english french german greek italian lithuanian russian serbian spanish
Home arrow newsitems arrow Biden lost Last Chance to Verify 2020 Vote +SCOTUS VPresident slams Citizens Confusion+Trust Erosion

Biden lost Last Chance to Verify 2020 Vote +SCOTUS VPresident slams Citizens Confusion+Trust Erosion

Parašė ACM
Monday, February 22, 2021

 scotus_judges_thomas_alito_gorsuch_400

*Strasbourg/Angelo Marcopolo/- Joe Biden has just Lost a Last Chance to get a neutral US Supreme Court Verification of his Notoriously Controversial alleged Electoral Results of Nov. 3, 2020, and SCOTUS vice-President Clarence Thomas Warned of "Catastrophic Consequences" (sic !) concerning "Erosion" of Citizens' Trust to the Electoral System, After a Series of Non-Motivated Rejections of 7 Law-Suits for "Writ of Certiorari" mainly against Pennsylvania (the Biggest "BattleGround", "Swing" State among 6, Key for the Overall Electoral Result), lodged by Don Trump's Team (2), Lawyers Wood (on Georgia), and Sidney Powell (on Michigan), Pennsylvania's GOP, Lawmakers, NGOs, etc

 The "Certiorari" Procedure (Unlike an Appeal) is based on Discretionary SCOTUS' Choices, Independent of Citizens' (Electoral and/or Other) Rights, and does Not pre-Judge or affect their Legal Rights or Court Cases in substance, Focusing on the overall Organisation of Federal Public Services for the General Interest.

Most Other Trump Team's Legal Complaints have been notoriously Droped, by Mainly Partisan State Judges, basically on various Procedural Pretexts, Not on the Merits.

=> So, at least Some among 8 Legal Complaints lodged to the US Federal Supreme Court, (from which reportedly still Remains Only 1 concerning Wisconsin State, while Other Pending Issues have Not Yet Found their Road to the SCOTUS), had a Particular Importance, by, at last, Offeding to USA's Highest Court a real (Even if InComplete yet) Opportunity to Eventualy Judge on the Merits at least Some among the most Serious Problems Notoriously Faced in that Bumpy Nov. 3 2020 US Presidential Election Row.

- <<Elections are “of the most Fundamental Significance under our (USA's) Constitutional structure" because, >>Through them, We (the American People) exercise Self-Government>>, Stresed SCOTUS, f.ex. since 1979, as Vice-President Thomas reminded in a Disseding Opinion Publshed Today.

- "But Elections Enable self-Governance Only When they include Processes that “giv[e] Citizens (including the losing candidates and their supporters) Confidence in the Fairness of the Election", he underlined, pointing, f.ex. to a SCOTUS' case of 2006, according to which, “Confidence in the Integrity of our Electoral Processes is Essential to the functioning of our participatory Democracy”. On the Contrary, "Unclear Rules threaten to Undermine this System. They sow Confusion and ultimately Dampen Confidence in the Integrity and Fairness of Elections", he Denounced.

- SCOTUS' VPresident Published that on the Occasion of a Pennsylvania GOP's Lawsuit against alleged Fraud/Gross Irregularities in 2020 US Presidential Election, but Lawyer Lin Wood rightfully observed that it's, naturaly, "Directly on Point" with his "Georgia case" and "Sidney (Powell)'s cases in Michigan and Wisconsin", (Comp. Supra), etc+. Mutatis-mutandis, a Similar appreciation might Also be used on an Earlier Legal Complaint Notoriously lodged to USA's Federal Supreme Court by Texas and 18 Other States...

- Indeed, All of them were Droped under Strictly Procedural Points, and Not at all on the Merits of these Cases : Today's 7 Cases were Droped as "Moot", i.e. too much Delayed in Time. And the Texas' a.o. Lawsuit had been Droped for "Locus Standi" pretexts.

=> But, a most Substantial Consequence, throughout All these various Lawsuits, is that, at Any Case, Biden's alleged Election Claim was Not Proved at all to be True, (at least as far as the USA's Supreme Court is concerned), Remaining, on the Contrary, Always a Contested and UnCertain Question Mark !

+ In Addition, at the Present Cases, Biden's position is located on a Particularly Shaky and Doubtfull, UnStable and Negative Claim, which, Normaly, shouldN't have Enough Chances to be Admitted at all :

>>> Indeed, as SCOTUS' VPresident Critically Observes, in Pennsylvania, Recent and Controversial Changes had Imposed "In Mail" Ballots, i.e. "gave All Voters the Option of Voting by Mail" : Something that is Notoriously Considered as Dangerous for Fraud, (and is Even Excluded in CoE's "Code" for Electoral "Good Practices", established by the Competent "Venice Commission", where the USA are among its 62 full Member States : See http://www.eurofora.net/newsflashes/news/coeexpertstoefonusaelectionflaws.html, etc).

+ Whenever it Might, Perhaps, be Exceptionaly Authorized, "In-Mail" Voting should be Casted at least "a few Days Before' the Electoral Day, stresses, in Addition, CoE's Electoral "Code", (ibid). But, in this Case, Local Authorities had Even Seeked to Authorize it, initially, until 8 p.m. of the Electoral Date...

++ Evenmore, a Last-Minute Addition had Extended the Reception of "Mail-In" Votes as Far as ...Until the 3rd Day AFTER the Electoral Day, (regardless of Any Post-Stamp, or not, from the Day 1)...

+++ As if this was not enough, Moreover, it's Not the State's directly elected Parliament which had taken such a Controversial Measure, (Despite the Fact that USA's Federal Constitution had clearly entrusted the Legal Competence to do so Only to the States' Legislators), But some (UnElected by the People) Executives, Adding even More Controversy ....

- However, Curiously, Even if, from the Start, such Lawsuit "Met" SCOTUS' "Criteria for Granting Relief", and "Parties did Agree, on Both Sides, that the Issue Warranted Certiorari", while "there was, Also, No Question that Petitioners Faced irreparable Harm", and "a Strong Argument" that a Pennsylvania Authority's "Decision Violated the (USA's Federal) Constitution", and "Petitioners Promptly moved for Emergency Relief", at the Beginning, since "September 28", (etc),

Nevertheless, Already, "Before Election Day" (Nov. 3, 2020), SCOTUS had Initially Denied a Motion to expedite" that case, "Although the Question was of <<National Importance", and there was a “strong Likelihood that (the State Authority's Controversial) Decision   Violates the Federal Constitution", VPresident Thomas Criticized....

=> In Consequence, at least "Now" (2/2021) there is "No (legitimate) Reason to Avoid" these Lawsuits, he judged.

>>> Because "that is Not a Prescription for Confidence" of Citizens. On the Contrary, "Changing the Rules (1) in the Middle of the Game is Bad enough. Such rule (2) by Officials who may Lack Authority to do so, is even Worse. When those changes (3) Alter Election Results, they can severely Damage the electoral system on which our self-governance so heavily depends. If State Officials have [ NOT ] the authority they have claimed, we need to make it clear. ... we (SCOTUS) Need to put an End to this practice Now, Before the Consequences become Catastrophic", (by provoking even W ORSE ?


According to public reports, one candidate for

"a state senate seat claimed victory under what she contended was the legislative rule, that dates must be included on the ballots. A federal court noted that this candidate would win by 93 votes under that rule"

 "A second candidate claimed victory under the contrary rule announced by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. He was seated"...

-----------------

- In Fact, things Became Nasty during "Recent Years", with "a Trend" towards a "Dramatic Expansion" of "Mail-in Votes" via the "Post" : F.ex. 0n 2018, Mail Ballots "composed Just 4% of those cast in Pennsylvania", while "Increasing in 2020 to 38% !", he Denounced.        

- But, "the Risk of Fraud is  <<Vastly More Prevalent>> for Mail-in Ballots", SCOTUS' VPresident clearly Warned, pointing, inter alia, to a "NYT" Article, where the New Dean to YALE Law School "explained that Absentee Voting allows for ... <<Alternatives to Commit Fraud>> on a Larger Scale", (f.ex. Stealing or Stuffing a Ballot box", etc), while "All the Evidence of Stolen Elections involves Absentee Ballots and the like" Nowadays... "Even Before Widespread Absentee Voting, a Federal Court had Reversed the Result of a state Senate Election in Philadelphia, after Finding that the Supposedly Prevailing Candidate had “conducted an illegal Absentee Ballot Conspiracy, and that the [election Officials] covertly Facilitated the scheme with the specific Purpose of ensuring a Victory for” that Candidate... + As for US President Trump he had Recently Explained that "Late Mail-in Ballots" Help Fraudsters by Revealing Where and How Many "Votes" they Need to Add in order to Win, (f.ex. as Biden announced himshelf, After the Electoral Night, in a Video Press-point on Pennsylvania, Boasting that InComing Mail-in Ballots will Continue to Give him a ...78% Majority at a Key County, until he Reverses Trump's Initially Winning Advance : See http://www.eurofora.net/newsflashes/news/coeexpertstoefonusaelectionflaws.html + http://www.eurofora.net/newsflashes/news/usa2020electoralfraudproofgrows.html).             

+ However, Fraud/Irregularities' Risks from "Mail-in Ballots" raise a Hard Problem for "Post-Election Litigation", because they are too Time-Consuming, (f.ex. in Checking Envelopes, Signatures [an Issue, however,Easily Solved by Romania, on Late 2020, thanks to the Registraion of "Electronic", Digital Signatures : See http://www.eurofora.net/newsflashes/news/coeexpertstoefonusaelectionflaws.html], Disputes, etc, throughout Thousands of Ballots), at a period when Courts' Time is Short, given the "Tight" Post-Electoral Events' Calendar, (f.ex. with "Fixed" Dates for Great Electors' Certification, middle December, the Official Counting, by US Congress, of their own Votes for the Presidency, at the Beginning of Jenuary Next Year, etc), pointed out Justice Thomas.    

From the point of view of "Eurofora", we don't think that such a "Zeitnot" should be an Absolute Problem : As far as main Legal and Political Principles are concerned, the Priority should, Normaly, be to Ensure that People's Democratic Choice is Respected, (i.e. Exclude Fraud/Gross Irregulrities which might Undermine it). So that the matter of 1 Week or even Month, Sooner or Later, for the Final Certification of the Great Electors, and/or the US Congress' Official Counting of their Votes for the US Presidency, should, we believe, be considered as, Comparatively, Secondary, and be Adapted, according to practical Necessities, (considering that, at any case, a Full Presidential Mandate of 4 Years expects whoever will really Win that Election). The Number 1 Issue Always being to Ensure Respect for the US Federal Constitutional Principles Guaranteing Citizens' Trust, to the Electoral System Nowadays, and Not a Mechanical, "Blind" Transposition of some 1877 -Fixed (and Only 1945 Adapted) "Dates" for the Formalities... Therefore, it seems Logical and Natural, that, Whenever there might, Eventualy, be a Real Need f.ex. to exceptionaly Extend a Time    Deadline, and/or to Change a given "Date" for one or two among those Various Events, (i.e. as long as there might Still be Important Post-Electoral LawSuits "Pending" at the US Federal Supreme Court, a relevant Postponement of some Dates should, normaly, be possible...)

Anyway, SCOTUS VPresident uses the above-mentioned Argument about possible "Time Deadlines" Problems for Post-Electoral Judicial Control of Long "Mail-in" Voting Disputes (Comp. Supra), Not in order to Hinder, but, on the Contrary, in order to Incite the Supreme Court to Seize the "Opportunity", that it has Now, (i.e. once an "Orderly Transition of Power" has been just performed, while Important Pending Issues are Still Waiting, Ready to be Examined on the Merits and Settled, once for ever), in order to Judge those Issues, not only for the Present Cases, But Also for the Sake of the foreseable Future in Similar or even Identical Post-Elections LawSuits, which are Already Foreseable in the Immediate Future : i.e. 2022, 2024, etc., added to various individual ByElections, etc., as long as these Legal Electoral Matters are Not Clearly Settled yet...         

    + A Similar Trend, (Urging to Judge Now, instead of Skiping Important Pending Electoral Issues, leaving them UnSolved), is clearly Visible Also at the Following Dissending Opinions of 2 More Associate Justices, Alito and Gorsuch :

- Those 2 SCOTUS' Judges, (one Experienced, and anOther Young), Focus mainly on Slaming Dems' and RINOS' alleged Claim that "a Perfect Storm", as they Name the Circumstances of Nov. 3, 2020 Controversial US Presidetial Election, (which Added the Virus' "Pandemic", "Mail-in Voting" and "Postal Service Delays"), would be "ExtraOrdinary and UnPrecedented", to the point  to also be "Not Likely to Recur" in the foreseable Future, (i.e. remaining a "One Off" Event).

>>> Instead, SCOTUS' Judges Alito and Gorshus                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Argue, in Fact, that those Nov. 3, 2020 Incidents might act, also in the Future, as a kind of ...illegal "Virus", (one would say), adversely Affecting even Other Elections in the Foreseable Future, Because Dems' and RINOS'    Opposite Claim would "Fail for 3 Reasons" :

(1) First of all, "the Breadth" of that Issue is much Wider than what acknowledge Dems+RINOS : In fact, Any Local Court, (Often a ...Single Judge, usualy Apointed on Partisan Criteria), at Any among the 50 States, could "Override" Any "Rules Adopted by the Parliament" of that State "for the conduct of Federal Elections", (i.e. for the US President, the USA Senate and/or House of Representatives, etc), Nonobstant the US Constitution's General Principle that such an Important Responsibility is Reserved Exclusively for the States' Parliament's themselves. I.e. a Very Large and Vital Area of the Country's Electoral Life, could be Infected...     

(2) In Addition, such Problems are "Surely Capable of Repetition in Future" Elections, i.e. could Replicate themselves, Like a Dangerous Virus (sic !) : -"Indeed, it would be Surprizing if parties UnHappy with the (Electoral) Rules fixed by a State's Parliament, do ...not ask a State's Court    to Mutate them for something that They Find more Profitable"...

(3) Moreover, for that purpose, (i.e. that Law Virus' Replication : Comp. Supra), "it's Not Necessary to see a Recurrence of the Exact Circumstances we saw this Fall", "in order for a Question to be Capable of Repetition", Neither for "History to Repeat itslf at a very High Level of Specificity".

F.ex., mutatis-mutandis, a State's Court may "Find that Conditions at the Time of a Future Federal Election are materially Similar to those Last Fall".

Among others, "the Primary Election for Pennsylvania Congressional Candidates is Scheduled to occur in 15 Months, and the Rules for the Conduct of Elections should be Established well in Advance".. We may Hope, by Next Spring, the Pandemic will No Longer Affect Daily Life, But that is UnCertain"...

-------------------

    - However, if even that "New Virus", of "Legal UnCertainty", (Comp. Supra : Alito and Gorsuch's Disseding), is Not Timely "Vaccinated" by a Crystal-Clear SCOTUS' judicial Solution Nowadays, then, What happens Now with the Worse "New Legal Virus" : that of Threat for Massive Fraud/Gross Irregularities in EU Elections, (Comp. Supra: Thomas' Disseding) which Treatens to be Even Faster and Wider "Replicated", mutatis-mutandis, inevitably Provoking a Huge "Gap" in Citizens' Trust to the European Electoral and Political Governing System ?

    - Apparently, Nothing Good !... Nobody can Trust as "Healthy" a System which ...Abandons and Shoots Down Natural Human Immunity against any "Virus of Fraud" or other Sickness, Hinders even the slightest available "Therapy" Drug, Blocks, Delays or Abandons Any Real "Vaccine", (Pushing Only some Ridiculous "Snowman" or "Hibanjee" "Gene-Manips" of UnKnown Yet Effects, and which Scandalously Infect all the Rest of the World, by "Asymptomatic" Zobies), and Stubornly Refuses Any "Investigation" or even simple Public Debate, at least on the Existence of such a Deadly, Anti-Democratic "Fraud/Electoral Irregularties' Virus", and What Can be Done to Tackle it asap., (Preferring to Hinder, Block and Persecute all those who Protest, Ask for a Full Enquiry and Anti-Fraud Measures, Slander and Trap them, Murder by Gun-Shot, Crush to Death, Kill them by "Strokes", Push them to "Suicides" -including even Policemen, amidst a Wider "Witch-Hunt" Hystery- Arrest, Charge and Jail them, among a Larger Censorship and Muzzling of Dissident Voices even at Private, "Social Medias" at the Internet, (etc), Imposing an UnProven "Official Version" on "Hotly Disputed" Events, Throwing Dissidents' Personal Data by the Window, Exposing their Personal Data, Home, Family and Kids even to Thugs, Obliging them to Resign from their Jobs,  Spreading a Poisonous, Hysteric Neo-Cold War "Maccarthysm", with a Former People-Friendly "House" transformed into an Hostile "Buncker", added Fences, Barbed Wire, EveryDay Tight Curfew, 50.000 Soldiers with Heavy Machine-Guns, (etc), in Nowadays USA.

Loaded Guns pointed or even shot on Unarmed Protestors Murdered a Woman, another was "Crushed", while 1 Persecuted former Demonstrator was pushed to Suicide, added to at least 2 more Suicides among Policemen while "WitchHunt" Spread against Officers suspected t be -Pro-Trump, 3 Different Versions circulated on why Sicknck "collapsed in his Office" at a Late Hour of the Next Day, as 3 Capitol Police Heads were Forced to "Resign", Demonstators were Hindered to Meet and Speak to Any of their Elected Representatives, Heavily Equiped and Armed "Riot Police" Started to Violently throw to the Floor, Flash-Gas-Bomb and Kick Out All Demonstrators from Every Capitol's Premises (Gardens Included), an Immediate, since 6 pm "Curfew", was Imposed throughout Wash. DC, More than 50.000 Soldiers with Heavy Machine Guns, participated in such an UnPrecedented Military "Coup", with Fences, Barbed Wires and stict Interdictions of Circulation of any People until and beyond a Forced, Army-Backed, Inauguration of Biden on Jan. 20 through exceptionaly Deserted Avenues, After having Started Massive MaHunts, Slandering, Persecutions and Arrests of several Hundreds of former Demonstrators (Systematicaly pushed to immediately Resign from their Jobs) throughout the Country, and Many Jailed, even acting President rump's Personal Accounts to Social Medias were Permanently Suppressed, as well as for Many Other Political and/or Legal Dissidents Criticizing 2020 Electoral Fraud/Gross Irregularities (including Lawyers, Book Writers, etc), relevant Videos Blocked at the Web, Establishment's Medias systematicaly Censored any Mention of alleged Fraud/Irregularities in 2020 Controversial Presidential Vote Row, Bullying, Harassing, Muzzling, Attacking and Threatening Any Dissident Voice, (Even of Elected USA Federal Senators included), former President Trump, Lawyers, etc., were Persecuted, while Any Scheduled Official Public Debate in the Congress on the 2020 Presidential Election Row had been Immediately Stopped among Senators and Representatives, Contrary to the Notorious Aim of that Jan. 6 , 2021 Certification Process, Brutaly Interrupted and Hindered to Resume, Shortly After the First Exchanges,(Fully Registered by semi-official C-Span) Clearly Proved that Dems Seeked to desperately Avoid Any Public Dialogue, point by point, on concrete Facts and Arguments presented by Republicans on the alleged 2020 Electoral Fraud/Gross Irregularities... (which was Completely Muzzled after that Jan.6, 2021 Military Coup : See also http://www.eurofora.net/newsflashes/news/usacapitolclashonelectionfraud.html + ..., etc).                                                                                                                                -------------------

 

+ Moreover,  "an Election System Lacks Clear Rules when, as here, Different Officials Dispute Who has Authority to set or Change those rules. (F.ex. any State's Court, or the State's Parliament Only). This ...brews Confusion, because Voters may Not Know Which Rules to follow. Even Worse, with More than one System of Rules in place, Competing Candidates , Thomas Warned.

And severeal Recent Articles, including Published at New York Times, note the Fact that "Voting by Mail is, Now, Common enough, and Problematic enough, that Election Experts say there have been Multiple Elections (Recently) in which No One Can Say, with Confidence, Which Candidate was the deserved Winner !" (sic)...

=> "Because Fraud is More prevalent with Mail-in ballots (Comp. Supra), Increased use of those ballots raises the likelihood that Courts will be asked to Adjudicate Questions that go to the Heart of Election Confidence", he Warned.

>>> "But, ...an Election Free from strong Evidence of systemic Fraud is Not alone Sufficient for election Confidence", the Experienced SCOTUS' VPresident went on to Add :  + Because "Also Important is the ASSURANCE THAT FRAUD WILL NOT GO UNDETECTED !", he Moreover stressed.

+ In Addition, "the Issue presented is capable of Repetition" (Comp. Supra). Indeed, "there is a reasonable Expectation that the Same complaining party (GOP) will be subject to the Same action (alleged Fraude/Gross Irrgularities by Dems) Again", in the foreseable Future, he Warned.

=> It's about "Testing Allegations of Systemic MalAdministration, Voter Suppression, or Fraud, that go to the Heart of Public Confidence in Election Results", SCOTUS' Experienced VPresident underlined.

>>> "That is obviously Problematic for allegations backed by substantial evidence. But the Same is true where Allegations are incorrect. After all “[C]onfidence in the Integrity of our Electoral process is Essential to the Functioning of our participatory Democracy", Justice Thomas reminded, Pointing at "a Compelling Interest in rooting out the mere “Appearance of Corruption” in the Political process", (according to the World-Famous Ancient Moto that "it's not enough for Cesar's Wife to be Honest : She must, also, Look Honest !")...

NB => Indeed, "an incorrect Allegation, Left to Fester, withOut a robust Mechanism to Test and DisProve it, “Drives Honest Citizens Out of the Democratic process and breeds Distrust of our Government", he observed.

 - "Here, We (SCOTUS) have the Opportunity"..."to Address these admittedly Important Questions", so that "our Refusal to do so, by Hearing these Cases, is Befuddling !"... In Fact, "there is a clear Split (among SCOTUS' Members) on an Issue of such Great Importance", that "there is No Dispute that the Claim is Sufficiently Meritorious to Warrant Review".

+ Moreover, "the Issue presented is Capable of Repetition, (Comp. Supra), Yet Evades review", Even if "there is a reasonable Expectation that the Same Complaining Party will be subject to the Same Action Again.”... => In Conseqence, "one Wonders What this Court (SCOTUS' Dems + RINOS) Waits for ?"...

>>> "The Decision to LEAVE ELECTION LAW HIDDEN BENEATH a Shroud of DOUBT, IS BAFFLING !", SCOTUS' Experienced VPresident Denounced.

=> "BY DOING NOTHING, WE (SCOTUS) INVITE Further CONFUSION and EROSION OF VOTER CONFIDENCE", he Warned, in Conclusion.

 -  "Our fellow CITIZENS DESERVE BETTER and EXPECT MORE of us..."


    So, that's how BIDDEN's Controversial Presidency is, from Now on, CONDEMNED by USA's Supreme Court to be uncomfortably Sitting on "a Shrout of DOUBT" (sic !), "Leaving the Electoral LAW HIDDEN BENEATH" his back ... (CQFD : Comp. supra).

 

 

(.../...)

 

 

("Draft-News")

 

 

----------------------------------------

 



           

EUDigitalMedia

Statistics

Lankytojai: 52263566

Archive

Login Form





Prisiminti mane

Pamiršote slaptažodį?
Nesate prisiregistravęs? Prisiregistruoti

Syndicate

RSS 0.91
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
ATOM 0.3
OPML

Other Menu

 sarko_merkel_mieux

The official presentation of a "Program" respecting People's choices voted in the June 7, 2009 EU Elections, to be debated in EU Council and EU Parliament during its 1st Session on July in Strasbourg, is the No 1 Priority, according to Democratic principles, for the Franco-German axis, said the main winners at the ballot box, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angie Merkel.

They stressed  that the New EU Commission's President must have a "Program" in favor of an EU which "protects" its Citizens, regulates financial markets and aims at a "Political" Europe" : a wording they have used as incompatible with Turkey's controversial EU bid.

They also declared ready for a "political" endorsment of "Mr. Barroso's candidacy" in June's EU Council, considering that an official decision would have to be made after EU Parliament's debates and votes, possibly from next month (July), with the legally necessary final acceptance shortly after Lisbon Treaty's entry into force, hoped for September or October.


- "A Program, and Mr. Barroso" : This resumes, in substance, the anouncements made by Sarkozy and Merkel, on the question of current EU Commission's President, Barroso's declared wish to succeed to himself for a second mandate, to be extended during the following 5 years.

 In their 1st meeting after EU Elections, they observed that "the Franco-German axis counted in European Elections' campaign... But, we both keep a realistic view : We saw the number of those who abstained, and we must absolutely give them an answer. We also see the disilusionment of an important number of Europeans vis a vis Europe, and we are aware of the responsibilities we have".

sarko

 - The "Duty" of the new EU Commission's President, after June 7, 2009 EU Elections' result, "is to act for a Europe which protects the Europeans, to commit himself into working for a better Regulation of Financial transactions, ... and to have a Political will for Europe", underlined Sarkozy.

Therefore, "we have asked M. Barroso... to clarify, to officialy present the intentions he has", he anounced.

- "We want to speak also about the Programme", explained Merkel.

- "It's important that for the next EU Parliament's mandate (2009-2014) we take the right Decisions for Europe.  Obviously on Persons, but mainly Decisions on Issues", she stressed.

- "It's not simply a question of a Person, it's also a question of a Programme". We are "really asking Mr. Barroso to commit himself on a Program, and on Principles, on Values", Sarkozy added.

EU President-in-office, Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer, accepted the Franco-German stance :

- "Barroso must present his Programme. The Czech Presidency agrees with that", Fischer reportedly said later, after meeting Sarkozy.

But Press reports from Brussels claimed that Barroso had preferred to be officially appointed by EU Council since June, (i.e. next week), "because this was implied by the current Treaty of Nice, according to him", and considered any delay until the possible ratification of the new, Lisbon Treaty on September/October, as "undemocratic".

- "At any case, independently of what Germany and France ask, it's also EU Parliament's wish". "We shall propose Mr Barroso's candidacy... But even in the framework of Nice Treaty, EU Parliament has to be associated in this Decision", the French President observed.

If this is correctly done, then "we support Mr. Barroso's candidature", and "if the (EU) Parliament agrees, we might ratify this decision since July", (i.e. next month), they both said.

smerkem_400

- "France and Germany support Baroso's candidacy, But we want to speak also on the Program. We believe that this Program should be established in close cooperation with EU Parliament, and that's why we have followed an appropriate way", said Merkel.  - If EU Parliament wants, this election can take place on July,  but this must be done in full agreement.

- "We shall support Mr. Barroso's candidacy, without doubt", said Sarkozy. "But we have asked from Mr. Barroso, as I told him yesterday, to put into detail.. his intentions, at the eve of his 2nd mandate, if the situation avails itself.


    France and Germany "don't want to take an Official Legal Decision by writting" during "the next (EU) Council" (on June 18-19), declared Sarkozy.  Because they prefer, at this stage, only "a Political decision" on June, "so that we (EU Council) can work together with EU Parliament", which starts to meet only Next Month, since July in Srasbourg, "leaving a Legal decision by writting for later".

    - "If the Conditions are fuillfiled in EU Parliament, we (EU Council) are ready to give the agreement and make it offficial", said Merkel

    - "But, now we are working in the base of Nice Treaty. If tommorow we want to work in the spirit of Lisbon Treaty, we have to find a proper way", she added.

    - "Of course it's Legally complicated, because we are going to make a Political proposal to the forthcoming Council, for an EU Commission's President, on the basis of Nice Treaty : So, we (EU Council) will not appoint the Commissioners. Only the President.  If EU Parliament agrees, it could endorse this position on July", explained Sarkozy.

    But, on Autumn, "if Ireland ratifies Lisbon Treaty, there will be, at any case, a 2nd Decision, to appoint the Commission's President, this time on the basis of Lisbon treaty, and then, we, the EU Member States, would have to appoint (also) the EU Commissioners", he added.

    As for the precise Timing :  - "Everything is suspended until the Irish vote... Now, we must all make everything possible to help Ireland to say "Yes"" to Lisbon Treaty... The Irish Referendum, ..will take place either on September or on October. It's a Question which depends on the Irish. And,  then, we shall have the Choice of the Candidates for the permanent Institutions of Europe".

    However, "if Ireland says No, we, French and Germans, have to assume our responsibilities, and we'll do so", he concluded.

    But British and Swedish governments were reportedly eager to have a final EU Council decision on Barroso since this month, on June's European Council. While the other EU Member Countries are divided, several of them preferring to wait until EU Parliament pronounces itself, on July, and/or until Lisbon Treaty might be ratified by Ireland at the beginning of the Autumn. Barroso's current mandate ends on November.

    There are also various, contradictory and/or unpredictable reactions inside EU Parliament vis a vis Barroso's wish to continue a 2nd mandate, because many MEPs are openly or secretly opposed, reluctant, or hesitating.

    In the biggest EU Countries, as France and Germany, EU Citizens voted on June 2009 EU Elections for a renovated, non-technocratic but Political Europe which cares for its Citizens, with an Identity, Values and Borders, declared incompatible with Turkey's controversial EU bid, by mainstream, pro-European Governing Parties. Similar choices were also supported in several other small or medium EU Countries.

    On the contrary, whenever, in other Countries, Governing and other mainstream Parties didn't make these choices or eluded them, EU Citizens massively voted for euro-Sceptics whenever they were the only ones to to promise anti-bureacratic change and oppose Turkey's demand to enter into the EU, (f.ex. in the UK, Netherlands, etc).

    It's seems to be an Open Question whether Sarkozy and Merkel's conditions will be really accepted by Barroso, who was appointed on 2004 in a different political context, (with Socialist Prime Ministers in Germany, France, etc), had rejected in the Past the idea of EU becoming "equal to the USA" as "ridiculous", and pushed for Turkey's contoversial EU bid, trying to "soften" or contain the changes desired by the People who voted for Merkel and Sarkozy with another policy vis a vis Turkey on 2005 in Germany and on 2007 in France, as they did all over Europe on 2009.

    In addition to many EPP Governments, it's 3 remaining Socialist Prime Ministers : Gordon Brown in the UK, Zapatero in Spain, and Socrates in Prortugal, who support Barroso, as well as Liberal Swedish Prime Minister Reinfeldt. But their Parties lost the June 2009 EU Elections.

    Questioned whether there was still "Time" for "other" possible "Candidates", Sarkozy and Merkel did not deny, nor made any comment on that, but simply said that "it's not for us to make publicity for any candidates. We anounced our choice ("A Program, and Mr. Barroso"). But we respect any other candidate".

    Among various other names cited are former Belgian Prime Minister Verhofstadt, former UNO's Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson of Ireland, Italian former EU Commission's vice-President Monti, etc. Meanwhile, Luxembourg's PM Juncker, (who had been unanimously accepted by EU Council for EU Commission's Presidency on 2004, but refused), announced his intention to resign from "EuroGroup"'s Chair. Thus, he might be available for another Top EU job.

    As "EuroFora"'s "opinion" said (See publication dated 9/6/09) : - "If the current candidates (i.e. Barroso, etc) to the Top EU jobs promise and guarantee to respect People's democratic choices, then, it's OK".

"Otherwise, Europe must find new candidates, really motivated and able to implement these democratic choices of the People."

    Because, "in Democracy, the forthcoming choices for EU's Top Jobs,...should be made according to EU Citizens' Votes in June 7, 2009 European Elections, and main EU Governments' strategic policies".
        

***

Polls

2009 EU Elections were won by Parties against Technocracy and Turkey's controversial EU bid, while the 1999-2004 Majority Abstention trend decelerated. What should be done in 2009-2014 ?

Rezultatai

SMF Recent Topics SA

Copyright (c) 2007-2009 EIW/SENAS - EuroFora.net. All rights reserved. ISSN 1969-6361.
Powered by Elxis - Open Source CMS.