The 6-9 June EU 'Elections' Are a Sham, The Neue Zürcher Zeitung Opines
They are, of course, correct about that, yet neither EU politicians nor legacy media will say so out loud
Readers of these pages are aware of my anti-EU stance. I have written about this issue quite frequently, and most recently in this piece trying to explain how the subversion of democracy ‘by Brussels’ works:
As you will be able to see below, this is not opinion of an tinfoil hat-wearing loon. This is a clearly visible ‘feature, not a bug’ of the entire ruling organisation that uses the moniker ‘European Union’.
Translation and emphases mine.
Democracy Simulation With von der Leyen: Brussels Leads the Citizens by the Nose
Four weeks before the European elections, Ursula von der Leyen must be worried about her future. Will she be given a second term as Commission President? Someone will decide—certainly not the voters.
An Op-Ed by Daniel Steinvorth, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 8 May 2024 [source]
At the end of April, a kind of democracy simulation took place in Maastricht. Five men and three women took to a theatre stage in the Dutch university city and exchanged blows as the so-called lead candidates of their parties. It was about climate change, the wars in Europe’s neighbourhood, corruption, migration, but above all about who can get along with whom in the EU Parliament.
Those who are enthusiastic about Brussels politics may have seen the ‘hot phase of the European election campaign’ begin in the one-and-a-half-hour debate. For everyone else, it was just a sack of rice falling over in Maastricht. Just 15,000 viewers watched the live stream—a manageable number given the 373 million people entitled to vote in the EU [I suppose that would be the Brussels/Strasbourg press corps…].
The representative of the Christian Democratic European People’s Party, Ursula von der Leyen, was the star of the evening. She is the President of the EU Commission and would like to remain so after the elections in June. However, without appearing on any ballot paper, as von der Leyen is not even running for a seat in the European Parliament [so, get this, VdL wants to be in charge without being elected—what a ‘surprise’].
Shadow Boxing in Maastricht
Back in 2019, it was not the voters who helped her into office, but French President Emmanuel Macron (who wanted to weaken the Parliament) [it was even worse: there was a big ballyhoo about a pan-EU horse race all built on the US model; in the end VdL emerged victoriously while those who had campaigned were left in the lurch—see below for ‘more’]. Five years later, she was declared the lead candidate by her party colleagues, but the power mechanism remained the same: it was not election results but agreements in the European Council [the ‘collegiate body’ consisting of all member-state heads of gov’t] that decided who would ultimately move into the Berlaymont building.
In Maastricht, voters were nevertheless led to believe that they had a choice in the matter. Von der Leyen's opponents were presented as the leading candidates, which still formally means: as candidates for the Commission presidency. As in a real elephant round, the protagonists dutifully answered the moderators’ questions and also attacked each other.
Afterwards, some journalists even took the trouble to name winners and losers. They praised the Green Dutchman Bas Eickhout for his outspokenness or thought that the Luxembourg EU Labour Commissioner Nicolas Schmit, who had been sent into the race for the Social Democrats, had been too good. Neither name should mean anything to the general public. Not to mention Mr Valeriu Ghiletchi from Moldova, the front man of the European Christian Movement.
However, the ‘Brussels Blob’ [orig. Blase, or bubble, akin to US use of ‘the Beltway’] was most concerned by the fact that, when asked, von der Leyen did not want to rule out cooperation with the Group of European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR). The group, which also includes the Italian governing party of Giorgia Meloni, could become the third strongest force in the EU Parliament according to surveys. In order to secure a majority, von der Leyen is therefore also in contact with the right-wing conservatives [if you are, like me, shocked, shocked, that politicking is going on here, don’t be afraid—it’s all staged].
This is a scandal for the Left and the Greens in parliament. However, most of them did not vote in favour of Von der Leyen five years ago. Von der Leyen instead relied not least on the votes of Viktor Orban's Hungarian Fidesz party and the Polish PiS party to be confirmed as head of the Commission by the MEPs. The vote turned into a nail-biter.
Which parties will sit in the ECR parliamentary group after 6 June remains to be seen. However, the outrage over von der Leyen’s flirtation with Meloni’s right-wing Fratelli d’Italia is also election campaign bluster because cooperation with Meloni’s government at intergovernmental level has, of necessity, long existed.
Macron and Meloni’s Intrigues
Much more exciting is the question of whether the post-fascist turned pro-European really wants to act as a kingmaker for von der Leyen. Both women have forged friendly ties over the past two years. However, it is now unclear whether Meloni still needs the German to secure her power in Brussels. Rumour has it that she is sounding out an alternative with Macron. The technocratic former ECB chief Mario Draghi is being discussed [these seemingly innocuous lines about politicking as usual show the deep contempt of European ‘elites’ (sic) for the peoples of Europe].
Many in the capitals are dissatisfied with the Commission President’s record, her excessive climate policy, and the weakening economy. There are also accusations of cronyism and a lack of transparency [Von der Leyen is also under investigation by the EU’s Public Prosecutors’ Office for her role in the acquisition of millions Covid-19 injections—no mention in the NZZ]. Has Macron also distanced himself from his former protégé? He recently said that her office should not be ‘over-politicised’, which was a somewhat discreet dig at von der Leyen. Is her successor already being negotiated in the back rooms of Brussels? [what an inane question to ask; of course, as a matter of fact, this is the case—rumours about VdL’s impending departure are all over EUropean alt-media]
It’s quite astonishing: until a few weeks ago, ‘Madame Europe’ seemed as good as set for the top job in the EU. Now her throne suddenly seems to be shaking. We can eagerly await the next meetings of the heads of state and government to see whether anyone will give von der Leyen the thumbs up or thumbs down. Only the voters, that much is clear, will not be able to do so. No matter how much effort is made to create this impression with events like the one in Maastricht.
Bottom Lines
If you need any further evidence of the EU being mostly a scam and partially a carefully designed vehicle to more or less peacefully tie most European countries to the continent’s biggest economy, Germany, we now turn to a book that was originally written in the 1950s.
The below has been excerpted from Milton Mayer’s terrific They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (U of Chicago Press, first ed. 1955, I am quoting from the repr. ed. 2017). Speaking about the situation of post-war West Germany, Mayer holds that
Goebbels’ perverse prediction [has] been validated: ‘Even if we lose, we shall win, for our ideals will have penetrated the hearts of our enemies.’
In such a world—the world we live in—such dreams as a United States of Europe are no further advanced in Europe than World Federalism is here. The Europa Union movement, in Germany as elsewhere, is widespread among, and only among, nongovernmental intellectuals, and especially among the young. At the University of Munich [in the early 1950s] 88% of the students, in a random sampling, favored ‘the unification of Europe’ over ‘German sovereignty’. But ‘the unification of Europe’ means different things to different men—to some peace, to others war. And it is an ideal much more nebulous, and much more limited, than democracy. In the context of the world struggle, European Union means, first, military union of non-Communist Europe; second, economic union (presently supported by both the young idealists and the old cartelists [that would be Big Business of yore]); and last, if ever, political union. And any union that left Germany divided would take place only on paper, if there.
There may be a possibility that the relief of the Germans would interest the Russians, who, after all, invented Russian roulette. As the Germans now are, the Russians are afraid of them, and with good reason. ‘It is now clear’, said the London Times in 1954, ‘that neither Russia nor the West can agree to German unification on terms compatible with their national interests. The linch-pin of Western defense—West German cooperation—remains the hard core of Russian fears. And the main Western anxiety—Russian armies in the heart of Europe—is, in the Russian view, the indispensable condition of Soviet security. In the state of the world today, neither fear can be discounted as mere propaganda.’ [pp. 339-40, emphases mine]
And here, in an entirely mainstream academic publication that originally appeared in 1955 (!) do we find all the ills that beset Europe, the European Union in general and Germany in particular.
It has been clear to every interested observer in the aftermath of the Second World War that ‘Germany’ is the lynchpin of Europe. Prostrate and occupied ever since, ruled as a satrapy by a succession of weakling sellouts, ‘Germany’ is the castrato of Europe these days.
Sure, many things have changed since Milton Mayer wrote these lines, but what has not changed are the vassalage of Germany and the devilish employ of deception to render most European nations subservient to German big business.
Professor Mayer was also crystal-clear about another aspect: as we now know from the events that transpired in 1989/90, what happened at the end of the Cold War was a so-called ‘unification’ that fit the mould outlined in 1955. As
neither Russia nor the West can agree to German unification on terms compatible with their national interests,
We may now (sic) deduce that whatever name one wishes to bestow upon the events in Germany of 1989/90, then-Soviet (sic) leader Mr. Gorbachev betrayed ‘the Russian national interest’ while ‘the West’, as if led by the invisible hands of the City of London and Wall Street, had its ‘national’ (sic) interests most peculiarly attended to.
Finally, note that the order of business cited by Milton Mayer—military union, followed by economic and, if ever, political union—was attempted as he was writing his book: the so-called ‘Schuman Plan’ (of military union) was attempted to be implemented from spring 1950 onwards, but it ultimately foundered in 1954 (which is to say, the year before West Germany joined NATO). Economic union commenced in earnest with the Roman Protocols in 1957, and political unification gained traction from the 1980s onwards; this is the road we’re travelling on today, and a lot of it has to do with ‘the European Union™’, which came into being in 1993.
For those interested in ‘more’ about this, you might wish to check out my long-form essay ‘Woe to the Vanquished: Europe’s Existential Struggle Between the US and Russia’, which I penned in autumn 2022. In it, I am taking
A deep look at the structural forces that shaped Europe’s post-WW2 integration and its many Transatlantic entanglements, ranging from the German Question via NATO enlargement to the consequences of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
At least we Germans have the possibility to vote for Sonneborn (although his sidekicks usually are disappointing).
Thank you for this and I will read the essay.