Picture from Britannia Radio-THE NEW PALACE-THIS WILL BE THE PLACE WERE THE FUTURE PRESIDENT OR EU WORLD DICTATOR WILL BE CONDUCTING AND SCHEMING ALL HIS NEW WORLD ORDER EUGENICIST PLANS IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE.AS SOON AS THE IRISH HAS THE PASSING LISBON VOTE.IF THE VOTE DOES NOT PASS THE EU WILL STILL HAVE WORLD DOMINATION AND I BELIEVE THEY WOULD GO TO A 2 TEER EU.13 MAIN EU LAWMAKER COUNTRIES (THE INNER CORE)AND ALL THE REST OF THE COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD AS THEY JOIN THE EU WOULD BE PUT INTO 10 TRADE BLOC REGIONS (OUTER CORE).
DANIEL 7:23-24
23 Thus he said, The fourth beast(THE EU,REVIVED ROME) shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,(7TH WORLD EMPIRE) which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.(TRADE BLOCKS)
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise:(10 NATIONS) and another shall rise after them;(#11 SPAIN) and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.(BE HEAD OF 3 KINGS OR NATIONS).
Saturday, 19 September 2009
John Loeffler Steel on Steel The Third Jihad,dollar devaluation,use of public schools to promote various indoctrination causes.
http://britanniaradio.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-loeffler-steel-on-steel-third.html#links
GIL WHITE
http://britanniaradio.blogspot.com/2009/09/you-thought-you-knew-9152009-75100-pm.html#links
http://britanniaradio.blogspot.com/2009/09/audio-americas-middle-east-policy.html#links
Keynote address Dr Zbigniew Brzezinski The New Geopolitics
http://www.iiss.org/conferences/global-strategic-review/global-strategic-review-2009/plenary-sessions-and-speeches-2009/keynote-address-dr-zbigniew-brzezinski/
Keynote Address - Dr Zbigniew Brzezinski
Part of the Global Strategic Review - International Institute for Strategic Studies
http://www.iiss.org/conferences/global-strategic-review/global-strategic-review-2009/
NIGEL FARAGE WINS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEOFTz_Nnas&feature=player_embedded
Brussels fiddles while home burns - by Richard... Saturday, September 19, 2009 eureferendum.blogspot.com
We learn from Bruno Waterfield that the EU is spending £280 million on building a new palace for its president and staff – ready for when theconstitutional Lisbon treaty is ratified.Named the Résidence Palace (pictured) after an existing Art Deco building which it replaces, that building in 1940 was used as the headquarters of the German army during the Nazi occupation of Belgium. This is a complete coincidence, and totally irrelevant. But it is kind of appropriate.Meanwhile, as the colleagues lavish money on their grandiose palaces (at our expense), having recently spent £185 million refurbishing the Berlayermonster, poor old Betty is scraping around for the £44 million needed to pay for the huge backlog of repairs to our royal palaces.Strangely enough, our contribution to the two latest EU follies is about £60 million – give or take – which would be more than enough to restore Betty's palaces to their former pristine glory, with some change left over. Instead, she is having to sell off chunks of the estate, starting with the old stables in the Royal Mews, in the grounds of Hampton Court.These are expected to fetch £2m, which is chump-change compared with the total amount needed. At least it is a start. But it is a more than adequate reflection of our times that our national heritage is falling into disrepair, with bits having to be flogged off to keep the rest going while our money is pouring into the coffers of the colleagues.On this, of course, there should be national outrage, and a very difficult decision to make ... who to shoot first, our own government or the colleagues in Brussels (even if both would be preferable, but you have to prioritise).But nothing will be said. We will go on paying and, eventually, new broom Dave will take over. And, guess what! We'll go on paying. We really are going to have to shoot them, you know.
German parliament rubber-stamps EU reform treaty SEPT 19,09
Germany's clearing of the treaty means that all eyes are now on Ireland, which holds a second referendum on the landmark reforms on October 2.German parliament clears EU reform treatyBerlin -- The EU's Lisbon reform treaty cleared a major hurdle on Friday as Germany's upper house rubber-stamped laws paving the way to its ratification following months of political wrangling and heated debate.After the Bundesrat's unanimous approval, the country's President Horst Koehler will now sign off on the legislation, the final step required for it to come into force.Germany's clearing of the treaty means that all eyes are now on Ireland, which holds a second referendum on the landmark reforms on October 2, having thrown the EU into chaos last year by rejecting the treaty in a popular vote.Latest polls suggest the Irish will this time give their consent to the treaty after receiving reassurances on issues of key importance to Dublin, such as the country's abortion laws and its cherished military neutrality.All 27 EU member states must ratify the treaty before it can come into force and the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic have said they will not sign it until after the Irish referendum.In Germany, the top court ruled in June that the treaty -- aimed at streamlining decision-making in the bloc -- must be put on ice until legislation safeguarding national parliamentary power was passed.
This sparked months of political horse-trading and debate on European affairs before the country's main parties drafted a revised law to satisfy the court's concerns and to ensure the EU does not exceed the powers given to it.The new law states that the lower house of parliament, the Bundestag, must be consulted if changes are made, for example, to Germany's veto rights and must be informed sooner and more comprehensively about proposed EU legislation.The Lisbon Treaty is designed to replace the current Nice Treaty, drawn up when the bloc was around half its current size.If it comes into force, the European Union would do away with the present unwieldy system of the rotating presidency in favour of selecting a leader for a limited term.A powerful foreign policy supremo would also be appointed.AFP/Expatica
Czech senators to file Lisbon Treaty complaint on Sept 29
(AFP) – SEPT 19,09
PRAGUE — A group of Czech right-wing senators will file a new constitutional complaint against the European Union's reforming Lisbon Treaty this month, causing diplomatic fears of a new delay of several months.We are asking for an assessment of the treaty's compliance with the constitutional order,said senator Jiri Oberfalzer, a senator for the Czech Civic Democrats.The complaint, to be filed on September 29, may further delay the already lengthy ratification of the text, aimed at streamlining decision-making in the 27-nation bloc.Parts of the treaty already came under the Czech constitutional court's scrutiny last year, following a similar complaint from senators, but the court then ruled the treaty was in line with the constitution.We will now complain about dozens of provisions (of the text), Oberfalzer told AFP, in the latest threat to the treaty.However Oberfalzer remained realistic:I am not expecting the court to declare the treaty invalid,he said.But I think we could do the same thing as the German constitutional court, which has defined the conditions under which the Treaty of Lisbon could be aligned with the German constitution and suspend the ratification process until this is done,he said.
Talk of further delays to the treaty, which has already been rejected once by Irish voters, caused consternation among European leaders at an EU summit in Brussels on Thursday where Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer informed his European counterparts that a delay could be possible.There was an explanation from the Czech prime minister and I said clearly that the if the Irish say yes then there is no question of us remaining in this artistic flux with a Europe which won't have the institutions it deserves,said French President Nicolas Sarkozy.They were saying (at the summit) that there's going to be a constitutional tribunal that might delay the process for weeks,one diplomat told AFP.That delay could be up to six months, according to some diplomats, presenting a political coup to eurosceptic Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who must formally sign and ratify the treaty on behalf of his country.Klaus said he will wait for the top Czech court ruling on the complaint from senators.A lengthy delay would also cause anxiety because British opposition leader David Cameron who has promised to hold a referendum on the treaty if it has not been fully ratified by all 27 EU nations by the time he comes to power.His Conservative party are firm favourites to win a British general election which Prime Minister Gordon Brown must call by next June at the latest, and will probably do so sooner.Ireland, the only nation constitutionally bound to put the Lisbon Treaty to public vote, will hold a second referendum next month, with latest opinion polls suggesting the yes camp will win this time round.The Czech Republic, Germany and Poland have also still to complete the ratification process.The treaty is needed as soon as possible in part so that a new European Commission can be named, as the treaty will change the make up of the EU's executive arm.The Lisbon reform treaty cleared one major hurdle in Germany on Friday where the upper house rubber-stamped the laws paving the way to its ratification following months of political wrangling and heated debate.
These Boots Are Gonna Walk All Over You - From the desk of The Brussels Journal on Thu, 2007-12-13 21:00 An analysis by Prof. Anthony Coughlan
Today the European Union leaders signed the Lisbon Treaty. This treaty gives the EU the constitutional form of a state. These are the ten most important things the Lisbon Treaty does:
1. It establishes a legally new European Union in the constitutional form of a supranational European State.
2. It empowers this new European Union to act as a State vis-a-vis other States and its own citizens.
3. It makes us all citizens of this new European Union.
4. To hide the enormity of the change, the same name – European Union – will be kept while the Lisbon Treaty changes fundamentally the legal and constitutional nature of the Union.
5. It creates a Union Parliament for the Union's new citizens.
6. It creates a Cabinet Government of the new Union.
7. It creates a new Union political President.
8. It creates a civil rights code for the new Union's citizens.
9. It makes national Parliaments subordinate to the new Union.
10. It gives the new Union self-empowerment powers.
1. The Lisbon Treaty establishes a legally quite new European Union. This is a Union in the constitutional form of a supranational European State:
The Treaty gives this new Union a State Constitution which is identical in its legal effects to the EU Constitution that French and Dutch voters rejected in their 2005 referendums.It does this by amending the two existing basic European Treaties, the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC). The former retains its name, while the latter is renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union (TFU). These two amended Treaties become the de facto Constitution of the new Union which they constitute or establish, although they are not called a Constitution. The EU has thus been given a Constitution indirectly rather than in direct form, as had been proposed in the Treaty which the peoples of France and Holland rejected in 2005.The provision of the Lisbon Treaty that The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community (Art.1.3, amended TEU) makes absolutely clear that the post-Lisbon Union will be quite a new entity, as the European Community of which our countries are all currently members ceases to exist.
2. The Treaty empowers this new European Union to act as a State vis-a-vis other States and its own citizens:To understand the change introduced by the Lisbon Treaty one needs to understand that what we call the European Union today is not a State. It is not even a legal or corporate entity in its own right, for it does not have legal personality. The name European Union at present is a descriptive term for all the relations between its 27 Member States.At present these relations cover both the European Community area where supranational European law is operative, and the intergovernmental areas of foreign policy and justice and home affairs where Member States cooperate with one another on the basis of keeping their sovereignty and where European laws do not apply.The Lisbon Treaty changes this situation by creating a constitutionally and legally quite new EU, while retaining the same name, the Union. Unlike the present European Union, this legally new EU will be separate from and superior to its Member States, just as the USA is separate from and superior to California or New York, or Federal Germany to Bavaria or Brandenburg. This new European Union can sign treaties with other States in all areas of its competence and conduct itself as a State in the international community of States. It can speak at the United Nations on agreed foreign policy positions of its Member States, just as in the days of the Soviet Union the USSR had a UN seat while Russia, Ukraine and Byelorussia had UN seats also.
The Lisbon Treaty also gives the EU a political President, a Foreign Minister – to be called a High Representative – a diplomatic corps and a Public Prosecutor. The new EU will accede to the European Convention on Human Rights, as all other European States have already done, including those outside the EU.The Treaty also sets out the principle of the primacy of the laws of the new Union over the laws of its Member States (Declaration 27). The new EU makes the majority of laws for its Member States each year and under the Lisbon Treaty the new Union, which will replace the European Community, gets further power to make laws or take decisions by qualified majority vote in relation to some 68 new policy areas or matters where Member States currently have a veto.
3. The Treaty makes us all real citizens of this new European Union for the first time, instead of our being notional or honorary European citizens as at present:
A State must have citizens and one can only be a citizen of a State.Citizenship of the European Union at present is stated to complement national citizenship, the latter being clearly primary, not least because the present EU is not a State. It is not even a corporate entity that can have individuals as members, not to mind citizens.By transforming the legal character of the Union, the Lisbon Treaty transforms the meaning of Union citizenship. Article.17b.1 TEC/TFU replace the word complement in the sentence Citizenship of the Union shall complement national citizenship, so that the new sentence reads: Citizenship of the Union shall be in addition to national citizenship.This gives the 500 million inhabitants of the present EU Member States a real separate citizenship from citizenship of their national States for the first time. It gives a treble citizenship to citizens of Bavaria and Brandenburg within a Federal State like Germany. The rights and duties attaching to this citizenship of the new Union are be superior to those attaching to citizenship of one's own national State in any case of conflict between the two, because of the superiority of EU law over national law and constitutions.As most States only recognise that one can have a single citizenship, henceforth it is one's Union citizenship which will be regarded by other countries as primary and superior to one's national citizenship.Although we will be given rights as EU citizens, we should not forget that as real citizens of the new European Union we also owe it the normal citizens' duty of obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority, which will be a higher authority than that of our national States and constitutions.Member States retain their national constitutions, but they are subordinate to the new Union Constitution. As such they will no longer be constitutions of sovereign States, just as the various local states of the USA retain their constitutions although they are subordinate to the Federal US Constitution.
4. To hide the enormity of the change, the same name – European Union – will be kept while the Lisbon Treaty changes fundamentally the legal and constitutional nature of the Union. By this means the importance of the proposed change is kept hidden from the people:
The change in the constitutional nature of both the Union and its Member States will be made in three legal steps that are set out in the Treaty:
(a) It establishes a European Union with an entire legal personality and independent corporate existence in all Union areas for the first time, so that it can function as a State vis-a-vis other States and in relation to its own citizens (Art.32, amended TEU);
(b) This new European Union replaces the existing European Community and takes over all of its powers and institutions. It takes over as well the intergovernmental powers over foreign policy and crime, justice and home affairs which at present are outside the scope of European law, leaving only the Common Foreign and Security Policy outside the scope of its supranational power (Art.11.1, amended TEU).It thereby gives a unified constitutional structure to the new Union which it will constitute or establish. The European Community disappears and all spheres of public policy will come within the scope of supranational EU law-making either actually or potentially, as in any constitutionally unified State. (One says potentially because further inter-State treaties would be required to transfer the minority of law-making powers still remaining with the Member States to the new Union in the future, or to shift powers back from the supranational level to the Member States – something that has never happened up to now. Supranational legislative acts would not yet be adopted in the sphere of Common Foreign and Security Policy and new treaties would be needed to change that. However the Commission, a key supranational body, will through the High Representative/Foreign Minister gain the right of initiative in the foreign policy field, so that even in the light of Art.11.1 TEU a de facto supranationality will be attained here);
(c) It makes us all real citizens of the new Federal Union which the Treaty establishes, with all the implications of that for downgrading our present personal status as citizens of sovereign nation States and superseding it by citizenship of a supranational European Federation.
5. It creates a Union Parliament for the Union's new citizens:
The Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution makes Members of the European Parliament, who at present are representatives of the peoples of the Member States, into representatives of the Union's citizens (Art.9a, amended TEU). This illustrates the constitutional shift the Treaty makes from the present European Union of national States and peoples to the new Federal Union of European citizens and their national states – the latter henceforth reduced constitutionally and politically to provincial or regional status.
6. It creates a Cabinet Government of the new Union:
The Treaty turns the European Council, the quarterly summit meetings of Member State Heads of State or Government, into an institution of the new Union, so that its acts and failures to act will, like all other Union institutions, be subject to legal review by the EU Court of Justice.Legally speaking these summit meetings of the European Council will no longer be intergovernmental gatherings of Prime Ministers and Presidents outside supranational European structures. As part of the new EU´s institutional framework, they will instead be constitutionally required to promote the Union's values, advance its objectives, serve its interests and ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions.(Art. 9 amended TEU). They will also define the general political direction and priorities thereof (Art.9b).The European Council thus becomes in effect the Cabinet Government of the new Federal EU, and its individual members will be primarily obliged to represent the Union to their Member States rather than their Member States to the Union.
7. It creates a new Union political President:
The federalist character of the European Council summit meetings in the proposed new Union structure is further underlined by the provision which gives the European Council a permanent political President for up to five years (two and a half years renewable once) (Art.9b).There is no gathering of Heads of State or Government in any other international context which maintains the same chairman or president for several years while individual national prime ministers and prime ministers come and go.The federal character of the new President is emphasised also by the Treaty provision which forbids that person from holding any national office and which lays down that he/she shall ensure the external representation of the Union.
8. It creates a civil rights code for the new Union's citizens:
All States have codes setting out the rights of their citizens. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights will be that. It will be made legally binding by the new Treaty and will be an essential part of the new Union's constitutional structure (Art.6, amended TEU).The Charter is stated to be binding on the Union's own institutions and on Member States in implementing Union law. This limitation to EU law and to the EU institutions is unrealistic however, because
(a) the principles of primacy and uniformity of Union law mean that Member States will not only be bound by the Fundamental Rights Charter when implementing EU law, but also through the interpretation and application of their national laws in conformity with Union laws (v. ECJ judgements in the Factortame, Simmenthal and other law cases); and because
(b) the Charter sets out fundamental rights in areas in which the Union has currently no competence, e.g. outlawing the death penalty, asserting citizens' rights in criminal proceedings and various other areas.
This gives a new and extensive human and civil rights jurisdiction to the EU Court of Justice and makes that Court the final body to decide what people's rights are in the vast area covered by European law, as against national Supreme Courts and the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg – the latter Court serving all other European States, not just the EU members – which are our final fundamental rights Courts today.The EU Commission can be expected in time to propose European laws to ensure the uniform implementation and guarantee of the rights provisions of the Charter throughout the Member States, even in areas which are basically outside the scope of Union competence. American constitutional history provides ample evidence of the radical federalising potential of the fundamental rights jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court.
9. It makes national Parliaments subordinate to the new Union:
The Treaty underlines the subordinate role of National Parliaments in the constitutional structure of the new Union by stating that National Parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union by various means set out in Article 8c, amended TEU. The imperative shall implies an obligation on National Parliaments to further the interests of the new Union.National Parliaments have in any case already lost most of their law-making powers to the EC/EU. The citizens who elect them have lost their powers to decide these laws too.The provision of the Treaty that if one-third of the National Parliaments object to a Commission proposal, the Commission must reconsider it but not necessarily abandon it, is small compensation for the loss of democracy involved by the loss of 68 vetoes by National Parliaments as a result of other changes proposed by the Lisbon Treaty.
10. It gives the new Union self-empowerment powers:
These are shown by:
(a) the enlarged scope of the Flexibility Clause (Art.308 TEC/TFU), whereby if the Treaty does not provide the necessary powers to enable the new Union attain its very wide objectives, the Council may take appropriate measures by unanimity. The Lisbon Treaty extends this provision from the area of operation of the common market to all of the new Union's policies directed at attaining its much wider objectives. The Flexibility Clause has been widely used to extend EU law-making over the years;
(b) the proposed Simplified Treaty Revision Procedure which permits the Prime Ministers and Presidents on the European Council to shift Union decision-taking from unanimity to qualified majority voting in the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union (Art.33.6, amended TEU), where the population size of certain Member States is likely to be decisive; and
(c) the several ratchet-clauses or passerelles which would allow the European Council to switch from unanimity to majority voting in certain specified areas such as judicial cooperation in civil matters (Art.69d.3.2), in criminal matters (Art.69f.2), in relation to the EU Public Prosecutor (69i.4), and in a number of other areas.
Conclusion:
It is hard to think of any major function of a State which the new European Union will not have once the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. The main one seems to be the power to make its Member States go to war against their will. The Treaty does provide that the EU may go to war while individual Member States may constructively abstain.The obligation on the Union to provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies (Art. TEC/TFU 269 a), which means raising its own resources to finance them, may be regarded as conferring on it wide taxation and revenue-raising powers, although these will require unanimity to exercise. Currently public expenditure and the tax measures needed to finance it remain overwhelmingly at national state level. This is because such social services as health, education, social security and public housing, as well as defence, policing and public transport – the government functions which cost most money – are still mainly at this level.However the new European Union will have its own government, with a legislative, executive and judicial arm, its own political President, its own citizens and citizenship, its own human and civil rights code, its own currency, economic policy and revenue, its own international treaty-making powers, foreign policy, foreign minister, diplomatic corps and United Nations voice, its own crime and justice code and Public Prosecutor. It already possesses such normal State symbols as its own flag, anthem, motto and annual official holiday.
As regards the State authority of the new Union, it is embodied in the Union' s own executive, legislative and judicial institutions: the European Council, Council of Ministers, Commission, Parliament and Court of Justice. It is also embodied in the Member States and their authorities as they implement and apply EU law and interpret and apply national law in conformity with Union law. Member States will be constitutionally required to do this under the Lisbon Treaty. Thus EU State authorities as represented for example by soldiers and policemen in EU uniforms on our streets are not needed as such.Allowing for the special features of each case, all the classical Federal States which have been formed on the basis of power being surrendered by lower constituent states to a higher Federal authority have developed in a gradual way, just as has happened in the case of the European Union. Nineteenth century Germany, the USA, Canada and Australia are classical examples. Indeed the EU has accumulated its powers much more rapidly than some of these Federal States – in the short historical time-span of some sixty years.The key difference between these classical Federations and the new European Union is that the former, once their people had settled, share a common language, history, culture and national solidarity that gave them a democratic basis and made their State authority popularly legitimate and acceptable. All stable States are founded on such communities where people speak a common language and mutually identify with one another as one people – a We. In the EU however there is no European people or demos, except statistically. The Lisbon Treaty is an attempt to construct a highly centralised European Federation artificially, from the top down, out of Europe's many nations, peoples and States, without their free consent and knowledge.
If there were to be a European Federation that is democratic and acceptable, the minimum constitutional requirement for it would be that its laws would be initiated and approved by the directly elected representatives of the people either in the European Parliament or the National Parliaments. Unfortunately, neither the Lisbon Treaty nor the EU Constitution it establishes contain any such proposal.By giving a Constitution indirectly rather than directly to the new European Union which it will establish, the Lisbon Treaty sets in place what Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt has called the capstone of a European Federal State. For the Euro-federalist political elites who have been driving this process over decades this is the culmination of what started nearly 60 years ago when the 1950 Schuman Declaration, which is commemorated annually on 9 May, Europe Day, proclaimed the European Coal and Steel Community to be the first step in the federation of Europe.
The peoples of Europe do not want this kind of highly centralized Federal European Union whose most striking feature is that it is run virtually entirely by committees of politicians, bureaucrats and judges, none of whom are directly elected by the people. The Constitutional Treaty setting it up has already been rejected by the French and the Dutch in 2005. As French President Nicolas Sarkozy has admitted, the Prime Ministers and Presidents have agreed among themselves on no account to have referendums on the Renamed Constitutional Treaty, for that would be rejected everywhere again.Only the Irish are enabled to have their say on it because of the constitutional case taken before the Supreme Court by the late Raymond Crotty. That action by that great Irishman stopped the State's politicians of that time from ratifying a previous European Treaty, the Single European Act, in an unconstitutional manner.
This document has been drafted in consultation with authorities on European and constitutional law by Anthony Coughlan, Secretary of the National Platform EU Research and Information Centre, 24 Crawford Avenue, Dublin 9, Ireland; Tel.: 00-353-1-8305792; E-mail: nationalplatformeuric@eircom.net.It may be disseminated or adapted in whole or in part by whoever wishes to do that, without any need of reference to or acknowledgement of its source.
Does the EU club have a future?
From Telegraph UK SEPT 19,09
Broadly speaking, the world is run at the outset of the 21st Century by the United States and China together in uneasy condominium. This is the surprising reality of our era. The pattern is unlikely to change much until India takes its full place, perhaps in 40 years.The baton passed from Europe’s tired hands at London’s G20 summit in April, where the only meeting that mattered was the tete-a-tete between Barack Obama and Hu Jintao. The two Pacific superpowers are meshed together by their dollar-yuan currency and de facto debt union, and by their Strategic Economic Dialogue. Let’s just call it G2 for short. China’s return to great power status is well known, but some may be surprised to learn that America’s share of global GDP has scarcely changed in 30 years, falling slightly to 20 per cent depending how you measure it.Greater Europe has slipped relentlessly. The Western part is still rich, but counts ever less in world affairs as ageing takes it toll. The United Nations expects America to add 100 million people by 2050: Germany will contract from 82 million to 70 million. Italy will shrink. Eastern Europe faces implosion. This is not fertile demography for hi-tech invention.What is at risk in the medium to long run is nothing less than the sustainability of the society Europe has built and the viability of its civilisation,admitted an internal EU report by former Dutch premier Wim Kok in 2004. Nothing has changed since.
The Great Recession of 2008-2009 may have humiliated Anglo-Saxon capitalism but the German and Italian economies have shrunk by almost twice as much as the US from peak to trough. As will become clear, they also lack the labour market springs of quick recovery. The Bundesbank fears it will take until 2013 for Germany to regain its former output. Will Italy ever do so? Europe’s triumphalism a year ago was badly misjudged. A new report by the Brussels think tank Breugel says the EU itself may be the biggest casualty since the traumatic events have led to revival of the nation state – each defending its own industry bec et ongles, each pressuring its banks to come home. Berlin even created a €115 billion German Fund, and EU competition rules be damned.The G20 has emerged as the forum that counts. EU big shot states prefer to play on that stage. EU summits in Brussels have slipped to backwater status.The crisis risks calling into question the very legitimacy of the European Union. Confidence in the effectiveness of the EU economic policy system has been severely hurt by the crisis.it said.Breugel fears the return of mass unemployment, a depression-deep crisis in parts of Eastern Europe, and a bond crisis as spendthrift states struggle to roll over public debts. It was too polite to name Italy and Greece but both are – or will be – caught in debt compound traps.How far it seems from the heady optimism a decade ago when EU leaders launched the euro and talked of Europe’s rise to economic hegemony by 2010.
By then they were endowing the EU with the apparatus of full-blown state. A foreign office (High Rep), with its own intelligence cell and military staff with nine generals and 57 colonels; a Euro-army (rapid reaction force), backed by 100,000 troops, 400 aircraft, and 100 ships to project power across the globe; a proto-FBI (Europol); a satellite system (Galileo); they even created a Directorate of Justice and Home Affairs… Home Affairs? They launched a Philadelphia Convention to draft Europe’s Constitution – the Treaty to end all Treaties – which I had the task of covering. Launched at Laeken, allegedly to bring Europe closer to the citizens after a spate of anti-EU riots and No votes, it was hijacked by insiders hell bent on forging a Super-Etat, in perpetuity.Few in Europe’s talking shops had a serious thought then for China, let alone India, or Vietnam. The world was seen in bipolar, almost Manichean terms: Europe against America, a friendly rivalry like those poisonous football matches between Celtic and Rangers, or Barcelona and Madrid.As Europe subsides into its new role as a museum piece, Britons who are instinctively Euro-sceptic or simply have more natural affinity with the English-speaking world – or indeed, like my 19-year-old son, with China – can justifiably ask how far this country should contort itself to take part in the EU project.For years we believed – or were scared into believing – that the strategic and economic price of jumping off the integrationist conveyor belt would be too high. It may be time to turn this argument on its head. How worthwhile is it to remain a member of an inward-looking club when the locus of creative dynamism is elsewhere?
This has become a piquant question as Brussels seizes on the banking crisis to extend control over the City and our finance industry, worth 8 per cent of GDP and generating £50 billion a year surplus on the current account.Simon Tilford from the Centre for European Reform says British Euro-sceptics like to have their cake and eat it: Euro-sceptics appear to believe that a Britain outside the EU would remain part of the single market, but that it would be freed from the need to abide by EU regulation. In short, Britain could enjoy all the benefits of access to the single market but none of the costs. This is incoherent. A retreat would achieve nothing but impotence.Mr Tilford is right. There is a lack of rigour and often a defeatist assumption that Britain never gets its way in Europe, never has allies, and is forever at the mercy of Franco-German villainy.It looks otherwise to French and German journalists in Brussels. But then, each of Europe’s fractious tribes thinks that somebody else is in charge. That is the elemental flaw in the project. Psychologists call this an ownership problem. The owners are the 28,000 fonctionaires on high-paid EU tenure.Paris has reason to gripe. English has displaced French as the lingua franca, with all the subtle advantages that brings. British and Irish officials are ubiquitous in the upper reaches of the directorates that count most: Competition, Single Market, Trade. The last two secretary-generals of the Commission have been Irish, a far cry from Emile Noel, who ran it as a replica of the French civil service for 30 years. It is why the Commission became for a while an engine of free market reform.Let us be honest: UK withdrawal would be traumatic, altering the political chemistry of Europe in unpredictable ways. While it is possible that a cluster of like-minded states on the Atlantic and Nordic rim would eventually retreat with us into a free-trade bloc, it would be rash statecraft to bet on it.
Those that tend to align with Britain inside the EU as a counterweight to Rhineland domination – Scandinavians, Dutch, Balts, Slavs, and Spain (on-off) – would have to trim, tucking in obediently behind Paris and Berlin.Britain would risk creating the sort of monolithic Habsburg Europe we wish to avoid, violating the balancing principle of our diplomacy in Europe since Elizabeth I. One wonders how that shrewd, equivocating, steely queen would have played the EU.Yet to accept that exit would be a high-risk gamble does not settle the argument. Ultra-federalists might scream, hurl abuse, and attempt to shut Perfidious Albion from EU markets, but the Dutch, Danes, Swedes and others would want to heal the rift.If Brussels pushed too hard for Carthaginian terms, it would risk setting off unstable combustion in the residual EU. As Breugel says, the legitimacy of the EU is already badly eroded.This great question might have been left unresolved, finessed by English pragmatism, had the EU not taken a dangerously authoritarian course by ramming through the European Constitution – renamed Lisbon – after it had been rejected by voters in France and Holland in 2005, and would have been rejected by half Europe had the fiasco continued. This manoeuvre is altogether different from the euro-creep tactics of EU father Jean Monnet, who handled democratic sensibilities with greater care.Clearly it never occurred to those behind this heavy-handed move – Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy – that Irish voters would then reject the text in the one country allowed to vote. Perhaps the Irish can be cajoled in their weakened state into voting Yes next month. But a delicate line has been crossed. The EU project is usurping power, even if the forms of parliamentary ratification have been preserved.
Critics call the Lisbon Treaty a federalist blueprint. That muddies the issue. It in fact concentrates power in a unitary state, giving the European Court jurisdiction for the first time over the whole gamut of EU affairs (all three pillars, in EU jargon – the Community pillar, the common foreign and security policy pillar and the pillar devoted to police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters). It will adjudicate over the Charter of Rights. Euro-judges will have power to reshape British society by court ruling if they so wish, just as the activist Warren Court reshaped America.By creating a full-time EU president and by giving Euro-MPs the power of the purse, it mimics nationhood. Yet it should be obvious that Europe cannot ape the institutions of the historic nation states in this way. Shifting power from London, Madrid, or Copenhagen to the EU core does not transfer democratic accountability: it breaks the lines of accountability. Strasbourg’s Babel house has no unifying language or political culture. It answers to no coherent demos, and cannot do so because none exists at a European level. Italians read Italian newspapers about Italian politics, just as we read British newspapers about British politics. It is surreal that this should be happening when the EU is in crisis.We are confronted by a venture that is using anti-democratic means to establish an anti-democratic power structure, to no useful end for the people of these isles. It fair to say that this breaches the Burkean principle of settled practice, dear to readers of The Daily Telegraph. Since this unwelcome revolution is being forced upon us, perhaps it is time to end the long taboo and ask whether we must inevitably go along with it.- From Prophecy News Watch.
Labour's EU cheerleader blasts the Lisbon Treaty By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 9:53 PM on 18th September 2009
The Labour architect of the EU's Lisbon Treaty has warned it puts the future of democracy in Britain at stake. Former health minister Gisela Stuart said the treaty breached the fundamental democratic principle that voters can get rid of those in power. Just weeks before the Irish are asked to vote again on the measure, she said it would also allow the EU to launch future power grabs completely unchecked.Miss Stuart is a pro-European who sat on the committee which drew up the original EU Constitution, later repackaged as the Lisbon Treaty. She said it would leave a huge democratic deficit if passed, leaving the EU's leaders accountable to no one.
She said there would be no more treaties, no more referendums anywhere on EU integration.The treaty contains a ratchet clause, meaning that national vetoes can be scrapped one by one without the need for summits or referendums.Voters will also have no power to choose or remove a new allpowerful EU president, who will be selected by EU leaders.Tony Blair is current favourite for the post.Miss Stuart said:My basic test of democracy is: can I get rid of them? By casting a vote, you can change the people who are in control of you.Lisbon does not give you, as a citizen, the means to control the executive or the politicians who decide on your behalf, and that's the hurdle it falls on.The nature of democracy is really at stake.
Miss Stuart's comments will increase controversy ahead of the crunch Irish vote on October2.Voters there threw the ratification process into chaos when they rejected it last year.Miss Stuart's comments will embarrass Labour, which broke a promise to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214556/Labours-EU-cheerleader-blasts-Lisbon-Treaty.html#ixzz0RZ3lMPIW
CAMP FEMA CONCAMPS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImdqZTONdPM&feature=player_embedded
Camp FEMA: Exposing the Government Plan for Political Concentration Camps
Kurt Nimmo Infowars September 18, 2009
Fox News disinfo operative par excellence Glenn Beck and his entourage of yellow journos from Hearst say FEMA camps do not exist. The Fox News kool aid drinkers, numbering in the millions but in steep decline as the truth goes viral, may believe Beck, however they are at odds with reality.FEMA camps do exist, although they may not be explicitly run by the emergency bureaucrats. In January, a bill was introduced in Congress that would authorize the Department of Homeland Security to set up a network camp facilities to be used to intern U.S. citizens in the event of a national emergency. The National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645 mandates the establishment of national emergency centers to be located on military installations for the purpose of to providing temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster,according to the bill.FEMA, of course, is part of the DHS, so we are mixing apples and oranges here. It’s all part of the emergent federal police state, designed to wrangle the real enemy of the government — the American people.
Rex 84, Operation Garden Plot, Operation Cable Splicer, and a flurry of executive orders issued over the years have established the framework for concentration camps. Glenn Beck, of course, didn’t bother to mention any of this in his hit piece, or did his Hearst researchers bother to do a Google search. If they had, they would have stumbled upon the Pentagon’s Civilian Inmate Labor Program, provided by Army Regulation 210-35, that establishes labor programs and prison camps on Army installations. In January 2006, Kellogg, Brown and Root reported that they had received a contract from the Department of Homeland Security to expand these internment camps. More than a few have commented that the spanking new KBR camps will be used to house civilian laborers, that is to say slave laborers. Many more have said the camps are for patriots and others who are opposed to an increasingly authoritarian government.Award winning writer and filmmaker William Lewis’ latest documentary should be used to answer Glenn Beck and the other Pentagon script readers in the corporate media.Why is the media on the one hand saying there are no FEMA camps,Alex Jones asks in Lewis Camp FEMA, while on the other hand legislation has been introduced to build them? As Jones notes in this landmark documentary, HR 645 legalizes what the government has spent decades building.In the documentary, Jerome Corsi says the government is preparing for civil unrest of the sort predicted by trends forecaster Gerald Celente and others as the economy falls apart – as engineered by the bankster cabal – and millions of people lose their jobs and are reduced to penury. Corsi says he has contacted the Department of Homeland Security and they have admitted KBR has built concentration camps.
Glenn Beck, please stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Senate committee hearings and official FBI documents further illustrate the mindset of our elected officials as they classify homeschoolers, gun rights activists and anti-abortionists as threats against the existing social and political order; by default creating an entire nation of radicals and revolutionaries — where everyone is a suspect… equally guilty until proven otherwise,explains the Camp FEMA write-up on Alex Jones’ Infowars Store website.How has our government shown that they will deal with these people? The same way as every other totalitarian regime throughout history… marginalize their activities then lock them up. Prisons are being built; internment camps constructed and laws passed that deal severely with anyone who dares to step out of line or ask too many questions.This important film — covering an ominous topic the corporate media not only will not cover (despite an abundance of evidence) but is obliged to discredit and dismiss as the collective mental aberration of conspiracy kooks — is now available at Alex Jones’ Infowars Store.It needs to be viewed by every American concerned about government power and the tyranny it inevitably produces. As history frighteningly and repeatedly demonstrates, unchecked government power invariably leads to fascism and totalitarianism – a fact realized by millions of Germans, Russians, and Chinese in the 20th century.
