12 October, 2018

Finally! A BREXIT Solution without a THIRD Referendum!

Here is the only real Brexit solution. It requires no further referendum of the British people.
It comes with a Warning!! It requires Honesty, plus Humility and Courage!
The British people have had two referendums on Europe. They don’t need a third referendum at the moment. They need politicians to listen to them. Politicians need to respect both the people and the law.
In 1975 the British people in a referendum giving mandatory instructions to the Government replied with a large majority to say that they wished to stay inside the European Community, comprising the Coal and Steel Community, the Economic Community and the non-proliferation Atomic Energy Community, Euratom.
In the meantime the European Community was changed from top to bottom. All without the people’s assent. Democratic principles were written clearly in the treaties. Schuman explained how Europe’s democracy principles should work. Open councils, elections, public control of budgets, all under the rule of law. They were subverted. Politician-pleasing protocols were added. Politicians introduced a corrupted Foreign Policy subservient to the oil cartel, Social Policy, a common currency and monetary union in violation to Community process and without full democratic assent.
They bolted the doors of the Council in defiance to the treaty articles that say it should be open to the public just like the Parliament. The secretive political cartel ignored instructions given in 1951 and subsequently that the parliament should be elected on a European scale and not as 28 separate, national elections.
On 23 June 2016 the British public replied massively in a second, long-promised but much delayed, referendum. It was an advisory plebiscite. The Government was required to take attentive note of the finely balanced result and act accordingly with circumspection and reflection.
The UK government, because of ruptures in the Conservative party, thought otherwise. A noisy, thoughtless and uninformed minority ruled the roost. “A political and economic disaster. Brussels lacks democracy. Let’s get out!” Some democrats! (The Community method helped Germany, France and other States become strong democracies and create a long-lasting peace.) They demanded an extreme solution, out of the Customs Union, out of the Free Trade Area. They included exit from Euratom. That had never been discussed in debates and documents. Neither had these British politicians analyzed how Schuman said European Democracy should work and what was needed to reform its neo-Gaullist errors.
Europe’s problem is not trade. It is Democracy!
Her Majesty’s Government was led by the nose. It postured like the autocratic Henry VIII. It had no need of clarification. It did not even need a parliamentary vote. That was arrogant overreach. It was humiliated in Court, twice.
The advisory nature of the referendum was confirmed in a landmark legal case brought by Gina Miller and others against the government. The judgement of the English High Court was confirmed by the Supreme Court of the UK. This exposed the hypocrisy of both the UK government and the Brussels cartel. In the UK, party politics trumped national interest. In Brussels, the party cartel exposed its neo-Gaullist hatred of “Anglo-Saxons”. That ditched European law. What a pitiful shame for the Commission which is supposed to be the Honest Broker for Europe! Guardian of the treaties indeed!
The people of Europe don’t need arrogant politicians who turn advisory referendums into mandatory ones. They require that representatives should show diligent attention to their needs, and wisdom in their proposed solutions.
Neither the UK Government nor the four presidents of the Brussels politburo system showed intelligence or integrity. First the presidents of the European Commission, Parliament, European Council and Council of Ministers showed their ignorance of both European and UK law. In this they were aided by Dr Martin Selmayr, Mr Juncker’s chef de Cabinet. He has now become Europe’s most powerful bureaucrat, the Commission Secretary General.
They acted with lightning speed after the referendum results were broadcast. They hardly waited for the ink to dry on the UK ballot papers. Early in the morning after the 23 June referendum, the EU ‘presidents’ issued a Joint Statement. Listen to its tone.
“We now expect the United Kingdom government to give effect to this decision of the British people as soon as possible, however painful that process may be. Any delay would unnecessarily prolong uncertainty. We have rules to deal with this in an orderly way. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union sets out the procedure to be followed if a Member State decides to leave the European Union. We stand ready to launch negotiations swiftly with the United Kingdom regarding the terms and conditions of its withdrawal from the European Union.”
When someone says you must do something rapidly however painful it may be, you should expect there is some fraud going on. So it is here. It reveals both a sadistic tendency and above all an attempted cover up.

“Quickly, just put your hand against the door and I will stick my dagger into it. You don’t have to think! But be warned: it may be painful! I just wanted to rifle your pockets! Then we can have a beer together with my money.”
The legal basis of Article 50 is as slippery as a snake in the grass. It is a scam. Corruption is afoot, big time! Stop any talk of democracy!
Secondly there is the issue of the British Constitution and dare I say it– Common Sense.
Did Prime Minister Cameron reflect enough before he resigned at 10 am on 24 June, something he said he would not do? No.
Did he renegotiate with Brussels based on righting its core democratic deficiencies? An example would be stopping the Politburo enforcing the total exclusion of a Briton from ever becoming the Commission president. No.
Did the Brussels Politburo ask the UK government for thorough legal clarification? No. It took the High Court and Supreme Court to do that.
Did they ask the British people to clarify exactly what was the reason for their discontent? No. They knew. The British and most sensible Europeans had for several decades complained about the “democratic deficit” — the non-observance of basic, open democracy in Brussels.
Did they ask the umpteen British lawyers inside the Brussels apparatus exactly how they they should configure this result with the British Constitution, Magna Carta and the Convention of Human Rights? No. That has yet to come.
So what should Europeans do? They should respect both the referendums and make the necessary reforms that all democrats would agree on.
Let’s get back to basics. Democracies are as Schuman affirmed in Lincoln’s definition “the rule of the people by the people for the people.” That rule can be direct by a referendum or representative via parliamentary members acting honestly for them. Democracies are also ruled by natural justice (not arbitrary justice as in Communist and Fascist systems).
A Community of 28 democracies must follow the same rules of democracy that it imposes on the nation. So, if one member wants to change the rules about Customs Union or Free Trade, then all the members must agree by the internal rules.
The stark truth is Brussels has failed to do that. The Democratic Deficit involves the jiggery-pokery and fraud about the new structures called “the European Union” from Maastricht up to and including the Lisbon treaties. A democratic Community must have assent of all. The Lisbon Treaty (then called the Constitutional treaty) was roundly rejected by referendums in France (where a referendum is defined as the highest instance of democracy) and in the Netherlands. Britain was promised referendums for all these treaties and it was refused by the unrepresentative representatives in parliament.
So the least we can say is that for the British — and every other democrat — a treaty imposed against the people is not legitimate. It violates elementary Human Rights. So does Article 50 which is part of it and the democratically rejected Constitutional Treaty.
What should be done? If democrats want more democracy they should act for it. They don’t leave the democratic battlefield.
They should demand that
  • All deliberations in the Council of Ministers should be open to the press and public. That what all the treaties say.
  • European Parliamentary elections should be conducted across the whole Community area under a single Statute defining voting requirements;
  • The Consultative Committees (Economic and Social Committee and Committee of the Regions) should be fully active in legislation and be properly elected by European associations and groupings. Matters of industries, workers and consumers together with regional diversity are their responsibility in the treaties.
  • The European Commission should cease being the monopolistic domain of partisan politics. It should be composed of a jury of totally independent personalities chosen by the public. It should again become the Honest Broker for Europe’s problems and for Europe’s future.
It makes no sense for the British to belly-ache about the “lack of democracy and freedom in the European Union.” They are members of the bodies. They should be leading the charge for Schuman’s democracy.
All it takes is Courage, Humility and Honesty!

26 July, 2018

My Letter to M Barnier: Why Brexit will fail! Schuman designed the Customs Union to IMPROVE Democracies

Several months before the UK Brexit Referendum of 23 June 2016 took place, I wrote that any referendum would fail. The UK would remain part of the European Community system. Note I did not say the European Union. The UK agreed by referendum to be part of the Customs Union system of the three Communities. UK never so agreed to the Lisbon Treaty. France and other countries rejected it by referendum when it was called the Constitutional Treaty!
Now it looks like the Brexit operation is not only impossible, but even hardline Brexiteers are admitting it is impossible. There is even official talk of disruptions to food and medicine for UK’s 66 million population in case no agreement can be made.
How did I know about non-Brexit? Wasn’t Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty designed to allow the UK to leave?
I knew because I had studied Robert Schuman’s motive in creating the European Community. It wasn’t about trade. It is about DEMOCRACY. During WW2, Schuman told his parliamentary colleagues that Democracy is the only way to save Europe from itself, from war and destruction.
The Community system replaces nation states’ continual war and violence by debate and democracy. Only an anti-democratic Government would want to leave. Only an anti-democratic EU would even consider it possible to agree that the mother of parliaments leave.
A Customs Union and a Single Market require that both sides come to agreement on mainly technical issues of trade. But the core issue is really democracy. Why? Because trade involves billions, even trillions of goods and services. And customers and above all proprietors of such businesses require that decisions are taken fairly and with the justice everyone can recognize.
At the moment neither the UK nor the Brussels machine passes the Litmus Test. “Are you taking everyone’s interests into account?”
European leaders and the European Commission– supposedly the “Guardian of the Treaties” — have refused to safeguard the heritage of Schuman, They do not keep his memory alive. More specifically they do not let the public know what is the Grand Design for Open Democracy in Europe. It is their responsibility to animate a great public debate on Democracy in Europe. They have failed in their prime duty.
A stark reminder of this refusal is to commemorate what is arguably the most important date in all European history: 20 July 1948.
That is not out of ignorance. I have publicly reminded the Commission several times about the date and its importance. Listen to what the Commission saysabout commemorating this date! “It is just like any other date in history!”
On 20 July I spoke to Michel Barnier about this. He seemed surprised about the uncelebrated 70th anniversary of what could be seen as the greatest French triumph of Democracy, #EU70.
That afternoon I wrote him the following letter.
20 July 2018
Dear Mr Barnier,
Following our brief conversation at today’s press conference {at the Council of Ministers}, I am enclosing the assessment of the Liaison Group of European Historians that 20 July 1948 represents the real turning point in European history. Schuman’s Foreign Minister Georges Bidault presented the French governmental proposition for a democratic Assembly for Europe and a Customs Union.
It was the first time in all recent European history that a government had made an intergovernmental proposal for a European parliamentary assembly.
After debate with the British, this was created as the Council of Europe. Its entrance requirement was the governmental and parliamentary signature of the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
This set up the legal order of the Court of Human Rights. The Assembly proposal also created the European Parliament of the Communities, originally conceived as a subset of the Council’s.
Schuman’s government proposal for a Customs Union saw life in the 3 Single Markets of the Coal and Steel Community and the two Communities of the Rome Treaties, 1957
Why was this the great turning point for Europe? Other proposals for integration were made by what Schuman called utopian thinkers (see his speech ‘Nos tâches européennes’ in Strasbourg 1949). This was governmental.
Schuman discussed such a constitutional system during the war, when he escaped from Germany. It would help democratise Germany, France and other member States then under threat of Communists and Nationalists. He said it would be impracticable or impossible for a new Hitler to destroy democracy or to leave. Why? because of the benefits that such a system would bring and the democratic disciplines involved. Hence it would ensure that war “was not only unthinkable but materially impossible” (Schuman Declaration). Germany did not attempt to leave or want to, but the UK is now trying to. It would appear that Schuman’s proposal is stronger.
I also enclose a link to an article I wrote about this anniversary year in January this year.
Knowing the origin and purposes of the democratic Customs Union would prove a valuable asset for both the EU-27 and the UK negotiating teams. I have described this in detail in my book — which you should have seen, I hope— Brexit and Britain’s Vision for Europe. If you do not have a copy I would be happy to present you with a copy.
With best regards,
David H Price
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn

17 July, 2018

Trump to UK: "Don't Brexit, SUE the EU!" How? Where?

President Trump told UK Prime Minister Theresa May that the UK should sue the European Union rather than exit it. Mrs May said this was a too “brutal” solution. Why? It would disrupt Westminister as well as Brussels.
Sue the European Union for what?
One obvious case would be to attack in law the Spitzenkandidat system — that elected Jean-Claude Juncker. It makes it impossible for a Briton to ever be elected to his post of President of the European Commission. It is directly in opposition not only to human rights and elementary democracy but the treaties the politicians wrote themselves. There are several other such issues of injustice and fraud.
Why go to Court? To get Justice. To expose facts to public view. To let not only the judges judge, but the people too.
What other cases should be introduced to Europe’s highest courts? That is explained fully in my eBook “Don’t Brexit, Fix it!” Five copies of the full paper version under the title “Brexit and Britain’s Vision for Europe” were sent to Mrs May and Brexit ministers at 10 Downing Street in late summer 2016, just after the Referendum.

What is the case against the EU? Corruption arising from its democratic deficit. I have described at length how Robert Schuman, the initiator of Europe’s Democracy, defined the mechanism of true democracy and justice. All sectors of society involved must have their say. No political decision can be made by faceless bureaucrats. No decision can be made in secret.
CORRUPTION! And far more than party political corruption.

Someone once wrote:
“My ideal political world would be the ABSENCE of political “parties,” because having a two-party political system has resulted in corruption on both sides of the aisle. ”
How does it affect our systems on both sides of the Atlantic? For that we need to go back to the origin of corruption in the party political system.
That involves the “completely unscrupulous and political ingenious” scheme presented to King William of Orange after the “Glorious Revolution” in England. It dates from 1695 and was the brainchild of Robert Spencer, Earl of Sunderland.
William had arrived from Holland to secure the Protestant religion and expected to save the country from the French and Catholic invasions. He was finding it impossible to govern because the “damnable British Parliament is elected to govern England and only wants what all Englishmen want: not to be governed at all.”
Spencer (a forbear of Lady Di) suggested that he follow this “devilishly subtle” plan. Instead of choosing his ministers on their merits and capacities without regard to parties, a Whig here and a Tory there, King William III should chose his ministers from the same party. William expostulated that this was a mad idea. The majority was then Whig and hardly sympathetic to strong centralism.
Spencer explained about the subtle governance potential of alternance of government. “If his Majesty adopts this plan, no member of the House of Commons will ever vote again according to his principles or his convictions or his judgment or his religion or any other of his fancies.” The people will think he is voting for them but the real question will be whether or not his party will remain in office or how much it would cost him in a further election with the risk of losing his seat.
And, said Spencer, the parties will be so much involved in fighting each other that there will never be another Cromwell or a Revolution. His royal power would be secure.
Quotes above are taken from George Bernard Shaw’s “Everybody’s Political What’s What” chap 3.
In the US system we can replace the concept of “King” not by President but by the Shadow Government and what in the 1950s President Eisenhower originally called the “Military Industrial Congressional Complex“.
I highly recommend for those interested to sit down with a cup of tea or coffee for an hour or so for the incisive analysis of the Kevin M Shipp, ex-CIA insider. This presentation was at a Tea Party meeting recently. It summarises a huge amount of facts and research on the misuse of secret powers up to this day.

It starts at 15 minutes after prayers and pledge to the flag.

09 July, 2018

Gutless Politicians and Secrecy are the cause of Brexit and public distrust

Mr David Davis got it wrong. The UK Brexit Secretary of State resigned because, he said, the UK Parliament’s voice in European and global trade policy was “illusory“. UK was being dictated to by “Brussels”. This system was contrary to British democratic interests and tradition. It is fundamentally undemocratic, he said.
He is pointing his finger in the wrong direction. The blame lies nearer to home. The core issue is the lack of democracy in UK. Add to that, lack of political courage. And not only in the UK. Every European capital is to blame in the same way.
What is wrong with European democracy? What is the core problem? When democrats get to Brussels they shut the doors and become anti-Democrats.
Democracy is about open government. Seventy years ago to this month, the French government of Robert Schuman made a proposal that astounded its European neighbours. It also saved Europe from the ravages of further wars and invasion. The powerful Soviet Red Army had not demobilised after WW2. It was set on invasion of a demoralised, divided and disarmed Western Europe.
The French government suggested on 20 July 1948 that Europe create a parliamentary Assembly and a Customs Union. It would create not only democratic solidarity but create the infrastructure for peace and prosperity.
This was the first time in European history that a sovereign government had proposed a European Parliament. (The rare proposals in the past were made by what Schuman called “utopian thinkers,” not practical leaders.) Schuman’s proposal was made at the meeting of Western Union in The Hague by his Foreign Minister, Georges Bidault. The Western European Union or Brussels Pact was also the forerunner of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
So if the Schuman government was first to lay plans on the table for a European democracy, what were its basic principles? He made clear that it must consist of the most open and transparent discussion possible (Pour l’Europe, chapter 3).
He said that true democracy has three characteristics.
  1. The objectives at each stage of democratic governance must be set by the people.
  2. Then the people must define the means it wishes to use to attain each goal.
  3. And thirdly, it must pass the the moral and ethical Litmus Test. It must be at the service of the people and act in agreement and consent with it.
So where did the UK government and the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU go wrong?
Firstly, the UK government did not properly analyse the five institutions of the Community system. It is the most advanced democratic system in world history. This heart of European democracy is enshrined in the Treaties of Paris, 1951 and Rome, 1957. Even then political scientists called it sui generis. It is like nothing else before it.
But if you do not know how the aero-engine of democracy works, it is no use applying spanners to tighten the bolts, strapping additional devices to it, or filling the tank with diesel instead of petrol.
The UK did not reassess or remove the sand and gravel dumped in the Community system by autocratic Gaullists. One of the three deliberate bodies is the Council of Ministers. It is there to represent open democracy of States. Charles de Gaulle tried to use it for his own dictatorial purposes — whether by “empty chair” threats or furtive strong-arm wrestling with the smaller States.
Many politicians, however, liked his idea of deciding about money matters in secret. “Post-Gaullist” politicians preferred “secret democracy”. Shamefully UK was silent. But the founding principles of how the Council of Ministers and the other deliberate institutions should deliberate cannot be buried.
Open debate.
Because corrupt politicians, including but not exclusively the Gaullists, continuously tried to have secret government, others insisted the principle of open debate be written into the so-called Constitutional Treaty, 2004 that later became the Lisbon Treaty, 2007. It says all aspects of the deliberative process — consideration of Commission proposals, debate and formulation of a common Council position — should be OPEN to the public! The Council should act exactly as the Parliament with open committees. It should publish a written record of debates.
It was ignored. It is still ignored today.
“Article 15 TEU 
In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union institutions, bodies and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible.”
And just to make certain the politicians in the Council of Ministers got the point, the article 15 repeated in its paragraph 2;
“2. The European Parliament shall meet in public, AS SHALL THE COUNCIL, when considering and voting on a draft legislative act.”
The main reasons that the British Parliament has been emasculated of powers of supervision and control are twofold. Firstly the “Democrats” from London acquiesce to the secretive Continental practice where Council debate takes place behind closed doors. Parliamentarians back in London are not able to identify the issues being discussed. For example, what another country is saying on any issue.

Secondly, when they return to London (and the other capitals), ministers do not open up the debate in the national Parliament. That is their duty. That step is essential if governments can be sensitive to the needs and real desires of the electorate.
Instead ministers prefer to make sure that Brussels provide taxpayer money for the national economy. They can then take the glory of initiating the airports, agricultural purchase programmes or other possibly useless systems. That’s how Europe has motorways that go to Nowheresville and airports that have no passengers. That’s how the Gaullists bequeathed he European taxpayer corruptly with Beef Mountains, Wine Lakes or Grain stockpiles. And then sold them off at a massive discount to the Soviet Union, our Cold War enemy!
The first step to resolve the Brexit dilemma is to have open debates in the Council of Ministers and its committees. The debates should be recorded and published like the House of Parliament record, Hansard.
Open, democratic governance is the only way forward out the Brussels/ Brexit logjam.

16 May, 2018

As Vision lacks, EU chief says Karl Marx, not Schuman, is Europe's greatest thinker

In a speech 4 May 2018 in Trier, Germany to commemorate the 200 years since the birth of Karl Marx, the EU’s Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker disclosed his shocking personal opinion. He said that

Marx “is the mentor of the revolution of the proletariat and working people all over the world. He is the main founder of Marxism, the founder of Marxist political parties, and the creator of international Communism and the greatest thinker of modern times.” (emphasis added)

This might be a little hard to take amongst the EU countries previously occupied by force by the Soviet Union. Perhaps this is the reason that, quite exceptionally, the Commission did not publish this speech or offer photos.
Nor did Mr Juncker apparently reply to a letter of 1 May from eminent members of the US Congress representing the Victims of Communism Caucus. It strongly urged him not to attend the Marx festival and the unveiling of Communist China’s gift of the monster Marx monument. The Congressmen pointed out – in contradiction to what Mr Juncker actually said about Marx being misunderstood – that as early as 1848 he had militated for “revolutionary terror”. Terror was, said Marx, the only method to shorten “the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society.” With a worldwide death toll of more than 100 million, Marx’s ideology is the most destructive in human history, the Congressmen wrote.

A few days later on Schuman Day 9 May, President Juncker addressed the Flemish Regional Parliament.

Schuman Day marks the beginning of the European Community when the French government proposed that other European countries join it in creating a European Community within the Human Rights framework of the Council of Europe, originally called the European Union. (Schuman’s government had proposed the latter in 1948.) Mr Juncker spoke of the apparently inevitable and unstoppable decline of Europe. Its share of global wealth and population would decline drastically, he declared.
It was what Americans might call a Make Europe Small Soon, MESS, as distinct from President Trump’s Make America Great Again, MAGA.
Territorial size made no difference to the United Kingdom – a small group of islands offshore from the Continent – which in the twentieth century created an empire embracing a quarter or more of the entire globe. Nor did its smallness make any difference when all the ancient States of the Continent fell under the Nazi yoke. Britain stood alone.
Schuman too stood alone as prisoner of the brutal, SS General and Reichskommissar Josef Buerckel.  He rejected the threats of the SS who told him he faced death in Dachau if he did not collaborate with Nazis. At different times and in different circumstances, both Schuman and Churchill affirmed the Vision that they were imperfect instruments as God worked out his Master Plan below. Thank God!
In 1946 Schuman and Churchill stood side by side to build a new democratic Europe.

Jean-Claude Juncker is a native of one of EU's smallest States. Yet the royal House of Luxembourg once ruled the mighty “Holy Roman Empire.” Today it hosts some of the world's biggest banks and international companies. But that did not seem to play an argument on Mr Juncker’s unresolvable pessimism. When it comes to the EU, Mr Juncker seemed to embrace of the dangers of being small.

His message was Think Small. Above all, Submissive and Small. And Powerless.

“Europe is very little continent,” he said. “We don’t know it but the others know it.” Who these others are he did not explain. Europe covers 5.5 million square kilometres, Russia has 17 million square kilometres.   The logic of this did not seem to matter: Russia has only a quarter of the Europe’s population.
“Europe,” said Mr Juncker, “had 25 percent of world Gross National Product at the turn of the twentieth century. In a few years we will be at 20 percent. And then at 15 percent.”
“We will lose our economic power. We had 25 percent of the world’s population at the end of the previous century and will be 4 percent at the end of this century when the world population will be 10 billion.
In 20 years time there will not be one Member States representing one percent of world population, he told the Belgian politicians.
“The moment is come,” declared Mr Juncker, "to concentrate on these essential facts.”

This is not the first time that Mr Juncker has been going around sowing gloom and despondency to politicians in their roosts. What is the purpose of these gloomy forecasts based on suppositions and hypotheses?
Perhaps Mr Juncker feels that Europe is in what Marx called the crisis of capitalism. It seems that Mr Juncker is mesmerized by Marx's Dialectical Materialism. That is the core error, something that Schuman saw as the principal mistake of our Age.

Mr Juncker doesn’t seem to understand what a crisis really is. WW2 paralyzed the economy with debt and inflation, killed many of the finest men and women, and destroyed cities. Nationalism was in hyperdrive. In 1947-8 Europe was faced with an existential crisis of millennial-size proportions. After World War II politicians, diplomats and think tanks feared the total disintegration of Europe into a system of perpetual pulverization. During Schuman's premiership, the French Assembly was forcibly taken over by Communists. Trains were derailed, people killed in insurrectional strikes. Gaullists acted together with them to overturn parliamentary democracy. To some, revolution would overturn fragile governments in Paris and Rome as the Soviets had in the Baltics, Warsaw, Budapest, Sofia, Bucharest and Prague.
Europe's crisis seemed unending. One think tank after grilling politicians and military published a report forecasting that Europe would descend into a morass of war and poverty unknown for five hundred years! The United States, despite the Marshall Plan and NATO would be unable to prevent this slide into chaos, the Foreign Policy Association said.
No power on earth can remedy Europe’s impoverishment as a result of two world wars.” The only policy was to try to reduce human destruction. “Whatever we do Europe will have to adjust itself to a radically altered world economic situation and face the fact that the singularly favourable position it has enjoyed for five centuries … is now drawing to a close.”
When did the FPA publish this report on Europe and the United States? March 1950! That was hardly more than a month before Robert Schuman announced on 9 May the Schuman Plan for a European Community that changed the face of the planet. Europe entered the longest period of peace in more than 2000 years.
France, Italy and the Benelux countries entered a boom period known as the Thirty Glorious Years. Germany, that was now able to join the Community, experienced the Economic Miracle, the Wirtschaftswunder.

Obviously Europe has been taking a wrong track since then.
Let’s take another example. One hundred years ago there were 60,000 Jews in Israel retaining the legal claim to their heritage. They were an 8 percent minority, oppressed and exploited to penury by the Ottoman Turkish Caliphate. Except where they had reclaimed the land, the economy was flat, the land barren and lifeless. Scarcely anyone wanted to live there.
The American writer, Mark Twain visited to the Holy Land in 1867. He described it as follows:
"..... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse.... a desolation.... we never saw a human being on the whole route.... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country." (The Innocents Abroad, p. 361-362)
Today that barren land has blossomed "like a rose." Millions of trees have been planted. Industries unknown in history are thriving. In a century it has become the powerhouse of the Middle East. It has a scientific, complex, hi-tech economy with a GDP per person equal to Europeans. That is twice of any other of the region’s States except the cartel of oil and gas exporters. There too often Islamic ideology still holds force.
Both Europe under the Schuman Plan and Israel did something right to defy the irrational Marxian philosophy. Judeo-Christian philosophy.
But maybe the European Commission should take another look at Marx. Groucho Marx.

He said:
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies."

08 March, 2018

Trump's Steel challenge exposes EU as "bent and crooked"

What is the greatest danger to European democracy today?
We see Italy voting in a potent mix of anti-Brussels parties, hostile to the euro. We see the UK – that calls itself the Mother of Parliaments – wanting to leave the EU. We see central and eastern European countries in revolt at the ill-thought out migration policies. We see Brussels wanting to take action against Poland for not respecting judicial independence and submitting to the EU. In Germany the traditional governmental parties of the CDU/CSU and then Socialists received record low and declining support at the polls in the face of those who want a real alternative.
None of these are the real problem. They are the symptoms of a wider malaise.
Brussels is sick.
Who is able to diagnose it? Dr Schuman. That is, Robert Schuman D Jur, the architect of today’s developing democracy. This year is the 70th anniversary of the proposal of Schuman’s first government in France on 24 July 1948 to create a European Assembly and a Customs Union. It is the anniversary that Brussels is not celebrating. That should tell us something is awry. The sickness is well advanced.
What did Schuman say was the greatest danger for Europe’s democratic institutions? What did he write in his book, Pour l’Europe (For Europe)?
What is the disease?
“Administrative ankylosis is the primary danger that threatens our supranational services,” he wrote p146.
Ankylosis: from Greek meaning bent or crooked. Stiffness of the joint due to abnormal adhesion and rigidity of the bones of the joints which may be the result of injury or disease.
Is there a clear example of this dangerous crookedness to democracy in Europe?
Who is the most powerful person in the European Union? Many people would say the president of the European Commission. The Commission alone has the legal authority to make proposals for European laws and regulations. That exclusivity is there for a very good reason. The treaties stipulate that the Commission is the Honest Broker for Europe, a totally impartial adjudicator and a fair, pragmatic judge authorized by the States to solve their disputes, analyze their real peaceful interests and direct their attention to challenges of a common future. The treaties say the position of Commissioner is open to any honest, independent European citizen, not just this new, self-appointed Politburo.
But what if the Commission – the Conscience of Europe and guardian of public interests – is taken over by biased, partisan groups? That is the first step setting Europe on a disastrous path of contention and dissension. That is what we are witnessing now from UK in the West to Greece in the East, from the North to Italy in the South. The Commission has been captured by political party, mainly the European People’s Party (EPP) but working in conjunction with other parties to share the spoil. They cut deals that benefit the new Politburo against many sections of the public, who are then named “nationalists”, “populists,” “racists” or some sort of defamatory label.
First let us deal with what is bent. The fraudulent Spitzenkandidaten system hoisted Jean-Claude Juncker into office, after being unseated as prime minister of Luxembourg. According to the spirit and letter of the Treaties, it was a wrong move.
An active politician as president of the Commission is equivalent to an alcoholic in charge of a Teetotal Society asking members to deposit their drinks with him. He also has to be willingly blind to ignore the oath of office that he swears before the European Court of Justice, an oath more severe in its demands for impartiality and punctilious than the judges themselves. He is supposed to be the just Arbitrator of national interests and also of the interests of entrepreneurs, workers and consumers across Europe.
Today we have the spectacle of how the Commission reacts to the announcement of President Trump that he will restrict imports of steel and aluminium from Europe. What is the reaction of president Juncker?
He had a private meeting with Lakshmi Mittal, the chief of ArcelorMittal, by far the largest steel producer in the world. Where is this enterprise headquartered? Luxembourg , the home of Mr Juncker. Steel affects many sectors. Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström says the coming steel crisis will be a “serious blow for workers”.
Were the representatives of workers present at the meeting? No.
Were the representatives of steel consumers present at the meeting with Juncker and Mittal? No.
This is even more ominous as Mittal’s firm has been convicted multiple times of cartel activity, economic fraud. For two decades it ripped off the consumer in the “Club Zurich” or “Club Europe” together with 16 other steel producers. At least 36 companies were involved in 550 cartel meetings. In 2011 it was fined hundreds of millions of euros by the EU.
At the time the Commission was in shock.
“It is amazing how such a significant number of companies abused nearly the entire European construction market for such a long time and for such a vital product. This was almost as if they were acting in a planned economy, ” said Joaquín Almunia, Commission Vice-President in charge of Competition, adding: “the Commission will have no sympathy for cartelists; recidivists will be fined more and inability-to-pay claims will be accepted only when it is clear the fine would send a company into bankruptcy, which is rare even in the current difficult times”.
So what on earth is the Commission President doing compromising the integrity and reputation of the Commission? How can the Commission bring in proposals to satisfy all European citizens and associations? Such private meetings with convicted cartel fraudsters would not be permitted under the European Coal and Steel Community. (The politicians saw that the Treaty of Paris was not renewed in 2002.)
The treaties provide that all such economic discussions should be in public in a consultative Committee called the Economic and Social Committee, EESC.
Was the EESC called? No. (The EESC has never been properly elected as the Treaties allow in its entire existence.)
It has become impossible for the “political Commission” any longer to have the trust of the people of Europe.
The Commission has no shame at this collusion with cartels. Every week, the Commission publishes a listing of several hundred meetings of Commissioners with lobbyists, national, foreign, industrial, financial, political, and heads of governments.
What goes on in these meetings? No one knows. The doors are shut. No reports are provided, except perhaps stating that the participants are “old friends”.
Do 500 million Europeans trust such “friends”?

24 February, 2018

Who rules the EU? 382 plotters! 500 million voters excluded!

The EU is the richest union and the world’s biggest exporter. It has a combined GDP of some $18 Trillion.
EU’s population is 510 million.
The most powerful political office is that of president of the European Commission.
Now, how many citizens elected this person into office in 2014?
Hundreds of millions? No.
A few million? No.
A few hundred thousand? No.
Actually 382 people. That’s all.
Who were they?They were party apparatchiks.
They voted for one of their own officials to be the president.
In all the European Union, that was the only ballot that had anything to do with electing the Commission president. It was not a national ballot. It was private.
Not one citizen when he or she went to the polls in 2014 was given a ballot paper for the President of the European Commission. Not one.
Doesn’t that seem a little unfair on the 510 million? Not one got to vote for Mr Jean-Claude Juncker!
Yes. And it is also illegal.
Exclusion also attacks the fundamental rights of those 510 million citizens. The party politicians who are supposed to be the people who protect the Human Rights of the people were shown to be more than derelict in their duty. They were complicit in the obliteration of citizens’ Human Rights. They stopped public participation in the democratic institutions of the EU. In the past the Commission was composed totally of non-politicians. Why? Because the treaties said and still say that Commissioners must be non-partisan and independent.
Who were these 382 super-electors? They were apparatchiks of the largest political party in the EU – the European People’s Party. That is an utter disgrace. The EPP, formerly the Christian Democrats, was the party of Robert Schuman the initiator of European Democracy and the European Community. They have turned it into a Politburo. They met, not in Brussels, Paris or Berlin, but in Ireland.
The European People's Party is now involved in something worse than the fraudulent People’s Democracies of the Soviet era. The whole Politburo used to vote 100% for their leaders. The EU candidate who gained those 382 votes in Dublin did not even gain a majority of the votes of the EPP apparatchiks. There were 812 delegates but 181 refused to vote. Mr Juncker gained the support of less than half of his own party!
A democratic election for half a billion people and 28 democracies? More like an oligarchy, the rule of the few.
To make their system fully understood by English-speakers, they call it the Spitzenkandidatensystem! Spitzenkandidat can be translated Lead Candidate or more accurately in this case, Top Apparatchik.

So the European people were given a candidate who was a party apparatchik and who could not even raise a full majority of his colleagues in support. 
Is there a paper trail for this multi-trillion dollar crime? If the EU had had a "normal" election there would be evidence -- ballots. If that were the case then the European electors would have had printed ballot papers saying "European Commission President" and listing names. None exists!
It gets worse. The second part of the fraud was to maintain that whichever party got the most votes in the European Parliament elections had the right to have their apparatchik picked as the president of the Commission. Nothing in the treaties says this.
Listen to this.

“Europeans want the EU to help them, not dictate to them. This was clear through the rise of anti-EU parties; the fall in turnout in the majority of countries and the decline in support for the European parliament’s largest political groups
“This Spitzenkandidat concept was never agreed by the European Council. It was not negotiated between the European institutions. And it was never ratified by national parliaments.”

Who said that? UK Prime Minister David Cameron after the 2014 elections. He warned that the more Europeans considered themselves the victims of such a “back door power grab” then the rule of law itself is threatened.

“Juncker did not stand anywhere and was not elected by anyone. To accept such a claim would be deeply damaging for Europe and would undermine, rather than strengthen, the EU’s democratic legitimacy.”

Prime Minister Cameron is saying that the entire system of European Democracy is now being undercut. Democracy is in danger! Supposedly an election took place with no ballots! Mr Cameron also vetoed the candidature of Mr Juncker in the European Council. In the past that would have been the end of such a candidate. Any State has the right and duty to veto a candidate if he or she was not thought honest, trustworthy and impartial. 
Instead, two years later on 23 June 2016 Mr Juncker wielded his veto. When the United Kingdom voted LEAVE in a non-binding referendum, Mr Juncker, within hours of the result, insisted that the UK must leave 'as soon as possible no matter how painful the process may be'. 
There is no legal justification for that. 
Nor for his Commission Presidency scam.
In fact the treaties say exactly the opposite. It is illegal.
No active politician can become a member of the Commission. The Commissioners have to take an oath of office before the Court of justice. It is stricter than the oath of the judges! It says that they are “completely independent” and “neither seek nor take instructions from any government or from any other institution, body, office or entity.” Yet they stay active politicians! They hold party cards.
Before each European Council they get into a pow-wow with their fellow politicians and ministers. If that is not for seeking or taking instructions, what else is it? Why don’t they refuse and go and read a book instead?
The other parties mainly all covered themselves with shame and fraud. Some however refused absolutely to go along with this pretense. They said the treaties give absolutely no support for the Top Apparatchik or Spitzenkandidat system.
The socialist leader, Martin Schulz, its only candidate, was complicit in the fraud. He declared in the most public way, that by a sleight of hand “We achieved a change in the Treaty without treaty change!” That’s like saying we now own your house by magic without buying it because we created our own powers to do so. The treaty is the only contract that gives politicians any power at all. And it has to be agreed by the people.
Neither the British Conservatives nor the British Labour party participated in the scam. They knew they would be excoriated by the British media if they said told such obvious lies and fibs. None of the British ballot papers or the ballot papers in any other country said anything about voting for the president of the Commission on a Spitzenkandidatsystem.
There is another reason too. While the EPP remains the dominant party in the European Parliament, as it has done for many years, there is absolutely no chance for a Briton ever to become the president of the European Commission.
The Spitzenkandidat system totally excludes Britons and Britain from this important office. Forever!
No wonder – when they had a chance – Britons voted themselves OUT. The EU has now become the laughing stock of the world. Twenty eight democracies of Western Europe – who boast themselves as great democratic models are the victims of political fraudsters! Five hundred million citizens taken for a ride! Democracies can’t even resist such palpable political corruption and fraud!
The Brussels Apparatchiks last year spent millions on #EU60, a bogus birthday of their institutions. This year they ignored the most important anniversary in Europe’s history#EU70. The date of 1948 was when Schuman’s government proposed Europe have its first democratic assembly and common market!
It is little wonder that the Brussels Politburo have buried in depths, the correct way to impartially select a Commission president and allow 100 percent participation of the citizens.
Citizens should ask their representatives to explain just how the Founding Fathers  democratically chose the first President ... and see if they really know!
Martin Selmayr, Juncker's campaign manager pictured above, became his powerful chief of staff when Juncker became the Commission President. Juncker appointed him on 21 February 2018 as the new Secretary General of the European Commission, its top eurocrat. Guess who many in the EPP now want for the next Commission president! The man who lost the 2014 EPP cabal "election" – Michel Barnier, now the Commission’s Mr Brexit!