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.   

21 March, 2017

De Gaulle's hand still darkens EU's Happiness


US Declaration-Indce 1776
The American Declaration of Independence famously gives as a ground for seeking democratic freedom that all citizens were endowed by their Creator with natural rights. Among them were Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Happiness — or the freedom to pursue of it — could therefore be considered as a good indicator of the health of a democracy and a free society.
The 20th of March was declared by the United Nations the International Day of Happiness. It presented a table based on a survey of the world’s happiest countries.
The world’s happiest – and saddest – countries
Happiest Least happy
1. Norway 146. Yemen
2. Denmark 147. South Sudan
3. Iceland 148. Liberia
4. Switzerland 149. Guinea
5. Finland 150. Togo
6. Netherlands 151. Rwanda
7. Canada 152. Syria
8. New Zealand 153. Tanzania
9. Australia 154. Burundi
10. Sweden 155. Central African Republic

It is based on asking a simple question to 1000 people every year in more than 150 countries.
“Imagine a ladder, with steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top,” the question asks.
“The top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you. On which step of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand at this time?”
The average result is the country’s score – ranging from Norway’s 7.54 to the Central African Republic’s 2.69. But the report also tries to analyze statistics to explain why one country is happier than another.
It looks at factors including economic strength (measured in GDP per capita), social support, life expectancy, freedom of choice, generosity, and perceived corruption.
Europe did well. And so it should because, thanks to the Schuman Declaration and the first European Community that it engendered on 18 April 1951, Europe has become a zone of peace. It is living in the longest period of peace in all its history.
What is shocking from the table is that, among the first four countries, only one — Denmark — is a Member State of the present European Union. All the other three: Norway, Iceland and Switzerland, have refused in votes or referendums to become Member States of the present EU.
This should be considered a Warning Signal to Brussels. While many States that are struggling to exit from autocracy and corruption are willing to join the EU, those of the most democratic States do not think that Brussels is democratic enough.
The present leadership has discarded Community principles for a mish-mash of political opportunism called the European Union. The Community system that brought peace was based on a completely impartial European Commission. Today it boasts it is political. That means political in the wrong sense — party political. One Party, the EPP, the European People’s Party, has control not only of the presidency of Commission, but of the European Council and that of the European Parliament.
Any thinking person can see that is unhealthy. Just replace the EPP with another called the People’s Party — the Communist Party — designed to tell people what is best for them.
Power tends to corrupt. It is dangerous for any one party to control all the levers of power — especially the Commission which is supposed to be non-party political and an Honest Broker for Europe.
Europe’s Founding Fathers did not design any of these institutions to be under the thumb of one party. The European Council did not exist in the original Community Model.
It is a Gaullist idea. In 1961 Charles de Gaulle invented the idea of a Summit of Heads of State and Government to rule Europe as a secretive Directory. As the only Head of State present, de Gaulle himself would direct Europe with his own autocratic power. It was his scheme to keep OUT the British with their Mother of Parliaments and persistent obsession with democracy. In 1963 de Gaulle vetoed the UK’s first application to join the Communities. It was the first of many such vetoes against UK.

DeGaulle Mr No 14 Jan 63
Brexit Front Cover 8
Robert Schuman, the founder of the European Community project, had a concept of Democracy that was more sympathetic to the principles of the American Founding Fathers.
Over the years by the introduction of the closed door European Council and insistence that discussions in the Council of Ministers and the EuroGroup system should be secretive Europe has moved nearer and nearer to de Gaulle’s model.
The Commission was asked:
“Does the European Commission have any suggestion how European Union Member States could become higher in this scale of happiness?”
The European Commission Spokesman replied: “The answer is No”.