Circus4: Byzantine Commission structure provides jobs for unemployed politicians

The Commission’s drive to reduce unemployment is working!

Five former prime ministers and 19 former ministers have found jobs. They have high-paid employment as Commissioners in Jean-Claude Juncker‘s new Commission, announced on 10 September 2014. It is composed of a record-breaking number of politicians — twenty eight. It is 100 percent, wall-to-wall, card-carrying politicians.

Career politicians are happy. They are being paid from public taxes. There is not a normal person, a non-politician, in sight. Candidates from among Europe’s 500 million citizens have been side-lined. Many could fill the role better than politicians: leaders in industry, law, advocacy, human rights, non-governmental organizations, ombudsmen, scientists, engineers. All honest people are eliminated by government leaders. That action is against the clear right of all citizens to be candidates for the job:

The Lisbon Treaty Article 10 TEU says:

10 para 3. Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.

Politicians want the Commission to be exclusively controlled by a dangerous party cartel. Cartels are dishonest, illegal and led to WW1.

The European Commission is political but it should not be party political, controlled by a party clique.The first President of the European Economic Community, Walter Hallstein said:

In principle, we have no [political] competences … because there is nothing of that nature in the Rome Treaty. But we have political responsibility because we are a political – not an economic – enterprise. The Common Market has the goal of unifying Europe politically.

Political parties, whether national or European, do not represent all of Europe. They are at best an important part but they do not encompass all interests of Europe. They cannot really be and be seen to be impartial honest brokers. Parties are partisan, representing a vocal part of the population. The European Commission must address all issues of all citizens. It must also address important matters such as the need to stop party political corruption and the need for governments to obey European law.

Hallstein was previously not a minister but an unelected civil servant in Adenauer’s government. He was chosen as president because, as formerly a professor of law and an ardent defender of democracy, he was better placed than others to lead in the struggle against egocentric politicians such as Charles de Gaulle. De Gaulle wanted to destroy Europe’s last chance for peace in its supranational institutions because he wanted to dominate the Continent for himself.

Hallstein called de Gaulle’s attempts to dismantle the peace progress achieved on the path to a supranational Europe “the greatest act of destruction in the history of Europe, even of the free world, since Hitler” (der größte Zerstörungsakt in der Geschichte Europas, ja der freien Welt, seit den Tagen Hitlers).

Politicians have been trying to create a peace structure in Europe for a thousand years. They all failed until the idea of a supranational Community was initiated. Its principles, however, are often ignored or abused. Politicians, especially later ones, have shown by their incompetence that they do not know how to bring peace, either in Yugoslavia, North Africa, Syria or in many other areas of the world. European politicians meddle ignorantly with the primary mechanism of an impartial Commission at their peril. It endangers all European citizens.

By Treaty Law, the European Commission should have a small, limited number of experienced people who have no further outside ties or interests. They should seek European common interest. Instead the politicians have refused to follow this. They have been trying to foist two major changes on the public:

The upshot of these illegal moves is that politicians have excluded all well-qualified European citizens who could be considered Commissioners.This nepotism of a party clique would be a serious matter of corruption in a town or commune. It is major corruption for the European Union which controls the strings of a 14 trillion euro economy ($18.5 trillion).

Who benefits? The political parties of the three major ‘families’ the ‘European People’s Party’ (George Orwell is spinning in his grave!), Socialists and Liberals. All other parties are excluded except for one. That is the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom. Apparently the British are keen to ‘renegotiate’ except when it comes to ‘jobs for the boys’.

The illegal innovations contradict both the letter and the spirit of the treaties. Why? National representation assumes that the person is not impartial. How should it be done? The most obvious way is to have an impartial jury and let the public nominate those they consider fair-minded and independent Europeans.

It would be more honest if government leaders nominated someone who was not a national of theirs and considered by all Europeans as impartial. Secondly those they nominate are obviously not impartial because they are friends and colleagues of the government leaders — who have many critics. They are also of the same political party. Having card-carrying party members proves they are not chosen according to the Treaty criteria. A party politician is partisan — the very opposite of impartial and independent.

European elections show voter turn-out at an all time low in spite of some countries having compulsory voting. Public opinion is more and more alienated from the European institutions.

The European Commission was set up and seen as the honest broker for diverse European interests. No more. The public has seen politicians fiddle the books on the euro. They have fiddled the statistics. Major countries like France and Germany have refused to follow the judgements of the European Court.

The politicians’ solution? Make the European Council the arbiter of ‘fiddling’! Change the European Commission that took them to Court — which once had no party politicians– to become exclusively the home of retired or unwanted politicians or those coveting an income boost.

What will be the outcome? Firstly more politicians means more political scandals and infighting. Secondly a continued amount of public distrust both of the politicians and unfortunately for the European institutions.



Euro12: European Council defies Ombudsman over rigging of EU Fiscal Pact!

The European Ombudsman has strongly condemned the European Council for unscrupulously rigging the Irish referendum and parliamentary votes around the EU on the Fiscal Compact that controls the European economy. By withholding crucial documents, the European Council has deceived both the public and parliaments in Member States who passed the Pact as law. The Fiscal Compact is in reality an undemocratic Con-Trick. It violates basic principles of national and European democracy and law.

  • How can parliaments judge whether the Pact is fair, if the European Council hides the facts?
  • How can a referendum decide, if the European Council rigs the evidence?
  • How can the public interrogate their parliamentary representatives if the flawed legal basis for taxation and expenditure is locked away in the Council’s safe?
  • Can European institutions such as the Community’s civil service be exploited as a skivvy for the politicians’ own non-Community Pact?
  • The euro violates rules for a Community monetary system. Dishonest book-keeping and fraud reduced the Euro’s real value by 75 percent. Politicians refused to follow the Founding Fathers’ supranational economic and monetary principles.

The Pact makes Council the supervisor of fraud! After the Ombudsman condemned the European Council’s maladministration, the same document was requested AGAIN. The European Council again defied the Ombudsman. It refused to provide the document. A further appeal was made to the Ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, that the European Council should respect her judgements and basic democratic principles.  The Ombudsman metaphorically threw up her hands. She confessed that the Ombudsman could do nothing to make the European Council follow the rules except the European Court of Justice.

She replied to me on 26 August 2014 that

‘I believe that a new inquiry into the Council’s recent refusal of disclosure would be repetitive, since there is no new element that would distinguish the new case of the one which I already inquired into. Moreover, the follow-up mentioned above (where the European Council again reiterated its own position) shows that the Council has no intention to change its position in this regard. It follows that a new inquiry into the same matters would, in all likelihood, lead to a new critical remark, which would neither be helpful to you, nor would trigger any positive follow-up from the Council.’

What is this crucial document? The European Council produced an analysis on the Pact’s flaws in terms of EU law. For European citizens it covered whether within the Pact they could take the Council and Commission to Court for abuse and criminality associated with it. That is a fundamental democratic right of all citizens. This key analysis is vital for understanding the basis on which the European Council is attempting to control the lives of 500 million citizens and multiple trillions of euros.

The document analyzing the insecure legal basis of the Fiscal Pact was circulated secretively to some EU delegations. It was never rendered public, in spite of national parliamentary debates and a referendum. Yet it is crucial for Europeans to protect the nascent European democracy that has been so abused by the European Council fraud in the past.

In this Pact the European Council gave itself unprecedented powers over national budgets and imposed controls and reviews on government spending. The measures were forced through national Parliaments. Some national leaders refused to sign up to the Fiscal Pact. Thus the Pact cannot be regarded as EU or Community law. At best it is an international agreement masquerading as European law. Obfuscation.

The Fiscal Pact measures are so radical and further distort the Community method for European democracy that referendums in all Member States should have been mandatory. Only one country, however, was able to force a referendum about this measure. That was Ireland. Its constitution requires such matters with major democratic consequences be subject to a vote. Other Member States railroaded the measure through their parliamentary system. A bare majority sufficed. There was minimal or no public debate about it. In Cyprus, which was hit by a euro banking disaster that shook the rickety foundations of the euro, it was passed simply by governmental Decree thus bypassing parliament.

The European Council’s imposition of the Fiscal Compact bypassed all the usual democratic control of the European system such as the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and proper public debate, The European Council has consistently blocked the legally required elections for these bodies. In this case they just ignored them.

Are the Pact’s measures legal? Have Europeans lost their democratic rights? The Court has yet to pronounce.

Robert Schuman, the initiator of the European Community, defined democracy by the goals the European peoples define for themselves, not politicians. He said that all measures must be ‘in the service of Europeans and acting in agreement with the European peoples.‘ In this Pact, the people were left out of the loop in one of the most important measures in recent European history.

A key issue of this Pact is whether Europeans will be able to take legal action against politicians’ abuse or criminality spawned by these ‘closed door’ measures. Were the people consulted? No. Did they call for it? No. Did they agree? Hardly.

The European Council is acting to prevent democratic control of its new powers. Specifically it has thumbed its nose at the Ombudsman in refusing to release documents of primary interest. It did the same to the citizen who pay their salaries and the cost of the legal document in question.

Who are these people who are refusing democratic control over taxpayers money?

The Fiscal Compact was brought in because of corruption of politicians who not only overspent their countries’ budget, but used national budgets in voter bribes to sections of the public while giving ‘tax breaks’ to party supporters. Then they cooked the books. The national statistics were bent, twisted and contorted to cover the fraudulent activity.

If this had happened in a commercial company the perpetrators would now be in prison.

But they are politicians. Now they have a Pact that puts them in the judge’s seat.


Circus3: World War One warns us the Commission SCAM is a dangerous act of political nepotism!

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

Should someone who received less than ten percent support of the European electorate become Commission President? If this ludicrous choice is questioned, who decides?  A closed-door European Council cut off from democratic accountability? 57 percent of the electorate did not vote. Of those that did vote, up to a third voted for parties opposed to the lead candidates of the main parties (SpitzenKandidaten). In the UK it is estimated that less than 0.2 percent voted for any party associated with the EPP’s Mr Jean-Claude Juncker.

What does this tell us?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who are they? And why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it is also ILLEGAL.


Circus2: Partisan Commissioners are illegal!

The Political Nepotism circus continues. It is a legal time-bomb waiting to go off.

Seven Commissioners put their names forward as candidates for the European Parliament.

Don’t they know that this political activity makes their holding office as a Commissioner totally illegal?

  1. Vice President Reding, responsible for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship
  2. Vice President Tajani, responsible for industry and entrepreneurship
  3. Vice President Šefčovič, responsible for inter-institutional relations and administration
  4. Vice President Rehn, responsible for economic and monetary affairs and the Euro
  5. Commissioner Lewandowski, responsible for financial programming and the budget
  6. Commissioner Mimica, responsible for consumer policy.
  7. Commissioner De Gucht, responsible for trade, who curiously said he would not take up his seat.

The European Commission has become composed of wall-to-wall politicians. The Commission was originally all non-politicians! Over the years by sleight of hand governmental politicians replaced all independent thinkers by their Party buddies. This massive Party nepotism is contrary both to the spirit of the Community method and the letter of the treaties.

It is illegal. Politicians are directly and very specifically EXCLUDED by ALL treaties!

Who do political leaders now exclude from the Commission?

Ordinary citizens!

The European Commission was designed to be EXCLUSIVELY the domain of ordinary, honest citizens.

What sort of citizens should the Commission be composed of? The treaties from the first treaties (Paris 1951, the two treaties of Rome, 1957 up to the present Lisbon treaties) are clear.

The Commissioners are to be experienced in European sector matters. That is obvious but it is not the main qualification that the treaties insist on. The main criterion is INDEPENDENCE. They should be people of sterling character who are able to judge all matters before them with impartiality. They should not be moved by lobbies or disinformation. People of character like Walter Hallstein, Etienne Hirsch, Paul Finet, who stood up to the autocratic bombast of de Gaulle’s plan to turn the Commission into his secretariat (Fouchet Plan, policy of empty chair) required excellent political skills. These were not party politicians.

The Politburo parties want a full Fouchet Plan mark 2. But they have met with resistance by ‘populist’ parties that represent people who find their autocratic tactics unpopular and corrupt.

The Lisbon Treaty (TFEU) in article 245 says that:

The members of the Commission shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties. Member States shall respect their independence and shall not seek to influence them in the performance of their tasks. The members of the Commission may not, during their term of office, engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not. When entering their duties they shall give a solemn undertaking that, both during and after their term of office, they will respect the obligations arising there from and in particular their duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance, after they have ceased to hold office, of certain appointments or benefits.

What is meant by ‘INDEPENDENT’? The Commissioner must not depend, or be tied or be linked or associated with any other body or interest group. ‘Independent’ is plain English. Its equivalents are well understood in all European official languages of the treaties. There is no excuse for error!

What is the opposite of ‘Independent’? It is dependent, associated with another interest, tied to a faction. The opposite to independent is PARTISAN. That means the person is a member of a Party.

What have members of the Commission done illegally (besides misuse of Commission resources)? They have:

  • retained their active membership of political parties,
  • attended political party meetings of these chosen parties,
  • used public money (taxpayers’ money!) to attend these meeting and for other expenses,
  • involved officials (civil servants) of the Commission in these activities,
  • actively involved themselves in the partisan and ideological policies of their chosen parties,
  • put their names forward for party political posts,
  • militated for party policy for the European Parliament,
  • denigrated other parties and their policies,
  • been elected to the European Parliament as MEPs.

And in the final insult to the public

  • they have then returned to their offices in the European Commission with the hypocritical assertion that they are independent and impartial !!

In reality, these Commissioners done their utmost to prove they are absolutely PARTISAN !

The treaties do not take these violations as frivolously as the politicians. The same article says that in any breach of the Code of Independence, the Commissioner may be taken to Court and censored.

In the event of any breach of these obligations the Court of Justice may, on application by the Council, acting by single majority or the Commission, rule that the Member concerned shall be, according to the circumstances, either compulsorily retired in accordance to article 247 or deprived of his right of pension or other benefits in its stead.

The politicians may think they have things sown up so that this stipulation is rendered useless. Council politicians select subservient politicians who now dominate the Commission. They make their own internal Commission rules about parties. Nepotism rules both Council and Commission. They have excluded anyone who stands against them — especially critics who resent European policy being run for decades for the benefit of three mainstream parties in closed-door sessions in the European Council and the Council of Ministers.

Politicians have forgotten one other Court. That is the Court of Public Opinion. The European Parliament elections results show the mounting levels of distrust. The public turn away in contempt at this interminable stitch-up. Now the nepotistic system of biased national elections (and no European election) by governmental parties is working against the Politburo. It has returned between a quarter or a third of the seats to parties and personalities vigorously opposed to Euro-nepotism. Nearly three fifths of the public refuse to vote at all! Even taking into account the countries were voting is compulsory, the average turn-out for the EU is a derisive 43 percent.

The president of one of the EU institutions Henri Malosse warned that the crisis of confidence has reached such proportions that he wondered whether there will be another election!

What about the Court of Public Opinion? It has clearly given its opinion about the gerrymandering abuses of the European Parliament. Corruption in the EP increases corruption in the Commission. The public long recognized that most political parties are controlled by small groups and interests. External organisations, whether businesses, trade unions, consumer or environmental groups dominate both the policy and the activities. Political parties are by definition powerful lobby groups. The mechanisms by which they work is too often covered in sophisticated obscurity.

Does the public know what impartiality is? Can the public recognize partisans? Can the public understand who is really independent of partisan propaganda and disinformation?

Certainly! the public can analyze political abuse in politicians’ words and action. Political nepotism is easy to identify. It excludes independent non-party voices!

You can judge. When this question was put directly to the Commission’s Spokesperson, no public reply was forthcoming. The silence is eloquent. The public can conclude for itself whether this political nepotism is corrupt Politburo tactics or something honest.…

These illegal acts can have catastrophic legal consequences for 500 million citizens!


Elections2: How voters are diddled out of their European voice, again and again!

What would Americans say if in elections for Congress a citizen of one State had ten times the amount of votes than another State? What if some Americans were able to start voting at different ages, 16 or 18? And what if there was gross discrimination that would discourage anyone standing for Congress by demanding high amounts of money as deposits, and/or requiring vast numbers of signatures? How would Americans react if signatures from the ‘guys’ of government parties were worth 300 times the value of ‘normal’ citizens? Don’t you think Americans would be up in arms? Wouldn’t there be a long list of cases up before the Supreme Court, demanding justice?

All these malpractices are common in Europe. The European Union does not have a true supranational democracy as defined by the treaties. It is a counterfeit based on crooked practice. It has a distorted political oligarchy run by a Politburo. Discrimination is rife. It is the reason that the present European elections are fraudulent. Who gains? The secretive European Council is able to decide, while the Parliament still is impotent to resist them.

That’s not the worst of it. It is not a matter of who you vote for but IF you can vote for your preferred candidate. Who fixes the rules for voting? Most important of all is the secret vote in the European Council after the vote. These politicians can totally ignore the outcome. The president of Parliament may have been already decided in advance — before the elections. They decide about who takes power and how the taxpayers’ money will be used.

NEVER in more than sixty years have national governments allowed a real European election with a single Statute across the entire European Union countries. They block all reform. They want to have national elections for the European Parliament. Today we have 28 NATIONAL elections. This makes it impossible for a voter to make a European choice. Even if he identified what he considered the right European policy amongst the the socialist, liberal or European popular parties, he or she would have NO guarantee that the national candidate would reflect this policy. Voting is subject to block votes. In many countries the voter cannot even choose a real person. He or she is forced to vote for a national party list rather than an individual. That’s like giving a blank cheque to someone for five years without knowing who would spend it.

And now the party clique of these main parties are trying to make the Commission an exclusive reserve for politicians when the treaties say clearly that NO politician should be member of the Commission.

Politicians in the clique of Brussels Politburo have turned the European system into political nepotism for their friends and buddies.

How do they do it? You can know their secrets. They even published them officially at taxpayers’ expense.

Do you want to know how to make sure how all the political clique get re-elected to the European Parliament? Want to learn how to eliminate and confuse any other political parties that have the audacity to oppose you? If your voter-buddies are not happy with just a single vote, do you want to know where they can have ten votes?

All these and many more tips for cheating in the European elections can be found in a recent publication by whom? A secret Handbook by the Mafia? Not at all. The publication comes from the European Parliament itself.

Every time the Parliament goes to the ballot boxes the European Parliament publishes such a Handbook . Naturally it is not called How to cheat in the European Elections. That would give too much away. It is published with a boring cover and given a long and boring title. Its title is ‘The European Elections; EU Legislation, National Provisions and Civic Participation‘. It is a ‘Study’. It is published by the Directorate-General for Internal Policies. The Department C of this directorate is curiously called ‘Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs.’

Citizens’ rights is a bit rich. It is more about running roughshod over their rights. The Handbook also cheats the reader. Being a Handbook on cheating, it does not give all the tricks on cheating. The earnest seeker for democracy will have to search the web and the blogs for other examples.

The author does make a brave attempt at exposing some facts and abuses. However, a major effort should be made in presenting them to the public. Reform would be even better. Frankly enough, the publication starts with the treaty provisions from the European Community Treaty.

“The European Parliament shall draw up a proposal for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States or in accordance with principles common to all Member States. The Council shall, acting unanimously after obtaining the assent of the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component Members, lay down the appropriate provisions, which it shall recommend to Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.”

When in 1979 after Court action Europeans had the first opportunity to vote for the European Parliament, the national politicians (acting as the ‘Politburo’) made an extraordinary decision. They looked at the above treaty article and magnanimously allowed citizens to have a vote. But then they stopped mid-sentence! They ‘allowed’ elections on a national basis (where they could impose national rules). But they REFUSED the second part of the sentence. They blocked an election based on a Single Statute — that is common rules for selecting and voting for MEPs. They imposed their own rules in each of the Member States. ‘Coincidentally’ these rules all favoured the governmental parties and raised obstacles to their alternatives or critics.

At the time the Treaties of Rome required simply ‘a uniform procedure‘ full stop. That is a Single Statute. The slight modification of later treaties about ‘common principles‘ makes no difference at all. A Single Statute is required to say whether MEPs can be elected at 18 or 25 years minimum and whether they have to put up big deposits etc in one State but not in another. The thorny question of massive financing the ‘Politburo’ parties to the detriment of others also has to be tackled.

Parliament since made a few lukewarm attempts to implement this Single Statute. The Council refused. Then the Council tried to change the treaties to make it even more biased, without much success. That is basically too dishonest. The only people who benefit from any distortion or blockage of the original legal duty are the political parties, of which the governments are the prime representation.

Let’s go back to the Founding Fathers. They had a good idea, which showed commendable honesty and fairness. How would it work? To put it another way: what do citizens expect from a uniform, fair and open electoral system? This is not new territory. The battle for democracy in every country has developed the list of requirements. The system must include:

  • ·The right of any mature citizen to vote.
  • · The right of any citizen to create a party, peaceful movement or interest group.
  • · No restrictions based on of educational level, religion, financial standing
  • · One person, one vote.
  • · No discrimination by age, gender or race
  • · No artificial barriers, such as financial requirements, property-ownership.
  • · No restriction by requiring signed agreement of existing government parties.

Then we come to the right to vote. Should Governments, not citizens, say who votes? Obviously not. Some countries limit voters to those over 18 years; others over 16. One area of Europe, Gibraltar, was not allowed for a long time to vote at all. That was because the powers-that-be did not want to have one MEP elected from this small area, close to Spain. The voters appealed to the Courts against this discrimination and won. The judgement was given, not in the EU’s Court in Luxembourg, but in the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. What a failure of European governments! Of course this situation would not have arisen at all if the governments had obeyed their obligations in the treaties and allowed citizens to create equal rights for all citizens.

The right to have multiple votes. Here’s how to bias the European Parliament to gain extra influence. Voters are allowed to vote anywhere they have residence. But the votes are not equal. The same voter of a big State can move to a small country and increase the weight of his or her vote by a factor of ten. Thus the same national has either one vote or ten votes depending on where the ballot box is. Of course privileged people having the right to ten votes and thus influencing the political colour of the MEPs in Parliament was of no particular concern while de Gaulle and others had ‘chloroformed’ Parliament’s power and the Council totally ignored its Opinions. De Gaulle also gave votes to the Associated Territories because he considered they would vote for him even though they are not part of Metropolitan France.

Big votes in small States. One MEP in Germany represents 838,700 citizens. A Maltese MEP represents a mere 70,200 citizens. Nowadays when the Parliament has a serious voice in a multi-billion euro budget, the voters should be asking to clean-up the patently unfair system. Should the small countries be worried that will losing their over-representation with a one citizen, one vote system? Hardly. The small countries such as Luxembourg have always had a big advantage and they will retain it. The small States are usually the most impartial and most European. They demand fair play among the bullying politics of the big States. In any free vote in a pan-European election, it is inevitable that if the small States continue to emphasize honesty and fairness, and a European common good (rather than national bias), their candidates will always get high representation in Parliament.

Right to stand as a candidate. Governments will tell you who can stand. Some countries say the candidates should be at least 18 and others 21. Some, like Romania, say only 23 year-olds can stand. In three States, Greece, Cyprus and Italy, you have to be at least 25 years before you can stand. This is a good technique to cut out idealistic youths or some rumbustious rebels fed up with corrupt practice!

Costs. States can make it a tough struggle to stand as an independent candidate. Some States require no deposit. Why don’t they all? Others require candidates to find a deposit amounting to multiple thousands of euros. If they could only win enough votes against the stiff, privilege-entrenched governmental party competition, they might get the money back. Otherwise they lose. The national media is not likely to give much space to newcomers or publicize their views fairly as it might upset the biggest advertiser, the government. If they don’t win a minimum number of votes (also set by governments) and they keep trying, they will be penalized each time they do until they learn to stop. They will be stuck with mounting debts. One country had previously created the astounding wheeze to dissuade candidates by saying that candidates must pay 3600 euros to the State for the cost of printing ballot papers! This is a great tactic to make sure that no candidates from the poor sections of society can stand.

Signature Restrictions. States require candidates to publish names of supporters before they can be recognized as a movement. One Member State says that to stand as candidate only one signature is required. Of course that is not a normal citizen’s signature. It is that of a deputy, that is, a member of the existing political élite. Is it equal for someone who wishes to point out their failings? If the candidate wants to oppose the standing political powers-that-be, he or she has to get a few more signatures. Not one but 250 signatures. Thus we have a measure of how the political parties who wrote the law consider ordinary citizens. One politician (who is responsible both for the benefits and the problems that citizens are experiencing) is worth 250 ordinary citizens. In Spain you have to accumulate 15,000 signatures. But don’t worry if you are with a government party you only need 50 — whether national or on some local council or other. That translates to one politician equals 300 ordinary citizens.

The value of a Candidate. That sum of one politician= 250 or 300 ordinary voters is not worst devaluation of their fellow citizens by incumbent political parties. Other countries require 4000 signatures or even 30,000 signatures in a single constituency. Each time a list of signatures is required, it gives the governmental opponents the opportunity to dispute the validity of the actual signature count. In the worst case they can put pressure on signatories to change their minds.

Language control. A new small political movement may have to deal with linguistic discrimination. It may not have a base in one capital but be spread across several national frontiers. It could get major political resistance and blockage from governing parties in one or more national capitals. They may see it as a threat to national policies where they unfairly discriminate against minorities.

The irresponsible List system. Some countries have completely done away with the voters right to pick candidates whom the public can hold responsible. They create a list system so that only the party machines can choose the names of the clique who will actually get into Parliament. Thus the party bosses, the big brothers or the big sisters, define who will be more equal than the others. This system was foisted on the public in some cases purely for internal party reasons, to cut out the people — ‘extremists’ — inside the party that the top leaders did not want to see succeed. The List system is fundamentally unfair for a representative democracy. No public protest, no discussion had any effect on this chicanery. The voters where treated with haughty disdain. Some States refuse to let citizens choose their preferences on the list — it must stay in the priorities of the party machine. Others let voters pick those on the list but they have to stay within the one party list. That only encourages party machines to the detriment of independent thinkers.

Voting NONE OF THE ABOVE is seldom an option. At a time when many voters are disenchanted with the behaviour of politicians, voters should be given the option that the system needs reform. Instead some countries impose fines on those who do not vote for what some voters consider a corrupt cartel. In economics the consumers’ last chance against a cartel is not to buy. A political cartel that does not offer this last option of signalling dissatisfication is reinforcing corruption. At the very least it builds up frustrations in honest protesters at the lack of choice. Computer voting systems that remove the non-vote option magnify their exasperation.

Compulsory voting is the tactic of the politically lost. If governments have to resort to fines for voters who do not vote, it shows that no party is attractive. Even with a number of countries that insist on compulsory voting, Europe has more voters that refuse to vote than those who go to the ballot. That shows the trend of ever-worsening turn-out to the present 43 percent underscores the lack of confidence and trust in both politicians and party machines. In Slovenia only 13 percent thought it worthwhile to vote.

THE GREATEST LACK is the Absence of the European Dirmension required by Treaty. The nationalist governments and their political parties have made great efforts to cut out the European dimension. The Parliament was designed from the beginning to be the house of the representatives of all the European people. The treaties require a Single Statute and the ability to vote across the European Union. Not 28 national elections. This cuts the authority of Parliament. A real European election would encourage full dialogues and build solidarity. The people and especially the young people are far more European than these grey beards.

Over the course of revisions of the treaties, governments, that is ruling political parties, have made sure that their own political patch, ‘their State’ is protected against any European democrats. The idea of One citizen, One vote is annulled. They created geographical divisions based on retaining power. Each election they get an additional warning. Voter turnout declines. The smoke screen of political parties is having less and less effect on the public.

Why should a voter be restricted by geography in voting for a candidate or even worse for a list system in the place where he or she resides? Why can’t the voter choose the best candidate that responds to his or her interests and policy positions? Are the 28 European governments afraid that voters in all countries may discern an honest and impartial personality, whose reputation has spread across the border? Are they worried if the voters turn in mass to a candidate who has fearlessly fought corruption elsewhere?

Even on the basis of identifying a political choice closer to the voter’s own position, cross-border voting should be possible. After all Parliament is about dealing with cross-border issues. This identity of a non-native candidate in another Member State is quite possible nowadays with innovative web systems like .

A voter can find amongst all the European candidates the nearest to his own wishes and proclivities. If any voter does so, they might be in for a shock. The same policy and interest position are simultaneously touted by left-wing, center and right-wing parties but in different States. What is a ‘left-wing’ policy in one country is espoused as a right-wing one in another!

When the MEPs arrive in Parliament they will then vote in blocks in great left, center or right-wing coalitions. So the effect of the voter’s careful policy choice is often completely forgotten. Before each vote, the leader of each mega-grouping holds up his hand. With a thumb up or a thumb down, the group leaders act like a Roman emperor giving orders to the troops for the dispatch of a gladiator or Christian martyr.

How did the Founding Fathers design the system to maximize the political responsibility of each member? The members sat in alphabetical order so the unthinking voting in political blocks was impossible. The original democratic system encompassed in the treaties provides the citizen with probably the best system of democracy in the world — provided that the provisions for democracy in Parliament and for civil society representation are taken seriously.

In other words, the party political system is not only showing its age (it started with a political trick under William III of Orange). It is ripe for a realistic European replacement.


To find out how your own country cheats the voter and compare it with the other cheats, refer to the European Parliament’s Handbook . It would be a good idea to ask the Parliament and Council to replace it by a single electoral system so there is no need for a new edition.

Elections1 : SIXTY Years of Democratic Deficit and Electoral Manipulation!

The key problem facing European institutions is the Democratic Deficit, Disconnect and Disaffection with its citizens. Those words were addressed by the European Ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, to Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and European Parliament President Schulz, sitting on the platform with her. She was speaking at an Interactive Event that she called on Your Wish List for Europe, held in the European Parliament 4 March 2014.

For sixty years the European Parliament has never held an election according to the rules specified in the Treaties! Voters should be asking one question above all: when are governments going to follow the democratic rules of the treaties they signed?

The legal rules for elections are clear and simple. Anything that diverges from them is a fraud and a cheat. The rules were set more than half a century ago. The founding treaties (Paris 1951, Rome 1957) make it clear how the European Elections should be run in a fair and just manner.

Article 138 of the Economic Community treaty and article 108 of the Euratom treaty say the same thing. The same words exist in the present treaty of Lisbon. The words were also retrospectively added to the founding Treaty of Paris, 1951. That was to clarify what should have already have been clear to any true democrat in the Paris Treaty’s article 20. That says the Assembly should consist of the ‘representatives of the peoples of the member states of the Community’. (High Authority translation). Representatives of the peoples should of course always be elected on a basis of equality. Note that the main principle is Representation of the Peoples, not of the States or governments or governance systems.

That vital obligation of governments has never been carried out in all Europe’s history. Europeans are left with a distorted and biased system created by and for the governments, that is political party élites.

The Rome treaties say: ‘The Assembly shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States.

Universal suffrage, that is a direct vote for members of the European Parliament, only took place in 1979.

The politicians did an extraordinary thing. It indicates their mentality of fraud. They cut the sentence with the requirement in TWO! They followed the first half but not the second.

The second part of the sentence — a uniform procedure for all of Member States — has NEVER yet been passed. We have today 28 national elections not one European one. Each State fixes its own elections! Some States block opposition parties and make its restrictions. Some States get the equivalent of ten or twelve votes per voter compared with other Europeans!

The 1979 direct NATIONAL elections arrived three decades late. Previously the MEPs had been nominated by the national parliaments. It had advantages and disadvantages. In practice this meant that governments could control who was supposed to speak out for European democracy. A strong autocrat like De Gaulle made sure that the prestige and effectiveness of the Assembly was reduced to a minimum. That way the Council of Ministers became the illegitimate single controller of the budget. And the European budget could be used to subsidize French farmers, industries and others – who then voted enthusiastically for de Gaulle’s rip-off of the other European taxpayers.

Voters wanting something like democracy had to wait some 30 years from the time of Europe’s first assembly in 1949. That happened only after maximum pressure on the political oligarchy. When in government, political parties wanted to retain the maximum unfair advantage. The mills of God grind slowly but they grind small. The anti-democrats will get their come-uppance.

First we should ask the question: What is the purpose of a Parliament in a supranational Community? The treaties say that before any legislation could be passed, Parliament has to give an Opinion (as do the Consultative Committees). An Opinion is an extensive criticism of the Proposal of the Commission. A key feature of the system is that only an independent and impartial body can introduce legislation. That avoids corruption by political interests.

The Commission makes the first step by suggesting an impartial draft law. To do this effectively, it enters into a permanent and close dialogue with all members of organized Civil Society. They have a debating chamber called the Consultative Committee (the Economic and Social Committee and Committee of the Regions). This was specifically created to avoid the plague of shadowy lobbyists we have today. Lobbyists may outnumber all the bureaucrats. Once the law is drafted, the Parliament representing the people, the Consultative Committees (representing organized Civil Society) and the Council representing Member States are to give their own analysis of the measure and point out any shortcomings. Such a system is the most intelligent way to deal with unintended consequences of legislation by bureaucrats.

The Commission is required to be as independent, impartial and as well-informed as possible and act like a just judge. The treaties forbid acting for any interest, whether paid or not, including political activity. Scandalously government political parties thumb their nose at this. They see raw power and want to have it.

The European Commission is not a European government as it has only the option of making a proposal where the treaties give it the right. It has management of the consequences of such regulations, only where Member States (and civil society and affected individuals, according to the treaties) say it has.

It is essential that such a system exists in today’s world of increasing complexity. It also avoids the Commission membership becoming corrupt by rabble-rousers, political interests or hidden cartels. Its task is to expose to the full light of open debate any lobbyist bias towards big business, labour, consumer groups or industries or a region.

Under the centralizing fancies of General de Gaulle, it was unthinkable for his grandeur that the French government should be reduced to a mere commentator on a draft European law. How could Brussels bureaucrats meddle with French cheeses? He poured scorn on the whole idea of the supranational European Community. He ‘chloroformed’ the institutions. Then he started a major power grab, insisting that only the Council of Ministers could decide the legislation and the money questions. That’s not what the treaties say. It is arrogant to assume that politicians with their limited background can foresee all the problems of all the citizens. And be aware of the real needs of the future.

Thus the secretive Council of Ministers began to dominate often with the active collusion of the Gaullist and nationalist-dominated Commission. While the Commission still received such legal Opinions from the other institutions like the Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, it promptly ignored them. The Council and the Commission (which served as its secretariat) may not even have bothered reading them. The Council of Ministers thus tried to convert the Communities to something like an uncontrolled and secret intergovernmental organ. What’s more, the European Communities produced plenty of taxpayers’ money to play with, including customs tariffs. Thus the vote-hungry national politicians could do secret budget deals with no controls. The result? Pouring European money into a vote-gathering machine that had no democratic power. It became an addiction. Voters had no control of the resultant meat mountains and wine lakes and massive corruption in southern Italy.

The Parliament had no moral authority. Why? Because the members were nominated by the governments. Just like the Consultative Committees today, (the EcoSoc and the Committee of Regions), they were not legitimately elected. Nor do they represent a European level. The Council in its power grab devalued the other institutions to the point in the 1960s that they looked like a useless appendix. The Community system thus experienced democracy theft. Governments blocked elections in the Parliament and in the Consultative Committees. And slowly the governmental parties tried to turn the Commission into their secretariat.

When in 1973 the British, Irish and Danes joined the Communities, the abuse was so flagrant and the system so undemocratic, the Labour Party boycotted the Parliament. That gave the right-wing parties a majority. Not that it mattered at all. No one cared what the Parliament said in its legislative Opinions. They just filled the waste bins at the Council.

Some Continental MEPs however were not only furious at this undemocratic stitch-up, they acted. They appealed to the institution created for this. Then the Council went too far. It passed legislation without even getting the proper Opinion. Some MEPs took the matter to the European Court. Schuman’s legal colleague, Pierre-Henri Teitgen, then an eminent professor of law, ably assisted them.

The upshot of all these scandals was that the governments were then forced to review the ‘chloroformed‘ question of direct elections. As anyone can see from the treaty article quoted above, the governments decided they would only fulfill the first part of the sentence and leave the other half. Curious affliction of partial blindness. That way they could retain the remaining undemocratic powers that General de Gaulle had foisted on the Communities.

De Gaulle had distorted the system but it takes a really honest Statesman to correct it. He made an undemocratic power grab. He is now dead but the levers of abuse and corruption remain.

Most are content with his unjust gains and ‘de-activated‘ institutions. Who will be the first to say: ‘Fellow Prime Ministers, the system is not fair. We and our political party machines are profiting illegally from this distortion. Let us correct it and give more power to the people and organized civil society as the Founding Fathers intended. All our States agreed to this at the beginning when we signed and ratified the treaties.

So today the world’s largest economic and peace-enhancing union has a governance system unfit for such global responsibilities. It has been sold a Mickey-Mouse substitute. That is like a cheap and nasty child’s watch versus a precision-made Swiss one. Europeans have a fraudulent system that deliberately deactivates what is the best system of democracy yet conceived.

The first questions for voters to ask the political parties are: ‘When are we going to get a single electoral system? How do you plan to go about it? When are you going to reinstate democratic powers for organized civil society? ’ I would be interested to know if there is a single political party or government that raised the question. So far I have not found one.


Circus1: Commissioners leave Commission to be elected to Parliament, to then resign, in order to become Commissioners again! Illegal Nonsense!

What a tangled web of moral corruption and irrational nonsense the political class has got itself into trying to defend political nepotism! Seven Commissioners have declared they will take leave of the Commission and stand or support parties for the European Parliament. Why? To be active in Parliament? Not at all! They want to be re-assigned to the Commission!

Then we have the European Parliamentarians demanding that the present President of Parliament resign! Why? Doesn’t he want to stand again in the May 2014 elections again? Yes he does. But he wants to resign once elected to become the President of the Commission !!  Then we have a former prime minister of Luxembourg who the voters rejected at the polls. He too wishes to become the President of the Commission. What is he doing about it? He has put his name forward for the European Popular Party group for the European Parliament elections. He too will resign if ‘successful’ to become the President of the Commission!! Famously he was chairman of the ultra-secret Euro-Group that controls the major finance of the euro catastrophe.  He said several times to journalists that he has to lie to defend the euro! Is he to use the same principles to defend the Politburo politics of the Commission — which is supposed to be impartial.

Have they also taken leave of their senses? The European Commission, the Council and the European Parliament were set up as INDEPENDENT institutions. It makes as much sense for Commissioners to leave to get elected in their national parliaments.

How can members of the Commission be independent and impartial by wanting to be part of another institution?

Then comical becomes farcical. As soon as they are elected they will resign!

It gets more ridiculous! The body they chose to be active for, the European Parliament, should completely disqualify them from any post in the Commission. Its main function is PARTISAN, to represent, analyse and support partisan interests.

It is nonsense! The Parliament is a representative body. So is the Council. But the Commission is different. It is supposed to be impartial and an honest broker for all Europeans. It is supposed to embody supranational values, like fairness, honesty and impartiality. It is not a political secretariat for the governments. It articulates the common good beyond political parties.

If you don’t think this is an absolute farce, consider the next step.

Being elected to the European Parliament or not, taking leave of absence from the Commission or not, even resigning or not, has nothing to do with if they will make it to the European Commission for 2015.

No, the people who really decide who will be in the Commission, will decide who this is to be, regardless of all this leave-election-resignation circus. The European Council behind closed doors will do as they have done in the past. They will pick a politician (yes they always choose one of their own) in complete secrecy. They are responsible to no one. Their whole aim is to reinforce political nepotism. They always choose a member of the main political parties. They thumb their nose at anybody among the EU’s 500 million people who is not a member of their club — even though the treaties say it is ILLEGAL to choose a politician active in his party. They can chose a person who was never in the Commission or the Parliament.

So this political circus, this political theatre, is only there for one purpose. It is to distract the public, the audience, while the government ministers politically pick the pockets of the public.

This process is not only illegal but highly detrimental to democracy. The European Commission is especially important in the Community system as it was designated as being totally IMPARTIAL from any government, political group or business, trades union or consumer interests. It is there to represent the common interests of ALL citizens without any exception. Beyond them it is supposed to be able to propose what is right and just for our children in the future. Children don’t vote!

That role has been written in the treaties since 1951 and the founding Treaty of Paris. It is still is in the Lisbon Treaties verbatim. What does any rational member of the public understand when the Lisbon treaty says:

‘the members of the Commission may not during their term of office engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not.’

What is party political activity? Clearly membership of political parties is in violation of this article. It is an occupation which previously brought in a lot of money. Would you expect a businessman to retain his business while working as Commission President? Some Commissioners believe that their continued membership of a political party will again bring them a lot of money when they leave the Commission — either for government office again or some other activity dominated by party or governmental networks.

Governments do not like a body that must be honest and fair. This is especially the case if crooked deals are being cooked up in the Council of Ministers. So bit by bit they government ministers insisted that Commissioners could be politicians. Then they went further. Today all Commissioners are politicians! Now they say ONLY politicians can be members of the Commission. That contrasts with the early Commission when there were none!

Clearly party political membership is partisan. An independent, impartial honest person would shun any activity that impugned his or her reputation of impartiality. Would a judge who was involved in a corruption case involving billions of public money being misused go off and discuss who-knows-what in private and dine with the very people up before the Court?

Today a large group of governments — nearly all of them — are known to be guilty of fraudulently fixing statistics for the euro, spending money to bribe voters and hoping that rich members of the EU will bail them out. The Commission is now expected to act as judge to see twice a year that the national budgets are properly managed. So any member of the public would expect extra care for choosing every and all Commissioners. They should distance themselves from party operations which lay at the faulty construction of the euro.

What happens in practice? The Commissioners travel Europe and attend party political conferences. And astoundingly they bring with them their personal staff and ‘their’ civil servants. All are paid at the taxpayers’ expense! No voter in the European Union agreed that.

According to this Treaty article the Commissioners are not allowed to have an occupation as party politicians. They must resign from any party they formerly adhered to. Why? The Founding Fathers are clear. To show their independence.

Can you be independent and a member of a political party? Clearly not. The word partisan — adhering to a party as distinct from the common interest — shows the two occupations are at loggerheads.

Now we have the spectacle of 7 Commissioners standing for Parliament!  Is the job of European parliamentarian a gainful one? I should say so.

Why this circus? Nowhere do the present Lisbon Treaties say that the Commission should be chosen from politicians elected to the European Parliament. It merely says in Article 17 TEU that the Commission should be named by the governments after the results of the elections are known.

‘Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the European Commission.’

This is not an invitation for politicians in government to nominate their buddies or their political enemies they wanted to send far away to Brussels!

The governments are to put forward candidates who have proven impartiality. The public can then examine their record. This is the principle established at the beginning of the Community process. Several candidates were refused because they were seen by others to be too partisan, too nationalistic or representing special interests.

Nowhere does any treaty say that the governments — who are one and all composed of party politicians — should nominate someone appointed by their party machines to be a candidate. That is electoral fraud. Political nepotism will only act as further lead weight to lower public trust and confidence in politicians. The Lisbon Treaty TEU article 10) in fact says that

‘ALL citizens have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union.  Decisions shall be taken as openly as possible.’

Decisions are not taken openly as to who can be the Commission candidate because the governments have so far refused to implement such a system. It requires the public to choose who is impartial. The party machines are sources of potential and actual corruption because they are the biggest Lobbies in Europe. How they make policy is usually cloaked in mystery. Who pulls their strings? In the past parties were paid for and controlled by cartels, trusts, or unions.

It might be worth asking how party machines chose their candidates, not only for this post but simply being an MEP. Too often, admitted one MEP, the party leader says: ‘You, you and you will be are our MEPs!’ That is the party list system. So much for democracy. Meanwhile the national governments put up a barrage of restrictions so that no individual free of such party political apparatchiks can stand as a candidate. The EU has 28 national elections. The treaty itself calls for ONE election with ONE statute for all the EU so that a citizen can vote for any person he or she wants to.

Then they nominate an out-of-work, or a failed politician to be the party candidate for the Commission! This is called parachuting. Only party members are allowed to be eligible for parachuting into the lucrative Brussels postings.

Only two percent of the population has membership of a political party. So that means 98 percent of the population is ruled out and eliminated by the political nepotism of the governments acting as a Politburo. They could offer non-political academics, professors of law or morals, diplomats, former leaders of NGOs. Even those who formerly had experience in small business and know the hard realities of economics and were no longer running businesses would make good candidates.

Now who would make the best impartial, experienced members of the Commission? It would be someone who is experienced with the Brussels bureaucracy, fights corruption committed at the European level and has the interests of all citizens at heart.

Consider the European Ombudsman who fights mal-administration in the European institutions.

One of the biggest outrages of mal-administration today is just that. The present Ombudsman is not a member of a political party. But the Council’s Politburo rules make party membership their essential  factor of choice.

The experienced, non-partisan, impartial Ombudsman cannot become the President of the Commission. She is not a member of a political party!

What a circus! What egotistical corruption!


Britexit3: What UK must do BEFORE its referendum to leave the EU

FIRST Build Supranational Counter-Instruments! (Part three of series) 

What would be the nature of the instruments that UK would need for the negotiations? Here are some of the issues needing action BEFORE the UK Government sends its letter of withdrawal. The strategy requires implementation as soon as possible, even before the referendum.

If not the institutions may make implementation more and more difficult for serious negotiations. The eventual goal must be borne in mind.  The negotiation has to provide honest and fair solutions.

A bitter barter deal won’t cut it. It will be subject to endless renegotiations like the British rebate and the common fishing policy. Iceland has always maintained that sustainable fish stocks were the rock of its policy.

Not the EU. Secret political deals in Council ignored scientific assessments. Fish stocks were wiped out. Britain needs sustainability or it could be decimated by secret attacks at the Council of Ministers like the fish stocks.

How can UK negotiate with Brussels when the institutions are not impartial? Take the Commission as an example. It has to act for 27 Member States plus the UK at the same time. Which side will it Commission favour since one member will leave and 27 will stay? How can it be impartial? Can the UK trust it?

The Commission should provide an impartial overview of UK’s needs within Europe’s needs and interests. It doesn’t. How then can it be impartial when later it represents interests of States who are trying to displace UK and assert its supremacy?

In a recent outburst against the British Conservative group, President Jose Manuel Barroso said that unless they conformed to his idea of pro-European policy, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) would become the ‘first force’ in British politics for Europe.

Mr Cameron retorted the Commission is not respecting the UK’s government party and lecturing it. The strategy must counter the negative proclivity of the Commission thinking that it alone is right. It must do it before and not try to change the highly political Commission during negotiations.

Then there is the Council. Britain has Europe’s strongest banking and financial sector – which many would like to see moved to the Continent. How can British multinationals be assured that they have fair and open access to the European Single Market without being coshed again?

The Council takes its instructions from the European Council of heads of governments. So what lessons are to be learned their about impartiality? After the 28 June 2013 summit, P.M. Cameron denounced as ‘unacceptable and ‘frustrating’ the one a.m. ambush on the UK rebate issue, supposedly finalized in February. “I just think this is no way for an organisation to conduct itself.” he added.

The atmosphere could become far worse. The UK should not forget the de Gaulle’s NON. He refused Britain’s entry. Not once, but twice. He caused havoc to international negotiation. He did not discuss it in the Council of Ministers. Or his own Cabinet! Nor by formal letter or in an international conference but at a press conference! He ran the Community like it was his own backyard to exploit for agriculture and bribing politicians and voters.

Then there is the European Parliament. De Gaulle considered it a cipher. Today has gained powers with major financial powers of codecision from the Lisbon Treaty. This could wreck a carefully sculpted negotiation made with the Council. Anyone watching the debates in the EP can scarcely believe that it will take the negotiation lying down and with a benign smile. The Council’s Legal Service concluded that the Financial Transfer Tax was not legal. This did not seem to deter MEPs.

One political group declared in a press release:

Appealing to governments to stick to proposals for the introduction of a financial transaction tax (FTT), despite ‘cynical’ legal manoeuvring, Portuguese MEP Marisa Matias said the EU has a clear choice:
“Either we rescue politics and our society from financial markets or we can start to say goodbye to a common European project.”

The Court is another hidden danger. An appeal to a Court that favoured integrationist and ratchet federalism could years later strip off key decisions of the negotiation result. All hard, detailed work would be in vain if, years later, the Court reversed key aspects.

The EU has hardly improved democratically since de Gaulle’s day. The fruit of de Gaulle’s corrupt anti-democracy was the misdirection of Community funds into Wine Lakes, Meat Mountains, and Cheese Bergs. Millions of Europeans’ money were wasted on local politicians’ pet infrastructure projects of bridges and autoroutes that went nowhere.

The entire budget system which takes taxpayers’ money and spends it as the political Politburo decides lacks transparency and control by taxpayers. Today we have airports that have no passengers and other much more expensive wastes of taxpayers’ money.

Even worse the politicians’ ill-founded Euro project (intended by many southern States to get Community funding for governmental mismanagement) costs around seven times the entire EU budget by its European Stability Mechanism ESM, European Finance and Stability Facility, EFSF and other dubious operations of the Fiscal Compact. It is often said that ‘EU is not prepared to make changes.’

It has continuously lost public trust as it has changed from the original idea of a democratic Community of equal partners, equal governments, equal enterprises, unions, consumers and equal individuals. Today it run by party political machines, who are lobbyists for who knows whom. It is a political club run in secret by a politburo in the closed-door European Council and the EuroGroup.
It chooses the Parliament president in secret.
It makes Foreign Policy in secret.
It names the European Central Bank president in secret.
It appoints the Commission president in secret from among its own, ignoring 98 percent of the European population.

But the UK has real Membership leverage to bring reform BEFORE the Exit Letter. How?  The second key aspect of the negotiation is the pre-reform of institutions to make them really democratic.  Only when the basic conditions are settled for a democratic discussion, should the UK government think about sending its official letter about leaving the EU.


Ukraine2: Stupid Europeans! Ukraine and Syria are part of global blackmail against you!

Ukraine and Syria are part of the global battle in which Europe is the target, victim and the source of blackmail revenue. Europeans have been behaving stupidly since the 1950s, when the Founding Fathers of the European Communities warned them of the dangers. They ignored the warnings.

What would you call it if you were getting oil at a dollar-and-a-half a barrel and the supplier was making such a profit from it they were living the life of Reilly? You might call it free trade. Both parties are happy.

What do you call it when the supplier raises the price FOUR times and also says that you have to change your foreign policy if you are to get anything at all?

That is blackmail. Stupid Europeans have been grinding their teeth and paying through the nose ever since the 1973 Oil Weapon was deployed.

It only works if the buyer –the Europeans — think that they are incapable of producing energy themselves and must rely on suppliers who turn out to be a cartel or multiple cartels. With all their science and technology can’t Europeans produce energy and electricity and maintain their independence from financial and political exploitation? Who is persuading them to stay on the oil drug? Maybe we should look where oil drug profits are going.

Yesterday it was the Middle East — where Europe got entangled in Arab wars and hatreds. Today Europe is not free from that bowl of spiders. It has also got involved with the Russian energy cartel which works on the same principles of extortion. Now they are competing with each other. The Joker in the power game is shi’ite Iran which could try to block the Mid-East transport routes for oil and gas out of the Gulf. It can also play nuclear blackmail among the neighbouring States. Iran has been fighting in Syria. Qatar, a mere pimple on the east of Saudi Arabia, has the largest Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) operation and one of the biggest gas fields in the world. How will it get its gas delivered if the Strait of Hormuz is blocked? Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States have broken off diplomatic relations with Qatar over its 7.5 billion dollar support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and refuse to allow it a pipeline across to the Mediterranean.

What plans do the Saudis have if the Gulf is blocked? What if there is again trouble in Egypt and Suez? The Saudis too would like a pipeline to the Mediterranean. But what happens as these players approach the Mediterranean’s eastern coast? They are met first with Jordan, run by the Hashemite family expelled from Mecca, an unstable State carved out of the Jewish Homeland Mandate territory, composed of former PLO refugees and now Syrians. Then the pipeline must find a port — either (horrors!)  in Syria which was run by the pseudo shi’ite Alawite clan as a secular dictatorship or — horror of horrors! –  Israel.

For all the players the competition is about who can leach the most blood from the Europeans before the whole world goes down the tubes.

Europe turned to Russian gas and oil as an alternative when it was still the Soviet Union. Now Russia, troubled by sunni terrorism at home has its own ‘understanding’ with Iran and nuclear exports.

Crimea is a vital warm-water naval base for Russia. (Its other ports are frozen in winter.) It gives it access to Syria. It is is also vital for control of the Mediterranean. In the early 1970s NATO was worried that the Mediterranean was becoming a Soviet lake. The USSR was the main arms supplier to the most populous Arab country there, Egypt. It also controlled the Suez canal. The Soviets had bases along the North Africa coast and in Syria.

Today Egypt has washed its hands of Obama’s USA (that supported the Muslim Brotherhood and undermined Mubarek).  It is now getting arms supplies from Russia. The Saudis, who fiercely oppose the Muslim Brotherhood’s way to establish Islamic global dominance, are changing their long-established policy towards USA. They are pumping tens of billions of dollars into the anti-Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian regime. For a century a religio-industrial compact allowed the USA, the world’s prime capitalist, industrial power and a desert-bound religious sect in Saudi Arabia to dominate world affairs together. The world is now in flux.

In 1973 Europeans were getting oil at under two dollars a barrel from a wide variety of suppliers throughout the Middle East and North Africa. When Arab armies attacked Israel while the nation was fasting on the Yom Kippur holy day, the Arab suppliers, formed their own cartel. With their Oil Weapon, they placed a total embargo on Europe and the USA. They demanded that the West cease from henceforth to support Israel. They declared that any country that did not change its foreign policy would get zero oil. President Nixon considered declaring a state of war.

Thanks to the European Communities each with an energy component (Coal and Steel, Euratom and the ‘Common Market’) Europe was able to survive. It did not have a real common foreign policy nor did it create an energy policy (we still don’t have one!). In 1959 the three Communities had formed an ‘Inter-executive Group’ to coordinate national energy policy. But General de Gaulle not only froze such initiatives he reversed France’s Middle East policy for the sake of cheap Arab oil. That only encouraged the setup for blackmail.

In 1973 Europe was able, however, to buy oil on foreign markets and swap it between Member States in the nascent Single Market to help them survive. Denmark and Holland (who saw no reason not to support the Jewish State of Israel) imported mainly from the Middle East.  Faced with a total cut-off, they were in dire straits. Oil was shared with the other EC countries who imported from elsewhere.

In December 1973 the European Summit in Copenhagen was disrupted by an uninvited delegation of Arab oil exporters. They were determined to see that their Oil Weapon had maximum effect and no ‘European solution’ that favoured Israel and democracy in the Middle East was undertaken.

The effect of the oil embargo was devastating on the economies. Factories closed or went on short time. Motorways were bare of cars and vehicles. There was mass unemployment.

The Arab Oil Exporters quadrupled the price again in 1979! This was the Second Oil Shock. It exercised the ratchet mechanism to boost prices, not untypical of all cartels. The Economist opined on 22 December 1979:

“OPEC’s interests are increasingly inimical to those of the west. … Their underlying interests will push them into actions that harm the rest of the world. … Unrest in the Middle East often takes the form of austere reformist Islam, yet further reducing production. .. OPEC’s existence, as a device for producing a floor (for minimum prices) under past gains, while leaving ‘free market’ forces which are nothing of the kind to push prices further upwards, does indeed reflect the interests of its members. .. When people talk or write about OPEC, in this materialist age, they turn first to the tools of economics. But politics is also a necessary part of the solution to the problem. The west’s governments have to muster political weapons both to achieve their aims at home and to constrain OPEC’s power abroad.”

Cartels benefit from time to time when prices fall. Why? They wipe out any alternative supplier. Energy infrastructure takes time and investment. When oil prices crash, these programmes are binned. As the same article in the Economist prescribed, Europe needs to pass on the full price of oil to the consumer. Even more, it needs to maintain high prices for the long-term, by tariffs if necessary, so that conservation will become a way of life and native energy-making inside Europe is common.

That requires a fully-fledged Energy Community with democratic institutions and powers. How can this be done? It could start by placing solar panels on all buildings, public and private. Europe needs a common, intelligent grid. It could stop using tarmac for roads and replace them with safe, solar panels made out of reinforced glass. What’s glass made of? Sand and we have plenty of that! Europe could thus become a major exporter of electricity to the world! I am sure our scientists can come up with many technologies if given half a chance. Freedom of thought is the great asset of European culture. Other nations with lots of sand seem in a cultural timewarp.

An Energy Community as a new SUPRANATIONAL institution would help resolve the dilemma over Ukraine. About 16 percent of Europe’s gas comes via Ukraine. It could immediately become a member. But it requires major revision of the present EU to make it democratic according to the treaties.

It took nearly two decades for the oil price to fall to anywhere near ‘free market’ levels. That was due to squabble among the Arab OPEC members and world competition but little effort was made by Europeans to gain energy independence to avoid future blackmail. The Shah of Iran one of the most enthusiastic proponents for higher oil prices was replaced in 1979-80 by the shi’ite leader ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Iran promptly got into a war with secularist Iraq. The sunnis were not to happy about the revolutionary terrorism of the shi’ites but both were in agreement of squeezing the Western lemon till the pips cracked.

So what did stupid Europe get? More blackmail by the cartel! By 1999 oil prices had fallen to around 9 dollars a barrel. The Economist magazine with its extensive intelligence and expertise forecast a long-term price of FIVE dollars a barrel. It was not alone. Western oil companies like BP and Shell said the same thing. But they were no longer in control of the game, or the taps. The Arab oil suppliers had nationalized the oil supplies, so many western companies were merely helpers and exporters of this Arab oil. The guys who could turn the taps off at will were at OPEC. When prices rose, they cut off supplies so that oil prices stayed high and rose higher. The others like the subservient western oil companies were left with their own cartels on downstream operations and financial operations. The oil-producers recycled their profits using short-term financial instruments like derivatives or bonds. At compound interest the petro-profits must now amount to a financial bubble multiple times the size of the real economy. (The US Treasury long ago identified five cartels operating in the oil industry at various chokepoints. Today we seem to have more.)

So what happened with the new century? The price tripled immediately in 2000. It then took a rocket trajectory upwards. This was the THIRD oil shock. Oil went from nine dollars to 147 dollars a barrel — an increase 1633 per cent! At that price the oil exporter were extracting around 10 percent or more of world GDP for a product worth a couple of dollars in a free market. The International Energy Agency shows this THIRD oil shock is the most serious one. Oil prices have never been higher in real terms since the modern oil industry began in 1859. No wonder the EU is in the economic doldrums.

It is not only this generation of politicians that are acting stupidly. Immediately after the initiation of the Community system, politicians went into a nationalist relapse. International cartels pick off nation States like minnows! By not acting for decades Europeans have compound interest on their stupidity. Europe is still sleep-walking in a dreamland with its plans for 2020 and 2030.

Today  the implications of this ignorance has moved from amber Stupid to Red DANGER.

The Russian take-over and military invasion of Crimea is part of Russia’s strategy to survive its own uncertain future. Russians are a highly educated people. They are capable of great achievements. But hindered by their own stupid ideologies, from atheistic Marxism to the present Putinism, they have been unable to compete with the West. Dimitry Medvedev wanted to turn Russia into a high tech society — but that requires a free society with open democracy. Instead their economy and all political power is based on the export of gas and oil.

Putin knows the implications full well. He is an expert in oil and gas prices. His whole policy is based on these strategic raw materials. Properly applied these raw materials can lever Russia back to great power status after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He called it the ‘greatest geopolitical catastrophe‘ of the last century. It was a geopolitical disaster, not a communist one. Russia was a centre of a world ideology — communism. It gave the USSR world clout. Putin was the clever KGB officer that thought up the Plan B to restore Russia’s fortunes. He wants to control not only Crimea, but access of non-Russian oil and gas that drives the world economy. Controlling the new off-shore potential of Crimea in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov gives Russia the equivalent of North Sea gas and and oil. It also deprives Ukraine of that rich potential. Ukraine lost its 13 off-shore oil and gas platforms when Crimea held its fraudulent pro-Russian referendum. It made Ukraine and the West more energy-dependent on Russia.

The new key for Russia as a world power is not ideology but energy. Today the EU imports more than half its energy with a third of its gas and oil coming from Russia. Some countries are 90 percent dependent on Russia. Germany is a main customer.

As a KGB officer in Germany he was well aware of Europe’s dependency on imported oil and gas. In his time of secret service office, the 1980s, a major trans-Atlantic row broke out between the USA and Europe about financing Russian pipelines. It nearly tore NATO apart. Mrs Thatcher joined with her French and German colleagues and opposed Ronald Reagan. The Soviet pipeline row became one of the biggest political crises of the West since WW2. (See my book, Russia and the danger for the European Union, pp88ff second edition, published in 2000 and first edition 1995. It proposes a pan-European Energy Community that would drive the democratisation of both the European Community members and the Former Soviet Union and its former satellite States.)

Why did Putin act now? He is in a race against time. Previously Russia had pledged its great support for the international rule of law. Now he has permanently lost any claim to that. The population of Crimea may be pro-Russian. There may be unsavoury characters in Kyiv. Khrushchev, acting as the Dictator of the Proletariat, may have acted foolishly to declare Crimea Ukrainian. But to move in Russian troops, to take-over all the communications, to force a referendum without a debate and then sign it off as a legal act in the Kremlin won him the condemnation of all other countries as a patent lack of legitimacy. Putin retorted that NATO had also broken its promises not to expand. The colour of the Russian policy is clear from the fact that it took over a gas plant outside the area of Crimea.

Acting like a bandit State is a severe loss to Russia’s prestige — after the Sochi Olympic games that won it acclaim. Why did he do it? He faced open hostility with the Saudis over the outcome in Syria, even threats of terrorism at Sochi. Instead Putin moved his armed forces to protect Sochi from terrorism. It turned out (coincidently?) to be very handy for taking over Crimea.

The rapid and smooth turn of events that caught the west by surprise indicate strategic planning. Without the exorbitant price that Europeans are paying for its gas, Russian economy would crash, its people starve. The Russian State and its budget depends on the viability of the huge energy monopoly, Gazprom. For President Vladmir Putin it is now a race against time to save his country. Two factors threaten Russia’s future: price and the bust-up of a cartel operation.

Russia fixed its gas price in parallel with the oil market. Why? This was the highest price Russia could get. When the Netherlands was under total oil embargo, it found it had huge gas deposits. So taking a leaf from OPEC, it set the price as high as it could to be able to survive. Russia merely copied this ploy, although there is no good reason why European consumers should support another cartel dictating prices.

There is no real free market in oil and gas. It is run by numerous cartels. This has been going on for more than a century. In the 1950′s the US Treasury identified FIVE cartels that worked in conjunction to control high prices to the customers. They ranged from exploration cartel, to down stream retailing and we can now add a financial cartel that recycles vast amounts of oil and gas profits through banks and derivatives that are multiple size of the ‘real economy’. You can control the price by stopping research, drilling, turning off the oil taps, creating refining bottlenecks or applying the massive oil profits to control the economy. Some analysts estimate that Goldman-Sachs boosted the price of oil by 30 dollars a barrel before the 2008 crash.

Russia’s gas price is now threatened by shale gas. The USA is producing massive quantities and this has hugely cut price of gas. If Europe produces its own gas in such quantities in a free market or imports gas from the USA — bang goes the Russian-based gas cartel. Today European industries pay more than twice as much for electricity as the USA, and pay four times the price for gas, according to BusinessEurope, the companies lobby group! That is the measure of a cartel vampire.

US President Obama wanted to declare red lines over the dubious origin of poison-gas weapons in Syria. However Putin took his ‘smart pills’ and made Obama and the State Department with its close links to Saudi oil look stupid. The greatest scandal is religious persecution and ethnicide that is happening by the invaders. Syria used to have vibrant Christian communities since the time of Christ. The Jews, who were there even longer, preserving precious manuscripts over many centuries, have now disappeared.

Meanwhile the massacres of Christians in Syria go unreported by the West. Why is the media muted? The destabilization of all countries in the eastern Mediterranean is only part of a global power game. The revolutionary Islamists who want to ‘free Syria’ behead Christians and those who are unable to pay the ransom after kidnapping. Christians who don’t convert or agree to become dhimmis (subject peoples) and pay the dhimmi taxes are treated in the same way.

The West’s leaders are numbed into silence at Islamist atrocities by decades of blackmail. They need to start taking anti-stupid pills.



Britexit2: How to avoid poisonous myths and a calamity after UK’s Referendum

If a UK Referendum to leave the EU succeeded, Britain would have to deal with a complex, new set of negotiations. They would have to deal both with facts of commerce and economy but also with myths that would reinforce treating the UK as an unreliable partner. Material loss from a poor negotiating stance would only be part of the story. If Britain was left with an unfounded reputation as a wrecker and trouble-maker it would be far worse for its future.

Britain’s entry negotiations into the three European Communities (Coal and Steel, ‘Common Market’ and Euratom) were not happy. High rancour was engendered by de Gaulle’s veto in 1962. It has coloured subsequent relations by creating great suspicion among the British of French and its partners’ intentions.

Europeans are still being fooled by Gaullist propaganda and myths. On the French side, many have imbibed Gaullist propaganda for generations. And not only the French. De Gaulle tried to destroy the Community system yet as recently as 2013 Charles de Gaulle received a jubilee triumph. It was if the Gaullist idea of the Franco-German axis was the opposite of his concession of failure. The real Gaullist policy was to annex parts of Germany. He advocated this policy during the war and right up to the moment he seized power and several years later. The Franco-German motor is his myth.

The Community idea involves the opposite to a bi-national motor. Cooking up deals in private is the opposite to open democracy. The Community does not involve fooling the public by fraudulent Beef Mountains, Wine Lakes and useless infrastructure projects to buy local votes. It calls for real, equal partnership and solidarity of all Member States and all sections of society in supranational democracy. The present euro is the latest anti-European Gaullist fraud.

De Gaulle opposed pro-Europeans and above all Schuman’s ideas for peace and prosperity. He had long advocated French annexation of parts of today’s Germany such as the Saarland and other territories up to the Rhine river. He wanted the Ruhr to be placed under French and Allied control.That would make France and in particular, Charles de Gaulle the new emperor of the Continent. There were enormous rows with the Americans and the British who saw de Gaulle as a man of the nineteenth century. Indeed his nationalist policy was based on the past not the future.

De Gaulle only changed this policy after he failed to stop the establishment of the German government in Bonn and the operation of the three European Communities. He called the Federal Republic of Germany the Fourth Reich.

He only changed his mind in 1963 — more than a decade after the supranational Community system had begun. It was after a decade and a half of positive German experience of democracy that started with votes in the Laender.

When he seized power in 1957, pro-European parties such as the MRP and the Socialists, made an agreement that they would support de Gaulle’s temporary powers to solve the Algerian crisis as long as he did not attack the Community idea, vocally or in politics. He reneged on that. His policy of boycott of the institutions typified by the empty chair in the Council of Ministers and his attempt to turn an independent European Commission into a political secretariat (the Fouchet Plan) met with resistance. When he ruled out any future of the Community system in May 1962 by saying ‘There can be no other Europe than the Europe of Nation States,’ he was opposed by French Europeans and those in other States. The MRP ministers in his government resigned.

So if de Gaulle fooled most of the European people and still does, how can Britain create a better impression and reputation once the Referendum affirms that Britain should leave the EU?


The blueprint of the ‘Supra-Solution’

The proposed solution (which we will call the Supra-Solution) will not only deal with such often forgotten complications of the Communities but also enable the negotiations to boost British trade with the EU and the world. It will safeguard this solution against any complications from the Scottish referendum (or possible Welsh or N. Irish ones). The proposed blueprint for the exit will ensure that the UK is not placed in a weak negotiating position that allows the remainder of the EU to blackmail it. This occurred in the 1972 Heath negotiation. In 1961 the Macmillan application was subject to unilateral and humiliating rebuffs.

The plan’s outcome will leave both the EU and the UK stronger.


Britain’s negotiations must comprise five strands

1. Moral: The UK needs to tackle the negotiation from a high moral ground. The strategy must be adequately prepared before negotiations.

2. Economic: The UK should ensure that it does not lose out economically both during negotiation and afterwards. The potential for providing for positive outcomes both for the UK and the EU requires careful preparation, implementation of successive stages and follow-through to the final operation.

3. Political: The negotiation should leave the UK with friendly relationships across Europe and elsewhere.

4. Social. It must maintain human rights of all British citizens and associations and their political voice in the negotiations according to best social teaching of the common good.  Negotiations cannot be top down like Bismarck but need to integrate society’s various interests. Even a referendum for exit does not mean that the rights of referendum minorities can be trampled on. The solution must bring social justice for all.

5. Legal: How can negotiations take place without being tied in legal knots? Will the result be legally permanent? The competence of and for the EU’s competence (Kompetenz-Kompetenz) lies with governments or more specifically national sovereignty.

It needs to have a smooth negotiation process so not to cause disruptions to the economy and legal/social order. It also has to be future-proof.  It therefore needs to set up long-term instruments for future relations with the EU Member States, (MS) and Brussels.

Those instruments are not only the key to Britain’s future after the Referendum but also for the other Member States of the EU.