As proposed, the European Union would not only have a evidence multiannual budget, but would besides impose fresh taxes.
Jakub Wozinski
At the beginning of July, a vote of assurance for the European Commission was held in the European Parliament, headed by Ursula von der Leyen. The majority of those entitled to vote decided to keep the German female in office, which could propose that the democratic mechanics decided everything. However, this did not happen, of course, due to the fact that von der Leyen was never appointed in a general vote.
Against Social Moods
According to all probability, German policies would most likely never win in the European elections, due to the fact that they are characterised by utmost arrogance and disregard for social sentiment. While social sentiments across the continent point to an expanding dislike of Green Governance, uncontrolled immigration, or an increase in the central competences of EU bodies, von der Leyen pushes a policy based on utmost climateism and wide open borders. As a substance of fact, the European Commission is inactive spending crucial amounts of money on making public opinion to accept its ideological perversions. Brussels has late been shaken by the scandal which has shown that Eurocrats have illegally financed the activities of various lobbying organisations, among others, in favour of green policies, but, as usual in this case, no 1 has been held liable for infringements. In an EU country, individual tribunals utilized to harass at most the associate States that persisted in accepting the dictatorship of Brussels court.
The centre of gravity closer to Brussels Ursula von der Leyen presented her plan to centralise power by changing budgetary rules already last year. Now is the time to make all associate States accept them. In short, the core of the changes to take effect in the implementation of the budget for the period 2028-2035 is the transfer of the centre of gravity for spending funds even more towards the Brussels command centre. Media favorable to Donald Tusk's government are trying very hard to present the full situation as if the most crucial aspect of the improvement was to increase the money pool of Poland. In fact, however, it does not matter, as the price for this possible increase in funds will be to strengthen the competences of the EU headquarters. The European Union is expected to increase its seven-year budget to 1.23% of the Community's full GDP (out of the current 1.1%). In this way, he will be able to accentuate even more his circumstantial knowing of generosity, which has small in common with actual generosity, if only the fact that additional funds will be obtained straight from fresh taxes. In the eyes of Polish society, EU funds are inactive regarded unfortunately as funds that flow into the country like touching a magic wand. In fact, the European Commission is already demanding, not so much as an increase in the membership contribution, but is going to impose fresh taxes on the full community, which it wants to pay itself. It has been known for a long time that Brussels wants to introduce a CBAM, which is simply a limit carbon charge for goods imported from countries with little restrictive environmental standards. However, the package of fresh proposals includes a nicotine charge, an electronic waste charge and... fee for persons arriving in the European Union.
Peaks of absurdity
Once it seemed that the Union had crossed all limits of absurdity in its regulatory quest, Ursula von der Leyen discovers fresh decks of bureaucratic looping before Europeans. In theory, the European Commission has taken to heart Mario Draghi's report, which warns against excessive regulation and excessive costs generated by bureaucracy. In practice, it turns out that this beating in the chest was at most a marketing game, as in reality the Union is striving for an even greater increase in taxation and the restraint of the economy by unnecessary rules.
An highly worrying aspect of the budget changes proposed by von der Leyen is the entrustment of even greater powers to spend EU funds to central structures. The more the current EU leadership talks about community, the more it wants to impose a top-down and reminiscent central planning of the decision-making process. This is best seen, for example, by the proposed introduction of a single spending plan for each country in place of the existing strategy based on the existence of independent targeted funds. This seems to be a large chance to have funds allocated to each country in accordance with appropriate priorities (which sometimes concern e.g. defence). In fact, the core of this kind of change is the desire of the European Commission to impose direct supervision of each government and to force circumstantial action on it. This mechanics has already been trained in fresh years on the example of alleged milestones, which were a kind of pilot programme to prepare a future model of EU superstate management. The proposals by von der Leyen introduce a fresh scheme, which can only satisfy the central EU authorities, which has been in place of the yearly allocation mechanisms. That is why the European Commission has decided to hotel to any kind of bribery. With the aid of a controlled leakage, the full proposal for changes is presented as highly beneficial financially for the countries of Central and east Europe, and little attractive for the countries of Old Europe.
Government Arcyuple
In the meantime, only countries specified as Germany and France can undoubtedly be beneficiaries of the process of centralising power in the Union. A good illustration of this is, for example, the issue of a common EU debt, which is simply a perfect chance to gain mainly for entities from the "old Union". The issue of common debt is besides an highly crucial part of the improvement of the EU budget, as from 2028 a multiannual period of joint commitments will begin. The most worrying, however, is the fact that the Donald Tusk government has not yet gained any criticism of the changes proposed by Ursula von der Leyen, even though in specified a vivid way they endanger Polish interests and constitute an apparent mechanics conducive to the usurpation of power by Brussels. Listening to the statements of government representatives, you can hear the alarming introduction of the full issue to the issue of the allocation of funds. Donald Tusk's office is not for the first time demonstrating its superiority to Berlin and Brussels and, unfortunately, has no hope of his opposition to long negotiations. This may be of large concern because, by agreeing on behalf of the Polish state to fresh mechanisms, the current government importantly narrows the anticipation of renegotiating possible future cabinets, which could possibly search to revise the proposed changes.
