/ world today news/ In the last few weeks, the European Union has been shaking more and more. It seems that the economic problems caused by the “pandemic” took the butter out of the Brussels muffin and into the morning coffee, which the former member countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance so missed when they dissolved the SIV on June 22, 1991 to transition to a Western economy . Over the past thirty years, the socialist community has come full circle from being seduced by Western democracy and the collapse of its own economies to a frantic search for a place in the market for goods and services that has long been divided and assimilated. Today, in the strained relations between the EU countries, dry crackling is increasingly heard.
And it’s not just that Germans receive an average of 2,315 euros per month, Bulgarians – 544, Belgians – 2,170, and Hungarians – 750. Swedes – 2,507 and Romanians – 703 euros. In general, even after 30 years, those who fled for butter do not reach 1,000 euros per month, while the rest receive 2,000 and more. Another thing is even more offensive. United in the name of democracy and the free market, Europe was unceremoniously in the market of the former socialist camp – it ate it. But now Brussels has set about managing a much finer matter – the national identity of refugees from socialism. The basic reflex of any bureaucracy is its reproduction. Starting in 1952 with the European Coal and Steel Community, that is, with purely economic functions, officials in Brussels, who represent neither the states nor the voters, aspired to power over the whole of Europe.
Brussels was defeated in 2004 by its own constitution, which extended the powers of the European Parliament to solve problems with the state of civil liberties, border control and immigration, the work of the judicial and law enforcement structures of all EU countries. However, three years later, Brussels still appropriated these powers to itself with the Treaty of Lisbon. Since then, the “Belt of Brussels” has tightened Europe more and more.
Poland revolted earlier than the others. The regular EU summit, which began on October 20, presented Warsaw with a barrier: the crisis erupted after Poland returned the priority of national law over EU law. On October 7, the Constitutional Court of Poland, after considering the request of Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, confirmed the inconsistency of the rule on the priority of European law over the republic’s constitution. In response, Brussels froze 57 billion euros promised to Warsaw to deal with the consequences of the “pandemic” as part of the National Recovery Plan. The Brussels belt tightened.
Before the meeting, Manfred Weber, head of the European People’s Party, the leading faction in the European Parliament, announced Poland’s possible withdrawal from the European Union. “Whatever happens next, Poles are likely to pay the price for their government’s balancing act on the brink of war,” Project Syndicate commented.
For Poland, this choice is difficult. From May 2004, when it joined the EU, until the middle of this year, Warsaw received 206 billion euros a year from Brussels and expects another 170 billion over the next seven years. Poland is the biggest beneficiary in the EU, yet the Poles have challenged the European Union. “The European Commission has made it clear that Poland must make concessions in order to receive EU funds,” says Project Syndicate. “However, the president of the National Bank of Poland, Adam Glapinski, says: ‘We will do well without the funds of the European Union.’
Poland did not switch to the euro, unlike its Baltic neighbors – Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, who lost independence in their monetary policy, also lost the tools to stimulate economic growth through fiscal methods.
Losing levers of control over one’s own economy, forcing them to abandon national legislation, imposing immorality as a new “tolerant culture” – isn’t it too much? Not only Poles are asking themselves this question today.
Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Janša, who currently chairs the EU Council, accused the European Commission of politically abusing the rule of law. The European Commission, he believes, should not interfere in political matters, but “everything changed with the arrival of Ursula von der Leyen”. If this had happened 15 years ago, Ursula would hardly have stayed at the European Commission for more than a week, says Janša.
In Romania, a September survey by Inscop showed that more than two-thirds of the country’s citizens believe that the government should protect their country’s interests when it conflicts with EU law, even if it could lead to leaving the EU . Today, more than 64 percent of Romanians agree with such a decision.
The Czech Freedom and Direct Democracy party, which is part of the government coalition, is in favor of a referendum on the Czech Republic’s exit from the European Union. Its leader Tomio Okamura (half-Japanese) is ready to propose a bill that could lead to a referendum on leaving the EU
Lithuania has asked Brussels to change EU migration law to prevent illegal migrants from entering the country.
Even the Kingdom of Norway, which is not a member of the European Union but only part of the European Economic Area (EEA) since 1994, is thinking of revising the EEA Treaty to strengthen its sovereignty. In Oslo, they believe that the country should leave the Schengen area and “say no” to the excessive tutelage of bureaucrats from Brussels. This is despite the fact that 80 percent of Norwegian exports go to the EU and 60 percent of imports come from there.
Never before have so many claims on the Brussels bureaucracy been piled up by European countries.
Translation: V. Sergeev
#Poles #money #European #Union
