The topic is the European Stabilization Mechanism (ESM), a fiscal regime which would remove all control over financial matters from the member states of the Eurozone and transfer them to a completely unaccountable and unelected group of “experts” at the EU level. By sleeping through the introduction of the ESM, the nation-states of Europe are effectively consenting to the surrender of the last vestiges of their national sovereignty. In the future, elected parliamentary bodies and national governments will become mere figureheads, pushing piles of paper around and giving fine speeches, but having no meaningful power over their countries’ most important affairs.
Mr. Clancy sent his material several weeks ago, and it accumulated in the pile of “Brussels backup”. However, since the ESM remains in limbo as the Karlsruhe Federal Constitutional Court in Germany considers its fate, the issues described here are still current.
Before you jump all over me: Yes, I know who Lyndon LaRouche is. As a matter of fact, his headquarters is in Leesburg, right here in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Regardless of its source, this information about the ESM and the Fiscal Pact is generally correct, and right on the money (so to speak) as far as the future of Europe is concerned. This is it, folks: if the ESM goes through, Europe will undergo the final stage of its transformation into a totalitarian superstate.
The fact that this material was put together by Mrs. LaRouche is neither here nor there. As Thilo Sarrazin, the former head of the Bundesbank, once said: “If the NPD [neo-Nazis] says the world is round, I won’t say it is flat because they’re on the far right.”
Read the material. Watch the video. See what you think. And, if you’re a citizen of the Eurozone, take stock of what remains of your freedom.
From Rembrandt Clancy:
In view of the imminent developments in Europe over the European Stabilization Mechanism (ESM), I am sending a related German video (which I subtitled) and a short essay, which I also translated from the German — for your consideration. Both come from the same source (see below). I thought you might be interested since the ESM lies behind an article by M. Sattler called “Flight into Dictatorship”.
This 15-minute video was abridged from a 25-minute original called “Save Europe from the EU Dictatorship” (“Rettet Europa von der EU-Diktatur”). The film is the production of BüSoTV Berlin (source):
BüSo is the acronym for “Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität” (“Civil Rights Movement Solidarity”). The BüSo is a small party in Germany which was founded by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who has been its federal president since 1992, and is part of the world-wide LaRouche movement founded by her husband, Lyndon LaRouche, who is also a prolific writer (source: BüSo website). BüSo is currently part of a campaign to stop the implementation of the ESM Treaty.
I originally ran across the shortened version of the video on the Islam-critical site, SOS-Österreich, in an article entitled “The EU is not Europe, but its destruction”. I subtitled it before I found the longer original, which is just as well.
The topic of the video revolves around two treaties: the European Stabilization Mechanism (ESM) and the Fiscal Pact.
The essay, which you will find below, deals with the same two topics. It is written by Helga Zepp-LaRouche herself. It is an ideal introduction to the video since it contains specific background which makes the video easier to digest. Also, both essay and video are from the same source.
All the formatting in the essay is from the original. The few comments in square brackets are mine.
National Referendum on the ESM and the Fiscal Pact
We have the Right of Resistance
1 April 2012
Appeal by Helga Zepp-LaRouche
The countdown to a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions is advancing relentlessly. There is every indication that we are steering toward an historical mega-event through a combination of a growing danger of world war and the crisis of a globally collapsing financial system, which could mean the end of human civilization. Time is elapsing with merciless insistence, without stirring sufficient resistance up to now, or without most people even suspecting the looming danger.
Instead of admitting that the Euro is a failed experiment and that the casino economy is at an end, the EU, the German government and the opposition parties (except for the Left Party) are pressing for the Fiscal Pact so as to introduce debt ceilings in all EU states and to have the ESM [European Stabilisation Mechanism] treaty ratified by the Bundestag as soon as possible. This policy is as incompetent as it is dangerous, and it must be averted at all costs. For with the Fiscal Pact, a Brüning* style of austerity policy would be irrevocably consolidated, plunging the real economy in all of Europe into the abyss; while at the same time, with the ESM, a hyperinflation-producing mechanism, standing outside any democratic control, would be created, devaluing the national wealth.
The political and social consequences would be catastrophic — and above all would accelerate the dynamic of war. It is one second before twelve, but it is still not too late.
The euphemistically termed “democratic deficit” situation in the EU and Europe has taken on such a perilous dimension, that just a single, minute step to outright dictatorship is lacking. The combination of fiscal union and ESM is such an outrageous attack on the constitution, the basic democratic order and the public welfare of the population, in favour of the highly speculative financial system, that one can only be seized by cold terror in connection with what this reveals about the governments and parties which intend to railroad this package through. First of all, if the ESM is ratified, the Board of Governors, at any time, even against a German vote, can assume access to the German state finances — without limitation.
After an initial, ordinary capital of 800 billion Euros (Art. 8), of which, in the first phase, 80 billion Euros must be paid and in which Germany’s share is more than 27%, this ordinary capital is to be periodically increased; and in an emergency — for instance, in order to buy government bonds of a “risk state” or to provide banks of “systemic” importance with liquidity — the Board of Governors can demand additional hundreds of billions within seven days “irrevocably and absolutely” (Art. 9). In the event that other member states are unable to pay — and the list of these countries is becoming ever longer — the German taxpayer must undertake an ever larger share. If the Eurogroup decides on the creation of Eurobonds, that is, the pooling of new debts, this will already be possible under the terms of Art. 21 and requires no further alteration of contract.
The ESM is not required to be responsible to anyone: the Board of Governors, the Directors, and the employees are completely immune [from prosecution or investigation]; there is no disclosure requirement, and decisions are made without any public scrutiny. The Board of Governors and the Board of Directors can invest the capital at will and without oversight; no public prosecutor’s office can intervene in the event of incompetence or fraud. The wage level of the Board of Governors is secret and is not subject to income tax, and no financial supervisor of any kind, who could review the level of the rates, has jurisdiction.
Combined with the ESM, the Fiscal Pact is deadly. In the same way as the Lisbon treaty was pushed through behind the public’s back, so too was the Fiscal Pact decided with the greatest haste and without consultations with the national parliaments or even the heads of government or state. With the introduction of national debt ceilings and automatic correctional mechanisms, the EU Commission will see to it that, in the future, even during serious economic downturns, expenses will be automatically curtailed. In addition, it will profess the principals of monitoring institutions. Member states can file suit against each other before the European Court of Justice (ECJ), but the Commission will also maintain the right of action. There is no provision for a right of termination without notice: individual member states cannot unilaterally terminate the [ESM] contract; it can only be abrogated and changed unanimously by all member states.
From the standpoint of the physical economy the combination of the ESM-Fiscal-treaty is so atrociously incompetent and false that the suspicion suggests itself that the intention of its architects, that is, the financial oligarchy, is completely different than they profess. On the one hand hyperinflation is set in motion, in order to save the banks; on the other hand sovereign debts, which arose beforehand from the rescue of the banks, are shifted onto the real economy and the general public welfare. Here it is only a question of winning time (perhaps until a new war brings about the preconditions for a new order?), or is the development of the society to be driven back to the feudal level of the middle ages?
Resistance is so far insufficient
The consequences of this policy are obvious for anyone who wishes to see them. Otmar Issing, former chief economist of the Federal Bank [Deutsche Bundesbank], encapsulated it at an event held on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Börsenzeitung: The whole concept of forcing a “united Europe” controlled by a centralized bureaucracy per Fiscal Union, whilst the population are blackmailed with the argument of an urgent crisis, is false from the outset and can only lead to disaster. Whosoever would propagate Eurobonds should be so honest as to also inform the public of the consequences: dispossession, inflation and loss of sovereignty. The publisher of the Börsenzeitung mentioned the H-word — hyperinflation.
As the Science Service of the Bundestag emphasised in a commentary on this theme, the Fiscal Pact contains no provision for escape clauses. It was precisely over this point that Frau Merkel exulted during a press conference in the context of the Euro-summit on 31 January 2012: “The point is that the debt ceilings are permanently included in the legislation, that they are bindingly and perpetually in force.”
Yet again the question arises: what in heaven’s name motivates this woman? Why does she pursue a policy which incredibly contravenes German interests? Did she read the Lisbon-judgment of the Karlsruhe Federal Constitutional Court, which expressly tied an additional transfer of power to Brussels to the necessity of a referendum on a constitutional change? And why does she want rights in perpetuity for the fiscal union, when Karlsruhe, in the same judgment, explicitly ruled that this characteristic of perpetuity is only suited to fundamental rights, and that these must remain within the authority of the constitution, and must not be relinquished to the EU treaty?
It is good when economists such as Issing, experts in constitutional law, analysts, and the Left Party now organise themselves for resistance before the horse has bolted the barn once and for all. But it is just as important to be clear that the atrocity involving the ESM-Fiscal Pact, which threatens us now, was intended from the beginning by the architects of the Maastricht Treaty and the European Monetary Union. Issing is wrong when he thinks that the only mistake is not to have complied with the terms of the Maastricht Treaty. Jacques Attali, then advisor to Mitterrand, has openly admitted that a birth defect was consciously built into the concept of the European Monetary Union in order to later force a political union of Europe which was not in place at the time.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union it was the concern of the Anglo-American dominated financial oligarchy, from the outset, to erect a world-empire on the foundation of the Anglo-American special relationship. To that belonged the policy of regime change against governments which are not ready to submit themselves to this empire; similarly, the self-containment of the reunited Germany belonged in the straitjacket of the Maastricht Treaty. From the beginning, it was the intention (according to the words of Robert Cooper, the advisor to the so-called EU Minister for Foreign Affairs, Lady Ashton), to transform the expanding EU into the greatest empire in history. [See Robert Cooper’s essay, “The New Liberal Imperialism” — translator’s note]
The repulsiveness of the ESM-Fiscal Pact is only a secondary consequence of this intention. The ultimate consequence would consist in preferring to provoke a new world war rather than watch the downfall of one’s own empire, even though one risks thereby the end of civilisation.
The only alternative consists in the immediate introduction of a separate banking system [the separation of commercial and investment banking] in the tradition of the Glass-Steagall law of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and of a credit system which serves exclusively the financing of investments in scientific and technological progress for the betterment of productivity in industry and jobs. To that belongs the return to a system of fixed exchange rates and long-term, multilateral co-operation between sovereign nations for the reconstruction of the world economy.
The people must, in a referendum, be allowed to decide on which currency they would like to have, which constitution, and in which type of state they would like to live. Article 20 of the constitution gives us the right to resistance against anyone who threatens the character of Germany as a democratic and social state. Article 146 requires a national referendum when considering the ultimate transfer of power to Brussels.
For a national referendum on the ESM, the Fiscal Pact, the EU-treaties of Maastricht to Lisbon, and the recovery of sovereignty over our own currency and economic policies respectively
|*||Heinrich Brüning (1985-1970) was a depression-era Chancellor of Weimar Germany who imposed severe austerity measures, including a range of taxes. — translator’s note|