European countries ruled the world for centuries. Since WWII the fall from grace has accelerated. Now it remains to be seen how Britain’s EU exit pans out.
- The Strange Death of Europe By Jon Hobrook, critique, 27 May 2017
- France’s moral bankruptcy By Adam Creighton, The Australian, 17 April 2017
- Speech by Geert Wilders at the Europe of Nations and Freedom Conference By Geert Wilders, 22 January 2017
The Strange Death of Europe
The Strange Death of Europe By Jon Hobrook, critique, 27 May 2017
In The Strange Death of Europe, Douglas Murray argues, as the title suggests, that Europe is in its death throes. He reaches this conclusion by weaving together two arguments. First, there are too many migrants, especially of the wrong sort, entering Europe. Secondly, they are coming at a time when Europe ‘has lost sight of what it is’. Hence, he argues, ‘the movement of millions of people into a guilty, jaded and dying culture’ cannot work.
The likelihood is that Murray’s supporters and critics will lock horns over the too-many-migrants argument, while ignoring his contention that European culture is guilty, jaded and dying. This would be a shame because the first argument can only be understood in the context of the second. If the nations of Europe had a strong belief in liberal democracy, then immigration would not be a problem. Strong European nations would recognise the importance of their political ideas, nurtured from Classical Antiquity, through Judeo-Christian traditions, to the present day. Strong European nations would see that immigrants from around the world, who do not hold liberal political values, would need to embrace a European political perspective.
European nations with a strong belief in liberal democracy would expect immigrants to assimilate, a process whereby immigrants would come to endorse the political ideas of their new society. Assimilation focuses on the political and public spheres and disregards religious and cultural differences in the private sphere, so long as these private practices do not conflict with the ideals of liberal democracy. A nation that assimilates its immigrants will have an integrated community. A nation that does not assimilate its immigrants will have parallel communities. Assimilation requires effort and determination from the host nation and the immigrant.
But Europe is no longer composed of nations with a strong belief in the political ideas of liberal democracy. Since the Second World War, therefore, these weakened nations have struggled to assimilate their immigrants. Indeed, in the postwar era, Europe’s political and cultural elites have either ignored the issue of assimilation or championed its absence. Many postwar immigrants have assimilated into European societies, but they have done so despite the attitude of Europe’s leaders. Moreover, there are many immigrants who have not assimilated and, with the passage of time, the problem of parallel communities has grown. Parallel communities tend to draw more immigrants towards them in a cycle that makes the problem bigger and harder to address.
In the immediate postwar decades, Europe’s leaders eschewed the one issue that would have enabled them to address the immigration issue: assimilation
As Murray explains, ‘The result was that what had been Europe – the home of the European peoples – gradually became a home for the entire world. The places that had been European gradually became somewhere else. So places dominated by Pakistani immigrants resembled Pakistan in everything but their location.’ In these parallel communities, assimilation has not happened and the political ideas of liberal democracy rarely exist.
Although it is not a periodisation used by Murray, it is convenient to view the issue of assimilation in three stages: the immediate postwar decades; the era of multiculturalism, which endured for 30-odd years until 2010/11; and the past few years.
During the 1950s and 1960s, West Germany, Sweden, Holland and Belgium instituted guest-worker schemes to meet labour shortages. Britain and France also relied on immigrants to fill labour shortages, but with their stronger colonial ties they often granted their immigrants the right of citizenship. But what none of these countries had expected was that the migrant workers would, even when their work was done, want to put down roots in their new countries and bring their families with them.
In the immediate postwar decades, Europe’s leaders eschewed the one issue that would have enabled them to address the immigration issue: assimilation. They did not do as America’s leaders had done in an earlier era – project a strong and confident view of liberal democracy that they expected their new entrants to embrace. Whereas America’s melting pot gave rise to the motto, ‘Out of many, one’ (E pluribus unum), Europe’s postwar approach to immigration gave rise to this unspoken view: ‘Out of many, many.’
The weakness of European political culture in the postwar era was evident in the absence of any notion that it was even possible to expect immigrants to endorse liberal democracy. Immigration, in the absence of assimilation, inevitably meant that parallel communities developed. And having discounted the possibility of assimilating immigrants, Europe’s leaders were left with two options: either curtail immigration and encourage repatriation or ignore the problem. Enoch Powell’s infamous ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech in 1968 was an attempt to do the former. He warned that Britain was ‘mad, literally mad… to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants’. He said this immigration was ‘like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre’.
Powell was immediately relieved of his position in the shadow cabinet, and his political career was over. But instead of giving rise to a debate about how to assimilate immigrants, the sidelining of Powell gave political leaders an easy way of silencing any debate on immigration: dismiss it as racist, or – and this amounted to the same thing – dismiss it as Powellite.
When the problem of parallel communities could no longer be ignored, European societies entered the era of multiculturalism, an era that advocated an acceptance and celebration of cultural difference. Those who advocated a desire to see immigrants embrace liberal democracy were dealt with harshly. In Britain, the experience of Ray Honeyford in criticising the problem of parallel communities was telling. In 1984, Honeyford, the headmaster of a Bradford school, published an article noting the refusal of some Muslim fathers to permit their daughters to participate in dance classes, drama or sport, and the silence of the authorities on this and other cultural practices, such as taking children back to Pakistan during term time. He also argued for pupils to be encouraged to speak English and understand British culture.
The race-relations industry, which Honeyford had also criticised, organised a campaign against him and the Muslim mayor of Bradford claimed that, for his ‘cultural chauvinism’, Honeyford should be sacked. ‘Raycist’ Honeyford, as his critics dubbed him, was forced into early retirement for challenging parallel communities at a time when British politicians had abandoned any notion of assimilation in favour of its antithesis: multiculturalism.
In this second era, which started in the 1980s, European politicians made a virtue of their political weakness by implicitly recognising that their belief in liberal democracy was so lacking that they would promote the politics of difference, dressed up first as ‘multiculturalism’ and then as ‘diversity’. In this era, there were few Ray Honeyfords who were intellectually strong enough to challenge the problem of parallel communities in the face of politicians who furnished a race-relations industry with money and prestige to celebrate cultural difference.
But bad political ideas that go unchallenged by the political class will eventually be challenged by the public. And so it was that the advocates of multiculturalism generated a public backlash. In 2006, the Dutch justice minister, Piet Hein Donner, caused significant anger in the Netherlands when he suggested that Muslims could change Dutch law to Sharia by democratic means. There was at least equal public outrage in Britain when, in 2008, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, suggested that the adoption of elements of Sharia law in the UK ‘seems unavoidable’. Murray notes that ‘it suddenly seemed as though some of the absolute bases of Western civilisation were being offered up for negotiation’. In the early 2000s, stories that the Sikh and white working-class communities had been telling for years about the organised grooming of young girls by gangs of Muslim men started to be taken seriously by the media and police. But the sharpest cause of concern over parallel communities was the increasing tally of Islamist terrorist attacks involving people born and brought up in Europe.
Bad political ideas that go unchallenged by the political class will eventually be challenged by the public.
The political leaders of Germany, Britain and France eventually responded. In October 2010, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, gave a state-of-the-nation speech in which she said, ‘Of course, the approach to build a multicultural society and to live side-by-side and to enjoy each other has failed, utterly failed’. That was why, she insisted, ‘integration is so important’ and immigrants in Germany must follow the laws and constitution of Germany and speak German.
In February 2011, Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, gave a speech in Munich critical of ‘the doctrine of state multiculturalism’ by which ‘we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream’. A few days later, the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, also pronounced multiculturalism to be a ‘failure’, saying: ‘The truth is that in all our democracies we have been too preoccupied with the identity of those who arrived and not enough with the identity of the country that welcomed them.’
After six decades of allowing and encouraging immigrants to live separate lives, the public had forced Europe’s leaders to change the narrative on immigration. Murray points out how extraordinary it was that it took 60 years of immigration before Europe’s political leaders even stated that immigrants should speak the language of the country they entered. And, just as striking, that during those six decades ‘such a demand would have been – and was – attacked as “racist”’.
In this new era, the gulf between the people and their leaders can no longer be ignored, but it still exists. Despite European leaders recognising that multiculturalism has failed, they lack a political perspective that can solve the immigration issue. The problem remains unresolved because, as David Cameron had recognised in his Munich speech, ‘We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they [immigrants] feel they want to belong’. In the absence of a vision, immigrants will continue to have little to assimilate into, and political leaders will fall back on lightweight reasons in favour of immigration, such as short-term economic expediency, misplaced guilt about global hardship, or simply the moral affirmation that comes from appearing to be nice.
The vacillation of Europe’s leaders was epitomised by Merkel’s response to the migrant crisis in 2015: ‘We can do this’ (‘Wir schaffen das’). But Merkel could not claim to be speaking for the German people, since the German public did not support more immigration, least of all an influx of one million asylum seekers in a year. Neither did she have any idea what ‘this’ referred to. But what mattered was that, as Merkel put it, ‘The world sees Germany as a land of hope and chances. And that wasn’t always the case.’ This was Germany’s chance to atone for the Second World War and to portray itself as a country that people would migrate into rather than flee from.
In the absence of ‘a vision of society’ that can command popular support, Europe’s leaders will continue to stumble from one migrant crisis to another because the immediate emotional claims of a migrant will tend to trump the collective interests of a nation. The European public continues to have a sense of these collective interests, but they are mostly unknown and unarticulated by Europe’s political class.
Liberal democracy has many political foundations such as the separation of church and state, free speech, the equal rights of women and gays, democracy and the rule of law. Yet these ideas are alien to many immigrants, particularly Muslims, who come from different political cultures. Only a nation with a strong political culture that believes in these ideas can challenge those who do not accept them. A nation with a strong belief in liberal democracy would appreciate the need to assimilate immigrants to its political values, and it would not accept the existence of parallel communities. Least of all would it celebrate cultures with backward views on politics, religion, free speech, equal rights and so forth.
Murray is a compelling writer who, in The Strange Death of Europe, has compiled an array of evidence and argument in support of his claim that ‘the movement of millions of people into a guilty, jaded and dying culture cannot’ work. As his colleague at the Spectator, Matthew Parris, says, he ‘writes so well that when he is wrong he is dangerous.’
In my opinion Murray’s conclusion is not wrong, but there is a difficulty for anyone tackling subjects as contentious as immigration, identity and Islam. And that is the relationship between cause and symptom. Immigrants are not the cause of Europe’s woes, and parallel communities are a symptom of Europe’s political weakness. Immigrants have never been required or incentivised to assimilate; indeed, since the 1980s, the politics of multiculturalism has incentivised them not to assimilate. Easy though it is to blame the immigrant (a mistake often made by the populist parties of Europe), those who criticise postwar immigration must never lose sight of the fact that the easy target is the wrong target.
When reading Murray’s excellent book, it is worth remembering that, of his two arguments, it is the second that is causative of the first. In other words, it is because Europe is dying that immigration has become a politically fraught issue. The target of our anger has to be, not the immigrant, but our political leaders who, over six decades, have had so little belief in liberal democracy that they have never expected immigrants to assimilate to the political values that made Europe such a desirable place to live.
Jon Holbrook is a barrister He is giving a lecture on the Legal Subject as part of The Academy on 15 July 2017. Follow him on Twitter: @JonHolb
The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, by Douglas Murray, is published by Bloomsbury Continuum. (Order this book from Amazon(UK)).
France’s moral bankruptcy
France’s moral bankruptcy By Adam Creighton, The Australian, 17 April 2017
If I were French I would vote for Marine Le Pen in next week’s presidential election. Not to do so would be to endorse the political and economic elites that have sapped the life out of industry, put the Fifth Republic on track for bankruptcy, forced taxpayers to bail out parasitic banks, and left the country exposed to Islamist terrorism.
More of the same? No thanks. France’s global rank on Cato Institute’s annual Human Freedom Index, for instance, has dropped from 20th to 31st since 2008 (Australia is sixth).
Le Pen’s popularity has surged since the global financial crisis. Thomas Piketty, France’s most famous economist, blames inequality and unemployment. “If we do not manage to fight these via effective progressive policies then you will always find politicians who will successfully try to divide the workers between nationals and foreigners, or some other ethnic or religious division,” he told me last week.
Details of the National Front’s policies — a populist cocktail of protectionism and nationalism — matter far less than the damage her victory would do to France’s cosy status quo, which has hooked France’s fortunes to an increasingly stagnant and unpopular EU. Indeed, it would be a victory far more consequential than Donald Trump’s November win in the US, where congressional gridlock and a recent bout of bomb-dropping on the Middle East sadly point to a continuation of the past.
Le Pen’s promise to give the French a say on staying in the EU is reasonable, given that the last time they were asked their view, in 2005, their answer (no) was largely ignored. Her suggestion France should withdraw from the euro and redenominate its debts in French francs would cause a financial crisis that would make 2008 seem mild, but it would be the price to pay for longer-term prosperity.
The French government has debts equal to more than €2 trillion ($2.8 trillion), 120 per cent of its national income — more than three times Australia’s share. The collapse in value of those debts from “Frexit” would wipe out many highly leveraged banks, prompting the rethink of how banking is structured that the world deserved, but never got, after the financial crisis.
France’s 62-year project of tying Germany down in the EU has left France with too high an exchange rate (while Germany’s is too low), permanently throttling its competitiveness.
France’s bloated governments spend almost 60 per cent of the national income every year (Australia’s spend about 33 per cent), and tax a little bit less of it, a recipe for eventual bankruptcy. The jobless rate has risen steadily to more than 10 per cent since the financial crisis, despite repeated promises by French presidents to curb it. And that is the official figure, where working more than one hour a week counts as employed. Youth unemployment is now entrenched above 20 per cent, more than double Germany’s rate.
Australia has been a beneficiary, actually — Sydney’s eastern suburbs, for instance, are teeming with young French people. The number of French-born residents in Australia has grown more than 6 per cent a year since 2006, to more than 42,000, many multiples faster than immigration from Greece, Spain or Germany.
It’s depressing to see France, the first modern state, one of the great scientific and cultural fountainheads of Western civilisation, which under Charles de Gaulle wrenched itself back to pre-eminence after a couple of near-death experiences, in such a funk.
Economic decline and Islamic terrorism have fuelled a domestic industry of gloom: Eric Zemmour’s 2014 book The French Suicide has been a bestseller. Michel Houellebecq’s novel Submission shows how a Muslim could win the French presidential election in 2022 — not especially gratifying in a country whose development hinged on the repelling of the Arabs in 732 by King Charles Martel. Almost 10 per cent of France’s population of 65 million is Muslim, more than any other sizeable Western country. France is losing its large Jewish population, among its historic strengths, at a rapid rate.
Whatever the verdict in the final-round ballot next month, the National Front and parties like it in Europe will continue to benefit from the moral bankruptcy of Europe’s economy, starkly revealed in the continuing “bailout of Greece”. More than 80 per cent of the (€227 billion) public funds that have gone to Greece since 2010 have been used to repay loans to foreign and Greek banks. The bailouts were about “protecting German banks, but especially the French banks, from debt write-offs”, noted former German central bank chief Karl Pohl at the time. That is, highly paid bankers who enjoyed the short-term profits from lending to Greece managed to shove the long-term costs on to ordinary French and Germany taxpayers, an act of extreme socialism. How can anyone respect this economic system? Sensing danger from Le Pen, the big French banks have refused to lend to her party (they have lent to other campaigns).
The brilliant conservative and Spectator columnist Charles Moore conceded in December he was “cheering” for the populist right. “It may sound Marxist to say this, but I do think the elites have constructed a world order which serves their interests, not those of their subject populations,” he wrote, pointing to the “banking crisis resolved in the interests of bankers”. More and more commentators of right and left — an increasingly meaningless distinction, anyway — are concluding the same.
The polls suggesting Le Pen commands only 25 per cent of the vote would seem an underestimate. Just as Hillary Clinton’s winning of the Democratic candidacy proved a gift for Trump’s campaign, Le Pen’s rivals are almost stereotypical reflections of the past. Francois Fillon, the “centre right” candidate, was former president Nicolas Sarkozy’s prime minister. He is embroiled in a scandal over whether he embezzled public funds in office. The supposed favourite to win, former investment banker Emmanuel Macron, was economy minister under the loathed incumbent, President Francois Hollande.
Even if Le Pen loses, it is only a matter of time until she wins. Polls show her strongest support comes from people under 40 and its highly unlikely Macron or Fillon will do anything to disrupt the status quo.
Speech by Geert Wilders at the “Europe of Nations and Freedom” Conference
Speech by Geert Wilders at the Europe of Nations and Freedom Conference By Geert Wilders, 22 January 2017
It’s really a great honor for me to be here today in the beautiful city of Koblenz, at a meeting of the ENF Group, in the presence of so many German patriots.
And what you stand for is extremely important. Not only for Germany, but for all of Europe.
Europe needs a strong Germany, a self-confident Germany, a proud Germany, a Germany that stands for its culture, identity and civilization.
Europe needs Frauke, instead of Angela [Merkel]!
My friends, that is why Germany is so great. Why you are great. Because you do your duty. And the Alternative for Germany (AfD), and my friend Frauke Petry, and all of you here, stand against the new totalitarianism that threatens us today.
We are at the beginning of a Patriotic Spring across Europe, and also here in Germany. And I thank you for that. You are the new Germany.
And all our European countries are faced with the question of their existence. My friends, the United Nations expects that the population of Africa will quadruple by the end of the century — from 1.1 billion today, to 4.4 billion. Studies show that in Southern Africa, one in three adults wants to emigrate. And in North Africa and the Middle East, one in five wants to emigrate. Many of them want to come to Europe in the future.
The question that none of our ruling politicians now ask is: How do we protect our country and our identity against mass immigration? How do we protect our values?
How do we protect our civilization? Our culture? The future of our children? These are the fundamental questions we have to answer.
In recent years, our governments have allowed millions of people to flow uncontrollably into our countries. Our governments have conducted a dangerous open-borders policy.
And I know, as do you, that when the citizens of Eastern Europe defeated communism in 1989, they were inspired by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Vaclav Havel, Vladimir Bukovski and others, who told them that people have the right, but also a commitment, to “live in the truth.”
Friends, liberty requires eternal vigilance. And this applies also to the truth. And Solzhenitsyn added that — I quote — “truth seldom is sweet; it is almost invariably bitter.”
And let us hear the bitter truth: Our leaders have lost their ability to recognize danger and understand the truth, because they no longer value freedom.
Politicians from almost all of the established parties are promoting our Islamization. Almost the entire Establishment, the elite universities, the churches, the media, politicians, put our hard-earned liberties at risk.
They talk about equality, but, incredibly, are incapable of seeing that in Islam, women have fewer rights than men, and infidels have fewer rights than the followers of Islam.
They are blind to the truth — but we are not! And we do not accept that they are blind to the truth. We no longer accept that the elites have abandoned the people.
It breaks my heart when I see that people have become strangers in their own land — almost everywhere in Europe.
But it is our country; it’s not their country — it’s our country. And it is unacceptable that you fear for the future of your children, that women are afraid, that Jews, ex-Muslims, Christians fear for their safety.
Day after day, for years, we are experiencing the decay of our cherished values. The equality of men and women, freedom of opinion and speech, tolerance of homosexuality — all this is in retreat.
And I say to you, my friends: We do not want this. We do not want Germany or any other country in Europe to abolish itself! We don’t want that!
We want our homeland to remain our homeland.
We want to stay who we are!
We are secure, free, democratic, proud of our culture!
My friends, what we see today is that fear reigns. Many people are desperate. Our rulers are cowardly. Our security is disappearing; our freedom is in danger.
And many normal people are afraid to say what they think. Women are afraid to show their blonde hair.
And this charade must be stopped! More and more people demand this! We demand this!
And I tell you: Enough is enough!
And then there is also the great danger of Islamic terrorism.
A German undercover journalist recently revealed that some refugee housing centers have become breeding-grounds for terrorists. The consequences are visible to everyone.
Recall the massacre at the Berlin Christmas market. Remember also the black summer of terror last year, here in Germany. We also remember Cologne and the mass assaults of hundreds of innocent women.
And yet our governments fail to do anything. But if we do nothing, we cease to exist.
Some immigrants have come here with entirely different values.
This is a fact — not a political fact, but a fact confirmed by scientists such as the Dutch Professor Ruud Koopmans, from Humboldt University in Berlin. His investigations showed that about half of all Muslims in Germany aspire to the roots of Islam.
Professor Koopmans also says that — I quote — “of a billion Muslims worldwide, between ten and twenty percent are willing to accept violence, even against civilians, to defend Islam.” End of quotation.
But despite all these terrible warnings, our rulers refuse to see the elephant in the room.
The people are fed up with the political correctness of the elites! Are you fed up, or are you not fed up?
We are fed up with the elites, who offer you a beautiful ideal world, in which all cultures are morally equivalent.
The people demand — we demand — the truth!
And we must tell them the truth, because people have a right to the truth!
Because the people should not be abandoned.
We, here, are the hope of the people! And we will never disappoint them! Never!
You may have heard that the Dutch government is trying to silence me.
But I say to you, I will never shut up!
I am on many death-lists just because they hate me, because I criticize Islam, and because I am a friend of Israel.
But I will never be silent, despite all the threats from politicians and terrorists.
For the free expression of opinions is, my friends, the basis of democracy.
There is, however, much positive news. There is reason for hope. There is light at the end of the tunnel. Better times will come. The wind started to shift last year. It brought us the victory of — and from here, congratulations to — Donald Trump, the President of the United States.
But not only in America. We also see it here in Germany, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Austria, throughout Europe: The patriots are winning. The time for a change has come. And that is why, my friends, it gives me tremendous courage to see you all here today.
This room full of German patriots shows me something very important. It shows me that Germany is not lost!
It shows me that Germany will survive!
You are a good force. The force that brings this beautiful country back on the right path. On the path to a patriotic future. A secure future. A free future. Our future!
History calls on you to save Germany. History calls on us all to save Europe. To save our own humanistic Judeo-Christian culture and civilization, our liberties, our nations, the future of our children.
And we have no choice. We will do it.
My party, the PVV in the Netherlands; Frauke Petry and Marcus Pretzell and the AfD here in Germany; Marine Le Pen and Front National in France — and yes, Marine Le Pen will be the next president of France!
But, naturally, also Hans-Christian Strache and Harald Vilimsky and the FPÖ, our friends in Austria.
Tom van Grieken and Gerolf Annemans and our friends from the Vlaams Belang in Flanders.
And all the other politicians.
But I tell you, we politicians are not important here. It’s not about us. It’s about you; it’s about the voters.
It’s about the people here in this room, and also the millions throughout the country — not we, but you are important.
You are the true heroes and the saviors of Europe. And I thank you for that.
Our parties give the people an opportunity to vote for good patriots. Patriots who want to make our borders safe again! Patriots who want to stop mass immigration! Patriots who want to restore the sovereignty of our countries, our money, our laws and our future.
We are fed up with the Europhiles in Brussels, who want to abolish our countries and impose an undemocratic super-state, in which we become a single multicultural society.
To this Europe we say no!
We stand for a Europe of national states and freedom!
We will take our countries back. We will make sure that our countries will stay ours.
My friends, this year will be the year of the people!
The year when the voice of the people finally will be heard!
The year of a democratic and nonviolent political revolution in Europe.
The year of liberation!
The year of the Patriotic Spring!
In two months, next March, we will give the Dutch people the chance to free the Netherlands! And next April, Marine, as I already said, will be the next president of France!
And next autumn it’s your turn, my dear German friends. I am absolutely convinced that with Frauke Petry, the future of Germany is guaranteed.
Long live the German Spring!
And I tell you: We will liberate ourselves. We will make our countries great again! We can do it!
Everywhere in Europe, we are electing new and courageous politicians who serve the interests of the people. And together we will win!
My friends, we live in historic times.
The people of the West are awakening. They are casting off the yoke of political correctness.
They want their freedom back.
They want their sovereign nations back.
And we, the patriots of Europe, will be their instrument of liberation!
Long live freedom!
Long live The Netherlands!
Long live Germany!
Long live the Alternative for Germany!
Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV).
- The EU Vs. The Nation State By George Igler, The Gatestone Institute, 30 December
- doug-casey-on-the-collapse-of-the-eu From Zerohedge, 14 October 2016
- how-the-financial-troika-destroyed-greece-economy By Michael Hudson, Counterpunch, 5 October 2016
- why-the-eu-is-doomed By Alasdair Macleod via The Mises Institute, 19 September
- EU, adopt the brace position By Charles Gave, Chairman, Gavekal, August 3, 2016
- Is Europe Doomed By Vassalage To Washington By Paul Craig Roberts, 28 July 2016
- Brexit, Britain voted for the parliamentary democracy it invented By Dominic Lawson, The Times, 27 June 2016
- Brexit, Remainers are not pro-EU, they’re anti-democracy By Tim Black, Spiked Online, 25 June 2016
- Mises, Why Brexit Is Better For Britain By Thorstein Polleit, The Mises Institute, 21 June 2016
- It’s not the economy, stupid, it’s a fight for democracy By Frank Furedi, Spiked Online, 11 June 2016
- The EU is truly ‘Europhobic’ By Brendan O’Neill, Spiked Online, 14 May 2016
- Brussels attacks, Europe is at war By Tom Steinfort, The Australian, 24 March 2016
- Europe’s civilisation death wish By Mark Christian, The Australian, 13 February 2016
- Paris attacks, the fall of Rome should be a warning to the West By Niall Ferguson, The Australian, 16 November 2015
- The death of Europe is in sight From The Wall Street Journal, 23 October 2015
- Why Europe failed, Part 8 By Oliver Hartwich, 14 September 2015