USE1 Why a 'Federation of Nation States' is a NONSENSE and a FRAUD!

European Commission President Barroso, in his 'State of the Union' speech to the European Parliament on 12 September 2012 called for a Federation of Nation States. Was he confused or just ill-informed? His proposal was to try to solve the EU's politician-generated woes, both falling trust in politicians and skyrocketing debt mechanisms mortgaging future generations.

On 18 September Mr Barroso repeated this call for a Federation of Nation States to a German audience of his political party, the EPP. We can say that this silly idea of a federation was no slip of the tongue. It is a ploy, a distraction.

I call as witness to my case an eminent lawyer, twice prime minister of France, and its longtime foreign minister. Robert Schuman made a lifetime study of democracy before he proposed Europe's first Community based on supranational principles and universal values. Schuman called such ill-defined, emotional talk of a federation of nation states an illusion.

In his May 1949 Strasbourg speech he called for a supranational union and gave cogent reasons why this great scientific experiment in supranationality must succeed. He cited a thousand year history of such unrealistic ideas of federations and concluded they were all 'a utopia'. This analysis was made in one of the greatest speeches on European unity of the postwar years.

Why is the concept of such a Federation not only a nonsense but also a political fraud? The simple answer is that: No federation in the world has anything similar to to an independent Commission. The suggestion to change the European Community system into a Federation would therefore involve elimination of the European Commission. Mr Barroso's spokesperson assured the press that Mr Barroso is not suggesting that. He is keen, she said, to retain the supranational character of the Commission.

That underlines the FRAUD that the politicians are trying to perpetrate. It is impossible to have a Federation and a SUPRANATIONAL system at the same time. I say this on the highest authority -- that of the initiator of the supranational system for Europe, Robert Schuman. This is how Schuman defined the three terms Confederal, Federal and Supranational. The first two terms follow the definitions well known in international law, in which Schuman was a world-renowned specialist.

No other term (but supranational) is able to express as well the significance of the new idea that it is necessary to explain, in distinguishing it from all the traditional terms of juridical categories. The supranational is situated at an equal distance between, on the one hand, the international individualism of States which consider their national sovereignty as untouchable except for occasional and reversible contractual obligations; on the other side, Federalism of States which submit themselves to a Super-State doted with its own territorial sovereignty.

The supranational institution, such as our Community, represented by the High Authority (or Commission) does not possess the characteristics of a State, but it retains and exercises certain sovereign powers. It is independent as regards the national Governments within the limits of the Treaties; this independence is irreversible as is the transfer of competence of which it is the source.

The Treaty confers on the Community its own function; it does not exercise it as a delegation for the States that adhere to it. The Commission (High Authority) is not responsible to the Governments, but to the institutions of the Community (such as the Assembly and the Court); the Declaration of 9 May 1950 already spoke of these 'means of appeal' against decisions of the High Authority.

The vague concept of Federation of Nation States was raised by a previous Commission President Jacques Delors more than a decade ago. But he warned then of ideas of reducing democracy by pushing for qualified majority voting of politicians 'against the will of the people'. But that is exactly what has happened since then when the politicians chose to ignore the referendums of several Member States who voted soundly against such measures in the Constitutional /Lisbon Treaty. Mr Delors warned then that it would lead to 'big trouble'.

The 'BIG TROUBLE' has arrived with a vengeance. That is because since the time of de Gaulle, politicians refused to have proper elections for the Parliament and the Consultative Committees. And to this day, sixty years later, NO SUCH ELECTIONS HAVE EVER TAKEN PLACE. De Gaulle and many other national politicians were happier cutting deals behind the closed doors of the Council, than organizing the elections required in the treaties.

Democratic control would only hamper their autocratic ways. Democracy is useful, for example, for controlling budgets and overspending. Politicians are nowadays trying to borrow five to seven times the EU's annual budget to prop up the misconceived euro. Meanwhile trust has plummeted to historic low points, not only for politicians, but in the EU and also in the European Central Bank, which is bending the rules to buy government debts and offering to substitute it with 'fresh' inflation-ridden euros from a central printing press.

That mistake was obvious to the experienced Founding Fathers such as Robert Schuman and Paul-Henri Spaak. Both had to deal with problems of monetary stability after WW2. It was why they said that a supranational Community approach, not a federation, was essential. Nowadays few politicians know or it seems want to know how the Community system is supposed to work. It has FIVE democratic institutions.

Some of these same politicians want to reduce that to three main ones Council, Commission and Parliament plus a host of other groups which have nothing to do with a democratic Community system, which are called institutions in the Lisbon Treaty! Thus the Court of Auditors is considered an institution! The Council became 'more equal than the others' and now controls the Parliament by selecting its president, and turning the Commission into a Secretariat and restricting it to buddies having party cards.

In a real Community system the accounts are properly balanced and the money is supervised carefully by the five institutions and there is no need to call some accountants in as a separate 'democratic' body! Having frozen (temporarily) elections in some of the institutions, the politicians of Delors generation created a single currency without the proper democratic competences and checks. Hence the trillion euro manipulations of the ESM and ESFS are discussed and decided in secrecy, far from the public's eyes.

Why do I call the jelly-like Federation of Nation States a FRAUD? Firstly, a federation of nation states means nothing. Some States are Republics and many are monarchies. If Mr Barroso was serious, he would have explained how he was going to be the emperor who would rule over such monarchies as the British Queen, the Belgian King, not to mention the Scandinavians, Spanish and the Grand Duke plus the French, German and other Presidents.

Secondly, Schuman said we should be aware of the danger of politicians who expand the bureaucracy and create a COUNTERFEIT democracy. That is exactly what a Federation of Nations States is. It has no real meaning and cannot be defined in terms of responsibility and competence. It cannot be defined as to how the politicians can be SACKED.

Thirdly, if Mr Barroso were sincere about real democracy he would as representative-guardian of the treaties have reminded the Parliament that they had not once in the sixty year history of the Parliament had an election in conformity with the principle in all the treaties that elections should be under one statute for all Member States. There should not be 27 statutes where each biases the results in favour of the government parties. What a strange coincidence!

Fourthly, the proof that this is a fraud and an attempt at counterfeit democracy is clear from last week's events. On Wednesday 12 September 2012 we had the theatre of the Commission President speaking to the European Parliament in Strasbourg that has forgotten its history and purpose. The Commission still vaunts itself as being 'Guardian of the treaties'. It is there to see the Treaties are remembered and respected. The 'Guardian' did not even remember when it first met as a College! 

  We have the spectacle of the European Parliament that does not recognize that 11 September 2012 was the sixtieth anniversary of the first meeting of the European representative body. Its president then was Paul-Henri Spaak, after whom the Parliament has its main building named in Brussels.

The day following this unmarked anniversary, the President-Guardian of the Treaties, Mr Barroso came to speak to them about the need for democracy and a Federation. Did he mention that they should be celebrating the sixtieth anniversary of European Democracy? Not a word. The silence remains deafening. Of all 753 MEPs, not one got up to mention the fact. Why? Simply because all the heads of the main political parties made it clear that this was not acceptable.

Do you know why? After the first assembly of the Community met under the dynamic leadership of Paul-Henri Spaak, he created an enlarged Assembly called the Ad Hoc Assembly with some members of the Council of Europe. They were tasked to draft the European Political Community, a democratic system based on supranational principles.

Schuman refers to this European Political Community treaty in the same passage cited above. The legal term 'supranational ' appears in the very first article. So are both the Commission President and all the MEPs ignorant or less than sincere? Anyone who really wanted democracy would have recalled the early principles of supranationality that was designed to bring to Europe the most democratic, fair and just system that had been conceived.

Fifthly if this approach to a new democracy were sincere, the Commission would have reminded Europeans, like Schuman did, that the Great Charter defined the principles up on which any Community of Europeans must be built. Instead to my knowledge the Commission has yet to publish this Great Charter. It refuses to publish this foundation of European law! For Democrats who wish to understand the principles which notably say that no treaty can be put into effect without the full acquiescence and support of the peoples, they can read the original French or the English translation on www.schuman.info.    

Jihad5; Mr Morsi, Will the Arab Uprisings lead to Mediterranean Peace or a new Jihad?

Egypt's President Mohamed Morsi, on the first visit of a democratically elected Egyptian President to the EU,declared that he was fully supporting the implementation of Fundamental Freedoms and Human Rights in Egypt. President Barroso announced vast programmes of aid to Egypt and a Task Force to deal with its management. 'We believe there is stability in Egypt,' said Mr Barroso. EU is Egypt's first trade partner. The focus would be on citizens, human rights, jobs and other matters such as scientific cooperation. Both Mr Morsi and Mr Barroso condemned Syria's President Assad: 'A president who kills his own people must go.' Mr Barroso 'condemned in strongest terms' the recent attacks on the 'US diplomatic installation' in Benghazi, Libya. There must be respect for all, he said, irrespective of gender or creed.

These oral guarantees for human rights including religious rights are certainly good news for non-Muslim minorities. The Copts (descendants of the Egyptians before the Arab invasions) who make up some ten percent of the population, complain of constant discrimination, persecution, killings, burning of their property, kidnapping and selling of their young women, forced marriages and islamization. Egypt was one of the most populous Christian-professing countries before the Islamic invasions.

Copts, other Christian groups, the Baha'is and the Jews, now disappearing after being one of the most ancient communities, complain that the Egyptian authorities take no action against such crimes because of article 2 of the Constitution. This places Sharia law centrally for all the population. Many officials interpret such actions against kafirs (unbelievers), dhimmis (taxed as second or third class citizens) or non-Muslims to be fully applicable within Islamic law.
Can the Mediterranean become a Sea where all the border countries respect Human Rights? It is clear from Robert Schuman's action that he was attempting to make the Mediterranean a lake of peace, exchanges and enlightenment.

How did Robert Schuman create a European Community system that made war not only unthinkable but materially impossible? He created the foundations for European Democracy and Human Rights.
Democracies do not go to war against each other but prefer the rule of law, talking problems to find a solution and arbitration if necessary by a mutually agreed intermediary. He also set up an anti-cartel system so that democracies could not be abuse the citizens or worse begin to control governments as they had done in various times in European history. The same applies to dominant religions that abuse minorities. They can be taken to the European Court of Human Rights.

In the 1950s Algeria was still a part of France, Tunisia and Morocco protectorates. If the Convention of Human Rights had been properly applied it would have avoided much of the bloodshed that was later stirred up by nationalists and Gaullists. When Schuman pointed out in 1950 that the French Constitution required that the French Government lead the protectorates of Tunisia and Morocco to independence, he was roundly attacked by Gaullists, as if he had said something treasonous. France was divided in government, in Parliament and in the countries by the irresponsible action of Residents-general.
It is worth repeating what Robert Schuman wrote about the path to follow:

'If we want to avoid an unbridgeable gap opening up between French and the natives; if a real confident and active association is to be established between all elements of the population for the common safety of all the interests involved; if we wish that the youth come along to us and with us to be able to construct a political and social structure compatible with freedom and human dignity, we the French, must by loyalty to our commitment leave aside prejudices and resentments, and propose a comprehensive programme provided with all the necessary stages.
For such a policy, it is necessary to show courage and a clear vision, together with as much goodwill as firmness. Our worst enemy in that as elsewhere is to follow a routine which cannot trust anything but the past and closes its eyes to the demands of the future. '

The future demanded freedom for all. Freedom and human dignity were lacking in Europe during the Hitler period. Hitler wanted to eliminate or subjugate all races that were not 'Aryan'. Curiously he made an exception with some Arabs such as the Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj al-Husseini who raised over 100,000 Muslims for several SS divisions. During the Mandate period, Al-Husseini had gained the post of 'Mufti' from the British High Commissioner under the influence of anti-Semitic British officials. This decision to appoint the violent rabble-rouser was described as 'sheer madness' by more clear-headed diplomats. Husseini called the World Islamic Conference in 1931. After the war, Husseini escaped being tried as a war criminal, finding refuge in Egypt. There he joined forces with the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood. Later he helped train his young distant relative, the Egyptian-born Yasser Arafat, an active Muslim Brotherhood member.

Mohamed Morsi, Egypt's new president, is an engineer by training. He earned his PhD from a US university and taught there for a few years. He was a member of the Guidance Office of the Muslim Brotherhood until the founding of the Freedom and Justice party in 2011. He was its head but resigned this position on becoming president. The famous slogan of the Brotherhood used world wide is 'Islam is the Solution'. The brotherhood has spawned a network of organizations, including terrorist groups banned in the EU and the US. The Brotherhood's credo is: 'Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.' Islamic law, Sharia, makes all those who think Islam does not represent the truth about history, belief and the Godhead, at best second class citizens and subject to penalties, taxes and worse.

Schuman's vision was to stop Europe entering into a further phase of internal death and destruction. He saw to it that Germany did not descend into a new Hitlerism or start another war in Europe. He wanted Europe to arise into a new era of not only prosperity but intellectual honesty that would outshine its achievements in previous centuries.  This was an extraordinarily positive vision, as at the time of his proposal, 9 May1950, many saw Europe descending again into an area of war and conflict.

We need the same for European-Islamic relations across the Mediterranean. The instrument to re-establish Human Rights was the Convention of the Council of Europe which Schuman signed in December 1950. Schuman encouraged the secular State of Turkey to adhere to the Convention of Human Rights. This was a key player to make the Mediterranean to be a zone of peace. The borders of New Europe, he said, should not be set by geography but be defined according to how far freedom and human rights is respected.

Schuman had long considered what the relation of Europe should be in relation to Muslim majority countries such as Turkey.  The origin of Schuman's thoughts on the subject goes back to before the First World War. It culminates in the agreement of nations from Iceland to Turkey to use Human Rights as the legal definition of the New Europe.

Wars between European States had been continuous for more than 2000 years. Those with Islam only a little less. Schuman also drew on the important researches of 'the great Belgian historian' Henri Pirenne. This is how Wikipedia summarizes his work on Islam.

According to Pirenne, the real break in Roman history occurred in the 8th century as a result of Arab expansion. Islamic conquest of the area of today's south-eastern Turkey, Syria, Israel, North Africa, Spain and Portugal ruptured economic ties to western Europe, cutting the region off from trade and turning it into a stagnant backwater, with wealth flowing out in the form of raw resources and nothing coming back. This began a steady decline and impoverishment so that by the time of Charlemagne western Europe had become almost entirely agrarian at a subsistence level, with no long-distance trade.
Pirenne used statistical data regarding money in support of his thesis. Much of his argument builds upon the disappearance from western Europe of items that had to come from outside. For example, the minting of gold coins north of the Alps stopped after the 7th century, indicating a loss of access to wealthier parts of the world. Papyrus, made only in Egypt, no longer appeared north of the Alps after the 7th century: writing reverted to using animal skins, indicating an isolation from wealthier areas.
In a summary, he famously said, "Without Islam, the Frankish Empire would probably never have existed, and Charlemagne, without Muhammad, would be inconceivable." That is, he rejected the notion that barbarian invasions in the 4th and 5th centuries caused the collapse of the Roman Empire. Instead, the Muslim conquest of north Africa made the Mediterranean a barrier, cutting western Europe off from the east, enabling the Carolingians, especially Charlemagne, to create a new, distinctly western form of government.

Pirenne's careful statistical and scientific work has been reinforced by recent archeological work and examination of underwater wrecks. Trade virtually halted across the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean, the gateway for Africa, Europe and Asia, became a barrier, shutting the gates between three continents.
Compare this with the trade at the time of emperor Nero in the first century CE. The Mediterranean was full of ships, many of them transporting hundreds of tons of grain. Egypt and North Africa were the granary areas for the Roman Empire. For Rome alone, 420,000 tonnes of grain was sent by ship (equivalent to 520 million litres). Of this Egypt supplied 140,000 tonnes.

With the Islamic invasions, the land across North Africa became depopulated and barren. When Arabs settled there, the Mediterranean became a barrier to trade as all trade shipping was pillaged in continuous warfare.  This can be shown by the periodic outbreaks of plaque and pandemics. In the past plague reached the area of Egypt from Asia and took only four months to spread around the Mediterranean. After the Islamic invasion of North Africa and elsewhere the Mediterranean, it took four YEARS to spread around the Mediterranean. Shipping stopped. The internal lake was an area of warfare, pillage and later Barbary pirates. Previously thousand of ships plowed their trade. Afterwards the traders had to take the much more difficult and slow routes by land across the Alps and broken roads.

The Center for Islamic Political Studies has made a historic analysis of Europe's relations with Islam bringing in the latest scientific information from archaeology relative to battles and statistics. For a realistic understanding of our common history, I recommend Dr Bill Warner's easy to understand review of the most recent data on Islam- European interactions.

It is important that Europeans and Muslim-thinkers should be on the same page when it comes to human rights. After all, A Hitler had his own definition of Human Rights that distorted Christianity and opposed 'the Jewish spirit'. Usual European concepts such as 'human rights' and 'defamation of religion' mean something different to the Muslim organizations.

The founding document of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, OIC, (now the Organization of Islamic Cooperation) is its Charter. Article 15 states:

The Independent Permanent Commission on Human Rights shall promote the civil, political, social and economic rights enshrined in the organisation’s covenants and declarations and in universally agreed human rights instruments, in conformity with Islamic values.

'In conformity with Sharia values' is a red flag of danger for non-Muslims. What are the 'universally agreed human rights instruments' referred to here? Don't assume that the OIC is referring the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of the United Nations. It has nothing to do with Europe's legally-binding Convention of Fundamental Freedoms and Human Rights.

The OIC considers the UDHR inadequate and un-Islamic. To codify the human rights of Muslims, the OIC created the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, commonly known as the 'Cairo Declaration'. It is a formal legal instrument put together by the OIC on behalf of OIC member states in 1990, and was formally served to the United Nations in 1993.
Article 22 of the Cairo Declaration states:

(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.
1. Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.
(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical Values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.
(d) It is not permitted to excite nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form or racial discrimination. [emphasis added]

If the Mediterranean is to become a Sea where Human Rights flourish, European diplomacy must insist on freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and freedom to choose and to change one's religion, as laid down by the Council of Europe. It must involve supranational values of honesty, truth and justice not sectarian concepts of law, binding every aspect of life, like the Sharia.

Europeans for their own security and defence against rabid, mob violence related to cries of self-defined 'sacrilege' must be able to analyze and criticize dispassionately any religion. Why is such an intrusive right needed? Why should such a right against the sensibilities of others be so necessary?
Europe's citizens must be able to retain or discover the most precious product of any civilization:
THE TRUTH.

Election7: Politicians' Ministry of Truth 'FORGETS' to celebrate the 60th Anniversary of Europe's DEMOCRACY

Did Europe's politicians forget? Today 11 September 2012 is the sixtieth anniversary of the first assembly of the European Parliament.

Guess who was the first president? None other than Paul-Henri Spaak. Yes, the same one after whom the Paul-Henri Spaak building of the European Parliament is named. It is difficult for the MEPs to forget the name. It houses the Hemicycle, the main debating chamber plus scads of other conference and committee rooms. But the MEPs 'forgot' to celebrate the very central democratic reason why they have a building boasting Spaak's name. They 'forgot' to celebrate why they have a job and a handsome salary.

Spaak's Presidency has been written out of the politicians' history on flawed and erroneous site of europa.eu However those interested in the principles and roots of democracy can find details of Spaak on Wikipedia or good history books. The importance of the Spaak presidency is underlined when it is realized that in just a couple of days of action, Spaak had created a special Assembly (the Ad Hoc Assembly) to draft the European Political Community, based on supranational democracy. The Council of Ministers had asked the Assembly of the Coal and Steel Community to help draft the architecture for a democratic Europe. Irony indeed. The Council today would do no such thing even with a partially elected European Parliament. By writing Spaak out the political fraudsters now in the European Parliament are trying to write out democratic history so the public does not question present Politburo politics. George Orwell, the author of the anti-totalitarian novel 1984, must be turning over in his grave! Today we have much more than a Ministry of Truth.

Did the MEPs really forget the date? Well it should be a date that is important for all democrats. We are told Democracy is now being talked of again. Confidence and trust in European politicians reached an all time low recently according to Eurobarometer polls. Trust in the EP fell from 56% in 2007 to 46% last year. Trust in the Commission, the ECB (both 36%) and Council (31%) plumeted.) Can a currency survive without the people's trust?

Now is the time to emphasize democracy, say the politicians. Is that what the present Politburo system is all about? The fact that they 'forgot' indicates that the political powers are not really interested except for a thin veneer of democracy. They can decide policy behind closed doors. They want the public to agree this is democracy. They live in a dreamworld that invents its own fraudulent history. They think a political cartel can run not only European politics but cheat the money markets.

That goes for not only 'normal' EU expenditure but now the money-crazed little outfit called the Eurogroup (which isn't an institution of the EU) and its totally extra-Treaty Big Brother Eurogroup composed of heads of government. They want to grab hold of between FIVE and SEVEN times the EU budget to cover over the financial misdeeds and crimes of their political co-conspirators of the mammoth EURO FRAUD. All Member States politicians were active or passive culprits in this misuse of European money to cover skyrocketing debts, political backhanders and falsified statistics. The public is then asked to claim 'ownership' of the Council Diktat. No democracy, no legal system. Generations into the future will have to pay for this fraud. The poor suffer most from political duplicity. The European Central Bank, whose head was chosen in secret with no other candidates able to apply, is now a willing and profligate partner with YOUR money, throwing good money after bad to help crooks and a crooked system.

Did the Parliamentarians really forget? Six months ago I mentioned this important date to several MEPs including a former President of the European Parliament. No action.

Yesterday, one of the leaders of the major political groups told me that the question had never arisen to his knowledge among any of the joint meetings with the other groups.

So why did they all REFUSE to mark the date?

Well they are not alone.

• On 10 August 2012 the Commission REFUSED to celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the first meeting of Commission /High Authority of the first Community. Jean Monnet was its first President as the Europa site reminds us all. Mr Barroso's spokesperson said they were too busy to remember such dates!
• On 18 April 2011 the Council of Ministers REFUSED to celebrate the first meeting of the Council that signed the FIRST treaty of the EU, the European Community of Coal and Steel. It and the other institutions refused to publish the great European Charter of Democracy that says that no measures, no laws and no treaties can be passed without the full-hearted consent of the European peoples. This legal document forbids any treaty -- such as the Constitutional Treaty or the Treaty of Lisbon to be passed and considered law without the peoples' consent. The Charter was signed as a legal document to prevent any state or the Community as a whole from being governed by a Politburo as was then the case of the People's Democracies in Central and Eastern Europe.
• On 8 September 2012 the Council of Ministers -- and indeed the European Council its bosses -- REFUSED to celebrate the first meeting of the Council under Europe's first treaty. Chancellor Konrad Adenauer of Germany was the first president of the Council.
• The Consultative Committees first met on 26 January 1953. It is not known whether they will mark this occasion.
• The European Court of Justice of the EU will mark the event of their opening session in December. After all lawyers cannot write off their history as easy as politicians. Case law has dates on them.

The Council of Europe is not afraid to celebrate its history. It celebrated the sixtieth anniversary in 2009. What happened in European history after 1949 ?

Well, firstly we must turn to the Constitutional Treaty and then the Treaty of Lisbon, which apart from the removal of the European Flag and anthem, is basically identical. The public in several countries realized that the Constitutional Treaty was not either a Community system or fair. They voted it down in France, the Netherlands in May-June 2005. It failed before a further referendum with an expected No in Ireland, UK and elsewhere could be held. Instead the text as the Treaty of Lisbon was forced through by regimented political parties in the national parliaments. Countries which had promised a referendum, REFUSED to have one. No one else was asked what they thought of it. And if they did, the Council did not care. This is called the Politburo method. The European Parliament to its lasting shame refused to demand the full text of the document before they approved it, like sheep to the slaughter. It removes Parliament's power to dismiss the Commission.

In 2007-8 in order even to get the Member State parliaments to vote for a document that was not available as a full-text, the Council spent an enormous amount of money in a Public Relations campaign. Where did the PR money come from? You guessed it -- the European tax-payer. The Council decided to CELEBRATE the anniversary of the European Union. Unfortunately there was only 1957 to celebrate. It was NOT the anniversary of the EU. It was merely the anniversary of the second and third Communities of the Treaties of Rome, the Economic Community and Euratom, for nuclear security, anti-proliferation and energy independence (little mentioned).

So 1957 became the Politburo 'BIRTHDAY' of Europe. The Parliament -- which was composed of spineless yes-men and women agreed. They celebrated their fiftieth anniversary. That was a FRAUD.

By REFUSING to mark any landmarks of democracy, by supporting the Gaullist system of Council-knows-best, European politicians are not only undermining democracy itself, but also their cherished, illegitimate currency, the Euro. Only a democratic Community system can lay the democratic foundation for a currency circulating in a score of diverse Member States. Without democratic trust the EU is entering a parallel history of the People's Democracies of East Germany, Poland, Hungary and the rest. No amount of writing by the European Ministry of Truth will prevent the fate of counterfeit democrats.