The European Union: how to change a promising Union into a dictatorship

Or how the frogs got slowly boiled

The history of the European Union can be traced back to September 1944, when representatives of the governments in exile of Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg signed a customs treaty, basically an open borders treaty to encourage trade. This collaboration quickly expanded on other economic domains. In Belgium this is seen as the model for the later European Union (or so it is taught in the schools).

When WWII officially ended in Europe on May 8 1945, rebuilding began of the war-torn regions. The horror of that war was fresh in everyone’s minds, and everyone vowed that such could never happen again. Winston Churchill put that into words, and stated there was a need for "a remedy which, as if by miracle, would transform the whole scene and in a few years make all Europe as free and happy as Switzerland is today. We must build a kind of United States of Europe" (in his speech of 19 September 1946 in Zurich).

4 years later, NATO was created, the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization, as result of a longer series of treaties. First between France and the UK, the 1947 Treaty of Dunkirk, ta promise of ‘Alliance and Mutual Assistance’ in case the Germans or the Soviets would attack. Yup, they did not trust the Germans yet! The next year, this included the Benelux countries, to form the so-called ‘Western Union’. And another year later, influenced by the growing rise of the Soviet bloc, the 1948 overtake of Czechoslovakia, and the development and refinement of the Truman Doctrine, the United States, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Italy and Portugal were added to form the North-Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949.

West-Germany was added in 1955, and was allowed to rearm it’s military again (which in turn heavily influenced the creation of the Warsaw Pact, basically the Soviet counter to NATO). NATO kept expanding, and now has 30 member states.

(Map of NATO members and partnerships from Wikipedia, where the Russian Partnership for Peace obviously is now outdated)

As a side note: in 2002 the ‘NATO–Russia Council’ (NRC) was founded, to coordinate security issues, terrorism, and joint projects. Even though all practical cooperation was ended in 2014 after the Russian annexation of Crimea, the NRC remained active.

From the NATO website itself:
“In the Strategic Concept agreed at the Madrid Summit in June 2022, Allies agreed that while NATO cannot consider Russia to be a partner, the Alliance remains willing to keep open channels of communication with Moscow to manage and mitigate risks, prevent escalation and increase transparency.”)

The same year NATO was created, the Council of Europe was established, originally consisting of Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Their main goal was to work together to promote democracy and protect human rights and the rule of Law, and they set up the European Convention on Human Rights in 1953.

The next step came in 1950, when the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman (widely considered as ‘the Father of the EU’), proposed an integration of the coal and steel industries of the different countries in Western Europe. By placing the production of coal and steel under joint management, was the reason, it would be that much harder to use that industrial capacity to arm themselves for war against each other. The next year, in 1951, this was officially signed into a treaty between Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.

And this brings us now to 1957, when those initial 6 countries from the “European Coal and Steel Community”, encouraged by the success they had, decided to expand this idea and create cooperative bonds in other economic sectors as well. Formally, that meant 2 treaties (the Treaties of Rome). The first created the European Economic Community (EEC), and the second the European Atomic Energy Community (Eureatom). At first, membership was the exact same as for the Steel and Coal community: Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. In 1973, Denmark, the United Kingdom and Ireland joined, Greece in 1981, Portugal and Spain in 1986 (the 12 ‘original’ countries, as emblazoned on the EU flag), Austria, Finland and Sweden in 1995, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia in 2004, Bulgaria and Romania in 2007, and Croatia in 2013.

That is, in a nutshell, the history of European cooperative treaties and organizations.

The idea behind it is hard to reject, especially keeping in mind the utter devastation of the WWI battlefields, and the shocking cruelty of the WWII concentration camps (and the general death toll it demanded, as well). NEVER AGAIN. Who can disagree?

As Shuman wrote in the first few lines of his declaration:

“World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it.

The contribution which an organized and living Europe can bring to civilization is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations.”

Or as you can read in the documents of the Council of Europe:

“As it was stated in the Statute "the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its Members for the purpose of safeguarding and realizing the ideals and principles which are their common heritage, and facilitating their economic and social progress”. Those objectives were to be reached "through the organs of the Council by discussion of questions of common concern and by agreements and common action in economic, social, cultural, scientific, legal and administrative matters and in the maintenance and further realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms."

Or as the Treaty of Rome stipulated, in it’s preamble:

And who can be against this?

“RESOLVED by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in
their efforts”.

This almost sounds American, in this open appeal to peace and liberty!

Having grown up in Europe, I certainly subscribed to this ideal, and I still think this ideal is a great one.

A strong and unified Europe is a power to be reckoned with, and force of influence and example for the whole world. An indispensable partner to the United States, as well…

(But here is the important ‘if’)

…but ONLY IF they keep to that ideal, and ensure proper and actual freedom.

They have not, as I will show in the rest of this article.

Very quickly, bureaucrats stepped in, the EU started to deviate from it’s original purpose. On one hand they would micromanage irrelevant details, with a mania for regulation and meddling, and on the other hand ignore main issues (immigration, integration, etc.).

What alarmed me the most, and proved that something seriously was rotten in the state of the EU, was what had happened surround the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE). This would provide a new international treaty that would form the foundation of a ‘European Federal State’, and was a power grab of enormous proportion, hidden behind the widely accepted ideals of ‘unity’ and ‘cooperation’ in name ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’.

Let’s hear from the words of the top politicians involved in drafting this Constitution:

“Creating a single European State bound by one European Constitution is the decisive task of our time.”
– German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, Daily Telegraph, 27-12-1998

“The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State.”
– Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister, Financial Times, 21-6-2004

“Our Constitution cannot be reduced to a mere treaty for co-operation between governments.
Anyone who has not yet grasped this fact deserves to wear the dunce’s cap.”
– Valery Giscard-d'Estaing, President of the EU Convention, Speech in Aachen accepting the Charlemagne Prize for European integration, 29-5-2003

By itself, not necessarily a ‘bad’ thing. But even this ideal of unification, was merely to hide a bid for increased centralization of power. As one group critical of the EU (The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre, Dublin, Ireland; affiliated to the European Alliance of EU-critical Movements (TEAM)) pointed out, this proposed hid several elements that were NOT in the best interest of the people.

“The Constitution would give all the above powers to the new EU, while setting in stone the Union's present undemocratic structure. It would not repatriate a single power from the EU back to National Parliaments, despite this having been mooted in the Laeken Declaration which established the Convention that drew up the Draft Constitution. The unelected European Commission would retain its monopoly of proposing EU laws and would have that extended to cover important new policy areas.”

And

“While the Euro-Parliament's right to propose amendments to laws being considered by the Council would be extended to cover new areas, it would remain unable to impose those amendments on either the Council or Commission. The European Central Bank would remain politically unaccountable through a commitment by all MEPs, EU officials and national governments "not to seek to influence the members of the decision-making bodies of European Central Bank".”

A peculiarity in European jurisprudence would mean that this adoption of this new Treaty would go MUCH further than the actual wording in it would show.

“The Court of Justice (ECJ), as the Supreme Court of the new EU, would interpret the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe if it is ratified. In its case-law the ECJ follows the continental legal tradition of interpreting treaties and legal documents in relation to their "objectives and purposes", in contrast to the Anglo-Saxon tradition of emphasising the literal wording of legal provisions in the present tense. This has led the ECJ to lay down in the 1992 European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement Case that identically worded provisions in two separate treaties can be interpreted to have different legal effects, depending on the objectives of the treaties in question. In this connection British jurist Martin Howe has pointed out that changing the legal basis of the EU from a series of treaties to a self-contained Constitution would fundamentally alter the Court's view of the objects and purposes of the legal texts it is applying. Henceforth all EU laws and framework laws would be interpreted by the Court as having the force of constitutional law.”

Everything would now be judged and interpreted based on the new ‘constitution’ and the EU as a Federal State, even if the literal wording of clauses would say otherwise!

Among other points of criticism. Even if one would leave out the points of criticism, this is still a major change, and would in effect end the independence of the individual member states in a very essential way, centered around the European Commission, which would hold the true power in Europe. Again, ignoring that point, this change to the founding treaty required each member state to ratify the proposed new treaty that would supersede the old Treaty of Rome. This process was different in each country, depending on the rules and tradition in each for how to deal with such things. In some countries a simple parliamentary vote was enough, while others required a referendum by the people to ratify any international treaty that touched upon their sovereignty.

So in 2005, after the different representatives had signed the new Treaty, it had to go through this ratification process. Several countries had votes in their parliament, and passed the new Treaty. A referendum in Spain passed, with a clear majority, 76% voting in favor to 24% against, with a turnout of 43%. But then came a complete surprise: the 29 May 2005 referendum vote in France ended in a complete rejection, 55% in against to 45% in favor, with a turnout of 69%, on June 1st followed by an even stronger rejection in the Netherlands of 61% against to 39% in favor, with a turnout of 62%.

This made all other votes moot: the TCE was rejected.

What happens next, is absolutely baffling, and betrays the true nature of those in power in the European institutions.

The impetus for it can be seen from those other quotes from those who worked on the draft of this constitution:

“We know that nine out of ten people will not have read the Constitution and will vote on the
basis of what politicians and journalists say. More than that, if the answer is No, the vote will
probably have to be done again, because it absolutely has to be Yes.”
– Jean-Luc Dehaene, Former Belgian Prime Minister and Vice-President of the EU Convention, Irish Times, 2-6-2004

“The Convention brought together a self-selected group of the European political elite, many of whom have their eyes on a career at a European level, which is dependent on more and more integration, and who see national parliaments and governments as an obstacle ... Not once in the sixteen months I spent on the Convention did representatives question whether deeper integration is what the people of Europe want, whether it serves their best interests or whether it provides the best basis for a sustainable structure for an expanding Union. The debates focused solely on where we could do more at European Union level ... None of the existing policies were questioned ... Consensus was achieved among those who were deemed to matter and those deemed to matter made it plain that the rest would not be allowed to wreck the final agreement.”
– Gisela Stuart MP, British Labour Party representative on the EU Convention and member of its Praesidium which drafted the Constitution, The Making of Europe's Constitution, Fabian Society, London, 2003

What did the Eurocrats do?

Go back to the drawing board, take the Constitution, split it in different parts, and re-introduce them as amendments to existing treaties.

A very important admission is written openly by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, former French President and president of the committee that wrote the EU Constitution, titled ‘The EU Treaty is the same as the Constitution’.

He sketches the pathway of the deceit that would be perpetrated on the European peoples:

“The debates [on the Constitution] were very public. The resulting draft constitution was a new text and replaced all previous treaties.”

“For the Treaty of Lisbon the process has been very different. It was the legal experts for the European Council who were charged with drafting the new text. They have not made any new suggestions. They have taken the original draft constitution, blown it apart into separate elements, and have then attached them, one by one, to existing treaties. The Treaty of Lisbon is thus a catalogue of amendments. It is unpenetrable for the public.”

“Otherwise, the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary.”

“But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention.”

And why did they go through this charade?

“The Brussels institutions have also cleverly reclaimed the process from the – to them – unwelcome intrusion of parliamentarians and politicians in the work of the original drafting Convention. The institutions have re-imposed their language and their procedures – taking us even further away from ordinary citizens.”

This is absolutely incredible. While the peoples’ attention was kept distracted and busy with other things, the Eurocrats took the same language and tried to sneak it into existing treaties as amendments, with the express and open goal to deceive their own population. How much more can they make clear their disdain for a true democratic process?

The language as introduced in the form of the ‘Treaty of Lisbon’ to amend, among others, the previous ‘Treaty of Maastricht’, as well as the manner in which it was proposed, was designed to make it impossible to be understood by the people, and the new format of mere amendments, covered in legalese, was successful in that it did not raise to the level of material change which would trigger the requirement of referendums.

Except in Ireland, where the legal advisors to the Irish government had deemed that parts of the treaty constituted an amendment on to the existing Irish Constitution, reducing Irish sovereignty. As such, the Treaty was ratified in all countries by a simple parliamentary vote, all predictably leading to a rubberstamp acceptance, except in Ireland, where it was subjected to a referendum.

The people in Europe, knowing that they were being swindled after the prior rejection of the TCE but now left voiceless, looked on with baited breath, to see what Ireland would do. To everyone’s surprise, on June 12, 2008 the people of Ireland voted NO: 53.4% voted against, and 46.6% voted for, with a turnout of 53.1%.

Everyone was dumbfounded, and even John Bruton, Head of the Delegation of the European Commission to the United States, gave a lengthy speech to explain what just had happened, and how this would not hamper the further progress of the EU project.

But what happened? The Yes Campaigners did not accept this defeat, and the next year, this was put back to a referendum vote in Ireland, where they stressed the ‘legally binding concessions’ that were gained in negotiations. And that time, on Oct 2nd, 2009, the result was 67.1% in favor and 32.9% against, with a turnout of 59%. And the EU simply continued.

The people have every right to vote (exactly as their leaders desire, and not differently!).

This was not even the first time a binding ratification referendum was repeated after an initial rejection. This happened in Denmark on the Maastricht Treaty in 1992-1993, and again in Ireland on the Nice Treaty in 2001-2002. Each of these 3 times, the ‘unacceptable’ rejection did not lead to a change in the original treaty that had to be ratified, but to a series of ‘concessions’ based on the themes the NO campaign had used in the first round, while drumming up the specter of high stakes and loss if the vote failed again, losing those important concessions! It is a mere optical ploy, and as Giscard d’Estaign had said about the negotiations regarding the TCE: “The concessions given to French opponents of the constitutional treaty are more symbolic than substantial.”

What was different in this 3rd referendum in Ireland that was repeated twice until it yielded the desired outcome, was that the treaty under the referendum question was merely a carbon copy of another treaty had had widely and soundly been rejected by several major countries. And when another country (Ireland) rejected it AGAIN, it was simply repeated under the guise of symbolic and non-essential ‘concessions’, which allowed the Yes campaign that the original ‘NO’ vote was respected…

Interestingly, the deceptive and ‘unpenetrable’ language the treaty was set in, backfired, as the Irish saw indeed a mess of a document, and rejected it. A web article that explained the second vote, and aimed to counter ‘Eurosceptics’, explained “A number of people felt that the Lisbon Treaty could force us to increase our corporation tax. Others narrowed in on subjects such as abortion, conscription to some sort of super EU army and the lowering of the minimum wage. It was one big confusing mess and the NO campaign took full advantage of it.”

The article continued, and pointed out that “after the treaty was defeated in 2007, Ireland sought a number of guarantees from the EU. Consequently, we were able to get a number of legally-binding assurances about taxation, abortion and military neutrality. Furthermore, member states also agreed not to reduce the number of Commissioners in the European Union.

Basically, the fears that many people had about the Lisbon Treaty were collected, analysed and addressed. Therefore, the Irish government was able to go back to the people and ask them to vote again, with these new legally-binding assurances in mind.”

But none of those issues was at the core of what this treaty sought to establish, and this is part of the spin and deception used to ram it through, regardless. The concessions there are irrelevant to the treaty, but were used push the Irish to reconsider, with millions spend in ads, non-stop coverage on the media, with very important people from all over Europe lecturing about why Lisbon was so important, and the ‘No’ vote such an unfortunate and misguided result (inspired by skeptics who are against democracy and advancement!), a very effective mix that is no different than emotional blackmail.

Anyways, the path is cleared. The double rejection has cautioned the Eurocrats, and Giscard d’Estaign already gave the new plan away: “When men and women with sweeping ambitions for Europe decide to  make use of this treaty, they will be able to rekindle from the ashes of today the flame of a United Europe.” The groundwork had been laid, but given the negative attention and attitude, it was imprudent to ram it through too fast.

And one last, but very important element: part of the new Treaty deals with an updated and strengthened Human Rights charter. While this sounds good (who is against human rights, after all?), there is a catch…  The EU human rights law would override any contrary national law (!!) and would have direct effect in all areas of EU law. One of the articles allows ‘limitations’ of basic human rights, in the general interests of the EU, of course. And tellingly, it forbids any political campaign to reverse any aspect of the charter!

And as we have seen in Poland and Hungary, if any state opposed the new rights of immigrants or of the Transgender lobby, they are now subject to severe consequences, based in part on that charter of Human Rights! No appeal possible, once the EU declares anything a human right.

From the recent rulings on Hungary and Poland: “The ECJ ruled that "sound financial management of the EU's budget" could be seriously compromised by breaches of rule of law. EU member states signed up to common values such as rule of law and solidarity and the EU "must be able to defend those values"”, as BBC reported. The European court interprets such cases based on what the EU intended, which is rife for judicial activism.

Hungary protested:
“Meanwhile in Hungary, where the ruling Fidesz party of Viktor Orban is campaigning to win a fourth term in office, Justice Minister Judit Varga accused the EU of abuse of power and of punishing Budapest for bringing laws that ban the depiction of homosexuality to under-18s.”

 But that is exactly an element that proves, according to the EU courts, that Hungary is not acting in solidarity with the rest of Europe in upholding core human rights!

At this point, it should be clear that the currents elites in charge of the EU cannot be trusted: naked power grabs, a disdain for the will of the people, and a rabid progressive agenda that supersedes everything else.

But as my previous articles points out: people are starting to stand up (got to love our farmers!), and a reckoning seems to be coming, as the EU bit off more than it could chew, and they severely underestimated the power of the people.

All is well.