THE EUROPEAN UNION

MUST SEE VIDEO http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=terrorstorm Is the European Union Doomed?

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Slow progress and internal politicking have many envisioning a brick wall ahead for the EU. But is Europe’s future really so gloomy? “Ultimately, … the European Union as a political project is doomed.” So says Stratfor, a highly reputable global intelligence firm. “Europe has attempted to use economic building blocks to develop a political structure, though real efforts at political, as opposed to economic, integration have been thin to nonexistent,” Stratfor explained (December 7). Their analysts aren’t the only ones with doubts about the viability of the EU as a political union. Many observers believe that internal political differences will eventually wreck the Union’s ability to function as a world military and economic superpower. Our views on Europe’s future, however, are much different. Much evidence suggests that full political union in Europe will come about—even if only for a short time. Clues as to what sort of union it will be are already visible in the methods being employed to achieve integration. Some within Europe are determined to progress the pan-European vision regardless of resistance from either the public or individual national parliaments. They are using two methods in particular to pursue their ambition. One is to simply ignore any opposition and continue, under the radar, as if it didn’t exist. The other is to work outside the framework of the EU to achieve the same goals. Perhaps the best illustration of these methods is that involving the European Constitution. While many declared the constitution dead, and the voting populations of whole nations have voted it down in state referendums, others simply won’t accept that verdict. The two-pronged approach that European integrationists are taking on the constitution issue is this: Very publicly and blatantly, certain countries—Germany in particular—are working to advance the constitution through alternative means outside the framework of the European Union. Germany plans to use its presidency of the EU in the coming six months to lobby individual nations to accept a revised version of the constitution. Note this telling statement from Germany’s ambassador to the EU. On December 6, Wilhelm Schönfelder stated what he believes is the answer to the constitution dilemma: “We will keep it out of the Brussels machinery.” EUobserber.com reported his hope to keep the EU Council, Commission and Parliament from getting their hands on the project—as a means of ensuring that it will continue moving forward. Schönfelder rejects the idea of another European convention—the unwieldy body that drew up and debated the original draft constitution. Instead, Germany has come up with its own concrete plan for pushing the constitution through: Gathering feedback from member states, producing a blueprint, and devising a method and timeframe for implementation. Using a 2009 deadline, when European Parliament elections are to be next held, as a pretext for pushing through the constitution in a timely manner, the German ambassador is looking to have a new draft ready to be ratified by the end of next year to allow time for the ratification process. To achieve this timetable, he proposes a short “technical” intergovernmental conference to agree upon a revised constitution during the latter half of 2007. The problem, according to Schönfelder, “can only be solved at the highest political level with heads of state and government”—without the bothersome matter of public opinion to take into consideration. In other words, no more pesky referendums. To establish the overarching law of the Union, the democratic approach is out. The other, even craftier tack being taken to push ahead with implementation of the constitution has been highlighted and detailed by Member of the European Parliament (mep) Daniel Hannan. He asserts that the primary elements of the constitution— particularly those less popular among member states because of the loss of sovereignty they would entail—are already being implemented one by one with little to no public debate. Hannan wrote for the Telegraph (emphasis ours): You may have got the impression that the European Constitution was dead—that the French had felled it, and the Dutch had pounded a stake through its heart. If so, think again. The constitution is being implemented, clause by clause, as if the No votes had not happened. … Formal ratification by all 25 states is regarded in Brussels as a technicality. To all intents and purposes, the EU is carrying on as though the constitution were already in force. Most of the institutions that it would have authorized are either up and running already, or in the process of being established. … Whenever a chunk of the constitution comes before my committee in the European Parliament for approval, I ask: “Where in the existing treaties does it say that we can do this?” “Where does it say we can’t?” reply my federalist colleagues …. The more honest of them go on to explain that this is how the EU has always operated: First it extends its jurisdiction into a new area and then, often years later, it authorizes its power-grab in a retrospective treaty. As an example, all 25 EU member states this month agreed to support the establishment of an EU human rights agency. While some countries, such as the Netherlands, want to limit its powers, once such an institution is established, the framework is there for it to take on additional authority in the future. Also, this month, EU member states approved another new agency, an EU institute for gender equality, expected to be set up and operational within the coming year. In any case, if the draft constitution is defunct, EU member countries that continue to ratify it certainly don’t seem to be aware. Just this month, on December 5, Finland became the most recent country to ratify the treaty, bringing the number of states that have approved the constitution to 16. In reality, those who want to advance European integration are proceeding in their goals, sidestepping inconvenient bureaucracy or concerns of individual nations. This has been the case all along—from not taking no as an answer in national referenda to holding secret meetings and making decisions with little to no public discourse. If Brussels impedes the progression of the Eurocrats, then the Eurocrats just sidestep Brussels. If an individual nation throws a spanner in the works, that nation gets pushed aside. The strong-arm tactics being employed to drive the European Constitution forward are the modus operandi of the EU in general. The EU is certainly aware that structural inefficiencies are limiting the Union. This has been and continues to be a topic of discussion. Two reports being debated in the European Parliament this week deal with the issue of the EU’s challenges in the face of expansion. One report, drafted by German Christian Democrat Elmar Brok, chair of the Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, calls for urgent treaty reforms prior to the 2009 Parliament elections. Brok says that an “institutional overhaul of the Union is a need per se.” The second report, prepared by a Finnish mep, agrees that the EU’s current “decision-making structures are outdated.” The trouble is, solutions to this problem largely entail side-stepping democratic processes within the EU. Significantly, it is Germany that is largely taking the lead in proposing solutions, as with the example of the constitution. In fact, Germany is acting more and more like it is the capital of Europe—and being looked to as such. An example of how Europe has already been successful in integrating outside the structure of the EU is the 1995 Schengen Accord, which did away with border posts and checks between member nations and created a common “Schengen visa” for free movement of citizens throughout Europe. “Ironically,” writes Stratfor, “it is not an EU program. Schengen was negotiated and implemented independently of the European Union and its predecessors …” (op. cit.). On December 5, European interior and justice ministers agreed to extend membership of Schengen to nine new countries, which means “the free movement of people in Europe will soon truly be continent-wide” (ibid.). (Interestingly, the UK is one of the few EU countries not included in the Schengen Accord.) The massive success of Schengen is a major step on the road to European political integration. “Successful implementation of such a seamless linkage is an awesome feat by any political, economic, cultural or bureaucratic measure,” wrote Stratfor. “It also is an essential step if Europe is ever to become a superstate that can function as a major global power.” “Those who wish to see the rise of a European superpower will greet the expansion of Schengen with hearty cheers and applause, as it truly will be Europe’s first step along the road to political union. Regardless of what one thinks of Europe and the European Union—and the difference (or lack thereof) between the two—that is an accomplishment that should not go unnoticed” (ibid.). Still, Stratfor asserts that the establishment of open borders is just one step on a very long—problematic—road to the supposedly impossible goal of political integration. So why do we believe Europe will emerge as a singular political world power? The only reason theTrumpet.com can make such assertions with confidence is the “more sure word of prophecy.” That is the difference between our analysis and that of the best intelligence firms in this world. We know, however bumpy the road to European political integration is, it will not be a long road, and at the end of it will emerge a menacing entity consisting of 10 nations or blocks of nations—quite possibly five from Western Europe and five from Eastern—with a dictatorial political structure. Not all European countries will be part of this superpower. But at that time, there will be no opt-out clauses or vetoes. The concept of “you’re either for us or against us” won’t be a platitude—it truly will be acted upon. Ironically, the current political vacuum and lack of clear direction within Europe is actually creating the very conditions that will enable a strong leader—when the time is right—to seize the reigns of political power and enforce the unity that the Continent has been toying with for decades. In the meantime, the infrastructure for empire is steadily being built, one law, one ruling at a time, as individual nations’ laws are supplanted by EU rulings and national sovereignty is subtly eroded. For those who scoff at our certainty of European political union, we say, keep watching. As we wrote in our magazine in December 2003, “Thanks to Bible prophecy, we can make confident assertions about Europe’s destiny. We do not, however, offer one rigid interpretation of the specific details of how these prophecies will come to pass. Based on the present political and economic crises within the European Union, we propose that the prophetic fulfillment of Europe’s destiny may not occur as it currently appears—with the euro as the singular currency, or even with the European Union as the official title of the conglomerate. It could even be the collapse of the monetary unit and the political structure as it stands today that furthers the fulfillment of these radical prophecies.” Herbert W. Armstrong had the clarity of vision provided by an understanding of Bible prophecy to declare the political integration of Europe fully 72 years ago. Read “Is a World Dictator About to Appear?” for a detailed account of why Mr. Armstrong had the confidence to predict the union of Europe.