He is indeed guilty of the crime of “lèse institutions” (if not “lèse majesté”) and at the very least of being the absolute king of hubris. Just for that, I hope that the Socialists and Liberals will unite to kick him out. But of course, I am not holding my breath. The way the European Council is imposing its back room haggling to the rest of the EU institutions, regardless of institutional treaties (for lack of a proper constitution), is simply appalling.

‘Lèse majesté’ is the crime of violating the dignity of a reigning sovereign or against a state. But it begs the question who is the sovereign that Barroso might be offending?

Peter assumes the sovereign to be the EU Parliament, who should take offence at Barroso’s call to ‘embrace the ambitious programme that I will propose for Europe’. It is true that most parliaments in the world are sovereign, but it is definitely not the case for the EU Parliament which has no sovereign power of its own, but only those powers conferred powers upon it by the EU treaties. Nor is it likely that this parliament would take offence at Barroso’s statement, because it has always been an ally of the EU Commission (and ECJ) in their relentless campaign for ‘more Europe’. Therefore Barroso’s appeal to ‘embrace the ambitious programme that I will propose for Europe’ should be read as electioneering slogan to the audience who might deprive him of the powerful position of head of the EU executive.

Peter however is right that there is an issue of ‘lèse majesté’ at stake here. Thomas Paine said (in ‘The Rights of Man’) that there are only two kinds of government in the world; (i) those which draw their legitimate power from a people and (ii) those which can trace their origin back to a usurpation of power such as occurred in 1066 in this country. When he wrote this in 1791 he judged there to be just two countries in the world (the USA and France) with a government of his first type, but over the last two centuries peoples everywhere have succeeded in clawing back their power from the descendants of these usurpers that we called Kings and Emperors. But which of Paine’s two forms of government are we seeing erected in Brussels when there is no European people from which the EU institutions might draw legitimacy, and when our political elites defy the results of referendums to force through transfers of powers to EU councils on which they sit and from where they can decree law that cannot be opposed by the democratic checks (national parliaments) on their power at home, and when the EU executive is led by someone who resigned from the highest democratically elected position in his country (prime minister of Portugal) in order to take up the more powerful appointed post of head of the EU Commission?

In a democracy the people should be sovereign. Barosso is part of a political elite that has the ambition and intention to usurp this sovereign power even in defiance of referendum results in France, the Netherlands and Ireland and popular opinion almost elsewhere else. Barosso is indeed guilty of ‘lèse majesté’ but his offence is against the peoples of Europe who are gradually being disenfranchised to satisfy the bid for ever more centralization of power in Brussels.

All that these events illustrate is the unsuitability of Barroso for the job he holds and his inability to avoid acting as the former PM that he is. To quote the memorable words of Jean Monnet, “nothing is possible without people, nothing is lasting without institutions”. Barroso forgets that his first loyalty is to the institution that he currently presides viz the Commission and he can present nothing, programme or otherwise, unless the college of Commissioners approves it.

As to the legal issues, there can be no breach of the Nice Treaty until there is a failure to act and the mandate of the current Commission is allowed to expire. The French have a point.

By the way, the transcript of the press conference Sarkozy/Merkel (available on the Elysee website) is fascinating. As far as one can judge, Merkel had in mind an orderly programme for the transition to a new Commission, whether under Nice or Lisbon, while Sarkozy was simply grabbing the ball and running with it and, quite outside the letter and spirit of the treaties, seeming to attach a particular political programme to the ‘mandate’ of the future Commission.

Barroso jumped the gun with regard to appointments last time round and the common interest both Sarkozy and Merkel have is in delaying final decisions until September/October and getting the approval of the European Parliament at the same time.

President Barroso receives a group of young Europeans calling on Council and Parliament to re-appoint him as Commission President

President Barroso will meet today at 16.15 hrs a group of 27 young Europeans (one from each Member State) calling for his re-appointment as President of the next European Commission. In a “manifesto of support to the re-election of the President”, the group called Youth for Europe insists on José Manuel Barroso’s rapid nomination by the European Council and the European Parliament in order to “prevent Europe from entering another era of political uncertainty”. The independent and non-partisan group consists of young people from diverse backgrounds and pays tribute to the European Commission’s achievements in a number of policy areas. “This Commission always looked for the common interest, not party-centred, but essentially political and truly European. The stability of the Commission is a central factor to promote progress in Europe and to fight the current global economic crisis.” Website of the manifesto: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/manifesto27/. Further information: youthforeurope {at} gmail(.)com.

This manipulation of children (e.g. via the EU-funded ‘Spring Day in Europe’ program), and the presentation of the ideas fed to them as if it were public opinion, is one of the most sickening aspects of the EU.

————–
13. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view — one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
…
Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes. It would be so much easier for us if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, “I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Blackshirts to parade again in the Italian squares.” Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances — every day, in every part of the world.

(Umberto Eco, ‘14 ways of looking at a Blackshirt’)

@Freeborn John

You are so right – I see thias danger too, many anti EUropean movements ( I wouldn’t call them parties ) from the far right are really close to this “Ur-Fascism ” and we must fight the return of this old european horror indeed. Some of them even hide under a ” conservative ” label, so I also agree to your Eco quote ! “Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises” That’s why we have to read between the lines of s.c. ” EU sceptics/critics ” or however they call themselves these days. Not all of them are radicals, but many do have a radical – xenophobe, nationalist, isolationist, selfish – agenda. Some of them ( Wilders and co ) not even try to hide it. They are currently the biggest danger as they try to destroy the union from inside, through its own institutions.

PS: About Barroso – well, there could be a worse president but I think I would prefer Guy Verhofstad. At least he has a european vision and I never really knew what Barroso really stands for or how he imagines the future of EUrope and its role among the other global players? Should it be a economical soft power, a strogn political power or both? Should it be art of decision making or only a ” servant ” like EUrope? I think these are important questions, especially if we are really willing to talk about a common EUropean identity. Identity without vision is impossible.

Eurostar (6): You misunderstood my earlier post. Liberals believe in liberty as the ultimate end in society. Democrats/utilitarians that it is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Socialists that it is equality. For fascists the ultimate end is the pursuit of power over others to which all these other ends should be subordinated. And what of European federalists? For them too it is collective power to ‘stand up’ to the US and others, which justifies the suppression of even referendum results. Verhofstadt is a champion of this crypto fascist form of European federalism and is totally unacceptable as head of the European Comission.

At bottom fascism is a nakedly power-seeking agenda that sees history as the clash of collectives (in the 1930’s, nations or classes) directed by Nietzsche’s Supermen seeking to assert their mastery over one another. For a fascist, society does not consist of individuals with free choice, but is simply a power-base to be harnessed. For a fascist to transfer allegiance from the collective of nation to that of Europe is a mere change of tactics in pursuit of the same ultimate end – Power over others – with the individual an ant that exists to serve a collective interest that he conflates with his own personal self-interest. Thus spake Barosso, and his concept of the EU as a ‘voluntary’ empire that you can only say ‘Yes’ too.

@Freeborn John
Well….to be honest, I was just pretending to misunderstand you, cause I see thew real danger among anti EUropean movements and anyone trying to weaken european integration. I don’t know what fascism has to do with all this, to be honest. Giving parts of power to a higher, ferderal political plain is very democratic indeed – just take a look at federal nations like Germany or the US. For us europeans, unity is the only way to survive this century as independent power. There is no other choice indeed, just look around us, image how strong and dominant China might get and now compare China, the US, India or Russia with a single european nation like the Netherlands, Belgium, Lithuania, Slovenia, or even Luxembourg and Malta. I guess any logical thinking human being knows the annser and solution: strength through unity. It is that simple. And I guess both, Verhofstadt and Barroso know that truth very well too, only anti european populists try to ignore reality, they do not act in the national interest of thier nations, nor in the wider european interest. International politics are tough, this is survival of the fittest on its highest level. We must stop to weaken ourself, I ve never heared of anti americans in the US or anti chinese in China. Only EUrope allows itself the luxuary of such destructive powers. That’s not fascism but plain stupid. We must fight for our future and future of our children and grand children, the europen voice must be heared in the 21st century – else the world will get a lot more anti liberal and non democratic.

Eurostar (8): It is a very common mistake among EU supporters to mix up a federal nation-state (such as the USA or Germany) with a multi-national federation (such as the Austrian Empire, or potential EU super-state). Federalism is simply one way to distribute functions within a state, but a state can only have a representative form of government if it is co-incident with a distinct people bound by a strong national identity. In US political lexicon there is no difference between the words ‘national’ and ‘federal’ . Both refer to the political institutions in Washington DC, but the democratic legitimacy of these federal institutions is entirely dependent on them being national institutions. If those identical institutions governed Mexicans and included Mexican representatives as well as American they would be rejected as illegitimate whenever the smaller nation (Mexico) were compelled to do that the majority of Mexicans do not want to do by the multinational majority in Congress. The situation in Europe is the opposite with the words ‘national’ and ‘federal’ having different meanings and the political institutions lacking democratic legitimacy. Democracy (from ‘demos’ = people, kratos=’rule by’) requires a people and the EU does not have one.

Can you make any argument for the EU which does not involve xenophobic scare stories about the US and Chinese plots that we will not be able to survive without subordinating democracy to undemocratic institutions in Brussels?

————-
“7. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”

(Umberto Eco, 14 ways of looking at a blackshirt’)

EUROSTAR
Yes we believe in NATIONALISM and the Independence, Freedom and Sovereignty of States and not in what the eurofederalists always wanted, the United States of Europe.

If you want eu integration we want back our Independence and Freedom from the eu dictatorship.

You can rest assured that we shall do our utmost either for the eu to give us back our freedom and independence or else to lead to its demise.

We HATE the eu and its petty dictators.

Verhofstadt is a dangerous federalist who would gladly destroy democracy completely in order to have EU-federalism. The shady EU-federalist movement was (is?) heavily subsidized by the USA’s state department for decades to ‘push federalism’ even if it was against the interests of the sovereign (member)states.

Freeborn John is absolutely right by quoting Eco and his ‘14 ways of looking at a blackshirt’. The EU and the cabal of federalists across the EU memberstates indeed always resort to scare stories about Chinese/Indian/US/Brazilian domination and sinister plots by the aforementioned to ‘divide’ Europe. And then they use that scare as if it were some kind of excuse to ’subordinate democracy to Brussels’ (as FJ puts it so eloquently).

Other scaretactics of the EU-federalists include this socalled financial crisis (which is more like a necessary correction to the excesses of the recent past) and climate change (as if this natural phenomenon suddenly ceased to be one).