EU and Absolute Control

Meeting the Objectives of the EU: What They Are, What They Entail for Member Nations, and Why They Are Difficult to Attain Without Absolute Supremacy

That it would be difficult for the European Union (EU) to meet its objectives effectively without the principle of supremacy is true enough, but what are the objectives that the EU desires to meet? Can what is good for Croatia be equally good or even relevant to nations like UK, France or Spain? If supremacy is important, who is supreme? In modern times, behind federalist powers always lurks a deeper state (Scott, 2007). Identifying the deeper state then becomes necessary in understanding the EU's objectives. However, if the objectives of the EU are to preserve the sovereignty and dignity of its member states, the principle of supremacy may not be the best option, as the Treaty of Lisbon appears to recognize. This paper will discuss the claim that without the principle of supremacy the EU could not survive and show how the conflict between what is good for individual nations and what is good for the "Union," or the deeper state, are at times directly opposed.

The Treaty of Lisbon, prepared in 2007 and ratified in 2009, has also been known as the Reform Treaty. It at first appears to be a concession to the different character and needs of the EU states. This is suggested by the fact that one of the most important changes to the European constitution was a change in voting procedure in 45 policy areas, from unanimity to qualified majority. Rather than all or nothing, there is now only a need for a majority, meaning that no one state can block a vote with its dissent. However, the "qualified majority" is a deceptive term, which alludes to a "double majority." The Treaty of Lisbon also extended the term of the President of the European Council and strengthened and solidified the European Parliament. These actions have a more binding effect on the EU and point in the direction of supremacy in action. So while the Treaty also supplied states the legal means to quit the Union, the overall structural reforms of the Treaty clearly suggest a greater desire for centralization, as Bonde (2008) indicated. Thus, the Treaty gives the impression of granting concessions to individual nations' rights, but in effect it consolidates power at a federal level.

What can be seen, therefore, from the Treaty of Lisbon is a tug-of-war between national interests and the deep state interests of a centralized Union. The objectives of the two do sometimes overlap, but not in every case, as Ireland's rejection of the Treaty in 2008, which held ratification up for a year. Ireland was ultimately "brought to heel" so to speak in a "dramatic U-turn" of voting constituencies (McDonald, 2009). The U-turn was so dramatic that anti-Lisbon leader Richard Greene appealed to the UK's David Cameron to do something to stop "the drive towards an EU superstate" (McDonald, 2009).

Indeed, debate has flared up in the British Parliament concerning the EU's new powers, with some members recommending withdrawal from the Union altogether (Lords debates case for UK's membership of EU, 2014). Withdrawal, of course, could be a death blow to the Union, as secession is an action which can quickly become a trend, if history is to judge (Foote, 1974).

Still, to understand the EU, its consolidation of power, the role of the member nations, and the objectives of national interests vs. European Union interests, it is necessary to look more deeply into the complex structure of the "deep state" that exists behind the EU.

The EU developed out of a merger of the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community in the 1950s in the countries of Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and Netherlands. Following WW2, these "Inner Six" countries heeded the Schuman Declaration which proposed the industrial and economic organization of European powers under a supranational community, with the avoidance of war and division being the impetus for the call. As the post-War world was being "carved up" by strategists and magnates, this uber-fascist merger of business and state powers served as the foundation for the modern EU. The control of the coal and steel industries eventually gave rise to control of the finance industry, which today bears an overwhelming force on European affairs (as can be seen by the IMF's "loan" to Ukraine in the past year) (Escobar, 2014). But these controls had their beginnings prior to WW2. The modern industrialized world has been nothing if not a world of business and banking -- and this world has been operated by business and banking elites, the real movers and shakers behind Treaties, Unions, and national interests. Political objectives are typically mere window dressing for business and banking objectives, which have also been shown to mask an even grander objective of the "deep state," which is ideological self-interest (Hitchcock, 2007). The rise of the Zionist movement coincides with the rise of the industrialist movement, both of which were supported by wealthy financiers, who have deftly maneuvered nations like chess pieces on a game board (Hitchcock, 2007).

Considering that Israeli statehood was recognized in 1948 and that Western states have found themselves supporting Israel's right to exist at the expense of its neighbors (even when doing so contradicted the Western states' own foreign policy interests), it is significant that EU objectives appear to align with those of the overall international business and banking cartels which supported the rise of Zionism and continued to support Israeli interests throughout the latter half of the 20th century (Tyler, 2008). When France, for instance, chose to recognize Palestinian-statehood, a terror attack occurred in Paris and the Muslim extremists identified as the attackers were killed by police. Why the Muslim world would be upset with France on the eve of it receiving positive recognition from that nation does not exactly make sense. The theory of false-flag terrorism has been put forward by some researchers, such as Kearns, Conlon, and Young (2014), who assert that "over half of terrorist attacks are not credibly claimed." The contention of such theories is that the "deep state" behind the EU is part of the overall framework of an ideologically-minded group well-connected to both the business and banking cartels around the world. So what does this mean for EU's principle of supremacy and the obtaining of its objectives?

As Pepe Escobar (2014) notes, Europe is dire financial straits. The IMF has economically destroyed a number of nations through its lending programs. Raiding the coffers of countries such as Ukraine is part of what the IMF was set up to do. Since the EU's gross domestic product (GDP) equals about one-fifth of the overall world's, it is apparent that a unified Europe under one central command backed by a "deep state" with ideological aims is a powerful tool.

Whether or not nations like UK will continue to be part of that tool remains to be seen. David Cameron has stated that he is prepared to lead the UK out of the EU if immigration reforms are not carried out by the European Court. Cameron wants migrant workers who claim benefits from the state to find work within 6 months of arrival or face deportation. It is just one instance of a member state of the EU placing its own national interests before the overall objectives of the whole (Dominiczak, 2014). And Angela Merkel has stated that Germany would support UK's leaving the EU if only to keep the EU's principles regarding migration in place (BBC News, 2014). Why the easy access of migrants to any member nation in the EU is so important for the EU's objectives is only logical if one considers how massive migration alters the face of national identities. That national identities have been a target of Zionism since its foundation is no secret (Hitchcock 2007), and with the Zionist interests firmly at the heart of major industry cartels within the EU, it is reasonable to expect that migration laws designed to destroy national character stay in place. Germany's Merkel is clearly attempting to please the EU in this case and assist it in its totalitarian objectives. Escobar (2014), however, notes that German industrialists are aware of the behind the scene politics that are damaging Europe's relationship with Russia. Because of Russia's support for Assad in Syria, whom Israel and the U.S. have denounced as a terrorist threat, NATO has showed support for a war in Ukraine and Western leaders have spoken in favor of overthrowing Putin (as well as Assad). If Russia cuts off business with Europe, Germany could suffer economically. By supporting UK if it decides to leave the EU, Merkel is positioning Germany to perhaps follow suit in order to maintain healthy business contacts with Russia, since the powers behind the EU central command clearly are following the playbook of Washington, which is directed by Israel (see Boehner's recent invitation to Netanyahu to speak before Congress -- much to the chagrin of President Obama).

If the EU unravels, Europe will be fragmented, but nations who are able to support themselves and direct their own affairs will assume a position of leadership, rather than that of submissive vassal to cartels pulling strings within the "deep state" (Escobar, 2014). UK's desire to curb the massive influx of migrants into its own nation and the laws which require the nation to support the same migrants is obviously one that puts the nation's interests ahead of the EU's. But can the EU survive the exiting of UK? Escobar asserts that EU is already doomed because of its willingness to follow the commands of the "deep state" presided over by Washington and Israel. Its economic and foreign policy is a disaster. It is this disaster that also has Greece wishing to leave and look to the East for a matter stabilizing relationship.

With the gold standard becoming more accepted around the world as a result of the banking cartels exercising their influence in nation's domestic policy (one need note only William Jennings Bryant's unsuccessful bid for President in 1896 in America -- Bryant gave his speech on the gold standard, affirming that he would not let "them…crucify us on a cross of gold" and was promptly dubbed an anti-Semite, simply because he opposed the financial program of the banking cartel, primarily controlled by Zionists) (Hitchcock, 2007). The gold standard then became more accepted around the world and currency unions helped diminish "uncertainty in trade" (Broadberry, O'Rourke, 2010). That was the excuse for switching to the gold standard, at least. When the banking cartels confiscated the gold in Russia, the U.S., and elsewhere, it should have become clear that this was all simply a means of economic control (Hitchcock, 2007).

Such control was not by any means necessary for European or nation-state stability in the 20th century, a century whose wars were conducted primarily because the powers behind the "deep state" wanted them (Hitchcock, 2007). UK, for instance, had specialized in exporting manufactures and services. It primarily imported "food and raw materials" (Broadberry, O'Rourke, 2010) while France and Germany followed suit and southern Europe, not having become as industrialized as the north, still exported food and imported goods. Each nation had its own role to play in the European economy before the EU came into being. Then came the investment banks. Lending to foreign nations was facilitated by the lack of foreign aggression but that lack of aggression was not to last long. Although little conflict was seen between the years of the Franco-Prussian War and the start of WW1, the UK was able to expand and colonize because it had the structure to do so and it wanted to capitalize on the resources of the lands it colonized. Investing in foreign lands produced higher returns than could be gained by investing in the domestic economy (Broadberry, O'Rourke, 2010). That outlook has begun to change, however, as the EU's drive for total control over Europe's nations begins to unravel its relationship with the East. Russia is already looking to stabilize itself by moving all industry into domestic production. It no longer wishes to rely on Europe and the West since both have proven to be tools of the zero-sum game cartels behind the scenes.

S0 with the absolute control of monetary affairs by banking cartels, which proliferated in the 20th century, and the centralization of European affairs by the EU, nations like Ireland and UK have taken to reassessing the nature of the relationship, who stands to gain from it, and who stands to lose. That Ireland initially overwhelmingly rejected the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 only to reverse course a year later suggests some powerful change of attitude -- or some behind the scenes maneuvering by the business and banking elite.

The EU, of course, is focused on achieving its aims (which are the aims of its overlords) (Escobar, 2014) by following the German playbook on how to form a good bureaucracy. The bureaucratic disease that persists in the modern world is so overwhelmingly debilitating that it is not surprising how easy it is for the "deep state" to succeed in its objectives. The "deep state" players are, after all, not affected by the rules and regulations of the bureaucracy, since they operate behind it and outside its strictures (Tyler, 2008; Weiner, 2008). Understanding this bureaucracy and where it came from can also be helpful in understanding how and why the EU came about and what it means for its member nations.

The Age of Industrialization produced a number of inventions, one of them being the German sociologist Max Weber, who wrote the playbook on how to bureaucratize society. Weber saw bureaucracy as the salvation of the West because it revolutionized the way public administrators went about their work. Never mind the fact that what it did was actually make it so that public administrators would never be able to do any piece of work to any satisfactory extent ever again, Weber's model bureaucracy still exists today all over the world.

Weber's system of bureaucracy was developed from six basic points: 1) There must be a "fixed division of labor," otherwise known as specialization -- which is seen everywhere today in the proliferation of "specialized degrees" at universities; the basic concept is that "individuals [have] highly specialized jobs" (BusinessMate 2009; Macionis, p. 120); 2) It must contain a "hierarchy of offices, in which "each office [is] controlled and supervised by a higher ranking office"…"with few people at the top and many at the bottom" (BusinessMate 2009; Macionis, p. 120); 3) there must exist a "rational legal authority" that operates according to "rules and regulations…in a completely predictable fashion" (BusinessMate 2009; Macionis, p. 120); 4) it must be technically competent; 5) it must be totally impersonal; 6) and all communication should be formal and written so that there is always a record of everything; in short, the red tape should be endless to discourage anyone from actually having to deal with public administrators. In short, the less interference the better for those operating behind the scenes.

In Weber's model social administration system, a bureaucracy "promotes efficiency by carefully hiring workers and limiting the unpredictable effects of personal taste and opinion" (Macionis, p. 120). That means that a bureaucracy is good because it makes it possible to remove all of the unexpected elements from organization, stream-line all angles, and produce the most productive, accessible, and competent system for working conditions. Weber saw mankind as a machine that could be configure just so. The EU sees the nations of Europe in the same way. But that is only because leaders of these nations allow themselves to be seen this way. As Solzhenitsyn stated in his Harvard Address, there is a lack of leadership in the West, and the result will be total destruction of Western order. That destruction is being seen currently as nations lose their national characters, their sovereign rights, their economic stability, etc. The EU's supremacy is meant to do exactly that.