Short-term consequences and mid to long term outlook
by Ivan Daraktchiev
- By mid-1990s the European Economic Community (EEC) was an undisputed success; the creation of EFTA, the Customs Union, etc. were hailed by the business community as the benefits were great, especially for the big multinationals.
- The appetite comes with the food, they say, hence the Commissars, wishing to add more highly paid positions for the International Nomenklatura and its descenders, came up with the idea that the economic union should evolve into a full-blown political one, garnished with a President, Foreign Minister, Parliament, etc.
- The reaction by the business managers’ community was either entirely negative or just pure skepticism. Some of us predicted, that the transformation of the economic union into a political one in such a rush (instead of a few generations down the road) will undoubtedly lead to the collapse of the already built, and functioning, construction1. We were labeled “Euroskeptics.”
- Upon advice by the lawyers, the politicians tasked Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and Jean-Luc De Haane with the creation of a Constitution, for the new Union.
- The document produced by the team in charge was several hundred pages long – a prescription for disaster, in my mind. Any experienced person will tell that nobody would read such a document – and nobody would vote for trading the well known simple entity they are familiar with against a nebular uncertainty whose explanation needs over 60 000 words to note down. Criticism abounded.
- Despite criticism and warnings, the European Commission (EC) decided to go ahead with a string of referendums
- first in France, then in Holland, after that in the UK, etc. There lays my very first argument: These activities by the Nomenklatura are a proof of their acknowledgment that: (i) a Constitution is a must for the Union, and (ii) plebiscites are a must for the legitimacy of the basic law before it can take effect, thereby enacting a legally enshrined Union.
- The fun started when French President Jacques Chirac, a Gaullist (that would mean French “nationalist”), started to act as devoted internationalist going as far as to publicize the EU on TV shows with students – he did his best to explain the new Constitution and the goodies it will bring to France within EU5.
- France said “No!” to the Constitution. Holland said “No!” to the Constitution. The referendum in the UK made no sense any longer and was canceled. The International Nomenklatura was stunned. Brussels’ bureaucrats were in shock: the folks in Europe did not want a political union! Vox populi rejected their beautiful idea, the project of their lifetime, the concept that opened so much more prospective job positions with high pay for just praising their boss and their party, beating down the usual suspects (Communism, Russia, Putin, etc.), and regularly repeating all the politically correct blah-blah…
- A couple of years and some cosmetic changes later the Constitution appeared redressed as a “Treaty.” The liars, cheaters and plain criminals of which the International Nomenklatura consists have postulated that because it is now a “Treaty,” the sign off by the individual countries does not require popular mandate – that of the respective Parliaments would suffice. We find this line of argumentation a breach of any norm of legality, and in essence a
form of contempt with regard to the prerogatives of the sovereign. If anything, a single clause of the Treaty postulates that in case there arises a disagreement or discrepancy between one member’s Constitution and the “Treaty,” the latter takes precedence. Somebody has to still convince me that there is no need for an International Tribunal…
- Most EEC member state’s Parliaments duly approved the act of signing off, by their respective Prime Ministers, of the Lisbon Treaty. The only exception was Ireland, where the people’s servants were honest enough to determine that approval for such signature (which is the equivalent of giving up sovereignty) can give only the sovereign, and therefore a plebiscite must be conducted. This exonerates the Irish Nomenklatura from guilt on this count and constitutes yet another argument in line with our statement about the illegitimacy of the EU.
- The Irish said “No!” to the Treaty-Constitution – that is, “No to EU, EEC is good enough!”
- To the dismay of all decent citizens, contrary to the expectation that the example of the Irish would shame the bigwigs in Brussels, and would force them to abandon the criminal methodology applied in the course of this whole undertaking, the EC decreed “The Irish will vote until they produce a ‘Yes!”’. To state that their behavior is simultaneously abominable, outrageous and obnoxious is to make the Euro-Commissars a compliment…
- After a while, amid a crisis and a recession, when hundreds of thousands of young Irish packed and went abroad, the Brusselocrats offered a deal to the Nomenklatura in Dublin: extraordinary loans and giveaways to bail the economy out in exchange of a “Yes” extracted through a second referendum. The bribe in combination with the missing in emigration hundreds of thousands of opponents (independent-minded decent people) resulted in a “Yes” that was barely winning but winning nonetheless, to the delight of the criminal Euro Commissars.
- The last barrier to Lisbon Treaty’s sign-off came also to the enormous surprise of Brussels’ Nomenklatura: Czech President Vaclav Klaus refused to ratify the decision of his nation’s Parliament empowering the Prime Minister to sign off in the name of the Czech Republic. Vaclav Klaus is yet another example of the exceptions within the Nomenklatura whose behavior during this case manifested revolt against the diktat emanating from Brussels (the so-called center of the quintessential democracy) – thus winning upfront for himself an “innocent” verdict from Nuremberg 2.0, the inevitable International Tribunal that one day must be called to try the guilty ones for the European fiasco.
- Vaclav Klaus’ refusal being the last hurdle, he was subjected to incredible pressure in order to get him to give up resistance and sign. About a month before his mandate’s expiration, having seen the corrupted minds and spiritual misery that reign in Nomenklatura inc., he ratified the document.
- Hence the whole saga about the Constitution ended up by signing the Lisbon Treaty, which, per above, can not be recognized as a valid contract: only one signatory, Ireland, has signed it off through a legitimately authorized representative.
- To complete the picture, it should be mentioned that a year or so ago Iceland and Switzerland have notified the EU that they are no longer candidates for entering the club. This Swiss Nomenklatura has conducted two times referendums for membership and eventually gave up – in that country The Sovereign is truly sovereign. All examples above support our thesis: When sovereignty is at stake, whether through a treaty or by adopting a new constitution, asking the sovereign is a must! The European Union is based on a treaty, which only one country’s representatives had the mandate to sign off. Therefore, this union can not claim to be legitimate!
Most important consequences:
- An illegitimate union can not claim the right to govern its member states, nor to force them to “harmonize” their legislation, their policies, etc. Neither can it impose upon them “cultural values” of its Management team’s choice.
- An illegitimate union can not aspire for representation at legitimate international organizations such as UNO, independent states or other third parties with recognized similar rank.
- An illegitimate union can not claim jurisdiction either within the realm of thus “united” states and outside it – by creating or/and participating into international “courts of justice.”
- An illegitimate union can not claim the right to organize a centralized banking system.
- An illegitimate union can not claim the prerogative to assign to its governing body jurisdiction over foreign states, territories or regions and their populations, and then pass judgments, interfere, sanction, or even make donations8 let alone carry out military campaigns, alone or jointly.
The creation of this illegitimate international entity is a crime, and the respective sovereigns will one day see to it that it should not go unpunished – and never repeated again. If we assume that I’d be elected to judge, the indictments should read along the lines of “Complicity to falsifying the right on power of attorney,” “Participation into the illegal assumption of jurisdiction” and similar.
Leaving the EU does not require more than a notification that the respective state, through its government, denounces the Treaty as illegal and therefore non-binding as of that very moment. As far as we are informed this argument has not been raised in the case of BREXIT – which should have made the job of Nigel Farage easier and certainly made life easier for Theresa May. We might see it help Boris Johnson if someone notifies him about it. In any case, as of this fall, the unraveling of EU starts in earnest, and we will be seeing more exits in due course: the nation-state is – and will remain for at least a few more generations – more endurable a socio-political construction than a supranational legal entity; the illegitimate one in our case is doomed and is crumbling just as we predicted.
- Ivan Daraktchiev, Nomenklaturocracy or what exactly was Orwell right about, https://www.academia.edu/4439386/.
- Ivan Daraktchiev, The basics of Nomenklaturocracy thesis: 1) Exposing modern day Nomenklatura and revealing what kind of reality
shall Nomenklaturchiks’ empty promises bring, https://www.academia.edu/34736374/.
- Ivan D., Bulgaria, Terra Europeansis incognita, ISBN 978-954-91584-3-4 ; Chapter 39: “The EU Road.”