Ici Londres: 'Euroimperialism'

[apu_apustaja]

EXCELLENT video. Delightfully strong ending. Thank you Mr H.

[markgilbert]

Just so "self evidently" true!!

[ItsGroundhogDay]

Hopefully some of those new nations will not be awful.

[ihateyankees]

The US is much more empire like than originally intended, and we've got plenty of modern secessionist movements of our own.

[simonbamford]

Should go and live in US as loves it so much - another bonkers MEP!

[AntQuick]

Silver Gordie I'd say you're exaggerating more than just a bit, most of our individual states are pretty wealthy themselves and that's because they have their own sovereignty in a sense, they raise their own taxes, get out of the EU and you'll be better off...debt doesn't mean broke, it means you're rich enough to have a line of credit

[arthurofalbion]

Normally I strongly agree with the great Daniel Hannan, and I certainly favour full ('hard') Brexit, but Hannan is much mistaken in this video. Free nations have an inherent tendency toward military weakness. Men prefer to use the vast majority of their wealth in ways that benefit specifically themselves and those whom they most love (family and friends). They do not wish their governments to take large amounts for the purpose of accumulating military power unless they think that their country is under threat. Tyrannies, by sharp contrast, suffer no such limitation of their power. The tyrant can use as much of his nation's wealth as he likes for military build-up, provided he avoids triggering too much rebellion, which he can avoid mostly by propaganda 'justifying' the military expenditure, and by the severe punishment of rebels. This dangerous tendency for free nations to be militarily weak has been known at least since the days of Themistocles. He felt he needed to deceive the Athenian people in connection with the silver strike at Laurium, so that its wealth could be dedicated to Athenian naval power. Recent examples include the weakness of the British Empire in the face of fascism during the 1930s, and that of the Obama administration in the face of the Islamic State, Iran, and the rise of China (and probably North Korea).

This inherent weakness must eventually result in the free nations of the world falling to tyranny, unless they acquire a counterbalancing strength in some way. One source of disproportionate strength amongst free men is their superior economic vigour. Alas, this is not nearly enough, as was proven in WWII, which was Hitler’s to lose, despite his having had only about six years in which to overcome the extreme weakness imposed on Germany after WWI. There is only other way for the free peoples of the world to acquire large amounts of counterbalancing strength: through sheer size. A politically coherent association (PCA) of free men must control so much of the planet’s resources that the forces of tyranny cannot hope for military victory, even considering the initial lack of preparedness on the part of the free men. Safety must not depend upon more than one PCA, lest the forces of tyranny divide and conquer. Think of the West’s betrayal of Czechoslovakia before WWII, and of eastern Europe afterward.

The PCA which carried the burden of preserving and promoting freedom during the centuries prior to WWII was the British Empire. Had England ‘minded her own business’, as an anti-imperialist might put it, and limited herself to what power she could acquire within her own borders, then she would not have been able to protect the world from such tyrannies as the Catholic Church, Napoleon’s France, and Hitler’s Germany. Since WWII the guardian of freedom has been the Anglosphere. Alas, it has not been as reliable as the British Empire. For one thing, it has been hollowed out by socialism. Most problematic, however, is the fact that its political cohesion is based entirely upon ‘friendship’. There is no governmental structure to enforce it. Unfortunately, such ‘friendship’ as exists between nations as such just isn’t enough. For example, in WWII neither the ‘friendship’ between Britain and the United States, nor the stirring rhetoric of Winston Churchill, nor even the fact that the future of mankind was at stake (a point very eloquently and forcefully make by Churchill), was sufficient to convince the U.S. to join in the fight against Hitler. Then that country itself was attacked at Pearl Harbor. Even then she only agreed to fight against Japan, the nation that attacked her, not against Germany! It was Hitler who declared war on the United States, not the other way ‘round. Had he not done so, the war might well have ended very differently. Therefore, until something like the British Empire is re-established (or God’s Kingdom comes), such freedom as mankind now enjoys is in great peril. (Does this mean that the U.K. should remain in the European Union? Definitely not! The E.U. is tyrannical, and is currently in the process of committing suicide.)