Spitzenkandidat system is EU's Destroyer of Democracy

In all European history, the European Commission amounts to the greatest innovation of political governance systems of Europe.

• It is not found in centralised systems.
• It is not found in confederal systems.
• It is not found in federal systems.

The European Commission — which was first called the High Authority — is an Honest Broker. What is the highest authority in a democracy? It is the call of justice and honesty. We can all recognize natural laws of justice, especially when it affects us.

This innovation explains why Europe now has PEACE. Without it peace would not have happened. Monkeying with it is the most dangerous stupidity that Europeans could think of. Brexit is just the latest outcome of a partisan, party-political Commission.

The fallacious Spitzenkandidat system EXCLUDES non-political citizens. It restricts the Commission to the BIASED -- those with political ideologies in parties funded by who knows who.

In May 1948 Robert Schuman, the initiator of Europe’s peace-enhancing democracy, called for a Regulator of Liberty to help European States re-establish themselves after WW2. Schuman was then Prime Minister of France. Western Europe with frail democracies was facing a massive Soviet Red Army that had already taken control of Central and Eastern Europe.

Why a Regulator? This first stage was to help resolve disputes between democratic States, to safeguard the future but also propose measures for the benefit of all. The first such Regulator was for Liberty. The Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms listed our essential civil liberties. It showed the Soviet system was a party dictatorship, intent on crushing religious and other freedoms. Autocracies were equally dangerous.

The Regulator was something that ordinary people could understand. But it was still highly controversial for people who had not thought through the problem of war and peace.

Democracies are under the Rule of Law. But governments sometimes abuse their powers of law-making. Governments can be abusive. Germany in the interwar years was nominally a democracy but it turned sour as Nazis seized power. How can democracies prevent this from happening again?

Individuals and groups can appeal to European judges when personal or other Liberty has been violated. That would stop States descending into the black cellar of a gangster State like Nazi Germany. What would be the rules that the judges would apply? Natural law, human rights and fundamental freedom.

Europeans then could have growing confidence in cross-border relations and economies of scale. First it was necessary to only tackle the most vital part of the economy. There was no question in Schuman’s mind of creating an instant federal system covering all aspects of society. He dismissed the idea as ‘utopian’.

For historic reasons of the causes of war, Schuman targeted the international cartels that led to both of the two world wars and for the Franco-Prussian war in 1870. Cartels fired up the nationalist arms race before the world wars. Cartels also profiteered internationally by exploiting the arms sales by sharing patents.

Europe, he said, must proceed step by step. So the regulator was first introduced in a more technical system of European cooperation like the single market of the European Coal and Steel Community. Then it was applied to the Customs Union of the Economic Community and the nuclear security system of Euratom. Thus a technical type of Regulator of Liberty was required within each Community.

Imagine if a group of ideologues controlled the major armaments firms in Europe. What if a party was able to control the customs tariffs or the internal Single Market and hence aspects of all international trade? What if some ruthless power-hungry group of gangsters controlled the nuclear industry in Europe. They could possess the sole means to build nuclear bombs. They could define security policy and extract a ransom.

None of these foreseeable events is in the public good in one country or all European countries.

The Commission acts as an Arbitrator of the parties concerned working for their good as defined in rules by the parties concerned. It oversees industries, workers and consumers as well as assuring technical advancement and regional fairness.

It is not composed of one Arbitrator but a group or college. Think of it as the Jury of Europe. The Jury is chosen because each of its members is considered non-partisan, free of any prejudices of the case before them.

Who chooses them? A Jury is chosen from a list of citizens. And they are chosen not by a positive vote because they look handsome or pretty. They are chosen by elimination of prejudice.

INDEPENDENT. They have to be NON-PARTISAN and seen to be impartial by both parties in a dispute. The Commission members have to be totally independent but also experienced in the subjects that come before them.

That is what the treaties say from the start. The Commission must be made up of experienced people who have shown they are not biased in favour of any State, political party, commercial or other interests or personal bias. They are independent of any issue that comes before them. They cannot be accused of bias because their experience shows that they are not partisans for one side or the other.

That is why democratic countries hold to the Jury system composed of free and honest citizens. They judge the issues at stake. The Jury is the highest judge. A Jury can make a judgement in defiance of the judge in court and the law passed by a parliament. Both of these could themselves be biased. How? The judge because he wants to stick to precedent. The parliament because the parliamentary majority may have been nobbled by lobbyists or special interests. The laws themselves may reflect ideology, corrupt practice, not natural justice.
And thus the concept of an impartial, non-partisan authority must be safeguarded.

De Gaulle wanted to destroy the Community idea that brought Europe its first lasting peace. How did he plan to attack it? He wanted to turn the impartial Commission into a political secretariat where his Gaullist representative could dominate proceedings. Thus he could dominate the whole politics of Western Europe.

Democrats would have none of this. Statesmen like Luns, Spaak, Bech and others opposed him.

So should we. Political parties should not control the Commission by their fraudulent Spitzenkandidat system.

Austrians expose EU's Undemocratic History as origin of Brexit

Austria mounts Fake History of the EU
FAKE HISTORY!   FAKE "FACTS"!  FAKE DEMOCRACY!
Why did Brexit happen? The answer is ably exposed in the heart of EU Brussels. The Austrian presidency mounted two exhibitions inside the Council of Ministers building. They both illustrate and emphasise a FAKE history of Europe. They show in undeniable terms the cause of Brexit.
One expo celebrates the Maastricht Treaty, which entered force 1 November 1993. The other denigrates real democracy. Fittingly neither is open to the general public!
The Maastricht treaty has been a disaster for European democracy! Why celebrate it? Maastricht emerged at a time when the public complained at the refusal of the Council of Ministers to open up its dealings to the public and the press. Instead what did the politicians do? They created a series of new, closed-door councils and committees to add to the European Communities. These secretive groups were called the second and third pillars of their Europe. They were run by officials for the benefit of officials and politicians.
Freedom and democracy had broken out across Europe but not in Brussels! Central and Eastern Europe had just been freed from the yoke of the Soviets in 1989. The Soviet citizens freed themselves in 1991.
For years democrats complained of the Democratic Deficit in Brussels and the lack of transparency. The Maastricht Treaty was a huge disappointment to citizens who wanted open government. It recreated two extra Politburo closed-door systems extending the web of secret decision-making to many other unauthorised parts of their lives.
Understandably it was rejected by Denmark. They objected to quite a number of things, including lack of transparency, measures on European justice, monetary union, and defence amongst other things,
This should have sunk it for ever. In France it passed in a referendum by a bare 51.1%. The "petit oui" was considered a signal to end non-consensual European integration. Only Ireland voted for it. All other countries, and significantly the UK, got no chance to have a referendum. Who would want to make the wheeler-dealer Council even more opaque?
So was the treaty binned? No. Not according to the European leaders who met in Edinburgh in December 1992-- the "European Council", invented by de Gaulle, was not a European institution. The European Community system is based on independent institutions. But the leaders considered themselves a Politburo! They set their own superior rules. Democratic assent was not included.
Then the Council got into further undemocratic fraud. It told the Danes to vote again! After manipulations to appease the Danes, the treaty was obviously changed. But no other national public was asked to agree by referendum to the revised concoction. No referendums, no public consent.
The Council politicians, behind its doors, decided for the public. This double fraud ignited fury amongst democrats leading to UK's rejection later in the Brexit vote. Yet the Brussels politburo still thinks their haughty attitudes equates to democracy!

Its name, Treaty on European Union, was also a fraud. The European Union was the name originally given to the Council of Europe until the British objected.
Thus the principal reason that the Council of Ministers wants to celebrate this backward event is to laud its autocratic powers over public opinion.
How did the Austrians get away with this "celebration"?
It is full of fraud and fakes. Only the Politburo cheers.
Case 1: How did political Europe start?

According to the exhibition it started in 1952. Why? Because, according to the Austrians, that was the year of a “Proposal for a Political Community and a European Defence Community (EDC)”.
Let us remind the Council that those two proposals for supranational and democratic Communities failed. Why? Because, although the EDC had been ratified by all Member States except France, Charles de Gaulle mobilised his supporters against them. With the immanent threat of Cold War turning into World War 3, Gaullists did not have the courage to have an open vote against a European army. Together with the Communists they introduced a motion in the National Assembly that the question of ratification be not put! So the proposal was shelved.
But even then European governments did not say Five voted for it, only France hesitates. Therefore the majority has won! If the French wanted to show some guts they would ask that the motion be now put to a vote. But be warned! The supranational concept is clearly spelled out. That means that all European decisions are subject to full democratic control! This is highlighted in the very first article of the draft EDC treaty.
The EDC and the EPC are prime examples about how “populist-nationalist” rabble-rousers such as de Gaulle’s supporters and Marxist-Communists blocked democracy in Europe. After January 1946, de Gaulle was out of power but held disruptive mass rallies across the country. His aim? To sabotage the French Fourth Republic and assume unique power without political parties. The Communists were the largest party in Parliament. They had similar ideas.
But why start “The Path to Maastricht” with this failure of democracy to assert itself? Why don't the Austrians specifically condemn the "populist" Gaullists and Communists? Why don't they praise the Europeans who stood up against these bullies and supported the Community system and open democracy?
Case 2: Fake Photo and Fake History

This chronology starts with 1952 with the announcement of

"Proposal for a European Political Community and a European Defence Community".

Did nothing happen in the path to political Europe before 1952?
The clue is in the photograph above 1952.
It exposes another fraud.
The photo has nothing to do with the proposal for the EDC and the EPC. It is a photograph of the signing of the Treaty of Paris 18 April 1951. Were the Austrians ignorant of this?
Hardly. Here is a photograph of the same event from the Council's own website.
It is the signature of the Treaty of Paris and the Europe Declaration of 18 April 1951!

The Paris Treaty is notable by its absence in the history of the Maastricht Treaty chronology. Extraordinary!  It is the first and most important of the European Community treaties. The Europe Declaration is an even more important document. It defines the principle that all agreements between European States must have the people's consent and agreement.

"This Europe is open to all European countries that are able to choose freely for themselves."

That's why the Maastricht Treaty is so insidious. It did not allow the people to choose freely. Two later Rome treaties are curiously included dating from 1957. Why obliterate the original Community and its definition of democracy?
Case 3: the missing Schuman Plan
Who is in the centre of the picture? Robert Schuman, Foreign Minister and previously twice prime minister. The Treaty of Paris for the European Coal and Steel Community was called the Schuman Plan. Schuman proposed it on 9 May 1950.

It was the most political Community of all. It introduced something totally unknown in the world. It was the first international anti-cartel organisation in world history.
Cartels both national and globalist have fomented war and pillage of the population from time immemorial. They were more powerful than feudal powers in the medieval wars.
An international cartel that controlled the supply and sale of some vital product could control the economy.
A bloody arms cartel fomented wars for profits.
Case 4: Nothing is more political than War
It is even more ironic that the Austrians are not even mentioning World War One. November 2018 marks the centenary of the start of this world war. Did it start because an Austrian Grand-Duke was assassinated in Sarajevo?
The Austrians should know! They have the archives.
So have I. They were published in the 1960s.
 
The Germans’s archives with their correspondence with Vienna was captured by the Allies in 1945 after the Second World War. They show that Austria was bullied into declaring war by Germany's war party in Berlin. The Germans had planned the war based on the Lightning Attack Schlieffen plan. The French obtained these plans in 1904.

They show that the principle War Aim of the Germans was to control the French strategic resources, specifically the iron ore deposits on the other side of the border from occupied Alsace Lorraine. They had occupied these French provinces in 1871 and defined the borders based on their minerals.
Case 5: Why Maastricht fails on globalism
We should recognise the main danger TODAY. World politics can easily be controlled by globalist cartels.
Thus the most important political Community was the first one which provided Europeans with the means to fight back democratically with open debate and regulations.
So why did the Austrians deliberately leave out the threat to the liberty of Europeans from globalist cartels?
Case 6: the real start of Political Europe
Lies and Fake history can proliferate by omission. What was the most important problem after the Second World War?
In fact there were two. The most obvious one was the Cold War. In 1948 the Soviet Union acquired the Atomic Bomb. The public expected another world war, either by the attack of the huge Red Army that had not been demobbed after the war or by a surprise, pre-emptive American attack.
The second problem was post-Nazi Germany. Would it join the West or would it join with the Soviets who occupied East Germany? Would it play politics with both side and ignite other European wars?
What was the solution? Robert Schuman’s first government proposed that democratic Europe should unite by creating two new institutions. The first was a European Assembly (which saw light as the Council of Europe and the European Parliament) and a Customs Union.
Historians have considered this to be the most important turning point in all European history. It was the first time a government in Europe had formally proposed a means to unite Europe POLITICALLY.
When did this happen? 24 July 1948.
That is seventy years ago. The key date for European political integration is totally forgotten! If only Europeans understood why Schuman proposed and created a democratic Customs Union, they would have spared themselves all the trouble with BREXIT!
If the Austrians had been honest about their chronology of the “Path to a Political Europe” would not this date figure as the most important? Wouldn’t help explain to Brussels that a Customs Union has to be democratically controlled? Wouldn’t it help explain to the British who reject the Democratic Deficit of Brussels that reform and open Councils are urgently required?
Case 7: Upside down history.
The other exhibition of the Austrians is the glorification of the Holy Roman Empire. They even have the effrontery to call this supranational!

That is objectionable because the term supranational was first used as a political term to describe a democratic structure for European national Democracies. It describes the way to make Europe a Democracy of Democracies.
Was the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation a model for Europe? Hardly. Historians call it a fake as it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. It was at war with other countries much of the time. Is its crown a symbol of democratic Europe?

“The European Community won’t be made in the image of an Empire or a Holy Alliance,” wrote Schuman. “ It will be built on the principle of democratic equality in certain domains of relations between nations. … It excludes dictatorial exploitation based on material superiority. That is the meaning of supranationality. It can never be applied in the area of culture because of all their individual peculiarities.”

The term supranational was first used legally in the European treaties to describe the Commission. It had to be INDEPENDENT of political parties, national governments and private interests.
The failure of the Maastricht process lies in the lack of its public support. Commencing with Maastricht, the Brussels politburo created closed-door institutions for foreign affairs, justice and home affairs. How can Justice be decided behind closed doors?
Did the the Council and the "European Council" learn its lesson? No. It went on to use the same Maastricht technique for the next treaties, Amsterdam, Nice, and the Constitutional Treaties (MANIC). The latter was rejected by France and the Netherlands and half a dozen other States were set to do the same. It could not pass.
By rejecting the Constitutional Treaty, Europeans also rejected the idea of an Exit Clause. It first appeared as its Article 59.
So how did the "democrats" of the European Council react? Stealth and deceit. They disguised it as a reform to the European Economic Community. They forced the totally rejected Constitutional Treaty through their parliaments -- sometimes without them being allowed to read it! Then they renamed it the Lisbon Treaty! They could not stop Ireland having a referendum, as required by their Constitution. Ireland rejected it.
So how does this relate to Brexit? It doesn't. The "Lisbon Treaty" has no legitimacy for the huge changes it supposedly makes to the democratic Community system.

How can a "democratic" State that promises referendums but in practice forbids its people to have its voice in a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, maintain that the treaty can have any legal or democratic validity? It is legally "unsafe". Thus a referendum using its articles is meaningless. How on earth can the British apply Article 50 of a non-authenticated, non-democratic treaty?

First the British needs a referendum to assent to the treaty (or not!). Only then can Article 50 have any force! Democracies can never consider submitting to undemocracy!

Why EU's Juncker is WRONG about World War!

Speaking at his party’s congress in Helsinki in November 2018, European Commission President said:

“People said a year before WW1 that it could not happen.”

That is not true.

Mr Juncker continued: “We should not be afraid of talking about war because we are a project of peace.”

What are the facts? The German invasion plans were known in 1904.

Those who today aim to lead Europe, should know about its history. The first qualification of its leaders is to understand how Europe gained its peace and democracy. They should describe to Europeans how to avoid war and maintain peace.

The plans for the German invasion of France were known well in advance of 1914. World War One has nothing to do about an assassination of the Grand-Duke in Sarajevo in 1914. More than a decade earlier, the French and other allies knew about German invasion plans. Here is a map of how it would take place. It is signed by French general Jean M T Pendézec on 25 April 1904.

Under strict secrecy, General Penzédec, chief of the French General Staff, revealed the audacious German strategy map to French Ambassador to Russia, Maurice Paléologue. He also exposed the dynamic mechanism about how it would work. Germany would violate Belgian neutral with a massive force. This would be able to advance rapidly not only through Belgium but right across undefended France. It would capture Paris and then… its government captive, France would capitulate in a matter of days. With France subjugated Germany would then destroy Russia — which was known to be slow to mobilise its military forces in the advance of a surprise attack. Thus Germany would conquer on both fronts.

The key to the plan was a sling where the heavy weight at the end of the rope would batter France’s head to submission. Another hand would then pick its pocket across the border from occupied Lorraine.

The sling would make a surprise attack in the north to take Paris. The axel point of the sling would be from German-occupied Alsace Lorraine. Metz, the capital of Lorraine, had become the the strongest fortress in all the world. The targets of the German southern attack were later revealed in all Germany’s secret war plans from the Schlieffen Plan times to the Armistice in 1918. Without them Germany’s ruling elite calculated it could never become master of the world.

These targets intimately pre-occupied Robert Schuman before the war began. He actively proposed a solution at international gatherings of statesmen and lawyers that included Nobel prize winners. Germany’s negative objectives activated his positive plan that today gave Europe its longest peace ever — 73 years. They ignited his idea for a Community solution to bring the most precious victory of all — ETERNAL PEACE.

To accomplish their military attack manoeuvre, the Germans would even deplete their armies on the eastern border. (Russia was part of the Alliance against Germany and Austria-Hungary). That would add extra weight to the sling. The Lightning War, BlitzKrieg, would destroy France from ever becoming a great power again. Germany would be able to dominate the Continent. It would subjugate Britain. And then it would have the powers to compete with that upstart industrial power– the United States of America.

This real essence of the plan would allow Germany to seize the levers of world domination. Even on his death bed, Schliefen repeated that the heavy military strike on Paris was key. It must not be reduced. If his successor, Helmut von Moltke had listened, Europe would be living in vastly different times.

The Schlieffen Plan required 26 army corps (with ten extra in reserve) to be massed in Germany’s western frontier. They were to make up four armies. The army with 9 corps assembled at Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle) would make the rapid advance across Belgium and the French countryside to Compiègne and seize Paris. Three armies with just 17 corps massed in Moselle and Saar would tangle with the major French defence and then conquer strategic industrial objectives in the region of the Meurthe valley, France’s industrial heartland.

This Blitzkrieg that would both disorientate the French and also deliver a lethal blow. What were the real War Aims? Germany would agree to peace only if France ceded its vital resources in Meurthe-Moselle. France, preoccupied with Alsace Lorraine, looked like being the victim of another land-grab.

Then in 1904 an intelligence goldmine fell into the hands of French intelligence. They obtained Germany’s war strategy plans!

Details of the troop movements necessary were revealed by a German informant given the the cryptic name of “le Vengeur” (The Avenger). Who was he? Some have speculated he may have been the German military nationalist Bernhardi. He was in dispute with Schlieffen over his claim as being the real author of the plan. But the Avenger may have been someone inside the German General staff, other than the top military commanders. Was he an Alsatian or Lorrainer who wanted vengeance on the German occupation of his land in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1. After several decades of occupation, and the rise of a new generation, the “Prussians” may have presumed the officers incorporated by force or persuasion into the army had become loyal the Kaiser. Alsace Lorraine had become Reichsland, an imperial province of Germany. The French nationalists were still at boiling point about the loss of this territory.

Robert Schuman was born of a French patriot, a Lorrainer who had fought in the Franco-Prussian war at the siege of Thionville. He was a brilliant student, by far the top of his class. In 1903 at just 17 years, Schuman made an extraordinary decision. He shocked all his classmates by deciding to take on the difficult task of gaining entrance to German universities of Bonn, Munich and Berlin. He became a student of Germany’s most eminent lawyers and economists.

He wrote his Doctorate in Law (D Jur) at the university of Strasbourg in occupied Alsace.

Believe it or not, the original title was: The Transfer and Lien of an Inheritance! — decisive principles of German and Natural Law about property claims. Who owns Alsace Lorraine? The official title was changed on the advice of his Alsatian professor, to a more innocuous one.

After the world war, Schuman was acclaimed and mandated to become the deputy for Thionville. In the National Assembly he sat as the Deputy for Meurthe and Moselle.

Seventy years ago this year Schuman made a decisive act. As Prime Minister in 1948, his government proposed — the first time for any government in history — the means to unify Europe as a democracy of democracies. A Customs Union under the democratic control of all Member States would stop Germany ever becoming a threat again. He created the Council of Europe as a means to establish the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as the definition of democratic values. Democracy would stop any nation, including especially Germany, from turning Fascist or Communist. It explains why Brexit will not happen.

That event was not celebrated by the Brussels political class.

Why?

Finally! A BREXIT Solution without a THIRD Referendum!

Here is the only real Brexit solution. It requires no further referendum of the British people.

But…

It comes with a Warning!! It requires Honesty, plus Humility and Courage!

The British people have had two referendums on Europe. They don’t need a third referendum at the moment. They need politicians to listen to them. Politicians need to respect both the people and the law.

In 1975 the British people in a referendum giving mandatory instructions to the Government replied with a large majority to say that they wished to stay inside the European Community, comprising the Coal and Steel Community, the Economic Community and the non-proliferation Atomic Energy Community, Euratom.

In the meantime the European Community was changed from top to bottom. All without the people’s assent. Democratic principles were written clearly in the treaties. Schuman explained how Europe’s democracy principles should work. Open councils, elections, public control of budgets, all under the rule of law. They were subverted. Politician-pleasing protocols were added. Politicians introduced a corrupted Foreign Policy subservient to the oil cartel, Social Policy, a common currency and monetary union in violation to Community process and without full democratic assent.

They bolted the doors of the Council in defiance to the treaty articles that say it should be open to the public just like the Parliament. The secretive political cartel ignored instructions given in 1951 and subsequently that the parliament should be elected on a European scale and not as 28 separate, national elections.

On 23 June 2016 the British public replied massively in a second, long-promised but much delayed, referendum. It was an advisory plebiscite. The Government was required to take attentive note of the finely balanced result and act accordingly with circumspection and reflection.

The UK government, because of ruptures in the Conservative party, thought otherwise. A noisy, thoughtless and uninformed minority ruled the roost. “A political and economic disaster. Brussels lacks democracy. Let’s get out!” Some democrats! (The Community method helped Germany, France and other States become strong democracies and create a long-lasting peace.) They demanded an extreme solution, out of the Customs Union, out of the Free Trade Area. They included exit from Euratom. That had never been discussed in debates and documents. Neither had these British politicians analyzed how Schuman said European Democracy should work and what was needed to reform its neo-Gaullist errors.

Europe’s problem is not trade. It is Democracy!

Her Majesty’s Government was led by the nose. It postured like the autocratic Henry VIII. It had no need of clarification. It did not even need a parliamentary vote. That was arrogant overreach. It was humiliated in Court, twice.

The advisory nature of the referendum was confirmed in a landmark legal case brought by Gina Miller and others against the government. The judgement of the English High Court was confirmed by the Supreme Court of the UK. This exposed the hypocrisy of both the UK government and the Brussels cartel. In the UK, party politics trumped national interest. In Brussels, the party cartel exposed its neo-Gaullist hatred of “Anglo-Saxons”. That ditched European law. What a pitiful shame for the Commission which is supposed to be the Honest Broker for Europe! Guardian of the treaties indeed!

The people of Europe don’t need arrogant politicians who turn advisory referendums into mandatory ones. They require that representatives should show diligent attention to their needs, and wisdom in their proposed solutions.

Neither the UK Government nor the four presidents of the Brussels politburo system showed intelligence or integrity. First the presidents of the European Commission, Parliament, European Council and Council of Ministers showed their ignorance of both European and UK law. In this they were aided by Dr Martin Selmayr, Mr Juncker’s chef de Cabinet. He has now become Europe’s most powerful bureaucrat, the Commission Secretary General.

They acted with lightning speed after the referendum results were broadcast. They hardly waited for the ink to dry on the UK ballot papers. Early in the morning after the 23 June referendum, the EU ‘presidents’ issued a Joint Statement. Listen to its tone.

“We now expect the United Kingdom government to give effect to this decision of the British people as soon as possible, however painful that process may be. Any delay would unnecessarily prolong uncertainty. We have rules to deal with this in an orderly way. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union sets out the procedure to be followed if a Member State decides to leave the European Union. We stand ready to launch negotiations swiftly with the United Kingdom regarding the terms and conditions of its withdrawal from the European Union.”

When someone says you must do something rapidly however painful it may be, you should expect there is some fraud going on. So it is here. It reveals both a sadistic tendency and above all an attempted cover up.

“Quickly, just put your hand against the door and I will stick my dagger into it. You don’t have to think! But be warned: it may be painful! I just wanted to rifle your pockets! Then we can have a beer together with my money.”

The legal basis of Article 50 is as slippery as a snake in the grass. It is a scam. Corruption is afoot, big time! Stop any talk of democracy!

Secondly there is the issue of the British Constitution and dare I say it– Common Sense.

Did Prime Minister Cameron reflect enough before he resigned at 10 am on 24 June, something he said he would not do? No.

Did he renegotiate with Brussels based on righting its core democratic deficiencies? An example would be stopping the Politburo enforcing the total exclusion of a Briton from ever becoming the Commission president. No.

Did Prime Minister Theresa May reflect enough before she wrote he Article 50 letter? No.

Did the Brussels Politburo ask the UK government for thorough legal clarification? No. It took the High Court and Supreme Court to do that.

Did they ask the British people to clarify exactly what was the reason for their discontent? No. They knew. The British and most sensible Europeans had for several decades complained about the “democratic deficit” — the non-observance of basic, open democracy in Brussels.

Did they ask the umpteen British lawyers inside the Brussels apparatus exactly how they they should configure this result with the British Constitution, Magna Carta and the Convention of Human Rights? No. That has yet to come.

So what should Europeans do? They should respect both the referendums and make the necessary reforms that all democrats would agree on.

Let’s get back to basics. Democracies are as Schuman affirmed in Lincoln’s definition “the rule of the people by the people for the people.” That rule can be direct by a referendum or representative via parliamentary members acting honestly for them. Democracies are also ruled by natural justice (not arbitrary justice as in Communist and Fascist systems).

A Community of 28 democracies must follow the same rules of democracy that it imposes on the nation. So, if one member wants to change the rules about Customs Union or Free Trade, then all the members must agree by the internal rules.

The stark truth is Brussels has failed to do that. The Democratic Deficit involves the jiggery-pokery and fraud about the new structures called “the European Union” from Maastricht up to and including the Lisbon treaties. A democratic Community must have assent of all. The Lisbon Treaty (then called the Constitutional treaty) was roundly rejected by referendums in France (where a referendum is defined as the highest instance of democracy) and in the Netherlands. Britain was promised referendums for all these treaties and it was refused by the unrepresentative representatives in parliament.

So the least we can say is that for the British — and every other democrat — a treaty imposed against the people is not legitimate. It violates elementary Human Rights. So does Article 50 which is part of it and the democratically rejected Constitutional Treaty.

What should be done? If democrats want more democracy they should act for it. They don’t leave the democratic battlefield.

They should demand that

• All deliberations in the Council of Ministers should be open to the press and public. That what all the treaties say.
• European Parliamentary elections should be conducted across the whole Community area under a single Statute defining voting requirements;
• The Consultative Committees (Economic and Social Committee and Committee of the Regions) should be fully active in legislation and be properly elected by European associations and groupings. Matters of industries, workers and consumers together with regional diversity are their responsibility in the treaties.
• The European Commission should cease being the monopolistic domain of partisan politics. It should be composed of a jury of totally independent personalities chosen by the public. It should again become the Honest Broker for Europe’s problems and for Europe’s future.

It makes no sense for the British to belly-ache about the “lack of democracy and freedom in the European Union.” They are members of the bodies. They should be leading the charge for Schuman’s democracy.

All it takes is Courage, Humility and Honesty!

My Letter to M Barnier: Why Brexit will fail! Schuman designed the Customs Union to IMPROVE Democracies

26, July, 2018

Several months before the UK Brexit Referendum of 23 June 2016 took place, I wrote that any referendum would fail. The UK would remain part of the European Community system. Note I did not say the European Union. The UK agreed by referendum to be part of the Customs Union system of the three Communities. UK never so agreed to the Lisbon Treaty. France and other countries rejected it by referendum when it was called the Constitutional Treaty!

Now it looks like the Brexit operation is not only impossible, but even hardline Brexiteers are admitting it is impossible. There is even official talk of disruptions to food and medicine for UK’s 66 million population in case no agreement can be made.

How did I know about non-Brexit? Wasn’t Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty designed to allow the UK to leave?

I knew because I had studied Robert Schuman’s motive in creating the European Community. It wasn’t about trade. It is about DEMOCRACY. During WW2, Schuman told his parliamentary colleagues that Democracy is the only way to save Europe from itself, from war and destruction.

The Community system replaces nation states’ continual war and violence by debate and democracy. Only an anti-democratic Government would want to leave. Only an anti-democratic EU would even consider it possible to agree that the mother of parliaments leave.

A Customs Union and a Single Market require that both sides come to agreement on mainly technical issues of trade. But the core issue is really democracy. Why? Because trade involves billions, even trillions of goods and services. And customers and above all proprietors of such businesses require that decisions are taken fairly and with the justice everyone can recognize.

At the moment neither the UK nor the Brussels machine passes the Litmus Test. “Are you taking everyone’s interests into account?”

European leaders and the European Commission– supposedly the “Guardian of the Treaties” — have refused to safeguard the heritage of Schuman, They do not keep his memory alive. More specifically they do not let the public know what is the Grand Design for Open Democracy in Europe. It is their responsibility to animate a great public debate on Democracy in Europe. They have failed in their prime duty.

A stark reminder of this refusal is to commemorate what is arguably the most important date in all European history: 20 July 1948.

That is not out of ignorance. I have publicly reminded the Commission several times about the date and its importance. Listen to what the Commission saysabout commemorating this date! “It is just like any other date in history!”

On 20 July I spoke to Michel Barnier about this. He seemed surprised about the uncelebrated 70th anniversary of what could be seen as the greatest French triumph of Democracy, #EU70.

That afternoon I wrote him the following letter.

20 July 2018

Dear Mr Barnier,

Following our brief conversation at today’s press conference {at the Council of Ministers}, I am enclosing the assessment of the Liaison Group of European Historians that 20 July 1948 represents the real turning point in European history. Schuman’s Foreign Minister Georges Bidault presented the French governmental proposition for a democratic Assembly for Europe and a Customs Union.

It was the first time in all recent European history that a government had made an intergovernmental proposal for a European parliamentary assembly.

After debate with the British, this was created as the Council of Europe. Its entrance requirement was the governmental and parliamentary signature of the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

This set up the legal order of the Court of Human Rights. The Assembly proposal also created the European Parliament of the Communities, originally conceived as a subset of the Council’s.

Schuman’s government proposal for a Customs Union saw life in the 3 Single Markets of the Coal and Steel Community and the two Communities of the Rome Treaties, 1957

Why was this the great turning point for Europe? Other proposals for integration were made by what Schuman called utopian thinkers (see his speech ‘Nos tâches européennes’ in Strasbourg 1949). This was governmental.

Schuman discussed such a constitutional system during the war, when he escaped from Germany. It would help democratise Germany, France and other member States then under threat of Communists and Nationalists. He said it would be impracticable or impossible for a new Hitler to destroy democracy or to leave. Why? because of the benefits that such a system would bring and the democratic disciplines involved. Hence it would ensure that war “was not only unthinkable but materially impossible” (Schuman Declaration). Germany did not attempt to leave or want to, but the UK is now trying to. It would appear that Schuman’s proposal is stronger.

I also enclose a link to an article I wrote about this anniversary year in January this year.

https://democracy.blogactiv.eu/2018/01/09/eu70-europes-triple-birthday-of-democracy-customs-union-and-defence/

Knowing the origin and purposes of the democratic Customs Union would prove a valuable asset for both the EU-27 and the UK negotiating teams. I have described this in detail in my book — which you should have seen, I hope— Brexit and Britain’s Vision for Europe. If you do not have a copy I would be happy to present you with a copy.

 .

With best regards,

David H Price

Editor, eurDemocracy.com

schuman.info

00