Beware of the EU!
Due to the current poitical climate, we broadcast a warning for undermining of democracy. The warnign concerns citizens of Europe, and the direct cause is the phenomenon known as EU.
It may sound dramatic, but I feel it is justified. The methods and organisation of the EU is slowly but certainly erasing larger and larger parts of our democracy, and replacing it with mainly bureaucracy.
I feel that there are a couple of things that really clearify my point of view, and who together overweigh any possible advantages of the EU. They concern the principle of public documents, the bureaucracy, and the problems of decisionmaking and cooperation between the member nations.
The principle of making most documents concerning the decisions in the parliament is a large problem, because it's missing in the union. In contrast to Sweden, the EU has no principle of releasing documents to the public. On the contrary, it's more a rule than an exception to have documents concerning the work in the parliament classified, secret from the public, and especially critical journalists. Employees of the EU may not comment on anything either. The last few years we have seen some examples of what happens when they do: Severy punishments, for trying to make the public and the media see the problems and the errors in the union's organisation. This way of working may be justified in the secret police, working with the security of the nation (or union), but in a democratic organisation and parliament? Similar principles are only found in countries where either corruption has eaten away the democratic ways, or under pure dictatorships. Does this sound like a parliament you would enjoy living under?
The bureaucracy in the union is not far behind the lack of openness when the undermining of democracy is concerned. The bureaucrats live a good life in the current system. Before an issue is even taken into the parliament for decision, it has passed a couple of thousand of bureaucrat hands. The union has approximately 20 000 bureaucrats employed. I will leave it to your imagination to try to get a grip on how much they cost in salary, material, representation and so on.
If we for a moment disregard the costs, there is one more, even greater, problem with the current system: I a heavy and slow organisation, hardly surveyable, corruption can get an easy grip. Already we see lots and lots of lobbyists, influencing the politicians to give them advantages. This is the beginning of corruption. Those with enough money to start a lobbying organisation are the ones who get to state their opinions and wishes, and those without the means to influence the politicians in this manner, meaning the general public of the EU, can not make themselves heard. The power slowly moves from the people, through interest organisations and lobbyists, to the capital and the money: a selected, privileged few, who don't have any idea what the average person wants or needs, and really couldn't care less. This means the decisions of the parliament are based on the listening of money talking, instead of listening to the people. Is this a democracy, where all power eminates from the people? I think not!
The last problem I want to mention is a problem that is inherent in all democracies, and needs to be, but which has in the European Union been allowed to flow over all bounds: The difficulty to make decisions that actually fit most of the people concerned. Every member nation of course has it's own interests and values, and every member nation has it's own culture. Every member nation hence has different ideas of what a good decision is in the issues arising, and many member nations are stubborn. The will to compromise, something that is vital to democracy, just isn't there. Also, when a compromise has finally been reached, it is often that is has lost almost ever ounce of weight the original proposition had, because of one or two nations refusing to give in. Because of the rules and the number of votes allocated to each country, a few countries can stop a decision many other countries are behind.
The problems with the EU are many, but these three basic problems are in themselves enough to oppose the union, and are very difficult to overcome and change in any reasonable time. Hence, I don't believe in the European Union as an organisation. I do, however, believe in a united Europe, and, sometime, a united world, where weapons, borders and military force are no longer needed. What I oppose is the uniting of any geographic area under an organisation like the EU, which is becoming more and more like the USA, where money and not the people rules. I've made my choice, but what would you prefer: The Government form of Democracy, or the government form of bureaucracy and capitalism?
Would you like to comment on this article?
Send a mail to dont-panic@swipnet.se or visit the guestbook.