by Jillian Becker
Why was the corrupt and undemocratic European Union (EU) brought into existence?
The Germans wanted to dissolve their guilt – for starting two world wars and perpetrating the Holocaust – in the sea of a European superstate. Which they knew they could dominate through their economic strength.
The French wanted to be part of an entity that was more populous, more prosperous, and more powerful than the United States of America, even though it meant sharing power.
The ambitious politicians of Western Europe wanted a bigger stage to strut on. As well as a perpetual ride on a gravy train.
Eastern European nations had a more respectable motive for joining the EU after the collapse of the Soviet Union, under whose heel they had suffered for some 40 years: they saw the EU as a shelter from renewed Russian imperial ambition. Some of them – notably Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia – are now defying dictatorship from Brussels, the EU capital, by refusing to admit unlimited numbers of Muslim “refugees”.
The annual budget of the EU is about 145 billion euros ($153 billion US dollars). By its own accounting, 4.7% of the budget is lost in fraud and corruption. That is some 6.97 billion Euros.*
It employs 33,000 people.
There are 28 member states and 24 official languages. Every document has to be put out in all 24 languages.
The EU leaders see their supra-national, “post-nationalist” union as a model for world government.
The Council of the European Union governs by decree. The European Parliament consists of elected members but they do not have the power to legislate. They can approve or reject a legislative proposal, or propose amendments. In other words they give advice, but the Council is not legally obliged to take it. It is treated as mere opinion. For appearance sake, and as a result of case-law decisions by the EU Court of Justice, the Council must receive that opinion before it can act on its own decision. This is pure gesturism. The ritual salutes democracy without adopting it.
In sum, the EU is a political and economic monstrosity. It cannot and will not endure.
Nationalist movements in France and Italy may soon bring those countries to leave the EU.
All of which threatens the continued existence of the rotten, superfluous, and positively harmful European Union.
From Gatestone, by Timon Dias:
At its core, what is the EU? And why, despite its vast resources, does it seem perpetually unable to make sense of the world and meet its objectives? …
First, thereís the EUís primary internal contradiction: EU federalism is an ideology that propagates post-ideologism; a culturally amorphous post-ideological world. … It is acting as if the world has already arrived at this so badly coveted post-cultural/ideological end station.
This is why the EUís foreign minister is convinced political Islam should be part of the solution for Europeís bicultural malaise. It is why for almost a decade now, the EU is maintaining it is reasonable to expect a German fiscal discipline from Greece ? a country in which tax evasion has been a central pillar of its culture ever since it was conquered by the Ottoman Empire some 600 years ago. It is why the EU fails to grasp the fact itís deepening the migration crisis by acting as a ferry service for human traffickers. It is why the EU refuses to acknowledge an inherently expansionist religion like Islam views Europeís open borders as an invitation to conquest. And it is why it was caught off guard by the mass rapes in Cologne etc. …
In short, the EU is treating the world as if itís already an earthly EUtopia in which everything can be solved through dialogue and the right subsidies. And thatís why it will keep on chasing facts until its imminent demise.
But thereís something even more fundamental obstructing the EUís ability to solve crises.
The EU is artificial and unnecessary.
What is the EU? The EU is a government looking for people to govern. It didnít evolve organically from a communityís desire to be governed.
It was an elitist ideological hobby project ? one that European Commission first Vice-President Frans Timmermans a few weeks ago referred to as:
Arguably the most successful peace project in human history.
This, however, is a deception. A deception so pervasive, it has become the most pivotal element of the Eurocratsí belief system. But the EU is no peace project. It neither caused nor consolidated peace.
True peace is being able to hurt one another, but simply not wanting to. In 1945, after centuries of conflict, European nation states finally reached this status. Subsequently, the European Economic Community (EEC) consolidated this peace in 1958 by entangling the French and German economies.
The EU came afterwards, without there ever being an actual need for it ? the continent was peaceful and that peace was consolidated. …
So, if the EU neither caused nor consolidated peace, what is the EUís fundamental raison díÍtre? The simple answer is: it has none.
There is nothing fundamentally positive about Europe, that could not exist without the EU.
This is no trivial matter.
Because the EU is a highly artificial and non-organic governing body, one without a fundamental raison díÍtre, the EUís priority objective, at all times, is self-preservation. Even when this means not solving problems at all.
The euro and migration crises serve as prime examples. The EU is not only not solving the euro crisis, itís prolonging it by insisting fiscally dysfunctional member states remain member states, simply because their ejection from the EU would endanger and obscure the EU itself.
The same is true for the migration crisis. Itís not hard to solve. To simply stop being a ferry service for human traffickers and implement the very straight forward Australian model, is hardly rocket science. Itís no coincidence Australiaís migration architect claims Europe doesnít even seem to be trying to solve this crisis.
In 2016, 490,547 migrants reached Europe. The total number of asylum applicants is almost 2.5 times higher at 1.205 million, which is a modest drop from 2015ís 1.323 million. During the first months of 2017, almost 13,000 arrived by sea.
So what is the EUís priority during the migrant crisis?
Instead, the EUís highest priority seems to be preventing nation states from bypassing the EU, by taking their own measures against the crisis.
For if that were to happen, the EU would lose its “greatest achievement”: the federal control of European national borders, without which, the EU is nothing.
The EU must go.
The nation-state with strongly defended borders must be resurrected as an ideal.
The British showed the way with Brexit – its majority vote last year to leave the EU.
President Trump lights the way for the European nations with his slogan, “Make America Great Again!”
*We quote an article on EU corruption by Richard Milton.
Quotes (OLAF is the EU's anti-fraud office):
Have the EUís accounts for the past 19 years been signed off by the auditors or not? The EU says they have been signed off, while critics in parliament and the media say they have not. So who is telling the truth about the accounts? What are the real facts?
In a report described as ďdevastatingĒ, the Court revealed that no-one had been prosecuted for fraud and no-one was likely to be prosecuted
OLAF is notified of some 12,000 cases of possible fraud every year, and says that it adopts a ďzero toleranceĒ policy towards corruption and fraud in EU institutions. In reality, OLAF must be somewhat more tolerant than ďzeroĒ as it investigates only some 200 cases per year Ė that is to say 98% of reported cases go uninvestigated.
This is the most likely explanation of the fact that, since 1999, OLAF has sent only 335 people to jail and recovered only 1.1 Billion Euros of EU money Ė less than one-thousandth of the amount unaccounted for.
Remember, the question we are trying to answer here is … ďHave the EU accounts been signed off for the past 19 years?Ē And the only honest answer to this second question is clearly, ďNo, they have not been signed off.”
What the EU has done is not to make extra efforts to get to the bottom of its accounts and sign them off, but to change the normal rules of accounts auditing so that they no longer apply to the EU, and to change the meaning of ordinary English words to try to persuade us that this procedure is acceptable. …
The amount not signed off by the Court of Auditors was ďonlyĒ 4.7% of the budget. The problem is that 4.7% of the budget is 6.97 billion Euros …
What do you think? Should the UK leave the EU? Please leave a comment below.
Jillian Becker writes at http://theatheistconservative.com/