| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Introducing Eurabia Watch, a new column by Emily Bradford, who lives in Europe. It will be running regularly here:
Bat Ye’or’s pioneering work, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, is based primarily upon conference papers, diplomatic exchanges, and policy proposals of EU officials. The cornerstone of European rapprochement with the Islamic world has been a common antagonism toward Israel, Jews, and America -- sheltered in a labyrinth of agreements written in careful diplomatese. She also discusses how this trend is reflected and promoted in the European media, so that, concerned with government officials and journalists, Eurabia is a narrative focused on elites. Bat Ye’or takes pains to point out that most ordinary Europeans, in contrast, do not share their leaders’ hostility.Privately, many Europeans confess to mistrust and dislike not of Jews, but of the millions of Muslim immigrants their governments have insisted upon importing. The feeling is not born of blind bigotry, but of frustration with the tangible social problems that have accompanied one of the greatest migrations in history. That so many Europeans object to misguided government policies would seem to be cause for hope that Eurabia's collision course with history can be averted. However, over the same period, EU institutions have worked to remove voters from the loop, so democracy no longer functions as a check on Europe's direction.
As a bulwark against future conflict, the European Economic Community was established in 1957 by France, Germany, Italy, and Benelux. Initially conceived of as a common market and customs union, the 1957 Treaty of Rome also aspired to an “ever closer union.” Thus, during the 1960s and 1970s, the EEC grew into a web of international agreements seeking to harmonize the laws of all member states, on issues ranging from consumer and environmental protection, social and cultural programs, banking and securities, and so on.Counterbalancing American economic might was also a major goal of the EU's architects.
As the EEC and other agreements were merged into the European Community, the EC expanded in membership as well as scope, adding Denmark, Ireland, and the UK in 1973; Greece, Spain, and Portugal in the 1980s; Austria, Finland, and Sweden in 1995; and just this year, ten Eastern European countries, bringing the total membership to 25. The 1992 Maastricht Treaty officially brought the European Union into existence, by which time a maze of multilateral agreements had established a de facto federal government of Europe, with member states roughly equivalent to U.S. states.
The federal system of the United States of Europe, however, bears little resemblance to America’s, either in its creation or in substance. Its primary feature has been periodic, incremental transfers of sovereignty by member state governments to the EU, which has acquired vast powers through decades of accretion. The impact of this could be somewhat mitigated if EU institutions were accountable to voters in a meaningful way. But because reaching “consensus” in the early days of the union proved cumbersome and slow, EU planners gradually engineered such democratic checks out of the system. For example, there is no separation of powers doctrine; the European Commission is simultaneously the EU's executive and de facto legislative branch. A theoretical limit on its power is the subsidiarity principle: if an issue can best be addressed at the national rather than the EU level, the Commission is not supposed to act. However, Commissioners make that judgment, not member states. Furthermore, when member states object, the European Court of Justice -- the EU Supreme Court -- frequently resolves disputes in the Commission’s favor. It goes without saying that Commissioners are appointed, being too powerful to be subject to the instability of elections.While the European Parliament is the official, popularly elected legislative branch, it’s impotent in the areas that count. It cannot propose any new legislation, which is the sole prerogative of the Commission. Most significantly, the Parliament has only an advisory role in critical areas of EU law, in which it has no power to amend or veto. In matters relating to police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters; discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, religion or political conviction; and visas, asylum, and immigration, the Commission wields exclusive power.
Further, the Commission is explicitly intended to be independent of member states. Commissioners are not permitted to take instructions from the member state which appointed them, but are supposed to represent the interests of the citizens of the EU as a whole. By representing everyone, they represent no one, and their own personal agendas inevitably fill the gap.
Directives, the chief instrument by which member state laws are harmonized, are where democracy and accountability in the EU truly disappear. Directives are instructions from the Commission to member state legislatures to pass a law on a certain subject by a certain date. Twenty-one languages are spoken in the EU, so member states are free to choose the wording; but the substance and the goal set by the Commission must be achieved.
For example, appointed Commissioners issue a directive, say, requiring beer to be manufactured and labeled in a certain way. A member state say, Germany -- may be perfectly happy with the way they've been making and labeling beer for centuries. The Bundestag refuses to repeal the German beer law of 1516, which would be required to implement the directive. The Commission sues Germany for noncompliance, and the ECJ rules in the Commission's favor. Result: Despite massive public protest, Germany has to change its laws and practices to suit the EU. This was an actual case, from 1987, and there are thousands more like it.
Voting is actually required by law in many European countries. But, while citizens can vote for national representatives of their choice, those representatives are not free to legislate as they see fit. As the EU acquires ever broader powers, national legislatures must increasingly take their marching orders from Brussels -- effectively nullifying the will of the voters. This is business as usual in the EU, which may explain why French, Dutch and Danish voters rejected the EU Constitution this year, and also why it came as such a shock to the elites. Their grand, well-intentioned project was humming along perfectly until those pesky little voters had the audacity to say no.
Eurocrats have two ways of dealing with such democratic roadblocks. One method is to keep holding national referenda until they get the answer they want. Another method is to craft EU institutions and procedures to avoid having to ask for anyone's permission. Every major EU treaty, including the 1992 Maastricht Treaty and this years failed EU Constitution, has been touted as an innovative measure to "streamline the institution's decisional procedures." In other words, to do away with that lumbering democracy business that results in disagreement, debate, and delays in the march toward progress.
This has obvious implications for Europe's most urgent problem: millions of unassimilated Muslim immigrants, thousands of imams preaching Islamic supremacism, and self-proclaimed mujahideen bombing subways, raping teenagers, and torching cars and churches. Many Europeans are upset and want action, but entrenched and aloof Eurocrats have so far refused to respond. Their steadfast inaction is producing two disturbing developments: frustrated citizens are being driven into the arms of extreme nationalist parties, which have been steadily gaining influence; and authorities are increasingly treating freedom of speech as a limited and negotiable right. The growing conflict between the government and the people is adding an even uglier dimension to the Eurabian experiment.
Posted by Robert at December 14, 2005 2:45 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Sorry, Robert, but your opening line is a tad confusing- Eurabia Watch will be a column on DW, Or...?
Posted by: Gary![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 14, 2005 3:10 PM
there is already a teriffic blog site called Eurabian Times
Posted by: ploome at December 14, 2005 3:22 PM
with the recent riots in France, and muslim unrest in other European countries, they will hopefully get a party that will push for European people power, and throw out the liberal elites in power now! you had the NO vote in both France and Netherlands... it seems the average European knows of the dangers of allowing too much control in Brussels over their own countries.. Wake up Europe!
Posted by: Lulu at December 14, 2005 3:25 PM
Lulu, the Eurocrats haven't allowed defeat in the Dutch and French referenda to deter them, they've been quietly carrying on the work of "integration" behind the scenes; see "The way we are" at
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
And the fate of Vlaams Bok in Belgium shows what will happen to any new political party that gets in the way of the Eurabian superstate. The arm-twisting applied to Austria because of its objection to Turkish accession also comes to mind.
Posted by: Doctor Phibes at December 14, 2005 4:02 PM
You won't believe this.
Cronulla boardriders association has apologised for the way that some of them acted last sunday. And the united muslim youth has accepted the apology. (Pictures of Aussies hugging muslims.)
But have muslims offered an apology for the vandalising of cars at Maroubra? No.
Have they apologised for bashing a man at Castle Hill, after asking him if he was Australian? NO.
Posted by: Voltaire at December 14, 2005 4:06 PM
The article above lucidly explains the runaway government-without-representation that constitutes the bureaucracy, the Parliament, the foreign policy, of this hideous creation, the E.U. Behind the expanded but unimproved E.U. is the deference accorded Homo economicus, Economic Man. Creation of the original Common Market began as an attempt to tie West Germany into so many links to its former victims that it would never again be a threat. But the whole thing got out of hand in the last ten years, and the E.U. bureacracy is now almost self-sustaining, and o'erweening, and cannot easily be stopped. The Big Market, is all that matters to the E.U. Everything else -- national languages, literatures, histories, or for that matter the very idea of the West, and the historic link between Europe and North America -- that can all be sacrificed, for it is irrelevant to the Big Market. And since there are still those eager to recycle petrodollars, and therefore eager to convince others (and themselves) that the E.U. must offer political favors to the Arabs and Muslims. No such favors, it can easily be demonstrated, are needed to buy oil at market prices, but a few well-connected people, on the other hand, should they do the Arab bidding, assume -- not always without reason -- that they personally, though not their countries or the E.U. itself, will be rewarded in that famous "petrodollar recycling."
Posted by: Hugh at December 14, 2005 4:46 PM
Here is a great quote from Wretchard at the Belmont Club regarding the Australian riots but which is equally applicable to the situation in Europe (just substitute a few words):
"I get a little emotional sometimes watching these peacenik types defend blatant murderers because by frustrating justice they are building up tectonic pressures that will go snap one day, and it won't be their necks at the end of a rope. What the world needs isn't the fake sympathy of the Euro-human rights crowd but justice. They should remember that in the absence of justice there is only revenge."
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/
Posted by: johnb at December 14, 2005 5:00 PM
Europe's DNA-level predisposition to appeasement is a social defect that has cost--and will cost--them dearly. Their continued survival flies in the face of natural selection, and this because of U.S. willingness to rescue whores, drunks and Europeans.
Many in the US are forming opinions that, if implemented, would hand Europeans their own destiny by getting us out of the way of their societal de-evolution. And who doesn't want to pull U.S. troops out of EU countries? That could be a mistake, of course.
The required nukes with which Islam wants to engage the West may be more easily obtained by Islamic French and German votes rather than by their shrill bargaining at the CIA-monitored A.Q. Kahn bazaar.
Still, there is what has been called "The Terrible Temptation" (T3) to let European elites represent the people they've appointed themselves to represent. All agree that Joe and Mary Iraqi must stand on their own two feet and fight for their freedom; why are we asking less of our cousins in Europe? Good luck, Emily.
at December 14, 2005 6:11 PM
Hugh sez:
"...there are still those eager to recycle petrodollars, and therefore eager to convince others (and themselves) that the E.U. must offer political favors to the Arabs and Muslims. No such favors, it can easily be demonstrated, are needed to buy oil at market prices,.."
If it was only the oil and only a matter of supply and paying for it: Yes, right.
But you need to add that the Arabs themselves produce nothing.
All their supplies must be imported. The ME is a huge market for the US , Asia, the EU including Australia.
The Europeans are involved in huge construction projects in Dubai, the Emirates, and in SA. Every European, from the despicable, corrupt Girac to the former German chancellor 'Shredder' (a pathetic commie who never grasped it) all went there, have been hypnotized by the shameless display of (undeserved) wealth which the free world bestowed on them. These 'great leaders' kowtowed to the Arabs who naturally 'saw them coming', as the suckers they all are.
Eager to make a deal, eager not to go back empty handed, they just about accepted any deal, blinded by the desert sun. Nobody wants to miss out. Nobody criticizes, morals play no part at all: All is just Business, the EU, that monster, has to be fed before it gobbles everyone and everything up....
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 14, 2005 6:46 PM
The EU is without doubt an anti-democratic, pro-islamic organization hell bent on causing it's
native born citizens as much pain as possible.
Islam would never have been tolerated in Europe in it's present form only for these suicidal
Dhimmi's, they will ultimatley be as responsible
as the Jihadi's for the destruction that will surely reign across this Continent.
at December 14, 2005 11:50 PM
The EU is a horrible beast, a virtual monolith of absolute power brandished by a collection of pompous, unelected, detached elites. These de facto tyrants implement their personal agendas irrespective of popular opposition, with no regard for the will of the people.
Why do they even bother to hold national elections if the Commissioners in Brussels dictate all legislation to the member states? Is this travesty really considered a democracy? One thing I'm not sure about: Are the countries that rejected the EU Constitution still autonomous, or must they still comply with the directives from Brussels?
I know Europe has sought to distance itself from the U.S. and sneers at our primitive, unsophisticated inferiority, but surely a rebellion against this tyrannical debacle in on the horizon.
Posted by: Susanp at December 15, 2005 12:38 AM
Why do they even bother to hold national elections if the Commissioners in Brussels dictate all legislation to the member states?
Susanp, good question. For most of the EU's history, member state legislatures retained considerable autonomy. But over the last 15 years or so, this autonomy has been increasingly relegated to peripheral and housekeeping matters. Why elect national representatives anymore? Well, someone has to levy the taxes.
Countries that rejected the EU Constitution are still members of the EU, bound by all directives and requirements of existing EU institutions. The rejection of the EU Constitution didn't change or roll back anything; it only created a speed bump in the next phase of "ever closer union."
National campaigns leading up to the vote on the EU Constitution consisted not so much of rival political parties jockeying to persuade voters, but of government officials forecasting doom if the people failed to rubber-stamp their power grab. That is, in the 10 EU countries that bothered to ask voters.
The EU Constitution does not specify the method of ratification, only that all 25 member states must somehow "get to yes" by 1 Nov 06. So 15 member states are submitting it merely to a parliamentary vote; of those 15, all but Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Estonia have completed ratification.
Of the 13 countries that have ratified the treaty so far, only two have done so by popular vote: Luxembourg and Spain.
The EU Constitution is a done deal. Too many elites have invested too many millions of man-hours compromising, writing, and building their careers on it. It can't be renegotiated and they won't give up. Thus, leaders of any member state whose voters reject it will likely simply submit it to parliamentary ratification -- after a good delay so everyone has forgotten about it. You can keep track here.
Oh yeah, don't count on a bona fide rebellion. Guns are pretty much universally illegal.
Posted by: Emily at December 15, 2005 1:52 AM
The naked hostility of Islamic fundamentalism has been brazenly waved at EU leaders in the person of that Iranian racist president but they are still continue to spout platitudes about the Religion of Peace. Iran is arming itself for a Holy War and is sponsoring terrorism world wide along with that other terrorist state Saudi Arabia who do it covertly by funding huge mosques and educational projects in Eurabia. Even now, jihadis are derailing the peaceful work of aid agencies in Pakistan. There can never be a peaceful co-existence of this religion in the West. Jihad in the West by Paul Fregosi reveals the true and enduring obsession of Islam with invading and conquering the West over the centuries, a project which is being abetted by liberal useful idiots everywhere. The EU is a multi million euro gravy train for politicians and human rights lawyers who fasten on it like leeches. Witness how disgraced politician Peter Mandelson, forced to resign on several occasions for his dubious activities has resurrected his career there.
Posted by: londongirl at December 15, 2005 4:35 AM
so the EU is destroying democracy or has already.
Maybe their favoritism for the Arabs/Muslims is a combination of the traditional judeophobia of Europe plus the EU desire to get rid of their own historic civilizations. That is, if Europe is islamized-arabized, then their traditional civilization, or Western civilization is dead. So maybe that's the real reason for their policy: Wreck civilization. The Arabs wrecked the civilizations of the ancient East [Middle East] 1370 years ago. Maybe the EU is giving the job to experienced experts.
at December 15, 2005 8:16 AM
sheiky:
One of your most cogent posts:
"Eager to make a deal, eager not to go back empty handed, they just about accepted any deal, blinded by the desert sun. Nobody wants to miss out. Nobody criticizes, morals play no part at all: All is just Business, the EU, that monster, has to be fed before it gobbles everyone and everything up...."
Try that one out on the "no blood for oil/Haliburton" bunch who like to laud the Euro crowd's "position" on Iraq.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at December 15, 2005 9:08 AM
I am looking forward to reading Mr. Spencer's book on the perfect Muslim, the barbarian Muhammad.
Message to the Europeans: better learn the history of Civilization from books than from hooks.
XXIst century jihad, the same ol' "Piracy International", is sowing a New Dark Age.
at December 15, 2005 10:54 AM
I have a question if Europe is "Eurarabia" as you insanely suggest - why has the hijab been banned in schools in France and Germany?
Why has a European court supported the Turkish state's preventing women who wear a headscarf from being educated:
Court backs Turkish headscarf ban
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4424776.stm
at December 15, 2005 1:52 PM
30 years ago I never saw a women in Indonesia wear a headscarf.
The same goes for Malaysia and the south of Thailand.
Tell me, rumi: Why is this an issue for you? Why do you confuse freedom with being in a mental and physical prison?
What made these people wear these hideous veils and 'portable seclusion' in 30 C heat?
Would Saudi money have anything to do with it?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 15, 2005 8:47 PM
"if Europe is "Eurarabia" as you insanely suggest - why has the hijab been banned in schools in France and Germany?"
-- from a posting above
Europe is in the process of becoming, en train de devenir, Eurabia, and it is entirely a matter of numbers. If Muslim immigration is stopped, if Muslim non-citizens are forced to leave, if Muslim citizens are required to take oaths of loyalty to the Infidel nation-state and the likely truthfulness of that loyalty put to various tests, and any evidence of perjury cause for prompt expulsion, if furthermore the Europeans cease to support large Muslim families with grants, cease to overlook polygamy where practiced, cease to make it easy for the conduct of Da'wa, cease to ignore so many other things that, if they continue to be ignored, will lead to the inevitable islamization of Europe, with all that that would mean for science, art, and individual freedoms, including freedom of conscience -- this is all perfectly reasonable, justifiable, and doable. But only if enough people study Islam, study Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and then study the history of Islamic conquest of vast territories, over 1350 years, from Spain to East Asia, and study as well what happened to all the non-Muslim indigenous inhabitants -- Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists and others -- who were subjugated by those Muslim conquerors. Only through such study, and consultation with those who have undergone such study, can the European publics come to certain difficult-to-quite-believe, but entirely correct, conclusions.
Posted by: Hugh at December 15, 2005 10:20 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)