by Timon Dias
It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.
A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe."
Two years ago, the European Commission proposed a law that would authorize an "independent authority" within the European Parliament [EP] to decide whether EP parties would receive an official legal status as EP parties. This legal status is needed for a party to obtain EP party subsidy, which is designed to cover 85% of party expenditures.
Despite a British and Dutch lobby against the law, it was passed by the EP on September 29, 2014.
Among the demands parties have to meet are that of "internal party democracy" and that they must "respect the values on which the European Union is based." Among these values are: "pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men." In addition, the parties must be active in at least 7 out of 28 EU member-state countries.
The law states that: "decisions regarding a party's respect for values on which the EU is based, may only be taken following a special procedure and in cooperation with a committee of independent prominent individuals."
Although the law does not specify the composition of this illustrious special committee, it is highly probable that Martin Schulz, the EP's chairman, is among them. Schulz is a German socialist who was reelected as EP chairman even though he was absent during the parliamentary debate for the position. Schulz is also known for strongly condemning the content and distribution of a film critical of Islam, "Innocence of Muslims," and for his disproportionate criticism of Israel.
Even though the committee is designated as an "independent authority," within the self-aggrandizing dynamic of the EU, one cannot be "prominent" and "independent" at the same time.
Therefore, prominent individuals within the EU are those that fully and without any reticence subscribe to the EU's mission of dismantling European nation states and furthering the EU's influence at the cost of national democracies.
Due to this law, it is highly probable that EU-skeptic party factions such as the "Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy" [EFDD], chaired by Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party [UKIP], will no longer receive a subsidy. It is also likely that when, for example, EU-skeptic and anti-immigration parties like Marine le Pen's Front National and Geert Wilders' Freedom Party succeed in forming an EP faction, it will be denied a subsidy because the "independent committee" will decide that the faction does not subscribe to the EU's values of tolerance and pluralism.
Nigel
Farage (left), head of the UK Independence Party, and Marine Le Pen,
head of France's National Front party. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons)
|
A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe." But as Europe is a continent, it is difficult to be against a continent. Anti-EU figures are against an organization that is increasingly overruling national democracies without the consent of their national populations.
The EU has been struggling for years with dwindling popularity among its member-state citizens. The rise of anti-EU parties in the European Parliament has been a jolting wake-up call for prominent pro-EU figures.
It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within. Only parties that do not deviate too much from the EU utopia of a federally-controlled European continent will be allowed to participate in the European Parliament without being obstructed, hindered or disadvantaged by that same EU. It indeed seems that if the EU cannot realize its ideals with the support of its citizens, it will simply do so without the support of its citizens.
If, in the future, the EU will further obstruct anti-EU in the European Parliament parties in their quest for dismantling the EU in a civil and democratic way, it may achieve the following downward spiral.
First, it will show the citizens of member states the rather tyrannical and utterly intolerant face of the EU. Second, this sentiment may further popularize and empower anti-EU parties to push for the democratic dismantlement of the EU from within. The EU may in turn respond with even more repressive measures to obstruct anti-EU parties in the European Parliament, which will make the EU even more unpopular among member state citizens and thus adding to the popularity of anti-EU parties.
It is impossible to predict how this standoff would end, but if this were to occur, it is possible that EU member states would decide nationally to simply leave the EU. This could be a very real scenario if, for example, the French Front National, British UKIP and Dutch Freedom Party would win majorities in national elections.
This would leave the EU in a dismembered state of chaos, which could have been prevented if the EU had allowed – without foul play and obstruction – European Parliament factions to push for the dissolution of the EU in a peaceful and democratic way.
Timon Dias
Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4804/eu-tyranny-law
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment