Can a Parliament and any other allegedly ‘democratic institution’ ban the public and journalists from their meetings? Do they have the legal right? Once they have shut the doors, can they then make a deal to IMPOSE a budget on taxpayers who are not present? Is this secretive procedure LEGAL? If it is not, is the budget illegal, void and invalid?
In October to December 2010, the Council, Parliament and Commission held a series of meetings on the 2011 Budget. The public and journalists were banned from setting foot in any of the meetings. A guard was put on the door. Only people on a special list were allowed to enter. On the agenda was the means to collect and spend around about 130 Billion euros defined in their 2011 budget. At the meetings were the Belgian Prime Minister and others representing the Council. The meetings included the President of the European Parliament and a score of his MEP colleagues and the European Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski, responsible for the Budget.
What did they get up to? We know that the Commissioner accused the politicians of behaving like a ‘kindergarten‘. It was not an edifying spectacle. Each side claimed the budget was their toy. Commissioner Janusz Lewandowski characterised the whole affair as ‘self-centered and egoistical‘.
Whose toys, or rather, whose money were they arguing over? It was the group that was refused entry to all the meetings — the public. The politicians did not only refuse to include them, they banned them outright. The political ‘leaders‘ did not deign to have any REAL representative of the people from whom these ‘democratic‘ leaders were about to extract their Billions! No member of the press was officially allowed to observe and report the politicians’ infantile behaviour. No outsider was invited who would criticize this dangerous clique’s discrimination and predatory action against the citizen.
I call these political juveniles ‘dangerous‘ because they follow the pattern of President de Gaulle and others who refused to have open Council meetings that Robert Schuman said was essential. In the secrecy of the Council of Ministers, they created a vast pattern of corruption for votes with their Wine Lakes, Meat Mountains, faudulent, regional infrastructure projects that never happened.
The next generation of politicians did not open the doors either. They paid huge amounts of European taxpayers’ money to party comrades in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain, winking at the money that disappeared into boltholds and their subsequent fraudulent statistics. Those monetary falsehoods are now being exposed as Europe falters on the edge of a euro collapse.
The politicians today are committing similar immoral acts against European citizens in their secret sessions. Their arrogant offences would not pass in most of their home parliaments where a national press has free comment. Don’t they think that secret budget discussions in Brussels must be wrong? Or do they just think: ‘If we can get away with it here, why not?‘ They now want economic governance, another term for cartel dictatorship of their parties, by their parties for their party cartel.
Then in June 2011, not content with this trivial amount of hundreds of billions of euros, the European Commission proposed that a TRILLION euros should be levied from the European public, industries and workers. It is to be a combined seven-year plan. The public need not worry their silly, little heads over watching this unsavoury performance every year. It would be done in one quick stroke!
The Commission said it would speak about it to the people’s representatives, the European Parliament. And so, the European Parliament quickly closed the doors on the people and the press! What happened behind closed doors? How did the party leaders react to this further money grab from European citizens? Did they rub their hands with delight? Did they yell ‘Sock it to the public! We will bleed them dry!‘ We do not know the facts because the press was thrown out!
Why? Why did these very privileged people — all of them obviously considered themselves very privileged — feel it necessary to impose secrecy? Why did they ban the public? Why did they ban the press?
What is common with all these people? What unites those who have the only say-so in the European budget? They are all card-carrying members of political parties. Isn’t that normal? NO it is not. They will tell you it is. Don’t believe them. The European Community had a much more balanced democractic system where non-political civil society plays an important part.
These ‘closed-door politicians‘ represent … what and whom exactly? Those in Nazi Germany were told the true German party members were those who decided matters for them. In fact they were kleptocrats and gangsters, stealing from the people. Those in Communist-controlled East Germany, Czechoslavakia, Poland and Hungary were told: ‘The Worker’s party is in charge!‘ Those in Mao’s Communist China said the Party must control not only the Budget but every aspect of life.
Some systems banned non-Aryans, others businessmen, or capitalist running dogs from entering their ‘parliaments‘ when deliberating the budget. All these diverse systems had one thing in common. They did not like a free press.
Are Europeans free? Those in control in the EU all have party cards. They are a tiny minority. All party card-holders amount to about one in fifty of the entire population. And the parties are increasingly unpopular. In the European elections more people who can vote refuse to vote for any of them. The majority in the EU is not the parties but an entity called ‘None of the above‘ that should appear on the ballot.
At one stage in history party affiliation had some importance. Now they nearly all act together in a continuous coalition or a cartel of parties. It makes no difference who the electors vote for, they get the same result — more expenditure and luxurious padding for the parties. When corruption is exposed, confidence in the parties plummets again. Public support has been declining for decades.
Yet this small but powerful cartel plans to extract more and more money from the other 98 percent of the population. They are all generally in favour of having more projects and subsidies which they feel will buy them support. These bribes are just tax money being returned diminished under new conditions set by the political parties. For themselves they want nothing but higher salaries, more assistants, help for friends in the same party wherever they are, expansion of agencies and dubious employment initiatives such as the ‘External Action Service‘, overseas aid which corrupts and anything else that supports the ideologies of the parties.
Now consider if the European leaders were all identified with another small group. What if the Commission, Parliament and Council were composed entirely of Freemasons? What if they were all Catholics or Jews or Shi’ite Muslims or Europeans of Chinese origin? What if they were all paid up members of the FBSS, the Fraudulent Bankers’ Speculation Society? What would be the public’s reaction if the controlling class in the European institutions all believed in Ju-Ju?
It is obvious that the secret and secretive control of the budget by any one tiny group raises questions of motive and propriety. When they close the doors the public would immediately presume that they are making some underhand contributions of tax money to the furtherance of Ju-Ju. No moral person would allow himself to get into such an dubious situation and be enthusiastic to keep the ban on outsiders and the press. A well run parish or tennis club would ensure their meetings would always be open. Are the EU’s leaders moral? They have no qualms about secret sessions on the budget. They insist on them.
The party cartel who seized control of the institutions have included those bodies which the treaties say should not be political. What should the citizen do if the public remain banned from budget meetings because they do not have a Ju-Ju membership card?
Should the citizens ask for a Ju-Ju card? Or would they ask: Is it legal? Is the Budget legal? Is the discrimination against the citizen legal? What can we do about it?
We can go to Court! But how?
The Founding Fathers, you will be happy to know, put adequate safeguards in the Treaties. If any institution feels that another is not acting democratically according to the treaty, there is a recourse. That institution can take the other to the European Court of Justice.
But what if all the main institutions are in cahoots? What if all the leaders of the main institutions are all members of Ju-Ju and they ban anyone who isn’t?
Don’t despair! The founding Fathers provided a powerful solution. They said that any citizen who feels that he or she is being discriminated against can go to the European Court. And it won’t cost a cent more. If the European institutions bring in legislation — such as the Budget — and the citizen feels it is unjust or discriminatory, then he can go to any local court or tribunal in the land and have redress.
If it is a matter of paying taxes and the citizen refuses to pay European taxes, then the citizen can explain to the judge that the European tax is unjust because it was decided in secret without democratic control. As part of the case the judge is then allowed and encouraged to ask for an opinion of the European Court of Justice, to see whether it is so and whether it is legal. The citizen should cite article 267 of the Lisbon Treaty which reproduces the article from earlier treaties.
A few hundred million citizens can do this. So can all companies, trade unions and consumer groups of civil society.
Article 267 states:
The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning:
(a) the interpretation of the Treaties;
(b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union;
Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgement, request the Court to give a ruling thereon.
The service of the European Court is open. If not today, then maybe tomorrow an individual or an association will bring a case complaining that raising taxes without the knowledge of citizens and in secret meetings is illegal.
The judges would be sure to check Article 15 of the Lisbon Treaty. It was added by civil society group specifically because of M. de Gaulle’s bad habits. It states:
In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible.
The next paragraph is especially relevant:
The European Parliament shall meet in public, as shall the Council when considering and voting on a draft legislative act.
There are few legislative acts as important as the Budget.
If the Court agreed that
- consultation with citizens is pre-requisite for any legislation to pass,
- a minority cannot oppress the majority,
- all legislation must be conducted in the open from the first consideration to the final vote,
- the press must be allowed access to report any political chicanery,
then the law in question could be annulled on any one of these grounds. The whole of the EU budget and all its programmes would be thrown into confusion until it could be sorted out.
That recourse to justice can happen at any time, by any citizen or association. For the cartel it is like a time bomb that will one day explode against them.
It would be far better for the Parliament and the Council to begin to act like democratic institutions TODAY.David Heilbron Price