Keyword ‣ European Union
113 references

Governments respond with adjustment measures, bureaucratic simplifications and a few words of reassurance. In reality, they are powerless in the face of a structure designed to enforce an ideology that turns out to be crazy.

Throughout Western and Central Europe, peasants are demonstrating. First it was in the Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland and Romania, today in Spain, France, Germany and Poland. This continental-scale jacquerie is rising up against the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union.

When signing the Treaty of Rome, establishing the European Economic Community, in 1957, the six founding states (West Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) accepted the principle of free movement of goods . They thus prohibited any national agricultural policy.

In order to guarantee income for farmers, they therefore implemented a common agricultural policy. Depending on the Member States, aid from the European Union is paid to the regions which distribute it to farmers or directly to operators (as in France). This is the “First Pillar”. In addition, the European Commission determines production standards in order to improve the quality of life of rural populations and that of their production. This is the “Second Pillar”.

The First Pillar did not resist the enlargement of the European Union, and the transition to global free trade (the EU joined the WTO in 1995) which led to a disproportionate increase in community subsidies. The Second Pillar was shattered by the European Green Deal (2019), which aims to reduce the Earth's temperature by limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

In the absence of a global CAP, there is no solution to the failure of the First Pillar: the Anglo-Saxon principle of global free trade is incompatible with that of European free trade compensated by the European CAP. Floor prices for agricultural products, as announced by various national executives, will not save farmers, but on the contrary will kill them to the extent that we continue to accept imported products at much lower prices.

As for the Second Pillar, it no longer pursues a political objective, but an ideological one. Indeed, the assertion that global warming is not local, but global, is contradicted by temperature readings. While the claim that it does not come from astronomical factors, but from human activity, does not stand up to scientific debate.

Remember that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is not a scientific academy, but a meeting of senior officials (some of whom are scientists, but who always serve as senior officials). civil servants) formed in 1988 at the initiative of Margaret Thatcher to justify the transition from coal to oil, then to nuclear power [1]. His conclusions, although they were approved by governments that could go nuclear, were violently rejected by scientific circles including the prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences [2]. The so-called “scientific consensus” on the matter does not exist any more than the famous “international community” which “sanctions” Russia. However, science does not work by consensus, but by trial and error.

Attempts to develop green tourism in rural areas will not save farmers. At most it will allow them to rent rooms on their farms for a few weeks a year. The problem is not to change activity, but to allow farmers to live and feed their population.

Farmers in Western and Central Europe are today dependent on European subsidies. They do not oppose the European Union which allows them to survive, but denounce its contradictions which suffocate them. The question is therefore not to repeal this or that regulation, but to say what form of European Union we wish to build.

The next European Union elections will be held in June. This will involve electing the deputies of the European Parliament, the only elected representatives of the Union. Indeed, the Council is not elected at Union level, but is made up of heads of state and government elected at national level, as for the Commission, it is not elected at all and represents the interests sponsors of the Union.
The different European construction projects

To understand this strange system, and possibly modify it, let us return to its origin: from the interwar period (1918-1939) to the immediate post-war period (1945-57), there were six competing projects 'union.

1- The first was carried by the Radical Republicans. It aimed to unite states administered by comparable regimes. There was talk then of uniting countries in Europe and Latin America governed in a Republic.
The definition of Republics and Monarchies had no connection with elections and dynastic successions. Thus, the King of France Henry IV described himself as “republican” (1589-1610), to the extent that he devoted himself to the common good of his subjects and not to the interests of his nobility. Our reading of Republics and Monarchies dates from Democracies (the government of the People, by the People and for the People). It focuses on the rules for appointing leaders and no longer on what they do. Thus, we consider the contemporary United Kingdom as more democratic than France and do not take into account the incredible privileges enjoyed by the British nobility to the detriment of its people.
The Argentina of Hipólito Yrigoyen (which was then the main economic power of the Americas) would have rubbed shoulders within this union with the France of Aristide Briand (whose Empire extended across all continents). The fact that these Republics were not necessarily contiguous did not shock anyone. On the contrary, it ensured that the union would never transform into a supra-national structure, but would remain an organ of inter-state cooperation.
This project foundered with the economic crisis of 1929 and the rise of fascism that it caused.

2- The second was that of a union which would guarantee peace. The French Minister of Finance, Louis Loucheur, assured that if Germany and France united in a single military-industrial complex, they would no longer be able to wage war against each other. [3].
It was achieved when, after the Second World War, the Anglo-Saxons decided to rearm Germany. In 1951, the former Petainist minister Robert Schuman created the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).
The ECSC ended in 2002 and was integrated by the Treaty of Nice into the European Union.

3- The third borrows from the previous two. It was written by the Autro-Hungarian Count Richard de Coudenhove-Kalergi. It aims to unite all the states of the continent (except the United Kingdom and the USSR) within a “PanEuropa”. Initially, it would have been a federation comparable to Switzerland, but ultimately it would have become a supra-national entity on the model of the United States and the Stalinist USSR (which defended the cultures of ethnic minorities ) [4].
This project was more or less carried out with the support of the United States. In 1949, the Council of Europe was created. I write “more or less” because the UK is a founding member, which was not initially intended. This Council developed a Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (CSDHLF). It has a European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) responsible for ensuring its application.
However, from 2009 onwards, many magistrates of this Court have been sponsored, not to say corrupted, by the American billionaire George Soros. Gradually, they interpreted the Convention in such a way as to modify the hierarchy of norms. For example, today they consider that the International Treaties on Rescue at Sea (which provide
to disembark the shipwrecked in the nearest port) must take a back seat to the right of migrants to submit requests for political asylum in Europe.
Today, this Court judges in its absence and systematically condemns the Russian Federation, even though it was suspended from the Council of Europe, then left it.

4- The fourth project, the “New European Order”, was that of the Third Reich from 1941. It involved uniting the European continent by distributing its population, by region, according to linguistic criteria. Each regional language, like Breton, would have had its State. By far the most important state would have been the one where German was spoken (Germany, Austria, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, German-speaking Switzerland, Italian Tyrol, Czechoslovak Sudetenland, Slovak Carpathians, Romanian Banat, etc.). In addition, racial criteria would have determined the populations that would have been “reduced” (Jews, Gypsies and Slavs) and put into slavery.
This project was negotiated between Chancellor Adolf Hitler and Duke Benito Mussolini through the German jurist Walter Hallstein. It was partially realized during the Second World War, but collapsed with the fall of the Third Reich.

5- The fifth project was formulated in 1946 by the former British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill [5]. Its objective was to reconcile the Franco-German couple and to push aside the Soviets. It is part of the vision of the Atlantic Charter (1942) for which the post-war world should be governed jointly by the United States and the British Empire. Even more, it contributes to his vision of the role of the United Kingdom supported by the Commonwealth. On the Atlantic side, it develops a privileged relationship with the United States and, on the continental side, it supervises Europe of which it does not consider itself a member.
Winston Churchill launched several institutions simultaneously. Ultimately, it was this project which was carried out first, in 1957, under the name of the European Economic Community (EEC) and then, in 1993, under that of the European Union (EU). It borrows elements from three of the previous projects, but never from that of the union of Republics.
The Anglo-Saxons have always controlled the CEE-EU via the European Commission. This is the reason why she is not elected, but appointed. Moreover, London appointed Walter Hallstein, the former advisor to Chancellor Adolf Hitler on European issues, as its first president. Furthermore, the Commission initially had the legislative power that it shares today with the European Parliament. It uses it to propose standards that Parliament validates or rejects. All these standards repeat word for word those of NATO which, contrary to popular belief, is not only concerned with Defense, but with the organization of societies. The NATO offices, initially located in Luxembourg and today next to the Commission in Brussels, transmit its files to it, from the width of the roads (to allow armored vehicles to pass) to the composition of chocolate (to compose the soldier's ration).

6- The sixth project was developed by French President Charles De Gaulle in response to that of the British. He intended to build an institution not federal, but confederal: the “Europe of Nations”. He deplored the Treaty of Rome, but accepted it. In 1963 and 1967 he banned the United Kingdom from joining it. He specified that if there were to be enlargement, it would be from Brest to Vladivostok, that is to say without the United Kingdom, but with the Soviet Union. Above all, he fought tooth and nail so that questions affecting national security could only be taken unanimously.
His vision disappeared with him. The British entered the EEC in 1973 and left in 2020. Russia was never offered to join and today the EU is accumulating “sanctions” against it. Finally, the next reform of the Treaties provides for a qualified majority for questions affecting national security.

read the article