17 September, 2024

Forget Women! What about People?

 Has the Commission become an untrustworthy clique of one "profession"?


Democracy or Tyranny? Tyranny, in the antidemocratic sense, occurs when leaders forget about the people. Tyrants rule by themselves or with the help of a clique.

How do you tell the difference between a democrat and a tyrant who claims to be a benevolent democrat but follows other interests, such as spending tax money to suit the clique? The answer is open decision-making by authentic representatives of the people and an effective, fair Court of Justice.

How do people get redress if the EU institutions hide behind a ‘democratic’ facade of closed meetings? The people should be able to appeal to the Human Rights Court, but the EU does not recognize the Charter of the Community that would facilitate it. No individual, association or even nation can complain about the way institutions abuse their power, gang up on dissident views or are just plain unaccountable.

The Americans, in asserting their own independence in 1776, called King George of England a tyrant. Why? Because he wanted to tax them without giving them representation. He imposed a lot of other objectionable measures too, without their consent. The king put them under his governors. The Americans said: ‘Enough is enough! We want freedom to chose our own government.

constitutional republic is a State where the majority rules and where the minorities are protected. There must be representative bodies or mechanisms to protect the poor and the powerless.

The European Community created a supranational constitution for war-torn Europe. In the European Community five bodies were installed, all of which were to become completely representative or elected. … Until politicians thought to ‘improve’ the three Community treaties by blocking people’s rights in them and adding their own ill-thought out fabrications in the so-called European Union.

A democracy sets its own priority. Whatever a democracy is, it is not run by closed meetings. The people voice their requirements, they elect people to act, and sack them if they don’t. And what sort of democracy do they have at the European level?

It would be farcical for a Commission President to have a closed door meeting with bosses of political parties and then announce to the press:

Together, we have defined core priorities. They are built around prosperity, security, DEMOCRACY.

It is an open admission that the EU is not democratic. It has a closed-door veneer.

The European Community was created to give the widest level of protection to three strata of society, and their majorities and minorities:

  • nations,

  • European civil associations and

  • individuals.

But the European Union with its many modifications of the original democracy has failed to live up to the task.

Should the EU Commission now be classified politically and scientifically as a tyranny?

What do its former Commissioners say? The 2024 European Commission is presently being assembled amid some controversy. One politician whose mandate as Commissioner did not get renewed accused the president of ‘questionable governance.’ This is palpable to the public.

Crisis of Lack of Trust

When asked to rate their trust out TEN, the European institutions can barely raise a shout to five from the public. That is pretty appalling. European bodies are supposed to outshine and be an example to national democracies. The figures come from EU’s own agency, Eurofound, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

Is the slightly better rating of the EU due to the funding it gives with great publicity to certain groups, like students?

Trust can only be earned because the people have confidence that they have helped to chose their leaders and have the ability to sack them when they fail.

  • Who gets chosen to be members of the European Commission?

  • What voice do the people have?

  • Why are Commissioners nearly all ex-national, often unwanted politicians?

  • How can the public sack a duff Commissioner?

  • How was it done in the past and was it fairer?

The Purpose of the Commission

Let’s look at the Commission. What is its purpose? Who should be its members?

If an ex-Commissioner (a former businessman) publicly calls out that the Commission’s internal governance isn’t working, what does that say about how the Commission deals with the 4 or 5 hundred million people?

What has gone wrong? A lot! And a lot of shim-sham covers it up.

The European Community was designed like no other institution in the world. The EU is not a federal or centralised institution of European States, nor is it a confederal one, meaning part of an association of totally free and independent States.

The Commission alone has full federal powers but Member States are still free and democratically controlled by parliamentary systems.

Why is the Commission there? Its function is to preserve peace, increase prosperity and build the rule of law between States, after they have agreed to these measures democratically. It is an improvement on American democracy and far ahead of Athenian democracy which was little more in principle than mob rule.

The Commission was designed as an arbitrator, an honest broker, the guardian of the treaties jointly agreed. It is there to help European peoples come to common decision and to help maintain what they have agreed to.

This is how the Community process works. The Commission gets opinions from the other institutions as they deliberate on its draft law. Each layer of society: national, civil associations and individual can help refine a consensus in open debate and ensure their interests are protected. It may get multiple revisions. Then the Commission decides. Once it has published its own final draft in the Official Journal it becomes law. Appeals can only be made to the European Courts in Luxembourg or Strasbourg, or by agreeing a new law.

That is great power. The members of the Commission have to be totally IMPARTIAL if they are not to be accused of wasting money, crookedness or tyranny.

A Commission of all Men?

Should the European Commission be composed of all men? Many women would object to that because their voice would, at most, be only indirectly heard.

Should the European Commission be all women? That would be equally unacceptable. What about fifty-fifty? There is no legal basis for that fractioning.

Nor do the treaties say that a certain number should be old and others young. It does not say some should be married and others not. Nor is there a requirement for Commissioners to have children and understand the next generation. Population decline is one of Europe’s greatest problems. It is not addressed, however, as a priority for the future.

What is required? The treaties say that the members should be ‘chosen by reason of their general competence’ and ‘exercise their functions in full independence, in the general interest of the Community.’ They should not seek or accept instructions from anyone: governments or any organisation.

They should be

  • competent,

  • impartial and

  • seen to be impartial.

Can a Clique be impartial?

The Treaty of Lisbon says much the same as the earliest treaties:

Members of the Commission shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Government or other institution, body, office or entity. (Article 17.3)

The only exception is in article 18.2 where the High Representative for Security and Foreign Affairs is legally allowed to converse with the Council of Ministers and the national foreign ministers.

This is a sharp legal distinction and bar for other Commissioners. They do not have that exceptional privilege to seek out and converse with ministers. There is a good reason why not. They should not talk to ministers privately or any one else about matters under discussion. Other politicians might be a message carriers and influence their judgement.

Thus it is clear that:

Members of the Commission should not be members of political parties. At least they should renounce membership of political parties and not show ideological bias.

They should not get together with other party members of their forbidden, previous political parties before meetings of, for example, the European Council. It is a dereliction if the guardians of the treaties openly break the treaty articles aimed at them. No wonder trust is so low.

Why do the Commissioners convene private meetings with their political parties? Parties are essentially lobby groups. They exclude those that disagree with them. Not a place for an impartial, independent arbitrator to be.

It is exactly the opposite of a person would if he wants to be impartial and be seen to be impartial!

Impartial arbitrators?

The Commissioners give an oath before the judges of the European Court of Justice that they will respect the above treaty article. They have to be impartial like the judges before whom they make this solemn declaration.

A judge may not have secret conversations with one party in a dispute. A judge listens to the case of both, openly. Everything has to be done in the open and on the record. Neither the judges nor the Commissioners are allowed to take instructions from political parties, industries, trade unions, or consumer organisations or ‘stake-holders’ whose stakes may be far from balanced for the public.

Political parties by their nature do not represent all the people. In the European parliamentary elections, they cannot raise enough popular support for a majority of voters to come out to vote for any of them, unless a State makes not voting subject to a fine. Vote or else!

In short most people vote with their feet for None of the Above on the ballot sheet.

A non-partisan Commission must be non-party

Common sense. The original Commission was composed of personalities with a wide range of backgrounds: engineers, diplomats, law professors, former managers, skilled manual workers. The first president was an international cognac salesman! He was impartial when it came to coal and steel but he knew trade problems.

Contrary to criticism from some people, these professionals fiercely defended the rights of the people against governments, and cartels of financiers, bankers and industries that wanted to close down the Community peace experiment.

Yes, the broader the background and experience of Commissioners who defended the Community, the better it was for the average citizen. Politicians have a tendency to compromise or cave in.

Political Corruption

So why and how did the Commission become a collection of rejected and unpopular politicians? This is due to the secretive nature of the Councils, especially the European Council. which has little or no accountability. Heads of government do horse-trading where no one could see any dirty business going on. They positioned their own clique as presidents in the Commission, parliament and other institutions.

Unsurprisingly, all the people in this horse-trading business for the future of Europe were politicians. And guess what? Over time they made sure that all the Commissioners were fellow politicians, regardless of what the treaties say!

Not a good choice.

The Pew Research group concluded a survey:

Across the 14 European Union countries surveyed, few express positive views of political parties. Only six parties (of the 59 tested) are seen favorably by half or more of the population. Populist parties across Europe also receive largely poor reviews. Of the 21 populist parties asked about in the survey, only six receive positive reviews by four-in-ten or more of the population; all six were also part of the government in their respective countries when the survey was fielded.

A Fair Choice of Honest Commissioners

The original Commission had to be selected on a fair and just basis. That ensured that the Commissioners selected by States or governments had the support of all the European population.

How was it done? Each of the national ministers in the Council was allowed to suggest one or two candidates. They did not have to be nationals of their State. They had to be independent of party, lobbies and government. They had to be of known good character.

Then the public was allowed to make comments as to whether the candidate was honest and had a good reputation of being unscrupulous, fair and unbiased, without ideological bias.

Some of these first candidates were rejected by their own public or outcry from other publics. Thus Europeans had Commissioners who they could trust and were sure they were not partisan.

The Way Forward

When is Europe going to have a fair system of selecting Commissioners who are both independent and impartial?

The first step is to demand open governance and open Councils. Complete records of all discussions should be published.


10 September, 2024

Draghi's nasty Subterfuge on EU's Future

What the Draghi Report shows...........


We need growth!” But we are in terminal decline!

We need to encourage innovation!” But our best ideas go to America!

“We need a strong Single Market!” But our population is dying off fast! What is the cause? What are the solutions?

We need cheap energy above all!” But green ideology doesn’t cut it!

We must cut coal and gas for wind!” Who are biggest geopolitical fools in the world?

We must build arms and armies!” But the Community goal is peace for all!

We need to give people jobs!” But they no longer have decent homes!

“We need €800 Billions annually more!” But we are up to our chins in debt already!

We need stable money!” But inflation is built into the €uro system!

We need to proclaim our values!” But our money is becoming valueless!

We have twice as many problems as they did when Europe was in ruins after World War 2.” Help the poor bureaucrats with twice the money!

Really?

We need MONEY! MONEY! MONEY! We don’t need democracy. We have managers.

Where did it all go wrong?

One word: TRUST.

The Draghi Report Attack

Peace and prosperity came from the Community Method and its democratic principles of human rights. Don’t tell that to the Draghi team of bankers and Commission officials (allegedly guardians of the treaties) who put the report together. They don’t want to hear it.

The Draghi Report says the Community governance is all old hat. They want to turn historic achievements such as this peace and prosperity upside down. “Bankers know best.” Prepare for more penury!

Here’s what they say after demanding oodles of money from taxpayers:

The final building block is the will to reform the EU’s governance, increasing the depth of coordination and reducing the regulatory burden.

The “Community Method” has been a source of the EU’s success, but it was established in a different era, when the Union was smaller and faced a different set of challenges. For much of the EU’s history, the most important focus has been generating internal integration and cohesion, which Member States could afford to address at their own pace. However, the EU is now much larger, creating more veto players, and the challenges it faces are now often imposed on it from outside. To move forward, Europe must act as a Union in a way it never has before, based around a renewed European partnership among Member States.

How do you inspire trust in national partnerships? Buy them cocktails? You need honest, open governance. If you do not know how to guarantee honesty in European public affairs and accountability you cannot have democracy. Honesty is not dependent on Europe’s size.

What the Politicians blocked in the Community Method

The Community Method is designed as the most accountable system of governance. It is a system of expanding democracy and arbitrating conflicts. It opened up freedoms to Europeans and guaranteed further freedoms. That is why it worked.

As described in the treaties it provides for democracy at five levels. All levels have to come to a consensus. All decisions have to be fair and just. It provides the still incomplete standard of governance. All depends on the leadership.

  1. How do you bring nations together that have fought numerous deadly wars against each other? You create a Council of national government ministers who meet in public. (Never happened yet.)

  2. How do you bring interests of workers, industries and consumers together? You create a tripartite Consultative Council for in-depth innovation and social help that is elected by European associations and has law-making powers as a body of representative civil society. (Never happened yet!)

  3. How do you give individuals a voice so that the ‘big boys’ of big government or big business, do not smash the rights of the poor and oppressed? You elect a Parliament with one person, one vote across the whole of the Community area. (Never happened yet).

  4. How do you guarantee a fair arbitration of interests between all the above? In the European Commission you select only people of the most impartial, non-partisan character and experience who can prove they have the full trust of the people. They then swear in the European Court to be honest according to a solemn oath and rules. (Why are only partisan politicians selected? By their oaths of office they should renounce party membership.)

  5. How do you guarantee the rule of law is applied to governments. civil society, individuals and also the European civil service? You make the judges in the European Court of Justice responsible before democratic institutions. (Never happened yet.)

All the above democratic conditions are required by the European Community treaties. Some articles were blocked by politicians who did not like a democratic Europe to replace their comfy despotic domains.

Is this an exaggeration? Judge for yourself. No elections according to the letter and spirit of the original treaties have taken place. YET. Seventy years later. Who is responsible?

If the Draghi team were so confident that the Community Method was not useful,

  • why did they not describe and analyse, blow by blow, how any of the above elections or democratic conditions will cause problems about the honest management of taxpayers’ money?

  • Why shouldn’t the Council of Ministers be open to the public if the treaties say it should be?

  • Why do Europeans not have parliamentary elections across the entire EU based on one person, one vote and one Statute as the treaties say?

  • Why is the selection of the Commission president the plaything of the secretive Council of Ministers? Shouldn’t choice of the person be subject to public opinion? Why haven’t the politicians reduced the number of Commissioners as required by the treaties?

The Target is Schumanistics

If you want to drum up an extra €800 Billion per year that you can spend as you wish, the last name you would want to raise is Robert Schuman. Thanks to him and his colleagues, the Community Method ended wars in Western Europe. Wars and disputes had been burning investments, blasting houses apart and killing citizens for centuries.

It brought an end to postwar corruption and raised the European economy from ruins to be stronger and surpass mighty America. It made war ‘not only unthinkable but materially impossible’ — an objective that has global applications: world peace.

Europe was set on ‘Thirty Glorious Years’, postwar miracle years of prosperity .. until bureaucrats changed the system. The added their own bureaucratic technocracies of Maastricht and later self-serving indulgences. Nonetheless the peace of the Community has remained solid and intact.

Why is this person, Robert Schuman, reviled or his memory obliterated? Ask those who blocked the progress of the supranational Community Method! He selflessly provided the constitutional means to revive European democracy. His innovation, he declared in 1950, could bring peace and prosperity from Iberia to Siberia and free all countries under Soviet control. Is that a small challenge? It would have brought Russia democracy (as the Community did for post-Nazi Germany) and Western Europe cheap energy, gas and coal. Such a major geopolitical change would have changed the planet for the better.

It brought an innovative constitutional change to ancient States, and empowered them. They re-established human rights and fundamental freedom while providing legal powers to stop international cartels exploiting the weak. Schuman initiated a completely new form of democratic governance called the supranational Community, flexible, free and fair for reforming the modern world of ancient ills, ideologies and corruption.

The Draghi report team obviously does not wish to discuss how the modern democracy works. They are content with the wrong-headed technocracy they created and want to continue. Nothing to see! We just want an extra 800 billion euros a year.

The report fails to make any appraisal about how the Community Method should work, who tried to block and sabotage it and for what reasons, and how it can be brought to act with democratic force on the problems mentioned above.

The technocrats have little taste for anyone wanting to establish the original democratic institutions and install the elections that the treaties still require. Why are fair elections and open government refused?

Where does democratic control come into their thinking?

Take this prime example of double speak. Here is the first part of the sentence.

Governance of the Action Plans should aim to minimise bureaucracy …

Here’s the second part of the sentence. Note how it continues:

and involve a wide range of stakeholders: Member States, technical experts, the private sector, and EU institutions and agencies.

If this is how the Draghi report suggests bureaucracy is reduced, then the technocratic machine is out of control.

How much longer will the suffering people of Europe have to pay the price for this folly?

Technocrats estimation of themselves

How does the Draghi report weigh up the technocratic alternative to Community governance? Here’s an extract.

Under the current EU Budget, around EUR 64 billion is spent on investment in skills but results have been limited. This failure is down to several factors.

First, the lack of willingness among Member States, who are responsible for skills policies, to go beyond soft forms of coordination.

Second, insufficient involvement of industry in developing job-specific skills.

Third, EU skills investments suffer from a lack of systematic evaluations, preventing learning about the effectiveness of alternative strategies and refining of interventions.

Fourth, collective efforts to improve skills are hampered by an underuse of “skills intelligence”, meaning reliable, granular and comparable information on skills needs, existing stocks and desired flows within and across Member States.

Such information is essential to assess existing and forecast skills gaps across sectors and regions, and target policies and spending appropriately. While new sources of information and methodologies have become available, the actual use of granular skills data for policy design, remains low and uneven across both EU institutions and individual Member States.

Who is accountable? Who can be thrown out of office by the public for wasting money and plain incompetence? Where is the political and democratic dimensions?

Accountability

What did the economists completely overlook in the economy?

Trust. The first requirement of a sound economy is an environment of trust, law and justice. Technocracies often lead to corruption.

Decline. How did technocrats ignore the most important issue: population decline? No children, no future economy. Is the cause policy, biological, chemical, social or deliberate poison in the environment? Without young people Europe is on a slide to its own death.

Housing. Can the economists tell us why inflation was built into the system so that housing (which does not increase in real material value) becomes unaffordable? Jobs are exported to China and other countries, thus impoverishing the whole families. Will they be coming back? How and when?

Why did bureaucrats come up with such silly policies without asking he people?

Energy policy. Europe’s energy poverty is exploited by competitors and enemies, OPEC, Russia and USA.

Community Europe built a massive trade surplus, until in 1973 Arab OPEC quadrupled oil prices. Then the Dutch quadrupled gas prices too. OPEC used the embargo and price hike to blackmail Europe’s policy against Israel. But the Dutch and the Norwegians, were they just opportunists? Why weren’t Europe’s anti-cartel powers used to bust this energy conspiracy. Why did the bureaucrats not learn their lesson when it came to over-dependency on Russian gas? Why did they refuse to create an Energy Community that would have solved the problem?

Europe’s greatest Threat

Here’s what Robert Schuman warned about technocrats:

The European integration that we are involved in realising cannot be considered without a minimum of political integration in the long term. It is a logical complement and necessary.

Europe must have a democratic foundation; the Councils, the Committees, and the other organs, must be placed under a system of public opinion, a system that should be efficient without blocking action or useful initiatives.

European integration must in a general fashion, avoid the errors of national democracies, above all the excess of bureaucracy and technocracy. Complicating the machinery of government and increasing the number of employees is no way to guarantee against the misuse of power, but will end up increasing internal competition and favoritism.

The prime danger that threatens our supranational services is inflexible administration.

Quite the opposite is needed. Our populations by their representatives specially elected to the institutions should follow and help their development. It will be necessary in the near future to foresee the election of the members of the European Assembly by direct universal suffrage so that they can exercise powers of debate and control in conformity with the Charter of the Community.

Why does Draghi attack the Community Method?

Supranational Democracy says Good Bye to despotic technocrats.