When the European Union was NOT democratic (from Canale Sovranista)

Here is a roundup of historical documents to prove both the undemocratic nature of the European Union and the fact that there has been no betrayal of the so-called 'European dream'.

To do this, once again, we will use the words of the EU's founding fathers , which leave very little room for doubt. In order: Guido Carli, Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, Giuliano Amato and Mario Monti.

Then let's get started.

HOW DO I ADD PARLIAMENT TO YOU

Carli is the one who negotiated and signed the Maastricht Treaty when he was Treasury Minister. His memoirs are collected in the book Fifty years of Italian life , the nascent European Union, it was told as follows:

The Maastricht Treaty was ratified by our country, before other countries of the Community. Yet, once again, we must admit that structural change occurs through the imposition of an " external constraint ". Once again, as in the case of the Treaty of Rome , as in the case of the European monetary system , a group of Italians actively participated, leaving important traces of their contribution, in the elaboration of those treaties which later represented "external constraints" for our country. Once again, the sovereign Parliament of the Republic had to be circumvented, building elsewhere what could not be built at home .

What do you want it to be "bypassing" the focus of our democracy and doing it three consecutive times? I don't know if we realize the gravity of these statements.

In fact, the European integration process certainly does not start from the bottom, another “protagonist” reminds us very well.

THE STATES ARE DEMOCRATIC, THE EUROPEAN UNION IS NOT

Padoa-Schioppa , at the end of the 90's he was working in the executive committee of the ECB, at that time he wrote in the French magazine " Commentaire " (issue 87 / autumn 1999), an article entitled " Les enseignements de l'aenture européenne " that is "The lessons of the European adventure ".

The full version of the issue can be found here , while the complete translation of the article is a “dirty job” by Riconquinare Italia (ex-FSI). Let's see the most famous passage, on page 577:

DEMOCRACY (LEGITIMACY, LEADERSHIP)

(…) Europe was formed in full institutional legitimacy. But it does not proceed from a democratic movement, nor from a popular mobilization around a constituent organ ; there were neither the Five Days, nor the parliaments of Frankfurt, nor the States General.

It was formed by the effect of three forces: the action of enlightened governments (from Adenauer to Kohl, from De Gasperi to Andreotti, from Schumann to Mitterand); the inspired vision of extraordinary politicians, such as those I have already mentioned (especially Monnet, Spinelli, Delors); the deep adherence of the European people to the objective pursued, an adhesion intuitively perceived by politicians.

Between the two poles of popular consensus and the leadership of some rulers, Europe has made itself by following a method that could be defined with the term enlightened despotism, a perfectly legitimate procedure, but anchored to the democratic method only for the existence of democracy internal states , not by a European democratic process. We can therefore speak of limited democracy.

Other interesting passages from the piece by Padoa-Schioppa can be found in “ the confessions of the fathers of the euro ”. Go on.

HOW DO THE ILLUMINATED DESPOTS WORK?

The real nature of a project conceived against the European peoples was explained by Jean-Claude Juncker , on December 26, 1999.

The interview published in "Der Spiegel" entitled " Die Brüsseler Republik " (the republic of Brussels) begins with these statements:

Jean-claude Juncker is an intelligent leader. "We make a decision, then we put it on the table and wait to see what happens.", The prime minister of small Luxembourg reveals tricks with which he encourages EU heads of state and government to use in European politics. “If it doesn't provoke protests or riots, it's because most people have no idea what has been decided ; then we go forward step by step to the point of no return "

And with this brilliant "trick" he arrived at the chair of the European Commission president.

What if people understand instead? The most famous example was the 2005 rejection of the European Constitution by the French and Dutch.

ILLEGALITY OF THE TREATIES

The remedy is explained to us by Giuliano Amato , when the changes that would lead to the Treaty of Lisbon were being prepared. At the time he was the interior minister in the second Prodi government.

The “Open Europe” platform published an article with the audio of Amato on 12 July 2007, where it admitted that the European treaties were deliberately illegible (even for insiders) in order to avoid “ dangerous referendums ”.

Here is the complete audio, with the Italian transcription of some "highlights".

(…) In order to make our citizens happy, to … produce a … document that they will never … understand ! Because the product of the IGC [ Intergovernmental Conference ] would be: Paragraph 3 of Article 7 is amended hereinafter… Word 6 in Paragraph D of Article X… is deleted and… the word…

But there is some truth … because … this is the kind of document that the IGC will produce, any prime minister – let's say the British prime minister – who goes [to the House of] Commons … and then you will see [he will say]: "it is absolutely illegible , it is the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, there is no need for a referendum . " [laughs]

If you can figure it out the first time, there may be some reason for a referendum, because it could mean that there is something new . But it's a typical Brussels treaty, every time they produce a treaty it's something illegible , completely illegible. (…)

Nothing [is] produced directly by prime ministers, because they feel safe with the "illegible thing". They can present it better… to avoid dangerous referendums .

These statements were taken from “ The Telegraph ” (a well-known English newspaper) and from the website that organized the event, that is the CER . The Italian press preferred not to give us too much weight …

FEARS, THREATS AND CRISIS

The phobia of popular judgment is intrinsic in euro-addicts, and it is no coincidence that those who really command in the European Union, namely the ECB and the European Commission, are “ independent ” from national and European parliaments.

Mario Monti reminds us very well in “ Interview on Italy in Europe ”, a 1998 book where the then Commissioner in Brussels was interviewed by Federico Rampini .

For example, on page 40 we note why the commission is independent, and the obvious popular reaction.

RAMPINI – Why did the European Commission agree to become the scapegoat on which to unload the unpopularity of sacrifices?

MONTI – Because, all in all, the European institutions were interested in countries having reorganization policies. And they accepted the burden of unpopularity by being further away, more sheltered, from the electoral process . Only that a little at a time has made the image of Europe gray and then black among the citizens.

Furthermore, Monti in the book argues that the European Union has guaranteed " fifty years of peace ", which has now become seventy.

But probably the real reason why there were no wars in the old continent was another, on pages 50-51 we read:

RAMPINI – With a historical look at integration from 1957 onwards, it has often been argued that the European Community has made prodigious progress because it was cemented by the fear of an external aggressor , that is, the Soviet empire . Can we move forward towards a united Europe without the cold war, without an external threat, without a Russian danger?

MONTI – Let's hope that a threat as close as the Soviet one will not return soon, even if unfortunately it cannot be ruled out. But in my opinion the weight of external threats is still one of the engines of European integration . Even if the threat changes nature: today's external threat is called competition . This is a powerful driver of integration, even if Europe reacts too slowly to this threat. Many policies that are being applied in Europe to regain competitiveness arise from the awareness that it is already difficult for an integrated Europe to react adequately, let alone a divided Europe. Another phenomenon that is perceived as an external threat, and which is pushing Europe towards greater integration, is the “ immigration threat ”. (…) So fears were at the origin of integration, fears have changed their nature, but they remain among the engines of integration .

And in fact, when we hear "China is here" we are in effect faced with a bugbear to push towards a false solution, that is, to cede more sovereignty to the European Union .

The best time to do this is to take advantage of a " visible and overt crisis ", here quoting a famous speech of February 22, 2011 also by Monti.

We should not be surprised that Europe needs crises, and serious crises , to make progress. Europe's breakthroughs are, by definition, transfers of parts of national sovereignty at a Community level . It is clear that political power, but also the sense of belonging of citizens to a national community, can be ready for these transfers only when the political and psychological cost of not doing them becomes higher than the cost of doing them because there is a crisis in progress. , visible, overt.

Today, in addition to the economic crisis, there is the fear of a virus , always as an "excuse" to impose measures on the population that in normal conditions they would never have accepted.

---

---

The article When the European Union was NOT democratic (from Canale Sovranista) comes from ScenariEconomici.it .

---

This is a machine translation of a post published on Scenari Economici at the URL https://scenarieconomici.it/quando-lunione-europea-non-e-stata-democratica-da-canale-sovranista/ on Fri, 16 Apr 2021 12:00:06 +0000.