30 January, 2018

Death of TransAtlantic Democracies? USA and EU in danger!


Seventy years ago, the French Prime Minister Robert Schumanwas faced with two major dangers to the State. A powerful Communist party plotted with the Kremlin to draw France behind the Iron Curtain. On the right, nationalist and Gaullist forces wanted to replace party politics with an autocracy. Instead Schuman not only thwarted their conspiracies but laid the foundations of democracy in France and more importantly in Europe. #EU70 celebrates this birth of European democracy. Schuman created the conditions for thirty years of 5 percent growth and prosperity.
His secret? Europe should be self-governed by free citizens with five OPEN institutions, not by Machiavellian politburos. All governments can tend to self-serving despotism. How can it be combatted? Individuals, associations and nations must be allowed to express their views and interests in open, democratic investigative debate and decision-making.
Today Europe and USA are the major powers on earth. That position is being attacked again by internal and external enemies. Europe is faced with the antidemocratic manipulation of Schuman’s key innovation in Europe’s supranational democracy. The European Commission is meant to be totally non-political and non-partisan. It should acts a Jury and Honest Broker for all Europeans. De Gaulle wished to turn the European Commission into his political secretariat. The neo-Gaullist take-over of the European Commission is being attempted by a Politburo, known as the Spitzenkandidat system. Contrary to the European treaties, it disenfranchises nearly all European citizens in favour of a secretive group of unelected politicians. It turns an impartial Jury into their political cartel.
In the next few days and weeks, the greatest earthquake in America’s democratic history is likely to explode. This will expose the complicity and capture of US intelligence agencies — which are supposed to be fighting crime. Evidence in Top Secret documents, now published, reveals how the agencies top brass subverted the data gathering and spying into the domestic political arena. President Donald Trump is set to require the Justice Department to authorize the release of a a further memo summarising the whole affair. The Department of Justice is reluctant to force this process of justice. Why? Because the Obama Justice Department seems up to its neck in this abuse of power and crimes of State.
However the Washington Post is now recording that President Trump will insist on publishing the four-page summary of thousands of pages of the allegedly criminal and traitorous goings-on. The material is far more explosive than Watergate. It was prepared by the House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep Devin Nunes, after reading the ‘jaw-dropping’ Top Secret material. It will reveal:
  • Who is behind the Dirty Dossier that tried to implicate Trump with Moscow prostitutes,
  • Who paid for the dossier,
  • Which private companies were illegally given citizens’ private data,
  • What was the relationship with its author British spy Christopher Steele and Hillary Clinton,
  • How much the Democratic National Committee was involved,
  • Whether the dossier was ever vetted,
  • Whether the dirty dossier was used in court proceedings to spy on Trump,
  • What the surveillance court said about this attempt to use spy data in politics,
  • Who was behind the antidemocratic plot.
What we know so far.
On 17 November 2016, right after the election, the NSA (National Surveillance Agency) head Admiral Rogers warned President Trump that his transition team in Trump Towers was under surveillance by the FBI and CIA. The CIA, the external spy agency, is not allowed by law to spy on American citizens. Nor is the FBI allowed to spy on innocent citizens without a warrant. But the NSA had detected unusual activity in the data scoops. However nothing stops the CIA from asking a friendly foreign spy agency to spy on American citizens. But it is also illegal for any US agency to pass secrets on to private spy groups like Fusion GPS — who created the Russian dossier.
That’s when Trump spoke out. However, like a chorus, the main news media called this ‘Fake `news’.
Some Fake News!
Some Fake Media!
For eight years the media had been accustomed to the Obama presidency using the the agencies and supposedly impartial ministries for political purposes. Were the US main-stream media being paid to take this anti-Trump position and ignore any news investigation? The media reported that a Trump victory was impossible.
REUTERS OCTOBER 10, 2016 / 5:56 PM

As of last week, Clinton’s White House chances 95 percent: Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation





Even after the election, the Democrats, in cahoots with the agencies, thought that they would be able to control Trump or get him out by fair means or foul.
One attempt was to use the Fake Russian Dossier, prepared by private sector spy company, Fusion GPS, and the Democrat National Committee (DNC) paid for by the corrupt, now defunct, Clinton Foundation. The Foundation was then dictating Democratic Party management and money.
The farcical dirty dossier story was that Trump had been recorded by Russian intelligence when he hired prostitutes in a Moscow hotel. Trump was not that naive. He had warned his own staff against doing such stupid things in Russia. Besides, Trump declared, he was a bacteriophobe. He would not by any means get involved in the unhygienic practices in the dossier. The germs came from the Swamp.
Trump’s efforts to ‘clean up the Washington Swamp‘ could have major positive effects in helping Europe’s flagging democracy. Decades of bipartisan political fraud on both sides of the Atlantic could be exposed to public debate. The media may also begin to act as an investigative guardian of democracy rather than purveyor of ‘Fake News‘.
The Fake Dossier not only proved itself a fraud but backfired on its authors, showing it was a Clinton political fix-up and implicating the intelligence agencies as well.
When NSA’s Admiral Mike Rogers tried to bring the illegality of the CIA data sweeps before the intelligence court, the CIA tried to pre-empt him. The intelligence court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, known as the FISA court, rejected the proposal to agree to massive data hoovering of main info networks. The CIA tried to bolster its case by implicating Donald Trump as a Russian agent. Unfortunately for the plotters, there was not the slightest evidence. So a high level group in the CIA added the fake Russian dossier for a deeper sweep.

A 99 page court judgement was recently declassified, with key names still blacked out.


FIRST EARTHQUAKE! Here it is!
ILLEGAL SPYING ON DONALD TRUMP and the US people.
This is the Top Secret Memo giving the Opinion and Legal Order of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court with the request initially under President Barack Hussein Obama for the spy Agencies spy to authorise surveillance not only Candidate Donald J Trump but President Trump and many US citizens.
The Spy Agencies concerned are Central Intelligence Agency, (CIA, external security), National Security Agency (NSA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI, US domestic agency), National Counter-Terrorism Center (NCTC).
The ‘section 702‘ submissions — permissions to spy externally or domestically on proven national security grounds — were made initially in September 2016 when Trump was a candidate for US presidency and, when this was turned down, a second one was made based on a Fake Dossier.
The Fake Dossier was added to give some substance to alleged Russian collusion with Trump — for which no evidence was able to be produced by the agencies. It is alleged that the Fake Dossier was originally put together anti-Trump Republicans and then paid for by the Democratic National Council, which was at the time controlled by Candidate Hillary Clinton, plus the FBI. For more information on the four page memo produced by Rep Nunes team, check #releasethememo .

09 January, 2018

#EU70: the triple birth of Europe

What was the most important date in post-war European history? Some historians would say all European history as it changed Europe for ever.
Who made the real turning point where his government created a democratic solution for the whole Continent, its politics, economics and its defence?
Robert Schuman in 1948!
EU70 comes the year after EU’s Brussels “elite” mistakenly celebrated EU60!
The distinguished French professor of history, Jean-Baptiste Duroselle said that the date of 20 July 1948 must be considered as the real turning point of European history. It was a new point of departure.
“For the first time a government officially presented a project aimed at the construction of Europe. While the idea of supranationality was not clearly delineated, it seems that the project implied it. Before 1914, Europe was only conceived in terms of equilibrium or balance of power.”
At the start of the 20th century, the system of alliances Europe into two blocs, he wrote. The European equilibrium, was, as US President Wilson stated, the deep cause of the Great War. The interwar initiative of Briand tried to shape an entity called Europe within the global system of the League of Nations. Aristide Briand did not propose something new. To attribute the paternity of a governmental initiative for present-day European construction to Briand would be to commit a dangerous anachronism, warned Duroselle.

After World War II ended, Europeans started to turn their minds to rebuilding the ruins of broken cities and industries. But they were immediately faced with other matters of life and death. The Soviet Union, USSR, occupied eastern and central Europe. During the war, Communist party cadres from Germany, Poland, Hungary and other countries were trained in Moscow about how to seize power at war’s end. They knew where the main levers of power were in each country and how to subvert parliaments even with a small Communist party.
As Winston Churchill put it in his famous Fulton, Missouri speech on the Iron Curtain on 5 March 1946:
“From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in some cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow. … The Communist parties, which were very small in all these Eastern States of Europe, have been raised to pre-eminence and power far beyond their numbers and are seeking everywhere to obtain totalitarian control. Police governments are prevailing in nearly every case, and so far, except in Czechoslovakia, there is no true democracy.”
He added:
“The safety of the world, ladies and gentlemen, requires a new unity in Europe, from which no nation should be permanently outcast. It is from the quarrels of the strong parent races in Europe that the world wars we have witnessed, or which occurred in former times, have sprung.”
A few days later on Bastille Day that year Churchill met with Robert Schuman in Metz, France and delivered his first great European speech. Schuman was then Minister of Finance for France. France was in deep danger of being sucked into the Soviet sphere. The French Communist party was the country’s largest. It tried to take over parliament. US diplomats warned President Truman that France too could fall. But by late 1947, Schuman had become Prime Minister. He showed iron-willed opposition to Communist threats, revolutionary strikes and sabotage.
Schuman also prevented a future war by gradually changed the nationalistic policies of the Gaullists who wanted a land-grab of territory up to the Rhine. De Gaulle was no longer in power but was still a powerful influence in parliament and in mass rallies. De Gaulle’s followers tried opportunistically to bring down the Schuman government by voting and working in lock-step with the Communists’ insurrection.
In the last days of his first government, Schuman made a decisive step that has affected all Europeans ever since. First, his government, working with UK’s foreign Minister, Ernest Bevin, created a defensive pact, known as the Brussels Treaty Organization. Ostensibly, the pact of France, UK and the Benelux countries was to guard against further German aggression. Schuman’s foreign minister Georges Bidault was very nervous about openly declaring it was to prevent Soviet invasion. Schuman much less so.
On 19-20 July 1948 Bidault delivered Schuman’s message to the foreign ministers of the Brussels Pact, meeting in The Hague. It astounded them too. Bidault described Belgium’s foreign minister, Paul-Henri Spaak as a man hard to surprise. On making his speech, Bidault said his eyes were extraordinarily round with shock.
“We are at a moment, perhaps unique in history, where it is possible to create Europe,” said Bidault.
He made two propositions.
The first proposition was to create a European parliamentary assembly. It would be made up initially of parliamentarians of national bodies and also open to other nations who wished to apply. The second was for an economic and customs union for the six countries, to which other nations could apply to join.
“Thus in the economic sphere the Common Market was created and from the political perspective, the Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. In spite of all later obstacles and violent opposition to these two ideas, both of them have flourished,” Bidault wrote.
A third major institution arose out of Schuman’s initiative at the Brussels Pact. Washington required a demonstration of Europeans’ willingness to defend itself before it could politically commit its forces to Europe again. With the Berlin blockade that year, and following Schuman’s lead, talks began with USA and Canada to create NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It entered force around the same time as the Council of Europe began its sessions in summer 1949.
This year 2018 represents the 70th birthday of that positive turning point, #EU70.

13 December, 2017

EU: End 50 years of OPEC Foreign Policy Blackmail

Speaking after the visit of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Brussels, the EU’s foreign policy chief, Frederica Mogherini made an astonishing declaration of ignorance.
Again!
“We always say that the Two State Solution is the only realistic one,” she said. “I have not heard by anyone or from anyone, not only in the last weeks but in the last decades any other idea than Two States to preserve Israeli security. The Palestinians need to have their own country under their own authority.” One reinforced with Hamas, weaponized by Iran, and aimed at the destruction of Israel? Or one with a democratic, peaceful government that does not glorify terrorism and holocaust denial?
Urging the EU to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Mr Netanyahu said: “While I respect Europe, I am not prepared to accept a double standard from it.”
It is a pity the Israeli Prime Minister does not make more frequent visits to point out Europe’s blatant hypocrisy. The previous visit by an Israeli prime minister was 22 years ago. So much for the allegedly powerful Israeli lobby! The PA’s unelected Mr Abbas, recipient of EU millions, comes quite regularly without stopping at the press room to explain why he pays salaries to those who murder children.
Under the British Mandate, “Palestinian” was the term for JEW! Hence we could also add to hypocrisy theft of nationality (by the Soviet KGB Disinformation service). “Palestinians” are not mentioned in the famous 1967 UN Resolution 242. Why? Because they did not exist.
The real Palestinians had changed their nationality to Israeli.
In 1964 Egypt’s dictator Nasser and the Soviet communists invented the Palestine Liberation Organization to arabize and communize the entire territory of the Palestinian Mandate. That included the “kingdom” across the Jordan!
For a viable solution perhaps High Representative Mogherini should look further back in time. Let’s say before she was born in 1973. Perhaps she should also look at home, to the European Community system itself, the astonishing Schuman Plan principle! That brought real change and peace to former Nazis, communists and antisemites! It attacked the core problem.
The Community System has powerful tools to disarm globalist cartels — international cartels that control Europe’s economy and finance and block free media. They were among the main causes of two world wars. The Community created the world’s first international anti-cartel system. BUT IT IS NOT BEING USED AGAINST THE OIL CARTEL.
Jerusalem politics has become Europe’s Stupid Zone. Europe proved many, many times that the “Two State Solution” does not work. European experience extends not just over the last decades but over a period of more than two thousand years!
The Two State Solution coincides with the first major attempt to blackmail Western Europe’s Foreign Policy. It dates from the 1967 Six Day war.
This year is the fiftieth birthday! Oil Blackmail will not bring peace!
It should be recalled that in 1967, there was little that could be called European Foreign Policy. Foreign policy was a national affair. The European Communities provided the only legitimate authority and framework. They could make international agreements only in very specific sectors.
The European Coal and Steel Community was founded when coal was the main fuel in Europe. Euratom was created to exploit the oil-free energy of the nuclear industry and provide for nuclear non-proliferation. The European Economic Community with its Customs Union brought the dimension of international trade agreements. Only these three Communities could make legal, European law.
The founding father of European unity, Robert Schuman (initiator of the European Communities, the Council of Europe, NATO) was sensitive to real Arab interests. Algeria was then an integral part of France. France had colonies and protectorates along the Mediterranean and in Africa. But with judgement of a fine lawyer, he was pro-Israel and pro-truth. He was Prime Minister in the crucial period of November 1947 to July 1948, and Foreign Minister from 1948 to 1953. He instructed France to cast its United Nations vote in favor of Israel.
Warnings were made in the 1950s about Europe’s increasing reliance on oil. The 1956 Suez crisis showed how fragile links to the Middle East oil were. However despite attempts of the good Europeans to face up to potential Islamist energy blackmail by combining the defense of the three Communities, the policy was blocked by one factor. General de Gaulle took power in 1957. He changed the foreign policy of energy-poor France from pro-Europe, pro-Israel to a pro-Arab one because of oil.
That was myopic.
In the 1967 oil crisis France got off the hook. But the Arab oil exporters wanted to use the Oil Weapon to change the foreign policy of the other major States. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Libya, and Algeria stopped oil shipments to the United States, West Germany and United Kingdom (not yet a member of the Communities). Why? Because they didn’t insist Israel return to pre-1967 borders. And they weren’t friendly to Islamic indoctrination.
That is the real birth of oil blackmail aimed at dictating to the world an Islamist, anti-Israel foreign policy. Although the British came up with a two State solution first, it was as a temporary political measure.
In 1923 the British lobbed off the biggest chunk of the Palestine Mandate territory east of the Jordan and ‘gave’ it to the Hashemite Abdullah, expelled from Arabia and dismissed from Iraq. (They weren’t allowed to take over Syria.)
Bad move! That action was without full legal approval of the League of Nations. No other European State recognized the Trans-Jordan. Nor did Saudi Arabia under the Wahabis. Nor any other country who fancied getting some oil. Only Pakistan. In 1937 the British suggested a two State solution in the Peel White Paper to further skin Israel. It had no traction. In 1948 Hashemite Trans-Jordan illegally occupied half of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria
In 1973 the Arab Oil Exporting Countries (OAPEC) again deployed the Oil Weapon to change global politics. It first tried a total petroleum embargo for some States, cutting oil deliveries 5 percent per month for others. Then it quadrupled the price, reducing the European economy to shatters. It also imposed poverty and seemingly endless wars on developing countries. Then it quadrupled the prices again. So much for Saudi sympathy to fellow Arabs, and even less for Europeans.

If the EU foreign policy chief cannot imagine any other policy than Saudi Arabia’s anti-democratic Two State Solution, 1967 borders and divided Jerusalem, it is because she and many of her officials are now the defenders of Saudi oil blackmail policy. It rules in Europe and at the United Nations. They drank it in with their mother’s milk.
For decades after WW2, the price of oil was under two dollars a barrel. It gave Arab oil exporters fat profits, yachts and a playboy lifestyle. Two dollars then is equivalent to under 10 dollars today. Massive oilfields have since been discovered.
After WW2, thanks to the Community system, Europe’s growth was continuously more than 5 percent for thirty glorious years. De Gaulle put Europe’s anti-cartel tools in the wood shed, and shut the doors. Schuman was written out of history.
Europe became the passive victim of a Trillion Dollar Rip-Off.
The Oil Weapon and the Two State Solution Blackmail reduced the European economy to a horse-driven van. Foreign Policy became
“Yes, OPEC Cartel, sir, we believe in the Two State Solution and deny ourselves an independent opinion about Arabs, Islam, democracy, European values and truth! With oil, truth is so slippery! We dhimmis adhere to your Fake History and Fake News!”
Under the Oil Cartel OPEC, the price rose to near 150 dollars a barrel. At that point, the oil blackmail graft amounted to about ten percent of global GDP. Some blackmail! Saudi Aramco is the richest company in the world bar none. Europe became its dhimmis, its slaves and tax mules.
Wake up Europe! Put an end to hypocrisy and blackmail! Open the doors!

07 December, 2017

Trump highlights Jerusalem; EU warns of Dark Days ahead

When President Trump confirmed Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the EU warned of Dark Days ahead. Is Jerusalem the light of the world? Does it throw light on Europe's black record?
“President Trump’s announcement on Jerusalem has a very worrying potential impact,” EU’s Foreign Policy chief, Frederica Mogherini, said in Brussels. Making a surprise, unannounced visit to the EU Commission’s press room, she forecast that “it has a very fragile context and thus the potential to send us backwards to even darker times than the ones we are already living in.”
What on earth did she mean?
What are the darkest days of Europe’s post-war history? Has she forgotten? Oil is blacker than midnight.
Well she has an excuse. She was only a few months old at the time of the Yom Kippur war. That took place in October 1973. It was the year of blackest Blackmail.
Europe is still held hostage. Its Foreign Policy is still owned by the oil sheiks.
Proof? The Saudis and others turn the oil spigot off at will. The supply diminishes, the price rockets. The European consumer consistently pays six or eight times the free market price for petroleum. Or twenty times on occasion, a 2000 percent price hike! (Where a non-cartel oil producer sells on the free market a highly profitable price lies between between five to ten dollars a barrel.)
If the EU had a self-respecting Foreign Policy it would defend its citizens from such predatory international cartels as OPEC, now working in cahoots with Russia. Global cartels would not be artificially hoisting energy prices. They would not be attacking the European economy like blood-sucking leaches.
Second proof. The EU now feels confidence enough to bring anti-cartel measures against American-based modern industries such as Microsoft and Apple. But what about oil? For that the EU External Action Service has no fuel in its tank.
The high cost of imported energy amounts to two or three times the entire EU budget. It could be a fraction of that if the EU had a real Foreign Policy. Europeans would get a boost on a prosperous economic up-curve.
Third proof. The Community system has the power potential to stop international cartels. Action depends on the will of its foreign policy operators. At the start of the EU with its European Coal and Steel Community, ECSC, the Commission, then called the High Authority, dismantled the greatest threat to world war. Even in the early months of its action, it was able to dismantle the steel, coal and armaments cartels that were the cause not only of the WW2 but WW1. Robert Schuman created the ECSC and Euratom to enable Europe to be energy-independent. Today’s EU leaders think they know better.
In August 1973 Saudi's King Faisal warned USA and the world that it would use its Oil Weapon to break any country's independent foreign policy supporting Israel. Then came war. Following the October 1973 Egyptian attack on Israel, Arab nations were surprised then shocked to see Israel was not crumbling like tissue paper. In fact Israel was winning.
That was the year when the Arab OPEC countries attacked Europe. The Arab League told the Europeans that if they did not immediately cease from supporting Israel they would get not one drop of oil. They imposed a 100 percent embargo on Europe. No more oil. The European economy went into a nosedive. Some countries like the Netherlands and Denmark were totally dependent on Arab oil. They were only saved from utter ruin by emergency European measures and sharing, thanks to the European Community’s single market established in 1953.
Did the Europeans stand up with back straight and tell the sheiks where to go? What did they respond honestly and frankly to King Faisal who only a few years earlier, to show his civilization, had issued a decree outlawing slavery in his kingdom? At last! For the first time in a millennium thousands of slaves gained their freedom. During the 1967 Six Day War, the Arab oil exporters had already cut oil by 60 percent to Europe. Had the Europeans learned lessons about potential financial slavery in 1973?
Hardly.
A meeting of European foreign policy chiefs just a few weeks later on 5 November 1973 issued a Joint Declaration on the situation in the Middle East.
Defiance? A search for justice and truth? None of it. It spoke of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. That was the first time they had done so. And there is a good reason why. They bought a lie to get oil. They all knew how Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt maltreated and confined their so-called 'Palestinian refugees.'
Palestinians? Up to the Declaration of Independence by David Ben-Gurion’s government in May 1948, only Jews were known as Palestinians. They were people of the British Mandate for Palestine.




Under the British Mandate, Arabs preferred to be called by their tribes, Southern Syrians, Egyptians, Saudis or Bedouins. Readers of the Jerusalem Post should know that at this time it was known as the Palestine Post.
The parents of Moshe Dayan, hero of the Six Day War, held British passports declaring they were Palestinians.
DvoraDayan, Palestinian wife of a Palestinian Dvora Dayan, Palestinian wife of a       Palestinian
But the term Palestinian was not long thrown away in the dustbin of history. Nasser, the Egyptian dictator, working with the USSR Disinformation Department of the KGB pulled it out of the trash. The Arab League met in Cairo in 1964. They created the fake Palestine Liberation Organization, to foment trouble with the Soviets’ many other anti-colonist terrorist groups. After the 1967 war, the brutal Egyptian-born Yasser Arafat became its third chairman in 1969.
Remember at that time Palestine meant the geographical area of the British Mandate. In the League’s Mandate Article 7, ONLY Jews were given Palestinian citizenship!
This was agreed by the world's powers -- including the Arab States!
"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;     ...

ARTICLE 7.

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."
The Palestinian National Charter or Convention glosses over any precise legal and political issues, and legitimate identity, by confounding the geographical term with broad brush appeal to the Arab nation. Warning! Disinformation and Fake History!
There was never in history an Arab nation called Palestine or an Arab people called Palestinians. Neither was Jerusalem ever a capital of an Arab State. It is the 3000 year old capital of Israel that is today legally occupied.  No "Palestinians" are mentioned in the famous 1967 UN Resolution 242. Why? No such people existed! Jordanians, the Hashemite Arabs expelled from Mecca who illegally occupied the vast, eastern Mandate trans-Jordan territory, had in 1948 occupied Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem illegally and militarily.
Warning! Disinformation uses the same words but changes their meanings. The Palestinian National Charter or Convention glosses over any precise legal and political issues, and legitimate identity, by confounding the geographical term with broad brush appeal to the Arab nation.
There was never in history an Arab nation called Palestine or an Arab people called Palestinians. Neither was Jerusalem ever a capital of an Arab State. It is the 3000 year old capital of Israel that is today legally occupied. No “Palestinians” are mentioned in the famous 1967 UN Resolution 242. Why? No such people existed! Jordanians occupied Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem illegally.

Article 1:
Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
Article 2:
Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

It is this poisoned, drugged cake that the Europeans began to bite into when they made a Joint Declaration, under the informal, non-legal framework known as Political Cooperation.
Having seen the Europeans scattered like flocks of sheep before ravenous wolves, an Arab delegation descended uninvited on the European Summit at Copenhagen on 14-15 December 1973. I witnessed the shock of European leaders! They were discussing 'European identity'. In a reference to the planned new holocaust of Jews and the near lethal attack on European economy, they referred to these black events with diplomatic circumlocution as the 'energy crisis'.
"The Heads of State or Government considered that the situation produced by the energy crisis is a threat to the world economy as a whole, affecting not only developed but also developing countries."
As the Arabs worried that total subjection of the European economy might slip out of their control, as other energy sources became available, OPEC quadrupled the price of oil to turn open blackmail into long-term financial blackmail. Then they slapped Europe again to make Europeans sure they knew who was boss. The prices were quadrupled again in 1979, reducing Europe’s huge financial surplus to desperation and impoverishment.
The other side of the ledger is bulging. The multi-trillion dollar Saudi Aramco is by far the richest company in the world. It has ample resources to pay the best public relations and media. It can easily oil the wheels of politics. Such was the way in the 1960s when PR firms recast the embarrassing terminology that the United Nations had used. Samaria (the capital province of the Israelites) and Judea (the tribal land of the Jews) became the West Bank.
  In July of the black year of 2008, the Islamist wrecking ball smashed again. It took a decade to wind up OPEC's explosive demolition machine. Twice as high as before!
 

The petroleum cartel jacked the price up to 147 dollars a barrel. It pilfered from the world economy more than ten percent of global GNP. Again the world fell into destitution. (In 1972 oil was under two dollars!)
But recent events have cooled this theft. Shale oil and gas and the arrival at last of more intelligent energy sources threaten the future of the blackmailers. Hence the major changes in the Arab world.


Europeans are slow and too arthritic to escape from hostage today. Mme Mogherini’s reaction is typical of the Stockholm syndrome of captives defending the hostage-taker. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson needs to spend more time in Brussels to bring those living in the dark into the light of day.
May the captives gain their freedom!

27 November, 2017

2. J'ACCUSE! EU Fake History, Fake Democracy! Fake News!

This year 2017 will go down in history as the year European leaders conspired in Fake News, Fake History and Fake Geography! With their slogan EU60 they will be ridiculed by future generations as fraudsters using Fake Maths too. Why do they lie about dates?
FAKE DEMOCRACY!
The Brussels leaders say this year is Europe’s 60th Birthday. That’s clearly untrue. In 2012 the Nobel Prize was awarded to the European Community/ EU for more than SIXTY years contribution to peace in Europe! Count it! Do some elementary arithmetic!


With the headline J’ACCUSE, Emile Zola wrote an open letter to President Faure of the French Republic covering the front page of the newspaper L’Aurore, 13 January 1898. It caused a sensation. It was meant to.
In this article Zola denounced the lies and establishment cover-up of the French government in the Dreyfus affair. The French army officer, who happened to be a Jew, was falsely accused to being the source of espionage for Germany and Austria-Hungary. The writing in the dossier sheet was used as evidence that the Germans had received French secrets. It had been fished out of a waste bin in the German embassy by a French cleaning lady. The handwriting was nothing like that of Dreyfus. That did not deter the experts. They asserted that “the lack of resemblance between Dreyfus’ writing and that of the bordereau (dossier cover list) was proof of a ‘self-forgery'”!
It was obviously a Fake but the Fake experts said it was so good a Fake, it must mean that Dreyfus was guilty! In truth it was the experts who were fake and the Establishment who were traitors! Note how Fakers use Fake logic! The entire world whose writing did not resemble the bordereau writing would be guilty by that reasoning! Only one person wrote that bordereau.
The bordereau writing actually matched a major who was working in the French General Military Staff. The guilty man had the suspicious Austro-Hungarian name of Esterhazy. But that made no difference for the anti-Semitic establishment who wanted to put on an anti-Jewish show trial.
Zola exposed the unpalatable truth. He named names in the high-level cover-up by the military staff and French Government. Result? He was accused of libel and had to flee to England!
But he was proved right. Two men were innocent, Zola and especially Dreyfus. They suffered most. Today there is no doubt about who is guilty. The truth always comes out.
The victim was all of Europe. The entire French military had to be cleaned up. It had dire consequences. France was left in a weakened state when it faced the Germans in World War One.
High-level fraud is not uncommon. That is the lesson that the present European leaders need to learn. Their guilt will affect all of Europe. Nor will the truth of history redound to their glory.
During the whole of 2017, European leaders have connived in propaganda fraud. They have spent millions of tax-payers money to hide Europe’s real democratic history.
Fraud hurts! Sometimes it costs lives, many lives. Take Stalin. Did the USSR survive his Fraud and Fakes? Photographs of the Stalinist regime in the USSR became notorious. The Politburo of the early days was republished from time to time. Each time the one or two of the original faces disappeared and the photo was made up as if they never existed. They were either in a Gulag camp or dead allegedly for treason. Stalin cost millions of other lives.
Today the European Union Politburo is interested in wiping out one face in particular, Robert Schuman. This is done not because that face is guilty of anything. Quite the reverse.
He is responsible for the miraculous rise of Europe as a super-power in the world today. The keys to war and peace in Europe — and elsewhere — are the greatest heritage of modern times. Why are the Brussels Politburo throwing those keys away? Personal aggrandizement? Ignorance? Petty jealousy? or what Schuman called the routines of power, the inability of politicians and bureaucracies to think in other terms than Europeans had for more than a thousand years?
The Brussels Politburo are especially keen to wipe out the signing of the Treaty of Paris on 18 April 1951 and the Great Charter of Rights of European Citizens (DECLARATION COMMUNE) that was also signed that day. That showed how West European States can demonstrate they are real democracies and expose the false democracies as they existed in East Germany and elsewhere behind the Iron Curtain.
The guilty neo-Gaullist Brussels Poltiburo wanted none of this. While the public expected the founding Paris treaty to be renewed in 2002, the Council Politburo failed to do so -- without any public debate, never mind any referendums.



Today the guilty are more attached to money and markets than democracy and openness. They want to say that Europe’s miraculous rise came from its common market. They want people to believe their future depends on globalization. False! The guilty try to cover-up their foul deeds and those of earlier betrayers of the past. Who are the guilty today?
EU photos and histories today only show the guilty. These are the people in Rome who celebrated Europe’s fake history by saying Europe began 60 years ago with the 1957 Treaty of Rome and the European Common Market. The same goes for their propaganda. Their histories mainly start when Schuman was no longer active or alive.
Why?
Why do they date EU history from Rome in 1957 and the signing of the treaties of Rome? Why chose an event where Robert Schuman, the Father of Europe, was absent? Could it be that that was the year the anti-democratic Charles de Gaulle seized power in France?
That certainly is true. Today’s leaders in France and Germany want to celebrate the Franco-German axis as if it was the start of Europe. That is utterly false history. De Gaulle wanted to rule and dominate Germany and all the other countries such as Italy and the Benelux.
Let’s see if there is any resemblance of EU60 to the truth.

We could add a few other achievements like being co-author of the 1949 NATO treaty and initiating the Council of Europe, 1949 with its Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950.
Writing Fake History is like trying to make Dreyfus’s handwriting look like Esterhazy’s. Let’s add some other facts.

  • De Gaulle attacked Schuman. He tried to destroy the Community system.
  • De Gaulle invented the Franco-German axis as the motor of Europe because he could then control Germany.
  • De Gaulle turned the EEC into a milch cow so that up to 70 percent of taxpayers money was spent on the CAP and farmers, usually French peasants.
  • De Gaulle would not attend Schuman’s funeral and stopped Adenauer, who had already agreed, from attending.
  • De Gaulle had nothing to do with European Reconciliation. Adenauer wrote that Schuman achieved this in 1950. De Gaulle wanted to expand French borders to the Rhine!
  • De Gaulle was an autocrat. He hated political parties.
  • De Gaulle refused to have elections to the European Parliament and persuaded Adenauer to stop these elections too. Because of de Gaulle, Europeans have never had a proper election to the European Parliament.
We could also add: De Gaulle kicked the Supreme European Headquarters of NATO out of Paris. French forces left NATO. He despised and ignored the Council of Europe and to gain power, was instrumental in the bloody Algerian war and fierce torture. De Gaulle couldn’t destroy the European Communities, no matter how hard he tried. The best damage he could do was to “chloroform” it for a while. He made sure the democracies of UK, Norway, Denmark and Ireland did not join. He vetoed the applications three times — without asking any advice of his ministers or asking parliament. He preferred Franco’s fascist Spain.
Why is Brussels celebrating 1957? De Gaulle took power in 1957! Politicians admire his style, exploiting the Common Market budget for his own purposes. De Gaulle pillaged European taxes for his own distorted version of the Common Agricultural Policy. It took European money to bribe French voters to keep him in power. Cunning! They would like to do the same. He made sure the Council had doors closed to the public so criticism was muted. Weaker Europeans could be exploited for Gaullist strong-arm policy. Democratic opposition was gagged. That’s why politicians still keep the doors closed today. It’s contrary to the Lisbon treaties that they like. Article 15 TFEU says the Council shall meet in public! Why is the press so passive? Decades to pro-Gaullist dog-training!
Many other politicians today like the idea of doing what they like behind closed doors with the people’s money. Maybe that’s why in 2013 the Council celebrated de Gaulle as if he was a hero of Europe, not its arrogant opponent.
Why don’t honest politicians object to this abuse? It takes both guts, honesty and education. One prime minister told a Davos meeting that the treaty that brought peace in Europe was the Treaty of Rome! Frankly this prime minister, who claimed to be a historian, was either (a) ignorant (b) deceived by EU propaganda or (c) a deceiver.
He wasn’t alone on the stage that day. The Commission first vice president agreed. He comes into the same category. He said: ‘No more paternalism. That was Schuman etc. Very paternalistic people.’
Wrong!
In fact it was de Gaulle who was paternalistic and autocratic. He bossed everyone around, including the Dutch. Schuman created the first stage of Europe’s democratic system, the opposite of paternalistic. Was Mr Timmermans making a slip of the tongue? That’s why I later asked him, in the presence of Europe’s religious leaders:
Do you think this year’s emphasis on EU60 on the market has been overblown compared with the 1951 beginning of Europe with the Treaty of Paris and reconciliation, and a discussion about European democracy?
Commission Vice-President Timmermans replied: “May I remind you that the EU started with defence and not internal market or currency. It started with an attempt at defence which was defeated in the French Parliament.
The facts? In August 1954, after other Member States had ratified it, the French National Assembly voted to suspend the vote on the European Defence Community, CED. What about the Schuman Declaration of 1950 or the Treaty of Paris of April 1951 — which legally defined what the Commission was supposed to do?
Not sure whether this was another slip of the tongue, the next week I posed the same question to the Commission Spokesman. I asked whether the Commission, as supposed guardian of the original treaties, now refused to recognize that the European democratic project had begun with the Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950 and Europe’s first treaty, the Treaty of Paris signed on 18 April 1951.
The Commission spokesman refused to make any correction to this monumental error about the origin of the EU, the European Community, democracy and the Commission itself.
Lies upon lies and fraud upon fraud! How did this self-deception happen?
From the first, the Community Method and true European step-by-step, consensual democracy was attacked by politicians who wanted to create a pseudo-federal system. Others like the Gaullists just wanted to dominate the other States.
The Community is a system that has potential for the common and open search for truth and common interest for the present and the future.
  • Instead of open democracy of the treaties, politicians preferred the Gaullist distortion of secretive power in the Council and Commission.
  • Instead of the Community sectoral system (coal, steel, atomic energy, customs) that each required full democratic consent, politicians wanted to control all sectors of the European economy.
  • Instead of an impartial, Jury-like Commission that excluded politicians brandishing party cards, the politicians wanted to exclude non-partisan, impartial citizens such as experienced diplomats, engineers, scientists, academics, trade unionists, inventors from becoming members of the Commission.
Schuman and the Founding Fathers realized that the European system cannot be placed in the hands of politicians alone. It must be open to impartial citizens of high moral character, exercising their God-given rights to freedom. Why? Because, as Schuman knew and said, politicians have the tendency not only not to resist the corruption of power but to obscure its very existence. They tend to follow party over public interest, individual interest over collective interest.
That is why two institutions should be politician-free by definition: the European Court of Justice and the European Commission, Europe’s Jury. The third, the Consultative Committees, is instructed to act as impartial representatives of European civil society. That is it should involve professional associations of all sorts, with democratic mandates. The consultative committees, such as the as-yet, non-elected Committee of Regions and the tripartite Economic and Social Committee, (workers, consumers and entrepreneurs’ associations) act as honest witnesses to the state of Europe and the requirements of Europe’s future.
How did politicians and governments set Europe on its downward path? Arrogance. All human beings have a tendency to corrupt. Putting known corrupters in charge of anti-corruption is likely to corrupt the system more rapidly.
Their path to infamy? Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and the failed Constitutional treaties illustrate their process of political and psychological disorder. Is it a coincidence that the initials spell out MANiC?
Europe’s most severe problem of legitimacy arose with the Lisbon Treaty. It extended both their unlawful and unauthorized grasp for power. It reiterated their denial of Referendum NOs. “And Lisbon” turns their acronym to MANIACAL.
The Constitutional Treaty was roundly rejected in referendums. it was hugely unpopular especially in those countries that did not get to vote in a referendum.
This was a big disappointment for the prime ministers (plus the French President!). They wanted to have enhanced limelight. The European Council, known earlier as the European Summit of Heads of State and Government, was invented by de Gaulle in 1961. Its goal, to seduce European leaders with fancy food and allow de Gaulle to be Master of Europe! Today European leaders want to act like little Napoleons with helicopters and snazzy limousines to take them to discussions on global warming!
No sweat for thieves of democracy! They mobilized their plush phantom democracy, the Council of Ministers. That and the European Council (which was not then any form of European legislative institution, nor a real Intergovernmental Committee recognized by treaty) foisted Fake Democracy on the European people by FRAUD and FORCE.
How?
Europe’s Founding Fathers had good, democratic reasons not to create a European Council. It would try to centralize power in secret. When the Constitutional Treaty was rejected, top politicians worried that they may have lost this further lever of central power. The European Council, under the Nice Treaty, could not then even publish a press release. It had no executive power. Its sole responsibility was to meet twice a year and (as the Summit conference for heads of State and government) and submit a report after these two meetings to the European Parliament and a yearly report on progress.
The Community system is built on sectoral responsibilities. This is why the sectoral Councils of Ministers are one of the legal instruments for the European peoples’ legislation. Legislation Proposals by an impartial European Commission are to be transmitted to three institutions only: Council of Ministers (Industry, Fisheries, Agriculture, Science etc), the Parliament and the Consultative Committees. These institutions have to send their amendments if they find faults. Then the Commission decides on the most impartial formulation which it publishes in the Official Journal as Law. That’s how Europe should work. Simply, openly and democratically.
The European Council or the Summit is not involved in this. It cannot dictate.
How did the politicians get round this problem in 2007? They got the Council of Ministers to publish the Press Release or Decree of the European Council. It still had no legal force. Who did they publish it to? Not the public but the national delegations!


The Council press release to the Delegations announced two conspiratorial measures: Money and political Might. The politicians would spend a great deal of European tax-payers’ money on propaganda and press management. Secondly their political might would FORCE the articles of the failed Constitutional Treaty through the parliaments. They would use their national party-controlled majorities against virulent protest and righteous objections of the public. They did not call this a Conspiracy against the people. They called it “Consultations” with fellow politicians!
Thus a small clique of politicians could act totally against the people’s referendum NOs. To oil their way they would need money.




This logo became the official symbol for the “50th anniversary” events during 2007.
Even today it is surprising to read the brazenness of this political ploy. In the same paragraph that showed the strategy to override the referendums, the press release said that money would be necessary for PR enforcement. For that sleight of hand, the European Council proposed that finance be poured into a fraudulent 50th Birthday for Europe, the Treaty of Rome. (Not the European Atomic Energy Treaty, Euratom, mind you, only in practice the European Common Market, the EEC!).
This is what the Council Press Release said about the Constitutional Treaty that lay dead in the water after the French vote of 29 May 2005 and the Dutch vote of 1 June 2005.
Council press release 22 February 2007
“Pursuing reform: the Constitutional Treaty.
As agreed by the European Council at its meeting of June 2006, the Union has followed a two-track approach. It has focused on making best use of the possibilities offered by the existing treaties to deliver concrete results while preparing the ground for continuing the reform process. The presidency (of the Council of Ministers) provided the European Council with an assessment of the consultation with Member States regarding the Constitutional Treaty. The outcome of these consultations will be passed to the German Presidency as part of its preparation for the report to be presented during the first half of 2007. The European Council reaffirms the importance of commemorating the 50th anniversary of the treaties of Rome in order to confirm the importance of the European integration process.”

The chosen path was to avoid any more referendums at all costs. The second decision was to act as if the No referendum results had never happened! Thirdly the rejected treaty would be broken into individual amendments. They would be reassembled and added to articles that could modify the EEC, Treaty of Rome and make it exactly like the Constitutional Treaty.
Huzzah! Hokus Pokus! The Constitutional Treaty lives again in spite of the people!
Thus the politicians made sure their two dozen votes were more important than millions of voters in referendums nixing the Constitutional Treaty. They could make a dead treaty live again, even if the public had stuck a dagger in its heart!
They ordered the civil servants to prepare a book of amendments modifying the Nice treaty (itself a modification of the Amsterdam treaty, itself a modification of the Maastricht treaty, itself a modification of the European Economy Community treaty of Rome.) For the record, not all Member States were ‘allowed’ by politicians to hold referendums on these earlier treaties.
None of these treaties were really legal. The Maastricht treaty had been rejected by the Danes. The Nice treaty was rejected by the Irish. The Constitutional Treaty was rejected by both the French and the Dutch. UK had no referendums on any. Then, when the civil servants had finished their dirty work, the Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty. Other countries had no chance to have a referendum. Why? The Irish European Commissioner, Charlie MacCreevy, said 95 percent of the European governments would lose a referendum vote on the Lisbon Treaty. The Economist called him “Teller of painful truths.”
The original treaty of Rome , EEC, had a clause which basically said, this treaty does not permit Member States to leave, because all member States agree that the only sure solution for peace and prosperity is to make Europe more democratic. Only a foolish government, if it claimed to be a democracy, would want to leave. That Article 224 of the EEC treaty had become Article 312 of the Nice Treaty.
It was yanked out and replaced by an exit article in the Constitutional Treaty. Referendums in France and the Netherlands rejected this Article 59 and all the Constitutional Treaty. It then became Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The British had no chance to reject either Article 59 of the Constitutional Treaty or Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The various UK political parties that in election manifestos promised referendums on European treaties betrayed their promises when in power. They told the public: “No referendum! We know best!”
Why are the British finding it so difficult to leave the EU? Actually it is not too difficult. The European Union was the illegal superstructure added to the European Economic Community. Most of its MANiC changes reduce democracy, or try to. They empower politicians against the people.
The Community system is, however, a different matter. The British in the 1975 referendum agreed to the Community method with an overwhelming majority of 67 percent. It was seen as democratic, and a means to improve the democratic climate of Europe.
  • The Community method requires one European election (not 28 national ones) to the European Parliament. That is still in the treaties.
  • It requires elections to the Consultative Committees. (That is also still in the treaties.)
  • It requires card-carrying politicians to be banned from the European Commission. (That is still in the treaties.)
  • It requires the Council of Ministers to be open to the public, just like the parliament, when they ‘consider, discuss and vote’ on any draft legislation. (That is still in the treaties.)
Schuman designed the Community system during the war, when he escaped from Nazi Germany as a prisoner. He told his friends during the war that the future European system would enable postwar Germany to reinforce its democratic tendencies. It would also reduce their proclivity to autocracy as they had experienced under Hitler and others.
He compared it to chaining European States together, so that they would be obliged by their own self-interest to become more democratic. Following the scandals of the Gaullist era with its wine lake, and beef mountains, its corruption in high places and its election bribery, Brussels has succumbed to some pretty low politics.
But it has not failed to deliver positive benefits to its citizens.
The European Community won’t go away. It won’t fail to continue.
Today it is not Germany who wants to leave the European institutions. It is the island that says it has the Mother of Parliaments. Why? Britons smell something rotten wafting over the Channel from Brussels.
Today the Manifest Crisis of democracy is apparent both sides of the Channel and in east, west, central and southern Europe. The solution is simple. Follow the instructions in the original treaties.
  • Have elections as required under a single Statute to the European Parliament.
  • Ban active politicians from the Commission.
  • Open up the Council of Ministers to the public and the press.
  • Make the Judges in the Court of Justice democratically responsible.
  • Hold elections of properly constituted European professional associations to the Consultative Committees. Stop lobbyists altogether.
  • Replace the secretive COREPER and thousands of closed ‘expert’ committees with elected expert members of these democratic organizations.
The outcome of Brexit would be the same as if Germany wished to leave. Schuman said the new favorable climate the Community created would make it totally unpalatable for any country to leave.
In this contest, my bet would be on Schuman, not Brexit.
The conclusion: the only way forward is to make Brussels more democratic and to follow the democratic rules. That too would help the UK where some 30 or so MPs dictate the hard Brexit policy of what was supposed to be an advisory referendum.
Secondly, truth is the best policy.

19 November, 2017

Brexit Papers: Who's in charge of Europe's Information? the Chickens or the Fox?





Who’s in charge of Europe’s Hen House?
The final legal deadline for the European Commission to provide the Brexit Papers was Thursday 16 November 2017. That day passed without any sign of life from the Commission. Not one page arrived. Nor was any message received. No apology.
Nothing arrived on Friday 17 November. Before the end of work, I therefore wrote to the Commission Secretariat-General about this. The reason for the delay was made clear in the reply.
Politics.
Apparently, for the Commission, politics overrules legal obligations. The letter says the Commission “hierarchy” is higher than the law!
The Secretary General’s office wrote that:
“The extended time limit expired on 16 November 2017.
We have finalised the assessment of your application. However, as our reply still requires the approval of our hierarchy, we will not be able to respond within the extended time limit.
I regret this additional delay and sincerely apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.”
The present “political Commission” gives itself political freedom to ignore legal deadlines. It is strict on the legal obligations when it comes to the general public. They must hold to these deadlines. Otherwise the tax-paying public gets its wrist slapped. No information for you, whatever the Commission’s legal obligation to publish public information. You want information? Then start the months-long request all over again! My request was first lodged in August.
One law for the fox, another for the hens in the hen house.
Robert Schuman, who launched the idea of the European Community on 9 May 1950, said the Commission should be impartial. It should not be political. It should not listen to lobbyists. And it should have an open information policy. The United Nations sought his advice about setting up an information network that was free of Fake News and Disinformation. Remember this was the time of the Cold War.
Early last year, well before the 23 June Referendum, in a freedom of information request a member of the public, Mr Chris Harris, requested the pre-Brexit background papers. These are documents of major public interest. The Commission should have been releasing them in a continual publishing cycle. It should be obliged to publish regardless of Freedom of Information requests.
  • It is the public that is paying for the research.
  • It is the public’s interest at stake in the decision.
  • It is the duty of the Commission to have the public educated with fair, unbiased information before they make any decision regarding European Communities that need to be taken.
People should know the consequences of Brexit before the Referendum, Mr Chris Harris argued. He was fobbed off. The Commission brandished its two powerful weapons, legal complication and time-wasting. The latter is facilitated by the strict 15-day deadlines imposed in the EC Regulation 1049/2001.
Mr Harris made clear the importance of this request and the damage of the Commission’s negative and tardy attitude to releasing information:
“There is/was (as the referendum has now taken place) an over-riding public interest in releasing the documents. It had been 40+ years since the British public were given the opportunity to say whether they wanted to be involved in the EU project, a whole generation never voted for it in the first place. They also have the right to know, if they vote yes, on what terms they will stay in the union.”
The Commission had set up a UK Referendum Task Force (UKTF) under one of its most eminent lawyers and former Commission chief Spokesman, Jonathan Faull. The Commission refused to provide any information, even though the writer, Mr Harris, had replied inside the given time. His error? He did not add the magic words ‘I am requesting a review‘ after the first refusal of the Commission! (A refusal is normal Commission practice.)
However, Mr Harris had pointed out that the Commission had not replied to all his questions in their first reply. How then was he to ask for a review when the Commission had not given the answers he could appeal against!?
The Commission dismissed his information request. It replied:
“The Commission regrets not being able to derogate from the compulsory deadlines laid down in Article 7(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, as it is bound to treat all applications for access to documents according to the same rules so as to ensure equal treatment of those applications.”
We can all envisage the tears of of the Commission shed, not being able to supply the necessary information before the 23 June 2016 referendum !! Tears of joy. Phew! we got out of a political row with the UK government and some nasty headlines in the British press! They may have accused the Commission of explaining the difficulties that Brexit would cause, the cost of the Brexit bill, the assault on Citizens’ rights and the impossibility of having a customs border in Northern Ireland which was not a border.
Now the Commission is faced with years of extra bureaucracy in the so-called Brexit negotiations. It has already cost untold sums to industries, anxieties to millions of EU and UK citizens and raucous laughter among EU’s competitors at what they say is the stupidest decision any country has made.
And Horror of Horrors! it may have raised the deadly question about NOT having a referendum on Lisbon Treaty. In their manifestos political parties promised referendums. In office each UK Government successively refused referendums on the democracy-changing treaties from Maastricht to Lisbon.
As for Article 50, it is triply dead. What use are “negotiations” on an Article in a treaty whose validity is highly dubious? This is a time bomb for the future, well beyond the present negotiation farce. The Irish national referendums rejected it. British polls rejected it.
The UK governments had refused to have a referendum to validate the post-EEC treaties. The same article, then called Article 59, had been roundly rejected by the French and Dutch referendums when it first saw life in the Constitutional Treaty. So how on earth could a rejected article be legally the basis for a non-binding Brexit referendum??
More than the stupidest decision, the Referendum question itself was one of the most illegal and ill-thought of operations in modern history. Surely a democracy should have as its first priority to make sure that any Community of Democracies is really democratic?
The closed-door Councils of Politicians have stolen the democracy of 500 million people. Whoever heard of a closed door democracy?
Ask the North Koreans!