The idea for EuropeansUnited was born when people from different backgrounds sat down together with the aim to start a public debate: entrepreneurs, nurses, doctors, scientists, civil servants, students, you name it, from all walks of life. Our group is coordinated by Tom Meert. Our members come from Countries in all of Europe.

Our main demand is that emergency measures are introduced in a democratic and balanced way.

To portray EuropeansUnited as a group of corona sceptics is incorrect. We do not deny that there are diseases. Our arguments would be the same in the case of a natural disaster or any other crisis: a country’s policies must be deliberate and founded on the principles of the democratic rule of law.

What are we asking for?

Respect for the Constitution

Many measures, laws and decrees that have been implemented this past year go against the constitution of the different countries in question. However, power lies where people believe the power is held. Until the beginning of 2020, many people believed that the constitution would protect them at all times from the arbitrariness of individual rulers and that other laws and decrees always had to be checked against the constitution. Since March 2020, measures were taken in most European countries that led to an outright violation of fundamental rights. Many constitutionalists in different European countries denounced these practices, but found only limited hearing in the media.

Proportionality and open social debate

We are not “against measures.” We are against disproportionate measures that violate human rights and make a very one-sided consideration of the consequences in different areas of society. An open debate, with deliberate consideration of all aspects of the crisis, a debate in which opinions of experts from different fields are heard, should be at the basis of the decisions taken.

In addition, it is crucial for us that all measures are constitutional and the result of a democratic and parliamentary debate followed by a vote in the Chamber.

Democratic support and judicial priorities

One might ask to what extent the current measures are supported by the population, when they have to be enforced by means of very high fines and massive police deployment. If we are to believe the evening news, the judiciary can apparently afford to make this a priority at the expense of important cases that are now dismissed due to lack of time and resources.

Why do we take to the streets?

When the world’s largest parliament no longer listens to the people, the people come to their leaders.

The truth is, however, that we prefer not to demonstrate. We are on the front line, but we are also just ordinary people: afraid of the police, afraid of fines, and with a healthy dose of fear and loathing of any form of violence. We also have much to lose and would rather stay home. However, we realise that we are gradually sliding into a totalitarian state that threatens to further radicalize and become more and more destructive along the way. This is an evolution we don’t want to be part of. In order to make our voices heard we see no other way than to take to the streets.

The price of democracy

The question arises as to what price we are prepared to pay for a free democratic state where freedom of expression is still valued. For people in North Africa, at the beginning of the Arab Spring, the answer to that question was often the highest price: their lives. People set themselves on fire in a desperate attempt to obtain even the smallest fraction of the freedoms that we’ve been able to enjoy since childhood… while we sit in front of our screens and just give up.

Open debate

Our hope is that the largest parliament in the world reclaims its responsibility by listening and responding to the cry for freedom from a growing segment of the population, so there’s no need to take to the streets in our Western democratic countries.

We call for a full and open debate in which all voices, especially the opposing voices, are heard. We ask that the constitution be restored, that human rights be respected again and that our democracies be given another chance. That way, we can all go back to having a drink in peace and quiet instead of worrying about our future.

A free and open debate would be a nice alternative to these regrettable, yet necessary demonstrations. Hereby a warm appeal to our rulers. Open the debate and we will all stay at home. But if the information the public receives remains a one-sided monopoly of “chosen experts” and governmental institutions, we can never build a stable democratic system.

Dear people, we need to talk to each other again!

Tom Meert

Chairman, EuropeansUnited