The French EU Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, Vice President of the European Peoples Party and Chevalier de la Légion d’honneur, made a speech in Berlin on 9th May, 2011 setting out his dreams for world domination, which I Fisk below.
My attention was drawn to the complete version of this speech, by Anne Palmer, who has been campaigning against the obscene encroachments of what has become the EU, for even longer than I have, and as she included her own comments with the speech, I will copy and paste them at the end of this posting. Any repetition of views should be forgiven, as in order to keep my own thoughts clear, I will avoid reading hers until the copy and paste is concluded.
Barnier’s speech is in plain text, while my comments are in italics. To get an actual image and therefore be able to picture the man himself, Michel Barnier, while reading his words and trying to comprehend his mindset, I suggest visiting his profile on Wikipedia, linked here.
Berlin – 9 May 2011
Only a few days ago, in Finland, and a few months ago, in France, over 20% of those countries’ citizens cast their votes for extremist and populist movements which are seeking to retreat behind their national borders. In other words, they are seeking to bring an end to the European project. And in addition to those voters, many others harbour doubts and worries, or are angry. On top of that, many young people are just indifferent.
The victory of the True Finns was a consequence of the complete economic chaos arising from the premature introduction of the Euro Currency, only justifiable on political grounds.
It is doubtful if the attitude of Spain’s youth who are protesting across the country this weekend could be considered as indifference. Given the unemployment rate in Spain for 18 to 25 year olds of 40 %to 45% I suggest the only indifference is that of Barnier to their plight.
It is with those fears and concerns in mind that I decided to write this speech, to set out what Europe needs to be, and what it is not.
In the early 1900s, Jack London and many other “adventurers” such as Arthur Conan Doyle and Paul Valery were expressing concern about the “shrinking nature of the planet” and their nostalgia for the world of mysterious shores which Alexander von Humbolt had explored and where one could still find “the unlikely homelands of impossible populations”.
They felt that the increasing speed of life and transport, as well as colonial conquests, meant “the infinite diversity of the world” was threatened, even doomed to be overwhelmed by European civilisation alone!
One century on, everything has sped up even further: the media is everywhere, the Internet provides instant results. Trade, financial flows and immigration move faster than ever before… Technological progress is relentlessly speeding up time and shrinking space. The world is changing more quickly. It is changing more brutally. Our human societies are growing in complexity while, at the same time, they are more global, more unequal, as well as richer and more self-absorbed, while also more open to trade.
The Eurocentric world of the early 20th century has given way to a multipolar world, with inter-dependent players and a centre of gravity which is shifting eastwards. Competition means the long-standing economic supremacy of the West is at risk and is forcing Europe to rethink its model of growth. Technological progress has multiplied the impact of the human population on its environment and threatens to exhaust our resources and areas of unspoiled nature. The South is seeing a population explosion, while the West is entering a demographic winter. In sum, what is actually at stake for Europeans is their ability to remould their model of civilisation and carry it forward into the future.
So there should be one big question which should concern and motivate the leaders of our continent:
In 2050 – when our children are in their prime – will it still be in Europe that things are done and decided? Will Europe be a global power which is capable of defending itself and promoting its values, ideas and interests?
Or, will we witness a lack of political courage, vision and shared will? Will Europe be unable to cope with the dynamism of other regions of the world, and be paralysed at home by national populism and selfishness leading it to resign itself to being nothing more than a regional power? Will Europe be a continent under the influence of the United States, China, and even of Russia, in the best case, a sub-contractor for other’s economies, and in the worst, nothing more than a consumer of products manufactured or designed by others?
That is the big question! It is a simple one.
The answer is obvious, if the nations of Europe continue with the present structures of the centrally planned, corrupt and directionless European Union of today, Europe will be entirely irrelevant to the world long before 2050.
The citizens of Europe are far more intelligent than certain politicians believe. Every individual is able to understand these issues, and that it is in their interest – and in that of their children – to address them and to react to them.
In 1950, on 9 May, Robert Schuman gave tangible form to the political response of a small group of political visionaries to an equally serious and straightforward question. Are we willing to give ourselves the means to live in peace and put an end, once and for all, to what Victor Hugo called “European civil wars”? This was to be achieved through the economy and trade, by polling together our fragmented markets, through fair competition and a common industrial policy (coal and steel), soon followed by additional economic policies for food and agriculture…
These politicians gambled that solidarity would be in practice be created and nurtured, and that the shared interests of being together would come and consolidate the desire to be together.
Wrong, they feigned what today has become known as solidarity. There is no solidarity among the Germans and French for the plight of the Greeks, Irish, Portuguese and others who will surely soon follow those countries into economic distress, although ALL Europe is suffering because of the failed Eurocurrency experiment, the hypocrisy of the Continent’s politicians and the greed of all who become touched by the the EU as it is seen as a means towards unaccountable (and too often untaxed) perks, pensions and wealth.
6(0) years later, it is more than ever in our interest to be together, and we still have a need to be together. It is no longer a matter of avoiding war between ourselves, but rather, of giving ourselves, together, the means to bring collective influence to bear on the affairs of the world and, looking beyond our differences, to place the shared values that bring us together on the world stage.
In my heart, I am convinced that Churchill, De Gaulle and Adenauer – who I deeply admired because they were passionately patriotic while also being pragmatic and clear-sighted, would today say that defending one’s national interest can no longer be a purely national matter1.
The nation is the sole means of protecting the particular interests of specific groups of people who consider themselves to have a shared set of values, usually by democratic means. Nations have been shorn of these while the patriotic imperialistic tendencies associated with nationalism by many in the EU, are being fostered and encouraged into a supra-national patriotism (hence the yellow starred blue flag and Ode to Joy) which is becoming a neo-imperialism as will be seen as this speech develops.
They would say that the union of Europeans is not an option, but a vital necessity to be able to count, protect ourselves and gain respect.
On this 9 May 2011, our interest and our need to be together are stronger than ever. But do we still want to be together, do we still have that desire?
People’s suspicion of or indifference to Europe is not new.
For 60 years we have been building Europe for its citizens and in their name; but too often we have been doing it without them.
For 60 years the European elite has been lying to its citizens, but more seriously to itself. The earliest con was that while in reality they merely argued about butter mountains and wine lakes, US Marshall Aid money allowed Europe to be rebuilt, while Anglo-American surefootedness ensured ever growing supplies of fixed priced energy which cemented Europe’s growth and recovery from the ravages of the latest war.
A malaise has taken hold and the gap between Europe and its citizens has gradually widened. The hard work done every day by the European Parliament – the only European institution which is directly answerable to the people – will not be enough to bring about reconciliation.
The European Parliament is a shabby farce solely designed to syphon funds from taxpayers back to the domestic political parties who in return keep the ponzi scheme going. The Parliament cannot propose legislation, as is generally known but worse, far worse, if it passes legislation of which the EU Commission does not approve then such legislation can be withdrawn by the Commission; In this manner by giving MEPs a little more of what they always want (less work, more perks, higher expenses and their pet causes supported) they can add in to the legislation anything else they may wish.
We have been looking for a solution to the European malaise for 10 years now by focussing on our institutions. We even, undoubtedly too audaciously, devised a “real Constitution” recommended on this very spot on 10 May 2000 by Joschka Fischer.
With hindsight, I think that it was a mistake to talk so much of the engine and mechanics of Europe instead of talking about the road we are travelling on together, the stages along the way, and its destination.
Why are we together? What more should we do together? Where do we want to go? What are the geographical frontiers and political limits of this joint undertaking?
We need to demonstrate urgently once more that Europe has a purpose and that we have a common interest in being together in the 21st century. And this needs to be demonstrated without falling back on the fears and slogans of the past, but by being in tune with today’s world. The age of the Internet and climate change, the age of China, India and Brazil, as much as the United States and Russia.
And today’s world is not easy. It is a period of uncertainty and of an unclear future, a time of shrinking room for manoeuvre. But one thing that I am absolutely sure of, is that this period will be even more difficult if every European tries to go it alone, fighting his own corner, rather than working together.
In the years to come, woe betide anyone who refuses to move while everything around them is shifting. In years to come, woe betide anyone who chooses to go it alone over solidarity!
As President Obama told the American people: “The rules have changed. The world has changed”2.
Let us look at this world as it is, clearly and without nostalgia. With the challenges that we will have to face, whether we want them or not. There are at least five that I would like to mention briefly. And what I am giving you here is my frank and open personal opinion which, I am sure you will understand, does not commit in any way the European Commission.
The first challenge is that of demography and mobility.
Our continent is the only one on the planet that will see its population fall over the next 40 years. By then, India’s population will be greater than China’s. The immense continent of Africa, a stone’s throw away and five times larger than Europe, will have a population of 2 billion, half of whom will be under 20 years old.
For Europe, this challenge is first and foremost about the size of the active population, needed to sustain activity and growth in Europe and to ensure that pensions and the social safety net can be funded. The proportion of people over 65 years old will surge from 17.4% in 2010 to over 30% in 2060.
To take up this challenge, the countries of Europe must devise a coordinated policy to boost the birth rate and provide support in childhood, This means an integrated population policy. This is indispensable. It will not be enough.
Europe must continue to be a place which welcomes immigrants.
The most important point to remember is that the mobility of peoples and individuals in Europe has been a source of human progress and personal fulfilment. I am thinking of Arab mathematicians and the students from across Europe who would come together in the 16th century to universities in Germany and the Netherlands, for example.
By closing its borders and turning in upon itself, Europe would be “sacrificing the future to the present”3. We need immigration to guarantee the sustainability of our welfare systems, and the dynamism of our economy. It is in our interest, and it will help us ensure our own security, to offer a helping hand to developing countries. The Schengen Area – a joint responsibility for a single border – has been a formidable step forward and it was a historic decision. It needs to be improved, not watered down. To my mind, this means reinforcing the Community logic behind it, for example, by using Frontex as the basis for a truly European body of border guards. It is the meaning of the actions being undertaken by the Commission in this area, under the help of Cecilia Malmstrom.
Today, Germany’s external borders are protected in Greece and in Malta. Entry into and exit from EU territory needs to be subject to a common visa policy, excellent training for border guards and organised and secure exchange of information on entry into EU territory. We need a single radar screen monitoring the situation. Not 27.
In our discussions with the countries from which our immigrants come, we need to bring together developmental aid, study visas, research and legal work, as well as guarantees that people and the knowledge they have acquired will return to their countries of origin after a specific period. This is how our neighbouring countries will become countries that provide stability.
Lastly, we need to work together to build a true common asylum system in Europe, one which gives tangible form to our European values of humanism and solidarity. In 2010, 223 000 decisions on applications for asylum were taken. Europe has a duty and the means to offer this solidarity. On its own, no Member State will be able to achieve what we must achieve together.
To be successful, we need to have a strong and humanist Community policy on immigration and integration. A policy which respects human dignity and allows the free movement of people without causing a brain-drain in developing countries. Those are our values. Those are our traditions. And it is in our own interest.
The second challenge is that of energy and climate change.
The European Union, at the behest of the Commission and its President José Manuel Barroso, took the lead in Copenhagen and Cancun The goal is to stabilise the rise in the average global temperature at less than 2°C by 2050.
We are not sure that we will be able to achieve this. All of our habits of production, consumption, agriculture, and transportation will have to be called into question. If we do nothing, the rise in temperature and the soaring cost of energy from fossil fuels will call them into question for us. By jointly taking the lead in facing this challenge, Europeans are not being naive. They are being clear-headed. If we do not create now a society which chooses moderation, we will be forced into a society which faces deprivation.
Consuming more wisely. Polluting less. Today the same determination is needed for the energies of the future as was needed for coal and steel when the ECSC was founded. Photovoltaics, biomass, electric transportation, natural gas, solar energy and wind energy: we must ensure we protect our research and our industry! Time is of the essence, particularly if the move towards less or no nuclear grows.
Let us make no mistake: every player on the planet needs to play their part, but it is clearly in our interest to show the way. We cannot waste the little time we have left waiting for others. Rather, let us live up to our vocation to bring others with us on the issues we believe in, showing the example should convince them to follow.
This cannot be done in a day, but Europe must forge ahead. Putting into place a European ecological taxation system and making the European greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme (ETS) set up in 2005 work are urgent challenges.
The third challenge is our economy, that is, the growth and the jobs that it must provide. Once again, we must not be afraid to face the truth.
In 2011, five of the ten most economically powerful economies in the world are European. 5 out of 27! And if current trends continue, only one of those countries will remain in the top ten by 20504.
We must make Europe once again the best place in the world to work, create and produce. The keys to such new growth are well known. Firstly, a large, more integrated and more competitive European market which is more accessible to SMEs. We are working towards this with the Single Market Act5. If we make this 500-million strong market of consumers work to its full potential, we will be giving our businesses a major opportunity when facing international competition. Germany’s success in this area is an example for us all.
But the return to growth presupposes rediscovering trust, trust which was severely undermined by the economic crisis. And rightly so, since taxpayers have been called upon repeatedly to pay for the consequences of irresponsible behaviour or a lack of collective oversight.
To rebuild trust, we need to begin by once again placing the principles of transparency, regulation and responsibility at the heart of the financial sector. And whenever it is necessary, we need to punish abuses and the taking of uncontrolled risks.
The European financial sector has a competitive interest in basing its future growth on a healthy, more transparent, and more moral foundation. We are working with determination towards this for banks, the insurance sector, hedge funds, and other market operators.
There will be no going back to “business as usual”, as some with short memories might hope. And once again, we must not be afraid to lead the way: leading will still be less costly than failing to take action because we are waiting for others.
But we must be honest, the crisis was a challenge to one of the most emblematic steps forward in the construction of Europe: our common currency. There was no euro crisis, but certain eurozone countries have suffered badly.
Even more seriously, the crisis revealed that the rules which we thought provided a solid basis for our currency were not sufficient. And I am fully aware of what monetary and financial stability represents for a country such as Germany, and rightly so.
I firmly believe that, not only have we addressed the difficulties of certain countries in the euro area, but we have also, finally, devised the tools of governance, fiscal surveillance, economic coordination, and solidarity which should have been created at the same time as the euro itself.
No longer should any country in the euro area feel it is alone. Nor must any country forget that solidarity starts with respecting the rules decided on together. No country must believe it is exempt from this “culture of budgetary stability”.
Sometimes governance and rules are played against each other. That is, of course, absurd. Both strict rules and political mechanisms for monitoring that the rules are properly implemented are needed. I believe that this is what we have finally put into place.
Whether or not a country is in the euro area, “the high standards of governance need to be complied with”, as the Prime Minister of Poland, Donald Tusk, wisely stated a few days ago6. Along the same lines, Jacques Delors, who knows what he is talking about, called on us “not to ask the euro to bear the weight of our own inadequacies”7.
At the heart of everything that is at stake with governance, it would appear logical that the positions of President of the Euro-Group and Commission Vice-President for economic affairs should be held by the same individual, as was done for foreign policy with the High Representative.
Lastly, I believe that we must dare to create new common policies to foster growth on our continent, and invest in education, training and innovation.
Europe needs to set up a common fund for patents, as well as a fund for venture capital for SMEs.
In 1960, we had the will to create a common food and agriculture policy which today generates more jobs than the automobile sector.
We now need this same political will to promote our strategic industrial sectors.
We must launch a European debate with Member States, the European Parliament, our businesses, about the sectors, and the know-how we want to promote to maintain a competitive edge in a global world. Those sectors where it is essential that Europe maintains its sovereignty.
We must also find the courage to impose reciprocity in trade with our American, Chinese or Japanese partners, when they do not spontaneously act in such a manner.
There is one final key to trust. I am convinced that good economic performance in Europe cannot be sustained without social cohesion.
Maybe the crisis is over for certain financial institutions. Their crisis! But the economic, social and human crisis is still going on. With so much frustration, poverty and struggles, all so unequally borne. We must be wary of the populism to which these frustrations give rise, and avoid the protectionism which might – and in fact is – coming about with the temptation to withdraw within national borders and fall back on demagoguery.
I am today calling on those who believe, as I do, in the market economy, in being open to others, in trade. I recently heard the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, making a plea for an integrated market, economic freedom, e-commerce, and less red tape. I felt I could have signed my name to his speech.
But all of this may shatter against a wall of populism and protectionism if we prove unable to reassure, bring together and protect the citizens of Europe. That is why there will have to be rules on bonuses and the highest salaries which, at a time when 10% of Europeans are unemployed, are simply unjustifiable. A tax on financial transactions will have to be set up. And financing the resolution of banking crises. After all, it is the banks that should pay for the banks, not the general public! All the forms of social entrepreneurship will need to be developed, and European social dialogue needs to become the norm.
The new Europe that I believe in needs to have an open economy, but without being naive. It cannot be a Europe which is merely a large free trade area, without fairness.
The new Europe that I believe in must be a producer of collective goods which rebuild solidarity, while spreading competitiveness. I am thinking in particular of the major network industries.
The new Europe that I believe in will have a system of governance which makes it possible to put the common good ahead of individual interests and shift market mechanisms towards sustainable development.
I firmly believe that public authorities have a fundamental role to play: in economic performance and social cohesion; in guiding markets and economic players towards collective ends that have been chosen democratically and, where the markets fail, in financing effective public services.
As I say this to you, I am thinking of something that Jean Jaurès, an inspirational figure of French left, used to say : “Seek what it is ideal and understand what the reality is”.
All my past actions in France were as a patriot and as a European.
I believe that Europe needs to be united to be strong, and that to be respected, we need a political Europe.
Such a political Europe can only be constructed on the basis of a large, integrated market. But at the same time, this market will only consolidate itself and work better if citizens and businesses in every region take true ownership of it. And if Europe’s young people, those most affected, once again find social mobility is open to them.
The time has come to reconcile what we would call the “Anglo-Saxon” vision – the most free-market oriented in Europe – with the continental vision of a social market economy which has been defended for 60 years by the Germans, the French and many others.
Looking at other countries and looking back in time, we can see that the foundations of power are an economy, a currency, a foreign policy and a defence policy.
We are not there yet. Not even close!
And that is why I want to mention a fourth challenge, that of our foreign influence, our diplomacy and our security.
We Europeans are not fated to be divided and scattered throughout the rest of the world, or even, in many cases in our neighbourhood.
The weight of our economic, cultural and strategic interests will ultimately outweigh our past rivalries and competitions. This is the lesson to be drawn from the crises and upheaval in the Balkans, where, 15 years ago we were divided, and yet, today, we are acting together. We need to learn lessons from the crisis in Libya, and overcome the disagreement between France and Germany.
But a common European diplomacy – note that I did not say “single foreign policy” – cannot be the result of improvisation in an emergency, nor can it come from a top down approach, or be forced by one country on all the others.
It needs to be built up through the patient and voluntary pooling of expertise, geopolitical analyses, strategies, and, where necessary, intelligence.
And each and every European country, wherever it stands today, with its own history, culture, friendships and special relationships, has something to contribute to this undertaking.
That is why the EU diplomatic service, which, I believe should be called the European Ministry for Foreign Affairs, has such an essential role to play.
Under Catherine Ashton, it needs to be the place where a common diplomatic culture is forged.
It must not be the place where foreign policies which are already EU- wide, such as those on development, neighbouring countries and trade, are dismantled and downgraded into mere cooperation between a few Member States.
It needs to be the place where the tools to manage crises put into place 10 years ago will be maintained and strengthened.
If we so wish, this service will be the place where we progressively shape a common culture and maybe, one day, a common identity. With respect to nearby Russia and the Middle East, which is so complex and so troubled. And of North Africa which is shaking off the shackles of oppression and is expecting much more from us than a closed door. But also in respect of the Americans who are slowly coming to grasp that a Europe which is politically and militarily weak is a weak ally. And in respect of the other vast continents that are Africa, Asia and South America.
In this new world, fragile and unstable as it is, Europeans also need to understand the extent of the major change in the United States, which no longer considers Europe to be one of its security challenges. This is both good news and a new challenge for us.
In terms of security (terrorism, cyber-attacks, organised crime) or defence (regional conflicts, collective defence of our continent, nuclear proliferation), no European Member State can face all these threats alone.
And I would like to add that budgetary constraints are such in each of our countries, that if one stays alone, it would lead to others no longer being able to be up to the challenge.
It is the reason we need to move towards a truly European defence policy.
60 years on, work on a European defence community needs to be restarted, if necessary through the “structured cooperation” which is now possible under the Lisbon Treaty. A true military staff structure, systematically bringing together research efforts and resources, and favouring European products when purchasing equipment. All of this goes far beyond the necessary, but insufficient, cooperation between France and the United Kingdom, or between Germany and Sweden.
The EU needs to set up a permanent capacity to plan and carry out operations in the way suggested by Poland, Germany and France.
All in all, the objective must be that Europe is ready to take responsibility more and more for its own collective defence, but also become a robust and credible partner for the United-States.
The consequences of a failure of the EU to take control of its own security and defence would be heavy with consequences.
The EU has legitimacy in the area of defence, as it does in other areas. This is the belief that has led France, under President Sarkozy, to take up its full role within NATO. Everyone who, like me, believes in the North-Atlantic alliance needs to understand that the balance, credibility and strength of the NATO/EU relationship depend on the political impetus which will be given to European defence. It is an issue of trust, and I would recommend that nobody on either side of the Atlantic underestimate this requirement.
Lastly, I would like to plead for two tangible and citizen-oriented initiatives for Europe’s external action. First of all, the creation of a European Civil Defence Force which is able to prepare our response to the natural, industrial and humanitarian catastrophes which are multiplying. There again, we must be able to exploit the scope for willing Member States to lead the way.
And secondly the creation of a network of European consulates throughout the rest of the world which would bring together, at the very least, the countries of the Schengen area willing to work together and jointly provide assistance to their compatriots.
Jean Monnet liked to say “I am not optimistic. I am determined!”
Without a doubt there are many reasons today to view European construction with pessimism. But there are even more reasons to be determined.
Faced with so many challenges, I have tried to give an overview of the reasons that we need to work together in this world where Europe is often hoped for but no longer expected, and why that is in our interest.
There is one last challenge that needs to be taken up, one that is the keystone of all the others. That is the challenge of European democracy.
That of the trust of the people! That of the “desire to be together” that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech.
Citizens need to be told the truth. The truth about where we are headed. The truth about what we are within this union. And about what we are not.
We are a continent where every people, every religion and every opinion is respectable and respected.
And yet, we are not a single European people. We cannot be a European nation. There is no question of a federal state which would take the place of the nation states or the regions.
Today, we include 27 peoples who express themselves in 23 official languages. We are 27 nations and 27 countries, all of which hold their differences, traditions and cultures close to their respective hearts.
And yet, these 27 nations have chosen to live and act together rather than to simply coexist beside each other. They have chosen to share many of their policies and voluntarily pool their sovereignty, simply to create European sovereignty.
This project is unique in history and in the world. It cannot be straightforward. It is simply revolutionary. And it is fragile.
We need nations to bring citizens to terms with the European project. We need nations to combat nationalism. And, at the same time, we need Europe to take control of globalisation and make it more human, in a word, to make it succeed.
We need to remove from any kind of power or influence across the European Continent any individual who can be so blind from the realities of today’s EU as to be able to make the statements between my last comment and this!
The new Europe needs to be a veritable “Federation of Nation States”8. It needs a strong identity and a strong voice. One day a future president of the European Union, whoever he or she will be, should both preside over the European Council and chair the European Commission where, I can bear personal witness, proposals and motivations which are as close as possible to the common interest are shaped.
The drafters of the Lisbon Treaty were careful not to rule out this major and symbolic step forward. The individual who would become president of the European Union on a proposal from the heads of state and government could have their power vested in them by a Congress comprising both the European Parliament and representatives of the national Parliaments. Further in the future, they could obtain a direct mandate from the peoples of Europe. In this new dynamic, the European Parliament, directly elected by these peoples, would see a boost to its legitimacy.
The drafters of the Lisbon Treaty, which has zero democratic legitimacy, as most in Europe and across the world well know, were careful to ensure that the likes of the speechmaker and the eurocrats would continue to rule over the 27 member states, without any trace of democratic accountability and ensure a self-serving elite from their EU funded and therefore domestically entrenched political parties would thereafter follow in their shoes.
But there are certain things that it will never be possible to write down in a treaty or decree by means of a directive. The European spirit is one of these! The collective morality, the political will of its leaders, how, as a group and personally, they gauge their responsibility before history and before the world of today and of tomorrow. Their ability to take on and explain the European project and their commitments to citizens.
We have five years before us. We do not have much more time to choose our destiny. Over the next five years, there will be presidential or legislative elections in almost all of the 27 EU countries. A new European Parliament will be elected in 2014. We will decide on the EU budgets and the common policies that this budget will have to fund for seven years.
The financial crisis which nearly razed everything to the ground three years ago stemmed from a caricature of the free market, from a false and unfortunately, widespread idea in Europe that markets regulate themselves.
We have reacted to this and are taking action with others and for ourselves to create the tools for true economic and financial governance.
But this financial crisis is not the only crisis that is going on. Ecology, food safety, climate change, poverty, stability, and combating terrorism: in every case, there is a need for worldwide governance.
“There is a need for Worldwide Governance”. There you have it! The OBJECTIVE, spelt out as starkly as it could possibly be.
For world governance, the table around which today’s G20 gather will not be enough. Europeans need to be active partners, not mere spectators That is why the unity of Europe remains a new and just idea.
Get that, WORLD GOVERNANCE is why everything is being done. The sacrifices of Greeks, the Irish and others to follow, the unemployed youth, the squeezed middle-class taxpayer, the cold pensioner, the invalid lacking medicine, the Bankers on their yachts, the Eurocrats in their Michelin starred Brussels restaurants – in other words, all the horrors (and indeed some others may find some small compensations) all the lying, the trashing of democracy and decency – all that has been for World Governance. By whom I ask, France and Germany it would seem? – At least, if this speech is anything to go by!
I appeal to the 27 Heads of State and Government and to President Herman van Rompuy. This unity is in their hands. There are valid reasons for making a new deal with the citizens of Europe for each of the challenges I mentioned. A new deal for a Europe that acts, protects, and influences the course of things. I am convinced that the European Commission and the European Parliament will contribute their share.
I would like to thank you for having given me the opportunity to state my beliefs freely today, 9 May, in Berlin, at a juncture where Europe’s political leaders need as much collective courage, boldness and political will as they did 61 years ago.
A question posed by Chris Patten, a former European Commissioner, in a conference at Oxford.
2011/01/25 speech on the State of the Union
In the words of Pierre Mendes France, former Prime Minister of France.
Let’s choose growth. Office of the Prime Minister of the UK, April 2011.
Interview in the newspaper, Le Monde, dated 10 April 2011.
Speech before the French Senate.
This expression was coined by Jacques Delors.
The comments sent to me by Anne Palmer with the full transcript of the speech, which I now look forward to reading myself are as follows:
My thoughts-at least a few of them- on Michael Barnier’s Speech at Humboldt University 9th May 2011.
From the Speech, “In my heart, I am convinced that Churchill, De Gaulle and Adenauer – who I deeply admired because they were passionately patriotic while also being pragmatic and clear-sighted, would today say that defending one’s national interest can no longer be a purely national matter1.”
I doubt very much Churchill would have agreed with that, for. “When I warned them [the French Government] that Britain would fight on alone whatever they did, their generals told their Prime Minister and his divided Cabinet, “In three weeks England will have her neck wrung like a chicken.” Some chicken! Some neck! Winston Churchill.”
Speech: “For 60 years we have been building Europe for its citizens and in their name; but too often we have been doing it without them”. EXACTLY! A rather foolish thing to do when what they wanted was to be permanent.
Speech: “With hindsight, I think that it was a mistake to talk so much of the engine and mechanics of Europe instead of talking about the road we are travelling on together, the stages along the way, and its destination”. The real destination was always hidden from the people, and it is my belief it always will be. Quite Simply, MP’s want their jobs and their pay still, and here in the UK, to do what they have done, hidden, stealthily was and is, I believe, treason, according to their Oaths of Allegiance and Common Law Constitution.
Speech: “And today’s world is not easy. It is a period of uncertainty and of an unclear future, a time of shrinking room for manoeuvre. But one thing that I am absolutely sure of, is that this period will be even more difficult if every European tries to go it alone, fighting his own corner, rather than working together”. We have fought two World Wars-alone in that no one was tied by Treaties but true friends came and fought along side of us. They lent us money which may have taken 60 years to pay off, but that was true friendship.
Speech: “As President Obama told the American people: “The rules have changed. The world has changed”2. They have indeed. Certain people want full power over-all. It is a move backwards when people were slaves and had to do as they are told in everything. We elect politicians only to realise that our Country gets fined by the EU, millions of pounds if they do not quite “get things right”, soon also there are to be changes, for our Country and Nation of ENGLAND is to be divided up into local Regions and then, the EU fines will have to be paid by those in the now EU Regions.
Speech: “If we do not create now a society which chooses moderation, we will be forced into a society which faces deprivation”. Sheer Rubbish and a desire to becoming a control freak.
Speech: “This cannot be done in a day, but Europe must forge ahead. Putting into place a European ecological taxation system and making the European greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme (ETS) set up in 2005 work are urgent challenges”. This as we all know is a “Con” and a way of taking money off vulnerable people. The planet is NOT saved by the Emission’s Trading Scheme, at all, for all its does is one Country pays for “nothingness” in return. It allows the one country to give money to another Country for “points” for the once rich Country to cover their emission’s target set by foreigners in the EU. Emissions continue to go up, but in another part of the World.
Speech: “But the return to growth presupposes rediscovering trust, trust which was severely undermined by the economic crisis. And rightly so, since taxpayers have been called upon repeatedly to pay for the consequences of irresponsible behaviour or a lack of collective oversight”. The question must be asked here, ‘just how much longer are they people going to pay’? The people are getting at tad fed up of continually ‘paying’ when their money is being wasted, or they are losing their jobs and some, sadly, their homes yet still the EU gets paid billions. Mad schemes like the (EU’S) Localism Bill and HS2, (from the EU’s TEN-T Policy), goes ahead, costing even more billions, but what will they do when the “penny” drops and the people no longer pay their taxes on anything?
Speech: “Even more seriously, the crisis revealed that the rules which we thought provided a solid basis for our currency were not sufficient. And I am fully aware of what monetary and financial stability represents for a country such as Germany, and rightly so”. It could never withstand what has taken place, and because this Country has to also contribute to the EURO’s failure, the British might also go down-who will them help the Brits out then?
Speech: “At the heart of everything that is at stake with governance, it would appear logical that the positions of President of the Euro-Group and Commission Vice-President for economic affairs should be held by the same individual, as was done for foreign policy with the High Representative.” Ah! So we are talking of some-one like the President of the United States of America eh?
Speech: “In 1960, we had the will to create a common food and agriculture policy which today generates more jobs than the automobile sector.
We now need this same political will to promote our strategic industrial sectors”. So, the EU did not learn with the destruction of our farming and fishing industries, it want to finish off the rest? Alleged leaders of the once sovereign Country’s may want this, but the people do not. However, if it comes into being, there is absolutely no point in having any NATIONAL Parliaments at all. The people simply cannot afford all the EU Regions and for Government to go on as they are at present, pretending to Govern.
Speech: “I believe that Europe needs to be united to be strong, and that to be respected, we need a political Europe.” I doubt you will even get one-at least, not with the UK in it.
Speech” “The consequences of a failure of the EU to take control of its own security and defence would be heavy with consequences.
The EU has legitimacy in the area of defence, as it does in other areas. This is the belief that has led France, under President Sarkozy, to take up its full role within NATO”. I have already written a great deal on Defence and what is happening in that area by the EU already. I make no further comments on here expect to say, it is and must remain the responsibility for their own National Security perhaps with the help of their true friends, and never, never allow other Country to know what their own Country has in man power or equipment, and our Nation in particular should always be “at the ready”.
Speech: intertwined with my comments: “There is one last challenge that needs to be taken up, one that is the keystone of all the others. That is the challenge of European democracy.
That of the trust of the people!” I comment only on matters here in the UK. Most people in the UK no longer TRUST any British Politician, because right from the very first EU Treaty, they have been told lie after lie. ‘There will be no loss of essential sovereignty’. “Like the Beano Comic” etc is ingrained in everyone’s mind. Every British Government has been “economical with the truth” where the EU is concerned. They pass all EU legislation as if it is their own idea. (Such as the present Localism Bill and HS2).
Basically because continental Countries have been over-run in the war, they now have written constitution which can be changed quite easily. The UK cannot just ‘change’ their Common Law Constitution easily or if at all, because each section of it-usually bound by Treaties, cannot be done. If the Treaty and Act of Union 1688/9 is altered for instance, should Mr Salmond decide Scotland should break away from the United Kingdom, that would also affect the Act of Settlement which ‘nudges’ the Commonwealth., and so on. Although Governments have simply ignored them, they obviously should not have done so. The changes made to the House of Lords may one day come back to haunt them, yet STILL they want to change the Lords yet again-it is like cutting off your own legs because you prefer artificial ones.
“That of the “desire to be together” that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech”. The desire is to go for holidays on those beautiful places, but not to be ‘together’ for always. Even then, they are not “together” because the British people do not usually understand the language.
“Citizens need to be told the truth. The truth about where we are headed. The truth about what we are within this union. And about what we are not.” Without doubt the people do need to be told the truth, so why on earth didn’t you say exactly where the EU is going while you have our attention Commissioner Barnier? A missed opportunity. A golden opportunity. What do you think the reaction to the truth would have been? You may never know now because the truth has never been told, has it?
“We are a continent where every people, every religion and every opinion is respectable and respected”. And we are an Island Nation, yet any opinion the people might have here in the once free Country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is ignored. However, without our once sovereign Government having the ability to close our borders any longer, we are getting a tad full up and certainly the pockets are getting empty, so soon, we may not be able to afford to pay our Contributions to the EU, and soon, ‘er long, we will have to leave.
“And yet, we are not a single European people. We cannot be a European nation. There is no question of a federal state which would take the place of the nation states or the regions”. YET! Leave all that until we are out of the EU and FREE.
“Today, we include 27 peoples who express themselves in 23 official languages. We are 27 nations and 27 countries, all of which hold their differences, traditions and cultures close to their respective hearts”. Instead of “embracing” that, our Government has dumbed down our children and instead of learning foreign languages, they can hardly speak properly in their own English Language
“And yet, these 27 nations have chosen to live and act together rather than to simply coexist beside each other. They have chosen to share many of their policies and voluntarily pool their sovereignty, simply to create European sovereignty”. The people of this nation have certainly NOT chosen to ‘live and act together’, they never had the chance to. Would perhaps you Sir, like to ask them now? They most certainly have not chosen to share their policies and most certainly never would “pool their Sovereignty” whether temporarily of permanently. The people have never been asked. It is far too late to ask them now because according to their loyal and true Oaths of Allegiance to the British Crown and through the Crown to all the people in this land and further a field to all the Commonwealth, to violate that Oath of Allegiance is the greatest betrayal of all. It must also be remembered that when a person is born here in the United Kingdom, from the moment anyone is born here, it is as if they have already said that Oath, for they have the protection of the Crown from that moment. We can never be European citizens for we are an Island race, we fought to be free from foreign rule as did the proud nations before us, on the Continent. If they chose to give up that freedom, that is up to them. The British people have never given their consent to be ruled by foreigners-which is also contrary to their constitution- and they never will.
Speech : “We have five years before us. We do not have much more time to choose our destiny. Over the next five years, there will be presidential or legislative elections in almost all of the 27 EU countries. A new European Parliament will be elected in 2014. We will decide on the EU budgets and the common policies that this budget will have to fund for seven years”. And we have a government that at this moment in time is putting EU legislation through Parliament, The Localism Bill which will try its best to divide-PERMANENTLY- the Nation and Country of ENGLAND into the 12 EU’s Regions. Why exactly is a British Government doing that? Why would they set about destroying their own Country? Why another layer of Governance? Is this the last Government we shall have in our Houses of Parliament? With elected Mayors and a Cabinet in each Region plus everything that goes with that, we certainly will not require TWO FULL TO THE BRIM HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
Speech: “I appeal to the 27 Heads of State and Government and to President Herman van Rompuy. This unity is in their hands. There are valid reasons for making a new deal with the citizens of Europe for each of the challenges I mentioned”. I do not think you will be asking us in the UK to fund anything for seven years. Do you? Unity is in the hands of the people, and the people are no longer going to remain “Spectators”. Anne Palmer 19.5.2011.