A non-elected ‘president’ in a non-existent role?

How much legitimacy can Mr. Sarkozy assume in a non-existent role called ‘EU President’, under the current conditions, when the Lisbon Treaty meant to create such presidency has already been legally rejected, and the overall implementation process should have been revoked by now [1, 2]? How much legitimacy can be assumed for a politician who openly contradicted the decision of his own electorate [3, 4, 5] in order to seize power over the rest of the half billion who have never been and never will be his electorate [6]? How much credibility can be granted to a ‘president’ who helped organising the scheme [5] to suppress the opinion of the rest of Europe thus prevented the democratic constitutionalisation process in the region he is supposedly the ‘president’ of?

The requirements of a democratic constitutionalisation vs. Lisbon

The anti-democratic features of the EU have been analysed from all perspectives in former publications [2, 6]. In this chapter these features are underlined again by the sharp contrast between the Lisbon process and the scenario of a truly democratic process of constitutionalisation.

The truly democratic constitutionalisation process is described as follows by political theory [7]:

1. An assembly is convoked for the explicit purpose of drafting a constitutional document;
2. The members of this assembly are elected, not selected, but not automatically empowered to convert themselves into a regular parliament;
3. The decisions of this body are taken by the largest possible margin and not by some “minimal winning majority” according to the short-term, a historical logic of individualistic rational choice;
4. Its product is widely publicized and ratified by the citizenry as a whole, usually in a referendum;
5. Once it has been popularly ratified, the constitution is ceremonially promulgated, placed on public display and subject to periodic interpretation by a specialized juridical process. [7]

In contrast with the above scenario the Lisbon process reveals the following:

1. An assembly has NOT been convoked for the explicit purpose of drafting a federal constitution for Europe. None of the institutions of the EU have been authorised by the public to act as a constitutional assembly for the EU member states. Neither the European Parliament nor any other body of the EU has been elected or specifically authorised by public voting either to draft a constitution or to pass a decision to approve a federal constitution for Europe.

2. The members of the constitutional assembly have been selected, NOT elected. Both the Lisbon Treaty and its former version the EU Constitution have been drafted by a group of self-appointed administrators and politicians [2, 5].

3. The decisions of the non-elected constitutional assembly are not supported by popular consent, therefore considering any margin in their decision is entirely irrelevant.

4. The product is not publicised, - only an incomprehensible version of it [9] - and it is not ratified by the citizenry at all. The Lisbon Treaty has been signed by the leaders of Europe mostly without the knowledge and consent of the citizenry and despite the former rejection by the citizenry of two member states. With the exception of Ireland, the ratification process has been carried out by excluding Europe’s citizenry from the process . After the former French and Dutch referendums, the Irish voters also rejected the same constitution, yet the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is still declared to be continued [1, 2]. Thus the constitutionalisation process entered a phase where Europe’s citizenry is entirely excluded from the process and only considered a ‘problem/obstacle’ to overcome [3].

5. It has never been declared and publicised by any of the EU institutions or by the parliaments of the member states that the formerly rejected EU Constitution would be redrafted in a form of a ‘reform treaty’ under a new name “Lisbon Treaty”. The drafting of the constitutional Lisbon Treaty has been carried out in secrecy and without the knowledge and consent of the citizenry [4, 5].
Instead of providing wide publicity of the fact of constitutionalisation, it has been hidden from the public that the product drafted and accepted by the EU -the Lisbon Treaty- is a federal constitution of a state superimposed on the nation states. What is widely publicised by the EU are false statements, cynically denying the constitutional identity of the Lisbon Treaty [3, 4, 5], thus denying the very process of constitutionalisation. The deliberate omission of state symbols and the title “constitution” from the new version of the formerly rejected EU Constitution was intended to avoid the participation of the electorate in the process.

In summary: the nation states of Europe have never explicitly called for a federal constitution and never approved of the undemocratic constitutionalisation process initiated and carried out by self-appointed officials behind closed doors in Brussels.
When evaluating a constitutionalisation process [7] the democratic qualities of the process itself are considered with a higher priority than the proposed text of the constitution. The Lisbon process is a constitutionalisation process, therefore the process would require referendums as the former EU Constitution did. Therefore the omission of the name “constitution” and of the state symbols, in order to avoid referendums, amounts to an unlawful, deceitful act to avoid a democratic constitutionalisation process and to enable the governments to overthrow the national constitutions [6] by making use of this deceit.

The conclusion of such evaluation is that even if the Lisbon Treaty - or its simpler version, the EU Constitution - would be a constitution with democratic content (which it is not), the proposed constitution and its authors/promoters are considered illegitimate for any political role in a democracy just on the sole basis of the utterly anti-democratic, deceitful constitutionalisation process they have started and still pursue.

A constitution for an “enlarged Europe”: out of the question

Nicolas Sarkozy, “who insisted no treaty, no further EU enlargement,” [10] failed to add to his comment that it is not Europe but himself – and his colleagues – to insist that an enlarged Europe has to be. In contrast with his personal ambitions most efficiently realised through a top-down command-hierarchy [6, 11, 12] within a unified political superpower made of Europe, the very objectives of democracy can efficiently be realised in societies with a structure of leadership allowing for transparency, accountability and responsiveness with manageable economical units of a manageable size of territory, for and by its citizens with mostly shared interests, potentials, cultures and languages. These functioning political-economical units are currently known as the nation-states of Europe [6, 11, 12]. The assumed asset of an “enlarged Europe” repeatedly emphasised by the EU-leaders is however only an “asset” for ambitions that are illegitimate in any democracy.

“A renegotiation of the treaty is out of the question. We are not going to redo a second simplified treaty,” he said, noting the Lisbon Treaty was itself a boiled-down version of the EU constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005.”
“French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who inherits the issue when France takes on the rotating EU presidency on July 1, pointed to the risk of contagion.”
[13]

The citizenry of Europe never asked the EU to draft and implement a federal constitution for an ‘enlarged’ Europe and convert Europe into one political unit with a non-elected president, with a unified foreign policy representation and with a full territorial, economic and social cohesion [6, 8]. Europe never asked for such a constitution, neither for its first or second edition, neither in a ‘simplified’ or other version. The sovereign and free countries of Europe never asked for a federal state gradually superimposed on them, never asked for the abolishment of their national constitutions and other laws, national borders, national identity, citizens’ rights and the abolishment or their current political liberties [6, 9].

As evident form his recent remarks, Sarkozy is still loyal to the original lies Lisbon has been founded upon, oblivious to the fact that these lies have been refuted many times even by his colleagues [2, 3, 4, 5]. As we all know by know, the referenced “second simplified treaty” is NOT a boiled-down version of the EU Constitution but it is a rather a ‘boiled-up’ version of it, deliberately designed to be as complicated as possible to hide its identity with its first version [2, 3, 4, 5, 14]. Omitting the term “constitution” from the Treaty of Lisbon and hiding other aspects of its constitutional content [8, 9, 14, 15] are tricks “needed” to omit all elements of a democratic constitutionalisation and thus deceive the French, Dutch then the Irish voters, as well as to prevent the rest of the 500 million voters to participate in the process. [3, 4, 5].

Considering all these facts how much legitimacy can Mr. Sarkozy assume in a non-existent role called ‘EU President’, under the current conditions, when the Lisbon Treaty meant to create such presidency has already been legally rejected, and the overall implementation process should have been revoked by now [1, 2]? How much legitimacy can be assumed for a politician who openly contradicted the decision of his own electorate [3, 4, 5] in order to seize power over the rest of the half billion who have never been and never will be his electorate [6]? How much credibility can be granted to a ‘president’ who helped organising the scheme [5] to suppress the opinion of the rest of Europe thus prevented the democratic constitutionalisation process in the region he is supposedly the ‘president’ of?

“French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who inherits the issue when France takes on the rotating EU presidency on July 1, pointed to the risk of contagion.”
“Ireland is a problem. But if we had a second or a third problem, it would become very difficult to solve,” he said.
“A renegotiation of the treaty is out of the question.” [13]

As per the principles of democracy and the rule of law what is out of question in an allegedly ‘democratic’ region is the EU and its ‘president’ who views a democratic decision of the politically independent electorate a “problem” or “contagion” in a constitutionalisation process.

What is out of the question is the “enlargement of Europe” as it is meant by the pro-Lisbon philosophy. It has been multiple times disproved by the electorate; therefore the renegotiation of any treaty with such goal is indeed out of the question.

What is also out of the question is a ‘democratic and elected’ parliament ruled by a president [16] who can afford a statement after the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty: “the aim is that the Treaty will have entered into force in time for the European Parliament elections in June 2009” [1, 17].

References

[1] Respect the Irish Vote: Aftershock in European Parliament
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6QmH-7fu68

[2] Is there a democratic life after a dead Lisbon Treaty?
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88033

[3] More questions for the far-wrong side of Lisbon
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88135

[4] Questions for the far-wrong side of Lisbon
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88057

[5] Bonde’s Briefing 19.12.07: Born in sun and sin
“The EU’s Prime Ministers met Thursday 13 December 2007 11.30 in Lisbon to solemnly sign the Lisbon Treaty which none of them has had time to read.
The text has on purpose been made totally unreadable, and the numbering system has been changed time and time again, Bonde, who was present at the signing ceremony, writes.”
http://www.bonde.com/index.php/bonde_UK/article/bondes_...91207

[6] Our future under a ratified Lisbon Treaty
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87683
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87712
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87730

[7] “Contrasting approaches to political engineering: “Constitutionalisation & Democratization”, by Philippe C. Schmitter (European University Institute February 2001)

[8] “Ireland: a vital fact proven; the Lisbon Treaty is a constitution”
(Conceptual map: the Lisbon Treaty is a constitution)
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87182

[9] Lisbon Treaty: national level competences to be transferred to the EU
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87923

[10] News Analysis: Czech Republic, Britain deepen EU treaty impasse
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/21/content_84...6.htm

[11] “Voting NO to Lisbon: to keep our homes, families and economic strength”
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87814

[12] “Voting NO to Lisbon: to avoid the collapse of economy”
(Final countdown: myths versus facts regarding the Lisbon Treaty)
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87857

[13] “Lisbon Douze Points” - European Commission Vice-President debates the Treaty in Dublin Castle”
http://www.forumoneurope.ie/index.asp?locID=113&docID=1567

[14] Comparison of the Lisbon Treaty and the former EU Constitution:
http://www.j.dk/exp/images/bondes/13.03.08_COMPARISON_O...Y.pdf
Jens-Peter Bonde’s book on the Lisbon Treaty:
http://www.bonde.com/index.php/bonde_uk/article/C355/
Index with more than 3,000 alphabetical entries to search the Lisbon Treaty by topics:
http://www.j.dk/exp/images/bondes/Index.pdf

[15] “These Boots Are Gonna Walk All Over You”
An analysis by Prof. Anthony Coughlan
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2773

[16] Parliamentary democracy and rule of law are abolished by the EU:
“Power Grab by EU Parliament President (updated)”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVeMBNB0cII&feature=related

[17] Hans-Gert Pöttering: The Lisbon Treaty should enter into force by the 2009 European Elections
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_pag...t.htm