27 November, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19 November, 2017

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

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

13 November, 2017

1. J'ACCUSE! Brexit is THEFT.

J’ACCUSE was the title of a book written by a patriotic German during World War One. It was published in 1915 in Switzerland. It was anonymous to protect the author’s life. He exposed the hypocrisy of the German leaders who called on their fellow citizens for patriotic solidarity for their act of illegal war.
After the Germans invaded Belgium without real motive, their soldiers were attacked by ordinary Belgian citizens — a populist revolt at the outrage. Germans then slaughtered the civilian population. Cardinal Mercier addressed the people at Christmas 1914 listing the many priests who were shot, the hundreds of civilians shot or burnt, included old people and children.
The German justification? The law of war!
Rubbish said, lawyer Richard Grelling (for he it was who wrote the book). Might does not make Right. THEFT is absolutely wrong.
The Belgian people were defending their homes and country against armed invaders who despised Belgian neutrality. It is two-faced hypocrisy for the Kaiser’s army to steal the Belgian homeland by brutal force. It is an evil act to kill those Belgians who said ‘No you don’t!’ On the contrary THEFT is quite understandable by universal values. Not just in Belgium but everywhere. Should William Tell be burnt for defending his Swiss home against Habsburg thieving fingers?
Grelling thus emphasized the primacy of moral law over rationalizations of force.
The first stage of this condemnation was theft. That was clear to cool heads on all sides, even Germans. Killing came next. The first failure of the Germans was to condemn their own invasion of Belgium.
The same arrogance applies today to Brussels. Those who say they are “in power” in Brussels try to make up universal rules. Brussels politocrats spout disinformation. They make up the rules as they go — to their own advantage.
The Brussels politburo has already lost the argument for universal values and truth. It may not have sunk into their skulls. They may try to ignore it. They may think that the “itch” of their bad conscience may go away with time. It is not a physical itch. And it won’t go away.
Example: what did they say about Brexit? Where was the theft?
On 24 June 2016, four EU presidents issued a statement about early UK referendum results. They had fallen on their ears a few short hours earlier. Here’s what they said:
“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.”
Here’s what I wrote the same day repeating what I wrote two years earlier. The main problem was the earlier THEFT of European democracy. De Gaulle tried to expunge the lucid light of European democracy. Schuman and Europe’s Founding Fathers said the Councils, committees and parliament should all be OPEN to the public and elected on a European basis.
Then came the THEFT of Schuman’s honor as the Father of European Democracy. De Gaulle refused to recognize Robert Schuman’s office as President of the European Parliament on 19 March 1958. In other States Schuman was treated like a Head of State. Once Schuman died in 1963 and other leaders lost their democratic guts, the Commission and the Council become anti-democratic, closed door organizations.
De Gaulle forbade Adenauer, Jean Monnet, former French prime ministers and others to attend his funeral. Weak-kneed politicians acquiesced to the line of French Foreign Minister Couve de Murville and the Gaullists who wanted to destroy the Community system. Gaullists threatened, then boycotted the institutions like the Council and Parliament in the “Empty Chair” crisis. Europeans fought for their democratic rights, good French democrats leading them. De Gaulle lost that fight. After riots and national paralysis, a French referendum kicked him out in 1969. He was replaced as President of the Republic by Alain Poher, formerly Schuman’s chief of staff.
The flame of Democracy is still STOLEN. Politicians love meeting secretly. Light of open democracy, required by the treaties, is still shut out of the councils and committees. Brussels today is run by a neo-Gaullist politburo. It still has more in common to the politiburos of the Soviet system. Robert Schuman denounced these “People’s Democracies” as counterfeit democracies.
Their characteristics ?
  • They did not allow free and open, ideological debate in society — for example about Communist atheism vs Europe’s Judeo-Christian heritage. Today politicians spout the slogan of Islam as a “religion of peace“. That title belonged to Christianity until 2001. Then President George W Bush first misappropriated the term — believe it or not — after the jihadi attack on the NY Twin Towers, the Pentagon and Washington. Why? Islam means submission, surrender or subjection in Arabic, not peace The verb is directed to a god situated in Mecca called Allah, not the Judeo-Christian God. (Oxford Dictionary: islam, submission from aslama, resign oneself). Submission is what a Politburo wants too. All voters who disagree are called “populists”!
  • A Politburo rules. It refuses to justify its base ethical standards. No free worker agrees to the dictatorship of the workers. Nor do today’s free citizens agree to the “Democratic Deficit”.
  • The politburo members were the self-elected super-citizens. The means to attain this status as the elite was party membership. Today the Commission is controlled the same way, by party cronies. Only members holding specific party cards are admitted (totally contrary to the oath of office they make). Other voices are excluded as “popularism”. Ordinary citizens who usually have no party membership are excluded. They amount to 98 percent of the population!
  • In secret sessions, party apparatchiks decide what is good for the people.
Today all major decisions of the Brussels elite take place in secret. What do the treaties say? All meetings should be open to the public and the press. The USSR, DDR, North Korea and the European Council are prime examples of the same fake democracy. Great company!
And what happens when the people raise their voice in a referendum? What do the Brussels politocrats do then? Well, they simply go into their councils, close the doors and tell us if the Referendum was recognized by them or not!
A few dozen super-citizens go into closed session and tell four hundred million democratic voters if they are right or wrong! And then they come out and tell whopping lies. You can, like the audience of Grelling’s book, decide for yourself what is morally right and wrong.
Let’s take an example and analyze it. It shows exactly what democrats are up against. Compare what the judges in British democracy say about referendums and what the so-called guardians of European democracy in Brussels opine.
First the timing. Within a couple of hours of the first results of the UK referendum being announced — before the final published result! — on 24 June 2016, FOUR presidents of the EU (Juncker, Tusk, Schulz and Rutte) issued an official Statement saying:

“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….”
Weren’t they efficient? Weren’t they quick? Didn’t they also shoot from the mouth a little bit too fast? Weren’t they a bit rash? Weren’t they also WRONG?
In fact the UK referendum was advisory. It was totally out of order for anyone to pronounce on the matter — least of all, Brussels.
This was obviously going be a decision affecting the destiny of 500 million citizens. Some of the presidents had not slept much that night. It would be instructive to hear their arguments that led to the press release. Would it include: “Let’s get rid of the British while we can. They are always awkward about Democracy!” Why were the public and press video cameras excluded from their early morning deliberations? Were the Four above democracy? Were they higher than UK and ECJ judges?
For all democratic Europeans this Four Presidents’ Decree is an affront to the supposed impartiality of all four institutions (Commission, European Council, Council of Ministers and Parliament). It was also legally WRONG! Do they have an excuse? NO. The four institutions are stuffed with lawyers. Many were British lawyers, knowing their Constitution.
Meanwhile in the UK the slower, surer process of law exposed the Decree, for what it was. CONSTITUTIONAL THEFT!
The High Court in its judgement on Miller vs HMG paragraph 106 said:
‘… a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament unless very clear language to the contrary is used in the referendum legislation in question. No such language is used in the 2015 Referendum Act.’ The referendum imposed no mandatory action.
The UK Supreme Court in its judgement paragraphs 119 to 125 re-affirmed that the Referendum was advisory!
“(124) Thus the referendum of 2016 did not change the law in a way which would allow ministers to withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Union without legislation. (125) … because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. …(12th Report 2009-10, House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution). “
Did the four presidents apologize for their fierce folly? Not a word.
In Schuman’s real democracy European decisions must be agreed by governments, by regions, by duly elected economic and social committees and parliament. The UK referendum was simply reaffirming the major problem: Brussels can no longer be considered to be democratic, open, fair or just. The European Union, as distinct from the European Communities which UK citizens in 1975 approved by a large, legal referendum majority, is illegitimate. It had never been agreed by the people.
I accuse the Brussels politocrats of the THEFT of Schuman’s real democracy. They have substituted a fraud.