Happy birthday: welcome to the United States of Europe, born January 30, 2012
By Richard Cottrell
Contributing writer for End the LieMark this date, and mark it well: Monday, January 30, 2012. It will be known to future generations as the infamous day upon which the United States of Europe became the new fully-fledged global power.
The precious vessel of national sovereignty, which is the basis of all statehood based on the consent of the people, has long been gradually eroding in practical terms across much of the European continent.
One short meeting in Brussels just a few days ago set the seal on a massive transfer of power from national capitals to the vast EU bureaucracy. The warm up act was the utterly synthetic and contrived crisis that was supposed to threaten the sacred euro, which then transformed into the sovereign debt horror story.
Of course in Brussels-speak, no-one calls it the treaty that changed European history, probably forever. No, it is merely a harmless item of bureaucratic machinery designed to enforce fiscal discipline among the 17 Euro Zone states whose leaders surrendered their birth-right to make and manage their own national budgets. Just a small matter of good housekeeping among friends.
Only two member states stood in the wings, the cussed Europhobe British and the Czechs. But mark my words; they will either have to leave the EU altogether (try tugging the Moon closer to Earth) or eventually find themselves sucked into the emerging euro-colossus by the natural forces of political gravity.
History teaches that resistance is useless when it comes to the nation-eating European juggernaut.
Consider the British example: the UK steered well clear of the union until 1973, almost two decades after the founding Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957.
They even toyed with their very own rival set-up, the strictly non-political, no strings attached, European Free Trade Area, or EFTA. There were six members of the EU and seven of EFTA, so the newspapers had a gleeful time with Europe being all at sixes and sevens.
The last laugh in the end was at the expense of EFTA, when one by one its members were seduced into the maw of the most powerful political system on the European continent since the Romans.
And remember, that was a dictatorship based on conquest and occupation by force of arms. Napoleon and then Hitler cowed much of Europe in like style, but their efforts were modest compared to the EU’s successful (and on-going) grab of almost the entire European land mass.
Note that the Balkan pocket state of Croatia has just agreed to sign up as the Union’s 28th member.
[Editor’s note: and even those nations not integrated overtly into the EU and NATO are being pulled in using roundabout and covert means, something which I have been covering in my “U.S. and NATO are on the march worldwide” series.]
Thus the loudest Euro fanatics will always tell you that Europe is now united without a shot being fired, as if that makes the loss of national independence somehow more palatable.
Even now, I am breathless at the haste in which twenty-five (out of 27) heads of state, sitting in a closed room for only ten hours, managed to pull off the United States of Europe with scarcely a gasp of astonishment from almost anywhere in Europe, never mind the rest of the world.
No sooner was the deed done than the usual obsequious EU official was on hand telling reporters that “this was a deal between leaders on the new fiscal compact.” It was not, therefore, any deal to which the people of Europe had consented, and moreover if given the chance, they like would not have.
Neither, as a matter of fact, were they clearly warned of precisely what their lords and masters were up to behind those firmly closed doors.
Never entertain the idea of anything so revolutionary as “open government” when you consider the affairs of the European “democratic” Union.
But before we get down to the fine print, note carefully that this is not a “deal” between leaders. It is a fundamental change that should properly be called a treaty in its own right. It is indeed a formal treaty because its provisions will be incorporated in the great bible of EU legislation called the Acquis Communautaire.
Once there, the contract acquires the permanence of the tablets of stone that Moses handed down from the mount.
The last time a fundamental change of this sweeping nature came about was the Treaty of Lisbon, which laid the organizational groundwork for the forthcoming USE (United States of Europe). That took eight years of bitter wrangling but eventually it was driven through. This too entailed a massive surrender of sovereignty.
In 2005, French and Dutch voters threw out the draft European constitution. No matter. The main elements were recycled in the Lisbon draft treaty.
These setbacks left little taste in Brussels for any further consultations with ordinary people who are most affected by laws made by foreigners on the basis that “we know best what is good for you.”
Thus, the Brussels deal is tacked on to the Lisbon agreement as an “amendment.” This is yet another dodge that is both legally highly dubious and open to challenge.
The Irish, who can be very troublesome in these matters, at one stage threw out the whole Lisbon shebang at a popular referendum.
Given half a chance, the Gaelic awkward squad would certainly do so again but they may not get the opportunity, given their past record and the fact that Ireland is already under virtually direct rule by Brussels.
Just three people hijacked European democracy: Angela Merkel of Germany, Nicholas Sarkozy of France and the Johnnie-come-lately of this trio, Mario Monti, de facto dictator of Italy.
I believe on strong grounds that Monti is the actual architect of the treaty-that-is-not-a-treaty, that he was specifically hand-picked for the job at the Bilderberg summit in St. Moritz last summer, and furthermore that the putsch which ousted Silvio Berlusconi in December was specifically rigged to place Monti in the seat of eminence that he now occupies.
There is actually a fourth figure in the frame. This is the wizardish president of the European Council and prominent Bilderberger, Herman van Rompuy.
Rather like a detective figuring out a smash and grab, I can see that there is an evidential chain of connections which links a compact inner cell of powerful politicians, the Bilderberg summit, and the theatrical eurozone crisis that finally led to the grand coup d’état of January 30th.
Never forget that one of the chief aims of the globalists is a powerful, unitary Europe, in which the member states are gradually reduced to the status of “provinces” or even more lowly “regions.”
What a splendid way to go about it: create an enormous false flag financial crisis in order to swipe the most important coping piece of sovereignty, which is control over budgets and fiscal policy. And as it turns out, a good deal more.
Subtract control over money and state budgets and what are you left with? The answer is nothing, because virtually everything else is already subject to EU legislation which the member states are virtually powerless to override.
Even the EU’s supervising civil service was forced to make this blunt admission in March last year concerning the gallop to fiscal union, “Strong European Commission oversight in the fields of taxation and budgetary mechanisms and the enforcement mechanisms that go with it could further infringe upon the sovereignty of Eurozone member states.” (Emphasis added.)
I have underlined the significant words there for perfectly obvious reasons. Indeed the hijackers who assembled in Brussels have given the European Commission the full gamut to police taxation policies, welfare systems and labor market regulations and for good measure block any deceitful deficit funding schemes.
Henceforth, government budgets must be maintained in surplus. Any structural deficit must not exceed a stipulated 0.5% of the national budget.
This is completely impossible without dismantling the social infrastructure and fabric of any country which comes under these strict edicts. It would effectively require the privatization of all utilities, schools and health services, not to mention austerity measures the likes of which have never been seen.
It is by no coincidence whatsoever that this is the pure Austrian School of economics catechism that Signor Monti recites at the foot of his bed before he goes to sleep every night, then crosses his heart.
Let’s say a Polish government that joins the eurozone wants in the future to invest in some spanking new hospitals (which by the way, are desperately needed). Should these tip the national budget over the brink, they will not happen. The social and physical infrastructure of Poland is utterly wretched. Thanks to Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s signature to the Euro Heist, it will stay that way.
Any backsliders who fail to pass muster will be fined 0.1% of their notional GDP. The Great Headmaster in Brussels will maintain an Orwellian eye on the progress of each state in meeting their obligations by means of a calendar and ticking off pass or fail compliance dates. This Sixth Form finals stuff is unique as far as I can see in the history of any federal or confederal system.
But the creeping erosion of independence by no means stops there. Countries judged in defiance of their obligations under the general and loosely-worded Stability and Growth Pact (an earlier milestone on this same road) will be forced to surrender (the official word is the seemingly much softer “concede”) even more of their fiscal sovereignty.
The not-treaty will come into force in the instant that twelve eurozone countries signal their ratification.
It is then binding for all seventeen eurozone members. Participating non-euro states can decide whether and when they want to submit to the new rules.
But given that eight countries that so far stuck with their own currencies voted in favor, we can tell clearly enough which way the wind is blowing.
All previous treaties have required unanimity. Now that one last safeguard against exploitation and usurpation has gone out of the window.
Henceforth, any number of changes and amendments can be made to an existing treaty by means of a binding minority vote.
Well, the important question that remains is: is there any backstop?
One might be a class action brought before the European Court of Justice, but since the court has gained new powers under the Brussels agreement, that may prove a rather frustrating avenue.
Another opening lies in an Irish-style veto, but that would apply only to Ireland and not any other country because the unanimity rule has been quietly set aside.
We should look to Germany for any serious prospect of stopping the runaway train called the United States of Europe, because there we find one possibly important loophole.
This is the Basic Law of the Federal Republic, the Grundgesetz, imposed by the wartime allies on Germany in 1949. An appeal could be made on the grounds that the Brussels treaty represents a formal change in the sovereignty of the Federal Republic.
The following is what the senior judge of the high constitutional court, Andreas Vosskuhle, had to say recently concerning the rights of politicians who “do not have the legal authority to sign away the birthright of the German people without their explicit consent.”
“The sovereignty of the German state is inviolate and anchored in perpetuity by [the] Basic Law. It may not be abandoned by the legislature (even with its powers to amend the constitution).”
“There is little leeway left for giving up core powers to the EU. If one wants to go beyond this limit – which might be politically legitimate and desirable – then Germany must give itself a new constitution. A referendum would be necessary. This cannot be done without the people,” he stated unequivocally in an interview with Frankfurter Allgemeine.
Could Herr Vosskuhle possibly be wrong? After all, Article 24 of the same Basic Law states that the federal government may assign some powers to foreign agencies.
The catch there is that the clause does not specifically cite “sovereignty.” If the German government is giving up the power to make its own budget, then that seems to represent a torpedo-sized rent in the German ship of state.
Hence, such a decision could only be legitimized by means of a referendum. This might raise the prospect of the constitution itself becoming the centrality of the debate.
This might well be tricky. According to a recent CNN poll, almost half of the German population believes that adopting the euro was bad for Germany.
Furthermore – and this may be Herr Vosskuhle’s substantial point – about the same number are also opposed to a more tightly-knit proto United States of Europe favored by Reich Chancellor Angela Merkel.
For all these reasons the prospect of a German referendum is Frau Merkel’s nightmare. True, only Germany herself would be bound by a rejection. But that is scarcely the point.
Merkel and her government would of course be humiliated, which is not an appealing prospect with elections in sight.
But the real damage would be inflicted on the eurozone and the practicality of proceeding with the Brussels agreement in the wake of the largest and richest country in the EU very probably delivering a resounding nein.
Finland is another country where there might be a constitutional challenge. Anti-EU feeling is growing there.
But again, like Ireland, it would not have the same dramatic impact as a rejection by German voters.
I am not optimistic that any challenges will be allowed to reach the courts. Nor may one look to the elected European Parliament to put out a road block.
The parliament’s powers have swollen enormously over the years. It is easily enticed by dangling new attractions such as the twin chamber arrangement now under discussion.
The majority of members are, in any event, in the thrall of the magic spell of “ever closer union” and the ultimate destination of a United States of Europe.
In many respects, I regret to write these words because the looser and less federal EU achieved many good things: passportless travel within the bloc, the right for Europeans to work and settle in another country with the minimum of hassle, a lot of sound environmental legislation, mutual recognition of educational qualifications, and the seamless and priceless customs union.
But always one knew that the driving engine was that “ever closer union” mentioned in the opening clauses of the Treaty of Rome, which very well may nullify what the positive steps the union has made.
Richard Cottrell is a writer, journalist and former European MP (Conservative). His new book Gladio: NATO’s Dagger At The Heart Of Europe is coming in February of 2012 from Progressive Press. It is available for pre-order on Amazon in the United States and in the United Kingdom.
Edited by End the Lie