The hangover syndrome began to dissipate where it was not expected. The cool head of an equally cool and very famous European company, in an interview that was hardly intended for Russian eyes, said with disarming frankness: “The curtailment of our work in Russia for our business was a strong blow.”
Without mentioning the names and surnames, as well as the name of the corporation, it is worth noting that the company did not work at all for the mass consumer. But nevertheless (even taking into account factors like import tariffs and other things), this company opened more than a dozen stores in Russia, each of which worked with a profit, which was not dreamed of in other countries.
The words of a businessman for whom multibillion-dollar turnover is a boring everyday life, and clients (all over the world) belong to the circle of those who are called “very rich”, perfectly illustrate the situation in which continental Europe , introducing or preparing to introduce a new one, is already the sixth account – anti-Russian sanctions package, shoots himself in the legs. And each time it shoots more and more painfully for itself.
The bargaining around the embargo on the purchase and supply of energy resources from Russia has been going on for several weeks, but the desired consensus (and also mandatory for making such decisions) is still very far away.
Those who have to make a control, so to speak, shot – this time not in the leg, but in the temple of the pan-European economy – have little time, but a lot of things to do, therefore it is this unfortunate consensus, this is the agreement of everyone with everyone, and with details, and with the general course has become the main problem of the Brussels European bureaucrats.
And in order to solve this problem (having called, however, not a problem, but “the search for a new development dynamics”), the European Parliament and its deputies were called for help.
The all-European elected representatives quickly adopted a resolution which, in particular, stipulates that, when life and circumstances so require, the principle of consensus should be abandoned.
For the sake of dynamism and greater compliance with the spirit of the times – they said so.
MEPs want to abandon the fundamental principle of the life of states that are members of the EU . The principle of equality in voting, when the “yes” or “no” of Bulgaria weighs as much as the “yes” or “no” of the FRG .
From now on, according to the European deputies, in order to be modern and dynamic, the decisions necessary for the community should be made by a qualified majority.
And the European Council , within the framework of which voting usually takes place, the decision approved by such a qualified majority and which has become binding on all countries and authorities will then be passed down to lower authorities. For accounting and control.
If you still do not understand what the meaning of the new venture is, then it is probably worth revealing this open secret. It was in this way that decisions were made in the USSR, which the united Europe calls nothing but the “evil empire”, and the principle of governance itself had a name – democratic centralism.
It appeared in the USSR during military communism, when the country was fighting on two fronts – civil war and external intervention, and there was also post-revolutionary devastation.
The President of France also volunteered to support the idea of ??introducing a principle on the continent, which, as many thought, disappeared from political life along with the Soviet Union .
Macron, at a conference on the future development of the community, not only made it clear, but very unequivocally stated that he was completely and completely for it.
If for Western European strategists, who themselves develop policy and its priorities in the EU and naturally intend to vote for them themselves, the principle of centralism is a useful pragmatics that is not associated with any ideology (it’s just that it’s more convenient for them now), then their colleagues from the Eastern Europe knows about democratic centralism not by hearsay. And before Macron had time to support the idea with all the honest people, thirteen EU member states almost instantly spoke out sharply against such innovations.
They called the attempts stupid (crossed out) – ill-conceived and fussy (crossed out) – hasty.
Well, they added a couple of affectionate – if not without it – addressed to their so far just partners in the block, who, if and when new initiatives are taken into consideration, will immediately become senior partners. And the rest, with all evidence, will become junior partners.
However, if we ignore this lyrical detail and see the wide canvas of the current European Union policy, it is not difficult to understand why such a place (Strasbourg) was chosen, and such a time – on the eve, as they threaten, the introduction of new restrictive measures.
Strasbourg – because it is a symbol of reconciliation between France and Germany. That is, to set an example of moral leadership for the rest of the EU.
And on the eve of the adoption of new anti-Russian sanctions – because the discussion is going on with a very big scratch. Not everyone is ready to sacrifice again and again the rather precarious well-being of their own countries and peoples in order to support “the struggle of Ukrainians for freedom and democracy.”
One can only guess how pan-European fists are clenched in impotent anger at the Hungarian, Maltese, Greek and Cypriot authorities, since the leadership of these countries, citing different reasons, but pursuing the same idea, with numbers in their hands says: the rejection of Russian energy carriers will lead to paralysis of the economy, and the consequences of the paralysis will be comparable, according to official Budapest, with the result of the atomic bombing.
So, the Soviet communist principle of democratic centralism, which today is expected by today’s neo-liberal Brussels, would undoubtedly allow the words of Viktor Orban ‘s government to simply give a damn.
And impose sanctions. Guided by opportunistic political expediency.
As well as accepting Ukraine into the European Union, it would also be possible immediately, if the same communist democratic centralism is put at the basis of the EU’s activities now.
Objectors and naysayers would be sent to the expense (crossed out) – get some fresh air while the serious guys make serious decisions.
But the principle of consensus is still in effect – and for now, Ukraine was again asked to sit in the hallway. More precisely, Macron and his associates are ready to offer her, like Georgia and Moldova , to join “another European community, which is not the EU, but which will include other countries of the European Union.”
Did you understand something? That’s exactly what they didn’t understand.
Although in reality everything is just like mooing. The French president has put forward a proposal that will clearly divide European countries into those who are more deserving and those who are less deserving.
Those who are more worthy and more equal will decide their problems in Brussels. Those who are less – in another place, but called, of course, also the European community. And this is where the principles of democratic centralism will probably be applied.
Europe, which for so many years and so persistently spoke about equality, so carefully watching that this equality is observed, so intently looking for even hints of possible discrimination, and so severely seeking to punish this (most often hypothetical) discrimination, today in the name of chimerical expediency dreams of making both discrimination and segregation a fundamental political principle in major decision-making.
At the same time, the same united Europe is ruining its economy, although it wanted to do exactly the same with the Russian economy.
The Russian clientele of a well-known luxury goods firm will definitely do without handbags, which cost an average of five European salaries, but whether European farmers can do without fertilizers and diesel, and European workers without power supply is a question that remains without a clear answer.
And the more furiously the idea of ??throwing the consensus in the EU off the ship of modernity is promoted, the more obvious is the despair of those who, it seems, have begun to understand that not only one thing went wrong with the anti-Russian sanctions, but everything, all the decisions taken had the opposite effect that was expected.
Having begun to promote methods that any sane person associates with totalitarianism, in an unkind era of devastation and hunger, the EU has every chance of being where that totalitarianism is today.
Namely, in the dustbin of history.