Note by Transnotitia: Etienne Chouard is a household name in French dissident circles, and therefore probably a worthwhile author to translate. In fact, today, at a time when France is at a crossroads, his large body of work over the last decade is inspiring Yellow Vests to demand such things as a popular referendum. In the following article, originally published in French over a decade ago, Chouard puts forward a devastating critique of the EU by analyzing its two primary treaties: the Treaty on European Union (TEU) & the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU):
*
1. First and foremost, European institutions encourage mass unemployment through a monetary policy devoid of any tangible benefit to the common good. The fight against inflation is now the absolute priority, the inviolable mission of a European Central Bank (ECB) that is strictly independent of those who represent the people:
“Concurrently with the foregoing, and as provided in the Treaties and in accordance with the procedures set out therein, these activities shall include a single currency, the euro, and the definition and conduct of a single monetary policy and exchange-rate policy, the primary objective of both of which shall be to maintain price stabilityand, without prejudice to this objective, to support the general economic policies in the Union, in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition.” (TFEU, Article 119, §2)
“These activities of the Member States and the Union shall entail compliance with the following guiding principles: stable prices, sound public finances and monetary conditions and a sustainable balance of payments” (TFEU, Article 119, §3)
“When exercising the powers and carrying out the tasks and duties conferred upon them by the Treaties and the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB, neither the European Central Bank, nor a national central bank, nor any member of their decision-making bodies shall seek or take instructions from Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, from any government of a Member State or from any other body. The Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies and the governments of the Member States undertake to respect this principle and not to seek to influence the members of the decision-making bodies of the European Central Bank or of the national central banks in the performance of their tasks” (TFEU, Article 130).
“The ESCB shall be governed by the decision-making bodies of the European Central Bank. The primary objective of the ESCB shall be to maintain price stability. Without prejudice to that objective, it shall support the general economic policies in the Union in order to contribute to the achievement of the latter’s objectives.
The European Central Bank shall have legal personality. It alone may authorise the issue of the euro. It shall be independent in the exercise of its powers and in the management of its finances. Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and the governments of the Member States shall respect that independence.” (TFEU, Article 282, §2-3)
Since this dubious approach to monetary policy is so deeply entrenched in supranational law, the wider public cannot oppose it. To this day, European authorities continue to enforce the fight against inflation for the benefit of rentiers, in an attempt to deliberately perpetuate massive unemployment and low wages; and this has the advantage — for some — of turning everyone into docile instruments of the Usurocracy. This single point should lead all employees (91% of the working population) to the streets against the EU.
2. Secondly — and this in fact amounts to financial suicide — the magic power of money creation has completely been handed over to private banks. The European constitution prohibits central banks from lending to national governments — loans that could otherwise be used to finance public investments without incurring interest.
“Overdraft facilities or any other type of credit facility with the European Central Bank or with the central banks of the Member States (hereinafter referred to as ‘national central banks’) in favour of Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of Member States shall be prohibited, as shall the purchase directly from them by the European Central Bank or national central banks of debt instruments.
Paragraph 1 shall not apply to publicly owned credit institutions which, in the context of the supply of reserves by central banks, shall be given the same treatment by national central banks and the European Central Bank as private credit institutions.” (TFEU, Article 123, §1-2)
We must understand that this ban requires member states to borrow the money (at interest!) from private actors, who have money to invest (and who can thus get rich by way of usury). This scandalous rule forces member states (that is, all of us) to finance public investments at very high interest rates. It also forces member states to quickly accumulate excessive amounts of debt for the “welfare” of the general public (more than €40+ billion per year of interest for France); and this in spite of the fact that, if only central banks were able to finance public projects, then the interest paid could be redistributed to the community instead of enriching private “investors”. Public debt (rendered inexorable by institutions all over the world) is not only ruining us, but also guaranteeing the impotence of our political representatives, whose dependence on the FIRE sector as of late has reduced them to mere puppets. This other major vice should be enough, on its own, to fuel a general revolt.
3. The prohibition imposed on national governments to limit the movement of capital and the freedom of establishment deprives workers of any counter-powers over shareholders; it leaves our economies open to unbridled speculation, repeated stock market crashes, and soon, outright bankruptcy.
“Within the framework of the provisions set out below, restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State shall be prohibited. Such prohibition shall also apply to restrictions on the setting-up of agencies, branches or subsidiaries by nationals of any Member State established in the territory of any Member State. Freedom of establishment shall include the right to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons and to set up and manage undertakings, in particular companies or firms within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54, under the conditions laid down for its own nationals by the law of the country where such establishment is effected, subject to the provisions of the Chapter relating to capital”. (TFEU, Article 42)
“Within the framework of the provisions set out in this Chapter, all restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited.
Within the framework of the provisions set out in this Chapter, all restrictions on payments between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited.” (TFEU, Article 63, §1-2)
Once they’ve managed to keep the workers in check, the Usurocracy will then make them pay the bill through lower wages and higher taxes. Who has any interest in this sort of absolute freedom, which lets foxes run free in an open henhouse? Certainly not the wider public… What we have here is another major vice. The “elite” avoids mentioning it at all costs, which should give people enough reason to revolt against the EU.
4. The mutual defense clause between EU Member States does not call into question the commitments they entered into upon joining NATO:
“The policy of the Union in accordance with this Section shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.” (TEU, Article 42 §2)
“If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.” (TEU, Article 42 §7)
This clause, which confirms Article 5 of the Atlantic pact, in fact subjugates every member states’s armed forces to NATO’s armed forces, because the most powerful European states (militarily, economically and politically) are the ones that have dual membership. Such subjugation is all the more serious in that, on the one hand, the EU and NATO allow member states to join forces for interventions or missions in ‘foreign playgrounds’ and, on the other hand, NATO’s political and military bodies envisage a restructuring of the Atlantic Alliance, based on the possibility of a ‘pre-emptive’ nuclear strike, followed by other operations undertaken without UN authorization and decided by a simple consensus.
5. Ministers and Presidents accumulate executive and legislative powers over areas that are hidden in plain sight from the public under the misleading terms “special legislative procedures” and “non-legislative acts”.
On special legislative procedures:
“In the specific cases provided for by the Treaties, the adoption of a regulation, directive or decision by the European Parliament with the participation of the Council, or by the latter with the participation of the European Parliament, shall constitute a special legislative procedure.
Legal acts adopted by legislative procedure shall constitute legislative acts.” (TFEU, Article 289, §2-3)
On non-legislative acts:
“The Union’s competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union’s security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence.
The common foreign and security policy is subject to specific rules and procedures. It shall be defined and implemented by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously, except where the Treaties provide otherwise. The adoption of legislative acts shall be excluded. The common foreign and security policy shall be put into effect by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and by Member States, in accordance with the Treaties. The specific role of the European Parliament and of the Commission in this area is defined by the Treaties. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall not have jurisdiction with respect to these provisions, with the exception of its jurisdiction to monitor compliance with Article 40 of this Treaty and to review the legality of certain decisions as provided for by the second paragraph of Article 275 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. (TEU, Article 24, §1)
Ministers, who are (in theory) executive agents, gather in a “Council” — without specifying that it’s a Council of Ministers — and declare themselves to be outright co-legislators:
“The European Parliament [i.e., Ministers] shall, jointly with the Council, exercise legislative and budgetary functions. It shall exercise functions of political control and consultation as laid down in the Treaties. It shall elect the President of the Commission.
The Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, who may commit the government of the Member State in question and cast its vote.” (TEU Article 16 §1-2, which is simply scandalous)
This violation of the separation of powers principle indicates that we are on a downward spiral, one which the The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (DRMC) considers to be the surest sign that tyranny is near:
“A society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all.” (DRMC, Article 16)
The DRMC has a point: after all, a lack of separation of powers puts each branch of government at the mercy of the private powers of the times.
6. The executive branch also controls the careers of European judges, whose power is considerable. Judges are appointed for a short and renewable six years, thereby creating a dangerous dependency:
“The Judges and Advocates-General of the Court of Justice shall be chosen from persons whose independence is beyond doubt and who possess the qualifications required for appointment to the highest judicial offices in their respective countries or who are jurisconsults of recognised competence; they shall be appointed by common accord of the governments of the Member States for a term of six years, after consultation of the panel provided for in Article 255. Every three years there shall be a partial replacement of the Judges and Advocates-General, in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Judges shall elect the President of the Court of Justice from among their number for a term of three years. He may be re-elected. Retiring Judges and Advocates-General may be reappointed.” (TFEU, Article 253)
This violation of the essential principle of judicial independence again flouts the separation of powers principle in favor of the ministers, who appoint and renew — or not — judges. The ministers clearly make the rules.
7. Constituent and legislative power is, for the most part, controlled by unelected bodies. Here are some examples:
An Intergovernmental Conference (composed of ministers) amends the institutions:
A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties. (TEU, Article 48, §4)
An (unelected) European Commission has exclusive legislative initiative:
“The Commission shall promote the general interest of the Union and take appropriate initiatives to that end. It shall ensure the application of the Treaties, and of measures adopted by the institutions pursuant to them. It shall oversee the application of Union law under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It shall execute the budget and manage programmes. It shall exercise coordinating, executive and management functions, as laid down in the Treaties. With the exception of the common foreign and security policy, and other cases provided for in the Treaties, it shall ensure the Union’s external representation. It shall initiate the Union’s annual and multiannual programming with a view to achieving interinstitutional agreements.” (TEU Article 17 §1)
Co-legislating ministers:
“The European Parliament [i.e., Ministers] shall, jointly with the Council, exercise legislative and budgetary functions. It shall exercise functions of political control and consultation as laid down in the Treaties. It shall elect the President of the Commission.
The Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, who may commit the government of the Member State in question and cast its vote.” (TEU Article 16 §1-2, which is simply scandalous)
The ECB produces binding rules of general application:
In order to carry out the tasks entrusted to the ESCB, the European Central Bank shall, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties and under the conditions laid down in the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB:
— make regulations to the extent necessary to implement the tasks defined in Article 3.1, first indent, Articles 19.1, 22 and 25.2 of the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB in cases which shall be laid down in the acts of the Council referred to in Article 129(4),
— take decisions necessary for carrying out the tasks entrusted to the ESCB under the Treaties and the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB,
— make recommendations and deliver opinions. (TEFU, Article 132, §1)
Et certera…
Therefore, the (unelected) authors of European institutions have gradually emptied universal suffrage of all its meaning. Our elected representatives are now powerless and real leaders are no longer elected. In short, European power is deeply illegitimate.
8. Citizens have no means of resisting abuses of power, and citizen initiatives are silenced by a deceptive “initiative of inviting” procedure – deceptive because it has no binding force:
” Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.” (TFEU, Article 11, §4)
We should note that this article has absolutely no binding force: the Commission can do whatever it wants without even having to give reasons for its decisions. It can throw the initiative in the trash can, it can distort it or empty it of its meaning, and then the Council of Ministers and Parliament can do the same. Citizen are being taken for fools by being offered empty gifts, empty promises of a long-awaited democratic right in article 11.
9. The revision procedures allow executives to change the institutions themselves, and above all without consulting the peoples concerned (Article 48 TEU).
“The European Parliament [i.e., Ministers] shall, jointly with the Council, exercise legislative and budgetary functions. It shall exercise functions of political control and consultation as laid down in the Treaties. It shall elect the President of the Commission.” (TEU Article 1, §1)
It is first and foremost the unelected bodies that are responsible for revising the European Constitution and monitoring any proposed revision. Most worrisome above all is the fact that citizens are kept well apart from the constituent process, which does not impose any referendum. The sort of “democracy” imposed on us by our elected representatives is a sham.
10. All this is due, in our view, to the fact that the constituent process itself is deeply vitiated by the fact that the way the EU is built allows those in power to write rules for themselves:
“A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.” (TEU, Article 48, §4)
We believe that only a disinterested Constituent Assembly can build good institutions, provided that the members of this Assembly do not have a personal interest in rendering the citizenry politically powerless. Therefore, they must first be declared ineligible for the functions that they establish, and above all, the parties must in no case be able to exercise a monopoly on the nomination of candidates. Free and independent candidates must be supported in a fair manner, both financially and in media coverage.
Étienne Chouard is a French economics and law teacher and blogger. During the 2005 French referendum campaign on the European Constitution he gained public attention by advocating against it, notably for his discussion with Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Since then Chouard – who defines himself as a “seeker of the original cause of social injustices” – has been working on different democratic systems and constitutions. He is a supporter of the idea of sortition which could also be applied to constitutional conventions. (Source)