06 September, 2019

Brexit Crisis will last Decades

Not serious! The European Commission have announced extra measures and emergency subsidies in the case of a No Deal Brexit scheduled for 31 October 2019.
But neither the EU, the Irish or the British government are taking seriously the date of 31 October as the definitive date of Leave. What do they know that they are not telling the public?
The evidence
Neither the EU or the Irish have a plan to put up border posts along he Irish / Northern Ireland border. This would be required if they took the ‘Irish Backstop‘ danger seriously. It is a complex border requiring much preparatory work. It is also politically sensitive with memories of the the IRA conflict. But this can’t be the whole story for doing absolutely nothing. What’s happening?
Some British may think that all will be over at 11 pm on 31 October. But in Brussels, the bureaucrats have read the treaty carefully. That is why we could be in for decades of Brexit crisis.
How many years will the Brexit crisis last? That is not clear. But don’t expect an exit on 1 November. The way Article 50 is written it could last several decades.
The key word ‘Constitutional’
The key word in Article 50, the Exit clause of the Lisbon Treaty on European Union is ‘constitutional‘.
“Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” Article 50 paragraph 1.
But what is the constitutional position for Brexit in the United Kingdom? It does not have a written constitution. Even if it did, there might be a dispute about the government’s interpretation of a clause compared with an opposition party, a commercial organisation, a trade union or an individual who challenged this. That would take the matter to the Courts.
Constitutional disputes about Europe have taken a long time to resolve in Member States. Courts raised questions on the legitimacy of the Lisbon Treaty and whether Europe is democratic.
The German Constitutional Court judged that “It is first and foremost the national peoples of the Member States who, through their national parliaments, have to provide democratic legitimacy
For the UK with no separate Constitutional Court and no written Constitution, the chances for a dispute are much wider. For the present UK, with unprecedented disputes in Parliament and in the country about Prime Minister’s conduct and allegations of lying to the public and Parliament, the question is even more open.
It is complicated further by the fragility of the government. At present Mr Johnson does not have a majority in Parliament. Normally he should resign on the basis of a vote of no confidence. But that is not the situation in UK now that the country under the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
Second problem. UK has a government that cannot resign. It needs a two-thirds majority vote against it to call a General Election. But the Opposition does not trust Mr Johnson and has refused this until it is sure that he will follow an Act that they are passing to rule out a No Deal Brexit.
The only other means to have an election is a vote of NO Confidence. But that requires the Government party to vote that they have not confidence in themselves!
Furthermore Mr Johnson has sacked a score of some of the most loyal Conservative MPs simply because they voted against his wishes on the government timetable. A severe penalty from a government itself composed of many MPs who voted against the previous Conservative government. Mr Johnson himself has voted against the previous government of Theresa May on the Withdrawal Treaty but hypocrisy does not seem to bother him. However, sacking 21 supporters when the government had only a majority of one vote, seems reckless beyond measure. It shatters the majority and embitters the party supporters around the country.
How will the Johnson Government get anything else through Parliament?
But that is not all.
Thirdly, the Courts. At present there are three Court cases dealing with the legality of Brexit. They attack the advice the government gave to Queen to prorogue Parliament, allegedly to cut back on democratic debate on a No Deal Brexit. These cases are likely to go to Appeal and even the Supreme Court.
Nor is that the end. If cases are open by the Scottish and Welsh governments against the central government on misuse of advice to the Queen to prorogue parliament, then there is likely to be further challenges on more substantial issues of the Constitution.
Fourthly Economic Cases. Any of these arriving at the Supreme Court would take far longer to deal with and require extensive research and therefore delays.
Billions of pounds and billions of euros are involved in the decision and repercussions of Brexit both in UK and on the Continent. The Government has already paid out millions in compensation for its ill-judged handling of the Dover-Calais fiasco. So challenges in UK Courts may continue.
Fifthly, the core issues are unsolved, and much more. There are two further levels of legal challenge.
For Brussels, the question must arise, about the legal competence of a beleaguered government, accused of misrepresentation and cheating in delivering a firm and reliable decision for Brexit. If Brussels recognized any action of the Johnson government it would likely bring in huge economic costs to those on the Continent. It is up to anyone inside the EU to challenge whether a fully constitutional governmental decision has been taken. If not, why did the Brussels machine recognize it?
That challenge could go to the European Court in Luxembourg and deny or delay London recognition of its decision to leave.
In UK many people doubt whether the legal basis for the 2016 referendum will stand up to the light of day. The British voter never agreed to the Lisbon Treaty and that is the basis of Article 50! The totally separate Euratom treaty, designed to stop Atomic War that the Government says UK must now leave, never came into the pre-referendum debate or any publication or statement of the government.





youtube.com/watch?v=3tcJKfuMYCk

Irish Backstop still needs a solution. So does the Customs Union and Euratom. Whatever happens to the Johnson government and its replacement, UK still needs to resolve the Irish Backstop and its relations with the Continent.
Robert Schuman designed Europe’s peace system based on a democratic Assembly and a Customs Union in a Community. Leaving these institutions is equivalent to rejecting the peace. A new war is something no one in Europe wants. Does the UK not want to have full democratic relations with the Continent? Leaving a Parliament means marching on the road to tyranny.
The core problem that needs to be resolved is Democracy in UK and in Europe.
Will the dispute last decades? It already has!
A quarter century already
Crises in Europe tend to last decades or more. The Brexit crisis started well before the 2016 Referendum. It was then just called the Democratic Deficit crisis. In the UK, Brexit crisis can be dated back to at least 1994 — a quarter of a century ago.
James Goldsmith, an Anglo-French businessman, founded the Referendum Party with this aim. It made a deal with other parties, especially the Conservatives, for elected parliamentarians to pledge themselves to demand a referendum. The only referendum on Europe had occurred two decades earlier in 1975.
Many in Britain thought the Brussels system was autocratic and needed urgent democratic reform or UK exit. It was high time another took place. Nothing happened for decades despite promises of both Conservatives and Labour parties and the formation of the United Kingdom Independence Part. UKIP was actually formed in 1991 and took over the mantle of a Referendum when the Referendum Party dissolved thinking its work was done.
Brexit has been a crisis, ringing alarm bells and firing democratic Very-light flares, for decades. Don’t be surprised if the present Brexit crisis lasts as long again.

02 September, 2019

Will the Faull, Weiler, Sarmiento Brexit Plan work? What will?

Three eminent, self-confessed Remainers have published a legal plan to avoid Prime Minister Johnson’s cliff-edge of No Deal on 31 October. Law Professors Joseph Weiler, NYU and lately of Florence EUI, Daniel Sarmiento of Complutense University of Madrid and Sir Jonathan Faull, formerly head of the European Commission Legal Service, published their plan called ‘An offer the UK and EU cannot refuse‘ on the constitutional law site, Verfassungsblog.
If adopted, they hoped it could avoid the cliff edge if the UK’s rejected the Irish Backstop and the EU refused to yield. The Irish Backstop is a guarantee that the UK will respect Customs Union law for trade flows until the British introduced some technological or legal alternatives that would ensure the Irish Peace was not threatened and no customs posts would be re-established.
The proposal included features to guarantee both the integrity and autonomy of the EU’s and UK’s respective customs and their regulatory territories. It aimed to do so without a Customs Union between the two parties or a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
How?
The core of the proposal was the mutual recognition of both legal systems in the courts of both Ireland and the UK. An Irish judge would make sure the animal, product or service followed UK law if the destination was UK. A UK judge would make sure goods destined for Ireland and the EU would follow EU Regulations. The Proposal evoked considerable resonance in several media, both positive and negative; many questions were asked to which they addressed in a FAQ.

Prof Weiler writes that both legal systems must be equal and there would be no ‘outsourcing’:
“The current Backstop as it stands would already rely extensively on the integrity of the UK legal system and UK officials to collect the Common External Tariff of the projected Customs Union and to ensure that UK manufactured goods comply with the EU regulatory standards to give but two of many examples.
Is this, then, not “outsourcing”? In some cases as part of the Backstop the Union has insisted on on-site inspection and supervision by Union officials. That is included in our alternative Proposal too, albeit, importantly, on a reciprocal basis. In effect our proposal introduces all the cooperation procedures introduced in the Backstop, but it adds further instruments, as well as domestic remedies, including criminal penalties, to ensure effective enforcement.
Furthermore, the proposal incorporates a dispute settlement mechanism based on the withdrawal agreement’s enforcement mechanisms. Overall, then, this can hardly be considered to be any more “outsourcing” of the customs union than the Backstop itself envisages – in fact it is less. And, not to be forgotten, the UK under the Proposal would be “outsourcing” control of the integrity of its customs and regulatory territory to the Republic.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It is somewhat perverse to characterize an arrangement based on reciprocal enforcement, joint inspections, close cooperation and mutual trust as being a form of unacceptable “outsourcing” to a third state. And if the premise of any agreement is that one cannot trust the other partner, the Backstop is doomed.”
Will it work? My answer is NO.
I base that on Schuman’s own words. It fails to understand the origin, purpose and future of the supranational system of democracy and law that Robert Schuman created with the founding fathers in the 1950s. That brought peace.
But the system was not completed democratically because of the antidemocratic opposition of Charles de Gaulle, an autocrat who seized power in France throughout the 1960s. Unfortunately afterwards instead of restoring the original Community system to its full glory, subsequent politicians showed themselves to be neo-Gaullists who preferred wheeler-dealing in closed Councils to transparent democracy and proper elections.
Why won’t the professors’ scheme work?
What may be sauce for the goose may be sauce for the gander but the judicial source of decision-making for the EU-27 goose is not the same as the source for an independent, post-Brexit UK gander or any other third State.
Gaullist smoke still blows over reality. You either have a fully working, democratic Community system with its law machinery fully integrated by the people's consent or you revert to War.
1. Complexity. Take the case of the 2013 horse-meat scandal when 70,000 horses in N Ireland went missing and ended up in lasagna and other food products. It was found that the ‘beef’ was not only horse and pig meat but also chicken feathers. (https://democracy.blogactiv.eu/2013/02/21/elysee2-horsemeat-fraud-and-de-gaulle%e2%80%99s-cuckoo/) The ‘meat’ travelled across the EU through possibly half a dozen countries from Romania, Luxembourg to UK (and other) dining tables.
What would have happened if UK and/or N Ireland were not members of the same legal system whether for quality control or ’severe criminal fines’?
2. Two different levels of legal order. The Community system is based on what Schuman called an independent international judiciary, a supranational Court.
National Courts are based on judicial principles of natural law (honest analysis, fairness etc) that should be universally recognized but also on determining the material interests of the parties. Interests are determined inside a national context. Interests differ across borders and among individuals of different backgrounds. Who owned the chicken feathers? Were they sold legally? How, where and when did the pig turn to beef?
National courts are competent in analysing and judging the interests within their domains. They are not generally recognized beyond their borders.
Mutual recognition and control would have to involve not only UK with Ireland but all the other EU Member States. At each stage it would have to be identified as being for ‘UK export’ or ‘EU export’ as various, multiple -origin ingredients made their way to their final designation of UK table-ready or EU.
This sort of multiple origin and value-added is likely to be more complicated for foods and its associated criminal activities than cars and machinery.
3. Backstop guards integrity. It is not a matter of the EU not trusting the Brits but guarding the integrity of its independent supranational judiciary.
The backstop is not a bargaining chip but a guarantee of the integrity of the whole legal order.
4. Undermining Europe’s purpose. Removing the backstop is even more dangerous than letting the integrity of the European legal order go down the plughole.
The backstop is the plug to retain Europeans’ pledge for No More War inside the same Community system.
The European system was set up to make war ’not only unthinkable but materially impossible’ (Schuman Declaration).
The EEC was designed to prevent Trade War turning to hot war, and Euratom was to prevent Atomic war by having community ownership of fissile materials (www.eurdemocracy.com ).
This is why the European Court is the final authority (Luxembourg for Community matters and Strasbourg for democratic Human Rights.)
5. Governments change laws and systems fail. Legal systems are also subject to deterioration and decay. In UK the parliamentary customs of Erskine May are changed and undermined within a span of months. Inevitably the legislative process too.
The first danger signal for Europeans is in Human Rights violation by government systems. When the national system is found wanting, there is a possibility of the Council of Europe suspending the Member State. Greece was suspended under the Colonels.
When the Greek legal order changed, mutuality was impossible. Recognition of the Human Rights Convention by autocrats meant nothing. (Politicians do cheat and lie!)
That is why mutual recognition of European and third State systems is not possible. It is incompatible with a single source European Legal Order.
The only proven way to ensure that both sides in a dispute are content with the outcome is to make sure that their rights are respected — starting with human rights.
What is obvious to most thinking citizens but is not blindingly obvious to politicians is that citizens’ human rights and fundamental freedoms have been totally ignored ever since the Maastricht Treaty. Politicians have changed the original Community treaties designed to stop war into a power grab often against the people’s will, public opinion and opposite to what to the people say in referendums.
When the British were asked to vote on Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty on European Union, it was totally illegal. They had never agreed to the Lisbon Treaty. They had not agreed to the European Union in the first place. They had only agreed to the European Community by referendum in 1975.
The 1975 referendum is still the people’s voice on the matter. When in 2016 Britons voted to leave the “European Union” it means that for them the Treaty on European Union is dead! Europeans want to revert to the democratic European Community.
The French and Dutch voted in referendums against the articles that were latter incorporated in the Lisbon treaty.
And the British referendum on the Constitutional treaty, that had been set for the period after this, was withdrawn. Politicians said there was no chance of UK and many other countries agreeing to it. The Constitutional Treaty had to be withdrawn. But it wasn’t.
It was re-introduced as the Lisbon Treaty against the wishes of practically all Member States!
Europe’s new constitutional arrangement –that politicians acknowledge had no public support and would be rejected in a vote — was imposed by a cartel of political parties acting as autocrats. This is a POLITBURO system. It owes its heritage both to de Gaulle and the Soviet system!
What should be done? So first, Britons have to vote on whether they agree to the Lisbon Treaty before any action can be taken about withdrawal. Governments can’t use Article 50 if the Treaty is not authorised by referendums. Governments of all colours refused to recognize this elementary human right of the citizens to vote their assent or dissent. They need a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Other countries should vote on it too. Politicians refused them the chance.
Britons also need to have a referendum on withdrawal from the Euratom treaty. The British government says that UK is leaving Euratom. But the Government never announced that it was part of the 2016 referendum. No publication mentioned that it was under consideration. No minister said UK would withdraw from Euratom if citizens voted to leave the EU. And no ballot paper in the Referendum of June 2016 mentioned leaving Euratom.
If Europe is to have a realistic future, the citizens must have their rights respected and leaders should be replaced with honest ones.

25 August, 2019

Brexit: Cause and Solution

Now on YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tcJKfuMYCk


Why in 1975 were Britons enthusiastic to join the European Community and its Common Market and are now intent on leaving the "European Union"?
In the1975 Referendum, two out of three voters confirmed British membership of the European Community. With good reason. Peace and prosperity. That was the aim of French Prime Minister Robert Schuman, the founder of the European Community. He delivered the goods.
'Wisdom is better than weapons of war' says the Book he often read. For more than than 2000 years the nations of western Europe were at war every generation. After World War 2, although everyone expected war again either with Germany or the USSR, it did not happen. Why? This video explains how and when the European Community and the Council of Europe with its Convention of Human Rights made several types of war 'not only unthinkable but materially impossible'. 'But a transgressor can destroy much good,' says the Book. Politicians then changed the Community system into a "European Union".

  • They made major anti-democratic changes.
  • They refused to secure Human Rights guarantees.
  • They refused to hold referendums on what were fundamental Constitutional changes.

Bureaucracy increased. Politicians still met behind closed doors in the Council of Ministers as they did when de Gaulle tried to rule the Continent. Some Continental countries had referendums. The Council ignored the result when it was negative. Nor were other countries allowed to confirmed changes made by the Council to override referendums. Why? That is the heritage of the French autocrat, Charles de Gaulle, 1958-69, who vetoed British membership without any democratic authority to do so. He also denied elections to the European Parliament and the other crucial legislative bodies that should represent workers, industries, consumers and regions. Presently the secretive EU system also mimics the Politburo system of the Soviet bloc. It denies Human Rights to 98 per cent of the population who are not members of the favoured political parties! The deep cause of Europe's malaise is this Democratic Deficit and Denial.

The UK is deeply attached to Democracy. Yet its politicians made 'cast-iron' promises of referendums at each stage but refused to implement these referendums. The video explains why the 2016 referendum on leaving the European Union was ILLEGAL. Even if the result is accepted it means leaving "the European Union" the undemocratic additions and amendments to the European Common Market. Not the European Community! How can this Politburo system be changed? Can Europeans regain true democratic relations among its peoples? The YouTube video explains these deep causes and presents the democratic solution to Europe's crisis. It also predicts that once these changes are made Europe will again enter on a new economic miracle that will outclass the postwar boom, its 'thirty glorious years'.



26 July, 2019

BREXIT, Boris and Bluff on 1 November?


Will BREXIT happen?
Yesterday UK’s new Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, reaffirmed the date for leaving the “European Union” as 31 October. The next day the new European Commission will take office. Will UK still be a Member State?
He gave a very upbeat speech in the Commons about how UK was going to be Great Again and lead the world.
“By 2050 it is more than possible that the United Kingdom will be the greatest and most prosperous economy in Europe…”
The United Kingdom will stay united despite the different votes. “Our Constitutional settlement, our United Kingdom will be firm, will be secure. Our Union of nations beyond question. Our democracy robust.”
“…we must take some immediate steps. The first is to restore trust in our democracy and fulfil the repeated promises of Parliament to the people by coming out of the European Union – and doing so on 31 October. I and all ministers in this Government are committed to leaving on this date, whatever the circumstances. To do otherwise would cause a catastrophic loss of confidence in our political system. It will leave the British people wondering whether their politicians could ever be trusted again to follow a clear democratic instruction.”
“I do not accept the argument that says that these issues can only be solved by all or part of the UK remaining in the customs union or in the single market.”
“I believe that at this pivotal moment in our national story we are going to prove the doubters wrong again. Not just with positive thinking and a can-do attitude, important though they are. But with the help and the encouragement Government and a Cabinet that is bursting with ideas, ready to create change, determined to implement the policies we need to succeed as a nation. The greatest place to live.”
“I believe that if we bend our sinews to the task now, there is every chance that in 2050, when I fully intend to be around, though not necessarily in this job we will look back on this period, this extraordinary period, as the beginning of a new golden age for our United Kingdom.”

My question was: had he read my book, that I sent him when he was Foreign Secretary in September 2016? It has Churchill and Robert Schuman, the founder of European democracy on the cover. (Boris has written his own biography of Churchill as leader).
On the back cover the text starts with the phrase “A Golden Age could be ahead, not only for Europe but for the planet.” That is based on the premise that ethical democracies have the greatest means for growth and prosperity as well as social well-being.
A “Golden Age” will only occur when Europeans ban trade wars against themselves in a fully democratic Customs Union. That is what Schuman’s government proclaimed in 1948. In May 1950 he made WAR, “unthinkable and materially impossible“.
Secondly, President Trump famously advised Mrs May when PM that the best way forward was to “sue the EU” not get into endless negotiations. That is exactly what I say in chapter 3, written three years ago. Two strategies were presented: painful and fruitless negotiation or legal clarification first about political corruption and fraud that caused “Democratic Deficit and Denial“.
Painful and fruitless negotiation is a continuing fact. Legal action is inevitable. Justice demands it. Human Rights have been violated since the Maastricht Treaty.
The book is available free on the US site www.academia.edu in a shorter pdf version “Don’t Brexit, Fix it!
Have the Prime Minister and US President read anything in the book? Who knows. But it is not likely the UK and other European politicians will pay any attention to it. They are the guilty ones! Past politicians were all responsible for acting as if European democracy can be made by a cabal plotting to stop the people’s voice in referendums being followed.
The treaties all made powerful changes on the Constitutions of European countries. The people must agree or reject them. All the changes, however, were made either WITHOUT the people’s consent or directly AGAINST the people’s voice.
When the people say NO, it should mean NO.
The only valid European referendum in the UK was the 1975 referendum when two-thirds of the electorate voted in favour of membership of the European Communities.
Mr Cameron’s 2016 referendum was a dishonest trick. He gave a ‘cast iron guarantee‘ of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty itself. Then refused to do so.
The 2016 referendum was not not about accepting the Lisbon Treaty or not. It was about Article 50 of that Treaty! The people had NOT endorsed it! Everyone knew it would never be endorsed in a referendum. That Article and many others of the Lisbon Treaty had already been rejected by referendums in France and the Netherlands. European politicians told UK that the British people should not have a referendum on it.
Honesty is the only way to have peace in Europe. For Boris, he would have to pay attention to the several chapters about telling the truth and replacing Brussels secrecy with open politics. Robert Schuman, when a prisoner of the Nazis SS, refused to collaborate and tell a lie to save his life. The book also describes a Seven Day Mental Diet to free the mind of self-deception!
Boris is gung-ho for leaving on 31 October. Will it happen or will he be blocked in parliament? Will the cost to industry eventually tip a change? Will there be private legal action in the Courts?
Certainly the policy to change the “Irish Backstop” — equivalent to puncturing the legal integrity of the Customs Union and the Single Market — will not happen. It would require 27 States to deny the Rule of Law in European politics. That is delusion. But UK could stay within Customs Union of the European Community system and ditch the anti-democratic, corrupt additions of the “European Union”.
At the moment I see no evidence that the new UK Government have this intention. We will have to wait and see when reality strikes.

03 July, 2019

Rascals select EU Top Jobs without and against the People


The popular definition of democracy is that it is a system where the people can throw out the rascals — inept or corrupt politicians.
That is not the case of Europe today. Its hub has a system of autocracy. 28 politicians from nominal democracies don’t follow democratic rules. They self-select their Politburo, an oligarchy with no recourse to the voice of the people. It has become a system of the politicians, by the politicians, for the politicians. The people are excluded.
It is suicidal for rational politics and a prosperous economy.
Party politicians are a self-exterminating breed. They have stabbed themselves with the dagger of public distrust.
When the EC began, political parties in democracies used to attract 15 percentof the population to their ranks. No more. Today barely 2% of the population is a member of a party.
Public trust is punctured like a car hit simultaneously with four flat tyres! Trust is burnt out.
Europe is fast descending into a more and more anti-democratic system. An unrepresentative Politburo picks new rascals from a pack of rascals and makes it as difficult as possible to remove them.
Rascal is not just an uncomplimentary term. They have done their utmost to break the law!
In Brussels and behind firmly closed doors, the political class squabble for the top jobs. Instead of the eternal Brexit problem we now have a RascalENTRYproblem: non-qualified politicians being given the #TopJobs by other politicians to the exclusion of any qualified other citizen.
Rascal-IN is a greater problem than BREXIT, UK-Out. Brexit is a symptom. Democrats are no longer in control of European institutions.

Here are just some of antidemocratic methods in use.
1. European Council Secrecy.
The idea of having a secret conclave choosing friends of partisan politicians for Europe’s top jobs is totally contrary even to the politicians’ own corrupt Lisbon Treaty. The only people being considered for jobs are politicians, friends of power-brokers. They hope their nominees will return a favour. Favours are increasingly important for those who no longer have the public trust. Some nominees are unwelcome rivals in their home countries, exiled to Belgian Siberia. Others have been kicked out of government by the people. Brussels is their prize for failure. Hardly a system that reinforces public trust.
Meanwhile 98 percent of the public and the press are both excluded. A number of honest, non-politicians have put themselves forward as candidates for these high offices. They read the treaty and believed it meant something.
So where do honest, experienced citizens stand amid the game where the musical chairs are reserved in advance for a political oligarchy?
Nowhere. The Politburo meetings are cloaked in secrecy and political compromise. Rascals are in power and they will stay in power, regardless of what the treaties say.
So let’s remind them of their own rules. The treaty says:
“Union institutions shall conduct their work as openly as possible.” The Council shall meet in public when considering and voting on a draft legislative act. TFEU article15.
Their Lisbon Treaty also says that non-politicians should never be excluded.
“The Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens.” Article 9 TEU.
“Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union.” Article 10 TEU.
So choosing top officials in such a conspiratorial manner is also illegal.
2. European Commission.
The qualifications of the members of the Commission have been set out clearly since 1951 when the body was called the High Authority. That meant high moral authority. In the Council of Ministers (not the so-called European Council), ministers would present candidates from any Member State who they considered to be of the highest moral character, independence and competence.
If any other minister had received reports that the candidate was
  • biased and prejudiced or
  • lacked experience,
  • could be shown to be dishonest or duplicitous,
  • were not independent but
  • the plaything of a party or State politics,

then they could veto the suggestion. That is, in fact, what happened in the early days of the European Community. Potential scoundrels, tied to cartels and other interests, were criticised in public and removed.
former Nazi diplomat responsible for Nazi radio propaganda in France, Ernst Achenbach, was nominated by Germany in 1970 as a Commissioner. As chief of political affairs he was instrumental in deporting thousands of Jews. He was exposed by Beate and Serge Klarsfeld. His name was vetoed. Do politicians now want to open the door for such rascals?
In that way the original system was designed to expose untrustworthy people with murky pasts. It is like the selection of a Jury of twelve honest men and women. An honest reputation is the prime attribute of a Jury member.
But Politicians didn’t like that. Nor the idea of high moral authority. The Authority was therefore renamed the Commission. That was just the first sleight of hand.
Today we could call the Commission the immoral authority. Europe is plumbing new lows. When in 1961 General de Gaulle wanted to change the European Commission into a political secretariat under his Fouchet Plan, real Europeans reacted. They stopped him creating a Gaullist Directory of the Continent.
Today politicians apply his tactics with a bit of camouflage. None of them say they are Gaullists but they use his tactics of control of the levers of power and the money bags.
Politicians have long shed any pretence of following the legal criteria and conditions for selecting the Commission. These Politburo candidates are proud to assert that they are doing exactly the OPPOSITE to what the treaties say. The whole idea of Spitzenkandidat is that the person is a delegate of a political party, literally a Party Apparatchik — exactly what the treaties have always forbidden. They must be mentally defective or ethically contrarian. Perhaps they are just blinded by their overwhelming talents. You can’t be so openly partisan and expect the public to consider you non-partisan as the treaties require.
The treaties up to and including the politicians’ own Lisbon Treaty repeat the criteria given in the original Treaty of Paris, 1951. So politicians have no excuse for not knowing the law.
They say the criteria for a Commissioner must be competence and experience, and totally independent of any relevant interest under consideration.
The same goes for a Judge in the European Court of Justice. The Commissioners have to swear an oath of impartiality just like the Judges in the Court and before the same Judges.
It is also obviously a very, very serious matter. Compare this to the United States or even an oath of office in any of the European democracies. In the USA the oath of office is taken in public on Inauguration Day as the major event and the culmination of the election process. It is followed by the President’s speech, before huge crowds in Washington and broadcast nationwide and worldwide.
Have you heard European politicians proclaiming about how this European oath is the central feature of full and legal inauguration of the Commission? Have you heard Commissioners proclaiming before and after the inauguration how they will fully adhere to all the conditions of impartiality they have promised on oath?
Has any of the Commissioners or would-be Commissioners made any speech about how they will faithfully and scrupulously adhere to this oath of office? Like renouncing party membership?
Obviously not. They would be shown to be hypocrites and fraudsters. They are active attendees of party gatherings before the ‘European Summits’. Why? To get instructions and policy.
There is a difference however with the oath that the Judges in the European Court of Justice take and that which the Commissioners are obliged to take.
The oath of office of Commissioners is far more strict. But it is ignored with vigour.

The Commissioners dole out money (one trillion euros worth). They give subsidies to untold number of entities. They take people, companies and countries to Court for non-compliance to Treaty law.
Isn’t it vital that their “independence is beyond doubt”? Does the public think they are impartial? They don’t take criticism lying down. Why is everyone who opposes them called a populist or a nationalist and excluded? Should Commissioners be opposing their opponents? Should they and their friends in Council be raising their salaries? Should they be paying tax money for political campaigns to these same friends?
Why are these would-be Commissioners nominated by Governments and not the people? Why are they members of political parties at all? Is a political party an “institution, body, office or entity”?
Without a shadow of doubt.
So shouldn’t the rascals appear before the European Court of Justice to answer charges about a conspiracy to destroy real democracy? Aren’t they turning Europe into a fraudulent People’s Democracy just like Stalin?
After all, Mr Juncker considers that the greatest political thinker of modern times was not Robert Schuman who brought Europe its unprecedented peace and his salary. It was the revolutionary who imposed the dictatorship of the proletariatand millions of deaths on the world, Karl Marx!