Peter Hitchens Eu is the Continuation of Germany
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Source: https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/11/the-eu-is-the-continuation-of-germany-by-other-means.html
Ha, indeed Mr Bunker. I recently explained to a Chinese friend, how one can create very long words in German. I didn't think of this one though, must have slipped my mind...
Posted by: Luca Brandt | 07 December 2015 at 06:28 PM
Mr Bunker, indeed I do. Yes, I also find it a bit ridiculous that they think it was so special. I know the word and can pronounce it and I thought it was rather disgraceful that Andrew Neill didn't even manage to say it properly. I just mentioned it, so you know who I mean, since only one guy can hold the record.
And he is exactly the kind of politician I like. Very upright, traditional, honest and sophisticated. I thank you, too, though I have to insist that your view is definitely utopian...
Posted by: Luca Brandt | 07 December 2015 at 07:18 AM
Luca Brandt - it's just occurred to me that an MP wishing to go down in history as having used the longest word in parliament might say something like this:
"Why don't we in the British meat industry have something equivalent to the German Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz"?
Posted by: Mr Bunker | 06 December 2015 at 07:32 PM
Luca Brandt - just two minor points. Yes, my idea of a united Europe is probably Utopian. I'd like to think it isn't though. And secondly, 'floccinaucinihilpilification' is a word I first heard in the sixth form (I think) in the 1950's, so I don't understand the hype about someone using it! I've read Wiki on Mr Rees-Mogg, sounds just like the sort of character I can't stand! - But thanks for a good and well-informed discussion. - It makes me wonder if you live in Germany like me.
Posted by: Mr Bunker | 05 December 2015 at 06:02 PM
Mr Bunker, the Rees-Mogg I mean is the one who holds the record for using the longest word in parliament (floccinaucinihilipilification) and you can watch the video on YouTube. I am not a UK-resident either by the way…
Yes, "left-wing" and "right-wing" are generalizations. My point was exactly that; the differences between the parties aren't that big and they are all left-wing. That is exactly what I mean, that Mrs Merkel might just be in the SPD. And yes, of course Mr Slippery is left-wing. He is egalitarian, and he is against family and national sovereignty etc. and "things come out of his mouth that I used to say when I was a Trotskyist", as Mr Hitchens put it. Which of the mentioned parties wouldn't you see as left-wing?
Your view about the EU seems to be a utopian one. I have encountered this line of argument before. In your heart of hearts you know that it can't be done, but wouldn't it be nice, eh?
The thing is, even if it were nice (which I don't think it would be), it just isn't possible and that is really the end of it. What we need is cooperation in general. Countries can agree on some things that concern them all and deal with areas for themselves, which aren't anybody else's business. This way we can have actual benefits without being ruled by appointed commissars. Never mind that centralisation is bad under any circumstances, this EU will never be democratic. So it is a complete failure and should be dismantled as soon as possible, before the daily damage it does becomes too big to recover from…
Posted by: Luca Brandt | 04 December 2015 at 05:00 PM
Luca Brandt - again I have to disagree with one or two points. I'm well aware of the difference between the situation of the USA and Europe. I'm sure you realize that. But I'm talking about the principle of federalism and giving up certain aspects of sovereignty to a a central, democratic authority. I rather doubt that, say, New Jersey, is in any way perturbed at having reliquished its autonomy in defence and foreign affairs to the elccted representatives in Wahsington. My point is that in a united Europe, each individual former sovereign country would (I imagine, at least) be equally happy to act similarly. Of course it would be more difficult in Europe, given the many national and cultural differences, not to mention the various languages. It might prove impossible for all I know, but if it were to come about, peacefully and democratically, I'd certainly welcome it as an improvement on a weak Europe of nations, each pursing its own intersests often to the detriment of the others. That system has caused enough trouble in the past., even in my lifetime.
I don't fully understand you point about my dislike for the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing". For a start they're generalizations that never truly fit the bill and seem inappropriate to politics either in the UK or in Germany. Is Mr Slippery right or left wing? Was Blair left or right? And what about Mrs Merkel - she could easily be in the SPD! -- Nor can I understand why you say these terms "can still be used in order to show fundamental differences between the parties" if there aren't any. And I certainly wouldn't define all the parties you mention as 'left-wing' anyway. - In general terms, I'm not keen on generalizations, I prefer differentiation.
As to Rees-Mogg, you'll have to excuse me. I'm not resident in the UK and am not that familiar with the intricacies of the British political scene and I can't watch Channel 4. Moreover I see there are more than one Rees-Mogg, so possibly I'm mixing them up. I vaguely remember a comment a few years ago by one Rees-Mogg which I totally disagreed with - but I honestly can't remember why. So OK, if you think Jacob R-M is great, that's fine by me.
Posted by: Mr Bunker | 04 December 2015 at 02:40 PM
Well, Mr Bunker, it seems you have quite overestimated our agreement. Invoking the USA as an example is futile and won't help your argument one bit. The USA were founded with one mission, one spirit, one main language and one law, they were, in a word, a nation. Europe is the *very opposite* of that. It is the most diverse continent on earth with many different nations and cultures. It will never, not in a thousand years, be anything like the USA of the 18th century. It's true, the British don't feel "European". That is also true for all the other nations in Europe, even for Germany, which, as I said before, would be most likely to be alright with the concept of one country (in comparison). If we, that is PH, I and most other commentators on this blog, talk about controlling one's borders we mean of course the borders of the member states of the EU and not some vague "European border". The USA is also a very bad example for a different reason. As it happens the "member states" of the USA have in many ways retained more autonomy than we have here. The gap widens by the day.
Why aren't you "happy with the terms left-wing or right-wing in connection with the German political parties"? Of course these terms aren't that precise and may have (almost) lost their usefulness. But they can still be used in order to show fundamental differences between the parties. In the case of the Tories and the CDU in comparison to Labour and the SPD, there aren't many. And that's my point. They are all egalitarian, all internationalist etc, so they are all 'left-wing'.
Yes, "great". I like him very much. Jacob Rees-Mogg is an honourable and decent man, who is one of the few remaining real conservatives in the Tory party. He said this when he visited the Oktoberfest. You can watch a Channel 4 video about it. And what he meant was, that even the AfD, which is the most 'eurosceptic' thing you can get in Germany today, doesn't want the break-up of the EU, but merely wants to get rid of the Euro. That is milk to UKIP's and other British eurosceptic's brandy.
Posted by: Luca Brandt | 03 December 2015 at 10:41 AM
Luca Brandt -very interesting comments. I agree with much of what you say, but not all. I'm not a great fan of Mrs Merkel (nor of her party) but in this case I think you cannot fault her for doing what the German constitution demands - namely, giving asylum to those being politically persecuted. The big mistake, in my opinion, was this: The Basic Law speaks only of those seeking asylum. It does not demand that German take in 'refugees'. But this is what has happened. And now capacity is running out, partly as a result of 'refugees' so that it may soon prove impossible to cope with the true asylum-seekers. But that is not entirely Mrs Merkel's fault.
Nor can I entirely agree with your point about giving away some of a country's sovereignty. That is a process that has taken place, surely, within every large country - for example, the USA. Haven't the various states, which existed before the union, given up some of their sovereignty (foreign policy, for example) but have retained 'local sovereignty' under a federal system. That is the sort of thing I'd envisage for a united Europe. The benefits? Well, plenty - greater influence in the world, the stronger federal states helping the weaker ones, better (more coordinated) crime prevention and so on. You know what I mean, I'm sure.
And yes, I agree, countries (states) should control their own borders. A united Europe would do so.
I'm not sure what C Morrison meant by political correctness in the context of Germany. Nor am I happy with the terms left-wing or right-wing in connection with the German political parties. Nor what Mr Rees-Mogg (great?) meant when he spoke of German eurosceptics. When did he do so? I ask, because on the whole I think there have always been few eurosceptics, and far more fans of Europe, in West Germany and united Germany. Unfortunately that is changing as the refugee crisis continues.
One final point. I'm sure euroscepticism is (or has been) far more widespread in the UK than it is in Germany. And I must make quite clear. I have always said that in my opinion British people do not feel 'European' and it would probably be a good thibng both for the UK and for Europe if Britain were to leave the EU. - (I've heard that there's a referendum coming up shortly!)
Posted by: Mr Bunker | 02 December 2015 at 01:32 PM
Luca Brandt...."By the way, I recently talked to an American friend, and the first thing he asked was, what was going on in Europe"
Barbara Lerner Spectre will tell your friend what's going on in Europe, Luca.
Posted by: Michael Wood | 02 December 2015 at 10:35 AM
By the way, I recently talked to an American friend, and the first thing he asked was, what was going on in Europe. They can't believe the state of affairs we have here.
"I also think you are right to mention the role played by a pervading sense, not of guilt, but of German responsibility from the way so many German people were involved in the crimes of the National Socialists. That, I agree, still has an influence on German policies - towards Israel, for example. But I don't think that sould be overemphasized"
Indeed. But it is usually underemphasized, and especially so in Peter Hitchens' case. Also, you need to remember that the country as it now is was said up as an anti-Nazi system. And in many ways it has just run straight into the opposite direction. Heinrich August Winkler calls this the "Negativer Gründungsmüthos" (literally "negative founding myth"). One striking example was the radical militarism under Hitler and then the radical (one might say immoral and reckless) pacifism of the Bundesrepuplik.
Also, concerning the point C. Morrison made. Of course so called political correctness which almost invariably is wrong politically is the main problem. But it is also true that the political class is mainly left-wing. There is the socialist hard left ("Die Linke") and the semi-socialist moderate left (SPD und CDU). Most CDU members don't even pretend to be conservative anymore and don't call themselves that. Like the Tories they are egalitarian and all in all pretty interchangeable with the SPD. The new AfD is not a properly established party yet and seems to be mainly libertarian and conservative. It is derided as being hard-right, fascist and all the rest of it, while the party itself obviously isn't. that of course is, because the media are overwhelmingly left-wing. And the AfD is the most right-wing thing you can get, and as the great MP Mr Rees-Mogg rightly said. "The German eurosceptics are milk to our eruosceptics' brandy".
Oh right, I forgot the FDP, which of course is quite similar to Clegger's chaps and exactly as useless and also left-wing...
By the way, the video is now available on YouTube, so you can watch it there. The last sentenced just was a question concerning the possibility of commenting directly on other comments, like you can do on YouTube for example. How do you do the thing C. Morrison did, that is to quote some part of a comment by putting it in these asterisks? Do you use the URL field in the comment section?
Posted by: Luca Brandt | 30 November 2015 at 12:19 PM
Mr Bunker, I personally don't consider it 'treason', but I see how some people do. Her job and duty is to defend and further the interests of the German people and the power she is awarded to do so, is just a temporary lend and not a gift or transferal. It's not like she takes state secrets and sells them to the Chinese. Still it is not her right to give away sovereignty. Also, I must say you make it sound too harmless. It is not just giving up "some of a country's autonomy". If it continues to go as it is going now and has been going since the start, autonomy will be gone completely. If over 80% of your laws are made elsewhere, you are not independent. If the EU were a freedom loving democratic body, we could talk about the merits of the thing and its capacity to "unite Europe". The way it is though, that seems laughable. Tell me one good thing of great importance that has come out of it. I don't see any benefits. Cooperation on a European level could be achieved by a Counsel of Europe, which de Gaulle for example wanted. Peace? The EU has caused two wars and is more imperialistic than most of its member states ever were, when they had their independence. You could name many more things of course.
Concerning migration: The main thing is to control your own borders. If you don't have that you can't control who comes in and what they plan to do. I won't even name terrorism, because, as our host does, I think the argument for controlled borders is strong enough as it is. If you then, as a country decide, that it is wise to take many refugees or economic migrants you can do that. But just letting everybody in is madness. The numbers is what matters. I think we should have immigration, but we should decide who enters the country under what conditions.
Posted by: Luca Brandt | 30 November 2015 at 11:19 AM
This was very interesting as PH was allowed to put his case without interruption. Unfortunately the video kept stalling for ten seconds and starting again for ten. I was reading a book at the same time and got the hang of it, but gave up after the second or third question from the audience as it was a more tiring way than usual to spend a Saturday night.
Posted by: S. Coleman | 29 November 2015 at 10:36 PM
This was an excellent talk, as expected. So, by the way, was PH's talk at Bristol about Putin. I'd like to see more like this. I wonder why PH doesn't have his own Youtube channel, where he could make 5 / 10 minute speeches on whatever issue is on the table?
If he finds himself being interrupted and so on, on QT or those Sunday politics programmes, The Big Questions and the rest, then he could upload a video setting out his case without interruption. He'd reach more people because not all the public read very well.
Posted by: John Aspinall | 29 November 2015 at 12:03 AM
Posted by: Mr Bunker 28 November 2015 at 02:28 PM.
"But I can't see how it should be treason (not even tantamount to treason) to be in favour of a united Europe and to be prepared to give up some of a country's autonomy and transfer it to a central European authority. Whether the present authority is what we'd like it to be is another matter.".
Odd that you can't see how surrendering *all* (in any way it matters) of our country's autonomy to another country or alliance of countries over whose decisions we have no say doesn't amount to treason, men have been hanged for less. Apparently, it isn't even important whether 'the present authority is what we'd like it to be' or not, so you are in favour to surrendering our autonomy to an organisation which is totally opposed to everything we stand for or used to stand for, obviously your concept of treason differs from mine.
Posted by: Michael Williamson | 28 November 2015 at 10:06 PM
Luca Brandt - thanks for that reply. You are obviously an informed observer of German politics and I agree with most of what you write. But I can't see how it should be treason (not even tantamount to treason) to be in favour of a united Europe and to be prepared to give up some of a country's autonomy and transfer it to a central European authority. Whether the present authority is what we'd like it to be is another matter.
Also, I don't think we can fault Frau Merkel for saying there is no limit on how many asylum-seekers we can take in, i.e. no limit laid down in the Grundgesetz in absolute numbers. If there is a limit it is a logistical one - when our capacity to take them in runs out. I do agree though that she was rash to "welcome all" (or words to that effect) since this has probably encouraged more people to come and seek asyslum than otherwise would have been the case. I don't think that amounts to breaking her oath though.
I also think you are right to mention the role played by a pervading sense, not of guilt, but of German responsibility from the way so many German people were involved in the crimes of the National Socialists. That, I agree, still has an influence on German policies - towards Israel, for example. But I don't think that sould be overemphasized.
I'm unable to watch the Hitchens video so I'm not sure what points he makes. But in my estimation many, possibly most, German politicians would like eventually to be part of a united Europe. Whether that is Utopian, I'm not sure. But in present circumstances it's beginning to look like it - unfortunately.
PS - I don't understand your last sentence.
Posted by: Mr Bunker | 28 November 2015 at 02:28 PM
Luca Brandt | 27 November 2015 at 10:06 AM :
*** Germany is not a proper nation anymore that actually pursues its interest. The guilt-religion and the left-wing nature of the German politicial class ***
They're not "left wing" -- their ideology is "political correctness".
An ideological toxin which has destroyed most of what could sensibly be called 'the left', but is highly compatible with transnational monopoly-capitalism.
Posted by: C. Morrison | 27 November 2015 at 04:59 PM
A reply to Mr Bunker:
I agree with you that we should, where we can, cooperate on a European level. We of course don't need the horrid super state for that. But that is a different issue.
I want to say something about your point about the oath. It is true that these politicians have to swear to "ward harm from" the German people. The reason they have to do it, is because it says so in the 'Grundgesetz', which is Germany's constitution, though it was meant origianlly to be only provisional. In practice the question is, if they really (want to) do that. Of course in a democracy bad politics and false policies are allowed, because nobody has the right to speak an absolute verdict on them. But to many it is obvious that allowing a foreign power, in this case, the EU - which may be in practice dominated to a large degree by German (economic) power, but which is still an unaccountable entity which is run by unelected officials instead of elected representatives - to make the country's laws could be in itself considered treason. Another very concrete point these days is the handling of the refugee and migrant crisis, which faces our nations. By not only allowing mass immigration on a scale that has never been heard of before, but actually directly encouraging it, one could argue that Mrs Merkel and the government are inflicting on rather than preventing harm from the German people. This kind of behaviour transcends ordinary bad policy. Indeed it is contemplated by the Alternative für Deutschland at the moment, to sue the Chancellor for breaking her oath. That of course won't be a successful undertaking, nevertheless it might increase the public pressure to a point, where she has almost no choice but to resign.
I used Mr Hitchens' definition of a (proper) nation as expressed in the talk at hand and on many other occasions. My point was that his analysis seems sound and would probably hold if we were talking about France, Britain, Russia or Poland. In the case of Germany this is just not persuasive, because Mrs Merkel and the whole political class with very few honourable exceptions - Mr Bosbach would be one of them - are in favour of dissolving the country and building a utopian superstate. They don't want to rule anything, they want to be part of something bigger and be liked. When it comes to contemporary German politics never underestimate the guilt-religion, which underlines everything the politicians do.
By the way, is it possible to answer to someone's post directly, so he notices it?
Posted by: Luca Brandt | 27 November 2015 at 04:56 PM
An interesting comment from Luca Brandt. Germany, he says, is not a proper nation any more. A "proper nation", in his view at least, is a nation that pursues its "own interest".- Well, I think it's not entirely true that German politicians don't pursue German interests. On assuming office, the Federal President, Chancellor and Ministers have to swear an oath to dedicate their efforts "to the well-being of the German people, enhance its benefits and ward harm from it". But as long as European interests don't conflict with that, then they are, I think, generally accepted as equally important. Sometimes even more so. And I see nothing wrong in that. Is it not an inprovement over former national states, each one jealously guarding its own rights and interests, often enough to the detriment of others - with all the trouble that that has caused in the past? In that sense I'm glad Germany is not "a proper nation anymore".
Posted by: Mr Bunker | 27 November 2015 at 03:51 PM
Peter, your analysis is very sound, but it neglects one point, which is the most important one of them all. Germany is not a proper nation anymore that actually pursues its interest. The guilt-religion and the left-wing nature of the German politicial class, which makes your Mr Slippery look like a Burkean conservative in comparison, leads to only one goal and that is to genuinely stop existing as a country. So all of the "domination" which you talk about is only accidental today.
One anecdote can illustrate this quite nicely. It was told by a (real) conservative historian (of which there are almost none these days) called Arnulf Baring. He went with a German delegation to Russia. And the German politicians were asked by the Russians, what the German interests were today. The politicians quite smugly said that there was no such thing. They were the same as the "European interests". The Russians thought pretty much like you did that these people were very cunning. Sadly, they actually, literally mean it.
Posted by: Luca Brandt | 27 November 2015 at 10:06 AM
"Ever closer union" ....that's what's on the agenda and the British government is all for it - make no mistake.
One thing that an 'ever closer' relationship will mean is the centralised issue of passports to all citizens of the one union.
There will be no information in it to identify country of birth - that's what ever closer partnership will impose to ensure freedom of movement.
As I write, Germany, France and Italy are being flooded with potential enemies of the West who are being accepted as refugees.
When they are eventually issued passports by Brussels they will, to all intents and purposes, become 'British' as well as 'ever closer citizens' of this 'ever closer union'.
Now we all know that Germany and Italy love us Brits and France even more so! They have already kindly relieved us of all our infrastructure, industry and agriculture and with the blessings of consecutive British governments - with the present Tory one adding China to the list of grateful recipients.
Our military, meanwhile, has been reduced to a mere shadow of its former glory while Germany and France are up to the strength that Britain was - post WW2 and we now know for sure that Cameron wants to reduce our police force to being virtually ineffectual.
So, what is Europe - the geographical Europe - that is growing 'ever closer' to becoming our colonial ruler - going to do with all these potential enemies of the USA and her puppet Britain, who has bombed, and been seen to bomb them out of their own countries?
And how is Britain ever going to prevent herself from becoming an 'ever closer' 'ISIS paradise'.
Posted by: Michael Wood | 27 November 2015 at 07:32 AM
Little bit annoyed because I'm at Bristol University and you did a talk here recently and it wasn't half as interesting as this one. I guess next time we'll have to make sure an International Affairs society invites you rather than the journalism one.
Posted by: Thomas | 27 November 2015 at 05:02 AM
Unfortunately I can't get this video on my computer, so all I can say is that there are a lot of people commenting on Germany who seem to have little idea what they're talking about. My main point is this: Who is to blame for the present destabiliation of the Mittle East? It was NOT Germany. The culprits are to be found, still alive an kicking, in the USA and (now and again) in the UK. I refer to George W(aterboarder) Bush and his poodle Anthony Blair - in my honest, but humble, opinion, a couple of war criminals. Germany's foreign minister at the time told war-mongering Rumsfeld that Germany was not going to join in the "coalition of the kil .. willing" against Iraq because he was "not convinced".
The result of the American and British intervention in Iraq has led - as I said at the time it would - to a massive increase in Islamist terrorism around the world. We are now living with that UK/US-made terrorist threat. The IS is Bush's baby. Germany cannot be blamed for that. On the contrary, how many refugees and asylum-seekers, fleeing from that terror and the chaos in their homelands caused by Bush and Blair ..., how many of them are being granted asylum by Britain the the USA? - I don't know the figures, but I can give you one figure: So far this year Germany has accepted 950 000 . Angela Merkel may have been rash to say we would accept them but the German constitution demands that we grant asylum to the politically persecuted.
One word about borders. The problem is not so much Schengen, i.e. open borders within the EU. The problem is the external borders and the shores of the EU. It 's doubtful whether they can be sealed and made impervious to illegal immigration.
The world is in a mess. We are facing huge problems and grave dangers. And we are going to have to live with Islamist terrorism for a long time to come. All that is not Germany's fault. Some of Germany's 'critics' should try looking in the mirror.
Posted by: Mr Bunker | 26 November 2015 at 09:57 PM
Paul;
*** "This won't stream to my computer. The motion and sound are jerkily stop-start. It needs to be on YouTube I think." ***
Pause the video for 1 hour and allow it to download more fully and it will play fluidly (I had the same problem).
Posted by: L Porter | 26 November 2015 at 07:45 PM
Germany,seems to be having a free ride regarding fighting IS, being the mouthpiece of the European Union and pushing for open borders the rest of Europe,should be asking why the Germans aren't leading from the front instead of the farcical Hollande, flying around the world drumming up support ; whilst here in the UK, the equally inept Cameron, is posing under the guise of a Churchillian, but appearing more Captain Mainwaring.
Posted by: Ted | 26 November 2015 at 03:49 PM