Home / Various Languages / Finances / SECS5: How and why the counterfeit Euro is destroying Democracy

SECS5: How and why the counterfeit Euro is destroying Democracy

22, July, 2015

The euro is pulverising European democracy.

It is destroying democracy not only in Greece but in all other members of the euro zone. It is also destroying people’s hopes for a real democracy at the European level. It has caused a huge rift from north to south and between the crisis-ridden Euro Zone and EU Member States outside the system. It has replaced trust by hyprocrisy. It has stirred up nationalism across the Continent from Scotland to Catalonia to Greece. In Greece, it has stoked hatred and memories of WW2 instead of understanding.

In the 1950s Robert Schuman and the Founding Fathers laid out the road to a democratic, solid Community currency. Its supranational principles are different from either intergovernmentalism or federalism.

Ask a politician today to define ‘supranational’ — and you will see why ignorance or arrogance has got Europe’s money in such a mess. In the 1990s politicians of a later generation chose the pseudo-federalist Delors Plan. It is destroying not only the consensus for a common currency but tearing apart European society.

The European currency was supposed to unite. It was supposed to bring harmony amongst the peoples. It was supposed to bring an era of prosperity and investment in a common future.

It has failed.

Why? It is what Robert Schuman called a ‘counterfeit’ currency! Schuman provided plans and institutions to create a real Community currency but politicians started dismantling them in the 1950s. Ever since they vie in further destructive acts against honest, democratic money.

It is a pathway to pecuniary perdition.

That is why the only alternative to the morass that European leaders have embarked on is to look again at the principles that gave originally Europe its longest period of peace and brought about its greatest prosperity.

The supranational currency system belongs to the people. It would provide full and open democratic input from

  • businesses,
  • workers and
  • consumers.

It would safeguard the democratic rights of various regions so that the rich would not dictate to the poor. It would be based on open government, not closed door meetings of financial ministers.

It would allow governments to adjust their currency to the needs of their individual Member States.

The pseudo-federalist Delors Plan euro does none of these. It is controlled by the secretive, closed door EuroGroup. Who are they? They are national, not European representatives! They are not practically involved in the needs, fears and plans of industry, workers or consumers. They are party political. They come with a party ideology. And as history has shown, they have loose moral and ethics when it comes to doing what ordinary people have to do — balancing the household budget.

They are the people who should be kept at more than an arm’s length from any currency — finance ministers!

The recent events on Greece has cut a swathe of earthquake-like devastation in European democracy.

Firstly, the ‘democratic leaders’ showed themselves completely inadequate to call out corruption in Greece for what it was. Initially they did not insist on anti-corruption measure before serious consideration was given to EU membership. Instead the EU leaders in the Council and also in the Commission dolled out masses of money that only added to the corruption such as in the Bank of Crete scandal.

Neither sides learned lessons. Major Mistakes:

  • politicians should not be in charge of money regulation.
  • Politicians should not be able in any way to influence a currency, as inflation is hidden taxation;
  • politicians should not choose their central bank governor and certainly not in secret;
  • Money is public property not the politicians’ plaything. It requires democratic supervision.

Let’s go back no further than the beginning of the month of July 2015. On the first day of the month, five European institutions published a report called: ‘Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union.‘

Called the Five Presidents’ report, it was meant to have all the authority of those who consider themselves Europe’s leading politicians. It was prepared by Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the so-called Euro Summit, Donald Tusk (also president of the European Council), President Jeroen Dijsselbloem, president of the secretive EuroGroup, Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, and Martin Schulz, president of the European Parliament.

It says:

A complete EMU is not an end in itself. It is a means to create a better and fairer life for all citizens, to prepare the Union for future global challenges and to enable each of its members to prosper.
Oh!

The report is the fruit of ten months’ work of eurocrats of these five institutions. It was launched at the October 2014 EuroSummit. 1 July marks the start of Stage One. What is that about?

Stage 1 (1 July 2015 – 30 June 2017): In this first stage (‘deepening by doing’), the EU institutions and euro area Member States would build on existing instruments…. this entails boosting competitiveness and … and enhancing democratic accountability.

Really?

The Commission in reply to my question firstly said that they could not give any details about ‘enhancing democratic accountability‘ as it was a technical matter! When questioned further about a referendum, the Commission said that it did not think referendums would be involved.

Days later, the Greek government announced that it would have a referendum. They urged the Greek populace to vote No. The peculiar motion included out-of-date and unfinished, technical, negotiating positions on euro zone and IMF loans as an annex in English.

Clearly the referendum did not meet Swiss standards of democratic accountability. It was a political operation equivalent to those used in left-wing dictatorships like the DDR or the Soviet Union. In this case it was cleverly crafted to get extreme right wing and centre parties to join in the parody of democracy.

Did the Commission denounce this referendum, because referendums were not part of their yet undisclosed ‘democratic enhancement‘? Did they say that such a farce could not lead to real ‘democratic accountability‘?

Next Page: Not at all!