The main reason I believe the EU will be unable to survive is because it is very badly constructed. In fact, it is so badly constructed that as soon as any disturbing winds begin to blow, its major systems are likely to begin short-circuiting and then, most likely, completely freeze up.

For example, in Australia, every person in the country is familiar with what is happening in Canberra, the seat of their federal government. Each state may have its own government but whenever an Australian picks up a newspaper or switches on a television, the main political news always concerns what's happening in Canberra. State affairs are usually relegated to secondary news items which, although perhaps important to people living in that state, are, in Australia wide terms, mostly insignificant.

In America, the same situation exists. Every state has its own legislature, but Americans are mostly concerned with what is happening in Washington. They want to know what the President is doing and what decisions are being made in Congress and the House of Representatives. Again, like in Australia, state affairs are interesting to individuals living in that particular state, but are, even to these individuals, always of secondary importance.

In Europe however, the situation is completely reversed. Most people in the European conglomerate are well informed about what's happening in their own country, but they are also almost completely ignorant about what's happening in Brussels, the seat of their government and where almost all their laws are made. Who in Brussels is making the most important decisions? What are the plans presently being considered in Brussels?

Who in Great Britain knows?

In fact, in Great Britain's case, hardly anybody knows anything about the Brussels' bureaucracy and strangely, most MEP's in Brussels don't know either because they are normally just presented with a completed plan and asked for a simple yes or no vote. This whole situation is almost like a plot from a futuristic science fiction movie where, in the hidden recesses of some building in Brussels, all major decisions are made by Euro-Mysterons, a species of being nobody has encountered before. Then the people's elected representatives, after being given a very short time to study the new plans, are obliged to simply say yes or no. If they decline to pass the legislation it's not really a problem to the Euro-Mysterons because they will simply reword their original plan and represent it for a decision. Often, the wording of these laws is so convoluted and arcane, MEP's are unable to understand them and are then forced into a situation where they have to be unpleasantly stubborn and obstreperous or, with their future careers in mind, willing to meekly press the YES button.

The famous and very readable book 'The Great Deception' by Christopher Booker and Richard North does a lot to expose the truth about our European government and is one book which shouldn't be missed by anyone.

But there is, however, another most interesting book on the EU by Robert Kagan. Called 'Paradise and Power' this book traces the changes in the world's power structure after the war and the author also clearly demonstrates the fact that although the bigger countries of Europe liked pushing their weight around in the early part of the twentieth century, in the late forties, fifties and sixties these same countries began to realise that they simply couldn't compete with the posturings of America and Russia. In consequence, they felt obliged to change their tactics.

Sigmund Freud said that it was women who suffered from penis envy but the truth is that it is men who suffer from penis envy. Men are very conscious of the size of their penis and in true Monty Python fashion, they have an automatic tendency to look down on those with smaller penises while at the same time feel obliged to look up to those with larger members. This means that as the individual European countries watched America and Russia, the two big penises of the time, square up to each other and threaten war, often on European soil, they felt an overwhelming need to band together so they could develop economic might and from that, military might. European men wanted to possess penises which were as big as those possessed by the Americans and Russians. They wanted to be able to push their weight around as well and so the EU, which in many ways is a secretive masculine entity, was born.

At first things progressed smoothly but then in the nineties the Soviet Union collapsed and that left America as the only big penis on the planet. But instead of curtailing its activities America became obsessed with developing an even bigger penis and so spent billions of dollars on increasing its military muscle. It was, if you'll forgive the expression, the only dick in town but it still wanted to be bigger.

Sadly, our European leaders, the Euro-Mysterons, seem to have forgotten that a penis contains no brain cells and so they continued to try and construct a union which could compete with America in big things like passenger planes, fighter jets and tanks. But to continue developing a penis which could match the Americans for size, they found it necessary to become secretive and manipulative and so now there are few who understand the true nature of our convoluted European Union. It's mostly a mystery, even to those on the inside. But the aims are still the same as they have always been; to have a penis which is as big or bigger than anyone else's.

So, what are those of us who are against the EU to do?

I think the first thing we've got to realise is that our biggest problem at present is best described as: Bigus Dickus Americanus. While America, with its gigantic penis, strides across the globe pushing its weight about in an 'as and when it pleases' manner, European men who suffer from penis envy will feel obliged to try to find ways of developing a power base which will equal the American's. Consequently, the best thing perhaps is to get a penis shrinker which we can use on the Americans. Maybe we can demand that the U.S.A. be subdivided into fifty different independent countries; each with its own democratically elected government which is responsible for its own currency and its own military. After all, would it not be better to have a number of small wars rather than a gigantic nuclear one which wipes out the entire human race?

---October 2, 2007---

Previous      Home      Next