EU's Juncker praises "Greatest Destroyer of Modern Times"

British Prime Minister David Cameron “is one of the greatest destroyers of modern times.” So declared EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in Saarbruecken on 1 April 2019. What was his crime? Why did Mr Juncker find him so vile, such an enemy of mankind? 

The only explanation Mr Juncker gave was

“We were forbidden from being present in any way in the Referendum campaign” on Brexit.

The EU champion of the free movement of Europeans was apparently prevented and obstructed from entering the United Kingdom. He was not able to take ship or plane, in spite of all the European treaties that assure him of this right of free movement.

But was Mr Juncker prevented from speaking on the issues of the Referendum? Obviously not. He has at his disposal the largest press corps in the world, bigger than Washington’s. The British press and television are there. So are European media and the major outlets from the United States. Mr Juncker could speak and his words will echo as far away as Japan. So why was he hamstrung by Britain?

He has the opportunity to speak to journalists every day in the Commission’s Press Room. It is broadcast worldwide. Radio and television signals, internet messages burst across physical barriers like the English Channel and customs controls. He would certainly be noticed as he has not spoken there much since he made a surprise appearance to announce that his chef-de-Cabinet, Martin Selmayr, had been accelerated into the office of the Commission’s Secretary General, the most powerful bureaucrat in Brussels.

What was Prime Minister Cameron’s crime? How did he so offend Mr Juncker, erstwhile prime minister of Luxembourg? Both should know the ruses of politics, the rules of how to get on in Europe.

Psshhah!

It is clear that Mr Cameron’s great wickedness was the Referendum. He dared ask the British people what they thought of the European Union, the infrastructure added to the European Economic Community. They did not like it one bit.

In contrast, Mr Juncker’s proudest moment was his hand in creating and signing the Maastrict Treaty called the Treaty on European Union.

“Standing before this new Treaty I sensed that this might be the most important signature I ever made,” Mr Juncker said.

This was on the occasion of 25th anniversary on 9 December 2016, just weeks after the British Referendum.

The treaty was remarkable in being a radical rewrite of the democratic principles of the Community system. It led to protests about the Democratic Deficit. It added unaccountable “pillars”, one a bureaucratic structure for internal matters like justice and home affairs. The other was for external affairs.

The Maastricht treaty also added another undemocratic monstrosity: a system for European money called the euro. This violated the sound monetary principles that had been outlined in the 1970 Werner Report (named after a Luxembourg prime minister and written with the help of Bernard Clappier, Schuman’s former Directeur de Cabinet and later Governor of the Banque de France.

Instead of a Community currency governed by democratic institutions, the euro is based on the erroneous Mundell theory. This is designed for a federation not a supranational Community of nations. The euro is run by a closed-door, unaccountable committee called the euroGroup. It is not even mentioned as an institution in the Maastricht and other treaties. Yet it now governs the economy!

So if we look at the vote to ‘Leave the European Union‘ lucidly, literally and legally, the British did not reject the idea of a European Customs Union that they had strongly supported by referendum in 1975. They are on the right track. Keep the Community system. They rejected all the non-democratic, bureaucratic trappings called the European Union. That is defined as the autocratic additions Maastricht to Lisbon so cherished by Mr Juncker. Bureaucracy adds treacle to Europe’s petrol tank.

Europe would boom. Robert Schuman created the idea of a European Customs Union as a step-by-step system to define and build European democracy and set its economy in top gear. A customs union provides the way for all the population to participate freely. Benefits of increased trade and prosperity are sure to follow. So in a real sense, European democracy is identified with the customs union and the single market. So it is an absolute nonsense, logically and economically, to say that a democratic State wants to leave democratically a democratic customs union. Brexit proclaims that Brussels has gone sour on democracy. How?

Schuman proposed this customs union with a democratic assembly governing it in July 1948 when he was first Prime Minister of France. It was designed to help Germany become a more democratic country. In that it succeeded. It was also designed to be so strong and forge friendly links to other countries so that Germany would never leave it. In that Schuman was also right.

Based on Schuman’s founding principles, I wrote at the time of the British referendum — and in fact before 23 June 2016 — that should Britain vote that it wanted to leave the European Union, it would never leave the Customs Union of the EEC or Euratom with its single market for nuclear materials. Those commentaries are printed in my book, “Brexit and Britain’s Vision for Europe.” Copies were sent to Prime Minister Theresa May and four of her Brexit ministers. (Mr Cameron resigned on the 24 June immediately after the results were known.)

It seems extraordinary that Mr Juncker is so negative against what is considered the most vital part of democracy — the voice of the people in a referendum. But who does Mr Juncker admire as the great hero of modern times — the opposite end of the spectrum from the greatest destroyer Mr Cameron?

We do not have to guess. Mr Juncker has already made it well known. He said Karl Marx was the ‘greatest thinker of modern times.’ He was there in Trier to celebrate the 200th anniversary of his birth.

He said that 

Marx “is the mentor of the revolution of the proletariat and working people all over the world. He is the main founder of Marxism, the founder of Marxist political parties, and the creator of international Communism and the greatest thinker of modern times.” (emphasis added)

Marx gave the world war and armed subjugation of central and eastern Europe by a Politburo. Schuman gave Europe lasting peace and prosperity.
World atheistic Communism killed between 44 and 163 million people from USSR to China to Cambodia, North Korea to Africa. It was Marx that proposed the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. He is ultimately responsible for the millions sent to Gulag camps as ‘enemies of the people‘. Who is the greatest enemy and destroyer of the people?

Which side is Mr Juncker on?

Petition to UK Parliament: Brexit from Euratom and Common Market is illegal

SUCCESS! 

After several attempts to get the Parliament panel (composed of 11 MPs) to accept a petition that exposes the negligence of parliament to follow legal and constitutional rules on Brexit, the petition panel finally agreed to the Euratom petition. This exposes two major flaws in the Brexit process. Both Labour and Conservative governments when in office reneged their correct policy positions for a clear referendum on the EU treaty.

It emphasizes that the British people have a fundamental right to decide on the way Europe is being constructed. Up till now such decisions have been made behind the closed doors of the European Council.

Why the Petition on Euratom is important:
1. In her Article 50 letter to Brussels Prime Minister May specifies that UK will leave Euratom. BUT the idea of leaving Euratom is not on the ballot paper of the Referendum. I have found no Government statement about Euratom before the referendum, nor speech in Parliament, nor any mention of Euratom in the publication they sent to all households. The Lisbon Treaty on the European Union and the Euratom treaty are quite separate in law. Euratom was signed in 1957 and British people voted to remain in it as part of the European Community in 1975. The Lisbon treaty is the last in a series of treaties that modified only one of two treaties signed in 1957 -- the European Economic Community treaty, known also as the Common Market. The EU system is vastly different from the original Community system.

So leaving Euratom needs democratic approval by the people.

2. The second part of the petition is potentially even more important. The petition makes clear that the UK people only voted to leave the European Union. And that this is very different from the European Community and the original European Economic Community treaty. Hence all the additions and amendments that change the democracy of the original Economic Community treaty are declared illegal.
These are the changes that, ever since the 1980s, people have ceaselessly complained about. They give the Community system "a democratic deficit". They include a whole series of closed door committees and bureaucracies. They involve a system that continues the Gaullist abuses of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). This subsidy to French farmers/ voters and others reached to nearly three quarters of the entire European budget. The UK objected. Agriculture represented only 2 or 3 percent of the economy. However despite the cuts to the CAP, the EU leaders found means to keep the budget at the same level of taxation! CAP still takes more than a third of the budget. And they are expecting a great budget increase in the coming years. Why? Where is the means to deal with the future, innovation and science? Why is youth unemployment so high and wages low?

Many thanks for helping start this great debate about democracy in Europe.
It is of historic proportions.

Please feel free to circulate the link below from Parliament. Any British citizen worldwide and people resident in UK may sign up to the Petition.
Click this link to see your petition and start sharing it:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/240327

When it reaches 10,000 the government will respond formally. When it reaches 100,000 signatures it will be debated in Parliament.

Many thanks.

PM May and Parliament get Petition about their "Great Brexit Fraud"

MPs Reject Petition exposing the "Great Brexit Fraud" but Government gets the message. 

Is That Petition Clear?

Apparently not. A panel of 11 MPs again rejected my Petition on the "Great Brexit Fraud". The Petition was nevertheless sent to Prime Minister Theresa May and key Brexit ministers and committees. 

The Petitions panel said its reason for rejection was that it was not sure what I was asking! The panel is composed of five Conservative MPs, five Labour and one Scottish nationalist. 

They should have been well aware of the background. 

Prime ministers of both Tory and Labour parties pledged that a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was necessary to recognize it in law and constitutionally. They promised a referendum to deal with "massive" changes leading to a "European Super-State".
In other words the Lisbon treaty makes a major dislocation to British democracy and the UK constitution. It creates powers ABOVE the nation State -- directly contrary to the founding principles of the Community system. Robert Schuman was clear: the nation State was the final arbiter of the powers delegated in a Community. The people must be free to choose.

The legal need for referendums about the destiny of the country is not in dispute. Earlier, UK Referendums on changes affecting the Constitution were universally agreed as necessary without demur. They were held for democratic assent in establishing Assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They considered a referendum necessary for asking the Scottish population about independence in 2014. 

It goes without saying that changes or destruction to the democratic constitution of the whole United Kingdom must be subject to the people's voice. That is why all recent governments were unanimous in promising a referendum on the EU treaty. 

But neither Labour or Tory/Liberal Democrat, Tory or Tory/Democratic Unionist governments ever provided a referendum on the European Treaty and how it differed from the European Community. These constitutional changes have been made since 2000 and well before. They culminated in the Lisbon Treaty of 2009. 

Instead, the Conservative government had a referendum based on article 50 of the treaty -- that assumes the treaty was already legal! To my mind that is a scam. 

Add to this outrage the fact that the treaty and all articles with few exceptions were rejected in French and Dutch referendums when the treaty was called the Constitutional treaty. To say that there is any substantial difference between the treaty rejected by these referendums and the Lisbon Treaty forced through without a referendum is, as the Economist wrote, "pitifully unconvincing." 

So let us just admit the Fraud. Cheat the people and they vote against you. So let us then logically analyse how Brexit became inevitable. That is the first step to repair confidence.

The Government is now in a deep, black hole of a Brexit dilemma. No one can agree about what to do. 

• How does the country escape financial ruin if all euro-based trading leaves UK and the City? 
• Legal collapse (No replacement agencies are in place, nor treaties)? 
• Industrial pauperisation?
• How can a country look into the future with every British and European regulation legally unsafe?  

So what can be done about it?

• Why on earth would an honest government try to hide the fact that the treaty was soundly rejected in French and Dutch referendums? 
• That Governments promised one in the UK? 
• That Britons are still waiting for that? 
• Then to add insult to illegality the government is wrong in using an article in a treaty that first requires a referendum to activate it?

Surely it would be logical and necessary to examine the CAUSE of the problem? It needs to secure the future.

The Petition panel rejection allowed me to accomplish my main goal -- to bring the illegality of the Brexit referendum decisively to the attention of the Prime Minister and her main Brexit ministers. It is now up to them to make a decision. History will judge them -- and maybe the Court of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Strasbourg.
They should be aware of the consequences for parliamentary democracy and long-term lack of trust in UK institutions. 

Both UK and Brussels are descending on a dangerous path to anarchy and oligarchy. Popularist demonstrations and hostile populist governments are the warning signal for even greater disorder.  

What I did was to ask the Petition panel for an appeal of their decision. No mechanism is provided. So I wrote the following letter -- with copies to the Prime Minister and four main Secretaries of State (Barclay, Lidington, Hunt, Fox) involved in Brexit, Brexit committee chairmen in the Commons and Lords, plus those former ministers to whom I sent my book in 2016 a few months after the Referendum result. That included Boris Johnson and David Davis.  

A second petition on Euratom and Brexit is still under consideration by the panel. Euratom covers nuclear non-proliferation, safety, energy policy and medicine. It has been successfully applied since 1973.  

The petition requires the Government to reverse its Article 50 Letter about leaving Euratom as it gave no notice or means to reject an exit. It had no debate. Before the vote it did not state in Parliament nor publish anything about leaving Euratom. Nor did it say anything about Euratom on the referendum ballot paper. Click this link to sign the petition:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/240327/sponsors/new?token=NxmQu89aiqTQ7r14A7oq

Dear Sir or Madam,

{My petition is entitled } “Parliament and HMG must retract Article 50 Letter. Legal basis in treaty is flawed”.

I was surprised to be informed yesterday that my petition had been rejected by the petitions committee.

It was stated that "It’s not clear what the petition is asking the UK Government or Parliament to do. Petitions need to call on the Government or Parliament to take a specific action. We're not sure exactly what you'd like the Government or Parliament to do. The Lisbon Treaty came into force in 2009."

I believe I was eminently clear about what the government and Parliament should do. I enumerated the following two points as 

"Action required by Parliament and Government.. 

1. Withdraw or suspend Article 50 Letter

2. Hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty to validate so it can be used for its Article 50." 

I also wrote to the Prime Minister Theresa May in 2016, four Secretaries of State concerned (Trade, Foreign Office, Cabinet Office and Brexit) and a number of MPs on the Brexit committees explaining the issues involved. I sent a copy of my book "Brexit and Britain's Vision for Europe" to each of them. 

A parliamentary discussion is urgently needed to review the legality of action that HMG and Parliament have already taken. Both major parties when in Government and Opposition said that a referendum was necessary to validate the EU Treaty. It can be concluded therefore that a referendum was considered legally indisputable to them. 

And then they reneged. 

The reasons they did not go through with this pledge and legal obligation is the crux of the debate that is now required by the public and the signatories of the petition. It also provides the solution to the Brexit dilemma.

Constitutionally and legally, the Lisbon Treaty needs to be properly validated according to their own promises, commitments and "cast-iron" guarantees of action. The EU treaty has changed not only the British constitution but added new institutions and power in Brussels "massively" modifying our relationship with Europe earlier (to quote Mr Cameron). 

The previous European Community arrangement was subject to approval by referendum in 1975. No further change can be made from the Community system without a further referendum. This is especially the case as the Lisbon Treaty completely changes the European Community system so radically. Both EEC and Euratom had articles (approved by the public in the 1975 referendum) that the treaties were in force for an unlimited period. 

That means that Brexit under Article 50 of a subsequent treaty is ruled out. Permanence of the democratic link to the Continent and commitment to democratic solutions in open democratic institutions cannot be overruled by a legally unsafe treaty, consistently opposed by a majority of the population. This is especially the case as the Lisbon Treaty and its earlier reincarnation were roundly rejected by other Member States in their referendums. 

The petition would also provide the means to resolve the blockage in Parliament on the Withdrawal Treaty -- where no majority can be found to move forward. A clarification of the UK constitutional position could provide a breathing space to consolidate UK policy. A judicial review of our democratic relations with Europe and its democracies is essential for a stable near- and long-term future. Britain's voice is crucial for democratic reform of the European institutions to make them more open and accountable. The Democratic Deficit that has been on the political agenda for three or four decades needs to be tackled seriously.

I would therefore request that you supply me with

(a) the details about how this decision was made and clarifying the grounds it gave for rejection.

(b) the time and place the decision was made,

(c)  the names of MPs who voted, with their reasoning.

(d) the system for making an Appeal because a decision was not impartial.

Yours etc

  

The GREAT BREXIT FRAUD -- a short history

The Brexit referendum has already cost the country millions perhaps billions of pounds. Tax-payers’ money. Your money. The Pound has sunk in value. The stock market has been hit. Industries are in a quandary. Some have moved out. Some have had to build or rent extra warehouse space because of the threat of Just-In-Time supply schedules will be broken by customs delays. Workers have been laid off. Harbours have been dredged in order to find new shipping capacity. It has also left many families in tears and fears at the consequences. The EU-27 have also spent millions.

Who gets the bill? Who is to blame for the Brexoshambles?

Who called the Referendum? That was David Cameron, the Prime Minister in 2006 and again in 2016.

But the reason I would call it a CHEAT and not a CRIME is that it is unclear still if it was due to ignorance or political charlatanism. But it certainly depleted public and private treasuries. It sapped national confidence. It turned the island into a sack of fighting cats.

I give Cameron the benefit of the doubt. But one thing is clear: All the heart-burn, anxieties and worries of millions of citizens and costs of billions were unnecessary!

How was the whole Referendum Operation concocted as a FRAUD? If it were purely a political problem, why is the British Parliament in turmoil? Politicians know how to wheel and deal.

This is a problem of a different order. Where is common sense? Where is the national interest? Why do the British have what has been called a Zombie government, a prime minister supported by her party but with no policy?

They have all been caught in a trap. It is a trap meant to throw right and wrong into stark silhouette. Robert Schuman‘s noble design to have honest government in Europe dates from July 1948, the turning point of all European political history. it is a date that today’s leaders in Europe refused to acknowledge.

But first we need to analyse how Europeans got caught in the trap. Why are those rendered impotent in the parliaments guilty of dishonesty?

Why are all the MPs of any party nonplussed about how to proceed?

The reason is they have all been FOOLED and SCAMMED. They don’t know who is to blame. Nor the real problem. Both Brexiteers and Remainers are right to a certain extent. And the more they believe they are acting correctly, the more they strain every muscle to their direction. They also voted to enter the honesty or integrity trap.

But they can’t agree on common action. The can’t agree on the EU Withdrawal Act. They can’t agree on ruling out a no-deal exit. They can’t agree about a further referendum. (It might be followed by yet another and another if the result was “unsatisfactory”. In 2016 UKIP’s Nigel Farage said that if the Brexit campaign lost by 48 to 52%, it would be “unfinished business“. A two-thirds majority, he said, was needed to avoid a neverendum.)

And they can’t agree on hardly anything. The deadline of 29 March looms large.

They are just like the trickster who tied two mules together and placed them facing two piles of straw. They died of over-exertion and starvation!

They have all been made victims and participants in an elaborate political fraud. The politicians have been hoisted on their own petard. So have the whole British public. They are all so deceived that they are walking around like the blind bashing each other with sticks.

Have all the politicians been struck mad? Hokus Pokus! If it were entertainment we would call it a conjurer’s trick.

To understand the trick, we have to analyse the sleight of hand. There is more than a single trick involved or a single victim. How did the politicians trick themselves? How do we get back to reality? We need to go back a decade or more — when the politicians of Europe were conducting their own nefarious trick operations. They failed.

It was called the European Constitution. The idea of dreamy-eyed, shallow-brained utopians was to turn the three European Communities and associated technocracies into a Federal State. Federal States have constitutions don’t they? Wouldn’t that give politicians new powers? It would also shut the people out from decision-making.

The Constitution was an illusion, right from the start. Valery Giscard d’Estaing was in charge of the operation. Unfortunately for the federalists he let the cat out of the bag– several times. It was a big-time SCAM.

He declared that, although it was called a Treaty establishing a Constitution for the Europe, what he was designing was NOT a Constitution but a Treaty. It was a ConstitutionALTreaty, he said. It was a treaty like all the others that proceed it. Only this time instead of being called Maastricht, Amsterdam or Nice it was called Constitutional. That word ‘constitution‘ was just spin.

Constitutions are not created by treaties. Any constitutional lawyer knows that. Treaties are agreements between States, usually for regulating matters like trade. Constitutions date back to the earliest civilizations. Even before the Code of Hammurabi in Babylon around 1700 BCE, there were constitutional codes like that of Esh-Nunna in central Mesopotamia several centuries earlier. One of the oldest codes extant dates from around 2100 BCE, the third dynasty Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu. Older ones are known to have existed.

Forging a European Constitution that cheats nations of their own constitutions takes a lot of impudence and affrontery. Thieves are trying to bury four thousand years of the history of civilization! That audacity is why Europe is in a mess today.

Constitutions embrace and describe the functioning of the whole State and the principles that govern it. They have power to override all laws and law-makers, domestic and external. Constitutions, to work well or at all, have to have the support of the people and other associations and institutions. That demands justice.

If a group of people try to usurp the powers of the people in a State, it is called Tyranny. That’s what the Americans objected to in 1776.

The so-called Constitutional Treaty, despite its frippery, was just a treaty. it could have been named after a city, like Maastricht, Amsterdam or Nice.

And in fact it later was! Lisbon!

It was really a power grab by power-hungry politicians to take powers from the citizens without any commensurate democratic control. The Community was based on the free choice of citizens and nations.

Ah democratic control! Legitimacy!

That’s where Prime Minister Tony Blair came unstuck too. In order to get the Constitutional Treaty validated by the States, it had to be passed by the Parliaments. And it was a Biggie. So it had to have a referendum in nearly all States.

Mr Blair promised twice that there would be a referendum of the British people. But somehow he did not get around to have a referendum. Mr Cameron, then in opposition, denounced the “massive transfer of powers” of the Treaty. Parliament laid down a Bill for the European Union Act 2005 for a Referendum on the treaty. The question was to be:

Should the United Kingdom approve the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union?

The bill was first introduced during the parliamentary session of 2004/05 and received a second reading. It fell at the end of that parliament. The bill was reintroduced in the new Blair parliament in the 2005/06 session. However it was withdrawn after its first reading by Jack Straw on 6 June 2005 following “no” votes in referendums that were held on ratifying the European Constitution in France and in the Netherlands. Why? Didn’t Britons have an equal right to express their wish?

The British voter have had no chance to voice their opinion on any treaty since 1975. Vast changes of undemocracy have taken place since then. Fortunately for Europe, others did. French electors saw through this folly. In 2005 they rejected the Constitutional Treaty by an impressive 55% majority.

OOOH LA LA, the French! That makes a difference. Some nations think they are more equal than others! It got worse. The Dutch voted the Constitutional Treaty down by an even larger 61% majority. The French had a cultural concept of the Social Contract from Rousseau. But this was not a question of a majority oppressing a minority, that democrats feared. It was a clear signal that the majority was sending up a warning flare that the whole of French society should reject this “Constitution” as it hid overt and disguised dangers to democracy.

Lined up to vote were six other States. They had been left to the end of the calendar for a reason. Momentum. They were less enthusiastic. They had democratic traditions. They didn’t seem to like the treaty: Czechs, Danes, Irish, Poles, Portuguese and last of all were the British!

But the treaty was now exposed as a deceit for duplicitous despotism. Still, the fraudsters did not give up. They still hoped it could become the new Constitution, even by the bizarre antidemocratic edict of the European Commission President Barroso. He said that it would just take a majority of States! That’s like saying that if you have a dozen people and seven say a bottle contains healthy liquid and five say it is poisonous, then it is all right for all to drink it.

Tyrannies are deadly. States are Sovereign and guardians of their own welfare. What sort of democrat takes chances with a disguised dictatorship trying to be kind and cuddly? Some people are not fooled by politicians’ smooth talk.

It soon became clear even to Barroso that arithmetically the Constitutional Treaty was dead. Or was it? Three years later the politicians -- meeting of the Heads of State and Government (not yet officially the European Council) behind closed doors as usual -- declared that they were going to raise the corpse, add more articles, and call it the Reform Treaty. All that voting of the people, they said, was in vain. This time there would be nothing as inconvenient and ham-fisted as voting. Politicians, the main beneficiaries, would force the treaty through parliaments without any need of the people to worry their pretty heads. Governments had majorities and their party machines revved up to obey. Conscience went out the window. The party whips have ways to break your fingers if you don’t vote on party lines!

The effect was the same as if the Constitutional Treaty had been passed — against the wishes of the people. That is tyranny. Despotism by deceit and democratic duplicity. It created a new secretive oligarchy called the European Council. The people never agreed to this. The founding fathers thought it should never be created. They had good reasons.

But the politicians said:

The people need not worry about what they discussed there — the doors would be closed to the public. But to reassure them we will from time to time issue decrees and press communiques.

The Reform Treaty arose like a phoenix from the ashes of the “Constitution” warship that the people had sunk by their cannonade of Noes and Nons. It was the spitting image of the Constitutional Treaty. Not surprising. Many articles were word-for-word identical. The pirate ship was renamed by Mr Barroso and his friends as the Lisbon Treaty. That’s a quick card shuffle designed to add an extra bit of confusion to the trickery.

There is no denying the gravity of the treachery and international turpitude. A major change of the whole governance system of Europe was rejected by Europeans in referendums. Then, in spite of the people’s voice, the governments acting in secret, colluded to restore the very same treaty and add a few more poisonous articles. Instead of putting this to the people, they forced the treaty through parliament in such a way they avoided all electoral responsibility. The representatives, the servants, of the people treated their masters as fools.

This is a monstrous abuse of powers — paralleled for those who want a historic precedent — with the seizure of power by Adolf Hitler who used the Enabling Laws in Weimar Germany. He then wiped out all oppositional parties. Perhaps he considered them too “popularist”.

Mr Cameron then promised that if elected he would ensure that a referendum would take place on the EU Treaty. But when he made a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, he dropped the idea. He was hissed for this hypocrisy. Then for the next election he promised that if re-elected he would hold a referendum.

In a September 2007 article for The Sun newspaper, Mr. Cameron promised,

“Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations.”

In 2009 Mr Cameron, still in Opposition, introduced a Bill in Parliament for a Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. He called for the public to ‘pile up pressure‘ for a referendum. Too much power would pass to Brussels, Mr Cameron told BBC. He said he would not let matters rest if he took office as Prime Minister. he said major constitutional issues were involved; Brussels “was in the endless process of building a superstate.”
The Labour party record is even worse. It twice submitted a Bill for a referendum to Parliament. It twice abandoned it. The lookalike Lisbon Treaty was then championed by Prime Minister Tony Blair but it was signed reluctantly and a little bit after the official ceremony by his replacement, Gordon Brown on 13 December 2007. Mr Blair had promised a referendum on it. But, Mr Brown said he would not do it. To say the Lisbon Treaty was different from the Constitution is “pitifully unconvincing.”

The Lisbon Treaty was therefore ratified by Parliament only WITHOUT any public assent in June 2008. But due to the Irish rejection in a referendum did not come into force until 1 December 2009.

The record of both British governments and three parties, Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats, is horrendous in their criminal and constitutional disdain.

But the EU Treaty was not ratified legally because it was a major constitutional change. The last time any thing near this level of change took place was entry into the Community system. For that governments and parties agreed that the 1975 Referendum was necessary. How much more the EU treaties with their “massive changes” to Britain’s democracy? Only the Irish had the possibility to hold a referendum and they had no hesitation at first in rejecting it. What does that say about the deplorable state of democracy in Europe and the despotic attitude of its leaders.

It never needed to happen. It has set back democracy and prosperity by more than a decade.

The only remedy now lies with the Courts.

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