28 June, 2016

BREXIT 10: EU's political murder of an English Lord and European Democracy

The sleepy midsummer town of Brussels was shocked at the political assassination of the gentlemanly Lord of the Money, Lord Jonathan Hill. He was European Commissioner responsible for Financial Markets. Silence reigned over this sordid affair. No one seemed permitted in the Commission’s news room to ask the most pertinent question: Was it a suicide or was it a subtle political assassination? A supposed resignation letter of Hill to Commission President Juncker was never produced. Surprising as Mr Juncker replied to it. Did it hold guilty secrets that no one wanted the public to see?

The suicide theory is propounded by the people who have seen the Statement issued in his name. Was it a suicide note? Or was it a fabrication by persons or persons unknown? The statement said he will quit the Commission on 15 July for noble reasons but they do not make any democratic sense.
Why? There was no reason for Lord Hill to leave Brussels. The United Kingdom had not had any time to digest what its action would be after the referendum of 23 June 2016. The British may decide after reflection to have a further election, Parliament might refuse to pass an Act, or decide that it is better not to send the Article 50 exit letter as there is a queue of other States wanting to leave. Would the UK leave the EU and stay in Euratom with its Council, Parliament and Commission?
It is foolhardy and scarcely constitutional to destroy the integrity of the United Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and North Ireland on the basis of this one referendum Other referendums affirm it. Four previous Referendums of the Scottish people affirm the integrity of United Kingdom. So do two referendums in Northern Ireland and three in Wales. They established devolved, regional governments.
Nor should UK be forced into a rapid and regrettable exit decision by unprincipled action in Brussels. European peoples do not want it and would suffer from it.

Reform is needed in Brussels NOT IN LONDON.
The Brussels Politburo is well aware how unpopular it is. Its barometer of trust and legitimacy indicates a coming hurricane. For a democrat to leave as a rampant anti-democratic Politburo disintegrates or implodes of its own accord is premature. And then the figure of Lord Hill would have not blood, but egg on his face.
First his statement:

“Like many people here and in the UK, I am obviously very disappointed about the result of the referendum. I wanted it to end differently and had hoped that Britain would want to play a role in arguing for an outward-looking, flexible, competitive, free trade Europe. But the British people took a different decision, and that is the way that democracy works.
As we move to a new phase, I don’t believe it is right that I should carry on as the British Commissioner as though nothing had happened. In line with what I discussed with the President of the Commission some weeks ago, I have therefore told him that I shall stand down. At the same time, there needs to be an orderly handover, so I have said that I will work with him to make sure that happens in the weeks ahead.
I am very grateful to Jean-Claude Juncker for giving me the chance to work on financial services and for the opportunity to help support jobs and growth in Europe.
I came to Brussels as someone who had campaigned against Britain joining the euro and who was sceptical about Europe. I will leave it certain that, despite its frustrations, our membership was good for our place in the world and good for our economy.”

Lord Hill
The dagger in his back is the phrase the “British Commissioner“. Under European law, of which the Commission says it is the Guardian, there is no such thing as a “British Commissioner”! All Commissioners, of whatever nationality, are EUROPEAN Commissioners. One was a Commissioner of British nationality, another, French, yet another Luxembourgish. He is not a British Commissioner. A European Commissioner does not have to resign over British events, especially those that have not yet occurred, like a Brexit!
Who persuaded him to tread the dangerous path near the precipitous cliff — where he was found politically lifeless? Clearly someone had been playing psychological games with Lord Hill’s brilliant mind and unbalanced his brain. Previous Commissions under Delors, Prodi or even M. Santer would have not allowed a Commissioner to deny their primary identity as European! Robert Schuman the architect of the European Community emphasized that the Commission must be independent of all governments, all companies, all workers’ groups and all other associations and entities whether lucrative or not.
The more the Commission is impartial, non-party political, the more it is independent of all lobby groups, the more it will have the trust of the people. This is called the supranational principle in the treaties, because values like honesty and fairness are universal and above the nation.
All Commissioners take an oath before the European Court judges saying:
“I solemnly undertake …
  • to be completely independent in carrying out my responsibilities, in the general interest of the Union;
  • in the performance of my tasks, neither to seek nor to take instructions from any Government or from any other institution, body, office or entity..”

Who was the serpent or snakes who deceived him in thinking he was a British Commissioner? They were obviously playing on his Anglo-Saxon conscience and a false sense of self-guilt!

When Lord Hill was dealing with Financial Markets — where London has a predominant role — no one accused him of being a London Commissioner or the Commissioner for the City. Why? Because all decisions and considerations inside the Commission are taken together in a college. The Commission must provide a European view of European common interest. All Commissioners have staff that follow financial services developments. If the portfolio is transferred to a Frenchman or a German, does that mean everyone should watch out as all financial services are redirected and relocated to Paris or Frankfurt?
So who was responsible really for this political assassination? What provoked Lord Hill to emit a Mea Culpa as if he was responsible for votes in the UK?
One clue comes from the reaction to Lord Hill’s alleged resignation issued by Commission President Juncker:
At the beginning of this Commission’s mandate, I wanted the British Commissioner to be in charge of Financial Services, as a sign of my confidence in the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union. To my great regret, this situation is now changing. I have tried to convince Lord Hill to stay on as Commissioner. I consider him to be a true European and not just the British Commissioner. However, I understand his decision and I respect it.
The back story is also of full of clues. Even the Lisbon Treaties make it abundantly clear that the bloated, and expensive Byzantine Commission, full of Europe’s unemployed politicians, should go. It must be composed of a small number of persons from the general public, a number far smaller than the number of Member States. That way there will never be “national” Commissioners. All of them will need to be totally impartial.

Article 17 para 5 says:
“As of 14 November 2014, the Commission shall consist of a number of members … corresponding to two-thirds of the number of Member States.” In presenting the Constitutional Treaty in 2003, the mother of the Lisbon monstrosity, ValĂ©ry Giscard d’Estaing said that the Commission should be reduced to a dozen members.
What happened? The European Council decided to give itself powers to extend the means to employ 28 Commissioners, one for each State. When did this happen? It happened behind closed doors among the Brussels Politburo, based in 2008 under the Nice Treaty, after the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty, again in 2009 under a draft Lisbon Treaty that Ireland had already rejected, and finally by an unsigned press release issued by the Council Spokesman. The treaties were twice dead, but that did not matter. Nor the fact that no public debate took place.
So maybe it was Zombies wot done him in!!
Perhaps the living dead were among the people steeped in the Brussels frauds. As we have already deduced, the Commission should be as fair minded and as honest as a Jury. When the Jury is selected, the parties may reject jury members if they think that one is dishonest or suspiciously biased. The British Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, rejected one of the potential Jury. I won’t give any names. Let’s call him Mr Tax Haven.
Prime Minster Cameron said Mr Tax Haven must be dismissed.
He is the wrong man to be President of the European Commission.”
Whatever happened to this man? He should be on our list of suspects!
Who else was involved in pushing Lord Hill off the political cliff with this dagger in his back?
Among the most vocal voices for the British to leave Schnell! Schnell! has been the President of Europe’s democratic chamber, the European Parliament. There’s another suspect! The president of the Parliament was elected both with a secret vote and also the abstention of the biggest party in Parliament — which happens to be the party of Mr Tax Haven! Is some rotten, corrupting collusion involved? Is the rotten smell reaching as far as the United Kingdom and causing ructions in Brussels? We know the something rotten went to Denmark and not vice versa, because the noble Danes were the first to throw out corrupt treaties in referendums.
Wild Bunch

But are we being too suspicious about the Brussels Bunch? Could it have been an intruder from outside? What about the neighbours? The Norwegians look suspicious. They pay top money to have access to the Single Market. But they never want to joint the European Union. What about the Icelanders? They look very smug with all their well-managed fish stocks. They didn’t have them stolen like the British. They also trashed the English on the football field.
Even more suspicious are the Swiss. They have got a country in the heart of Europe. They were responsible for maintaining Christian values against the Nazi WW2 onslaught. They even protected Jews. Robert Schuman said that Switzerland’s democracy ought to be a model for the New Europe. And — let us say it– they are very fond of referendums. Did the Swiss act out of a motive of jealousy? Even more suspicious they have just withdrawn their application to join the EU!
It’s the referendums that are causing the major problem in Brussels. The British referendum is purely consultative. It cannot bind the UK government. In a democracy the Parliament is sovereign. And in the UK the Sovereign, HM Queen Elizabeth II, also has to sign her assent to an Act of Parliament before any action can be taken. The European Union Referendum Act of 2015 makes it clear that there is no obligation for Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) to follow the slavishly the result of the outcome of the referendum. It is a Consultation. It is a long way from sending a letter according to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty requesting exit for the EU. Nor is exit certain after a referendum. Other factors may have priority for the country.
That contrasts to the Brussels Politburo where everything is done behind closed doors. Knives enter smoothly. The public outside cannot hear any screams. The European Council loves secrecy. Twenty-eight heads of democratic governments can make plots of political nepotism to promote their fellow politicians, and exclude ordinary citizens. (They decide the presidencies of the European Council, the Commission, the European Central Bank, the super-secretive EuroGroup and many of the thousands of committees in secret.) They can dine in style. They can revel in the most anti-democratic of environments, SECRECY! How very bizarre! Just the opposite to what Schuman said should happen. He said all Councils, Committees and other bodies should be open and under the supervision of public opinion. Openness separates Democracies from dictatorships!
So why do these great anti-democratic Democrats hate the United Kingdom?
Maybe the Brussels Politburo have a down against the UK because it does not follow their Referendum Rules. The most recent case was the Dutch referendum. In it two out of three Dutch voters blackballed the EU Ukraine Association Agreement. Its real aim was to aim a blow at Brussels’s antidemocracy. It even shook the EPP, the party of Mr Tax Haven. “We need to make Europe more democratic and transparent,” Manfred Weber, Its leader in the European Parliament, told Deutschlandfunk radio, saying there was too much backroom politics going on in Brussels.
The Dutch Prime Minister basically ignored the hugely negative anti-Brussels result. So did Brussels.
The British referendum completely violates another aspect of Brussels Politburo referendum rules. These are called the Greek rules. For one, the British took the result of their referendum seriously as if it mattered. It had less than a four percent majority. Really what a to-do about nothing! The Greek rule says just the opposite. When a Member State has a referendum on an important matter, not just membership, but on something really important like money, then the rule has to be strictly adhered to.
Secondly the referendum question has to be in two languages. The Greek showed the way by having their euro referendum question just partly in Greek but mostly in a foreign language, English. The UK referendum is obviously illegal because they had it in a single language. They did not have part of the referendum text in Greek! They even provided ballots in two separate UK languages. One was in British or as some call it Welsh, the other for the Anglo-Saxons was in English. The two peoples did not have a ballot like the Greeks without translation. They were free to choose!
Then thirdly, the Greeks held their referendum at short notice so no one could really discuss it. The British had major discussions in the press, radio and television, public meetings and on social media. That’s a no-no.
Fourthly, Commission interference. A few days was adequate time for the Commission, Mr Tax Haven, to advise all Greeks that they should vote Yes to the conditions set by their monetary masters. A real referendum is one where the Commission puts itself, heart and soul, on one side of the balance like a butcher with his thumb on the scales. For the UK the Commission President did not even dare set his foot on the island of Britain, let alone interfere. He did not speak to British media. Isn’t that suspicious? This strategy worked well because the British realized something darkly underhand was going on.
Fifthly, the result is to be ignored under Greek rules. The Greeks voted massively NO. But that did not matter. The Greek government was forced to accept the monetary package deal anyway. The Commission hoped that they learned their lesson, a lesson that Cyprus learned earlier. That is money is more important than democracy and honesty. The Commission threatened to seize the savings of small savers, against all previous European laws. In the press room the Commission spokespeople were able to rationalize why they agreed that stealing the citizen’s money would be a good thing, regardless of the law. But eventually the bankers only took some of the money.
Now the sceptred island country of the Atlantic is to be eliminated. The country of the Magna Carta and the laws of Hywel the Good defended both freedom and truth for a thousand years before the Romans arrived to try to pervert them.
That history, of course, was the inspiration of Robert Schuman. At his behest, the Statesmen who signed the foundation document of the European Community, the Treaty of Paris, had first of all to sign the Great Charter of the Community. In the clearest terms it distinguished democratic Western Europe from the fraudulent “People’s Democracies” of the Soviet bloc. It said all measures could only be passed with the free will of the people. Freedom and assent are the prime basis for European Community democracy.
For more than sixty years the Gaullists and other “democrats” buried the Great Charter in the archives of the Foreign Ministry. They refused to publish it again. It was eventually republished by the Schuman Project. The Commission despite several letters have ignored it.
If the Brussels Bunch, the neo-Gaullist Politburo, can ban and bury Britain then they will try to bury Schuman and supranational democracy too. We live in dangerous times.

24 June, 2016

BREXIT3: What UK must do before its exits the EU!

UK’s LEAVE vote result of 24 June 2016 visibly shocked EU Presidents Tusk of the European Council and Jean-Claude Juncker of the European Commission. It should not have.
UK has been fighting up-hill against a Gaullist wave since the 1950s.

Currently the UK and all Europeans are facing a Politburo takeover of the institutions that continues de Gaulle’s efforts to block the supranational democratic principles written into the Treaties by Europe’s Founding Fathers like Robert Schuman.
Britain’s first application to join was made in July 1961. UK only managed to join in 1973. Instead of applying Schuman’s Community principles of the Common European Interest, the negotiations were dominated by the anti-British Gaullist French. In negotiations led by arch-Gaullists, Great Britain saw its agriculture, fisheries and industries turned upside down.
Robert Schuman wrote that Democracy is not reserved to republican States.
“I would regard certain monarchies, such as Great Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands, just to speak of our near neighbours, as more openly and more traditionally attached to democratic principles than some republics. In republics the people have only a little direct influence on the orientation and the political decisions of the country. But we do not have to discuss the choice that a democracy has to make among the different forms of of government. We should limit ourselves to avoiding those which are obviously anti-democratic.”
Robert Schuman with Winston Churchill

Maurice Couve de Murville squeezed UK’s negotiator Edward Heath as if he was minutely defending only France’s Gaullist voters. How do I know? He told me so when I interviewed him in his Paris apartment. “It’s was just a negotiation like the others.”
That meant to grind the “opponent” and take every advantage, fair or foul, that you can. Couve was an expert. A European journalist described him in another context as :
“a man who would have taught Machiavelli’s Prince much about the art of diplomacy.”
De Gaulle humiliated the UK’s membership application as much as he possibly could. He used a ‘casual’ question at one of his press conferences to veto it. This he did not once but several times. De Gaulle preferred having dictatorships like Spain’s Franco, join rather than democracies.
In the late 1940s Couve de Murville was a Director General at the Foreign Ministry. He did his utmost to sabotage Foreign Minister Robert Schuman’s policy for European reconciliation. Later he tried to destroy the Community system.
Couve insisted on closed doors at the Council of Ministers. By twisting the arms of the ‘small nations’ he made Germany’s industries and the other States pay for French agriculture and thus bribe its voters to vote Gaullist. This corrupt use of the EU budget is still a constant problem.
This background should be borne in mind. The Brussels institutions, meant to be impartial, have never been reformed since the Gaullist distortions and blocking of the democratic clauses in the European treaties. Too many politicians have acted as little de Gaulles, insisting on closed doors still and secretive package deals.
With this background in mind, here is some advice about how all Europeans should proceed. The following was published two years ago.


31 March 2014
BREXIT: FIRST Build Supranational Counter-Instruments! (Part three of series)
What would be the nature of the instruments that UK would need for the negotiations? Here are some of the issues needing action BEFORE the UK Government sends its letter of withdrawal. The strategy requires implementation as soon as possible, even before the referendum.
If not the institutions may make implementation more and more difficult for serious negotiations. The eventual goal must be borne in mind. The negotiation has to provide honest and fair solutions.
A bitter barter deal won’t cut it. It will be subject to endless renegotiations like the British rebate and the common fishing policy. Iceland has always maintained that sustainable fish stocks were the rock of its policy.
Not the EU. Secret political deals in Council ignored scientific assessments. Fish stocks were wiped out. Britain needs sustainability or it could be decimated by secret attacks at the Council of Ministers like the fish stocks.
How can UK negotiate with Brussels when the institutions are not impartial? Take the Commission as an example. It has to act for 27 Member States plus the UK at the same time. Which side will it Commission favour since one member will leave and 27 will stay? How can it be impartial? Can the UK trust it?
The Commission should provide an impartial overview of UK’s needs within Europe’s needs and interests. It doesn’t. How then can it be impartial when later it represents interests of States who are trying to displace UK and assert its supremacy?
In a recent outburst against the British Conservative group, President Jose Manuel Barroso said that unless they conformed to his idea of pro-European policy, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) would become the ‘first force’ in British politics for Europe.
Mr Cameron retorted the Commission is not respecting the UK’s government party and lecturing it. The strategy must counter the negative proclivity of the Commission thinking that it alone is right. It must do it before and not try to change the highly political Commission during negotiations.
Then there is the Council. Britain has Europe’s strongest banking and financial sector – which many would like to see moved to the Continent. How can British multinationals be assured that they have fair and open access to the European Single Market without being coshed again?
The Council takes its instructions from the European Council of heads of governments. So what lessons are to be learned their about impartiality? After the 28 June 2013 summit, P.M. Cameron denounced as ‘unacceptable and ‘frustrating’ the one a.m. ambush on the UK rebate issue, supposedly finalized in February. “I just think this is no way for an organisation to conduct itself.” he added.
The atmosphere could become far worse. The UK should not forget the de Gaulle’s NON. He refused Britain’s entry. Not once, but twice. He caused havoc to international negotiation. He did not discuss it in the Council of Ministers. Or his own Cabinet! Nor by formal letter or in an international conference but at a press conference! He ran the Community like it was his own backyard to exploit for agriculture and bribing politicians and voters.
Then there is the European Parliament. De Gaulle considered it a cipher. Today has gained powers with major financial powers of codecision from the Lisbon Treaty. This could wreck a carefully sculpted negotiation made with the Council. Anyone watching the debates in the EP can scarcely believe that it will take the negotiation lying down and with a benign smile. The Council’s Legal Service concluded that the Financial Transfer Tax was not legal. This did not seem to deter MEPs.
One political group declared in a press release:
Appealing to governments to stick to proposals for the introduction of a financial transaction tax (FTT), despite ‘cynical’ legal manoeuvring, Portuguese MEP Marisa Matias said the EU has a clear choice:
“Either we rescue politics and our society from financial markets or we can start to say goodbye to a common European project.”
The Court is another hidden danger. An appeal to a Court that favoured integrationist and ratchet federalism could years later strip off key decisions of the negotiation result. All hard, detailed work would be in vain if, years later, the Court reversed key aspects.
The EU has hardly improved democratically since de Gaulle’s day. The fruit of de Gaulle’s corrupt anti-democracy was the misdirection of Community funds into Wine Lakes, Meat Mountains, and Cheese Bergs. Millions of Europeans’ money were wasted on local politicians’ pet infrastructure projects of bridges and autoroutes that went nowhere.
The entire budget system which takes taxpayers’ money and spends it as the political Politburo decides lacks transparency and control by taxpayers. Today we have airports that have no passengers and other much more expensive wastes of taxpayers’ money.
Even worse the politicians’ ill-founded Euro project (intended by many southern States to get Community funding for governmental mismanagement) costs around seven times the entire EU budget by its European Stability Mechanism ESM, European Finance and Stability Facility, EFSF and other dubious operations of the Fiscal Compact. It is often said that ‘EU is not prepared to make changes.’
It has continuously lost public trust as it has changed from the original idea of a democratic Community of equal partners, equal governments, equal enterprises, unions, consumers and equal individuals. Today it run by party political machines, who are lobbyists for who knows whom. It is a political club run in secret by a politburo in the closed-door European Council and the EuroGroup.
It chooses the Parliament president in secret.
It makes Foreign Policy in secret.
It names the European Central Bank president in secret.
It appoints the Commission president in secret from among its own, ignoring 98 percent of the European population.
But the UK has real Membership leverage to bring reform BEFORE the Exit Letter. How? The second key aspect of the negotiation is the pre-reform of institutions to make them really democratic. Only when the basic conditions are settled for a democratic discussion, should the UK government think about sending its official letter about leaving the EU.

22 June, 2016

After Brexit, more Exit referendums coming! It may bring Democracy to Brussels!

End of Europe’s entire political civilization? It’s coming soon if Britain leaves the EU. So says Mr Tusk, the President of the European Council. He told the German newspaper Bild.
What a pessimistic, black forecast! All the more astounding when Europe could be on the brink of its greatest Golden Age in its history! What would it take? Just some honesty in respecting letter and spirit of Europe’s founding Treaties that brought Europe’s long peace! An Exit catastrophe is a self-inflicted political wound. Politicians might learn from a few catastrophes! They might retrace the true principles of Democracy that Robert Schuman and the founding fathers enunciated in the Community Method and the Great Charter of the Community ! Real democratic cohesion among 28 democracies would make it the driving force of the world!
“As a historian,’ Mr Tusk told the German newspaper Bild, ‘I fear Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also Western political civilisation in its entirety.”
Brexit vote would provide a major boost to radical anti-European forces who he said would be “drinking champagne”.
Why is it so dangerous? “Because,” says Mr Tusk, “no one can foresee what the long-term consequences would be.” Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker too is expecting a “catastrophe” if Britain leaves.
Maybe it is a warning that the end of Machiavellian, neo-Gaullist politics is in sight! Huzzah! Politicians try all the roads and leave the only honest one till last! Failure and Catastrophe is staring at them like a hungry lion! What are these leaders facing?
Multiple EXIT referendums. GREXIT, now BREXIT and in fact EUREXIT. A cascade of EXITs are on the horizon, regardless of what UK voters decide. It’s not just UK’s UK Independence party and a large faction of its Conservative party. France’s National Front, Germany’s Alternative and Italy’s Five Star parties all want a new deal with Brussels. And all the others too. They want OUT.
Now isn’t that a little extraordinary. The European Union is supposedly a union of 28 Democracies. But no one wants the Brussels Politburo version of Democracy.
You don’t need a doctor to tell you:
‘Brussels is sick!’
If all the alternative parties formed a network it would be them not the EPP (Christian Democrats) and Socialist cartel that would be running Brussels. It would be a ‘Get me out of here!’ coalition. A democratic vote would put a colourful array of parties in control. All they had in common would be:
‘We don’t like the carve-up of political powers illegally run by the Politburo in Brussels. We don’t like political cartels! We don’t want rule by Decree! We want open government! We want a free market of ideas! We want Freedom!’
So what is the EU Politburo doing about the multiple coming crises? Has it fired up the press about the key democratic reforms it is introducing? Has the Brussels political class even identified the key failures of democracy?
  • a crazy, democracy-destroying currency, the euro, without the democratic safeguards that Schuman and the Founding Fathers warned were essential,
  • a dictatorial policy that encouraged bombing in Syria and Libya (one government went to war without a government in place!)
  • that now expects the European people having ignored the deaths, rape and enslavement of Christians, to accept millions of refugees, some potential, others committed Islamists and terrorists,
  • a governmental system that no one can sack,
  • a politburo that turned the most perfect concepts of European Democracy outlined by Robert Schuman upside down and made the Soviet-style People’s Democracies look good by comparison.

What did Schuman say about closed door Councils of Ministers?
“The New Europe must have democratic foundations. The Councils, the Committees and the other organs must be under active supervision of public opinion.” (Pour l’Europe, p145.)
Has the Council responded to the urgent public call for transparency? Has it set as a priority open sessions to ensure impartiality and to rebuild trust with the public? Time is short. Urgent action is needed, not only in Old England but across the Continent where anti-Brussels movements are filling the streets with thousands upon thousands of protesters.
Have these catastrophic dangers set Brussels ablaze with a new zeal for democratic reform?
A few days ago I attended a Council of Ministers press conference. The press room was empty. I was the only journalist there. Not for the first time.
Was it an important Council? You judge.
The Ministers dealt with:
  • the Internal Market (a point of controversy in the UK referendum debate)
  • Industrial policy, the digital Single Market strategy
  • Quantum technology, high performance computing
  • Better Regulations to strengthen competitiveness
  • Product Safety and market surveillance
  • the Posting of workers Directive,
  • Space policy
  • Boosting of mobile broadband services.
The event summarized the work of two Council of Ministers meetings.
If you had seen any footage of the press conference, you might have been aware that besides me asking a question, there were quite a number of smartly dressed men and women present. Were they journalists? Not at all. The loudspeaker system had asked for officials to come into the press room so that the ministers and Commissioners would not be embarrassed. The Council cameraman could then show that the press room was not empty. I was thanked for asking a question. Guess why!
Phantom democracy! This sort of facade is the Public Relations equivalent of the Potemkin village. It is a farce, a veneer. It is what Schuman denounced as counterfeit democracy! A poor effort to show that the public is interested in the “Brussels Democracy”. A similar sort of lethargy enveloped the Soviet bloc’s “democracies” but that could be stirred up by Communist party rallies and intimidation.
In Brussels it only emphasizes the rancid smell of decay and distrust that surround the circus of 50-odd politicians deciding behind closed doors the future of 500 million citizens.
Why this distrust? Why the lack of public confidence?
Any one curious to find the reason has only to turn to the Treaties — the compact made between politicians and the public.

Lisbon Treaty, TEU Article 16: The Council shall meet in public when it deliberates and votes on a draft legislative act.
Lisbon Treaty, TFEU: Article 15: The European Parliament shall meet in public, AS SHALL THE COUNCIL when considering and voting on a draft legislative act.
Why isn’t the Council open and public like the European Parliament and the Consultative Committees?
That in fact was the essence of my question to the Commissioners and Minister. The Councils refuse to hold public meetings. As a sop to their legal obligations, the Council has started streaming minor aspects of some Council meetings. Instead of informing the public, they video-stream a few minutes, here and there, when Ministers vote. Sometimes they add some other boring bits, especially those the public is less interested in. Who would want to have the privilege of listening to on-off snippets when the ministers vote. But not much else.
Politicians want to keep matters secret and non-controversial.
And they are right. Hardly anyone views these snippets except the bureaucrats. Who besides eurocrats watches them? No one really knows. The only statistics seems to relate to the Luxembourg presidency of 2015.
One of the most important Councils is ECOFIN, on Economic and Financial Affairs. It deals with the euro and the potential collapse of the euro and economics of Greece and the EU. How many people wanted to view the Council’s snippets, do you think?
The average was 252 live viewers. (That figure probably includes the civil servants in Brussels and around the EU). A similar number viewed the recorded version. Of the five EcoFin Councils, one two-day meeting on13/14 November, amassed only 54 viewers.
The average time of live-streaming of the Councils, formal and informal, is less than an hour per Council. Thus the public has no idea of what is being decided in their names, behind closed doors. Would anyone except a civil servant want to watch a movie which kept being switched on and off while the screen must be activated all the time? Would you sit patiently for a few minutes to see a voting exercise while a one or two day Council was being held?
This excessive “video exposure” was clearly traumatic for secretive ministers. That is why governments invented the European Council. There they can talk about anything — whether home insulation or global energy policy — without the slightest whisper of what they discuss leaking to the public. Video live-streaming is totally forbidden for European Councils of the Heads of Governments.
Secrecy in government is one of the surest ways to destroy the TRUST of the public. Another most effective democracy-destroyer is for politicians to insist on a treaty that several Member States have rejected in referendums. The Constitutional Treaty was rejected by the Netherlands and France. Six other States were due to hold referendums from the Czechs, Denmark, Ireland, Poland, Portugal to the United Kingdom. Brussels cancelled these referendums! It also told Sweden to forget about discussing it in Parliament.
So what was the Brussels Politburo’s solution? They passed the same rejected text, now called the Lisbon Treaty, without letting the people have a referendum. That is a major affront to Democracy that it will be hard for the Brussels Politburo ever to live down!
The political class in each country forced through a ratification without in some cases even letting parliamentarians read it. Only Ireland insisted on a referendum. It rejected it in 2008. They were told to vote again. Under great economic and political pressure they voted again in 2009.
This is exactly the opposite from the principles of the Great Charter of the Community that Europe’s Statesmen signed on 18 April 1951. This said that only measures adopted by the free will of the people could be acceptable in Law.
Almost every conceivable aspect of the democratic action of Schuman’s five supranational institutions that define a Community, have been corrupted by the political class.
What was introduced as the most perfect democratic system is still suffering from neo-Gaullists of the little tin-pot dictators.
How should a democracy work? Its major principles involve free discussion and assent on the goals to be achieved and the means to achieve them. That’s how Schuman defined the process. He added one further element. Both the goals and the means to achieve them should be clearly agreed as involving the service of the people.
In 1972 I sat in the Press Gallery watching as the UK’s Parliament debated and passed a Bill of Parliament to join the three European Communities. Both chambers, the Commons and the Lords, were required to decide after multiple, open debates. Brexit or similar action in other States will require a further Act passed by Parliament. The Courts also have to advise that there is no legal impediment. The Sovereign has to give Assent to the Bill to make it an Act. Only then can the British Prime Minister, if necessary, write a letter withdrawing the UK from the European Union. Complications and legal objections are many. The membership of Euratom governed by Brussels institutions remains to be resolved as a separate issue.
The Brussels Council of Ministers should learn that it is not the sole institution of Europeans. Nor can it rule 28 democracies and 500 million people by secret decree.

16 June, 2016

BREXIT and Euratom: Two different treaties should safeguard Europe's Democracy

Whatever the outcome of the UK’s referendum on the EU, the UK will not leave the Brussels institutions. That is a good thing for world peace because it means that democracies will have a stronger means to fight dangerous Islamic nuclear proliferation. Let me explain.
The EU’s founder, Robert Schuman, at the time of the Soviet A-bomb detonation in 1949, conceived a plan to make nuclear war “not only unthinkable but materially impossible.” A decade later the European Atomic Energy Community or Euratom was born.
What is the reaction of the European Atomic Energy industries to the UK Brexit referendum? The European Commission refuses to give a clear idea of the repercussions of a BREXIT leave vote. The Lisbon Treaties define the European Union. The European Atomic Energy Community which has practically the same institutions is defined by one of the treaties of Rome, 1957.
What will happen if the UK voters elect to leave the European Union on 23 June 2016? Are the industries themselves working on the basis that the UK will remain a full member of the European Atomic Energy Community with all the privileges and duties so appertaining?
I have been unable to elicit an adequate reply so far from the main Forum on Atomic matters, ForAtom. Why? A multi-billion industry is at stake! Nuclear produces 27 percent of the EU’s electricity. The industrialists, it seems, do not wish to raise their heads above the parapet. Brexit is such a controversial topic, it will shake the whole of Europe.
The UK referendum question does not include membership of Euratom. In Rome in 1957 Western European Governments signed two treaties. One treaty of Rome was for the Economic Community, EEC. The EEC has since been expanded into the European Union. The second Rome Treaty was for the European Atomic Energy Community, Euratom. It remains separate and intact except for minor changes. The two are connected only by protocols.

UK electricity production
UK Electricity Generation 2012
The UK Government has announced the EU referendum procedure with the question confirmed as being
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”
I posed some more questions to Foratom:
  • What is the nuclear industry’s position on the possible UK exit of the European Union, based as it is on the Lisbon Treaties.
  • What are the repercussions of leaving the EU?
  • Does it affect UK’s membership of Euratom (European Atomic Energy Community)?
FORATOM replied:
“We maintain a neutral stance when it comes to the possible UK exit of the EU.
As far as your question regarding the impact of the Brexit on UK’s membership of Euratom is concerned, Art. 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) is the only provision regulating the exit of a Member State from the European Union. It refers to “The treaties” (§3). Therefore, our understanding is that if a Member State decides to leave the EU, it must withdraw from all the Treaties (TEU, TFEU and Euratom). However, the UK may want to negotiate to remain a member (or any other kind of association) of part or all of some of the policies like the internal market, fisheries, competition law and why not Euratom.”

That sounds like a spoon-fed answer from the European Commission. Is this true?

JET UK Fusion Torus

No. The idea that Euratom is included in the exit clause of the Lisbon Treaties is false.
Article 50 deals with the TWO Treaties of Lisbon. They are called the Treaty on the European Union, TEU and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU. The TEU AND TFEU are referred to in Article 48 as “the treaties”. Art 48 is the context for ‘treaties’ of art 50. No other treaties are mentioned here.
The Euratom treaty is not mentioned in all the articles of TEU or the TFEU. There is no reason or legal permission for including Euratom in any part of article 50 or the text of TEU or TFEU.

On the other hand, the Council of Europe and the Convention of Human Rights etc, and NATO are mentioned in the Lisbon Treaties’ articles.
There is more logic in including NATO and Council of Europe than the Euratom treaty within the ambit of Article 50. Does this mean that all these treaties must be rescinded too? Is that what the Commission is also getting at? Obviously not. It has no authority to even mention NATO’s Treaty of Washington or the London Statute of the Council of Europe. The EU has no say-so over their memberships.
Euratom is only mentioned in protocols — one of which merely re-affirms Euratom’s existing privileges, Protocol 7. The signatories agreed also that Protocol 35 about the Constitution of Ireland should be attached to both Euratom and Lisbon treaties separately. Hence it is clear from this instruction by government ministers that the Euratom Treaty was treated separately and as a distinct entity from the Lisbon treaties.
Both these protocols –the one on privileges and the other on the Irish Constitution — indicate that Euratom must be treated as a quite separate treaty. The NATO Treaty would more arguably than Euratom be included within the ambit of the exit clause of Article 50, because it is referred to by name. Obviously neither are included.
What happens if, in spite of this evidence, the European Commission insists that UK must leave Euratom? The European Commission would be deciding for itself that a LEAVE EU vote meant that UK must also leave Euratom. That seems to be in total contradiction with the legal facts. It would open up a great, long legal dispute at the Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
Would the Atomic Energy industry agree to closing down all the duties and privileges, finance and funding, legal and regulatory powers implicit in the British membership of Euratom on the basis of this dubious logic that it is included in Lisbon treaty’s article 50? What happens to the Community ownership of fissile material? What happens to Euratom agencies and establishments? What would be the future for JET, the Joint European Torus, that produced clean fusion energy and could help solve Europe’s energy dependencies?
The Euratom treaty for good reasons of nuclear security does not have the equivalent of an exit clause. That is related to the twin concepts at the heart of Euratom.
Firstly it is designed to encourage the peaceful uses of atomic energy. That implies that it should discourage the non-peaceful, warlike uses of atomic bombs. Euratom is essentially a non-proliferation treaty, although politicians fail to act on its potentialities. The atomic bombs are not themselves the major problem. No more than Howitzers or blunderbusses, airplanes or satellites. A computer hacker can arguably cause more harm and damage than a bomb. Should computers be banned? The issue that will render blunderbusses and nuclear bombs, chemical and bacterial weapons peaceful is true Democratic control. Canada armed with all these weapons is no threat to world peace. Neither is Switzerland. Why? Because of democratic control.
Iran on the other hand is a gigantic threat to world peace. Why? It does not have a peaceful ideology, nor democratic control. It wants to wipe out Israel and conquer the world for a Shi’ite Mahdi, its own version of a warlike Messiah. Ayatollah Khomeini declared: “we will stand against the whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all {unbelievers}.” The instigators of the Pakistani nuclear bomb declared their ultimate goal as an Islamic Atomic Bomb.
The second key aspect of the Euratom treaty that helps insure peace is the article 86. This says that all fissile (that is nuclear) materials designated inside the treaty are Community property.
That is the ultimate way of controlling the atomic bomb. No one nation has a monopoly of the dangerous bomb material. If any one Member State of the Euratom Community turned to dictatorship and decided it wanted to wage war on a neighbor, it would find the procedure difficult. It would only be able to produce a few bombs and all its neighbours combined would be able to vastly compete with it to restore democracy.
That is why the UK referendum should be about Democracy not some obscure economic issues everyone has forgotten about. It is also the reason why Euratom does not have an exit clause. Because the longer Euratom lasts the more fissile material will come in Community control and the more the democratic imperative of the European people will manifest itself against the Machiavellian distortions of democracy caused by the Brussels elite.
True democracy is based on God-given supranational values like honesty, fairness and justice and truth. There is no limit to such values, or to the time required for humans to reclaim them.
The Euratom treaty has no exit clause. Article 208 explains why.
“This Treaty is concluded for an unlimited period.”

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0
Author :

Leave a Reply

01 June, 2016

EU Leaders praise Machiavelli ahead of UK Brexit Referendum

Machiavelli portraitOn the eve of UK’s referendum, why are European leaders praising Machavelli? Why are people so increasingly fed up with the European Union? Why has the credibility of Brussels plummeted to rock bottom?
New anti-Brussels political parties are springing up across Europe like mushrooms in a dark place. Why can’t Brussels re-light its democratic torch for EU’s 28 democratic Member States?
Europe’s BIG question is not the UK referendum, but
“”When Will Brussels obey the TREATY Rules Schuman provided to make Europe perfectly Democratic? “”
The impartial European Commission, independent of governments, parties and lobbyists, was the key institution that brought a lasting peace to Europe. It was designed to epitomize Fairness and Honesty.
No more! Under the latest Machiavellian system, no Briton will ever be allowed to become the President of the European Commission. Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) witnessed the brutal methods of Cesare Borgia (1475–1507) and his father, Pope Alexander VI, known for his nepotism, immorality, killing the innocent and funding his many mistresses and adulterous children. The Borgias tried to bring Central Italy under their possession, using as pretext the defending of Church interests. ”Machiavellism” is widely used today to describe unscrupulous politicians. Robert Schuman was a keen student of history. The last thing that he thought was needed for peace in Europe was the skulduggery of Medieval politics and strife.
In Rome a few days ago, this anti-democratic poison was highly commended by a trinity of EU presidents! This Politburo is now the Machiavellian fixer of Europe. It is composed of the EPP (allegedly the European Peoples Party or the Christian Democrats) and Socialists. The Politiburo has proved itself neither Christian, nor democratic and not interested in European solidarity! It is focused on political nepotism to control the levers of power.

Mysteriously the Commission President is said to be ”elected” without a single ballot slip saying he is a candidate! No one in the UK voted for Mr Juncker or the so-called runner-up. Mr Schulz, with equal illegitimacy and political nepotism, got the second prize of the European Parliament!
The Politburo calls the system the Spitzenkandidat system. It is hardly attuned to attract the voter on the street in Liverpool! It combines Machiavellism, party nepotism for the Politburo, and Apartheid for the British Bantustan.
And the timing is perfect!! In just a few days time the citizens of the United Kingdom will cast their ballots about whether to STAY or LEAVE the European Union! Would any sane democrat vote in favour of a system that discriminates not only against all non-party citizens (98 percent of the population) but the land of the Magna Carta and laws of Hywel Dda? Hwyel Dda Laws
The treaties say all citizens have equal rights to be considered for the Commission but the EPP-Socialist Politburo says their parties’ nepotism trumps the rule of law!

Originally the Commission was composed 100 percent of non-politicians. For a good reason. The aim of the Commission was to be as impartial, as non-partisan as possible. Politicians always come with an agenda. (Fat cat jobs come after leaving by the revolving door!) All the present Commission are active party members and government nominees — two things the treaties expressly forbid!
The original Commissioners had to be impartial as a judge in Court to create an atmosphere of trust. That way they could help solve Europe’s burning problems. They were very experienced people but they owed no allegiance to party, enterprise, workers’ unions or to a national governmental interest.
No more! Because Machiavelli rules at the Commission! Machiavelli rules at the European Council and Machiavelli rules in the European Parliament. They are all in cahoots against the European people. A secretive political elite acts against the European interest. Instead of becoming a fully independent moral and ethical Authority, as it was designed to be, it has now been captured by a few political parties.
Tusk on MachiavelliYou don’t have to believe me. Believe Mr Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council who represents the Heads of Governments of the Member States. After lauding Pope Francis for the Charlemagne Prize, he spoke on the Future of Europe at a meeting chaired by Europe University Institute President Joseph Weiler.
I was not a fan of this idea of Spitzenkandidaten {at first}. For the simple reason I was not one of the {candidates}! But the result is really impressive. I mean the two gentlemen around our table. Machavelli said, I think, that the end justifies the means.’‘
That is his assessment of the nepotistic system that excludes all European citizens from participating in the democratic institutions. It combines this affront to democracy and human rights with a further exclusion: The decision on who should be the President of the European Commission is also made behind closed doors. Thus no European citizen can see or hear what sort of deal is being cut between these members of Europe’s Politburo.

And Mr Tusk made no bones about it. He loves this system. He made his pronouncement in public before the cameras of the European Council and the great European public. That is like robbing the public and then sticking them in the eye!
We can be sure all the others in the European Politburo agree. They were sitting there right beside him.
Tusk, Schulz, Juncker agree on Machiavelli-1

That is the official pronouncement of the three top European leaders. Mr Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission agrees. He was sitting there with the European Parliament President Martin Schulz. They all smiled and congratulated Tusk at his wit for recognizing their gross theft and high-level larceny.
The European Commission has continuously lost its impartiality, political neutrality and its credibility among Europe’s citizens.. Under the Community Method it was to be the conscience of Europe.

Mr Juncker loves the Politburo Nepotism system too. He said that ”Parties put forward their candidates and [the people] can vote either for a socialist or for a Christian Democrat and conservative.”
But people may not want to vote for either. Why? Because this division is old hat. New parties have in common one thing: opposition to the present Brussels system. Secondly and more importantly the treaties say that the people cannot vote for politicians, for other sorts of lobbyists, for government representatives or for anyone who is not independent and impartial. The Commission must be independent. Non-Partisan means no party political guys allowed.

Mr Schulz loves the Politburo nepotism too. He made clear in an interview with Politico that he believes that the text and spirit of the laws of the treaties is not important. Nepotism trumps the treaties. He said: We achieved a change of the treaty without a treaty change. — Martin Schulz at Politico at 10 minutes.

Is this the ultimate goal of Politburo nepotism: