European leaders met in Lisbon, Portugal, on a balmy October day to thrash out differences over the eu Reform Treaty. Outside, 200,000 citizens demonstrated. They were protesting against the idea of eu citizens being denied any say in the process of the Union’s agreeing to a revision of the much-touted European Constitution in its new guise as the eu Reform Treaty.
Yet again, the eu is showing a determination to impose its will and to ride roughshod over public opinion.
Though the Lisbon demonstration was the largest in the Portuguese capital for 20 years, it was ignored by the press. You simply did not hear about it.
That’s a startling demonstration of the power that this European monolith, the eu, already possesses to control media and thus public opinion. As Thomas Rupp, the coordinator of the European Referendum Campaign, observed of the eu leaders gathered in Lisbon, “They boasted that they have managed to get over an institutional crisis, but in fact they just increased the eu’s democratic crisis by completely avoiding the citizens. And obviously you should not count too much on the mainstream media to do anything about it” (eu Observer, Oct. 23, 2007).
This emerging economic and political titan has a record of railroading its treaties and regulations through the institutions of its own creation—institutions designed to impose the eu will over and above the sovereign rights of its member nation states. The list of regulations it now enforces on its 27 member nations, in many cases trumping those nations’ own sovereign laws, currently runs to 90,000 pages!
In the past, Ireland, France and the Netherlands have all, in principle, rejected the eu constitution via public referenda. The British government has been scared out of its wits by the prospect of testing the eu constitution via the same democratic method, knowing full well that polls indicate upward of 70 percent of the British people do not support it.
The term “democracy,” to the bureaucrats of Brussels, simply has the same meaning as it has in Moscow or Beijing. The European Union is the new tyrant of the Continent.
Thankfully, though it be late—far too late, if we were only to know the truth—voices both sides of the Atlantic are increasingly crying out in alarm over what is building in Europe.
Until recently, very few of the voices that have been sounding an alarm at the danger emerging via the undemocratic processes of the eu have been given equal airtime with the Europhiles. We have quoted a number of the most strident of those voices over the years. Most have been British—such keen observers as British political economist Rodney Atkinson, that great British patriot Norris McWhirter, authors Adrian Hilton, John Laughland, Bernard Connolly et al. Yet on the other side of the Atlantic, those analysts who clearly see what is happening in Europe today for what it is have been few and far between.
Brian Connell, who authored A Watcher on the Rhine back in 1957, attempted to warn Americans of the dangers they would face by endorsing the concept of a united Europe. More recently, the Washington Post’s former London bureau chief T.R. Reid has become quite vocal in trying to educate Americans as to the new superpower that threatens U.S. dominance. His most comprehensive effort, the book The United States of Europe, was published in 2004.
But suddenly, a rash of commentary is coming from sources on both sides of the Atlantic decrying the manner in which this imperial European Union is forcing its will upon the European populace and even beyond. In the business world, the cowering of corporate giant Microsoft before the high and mighty European regulator has set alarm bells ringing among corporate moguls, as the prospect of the eu becoming the chief regulator of global business starts to sink in.
The eu Reform Treaty summit in October ran true to form. As the Economist mused, “Eurocrats like to talk about building Europe ‘step by step.’ Critics accuse Brussels of slicing away national sovereignty, treaty by treaty” (Oct. 25, 2007).
What is the real impact of this latest in the series of treaties that has governed the evolution of this European monolith to this point? The Reform Treaty, to be signed on December 13 in Lisbon, is but the clone of the rejected European Constitution, under a different name, with some revolutionary clauses of imperialistic nature strongly endorsed.
The Reform Treaty creates the new post of president of the European Council, who will host four or more EU summits per year. In addition, the treaty allows for the appointment of an eu foreign minister to represent the Union in its international relations with the rest of the global community and to represent the eu within international entities such as the United Nations.
The treaty also allows for nations desiring greater defense cooperation to proceed to pursue just that. Added to these changes is a shrinkage of the upper layer of political leaders within the European Commission, currently headed by José Manuel Barroso.
What does all this mean to citizens of eu member states?
It means that, without being consulted at all, they will become part of an imperial Europe. Their most powerful representation on the international scene will not be from the foreign ministries and diplomatic corps of their national governments, but through a separate eu foreign office, backed by a separate eu corps of diplomats, who may counter any foreign-policy initiatives that any eu member nation may wish to promulgate individually. This reflects a clear policy of imperialism crafted by eu technocrats.
Europe’s past as an imperial power is one of the great blots on the history of man. It is one of bloodletting on a grand scale, consummating in the 20th century in the two most terrible wars of all. How is it then that the world just stands by and lets the prospect of more such horror to evolve before its eyes with barely a whimper of concern?
Last October, the European Council on Foreign Relations divulged results of a survey that ought to alarm every keen watcher of European developments. Commenting on the results of that survey, eu Observer noted, “Citizens worldwide prefer ‘soft power’ in international affairs rather than military might, and the eu appears to be the political actor whose role is most respected, a new survey suggests.
“In the poll, released by new think tank, the European Council on Foreign Relations, more than one third of the respondents (35 percent) said they see an increased eu power as a central element needed to develop a better world” (Oct. 25, 2007).
Yet there is a paradox here, as the think tank’s executive director, Mark Leonard, and board member Ivan Krastev commented: “It is striking that a continent with a military budget second only to the United States, and the biggest number of peace-keeping forces serving in the world, seems to be perceived as a non-military power” (ibid.).
Back when Europe lay largely in ashes at the close of World War ii, there was one lone voice that cried out in warning at the Allied nations’ efforts to promote the construction of a unified Europe. Herbert W. Armstrong declared that imperial Europe would arise out of the ashes to once again stride across the world as a global superpower. He pointed to the dangers that imperial power would pose to the English-speaking peoples in particular.
Now the chickens are coming home to roost, and the hens are clucking in startled fashion.
As Herbert W. Armstrong declared, this time the leading power in Europe, Germany, has learned the lesson that a European empire is best not created by war. It is best created, like the British Empire of the past, by trade. Once that economic empire is consolidated into a political entity, overlaid culturally by a collective spiritual ideology—a state religion—then and only then should a policy of military imperialism be imposed.
Sixty years of documented history attest to the prescience of Herbert W. Armstrong’s observations.
Led by Germany, in tandem with France and influenced by Rome, this European conglomerate has grown from a Common Market, via economic imperialism, into a political European Union about to elect its own president and appoint its own foreign service. Economic imperialism has morphed into political imperialism.
How will the economic and political interests of this new “United States of Europe” be secured and defended? It has the capacity to support a combined military force with a collective defense budget second only to that other United States, the United States of America! And its combined forces are deployed across more theaters of conflict, in “peace-keeping” mode, than any other international entity! Given some attention to organization—a natural gift of our German friends—that combined military force is already capable of defending the interests of the eu empire, more particularly so now that France has a president willing to share that nation’s nuclear capability with its German partner. This situation is, in fact, destined to have far graver consequences upon the U.S. and its allies than Iraq and Afghanistan combined are presently having. In fact, it is destined to soon overtake the U.S. and its English-speaking allies in terms of economic impact, political influence and military might—believe it or not!
Yes, the more astute pundits are now emerging to decry the threats posed by imperialist Europe. But it’s all too late. The barn door has been left open by the victors in the last European-instigated war; the horse has bolted and there’s no stopping it.
The best we can hope for now is—in fact—the greatest of all hopes.Hope, and pray, for the day to soon come when the final revival of that old Holy Roman Empire will be quashed, never again to raise its bloody fist over mankind. Its global power is about to be replaced by a supreme, universal Power in fulfillment of Isaiah’s great prophecy: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this” (Isaiah 9:6-7).
Due to the delayed arrival of Gordon Brown, Mr Miliband was the only foreign minister to attend the televised ceremony alone, amid a stream of prime ministers and presidents from the other 26 EU states.
Mr Brown is due to put his name to the Treaty of Lisbon - which replaces the failed EU Constitution - later today, after he joins the other EU heads of government at a private lunch following the official signing ceremony.
The developments come despite an eleventh-hour bombshell that it means surrendering control of Britain’s immigration policy.
The warning was issued to the PM last night as he prepared to wave the white flag over our right to make our own laws.
Just hours before Mr Brown was due to fly to Lisbon to hand over huge chunks of Britain’s power for good, it emerged tens of thousands of foreigners facing the boot from the UK will be winners.
They will get new rights to overturn decisions by Britain’s Immigration and Asylum Tribunal.
It means failed asylum seekers will be free to take their cases to the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg — giving the final say to unelected EU judges.
And it is all thanks to a treaty - now signed by European Union leaders - critics warn is practically the SAME as the ill-fated EU Constitution, which bit the dust two years ago after the French and Dutch rejected it in referendums.
Amazingly, Mr Brown — who vetoed a referendum on the treaty here claiming it was different — now admits it IS a “semi-constitution”. Interviewed in The Times today, he vows to get tough with EU leaders — while accepting the treaty mirrors parts of the Constitution.
The PM says: “What I’m going to say to Europe is stop looking inwards, stop looking at constitutions or semi-constitutions or institutions for a long time ahead — and for the foreseeable future concentrate on the big issues ahead of us.”
Last night Neil O’Brien, whose Open Europe organisation has scoured the treaty’s small print, declared: “By signing us up to the rejected Constitution, Gordon Brown is giving EU courts the right to hear asylum cases.
“This could mean that decisions made by UK courts to deport failed asylum seekers will be overturned by Brussels.”
The signing today surrendered more than SIXTY of the UK’s prized vetoes on EU decisions — forever.
The treaty puts in place a powerful permanent EU president and foreign minister. Powers will be handed to unelected bureaucrats and judges in Brussels.
Today Tory leader David Cameron blasts Mr Brown’s “betrayal” of Britain in an exclusive article on the facing page.
Mr Cameron says: “He doesn’t even have the guts to put it to the British people.”
This morning the PM was grilled by MPs in Westminster — meaning he would arrive late for the historic signing ceremony.
After finally arriving in Lisbon he will put pen to paper hours after his EU counterparts — leaving many of them furious.
Article 21 of the treaty declares it will be illegal for any EU state to discriminate on “any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion.”
It bars any member country from “any discrimination on grounds of nationality”.
Other clauses which hand immigrants more powers are included in Articles 4, 19, 7, 15, 16, 18, 45 and 47. The UK Government has confessed in the past it has great concerns about the measures.
Former EU minister Geoff Hoon — now chief whip — admitted they should NOT have been applied to the UK.
He said last November: “There is clearly a risk that adding what is in effect an avenue of appeal at a very early stage in the process might be an opportunity of further complicating our existing asylum and immigration processes.”
There are currently 167,000 appeals against deportation heard by the Immigration Tribunal each year.
Hundreds more are then taken to the Court of Appeal until they are exhausted — costing taxpayers a fortune. The new powers handed to migrants threaten to clog up the European Court of Justice.
It takes an average of two years to deal with a case — even though the EU court’s role SHOULD be to focus on helping industry, not sorting out asylum cases.
The changes will also cost UK taxpayers a fortune as failed asylum seekers contest their cases while remaining on full benefits. Government figures show the average bill for supporting a refugee is £129 a week.
A two-year court battle would see an applicant costing the taxpayer £13,500 in handouts and around £3,500 in legal aid costs. With more than 150,000 appeals in Britain each year, the bill could run into tens of millions — as a direct result of the EU treaty.
The pact ALSO threatens to destroy Europe’s ability to compete against the tiger economies of India and China — thanks to the French.
Measures outlawing EU countries from propping up their own companies with unfair cash handouts will be diluted. The treaty will effectively destroy competition — and allow failing firms and industries to snuff out any hopes of the EU getting its economy into shape.
Every other EU leader has admitted the treaty is virtually identical to the doomed Constitution. Last night Labour MPs on the powerful Commons Foreign Affairs Committee warned Foreign Secretary David Miliband not to treaty voters as fools.
Andrew MacKinlay said of the Constitution: “A majority of the public feel it and the treaty are one and the same.”
Mr Brown faces a bitter Commons revolt in January when he tries to force the treaty through Parliament.