Davos exposes Europe's Fake News and Fake History

The World should note and shudder! Fake News is being spouted by European leaders about the crisis of Europe’s future.
Meeting at the Davos World Economic Forum, a special discussion was held on “Which Europe Now?” Sixty minutes of hot air followed, enough to melt the Alpine snows.
Citizens, be afraid! The leaders seem to know little about how Europe got its peace after 2000 years of warfare, how it got its unprecedented prosperity.
Robert Schuman and the founding fathers created a system to build trust between nations and peoples and industries. Lack of public trust in Brussels is the prime cause of today’s crisis. Schuman said: “Bureaucratic expansion and complexity are no guarantee against a breach of trust. They encourage political nepotism. Administrative inflexibility is the prime danger threatening our supranational services.” Elections, he said, should be Europe-wide not national. They should accord with the Great Charter of the Community (that de Gaulle buried.)
Leaders today have little clue how to best deal with the future. Would you hire a hot air salesman to be in charge of a fire brigade, someone who knew nothing about fires and could not even drive a fire engine?


Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte boasted that “I am a historian”. He then destroyed that illusion. Just four minutes into the conference he said that the treaty that made sure “No More War” was that of 1958. What was he thinking of? Euratom? Or the so-called “Common Market”. What happened between the end of the World War and then when the Cold War raged?
In its first announcement of the year the European Commission gave the same Fake News. They said they would celebrate Europe’s 60th Birthday in Rome in March this year. Is Fake News contagious? The treaty that made war “not only unthinkable but materially impossible” was the Treaty of Paris, signed on 18 April 1951. The quote comes from Robert Schuman’s speech of 9 May 1950 that launched the Community process and the European Coal and Steel Community.
Then we had the French moderator, Maurice Lévy, the boss of Publicis. This is a communications and media group. Why, any normal person would ask, does the European Union require a marketing consultant to get its message across? Is lack of trust not apparent or do leaders just want to cover it up?
Mr Levy asked: What are the great ideas that Europeans need? What makes a better Europe?
Mr Levy came up with the false and hoary old story that Jean Monnet had said that “if I had to start again” (with presumably single-handedly creating the European Union), he would “start again with culture.” It takes a minute on the internet to prove this is a Fake!
It is also false to say Monnet “invented” the Community. It has long be debunked as false. Monnet’s Memoires even claim he invented the word ‘Community’ on 21 June 1950! False! When did he have this brainwave? The day after he had sat next to Schuman at the opening of the Schuman Plan conference on 20 June when Schuman described exactly how a Community would work.
As for the quote about culture, it is rubbish. The Community was created in 1950 when nuclear war loomed between USSR and the West with Germany playing one off against the other. It was not created to make films.

Nor was it designed to create a uniform European culture as the other panelist, the banker Ana Botín of Santander, seemed to want. If she wants her fellow bankers to understand Europe she should buy them some decent history books. The bankers of Europe could learn about what Schuman called the supranational management system of Europe. That’s what he called it in his speech of 10 August 1950 before the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. Its use in banking, commerce and services would revolutionize the economy!
The quote about “starting again with culture” probably originated with Jack Lang, once a French Minister of Culture. He admitted it. But it certainly did not come from Jean Monnet.
Nor did Jean Monnet have much to do with “creating” the first European Community except distracting the Prime Minister Georges Bidault from Schuman’s activity (which he opposed vehemently). The Schuman Declaration was written by his fellow Lorrainer, Paul Reuter, the deputy Jurisconsult at the French Foreign Office and his watchman there against nationalist and Gaullist plots. He used Monnet’s office and secretarial help. You can read the account on schuman.info or in Reuter’s own words in the book: Robert Schuman, Jalonneur de la Paix Mondiale.
 
So what did Martin Schulz, the long-serving president of the European Parliament, say about Monnet and starting with culture?
“He (Monnet) was right!” He blamed politicians who came out of closed door meetings of the Council and refused to tell the truth of what had gone on! Secrecy is not democracy!
Next we had the Commission, in the person of Vice-President Frans Timmermans. He faked his own News/ history. Today, he said, “governance is more important. Some of the facts — we’re talking about history — need to be reassessed. No more paternalism. That was Schuman etc. Very paternalistic people. They said we are going to fix Europe but please don’t tell the people how we are going to do it. ”
Whaaat! They created Europe's peace for the first time in 2000 years and Schuman didn't tell the people how he did it? Schuman created the major forums for public opinion to act "like lighthouse" for the new idea of supranational democracy.
What an insult. Who created the Council of Europe with its Assembly to act as a public laboratory for new ideas? Who created the European Parliament? Who created the institution of which Mr Timmermans holds an office (in spite of his party political membership which contradicts his oath of office for impartiality?) Mr Timmermans got into a verbal fight with Prime Minister Rutte. He denounced his party political ideas and theories.
Mr Timmermans, why are you so ignorant about European history? It involved the greatest postwar public debates. Why are you so defamatory of humble, democratic Robert Schuman? Are you confusing him with the autocratic Charles de Gaulle? 

In either case you should have thought before you spoke. Distrust springs from fakes.
Schuman and the treaties say that the Commission should act independently of party, country and profession. He used the term “supranational“. I wonder how many "Commissioners" and "leaders" even know what it means. Why today do so many "democratic" leaders prevent the European Council being held in public like the treaties say?
As multinationals announced they were quitting Britain, UK Prime Minister Theresa May also visited Davos. She praised the institutions that brought peace and prosperity. She said:

“We should never forget… So we must uphold the institutions that enable the nations of the world to work together. And we must continue to promote international co-operation wherever we can.”

Democracy in Europe requires open Councils and elected Consultative Committees. It requires many elections that Europeans have never had in 75 years. Democratic leaders should read article 15 of the Lisbon treaty TFEU which says

“Union institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies shall work as openly as possible. …” It adds the Council shall meet in public like the Parliament.

UK High Court exposes underhand Brussels Brexit plot

Brussels leadership is exposed as insolent tricksters! That is the implication of the UK High Court. Autocracy has no place in a real democracy, whether in London or Brussels.
The UK Parliament will fully discuss Brexit before it can leave under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaties. The High Court has ruled against Prime Minister Theresa May’s autocratic concept of Brexit that requires no real debate. It is known as the Henry VIII clause option. With reason. This is a pseudo-royal prerogative that politicians believe they have acquired. It dates from the 1539 Statute of Proclamations. Politicians are not kings. Nor is Mrs May a queen. Democracy is about people. Their ministers are servants not monarchs.
Instead of such comprehensive regal powers that would make 10 Downing Street a royal palace, the matter of Brexit will have to be discussed on the floors of the two Houses of Parliament.
The High Court re-affirmed that, even if prerogative powers remain for international treaties, the powers cannot be used in the case of the referendum, because Membership of the Communities has provided privileges and laws in the domestic sphere. These must be taken into account. Nor can the Secretary of State use the Crown’s powers to take away the rights of citizens.
The High Court with three of UK’s top judges, Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Sales gave a unanimous verdict.
They gave a striking rebuff to the three Brussels leaders, Presidents Juncker, Schulz and Tusk. In the early morning of 24 June 2016, barely hours after the first results of the 23 June referendum were published, they gave their verdict. They demanded the UK leave the EU within hours of the referendum results. The Three demanded that the UK leave the EU “rapidly however painful it might be”. They told British MEPs to quit the European Parliament chamber immediately.
Pardon! Your ulterior motives and dirty tricks are showing Sirs!
Curious! The High Court judges made clear that the result of the referendum was purely advisory. That was well known to the public before. I wrote about it as an advisory referendum. The Brussels TopPols simply ignored this fact and tried to bluster the UK out of the EU. They showed abysmal ignorance, bad faith or anti-democratic collusion. Which? They have no excuse. It should have been abundantly clear to the Commission, European Parliament and the Council. Their buildings are stuffed to the gunnels with lawyers.
The referendum had no binding legal power over the government or parliament. This is what the High Court gave as judgement in paragraphs 105-111.

“The Referendum Act 2016 {does not supply} statutory power for the Crown to give notice under Article 50. This Act fails to be interpreted in light of the basic constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy which apply in the United Kingdom, which lead to the conclusion that a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in parliament unless very clear language to the contrary is used in the referendum legislation in question. No such language is used in the 2015 Referendum Act.
“Further the 2015 Referendum Act was passed against a background including a clear briefing paper to parliamentarians that the referendum would have advisory effect only. Moreover parliament must have appreciated that the referendum was intended to be advisory only as the result of the vote in the referendum in favour of leaving the European Union would inevitably leave for future decision many important questions relating to legal implementation of withdrawal from the European Union.”

It concludes:

“The Secretary of State does not have power under the Crown prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 of the TEU for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union.”

First we should analyse what would make a Brexit decision really legally sound in British law. A referendum vote could be definitive. The High Court does not rule out that parliament could make the referendum legally binding IF it specifies this exactly in legislation.
Referendums were an ancient part of pre-Roman British culture. They also held the principle that the country (that is the expressed voice in a referendum) was above the prince.

Then came the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, and the Normans. For many centuries in the later medieval period the idea of a referendum was lost by the British public because of monarchic autocracy. The ancient British laws are mentioned in the Magna Carta of 1215. That does not mean that the monarchy does not have an important role to play in a constitutional decision. Obviously it does and it is central.
In a democracy the monarchy cannot publish autocratic royal decrees that ignore the will of the people. That would place a monarchy in the category of a dictatorship or at best something like the pseudo-monarchy of France’s Charles de Gaulle. He had the sole vote that counted. (De Gaulle vetoed UK’s candidature for the European Communities twice in a disdainful way during press conferences and once via his instructions to his foreign minister. He did not discuss the matter with his government before he made his decrees.)

Now it is the Brussels Politburo which is acting like little Napoleons, if not kinglets. The big fall-out will hit Brussels and its Politburo (largely unelected!). The Politburo has assumed the mantle of Charles de Gaulle and failed to see that it leaves the little emperors without clothes! De Gaulle buried the Community’s own Magna Carta. that Schuman called the Charter of the Community. Brussels follows suit. It has been attempting to reverse all aspect of European-level democracy. What sort of democracy in any Member State would act in such an imperious way as the Brussels Politburo? It tells some States like Ireland and Denmark to reverse legally binding referendums. It tells the Greeks how to vote in the euro referendum and then forces its government to act contrary to the people’s result. It tells the UK it must obey immediately an advisory referendum.
Britain has a long democratic tradition. The British democratic process is far from finished before the government can even think of sending a letter under Article 50 of the (fraudulent) Lisbon Treaty. The three other national governments (Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) want their say.
Wales First Minister Carwyn Jones says it is a mistake for the government to appeal against the High Court ruling – and repeated his view that the devolved administrations should also get a vote on Mrs May’s Brexit negotiating position. “It is important that votes take place in all four nations to endorse the UK negotiating position.”
The Community was originally based on the highest standards of democracy. Many Britons would agree with Robert Schuman, the founder of the European Community system, that

“some monarchies such as Great Britain, Belgium and Holland, if we only refer to our nearest neighbours, are more clearly and traditionally attached to democratic principles than some republics where the people have only little direct influence on the direction and political decisions of the country.” (Brexit and Britain’s Vision for Europe, p 5.)

Check it out all the details! CLICK HERE : Brexit and Britain’s Vision for Europe at special discount prices

BREXIT 12: Brussels Elite are De Gaulle's Children

Seventy years ago, on 14 July 1946, Robert Schuman hosted Winston Churchill in Metz to discuss the future of Europe. Later as Prime Minister an d Foreign Minister, Schuman initiated the Council of Europe, the European Community, the defensive basis of NATO and the European Payments Union, the core of a currency stability, as four pillars of the New Europe.
Why today are Britain and Brussels at loggerheads? Ignorance of the history of European Democracy is one reason why the Brexit referendum occurred. The Brussels elite also seems to lack a real grasp of democracy. More Member State Exits will happen if the Brussels leadership does not sharpen its act.
A recent Spiegel interview with Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and European Parliament president Martin Schulz illustrates this well. Here’s an extract.

Juncker: I have always considered it to be a minor miracle that after the war, people in Europe’s border regions were able to forget everything and, in accordance with the slogan “Never Again War,” develop a program that still works today. It is always said that Europe is a project of the elite. That’s incorrect. In fact, it was a concern of the soldiers who fought at the front, the concentration camp prisoners and the Trümmerfrauen (Eds. Note: The women in Germany who helped clear away the rubble following World War II). It was they who said, we’re going to do everything differently now. De Gaulle and Adenauer merely acted upon this desire.

Does the Brussels elite really consider that De Gaulle was the architect of the European Community? It is hard to believe that anyone who is responsible for the Guardianship of the Treaties could believe that! But then the European Council did create an entirely fraudulent exhibition in Brussels that celebrated the arch-enemy of the Community method as its saint!
The founding treaty dates from 9 May 1950 and its signature on 18 April 1951. De Gaulle was not in power. He was away sulking in Colombey-les-deux-Eglises and trying to bring down the democratic governments of Georges Bidault and later prime ministers, under whom Robert Schuman served as Foreign Minister, 1948-53. De Gaulle was sulking because the French Parliament rejected his anti-democratic or autocratic seizure of government. He withdrew from government in January 1946.
What was de Gaulle’s policy? He wanted to dismember Germany and make the Rhine France’s border. Saar would become totally French. The industrial Ruhr would be made into a separate State. He wanted to dismantle the Democratic Constitution at Bonn, that Schuman had patiently and wisely created in 1949 to the astonishment of his British and US counterparts, Bevin and Acheson. De Gaulle wanted to use Germans under his generalship as part of his army to oppose the Soviets. (He expelled NATO from Paris and Americans from France.) He later made the Germans pay for the Common Agricultural Policy to bribe French farming voters and create unwanted Meat Mountains and Wine Lakes.
Adenauer wrote that Schuman had laid the foundations of European peace. He wrote that while De Gaulle was visiting Germany in 1962. In 1952, thanks to Schuman, Adenauer had been the first president of the Council of Ministers of the European Community.
Was it a ‘minor miracle’ that Europe was able to have peace — the longest in 2000 years of history? The visiting Israeli President Shimon Peres told Brussels at least three times in one day that it was a miracle of our age!
Apparently the Brussels elite believes there was no leadership for the ex-soldiers and the women (who were paid to clean bricks from bombed out buildings) to create that miracle! It just happened. Contemporary Allied reports, however, highlighted the fact that most German youth were still fanatically Nazi and there was a strong revanchist movement for a further war after reconstruction. So how did the women change matters? Was it due to prisoners returning to Germany?
These events could be paralleled with similar events after every other war. Every generation of Europeans repaired the ruins, then planned the next war, and then suffered the consequences. Do the Brussels elite know what was different with what happened after the Second World War? So how did these common people influence de Gaulle — who wasn’t in power — to not make war but make peace?
This is obvious nonsense. De Gaulle was no apostle of reconciliation. Years after 1958, when the THREE European Communities had been established and were up and working and

• AFTER de Gaulle had failed to destroy them, he said in 1960 they were ‘dangerous’ and ‘harmful,’
• after pro-European ministers had resigned from de Gaulle’s government in 1962 because they felt he had betrayed his promises,
• after de Gaulle had failed to turn the Commission into his political Secretariat in the Fouchet Plan in 1961-2,
• after his failed ’empty chair’ ploy of 1965 to sabotage the Community,
• after January 1963 press conference when de Gaulle had vetoed the British application to join the Communities,
• after a few days later when Monnet, French, Germans and other Europeans had protested at the Elysee Accord of 1963 he had signed,
• after de Gaulle had suggested instead of democracies like UK, Ireland and Denmark, Fascist Spain should join the Communities,

After a decade of heavy Gaullist control of radio, television and other media and propaganda, only an uncritical person would continue to believe it. Only naive people would take de Gaulle for anything but an ultranationalist with a Charlemagne complex. Nigel Farage eat your heart out!
After the Brussels elite had so disastrously FAILED to clean up the European institutions, hold proper elections as the treaties require, and open sessions of supposedly democratic bodies like the Council, it must take a rather short-sighted person to proclaim

In its 43 years of EU membership, Britain has never been able to decide whether it wants to fully or only partially belong to the EU.

Mr Schulz is also quite free to point the finger of blame absolutely in the wrong direction:

Schulz: Primary responsibility for Brexit lies with British conservatives, who took an entire continent hostage. First, David Cameron initiated the referendum in order to secure his post. Now, fellow conservatives want to delay the start of exit negotiations until they’ve held a party conference. And regarding detractors: I’m proud of the fact that Ms. Le Pen in France insults me and Mr. Wilders in the Netherlands calls me his opponent. The way I see it is, if these people weren’t attacking me, I would be doing something wrong.
SPIEGEL: Criticism isn’t only coming from right-wing populists. Mr. Juncker, the Polish and Czech foreign ministers have called for your resignation. They feel the Commission is too domineering.

The UK has always been a fierce defender of Democracy regardless of the costs. Its criticism of the lacks in Brussels have gone unheeded. In 1946 Robert Schuman, then Minister of Finance in a war-torn, corrupt and Communist Party dominated France, and Winston Churchill discussed how the New Europe could arise through spiritual renewal.

The Brussels elite seem incapable of discerning truth from falsehood. What chance has Democracy?  It might be worthwhile for the Brussels elite to recall the way the European System should be working and the failures of Brussels to follow the articles of the treaties.

BREXIT Article 50 was declared ILLEGAL by Referendum!

Something smelly is being exposed in Brussels.It takes just a few days for the public to compare real democrats with the biased behaviour of Brussels. Why is Brussels acting far from impartially? Under the supranational system of democracy initiated by Robert Schuman, the very highest standards of impartiality are demanded to manage 28 democratic States and 500 million people. But the present Politburo has deformed these potentialities by closed-door institutions, and lack of proper elections to the Community’s five institutions.
UK's BREXIT negotiations to leave the European Union will not be easy. Nor will the core issues be resolved rapidly. BREXIT is already raising fundamental issues about Law, Justice, and the very basis of European democracy. The legal issues expose the misuse of the closed-door politics of Brussels in a way unseen for decades. This debate will be hugely beneficial to other States around the world that are founded in Justice and the Rule of Law. The legal issues will reinforce the Judeo-Christian values at the heart of Western civilization.

HURRY! HURRY! HURRY!
What was the first reaction of the European Commission, the Council and the European Parliament to the British referendum result to LEAVE the European Union?

On the morning after the 23 June referendum, the EU ‘presidents’ issued a Statement.

“We now expect the United Kingdom government to give effect to this decision of the British people as soon as possible, however painful that process may be. Any delay would unnecessarily prolong uncertainty. We have rules to deal with this in an orderly way. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union sets out the procedure to be followed if a Member State decides to leave the European Union. We stand ready to launch negotiations swiftly with the United Kingdom regarding the terms and conditions of its withdrawal from the European Union.”

Notice a common theme? Hurry! Hurry! Hurry and leave! Why should alleged ‘democrats’ be in such a pants-tearing hurry to be rid of the home of Magna Carta? Democratic culture contrasts with the autocratic attitude of the Brussels Politburo.
That is definitely not diplomatic. It is no way to treat an ancient democracy. Surely the UK, as a democracy older than Poland’s, Luxembourg’s and Germany’s, would have well-established procedures to deal with a Consultative Referendum. Brussels does not. Why? The Politburo fears its undemocratic base will be exposed by a long investigation of the issues.
Just look at the three Machiavellian presidents, Mr Juncker, Mr Schulz and Mr Tusk. None of the three was democratically elected in in an open election. They were selected by what any ancient democracy would call a rigged process behind closed doors. In the case of the most urgent of the hurriers, Mr Schulz, he owes his position to a special, secret vote (where no one knows who voted for him) and where the major power holder, the EPP party of Mr Juncker, abstained from voting so that Mr Schulz’s socialists could vote him in, cartel-style. Prime Minister David Cameron said Mr Juncker was the ‘wrong man’ for the job. Even if UK stays, Mr Juncker wants to make sure that no Briton ever again will become the Commission President!
Phewooah! These anti-democrats are telling the UK to get out of the EU pronto. Do you detect a little bit of bad conscience on the part of the Antidemocratic Three?
The European Parliament also bullied and harried the British to hurry. They said there must be swift action for the UK to leave the EU. They said the British presidency of 2017 should be cancelled — all before the UK has given an official response to an internal referendum. That’s a further indication that anti-democratic plague spread by the tinkle of euros is widespread. It is not so much lack of understanding of British democracy — or it may be said — democracy in general! It is also bad conscience. The European Parliament has never been properly elected in more than 60 years. Some voters get the equivalent of ten or a dozen votes to elect the cartel parties.

TRUE DEMOCRACIES
But the UK referendum is a Consultative one. Don’t they understand that? They have just ignored the Dutch referendum on the Ukraine. Brussels has a long, long history of totally ignoring far more important referendums in France, Denmark, Ireland and stopping many others.
For the UK, however, there is no obligation for the British government to follow it scrupulously. Why? because the UK Parliament is sovereign in decision-making. The voice of the people is sovereign but it is a blunt instrument. A referendum is not expected to provide all details of action or legislate Acts.
A true democracy tries to satisfy and conciliate the just claims of all the people in an open way. It is not a sledge hammer for a thin majority to crush the minority. Laws have to be sifted out and refined by parliamentary debate. Then parliament has to come to consensus on what are these procedures. Then Government has to summarize these actions in a Bill of Parliament. Parliament — both the House of Commons and the House of Lords — has to pass this Bill. It is then given the royal assent by the Queen.
In a democracy, an individual citizen may also object that certain aspects are unfair. It then goes to a Court for judicial review. There is a parallel process in Community law.
So what other interests would the British Parliament have to consider? First of all, the integrity of the United Kingdom itself. Other considerations would be of a social, political and economic nature.
The first duty of Parliament is to keep the constituent nations of the UK, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the English, happy in their free association of royal union under the monarch. The referendum showed that some national regions wanted to REMAIN, while others wished to LEAVE. A wise government would need to know why this disparity occurred and what can be done about it. 

EIGHT TO ONE AGAINST
Furthermore there have been eight UK referendums that reinforce the integrity of the United kingdom. The advice of European Parliament — to leave immediately — would be similar to pulling the detonator on a grenade. It would risk splitting the United Kingdom into the nations and regions that wanted to stay and those who don’t. On such an issue it would break up the United Kingdom. This would hardly be to the advantage of the EU.

Scotland

• Scottish devolution referendum, 1979, on whether there should be a Scottish Assembly (small majority voted yes, but fell short of the 40% threshold required to enact devolution)
• Scottish devolution referendum, 1997, Two questions: On whether there should be a Scottish Parliament (yes); On whether a Scottish Parliament should have tax varying powers (yes)
• Scottish independence referendum, 2014 on the question “Should Scotland be an independent country?”, 18 September 2014 (no)

Wales

• Welsh devolution referendum, 1979, on whether there should be a Welsh Assembly (no)
• Welsh devolution referendum, 1997, on whether there should be a National Assembly for Wales (yes)
• Welsh devolution referendum, 2011, on whether the National Assembly should have increased law-making powers (yes)

Northern Ireland

• Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum, 1973, on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom (UK) or join the Republic of Ireland (No)
• Northern Ireland Belfast Agreement referendum, 1998, on the Good Friday Agreement (yes)

ARTICLE 50 IS ILLEGAL!
Should the UK leave under Article 50?
What is reaction of the Brussels elite to Referendums? What legitimacy do they give to referendums? Article 50 first appeared, not in the Lisbon Treaty, but in the Constitutional Treaty as Article 59.
It was emphatically rejected in two national Referendums. It was rejected by France. it was rejected by the Netherlands. On the waiting list to hold their referendums were the Czech Republic, Poland, Portugal, Ireland, and the United Kingdom.
What was the result of the United Kingdom’s referendum on the Constitutional Treaty and its article 59?
It did not take place. neither did the other promised referendums.
Given the definitive rejection by France and nearly two-thirds of the Netherlands voters, this treaty and the concept of Exit Clause was dead and buried.


Thus the public and several Member States totally rejected the articles of the Constitutional Treaty. These articles were then -- quite illegally -- introduced again as the Lisbon Treaty. That is totally illegal. The only act that could make them legal is to have further referendums in ALL Member States and for ALL Member States to agree to them. This was never done. Why? Simply because the European public of 500 million democrats would reject the Lisbon Treaty again. There is not a scrap of legality in the Lisbon Treaty because the Brussels Politburo refuses to have these referendums.
And given the abandonment of further referendums, the entire treaty with the Exit Clause is doubly dead.
The concept of voluntary exit from the Community is in fact anti-democratic.
Why? Because if the Community is not good enough and a Member State wants to leave, it means the Community itself is at fault. It has made some unfair decision affronting Justice, honesty and common sense. It is up to the Community to remedy the position. It is a warning signal to repair its democracy.
The forced UK exit by Brussels antidemocrats or the Politburo’s attempted ejection regardless of how much pain it will cause violates basic supranational Community principles of Schuman’s democracy. The Community institutions have to manage 28 democracies. The institutions should therefore be demonstrably MORE democratic, open and responsive than Member States’ constitutional democracies.

LISBON TREATY MINEFIELD
1. A finely-balanced referendum result, of itself, brings no obligation that a State should comply with its outcome, especially in the UK where it is consultative and Parliament is sovereign.
Any frog-marching of the UK to the exit door by Brussels may redound on itself. That might raise an investigation by the European Court of Justice of their illegal status of referendums in general. This exposes a minefield for the Lisbon Treaty itself. The Lisbon Treaty incorporated practically ALL articles from the Constitutional Treaty — which was rejected by referendums in France and the Netherlands (62% against vs 38% for). Further referendums in five or six States were refused or abandoned.
The first legal instrument of the European Community system was the Europe Declaration or Charter of the Community of 18 April 1951. It said that no measure can be passed without the freely expressed will of the people. This instrument defined a free society. It contrasted with the Soviet Bloc’s ‘People’s Democracies’ with its Communist-controlled votes and referendums.
‘Brussels’ has actively undemocratized its supranational institutions. It closed the Councils to the public in violation of the treaties. It refused elections to the Consultative Committees. It holds 28 national elections for the European Parliament, not one European election as the treaties have required for 60 years (TEU art 16.8, 17.5, TFEU 15.2, 223).
2. Brussels has distorted the Community system. The Euratom Treaty is not mentioned in the referendum question. It is legally distinct from the Lisbon Treaty. It requires UK participation in Council, Parliament, EcoSoc, Scientific and Technical Committee, etc. It has no exit clause as it deals with nuclear non-proliferation.

Article 50 is illegal — it has been rejected by referendums. If it is ever used it is a sign and warning to Brussels that the institutions need democratic reform. It cannot be used to eject a democratic Member State. A democratic Member State should use it to reform Brussels and the Lisbon Treaty!

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

“I solemnly undertake …

• to be completely independent in carrying out my responsibilities, in the general interest of the Union;

• in the performance of my tasks, neither to seek nor to take instructions from any Government or from any other institution, body, office or entity..”

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

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

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

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

Article 17 para 5 says:

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

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

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

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

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


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

EU Leaders praise Machiavelli ahead of UK Brexit Referendum

1, June, 2016

On the eve of UK’s referendum, why are European leaders praising Machavelli? Why are people so increasingly fed up with the European Union? Why has the credibility of Brussels plummeted to rock bottom?
New anti-Brussels political parties are springing up across Europe like mushrooms in a dark place. Why can’t Brussels re-light its democratic torch for EU’s 28 democratic Member States?
Europe’s BIG question is not the UK referendum, but

“”When Will Brussels obey the TREATY Rules Schuman provided to make Europe perfectly Democratic? “”

The impartial European Commission, independent of governments, parties and lobbyists, was the key institution that brought a lasting peace to Europe. It was designed to epitomize Fairness and Honesty.
No more! Under the latest Machiavellian system, no Briton will ever be allowed to become the President of the European Commission. Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) witnessed the brutal methods of Cesare Borgia (1475–1507) and his father, Pope Alexander VI, known for his nepotism, immorality, killing the innocent and funding his many mistresses and adulterous children. The Borgias tried to bring Central Italy under their possession, using as pretext the defending of Church interests. ”Machiavellism” is widely used today to describe unscrupulous politicians. Robert Schuman was a keen student of history. The last thing that he thought was needed for peace in Europe was the skulduggery of Medieval politics and strife.
In Rome a few days ago, this anti-democratic poison was highly commended by a trinity of EU presidents! This Politburo is now the Machiavellian fixer of Europe. It is composed of the EPP (allegedly the European Peoples Party or the Christian Democrats) and Socialists. The Politiburo has proved itself neither Christian, nor democratic and not interested in European solidarity! It is focused on political nepotism to control the levers of power.

Mysteriously the Commission President is said to be ”elected” without a single ballot slip saying he is a candidate! No one in the UK voted for Mr Juncker or the so-called runner-up. Mr Schulz, with equal illegitimacy and political nepotism, got the second prize of the European Parliament!
The Politburo calls the system the Spitzenkandidat system. It is hardly attuned to attract the voter on the street in Liverpool! It combines Machiavellism, party nepotism for the Politburo, and Apartheid for the British Bantustan.
And the timing is perfect!! In just a few days time the citizens of the United Kingdom will cast their ballots about whether to STAY or LEAVE the European Union! Would any sane democrat vote in favour of a system that discriminates not only against all non-party citizens (98 percent of the population) but the land of the Magna Carta and laws of Hywel Dda?
The treaties say all citizens have equal rights to be considered for the Commission but the EPP-Socialist Politburo says their parties’ nepotism trumps the rule of law!

Originally the Commission was composed 100 percent of non-politicians. For a good reason. The aim of the Commission was to be as impartial, as non-partisan as possible. Politicians always come with an agenda. (Fat cat jobs come after leaving by the revolving door!) All the present Commission are active party members and government nominees — two things the treaties expressly forbid!
The original Commissioners had to be impartial as a judge in Court to create an atmosphere of trust. That way they could help solve Europe’s burning problems. They were very experienced people but they owed no allegiance to party, enterprise, workers’ unions or to a national governmental interest.
No more! Because Machiavelli rules at the Commission! Machiavelli rules at the European Council and Machiavelli rules in the European Parliament. They are all in cahoots against the European people. A secretive political elite acts against the European interest. Instead of becoming a fully independent moral and ethical Authority, as it was designed to be, it has now been captured by a few political parties.
You don’t have to believe me. Believe Mr Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council who represents the Heads of Governments of the Member States. After lauding Pope Francis for the Charlemagne Prize, he spoke on the Future of Europe at a meeting chaired by Europe University Institute President Joseph Weiler.

”I was not a fan of this idea of Spitzenkandidaten {at first}. For the simple reason I was not one of the {candidates}! But the result is really impressive. I mean the two gentlemen around our table. Machavelli said, I think, that the end justifies the means.’‘

That is his assessment of the nepotistic system that excludes all European citizens from participating in the democratic institutions. It combines this affront to democracy and human rights with a further exclusion: The decision on who should be the President of the European Commission is also made behind closed doors. Thus no European citizen can see or hear what sort of deal is being cut between these members of Europe’s Politburo.

And Mr Tusk made no bones about it. He loves this system. He made his pronouncement in public before the cameras of the European Council and the great European public. That is like robbing the public and then sticking them in the eye!
We can be sure all the others in the European Politburo agree. They were sitting there right beside him.


That is the official pronouncement of the three top European leaders. Mr Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission agrees. He was sitting there with the European Parliament President Martin Schulz. They all smiled and congratulated Tusk at his wit for recognizing their gross theft and high-level larceny.
The European Commission has continuously lost its impartiality, political neutrality and its credibility among Europe’s citizens.. Under the Community Method it was to be the conscience of Europe.

Mr Juncker loves the Politburo Nepotism system too. He said that ”Parties put forward their candidates and [the people] can vote either for a socialist or for a Christian Democrat and conservative.”
But people may not want to vote for either. Why? Because this division is old hat. New parties have in common one thing: opposition to the present Brussels system. Secondly and more importantly the treaties say that the people cannot vote for politicians, for other sorts of lobbyists, for government representatives or for anyone who is not independent and impartial. The Commission must be independent. Non-Partisan means no party political guys allowed.

Mr Schulz loves the Politburo nepotism too. He made clear in an interview with Politico that he believes that the text and spirit of the laws of the treaties is not important. Nepotism trumps the treaties. He said: We achieved a change of the treaty without a treaty change. — Martin Schulz at Politico at 10 minutes.
 http://www.politico.eu/video/video-interview-schulz-at-politico-launch-event/

Is this the ultimate goal of Politburo nepotism:
NO TREATY OR COMPACT WITH THE PEOPLE IS NECESSARY FOR OUR SEIZURE OF POWER?

Election6: The Council's President of the European Parliament: the Speaker for EU's UNDEMOCRACY

The EU leaders are now repeating their mantra: the solution to the crisis is the Community method. The Community method involves open democracy. We haven't got it! We have the 'Council method' which involves a political cartel, a Politburo, ruling Europe behind closed doors. It is an oligarchy of political party chiefs. It is the cause of the financial crisis.

Take the recent happenings in Parliament.

Since the days of the three European Communities, the president of the European Parliament has descended to typify the great farce of Europe. It is also its great shame. The President or Speaker is supposed to speak for what should be the flagship democratic body of 27 democratic countries united in peace and justice. Instead it is the dishonour of Europe. It is the laughing stock of the world.

Don't just take it from me. Check what the MEPs say below on video about how the developing world calls the EU hyprocritical. See what is said abroad about EU's fake democracy, especially when it preaches democracy to Africa, Russia, Belarus and elsewhere.

The 'Council method' provides succour to all the world's dictators who want to have a model to control parliament. It shows how Europeans' counterfeit democracy works. The Council method stops any form of elections or controls the outcome regardless of the election results. It provides a curtain, a burqa, over all the power-broking deals that are made behind closed doors.

The president is not elected. He or she is chosen by fixers in the morally darkened corridors of the European Council. Who chooses him or her? Not the European electors. The cartel of politicians in the Council choose the name of the person who is supposed speak for European Democracy and its 500 million citizens. The Speaker speaks mainly for the Council oligarchy, not the public.

1. Let us start with the elections. In 2009 I was with a number of journalists at the European Council meeting BEFORE the last European Parliament elections. A spokesman of the Polish persuasion announced to us all that the tricky mix of negotiations had successfully been horse-traded. The Poles had gained what they wanted. The next president of the European Parliament would be Mr Buzek, a Pole.

Let me repeat, this was BEFORE the European elections had taken place. Notice the COUNCIL according to the Council Method decided

• the NATIONALITY ,
• the POLITICAL PARTY and
• even the NAME of the President of the European Parliament
• WITHOUT A SINGLE MEMBER OF THE PARLIAMENT BEING PRESENT!

This is Politburo politics. Schuman condemned these Soviet-style politics of the "People's Democracies" as counterfeit democracy.

Isn't it ironic that the peoples formerly subject to the Soviets are now full-time players in the corrupt Gaullist system? Why are they no longer the fearless defenders of democracy and people's solidarity? Power. Power tends to corrupt.

This remarkable announcement presumes that (a) the elections are a farce and do not play a role in what happens in Parliament. (b) that the Council oligarchs know exactly who will be elected because they control the EP candidates of the party; some of course are elected on a list system; and (c) the Council or government leaders control the MEPs when they enter Parliament and discuss the presidency. They know that no independent thinker will be allowed, or at best only a few to brighten the decor. The mass of MEPs will follow exactly what the politicians in the dark recesses of the European Council have decided.

This is an act of a political CARTEL. It decides who and what, how and where with no recourse to the consumer, in this case, the voter, representing 500 million citizens.

2. In order to get this EP presidential candidate through the EP system, a vote of two-thirds is necessary. Neither of the big parties has this proportion of the vote in the EP. But two such groups have -- the European People's Party, EPP, representing what they call rightwing parties. On the other side is the group of Socialists or Social Democrats. They agree to a collectivist solution that cuts any dissident voter or MEP out of the circuit.

These two groups hold more than two-thirds of the seats and have the potential, the possibility, and I might add the undemocratic temptation, to join forces and impose their will. That would not really be fair or just to minorities or even some majorities. But it is a big temptation.

And if there is a big temptation, you can bet your cotton socks that most politicians will seize it with both hands. The undemocratic solution is that the two big parties impose their will -- whatever the election results say. They split the five year term in two. Half goes to an EPP politician and remaining half to the Socialist choice. The European Council is the body that makes the choice of WHO -- without a TV camera or without the public being allowed to hear the arguments. The horse-trading would make great television. But such sordid dealings are hardly edifying for honest citizens in 27 democracies, especially in the small countries.

The MEPs vote in a most unusual way. They use paper votes. Normally an electronic voting system is used. It is quicker and efficient. But it also traces the names of voters. This 'secret vote' system was brought in during the Gaullist period because the open voting system then could subject the parliamentarians to unfair pressures. Nowadays it just makes sure that the public does not not how their MEP voted in the corrupt system. However some hundred or so MEPs probably voted for candidates contrary to their party's and the Council's insistence.

This is the system we have had for many years and many elections, the cartel system of the Council in Parliament. De Gaulle has passed away. Many little Napoleons support the system in Council because it suits them to have an oligarchy.

3. Smaller parties, even the Liberal group or the ecologists, not to mention the more vociferous democrats who denounce the system are cut out. They may have people who would show no favouritism and have the most neutrality in becoming the president of the Parliament but they do not have a snowball's chance of attaining the office.

What do they do? The EP has long arranged it that such candidates cannot even speak. The election takes place under 'procedure' that forbids it. So what happens? The week before we had the spectacle of private organisations including the European Voice, an Economist newspaper, organising a hustings. Thus a non-parliamentary private organisation held the only meeting of major importance to Europeans. The Parliament refused to do what democrats view as normal. The three 'candidates' were invited to attend. They did but few other MEPs came. They knew things were already cut and dried by their party chiefs.

It was rather like naughty schoolchildren having a debate when the prefects said they couldn't. One candidate said the role of parliament is to control the executive, by which I believe he meant the Council. (It isn't in a supranational democracy.)

How can the EP control the Council if the Council decides who will control Parliament BEFORE THERE IS AN ELECTION?

I sat next to an American and explained that this was how the largest trading power in the world, far greater than the USA, organized its democracy. It took a newspaper to get a meeting at all.

Mr Buzek is also reported to have congratulated 'President' Schulz several days BEFORE the election took place!

For those who want, they can check what Mr Nirj Deva and Ms Diana Wallis said about the deplorable anti-democratic Council system of Parliament.

The European Parliament has never in all its nearly sixty years ever held a proper Europe-wide election according the the requirements of the treaties of Rome and Paris.

The Council says NO. The Parliament can't even organise itself.