Europe and the European Peoples

I declare myself European autonomist. Europe is not democratic, peoples are deprived of their vote, the expression of the General will is not. I am a separatist, a federalist or a separatist with the what I wish an institutional compromise around my ideas. It is important to ensure broad autonomy to peoples and constitutional procedures must be provided. This is the case in the United States, I do not understand why this is not the case in Europe. A State that wants to guarantee abortion, is not fussed trick or Widget State who want to do the opposite and that block at the federal level. This does exist in Europe. I think it is important that the peoples, through their national representation (national Parliament), have rights (individual and collective). This is called the normally federalism! What is this authoritarian centralism that is just junk federalism. Those who govern Europe are some nicks jacobins federalists! If a people cannot have a right to block him alone, he must be listened to seriously and seriously opine. A veto and blocking collective rights come guarantee this principle to national parliaments. While individual rights gives these parliaments the right to actually influence the guidelines. This is a real bicameral parliamentary system for Europe with the European Parliament and parliaments of the peoples of Europe (national parliaments) as a centre of power. Parliaments elect and controlling the commission. This has many advantages. Each people is listened and his opinion taken into account. This system supports the compromise between peoples. Europe focuses on its common denominator, which includes the social and ecological Europe.

It is taking power in Europe, that peoples will definitely come out of the crisis and austerity, and put the social and ecological Europe in practice. Peoples should take power to the financial dictatorship and the European federation (we call it as you want), the expression of the General will.

What do these technocrats have to liberalize and to homogenize? Let the people speak. Come to know ourselves, show our differences, our cultures, our history. And ofcourse there is a common basis. The main common values are democracy, the social and the environmental. The autonomy or the principle of subsidiarity, must prevail on the draft common respondents to the principle of complementarity. These must be justified, and have good arguments, to be put in place. But then if the parliaments European starts a want to homogenize everything like that, if it does not seriously respect the right to influence the Nations of its guidelines. It will upset the national parliaments. And if too many members are angry, will take a veto in the figure. But what is it going to take as a veto in the face before respect parliaments national and do things correctly!

I have some idea of the France. France, daughter of the lights must assume its democratic and humanist vocation. It is the grandeur of the France for the what we must be exemplary. The European autonomism is part of this message and french vocation, respondents to the democratic shortcomings and the rape of the autonomy of the Member States, by this small band of diplomats and technocrats without no popular legitimacy. Me for example I did not vote for Merkel. Anyway, its mandate is not European. Why should I be?

I do not want to quibble but who said parliamentary regime unstable regime, it is the level of our media. Necessarily, this is not the purpose even if it is a lesser evil.

It should be a broad autonomy in Europe. Why Europe has just to annoy us with our regions. Has Europe just tamper them? Follow our departments. Follow our autonomy in as Member States, we will respect yours! Long live France, long live the Republic



a. Introduction

« It is through freedom and the growing trade that will gradually realize human unity. » Jean Jaurès*
Probably a video on midsummer fest, Swedish National Day.

Europe can not be governed by the ball of diplomats or managed by a centralist authoritarian federalism which is just a junk federalism. Those who govern Europe are pseudo-Federalists Jacobins! Europe should no longer submit to the financial dictatorship and their austerity policy! Where is the popular sovereignty of the peoples of Europe? Where is the expression of the general will of the european peoples? Isn't European identity, the pooling identity of its peoples, both different and with common aspects? Europe trampls the autonomy of its people and discredit their will to move forward together. Banks and large corporations have taken advantage of this and took power. We the peoples of Europe, we say stop, we want a federal democracy that respects us and establish a social Europe. We don't want the dictatorship of markets. We do not want to be dispossessed of our choices. Clowns have imposed the Copenhagen criteria to the Member States but stupidly Europe does not meet these criteria. It is time that people wake up and establish a genuine European democracy. What sens is there of homogening everything? Will we have to learn esperento? Europe can not continue to flouting its peoples. It will be by the sovereign peoples of Europe, represented by their national and European parliaments, that a solution to the crisis will be found. The solution to the crisis will come when the people take the power against the financial markets.

I am a autonomous, I am not a federalist, I am more moderate on the European issue and I think that ensuring a large autonomy is important. I wish an autonomist compromise with them and the sovereignists. We must end national blockages, but every nation must able to give its opinion, which must be seriously tooken in account by the European Parliament. The autonomy of the Member States should be wide and warrantied. This includes budgets questions, of course. We are witnessing countries like Greece and Italy being submitted to the financial dictatorship. This is a violation of the most basic democratic rights. The European Union must focus on the common denominator, which includes social rights. I propose a parliamentary regime with two chambers, which elects and controls the commission. Europe must truly be the expression of the general will of its peoples and every nation must express able to express its wills and be seriously taken in account by the European institutions. Blocking rights can only be collective, they are endorsing this logic, and provide the necessary respect for national parliaments.


b. The problems of the European Union.

« Chapelier found that low wages was a kind of slavery. » Jean Jaurès*
The Syrtakis, the dance of Zorba the Greek.

The democratic idea, expressed by universal suffrage is now a national idea. A citizen does not feel like part of the European public, but feels like a member of his country. He feels that the decisions, even those issued from European universal suffrage escape him. It takes a form of national legitimacy within the European institutions, this is what we call federalism. This legitimacy is very difficult to find, by omitting the peoples, directly at European level. This is what is happening now and it is very unfortunate. Our cultures, our traditions, our stories are too different to be embedded in a common mold.

The way elections are held in the European Parliament are problematic. After the election, the media ignore the MPs. This means that we are giving them a blank check, and sometimes they do the opposite of what they promised. No judgment is made on MPs we elect. Another problem is that these elections are based on national issues and not European ones. If some MPs ask for submission to economic liberalism, which is not always perceived as a suspect in a national election, because it is a submission to the World and European liberalism. At European level, there is no doubt this is a scam. And the economic liberals and xenophobic MPs benefit from this situation, paradoxically they benefit from the problems related to globalization and liberalism. This is problems they create themselves. I feel that arsonists are the first to benefit of the fire. This is also related to poor information, which has no respect to European information, this is pathetic. This is a anti-democratic mechanical, against which we must fight.

All the charm and melody of Enya, Irish singer.

The next problem is the importance of diplomats and government whose mandate are national and does not have the necessary legitimacy. As an example, it is easier to lower social standards, due to social dumping, that to impove them. Projects depend on a balance of diplomatic power, promotes and disadvantage countries. This balance of power is against social policies. Without agreeing social policies exists difficulty. Economic liberalism is easier. The failure of Europe, is a consequence of the balance of diplomatic power. It leeds to seting up technocracy against democracy and implements unfair mechanisms.

With 43.1% of registered voters oting in European elections, the problem is palpable. Citizens feel dispossessed of their vote, the expresson of their general will. Europe is beyond their choises. The problem is both economic liberal authoritarianism and its political weakness, its difficulty to make decisions. The economic liberal turn, relocations, social dumping, austerity policies are primarily political choices. The omnipotence of the financial community, is the result of laissez faire, and even the supports of a majority of European leaders. It is by empowering its people, that Europe will emerge from the crisis, and jail its bankersters.


c. National identity and Europe

« It is true that the beauty of science and art is comforter. » Jean Jaurès*
Polish traditional dance.

National identity should be based on culture and history. It is the only way of creating a sense of unity while denying xenophobia, a noxious, sterile and negative mind. It is generating injustices and is dehumanizing. It is through culture and history we must express our commitment to the values ​​of our Democracy, counrty and identity. Europe should not stifle and break the identities of its peoples, but instead promote cultural exchanges and encourrage their expression. It should help to express the identity of its people, because these cultural exchanges create the idea of a European communit, with differentices, and common aspects. Only a truly federal Europe can sympolise such an idea, from what we are catastrophically far. Art and culture have been key elements in the history of all peoples. How can we not recognize the imact of pyramids builders as a essenciel role in the identity of the égypsien peoples, through milenaires and all around the world? This is a policy that should be encouraged. France is perfectly able to build taller towers than Dubai. How can we deny the role of the Eiffel Tower, built for the centenary of the taking of the Bastille, in national identity? It is thanks with a strong national identity, and trust in us, that we will go to other peoples and cultures. Why France guinguettes and accordions would be afraid of flamenco? These exchanges are enhancements! The real threat comes from low hamburger culture and a worldwise homogenization. There is little value in them. It is an encouragement to outrace consumption, in a consumerist low pricing logic.

The other part of our national identity is searching for our historical roots. One of the historical sources, and the foundation of the European Union is the refusal of wars that have torn us up during centuries. It is the desire to live in peace and democracy. This should justify that the European Union becomes a true federal democracy. These two parts of national identity may find a means of expression in debate democracy . The European Union should no longer act against its peoples and must promote their identity. What is this Europe? Are they going to make us more they learn Esperanto and get us drunk of coke! Sutch a policy favoring national identities and exchanges is a question of balance for Europe, as it is a community of peoples.


d. A democratic, parliamentary and federal solution

« It's going to the sea that the river remains faithful to its source. » Jean Jaurès*
A gypsy flamenco.

To make the sovereignty of the peoples of Europe against the financial and big capital dictacts, we need a political union. Democratic and the federal principles are absolutely essential. Only a European federation is able to resist the alienation of European peoples, their cultures, their identities, their social rights, from the powers of money.

I propose a parliamentary system with two chambers: the European Parliament and the Parliament of the European peoples. The second parliament is nothing less than the pooling of national parliaments. Each national parliament, representing his people, would have of rights, and would address the European Parliament. If a directive displeased a parliament, it would have some options. It could has the right to propose amendments. It could impose a second vote if hostility is large enough. And in the end all national parliaments together would have a veto right. It is unacceptable that a nation disposasse a bloking right, which would seriously undermine the coherence of institutions. This right would only be held by all national parliaments at European level. National parliaments could also propose directive to the European Parliament.

The Commission would be elected and accountable to the European Parliament and the Parliament of the European peoples. These parliaments could revoke each Commissioner in case of disagreement. Obviously the European bank would be under the authority of a Commissioner.

Nena - 99 Luftballons. German pacifist song.

Such a parliamentary regime has many advantages. Every people can express themselves, be heard and influence decisions, which is a factor of appeasement. Citizens can interpellate their national parliament and the issue goes to the European Parliament. Then it favors overall acceptable compromise. This notion of compromise been too mutch neglected by actual European policy makers. Then the last advantage of a parliamentary regime is that it provides a common base around consensual values ​​and principles, and focuses on the common denominator. The French Third Republic which was a parliamentary regime and has lead to many significant democratic advances. It is a system that works and can be a source of inspiration for Europe. We do not want an authoritarian Europe anymore. With a wide autonomy for Member States, conflicts, such as social dumping, would be arbitrated by the majority of Europeans. Issues such as the right to abortion would be a national competence and Europe would have nothing to say. We do not imagine U.S. federal institutions legislating on these issues. These are States skills. Why is this not the same in Europe? We have the chance to move from a system where there banks and big capital rules to a system based on moral principles and equity between peoples. Every people must have the right to choose its economic system, socialism for example, and the whole of Europe must be consistent. In my system the European Parliament should seriously listen to each national parliament, it must make efforts and seek concensus, because if too angry national MPs, they might veto projects at the European level.

We must distinguish between European and national competences. Preference should be given to national level unless unit is really useful and desirable at European level. We must recognize the primacy of the principle of subsidiarity, but recognize the principle of substitution, when needed. If I believe that environmental issues should be European, because they are vital for our future and that of our children. But I totally disagree that Europe legislates or worse prohibit abortion. This last question must be a national competence. It takes a parliamentary procedure, which includes the European Parliament and national parliaments, to designate the skill level of the subjects and topics and guarantee them as either European or national competence.

An interesting idea as a Member State right would be to be able to impose a European referundum on citizens' initiative. Citizens of a Member State may impose their referendum. The idea is to give rights of both citizens and peoples.

For citizens to better understand Europe, a European TV channel is desirable. The European intelligentsia could express themselves and debate. Debate Democracy could be an attractive source of inspiration. This television would show the current the European and European peoples news, what we missed dramaticly. This would help to better know us, are differences, and are commun points.

Peoples are dispossessed of their powers. The expression of the general will of the European peoples does not exist or works wrong. by giving power to people we will settle the economic and moral crises. Europe should not be an extension of the powers of employers and banks, but must represent its people.

Too strong commission would not have the legitimacy from the people who have a nation democratic culture. It is precisely by allowing the people to express and be seriously listened to, promoting consensus / compromise, that the commission could enjoyed a real legitimacy. This parliamentary regime, I propose is a good for legitimacy. I propose that the commissioners should be elected individually and remain responsible towards the parliaments, and should be elected in a way to favor promote consensus / compromise. The center of power must belong to parliaments. Doing this the EU could enjoy a real legitimacy.

I propose that the National Assembly (or any other national parliament) makes a democratic putsch. It can ask for an amendement or propose a European directive. It is a provocation. Requests will multiply and generate a crisis in the European Parliament. Legal changes will be necessary! Sometimes it is necessary to shake the coconut tree.


e. The euro question.

« The Republic is the right of every man, whatever his religious belief, to have its share of sovereignty. » Jean Jaurès*
Enya, Ireland and its tales and legends.

Is the Euro the problem, or is it the consequences of deeper problems, less visible? The changeover made a loss in purchasing power to a lot of peoples. But wouldn't the return to the franc have the same consequences? This is due to the power of finance, the power of banks in our economy. They have a real power to blackmail, capital flight, relocation, debt crisis. And unfortunately our governments to submits to them. The euro is not the real problem, it is our financial economy, and more generally the big capital. If we do not stop them, they will use every circumstance to amass even more and more. We must unite for this, and most lagement possible. This is why the euro is an asset, together we are stronger to fight against the financial markets dictatorship. It is still necessary that people takes over the euro. A thorough reform, is necessary. For this, we need a European economic government, but it must be under the control of the people and their parliaments. The peoples of Europe must unite to stop the crisis and the euro will be their tool. The crisis came from banks, they are the ones who must pay. The euro must be completely reformed and we put an end to the dictatorship of the financial markets. The euro must be set in the service of a growth and employment policy. Austerity plans are nonsense and anti-democratic aggression. The peoples of Europe must unite and express their common will.


f. Conclusion.

« Only through the free federation of autonomous nations, repudiating business strength and submitting to the rules of law that can be made human unity. » Jean Jaurès*
Jacques Brel (1929-1978), Belgian singer, was the most Francophile of flamingos.
Directive 86/609 is a rogue European Directive. It prevents Member States to regulate animal testing in their laboratories. It is also an damage on Member States autonomy, as it is not justified at EU level. I propose that the French National Assembly or any other national parlament addresses the European Parliament for revocation. This is a democratic putsch.

I see myself as autonomist, a moderate eurosceptic. I am a European autonomist without being a sovereignist. Eurosceptics and federalists tell good both things and both have a share of reason. I voted "NO" to the Maastricht Treaty. The Constitutional Treaty does not allow Member States do social policies. This treaty was fundamentally anti-democratic. The difficuly to reformed it made it catastrophic. The "NO" won, and the desired crisis did not take place. This crisis would have been the voice of the people could have produced a better constitution. I have no reason to vote for a text in which I do not agree and where too many concession where requested. It was possible and is always possible to write a constitution acceptable by the largest number. This "European federation" would be similar to what I described. It allows various movements to defend their ideas (demands for autonomy, social policy) within the European institutions. The large autonomy demand allows nations to implement their own policies.

I seek a autonomist compromise between autonomists, federalists and sovereignists. My parliamentary Europe is probably the best possible. A centralized and authoritarian Europe is catastrophic and has no meaning. Europe of regions has no other consequence than to tear our beautiful countries. It is not a sociological nor identity reality and will be forgotten. If my Europe succeeds, it will become useless. Disagreements between autonomists and federalists are to be dealed within the European institutions, in a parliamentary manner and have citizens and peoples as arbitrators.

Peoples must grab the power in Europe against the banks and big capital. We need new rules, it is necessary that people have real power. It is therefore necessary that Europe really become a democratic federal and parliamentarien regime. Europe must become the expression of the will of its people, a bulwark against wild economical liberalism. I am for the Europe of the European peoples and against the Europe of banks and big capital. Europe as it works is a scam. In practice it is not at all democratic. We must fight for the our people to really govern. This is the best defense against economic violence and anti-social duping. We should promote the individual and collective rights of our national parliaments. No concession on this point is not acceptable. Lets give Europe to the European peoples and make the expression of general will a reallity. And a European constitution should make an explicit reference to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, declaring all articles are important.


Your comments

You can leave your comments here (preferably in English)





useless link

Last modified on Sunday, 7th June 2015 at 1:00 AM