Imelda: [about Deco] He eats like a pig.
Bernie: He’s such a prick.
Natalie: Hasn’t got the voice of a pig though. Joey says it belongs to God.
Billy: God should ask for it back.

I honestly don’t see where the fundamental disagreement between us is.
You say that the EU project is dystopian, I say that too – except I add to that that it wasn’t until 1986 when the Spinelli Group forced it through, and I say that the Spinelli Group vision was not the only one – and that, of course, there was no EU until 2009 (in your opinion, if the Spinelli project – so the post 1986 European Communities – was the o n l y one from the get-go, was Churchill in favour of it too? He supported the European Union).
You say that Merkel brought the immigration disaster onto Germany and Europe – I say that too.

You say “I read people at the time (here) arguing that it was a rational, if not a cunning plan to bridge a workforce and demographic deficit (as you do)”.

Well, Germany is in demographic collapse. This is beyond dispute. It has two ways of solving it:

1. – to prop up the welfare state/pension system with immigrants (you can try to fill it up with German natives, but they don’t feel like procreating too much, and even if they did – it takes 20 years for new people to start paying taxes)
2 – or to abolish the state pension system (that comes from Bismarck) and welfare state.

To me, long-term 2 is the only rational and sustainable solution.
But
I understand that you are not in favour of it.

What’s the 3 option for Germany? I don’t see any.
Either new workforce or the collpase of their welfare state.

Now. Can the “refugees” be that workforce? No, they can’t, and I was saying that they won’t before it really started, and they are not.

So did Merkel fucked up in September 2015? Of course she did (and I didn’t even mention their hostile civilisiaton and that they won’t assimilate).

Fundamental question to you: why did Germany started to import any immigrants in the first place (from the 1950s)? – first from Italy, then from Yugoslavia, then Turkey, now Middle East/Africa (since the Poles don’t really want to live there and they don’t want Ukrainians because of their nationalism)?

B e c a u s e they are too f…g lazy and have been since they got used to live off the other peoples work during WWII and got away with it nicely.
If Germans wanted to do all those menial jobs, there would have never been any need for any mass immigration (starting from Italians) to Germany.
But they didn’t.
The only difference between this wave and the previous ones is:
1) These newcomers don’t want to work
2) They won’t assimilate
3) Other countries won’t take them as Merkel hoped.

We have this idiom in Polish that describes Merkel perfectly – chytry dwa razy traci.
A very imperfect way to render its meaning is: graps all, lose all.

So
Is the EU a great delusion and a dangerous one?
You – yes, it always has been.
Me – yes, since 1986.

That’s ALL we differ on.

And so far, other countries bar Germany/France were losing on it while now they are losing on it too.
Their cunning Mittel-Europa plan is turning against them.
And I say – fuck them.

P.S. “I would be interested in knowing when the terms introvert and extravert came into usage and from who. You say it was Freud.” – no, no, no – I say it came from Jung and that Jungism is a form of Freudism, same as Trotskyism is a form of Marxism.
And Freud copied his idead from Schopenhauer anyway, and vulgarised them.
You MUST read that link on Mazur and characters, you must.

Apparently in your haste you miss my sentence, “We will have to agree to differ on this.”

You are merely restating what you have written before, as I am.

But since I am here.

You have not given me any additional reason to change my mind about BND infiltration of the British govt. By this stage I don’t expect to see any. I was using ‘spies’ for brevity too.

As you say, there is nothing utopian about the German Mitteleuropa strategy. I have never argued that there is. However the EU project is irrational (what you call the Spinelli project) and seeks to minutely regulate everyone’s life. This is irrational and utopian. It has found a cause in AGW, which I am sure you will agree is even more utopian. It has removed internal borders, which in the face of massive immigration pressures, is utopian and very stupid. It has a united currency which has proved to be a disaster. These are just off the top of my head. Mitteleuropa and then this. Equally the US is hard-headed in its dealings yet Obama’s govt signed up to carbon reductions that would reduce economic activity to the level of the 1860s. Britain has been perhaps the most deluded (leaving out Ireland of course) regarding AGW as it closes coal powered power stations and has formulated an energy policy that relies on some scientific breakthrough in carbon capture. What’s the word for that? Oh yes, utopian. And as you know, of course, this absurdity is even more absurd when China and the rest of the world are expanding their carbon emissions.

Merkel’s decision on the immigrants in September 2015 was uncharacteristically badly thought out. Indeed, it was not at all thought out. She has paid a political price and placed her country’s, and Europe’s, future in grave danger. I read people at the time (here) arguing that it was a rational, if not a cunning plan, to bridge a workforce and demographic deficit (as you do). This has long been a staple economic justification of mass immigration. It utterly fails to impress me as the drawbacks obviously far outweigh the supposed benefits. Whatever this is, it is not cool, calculated Realpolitik.

Finally, I don’t know about your Centra, but most people I have mentioned Europe to don’t know anything about it. It never occurs to them to wonder where these regulations come from, if they notice them at all, that is. To those who do think (who Kunstler calls the unthinking classes) I think it has only been in recent years that they have realized what is going on. Even most of those, however, don’t have much of a clue about the EU decision making process. When Irish Water was set up and there were mass protests how often was Europe mentioned? Ditto the waste collection? Yet the EU is the sole reason for this stuff. They think they elect TDs to pass laws when in fact they merely wave them through without discussion. (I don’t mean Germany.) Sometimes some plonker of a journalist complains about long Dáil holidays when they should be there passing laws. We have far too many laws as it is and would be better off if they doubled their holidays.

Now, Grzeg, we will have to agree to differ. You can have the last word but I can’t see what you have left to add by this stage.

I would be interested in knowing when the terms introvert and extravert came into usage and from who. You say it was Freud.

I. Your NUTS list of regions in Germany is priceless.
You would, of course, find structural funding in Germany. You would also find finding for Euroregions. What you won’t find though is the funding for SEPARATIST movements in Germany – the same Germany who funds such movements in other countries.
II. “Project’s integrationist vision. Utopian vision and corruption apparently go hand in hand” – there is nothing utopian in German Mittel-Europa and Grossraum projects – they are coldblooded, very realistic projects who already worked during WWII and are working now (German trade surpluses after enlargement with no extra costs). What is utopian is the Spinelli project. But that’s not Merkel’s project.
III. “Most people seem to think that the voluminous EU regulations are set in a fair and objective manner by an impartial (to say nothing of competent) technocracy (the Commission)” – I’ve never ever met anyone who thinks that (Then again, I never worked for the “Anti-Irish Times” ;-) and that even includes my very pro-EU law lecturers and a Labour councillor – very young, yet already completely cynical. You would need to talk to some (not all) people from the UCD Sociology Department to find people so dumb that they think that ’cause you won’t find them in Centra.

IV. “Even the German Realpolitik takes a back seat. One good example, which I have often repeated, is the irrationality of Merkel’s decision two years ago to let all those immigrants in.” – I believe that you are wrong on that.
First of all, Iam not talking about de iure ARGUMENTS, but de iure IMPLEMENTATIONS who benefit German exports.
Merkel decision was rational – Germany needs at least 2 million immigrant workers (native are all employed except for the unemployable) to rescue their pension system and the welfare state.
What was irrational was her ESTIMATE – that 50% of those “refugees” will find a job (official forecast). Only 2% did. SO she was rational and coldblooded on one front and irrational and deluded on the other.

V. “They don’t even realize that their parliaments are bypassed as EU regs are put into law automatically, without debate, by SIs.” – in Germany they are not: Germany is the only EU country where their national law overrides the Lisbon Treaty. I wrote about it many times.

VI. “The failure of F and G to be fined for breaching EU rules was often the subject of comment on this blog back in the day.” – but only I covered the topic that Germany is Europe’s prime destination for money laundering and was deliberately obstructing pro-transparency EU/WTO legislation.

VII. “Germany profited and Britain was penalized (carbon credits).” – that on Britain’s unrealistic targets I didn’t know. Btw, Germany is now exceeding even those low targets.

VIII. “As for the German secret service having spies in the British government, what do you base that on?” – their past penetration, circumstancial evidence – Thatcher’s ambassador acting against her via the German media; that you would be immediately sacked as a UK minister (I think this was like less than a week – cannot remember who; asked yo uto remember) for one anti-reunification sentence; the fact that the UK media censored the Prime Minister re Peace Treaty/reparations testifies on the state of penetration; look – if Germany was able to have their foreign minister in 1990 Poland, their prime minister in 2008 Poland; that Czechoslovakia was able to topple Chamberlains government and help bring Churchill to power (see my references on Peter Hitchens’), then for Germany it is HUNDRED times easier to topple a UK government than for Czechoslovakia. Spies is a wrong word (I said that I’d use shortcuts for brevity): agents of influence is a better word.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DMHHTXLX4AEmgLy.jpg

‘Again you are turning the power pyramid upside down’

Again you misunderstand.

I spent a while trying to find a list of the German regions for structural funding and found this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUTS_statistical_regions_of_Germany

NUTS – they would have to call it something like that, wouldn’t they?

I fully accept that the EU is a cover for German dominance and that it is in reality the German empire and that (as you say) they cannot be open about this, even though it is obvious in the light of the events of the last few years: response to financial crisis and the decision to admit perhaps a million immigrants.

The Commission obviously does not dictate what happens. This is done by Germany, along with the other members with their limited influence. The Commission has a record of serious corruption and is also (or at least was) the repository of the Project’s integrationist vision. Utopian vision and corruption apparently go hand in hand. As for the Euro Parliament, it is a joke. Nobody is in any doubt about that except probably MEPs and their staff.

Booker and North’s book makes it clear that it was the member govts meeting at regular summits who dictated events. It was partly Thatcher’s experience of how these meetings were ruthlessly manipulated, and frequently carefully choreographed by F and G, which disabused her of the EU. And which led to her rejection of further integration which resulted in her ejection from No 10 by her own Cabinet colleagues.

Most people seem to think that the voluminous EU regulations are set in a fair and objective manner by an impartial (to say nothing of competent) technocracy (the Commission) when (as I understand) they result from horse trading. (And that France has been by far the most successful member state at rigging the game – John Allen has referred to their diplomatic skill.) They don’t even realize that their parliaments are bypassed as EU regs are put into law automatically, without debate, by SIs.

Your perspective has always been valuable, particularly as our worse-than-useless media don’t report any of it, to the extent that that even independent-minded sceptics may not suspect the existence of important issues (as you say).

The failure of F and G to be fined for breaching EU rules was often the subject of comment on this blog back in the day.

I remember you making the point about coal on a few occasions. You might find it interesting to know (if you don’t already) that when it came to setting carbon targets at the height of the global warming hysteria Germany set very realistic low targets while Britain (which has been suicidally over-enthusiastic about implementing EU regs, often going beyond what is required – eg in food safety) set daft, unrealistic targets. Germany profited and Britain was penalized (carbon credits).

I have often seen you make the point about the G-Polish border, an issue which Germany is keeping open. It is a most interesting insight into what is really happening behind the PR.

I never heard of the health enlightenment crowd in Germany and was unaware that UNESCO were pushing ‘genderism’.

I have never said that Brussels rules Berlin because I don’t believe it, because that would be daft.

None of the above persuades me that the EU is not above all a dangerous mass delusion. In that context the de iure arrangments of the EU are not that important. Even the German Realpolitik takes a back seat. One good example, which I have often repeated, is the irrationality of Merkel’s decision two years ago to let all those immigrants in.

We will have to agree to differ on this.

As for the German secret service having spies in the British government, what do you base that on?