28 July, 2016

EU's Two State Solution for Israel and Palestine is a plan for war.

We live in unprecedented times of peace.
For those in the Middle East that may seem a quite extraordinary statement to make.
Europe has created a peace system that has produced the longest peace in all its history. Since the end of the Second World War western Europe has experience a period of 71 years of peace. The longest period of peace in all two thousand years of written history before then was shy of 50 years. Usually it was a matter of a few decades. Quite often there were wars simultaneously burning across western Europe.
Is this an example that the European Union’s External Action Service (EEAS) is aware of ? Does it treasure it as its most valuable asset?
Is the EEAS really interested in peace in the Middle East?
You certainly would not believe it from the latest Quartet report at the beginning of the month. (The Quartet is composed of the EU, UN, Russia and USA) here is an extract of what the Quartet report says:
“The Quartet reiterates that a negotiated two-state outcome is the only way to achieve an enduring peace that meets Israeli security needs and Palestinian aspirations for statehood and sovereignty, ends the occupation that began in 1967, and resolves all permanent status issues.”
Europe’s peace did not come from a Two State Solution, TSS. So why does the Quartet believe such a solution — that others consider to be suicidal for the Jewish State — is an example for the Near East? Not only does the Quartet believe the TSS is A solution, it says it is the ONLY solution.
Europe tried the Two State Solutions for two thousand years. They all failed. You can take almost any two States and see if they ever learned to live in peace. Usually one State went to war with another. It took territory. It weakened its opponent. The victor thought that it would be able to live off these fruits for ever. That always proved impossible. The rich victor grew fat and oppressive. The vanquished took the challenge of its defeat to rise from the ashes and keep fit and lithe. Eventually it could take on its former enemy in war. Often it won and took back its land and other lands too.
The European Community was as radically different from this sad record of war and peace and temporary Two State Solutions. It was as different as classical physics is from Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.
When I asked the Commission spokesperson why they were unable to recommend Europe’s own peace process — one that evidently worked for seven decades — they were unable to give a rational explanation.
“It remains our conviction that a two State solution is the only way forward.”
Does the EEAS then have a much deeper problem?
Unfortunately yes. The Spokesperson was also unable to provide a well-argued case about who illegally occupied the area the UN used to call Judea and Samaria before 1967.Wasn’t it occupied illegally by Jordan?
‘I wouldn’t go into the historical debate about the conflict itself because the report is looking towards the future and trying to move the talks into the direction of a solution.’
That “Solution” is in direct conflict with peace. 2000 years of European experience proves it. The direction is that which always produced the international equivalent of a car crash in the past.
If there are not enough people with historical background in peace studies inside the very institution that has achieved peace, are we to suspect that they want a car crash?
It is within the lifetimes of many people to recall the events of 1967. They will be celebrated next year as the 50th anniversary of the Six Day War. The land of what the EU calls the West Bank was then illegally occupied by Jordan. Jordan itself was and is a State carved “temporarily” out of the British Mandate territory for the Jewish Homeland. It was recognized by treaty by the UK and Pakistan. Why? Because other States were ashamed that this murky deal had been made — or like some States such as Saudi Arabia — they did not want to associate a State with the Hashemite dynasty that the Saudis had kicked out of Mecca and Arabia.
For decades and centuries, in fact millennia, before 1947 the term “Palestinian” meant JEW! Israeli war hero Moshe Dayan’s family were called Palestinians in their British passports! Arabs come from Arabia!
DvoraDayan, Palestinian wife of a Palestinian

What can be done for the EU’s so-called Action Service? Should it be better to call it the Act, Don’t-Think Service? It had better wake up quick! Bloody hands, motivated by Islamic Jihad, are now attacking Europe!
Seventy years ago, on 14 July 1946 Winston Churchill and Robert Schuman laid the foundations of Europe’s astounding peace. The EEAS should get to know its own story before it preaches about peace plans (that don’t work) elsewhere!

14 July, 2016

Brexit13: What Churchill and Schuman said about European Peace and Unity, 14 July 1946

Robert Schuman insisted that Winston Churchill’s first great speech on Europe was not given in Zurich Switzerland but in Metz on Bastille Day 1946. Schuman should know. He was at Churchill’s side as he delivered it to a huge cheering crowd in the capital city of Schuman’s native Lorraine.

Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, gives his world famous V-sign, as he drives through cheering inhabitants of the town of Metz, in France, on July 14, 1946, to take part in the Bastille Day celebrations. With him is Robert Schuman, the French Minister of Finance. (AP Photo)
Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, gives his world famous V-sign, 
as he drives through cheering inhabitants of the town of Metz, in France, on July 14, 1946, 
to take part in the Bastille Day celebrations. 
With him is Robert Schuman, the French Minister of Finance. (AP Photo)

Here are some extracts from Churchill’s speech.
“Many memories are stirred in my mind by this visit to Metz and your joyous welcome. Sixty-three years ago my father took me on my first visit to France. It was the summer of 1883. … I attended the manoeuvres of the French Army in 1907. The Entente Cordiale had been established between Great Britain and France. I was already a youthful Minister of the Crown. I felt … that the rights and liberties of Europe would be faithfully guarded.
That was nearly 40 years ago, but from that moment I have always worked with you not only out old friendship for France but because of the great causes for which our two countries have suffered so much and risked all. The road has been long and terrible. I am astonished to find myself here at the end of it. In all that ordeal of two generations our two countries have marched and struggled side by side and I, your guest here today, have never neglected anything that could preserve and fortify our united action. Therefore I speak to you not only s a friend but as a lifelong comrade. In all the frightful experiences we have undergone in our resistance to German aggression and tyranny our two countries have struggled along together to keep the flag of freedom flying and at an awful and hideous cost we have accomplished out duty. Never let us part. …

The injury inflicted by the First Great War upon the the life-energies of France was profound. Crowned with victory, lighted by glory, she was drained of blood. Britain, in one of those strange reactions which have so often baffled our friends and foes alike, sank into pacifism and the US with all her might and power, sought a vain refuge in isolation. These were disasters of the first magnitude.
There never was a war more easy to prevent than this last horror through which we have passed. All that was needed was to enforce the disarmament clause of the Treaty of Versailles and to make sure that Germany did not rearm. All that was needed was to assert the principle that solemn treaties, exacted from a beaten enemy, can only be altered by mutual agreement. In the League of Nations there was erected a noble instrument which, even without the aid of the United States, if it had been given a fair chance, could have maintained the disarmament of Germany and preserved the peace of Europe. But the Allies drifted amicably but helplessly like froth upon the ebb and flow of the tide. Thee is no need to apportion blame. … There are many trials before us. But our hearts should be full of thankfulness to God that we have been preserved from the most hideous forms of destruction.
Now I come to the Second World War; not so bloody, as measured by men killed in open field, but far more frightful and desperate. I was called upon to play some part in its events and every stage and crisis is burnt into my mind. … History will tell its tale, for us both, of tragedy, of triumph and of honour.
It has woven our two peoples together in a manner indissoluble and invioable. We fought each other for many centuries. And now we must help each other all we can. …
We cannot afford to be misled or to indulge in short-term policies. Vision, courage, self-denial, faith and faithful service must animate us. And when the light does not shine clearly on our path, we must not lose heart, for I am sure — as sure as I was in 1940 — that we shall steadfastly and perservingly make our way through.
{During} the Anglo-American liberation of French North-West Africa in 1942 and in the early stages of that operation, General Giraud and I gave each other rendezvous at Metz. Well here we are. The General — he is a deputy now — and I have this in common; we shall both find a chapter in the future editions of memorable escapes. I have escaped as a prisoner of war and no prison has ever been able to hold him. {Robert Schuman escaped from Germany at the same time as Giraud. Indeed, Schuman’s escape plans were delayed as Nazis made a thorough search across Germany and occupied France for Giraud. When Schuman escaped in August 1942, the Nazis put the same figure of 100,000 Reichmarks on his head.}
When my comrade, General de Gaulle — that unconquerable French spirit — received me so splendidly in Paris in November 1944, I told him about this rendezvous in Metz and he said it must take place. I do not pretend we have never had any disagreement but we were thoroughly agreed on this. …
There are two issues which are specially appropriate to this occasion.
The first is Europe.
What will be the fate of Europe? here in this continent of superior climates dwell the parent breeds of western and modern civilisation. here is the story, descending from the ancient Roman Empire, of Christendom, of the Renaissance, and of the French Revolution. It is from the hatred and quarrels of Europe that the catastrophes of the whole world have sprung. Shall we re-establish again the the glory of Europe and thus consolidate the foundations of Peace? why should the quarrels of Europe wreck the gigantic modern world? Twice in our lifetimes we have seen the brave and generous people of the US spend their treasure and their blood to procure harmony in Europe and t rescue Europe from itself. Twice has the British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations plunged into the Continental struggle to prevent the overlordship of Germany. Twice has our heroic ally, Russia, poured out its blood in European battles. This time we must reach finality. Europe must arise from her ruin and spare the world a third and possibly fatal holocaust.
We victors have set up together the United Nations Organisation to which we give our loyalty and in which we found our hopes. At the head of this stands the United States of America in all her power and virtue. But without he aid of a united Europe the great new world organisation may easily be rent asunder or evaporate in futility because of explosions which originate in Europe and may once again bring all mankind into strife and misery.
Therefore the first word I give you here today is “Europe”. May she regain her happiness and may her small, as well as her great, nations dwell together in security and peace. may there be a decent life achieved and set up for Europeans. May they all be faithful servants and guardians of the World Organisation on which the hopes of tortured humanity are centred.

My second word is “France“.
There can be no revival of Europe with its culture, its charm, its tradition and its mighty power, without a strong France. Many nations in the past have wished and tried to be strong. But never before has there been such a clear need for one country to be strong as there is now for France. When I think of the young Frenchmen growing into manhood in this shattered and bewildered world, I cannot recall any generation in any country before whose eyes duty is more plainly written or in more gleaming characters. Two hundred years ago in England the Elder and the greater Pitt addressed this invocation to his fellow-countrymen, torn, divided and confused by faction as they then were.
” Be one people.”
That was his famous invocation. And in our island, for all its fogs and muddles, we are one people today, and dangers if they threaten will only bind us more firmly together. Using my privilege as your old and faithful friend, I do not hesitate to urge upon all Frenchmen, worn and worried thous they may be, to unite in the task of leading Europe back in peace and freedom to broader and better days.
By saving yourselves you will save Europe and by saving Europe you will save yourselves..."

What did Schuman say to Churchill? As the son of a French patriot he devoted his life to reconciliation and building a Coal and Steel Community, by studying in German universities and maintaining a wide network of friendships throughout two world wars. Some ideas of what Schuman enunciated a few years later about supranational solutionsto make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible‘ are reflected in Churchill’s speech.
His ideas of how to construct European democracy were well developed and refined through discussion and experience. Here is an extract of what he wrote in his book, Pour l’Europe:
We should first understand what we mean by the term ‘Democracy‘.
What characterises a democratic state are the objectives that it sets and the means it deploys to attain them. democracy is at the service of people and works in agreement with it. I can find no definition simpler and less technical. It fits in with that of President Abraham Lincoln: ‘government of the people, by the people and for the people‘. You can notice that it does not concern itself with the form of government. Modern democracy in the sense that I have just expressed it can be just as well a constitutional monarchy as a republic.
Often the term democracy is applied to republican states and not monarchies. I maintain that this is wrong: some monarchies such as Great Britain, Belgium and Holland, if we only refer to our nearest neighbours, are more clearly and traditionally attached to democratic principles than some republics where the people have only little direct influence on the direction and political decisions of the country. This statement makes it unnecessary for me to discuss the choice a democracy can make among various forms of government. All we need to do is to exclude what is antidemocratic..."

12 July, 2016

BREXIT 12: Brussels Elite are De Gaulle's Children

Seventy years ago, on 14 July 1946, Robert Schuman hosted Winston Churchill in Metz to discuss the future of Europe. Later as Prime Minister an d Foreign Minister, Schuman initiated the Council of Europe, the European Community, the defensive basis of NATO and the European Payments Union, the core of a currency stability, as four pillars of the New Europe.
Why today are Britain and Brussels at loggerheads? Ignorance of the history of European Democracy is one reason why the Brexit referendum occurred. The Brussels elite also seems to lack a real grasp of democracy. More Member State Exits will happen if the Brussels leadership does not sharpen its act.
A recent Spiegel interview with Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and European Parliament president Martin Schulz illustrates this well. Here’s an extract.

Juncker: I have always considered it to be a minor miracle that after the war, people in Europe’s border regions were able to forget everything and, in accordance with the slogan “Never Again War,” develop a program that still works today. It is always said that Europe is a project of the elite. That’s incorrect. In fact, it was a concern of the soldiers who fought at the front, the concentration camp prisoners and the Trümmerfrauen (Eds. Note: The women in Germany who helped clear away the rubble following World War II). It was they who said, we’re going to do everything differently now. De Gaulle and Adenauer merely acted upon this desire.
Does the Brussels elite really consider that De Gaulle was the architect of the European Community? It is hard to believe that anyone who is responsible for the Guardianship of the Treaties could believe that! But then the European Council did create an entirely fraudulent exhibition in Brussels that celebrated the arch-enemy of the Community method as its saint!
The founding treaty dates from 9 May 1950 and its signature on 18 April 1951. De Gaulle was not in power. He was away sulking in Colombey-les-deux-Eglises and trying to bring down the democratic governments of Georges Bidault and later prime ministers, under whom Robert Schuman served as Foreign Minister, 1948-53. De Gaulle was sulking because the French Parliament rejected his anti-democratic or autocratic seizure of government. He withdrew from government in January 1946.
What was de Gaulle’s policy? He wanted to dismember Germany and make the Rhine France’s border. Saar would become totally French. The industrial Ruhr would be made into a separate State. He wanted to dismantle the Democratic Constitution at Bonn, that Schuman had patiently and wisely created in 1949 to the astonishment of his British and US counterparts, Bevin and Acheson. De Gaulle wanted to use Germans under his generalship as part of his army to oppose the Soviets. (He expelled NATO from Paris and Americans from France.) He later made the Germans pay for the Common Agricultural Policy to bribe French farming voters and create unwanted Meat Mountains and Wine Lakes.
Adenauer wrote that Schuman had laid the foundations of European peace. He wrote that while De Gaulle was visiting Germany in 1962. In 1952, thanks to Schuman, Adenauer had been the first president of the Council of Ministers of the European Community.
Was it a ‘minor miracle’ that Europe was able to have peace — the longest in 2000 years of history? The visiting Israeli President Shimon Peres told Brussels at least three times in one day that it was a miracle of our age!
Apparently the Brussels elite believes there was no leadership for the ex-soldiers and the women (who were paid to clean bricks from bombed out buildings) to create that miracle! It just happened. Contemporary Allied reports, however, highlighted the fact that most German youth were still fanatically Nazi and there was a strong revanchist movement for a further war after reconstruction. So how did the women change matters? Was it due to prisoners returning to Germany?
These events could be paralleled with similar events after every other war. Every generation of Europeans repaired the ruins, then planned the next war, and then suffered the consequences. Do the Brussels elite know what was different with what happened after the Second World War? So how did these common people influence de Gaulle — who wasn’t in power — to not make war but make peace?
This is obvious nonsense. De Gaulle was no apostle of reconciliation. Years after 1958, when the THREE European Communities had been established and were up and working and
  • AFTER de Gaulle had failed to destroy them, he said in 1960 they were ‘dangerous’ and ‘harmful,’
  • after pro-European ministers had resigned from de Gaulle’s government in 1962 because they felt he had betrayed his promises,
  • after de Gaulle had failed to turn the Commission into his political Secretariat in the Fouchet Plan in 1961-2,
  • after his failed ’empty chair’ ploy of 1965 to sabotage the Community,
  • after January 1963 press conference when de Gaulle had vetoed the British application to join the Communities,
  • after a few days later when Monnet, French, Germans and other Europeans had protested at the Elysee Accord of 1963 he had signed,
  • after de Gaulle had suggested instead of democracies like UK, Ireland and Denmark, Fascist Spain should join the Communities,
After a decade of heavy Gaullist control of radio, television and other media and propaganda, only an uncritical person would continue to believe it. Only naive people would take de Gaulle for anything but an ultranationalist with a Charlemagne complex. Nigel Farage eat your heart out!
After the Brussels elite had so disastrously FAILED to clean up the European institutions, hold proper elections as the treaties require, and open sessions of supposedly democratic bodies like the Council, it must take a rather short-sighted person to proclaim
In its 43 years of EU membership, Britain has never been able to decide whether it wants to fully or only partially belong to the EU.
Mr Schulz is also quite free to point the finger of blame absolutely in the wrong direction:
Schulz: Primary responsibility for Brexit lies with British conservatives, who took an entire continent hostage. First, David Cameron initiated the referendum in order to secure his post. Now, fellow conservatives want to delay the start of exit negotiations until they’ve held a party conference. And regarding detractors: I’m proud of the fact that Ms. Le Pen in France insults me and Mr. Wilders in the Netherlands calls me his opponent. The way I see it is, if these people weren’t attacking me, I would be doing something wrong.
SPIEGEL: Criticism isn’t only coming from right-wing populists. Mr. Juncker, the Polish and Czech foreign ministers have called for your resignation. They feel the Commission is too domineering.

The UK has always been a fierce defender of Democracy regardless of the costs. Its criticism of the lacks in Brussels have gone unheeded. In 1946 Robert Schuman, then Minister of Finance in a war-torn, corrupt and Communist Party dominated France, and Winston Churchill discussed how the New Europe could arise through spiritual renewal.
The Brussels elite seem incapable of discerning truth from falsehood. What chance has Democracy?  It might be worthwhile for the Brussels elite to recall the way the European System should be working and the failures of Brussels to follow the articles of the treaties.

06 July, 2016

BREXIT Article 50 was declared ILLEGAL by Referendum!

Something smelly is being exposed in Brussels.It takes just a few days for the public to compare real democrats with the biased behaviour of Brussels. Why is Brussels acting far from impartially? Under the supranational system of democracy initiated by Robert Schuman, the very highest standards of impartiality are demanded to manage 28 democratic States and 500 million people. But the present Politburo has deformed these potentialities by closed-door institutions, and lack of proper elections to the Community’s five institutions.
UK's BREXIT negotiations to leave the European Union will not be easy. Nor will the core issues be resolved rapidly. BREXIT is already raising fundamental issues about Law, Justice, and the very basis of European democracy. The legal issues expose the misuse of the closed-door politics of Brussels in a way unseen for decades. This debate will be hugely beneficial to other States around the world that are founded in Justice and the Rule of Law. The legal issues will reinforce the Judeo-Christian values at the heart of Western civilization.

What was the first reaction of the European Commission, the Council and the European Parliament to the British referendum result to LEAVE the European Union?

On the morning after the 23 June referendum, the EU ‘presidents’ issued a Statement.
“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.”
Notice a common theme? Hurry! Hurry! Hurry and leave! Why should alleged ‘democrats’ be in such a pants-tearing hurry to be rid of the home of Magna Carta? Democratic culture contrasts with the autocratic attitude of the Brussels Politburo.
That is definitely not diplomatic. It is no way to treat an ancient democracy. Surely the UK, as a democracy older than Poland’s, Luxembourg’s and Germany’s, would have well-established procedures to deal with a Consultative Referendum. Brussels does not. Why? The Politburo fears its undemocratic base will be exposed by a long investigation of the issues.
Just look at the three Machiavellian presidents, Mr Juncker, Mr Schulz and Mr Tusk. None of the three was democratically elected in in an open election. They were selected by what any ancient democracy would call a rigged process behind closed doors. In the case of the most urgent of the hurriers, Mr Schulz, he owes his position to a special, secret vote (where no one knows who voted for him) and where the major power holder, the EPP party of Mr Juncker, abstained from voting so that Mr Schulz’s socialists could vote him in, cartel-style. Prime Minister David Cameron said Mr Juncker was the ‘wrong man’ for the job. Even if UK stays, Mr Juncker wants to make sure that no Briton ever again will become the Commission President!
Phewooah! These anti-democrats are telling the UK to get out of the EU pronto. Do you detect a little bit of bad conscience on the part of the Antidemocratic Three?
The European Parliament also bullied and harried the British to hurry. They said there must be swift action for the UK to leave the EU. They said the British presidency of 2017 should be cancelled — all before the UK has given an official response to an internal referendum. That’s a further indication that anti-democratic plague spread by the tinkle of euros is widespread. It is not so much lack of understanding of British democracy — or it may be said — democracy in general! It is also bad conscience. The European Parliament has never been properly elected in more than 60 years. Some voters get the equivalent of ten or a dozen votes to elect the cartel parties.

But the UK referendum is a Consultative one. Don’t they understand that? They have just ignored the Dutch referendum on the Ukraine. Brussels has a long, long history of totally ignoring far more important referendums in France, Denmark, Ireland and stopping many others.
For the UK, however, there is no obligation for the British government to follow it scrupulously. Why? because the UK Parliament is sovereign in decision-making. The voice of the people is sovereign but it is a blunt instrument. A referendum is not expected to provide all details of action or legislate Acts.
A true democracy tries to satisfy and conciliate the just claims of all the people in an open way. It is not a sledge hammer for a thin majority to crush the minority. Laws have to be sifted out and refined by parliamentary debate. Then parliament has to come to consensus on what are these procedures. Then Government has to summarize these actions in a Bill of Parliament. Parliament — both the House of Commons and the House of Lords — has to pass this Bill. It is then given the royal assent by the Queen.
In a democracy, an individual citizen may also object that certain aspects are unfair. It then goes to a Court for judicial review. There is a parallel process in Community law.
So what other interests would the British Parliament have to consider? First of all, the integrity of the United Kingdom itself. Other considerations would be of a social, political and economic nature.
The first duty of Parliament is to keep the constituent nations of the UK, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the English, happy in their free association of royal union under the monarch. The referendum showed that some national regions wanted to REMAIN, while others wished to LEAVE. A wise government would need to know why this disparity occurred and what can be done about it. 

Furthermore there have been eight UK referendums that reinforce the integrity of the United kingdom. The advice of European Parliament — to leave immediately — would be similar to pulling the detonator on a grenade. It would risk splitting the United Kingdom into the nations and regions that wanted to stay and those who don’t. On such an issue it would break up the United Kingdom. This would hardly be to the advantage of the EU.


Flag_of_Wales_2.svg Wales

Flag_of_Northern_Ireland.1972 X svg Northern Ireland

Should the UK leave under Article 50?
What is reaction of the Brussels elite to Referendums? What legitimacy do they give to referendums? Article 50 first appeared, not in the Lisbon Treaty, but in the Constitutional Treaty as Article 59.
It was emphatically rejected in two national Referendums. It was rejected by France. it was rejected by the Netherlands. On the waiting list to hold their referendums were the Czech Republic, Poland, Portugal, Ireland, and the United Kingdom.
What was the result of the United Kingdom’s referendum on the Constitutional Treaty and its article 59?
It did not take place. neither did the other promised referendums.
Given the definitive rejection by France and nearly two-thirds of the Netherlands voters, this treaty and the concept of Exit Clause was dead and buried.

Coffin RIP
Thus the public and several Member States totally rejected the articles of the Constitutional Treaty. These articles were then -- quite illegally -- introduced again as the Lisbon Treaty. That is totally illegal. The only act that could make them legal is to have further referendums in ALL Member States and for ALL Member States to agree to them. This was never done. Why? Simply because the European public of 500 million democrats would reject the Lisbon Treaty again. There is not a scrap of legality in the Lisbon Treaty because the Brussels Politburo refuses to have these referendums.
And given the abandonment of further referendums, the entire treaty with the Exit Clause is doubly dead. Skeleton
The concept of voluntary exit from the Community is in fact anti-democratic.
Why? Because if the Community is not good enough and a Member State wants to leave, it means the Community itself is at fault. It has made some unfair decision affronting Justice, honesty and common sense. It is up to the Community to remedy the position. It is a warning signal to repair its democracy.
The forced UK exit by Brussels antidemocrats or the Politburo’s attempted ejection regardless of how much pain it will cause violates basic supranational Community principles of Schuman’s democracy. The Community institutions have to manage 28 democracies. The institutions should therefore be demonstrably MORE democratic, open and responsive than Member States’ constitutional democracies.

1. A finely-balanced referendum result, of itself, brings no obligation that a State should comply with its outcome, especially in the UK where it is consultative and Parliament is sovereign.
Any frog-marching of the UK to the exit door by Brussels may redound on itself. That might raise an investigation by the European Court of Justice of their illegal status of referendums in general. This exposes a minefield for the Lisbon Treaty itself. The Lisbon Treaty incorporated practically ALL articles from the Constitutional Treaty — which was rejected by referendums in France and the Netherlands (62% against vs 38% for). Further referendums in five or six States were refused or abandoned.
The first legal instrument of the European Community system was the Europe Declaration or Charter of the Community of 18 April 1951. It said that no measure can be passed without the freely expressed will of the people. This instrument defined a free society. It contrasted with the Soviet Bloc’s ‘People’s Democracies’ with its Communist-controlled votes and referendums.
‘Brussels’ has actively undemocratized its supranational institutions. It closed the Councils to the public in violation of the treaties. It refused elections to the Consultative Committees. It holds 28 national elections for the European Parliament, not one European election as the treaties have required for 60 years (TEU art 16.8, 17.5, TFEU 15.2, 223).
2. Brussels has distorted the Community system. The Euratom Treaty is not mentioned in the referendum question. It is legally distinct from the Lisbon Treaty. It requires UK participation in Council, Parliament, EcoSoc, Scientific and Technical Committee, etc. It has no exit clause as it deals with nuclear non-proliferation.

Article 50 is illegal — it has been rejected by referendums. If it is ever used it is a sign and warning to Brussels that the institutions need democratic reform. It cannot be used to eject a democratic Member State. A democratic Member State should use it to reform Brussels and the Lisbon Treaty!