Monnet (who utterly despised democracy) planned to destroy all democracy but at the same time fool the peoples by letting the democratic national institutions continue to exist. The idea was, that people would be fooled by that. National parliaments and governments however were to lose all its powers and those were to be transferred and centralized in Brussels in the hands of a mutually appointed unaccountable class. All touched up by applying a fake layer of ‘democracy’ by having some meaningless ‘Parliament’ elected (note: the process of election does not automatically make the elected democratic).

And touting someone’s ‘green’ credentials, is liek touting someone’s fascist credentials. The word ‘green’ is used to cover up fascist policies such as regulating food/drink and controlling how much people can drive or fly aeroplane (regulations are coming, fascist road charging schemes dreamt up by the EU Reich are coming, what do you think Galileo is for?).

I despise ‘green’ politicians.

Reinfeldt does not speak for me, nor does the EU. No democratic legitimacy whatsoever. I didn’t elect Reinfeldt or corrupt clown Barroso.

JL : Massive resources? Even countries as small as Luxembourg can carry out the responsibilities of a Presidency successfully provided, and it is a big proviso, national politicians grasp the fact that what is required is a core of about 200 effective chairpersons.

Hijacking the rotating presidency to promote national prestige and objectives has been a feature of all Presidencies. Of the many meetings that take place outside the places of work of the EU (Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg), none are formally required and the cost, appropriately, falls to the Member State that chooses to host them.

The phenomenon is one of the strongest arguments for abandoning the system of rotating presidencies

…in favour of what? Fewer persons, with more power than their predecessors, serving for terms ten times longer in duration, and in appointed positions to boot (as the Lisbon Treaty proposes)?

The EU’s pseudodemocracy was set up as a mockery of true democracy—it works in the exact reverse manner, with the executive making the laws and passing them, and the parliament not being a legislature. Frankly, if the “national prestige” of individual member states do not get raised on the stage (as ineffectual as it may be), then but one member state will rise to the fore and dominate. (Maggie Thatcher pointed out which one, back in ’95; it’s the one she said whose “national character is to dominate…)

Highjacking the rotating presidency to promote national prestige and objectives has been a feature of all Presidencies. Of the many meetings that take place outside the places of work of the EU (Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg), none are formally required and the cost, appropriately, falls to the Member State that chooses to host them.

The phenomenon is one of the strongest arguments for abandoning the system of rotating presidencies.

The positions of European president, foreign minister and commission president are currently defined by the slippery slope of declining freedom and increasing authoritarianism in the EU—all positions thereof are, like the status quo, appointed and unaccountable to the public. What makes it worse is that the power gets concentrated in fewer hands. Why cannot the executive be elected? Thus far, the EU has been one of the greatest expressions of the rule of man versus the rule of law. Should this allow to continue, or should it be stopped in its tracks?