BREXIT 10: EU's political murder of an English Lord and European Democracy

The sleepy midsummer town of Brussels was shocked at the political assassination of the gentlemanly Lord of the Money, Lord Jonathan Hill. He was European Commissioner responsible for Financial Markets. Silence reigned over this sordid affair. No one seemed permitted in the Commission’s news room to ask the most pertinent question: Was it a suicide or was it a subtle political assassination? A supposed resignation letter of Hill to Commission President Juncker was never produced. Surprising as Mr Juncker replied to it. Did it hold guilty secrets that no one wanted the public to see?


The suicide theory is propounded by the people who have seen the Statement issued in his name. Was it a suicide note? Or was it a fabrication by persons or persons unknown? The statement said he will quit the Commission on 15 July for noble reasons but they do not make any democratic sense.
Why? There was no reason for Lord Hill to leave Brussels. The United Kingdom had not had any time to digest what its action would be after the referendum of 23 June 2016. The British may decide after reflection to have a further election, Parliament might refuse to pass an Act, or decide that it is better not to send the Article 50 exit letter as there is a queue of other States wanting to leave. Would the UK leave the EU and stay in Euratom with its Council, Parliament and Commission?
It is foolhardy and scarcely constitutional to destroy the integrity of the United Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and North Ireland on the basis of this one referendum.  Other referendums affirm it. Four previous Referendums of the Scottish people affirm the integrity of United Kingdom. So do two referendums in Northern Ireland and three in Wales. They established devolved, regional governments.
Nor should UK be forced into a rapid and regrettable exit decision by unprincipled action in Brussels. European peoples do not want it and would suffer from it.

Reform is needed in Brussels NOT IN LONDON.
The Brussels Politburo is well aware how unpopular it is. Its barometer of trust and legitimacy indicates a coming hurricane. For a democrat to leave as a rampant anti-democratic Politburo disintegrates or implodes of its own accord is premature. And then the figure of Lord Hill would have not blood, but egg on his face.
First his statement:

“Like many people here and in the UK, I am obviously very disappointed about the result of the referendum. I wanted it to end differently and had hoped that Britain would want to play a role in arguing for an outward-looking, flexible, competitive, free trade Europe. But the British people took a different decision, and that is the way that democracy works.

As we move to a new phase, I don’t believe it is right that I should carry on as the British Commissioner as though nothing had happened. In line with what I discussed with the President of the Commission some weeks ago, I have therefore told him that I shall stand down. At the same time, there needs to be an orderly handover, so I have said that I will work with him to make sure that happens in the weeks ahead.
I am very grateful to Jean-Claude Juncker for giving me the chance to work on financial services and for the opportunity to help support jobs and growth in Europe.
I came to Brussels as someone who had campaigned against Britain joining the euro and who was sceptical about Europe. I will leave it certain that, despite its frustrations, our membership was good for our place in the world and good for our economy.”

The dagger in his back is the phrase the “British Commissioner“. Under European law, of which the Commission says it is the Guardian, there is no such thing as a “British Commissioner”! All Commissioners, of whatever nationality, are EUROPEAN Commissioners. One was a Commissioner of British nationality, another, French, yet another Luxembourgish. He is not a British Commissioner. A European Commissioner does not have to resign over British events, especially those that have not yet occurred, like a Brexit!
Who persuaded him to tread the dangerous path near the precipitous cliff — where he was found politically lifeless? Clearly someone had been playing psychological games with Lord Hill’s brilliant mind and unbalanced his brain. Previous Commissions under Delors, Prodi or even M. Santer would have not allowed a Commissioner to deny their primary identity as European! Robert Schuman the architect of the European Community emphasized that the Commission must be independent of all governments, all companies, all workers’ groups and all other associations and entities whether lucrative or not.
The more the Commission is impartial, non-party political, the more it is independent of all lobby groups, the more it will have the trust of the people. This is called the supranational principle in the treaties, because values like honesty and fairness are universal and above the nation.
All Commissioners take an oath before the European Court judges saying:

“I solemnly undertake …

• 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..”

Who was the serpent or snakes who deceived him in thinking he was a British Commissioner? They were obviously playing on his Anglo-Saxon conscience and a false sense of self-guilt!

When Lord Hill was dealing with Financial Markets — where London has a predominant role — no one accused him of being a London Commissioner or the Commissioner for the City. Why? Because all decisions and considerations inside the Commission are taken together in a college. The Commission must provide a European view of European common interest. All Commissioners have staff that follow financial services developments. If the portfolio is transferred to a Frenchman or a German, does that mean everyone should watch out as all financial services are redirected and relocated to Paris or Frankfurt?
So who was responsible really for this political assassination? What provoked Lord Hill to emit a Mea Culpa as if he was responsible for votes in the UK?
One clue comes from the reaction to Lord Hill’s alleged resignation issued by Commission President Juncker:

“At the beginning of this Commission’s mandate, I wanted the British Commissioner to be in charge of Financial Services, as a sign of my confidence in the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union. To my great regret, this situation is now changing. I have tried to convince Lord Hill to stay on as Commissioner. I consider him to be a true European and not just the British Commissioner. However, I understand his decision and I respect it.“

The back story is also of full of clues. Even the Lisbon Treaties make it abundantly clear that the bloated, and expensive Byzantine Commission, full of Europe’s unemployed politicians, should go. It must be composed of a small number of persons from the general public, a number far smaller than the number of Member States. That way there will never be “national” Commissioners. All of them will need to be totally impartial.

Article 17 para 5 says:

“As of 14 November 2014, the Commission shall consist of a number of members … corresponding to two-thirds of the number of Member States.” In presenting the Constitutional Treaty in 2003, the mother of the Lisbon monstrosity, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing said that the Commission should be reduced to a dozen members.

What happened? The European Council decided to give itself powers to extend the means to employ 28 Commissioners, one for each State. When did this happen? It happened behind closed doors among the Brussels Politburo, based in 2008 under the Nice Treaty, after the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty, again in 2009 under a draft Lisbon Treaty that Ireland had already rejected, and finally by an unsigned press release issued by the Council Spokesman. The treaties were twice dead, but that did not matter. Nor the fact that no public debate took place.
So maybe it was Zombies wot done him in!!

Perhaps the living dead were among the people steeped in the Brussels frauds. As we have already deduced, the Commission should be as fair minded and as honest as a Jury. When the Jury is selected, the parties may reject jury members if they think that one is dishonest or suspiciously biased. The British Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, rejected one of the potential Jury. I won’t give any names. Let’s call him Mr Tax Haven.
Prime Minster Cameron said Mr Tax Haven must be dismissed.

“He is the wrong man to be President of the European Commission.”

Whatever happened to this man? He should be on our list of suspects!
Who else was involved in pushing Lord Hill off the political cliff with this dagger in his back?
Among the most vocal voices for the British to leave Schnell! Schnell! has been the President of Europe’s democratic chamber, the European Parliament. There’s another suspect! The president of the Parliament was elected both with a secret vote and also the abstention of the biggest party in Parliament — which happens to be the party of Mr Tax Haven! Is some rotten, corrupting collusion involved? Is the rotten smell reaching as far as the United Kingdom and causing ructions in Brussels? We know the something rotten went to Denmark and not vice versa, because the noble Danes were the first to throw out corrupt treaties in referendums.


But are we being too suspicious about the Brussels Bunch? Could it have been an intruder from outside? What about the neighbours? The Norwegians look suspicious. They pay top money to have access to the Single Market. But they never want to joint the European Union. What about the Icelanders? They look very smug with all their well-managed fish stocks. They didn’t have them stolen like the British. They also trashed the English on the football field.
Even more suspicious are the Swiss. They have got a country in the heart of Europe. They were responsible for maintaining Christian values against the Nazi WW2 onslaught. They even protected Jews. Robert Schuman said that Switzerland’s democracy ought to be a model for the New Europe. And — let us say it– they are very fond of referendums. Did the Swiss act out of a motive of jealousy? Even more suspicious they have just withdrawn their application to join the EU!
It’s the referendums that are causing the major problem in Brussels. The British referendum is purely consultative. It cannot bind the UK government. In a democracy the Parliament is sovereign. And in the UK the Sovereign, HM Queen Elizabeth II, also has to sign her assent to an Act of Parliament before any action can be taken. The European Union Referendum Act of 2015 makes it clear that there is no obligation for Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) to follow the slavishly the result of the outcome of the referendum. It is a Consultation. It is a long way from sending a letter according to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty requesting exit for the EU. Nor is exit certain after a referendum. Other factors may have priority for the country.
That contrasts to the Brussels Politburo where everything is done behind closed doors. Knives enter smoothly. The public outside cannot hear any screams. The European Council loves secrecy. Twenty-eight heads of democratic governments can make plots of political nepotism to promote their fellow politicians, and exclude ordinary citizens. (They decide the presidencies of the European Council, the Commission, the European Central Bank, the super-secretive EuroGroup and many of the thousands of committees in secret.) They can dine in style. They can revel in the most anti-democratic of environments, SECRECY! How very bizarre! Just the opposite to what Schuman said should happen. He said all Councils, Committees and other bodies should be open and under the supervision of public opinion. Openness separates Democracies from dictatorships!
So why do these great anti-democratic Democrats hate the United Kingdom?
Maybe the Brussels Politburo have a down against the UK because it does not follow their Referendum Rules. The most recent case was the Dutch referendum. In it two out of three Dutch voters blackballed the EU Ukraine Association Agreement. Its real aim was to aim a blow at Brussels’s antidemocracy. It even shook the EPP, the party of Mr Tax Haven. “We need to make Europe more democratic and transparent,” Manfred Weber, Its leader in the European Parliament, told Deutschlandfunk radio, saying there was too much backroom politics going on in Brussels.
The Dutch Prime Minister basically ignored the hugely negative anti-Brussels result. So did Brussels.
The British referendum completely violates another aspect of Brussels Politburo referendum rules. These are called the Greek rules. For one, the British took the result of their referendum seriously as if it mattered. It had less than a four percent majority. Really what a to-do about nothing! The Greek rule says just the opposite. When a Member State has a referendum on an important matter, not just membership, but on something really important like money, then the rule has to be strictly adhered to.
Secondly the referendum question has to be in two languages. The Greek showed the way by having their euro referendum question just partly in Greek but mostly in a foreign language, English. The UK referendum is obviously illegal because they had it in a single language. They did not have part of the referendum text in Greek! They even provided ballots in two separate UK languages. One was in British or as some call it Welsh, the other for the Anglo-Saxons was in English. The two peoples did not have a ballot like the Greeks without translation. They were free to choose!
Then thirdly, the Greeks held their referendum at short notice so no one could really discuss it. The British had major discussions in the press, radio and television, public meetings and on social media. That’s a no-no.
Fourthly, Commission interference. A few days was adequate time for the Commission, Mr Tax Haven, to advise all Greeks that they should vote Yes to the conditions set by their monetary masters. A real referendum is one where the Commission puts itself, heart and soul, on one side of the balance like a butcher with his thumb on the scales. For the UK the Commission President did not even dare set his foot on the island of Britain, let alone interfere. He did not speak to British media. Isn’t that suspicious? This strategy worked well because the British realized something darkly underhand was going on.
Fifthly, the result is to be ignored under Greek rules. The Greeks voted massively NO. But that did not matter. The Greek government was forced to accept the monetary package deal anyway. The Commission hoped that they learned their lesson, a lesson that Cyprus learned earlier. That is money is more important than democracy and honesty. The Commission threatened to seize the savings of small savers, against all previous European laws. In the press room the Commission spokespeople were able to rationalize why they agreed that stealing the citizen’s money would be a good thing, regardless of the law. But eventually the bankers only took some of the money.
Now the sceptred island country of the Atlantic is to be eliminated. The country of the Magna Carta and the laws of Hywel the Good defended both freedom and truth for a thousand years before the Romans arrived to try to pervert them.
That history, of course, was the inspiration of Robert Schuman. At his behest, the Statesmen who signed the foundation document of the European Community, the Treaty of Paris, had first of all to sign the Great Charter of the Community. In the clearest terms it distinguished democratic Western Europe from the fraudulent “People’s Democracies” of the Soviet bloc. It said all measures could only be passed with the free will of the people. Freedom and assent are the prime basis for European Community democracy.
For more than sixty years the Gaullists and other “democrats” buried the Great Charter in the archives of the Foreign Ministry. They refused to publish it again. It was eventually republished by the Schuman Project. The Commission despite several letters have ignored it.
If the Brussels Bunch, the neo-Gaullist Politburo, can ban and bury Britain then they will try to bury Schuman and supranational democracy too. We live in dangerous times.

Euro1 : Why is the European Central Bank President still the politicians' plaything?

Should EU's politicians, in the middle of a great financial crisis, still be trying their old dirty tricks? At the centre of the euro is the European Central Bank. The chief executive, the president or governor, is its guardian. The treaties say that he represents the bank in his or her person. All citizens using the euro have an interest in his integrity, experience and wisdom. This implies that the ECB president must personify the integrity of European money for the European economy and far beyond the eurozone.

How then is the ECB president selected and confirmed in office? Should he be both nominated and chosen by the politicians? Think about the mischief politicians get up to in fiscal fiddles, bribing the electorate for votes and dissembling the statistics. I am not just referring to the Greek and Latin problems of the Mediterranean countries. At the June European Council the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said his country's (previous) government was involved in 'skyrocketing debts' and 'falsified statistics'.

Thus even at the European Council announcement of the ECB presidency, one politician throws the spotlight on the untrustworthy nature of this political class and the disastrous effects they have on sound money policy. Politicians are not the sort of people that can be trusted with the monetary printing press. Non-party guarantees are required for a real democracy. This is why Robert Schuman and the Founding Fathers designated key institutions as being independent and run by independent personalities to ensure democratic freedom of choice.

The main political parties acting as a cartel have tried to take over the democratic supranational Community system by substituting their party members in places designated for non-political organized civil society. Wherever possible in the key institutions they camouflaged their take-over.

A bank should be run honestly based on agreed technical rules, not according to a political ideology or a egotistical whim that 'runs up skyrocketing debts' and 'falsifies the statistics.' The euro was built to stop this. Membership requires discipline -- hands out of the till. There should be a clear demarcation between the European Bank for the euro and politics. We should also emphasize here that all eurozone States must agree by law that the governors of their national central banks must be selected independently. It is not an option. It is treaty law. National Central Bank Governors in the eurozone must be free to act with total independence of the politicians, governments and 'any other body'.

In general governments do not wish to be seen placing as head of their national bank a party hack responsive to party orders. They should advertise the vacant post in the press. They have a separate Statutory Board that selects the most experienced and independent banker for the task.

What happens at the European level -- that is the stratum of big, big money? The politicians think that they can totally discard this rule of independence. A candidate is chosen in secret, maybe in the ultra-secret Euro Group meeting. Who are the members of the Euro Group? They are all politicians. The chosen name is then passed on to the Council of Ministers. Who are the members of the Council of Ministers? Yes, they are all politicians! Then the name is confirmed by the European Council. Who are the members of the European Council. Right again, they are all politicians!

The secretive system of a political cartel is the opposite of what citizens expect in a democracy. Secrecy encourages lying and that encourages speculation. It is now well known that several members of the Euro Group built up and hid 'skyrocketing debts' and colluded in 'falsifying statistics'. A more open, supranational system would calm the markets and encourage trust and growth. Who knows more about the dirty little secrets of all the other Member States than the 27 intelligent men and women of the European Council?

According to the Lisbon Treaty, the same legal requirement of absolute independence applies to the President of the European Central Bank, as it does to the national bank governors. It is all specified with clarity in articles 130 and 131.

The politicians try to wrap the election of the ECB president in language to ensure thick opacity and murkiness. The dirty little political trick is called 'pass the parcel'. The wrapping is a distracting colour that turns the public's eye away from its contents. (It is announced amid many much 'hotter' issues at the European Council.) Who defined the contents? No one can be sure. The parcel has been quickly passed from one committee or council to another. When a journalist asks: where did the parcel originally come from? The one who has it last -- the European Council -- points to the person on his left, a Council of Ministers. But everyone is sitting in a circle and the parcel goes round and round until it stops at the heads of government. These top politicians are most probably the real culprits who wrapped up the contents in the first place. They have the motive, the opportunity and the machinery. They will gain from the crime. Politicians want to control the money supply, the statistics and the definitions of the currency.

The 17 May Council of Economic and Financial Ministers had this to say:

"The Council adopted a recommendation on the nomination on Mario Draghi (Italy) as President of the European Central Bank, to succeed Jean-Claude Trichet...'

Who recommended the candidate? Was it the finance ministers? It does not say. Was it someone else? If they are referring to 'a recommendation' of the Euro Group, why don't they say? And whoever it was making the recommendation, what were the criteria for the choice? When were they published? How did they choose this one person from among Europe's 500 million? There must be a lot of bankers with Wall Street or City experience who would like to apply for the job. Why weren't some honest bankers considered? Did the ministers have a list after a public Call for Candidates in the Official Journal? No one saw the advertisement. If the post of ECB president is paid from taxpayers' money and public funds, it should come under the usual rules for selecting and hiring civil servants. Surely the politicians would not want the public and the markets to think they are involved in political patronage and nefarious nepotism?

If the politicians did not act impartially to choose an independent governor, are we to assume the new ECB president is not impartial and has as a covert task the mission to save the politicians' hides? How can anyone know if the politicians are concerned that a governor shows no favouritism to any Member State? In other words: is his nationality irrelevant? The sole criteria for the appointment should be independence, experience and integrity.

The president should have enough strong character and experience to deal with dire situations where politicians gang up against him to try to bastardize the currency. The ECB president should have metal to resist the politicians. He should not be the politicians' plaything. The new candidate has several stripes against him, deserved or not.

It is educational to recall what happened at European Council in 1998 and the first selection of the governor of the Central Bank. The site of the ECB was chosen as Frankfurt. What has that to do with the choice of governor? A lot in Gallic eyes. The French president of the Republic said that as the ECB was in Germany the governor should naturally be French. (Don't you love the way the French use naturellement?)

But hang about! Aren't there a few more States besides France and Germany. Aren't there a few States who have an economy even sounder than France's? Doesn't France get involved in some dubious monetary practice from time to time?

France did not get its way and Wim Duisenberg, who had headed the pre-euro European Monetary Institute, was confirmed as the first governor. He was previously governor of the Dutch central bank and had ample experience. Before Duisenberg, the EMI was headed by Hungarian-born Alexandre Lamfalussy, a respected economist and international banking adviser, from Belgium.

The Germans, the Belgians and Dutch said NON to the French. They told them that they wanted to have a strong euro. They did not want someone who 'bent' the rules and did not defend the ECB's independence. A nasty fisticuffs occurred. In the end the French lost.

The French declared afterwards that a compromise had been reached. In the margin of the European Council they said that all agreed that (1) Mr Duisenberg could stay on -- but only for a bit and he should resign half way through his 8-year term (2) their named French candidate, M. Trichet, should then take over.

To any rational observer this would fail logic and fairness tests. It assumed that (a) Mr Duisenberg would want to resign and in fact he stayed on rather longer than the French wanted, until November 2003; (b) that M. Trichet would also be around, healthy and capable and hadn't in the meantime wandered off to Wall Street to make a private fortune; (c) that the "gentleman's agreement" (that is the outcome of the European CouncIl wrestling match) would bind the still future European Council with slightly different political wrestlers; (d) that no other candidates from the 25 other Member States would be allowed to place their name forward; (e) there would be no public call for candidates in the Official Journal from all the aspiring European bankers. In other words the heads of government were convinced that this illegality could continue for a few more years.

In the end the French managed to hold this conspiracy together. How? Possibly because it was a political cartel agreement -- held together by party political secretariats. M. Trichet was eventually made the ECB governor. Imagine a private Bank with 27 major shareholders where the CEO was fixed in this way. What an uproar would ensue at the shareholders' meeting. What court cases there would be!

The European Council's 'fix' says more about the secret forces holding this particular political dirty deal together and total lack of free choice in the way the head of the ECB is chosen. It says rather less about democracy and the high-minded principles that should be involved and the financial legalities.

I asked earlier: Who knows more about the dirty little secrets of all the other Member States than the 27 intelligent men and women of the European Council? The figures about debts and fraudulent statistics are coming to light. Yet the European Council is perpetuating the same sort of secret system in choosing the ECB president.

It bodes ill for the public because it is a clear indication of the corrupt nature of EU politics -- even when faced with a horrendous crisis of the euro and the financial future of several Member States.

It is not the sort of behaviour that reassures the markets, the speculators and the private bankers. Only a democratic, supranational monetary system can do that. It will take some time to remedy and solid democratic institutions are needed ... or the Court.