« Fred Karno's Secret Police | Main | Scottish Proscription »

Time to bang Drake's Drum

Britain's EU treaty opt-outs 'humiliating' - Telegraph
Enrique Baron Crespo, a Spanish socialist and former president of the parliament, made clear Britain had already exhausted its goodwill.

He said Britain's opt-outs had "led to a situation close to humiliation and embarrassment for the entire EU".

Criticism also came from German MEP Elmar Brok, a close ally of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who said: "The European parliament is worried about the exact extent, definition and consequences of the opt-outs.

"The extension of majority voting in crucial policy areas, particularly in justice and home affairs, will strengthen the fight against terror and cross border crime. Regrettably Britain has got an opt-out from the policy area of justice and home affairs."

So how long and effective will the so called opt outs be? Chocolate fireguard comes to mind...
Being inquisitive I looked up Baron Crispie to see what else he had to say...
Q&A: EU Promoting Democratic Globalisation
The EU will have to be the driving force of the world economy in the near future. The U.S. is approaching the end of its economic cycle,...
The EU ... brought about peace, and created an engine of prosperity, this region’s greatest gift. Let’s remember that this bloc is a pioneer in building a democratic global world. ...
Israel’s position contrasts with pacification. To the EU, this problem is a priority, and is complicated by the issues of Israel and Palestine. The main thing is to recognise the two states and support the Palestinian National Authority....
we must remember that since the end of the Second World War, no imperial-type invasion has been accepted. We live in a post-colonial world.
The U.S. failed in Vietnam and had to withdraw. In Iraq, it must reconsider its position. Let’s not forget that we, too, made mistakes, for instance in the second Gulf War (1990-1991). But today it’s clear that the system of imperial adventures is doomed to failure. ...

We need to strengthen democracy on our continent and support it in the rest of the world, but let’s not forget that the first great debate about the dignity of persons and the inalienable character of human rights began in the Americas. Brave men like (Fray Toribio de Benavente) Motolinía and (Fray Bartolomé de) las Casas, opposed the conquests, the serf labour system imposed upon indigenous peoples, and other forms of slavery. Theories by (Francisco de) Vitoria and (Francisco) Suárez led to the recognition of the rights of peoples.

Sorry? "Inalienable... rights...dignity....began in America" Absolutely! but what's with the Corned Beef names? I've checked through the Declaration of Independence signatories and can't find Fray Bentos etc anywhere? Or is it that the Baron is resolutely anti-anglospheric and credits his fellow bull-wallopers with everything good? And to think his like rules us and represents us.


Ssssh, don't mention the Magna Carta, Baron.
But then again, the history rewriters in Brussels don't mention the second world war either.

"since the end of the Second World War, no imperial-type invasion has been accepted."

Well, the Chinese got away with it in Tibet, the Russians in Hungary and Czechoslovakia

Aren't Fray Bentos et al those Jesuit priests who got portrayed in the movie The Mission?

If they are then I think we can safely assume that they were proto-liberation theologists. Early versions of the sky pilots who now run around saying Castro and Chavez are actually good Christians, Che Guevara was a saintly type and we should all follow their example.

In other words we should treat any favourable reference to them as dodgy in the extreme.

First, do not consider even what Baron Crespo has to say. Nearly all Spanish EU MPs (with very few exceptions) have been sent there only because they want to rest more than they do here. So whatever he says, just don't take it even into consideration.
And as a good Socialist, he would name first the Soviet Constitution than the Magna Carta, specially being Zapatero his leader.
Secondly, I must correct you on the Bartolomé de las Casas issue. No, he was not one of the Jesuits on The Mission. In fact he was nearly 2 centuries before that. He was first a rich Spanish man on America who, not fulfilling Spanish laws imposed by the Catholic Queen Isabella (America was mainly conquered by Castilla), kept Indians as slaves and mistreated them. But after some time, he realised he was not doing it right. So he ended taking orders and reclaiming full rights for the Indians. His story reached the Emperor Charles V (Charles I of Spain) and the laws were changed as he said, ensuring more protection for the Indians against the Spanish lords. The problem afterwards was to make them fulfill the laws there (it was far and the communications were not very good). But even Colón was condemned because of the mistreatment of the Indians.
Fray Toribio de Benavente was also of the same time. Both of them were Franciscan, if I'm not mistaken.
The Mission reflects a reality among Paraguayan and Uruguayan territories mainly. There the Jesuits -nothing to do with Liberation Theologists- built missions, where Indians lived, went to school, sold goods, etc. They were huge buildings which plainly contained cities inside. But when Spain changed the area of the Indians called "Guaraníes" (located in Paraguay) for the Western Sahara with Portugal, all the Missions were destroyed, because Portugal allowed the slavery of Indians.
And well, they were the first to fight for the rights of all people -whatever their race-, excluding Blacks who were not considered that -a huge shame, but history is like it is-. Bartolomé de las Casas also begun, when he was older, a campaign for the rights of Blacks there, but this time with less luck.

Post a comment