EU continues its CAP scam that UK failed to reform

'UNACCEPTABLE!'
That's what David Sassoli, president of the European Parliament called the draft €1 Trillion budget for 2021-27, prepared by the Commission and the European Council. He was addressing a press conference at the European Council meeting of 20 February.

Why was it unacceptable? He earlier told the Council meeting that 'No one wants to burden our fellow citizens with new taxes.'

Was he defending the taxpayer against this extravagance? No. He wants more money, more taxes for spending on European projects.

Cutting the money on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) leaves citizens ‘undefended‘, he said. ‘The Parliament is vigilant,‘ he added. ‘We will defend the citizens of Europe. We will make sure that the Union’s programmes are financed in a way that is adequate for that purpose.‘

So what is adequate? How much money should be designated for agriculture?

The same message came from French President Emmanuel Macron. The European Council was called to deal with the European budget, 2021-2027, he said. The first priority that he mentioned as he entered the European Council building was the CAP.

'The CAP has allowed us to provide food for Europeans since the 1960s,' he said. 'It is a great success for France and Europe.'

Then he revealed that there were plans to increase the budget to give realisation to further plans.

Let’s stop at Agriculture, seeing this is the priority topic. The drafts of the budget from the Commission and the Council all foresee more than 30 per cent of the budget going on agriculture. Parliament would like to see an even bigger budget in general.

So how much does the Agriculture sector represent in the total economy of the EU? Thirty percent? Nowhere near! Not even close to twenty percent or even ten.

Agriculture represents a smidgen above ONE percent of the economy. European agriculture is efficient. It does not employ many people. So why does it need so much of the European tax-payers’ money? What about Technology and jobs for the future? What is the reaction of European tax-payers? Is it discussed inside the luxurious chamber where the heads of government meet?

The truth is we do not know. The sessions are secret. Doors are closed and governments divide the tax money according to how they wish to influence their most important people — their voters or rather their bosses.

Since the 1960s France has led the other States by the nose. It was the big nose of General de Gaulle. He decided to sabotage the democratic system of Robert Schuman. 

De Gaulle decided that the majority of the European Communities‘ budget should be spent on agriculture. His voters were men of the soil and it was the way he could show he was a patriot– getting the Germans to pay for French cheeses.

Money would go to the big landowners. Up till recently the list of who got the CAP money was SECRET! Is something smelling foul? -- and it's not cheese!

Far from a success story, the CAP really got out of hand. In 1985 70 per cent of the European budget was spent on agriculture. Brussels used the budget to keep buying French and other farm products as if there was no tomorrow. That is when all the agricultural products built up into huge unmanageable stockpiles and lakes. There were beef mountains, wine lakes, milk lakes. These meat products were shoved into more and more fridges, wine of all sorts was converted into alcohol or other products and milk into powder. All the alternative uses for these products was sought until Europeans were bloated and distended.

Europe was stuffed to the gunnels with farm products — all thanks to the CAP. Export markets were full too. So the Brussels people sold off what they could at knock down prices to the Soviet Union — the enemy of the Cold War! So the poor citizens paid high prices for their food while at the same time subsidising the Communist take-over of Europe!

The CAP was a corruption bomb that the UK was unable to defuse. When UK joined the European Communities in 1973, the British agricultural system was supported on an entirely different system, deficiency payments. UK did not have enough land to sustain its people entirely for their food needs. During the world war, Britons tried to grow as much as possible. Afterwards, the UK relied on the Commonwealth for imports, whether grain from Canada or lamb and butter from New Zealand. These countries were far more efficient than the Continent.

Couve de Murville receives instructions from President de Gaulle

The sly Gaullist Foreign Minister, Maurice Couve de Murville, told Britain during the negotiations that they would have to change their buying habits and buy from the Continent. He did not have to say that that meant France above all. Everyone knew it.

So the origins of the CAP are not exactly built on the best deal for the people. CAP meant more expensive food. it also meant votes for the Gaullists.

The British vowed that they would stop this crazy scheme before it got out of hand. The amount of the Community budget spent on the CAP reached SEVENTY PER CENT in 1985 before it started to decline a little. France and Italy and some other countries had choice land and had some of the most corrupt practices including wine made out of chemicals and olive plantations with no olive trees.

The British had within easy reach a possible success story for reforming the out-of-control CAP. It was the Treaty of Rome itself. All they had to do was to get the other ministers to follow the treaty articles that specify that the CAP must be under democratic control.

UK failed. Hence Brexit. 

The European Economic Community treaty signed in Rome in 1957 has a whole chapter on the Agricultural Community. It calls for full democratic control in a common organisation — an agricultural committee under the Economic and Social Committee — to supervise prices and supplies for the benefit of three categories:

• farmers,
• workers and
• consumers.

They were never implemented! Consumers have never had a voice! But they paid for the corrupt practice and high prices!

Thus the European Council is celebrating behind closed doors one of the greatest international fraud machines of all time. They are also celebrating the exit of their greatest, but in the end ineffectual, critic, the United Kingdom.

And today on 20 February 2020 they are preparing for seven more years of the same scam in the Multiannual Budget 2021-2027.

Fake News! EU governments try old "Birthday" scam again!

In its first announcement of 2017, the European Commission has started with quite obvious Fake News. The European Commission Spokesman announced that

“This year, 2017, the EU is becoming 60 years old.”

He added:

“The European Project is turning 60 this year with Birthday celebrations being scheduled for Rome in March”

Wrong! March will not be the 60^th anniversary of the European Union. The EU was formulated by the Treaty of Maastricht 1993.
Wrong Again! The Birthday of the European Project, after the Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, was the signing of the Treaty of Paris on 18 April 1951. Schuman read out the Great Charter of the Community that all governments signed.

The documents declared that on 18 April 1951 they were creating a European Community and specifically a European Economic Community. The basis for its governance was supranational democracy.
The first sectors involved in this great European experiment in democracy were coal and steel. The European Community of Coal and Steel began to function in August 1952.
Are all today’s European officials and 28 governments so mathematically challenged?
How does the Commission explain this preoccupation with 1957? The spokesman said:

“First of all we like the Treaty of Rome, because it was the treaty establishing the European Community that preceded the European Union. We like … the Treaty of Rome because it is a milestone that enabled the six signatory Member States to trigger a level of cooperation through common policies that was unprecedented and was not enshrined in law before the Treaty of Rome. So we use the 25 March 1957 as the formal departure, if you like, of this fantastic historical experiment of the European Union.”
He said nothing about supranational democracy and how it works. How should it work?

On 18 April 1951 the six governments initiated the European Community’s five democratic institutions.
The Six also signed what Schuman called the “Charter of the Community”. That title recalls the Magna Carta of British history. It emphasizes its importance.

It describes entry and exit conditions based on supranational Community democracy. (‘Supranational’ also appears for the first time in an international treaty in the ECSC article 9 to describe the High Authority, later called the European Commission.)
A supranational Community was totally new in history. It was neither confederal (like NATO) nor federal like the Federal Republic of Germany or USA. Only one institution was given federal powers and that was controlled by a European Court of Justice and a Consultative Committee composed of equal membership of entrepreneurs, workers and consumers.
The Charter also defines which States can become members of any Community. The States have to be among those whose people ‘are free to choose’. That ruled out the States – the so-called People’s Democratic Republics – of the Soviet Bloc.


They were invited to join. Schuman said that Russia was free to join. The condition meant that the States had to sign up to the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe.
The State had to guarantee freedom of information, religion and assembly. If any citizen had a complaint against the State he or she could take it freely to the national courts. An appeal could be made to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
This was a hard pill for governments ruled by a Politburo to swallow. So none of them applied.
The first Community also initiated the Single Market. Single markets for coal, scrap iron and steel were opened across the Community in 1953. This broke nationalistic competition, which in turn led to wars.
With the Single Market came the right of workers to move freely around the Community. The Community budget paid for housing projects in the coal and steel industries, and for retraining of workers when inevitably worn-out mines were closed. Consumers had access to the cheapest coal and steel products. Workers and firms could redeploy. It fulfilled the promise made by Robert Schuman when he explained the Community project on 10 August 1950 in the Council of Europe.

“Its only preoccupation must be the improving of the productivity of the industry and the rising of the standard of living. … In no case will workers’ standards be lowered. This is an absolute rule that we laid down among our basic principles from the first.”

The budget was paid for by a levy on coal and steel products, up to a maximum of one per cent. There was no Court of Auditors. None was needed. The enterprises were very careful about the contributions they had to pay, the workers too watched carefully over their budget for their social requirements. Consumers made sure money was not wasted.
That one percent levy seemed a small price to pay for stable, full employment and increased, cheaper production. Nevertheless, to the surprise of many, the Treaty of Paris, with its duration of fifty years, was not renewed in 2002. Lobbying by steel firms may have something to do with it. There was no referendum in Member States. The matter was decided in the Council of Ministers, its doors still shut from the Gaullist period.
Shortly afterwards, the prices of steel rose sharply. Firms were bought by foreign investors. Many workers were thrown out of work.
In 2016 the EU apparently “forgot” to celebrate the 65^th Birthday of European democracy. What is their substitute?
Europe of 1957 was entering the Gaullist Dark Ages for European democracy. It contrasts with the founding democratic principles of Europe’s true Birthday in 1951.
The Charter of the Community was buried by Gaullists in the archives of the French Foreign Ministry. It was again published in 2012 thanks to M. Bernard Cazeneuve, the present French Prime Minister, following a request by the Schuman Project.
Ten years ago EU Governments colluded to spend millions of taxpayers euros to “celebrate”this totally FALSE Birthday! Why? They thought that by spending millions on public relations (that is false propaganda) they could persuade the public to accept the renaming of the Constitutional Treaty (that had been rejected in referendums). They forced it through parliaments without a free vote. They renamed it the Lisbon Treaty.
What is the result of this shameful Machiavellian scam? Brexit! Loss of trust of both the governments and the central institutions of the EU. Massive crises of legitimacy from Greece to Finland. European Council President Donald Tusk feared the worst

“As a historian,’ Mr Tusk told the German newspaper Bild, ‘I fear Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also Western political civilisation in its entirety.”

Deceit and secrecy have their consequences. Will the European Commission maintain its ‘Fake News’ and its mathematically challenged “Birthday” to March this year? Or will we have politically effective and scientifically correct democracy?

Britexit5 Democratic Disaster still awaits even if Britain votes Yes!

The ‘wrong man’ became EU Commission President. The wrong person is likely to be selected in 2018. You can be sure it will not be a Briton!
In 2014 UK Prime Minister was perfectly clear about Mr Jean-Claude Juncker as potential European Commission President. ‘He is the wrong man.’ The UK was forced by the Top Pol or Spitzenkandidat system to accept him. What will happen after the UK referendum on BREXIT? The reform package ignores a major injustice. There will never be a British Commission President while the Spitzenkandidat system exists!
Let’s move to 2018. In the BREXIT referendum of 2016 or 2017, Britain has voted overwhelmingly to stay inside the EU. Everyone is relieved. Great Britophilia subfuses the whole of Europe. British Union flags are waved everywhere. The French toast their island friends in prize-winning, home-grown British ‘sparkling wine’ which is called ‘champagne’ in other parts of the world.
At last Britain, ‘the mother of democracies‘ as some like to call her, is the darling of Europe. Britons are the heroes of Brussels. So what happens about the selection of the European Commission President?
Even if everyone in Europe is enthusiastic for British personalities, the ‘Top Pol” system of the Continentals would make it impossible to agree to a British president. The ‘Top Pol‘ system forbids it. The Europe’s biggest party political grouping can, and in fact, must, force its candidate on the willing or unwilling European public.
Only a card-carrying member of the Continental ‘Top Pol‘ EPP-Socialist Cartel is allowed.
Let’s say the largest grouping, the EPP, wanted to renew the candidature of the present incumbent, Mr Juncker, or has another candidate it has elected by its special 800 EPP electors, Mme Dupont. Then the European Union would force that candidate on the public.
Imagine that the opinion polls say Mr Jones, the British choice had 75 percent of the European public in favour of his becoming the new Commission President. Mme Dupont has the support of 20 percent and 5 percent are undecided.
According to the Spitzenkandidat system, the public would be told that Mme Dupont is the choice of the European Popular Party. If the Continentals again returned the EPP as the majority, the EPP politicians in governments would automatically demand that Mme Dupont become Commission President. The same goes for the Socialists.
We can assume that in 2018 the ballot papers for the European Parliamentary elections do not say anything that exposes this swindle to daylight. Murkiness covered the 2014 elections. Further fog is forecast for 2018.
Firstly, the politicians are likely to do everything to avoid the legal and moral embarrassment. They will try to keep Mr Juncker on. They will thus avoid any question being asked about his legitimacy.
Secondly they will use sleight of hand. Voters came to the polls in 2014 and voted for their MEPs. No ballot paper said that if you vote for an EPP politician, of whatever shade of EPP, the party cartel says you are supporting Mr Juncker. No ballot paper said that if you vote for the Socialists you will be demanding that Herr Martin Schulz become Commission President.
But the Political Pickpockets or manipulators tried to make out that was the case. The treaties say no such thing. They say the opposite. Politicians are banned. Nor does any European law or Regulation. The Commission and the European Parliament are independent institutions.
Thirdly, they will make lightning decisions on the top jobs. Mr Juncker was elected. Mr Schulz wasn’t. He got second prize. That is the presidency of the European Parliament. Nowhere do any regulations or treaties say there is any second prize! It is evident that the political manipulators cut an undemocratic deal.
Where did the second prize come from? Mathematics. The EPP has 221 members and Socialists 191 in the 751 member chamber. The two groups working together have more than 400 votes. They can dictate the programme of the Parliament. They can endorse the Commission President. They elect a Socialist Speaker of Parliament. All it takes is an undemocratic secret stitch-up.
This secret deal also depends getting away with pure chicanery. These political parties say they have the rights to elect a politician as Commission President. Why don’t all the Member State governments come clean? Why didn’t they print on the ballot paper the following:

Attention, Warning, Achtung! When you vote for any EPP candidate you are endorsing Mr Juncker to become the Commission President
When you vote for any Socialist candidate for MEP, you are endorsing Herr Schulz to become Commission President. etc ?

Wouldn’t that cause electors to think twice before casting their vote? It would poison any enthusiasm.
If politicians wished to have the same honesty as a cigarette packet they could go further. They could add:

Attention! Warning! Achtung! The runner-up may well get the Presidency of the European Parliament. The newly elected MEPs are not allowed to elect their Speaker. It is decided behind closed doors by Council politicians. In order to perform this political somersault the majority in the EP will arrange it so that they do not put up a candidate. As the majority would normally have the best chance, they will just manipulate the democratic vote in Parliament as their first act of Democracy.

What would happen to Mr Jones? Would the European public be demanding a British president? They might but it wouldn’t help.
Even if Mr Jones got all the British votes, it would be in vain. The British Conservatives are not members of the EPP and therefore, even with their allies, they would never gain a majority in the EP. The British Labour party did not endorse Mr Schulz. So that creates a double loss for a British candidate.
Let’s now turn to the opposite scenario. Following the secular trend, fewer people will vote. Now nearly three out of every five people refuses to vote at all. And of those that do, one third voted against SpitzenKandidat parties. Besides the British Conservatives and its allies, there are what Brussels calls ‘euro-sceptic’ parties: the French National Front, the British UK Independence Party, the German Alternative etc. Some of these are not anti-European but anti- the European scam and stitch-up that has been going on since the time of General de Gaulle blocked the democratic development of Europe. De Gaulle told his press secretary Alain Peyrefitte that his programme was to block all aspects of supranational democracy. It has never been unblocked. And the politicians since de Gaulle have used his system to provide jobs for themselves.
De Gaulle believed that only one election was required — to elect him. He made sure the public had no real choice by having a two-tier election process. He would then select a prime minister and his government. The Top Pols use the same system with modifications. That is how these politicians have succeeded in taking over, root, stock and branch, the key domain of the Commission presidency. They say that it belongs them. They have party membership cards. Yet they are just 2 percent of the European population. Being partisan means they have a political club and organization that can be used against the public, not for it. Talk about Apartheid!! The treaties say all members of the public have this right to office!
So if all the people, who are ‘turned off’ and in the past didn’t vote, now do start voting, and the anti-scam parties continue to increase in popularity, then It may well be that such parties could form a majority. They might, at least, have enough votes to block the mathematics of the EPP-Socialist cartel.
Let’s say they represented the biggest faction in the EP. Would you expect governments running the scam to form a Commission composed of anti-scam people?
Yet unless the 28 governments begin to act responsibly and as democrats who are against political corruption, they might well be faced with such a nightmare scenario.
It would be suicide. If in 2018 or later elections two thirds of the new Members of Parliament are ‘Euro-sceptical’ does that mean that the Commission should be chosen on the policy basis to destroy the institutions? That would make any future election meaningless. It would be the equivalent of an anarchistic revolution. Europe would be left without any governance system. With no single market and no protection, it could be picked off by powerful world forces whether in the energy field or elsewhere. They could destroy European human rights and open the countries to jihadis, religious warfare and terrorists. A disintegrated Europe would leave Europe the prey of North African terror cells and terror governments. Instead Europe would have thrown up its hands on its duty to help these States establish human rights and freedom across and around the Mediterranean.

Britexit4: The faulty UK BREXIT reform will aggravate EU's democracy scam!

The Europeans are about to have their democracy stolen. AGAIN. Who will do it? Let’s call them Pickpocket Politicians. The British who boast of their Magna Carta and their democracy might make matters a whole lot worse by their BREXIT referendum!
At the core of the problem lies the dominant Cartel of groupings in the European Parliament, aided by nearly all national politicians, it would seem. They are showing that 28 countries called Democracies cannot abide by simple democratic rules at the European level. They prefer fraud and democratic theft.
Stand by for another decade of crises in European affairs! It is looming. No one is talking about it yet. It will explode soon. I’ll give you an exact date: 2018. And a few years later, again and again and again.

• Whatever the outcome of discussions Mr Cameron has with the European Council,
• whatever the publicity that he tries to propagate afterwards,
• whatever the reaction of the British public,
• whatever the pleas of other European States for Britain to stay within the EU,
• whatever the arguments of anti-EU parties,
• whatever the support of pro-EU parties,

the UK Referendum will be a major failure.
Not just for the UK. It will be a major failure for all of Europe. It will be a major failure for all candidate States and Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Iceland. All Europeans will lose out from UK’s referendum.
Except the self-proclaimed ‘Top politicians’, the ‘TopPols‘.
Why?
Britain has been and will continue to be excluded from the top leadership of Europe. Not just now. Possibly for ever. It is not a member of the dominant Parliament grouping, the EPP. Even if Britain votes overwhelmingly to stay in, top jobs are excluded. Europeans had better not cheer like the Gaullists! Other countries might be in the same exclusion boat too.
When I spoke to a key member of the Prime Minister’s team about this at the June European Council last year, one thing was abundantly clear. The British government had no idea what was in store. I asked if the British government was going to deal with this vital question in their reform package.

My question was this: ‘Is the British government asking the European Council to remove the measures that exclude a Briton from ever becoming the President of the Commission? ‘

A reform referendum is the moment to make sure this error was corrected. Instead the British government has chosen to do nothing and say nothing about it. I was met with a blank look when I said that no Briton would ever become the Commission President in the future. Then when I explained, I could see the truth was sinking in.

As it stands the Continental powers will make sure that there will NEVER be a British president of the European Commission. This is a fairly obvious outcome of the subversive scheme that the Continental parties have already activated. The Conservatives are not part of the EPP. As long as they remain independent, they will never have one of their own called to be Commission President.
It is called the ‘Top Politician’ scam. Or if you want it in German: SpitzenKandidatenBetrug‘ The present Commission president is M. Jean-Claude Juncker. Nobody in the United Kingdom voted for him. If you add up all the votes cast within the UK, the highest figure I have seen that had anything to do with Mr Juncker is less than 0.2 percent of all votes cast. Even that is wrong. The answer is ZERO votes.
That is hardly surprising because no ballot paper in all the European Union said that Mr Juncker was a candidate for the office of President of the European Commission. He simply ’emerged’ from the European Parliament elections of June 2014. All this is a bit bizarre for a post some (wrongly) compare to the President of the USA and which pays a higher salary.
Just reflect a second. If the European Parliament elections were really about the election of the President of the European Commission, then obviously the ballot papers for the electors would say so. Legally, no election of the President took place. Hence everyone can shout out loud: FRAUD! SCAM! THIEVES! The 28 national elections for the 2014 European Parliamentary elections elected national members to the European Parliament, nothing more.
The national politicians know it is a fraud. Public research revealed that hardly anyone inside the EU even recognized his name, Juncker. Even Frau Merkel objected that no one really knew his name. It took some behind-the-scenes arms-twisting before even the national politicians agreed they could get away with it. The Socialists wanted to control Parliament and name its president. Eventually they all agreed.
Mr Juncker was the ex-prime Minister of Luxembourg, a tiny country at the heart of Europe known for a controversy of being a tax haven. He was out of office but still active in partisan politics.
Why then was Mr Juncker elected? Well, he had support. Who exactly? He was given the office because he was chosen by 382 party politicians. Who were they? They were those out of 800 special members of the European People’s Party (EPP) who voted ‘yes’ that Mr Juncker should be a ‘Top Politician.’ In other words, a Spitzenkandidat.
So less than half of the 800 EPP voters wanted Mr Juncker.
Were any of the 382 voters British? No. In fact none of the 800 who cast their vote was British.
All that should smell a little fishy to any democrat. Smelly, rather like a fish that is a week old.
Why were there no British voting for Mr Juncker? That is because the mainstream British parties are not in coalition with such operations as the EPP. The EPP is considered centre-right in European politics. But the centre-right British Conservative party is in another coalition with smaller parties it considers more like-minded.
The EPP has been and still is the biggest trans-European coalition of governmental parties. It dominates politics in the European Parliament. It is the equivalent in politics of what, in economics, is called a Cartel. And it dominates as if it were a monopoly power. The consumer, Joe Public, becomes a victim of extortion.
The EPP has managed to bring into its ranks major government parties of most of the EU’s Member States. The first major problem for Democracy and Justice is that Britain is excluded from its internal machinations.
That’s not all. It gets worse. The second major problem is that the prominent political parties, together with other coalitions among the Liberals and the Socialists have all agreed on what is an open fraud to bamboozle European citizens out of their democratic rights. What’s in it for them? Jobs on the Commission too.
They are saying that only politicians, not ordinary citizens, can be members of the Commission and that only their parties have a right to put up candidates for the office. In that they are dead wrong! The treaties say exactly the opposite. They say that Commissioners must be totally non-partisan and independent, like a judge in a court case. They swear in the European Court with the oath of office to be independent.

“I solemnly undertake:

• to respect the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the fulfilment of all my duties;
• 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;
• to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties or the performance of my tasks.”

And then do the opposite! An active partisan of a political party is member of a body with a dogma. By being national party politicians they are apt to take instructions from governments. By speaking to lobbyists in private, they are doing the wrong thing. Such matters should be discussed in public in legislative Consultative Committees or not at all. Being a party politician is the exact opposite of non-partisan. It is being highly partisan.
So this Continental fraud not only deprives the average citizen of his or her rights to become a Commissioner. It restricts the right to certain Continental politicians.
Furthermore, and most striking for the British Government’s ‘reform’, it completely eliminates all British politicians from  the latest, corrupt Commission game. So it discriminates against the average citizen by stopping independent citizens from becoming Commissioners and acting fairly. And, while committing this fraud, it discriminates against British politicians and excludes them from the top politicians’ ‘closed shop’!
If you need to have an analogy it is equivalent to the Soviet Politburo system. Only those who were Communist party members could be considered to take leading roles in Soviet society. The same applies to the way the top politicians have rigged the EU governance system.
Robert Schuman designed the Community system to have three levels of democracy and only the EP level was supposed to be party political. The Commission was defined as being the non-governmental, non-lobbyist, non-party political Honest Broker among these institutions.
How do the Top Pols get away with it? The Commission is supposed to be — and so it often boasts — the ‘guardian of the treaties’. So that once the Commission was full of politicians, they simply passed declaration saying: 'Only ex-politicians are welcome here.' They then said: 'We can be active in politics too.' The treaties say the opposite but the Commission declaration has not yet be tested in the European Court of Justice. Once it is raised there, there will be more than sparks flying.
If the treaties say that politicians cannot become Members of the Commission unless they renounce their allegiance to party dogma, doctrine and ideology, government representation and lobbyist activity, what is to be done about it?
If the UK refuses to raise the alarm against this flagrant discrimination both against the British nation and against all British citizens, then matters will go from bad to worse. Regardless of the outcome of the referendum, it will be highly unlikely that Britain will seek a further reform referendum of the EU scam for another decade. Whether inside or outside the EU the corrupting of Schuman’s democracy will make the whole of European affairs more unmanageable.
The worst aspect of Britain’s refusal to apply Magna Carta principles of democracy is that the next referendum on reforming the EU is likely to be pushed back for years as politicians do not like referendums. Europeans will have to live with the Cartel’s distortion of democracy on immigration policy and the euro debacle for the near future.

Circus3: World War One warns us that the Commission SCAM is a dangerous Act of political Nepotism!

The hundredth anniversary of World War One is a stark reminder of dangers behind the politicians’ fraudulent action on the European Commission.

Should someone who received less than ten percent support of the European electorate become Commission President? If this ludicrous choice is questioned, who decides?  A closed-door European Council cut off from democratic accountability? 57 percent of the electorate did not vote. Of those that did vote, up to a third voted for parties opposed to the lead candidates of the main parties (SpitzenKandidaten).

In the UK it is estimated that less than 0.2 percent voted for any party associated with the EPP’s Mr Jean-Claude Juncker.

What does this tell us?

It does not tell us that Mr Juncker is unpopular in the UK. He wasn’t a candidate for any party. He may have had scads of supporters but few could express that in a vote. It tells us that the political parties in UK conspired to make sure that a candidate like Mr Juncker was not considered in the ballot, directly or indirectly.

In reality no-one at all voted for Mr Juncker as President of the Commission! No ballot paper in all the European Union was headed ‘Election of the President of the European Commission‘!

The facts tell us that the elections are FIXED, undemocratic and falser even than the Soviet Union’s. At least they had proper ballot papers! In other words, the whole process stinks!

All the governmental parties all across Europe are involved in this political SCAM. They consent to say only one of their self-defining elite in a sort of Politburo — a member of their political parties — can become the President or a member of the Commission. The politicians have made themselves into SUPER-Citizens. Only they have the ultimate vote.

In fact there is nothing, NOTHING, in the European treaties that says the Commission President should be first elected to the European Parliament. NOTHING. Nothing about any elections. The governments must chose the Commission based on impartiality or independence. No treaty article talks about SpitzenKandidaten in any language, including German.

The Treaties say the opposite. No one associated with the European Parliament CAN be a candidate for the presidency of the European Commission. This was discussed at length when the Lisbon treaty (then named the Constitutional Treaty) was initiated more than a decade ago. Otherwise the advocates of a political Commission would have introduced an article saying that the lead candidate of the biggest party would automatically become Commission President. It was clearly nonsense then. It remains nonsense today.

Even if there were a smidgin of legal justification for the scam, there is another major problem. The public has no free choice about who will be the Commission President. The SpitzenKandidaten are decided by Party Political Machines. Mr Juncker received only 382 votes –less than half of the 800 party activists who could vote.

Could you get more than 382 friendly votes to stand? The Treaties are clear that all European citizens have the right to be considered to become European Commission President. How many friends do you have on FaceBook?

If the politicians were even a little more honest they would have created a presidential election where citizens could have voted for whomsoever they wished. Citizens should use something like the Citizen’s Initiative process to select candidates whom they consider honest, and who can find fair solutions to European challenges and are experienced with combating public mischief, abuse and corruption. The governments should set up an impartial Jury which could then select the best candidate. The treaties say that the Commission should be INDEPENDENT. It should have members who are impartial, who have renounced any partisan interest or personal gain, in order to be seen to be honest and fair.

This system combining the voice of the Citizen and the impartiality of a Jury would fulfill the requirements of the Treaties. The present political nepotism contradicts Treaty law. All nepotism contradicts justice. Will politicians learn why public trust is sinking into the abyss? Are governmental politicians ready to assume a higher level of political honesty? Or do they still have the mentality of ego-centric schoolchildren?

The Politicians’ SCAM tries to eliminate 98 percent of the European public who are not paid-up members of a political party. Does any politician believe this can go on forever without serious legal consequences? Big problems loom about legitimacy of all subsequent European laws and budget!

The reason why the Founding Fathers said that all citizens have the right to be considered as a candidate is simple. The post of Commission President is highly political. But it is not Party Political. It takes an honest and totally independent person to be truly political in office. He or she has to deal with of national governments, consultative committees, the Court of Auditors and the European Parliament. The President has to manage the budget free from any hint of doling out money to political friends or any private interests. Instead we see vast amounts of public money being slurped to political parties and party networks without the taxpayer being able to say ‘NO! ENOUGH!’. The Commission should be composed of people whose honesty has been tried and tested and they have shown they have a robust, honest character. They should embody Europe’s universal or supranational values.

Are the Party Machines free and independent of open and secret interest groups? Obviously not. The reason they are called parties is that they are PARTISAN. They represent open or hidden interests. The Commission is Europe’s anti-cartel agency. It is easy-peasy for an unscrupulous cartel to spend a few billion euros on a political party so that it can influence anti-cartel decisions worth many more billions!

The treaties define the Law of the Commission. It says that NO active party politician may become a member of the Commission. The Founding Fathers like Schuman were well aware that cartels controlling political parties led to two world wars! Before World War One, an international armaments cartel sold weapons to all European states. British soldiers were killed with British bullets. German weapons in the hands of their enemies killed Germans and Austrians. And French industries collaborated with German ones! And all these national champions (in the secretive international arms and raw materials cartels) had the support of the national political parties! In fact some of the parties and newspapers only survived with the active financial subvention of enemies!

Party politicians have turned the Treaty law upside down. They have illegally banned ordinary citizens from the Commission and unbanned party politicians. Is the law fair to ban party politicians today? Why do the treaties still discriminate against party politicians, making it illegal for them to be Commissioners? There is sound reason and judicial logic.

Exclusions are necessary for democracy. Parliaments also have exclusions. They eliminate some citizens to ensure the smooth working of democracies! Contrary to popular belief, not every citizen can stand for the European Parliament elections. Some very honest and upright citizens are excluded by law.

Who are they? And why?

These banned people include the most impartial people that you can think of. Their number includes judges, civil servants, the military, the national and European Ombudsman.

And actually it is quite normal. Would you as a Right-winger want to have as a judge in Court a person who had been elected on a rabid Left-wing policy or vice-versa? Would you want civil servants or generals to be espousing ideological party political propaganda? Should they they be standing up in the European Parliament and denouncing government policies?

Judges should be neutral and independent. If they have an obvious interest or bias, judges have to recuse themselves from a case. It has to be judged by a judge who is seen to be free of such prejudice.

The same goes for the Ombudsman. Would you like to put a case before the Ombudsman about maladministration committed by such highly political institutions as the Council, the Commission or the Parliament if you knew the Ombudsman was a paid up member of one of their dominant parties? Would you have a chance of getting a judgement of maladministration if the Ombudsman might be penalized or demoted politically if he or she gave a judgement against the Party?

The reason why a judge or an Ombudsman is forbidden to stand for the European Parliament and electioneer for a Political Party is simple. Political Parties are the biggest lobby groups in the EU. They have fixed and ideological positions on many if not all issues. Who decides on these is often not at all clear. Occasionally investigative reporters reveal that policies are paid for by major companies, interest groups, unions or consumer organizations.

Hence such a politically active judge is seen as unfair and potentially able to give biased decision as an advocate of all those policies rather than impartiality. The complainant in Court has no assurance that he or she is getting any justice at all.

Here are some of the professions that some European Member States ban from standing for Members of Parliament.

• President of the Republic,
• Member of the royal family including spouses,
• Members of a national government,
• Member of the Monetary Policy Council of the national Bank,
• member of military, prison service or police force,
• Ambassador,
• Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor of Justice,
• Supreme Court staff,
• Supreme Administrative Court,
• Religious functionary (din Adami)
• Staff of electoral Commissions,
• President or vice president of the Court of Auditors,
• Public Prosecutor,
• Ombudsman,
• Executives in local communities,
• Mayor,
• President of the Economic and Social Council,
• Member of the Commission for the Protection of Personal Data,
• Member of Committee on Access to Administrative Documents,
• Board Member of a publicly owned company,
• Director of a limited company, bank, commercial, industrial or private transport company,
• Director of a provincial credit establishment, medical insurance scheme or insurance company,
• Persons serving prison sentences exceeding 12 months,
• persons declared bankrupt,
• Any person who has been punished for an action which according to common sense makes him/her undeserving of being an MEP.

The following are also legally incompatible with being a Member of the European Parliament in some EU States:

• Member of the European Commission,
• Member of Board of European Central Bank,
• Court of Auditors,
• Economic and Social Committee,
• Committees constituted by EU treaties to manage funds or to perform permanent administrative tasks,
• Board and Management Committee of the European Investment Bank.

Thus contrary to the action of several Commissioners who stood for Parliament recently, this practice is recognized as contrary to good European Community law and justice.

Making any active politician a member of the supposedly impartial Commission is an abuse of power by governments meeting in the European Council. It is a betrayal of Europe’s citizens.
And it is also ILLEGAL.