Václav Klaus: Mai usor cu EUropa pe scari!

Vaclav Klaus - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2001, originally uploaded by World Economic Forum.

Timp de mulţi ani, Europa nu a acordat suficientă atenţie evenimentelor de pe Continent sau nu a îndrăznit să le privească în mod critic. Abia acum doi ani, o dată cu începutul crizei datoriilor eurozonei unii au început să privească mai îndeaproape problemele. Dar cei mai mulţi tot nu doresc să vadă că acesta a fost doar vârful unui aisberg mult mai mare.

Împreună cu politicienii şi economiştii, aceşti oameni au considerat că până şi criza din 2008-2009 a fost un fenomen global şi că Europa pur şi simplu l-a importat, deşi era evident că era o criză nord-americană şi europeană. Problemele de durată din Europa au fost mult subestimate: de aceea trebuie arătate dintr-o perspectivă istorică.

Integrarea europeană s-a bazat pe o idee raţională de a liberaliza Europa, de a o deschide şi de a extinde comerţul construind o piaţă comună şi un spaţiu economic larg interconectat. Această liberalizare a caracterizat mai mult sau mai puţin primele decenii ale procesului de integrare europeană. Şi a adus rezultate bune, mai ales în comparaţie cu anii 30.

Dar vremurile actuale sunt diferite, pentru că integrarea europeană s-a dus spre altceva. Liberalizarea a fost înlocuită de un transfer masiv al competenţelor de la statele membre către "centrul de comandă" al Uniunii Europene, din Bruxelles; de o înlocuire radicală a caracterului interguvernamental cu supranaţionalismul; de o slăbire atent orchestrată a "cărămizilor" integrării europene - ţările individuale; de o centralizare pe scară largă, reglementări împotriva pieţei, standardizare şi armonizare a întregului continent.

 În trecut, un continent eterogen a înflorit graţie diversităţii saleâ, non-uniformităţii şi competiţiei sănătoase dintre ţări. Asta s-a schimbat când Europa a devenit unită şi a fost uniformizată artificial de către guvernanţa şi legislaţia centrală. Asta a dus la rezultatele economice slabe pe care le vedem azi şi la ceea ce se numeşte deficit democratic. Eu îi spun post-democraţie.

Uniformitatea instituţională s-a transformat într-o cămaşă de forţă care blochează toate activităţile umane pozitive. Cel mai important moment din acest proces a fost crearea Uniunii Monetare şi introducerea unei singure monede iniţial pentru 12 state, apoi pentru 17. Criza datoriilor suverane ale Eurozonei e o consecinţă inevitabilă a acestei monede unice, a acestei unice rate de schimb, a acestei dobânzi unice pentru mai multe ţări cu diverşi parametri economici. Decizia politică în favoarea acestui aranjament a fost luată fără a se lua în considerare fundamentele economice existente.

Economiştii ştiu că uniunile moentare prost construite sunt costisitoare şi nu durează mult. Asemenea aranjamente pot fi salvate ipotetic printr-un grad de solidaritate între membru şi prin transferuri fiscale uriaşe. Dar nu poate exista o solidaritate autentică în Europa şi nu există fonduri mari în mâinile autorităţilor politice europene pentru a compensa ţările care sunt victimele acestui aranjament din cauza parametrilor lor economici. Aşa că nu există nici o soluţie iminentă pentru capcana datoriilor suverane. Există doar consecinţe nedorite: probleme bugetare şi economice pe termen scurt şi stagnare pe termen lung.

 Şi totuşi, actualul model nu este decât jumătate din problemă. În afară de dificultăţile ce rezultă din integrare, există o problemă uriaşă cu economia de piaţă socială din Europa. Se preferă politici bazate pe redistribuirea venitului în loc de activităţi productive. Se preferă timpul liber, siestele, vacanţele lungi muncii din greu. Se preferă consumul investiţiilor, datoriile economisirii şi siguranţa riscurilor. Se preferă social democraţia capitalismului.

Problema are rădăcini adânci şi nu poate fi rezolvată prin şi mai multe summituri europene. Pentru a readuce productivitatea în Europa e nevoie de ceva similar din punct de vedere structural sarcinii pe care am avut-o de îndeplinit în Cehia când a trebuit să scăpăm de comunism.

Asta înseamnă cel puţin transformarea sistemului economic şi social şi restructurarea integrării europene. Iată cum văd eu principalele componente ale unei asemenea schimbări. Înainte de toate, trebuie să scăpăm de economia socială neproductivă şi paternalistă. Apoi, trebuie să acceptăm că procesele de ajustare economică iau timp şi că politicienii nerăbdători şi guvernele iau decizii greşite de multe ori. În al treilea rând, ar trebui să reducem masiv cheltuielile guvernamentale şi să lăsăm baltă flirtatul cu soluţii bazate pe creşteri de taxe.

Trebuie de asemenea să oprim legislaţia ecologistă în veşnică expansiune. Verzii trebuie împiedicaţi să preia frâiele asupra unei părţi importante din economie sub steagul unor doctrine precum încălzirea globală. Ar trebui să scăpăm şi de centralizare, armonizare şi standardizare a continentului european şi să începem descentralizarea, dereglementarea şi desubvenţionarea societăţii şi economiei. Ar trebui să devină posibil pentru ţări care sunt victime ale Fondului Monetar Internaţional să iasă din programe şi să se întoarcă la propriile aranjamente monetare. Şi ar trebui să lăsăm baltă planuri precum uniunea fiscală, ca să nu mai vorbim de ambiţiile antidemocratice de a unifica politic Europa. Ar trebui să ne întoarcem la democraţie, care poate exista doar la nivel de state-naţiuni, nu la nivelul întregului continent. O discuţie serioasă asupra acestor chestiuni a fost întârziată nepermis de mult.



For years, Europeans have paid insufficient attention to developments on the Continent, or have not dared look at them critically. Some began to look more closely at the problems two years ago – at the start of the eurozone debt crisis – but most still do not want to know that this was only the tip of a much bigger iceberg.
Together with their politicians and economists, they considered even the 2008-9 crisis a global phenomenon, as if Europe innocently imported it, even though it was evident that this was a European and North American crisis. The long-lasting problems in Europe have been widely underestimated: that is why they must be put into historical perspective.
European integration was originally based on a rational idea to liberalise Europe, to open it up and to expand trade by building a common market and a large, interconnected economic space. This liberalisation more or less characterised the first decades of the European integration process. And it brought positive results, especially compared with the 1930s.
But the current era is different, because European integration moved to a different stage. Liberalisation was replaced by a massive shift of competencies from individual member states to the European Union’s “commanding heights” in Brussels; by the radical switch from intergovernmentalism to supranationalism; by the carefully organised weakening of the original building blocks of European integration – that is, individual countries; by large-scale centralisation, additional anti-market regulation, standardisation and harmonisation of the whole continent.
In the past a highly heterogeneous continent flourished due to its diversity, non-uniformity, and the healthy competition between countries. This changed when Europe became unified and was artificially made uniform by centrally organised governance and legislation. It led to the disturbing economic outcomes we see today and to what is called a democratic deficit. I call it post-democracy.
Institutional uniformity turned into a straitjacket that keeps blocking all kinds of positive human activities. The most important moment in this process was the establishment of the European Monetary Union and the introduction of one currency in a group of 12 countries (now 17) that do not form what economists call an optimal currency area. The eurozone sovereign debt crisis is an inevitable consequence of one currency, one exchange rate, and one interest rate for countries with diverse economic parameters. The political decision in favour of this arrangement was taken with almost no attention being paid to the existing economic fundamentals.
Economists know that wrongly constructed monetary unions are costly and do not last long. Such arrangements may be “saved” hypothetically by a degree of solidarity among members and by huge fiscal transfers. But there can’t be any truly authentic feeling of solidarity in Europe and there is no large volume of funds in the hands of Europe’s political authorities to compensate countries that are, because of their economic parameters, the victims of such an arrangement. So there is no imminent solution to the eurozone sovereign debt trap. There are only unpleasant consequences: short-term economic and budgetary problems and long-term stagnation.
The current model is, however, only half of the problem. Besides the difficulties resulting from integration, there is a huge problem with Europe’s social market economy. It prefers policy based on income redistribution instead of productive activities. It prefers leisure, free time, and long holidays to hard work. It prefers consumption to investment, debt to savings, and security to risk-taking. It prefers social democratism to capitalism.
The problem is deeply rooted and cannot be fixed easily by more EU summits. To make Europe productive again requires something structurally similar to the task we had to accomplish in the Czech Republic when we tried to get rid of Communism and its legacy.
This means, at the least, the transformation of the social and economic system, and the restructuring of European integration.
Let me suggest the main components of such a change. First, we must get rid of the unproductive and paternalistic social market economy. Second, we should accept that economic adjustment processes take time and that impatient politicians and governments usually make things worse. Third, we should start making comprehensive reductions of government expenditures and forget flirting with solutions based on tax increases.
We should also stop the constantly expanding green legislation. The Greens must be prevented from taking over much of our economy under the banner of such flawed ideas as the global warming doctrine. And we should get rid of the centralisation, harmonisation and standardisation of the European continent and start decentralising, deregulating and desubsidising our society and economy. It should be made possible for countries that are the victims of the European Monetary Union to leave it and return to their own monetary arrangements. And we should forget such plans as a European fiscal union, not to mention anti-democratic ambitions to politically unify Europe. We should return to democracy, which can exist only at the level of nation-states, not at the level of the whole continent. A serious discussion of these issues is well overdue.
Václav Klaus is President of the Czech Republic. This article is taken from a speech made to the Bruges Group in London on May 3, 2012




Dintre cele mai populare comentarii de la blogul The Telegraph, unde a fost publicat acest discurs al lui Klaus, readam urmatoarele:

boudicca
Dear Vaclav Klaus

I wonder if we could trouble you to take on the Premiership of the UK as well as President of the Czech Republic.

The Quisling we currently have in No.10 is shortly going to be evicted and we badly need someone who not only has commonsense in shedloads, but who also understand the nature of the totalitarian regime the EU has built over the past couple of decades.

The British Establishment is completely in hock to the EU and Cameron appears to be determined to save it at all costs. What he doesn't realise yet (although he's going to soon) is that it will not only cost him his job, but it will cost the Conservative Party its existence as a potential party of government.

We recall how you stood out against the Lisbon Treaty as long as possible, waiting for a sign from the Quisling in no.10 that he would hold a post-ratification Referendum, so you know the kind of weakling you would be replacing.

Please give it some serious thought.

Thanks


ResteCalme
I am currently subjected to three governments - (i) local government to whom I pay council tax, (ii) national government to whom I pay the rest of my taxes and (iii) the EU to whom my national government pay some of the taxes they collect from me.

I have absolutely no means available to me of calling to account the EU and, seemingly, very little representation at national govt level.

Why should I be governed by someone in another country? Why should my tax revenue go to a body that does not represent me?



pretty_polly

The political system of Switzerland based on the right to referendums and recall by petition should be adopted throughout Europe, including Great Britain.

Only through more genuine democracy of this nature can the totalitarian evil of Brussels be confronted, otherwise ruin and despair for millions is virtually inevitable.

If we had had the right to referendums by petition in Britain since WW2, there would have been no mass immigration with no consequent multiculti and the Brits would therefore not face obliteration by immigrants later this century.

In Europe, if referendums had been available by right, there would be no Euro and no consequent financial crisis and misery for millions.

Proving without a doubt that electorates are far more sensible than their leaders and should not be excluded from decision making on matters of crucial national interest.

The right to referendums and recall by petition. The people of Europe deserve nothing less.



pavoabsolutus
Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, is an unusually courageous and far-sighted man who appears rightly unimpressed by the carefully assembled might of the Bureaucrats of the Fourth Reich - the EU Commission.

He is not alone in his struggle to return genuine Democracy to Europe, but none of the run of the mill political parties ( LibLabCon for example ) dare to openly endorse his very sensible commentary.

Mr Klaus is not alone in his struggle, as I am sure he is aware, but Britain and Europe as a whole need more of his stubbornly honest leadership if we are to ever rid ourselves of the unelected and virtually untouchable bureaucrats now comprising the EU Commission.

Europe of Freedom and Democracy - Yes !

EU of post-democratic bureaucracy - NO !


si asa mai departe