April 2001 Vol. 222 No. 4  Editorial

Thomas R. Wright, Jr.,  Publisher

Will EU kill free speech?

Having returned recently from a trip through several European countries, we began looking forward to the formation of the European Union and its adoption of a single currency, if only for selfish reasons – the exorbitant costs of converting from one country’s currency to another’s. But then, we ran across several news items describing actions by a few bureaucrats in Brussels. Suddenly, the idea of a united Europe started to look very scary. No, it’s not a fear that a united Europe will become an economic threat to the rest of us; instead it’s the concern that we could witness a resurgence of oppressive, near-communistic thinking not seen since the disintegration of the Eastern Bloc.

These concerns were prompted by astonishing events that started back in 1995, but which continue today. It seems a senior British official at the European Commission (EC) was chastised and dismissed after denouncing plans for a single currency as "a dangerous confidence trick" that could lead to war between Germany and France. According to London’s Daily Telegraph, Bernard Connolly, who headed a group in EC’s Brussels headquarters responsible for analyzing EU members’ monetary policies, voiced his concerns in a book, The Rotten Heart of Europe, which he took unpaid leave to write. The book was a fierce indictment of the single currency and its precursor, the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM). Mr. Connolly called the ERM a "sweetheart deal" between France and Germany that fails to serve the interests of the rest of Europe and could lead to conflict between those two countries.

Before you think, "So what?," consider that this infuriated officials, who said he failed to obtain permission to publish the book. Later, a spokesman for the EC president said, "The publication of any text relating to an official’s work must be authorized in advance. It is understandable that individuals have their opinions. But when those opinions are completely opposed to policies that have been agreed at every level of the EU, we have to ask if that person has a place in this institution."

Mr. Connolly maintained that, since the book was published during his leave of absence, he was not bound by the usual rules. He said, "I find it depressing that someone who works for the commission needs to sign up to all its ideas. I don’t think I should be expected to be a believer: I am not a believer."

The above scenario took place more than five years ago, but things haven’t improved since. In fact, the EC "comrades" hit new heights in their quest to subvert free speech when, last month, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the EU may lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures.

According to Daily Telegraph columnist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, who has been following the case all this time, this sweeps aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties. He says the court ruled that the Commission could restrict criticism that damaged "the institution’s image and reputation," and that it could do so by resorting to a legal device used by fascist governments to suppress dissent in the 1920s and 1930s – "the protection of the rights of others." The ruling also stated that the commission could punish individuals who "damaged the institution’s image and reputation."

For Mr. Connolly, that punishment will be expensive – he has been told to pay the EC’s legal costs. His reaction: "We’re back to the Star Chamber and Acts of Attainder: the rights of defendants are not respected or guaranteed in any way; the offense of seditious libel has been resurrected." Mr. Connolly now intends to take his case to the non-EU European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Mr. Evans-Pritchard believes this to be an extremely serious development, writing, "The EU’s new Charter of Fundamental Rights extends the ECJ’s competence into the area of civil liberties, transforming it from a commercial court dealing with single market issues to a full-fledged supreme court. The ECJ has already begun referring to the charter in its rulings, demolishing the British government’s pretense that the document has no legal status."

Taken to its extreme, the case could open the door for the ECJ to start ruling on free speech cases involving ordinary EU citizens, or even magazines like the one before you now, if either dares to criticize EU policies.

Furthermore, Evans-Pritchard thinks the Connolly case offers a definitive clue as to how the court will deploy its considerable power once the charter is formalized. The working draft for the Nice Treaty abolishes the national veto for the first time in areas of "direct taxation," where it affects the functioning of the internal market. Some think this would allow the EU to get its foot in the door on income and corporation taxes.

Thinking about what’s next could make one shudder. With free speech in jeopardy and a centralized tax assessor sneaking into being, the European populace had better wake up and run those EC "commu-crats" out of town now, before they ignite World War III.

Renewables won’t get the job done. Matthew R. Simmons, president of Simmons & Company International, recently took on a gutsy assignment by speaking before the Aberdeen Renewables Technology Conference. While Mr. Simmons is well-known and a highly sought after speaker within the oil and gas industry, we don’t suspect he would be held in high esteem by the "greenies."

But he took the challenge and "told it like it is," carefully explaining how renewable energy sources simply will not be able to make much of a dent in the world’s future energy needs. Mr. Simmons pointed out that world energy consumption is running the equivalent of about 180 million bopd, and with projected growth in demand, energy production will need to rise 30% over the next decade, and "then, never stay static again."

We can’t rely on renewables because they’re simply infinitesimal. Some examples: In the U.S., wind and solar power provided only 0.001% (that’s one one-thousandth of one percent) of all the kilowatts used. And that 80-mpg car you’ve been hearing about – it would take 100,000 of them to save 5,000 bopd.

Check out the full text of Mr. Simmons’ talk at http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/web/index.asp