14. European Council publishes orders for public to STAY OUT!

In December — when no one was looking — Member States governments adopted their Rules of Procedure for the new Lisbon Democracy. You missed it? No wonder. This ‘agreement’ was definitely not agreed in public, for the public by the public in a public meeting place in Brussels.

It was all done more or less by post. (Written procedure). It says

Done at Brussels, 1 December 2009.
For the European Council
The President
H. VAN ROMPUY

Done? The public certainly have been. The first of December 2009 is another black day for European democracy.

The newest institution of so-called European democracy confirms that the EUROPEAN COUNCIL wants to be SECRET. It is a way to get rid of the pesky press. The politicians can control the news-hounds like Pavlov’s dogs with ‘off the record‘ news feeds. That makes managed “democracy” so much easier.

Article 4 inset 3 says Meetings of the European Council shall not be public. (OJ 2.12.2009, L 315/51)

It does not say; Occasionally tired and delicate heads of government, after a long trip to Brussels, need some privacy. Nor does it say: As a democratic institution we will eventually open our doors to the public and the press as the Founding Fathers said all such European institutions should be.

It says that the rules preclude any of the Public EVER getting in.

This is the latest sad retreat from the Community democratic system to irresponsible intergovernmentalism. It is the last fling of effete Gaullism. Politicians like making their deals in the dark, away from public light. The ruling political cartel does not want any one to meddle if such a democratic institution or individual wants to argue with secret intergovernmental deals.

The new Rules say:

Without prejudice to the provisions on public access to documents, the deliberations of the European Council shall be covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, except insofar as the European Council decides otherwise.

And of course they won’t. It will take all 27 to say Yes. They will flip coins to take turns for each one to say No.

Europe’s new democracy — after ten year’s of the public’s resistance — will be like getting sardines, squeezed together in the dark, out of their can. It will require a legal can-opener.
The European Council may authorise the production for use in legal proceedings of a copy of or an extract from European Council documents which have not already been released to the public in accordance with Article 10.

Why should the Council be the only institution that remains an absolute disgrace to what should be the greatest democratic organisation in the world — the grouping of 27 democracies of Europe?

The European Parliament has open debates. It is a model for the world.

Despite some hesitations at the start (that is in the 1950s) the Consultative Committees — the nascent debating chamber for organised civil society — are open to the public.

The Economic and Social Committee is open.

The Committee of Regions is open.

The Commission is one of the most open institutions in the world.

The Court of Justice is open.

…. And the Council of Ministers ??? Hardly.

Now the European Council, too! SECRET!

While the European Council was not a real, legal institution, that is was not really an institution in the treaties, it could get away with the political equivalent of murder. It is still murdering democracy.

We now have the extraordinary sight of the President of the European Parliament attending the European Council — and he is made mute by the Council’s lack of democracy. The President of the European Parliament usually does things openly and before the cameras and a forest of microphones. When he addresses the European Council, no cameras are allowed. Radio journalists and their mikes are chased out. The public is excluded. A text may be produced. But the public and the press have no idea how the ‘lords and masters‘ of the European Council react or respond to the suggestions, criticisms and commentaries about their actions from the representative of Parliament.

In short the new rules have gagged Parliament.

General de Gaulle — who wanted to destroy European democracy — would be well pleased. His hand has made Parliament behave like a naughty schoolboy going to see the headmaster. De Gaulle thought that having to speak in a democratic debate in public was demeaning and undignified. He did not like giving reasons for his actions. He did not even tell his ministers what French policy was until he announced it. As for Europe, he preferred the ‘empty chair‘ ; he was not very much in favour of having any minister go there unless it was to collect money for wine lakes and beef mountains. Nor did he like a display of his henchmen arm-twisting and bullying the smaller States of Europe. The blood on the carpet might upset little old ladies. De Gaulle insisted that the Council should firmly shut its doors to the public.

All democratic chambers should be open to the public and the press, unless the public can be convinced there is a valid reason why they should not be. That is a basic principle of democracy. From the time when Celtic tribes assembled to debate matters in public, it has been so for a few thousand years.

And don’t give me that ‘Oh, if the Council is open to the public, they will talk in the corridors.‘ Parliamentarians talk in the corridors. But they have a debate in public.

Why? So that there will be a public record of what they say, how they say it, and why they are moved to say it. Only when the public — let us call them voters or their democratic masters — can have this evidence of their motivation, reasoning and quest for European justice, can they judge them. And fire them, if necessary. Maybe even congratulate them on occasion.

That is democracy. It is quite different from Gaullist autocracy. Had we forgotten? Schuman defined democracy as being ‘At the service of the people and acting in agreement with the people‘. Lincoln said it was ‘government of the people, by the people and for the people.‘ The new Lisbon system is now defined as being SECRETLY for the secretive politicians, by the secretive politicians and for the secretive politicians; people stay OUT, referendums and public opinion are of no consequence to us. Please go away and be ruled in silence.

If you don’t agree with me, please leave a comment telling me where and when the public had a democratic debate and agreed that the Council and now the European Council should be SECRET.

At the moment I feel quite free to speak out so boldly. At the Council offices, no one will be listening or reading this commentary . They’re in the middle of a cat-and-dog fight about who is in charge. Is it the Spanish national presidency or the President of the European Council? Then there is the latest debacle. The US President does not want to attend a Summit with Europe until he knows whose hand to shake first. In the Council the European cartel are still arguing about who is responsible for making Europeans look like a bunch of fools, and not only to the Americans over the EU-US Summit. The undemocratic cartel running Europe has made European government look ridiculous to the wide world.

These so, so, embarrassing matters shall not be open to the public.

8 Bye-bye Abe Lincoln's Democracy! Bye-bye blue Planet?!!

At Copenhagen in December 2009, politicians failed to agree on joint action to save our planet. Politicians have also failed democracy. Has any one noticed? The only living planet in our solar system is in mortal danger -- and the melting glaciers, rising tides, desertification, and the annihilation of non-human lifeforms should be ample evidence to most rational beings of our own pending disaster. The only solution is the energetic mobilization to wise action of the world's so-called rational animals to safeguard our common and unique home. That does not mean world government. In the present deplorable state that would introduce overt or covert dictatorship. But it requires world supranational democracy. It would mean treating the world as a community of human beings with common problems and common interests in survival. It means treating our neighbours as ourselves, not as greedy enemies. Just rules must be agreed by all.

It would deal with the planet just like Europe approached the major threat to its existence -- ever more violent war -- and eliminate the problem through the Community method. Then as now, many people selfishly do not want to be treated as co-citizens for peace or creatures dependent on each other for survival. The founding fathers did in fact persuade an overwhelming majority of Europeans to 'make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible.'

Are we up to the challenge today? In 1949 -- sixty years ago -- Schuman told all the newly arrived members of Europe's first parliament: You are here to save the world from suicide. Each of them got a copy of his text. All the governments too. He was right then, but we are NOW facing another act of human stupidity leading again, degree by degree, to WORLD SUICIDE.

If all the politicians had agreed to act on this new planetary threat -- which they didn't -- then that is not the same as mobilizing the entire population. Why? Because so many politicians have lost the trust of the people. It is the people who have to be convinced the planet is in danger. Why? Simply because it is the people who will have to make the changes in their lives and lifestyles. Every citizen has to show the same solidarity to save the planet.

The time is gone when politicians could say: Do this, and the people will follow obediently. Citizens are refusing more and more to vote for politicians. Less than half of 'voters' even voted. And that figure includes countries where politicians deem that citizens should be fined if they do not vote. (Some politicians arrogantly deny the people's right to be free to choose.) Still the electors refuse. They say in effect about the ballot slip: None of the above. Politicians are seen as being 'on the take'. The public sees the money -- if only in the newspapers. The politicians say they are professionals, whatever that is. But the public says that they are there for their political machines and to get jobs for their political friends. The political machines keep them busy, well-fed and, above all, dependent. For example they expect as a matter of course, not to do their jobs voluntarily, that is as a free public service -- like many of the politicians did in the past. No, they expect a salary (plus huge perks) that is perhaps ten times the national average salary. We're worth it, they say. Even the attendance allowance is often multiple times the voter's salary.

Not good enough. They failed the test that politics should primarily be about SERVICE. It would be far better for politicians to earn a normal living, to have a profession or to trade. A real job would perhaps set their feet on the ground, bring a dose of reality, and contact with normal human beings. They could be given expenses for trips to Brussels or Strasbourg. Is this likely to happen? No. Why? Because the moral fibre is lacking, even to propose such a measure. That is symptomatic of our moral bankruptcy. If European politicians can't kick greed and consumerism, we can have no leadership from them for the planet.

And, as if to make our survival more uncertain, the self indulgent, greedy party political image of rich politicians and poor electors has become the model that the developing countries seek -- even in the country of Gandhi. The former worker republics of Russia and China -- that used to preach world solidarity and considered themselves the saviours of the oppressed -- have become the selfish refusniks against action by a global community.

The only way to solve Europe's problems -- and the planet's -- is to ask all the people some simple questions, and get their positive affirmations. This is what is called the Community method. It mobilises all citizens in civil society and allows all citizens to react. That Community method has been abandoned first by people like de Gaulle in the 1960s and the rejection is now written up in the Lisbon Treaty. For example: how about asking the people whether they want carbon trading or not? When did anyone ask them? Taxation without representation but also without a discussion and acquiescence will end in tears and a crisis for parliamentary systems.

We are entering multiple global crises, not only climate change and energy but threats of global lawlessness, ideology and financial corruption. At this crucial time, Western Europe and USA have grown fat, ignorant and self-indulgent. They are in no way prepared for the intellectual analysis and spiritual testing that is required for such challenges. Multiple enemies, some of our own making, are at the gate. Do we have the tools and weapons to deal with them?

Take the example of our concept of democracy. Or rather, let us go back to US President Abraham Lincoln's famous definition, spoken out on the ruined battlefield of the American civil war. Democracy, he said, was government of the people, by the people for the people.

With the Lisbon Treaty -- brought in IN SPITE of the people and against their expressed will -- we now have a party oligarchy. It is rule by a party cartel of two or three main party machines. The party politicians in fact agreed to the Lisbon Treaty, NOT THE PEOPLE. It is government by the party, for the party and of the party.

The democratic bodies that the Founding Fathers like Robert Schuman declared to be non-political and free and independent of party interests and governments -- are all under the thumb of political parties. The Commission is now a forbidden zone to anyone without a party card. No elections were taken for membership of the Commission. No advertising was made to ask the public if they knew of any one who was qualified as experienced and impartial. No one from the non-political public proposed a member of the Commission. No member of the public had the opportunity to object to the politicians that the political machines put forward. The Council of Ministers that decided on these politicians was secret. No camera was allowed in, no journalist. Not even a member of the public, designated as an observer.

This is in direct violation of the founding principles of the Europe Declaration of 18 April 1951 that European citizens themselves, not the parties, should be 'FREE TO CHOOSE.'

In the beginning nearly all its members of the Commission were free from party political membership. Some resigned party membership because they wished to be seen to be impartial. Why? because all the members of the Commission must be INDEPENDENT. They also represented by this impartiality normal, free citizens. The only one of the FIVE institutions of Supranational Democracy that has remained free from being an exclusive party political zone is the Court of Justice. For how long?