Democracy vs. the European Union

Democracy vs. the European Union
ЭТУ ПУБЛИКАЦИЮ ПРОЧИТАЛИ  81%  ПОСЕТИТЕЛЕЙ.

Democracy vs. the European Union

Germany     Great Britain  Europe      World     

 GEOMETR.IT      4liberty.eu

 

Since the unification of Germany there has been an unwritten rule among all countries of the European Union:

The borders of each and every country are invariable. This has been an inaccessible taboo for a long time.

Until Europe started to struggle with reality. After the unsuccessful initiatives from within the ranks of the Belgian Flemish and the Scottish referendum, comes a strike pointed closely at the heart of the Union.

Catalonia declared independence and Europe does not know what to do with this unexpected turn of events.

The European Union has enjoyed decades of favorable winds in its sails. At least in terms of its overarching political situation, the democratization of countries from the former Eastern bloc was of tremendous help. These countries first became enthusiasts, subsequently partners, and ultimately members of the European Union. It was to be a new impulse for the transformation of the Union from a more-or-less limited institution to a transnational government.

The first major blow damaging these sails was the rejection of the European Constitution in referendums both in France and the Netherlands. In light of this painful failure, the EU shifted its focus towards gradual changes within the terms of the already existing Charter.

From this point on, criticisms targeting the democratic deficit within the decision-making processes of the EU only increased in strength. Consequently, the European Union was forced to learn to face a new phenomenon which was unknown at the time, namely referendums on independence within the individual countries of the EU. At this moment, European politicians panicked and decided to play their cards as pure pragmatists. They had two objectives in their minds. First, it was the promotion and support of current members of the European Union, whom the Union needed to back up in light of the looming threat of separatism. The second objective was to prevent the spread of these nationalist tendencies into new territories within the demarcation of individual EU Member States.

The scenario was as follows. Any region possibly contemplating a declaration of independence would automatically find itself outside the EU. This would pose a major problem for both local and international companies, resulting in a high degree of economic uncertainty.

At first, this strategy seemed to work successfully for the Union. When Scotland voted against independence from Great Britain, Scottish nationalists suffered heavy defeats on the battlefield of economic debates. The Scots, substantially influenced by the fear of losing their membership in the EU, decided to remain part of the United Kingdom, although with a relatively narrow outcome. However, the EU eventually failed its next trial in line. The British, although with a very slight majority, voted in favor of Brexit. The European Union has not learned its lesson. The only thing the EU was capable doing was to desperately threat the Brits with the dark uncertainties stemming from the process of initiating Brexit. Apparently, it was not enough to convince the Brits to stay.

Ergo, the Spanish constitutional crisis and the declaration of independence of Catalonia. Has the EU finally paid its dues? Clearly, it has not. The same exact scenario followed. The threat of non-recognition by other EU member states associated with the danger of terminating membership within the European Economic Community. An absolute lack of effort to tackle and manage the situation prior to the escalation of tensions combined with the inability to take a clear and proactive stance, which would lead to the stabilization of the situation in Catalonia.

If the Union wants to become a regional or even global player, it must be able to primarily resolve and deal with the increase of separatist, secessionist or eurosceptic tendencies explicitly expressed through the common vote of the plebiscite. These leaninre in direct clash with the interests ogs af the EU in terms of centralizing and cementing responsibilities in Brussels while establishing a clearer mandate for the EU abroad. If we count in the referendums that rejected the notion of a European Constitution, together with Scotland, Brexit, and Catalonia – at this point, the European Union carries a very unflattering score: democracy versus the European Union: 3:1.

http://4liberty.eu

* * *

GEOMETR.IT

РОЖДЕСТВО и РЕФЕРЕНДУМ. Жестко и без сочувствия  22.12.2017

ПОЛЬША и АННА КАРЕНИНА 22.12.2017

ВЫШЕГРАД. Покажет ли он твердый средний палец ЕВРОПЕ НУДНОЙ ?  22.12.2017

РОССИИ — санкции, а ГЕРМАНИИ — пояс девственности!  22.12.2017

В 2018 году начинается ПРОШЛОЕ или БУДУЩЕЕ ? 22.12.2017

Mołdawia: Dwóch byłych premierów 22.12.2017

DIE OSTALGIE hat eigenen Geschmack  22.12.2017

Ukraine. Eine erinnerungskulturelle Zerreißprobe 22.12.2017

Ukraine strikes back 22.12.2017

The next round of Balkan never ending story 22.12.2017

GEOMETR.IT

, , , , ,

8 comments

  1. VESSA
    Ответить

    The EU wanted a lot of cheap labor and a growing market for all the goods produced by that labor. By importing enough of cheap labor, the EU was also able to undermine the unions. By flooding Eastern Europe with West European products, the EU hoped to be able to drive local businesses into bankruptcy, after which they could be bought for pennies on the Dollar.

  2. Jan Paderewski
    Ответить

    The EU President is just a figurehead and all the real power belongs to the mighty industrialists, who are represented by Attila Merkel.

  3. GastorTour
    Ответить

    The EU wants to destroy democracy throughout Europe. This is why only democratic nations are permitted to join, so they can have their democracies subverted by a shower of unelected bast… unelected commissioners in Brussels.

  4. Horrorrr
    Ответить

    There’s no point in letting undemocratic countries join, it would waste funds stolen from taxpayers in net contributing countries to bring their economies into line with the Brussels dictatorship, when they don’t have a democratic system to destroy.

  5. DNS
    Ответить

    Well the eu is inherently democratically deficient, the only elected body is only only advisory, and the executive is unelected, so they fit in rather well, it is the western nations that should be bothered by the lack of democracy in brussels not elsewhere.

Добавить комментарий

Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован.