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.
Robert Schuman with Winston Churchill
