About About Contact Contact
Post Brexit, it’s ironic to reflect that few British people appear to know much about the origins of the Economic Union (EU), but Adolf Hitler, the notorious German Chancellor, must have laughed in hell when Germany finally managed to fulfil his cherished vision of the united states of Europe with Germany at its heart.  He would have known about the centuries old idea of unification which various empires from the Romans onwards had attempted to impose by force.  Since the 16th Century the concept of a pan-European agreement to bring permanent peace to the area had been suggested by many notables, including William Penn, Abbé de Saint-Pierre ,Tsar Alexander of Russia, Victor Hugo and Giuseppe Mazzini.  But it was only after the carnage of the Second World War that the notion of establishing some sort of European cooperative became really popular.  The Council of Europe was established in 1949 and a year later the French Foreign Minister, Robert Schuman, proposed the integration and mutual control of all the European coal and steel industries - as they were necessary to make weapons.  The European Coal and Steel Community was created in 1952 following the Treaty of Paris.  Many more treaties were signed before the European Communities emerged as such in 1967. The British were initially sold on the idea of joining the “Common Market”, by politicians who spun the line that this was just an economic, trading arrangement and not a political merger into a federal “united states of Europe.”  It was also stressed that such a trade cooperation would consolidate peaceful co-existence, and this was immensely appealing.  Following a referendum, Britain joined the Common Market in January 1973.  But a Federal Europe was what was intended all along, and many politicians knew that at the time.  What the public didn’t know, because it wasn’t declassified until 2000, was that ever since 1948 the American Committee for a United Europe had been pushing Britain to join what was intended to be a political and economic union.  Not content with overtly coercing Britain, America secretly funded the European movement throughout the 1950s and beyond.  This funding was solely designed to protect its own interest:  America wanted to be sure of a solid European bulwark against Russian expansion, which it has - and it manages to use the auspices of the E.U. to install missile bases closer and closer to Russia.  Ever since the war, under the guise of the “special relationship” the U.K. has also continued to be a strategic aircraft carrier for the U.S.A. The unification of Europe was first discussed in the corridors of real power in Washington in 1940, because it was feared that Adolf Hitler was about to achieve a “united states of Europe” that would be more powerful than America.  The U.K.’s eminent American Ambassador, Philip Kerr, aka Lord Lothian, sent a telegram to President Roosevelt concerning an appraisal by General Smuts (then Prime Minister of South Africa) about Hitler’s future strategy: “With practically the whole of Europe in his hands and with Russia and the Balkans in his pocket Hitler might think that the auspicious time to launch his peace offensive would be just before winter comes. He would then pose as the regenerator of an effete European system and would propose a United States of Europe composed of so-called free states, between whom tariff walls and economic barriers would have been abolished and some currency plan of Dr. Schacht’s 84 devising would [Page 63]have been instituted…” Fast forward to 1999 when the euro was created, and Germany had become the most powerful member of a collection of 15 “so-called free states.”  Hitler’s strategy had been achieved, not to bring Europe together to end the risk of any future European wars as the public was advised but to promulgate American interests.  In explaining what affect Brexit would have for the U.S., Scheherazade Rehman, director of the European Union Research Center at The George Washington University, said recently: “we really have lost our champion for free trade, globalization and eyes and ears on the ground with regard to security and other concerns at the EU table now – since they will not be sitting at closed door meetings anymore,”  What Rehman failed to mention was that she already suspected that Britain was unlikely to be participating in the proposed European Army, discussions of which, like so much else, were temporarily shelved until after the British Referendum vote - in case it affected the result. It is a measure of how interconnected the world has become that a 4% variance in the U.K. referendum result should have made such a difference.  This small, unexpected deviation in the vote wrong-footed the world’s financial markets which quickly wiped $2.08 trillion off global market capitalisation.  According to Standard & Poor’s Dow Jones Indices this even exceeded the amount lost after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in 2008.  .  The Brexit vote shocked the financial world because it was believed the British would always follow the advice of whatever the American President thought was best for it.  Normally shrewd market traders were also taken by surprise.  They’d swallowed the media propaganda and underestimated how strongly the British population resented the EU’s increasing interference in its affairs, and its cynicism regarding the apparent economic benefits derived from its membership. To really understand the reality of the EU economic club with its 28 exclusive members, just ask anybody living in Greece what it feels like to belong.  If you think that the Greek situation is too extreme, then ask any man from the Republic of Ireland how he enjoys paying $10,971,900,000 interest per year on $230,371,150,000 of government debt.  That’s a truly gargantuan sum for a country with a population of just over four and half million people.  But this is a club with an ex- Goldman Sachs banker at the epicentre of power, namely Mario Draghi, who’s in charge of the European Central Bank, and they don’t get much more neoliberal (always favouring free market capitalism and the privatisation of public infrastructure) than him.  Today’s bankers use a neoliberal philosophy as a justification to encourage debt under the guise of extending credit.  They then force the sale of public infrastructure - that should benefit all - into the hands of the private sector, which can then increase charges to benefit the few.  The British public may be largely unaware of such matters so let me provide some context about why Brexit won the referendum: If you live in the U.K., mix with people of all social classes, read widely and don’t rely on the BBC or what is left of the old “Fleet Street” print newspapers for your information, you would know how deeply unpopular the Prime Minister, David Cameron and his Chancellor, George Osborne are.  In fact, unpopular isn’t a strong enough word for the levels of disdain through to spluttering fury felt by so many people.  For more than half the British population these two men epitomise the arrogant, slick, all-powerful political elite.  Snug in their London enclave, sharing the same top public school backgrounds, they use taxpayers’ money and their power to run the country for their own and their chums’ benefit.  These old Etonian incumbents of Nos 10 and 11 Downing Street are totally out of touch with the 80% of the British population who live outside the capitol.  Apparently they were both confident the referendum vote would be “about jobs and the economy and it won’t even be close.”  What neither foresaw was that immigration would be the key issue of the referendum. Cameron and Osborne’s ignorant arrogance were manifest when, in a time of austerity, they slashed taxes for the richest members of society while imposing savage and cruel benefit cuts on the poorest and most vulnerable individuals.  So much for their proselytising: “the big society” and “we are all in it together.”  Their behaviour proved them to be the ruthless professional liars they are.  But we shouldn’t be shocked when politicians lie, as the playwright, David Hare, wrote recently in a Guardian article:  “that’s what they do for a living.”  So, not surprisingly, the Brexit vote contained a lot of pent-up frustration and rage with the government.  This antipathy was compounded because the referendum was fought in such a binary way, with blatant lies from both sides, and so much outright propaganda from the media, that it was impossible to distinguish any sensible arguments from the dross.  But the real concern, immigration, was glossed over.  For example: for many years the BBC has been so politically correct it considered the mere mention of anything to do with immigration as racist and therefore non-broadcastable, thus closing down any public discussion before it started.  But after years of denigrating the U.K. Independence party (UKIP), which advocated leaving the European Union (EU) and limiting the number of immigrants, the BBC had to take a somewhat softer and less ridiculing line after the last election when UKIP did rather well.  It is a quirk of the non-proportional British Parliamentary system that although UKIP received 3.8 million votes and the Green party 1.1 million they each gained only one seat in Parliament.  Nevertheless, a divided Conservative party were losing enough voters to UKIP that this became one of the reasons that forced Cameron to promise a referendum.  If he had known more about the lives of ordinary people, and had some empathy, he would never have taken the risk of having a referendum.  But, cocky and self-assured as ever, he felt he’d get the result he wanted: Britain would stay within the EU and life would continue to move smoothly along for him and his cronies.  In fact Cameron was so sure of the result that just eight days before the vote, he took an HSBC mortgage out on his £3.5 million home in London’s posh area of Notting Hill Gate.  But with Brexit a reality he could probably have got a much lower interest rate on his mortgage.  Not that this would worry him unduly as, up till now, the interest on his mortgage has been paid by U.K. taxpayers while he lives at No.10.  Besides, this is only his town house - he owns an estate in the Cotswolds which is mortgage-free.  Cameron probably intends to use the money from his new mortgage to invest in another property.  Obviously he’s relying on Mark Carney, another ex- Goldman Sachs banker who heads the Bank of England, to keep the banks pumping money into property loans.  This Ponzi scheme has been running in London for several years and has driven the price of property to such heights that few young Londoners can afford to buy.  In 10 years Cameron’s Notting Hill home has gone up in value from the £1.1 million he paid for it to its current valuation of £3.5 million.  Like all Ponzi arrangements the London property market relies on luring new punters in to pay money to those already in the scheme.  In previous years the prices of London’s lower end houses were fuelled by waves of Eastern European immigrants while ever increasing values at the middle and top housing end have come to rely on foreign investors like the Arabs and Russians, and now the Chinese - who are buying into a market they don’t understand but that historically shows high returns and solid security.  The property speculation in London and the South East of England is now trickling through the country, and housing shortages and crazy prices have been conflated in people’s minds with immigration.  Whatever narrative the BBC spun on how immigration is good for the country, people can see the housing crisis means the opposite.  They also observe they have to wait two or three weeks for a doctors’ appointment, and they know the cash-starved National Health Service is struggling to cope with growing immigration levels for which there is no budget, and eye-watering amounts have to be spent on translation services.  Young parents commonly face the problem of trying to get a place for their children in grossly oversubscribed nurseries or schools.  Then, having finally found a school place, they discover that in many parts of the country English is not the first language of the majority of children, thus putting the indigenous population at a serious disadvantage, proved by statistics which show white British children, particularly boys, are under-achieving.  So you can appreciate why the majority of people outside London didn’t think the free movement of immigrants is good for them. Yet the Brexit vote came as a shock to many of London’s professional political class because they felt they “had never had it so good.”  They’re delighted with the ever increasing values of their London homes. Their children, like themselves, are being educated privately.  They can afford private medical insurance, regularly dine out and have glamorous holidays.  Their houses are painted and cleaned and their gardens tended, probably by immigrants, so what could possibly be wrong with the economy?  Any talk of immigration was surely for bigots so how could people possibly vote to change the status quo?  This is why Brexit has shot a thunderbolt through the two main political parties, leaving more than a few political careers in tatters and a vacuum to be filled.  Yes, democracy is messy and inefficient, nevertheless the majority of British people were savvy enough to ignore the warnings of the pro-American lobby consisting of the U.S. President, the Head of the International Monetary Fund, and the neoliberal banksters like ex Goldman Sachs Mario Draghi and Mark Carney, just to name a few.  The British majority voted in their own interests against a system that isn’t working for them.  So what now?  Strong, wise and determined leadership is necessary to manage the economy fairly and play hard-ball with the EU over free movement of people, even if it means applying tariffs on EU goods.  We need tough negotiating to secure limited immigration and a broader trading base for the U.K. as the fall in the price of sterling has made Britain’s exports more competitive.  Whatever happens in Britain, and in Europe as the Brexit ripples cause inevitable repercussions, it seems likely that Germany, backed by all those ex- Goldman Sachs bankers, will continue to be the richest and most powerful country in the EU.  Adolf Hitler is certainly having the last laugh. July 2016
Click here to download the PowerPoint chart: Click here to download the PowerPoint chart:
...with analysis & insight...
Home Home Archive: Free PowerPoint download Free PowerPoint download
Click image to enlarge
Click here to download the PowerPoint chart: Click here to download the PowerPoint chart: Click here to download the PowerPoint chart: Click here to download the PowerPoint chart:

EU - Fulfilling Hitler’s dream?

Click here to download the PowerPoint chart: Click here to download the PowerPoint chart:
Click to return to page Archive Archive
About
Contact
Home
Post Brexit, it’s ironic to reflect that few British people appear to know much about the origins of the Economic Union (EU), but Adolf Hitler, the notorious German Chancellor, must have laughed in hell when Germany finally managed to fulfil his cherished vision of the united states of Europe with Germany at its heart.  He would have known about the centuries old idea of unification which various empires from the Romans onwards had attempted to impose by force.  Since the 16th Century the concept of a pan-European agreement to bring permanent peace to the area had been suggested by many notables, including William Penn, Abbé de Saint- Pierre ,Tsar Alexander of Russia, Victor Hugo and Giuseppe Mazzini.  But it was only after the carnage of the Second World War that the notion of establishing some sort of European cooperative became really popular.  The Council of Europe was established in 1949 and a year later the French Foreign Minister, Robert Schuman, proposed the integration and mutual control of all the European coal and steel industries - as they were necessary to make weapons.  The European Coal and Steel Community was created in 1952 following the Treaty of Paris.  Many more treaties were signed before the European Communities emerged as such in 1967. The British were initially sold on the idea of joining the “Common Market”, by politicians who spun the line that this was just an economic, trading arrangement and not a political merger into a federal “united states of Europe.”  It was also stressed that such a trade cooperation would consolidate peaceful co-existence, and this was immensely appealing.  Following a referendum, Britain joined the Common Market in January 1973.  But a Federal Europe was what was intended all along, and many politicians knew that at the time.  What the public didn’t know, because it wasn’t declassified until 2000, was that ever since 1948 the American Committee for a United Europe had been pushing Britain to join what was intended to be a political and economic union.  Not content with overtly coercing Britain, America secretly funded the European movement throughout the 1950s and beyond.  This funding was solely designed to protect its own interest:  America wanted to be sure of a solid European bulwark against Russian expansion, which it has - and it manages to use the auspices of the E.U. to install missile bases closer and closer to Russia.  Ever since the war, under the guise of the “special relationship” the U.K. has also continued to be a strategic aircraft carrier for the U.S.A. The unification of Europe was first discussed in the corridors of real power in Washington in 1940, because it was feared that Adolf Hitler was about to achieve a “united states of Europe” that would be more powerful than America.  The U.K.’s eminent American Ambassador, Philip Kerr, aka Lord Lothian, sent a telegram to President Roosevelt concerning an appraisal by General Smuts (then Prime Minister of South Africa) about Hitler’s future strategy: “With practically the whole of Europe in his hands and with Russia and the Balkans in his pocket Hitler might think that the auspicious time to launch his peace offensive would be just before winter comes. He would then pose as the regenerator of an effete European system and would propose a United States of Europe composed of so-called free states, between whom tariff walls and economic barriers would have been abolished and some currency plan of Dr. Schacht’s 84 devising would [Page 63]have been instituted…” Fast forward to 1999 when the euro was created, and Germany had become the most powerful member of a collection of 15 “so-called free states.”  Hitler’s strategy had been achieved, not to bring Europe together to end the risk of any future European wars as the public was advised but to promulgate American interests.  In explaining what affect Brexit would have for the U.S., Scheherazade Rehman, director of the European Union Research Center at The George Washington University, said recently: “we really have lost our champion for free trade, globalization and eyes and ears on the ground with regard to security and other concerns at the EU table now – since they will not be sitting at closed door meetings anymore,”  What Rehman failed to mention was that she already suspected that Britain was unlikely to be participating in the proposed European Army, discussions of which, like so much else, were temporarily shelved until after the British Referendum vote - in case it affected the result. It is a measure of how interconnected the world has become that a 4% variance in the U.K. referendum result should have made such a difference.  This small, unexpected deviation in the vote wrong- footed the world’s financial markets which quickly wiped $2.08 trillion off global market capitalisation.  According to Standard & Poor’s Dow Jones Indices this even exceeded the amount lost after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in 2008.  .  The Brexit vote shocked the financial world because it was believed the British would always follow the advice of whatever the American President thought was best for it.  Normally shrewd market traders were also taken by surprise.  They’d swallowed the media propaganda and underestimated how strongly the British population resented the EU’s increasing interference in its affairs, and its cynicism regarding the apparent economic benefits derived from its membership. To really understand the reality of the EU economic club with its 28 exclusive members, just ask anybody living in Greece what it feels like to belong.  If you think that the Greek situation is too extreme, then ask any man from the Republic of Ireland how he enjoys paying $10,971,900,000 interest per year on $230,371,150,000 of government debt.  That’s a truly gargantuan sum for a country with a population of just over four and half million people.  But this is a club with an ex-Goldman Sachs banker at the epicentre of power, namely Mario Draghi, who’s in charge of the European Central Bank, and they don’t get much more neoliberal (always favouring free market capitalism and the privatisation of public infrastructure) than him.  Today’s bankers use a neoliberal philosophy as a justification to encourage debt under the guise of extending credit.  They then force the sale of public infrastructure - that should benefit all - into the hands of the private sector, which can then increase charges to benefit the few.  The British public may be largely unaware of such matters so let me provide some context about why Brexit won the referendum: If you live in the U.K., mix with people of all social classes, read widely and don’t rely on the BBC or what is left of the old “Fleet Street” print newspapers for your information, you would know how deeply unpopular the Prime Minister, David Cameron and his Chancellor, George Osborne are.  In fact, unpopular isn’t a strong enough word for the levels of disdain through to spluttering fury felt by so many people.  For more than half the British population these two men epitomise the arrogant, slick, all-powerful political elite.  Snug in their London enclave, sharing the same top public school backgrounds, they use taxpayers’ money and their power to run the country for their own and their chums’ benefit.  These old Etonian incumbents of Nos 10 and 11 Downing Street are totally out of touch with the 80% of the British population who live outside the capitol.  Apparently they were both confident the referendum vote would be “about jobs and the economy and it won’t even be close.”  What neither foresaw was that immigration would be the key issue of the referendum. Cameron and Osborne’s ignorant arrogance were manifest when, in a time of austerity, they slashed taxes for the richest members of society while imposing savage and cruel benefit cuts on the poorest and most vulnerable individuals.  So much for their proselytising: “the big society” and “we are all in it together.”  Their behaviour proved them to be the ruthless professional liars they are.  But we shouldn’t be shocked when politicians lie, as the playwright, David Hare, wrote recently in a Guardian article:  “that’s what they do for a living.”  So, not surprisingly, the Brexit vote contained a lot of pent- up frustration and rage with the government.  This antipathy was compounded because the referendum was fought in such a binary way, with blatant lies from both sides, and so much outright propaganda from the media, that it was impossible to distinguish any sensible arguments from the dross.  But the real concern, immigration, was glossed over.  For example: for many years the BBC has been so politically correct it considered the mere mention of anything to do with immigration as racist and therefore non-broadcastable, thus closing down any public discussion before it started.  But after years of denigrating the U.K. Independence party (UKIP), which advocated leaving the European Union (EU) and limiting the number of immigrants, the BBC had to take a somewhat softer and less ridiculing line after the last election when UKIP did rather well.  It is a quirk of the non- proportional British Parliamentary system that although UKIP received 3.8 million votes and the Green party 1.1 million they each gained only one seat in Parliament.  Nevertheless, a divided Conservative party were losing enough voters to UKIP that this became one of the reasons that forced Cameron to promise a referendum.  If he had known more about the lives of ordinary people, and had some empathy, he would never have taken the risk of having a referendum.  But, cocky and self-assured as ever, he felt he’d get the result he wanted: Britain would stay within the EU and life would continue to move smoothly along for him and his cronies.  In fact Cameron was so sure of the result that just eight days before the vote, he took an HSBC mortgage out on his £3.5 million home in London’s posh area of Notting Hill Gate.  But with Brexit a reality he could probably have got a much lower interest rate on his mortgage.  Not that this would worry him unduly as, up till now, the interest on his mortgage has been paid by U.K. taxpayers while he lives at No.10.  Besides, this is only his town house - he owns an estate in the Cotswolds which is mortgage-free.  Cameron probably intends to use the money from his new mortgage to invest in another property.  Obviously he’s relying on Mark Carney, another ex-Goldman Sachs banker who heads the Bank of England, to keep the banks pumping money into property loans.  This Ponzi scheme has been running in London for several years and has driven the price of property to such heights that few young Londoners can afford to buy.  In 10 years Cameron’s Notting Hill home has gone up in value from the £1.1 million he paid for it to its current valuation of £3.5 million.  Like all Ponzi arrangements the London property market relies on luring new punters in to pay money to those already in the scheme.  In previous years the prices of London’s lower end houses were fuelled by waves of Eastern European immigrants while ever increasing values at the middle and top housing end have come to rely on foreign investors like the Arabs and Russians, and now the Chinese - who are buying into a market they don’t understand but that historically shows high returns and solid security.  The property speculation in London and the South East of England is now trickling through the country, and housing shortages and crazy prices have been conflated in people’s minds with immigration.  Whatever narrative the BBC spun on how immigration is good for the country, people can see the housing crisis means the opposite.  They also observe they have to wait two or three weeks for a doctors’ appointment, and they know the cash- starved National Health Service is struggling to cope with growing immigration levels for which there is no budget, and eye-watering amounts have to be spent on translation services.  Young parents commonly face the problem of trying to get a place for their children in grossly oversubscribed nurseries or schools.  Then, having finally found a school place, they discover that in many parts of the country English is not the first language of the majority of children, thus putting the indigenous population at a serious disadvantage, proved by statistics which show white British children, particularly boys, are under-achieving.  So you can appreciate why the majority of people outside London didn’t think the free movement of immigrants is good for them. Yet the Brexit vote came as a shock to many of London’s professional political class because they felt they “had never had it so good.”  They’re delighted with the ever increasing values of their London homes. Their children, like themselves, are being educated privately.  They can afford private medical insurance, regularly dine out and have glamorous holidays.  Their houses are painted and cleaned and their gardens tended, probably by immigrants, so what could possibly be wrong with the economy?  Any talk of immigration was surely for bigots so how could people possibly vote to change the status quo?  This is why Brexit has shot a thunderbolt through the two main political parties, leaving more than a few political careers in tatters and a vacuum to be filled.  Yes, democracy is messy and inefficient, nevertheless the majority of British people were savvy enough to ignore the warnings of the pro- American lobby consisting of the U.S. President, the Head of the International Monetary Fund, and the neoliberal banksters like ex Goldman Sachs Mario Draghi and Mark Carney, just to name a few.  The British majority voted in their own interests against a system that isn’t working for them.  So what now?  Strong, wise and determined leadership is necessary to manage the economy fairly and play hard-ball with the EU over free movement of people, even if it means applying tariffs on EU goods.  We need tough negotiating to secure limited immigration and a broader trading base for the U.K. as the fall in the price of sterling has made Britain’s exports more competitive.  Whatever happens in Britain, and in Europe as the Brexit ripples cause inevitable repercussions, it seems likely that Germany, backed by all those ex-Goldman Sachs bankers, will continue to be the richest and most powerful country in the EU.  Adolf Hitler is certainly having the last laugh. July 2016

EU - Fulfilling Hitler’s

dream?

Click to return to page Click here to download the PowerPoint chart: Click here to download the PowerPoint chart: