SECS3: Why your 2002 Euro is now worth 25 cents: the Commission!

Europe’s political leaders have debauched your money. Imagine that in 2002 instead of exchanging your national currency into euros you bought gold. Today that gold would buy four times the number of euros. The same goes for oil. If you bought silver, you’d have even more euros; wheat, a bit less. Globally the euro is massively debased.

All along  history, politicians have debased currencies and spent more money than treasuries receive in taxes. Money is supposed to be a store of value. All pensions and investment require that what is saved should not be eaten away by government action. Politicians say they need inflation. That is theft from citizens. A globally-traded Community currency must be able to retain long-term world value in spite of politicians.

A solid supranational currency cannot be constructed without a fully independent European Commission. The reason involves European ministers who were the first to legally debase the Euro currency. They even broke the inadequate rules in the Stability and Growth Pact. France and Germany then disobeyed European Court judgements. Yet they expect citizens to obey the Court.

The Commission brought this case before the Court. That is probably why the politicians make extra efforts to control it. They have now tried to turn the Commission into an exclusive club for politicians. Previously and according to all the treaties, no politician with a party card should hold the office of Commissioner.

Now politicians want a complete take-over of the Commission. Making it a joint secretariat for European parties would stop it embarrassing governments as lawbreakers in Court. Politicians have created their own complex rules to replace Court action. They want the freedom to debase the currency the way they choose, without Court judgements if possible.

Now composed almost entirely of card-carrying politicians, the Commission has tried to make its own internal rules to ‘permit’ political entryism. They are hardly valid. The treaties are the only legal touchstone that matters. The conduct of national politicians who parachuted their card-carrying friends into the Commission is self-condemnatory.

The citizens of Europe are perfectly able to see this misconduct for what it is. Flagrant violations seem not to deter politicians. Politicians seem addicted to party political nepotism. Normal citizens are despised as second class. The honest citizen scrupulously following treaty law who abandons compromising interests to become a Commission candidate is excluded by the political rascals who don’t.

What has happened is ILLEGAL. The Commission and its President are not reserved posts for party political fodder. It is not a political retirement home.

It is illegal for any politician under all treaties since 1951 including the politicians’ own treaty, that of Lisbon. At best only EX-politicians are allowed. The same applies to others:  EX-businesspeople, EX-trade-unionists, EX-professionals or EX-workers of any stripe. He or she has to resign previous functions.

Today we have three treaties governing the European Union. The Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union of Lisbon (these two replacing what was previously called the Customs Union, the European Economic Community or the Common Market) and the other treaty of Rome, Euratom, (also called the European Atomic Energy Community treaty).

All of them state the same thing, that the Commission must be independent. No article of any treaty says that the Commission must be composed of politicians or national representatives of Member States.

They say the reverse. Anyone having membership of a political party must resign it. No one must take any instruction from a Member State government or any one else. TEU Article 17 says Commission members must be chosen on the ground of

their general competence and European commitment from persons whose independence is beyond doubt.

In any court of law it would be clear that if someone signs up to an ideological programme of a political party expressing interests of lobby groups, then the Commissioner’s independence is more than in doubt. Any businessperson who on becoming Commissioner retained his business or other interests would also be guilty of double standards. Proof of guilt is furnished by party membership cards. The holders are not independent. Attendance at party meetings and participation in party organization is further condemnatory evidence.

The Lisbon treaty says that the Commission shall be chosen after parliamentary elections. Nowhere does it say that a politician involved in the elections should be made Commission President. Article 17 TEU rules it out. It specifies that the Commission must conform to its paragraph 3 and 5 restricting it to persons

whose independence is beyond doubt’ and who would ‘not take instructions from any government, or other institution, body, office or entity’. The person must ‘refrain from any action incompatible with their duties.’

That excludes an MEP or party leader whose ideological prejudices are amply proven by the parliamentary election. Nor should Commissioners be composed of national representatives. The Euratom Community commenced with FIVE Commissioners.

No professional activity other than Commissioner duty is allowed, whether paid or not. Lisbon’s Article 245 TFEU reflects the supranational democracy of the 1951 Treaty of  Paris article 9. All other treaties have confirmed the independence criterion to this day.

Members of the Commission may not, during their term of office, engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not.

Thus the Community system requires Commissioners to abstain from political parties or any other body whether ‘gainful or not.’

The first impartially chosen Commission was empowered to nominate some of its own members (article 10, Paris). All should have the impartiality of judges in Court and need to resign from bodies that might influence their judgement. Thus any citizen who has independence, experience, the public trust for seeking the European public good and honesty should be eligible.

Choosing Commissioners exclusively from those with party membership cards (2% of the population) is an offensive discriminatory act redolent of Nazism or Communism. It violates the human rights of 98 percent of citizens who are not party members. The majority of the European population refuses to vote in EP elections because of such flagrant abuse.

Sound European money and public confidence starts with the independence of its institutions.

 

8 Responses to SECS3: Why your 2002 Euro is now worth 25 cents: the Commission! »»

  1. Comment by Victoria | 2013/01/16 at 13:30:27

    How disserving an argument.

    The USA $ is worth around $15 cents compared to its position in the same time frame. Yet you do not mention this in any way.

    Presumably when you compare these issues your blinkered-ness does not reflect the fact that in all these years the incongruity of the issues are still that all trade has still to be carried out using US $. Oil being a typical one. The others you refer to but make scant reference.

  2. Comment by David | 2013/01/17 at 12:47:35

    Thanks for your comment. This series deals with the principles of a supranational currency for a Community system. The USA is a superstate or federation, a different political configuration. I have written about the major problems of the US currency over the last decade — see the http://www.schuman.info site and particularly the commentaries Warning.htm after the 9/11 attack and the series labeled Avalanche dealing with US monetary laxity and national and international depreciation problems caused by it. Major problems still lie ahead.
    You are right to point to the trade issues. A major attack on US and EU was initiated via the oil price hikes by the oil cartels in the 1970s and more recently when it hit $147 a barrel, having major deflationary effects on the economies amounting to several percent and hundred of billions of euros. The profits are being used against Western economies. see diplomacy1.htm etc

  3. Sam
    Comment by Sam | 2013/01/17 at 14:39:56

    David,

    With all due respect, it seems that you desperately need to take an Econ 101 class. By comparing Euros to commodities (Gold and Oil) that are ultimately priced in dollars, you are defacto just comparing the Euro to dollars. Victoria already covered that.

    You also picked two speculative commodities, which which has a real-world use and one which does not, that are not considered currencies. Moreover, oil supply is also controlled, in part, by a cartel. Perhaps you could have chosen flat-screen televisions in which case you would find that the Euro has actually increased in value. Wait, that doesn’t make sense does it? Well, televisions could not be made without the energy derived from oil so how could they now be cheaper and does it make any sense to actually value the currency in televisions? Of course not and neither does it make sense to compare it to anything else other than the purchasing power of other currencies. By comparing the Euro to other global currencies, you will notice is has been remarkably stable and in fact relatively strong. Since no consumer wants a barrel of oil and relatively few want raw gold, it makes infinitely more sense to look at goods and services that people actually want. If you did this, you would find that the Euro has not been debased at all.

    The “debasing” of a currency would imply inflation. Yet, inflation is at record lows with the bond prices (actually priced in Euros) to prove it. Deflation has actually been a greater risk.

    The premise here implies quite a bit of either sloppy or lazy thinking.

  4. Comment by David | 2013/01/17 at 17:35:56

    Thanks Sam. Why do you assume that I used dollar prices? The dollar does not enter into the comparison at all. I used euro prices throughout. The EC or EU has long been the world’s largest trading bloc. It is far bigger than the USA and Canada combined.
    The comparisons of two of them (Au and Ag) are for other stores of value. I took the prices on world markets in euros for the period concerned. That was to avoid the problem you point to of confusing the store value with variations of other currencies.
    I added comparisons — again in euros — for two consumables that are also used as stores of value, oil and wheat, again in euros on international markets.
    After the dollar was taken off the gold standard in 1971, the European Currency Unit, the proto-European currency stayed on the gold standard until the Oil Price hike and oil embargo against European States in 1973. At that time the European Communities’ huge surplus was turned into a deficit. The EU imports far more oil and gas than the USA.
    No one doubts that the dollar is losing value over this period as are most currencies run on the same principles. For the consumer this implies that any saving kept in euros or in dollars will not keep its value. This contrasts with the ECU that kept its value in a period of currency turmoil and governmental mismanagement in the 1950s and 1960s.

  5. Sam
    Comment by Sam | 2013/01/17 at 17:43:29

    David,

    Just to be clear, what I wrote is that since you are using oil and gold (and for that matter wheat) as comparison, these commodities are all globally priced in dollars.

    Regardless, you have chosen individual items as opposed to a representative basket of items. Like I asked, why did you not chose flat screen televisions to measure the value of the Euro since 2002? When real economists measure inflation (that is the same thing as currency debasement) they use a basket of real goods that people buy. Often the even remove energy and food prices because these fluctuate so specutatively. The assumption being that energy and food prices are already included in the cost of other goods.

    As I said, the point you are making is based on poor economic thnking and strikes a very populist tone that does not correspond to the fact that inflation has been extremely low over the last decade.

    Sure there are a lot of issues to be had with the current fiscal policy, but it sure beats deflation – that I can assure you.

  6. Comment by David | 2013/01/17 at 19:15:52

    Thanks again Sam. I am not comparing consumer prices but stores of value, especially traditional ones. Wheat was used as a store of value in ancient societies dating back for example to Eshnunna, one of the first economic codes. Gold or silver were used in later times for thousands of years. Flat screen televisions or even CRT TV are not a store of value, rather the reverse. Gold fixing is conducted in three currencies simultaneously each day.


Trackbacks & Pingbacks »»

  1. [...] an emblematic EU figure. Meanwhile, Eurdemocracy at Blogactiv.eu accuses the European Commission of ‘debasing’ the euro since [...]

  2. [...] euro’s worth has fallen to a quarter or  fifth of what its value should be worth against stable stores of value. Its conception and management by the secretive [...]

Leave a Reply »»

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-Spam Image

Advertisement