The End of European Sovereignty: Merkel's Superstate Plan

This isn't the first time I've taken issue with Angela Merkel's attempts to squash decision making in Britain, France, her native Germany and the rest of the EU nations. But as her latest comments come at a time when the fate of the Eurozone hangs in the balance like never before, I'll risk lapsing into (gasp!) self-plagiarism.

It has long been the tendency of rulers across the political spectrum to consolidate power during times of crisis - from Caesar to Napoleon to, more recently, FDR during the aftermath of the Great Depression. Sometimes, as during war, it is necessary for leaders to do this, such as with the nationalization of British and American industry during WW2.

In the case of Merkel, Mario Draghi and the other ideological champions of the ever-expanding EU, it is the fallout of the Greek and Cypriot fiscal meltdowns that has led to their renewed calls for Brussels to wrest yet more control from countries' own democratically-elected parliaments. Speaking in Berlin, the German Chancellor said:

"We need to be ready to accept that Europe has the last word in certain areas. Otherwise we won't be able to continue to build Europe."

Merkel then turned to fear to justify her latest petition for more Europe, less sovereignty, stating that "chaos" reigned and that EU member countries are "staring over the abyss." 

Well of course you have to frighten people into believing that without your plan their lives will spiral into The Gorge of Eternal Peril if you want to impose your will on them. And it has long been the will of Merkel and her we-know-better-than-you-silly-little-European-electorates ilk to eradicate self-determination, freedom of choice and the other tenets of democracy, in favor of centralized, autocratic hegemony in the extraordinarily un-Parliamentary EU "Parliament." 

This is a body, let us remember, that ignored Ireland's "No" vote on the Lisbon Treaty EU Constitution the first time and forced another ballot, into which it poured millions of Euros to ensure a "Yes" vote.(Uh huh, I have written that before).  

A body that cared not a whit for the Irish people it compelled and duped when it imposed punitive terms upon them, and then on Greece in the wake of not-so-benevolent bailouts. 

A body that oversaw the illegal seizure of private bank account holders' funds in Cyprus. 

This is the type of institution Merkel wants to "build", as she knocks down democratic houses of Parliament and reinforces the walls of unaccountable, unchecked Fortress Brussels with the rubble. 

But it's OK because Germany is, she's quick to remind us, the "largest economy" in Europe. And bigger, of course, always knows better. And just to ensure the continuation German fiscal dominance, the EU wants to cudgel the City of London with the EU Financial Transaction Tax, which recent estimates suggest would cost Britain $6 billion a year. 

How long will the hard-working German people stand by and see Merkel pour their hard-earned wealth down the EU drain?

How long will the majority of left-leaning and mainstream media in the UK and US remain blindfolded to the folly of the Euro and the ill designs of the Brussels technocrats who control it?

How long will Britain stand idly by, thinking that holding an In/Out referendum in 2017 (newsflash, that's four years away!) is enough? 

It is high time for The Politician Formerly Known as Frau Nein to hear again, this time in Dolby 7.1 surround sound, that resounding cry Margaret Thatcher uttered over the EU's domination of Europe: "No, No, No!"

Otherwise, it will not be "certain" areas of life in its member nations that the EU takes over, but all areas, as the United States of Europe becomes a hideous reality.

Syria: Have Our 'Best and Brightest' Learned Nothing From History?

I recently wrote about Kofi Annan's peace plan for Syria, and how I hoped it was not too late for the Syrian people living under President Bashar al-Assad's tyranny. Unfortunately, my worst fears have been realized on this matter: Assad continues his assaults on the 'rebels,' all the while thumbing his nose at the democratic West and the U.N.

We should have seen this coming. Certainly, our leaders, the latest "best and brightest" contingent who represent us, should have. But, as is so often the case, we chose to overlook the lessons of history, instead favoring optimism and faith in our fellow (hu)man.

Even a basic grasp of the recent past would have spared us the wasted time of frowning at Assad and threatening him with sanctions, which to a dictator like him are about as effective as trying to stop a grizzly charge with a pea shooter. And, more importantly, we could have DONE SOMETHING to help the poor people of Syria, many of whom simply want the right to vote, the rule of law, and the other freedoms we take for granted. Instead, as Assad spoke out of one side of his mouth to agree to the ceasefire, he spoke out of the other to order his generals to continue the killing.

Part of the problem is that it is human nature to assume we are on a level playing field with our adversaries and that they will respect supposedly universal standards of engagement - the Queensbury Rules of international politics. Yet, with dictators from Stalin to Hitler to Saddam Hussein, this is not the case.

They don't care about the rules because they consider themselves above them - the megalomania and arrogance that every tyrant I can recall possesses. They also have the assurance of protection by armaments, which just fuels their blind disregard for the Geneva Convention, the Charter of the United Nations and any other coda that democratic nations abide by. The dictator views ruling by committee as weakness, diplomatic exchange as folly, and assurances of cooperation as contemptible, only to be used to buy time to solidify the position of strength.

And so it goes with Assad.

He will not be deposed by ceasefire plans, by transition strategies or by diplomatic engagement. The only language he understands is force, or, as Harry Truman put it about the Soviet Union, the simple question of "how many divisions do you have?" This is not to say that a full-scale ground invasion is needed, or, indeed, that it would do anything other than ignite the tinderbox of the Middle East. Yet we have seen recently (in the case of Libya) and not so long ago (in Bosnia), that there are other, smarter ways to topple a man like Assad. Regardless of what Britain and America do - for with certain nations continually exercising their vetoes in irresponsible fashion in the UN, it may be time for independent action - the window for talking has been slammed down on our fingers.

More Syrian men, women and children are dying by the day. How long will we allow this continue?