EU Deception: Wider & Deeper
By William F. Jasper
|
Source: 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.
|
