EU Deception: Wider & Deeper
William F. Jasper
|
The New American, December 2, 2003
The Irish referendum and the drive for a European constitution show that the Euro-elitists will employ every deception. U.S. elites are following the EU example with the FTAA. |
In June 2001, Irish voters rejected the controversial Treaty of Nice in a nationwide referendum. The Nice Treaty (named after the French city where it was negotiated) transfers enormous powers from the individual member states of the European Union to the growing EU central government. But before going into effect, all 15 EU members had to approve it. Ireland, the only EU member to submit the Nice Treaty to a national referendum, was the only holdout.
But the Euro-elitists were unwilling to take Ireland’s “No” vote for an answer. And so Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern, other European leaders, and the press subjected the Irish voters to a relentless, year-long hammering for spoiling their grandiose schemes for a European superstate sweeping away all vestiges of national sovereignty. The Euro-elitists did not present it that way to the recalcitrant Irish of course; they claimed instead that the Nice Treaty was needed to extend EU membership to other nations.
Thus, a new Irish referendum was scheduled, and on October 20th of this year Irish voters approved the Nice Treaty. Recognizing the deception and corruption in the Euro-elitists’ maneuvers is of extreme importance to Americans, because similar maneuvers are underway here. On this side of the Atlantic, the elitists fully intend to empower NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) while simultaneously expanding its membership from its present three-nation membership to all nations of the Western Hemisphere. In its expanded form, it would be known as the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas). And like the EU, it would sap the sovereignty of the member nations in a developing trans-continental superstate.
To overcome Irish opposition, the Euro-elitists totally misrepresented the Nice Treaty to the voters. They cleverly diverted voter attention from the principal effect of the treaty — transferring vast economic and political power to the EU — to a secondary issue. The establishment media in the U.S. followed the lead of the European press, portraying the vote as a decision on granting 12 new states, mostly from the former Soviet bloc, membership in the European Union. This process of expanding EU membership is referred to in Eurospeak as “widening.”
In reality, Ireland’s earlier “No” vote would not have stopped the widening process; the new members would have been added in the same way that other members have been added, without a new EU treaty. The Nice Treaty, however, is more concerned with “deepening,” the process by which the individual nation states incrementally surrender their sovereignty.
Not-so-nice Treaty of Nice
The Nice Treaty’s provisions include:
- Radically reformulating the weighted EU voting system, with new “ex-Communist” states (some still controlled by overt Communists) having more voting power than EU founding states.
- Abolishing the national veto in 39 social and economic areas, thus allowing the Eurocrats to assume control of these areas with a majority vote instead of a unanimous vote.
- Implementing a Soviet-style Human Rights Charter, replete with Marxist “rights” to state-controlled health care, housing, etc., and a clause stating that all rights can be suspended “where necessary in the general interests of the union.”
- Creating a 60,000-member EU army (a “rapid reaction force”) to carry out EU defense and foreign policy.
It was opposition to this deepening central control that caused the Irish “No” vote in June 2001. Vincent Browne, speaking for many, praised the rejection vote in a June 13, 2001 column for The Irish Times noting that, “with the European Union, Europe has moved back towards oligarchy, which, by definition, is outside any process of meaningful accountability to the people as a whole.” In the corrupt EU process, a “No” vote is considered a temporary setback, while a “Yes” vote is considered permanent.
To get the vote the Euro-elitists demanded, Prime Minister Ahern deviously changed the law on referendums, quietly rushing the bill through all its daily readings in a single day, just before the Christmas recess. He also purposely confused the issue by mixing the vote on the Nice Treaty together with a vote on non-participation in the EU army, playing to nationalist, neutralist, and pacifist opposition to joining the new EU military.
Widening vs. Deepening
The major deception, however, involved the constant drumbeat of propaganda insisting that the vote was simply about “widening.” In fact, voters were told that increasing the number of EU members would create a “looser” EU and would dilute the power of the Euro-bureaucracy. It was a lie. The European Union operates under the iron-fisted doctrine of acquis communautaire, requiring all members to adopt EU law in its entirety. The acquis, a massive legal code that, like “The Blob,” keeps growing at a frightening rate, also applies to new countries joining the union. At the November 1998 Baltic Sea Security Conference, the political director of the German Foreign Ministry, Klaus Neubert, speaking for the EU, said: “The acquis is 320,000 type-written pages with only 80,000 that are negotiable and those are not negotiable on substance but on transition times. Candidate countries must accept all of this law and make sure that it is applied effectively.” (Emphasis added.)
Overwhelmingly controlled by pro-EU internationalists, the major European press rarely publicizes admissions like Herr Neubert’s. Indeed, the EU’s history consists of an astonishing trail of colossal lies.
A glimpse of the duplicity of the Heath government in the planned destruction of Britain’s sovereignty surfaced in 2000 with the release of records concerning Britain’s 1970 application to join the Common Market, as the EU was then called. The documents clearly showed that Prime Minister Edward Heath had conspired with the Brussels globalists to deceive the British people.
Heath and his fellow conspirators cavalierly dismissed concerns that joining the Common Market might cause Britain to lose its political independence. “There will not be a blueprint for a federal Europe,” Heath told the House of Commons on February 25, 1970. “There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty,” Heath’s 1972 White Paper insisted. Years later, in an interview with the BBC, he told a decidedly different story. In a November 1, 1991 interview, the BBC’s Peter Sissions asked: “The single currency; a United States of Europe; was that in your mind when you took Britain in?” “Of course, yes,” Heath responded.
Releasing the sealed records in 2000 more fully exposed the extent of the Heath regime’s lying. “What these papers revealed more starkly than ever before,” says British journalist Christopher Booker, “was just how deliberately the Heath Government and the Foreign Office set out to conceal from the British people the Common Market’s true purpose. They were fully aware that it was intended to be merely the first step towards creating a politically united Europe, but they were determined to hide this away from view.”
The lying and conspiring didn’t start and didn’t end with the Heath government. “For 40 years,” says Booker, “British politicians have consistently tried to portray it [the Common Market and EU] to their fellow-citizens as little more than an economic arrangement: a kind of free-trading area primarily concerned with creating jobs and prosperity.”
From Maastricht to Nice
The same is true concerning the governments of the other EU nations. Widespread public opposition to scrapping national currencies for the new EU currency, the euro, caused Britain, Denmark, and Sweden to opt out of the currency swap. But the Euro-elitists saw these holdouts merely as temporary recalcitrants that they would eventually reel in. Swedish voters may have thought that they could stay out of the EU’s monetary union, but they are already trapped by the Maastricht Treaty, Sweden’s deputy central bank chief, Villy Bergström, has claimed in a recent book. “I have never before seen such manipulated, obscure and faked policies as in relation to Swedish relations to the EU,” says Bergström. “Information has been evasive and unclear, giving the impression that membership of the EU would mean much less radical change than what has been the case.”
But radical, revolutionary change is precisely what the EU is all about. Like Maastricht, the Nice Treaty is meant to lock the EU member nations further into the trap. The Maastricht Treaty, which takes its name from the Dutch city that hosted a 1991 EU summit, was a major milestone in the EU assault on national sovereignty. It committed the member states to monetary union and a single currency. German Chancellor Helmut Kohl proudly proclaimed after the meeting that “Europe is not the same Europe,” and “the path to European union is now irreversible.”
Writing on the eve of the summit, Lionel Stoleru, economics editor of The European, observed that “Maastricht could be called the ‘Monnet summit,’” since it followed the late Jean Monnet’s dictum that political union will follow economic union. Monnet, a French socialist economist and the architect of the European Community, is often called “the Father of Europe.”
“Money is the key link which will transform economic union into a political union,” wrote Stoleru, an obvious Monnet devotee. “Take the central bank to a supra-national level and the national balance of powers collapses because monetary union is impossible without the converging economic policies referred to in the treaty as ‘multilateral surveillance.’”
“What does it mean to be European?” Stoleru asks. “It means to accept the transfer of national sovereignty to the European Community. In that sense, the European monetary union is not monetary progress; it is political progress confirming the triumph of Monnet’s pioneering vision.” What was Monnet’s ultimate vision? That was clearly spelled out in the Resolutions on Political Union at Monnet’s Congress of Europe in 1948: “The creation of a United Europe must be regarded as an essential step towards the creation of a United World.”
America’s Version of the EU
Monnet’s plan for a socialist United Europe was made possible with the enormous funding that poured into the Pan-European movement after World War II through the Marshall Plan, the CIA, and American tax-exempt foundations. Greasing the skids for Monnet were America’s one-world elite from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), including: John J. McCloy; John Foster Dulles; David Rockefeller; George Ball; C. Douglas Dillon; and Averell Harriman. All the while, they were preparing a similar regional arrangement for the United States. After decades of preparation, that is now coming together as the FTAA.
Following the deception model used so successfully in selling the EU, the CFR internationalists are presenting the FTAA as a trade pact that will promote trade and prosperity by facilitating the movement of capital, goods, services, and people across borders in the Western Hemisphere. Like the EU, however, the FTAA is not about facilitating trade; it is about centralizing power and destroying national sovereignty. Many of the FTAA architects have publicly admitted their intentions of creating a political and economic union of all the nations of North and South America. Speaking on May 16th of this year in Madrid, Spain, Mexico’s President Vicente Fox, a premier FTAA proponent, let the cat out of the bag. “Eventually,” he said, “our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union.”
The kinds of “connections and institutions” Fox referred to are becoming more disturbingly clear. On October 28th, former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing unveiled the initial draft of a new constitution for Europe, resulting from an EU convention he had led. The new “architecture” it proposes would codify one of the most immense transfers of governmental power in human history. It is probably more than coincidence that the Giscard EU constitution draft was released almost concurrently with the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit hosted by Vicente Fox in Mexico, immediately followed by the FTAA summit in Quito, Ecuador. Although not impossible, it will be immensely difficult and painful for Europeans to extricate themselves from the advanced stages of this deadly trap. Americans had best learn from the tragic experience of the Europeans and derail the FTAA train before it has a chance to travel any farther down the EU tracks.
|
