Van Rompuy and the secret Belgian plot to rule Britain

Dangerous: New EU president Herman Van Rompuy extols ‘global governance’

Daily Mail | Jan 2, 2010

By Paul Belian, Belgian Lawyer And Historian

Perhaps, like many, you think Herman Van Rompuy, who took office as the first EU President on Friday, is a harmless figure of fun. Well, you’re wrong.

Van Rompuy, a former prime minister of Belgium, represents the ‘Belgianisation’ of Europe – a process which began 180 years ago and for which Britain has only itself to blame.

There is ominous symbolism in a Belgian ruling the EU. During the Second World War, Churchill called the Belgians ‘the most contemptible of all – a nation which vainly hoped to stay out of this war, no matter what they owed to those who had saved them in the last war’.

Yet the Belgian political model has since then stealthily conquered Britain, turning Brussels, not London, into the centre of power from which decisions are imposed on the British people.

Belgium was created by British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston in 1830-31. It is home to six million Flemings, three million Walloons and one million people in bilingual Brussels.

The country came about after French-speaking Walloons broke away from the Netherlands and tried to join France. Palmerston recognised the rebels on condition that they established a new state and remained neutral.

At first, everyone was sceptical about Palmerston’s creation. Even Belgium’s first king, Leopold I, said: ‘Belgium has no nationality and it can never have one. Basically, Belgium has no political reason to exist.’

By the late 19th Century the Belgian political elite had developed an ideology with a striking similarity to modern Europeanism. In 1904, the ideologist Leon Hennebicq wrote: ‘Have we not been called the laboratory of Europe? Indeed, we are a nation under construction… the solution is economic expansion, which can make us stronger by uniting us.’

His words foreshadowed the Europeanism of the Fifties, which aimed for political unification through economic integration.

But before this could be put into practice Germany invaded Belgium in 1914, forcing Britain to intervene in a Franco-German tussle to uphold Belgium’s neutrality. As neither the Flemings nor Walloons loved Belgium, they left Britain to do the fighting. The war left Britain with 700,000 military deaths.

After the war, the Belgian establishment put Hennebicq’s doctrine into practice. Since 1919, economic and social policies have not been decided in parliament, but between the government and so-called ’social partners’, including the trade unions and the Federation of Belgian Employers.

Soon, the Belgians realised they could apply their ideas to Europe. In the Thirties, Henri De Man, leader of the Belgian Socialist Party, said his country’s ‘corporatist welfare state’ model should be turned into a European or even a global system.

When Hitler overran Europe in 1940, Queen Elisabeth, the widow of Belgium’s King Albert, described it as a ‘work of necessary destruction’.

Meanwhile, De Man saw the Second World War as a unique opportunity to establish a united Europe, asking his followers not to oppose the German victory because: ‘The Socialist Order will thereby be established, as the common good, in the name of a national solidarity that will soon be continental, if not worldwide.’

What was needed, he added, ‘was as much federalism and as little separatism as possible’.

De Man is now forgotten by history. His legacy, however, is very much alive thanks to his deputy, Paul-Henri Spaak, who settled in Britain during the summer of 1940.

He would go on to produce the Spaak Report which laid the foundation of the Treaty of Rome in 1957. It recommended the creation of a European Common Market, which would later become the European Union, as a step towards political unification and ‘an ever closer union of the peoples of Europe’. From the beginning, what these peoples might think was deemed unimportant.

Today’s EU is a shotgun marriage for the peoples of Europe. When the Danes voted against the Maastricht Treaty, and the Irish against Nice and Lisbon, they had to vote again. When the French and Dutch rejected the EU Constitution, their verdict was discarded.

Britain’s Government simply denied its people a say on the Lisbon Treaty, so Westminster is now legally obliged to ‘contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union’ – i.e. to further the interests of the EU, rather than those of its own people.

Make no mistake, the EU is an empire with global ambitions. In his acceptance speech, President Van Rompuy extolled ‘global governance’.

Legions of bureaucrats will rule the British from Brussels, the Belgian capital. Being proud of your Britishness will be criminalised, just as Brussels has always punished Flemings who put Flanders first.

Last November, Van Rompuy, although a Fleming himself, confessed in an interview: ‘I am a European because the European idea is an antidote for Flemish nationalism, an antivenin [an antitoxin against a snake's venom] against the Flemish Movement.’

Two weeks later, he became the EU President. Van Rompuy is no harmless creature. He symbolises the conquest of Britain by Belgium, the monster created by Palmerston.

• Dr Paul Belien is the Flemish author of A Throne In Brussels: Britain, The Saxe-Coburgs And The Belgianisation Of Europe, published by Imprint Academic, Exeter.

EU taxpayers subsidise skiing holiday in the Italian Alps for the children of MEPs and European Parliament officials

A view of an Italian ski resort in the Alps Photo: ALAMY

EU ski holiday paid for by taxpayers

Taxpayers will heavily subsidise a skiing holiday in the Italian Alps for the children of MEPs and European Parliament officials in February.

Telegraph | Dec 31, 2009

By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels

European Union officials, including MEPs, are already under fire for threatening legal action unless they are paid a recession busting 3.7 pre cent pay rise in January.

Most also pay reduced “community” rates of taxation and the latest perk will fuel controversy over the subsidised lifestyle enjoyed by many EU civil servants.

The eight-day skiing trip for 80 children aged between eight and 17 is timed to begin over the weekend of St Valentine’s Day, providing some romantic time off from parenting for officials.

Costs, the holiday is priced at 920 euros (£822), are generously subsidised by the parliament’s budget. Households receive different levels of subsidy depending on their monthly income but even those on a income of over £108,000 get a discount.

There is reduction of up to 52 per cent for officials earning £69,620 a year and an MEP, earning £86,000, is eligible for a subsidy of 45 per cent.

According to an internal document an extra 10 per cent reduction “applies to the enrolment of a second child and subsequent children”.

Mats Persson, of the think-tank Open Europe, said: “It is ridiculous that, at a time when most families across Europe have to tighten their belts, the European Parliament thinks it is appropriate to subsidise holidays for the families of even its most well-paid staff. How can MEPs claim subsidised holidays for their children when many of their constituents’ families are struggling through the recession?”

Organised by the parliament’s staff committee, the holiday, with the educational aim of teaching children skiing skills, will be spent in Italian province of Bergamo.

The children will enjoy full board in a three-star hotel in the beautiful village of Spiazzi.

The trip includes “workshops” in a “multilingual environment” on the themes of “the mountain, its snow, its nature”. Four hours each day will be spent on the ski slopes and three hours on lessons, such as an “exercice (sic) with snow dogs” as well as “open air games” and a “torchlight procession”.

The parliament’s spokesman declined to comment on the holiday.

Nigel Farage, leader of Ukip in the European Parliament, said “spending a fortune on a skiing jolly for MEPs and their families” would anger the public after the worst economic year in memory.

“Surely now is a time of reflection and humility, not a chance to rub the taxpayer’s nose in yet another tremendous waste of money,” he said.

‘Berlusconi doodled women’s knickers at EU climate summit’

Indo-Asian News Service | Dec 13, 2009

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi made doodles of women’s underwear at a recent European Union summit and then passed them around to shocked leaders, a newspaper reported.

He etched women’s underwear through the ages – from Victorian bloomers to thongs – as the leaders discussed climate change at the meeting in Brussels on Friday.

His prank caused titters among some, but indignation among others who passed them back to him, the Mail on Sunday reported.

European leaders present included Britain’s Gordon Brown, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen and EU foreign envoy Baroness Cathy Ashton.

The paper said when the drawings passed across Brown’s desk, he ignored them.

Berlusconi, 73, started doodling as the leaders discussed giving more money to help developing countries combat the effects of climate change.

One source said the etchings were headed ‘Women’s knickers through the ages’ and included loin cloths used by Egyptian women, Victorian bloomers, French satin knickers, thongs and G-strings.

“No one could believe it,” the Mail on Sunday quoted an unnamed source as saying.

“He was scribbling away and then sent round some jottings with women’s knickers on it. Some people were amused. Some were not.”

UK’s richest man could make more than £1bn from carbon trading scheme

ClickGreen | Dec 7, 2009

Could Mittal be laughing all the way to the bank with his carbon credits?

New analysis released by climate change NGO Sandbag has revealed that the UK’s richest resident, Lakshmi Mittal, CEO and major shareholder of the steel giant ArcelorMittal, could make over £1 billion between now and 2012 from his company’s participation in the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme.

ArcelorMittal has over 14 million emissions permits that it does not need in 2008, a figure which Sandbag estimates will rise to 80 million by 2012 making it by far the biggest beneficiary of the scheme across the EU.

Sandbag has written to CEO Laksmi Mittal urging him to commit to cancelling his company’s unneeded emissions permits in what would be the largest act of climate philanthropy on record. If cancelled the 80 million surplus permits would prevent 80 million tonnes worth of pollution going into the world’s atmosphere, equivalent to the annual emissions of Denmark, the country where critical climate change talks are just commencing. Such an act would also come close to matching the cuts required the UK’s whole carbon budget between now and 2012.

Anna Pearson, Head of Policy at Sandbag commented: “ArcelorMittal received its emissions permits for free and could choose to cancel them; we’re calling on them to trade in the windfall profits they could make, for positive action on climate change. This would set an example to not only business and industry worldwide but to our global leaders set to meet in Copenhagen in the coming fortnight.

“European politicians need to sign up to more ambitious targets and tougher limits on pollution in Europe and under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme so that in future, industrial companies like ArcelorMittal actually have to cut their emissions rather than being handed windfall profits. The carbon market will only deliver what politicians ask it to, so it’s up to our leaders to make it tougher and to enable it to make a much greater contribution to tackling climate change.”

In her letter to Mittal, the Founder and Director of Sandbag, Bryony Worthington, explains: “I am writing to you as the world’s leading steel CEO and in your capacity as a philanthropic supporter of causes you believe in. I am the founder of a not for profit organisation Sandbag which works specifically on the potential of the European carbon market to deliver a real and lasting impact on climate change. It is my belief that whilst the carbon market may be considered a significant risk to your business, it also offers within its current workings the opportunity for you to become a world leader in climate philanthropy.

“I am sure you are used to having parallels drawn between your own story of success and that of Andrew Carnegie a century ago. Despite his inspiring business acumen in building the Carnegie steel empire, he is now far more renowned for his philanthropy aimed at tackling poor education and illiteracy: key challenges of his time. Today Bill Gates is perhaps equally famous for his work to tackle malaria, HIV and international poverty but he has no equivalent in the field of climate change. We strongly believe that you have the power to take on this mantle.

“We have studied the EU emissions trading scheme in detail and have found that ArcelorMittal holds a great deal of power within the market through its control of a sizeable portion of the supply of emissions permits. As you will know, last year, in aggregate, your company held more permits than were required to cover emissions from your plant. We recognise that the current recession is partly to blame for emissions from your plant being below your allocations of permits. We also recognise your efforts to improve the energy efficiency of your operations leading to your company’s 20% reduction in carbon footprint on 1990 levels and your other CSR work.
Nevertheless the scale of surplus permits your company controls is so much greater than any other participant in the EU emissions trading scheme it has prompted us to write to you.

“We estimate that you have around 14 million unused emissions permits for the year 2008, and that by the end of 2012 you could hold up to 80 million permits, equivalent to the annual emissions of Denmark. Whilst I’m sure your first instinct will be to monetise these permits to invest in your business but we urge you to consider an alternative strategy. Each permit represents permission for a tonne of carbon to be polluted, a tonne which will stay in the atmosphere for around 1000 years.

“But permits do not have to be used or sold; they can of course be cancelled with the tonnes of carbon never entering the atmosphere. If ArcelorMittal were to commit to cancel its surplus permits, it would be an unprecedented act of climate philanthropy and one which would show huge leadership not only within industry, but also to the world’s politicians. Indeed, your commitment would nearly match that of the whole UK Government which has promised to cut emissions by around 100 million tonnes between 2008 and 2012, a target regarded as one of the toughest in Europe. And whilst the permits undeniably have huge monetary value, they were received for free making the donation, in theory, extremely cost effective.

“We passionately believe that you are in a unique position as a market participant but also as an individual philanthropist to play a key role in tackling the climate change with a commitment would leave a lasting legacy for future generations. We will of course be contacting other companies with surplus permits in the ETS, but as the largest player in this field it was our wish to highlight our views to you first. We would value the opportunity to meet with you personally and with your team to discuss in more detail this and other philanthropic options available to you through your involvement in the carbon market.”

Building Blocks Towards an Asia-Pacific Union

NAU Resistance | Nov 30, 2009

By Dana Gabriel

Although some may have viewed President Barack Obama’s recent Asian trip as uneventful and perhaps unsuccessful, he appears to have recommitted to the principles of globalization as the answer to the world’s economic woes. Obama declared his intentions for the U.S. to be fully engaged in Asia economically, politically, and in areas of security. He announced that America would join negotiations for a Trans-Pacific deal. This could be used as an opportunity for the U.S. to reassert its leadership in regards to trade initiatives and might also serve as a stepping stone for a larger free trade agreement.

The recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit was held in Singapore and marked its 20th anniversary. It brought together world leaders, foreign, finance and trade ministers, along with other delegates from its 21 member nations. APEC was founded to promote greater trade and integration in the region, but its scope has expanded to include environmental, climate change, energy, as well as other issues. In a Statement by APEC Leaders, they agreed to a new growth paradigm for the Asia-Pacific region, endorsed the goals of the G20 Framework and rejected protectionism. The Leaders, “launched a pathfinder initiative led by Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, and the United States to practice self-certification of origin so that businesses can better take advantage of free trade agreements in the region.” This is in an effort to cut costs for exporters and further boost trade. APEC Leaders also agreed to, “continue to explore building blocks towards a possible Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific in the future.”

While on his eight-day Asian tour, which included stops in Japan, Singapore, China, as well as South Korea, President Obama recommitted to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). It was President George W. Bush who first pledged U.S. participation in the TPP. The trade deal was put on hold pending a review of U.S. trade policy. A government fact sheet describes the TPP as a, “potential platform for economic integration across the Asia Pacific region. The United States will engage with an initial group of seven like-minded countries, Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei, Australia, Peru, and Vietnam, to craft a platform for a high-standard, comprehensive agreement – one that reflects U.S. priorities and values – with these and additional Asia-Pacific partners.” Australia will host TPP negotiation sessions in March of next year and a trade treaty could be in place by 2011. Many nations in the region are already bound by various regional and bilateral trade agreements. Expanding the TPP would further distinguish it as the only regional free trade agreement that spans both sides of the Pacific, linking Asia with the Americas. It could also gradually evolve into an Asia-Pacific free trade zone and include APEC members, as well as other nations. Such an undertaking is seen as years away, but U.S. participation in the TPP could speed up such plans.

The United States Trade Representative website reported that after the APEC Summit, “USTR staff and their TPP country counterparts met to discuss work that would need to be done to develop proposals to fill gaps in previous trade agreements and to shape a 21st century trade agreement. These discussions will inform consultations with Congress and with stakeholders about how best to move forward on TPP.” In his article above referenced, Jim Capo noted that, “For the US to undertake negotiations for a trade agreement Congress has first to grant approval to start specific negotiations, and has also to grant Trade Promotion Authority to enable the Executive to conclude the negotiations and put an agreement to Congress with a yes or no vote, without amendments.” He goes on to say that, “There has been no formal Congress approval of TPPA negotiation, President Bush’s Trade Promotion Authority has also expired in March 2007. This means the current US administration has no approval to start negotiation and no authority to conclude them.”

Ahead of the APEC Summit, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd proposed an Asia-Pacific Community by 2020. The regional group would be based on the European Union-style model. It would go beyond APEC and encompass not only economic, but political and security issues. In October of this year, Republican Senator Richard Lugar announced his intentions to introduce legislation aimed at negotiating a free trade agreement with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). The first ASEAN-U.S. Leaders meeting was held in Singapore on November 15. In a Joint Statement the U.S., “welcomed ASEAN’s plans to achieve an ASEAN Community by 2015 based on the ASEAN Charter, and reaffirmed its commitment to support those plans.” ASEAN and the U.S. also agreed to hold a second Leaders meeting in 2010.

On his Asian trip, Obama emphasized the need to strengthen old alliances as well as build new partnerships in the region. He said, “the growth of multilateral organizations can advance the security and prosperity of the region.” He also added, “As an Asia-Pacific nation the United States expects to be involved in the discussions that shape the future of this region and to participate fully in appropriate organizations as they are established and evolve.” In his article above referenced, Jim Capo noted that, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is the sister agreement to the Trans-Atlantic Agenda. Together with NAFTA and the North American Leaders Summit (new name for the discredited SPP), these deals are building blocks for an integrated system of global governance managed by Western financial interests and their collaborators around the world.”

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues.

Contact:beyourownleader@hotmail.com
Visit his blog site at: beyourownleader.blogspot.com

Author Francesco Stipo to Present Book “World Federalist Manifesto” at the National Press Club

“A world government is the only solution to world problems, such as climate change.”

Francesco Stipo, Ph.D. Director of the USA Club of Rome, will present his book “World Federalist Manifesto. Guide to Political Globalization” in a Luncheon at the National Press Club in Washington D.C.

MMD Newswire | Nov 16, 2009

Washington, D.C. (MMD Newswire) November 18, 2009 — The “World Federalist Manifesto” deals with the United Nations reform and the development of an international organization that will represent world nations as a whole and will be able to deal with the global challenges of the new millennium. The “Club of Rome” is a think tank that in 1972 published the report “Limits to Growth”, which sold over 12 million copies worldwide.

The author analyzes different projects of reform of the United Nations.

“The United Nations can’t offer effective solutions because it doesn’t reflect the political and economic balances of world nations. In the General Assembly, a nation like Nauru that contributes just 0.001% of the U.N. budget has the same voting power of a nation such as the United States that contributes 22% of the U.N. budget” Francesco Stipo says. “The General Assembly needs to be reformed to reflect the political and economic balances of world nations”.

World Federalist Manifesto. Guide to Political Globalization

In case the U.N. cannot be reformed, the author calls for an alternative to the United Nations, a new international organization formed by NATO members. “NATO countries have similar economies and are based on democratic political systems” Dr. Stipo says. “The abatement of economic tariffs for countries in the NATO area would create a large free trade area supported by a common military structure. Other countries would be allowed to join once they meet certain economic criteria and they are founded on democratic principles. Such an organization would eventually substitute the role of the United Nations”.

“The economic downturn could have been prevented by a coordinated action of central banks and international regulatory bodies such as the Bank for International Settlements, the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO and the U.N. Economic and Social Council” the author says. “However, such coordination does not exist and global solutions cannot be implemented.” The “World Federalist Manifesto” calls for a centralization of the U.N. system and a better coordination of the work of the specialized agencies under the direction of the Secretary General. The book proposes that the different agencies (such as the FAO or WWF) assume the legal nature of Ministries, such as the International Department of Agriculture or the International Department of Environmental Protection).

The author adds that “a world government is the only solution to world problems, such as climate change and the global economic crisis. A world confederation that respects the sovereignty of world nations and that deals with the issues of international economy that cannot be dealt by one nation alone”.

The book “World Federalist Manifesto. Guide to Political Globalization” is available in Barnes & Noble and in the website www.worldfederalistmanifesto.com.

About the Author

Francesco Stipo is Director of the United States Club of Rome. He holds a Ph.D. in International Law and a Master Degree in Comparative Law from the University of Miami. He has been practicing international law since 1999 and worked as a foreign law advisor and of counsel for European and American law firms.

He is the author of “World Federalist Manifesto. Guide to Political Globalization” and “United Nations Reorganization. The Unification of the U.N. System”. He also is the author of “The Balanced Contribution Theory”. In March 2008 he gave a speech at the United Nations on U.N. Reform. Dr. Stipo is an active member of the National Press Club in Washington D.C.

CONTACT: Dr. Francesco Stipo (Director USA Club of Rome)
LOCATION: National Press Club – Washington D.C.
PHONE: (1) 305-867-9653
E-Mail: fstipo@hotmail.com

WEB SITE: www.worldfederalistmanifesto.com

Meet the President of Europe, one of the elite’s own

One of their own: Herman Van Rompuy, first President of the European Union

Brussels Journal | Nov 20, 2009

by Paul Belien

Herman Van Rompuy. Get used to the name. He is the first President of the European Union, which with the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon by all the 27 EU member states in early November was transformed into a genuine United States of Europe.

The President of Europe has not been elected; he was appointed in a secret meeting of the heads of government of the 27 EU member states. They chose one of their own. Herman Van Rompuy was the Prime Minister of Belgium. I knew him when he was just setting out, reluctantly, on his political career.

To understand Herman, one must know something about Belgium, a tiny country in Western Europe, and the prototype of the EU. Belgians do not exist as a nation. Belgium is an artificial state, constructed by the international powers in 1830 as a political compromise and experiment. The country consists of 6 million Dutch, living in Flanders, the northern half of the country, and 4 million French, living in Wallonia, the southern half. The Belgian Dutch, called Flemings, would have preferred to stay part of the Netherlands, as they were until 1830, while the Belgian French, called Walloons, would have preferred to join France. Instead, they were forced to live together in one state.

Belgians do not like their state. They despise it. They say it represents nothing. There are no Belgian patriots, because no-one is willing to die for a flag which does not represent anything. Because Belgium represents nothing, multicultural ideologues love Belgium. They say that without patriotism, there would be no wars and the world would be a better place. As John Lennon sang “Imagine there’s no countries, it isn’t hard to do, nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too.”

In 1957, Belgian politicians stood at the cradle of the European Union. Their aim was to turn the whole of Europe into a Greater Belgium, so that wars between the nations of Europe would no longer be possible as there would no longer be nations, the latter all having been incorporated into an artificial superstate.

A closer look at Belgium, the laboratory of Europe, shows, however, that the country lacks more than patriotism. It also lacks democracy, respect for the rule of law, and political morality. In 1985, in his book De Afwezige Meerderheid (The Absent Majority) the late Flemish philosopher Lode Claes (1913-1997) argued that without identity and a sense of genuine nationhood, there can also be no democracy and no morality.

One of the people who were deeply influenced by Dr. Claes’s thesis was a young politician named Herman Van Rompuy. In the mid-1980s, Van Rompuy, a conservative Catholic, born in 1947, was active in the youth section of the Flemish Christian-Democrat Party. He wrote books and articles about the importance of traditional values, the role of religion, the protection of the unborn life, the Christian roots of Europe and the need to preserve them. The undemocratic and immoral nature of Belgian politics repulsed him and led to a sort of crisis of conscience. Lode Claes, who was near to retiring, offered Herman the opportunity of succeeding him as the director of Trends, a Belgian financial-economic weekly magazine. It is in this context that I made Herman’s acquaintance. He invited me for lunch one day to ask whether, if he accepted the offer to enter journalism, I would be willing to join him. It was then that he told me that he was considering leaving politics and was weighing the options for the professional life he would pursue.

I am not sure what happened next, however. Maybe word had reached the leadership of the Christian Democrat Party that Herman, a brilliant economist and intellectual, was considering leaving politics; perhaps they made him an offer he could not refuse. Herman remained in politics. He was made a Senator and entered government as a junior minister. In 1988, he became the party leader of the governing Christian-Democrats.

Our paths crossed at intervals until 1990, when the Belgian Parliament voted a very liberal abortion bill. The Belgian King Baudouin (1930-1993), a devout Catholic who suffered from the fact that he and his wife could not have any children, had told friends that he would “rather abdicate than sign the bill.” The Belgian politicians, convinced that the King was bluffing, did not want the Belgian people to know about the King’s objections to the bill. I wrote about this on the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal and was subsequently reprimanded by the Belgian newspaper I worked for, following an angry telephone call from the then Belgian Prime Minister, a Christian-Democrat, to my editor, who was this Prime Minister’s former spokesman. I was no longer allowed to write about Belgian affairs for foreign newspapers.

In April 1990, the King did in fact abdicate over the abortion issue, and the Christian-Democrat Party, led by Herman Van Rompuy, who had always prided himself on being a good Catholic, had one of Europe’s most liberal abortion bills signed by the college of ministers, a procedure provided by the Belgian Constitution for situations when there is no King. Then they had the King voted back on the throne the following day. I wrote about the whole affair in a critical follow-up article for The Wall Street Journal and was subsequently fired by my newspaper “for grievous misconduct”. A few weeks later, I met Herman at the wedding of a mutual friend. I approached him for a chat. I could see he felt very uncomfortable. He avoided eye contact and broke off the conversation as soon as he could. We have not spoken since.

Herman’s political career continued. He became Belgium’s Budget Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Speaker of the Chamber of Representatives and finally Prime Minister. He kept publishing intellectual and intelligent books, but instead of defending the concept of the good, he now defended the concept of “the lesser evil.” And he began to write haiku.

Two years ago, Belgium faced its deepest political crisis ever. The country was on the verge of collapse following a 2003 ruling by its Supreme Court that the existing electoral district of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde (BHV), encompassing both the bilingual capital Brussels and the surrounding Dutch-speaking countryside of Halle-Vilvoorde, was unconstitutional and that Parliament should remedy the situation. The ruling came in response to a complaint that the BHV district was unconstitutional and should be divided into a bilingual electoral district Brussels and a Dutch-language electoral district Halle-Vilvoorde. This complaint had been lodged by… Herman Van Rompuy, a Flemish inhabitant of the Halle-Vilvoorde district.

In 2003, however, the Christian-Democrats were not in government and Herman was a leader of the opposition. His complaint was intended to cause political problems for Belgium’s Liberal government, which refused to divide the BHV district because the French-speaking parties in the government refused to accept the verdict of the Supreme Court. The Flemish Christian-Democrats went to the June 2007 general elections with as their major theme the promise that, once in government, they would split BHV. Herman campaigned on the issue, his party won the elections and became Flanders’ largest party.

Belgium’s political crisis dragged on from June until December 2007 because it proved impossible to put together a government consisting of sufficient Dutch-speaking (Flemish) and French-speaking (Walloon) politicians. The Flemings demanded that BHV be split, as instructed by the Supreme Court; the Walloons refused to do so. Ultimately, the Flemish Christian-Democrats gave in, reneged on their promise to their voters, and agreed to join a government without BHV being split. Worse still, the new government has more French-speaking than Dutch-speaking ministers, and does not have the support of the majority of the Flemings in Parliament, although the Flemings make up a 60% majority of the Belgian population. Herman became the Speaker of the Parliament. In this position he had to prevent Parliament, and the Flemish representatives there, from voting a bill to split BHV. He succeeded in this, by using all kinds of tricks. One day he even had the locks of the plenary meeting room changed so that Parliament could not convene to vote on the issue. On another occasion, he did not show up in his office for a whole week to avoid opening a letter demanding him to table the matter. His tactics worked. In December 2008, when the Belgian Prime Minister had to resign in the wake of a financial scandal, Herman became the new leader of the predominantly French-speaking government which does not represent the majority of Belgium’s ethnic majority group. During the past 11 months, he has skillfully managed to postpone any parliamentary vote on the BHV matter, thereby prolonging a situation which the Supreme Court, responding to Herman’s own complaint in 2003, has ruled to be unconstitutional.

Now, Herman has moved on to lead Europe. Like Belgium, the European Union is an undemocratic institution, which needs shrewd leaders who are capable of renouncing everything they once believed in and who know how to impose decisions on the people against the will of the people. Never mind democracy, morality or the rule of law, our betters know what is good for us more than we do. And Herman is now one of our betters. He has come a long way since the days when he was disgusted with Belgian-style politics.

Herman is like Saruman, the wise wizard in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, who went over to the other side. He used to care about the things we cared about. But no longer. He has built himself a high tower from where he rules over all of us.

________

Related

Europeans Meet (Soviet-Style) to Choose First-Ever EU President

Geo-strategists are debating whether Europe’s superpower moment is or is not just around the corner. But if the nomination process for the individual who will represent 500 million Europeans has demonstrated anything at all, it is that Europe is inexorably moving in a direction that has far more in common with Soviet totalitarianism than with Western liberal democracy.

Baroness Ashton, EU’s new foreign minister

Baroness Ashton  Photo: JEFF GILBERT

Baroness Ashton of Upholland was best-known for getting the Lisbon Treaty, the successor to the EU Constitution, through the House of Lords in June 2008.

Catherine Ashton has travelled a long way from her chairmanship of Hertfordshire’s health authority to her nomination as the European Union’s first foreign minister.

Telegraph | Nov 20, 2009

By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels

At no time in the eight-year voyage, via the House of Lords and the European Commission, has the Labour appointee, aged 53, ever been troubled by facing an election to public office.

Until departing for Brussels, Baroness Ashton of Upholland was best-known for getting the Lisbon Treaty, the successor to the EU Constitution, through the House of Lords in June 2008.

“I spent 76 hours of my life getting the Lisbon Treaty though the House of Lords. I would very much like to see it come into force,” she said.

Few would have suspected that, less than 18 months later, as the treaty entered into force, she would be anointed as the EU’s High Representative for foreign affairs, a job she had done so much to help create.

Opportunity first knocked when she parachuted into the post of trade commissioner when Lord Mandelson was recalled in Oct 2008 to play a leading domestic role as a Cabinet Minister. She was Britain’s first female commissioner.

After just 13 months in the European Commission, and with only a transatlantic bananas deal and a tread agreement with South Korea to show for it, she will now become the EU executive’s vice-president and Europe’s foreign minister.

Holding a bunch of flowers from EU leaders, Lady Ashton hinted that her gender was more important than democratic credentials at her first press conference.

“I am proud of the fact that women have been recognised as being as capable, as able to do the senior jobs in Europe as any man. I am very proud of being a woman and holding that role,” she said.

“Am I an ego on legs? No I am not. Do I want to be seen out there all the time saying everything? No, I don’t. Judge me on what I do and I think you will be pleased and proud of me.”

Lady Ashton was chairman of a county health authority between 1998 to 2001. She was elevated to the House of Lords as a Labour life peer in 1999.

Lady Ashton was made an education minister in 2001 before short junior stints at the departments of constitutional affairs and justice.

Her varied career began in an administrative capacity at the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in the late 1970s. With a degree in economics from the University of London, she made her way in business, working first as a management consultant and then for the Business in the Community organisation, which encourages greater social responsibility by companies.

She was named Leader of Lords in Gordon Brown’s first Cabinet in 2007. She is married to Peter Kellner, a political commentator and president of British polling company YouGov. She has two children and three stepchildren.

Herman Van Rompuy: EU’s first president

Herman Van Rompuy – the Belgian prime minister is Europe’s first president  Photo: REUTERS

“Apart from the euro, also other national symbols need to be replaced by European symbols (licence plates, identity cards, presence of more EU flags, one time EU sports events.”

Herman Van Rompuy, Belgium’s reluctant prime minister, is an unexpected first President of the European Union.

Telegraph | Nov 20, 2009

By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels

Balding, short in stature, slight of build and self-effacing, the 62-year Flemish Christian Democrat economist is no European George Washington.

Kristen Hemmerechts, a well known Flemish essayist, has compared his looks to the Extra-Terrestrial film character made famous by Steven Spielberg. “I can’t look at a picture of him without thinking: ET,” she wrote recently.

Related

Profile: Herman Van Rompuy, Belgium’s Mr Fixit

A year ago, Mr Van Rompuy was drifting towards retirement before he was plucked from obscurity by King Albert II in one the periodic crises that threaten to split the country’s Flemish and French-speaking communities apart.

Even then, as opportunity knocked, he was reluctant to step into the limelight as national premier and it took Belgium’s monarch 90 minutes to persuade him.

Mr Van Rompuy remained almost completely unknown outside Belgium’s frontiers until he was anointed as a candidate for President of the Council by Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor and Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, at a Brussels summit on October 29.

Since then, he has become best known for his camping holidays and his Flemish-Dutch language haikus, a form of Japanese poetry. One verse marks his increasing baldness: “Hair blows in the wind/after years there is still wind/sadly no more hair.”

A routine visit by Mr Van Rompuy to his country’s parliament on Thursday, just hours before he was appointed, quickly turned into an emotional farewell as MPs lined up to bid him farewell and to wish him luck in the new post.

In typical style, the Belgian prime minister concluded his appearance by quoting poetry, lines from “De Ploeger” (The Ploughman) by Adriaan Roland Holst.

“I ask no harvest, I have no barns, I am at your service without possessions,” he told Belgian MPs.”

Mr Van Rompuy is married with four children. His younger brother, Eric Van Rompuy, and his son, Peter, are also Chritsian Democrat politicians. His maverick sister, Christine Van Rompuy, is a member of the Maoist Workers Party of Belgium. In Belgium’s 2007 elections, she helped to produce a poster showing her brother portrayed as a clown. “We have not spoken since,” she said.

Politically, in Britain at least, Mr Rompuy is more controversial. He has been described by Chris Bryant, the Europe minister, as having “a more federalist agenda than other prime ministers in Europe”.

He once authored a federalist manifesto that decalared: “Apart from the euro, also other national symbols need to be replaced by European symbols (licence plates, identity cards, presence of more EU flags, one time EU sports events.”

Just last week, speaking to a private dinner of industrialists, diplomats and politicians, he called for European taxes on financial transactions to fund the EU.

He is also a hard-line opponent of Turkey’s bid to join the European Union because, he has warned, it is an Islamic country and would dilute Europe’s Christian heritage.

EU strong-armed nations into submitting to a single president over all Europe

FILE – In this Oct. 9, 2009 file photo, Britain’s former Prime Minister Tony Blair attends a reception in London. Very soon, Europeans from Denmark to Bulgaria will wake up to the reality of having their very first president, one person world leaders can call when they want to talk to Europe. It’s taken a lot of history to get here. (AP Photo/Chris Jackson, Pool, File)

AP | Nov 15, 2009

By ANGELA CHARLTON

PARIS — The European Union has battled long and hard for this moment: the imminent choice of its first president.

To get there, the EU strong-armed Irish voters, brushed aside hostile French and Dutch ballots, and pressured the Czech president into agreeing to a single leader to give Europe a strong voice on the world stage.

Yet after all that, EU leaders meeting Thursday may end up picking someone from a small country with little international power instead of a charismatic heavyweight to head this continental bloc of 27 nations, half a billion people and huge economic heft.

To pick a boss they can all live with, they must strike the right balance between big countries and small, east and west, socialists and conservatives, perhaps male and female. They must maneuver between proponents of a strong Europe and those who fear it — eurocentrics and euroskeptics, in the local parlance.

It’s a diplomatic minefield.

The decision will help define Europe’s future, the climax of a decade of agonized contortions and oft-thwarted efforts to make the EU about more than money and markets and common rules about what bananas Europeans can buy.

“The time has come to have a personality who will make an imprint … a European mark” on world affairs from Iran’s nuclear program to relations with Russia, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said last week.

“We should have weight in the world; we are 500 million people,” he said. “We should participate in world events and not just finance them.”

The early favorite was Britain’s former prime minister, Tony Blair, but his candidacy has run into trouble. He cuts a big figure on the world stage — perhaps too big for the liking of other powerful figures such as French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Now the talk among diplomats is that the EU president won’t be that globally powerful after all and that the role will primarily be to liaise internally among EU governments. That would leave room for a low-profile president and a more eye-catching figure in the No. 2 slot of EU foreign minister, which carry the real international oomph.

There’s talk of grudges: Will Britain block Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy as punishment for Belgian objections to Blair? Will Poland nix Italy’s Massimo d’Alema because of his communist past?

The path toward giving Europe a public face has been a tortured one. First, there was the EU constitution, which was meant to streamline decision-making and stipulated creating a president and a commissioner of defense and foreign affairs. But French and Dutch voters rejected the constitution in referendums in 2005, fearing a threat to their sovereignty.

Then a toned-down reform treaty was born. That made it past most governments — but then Irish voters said no.

They were talked into a second vote, said yes — and then the euroskeptic Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, resisted. Under heavy pressure, the Czechs also signed on last week.

There are no declared candidates and no public campaigns. President Barack Obama’s future European counterpart will be determined not by elections but over a closed-door dinner.

Blair’s most visible handicap is his enthusiasm for the Iraq war, which many Europeans opposed. He is especially resented among European leaders who bucked resistance at home to join the euro, the bloc’s common currency, only for Britain to stay out of it.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband is often mentioned for the job of foreign minister, but he insists he’s not in the running.

Being on the left and coming from a big country, Miliband could have been nicely balanced against a conservative from a small country holding the presidency, such as Dutch Premier Jan Peter Balkenende, Belgium’s Van Rompuy or former Austrian chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel.

At the last EU summit two weeks ago, calls mounted to give the presidency to a woman. That boosted the long-shot chances of Latvian former President Vaira Vike-Freiberga.

The logic of choices is often mysterious or counterintuitive. Balkenende is vaunted as a good candidate because his country’s voters rejected the EU constitution, “which should comfort the euroskeptics,” the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad surmised.

Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt is known internationally for his U.N. role in the Balkans, but says he’s not running. He says only that Europe’s president should be “a good person.”

The European Union that rose from the ashes of World War II has torn down its borders, adopted common standards in everything from the death penalty to the weight of cargo trucks. It has dug a tunnel to link Britain to the Continent and its haves have poured billions into its have-not member states — 10 from the former communist bloc — raising their living standards beyond recognition.

And that’s where it should stop, say the euroskeptics, before national governments lose their sovereignty to a faceless superstate.

A face, say the europhiles, is exactly what Europe needs in order to take its proper place on the world stage. They have a stock phrase: When America needs to talk to Europe, it doesn’t know whom to call.

Now, said France’s Kouchner, “Europe will have a telephone number.”