In June of last year, I noted that despite being unfairly labeled xenophobic and racist for wanting Britain out of the toxically bureaucratic European Union, the supporters of Brexit won the referendum on the issue mainly because millions of Brits were sick of the top-down, nanny-state mentality of the bankrupt Brussels-based EU government.
It appears that the politicians in Brussels haven’t learned their lessons.
This is an organization that wanted, through a scheme called “Codex Alimentarius” (or “The Food Code”), to dictate to home gardeners what kinds of seeds they could plant in their own soil. It is an organization that imposed a bank-connected puppet leader in Greece, without any input from the public, and is now threatening the governments of Poland and Hungary that if those nations don’t accept more refugees from Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, or suffer the mighty consequences.
On April 12, RT reported that the European Commission has threatened both national governments that it will not hesitate, “…to make use of its powers under the Treaties for those which have not complied with the Council decisions" if they don't take in the required number of refugees. This can include fines, taxes, sanctions, and, because the EU is edging closer to creating its own army (and navy, and air force), this could eventually mean much more than economic sanctions and fines.
Of course, the opponents to the EU mandate are being labeled xenophobic. It’s an easy out. Define the opposition with a slur, and public sentiment is already prejudiced against them. According to RT, one anonymous EU bureaucrat told the London Times:
“They will have to make a choice: are they in the European system or not? You cannot blackmail the EU, unity has a price.”
Isn't that interesting? An EU official threatens the Polish and Hungarian governments and people, then flips the threat on its head and claims that “you cannot blackmail the EU.”
Perhaps this nameless official ought to look up the definition of the word “blackmail.”
Let’s get a few points straight about the EU. Firstly, it is technically bankrupt. Its currency, the Euro, is inflating every day, and it’s not just people in England who have recognized that the bloated political worm is in its death throws. Nothing can save it and its silly dictates.
The EU elites try to depict this latest problem as an issue of xenophobia and insularity, issuing lines such as this from Dmitris Avramopoulos, EU Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs, and Citizenship:
They have a political, moral and legal duty to do so (accept more immigrants). I call on those countries that have not yet joined this common effort to do so.
But this is not about xenophobia. It is about spheres of control. In political-economics, it is well known that if people are going to be stuck living under a state system, it is better to have small states run by locals than large ones run elsewhere. Though they are still states and therefore not completely free, small states are closer to local information and can make better-informed decisions. They are also less likely to be massively corrupt.
Larger spheres of control, like the EU, tend to be less tied to local information. When they make bad decisions, more people will be hurt by them, and it is more difficult to escape the borders of the large state.
So why should people in Belgium be telling people in Poland that they know better how to manage their immigration policies? Whether one is in favor of free movement of individuals across borders, or one is in favor of states controlling immigration, why not at least allow for variation and smaller spheres of control?
The EU bureaucrats never seem to learn -- which makes sense, given that the system has been a top-down, one-size-fits-all plaything of political elites for generations. Its time is coming to an end. The least its fat-cat bureaucrats can do is politically die with dignity, and avoid insulting people in the meantime.