Eurasia Press & News
European funds, which are distributed to EU member states in various ways, will henceforth be “conditional on respect for the rule of law”… In other words, any deviation from the EU’s ideological line, in any area, will be subject to financial sanctions – as is already happening with Hungary. This new direction for the EU will lead to the ideology of Western Europe being imposed on Eastern Europe: “open borders”, environmentalism, the fight against “hate” — but only “hate” from the right of the political spectrum.
In particular, the aim is apparently to penalize social media networks that refuse to censor their users or, more precisely, that refuse to penalize their users in the way the EU wants… either X submits to the EU’s ideology and censorship, or X will have a part of its global revenue confiscated.
Again and again, the suggestion is set forth to build a European army, essentially supported by states such as Germany and Belgium, which… would already be incapable of defending their own borders without American assistance.
[I]n accordance with the ECHR’s case law, any illegal immigrants intercepted in the Mediterranean, even within sight of the African coast, must be brought to the European Union to exercise their “rights.” A tenfold increase in the number of border guards would do nothing to change the law in force; as long as the law is not reformed, unlimited and unvetted migration in Europe will continue. [A] whole series of new regulations with global ambitions are announced, confirming the EU’s claim to legislate not just for Europe, but for the world. For instance, a “European Oceans Pact” — note the “s” in Oceans – is declared: evidently the EU claims to regulate all the world’s oceans, whereas it only dips its toes in one.Of these groups, the center-right is by far the largest…. [But] It is the demands of the smallest group — environmentalists — that dominate….
By refusing on principle ever to govern with real right-wing parties, the center-right guarantees that the left remains forever in power.
In a speech to the European Parliament on July 18, 2024, the President of the European Commission, Germany’s Ursula von der Leyen, an outspoken environmentalist, set out her program for its next five years. Here are some of the salient aspects of her proposal, strictly in line with her previous term of office.
The objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions -- 90% reduction by 2040, 100% by 2050 - is maintained. By definition, this reduction structures and determines the whole of the Commission's program, because all human activity -- industrial, commercial and private -- emits greenhouse gases. In fact, in a program document published by the Commission in February 2024, already under the aegis of von der Leyen, are plans to invest 1.5 trillion euros per year in decarbonizing the European Union, and to this end take authoritarian measures in all areas of human activity. The amount is equivalent to 10% of Europe's GDP -- every year. Apparently this policy is the uncompromising model found in every party in Germany, but apart from a war effort, there is no objective of any kind that has ever required the diversion of 10% of a continent's GDP by political decree.
European funds, which are distributed to EU member states in various ways, will henceforth be "conditional on respect for the rule of law". By the rule of law, the EU means a very specific and at the same time vague notion, enabling it to disqualify regimes and personalities with which it disagrees, principally but not exclusively, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in Hungary.
In other words, any deviation from the EU's ideological line, in any area, will be subject to financial sanctions - as is already happening with Hungary. This new direction for the EU will lead to the ideology of Western Europe being imposed on Eastern Europe: "open borders", environmentalism, the fight against "hate" -- but only "hate" from the right of the political spectrum. For example, far-left MEP Rima Hassan frequently issues direct threats against colleagues who don't share her hatred of Israel, without any consequences. The countries of Eastern Europe are the main beneficiaries of EU funds. It remains to be seen whether Eastern Europe will be taken in.
"We will start by focusing on the implementation and enforcement of the digital laws adopted during the last mandate. Tech giants must assume responsibility for their enormous systemic power in our society and economy. We have begun the active enforcement of the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act. We will ramp up and intensify our enforcement in the coming mandate", explains von der Leyen. In particular, the aim is apparently to penalize social media networks that refuse to censor their users or, more precisely, that refuse to penalize their users in the way the EU wants. The first to be targeted is X, formerly known as Twitter, as Commissioner Thierry Breton has made no secret: either X submits to the EU's ideology and censorship, or X will have a part of its global revenue confiscated.
As has been stated for the last 80 years, a plan has been announced to construct a genuine "Europe of defence". Again and again, the suggestion is set forth to build a European army, essentially supported by states such as Germany and Belgium, which devote a royal 1% of GDP to their military defenses and which would already be incapable of defending their own borders without American assistance.
Von der Leyen also announced the tripling of the FRONTEX border guards to 30,000 staffers. The problem is that, under EU law and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), these border guards, whatever their numbers, are essentially providing a free ferry service between Africa and Europe. Indeed, in accordance with the ECHR's case law, any illegal immigrants intercepted in the Mediterranean, even within sight of the African coast, must be brought to the European Union to exercise their "rights." A tenfold increase in the number of border guards would do nothing to change the law in force; as long as the law is not reformed, unlimited and unvetted migration in Europe will continue. As von der Leyen points out: "We will always respect human rights and will ensure that those who have a right to stay can do so, and can receive essential support to integrate into communities."
Finally, a whole series of new regulations with global ambitions are announced, confirming the EU's claim to legislate not just for Europe, but for the world. For instance, a "European Oceans Pact" -- note the "s" in Oceans – is declared: evidently the EU claims to regulate all the world's oceans, whereas it only dips its toes in one.Calculated in terms of purchasing power parity – meaning disregarding the strength of the dollar — the average GDP per capita in the EU as of 2022 is 72% of the average GDP per American. Given that economic growth is higher every year in the United States than in the EU, this gap will only widen. This backwardness is confirmed by the innovation vitality of the American economy. In just one example, compare artificial intelligence, essentially an American innovation, to the lack of creativity in the European economy. NVIDIA’s success is unthinkable in Europe.
Three factors might help to explain Europe’s economic backwardness compared to the United States: the cost of energy, which is five to ten times higher in Europe than in the US; the greater difficulty in Europe of concentrating private capital to invest in R&D and finally, the pull of the “mad legislator”, which is even worse in Europe than in the US. For example, Apple recently settled an EU investigation regarding its restriction on third-party developers accessing its payment technology, which could have led to a fine of 10% of its annual revenue for non-compliance. Apple’s total net sales in 2023 were $383.3 billion, so a 10% fine would amount to $38.3 billion. Given Apple’s operating income in Europe is $36.1 billion, non-compliance with EU regulations could result in fines exceeding its regional earnings.
How is it, when all these facts are known, that von der Leyen was reappointed to her post, while the Greens lost the European Parliament elections, and the right-wing parties of all persuasions won them by a wide margin? Perhaps this seeming paradox can be explained by the fact that the center-right, the largest party bloc in the European Parliament, is ideologically subservient to the left, on two levels: 1) by adhering to most of the dogmas of the left, starting with environmentalism, and 2) by refusing on principle any coalition with real right-wing parties such as Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy or, in France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN).
This ensures that, while losing elections, the left can stay in power. The new von der Leyen majority consists of four parliamentary groups: the center-right, the socialists, the left-wing liberals and the far-left environmentalists. Of these groups, the center-right is by far the largest. It would therefore be logical for them to dominate von der Leyen’s program. But that is not what takes place. It is the demands of the smallest group — environmentalists — that dominate: continuation of the Green Deal, total decarbonization by 2050.
European power is a mirror image of its two driving forces — France and Germany — where the center-right parties behave in the same way: ideological submission to the left and a ban on the right governing. In Germany, the right-wing political party Alternative for Germany (AfD), finds itself in a position to govern several regions with the center-right. But everywhere in Germany, the center-right prefers to ally with the left, the environmentalists, sometimes even the communists, than to govern with the AfD. In France, Le Pen’s RN clearly won the European elections, then the first round of legislative elections. The center-right immediately announced that it preferred a victory for the far left and the communists to a victory for Le Pen.
The post-war European citizen has never voted so far to the right. He is harvesting a program that has never been so extremely left-wing. The von der Leyen program owes more to the Greens (53 MEPs) than to the center-right (188 MEPs). By refusing on principle ever to govern with real right-wing parties, the center-right guarantees that the left remains forever in power. When voting no longer serves any purpose, democracy dies.
