A précis of previous posts on this theme
The EU’s founders and current leaders hold the citizens of Europe in disdain and their elected, national governments in contempt for being elected, and therefore impermanent. They think what is needed is a unified, supra-national entity, or federal government, which has the powers to override the decisions of the governments of its member states. They have designed a system that is not subject to the whims of an impressionable electorate empowered with the right to evict their federal government.
This obsession is based on two assumptions: the first is that Europe’s nation states are not capable of keeping the peace and delivering improvements to economic, democratic and social circumstances; the second is that a self-selected and immovable group of ex-politicians and professional bureaucrats has the ability to achieve what individual nations cannot.
Our conclusion is that the EU has neither the democratic legitimacy (like the USA) nor military force (like North Korea) to hold itself together against the will of its peoples; the EU is an imposition over which the people have no say.
In the next post we tease out some of the evidence supporting our claim – that the EU is founded on contempt for its member nations and disdain for its citizens – based on quotations (in an upcoming theme we find more evidence in the EU’s own documents). Behind the quotations is an unacknowledged concern that there is not enough to recommend the EU to its citizens, from which it follows that they must be persuaded to accept it by propaganda, threats or coercion.
What voters can see is different from what they are told so they lose confidence in their ability to understand; this confusion is exactly what the mandarins require to sustain their project. Jean-Claude Juncker, in a more-than-usually frank interview, said that “One always breaks out in a sweat when someone dares to ask the opinion of the people“. He is aware that Europeans’ hearts and minds are being lost despite the propaganda and specious claims that the EU puts out in its self-defence.
Attitudes and Ideology (16/05/2018)
Next we turn to the specific issue of subsidiarity, which illustrates our point and the EU’s attempts to disguise it (see also Themes-9: Lies and Deceptions). We cite extensively from the Treaty on European Union to show how the EU declares in its legally binding foundation that powers (‘competences’ in their jargon) should only be passed up to the federal level when they cannot be undertaken more effectively at the local or national level.
We then show that in practice this principle is largely ignored since the goal of Ever Closer Union is to be achieved by sucking upwards ever more powers. This goal, the main ideology of the EU, requires authority to be centralised and not subject to the whims of the people; it is steady and subtle in its implementation and takes precedence over other declared principles which disguise this ideology.
Vertical separation (i.e. subsidiarity) is built into the EU’s treaties but is consistently ignored as it clearly conflicts with the drive towards a complete and dominant Union. Two more posts (Subsidarity-1 & -2) continue this topic, with further examples and evidence.
Subsidiarity and Competence (29/08/2018)
The EU will not let its main mission be impeded by citizens’ preferences, in other words by democracy. The European Parliament (EP) is the only EU body to which voters can directly elect people. However, to avoid contaminating their decision-making processes, the EU declares (in Article 96 of the Draft EU/UK Agreement, among other places) that members of the EP are not included as members of the EU’s institutions, and so its decisions can be easily disregarded or side-stepped.
We guess that the members of the institutions are the employees, the civil servants, rather than the elected representatives. In a democracy the elected members would oversee the civil service; in the EU it is the other way about; it is a looking glass democracy.
An example follows of how, when it suits its purpose, the EU will ignore or override its own regulations (see Themes-10: Breaking EU Rules). Its disregard of its own procedures weakens the EU’s authority and reputation.
High and Mighty (04/10/2018)
We continued our theme in the next post by drawing on many of our previous reports to provide more evidence of the EU’s high-handed approach to the people and their national (and subsidiary) governments. Particularly evident to us is the underlying sense of superiority that enables, and encourages, EU leaders and their peers to mislead us.
Always it’s “Europe”, as if that were nothing but the EU; those beyond its realm are ignored or forgotten, echoing the approach to those within. Europe’s citizens are, to the mandarins, a nuisance that has to be managed in the interests of their pet project. Propaganda and deception are the main tools of EU management.
More High and Mighty (05/10/2018)
The EU offers us plenty of evidence of the gap between its principles and practices. Among the bizarre claims made on the website is that “EU values are common to the EU countries”. They are well aware that this is not true; note their reactions to unshared values in Poland, Hungary, Malta and Romania, to give just a few examples. (At least they avoid, this time, declaring that these are European values.)
Only Believe (if only) (07/02/2019)
The EU declares loudly in its treaties and in its marketing that it is an enthusiastic proponent of freedom of information and transparency, because of the benefits these bring to its citizens. We agree that if the EU practised what it preaches this and other claims would indeed bring benefits. But the lack of transparency is illustrated in several linked posts.
In the second part of the following post we examined the claim that sections of the British civil service are working systematically against Brexit. We take this as yet another example of the disdain for their people exhibited by those in positions of power and responsibility; this time on behalf of the EU rather than by its own practices.
Freedom from Information (28/03/2019)