22 November, 2016

Brexit throws the European Parliament in Democratic confusion

When in June 1950 Europeans were planning the European Community, Robert Schuman told the assembled delegates:
“We would very much wish that the United Kingdom were present at our discussions. We cannot conceive Europe without it. We know, and this reassures us in our efforts, that the British Government wants the success of our work.”
Schuman knew Britain was essential for preserving European democracy.
Brexit Front Cover 8
Today non-British MEPs are in turmoil about democracy. About time! Let’s have some REAL democracy in Strasbourg and Brussels! Some MEPs want to take over British MEPs jobs on the committees. They want to redistribute key posts on the assumption that UK will leave the European Parliament. MEP Guy Verhofstadt said complex Brexit discussions should be wrapped up in 15 months. He wants the UK MEPs out of Parliament. “It would be nonsense for UK to be voting for new MEPs in 2019”– the date of the next European elections. Doesn’t that reveal a bullying attitude, the very opposite to the spirit of democracy?
Wouldn’t Democracy be better served if he urged British MEPs to stay as long as possible to help implement real European democracy?
Many MEPs are confused about the nature of European Communities and European democracy. Does democracy mean shutting the mouths of those you disagree with? Wouldn’t Europe benefit from those who point out democratic mistakes? The United Kingdom clearly has a much longer democratic tradition than some Member States that only began to implement a democratic system and the Rule of Law in this generation.
Flaws are flagrant. The Brussels Politburo has NEVER yet implemented the requirements of the treaties for proper European elections! Europe has 28 national elections each fiddled and fixed by national government parties to exclude ‘critics’ they call populists! What democrats!
Then they think British MEPs should leave as soon as the legally dubious Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is activated.
This process as well as the Lisbon Treaty itself is illegal!
Europeans need a European Election. That’s common sense. It’s also what the treaties require! The Brussels Politburo has NEVER yet implemented the requirements of the treaties for proper European elections!
Some Brexiteers are also confused or ignorant.
In a BBC interview UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson suggested the two-year Brexit process should be over before May 2019 so UK need not elect MEPs in the European Parliament elections that month.
Not so.
Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty replaced Article 240 of the European Economic Community Treaty. This Article said that the Treaty was ‘concluded for an unlimited period.’ Lawyers called this the ‘permanency clause‘ or the ‘perpetuity clause‘. They understood it to mean membership was permanent. It guaranteed that States would only seek democratic solutions in good faith.
Some politicians thought they could do better than the Founding Fathers. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to be more democratic than them and provide for an option for democrats to be undemocratic. In other words LEAVE Europe’s democratic institutions, rather than make them more democratic. The way they phrased the Exit Article 50, showed they lacked basic notions of both logic and democracy.
Here’s what Lord Kerr, the Secretary of the body, the Convention, that came up with this nonsense, said:
“I thought the circumstances in which it would be used, if ever, would be when there was a coup in a Member State and the EU suspended that country’s membership. … I thought that at that point the dictator in question might be so cross that he’d say ‘right, I’m off’ and it would be good to have a procedure under which he could leave.” He said he never envisioned that a British government might resort to it.
That shows that something is morally off-track. In Brussels and Strasbourg. The UK should never have been forced into a position that people thought that the only way to deal with Brussels chicanery would be to vote to Leave.
But it is worse than that. Article 50 is also illegal by national and international law. These crazy revisers of the European Economic treaty did not directly change the Treaty of Rome. They presented their EXIT clause first in what they called the “Constitution”– in reality a treaty called the Constitutional Treaty. It was written by the “Convention”of which as mentioned Lord Kerr was the Secretary and Valery Giscard d’Estaing was chairman. What is now Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was word for word Article 59 of the Constitutional Treaty.
What many MEPs and many of the Politburo refuse to acknowledge — YET — is that Article 50 is illegal. Why? Because the whole of the Constitutional Treaty was put to the vote in France and elsewhere. The people voted it down. It is null and void. In the French Constitution Article 3:
“National sovereignty is vested in the people, who shall exercise it through their representatives and by means of a Referendum. No section of the people, nor any individual may arrogate to itself or himself the exercise thereof.”
Hence Article 50 Also Known As Article 59 is dead. It is illegal to use it! But French politicians forced the exact same treaty through their Parliament by dubious means. By their own Constitution, French politicians cannot overturn the French Referendum NON.
The French political class know the Lisbon Treaty article 50 is a fraud. This is what the French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron said when I asked him about it.
Was it a good idea not to take the first referendum NON seriously? Should governments purposefully prevent the French people from having its voice as sovereign power?
It was a mistake,” he told me.
Most lawyers are hard-pressed to find the equivalent example of an Exit Clause in any Union of States. The first Constitution of the Soviet Union in 1919 is one notable exception. But whether it had theoretical or practical value is a matter of doubt.
It is common sense that a democratic organization should improve itself by becoming more democratic, not by rejecting criticism and causing the messenger to leave. That is why all three Communities (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) have articles to revise and improve the their treaties. The concept introduced with Maastricht to make a single bag treaty with targets and goals in a wide variety of sectors and domains (external affairs, Justice, Home Affairs etc) shows that politicians had already lost the plot about democratic legitimacy, accountability and popular support of such measures by referendums. They were more interested in establishing personal power.
However, the second Treaty of Rome, the Euratom Treaty was not affected by their fiddlings. Euratom has exactly the same wording in its Article 208. It also has the same institutions. It is not affected by Lisbon’s Article 50. Membership of the European Atomic Energy Community is permanent.
So is UK’s obligation in the Euratom Treaty to hold elections for the European Parliament in 2019. Come what may!
Check it out all the details! CLICK HERE : Brexit and Britain’s Vision for Europe at special discount prices

06 November, 2016

UK High Court exposes underhand Brussels Brexit plot

Brussels leadership is exposed as insolent tricksters! That is the implication of the UK High Court. Autocracy has no place in a real democracy, whether in London or Brussels.
The UK Parliament will fully discuss Brexit before it can leave under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaties. The High Court has ruled against Prime Minister Theresa May’s autocratic concept of Brexit that requires no real debate. It is known as the Henry VIII clause option. With reason. This is a pseudo-royal prerogative that politicians believe they have acquired. It dates from the 1539 Statute of Proclamations. Politicians are not kings. Nor is Mrs May a queen. Democracy is about people. Their ministers are servants not monarchs.
Instead of such comprehensive regal powers that would make 10 Downing Street a royal palace, the matter of Brexit will have to be discussed on the floors of the two Houses of Parliament.
The High Court re-affirmed that, even if prerogative powers remain for international treaties, the powers cannot be used in the case of the referendum, because Membership of the Communities has provided privileges and laws in the domestic sphere. These must be taken into account. Nor can the Secretary of State use the Crown’s powers to take away the rights of citizens.
The High Court with three of UK’s top judges, Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Sales gave a unanimous verdict.
They gave a striking rebuff to the three Brussels leaders, Presidents Juncker, Schulz and Tusk. In the early morning of 24 June 2016, barely hours after the first results of the 23 June referendum were published, they gave their verdict. They demanded the UK leave the EU within hours of the referendum results. The Three demanded that the UK leave the EU “rapidly however painful it might be”. They told British MEPs to quit the European Parliament chamber immediately.
Pardon! Your ulterior motives and dirty tricks are showing Sirs!
Curious! The High Court judges made clear that the result of the referendum was purely advisory. That was well known to the public before. I wrote about it as an advisory referendum. The Brussels TopPols simply ignored this fact and tried to bluster the UK out of the EU. They showed abysmal ignorance, bad faith or anti-democratic collusion. Which? They have no excuse. It should have been abundantly clear to the Commission, European Parliament and the Council. Their buildings are stuffed to the gunnels with lawyers.
The referendum had no binding legal power over the government or parliament. This is what the High Court gave as judgement in paragraphs 105-111.
“The Referendum Act 2016 {does not supply} statutory power for the Crown to give notice under Article 50. This Act fails to be interpreted in light of the basic constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy which apply in the United Kingdom, which lead to the conclusion that a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in parliament unless very clear language to the contrary is used in the referendum legislation in question. No such language is used in the 2015 Referendum Act.
“Further the 2015 Referendum Act was passed against a background including a clear briefing paper to parliamentarians that the referendum would have advisory effect only. Moreover parliament must have appreciated that the referendum was intended to be advisory only as the result of the vote in the referendum in favour of leaving the European Union would inevitably leave for future decision many important questions relating to legal implementation of withdrawal from the European Union.”
It concludes:
“The Secretary of State does not have power under the Crown prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 of the TEU for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union.”
First we should analyse what would make a Brexit decision really legally sound in British law. A referendum vote could be definitive. The High Court does not rule out that parliament could make the referendum legally binding IF it specifies this exactly in legislation.
Referendums were an ancient part of pre-Roman British culture. They also held the principle that the country (that is the expressed voice in a referendum) was above the prince.
magna_carta english_bill_of_rights_of_1689
Then came the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, and the Normans. For many centuries in the later medieval period the idea of a referendum was lost by the British public because of monarchic autocracy. The ancient British laws are mentioned in the Magna Carta of 1215. That does not mean that the monarchy does not have an important role to play in a constitutional decision. Obviously it does and it is central.
In a democracy the monarchy cannot publish autocratic royal decrees that ignore the will of the people. That would place a monarchy in the category of a dictatorship or at best something like the pseudo-monarchy of France’s Charles de Gaulle. He had the sole vote that counted. (De Gaulle vetoed UK’s candidature for the European Communities twice in a disdainful way during press conferences and once via his instructions to his foreign minister. He did not discuss the matter with his government before he made his decrees.)
de Gaulle2
Now it is the Brussels Politburo which is acting like little Napoleons, if not kinglets. The big fall-out will hit Brussels and its Politburo (largely unelected!). The Politburo has assumed the mantle of Charles de Gaulle and failed to see that it leaves the little emperors without clothes! De Gaulle buried the Community’s own Magna Carta. that Schuman called the Charter of the Community. Brussels follows suit. It has been attempting to reverse all aspect of European-level democracy. What sort of democracy in any Member State would act in such an imperious way as the Brussels Politburo? It tells some States like Ireland and Denmark to reverse legally binding referendums. It tells the Greeks how to vote in the euro referendum and then forces its government to act contrary to the people’s result. It tells the UK it must obey immediately an advisory referendum.
Britain has a long democratic tradition. The British democratic process is far from finished before the government can even think of sending a letter under Article 50 of the (fraudulent) Lisbon Treaty. The three other national governments (Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) want their say.
Wales First Minister Carwyn Jones says it is a mistake for the government to appeal against the High Court ruling – and repeated his view that the devolved administrations should also get a vote on Mrs May’s Brexit negotiating position. “It is important that votes take place in all four nations to endorse the UK negotiating position.”
The Community was originally based on the highest standards of democracy. Many Britons would agree with Robert Schuman, the founder of the European Community system, that
“some monarchies such as Great Britain, Belgium and Holland, if we only refer to our nearest neighbours, are more clearly and traditionally attached to democratic principles than some republics where the people have only little direct influence on the direction and political decisions of the country.” (Brexit and Britain’s Vision for Europe, p 5.)

Check it out all the details! CLICK HERE : Brexit and Britain’s Vision for Europe at special discount prices