What Is Or Was The European "Superstate"?

By: Andrew_McKillop

OLD, NEW, BORROWED AND BLUE
The absolutely basic problem for answering this question is that no European politician, nor European technocrat, civil servant or 'functionary' will admit there is any kind of plan to create a Superstate. They will quickly shift to talking about "convergence and integration", which basically mean the same thing. Once again the European cult of lying makes it impossible to have any rational discussion or analysis of what a "Superstate" might mean   http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article39568.html

One of the theatrical horror themes of Britain's Iron Lady Thatcher, also called the Bent Metal Lady, was a monstruous "communist type" European Superstate which would sweep away the only thing she wanted out of Europe - a free trade zone. Curiously enough, however, the very first in a string of European treaties was the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty of April 1951, now totally forgotten (but only dissolved in 2002). This was basically a free trade treay-plus-a trade protectionist treaty. For Thatcher-type politicians that could be called: "Win one, lose one".

But vastly more important, we have to understand these treaties are now photo-op sessions for presenting unreadable, Bible-thick lists of things for European bureaucrats to fill their work weeks. Try to find somebody who can explain the Nice Treaty to you - with the warning it isn't a nice read, but is a great alternative to sleeping pills. In sum, European treaties mean nothing.

FROM BUREAUCRAT TO KLEPTOCRAT
Vastly more real, and threatening, European Monetary Union (EMU) is a stealth project with very light nail-them-down written texts on its actual decision making process and system. Its structure is copiously detailed, to be sure, but not its Old Boy Technocrat decision making process - allowing the world to wake up one day, not long ago, to the Cyprus bank deposit theft in shock and awe.

Details of how the Eurocrat-Technocrats decide when and how to steal bank deposits is, not surpringly, not given Bible-thick, published, detailed descriptions which lawyers, for example, might well use against the thieves. We can immediately see the difference between symbolic, theatrical, playacting "Union", and the European kleptocracy which sets out to steal bank deposits, as well as to ruin the economy any way it can. Simply checking the mostly "informal", that is secret links between the European Central Bank and the Basle-based Bank for International Settlements will clarify the major role of murky, always-deniable, real and dangerous kleptocrat convergence and integration.

Its usually an easily won bet to ask persons who style themselves "well informed" as to when they think EMU began, and who wrote the very slim number of evasive texts founding EMU? Usually they can't answer. One reasons is really simple - there is no real "starting date". We could go back to the 1950s, if we wanted, but "formal history' says that in June 1988 the European Council confirmed the previously set (by who?) objectives of "progressively realising" Economic and Monetary Union. The Council of Ministers then mandated a committee chaired by Jacques Delors, then President of the European Commission, who himself mandated a committee of "experts and bank governors", in fact only one governor of one major national bank of then-member countries of the European Community. Delors with no suprise chose Alexandre Lamfalussy,  then General Manager of the Bank for International Settlements to chair the meetings with him, Niels Thygesen, a Danish professor of economics and Miguel Boyer, the then President of the Banco Exterior of Spain.

This process went on until the 1 January 1999 launch of the euro currency in the original 12 Eurozone countries, in 3 stages, each more "convergent" then the previous, and each one concentrating more power in non-elected, secretive, impossible-to-monitor agencies and institutions freshly created for the process - such as the 1994 creation of the European Monetary Institute, the template for the ECB created in 1998. Later enlargement to 17 countries in the zone, to be sure, was each time "by announcement", with or without a face-saving, manipulated referendum in the new member country. ECB archives on the "converging process" are slim content, except after a public disclosure request process, and when accessed provide most detail on "early expert policy decisions" -- dating to the 1962-1973 period.

How the ECB, European Commission and IMF (the so-called Troika) decided to operate its theft or "confiscation" of Cyprus bank deposits is - unsurprisingly - not explained!

THATCHER WOULDN'T TURN IN HER GRAVE
Maybe still warm, Thatcher's body would not need to do the twist at the antics of Eurozone Technocrats whose favourite one-liner is exactly the same as hers: "Give us back our money". The only difference is the Eurocrats are stealing money they didnt provide, but have created an elaborate fairy story to pretend otherwise. This is "historically low interest rates due to the euro".

Why eurozone interest rates started low, and went lower is a very long story, and the story really does thr twist, when it isn't the French can-can and German mark-to-market. Cynics can say right away that the theft (or "confiscation") of savings was one the most basic goals, and longest-running themes running around in the heads of European Technocrats. Explaining why is an existential question.

This could be looked at in the following way. Thatcher's favorite way of stealing her citizens' life savings was to let inflation rip at double-digit rates while whining about her hatred of inflation. The Eurocrat method was to set interest rates at derisorily low levels and deflate the economy through low or no economic growth, or outright contraction of the economy (which is exactly the same thing that "Thatcheromics" did to the UK economy). Pas de difference, Monsieur.

Both approaches are primarily defeatist when they were not outright paranoid. Thatcher was defending her Fortress Britain, or in fact England - she was always hated in Scotland, and vastly accelerated the pace of Scottish separatist politics. The Eurocrats were defending their Fortress Europe. Both approaches claimed to be "free trade" but this was a primal lie - "managed trade" is the term. Both claimed to be Strong Money, but whenever that happens - for example when Thatcher's pound hit $2.50 and the Eurocrat's euro hit $1.50 - they screamed like stuck pigs about declining exports.

Like there was no "Brtish Revival" under Thacher and it continued declining into a downsized, dumbed down low-level police state with a crippled economy, the European "Superstate" is a fake entity, only useful to cover the antics of kleptocrats.

By Andrew McKillop

Contact: xtran9@gmail.com

Former chief policy analyst, Division A Policy, DG XVII Energy, European Commission. Andrew McKillop Biographic Highlights

Co-author 'The Doomsday Machine', Palgrave Macmillan USA, 2012

Andrew McKillop has more than 30 years experience in the energy, economic and finance domains. Trained at London UK’s University College, he has had specially long experience of energy policy, project administration and the development and financing of alternate energy. This included his role of in-house Expert on Policy and Programming at the DG XVII-Energy of the European Commission, Director of Information of the OAPEC technology transfer subsidiary, AREC and researcher for UN agencies including the ILO.

© 2013 Copyright Andrew McKillop - All Rights Reserved Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisor.

© 2005-2022 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.