800 years after the Magna Carta declaration of 1225 and 80 years after Liberation Day in 1945 - How the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights defines the concept of citizenship and protects EU democracies against extremism, state capture and autocracy - Does Lindy apply effectively?

Today we celebrate the end of a brutal conflict on our continent. After the liberation from Nazi occupation, we have enjoyed 80 years of freedom. 
Moreover, it is a restoration of a longer tradition of freedom that already existed. 
In 1215, more than 800 years ago, a new tradition was born - or rather - rediscovered: That man shall be bound by rule of law.

Drawing on inspiration from the Bible, several British barons began to resist their almighty ruler - King John. They sought to secure their rights with regard to property and the integrity of their individual person.

The first version of this document emerged in 1215, following a consultation in a town called Runnymede. At that time, the document referred to was not called Magna Carta, but rather the 'Carta' or 'Charter'. (Magna Carta: The documents. (2015). Edited by David Carpenter. Penguin Books). 

Over there during that year, the barons sent an ultimatum to King John: Ye shall secure our rights.
Doing so would put constraints on the monarch, he or she would no longer be above the law.
Though the initial document was a rather privileged one and strengthened the position of the aristocrats, it created a strong precedent which gradually trickled down, namely that the  individual has inalienable rights worth protecting. 

It was in 1225 when John's son, Henry III issued new versions of the two charters, the larger of the two referred to as our Charter. This is the document now known as Magna Carta (ibid, p. 6).  

Fast forward to the year 2000, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights was approved and published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 18 December 2000. (the link to the full document can be found over here:  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf)

From that moment on, every person in the EU would be safeguarded against the tyranny of infringements in the domain of human rights and property rights. This is essential on several counts:

• It means that objective reality is observed based on a shared human reality, thus on natural law. Infringements of the articles thus means there is a distortion in objective reality within the EU sphere. An explanation can be found in Summa Theologiae Q 96 (St Thomas Aquinas, 1265-1273), which describes how natural law is a participation in eternal law). 
• Protection of property rights is necessary to keep economic calculations meaningful. It ensures that a system is ergodic (i.e over time, the same inputs deliver the same expected economic outcomes). (Taleb (2018), Skin in the game, p. 225)
• Interaction between human rights and property rights can strengthen the economy. For example, if whistleblowers who uncover cases of serious frauds are well-protected, then both human rights and economic performance are enhanced. A similar case can be made for the protection of journalists who discover illegal tax evasion schemes. 

If the charter is observed, law and economics are in symmetry with each other, and with human nature based on reciprocal standards. It is this protection of human and property rights, as well as the interaction between the two, which gives the Single Market  a unique edge. Safe to say, this is what naturally leads to peace and prosperity in the long run. But where do we currently stand? 

• With regard to objective reality based on rule of law, a seismic shift can be observed following the aftermath of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Several large financial institutions were bailed out using constructions that would barely fit or override EU legislation of State Aid as per TFEU article 106-107. This has reconfigured the rule of law versus rule of money. (link to article 107 TFEU: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E107). 
• Secondly, regarding property rights, there is room for improvement. An interconnection can be drawn between State Aid and property rights, for the reason that misuse of tax funds on the basis of State Aid infringes upon the quality property rights.  
• The protection of individual rights has faced numerous threats too. Firstly, the link between human rights and market performance/property rights could be improved. Several high-profile cases show that whistleblowers and journalists face immediate threats to their security. Though usually (not always), exposed frauds reach the news after several years of silence. 
  Secondly, (and this interacts with the first point), unresolved economic issues such as corruption and organised crime fuel populism. The danger of such a trend is that it further erodes basic individual rights in favour of an authoritarian/oligarchic form of democracy where minorities are no longer equal citizens, and where the rule of law becomes subjected to even more favouritism for leaders who claim a ‘divine right’ to rule as ‘father’ of the people. Occasionally, they may even proudly present themselves as illiberal. 
• As of 25 February 2022, Ukraine became subject of an armed conflict that still continues (https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-ukraine). Leakages in Europe’s financial system can fuel such conflicts and hamper peaceful development of nations. 

On an important note, fear and resentment are never the answer. We need to keep improving.

Today is the day on which we remember the brave men and women who fought for our freedom and liberated us from Nazi occupation in 1945. Let’s keep that freedom alive and strengthen it even further, let’s defend the Charter of Fundamental Rights!