25, February, 2016
On 23 June 2016 whatever way Britons vote in the BREXIT referendum, the UK will remain a Member State of the European Community. The European Commission knows this. It is not clear if Westminster government realizes this. They should. How do I know? That is what the treaties say! This burning issue was debated a decade and a half ago, when the Lisbon Treaty existed only as an illegitimate twinkle in the eyes of politicians.
First paradox: Democracy can be reduced but it cannot be destroyed. The fact that UK remains a member of the European Community is positive proof of this! The recent calls for referendums in Greece on the democracy-destroying effects of the ill-conceived euro, that of independence for Spanish Catalonia, the Dutch referendum on the Ukraine accord, the British referendum on BREXIT and the proposed Hungarian referendum against Brussels dictating the migratory flows to the country, show one thing. Brussels is sick. Not Europe or its democratic spirit. Expect more referendums, including one in France on FREXIT! The core problem is that the Council of Ministers has retained neo-Gaullist powers as a closed-door big-daddy government of the political cartel. Europe needs to install the democratic rights written in the treaties for more than sixty years and its Great Charter of the Community 1951, guaranteeing the founding principle of authentic ‘freedom of choice‘!
Is Britain’s referendum anti-democratic? What about the sovereign will of the people as expressed in the BREXIT referendum? That deals specifically with the question on the voting slip.
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” The options for voters will be ‘Remain a member of the European Union’ and ‘Leave the European Union’.”
The referendum question does not say European Community. Why?
Second paradox. Doesn’t the highly-rated British civil service and do not all the associated bands of experienced politicians (some of whom attend the Council and Parliament) know the difference between EC and EU? Why did they write such a question?
Third paradox. Is European history education so deficient that nobody has pointed out this glaring error? Has the funding of millions of propaganda euros that the EU has poured into the 875 Jean Monnet professorships around Europe and beyond been entirely wasted? They boast they have “educated” half a million students each year. Why then aren’t these passive students taking to the streets shouting ‘The emperor has no clothes!?’
Fourth paradox. The European Commission knows about the referendum question result. It knows the answer. it is no secret. It was widely broadcast while the so-called ‘Constitutional Treaty’ was being fabricated. But it is keeping stumm.
I have had a substantial correspondence with the Commission. They won’t raise the issue, divulge any information on it or debate it.
What is the reply of officials when confronted with the issue in the press room?
“We don’t wish to discuss it!”
Why? Isn’t that a dereliction of duty of the ‘Guardian of the treaties’? The issue is obviously of supreme importance to know before voting! Britons might vote to leave the EU and find themselves still in the European Community!
This legal answer from a high-ranking official, an authoritative EU source, is positive affirmation in its way that the UK will definitely remain a Member. The UK will remain a participating member of the Council of Ministers. It will have to elect Members of Parliament to the European Parliament. It is obliged to participate in the Consultative Committees like the Economic and Social Committee (designed to deal with matters like the euro but ineffective) and the Committee of Regions (designed to deal with migration issues and equally ineffective). Both committees are supposed to be elected and radiate trust and legitimacy. Instead they are still nominated by the Council in its secret sessions.
Paradox five will be a shocker! What will happen on 24 June, when Britons hear the results over breakfast?
They will find they have, for example, expressed a wish to leave the European Union, the EU. But that is not the European Community. The EU is a bloated, and often quite undemocratic, neo-Gaullist perversion of the European Economic Community. Some British like to call this the Common Market, but it was far more than that.
Today there are two active Communities. The EU is just the outgrowth of one. When the UK joined, it agreed to become active participants of THREE. Chronologically the first Community was the European Coal and Steel Community. It was founded on 18 April 1951 and starting its activities on 10 August 1952. It created Europe’s first Single Market in February 1953.
Its treaty was in force for a limited but renewable period of 50 years. That date terminated in 2002. Lobbied hard by the steel and coal interests, the Council of Ministers decided without public debate (or a referendum!) not to renew the Community. The short-sighted cause was a 1 percent tax that provided houses and full employment for workers, new technologies for the industries and low prices for the customers and protection from unfair trade practices. Immediately after the end of the Community, prices of steel soared. Was this a coincidence? The Community had strong powers against cartel operations on price manipulation.
Since then Europe has experienced the consequences: firstly the great steel enterprises were sold off to foreign purchasers. Then more recently the steel furnaces have been shut down as China and other nations dump their cheaper products on world markets. The former industrial backbone of Europe has been broken by the greed and lack of vision of businessmen and the poor judgement of its cartel politicians.
The second Community was the European Atomic Energy Community, founded under the Treaty of Rome in 1957. It was envisaged by Robert Schuman in 1949 as Europe’s answer to the Soviet atomic bomb and a means to stop nuclear proliferation and war. This was the subject of de Gaulle’s ire. He paralyzed Euratom, as it was known. He then built a French atomic bomb, suborning others to contribute to the research. De Gaulle boasted that his bomb could kill 20 million people in two hours! Would you trust de Gaulle or any such autocrat with the Bomb?
The Euratom treaty would if applied have prevented any Iranian production of an atomic bomb. It would also have stopped the production of a Pakistani bomb and the Libyan and possibly North Korean operations.
The recent Iran nuclear deal shows the barrenness of EU foreign policy. Today flush with its 100 or 150 billion dollars bonanza, Iran, long considered the most dangerous terror State, is funding Palestinian terrorism. It is offering $7000 to each family for producing a ‘martyr’ and $30,000 for a destroyed house.
Euratom is not dead. Britain is still a part of its Community, the Commission, Council and Parliament. So if the referendum returns a vote to LEAVE, the authorities in Brussels and those in Whitehall will have to start explaining why leaving the European Community just is not possible. Before any BREXIT takes place that will have to be exposed, analyzed and resolved.
Reminder: the EU has an exit clause 50. The Euratom treaty has none. Why? Because those inside a club have rights as much as those who wish to leave!
The only way a Member State can leave Euratom is to persuade all other Members to revoke the treaty. That is simple democracy. We all have an interest in nuclear security and non-proliferation. We don’t need another de Gaulle-style autocrat, whether French, German or perhaps with an Islamic vision of grandeur, threatening to kill 20 million people based on shared European technology and fissile material.David Heilbron Price