Brussels strives for power over Europe, but meets resistance
In the last couple of weeks, the European Union has been shaking more and more. It seems that economic problems caused by the “pandemic” licked butter from a Brussels bun for morning coffee, which the former member countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance so lacked when they dissolved CMEA on June 22, 1991 to flee to the Western economy. Over the past thirty years, the socialist community has completed a full circle from the seduction of Western democracy and the collapse of its own economies to the frantic search for a place in the market for goods and services, which has long been divided and mastered. Today, in the tense relations between the EU countries, a dry crackle is more and more often heard.
And the point is not only that today the Germans receive an average of 2315 euros per month, and the Bulgarians – 544; Belgians – 2,170, and Hungarians – 750; Swedes – 2507, and Romanians – 703 euros. In general, those who ran away for oil, even after 30 years, do not reach 1000 euros per month, while the rest receive from 2000 and more. Another thing is even more offensive. United in the name of democracy and a free market, Europe was unceremonious in the sales market of the former socialist bloc – they endured it. But now Brussels has undertaken to manage a much more subtle matter – the national identity of the fugitives from socialism. The main reflex of any bureaucracy is its reproduction. Starting in 1952 with the European Coal and Steel Community, that is, with purely economic functions, Brussels officials, who are neither states nor voters, are striving for power over all of Europe.
Brussels was defeated in 2004 with its own constitution, which expanded the powers of the European Parliament to address problems with the state of civil liberties, border control and immigration, the work of judicial and law enforcement structures of all EU countries. However, three years later, Brussels nevertheless appropriated these powers to itself with the Lisbon Treaty. Since then, the “Brussels Belt” has been tightening Europe ever tighter.
Poland rebelled earlier than others. The regular EU summit, which began on October 20, put Warsaw on the road: the crisis erupted after Poland returned the priority of national legislation over EU legislation. On October 7, the Constitutional Court of Poland, having considered the request of Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, confirmed the inconsistency of the rule on the priority of European law with the constitution of the republic. In response, Brussels froze 57 billion euros promised to Warsaw to deal with the consequences of the “pandemic” within the framework of the National Reconstruction Plan. The Brussels Belt has tightened.
Before the summit, Manfred Weber, head of the European People’s Party (EPP), the leading faction in the European Parliament, announced the possible withdrawal of Poland from the European Union. “Whatever happens next, the Poles are likely to incur the cost of balancing their government on the brink of war,” writes Project Syndicate…
For Poland, this choice is difficult. From May 2004, when it joined the EU, until the middle of this year, Warsaw received 206 billion euros from Brussels a year and expects another 170 billion over the next seven years. Poland is the largest beneficiary in the EU, but the Poles nevertheless threw down a challenge to the European Union. “The European Commission has made it clear that Poland must withdraw in order to receive EU funds, – notes Project Syndicate. – However … the President of the National Bank of Poland, Adam Glapiński says: “We will do just fine without the funds of the European Union” “…
It should be reminded that Poland did not switch to the euro, unlike its Baltic neighbors – Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, which, having lost independence in monetary policy, also lost the tools to stimulate economic growth by monetary methods.
Loss of levers of management of their own economy, coercion to abandon national law, imposition of immorality as a new “tolerant culture” – isn’t it too much? This question is asked today not only by Poles.
Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa, who now chairs the EU Council, accused the European Commission of politically abusing the rule of law. The European Commission, he believes, should not interfere in political issues, but “Everything changed with the arrival of Ursula von der Leyen”… If this happened 15 years ago, Ursula would hardly have stayed in the European Commission for more than a week, says Jansha.
Romania September Opinion Poll INSCOP showed that more than two-thirds of the country’s citizens believe that the government should protect the interests of their state when this is contrary to the laws of the European Union, even if it is fraught with leaving the EU; today, more than 64 percent of Romanians are satisfied with such a solution.
For a referendum on the exit of the Czech Republic from the European Union, the Czech party “Freedom and Direct Democracy”, which is part of the government coalition, is in favor. Its leader, Tomio Okamura, is ready to propose a bill that could lead to a referendum on leaving the EU
Lithuania demands from Brussels to amend the EU migration law in order to prevent illegal migrants from entering the country.
Even the Kingdom of Norway, not a member of the European Union but part of the European Economic Area (EEA) since 1994, has thought about revising the EEA treaty to strengthen its sovereignty. They believe that the country should leave the Schengen area and “say no” to excessive tutelage of bureaucrats from Brussels. This is despite the fact that 80 percent of Norwegian exports go to the EU with 60 percent of imports from there.
In so many claims to the Brussels bureaucracy on the part of European states, it seems, have not yet accumulated …
Artist Igor Yaroshenok
If you notice an error in the text, select it and press Ctrl + Enter to send the information to the editor.