From the Capital & Conflict (GREAT BRITAIN) –
In college we called it “the Hitler rule”. Any spirited debate was immediately over once one party compared the other to Hitler. When you’ve reached that point in an argument, no persuasion is going to happen. Just a lot of name calling, hard feelings and thrown punches.
Did Boris Johnson trigger the Hitler rule in his interview with The Telegraph over the weekend? I’m going to give him a pass. He said that other people have tried to recreate the so-called “golden age” of European prosperity under the Romans. Then he named Napoleon.
No one would mistake Jean-Claude Juncker for a swastika-wearing genocidal sociopath. The legitimate question is whether the EU project has as its ultimate aim a pan-European government that exercises political, military, diplomatic and economic power in your life. Johnson quite rightly pointed out that limited government doesn’t stay limited for long, especially when those at the helm of power are unaccountable to the governed.
Mark Carney, David Cameron, the World Bank, the OECD, the IMF and every other transnational organisation dominated by global elites wants Brexit to be about economics. If it was as simple as that, it would be better. The EU started as a common market under the premise that free trade and open borders, and easy movement of labour and capital would promote the wellbeing of everyone in Europe.
That’s why the best argument for the EU is to reform it back into what it was only ever supposed to be: a common market. But the common market mechanism has always been a means to an end. The end?
Greater monetary integration. Greater regulation of business. Greater marginalisation of national parliaments. The subsuming of national identity in a European identity. That’s what a superstate is all about: creating new loyalties and destroying old allegiances (family, tribe, church, state and God).