Brexit Crisis will last Decades

Not serious! The European Commission have announced extra measures and emergency subsidies in the case of a No Deal Brexit scheduled for 31 October 2019.

But neither the EU, the Irish or the British government are taking seriously the date of 31 October as the definitive date of Leave. What do they know that they are not telling the public?

The evidence

Neither the EU or the Irish have a plan to put up border posts along he Irish / Northern Ireland border. This would be required if they took the ‘Irish Backstop‘ danger seriously. It is a complex border requiring much preparatory work. It is also politically sensitive with memories of the the IRA conflict. But this can’t be the whole story for doing absolutely nothing. What’s happening?

Some British may think that all will be over at 11 pm on 31 October. But in Brussels, the bureaucrats have read the treaty carefully. That is why we could be in for decades of Brexit crisis.

How many years will the Brexit crisis last? That is not clear. But don’t expect an exit on 1 November. The way Article 50 is written it could last several decades.

The key word ‘Constitutional’

The key word in Article 50, the Exit clause of the Lisbon Treaty on European Union is ‘constitutional‘.

“Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” Article 50 paragraph 1.

But what is the constitutional position for Brexit in the United Kingdom? It does not have a written constitution. Even if it did, there might be a dispute about the government’s interpretation of a clause compared with an opposition party, a commercial organisation, a trade union or an individual who challenged this. That would take the matter to the Courts.

Constitutional disputes about Europe have taken a long time to resolve in Member States. Courts raised questions on the legitimacy of the Lisbon Treaty and whether Europe is democratic.

The German Constitutional Court judged that “It is first and foremost the national peoples of the Member States who, through their national parliaments, have to provide democratic legitimacy“

For the UK with no separate Constitutional Court and no written Constitution, the chances for a dispute are much wider. For the present UK, with unprecedented disputes in Parliament and in the country about Prime Minister’s conduct and allegations of lying to the public and Parliament, the question is even more open.

It is complicated further by the fragility of the government. At present Mr Johnson does not have a majority in Parliament. Normally he should resign on the basis of a vote of no confidence. But that is not the situation in UK now that the country under the Fixed Term Parliament Act.

Second problem. UK has a government that cannot resign. It needs a two-thirds majority vote against it to call a General Election. But the Opposition does not trust Mr Johnson and has refused this until it is sure that he will follow an Act that they are passing to rule out a No Deal Brexit.

The only other means to have an election is a vote of NO Confidence. But that requires the Government party to vote that they have not confidence in themselves!

Furthermore Mr Johnson has sacked a score of some of the most loyal Conservative MPs simply because they voted against his wishes on the government timetable. A severe penalty from a government itself composed of many MPs who voted against the previous Conservative government. Mr Johnson himself has voted against the previous government of Theresa May on the Withdrawal Treaty but hypocrisy does not seem to bother him. However, sacking 21 supporters when the government had only a majority of one vote, seems reckless beyond measure. It shatters the majority and embitters the party supporters around the country.

How will the Johnson Government get anything else through Parliament?

But that is not all.

Thirdly, the Courts. At present there are three Court cases dealing with the legality of Brexit. They attack the advice the government gave to Queen to prorogue Parliament, allegedly to cut back on democratic debate on a No Deal Brexit. These cases are likely to go to Appeal and even the Supreme Court.

Nor is that the end. If cases are open by the Scottish and Welsh governments against the central government on misuse of advice to the Queen to prorogue parliament, then there is likely to be further challenges on more substantial issues of the Constitution.

Fourthly Economic Cases. Any of these arriving at the Supreme Court would take far longer to deal with and require extensive research and therefore delays.

Billions of pounds and billions of euros are involved in the decision and repercussions of Brexit both in UK and on the Continent. The Government has already paid out millions in compensation for its ill-judged handling of the Dover-Calais fiasco. So challenges in UK Courts may continue.

Fifthly, the core issues are unsolved, and much more. There are two further levels of legal challenge.

For Brussels, the question must arise, about the legal competence of a beleaguered government, accused of misrepresentation and cheating in delivering a firm and reliable decision for Brexit. If Brussels recognized any action of the Johnson government it would likely bring in huge economic costs to those on the Continent. It is up to anyone inside the EU to challenge whether a fully constitutional governmental decision has been taken. If not, why did the Brussels machine recognize it?

That challenge could go to the European Court in Luxembourg and deny or delay London recognition of its decision to leave.

In UK many people doubt whether the legal basis for the 2016 referendum will stand up to the light of day. The British voter never agreed to the Lisbon Treaty and that is the basis of Article 50! The totally separate Euratom treaty, designed to stop Atomic War that the Government says UK must now leave, never came into the pre-referendum debate or any publication or statement of the government.

youtube.com/watch?v=3tcJKfuMYCk

Irish Backstop still needs a solution. So does the Customs Union and Euratom. Whatever happens to the Johnson government and its replacement, UK still needs to resolve the Irish Backstop and its relations with the Continent.

Robert Schuman designed Europe’s peace system based on a democratic Assembly and a Customs Union in a Community. Leaving these institutions is equivalent to rejecting the peace. A new war is something no one in Europe wants. Does the UK not want to have full democratic relations with the Continent? Leaving a Parliament means marching on the road to tyranny.

The core problem that needs to be resolved is Democracy in UK and in Europe.

Will the dispute last decades? It already has!

A quarter century already

Crises in Europe tend to last decades or more. The Brexit crisis started well before the 2016 Referendum. It was then just called the Democratic Deficit crisis. In the UK, Brexit crisis can be dated back to at least 1994 — a quarter of a century ago.

James Goldsmith, an Anglo-French businessman, founded the Referendum Party with this aim. It made a deal with other parties, especially the Conservatives, for elected parliamentarians to pledge themselves to demand a referendum. The only referendum on Europe had occurred two decades earlier in 1975.

Many in Britain thought the Brussels system was autocratic and needed urgent democratic reform or UK exit. It was high time another took place. Nothing happened for decades despite promises of both Conservatives and Labour parties and the formation of the United Kingdom Independence Part. UKIP was actually formed in 1991 and took over the mantle of a Referendum when the Referendum Party dissolved thinking its work was done.

Brexit has been a crisis, ringing alarm bells and firing democratic Very-light flares, for decades. Don’t be surprised if the present Brexit crisis lasts as long again.

Austrians expose EU's Undemocratic History as origin of Brexit

Austria mounts Fake History of the EU
FAKE HISTORY!   FAKE "FACTS"!  FAKE DEMOCRACY!
Why did Brexit happen? The answer is ably exposed in the heart of EU Brussels. The Austrian presidency mounted two exhibitions inside the Council of Ministers building. They both illustrate and emphasise a FAKE history of Europe. They show in undeniable terms the cause of Brexit.
One expo celebrates the Maastricht Treaty, which entered force 1 November 1993. The other denigrates real democracy. Fittingly neither is open to the general public!
The Maastricht treaty has been a disaster for European democracy! Why celebrate it? Maastricht emerged at a time when the public complained at the refusal of the Council of Ministers to open up its dealings to the public and the press. Instead what did the politicians do? They created a series of new, closed-door councils and committees to add to the European Communities. These secretive groups were called the second and third pillars of their Europe. They were run by officials for the benefit of officials and politicians.
Freedom and democracy had broken out across Europe but not in Brussels! Central and Eastern Europe had just been freed from the yoke of the Soviets in 1989. The Soviet citizens freed themselves in 1991.
For years democrats complained of the Democratic Deficit in Brussels and the lack of transparency. The Maastricht Treaty was a huge disappointment to citizens who wanted open government. It recreated two extra Politburo closed-door systems extending the web of secret decision-making to many other unauthorised parts of their lives.
Understandably it was rejected by Denmark. They objected to quite a number of things, including lack of transparency, measures on European justice, monetary union, and defence amongst other things,
This should have sunk it for ever. In France it passed in a referendum by a bare 51.1%. The "petit oui" was considered a signal to end non-consensual European integration. Only Ireland voted for it. All other countries, and significantly the UK, got no chance to have a referendum. Who would want to make the wheeler-dealer Council even more opaque?
So was the treaty binned? No. Not according to the European leaders who met in Edinburgh in December 1992-- the "European Council", invented by de Gaulle, was not a European institution. The European Community system is based on independent institutions. But the leaders considered themselves a Politburo! They set their own superior rules. Democratic assent was not included.
Then the Council got into further undemocratic fraud. It told the Danes to vote again! After manipulations to appease the Danes, the treaty was obviously changed. But no other national public was asked to agree by referendum to the revised concoction. No referendums, no public consent.
The Council politicians, behind its doors, decided for the public. This double fraud ignited fury amongst democrats leading to UK's rejection later in the Brexit vote. Yet the Brussels politburo still thinks their haughty attitudes equates to democracy!

Its name, Treaty on European Union, was also a fraud. The European Union was the name originally given to the Council of Europe until the British objected.
Thus the principal reason that the Council of Ministers wants to celebrate this backward event is to laud its autocratic powers over public opinion.
How did the Austrians get away with this "celebration"?
It is full of fraud and fakes. Only the Politburo cheers.
Case 1: How did political Europe start?

According to the exhibition it started in 1952. Why? Because, according to the Austrians, that was the year of a “Proposal for a Political Community and a European Defence Community (EDC)”.
Let us remind the Council that those two proposals for supranational and democratic Communities failed. Why? Because, although the EDC had been ratified by all Member States except France, Charles de Gaulle mobilised his supporters against them. With the immanent threat of Cold War turning into World War 3, Gaullists did not have the courage to have an open vote against a European army. Together with the Communists they introduced a motion in the National Assembly that the question of ratification be not put! So the proposal was shelved.
But even then European governments did not say Five voted for it, only France hesitates. Therefore the majority has won! If the French wanted to show some guts they would ask that the motion be now put to a vote. But be warned! The supranational concept is clearly spelled out. That means that all European decisions are subject to full democratic control! This is highlighted in the very first article of the draft EDC treaty.
The EDC and the EPC are prime examples about how “populist-nationalist” rabble-rousers such as de Gaulle’s supporters and Marxist-Communists blocked democracy in Europe. After January 1946, de Gaulle was out of power but held disruptive mass rallies across the country. His aim? To sabotage the French Fourth Republic and assume unique power without political parties. The Communists were the largest party in Parliament. They had similar ideas.
But why start “The Path to Maastricht” with this failure of democracy to assert itself? Why don't the Austrians specifically condemn the "populist" Gaullists and Communists? Why don't they praise the Europeans who stood up against these bullies and supported the Community system and open democracy?
Case 2: Fake Photo and Fake History

This chronology starts with 1952 with the announcement of

"Proposal for a European Political Community and a European Defence Community".

Did nothing happen in the path to political Europe before 1952?
The clue is in the photograph above 1952.
It exposes another fraud.
The photo has nothing to do with the proposal for the EDC and the EPC. It is a photograph of the signing of the Treaty of Paris 18 April 1951. Were the Austrians ignorant of this?
Hardly. Here is a photograph of the same event from the Council's own website.
It is the signature of the Treaty of Paris and the Europe Declaration of 18 April 1951!

The Paris Treaty is notable by its absence in the history of the Maastricht Treaty chronology. Extraordinary!  It is the first and most important of the European Community treaties. The Europe Declaration is an even more important document. It defines the principle that all agreements between European States must have the people's consent and agreement.

"This Europe is open to all European countries that are able to choose freely for themselves."

That's why the Maastricht Treaty is so insidious. It did not allow the people to choose freely. Two later Rome treaties are curiously included dating from 1957. Why obliterate the original Community and its definition of democracy?
Case 3: the missing Schuman Plan
Who is in the centre of the picture? Robert Schuman, Foreign Minister and previously twice prime minister. The Treaty of Paris for the European Coal and Steel Community was called the Schuman Plan. Schuman proposed it on 9 May 1950.

It was the most political Community of all. It introduced something totally unknown in the world. It was the first international anti-cartel organisation in world history.
Cartels both national and globalist have fomented war and pillage of the population from time immemorial. They were more powerful than feudal powers in the medieval wars.
An international cartel that controlled the supply and sale of some vital product could control the economy.
A bloody arms cartel fomented wars for profits.
Case 4: Nothing is more political than War
It is even more ironic that the Austrians are not even mentioning World War One. November 2018 marks the centenary of the start of this world war. Did it start because an Austrian Grand-Duke was assassinated in Sarajevo?
The Austrians should know! They have the archives.
So have I. They were published in the 1960s.
 
The Germans’s archives with their correspondence with Vienna was captured by the Allies in 1945 after the Second World War. They show that Austria was bullied into declaring war by Germany's war party in Berlin. The Germans had planned the war based on the Lightning Attack Schlieffen plan. The French obtained these plans in 1904.

They show that the principle War Aim of the Germans was to control the French strategic resources, specifically the iron ore deposits on the other side of the border from occupied Alsace Lorraine. They had occupied these French provinces in 1871 and defined the borders based on their minerals.
Case 5: Why Maastricht fails on globalism
We should recognise the main danger TODAY. World politics can easily be controlled by globalist cartels.
Thus the most important political Community was the first one which provided Europeans with the means to fight back democratically with open debate and regulations.
So why did the Austrians deliberately leave out the threat to the liberty of Europeans from globalist cartels?
Case 6: the real start of Political Europe
Lies and Fake history can proliferate by omission. What was the most important problem after the Second World War?
In fact there were two. The most obvious one was the Cold War. In 1948 the Soviet Union acquired the Atomic Bomb. The public expected another world war, either by the attack of the huge Red Army that had not been demobbed after the war or by a surprise, pre-emptive American attack.
The second problem was post-Nazi Germany. Would it join the West or would it join with the Soviets who occupied East Germany? Would it play politics with both side and ignite other European wars?
What was the solution? Robert Schuman’s first government proposed that democratic Europe should unite by creating two new institutions. The first was a European Assembly (which saw light as the Council of Europe and the European Parliament) and a Customs Union.
Historians have considered this to be the most important turning point in all European history. It was the first time a government in Europe had formally proposed a means to unite Europe POLITICALLY.
When did this happen? 24 July 1948.
That is seventy years ago. The key date for European political integration is totally forgotten! If only Europeans understood why Schuman proposed and created a democratic Customs Union, they would have spared themselves all the trouble with BREXIT!
If the Austrians had been honest about their chronology of the “Path to a Political Europe” would not this date figure as the most important? Wouldn’t help explain to Brussels that a Customs Union has to be democratically controlled? Wouldn’t it help explain to the British who reject the Democratic Deficit of Brussels that reform and open Councils are urgently required?
Case 7: Upside down history.
The other exhibition of the Austrians is the glorification of the Holy Roman Empire. They even have the effrontery to call this supranational!

That is objectionable because the term supranational was first used as a political term to describe a democratic structure for European national Democracies. It describes the way to make Europe a Democracy of Democracies.
Was the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation a model for Europe? Hardly. Historians call it a fake as it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. It was at war with other countries much of the time. Is its crown a symbol of democratic Europe?

“The European Community won’t be made in the image of an Empire or a Holy Alliance,” wrote Schuman. “ It will be built on the principle of democratic equality in certain domains of relations between nations. … It excludes dictatorial exploitation based on material superiority. That is the meaning of supranationality. It can never be applied in the area of culture because of all their individual peculiarities.”

The term supranational was first used legally in the European treaties to describe the Commission. It had to be INDEPENDENT of political parties, national governments and private interests.
The failure of the Maastricht process lies in the lack of its public support. Commencing with Maastricht, the Brussels politburo created closed-door institutions for foreign affairs, justice and home affairs. How can Justice be decided behind closed doors?
Did the the Council and the "European Council" learn its lesson? No. It went on to use the same Maastricht technique for the next treaties, Amsterdam, Nice, and the Constitutional Treaties (MANIC). The latter was rejected by France and the Netherlands and half a dozen other States were set to do the same. It could not pass.
By rejecting the Constitutional Treaty, Europeans also rejected the idea of an Exit Clause. It first appeared as its Article 59.
So how did the "democrats" of the European Council react? Stealth and deceit. They disguised it as a reform to the European Economic Community. They forced the totally rejected Constitutional Treaty through their parliaments -- sometimes without them being allowed to read it! Then they renamed it the Lisbon Treaty! They could not stop Ireland having a referendum, as required by their Constitution. Ireland rejected it.
So how does this relate to Brexit? It doesn't. The "Lisbon Treaty" has no legitimacy for the huge changes it supposedly makes to the democratic Community system.

How can a "democratic" State that promises referendums but in practice forbids its people to have its voice in a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, maintain that the treaty can have any legal or democratic validity? It is legally "unsafe". Thus a referendum using its articles is meaningless. How on earth can the British apply Article 50 of a non-authenticated, non-democratic treaty?

First the British needs a referendum to assent to the treaty (or not!). Only then can Article 50 have any force! Democracies can never consider submitting to undemocracy!

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

26, July, 2018

Several months before the UK Brexit Referendum of 23 June 2016 took place, I wrote that any referendum would fail. The UK would remain part of the European Community system. Note I did not say the European Union. The UK agreed by referendum to be part of the Customs Union system of the three Communities. UK never so agreed to the Lisbon Treaty. France and other countries rejected it by referendum when it was called the Constitutional Treaty!

Now it looks like the Brexit operation is not only impossible, but even hardline Brexiteers are admitting it is impossible. There is even official talk of disruptions to food and medicine for UK’s 66 million population in case no agreement can be made.

How did I know about non-Brexit? Wasn’t Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty designed to allow the UK to leave?

I knew because I had studied Robert Schuman’s motive in creating the European Community. It wasn’t about trade. It is about DEMOCRACY. During WW2, Schuman told his parliamentary colleagues that Democracy is the only way to save Europe from itself, from war and destruction.

The Community system replaces nation states’ continual war and violence by debate and democracy. Only an anti-democratic Government would want to leave. Only an anti-democratic EU would even consider it possible to agree that the mother of parliaments leave.

A Customs Union and a Single Market require that both sides come to agreement on mainly technical issues of trade. But the core issue is really democracy. Why? Because trade involves billions, even trillions of goods and services. And customers and above all proprietors of such businesses require that decisions are taken fairly and with the justice everyone can recognize.

At the moment neither the UK nor the Brussels machine passes the Litmus Test. “Are you taking everyone’s interests into account?”

European leaders and the European Commission– supposedly the “Guardian of the Treaties” — have refused to safeguard the heritage of Schuman, They do not keep his memory alive. More specifically they do not let the public know what is the Grand Design for Open Democracy in Europe. It is their responsibility to animate a great public debate on Democracy in Europe. They have failed in their prime duty.

A stark reminder of this refusal is to commemorate what is arguably the most important date in all European history: 20 July 1948.

That is not out of ignorance. I have publicly reminded the Commission several times about the date and its importance. Listen to what the Commission saysabout commemorating this date! “It is just like any other date in history!”

On 20 July I spoke to Michel Barnier about this. He seemed surprised about the uncelebrated 70th anniversary of what could be seen as the greatest French triumph of Democracy, #EU70.

That afternoon I wrote him the following letter.

20 July 2018

Dear Mr Barnier,

Following our brief conversation at today’s press conference {at the Council of Ministers}, I am enclosing the assessment of the Liaison Group of European Historians that 20 July 1948 represents the real turning point in European history. Schuman’s Foreign Minister Georges Bidault presented the French governmental proposition for a democratic Assembly for Europe and a Customs Union.

It was the first time in all recent European history that a government had made an intergovernmental proposal for a European parliamentary assembly.

After debate with the British, this was created as the Council of Europe. Its entrance requirement was the governmental and parliamentary signature of the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

This set up the legal order of the Court of Human Rights. The Assembly proposal also created the European Parliament of the Communities, originally conceived as a subset of the Council’s.

Schuman’s government proposal for a Customs Union saw life in the 3 Single Markets of the Coal and Steel Community and the two Communities of the Rome Treaties, 1957

Why was this the great turning point for Europe? Other proposals for integration were made by what Schuman called utopian thinkers (see his speech ‘Nos tâches européennes’ in Strasbourg 1949). This was governmental.

Schuman discussed such a constitutional system during the war, when he escaped from Germany. It would help democratise Germany, France and other member States then under threat of Communists and Nationalists. He said it would be impracticable or impossible for a new Hitler to destroy democracy or to leave. Why? because of the benefits that such a system would bring and the democratic disciplines involved. Hence it would ensure that war “was not only unthinkable but materially impossible” (Schuman Declaration). Germany did not attempt to leave or want to, but the UK is now trying to. It would appear that Schuman’s proposal is stronger.

I also enclose a link to an article I wrote about this anniversary year in January this year.

https://democracy.blogactiv.eu/2018/01/09/eu70-europes-triple-birthday-of-democracy-customs-union-and-defence/

Knowing the origin and purposes of the democratic Customs Union would prove a valuable asset for both the EU-27 and the UK negotiating teams. I have described this in detail in my book — which you should have seen, I hope— Brexit and Britain’s Vision for Europe. If you do not have a copy I would be happy to present you with a copy.

 .

With best regards,

David H Price

Editor, eurDemocracy.com

schuman.info

00

1. Did PM May's Florence Speech shock more than the Pigeons?

Why did Prime Minister Theresa May fly all the way to Italy to shoo the pigeons? Why did she speak briefly in what was a few days earlier an empty and dusty, abandoned room? It was indistinguishable from any other. It was allegedly inhabited only by pigeons.

Did she come only to ask for a two-year transition, an idea, she said, that was already written in the treaty? Was there an unspoken message in the place, not the speech? The British taxpayer might also ask:

‘Why on earth did the Prime Minister and Members of her Cabinet fly all the way to Italy to give a speech? And then getting back in the plane and winging it back to London?’

Isn’t this a huge waste of money? Prime Minister Theresa May had returned to London from the United Nations on Thursday, 21 September, accompanied by her Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. They had plenty of time to talk.

The next day, Mrs May could have given the speech in any city of the United Kingdom. Why, then, did she take to the skies again? What justifies the cost (and inconvenience for journalists and the public)? Her office confirmed that the British taxpayer will have to pay for this foreign excursion.

Would people hear what she said more clearly from afar? Her television audience did not even see the historical backdrop. The British brought their own back panels so there was no telling what was behind the slogan: Shared History, Shared Challenges, Shared Future.

Both Theresa May and her pro-European husband Philip are savvy. Theresa studied Geography at Oxford, Philip studied Modern History. He was president of its renowned debating association, the Oxford Union. Both are practicing Christians.

Why not go to Rome and attack the false propaganda of the Brussels elite? Four Brussels Top Politicians on the morning after UK’s non-binding, advisory EU referendum of 23 June 2016 said UK had better leave soon, “as quickly as possible however much it may hurt.”

 

They were the people who had previously excluded the UK from ever having a candidate as President of the European Commission. They called it the SpitzenKandidat system. It was unveiled in the so-called Constitutional Treaty. But the Constitutional Treaty failed miserably, rejected by the French and Dutch referendums. The referendums in UK and five others were cancelled. They would give further Noes. So, without further referendums and scorning public rejection, politicians added the entire treaty to the Common Market Treaty of Rome, lock, stock and barrel. It was renamed the Lisbon Treaty. To do this they spent millions of tax-euros to create a big lie. They said European integration began in 1957 with the Common Market and the Treaty of Rome.

Mrs May could have said;

“What nonsense and waste! European unity began with the Schuman Declaration of 1950 and the European Community of Coal and Steel. We British should know. We were Associate Members of the Community in 1952. We passed an Act of Parliament to do so.”

Why pick a small room in Florence in the Santa Maria Novella? Why not, for example, the European University Institute? Prime Ministers often address universities.

The EUI was founded by an article in the Euratom Treaty , also signed in Rome1957. This year is its 60th anniversary. It could have been a special occasion to celebrate this. The EU has made a huge fuss about celebrating one of the two 1957 Treaties of Rome. It quite falsely spent huge amounts of taxpayers money saying that the Common Market or the Economic Community was the origin of the European Union. They wiped out all the years from the end of WW2 until 1957 as irrelevant. Just like the Stalin wiped out the image of personalities he had sent to the Gulag or worse.

A big speech at the EUI would have made a good opportunity to rectify Brussels propaganda and its atrocious Fake News on democracy.

The EUI, situated at a famous Medici Fiesole Abbey, had previously held a series of lectures on Brexit. Besides being the legal depository of EU archives, it has highly regarded departments in European Law (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies) global governance and European civilization.

But NO, it was not to be a university lecture. What was it then? Clearly Florence has some huge significance that justifies the travel cost. British insistence offsets the lack of an invitation from either the Italian Government or the city. Why breach normal diplomatic practice?

Did Mrs May want to make a particularly British statement? She could have chosen the British Institute in Florence on the river Arno. Earlier this year, Prince Charles helped celebrate its 100th anniversary. Its Acton library contains one of the largest collections of English books on the Continent. Founded during the First World War, the Institute has provided an open British window on the world.

What did PM May say to explain and justify this expense and rupture of custom? She began her speech — without anyone welcoming or introducing her — by saying:

“It’s good to be here in this great city of Florence today at a critical time in the evolution of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union. It was here, more than anywhere else, that the Renaissance began –

• a period of history that inspired centuries of creativity and critical thought across our continent and which in many ways defined what it meant to be European.
• A period of history whose example shaped the modern world.
• A period of history that teaches us that when we come together in a spirit of ambition and innovation, we have it within ourselves to do great things.”

“To do great things” together sounds like a forecast. Yet it was not uttered on the hills of Fiesole where in Roman times the College of the Augures, pagan experts in divination, foretold the reactions of their gods. Mrs May’s message was about Renaissance.

So, which building did Mrs May choose from Florence’s rich history? Not the Uffizi Art Gallery. No, Prime Minister May and her ministers chose the former police academy! It had to be spruced up to accommodate the British speechifying. Why, this building?

The Scuola Sottufficale Carabinieri is no ordinary building. It belongs to the Great Cloister of Santa Maria Novella convent. It dates from around 1200s as a basilica. It forms a central position in the history of both western and eastern Europe and the rise of for technology of the last five centuries.

What then was the historic and geographic message that Prime Minister Theresa May was communicating by her extraordinary flight to Florence?

Why did she visit this building?
What has this man to do with it?

Closed Doors for "Democratic" BREXIT Talks

   In the Brexit talks, both the European Union and UK have declared they will ensure the maximum level of transparency. It is the alleged policy of the European Commission. They say on their website :

“The Commission, as European Union negotiator, will ensure a maximum level of transparency during the whole negotiating process.”

Why have the UK and the EU negotiator so signally FAILED to keep to the policy?
What is the maximum level of transparency? It is to hold PUBLIC sessions for the discussions of the UK Government’s policy of exiting the European Union. This is a legal obligation of the EU. Why does the EU not follow its own treaties?

“Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible.” Lisbon TFEU article 15

Is it possible to open a door? Where then are the television cameras inside the Berlaymont relaying to the public what is being discussed? Where are the press seats inside this room?
Brexit affects just about all citizens in the European Union. Just take the question of contributions to the EU budget. If the UK leaves then the remainder States, EU-27, will have to pay more as the UK is a net contributor.
Everyone has an interest in the process. It is about Democracy. Let us not confuse it with a trade negotiation. It is nothing of the sort. It is a process above all where the UK Government has pledged to leave the economic, legal and democratic institutions of Europe. Like a divorce, the whole process should be held in open court. The EU has no mandate to close the doors. (Any trade arrangement comes AFTER the divorce.)
It is above all a LEGAL process, the democratic Rule of Law. All aspects of the agreement between the EU institutions and the UK have to stand up in Court. Citizens are all members of this club. They are the Jury. Why do politicians need secrecy? They may attack the Rights of Citizens and steal money from their pocket. Any citizen has the right to take any matter to Court if his or her vital interests are unjustly affected. The UK Courts and EU courts must be guardians of the process.
It is therefore vital that the process itself should be completely open. The first session of 19 June 2017 concluded that the UK discussions must follow the priority issues set out by EU-27. They are legal and financial questions.
Everyone has a right therefore to know how much they will have to pay extra. They have a right to know if they have to up-sticks from their home, if they will have to uproot their children from schools, if they have to find new means of employment.
These are not matters that can be decided in secret by someone who does not have the authority to act on citizens’ behalf.
Take the UK Government position. Firstly, there are grave doubts about the validity of Article 50 and its application. (Both France by 9% and the Netherlands by 23% roundly rejected it!) Then, on the resignation of Mr David Cameron as Prime Minister, Mrs Theresa May formed a government in which hardline Brexiteers occupied key posts. Was this justified?
Mrs May’s Cabinet took an extreme position on the outcome of the advisory referendum in which a narrow majority voted leave. The number of votes that did not were the majority (those who did not vote and those who voted Remain were 63%) .

What did the vote mean? The Government said it was a mandate to leave. They said that they did not even have to consult Parliament because it involved a treaty or treaties and for all treaties the government had control under Henry VIII prerogative powers. But no. Courts said otherwise. Furthermore both High Court and Supreme Court confirmed that the Referendum was only advisory , not mandatory to the government.
So the government was proved wrong in its autocratic interpretation. Firstly the people’s voice was advisory. Secondly the government had no right to suspend normal constitutional processes such as passing a Bill and also by implication asking the people again. If an agency misinterprets a wish of its client, it is legally bound to ask the client for clarification before it proceeds.
For example if you took your car to a garage and the mechanic didn’t follow your instructions, and you took him to Court to prove him wrong, don’t you think it would be reasonable for the mechanic would ask for clear written instructions before he set to work again on the vehicle? Wouldn’t you insist that you give him detailed diagnosis of the problems before he put his clumsy fingers into the motor again?
Around Europe citizens object to the secrecy and Democracy Deficit in Brussels. What the May government have exposed is the Democracy Deficit in Whitehall. The garage mechanic needs to show that he is competent before he starts wrecking the car again.
Mrs May’s setback in the Supreme Court implies further constitutional assurances of competence and sensitivity to the population are necessary. All constitutional safeguards must be undertaken properly, as the Three Knights report confirms.
But what has happened in the interim? The May Government called a further show of public support for its Brexiteer position. It failed utterly. Mrs May called a General Election. In the vote of 8 June, it failed to rouse any public confidence. To the amazement of public commentators the Conservatives did not gain any seats in Parliament. The electors turned May’s majority into a minority. Its future is now in doubt as it depends on the support of the Democratic Unionist Party of North Ireland. It also has to ensure that the anti-Leave Conservative MPs do not break rank and vote against it on the whole range of EU matters that it has to pass.
Now take the Commission and the EU. Is it trustworthy? Can it count properly? Does it have another agenda which reimposes a treaty rejected by referendums, obscures Schuman and the origin, purpose and future of Europe‘s great democratic project?
That’s why the doors must be opened.

Brexit throws the European Parliament in Democratic confusion

When in June 1950 Europeans were planning the European Community, Robert Schuman told the assembled delegates:

“We would very much wish that the United Kingdom were present at our discussions. We cannot conceive Europe without it. We know, and this reassures us in our efforts, that the British Government wants the success of our work.”

Schuman knew Britain was essential for preserving European democracy.

Today non-British MEPs are in turmoil about democracy. About time! Let’s have some REAL democracy in Strasbourg and Brussels! Some MEPs want to take over British MEPs jobs on the committees. They want to redistribute key posts on the assumption that UK will leave the European Parliament. MEP Guy Verhofstadt said complex Brexit discussions should be wrapped up in 15 months. He wants the UK MEPs out of Parliament. “It would be nonsense for UK to be voting for new MEPs in 2019”– the date of the next European elections. Doesn’t that reveal a bullying attitude, the very opposite to the spirit of democracy?
Wouldn’t Democracy be better served if he urged British MEPs to stay as long as possible to help implement real European democracy?
Many MEPs are confused about the nature of European Communities and European democracy. Does democracy mean shutting the mouths of those you disagree with? Wouldn’t Europe benefit from those who point out democratic mistakes? The United Kingdom clearly has a much longer democratic tradition than some Member States that only began to implement a democratic system and the Rule of Law in this generation.
Flaws are flagrant. The Brussels Politburo has NEVER yet implemented the requirements of the treaties for proper European elections! Europe has 28 national elections each fiddled and fixed by national government parties to exclude ‘critics’ they call populists! What democrats!
Then they think British MEPs should leave as soon as the legally dubious Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is activated.
Wrong!
This process as well as the Lisbon Treaty itself is illegal!
Europeans need a European Election. That’s common sense. It’s also what the treaties require! The Brussels Politburo has NEVER yet implemented the requirements of the treaties for proper European elections!
Some Brexiteers are also confused or ignorant.
In a BBC interview UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson suggested the two-year Brexit process should be over before May 2019 so UK need not elect MEPs in the European Parliament elections that month.
Not so.
Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty replaced Article 240 of the European Economic Community Treaty. This Article said that the Treaty was ‘concluded for an unlimited period.’ Lawyers called this the ‘permanency clause‘ or the ‘perpetuity clause‘. They understood it to mean membership was permanent. It guaranteed that States would only seek democratic solutions in good faith.
Some politicians thought they could do better than the Founding Fathers. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to be more democratic than them and provide for an option for democrats to be undemocratic. In other words LEAVE Europe’s democratic institutions, rather than make them more democratic. The way they phrased the Exit Article 50, showed they lacked basic notions of both logic and democracy.
Here’s what Lord Kerr, the Secretary of the body, the Convention, that came up with this nonsense, said:

“I thought the circumstances in which it would be used, if ever, would be when there was a coup in a Member State and the EU suspended that country’s membership. … I thought that at that point the dictator in question might be so cross that he’d say ‘right, I’m off’ and it would be good to have a procedure under which he could leave.” He said he never envisioned that a British government might resort to it.

That shows that something is morally off-track. In Brussels and Strasbourg. The UK should never have been forced into a position that people thought that the only way to deal with Brussels chicanery would be to vote to Leave.
But it is worse than that. Article 50 is also illegal by national and international law. These crazy revisers of the European Economic treaty did not directly change the Treaty of Rome. They presented their EXIT clause first in what they called the “Constitution”– in reality a treaty called the Constitutional Treaty. It was written by the “Convention”of which as mentioned Lord Kerr was the Secretary and Valery Giscard d’Estaing was chairman. What is now Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was word for word Article 59 of the Constitutional Treaty.
What many MEPs and many of the Politburo refuse to acknowledge — YET — is that Article 50 is illegal. Why? Because the whole of the Constitutional Treaty was put to the vote in France and elsewhere. The people voted it down. It is null and void. In the French Constitution Article 3:

“National sovereignty is vested in the people, who shall exercise it through their representatives and by means of a Referendum. No section of the people, nor any individual may arrogate to itself or himself the exercise thereof.”

Hence Article 50 Also Known As Article 59 is dead. It is illegal to use it! But French politicians forced the exact same treaty through their Parliament by dubious means. By their own Constitution, French politicians cannot overturn the French Referendum NON.
The French political class know the Lisbon Treaty article 50 is a fraud. This is what the French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron said when I asked him about it.

Was it a good idea not to take the first referendum NON seriously? Should governments purposefully prevent the French people from having its voice as sovereign power?
“It was a mistake,” he told me.

Most lawyers are hard-pressed to find the equivalent example of an Exit Clause in any Union of States. The first Constitution of the Soviet Union in 1919 is one notable exception. But whether it had theoretical or practical value is a matter of doubt.
It is common sense that a democratic organization should improve itself by becoming more democratic, not by rejecting criticism and causing the messenger to leave. That is why all three Communities (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) have articles to revise and improve the their treaties. The concept introduced with Maastricht to make a single bag treaty with targets and goals in a wide variety of sectors and domains (external affairs, Justice, Home Affairs etc) shows that politicians had already lost the plot about democratic legitimacy, accountability and popular support of such measures by referendums. They were more interested in establishing personal power.
However, the second Treaty of Rome, the Euratom Treaty was not affected by their fiddlings. Euratom has exactly the same wording in its Article 208. It also has the same institutions. It is not affected by Lisbon’s Article 50. Membership of the European Atomic Energy Community is permanent.
So is UK’s obligation in the Euratom Treaty to hold elections for the European Parliament in 2019. Come what may!
Check it out all the details! CLICK HERE : Brexit and Britain’s Vision for Europe at special discount prices

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.

HURRY! HURRY! HURRY!
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.

TRUE DEMOCRACIES
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. 

EIGHT TO ONE AGAINST
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.

Scotland

• Scottish devolution referendum, 1979, on whether there should be a Scottish Assembly (small majority voted yes, but fell short of the 40% threshold required to enact devolution)
• Scottish devolution referendum, 1997, Two questions: On whether there should be a Scottish Parliament (yes); On whether a Scottish Parliament should have tax varying powers (yes)
• Scottish independence referendum, 2014 on the question “Should Scotland be an independent country?”, 18 September 2014 (no)

Wales

• Welsh devolution referendum, 1979, on whether there should be a Welsh Assembly (no)
• Welsh devolution referendum, 1997, on whether there should be a National Assembly for Wales (yes)
• Welsh devolution referendum, 2011, on whether the National Assembly should have increased law-making powers (yes)

Northern Ireland

• Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum, 1973, on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom (UK) or join the Republic of Ireland (No)
• Northern Ireland Belfast Agreement referendum, 1998, on the Good Friday Agreement (yes)

ARTICLE 50 IS ILLEGAL!
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.


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.
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.

LISBON TREATY MINEFIELD
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!