The naked halves of socialist Europe

Jiří Havel, a CSSD economist, on his blog at aktualne.cz writes about how the "center-right" rules in Europe, that Europe lacks the "mobilization of other resources" and so on. Is the European right really to blame?

Jiří Havel
Jiří Havel

The European Union is not toothless "against the crisis" because of the right or because of the reluctance to "mobilize other resources". They are socialistswho, as thorough dentists, deprived the real Europe, that is, the nation states, of the opportunity to reflect on the crisis and its development.

Today, national parliaments approve two kinds of laws. The first kind of laws are those that come up by someone in the nooks and crannies of political parties. These laws are debated, thought out, changed - it's just normal here democratic process approval of the law. And the voter can vote once every four years for those who keep the law or repeal the law. It depends on the individual's preferences.

The second type of law is different, it is special. They are not discussed in parliament, at most ex post. Usually, the whole political spectrum, which is represented in parliament, votes blindly for their approval. From the communists to the ODS. There are many of them, and I doubt that more than 20% of MEPs know what those laws are about. These are not democratically approved laws, they are directives from Brussels. And the voter has not the slightest chance to vote for their abolition - we "cannot" abolish them, because then we risk "sanctions". This is not democracy.

As Hans-Gert Pöttering (former President of the European Parliament) said after the end of Václav Klaus's speech, after the approval of the Lisbon Treaty, laws of the second type will be in national parliaments approx. 90%. So we can say that we have roughly here XNUMX% democracy. This is a pretty strong decline.

Legislation is being germanized across the EU. For example, the German tax system - it is estimated to be the most complex in the world. This is a rather strong competitive disadvantage for Germany. But why would he change the tax system at home when he can enforce it unification of taxes across Europe, which may in reality mean an increase in them?

It is no wonder that the European Union, burdened by an incredible amount of Brussels bureaucracy (when the Czech Republic is also trying to be "more papal than the pope") swears at "tax havens", which are almost by chance almost all countries around it.

He even the term "tax haven" is actually a Euro-EU mistake. It is probably a poorly translated English term "tax haven", ie "tax refuge / asylum". And now the meaning is different!

Toothlessness of European socialists (one in which part) is beautifully illustrated by the famous Lisbon Strategy (now "EU 2020"), a turn-of-the-millennium plan that the EU should be "the fastest growing place in the world" today with "full employment„. This was to be achieved through "deepening social market economy"," Increasing spending on science and research to 1% of GDP "and so on. Lisbon strategy as a result, it was nothing but central plan of the European Politburo.

Of course, the plan failed to materialize and the European Union began to lag even further behind the rest of the world. The Lisbon Strategy has thus changed to "EU 2020" and its outcome has been postponed for ten years. It reminds me of the past regime and the constant "building of socialism." Fortunately, we didn't finish it in full force.

In order for the EU to "grow", it would have to shed the Brussels burden of bureaucracy. She would have to open to the world and cancel crazy import restrictions. She would have to accommodate competition in the international field. She would have to let go of building a managed "internal market" and make the "free market" work. It would have to give the XNUMX European countries a chance compete and therefore to improve its functioning. She would have to abandon the strategy of European imperialism, which requires third world countries to comply with the Brussels directives - in exchange for access to the internal market. And as a side effect, it could become a supporter of free trade internationally. That is what today's EU has for that really very far.

But then it only occurs to me - What is the European Union for?

PS: I will forgive him for the fact that Jiří Havel called the Maoist Barroso a center-right politician.