Britexit6 Why when Britons vote to LEAVE, must they REMAIN in European Community?

On 23 June 2016 whatever way Britons vote in the BREXIT referendum, the UK will remain a Member State of the European Community. The European Commission knows this. It is not clear if Westminster government realizes this. They should.
How do I know? That is what the treaties say! This burning issue was debated a decade and a half ago, when the Lisbon Treaty existed only as an illegitimate twinkle in the eyes of politicians.
First paradox: Democracy can be reduced but it cannot be destroyed. The fact that UK remains a member of the European Community is positive proof of this! The recent calls for referendums in Greece on the democracy-destroying effects of the ill-conceived euro, that of independence for Spanish Catalonia, the Dutch referendum on the Ukraine accord, the British referendum on BREXIT and the proposed Hungarian referendum against Brussels dictating the migratory flows to the country, show one thing. Brussels is sick. Not Europe or its democratic spirit. Expect more referendums, including one in France on FREXIT!
The core problem is that the Council of Ministers has retained neo-Gaullist powers as a closed-door big-daddy government of the political cartel. Europe needs to install the democratic rights written in the treaties for more than sixty years and its Great Charter of the Community 1951, guaranteeing the founding principle of authentic ‘freedom of choice‘!
Is Britain’s referendum anti-democratic? What about the sovereign will of the people as expressed in the BREXIT referendum? That deals specifically with the question on the voting slip.

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” The options for voters will be ‘Remain a member of the European Union’ and ‘Leave the European Union’.”

The referendum question does not say European Community. Why?
Second paradox. Doesn’t the highly-rated British civil service and do not all the associated bands of experienced politicians (some of whom attend the Council and Parliament) know the difference between EC and EU? Why did they write such a question?
Third paradox. Is European history education so deficient that nobody has pointed out this glaring error? Has the fund of millions of propaganda euros that the EU has poured into the 875 Jean Monnet professorships around Europe and beyond been entirely wasted? They boast they have “educated” half a million students each year? Why then aren’t these passive students taking to the streets shouting ‘The emperor has no clothes!?’
Fourth paradox. The European Commission knows about the referendum question result. It knows the answer. It is no secret. It was widely broadcast while the so-called ‘Constitutional Treaty’ was being fabricated. But Commission is keeping stumm.
I have had a substantial correspondence with the Commission. They won’t raise the issue, divulge any information on it or debate it.
What is the reply of officials when confronted with the issue in the press room?

“We don’t wish to discuss it!”

Why? Isn’t that a dereliction of duty of the ‘Guardian of the treaties’? The issue is obviously of supreme importance to know before voting! Britons might vote to leave the EU and find themselves still in the European Community!
This legal answer from a high-ranking official, an authoritative EU source, is positive affirmation in its way that the UK will definitely remain a Member. The UK will remain a participating member of the Council of Ministers. It will have to elect Members of Parliament to the European Parliament. It is obliged to participate in the Consultative Committees like the Economic and Social Committee (designed to deal with matters like the euro but ineffective) and the Committee of Regions (designed to deal with migration issues and equally ineffective). Both committees are supposed to be elected and radiate trust and legitimacy. Instead they are still nominated by the Council in its secret sessions.
Paradox five will be a shock! What will happen on 24 June, when Britons hear the results over breakfast?
They will find they have, for example, expressed a wish to leave the European Union, the EU. But that is not the European Community. The EU is a bloated, and often quite undemocratic, neo-Gaullist perversion of the European Economic Community. Some British like to call this the Common Market, but it was far more than that.
Today there are two active Communities. The EU is just the outgrowth of one. When the UK joined, it agreed to become active participants of THREE. Chronologically the first Community was the European Coal and Steel Community founded in 18 April 1951 and starting its activities on 10 August 1952. it created Europe’s first Single Market in February 1953.
Its treaty was in force for a limited but renewable period of 50 years. That date terminated in 2002. Lobbied hard by the steel and coal interests, the Council of Ministers decided without public debate (or a referendum!) not to renew the Community. The short-sighted cause was a 1 percent tax that provided houses and full employment for workers, new technologies for the industries and low prices for the customers and protection from unfair trade practices. Immediately after the end of the Community, prices of steel soared. Was this a coincidence? The Community had strong powers against cartel operations on price manipulation.
Since then Europe has experienced the consequences: firstly the great steel enterprises were sold off to foreign purchasers. Then more recently the steel furnaces have been shut down as China and other nations dump their cheaper products on world markets. The former industrial backbone of Europe has been broken by the greed and lack of vision of businessmen and the poor judgement of its cartel politicians.
The second Community was the European Atomic Energy Community, founded under the Treaty of Rome in 1957. It was envisaged by Robert Schuman in 1949 as Europe’s answer to the Soviet atomic bomb and a means to stop nuclear proliferation and war. This was the subject of de Gaulle’s ire. He paralyzed Euratom, as it was known. He then built a French atomic bomb, suborning others to contribute to the research. De Gaulle boasted that his bomb could kill 20 million people in two hours! Would you trust de Gaulle or any such autocrat with the Bomb?
The Euratom treaty would if applied have prevented any Iranian production of an atomic bomb. It would also have stopped the production of a Pakistani bomb and the Libyan and possibly North Korean operations.
http://www.amazon.com/Stopping-Nuclear-threat-Europe-South/dp/1291638954
The recent Iran nuclear deal shows the barrenness of EU foreign policy. Today flush with its 100 or 150 billion dollars bonanza, Iran, long considered the most dangerous terror State, is funding Palestinian terrorism. It is offering $7000 to each family for producing a ‘martyr’ and $30,000 for a destroyed house.
Euratom is not dead. Britain is still a part of its Community, the Commission, Council and Parliament. So if the referendum returns a vote to LEAVE, the authorities in Brussels and those in Whitehall will have to start explaining why leaving the European Community just is not possible. Before any BREXIT takes place that will have to be exposed, analyzed and resolved.
Reminder: the EU has an exit clause 50. The Euratom treaty has none. Why? Because those inside a club have rights as much as those who wish to leave!
The only way a Member State can leave Euratom is to persuade all other Members to revoke the treaty. That is simple democracy. We all have an interest in nuclear security and non-proliferation. We don’t need another de Gaulle-style autocrat, whether French, German or perhaps with an Islamic vision of grandeur, threatening to kill 20 million people based on shared European technology and fissile material.

Britexit4: The faulty UK BREXIT reform will aggravate EU's democracy scam!

The Europeans are about to have their democracy stolen. AGAIN. Who will do it? Let’s call them Pickpocket Politicians. The British who boast of their Magna Carta and their democracy might make matters a whole lot worse by their BREXIT referendum!
At the core of the problem lies the dominant Cartel of groupings in the European Parliament, aided by nearly all national politicians, it would seem. They are showing that 28 countries called Democracies cannot abide by simple democratic rules at the European level. They prefer fraud and democratic theft.
Stand by for another decade of crises in European affairs! It is looming. No one is talking about it yet. It will explode soon. I’ll give you an exact date: 2018. And a few years later, again and again and again.

• Whatever the outcome of discussions Mr Cameron has with the European Council,
• whatever the publicity that he tries to propagate afterwards,
• whatever the reaction of the British public,
• whatever the pleas of other European States for Britain to stay within the EU,
• whatever the arguments of anti-EU parties,
• whatever the support of pro-EU parties,

the UK Referendum will be a major failure.
Not just for the UK. It will be a major failure for all of Europe. It will be a major failure for all candidate States and Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Iceland. All Europeans will lose out from UK’s referendum.
Except the self-proclaimed ‘Top politicians’, the ‘TopPols‘.
Why?
Britain has been and will continue to be excluded from the top leadership of Europe. Not just now. Possibly for ever. It is not a member of the dominant Parliament grouping, the EPP. Even if Britain votes overwhelmingly to stay in, top jobs are excluded. Europeans had better not cheer like the Gaullists! Other countries might be in the same exclusion boat too.
When I spoke to a key member of the Prime Minister’s team about this at the June European Council last year, one thing was abundantly clear. The British government had no idea what was in store. I asked if the British government was going to deal with this vital question in their reform package.

My question was this: ‘Is the British government asking the European Council to remove the measures that exclude a Briton from ever becoming the President of the Commission? ‘

A reform referendum is the moment to make sure this error was corrected. Instead the British government has chosen to do nothing and say nothing about it. I was met with a blank look when I said that no Briton would ever become the Commission President in the future. Then when I explained, I could see the truth was sinking in.

As it stands the Continental powers will make sure that there will NEVER be a British president of the European Commission. This is a fairly obvious outcome of the subversive scheme that the Continental parties have already activated. The Conservatives are not part of the EPP. As long as they remain independent, they will never have one of their own called to be Commission President.
It is called the ‘Top Politician’ scam. Or if you want it in German: SpitzenKandidatenBetrug‘ The present Commission president is M. Jean-Claude Juncker. Nobody in the United Kingdom voted for him. If you add up all the votes cast within the UK, the highest figure I have seen that had anything to do with Mr Juncker is less than 0.2 percent of all votes cast. Even that is wrong. The answer is ZERO votes.
That is hardly surprising because no ballot paper in all the European Union said that Mr Juncker was a candidate for the office of President of the European Commission. He simply ’emerged’ from the European Parliament elections of June 2014. All this is a bit bizarre for a post some (wrongly) compare to the President of the USA and which pays a higher salary.
Just reflect a second. If the European Parliament elections were really about the election of the President of the European Commission, then obviously the ballot papers for the electors would say so. Legally, no election of the President took place. Hence everyone can shout out loud: FRAUD! SCAM! THIEVES! The 28 national elections for the 2014 European Parliamentary elections elected national members to the European Parliament, nothing more.
The national politicians know it is a fraud. Public research revealed that hardly anyone inside the EU even recognized his name, Juncker. Even Frau Merkel objected that no one really knew his name. It took some behind-the-scenes arms-twisting before even the national politicians agreed they could get away with it. The Socialists wanted to control Parliament and name its president. Eventually they all agreed.
Mr Juncker was the ex-prime Minister of Luxembourg, a tiny country at the heart of Europe known for a controversy of being a tax haven. He was out of office but still active in partisan politics.
Why then was Mr Juncker elected? Well, he had support. Who exactly? He was given the office because he was chosen by 382 party politicians. Who were they? They were those out of 800 special members of the European People’s Party (EPP) who voted ‘yes’ that Mr Juncker should be a ‘Top Politician.’ In other words, a Spitzenkandidat.
So less than half of the 800 EPP voters wanted Mr Juncker.
Were any of the 382 voters British? No. In fact none of the 800 who cast their vote was British.
All that should smell a little fishy to any democrat. Smelly, rather like a fish that is a week old.
Why were there no British voting for Mr Juncker? That is because the mainstream British parties are not in coalition with such operations as the EPP. The EPP is considered centre-right in European politics. But the centre-right British Conservative party is in another coalition with smaller parties it considers more like-minded.
The EPP has been and still is the biggest trans-European coalition of governmental parties. It dominates politics in the European Parliament. It is the equivalent in politics of what, in economics, is called a Cartel. And it dominates as if it were a monopoly power. The consumer, Joe Public, becomes a victim of extortion.
The EPP has managed to bring into its ranks major government parties of most of the EU’s Member States. The first major problem for Democracy and Justice is that Britain is excluded from its internal machinations.
That’s not all. It gets worse. The second major problem is that the prominent political parties, together with other coalitions among the Liberals and the Socialists have all agreed on what is an open fraud to bamboozle European citizens out of their democratic rights. What’s in it for them? Jobs on the Commission too.
They are saying that only politicians, not ordinary citizens, can be members of the Commission and that only their parties have a right to put up candidates for the office. In that they are dead wrong! The treaties say exactly the opposite. They say that Commissioners must be totally non-partisan and independent, like a judge in a court case. They swear in the European Court with the oath of office to be independent.

“I solemnly undertake:

• to respect the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the fulfilment of all my duties;
• to be completely independent in carrying out my responsibilities, in the general interest of the Union;
• in the performance of my tasks, neither to seek nor to take instructions from any Government or from any other institution, body, office or entity;
• to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties or the performance of my tasks.”

And then do the opposite! An active partisan of a political party is member of a body with a dogma. By being national party politicians they are apt to take instructions from governments. By speaking to lobbyists in private, they are doing the wrong thing. Such matters should be discussed in public in legislative Consultative Committees or not at all. Being a party politician is the exact opposite of non-partisan. It is being highly partisan.
So this Continental fraud not only deprives the average citizen of his or her rights to become a Commissioner. It restricts the right to certain Continental politicians.
Furthermore, and most striking for the British Government’s ‘reform’, it completely eliminates all British politicians from  the latest, corrupt Commission game. So it discriminates against the average citizen by stopping independent citizens from becoming Commissioners and acting fairly. And, while committing this fraud, it discriminates against British politicians and excludes them from the top politicians’ ‘closed shop’!
If you need to have an analogy it is equivalent to the Soviet Politburo system. Only those who were Communist party members could be considered to take leading roles in Soviet society. The same applies to the way the top politicians have rigged the EU governance system.
Robert Schuman designed the Community system to have three levels of democracy and only the EP level was supposed to be party political. The Commission was defined as being the non-governmental, non-lobbyist, non-party political Honest Broker among these institutions.
How do the Top Pols get away with it? The Commission is supposed to be — and so it often boasts — the ‘guardian of the treaties’. So that once the Commission was full of politicians, they simply passed declaration saying: 'Only ex-politicians are welcome here.' They then said: 'We can be active in politics too.' The treaties say the opposite but the Commission declaration has not yet be tested in the European Court of Justice. Once it is raised there, there will be more than sparks flying.
If the treaties say that politicians cannot become Members of the Commission unless they renounce their allegiance to party dogma, doctrine and ideology, government representation and lobbyist activity, what is to be done about it?
If the UK refuses to raise the alarm against this flagrant discrimination both against the British nation and against all British citizens, then matters will go from bad to worse. Regardless of the outcome of the referendum, it will be highly unlikely that Britain will seek a further reform referendum of the EU scam for another decade. Whether inside or outside the EU the corrupting of Schuman’s democracy will make the whole of European affairs more unmanageable.
The worst aspect of Britain’s refusal to apply Magna Carta principles of democracy is that the next referendum on reforming the EU is likely to be pushed back for years as politicians do not like referendums. Europeans will have to live with the Cartel’s distortion of democracy on immigration policy and the euro debacle for the near future.

Britexit3 : What the UK must do BEFORE its referendum to leave the EU

FIRST Build Supranational Counter-Instruments!  (Part three of series)

What would be the nature of the instruments that would be needed for the negotiations? Here are some of the issues needing action BEFORE the UK Government sends its letter of withdrawal. The strategy requires implementation as soon as possible, even before the referendum.

If not the institutions may make implementation more and more difficult for serious negotiations. The eventual goal must be borne in mind.  The negotiation has to provide honest and fair solutions.

A bitter barter deal won’t cut it. It will be subject to endless renegotiations like the British rebate and the common fishing policy. Iceland has always maintained that sustainable fish stocks were the rock of its policy.

Not the EU. Secret political deals in Council ignored scientific assessments. Fish stocks were wiped out. Britain needs sustainability or it could be decimated by secret attacks at the Council of Ministers like the fish stocks. 

How can UK negotiate with Brussels when the institutions are not impartial? Take the Commission as an example. It has to act for 27 Member States plus the UK at the same time. Which side will it Commission favour since one member will leave and 27 will stay? How can it be impartial? Can the UK trust it? 

The Commission should provide an impartial overview of UK’s needs within Europe’s needs and interests. It doesn’t. How then can it be impartial when later it represents interests of States who are trying to displace UK and assert its supremacy?

In a recent outburst against the British Conservative group, President Jose Manuel Barroso said that unless they conformed to his idea of pro-European policy, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) would become the ‘first force’ in British politics for Europe.

Mr Cameron retorted the Commission is not respecting the UK’s government party and lecturing it. The strategy must counter the negative proclivity of the Commission thinking that it alone is right. It must do it before and not try to change the highly political Commission during negotiations.

Then there is the Council.  Britain has Europe’s strongest banking and financial sector – which many would like to see moved to the Continent. How can British multinationals be assured that they have fair and open access to the European Single Market without being coshed again?

The Council takes its instructions from the European Council of heads of governments. So what lessons are to be learned their about impartiality? After the 28 June 2013 summit, P.M. Cameron denounced as ‘unacceptable and ‘frustrating’ the one a.m. ambush on the UK rebate issue, supposedly finalized in February. “I just think this is no way for an organisation to conduct itself.” he added. 

The atmosphere could become far worse. The UK should not forget the de Gaulle’s NON. He refused Britain’s entry. Not once, but twice. He caused havoc to international negotiation. He did not discuss it in the Council of Ministers. Or his own Cabinet! Nor by formal letter or in an international conference but at a press conference! He ran the Community like it was his own backyard to exploit for agriculture and bribing politicians and voters.

Then there is the European Parliament. De Gaulle considered it a cipher. Today has gained powers with major financial powers of codecision from the Lisbon Treaty. This could wreck a carefully sculpted negotiation made with the Council. Anyone watching the debates in the EP can scarcely believe that it will take the negotiation lying down and with a benign smile. The Council’s Legal Service concluded that the Financial Transfer Tax was not legal. This did not seem to deter MEPs.

One political group declared in a press release:

Appealing to governments to stick to proposals for the introduction of a financial transaction tax (FTT), despite 'cynical' legal manoeuvring, Portuguese MEP Marisa Matias said the EU has a clear choice:
"Either we rescue politics and our society from financial markets or we can start to say goodbye to a common European project." 

The Court is another hidden danger. An appeal to a Court that favoured integrationist and ratchet federalism could years later strip off key decisions of the negotiation result. All hard, detailed work would be in vain if, years later, the Court reversed key aspects.

The EU has hardly improved democratically since de Gaulle’s day. The fruit of de Gaulle’s corrupt anti-democracy was the misdirection of Community funds into Wine Lakes, Meat Mountains, and Cheese Bergs. Millions of Europeans’ money were wasted on local politicians’ pet infrastructure projects of bridges and autoroutes that went nowhere. 

The entire budget system which takes taxpayers’ money and spends it as the political Politburo decides lacks transparency and control by taxpayers. Today we have airports that have no passengers and other much more expensive wastes of taxpayers’ money.

Even worse the politicians’ ill-founded Euro project (intended by many southern States to get Community funding for governmental mismanagement) costs around seven times the entire EU budget by its European Stability Mechanism ESM, European Finance and Stability Facility, EFSF and other dubious operations of the Fiscal Compact. It is often said that ‘EU is not prepared to make changes.’

It has continuously lost public trust as it has changed from the original idea of a democratic Community of equal partners, equal governments, equal enterprises, unions, consumers and equal individuals. Today it run by party political machines, who are lobbyists for who knows whom. It is a political club run in secret by a politburo in the closed-door European Council and the EuroGroup.
It chooses the Parliament president in secret.
It makes Foreign Policy in secret.
It names the European Central Bank president in secret.
It appoints the Commission president in secret from among its own, ignoring 98 percent of the European population.

But the UK has real Membership leverage to bring reform BEFORE the Exit Letter. How?  The second key aspect of the negotiation is the pre-reform of institutions to make them really democratic.  Only when the basic conditions are settled for a democratic discussion, should the UK government think about sending its official letter about leaving the EU.

Britexit2: How to avoid poisonous myths and a calamity after UK's Referendum

If a UK Referendum to leave the EU succeeded, Britain would have to deal with a complex, new set of negotiations. They would have to deal both with facts of commerce and economy but also with myths that would reinforce treating the UK as an unreliable partner. Material loss from a poor negotiating stance would only be part of the story. If Britain was left with an unfounded reputation as a wrecker and trouble-maker it would be far worse for its future.

Britain’s entry negotiations into the three European Communities (Coal and Steel, ‘Common Market’ and Euratom) were not happy. High rancour was engendered by de Gaulle’s veto in 1962. It has coloured subsequent relations by creating great suspicion among the British of French and its partners’ intentions.

Europeans are still being fooled by Gaullist propaganda and myths. On the French side, many have imbibed Gaullist propaganda for generations. And not only the French. De Gaulle tried to destroy the Community system yet as recently as 2013 Charles de Gaulle received a jubilee triumph. It was if the Gaullist idea of the Franco-German axis was the opposite of his concession of failure. The real Gaullist policy was to annex parts of Germany. He advocated this policy during the war and right up to the moment he seized power and several years later. The Franco-German motor is his myth.

The Community idea involves the opposite to a bi-national motor. Cooking up deals in private is the opposite to open democracy. The Community does not involve fooling the public by fraudulent Beef Mountain, Wine Lakes and useless infrastructure projects to buy local votes. It calls for real, equal partnership and solidarity of all Member States and all sections of society in supranational democracy. The present euro is the latest anti-European Gaullist fraud.

De Gaulle opposed pro-Europeans and above all Schuman’s ideas for peace and prosperity. He had long advocated French annexation of parts of today’s Germany such as the Saarland and other territories up to the Rhine river. He wanted the Ruhr to be placed under French and Allied control.That would make France and in particular, Charles de Gaulle the new emperor of the Continent. There were enormous rows with the Americans and the British who saw de Gaulle as a man of the nineteenth century. Indeed his nationalist policy was based on the past not the future.

De Gaulle only changed this policy after he failed to stop the establishment of the German government in Bonn and the operation of the three European Communities. He called the Federal Republic of Germany the Fourth Reich.

He only changed his mind in 1963 — more than a decade after the supranational Community system had begun. It was after a decade and a half of positive German experience of democracy that started with votes in the Laender.

When he seized power in 1957, pro-European parties such as the MRP and the Socialists, made an agreement that they would support de Gaulle’s temporary powers to solve the Algerian crisis as long as he did not attack the Community idea, vocally or in politics. He reneged on that. His policy of boycott of the institutions typified by the empty chair in the Council of Ministers and his attempt to turn an independent European Commission into a political secretariat (the Fouchet Plan) met with resistance. When he ruled out any future of the Community system in May 1962 by saying ‘There can be no other Europe than the Europe of Nation States,’ he was opposed by French Europeans and those in other States. The MRP ministers in his government resigned.

So if de Gaulle fooled most of the European people and still does, how can Britain create a better impression and reputation once the Referendum affirms that Britain should leave the EU?

The blueprint of the ‘Supra-Solution’
The proposed solution (which we will call the Supra-Solution) will not only deal with such often forgotten complications of the Communities but also enable the negotiations to boost British trade with the EU and the world. It will safeguard this solution against any complications from the Scottish referendum (or possible Welsh or N. Irish ones). The proposed blueprint for the exit will ensure that the UK is not placed in a weak negotiating position that allows the remainder of the EU to blackmail it. This occurred in the 1972 Heath negotiation. In 1961 the Macmillan application was subject to unilateral and humiliating rebuffs.
The plan’s outcome will leave both the EU and the UK stronger.

Requirements
Britain’s negotiations must comprise five strands

1. Moral: The UK needs to tackle the negotiation from a high moral ground. The strategy must be adequately prepared before negotiations.

2. Economic: The UK should ensure that it does not lose out economically both during negotiation and afterwards. The potential for providing for positive outcomes both for the UK and the EU requires careful preparation, implementation of successive stages and follow-through to the final operation.

3. Political: The negotiation should leave the UK with friendly relationships across Europe and elsewhere.

4. Social. It must maintain human rights of all British citizens and associations and their political voice in the negotiations according to best social teaching of the common good.  Negotiations cannot be top down like Bismarck but need to integrate society’s various interests. Even a referendum for exit does not mean that the rights of referendum minorities can be trampled on. The solution must bring social justice for all.

5. Legal: How can negotiations take place without being tied in legal knots? Will the result be legally permanent? The competence of and for the EU’s competence (Kompetenz-Kompetenz) lies with governments or more specifically national sovereignty.
It needs to have a smooth negotiation process so not to cause disruptions to the economy and legal/social order. It also has to be future-proof.  It therefore needs to set up long-term instruments for future relations with the EU Member States, (MS) and Brussels.

Those instruments are not only the key to Britain’s future after the Referendum but also for the other Member States of the EU.

Britexit1: If Britain exits the EU, where will it end for the UK, for the EU and the world?

What will be the repercussions if UK citizens vote to leave the EU? This series of commentaries, Britexit, deals with various aspects of problem. First some major economic implications and what you are not being told by dishonest bureaucrats and ignorant or willful politicians.

The EU is the world’s largest trading unit. Its GDP represents 23.2 percent of world GDP. This is far bigger than the USA. In 2012 EU-28 had a combined GDP of $16.72 Trillion. The USA was then $15.68Trillion. The UK has a GDP of some $2.44Trillion, rather small in comparison. India’s GDP is $1.62Trillion.
These figures come from the World Bank given in Wikipedia.

Whatever may be said about China’s economy, it should be recalled that EU is twice the size of China’s GDP which is at $8.36Trillion.

In global terms the UK has 3.5% of world GDP.

That is relatively small but changes to the present structure, if not handled with care, could cause serious global disruptions. Major transatlantic trade negotiations with the USA are under way to create a free trade area. What if the UK pulls out of the EU? How can these trade vectors continue to Britain’s advantage? The EU says that each family budget will gain 500 euros at the end of the negotiations. Will Britons lose out? Will it have enough political beef to conduct its own negotiations to at least the same level of success?

The great danger is that EU renegotiation of the UK might well cause major disruption to world trade and international legal agreements, unless far-sighted measures are undertaken to make the process as smooth and as problem-free as possible.

How can UK avoid looming challenges elsewhere? Take a look inside the UK. Two referendums are on the books, one for membership of the EU, the other in Scotland for independence from the UK. Others might come fast and furious after this, once the voters have a taste for referendums as a means to redress the balance against unpopular politicians who seem to ignore public opinion.

British exit from the EU might exacerbate national tensions within the United Kingdom. Will Britain break up? The UK might be reduced to separate regional nations of England, Wales and N. Ireland. The Scottish government has declared it wishes to remain inside the EU. No solution for Whitehall that does not take into account the possibility of an independent Scotland remaining inside the EU (or for that matter an independent Wales, and N Ireland separately or as a single entity) is acceptable.

While the British government in London’s Whitehall might have to calm fears at home, it needs also to pour oil on troubled waters with Brussels. No solution that leaves Britain and the EU as antagonistic forces after negotiation can be judged successful. How can peace and harmony be assured? Articles 49 and 50 on entry and exit of the EU in one of the two Lisbon Treaties are full of traps and complications to wreck the unwary. (These can be discussed later. )

The first vital priority for both British politicians, bureaucrats and the public is to get informed about what the European Community is and what the European Union is and what it isn’t.


Major technical and legal problems for exit are too often ignored. The European system that Britain entered in 1973 did not include the European Union (EU). The latter is an expansion, and a grossly deformed and distorted one at that, of just one of three European Communities, the European Economic Community or Customs Union. It came with the Maastricht Treaty that was rejected by the Danish electorate. (It had to vote again but many Member States did not even get that chance of one referendum.)

The very first principle of the supranational Community system is that the publicly expressed opinion on the constitution and exercise of powers is sovereign. Politicians buried that document they all signed up to in the French Foreign Ministry archives for half a century! What sauce! Robert Schuman‘s main aim was to create a peace-enhancing European economy. He provided the means for a thorough-going Democracy. Charles de Gaulle who seized power in France in 1957 put that on ice but did not destroy the potential to construct real European democracy.

The supranational Community system was first blocked by de Gaulle with his policy of wrecking it by stealth then a policy of the empty chair (boycott), followed by closed-door arm-twisting of small States, until the Council of Ministers became his poodle. Today too many government leaders act like ‘little Gaullists’ as they cut ‘package deals’ for themselves behind closed doors without public approval or knowledge.

The British still feel riled by Continental attitudes typified by de Gaulle looking down his long nose and saying ‘NON’ to the UK, very undiplomaticly at a press conference as a minor question of French policy. Today’s politicians have yet to reform the anti-democratic measure Europeans were forced to swallow at that time with its wine lakes, beef and butter bergs as de Gaulle and other national leaders took European taxpayers money to subsidize their own national policies. The Euro is the latest scam by nationalist politicians who corrupt decent politics and debase money as a store of value.

Britain’s policy was also typified by ignorance and antagonism by its bureaucrats in London, Whitehall. (That is not unusual for bureaucrats. The French ministry, the Quai d’Orsay, were among Schuman’s greatest opponents. Both were happier with the status quo, treating all other Europeans as foreigners to be exploited for the national interest that they, the bureaucrats, defined.) Schuman’s democracy should give free voice to European industry, workers and consumers, to regions and national parliaments.

Whitehall has shown its profound ignorance about the European Community system in the past, especially when it comes to referendums.

In June 1975 the voters were asked:

Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?

That borders on criminal neglect. What catastrophic ignorance! Or was it Soviet-style deception and disinformation? Whitehall civil servants are supposed to be intelligent and well-educated.

The Common Market was just ONE of THREE Communities that the UK was a member of. The UK joined all THREE in 1973! The Coal and Steel Community, Euratom and the Economic Community. The latter is called in UK the ‘Common Market’ as if it were the place to buy vegetables with soil still attached.

If Whitehall had told the truth (then and now) they would have to explain how the Community system was supposed to work and why there were THREE. And vitally politicians and civil servants would have to discuss European Democracy and the Gaullist corruption of it. That would expose to all Europeans (not just the British)  the wholesale scam of the Council of Ministers closed door deals. At this time the Labour government boycotted the European Parliament as a totally undemocratic institution that de Gaulle had sidelined with his poodle-powers.

In 2002 politicians decided — without any referendum even whispered or suggested — not to renew the founding Treaty of Paris that defines the principles of European democracy. This is one reason that the European iron and steel industry has suffered spectacular decline. Where is European Energy policy? Where is Europe’s defence against foreign threats to its existence?

Today in 2014 a similar SHOCKING level of ignorance is apparent in the proposed question for the upcoming UK referendum — even after it had been corrected by the Watchdog Electoral Commission:

“Should the UK remain a member of the European Union?“

To thoroughly leave the system, the UK must also leave the remaining Community, Euratom. It is quite separate from the European Union. The UK could possibly leave the EU. Then the UK will find itself an uncomfortable reality. The UK will still find that it has membership of Council of Ministers. It will be obliged to be represented in other bodies such as the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee, the Court of Auditors and the Court of Justice. (Euratom and the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) never had the European Council as an official institution.)

Only recently the UK reaffirmed its membership in Euratom. The last modifications to the ECSC and Euratom treaties were made in the Treaty of Nice of 2001 for purposes of enlargement. Some protocols of the Lisbon Treaty (rejected by referendums when it was called the Constitutional Treaty!) were added to the Euratom treaty and thus the UK confirmed Euratom as an active treaty. Article 208 says it is ‘concluded for an unlimited period.’

British politicians, bureaucrats and the British public need to get the facts — not to mention all those in Brussels who are living myths!

How can UK exit both the EU and Euratom too? Keep reading these commentaries regularly and find out! Check out the facts on Schuman Project website !