The Totalitarian Structure of the EU

Comments on a Speech by Hubert Dessloch

by Friedrich Romig, Vienna

Director Hubert Dessloch, whose rank corresponds to a Secretary of State, was as a young lawyer the assistant to the first president of the 'High Commission' of the EU, Walter Hallstein. Up until his retirement from public service he was actively involved in the creation of the European Union. Today he is General secretary of the 'International Academy for Philosophy' based in the principality of Liechtenstein.

No one else is better qualified with his background to shed light on the area of conflict between the complexity of the EU politics and the triviality of its depiction by the media. The speech he gave to a selected audience in St. Pölten on 23rd November provided insights which conjured up scenes of Dante's purgatory in the minds of many listeners.

Decisions made in Brussels - national parliaments deprived of (political) power

According to Dessloch, the EU today is totalitarian in structure to its core. National parliaments are practically deprived of political power, their activities mainly consist of transforming EU policies into national law. 'This happens to such an extent that national parliaments, instead of listening to the people, have begun to set up liaison offices in Brussels in order to be able to recognize beforehand what they will be faced with.' We have already long been living in a European federal state, without calling it that to avoid disturbing national identities and politicians' carriers who want, without having any real function, to at least fill their own pockets.

Decisions at the highest level: obscure and undemocratic

But even the commission does not work, contrary to its original conception, as a European government. The commission is steered by an informal 'Jacobite club' which has its roots in the summit conferences of the heads of governments of the member states and which has degenerated into a totally opaque organization. 'Who is pulling the strings' and who is preparing the 'concluding remarks for the presidency of the day remains in the dark'. The heads of government read the bulky draft versions, often more than 50 page containing far-reaching political decisions, for the first time in the airplane on their way to Brussels. In the first meeting they have a time slot of 3-5 minutes to comment on its contents. In the late evening or during the night some senior officials will prepare the final draft of the document for the concluding remarks of the presidency. The following day the heads of governments can only request that an odd sentence be removed or inserted. Afterwards it is carved in stone. Not only the commission, the government of the EU with, at present, a very weak president, appears practically annulled. Any semblance of democracy has been rejected. There is no question that with this brutal, obscure approach 'the smaller member states in the European Union are being dominated by the bigger ones. Even worse, in the case of a major crisis, the large member states will pursue their own ends and will show total disregard for the whole EU. Recent experience provides evidence: In the political struggle over an Iraq decision in the UN security council the European Union has not been involved at all.'

EU decisions in the wake of the media

The media shows no interest in all this. Their deregulation and privatization has led to different priorities. They are generally no longer interested in reliable information. Instead it is ratings, the arousing of attention, sensations and scoops. 'The media produce the story which is then sold as reality. But the whole thing is a juggling with names.' The totalitarian structure of the EU 'grew undisturbed, as it were in the wake of the public that fails to grasp, especially on the national level, the course being set in Brussels today'. 'The media holds no sway over decisions concerning the future.' The EU institutions, 'which lie beyond democratic responsibility and the constitution, are completely independent of the media's influence. They are manipulated by the decision makers, in the same way as the people are'. The much praised politically mature citizen, through television and the 'news', has become an indifferent voyeur without even noticing that what is going on and the decisions taken without his consent affect his life in an extremely decisive manner. The achievements of the Enlightenment, democracy, and self-determination have become a farce. 'As a result we find ourselves here in great danger.'

The thesis put forward by Dessloch was interesting: the totalitarian structure of the EU with its anti-democratic top-down decisions taken by the 'Club of Jacobites' had become necessary as a result of the cultural revolution of the '68 generation. That revolution had dissolved the structures and hierarchies that had developed in society and state, had perphorated authority, relaxed family ties, substituted hard work and responsibility with pleasure and fun, dramatically lowered the educational level of universities and schools, and disparaged ethical dispositions and virtues. As a result a development towards anarchy and terrorism had been fostered. Establishment of the centralistic EU-dictatorship was the answer and the only way of preventing Europe from sinking into chaos.

If one wanted to avoid any aggravation of this totalitarian dictatorship, which is emerging now under the pretext of combating terrorism, a kind of cultural counter-revolution was necessary that falls back on the Christian roots of the European unification.

Bishop Krenn, who introduced the conference in a statement clearly settling scores with pluralism, the waffle of tolerance, opinion seeking, debate ethics and the finding of a consensus, and who invited the participants to an evening reception in his summer refectory, no doubt had no difficulty, as an old EU sceptic, with the remarks and conclusions of the speaker.