The European Commission, towards the end of October, announced its work programme for 2013, with President of the Commission Barroso using the opportunity afforded the Commission by this and the crisis to give the EU institutions a mandate to push for further integration.
The work programme consists of seven points, though some are strategically key, and some read more as add-ons to try and hide the federalist nature of the core points. The primary aim is to seek a genuine Economic and Monetary Union (point 1), with the supporting aims of boosting competitiveness through single market and industrial policy and developing European infrastructure (points 2 and 3).
In order to try and eradicate the nations of Europe, the Commission has to continually push for greater social inclusion to promote the idea of European citizenship (4), and in order to look like a sociably responsible organisation, the three last points, using resources better (5), building a safe and secure Europe (6) and being a strong development partner (7), were added.
The key point
Clearly, as Bill Cash MP has already pointed out, the construction of a genuine Economic and Monetary Union would change the fundamental relationship of the European Union and its member states. It would require the transferral of national bank power, economic policy and financial regulation to Europe, securing the survival of the Commission at the very time that the Commission’s existence should be questioned, as the Euro struggles for survival.
In this key and primary point, the EU has failed to understand the cause of the financial crisis. It was not caused by the lack of Economic and Monetary Union, but by left-wing economics and the spending of money that people did not have. It was caused by money being lent and delivered into the financial system that could never be repaid, and undermining the basis of world trade, as the money became more and more fictional. It was not a problem of a lack of Economic and Monetary Union!
Yet for the Commission, the crisis clearly showed that “…the single market for financial services can only deliver…if it is matched with a strong regulatory and supervisory authority at EU level.” The application of existing laws, widely identified as one of the problems, is ignored, while the transferral of power to the EU level is the only option pushed forward.
Citizens
The Commission is also seeking to take advantage of the crisis by showing ‘its citizens’ that it is leading them out of the crisis, and thus providing a useful citizenship service in contrast to member states, who will be blamed for the problems.
This is the core of the fourth and sixth points, reflecting the sinister, band-wagon mentality of Brussels, trying to push its own agenda on the back of the suffering of Europe. The sixth point in particular is a cover for greater integration, talking about the EU’s need to protect ‘its own financial interests’ with more powers. By this, the Commission is referring to the pocketing of the EU budget by fraudsters, arguing that states can no longer act alone, as fraud is often trans-national.
This point is risible. As the very existence of the Euro has recently been under question, the desire to grab some more power to protect its finances (from itself, incidentally) strikes as opportunistic and reflects a focus that is clearly in the wrong place. It is underlined by the recent Court of Auditor’s statement that €5 billion of funds from the 2011 budget were misallocated, with most errors not coming from fraud, but the EU’s own too complex rules and regulations.
The fourth point, relating to social inclusion, outlines that the Commission views health care as an under-exploited sector on the job-making market. Yet health-care, for the most part in Europe, is state funded. Here the Commission would simply be adding to the debts of governments’, increasingly moving society to a socialist model.
Networks
The third point in the Commissions programme is the construction of tomorrow’s networks, today. The Commission argues that “national approaches…prevent the exploitation of networks on a European scale.” The political motivation and short-sightedness of this is clear: why focus on the EU when power is moving to China and India? What use is it to Europe to exploit networks if all the money is in Asia? Surely it is better to promote the exploitation of global networks, not just intra-European ones…unless of course you want to build a super-state…
It is quite obvious even to the alleged British Government surely, that the EU wants ITs Citizens led out of the crisis that “IT” started in the first place.
In reality, and not in the land of make-belief that everything in the EU is wonderful, the true British people realise that their own Common law Constitution forbids any of them from encouraging-in any way-even financially those same foreigners from governing the British people in any way what so ever.
The people of this Country elected THEIR MP’s to govern this Country according to law-it really and truly is about time they did just that. There was a time, long ago now when there was no British Government when Magna Carta among other constitutional Documents came into being. If that could happen once before, it could happen again and everything this Government has put through-as well you must be aware Mr Cash, started its terrible Journey in the EU. Even the Elected Police Commissioners and proposed elected Mayors were from the EU’s Localism Act. For the first time in the history of this Country since Magna Carta, the New elected Police Commissioners will not make an Oath of Allegiance to the British Crown. No doubt eventually a foreigner could be in that role. And all of you in Parliament “today” allowed that to happen.
You know Mr Cash, that from the very moment this Country joined the EC/EEC/EU the main objective was not just a United States of Europe, but one STATE of and we must get out now before that happens.
Mr. Wilson, HC Deb 03 August 1961 vol 645 cc1651-714 “First, I should like to take issue straight away with some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, sitting below the Gangway opposite, who quite simply regard it as an issue of sovereignty. I respect their arguments, but they—and even the word itself, I think—are really out of harmony with this modern age. The whole history of political progress is a history of gradual abandonment of national sovereignty. We abrogate it when we have a French referee at Twickenham. We abrogated it—some would say that we did not abrogate it enough—when we joined the United Nations. One cannot talk about world government in one breath and then start drooling about the need to preserve national sovereignty in the next”.
“The question is not whether sovereignty remains absolute or not, but in what way one is prepared to sacrifice sovereignty, to whom and for what purpose. That is the real issue before us. The question is whether any proposed surrender of sovereignty will advance or retard our progress to the kind of world we all want to see”.
“In view of these statements and others —and it is for us to select which of these various statements we should accept as correct—it is a little myopic of the Prime Minister to refer to it as ‘…a purely economic and trading negotiation and not a political and foreign policy negotiation”.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 937.]’ But, all the same, we warmly welcome his statement of yesterday associating himself with President de Gaulle’s approach and I repeat the declaration of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, when he said: ‘…there is no question whatever of Britain entering into a federal Europe now.”—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1501–2.]’ I hope that the Government will be clear about this. There should be no doubt on this federal issue. There should be no double talk with Europe about it. Our position should be stated so that there is no accusation of bad faith, of dragging our feet, of perfidious Albion, if, subsequently, Europe seeks to move towards federation and then, and only then, we make clear our opposition to it. Whatever view may be taken concerning these economic negotiations, I hope that we make it clear that we shall not go into a federal system.”
We must indeeed come out of the EU.