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

Trump to UK: "Don't Brexit, SUE the EU!" How? Where?

President Trump told UK Prime Minister Theresa May that the UK should sue the European Union rather than exit it. Mrs May said this was a too “brutal” solution. Why? It would disrupt Westminister as well as Brussels.

Sue the European Union for what?

One obvious case would be to attack in law the Spitzenkandidat system — that elected Jean-Claude Juncker. It makes it impossible for a Briton to ever be elected to his post of President of the European Commission. It is directly in opposition not only to human rights and elementary democracy but the treaties the politicians wrote themselves. There are several other such issues of injustice and fraud.
Why go to Court? To get Justice. To expose facts to public view. To let not only the judges judge, but the people too.

What other cases should be introduced to Europe’s highest courts? That is explained fully in my eBook “Don’t Brexit, Fix it!” Five copies of the full paper version under the title “Brexit and Britain’s Vision for Europe” were sent to Mrs May and Brexit ministers at 10 Downing Street in late summer 2016, just after the Referendum.

What is the case against the EU? Corruption arising from its democratic deficit. I have described at length how Robert Schuman, the initiator of Europe’s Democracy, defined the mechanism of true democracy and justice. All sectors of society involved must have their say. No political decision can be made by faceless bureaucrats. No decision can be made in secret.
WHAT IS PRESIDENT TRUMP FIGHTING?

CORRUPTION! And far more than party political corruption.

Someone once wrote:
“My ideal political world would be the ABSENCE of political “parties,” because having a two-party political system has resulted in corruption on both sides of the aisle. ”
Corruption.
How does it affect our systems on both sides of the Atlantic? For that we need to go back to the origin of corruption in the party political system.
That involves the “completely unscrupulous and political ingenious” scheme presented to King William of Orange after the “Glorious Revolution” in England. It dates from 1695 and was the brainchild of Robert Spencer, Earl of Sunderland.
William had arrived from Holland to secure the Protestant religion and expected to save the country from the French and Catholic invasions. He was finding it impossible to govern because the “damnable British Parliament is elected to govern England and only wants what all Englishmen want: not to be governed at all.”
Spencer (a forbear of Lady Di) suggested that he follow this “devilishly subtle” plan. Instead of choosing his ministers on their merits and capacities without regard to parties, a Whig here and a Tory there, King William III should chose his ministers from the same party. William expostulated that this was a mad idea. The majority was then Whig and hardly sympathetic to strong centralism.
Spencer explained about the subtle governance potential of alternance of government. “If his Majesty adopts this plan, no member of the House of Commons will ever vote again according to his principles or his convictions or his judgment or his religion or any other of his fancies.” The people will think he is voting for them but the real question will be whether or not his party will remain in office or how much it would cost him in a further election with the risk of losing his seat.
And, said Spencer, the parties will be so much involved in fighting each other that there will never be another Cromwell or a Revolution. His royal power would be secure.
Quotes above are taken from George Bernard Shaw’s “Everybody’s Political What’s What” chap 3.

In the US system we can replace the concept of “King” not by President but by the Shadow Government and what in the 1950s President Eisenhower originally called the “Military Industrial Congressional Complex“.
I highly recommend for those interested to sit down with a cup of tea or coffee for an hour or so for the incisive analysis of the Kevin M Shipp, ex-CIA insider. This presentation was at a Tea Party meeting recently. It summarises a huge amount of facts and research on the misuse of secret powers up to this day.

It starts at 15 minutes after prayers and pledge to the flag.

Gutless Politicians and Secrecy are the cause of Brexit and public distrust

Mr David Davis got it wrong. The UK Brexit Secretary of State resigned because, he said, the UK Parliament’s voice in European and global trade policy was “illusory“. UK was being dictated to by “Brussels”. This system was contrary to British democratic interests and tradition. It is fundamentally undemocratic, he said.

He is pointing his finger in the wrong direction. The blame lies nearer to home. The core issue is the lack of democracy in UK. Add to that, lack of political courage. And not only in the UK. Every European capital is to blame in the same way.

What is wrong with European democracy? What is the core problem? When democrats get to Brussels they shut the doors and become anti-Democrats.

Democracy is about open government. Seventy years ago to this month, the French government of Robert Schuman made a proposal that astounded its European neighbours. It also saved Europe from the ravages of further wars and invasion. The powerful Soviet Red Army had not demobilised after WW2. It was set on invasion of a demoralised, divided and disarmed Western Europe.

The French government suggested on 20 July 1948 that Europe create a parliamentary Assembly and a Customs Union. It would create not only democratic solidarity but create the infrastructure for peace and prosperity.

This was the first time in European history that a sovereign government had proposed a European Parliament. (The rare proposals in the past were made by what Schuman called “utopian thinkers,” not practical leaders.) Schuman’s proposal was made at the meeting of Western Union in The Hague by his Foreign Minister, Georges Bidault. The Western European Union or Brussels Pact was also the forerunner of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

So if the Schuman government was first to lay plans on the table for a European democracy, what were its basic principles? He made clear that it must consist of the most open and transparent discussion possible (Pour l’Europe, chapter 3).

He said that true democracy has three characteristics.

1. The objectives at each stage of democratic governance must be set by the people.
2. Then the people must define the means it wishes to use to attain each goal.
3. And thirdly, it must pass the the moral and ethical Litmus Test. It must be at the service of the people and act in agreement and consent with it.

So where did the UK government and the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU go wrong?

Firstly, the UK government did not properly analyse the five institutions of the Community system. It is the most advanced democratic system in world history. This heart of European democracy is enshrined in the Treaties of Paris, 1951 and Rome, 1957. Even then political scientists called it sui generis. It is like nothing else before it.

But if you do not know how the aero-engine of democracy works, it is no use applying spanners to tighten the bolts, strapping additional devices to it, or filling the tank with diesel instead of petrol.

The UK did not reassess or remove the sand and gravel dumped in the Community system by autocratic Gaullists. One of the three deliberate bodies is the Council of Ministers. It is there to represent open democracy of States. Charles de Gaulle tried to use it for his own dictatorial purposes — whether by “empty chair” threats or furtive strong-arm wrestling with the smaller States.

Many politicians, however, liked his idea of deciding about money matters in secret. “Post-Gaullist” politicians preferred “secret democracy”. Shamefully UK was silent. But the founding principles of how the Council of Ministers and the other deliberate institutions should deliberate cannot be buried.

Open debate.

Because corrupt politicians, including but not exclusively the Gaullists, continuously tried to have secret government, others insisted the principle of open debate be written into the so-called Constitutional Treaty, 2004 that later became the Lisbon Treaty, 2007. It says all aspects of the deliberative process — consideration of Commission proposals, debate and formulation of a common Council position — should be OPEN to the public! The Council should act exactly as the Parliament with open committees. It should publish a written record of debates.

It was ignored. It is still ignored today.

“Article 15 TEU 

In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union institutions, bodies and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible.”

And just to make certain the politicians in the Council of Ministers got the point, the article 15 repeated in its paragraph 2;

“2. The European Parliament shall meet in public, AS SHALL THE COUNCIL, when considering and voting on a draft legislative act.”

The main reasons that the British Parliament has been emasculated of powers of supervision and control are twofold. Firstly the “Democrats” from London acquiesce to the secretive Continental practice where Council debate takes place behind closed doors. Parliamentarians back in London are not able to identify the issues being discussed. For example, what another country is saying on any issue.

Secondly, when they return to London (and the other capitals), ministers do not open up the debate in the national Parliament. That is their duty. That step is essential if governments can be sensitive to the needs and real desires of the electorate.

Instead ministers prefer to make sure that Brussels provide taxpayer money for the national economy. They can then take the glory of initiating the airports, agricultural purchase programmes or other possibly useless systems. That’s how Europe has motorways that go to Nowheresville and airports that have no passengers. That’s how the Gaullists bequeathed he European taxpayer corruptly with Beef Mountains, Wine Lakes or Grain stockpiles. And then sold them off at a massive discount to the Soviet Union, our Cold War enemy!

The first step to resolve the Brexit dilemma is to have open debates in the Council of Ministers and its committees. The debates should be recorded and published like the House of Parliament record, Hansard.

Open, democratic governance is the only way forward out the Brussels/ Brexit logjam.