A two-term member of the European Parliament and the chairman of the Freedom Association, Roger Helmer is a libertarian Eurosceptic and one of the first elected politicians in the United Kingdom to rally for a referendum on the European Constitution. A die-hard supporter of the Better Off Out campaign, he was ejected in May 2005 from the EPP-ED group in the European Parliament for his Eurocritical stands. A collaborator with the Make Socialism History blogging group and the author of numerous books on European issues, he seeks the complete withdrawal of Britain from the European Union. Throughout his business and political carreer, he has developed close relationships with libertarian and conservative political groups in the United States, and has been a regular speaker at American conferences, resulting in the appointment as Adam Smith Scholar by the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Roger Helmer was pleased to be invited and even stayed a day longer in Brussels than usual to address the Mises Youth Club conference. He presented himself as being a non-typical politician: he has worked in business all over the world during 30 years before he got into politics. His motivation to enter politics was the point in 1997 when the Conservative Party’s MEPs gathered in London and defended the Euro currency to their party leaders, something true conservatives should never do.
He furthermore pointed out that the UK joined the EU for the reason of the common market, and that the Britons of today feel neglected by the EU apparatus which is imposing more and more regulation on the British people in other areas than common market issues. According to Roger Helmer, the European Project is turning into some kind of European Super State, which he proved by quoting a series of EU competences resembling a centralist form of government. To Roger Helmer, the current European Union can be seen as a federation that is even more centralized and integrated than the USA. Many states in the USA, for instance, chose not to accept all legislation coming from Washington DC, while EU member states are subject to an unaccountable democratically deficitary system where opt-outs remain the sole possibility to get rid of unnecessary and counterproductive EU interferences in the sovereignty and self-determination of member states.
Being a regular speaker in the USA, a die-hard Atlanticist and a libertarian oriented politician, he started pointing out the huge differences between the European and the American Constitutions: 75,000 words compared to 7,500 words respectively. And what was even more disturbing to Roger Helmer was the EU’s refusal to deal with the rejections of the EU Constitution in France and the Netherlands. If the EU would live up to its own rules and the democratic norm it is defending, the EU would have respected the will of the people, even if they voted against the EU Constitution in referendums.
Roger Helmer argued that the Lisbon Treaty is exactly the same draft as the initial constitution, especially when one looks at the opinions that different leaders gave about it. Roger Helmer quoted a dozen EU leaders stating that the Lisbon Treaty and the EU Constitution are vastly the same texts. The democratic control of the people over their politicians gets even more lost with the new treaty, as already witnessed in Britain where the referendum promises were broken, in spite of 89% of the people clamouring for a referendum. He is also campaigning for the no-side in Ireland since they are the only country in the EU organizing a full-scale referendum on the treaty, and Roger Helmer is trying to convince the Irish people to vote “no” in the name of all Europeans who were deprived from their democratic rights and who were refused the referendums initially promised. Unfortunately for Roger Helmer and the no-side, all opinion polls nevertheless indicate a massive “yes” vote.
+Libertarian.be.JPG)
Speaking in the week marked by the 40th birthday of Enoch Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech in the UK, Roger Helmer also addressed the issue of immigration and the growing EU control in border security measures. Britain is one of the least xenophobe countries in Europe, as shown in 2004 when they were the only EU country to unlimitedly open their borders to Eastern Europeans, but the British isles are overcrowded. A population of 30 million people should scientifically be the most advantageous one for Britain, but today over 60 million people live in the UK. Roger Helmer wants to maintain Britain’s power on border control and immigration policy, and not outsource it to faraway EU institutions.
The conference ended with a final remark by Roger Helmer, capturing the whole essence of his exposé and his political convictions. Opposing every form of EU integration outside the areas of the common market, he referred to the unique position of Britain in the world. Being one of the largest economies in the world, a strong and self-confident nation-state, a main military power, a linguistic and cultural hegemony, and a preferred partner for both, the Commonwealth countries and the USA, there is no need for Britain to be part of the EU project and to be ruled by other people than themselves. Roger Helmer concluded by stating that Britain must be put first at all times, and added to this jingo statement, that every other freedom-loving European is free and must be encouraged to put its own country first.
Dit verslag van het debat met Europarlementslid Roger Helmer werd geschreven door Jeroen Benning voor de Mises Youth Club.
Meer over dit debat op www.misesyouth.org/April2008.htm.
9 Reacties:
- At 13:20 Anoniem said...
-
Vincent,
First of all, let me congratulate you with your terrific conference last week. Unfortunately I could not be there since I had a wedding in India, but the pictures and comments suggest that it was a real success. Roger is a great speaker, and I believe he truly believes the things he stands for. And although I do not concur with his radical positions on immigration, I am his wing man on Britain-EU relations.
But, let me try to start an in-depth discussion here: would some sort of Norwegian/Swiss EEA/EFTA-agreement be more in the interest of Britain than being a full member of the EU? After all, hardly anybody can see it ever happening that Britain would scrap the Pound or give up on the current travel arrangements. And on the other hand, Britain being outside the EU might be completely excluded from the huge common European market. All those overseas connections wouldn´t make up for the loss of the European market.
I know my opinion on these rather rhetorical questions very well, but that's not the point here. I just want to get to know what my Flemish Eurosceptic friends really think of the EU and their relationship with our sceptered island.
Vincent, keep up the great work! And let justice and the rule of law roll down as waters, and righteousness and freedom as a mighty stream.
Regards,
Dan - At 21:14 Anoniem said...
-
A few years ago I would have been against the UK leaving the EU due to the argument that "it's better to be in than out" etc, because the Norwegians are also adopting common market regulations coming from the EU institutions, in which they do not have any vote at all.
However, as time has progressed, I have begun to see why so may people are Euroskeptic. I do NOT want to be part of a European federation or 'United States of Europe' and this, despite the past denials of various national politicians, is obviously on the agenda whether we like it or not.
Often the argument is made that as a nation we are better off inside the EU to argue for reform. However, I have seen very little evidence of this happening over the last twenty years and we keep yielding national sovereignty without ANY real questions being asked. The lack of debate on the new EU Treaty (the former Constitution in all but name) again shows that our national politicians would rather shove this issue under the carpet than allow the People to decide.
Of course, there will be those who argue that we need to remain inside the EU because of the benefits it brings Business and that many jobs would be lost without our membership. That may be true in the short term, but long term we need to be more self-sufficient as a nation anyway. Rather like the 'Global Economy', the Single Market is often cited as a reason for our prosperity. However, I doubt that either will last forever due to the pressures being placed upon the global environment. Sooner or later all this will collapse and our nation will struggle to support itself- and this cannot be good.
Therefore I want the UK to withdraw from the EU and begin to build a more sustainable and self-sufficient national economy- both in environmental and economic terms. Joining the EEA/EFTA may also make sense as part of this.
Of course some will think I'm mixing idealism with scaremongering but we will have to see what happens we are caught in a severe economic downturn, as some have predicted due to the recent international stock market nervousness. Maybe then what I am suggesting may seem a little more sensible.
Finally, I should state that I am NOT anti-European. I DO believe in working with our fellow European nations. However, I do not think we should be fastened into the EU straitjacket to do this. In short I am pro-European but anti-EU. - At 22:06 Anoniem said...
-
I would prefer to see the EU reformed to be more democratic, and focus on Trade, rather then polictical union. I don't beleive that an area as diverse as Europe is can be run under one set of rules, one economy or one currency. Its already creaking at the seams under what is essentially mild economic pressure.
But on the other hand, can you really have a single market (which you need in order to have genuinely free trade) if you have dozens of different currencies and separate economies in an area as small and interconnected as Europe? - At 22:08 Anoniem said...
-
We should leave ...
It serves no purpose what so ever, the only good thing it has done is free trade and there is absolutley no need to form a political union to trade with Europe - NAFTA or CAFTA doesn't form that sort of bureaucratic mayhem. Everything the EU does impedes our sovereignty and is less democratic, I'd rather have a vote in 60 million Britons than 490 million EU citizens ... I don't want people from different nations with very different ways (a lot more different than England to Scotland!) having this sort of influence.
And besides that, you can't support devolution of the UK or a ceasing of the union and support the EU, its hypocritical ... these people object to Glasgow being ruled from London, surely London from Brussels or Glasgow from Brussels is much worse? I think the Scotsman and the Englishman have far more in common than we do with French, the Germans and the rest ...
I am also against it on the grounds that no part of Britain has been run by Nazis or Communists but parts of the EU have ... the same people are in those countries today, they have very different values. - At 12:33 Vincent De Roeck said...
-
Een pdf-versie van het conferentieverslag met enkele foto's kan je via deze link downloaden.
A pdf version of the conference report, including some pictures, can be downloaded from this link.
http://www.misesyouth.org/Helmer.pdf - At 18:36 Anoniem said...
-
Niet meteen een "kritisch" verslag hé, Vincent. Ik ken je Eurosceptische kijk op de dingen wel, maar een neo-fascist van het Roger Helmer-type komt er bij jou wel héél goedkoop van af... Het doel heiligt de middelen (en de personen) zeker?
- At 17:51 Anoniem said...
-
Roger Helmer is helemaal geen neo-fascist, maar een eerbare eurosceptische conservatief, zoals vele van onze Britse vrienden. In feite is hij zelfs zeer gematigd, in bijna alles wat hij verdedigt.
- At 17:51 Anoniem said...
-
Over een anoniemeling kan men OP VOORHAND niets weten. Dat kan een zeer wijze man of vrouw zijn of een grote onnozelaar, of van alles tussenin. Over een pseudoniemeling komt men vlug wel het een en ander te weten als die persoon regelmatig onder dezelfde pseudonaam zou posten en dus opinies verkondigen.
Over Roger Helmer is veel geweten. Als politieker is hij een 'publieke' persoon, en hij geeft zelfs publieke voordrachten voor allerlei organisaties, zoals ondermeer die van Vincent in Brussel. Vor zover ik weet is er geen enkele aanwijzing die een eerlijke observator zou toelaten van hem een "neofascist" te noemen. Niettemin, is dat nu precies wat Anoniem-1 wel doet, zonder enige staving daartoe. Het is dus Anonieme-1 die een fascistische methode gebruikt. Dat is misschien onvoldoende om Anonieme-1 een fascist te noemen, maar het is wel een (enkele) observatie die in die richting zou kunnen verwijzen. - At 23:42 Anoniem said...
-
@anonieme: Het is voor jouw eigen goed dat ik het zeg. Gebruik sommige straffe woorden niet al te vaak, want op alles komt sleet, en voor je het weet zeg je het omgekeerde van wat je bedoelt. En schraap eens al jouw moed bijeen, en teken dan met een naam waar je fier op bent. Ik zal je dan met u aanspreken.