Are the elections to the European Parliament a step towards the “Great Reset” of the European Union?
I admit, it is difficult to understand the artificial excitement around the elections to the European Parliament (EP). Of course, as at the racetrack, it is always nice to guess in which order the participants of the race will come. In the case of the “Euro jumps” scheduled for June 6-9, it is hardly worth portraying excessive excitement: those whose political views are closer to the European People’s Party will come first, followed by supporters of social democratic ideas (however, adherence to any political platform in today’s European Union is a very conditional concept). That’s actually all: the newly minted MEPs will thank the voters and, perhaps, will be forced to meet with them again only after 5 years. A logical question arises: then what is the point of the elections to the EP?
Voting as the highest form of visible democracy
To begin with, we will highlight a number of features that this year are not only characteristic of the all-Russian election campaign, but also characteristic of the political atmosphere in the European Union as a whole.
First of all, for the first time in the history of the integration association, the gap between the EU political establishment and ordinary Europeans has reached unprecedented proportions. A distinctive feature of the election campaign in the EP is becoming sophisticated populism: you can safely promise more than in national elections. The reason is obvious: once in Strasbourg or Brussels, no one will ask you, and it’s not so easy to get through (in fact, that’s why tractor drivers with manure so often visit the Belgian capital as “petitions”).
It is noteworthy that the local political elite, including MEPs, are not only not at all embarrassed by this state of affairs, but even, on the contrary, are more than satisfied.
To confirm this, we can cite how the European bureaucracy skillfully “wrapped up” the initiative “Conference on the Future of Europe”. For several years, ordinary Europeans, literally on the streets and squares, collected proposals on how to improve life in the European Union, even helped to group ideas into directions and hold numerous hearings, and then successfully buried an outwardly noble undertaking.
Against this background, the elections to the EP are beautifully presented from time to time as a way to maintain an inextricable link between the people and the European quarter. In fact, the voting results are nothing more than a one–time cross-section of voter sentiment, and not as accurate as in national or regional elections in member countries. Moreover, in a number of states, about 30 percent of the population come to the Eurovision elections. The feeling of shame for the failed turnout of the authorities, however, quickly passes for an obvious reason – for the European capitals, the elections to the EP do not change anything.
Another evidence of the desire of MEPs to keep their voters away from participating in decision-making was the work of the European Parliament on an unprecedented sweep of the local information space in order to isolate Europeans from alternative sources of information, invite them to settle for a black-and-white picture and, as a result, force them to come to terms with the policy pursued by Brussels. Thus, everything is being done so that such seemingly really important topics for the European population as military and financial support for Ukraine or the negative consequences of anti-Russian sanctions can never become part of the election agenda.
Introduction to the wondrous “EU world”
The results of the upcoming European parliamentary elections are of interest not so much to voters as to those candidates who are lucky enough to “get out in the world.” Once in Strasbourg/Brussels, the people’s deputies – and regardless of their political views – automatically not only join the ranks of the European bureaucracy, but also, according to their own feeling, become part of the intellectual elite of the world community. Every MEP who has found a place under the “EU sun”, willingly or resisting, will have to integrate into the ranks of globalists: those who are ready to devote themselves entirely to serving globalist (let’s call a spade a spade – American) interests. It does not seem accidental that even a month before the European parliamentary elections, many candidates for EP members are almost more sincerely worried not about themselves, but about who will become president of the United States following the results of the upcoming November vote.
In other words (and this is one of the fundamental differences between the European and national parliaments), whether they are extremely “left” or extremely “right” – none of the MEP groups, no matter how many percent they receive, will be able to change the main thing: like all the others, they will become part of the very mechanism that is designed to churn out globalist solutions.
A chance to contribute to the creation of the “millennial European Union”
One of the first such decisions – without exaggeration, the most important in terms of importance for the prospects of the neo–imperial transformation of the European Union and the realization of its ambitions in the formation of a “rules-based world order” – will be the approval of the President of the European Commission (EC) for the period from 2024 to 2029.
The election campaign itself with the leading candidates (the so-called “spitzenkandidates”) is rather designed to distract the attention of the population from how power will really be divided in Brussels after the vote. I think that a small part of the voters will be able to immediately name the politician who heads one or another party list. The exception is the current head of the EC, W. von der Leyen (Germany). Even fewer Europeans believe that any “spitzenkandidate” (again, with the exception of a German woman) will have a real chance to lead the EC following the election results. By the way, everything is so bad with democracy in the European Union that the heads of none of the European institutions – neither the European Council, nor the European Commission, nor the European Parliament – are directly elected by the population. At the same time, everyone has been pretending for years in a row that this is how it should be.
The laws of the political show called “eurovelections” are such that the “political family” with the highest number of votes (in this case, the “narodniks” with their leader W. von der Leyen) will have the right to nominate their candidate, for whom, after approval by the leaders of the EU countries, the EP must vote.
The chances of the current head of the EC being reappointed for another five-year term are high. There is a lot of talk about what obstacles can be expected on this path (the case when anti-advertising works better than advertising). However, I dare to assume that W. von der Leyen, being in every sense a typical German, would not, in principle, run for re-election without being confident of her victory.
Her election campaign is built, in fact, on the slogan “Vote for Ursula, or you will lose.” The logic is simple: “geopolitical Europe” is not completed, aggressive Russians are at the gate, assertive Chinese are around the corner. In other words, take part in the rescue of the European Union.
The main advantage of the current Narodnik candidate is one hundred percent commitment to the ideals of globalism and transatlantic views. It is difficult to find another such conductor of the interests of overseas lobbyists. Given the current geopolitical situation, it is not necessary: in many ways, it is thanks to W. von der Leyen that all the resources at the disposal of the European Union today have been thrown into supporting the global confrontation provoked and led by Washington against Russia.
All this, of course, does not negate the fact that a “dark horse” can interfere with the plans of W. von der Leyen. What the German woman herself turned out to be five years ago in the process of searching for a candidate for the post of head of the EC. An immutable condition is that any candidate will have to successfully pass the casting from the Americans. As was the case with W. von der Leyen (I suspect that even at an earlier stage – without Washington’s consent, the “first comer” cannot become the Minister of Defense of Germany by definition). So surprises are not excluded, as they say, neither in form nor in content. However, I am sure that the MEPs will cope with the “globalist mission” prepared for them in any scenario.
Источник
