01 August, 2017

Brexit, Common Law and Ancient British Laws on Referendums

For the average person the idea that, after the people had voted in the 23 June 2016 EU Referendum to be free from “Brussels Bureaucracy,” they or the UK Parliament would have no further say on details seems patently absurd. What use is freedom from Brussels if Parliament is silenced about how to proceed? Where is the justice in that?
The government of PM Theresa May saw it differently. The government could apply autocratic Royal Prerogative powers. Britons would exit immediately because the EU was just another treaty. No reference to Parliament was needed, they said. However, Democracy is central to Britons. The three European Communities and the European Union of the Lisbon Treaties have affected domestic law and improved many aspects of everyday life. Citizens’ rights are not for decapitation by a blind, angry axman. Debate sharpens Democracy and Justice.
Only 37% of electors voted to LEAVE the EU. The rest did not vote or wanted to REMAIN. The ballot paper mentioned nothing about the European Communities, such as Euratom. The House of Common Library Briefing Paper, included in a recent book, Brexit, Miller and Henry VIII, noted that the Referendum was advisory and not legally binding.
If that is the case, what advice was the public giving the Government? Was it “Reform Brussels!”? Were people fed up with the neo-Gaullist style of Brussels autocracy or trade? Decision-making – again on nearly every aspect of everyday life – occurs behind closed doors. Secret Democracy is an oxymoron. Citizens’ freedom to think and act comes first.
Secretive Governance was certainly not part of the original concept of European democracy defined by the Charter of the Community and the supranational Community, that of Coal and Steel. Both documents were signed by six founder States on 18 April 1951, after the Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950 and the Convention of Human Rights had laid out the broad plan. The New Europe was defined by guarantees of Freedom.
Schuman wrote in his book, Pour L’Europe that in this Democracy all the Councils and Committees would be open and under the supervision of public opinion. Why public opinion? Because only a public debate based on facts can contribute meaningfully to a real democracy. Secondly the public statements of the leaders in debate are important for the public to judge the disinterestedness of the leaders. Thirdly, the Statements in the Councils and Committees provide means for the public to hold them to account. Fourthly, politicians who distribute public tax money in private with no accountability, only encourage corruption. The Gaullist CAP spent up to 71% of Europe’s Budget on agriculture. Millions went on vanity projects.

European Democracy.
How should European democracy be constructed? How should an ancient State like the United Kingdom affirm what it considers true principles for extending democracy from its island home to participate fairly with the Continent? How should Continental States also affirm the same principles so that everyone is satisfied with open, honest management?
Today three UK institutions are involved: a national referendum, a Court and a Parliament. The recent national Referendum on EU membership was largely without precedence except for the 1975 referendum to join the three European Communities. Central government stopped referendums. They have been ended for more than a millennium in those parts of the country where they were custom. Anglo-Saxons did not have referendums.
The referendum has come into its own because of a number of factors. Political parties are divided on such matters as the EU. Some are also losing public trust among the electors. Hence referendums seem to be a fair way to make a decision. The EU one exposes deficiencies in both UK and the EU.
Referendums can be binding or advisory. The EU referendum, according to judgements Divisional Court judgement #106 and Supreme Court #119, was non-binding. It carries no legal obligation. An Act is needed. To prevent political dissension, the May Government imposed strong party discipline. Labour too. Did PM May turn the plea for open-minded democracy in Brussels into Westminster despotism? How can citizens arrive at a just solution? Is it possible?

Common Law
The situation was quite different in pre-Roman Britain. The country was divided into a number of tribal areas but they were interconnected by marriage and exchanges. That required an elaborate and effective system of law to be active to ensure justice nationally. Strabo, the early first century Greek geographer, wrote that its teachers taught the science of nature and also moral philosophy. ‘They are believed to be the most just of men, and therefore entrusted with cases affecting both individuals and the public.’ Celtic society was based on freemen who could prove they and their family had not been slaves for nine or ten generations. Those without such proven reputation, working as serfs or foreigners who were resident, did not have the same privileges of political and legal power.
Although they had kings or princes based on royal families, society refused to let kings be autocratic and above the law. They held as custom that:
The country is above the prince. Trech gwlad nag Arglwydd.
That is the prince could in no way bind the country and that the prince himself was under law. Justice ruled. How?
The ancient Triads dating back many centuries before Britain was invaded by Rome were highly developed, ethical and sustained by extensive education and reasoning in the principles of law. Julius Caesar affirms that the youth spent twenty years in the various colleges. This contrasts with the rote learning of the Romans and its military dictatorships.
Hundreds of Triads define the principles of justice. They confirm that courts existed with Jurors or Assessors who acted with the Judges. This is the system that the Britons passed on to Saxon King Alfred the Great, 849-99, (who had John Asser, the British bishop of St David’s in his learned court). It is still found in the system of Court and Jury that we have today.

A Jury of peers is the key to freedom under law. Alfred also incorporated the Ten Commandments, other quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures as well as the Apostolic Letter of James, the brother of Jesus in the Greek New Testament, Acts 15. The pursuit of Wisdom was integrated into the code of 120 articles, to make it acceptable to those Welsh/ British areas who had agreed to Alfred’s overlordship.

Alfred had diplomatic relations with leaders around Europe and also with Elias III, the Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Centuries earlier, the Ancient British had three institutions that allowed them to target just and lasting solutions to legal problems: a tribal or national referendum, a parliament or Assembly of respected representatives (probably tribal elders), and a Court of Justice that would analyze the legality of decisions with principles and precedent. They were the keys to prevent tyranny.
The Laws of Dyvnwal Moelmud around 400 BCE are a compilation of earlier precepts. Among them we find:
Triad 175. Three kinds of votes are valid as law: the collective vote of the Sovereign Country …enacts, abrogates or improves Law; the second is the vote of the country in the three hundred men; the third is the vote of the Court given by jurors (assessors) or elders of the nation under protection and the privilege of the Court.

Triad 98 Three tyrannical perversions of Law: fully deciding upon a case before minutely enquiring into the truth; deciding contrary to the nature and the inevitable consequences of events and times; and forcing a man to his injury where there is neither Law nor Justice requiring the decision by which he is compelled.

A Briton could call on either a tribal meeting or even a national referendum if he was refused the basic elements for dealing with his case in justice.
There are three things that must be listened to by the Court and the Judge:
  • A complaint,
  • A petition, and
  • A reply.
The person who is denied this right has the privilege of appealing to the vote of the country, as called together by the chief of the tribe.

Once the Saxons had overrun the eastern lowlands of Loegria (England) many of these legal principles were lost. Bede describes how the Saxons first started to write out independent laws or penalties (called dooms) only in the fifth century. The Anglo-Saxons had an elective monarchy favouring decrees based on the monarch’s personal power, rather than law. However the native Celtic population (both in Anglo-Saxon and Danelaw regions) would have tried to maintain some of these ancient principles by argument and debate (which the Saxons were accustomed to) rather than by law courts with juries that they did not have. This may have been the origin of what we now call English Common Law or custom.

Magna Carta
Common Law thus predates Anglo-Saxon, Norman and also Roman law. British constitutional Common Law, Rhaith Gwlad, makes no distinction between king and freeman. Common Law became part of the traditional unwritten law of England, based on custom, then its key feature.
However even at the time of Magna Carta in 1215, the British laws were still active. Indeed Magna Carta includes articles that ‘Welsh laws’ should be restored where they had been abused by the autocratic King John.
“Article 56. If we have deprived or dispossessed any Welshmen of land, liberties, or anything else in England and Wales, without lawful judgement of their equals, these are at once to be returned to them. … Article 58 In cases where a Welshman was deprived or dispossessed of anything, without the lawful judgement of his equals, by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. But on our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice accord to the laws of Wales and the said regions. Article 58 We will return the son of Llywellyn {the Great, King of Wales}, all Welsh hostages, and the charters delivered to us as security for the peace.”

Thus the English or Saxon ‘Common Law’ has ancient British roots. A Saxon compendium of Common Law was introduced by King Alfred. He translated a later revision of the Dyvnwal laws written by Queen Marcia, Regent after the death of British king Guithilin, son of Garguic Barbtruc, son of Belinus, son of Dyvnwal. Her young son Sisillius (Welsh: Saessyllt), came to the throne in ca 358 BCE on Queen Marcia’s death.
Together with a book on the ‘Law of the monarchy,’ Queen Marcia’s work was translated into Anglo-Saxon / English language by King Alfred (849-899 A.D.) They became part of the Mercian laws.
When William the Conqueror arrived in 1066, he combined the some of this Anglo-Saxon law with centralizing Norman law. This contributed to English Common Law, much of which was by custom and precedent rather than by written code. By the 14th Century legal decisions and commentaries on the common law began providing precedents for the courts and lawyers to follow. It did not include the so-called law of equity (chancery) which came from the royal power to order or prohibit specific acts. The common law became the basic law of most US states due to the Commentaries on the Laws of England, completed by Sir William Blackstone in 1769.
The recent Supreme Court case related to the formulation of Henry VIII Clauses. Parliament’s website defines them thus:
“The Government sometimes adds this provision to a Bill to enable the Government to repeal or amend it after it has become an Act of Parliament. The provision enables primary legislation to be amended or repealed by subordinate legislation with or without further parliamentary scrutiny. Such provisions are known as Henry VIII clauses, so named from the Statute of Proclamations 1539 which gave King Henry VIII power to legislate by proclamation.”
No such clause appears in the European Communities Act of 1972.
In ancient British law, a super-king or Pendragon, could assume military powers by federal agreement of tribes. Otherwise, an individual and any group could demand justice, bringing the matter before a referendum of the tribe or nation. Justice was a universal virtue and federalizing force.
The recent dispute of Miller et al vs HMG highlights a long difference between Saxon autocracy and individual justice based on an educated populace. The Henry VIII Royal Prerogative case reasserts the right of an individual to challenge injustice. This was something that Parliament – where the Government has a disciplined majority of party loyalists – was not able to do. It exposes the inadequate power of Parliament, managed by party machines, to defend itself, as well as some other vital issues that have been buried for centuries.
The interventions and written cases here indicate the irreversible nature of the devolution process and power of universal justice. It is also inevitable that the eternal principles of British law will be re-established in their glory.
Within the European supranational system any individual, association or institution may take a similar issue to the European Courts. And in the near future many will. That indicates that Justice will take force from it too.

David Heilbron Price
Brussels, 30 January 2017
Bibliography:
The Cambro-Briton, vols 1 & 2 1820-1,
Transactions of the Cymmrodorion, vols 1 & 2 1822
Rachel Bromwich: Triodd Ynys Prydain, Triads of the Island of Britain 2006
Peter Bereford Ellis: The Celtic Empire 1990, A History of the Celts 2003
David Heilbron Price: Brexit and Britain’s Vision for Europe, 2016.
William Probert: The Ancient Laws of Cambria Triads of Dyvnwal Moelmud 1893
Peter Roberts: Dissertation on Laws of Dyfnwal Moelmud in The Chronicle of the Kings of Britain from the Welsh… 1841

21 June, 2017

Closed Doors for "Democratic" BREXIT Talks

   In the Brexit talks, both the European Union and UK have declared they will ensure the maximum level of transparency. It is the alleged policy of the European Commission. They say on their website :
“The Commission, as European Union negotiator, will ensure a maximum level of transparency during the whole negotiating process.”
Why have the UK and the EU negotiator so signally FAILED to keep to the policy?
What is the maximum level of transparency? It is to hold PUBLIC sessions for the discussions of the UK Government’s policy of exiting the European Union. This is a legal obligation of the EU. Why does the EU not follow its own treaties?

“Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible.” Lisbon TFEU article 15
Is it possible to open a door? Where then are the television cameras inside the Berlaymont relaying to the public what is being discussed? Where are the press seats inside this room?
Brexit affects just about all citizens in the European Union. Just take the question of contributions to the EU budget. If the UK leaves then the remainder States, EU-27, will have to pay more as the UK is a net contributor.
Everyone has an interest in the process. It is about Democracy. Let us not confuse it with a trade negotiation. It is nothing of the sort. It is a process above all where the UK Government has pledged to leave the economic, legal and democratic institutions of Europe. Like a divorce, the whole process should be held in open court. The EU has no mandate to close the doors. (Any trade arrangement comes AFTER the divorce.)
It is above all a LEGAL process, the democratic Rule of Law. All aspects of the agreement between the EU institutions and the UK have to stand up in Court. Citizens are all members of this club. They are the Jury. Why do politicians need secrecy? They may attack the Rights of Citizens and steal money from their pocket. Any citizen has the right to take any matter to Court if his or her vital interests are unjustly affected. The UK Courts and EU courts must be guardians of the process.
It is therefore vital that the process itself should be completely open. The first session of 19 June 2017 concluded that the UK discussions must follow the priority issues set out by EU-27. They are legal and financial questions.
Everyone has a right therefore to know how much they will have to pay extra. They have a right to know if they have to up-sticks from their home, if they will have to uproot their children from schools, if they have to find new means of employment.
These are not matters that can be decided in secret by someone who does not have the authority to act on citizens’ behalf.
Take the UK Government position. Firstly, there are grave doubts about the validity of Article 50 and its application. (Both France by 9% and the Netherlands by 23% roundly rejected it!) Then, on the resignation of Mr David Cameron as Prime Minister, Mrs Theresa May formed a government in which hardline Brexiteers occupied key posts. Was this justified?
Mrs May’s Cabinet took an extreme position on the outcome of the advisory referendum in which a narrow majority voted leave. The number of votes that did not were the majority (those who did not vote and those who voted Remain were 63%) .
What did the vote mean? The Government said it was a mandate to leave. They said that they did not even have to consult Parliament because it involved a treaty or treaties and for all treaties the government had control under Henry VIII prerogative powers. But no. Courts said otherwise. Furthermore both High Court and Supreme Court confirmed that the Referendum was only advisory , not mandatory to the government.
So the government was proved wrong in its autocratic interpretation. Firstly the people’s voice was advisory. Secondly the government had no right to suspend normal constitutional processes such as passing a Bill and also by implication asking the people again. If an agency misinterprets a wish of its client, it is legally bound to ask the client for clarification before it proceeds.
For example if you took your car to a garage and the mechanic didn’t follow your instructions, and you took him to Court to prove him wrong, don’t you think it would be reasonable for the mechanic would ask for clear written instructions before he set to work again on the vehicle? Wouldn’t you insist that you give him detailed diagnosis of the problems before he put his clumsy fingers into the motor again?
Around Europe citizens object to the secrecy and Democracy Deficit in Brussels. What the May government have exposed is the Democracy Deficit in Whitehall. The garage mechanic needs to show that he is competent before he starts wrecking the car again.
Mrs May’s setback in the Supreme Court implies further constitutional assurances of competence and sensitivity to the population are necessary. All constitutional safeguards must be undertaken properly, as the Three Knights report confirms.
But what has happened in the interim? The May Government called a further show of public support for its Brexiteer position. It failed utterly. Mrs May called a General Election. In the vote of 8 June, it failed to rouse any public confidence. To the amazement of public commentators the Conservatives did not gain any seats in Parliament. The electors turned May’s majority into a minority. Its future is now in doubt as it depends on the support of the Democratic Unionist Party of North Ireland. It also has to ensure that the anti-Leave Conservative MPs do not break rank and vote against it on the whole range of EU matters that it has to pass.
Now take the Commission and the EU. Is it trustworthy? Can it count properly? Does it have another agenda which reimposes a treaty rejected by referendums, obscures Schuman and the origin, purpose and future of Europe‘s great democratic project?
That’s why the doors must be opened.

23 May, 2017

Trump’s anti-Islamist Policy and the Manchester Murders

 On US President Donald Trump’s eight-day visit abroad this week he touches down in four countries, discussing global politics and three global religions. The key visit in Saudi Arabia sets the theme: the fight against global Islamist terrorists. 

At a pop concert in Manchester, UK a terrorist killed 22 people, mainly youngsters, and injured scores of others. This follows attacks in other unprepared European cities and in front line Israel. 
In Saudi Arabia on Sunday President Trump met with King Salman and Crown Prince Muhammed to inaugurate the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology. History’s great test, he said, was to conquer the forces of extremism and vanquish terrorism. He issued a challenge against “radicalization,” ” Islamic extremism,” Islamists,” and “Islamist terror of all kinds”.
Such extremism was a "battle between good and evil." He urged Arab leaders to "drive out the terrorists from your places of worship. Drive them out of your countries and drive them out of the earth!"
Saudi Arabia has disbursed trillions of oil dollars since 1973 on promoting worldwide its immoderate Wahabism, a potent theocratic mixture of politics and religion. The $110 billion arms deal aimed at securing the Arabian Peninsula against Iran was part of a 380 billion longer term deal. But it is small change for USA compared with the accumulation of over-priced cartel oil that the world has had to pay for since the 1973 price hike.
President Trump flew directly from the theocratic monarchy to Israel, a small democracy in a war zone. His met with President Rivlin and PM Netanyahu, and laid a wreath at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial. On Tuesday he visited Bethlehem, the historic home of the ancient Israelite monarchy. Reacting to the Manchester killings, he said: "this wicked ideology must be obliterated."
"King David’s star flies proudly on Israel’s white and blue flag," he said later in a speech at Jerusalem’s Israel Museum.



“This city, like no other place in the world, reveals the longing of the human heart – to know and worship God. Jerusalem stands as a reminder that life can flourish against any odds. When we look around this city, and we see people of all faiths engaged in reverent worship, and school children learning side-by-side, and men and women lifting up the needy and forgotten, we see that God’s promise of healing has brought goodness to so many lives. We see that the people of this land had the courage to overcome the oppression and injustice of the past – and to live in the freedom God intends for every person on this earth,” he said.
US policy with Israel is in a ferment of change. The US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, in her first press conference denounced the inordinate bias of the UN in being blind to almost every violation of human rights around the world except real or imagined events in Israel. She said the USA believes that the Western Wall is firmly part of Israel and the embassy should be moved to Jerusalem. The US State Department is still following a pro-oil and anti-Israel policy. It insists that no Israeli officials should accompany Mr Trump to the Wall as “it is disputed territory”. Really? Who built it?  Trump has spoken optimistically about a bigger and better plan for peace than generally understood.
President Trump’s next stop is to see Pope Francis in Rome and meet with Italian government officials. The Catholic Knights of Columbus and In Defense of Christians recently sent a report to the US State Department on the “Genocide against Christians in the Middle East.”
The Islamic State, it warned, says:

We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women.” It is a strategic threat. “If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.”  
 In Belgium President Trump has meetings with the Belgian King, NATO and a stop at the European Council.

What is Europe’s attitude to these global challenges? Robert Schuman’s actions, both in creating NATO, and Europe’s amazing peace through the Community system, seem forgotten by EU leaders. Schuman considered peace in Jerusalem more important than even the miracle of Europe’s longest peace through the supranational method and its Judeo-Christian experience.
At NATO Mr Trump will try to convince Europeans they should take their own defense and security seriously. They should spend at least two percent of their money on this type of insurance. But Europe, which is richer and more populous than the USA, wastes its present meager military resources by non- standardization of its systems.
Islamic extremism is foisted by false ideologies. They seek to destroy western culture and its history. What of the terrorism and aggressive ideologies aimed at Europe’s downfall? The European External Action Service takes a secretive and passive attitude to the Islamic assault on the roots of its Judeo-Christian civilization. It seems incapable even of defending itself, even with Trumpian words.
The UNESCO Decision on Jerusalem in October last year attacked the whole basis of Judeo-Christian civilization. It was a warning of an ideological assault. The EEAS was silent. The resolution tried to maintain that only Arabic/Muslim names were valid for Jerusalem. It simply wrote out any mention of any previous civilizations that attached their names to the Holy City. Nothing was relevant except the Arabic/ Muslim history.
On the 1st of May 2017 UNESCO’s Executive Board voted on the Decision under agenda item 30 on “Occupied Palestine”. Bizarre turn of history! Before 1947 the Jews were known as Palestinians. Arabs refused to be called by this name. That changed only in the 1960s when the USSR helped place Egyptian-born terrorist Yasser Arafat as head of the “revolutionary movement”, the PLO. He called the “Two State Solution” a “truce”.
Sweden changed its position and voted in favor of this Islamic-biased Resolution. So why did so few European States, who owe their very civilization to the Book, vote against the Resolution? Why did so many simply abstain? That gave tacit support for undermining Western civilization. Only five States voted against the Resolution in October. Why did countries like France and Spain just abstain on such a serious matter? What on earth possessed Sweden to vote for it, after a violent terrorist attack in central Stockholm? A truck was aimed especially at children. It left five people dead and many injured. 

The Resolution was drafted by Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, and Sudan, at the behest of the PA’s policy of cultural nihilism. This turns UNESCO’s role on its head. Irina Bokova, the Director General of UNESCO in a speech transmitted to the European Parliament on 30 March said: 
“Jerusalem puts us in front of a radical choice. … To deny, conceal or erase any of the Jewish, Christian or Muslim traditions undermines the integrity of the site, and runs counter to the reasons that justified its inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage list.” 
UNESCO, however, prefers to mention a fabulous Muslim winged animal Barak, ‘smaller than a mule’ allegedly seen in a dream. It omits all mention of real Hebrew artifacts containing names of kings and their ministers showing continuous cultural achievements over three thousand years. 
 Factual history and culture is Europeans’ most precious heritage. So is the Rule of Law. 

International journalist and author David Price edits schuman.info. He is author of Jesus, James, Joseph, and the Temple.

22 May, 2017

Trump visits Islamic, Jewish and Christian centers



On US President Donald Trump’s eight-day visit abroad this week he will touch down in four countries, discussing global politics and religion. Will he be met in Brussels with confusion on defense, security, culture and religion?
In Saudi Arabia on Sunday he met with King Salman and Crown Prince Muhammed to inaugurate the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology. He issued a challenge against “radicalization", "Islamic extremism", "Islamists", and "Islamist terror of all kinds”.  (And media worldwide, like a conspiracy chorus, simultaneously criticized him for not using the words "radical Islamic terrorism"!) Such extremism, he said, was a "battle between good and evil." He urged Arab leaders to "drive out the terrorists from your places of worship! Drive them out your countries! Drive them out out of the earth!"
Saudi Arabia has disbursed trillions of oil dollars since 1973 on promoting worldwide its immoderate Wahabism, a potent mixture of politics and religion.Trump's 110 billion arms deal is less than small change.
President Trump flew direct to Israel a small democracy in a war zone, surrounded by many hostile forces. His agenda had meetings with President Rivlin and PM Netanyahu, a visit the Yad Vashem exhibition of the Holocaust and a speech at the Israel Museum.
US policy with Israel is in a ferment of change. The US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, in her first press conference denounced the inordinate bias of the UN in being blind to almost every violation of human rights around the world except real or imagined events in Israel. She said the USA believes that the Western Wall is firmly part of Israel and the embassy should be moved to Jerusalem. The US State Department is still following a pro-oil and anti-Israel policy. It insists that no Israeli officials should accompany Mr Trump to the Wall as “it is disputed territory”.   Really? Who built it?
Trump has spoken optimistically about a bigger and better plan for peace than generally understood.
President Trump’s next stop is to see pope Francis in Rome and meet with Italian government officials. The Catholic Knights of Columbus and In Defense of Christians recently sent a report to the US State Department on the “Genocide against Christians in the Middle East.” The Islamic State, it warned, says:

We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women.” It is a strategic threat. “If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.”  

In Belgium President Trump has meetings with the Belgian King, NATO and a stop at the European Council.
What is Europe’s attitude to these global challenges? At NATO Mr Trump will try to convince Europeans they should take their own defense and security seriously. They should spend at least two percent of their money on this type of insurance. But Europe, which is richer and more populous than the USA, wastes its present meager military resources by non- standardization of its systems.
What of the terrorism and aggressive ideologies aimed at Europe’s downfall? The European External Action Service takes a secretive and passive attitude to the Islamic assault on the roots of its Judeo-Christian civilization. It seems incapable even of defending itself, even with Trumpian words.
The UNESCO Decision on Jerusalem in October last year attacked the whole basis of Judeo-Christian civilization. It was a warning of an ideological assault. The EEAS was silent. The resolution tried to maintain that only Arabic/Muslim names were valid for Jerusalem. It simply wrote out any mention of any previous civilizations that attached their names to the Holy City. Nothing was relevant except the Arabic/ Muslim history. 
This undermines not only culture, civilization but the bases of law and jurisprudence. The League of Nations and the UN recognized this area as Jewish Homeland. The site had been temporarily conquered by Greek, Roman, Arab, then Turkish and the British in WW1. Have the British better rights because their conquest was more recent? The only lasting solution is on the basis of the rule of law and property or other rights. 
On the 1st of May 2017 UNESCO’s Executive Board voted on the Decision under agenda item 30 on “Occupied Palestine”. Bizarre turn of history! Before 1947 the Jews were known as Palestinians. Arabs refused to be called by this name. That changed only in the 1960s when the USSR helped place Egyptian-born terrorist Yasser Arafat as head of the “revolutionary movement”, the PLO.  He called the “Two State Solution” a “truce”.
Italy changed its previous UNESCO abstention to a vote against. On the other hand, Sweden voted in favour of this Islamic-biased Resolution. So why did so few European States, who owe their very civilization to the Book, vote against the Resolution? Why did so many simply abstain? That gave tacit support for undermining Western civilization. Only five States voted against the Resolution in October. Why did countries like France and Spain just abstain on such a serious matter? What on earth possessed Sweden to vote for it, after a violent terrorist attack in central Stockholm? A truck was aimed especially at children. It  left five people dead and many injured.

Europeans should ask: Who came up with this Resolution, an attempt to obliterate Europe’s science and history? It was drafted by Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, and Sudan, at the behest of the PA’s policy of cultural nihilism. This turns UNESCO’s role on its head. Irina Bokova, the Director General of UNESCO in a speech transmitted to the European Parliament on 30 March said:
“Jerusalem puts us in front of a radical choice. … To deny, conceal or erase any of the Jewish, Christian or Muslim traditions undermines the integrity of the site, and runs counter to the reasons that justified its inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage list.”
She added: “The protection and better understanding of the Heritage of Jerusalem is part of a broader vision for peace. It is part of a wider vision to fight against all forms of denial of Jewish history, de-legitimization of Israel, and anti-Semitism.  This work is essential, as European know too well the ravages of war and anti-Semitism.” 

Both Europeans and Israelis should be made well aware at this affront to their history and culture. Especially omitted from last year’s resolution were any place names evoking the ancient Israelite and continuous Jewish heritage of the City. These should be well-known to all educators, scientists and all cultures familiar with the People of the Book.
UNESCO prefers to mention a fabulous Muslim winged animal Barak, ‘smaller than a mule’ allegedly seen in a dream. It omits all mention of real Hebrew artifacts containing names of kings and their ministers showing continuous cultural achievements over three thousand years.
On the same day as the UNESCO resolution, the Israeli Antiquities Department announced the identity of a Hebrew language document dating from the seventh century BCE. It mentions ‘Jerusalem’ as the place of shipment for wine from a female merchant. 
Factual history and culture is Europeans’ most precious heritage.  So is the Rule of Law.




07 April, 2017

Cultural Jihad on Jerusalem at UNESCO




When UNESCO passed a Decision on Jerusalem in October last year, it did more than repeat the now too-usual anti-Semitic diatribe. It attacked the whole basis of Judeo-Christian civilization. The resolution tried to maintain that only Arabic/Muslim names were valid for Jerusalem. It simply wrote out any mention of any previous civilizations that attached their names to the Holy City.
The UNESCO Decision calls for a further report on this at UNESCO’s Executive Board meeting in Paris 17 April to 5 May. It is marked as agenda item 30 on “Occupied Palestine”.  
Both Europeans and Israelis should be made well aware at this affront to their history and culture. Especially omitted from last year’s resolution were any names evoking the ancient Israelite and continuous Jewish heritage of the City. These should be well-known to all educators, scientists and all cultures familiar with the People of the Book.
The resolution at the World Heritage Committee and UNESCO blamed “Israel, the Occupying Power” and its “so-called Antiquities Department”, while making no mention of more than forty truck loads of artifact-laden earth the Muslim Waqf has removed and disposed of without archaeological permission, examination or concern.
It prefers to mention fabulous Muslim events that have no factual basis. It omits all mention of Hebrew artifacts containing names of kings and their ministers showing continuous cultural achievements over three thousand years.

                                                           Gold bell of the High Priest's robe

Who came up with all this? The draft was submitted by Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, and Sudan, at the behest of the PA’s policy of cultural nihilism. This turns UNESCO’s role on its head. Such obscurantism is just what UNESCO was set up to oppose.  
Irina Bokova, the Director General of UNESCO in a speech transmitted to the European Parliament on 30 March said:
“Jerusalem puts us in front of a radical choice. … To deny, conceal or erase any of the Jewish, Christian or Muslim traditions undermines the integrity of the site, and runs counter to the reasons that justified its inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage list.”
She added: “The protection and better understanding of the Heritage of Jerusalem is part of a broader vision for peace. It is part of a wider vision to fight against all forms of denial of Jewish history, de-legitimization of Israel, and anti-Semitism.  This work is essential, as European know too well the ravages of war and anti-Semitism.” 

                                                               Seal Bulla of King Hezekiah
   
So why did so few European States, who owe their very civilization to the Book, vote against the Resolution? Why did so many simply abstain? That gave tacit support for undermining the foundations of Western civilization. Only five States voted against the Resolution. How could eight States including France, Italy and Spain just abstain on such a serious matter?
European foreign policy on UNESCO is coordinated by the EU’s European External Action Service, EEAS. What do they have to say? A group of concerned citizens requested all the working documents of EEAS leading up to this cultural catastrophe. They took the name Jerusalem Educational, Scientific and Cultural Office, JESCO.
The JESCO Freedom of Information request pointed out that Israel is the legitimate occupying power by law and history. (The attempt to use the term “Occupying Power” derogatorily is as invalid as saying that a person who legal bought a house is an occupier.)
 “The site was temporarily conquered by Arab, then Turkish and the British in WW1, but this does not give these groups present-day legality to property or other rights,” the request said.  “The League of Nations and the UN recognized this area as Jewish Homeland.” Under international law military conquest does not alter property rights.
What was the response of EEAS? All documents were refused.  The Memorandum of Understanding between the European Union and UNESCO is however a public document. As might be expected  many of the 27 articles in the three-page Memorandum stress the importance of respect for openness, human dignity, freedom, democracy, the rule of law and in particular freedom of expression and the media. It also mentions intercultural dialogue, raising awareness about the importance of education. How is it that not only UNESCO but European Union Member States have failed so miserably in their duties?
When formulating public policy, European States as democracies, should have open documents arrived at publicly. There is no excuse for secrecy that ends up in anti-Semitism and undermining Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.
The JESCO appeal against this refusal to supply basic information is still awaiting a reply from EEAS. In the meantime, Europeans and Israelis should be aware of the forthcoming meeting of the UNESCO Executive Board and contact their UNESCO representatives. They should make sure the appalling lapses at UNESCO are reversed.  Expunging factual history and replacing facts with fables is not UNESCO’s mission. Nor is turning UNESCO into an instrument of cultural jihadism.


31 March, 2017

Brexit Letter: Why the sadness?


Damage Control” That is the first priority in the EU’s guidelines.  The terms for the negotiations on Brexit were announced in Malta on 30 March by European Council President Donald Tusk. Everyone is damaged.
That at the face of it, seems an extraordinary negative reaction to what apparently the British people have decided.
Where’s the joy?
On receiving the six page letter from UK Prime Minister Theresa May on 29 March, Mr Tusk said: “There is no reason to suppose that this is a happy day, neither in Brussels, nor in London.”

Why no joy?
It is difficult on the either side of the Channel to find a rational explanation. What are Britons going to gain by Brexit?
The British government or even the British pro-Brexiteers have not yet produced a list of the enormous assets they have found in their utopian Brexit Land. Others say it is a Dream Land.
What has been exposed before negotiations start is a list of commitments that must be paid for, a legal jungle for transposing European legislation into British law, a paucity of real trading alternatives and above all an absence of any real plan by the Brexiteer ministers for the future.
What is the healthy path for the future? It is neither Whitehall’s bumbling obstinacy of extreme exitism, or Brussels opaque politics of closed doors and secrecy.
The clue is in the phrase of Mrs May:
“The values we share as fellow Europeans”
What are they? Do they have their core in trade and merchandising? Are the main European values centered in enrichment and profits like the long-gone societies of Carthage and Tyre?
Clearly not. Europeans boast first of all about their freedoms. Freedom to trade is some way down the list after
·         Freedom of thought,
·         Freedom of expression,
·         Freedom of Assembly and other
·         Freedoms such as owning property.
Without freedom to own property there can be no freedom to manufacture or trade.
It is also clear that some of these European values are lacking on both sides of the Channel.
Firstly look how the British voted. In the 1975 Referendum they voted enthusiastically to join the European Community. Recently they voted again tepidly in the 23 June 2016 referendum to leave the system now changed into a “European Union”. That is not the same as a democratic Community.
They sensed their freedoms were being violated. Which freedoms? Freedom to trade? No. They wanted to be free of two areas of autocracy. Geographic areas.
However painful it is to say it, these two culprits are: Whitehall and Brussels.
British Governments had behaved disgracefully. The political parties of various hues had colluded in changing the treaties against public opinion. They promised the public referendums at each of the many stages. They refused to deliver on all subsequent occasions.
This 23 June 2017 referendum was not about the treaty change. It was a referendum about exasperation.
“Are you not really exasperated enough about the Governments’ lack of good faith?
“Will you let the Government get away with it?””  

Britons expressed a growing sense of frustration at their governments, both Labour and Conservative who changes to Schuman’s Community system into something radically different. The promised referendums at each stage never came -- from the early deformations of Maastricht to that of the totally unacceptable “Constitutional Treaty“ of ValĂ©ry Giscard d’Estaing. Then they were forced to swallow the same unacceptable, rejected treaty under the name of the Lisbon Treaty.  

Brussels should not be smug about this. The Brussels “System” is the source of these frustrations. The British and other seemingly democratic countries were seduced by the neo-Gaullist system in Brussels. Public decisions are taken in private, in secret and with the collusion of what de Gaulle hoped but never achieved. 
This first additional anti-democratic instrument is the European Commission turned into a political Secretariat. De Gaulle tried to do this in 1961. The scheme was called the Fouchet Plan. It was resisted by strong democrats like Joseph Luns of the Netherlands and Paul-Henri Spaak of Belgium. They exposed the folly of a sort of Politburo secretariat, supposedly based on international cooperation, but in reality dominated by France and Germany against the smaller powers. They insisted that the Commission be impartial, non political and follow supranational role as an Honest Broker for all European citizens and interests. 
The second is the European Council, what de Gaulle called the Summit. It was at the summit de Gaulle sat as the only Head of State and autocratically directed everything from its peak.
De Gaulle’s interests where not Europe’s interests. Nor were they even France’s interests. He was opposed ferociously by European-minded Frenchmen and women.
Party interests are not European interests. The interests of 28 governments meeting in secret are not European interests. They are governmental interests. Europe comprises the interests of citizens and associations of citizens. Associations are not usually party political. And then there are the interests of individual citizens.
The job of the Commission and the institutions is to conciliate all these interests, honestly. That is why the Community has five institutions.
Community Europe has been blocked. Instead Europe is dominated by de Gaulle’s second invention, the Summit.   
The meetings of the heads of Government keep secret what has been going on behind closed doors. They have a flock of spokespeople who spin the decisions to the frustration and growing distrust of the public. Witness the discordant parties springing up across Europe. UKIP was just one of these but sprang from the democratically fertile soil of Britain. Brexiteers populate the main government parties too.  
It would save much money on the European budget if all these Council spokespeople were eliminated. How? Simply introduce video cameras into all these institutions. Illegal or intrusive? No. The treaties require it.
“Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible.” Lisbon TFEU article 15.
That way Brussels and Whitehall could trade political dishonesty for honesty. They would rebuild trust in Democracy among Europe’s saddened citizens.