The original concept of supranational democracy for Europe brought long-lasting peace to the Continent. EU's founder Robert Schuman described democracy as being in the service of the people and acting in agreement with the people. What's going on today? See also www.schuman.info and http://democracy.blogactiv.eu .
Seventy years ago, the French Prime Minister Robert Schumanwas faced with two major dangers to the State. A powerful Communist party plotted with the Kremlin to draw France behind the Iron Curtain. On the right, nationalist and Gaullist forces wanted to replace party politics with an autocracy. Instead Schuman not only thwarted their conspiracies but laid the foundations of democracy in France and more importantly in Europe. #EU70 celebrates this birth of European democracy. Schuman created the conditions for thirty years of 5 percent growth and prosperity.
His secret? Europe should be self-governed by free citizens with five OPEN institutions, not by Machiavellian politburos. All governments can tend to self-serving despotism. How can it be combatted? Individuals, associations and nations must be allowed to express their views and interests in open, democratic investigative debate and decision-making.
Today Europe and USA are the major powers on earth. That position is being attacked again by internal and external enemies. Europe is faced with the antidemocratic manipulation of Schuman’s key innovation in Europe’s supranational democracy. The European Commission is meant to be totally non-political and non-partisan. It should acts a Jury and Honest Broker for all Europeans. De Gaulle wished to turn the European Commission into his political secretariat. The neo-Gaullist take-over of the European Commission is being attempted by a Politburo, known as the Spitzenkandidat system. Contrary to the European treaties, it disenfranchises nearly all European citizens in favour of a secretive group of unelected politicians. It turns an impartial Jury into their political cartel.
In the next few days and weeks, the greatest earthquake in America’s democratic history is likely to explode. This will expose the complicity and capture of US intelligence agencies — which are supposed to be fighting crime. Evidence in Top Secret documents, now published, reveals how the agencies top brass subverted the data gathering and spying into the domestic political arena. President Donald Trump is set to require the Justice Department to authorize the release of a a further memo summarising the whole affair. The Department of Justice is reluctant to force this process of justice. Why? Because the Obama Justice Department seems up to its neck in this abuse of power and crimes of State.
However the Washington Post is now recording that President Trump will insist on publishing the four-page summary of thousands of pages of the allegedly criminal and traitorous goings-on. The material is far more explosive than Watergate. It was prepared by the House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep Devin Nunes, after reading the ‘jaw-dropping’ Top Secret material. It will reveal:
Who is behind the Dirty Dossier that tried to implicate Trump with Moscow prostitutes,
Who paid for the dossier,
Which private companies were illegally given citizens’ private data,
What was the relationship with its author British spy Christopher Steele and Hillary Clinton,
How much the Democratic National Committee was involved,
Whether the dossier was ever vetted,
Whether the dirty dossier was used in court proceedings to spy on Trump,
What the surveillance court said about this attempt to use spy data in politics,
Who was behind the antidemocratic plot.
What we know so far.
On 17 November 2016, right after the election, the NSA (National Surveillance Agency) head Admiral Rogers warned President Trump that his transition team in Trump Towers was under surveillance by the FBI and CIA. The CIA, the external spy agency, is not allowed by law to spy on American citizens. Nor is the FBI allowed to spy on innocent citizens without a warrant. But the NSA had detected unusual activity in the data scoops. However nothing stops the CIA from asking a friendly foreign spy agency to spy on American citizens. But it is also illegal for any US agency to pass secrets on to private spy groups like Fusion GPS — who created the Russian dossier.
That’s when Trump spoke out. However, like a chorus, the main news media called this ‘Fake `news’.
Some Fake News!
Some Fake Media!
For eight years the media had been accustomed to the Obama presidency using the the agencies and supposedly impartial ministries for political purposes. Were the US main-stream media being paid to take this anti-Trump position and ignore any news investigation? The media reported that a Trump victory was impossible.
REUTERS OCTOBER 10, 2016 / 5:56 PM
As of last week, Clinton’s White House chances 95 percent: Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation
NEW YORK (Reuters) – Even before Sunday night’s vicious presidential debate, Republican Donald Trump was losing ground in many of the states he needs to win to capture the presidency, according to the latest Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation Project analysis released on Monday.
Even after the election, the Democrats, in cahoots with the agencies, thought that they would be able to control Trump or get him out by fair means or foul.
One attempt was to use the Fake Russian Dossier, prepared by private sector spy company, Fusion GPS, and the Democrat National Committee (DNC) paid for by the corrupt, now defunct, Clinton Foundation. The Foundation was then dictating Democratic Party management and money.
The farcical dirty dossier story was that Trump had been recorded by Russian intelligence when he hired prostitutes in a Moscow hotel. Trump was not that naive. He had warned his own staff against doing such stupid things in Russia. Besides, Trump declared, he was a bacteriophobe. He would not by any means get involved in the unhygienic practices in the dossier. The germs came from the Swamp.
Trump’s efforts to ‘clean up the Washington Swamp‘ could have major positive effects in helping Europe’s flagging democracy. Decades of bipartisan political fraud on both sides of the Atlantic could be exposed to public debate. The media may also begin to act as an investigative guardian of democracy rather than purveyor of ‘Fake News‘.
The Fake Dossier not only proved itself a fraud but backfired on its authors, showing it was a Clinton political fix-up and implicating the intelligence agencies as well.
When NSA’s Admiral Mike Rogers tried to bring the illegality of the CIA data sweeps before the intelligence court, the CIA tried to pre-empt him. The intelligence court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, known as the FISA court, rejected the proposal to agree to massive data hoovering of main info networks. The CIA tried to bolster its case by implicating Donald Trump as a Russian agent. Unfortunately for the plotters, there was not the slightest evidence. So a high level group in the CIA added the fake Russian dossier for a deeper sweep.
A 99 page court judgement was recently declassified, with key names still blacked out.
This is the Top Secret Memo giving the Opinion and Legal Order of the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court with the request initially under President Barack Hussein Obama for the spy Agencies spy to authorise surveillance not only Candidate Donald J Trump but President Trump and many US citizens.
The Spy Agencies concerned are Central Intelligence Agency, (CIA, external security), National Security Agency (NSA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI, US domestic agency), National Counter-Terrorism Center (NCTC).
The ‘section 702‘ submissions — permissions to spy externally or domestically on proven national security grounds — were made initially in September 2016 when Trump was a candidate for US presidency and, when this was turned down, a second one was made based on a Fake Dossier.
The Fake Dossier was added to give some substance to alleged Russian collusion with Trump — for which no evidence was able to be produced by the agencies. It is alleged that the Fake Dossier was originally put together anti-Trump Republicans and then paid for by the Democratic National Council, which was at the time controlled by Candidate Hillary Clinton, plus the FBI. For more information on the four page memo produced by Rep Nunes team, check #releasethememo .
What was the most important date in post-war European history? Some historians would say all European history as it changed Europe for ever.
Who made the real turning point where his government created a
democratic solution for the whole Continent, its politics, economics and
its defence? Robert Schuman in 1948!
EU70 comes the year after EU’s Brussels “elite” mistakenly celebrated EU60!
The distinguished French professor of history, Jean-Baptiste Duroselle said that the date of 20 July 1948 must be considered as the real turning point of European history. It was a new point of departure.
“For the first time a government officially presented a
project aimed at the construction of Europe. While the idea of
supranationality was not clearly delineated, it seems that the project
implied it. Before 1914, Europe was only conceived in terms of
equilibrium or balance of power.”
At the start of the 20th century, the system of alliances Europe into
two blocs, he wrote. The European equilibrium, was, as US President
Wilson stated, the deep cause of the Great War. The interwar initiative
of Briand tried to shape an entity called Europe within the global
system of the League of Nations. Aristide Briand did not propose
something new. To attribute the paternity of a governmental initiative
for present-day European construction to Briand would be to commit
a dangerous anachronism, warned Duroselle.
After
World War II ended, Europeans started to turn their minds to rebuilding
the ruins of broken cities and industries. But they were immediately
faced with other matters of life and death. The Soviet Union, USSR,
occupied eastern and central Europe. During the war, Communist party
cadres from Germany, Poland, Hungary and other countries were trained in
Moscow about how to seize power at war’s end. They knew where the main
levers of power were in each country and how to subvert parliaments
even with a small Communist party.
As Winston Churchill put it in his famous Fulton, Missouri speech on the Iron Curtain on 5 March 1946:
“From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain
has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the
capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw,
Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all
these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must
call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in one form or another, not
only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in some cases,
increasing measure of control from Moscow. … The Communist parties,
which were very small in all these Eastern States of Europe, have been
raised to pre-eminence and power far beyond their numbers and are
seeking everywhere to obtain totalitarian control. Police governments
are prevailing in nearly every case, and so far, except in
Czechoslovakia, there is no true democracy.”
He added:
“The
safety of the world, ladies and gentlemen, requires a new unity in
Europe, from which no nation should be permanently outcast. It is from
the quarrels of the strong parent races in Europe that the world wars we
have witnessed, or which occurred in former times, have sprung.”
A few days later on Bastille Day that year Churchill met with Robert Schuman in Metz, France and delivered his first great European speech.
Schuman was then Minister of Finance for France. France was in deep
danger of being sucked into the Soviet sphere. The French Communist
party was the country’s largest. It tried to take over parliament. US
diplomats warned President Truman that France too could fall. But by
late 1947, Schuman had become Prime Minister. He showed iron-willed
opposition to Communist threats, revolutionary strikes and sabotage.
Schuman also prevented a future war by gradually changed the nationalistic policies of the Gaullists
who wanted a land-grab of territory up to the Rhine. De Gaulle was no
longer in power but was still a powerful influence in parliament and in
mass rallies. De Gaulle’s followers tried opportunistically to bring
down the Schuman government by voting and working in lock-step with the
Communists’ insurrection. In
the last days of his first government, Schuman made a decisive step
that has affected all Europeans ever since. First, his government,
working with UK’s foreign Minister, Ernest Bevin, created a defensive
pact, known as the Brussels Treaty Organization. Ostensibly, the pact of
France, UK and the Benelux countries was to guard against further
German aggression. Schuman’s foreign minister Georges Bidault was very
nervous about openly declaring it was to prevent Soviet invasion.
Schuman much less so.
On 19-20 July 1948 Bidault delivered Schuman’s message to the foreign
ministers of the Brussels Pact, meeting in The Hague. It astounded them
too. Bidault described Belgium’s foreign minister, Paul-Henri Spaak as a
man hard to surprise. On making his speech, Bidault said his eyes were
extraordinarily round with shock.
“We are at a moment, perhaps unique in history, where it is possible to create Europe,” said Bidault.
He made two propositions.
The first proposition was to create a European parliamentary assembly.
It would be made up initially of parliamentarians of national bodies
and also open to other nations who wished to apply. The second was for
an economic and customs union for the six countries, to which other nations could apply to join.
“Thus in the economic sphere the Common Market was
created and from the political perspective, the Assembly of the Council
of Europe in Strasbourg. In spite of all later obstacles and violent
opposition to these two ideas, both of them have flourished,” Bidault
wrote.
A
third major institution arose out of Schuman’s initiative at the
Brussels Pact. Washington required a demonstration of Europeans’
willingness to defend itself before it could politically commit its
forces to Europe again. With the Berlin blockade that year, and
following Schuman’s lead, talks began with USA and Canada to create
NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It entered force around
the same time as the Council of Europe began its sessions in summer
1949.
This year 2018 represents the 70th birthday of that positive turning point, #EU70.
Speaking after the visit of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to
Brussels, the EU’s foreign policy chief, Frederica Mogherini made an
astonishing declaration of ignorance.
Again!
“We always say that the Two State Solution is the only realistic
one,” she said. “I have not heard by anyone or from anyone, not only in
the last weeks but in the last decades any other idea than Two States to
preserve Israeli security. The Palestinians need to have their own
country under their own authority.” One reinforced with Hamas,
weaponized by Iran, and aimed at the destruction of Israel? Or one with a
democratic, peaceful government that does not glorify terrorism and
holocaust denial?
Urging the EU to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Mr
Netanyahu said: “While I respect Europe, I am not prepared to accept a
double standard from it.”
It is a pity the Israeli Prime Minister does not make more frequent
visits to point out Europe’s blatant hypocrisy. The previous visit by an
Israeli prime minister was 22 years ago. So much for the allegedly
powerful Israeli lobby! The PA’s unelected Mr Abbas, recipient of EU
millions, comes quite regularly without stopping at the press room to
explain why he pays salaries to those who murder children. Under
the British Mandate, “Palestinian” was the term for JEW! Hence we could
also add to hypocrisy theft of nationality (by the Soviet KGB
Disinformation service). “Palestinians” are not mentioned in the famous
1967 UN Resolution 242. Why? Because they did not exist.
The real Palestinians had changed their nationality to Israeli.
In 1964 Egypt’s dictator Nasser and the Soviet communists invented
the Palestine Liberation Organization to arabize and communize the
entire territory of the Palestinian Mandate. That included the “kingdom”
across the Jordan!
For a viable solution perhaps High Representative Mogherini should
look further back in time. Let’s say before she was born in 1973.
Perhaps she should also look at home, to the European Community system
itself, the astonishing Schuman Plan principle! That brought real change and peace to former Nazis, communists and antisemites! It attacked the core problem. The Community System has powerful tools to disarm globalist cartels
— international cartels that control Europe’s economy and finance and
block free media. They were among the main causes of two world wars. The
Community created the world’s first international anti-cartel system. BUT IT IS NOT BEING USED AGAINST THE OIL CARTEL.
Jerusalem politics has become Europe’s Stupid Zone. Europe proved
many, many times that the “Two State Solution” does not work. European
experience extends not just over the last decades but over a period of
more than two thousand years!
The Two State Solution coincides with the first major attempt to
blackmail Western Europe’s Foreign Policy. It dates from the 1967 Six
Day war. This year is the fiftieth birthday! Oil Blackmail will not bring peace!
It should be recalled that in 1967, there was little that could be
called European Foreign Policy. Foreign policy was a national affair.
The European Communities provided the only legitimate authority and
framework. They could make international agreements only in very
specific sectors.
The European Coal and Steel Community was founded when coal was the main fuel in Europe. Euratom
was created to exploit the oil-free energy of the nuclear industry and
provide for nuclear non-proliferation. The European Economic Community
with its Customs Union brought the dimension of international trade
agreements. Only these three Communities could make legal, European law.
The founding father of European unity, Robert Schuman (initiator of the European Communities,
the Council of Europe, NATO) was sensitive to real Arab interests.
Algeria was then an integral part of France. France had colonies and
protectorates along the Mediterranean and in Africa. But with judgement
of a fine lawyer, he was pro-Israel and pro-truth. He was Prime Minister
in the crucial period of November 1947 to July 1948, and Foreign
Minister from 1948 to 1953. He instructed France to cast its United Nations vote in favor of Israel.
Warnings were made in the 1950s about Europe’s increasing reliance on
oil. The 1956 Suez crisis showed how fragile links to the Middle East
oil were. However despite attempts of the good Europeans to face up to
potential Islamist energy blackmail by combining the defense of the
three Communities, the policy was blocked by one factor. General de Gaulle took power in 1957. He changed the foreign policy of energy-poor France from pro-Europe, pro-Israel to a pro-Arab one because of oil.
That was myopic.
In the 1967 oil crisis France got off the hook. But the Arab oil
exporters wanted to use the Oil Weapon to change the foreign policy of
the other major States. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Libya, and Algeria
stopped oil shipments to the United States, West Germany and United
Kingdom (not yet a member of the Communities). Why? Because they didn’t
insist Israel return to pre-1967 borders. And they weren’t friendly to
Islamic indoctrination.
That is the real birth of oil blackmail aimed at dictating to the
world an Islamist, anti-Israel foreign policy. Although the British came
up with a two State solution first, it was as a temporary political
measure.
In 1923 the British lobbed off the biggest chunk of the Palestine
Mandate territory east of the Jordan and ‘gave’ it to the Hashemite
Abdullah, expelled from Arabia and dismissed from Iraq. (They weren’t
allowed to take over Syria.)
Bad move! That action was without full legal approval of the League
of Nations. No other European State recognized the Trans-Jordan. Nor did
Saudi Arabia under the Wahabis. Nor any other country who fancied
getting some oil. Only Pakistan. In 1937 the British suggested a two
State solution in the Peel White Paper to further skin Israel. It had no
traction. In 1948 Hashemite Trans-Jordan illegally occupied half of
Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria
In 1973 the Arab Oil Exporting Countries (OAPEC) again deployed the
Oil Weapon to change global politics. It first tried a total petroleum
embargo for some States, cutting oil deliveries 5 percent per month for
others. Then it quadrupled the price, reducing the European economy to
shatters. It also imposed poverty and seemingly endless wars on
developing countries. Then it quadrupled the prices again. So much for
Saudi sympathy to fellow Arabs, and even less for Europeans.
If the EU foreign policy chief cannot imagine any other policy than
Saudi Arabia’s anti-democratic Two State Solution, 1967 borders and
divided Jerusalem, it is because she and many of her officials are now
the defenders of Saudi oil blackmail policy. It rules in Europe and at
the United Nations. They drank it in with their mother’s milk.
For decades after WW2, the price of oil was under two dollars a
barrel. It gave Arab oil exporters fat profits, yachts and a playboy
lifestyle. Two dollars then is equivalent to under 10 dollars today.
Massive oilfields have since been discovered.
After WW2, thanks to the Community system,
Europe’s growth was continuously more than 5 percent for thirty
glorious years. De Gaulle put Europe’s anti-cartel tools in the wood
shed, and shut the doors. Schuman was written out of history.
Europe became the passive victim of a Trillion Dollar Rip-Off.
The Oil Weapon and the Two State Solution Blackmail reduced the European economy to a horse-driven van. Foreign Policy became
“Yes, OPEC Cartel, sir, we believe in the Two State Solution and deny ourselves an independent opinion about Arabs, Islam, democracy, European values and truth! With oil, truth is so slippery! We dhimmis adhere to your Fake History and Fake News!”
Under the Oil Cartel OPEC, the price rose to near 150 dollars a
barrel. At that point, the oil blackmail graft amounted to about ten
percent of global GDP. Some blackmail! Saudi Aramco is the richest company in the world bar none. Europe became its dhimmis, its slaves and tax mules.
Wake up Europe! Put an end to hypocrisy and blackmail! Open the doors!
When President Trump confirmed Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the EU warned of Dark Days ahead. Is Jerusalem the light of the world? Does it throw light on Europe's black record?
“President Trump’s announcement on Jerusalem has a very worrying
potential impact,” EU’s Foreign Policy chief, Frederica Mogherini, said
in Brussels. Making a surprise, unannounced visit to the EU
Commission’s press room, she forecast that “it has a very fragile
context and thus the potential to send us backwards to even darker
times than the ones we are already living in.”
What on earth did she mean?
What are the darkest days of Europe’s post-war history? Has she forgotten? Oil is blacker than midnight.
Well she has an excuse. She was only a few months old at the time of
the Yom Kippur war. That took place in October 1973. It was the year of
blackest Blackmail.
Europe is still held hostage. Its Foreign Policy is still owned by the oil sheiks.
Proof? The Saudis and others turn the oil spigot off at will. The
supply diminishes, the price rockets. The European consumer consistently
pays six or eight times the free market price for petroleum. Or twenty
times on occasion, a 2000 percent price hike! (Where a non-cartel oil
producer sells on the free market a highly profitable price lies
between between five to ten dollars a barrel.)
If the EU had a self-respecting Foreign Policy it would defend its
citizens from such predatory international cartels as OPEC, now working
in cahoots with Russia. Global cartels would not be artificially
hoisting energy prices. They would not be attacking the European economy
like blood-sucking leaches.
Second proof. The EU now feels confidence enough to bring anti-cartel
measures against American-based modern industries such as Microsoft and
Apple. But what about oil? For that the EU External Action Service has
no fuel in its tank.
The high cost of imported energy amounts to two or three times the
entire EU budget. It could be a fraction of that if the EU had a real
Foreign Policy. Europeans would get a boost on a prosperous economic
up-curve.
Third proof. The Community system has the power potential to stop
international cartels. Action depends on the will of its foreign policy
operators. At the start of the EU with its European Coal and Steel Community,
ECSC, the Commission, then called the High Authority, dismantled the
greatest threat to world war. Even in the early months of its action, it
was able to dismantle the steel, coal and armaments cartels that were
the cause not only of the WW2 but WW1. Robert Schuman created the ECSC and Euratom to enable Europe to be energy-independent. Today’s EU leaders think they know better.
In August 1973 Saudi's King Faisal warned
USA and the world that it would use its Oil Weapon to break any
country's independent foreign policy supporting Israel. Then came war. Following the October 1973 Egyptian attack on Israel, Arab nations were
surprised then shocked to see Israel was not crumbling like tissue
paper. In fact Israel was winning.
That was the year when the Arab OPEC countries attacked Europe. The
Arab League told the Europeans that if they did not immediately cease
from supporting Israel they would get not one drop of oil. They imposed a
100 percent embargo on Europe. No more oil. The European economy went
into a nosedive. Some countries like the Netherlands and Denmark were
totally dependent on Arab oil. They were only saved from utter ruin by
emergency European measures and sharing, thanks to the European Community’s single market established in 1953.
Did the Europeans stand up with back straight and tell the sheiks where
to go? What did they respond honestly and frankly to King Faisal who
only a few years earlier, to show his civilization, had issued a decree
outlawing slavery in his kingdom? At last! For the first time in a
millennium thousands of slaves gained their freedom. During the 1967
Six Day War, the Arab oil exporters had already cut oil by 60 percent to Europe. Had the Europeans learned lessons about potential financial slavery in 1973?
Hardly.
A meeting of European foreign policy chiefs just a few weeks later on 5
November 1973 issued a Joint Declaration on the situation in the
Middle East.
Defiance? A search for justice and truth? None of it. It spoke of the
legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. That was the first time
they had done so. And there is a good reason why. They bought a lie to
get oil. They all knew how Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt maltreated and confined their so-called 'Palestinian refugees.'
Palestinians? Up to the Declaration of Independence by David Ben-Gurion’s government in May
1948, only Jews were known as Palestinians. They were people of the
British Mandate for Palestine.
Under the British Mandate, Arabs preferred to be called by their tribes,
Southern Syrians, Egyptians, Saudis or Bedouins. Readers of the Jerusalem Post should know that at this time it was known as the Palestine Post.
The parents of Moshe Dayan, hero of the Six Day War, held British passports declaring they were Palestinians.
Dvora Dayan, Palestinian wife of a Palestinian
But the term Palestinian was not long thrown away in the
dustbin of history. Nasser, the Egyptian dictator, working with the USSR
Disinformation Department of the KGB pulled it out of the trash. The
Arab League met in Cairo in 1964. They created the fake Palestine Liberation Organization, to foment trouble with the Soviets’ many other anti-colonist terrorist groups. After the 1967 war, the brutal Egyptian-born Yasser Arafat became its third chairman in 1969.
Remember at that time Palestine meant the geographical area of the British Mandate. In the League’s Mandate Article 7, ONLY Jews were given Palestinian citizenship!
This was agreed by the world's powers -- including the Arab States!
"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,
to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the
administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to
the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,
by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said
Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home
for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should
be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing
non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status
enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
Whereas recognition has
thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people
with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home
in that country; ...
ARTICLE 7.
The
Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a
nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed
so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."
The Palestinian National Charter
or Convention glosses over any precise legal and political issues, and
legitimate identity, by confounding the geographical term with broad
brush appeal to the Arab nation. Warning! Disinformation and Fake History!
There was never in history an Arab
nation called Palestine or an Arab people called Palestinians. Neither
was Jerusalem ever a capital of an Arab State. It is the 3000 year old
capital of Israel that is today legally
occupied. No "Palestinians" are mentioned in the famous 1967 UN
Resolution 242. Why? No such people existed! Jordanians, the Hashemite
Arabs expelled from Mecca who illegally occupied the vast, eastern
Mandate trans-Jordan territory, had in 1948 occupied Judea and Samaria and East
Jerusalem illegally and militarily. Warning! Disinformation uses the same words but changes their meanings. The Palestinian National Charter
or Convention glosses over any precise legal and political issues,
and legitimate identity, by confounding the geographical term with
broad brush appeal to the Arab nation.
There was never in history an Arab nation called Palestine or an Arab
people called Palestinians. Neither was Jerusalem ever a capital of an
Arab State. It is the 3000 year old capital of Israel that is today legally
occupied. No “Palestinians” are mentioned in the famous 1967 UN
Resolution 242. Why? No such people existed! Jordanians occupied Judea
and Samaria and East Jerusalem illegally.
Article 1:
Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an
indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an
integral part of the Arab nation.
Article 2:
Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
It is this poisoned, drugged cake that the Europeans began to
bite into when they made a Joint Declaration, under the informal,
non-legal framework known as Political Cooperation.
Having seen the Europeans scattered like flocks of sheep before
ravenous wolves, an Arab delegation descended uninvited on the European
Summit at Copenhagen on 14-15 December 1973. I witnessed the shock of European leaders! They were discussing
'European identity'. In a reference to the planned new holocaust of Jews
and the near lethal attack on European economy, they referred to these
black events with diplomatic circumlocution as the 'energy crisis'.
"The Heads of State or Government considered that the situation produced by the energy crisis is a threat to the world economy as a whole, affecting not only developed but also developing countries."
As the Arabs worried that total subjection of the European economy might slip out
of their control, as other energy sources became available, OPEC
quadrupled the price of oil to turn open blackmail into long-term
financial blackmail. Then they slapped Europe again to make Europeans sure
they knew who was boss. The prices were quadrupled again in 1979,
reducing Europe’s huge financial surplus to desperation and
impoverishment.
The other side of the ledger is bulging. The multi-trillion dollar Saudi Aramco
is by far the richest company in the world. It has ample resources to
pay the best public relations and media. It can easily oil the wheels
of politics. Such was the way in the 1960s when PR firms recast the
embarrassing terminology that the United Nations had used. Samaria (the capital province of the Israelites) and
Judea (the tribal land of the Jews) became the West Bank.
In July of the black year of 2008, the Islamist wrecking ball smashed again. It took a decade to wind up OPEC's explosive demolition machine. Twice as high as before!
The petroleum cartel
jacked the price up to 147 dollars a barrel. It pilfered from the world
economy more than ten percent of global GNP. Again the world fell into
destitution. (In 1972 oil was under two dollars!)
But recent events have cooled this theft. Shale oil and gas and the
arrival at last of more intelligent energy sources threaten the future
of the blackmailers. Hence the major changes in the Arab world.
Europeans are slow and too arthritic to escape from hostage today. Mme
Mogherini’s reaction is typical of the Stockholm syndrome of captives
defending the hostage-taker. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson needs
to spend more time in Brussels to bring those living in the dark into
the light of day. May the captives gain their freedom!
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? FAKE DEMOCRACY!
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?
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.
Schuman’s Proposal saved Europe from catastrophic wars. The EEC Customs Union didn’t.
The ECSC created Europe’s first Single Markets in 1953. Rome didn’t.
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.’
Wrong!
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.
How?
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.
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.
Politics.
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!
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!
What THEFT!
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.
