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.
