EUSSR Vows to Overcome Nation State Objections to their New Climate Target

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

European Parliament politicians have vowed to overcome objections from governments of member nations to the imposition of their new 35% renewable energy target.

European Parliament push for clean energy package faces resistance

MEPs agree to increase EU’s renewable and energy efficiency goals but that’s not going to sit well with national governments.

ANCA GURZU
1/17/18, 7:13 PM CET
Updated 1/18/18, 8:50 PM CET

The European Parliament’s evident self-satisfaction over Wednesday’s vote to boost the EU’s green energy ambitions is likely to be punctured in the coming brawl with national governments.

MEPs’ push to speed up the bloc’s transition to clean energy puts it on a collision course with the Council of the EU, where several countries are angry at the possibility of being forced to shoulder an extra, and expensive, burden.

“We are expecting long and tough negotiations,” a Central European diplomat said, adding that the Parliament’s position “is more ambitious and challenging than what we agreed in the Council.”

MEPs said the EU should get 35 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2030, as well as achieving a minimum 35 percent gain in energy efficiency over the same period. They also agreed on strong rules for ensuring countries are on track to meet their goals.

Parliament’s higher targets are a lot more than many EU countries are prepared to accept.

I expect the negotiations on all files from the Clean Energy Package to be tough,” said Martina Werner, a German MEP from the Socialists and Democrats. “The risk is to end up with the lowest common denominator.”

National opposition is not too surprising considering the bitter talks over setting the 2030 energy and climate goals in the first place back in 2014. There was strong resistance from several Central and Eastern European countries who felt things were going too far, too fast; many still rely on coal, and were worried about the financial and economic costs of shifting to other power sources in a short period of time.

In the end, EU leaders committed to 27 percent targets for both energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Those promises have to be translated into laws, and now Central Europeans are outraged that Brussels and the Parliament are trying to push beyond the leaders’ 2014 deal by pressing for higher targets in the process.

The targets are way beyond what is feasible. We cannot come up with commitments like that out of thin air,” said an Eastern European diplomat.

Read more: https://www.politico.eu/article/european-capitals-will-rain-on-parliaments-green-parade/

This kind of conflict between the EU and member states is common.

The problem I suspect is that European Union Democratic institutions are very weak.

The elected EU parliament, the only elected body of the European government, does not have “legislative initiative”, the right to draft new laws. The parliament can only vote on laws proposed by the European Commission.

From Wikipedia;

… Although the European Parliament has legislative power that the Council and Commission do not possess, it does not formally possess legislative initiative, as most national parliaments of European Union member states do.[6][7] The Parliament is the “first institution” of the EU (mentioned first in the treaties, having ceremonial precedence over all authority at European level),[8] and shares equal legislative and budgetary powers with the Council (except in a few areas where the special legislative procedures apply). It likewise has equal control over the EU budget. Finally, the European Commission, the executive body of the EU, is accountable to Parliament. In particular, Parliament elects the President of the Commission, and approves (or rejects) the appointment of the Commission as a whole. It can subsequently force the Commission as a body to resign by adopting a motion of censure.[6]

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament

The European Commission is responsible for proposing new laws, and is also responsible for oversight of the implementation of laws which they proposed.

From Wikipedia;

… Through Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union the Commission has several responsibilities: to develop medium-term strategies; to draft legislation and arbitrate in the legislative process; to represent the EU in trade negotiations; to make rules and regulations, for example in competition policy; to draw up the budget of the European Union; and to scrutinise the implementation of the treaties and legislation.[43] The rules of procedure of the European Commission set out the Commission’s operation and organisation. …

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission#Powers_and_functions

Members appointed to the European Commission frequently have curious backgrounds, backgrounds which would likely not stand the public scrutiny of an election campaign. Some European Commission members have been appointed despite substantial criminal convictions, or were former high ranking members of the Soviet Government.

The following is an old video of Nigel Farage, who spoke at President Trump’s election rally in Jackson, MS, listing the criminal convictions and communist affiliations of appointed European commissioners.

Why does European leadership from former members of the Soviet government and people with criminal convictions lead to conflict between the EU and elected politicians from member nation states over green policy?

The answer in my opinion is straightforward. Elected politicians who want to keep their jobs have to care about the suffering of voters, when their political decisions cause hardship. Appointed European leaders, not so much.

Advertisements

147 thoughts on “EUSSR Vows to Overcome Nation State Objections to their New Climate Target

  1. Why are we seeing this narrow characterisation of a political body as the EUSSR?

    This is a piece that should be on Breitbart: it is pure right wing US Republican party bile…

    Is this a platform for discussion on climate, or for airing a narrow range of peculiar political views?

    • Because the EU Parliament is like the old Soviet: a political body completely disconnected from reality or real world issues, but feeling empowered to decide for the masses what is best for them.

    • “Is this a platform for discussion on climate, or for airing a narrow range of peculiar political views?”

      Don’t you contradict yourself, Griff? According to the ilks of thee, this site’s overwhelming skepticism of your climate views are just that, i.e., in a “narrow range” and “peculiar” compared to the consensus? Not sure why you’re complaining?

      Did you notice that just down the right hand side of the page there’s a “category” drop down? Contained within the list is one on “Politics”.

      Does this help?

      • The EU is an instrument that creates in spreads propaganda that would make James Joyce – aka Lord Haw-Haw green with envy. It is presently ensnaring the UK with its vile bile – and in the following clip I believe that Theresa May has swallowed it completely. Her words – meant to assuage the Brexiteers are – to my mind simply an extension of this.

      • @Kleinefeldmaus William Joyce. James Joyce achieved fame and worldwide literary accolades for writing unreadable novels not unlike the other Irish man Samuel Beckett who also achieved similar success for writing unwatchable plays with no dialogue or characters. We Irish appear to revel in our role as the emperor’s new ‘ fashion-world renowned’ tailors.

      • Little Field Mouse,
        I think it was William Joyce who played the Lord Haw-Haw proselytizer.
        As noted above, James Joyce was another chap.

        Auto

    • It is good to see that Griff is policing this forum. He is such a hero of skeptical thought. He is not at all partisan.

    • It’s a platform that discusses whatever the blog owner desires. You have no standing here Griff as anything but a poster and nor do I. FACT: Climate Change is a political issue. As an issue it will live or die in the political realm. The academic/scientific realms cannot keep it alive alone.

    • Griff, I would have thought you would be pleased to see such a moniker (EUSSR). Most socialists were sorry to see the USSR implode economically. This ‘resurrection’ should please you.
      Maybe you want to rethink your complaint?

    • “Climate change” IS just politics, the left-wing totalitarian one-world agenda. EU is just a partial study.

      Any science in “Climate change” died ages ago.

    • Why are we seeing comments from utopian socialist griffters, offering their narrow opinions on unreliable, intermittent, low yield ‘renewable’ energy sources, on this site? Their comments should be on Huffington Post or the Guardian, cess pools for self-deluded left wing socialists spewing their utopian vomit. /sarc

      Free speech is an unalienable right, guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the United States of America Constitution. Apparently this offends your repressive EUSSR socialist sensibilities, Griffter.
      Pray, vent your spleen and do tell us why….

    • Odd how you have no response at all to what the article stated, just a rant about the messenger. Wonder why that is?

      • PiperPaul
        no need to comment on the article. It is self-explanatory. The EU is a socialist dicatorship of the unelected EU Commission. The Parliament over rules the commission, and vetoes ~10% of the regulations put forward. Everything from sugar in soft drinks to corruption. They did NOT veto a regulation upping the carbon emissions from 25-30% by 2030. As Germany has shown, that will be very unlikely to happen, especially in the poorer countries in the east and south.

    • “or for airing a narrow range of peculiar political views?”

      “Peculiar political views”, Griff?

      Hardly.

      ”The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”

      Mikhail Gorbachev.

      Hmmm….

      Who to believe, Mikhail Gorbachev or Griff…

      It’s a puzzle!

      • catweazle666

        “Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of empire. We have the dimension of empire.” (Jose Manuel Barrosso 2007)

        “Decisions taken by the most democratic institutions in the world are very often wrong.”

        (Jose Manuel Barroso 2010)

        “I have lived in your future ….and it doesn’t work”

        (Russian dissident Vladimir Bukovsky on the EU)

        “The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State.”

        (Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister)

        “If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union.”

        (Russian dissident Vladimir Bukovsky)

        “The European Union is a state under construction.”

        (Elmar Brok, Chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs)

        “I have never understood why public opinion about European ideas should be taken into account at all,”

        (French PM Raymond Barre)

        “…we must now face the difficult task of moving towards a single economy, a single political unity.”

        (Romano Prodi, President of EU Commission 1999)

        “The day of the nation state is over.”

        (Roman Herzog, German president, 1996)

        “The European system of supranationality comes at the cost of democracy.”

        (Lord Leach of Fairford)

        Scary.

      • And from our very own Kenneth Clarke:

        “I look forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a council chamber in Europe”

      • not so much a fool as simply a fascist, who’s upset at seeing his little tin god knocked off its shelf.

    • Maybe you are too young to remember the USSR. This is an example of the EU mimicking the USSR. The USSR also set unachievable production targets, the pursuit of which was very damaging to the economy. In the end the economy collapsed and the USSR disintegrated, a fate which will surely befall the EU eventually.

    • should be on Breitbart

      Typically arrogant, totalitarian attitude: I don’t like this so you shouldn’t be allowed to publish it.

      Here’s a direct question for you, Griff. Please answer it:
      What gives you any kind of authority to demand that Anthony Watts, Breitbart or anyone else should not be allowed to publish things you disagree with on their websites?

    • Griff, Did the Bad Man upset your religious sensibilities and commit blasphemy against your One True god?

    • Even Kuschev asked why Europe was recreating the USSR knowing that it failed ; Are really as stupid as your posts or are you just trolling

    • Because it is. In the EUSSR people are no longer in the ecuacion. They no longer can decide, nor with their vote or with their money. We The People of europe have become irrelevant. Big Brother has taken over.

    • The Science of Climate and all that’s associated with that, is politically corrupt. You don’t have one without the other. The narrative is dictated by politics not science.

    • The commission is unelected, unaccountable and hasn’t produced any accounts showing where billions of EU money has gone.
      The individual members pensions depend on them never questioning or revealing even after leaving what goes on within the commission.
      The parliament has no power or real responsibility, more a talking show for the people to think the EU is democratic.

      James Bull

      • “The commission is unelected, unaccountable and hasn’t produced any accounts showing where billions of EU money has gone.”

        You can say that again.

        Corruption costs EU ‘up to €990 billion a year’
        The EU has a corruption problem that could cost it up to €990 billion a year, according to a study commissioned by the European Parliament and released on Monday.

        Corruption in the EU comes in many forms and has multiple economic, social and political effects, according to the Cost of Non-Europe in the Area of Corruption Study by RAND Europe. Based on three scenarios using different methodologies that included both direct and indirect effects, the study found the EU suffers losses in its gross domestic product that range between €179 billion and €990 billion each year.

        The figures are much higher than a 2014 estimate by the European Commission of €120 billion. However, the Commission’s study focused only on direct effects of corruption.

        “Corruption is a big black hole at the heart of the European economy,” said Carl Dolan, director of Transparency International. “If companies see the public procurement process is rigged then they are not going to take part in that bid and therefore the public loses out because these aren’t competitive tenders.”

        https://www.politico.eu/article/corruption-costs-eu-990-billion-year-rand-study-fraud-funding/

        €990 Billion equals over $1,210 Billion, ie over a trillion US dollars.

        Serious money, that.

        Note, that estimate comes from the EU’s own figures.

    • Got a little quote for you Griff, from someone who actually does know all about the Soviet Union.
      “The EU is the old Soviet Union dressed in Western clothes”
      (President Gorbachev)

      Moreover the EU is not only NOT democratic, it is actually anti-democratic. In fact they admit themselves that the EU would not be allowed to join itself.

  2. Regardless of your views on the EU getting the name wrong is childish.

    They don’t send people to the gulag.

      • Ah, you just beat me to it Andy. Give them time, the Merkel/Macron axis are already starting to gnaw at the virtues of free speech. It’s a slippery slope from there on in.

      • After a total of 9 hours of attendance at the Brussels Circus ( 5 years at 34,000 euros a month ) the southern German E.M.P was awarded a 16,000 euro a month pension for life.
        In a normal civilized society shit is treated and useful products emerge ( manure etc., )
        With the E.U. shit is equal to glue !

    • Perhaps not. But the European Commission is a fascist institution in it’s design, in its intent and in it’s demeanor. Passing a “resolution” that cannot work the way it is dictated to work because of conflicts with the laws of nature that are the primarily prevailing laws on planet Earth may not be childish, but it is rather strange.

      • Fascists don’t have democratic processes. If your definition of Fascism were correct, we would have to conclude that both Theresa May and Boris Johnson were both fascist leaders in a fascist country, a conclusion that would be no more valid than your labelling of the EU as a fascist enterprise.

      • Fascism is an economic, system. Fascism in Germany and Italy were imposed at first using the democratic process.
        That said, democracy in the EU is mostly in name only.

      • Sparky, in world of socialists, fascists are defined as the bad guys.
        They view themselves as the good guys, so they can’t be fascists.
        On the other hand, anyone who opposes them, by definition, are fascists.

      • Anyone living in a country which declared “Banks too big to fail”, resides already in a Fascist state.
        (Fascism defined as corporate control of govt.)

        The EU functions on the US corporate lobbying system, with mucho bunce for compliant politicians.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/27/the-eauropean-union-always-was-a-cia-project-as-brexiteers-discov/

        Like the fed in US, for over 100 years, the totally corrupt EU hasn’t been audited in 20 years +.

        The EU can be seen as a flanking movement, exactly in parallel with the CAGW/Climate Scam toward achieving the Banksters & their Corporate/Elite cronies’ objectives of Depopulation, Deindustrialisation & the destruction of ALL nation-states, including US & Israehell, toward setting up a global Fascist govt.

        John Doran.

        [“Corporate control of government”? .mod]

      • MarkW, oh I know. Fascism however is a subset of Socialism, most of it’s adherents were originally communists.They coined the phrase “beefsteak Nazi” to describe them in Germany, I wonder if Gareth knows that

      • “[“Corporate control of government”? .mod]”

        No less an authority than Benito Mussolini remarked that he preferred the term ‘Corporatism’ to Fascism.

      • “Fascists don’t have democratic processes.”

        Nor to all intents and purposes does the European Union.

    • Indeed, it’s just silly. I expect better of you than this. What are you going to do next? Poke your tongue out ?

      • Removing governance from the immediate control of the people who’s decisions it effects is unnatural and anti-human. Democracy only works when people have a real say in their institutions. The EU is an empire, which cannot tolerate diversity of opinion because it is built on weakness and fear. It has utterly failed to establish reasonable limits to it’s authority so as to allow its citizens a maximum degree of freedom.
        This is what happens when governance is given over to bureaucrats.
        This is why democracy was worth dying for! Freedom!!
        Parts of the EU are “shitholes”, democratically speaking, as well. Corruption is endemic and anathema to democracy. But bureaucrats embrace it.
        Socialists secretly understand they probably can’t compete so they’re in it for the hand outs. Their hypocritical commitment to equality means they want the biggest hand out possible for the least contribution.
        That’s what made the USSR such an economic and humanitarian success!

      • Do some research Gareth. Compare the repressive, authoritarian, 20th century regimes of the National Socialists in Germany, the prominent pre-WW1 Italian socialist Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Mugabe, the Kim socialist dynasty, any of the former Union of Socialist Soviet Republics etc., etc, etc. with ‘capitalist’ dictatorships of the same period. Unless you can call military regimes ‘capitalist’ it comes to about zero. Except at the last general election, I have voted for left leaning parties for my whole life but I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Socialism is inherently repressive and quickly becomes authoritarian after a short period in power.

    • My word, someone’s panties are in a bunch this morning. I believe it’s called satire. Takes someone with a funny bone to appreciate it though.

    • I’d be interested in what the EU plans to do with the countries in central Europe that refuse to comply with their new demands.

    • “M Courtney January 20, 2018 at 2:45 am

      They don’t send people to the gulag.”

      Who are “they” and yes, gulags are growing as you type.

    • It is not getting the name wrong or being childish. But for the US., the EU would succumb to th Russia.

      Putin want to reconstitute the USSR. He as much said so.

  3. The name EUSSR is very descriptive and is justified when I consider all the unelected little tin pot dictators bossing us around.

      • You seem to be forgetting that UK MPs are VOTED in by the UK Public along with their Party
        The EU is like the old USSR, it has a lot of officials that were not elected by the public of the “EU”, but by the individual countries. Plus a lot of those in the top positions are not elected by the public at all.
        The whole point and design of the EU is to REMOVE NATIONAL IDENTITIES.

      • “Gareth January 20, 2018 at 4:18 am”

        Arthur Scargill, who voted for him? And why did his “industrial action” lead to the death of an innocent driver on a motorway by the actions of striking miners?

      • There are thousands of Arthur Scargills hiding out in Socialist party memberships worldwide. Disgusting little Stalin wannabes with ready made supporters to be the goons for hire to recreate “the workers’ paradise”.

  4. Yes, the EU strongly resembles the USSR.
    The Apparatchiks schedule the discussion about a new regulation. The Politburo announces the regulation, the National Assembly approves it and the Client States implement the regulation into local law.
    An orderly and efficient process, without pesky democratic interference.

    How the Apparatchiks decide what gets scheduled is completely non-transparent. But history suggest a large role for Industry lobbyists. The eco-fanatics make a lot of noise but somehow ‘Bayer-Monsanto AG’ (part of former IG Farben) always gets what it wants. So ‘saving the planet’ is not really a goal but just the latest act in the geopolitical game.

      • Come on notobrite, we know who your are !
        I do indeed share many values and beliefs with Griff. It seems to me that we are some of the very few people on the site who are brave enough to swim against the tide and ask challenging questions.

      • Sorry you actually mean brainwashedve enough to swim against the tide and push idealogical positions.
        You do understand the purpose of the EU?
        You do understand that the UK Public were lied to when taken in to the “Common Market” in the first place?
        You do understand that those in Parliament at the time and every Parliament since has maintained the lies and have been involved in what can only be called “Treason” by giving away the Sovereignty of the UK people?

      • That link does little to convince me.
        Just like in the USSR and in China, parliament in THEORY has the final say. But in practice it never happened. Everything is arranged behind closed doors in advance.

        In the USSR the real power was the layer below the Politburo. Khrushchev had the support of that layer, until Brezhnev ousted him for being a realist. Gorbachev never had full control. He was placated in public and undermined behind closed doors.

        In the EU in THEORY, the Council of Ministers have the power. But I can not remember a Prime Minister of a Client State ever being sacked because of poor results in the Council of Ministers. It is always ‘the result of negotiations’ and ‘the best possible result’. The local Parliaments are never willing to risk losing their job in elections over closed door shenanigans they are not allowed to talk about. Even during the EEG, the process was very murky and mostly controlled by the diplomats.

        Brexit is like the Prague Spring. The difference; the EU has no Army YET !!!

      • Amazing “fact-check” site there Gareth.

        “The EU has a better level of democratic scrutiny than any other international body: the UN, NATO, WTO, IMF, World Bank etc.” (Remain)

        HUH? who suggested NATO was supposed to be a reference for democracy, it’s a military alliance, not a parliament. So then they start of skating around the definitions of democracy.

        While we might accept Abraham Lincoln’s famous formulation of “government of the people, by the people, for the people”, we seldom agree about whom ‘the people’ might be, let alone the other elements.

        The people is not hard to work out. Then what other “elements” does he see in “the people…..the people…..the people” ?

        The political leaders of those countries decide on the EU’s overall direction and political agenda, and national ministers are the main decision-makers when it comes to policies.

        My God, what a crock !!!! The unelected Eu Commission DICTATES regulations such as the subject of this article and national governments have the UNQUESTIONED DUTY implement that in local national law and ensure policing and enforcement on their populations.

        If that’s your idea of “boning up” on a subject I’m not surprised that you find yourself swimming upstream on a site where people are educated, technically competent and questioning.

        If you are gullible enough to believe that kind of crap, I’m not at all surprised that you are a warmist. You have my sincere sympathy for your predicament.

      • Socialists define an effective democratic process as being any process that implements their decision.
        Allowing the voters to reject socialism is by definition an ineffective democratic process.

      • Oh? Has the UK been allowed to break away yet? Many if us have been waiting for that day. It has not yet arrived, and now members of the EU are insisting that the UK abide by the rulings of European courts forever. Some break.

      • The EUSSR allows referenda, but only if the voters give the right result. If they give the wrong result, the EUSSR makes them keep on repeating the referenda until they give the right result. Despite its referendum, the UK is not out of the clutches of the EUSSR yet.

      • Tony Ben’s view set out in his letter to his consituents in 1975 is still valid.

        ‘In short, the power of the electors of Britain, through their direct representatives in Parliament to make laws, levy taxes, change laws which the courts must uphold, and control the conduct of public affairs has been substantially ceded to the European Community whose Council of Ministers and Commission are neither collectively elected, nor collectively dismissed by the British people nor even by the peoples of all the Community countries put together.’

        https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/a-lesson-from-the-1975-referendum/

      • Gareth says: “By the way, if the EU was remotely like the USSR, how come the UK has been allowed to carry out a referendum and break away? I don’t recall Stalin or Kruschov allowing such decisions.”

        Oh sure, the EU allowed the UK the leave alright Gareth. And the punishment for the UK is going to be billions of UK pounds according the the link below. The sum of 100 billion was mentioned, although that number is probably just speculation. Certainly the figure is going to be quite high.

        https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5024206/brexit-divorce-bill-how-much-leave-eu-british-taxpayers-deal/.

        Why forbid the UK from leaving when you can commit extortion instead? Extortion is so much better because it enriches the EU’s bank account so nicely. Nice racket.

        And BTW Gareth, learn to spell the former Soviet leader’s name correctly. It’s K-h-r-u-s-h-c-h-e-v. You won’t look quite as ignorant that way.

      • “Allowing the voters to reject socialism is by definition an ineffective democratic process.”

        Just look at the US. ! The people rejected Hillary, but the socialist won’t allow it.

      • I cringe when ever I hear the word socialist. Socialism is impossible because under socialism no one has any money for election campaigns. In the history of the world there never has been any socialist government. It is either one of the following (listed in decreasing order of desirability); democratic, partly democratic like the EU, monarchy, communist, fascist, or dictatorship. There are no other kinds of government. Socialism is IMPOSSIBLE.

      • “how come the UK has been allowed to carry out a referendum and break away?”

        Because David Cameron assured them that he had sufficient control of the UK electorate and they had no reason to fear a leave vote, thus they entirely failed to permit him any concessions whatsoever, had they permitted him even the possibility of some, ‘Remain’ would have won.

        In any case, we haven’t actually left yet, and Theresa the Appeaser and the slobbering Eurofascists such as Druncker, Barmier and Verwhatsisname are conspiring to attempt to reverse the decision by threats of “punishment beatings” (YES! REALLY!), the imposition of huge “divorce payments” and promises that the UK can not be permitted to succeed economically outside the EUSSR.

      • The UK hasn’t broken away yet. Many obstacles are being put in their way to prevent, or make very, very costly, a break from EUSSR.

        I wouldn’t compare the EUSSR to the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany; I see it more having the soft totalitarianism of the World State in Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World. In the novel, the World State offers its citizens advanced technology, a secure economy — driven by the prenatal poisoning of fetal development to produce the caste society of Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons — and universal health care, unrestricted sex, and Soma, the tranquilizer that keeps the population quiet and docile.

        It’s not quite there yet, but it seems to be the direction they lean.

  5. It is just a show. The EU parliament is a playground for second class politicians, while the real policy is made in the parliaments of the member states. The power to block such silly decisions rests there. The EU may override them, but that leads to severe conflicts. And there is more than enough of that already in the union, which is actually a very misleading word.

    Try making the Greeks have 35% renewables by 2030. They have recently been granted a huge subsidy -from the EU’s climate budget of all things.- to build two new coal plants!

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/03/greece-set-to-win-175m-from-eu-climate-scheme-to-build-two-coal-plants

    • If the member states abided by the EU’s rules then they would have to introduce whatever is mandated by the EU.
      However the only Country in the EU stupid enough to do so is the UK.
      All of the other countries cherry pick which parts they want to introduce, especially the Germans & French with immunity.

      However Germany’s energiewende is a massive failure, they have spent billions and not reduced their Coal use or their CO2 output.
      They will in fact NOT meet their CO2 Reduction Targets and the new Coalition has moved them anyway.
      France on the other hand with it’s Nuclear Power was the CO2 cleanest Major producing country in the EU, yet the idiot Macron and his appointees were talking about replacing them with Renewables. Utter Madness.

    • “while the real policy is made in the parliaments of the member states”

      No it isn’t.

      Absolutely the opposite, ask Greece what happened to their democratically elected government when it tried to oppose EU policy.

      (Hint: it was summarily removed from office and replaced by Brussels imposed “technocrats”)

      Do you really think that the states themselves would permit the following levels of youth unemployment:
      Greece 43.3
      Spain 38.7%
      Italy 35.1%
      Cyprus 26.3%
      Croatia 26.1
      Portugal 24.6%
      France 23%
      Belgium 21.7%
      Finland 20.6%
      Sweden 17.7
      Luxembourg 17.3%
      Remarkable, wouldn’t you think?

      • Geez, why don’t they just regulate the unemployment rate and cap it at 4.0%? That’ll take care of everything (just ask any socialist).

  6. Mobocracy, majority rule, democracy is a corrupt institution from the outset. Read Aristotle, Politics IV (Bekker Nol) 1294be. The tyrants elected by majority rule, the citizens elected volunteers through sortition.

    The Ancient Greeks were aware of and feared precisely the corruption of contemporary democratic institutions; rice-bowl politics.

    • I believe it was Tocqueville who wrote that democracy can only last until the people that they can vote for themselves from the public purse.

  7. “Appointed European leaders, not so much.”

    This was the EU problem from the get-go. It doesn’t well represent the people and frequently ignores the bulk of their wishes. What is does take notice of, is, in this order,
    1) The German government.
    2) The French Government.
    3) errr…
    4) That’s it.

    Addendum:
    When the Chinese Government tells the EU to FO because of EU plans to carbon-tax international airlines, then the EU does indeed FO.

    • Bingo, Michael Hart!
      It is an empire of the French-German alliance.
      The French are in it to protect themselves from German aggression ( formerly military, now commercial), and indeed to parasitize German dynamism. The Germans are in it to protect themselves from the Russians. The Brits are getting out because they are excluded from the decision-making by the commitment of France to ally with the Germans. The Germans have no respect for the French and would rather ally with the Brits, but European politics at a very fundamental level doesn’t work like that.
      Italy and the rest are along for the ride. The Poles might become a force in time.

      • That’s a pretty fair summary, John Harmsworth.
        Post war, the Germans were quite happy to side with the French, or pretty much anybody, against the Russians. (Lets face it, there are good reasons on both sides).

        The French never pretended anything other than they wanted a contained Germany, and that they also wanted a bulwark against the Anglo-Saxons (English speaking nations, dominated by the USA.)

        It was been said that the EU was, and is, a German horse ridden by a French jockey. But now the time is coming where the horse realises it can run faster without the jockey. Post-war Germany has certainly earned the right to economically dominate Europe to a certain extent, and it is right that such powers should be accommodated, to a certain extent. But the French plan is falling apart. They aspire to rule Europe, yet cannot even rule France. Post NATO, many Western Europeans would still rather trust an army of Russians than an army of Germans. What will happen when the Anglo-Saxons are not the people keeping the peace in Europe?

      • Quite,

        The French are in it because they keep losing to the Germans. Ditto Belgium, Luxembourg and Holland, The Med countries are in it because they see an opportunity to make money for doing bugger all. East of Germany they see it as a cash cow to take their countries forward 45 years. The Germans are in it mainly as an application to join the human race post 1945, and the UK were in it primarily to subsidise the whole shebang!

        If one were to play the Devil’s advocate, you could say the the UK only joined to maintain British foreign policy objectives since the 14th and 15th centuries. That is to keep Europe divided. We can never allow any power to have hegemony in Europe.

        Still – if you want a laugh – see this from “Yes Minister”

  8. Most of the countries in the EU are drafting along in Germany’s slipstream. link As such, I don’t expect many countries to follow the UK out of the EU, no matter how stupid things get. Things will get better only when Germany gets really annoyed.

  9. “MEPs said the EU should get 35 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2030…”

    Go long wood pellets, the renewable resource by EU standards that emit more CO2 than coal.

  10. Mandating (AKA dictating) future technology is a way to crush the peasants so the big shots can feel important. Call it what you will, it’s been going on since the beginning of time.

  11. So what do they mean by “renewable.” Do they mean low carbon, which is what they SHOULD mean. Coal is actually renewable – it’s being made underground all the time.

  12. The unelected EUSSR underestimate tribalism and its power to form cohesive groups with common heritage and interests. Been around for millennia and hard to dissolve no matter how hard they might try through rationalization and intimidation.

    • A republic is a STATE that is not a monarchy. A Democracy is a form of government. Two different things. Sick of that stupidity being spouted.

  13. After POTUS rejected the Paris Climate accord, the German automobile manufacturers trade association announced that the EU would have to re-think its climate policies. Seems they (BMW, Mercedes, et al) are not competitive with US companies due to a much greater cost of electricity courtesy of the “green movement.” If I recall correctly, they’re paying about $0.36/kwh in Germany vs. something like $0.07/kwh in the US. (Could be wrong on the exact stats but it was on that order of magnitude.) So now, the EU wants to double-down on stupidity. Good move!

  14. Electrical grid & power generation should be left with the engineers.
    One of the problems of communism was that politics mixed everywhere: in science, economy, arts. Now we have the same in the EU, politics dictating the kind of electric bulb, the power of the vacuum cleaner, energy production and so on.
    The result in communism was that the system was less and less efficient, unstable and prone to corruption until it broke. It took some time until it broke. The EU started from well performing, efficient nation state economies. It will take some time to bring these down…
    In the 20th century due to industrialisation the forests recovered in many areas especially in the industrialized countries.
    In the 21st century, due to green fantasies, huge forests are being transformed into pellets, food is being transformed into diesel and turbines dot the skylines and kill birds and bats. We are not yet as far as killing whales for fat again, but who knows…

    • “Electrical grid & power generation should be left with the engineers”, spot on, but besides political meddling we now have an obsession with “Free Enterprise”, which effectively rules out the centrally planned overall system design that would solve all problems very quickly.

      No country builds its armed forces, or its roads and railways by “Free Enterprise”, they all decide what they want and need, then get private companies to supply. Why is the electricity system different?

      • Railroads were almost 100% built by free enterprise. The early roads were as well.
        The electric grid, as well as the network of pipes carrying all manner of products were also designed and built by free enterprise.

        Central planning only creates problems, it never solves them.

  15. The EU is nothing more than the UN’s extension into world politics….. something by definition the UN is supposed to steer clear of but always manages to be at the center of. The EU has openly lobbied for the need to create an army under their command. If that doesn’t tell you all you need to know about them then you are in denial.

  16. When we refer this proposal it’s better to qualify it as a *so called* clean power package. There’s nothing clean about it, or more to the point, there’s nothing dirty about CO2. The name is meant to imply that CO2 is somehow harmful or even evil, rather than crucial for life in earth.

  17. Folks, I think we’re missing the point. We really, really want the European Union to be totally engaged in this charade. Complete buy in. Exceeding goals. Pushing for faster roll-out. Why?

    Because it [1] ensures that our own cheap power infrastructure will be more competitive at powering the manufacture of product, smelting of ores, you name it. It also [2] gives competitive-pricing advantage to us for delivery-of-equipment to Europe for them to address this new need. Oh, Germany and Italy and perhaps the feckless French and Spanish aim to get a lot of the business internally. But they also like competitively priced stuff from the US. We can make it metric, too.

    The Chinese turn out to be ALL OF OUR competition. They’re the 600 lb gorilla we’re to duke-it-out with. It isn’t even clear that ANY European or American or Western manufacturing nation can actually compete with them at all, pricewise. Yet, for national security and self-sufficiency reasons, we need to. I like tariffs myself. Border import tariffs. They serve to “level the playing field” in ways that macroeconomists admit, but liberals rail against. Yet, they’re good, when executed well.

    How do you think it is that Japan imports essentially no cars from the US? Think its because the Japanese cars are really all that much cheaper in Japan? Think again: they have an 85% import duty on American cars. All of the fine-sounding east-west most-preferred-trade-partner agreements notwithstanding.

    LOL
    GoatGuy

  18. Judging from some of the socialist squealing in the comments above, perhaps Eric’s post should have been titled “EUtopian EUSSR Vows To Overcome…..”?

    Sarchasm and humorous derision of politics is a time honored and 1st Amendment guaranteed unalienable right, as illuminated by the United States of America Constitution. ‘Climate Targets’ are political targeting of free market capitalism, dressed up in the pseudo-science variously called man made global warming, anthropogenic global warming, climate change, climate ‘weirding’, ad nauseum.

    Like the Paris Climate Accord, ‘We the People’ reject this political fallacy.

  19. It is of course purely coincidental that the Brussels Bureaucrats are going hell for leather to have a Land Army under their exclusive control

    Perhaps they are thinking of invading Russia. Or ‘disciplining’ places nearer to home….

    • Latimer Alder (@latimeralder)
      January 20, 2018 at 1:31 pm

      It is of course purely coincidental that the Brussels Bureaucrats are going hell for leather to have a Land Army under their exclusive control

      Without making it too obvious, it is the only way for Germany to have effective control over an effective army for one last push. Third time lucky?

      SteveT

  20. Why must all agree. The convinced can do the CO2 cutting and go forward with the good example.
    Then all the reluctant will follow (when they see how wel it works?) It is more or less the political mantra, when the peoble say that it wont help because of India and China.
    Why would the same not work inside the EU?

  21. Excellent. The more the EU government shits on member countries policies and economies, the sooner that failed globalist experiment will crumble.

  22. I’ve read most, and scanned the rest, of the comments thus far, and am somewhat surprised that no one has noted the common error in the majority: there is no functioning democracy in any country today. All of those governing organizations (or, more accurately, groups, since there frequently is no evidence available to support accusing them of being organized) which have been denoted democracies actually are comprised of mostly elected, with some appointed, representatives. While there are some that have ‘at large’ members of their single/upper/lower houses of legislation, most are elected as regional or other subgroup representatives. A democracy would involve all citizens (or, at least, those who have been granted or stolen the privilege) voting on all issues. In the US, we term our currently non-funded structure a ‘republic.’

    The difference is NOT just academic. While it is showing large cracks in the foundation as people move toward voting for those who promise the greatest government-funded largesse, the US’ republican form of government (NOT a party designation) has worked better than most other forms of governance in terms of allowing development of country-wide sharing of economic, military and political power. The fact that it appears to be heading down the path to socialism that has ultimately resulted in cascading failures whenever it has been tried, only serves to prove that bridled (as opposed to ‘unbridled’) capitalism still provides the highest standard of living for its members.

    Please choose whatever definition of ‘socialism’ with which you are most comfortable, as long as it is based on extracting resources from the group deemed to have more than they ‘should,’ transferring it to those who ‘deserve it,’ and empowering a select group (means of initial selection differ, but all appear able to become self-sustaining) who make and enforce their personal opinions on all the rest.

    • The US cannot be considered a democracy with the apparent complete lack of voter identification and control of how many times one may vote Well, this is what it looks like from outside. Please correct me if I have the wrong idea. Thanks.

      SteveT

  23. The European Communities Act (1972)

    ‘Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act (1972) was a measure unknown in the previous history of the modern British constitution, making provision for the legislation of a body other than Parliament, the EU, to have direct effect in Britain. Section 2(2) makes provision for the detailed implementation of EU law by secondary legislation.’
    – David Campbell, Professor of Law, Lancaster University School of Law

    ‘The greatest Henry VIII clause in our history, over the past 46 years has been the European Communities Act (1972) which meant that EU legislation has become binding upon British citizens with Parliament powerless to amend or reject any such legislation – even if every British MP voted against it.’
    – Former MP Peter Lilley

    In other words, Britain’s government is impotent to protect the interests of its own citizens if the EU imposes laws which affect their well-being, security, property, prosperity, health, welfare etc. as long as Britain remains in the EU.

    This is what the EU Referendum was about, this is what the current British government is trying to change, and this is what the EU ‘remainers’ and their political allies are trying to keep on behalf of the EU.

  24. Lots of misunderstandings here. While the piece’s assessment is quite right, all this is (very) old news, as others have remarked. Some of us reading this blog have been in it for over 25 years. “EUSSR” also seriously stale; not funny any more.

    Easy to see why some conservatives regard the EU as the “continuation of communism by other means”, but it doesn’t quite hit the mark. You would understand it better to regard it as the “continuation of fascism by other means”. The EU’s ideological roots in fascism were charted by John Laughland in his 1997 book “The Tainted Source: the undemocratic origins of the European idea” (1997: Little, Brown; 1998 Warner) ISBN 0 7515 2324 0.

    For your “serious reading” list.

  25. Farage should have finished his work on the Brexit file. He must have known that it would be handled very halfheartedly by Conservative Gov who threw their lot in with the “stay” side.

Comments are closed.