|What Does the EU Say It Is?||What Is the EU Reality?|
|Jean Monnet and other EU founders assumed that peace, harmony and wealth would be natural outcomes from a unified state but that European countries would not be able to keep the peace without supervision at a federal level.
From Article 3 of the TEU: “…the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security…”
|The EU’s founding principles presume that there needs to be a federal government in Europe to oversee peace and progress; this, the ‘Monnet method’, has been followed consistently by the EU. Monnet advocated that unification should be achieved by stealth, since it would not attract popular support. The method has been successful so far and it is not clear whether a majority of EU citizens have cottoned on to the deceit.
The supposed ends (that we all live in peace, harmony and prosperity) will not be achieved by the means employed (the centralisation of power, regardless of the benefit to citizens). The ideology accounts for the rigidity of the treaties, the irreversibility of legislation, and the gap between the claims the EU and its leaders make on its behalf and the reality for most of its citizens . The EU will not let the people or their representatives stand in the way.
Setting up a supra-national power does not automatically create conditions that summon up the forces needed to produce growth and reduce unemployment. Europe’s nations are capable of making choices about how they collaborate; their peoples don’t need an unelected, supra-national body to manage them. The present state of the Union illustrates, quite dramatically, economic failure and the unwillingness of diverse nations to be bonded together.
|“The Commission will engage in consolidating its partnership with the European Parliament, the voice of the people, by ensuring its involvement at all stages of international negotiations, as well as transparency and integrity throughout the legislative process.”
Article 13 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) defines the institutions of the EU.
|The EU has thousands of powers that have sucked away the people’s right to choose for themselves, or for their governments to do so. EU citizens are prevented by the design from ‘interfering’ with progress towards a federal government.
It is significant that the European Parliament (EP)cannot propose legislation; that is beyond its limited scope. The EP is a distraction from the undemocratic reality that is the EU.
The EU claims dishonestly that the European Parliament “has evolved from a consultative assembly to a co-legislator.” By repeating such claims often the EU has managed to convince many uncritical commentators and voters that they mean what they say. Its foundations require the EU to be undemocratic.
From the Withdrawal Agreement(s), Article 101:
“The term “members of the institutions” does not include members of the European Parliament.”
We can vote for members of the European Parliament but to what purpose, since they are explicitly excluded from the privileges of institutional membership? This Article seems to contradict the claim of “working together” with the Parliament, if MEPs are not members of “the institutions”; it is odd that they state that the Parliament is an EU institution but that MEPS are not members of it. Who then are the members of that institution?
|The EU is an enthusiastic proponent of freedom of information and transparency. “Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, has a right of access to documents of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, whatever their medium.” (Article 42 of The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)||The EU is willing to overturn even its own treaty obligations, by denying access to information that their treaties say should be accessible to all. The disdain for the public at large is widespread among those who are OK with the present state of affairs, including leaders of the EU.
Union government is to be imposed from above because at ground level elected representatives are too busy trying to satisfy the immediate concerns of voters, who might otherwise kick them out.
|In its Treaty on European Union (TEU) the EU “RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”. Ever closer union and ideology “…mark a new stage in the process of European integration…”||The EU has only one sacrosanct objective, ever closer union, which in practice means greater control and centralisation of power. To achieve its goal of a federal state in Europe the EU must continuously press for ever closer union, against the wishes of many, perhaps most, of its citizens. The ideology is not practical for any member state, and cannot be as national priorities must take precedence if democratic governments are to get re-elected. Ever Closer Union is not an evolution of people willingly coming together to share more, it is a relentless power-grab by the centre. The EU has neither the democratic legitimacy nor the military force to hold it together by coercion, against the will of its peoples, it must use propaganda and deception.
The misguided ideologists of the EU won’t see its extreme failures, or do see them but think the present sacrifices are worthwhile. They have faith, but no evidence, that the troubles will pass and history will praise their foresight and vision. The reforms that are required are fundamental but the EU will not allow fundamental reform—that would undermine its idealogical objectives.
The EU has a hidden agenda – central control – that is unachievable because the divergent realities of economic, democratic and social development contradict the ideology of federal union. The ideology is founded in disdain for voters, which is why the EU government is not open to democratic replacement.
“What our citizens need much more is that someone governs.” (Jean-Claude Juncker)
|From TEU Article 2: “The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.”||The EU is reluctant to implement its own principles and values, as defined in the treaties, and they tell lies in their attempt to cover the gap between treaty theory and EU practice. EU leaders go to great lengths to cover up the disparities and divergences among the member states (or explain them away), at least when they are not pointing to such divergences as the main obstacle to completing ever closer union and so solving all the problems that member states cause.
The EU offers plenty of evidence of the gap between its principles and its practices. Among its bizarre claims is that “EU values are common to the EU countries”. They are well aware that this is not true; for example their reactions to unshared values in Poland, Hungary, Malta and Romania.
|A6. The EU declares that it is “promoting our European way of life”, which means “protecting our citizens and our values. A Europe that protects must also stand up for justice and for the EU’s core values.”||The notion of “A Europe which protects” has been in the EU’s vocabulary and propaganda for many years. The expression is ill-defined in EU literature. For them it’s merely another propaganda slogan, without substance. The EU itself appears to believe that ‘ever closer union’ will bring with it protection; or at least they imply that it will, without any evidence.
How could the EU protect citizens from the loss of democracy that they value (and the EU claims to), when the EU needs to do without democracy?
However, the EU has proven its eagerness to protect important economic sectors in France (agriculture) and Germany (manufacturing) whilst overruling, regulating and plundering the UK’s (finance).
|Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) was agreed by the Treaty of Maastricht but there are still some areas where national vetoes can be used. From the TEU Article 7: “The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide subsequently to vary or revoke measures…in response to changes in the situation which led to their being imposed.”||Any major change in the functioning of the European monetary union would entail EU treaty change, which requires large-scale negotiations and the unanimous agreement of all EU member states. This is not possible for the foreseeable future.
Unanimity was originally imposed by the EU treaties because leaders were confident of reaching unanimous decisions when it mattered and because it was necessary to persuade smaller or weaker states that joining the Union was safe, that they would not be trampled on by larger members. However, in due course reality intervened and they found that unanimous decisions were too difficult to achieve and the recruitment of new members no longer required the safety of unanimity.
Most important decisions will now be decided by qualified majority voting (QMV), through which the EU can get its own way more easily than the unanimity that used to be required. The EU believes—but dares not tell us—that the proper role of a federal government is to make decisions on behalf of its member states. Rather than holding a second reading, many bills are passed at first reading after closed-door negotiations between small groups of MEPs and national diplomats. These ‘trilogues’ are a short-cut the EU makes to its ordinary process of making laws, ignoring its own treaties.
|The EU equates itself with Europe: “…the 2019 European elections shows the vibrancy of the European democracy.” The “unification of Europe is near” was proclaimed in the Laeken Declaration in 2001.||The EU has the absurd habit of calling itself ‘Europe’, but there is a lot more to Europe than the EU (and will the UK suddenly not be in Europe when Brexit goes through?).
Three characteristics of the EU can be noted: its central ambition (the ideology underpinning the project); the determined efforts of its leading figures to dissemble and lie to hide this central ambition; and the deep conviction which permeates everything it does that the peoples of Europe and their elected governments are of no account, though they may be a nuisance. When you have supra-national governance you cannot have important decisions being made at a lower level—certainly not at the level of the people.
The EU’s obduracy and threats demonstrate a profound weakness and lack of confidence in the success and benefits of the Project. If it were as good as they pretend who would want to leave?