Quand la Chine l'aidera... L'Europe s'en repentira

Publié sur Un Monde Libre, Hürriyet Daily News (in ze langue of Shakespeare) et Contre Points.

.
Le battage médiatique a consacré le sommet européen de la semaine dernière, comme beaucoup avant lui, de réunion de la « dernière chance ». Pour sortir de ce vortex de dette souveraine auto-infligée, l'élite européenne imbue de théorie keynésienne, insiste sur le fait que nous devons engager davantage de dette et devons avoir un plan de grande taille. Est-ce la solution? Le mécanisme de sauvetage proposé (FESF) n’est pas seulement antidémocratique, comme les Grecs vont nous le rappeler par référendum après le revirement de Papandréou. Il est fondé sur le soutien financier du Parti communiste chinois. Si c’est cela la route vers l'intégration, nous ferions bien d’occuper Bruxelles dès maintenant!
.
Le dernier plan a été vendu comme le « triomphe de la politique sur les marchés ». Ajoutant sa voix au concert en faveur de toujours davantage d’intervention publique, l'influent philosophe constructiviste Jürgen Habermas professe que « L'UE ne peut s'affirmer contre la spéculation financière que si elle obtient les compétences politiques de guidage » (Le Monde, 25/10/2011). (1) Eh bien, « guidage » dans le monde réel s’est toujours traduit par la centralisation de la prise de décision et moins de liberté. L'UE réelle envisage maintenant d'entrer dans la centralisation.
.
Le mécanisme de renflouement à effet de levier va accumuler plus de compétences pour faire face à la dette souveraine et pour faire la « police » derrière les gouvernements dépensiers. En d'autres termes, les technocrates seront habilités à passer les budgets en revue avant leur soumission aux parlements élus des pays de la zone. Comme certains observateurs le soulignent avec justesse, les parlements nationaux ne contrôleront plus les fonctions les plus essentielles du gouvernement : les décisions en matière de fiscalité et de dépenses publiques. (2)

.

Combiné à un gouvernement économique centralisé sous le « guidage » du président non-élu de l'UE pour relancer les économies en stagnation, le plan de sauvetage jugé nécessaire pour enrayer la crise de la dette, retire aux Etats membres et à leurs citoyens un élément central de leur souveraineté (Point 26.4 de l’accord). La politique sans souveraineté peut-elle marcher ? Elle a échoué en Union soviétique.
.
Les tenants de la centralisation (l’intégration) pointent du doigt le mauvais travail des gouvernements des PIGS en matière de finances publiques comme la justification impérieuse d'une action centralisée. On choisit encore une fois le chemin de davantage de pouvoirs supranationaux, malgré les échecs patents du processus d’intégration « toujours plus étroite », afin de promouvoir une croissance soutenue. Au lendemain du sommet certains prédisaient que le mécanisme ne fera pas long feu . Pour le professeur Pascal Salin, tenant de l'école autrichienne d’économie, le FESF n'est pas la solution parce qu'il récompense la mauvaise gestion et le renforcement de l'intervention du gouvernement. Un tel système, soutient-il, ne fait que créer plus d'instabilité et doit être combattu. (3)
.
Ironie de l'Histoire, l'UE a envoyé son envoyé spécial « ès-sauvetage » à Pékin pour demander (quémander?) à la Chine d’investir dans ses obligations « de stabilité » : une étape hautement symbolique. (4) Jadis, la CEE se tenait fière, indépendante, libre et prospère face au le bloc communiste « non libre ». Aujourd’hui l’expérimentation social-démocrate en perdition a besoin d'aide des mandarins communistes chinois qui ont appris une chose ou deux du « monde libre ». L’investissement ne sera accordé que s’il est sage et profitable, et non au nom de toute notion floue de solidarité redistributive socialiste à l'échelle mondiale.
.
En 2011, l'UE est sur le point d’effectuer le grand bond en… arrière dans le monde connu de l’antilibéral et de l’antidémocratique. Si le soutien de la Chine se matérialisait, cela serait avec de nombreuses conditions et scellerait de facto l'entrée du Parti communiste dans le système émergent post-démocratique de la gouvernance européenne. L'ironie, mais jusqu’à quel point ?

.

Le président Mao doit joyeusement se retourner dans sa tombe. Un ancien camarade, le président Barroso, se tenait à l’apex de l'Euro-Léviathan et annonçait fièrement que « dans ces moments les plus difficiles [ou intéressants ?], nous pouvons nous unir ». En effet. Mais l'unité sans la liberté économique est le certificat de décès d'une Union Européenne libre et démocratique.
.
Mais qui sait ? On nous avait annoncé que nos dirigeants avaient mis fin à la crise, que le monde avait été sauvé par cet accord de la dernière heure. Pourtant, l'intrigue de l'UE se complique avec la possibilité désormais donnée au peuple grec (par le premier Ministre grec) de faire entendre sa voix lors d’un référendum. Espérons que la mort lente de la démocratie européenne sera stoppée là où tout a commencé, à Athènes.
.
(1) http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2011/10/25/rendons-l-europe-plus-dem...
(2) http://unmondelibre.org/Video_Salin_UE_271011
(3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8857533/This-was-the-...
(4) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8857165/Eurozone-rescue-fund-tries-to-tempt-China-with-bonds-issued-in-yuan.html

Some trivial questions on European pursuits

Published in Hürriyet Daily News

.

Angela, m'fraid we are stuck again. By Réné le Honzec (Contre Points.org)

.

Once upon a time there was much ado about Eurobarometers, especially when the results of the European Commission’s opinion polls would indicate trends of Euro-love (pro-integration). These were the "BC" days (Before Crisis). Not surprisingly with the current Euro-mess and growing Euro-wrath, no-one in Brussels is keen to “take the temperature” of disgruntled publics…
.
To fill the silence and provide some comic relief, here is a quiz. Find out how much you can laugh about Europe’s predicament. If this totally predicted mess was not so tragic it would be funny.
.
Q – If you disagree about the bailouts what can you do?
a) Blame the “Anglo-Saxon in Chief” Cameron for doing nothing.
b) Pray that the disenchanted German electorate will be heard. No-one else is.
c) Get together with many millions of taxpayers to waste time with the citizens’ initiative.
d) Watch Euronews to be reassured that all is well in the “ever-closer, fairer and greener” Europe.
.
Q- When will the democratic deficit be resolved?
a) Forget it. Euro-apparatchiks enjoy being disconnected from the citizenry.
b) When subsidized pigs fly.
c) “More democratic and transparent” is something Russian politicians must be.
d) Happiness is to be a travelling MEP working for the nomadic European Parliament.
.
Q- What caused the sovereign debt crisis?
a) Mother earth because capitalism upset her.
b) Irresponsible politicians for sustaining the unsustainable welfare state.
c) Perfidious rating agencies because they exposed the truth.
d) Global warming.
.
Q- Do you think that Europe is a “force for good” influencing the world with soft power?
a) Possibly. Napoleon invaded Egypt to free its people from autocratic rule.
b) Yes. France and Britain are using air power to bring freedom to the Libyans.
c) Absolutely. According to Euronews.
d) Not really. Its protectionist barriers are hard to penetrate.
.
Q- When Council President Van Rompuy addressed the UN General Assembly in a historic (first) speech he repeated some key points twice. Why?
a) To increase his charisma after being called a bank clerk without any.
b) He is an unelected unaccountable president who can say what the hell he wants.
c) The peoples of Europe never get it.
d) As the president of the presidents, he should emphasize the state of the dis-union.
.
Q- Turkey cannot become a member of the EU because:
a) It meets the Maastricht criteria.
b) It has a liberal economy growing at the rate of 10%.
c) Turkish MEPs would outdo others in Brussels' Byzantine corridors of power.
d) Sarkozy wants Communist China to buy Greek debt.
.
Q- Should the EU have a Robin Hood tax?
a) Yes. Tax everything. Sodas, financial transactions, fat, CO2 emission, love…
b) No. Robin Hood was Anglo-Saxon.
c) Bad idea. Europe’s financial sector will lose out to Asia.
d) Not sure. It looks green on the outside but is probably red inside.
.
Q- Do you approve of the IMF policies towards Europe.
a) Yes. Somebody needs to teach Greek politicians basic maths.
b) No. The French are turning the institution into a global Ministère des Finances.
c) Bad idea. The institution is located in Anglo-Saxonia.
d) Not sure. Liberalizing its economy could be detrimental to the lobbying sector.
.
Q- Should the blowing up of party balloons by children be regulated?
a) Yes. A directive on this critical issue is long overdue.
b) No. As long as they blow up balloons with the EU flag.
c) Not sure. Eurocrats may have more important things to do these days.
d) Don’t care.
.
Q- EU institutions should have more powers because:
a) Europe has more than 400 cheeses.
b) Barroso is a Maoist revolutionary who thinks he is the €uropean Ch€ Gu€vara.
c) Its civil servants have three months of paid holidays.
d) It is an empire. Get over it!

The bEUROcratic Leviathan rising

Article published in French on Un Monde Libre.org and in the University of Portsmouth student newspaper, Pugwash News, anniversary issue No 50.
.
During the recent Bielarussian presidential elections, the EU flag was flown as a symbol of freedom and democracy. In Europe, it is being burnt by angry demonstrators. With the sovereign debt crisis gathering pace on the bloc's periphery, austerity measures of payfreeze and other cuts starting to bite, EU civil servants and politicians enjoyed a very festive season indeed. Our supranational ruling class fêted on a bonanza of payrises and bonuses. What austerity at the centre of the “empire” as Commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso referred to the EU... In the “promised Euroland” some have truly become “more equal than others”.
.
The EU often complains that it is “unjustly” accused of being out of touch. Recent decisions can only reinforce the perception that the euro-elite is now in orbit. The Supreme Parliament of our post-democratic polity awarded itself a nice little Xmas present. In 2011, MEPs will pocket around €100,000 of tax free expenses (pay hike and perks). While promising more accountability and transparency to the Euro-toiling masses, they will not be required to provide any proof of expenditure! "Doublespeak" à la EU....
.
More disconcerting news from the “fairy kingdom of Luxembourg where the European Court of Justice rules supreme without a ‘supremacy’ clause’” as American scholar E. Stein famously remarked. The judiciary annulled the Council decision curtailing the 3.7% pay-rise of EU civil servants. From a legal standpoint, the Court merely applied EU law. Struggling taxpayers across Europe will have to pay. 46,000 civil servants (including ECJ judges) are poised to receive their frozen pay-rise plus interests pending new rules. A Happy New year to them!
.
We, citizens of Europe, are all equal but some are more equal than others. In the subsidized farm that the EU has become, one cannot help but think that the “pigs” are living in Brussels. Shocked by the Orwellian metaphor? Think again.
.
At the centre of the EU empire, the neo-gosplanners are planning for more 10-year-plans (the 2020 Agenda) unable to review their failing integrationist momentum course. To save the Euro, the bloc nudges towards the establishment of a centralized economic government and to carry out this impossible mission, an economic governance Czar, Council president Herman Van Rompuy, is to be anointed. In the meantime, anger is pouring onto the streets and the governments of the PIGS are fighting for their political survival.
.
In the late 1980s, the political vision of the single currency driven by Jacques Delors, a socialist now acting as a “wise man” of integration, prevailed. It is worth recalling that the final endorsement of the Delors Report by the member states took place against a background of extraordinary events: the fall of Communism. The quantum leap of integration (1991 Maastricht Treaty establishing the union) is therefore linked to the desintegration of the Soviet Empire. The old French fears of a powerful neighbour provided additional diplomatic momentum for the Monetary Union.
.
Realists would argue that the Euro was the political price Germany had to pay for reunification. In 2010, its taxpayers are bearing the financial cost of the debt mess. The question is: for how long?
.
Whatever form the rescue or control mechanism eventually takes, it will imply more bureaucracy to enforce convergence on 27 divergent economies. The parallel with the centrally planned economies of the former Soviet bloc and their eventual failure to deliver prosperity is pertinent. Grand centralizing bureaucratic schemes eventually fail and in the process dwarf individual freedoms. Have we not learnt the lesson? Evidently not.
.
The quasi-authoritarian technocratic measures imposed by the troika (IMF-EC-ECB) are undermining popular sovereignty, i.e. who rules. As a recent survey revealed, 56% of Irish people believe that by accepting the bailouts, their country has surrendered political independence. Eurosceptics have long argued that the Brussels elite are actively seeking to replace sovereignty by bureaucracy, voters by experts. As the rejection and eventual adoption of the European Constitution in all but name amply demonstrated, popular sovereignty is deeply unpopular with the European leadership. To illustrate the arrogance of our new “vanguard”, suffice it to recall the comment made by former Labour Commissioner Neil Kinnock in the aftermaths the referendum in 2005. The French “non” said he, was “the triumph of ignorance"....
.
How ironic that the European Union now fighting for its survival would owe so much to the demise of another supranational utopia; the Soviet Union with its own kind of highly centralized supranational state apparatus and privileged elite. In a thought-provoking essay, "The Soviet Roots of European integration” (2004), former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky explains how socialist ideas have gradually transformed a successful economic area (EEC) into a new bureaucratic hegemon. Food for thought.
.
Of course, the “post-democratic” Union is constituted by democratic states enjoying high standards of political freedom. To Bielarussian democrats, the EU represents a beacon of freedom. But everything is relative. In fortress Europe, it is no longer possible to ignore the obvious. The on-going surrender of sovereign rights to a self-serving nomenklatura is a step towards the establishment of a supranational economic government, and a bEUROcratic Leviathan. In 1944, Austrian economist F.A. Hayek called it the “Road to Serfdom”.

Brussels Declaration, 28 August 2010 at the first European Libertarian Students Summit

From Brussels with more fudge of the theatrical kind

The new Europe is marching or, to be more precise, it is now “hearing”. Reference is made to the on-going hearing proceedings of commissioner-designates before the European Parliament. Having passed the written “test” (reply to some basic questions), nominees have been invited to take their "grand oral" (confirmation oral exam). Auditions can be watched on Europarl TV, the C-Span à la EU that no-one really watches - except EU watchers. Quid these proceedings? Democratic and transparent or just more fudge?
.
Eurobarometers, no-votes and low elections turn-outs have consistently indicated that the two actors (Commission and Parliament) now involved in the proceedings do not enjoy a high level of trust among the peoples. The failure of the ratification of the Constitution (2005) and its reappearance in the form of the Lisbon Treaty (a near identical document) without direct public consultation (except Ireland) further exposed a bureaucratic and political élite united in deep mistrust of the citizenry. As Professor Ian Ward put it in no uncertain terms; “the new Europe is fundamentally undemocratic” (1). Short on legitimacy and popular support, the élite needs to create its own legitimazing processes. Hence the mediatized “accountability” play now being performed between Brussels and Strasbourg with a script written by EU élite for the EU élite. A popular audience is not essential. Besides the populace has the Eurovision song contest.
.
Indeed for those with a taste for the theatrical, the "Barroso II" play has all the necessary ingredients. High flying rhetoric of values to be upheld and goodness to be bequeathed on citizens, twists in the plot and surprises. The latter came from Stefan Füle, the Czech nominee for enlargement and neighbourhood policy, with his stance in support of Turkey’s membership. In a bloc led by a Franco-German directoire, his honourable opinion on a sensitive issue will not influence policy-making a bit. Yes, in the EU size does matter. As the polity becomes more centralised, some member states are seemingly becoming “more equal”. A little drama was provided with two commissioner-designates (Lithuania and Bulgaria) flunking their audition. Tension, tit-for-tat exchanges between political groups and accusations of “witch hunt” ensued. Gripping. For the internal market portfolio Michel Barnier's solemn declaration to the MEPs that he would not take orders from Paris was so, well, moving.
.
After the politburo-esque appointments of the European Council president and foreign policy chief, few are happy in fortress EU. Behind the wall (the other Europe), the Kremlin is probably satisfied. Quizzed on the Ukraine-Russia gas crises, Baroness Ashton stated her determination to “put pressure” to ensure that the Moscow leadership saw “these issues in an economic way not a political one”. By its very nature, the “siloviki regime” (2) can only see it as both. The “securocrats” in charge have repeatedly demonstrated that they have little time for EU moralising, Sakharov prize winners (arrest of Lyudmila Alexeyeva of NGO Memorial), and that territorial integrity in its “near-abroad” (EU neighbourhood) is to be determined on its own terms. In the final analysis, a google search will yield more information on the bloc's foreign policy than the hearing. Type: “quiet diplomacy”, "soft power" or "energy dependency".
.
Most pundits have dismissed the process as largely ceremonial. It is also incredibly dull. The formula chosen for the proceedings has a lot to do with it. The “one minute for questioning” and “two for answers” format reflects the utterly “managed” nature of debates taking place in the European Parliament. A more adversarial process like the one used in the US Congress committee hearings might have given the publics a chance to experience the frisson of politics. But that is not the EU way of governance. Add to the equation, uninspiring orators (the quangocrat kind), technical subjects and interpretation, you have a recipe for boredom. Furtermore it is clear that the nominees’ grasp of issues pertaining to their portfolios cannot be seriously tested within such contraints. On the positive side, it provides EU watchers with a window to discover the candidates from nations other than theirs.
.
European citizens have not bothered to watch the carefully choreographed proceedings. Who can blame them? Some observers have dismissed the whole affair as a “stitch-up” between member states governments and the EP. Indeed nominees were carefully chosen to appease the main political groups. And so, for that matter, are the words chosen by the Commissioner-designates. Everything had to be "regulated", "greened" and "socialised". In truth, the hearings are a façade, a show for "public" consumption. No-one is trying very hard to dismiss this evidence. Yet few would admit that the real drama is taking place in the “behind-closed-doors" (wherever that is) so characteristic of the EU supranational decision and policy-making process. Thus rest assured that the consensus-building machine is now busy at work in that "public-free zone" where since the onset of European integration, a culture of “secrecy” has prevailed despite the rhetoric of "transparency”.
.
The more powerful Parliament is flexing its muscles. Will it seize this occasion to block the Commission and risk a political crisis after the Lisbon ratification saga? The final act will be played in Strasbourg. Whatever the dénouement, for the euroligarchy the full Lisbon-isation of Europe cannot come a moment too soon. Commissioners "designated" can therefore start looking forward to a mandate of hard work but also a lifestyle of privileges and high salaries (€20,000 monthly+ allowances) (3). Living in the EU bubble, they will enjoy the kind of isolation from the publics once experienced by the top echelon of the Soviet nomenklatura.
.
In times of crisis, eurocrats love to pontificate ad nauseam about the principle of solidarity (4). Let us see if the new "vanguard" can lead by example and show some towards the toiling masses by tightening their belts (dropping the controversial 3.7% pay-rise). But as the former Marxist activist and new foreign policy chief said, idealism is for the young.
.
(1) Ward Ian. A Critical Introduction to European Law, p. 19
(2) Illarionov Andrei. “The siloviki in charge”, Journal of Democracy, April 2009, Vol. 20, No 2
(3) Regulation No 422/67 EEC
(4) TEU, amended by Lisbon Treaty, consolidated version, preamble paragraph 6

The "fois gras" EU way. Stuffed 'em citizens with more nonsense!

Find below letter to the Editor/Bird in reply to an article posted in the "a bird's eye view" column of the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet Daily News. Essentially the very human writer attempted to propose that "good things" could happen with the appointment of "Van Whatsisname" and "Baroness Who" to the highest sphere of the EU nonemklatura. The author furthermore implied that someone who had fought as a young Marxist activist (Greek commissioner nominee) against the colonels' dictatorship (but also for the dictatorship of the proletariat) would be the ideal person to enhance democratic values in the EU! So instead of finishing an essay, I wrote this letter and sent it to the Editor and the damn bird.
.

Letter to the Bird,

Birds are flying creatures and could be forgiven for missing the fine points of human activities. I propose to help. The Lisbon Treaty ratification was a scandalous affair. A tale of lies (the political kind), yes-bullying (of electorates who “don't get it”) and self-congratulations (only the leadership who knows best is celebrating its “victory”). “We the Sovereign Peoples” were promised more democracy and transparency. What we got was less of both. The learned Bird may have overlooked the undeniable fact that the appointment of the new EU team was conducted in a public-free zone after much backdoor deals and horsetrading. Such a system cannot possibly lead to more democracy and is reminiscent of Soviet Politburo politics. Even the leftist newspaper The Guardian had nothing positive to say about the process!
.
Could the new pair make Europe a better place? Why should they? The system works for them. The President credited for some fine haiku poetry and saving Belgium from political implosion, wants more Europe. The European “Federalist” kind with more powers in the hands of an unaccountable bureaucracy supported by a parliament - the traveling one - short on popular legitimacy (43% turnout rate in the last EU elections). The rise to the post of High Representative (novlangue for foreign minister) of a non-elected British peer with no experience in foreign affairs is baffling. She has obviously emerged from this "process" because she is a women (the Barrosso touch?) and lacks what it takes to impose a vision. Let's call “It” charisma, a sense of accountability to the voters, expertise or something. In fact as a Labour party apparatchik (a quangocrat), she had the perfect CV for the job. So we, human citizens, could be forgiven for indulging in "other thinking", namely doubting that the EU will go anywhere fast with an "accidental" foreign minister! It will be interesting to see how her “charm” - the default word used for lack of anything else to say - will help shape something resembling a common foreign and security policy. I bet the Russian leadership is already under the spell...
.
But hey, let us not make a storm in a cup of tea. The “Kissinger phone question” has been answered. A small step for the EU and a big laugh for the rest of the world! Less funny of course is the claim by the Honourable Bird that democracy in Europe could be enhanced with a bunch of people who in their youth fought against democratic capitalism and for the imposition on land of the Marxist utopia. I relate to the point that fighting the colonels' dictatorship was a courageous act (Greek commissioner mominee) but fail to see how freedom could be enhanced with a gradual push for a dictatorship of the proletariat. The collectivist experiment was tried in the Soviet Union with devastating consequences (gulags, show trials, famines, executions, psychiatric internment). Many so called socialist democracies (Cuba springs to mind) continue to enlighten their proletariat with chronic toilet paper shortages, free tutotials in Marxist-Leninist ideology for “other thinkers” in prisons or in youth camps. One can only conclude that winged creatures do not read history books - yet curiously write.
.
In truth, the European Union has chosen another road; a new kind of "soft dictatorship” of the elite. To confuse the unsuspecting citizens, they call it some fancy name like a multi-layered polity, a social democracy based on post-modern governance and functionalist spill-overs... Unlike birds, human elites know a lot about public finance. They have also learnt some lessons from the mistakes made by communist elites. You just don't kill the goose (democratic capitalism) that laid the golden egg but slowly stuff it with more nonsense (the fois gras technique). So indeed confused French tax payers may be spared the insult of another record breaking EU hyperpresidency (€ 171 million) but make no mistake, any savings will be heading towards Brussels for more scandalous use of public funds with less accountability. “Our” new President favours direct taxation and he might well get it. The self-amending treaty does not need the pretense of our “say”. But one should not blame a bird for oversights. It cannot possibly grasp the significance of the continued refusal by the Court of Auditors to sign off the Union's accounts.
.
A more observant bird passing over Brussels might have spotted that the recession affecting ordinary European humans has had no impact on EU staff expenditures (no freezing of salaries but on the contrary an increase!). The obscenely high salaries of our newly anointed self-serving vanguard (£320,000 a year for the president) know no crisis (cuts). Would it not be a fine thing for a former Marxist activist (the Labour Baroness) to show some solidarity with the toiling masses and propose a serious reduction in her own salary? Birds may be incurable utopians but on land, humans are considering civil disobedience to stop the stuffing!

Euroscepticism and liberty

Published in French in Un Monde Libre on October 19th.
>

.The EU leadership is not amused and is showing signs of impatience. Czech President Vaclav Klaus is not toeing the yes-line and announced that he wanted an opt-out on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a move which in turn could unravel re-negotiation requests from other member states. What is wrong with this? The problem is that the EU leadership demands an unconditional ratification even though by granting "guarantees" (July 2009 European Council conclusions) to Ireland, it opened the pandora box of a ratification a "geometrie variable". The problem is that the Union is neither comfortable with democracy nor with dissent.

Yes-democracy.
Citizens are expected to fall in. In France, our political class chose to “consult itself” so to speak (ratification through parliament) rather than risk a public consultation and another rebuke (2005 no-vote on EU Constitution). With the financial crisis and economic downturn of the past year, EU leaders and eurocrats were anxious for good news. After the Irish yes-vote, nothing appears to be dampering their eagerness to have the treaty in force by the end of the year.

“There is no pressure as such” said the president of the EU Parliament Jerky Buzek “all discussions are taking place in a democratic context”. So the yes-camp makes it known that delay from the Czech Republic is not acceptable, diplomatically lambasting its president for pulling an “unfair” rabbit. Apparently the “Lisbon-ned” Union urgently needs to anoint a guide (President) to lead its blighted citizens. If you don’t understand what’s democratic and transparent about that, please try again. The correct answer is “yes” naturally this new phase of supranational governance requires a supreme leader but also new diplomatic staff, more bureaucrats, more budget for more common policies.... When member states are urged to reduce expenditures and downsize their administrations, the EU is preparing to inflate its own.

What kind of a democracy is yes-democracy? A growing number of citizens are no longer amused. Could Lisbon be a “treaty too far” as British academic William Horsley argues? He warns that its implementation will come as a shock to British people. After Westminster's expenses scandal, coping with a new rabbit from the EU hat will prove difficult. Across Europe, disillusionment with EU politics runs high. Politicians - not surprisingly - have failed to prepare electorates for what’s afoot, namely a system of collective decision-making with extensive new powers, and not as they claimed a “mere amendment" to the Nice Treaty currently in force. "Stream-lining" is the buzz word. But what we are talking about is the creation of a Europe-wide government and that means a superstate complete with legal personality.

Yes to British euroscepticism!
President Klaus’ stance for freedom is a beacon of hope, and so is the prospect of the return to power of the Conservative Party in the UK on the other side of the Channel. A healthy dose of British euroscepticism could be the light at the end of this illiberal tunnel... David Cameron’s speech at the party conference last week has hit the nail though his message of “taking on big government and the culture of irresponsibility” has probably not gone down well in the corridors of power in Brussels. Should he stand firm on his principled platform (and the referendum), a Conservative-led UK could act as a counterbalance to a more centralised and powerful EU. Let us see if outbursts of “consequences” by outspoken European leaders will impress or scare the British electorate. In the chess game of Euro-politics, the Lisbon camp is planning its next move, probably the offering of a sweetener. To neuter the rebellious islanders, “Let them have Blair!". Call it a socialist icing on the EU supercake, eurocitizens will need to digest. Citizens are mobilising against him ("Stop Blair" petition campaign) but he has already the support of powerful states.

The wind of liberty coming from Prague.
The fact is that the European project has always been an elite-driven ideal for which democratic legitimacy (direct elections) was never a priority. From its onset, it was influenced by inter alia federalist intellectuals like Jean Monnet - a statist - and Altiero Spinelli - a communist - who believed that peace in Europe would be achieved with the establishment of a superstate. That this ideal would in 2009 turn into reality without public support and legitimacy is fitting. It is no longer possible to question the integration model which in effect has become a dogma.

The plot is thickening but for us the French, the "ever-closer union" dies are cast. As Europe pompously celebrates the fall of the Berlin Wall, it is both ironic and fascinating that, in the immediate future, hope for a freer EU should come from the East. Whatever the outcome, President Klaus dares say "no" and in our brave new world of EU political correctness, it takes courage.