EU White Paper's Fake History says Peace "just happened"!

Counterfeiters and fraudsters. That’s what Robert Schuman called tricky European politicians who abused their powers.

“Nothing is easier that for political counterfeiters to exploit the illusion of good principles. Nothing is more disastrous than good principles badly applied.”

Today we have a product that fits in that category of fraud: The EU’s White Paper on the Future of Europe.

How can any citizen prove it is fake?
1. The 1957 treaties of Rome do not mark Europe’s Birthday.
Clue: The Common Market means money. Politicians like money. But money had nothing to do with the birth of Europe! It is an old trick. President Barroso tried it ten years ago.
In his Forward, Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker starts by saying

“On 25 March 2017 leaders of the European Union’s Member States will stand united in peace and friendship in Rome. That alone is an achievement that many would have thought unthinkable when the six founding Member States agreed on the Treaties of Rome 60 years ago.”

This is Fake History. It is a ham-fisted attempt at a Fake 60th Birthday of Europe. A schoolchild should know it is historically incorrect. The author got “facts” wrong. It is deception.
Firstly “Peace and friendship” were not generated by the Treaties of Rome.
Peace. What did the Common Market do for peace? It is a customs union. Bismarck used the concept of a customs union to declare war on France and rob its iron ore and other riches of Alsace-Lorraine.
Secondly, ask: “Would those at the signing ceremony in Rome in 1957 have “thought it unthinkable” to have peace and friendship?” Obviously not. Why? Because they had already created a peace-enhancing compact years earlier. Those who signed the Rome Treaties (Schuman was not one of them) recognized a miracle. They were already experiencing lasting peace. It had been achieved with the 1951 Treaty of Paris. This peace-making treaty made possible the second and third European treaties at Rome.
Proof?
The very first words of the first treaty in 1951 are:
“Considering that world peace can only be safeguarded by creative efforts commensurate with the dangers that threaten it;”
The unnamed author of this White Paper deception clearly understands, consciously or unconsciously, that he is writing a lie.
One clue is in the word “unthinkable”.
Why is this important? Because it is a word rarely used in relation to treaties. However, Robert Schuman used this word in relation to the launching of the European Community in 1950 – when in fact diplomats, think tanks and the military were preparing the public for what they considered to be an inevitable war with the Soviet Union. It would be a war in which the position of Germany was still ambiguous. Would it support the West? Would it lean to the Soviets in order to unite with Communist East Germany, the DDR? Would it try to play off both sides to its own advantage?
On 9 May 1950 Robert Schuman declared that his Plan would

“make war between France and Germany not only unthinkable but materially impossible.”

He succeeded. Immediately after the creation of the European Community, the signature of the Charter of the Community establishing the Rights of all its citizens to Freedom of Choice, and the functioning of the European Coal and Steel Community, he confirmed that the Community of coal and steel with its innovatory system of democracy had made war impossible. Impossible not just for a few years but for the long term – perpetual peace.
2. Misuse of Schuman’s quote
The Schuman Declaration, the Schuman Plan, the European Coal and Steel Community are not mentioned anywhere in the White Paper. After Mr Juncker’s Forword, one quotation of Robert Schuman is made and then all that follows tries to contradict it!

“Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity.”

Schuman showed that public opinion both national and European must agree with each step for unity. He created the first European Community which provided a working example of the democratic five institutions. He read out the same day of 18 April 1951 the great Charter of the Community. This declared that all citizens of the Community must be free to choose in accordance with the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms that had just been signed.
Each step involved the creation of a new Community that had to be agreed by all democratic States. The Economic Community or Common Market was just one of these. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Euratom, signed in Rome the same day, was another. Other sectors need such democratic control but are, due to the malfeasance of politicians, lacking them.
So what is the politicians’ fake for the Community? The reader has only to turn the page to find out. It is the plan of the Italian Communist, Altiero Spinelli to create a federation, not composed of steps but driven by a highly party political central government!

Would Schuman have approved Spinelli’s federation? No. In his speech of 16 May 1949, he analyzed a series of such immature federation follies from Abbé de St Pierre of 1308, Rousseau, Kant and Proudhon. His conclusion as a realist politician? He plonked them all with Thomas More and his fiction called “Utopia”. None would work practically. Neither would Spinelli’s. The governments binned his draft treaty.
Yet the White Paper spends much wasted space on this. And how much space is given to the innovatory concept of a supranational Community that actually produced the longest peace in more than 2000 years? Nothing. The White Paper tries to indicate that this extraordinary pace arose from hazard and “false starts”!

“Our troubled past has given way to a peace spanning seven decades,” it says.

Whaaaat! “given way to”! If only the Middle East knew how this peace could happened so easily. Europe’s politicians would be hard-pressed to define “supranational” and “Community Method”.
3. Options with no democracy.
The White Paper ends up by giving five options about how the Brussels autocracy should define its future policy. They are all pretty useless. Why? Because there is not a word about democratic accountability. The authors seem to be totally oblivious that Europe is in an existential crisis of trust. This is not just about Brexit. When the British threatened to leave Brussels treated the news with scarcely concealed glee and demands to do so immediately.
Brussels should ask itself: Is democracy going to be improved when the British leave, and Mme le Pen and other anti-Brussels politicians sit in the European Council? Brussels is closing its eyes and ears. But the people are Europe are not.

Elections2: A Politburo system has diddled voters out of their European voice, again and again!

What would Americans say if in elections for Congress a citizen of one State had ten times the amount of votes than another State? What if some Americans were able to start voting at different ages, 16 or 18? And what if there was gross discrimination that would discourage anyone standing for Congress by demanding high amounts of money as deposits, and/or requiring vast numbers of signatures? How would Americans react if signatures from the ‘guys’ of government parties were worth 300 times the value of ‘normal’ citizens? Don’t you think Americans would be up in arms? Wouldn’t there be a long list of cases up before the Supreme Court, demanding justice?
All these malpractices are common in Europe. The European Union does not have a true supranational democracy as defined by the treaties. It is a counterfeit based on crooked practice. It has a distorted political oligarchy run by a Politburo. Discrimination is rife. It is the reason that the present European elections are fraudulent. Who gains? The secretive European Council is able to decide, while the Parliament still is impotent to resist them.
That’s not the worst of it. It is not a matter of who you vote for but IF you can vote for your preferred candidate. Who fixes the rules for voting? Most important of all is the secret vote in the European Council after the vote. These politicians can totally ignore the outcome. The president of Parliament may have been already decided in advance — before the elections. They decide about who takes power and how the taxpayers’ money will be used.
NEVER in more than sixty years have national governments allowed a real European election with a single Statute across the entire European Union countries. They block all reform. They want to have national elections for the European Parliament. Today we have 28 NATIONAL elections. This makes it impossible for a voter to make a European choice. Even if he identified what he considered the right European policy amongst the the socialist, liberal or European popular parties, he or she would have NO guarantee that the national candidate would reflect this policy. Voting is subject to block votes. In many countries the voter cannot even choose a real person. He or she is forced to vote for a national party list rather than an individual. That’s like giving a blank cheque to someone for five years without knowing who would spend it.
And now the party clique of these main parties are trying to make the Commission an exclusive reserve for politicians when the treaties say clearly that NO politician should be member of the Commission.
Politicians in the clique of Brussels Politburo have turned the European system into political nepotism for their friends and buddies.
How do they do it? You can know their secrets. They even published them officially at taxpayers’ expense.
Do you want to know how to make sure how all the political clique get re-elected to the European Parliament? Want to learn how to eliminate and confuse any other political parties that have the audacity to oppose you? If your voter-buddies are not happy with just a single vote, do you want to know where they can have ten votes?
All these and many more tips for cheating in the European elections can be found in a recent publication by whom? A secret Handbook by the Mafia? Not at all. The publication comes from the European Parliament itself.
Every time the Parliament goes to the ballot boxes the European Parliament publishes such a Handbook . Naturally it is not called How to cheat in the European Elections. That would give too much away. It is published with a boring cover and given a long and boring title. Its title is ‘The European Elections; EU Legislation, National Provisions and Civic Participation‘. It is a ‘Study’. It is published by the Directorate-General for Internal Policies. The Department C of this directorate is curiously called ‘Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs.’
Citizens’ rights is a bit rich. It is more about running roughshod over their rights. The Handbook also cheats the reader. Being a Handbook on cheating, it does not give all the tricks on cheating. The earnest seeker for democracy will have to search the web and the blogs for other examples.
The author does make a brave attempt at exposing some facts and abuses. However, a major effort should be made in presenting them to the public. Reform would be even better. Frankly enough, the publication starts with the treaty provisions from the European Community Treaty.

“The European Parliament shall draw up a proposal for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States or in accordance with principles common to all Member States. The Council shall, acting unanimously after obtaining the assent of the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component Members, lay down the appropriate provisions, which it shall recommend to Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.”

When in 1979 after Court action Europeans had the first opportunity to vote for the European Parliament, the national politicians (acting as the ‘Politburo’) made an extraordinary decision. They looked at the above treaty article and magnanimously allowed citizens to have a vote. But then they stopped mid-sentence! They ‘allowed’ elections on a national basis (where they could impose national rules). But they REFUSED the second part of the sentence. They blocked an election based on a Single Statute — that is common rules for selecting and voting for MEPs. They imposed their own rules in each of the Member States. ‘Coincidentally’ these rules all favoured the governmental parties and raised obstacles to their alternatives or critics.
At the time the Treaties of Rome required simply ‘a uniform procedure‘ full stop. That is a Single Statute. The slight modification of later treaties about ‘common principles‘ makes no difference at all. A Single Statute is required to say whether MEPs can be elected at 18 or 25 years minimum and whether they have to put up big deposits etc in one State but not in another. The thorny question of massive financing the ‘Politburo’ parties to the detriment of others also has to be tackled.
Parliament since made a few lukewarm attempts to implement this Single Statute. The Council refused. Then the Council tried to change the treaties to make it even more biased, without much success. That is basically too dishonest. The only people who benefit from any distortion or blockage of the original legal duty are the political parties, of which the governments are the prime representation.
Let’s go back to the Founding Fathers. They had a good idea, which showed commendable honesty and fairness. How would it work? To put it another way: what do citizens expect from a uniform, fair and open electoral system? This is not new territory. The battle for democracy in every country has developed the list of requirements. The system must include:

• ·The right of any mature citizen to vote.
• · The right of any citizen to create a party, peaceful movement or interest group.
• · No restrictions based on of educational level, religion, financial standing
• · One person, one vote.
• · No discrimination by age, gender or race
• · No artificial barriers, such as financial requirements, property-ownership.
• · No restriction by requiring signed agreement of existing government parties.

Then we come to the right to vote. Should Governments, not citizens, say who votes? Obviously not. Some countries limit voters to those over 18 years; others over 16. One area of Europe, Gibraltar, was not allowed for a long time to vote at all. That was because the powers-that-be did not want to have one MEP elected from this small area, close to Spain. The voters appealed to the Courts against this discrimination and won. The judgement was given, not in the EU’s Court in Luxembourg, but in the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. What a failure of European governments! Of course this situation would not have arisen at all if the governments had obeyed their obligations in the treaties and allowed citizens to create equal rights for all citizens.
The right to have multiple votes. Here’s how to bias the European Parliament to gain extra influence. Voters are allowed to vote anywhere they have residence. But the votes are not equal. The same voter of a big State can move to a small country and increase the weight of his or her vote by a factor of ten. Thus the same national has either one vote or ten votes depending on where the ballot box is. Of course privileged people having the right to ten votes and thus influencing the political colour of the MEPs in Parliament was of no particular concern while de Gaulle and others had ‘chloroformed’ Parliament’s power and the Council totally ignored its Opinions. De Gaulle also gave votes to the Associated Territories because he considered they would vote for him even though they are not part of Metropolitan France.
Big votes in small States. One MEP in Germany represents 838,700 citizens. A Maltese MEP represents a mere 70,200 citizens. Nowadays when the Parliament has a serious voice in a multi-billion euro budget, the voters should be asking to clean-up the patently unfair system. Should the small countries be worried that will losing their over-representation with a one citizen, one vote system? Hardly. The small countries such as Luxembourg have always had a big advantage and they will retain it. The small States are usually the most impartial and most European. They demand fair play among the bullying politics of the big States. In any free vote in a pan-European election, it is inevitable that if the small States continue to emphasize honesty and fairness, and a European common good (rather than national bias), their candidates will always get high representation in Parliament.
Right to stand as a candidate. Governments will tell you who can stand. Some countries say the candidates should be at least 18 and others 21. Some, like Romania, say only 23 year-olds can stand. In three States, Greece, Cyprus and Italy, you have to be at least 25 years before you can stand. This is a good technique to cut out idealistic youths or some rumbustious rebels fed up with corrupt practice!
Costs. States can make it a tough struggle to stand as an independent candidate. Some States require no deposit. Why don’t they all? Others require candidates to find a deposit amounting to multiple thousands of euros. If they could only win enough votes against the stiff, privilege-entrenched governmental party competition, they might get the money back. Otherwise they lose. The national media is not likely to give much space to newcomers or publicize their views fairly as it might upset the biggest advertiser, the government. If they don’t win a minimum number of votes (also set by governments) and they keep trying, they will be penalized each time they do until they learn to stop. They will be stuck with mounting debts. One country had previously created the astounding wheeze to dissuade candidates by saying that candidates must pay 3600 euros to the State for the cost of printing ballot papers! This is a great tactic to make sure that no candidates from the poor sections of society can stand.
Signature Restrictions. States require candidates to publish names of supporters before they can be recognized as a movement. One Member State says that to stand as candidate only one signature is required. Of course that is not a normal citizen’s signature. It is that of a deputy, that is, a member of the existing political élite. Is it equal for someone who wishes to point out their failings? If the candidate wants to oppose the standing political powers-that-be, he or she has to get a few more signatures. Not one but 250 signatures. Thus we have a measure of how the political parties who wrote the law consider ordinary citizens. One politician (who is responsible both for the benefits and the problems that citizens are experiencing) is worth 250 ordinary citizens. In Spain you have to accumulate 15,000 signatures. But don’t worry if you are with a government party you only need 50 — whether national or on some local council or other. That translates to one politician equals 300 ordinary citizens.
The value of a Candidate. That sum of one politician= 250 or 300 ordinary voters is not worst devaluation of their fellow citizens by incumbent political parties. Other countries require 4000 signatures or even 30,000 signatures in a single constituency. Each time a list of signatures is required, it gives the governmental opponents the opportunity to dispute the validity of the actual signature count. In the worst case they can put pressure on signatories to change their minds.
Language control. A new small political movement may have to deal with linguistic discrimination. It may not have a base in one capital but be spread across several national frontiers. It could get major political resistance and blockage from governing parties in one or more national capitals. They may see it as a threat to national policies where they unfairly discriminate against minorities.
The irresponsible List system. Some countries have completely done away with the voters right to pick candidates whom the public can hold responsible. They create a list system so that only the party machines can choose the names of the clique who will actually get into Parliament. Thus the party bosses, the big brothers or the big sisters, define who will be more equal than the others. This system was foisted on the public in some cases purely for internal party reasons, to cut out the people — ‘extremists’ — inside the party that the top leaders did not want to see succeed. The List system is fundamentally unfair for a representative democracy. No public protest, no discussion had any effect on this chicanery. The voters where treated with haughty disdain. Some States refuse to let citizens choose their preferences on the list — it must stay in the priorities of the party machine. Others let voters pick those on the list but they have to stay within the one party list. That only encourages party machines to the detriment of independent thinkers.
Voting NONE OF THE ABOVE is seldom an option. At a time when many voters are disenchanted with the behaviour of politicians, voters should be given the option that the system needs reform. Instead some countries impose fines on those who do not vote for what some voters consider a corrupt cartel. In economics the consumers’ last chance against a cartel is not to buy. A political cartel that does not offer this last option of signalling dissatisfication is reinforcing corruption. At the very least it builds up frustrations in honest protesters at the lack of choice. Computer voting systems that remove the non-vote option magnify their exasperation.
Compulsory voting is the tactic of the politically lost. If governments have to resort to fines for voters who do not vote, it shows that no party is attractive. Even with a number of countries that insist on compulsory voting, Europe has more voters that refuse to vote than those who go to the ballot. That shows the trend of ever-worsening turn-out to the present 43 percent underscores the lack of confidence and trust in both politicians and party machines. In Slovenia only 13 percent thought it worthwhile to vote.
THE GREATEST LACK is the Absence of the European Dirmension required by Treaty. The nationalist governments and their political parties have made great efforts to cut out the European dimension. The Parliament was designed from the beginning to be the house of the representatives of all the European people. The treaties require a Single Statute and the ability to vote across the European Union. Not 28 national elections. This cuts the authority of Parliament. A real European election would encourage full dialogues and build solidarity. The people and especially the young people are far more European than these grey beards.
Over the course of revisions of the treaties, governments, that is ruling political parties, have made sure that their own political patch, ‘their State’ is protected against any European democrats. The idea of One citizen, One vote is annulled. They created geographical divisions based on retaining power. Each election they get an additional warning. Voter turnout declines. The smoke screen of political parties is having less and less effect on the public.
Why should a voter be restricted by geography in voting for a candidate or even worse for a list system in the place where he or she resides? Why can’t the voter choose the best candidate that responds to his or her interests and policy positions? Are the 28 European governments afraid that voters in all countries may discern an honest and impartial personality, whose reputation has spread across the border? Are they worried if the voters turn in mass to a candidate who has fearlessly fought corruption elsewhere?
Even on the basis of identifying a political choice closer to the voter’s own position, cross-border voting should be possible. After all Parliament is about dealing with cross-border issues. This identity of a non-native candidate in another Member State is quite possible nowadays with innovative web systems like www.euprofiler.eu .
A voter can find amongst all the European candidates the nearest to his own wishes and proclivities. If any voter does so, they might be in for a shock. The same policy and interest position are simultaneously touted by left-wing, center and right-wing parties but in different States. What is a ‘left-wing’ policy in one country is espoused as a right-wing one in another!
When the MEPs arrive in Parliament they will then vote in blocks in great left, center or right-wing coalitions. So the effect of the voter’s careful policy choice is often completely forgotten. Before each vote, the leader of each mega-grouping holds up his hand. With a thumb up or a thumb down, the group leaders act like a Roman emperor giving orders to the troops for the dispatch of a gladiator or Christian martyr.
How did the Founding Fathers design the system to maximize the political responsibility of each member? The members sat in alphabetical order so the unthinking voting in political blocks was impossible. The original democratic system encompassed in the treaties provides the citizen with probably the best system of democracy in the world — provided that the provisions for democracy in Parliament and for civil society representation are taken seriously.
In other words, the party political system is not only showing its age (it started with a political trick under William III of Orange). It is ripe for a realistic European replacement.
IRONICALLY ENOUGH, IF POLITICIANS ACTUALLY FOLLOWED THE TREATIES IN THE SPIRIT AND LETTER THE EUROPEAN UNION WOULD HAVE THE FAIREST DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM IN THE WORLD, BAR NONE !
To find out how your own country cheats the voter and compare it with the other cheats, refer to the European Parliament’s Handbook . It would be a good idea to ask the Parliament and Council to replace it by a single electoral system so there is no need for a new edition.

Election7: Politicians' Ministry of Truth 'FORGETS' to celebrate the 60th Anniversary of Europe's DEMOCRACY

Did Europe's politicians forget? Today 11 September 2012 is the sixtieth anniversary of the first assembly of the European Parliament.

Guess who was the first president? None other than Paul-Henri Spaak. Yes, the same one after whom the Paul-Henri Spaak building of the European Parliament is named. It is difficult for the MEPs to forget the name. It houses the Hemicycle, the main debating chamber plus scads of other conference and committee rooms. But the MEPs 'forgot' to celebrate the very central democratic reason why they have a building boasting Spaak's name. They 'forgot' to celebrate why they have a job and a handsome salary.

Spaak's Presidency has been written out of the politicians' history on flawed and erroneous site of europa.eu However those interested in the principles and roots of democracy can find details of Spaak on Wikipedia or good history books. The importance of the Spaak presidency is underlined when it is realized that in just a couple of days of action, Spaak had created a special Assembly (the Ad Hoc Assembly) to draft the European Political Community, based on supranational democracy. The Council of Ministers had asked the Assembly of the Coal and Steel Community to help draft the architecture for a democratic Europe. Irony indeed. The Council today would do no such thing even with a partially elected European Parliament. By writing Spaak out the political fraudsters now in the European Parliament are trying to write out democratic history so the public does not question present Politburo politics. George Orwell, the author of the anti-totalitarian novel 1984, must be turning over in his grave! Today we have much more than a Ministry of Truth.

Did the MEPs really forget the date? Well it should be a date that is important for all democrats. We are told Democracy is now being talked of again. Confidence and trust in European politicians reached an all time low recently according to Eurobarometer polls. Trust in the EP fell from 56% in 2007 to 46% last year. Trust in the Commission, the ECB (both 36%) and Council (31%) plumeted.) Can a currency survive without the people's trust?

Now is the time to emphasize democracy, say the politicians. Is that what the present Politburo system is all about? The fact that they 'forgot' indicates that the political powers are not really interested except for a thin veneer of democracy. They can decide policy behind closed doors. They want the public to agree this is democracy. They live in a dreamworld that invents its own fraudulent history. They think a political cartel can run not only European politics but cheat the money markets.

That goes for not only 'normal' EU expenditure but now the money-crazed little outfit called the Eurogroup (which isn't an institution of the EU) and its totally extra-Treaty Big Brother Eurogroup composed of heads of government. They want to grab hold of between FIVE and SEVEN times the EU budget to cover over the financial misdeeds and crimes of their political co-conspirators of the mammoth EURO FRAUD. All Member States politicians were active or passive culprits in this misuse of European money to cover skyrocketing debts, political backhanders and falsified statistics. The public is then asked to claim 'ownership' of the Council Diktat. No democracy, no legal system. Generations into the future will have to pay for this fraud. The poor suffer most from political duplicity. The European Central Bank, whose head was chosen in secret with no other candidates able to apply, is now a willing and profligate partner with YOUR money, throwing good money after bad to help crooks and a crooked system.

Did the Parliamentarians really forget? Six months ago I mentioned this important date to several MEPs including a former President of the European Parliament. No action.

Yesterday, one of the leaders of the major political groups told me that the question had never arisen to his knowledge among any of the joint meetings with the other groups.

So why did they all REFUSE to mark the date?

Well they are not alone.

• On 10 August 2012 the Commission REFUSED to celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the first meeting of Commission /High Authority of the first Community. Jean Monnet was its first President as the Europa site reminds us all. Mr Barroso's spokesperson said they were too busy to remember such dates!
• On 18 April 2011 the Council of Ministers REFUSED to celebrate the first meeting of the Council that signed the FIRST treaty of the EU, the European Community of Coal and Steel. It and the other institutions refused to publish the great European Charter of Democracy that says that no measures, no laws and no treaties can be passed without the full-hearted consent of the European peoples. This legal document forbids any treaty -- such as the Constitutional Treaty or the Treaty of Lisbon to be passed and considered law without the peoples' consent. The Charter was signed as a legal document to prevent any state or the Community as a whole from being governed by a Politburo as was then the case of the People's Democracies in Central and Eastern Europe.
• On 8 September 2012 the Council of Ministers -- and indeed the European Council its bosses -- REFUSED to celebrate the first meeting of the Council under Europe's first treaty. Chancellor Konrad Adenauer of Germany was the first president of the Council.
• The Consultative Committees first met on 26 January 1953. It is not known whether they will mark this occasion.
• The European Court of Justice of the EU will mark the event of their opening session in December. After all lawyers cannot write off their history as easy as politicians. Case law has dates on them.

The Council of Europe is not afraid to celebrate its history. It celebrated the sixtieth anniversary in 2009. What happened in European history after 1949 ?

Well, firstly we must turn to the Constitutional Treaty and then the Treaty of Lisbon, which apart from the removal of the European Flag and anthem, is basically identical. The public in several countries realized that the Constitutional Treaty was not either a Community system or fair. They voted it down in France, the Netherlands in May-June 2005. It failed before a further referendum with an expected No in Ireland, UK and elsewhere could be held. Instead the text as the Treaty of Lisbon was forced through by regimented political parties in the national parliaments. Countries which had promised a referendum, REFUSED to have one. No one else was asked what they thought of it. And if they did, the Council did not care. This is called the Politburo method. The European Parliament to its lasting shame refused to demand the full text of the document before they approved it, like sheep to the slaughter. It removes Parliament's power to dismiss the Commission.

In 2007-8 in order even to get the Member State parliaments to vote for a document that was not available as a full-text, the Council spent an enormous amount of money in a Public Relations campaign. Where did the PR money come from? You guessed it -- the European tax-payer. The Council decided to CELEBRATE the anniversary of the European Union. Unfortunately there was only 1957 to celebrate. It was NOT the anniversary of the EU. It was merely the anniversary of the second and third Communities of the Treaties of Rome, the Economic Community and Euratom, for nuclear security, anti-proliferation and energy independence (little mentioned).

So 1957 became the Politburo 'BIRTHDAY' of Europe. The Parliament -- which was composed of spineless yes-men and women agreed. They celebrated their fiftieth anniversary. That was a FRAUD.

By REFUSING to mark any landmarks of democracy, by supporting the Gaullist system of Council-knows-best, European politicians are not only undermining democracy itself, but also their cherished, illegitimate currency, the Euro. Only a democratic Community system can lay the democratic foundation for a currency circulating in a score of diverse Member States. Without democratic trust the EU is entering a parallel history of the People's Democracies of East Germany, Poland, Hungary and the rest. No amount of writing by the European Ministry of Truth will prevent the fate of counterfeit democrats.

20th Anniversary of German Reunification. It was announced 63 years ago. Can today’s Statesmen plan long-term democracy?

In 1989 leaders of the European Community were shocked and worried about what they considered the dangerous consequences of the fall of the Berlin Wall. German unity --the 1990 reunification of West Germany, the Federal Republic with East Germany, the DDR, the so-called Democratic Republic of Germany was inevitable. It would create the biggest Member State in the European Community. Germany would become far bigger and far more powerful than France. British leaders were also worried that Germany would now control Europe, not vice versa.

The DDR was one of the satellite 'People's Democracies' of the Communist Soviet Union. Schuman called these counterfeit democracies. A handful of Communist leaders held power and defined policy in a secret Council of Ministers in East Berlin. They defined international policy with similar Communist ministers in Soviet satellites in conjunction with the Big Brother comrades in Moscow. Their great instruments of international propaganda, their publications, radio and television, published subtle, craftily forged LIES.

For the shocked European leaders the USSR seemed to be a permanent fixture in all their lifetime. Its continuation was hardly in doubt, even if the Cold War was in thaw. But now they had a big problem in the centre of Europe.

For many non-German leaders, German reunification was a nightmare. This was the result of a couple of decades of Gaullist anti-Community propaganda, his false reading of history and his attempted destruction of Schuman's work and memory. Some of these Western leaders tried to block German re-unification. Others were worried about a Fourth German Reich. Germany had been at the origin of three wars in a century: the Franco-Prussian war and two World Wars.

The leaders wildly proposed a confederation of western European states or a vague 'federation of nation States' whatever that is. It amounted to stronger intergovernmental powers for the leaders themselves. That was a bit stupid. It was equivalent of creating a great European 'people's democracy' where the people also had no power. Only the leaders had.

The only way to create real security is in a powerful democratic system, not a technocratic one. All sections of society should have their voice under a system of democratic law. That can prevent the rise of militarism or the rise of abusive cartels, whether industrial, ideological or financial. It is precisely what the supranational Community system of democracy is designed to do.

The second principle is important too. Only a democratic institution under democratic law can correct the mistakes of democratic leaders. Otherwise this guardian will inevitably head to become a new form of autocracy, oligarchy and instrument of subjugation of the people.

That is why Schuman and the Founding Fathers insisted that the European Commission should be both elected and composed of fully independent persons. The treaties say they should be without ties to political parties, or other interest groups. They are legally forbidden from receiving the instructions from governments. The Council is responsible for creating a fair electoral system open to ALL Europe's citizens. It has signally failed to do so. The process of election according to the spirit and letter of the original treaties should be started IMMEDIATELY.

Nationalist and self-serving politicians have tried to block and chloroform the five key Community institutions -- except for the secretive Council of Ministers, where a cartel of politicians want to seize power and hold all power. They seem to want to ape the secret councils of East Germany or the other satellite States. That is dangerous.

The Soviet and East German experience shows that a dictatorship of the people -- a political cartel -- through such a council is doomed to fail. Any system that is based entirely on materialism, such as dialectical materialism or State atheism, has the roots of its own destruction excavating its weak foundations. Marxism is a self-blinded god. Its godless vision, void of a moral code, has failed. It spawned the many corrupting people's dictators with their greedy hands and its nomenklatura, its privileged class.

A lasting Community can only be based on eternal supranational values like justice and truth. Any healthy society must be open to peaceful criticism and reform. Its concept of Community is a far more satisfactory way to deal with the problems of rich and poor than effete Marxism.

In the DDR the politicians built a wall to stop people leaving. It was knocked down by the people. They tried to control religious opinion and expression -- and failed. The State tried to ban a spiritual interpretation of history. Church leaders and their congregations helped put atheistic materialism in the dustbin of history. The Soviet Union repressed the Jews. They were often the most critical and sharpest refuseniks. The Soviet Union refused to let them leave. When the USSR collapsed they left in droves.

The 'people's leaders' tried to control freedom of expression and stop all non-State publications of individual authors, like the samizdad. They failed there too.

Modern democracy owes its origin to the Judeo-Christian revelation, said Schuman. Christianity has a long record of deposing of empires -- including the binning of the once powerful and pervasive gods of the Roman Empire. Mars is binned with Marx. Both are responsible for the blood of millions of victims.

Political ideology is NOT an innocent game. It tortured brave people, bereaved families, miseducated children. It would fill a sea with the blood of its errors.

In the twenty years since the Berlin Wall fell, have politicians learned anything about the supranational European Community? The Community was actually designed as the guarantee that Germany would not be able to go to war against its neighbours EVER again. That is what the founding fathers said.

Have the leaders then or today ever asked why Europeans are now experiencing the longest period of peace in Europe's history? Is it an accident? Or do they think it happened against all odds simply due to the colour of their eyes?

Robert Schuman and others gave the highest profile speeches about it forty years previous to the events of 1989-90. Why were these speeches not republished by the European institutions? Why were they not republished by the French, German and other Governments? Were the institutions asleep?

Let's look at the speeches given by Robert Schuman in 1948 and 1949 to the United Nations General Assembly.

On 28 September 1948 -- three short years after the massive destruction and hate of World War 2, Schuman told the UN General Assembly that the unification of Germany was inevitable and he, as Foreign Minister of France, was going to make sure that the unification of Europe was also inevitable because this was the guarantee that all could live in peace:

‘A renewed Germany will have to insert itself inside the democracy of Europe. The dismemberment of this old continent, so often and cruelly torn by war, is a relic of times past. ... Now, however, our times are those of large economic units and great political alliances. Europe must unite to survive. France intends to work on this energetically with all its heart and soul. A European public opinion is already being created. Already concrete efforts are taking shape that are marking the first steps on a new road..

He continued.

'We are, of course, only at the start of what is a great work. … Let us hope, God willing, that those who are presently hesitating will not take too long to be convinced about it. An economic union implies political cooperation. The ideas of a federation and a confederation are being discussed. We are happy to see such concepts being taken up, and studied in numerous international meetings in which personalities most representative of European public opinion are participating. Now is the time for such ideas to be analysed and supported by the governments themselves. In agreement with the Belgian Government, the French Government has proposed to follow up suggestions to call a representative assembly of European public opinion with a view to prepare a project for organising Europe. This assembly will have to weigh all the difficulties and propose reasonable solutions which take into account of the need of a wise and progressive development’

The next year on 23 September 1949, after he had laid the foundations of the Council of Europe, an institution that would guarantee Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms for all Europeans, Schuman reported to the UN General Assembly on progress in Germany and Europe:

‘The first President of the new Federal Republic has just been elected and the first Chancellor designated. The destiny of Germany is again conferred on the Germans themselves. Facts will show if they are in a position to face up to their responsibilities that are restored to them and to prepare their future in an orderly manner and in freedom. The rhythm of developments that follow will depend on the results of this experiment. Our hope is that Germany will commit itself on a road that will allow it to find again its place in the community of free nations, commencing with that European Community of which the Council of Europe is a herald.’

Europe's peace would be based on a supranational democratic European Community, not a classical federation or a confederation. This was the year before the Schuman Declaration. This speech besides clarifying how Schuman was to guarantee a permanent European peace, also exposes the mistake or vain boast in Jean Monnet. In his Mémoires Monnet says that he invented the term, European Community, on 21 June 1950. Schuman used the term in many major speeches before Monnet ever uttered it. He also explained what it meant.

Thus the European Community was the key that would ensure lasting peace, not only for Germany but for her neighbours. Schuman gave speeches in Germany about the reunification of Germany. He gave them in German so there would be no misunderstanding.

But let us quote another witness, Robert Buron, who records in a diary what Schuman said to him on 10 July 1953. Schuman described the options: Germany might make a secret deal with the Soviet Union or it could develop a real democracy inside a democratic European Community. Only the latter would safeguard the peace.

'Sooner or later, wished for or not, the reunification of Germany will happen. It may be in a climate of détente between East and West that would help the development. It may occur in a rapprochement of Germany alone with the Soviet Union, after elections favourable to socialists for example. The balance of the world will then be thrown into question.'

Schuman told him that the existence of the European Community had already caused the Soviets to stop and think about a less aggressive policy than world revolution. In Schuman's opinion, he recorded, 'the pursuit of a European policy is one of the causes for the decision of the new Russian rulers to move towards détente.'

Schuman was no longer in office as minister and, he said, Europe required a well informed governmental spokesman to speak out about the European Community. He would give 'a frank explanation between French and Russians about the policy of European integration.' Gaullists, nationalists and the large Communist party made this as difficult as possible. After WW2 Gaullists thought the only way to control Germany was the permanent removal of the Ruhr and annexation of the French zone so that the Rhine was the border. Then when the Community had been set in motion with its design to make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible, the Gaullists had no faith in this idea. They pooh-poohed it. They wanted their own Realpolitik. That meant, when de Gaulle seized power in 1958, that de Gaulle and France would always dominate Germany as much as possible. People called it a Franco-German axis.

It was not what the supranational Community is about. The Community involves the democracy of nation States as much as organized civil society and the people. It also involves a well-conceived concept of the rule of law, not the power politics that de Gaulle thought was the only way. Power politics have failed Europe over the last several millenniums because the conqueror of one day becomes the oppressor. The conquered foe of one day becomes the victim then the liberator of the next. And so on.

The Community started the thaw of the Cold War when Germany chose democratic and religious freedom. It joined the Council of Europe which legally guaranteed the human rights against another Hitler stamping on them with his jackboots. Today we need not only someone to speak to the Russians but to our own European citizens about the real meaning for them of a supranational, democratic Community. The Commission no longer seems to be acting like the independent guardian of the treaties or telling the truth about its origin and purpose.

We should be thankful that the Founding Fathers including men of long-term vision. Schuman said: 'If I believe profoundly in détente and in peace, I believe equally deeply that the strategy that we have traced is only realizable in practice if Western Germany remains solidly anchored to our European construction.

'It is necessary to progress at the same time with European integration, the improvement of East West relations and German unification. Everything lies in the art of progressing simultaneously.'

Schuman and others foretold that the Soviet Union would collapse before the end of the century. He told many people that this was a certainty. Adenauer, with whom he spoke on many occasions, said the same thing. The CIA and the other intelligence services were not listening. They did not make the same analysis as Schuman. They were shocked when the USSR collapsed on schedule. Other politicians at the time were not listening. They buried Europe's founding document, its Magna Carta of democracy.

None of today's politicians seem to be listening either. They still haven't published it. Nor have they understood or applied Schuman's definition of Democracy. Instead they imposed a Constitutional /Lisbon Treaty that the peoples of the Nation States had rejected in referendums.

Welcome to the People's Democracies of Europe! Wait for the fall of the next political cartel!

21. Commission's vision for Europe 2020: they forgot Democracy!!

What makes a democracy more efficient than a dictatorship? Why did Franco’s Spain lapse into the economic doldrums? Why were Latin American dictatorships corrupt and lacking in vigour and growth? Why were Latin American currencies being constantly devalued? Why did Zimbabwe finally run out of noughts to add to the trillions on its useless paper currency? Why is violence the only means for dictatorships to survive?

It is because dictatorships cannot deal with the complexity of society. Businesses will not invest and workers will not work in an atmosphere of uncertainty. An autocrat can bring in changes overnight. He or she thinks he is being “smart” but it is in the end counterproductive.

Some dictatorships have remarkable growth — but only for an period. They fiddle the currency exchange rates and make their currency so cheap it causes a boom. Then it bursts. Reality sets in. The problem is far greater because a large population has greater expectation and huge disillusions. That is when civil unrest breaks out. A revolution might occur.

Dictatorships like to keep in cahoots with big business. They like to respond to their needs. They have an awe of business. Naively they think that if they please big business the country will all be rich. They are wrong. You can create a slave economy but you cannot make slaves rich. They will demand equality. Bye, bye dictatorship. Nor can you maintain constant growth and a contented population, if you do not allow citizens to have free expression.

Now let us ask the opposite question: Why are Western countries, in Europe, North America and Australasia, the most educated, richest and most productive societies in the world? Why do their currencies dominate world trade?

Doesn’t democracy have something to do with it? Clearly. And it is because they are able to deal with complex issues. The best democracies develop unprecedented freedoms for their citizens. They can criticize anything. They are not violent. And above all, in the very best of them, the citizens know how to exercise individual, associative and governmental SELF-DISCIPLINE.

Conclusion: the less democracy we have, the less we can expect to have prosperity, stability and freedoms. Given this elementary lesson of history, what should we expect from a Commission paper that calls itself EUROPE 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth?

I would hope that it would deal with how democratic European citizens could continue the example of our national democracies. Do the Commission SMARTSTERS deal with this core issue? NO

THE WORD “DEMOCRACY” DOES NOT APPEAR IN ALL THE PAPER!

Not very smart! There is one reference to democratic but it is nothing to do with European institutions. Instead they behave just like the disreputable gangs mentioned in the first part of this commentary. They say they will deal with stakeholders. That is another word for lobbyists. So this so-called SMART strategy for sustainable and inclusive growth will end in the dustbin of history in the company of tinpot dictators. The system they describe is an autocracy — that is a system in this case run by a three-party cartel that excludes civil society — surrounded by lobbyists.

Europeans should ask: IS THAT WHAT THEY WANT, EITHER NOW OR IN 2020? It is exactly what the people of the Iberian peninsula, the countries under the Soviet boot in Central and Eastern Europe, and the Greeks under the Colonels wanted to get away from! They thought they were joining a Community of shared valued and enhanced democracy! Instead the Commission paper promises them North Korean style government!

The paper fawningly recommends more powers to the secretive European Council and the Council of Ministers. What sort of INDEPENDENT, smart thinking is that?

“The European Council will have full ownership and be the focal point of the new strategy,” it says. Ownership?!! A European institution that calls itself democratic MUST open its doors so the citizens can see and hear those present and judge the quality of their interventions. The citizens should be able to judge their representatives.

If they can’t, then the the citizens are living in some modification, transmogrification or transformation of a dictatorship or autocratic system. Schuman called such shadow democracies “COUNTERFEIT” democracies. He said that a real democracy must be judged by two criteria. It must SERVE the people, not serve the leaders. And secondly it provide the means to allow the citizens and associations to disagree or to agree with any measure that is taken in its name. They should be able to make their own INDEPENDENT analysis.

Civil society, the key element, has been short-changed and short-circuited out of the paper. Is Parliament supposed to take on this job? That is absurd. It has not even set its own house in order. The Parliament has NEVER had an election according to the legal requirements of the original treaties. That says there should be ONE election for all Europeans not 27 national elections for the European Parliament.

For civil society, there are perfectly suitable institutions like the Economic and Social Committee that need to be developed democratically. They have never even had an election at all! It is increasingly URGENT that they should fulfill their mandate to hold elections among ALL organised civil society associations who are implicated in European legislation. A move to give the Parliament powers in this area is anti-democratic because it denies the citizen the right to be represented in a non-party political way as the Founding Fathers wisely decided.

The Commission needs to be reformed so that it is really INDEPENDENT. It should have as Commissioners personalities whose independence is beyond doubt. It should not be stuffed with people who represent only 2 percent of the population. That is massive discrimination and a violation of citizens’ human rights.

The Commission needs to get back to the drawing board. It needs to learn a bit about history. It needs to review its own history. And it needs to set a strategy not only to save European Democracy but also to save the planet.