[Home]
So where did the European Union come from?
The EU started as the European Economic Community, 12 years after WWII, in 1957, to try and stop the constant war scenario that was plaguing the 20th century. The EEC was made up of France, West Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy and The Netherlands. Britain was vetoed, as President de Gaulle objected to us (for some reason that escapes me... as we housed him, and helped his country where we could from 1939 to 1944). If my memory serves, he saw us as a way in which the USA would gain a foothold in Europe. This was purely an 'economic' setup, to create a 'single market', and 'customs' union.. in other words.. Free Trade.
The EEC came from the ECSC , which was a Steel and Coal agreement, essentially between France and Germany, with the long term intention of making war between those two countries physically impossible, by producing a federal state. The forerunner of the European Commission was the Halstein Commission, headed by Walter Halstein, a major proposer of a federal superstate.
However, at around the same time, some countries couldn't freely be a part of the EEC, so EFTA was formed. This was formed by the Uk, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Denmark and Portugal. This was simply a Free Trade Agreement, and importantly, had access to the single market of the EEC, on a bilateral agreement. There was no mention in the EFTA agreement of a 'Super State'. It was simply a Free Trade Zone, where the members could still trade and form alliances with other countries outside of this zone.
So, by 1960 we had the nacent EEC, and EFTA, all working well together. However, in 1973 Britain, Denmark and Ireland decided to join the EEC. This was initially done without a referendum, by both the Wilson (Labour) and Heath (Conservative) governments. Wilsons 1974 government actually actioned a 'post action' referendum, with little mention of the 'Federal Europe' goal, and the referendum got passed...as Britain and Ireland joining a larger Free Trade organisation. As a part of the deal Britain had a veto implemented, allowing it to not participate in any number of actions.
In 1993, things changed. The Maastricht treaty was signed, turning the EEC (an Economic Community) into the EC, the European Community. The major difference with the EC was that it moved from being purely 'economic' to working towards a more integrated 'federal' europe. The Maastricht Treaty tried to include additions of foreign policy, security and defence, immigration, criminal and judicial.
Some member states objected to the addition of these, as it was felt that they were too sensitive to local issues, and so better handled by individual governments, so they were 'left out' of the actual treaty, but tacked on as 3 more departments or 'pillars' to the EC.
After Maastricht, a number of changes occurred, making the Parliament have equal powers to the Commission, moving areas of responsibility from the seperate 'pillars' (departments) to the EC, such as the immigration policies.
In 2009, with the Treaty of Paris, the EC was officially disbanded, as were the other Commissions under the EC, and they were all brought under the umbrella of the European Union. Along with that amalgamation came the intention to widen the Community to anyone who was able to join, with the agreement of the members. However some members had more votes than the others, so this was 'lopsided' as a policy.
With this treaty the European Union now became an organisation with the following:
A Parliament - The Single European Act gave Parliament the powers of veto over the commission
A Council
A Commission
A Court
Auditors - who have never agreed a set of accounts for the EU/EEC.
And so we have a scenario, where the original concept of a 'Free Trade Zone' was finally becoming a Federal Zone, covering the majority of Western Europe, with additions of other states as agreed by various members.
The majority of the member states have enabled this to occur, with no vote on the wider powers by the citizens of those states.
The Federal Europe, which was originally proposed back in 1950 will include:
- A Parliament
- A Judiciary System
- An Economic System
- A Unified Military Service
- A Unified Border control Agency
Essentially we are moving towards total political union, where 'Europe' becomes a superstate, and individual sovereignity would be lost, which is not what the populations of those countries were led to believe the process was all about.
If this is the route that the populations would like to see, then we should be making plans to remove our home grown systems (governments/courts/military/financial), as they will simply become 'rubber stamping' organisations implementing the will of the European Dictums.
Military Union is the most worrying, and this has already started. The Uk has also planned that 2 aircraft carriers would be jointly used by the UK and France. However, this project was cancelled by the French in 2013, after the construction had started, leaving the UK to pick up the bill. This shows how the integration will fail.
Add to this that Europe is currently part of NATO, and also the UN (United Nations), a 3rd military force, made up by member states, will have issues. NATO and the UN already use member states to participate, and the 3rd European army will end up with the same scenario a the League of Nations, in the 1920s. It is provably unworkable.
Economic union, is also a misnomer. It requires a central bank, a common currency, and all member states to be with 1.5% of GDP/Debt of the top 3 Nations. So a smaller, less well off nation, will have difficulty reaching that goal, resulting in fines, that it cant afford, and possibly being removed from the central currency, which it also cant afford. We have seen this with Greece, which has been bailed out by the EU 3 times in 5 years, and is still not out of the woods.
Essentially the whole concept of a Free Trade Area has been changed towards a federal state, with the strongest 3 countries being in control. This has been done on the sly, without agreement by the peoples of those nations, and without any say in how the process works, or without any feedback from the very people their taxes pay to report back to them publicly.
Would you invest in a company like that?
[Home]
No comments:
Post a Comment