European Union's governing elite refuses to give up globalist
schemes
Betreff: European Union's governing elite refuses to
give up globalist schemes
Von: ECOTERRA Intl.
Datum: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:48:30 +0300
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 2:45 PM
Subject: Voters Reject EU Constitution
Molonlabe
Email News List Molonlabe@charter.net
The Bald Eagle, The Bird of Freedom Glides , gazing, calm and sure!
Voters
Reject EU Constitution by William F. Jasper June 27, 2005 The
European Union's governing elite are stunned by French and Dutch
voters' rejection of the EU Constitution, but refuse to give up their
globalist schemes.
First,
the French voters shouted a defiant "NON!" Then the Dutch yelled "NEE!"
And now the Brits are lined up to roar a resounding "NO!" The ruling
classes of the European Union — the politicians, the media commentators
and editors, the academicians, the corporate globalists — are
astonished and dazed at their defeat on the proposed constitution for
the EU. A year ago the conventional wisdom was that of the 25 EU member
nations only the stubborn British might fail to ratify the document.
But
on May 29, French voters sent a thunderbolt crashing into the
Eurocrats' unification schemes, with 55 percent voting thumbs down on
the new constitution. Three days later, on June 1, voters in Holland
sent an even more thunderous message. With a 63 percent turnout that
exceeded all projections, the Dutch rejected the constitution by a
margin of 62 percent to 38 percent.
The
French and Dutch votes are all the more remarkable for two very
important reasons: Even though the leading politicians, major parties,
and principal media organs in both countries solidly backed a "Yes"
vote, the people defiantly and adamantly said "No!" And France and the
Netherlands, as two of the six original members that launched the
Common Market (which became the EU), have been considered to be among
the most "Eurocentric" of the EU member states.
Every
one of the 25 countries of the EU must ratify the constitution before
it can go into effect. So, it would appear that the EU constitution is
dead, right? Indeed, many already have written its obituary. "The
French people have given a huge smack in the face to an entire system
that has the nerve to tell us what to think," said France's leading
"No" campaigner Philippe de Villiers. "The constitution is no more." After
the Dutch vote, Liam Fox, Britain's shadow foreign secretary from the
opposition Tory Party was even more emphatic, declaring: "The French
voters gave the constitution its death sentence. The Dutch voters have
now dealt a fatal blow. The constitution is dead."
"Yes" Means Yes, "No" Means Revote
Others
are more cautious about declaring final victory. Jeffrey Titford of the
United Kingdom Independence Party and a Member of the European
Parliament (MEP) warns that the constitution "certainly isn't dead
yet." "[The French rejection] is a step in the right direction for
those of us who believe that Europe's nations should be independent and
self-governing," Titford said. "However," he also noted, "it is highly
doubtful whether the architects of the European empire will respect the
wishes of the French voters. Sadly, history has shown us that in
referendums on EU issues, 'no' does not necessarily mean no. This
particular battle has been won but the war itself goes on. The
Constitution certainly isn't dead yet...."
Like
the vampire in a B-grade horror movie that keeps returning because it
hasn't yet had a stake driven through its heart, the EU Constitution
will return again. Jean-Claude Juncker, prime minister of Luxembourg
and holder of the rotating EU presidency, suggested that the French
could be asked to vote again. "We would have to wait for the end of the
ratification process," he told the Belgian daily Le Soir on May 25. "If
at the end of it, we don't manage to solve the problems, the countries
that have said 'no' should ask themselves the question again."
Shortly
before the French vote, with opinion polls showing his pet project
headed for defeat, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the former French
president and the principal architect of the constitution, addressed
the issue about what happens if France or another EU country rejects
the constitution. "Those who did not vote for the Constitution, we will
ask them to revote," Giscard d'Estaing told France's LCI television.
This
revote proposal was echoed by Peter Mandelson, Britain's member of the
European Commission, the EU's executive body. Concerning the prospect
of a revote, Mandelson said: "I don't think that would be absurd
because we would be asking the French people to reflect, to hear the
argument or the debate in the rest of Europe and then to have a second
opportunity to give their verdict again."
As
Michael Settle, chief political correspondent for The Herald, notes,
these statements exemplify the "imperious" and hypocritical attitude of
the "Brussels elite" that has fueled much of the current hostility
toward the EU and the proposed constitution. "Of course, if the French
had voted 'Yes' last night, then a revote would have been unthinkable,"
Mr. Settle wrote, "because, according to the Brussels elite, they would
have made the correct decision. It's democracy but not as we know it."
A
revote on the constitution would not be the first experience Europeans
have had with Brussels-style democracy. In 1992, for instance, Danish
voters turned thumbs down on the Maastricht Treaty, one of the most
important agreements for transforming the Common Market into the
European Union. Among other things, Maastricht gave Brussels vast new
powers over foreign, defense, and economic policies, including the
creation of a single currency (the euro) and a European central bank.
The next year, however, the Danes were confronted with a revote and,
caving to an onslaught of threats, promises, and propaganda, adopted
Maastricht.
The
Brussels elite pulled off a similar coup with the Irish over the Nice
Treaty, a primary feature of which expanded the EU from 15 to 25
members. After rejecting the treaty in 2001, the Irish ratified the
treaty in a 2002 revote. Supporters of the EU constitution have cited
the Danish and Irish precedents as justification for a revote in France
and Holland. However, this only seems to be helping the EU opponents,
who also have been citing the Danish and Irish experiences to remind
voters of the arrogance and hypocrisy of the pro-EU politicians and the
EU bureaucrats, as well as to underscore the point that "democracy," in
the EU lexicon, means voting and revoting until the voters give the
only verdict acceptable to Brussels.
Revolt Against the Power Elite
The
French and Dutch votes against the EU Constitution may have a snowball
effect. It could fuel "No" votes in Denmark and the Czech Republic, and
already has sparked calls in Sweden that the issue be submitted to a
referendum, rather than being voted on by the parliament, as has been
done in most EU countries. Prior to the French vote, only Spain had
submitted the constitution to a popular vote. The pro-EU camp portrayed
the Spanish "Yes" vote in February as a massive victory for the further
"integration" of Europe. However, the Spanish vote was far from a
massive victory, and it revealed much of the dark side of EU-style
"democracy."
The
"Yes" vote materialized in Spain, but not in France and the
Netherlands, because of bribery — a crucial policy tool of the EU Power
Elite. Spain has received the equivalent of more than 93 billion euros
in EU aid since joining the Common Market in 1986. These massive
transfers have financed Spain's "economic miracle," transforming it
into one of the continent's fastest growing economies. Spaniards, of
course, have benefited materially from these transfers — at the expense
of their northern neighbors who have footed the bill. In addition,
Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero spent vast sums of
political and economic capital in a mammoth propaganda campaign that
employed movie stars, rock stars, sports stars, as well as a non-stop
barrage of daily chatterings by the political and media elite.
President
Chirac was expecting and hoping for a comfortable "Yes" vote when he
scheduled the French referendum. He was not required to hold one, but
he apparently thought that this would enhance his political stature. He
could not have been more wrong. The stunning "No" vote has been seen by
virtually all analysts (and rightly so) as a resounding repudiation of
the Chirac government, which has pushed relentlessly for unbridled EU
centralization and full political and economic integration. Although
Chirac refused to resign, as called for by voices across the political
spectrum, he did feel compelled to sack his prime minister, Jean-Pierre
Raffarin, who had helped lead the "Yes" campaign.
When
it became apparent that the referendum was going to go badly against
him, Chirac took a page from the Zapatero playbook: the celebrity card.
Team Chirac brought in actors Gérard Depardieu and Jeanne
Moreau, along
with pop singers Johnny Hallyday and Françoise Hardy, as well as
other
entertainment and sports celebrities to prod their fellow French
citizens into embracing the EU Constitution. Realizing he needed even
more help, he brought German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Polish
President Alexander Kwasniewski, and Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero to
join the campaign. With
opinion polls showing the constitution still going down to defeat, the
"Yes" campaign became even more desperate and strident, saturating the
print and broadcast media with editorials and "news" reports on the
dire consequences of a "No" vote. French voters were bombarded with
messages suggesting that a "No" vote would be a vote for racism,
fascism, and xenophobia. But
the heavy-handed bludgeoning and the obvious unfairness (and probable
criminality) involved in using EU personnel and funds to foist this
program on French voters ultimately backfired. It served to
emphatically underscore the fact that despite all the talk from
Brussels about "transparency" and "reform," the Eurocrats were as
determined as ever to force their will upon "the people" they claim to
serve.
Jose
Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, came to New York
on May 13 to deliver a talk to America's ruling elite at the Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR). "We are doing everything we can to get that
ratification in France," Barroso told his fellow one-worlders. This was
a stark admission that merely confirmed what was apparent to most
voters. The Eurocrats, who are not supposed to have any say in national
elections and referendums, were "doing everything" they could to pass a
constitution that would grant themselves vast new powers. And they were
using money provided by French taxpayers to convince those same
taxpayers that more and more of their spending and tax policies should
be dictated from Brussels.
This
imperious attitude, as expressed by Barroso, Chirac, Giscard d'Estaing,
and other EU power brokers only served to reopen the charges of
elitism, corruption, deception, and power grabbing that had surrounded
the Constitutional Convention that drafted the proposed new EU
constitution. That convocation was a closed, secret affair, in which
the "Presidium," headed by Giscard d'Estaing, constructed the new
governing system that they intend to foist on Europeans — whether they
want it or not. The convocation disregarded completely the wishes of
member states, refusing to discuss or consider the amendments they
proposed.
Not a
single Euroskeptic or Eurorealist (as opponents of EU integration and
expansion are often called) including elected members of parliaments,
was allowed to observe or participate in the work of creating the
constitution. The monstrosity that came out of this process is a
hopelessly complex and dangerous document that would put the final nail
in the coffin for independence and national sovereignty in Europe and
sweep away all remaining restraints against the assumption of total
power by the EU institutions.
What the Fuss Is About
Numerous
reports note that many French "No" votes came from socialists,
Communists, and other leftists who opposed the EU Constitution out of
fear that it would allow Brussels to impose "free trade and free
market" policies and dismantle France's generous welfare state
programs. Likewise, leftists in Holland voiced their fears that the EU
would change their liberal policies on government social spending,
legalized drugs, and strong environmental restrictions.
A
leading concern on the right and in the middle is the growing influx of
immigrants — both legal and illegal — from Eastern Europe, and even
more especially, from Muslim countries. The migration invasion, which
has already reached the crisis point under the present EU setup, would
be made far worse — and set in stone — under the EU constitution. It
will be next to impossible for the nation states to take back control
of their borders if that function is formally transferred to Brussels. EU
countries already harbor an estimated 20 million Muslims, and their
numbers are growing rapidly. Mosques have sprouted up in almost every
city, and burgeoning Muslim populations are creating serious social,
political, and security concerns. The brutal murder of Dutch filmmaker
Theo Van Gogh by a Moroccan Muslim in November 2004 was still very
fresh on the minds of many Dutch voters. Van Gogh was very publicly
stabbed, slashed, and shot to death in broad daylight on an Amsterdam
street in retaliation for producing a movie criticizing the treatment
of women in Islamic society. The
Muslim problem will only get worse if Turkey is admitted into the
Union, a major agenda item of the EU elite. Talks on moving Turkey's
accession forward are scheduled for this October. With a population of
80 million Muslims, most of whom are very poor by European standards,
Turkey's membership in the EU would allow it to send millions, if not
tens of millions, of new emigrants into Western Europe. As new citizens
of an integrated EU, Turks would be free to move, live, and work
wherever they please. Even many European liberals and socialists
recognize that this would be not only insane, but suicidal.
The
loss of control over their own borders and immigration policy is being
acutely felt throughout the EU as more and more Czechs, Poles,
Hungarians, and Slovenians move west in search of work and welfare and
medical benefits. Many commentators attributed much of the French "No"
vote to fear by French workers of the "Polish plumber," a term
referring to the flood of cheap immigrant labor from the former Soviet
bloc that is displacing French workers. Another flood of immigrant
labor will be unleashed when Bulgaria and Romania are admitted to the
EU in 2007. And Ukraine may not be far behind them.
How
much of the "No" vote in France and Holland came from the left and how
much from the right is uncertain, but underlying all of the disparate
concerns of the various opposing groups is the core issue of national
sovereignty. Whether the issue is immigration, environment, farm
policy, welfare, labor policy, or dozens of other issues, a growing
number of Europeans from across the political spectrum are opposing
efforts to transfer authority over these matters to the arrogant elites
in Brussels. The
strongest opposition to this centralizing movement has come from
Britain, where Prime Minister Tony Blair has been presented with a
conundrum. The French and Dutch votes only served to further energize
the British Eurosceptic forces. Blair has signed onto the constitution
and for the past year has been trying to sell it to voters with the
claim that he has won many concessions to make it more Anglo-Saxon
friendly. Blair and the pro-EU camp in England had been arguing that
British rejection of the EU Constitution would isolate England and
ultimately hurt it economically. But Britain, which has refused to
adopt the euro and has opted out of other EU provisions, has prospered,
while France, Germany, and other EU countries have stagnated
economically. And now, with France and Holland opting out of the EU
Constitution, Blair can't use the argument that England will be an
isolated spoiler if it rejects the pact. According to British press
reports, Blair has worked out a secret deal with members of Parliament
to vote against the constitution so that he can renege on his earlier
promises to hold a referendum. A referendum would almost certainly end
with a very strong "No" vote, and in Blair's view a strong public
rejection of the EU would be harder to override at a future date than a
rejection by Parliament.
Piecemeal Strategy Europe's
power elite have invested decades in building the European Union and
are not about to back away from their plans, despite public opposition.
They will employ a strategy to get around the road block caused by the
French and Dutch votes. Their course of action may be decided at the
meeting of the European Council in Brussels on June 16 and 17. Most
likely, they will emerge with a plan to proceed with attempts to enact
and implement much of the EU Constitution piecemeal, while perhaps
simultaneously proceeding with ratification efforts in the remaining
member states. In the meantime the EU will continue to be governed
under the complicated hodgepodge of treaties that have been ratified
over the decades. That includes 97,000 pages of EU legislation,
regulation, and court decisions known as the acquis communautaire.
The
piecemeal approach has been suggested by a number of the EU elite.
Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform in London,
told the International Herald Tribune that one way to get around
obstruction by the voters "would be for leaders to select key points of
the document and adopt them without a referendum." Mr. Grant, who wrote
an article for the CFR journal Foreign Affairs outlining various
strategies to overcome the "No" vote, does not seem to have any
aversion to doing things "on the sly," as he puts it. "Politically it
would be a hard sell to make changes like this on the sly after losing
a referendum," Grant told the Tribune. "But it would be one quick and
temporary fix." President
Barroso, in his speech to the CFR, gave a hint as to a secret trap door
that Giscard d'Estaing's crew had conveniently placed into the proposed
constitution, apparently to handle this very type of contingency.
Seeking to assure his fellow globalists that all would not be lost if
one or more countries reject the constitution, Barroso said: "What I
can tell you, not to leave you unhappy, is that there is a declaration
annexed to the treaty … that says that in case … not all member states
ratify the constitution, the matter is referred to the European
Council, to the summit of the European Union, that will address the
issue. But I cannot say more than that at this stage." What
Mr. Barroso was referring to is Declaration 30 of the constitution on
ratification, which provides that "if, two years after the signature of
the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, four-fifths of the
Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have
encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter
will be referred to the European Council."
Having
now "encountered difficulties," the European Council is free to come up
with inventive solutions, such as changing whatever rules may be
hindering progress toward further integration and what the elite
determine is "good for Europe." One of their problems will be that
every step to change the rules to enact the constitution "on the sly"
will certainly alienate even more constituents and increase the numbers
of Euroskeptics who realize that the EU is unreformable. The only hope
that EU member states can have for salvaging any semblance of self-rule
and independence is to withdraw from the EU entirely. The French and
Dutch votes were a step in the right direction, but pro-independence
forces have a long, uphill road before them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAFTA/FTAA and the EU
By WIllian F. Jasper
When the European Common Market was launched nearly 50 years ago, the
peoples of Europe were told that it was principally a "free trade"
pact. They were unaware that the architects of the scheme really
intended for the Common Market to steadily evolve, gradually acquiring
powers until it would become a supranational government.
As the Common Market evolved into the European Union, the EU's
institutions and bureaucrats in Brussels usurped more and more powers.
Adoption of the EU constitution would codify a vast transfer of
remaining legislative, executive, and judicial powers from the nation
states to the EU. Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos
happily admits that the EU constitution amounts to a death warrant for
the 25 member states. He stated: "We are witnessing the last remnants
of national politics. The member states have already relinquished
control of justice, liberty and security. The concept of traditional
citizenship has been bypassed in the 21st Century."
Many Europeans who are now desperately trying to
disentangle their countries from this morass wish they had acted
sooner, before they had gone so far into the trap. The architects of
NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), CAFTA (Central American
Free Trade Agreement), and FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas)
intend to follow the same path as the EU, pushing for full
"integration" of the 34 countries of the Western Hemisphere, but on an
accelerated timetable. EU leaders are very much involved in this
process, providing massive funding to the CAFTA/FTAA process, supplying
expertise at FTAA and Latin American conferences, and establishing
formal ties and offices with Latin American countries and the central
institutions of the FTAA: the Organization of American States, the
Inter-American Development Bank, and the United Nations Economic
Commission on Latin America.
The EU is becoming increasingly oppressive and
socialistic, and is fast on its way to becoming what Mikhail Gorbachev
has approvingly called "the new European Soviet." If America is to
retain its freedom and independence and not follow the EU Soviet
example, we must make sure that Congress rejects both CAFTA and FTAA.