12 November, 2018

Why EU's Juncker is WRONG about World War!

Speaking at his party’s congress in Helsinki in November 2018, European Commission President said:
“People said a year before WW1 that it could not happen.”
That is not true.
Mr Juncker continued: “We should not be afraid of talking about war because we are a project of peace.”
What are the facts? The German invasion plans were known in 1904.
Those who today aim to lead Europe, should know about its history. The first qualification of its leaders is to understand how Europe gained its peace anddemocracy. They should describe to Europeans how to avoid war and maintain peace.
The plans for the German invasion of France were known well in advance of 1914. World War One has nothing to do about an assassination of the Grand-Duke in Sarajevo in 1914. More than a decade earlier, the French and other allies knew about German invasion plans. Here is a map of how it would take place. It is signed by French general Jean M T Pendézec on 25 April 1904.

Under strict secrecy, General Penzédec, chief of the French General Staff, revealed the audacious German strategy map to French Ambassador to Russia, Maurice Paléologue. He also exposed the dynamic mechanism about how it would work. Germany would violate Belgian neutral with a massive force. This would be able to advance rapidly not only through Belgium but right across undefended France. It would capture Paris and then… its government captive, France would capitulate in a matter of days. With France subjugated Germany would then destroy Russia — which was known to be slow to mobilise its military forces in the advance of a surprise attack. Thus Germany would conquer on both fronts.
The key to the plan was a sling where the heavy weight at the end of the rope would batter France’s head to submission. Another hand would then pick its pocket across the border from occupied Lorraine.
The sling would make a surprise attack in the north to take Paris. The axel point of the sling would be from German-occupied Alsace Lorraine. Metz, the capital of Lorraine, had become the the strongest fortress in all the world. The targets of the German southern attack were later revealed in all Germany’s secret war plans from the Schlieffen Plan times to the Armistice in 1918. Without them Germany’s ruling elite calculated it could never become master of the world.
These targets intimately pre-occupied Robert Schuman before the war began. He actively proposed a solution at international gatherings of statesmen and lawyers that included Nobel prize winners. Germany’s negative objectives activated his positive plan that today gave Europe its longest peace ever — 73 years. They ignited his idea for a Community solution to bring the most precious victory of all — ETERNAL PEACE.
To accomplish their military attack manoeuvre, the Germans would even deplete their armies on the eastern border. (Russia was part of the Alliance against Germany and Austria-Hungary). That would add extra weight to the sling. The Lightning War, BlitzKrieg, would destroy France from ever becoming a great power again. Germany would be able to dominate the Continent. It would subjugate Britain. And then it would have the powers to compete with that upstart industrial power– the United States of America.
This real essence of the plan would allow Germany to seize the levers of world domination. Even on his death bed, Schliefen repeated that the heavy military strike on Paris was key. It must not be reduced. If his successor, Helmut von Moltke had listened, Europe would be living in vastly different times.
The Schlieffen Plan required 26 army corps (with ten extra in reserve) to be massed in Germany’s western frontier. They were to make up four armies. The army with 9 corps assembled at Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle) would make the rapid advance across Belgium and the French countryside to Compiègne and seize Paris. Three armies with just 17 corps massed in Moselle and Saar would tangle with the major French defence and then conquer strategic industrial objectives in the region of the Meurthe valley, France’s industrial heartland.
This Blitzkrieg that would both disorientate the French and also deliver a lethal blow. What were the real War Aims? Germany would agree to peace only if France ceded its vital resources in Meurthe-Moselle. France, preoccupied with Alsace Lorraine, looked like being the victim of another land-grab.
Then an intelligence goldmine fell into the hands of French intelligence. They obtained Germany’s war strategy plans!
Details of the troop movements necessary were revealed by a German informant given the the cryptic name of “le Vengeur” (The Avenger). Who was he? Some have speculated he may have been the German military nationalist Bernhardi. He was in dispute with Schlieffen over his claim as being the real author of the plan. But the Avenger may have been someone inside the German General staff, other than the top military commanders. Was he an Alsatian or Lorrainer who wanted vengeance on the German occupation of his land in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1. After several decades of occupation, and the rise of a new generation, the “Prussians” may have presumed the officers incorporated by force or persuasion into the army had become loyal the Kaiser. Alsace Lorraine had become Reichsland, an imperial province of Germany. The French nationalists were still at boiling point about the loss of this territory.
Robert Schuman was born of a French patriot, a Lorrainer who had fought in the Franco-Prussian war at the siege of Thionville. He was a brilliant student, by far the top of his class. In 1903 at just 17 years, Schuman made an extraordinary decision. He shocked all his classmates by deciding to take on the difficult task of gaining entrance to German universities of Bonn, Munich and Berlin. He became a student of Germany’s most eminent lawyers and economists.
He wrote his Doctorate in Law (D Jur) at the university of Strasbourg in occupied Alsace.
Believe it or not, the original title was: The Transfer and Lien of an Inheritance! — decisive principles of German and Natural Law about property claims. Who owns Alsace Lorraine? The official title was changed on the advice of his Alsatian professor, to a more innocuous one.
After the world war, Schuman was acclaimed and mandated to become the deputy for Thionville. In the National Assembly he sat as the Deputy for Meurthe and Moselle.
Seventy years ago this year Schuman made a decisive act. As Prime Minister in 1948, his government proposed — the first time for any government in history — the means to unify Europe as a democracy of democracies. A Customs Union under the democratic control of all Member States would stop Germany ever becoming a threat again. He created the Council of Europe as a means to establish the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as the definition of democratic values. Democracy would stop any nation, including especially Germany, from turning Fascist or Communist. It explains why Brexit will not happen.
That event was not celebrated by the Brussels political class.

12 October, 2018

Finally! A BREXIT Solution without a THIRD Referendum!

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

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

26 July, 2018

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

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

17 July, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

09 July, 2018

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

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

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

16 May, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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