Freedom of choice is one of
democracy‘s greatest gifts. When free people give their assent to Community structures, it is
because they trust them. Trust grows as a product of positive moral and
ethical experience of the
Community Model,
its Method and the leadership within it. Yet politicians are tempted to
return to their old, dishonest techniques. Many still think that they
can only defend their positions by
manipulation of history, dishonest discourse and
corrupt practice.
Take the example of the present crisis of Europe caused by nationalist
fervour across Europe’s ancient States. It is now straining the
constitutions of the United Kingdom and Spain with bust-up.
An unprecedented number of Scots and
other residents
of Scotland turned out for the referendum vote on Scottish independence
on 18 September 2014. The 85 percent turn-out was the nation’s highest
since 1951.
What was the cause of this high passion and consummate
interest in the unity of the United Kingdom? After all, Scotland has
been tied to England for 300 years. Why does it now want separation?
Has it anything to do with the European Union and the poor way it is being run?
The evidence says Yes.
The result is clear. Residents of Scotland rejected the call for
Independence by 55 to 45 percent.There will be no independent Scotland.
But internally the result is even more seismic for the United Kingdom of
England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. More than Scotland is
now involved. The whole British constitutional arrangement will have to
be re-cast.
Following some late opinion polls when it seemed to the result could
go either way, Westminster politicians made financial and political
promises to get a No vote. Westminster government will ‘give’ the
Scottish parliament
Devo-Max, maximum decentralized powers. How generous of the Westminster representatives, the so-called servants of the public!
Politicians made the case that if Scots voted No, then the central
government in London would be provide even more money from British
taxes. They would reinforce the
Barnett Formula,
named after its author. It dates back to the 1979 referendum on
Scottish devolution. However then the Treasury minister Joel Barnett
doled out extra money only on a temporary basis. It has no legal or
democratic basis. Barnett himself described the formula as ‘a terrible
mistake.’ It does not relate to votes or real facts on the ground. Now
Westminster politicians want to give away more money that does not
belong to them! They have promised a bigger ‘donation’ from unwilling
English taxpayers. The Welsh who do not receive such amounts are also
upset.
How did this politics of bribes and illegalities all come about? The
political origin dates to the mid-1970s when James Callaghan’s Labour
government lost its majority in the Westminster Parliament. To retain
power it relied on the Scottish Nationalist Party and the Party of Wales
(
Plaid Cymru).
In exchange for support, they demanded that their populations be treated
more fairly by central government. They wanted their own parliaments.
They wanted to preserve perhaps the oldest language in Europe and the
3000-year old source of many democratic principles of Common Law that
Britons still treasure today.
Before the illicit Lisbon Treaties — forced through against vocal and
explicit public opinion — politicians had not tried such a power-grab
that they could attain by distorting the European institutions to
control every aspect of life with so little accountability. Public
trust did not matter when the treaties were agreed by party majorities —
even though the parliamentarians had not even received a copy of the
treaty. Even the European Parliament refused to publish the treaty
before it had voted on it! The Lisbon process followed a decade of
discontent with European politics.
In comparison aspects of National and Regional misgovernance had not
roused opinion to the levels of today. The Scots who voted in favour in
the
1979 referendum failed to get their parliament then because the turnout was less than the 40 percent required. The
Welsh failed to reach a majority. They had to wait for a
second referendum in 1997. It led to a successful implementation of a Scottish and
Welsh Parliament in 1999.
In this period European politicians took on more
powers but without proper accountability. Declining trust of decision-takers was also the very issue at the heart of British internal problems.
Nationalist movements like the Scots are now becoming more vocal across the European Union. Why?
The answer lies in another unprecedented event of 2014. That is the
lowest electoral turnout in any European elections. Politicians have
created a them-versus-
us situation. The ‘
us‘ is ‘
We want none of the above mainstream parties on the voting paper.‘
A majority refused to vote at all. Despite some countries having
compulsory voting the overall turnout was 42.5 percent. That is the
lowest since voting was allowed on a restrictive basis in 1979. Then it
was about two-thirds. It declined consistently every election to the
present.
1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014
62 59 58 57 49 45 43 42.5
percent turnout
In contrast when Member States have held
referendums on EU matters the turnout
has been much more impressive. It is nearly always above half the
electorate. When the United Kingdom had a referendum on membership of
the European Communities, 67 percent of the voters gave their assent
with a turnout of 64 percent.
When the politicians tried to monkey with the Community idea, the
turnout remained high with the electorate roundly condemning
malpractice. The referendum results were treated with contempt by
politicians, who thought they had sewn up a new system called
rule by the European Council in secret.
For example when Denmark rejected the Maastricht Treaty it did so
with a turnout of 83 percent. Politicians told them to vote again! When
in 2005
France rejected the present
Lisbon Treaty
(then called the Constitutional Treaty) by 55 percent, it did so with a
turnout of 69 percent. The Netherlands rejected this treaty by 62
percent with a turnout of 63 percent. The Nice Treaty was also
considered a bad treaty when the Irish rejected it with a 54 percent
majority but only 34 percent turnout. They were told to vote again and
turn out in higher numbers or they would be kicked about by their
biggers and betters.
Thus the conclusion we can draw is that the public remains responsive
and favourable to European unity but requires ethical and moral
politics. Not tricks and fraud. The public refuse to ‘own’ something
from the politicians that it knows is a lie. Nor can they. It does not
depend on some false ‘social contract’ that in Europe’s history has led
to autocracy and dictatorship. As Robert Schuman put it:
The new Community politics is based on solidarity and the
progress of trust. It constitutes an act of faith, not like that of
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in the goodness of humanity which has been so
cruelly disproved over the centuries, but an act of faith in the good
sense of the peoples who at last persuaded that their salvation resides
in an agreement and cooperation so solidly organized between them that
no government will be able to evade it. (Pour l’Europe, p46)
The logic is inescapable. Europe’s politicians are doing things
wrongly and possibly fraudulently. The public is telling them to get their crooked practice straight -- or else.
An unacceptably low turnout is now the present normal. It may be
headed lower for the next European elections. The politicians tried to
jazz up the vote by trying another illegal procedure — creating ‘Lead
candidates’ or
SpitzenKandidaten‘. This supposed pizzazz was to hide European undemocracy. It was the theme of Commission President Barroso’s
speech at Berlin’s Humboldt University
in May. It talks of three successive improved ‘versions’ of Europe as
if every change in Europe, made by politicians, was like updating
computer software!
Too many politicians suffer from the character defect that without
them the world would stop. They are confused by egocentric ambition and
less by the humility that characterized people like
Schuman who said it was always wrong to tell a lie, even in politics. Inevitably lies lead to confusion and error.
The creation of the European Community in 1952 was based on solid
moral and ethical principles. It was not ‘Europe 1.0′ subject to
political change of morals and ethics in their own versions. Later
autocrats like de Gaulle or even parliamentary democrats milked billions
from European tax-payers to stump up for bribes and votes. This
corruption led to Beef Mountains, Wine Lakes and useless regional
infrastructure projects. These politicians did not make their Europe 2.0
of ‘Open markets and an open society’. They were already in the
framework of the Community Method. The first open market came on 10
February 1953. The ‘open society’ preceded it. It was formalized in the
Council of Europe’s Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
of November 1950. It recognized citizens’ ancient rights to free speech
to criticize any politician, any religion, any association and any
State.
These original elements of the Community provided the ‘miracle of our
times’ — the means to stop war among European States and create the
bases for joint prosperity. The politicians’ concept of adding to this
miracle by ‘reforming’ (corrupting) its fundamental Community form is
ridiculous. It is as effective as trying to make a high speed train go
faster by hitching some
old, lame political camels to the front. The Community made a qualitative change that showed the politics of the past, the ‘
stuff of politics‘ as usual is actually ‘
stuff and nonsense‘. Party political cartels have always in the past led to war.
Political nepotism as a governance system is only fit for the rubbish heap.
Mr Barroso’s third phase, Europe 3.0, dealing with the ‘fallout of
the economic and financial crisis’ and gaining ‘power and influence to
sustain Europe’s future’ shows that politicians have really lost the
plot. Not all the past so-called ‘reforms’ to the Community method are
positive. Some are outright errors, deceptions and foolishness.
Politicians have yet to denounce these mistakes, made by politicians,
for politicians, to the detriment of the general public and common well
being. The flagrant abuse contained in the
Lisbon Treaty is a case in point.
For more than sixty years have
refused to follow the treaties they signed up to. Politicians aimed to:
Mr Barroso’s main plea was for the introduction of a measure that is
completely illegal according to even the Lisbon Treaties. That is the
idea of SpitzenKandidaten and with it the total exclusion of normal
citizens from any post of importance inside the Commission and every
other institution. Political control by main parties to the exclusion of
others and every normal non-party political citizen curtails free
speech and democracy, fairness and justice. It cannot succeed.
How can we be sure that the politicization of all Community
institutions is totally contrary to real Community principles? Does
President Barroso’s ‘
emotion of being at the university of ‘Hegel, of Max Planck, of Albert Einstein‘ constitute any real political analysis of their contributions.
Hegelian analysis contributed to both Marxism and Fascism, while the eminent physicist of the Quantum,
Max Planck
(who resigned his post in 1937 as a protest against Nazism) showed
moral fortitude and a defence of supranational principles in science and
in public life. He resisted Nazi attempts to expel Jewish scientists
and opposed the Nazi ideology that there was such a thing as
Jewish science. There is
only one science and it represents, like absolute Justice,
supranational values.
As for Robert Schuman’s work at Berlin and his attendance at Humboldt University in 1905-6, not a word! Not a word of his
work for Germany to prevent World War One.
In 1912 he was deputy head of the German delegation at a conference
supported by Nobel laureates on international law according to Christian
principles. Not a word about the concept of supranationality which is
the foundational principle of the Community, nor about the
Great Charter of the Community defining this that the
Commission and the Council has refused to re-publish for more than SIXTY years.
In this centenary year of the outbreak of World War One, the European
public would have hoped Mr Barroso would have spoken of the
contribution of Einstein throughout his life to build a supranational
Europe. Together with
Otto Buek and Berlin physiology professor
Georg-Friedrich Nicolai and astronomy professor
Wilhelm Julius Foerster, Einstein launched a ‘
Call Up to Europeans‘ in October 1914 (
Aufruf an die Europäer).
It drew support from intellectuals and the public from around Europe.
It called for supranational principles to be the core for treating the
very sinews of war: the cartel control of the coal, iron and steel
industries and the international armaments cartels that fed the pre-WW1
arms race.
The supranational Community solution provides all the elements to
resolve the interrelation between regional, national and European
interests. Unfortunately the politicians of today are more interested in
dismantling what has been achieved since the
Schuman Declaration of May
1950, the
Great Charter
of 18 April 1951 guaranteeing freedom of choice and public assent to
European integration. They are thus aiming to destroy the very
European democracy on which they depend for a livelihood.
