So, as we cast a weary eye over the international press in November, we saw, once more, squeaking and squawking about the Hungarian and Polish plans to veto the EU’s next seven-year financial framework and the Next Generation fund to help those whose finances are about as neat and tidy as an explosion in a jam factory.
Of late, we’ve had that German dummkopf, Martin Schulz attacking us with the bog-standard lies. Schulz, with obviously nothing but time on his hands, still couldn’t be bothered to take the time to create new fibs.
Attention-seeking Schulz simply repeated old lies: the media in Hungary is shackled, that anti-Semitism in Hungary is more rampant than it was in Hitler’s Germany, Mr Schulz’s very own nation, and that the Germans are entitled to be upset with Hungary because the Germans are the monied breast from which all Hungarians now suckle.
Utter pigshit, of course, but you can’t keep a good German liberal down, can you?
In his reply to Schulz, our Prime Minister highlighted that Schulz has been stuck in this same rut for years. He, as a good liberal German, as someone who was born into a nation that did very well for itself after having initiated the near-destruction of the continent, feels that he has the God-given right to demand that everyone follow his every inconsequential demand.
Now, the EU veto. Quite unlike the reactions to the idea of using veto, it’s not some sort of childish tantrum, it’s a legal right provided by the EU.
And the reactions from the EU themselves reveal the continual dichotomy that lies within the EU. Fight to uphold all legal rights, but fight to deny the legal right to veto for the Hungarians and Poles.
This is the illogical world of the EU. An organisation where not only does the right hand not know what the left is doing, but with alarming regularity, it seems highly likely that the right hand is not even aware of the existence of the left.
So, what of the furore surrounding the legal right of a Member State to employ a veto? What of the commotion that has been provoked by our declaration? What of the pandemonium and hand-wringing that surrounds the statement that we will use the legal right to veto to prevent the EU from forcing the indeterminate ‘rule of law’ mechanism down our throats?
Well, what of it? Do we care? Should we care? Would anyone in our shoes care?
The fact is that the EU, under pressure from Soros, reneged on the deal that was struck in July. As a result, it’s nothing less than unbecoming to blame the Hungarians and the Poles for something that doesn’t even bear their fingerprints. The EU were, and still are, in control of the movement of this debate. The ball is in the EU’s court. The EU agreed to ensure that funding is not connected to this woolly ‘rule of law’ mechanism. With that assurance they agreed to provide a legal guarantee that funding could not be withheld from Member States on the basis of a rubber concept that could be stretched and bent to fit whatever the liberals wanted.
But what is it that we’re losing out on here? Take a step back, regard the situation, and ask yourself this: what have we got to lose? Quite apart from the daft, scurrilous attacks we are obliged to suffer at the hands of arrogant fools like Schulz, what is it, exactly, that the EU think we have to lose?
When we agreed to the EU’s Next Generation Fund, we agreed to assume part of a debt raised to assist those who are unable to balance their countries’ books. If that someone defaults on that loan, then we will be required to cover the part of the loan which falls on us. So, we assume part of a loan on a financial mess, and potentially end up in a worse position financially, because someone, over whom we have no control, can’t manage their finances. Surely everyone can see that it’s stretching the truth more than a little to suggest that this is something that will benefit us. This won’t benefit anyone but the member states whose finances are in a mess. We weren’t happy about taking out a collective loan, but agreed to help. But we’re not benefitting from this. Again, we have nothing to lose.
But the loan is only the most minor of points, we all know what this debate intended to force down our throats: the ‘rule of law’ mechanism. This is nothing less than the incessant insistence of the liberals within the EU that we kowtow to their will, and sign a binding, blank piece of paper related to some ‘airy-fairy’ unclear definition of a concept that can be stretched at will to provide whatever evidence the liberals deem necessary to prove their right to deny us money.
This is a big step on the road to the United States of Europe, a big step in the direction of a system where we end up as a reinterpretation of the USSR. Only this time, everything will be controlled by the EU parliament, not by the politburo.
We were asked to sign a blank piece of paper that our enemies could use to deny us funds. With this mechanism we, or any other Member State who incurs the wrath of the liberals, would be denied funds they are entitled to.
What would anyone else do? Lie down and surrender? Why? What does that get you? Why not fight? Why not fight to keep the money we’re due? Why not fight to ensure that our rights aren’t trampled underfoot by the liberals in parliament? Why not fight for what we believe to be true, instead of bowing down and accepting that which we know to be false?
Honestly, what have we got to lose?
We’ll continue to be damned for transgressions while others flaunt their impunity.
Damned if we do, damned if we don’t.
What have we got to lose?