Something smelly is being exposed in Brussels.It takes just a few days for the public to compare real democrats with the biased behaviour of Brussels. Why is Brussels acting far from impartially? Under the supranational system of democracy initiated by Robert Schuman, the very highest standards of impartiality are demanded to manage 28 democratic States and 500 million people. But the present Politburo has deformed these potentialities by closed-door institutions, and lack of proper elections to the Community’s five institutions.
UK's BREXIT negotiations to leave the European Union will not be easy. Nor will the core issues be resolved rapidly. BREXIT is already raising fundamental issues about Law, Justice, and the very basis of European democracy. The legal issues expose the misuse of the closed-door politics of Brussels in a way unseen for decades. This debate will be hugely beneficial to other States around the world that are founded in Justice and the Rule of Law. The legal issues will reinforce the Judeo-Christian values at the heart of Western civilization.
HURRY! HURRY! HURRY!
What was the first reaction of the European Commission, the Council and the European Parliament to the British referendum result to LEAVE the European Union?
On the morning after the 23 June referendum, the EU ‘presidents’ issued a Statement.
“We now expect the United Kingdom government to give effect to this decision of the British people as soon as possible, however painful that process may be. Any delay would unnecessarily prolong uncertainty. We have rules to deal with this in an orderly way. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union sets out the procedure to be followed if a Member State decides to leave the European Union. We stand ready to launch negotiations swiftly with the United Kingdom regarding the terms and conditions of its withdrawal from the European Union.”Notice a common theme? Hurry! Hurry! Hurry and leave! Why should alleged ‘democrats’ be in such a pants-tearing hurry to be rid of the home of Magna Carta? Democratic culture contrasts with the autocratic attitude of the Brussels Politburo.
That is definitely not diplomatic. It is no way to treat an ancient democracy. Surely the UK, as a democracy older than Poland’s, Luxembourg’s and Germany’s, would have well-established procedures to deal with a Consultative Referendum. Brussels does not. Why? The Politburo fears its undemocratic base will be exposed by a long investigation of the issues.
Just look at the three Machiavellian presidents, Mr Juncker, Mr Schulz and Mr Tusk. None of the three was democratically elected in in an open election. They were selected by what any ancient democracy would call a rigged process behind closed doors. In the case of the most urgent of the hurriers, Mr Schulz, he owes his position to a special, secret vote (where no one knows who voted for him) and where the major power holder, the EPP party of Mr Juncker, abstained from voting so that Mr Schulz’s socialists could vote him in, cartel-style. Prime Minister David Cameron said Mr Juncker was the ‘wrong man’ for the job. Even if UK stays, Mr Juncker wants to make sure that no Briton ever again will become the Commission President!
Phewooah! These anti-democrats are telling the UK to get out of the EU pronto. Do you detect a little bit of bad conscience on the part of the Antidemocratic Three?
The European Parliament also bullied and harried the British to hurry. They said there must be swift action for the UK to leave the EU. They said the British presidency of 2017 should be cancelled — all before the UK has given an official response to an internal referendum. That’s a further indication that anti-democratic plague spread by the tinkle of euros is widespread. It is not so much lack of understanding of British democracy — or it may be said — democracy in general! It is also bad conscience. The European Parliament has never been properly elected in more than 60 years. Some voters get the equivalent of ten or a dozen votes to elect the cartel parties.
But the UK referendum is a Consultative one. Don’t they understand that? They have just ignored the Dutch referendum on the Ukraine. Brussels has a long, long history of totally ignoring far more important referendums in France, Denmark, Ireland and stopping many others.
For the UK, however, there is no obligation for the British government to follow it scrupulously. Why? because the UK Parliament is sovereign in decision-making. The voice of the people is sovereign but it is a blunt instrument. A referendum is not expected to provide all details of action or legislate Acts.
A true democracy tries to satisfy and conciliate the just claims of all the people in an open way. It is not a sledge hammer for a thin majority to crush the minority. Laws have to be sifted out and refined by parliamentary debate. Then parliament has to come to consensus on what are these procedures. Then Government has to summarize these actions in a Bill of Parliament. Parliament — both the House of Commons and the House of Lords — has to pass this Bill. It is then given the royal assent by the Queen.
In a democracy, an individual citizen may also object that certain aspects are unfair. It then goes to a Court for judicial review. There is a parallel process in Community law.
So what other interests would the British Parliament have to consider? First of all, the integrity of the United Kingdom itself. Other considerations would be of a social, political and economic nature.
The first duty of Parliament is to keep the constituent nations of the UK, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the English, happy in their free association of royal union under the monarch. The referendum showed that some national regions wanted to REMAIN, while others wished to LEAVE. A wise government would need to know why this disparity occurred and what can be done about it.
EIGHT TO ONE AGAINST
Furthermore there have been eight UK referendums that reinforce the integrity of the United kingdom. The advice of European Parliament — to leave immediately — would be similar to pulling the detonator on a grenade. It would risk splitting the United Kingdom into the nations and regions that wanted to stay and those who don’t. On such an issue it would break up the United Kingdom. This would hardly be to the advantage of the EU.
- Scottish devolution referendum, 1979, on whether there should be a Scottish Assembly (small majority voted yes, but fell short of the 40% threshold required to enact devolution)
- Scottish devolution referendum, 1997, Two questions: On whether there should be a Scottish Parliament (yes); On whether a Scottish Parliament should have tax varying powers (yes)
- Scottish independence referendum, 2014 on the question “Should Scotland be an independent country?”, 18 September 2014 (no)
- Welsh devolution referendum, 1979, on whether there should be a Welsh Assembly (no)
- Welsh devolution referendum, 1997, on whether there should be a National Assembly for Wales (yes)
- Welsh devolution referendum, 2011, on whether the National Assembly should have increased law-making powers (yes)
- Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum, 1973, on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom (UK) or join the Republic of Ireland (No)
- Northern Ireland Belfast Agreement referendum, 1998, on the Good Friday Agreement (yes)
Should the UK leave under Article 50?
What is reaction of the Brussels elite to Referendums? What legitimacy do they give to referendums? Article 50 first appeared, not in the Lisbon Treaty, but in the Constitutional Treaty as Article 59.
It was emphatically rejected in two national Referendums. It was rejected by France. it was rejected by the Netherlands. On the waiting list to hold their referendums were the Czech Republic, Poland, Portugal, Ireland, and the United Kingdom.
What was the result of the United Kingdom’s referendum on the Constitutional Treaty and its article 59?
It did not take place. neither did the other promised referendums.
Given the definitive rejection by France and nearly two-thirds of the Netherlands voters, this treaty and the concept of Exit Clause was dead and buried.
Thus the public and several Member States totally rejected the articles of the Constitutional Treaty. These articles were then -- quite illegally -- introduced again as the Lisbon Treaty. That is totally illegal. The only act that could make them legal is to have further referendums in ALL Member States and for ALL Member States to agree to them. This was never done. Why? Simply because the European public of 500 million democrats would reject the Lisbon Treaty again. There is not a scrap of legality in the Lisbon Treaty because the Brussels Politburo refuses to have these referendums.
And given the abandonment of further referendums, the entire treaty with the Exit Clause is doubly dead.
The concept of voluntary exit from the Community is in fact anti-democratic.
Why? Because if the Community is not good enough and a Member State wants to leave, it means the Community itself is at fault. It has made some unfair decision affronting Justice, honesty and common sense. It is up to the Community to remedy the position. It is a warning signal to repair its democracy.
The forced UK exit by Brussels antidemocrats or the Politburo’s attempted ejection regardless of how much pain it will cause violates basic supranational Community principles of Schuman’s democracy. The Community institutions have to manage 28 democracies. The institutions should therefore be demonstrably MORE democratic, open and responsive than Member States’ constitutional democracies.
LISBON TREATY MINEFIELD
1. A finely-balanced referendum result, of itself, brings no obligation that a State should comply with its outcome, especially in the UK where it is consultative and Parliament is sovereign.
Any frog-marching of the UK to the exit door by Brussels may redound on itself. That might raise an investigation by the European Court of Justice of their illegal status of referendums in general. This exposes a minefield for the Lisbon Treaty itself. The Lisbon Treaty incorporated practically ALL articles from the Constitutional Treaty — which was rejected by referendums in France and the Netherlands (62% against vs 38% for). Further referendums in five or six States were refused or abandoned.
The first legal instrument of the European Community system was the Europe Declaration or Charter of the Community of 18 April 1951. It said that no measure can be passed without the freely expressed will of the people. This instrument defined a free society. It contrasted with the Soviet Bloc’s ‘People’s Democracies’ with its Communist-controlled votes and referendums.
‘Brussels’ has actively undemocratized its supranational institutions. It closed the Councils to the public in violation of the treaties. It refused elections to the Consultative Committees. It holds 28 national elections for the European Parliament, not one European election as the treaties have required for 60 years (TEU art 16.8, 17.5, TFEU 15.2, 223).
2. Brussels has distorted the Community system. The Euratom Treaty is not mentioned in the referendum question. It is legally distinct from the Lisbon Treaty. It requires UK participation in Council, Parliament, EcoSoc, Scientific and Technical Committee, etc. It has no exit clause as it deals with nuclear non-proliferation.
Article 50 is illegal — it has been rejected by referendums. If it is ever used it is a sign and warning to Brussels that the institutions need democratic reform. It cannot be used to eject a democratic Member State. A democratic Member State should use it to reform Brussels and the Lisbon Treaty!