EU's Juncker praises "Greatest Destroyer of Modern Times"

British Prime Minister David Cameron “is one of the greatest destroyers of modern times.” So declared EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in Saarbruecken on 1 April 2019. What was his crime? Why did Mr Juncker find him so vile, such an enemy of mankind? 

The only explanation Mr Juncker gave was

“We were forbidden from being present in any way in the Referendum campaign” on Brexit.

The EU champion of the free movement of Europeans was apparently prevented and obstructed from entering the United Kingdom. He was not able to take ship or plane, in spite of all the European treaties that assure him of this right of free movement.

But was Mr Juncker prevented from speaking on the issues of the Referendum? Obviously not. He has at his disposal the largest press corps in the world, bigger than Washington’s. The British press and television are there. So are European media and the major outlets from the United States. Mr Juncker could speak and his words will echo as far away as Japan. So why was he hamstrung by Britain?

He has the opportunity to speak to journalists every day in the Commission’s Press Room. It is broadcast worldwide. Radio and television signals, internet messages burst across physical barriers like the English Channel and customs controls. He would certainly be noticed as he has not spoken there much since he made a surprise appearance to announce that his chef-de-Cabinet, Martin Selmayr, had been accelerated into the office of the Commission’s Secretary General, the most powerful bureaucrat in Brussels.

What was Prime Minister Cameron’s crime? How did he so offend Mr Juncker, erstwhile prime minister of Luxembourg? Both should know the ruses of politics, the rules of how to get on in Europe.

Psshhah!

It is clear that Mr Cameron’s great wickedness was the Referendum. He dared ask the British people what they thought of the European Union, the infrastructure added to the European Economic Community. They did not like it one bit.

In contrast, Mr Juncker’s proudest moment was his hand in creating and signing the Maastrict Treaty called the Treaty on European Union.

“Standing before this new Treaty I sensed that this might be the most important signature I ever made,” Mr Juncker said.

This was on the occasion of 25th anniversary on 9 December 2016, just weeks after the British Referendum.

The treaty was remarkable in being a radical rewrite of the democratic principles of the Community system. It led to protests about the Democratic Deficit. It added unaccountable “pillars”, one a bureaucratic structure for internal matters like justice and home affairs. The other was for external affairs.

The Maastricht treaty also added another undemocratic monstrosity: a system for European money called the euro. This violated the sound monetary principles that had been outlined in the 1970 Werner Report (named after a Luxembourg prime minister and written with the help of Bernard Clappier, Schuman’s former Directeur de Cabinet and later Governor of the Banque de France.

Instead of a Community currency governed by democratic institutions, the euro is based on the erroneous Mundell theory. This is designed for a federation not a supranational Community of nations. The euro is run by a closed-door, unaccountable committee called the euroGroup. It is not even mentioned as an institution in the Maastricht and other treaties. Yet it now governs the economy!

So if we look at the vote to ‘Leave the European Union‘ lucidly, literally and legally, the British did not reject the idea of a European Customs Union that they had strongly supported by referendum in 1975. They are on the right track. Keep the Community system. They rejected all the non-democratic, bureaucratic trappings called the European Union. That is defined as the autocratic additions Maastricht to Lisbon so cherished by Mr Juncker. Bureaucracy adds treacle to Europe’s petrol tank.

Europe would boom. Robert Schuman created the idea of a European Customs Union as a step-by-step system to define and build European democracy and set its economy in top gear. A customs union provides the way for all the population to participate freely. Benefits of increased trade and prosperity are sure to follow. So in a real sense, European democracy is identified with the customs union and the single market. So it is an absolute nonsense, logically and economically, to say that a democratic State wants to leave democratically a democratic customs union. Brexit proclaims that Brussels has gone sour on democracy. How?

Schuman proposed this customs union with a democratic assembly governing it in July 1948 when he was first Prime Minister of France. It was designed to help Germany become a more democratic country. In that it succeeded. It was also designed to be so strong and forge friendly links to other countries so that Germany would never leave it. In that Schuman was also right.

Based on Schuman’s founding principles, I wrote at the time of the British referendum — and in fact before 23 June 2016 — that should Britain vote that it wanted to leave the European Union, it would never leave the Customs Union of the EEC or Euratom with its single market for nuclear materials. Those commentaries are printed in my book, “Brexit and Britain’s Vision for Europe.” Copies were sent to Prime Minister Theresa May and four of her Brexit ministers. (Mr Cameron resigned on the 24 June immediately after the results were known.)

It seems extraordinary that Mr Juncker is so negative against what is considered the most vital part of democracy — the voice of the people in a referendum. But who does Mr Juncker admire as the great hero of modern times — the opposite end of the spectrum from the greatest destroyer Mr Cameron?

We do not have to guess. Mr Juncker has already made it well known. He said Karl Marx was the ‘greatest thinker of modern times.’ He was there in Trier to celebrate the 200th anniversary of his birth.

He said that 

Marx “is the mentor of the revolution of the proletariat and working people all over the world. He is the main founder of Marxism, the founder of Marxist political parties, and the creator of international Communism and the greatest thinker of modern times.” (emphasis added)

Marx gave the world war and armed subjugation of central and eastern Europe by a Politburo. Schuman gave Europe lasting peace and prosperity.
World atheistic Communism killed between 44 and 163 million people from USSR to China to Cambodia, North Korea to Africa. It was Marx that proposed the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. He is ultimately responsible for the millions sent to Gulag camps as ‘enemies of the people‘. Who is the greatest enemy and destroyer of the people?

Which side is Mr Juncker on?

Austrians expose EU's Undemocratic History as origin of Brexit

Austria mounts Fake History of the EU
FAKE HISTORY!   FAKE "FACTS"!  FAKE DEMOCRACY!
Why did Brexit happen? The answer is ably exposed in the heart of EU Brussels. The Austrian presidency mounted two exhibitions inside the Council of Ministers building. They both illustrate and emphasise a FAKE history of Europe. They show in undeniable terms the cause of Brexit.
One expo celebrates the Maastricht Treaty, which entered force 1 November 1993. The other denigrates real democracy. Fittingly neither is open to the general public!
The Maastricht treaty has been a disaster for European democracy! Why celebrate it? Maastricht emerged at a time when the public complained at the refusal of the Council of Ministers to open up its dealings to the public and the press. Instead what did the politicians do? They created a series of new, closed-door councils and committees to add to the European Communities. These secretive groups were called the second and third pillars of their Europe. They were run by officials for the benefit of officials and politicians.
Freedom and democracy had broken out across Europe but not in Brussels! Central and Eastern Europe had just been freed from the yoke of the Soviets in 1989. The Soviet citizens freed themselves in 1991.
For years democrats complained of the Democratic Deficit in Brussels and the lack of transparency. The Maastricht Treaty was a huge disappointment to citizens who wanted open government. It recreated two extra Politburo closed-door systems extending the web of secret decision-making to many other unauthorised parts of their lives.
Understandably it was rejected by Denmark. They objected to quite a number of things, including lack of transparency, measures on European justice, monetary union, and defence amongst other things,
This should have sunk it for ever. In France it passed in a referendum by a bare 51.1%. The "petit oui" was considered a signal to end non-consensual European integration. Only Ireland voted for it. All other countries, and significantly the UK, got no chance to have a referendum. Who would want to make the wheeler-dealer Council even more opaque?
So was the treaty binned? No. Not according to the European leaders who met in Edinburgh in December 1992-- the "European Council", invented by de Gaulle, was not a European institution. The European Community system is based on independent institutions. But the leaders considered themselves a Politburo! They set their own superior rules. Democratic assent was not included.
Then the Council got into further undemocratic fraud. It told the Danes to vote again! After manipulations to appease the Danes, the treaty was obviously changed. But no other national public was asked to agree by referendum to the revised concoction. No referendums, no public consent.
The Council politicians, behind its doors, decided for the public. This double fraud ignited fury amongst democrats leading to UK's rejection later in the Brexit vote. Yet the Brussels politburo still thinks their haughty attitudes equates to democracy!

Its name, Treaty on European Union, was also a fraud. The European Union was the name originally given to the Council of Europe until the British objected.
Thus the principal reason that the Council of Ministers wants to celebrate this backward event is to laud its autocratic powers over public opinion.
How did the Austrians get away with this "celebration"?
It is full of fraud and fakes. Only the Politburo cheers.
Case 1: How did political Europe start?

According to the exhibition it started in 1952. Why? Because, according to the Austrians, that was the year of a “Proposal for a Political Community and a European Defence Community (EDC)”.
Let us remind the Council that those two proposals for supranational and democratic Communities failed. Why? Because, although the EDC had been ratified by all Member States except France, Charles de Gaulle mobilised his supporters against them. With the immanent threat of Cold War turning into World War 3, Gaullists did not have the courage to have an open vote against a European army. Together with the Communists they introduced a motion in the National Assembly that the question of ratification be not put! So the proposal was shelved.
But even then European governments did not say Five voted for it, only France hesitates. Therefore the majority has won! If the French wanted to show some guts they would ask that the motion be now put to a vote. But be warned! The supranational concept is clearly spelled out. That means that all European decisions are subject to full democratic control! This is highlighted in the very first article of the draft EDC treaty.
The EDC and the EPC are prime examples about how “populist-nationalist” rabble-rousers such as de Gaulle’s supporters and Marxist-Communists blocked democracy in Europe. After January 1946, de Gaulle was out of power but held disruptive mass rallies across the country. His aim? To sabotage the French Fourth Republic and assume unique power without political parties. The Communists were the largest party in Parliament. They had similar ideas.
But why start “The Path to Maastricht” with this failure of democracy to assert itself? Why don't the Austrians specifically condemn the "populist" Gaullists and Communists? Why don't they praise the Europeans who stood up against these bullies and supported the Community system and open democracy?
Case 2: Fake Photo and Fake History

This chronology starts with 1952 with the announcement of

"Proposal for a European Political Community and a European Defence Community".

Did nothing happen in the path to political Europe before 1952?
The clue is in the photograph above 1952.
It exposes another fraud.
The photo has nothing to do with the proposal for the EDC and the EPC. It is a photograph of the signing of the Treaty of Paris 18 April 1951. Were the Austrians ignorant of this?
Hardly. Here is a photograph of the same event from the Council's own website.
It is the signature of the Treaty of Paris and the Europe Declaration of 18 April 1951!

The Paris Treaty is notable by its absence in the history of the Maastricht Treaty chronology. Extraordinary!  It is the first and most important of the European Community treaties. The Europe Declaration is an even more important document. It defines the principle that all agreements between European States must have the people's consent and agreement.

"This Europe is open to all European countries that are able to choose freely for themselves."

That's why the Maastricht Treaty is so insidious. It did not allow the people to choose freely. Two later Rome treaties are curiously included dating from 1957. Why obliterate the original Community and its definition of democracy?
Case 3: the missing Schuman Plan
Who is in the centre of the picture? Robert Schuman, Foreign Minister and previously twice prime minister. The Treaty of Paris for the European Coal and Steel Community was called the Schuman Plan. Schuman proposed it on 9 May 1950.

It was the most political Community of all. It introduced something totally unknown in the world. It was the first international anti-cartel organisation in world history.
Cartels both national and globalist have fomented war and pillage of the population from time immemorial. They were more powerful than feudal powers in the medieval wars.
An international cartel that controlled the supply and sale of some vital product could control the economy.
A bloody arms cartel fomented wars for profits.
Case 4: Nothing is more political than War
It is even more ironic that the Austrians are not even mentioning World War One. November 2018 marks the centenary of the start of this world war. Did it start because an Austrian Grand-Duke was assassinated in Sarajevo?
The Austrians should know! They have the archives.
So have I. They were published in the 1960s.
 
The Germans’s archives with their correspondence with Vienna was captured by the Allies in 1945 after the Second World War. They show that Austria was bullied into declaring war by Germany's war party in Berlin. The Germans had planned the war based on the Lightning Attack Schlieffen plan. The French obtained these plans in 1904.

They show that the principle War Aim of the Germans was to control the French strategic resources, specifically the iron ore deposits on the other side of the border from occupied Alsace Lorraine. They had occupied these French provinces in 1871 and defined the borders based on their minerals.
Case 5: Why Maastricht fails on globalism
We should recognise the main danger TODAY. World politics can easily be controlled by globalist cartels.
Thus the most important political Community was the first one which provided Europeans with the means to fight back democratically with open debate and regulations.
So why did the Austrians deliberately leave out the threat to the liberty of Europeans from globalist cartels?
Case 6: the real start of Political Europe
Lies and Fake history can proliferate by omission. What was the most important problem after the Second World War?
In fact there were two. The most obvious one was the Cold War. In 1948 the Soviet Union acquired the Atomic Bomb. The public expected another world war, either by the attack of the huge Red Army that had not been demobbed after the war or by a surprise, pre-emptive American attack.
The second problem was post-Nazi Germany. Would it join the West or would it join with the Soviets who occupied East Germany? Would it play politics with both side and ignite other European wars?
What was the solution? Robert Schuman’s first government proposed that democratic Europe should unite by creating two new institutions. The first was a European Assembly (which saw light as the Council of Europe and the European Parliament) and a Customs Union.
Historians have considered this to be the most important turning point in all European history. It was the first time a government in Europe had formally proposed a means to unite Europe POLITICALLY.
When did this happen? 24 July 1948.
That is seventy years ago. The key date for European political integration is totally forgotten! If only Europeans understood why Schuman proposed and created a democratic Customs Union, they would have spared themselves all the trouble with BREXIT!
If the Austrians had been honest about their chronology of the “Path to a Political Europe” would not this date figure as the most important? Wouldn’t help explain to Brussels that a Customs Union has to be democratically controlled? Wouldn’t it help explain to the British who reject the Democratic Deficit of Brussels that reform and open Councils are urgently required?
Case 7: Upside down history.
The other exhibition of the Austrians is the glorification of the Holy Roman Empire. They even have the effrontery to call this supranational!

That is objectionable because the term supranational was first used as a political term to describe a democratic structure for European national Democracies. It describes the way to make Europe a Democracy of Democracies.
Was the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation a model for Europe? Hardly. Historians call it a fake as it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. It was at war with other countries much of the time. Is its crown a symbol of democratic Europe?

“The European Community won’t be made in the image of an Empire or a Holy Alliance,” wrote Schuman. “ It will be built on the principle of democratic equality in certain domains of relations between nations. … It excludes dictatorial exploitation based on material superiority. That is the meaning of supranationality. It can never be applied in the area of culture because of all their individual peculiarities.”

The term supranational was first used legally in the European treaties to describe the Commission. It had to be INDEPENDENT of political parties, national governments and private interests.
The failure of the Maastricht process lies in the lack of its public support. Commencing with Maastricht, the Brussels politburo created closed-door institutions for foreign affairs, justice and home affairs. How can Justice be decided behind closed doors?
Did the the Council and the "European Council" learn its lesson? No. It went on to use the same Maastricht technique for the next treaties, Amsterdam, Nice, and the Constitutional Treaties (MANIC). The latter was rejected by France and the Netherlands and half a dozen other States were set to do the same. It could not pass.
By rejecting the Constitutional Treaty, Europeans also rejected the idea of an Exit Clause. It first appeared as its Article 59.
So how did the "democrats" of the European Council react? Stealth and deceit. They disguised it as a reform to the European Economic Community. They forced the totally rejected Constitutional Treaty through their parliaments -- sometimes without them being allowed to read it! Then they renamed it the Lisbon Treaty! They could not stop Ireland having a referendum, as required by their Constitution. Ireland rejected it.
So how does this relate to Brexit? It doesn't. The "Lisbon Treaty" has no legitimacy for the huge changes it supposedly makes to the democratic Community system.

How can a "democratic" State that promises referendums but in practice forbids its people to have its voice in a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, maintain that the treaty can have any legal or democratic validity? It is legally "unsafe". Thus a referendum using its articles is meaningless. How on earth can the British apply Article 50 of a non-authenticated, non-democratic treaty?

First the British needs a referendum to assent to the treaty (or not!). Only then can Article 50 have any force! Democracies can never consider submitting to undemocracy!

Circus5: Scotland, Rise of Nationalism, Decline of Europe

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:

• reduce the independence and impartiality of the Commission and replace it by a party secretariat,
• prevent the European Parliament having Europe-wide elections on a Single Statute
• block any thought of elections to the Consultative Committees like the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions,
• manipulate a European economic system to their advantage rather than create a common currency on the principles that were laid down by the early treaties and the Founding Fathers.

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.

Britexit1: If Britain exits the EU, where will it end for the UK, for the EU and the world?

What will be the repercussions if UK citizens vote to leave the EU? This series of commentaries, Britexit, deals with various aspects of problem. First some major economic implications and what you are not being told by dishonest bureaucrats and ignorant or willful politicians.

The EU is the world’s largest trading unit. Its GDP represents 23.2 percent of world GDP. This is far bigger than the USA. In 2012 EU-28 had a combined GDP of $16.72 Trillion. The USA was then $15.68Trillion. The UK has a GDP of some $2.44Trillion, rather small in comparison. India’s GDP is $1.62Trillion.
These figures come from the World Bank given in Wikipedia.

Whatever may be said about China’s economy, it should be recalled that EU is twice the size of China’s GDP which is at $8.36Trillion.

In global terms the UK has 3.5% of world GDP.

That is relatively small but changes to the present structure, if not handled with care, could cause serious global disruptions. Major transatlantic trade negotiations with the USA are under way to create a free trade area. What if the UK pulls out of the EU? How can these trade vectors continue to Britain’s advantage? The EU says that each family budget will gain 500 euros at the end of the negotiations. Will Britons lose out? Will it have enough political beef to conduct its own negotiations to at least the same level of success?

The great danger is that EU renegotiation of the UK might well cause major disruption to world trade and international legal agreements, unless far-sighted measures are undertaken to make the process as smooth and as problem-free as possible.

How can UK avoid looming challenges elsewhere? Take a look inside the UK. Two referendums are on the books, one for membership of the EU, the other in Scotland for independence from the UK. Others might come fast and furious after this, once the voters have a taste for referendums as a means to redress the balance against unpopular politicians who seem to ignore public opinion.

British exit from the EU might exacerbate national tensions within the United Kingdom. Will Britain break up? The UK might be reduced to separate regional nations of England, Wales and N. Ireland. The Scottish government has declared it wishes to remain inside the EU. No solution for Whitehall that does not take into account the possibility of an independent Scotland remaining inside the EU (or for that matter an independent Wales, and N Ireland separately or as a single entity) is acceptable.

While the British government in London’s Whitehall might have to calm fears at home, it needs also to pour oil on troubled waters with Brussels. No solution that leaves Britain and the EU as antagonistic forces after negotiation can be judged successful. How can peace and harmony be assured? Articles 49 and 50 on entry and exit of the EU in one of the two Lisbon Treaties are full of traps and complications to wreck the unwary. (These can be discussed later. )

The first vital priority for both British politicians, bureaucrats and the public is to get informed about what the European Community is and what the European Union is and what it isn’t.


Major technical and legal problems for exit are too often ignored. The European system that Britain entered in 1973 did not include the European Union (EU). The latter is an expansion, and a grossly deformed and distorted one at that, of just one of three European Communities, the European Economic Community or Customs Union. It came with the Maastricht Treaty that was rejected by the Danish electorate. (It had to vote again but many Member States did not even get that chance of one referendum.)

The very first principle of the supranational Community system is that the publicly expressed opinion on the constitution and exercise of powers is sovereign. Politicians buried that document they all signed up to in the French Foreign Ministry archives for half a century! What sauce! Robert Schuman‘s main aim was to create a peace-enhancing European economy. He provided the means for a thorough-going Democracy. Charles de Gaulle who seized power in France in 1957 put that on ice but did not destroy the potential to construct real European democracy.

The supranational Community system was first blocked by de Gaulle with his policy of wrecking it by stealth then a policy of the empty chair (boycott), followed by closed-door arm-twisting of small States, until the Council of Ministers became his poodle. Today too many government leaders act like ‘little Gaullists’ as they cut ‘package deals’ for themselves behind closed doors without public approval or knowledge.

The British still feel riled by Continental attitudes typified by de Gaulle looking down his long nose and saying ‘NON’ to the UK, very undiplomaticly at a press conference as a minor question of French policy. Today’s politicians have yet to reform the anti-democratic measure Europeans were forced to swallow at that time with its wine lakes, beef and butter bergs as de Gaulle and other national leaders took European taxpayers money to subsidize their own national policies. The Euro is the latest scam by nationalist politicians who corrupt decent politics and debase money as a store of value.

Britain’s policy was also typified by ignorance and antagonism by its bureaucrats in London, Whitehall. (That is not unusual for bureaucrats. The French ministry, the Quai d’Orsay, were among Schuman’s greatest opponents. Both were happier with the status quo, treating all other Europeans as foreigners to be exploited for the national interest that they, the bureaucrats, defined.) Schuman’s democracy should give free voice to European industry, workers and consumers, to regions and national parliaments.

Whitehall has shown its profound ignorance about the European Community system in the past, especially when it comes to referendums.

In June 1975 the voters were asked:

Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?

That borders on criminal neglect. What catastrophic ignorance! Or was it Soviet-style deception and disinformation? Whitehall civil servants are supposed to be intelligent and well-educated.

The Common Market was just ONE of THREE Communities that the UK was a member of. The UK joined all THREE in 1973! The Coal and Steel Community, Euratom and the Economic Community. The latter is called in UK the ‘Common Market’ as if it were the place to buy vegetables with soil still attached.

If Whitehall had told the truth (then and now) they would have to explain how the Community system was supposed to work and why there were THREE. And vitally politicians and civil servants would have to discuss European Democracy and the Gaullist corruption of it. That would expose to all Europeans (not just the British)  the wholesale scam of the Council of Ministers closed door deals. At this time the Labour government boycotted the European Parliament as a totally undemocratic institution that de Gaulle had sidelined with his poodle-powers.

In 2002 politicians decided — without any referendum even whispered or suggested — not to renew the founding Treaty of Paris that defines the principles of European democracy. This is one reason that the European iron and steel industry has suffered spectacular decline. Where is European Energy policy? Where is Europe’s defence against foreign threats to its existence?

Today in 2014 a similar SHOCKING level of ignorance is apparent in the proposed question for the upcoming UK referendum — even after it had been corrected by the Watchdog Electoral Commission:

“Should the UK remain a member of the European Union?“

To thoroughly leave the system, the UK must also leave the remaining Community, Euratom. It is quite separate from the European Union. The UK could possibly leave the EU. Then the UK will find itself an uncomfortable reality. The UK will still find that it has membership of Council of Ministers. It will be obliged to be represented in other bodies such as the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee, the Court of Auditors and the Court of Justice. (Euratom and the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) never had the European Council as an official institution.)

Only recently the UK reaffirmed its membership in Euratom. The last modifications to the ECSC and Euratom treaties were made in the Treaty of Nice of 2001 for purposes of enlargement. Some protocols of the Lisbon Treaty (rejected by referendums when it was called the Constitutional Treaty!) were added to the Euratom treaty and thus the UK confirmed Euratom as an active treaty. Article 208 says it is ‘concluded for an unlimited period.’

British politicians, bureaucrats and the British public need to get the facts — not to mention all those in Brussels who are living myths!

How can UK exit both the EU and Euratom too? Keep reading these commentaries regularly and find out! Check out the facts on Schuman Project website !

SECS2: Citizens, demand your Euro rights! Top Citizens declare 2013 the Year of the Citizen!

Celebrate! Rejoice! This year 2013 is the Year of European citizens! Europe’s Politburo, its Top Citizens, has declared it to be so, without asking anyone. Did you agree to it or even know about its multimillion euro budget?

Yet hypocritically the politicians have not allowed citizens their rights for more than 60 years. Take the Euro as an example. It is a system devised by incompetent politicians (or ignorant of Community democracy), run by incompetent politicians to the advantage of politicians. Surely citizenship means more than European passports — that is changing the colour and size of national passports.

Europe’s citizens have still no means to control the politicians, nor how they raise taxes and spend them. Most citizens therefore refuse to vote. The citizens have no say in the extraordinary number of treaties, compacts, Stability Funds and Tax Haven companies cooked up by and for politicians in the margins of the Community and too often totally outside it and in flagrant contradiction with Community and democratic principles.

If anyone should consider the word ‘hypocritical’ too strong, remember the Year of the Citizen celebrates the twenty years of the Maastricht Treaty. That ‘EU’ system precipitated a major rejection of Community principles. Democracy.

In its 1992 referendum Denmark with a turnout of 83 % said No to Maastricht. Again the Top Citizens moved in and told them that this was not acceptable. The Danes were told to vote again in 1993. Robert Schuman himself warned about such political counterfeiters. These political counterfeiters are now involved in counterfeit currency. The Gaullists declared names of recipients of the CAP ‘top secret’. Now all currency deals are done in the dead of night behind closed doors. We have secret companies in Luxembourg, declaring themselves above the law.

The Politburo who decided to celebrate this year of citizens for Europe’s 500 million citizens also decided in 2012 that they would not celebrate the sixty years of the Community institutions, Commission, Council, Parliament.  The year 2012 was a NON Year. It took the Nobel Prize Committee to remind the Presidents of these institutions who eagerly took the prize in Oslo that 2012 should have been a major anniversary.

The European Founding Fathers set out the preconditions for a Community currency. This requires democratic legitimacy, not technocratic centralism. It should not be run by politicians. It requires a democratic means to root out political and statistical corruption.

Warnings were studiously ignored in the 1990s when the Euro was created.
Firstly, the political leaders — encouraged by de Gaulle’s ideas — have blocked the articles of the treaties and the Great Charter of 1951 (see http://www.schuman.info ). The Gaullist system ignored European citizens. Instead it made them pay for the Wine Lakes and the Meat Mountain scandals to buy farmer votes in France and elsewhere.

Secondly the post-Gaullist politicians decided to retain closed door Councils and the package deal system. It shut out all citizens from seeing or hearing about how European tax was being shared out among national politicians for their own pet projects. It rejected any elections to Community bodies — until the Court of Justice ruled they were acting illegally. The European parliamentary elections have NEVER been conducted according to Treaty specifications. The EP holds 27 national elections. They always favour of the national government politicians. That is a cheat.

Thirdly we now have the monetary equivalent of the Gaullist Wine Lake system. This time it is currency liquidity. The European Politburo is using THEIR Euro to paper over the cracks of the national currency abuses. This Euro was not originally designed for the corruptions of Greece, Spain and Portugal but for the corrupt practice in Italy, France and Germany.

The Gaullist Franco-German Axis powers were among the first to thumb their noses at the Growth and Stability Pact and ignore the judgements of the European Court of Justice when exposed.

How should a European Supranational Economic and Currency System be structured? The Founding Fathers insisted on democratic control for any currency — because it had to have:

• the people’s support in its creation;
• the democratic means to correct any systemic imperfections for countries, regions, businesses, workers and consumers, for tax systems and for migration policies;
• the powers to innovate fully across the Community and to consider global responsibilities;
• the powers to supervise what politicians might do;
• the means to root out corrupt practice.

The Founding Fathers insisted that democratic institutions must be developed BEFORE the supranational currency was launched. These included a single Europe-wide election for the Parliament and elections for organized civil society in the three consultative committees.

For example the Economic and Social Committee should have elected representatives from European Business, Workers and Consumers associations. They should not be chosen from national groups at the whim of politicians for political favours back home. A really European Consultative Committee would supervise any plans for a currency. They would use their powers given them in the legislative process.

A properly elected Committee of Regions would supervise and actively be part of legislation about regional and national disparities and unemployment, as well as migrations issues. These bodies are still the play things of politicians, whether national or European. They are not independent bodies.

Instead the euro has been foisted on the public without the necessary democratic development repeated in all the treaties from that of Paris to Lisbon. Who created the euro? Politicians! But as any student of monetary economics knows the management of the money system should be run by an independent institution, supervised by another independent body, and should NEVER be put in the hands of politicians especially those who have shown themselves unable to balance their own budget or run the economy according to the rules.