Dutch reject EU-Ukraine treaty in referendum

The Dutch have voted overwhelmingly to reject an EU deal with Ukraine that would give the country visa free travel with the EU.

The rejected treaty was designed to reinforce the EU's claim to Ukraine and wind up Russia. The referendum was seen as an opportunity to give the EU a kicking and the Dutch didn't disappoint.

Around 68% of those who voted in the advisory referendum voted against the treaty with turnout provisionally put at about 32%. A minimum turnout of 30% is required for the referendum result to be valid but the result is only advisory in any case.

Ukraine: A Sinister Method To The EU's Madness?

Ever since Nigel Farage's incendiary - and absolutely accurate - allegation during his LBC debate with Nick Clegg that the EU had blood on it's hands over Ukraine, we have had a predictable playground level of response suggesting that it shows that Farage - and by extension probably UKIP - supports Vladimir Putin's regime.

Granted, a few brave souls, most notably James Delingpole, has rallied to Farage's defence and pointed out the idiocy of the EU's actions in trying to bring Ukraine into it's orbit: after all, anyone who knew anything about Russian history and it's paranoia of encirclement would know how it would respond even in the most benign of circumstances, let alone when the country still feels wounded and humiliated after it's defeat in the Cold War.

However, a far more interesting question is: why the hell did the EU do it?

Those fews commentators who have bothered to look at the situation have concluded, perhaps correctly, that it is simply a mixture of vanity and arrogance. The EU's quasi-religious fervour towards the European ideal simply blinded it to the manifest dangers involved.

Another probably equally valid interpretation is the desperate need to keep forward momentum: with progress towards economic and monetary union currently stalled thanks to the grotesque consequences of the Euro, EU grandees may have reckoned that the need for progress in at least one area, enlargement, was paramount unless the whole project would start to slip into reverse. So blindly fanatical is the EU in support of it's goals that it would risk confrontation with Russia just to keep the ideal alive.

All perfectly plausible, but isn't there also a case that some kind of limited confrontation with Russia would suit the EU's purposes extremely well?

The fundamental flaw concerning the European project is, of course, the lack of a common European identity. In the immortal words of Enoch Powell: "Europe can never be a democracy because there is no European demos". 

Sooner or later the EU will have to address this fundamental flaw if the EU is to survive: somehow, we must all begin to think of ourselves as Europeans. A gradual introduction of European propaganda into schools and media may work, but only over the very long term. Instead, wouldn't it be easier to unite the people against a common enemy? It's a very old and successful trick, to be sure: Britain was cemented as a concept, for example, by it's constituent Protestant nations'  common fear of the continent's Roman Catholicism.

Here Russia fits the bill perfectly: it is geographically close, it's regime unquestionably sinister and it is just powerful enough to be seen as threatening but not powerful enough to make antagonising it not worth the candle. Moreover, there is still a widespread fear and hatred of Russia, particularly in the EU's eastern european member states, that stems from the memories of Soviet communism. 

Other potential enemies arguably don't work nearly so well. The far more real threat of militant Islam is simply too dangerous too confront, given the potential for sectarian conflagration that could result in scores of European cities. America is extremely powerful but a liberal democracy which no one seriously imagines has military designs on Europe. China is too geographically distant and is militarily still puny despite it's growing economic clout.

So a Russian bogeyman works best, but could it still really be the case that the EU would be so reckless, and so cynical, to deliberately poke the Russian bear with a stick? 

In life, it is generally best not to believe conspiracy theories, and to suggest that the EU's primary motive for it's idiotic Ukrainian policy was to resurrect the Russian bogeyman may well be going too far. Then again, the construction of the European Union has been a giant conspiracy against the people from the start. One cannot entirely rule out the idea that the EU did factor in the benefits, as well the risks, of provoking Russia into taking action against Ukraine, and moved accordingly.

Crimea's referendum is neither illegal nor illegitimate

The EU and US have imposed sanctions on Russia for its continued presence in Crimea after somewhere between 93% and 97% of Crimeans voted to leave Ukraine and join Russia (news reports are inconsistent).

True to form, the EU is unhappy with the result of the referendum and says they have to hold another one that gives people an option of staying in Ukraine and changing nothing. With a turnout of over 80% and more than 90% in favour of joining Russia it's hard to see what difference it would have made other than splitting the few percent that voted to stay in Ukraine with greater autonomy.

The EU and US have declared the result of the referendum illegal and unconstitutional and William Hague has repeated the EU's position as if it were his own. It's true that under Ukrainian law Crimean independence is unconstitutional but once they've declared independence - which they have - Ukrainian law and the Ukrainian constitution no longer applies. If all that was required to stop a country declaring independence was a piece of domestic legislation then no country would become independent again.

The International Court of Justice has already ruled that international law has no "prohibition on declarations of independence" when it was considering the legality of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence. There is simply no international law against unilateral declarations of independence and it's this concept of something not being illegal because there's no law against it that confuses the EU who operate under the Roman/Napoleonic legal system where everything is wrong unless the law says it's right rather than the Common Law which says everything is right unless the law says it's wrong.

All the countries (plus the EU) that are describing Crimea's declaration of independence as illegal are motivated by self interest. The EU doesn't want to set a precedent that a country could leave a United States of Europe just because it wanted to, the UK doesn't want to set a precedent that Scotland or England could unilaterally declare independence, Spain with the Basque country, the US with Texas or Hawaii, Italy with Venice or Sicily, France with Corsica, China with Hong Kong or Macau ... need I go on?

The claims that the referendum is invalid because it was conducted under Russian occupation are equally vacuous. Whether the "defence forces" are Crimean or Russian is debatable but a moot point given the fact that they have been welcomed on the streets, there have been no reports of violence in the run-up to the referendum and the huge turnout on Sunday. Clearly those that were put off voting by the presence of these "defence forces" were insignificant in number.

The fact is, the Crimean authorities had de facto control of Crimea, it has a defined territory and population, the Crimean people have a shared history and culture and the Crimean authorities have the machinery of state to be able to conduct international relations. It ticks all the boxes.

If the EU had kept is nose out of Ukrainian affairs none of this would have happened. It was EU empire building that precipitated this whole crisis and in time we will undoubtedly find evidence that the EU sponsored the pro-EU protesters that deposed the elected president. Now that events have played out their inevitable course the EU has nothing to offer Ukraine but some temporary trade deals worth a fraction of what it had with Russia.

The Crimean people have expressed their wishes quite clearly and unequivocally and as uncomfortable as that makes world leaders trying to cling on to their own little empires, we should respect their decision and move on.

Cold War 2

The EU-sponsored coup in Ukraine has taken its inevitable course with a Russian invasion of Crimea.

Russia has had imperialist ambitions since the break-up of the USSR. The CIS was created almost immediately after the USSR broke up and a union of Russia and Belarus was created with the intention of expanding to other former Soviet states. To provide a supply of compliant republics to feed the NewSSR (see what I did there?) Russia changed its policy on breakaway republics - apart from those trying to break away from Russia of course - from ignoring them and letting them sort themselves out to supporting them, including militarily if it suits their agenda.

It is this policy of supporting pro-Russian breakaway states that led it to invade South Ossetia and Abkhazia a few years ago (both of which want to join the NewSSR) and why it has now invaded Crimea. It also helps that the ceding of Crimea to Ukraine during the days of the USSR and the subsequent failure of Russia to reintegrate Crimea immediately after the break-up of the USSR is something that still grates with the Russian people so Putin can expect public support for what he's doing.

The first cold war came about when America's sphere of influence came up against USSR's sphere of influence. The second cold war is just starting and it's the EU expanding into Russia's sphere of influence. It is inevitable and pre-mediated and demonstrates the lengths the EU will go to to expand its empire. And just like in Georgia, the EU will stand impotently on the sidelines telling Russia that they're being naughty whilst doing nothing to help.

There is no doubt that the EU sponsored the coup in Ukraine - we all know it, the Russians know it. Thousands of pro-EU protesters spent weeks in Kiev and someone supplied them with food and made sure their bills were paid while they were waving the ring of stars in the capital.

Crimea will come out of this conflict in the same state as South Ossetia and Abkhazia - recognised by Russia and a handful of the usual suspects as an independent state but officially unofficial. The EU's dream of controlling the gas and oil production in Crimea as well as its strategically important Black Sea port has come to nothing whilst Russia's relations with the west have declined once again. The world is a more dangerous and unpredictable place than it was a few weeks ago and all in the name of Russian and EU imperialism.

Russian warship comes within 30 miles of Scotland

A Russian warship has come within 30 miles of the Scottish coast, stopping just outside British territorial waters just before Christmas prompting the Royal Navy to send the only available warship left on a 24 hour journey from Portsmouth to intercept it.

Picture: Miliblog

There has been much speculation on what Russia's motives might be but it's almost certainly an escalation of the EU's attempts to extend its borders east into Russia's sphere of influence with the attempts to switch Ukraine's allegiance from Russia to the EU. The EU sees Ukraine as the jewel in the crown of the former Soviet states in eastern Europe and with most of the Russian gas imported into Europe via Ukraine, it is of great strategic importance. Expansion into eastern Europe and Ukraine's vast wealth of natural resources is so important to the EU's empire builders that they're prepared to start a Second Cold War over it.

The Ukrainian president says that Ukraine's interests lie with Russia but its government wants to get its hands on EU money (or more accurately, our money). There have been continuous protests in Kiev organised by the europhile lobby and supported by the EU to try and overthrow the president and start on the disastrous path to EU membership.

The fact that there was only one operational warship available for the whole UK is a bit concerning but of course we can rely on the French loaning us that aircraft carrier if the Russians invade ...

5m new EU citizens

The Bulgarian Minister for the Diaspora, Bozhidar Dimitrov, has announced that up to half a million Bessarabians are expected to take advantage of a change in the law to give them Bulgarian citizenship.

Over 17,000 ethnic Bulgarians living in Moldova and Ukraine have already been given Bulgarian passports, allowing them to live and work anywhere in the European Empire.  An additional 300,000 ethnic Hungarians living in Serbia will be allowed to apply for Hungarian passports in 2011 and Romania has been handing out passports to Moldovans.

Spain, Italy and Portugal have all been handing out passports to the children and grandchildren of émigré, most of which live in Latin America and the Caribbean.

This wouldn't be a problem, of course, if the recipients of these new passports stayed in the country that had so generously granted them but of course they don't.  They make their way to the richer western European countries where they have the right, as EU citizens, to live and work, to claim benefits and to receive any services the "natives" are entitled to.  It doesn't matter that we don't have enough houses or jobs to meet the demands of people already living here, every one of the estimated 5m new EU citizens will have the right from the day they get their passport has been given the right by a foreign government we have no control over to live and work here.

The way things are going, they'll be giving away EU passports for 4 Weetabix tokens and a £5 postal order.