Gutless Politicians and Secrecy are the cause of Brexit and public distrust

Mr David Davis got it wrong. The UK Brexit Secretary of State resigned because, he said, the UK Parliament’s voice in European and global trade policy was “illusory“. UK was being dictated to by “Brussels”. This system was contrary to British democratic interests and tradition. It is fundamentally undemocratic, he said.

He is pointing his finger in the wrong direction. The blame lies nearer to home. The core issue is the lack of democracy in UK. Add to that, lack of political courage. And not only in the UK. Every European capital is to blame in the same way.

What is wrong with European democracy? What is the core problem? When democrats get to Brussels they shut the doors and become anti-Democrats.

Democracy is about open government. Seventy years ago to this month, the French government of Robert Schuman made a proposal that astounded its European neighbours. It also saved Europe from the ravages of further wars and invasion. The powerful Soviet Red Army had not demobilised after WW2. It was set on invasion of a demoralised, divided and disarmed Western Europe.

The French government suggested on 20 July 1948 that Europe create a parliamentary Assembly and a Customs Union. It would create not only democratic solidarity but create the infrastructure for peace and prosperity.

This was the first time in European history that a sovereign government had proposed a European Parliament. (The rare proposals in the past were made by what Schuman called “utopian thinkers,” not practical leaders.) Schuman’s proposal was made at the meeting of Western Union in The Hague by his Foreign Minister, Georges Bidault. The Western European Union or Brussels Pact was also the forerunner of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

So if the Schuman government was first to lay plans on the table for a European democracy, what were its basic principles? He made clear that it must consist of the most open and transparent discussion possible (Pour l’Europe, chapter 3).

He said that true democracy has three characteristics.

1. The objectives at each stage of democratic governance must be set by the people.
2. Then the people must define the means it wishes to use to attain each goal.
3. And thirdly, it must pass the the moral and ethical Litmus Test. It must be at the service of the people and act in agreement and consent with it.

So where did the UK government and the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU go wrong?

Firstly, the UK government did not properly analyse the five institutions of the Community system. It is the most advanced democratic system in world history. This heart of European democracy is enshrined in the Treaties of Paris, 1951 and Rome, 1957. Even then political scientists called it sui generis. It is like nothing else before it.

But if you do not know how the aero-engine of democracy works, it is no use applying spanners to tighten the bolts, strapping additional devices to it, or filling the tank with diesel instead of petrol.

The UK did not reassess or remove the sand and gravel dumped in the Community system by autocratic Gaullists. One of the three deliberate bodies is the Council of Ministers. It is there to represent open democracy of States. Charles de Gaulle tried to use it for his own dictatorial purposes — whether by “empty chair” threats or furtive strong-arm wrestling with the smaller States.

Many politicians, however, liked his idea of deciding about money matters in secret. “Post-Gaullist” politicians preferred “secret democracy”. Shamefully UK was silent. But the founding principles of how the Council of Ministers and the other deliberate institutions should deliberate cannot be buried.

Open debate.

Because corrupt politicians, including but not exclusively the Gaullists, continuously tried to have secret government, others insisted the principle of open debate be written into the so-called Constitutional Treaty, 2004 that later became the Lisbon Treaty, 2007. It says all aspects of the deliberative process — consideration of Commission proposals, debate and formulation of a common Council position — should be OPEN to the public! The Council should act exactly as the Parliament with open committees. It should publish a written record of debates.

It was ignored. It is still ignored today.

“Article 15 TEU 

In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union institutions, bodies and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible.”

And just to make certain the politicians in the Council of Ministers got the point, the article 15 repeated in its paragraph 2;

“2. The European Parliament shall meet in public, AS SHALL THE COUNCIL, when considering and voting on a draft legislative act.”

The main reasons that the British Parliament has been emasculated of powers of supervision and control are twofold. Firstly the “Democrats” from London acquiesce to the secretive Continental practice where Council debate takes place behind closed doors. Parliamentarians back in London are not able to identify the issues being discussed. For example, what another country is saying on any issue.

Secondly, when they return to London (and the other capitals), ministers do not open up the debate in the national Parliament. That is their duty. That step is essential if governments can be sensitive to the needs and real desires of the electorate.

Instead ministers prefer to make sure that Brussels provide taxpayer money for the national economy. They can then take the glory of initiating the airports, agricultural purchase programmes or other possibly useless systems. That’s how Europe has motorways that go to Nowheresville and airports that have no passengers. That’s how the Gaullists bequeathed he European taxpayer corruptly with Beef Mountains, Wine Lakes or Grain stockpiles. And then sold them off at a massive discount to the Soviet Union, our Cold War enemy!

The first step to resolve the Brexit dilemma is to have open debates in the Council of Ministers and its committees. The debates should be recorded and published like the House of Parliament record, Hansard.

Open, democratic governance is the only way forward out the Brussels/ Brexit logjam.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

“I solemnly undertake …

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article 17 para 5 says:

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

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

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

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

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


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

Budget9: Is the EU Budget Illegal? You and any tribunal can ask the European Court!

Can a Parliament and any other allegedly 'democratic institution' ban the public and journalists from their meetings? Do they have the legal right? Once they have shut the doors, can they then make a deal to IMPOSE a budget on taxpayers who are not present? Is its secretive procedure LEGAL? If it is not, is the budget illegal, void and invalid?

In October to December 2010, the  Council, Parliament and Commission held a series of meetings on the 2011 Budget. The public and journalists were banned from setting foot in any of the meetings. A guard was put on the door. Only people on a special list were allowed to enter. On the agenda was the means to collect and spend around about 130 Billion euros defined in their 2011 budget. At the meetings were the Belgian Prime Minister and others representing the Council. The meetings included the President of the European Parliament and a score of his MEP colleagues and the European Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski, responsible for the Budget.

What did they get up to? We know that the Commissioner accused the politicians of behaving like a 'kindergarten'.  It was not an edifying spectacle. Each side claimed the budget was their toy.  Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski characterised the whole affair as ‘self-centered and egoistical'.

Whose toys, or rather, whose money were they arguing over? It was the group that was refused entry to all the meetings -- the public.  The politicians did not only refuse to include them, they banned them outright. The political 'leaders' did not deign to have any REAL representative of the people from whom these 'democratic' leaders were about to extract their Billions! No member of the press was officially allowed to observe and report the politicians' infantile behaviour.  No outsider was invited who would criticize this dangerous clique's discrimination and predatory action against the citizen.

I call these political juveniles 'dangerous' because they follow the pattern of President de Gaulle and others who refused to have open Council meetings that Robert Schuman said was essential. In the secrecy of the Council of Ministers, they created a vast pattern of corruption for votes with their Wine Lakes, Meat Mountains, faudulent, regional infrastructure projects that never happened.

The next generation of politicians did not open the doors either. They paid huge amounts of European taxpayers' money to party comrades in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain, winking at the money that disappeared into boltholds and their subsequent fraudulent statistics. Those monetary falsehoods are now being exposed as Europe falters on the edge of a euro collapse.

The politicians today are committing similar immoral acts against European citizens in their secret sessions. Their arrogant offences would not pass in most of their home parliaments where a national press has free comment. Don't they think that secret budget discussions in Brussels must be wrong? Or do they just think: 'If we can get away with it here, why not?' They now want economic governance, another term for cartel dictatorship of their parties, by their parties for their party cartel.

Then in June 2011, not content with this trivial amount of hundreds of billions of euros, the European Commission proposed that a TRILLION euros should be levied from the European public, industries and workers. It is to be a combined seven-year plan. The public need not worry their silly, little heads over watching this unsavoury performance every year. It would be done in one quick stroke!

The Commission said it would speak about it to the people's representatives, the European Parliament. And so, the European Parliament quickly closed the doors on the people and the press! What happened behind closed doors? How did the party leaders react to this further money grab from European citizens? Did they rub their hands with delight? Did they yell 'Sock it to the public! We will bleed them dry!' We do not know the facts because the press was thrown out!

Why? Why did these very privileged people -- all of them obviously considered themselves very privileged  -- feel it necessary to impose secrecy? Why did they ban the public? Why did they ban the press?

What is common with all these people?  What unites those who have the only say-so in the European budget? They are all card-carrying members of political parties. Isn't that normal? NO it is not. They will tell you it is. Don't believe them. The European Community had a much more balanced democractic system where non-political civil socity plays an important part.

These 'closed-door politicians' represent ... what and whom exactly? Those in Nazi Germany were told the true German party members were those who decided matters for them. In fact they were kleptocrats and gangsters, stealing from the people. Those in Communist-controlled East Germany, Czechoslavakia, Poland and Hungary were told: 'The Worker's party is in charge!' Those in Mao's Communist China said the Party must control not only the Budget but every aspect of life.

Some systems banned non-Aryans, others businessmen, or capitalist running dogs from entering their 'parliaments' when deliberating the budget. All these diverse systems had one thing in common. They did not like a free press.

Are Europeans free? Those in control in the EU all have party cards. They are a tiny minority. All party card-holders amount to about one in fifty of the entire population.  And the parties are increasingly unpopular. In the European elections more people who can vote refuse to vote for any of them. The majority in the EU is not the parties but an entity called 'None of the above' that should appear on the ballot.

At one stage in history party affiliation had some importance. Now they nearly all act together in a continuous coalition or a cartel of parties. It makes no difference who the electors vote for, they get the same result -- more expenditure and luxurious padding for the parties. When corruption is exposed, confidence in the parties plummets again. Public support has been declining for decades.

Yet this small but powerful cartel plans to extract more and more money from the other 98 percent of the population. They are all generally in favour of having more projects and subsidies which they feel will buy them support. These bribes are just tax money being returned diminished under new conditions set by the political parties. For themselves they want nothing but higher salaries, more assistants, help for friends in the same party wherever they are, expansion of agencies and dubious employment initiatives such as the 'External Action Service', overseas aid which corrupts and anything else that supports the ideologies of the parties.

Now consider if the European leaders were all identified with another small group. What if the Commission, Parliament and Council were composed entirely of  Freemasons? What if they were all Catholics or Jews or Shi'ite Muslims or Europeans of Chinese origin? What if they were all paid up members of the FBSS, the Fraudulent Bankers' Speculation Society? What would be the public's reaction if the controlling class in the European institutions all believed in Ju-Ju?

It is obvious that the secret and secretive control of the budget by any one tiny group raises questions of motive and propriety. When they close the doors the public would immediately presume that they are making some underhand contributions of tax money to the furtherance of Ju-Ju. No moral person would allow himself to get into  such an dubious situation and be enthusiastic to keep the ban on outsiders and the press. A well run parish or tennis club would ensure their meetings would always be open. Are the EU's leaders moral? They have no qualms about secret sessions on the budget. They insist on them.

The party cartel who seized control of the institutions have included those bodies which the treaties say should not be political. What should the citizen do if the public remain banned from budget meetings because they do not have a Ju-Ju membership card?

Should the citizens ask for a Ju-Ju card? Or would they ask: Is it legal? Is the Budget legal? Is the discrimination against the citizen legal? What can we do about it?

We can go to Court! But how?

The Founding Fathers, you will be happy to know, put adequate safeguards in the Treaties. If any institution feels that another is not acting democratically according to the treaty, there is a recourse. That institution can take the other to the European Court of Justice.

But what if all the main institutions are in cahoots? What if all the leaders of the main institutions are all members of Ju-Ju and they ban anyone who isn't?

Don't despair! The founding Fathers provided a powerful solution. They said that any citizen who feels that he or she is being discriminated against can go to the European Court. And it won't cost a cent more. If the European institutions bring in legislation -- such as the Budget -- and the citizen feels it is unjust or discriminatory, then he can go to any local court or tribunal in the land and have redress.

If it is a matter of paying taxes and the citizen refuses to pay European taxes, then the citizen can explain to the judge that the European tax is unjust because it was decided in secret without democratic control. As part of the case the judge is then allowed and encouraged to ask for an opinion of the European Court of Justice, to see whether it is so and whether it is legal. The citizen should cite article 267 of the Lisbon Treaty which reproduces the article from earlier treaties.

A few hundred million citizens can do this. So can all companies, trade unions and consumer groups of civil society.

Article 267 states:

The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning:
(a) the interpretation of the Treaties;
(b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union;
Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgement, request the Court to give a ruling thereon.

The service of the European Court is open. If not today, then maybe tomorrow an individual or an association will bring a case complaining that raising taxes without the knowledge of citizens and in secret meetings is illegal.

The judges would be sure to check Article 15 of the Lisbon Treaty. It was added by civil society group specifically because of M. de Gaulle's bad habits. It states:

In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible.

The next paragraph is especially relevant:

The European Parliament shall meet in public, as shall the Council when considering and voting on a draft legislative act.

There are few legislative acts as important as the Budget.

If the Court agreed that

   
• consultation with citizens is pre-requisite for any legislation to pass,
   
• a minority cannot oppress the majority,
   
• all legislation must be conducted in the open from the first consideration to the final vote,
   
• the press must be allowed access to report any political chicanery,

then the law in question could be annulled on any one of these grounds. The whole of the EU budget and all its programmes would be thrown into confusion until it could be sorted out.

That recourse to justice can happen at any time, by any citizen or association. For the cartel it is like a time bomb that will one day explode against them.

It would be far better for the Parliament and the Council to begin to act like democratic institutions TODAY.

14. European Council publishes orders for public to STAY OUT!

In December — when no one was looking — Member States governments adopted their Rules of Procedure for the new Lisbon Democracy. You missed it? No wonder. This ‘agreement’ was definitely not agreed in public, for the public by the public in a public meeting place in Brussels.

It was all done more or less by post. (Written procedure). It says

Done at Brussels, 1 December 2009.
For the European Council
The President
H. VAN ROMPUY

Done? The public certainly have been. The first of December 2009 is another black day for European democracy.

The newest institution of so-called European democracy confirms that the EUROPEAN COUNCIL wants to be SECRET. It is a way to get rid of the pesky press. The politicians can control the news-hounds like Pavlov’s dogs with ‘off the record‘ news feeds. That makes managed “democracy” so much easier.

Article 4 inset 3 says Meetings of the European Council shall not be public. (OJ 2.12.2009, L 315/51)

It does not say; Occasionally tired and delicate heads of government, after a long trip to Brussels, need some privacy. Nor does it say: As a democratic institution we will eventually open our doors to the public and the press as the Founding Fathers said all such European institutions should be.

It says that the rules preclude any of the Public EVER getting in.

This is the latest sad retreat from the Community democratic system to irresponsible intergovernmentalism. It is the last fling of effete Gaullism. Politicians like making their deals in the dark, away from public light. The ruling political cartel does not want any one to meddle if such a democratic institution or individual wants to argue with secret intergovernmental deals.

The new Rules say:

Without prejudice to the provisions on public access to documents, the deliberations of the European Council shall be covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, except insofar as the European Council decides otherwise.

And of course they won’t. It will take all 27 to say Yes. They will flip coins to take turns for each one to say No.

Europe’s new democracy — after ten year’s of the public’s resistance — will be like getting sardines, squeezed together in the dark, out of their can. It will require a legal can-opener.
The European Council may authorise the production for use in legal proceedings of a copy of or an extract from European Council documents which have not already been released to the public in accordance with Article 10.

Why should the Council be the only institution that remains an absolute disgrace to what should be the greatest democratic organisation in the world — the grouping of 27 democracies of Europe?

The European Parliament has open debates. It is a model for the world.

Despite some hesitations at the start (that is in the 1950s) the Consultative Committees — the nascent debating chamber for organised civil society — are open to the public.

The Economic and Social Committee is open.

The Committee of Regions is open.

The Commission is one of the most open institutions in the world.

The Court of Justice is open.

…. And the Council of Ministers ??? Hardly.

Now the European Council, too! SECRET!

While the European Council was not a real, legal institution, that is was not really an institution in the treaties, it could get away with the political equivalent of murder. It is still murdering democracy.

We now have the extraordinary sight of the President of the European Parliament attending the European Council — and he is made mute by the Council’s lack of democracy. The President of the European Parliament usually does things openly and before the cameras and a forest of microphones. When he addresses the European Council, no cameras are allowed. Radio journalists and their mikes are chased out. The public is excluded. A text may be produced. But the public and the press have no idea how the ‘lords and masters‘ of the European Council react or respond to the suggestions, criticisms and commentaries about their actions from the representative of Parliament.

In short the new rules have gagged Parliament.

General de Gaulle — who wanted to destroy European democracy — would be well pleased. His hand has made Parliament behave like a naughty schoolboy going to see the headmaster. De Gaulle thought that having to speak in a democratic debate in public was demeaning and undignified. He did not like giving reasons for his actions. He did not even tell his ministers what French policy was until he announced it. As for Europe, he preferred the ‘empty chair‘ ; he was not very much in favour of having any minister go there unless it was to collect money for wine lakes and beef mountains. Nor did he like a display of his henchmen arm-twisting and bullying the smaller States of Europe. The blood on the carpet might upset little old ladies. De Gaulle insisted that the Council should firmly shut its doors to the public.

All democratic chambers should be open to the public and the press, unless the public can be convinced there is a valid reason why they should not be. That is a basic principle of democracy. From the time when Celtic tribes assembled to debate matters in public, it has been so for a few thousand years.

And don’t give me that ‘Oh, if the Council is open to the public, they will talk in the corridors.‘ Parliamentarians talk in the corridors. But they have a debate in public.

Why? So that there will be a public record of what they say, how they say it, and why they are moved to say it. Only when the public — let us call them voters or their democratic masters — can have this evidence of their motivation, reasoning and quest for European justice, can they judge them. And fire them, if necessary. Maybe even congratulate them on occasion.

That is democracy. It is quite different from Gaullist autocracy. Had we forgotten? Schuman defined democracy as being ‘At the service of the people and acting in agreement with the people‘. Lincoln said it was ‘government of the people, by the people and for the people.‘ The new Lisbon system is now defined as being SECRETLY for the secretive politicians, by the secretive politicians and for the secretive politicians; people stay OUT, referendums and public opinion are of no consequence to us. Please go away and be ruled in silence.

If you don’t agree with me, please leave a comment telling me where and when the public had a democratic debate and agreed that the Council and now the European Council should be SECRET.

At the moment I feel quite free to speak out so boldly. At the Council offices, no one will be listening or reading this commentary . They’re in the middle of a cat-and-dog fight about who is in charge. Is it the Spanish national presidency or the President of the European Council? Then there is the latest debacle. The US President does not want to attend a Summit with Europe until he knows whose hand to shake first. In the Council the European cartel are still arguing about who is responsible for making Europeans look like a bunch of fools, and not only to the Americans over the EU-US Summit. The undemocratic cartel running Europe has made European government look ridiculous to the wide world.

These so, so, embarrassing matters shall not be open to the public.