The Founding Father of the “Brussels EU”:
Professor Dr. jur. Walter Hallstein

Picture of Walter Hallstein

The first president of the EU-commission was Walter Hallstein, a prominent attorney of the Nazi/IG Farben coalition. From 1957 to 1967 he ruled over an army of more than 10,000 bureaucrats who – under his instruction – laid the foundation for the undemocratic construct of the ‘Brussels EU’. Hallstein can be considered the “founding father” of the ‘Brussels EU’.

“One of the most important laws is the Protection Law for German Blood and Honor …”

Hallstein in a speech given on January 23, 1939 – seven months before the launch of WWII – on the topic of common European law under German leadership (“Rechtseinheit Großdeutschlands”).

The “Blood and Honor” Nazi lawyer Hallstein becomes the architect of the EU-Commission – the cartel‘s new politburo – and its first president

German chancellor Adenauer and Hallstein (right) signing
the first EU treaty, Rome, March 25th, 1957

The following quotes are taken from Hallstein's book "Europe in the Making".

Book by Walter Hallstein: "Europe in the Making"
ISBN 0-393-05246-X

“The Commission is entrusted with what virtually amounts to a monopoly in taking the initiative in all matters affecting the Community. There are a few exceptions to this general rule, but these ought to be removed at the earliest opportunity.

“As I see it, the Commission should eventually be empowered to take all measures necessary for the implementation of the Treaty on its own authority, without having to rely on special and specific approval by the Council of Ministers.

“Furthermore, the big and small policy decisions, by which the Commission, and the Commission alone, must at present exercise its executive authority, will in some way have to be relaxed. This could be done by giving the different departments of the Commission under their Directors-General greater responsibility, or by setting up separate agencies. The departments or the agencies would of course continue to act under the general supervision of the Commission for approval in every case.

“Since 1962, therefore, there has been an effort to unify patent law. After long stagnation, this task was taken up again in 1969. A new series of preliminary draft proposals for an agreement on general European patent-sharing procedures and for an agreement on a “European patent” for the Common Market were made by the experts in April and June 1971; conclusions are expected in 1973, and it is thought that a European Patent Office could begin work in, say, 1976. Nineteen European states are negotiating about the former agreement. This should make it possible to demand protection for an invention by one procedure in all the signatory states, although by means of a series of national patents. The aim is one of rationalization. The purpose of the second agreement is integration-to establish an independent Common Market patent system, making it no longer necessary to accumulate national patents in order to ensure protection throughout the Community. On this task, only the member-states of the Community are engaged. But both projects would share the same European patent office, with a registry and a complaints department. Meanwhile the conditions for obtaining patents, which at present differ in strictness from one country to another, need to be made uniform.

“British membership of Euratom will be very important indeed. For it will remain no more than a pious wish to expect the enlargement of the Community naturally and by itself-as it were-to lead enterprises to act in accordance with the terms of a common policy for research and development. Further, such a common policy could have the beneficial effect of speeding up many Community projects which have been delayed, such as patent law, company law, fiscal harmonization, and technical standardization.

“A common European defence system would contribute to European security in the best possible way and would contribute to European security in the best possible way and would at the same time enable the alliance with the Americans to be organized as a partnership.

“One can probably envisage a “Defence Community” only at a later stage, when the fusion of all the Communities has brought us close to the establishment of a full federation.

“An “armaments community” could also profit from the experience the European Economic Community has gained in the sphere of civil technology. This is a further argument in favour of identical composition for the economic and the “political” community. The more costs rise, the more pressing is the case for standardizing and mass-producing weapons. If individual states are not prepared to give up producing their own arms because of the damage to their own economy and because they fear to lose their political independence, then the only solution is Community arms production. This development, no doubt, would have to keep in step with the integration of armed forces. The last stage would be a definitive decision on atomic defence – although this is made infinitely more difficult by the Nuclear Non – Proliferation Treaty.”