"
Contradictions of Brussels
At the time of the installation of the
uro, the European authorities rightly decided that the passage to the
common currency could relate to only the States respecting certain criteria of
convergence, inter alia: ceiling of inflation, ratios of the debt, the public deficit,
etc
These rules were necessary not only for the coherence and the solidity of the
common currency, but also to obtain between the states of the uro zone an
harmonization of the competition.
But, simultaneously, as one has just seen it
at the time of the fiasco of the O.M.C. in Seattle and even more recently in Davos, these
same European authorities, are practically subjected to the will of the U.S.A. and move
towards a generalized universalization. How not to realize that these
two attitudes are rigorously contradictory and not compatible!
On one hand and
rightly, one makes in kind harmonize competition inside the Union, so that it is honest
and constructive and likely to cause a healthy growth being based on 300 million
inhabitants. On the other hand, one makes competition unbearable, unfair and destroying
with the rest of the world. That exceeds understanding. The Commission of Brussels would
like to destroy Europe that it would not proceed differently. Are they insane, plug
or inefficient? Our French politicians are favourable to the construction of Europe. They
must become aware of this fundamental contradiction. The mondialists are
anti-Europeans [...]
One can be assured that, in such a
circumstance, General de Gaulle would not have made such a so coarse error and so
opposite with the interests of France and Europe. Isn't he who had delayed the entry of
Great Britain in the Common Market for the reason that this country was too savagely a
free-trader? With sure blow, he would have been put across the O.M.C. and, once more, he
would have dared to say: No "...