Budget8: The underhand, one trillion euro budget -- Parliament breaks Lisbon Treaty law again!

The time has come to start re-aligning EU financing with the principles of autonomy, transparency and fairness and equipping the EU to reach its agreed policy objectives.' These are the words of European Commission's 'A Budget for 2020' -- its proposals for a multi-annual financial framework (MFF) 2013-2020.

The proposal was presented by Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso IN SECRET in the European Parliament on 29 June 2011. Again!

So much for TRANSPARENCY. So much for FAIRNESS for citizens. It is a strange idea of transparency for the press and the public to be firmly excluded from hearing exactly what goes on at a meeting of two democratic institutions. It is a bizarre idea of fairness to exclude taxpayers from a room full of people planning to seize their money.

The doors were shut and guarded to stop any ordinary taxpayer from entering the sixth floor chamber of the Paul-Henri Spaak building. In it were assembled, besides Commissioners Barroso and Lewandowski, all the presidents of the political party groups plus legal and other officials. What a sauce! A secret budget meeting would be a major scandal in any national parliament. Here it involves BIG money, European taxpayers' money.

The Commission has proposed that taxes for the EU should rise from around one percent of Gross National Income to 1.11 percent by 2020. Whichever way you slice it that represents a substantial increase in the taxes or levies that European citizens have to pay. The calculation has also shifted from GNP figures to GNI. GNI is the same thing as GNP but with indirect business taxes deducted. A trillion euros is involved in the budget plan under consideration.

I haven't seen the citizens massing on the streets demanding a 11 percent rise in money that should be taken from their pockets! I haven't seen them massing for the projects that the politicians have devised. What is the explanation?

Possibly what the Commission Budget Document meant was not Autonomy, that is free-spending of taxes by the parties machines. That includes setting their own salaries and perks. What they meant was AUTOCRACY of the political class (in the EU and governments) to raise taxes at will.

All the institutions of the Community that were created by the Founding Fathers to express NON-POLITICAL, Organized Civil Society have been suppressed or taken over by the new political class. That is why this autocracy should be referred to as a political CARTEL because it suppresses the free market of ideas and democratic accountability of the parties. It refuses to treat the citizen seriously, making politicians autocrats not servants. Politicians have just two demands of the people: money to run their party machines and acceptance of the policy they hand down to them without proper consultation.

The cartel has distorted the meaning of democratic representation, which involves free-speech and accountability, not party machinery running roughshod over the citizens.

The European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek is reported as saying: 'The Commission's proposal on the long-term budget for the EU is an intelligent starting point for negotiations. The next MFF will be one of the most important in the EU's history. It will set the direction for the Union at an exceptional time when the European project is under pressure from the sovereign debt crisis and from external instability.'

The sovereign debt crisis is largely a problem of the politicians, by the politicians about money for the politicians and party funding, involving soaring national debts and falsified statistics. The countries that kept their budget books straight and where the parties did not accept 'funding' from rich people and associations in return for a tax-free break, are not in a 'sovereign debt crisis'.

At the core of many of these 'sovereign debt' countries is the need for parties to get funds and they are willing to bend the rules to get them for the voters, the public and large corporations. When this dishonesty becomes exposed at the local, regional and national level, Europe seems to them the next level to be exploited. This is an old and growing scam that brought wine lakes, meat mountains in the Gaullist era and useless or non-existent infrastructure in southern Italy thanks to the corrupt regional policy. It was followed by massive infusions of cash to Greece in the 1980s, agreed by Europe's party politicians, much of which subsequently 'disappeared'

We now have political theatre without legitimacy or substance. The Commission has thrown off any veneer of independence. It is composed exclusively of national politicians. They are apparently in a debate with politicians of the same parties in the Council -- representing national governments. The Parliament is also composed of nationally elected politicians of exactly the same controlling parties. They refuse to hold Europe-wide elections as required by the treaties for sixty years.

This is not democracy because the most important element, individuals in civil society and organised civil society who ultimately have to pay are left out in the cold, because the doors are locked. The press is barred. The debate inside is about a fait accompli.

Mr Buzek continued: 'A system of real own resources would be fairer, more transparent, simpler and equitable. We should also see an end to rebates, exceptions and correction mechanisms that have accumulated within the current system.'

That gives the game away. It is transparent only for the politicians. The citizens -- including the non-political majority of the EU -- have not accepted or even had a say in the Commission/ Council budget and its assumptions. A democratic budget is supposed to relate to citizens' demands and citizens' needs -- expressed in fully functional Community institutions. It should not be fixed according to the whims of the political barons themselves. The present procedure -- which is inherited from the Gaullist autocratic system -- lacks any semblance of real democratic legitimacy. It has more in common to the so-called People's Democracies of the Soviet era.

The chairman of the EP's Budget Committee had something to say about secrecy. Not the Parliament's secret meeting but another institution. He said that 'a debate of such importance should not be held in the secrecy of ministerial meetings behind closed doors. This should become the subject of as wide a possible public debate, including a conference with full involvement of national parliaments. In the coming days we will make an effort toward realising this.'

A closed door Parliament is telling the closed-door Council of Ministers not to be secret! Herumph! The Commission's presentation in secret in the Parliament was illegal under the Lisbon Treaty. This bogus treaty was passed by politicians in spite of citizens voting in referendums that they did not like the system.

Article 15 of the Lisbon Treaty's TFEU deals with institutional consideration of financial legislation. It states: 'The European Parliament shall meet in public, as shall the Council when considering and voting on a draft legislative act.'

It also makes clear who should be in control of the budget: civil society, not the political class. The first paragraph of Article 15 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.'

It is not difficult to open the door to one or two reporters or provide a video feed. Yet this was refused -- ILLEGALLY.

The Lisbon Treaty generation of politicians is now embarking on a vast misadventure of illegitimacy. They suppressed referendum results. They refused to accept those that took place until the voters were forced to vote again under threats. They have embarked on internal policies without the full participation of non-political civil society. They have established massive aid and development programmes based on political ideologies -- without the participation of civil society. And after some sixty years the European Parliament and the Civil Society institutions have still not had the electoral framework for free and open elections.

This dereliction of democracy is compounded by the false road-maps. What the Budget document called 'agreed policy objectives' are anti-democratic policies that the party cartel gave themselves. The participants in both the 2020 and 2030 reports were given strict instructions that they were not to deal with European democracy. The political class are afraid of more referendums. They will inevitably come!

The 'agreed policy' reports said nothing about the 'Arab Spring,' global financial piracy, the Japanese Tsunami, drought and religious strife in Africa and elsewhere and other world-changing events that they would not or could not foresee. When such surprises occur the only solution seems to be to throw money at them. Will that work with a nuclear-armed Iran and Pakistan? In many cases the cartel policy of naivety and their pacifistic answer to blackmail may just make matters worse more rapidly. Who is controlling European money going to the wrong forces in potentially violent societies?

The present policy objective of encouraging jihadi and anti-Semitic actors in the region is pure madness! When did the public agree to creating, intolerant Jew- and Christian-free states, giving control to groups that still proclaim terrorism as part of their 'party policies'??

Why do they omit to say that foreign policy should draw from the positive outcome of Europe's great democratic experiment that Schuman proclaimed in 1949, his declaration of 9 May 1950 and founding Fathers' Great Charter of 18 April 1951? Nothing!! It brought peace. The 'agreed policy objectives' applying the parties' wilfully ignorant ideologies WILL NOT!

No public mandate exists from the people for the EU budget. The politicians may want to try to fool themselves by this dishonest, underhand window-dressing. It does not fool the public who know that the system is unfair and not transparent for democracy. A system that refuses to discuss democracy and improve what they call democracy is not only suspect, it is obviously not democratic at all. Schuman said the test of a real democracy was the desire to improve itself.

In referendums several nations voted into oblivion a Constitutional treaty. A democratic Europe requires unanimity among free democratic States otherwise it is imperialism. Supranational democracy has to unite democracies not compel them by force. The people gave no mandate to the Lisbon Treaty. Proper referendums were refused.

The politicians disagreed with the people. The politicians in a totally disreputable move brought this rejected treaty back with a new name, the Reform or Lisbon Treaty. Who is trying to fool whom? Without democratic control the Lisbon Treaty is an uncontrollable money machine for the party politicians. It exploits the people who cannot yet escape from the main parties because they always act in coalition, a cartel. The EU budget provides money for their party cadres that they cannot get by honest means at the national level.

This self-deceit has serious effects on the politicians themselves. The underhandedness makes it seemingly impossible for European leaders to listen institutionally to taxpayers. They believe in their own 'smoke and mirrors' that gives them power to thumb their noses at public opinion and even their own script -- the Lisbon Treaty sham.

Supranational democracy could help resolve the euro crisis and set realistic goals for the budget. The politicians however are locked in a vicious downward spiral of declining public confidence, increasing financial black-holes, knowing full well that more democratic accountability will result in them losing control and maybe their political heads too.

In a supranational Community, greed for public money and power is a recipe for disaster.

Euro1 : Why is the European Central Bank President still the politicians' plaything?

Should EU's politicians, in the middle of a great financial crisis, still be trying their old dirty tricks? At the centre of the euro is the European Central Bank. The chief executive, the president or governor, is its guardian. The treaties say that he represents the bank in his or her person. All citizens using the euro have an interest in his integrity, experience and wisdom. This implies that the ECB president must personify the integrity of European money for the European economy and far beyond the eurozone.

How then is the ECB president selected and confirmed in office? Should he be both nominated and chosen by the politicians? Think about the mischief politicians get up to in fiscal fiddles, bribing the electorate for votes and dissembling the statistics. I am not just referring to the Greek and Latin problems of the Mediterranean countries. At the June European Council the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said his country's (previous) government was involved in 'skyrocketing debts' and 'falsified statistics'.

Thus even at the European Council announcement of the ECB presidency, one politician throws the spotlight on the untrustworthy nature of this political class and the disastrous effects they have on sound money policy. Politicians are not the sort of people that can be trusted with the monetary printing press. Non-party guarantees are required for a real democracy. This is why Robert Schuman and the Founding Fathers designated key institutions as being independent and run by independent personalities to ensure democratic freedom of choice.

The main political parties acting as a cartel have tried to take over the democratic supranational Community system by substituting their party members in places designated for non-political organized civil society. Wherever possible in the key institutions they camouflaged their take-over.

A bank should be run honestly based on agreed technical rules, not according to a political ideology or a egotistical whim that 'runs up skyrocketing debts' and 'falsifies the statistics.' The euro was built to stop this. Membership requires discipline -- hands out of the till. There should be a clear demarcation between the European Bank for the euro and politics. We should also emphasize here that all eurozone States must agree by law that the governors of their national central banks must be selected independently. It is not an option. It is treaty law. National Central Bank Governors in the eurozone must be free to act with total independence of the politicians, governments and 'any other body'.

In general governments do not wish to be seen placing as head of their national bank a party hack responsive to party orders. They should advertise the vacant post in the press. They have a separate Statutory Board that selects the most experienced and independent banker for the task.

What happens at the European level -- that is the stratum of big, big money? The politicians think that they can totally discard this rule of independence. A candidate is chosen in secret, maybe in the ultra-secret Euro Group meeting. Who are the members of the Euro Group? They are all politicians. The chosen name is then passed on to the Council of Ministers. Who are the members of the Council of Ministers? Yes, they are all politicians! Then the name is confirmed by the European Council. Who are the members of the European Council. Right again, they are all politicians!

The secretive system of a political cartel is the opposite of what citizens expect in a democracy. Secrecy encourages lying and that encourages speculation. It is now well known that several members of the Euro Group built up and hid 'skyrocketing debts' and colluded in 'falsifying statistics'. A more open, supranational system would calm the markets and encourage trust and growth. Who knows more about the dirty little secrets of all the other Member States than the 27 intelligent men and women of the European Council?

According to the Lisbon Treaty, the same legal requirement of absolute independence applies to the President of the European Central Bank, as it does to the national bank governors. It is all specified with clarity in articles 130 and 131.

The politicians try to wrap the election of the ECB president in language to ensure thick opacity and murkiness. The dirty little political trick is called 'pass the parcel'. The wrapping is a distracting colour that turns the public's eye away from its contents. (It is announced amid many much 'hotter' issues at the European Council.) Who defined the contents? No one can be sure. The parcel has been quickly passed from one committee or council to another. When a journalist asks: where did the parcel originally come from? The one who has it last -- the European Council -- points to the person on his left, a Council of Ministers. But everyone is sitting in a circle and the parcel goes round and round until it stops at the heads of government. These top politicians are most probably the real culprits who wrapped up the contents in the first place. They have the motive, the opportunity and the machinery. They will gain from the crime. Politicians want to control the money supply, the statistics and the definitions of the currency.

The 17 May Council of Economic and Financial Ministers had this to say:

"The Council adopted a recommendation on the nomination on Mario Draghi (Italy) as President of the European Central Bank, to succeed Jean-Claude Trichet...'

Who recommended the candidate? Was it the finance ministers? It does not say. Was it someone else? If they are referring to 'a recommendation' of the Euro Group, why don't they say? And whoever it was making the recommendation, what were the criteria for the choice? When were they published? How did they choose this one person from among Europe's 500 million? There must be a lot of bankers with Wall Street or City experience who would like to apply for the job. Why weren't some honest bankers considered? Did the ministers have a list after a public Call for Candidates in the Official Journal? No one saw the advertisement. If the post of ECB president is paid from taxpayers' money and public funds, it should come under the usual rules for selecting and hiring civil servants. Surely the politicians would not want the public and the markets to think they are involved in political patronage and nefarious nepotism?

If the politicians did not act impartially to choose an independent governor, are we to assume the new ECB president is not impartial and has as a covert task the mission to save the politicians' hides? How can anyone know if the politicians are concerned that a governor shows no favouritism to any Member State? In other words: is his nationality irrelevant? The sole criteria for the appointment should be independence, experience and integrity.

The president should have enough strong character and experience to deal with dire situations where politicians gang up against him to try to bastardize the currency. The ECB president should have metal to resist the politicians. He should not be the politicians' plaything. The new candidate has several stripes against him, deserved or not.

It is educational to recall what happened at European Council in 1998 and the first selection of the governor of the Central Bank. The site of the ECB was chosen as Frankfurt. What has that to do with the choice of governor? A lot in Gallic eyes. The French president of the Republic said that as the ECB was in Germany the governor should naturally be French. (Don't you love the way the French use naturellement?)

But hang about! Aren't there a few more States besides France and Germany. Aren't there a few States who have an economy even sounder than France's? Doesn't France get involved in some dubious monetary practice from time to time?

France did not get its way and Wim Duisenberg, who had headed the pre-euro European Monetary Institute, was confirmed as the first governor. He was previously governor of the Dutch central bank and had ample experience. Before Duisenberg, the EMI was headed by Hungarian-born Alexandre Lamfalussy, a respected economist and international banking adviser, from Belgium.

The Germans, the Belgians and Dutch said NON to the French. They told them that they wanted to have a strong euro. They did not want someone who 'bent' the rules and did not defend the ECB's independence. A nasty fisticuffs occurred. In the end the French lost.

The French declared afterwards that a compromise had been reached. In the margin of the European Council they said that all agreed that (1) Mr Duisenberg could stay on -- but only for a bit and he should resign half way through his 8-year term (2) their named French candidate, M. Trichet, should then take over.

To any rational observer this would fail logic and fairness tests. It assumed that (a) Mr Duisenberg would want to resign and in fact he stayed on rather longer than the French wanted, until November 2003; (b) that M. Trichet would also be around, healthy and capable and hadn't in the meantime wandered off to Wall Street to make a private fortune; (c) that the "gentleman's agreement" (that is the outcome of the European CouncIl wrestling match) would bind the still future European Council with slightly different political wrestlers; (d) that no other candidates from the 25 other Member States would be allowed to place their name forward; (e) there would be no public call for candidates in the Official Journal from all the aspiring European bankers. In other words the heads of government were convinced that this illegality could continue for a few more years.

In the end the French managed to hold this conspiracy together. How? Possibly because it was a political cartel agreement -- held together by party political secretariats. M. Trichet was eventually made the ECB governor. Imagine a private Bank with 27 major shareholders where the CEO was fixed in this way. What an uproar would ensue at the shareholders' meeting. What court cases there would be!

The European Council's 'fix' says more about the secret forces holding this particular political dirty deal together and total lack of free choice in the way the head of the ECB is chosen. It says rather less about democracy and the high-minded principles that should be involved and the financial legalities.

I asked earlier: Who knows more about the dirty little secrets of all the other Member States than the 27 intelligent men and women of the European Council? The figures about debts and fraudulent statistics are coming to light. Yet the European Council is perpetuating the same sort of secret system in choosing the ECB president.

It bodes ill for the public because it is a clear indication of the corrupt nature of EU politics -- even when faced with a horrendous crisis of the euro and the financial future of several Member States.

It is not the sort of behaviour that reassures the markets, the speculators and the private bankers. Only a democratic, supranational monetary system can do that. It will take some time to remedy and solid democratic institutions are needed ... or the Court.

Budget7: How EU's Council of Ministers stole YOUR money in the E Coli scandal!

The Council of Ministers just slid a stealthy hand into your pocket -- and stole a euro. Think about it. Act 1: a score of people die in Germany from E Coli bacteria poisoning. Many more are hospitalized. Curtain for intermission. Act 2, the Council of Ministers quickly doles out 210 million euros of taxpayers' money to many countries around the EU. What happened in the intermission?

Who is to blame for the infection? An authoritative German source says it came from Spanish cucumbers. Let us call this source Herr Schmidt so we do not have to be personal. Many irresponsible people are involved. Herr Schmidt is a minister, an elected democratic representative.

Herr Schmidt says Spanish cucumbers are to blame. The Spanish farmers protest. Nonsense, they say, there is no trace of infection here. To no avail. The market collapses. No one will buy Spanish cucumbers, nor in fact any vegetable or fruit from Spain.

Then under questioning from the press and the agricultural interests, Herr Schmidt retracts his remark about Spain. But it is really a bit late, all fruit and vegetable markets around Europe have been hit. The public does not want to eat them out of fear of ending up horizontal in a morgue.

We now have a European crisis. What should we Europeans do? The Community is built up on the principle of solidarity. So would it not be a good idea to help the farmers from Community funds? In the meantime Herr Schmidt has gone on to blame bean sprouts, also without proof, and, who knows, a meteorite shower of bacteria from space!

But hang on! Who is responsible for the debacle? I would say Herr Schmidt is largely to blame for the scare. He did not say:

'What all consumers should do with all fruit and vegetables is to wash them well and cook them well as required. Bacteria die in boiling water. Wash your hands too! Eat safely like your mother taught you!'

No, Herr Schmidt started to blame an innocent party, causing hundreds of millions of euros damage. If any one is responsible it is Herr Schmidt. It makes better TV to blame and accuse rather than advise people on hygiene. If he was speaking for the German government as an official or employee then the German government -- and their budget -- is responsible too.

So how did the Council react? Does it lay the blame where it lies -- on Germany? No. It decided that all taxpayers in the whole of the European Union should pay for this German mistake. Why?

Like the quick movement of the magician's hands comes this very old trick. It has been done many times in the past. It is called political collusion. They call it Solidarity. They assume the people will be so dumb to think it means solidarity of all the citizens. In fact it is not that at all but solidarity of the political clique acting against the citizen, his money and his rights.

Consider the implications. The politicians are set to blame the citizen and say 'Collectively all the citizens are responsible financially'. That is rubbish. The politicians are responsible for the rumour. The politicians, so-called democratic representatives, do not honestly represent the citizen because they can point to no link of blame between the citizen and the agricultural market loss. In this case most of the citizens' real rights are best represented by consumer groups, taxpayers' associations or economic analysts and health-care groups, not the politicians. That is why Schuman and the Founding Fathers declared that organized civil society, such as these associations, should be a formal part of Community governance.

Financially there is a causal, financial and legal link between Germany, that is Herr Schmidt, bridging (1) the cause of deaths and injuries by E Coli and (2) the collapse of the market for cucumbers and other products across the EU and probably much further afield. There is no link with the taxpayer in the Outer Hebrides and the problem. Why then should a Hebridian crofter pay?

As far as I know, the Scottish crofters had personally nothing to do with it. They did not export lethal E Coli. They did not spread rumours or accuse anyone. Why should anyone in the Hebrides, or Rumania or Bulgaria compensate for a German problem? Why not the real culprit who started an authoritative but false scare?

Notice how the political class in the Council of Ministers defends themselves and takes YOUR money. Very quickly before anyone can reflect, all is decided. No debate in public. They decreed that 210 million euros should be taken from the European budget -- the taxpayers' money -- and be given to those farmers in Spain and elsewhere who were hit by the scare. Did the Council of Ministers ask the citizen? No. Did the European consumer express an opinion through the institution set up for this?

The body that should be defending the citizen and the consumer as well as the taxpayer, the Economic and Social Committee, is asleep on the job. In a supranational Community, democratic debate and legal opinions are required for all financial decisions. That involves governments, organised civil society, regions and the European Parliament. Under de Gaulle the Council tried to short-circuit this system. It is quite illegal and immoral to do so.

E Coli caused the initial problem. The rest is a man-made problem. More precisely, a politician-made problem. It has nothing to do with the weather, a flood or drought. Solidarity can legally be expected there and is welcome to help the hard-pressed farmers. But this case involves a single origin: ministerial 'foot in mouth' disease by Herr Schmidt. There is a clear causal relationship to Herr Schmidt for the real blame.

The Council compounded this problem with a crime. They stole money from the citizen, big time. They took money from all the citizens and gave it to someone else without asking the citizen. They took a euro from your purse or pocket! With 500 million citizens, 210 millions represents practically all the adult wage earners in the European Union. They stole one euro from just about everyone contributing to the European budget.

It is hush money. A bribe for silence. Just consider how unethical this is. What about the EU's neighbouring counties? Many countries, perhaps candidate countries for EU membership, also suffered from a loss of appetite for vegetables and fruits. They could not export into the EU. Many of them also suffered financial losses when all of a sudden the EU citizens said: "No vegetables on my plate and certainly not cucumbers!" Russia blocked its imports of EU agricultural products. Many exports were affected. This caused a problem for EU farmers but also the Russian consumers. They had to pay higher prices. Should the Council of Ministers -- who are very free and easy with other people's money -- send them a subsidy too???

Why, if this 210 millions subsidy was a just and fair policy, did the Council of Agricultural Ministers not spread taxpayers' money much further abroad? Why did they not send European cash around the world to places in Africa, South America and elsewhere -- which also took a financial hit as the German cucumber falsehoods were taken seriously?

The conclusions we should draw:

• Ministers and governments officials whether elected or not should keep their mouth shut on matters they do not understand. (That should save a lot of TV time! Public education about bacteria on TV is lacking.) The job of politicians is not to fill the airwaves with nonsense but to do their job. Sometimes this means keeping quiet. They should hush. The political class must be held responsible for what they say if it causes damage.
• Legal blame should be placed where the fault lies, according to the law. If some one is wronged he has access to the court. Why did the Spanish government not take Germany to Court? Each farmer has the right to take a case to Court in Germany. Now the Council has made a decision, they can also go to the European Court. The treaties say that European Court of Justice in Luxembourg is open for such cases, whether by the individual, an association, another European institution or a government.
• It is not the business of the Council of Ministers to short-circuit due legal process.
• It is not their job to give other people's money to resolve the problem of Herr Schmidt.
• Taxpayers’ money of the Outer Hebrides crofter or the Rumanian farmer should not be used as a bribe. The Council does not have a right, without democratic approval, to use the budget and give it to other governments to dissuade them from taking legal action against Germany or any other Member State in such circumstances.
• The Council should ensure as soon as possible that the Economic and Social Committee is elected on a European basis as a representative body for consumers, producers and workers. A non-party elected body is needed to give democratic legitimacy to any Community decisions so that a political clique is stopped from abusing Community funds.
• Government controls should see to it that irresponsible rumours are not started or if they are by accident, a quick denial should be published immediately.
• The media should act responsibly and not propagate rumours from irresponsible sources. They should analyse what shenanigans the politicians are up to.
• The German government should be responsible both financially and democratically for correcting the spread of rumours that cause Europe-wide or worldwide problems.
• Bacteria are not political. Scientists, not politicians, should determine the origin of E Coli strains. Impartial European scientific bodies should handle the scientific questions.
• The Council of Ministers is not authorized by the citizen to pay out European money to deal with problems that should be handled by national governments according to proper democratic systems.
• The Council of Ministers should investigate how they can recover the money they have wrongly distributed from the citizens' purse for non-European problems.
• The Council should stop acting as if the budget they have before them is their private money. It isn't. It is not to be used for resolving the political embarrassments of fellow politicians.
• And most importantly of all. The Council of Ministers should remember they are only ONE of the FIVE major European institutions that have to be engaged in a real Community decisions. It is not for them to act like a political cartel abusing the public.

The ministers of agriculture in the Council should limit their appearances before the television cameras to one comment:

'Keep your cucumbers clean. In turn we will keep our hands clean!'

Truth 15: EXPOSED! The citizen's most Fundamental Right that Politicians are hiding from YOU!

What is the most Fundamental Right for citizens in any society? You won't find it in the Lisbon Treaty's Charter of Fundamental Rights. It just isn't there. It is far more fundamental than any 'Fundamental' human right in Lisbon's Charter of Fundamental Rights. It's easy to explain its absence. The Charter of the Lisbon Treaty was written or supervised by politicians who did not want citizens to be aware of their most fundamental right.

Yet once upon a time, the most Fundamental political Right was agreed and recognized by politicians ... or rather by real Statesmen. They were the Founding Fathers. Today's politicians are trying to bury that fact. They are trying to blot out all memory that it once was recognized by governments and in treaties.

The Council of Ministers would be horrified if you or any other citizens knew about it! They fear the case against their dictatorial attitudes will be lost -- not only in the Court of Public Opinion. It could be lost and reversed against them in the European Court of Justice! This is also the reason that the European Commission, the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and the somnabulent Economic and Social Committee refused to recognize the Great Charter was 60 years old on 18 April 2011. It is the reason that the Great Charter of the European Community has never been publicized by the politically submissive Commission.

The politicians and more specifically the political parties want 500 million citizens to forget that they can do far more than just kick them right out of power -- all of them. Elections are not much use if all parties are corrupt or aquiesce to the corruption of others, as a recent case showed. What power does the consumer have if a cartel or a multinational lobbyist is simultaneously subsidizing and wining and dining all the major parties? Political parties are Europe's biggest unregistered lobbyists. They can hide unsavoury lobbying of the powerful, as can goverment ministers. An election only changes one set of faces for the next but the policy bought by an industrial cartel stays the same. The cartel is laughing all the way to the bank.

Because parties have their own agenda, their own ideologies, but also a shotage of funds from the public, they lack public support. It is that distrust between the people and their supposed representatives that the Fundamental Right of the Great Charter addresses. In the People's Democratic Republics of the Soviet era, the people were allowed to vote for a variety of parties but it made not the slightest difference about freeing themselves from the Soviet orbit. Nor did they have freedom of thought, for example in religious matters or anti-Marxist criticism.

Today what is most important is for the citizens to retain the right to decide what type of democracy Europe should have. The major parties form a political cartel of power against the 98 percent of the population who refuse to join a party or even vote. A system run by a political cartel defending their super-privileged power structures is another form of dictatorship.

• It can refuse to recognize any and all national referendums against their proposals (such as the Constitutional Treaty).
• It can refuse to allow referendums in other countries where they know the cause is lost before they start.
• It can call a treaty by another name, refuse to publish the text and force it through parliament because they have a whipping system to ensure party obedience.
• It can then increase their own salaries and expenses without any controls -- such that the 'expenses' are far more than the average wages of ordinary citizens.
• It can hold budget meetings in secret, excluding the press.
• It controls the purse-strings of the budget, jobs, committees and policies.
• It can ignore public opinion. Policies are often simplistic as politicians are unable to deal with the complexity of modern life and all too often they impose ideas at variance with public opinion (who often know better).
• It can contort healthy economic policy to stay in power. Politicians encourage property booms and financial bubbles because they provide instant cash for their State projects. They refuse to balance the budgets preferring to try to bribe voters with money they do not have. The public then pays for the consequences.

In short, the Lisbon Treaty EU is becoming more like the German Democratic Republic of the early postwar period. They had parties called Socialist, Christian Democrats and Liberals, but in reality they were counterfeits controlled by the Communist party of the Soviet Union. The proof is in their deceitful and fraudulent attitudes to referendums.

Today we do not have supranational democracy but intergovernmentalism by a party cartel. What is important, as in 1989, is the right of citizens to change the whole system. And that right to choose and change is not given by politicians -- it is a God-given right -- but it was recognized by governments as a citizens' right at the beginning of the European Community system in 1951. Schuman and Adenauer were aware that the Soviet Union would collapse before the end of the twentieth century.

Choosing the FORM of Democracy is the most Fundamental of all Fundamental political Rights. Not all forms are equal. Each nation, however, has the right to choose its own democratic system. Robert Schuman, the Father of Europe, recognized many different forms of democracy. Unusual for a Frenchman from Republican France, he observed pragmatically that some constitutional monarchies respect democratic practice more than some republican forms of governments. The choice, however, is up to the citizens of each country. The main mission of all is to make each more democratic and fair.

If that is the case for each Member State, then do Europeans have the right to choose how democracy is organized at a European level? Schuman said emphatically: Yes. Furthermore he put that right as one of the first, one of the most fundamental of rights, into the very first agreement of governments right at the beginning of the modern Europe. He got every minister at the Treaty signature ceremony to sign it. It was also presented to the public so that all the parliaments of the six founder States could ratify it. And so they did.

It is called the Great Charter of Europe. It was signed sixty years ago. Isn't it curious that that date was not celebrated by the Council of Ministers?

It was the sixtieth Birthday of the first meeting of the Council of Ministers.

Isn't it amazing that that date was not celebrated by the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Consultative Committee and the Court of Justice?

It was the sixtieth Anniversary of the governmental decision that brought them into existence as INDEPENDENT institutions. How forgetful they are! How ungrateful!

The Community is an act of faith in the solidarity of peoples and nations that are persuaded that the future holds no place for war amongst themselves and corruption that exploits their neighbours and themselves. The Great Charter fundamental right of being 'free to choose' assures the means to clean out corruption from oligarchic and cartel powers.

Maladministration can be addressed to the European Ombudsman. The following is my reaction to the inadequate excuses of the European Commission -- that is supposed to be the Guardian of the Treaties -- as to why they have not published the Great Charter or even the correct version of the Schuman Declaration. It is not just a matter for the European Ombudsman but for European citizens. It is their Great Charter. It is everyone's Fundamental Right that is being challenged and buried.

TO THE EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN

Schuman Project


Ref: Ombudsman refs 1200/2010/RT and 663/2011/RT

 

Dear Ombudsman,
This is to clarify my dissatisfaction with the Commission's non-reply to the main issues for which I requested a response, together with lack of figures and details of hierarchical responsibility. I have already sent you a copy of my letter back to the Commission DG Communication (also included below).

1. NO financial figures were given about how much was spent on the Schuman Declaration activities in 2010, by which I mean directly relevant Schuman Declaration activities, not cocktails and publicising other people's activities. A comparable case was the 'Together since 1957' programme which had a logo. What activities had a '60 years of the Schuman Declaration' logo or equivalent? What was said, what was published, what was broadcast about how the Declaration and the treaty provided for a peace system that gives present citizens the longest period of peace in more than 2000 years of history?

2. The Commission DG says that the Commission will correct what it has till now wrongly called the FULL text of the Schuman Declaration. It has been clear for half a century it is not the FULL text. The present Commission has for more than a decade facsimile copies of the originals, as I pointed out. The Commission still has not said what it means by FULL text. This needs to be spelt out as it already has its own 'flexible' definition of 'full' -- equivalent to what normal people call 'abridged, uncorrected and incomplete'. I request the Ombudsman to ask for clarification from the Commission.

Nowadays, due to this persistent error of the Commission and other EU institutions, nearly every other private and public publication including school textbooks and academic material, as well as European organisations and political parties, now use the wrong version. How and when will the Commission make the corrections and will it give conferences about it? Will all the institutions signal it widely with a prolonged programme? This situation has arisen because of the wilful Commission action in publishing the inaccurate version, prolonged incompetence in not checking the readily available facsimiles and the authentic sources, and inertia and refusal to reply to many letters and correspondence from the public over the years pointing out the errors. How does it propose to clean up the errors in publications and on the Web?

3. I asked who was responsible for the outright refusal to celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the day the Founding Fathers called the 'true foundation of Europe'. The non-answer was 'it was not selected by the institutions.' ! This is an evasive circumlocution. I know, and you will be aware from the absence of even a press release, that it was not only NOT selected but the persons responsible deemed the true foundation of Europe should be ignored to such an extent no one should hear a whisper about it from the institutions. Why? and Who? The Ombudsman should also be aware that besides the daily televised press conferences, briefings on legal, political and other matters, the dozens of daily press releases, the Commission also publishes each Friday a 5 or 6 page 'Calendrier' (CLDR series) of the coming week. It includes all the meetings of the Commissioners for the coming week plus 'previsions' of the main events and meetings for the month. A competent staff instructed to provide diary and anniversary information must have been told by their political masters and mistresses to ignore and omit any mention of what should be the most important date for the existence of the Commission -- the day when governments signed it into existence in the treaty, 18 April 1951.

The circular answer from DG Communication is aimed at hiding political responsibility. It is gross mal-administration because the public, including the tax-payer, is not able to call to account through this anonymity those responsible for misuse of public funds and distorting political influence. Names should be named on money matters and no policy of hiding political responsibility for misleading propaganda should be countenanced by the Ombudsman. The silence and the blotting out of the historical facts about the 'true foundation of Europe ' contrasts starkly with the millions spent subsidizing and campaigning for the false 'Birthday' of 1957 -- a pure fiction, subscribed to by none of the Founding Fathers. A bureaucracy should not be allowed to cloak what is politically or administratively embarrassing on such a serious matter as multimillion euro budgets and public education about European democracy. In this case the political action aims at hiding the legally agreed Human Rights of citizens recognized at the time of the foundation of Europe by (a) Member States (b) the European institutions about to be created and set in action as European governance. Furthermore who, might I ask, was responsible for spending 4 million euros and possibly much more on false propaganda about 'Together since 1957'?

4. The same goes even more for the Charter Declaration on Europe by the Founding fathers. What is the Commission's plan to correct this omission in publications, on the Web and also in the legal databases? How is it planning to make citizens aware that the 'right to choose' about Europe's organisation is fundamental and that the Founding Fathers considered that supranational democracy was the TRUE FOUNDATION of Europe rather than the present deformation of the system (intergovernmentalism)?

5. There are urgent and far-reaching reasons that the 1951 Great Charter should be published widely and be the primary and key part of the legal corpus of the Communities and the present EU. Some of these reasons are given in my letter to DG Communication. The right of citizens enshrined in the Charter goes beyond the 54 'fundamental rights' of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Lisbon Treaty. In articles 53 and 54 of the latter it is clear that earlier rights such as specified in the Founding fathers' Great Charter are not abrogated in any way. One of the rights in the Great Charter is more fundamental that any of the 'fundamental rights' of the Lisbon Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Great Charter gives all citizens the right to choose how Europe should be organised democratically, describes the initial 5-institution framework to be developed and says it can inspire democratic impulsions beyond its frontiers as a totally new type of foreign policy. It specifies that systems such as the People's Democracies of the Soviet era are not acceptable as Member States of the Communities or the EU. This exclusion requires and provides the means to define democracy more accurately than it is being used nowadays and refine the Community system to make it develop more fairly in the future. The publication of the Great Charter and its legal use are therefore of major importance both for the Courts and for the Ombudsman.

The 1951 Great Charter is a legal document at the heart of European Community and EU law, so defined by Robert Schuman in his writings and the other Founding Fathers. The 1951 Great Charter is a concomitant part of the Treaty of Paris, signed by governments and ratified by all 11 chambers of parliaments in the Six Member States plus a number of other bodies such as economic and social committees of Member States. Like all treaties, all charters and all laws, it obliges the signatory powers and all others affected by it to publish it so that it may be fully applied. In the last paragraph the Charter as a legal document says succinctly:

• that all governments have a public responsibility to interact, explain and interpret in their national contexts,
• that all parliaments and other organisations should be actively participating in public debates to elucidate the supranational democratic principles involved and
• that the European institutions must have the support of public opinion for their functioning and be willing to interact fully within the agreed structures as their service to Europeans for peace and prosperity.

Should you have any questions on the above. please do not hesitate to contact me.

Many thanks again for your service.

Yours etc,

Truth 14: The Right to Choose is at the foundation of Human Rights

Having received a reply from the European Commission again refusing to publish the Great Charter of the Founding Fathers of the European Community, I was invited by the European Ombudsman to give my reactions.

Background The Founding Fathers of Europe defined 18 April 1951 as the day which was the Birthday of Europe. Their signatures of the Treaty of Paris and the commitment of Six Founder States, they said, was the 'REAL FOUNDATION' of Europe. It was to be based on supranational democracy. They provided a Great Charter defining as the principal right of citizens the right and freedom to choose. This is necessary to distinguish TRUTH. This excluded the so-called 'People's Democracies' where the political parties were in control and free organized civil society was banned or gagged. It excluded religious autocracies. It excluded any form of political dictatorship. Recently European politicans European politicans refused to recognize referendums saying NO to their shoddy Constitutional Treaty designed to give parties more power. They changed its name to the Lisbon Treaty  and parties forced it through. They have spent more than 4 million euros (plus untold millions indirectly) in deceitful propaganda like the 'Together since 1957' programme. The aim was to try to convince European citizens that the European Community began in 1957 with the treaties of Rome. They mention only one treaty -- the Economic Treaty -- and say that all the EU today derived from the Market. This is FALSE. First came reconciliation then Europe's democratic political structures. Europe began with the European Community system in 1951, the first Community being the European Coal And Steel Community. It created Europe's first Single Market in 1953 and created the need for further democratic Communities. Since the time of de Gaulle in the 1960s these Communities have not been able to function democratically because of the centralizing position of the Council of Ministers and now the European Council.

Here is my reply.



Schuman Project
David H Price, Editor

30 May 2011
To
Director General, Communication
European Commission

Re: Ombudsman refs 1200/2010/RT and 663/2011/RT

Dear Mr Sørensen,
Thank you for your letter of 15 April 2011 relative to my long correspondence about the EU’s plans for celebrating the 60th anniversary of the founding of the European Union on 18 April 2011.

I am glad to receive confirmation that Mr Robert Schuman’s Declaration of 9 May 2011 will be published in its full form, that is, the Commission publications will be corrected. That implies correction according to a certified copy from the original held by the French Foreign Ministry. Does this ‘corrected’ Commission publication include the preliminary, strategic paragraphs placing the French government decision in its world political context? I would be grateful to know if you have received an official copy from the French Foreign Ministry. If so, I would be grateful to receive a copy.

I wish to renew my request for the immediate publication of the Charter of the Founding Fathers, the Declaration made on 18 April 1951. Notwithstanding the remarks of the Ombudsman in 1200/2010/RT, I believe it is the Commission’s legal responsibility to publish Europe's great Charter, establishing the ‘true foundation’ of Europe, based on supranational democratic principles. The argument about its absence in the archive of EUI at Florence is irrelevant. This is based on a misunderstanding of the dating {it starts officially in August 1952} and mission {it covers internal bureaucratic files only}of the Florence EUI Archives, as I described in my letter of 16 February 2011.

The reasons the Commission is legally and morally obliged to publish the Charter include the following:

1. The Declaration of the Founding Fathers acting as Plenipotentiaries of the Six is an official document of the European Community. It is a concomitant part of the foundational Treaty of Paris that was ratified in all parliamentary chambers of the Founder States.
2. The Commission believes it right to publish the foundational Treaty of Paris, even though it does not possess an authentic copy from France in Brussels or in its archives at Florence. France gave official copies only to Member States. The Treaty is the original basis for European law. All the Community institutions should publish this Charter as a concomitant part of the Treaty. The Charter is also part of Community law, defining rights and duties of States, organisations and individuals, as well as those of the European institutions. The principles of the Charter are not time-limited in any way.
3. This legally important Charter contains elements and principles dealing with Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of all citizens. There is no excuse as to why it has not been published by the Commission. This is a major oversight. It denies citizens proper knowledge of how the European States and institutions have recognized their rights.
4. Being published on an unofficial Luxembourg website (which is not always working properly) is not an argument to relieve the Commission of its dereliction. The Commission has legal responsibilities to publish it as a founding document. It is a legal responsibility of the Commission and the other institutions to make known to citizens their rights and privileges as being part of the Community. This Charter document is a succinct legal document describing those rights. One of the obligations spelt out prominently in the Charter is that it must be properly published, specifically by the governments and others organs. (See inter alia the first paragraphs and the last line of the Charter.)
5. Other documents such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Lisbon Treaty have been published. Yet this 1951 Great Charter is the foundation for those rights in the Lisbon Treaty Charter. It is all the more reason why the Commission should not only publish it but give it great prominence.
6. It is a legal document of the Community signed by Plenipotentiaries, and ratified by Parliaments. It should also be introduced into the legal database of documents of the EU such as EurLex.
7. It defines the conditions by which the two halves of Europe, divided by the Iron Curtain, or military occupation such as Cyprus can be fully active members of the European Community. It provides the philosophical basis for the Community’s foreign policy. This is of major importance in relation to the ‘Arab Spring’ and events in the Middle East, Africa, China, Russia and elsewhere.

You write that ‘The celebration of other important historical dates, such as the 60th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration or of the Treaty of Paris, were not selected by the European institutions as communication priorities.’ {My emphasis} Can you tell me how this was decided? Who authorized spending ɛ4.2 million on the ‘Together since 1957’ project and that this date should be acclaimed as Europe’s 50th birthday – when clearly it was not? Which committees were responsible for checking, controlling and passing a multi-million euro programme based on false historical information?

How much was spent on the Robert Schuman Declaration celebration in May 2010, how was it selected, who authorized how was it spent?

Who decided that the real 60th birthday of Europe, as defined by the Founding Fathers, 18 April 2011 should not be ‘selected’? Which officials decided that nothing should be spent on it and that not even a press release should be issued? Who was on the committee? Were the concepts in my long, two-year correspondence saying that it should be the major celebration of recent years discussed? Mr Schuman declared that his great initiative ‘would make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible’. That has happened. Europeans are now living in the longest period of peace in more than 2000 years of history. Why was this date, not only not selected but being a hugely important and well-known calendar date, DE-selected from any celebration, mention or the slightest communication? I enclose a recent article I wrote about it, published on several websites in Europe and North America. http://democracy.blogactiv.eu/2011/04/18/mr-barroso-where-is-europes-celebration-of-the-first-real-peace-and-democracy-in-2000-years-today-18-april-2011-is-the-60th-anniversary/

Thank you in advance for your replies to these questions. I am enclosing a copy of this letter to the Ombudsman as the above questions were raised and not answered or dealt with even after the above referenced complaint.

Yours sincerely,

David Price

Research1 FP8. Is the EU too proud, too atheistic, to scientifically research its origin and Europe's future?

What is the scientific topic that is of most vital interest to the entirety of European research? What is the European scientific discovery that countries around the world look for with green envy and wish they had it?

It is a scientific achievement that has the world gazing in open-mouthed wonder.

Clue: it is the topic that the present European leaders refuse to fund as part of the Framework programme for research. Not only in the present programme, but I know of no funded research in any of the multibillion euros programmes in the past.

That intellectual question, of course, is:

How did Europe create a system that brought PEACE to the warring, bloody states of Europe? After exporting its quarrels and creating two world wars, how is it that today Europe is now living in the LONGEST PERIOD OF PEACE IN 2000 years? Why are there continuous wars and violence, authoritarianism and misery to the north, south and east of the European Union? How did the European Community become a prosperous ZONE of PEACE?


Robert Schuman called it Europe's great SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT. The Framework Programme for research, however, has become an iron box constraining all research into the materialistic scientism of our deformed educational system and the economic egotism of politicians. Politicians want to set the goals of research -- and in the 2020 and 2030 programmes they want no more talk of democracy! They have other goals wrong too, by any impartial analysis. Research by its very nature should be open to new ideas. The European Union, if driven by these false motives and fed by billions of taxpayers' money, is directed to goals away from the noblest achievement of European history.

Why? Because both the atheistic educational system and the vanity of politicians is scared of addressing the miracle of our times.

How did nations and peoples who for 2000 or more years have for every generation killed and conquered each other, how did these warlike people suddenly embark on PEACE?

Robert Schuman attributes it to two factors: a scientific study of the history of humankind in various sectors and the revelation of Christianity. It is the latter -- or rather the combination of science and religion that that sends the politicians and the scientists into a tizzy.

Their reaction is irrational, emotional and unscientific. Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist of modern times, acknowledged as such by Einstein and others, spent more of his time studying the Bible in Greek and Hebrew than he did on the experiments and theories of gravitation, optics and the creation of mathematical tools like calculus. Why? Because by studying the Bible he drew inspiration for solving the deepest mysteries of the physical world. His motives were not scientific discovery alone but the quest of personal truth and understanding his place in the Creator's universe.

The same is true for Michael Faraday, the chemist and great experimenter of physics who discovered electromagnetism and its invisible fields. Without his work on electric motors and dynamos, modern society could not function. The theoretician of electromagnetism, James Clerk Maxwell, also drew his inspiration from the Bible and his belief and faith in his Creator.

These men made great discoveries. Their faith taught them humility and they often refused honours and decorations. Humility and the search for truth is necessary in establishing scientific facts from myths and errors.

They described physical processes that had escaped the wisest men of antiquity. Our universities teach Aristotle, Plato and many other ancient pagan philosophers. They were undoubtedly smart, perhaps they were even cleverer than any of the present generation. Yet they never discovered the physics of gravity or were able to apply the principles of electromagnetism. Without a spiritual revelation the material characteristics of the physical world around them remained a mystery.

In our times a great mystery has been revealed. Yet when it comes to the miracle of our times -- the means to make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible -- the EU is silent and dumb. It wants its research to pursue dumb projects that have nothing to do with Man's purpose on this planet. Where did Schuman gain his insights? Is it a coincidence that he also studied the Bible on a daily basis? Is it not worth scientific study that if the greatest innovators and scientists of our age say they drew their inspiration from the Bible, then we should study whether this is coincidence or divine revelation? To dismiss the remarkable 'coincidence' is a sign of prejudice not science. It is a manifestation of the pervading religion of our times -- arrogant, materialistic scientism with its own atheistic dogmas and ideologies.

What did Schuman say about the philosophers he had studied at universities and which he continued to read in the original Latin and Greek? 'The Book of Proverbs in the Bible is richer in sense than all the vast tomes of philosophy.' Was it practical? Was it useful for a statesman and Prime Minister who had steered France through its greatest external post-war threats (Soviet expansion, an attempted Communist coup d'Etat and the resurgent German problem), resolved its financial crises (massive inflation combined with enormous deficits), and set the foundation for a new age of peace in Europe? 'My long experience allows me to confirm how correct it is,' he told his colleague Rene Lejeune.

If this phenomenon is thus proven, if the results are confirmed by the greatest scientists, including Schuman, shouldn't Biblical philosophy be studied? Shouldn't it be part of the European research programme?

Woaah! That would shock the advisers and experts of the FP8! Why? Because the scientific research programme of the EU is not scientific. There are No Go areas. Set by whom? An anti-religious minority. The entire programme it would seem is in the control of atheists or sympathizers who do not call them out, who ban any research into the study of any philosophy that is not atheistic or comes from pagan Greek philosophers. These experts apparently are cleverer than Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein and Schuman combined!

Pagans? OK! Christianity? You will get NO money, only ribald laughter. Jewish philosophy and the Hebrew Bible? Huh. Do not even ask the question! Yet there are proportionally more Jewish Nobel prize winners than any other race or religion.

Why does the EU exclude what it despisingly calls the 'religious' that is non-pagan philosophy from the techniques and requirements for scientific discovery? Prejudice. Totally unscientific. One in five of the around 800 Nobel Prize winners have Jewish blood. Yet Jews amount to only one in 500 of the world's population. They make a extraordinarily disproportionate, rich and varied contribution to the scientific culture of the planet.

They come from all countries of the world. Babies start with zero education. Surely there must be something in the Book and culture that the Jews have preserved in all these environments for three or four thousand years. Even in the USA, those of Jewish origin gain 27 percent of the Nobel prizes, (3 % of the population) Protestant origin 72 percent and Roman Catholic 1 percent (with a quarter of the population). Einstein had a passionate zeal for ancient Jewish Solomonic philosophy in his youth and interestingly his theory of relativity draws on concepts of time and space long exposed in ancient Jewish writings.

With the EU's outdated, false ideas of the war of science and religion, it is no wonder that Europe's research is entering an impasse of its own making, and that of its unenlightened political leaders.

The Research and Innovation Directorate General of the Commission is requesting opinions on their latest Framework Programme and a Green Paper. Here are the replies of the Schuman Project.

Consultation on the Green Paper –

"Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU research and innovation funding"

The name of my organisation is Schuman Project on the origin, purpose and future of the supranational European Community system and Robert Schuman's thought and action

 

Have you or your organisation received funding in the last three years from EU FP7, CIP or other EU programmes? ... None of the above

 

Have you or do you intend to submit a separate written response to this consultation ... Don't know

 

Working together to deliver on Europe 2020

 

1. How should the Common Strategic Framework make EU research and innovation more attractive and easy to access for participants? What is needed in addition to a single entry point with common IT tools, a one stop shop for support, a streamlined set of funding instruments covering the full innovation chain and further steps towards administrative simplification?   The European Commission's 2020 paper and the 2030 report have major flaws which are outlined in commentaries at http://www.schuman.info/2020-1.htm and /2020-2.htm plus /2030.htm dealing with the Gonzalez Report. These analyze the inadequacies of the Commission's position in relation to (1) democracy in a supranational Community of Europe (2) Energy security and the need for an Energy Community based on supranational democratic lines outlined by Robert Schuman and others in the past plus the need to set energy independence as a strategic goal. The criticism of the Gonzalez Report deals with (a) the lack of research in Security and Defence and in particular how the European Community system developed a security Community that 'made war not only unthinkable but materially impossible'. Those are the words of the Schuman Proposal of 9 May 1950. Schuman said his proposal was like 'a scientific experiment'. He had proved the theory and applied it. The result? Western Europe now has the longest period of peace in 2000+ years while neighbouring States still go to war. http://democracy.blogactiv.eu (b) the Energy problem and supply blackmail (c) democracy (d) the financial crisis and supranational solutions. The major question for the Commission is whether it wishes to get involved in the supranational question since it has avoided this research over the last decades. This is bizarre as the supranational system has produced the most beneficial outcomes in Europe's entire history

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

 

2. How should EU funding best cover the full innovation cycle from research to market uptake?   The EU should first acknowledge the area of research of the supranational which provided innovations such as 1. Europe's first Single market 1953, yes 1953! 2. Peace system is vital for research 3. Economic unity comes from this supranational process 4. Monetary union is possible but this needs to be coherent with supranational principles and at present it is not. The above are far more basic than usual considerations of the innovation cycle.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

 

3. What are the characteristics of EU funding that maximise the benefit of acting at the EU level? Should there be a strong emphasis on leveraging other sources of funding?   Funding is secondary to a healthy policy orientation. Funding without correct orientation can reinforce errors such as over-reliance on inter-governmentalism and disparaging of European democratic structures, including the proper place for organized civil society.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

 

4. How should EU research and innovation funding be used to pool Member States' research and innovation resources? Should Joint Programming Initiatives between groups of Member States be supported?   The structure of inter funding and cooperation should be coordinated with the properly set up supranational political and democratic structures rather than ad hoc committees.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

 

5.What should be the balance between smaller, targeted projects and larger, strategic ones?   In the applied research area coordination is necessary. In the pure research it is a matter of judgement of the results. In other areas planetary targets are necessary, comprising both small and large projects. This requires a system able to tackle complexity such as the supranational system.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

 

6.How could the Commission ensure the balance between a unique set of rules allowing for radical simplification and the necessity to keep a certain degree of flexibility and diversity to achieve objectives of different instruments, and respond to the needs of different beneficiaries, in particular SMEs?   Bureaucracy is a drag on research. The administration should be light and controls against corrupt practice should be managed via a multi-layered approach where appeals for analysis and inspection can be made when various alarm bells ring and help can then be sought from expertise to resolve problems. It is necessary to have a political decision that allows smaller amounts of money to be free of strings to allow and encourage research participation where innovative ideas are involved. Some other funding requires strict control. The supranational system provides possibilities for a democratic GosPlan of vast complexity. It could be more efficient than China's innovative approach and more flexible.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

 

7.What should be the measure of success for EU research and innovation funding? Which performances indicators could be used?   The concentration on economics is often counter-productive. The Schuman system took a Maslovian approach starting with creating peace, not war. Then economic gains can be made, followed by social and political innovations, then monetary union with corresponding enlarged democratic control (which we do not have). Further stages of development deal with ontological questions and human happiness (rather than the present politics of greed and selfishness). Thus a hierarchy of performance indicators is required involving the accumulation of wisdom, the principal matter.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

 

8.How should EU research and innovation funding relate to regional and national funding? How should this funding complement funds from the future Cohesion policy, designed to help the less developed regions of the EU, and the rural development fund?   The European institutions are at present still undeveloped. The Council does not act as an open forum as treaties require, nor does it integrate properly with national parliaments and other national bodies in free and open debate. The Committee of the Regions is not yet even democratically elected. it shoudl have its own elected sub-committees as well as the Economic and Social Committee which also has never had an election in its more than 50 years of existence. The reaction to this democratic tardiness is to create alternative committees while waiting for these institutions to gain the democratic spurs is often anti-progressive as it increasing the comitology. All decisions should have democratic legitimacy by elected representatives not by bureaucrats or their invitees. Money should not be earmarked by technical committees. Elected representatives should coordinate policies inside the well-designed Community system, not the horror we have today.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

 

Tackling Societal Challenges

 

9. How should a stronger focus on societal challenges affect the balance between curiosity-driven research and agenda-driven activities?   The focus of societal changes has not been properly addressed as the European Council issues its own pronoucements without full democratic consultation. It has returned to closed door intergovernmentalism. Thus full democracy is necessary BEFORE goals can be set. If ministers refuse to recognize referendums, if the elections get ever-declining turn-outs, if there is more and more discontent about the budget handling and if the support for political parties decline further (it is already far less than half of the popualtion), then the main work needs to be focused on democracy not artificial goals (sometimes lobby-driven) of the European Council.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

 

10. Should there be more room for bottom-up activities?   There should be adequate activities for democracy at all levels: 1. European with an eye on the planet, 2 national, 3 regional 4 economic and social (organized societies), 5 individual and 6 legal.

 

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

 

11. How should EU research and innovation funding best support policy making and forward looking activities?   This is vital as politicians in an intergovernmental approach think short term, companies think about balance sheets. Inadequate interaction occurs on global issues which can seriously affect the EU, eg North Africa revolts, wars, energy embargoes, price hikes of oil/gas (greater than the EU budget!) China, US debt, climate change, population and food problems. All five original EU institutions should be the coordiantion agencies for dealing with certain aspects of such problems and challenges. This provides for the management of complexity. The Community provides a sectoral approach which provides clearer answers to vital questions. The Lisbon treaty's one-size-fits-all has proven inadequacy.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

 

12. How should the role of the Commission's Joint Research Centre be improved in supporting policy making and forward looking activities?   The JRC has huge potential but is not always able to deploy it. I say this as one who has worked there. In short it should act as a research arm for the five institutions as judged necessary and as agreed democratically.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

 

13. How could EU research and innovation activities attract greater interest and involvement of citizens and civil society?   Public involvement will come from democratizing the institutions as the Founding Fathers declared was necessary in their Charter declaration of 18 April 1951 (www.schuman.info/europedeclaration.htm ) and in developing the five outline structues they defined to improve supranational democracy of the Community system. Example, the European Parliament has not had a single election conforming to the articles in the treaties of Paris or Rome that say a single electoral statute should be passed valid for all States. www.schuman.info/election1.htm Elections of the EP and the EESC and CoR should be on a Europe-wide basis, according to the treaties we already have. www.schuman.info/schoolreport.htm The Economic and Social Committee has statutory powers of legal assent to legislation. Its legitimacy would come if it was elected on a European basis as the Founding Fathers said. It would provide a consensus decision combining viewpoints of 1 Enterprises, 2 Workers, 3 Consumers. Each grouping has a third of the votes.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

 

Strengthening competitiveness

 

14. How should EU funding best take account of the broad nature of innovation, including non technological innovation, eco-innovation, and social innovation?   By taking into account democratically formulated policy in all areas of human activities falling within Community treaties, the risk of technocratic decision-making can be minimized. The five institutions need to be fully working for this.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

 

15. How should industrial participation in EU research and innovation programmes be strengthened? How should Joint Technology Initiatives (such as those launched in the current Framework Programmes) or different forms of "public private partnership" be supported? What should be the role of European Technology Platforms?   Refer to my answer to 13. Inventing further committees without legitimacy of democracy is counter-productive and makes public support more difficult.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

 

16. How and what type of Small and Medium-sized Entreprises (SME) should be supported at EU level; how should this complement national and regional level schemes? What kind of measures should be taken to decisively facilitate the participation of SMEs in EU research and innovation programmes?   Support is a loaded word as it implies directing the goals of SMEs to something other than they would have chosen. The best motiviation is self motivation. The best goals are those where the SMEs feel they are making a positive contribution to a common useful, human, strategic goal of planetary importance. Recycling tax payers money via bureaucrats is sometimes the least efficient way for a society to achieve important goals. Helping SMEs to use their own profits wisely helps the whole of society.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

 

17. How should open, light and fast implementation schemes (e.g. building on the current FET actions and CIP eco-innovation market replication projects) be designed to allow flexible exploration and commercialisation of novel ideas, in particular by SMEs?   See my answer to 13.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

 

18. How should EU level financial instruments (equity and debt based) be used more extensively?   Financial solvency should not be compromised by offering credit where it would undermine the economy as we see not only in Ireland. it would be a healthier step to initiate sound financial practice rather than for the EU to be unthinking instruments of banks either directly or indirectly. See 16.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

 

19. Should new approaches to supporting research and innovation be introduced, in particular through public procurement, including through rules on pre-commercial procurement, and/or inducement prizes?   All these schemes involve goals with little democratic basis and furthermore open to corrupt practice and lobbying. Public procurement for example requires tax money be used after interactive democratic discussions not the whim of a party politician. This also begs the question as to why ever increasing emphasis on R&D is made when little discussion is had on the goals and outcomes of an ever acquisitive, ever-competitive society. Research for what? Prizes for what? A more humane society, a more spiritual society or a more selfish society?

How important are the aspects covered in this question?

 

20. How should intellectual property rules governing EU funding strike the right balance between competitiveness aspects and the need for access to and dissemination of scientific results?   Patent monopolies and abuse was a major factor in World Wars eg IG Farben and Exxon. China is aiming to corner some intellectual property rights of major industries. As yet a full discussion of such issues has not been had. Discussion of patent cartels and monopolies must be opened up. This is a very specialized topic and a complex one. That is why the Founding Fathers created a Consultative Committee that would bring three sections: enterprises, workers and consumers together to take decisions on such matters. The outcome depends on my answer at 13.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Very important

 

Strengthening Europe's science base and the European Research Area

 

21. How should the role of the European Research Council be strengthened in supporting world class excellence?   See my answer at 13.

 

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

 

22. How should EU support assist Member States in building up excellence?   See my answer at 13.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

 

23. How should the role of Marie Curie Actions be strengthened in promoting researcher mobility and developing attractive careers?

 

How important are the aspects covered in this question?

 

24. What actions should be taken at EU level to further strengthen the role of women in science and innovation?   Gender issues as well as many others are part of my answer in 13.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

 

25. How should research infrastructures (including EU-wide e-Infrastructures) be supported at EU level?   See answer to 13. This involves as it has for the last decades since Euronet in the 1980s the laying of fast telecom lines and data structures but the ultimate need is for democratic interactions.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

 

26. How should international cooperation with non-EU countries be supported e.g. in terms of priority areas of strategic interest, instruments, reciprocity (including on IPR aspects) or cooperation with Member States?   Policy issues need to be formulated using the Community method. Some international interactions are downright dangerous for Europeans. For example exports of fissile material and dual use technologies to Iran and other countries should be assured through the controls of the Euratom treaty which have never really been implemented (see www.schuman.info/euratom.htm ) The same is true of other sectors and areas that should be coordinated and policy defined via active European institutions such as the Commission, EECS, CoR, EP and the Council. Companies and consumers working with non-EU countries bring a huge amount of intelligence about ways to cooperate with them and their cultures. That is why institutions like the EESC were created so that this knowledge can be shared.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Important

 

27. Which key issues and obstacles concerning ERA should EU funding instruments seek to overcome, and which should be addressed by other (e.g. legislative) measures?   All issues and goals should be subject to proper democratic debate BEFORE there is talk of taxpayers' funding of projects and Legislation. It is for ddemocratic instances to declare the direction. At present there is a great risk that these choices are made by over-active lobby groups without adequate debate taking place in the Council and that behind closed doors. National parliaments have to pass block legislation and there are still no adequate debates and simplifications procedures. Rather politicians are subject to legislative and funding gluttony in attempts to show they are active and have worthwhile careers. Then the legislation or the projects are found to be wrong-headed, the laws indigestible and incomprehensible. Democracy is lacking in the conception of goals, in the process of initiating funding and the writing of laws.

How important are the aspects covered in this question? ... Of some importance

 

Closing question

 

Are there any other ideas of comments which you believe are important for future EU research and innovation funding and are not covered in the Green Paper?   Actual research of the supranational system, its origin and purpose as well as the means to redress against corrupt practice have not been part of the EU research, mainly it would seem it would collide with political goals. This is a sad commentary on the present politics of Europe. After 50 years where nationalists such as de Gaulle tried their best to destroy the Community, and milk the system (CAP meat mountains and milk lakes, secret funding of nuclear projects etc), it is now time to realise that the Community system will not turn over and die. Corruption in all its forms still needs to be addressed. The Community systems still survives because it has a moral base. Supranational democracy represents the major chance and benefit for Europe and for the planet.