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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He said that true democracy has three characteristics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open debate.

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

It was ignored. It is still ignored today.

“Article 15 TEU 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Did PM May's Florence Speech shock more than the Pigeons?

Why did Prime Minister Theresa May fly all the way to Italy to shoo the pigeons? Why did she speak briefly in what was a few days earlier an empty and dusty, abandoned room? It was indistinguishable from any other. It was allegedly inhabited only by pigeons.

Did she come only to ask for a two-year transition, an idea, she said, that was already written in the treaty? Was there an unspoken message in the place, not the speech? The British taxpayer might also ask:

‘Why on earth did the Prime Minister and Members of her Cabinet fly all the way to Italy to give a speech? And then getting back in the plane and winging it back to London?’

Isn’t this a huge waste of money? Prime Minister Theresa May had returned to London from the United Nations on Thursday, 21 September, accompanied by her Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. They had plenty of time to talk.

The next day, Mrs May could have given the speech in any city of the United Kingdom. Why, then, did she take to the skies again? What justifies the cost (and inconvenience for journalists and the public)? Her office confirmed that the British taxpayer will have to pay for this foreign excursion.

Would people hear what she said more clearly from afar? Her television audience did not even see the historical backdrop. The British brought their own back panels so there was no telling what was behind the slogan: Shared History, Shared Challenges, Shared Future.

Both Theresa May and her pro-European husband Philip are savvy. Theresa studied Geography at Oxford, Philip studied Modern History. He was president of its renowned debating association, the Oxford Union. Both are practicing Christians.

Why not go to Rome and attack the false propaganda of the Brussels elite? Four Brussels Top Politicians on the morning after UK’s non-binding, advisory EU referendum of 23 June 2016 said UK had better leave soon, “as quickly as possible however much it may hurt.”

 

They were the people who had previously excluded the UK from ever having a candidate as President of the European Commission. They called it the SpitzenKandidat system. It was unveiled in the so-called Constitutional Treaty. But the Constitutional Treaty failed miserably, rejected by the French and Dutch referendums. The referendums in UK and five others were cancelled. They would give further Noes. So, without further referendums and scorning public rejection, politicians added the entire treaty to the Common Market Treaty of Rome, lock, stock and barrel. It was renamed the Lisbon Treaty. To do this they spent millions of tax-euros to create a big lie. They said European integration began in 1957 with the Common Market and the Treaty of Rome.

Mrs May could have said;

“What nonsense and waste! European unity began with the Schuman Declaration of 1950 and the European Community of Coal and Steel. We British should know. We were Associate Members of the Community in 1952. We passed an Act of Parliament to do so.”

Why pick a small room in Florence in the Santa Maria Novella? Why not, for example, the European University Institute? Prime Ministers often address universities.

The EUI was founded by an article in the Euratom Treaty , also signed in Rome1957. This year is its 60th anniversary. It could have been a special occasion to celebrate this. The EU has made a huge fuss about celebrating one of the two 1957 Treaties of Rome. It quite falsely spent huge amounts of taxpayers money saying that the Common Market or the Economic Community was the origin of the European Union. They wiped out all the years from the end of WW2 until 1957 as irrelevant. Just like the Stalin wiped out the image of personalities he had sent to the Gulag or worse.

A big speech at the EUI would have made a good opportunity to rectify Brussels propaganda and its atrocious Fake News on democracy.

The EUI, situated at a famous Medici Fiesole Abbey, had previously held a series of lectures on Brexit. Besides being the legal depository of EU archives, it has highly regarded departments in European Law (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies) global governance and European civilization.

But NO, it was not to be a university lecture. What was it then? Clearly Florence has some huge significance that justifies the travel cost. British insistence offsets the lack of an invitation from either the Italian Government or the city. Why breach normal diplomatic practice?

Did Mrs May want to make a particularly British statement? She could have chosen the British Institute in Florence on the river Arno. Earlier this year, Prince Charles helped celebrate its 100th anniversary. Its Acton library contains one of the largest collections of English books on the Continent. Founded during the First World War, the Institute has provided an open British window on the world.

What did PM May say to explain and justify this expense and rupture of custom? She began her speech — without anyone welcoming or introducing her — by saying:

“It’s good to be here in this great city of Florence today at a critical time in the evolution of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union. It was here, more than anywhere else, that the Renaissance began –

• a period of history that inspired centuries of creativity and critical thought across our continent and which in many ways defined what it meant to be European.
• A period of history whose example shaped the modern world.
• A period of history that teaches us that when we come together in a spirit of ambition and innovation, we have it within ourselves to do great things.”

“To do great things” together sounds like a forecast. Yet it was not uttered on the hills of Fiesole where in Roman times the College of the Augures, pagan experts in divination, foretold the reactions of their gods. Mrs May’s message was about Renaissance.

So, which building did Mrs May choose from Florence’s rich history? Not the Uffizi Art Gallery. No, Prime Minister May and her ministers chose the former police academy! It had to be spruced up to accommodate the British speechifying. Why, this building?

The Scuola Sottufficale Carabinieri is no ordinary building. It belongs to the Great Cloister of Santa Maria Novella convent. It dates from around 1200s as a basilica. It forms a central position in the history of both western and eastern Europe and the rise of for technology of the last five centuries.

What then was the historic and geographic message that Prime Minister Theresa May was communicating by her extraordinary flight to Florence?

Why did she visit this building?
What has this man to do with it?

Closed Doors for "Democratic" BREXIT Talks

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

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

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

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

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

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