Many people, myself included, have difficulty understanding what the point is of a superstate with ambitions to dominate the whole of Europe. If it were just about increasing trade, this would not need a politically centralised Europe-wide state.
In 2007, after the Czech President Václav Klaus finally and reluctantly agreed to signing the Lisbon Treaty, Barosso (the President of the EU) proudly announced the formation of the European Empire: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557143/Barroso-hails-the-European-empire.html.
Václav Klaus and the Cato Institute: It is worth commenting that the ex-President of the Czech Republic, Václav Klaus is still opposed to the Lisbon Treaty. In his final address to the Cato Institute in March 2013. The Cato Institute in its description “is a public policy research organization — a think tank – dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues.”
The Cato Institute – a US free-marketeer pressure group – puts it like this, arguing against the very premise that an ever-closer Europe is what is required:
“As the European Crisis continues, with no solution in sight, it is becoming increasingly clear to many that the problems are deep and structural. Stagnant growth, persistent unemployment, and public dissatisfaction are threatening the very premises of the European project. Although some believe that “an ever-closer Europe” is the solution, others argue that the current crisis is no accident; it is the natural result of naïve and excessively optimistic expectations concerning the economic benefits of integration and centralization. Professor Václav Klaus, former Czech minister of finance and prime minister, and now distinguished senior fellow at the Cato Institute, will address these pressing questions during his first visit to Washington just days after stepping down from his second term as president.“
This is a sensible and perfectly justified objection to the current course of events. It was also interesting to see that Václav Klaus was going to address these pressing questions when in Washington. I doubt very much he will get anywhere with this or with any other President of the USA. Hillary Clinton will be just the same, if she becomes President. The US President, whoever it is, always supports the EU and has regular meetings with the two EU Presidents. Perhaps they think that rather than meet each Government separately, it is more efficient to talk to those at the top of the EU. See http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/26/europe-asks-obama-increased-exports-shale-gas. Note how Obama treats the EU like a state with two Presidents (one of the EU and the other of its “parliament”).
But the USA-EU relationship was designed with this as its purpose. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in his famous comments about the EU “Euro-federalists financed by US Spy Chiefs” Telegraph 19 Sept 2000, opens like this:
“DECLASSIFIED American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist movement.”
We know that Václav Klaus was reluctant to sign the Lisbon Treaty but it was clear that there was a coordinated resistance to his refusal to sign, both internally and from the German-dominated media ownership in the Czech Republic. See Manoeuvrings within the EU Council.
After the Czechs ratified the Lisbon Treaty, the triumphalism of Barroso was hardly masked. His much desired creation of a European super-state had been achieved. As the Telegraph article states:
Mr Barroso, Portugal’s former centre-Right prime minister and a student radical in the 1960s, tried to argue that unlike old “super state” empires the EU was based on a voluntary surrender of sovereignty, not military conquest.
“What we have is the first non-imperial empire,” he said.
“We have 27 countries that fully decided to work together and to pool their sovereignty. I believe it is a great construction and we should be proud of it.”
Note the penultimate sentence of this statement is nothing more than a spin. Twenty-seven countries have not decided to “Pool their sovereignty” as Barosso put it. This is a spin reflecting what Barosso and Von Rompuy want to believe and what they claim the 27 member states had done. That our EU rulers can publicly claim such a thing reflects their ignorance. It is a frightening thought that they can be so clueless sitting as they do at the top of a pyramid in which the ordinary citizen of each member state are powerless to influence.
It is now also clear that The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, supports the idea of a centralised European state, in her appointment of Jean-Claude Junker to replace Barroso as President of the EU. Hence the opposition of Cameron and the prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán.
Interestingly enough, Reinfeldt invited Cameron to Harpsund, but not Orbán. Cameron represents a large member state of the EU while Orbán does not. And if only 3 Council members could be invited as the Harpsundseken could only hold 4, then who would he leave out? In addition, Hungary is not in good odour with the ruling elite in the EU. So if the aim was to persuade Merkel not to plumb for Junker then Orbán would not be a good choice.
I also note that there is no alternative candidate: only one is being put forward to the toothless parliament to debate. Then it can either reject or accept.
This, too, is yet another indication of how far the EU is developing into a centralised state. It is an alarming development, and one which the whole Ukraine adventure is only the immediate consequence. How many thousand deaths and how many tens of thousands of refugees will flee the Ukraine for the Russian side of the border? None of this seems to bother the ruling oligarchy of the EU. And that in itself is a shocking state of affairs.