BREXIT, Boris and Bluff on 1 November?

Will BREXIT happen?

Yesterday UK’s new Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, reaffirmed the date for leaving the “European Union” as 31 October. The next day the new European Commission will take office. Will UK still be a Member State?

He gave a very upbeat speech in the Commons about how UK was going to be Great Again and lead the world.

“By 2050 it is more than possible that the United Kingdom will be the greatest and most prosperous economy in Europe…”

The United Kingdom will stay united despite the different votes. “Our Constitutional settlement, our United Kingdom will be firm, will be secure. Our Union of nations beyond question. Our democracy robust.”

“…we must take some immediate steps. The first is to restore trust in our democracy and fulfil the repeated promises of Parliament to the people by coming out of the European Union – and doing so on 31 October. I and all ministers in this Government are committed to leaving on this date, whatever the circumstances. To do otherwise would cause a catastrophic loss of confidence in our political system. It will leave the British people wondering whether their politicians could ever be trusted again to follow a clear democratic instruction.”

“I do not accept the argument that says that these issues can only be solved by all or part of the UK remaining in the customs union or in the single market.”

“I believe that at this pivotal moment in our national story we are going to prove the doubters wrong again. Not just with positive thinking and a can-do attitude, important though they are. But with the help and the encouragement Government and a Cabinet that is bursting with ideas, ready to create change, determined to implement the policies we need to succeed as a nation. The greatest place to live.”

“I believe that if we bend our sinews to the task now, there is every chance that in 2050, when I fully intend to be around, though not necessarily in this job we will look back on this period, this extraordinary period, as the beginning of a new golden age for our United Kingdom.”

My question was: had he read my book, that I sent him when he was Foreign Secretary in September 2016? It has Churchill and Robert Schuman, the founder of European democracy on the cover. (Boris has written his own biography of Churchill as leader).

On the back cover the text starts with the phrase “A Golden Age could be ahead, not only for Europe but for the planet.” That is based on the premise that ethical democracies have the greatest means for growth and prosperity as well as social well-being.

A “Golden Age” will only occur when Europeans ban trade wars against themselves in a fully democratic Customs Union. That is what Schuman’s government proclaimed in 1948. In May 1950 he made WAR, “unthinkable and materially impossible“.

Secondly, President Trump famously advised Mrs May when PM that the best way forward was to “sue the EU” not get into endless negotiations. That is exactly what I say in chapter 3, written three years ago. Two strategies were presented: painful and fruitless negotiation or legal clarification first about political corruption and fraud that caused “Democratic Deficit and Denial“.

Painful and fruitless negotiation is a continuing fact. Legal action is inevitable. Justice demands it. Human Rights have been violated since the Maastricht Treaty.

The book is available free on the US site www.academia.edu in a shorter pdf version “Don’t Brexit, Fix it!”

Have the Prime Minister and US President read anything in the book? Who knows. But it is not likely the UK and other European politicians will pay any attention to it. They are the guilty ones! Past politicians were all responsible for acting as if European democracy can be made by a cabal plotting to stop the people’s voice in referendums being followed.

The treaties all made powerful changes on the Constitutions of European countries. The people must agree or reject them. All the changes, however, were made either WITHOUT the people’s consent or directly AGAINST the people’s voice.

When the people say NO, it should mean NO.

The only valid European referendum in the UK was the 1975 referendum when two-thirds of the electorate voted in favour of membership of the European Communities.

Mr Cameron’s 2016 referendum was a dishonest trick. He gave a ‘cast iron guarantee‘ of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty itself. Then refused to do so.

The 2016 referendum was not not about accepting the Lisbon Treaty or not. It was about Article 50 of that Treaty! The people had NOT endorsed it! Everyone knew it would never be endorsed in a referendum. That Article and many others of the Lisbon Treaty had already been rejected by referendums in France and the Netherlands. European politicians told UK that the British people should not have a referendum on it.

Honesty is the only way to have peace in Europe. For Boris, he would have to pay attention to the several chapters about telling the truth and replacing Brussels secrecy with open politics. Robert Schuman, when a prisoner of the Nazis SS, refused to collaborate and tell a lie to save his life. The book also describes a Seven Day Mental Diet to free the mind of self-deception!

Boris is gung-ho for leaving on 31 October. Will it happen or will he be blocked in parliament? Will the cost to industry eventually tip a change? Will there be private legal action in the Courts?

Certainly the policy to change the “Irish Backstop” — equivalent to puncturing the legal integrity of the Customs Union and the Single Market — will not happen. It would require 27 States to deny the Rule of Law in European politics. That is delusion. But UK could stay within Customs Union of the European Community system and ditch the anti-democratic, corrupt additions of the “European Union”.

At the moment I see no evidence that the new UK Government have this intention. We will have to wait and see when reality strikes.

Rascals select EU Top Jobs without and against the People

The popular definition of democracy is that it is a system where the people can throw out the rascals — inept or corrupt politicians.

That is not the case of Europe today. Its hub has a system of autocracy. 28 politicians from nominal democracies don’t follow democratic rules. They self-select their Politburo, an oligarchy with no recourse to the voice of the people. It has become a system of the politicians, by the politicians, for the politicians. The people are excluded.

It is suicidal for rational politics and a prosperous economy.

Party politicians are a self-exterminating breed. They have stabbed themselves with the dagger of public distrust.

When the EC began, political parties in democracies used to attract 15 percentof the population to their ranks. No more. Today barely 2% of the population is a member of a party.

Public trust is punctured like a car hit simultaneously with four flat tyres! Trust is burnt out.

Europe is fast descending into a more and more anti-democratic system. An unrepresentative Politburo picks new rascals from a pack of rascals and makes it as difficult as possible to remove them.

Rascal is not just an uncomplimentary term. They have done their utmost to break the law!

In Brussels and behind firmly closed doors, the political class squabble for the top jobs. Instead of the eternal Brexit problem we now have a RascalENTRYproblem: non-qualified politicians being given the #TopJobs by other politicians to the exclusion of any qualified other citizen.

Rascal-IN is a greater problem than BREXIT, UK-Out. Brexit is a symptom. Democrats are no longer in control of European institutions.

Here are just some of antidemocratic methods in use.

1. European Council Secrecy.

The idea of having a secret conclave choosing friends of partisan politicians for Europe’s top jobs is totally contrary even to the politicians’ own corrupt Lisbon Treaty. The only people being considered for jobs are politicians, friends of power-brokers. They hope their nominees will return a favour. Favours are increasingly important for those who no longer have the public trust. Some nominees are unwelcome rivals in their home countries, exiled to Belgian Siberia. Others have been kicked out of government by the people. Brussels is their prize for failure. Hardly a system that reinforces public trust.

Meanwhile 98 percent of the public and the press are both excluded. A number of honest, non-politicians have put themselves forward as candidates for these high offices. They read the treaty and believed it meant something.

So where do honest, experienced citizens stand amid the game where the musical chairs are reserved in advance for a political oligarchy?

Nowhere. The Politburo meetings are cloaked in secrecy and political compromise. Rascals are in power and they will stay in power, regardless of what the treaties say.

So let’s remind them of their own rules. The treaty says:

“Union institutions shall conduct their work as openly as possible.” The Council shall meet in public when considering and voting on a draft legislative act. TFEU article15.

Their Lisbon Treaty also says that non-politicians should never be excluded.

“The Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens.” Article 9 TEU.

“Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union.” Article 10 TEU.

So choosing top officials in such a conspiratorial manner is also illegal.

2. European Commission.

The qualifications of the members of the Commission have been set out clearly since 1951 when the body was called the High Authority. That meant high moral authority. In the Council of Ministers (not the so-called European Council), ministers would present candidates from any Member State who they considered to be of the highest moral character, independence and competence.

If any other minister had received reports that the candidate was

• biased and prejudiced or
• lacked experience,
• could be shown to be dishonest or duplicitous,
• were not independent but
• the plaything of a party or State politics,

then they could veto the suggestion. That is, in fact, what happened in the early days of the European Community. Potential scoundrels, tied to cartels and other interests, were criticised in public and removed.

A former Nazi diplomat responsible for Nazi radio propaganda in France, Ernst Achenbach, was nominated by Germany in 1970 as a Commissioner. As chief of political affairs he was instrumental in deporting thousands of Jews. He was exposed by Beate and Serge Klarsfeld. His name was vetoed. Do politicians now want to open the door for such rascals?

In that way the original system was designed to expose untrustworthy people with murky pasts. It is like the selection of a Jury of twelve honest men and women. An honest reputation is the prime attribute of a Jury member.

But Politicians didn’t like that. Nor the idea of high moral authority. The Authority was therefore renamed the Commission. That was just the first sleight of hand.

Today we could call the Commission the immoral authority. Europe is plumbing new lows. When in 1961 General de Gaulle wanted to change the European Commission into a political secretariat under his Fouchet Plan, real Europeans reacted. They stopped him creating a Gaullist Directory of the Continent.

Today politicians apply his tactics with a bit of camouflage. None of them say they are Gaullists but they use his tactics of control of the levers of power and the money bags.

Politicians have long shed any pretence of following the legal criteria and conditions for selecting the Commission. These Politburo candidates are proud to assert that they are doing exactly the OPPOSITE to what the treaties say. The whole idea of Spitzenkandidat is that the person is a delegate of a political party, literally a Party Apparatchik — exactly what the treaties have always forbidden. They must be mentally defective or ethically contrarian. Perhaps they are just blinded by their overwhelming talents. You can’t be so openly partisan and expect the public to consider you non-partisan as the treaties require.

The treaties up to and including the politicians’ own Lisbon Treaty repeat the criteria given in the original Treaty of Paris, 1951. So politicians have no excuse for not knowing the law.

They say the criteria for a Commissioner must be competence and experience, and totally independent of any relevant interest under consideration.

The same goes for a Judge in the European Court of Justice. The Commissioners have to swear an oath of impartiality just like the Judges in the Court and before the same Judges.

It is also obviously a very, very serious matter. Compare this to the United States or even an oath of office in any of the European democracies. In the USA the oath of office is taken in public on Inauguration Day as the major event and the culmination of the election process. It is followed by the President’s speech, before huge crowds in Washington and broadcast nationwide and worldwide.

Have you heard European politicians proclaiming about how this European oath is the central feature of full and legal inauguration of the Commission? Have you heard Commissioners proclaiming before and after the inauguration how they will fully adhere to all the conditions of impartiality they have promised on oath?

Has any of the Commissioners or would-be Commissioners made any speech about how they will faithfully and scrupulously adhere to this oath of office? Like renouncing party membership?

Obviously not. They would be shown to be hypocrites and fraudsters. They are active attendees of party gatherings before the ‘European Summits’. Why? To get instructions and policy.

There is a difference however with the oath that the Judges in the European Court of Justice take and that which the Commissioners are obliged to take.

The oath of office of Commissioners is far more strict. But it is ignored with vigour.

The Commissioners dole out money (one trillion euros worth). They give subsidies to untold number of entities. They take people, companies and countries to Court for non-compliance to Treaty law.

Isn’t it vital that their “independence is beyond doubt”? Does the public think they are impartial? They don’t take criticism lying down. Why is everyone who opposes them called a populist or a nationalist and excluded? Should Commissioners be opposing their opponents? Should they and their friends in Council be raising their salaries? Should they be paying tax money for political campaigns to these same friends?

Why are these would-be Commissioners nominated by Governments and not the people? Why are they members of political parties at all? Is a political party an “institution, body, office or entity”?

Without a shadow of doubt.

So shouldn’t the rascals appear before the European Court of Justice to answer charges about a conspiracy to destroy real democracy? Aren’t they turning Europe into a fraudulent People’s Democracy just like Stalin?

After all, Mr Juncker considers that the greatest political thinker of modern times was not Robert Schuman who brought Europe its unprecedented peace and his salary. It was the revolutionary who imposed the dictatorship of the proletariatand millions of deaths on the world, Karl Marx!