Too Many Mistakes: The EU is Staggering into the Abyss

The following article from a German news site discusses the warning signs of catastrophe in the European Union. It was translated by Rembrandt Clancy, who includes extensive contextual notes.

Too Many Mistakes: The EU is Staggering into the Abyss

The EU is staggering from one mistake to the next. In this form, a political union hardly has a chance of survival.

by Ronald Barazon

Translated by Rembrandt Clancy

Deutsche Wirtschaftsnachrichten
20 May 2018

The weaknesses of the EU are becoming all too obvious in recent days:

  • the EU is helpless against US policy;
  • Brexit negotiations are proceeding;
  • in Italy, an EU-critical coalition is assuming control of the government;
  • in Hungary and Poland, opponents of the EU are in government;
  • the EU Commission presents an unusable budget draft;
  • with the General Data Protection Regulation, the regulatory delusion produces a total meltdown.

Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that many are already predicting the end of the EU. There is no recognizable initiative that could save the “European Integration” project. The duty of the Community to secure peace in Europe is being pushed into the background. Unreasonable rules and regulations are spreading vexation and dissatisfaction, which trigger anti-EU slogans, ultimately leading to anti-EU governments. The anger over absurd regulations combines with a still deeply rooted nationalism among many citizens. In Europe many gravediggers of the EU are at work. This development is made possible by three decisive factors:

  • The actors see only their actual or supposed interests and do not recognize the harm threatening all Europeans without exception.
  • The EU in its current form is a defective construct, which precludes an effective policy: 750 members of parliament and 28 Commissioners — soon to be 27 — are unable to make useful decisions simply on account of their sheer numbers. That need not even take into account that the Parliament and the Commission can decide nothing without the consent of the 28 governments, 27 in the future. Such a construct is unworkable, inevitably inefficient and therefore also ineffective.
  • Even the EU-friendly parties emphasise nation states and thus differ, in the final analysis, only marginally from the nationalists who reject European integration. Also most pro-European citizens’ initiatives do not call the state into question and they barely strive for a factually integrated Europe.

Hence nothing will change. The problems threaten to become a permanent crisis with a catastrophic outcome. For purposes of illustration, a number of mutually related themes follow.

The punitive tariffs against China, which also affect the EU

The US is collecting punitive tariffs of an additional 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum and still plans to do the same with other goods.

Initially the EU begged for a postponement until May 1st and now it has negotiated a further deferment until June 1st. At present it is being haggled over.

A compelling trade policy would have consisted in the immediate imposition of counter-duties. As a consequence, the EU would have had a position of strength in the current negotiations and would have been able to negotiate a reasonable tariff regimen whilst offering concessions to the USA. Now they have become supplicants and are considering how the World Trade Organization (WTO) can be called in. WTO procedures are generally known to last from years to decades.

One of the reasons for this is that even within the Commission itself, the responsibility for customs is distributed among several Commissioners. This shows the absurdity of appointing 28 Commissioners (after Brexit 27), because each Member State must nominate a Commissioner and for each Commissioner a function is needed. As if that were not enough, each country’s government has a voice in the decisions; hence a US president like Donald Trump can turn the EU into a marionette.

The sanctions against Iran

Europe is incensed that the USA has cancelled its nuclear agreement with Iran. In return for Iran’s assurance not to build atomic weapons, the economic sanctions had been anywhere from relaxed to abolished. The EU absolutely insists on a continuing co-operation with Iran, citing economic interests as justification; they would like to realise projects involving billions of euros.

Since Thursday [17 May] there has been a singularly strange initiative: EU-Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker intends to punish European firms should they comply with US sanctions against Iran. Having been moulded by many sets of regulations, it appears that thinking in the Commission is determined exclusively by punishment categories; except, the United States prohibits companies who violate sanctions from being economically active in the USA or from exporting to the USA, and it imposes penalties as applicable. This is ruinous for many companies who therefore submit to the diktat of the USA. That the EU then still threatens them with a penalty is absurd. The issue has no effect on companies lacking interests in the US market.

For Europe the development taking place in the Near East is clearly irrelevant: Iran will have good opportunities, after the armed conflicts have ended, of becoming a major power whose territory extends to the Mediterranean. A change in the balance of power is also emerging, which would also have to be of interest to Europe, especially as Russia consistently emphasises her friendship with Iran and is active in Syria.

Also the tweets of the “Supreme Leader” of Iran, Khamenei, are obviously not read in Europe. Only hours after the conclusion of the nuclear agreement on 14 July 2015, Khamenei commented on the agreement with a tirade of abuse against the West. This posture led even the Obama administration into putting the brakes on implementation of the “nuclear deal”[1] and they maintained a portion of the sanctions.

For the purpose of illustration, here is a Khamenei-tweet of 8 February 2018: We consider weapons of mass destruction haram, “but anything else that we need, we’ll pursue staunchly”.

Where is the European foreign policy? The EU Commission has as its Foreign Minister the “High Representative” Federica Mogherini, but many figures are active, from French President Emmanuel Macron to Germany’s Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel through to the Polish government and numerous other actors. The phrase attributed to the legendary US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger still applies: “Whom are you calling when you call the EU?” An agreed policy between Brussels and Washington would be advantageous.

The dispute with Russia

The entry of the Crimea into the Russian Federation is being given as justification for the economic sanctions against Moscow. That the sanctions are ineffective became spectacularly apparent just a few days ago when President Vladimir Putin opened a bridge constructed in record time connecting the Crimea with the Russian mainland.

The sanctions harm the West as much as Russia. The EU only maintains the sanctions because of the desire not to lose face. And incidentally, the favourite excuse in many cases, that the United States is forcing them to maintain them, is becoming strained.
That the Crimean crisis is a consequence of NATO’s policy towards Russia is kept in the background: under the leadership of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, a war scenario is being set up which defines Moscow as an enemy. In this way of thinking, Ukraine ought to be bound to NATO — an alarm signal for Russia; after all, the Russian Black Sea Fleet has been stationed in the Crimea for centuries.

Also, the failure of the EU to construct an effective economic cooperation with Ukraine is not mentioned. Stereotypically, only the so-called annexation of Crimea is discussed. Ukraine was originally a European and not an American issue. Now it is in fact on the American agenda:

  • The Eastern European countries have used the Ukraine crisis as an opportunity to establish a threat scenario according to which Russia once again becomes the Soviet Union intending to annex the eastern European states. Since the EU has no defence policy, the countries on the eastern border of the EU turn to the United States. Considering the personal experience of those affected by the Soviet era, this reaction is more than understandable; an independent EU policy would be helpful, but it is not happening.
  • The appeals of the Eastern states are proving to be grist for the mill of NATO’s policy against Russia. And in the US, many have seen Russia as the number one enemy since 1945.
  • Russia’s interference in the US election campaign by disseminating news on the Internet can be read on the protocols of countless servers worldwide. Too many were misused as hubs for the transfer of disinformation e-mails. The US reaction against Russia is a logical consequence. The as-yet unresolved question of whether Trump himself or his collaborators have cooperated with Russia is therefore only a part of the issue.

Of urgent necessity would be a European foreign and defence policy to ensure a practicable relationship with Russia. It is easy to believe that Washington is too far away to understand Moscow. It is completely obvious that in Brussels they too do not know how to deal with Moscow in a way which requires being tough whilst respecting Russia’s interests.

The EU-Budget is the wrong policy cast into numbers

The Commission acts as a kind of agency responsible for specific sectors. The execution of these tasks is effected, however, in an immensely complex manner and is accompanied by the much-cited regulations and penalties. Recently the Commission presented a budget plan for the period 2021 to 2027[2], which is sold as modern and geared to the future, but which only allows for the extrapolation of existing practice and defines new activities in the same style.

The budget is currently in the order of 150 billion euros a year. Due to the exit of Great Britain, it will be short in the future by about 10 percent. However, the Commission proposes to raise the ceiling to about 190 billion euros a year. The remaining members are therefore expected to pay about 55 billion more than hitherto. This very prospect is unrealistic.

The two largest items in the EU budget are the allocations to agriculture and regional development. Until now, over 100 billion euros yearly have been handed out to the two sectors. This appropriation is allocated according to a complicated procedure which unleashes a bloated bureaucracy in the EU and the Member States. Here is where reform is urgently due: many subsidies would have to be cancelled, and those actually required should be administered by the regions, which are better acquainted with local conditions. But that is out of the question. The objective is to allocate 5 percent less across-the-board.

There is more. Very much in the spirit of the subsidies policy, which has been centralising up to now and has been only of limited effectiveness, two new instruments are to be created: a “Reform Support Program” in which the Commission plans to distribute 25 billion a year and an “Investment Stabilization Function” which is to allocate 30 billion euros in loans.

Nothing has been learned from the experiences of the EU itself, from the modest results of the “planification”[3] in France after 1945 and from the catastrophic failure of the Soviet planned economy. The Commission regards itself as the central economic steering instrument, which must not only intervene in agriculture and the development of weak regions, but is also competent in research and high technology.

The intention, however, to fight against the proliferation of funding agencies — instead of 58 there are to be “only” 37.

For all new and existing agencies, administrative bodies, control and supervisory authorities there will continue to be, according to ideas of the Commission, sufficient funding.

Perverse concepts of the rule of law and defence

The budget is also to bring innovations.

Thus the Commission would acquire the right to suspend the disbursement of subsidies if the rule of law[4] in a country is infringed. These financial restrictions are to be carried out “in proportion to the nature, gravity and scope of the deficiencies in the rule of law”.[5]

There is a lack of awareness as to the dramatic nature of this idea. The European Union is manifestly in no position to take action against the violation of the basic principles of the rule of law. This is clarified in international law pursuant to the “Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties” that a treaty becomes invalid if the preconditions prevailing at the time it was concluded are no longer given.[6] Since a State can become a member of the Union only after ascertainment of what the rule of law is, membership would end upon the violation of the originally ascertained fundamental principles.

The EU Commission intends to enforce the preservation of the principles of the rule of law by the cancellation of a few millions in subsidies. Courts, parliaments and governments are to defend the rule of law, not funding-bureaucrats.

A further innovation concerns the development of defence; that is, an EU army, and the protection of the external borders.

  • Up until now, there has been no capability to comprehensively co-ordinate the armies of member countries.
  • Based on the Lisbon Treaty, there is an obligation to co-ordinate with NATO. To date there has been no clear definition of the European role. The only question open to debate is the US President Donald Trump’s demand for increased contributions.
  • The EU is incapable of installing a coordinated policy on refugees.
  • Still valid is the unrealistic Dublin-Regulation, even confirmed the year before by a decision of the European Court of Justice, according to which an EU State must deport refugees to the country in which they entered the EU.
  • The EU therefore has no clear policy either for defence or for the protection of borders, yet the EU Commission proposes to spend billions for these purposes.

Conclusion: The EU violates all rules forming the foundation for successful political and economic management. Without concept or direction billions are to be spent. Every actor is moving in a different direction and every actor is free to do so: all have sufficient power to sabotage the Community, but no one has sufficient power to build Europe.

About the Author

Ronald Barazon was editor-in-chief of Salzburger Nachrichten for many years. He is one of the most respected business journalists in Europe and today he is editor-in-chief of the magazine “Der Volkswirt“ as well as moderator at the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (Source: Deutsche Wirtschaftsnachrichten (DWN)).

Translator’s notes

1. ‘This posture led even the Obama administration into putting the breaks on implementation of the “nuclear deal”….”

The quotations around nuclear deal may be intended to indicate the vague nature of the arrangement, for Iran never signed anything called the Iran Deal or its variants. This is documented in the Obama administration letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by National Review in their article entitled “State Department: Iran Deal is not ‘Legally Binding’ and Iran didn’t sign it”.

According to this letter, signed by Julia Frifield, Assistant Secretary of Legislative Affairs, the so-called Iran deal or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)

…is not a treaty [it was not ratified by the United States Senate] or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document. The JCPOA reflects political commitments between Iran, the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China), and the European Union. [Emphasis added.]

2. “the period 2021 to 2027”:

This is a correction; the original reads “2021 to 2017”.

3. “the ‘planification’ in France after 1945”:

Planification refers to a plan drawn up by Jean Marie Gabriel Monnet (1888-1979). He later played a large part in creating the European Economic Community.

4. “if the rule of law in a country is infringed”:

As can be seen upon further reading, here the “rule of law” does not refer to the law of given countries, but to the rule of International Law as judged by the EU.

5. “These financial restrictions are to be carried out ‘in proportion to the nature, gravity and scope of the deficiencies in the rule of law’“.

This plan puts pressure on countries to conform to EU “rules” on mass immigration to Europe:

Until now, the allocation of cohesion funds have been based on GDP per capita figures across the EU, but the commission now plans to introduce social and environmental indicators, such as youth unemployment and the reception of migrants. [euobserver, 30 April 2018. Emphasis added.]

Also see: “EU Unveils Plans for ‘Drastic’ Funding Cuts to Patriotic Eastern Nations” (Breitbart, 30 May 2018)

6. “a treaty becomes invalid if the preconditions prevailing at the time it was concluded are no longer given.”:

Article 48(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties reads:

A State may invoke an error in a treaty as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty if the error relates to a fact or situation which was assumed by that State to exist at the time when the treaty was concluded and formed an essential basis of its consent to be bound by the treaty.

16 thoughts on “Too Many Mistakes: The EU is Staggering into the Abyss

  1. There is no recognizable initiative that could save the “European Integration” project. The duty of the Community to secure peace in Europe is being pushed into the background.


    “European Integration” is right up there with “Arab Unity”.

    Please spare me any further mirth of this sort.

  2. Very good article.

    I’ll just add that another thing that will put further strain on the European Union is an economic downturn in one, or more, countries in the European Union.

    Recessions and depressions have happened before. I see nothing that indicates an economic downturn won’t happen again.

    An economic downturn will decrease revenue for the European Union, thus putting strain on its budget. Also, an economic downturn in a country will be adverse to the political party that is in power. Whether rightly or wrongly, voters blame the party in power when an economic downturn happens. A pro-EU political party, then, could lose power in such circumstances.

    • The trouble is that in economic downturns much of society turns to state subsidy, a.k.a. money supply, and that is in the hands of EU via the ECB.

      So looking at two countries that I know quite well… in Spain the two main arties PSOE and PP have gone from 50% share each to 25%, very roughly – they got blamed for the economic downturn, their corruption stood out by comparison, and neither had the cojones to say up yours to the Euro… in their place appeared Podemos ( south American far left style) who are closer to say the French left ( and we remember Syriza in Greece I hope overiding the referendum of out of Euro and fitting nicely into the pocket of EU eventually) , and Ciudadanos ( supposedly German funded) as a sort of cleaner technical right. So who took over the slack of failing traditionalist parties were basically more EU.

      In France apathy at the ballot brought in flash in the pan left wing neo liberal promise everything Macrotte, Le Pen at a time where circumstance was in her favour could not compete even then with whoever was offering more EU.

      In Italy it might be different, it might not – we really don’t know what screws are being turned behind the scenes, For a country to leave in an only half traumatic fashion, it has to have its own currency – because otherwise an abrupt decision to drop Euro is tantamount to a declaration of war on EU… and those in power in EU, well you can be sure they are breathing down the necks of everyone to make sure that doesn’t happen. To return to own currency, say via Minibot, well that is a long uncertain project that could span years, leaving room for public sentiment to change or soften. So we will see eventually how dedicated Italian parties are now to regaining sovereignty, or if the effort will just end up a bargaining chip with, or be washed aside by, EU.

      To be honest, I think exit from Euro or EU is likely only to come from either the whole setup blowing ( for example open disagreement between countries at EU policy level), or a country really getting past its limit of tolerance and clearly voting in a party that has one main mandate – that of leaving the block as soon as possible.

      But who knows.

  3. All this money they are handing out without a clear direction. Sounds like a recipe for corruption and cronyism.

  4. On the other hand EU just keeps on going. We are sort of past any novelty now, have watched the ideals that nations stood for swallowed, have seen local community desecrated in many countries, the stability of tradition washed over or undermined, and it all leaves a debilitated and confused society that cannot return to the ante, it just cannot as it will not find it as before as we are also talking of the structure between nations and people that no longer exists in the same way, and to the future is uncertainty with only the present as known as any solace, little that it may be.

    So though I agree that EU is dysfunctional as stated, I do not underestimate the room it has to maneuver either, and this has been shown time and again over the last decade.

    But let us assume that countries actually do manage to pull away, that their plight is not used instead to further forge ahead with “new and improved” EU construct, what then?

    This is what we have to be imagining – how would Europe settle back into a community of fully independent nation states?

    We might wish that, but apart from an unresolvable crisis and bold resolution by any country, which would also be a step virtually into the unknown, how would different countries independently shape up to a new reality of dissolution of EU and their ensuing responsibilities?

    Do you not see the problem, that there is truly no independent status of nation to return to while all surrounding countries act in block, as the surrounding nations are not in an independent state to reciprocate that statute. We have seen this with UK and EU countries that simply are not able to negotiate with it as independent countries due to EU rules and commitments.

    The UK has the anglo world for relations, the Spanish are somewhat used to own isolation historically, but the Italians, the Greeks and others… they would be very isolated if they “dropped out” of EU, and having to rebuild their countries from the somewhat destroyed state being within EU has left them, and without the reassurance of that larger collective.

    So you see how difficult this is in real terms, though definitely not impossible it does mean stepping out and fully turning the attention to own country, and being able to handle what own country demands in return, all the while being distracted by the memory, and offers, and probably subtrefuge, of EU.

    I have to wonder if EU does not gain its power via the uncertainty it creates, or the uncertainty turning from it might create, because it really isn’t that reassuring a construct by its own right.

    • To anon:

      You cite the problems of an independent country in dealing with a colossus like the EU. Quite obviously, even as ineffective, blundering, and bloated as it is, the EU seems able to damage a smaller country resisting it.

      Except that smaller countries have always existed next to powerful, and not always benign neighbors. The trick to surviving is to understand their limitations. First in priority of these limitations is to not threaten your powerful neighbor militarily. It may also be necessary to curtail a bit of the ability of a country to conduct a completely independent foreign policy. Examples of this are Finland, existing as a mostly free country on the borders of the USSR, in spite of the fact that Finland had a war with the USSR in 1939 and actively allied itself with Nazi Germany in the invasion of Russia. Yugoslavia was a faintly free country existing as an independent ally of the USSR. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were voluntarily given their independence by the USSR on the occasion of the USSR collapsing. The condition was that these countries not threaten Russia militarily, which they now seem to be doing by having joined NATO and hosting missile emplacements on the Russian border.

      So, an independent small country breaking away from the EU would have to step lightly, treating the EU as the bumbling, deteriorating giant it is.

      I’ll elaborate on this in a separate post, but in short, there is absolutely no upside to remaining in the EU. It would be difficult to imagine any circumstances where a country would not benefit from exiting the EU, although the powerful financial and banking interests may want to stay and may exert political pressures damaging to the country as a whole.

    • Let me give another response, on re-reading your post, aware probably nobody will read this.

      You cite the problem of the EU block overwhelming small countries like Greece or Italy desiring independence. The EU rules stop individual countries from carrying out their own arrangements with non-EU members.

      In this respect, the EU is like the old cartels of the 19th century that agreed to not undercut each other on prices. The outstanding feature of these cartels was that even before the ink was dry, the members were trying to gain an advantage by undercutting the prices set by the agreement.

      This suggest to me that a good response by the country outside the EU would be to specifically not enforce the EU rules. In other words, deal with countries breaking EU rules and dealing under the table. This would have the added benefit of undermining the EU even further.

      There would, of course, be a premium to pay for acting outside the EU framework. There’s always a price to pay. But the correct strategy is to understand when the additional up-front expense is worth paying.

  5. To home in on a very small excerpt,

    “•Even the EU-friendly parties emphasise nation states”.

    Frankly, they’re lying. They can see which way the wind is blowing.

    Don’t believe them, don’t trust them.

  6. Good article, but there is mention of “reform” here I always see many times in other articles on the subject of the EU. The EU cannot, can never, be reformed because it was never designed to be.

    All this chaos is intentionally planned. The controlled opposition is taking many forms, some posing as populists and anti-establishment groups, consciously or unwittingly.

    The problem has been cause and the final solution will soon be presented with the rise of a strongman, possibly from inside the Brussels EU itself. He or she will come out of nowhere, like that Macron idiot who thinks he is Napoleon.

    The EU project was intentionally designed to slowly and quietly, step by step, expand its power, its tentacles over the continent as its citizens grew with it and could no longer imagine any other alternative except the EU.

    The EU and its unelected heirs to Hitler comprise an illegitimate political body. Of course, it is legally legitimate because they said so and because they used laws they created since its inception to legitimize themselves.

    The EU must be completely destroyed. Period.

    Wars or civil unrest may follow with its destruction. But even if the totalitarian EU stays as it is, wars or civil unrest will follow anyway. If the EU stays, the idiots in charge will get us all killed in WWIII.

    • Needless to say, I agree with you completely.

      The EU bureaucrats are approaching the stage of feeling they have complete power, leading to the usual insanities of a totalitarian ruler over time.

      The EU is tweaking the tail of the tiger in two areas: Muslim refugees and the insane economic embargoes and military encirclement of Russia. Either area could easily blow up in their faces. But an aging totalitarian ruler (Junker…great name) comes to increasingly believe in his own skill at brinkmanship.

      Two examples of this are the decision by Hitler to tweak the British empire a big by the Danzig grab. Paradoxically, an equal example is the decision by the Polish government to tweak a powerhouse neighbor, Nazi Germany, by refusing a quite reasonable demand for German access to a German population. Neither idiot, in this case, survived the outcome of their “skilled” brinkmanship.

  7. The bottom line is this: the EU is totally and irretrievably evil. It exists for one purpose: to provide power and money to unaccountable bureaucracies. All the rationales they give for their countless rules, regulations, subsidies and committees are simply smokescreens for the real purpose: institute taxation by proclamation and rule by fiat.

    It makes no sense at all to integrate the currencies, agriculture, or manufacture of countries as dissimilar as Greece, UK, Germany and Hungary.

    The EU cannot be “fixed” because it is a massive mistake in the first place. If the EU were to become “successful” in any area, such as actually facilitating the production of economic goods, it would be even worse, giving it a rationale for extending its tyranny.

    The EU, in conjunction with its partner, NATO, exponentially increases the chances of war with Russia. NATO also needs to be disbanded. What’s the point? NATO serves as a means for the US and other countries to drag the European countries in on costly and pointless wars, like Libya and Syria. A prime NATO member is Turkey, which tells you all you need to know about the (zero) usefulness of NATO as a defense force.

    It is not such a wild stretch of imagination to see the EU as one of the mega-governments of the world of 1984. The EU is as much of a framework for tyranny and oppression as the Soviet bureaucracy was for the up and coming tyrant Stalin.

    The main problem with Brexit is that the British government is attempting to maintain economic relations with the EU, and is totally caving in to the EU demands that its regulations be followed. If any of the rebel countries, Hungary, Poland, etc, get into active hostilities with the EU, their very best hope would be for increased assessments and regulations by the EU behemoth government, making the EU conglomerate that much weaker and less competitive.

    I repeat: the EU is completely evil and cannot be “fixed”. It can only be dissolved. The only good EU is a dead EU.

  8. “..A change in the balance of power is also emerging, which would also have to be of interest to Europe, especially as Russia consistently emphasises her friendship with Iran and is active in Syria…” – Don’t underestimate Putin. Remember, on the Victory Day he was with the President of Serbia, the Patriarch of Russia.. and Beniamin Netaniahu. The strikes of Israel on Iranian targets were well coordinated with Russia and they serve exactly Russia’s purpose – to stabilize Assad power (against the semirational “Western” squeaking and grunting about “bloody tyrant” etc) AND to ret rid of the Iranian connection. Russia and Persia have been competing in the Caspian and in Caucasus for 400 years – at least. So PLEASE don’t come up with that naivesse that Russia would put its highly advanced weapons and its power – soft, hard or whatever – into service of Iran’s Shia Apocalypse. Russia has its strong interests in Syria – 1) to prevent further growth of Islamic Terrorism in Caucasus, 2) to prevent gas pipeline from Qatar reaching the Mediterranean (an old dream of the Muslim Brothers Turkey and Qatar – Muslim Brothers in the direct sense). Nowadays, when Israel will control the “Goliath” gasfield in its shelf, cutting down the disproportionate Qatari influence is only too beneficial for the region.

    • It seems a major Jewish news outlet supports what I wrote one day ago:


      “..On Friday, the newspaper reported Israel and Russia had reached an agreement green-lighting Israeli strikes on Iranian targets in Syria, as well as the withdrawal of Tehran-backed troops from Syria’s border with Israel..

      “..The reported agreement would see Iranian forces leave southwestern Syria, while allowing Israel to strike Iranian assets deep in the country. Israel agreed not to attack Syrian regime targets, the report said…”

      • Great news.

        It would be even better to hear that the US pull its bumbling self out of the region and allow Israel to pursue its very strong regional interest in the area. But, of course, stop the foreign aid and military alliances with Israel and let Israel make its own compromises.

  9. The end of article is the most damning. Europa having capitulated to Arab Oil in the creation of Eurabia is now whoring after genocidal Iran. 21st Europe reminds me of the famous prostitutes of the Hamburg waterfront ca. 1910. When they had reached senility and had lost all their teeth, they were famed among savvy sailors for their expertise in using their toothless gums to give pleasure.

  10. US policy – who knows how long it will continue?

    Brexit – apparently there’s far more worry about its impact in Britain, than in the rest of the EU… and previous posts suggest record high support for EU among the Danes – to namr just one nation.

    Italy – its governments have usually been chaotic, coalitions there come and go…

    Hungary and Poland – yes, for first time governments who are decidedly anti-Brussels and get leftists worked up about them being “far right”. But far too insignificant countries to threaten the whole of the EU itself.

    EU budget – discussions about it are always complex. A problem, but one that’s not unsolvable.

    GDPR – yes, potentially a bureaucratic nightmare (like a lot of EU legislation). We’ll see where things go with it.

    In short – some problems for EU, yes. But somehow I doubt the Eurocrats are losing much sleep. Not sure the same can be said for the UK government and their Brexit negotiating team…

Comments are closed.