The End Of The Nation States Of Europe:The Irish Referendum On The Lisbon Treaty October 2nd 2009

Saturday, September 12, 2009

The End Of The Nation States Of Europe:The Irish Referendum On The Lisbon Treaty October 2nd 2009

By Philip Jones
9-12-9

"Europe's nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation." Jean Monnet (Founding Father Of The EU in a letter to a friend 30th April 1952).). On June 12th 2008, the proud and independent minded Irish screamed a loud and clear NO to the treacherous Lisbon Treaty and to further integration into the EU Superstate being constructed around the hopes, dreams and lives of the peoples of Europe. Typically, arrogantly and not surprisingly, the Euro Fascists, whose credentials are appearing ever more Totalitarian in structure and ruthless in application, simply ignored the voice of the Irish voter, demanding there be a another vote, and this time, the rebellious Irish would have to get it right, or else. On October 2nd this year, once again, the fate of nearly 500 million people will be decided by a country whose population totals only 4.2 million. The people of the Republic Of Ireland will now for a second time, have been the only `citizens` of the European Union given the opportunity to have their say on what is potentially the most fundamental piece of legislation in the history of the `Old Continent.` All the other member states have simply ignored the wishes of their people and left ratification to be `rubber stamped` by their respective parliaments. However, it is necessary, at least at the moment, for all twenty seven member states to complete ratification before the `Treaty` becomes legally binding. So, if the Irish vote is `NO` for a second time, then legally, according to its own rules, Brussels will not be able to implement the Treaty. However, if the Irish people this time around swallow the massive `Pro Treaty` propaganda and vote `Yes,` then the fate of, and inevitable demise of the Nation States of Europe will be sealed. There will be no more serious obstacles left to Federalisation. The long dreamed of (by the Federalists that is) a United States Of Europe will inevitably become a reality. Many, if not the majority of people on both sides of the Atlantic have been `duped` for decades into believing that the EEC/EU is about a `free trade` zone. This is not at all the case, as the above quote by Monsieur Monet illustrates very clearly. So what are the ramifications of a `Yes` vote by the Irish. The European Union was founded on lies and deceit at the very highest levels of government. This trail of deception has continued since, and on Thursday 13th December 2007 stopped momentarily in Lisbon Portugal, where the `dignitaries` of the member states of this `trading bloc` signed the `EU Reform Treaty`. This `Treaty` replaces the EU Constitution rejected in 2005 by both France and the Netherlands. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor and the former French President `Giscard D`Estaing are among many European ministers who have confirmed that the `Treaty` is but the Constitution by another name. The only differentials being the dropping from the new document those articles relating to the EU Flag, Anthem and Motto. Yet only two days prior to the `Historic event` in Lisbon, sixteen member states `broke cover` and called for an amendment to the `Treaty `and the reinstatement of these three articles, thereby transforming the `Treaty` into the original Constitution. They also want to impose the `single currency` on all those member states still retaining their `indigenous` currencies and are suggesting that a `Europe Day` become a holiday for celebration. The leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party `Nigel Farage` said, "The full treachery being imposed is at last fully out in the open. The pathetic attempts claiming this wasn't the Constitution are now blown out of the water. Back comes the flag, the anthem and the motto. It means that what was 96% of the original constitution is now 100%. Let's not hear any more of the `Reform Treaty`. This is the rejected EU Constitution brought back in all it's pomp." Whilst still in office, the former Danish Prime Minister and current Secretary General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, decided against any referendum on the Treaty, leaving it's ratification to Danish MPs. Since then, nothing has changed here in the `Old Kingdom,` where it's business as usual as far as the Lisbon Treaty is concerned. Last year, Mr Fogh Rasmussen stated that the "Treaty` was 'Good For Denmark." Denmark had planned to hold a referendum on the Constitution back in 2005, but following the `NO` votes in France and Holland, the vote was dropped. The Danish Justice Ministry have concluded that the `Treaty` does not threaten Danish Sovereignty. Mr Fogh Rasmussen was quoted as saying, " When sovereignty is relinquished, a referendum is needed, but when no sovereignty is relinquished, Parliament will ratify the text." He also confirmed plans to hold another referendum on the `Single Currency` (EURO) and whether to end the `opt outs` agreed at Maastricht relating to defence, justice and home affairs. So, no threat to sovereignty ? Well let's consider the implications: If a Sovereign Nation State no longer controls it's own Economy, Defence, Justice System and Home Affairs, can it truly be called a `Sovereign Nation State` any longer ? The answer is quite simply NO. The Political and Financial Elite of Europe have been working towards this moment since the end of World War Two. In every member state, the personalities might differ, but the rhetoric is always the same; "No Loss Of Sovereignty, good for the people, good for the economy and so on.". So let us take a look at what this `Treaty` is really about. What is the difference between this document and the original Constitution ? German Lawyer, Klaus Heeger, a researcher and legal advisor to the Independent Democratic group in the EU Parliament has drawn the following conclusions regarding the two documents: According to his analysis, the Constitution granted the EU 105 new `competences`. The `Treaty` also grants 105 new areas of competence. Out goes the EU symbols (Flag, Anthem, Motto) in comes Climate Change. The remaining 104 areas remain the same. Decision making by qualified majority replaces `unanimity` in 62 new areas in the Reform Treaty. One more than in the Constitution. Out goes `Intellectual property rights`, in comes energy and climate change. The other 60 stay the same. His conclusion; The EU Constitution by another name. This sixth and final `Treaty` is the `death knell` for the sovereignty of the member states of the EU. Do not be mistaken about this, and no matter what your `elected` leaders are telling you to the contrary, this is it. This is the culmination of years of plotting, deception and conspiring against the people of Europe. So what's the big deal many will ask ? Read on and find out. This `Treaty` is the EU's most secret and quickest drafted document yet. Opposition to and recognition that the EU is a Police State in the making is growing and they (the conspirators) know that speed is vital. Tony Blair agreed to it in June 2007 as his final `Stab in Britain's Back.` Foreign Ministers agreed it's terms in September 2007 and on 13th December two months later, the representatives of each member state signed the document, and now, all that remains is ratification, and the deed will be done. So, if the result of the Irish vote is a `Yes` and all other member states do as indicated, ratify this treasonous piece of infamy, how will our lives be affected ? Our National Parliaments will become redundant as all power that still remains will transfer to Brussels. It will mean the formal end of those Historic Nations of Europe who are member states of the EU. National Embassies around the world will come under the auspices of EU bureaucrats. The ancient counties and provinces will be merged and combined into `EU Administrative Regions`. (The amalgamations of Kommunes in Denmark is a pre-emptive example of this, along with the `devolved` parliaments of Scotland and Wales, to be soon joined by the eradication of `England` and the setting up of similar regional assemblies there). The EU will take ownership of Police, Military, Nuclear Weapons, Currency Reserves and North Sea Oil as outlined in the Treaty document. Serving members of our Police and Armed Forces will be required to take an oath of loyalty to the EU. Refusal will result in dismissal. The EU will have complete control of all military matters, equipment and facilities. Political parties will be abolished, phased out or realigned. Only Pan European parties will be allowed. 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. (Even before the Irish Vote, News from Brussels indicates that plans are afoot already to eliminate any `Euro-sceptic groups within the EU Parliament). The EU will have the legal right to close National Parliaments and Assemblies. Many people will be made unemployed as the EU rule of `retraining` at a citizens own expense becomes universal (including the purchase of a Certificate confirming said retraining). Hundreds of thousands of small businesses will be forced to close due to the enforcement of endless numbers of impracticable and unworkable EU regulations. Around 107,000 EU laws will criminalise many, as adherence to this amount of legislation is impossible. We will be subject to frequent fines and even arrest as a result of what will be our inevitable ignorance. Take the following as examples: From January 2006, it became illegal to repair your own domestic plumbing, electrics or even your own car. If you buy a boat over six feet long, built after 1999, you will be required to pay the equivalent in Euros of £4000, or face six months in prison. As the EU `Police State` flexes it's muscles ever more, each of us will live under the fear and threat of arrest or prosecution for any one of a myriad of offences, even minor ones. The Large Corporations will do well of course, utilising massive immigration from within and without the EU, paying minimum wages to immigrants at the expense of the indigenous population, thus forcing salaries downwards. Furthermore, these Corporations will have a near Monopoly on employment (along with Government), and will be able to dictate conditions and terms of employment without fear of contradiction. Top Government Jobs and the inevitable corruption which will accompany this monopoly, will create a new `Class Divide` ensuring the rich and their `fellow travellers` get richer, whilst the majority decline into poverty. Taxes will increase in order to pay for the massive growth in bureaucracy. There will be no `redress of grievance` through local `democratic` channels because there won't be any local democracy. Or any democracy at all for that matter. The `EU Administrative Regional Governments` will be unelected (See the EU Regionalisation plan on the EU Website). Our only vote will be to the powerless EU Parliament. We will be ruled by the unelected EU Commissioners, who have no `accountability to the people` at any level. If we demonstrate or protest, we can be seized and relocated to another EU Region. The EU Arrest Warrant and the various legislation introduced across the EU since 9/11 will give the Authorities absolute power over us. The shootings of innocents `Philip Prout` and `Jean de Menezes` were entirely legal under EU Law. The intimidation and growing `Anti Muslim` vitriol across the EU is becoming reminiscent of the treatment of Jews in pre-war Germany. A Federal European State will become a very unpleasant place to be. Following Federation, in and around 15 years hence, Europe could collapse under the weight of it's own Bureaucracy and Corruption. There will be so little production, that no amount of taxation will be able to support the vast, inept, corrupt and wasteful government machinery. Many will be reduced to poverty on the brink of starvation. The complete lack of any `checks and balances` will leave the door open for any would be dictatorship. The EU as monstrous as it is, is nothing more than a `stepping stone` to `World Government`. Before you dismiss this article as `Scare Mongering` or `Conspiracy Theory`, find out how many of your own country's leading politicians are members of such `Secret Organisations` as the Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission, Club Of Rome, and the Royal Institute For International Affairs. Each and every one of the above are totally dedicated to a `One World` Government and see a Federal Europe as a necessary evolution towards that goal. Their memberships read like a who's who of the planet's `power players`. Danish readers for example, might be very surprised to discover which of their country's Political and Financial Elites attend the Bilderberger meetings, which has been in the forefront of machinations to further European Federalisation. To find out which of your elected representatives are members of any of the above groups, just type in the organisation's name on any recognised search engine. Then sit back and prepare to be shocked. We live in an age where people seem to have abdicated all responsibility for their own lives to Government. This has been going on since the end of World War Two, but has accelerated markedly since the 1980's. This `social irresponsibility` led us to Lisbon on 13th December 2007, where our so called leaders signed away our ancient rights and freedoms in the name of their `great plan`. If we sit back and do nothing, the rest of our lives will become a nightmare of our own making, because in the final analysis, it is we who will have handed over our rights and liberties into the hands of `wolves.` The future well being of a whole continent lies in the hands of the Brave and Heroic Irish people. They need our support. They need to know they are not alone. It's time to start writing to your `elected` representatives, time to find the time to research what the EU `Beast` is really about. It's time to switch off the TV and pick up a book about the EU, or check out the many Internet sites relating to this Totalitarian `Super-State in the making.` Do something, speak to your friends, neighbours, family; just do something before it is too late, and if the Irish vote yes, it is. Comments to: http://righteousalliance.blogspot.com/ References http://www.jimcorr.com/index.php?option=com_ content&view=section&layout=blog&id=10&Itemid=77 http://www.bonde.com/index.php/bonde_uk/article/C221/ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0909/breaking45.htm http://www.freenations.freeuk.com/ http://www.statewatch.org/

No comments:

Post a Comment

Top 11 Reasons You Should Fight Hate Laws

Unless we resist now, a thought crimes bureaucracy like those regulating Australia, Canada and Europe will soon rule America. In these nations, federal hate laws have destroyed citizens' rights to free speech. Punishment of politically incorrect bias is the ultimate goal of this legislation.

A national hate law would shatter Americans' First Amendment rights, which are now sadly unique among Western democracies. We would lose our precious freedom to express politically incorrect ideas, moral judgments, or whatever personal convictions the reigning thought police deem "hateful."

Think this can't happen in America? Think again.

Hostile work environment law and campus speech bans already severely curtail free expression in American workplaces and universities. A US federal hate law would follow the examples of Europe, Canada, and Australia where Christian pastors have been indicted simply for quoting politically incorrect Scripture in their sermons. Iceland's Orwellian hate law, for example, promises two years' jail if you verbally "insult" a person on the basis of their nationality, skin color, race, religion, or sexual orientation.

If a federal hate law were passed, free expression across the political spectrum would be threatened. What would happen to blasphemous art like Piss Christ or South Park, to Ann Coulter or Al Franken, to Christians protesting sodomy or homosexuals attacking the Bible? Every American, from left-leaning feminists to red state Republicans, should protest "anti-hate" legislation. If Rosie O'Donnell were an Icelander, she could have been prosecuted for verbal "assault" for her recent statement that radical Christianity is as dangerous as radical Islam. Political activists in nations with hate laws have already been indicted for criticizing Islam, Zionism, and homosexuality. Hate laws threaten your freedom to speak your mind, no matter what's on it.

Here are some of the most powerful, bipartisan reasons to fight this legislation.

1. Speech bans are a political weapon used by those in power to silence their opponents and politically unpopular minorities.

Hate laws empower the government to enforce the orthodoxy of whoever happens to be in charge. The government can define which biases or "hatreds" are unacceptable and which are okay. For instance, hate laws in our PC age allow women to derogate men but would silence men from legitimate (though possibly hurtful) speech like a discussion of biological gender differences.

In 2004 Swedish feminist Joanna Rytel wrote a hate-filled screed published in a major daily. Her article describes white men as arrogant, sex-obsessed and exploitative, explaining that Rytel just wants to "puke" on them. Stockholm authorities refused to indict Rytel under their hate law, saying it was passed to protect ethnic minorities, not white Swedes. This is one example of speech bans' uneven enforcement; they are used to punish certain kinds of hate and allow others.

Because almost every exercise of free speech offends someone, government officials would end up enforcing speech bans on the basis of their own bias. Speech bans simply can't be evenhanded unless everyone is shut up altogether.

In the real world, speech can and does wound. That's a cost of life. We naturally resent painful realities like economic competition, unfair comments, and hard work. But in each case, the cures we've tried were far worse than the sickness. Speech bans might censor some hurtful speech but would empower government to silence minorities and strip the intellectual marketplace of legitimate and needed expression-the kind that creates positive, social change precisely because it is minority and challenges the sins of the group.

2. Hate speech bans don't work.

Genuine racism and false hatreds exist in this world. Bans on hate speech, however, won't solve the problem. If you only break off a tick's body, its head will burrow deep beneath the skin. The only effective response to bad ideas is the truth. We should combat falsehoods with more and freer discussion, not less.

3. Hate laws aren't necessary.

ADL claims an epidemic of hate sweeps America that can only be fought with stiffened penalties for bias-driven crimes. Yet the FBI's 2005 Uniform Crime Report shows alleged hate crimes form a tiny 1/15 of 1 percent of all crime in America. Law enforcers' time would be far better spent fighting the 99.85 percent of crime that's happening every minute across our nation rather than getting entangled in discerning and testifying against the perceived motivations of a tiny minority of criminals.

Hate laws would require vast government bureaucracies, complicate law enforcement, and distract police and prosecutors from dealing with actual physical crimes. Government and law enforcement should focus on criminal acts, not words or motivations, in a nation where someone is murdered every 22 minutes, raped every 5, robbed every 49 seconds and burgled every 10 seconds. Discerning and prosecuting criminal motivations would only be a good plan if law enforcers had God's omniscience and time to waste. Ours have neither.

4. Hate speech bans are unconstitutional.

Because the First Amendment underwrites our most precious civil liberty, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled against speech bans. In 1972 the Court declared, "[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its contents." (Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92)

Some forms of speech are restricted; these include threats and "fighting words" that incite "an immediate breach of peace." But these restrictions are (and must remain) extremely narrow and content-neutral-the government is not allowed to censor speech based on the viewpoint it expresses but only on whether it constitutes an immediate threat. Hate laws, however, would punish the viewpoints expressed in speech, in violation of the Constitution.

International use of ADL-designed hate laws shows that the first kinds of speech to be sanctioned are extreme right, white nationalist speech and Holocaust reductionism. The average person is slow to defend such speech. But hate laws quickly broaden to punish forms of expression the average citizen would never dream of stifling. Sweden's 2002 modified hate law, for example, explicitly exposes Christian sermons to prosecution!

All forms of controversial political and religious speech are potentially vulnerable to prosecution under hate laws. This contradicts Supreme Court Justice Holmes Jr. who said in 1929, "[I]f there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment [loyal defense] than any other, it is the principle of free thought-not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate."

5. Speech bans will be used against the very minorities they were meant to protect.

Speech bans silence some to protect the feelings of others. But when the government has power to silence expression that power can be wielded against the very people who once enjoyed its protection. Liberals, the champions of unrestrained speech in the 1960s, now vote as a bloc in Congress to support speech restrictions. Yet already in countries such as Canada, England and Australia, leftist critics of Islam have become the victims of hate laws, indicted for religious "hate speech."

Leftist artists Rowan Atkinson and Salman Rushdie realize hate laws don't just threaten white nationalists like David Duke but liberals as well- they recently fought for revision of Britain's hate law because it could be used to outlaw art that blasphemes or criticizes religion. Atkinson and Rushdie are just a few of hate laws' leftist critics who know that persons of all political persuasions have a stake in defeating this legislation.

6. Speech bans chill legitimate and valuable speech.

Under the threat of possible indictment, many people will refrain from discussing controversial but important ideas. Speech bans are often broad and vague, leaving citizens unsure what might get them hauled into court.

This is what has happened in American workplaces, where hostile work environment law has left many employees unsure what they can say. Many Americans avoid all controversial speech and voluntarily refrain from exercising First Amendment rights at work. Hate laws would extend this dangerous minefield to the national political scene.

Legal philosopher Edmond Cahn points out that speech bans would leave our bookshelves empty. "[T]he officials could begin by prosecuting anyone who distributes the Christian gospels, because they contain many defamatory statements not only about Jews but also about ChristiansThen the officials could ban Greek literature for calling the rest of the world "barbarians." Roman authors could be suppressed because when they were not defaming the Gallic and Teutonic tribes, they were disparaging the ItaliansThen there is Shakespeare, who openly affronts the French, the Welsh, the Danes" (Beyond the Burning Cross, E. Cleary, Random House, 1994)

7. Speech bans greatly reduce the possibility of healthy, democratic change.

Criminalizing speech that expresses "hate" or "bias" would require us to outlaw history's most valuable speech, especially the political and religious speech that threatens social stasis and ignites progress.

Aggressive speech is often the only tool available to political, social, or religious minorities whose access to government lobbying and mass media is limited. Those agitating for social change often need to use inflammatory and even "hateful" language to startle the public into hearing their message. Socrates compared himself to a horsefly biting the lazy flanks of his republic. We should certainly know enough by now to prefer the annoyance of stinging speech (even when we don't see its value) to a tyrannical majority that plods, unchallenged, toward slavery.

Americans are so used to our mudslinging, no-holds-barred political discourse that we find it hard to envision the way freedom of speech could disappear. But the freedom we enjoy is extremely rare in history, and quickly lost. Free expression for intellectuals is the first thing to go when tyrants rise to power; the history of oppressive regimes makes it clear that freedom of political speech is a delicate exception and the overarching tendency is for majorities or elites to get power and silence all opposition.

8. The government's interest in reducing violent crime does not outweigh our interest in preserving civil liberty.

Hate law advocates including the ADL argue that hateful speech incites violence, and appeal to the government's interest in reducing violent crime. But it would be unfair to ban, for instance, white racist speech or Christian sermons against homosexuality without also banning the plethora of other speech that might incite crime. Gangsta rap and videogames would be open to censure; we would also have to ban pornography, especially sadomasochistic porn, which certainly inspires violence against women.

Yet bans against these kinds of speech have been repeatedly declared unconstitutional. The government has an interest in lowering violent crime of all stripes but has always found the value of the First Amendment to be greater. It's unjust to argue that a few kinds of speech must be banned because they possibly incite violence (e.g., criticism of Jewish actions or homosexuality) yet permit huge categories of speech (violent sexual entertainment) that do the same. This would happen, however, under hate laws' unequal and partial enforcement. The ADL is not truly driven by the desire to reduce violent crime but rather to enforce a social and political orthodoxy.

Instead of passing a hate law that would shatter the First Amendment and impossibly complicate law enforcement, people concerned with hate-driven crimes should focus on improving our existing justice system and making sure hard crimes don't go unpunished.

9. Speech bans are offensively paternalistic.

They presume we can't think for ourselves, reject racist or hateful ideas for ourselves, or deal with the hurt caused by others' free expression. Are we such children that we need the government to cover our ears? Speech bans especially condescend toward the minorities they portray as helpless victims whose feelings must be sheltered from ideas they can't combat in a free intellectual market.

10. Speech bans permit government to do something an individual could not morally do.

Frederic Bastiat's classic treatise on The Law says government exists only to prevent injustice by defending our basic rights to person, liberty, and property. Government does not exist to guarantee our economic outcomes, redistribute our wealth, or protect our psyches. Speech bans would empower government to silence individuals by force. This is immoral whether it's one person silencing another person or the government silencing a fringe group of dissenters. Human fallibility requires at least enough humility to allow others to question, challenge, and dissent from our ideas. John Stuart Mill explains, "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

11. Speech bans deny self-determination and individual freedom by criminalizing self-expression.

By censoring speech, hate laws censor thought and restrict our access to ideas. This is the essence of mind control. They deny the personal growth that comes from sharing ideas-including hateful, prejudiced, or false ideas-and having them challenged in a free intellectual marketplace.

Hate law speech bans have been repeatedly declared unconstitutional and would rend the very foundation of our freedom and democracy. Far from combating hate, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is actually the most hateful and enslaving legislation to ever reach Congress; it would invade states' rights in law enforcement, enabling a hate crimes bureaucracy to police our thoughts and expression. Government could censor by force all speech that dissents from the reigning orthodoxy. Every American must speak up now in defense of the freedom for which our forefathers gave their very lives.

Freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy. It is fundamental to the existence of democracy and the respect of human dignity. It is also one of the most dangerous rights, because freedom of expression means the freedom to express one's discontent with the status quo and the desire to change it. As such, it is one of the most threatened rights, with governments - and even human rights groups - all over the world constantly trying to curtail it.

Make your voice heard today or it will be silenced tomorrow.

Fredrick Douglas

"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle! Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

Saturday, September 12, 2009