The recently poisoned Russian dissident accuses the former German Bundeskanzler Herr Schröder (die Neue Zurcher Zeitung 7.10.2020) of corruption during and after his political career. He supported the Russian (business) expansion from the very beginning of his chancellorship and is on the payroll of his Russian master ever since. He explicitly states that Herr Schröder received large sums from the Russian government. The same applies to the German member of the European Parliament Herr Andreas Schwab. As a former lawyer of big German publishing houses, he is the driving force/lobbyist to attack the successful American high-tech businesses. In his capacity of lawyer and inhabitant of southern-Germany, he also represents German business and their pressure on Switzerland to accept the next dictate of the EU: the so-called Rahmenabkommen. The EU already banned the Swiss stock market from the European floors and is threatening the country with other measures.
Mr. Schwab and the notoriously corrupt Mr. Verhofstadt (who is earning more as a lobbyist than as a politician) have other interests than their European dream. What about the ‘Great Europeans’ Bangemann or Barosso (Goldman Sachs nowadays due to his good services for this bank during his EU-presidency, in close cooperation with Draghi ((ex) Goldman Sachs banker). Barosso, Draghi and Van Rompuy wrote the lucrative (for Goldman Sachs, illegal Banking Union, Trias Politica was yesterday, without change of The EU-Treaty, but based on a very general clause, and illegal bail-outs for private banks. Draghi introduced as Goldman Sachs banker and afterwards as Italian Bureaucrat Greece and Italy into the euro.
What about Herr Gabriel, also a ‘Great European’, whose father was a fanatical Nazi, like the gentleman-Chancellor Herr Schmidt who was a very loyal Nazi-officer. Herr Gabriel wants a lucrative job on the board of the Siemens-Alstom venture. The European Commission forbade this merger but suddenly agrees after pressure from the German political class. What about Mrs. Von der Leyen? Which European citizen ever voted for this ill-fated, if not corrupt (the investigation has been stopped) career-politician? And the European media comment on US-elections, although horse-trade and undemocratic institutions are the trademarks of this EU and its bizarre ‘parliament’.
Where are the ‘critical’ European media? or are they just critical when it concerns the USA, Brexit of Switzerland, one of the last democracies on the continent?
The self-proclaimed Great Europeans and their media, in the first place Germany, worry about the appointment of judges and elections in the USA. What is the status, if any, of the European elections, however? Who are the European judges, who appoint them and what is their background, besides being ‘Great Europeans’? Mrs. Lagarde has also been the subject of a criminal investigation and was sentenced (very mildly after the French Strauss-Kahn scandal).
And so on, and so on. They are the new monarchs of Europe, they call themselves ‘Great Europeans’ and they are the new untouchables. Their disastrous, illegal, and utterly undemocratic (euro) policies are ‘without alternative’, so they claim, they support dictatorships worldwide and they have self-proclaimed clean hands concerning the immigration/refugees. They finance dictators, (African) warlords, and militia to do the dirty work.
This EU has all at the characteristics of the NGO (against racism, climate change, gender equality, who is not ?) instead of an elected governmental body. It is more and more a lookalike of the United Nations, which are United neither, as is this EU a Disunion. They are the new Eurocommunists, with a human face, for the time being.
European monarchies, on the other hand, do rather well for outdated institutes. The Grand Duke of Luxemburg Henry I of Luxemburg (1955) is the most recent proof of the pudding. In his Christmas speech of 2012 he referred to a further limitation of grand-ducal power and the necessity of modernization of the constitution. The power of the Grand-Duke is already rather restricted, but Henry almost begged for further limitations of his powers. The Grand-Duke refused to give his consent to the liberal law on euthanasia.
A similar event happened in 1912 when the Grand-Duchess Marie Adelheid (1894-1924) did not sign the liberal law on education. Religious motives were behind both refusals. In her first year as Grand-Duchess (1912-1919), she refused to sign a law. Two years later she blocked the street with her car to stop advancing German troops.
Henry I put his own right into perspective ‘Dat Recht steet mir guer net zou’ ( I should not have that right at all, that means to refuse a law, which had already passed parliament). Does this mean that the dynastic monarchy is outdated? Countries with a dynastic head of state are among the most modern, stable, and happiest in Europe. One could even argue that Spain and Belgium owe the monarchy a lot. What should have been the outcome of the coup d’etat in Spain in 1981 or the future of Belgium without a monarchy?
One could even argue that presidential systems have a profound monarchic impact, such as the (five) ´presidents´ of the EU and France. The well functioning national monarchies are subject to debate because the system should be anachronistic and not democratic. To a certain extent that may be true, but the institute in its sole capacity of head of state performs rather well. The democratic deficit at the European level is a real concern however and critics rather should concentrate on the functioning of the European Union and the ECB instead.