Budget 10: The EU Cartel's dirty Trillion-Euro Game of Hide-and-Seek with Taxpayer's money

Did you read about the passionate debate about the 2012 Budget? Did you hear about the how Parliament minutely and forensically interrogated the Commission about taxpayer's money? Did you see how the Commissioner cowered as MEPs tore into the illogicality of its proposals? Did you cheer on seeing the riveting television when Parliamentarians shredded the arguments of Council of Ministers, declaring that they could not raise a cent of YOUR tax money without proper OPEN, DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATION?

Are you now fully aware about HOW and WHY the EU leaders take European tax from your pocket and HOW MUCH it spends on your behalf and WHERE? Did you see how 27 democratic States of Europe vigorously debated their common budget in the European Union?

NEITHER DID I !!!

The MAIN Debate on the 2012 Budget was IN SECRET! AGAIN!! The doors of the room 5G3 in the Spinelli Building of the Brussels Parliament were closed on 8 November 2011. I asked for admittance showing my press credentials. I also said that I was a journalist. I was asked whether I was part of the Council delegation. I said: No. I was then asked, if I was part of the Commission delegation. I said: No. I was asked if I was with the Parliament. I said: No.

I re-affirmed that I was a journalist and wanted to report about the raising of European taxes and the spending of taxpayers' money. I said it was a matter of the highest public interest. The Guardians of the Door who had a list of those who their bosses wanted to be admitted, refused to let me enter.

The European Union is now deep in the mire of a financial and monetary crisis. Both the finances and the money lack democratic legitimacy. At the heart of these problems is the illicit take-over of what are supposed to be independent institutions by a clique of politicians. Thus an oligarchic clique in Council dictates what 500 million citizens should do and how much they should pay. They also tell them what is good for them, whether they agree or not.

Consider. Who is in charge of the independent institutions?

When asked,

• The Parliament says the meetings on raising and spending taxes should be open.
• The European Commission says such meetings should be open.
• The Consultative Committees don't reply but they have open meetings.
• The Treaties say that all meetings from the initial consideration of tax and all stages about tax legislation should be open.
• Taxpayers demand that all meetings about taxation should be open, fair and just.
• The Council refuses to have open meetings.

There is a simple remedy in all the treaties from the founding treaty of 1951 to the Lisbon Treaty. ASK THE COURT TO DECIDE WHO IS RIGHT. Any national, regional Court or local tribunal where a civil association or even any individual is in dispute over European tax can have its judge ask the European Court for a judgment on the legality of the Council's 'secret taxation' system.

The European finances and the money system are controlled undemocratically by a coalition of the three major parties. Let us call it the Cartel. There is no real democratic Government and certainly no Opposition. The institutional independence required in the treaties is being systematically suspended by the Coup Leaders. The Cartel overrides the institutions.

• The European Commission, which is supposed to be composed of totally independent personalities, is now EXCLUSIVELY composed of card-carrying members of the political parties. They are chosen in secret. No real European is allowed to put his or her name forward. No Call for Candidates is allowed to be published for the posts that are paid for by taxpayers. All 27 States act in undemocratic unison.
• The Council of Ministers, which is supposed to represent national interests in a continuous open debate is now composed of a clique of party politicians who refuse to have proper discussions in the national parliaments or allow referendums. It is very far from its original role of initiating debate in the States with all the citizens that they supposedly represent. It is now a clique designed to stifle and stop debate at home.
• The European Parliament, which is supposed to hold the Commission to task, having the power to fire the Commission for incompetence or dereliction of duty, has become the Chorus for the Commission, now the Cartel secretariat, and other stronghold of the cartel, the Council. When it agreed to the Lisbon Treaty -- without even publishing the full text -- the Parliament gave up its PRIME POWER. The Lisbon Treaty made it impossible for the Parliament to sack the Commission. The Parliament, needless to say, has NEVER had an election according to the specifications of the treaties: direct elections according to a single statute for all Member States, not 27 statutes which favour the Cartel and eliminate other voices of citizens.
• The Consultative Committees, a vital debating and legislating chamber of organized civil society has NEVER been elected on a European basis. Schuman and Reuter (who was responsible for drafting the early treaties) declared the efforts of governments to prevent these elections ILLEGAL.

Who stopped the application of supranational democracy of the treaties? Who blocked a single statute for Parliamentary elections (when the Parliament had the courage to propose it)? Who stopped the Consultative Committees having elections for European organised societies?

The politicians in the Council of Ministers and now the European Council and its unofficial super-Eurogroup.

Why are the doors closed on Budget and Tax discussions? Who shut the doors?

A year ago I wrote to the President of the European Parliament about the closed doors of the Budget meeting of October 2010. I got no reply so I asked the Ombudsman to help.

On 1 June 2011, Mr Buzek replied:

As you know, the European Parliament's policy is one of full openness and transparency in such meetings. Our own plenary sessions are public, as well as, in principle, committee meetings (exceptions to this rule are rare and must be duly motivated). Equally, the Treaty of Lisbon established the principle that Council should deliberate in public on legislative matters.

In the light of these factors, a discussion is currently on-going within the European Parliament concerning the status of conciliation meetings. However, I must draw your attention to the fact that any decision concerning public access to conciliation meetings requires an agreement of all the institutions involved, which has not been reached yet. As you will understand, it is not possible for the Parliament to impose unilaterally an 'open door' policy for such meetings. We will continue to work to find a satisfactory solution...

Comment: The fact that the doors are closed must have the agreement of all those 'democrats' who are attending and are responsible to the public. The public demand open meetings, especially on taking tax and spending tax. Do the 'democrats' lack the courage of their convictions? Who has priority -- their electors or the politician-Cartelmasters in Council? Schuman and the Founding Fathers said the doors of European institutions including the Councils should be open so that the public can control what goes on. The Parliament has had SIXTY years from its foundational session on 10 September 1952 when it first met to resolve this problem of openness. How much more time does it require? Secondly the treaties provide a simple solution. The Court of Justice is empowered to decide on the interpretation of the Treaties -- in particular whether all matters of taxation should follow the same rules on open debates about taxation as all the democracies that make up the EU. The Parliament is empowered to initiate the case.

What happens at budget meetings when the Council is not present? They SHUT THE DOORS TOO. This happened at the meeting of the Parliament leaders and the Commission on the one Trillion euro multi-annual Budget for 2013-2020. It was held in Parliament on 29 June 2011, on the sixth floor of the Spaak Building. Paul-Henri Spaak, the first president of the European Parliament would have shot up bolt upright in his grave!

The supposedly democratic institutions want one TRILLION from Taxpayers -- but they were not going to tell them why, how they would go about it or whether there was any collusion between two institutions to do a dirty deal against the citizen!

Is the Council to blame for the secret Tax and Budget meeting when it is absent? Why was the meeting of the Commission and Parliament closed to the public? It is time for the so-called Democrats to clean up their act. It is the unseen hand of the Council that shuts the door -- and pulls the strings.

On 4 July 2011, I therefore wrote again to President Buzek.

Schuman Project
www.schuman.info

Dear President Buzek,
Thank you for your reply of 1 June 2011 to my letter of November 2010 concerning the exclusion of the press and the public from the Budget Conciliation Meetings in October and later on. (Ombudsman case 661/2011/RT) You mention that the Parliament's policy 'is one of full openness and transparency in such meetings' as the Budget. I am pleased to see your re-affirmation of Parliament's responsibility towards the public -- which is written into the treaties. The idea of a Parliament holding secret sessions is a contradiction of its purpose. Any exceptions must be reasoned with irrefutable logic, be properly motivated and democratically agreed and underpinned by law and jurisprudence. There should be no hint of political expediency. The principle must be that the public is also the partner of any democratic institution.

Because of past corruption, financial misappropriations and abuse of Wine Lakes, Meat Mountains and infrastructure funding scandals, the Lisbon Treaty spelt out clearly, as you say, the 'principle that the Council should deliberate in public on legislative matters.'

However I am at a loss as to why Parliament sees any question about the necessary public presence at the conciliation meetings. Nor do I understand why public access must stop when the Council acts contrary to what Parliament is convinced is the Treaty law for Europe. Public access and democratic debate is the paramount principle, not the whims and fancies of Council. Surely Parliament is an independent institution according to the law of the treaties and has been since the first session of the assembly on 10 September 1952 -- nearly 60 years ago.

You write that 'The status of the discussion in Council is a matter for which the Council, not the Parliament, is responsible'. Surely the reverse applies equally. The Council must respect the laws of the Treaties and rules of Parliament. If as you say the Parliament is convinced of the legality of its case, it should not hesitate an instant to defend the rights of the public, especially when a meeting takes place inside a building of Parliament, where you, Mr President, and the Members are legally sovereign.

Public access to meetings considering the collection and use of the citizens’ own money should not be in dispute anywhere. It should certainly not be a matter where Council bullies Parliament or any other body. If there is any doubt about the right of the public and the press to attend a meeting about their own money inside the independent European Parliament, there is a simple remedy in all the Treaties since 1951. The Parliament can ask the Court of Justice for an opinion on the interpretation of the treaties and validity of acts under article 267 TFEU and elsewhere. Any tribunal throughout the entire EU can do the same.
I would like to know why this has not been done.

The second question relates to Budget meetings where the Council did not play any part. On 29 June 2011, I was also excluded from the Budget meeting of the Parliament and the Commission. Why? The Parliament was considering the Commission's proposals for the Trillion euro multi-annual financial framework. It is huge money from the public's pocket. All political parties were represented at the meeting and their reaction was of primary public interest and concern. Article 15 of Lisbon Treaty TFEU states that all matters concerning the consideration of budget and legislation should be open to the public. I spoke to a member of Mr Barroso's Cabinet who was also present inside the meeting but he was unable to explain to me the reason for the press exclusion from the point of view of the Commission. On his recommendation I am therefore writing to you for an explanation.

In this case, blame for the exclusion cannot be sloughed off on the Council. The Commission says it is the Parliament’s responsibility.

The treaties and the jurisprudence state clearly that openness and consultation are required for legislation. The secrecy, the hidden political reactions and the refusal to consult the public throw in doubt the legality of previous 'legislation' because it is based on unjustly excluding the public presence and refusing proper consultation of the public and taxpayers in particular. Money cannot legally be taken from a taxpayer's pocket in a manner where the taxpayer is excluded from understanding how an exclusive group who will benefit highly from his money are proposing to seize it, what their first proposals are and the reactions among them. This is especially important when it comes to European matters involving vast sums, massive planning, specifics of revenue collection and taxation and principles of budgetary operations. It is all the more illegitimate when exclusion is decided by a coalition of people all holding party membership cards. They all have similar ideological motives. Party membership represents only about 2 percent of the population. The vast majority of electors refused to vote for any of the parties in the elections. The trend of party support is also continually downwards. It is this small but strong and persistent cartel of party members who refused press and public access in the Council and the Parliament. This is unjust.

Non-party political Civil Society and Organized Civil Society has now been excluded from the institutions where they used to be active in the Commission and in the Consultative Committees (which have legal rights about legislation). Tax and budget decisions are now exclusively made by party politicians contrary to the letter and spirit of the treaties. The Commission is also exclusively occupied by politically active national politicians whereas the original treaties say they should be independent, not maintain their occupation, paid or not, nor take instructions from any organisation or government. The result is that legislation lacks democratic legitimacy.

I am therefore asking you to also reply to the following:
1. The EP should make access for the public and the press permanently available via a physical presence inside the committee room and also for others via the internet and radio and television links.
2. It should ask the Court of Justice to review the legality of the previous acts where the budget discussions were held in secret, contrary to public interest and the Lisbon Treaty and other treaties. Public consultation, debate and democratic openness are legal requirements. The longer it is before this review is made, the more serious the outcome could be. A local or national court or tribunal in the EU will eventually ask according to article 267 for a European Court judgement, opinion or ruling determining the legitimacy of all such alleged legislation including the budgets under the Lisbon Treaty. The most chaotic outcome should be avoided.
3. The EP should, where possible, hold these same Budget meetings again in public so that they can be considered legal and so the public can be aware of the issues and discussions involved in the Budget and expenditures. The public needs to have an opportunity to object to any secret deals among party members and communicate their own opinions to their representatives. After all it is the public’s money that is being discussed. It is not the private funds of the political parties.
4. The Commission, Council and Parliament should review and propose how organized civil society in a properly elected Economic and Social Committee and other such consultative committees with a legal mandate can contribute to the budget proposals. The Founding Fathers intended and the treaties allow that the Consultative Committees should be elected among all registered European associations – as is presently the case in the Council of Europe. Direct elections for the European Parliament under a single mandate were also foreseen and legitimized in the treaties of Paris, 1951 and Rome, 1957 but this took decades to be even partially realized.

Mr President, I look forward to receiving your reply.

Many thanks for your help.

Yours etc,

Not having received a reply in the subsequent months, I have now written again asking for a reply.

Euro7: Who will stop euro crooks mortgaging the future? Not their buddies and comrades!

Parliamentarians in the UK are discussing a referendum -- promised by all three major parties. When the parties came to power, what happened? No referendum. It is still refused. The referendum would ask the public about the desire of some UK citizens to leave the EU or modify its membership. Why do so many Britons want to leave? Corruption of politics by what they see as an opaque, undemocratic cartel of power in Brussels. The parties at home who refuse their pledges also look like they have the same disease -- dishonesty.

The euro is just one example. Politicians, meeting in secret, want to mortgage future generations so grandchildren will have to pay off TRILLIONS of debt. These secret meetings in the eurogroup and in the so-called European Council of the euro States want to illegally use the Community framework to deal with amounts of money multiple times the entire EU budget.

Consider. The entire multi-annual budget for the whole EU for seven years from 2013 to 2020 amounts to ONE trillion euros. The secret politicians' cabal wants to use the EU framework to raise funds on the markets who are betting against them. They want many times the amount of that entire EU budget, two, three maybe more trillions. The comparatively tiny EU budget is not yet decided. Worse it is not subject to proper democratic control. Journalists and the public are refused entry to the deliberations of so-called democratic institutions on that EU budget.

The journalists and the public are even more restricted from Eurogroup meetings. They are given a briefing afterwards, if they are lucky, usually in the middle of the night. The trouble is the chairman of the eurogroup has said several times that he has to lie to journalists, when he is dealing merely with the timing of possible meetings on the euro. If he admits he is dishonest outside the meetings about their calendar, how can journalists and the public know that anything politicians say is going on inside the meetings is not also a lie?

A currency is based on confidence. Schuman who was faced with many currency problems, not only devaluations of the French Franc but secrets about the Pound Sterling and the Deutschmark and about launching the free gold market. He had to keep secrets, legitimately. He was surrounded by would-be saboteurs. Then he announced publicly to everyone the creation of the European Community. The Schuman Proposal gave birth to the European currency as a likely product.

He had a horror of lies. He was asked at the end of his career: 'Do politicians have the right to lie?' He said: 'You must not lie, not even in politics.' (Rochefort, p22).

It was part of his success as a Minister of Finance and Prime Minister. However, he added: 'People say that I am honest. Being honest, for a minister of finance, is not sufficient.'

Today Schuman's Europe has meetings called 'Councils of Ministers' with heads of State and Government. Are they European Councils? How can they be with only 17 of 27 Member States present? Are they just ministers holding a Council of Ministers or are they rather more as presidents and prime ministers? They are masquerading as EU official meetings. Is that honest? These are not official meetings of the EU under the Lisbon Treaty or any other treaty.

The so-called European Summits of these government leaders dealing with the euro have also nothing to do with official meetings of the treaties. It is a multinational conference meeting INFORMALLY in the EU offices. The Council of Ministers must have representatives of 27 sovereign States.

The politicians even try to make out it is part of the legal frame by fraudulently using Council letterhead paper. Supranational democracy has five key institutions. Any attempt to create counterfeit institutions is a sure sign both of fraud outside and mischief inside.

You can see why the democrats including a large number of Britons are fed up and some are enraged at the unethical management of mega money in the EU. If any politician thinks that by amassing a few more trillions in the betting game against the markets, he will convince anyone that no fraud is involved, he is gambling with public money in the wrong game at the wrong moment. And without the public's assent.

It is high time to come clean and put in REAL democratic reform.

Is it possible for government leaders to clean out corruption in government accounts, even throw out member States in the euro for fraudulent practice? The European cabal in the European Council says NO. No Member State can leave the euro, they say!

It is extraordinary that all the clever lawyers in Brussels say that it is impossible for EU delinquent countries to leave the euro zone. They have come up in the past with some pretty contorted interpretations of law to suit their political masters. Leaving the EU is possible but leaving the euro is impossible?? even for mega fraud involving fixing national and European statistics, corruption and thereby secretly indebting the whole Union? This view encourages moral hazard for the future, that is corruption.

Think. The clever lawyer-politicians could use the same 'exit clause' to clean up the game. They won't. If a tennis club has admitted a bunch of crooks who are taking all the resources and hogging the finances, it has two alternatives. One it can ask the crooked partners to leave. If they refuse then the honest members can all leave and reshape a new Community based on law, moral and ethical principles that have to be observed by all.

The European Council will not do this because there is a political clique that takes mega fraud– that is fraud at the government level with public money — as fundamental to the rules of their club. Example: All governments want to go on a spending spree BEFORE elections — not with party money but with State money, that is, taxpayers’ money. Is this a politicians’ perk or is it plain fraud, corruption and bribery? Companies would be taken to court for this. What sanction have the public against crooks in government who see public money as pocket money to get votes?

Some States have clean booking. The Community must learn that what applies to the honest nation States also applies to a Community of sovereign, democratic States, their governments and their peoples. We are now in clean up time for Europe.

EuroStat, the EU's statistical organ, long warned about fraudulent practice. Politicians had many such reports before, dating from when Commission President Roy Jenkins warned that Greece had serious problems even before it elbowed ahead of other candidate States to enter the Communities in 1981. It had buddy-buddy power not ethical purity. Inaction before obvious moral hazard became ingrained in the Council of Ministers with their buddy-buddy and comrade-comrade culture.

The so-called reforms of finances and debt with the six pack still suffer from the main defect: they leave all the levers of abuse in the hands of the perpetrators of excess debt and fraudulent accounts and statistics — the political clique or cartel. Only card-carrying members of the main political parties — the cartel — are power brokers. The reaction is similar to what commercial cartels normally do — ask for more power to regulate themselves, while refusing independent control to the citizens’ groups over the accounts.

At present the EU is not only NOT dealing fully with correcting the abuses of politicians by instituting proper measures of control of finance through elections of organised civil society through the Consultative Committees, it is refusing the most obvious ways to stem massive and continuous mega-fraud on VAT for example. Hundreds of billions are involved in ‘carousel fraud’. It is refusing to stem energy blackmail where oil / gas rises from 9 dollars /barrel in 1999 to 146 dollars in less than a decade. That price hike is typical action of a cartel too, OPEC and friends. The EU needs to develop proper energy INDEPENDENCE.

The life of the Community is at stake. The Warning about the jihadi attempt to DESTROY Western capitalism was made on 9/11 and recorded in 2001 at the European Commission and re-published as http://www.schuman.info/energypol.htm .

The politicians have had a decade to do some REAL reform. They have worsened the problem. They have had thirty years since Greece joined and it and others began to misspend Community money. Instead of insisting on reforms in the 1980s they gave more public money. If Greece is serious about reform it should look at the examples of Slovakia and Latvia. They work.

If the politicians are serious they should start the reforms by empowering independent, non-party organised civil society to act as their supervisors for their moral and ethical conduct, not party buddies in the European Parliament and the Commission where non-party, independent people are now banned.

A party oligarchy controlling all the institutions will expose Europeans to never having a referendum again. They may have no say at all as the reckless politicians fritter away money they do not have in a bottomless blackhole of debt.

Future generations will be the slaves of the debt masters.

Euro6: Greatest crisis in EU history? I don't think so! Greatest BUNGLE perhaps!

'We are facing the the greatest challenge that I believe our Union has ever faced in its history.' That was what the President of the European Commission told the European Parliament in what he called the State of the Union message.

Is it true? I don't think so, unless Mr Barroso is hiding some utterly disastrous facts from everyone. He was not talking about the destruction of the Community system. The challenge did not involve the elimination of supranational democracy.

It only involved, at worst, the postponement of plans for a single currency called the euro. The euro plans are not yet tossed into the bin. It is yet to be seen whether Statesmen can reform the present euro system on a more rational and moral basis, rather than cover up of what some politicians call 'skyrocketing debts and falsified statistics'.

The destruction of plans for a European currency has already happened once before. It was very painful. But Europe survived it. Trillions have already been lost because of political duplicity.

Imagine! Now politicians want to borrow a few more trillion. Have they learned their lesson? Have they ensured that 'skyrocketing debts and falsified statistics' have been stopped by democratic supranational control? Or do they want more secret 'governance'?

The earlier debacle involved:

• turning huge European trade surpluses into mammoth debts,
• the loss of multiple trillions of euros or dollars,
• major upheaval to the European commerce and the world economy and
• the loss of European leadership in the world emphasizing moral, European values,
• an imposed delay of more than a decade in re-starting the effort for a single currency
• destruction of major industries, galloping inflation, massive unemployment. Industries stopped production because of energy shortages. Motorways were empty of traffic because of fuel legislation. Rampant inflation destroyed capital and pensions. The West contemplated going to war against the perpetrators.

Are we facing a greater challenge today? I don't think so.

Let's be clear. If the currency fails, a better one can be built. It is not a case of 'It's the currency, stupid'. It is more the case of 'It's a stupid currency'. Politicians should be saying: 'Sorry we got it wrong, folks. We messed up. We did not follow the Community rules.' Honesty must replace duplicity.

The euro is not solidly built on democratic supranational principles. It is not worthy of 27 countries which are supposed to shine as democratic examples to the world.

'Europe must be built on a democratic foundation,' Robert Schuman said. That goes also for the currency. (Pour l'Europe, p145).

What was the greatest challenge the European Community and the later European Union? I assume Mr Barroso includes the Community in his history, as it is the origin of modern Europe, the unification of the Continent. It is the origin of the European Commission for which he stands as the latest president.

WHY did not the President's advisers remind him of the FACTS about Community history? Were they not concerned that such a statement makes the President of the European Commission look ignorant or deceitful?

In its history Europe has faced THREE past challenges, far greater than anything we face today. The Euro crisis is far from being the most severe. Even with a multi-trillion euro debt overhang, it does not stack up to Europe's biggest problems that leaders have had to face in the past. In most of them they succeeded in finding the right solution of solidarity and moral justice. In the last one in the 1970s and 1980s they were less successful and the problems are now coming back to haunt us. Serious thought, cooperative action and solidarity of all the people is required.

First, what were Europe's most serious crises, the Continent's most severe postwar challenges? Unless we are aware of them, Europeans are less likely to solve the present crisis. They are more likely to go through the same problems again in a more painful form.

The first major challenge to a democratic Europe was perhaps its most subtle and underhand one. The Eden Plan was introduced in September 1952 soon after the first Community, the European Coal and Steel Community, was under way. The British wanted to undermine the supranational principle which involves INDEPENDENT democratic institutions. They suggested that instead of the Community being independent with its own FIVE independent democratic institutions, the Coal and Steel Community should be subject to the political control of the Committee of Ministers.

What Committee of Ministers? This was and is the body that is part of the Council of Europe. In those days it was often called the European Union and was meant to be the main democratic framework for the new Europe. It does so by ensuring Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of all individual and is able to criticize European States for not adhering to democratic principles.

If the whole apparatus of Europe were controlled by the politics of a Committee of Ministers -- that met behind closed doors -- then it would become a Europe of ministerial apparatchiks, an oligarchy of politicians. It would have been a similar system to that behind the Iron Curtain. We can be thankful that Robert Schuman, Paul-Henri Spaak recently elected as President of Europe's supranational Assembly of the Community and Jean Monnet, together with a host of other European democrats refused to let that corrupt idea happen.

What would have been the consequences? Nothing short of dismantling the supranational idea of democracy and replacing it with political squabbles. The Committee of Ministers would issue its own politically compromised deals -- totally lacking in any democratic support or legitimacy.

Instead of the longest period of peace and prosperity in Europe's 2000 plus years of existence, Europe would have soon degenerated into conflict and probably war.

If the British plan had succeeded Europe would have had no peace and its hopes for peace might have been dismantled. We would not be experiencing the unity of two halves of Europe, the western and the Communist-controlled systems. German nationalists would have been plotting the Kremlin to try to unify their country. We would probably be at war or recovering from another destructive, ruinous war, probably a world war!

That is why this first crisis was far more important than the present currency crisis. PEACE is far more important than the currency. Peace is far more important than immediate prosperity and gratification of consumer desires. Without peace it is difficult even to discuss a common currency.

When the democrats stood firm, the five key institutions of the European Community were able to be built. They are by no means fully developed today. They are still exhibiting infantile and immature tantrums. However, this first crisis was the most serious because without a solid foundation of those institutions, democracy would have disappeared from some of Europe's countries and some under dictatorship such as Spain, Portugal and Greece would never emerged so soon from authoritarian regimes. Britain did not immediately join the first Community but became an Associate Member in its first years.

The SECOND crisis of Europe was the attempt by France's General de Gaulle to take over the Community institutions by stealth and make them become the instrument of his undemocratic power. His intentions were published later by his spokesman, Alain Peyrefitte. His aim was ‘to suffocate supranationality.’ He wanted to boycott all Community collaboration as far as possible and to ‘deactivate the treaties of Rome’ and specifically to ‘chloroform Euratom’. (Peyrefitte: C’était de Gaulle, vol 1 pp66ff).

De Gaulle revealed his hand in two open strategies, the Fouchet Plan to turn the European Commission into a Secretariat for which the French would assume political primacy. When this did not succeed the second plan was the Empty Chair Strategy when French ministers refused to participate in European decision-making. De Gaulle hoped this would bulldozer Community Europe into the ground and he would remain in the driver's seat. It did not work either. French ministers came sheepishly to the table some six months later after the more democratic States had given the would-be bully the face-saving measure of the so-called Luxembourg compromise. The lesson was that democratic European law prevails not arm-twisting in secretive ministerial councils.

The Community cannot allow one strong nation that thinks it is superior to dictate the policy for all the others. That is the lesson Europeans should have learnt from their history. The States are equal in a Community Europe. (We do not have a hundred or more Germans or French in the Council of Ministers compared to one Maltese or one Luxembourger.)

The next, the THIRD crisis should be a burning lesson for all politicians. Europe partly succeeded and partly failed. Europe's economy was cut to ribbons. Europe should be aware of those failures because they lie at the core problem of the present currency crisis. This third crisis was an external one. It attacked two aspects of the Community: solidarity and its resistance to blackmail threats. It also destroyed the basis for a European Currency. It attacked at an area where the Community had not developed a competence -- its Achilles' heel: ENERGY. It had disastrous consequences on the FIRST attempt at a European currency, the Europa.

Yes the first attempt at European currency were set back decades because of this crisis. If the present crisis means that the currency will have to be started again from scratch, it is not the worst thing in the world The Community system will not crumble. It has already happened once before. Europe survived.

Heads of State and Government decided in 1969 on Economic and Monetary Union. The Council of Ministers defined a programme of structural reform, indicators and economic guideposts on 27 January 1970. The Monetary Committee had been set up in 1958 under article 105 of the EEC Treaty (in conjunction with articles of the Euratom and Coal and Steel Community treaties). With the adhesion of UK, Ireland and Denmark, the Commission and the Council reconfirmed 1980 as a goal for introducing a single currency, the Europa. However USA devalued by 10 percent in February 1973 after having closed gold sales earlier. Worse was to come.

First the context. Western Europe should have been the centre of gravity for world monetary affairs. The Communities' trade with the world was three times bigger than the USA. Europe had built up huge surpluses. The Communities represented 37.2 percent of wold exports and 35.6 percent of imports. America had 11.9 percent exports and took in 12.9 percent of imports.

They were hit nearly lethally by the Oil Weapon. Under de Gaulle, France had recklessly discarded the idea that the Community must become energy-independent to avoid energy blackmail. Then Arab exporters struck. In conjunction with other oil producers like Iran, they quadrupled the oil price. Israel-friendly countries were most heavily targetted. A total embargo was applied. Europe and its democracies were to be taught a lesson about the need to lie in foreign policy.

Instead of a further surplus, 1974 brought a triple-size deficit. Developing countries were hit by a bill greater than all the aid the received from OECD countries. They got little help from the mega-rich oil cartel that had pillaged the world. Instead Africa descended into worse problems of debts, corruption, wars and the murder of myriads. Terrorism proliferated. Inflation raged worldwide.

This hammer blow had many consequences. One of these was the abandonment of the plan for a single currency by 1980. Arab militants and jihadis in OPEC found that blackmail worked against Europeans! In 1979 the OPEC cartel again quadrupled oil prices. They got Europe to sign up to the 1980 Venice Declaration.

Europe had to wait twenty years before it got to the stage where a single currency could be substituted to support what is today the world's greatest economic and commercial power.

The Treaties created supranational institutions. That does not mean international. It does not mean that the European Commission should be composed of NATIONAL representatives. The early treaties forbade that. It means the Commissioners should be fully competent with (1) expertise in relevant European affairs and (2) proven independence of thought and action.

That means according to the original treaties that they should have no further links with political parties or other such lobby groups, national governments, industries, finance house, trades unions, consumer activists or any body in sectors where they will legislate. All European institutions should be democratic. All should be independently democratic. Only that way will the contagion of corruption be stopped.

Party membership has been the common thread in the present financial scandals that involves taxpayers' money issued and spent without proper control, skyrocketing debts and falsified statistics. Party politicians have been the ones that have continuously tried to block the free and open elections of the Parliament across the entirety of the EU area.

They have blocked the Europe-wide elections of Europe's organised civil society in the Consultative Committee of the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of Regions and the Scientific and Technical Committee. These Committees, if independent of national governments and party politics, would be the principal vehicles, outside the Court of Justice, for seeing that fraud did not take place with European budgets and national accounts.

The Commission cannot be the guarantor of fairness if it is composed of people tied by loyalty to Nation States and political parties. It will not work if the Commissioners are constantly taking instructions from political parties and Member State governments, the principal culprits in the euro crisis. The Commission, under the Lisbon Treaty is no longer accountable to the European Parliament. The Lisbon Treaty annulled Parliament's vital and primary powers to be able to sack the European Commission.

When a politician says that this is the greatest crisis in history, democrats should beware! That generally means that the political class is going to try ot pull a fast one! They should be warned that democrats, in the spirit of Robert Schuman and Paul-Henri Spaak, need to rise and denounce acts to take further money from public coffers, to mortgage the future, to make children and children's children pay for their folly and corruption.

Why do politicians try to deny the THREE major crisis involving far bigger challenges that what we have today? War, political oligarchy, energy blackmail are far more serious. Does it indicate that they do not want to enter into a democratic dialogue with the citizens. Don't they wish to debate with democrats? Do they want to adopt scare tactics to introduce UNDEMOCRATIC methods? When did anyone hear a Commissioner explain how the supranational system works and how it stopped wars in Europe?

Public apathy and ignorance will lead to ambitious and unscrupulous people trying the same dirty tricks again. Vigilance is eternally needed to protect freedoms.

Imagine, if in the past Europe had not faced up to its greatest challenges. Consider what dangers Europe would have faced.

Imagine, secret committees of 'democratic' ministers making deals about TRILLIONS of euros, without any democratic supervision! Does that remind you of anything today? Imagine politicians meeting in secret trying to cover up each other's skyrocketing debts and falsified statistics. Imagine, instead of an independent Commission, it would be entirely composed of political NATIONAL nominees from each of the Member States. Does that ring a bell? Imagine if possible that this change in the fundamental structure of Europe had been done without any democrat able to object, in the darkened corridors of the European Council. (Such a change is strictly forbidden in the treaties).

The Commission is supposedly the 'guarantor of fairness', yet its members are best described as a political cartel. They are chosen in the most discriminatory way possible by excluding every citizen who is not a paid-up member of the political clique. Imagine how 'fair' Commissioners could be selected not from Europe's best qualified people for the job but be only party nominees and sometimes the throw-outs of the political parties!

Imagine. Does that remind you of any dangers we face today?

Eretz2: How to tell an obvious fraud -- Call a "nation" PALESTINE!

Calling for the creation of a State of Palestine in 2011 is an obvious incitement to political FRAUD. It has all the hallmarks of what Robert Schuman warned democrats would lead to a disaster. 'Nothing is easier for political counterfeiters to exploit good principles for an illusion, and nothing is more disastrous than good principles that are badly applied.' In that he was agreeing with two French philosophers, Bergson and Maritain.

In 1948 the government of the Holy Land changed its name from 'Palestine' to Israel. Previously it was the Jews who mainly bore the name Palestinians. The Arab population preferred to call themselves simply as Arabs, or Bedouins but more often villagers of a certain place. Nationalism was not a factor.

After World War One, the lack of any strong national identity presented western nations with a problem. When the victorious Allied powers divided up the Ottoman empire and freed the peoples from the yoke of control from Istanbul, they had to carve the borders according to lines on a map, not natural or ethnic boundaries. Ancient Persia had also lost its geographical identity. The other nations had had their boundaries completely changed by the invasion of the Huns, Mongols and Arabs. Massive migrations of populations took place in the first millennium.

The only indigenous people who were sure about boundaries were the Jews. Western people educated in history were also familiar with the boundaries of ancient Israel.

Some of those living in Palestine called themselves southern Syrians. Then there was a large influx of Arabs in the nineteenth century from neighbouring countries who wanted to benefit from the economic revival under the Jews. Many accounts speak of how barren and bare the land was before the immigration of educated Jews.

In this post-Ottoman period after WW1, when the world powers agreed legally to a Mandate to return the land to the Jews, the term Palestine was used. This was because it was the 'normal' but anti-Semitic term that Europeans had used for the land of Israel since around the time of emperor Hadrian in the second century CE. Many in the so-called 'Christian' West did not consider that the term Palestine was abusive.

It was a Latin word used of a long-extinct troublesome mini-state of the Philistines in the extended area of Gaza. The use of iron instead of bronze was known in ancient times, but the Hittites in what is now eastern Turkey were among the first to produce iron goods on an intensive scale. Iron was previously found in meteorites, the mysterious stones that fell from the heavens. They had religious significance. The Egyptian pharaoh, Tutankhamun, had a magnificent steel dagger obtained by his father from the Hittites.

Iron technology is quite different from copper or bronze. The early iron was an oddity. It was brittle and of little practical use, unless special and secret techniques were applied. It also required higher temperatures. It was later found iron ore could produce the same results if special furnaces funneling the prevailing winds could cause the charcoal to blaze extra hot. A range of other trade secrets were developed by the iron-smiths who learned how to make the metal stronger than bronze.

The Philistines in the Gazan towns seemed to have made a cartel agreement with the Hittite empire (or Hatti). That way they could deal with the Egyptians and traders to the east. While the Philistines were not particularly numerous, they were powerfully backed and the iron monopoly gave them power over the Israelites and far beyond in the Grecian islands. They were able to forbid the Israelites from even owning iron tools at the time of the Israelite judges such as Samson. With more abundant iron they could not only make swords but chariot wheels and other armoury that helped them easily to subjugate the surrounding nations.

The cartel power was however as fragile like the early, unskilled iron. The Philistines were also the weak point of this international military-industrial complex. It is there that the Samson, a Danite judge, attacked and brought the cartel-complex down.

Archaeologists have discovered that Philistine houses were often supported on central pillars. Samson destroyed the assembled Philistine leadership by demolishing the two central pillars of the crowded temple of Dagon (Judges 16). With hundreds or thousands of the leaders killed, Philistine power collapsed and they were reduced and eventually exterminated by the Assyrians. The Hittite Empire which also had a highly central administrative structure was invaded and collapsed around this time. The surrounding nations that had suffered cruelly under this oppression made sure that the Philistines disappeared from existence.

The Romans applied the term Philistia or Palestine to the land of the vanquished Jews because of the enormous efforts the Roman Empire had had to destroy Jewish freedom of thought under Vespasian, Titus 67-73 and Hadrian 132-4 CE. The Roman name Palestina implied that it was the land of a totally extinct empire. It had been dead a thousand years. It could be interpreted to mean Dead-as-a-Dodo land.

The Roman enemy name, Palestina, applied only to the land. Nearly all Jews were cleared out. The land reverted to the name of the state of the Philistines that had existed a thousand years before the Roman-Jewish Wars. The state and all its people, the Palestinians or Philistines, were long extinct. Nobody in Roman times called themselves Palestinians even though the land was called Palestina. It was just a bad, anti-Semitic joke. The people called themselves Syrians the name of the Roman province. Some of the Jews who managed to live there were also called Syrians. There are gravestones of 'Syrians' around the Roman Empire, some witness to the fact that some of the 'Syrians' were Jews.

The use of the term Palestine for the Mandate of the League of Nations was bizarre and insensitive. Yet that was how the League and the United Nations created an international legal system to return the land of Israel to the Jews. Palestine was the name of an extinct race, dead for 2800 years. Geographically it defined what must be returned to the Jews, not "Palestinians".

If there were no Palestinians in Roman times how can there be ethnic Palestinians today? Did the people who were dead for the best part of a millennium, spring up and beget children? 

If nowadays people call themselves Palestinians it shows (1) they are ignorant of history (2) they are a complete fraud because the Palestinians or Philistines were extinct in 800 BCE; (3) they are anti-Semites because the name of Palestine since Roman times is anti-Semitic abuse. We can add a fourth conclusion: They think that the rest of the world are as ignorant and fraudulent as they are.

Anyone who claims a Palestinian State is an utter fraud and anyone who says he sincerely supports them is foolish. The Europeans set on this self-delusion when after the massive deployment of the Oil Weapon it agreed to the Venice Declaration of 1980. Oil prices in the 1970s were quadrupled and quadrupled again by the oil cartel. A total embargo of oil was targeted on European States who refused to trade the truth for lies under these blackmail conditions. The Europeans agreed to pay for the 'Palestinians'. They began to pay, and pay, and pay. Now European taxpayers are paying for more than half of the cost of all Arab Palestinian refugees, their children and their children's children. All Jewish Palestinian refugees arising from the illegal invasion by Syrian, Egyptians, Jordanian and other foreign armies that were registered under UNRWA have been re-settled more than sixty years ago. The displaced Arab Palestinians were refused a proper home in Arab countries.

Consider an equivalent potential fraud case. The Celtic Britons have been in the British Isles about three thousand years. When the Romans left, some Anglo-Saxon tribes were originally invited to support the Britons in the fifth century. They called the native Celtic Britons the Welsh. What does Welsh mean in Anglo-Saxon? It means Foreigner!

Now consider someone who arrived in the last few years and says I am owner of the British Isles and I can prove it. I am of a tribe which calls itself, Foreigner! That is a double fraud, the use of a name initiated by a later arrival and the name itself obviously fraudulent for an indigenous people.

It is obviously a fraud to claim to come from an extinct nation. Anyone who calls himself Palestinian is a fraud who does not know where the name came from -- the Romans.

If a group, a would-be nation, does not have a history, then it is not a nation. It does not deserve to be considered a nation. It is merely a group of peoples, some who have lived there plus many who arrived only a year or two before 1948.

If this type of fraud becomes a common place other nations had better watch out. Turkey for example. Maybe some group will claim they are descendants of the Hittites, another empire that disappeared from history. No Hittite appears to have been around for more or less the same period. There is no genealogical connection. No trace of continuity. No trace of the blood-lines. How would Turkey react if some Arab migrants now said they were ancient Hittites and claimed all of eastern Turkey? What if they bought favours with oil largesse and blackmail and took the case to the United Nations? Would the other nations in the United General Assembly know or care that the Hittites, and their empire disappeared 3000 years ago?

The reason the nations of the world decided that 'Palestine' should be returned to the Jews was simple. Jews had continuously prayed that they would return to the land during the two thousand years of exile. They mourn the loss of the Temple many times during each year. They remembered the loss of Jerusalem and Israel for more years than most of the States of the world have existed. 

Those who managed to move to their ancestral land despite massive persecution tended the graves of their patriarchs, there. Joseph's and Joshua's tombs were tended at Shechem. Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and Israel and other patriarchs were honoured near Hebron, and Rachel's near Bethlehem. They kept up the rituals for celebrating their forefathers that had with extreme difficulty been handed down over centuries by courageous Jews who returned. The presence and the claim for the land of Israel has been continuous for two thousand years.

King David is also commemorated in Hebron as he is in the city of David, Jerusalem. Under David the cartel was broken and iron was produced in abundance, 1Chron 22. The earth of the land is full of archaeological treasures proving this Israelite connection, including seals of personalities mentioned in the Bible. The 2000-year old Dead Sea Scrolls containing parts of nearly all the books in the Hebrew Bible were found in the Judean desert, on the so-called 'West Bank'. Today some Hebrews can trace their genealogies back to the twelve tribes of Israel. It is an obligation and condition for priests, Levites and Israelites when they participate in some the synagogue rituals of the community worldwide.

There were no finds of Philistines dating more recently than 2800 years ago! Palestinians and Philistines are extinct.

Eretz1:Democracies Beware! The Declaration of a SECOND Palestine is a Declaration of War!

If the European Union leadership supports the recognition of a new State called Palestine, it will be co-responsible for further conflict and war. The area has already seen too much death and destruction, hate and ignorance.

The Government of Palestine already exists. Its name is now Israel. Making a SECOND Palestine is a recipe for disaster. It will bring rivalry, conflict and a war of legitimacy. Encouraging this folly is encouraging a bloody catastrophe!

If European or other leaders recognize a SECOND Palestine, based on Saudi-style Sharia law and excluding Jews, Christians, Baha'is and other religions, it will initiate an endless conflict. It could well end in embroiling the EU and North America in a new Middle Eastern war. Ignorance is no excuse. Two Palestines cannot claim the same land. One is legitimate and the other is an outright fraud. One is tolerant, the other praises its martyrs or suicide bombers.

Which Palestine is the real one? Like the two women who came to King Solomon for judgement, only one can be the real mother of the baby that they disputed, 1Kings 3:16. Is it the one whose charter would eliminate all Jews and Christians?

Look at this document.




Note the letterhead: GOVERNMENT OF PALESTINE ! Note the city : JERUSALEM.

Before the State of Israel was proclaimed in 1948, a Government of Palestine existed with its capital at Jerusalem. This is a British Mandate official document. Note the British seal. The Mandate of Palestine was set up by international law to return the government of the Land of Israel to the people of Israel, who had been scattered, persecuted, tortured and terrorized for around 70 generations.

The text reads:

Dear Mr Erlanger,
This is to introduce Mr Josef Pollak a young Palestinian Singer who is to visit Paris.

It is signed by an official called Salomon.

Mr Josef Pollak is Jewish and a Palestinian. At this time everyone in Paris and in Europe understood the term Palestinian to mean Jewish citizen under the Mandate living in the former Land of Israel.

What does PALESTINE mean? It is a Roman term. It is the Roman way of pronouncing Philistine. It was applied after the Roman Empire had wiped out the last effort at Jewish independence in the second century. It is anti-Semitic abuse. It was used to show that the land was cleared of Jews. Israel or Judah became Judenrein, (to use Hitler's term). That is Jews were for a time cleared out and banned from entering the own home territory. However over the succeeding centuries, the Jews re-entered and always maintained a presence there, not only in Judea and Samaria but also Gaza, the home of some Jewish sages.

Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople, nowadays called Istanbul. The Roman Empire finally fell when its capital at Constantinople was taken by the Ottoman Turks in 1453. In Europe people still used the term Palestine. It is found on old maps and those in many Bibles. It is not a Biblical name. The Christian 'New Testament' uses the term Land of Israel, even when the Romans were in control with the Herodian dynasty. (See Matthew chapter 2 v21).

Who were the Philistines, the Palestinians?

They were a small group of a few tens of thousands of people who occupied four or five towns in what is now the Gaza strip. They gained their power because of alliances with Egypt and some other Mediterranean powers because they sat on the gateway of the trading route between Mesopotamia, via Israel to Egypt. They also maintained a monopoly of the iron industry which was then the latest war technology. They succeeded in creating a cartel system in iron production with the Hittite empire in what is now Turkey, but this empire also disappeared from later history.

After wars with the Israelites and others, they were wiped out or absorbed three thousand years ago. The remaining Philistines living in the towns of Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath, Gaza and Ekron were killed in the time of Joash king of Israel in the eighth century (see Amos 1:8). This was accomplished efficiently by the brutal Assyrians when they invaded from the N.E.

'I will send a fire on the wall of Gaza ... and I will cut off the inhabitant from Ashdod, and him that holds the sceptre from Ashkelon, and I will turn mine hand against Ekron and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish.'

Today there are no Philistines in Ashdod or Ashkelon, nor Gaza or Gath. The Philistines no longer exist. Nor had they existed for centuries before Rome itself was founded. The Romans had to dig far back into history to find a insult big enough to abuse the Jews.

Why? Because the Jewish revolt in the first and second centuries involved the mobilisation of many of the Roman legions and a huge amount of imperial resources. That a small people could defy the Roman Empire was a huge insult to the imperial Caesars. It was not enough to slaughter them and render the remainder slaves of no worth. They chose to name the land after a small trading people of a few thousands that was a cause of irritation by their culture and war over the centuries.

The term Philistine still exists as an insult. It means uncultured person. Perhaps it derived its force from the fact that the Philistines ate dogs and pigs as archaelogy shows. The masses of drinking vessels show they were enthusiastic beer-drinkers, which was probably also a source of trouble.

In the same way the abusive term Palestine, that is, Philistia still existed as an insult until the last century. It is no surprise that Jews did not want to keep this vile name. There was never a State called Palestine nor a Government -- until the British revived the term and used it to create the Government of Palestine for the Jewish Homeland.

The British passports before the end of the Mandate are stamped
Palestinian Citizen.



That is exactly how the family of Moshe Dayan are classified. Information is written in English, Hebrew and Arabic. Both parents of Moshe Dayan, Dvora and Shmuel, and General Dayan himself were classified by the British under international law as Palestinians.


When foreign armies tried to invade the land, Dayan and other leaders resisted. (The black eye-patched Dayan lost an eye in Syria during WW2 fighting under British command.)

In 1948, the new government changed the name of their beleaguered country officially to what it had been two thousand years ago: ISRAEL.

Like the previous Government of Palestine, it comprised Jews and Arabs, Baha'is, Druzes, Muslims, Christians, atheists and agnostics and other religions in a multi-cultural Jewish State. It became the State and Government of Israel by the proclamation of a name change on 14 May 1948. The idea of tolerance comes directly from the Torah and the rest of the Bible.

You shall love your neighbour as yourself, Leviticus 19 v18.

Democracy, said Schuman, derives from exactly the same Biblical principles.

Some, perhaps most of the 'Arab' Palestinians as Ben Gurion observed were actually Jews who had for generations been in the land and had been forcefully converted to Islam. Recent DNA tests and analysis of their customs indicate it may be the majority of the residents.

Thus the Government of Palestine is now called the Government of Israel. This was the original intention of the Mandate system. After WW1, it was set in law by the Allies and agreed by nearly all the States of the world, who became members of the the League of Nations and then members of the United Nations. It is written in the UN Charter. Other States such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq which were part of the Ottoman Empire owe their legitimacy to these legal agreements as much as Israel.

The only thing that was not clear was the final designation of the name of the State. The choice of the name Israel was hardly a shock as it had been published by the British and other States for decades.

Thousand or millions of paper and metal documents attest to it. The identity of the Palestine with Israel was long recognized since the 1920s by the British and world authorities. How can Europeans, Americans and others know today? How can the leaders of the democracies be absolutely and legally sure that Palestine = Israel?

All they have to do is to look at any stamp or any coin of the Mandate period. There you will find Palestine in English, Hebrew and Arabic. You will also find two Hebrew letters Aleph Yod. This stands for Eretz Yisrael, the land of Israel.








Every coin and every stamp of the period is living proof that Palestine Mandate territory and the Land of Israel are identical.

Monnet8: Is Jean Monnet to blame for the euro crisis and the EU's financial black-hole?

Is Jean Monnet responsible for the euro debacle? Did a flaw in the 'Monnet Method' bring about today's financial crisis and the black hole into which billions of taxpayers' money are being poured? That's what one Eurocrat implied, as quoted in the Economist newsmagazine: 'The European Union was not designed to deal with a crisis'. Blame Jean Monnet, says the Economist's columnist, Charlemagne.

Eurocrats should know better. They should know more about the institution they work for, its values and its real history. Unfortunately Monnet and his over-enthusiastic fans and publicists set Europe on a false track. What exactly IS the 'Monnet Method'? You need to know: your bank balance may depend on understanding the facts!

Some politicians still believe that Jean Monnet was the architect behind the European Union. This is false, as any competent historian knows. Monnet did not invent the European Community; it was in existence before he even first uttered the term on 21 June 1950, regardless of the false claims of his Memoirs. Schuman announced the European strategy at the United Nations in 1949!

States can form international currencies with other States either by force or by means of a solid agreement. Alexander the Great used the first method 2300 years ago when he conquered the Medo-Persian empire and imposed his own monetary system, based on gold and silver. In nineteenth and early twentieth century some States agreed to the gold standard. But the Latin Monetary Union (1865- 1926) fell apart on disagreements about silver. Then first the UK (with the Sterling zone) and later the US, 1971, took their currency off the gold standard.

Any bad management of the dollar -- which is designed mainly for a domestic electorate -- has worldwide implications, and that includes wars and bloodshed. So does any other corrupt currency. (Monetary dishonesty encourages internal and external opponents to exploit the politicians' vulnerability.)

The depreciation of the dollar meant that Arab oil producers gained a little bit less for a barrel of oil. The Americans got the same barrel of oil. Although they were already hyper-rich, the oil sheikhs wanted more. They used this as one excuse to launch an attempted war of annihilation against Israel. The Arab exporters then realised that Americans and Europeans were 'hooked' on petroleum. They nationalised the oil companies. From then on they formed a cartel and succeeded to blackmail by the oil weapon and oil embargoes throughout the decade. Now Europe's Human Rights values are under threat by such States that wish to establish a Christian-free and anti-Semitic entity based on Saudi style Sharia law that they would call Palestine.

(Palestine is actually the name of the Jewish State that all the world's governments agreed to after WW1. It was a mandate given by the League of Nations to Palestinian Jews and confirmed by the United Nations in its Charter. The government of Palestine changed the name to Israel in 1948 when a State of Israel was proclaimed. When false or depreciating money reigns, Truth more easily becomes 'lies' and lies become the 'truth'.)

Thus any weakness or fraud in a monetary system has untold and often mammoth implications in politics. The reverse of this is also true. A solid, well-founded monetary system, based on sound ethics, has a major decontaminating and purifying effect on politics. Robert Schuman used to quote the Baron Louis, Finance Minister under France's Second Empire:

Make sound finances for me and I will make for you a sound policy.

Schuman confirmed this truism from his own long study of the monetary history. Based on those principles, a new system was introduced in world history with the creation of a supranational Community system. Without it, Europe would be in no position even to think of a common currency.

IF it is properly implemented, this Community approach provides the best hope for the future. The idea of a new European currency was announced by Robert Schuman in his Declaration of 9 May 1950. Schuman had great expertise in finance and monetary affairs and stabilized France's ruinous finances as Minister of Finance and Prime Minister. He criticised Hitler's ramshackle financial and monetary sysyem of the 1930s. Before the war he helped Austria defend itself financially against Nazi aggression. It nearly cost him his life when later he was arrested by the Gestapo. After the war he helped create the European Payments Union in July 1950. The politicians later abandoned this but had to try to re-invent it when they wanted to create the euro.

The creation of a supranational monetary system depends on fully understanding a supranational Community system. It is based on trust, that is democracy writ large. Here Monnet made a grave mistake.

Monnet's flawed action is another proof that he did not conceive of the idea of a supranational Community. When Paul Reuter, Schuman's legal aide, presented him with a draft document of the Schuman Declaration he crossed out the word, supranational, saying he did not like it. Nor was Monnet able to explain how the European Community was able to bring peace to nation States that had been at war almost continuously for 2000 years. Schuman could and did.

Some politicians say they are proceeding on the basis of the so-called 'Monnet Method'. What is the 'Monnet Method'? No one can properly define it. It is pure PR -- public relations hype. It is foisted on a public by a political class that did not want to deal with the spiritual fundamentals of democracy. It is a chimera that allows politicians to do what they like, without principles or even democratic accountability. That makes it an international system, not a supranational democratic one.

The supranational Community, in contrast, is a scientific discovery, to use Schuman's term, that requires education, training and another quality, humility, listening to others. It does not involve foisting treaties on people who have refused them in many referendums. Democracy, said Schuman, is at the service of the people and acts in agreement with the people.

What is a more serious accusation than aggrandisement is: Was Monnet responsible for the mess we are in? Was it his lack of understanding of the Community system that has led to the financial and monetary loopholes and hence the abuses now costing hundreds of billions of euros?

Monnet was only at the Commission (High Authority) of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) for a couple of years. His responsibility there was to see that the Treaty of Paris was fully implemented. It was not. He was to serve the people, all the people, including organized civil society. His period there was long enough to cause a loophole that the politicians made into an entrance and climbed in to do damage and get their fingers on to European money.

Monnet was instrumental in cutting out (in collusion with the politicians/ ministers) the democratic representation of organized civil society in the consultative committees. This was one of five essential organs for supranational Community.

In Monnet's time the first European Community had a Consultative Committee which was designed as its successors to be in close liaison with the Commission. It was divided into three sections: consumers of coal and steel products, entrepreneurs and trade unions working in the sectors. They kept a close watch on the money, how it was raised and how it was spent. They made sure that the budget was balanced. In those days there was a European tax and it was spent according to the wishes of the taxpayers.

The Treaty of Paris said that the Consultative Committee should be elected on a European basis. However, there were no European associations in some areas. The treaty said that the first Consultative Committee could create a system especially for this in the near future. In the interim the Committee was composed of a mixture of various national organisations.

European organisations were formed. But the Commission/ High Authority under Monnet never changed the system or encouraged the responsible people to do so. The politicians were happy at this because it meant that they nominated or decided who should be on this crucial debating chamber. They also managed the membership to the European Parliamentary Assembly. That way they could control the criticism by electing more placid members. The three great seats of European democracy will eventually all be independent: the Council representing national States, the Parliament representing the individual and his or her rights and the Consultative Committee representing all organizations in the sectors.

Any professional organization, whether a professional organization of steel makers, or an association of steel consumers or an association of European trades unions, has democratic rules. They are not the same as parliaments but not inferior to them as they have to be agreed by votes of the membership. This is an essential layer of democracy that should be independent of political parties and, amongst other tasks, can keep an eye on them.

De Gaulle and many other politicians did not like the idea of consumer organisations, together with entrepreneurs and labour unions holding politicians to their word. That is why de Gaulle arrested their development. He did not stop them developing, merely froze them for a time. Schuman and Reuter (who wrote the Schuman Declaration), declared ILLEGAL the politicians' subterfuge aimed at not having a fully democratic consultative committee with its own European elections. And sure enough, de Gaulle got away with illegal and corrupt measures such as Wine Lakes and Meat Mountains.

In the Gaullist period of European stagnation, the Parliamentary Assembly was nominated by a clique of politicians, its revisions to legislation ignored. The Consultative Committees including the Economic and Social Committee and the Scientific and Technical Committee of Euratom, were frozen and ignored. They are still at the infantile level of development that the European Parliament was until around 1980.

If Monnet had set up the Consultative Committee on a fully democratic European basis, a powerful democratic institution would have existed that would have resisted de Gaulle's attempts to destroy and freeze the Community system. We would be living in a much more successful and prosperous Europe, even than ours today. And it would have been a shining example of democracy to the world, including the States on the south bank of the Mediterranean. Democracy and higher civic standards would have flourished across the whole Mediterranean zone and as far north as the Arctic. Instead under nationalists and Gaullists, Algeria -- which was part of the European Coal and Steel area -- entered a period of bloody strife and warfare.

None of the euro crisis would have arisen if the members of a currency zone had proper civil society scrutiny of the fraudulent statistics and toxic buddy-buddy deals that the politicians come up with at the closed door Council meetings and eurozone rencontres.

Schuman also said that these meetings should all be open. The Lisbon treaty also says this but the politicians do not care a hoot when they close the doors. The next step is to use the European Court -- one of the five institutions that Schuman said was essential. Some actions in the 27 national courts could also stop much of this abuse. Discussions on the Budget -- that is taxation -- are also closed to the press, something which is both illegal and would be totally intolerable in any of the democratic Member States. (see www.schuman.info/budget8.htm ) No taxation should take place without FAIR representation and OPEN debate. That is central to European civic values.

There are three main types of international currency systems. (A fourth involves the informal use of a national currency like the US dollar by external trading partners.)

Firstly there is the international system (agreement of States) that Europe now has, thanks to Monnet's indecision. There is the imperial currency system of a non-democratic authoritarian system like the ruble of the Soviet system or the closed system of Mao's China. The banknotes cannot circulate much beyond the borders of the empire, because they are artificial. In the 1930s Hitler had a similar system where the Nazi party dictated the monetary policy on its neighbouring or trading partners. Europe has aspects of this monetary authoritarianism, because the euro rules are made and then ignored by a small cartel of politicians. The politicians think that they alone should impose their choice on who runs the system, not the public, nor the companies or workers, nor the buyers, traders and consumers.

Thirdly there is a real supranational currency. Supranational means a European democratic system, not imposed authoritarianism. It is so defined in the treaties and by Schuman -- see www.schuman.info/supra5.htm . Solid monetary policy will be made once this democratic foundation is followed. It involves agreement at three levels: the States that is not just the Council of Ministers but their 27 national democratic systems PLUS organised civil society (the Consultative Committees entrepreneurs, workers and consumers, of the treaties which need to be democratically elected as the treaties say) PLUS the individuals' interest (through the EP and Court petitions and judgements).

The euro crisis will not be solved by a further smoke and mirrors approach of eurobonds involving either the ECB or some other artificial institution without democratic legitimacy. Moritz Kraemer, Standard & Poor's managing director for Europe, Middle East and Africa sovereign ratings, speaking at the Alpbach European Forum, said, “If we have a euro bond where Germany guarantees 27%, France 20 and Greece 2% then the rating of the euro bond would be CC, which is the rating of Greece." That applies also to shuffling the cards in a new card trick or rather paper con trick.

Politicians have already tried to dispose with elements of the supranational system. Now some want them back, having seen their great utility. At the beginning, the supranational European Community system had not only its own European tax system with democratic control down to a local level but also a European loan system. This was not based on a fiat system of some politicians acting within the secret chambers of the Council or the 'informal' eurozone committee. In the 1950s the loans were raised on world markets based on real economic achievement and a real programme. That delivered real goods for the future. The loans were based on solid evidence of economic progress, improved employment data and general economic integration with real cost benefits.

The ECSC loan system -- which was a bigger operation than the European Investment Bank -- had outline supranational democratic control. The politicians did not like it. Around 2000 they egotistically got rid of this loan system and the European tax system by deciding not to renew the ECSC treaty. They wanted tax, loans and money without proper democratic representation. Their word would be enough, they said. Then the politicians abused their own buddy-buddy system. The markets saw its toxicity. They had been doing dirty deals for decades. Banks of course did the same thing, saying that if the politicians could get away with fraud, so could they in a property bubble and financial market fraud.

The way forward is to put the democratic control and the support of half a billion Europeans behind a reform programme. Only thus can a solid European money be agreed, formed and circulated.

Euro5: TRUST is the key to a strong European currency. Schuman gave the plan for sound policy.

The European leaders are learning the lesson known to all monetary authorities throughout the ages. The main foundation of all money is trust. Once trust evaporates the currency collapses. It is like chasing after a wild animal let loose out of a field.

Is the European currency doomed to failure? No. The supranational European Community system is far more robust than any flawed plan for a currency. European unity is a powerful and ineluctable force, stronger than any politicians or self-serving group.

There is a plan for the European currency that will get the approval of all major sections of Europe. It would also make it extremely difficult for blackmail operations by speculators -- that is those who try to use the markets for immoral, selfish purposes.

On 10 February 1953 the European Coal and Steel Community introduced Europe's first Single Market. With a single market it was necessary that eventually a single currency would have to be built on the five institutions. The first Community had its own European tax, based on production, not currency or accountant-adjusted profits.

The idea of a currency was already implied in the Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950. When the time was ripe, it should be built on the principles of supranational democracy.

When they created the euro, the European leaders did not follow the concept of a supranational democracy backing up the European currency. They thought they knew best. The naive or willingly ignorant politicians made an international currency based on so-called 'good intentions' and their equally faulty theory of human nature. They made their decisions in secret, relying on their own instincts and personal and political attachments to each other.

'Just make all the currencies relatively stable,' they said, 'convert the name to euro and, Hey Presto! you have a European currency!' They seem to think if they invited some darker culprits to join the euro gang, then they would appear white in comparison. It does not work that way!

And it was inevitable that the markets would test their theory and practical failures to destruction if they could. That is the nature of markets. It proved a vapour of self-deceit. The political 'partners' cheated on each other. They used the coffers of the 'own' States as their own party campaign funds. They cooked the statistics.

In a commercial company if such things were done, it would not only mean that the executives were fired, they would enter the gates of the local prison for a long stay. It's called embezzling. For some reason, politicians think that they are above such justice.

With the introduction of two further European Communities a broad range of other goods had to be brought into as Single Market, from fissile material to agricultural products. In the 1960s intra-Community trade was based on units of account later known as the ECU, the European Currency Unit. At a time when no one imagined the US dollar would be devalued, it was defined and set at parity with the dollar in terms of gold.

Then President Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard. So the politicians decided that they would remain on the gold standard. But France's Franc proved to be weak and de Gaulle did not want to be shown up. He was concerned about his rural and agricultural voters. Solid, honest money proved too hard for other light fingered politicians.

They fudged the matter. They brought in a highly complex system of compensatory funding. They were supposed to be temporary. Guess what? These handouts of tax money to the politicians' favourites became permanent and more and more complex.

The second fudge was not to use any standard at all but to make the currency up as they went along. Look ! No Hands! The European Currency was not based on US dollars based on gold. It was not based on gold. It is not even based on GDP. It is based on crooked statistics!

When the ancient kingdom of Lydia (now western Turkey) created a coinage that was used far and wide as a trading aid, it did so by assuring that the coins had

• a standard weight
• a standard purity, either of gold, or silver or of electrum, a natural mixture of the two.

Coins replaced the earlier system of just weighing out a specific quantity of metal as a means of exchange. That required a system of standard weights. Some people cheated with the balances.

The earliest known legal code -- the Laws of the old Babylonian kingdom of Eshnunna which predates Hammurabi -- showed that wheat and barley were considered much more prized as exchange than money. The interest rate on the cuneiform tablets show barley had an interest rate of 33 percent while silver had only 20 percent. Food was more valuable and it was also perishable. Food is real. You cannot eat gold.

Two and a half thousand years ago, Aristotle, the Greek philosopher and royal tutor, warned that there was a big difference between economics (dealing with running the household) and chrematistics, the immoral (and ultimately senseless) hoarding or accumulation of wealth. There were three goods, an external good, a good of the body and a good of the soul.

Some of these principles were applied by his Macedonian student, Alexander the Great. Millions of coins were struck across his empire with a specific image and of standard weight. The museums and private collections of Alexander's silver tetradrachm indicate the fine detail of the coin production. It created a common external good. They circulated from Britain to Afghanistan, in Africa and beyond. The gold coins were known as philippi, after Alexander's father.

They were not easy to forge. At least in those days. Later generations shaved the rims of the coins, or forged them of inferior materials. That is what some European leaders are trying to do electronically today.

Everyone seems to be at it. The modern Greeks were the most flagrant. They probably did not have to learn much from the others. But they took the cheating a bit too far. Some politicians wanted to ignore the common politicians' problem and they persuaded them to let the fiddling go on for years. The others tried to put an end to it.

Remember the politicians were the people who gave you the Meat Mountains and Wine Lakes. Monetary fraud was less obvious and more devious. It is easy for one or more (in this case, many) States to illegitimately exploit the huge benefits of a common currency. They let the others keep the rules, remain honest and keep their books straight. False statistics didn't really fool anyone but no one wanted to cause a scene and shout: 'CHEAT!' at fellow politicians. They knew that once the blame game started all would be found guilty ins some sort of dubious practice.

And if they kept their mouths shut as many did, they would also be found guilty and irresponsible towards their own electorate because they had promised to keep their own currency solid and follow the common rules for the euro. Guilt by fact or guilt by collusion and association, that is the outcome of secret meetings without public accountability. That's why Schuman said that the Community democracy should be open with open meetings subject to public control.

Then the European Statistical service, Eurostat, put in the knife.

The reliability of Greek government deficit and debt statistics has been the subject to continuous attention for several years. The Greek general government data reported by the authorities have been persistently contested by Eurostat, far more frequently than for any other Member State.

That's what the European Commission had to admit in the end. The Commission published a report about the fraudulent Greek stats in January 2010.

On 2 and 21 October 2009, the Greek authorities transmitted two different sets of complete Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP) notification tables to Eurostat, covering the government deficit and debt data for 2005-2008, and a forecast for 2009. In the 21 October notification, the Greek government deficit for 2008 was revised from 5.0% of GDP (the ratio reported by Greece, and published and validated by Eurostat in April 2009) to 7.7% of GDP. At the same time, the Greek authorities also revised the planned deficit ratio for 2009 from 3.7% of GDP (the figure reported in spring) to 12.5% of GDP, reflecting a number of factors (the impact of the economic crisis, budgetary slippages in an electoral year and accounting decisions).

Why are budgetary statistics different in a electoral year? Why do they 'slip'? Aren't governments managing the budget properly regardless of what year it is? Or are they bribing the voters by giving them goodies from money they do not have? Would the executive committee of a tennis club coming up for re-election be considered ethical if it took out a loan to give free tennis balls to the membership before they voted?

Politicians do not want to discuss when governments are guilty of crimes that would send company executives to prison. Yet we are talking about sums of money larger than those of most commercial corporations. The leaders have to have the courage to treat finances as a non-ideological matter. They have responsibility beyond their parties to the people. And the people should have their say in the management of the monetary system, according to supranational democracy.

A common currency cannot be built when one or many States refuse to keep honest accounts. A Community must be built on values that include honesty to each other. This has huge advantages. An honest interchange builds a Community that cannot be broken. Honesty, the 9th of the Ten Commandments is a fundamental Biblical value on which European democracy is founded.

'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour'

Schuman wrote:

‘This idea of ‘Europe’ will reveal to everybody the common bases of our civilization and will create little by little the bond similar to that which in ages past has forged our home countries. It will be a force that will breach all obstacles.’

Unless they realise the futility of any other path, the politicians are doomed to get deeper into a maelstrom of disaster.

The financial realist Robert Schuman -- who as Finance Minister and Prime Minister rescued France from widespread corruption and financial chaos after the World War, stabilizing the currency, balancing the budget and attacking galloping inflation -- had this additional warning:

'Ideology or dreams will not change the facts about finances, whether in the State budget or that of the family.'

Stealing other people's property was wrong in the time of the Laws of Eshnunna and it is wrong today.