Welcome to the United States of Europe..
Want to live in a tyrannical United States of Europe?
Because this is what 26 European governments, including ours, decided we are to live in when they agreed to the Lisbon treaty without democratic approval.
Only Irish law demanded a referendum where they voted no. However they will be forced to vote again soon (or it will be forced through another way) and we can expect this agreement to be law soon enough unless this is wide-scale resistance.
The Lisbon Treaty is basically a rehashing of the failed EU constitution. The people of France and Holland voted no in a referendum to it and it died a fair, democratic death. So what did the European elites do?
They re-wrote it as a list of amendments so that national governments could force it through without public approval. The Lisbon Treaty constitutes 98% of the original constitution according to the author of the constitution Valéry Giscard d’Estaing. They also made it completely unreadable. The Lisbon treaty was published with 8,5000 words of new text and 62 less pages and in the words of Danish MEP Jens Peter Bonde, ‘It can’t be read. This is not a treaty, this is 300 pages of amendments to 3,000 other treaties and you can only read it if you take the one amendment by one and look it up in the existing treaties and insert it. They decided in the EU not to print a consolidated version which can be read.’
So what are they keeping from us? A completely undemocratic form of government; a proto-fascist corporate take-over.
The EU under the Lisbon Treaty will supersede all national law. The EU will have the legal personality of a sovereign state. EU law on justice, policing public health, public services and economic issues and just about everything that is important, will rule all, without any real democratic representation.
I must first state that the Labour- Conservative battle in this country is a joke; each party is not deciding policy, policy comes from EU directives (education policy for example) or from WTO agreements and internationalist think tanks like The Trilateral commission. The Labour and the Conservative parties are essentially two competing management teams vying to serve the real power structure. And we are voting in elected dictatorships to implement this agenda. However, the election of MEP’s are even more of a joke because in the new Europe they will have absolutely no power at all.
The structure in the Treaty is this; at the top will be an EU President and it is rumoured that Tony Blair will be the first person to take this position (which bizarrely means that if this plan is implemented and David Cameron also wins the next election then Blair will have more power over the British people than Cameron!) The President is decided on private negotiations behind closed doors and is completely undemocratic.
Next are the commissioners. There will 27 in all, one from each country, but are only suggested by the government of said country, the current commissioners will decide if a suggested commissioner is suitable or not. Commissioners are the only people who can propose new laws. Below them is the Council of Ministers who will include positions such as, for instance, the head of agriculture who will decide the agriculture policy of the whole of Europe. They can vote on the policy suggestions made by the commissioners. Their discussions are minutes are not made available to MEP’s. The real power though is behind the Commissioners and Council of Ministers; in the shadows lurk 300 (main groups of 3000) ‘working groups’; basically behind the scenes corporate policy planners and lobbyists; these are the groups really setting the agenda.
And what is at the bottom of the pyramid? The elected EU parliament. MEP’s cannot even suggest laws; they can only suggest amendments to laws proposed by the commissioners. They are theatre for the public and give this tyrannical set-up a democratic aesthetic.
General living standards are very likely to drop under this system. A recent EU Law directive from December 2008 was very important. A Latvian construction wanted to win a contract to build a school in Sweden. The Swedish authorities said ok so long as you pay your employees according to Swedish wage rights. The Latvian company said no and the EU issued a law directive saying that the Latvian company should be paid by Latvian wage standards and that Sweden should have no right to stop them. This will be law under The Lisbon treaty. A lot of people will suffer unemployment and lower living standards as the minimum wages become redundant.
A recent Daily Telegraph study found that 9 out of 10 of new jobs under New Labour have gone to foreign nationals. A large part of this is the influx of cheap eastern European labour. Expect this to continue indefinitely in our shiny new futuristic European super-state.
The EU will also have its own army and states will have to have a certain amount of army personal and resources ready at all times to fight. The mutual defence clause means that military action won’t need sovereign referendum, so as long as 65% (in population terms) of the EU says yes to a war everyone else will have to join.
Terrorism legislation will also mean that you can be deported to any prison in the EU without national protection; a judge will only be able to ask your name and then be forced to send you to a prison in Spain for example. There is also the small matter of the death penalty being brought back, Helga Zepp-La Rouche wrote in The Executive Intelligence Review of April 2008 that the Lisbon treaty has ‘a footnote, which says, “except in the case of war, riots, or upheaval” then the death penalty is possible.’ Riots? Upheavals? This is very dangerous language.
You can say what you like about our form of ‘democracy’ but at least it gives us a safety net against the graver abuses of centralised power. But if we don’t act now we will sleepwalk into a tyrannical EU super-state where we do not have such luxuries.
And perhaps there is a more fundamental, if you like tribal reason to stop this. We are built to understand ourselves primarily as belonging to small groups.
Imagine your children in the future being brainwashed in school at an early age to see themselves as part of a future European utopia. As they, and we, are told that Europeans are really linked with a common heritage, that deep down we are all the same and share a strong European personality that separates us from the rest of the world. It will be a con, the work of a predatory illusionist; because by trying to lure people into emotionally recognising their identity to a huge abstract, synthetic super-state you are really separating them. It is simple divide and conquer. If we do not have strong family units, community units, national units then we are attached to nothing. Our shiny European super-state is too far away, too dreamlike for us to attach ourselves to. It will further rip the social fabric of or society and in doing that, will attack our personal identity and security as well. Let’s stop it before it gets dangerous.
David Richards
[...] This post was Twitted by durham21 [...]
Is this a joke?
Does anybody else remember the days when people who could actually string a well-constructed sentence together (never mind an argument) wrote for D21?
I’ve tried, I really have; but I’m afraid D21 has just lost another reader.
Looks like you europeans admire our Chinese system of government!
The sort of people who are being put in place to rule over us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWSYMpuCFaQ&feature=related
Hang on a second, David. Mr Farage in your link is complaining about a Soviet/Communist scheme – ‘men who oppose all those values we hold dear in the West’ – and you have in mind a proto-fascist corporate takeover. Which is it?
Not particularly accurate when it comes to the details of the lisbon treaty. Actually, completely innacurate on many points. The power of the EP (directly elected) will be significantly increased, commissioners are appointed by elected governments, every country will continue to have veto power over all major legislation.
The French and Dutch rejection of the constitution was more of a referendum on their sitting governments than a vote on the treaty – how could it be anything else when nobody bothered to even read the 15000 page thing before voting.
The irish were voting on a treaty that they had absolutely no understanding of – western democracies are representative (as opposed to direct) democracies for the very reason that almost nobody has any real understanding of any of the issues in question (taxes, trade, financial supervision etc.)
As for what you wrote on the economic drawbacks of eu membership, it is unmitigated bullshit. The fact that 9 out of 10 new jobs under new labour have gone to foreign nationals simply reflects the fact that the population of the UK has remained static over the same period, so imiigration is responsible for most new jobs. No country currently in the EU is considering leaving, in fact, with a major recession under way, many are clamouring to join for the economic protection it provides (eg Iceland) The Latvian/Swedish example is clearly out of context or you misunderstood (or you got the info from a hysterical anti-EU website of dubious accuracy), minimum wage is set in the country of employment by the national government regardless of the employer’s or employing company’s nationality
The part about a common army and foreign policy is nonsense. Nobody is seriously proposing any such thing.There is currently a completely voluntary EU expeditionary force (peacekeeping in Kosovo, Bosnia etc.) but it is rather small and any country can withdraw at any time. Member states have full control over defence and foreign affairs, (witness the EU split over the Iraq war) and the Lisbon treaty has no proposals to change that. Military issues are not subject to referendum in any country as it is, if it was the UK would not have gone to war in Iraq. There is no chance that military decisions will be put to EU-wide referndum in the future, or that any EU decision will be able to force member states to go to war. (Interestingly, by invoking the mutual defense clause, NATO members can in fact do this, eg after 911, but not the EU)
As for democratic controls over the EU apparatus in Brussels, the lack of it has been a problem for some time. But over the past 20 years various treaties have introduced more direct democracy. The lack of it was actually deliberate, for the most part the EU remains an economic organization, with free movement of people etc. thrown in. Democratic control of economic institutions is a terrible idea, rampant and irresponsible populism would quickly follow. As the EU assumes greater power, more democratic accountability is being introduced.
You write: “You can say what you like about our form of ‘democracy’ but at least it gives us a safety net against the graver abuses of centralised power.” The UK government has more information about and supervision of its individual citizens on file than any government has ever had in the history of the world, including such shinig examples of human rights as East Germany and China. The government is about to introduce ID cards with unprecedented amount of personal information contained in them. The british government is able to lock up anyone suspected of terrorism without charge for longer than any other democracy and seriously restrict personal freedom without a trial (ASBOs). Compared to Britain’s march toward authoritarianism the EU directives look positively benign.
Before you lay into anything as astonishingly complicated as the EU, do a little (or a lot) more research.
All my information come from MEP’s and EU lawyer’s who have become activists, it’s all completely documented. I’ve done proper research rather than simply regurgitated the propaganda and bullshit the EU put out.
E.g. this interview with former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy
http://www.infowars.com/ireland-set-to-vote-on-eu-dictatorship/
What I said about the Latvian construction company is an actual EU law directive, look it up.
I know Britain is becoming authoritarian but it is nowhere near as dangerous as the EU under the Lisbon treaty, any fight against centralisation of power is important. (the nazis even wanted the same style of EU (http://www.infowars.com/top-nazis-planned-eu-style-fourth-reich/)
The EU will have a similar stance on civil rights, they will just be much less accountable, and our voice will be more diluted
http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/eu_euro_globalists_anyone_who_resists_eu_is_a_terrorist.htm
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2001/sep/14eulaws.htm
Wages have already been lowered under the EU treaties. I’ve seen it with my own eyes, one of my mates is a plumber who has had to lower his wages at times to compete with polish plumbers in a neighbouring city. This is all well known. There was even a BBC documentary showing hundreds of workers in the north all been sacked at the time who where then replaced by polish workers who the factory owner was legally allowed to pay under the minimum wage. It wont hurt middle class service sector jobs at first, it will hurt working jobs
The EU super-state will be completely undemocratic, what I said about that is taken from the MEP’s themselves. The idea that such a huge and diverse state could be democratic is ridiculous
Here is a film with MEP activists talking that I took a lot of this info from
http://www.infowars.com/end-of-nations-eu-takeover-the-lisbon-treaty/
http://www.infowars.com
Source: http://www.infowars.com
p.s. your military argument is correct at the moment but the Lisbon treaty has not been ratified yet. I’m talking about the lisbon treaty
Chris: I was just showing how corrupt these eurocrats are
Although it is interesting to see how a former soviet dissident sees the EU under the lisbon treaty
http://www.infowars.com/ireland-set-to-vote-on-eu-dictatorship/
My comment to Ignac is under moderation but i’ve just seen that one of my links didn’t work
it was the nazi one; http://www.infowars.com/top-nazis-planned-eu-style-fourth-reich/
Not one of your best, David. This seems to contain a lot of unargued assertion, and in places seems simply incorrect. To give one example, it is not true that “The mutual defence clause means that military action won’t need sovereign referendum, so as long as 65% (in population terms) of the EU says yes to a war everyone else will have to join”. In Ireland’s case at least, this would be unconstitutional, and the European Council have explicitly stated that this constitutional neutrality cannot be overridden by the Lisbon Treaty. So it’s false to say that Ireland would ‘have to join’ any such military operation. I don’t know about the constitutional arrangements of other states.
The Nazi link is an extremely cheap shot, and is beneath you. In fairness, it’s little better than arguing against animal rights on the grounds that Hitler was a vegetarian.
Ireland had to vote on the lisbon treaty because it superseeds the irish constitution, right?
Read the nazi article, the point is that the Nazi’s had exactly the same tactics to develop an EU control gird, what does this tell you about the type of government they are setting up? It’s totalitarian
I’m just trying to bring awareness to this because people have no idea, here is a better summary than mine
http://www.kim.sr.gov.yu/cms/item/analyzes/en.html?view=story&id=3359§ionId=13
David: You keep providing links to the websites of Alex Jones, member of the infamous 9/11 ‘truth’ movement and an on-record worldwide Zionist conspiracy theorist: Are you aware of this?
David: And here you quote the Serbian government’s ‘ministry for Kosovo’ website [Kosovo has been widely recognised as an independent state since February 2008] – are you seriously claiming these as reputable sources?
The website cherry-picks disgraceful reportage from the loony fringe of world opinion and dresses it up as news. Try the ‘Kosovo in limbo’ article, which would be laughable if only it didn’t seem to be arguing that NATO should have left Serb forces in Kosovo, during the genocide [the genocide which, the article mysteriously fails to remember, not mentioning anything but the plight of Serbia].
Alex jones does not believe in a zionist conspiracy.
He talks about the ‘new world order’ which unfortunately is a documented fact. The New World Order is a move towards a one world global government. Take the Council of Foreign Relations in America. Now, the CFR is a private organization that masquerades as a government committer which has tremendous influence over foreign policy. They also work to sell domestic policies they come up with as well, e.g. recently chemtrails. (planes flying over america spraying dangerous chemicals- look it up)
Who started CFR? David Rockefeller who an infinately wealthy globalist.
Don’t take my word for it, go on the CFR website and find documents where they openly state that historically nations have failed and that we must construct a new global order, a one world government ruled by bankers and intellectuals. All obamas and bush’s cabinet are members of this group, although it is debatable how much some of them understand the nature of the agenda they are implementing. That’s one example
infowars.com is mainly links to mainstream sources; have a look at it properly before dismissing it
The serbia thing; well that article is a good summary of things that i’ve already heard and read and it mentions many elements that you can reference, court rulings etc, so take from it what you will. Also,the writer is not serbian, I imagine it is an activist article he is sending around everywhere he can
On 9/11
Look up; The Project for a New American Century
It was founded in 1997 by priominent beocons including Dick Cheney, Paul wolfowitz, William Kristol, Rochard Pearl and others. This organisation produced the infamous Rebuilding America’s Defences documents which recommended a terroist attack like a new Pearl Harbour would be needed to implement their plans in the middle east.
Watch Loose Change: Final Cut
Aaron Russo was a famous hollywood director who became an activist and was later befriended by David Rockefellers cousin who basically told him 9/11 would happen
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=aaron+russo+interview&search_type=&aq=0&oq=aaron+russo
People can dismiss this stuff as crazy if they want, fine. But people come out all the time and say it was an inside job, there’s mountians of evidence. I could literally post a 100 people coming out and saying it was an inside job.
The 9/11 truth movement was actually started by the victims families.
The official story insults the intelligence of a five year old.
By all means dismiss this stuff; i’m just urging people to have a look at it first. Or remain in ignornace
David,
as far as I know, the treaty would have counted as an amendment to the Irish constitution, superseding Irish law in some areas, but not all. And, crucially, it would not do away with the lock on neutrality.
The Nazi article you linked to in no way shows that an EU government, should one ever come into being, would be totalitarian. Some totalitarians wanted a United States of Europe. This doesn’t mean that any future USE will therefore be totalitarian.
One other thing: one of the articles you linked to contained this gem: “Independence parties will effectively be outlawed as under the 1999 ruling of the European Court Of Justice (case 274/99), it is illegal to criticize the EU”
You may have noticed this hasn’t actually happened. The court’s ruling on this case can be found on curia.europa.eu (the case is C-274/99). Philip Jones, either deliberately or not, completely misrepresents this ruling (it concerns Staff Regulations, and says nothing about criticism of the EU by citizens or parties). I wouldn’t rely too heavily on him in future, if I were you.
david richards: Speaking of gems…
‘[On 9/11] The official story insults the intelligence of a five year old.’ – ?!
And, here’s something I pulled from one of Alex’s websites:
‘[quoting Cossiga] ‘the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the CIA American and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part … in Iraq [and] Afghanistan’
‘…Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga’s assertion that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies is highly unlikely to be mentioned by any establishment media outlets…’
That’s on-record worldwide Zionist conspiracy theory touting.
Full article here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/120407_common_knowledge.htm
Donnchadh: Yeah but I had already read this article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the New Statesman where he explains the case. The case has wide implications. Parties against the EU are legalised at the moment because the EU does not have the power to enforce such court rulings across Europe, but they will under the Lisbon treaty.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200011/ai_n8923307/
Although I doubt they will try and enforce that court ruling. They will not need to ban non-conformist MEP’s because they don’t have any power anyway
Lock on neutrality? I’m not aware of this
The man who wrote the EU constitution said that the Lisbon Treaty was 98% the same as the EU constitution so I don’t see how two constitutions can work in tandem. The Lisbon treaty was written as a list of amendments to restrict referendums, as France and Holland had both voted against the constitution
The point is that the Nazi’s had in mind the exact same ways to achieve enormous centralisation of power, starting with economic agreements. I don’t see how anyone could follow that route for creating a European super-state which is explained in the article with the aim of creating a democratic or free society, it’s structurally impossible.
And anyway, we do know that it is tyrannical; the MEP’s will have no power under the Lisbon Treaty and they are our only elected representatives. MEP’s explain this well in an Irish film about the treaty called ‘End of Nations’
Dan: That’s a quote from a former Italian President who says that intelligence agencies know that 9/11 was an inside job, just because he blaims ‘zionists’ doesn’t mean that the website endorses that view.
David: The second paragraph that I’ve quoted is the website’s analysis, which endorses the view.
David,
Evans-Pritchard is making the same mistake. The Connolly case was not about criticism of the EU, it’s about the terms of employment of people working for the EU. Most of his article is taken up, not with the actual ruling, but with an opinion given by the advocate-general. I imagine this opinion might have some legal weight, but it is not the same as a ruling by the court itself, and it certainly doesn’t mean that opposition to the EU is illegal.
The lock on neutrality (that Irish armed forces won’t be committed without majority support in the Irish parliament) has been a part of Irish law for some time now. The Lisbon Treaty doesn’t remove this.
The Nazi comparison is a weak as water. Centralisation of power isn’t automatically non-democratic, although there are certainly arguments to be had about how the balance between the various bodies of the EU should be best achieved. The article you cited is a string of assertions from start to finish. It’s also flatly wrong in certain places (on the Connolly ruling; also, Geert Wilders wasn’t refused entry to the UK “his political opinions were deemed offensive under EU laws”, but because, rightly or wrongly, he was regarded as a threat to public order here).
Ok, I took the article to mean that he was dismissed working at the EU because he had written a book criticising it, is this right? Considering that MEP’s have no power and you cannot work for the EU if you believe it is going in the wrong direction then that means we have no one who can protect us. And I think you have to admit that the advocate-general’s comment are pretty revealing to the agenda and attitude of these people.
There are other examples.
evans-pritchard (2000) ‘You have only to read Article 52 (latest version) of the Charter to see where this is heading. It states that the European Union may limit all rights and freedoms enumerated in the Charter `subject to the principle of proportionality’, where `necessary’ in order to `meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union’. When I asked the top figures of the drafting convention at a press conference what was to stop this `raison d’etat’ clause being misused for authoritarian purposes, there were audible hisses from a number of EU journalists in the room, and the justice commissioner, Antonio Vitorino, let out one of those patronising little laughs that the EU elite has so perfected. Nobody really answered the question.’
Nazi point:
In his book “Europe’s Full Circle,” Rodney Atkinson provides a list of policies proposed by Nazis and their similarity to today’s European Union.
• Europaische Wirtshaftsgemeinschaft
• European Economic Community
• European Currency System
• European Exchange Rate Mechanism
• Europabank (Berlin)
• European Central Bank (Frankfurt)
• European Regional Principle
• Committee of the Regions
• Common Labour Policy
• Social Chapter
• Economic and Trading Agreements
• Single Market
The same plans is take all important areas of governance out of the public arena and put them under the control of shadowy bureaucrats working for the elites.
German pro-democracy group explains how undemocratic the EU is and how it will get worse. Everything is sourced to EU law (talks about military issues in the lisbon treaty- Irish neutrality point)
http://www.mehr-demokratie.de/fileadmin/pdfarchiv/bund/2008-08-eu-booklet-flyer.pdf
Dan: I’m sorry but I don’t see where the writer agrees with his view that zionist’s are to blame.
Also, I think he means zionists in a slightly different sense than we would normally understand it- e.g. rothschild family; british banking family with 400 trillion estimated wealth, one of the controlling families of federal reserve. Very important global planners. Good tv documentaries of them can be found online.
One of the things they did was fund the terrorists the blow the palestinians of their land to help found Israel (they also paid for the israeli parliment buildings). This is complicated but you shouldn’t think of them as jewish in the snse of working for jewish interests, JP Morgan helped fund hitler and give him support. When JP Morgan died it turned out that he only owned 19% of his wealth, the rothschild owned the rest; he was a rothschild agent.
The whole focus of the article seems to me to be the fact that the attacks were an inside job.
David,
no. Connolly lost his job because of breach of contract. He published without permission, when he has signed a contract saying he could not do this. Simple as.
And even if you were correct in saying that ‘you cannot work for the EU if yuo believe it is going in the wrong direction’, this is still a very different (and much weaker) claim than the laughable suggestion that criticism of the EU is illegal. It was this latter claim which I pointed out was false, and based on a misreading of the court’s ruling. Do you accept these points?
On the Nazi point, you’ve just repeated what the article you cited claims. Just because some Nazis had blueprints for policies similar to those currently being implemented or planned by the EU doesn’t make the EU a totalitarian state. The key points are transparency and democratic control. Both of these could arguably be improved, but comparisons with Nazis greatly overstate your case.
You claim that MEPs will have no power in future. Can new European Law be forced through against the wishes of a majority of MEPs?
OK, I accept that point.
(Are you sure you’ve got the right case? ‘In fact, they denied that the case even existed, referring callers to a different case – number C-273/99 P, a technical staff case also involving Bernard Connolly which had nothing to do with freedom of speech and obviously did not contain any reference to blasphemy.’ I can’t find much else about the case)
I haven’t used this case as a basis of my understanding of the Lisbon treaty. The advocate-general’s comments are very revealing though. Under the conditions of extreme centralisation of power it has to be an authoritarian structure, otherwise nothing will ever get done. The civil servants who will be given the role of running the super-state are employees of the union, not representatives of the people, so they have to do what they told and cannot publish dissenting opinions.
I never said that because the Nazi’s had a similar plan that we will live in a Nazi style European super-state. I think that those truths reveal that this form of European government uses consent rather than conquest to create enormous centralisation of power for certain elites. It’s the same goal.
On the Nazi’s; important Nazi industrialists have been centrally involved in creating and shaping the EU. Here is the author of that Nazi/EU article talking about what the powerful Nazi elites decided to do after the war and how they were and continue to be involved in designing it, e.g. important members of the Bilderberg group (meeting of top western elites) The BBC recently found out that the Bilderberg group had planned the euro in 1955)
This is a good little interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vX6NntMuQI&NR=1
There are also important Nazi links with American and British financial interests e.g. Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Anthony C. Sutton
‘Professor Antony C. Sutton proves that World War II was not only well planned, it was also extremely profitable—for a select group of financial insiders. Carefully tracing this closely guarded secret through original documents and eyewitness accounts, Sutton documents the roles played by J.P. Morgan, T. W. Lamont, the Rockefeller interests, General Electric Company, Standard Oil, National City Bank, Chase and Manhattan banks, Kuhn, Loeb and Company, and scores of other business elitists.’
Yes, MEP’s will only be able to suggest amendments to laws. MEP’s like Jens-Peter Bonde talk about this.
Sutton interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sCpsq55uic
This article is nothing more then sensationalist, uninformed, ill-thought out bullshit. There is not one hard fact or well argued point in this entire article. Comparing the EU to the Nazi Germany’s plans is illogical and laughable.
I’m curious as to whether you used any neutral and reliable sources when reaching your absurd conclusions or was the Daily Mail the primary source of information? Either way Mr Richards your article is in one short word- shit.
P.s The author further undermines his credibility by revealing his support for 9/11 conspiracy theories and a zionist super network controlling the world….damn space lizards.
Just going over your article, I can’t help but notice some flaws-
‘The Lisbon Treaty constitutes 98% of the original constitution’- So what? It’s the 2% that counts, a human is geneticly 98% identical to a rat.
‘a proto-fascist corporate take-over.’- this does not make any sense.
‘The EU under the Lisbon Treaty will supersede all national law. The EU will have the legal personality of a sovereign state’
– EU law already supersede’s national law, see the Factortame decision in the House of Lord’s 20 years ago. This relationship is also and will always be voluntary because of the nature of Parliament- see the Jackson decision in 2004.
‘policy comes from EU directives (education policy for example) or from WTO agreements and internationalist think tanks like The Trilateral commission.’
– Do you have a series of examples? While it is true that a fair number amount of legislation is influenced by EU directives, this is the minority and thus it does not support your view that there is ‘essentially two competing management teams vying to serve the real power structure.’
‘They can vote on the policy suggestions made by the commissioners. Their discussions are minutes are not made available to MEP’s. The real power though is behind the Commissioners and Council of Ministers; in the shadows lurk 300 (main groups of 3000) ‘working groups’; basically behind the scenes corporate policy planners and lobbyists; these are the groups really setting the agenda.’
-Again, where is your evidence for this? The working groups suggest policy in the same way as committees and sub-committees do in Parliament and most other western democracies. The committees are actually made up of experts in the fields they are appointed to suggest legislaiton for, they are not ‘corporate policy planners’???
‘suggest laws; they can only suggest amendments to laws proposed by the commissioners.’
– Wrong, they can also vote down legislation and send it back to committee stage to be reworked.
‘General living standards are very likely to drop under this system’
-How? The EU is responsible for most of the worker friendly legislation we have in this country. Maternity and paternity leave, working time directive, statutory leave, discrimination legislation etc. The EU goes out of its way to protect workers and one of it’s key goals is to raise living standards.
‘A recent Daily Telegraph study found that 9 out of 10 of new jobs under New Labour have gone to foreign nationals.’
– This is misleading, Ignac explains why.
‘Terrorism legislation will also mean that you can be deported to any prison in the EU without national protection’
– This is speculative, there is no such clause.
‘imagine your children in the future being brainwashed in school at an early age to see themselves as part of a future European utopia.’
-Eh????????
Your conclusion is also removed from your ‘argument’, you fail to explain how the Lisbon treaty will actually from a superstate, save for some rather absurd and unfounded speculation. You even point out in your article that the Lisbon treaty is 300 pages of amendments to 3,000 other treaties, I therefore assume you have not actually read the treaty and are therefore simply basing your assumptions on other people’s views. Also, just so you know, it is common practice for legislation such as this to contain in it a large amount of references to amendments of other legislation, see the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 for an example, it is therefore probably not a conspiracy by the EU to cover up the true nature of the treaty…
Nazi point; do some research on the Bilderberg group, notice that some of the founders were Nazi industrialists, along with people like David Rockefeller.
I mention Rockefeller CFR on an earlier post.
Sutton documents that Standard Oil gave Germany the ability to start a war. Standard oil was a Rockefeller company. The Rockefeller foundation also helped bankroll the Nazi eugenics program. These are documented facts. And these same elites are still running things, e.g. research the Bilderberg group
I’ve put a few Nazi links up there; have a look at them all and get back to me.
Reason why i’m wrong;
1. the Lisbon treaty will super-seed all national law, e.g. so economic, public services, policing etc. This isn’t happening at the moment
2. my terrorism point is true; the EU will have authority on counter-terrorism
3. The working groups are basically corporate lobby groups. An Irish MEP kept lobbying for the issue of aspartame (dangerous sweetener mainly found in fizzy drinks) to be look at by a committee to see whether it was safe. The small committee included people who had worked in the artifical sweetner industry their whole lives, it was a complete joke. Yes there are working groups in Britain dictating policy but at least MP’s vote on laws.
4. making us compete for jobs equally with Latvians will not increase our living standards, i think this is obvious. The economic situation is complicated, countries have to be given economic incentives to join of course, but the structure that they are setting up is fascist so it wont be good for us in the long run
My main sources are things like;
From EU constitution to Lisbon Treaty by Jens-Peter Bonde (author of 60 books on the EU and recently published a readable version of the Lisbon treaty)- lays everything out clearly in 100 pages
MEP’s and EU lawyers accounts- end of nations documentary
And documents like this
http://www.mehr-demokratie.de/fileadmin/pdfarchiv/bund/2008-08-eu-booklet-flyer.pdf
Space lizards? Remember that Bin Laden was a CIA agent in the 80′s, then try and work out how the CIA could be duped by their own agent. It’s absurd
Representative Ron Paul on this
http://www.counterpunch.org/paul2.html
Again, watch loose change final cut
* on the CIA/Bin Laden past
This watery, mindless diatribe would make even Richard Littlejohn of the Daily Mail weep. Your opening sentence serves no other purpose than to whip up Europhobic anger and mistrust. You might as well have written ‘Who wants to be shagged by Silvio Berlusconi?’. The second Irish referendum will not be ‘forced’ as the first referendum had a turnout of barely 52%, and even this was only because in 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that all significant amendments of the Irish Constitution (in this case via European treaties) had to be put to a referendum. Do not go running away with the notion that only the Irish were brave enough to stand up to Johnny Foreigner and say ‘Nein’.
Jens-Peter Bonde, a *former* MEP, is a member of Denmark’s Euroskeptic organisation the June Movement so he is not an objective voice when discussing the Treaty of Lisbon. Also, the nature of the Treaty is to not be read start to finish. It is in itself a series of amendments to older treaties like Maastrict and Nice and would actually improve them by doing, among other things, making the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding and holding all member states (even the Eastern ones you so vilify) bound to the visions of humanity enshrined by Karel Vasek’s three generations of human rights. This includes the total abolition of the death penalty in Europe. The introduction of a new voting system in the Council (QVM) would give every EU citizen a more equal voice, giving our elected MEPs political clout to match the numbers who voted for them. It would be nice if you named this Lativian company, it’s the first time I’ve ever heard of such a thing. Especially as Riga has blossomed in the EU and would surely have needed all the construction workers it could get (and it’s Eastern Europe already, so nowhere to import ‘cheap labour’ from).
Your article is saturated with unnecessary, ignorant, sensationalist language. You suggest that the Treaty of Lisbon would give all power to the EU but also suggest that this is alreay happening by calling the Labour-Tory battles in the opinion polls meaningless. And ‘elected dictatorships’ is an oxymoron in its purest form. The Trilateral Commission was founded in 1973 to foster closer relations between Japan, Europe and North America and long after the process of creating a European communtity aad already begun. I cannot understand why you feel the need to talk about war, fascism, tyranny and ‘superstates’ so much when the EU was founded out of the ashes of war for lasting peace in Europe. Your anti-European venom has echoed down ever since the Treaty of Rome, the same voices saying the same arguements at every turn of the EU.
Hi Roger, I was told you wrote a furious reply to my article and you have!
1. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is often used as a selling point for the Lisbon Treaty, however, it isn’t legally binding in itself. ‘Many of its provisions only apply “in accordance with EU and national laws and practices”. This means it is only to be used in relation to EU law, and discriminatory national laws could remain. On top of this the European Court of Justice can place limits on how it is applied in order to meet “objectives of general interest recognised by the union”… in which an open market and free competition are central.’
So The Charter of Fundamental Rights will be interpreted to fit with the agenda of the EU.
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/10
2. You’re right; the treaty was made to be as incomprehensible as possible so no one could read it before it was implemented. So in the French version there was 329 A4 pages of different and unconnected amendments to 17 existing basic treaties. The amendments can only be read and understood if they are inserted at appropriate places in the 2800 pages of relevant treaties. They also did other things like cram as many words as possible onto each page and use four different numbering systems. The whole idea being that the contents of the treaty would not be made public before it was signed.
3. The qualified majority voting has nothing to do with MEP’s. The ‘more democratic’ element of it I think you are suggesting exists in the Lisbon Treaty is just a fail safe in case too few large countries can have too large a sway over what laws are passed (although they will still dominate). But the MEP’s do not vote on laws under the Lisbon Treaty.
4. Both Labour and Conservatives work for the same agenda, they are a two headed beast. A good example of this since this is a Durham student site is David Davis’ who gave an interview in the Palatinate earlier this year selling himself as anti big brother state. Well it turns out that he is being supported by the agenda and companies who want to implement the big brother surveillance state, I.D cards etc. (link below) And yes, so many of our laws come from EU directives right now but the situation will be completely different under the Lisbon Treaty as EU law will super-seed our law, we wont even have a choice.
5. Jens-Peter Bonde has written 60 books on the EU and has translated the only readable version of the Lisbon Treaty. His book ‘From EU Constitution to Lisbon Treaty’ is the best book available on the Lisbon Treaty, it goes into enormous detail and is written with expert authority. Have a look at it
6. I don’t vilify Eastern European states! That is like calling me a racist if I criticise Obama’s policies. Borders are being opened not just in Europe but around the world, the idea is to weaken people’s idea of belonging to a specific nation state so we will be lest resistant to their plans of massive centralisation of power. Connect the dots; the EU, the NAU, the African Union the Pacific union…world leaders are talking about a world central bank! We are slowly moving towards global governance so the idea is to weaken people’s sense of national identity.
Another reason is to just drive down living standards and that is already happening in Britain with people having to compete will Eastern European immigrants who are willing to do the same job for much less money. I know a plumber who is currently struggling with competition with Polish plumbers. This is not racism; people simply want to protect a reasonable standard of living and the only party who understands this is the BNP and the BNP is a racist party! That really is quite a beautiful piece of social engineering, a very affective way to dismiss people who are against further European integration; label them racists.
Note: the higher levels of the BNP are very dodgy and include former secret service members from South Africa’s apartheid (British) regime setting involved in setting the BNP agenda and training members
7. The Nazi links I have posted in earlier posts may make you question the benign intentions of starting the EU.
I would recommend the film End of Nations which is about the Lisbon Treaty and can be found on google video
David Davis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vM0aQSB8PFI
David..your an ass.
13 critical lisbon treaty facts
http://www.wiseupjournal.com//?p=991
Leave your response!