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

UK High Court exposes underhand Brussels Brexit plot

Brussels leadership is exposed as insolent tricksters! That is the implication of the UK High Court. Autocracy has no place in a real democracy, whether in London or Brussels.
The UK Parliament will fully discuss Brexit before it can leave under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaties. The High Court has ruled against Prime Minister Theresa May’s autocratic concept of Brexit that requires no real debate. It is known as the Henry VIII clause option. With reason. This is a pseudo-royal prerogative that politicians believe they have acquired. It dates from the 1539 Statute of Proclamations. Politicians are not kings. Nor is Mrs May a queen. Democracy is about people. Their ministers are servants not monarchs.
Instead of such comprehensive regal powers that would make 10 Downing Street a royal palace, the matter of Brexit will have to be discussed on the floors of the two Houses of Parliament.
The High Court re-affirmed that, even if prerogative powers remain for international treaties, the powers cannot be used in the case of the referendum, because Membership of the Communities has provided privileges and laws in the domestic sphere. These must be taken into account. Nor can the Secretary of State use the Crown’s powers to take away the rights of citizens.
The High Court with three of UK’s top judges, Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Sales gave a unanimous verdict.
They gave a striking rebuff to the three Brussels leaders, Presidents Juncker, Schulz and Tusk. In the early morning of 24 June 2016, barely hours after the first results of the 23 June referendum were published, they gave their verdict. They demanded the UK leave the EU within hours of the referendum results. The Three demanded that the UK leave the EU “rapidly however painful it might be”. They told British MEPs to quit the European Parliament chamber immediately.
Pardon! Your ulterior motives and dirty tricks are showing Sirs!
Curious! The High Court judges made clear that the result of the referendum was purely advisory. That was well known to the public before. I wrote about it as an advisory referendum. The Brussels TopPols simply ignored this fact and tried to bluster the UK out of the EU. They showed abysmal ignorance, bad faith or anti-democratic collusion. Which? They have no excuse. It should have been abundantly clear to the Commission, European Parliament and the Council. Their buildings are stuffed to the gunnels with lawyers.
The referendum had no binding legal power over the government or parliament. This is what the High Court gave as judgement in paragraphs 105-111.

“The Referendum Act 2016 {does not supply} statutory power for the Crown to give notice under Article 50. This Act fails to be interpreted in light of the basic constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy which apply in the United Kingdom, which lead to the conclusion that 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.
“Further the 2015 Referendum Act was passed against a background including a clear briefing paper to parliamentarians that the referendum would have advisory effect only. Moreover parliament must have appreciated that the referendum was intended to be advisory only as the result of the vote in the referendum in favour of leaving the European Union would inevitably leave for future decision many important questions relating to legal implementation of withdrawal from the European Union.”

It concludes:

“The Secretary of State does not have power under the Crown prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 of the TEU for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union.”

First we should analyse what would make a Brexit decision really legally sound in British law. A referendum vote could be definitive. The High Court does not rule out that parliament could make the referendum legally binding IF it specifies this exactly in legislation.
Referendums were an ancient part of pre-Roman British culture. They also held the principle that the country (that is the expressed voice in a referendum) was above the prince.

Then came the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, and the Normans. For many centuries in the later medieval period the idea of a referendum was lost by the British public because of monarchic autocracy. The ancient British laws are mentioned in the Magna Carta of 1215. That does not mean that the monarchy does not have an important role to play in a constitutional decision. Obviously it does and it is central.
In a democracy the monarchy cannot publish autocratic royal decrees that ignore the will of the people. That would place a monarchy in the category of a dictatorship or at best something like the pseudo-monarchy of France’s Charles de Gaulle. He had the sole vote that counted. (De Gaulle vetoed UK’s candidature for the European Communities twice in a disdainful way during press conferences and once via his instructions to his foreign minister. He did not discuss the matter with his government before he made his decrees.)

Now it is the Brussels Politburo which is acting like little Napoleons, if not kinglets. The big fall-out will hit Brussels and its Politburo (largely unelected!). The Politburo has assumed the mantle of Charles de Gaulle and failed to see that it leaves the little emperors without clothes! De Gaulle buried the Community’s own Magna Carta. that Schuman called the Charter of the Community. Brussels follows suit. It has been attempting to reverse all aspect of European-level democracy. What sort of democracy in any Member State would act in such an imperious way as the Brussels Politburo? It tells some States like Ireland and Denmark to reverse legally binding referendums. It tells the Greeks how to vote in the euro referendum and then forces its government to act contrary to the people’s result. It tells the UK it must obey immediately an advisory referendum.
Britain has a long democratic tradition. The British democratic process is far from finished before the government can even think of sending a letter under Article 50 of the (fraudulent) Lisbon Treaty. The three other national governments (Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) want their say.
Wales First Minister Carwyn Jones says it is a mistake for the government to appeal against the High Court ruling – and repeated his view that the devolved administrations should also get a vote on Mrs May’s Brexit negotiating position. “It is important that votes take place in all four nations to endorse the UK negotiating position.”
The Community was originally based on the highest standards of democracy. Many Britons would agree with Robert Schuman, the founder of the European Community system, that

“some monarchies such as Great Britain, Belgium and Holland, if we only refer to our nearest neighbours, are more clearly and traditionally attached to democratic principles than some republics where the people have only little direct influence on the direction and political decisions of the country.” (Brexit and Britain’s Vision for Europe, p 5.)

Check it out all the details! CLICK HERE : Brexit and Britain’s Vision for Europe at special discount prices

Shimon Peres and the Miracles of Israel and Europe

 
Shimon Peres who died yesterday was a man of singular achievements, discernment but also a certain myopia of our new age.
At the time when Robert Schuman was French Prime Minister in 1947-8, Peres spearheaded with French help Israeli defense of its new State. Later, when Schuman was still a major influence in French government, he helped build Israel’s nuclear program. In the 1950s Israel was threatened with destruction with hostile nations, led by the rabid rant of Jewish ethnocide of Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser.
They were remarkable times, not only in living memory. They were miraculous times in the history of our planet.
Peres was an acute observer of current events and perspicacious of the import of those events in the broader span of history. This is what he told the European Parliament on 12 March 2013.

Israel was born from the ashes at the end of the Second World War. If someone had stood up then and said that within three years a Jewish state would be created – he would have been considered a delirious visionary.
But the dream became a reality.
And if somebody would have stood up on that very day, and said that in six short years a new united Europe would be born, with borders erased, barriers lowered, he would have been considered an author of fiction.
And another miracle occurred.
Six countries signed the Treaty of Paris and became a community of 27 nations across Europe.
Our relations here and now are a dialogue between two miracles.

A few days earlier on 7 March, Shimon Peres had visited the European institutions in Brussels.
To my knowledge on three separate occasions that day he spoke with of the two miracles of our time.
What did Peres mean by a ‘Dialogue of Miracles’?
The miracle of Israel was that for the first time in nearly two thousand years, Jews were no longer scattered and persecuted in just about every country were they settled. They were enslaved , provoked and killed for many reasons, often quite different ones in each of the countries.
Why?
For that, Peres had a quick answer. But he answered his own question. His question was “What was the greatest contribution that Jews made to the world?” His answer was “Dissatisfaction”. Jews always applied a critical attitude about how to make society better.
With the founding of the State of Israel, Jews and Hebrews applied that critical thinking to making a home and a home country. Today we know it as the “Start-up Nation”—a country with little or no natural resources that has made major achievements in science, medicine, industries and new discoveries, like no comparative area in the world.
The first miracle of the young State of Israel was the ability of those who had escaped or survived Hitler’s death camps to defend themselves against hordes of foes who wished to “drive them into the sea.” The Israeli miracle was one of defense. It was one of self-preservation by an almighty shield.
Europe’s miracle was not the same. Europeans were for two millennia a crazy quilt of armed societies. They had been at war with each other back into the dim recesses of history, before the times of the Romans. What was striking to anyone who reflects is that for the first time Europeans are at peace, children, parents, grandfathers and even great grandfathers have known peace for more than 70 years. Such a period is unprecedented.
So what of the Dialogue of Miracles? Wouldn’t such a combination be unbeatable, a society that flourishes, innovates and provides a unique example of restoration of Nature in a dry and barren land. The Desert shall bloom like a Rose. Much more. With less than 0.2 percent of the world’s population, Jews have globally gained 20 percent of Nobel Prizes. But Israel had no peace.
Is the world ready for the combination of European super-peace and Jewish super-accomplishment?
On his Brussels visit Peres was questioned about his early vision of a Community in the Near East. It would bring peace to the region like the first Community brought peace to Europe. Europe placed the materiel and instruments of war, coal and steel, under the rule of law and a High Authority of impartial, high moral character. Part of Schuman’s plans was the creation of solid guarantees for fundamental freedoms for all Europeans. How could the Near East initiate peace?
In the Near East Water is life. The idea of putting the water resources under a common authority dates back to the 1950s.
However, when he spoke to a packed audience in the Press Room of the Commission’s Berlaymont building, he had moved from Community solutions to the power of science and innovation. ‘Science is taking over the war of lands,’ he said. But he also conceded that ‘Terror has replaced armies.’ Science is neutral and can be used for good or evil. It depends on applying moral judgement.

Europe learned long ago that scientific prowess is no guarantee of peace. Rather it provides the means for mass and mutual destruction. Germany once had ‘Nazi science’ that banned Jews like Einstein. It is no sign of peace that Iran is on a headlong struggle with the civilized world to gain high-tech nuclear weapons. North Korea has impoverished its land in order to build rockets and nuclear bombs. Terror is based on ignorance and failure to answer basic questions. But it is a growing sort of globalism, as much as global companies are.

The Community was based on reinforcing Human Rights. Among the chief ones was the freedom of expression and freedom of religious belief. It is difficult for Islam to shake off 1200 years of considering Jews and Christians as infidels and second class citizens. That started in 705 and the pace of killings and expulsions from the Middle East is reaching a climax of paroxysm.
Israel has faced seven wars in its short history yet Peres seemed to neglect this Human Rights basis for peace. What caused this distortion of his vision? The reason was clear in the dogma that he reiterated like many others today. “The Two State Solution is the only solution.” For anyone who looks objectively at the record of woes and disaster in Europe, it would be more accurate to say: “The two State solution is the sure road to perpetual war.” That is the conclusion of Europe’s 2000 year history.
How did this deception arrive in Peres usually clear-thinking mind?
First there was the deception about Arafat as a partner for peace. Arafat was born in Egypt and was used by Nasser to start a war against Israel. Hafez al-Assad of Syria would have nothing to do with Yasser Arafat because Arafat’s Egyptian Arabic gave him away. Then he became the tool of the Russians in the Cold War period. The Soviets made him into a professional agent of influence.
The highest grade spy chief who defected to the West, Lt General Ion Mihai Pacepa of Romania, described the conversion from an Egyptian Marxist into a Palestinian nationalist.

The KGB, when I was still connected with it, went to great lengths to transform an Egyptian-born Marxist, Mohammed Yasser Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Quwa al-Husseini, nom de guerre Abu Ammar, into a Palestinian-born Yasser Arafat. It took the KGB — and {the Romanian} DIE – many years to endow Arafat with a credible Palestinian birth certificate and other identity documents, to build him a new past, and to train him at the KGB Balashikha special-operations training school east of Moscow. But as {KGB Chief} Andropov said, it was worth every minute. In 1994, the KGB-born-and-trained Arafat was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet in 2012 alone there was a recorded 13,494 incidents of terrorism against the Israelis, committed by Arafat’s PLO. More than six hundred civilians lost their lives. Six months later, the number of Israeli civilians killed by Arafat’s “martyrs” passed seven hundred. (Disinformation, page 289)

It is an extraordinary success of the Soviet disinformation services that even the term “Palestinian”which at the time of the British Mandate meant exclusively ‘Jewish’ came to mean Arab who claimed a fictitious “Palestinian” nationality. There was never any Arab state called Palestine. There is no Palestinian Arab history. The Arabs at the time of Israel’s independence called themselves southern Syrians. The Jerusalem Post was called the Palestine Post. What would today’s deceived 'intelligentsia’ say if it was still the Palestine Post? As I have shown earlier, the family of the Israeli war hero Moshe Dayan were called ‘Palestinian’ in the British Passport they held.

Arafat was the third head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization founded in 1964. The first was Ahmad Shuqeiri, a Lebanese-born politician of mixed Egyptian, Hijazi and Turkish origin who served as a representative with the Arab League. His policy was a call to arms to drive Israelis, then in a thin coastal strip, into the sea. The so-called ‘West Bank’ was called Judea, Samaria originally by the UN. It was then under illegal Jordanian occupation. The second chairman, from December 1967 to February 1969, was Yahaya Hammuda, a left-wing member of the executive from Lifta, on the outskirts of Jerusalem, the site of the biblical town of Nephtoah on the border between the Israelite tribal territories of Judah and Benjamin. Arafat became the leader of the PLO after his April 1968 meeting with Nasser. Their policy agreement was to feign moderation by saying the PLO was not aiming at the expulsion of Jews but only eliminating the State of Israel. They would build a multi-denominational democratic entity with Muslims and Jews side by side. Nasser underpinned this with funds and propaganda efforts.
Unfortunately even with the democracy of the Jewish State and scores of European States before their eyes, ‘Palestinian’ Arabs have failed to show they have yet understood democracy even for themselves. The Palestinian National Council’s Covenant rather gave the game away by re-affirming its determination for all to ‘carry on the armed struggle’ for ‘liberation ‘. They showed their meaning by war on civilians in a series of plane hijacks, not only of Israeli planes but European ones.
Was Peres seduced by this counterfeit plan? How did Peres turn from a Community vision of peace to one of the mantra of a Two State Dissolution of Israel?
The answer can be found in an ancient British saying. Three things well understood will bring Peace: the {calming} tendencies of Nature, the claims of Justice, and the Voice of Truth.
Clearly the PLO plan had little to commend it on the grounds of truth. As for Justice, the implicit political goal to eradicate the Jews showed it was consistent only with a Medina stratagem of dhimmitude and taqiya, institutional deception and lying.
Was Peres using a clever strategy to encourage the hostile forces of the PLO to wear themselves out by the inevitable soporific forces of Nature? Was he an arch-plotter who, according to some Arabs, created a scheme for Israelis to make more settlements in the ‘West Bank’ so they could eliminate the PLO?
Can we know?
It would seem that he had cooled to the European miracle as a Near East peace solution – to judge from his remarks in Brussels. Human Rights are a fundamental first step for a Community, where violations are subject to a Court of Law. Despite the glittering three Nobel Prizes for the “Oslo Solution” the PLO has not stopped glorifying its “martyrs” who massacre the innocent in restaurants and on buses. It has not conceded that Jews would be an active part of a so-called Palestinian State but rather desires a Judenrein area. The PLO seems less concerned about Human Rights and more indignant about building minor extensions to houses and additional accommodation.
Brussels too seems to confirm this prognostication. Bludgeoned by OPEC’s energy control of its economy, there seems no place more skeptical about its own miracle of peace than the elitist inheritors of Schuman’s work of peace. There are few more enthusiastic about driving Israel into the ‘Two State Solution’ cul-de-sac of the war path of Europe’s past.
A good memorial to Shimon Peres would be to reflect seriously about the Cause of Peace, human ‘genius’ and the real Master of History.

Brexit, a catastrophe for UK and EU or means to a Golden Age?

UK's referendum vote to LEAVE the European Union caught the Government, many Britons and the EU HQ in Brussels by surprise. 
Many are still in a state of shock. 
Why? 
Lack of preparedness for the hugely complex task. Will Brexit threaten the unity of the United Kingdom? Will Scotland leave the UK? Will the shock of losing EU's second power shatter the EU? 
This is what the eminent Constitutional Law Professor Dougan told the UK's Parliamentary Select Committee of the Treasury on Future relations with the EU.

Professor Dougan: EU legislation applies in the UK without any form of domestic transposition, either by Act of Parliament or by statutory instrument.  If we leave without having made a conscious political choice that that legislation needs to be replaced—whether it is replaced in the sense of pure replication or whether it is replaced in the sense of a new statutory regime that differs from the current norms—the danger is that will simply disappear from our legal system upon the point of withdrawal.  We will be left with legal vacuums where suddenly we do not have any regulation of important parts of the economy and society. 

This does not just apply to agriculture.  It applies to important parts of environmental policy and consumer rights.  It applies to quite significant parts of financial services regulation.  All across the legal system there are pockets of our law—EU regulations in particular—that will need to be put on to a firm statutory instrument basis.  If we do not do that, they will disappear.  To be frank, it will wreak havoc with the authority of public bodies to take legally binding decisions and with the legal relations of individuals and businesses.  It is a job that really needs to be done.  …

Professor Dougan: My main worry, which I know is widely shared by many of my colleagues in the field constitutional law, is that this is a job that cannot be done by Parliament alone.  It is simply too enormous.  In the timescale applicable, it is too enormous.  The only feasible, logistical way that we can see this being possible is to make an enormous delegation of power to the Executive.  You can have parliamentary scrutiny over the Executive actions.  Of course you can—you need to.  But in terms of doing such a degree of highly detailed technical work, which nevertheless involves important policy choices, it is very difficult for most constitutional lawyers to imagine how this Parliament could do that for itself in the timescales available.

Q88            Helen Goodman: Would you describe that delegation of power to the Executive as taking back control and reinforcing parliamentary sovereignty?

Professor Dougan: On any measure of ordinary constitutional theory, it would be seen as democratically highly problematic.

This book highlights a quite different potential. A Golden Age for Britain, for Europe and for the Planet! 

Brexit provides an extraordinary opportunity to relaunch Europe based on its founding principles. These brought the squabbling States of Europe their first real peace in more than 2000 years. A Golden Age for global trade, democracy and public happiness is possible. 
Will it happen? 
All this depends on starting discussions on the right basis, an ethical and moral one. This book shows how. Written by the Editor of the Schuman Project who has researched the origin, purpose and future of Europe's peace miracle, this book provides answers for success

HARD BACK    Soft Cover   eBook pdf

COMING SOON !! NEW BOOK ON BREXIT AND EU EXPOSES THE REAL FACTS!

We will be publishing in a few days

A complete, in-depth analysis of BREXIT.

BREXIT AND BRITAIN'S VISION FOR EUROPE

WHAT GOVERNMENTS DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW.

HARD BACK Soft Cover eBook pdf

 

Extracts will be published HERE !
FREE
and on   eurDemocracy.com
eurDemocracy means YOUR DEMOCRACY

• Will Brexit bring confusion on the Continent with more countries leaving?
• Will EU CRUMBLE?
• Can Britain prosper outside the EU?
• How will the USA and other major powers fare?

What did Robert Schuman mean by Democracy?
Why did the path to European Democracy halt under de Gaulle?
The surprising answers are clear. But many people are in a fog! Why? Because many people do not have the facts on what is the European Union and what is the European Community!
Read them in

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

We live in unprecedented times of peace.
For those in the Middle East that may seem a quite extraordinary statement to make.
Europe has created a peace system that has produced the longest peace in all its history. Since the end of the Second World War western Europe has experience a period of 71 years of peace. The longest period of peace in all two thousand years of written history before then was shy of 50 years. Usually it was a matter of a few decades. Quite often there were wars simultaneously burning across western Europe.
Is this an example that the European Union’s External Action Service (EEAS) is aware of ? Does it treasure it as its most valuable asset?
Is the EEAS really interested in peace in the Middle East?
You certainly would not believe it from the latest Quartet report at the beginning of the month. (The Quartet is composed of the EU, UN, Russia and USA) here is an extract of what the Quartet report says:

“The Quartet reiterates that a negotiated two-state outcome is the only way to achieve an enduring peace that meets Israeli security needs and Palestinian aspirations for statehood and sovereignty, ends the occupation that began in 1967, and resolves all permanent status issues.”

Europe’s peace did not come from a Two State Solution, TSS. So why does the Quartet believe such a solution — that others consider to be suicidal for the Jewish State — is an example for the Near East? Not only does the Quartet believe the TSS is A solution, it says it is the ONLY solution.
Europe tried the Two State Solutions for two thousand years. They all failed. You can take almost any two States and see if they ever learned to live in peace. Usually one State went to war with another. It took territory. It weakened its opponent. The victor thought that it would be able to live off these fruits for ever. That always proved impossible. The rich victor grew fat and oppressive. The vanquished took the challenge of its defeat to rise from the ashes and keep fit and lithe. Eventually it could take on its former enemy in war. Often it won and took back its land and other lands too.
The European Community was as radically different from this sad record of war and peace and temporary Two State Solutions. It was as different as classical physics is from Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.
When I asked the Commission spokesperson why they were unable to recommend Europe’s own peace process — one that evidently worked for seven decades — they were unable to give a rational explanation.
“It remains our conviction that a two State solution is the only way forward.”
Does the EEAS then have a much deeper problem?
Unfortunately yes. The Spokesperson was also unable to provide a well-argued case about who illegally occupied the area the UN used to call Judea and Samaria before 1967.Wasn’t it occupied illegally by Jordan?
‘I wouldn’t go into the historical debate about the conflict itself because the report is looking towards the future and trying to move the talks into the direction of a solution.’
That “Solution” is in direct conflict with peace. 2000 years of European experience proves it. The direction is that which always produced the international equivalent of a car crash in the past.
If there are not enough people with historical background in peace studies inside the very institution that has achieved peace, are we to suspect that they want a car crash?
It is within the lifetimes of many people to recall the events of 1967. They will be celebrated next year as the 50th anniversary of the Six Day War. The land of what the EU calls the West Bank was then illegally occupied by Jordan. Jordan itself was and is a State carved “temporarily” out of the British Mandate territory for the Jewish Homeland. It was recognized by treaty by the UK and Pakistan. Why? Because other States were ashamed that this murky deal had been made — or like some States such as Saudi Arabia — they did not want to associate a State with the Hashemite dynasty that the Saudis had kicked out of Mecca and Arabia.
For decades and centuries, in fact millennia, before 1947 the term “Palestinian” meant JEW! Israeli war hero Moshe Dayan’s family were called Palestinians in their British passports! Arabs come from Arabia!


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

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

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

Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, gives his world famous V-sign, 

as he drives through cheering inhabitants of the town of Metz, in France, on July 14, 1946, 

to take part in the Bastille Day celebrations. 

With him is Robert Schuman, the French Minister of Finance. (AP Photo)

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

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

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

What did Schuman say to Churchill? As the son of a French patriot he devoted his life to reconciliation and building a Coal and Steel Community, by studying in German universities and maintaining a wide network of friendships throughout two world wars. Some ideas of what Schuman enunciated a few years later about supranational solutions ‘to make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible‘ are reflected in Churchill’s speech.
His ideas of how to construct European democracy were well developed and refined through discussion and experience. Here is an extract of what he wrote in his book, Pour l’Europe:

We should first understand what we mean by the term ‘Democracy‘.
What characterises a democratic state are the objectives that it sets and the means it deploys to attain them. democracy is at the service of people and works in agreement with it. I can find no definition simpler and less technical. It fits in with that of President Abraham Lincoln: ‘government of the people, by the people and for the people‘. You can notice that it does not concern itself with the form of government. Modern democracy in the sense that I have just expressed it can be just as well a constitutional monarchy as a republic.
Often the term democracy is applied to republican states and not monarchies. I maintain that this is wrong: some monarchies such as Great Britain, Belgium and Holland, if we only refer to our nearest neighbours, are more clearly and traditionally attached to democratic principles than some republics where the people have only little direct influence on the direction and political decisions of the country. This statement makes it unnecessary for me to discuss the choice a democracy can make among various forms of government. All we need to do is to exclude what is antidemocratic..."