outcome of her upcoming Presidency might be is is not so much anyone’s guess as a cynically accurate certainty that she will be smelling of something expensive when she quits the post. Nobody has ever been able to explain why her French political opponent Dominic Strauss-Kahn was hounded from the job of IMF boss while she was incoming before he had been outgoing. But rest assured that the EU Data Privacy Act did not stand in her way.
As the Buddhists so often observe (and let’s face it, they’re right) Everything Is Connected.
And so finally, let’s turn to how Boris’s maiden Parliamentary speech as PM has been received by the Eunatics.
Well, he who is the outgoing commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, told Johnson in his first call to the new UK PM that the EU27 will not give in to his demand to renegotiate the Brexit withdrawal agreement. As outgoing as ever and upcoming with his views, Juncker called the existing deal “the best and only agreement possible”, without specifying who it might be best for, and who beyond Olly Robbins and Theresa May had agreed to it. This still eludes the late J-C, but the UK Parliament rejected the deal three times by massive majorities. But then, Juncker cannot get along with the idea of democracy being on the People’s side, rather than a thorn in his.
Meanwhile, barmier than most and the man for whom the news is never the news, Michel Barnier leapt in after 3.7 seconds of thought to opine that dumping the backstop was “of course unacceptable”, but then adding with impeccable flexibility that he was prepared to analyse “any UK idea on withdrawal issues that are compatible with the existing withdrawal agreement”.
Barnier added that the new Prime Minister wished only to “heap pressure on the unity of the EU27”, which is rather like saying Johnson wants to poke two extra holes in a sieve….despite the fact that BoJo went out of his way to say he didn’t want to do that.
Monsieur Barnier concluded, with an approachability that can only be described as intransigent, “what remains essential on our side is to remain calm, and stick to our principles”. Verily, we search for those principles in vain.
It goes without saying that the bilious Blair to Cooper via Cable to Momentum 48% will view this as yet more evidence of Britain being ‘difficult’. If upholding real liberal democracy in this our epoch of counterfeit values was easy, everyone would be doing it. But most aren’t, and that’s the problem.
I do not see Boris Johnson as some kind of Fidel Castro: on the contrary, he is posturing in search of the populist vote. I see him as a useful battering ram against the castle door of the EU’s Raubritters. Once the Robber Barons have been sent packing, thinking Brits can then focus on getting rid of our own home-grown thieves.
One step at a time, as they say.