Who rules the EU? 382 plotters! 500 million voters excluded!

The EU is the richest union and the world’s biggest exporter. It has a combined GDP of some $18 Trillion.
EU’s population is 510 million.
The most powerful political office is that of president of the European Commission.
Now, how many citizens elected this person into office in 2014?
Hundreds of millions? No.
A few million? No.
A few hundred thousand? No.
Actually 382 people. That’s all.
Who were they?They were party apparatchiks.
They voted for one of their own officials to be the president.
In all the European Union, that was the only ballot that had anything to do with electing the Commission president. It was not a national ballot. It was private.
Not one citizen when he or she went to the polls in 2014 was given a ballot paper for the President of the European Commission. Not one.
Doesn’t that seem a little unfair on the 510 million? Not one got to vote for Mr Jean-Claude Juncker!
Yes. And it is also illegal.
Exclusion also attacks the fundamental rights of those 510 million citizens. The party politicians who are supposed to be the people who protect the Human Rights of the people were shown to be more than derelict in their duty. They were complicit in the obliteration of citizens’ Human Rights. They stopped public participation in the democratic institutions of the EU. In the past the Commission was composed totally of non-politicians. Why? Because the treaties said and still say that Commissioners must be non-partisan and independent.
Who were these 382 super-electors? They were apparatchiks of the largest political party in the EU – the European People’s Party. That is an utter disgrace. The EPP, formerly the Christian Democrats, was the party of Robert Schuman the initiator of European Democracy and the European Community. They have turned it into a Politburo. They met, not in Brussels, Paris or Berlin, but in Ireland.
The European People's Party is now involved in something worse than the fraudulent People’s Democracies of the Soviet era. The whole Politburo used to vote 100% for their leaders. The EU candidate who gained those 382 votes in Dublin did not even gain a majority of the votes of the EPP apparatchiks. There were 812 delegates but 181 refused to vote. Mr Juncker gained the support of less than half of his own party!
A democratic election for half a billion people and 28 democracies? More like an oligarchy, the rule of the few.
To make their system fully understood by English-speakers, they call it the Spitzenkandidatensystem! Spitzenkandidat can be translated Lead Candidate or more accurately in this case, Top Apparatchik.

So the European people were given a candidate who was a party apparatchik and who could not even raise a full majority of his colleagues in support. 
Is there a paper trail for this multi-trillion dollar crime? If the EU had had a "normal" election there would be evidence -- ballots. If that were the case then the European electors would have had printed ballot papers saying "European Commission President" and listing names. None exists!
It gets worse. The second part of the fraud was to maintain that whichever party got the most votes in the European Parliament elections had the right to have their apparatchik picked as the president of the Commission. Nothing in the treaties says this.
Listen to this.

“Europeans want the EU to help them, not dictate to them. This was clear through the rise of anti-EU parties; the fall in turnout in the majority of countries and the decline in support for the European parliament’s largest political groups
“This Spitzenkandidat concept was never agreed by the European Council. It was not negotiated between the European institutions. And it was never ratified by national parliaments.”

Who said that? UK Prime Minister David Cameron after the 2014 elections. He warned that the more Europeans considered themselves the victims of such a “back door power grab” then the rule of law itself is threatened.

“Juncker did not stand anywhere and was not elected by anyone. To accept such a claim would be deeply damaging for Europe and would undermine, rather than strengthen, the EU’s democratic legitimacy.”

Prime Minister Cameron is saying that the entire system of European Democracy is now being undercut. Democracy is in danger! Supposedly an election took place with no ballots! Mr Cameron also vetoed the candidature of Mr Juncker in the European Council. In the past that would have been the end of such a candidate. Any State has the right and duty to veto a candidate if he or she was not thought honest, trustworthy and impartial. 
Instead, two years later on 23 June 2016 Mr Juncker wielded his veto. When the United Kingdom voted LEAVE in a non-binding referendum, Mr Juncker, within hours of the result, insisted that the UK must leave 'as soon as possible no matter how painful the process may be'. 
There is no legal justification for that. 
Nor for his Commission Presidency scam.
In fact the treaties say exactly the opposite. It is illegal.
No active politician can become a member of the Commission. The Commissioners have to take an oath of office before the Court of justice. It is stricter than the oath of the judges! It says that they are “completely independent” and “neither seek nor take instructions from any government or from any other institution, body, office or entity.” Yet they stay active politicians! They hold party cards.
Before each European Council they get into a pow-wow with their fellow politicians and ministers. If that is not for seeking or taking instructions, what else is it? Why don’t they refuse and go and read a book instead?
The other parties mainly all covered themselves with shame and fraud. Some however refused absolutely to go along with this pretense. They said the treaties give absolutely no support for the Top Apparatchik or Spitzenkandidat system.
The socialist leader, Martin Schulz, its only candidate, was complicit in the fraud. He declared in the most public way, that by a sleight of hand “We achieved a change in the Treaty without treaty change!” That’s like saying we now own your house by magic without buying it because we created our own powers to do so. The treaty is the only contract that gives politicians any power at all. And it has to be agreed by the people.
Neither the British Conservatives nor the British Labour party participated in the scam. They knew they would be excoriated by the British media if they said told such obvious lies and fibs. None of the British ballot papers or the ballot papers in any other country said anything about voting for the president of the Commission on a Spitzenkandidatsystem.
There is another reason too. While the EPP remains the dominant party in the European Parliament, as it has done for many years, there is absolutely no chance for a Briton ever to become the president of the European Commission.
The Spitzenkandidat system totally excludes Britons and Britain from this important office. Forever!
No wonder – when they had a chance – Britons voted themselves OUT. The EU has now become the laughing stock of the world. Twenty eight democracies of Western Europe – who boast themselves as great democratic models are the victims of political fraudsters! Five hundred million citizens taken for a ride! Democracies can’t even resist such palpable political corruption and fraud!
The Brussels Apparatchiks last year spent millions on #EU60, a bogus birthday of their institutions. This year they ignored the most important anniversary in Europe’s history, #EU70. The date of 1948 was when Schuman’s government proposed Europe have its first democratic assembly and common market!
It is little wonder that the Brussels Politburo have buried in depths, the correct way to impartially select a Commission president and allow 100 percent participation of the citizens.

Citizens should ask their representatives to explain just how the Founding Fathers  democratically chose the first President ... and see if they really know!

Martin Selmayr, Juncker's campaign manager pictured above, became his powerful chief of staff when Juncker became the Commission President. Juncker appointed him on 21 February 2018 as the new Secretary General of the European Commission, its top eurocrat. Guess who many in the EPP now want for the next Commission president! The man who lost the 2014 EPP cabal "election" – Michel Barnier, now the Commission’s Mr Brexit!

Freedom of Information request to burst the Brexit Bubble!

Bizarre! 
Brexit is based on an advisory referendum on a bizarre question, not one that legally requires UK government action.  

Doubly bizarre!  
UK's exit from the EU is based on the Lisbon  Treaty -- a treaty that the UK refused to submit to a referendum. Ireland rejected it in a Referendum.

Triply Bizarre. The Lisbon Treaty is identical with the Constitutional Treaty that was rejected by the French and Dutch referendums. Other countries, including UK, were not allowed to have a referendum!

What on earth is going on with 'European Democracy'?? Are the 'Brexit negotiations' being conducted in the democratic interest of the European people? 

In August 2017, I wrote to the European Commission requesting under the Freedom of Information Regulation the release of all papers on Brexit. The public is being spoon-fed minute amounts of information about what is being negotiated between the European Commission and the UK Government. They are not being told WHY!

It is extremely serious for everyone's future. The style of these so-called negotiations precludes the public from understanding the main issues. Are they about trade, red tape or democratic control of a bloated, neo-Gaullist bureaucracy? Justice is far more important. The European Commission was originally called the Honest Broker of Europe. Now it calls itself the political Commission.

These negotiations hide the major issues about the lack of real democracy in Brussels and the distorted democracy that rules in the UK under the slogan, Brexit at any price. 

My request for Brexit information was totally refused by the Commission. Under the Freedom of Information Regulation 1049/2001 I am able to request a review by the Commission (!) of their decision to refuse information. 

The refusal gave three reasons. 1. the Commission has created a "tailor-made process of transparency" which it is applying. 2. Objections relative to the secrecy of negotiations and 3. to matters of economic and financial sensitivity.

This is my reply letter.

To the Deputy Chief Brexit Negotiator,

Dear Ms Weyand,

Many thanks for your letter of 13 September 2017 in reply to my request for all documents and working papers of the UK Brexit talks and discussions.

In accordance with Regulation 1049/2001, I am hereby asking for a review of the grounds that you give for refusing any and all papers other than position papers and agendas etc already released. I am also asking for all documents that are being currently generated as the talks proceed as a continuous process.

A. ‘Tailor made transparency’ is another term for cover-up.

1. Censorship by definition. In your reply you first state that the European Commission has adopted a “tailor-made approach to transparency.” (your bold text) That is precisely the point to which I and many others object. It is not logically or legally possible to have maximum transparency and then withhold documents by a self-serving, restriction. Tailor-making restrictions by and for Commission officials must censor and hide documents from the legal principals.

2. Against interests of free citizens. This procedure is in direct violation to the democratic principles of the Community Method, freedom of information for free citizens, as enunciated by RobertSchuman and the Founding Fathers.

3. Not authorized by principals. Who are the legal principals? Let me put it simply in the terms that the European Commission, Council and Parliament have used many times, that of a divorce. In a marital divorce, the man and the woman are free to choose their lawyers to represent their interests on the settlement in a Court before an impartial judge. A divorce case involves rights, children, property and responsibilities.

If the lawyers were corrupt and wanted to ban the man and woman from their discussions, that would clearly be unfair, not to say, illegal. If the lawyers wanted to come to a division of goods and property, sort out rights etc without a judge being present, that too would be both unjust and illegal. It would not stand up an instance once it was brought before an appeal Court. If the lawyers were more interested in what they could gain in an operation to the detriment and financial loss of the divorcing couple, that would be a dereliction of duty. It would be farcical theatre. For the couple it would involve robbery of their human rights, money and interests.

4. Denies pre-talk discovery. Robbery of facts and smothering of interests are precisely what the EU institutions and the UK government are undertaking at the moment. A tailor-made approach to transparency by biased and unauthorized officials is an instrument in illegality and cover-up. It denies discovery and analysis by the legal principals. Many areas need legal investigation before Brexit talks start and can be solidly structured.

5. Citizens’ rights are not negotiable. The couple seeking the divorce are the British and European publics. More than 500 million people are being divorced, according to the Article 50 process. It is their interests, property and rights that are at stake. Article 50 gives no authorization for secret negotiations or the censorship of documents by the Commission’s so-called ‘tailor-made approach.’ This latter method is unjust as it blocks and silences normal civil procedure. As indicated below, the public have a number of pre-negotiation (pre-trial) issues that must be clarified, before any result can be legally binding.   

6. Only open debate and open documents are acceptable. The present set-up is unacceptable and all papers must be released.

B. The EU and the UK government are not the real negotiating partners.

1. No authority has been cited to construct a ‘tailor-made’ system to censor and restrict information. The information belongs to the people.

Brexit concerns more than 500 million citizens. It does not just PRIMARILY involve the European Commission (acting for the institutions) and the Government of the United Kingdom. Both these parties have their own partisan positions which do not necessarily, and in practice, coincide with the interests of the citizens.

2. The EU institutions do not have full public confidence or trust.

For example the European Union must be concerned with its institutional interests and its practice. Much of these interests are subject to public criticism on grounds of unauthorized secrecy and the “democratic deficit”. The institutions have lost public trust continually in the way the Commission is chosen, contrary to Community law and original customary practice. The result? The turnout of the public in European Parliamentary elections has declined continuously since the post-Maastricht elections. The rise of what the Commission calls ‘nationalist’ or ‘popularist’ movements and parties indicate that the institutions are in crisis. It has lowest ratings since the early days of the European Community.

3. The UK Government, for reasons discussed below, lacks public support.

Article 50 requires that the UK fulfill all its ‘constitutional requirements’ before Brexit. This requires ensuring the rights of national regions, regional parliaments, minorities, and many other issues including the transitory arrangements for some 14,000 legal instruments by democratic means and overall economic stability. The conduct of the Referendum debate, the status of Euratom which was not mentioned in the debate, and the viability of referendums in law, are just some of the issues still raising constitutional questions. For these I would direct you to my book: Brexit and the British Vision for Europe, ISBN 9781326780869.

4. Both the so-called ‘negotiating parties’ are prejudiced against their clients, the public.

4.a The EU institutions.

The European Commission, the European Council and the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament are prejudiced and antagonistic to the UK’s remaining a member of the EU.

This lack of impartiality can be demonstrated by many statements. It would be tiresome to list them all. For example, take their reaction to the Referendum itself. It was a consultative, non-binding referendum on the question of staying in or leaving the EU (not the European Community or Euratom).

The non-binding and consultative nature of the referendum were known in advance and publicized during the Referendum campaign. The non-binding nature was later confirmed – not only in the High Court of England and Wales but in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. You can find the judgements of these two Courts of Justice, together with the presentations of the parties, in my book:  Brexit, Miller and Henry VIII. ISBN: 9781365727412. I would refer you to paragraph 105 to 108 on in the High Court judgement and paragraphs 116 on in the UK Supreme Court judgement.

It was with some shock among journalists that immediately after the first results from the 23 June 2016 Referendum, the presidents of the four EU institutions presented themselves at 10 am at the Commission Press Room to pronounce. They issued a joint statement. It said UK must leave the EU “as soon as possible, however painful that process may be.” http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/06/24-joint-statement-uk-referendum/

Yet 63 percent of British electors had either not voted or voted to remain.  The UK Government had no authority to proceed immediately. Nor had the EU institutions any right to react so negatively or absolutely to an unclear outcome.  Mr Cameron had resigned his office at 8.15 that morning! Whom were the four officials addressing? He said the UK needed ‘fresh leadership’ to deal with the non-binding referendum outcome involving a small majority, splitting the country in half and posing constitutional problems. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/david-cameron-resigns-after-uk-votes-to-leave-european-union

To add insult to illegality the four EU presidents in their 10 am statement insisted on a quick Brexit, regardless of the uncertain UK governmental situation and nearly a year before any Article 50 letter was received: ‘We have rules to deal with this in an orderly way.’ In fact the status of Article 50 in this regard is anything but clear.

A second example of many would be the SpitzenKandidat system. This non-treaty device was used to elect Mr Juncker – when the democratically elected British Prime Minister David Cameron had said ‘Mr Juncker is ‘the wrong man’ for the job. Who was Mr Juncker elected by? Just 382 politician/electors of 800 of the EPP. No ballot in all the EU had Mr Juncker’s name on it. No Commission ballot existed.  

The treaties say that the Commission must be impartial and hence a partisan politician is automatically ruled out by law.

A further indication of prejudice is the fact that Mr Juncker’s telephone calls could be seen as an important factor in the resignation of Mr Cameron, an elected Prime Minister. His remarks that preceded the statement of the four presidents were addressed to a country with no effective government.

4b. UK Government is a prejudicial party too.

When Mr Cameron resigned, the Conservative Party had to choose a new leader. This was not done until the autumn. Then Mrs Theresa May called a General Election. She ended up with a minority of votes in the House of Common. She hoped to be sustained by the votes of another party, the DUP of Northern Ireland. Conclusion? The public did not support her policy.

It was Mrs May who used the Conservative Party’s earlier majority to authorize her to write the Article 50 letter to Brussels. However her authority to do so was undermined by the later General Election. Critics say that her hard Brexit policy is a means only to hold the Conservative party together, and pro-Brexit faction within it, are a minority within a minority.

One of many other examples of lack of impartiality that could be cited is the UK Government’s attitude to UK citizens living on the Continent. They were not allowed to vote in the Referendum although their vital interests were involved. There is no guarantee that the present Government will act rigorously to assure these British citizens get a fair deal.

Another, even more serious indicator of undemocratic activity is that the UK governments, since the time of the Maastricht Treaty 1992 to Lisbon, have refused to organize confirmatory referendums to assure treaties’ legality. Thus the Lisbon Treaty has not been confirmed as the acting treaty by referendum. Then they acted one-sidedly and in a prejudicial, partisan way on the advisory referendum of 23 June 2016 to withdraw without reference to Parliament or public debate. Two Courts ruled against them.

5. Conclusion:  

The citizens of the UK and EU-27 are the primary parties in the dispute. They have right for the full disclosure of any and all documents involved in the Article 50 or Brexit process.

Both of the so-called negotiating parties, EU institutions and UK government, have lost public confidence in their impartiality. They do not have public trust.

Both parties have shown themselves prejudicial against public interests.

Both parties ignore calls for fairness.

No meaningful negotiation can take place for the public by parties who are not trusted by the public and who refuse to submit all working documents to the public.

The concept of censoring by a ‘tailor-made’, unauthorized committee of unnamed officials is untenable in any democracy.

Who is the ‘tailor’?

Who decides the pattern or framework for censorship?

Who is able to make the cuts?

Who is involved in stitching up a ‘package deal’ behind closed doors?

Is the pattern they are using one that suits these bodies only and does not involve substantive public issues, such as:

Why the Commission ignored previous referendums that were unfavorable to it,

Why the Lisbon Treaty is identical with the Constitutional Treaty which was rejected by referendums,

Why and how was the Lisbon Treaty and its Article 50, after being rejected by the Irish in a Referendum, mysteriously deemed legal with no public discussion?

What is the status of nuclear proliferation security under Euratom? Euratom has its article 208 which forbids exit for these very reasons.

A ‘tailor-made’ deal is for the public nothing more than a cover-up.

The public is PRIMARILY the main party in the dispute – called a divorce. They have the Primary Right to the documents about what is being discussed either for their enhanced rights in the Community system or against those existing rights to minimize or reduce them. The public and all concerned citizens have the right to have the information about the talks, either directly by video link or have all the working documents plus the position papers.

The two other parties, the EU institutions and the UK government, may not like this. They might wish to carve up in private mutually acceptable positions to the prejudice of the public. They may wish to tailor the information flow to make this easier for them to manage the information and control the PR. That is not the point.  They have no right or legal authority to do so.

The public rights include safeguarding their right to information against any closed door corruption.

This transparency issue goes far beyond the stipulations of the treaties which say that all matters must be treated as openly as possible. The EU institutions must understand that ‘open’ in this case means open to video cameras and public analysis.

The issue goes beyond all the treaties because it is about the right of free people to have free information about their destiny and how others who call themselves representatives are manipulating information to the detriment of elementary rights of Freedom.

THIS IS NOT A SMALL MATTER OF A MINOR COMMITTEE WHERE OFFICIALS WITHOLD DOCUMENTS. IT INVOLVES – AS ROBERT SCHUMAN SAID ON 9 MAY 1950 – THE DEMOCRATIC DESTINY OF THE EUROPEAN CONTINENT.

C. Riposte to other exception clauses

1. Article 4.3 of Regulation 1049/2001.

You write that the disclosure of working documents and internal minutes is prevented by the exception to the right of access laid down in Article 4(3) (protection of the decision-making process).

This reads: 4.3. Access to a document, drawn up by an institution for internal use or received by an institution, which relates to a matter where the decision has not been taken by the institution, shall be refused if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution's decision-making process, unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.

The exception of Article 4.3 about this ‘negotiating process’ that you mention is null and void for the reasons detailed above and below. The subject of rights being curtailed in secret excludes its use. The first part of the talks is about ‘divorce’. It deals with the rights of citizens. Only after the divorce can trade matters be discussed.

A fundamental democratic right is to be informed. This is an absolute right. It is recognized by representative governments. Freedom to Information is not doled out by democratic governments, only autocracies. Government is obliged by the people to recognize their right to information. (Article 10 of the Convention of Human Rights, articles 8-11 of the EU Charter).

The so-called negotiating parties have no right to limit this information. Nor is it the function of the EU or government to decide how much information about changing citizen rights it will deign to release to the public. It is the public that judges the EU and the governments about whether they are remiss or not in their functions of civil servants.

Neither the EU Institutions nor the Government of the UK has the full and undivided support of the British or European public. They cannot act fully in its name.

 It is therefore of major importance and overriding interest of the public to have all information being discussed. Otherwise the public will be faced with a negotiated fait accompli from two groups of officials that lack public confidence. They will therefore be faced with the option to take further legal action for the dereliction of duty of the two groups involved.

2. Climate of public trust has already been lost

You say that the ‘negotiations on the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union requires a climate of mutual trust between both sides.’  But neither side has the full trust of the public. There is concern at what is NOT being discussed, excluded by mutual agreement of the EU and UK government against the public.

Whatever the outcome, trust has already been the first casualty. The public cannot properly judge the value of a pig in a poke. That is what in effect the ‘negotiations’ are between two parties that lack public trust. Citizens cannot see what is supposedly being done in their name, and without their acquiescence.  

3. The three areas of talks require openness, not secrecy
The three areas of the present discussion have been defined without public intervention. But as they stand they are all matters that require openness: rights of residence and social security, the Irish single market and travel area and the accountancy of the amounts the UK will pay to settle up its bills and commitments.

The latter is purely an accountancy problem based on legal obligations. The money involved is tax-payers’ money. The final figures and the discussion should be without dispute by anyone, as much as a tax bill of an individual or a company should be fixed and settled by accountancy principles. There is therefore no reason to apply Article 4.3 to any of the main areas defined for the divorce discussions.  

There are a number of other areas such as Euratom, JET and generally governance issues that cannot be restricted by article 4.3. They are issues were the legislation has to be continued beyond Brexit. Public ventilation of the issues is to the advantage of all. It will avoid a slew of Court cases if the ‘negotiators’ get it wrong.

4. Objections under Article 4.1

You say that ‘disclosure of documents is ‘prevented by … Article 4 (1)(a), fourth indent (protection of the financial, monetary or economic policy of the Union or a Member State) and Article 4(1) (b) (protection of the privacy and the integrity of the individuals).’

This article reads:

4.1. The institutions shall refuse access to a document where

disclosure would undermine the protection of:

(a) the public interest as regards:

— public security,

— defence and military matters,

— international relations,

— the financial, monetary or economic policy of the

Community or a Member State;

(b) privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data.

The same counter-arguments apply to dismiss the claim. None of these restrictions apply to universal rights and privileges of UK citizens and EU-27 citizens. They do not involve individuals whose data has to be protected. The money involved is tax-payers’ money.  That alone removes the requirement of secrecy.

The request is about the divorce proceedings not the negotiations afterwards about a new commercial partnership and a new trading relationship.  The subjects being discussed at the moment are:

·         Residential and social rights of EU-27 citizens in the UK and UK citizens in EU27.

·         Irish border, single market problems,

·         Financial payments.

  There are several other issues of equal or greater importance that the negotiating parties have refused to deal with. That underlines the dangers for the citizens of leaving the EU and the UK government the sole right to define what the issues for the citizens really are. So far the experiment has failed. The dangers for the citizen and future democratic standards both for the UK and the EU have been increased.

The objection raised is trying to confound the two phases. The first phase must have open discussion and open paper work.

A tailor-made restriction on documents is by definition a cover-up. I urgently demand that a review of the Commission’s policy be made. All documents relevant to Brexit must be released and negotiations held in a way that satisfies open democracy, worthy of European democratic institutions.

Yours sincerely,

David H Price

SchumanProject

eurDemocracy

  

Closed Doors for "Democratic" BREXIT Talks

   In the Brexit talks, both the European Union and UK have declared they will ensure the maximum level of transparency. It is the alleged policy of the European Commission. They say on their website :

“The Commission, as European Union negotiator, will ensure a maximum level of transparency during the whole negotiating process.”

Why have the UK and the EU negotiator so signally FAILED to keep to the policy?
What is the maximum level of transparency? It is to hold PUBLIC sessions for the discussions of the UK Government’s policy of exiting the European Union. This is a legal obligation of the EU. Why does the EU not follow its own treaties?

“Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible.” Lisbon TFEU article 15

Is it possible to open a door? Where then are the television cameras inside the Berlaymont relaying to the public what is being discussed? Where are the press seats inside this room?
Brexit affects just about all citizens in the European Union. Just take the question of contributions to the EU budget. If the UK leaves then the remainder States, EU-27, will have to pay more as the UK is a net contributor.
Everyone has an interest in the process. It is about Democracy. Let us not confuse it with a trade negotiation. It is nothing of the sort. It is a process above all where the UK Government has pledged to leave the economic, legal and democratic institutions of Europe. Like a divorce, the whole process should be held in open court. The EU has no mandate to close the doors. (Any trade arrangement comes AFTER the divorce.)
It is above all a LEGAL process, the democratic Rule of Law. All aspects of the agreement between the EU institutions and the UK have to stand up in Court. Citizens are all members of this club. They are the Jury. Why do politicians need secrecy? They may attack the Rights of Citizens and steal money from their pocket. Any citizen has the right to take any matter to Court if his or her vital interests are unjustly affected. The UK Courts and EU courts must be guardians of the process.
It is therefore vital that the process itself should be completely open. The first session of 19 June 2017 concluded that the UK discussions must follow the priority issues set out by EU-27. They are legal and financial questions.
Everyone has a right therefore to know how much they will have to pay extra. They have a right to know if they have to up-sticks from their home, if they will have to uproot their children from schools, if they have to find new means of employment.
These are not matters that can be decided in secret by someone who does not have the authority to act on citizens’ behalf.
Take the UK Government position. Firstly, there are grave doubts about the validity of Article 50 and its application. (Both France by 9% and the Netherlands by 23% roundly rejected it!) Then, on the resignation of Mr David Cameron as Prime Minister, Mrs Theresa May formed a government in which hardline Brexiteers occupied key posts. Was this justified?
Mrs May’s Cabinet took an extreme position on the outcome of the advisory referendum in which a narrow majority voted leave. The number of votes that did not were the majority (those who did not vote and those who voted Remain were 63%) .

What did the vote mean? The Government said it was a mandate to leave. They said that they did not even have to consult Parliament because it involved a treaty or treaties and for all treaties the government had control under Henry VIII prerogative powers. But no. Courts said otherwise. Furthermore both High Court and Supreme Court confirmed that the Referendum was only advisory , not mandatory to the government.
So the government was proved wrong in its autocratic interpretation. Firstly the people’s voice was advisory. Secondly the government had no right to suspend normal constitutional processes such as passing a Bill and also by implication asking the people again. If an agency misinterprets a wish of its client, it is legally bound to ask the client for clarification before it proceeds.
For example if you took your car to a garage and the mechanic didn’t follow your instructions, and you took him to Court to prove him wrong, don’t you think it would be reasonable for the mechanic would ask for clear written instructions before he set to work again on the vehicle? Wouldn’t you insist that you give him detailed diagnosis of the problems before he put his clumsy fingers into the motor again?
Around Europe citizens object to the secrecy and Democracy Deficit in Brussels. What the May government have exposed is the Democracy Deficit in Whitehall. The garage mechanic needs to show that he is competent before he starts wrecking the car again.
Mrs May’s setback in the Supreme Court implies further constitutional assurances of competence and sensitivity to the population are necessary. All constitutional safeguards must be undertaken properly, as the Three Knights report confirms.
But what has happened in the interim? The May Government called a further show of public support for its Brexiteer position. It failed utterly. Mrs May called a General Election. In the vote of 8 June, it failed to rouse any public confidence. To the amazement of public commentators the Conservatives did not gain any seats in Parliament. The electors turned May’s majority into a minority. Its future is now in doubt as it depends on the support of the Democratic Unionist Party of North Ireland. It also has to ensure that the anti-Leave Conservative MPs do not break rank and vote against it on the whole range of EU matters that it has to pass.
Now take the Commission and the EU. Is it trustworthy? Can it count properly? Does it have another agenda which reimposes a treaty rejected by referendums, obscures Schuman and the origin, purpose and future of Europe‘s great democratic project?
That’s why the doors must be opened.

Quick Brexit is becoming a fading reality

At the press briefing for the 15 December European Council here in Brussels, a “high European official” revealed how little the EU-27 have measured the widespread consequences of Brexit on their timetable.

The rush, rush attitude of Commission President Juncker, European Council President Tusk, EP president Schulz and as articulated also by Guy Verhofstadt is up for a surprise. The treaty of Lisbon calls for a 2 year negotiation. Guy Verhofstadt MEP and the Commission’s Brexit pointman Michel Barnier say this must realistically be reduced to 15 months to allow for preparation and ratification in all 28 States. All the lose ends have to be wrapped up well before the 2019 elections, they all say.
Why?
They don’t want UK to be electing MEPs while it is about to leave the EU under Article 50.
What they haven’t foreseen is clear from the briefing. That is regardless of what happens with the Lisbon E U negotiations, the UK will still be obliged to elect MEPs — not under the Lisbon Treaty but under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Euratom. (The EU is not the same as the European Community in law!)
The Founding Fathers of Europe were democratic and the Assembly was created by the founding Treaty in 1951. The first was the Coal and Steel Community with an Assembly which required elections by universal suffrage.
There were three Communities. Each treaty had full democracy based on one person one vote. But initially the parliamentarians were delegated by the national parliaments until the politicians provided the single statute for all Europe.
We are still waiting for them to do so.
The institutions of three Communities merged to have a single Parliament which is the present European Parliament. In the Merger Treaty of 1965 they have a single Council and the same Consultative Committees such as the Economic and Social Committee. When MEPs are elected they are elected to be parliamentarians for Euratom and for the EU.
Nuclear matters were responsible to this Assembly and other bodies such as the Consultative Committees which also should be elected. The public is still waiting for elections there too.
The European Union arose from modifying just one of these three Communities, the EEC “Common Market”. This was done by the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and the failed and rejected Constitutional Treaty whose articles were illegally incorporated as the Lisbon treaty.
Euratom remains a separate body and requires in its articles that States elect parliamentarians.
What does this mean for Britons living on the Continent? What does it mean for Britons in the UK? That has to be worked out.
Have the EU27 or the European Council considered the implications of this treaty? The answer is No. And officials said they won’t even be discussing it on Thursday, 14 December. They will leave it until after the negotiation date is set.
What will they find?
That (1) this Community treaty has a “perpetuity” clause like the EEC used to have before it was changed to the Article 50 of Lisbon.
(2) They will also find that, even if they come up with a legal device to overturn the perpetuity clause (which at the very least will require unanimity first, then treaty change and parliamentary ratification by 28 States) they will be faced with a world of highly complex additional negotiation to deal with. That is the common market of nuclear materials and safeguards that will prevent countries like Iran getting hold of it. It adds a new braking action for the fast Brexiteers.
http://www.politico.eu/…/after-brexit-brexatom-nuclear-bre…/
The EU-27 States estimate that it will take a decade or more to negotiate merely the trade aspects. So says UK's Brussels diplomat, Sir Ivan Rogers. That assumes there will be no legal delays by angry citizens and consumers.
Conclusion: Fast Brexit is looking more like Mission Impossible.