I used to think Future Taoiseach was more than a bit over the top with his talk about "elites" in Europe.
However, then I saw that one of Charlie McCreevy's seven-member "cabinet" is none other than the son of ex-Commissioner Peter Sutherland:
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/ ... net_en.htm
What are the chances, eh?
It shows why certain people are supporting Lisbon. The elites benefit from the Treaty the people don't. They want to rule an empire from the palaces of Brussels without having to get the consent of the public in elections or referenda. The elites constitute a form of aristocracy for the emerging Euroempire. The court is Brussels, and the monarch is Barroso.
Isn't it political and bureaucratic elites deciding that they know what's best for the Great Unwashed millions? I can't think of a more pertinent example myself. It's all reminiscent of the 19th Century, the future of entire nations, of a continent, decided by five fat men in a palace drawing room, I think World War 1 was the result...
I think the way it's heading is more reminscent of the 18th century where a new absolutism is being set up. Ironically the French parliament held its session in the Palace of Versailles when ratifying this Treaty. The Commissioners remind me of the "intendants" in the French Ancien Regime. The President of the Commission will be the king, with Berlaymont being his palace.Originally Posted by toxic avenger
These bureaucrats think "L'etat c'est nous".
We should ratify it in a train carriage nearby...I think the way it's heading is more reminscent of the 18th century where a new absolutism is being set up. Ironically the French parliament held its session in the Palace of Versailles when ratifying this Treaty.
Don't mention the train carriage. Last year I was chatting up a French girl who mentioned she was from Compiegne and asked me if I'd heard of it. I said yes, that's where you surrendered to the Germans in World War II in the train carriage used for the World War I armistice. Lead balloon = understatement.
How could she be offended by a historical fact? I once defended the sinking of the fleet at Mers-el-Kebir to French people, now that was unpopular...
Yes there is no reason to feel offended by historical facts. Personally I always try to avoid anachronisms, and I consider that the Europeans nations became interesting only when the people were granted modern civic rights. And I even consider those rights are far from perfect yet, for instance by being imposed some text the population voted against two years ago.
Speaking of WWI, both French and Germans were ruled by an elite which you could compare to the British establishment, and they didn't have a say in whatever evil or good deeds of their elites. They were more like canon fodder. My ancestors were all Bretons and they didn't even speak French until recently, they were all peasants who had tried to survive locally for centuries. They only started to be really French with the modern school system and the modern economy.
Speaking of nowadays European elites, I would be more concerned by the growing gap between those who get safe jobs, and those who only get temporary poorly paid jobs. You could be attracted by "free and undistorted competition" as a theory, but what you can observe in practice is that many people are never threatened by unemployment, even if their achievements are appallingly bad. And there are those who work with outstanding merit, but still fall into unemployment every now and then.
The free market society seems to apply only to those who don't have cronies, or an important family, or a sect, and so on.
I wonder if a European Commission appointed expert can even imagine what it is not to have the money to go to an important international meeting, for instance. Or not having the money to properly repair a front tooth before going to that meeting. I doubt so. Still, it is the real practical living conditions that more and more very skilled European are experiencing nowadays.
When I look at how fisheries policies are managed locally, I see that there is more than official reports about this or that species of fish. There is a sociological gap between the biology scientists, who have their carreers granted for life and have free transport to go to their international meetings in Copenhagen, and there are the fishermen's families who suffer from oil prices for boats' engines, and are threatened by bankruptcy everyday.
Even if you restrict your observations to the biological scientists, there are those who get the safe jobs, usually through a subtle socio-political process in which they are identified as "decent experts", which always sums up to being pro-European, and there are the younger graduates who are ignored, those who have no political connections and no important family, who will end up as pizza deliverers or will have to move to the US.
This is why when I see all the fuss about Scottish devolution and all those talks about Scottish nationalism and past centuries history, I cannot help wonder "for which Scot"? Because it is all too obvious that the Scottish parliament will develop a bureaucracy of safe jobs, with Quangos of experts intimately linked to the European bureaucracy, and there is the average Scot who will be more and more poorly paid and poorly employed, and will eventually have to leave Scotland. I think a number of Scots who are presently demonstrating "for Scotland" don't realize to what extent the newly planned global-European-devoluted-autonomous Scotland has no room for them.
[size=1][color=grey]My name is Plissken[/color][/size]
Politics.ie is Ireland's leading politics and current affairs website with more than 900,000 visitors a month. Founded in 2003, Politics.ie has one of the most engaged, respected and influential politics and current affairs communities.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks