TONY Blair has stated that in a straight fight between Right-wing populism and Left-wing populism, the Right would win. He could well be justified, because there is evidence out there of growing disaffection for all this New World Order stuff that seeks to dismantle national borders in favour of new superstates and supports those post-war supra-national organisations such as NATO and the UN. There are indications that the European Project to create the USEU, not just economically but also politically, might be heading for the buffers. Could it be possible that small might just, after all, be beautiful?
Ryan McMaken, writing for the Mises Institute, says the electoral system in the US has become unable to reflect ‘the will of the people’ because there are too many people, and they are too diverse and incompatible. He reminds us that the US Constitution was formulated when the total population was around 4million, a manageable number. It is now 325million.
As he observes the US system failing, he quotes the Swiss scenario as originally similar but still relevant. He states: ‘Thanks to the presence of a multi-lingual, culturally diverse population, the creators of the Swiss Confederation sought to ensure that no single linguistic, religious, or cultural group could impose its will nationwide. And so, Swiss democracy includes a number of provisions requiring a “double majority”. That means, not only must an overall majority of Swiss people approve any measures, but a majority of the voters in the majority of the Swiss cantons must also approve.’
He goes on to argue that the democratic ideal – the will of the people – becomes much less problematic the smaller the population involved. Smaller is better, and all the trappings that new or would-be states throw up, such as revering the national flag or singing the national songs, are extremely weak reeds on which to hang notions of national and democratic unity. (Vide EU flag with stars, all that Ode to Joy anthem stuff.)
The important fact is that the democratic principles of both the US constitution and the Swiss model were always ‘bottom-up’. They emerged from the existing communities and their beliefs and values, and became the national norm.
We can see that this model might not be working any more in the US, nor in the UK, and certainly not in the EU. Many are not prepared to accept a majority democratic vote when it doesn’t go their way. Witness Brexit and Trump.
According to a study by the European Council on Foreign Relations, Eurosceptic parties could win a third or more of seats in the European Parliament elections in May. The research group, founded and still funded by Soros NGOs, admitted that the elections could see a group of nationalist anti-European political parties that advocate a return to a ‘Europe of the Nations’ win a controlling share of seats in the European Parliament, and this could even scupper many of the European Values projects that the Commission and Council hope to take forward.
This is a pattern replicated across the member states of the EU. While the elites are keen on ever-greater convergence, the people are less enthusiastic. The populist movements in Germany, Austria, Holland, gilets jaunes in France, Salvini in Italy, the Catalonia crisis in Spain, Orban in Hungary, and even the dreadful muddle in the UK, all indicate that there are millions in the European Union who are deeply unhappy about it.
Writing for the Gatestone Institute, Amir Tehari confirms that there is a big problem with the ambition of the EU to expand and become a fully fledged nation state. He describes the evolution of the EU as a daring experiment in socio-political engineering on a grand scale.
He reckons that the first problem with the EU is that, although it calls itself a union, it really isn’t. It’s an economic treaty, not a state. And most of the economic clout still resides with the member states, probably about 50 per cent of their national GDP. He goes on to remind us that most of the member states have historically hated each other and have fought each other to the death many times over. The Cold War changed a few minds, but nothing was really altered. Then, Brexit has made everybody think again, and where are we now? Do all the 28 nation states in the EU really want to be subsumed into the EUSSR?
Taheri reckons there are two major questions facing the EU now, brought into focus because of Brexit.
1. Has the EU over-estimated its political role? It sees itself as a supra-national state, which it aspires to be, but certainly isn’t yet. And local populations don’t seem to be in favour.
2. The nation state is increasingly being accepted as the best possible model of socio-political organisation world-wide. The globalist concept isn’t going down well.
According to Tehari, the EU has been pretending to be a machine trying to impose uniformity on nations that have always prided themselves on their specificity. But if local populations – the populists – don’t go along with that, it will ultimately require military force to impose it. Just like in the Soviet Union. Happily, for now, the EU doesn’t have an army. But they have plans . . .
Would it not be so much better if we could just get back to the economic imperative, and benefit from the trade club? Then we could ditch this poisonous issue of where the EU elite want to take us all, a destination the people don’t want to accept. Wouldn’t it be good if the little units of the club could be allowed to sort out their own rules and objectives, and then we could end up with a union of willing members, each following what the people really want.