Lobby4: How the Commission gets Employment and Company Law upside down.

Trillions of euros have been lost to the European economy because companies are badly structured. They take their constitution from ideas current decades if not centuries ago. They are encumbered with antiquated tax structures, which develop like some mutating monster by adding more and more complex annexes and qualifications to an already complex Tax Code. They are unfit for a Single Market of 500 million consumers

No wonder Europe is in a Employment crisis. Young highly educated people are waiting to find jobs. But employers are saying No Thanks -- not with today's complex and disadvantageous environment!

Why should young people wait?

Where are the young people in Europe who will create IN EUROPE tomorrow's Intel (Noyce and Moore), Google (Page and Brin), Microsoft (Allen and Gates), Apple (Jobs, Wozniak and Wayne) and Facebook (Zuckerberg and college roommates)? Why aren't European youngsters saying: "Forget my last years in university! I want to build my own firm'?

Many Europeans think they need a doctorate before they can start work! RUBBISH! Many of the world's greatest entrepreneurs never finished their first degree because they had a hot idea and wanted to create a company.

Is it because Europeans lack garages where a lot of multi-billion American firms like Microsoft saw the first light of day?

At the root of many of Europe's economic woes is the COMPANY STRUCTURE. What young 19-year old would want to start a company today? It's a nightmare to avoid at all cost! It is a jungle of local, national law and European Regulations, tying any foolhardly inventor or entrepreneur in masses of red tape, legal obligations and potential debt.

In Europe the complex system has become the greatest DISINCENTIVE to economic success!

Who should decide on the structure of companies? How should commercial companies be set up to take advantage of the European Single Market and globalization? How can they do it legally and SIMPLY?
What's more pertinent,

• who should be deciding how companies are structured?
• how they run their affairs?
• under what conditions should they move their operations from one Member State to Member State?

What about public companies or utilities? Should they be allowed to compete with commercial companies? Don't they have an unfair advantage?

Who decides? Should such issues be decided by bureaucrats? Is it really the business of officials who may have had no experience in running a company? Should they be decided by politicians? They may be considered to be representatives of the people but don't they have their own interests? Members of the European Parliament admit that corruption is widespread and hardly controllable. Isn't it a danger that they will shift the balance into their favour and make sure they have extra influence if not contributions for their depleted party funds?

Wouldn't it be better to collect all the experience of young entrepreneurs and ask them how they would wish to have their first company?

Surely three most obvious deciding groups have nothing to do with politicians or bureaucrats. They are:

• the entrepreneurs who have to pay and invest then employ people
• the consumers who buy goods and services and may have recommendations and complaints about what they are served
• the workers for the companies who may find themselves pressed between capitalists who want to cut their wages and consumers who also want the cheapest goods possible.

So how is the European Union dealing with the problem? The answer is BADLY. The Founding Fathers created a body to deal with the issue of companies, but the politicians and the bureaucrats have consistently over the last decades refused to allow the European bodies to develop democratically as they should.

So what do we get? The Commission does not refer to the Consultative Committee -- the parliament for industry and social issues -- but asks creates a questionnaire for all and sundry. This has no real legal standing. Even if the majority of people who had the time to reply came up with good ideas, there would be no guarantee that the Commission or the Council would make it their choice for a Regulation. They will decide what is to their advantage. Is that a hard cynical comment? Unfortunately it is based on fact because the first proposals for a European Company were made in 1949 in the Council of Europe and the governments have consistently refused to implement any thing that does not conform to the creaking tax-system that few citizens understand.

This week the European Commission closed what it calls a consultation on the Future of European Company Law (below). Notice how the questions force people to concur with what is a failed politiburo system. The very formulation of the questions show that the Commission is not thinking in terms of European democracy -- supranational institutions -- but in reinforcing the Politburo thinking of deals between Commission and Council with a fig-leaf of consultation from the 'public' -- whoever they are.

The following are my replies in bold to their questions.

I Identity Questions 1 to 4.

II. Objectives of European company law

Question 5. What should be the objective(s) of EU company law ?* (compulsory)
Improve the environment in which European companies operate, and their mobility in the EU.
Facilitate the creation of companies in Europe.
Setting the right framework for regulatory competition allowing for a high level of flexibility and choice.
Better protect employees.
Better protect creditors, shareholders and members.
Other.
No opinion.
Please specify

Since the 1950s European political leaders have failed to create a truly European company with simplified tax structures that might be headquartered in any Member State and receive favourable conditions for a fair and useful contribution to the European and world economy. There is also a notable failure to elect Consultative Committees (such as the Economic and Social Committee) based on the registration of all European professional associations. DEMOCRATIC ELECTION should prioritize EU action.

III. Scope of European company law
The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides the legal basis to adopt Directives harmonising EU company law (Article 50). That legal basis has been used for the adoption of Directives related to the disclosure of companies and their branches as well as the validity of their obligations and their nullity; the maintenance and alteration of the capital of public limited-liability companies; the merger and divisions of public limited-liability companies; and the single-member private limited-liability companies. It has also been used to adopt Directives concerning take-over bids, cross-border merger of companies and certain rights of shareholders of listed companies.

6. Would you support that the EU's priority should be to improve the existing harmonised legal framework or, rather, to explore new areas for harmonisation? * (compulsory)
Yes, the following pieces of existing legislation harmonising company law could be modernised further.
Yes, new areas could be explored for further harmonisation, such as...
Yes, both approaches could be combined and further work could target.
No, further harmonisation is not needed, the approach should rather be based on:
No opinion.

Please specify* (compulsory)
Soft-law instruments, like Recommendations.
Increased administrative co-operation and exchange of good practices.
Other.
Please specify
The Consultative Committees are required (1) to register all entrepreneur associations, all workers' associations and all consumer associations (Not done in 60 years) (2) Eliminate any lobby associations and establish professional criteria (3) Arrange elections to the seats in the CC such as the EESC and CoR. The Council refused to support this. It chose to select its own candidates (as it had for the EP). Schuman and Reuter (who wrote much of treaties) condemned this manipulation as 'ILLEGAL'

 

EU company law has been built on the basis of the distinction between public and private limited-liability companies. While some EU Directives apply to all company law forms, others focus on one type of company or the other. However, the reality has changed in the last years in particular to confer appropriate protection to public shareholders. A trend in some Member States is that public limited-liability companies are often used as legal form for listed companies while other large and medium-sized companies are private limited-liability companies. New hybrid company law forms have been designed in some Member States to grant further flexibility. Furthermore, the public-private distinction does not exist in all Member States.

7. Should the focus of EU company law move away from the distinction between public/private towards listed/unlisted in order to ensure adequate protection to shareholders? * (compulsory)
Yes, for all the legal instruments harmonising EU company law.
Yes, but only for legal instruments related to
No.
No opinion.

Please specify* (compulsory)
Disclosure of companies and their branches as well as the validity of their obligations and their nullity.
Maintenance and alteration of the capital.
Mergers and divisions.
Single-member ownership.
Take-over bids.
Cross-border mergers.
Certain rights of shareholders of listed companies.
Other.
Please specify
Company definitions, because they affect all Europeans, should not be defined exclusively by one State but should be subject to an agreement (Opinion) made at the European level by fully elected Consultative Committees such as the EESC and CoR as sketched out under answer to Question 6.

IV. User-friendly regulatory framework for European company law
Because of the large number of Directives dealing with it, European company law is sometimes regarded as not particularly ‘user friendly’. It is also exposed to the risk of inconsistencies, gaps or overlaps. In order to address this risk, the existing Directives could be amended and codified either to create a single instrument on Company Law or to only have a very limited number of Directives regrouping related areas.

8. Do you think that codifying existing EU company law Directives, thus reducing potential inconsistencies, overlaps or gaps, is an idea worth pursuing? * (compulsory)
Yes, a single EU company law instrument should replace all existing Directives.
Yes, EU company law Directives with a similar scope should be merged.
No, this is not an idea worth pursuing.
No opinion.
Please specify
Politicians have created a regulatory jungle and this cannot be cleared overnight. The approach of the Founding Fathers -- still to be applied -- is best. They proposed that a European Company statute should be created as simple as possible with simple tax rates and encouragement for expansion. This could be set up in any State and the success of its simplifying procedures would encourage the mass of existing Regulations to be eliminated over the course of time. Google eurdemocracy and Lobby2

V. EU company legal forms
Apart from harmonisation, EU company law has also focussed on the definition of specific EU company law forms, such as the Statute for a European Company (SE), the Statute for the European Cooperative Society (SCE), the European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG) and more recently, the proposed Private Company Statute (SPE). Those instruments are often referred to as being a "28th regime" to the extent that they introduce new legal forms that do not harmonise, modify or substitute the existing national legal forms, but provide an additional alternative legal form.

9. What, if any, is the added value that EU company legal forms bring for European business? * (compulsory)
The European image of those company law forms.
Their European label ("SE", "SCE").
Their full legal personality.
Savings in costs of cross-border transactions.
Ad hoc solution to cross-border related issues.
Workable alternatives to existing national company law forms.
The possibility not to be subject to compulsory national requirements (for example, the SE allow public limited-liability companies to choose between one-tier and two-tier management structure).
The possibility to carry out operations, like cross-border transfer of seat.
Tax reasons.
Labour law reasons.
Other.
No added value.
No opinion.
Please specify
The EU should stop DIY or bricolage solutions and use the Consultative Committee duly elected democratically to sound out the real impact of such schemes. This would provide real data as the CC system provides for in-depth studies not reactions of companies and groups who have time and inclination to reply to such questionnaires as this.

10. What, if any, are the main shortcomings of EU legislation introducing EU company legal forms? * (compulsory)
The complexity linked to frequent cross-references to relevant national legislation.
The uncertainty linked to the application of different national legislations that are applied simultaneously.
The differences in the way EU company law forms are understood and used at national level.
The different degree of attractiveness across Member States.
The limitations that derive from unanimity decision-making.
Other.
No main shortcomings.
No opinion.
Please specify
Lack of democratic legitimacy and trust. This can only be recovered by having democratically elected Consultative Committees such as the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions plus the scientific and technical bodies of Euratom.

11. Should existing EU company legal forms be reviewed* (compulsory)
Yes, in particular concerning...
No.
No opinion.

Please specify* (compulsory)
Simplification and rationalisation of existing procedures.
Increased uniformity through reduction of cross-references to national legislation.
Reduction of minimum capital required.
Deletion of cross-border element requirement.
Possibility to have the registered office and the headquarters in two Member States.
Explicit solution to the issue of shelf companies.
Other.
Please specify
Full and democratic examination can only be done via a fully functioning 5-institution Community system. The EU is falling into greater crises because of the lack of legitimacy of Council actions. Political, social and democratic legitimacy is outlined in answer to Q6.

The European Model Company Act (EMCA)* on which academics are currently working aims at providing a modern and flexible Model Act, taking account of the latest developments in Member States. The initiative does not strive to harmonise national company law, but rather to facilitate understanding of the specific features in various national systems and to serve as a flexible and optional model.
* For further information please see: http://law.au.dk/forskning/forskningscentre/europeanmodelcompanyactemca/overview-over-the-emca-project/

12. Could optional models such as the EMCA –or similar projects- be a suitable alternative to traditional harmonisation? * (compulsory)
Yes.
No.
No opinion.

Please explain
The only useful opinion would be that of democratically elected Consultative Committees that have full powers, equivalent to the European Parliament and the Council in such matters according to the treaties and the Founding Fathers.

VI. The particular case of the societas privata europaea (SPE) statute
The proposal on the SPE Statute has been discussed for more than three years without any final outcome. After lengthy negotiations, Member States could not agree in particular on the possibility to separate their registered office and the headquarters and the regime for employee participation. However, the Commission still believes that European small and medium size businesses need support at EU level, particularly in the current economic context.

13. Should the Commission explore alternative means to support European SMEs engaged in cross-border activities?* (compulsory)
Yes.
No, further efforts should be made to get an agreement on the current SPE statute proposal.
Other possibilities to explore?
No opinion.

for example:* (compulsory)
The Commission could prepare a new legislative proposal aimed at promoting EU SMEs through the European labelling of existing national company law instruments that meet a number of pre-defined harmonised requirements.
The 12th Company Law Directive could be reviewed in order to introduce a simplified company charter to facilitate the organisation of groups (i.e. single member private limited-liability companies would be exempted from certain harmonised rules, not indispensable for a single member company).
The scope of application of the SE Statute could be modified to allow smaller EU companies to benefit from it on the basis of more flexible requirements.
Other.
Please specify
The Commission should assume its responsibility to encourage proper elections to the Consultative Committees as is clear from the treaties and the Founding Fathers.

VII. Cross-border transfer of a company's registered office
Apart from the rules contained in the Statutes for the European Company (SE) and for the European Cooperative Society (SCE), the current EU rules do not provide for a general right to the cross-border transfer of a company's registered office, which would preserve the company's legal personality. Currently, only few Member States allow for a seat transfer without winding up and subsequent re-incorporation. In most Member states, companies must therefore establish a new legal entity in the Member State of destination, merge the companies in question and register the company formed by merger in that Member State

14. Should the EU act to facilitate the cross-border transfer of a company's registered office?* (compulsory)
Yes, through a harmonizing Directive.
Yes, through some other measure.
No, as the existing EU framework (European Company Statute, cross-border mergers Directive) provides for sufficient tools for a cross-border transfer of registered office.
No.
No opinion.

Please give further reasons for your opinion

This is again a measure that is within the legitimate right of the Consultative Committee involved to decide and give an Opinion by a vote of the three sections: enterprises, consumers, and workers.

Other questions: No opinion.

(Questions need to be settled in an institutional body after a full discussion of properly constituted professional associations with proper means of analysis and communication.)

Council6: On Schuman Day the politicians roam into a Politburo Wonderworld

On 9 May the leaders of the European Parliament met with the Commission and Council representatives. First they spoke of European solidarity and European values. They praised Robert Schuman for introducing a great democratic experiment that has brought the longest period of peace in Europe's several thousand year history.

That is true.

Then they spoiled it all. They immediately went into a self-congratulatory mode of their own delusions. They boasted that Commission, Council and Parliament have become the champions of the citizens and reduced roaming charges for mobile phone and now for data across the European Union.

Wasn't Europe wonderful!

The high charges were an 'irritant' to citizens, they said. Now we can show how 'Europe' protects their interests. The mobile companies had been charging excessively for telephone calls and data downloads across the Continent and they -- the Council, Parliament and Commission -- were the heroes that forced them to cut them. How? with a Regulation -- European law!! Now they expect all the citizens to love the new-style politburo politicians that rule Europe.

Is this fair? They boasted that they had got cuts of 75 percent in customers' bills. Is it helping the free market? Who knows? It was a Diktat.

Yes consumers like lower prices, but what if they find the bills going down in roaming and extra charges arising elsewhere because the companies find the prices unrealistic? The companies have spent billions on hi-tech satellite technology and land infrastructure and coordination. They made a strategy to pay for it over several years. Then along come a posse of cowboy politicians and say: 'Hey some of our people say you are robbing them! ' And with a pistol at their head they lower the prices.

Maybe the prices were too high to chat as if callers were at home. But who gave the cowboys the authority to decree lower prices in the market? What's the point of the internal market if it is not free from cowboy laws of politicians? It should be open wide to competition to increase efficiency of pan-European services and industry. It is supposed to reduce prices for consumers and make companies stronger so they can compete globally.

Guess what? The mobile companies reaction is not to complain loud in public. They are simply raising their domestic rates fast -- sometimes by 66 percent. Will the European Commission and its cowboys and girls be boasting that they were responsible for the rise in domestic mobile charges? I think not! The European Politburo has still to learn that they cannot get a free lunch wielding a gun.

Who should be setting prices? Should it be a free market with plenty of competition and innovation? Or should the politicians be setting the caps and ceilings for prices?

When Schuman warned of counterfeit democracy, Europeans had in front of them the so-called People's Democracies of the Soviet bloc. How did the Soviet socialists and Communists run their economies? They had artificial fiat currencies and they fixed the prices of all the goods on sale. The Politburo controlled the industries, the production and supply. They decided what everything should be worth in the funny coupons that passed for socialist money. They decided on the price by fiat.

Reminder: A real democracy does not have politicians fixing the prices of goods and services.

So why did the trio of white-hatted cowboys get in the business of fiat prices? Firstly something was uncomfortable for Europeans travelling across frontiers. More importantly the politicians wanted to gain some plaudits from the public as their credit and trust was hitting rock bottom. So they applied the same technique they did to the constitutional and Lisbon treaties -- they ignored democracy and imposed the political equivalent of martial law. They ignored the free market solutions in the same way as they had earlier ignored and despised the votes in the referendums.

Where will it lead to? Will everything on the European market now have its prices set by political fiat? By getting in the populist business of forcing reduced prices, the Council Politburo system is now heading in the same way as the People's Democracies.

Will we now see the Council Politburo responding to citizens' complaints and setting the price wherever single market customers complain? Will toothbrushes and toilet paper be the list? Will all electricity tariffs now be reduced? Will they soon decree a single low-price airplane ticket for anywhere across the EU?

Like a meteor in the fermament, some mobile phone companies have risen from nothng and replaced major companies that had been round for centuries as some of the biggest companies in Europe. The politicians often think of them as tax cows. Some long-established industries may be harder to boss around. But bossing around hi-tech industries is likely to be a bad industrial strategy for reducing unemployment. And of course those fig-leafs that the politicians use for doing anything they want -- Europe2020 or Europe2030-- say absolutely nothing about this antidemocratic market manipulation. How could they justify cheap populism for EU Public Relations?

The democratic five-institution supranational Community system on which the EU is based was created to

• stop price-fixing
• break cartels
• encourage European infrastructure for supply and demand.

How should the question of mobile phone rip-offs be treated in a real supranational democracy? Who should be setting the price of mobile calls?

The guardian of the European free market is the Consultative Committee, a major institution de Gaulle and other egocentric politicians blocked and are still blocking. The Coal and Steel Community had its own Consultative Committee that oversaw the introduction of Europe's first Single Market on 10 February 1953. The European Economic Community introduced an Economic and Social Community that was to be composed entirely of NON-POLITICAL European associations active in the market. European professional associations would all be listed and registered and THEY would then elect the member associations that should sit in the Consultative Committee.

They would vote on all matters of dispute.

Schuman suggested that three equal groups should be involved to come to a fair decision. This is confirmed in the treaties. Note: NO politicians, NO Government representatives are included. The real tripartate committee is defined as:

1. Industrialists and entrepreneurs who innovate and invest
2. Consumers who have to pay for the service and have criticism about price and service
3. Workers in the industry because they should have safe conditions and their wages should not be cut if the consumers want cheaper prices.

How did he say they should run the economical sector? If there is any dispute such as on roaming charges, the three sections would have to vote on an Opinion. As each of the sections had equal number of member associations, they would have to come to a consensus based on European values, intelligent economic strategy and social justice. Based on intensive in-depth debates, they would come to agree not only on price levels but the overall strategy for creating jobs for a stronger Europe. Such a powerful, intensive discussion of all the issues avoids quick-fix, cowboy regulators making a mess of industrial investment, and wreaking research and development plans.

The present treaties still provide the requirement for the Europe-wide elections to the Economic and Social Committee. When will it happen?

Euro3: How to pay the huge bill for Euro Frauds and 'political' fixes

Many of the EU States are now in deep debt and looking for a bail-out. Too often this is due simply to government overspending for ideological or "political" reasons. Too often these debt problems are accompanied by fraudulent national statistics or fiddling the books. Some of the secrets have not yet seen the light of day and public discussion. Yet the European Community system is vibrant and resilient. It can correct abuse.

Europe needs honest government and a solid economy. But it will take time to bring it in. In the meanwhile it will cost hundreds of billions of euros to shore up failing systems. Europe needs a breathing space to overcome this mismanagement and get a democratic and fully open system into place.

The road is clear. Any viable monetary system for Europe needs to have full participation of organized civil society in the institution designed for it. It needs the trust and confidence of ordinary people. That can only come from their active involvement -- especially when and where the politicians fail.

Non-political civil society has been cut out by 'egotistical and selfish' politicians. Before Europe can get on its monetary feet, politicians will have to learn humility and provide for the election of this major Community institution for organized civil society.

In the meanwhile how can Europe pay the bills? Two basic imperatives are required. One is to stop the secret deals  of politicians deciding matters behind closed doors, thus thumbing their noses at civil society. The other imperative is to mobilize civil society to new goals that will make Europe a continent fit, prosperous and comfortable for our children and grandchildren.

Here are some examples. You can make a list of similar ones for yourself.

The European Union budget amounts to some 130 or 140 Billion euros. It is still discussed in secret by a cabal of politicians -- who think they know best about (1) How to raise the money (2) How to spend it.

Are they efficient in their secret deals? A recent report reveals that perhaps an amount equal to between half to three-quarters of this annual amount is lost to the European economy -- by politician-induced FRAUD. According to a recent report by MEP Bart Staes the fraud due to Value Added Tax (VAT) 'carousel fraud' amounts to 80 to 100 Billion euros EACH YEAR. Mr Staes says that the fraud is entirely avoidable. It is merely the lack of political will that has failed to introduce the counter-fraud measures. This is not all. Fiscal fraud altogether may amount to twice the entire EU budget around 250 Billion euros.

Ask yourself: 'If the people were in charge, rather than politicians meeting in a secret Council, would the taxpayer allow fraudsters to get away with stealing what amounts to the most of or even the double the entire EU budget? Would they say "Yes  OK, you can take 100 Billion euros from my pocket and give it to fraudsters who are laughing in my face on the beach.'?'

No, they would certainly be active to stop the matter as soon as possible. There is one thing worse than paying tax and that is that someone else is not only refusing to do so but is in effect taking your tax money and living high on the hog at your expense. That is worse than government waste. It is encouraging criminal activity -- except that the people involved in the carousel operations are not yet in gaol. They aren't convicted criminal criminals -- yet.

Politicians too often are not willing to take hard decisions for ideological reasons or for lack of guts. If they made a mistake in the system they should correct it. If they have introduced a system that works only partly then they should repair it. An active Chamber for organized civil society, the Consultative Committees, would make sure this was done rapidly. All members would be tax-payers and represent all Europe's taxpayers.

Carousel VAT works by the same fraud well known to politicians -- spin. This time it is geographical spin. It uses the benefits of the Single Market to extract VAT refunds from governments while the fraudster spins his base of operations from one country to the next. The fraudsters 'sell' easily items like microchips, hi-fi, perfumes, mobile phones and carousel from one State to another while the tax officials run around wildly trying to catch them by their fleeing coat-tails.

Mr Staes says:

'The removal of internal administrative borders and the failure to  introduce an effective system of fiscal control within the EU has  created massive opportunities for fraud. The absence of any EU-level  co-ordination of VAT rates and the deficient systematic co-operation and  information exchange are two major issues that have facilitated this  fraud. They make it more difficult for authorities to effectively tackle  cases.'

Mr Staes says politicians' irresponsibility extends to other aspects of taxation.

'Another major shortcoming is the absurd absence of any  formal or official definition of this particular form of fraud within  the EU. A clear and uniform European definition of VAT carousels is  absolutely necessary and a crucial step towards addressing the problem  and allowing for better enforcement. A comparative European {study}, including  the authorities of 25 member states, shows that there are almost no  coinciding formulations of the coordinated directive on VAT.

Eurofisc - a  new initiative, providing for voluntary fiscal co-operation between  member states - has so far failed to emerge as a meaningful platform for  co-operation. Despite an annual reporting requirement, the  deliberations of Eurofisc remain secret. Transparency on Eurofisc is a  necessary step to improving its effectiveness.'

A supranational Consultative Committee is a Treaty-based organ. It was designed to be a powerful network of democratic associations with regular statutes recognized at the European level, all paying tax honestly, represented in the chamber for organized civil society. It would make sure such nonsense never happened.

That is why the politicians in the Council arrested its growth and wanted to kill it off or freeze the three Consultative Committees in the treaties. The Council acted illegally ever since the first Consultative Committee in the 1952 Treaty of Paris and was so condemned by Schuman and Paul Reuter. The Council then decided that the members of the European Economic and Social Committee should be not be properly elected. They would chose who would be members of this 'independent' institution. The membership is decided by the political elites in their party cartel, in the secrecy of the Council of Ministers. Civil society needs to have a chamber with democratic legitimacy.

The long reform of the Parliamentary Assembly into the European Parliament -- still far from complete -- shows the path for the Economic and Social Committee. It took nearly thirty years before MEPs were able to be directly elected. All that is lacking is civil courage -- to stand up against what is wrong and what is fraudulent in the political cabal that believes in secret 'economic governance'. Time will tell.

Now reflect on an example of what could be done positively with a revived supranational democratic system comprising the five active institutions in the energy sector. This is far more democratic and powerfully productive than the present political internationalism that passes for governance in the EU.

First consider how much money is lost on foreign energy supply. Last year the rise in gas and oil prices -- not the actual cost but just the rise in price -- cost the EU as much as HALF the EU budget. The total cost amounts to more than twice the cost of the EU budget. The Founding Fathers warned that reliance on external energy sources was bad for Europe. It was bad for the economy and also bad because with Middle East oil in a cartel like OPEC Europe would lose its ability to have an independent foreign policy. They warned Europe to get off oil addiction. De Gaulle and other self-willed politicians did not listen. Europe has already lost trillions of euros.

This warning has proved to be accurate. Oil and gas prices are set to rise and rise. The time to start doing something sensible and intelligent is NOW. Oil is not only vital for the engines of cars and freight vehicles, it is also necessary for building the roads themselves. The price of tarmac is now sky rocketing too.

Why use tarmac or bitumen on the road? Habit, bad habit. Europe and North America have been doing it for more than a century. But in the last four years the price of a ton of bitumen rose from $175 to over $1000. Tarmac (tarring McAdam roads) may have seen a good idea in 1901, but is it a good idea today? Hardly. It was then a means to improve roads for horse drawn carriages to smooth and waterproof them for cars. Until then the speed of travel on roads differed little from the time of the Romans -- or for that matter the ancient Persians.  Bitumen was sold off as a waste product from the people who gave you the oil cartel. They also set up an infrastructure of petrol pumps and roads that made it difficult for Europeans, who have little oil, to kick the addiction.

It is time to move on. What is the solution? One innovative scheme getting US funding is solar roadways. The idea is to use a whole range of new industrial developments and intelligent innovations to create solar panels made of reinforced glass. Glass? Well, if glass can withstand bullets and bombs it is no problem to withstand the weight of a large lorry or multi-wheeler truck. Made from sand, glass has been developing technological refinements since 3500 BCE in Babylonia.

Modern glass can also have safety features unheard of and even undreamed of last century. Glass embedded with high tech microchips can not only supply electricity to the electric vehicles as they travel and powerfeed into to nearby homes, it can turn the highways into an intelligent system with warning lights, ice and snow melting system and human safety features. A parking area could power an entire office building.

If the USA had these panels in place today it could generate THREE times its entire electricity supply needs with enough for most of the rest of the world.

Europe needs to mobilize this present generation to create new ideas that will make Europe a place fit for the next generation. A system of solar roadways could pay for itself in 20 years. The pay off would come that much sooner if Europe really set itself the goal of energy independence by 2020 through an Energy Community based on democratic supranational principles.

Let us assume that this is a proven, technically feasible idea that would save the EU trillions of euros, create new industries, provide a European IT nervous system, an intelligent backbone across the Continent and help share intelligent grids systems and cut costs of power, how shold the EU proceed?

Do you think that the politicians would understand the technicalities of changing a centuries old infrastructure into one fit for the future? Would they have the courage to introduce it? Not much hope. Many of the career politicians with backgrounds in politics and the law would be afraid of derisive laughter from the media and maybe from their electors about a fragile glass road.

But if you asked a chamber composed of highly technical associations of industries, workers and consumers they could tell you how to change from a petroleum based economy to one based on creating an intelligent electrical infrastructure. They would all gain, in products, services and work so they would be highly motivated to succeed. They could call on the greatest expertise in computer networks, highways,  in glass, electricity, safety, vehicle production and a whole range of other leading edge areas that need to be coordinated to make it a success. Europe's confidence in its future must similarly depend on the solidarity of expert experience and trust of all our citizens.

A Consultative Committee would force competing lobbies to work together. Why? because they would have to vote in a tripartite consultation of industries, consumers and workers, on all the important legal measures. It acts like a comprehensive, continent-wide think tank, a network of expertise. This would ensure that instead of wasting an ever-increasing amount of resources on petroleum, the Energy Community projects would use the money on creating employment and expertise for Europe that it could then help the rest of the world with in the inevitable transition to the sustainable, non-polluting, non-oil economy.

Europe has the brains, the industries the workers. What it lacks is the will to get its supranational act together. Schuman designed it as the most moral solution. A humble Statesman brought in a solution based on humility and pragmatic wisdom. After two thousands years of continuous war, European nations implemented the first stage of a system that made war 'not only unthinkable but materially impossible'.

Today politicians want to forget that lesson. When will they come to their senses? That time might come, unfortunately, when the politicians have been shown the futility of all the other cul-de-sac policies that they are presently trying.

A supranational Europe with a fully functioning system of Consultative Committees would also have a major purifying effect on monetary fraud. Their specialized committees would make sure that the politicians did not get their fingers into the national and European  piggy banks. They would be subject to the proper supervision and control.

Thus Europe could enter on the next exciting stage of democratic solidarity that Schuman predicted.