I would like to make a short statement, now. My proposal is simple - of a Union that is decentralized, of a Union whose institutions are participated in both by nations and by people, of a Union which protects and respects sovereignty of all kinds - one which respects the many different cultures and economic courses of our countries.
I seek to allow all nations to become self-reliant; I stand against dependence in all its forms. I also, however, want to give workers this independence, this choice, by encouraging self-reliant development, auto-development - not by regulating, not by banning, but through encouragement. In particular, this will be done by encouraging, but not requiring, the direct involvement of workers in development.
I stand strongly against the rigidity of this Union as well. Its institutions are large, centralized, and unnecessary.; many of their functions may be given to national-level ministries, and they may be transformed into confederations, of a sort, which would behave in a more decentralized way and thus be more adaptable to the needs and situations in member-states, preventing the oppression that we have seen in which regulations have been imposed on the people, robbing them of work and dignity. This will also ensure the ability of both nations and people to directly participate in even the bureaucracy of this Union.
To defend the interests, dignity, and independence of all nations and workers - that is my aim.
Mr. Biden, I understand, claims to want to defend "sovereignty;" but to him, sovereignty seems to be merely the ability of nations to do whatever they want, up to and including dictating the policies of others. One of his major policy proposals, in fact, entails allowing one nation to dictate what is and is not patented in other countries. This would cause chaos in the extreme, and he justifies it all with his screams of "sovereignty, sovereignty, sovereignty!" He lives in a world of forms, a world of ideology rather than reality, and his policy shows this. He does not understand why people demand greater sovereignty - because it is genuinely affecting their livelihoods, their dignity - only that they are. He has always lived in an ivory tower; he has never been among the peasants, among the miners, among the many others of this Union who are threatened by globalization and internationalizing, homogeneizing policies - who have suffered, who will suffer, because of them, and who want them to end now, no matter the cost. He has not shared in their misery and their hopes; he has never called any of them friends, never called any of them family. He only hears the word sovereignty, he thinks, "oh, what a wonderful thing to take advantage of," and proceeds to talk about "sovereignty, sovereignty, sovereignty" mindlessly, hoping to trick the most miserable, the most vulnerablem, into voting for him. He is nothing more than a political hack.
Mr. Pinera Echineque speaks about human rights; and yes, these are important. However, the application of human rights has been opprsesive; it has denied people food and wages. For an ordinary person, a full stomach and a roof over one's head is more important than mere words. Yes, it is important to defend human rights; but in the context of the many cultures of our Union, and in a flexible way that ensures that all people remain prosperous and independent; that ensures that nations themselves remain independent and prosperous, with dignity. There has been little consideration of this, however, and that is extremely concerning. We must always prioritize the well-being of those in our Union over these words; must prioritize their independence, their dignity above words. Words mean little when, as I said, a person is starving.
I know nothing about Ms. Thatcher or Ms. Muzhare; this is concerning in itself. We should at the very least know what our candidates are standing for, no matter how odious it might be. We may again be left with an inactive, unaccountable Commission.
Ms. Marin has many points I agree with. We should not be campaigning for parties, nor for Eurogroups; we should not be campaigning based on ideology alone. I am not campaigning for a party, an ideology; I seek to defend only the interests of the people of our Union, of their many different nations and cultures, not any ideology; I have sought, in fact, to counter ideology in my campaign. I act based on the actually existing conditions, not based on any abstract concepts; based on the fact that many are suffering because of regulations, that many will suffer if centralizing policies continue to be enacted. However, while this is all good, I do not know who she intends to accomplish this. While seeing her elected may be a good thing for this Union, her lack of an actual platform is concerning.