In my quest to understand the forces that are impacting our world, I do a deep dive into the real European Union. To this end, I am reprinting Lindsay Jenkins’ investigative article The European Union Unmasked which was originally published in Everything You Know Is Wrong in 2002 (Russ Kick, ed. MJF Books, pub.)
If you want an anthology of many of the leading investigative journalists in the world digging into issues that mainstream media has either not reported on or does so poorly, even despite its having been printed in 2002, you will be stood in good stead with Everything You Know Is Wrong. It is still an important collection and a means for pointing out how those with power have wielded it in the past, and as a precaution for how they are likely to wield it in the future. It is worth noting that while Jenkins’ article was written almost twenty years ago, her analysis remains as an important reminder in our current time about the slippery slope that unions and agreements that erode national sovereignty represent. Brexit had not happened at the time of her writing the following article, which makes it of particular interest since Jenkins’ observations formed a salient argument for why Brexit should happen. It is well worth the read for a host of reasons, the least of which involves understanding how the EU has pushed itself onto the world stage (it’s a very old idea). My deep thanks to her for her permission to reprint her article in total here.
From the author’s website:
Lindsay Jenkins is an investigative author and journalist. She specializes in the history and current operations of the European Union.
She has dedicated years of research to exposing the rising power of the European Union, the waning power of the member nation states and the decline of freedom, liberty and democracy. Her continuing series of books, Britain in Europe, shows how far this stealthy takeover has progressed.
Lindsay’s first book, Britain Held Hostage, reveals for the first time who created the EU and why. This is the historical thesis the Brussels’ bureaucrats do not endorse.
Her second book, The Last Days of Britain, starkly illustrates how far ‘Brussels’ has already taken over Britain’s former national life.
Her most recent book, Disappearing Britain, The EU and the Death of Local Government, exposes how local government in Britain and across the EU is being replaced by the EU’s own local government of regions, sub regions and sub sub regions and thus marks the end of the nation state.
Lindsay previously worked for British and American investment banks in the City of London and as a senior civil servant in the British Ministry of Defence. She received an honours degree from Bedford College, London University and an MBA from Cranfield School of Management. She lives in both the UK and US.
Jenkins’ website: http://www.lindsayjenkins.com/about_lindsay.htm
You can purchase her books here: http://www.lindsayjenkins.com/purchase.htm
Her speeches: http://www.lindsayjenkins.com/speaking_out.htm
In his address to the US Congress on September 21, 2001, President George W Bush claimed, “America has no truer friend than Great Britain. Once again we are joined together in a great cause. I’m so honored the British prime minister has crossed an ocean to show his unity with America. Thank you for coming, friend”
In the public gallery, Britain’s prime minister, Tony Blair, stood at attention, tightlipped and serious of face to acknowledge the warm applause from the congressmen below.
Blair’s support for America in the dark hours after the terrorists attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon would have been worth little had his words not been backed by Britain’s world class Armed Forces, ready to support American military action.. A military coalition stood against Osama bin Laden and his terrorists.
It is therefore astonishing to review the events of less than three years earlier, when in December 1998 the same British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, went to meet the president of France, Jacques Chirac, at St. Malo in France.
Blair and Chirac effectively agreed to end the independence of the British and French forces in favor of the European Union (1) (EU) defense force. Here is part of their joint statement after the talks ended:
The EU needs to be [able] to play its full role on the international stage… [T]he Union must have the capacity for autonomous action backed up by critical military forces, the means to decide to use them, and a readiness to do so in order to respond to international crises….The EU will also need to have recourse to suitable military means… within NATO’s European pillar or… means outside the NATO framework.
Since that turning point in military history Tony Blair agreed to the EU’s Rapid Reaction Force of 60,000 men backed by 300 aircraft and a naval force by the year 2003. Roughly a quarter of Britain’s armed forces were pledged to serve in the new force. With nominal rotation, most British forces will be allowed to be allocated to the EU army.
“Yet here was the British prime minister prepared to give up his country’s armed forces to the control of a foreign power.“
Many would argue the defense is the first duty of government. Yet here was the British prime minister prepared to give up his country’s armed forces to the control of a foreign power.
Two British admirals warned: “It would probably mean that we would ultimately have to obtain [EU] approval if we wish to use [our forces] on a purely national basis.” (2)
Both British and European leaders have been engaging in doublespeak with the Americans, assuring them that this is not the end of NATO while at the same time planning exactly for exactly that-the end of NATO.
George Robertson, when British Defense Secretary, quickly reassured the Americans that “[there is] no question of a European single army; no [EU] commission or European Parliament involvement in decision-making; no transfer of decision-making on military capability from individual government; and no undermining or duplication of NATO.”
But the division between Britain and the US was laid bare on October 7, 1999, when the recently ennobled Lord Robertson, in his new job as NATO’s Sec. General, backed the EU and not NATO: “We want to ensure that strong effective military resources are also available to the EU, so that we can take action in support of the CFSP [the EU’s foreign-policy] when NATO… is not engaged militarily.”(3)
The the new president, Romano Prodi from Italy, was even franker: “When I was talking about the European army, I was not joking….If you don’t want to call it a European army, don’t call it a European army….You can call it ‘Margaret,’ or you can call it ‘Mary-Anne,’ you can find any name, but it is a joint effort for peacekeeping missions—the first time you have a joint, not bilateral, effort at European level.” (4)
A Military Committee of EU Chiefs of Defense Staff from all EU countries now means regularly. It started work in early 2000 with a projected staff of 90 for its headquarters. The first director was the German General Klaus Schuwirth. A Political and Security Committee of ambassadors controls the political and strategic direction of any crisis operation, sending guidelines to the Military Committee.
The terrorist attacks in the United States, and the resulting renewal of the “special relationship” with Britain, did nothing to stop or even slow the creation of the EU army. They did the opposite. The lack of military force obviously limited the use of world influence at a critical time, so the EU army project moved forward apace. It now included a committee of the EU intelligence chiefs. That must give us intelligence agencies pause for thought before passing secret material to their British ally.
Winston Churchill had presciently written years before: “A European army would be a sludgy amalgam.” (5) Today at the heart of that “amalgam” are the forces of three countries: Britain, France, and Germany. But for Germany, sending its forces abroad represents a volte face after 50 years of legal limits on the use of its Armed Forces entrenched in it’s post-WWII Constitution and a strong peace movement within the country. The EU army is further complicated because the EU includes both non-native countries and neutrals like Ireland and Sweden; there is no common language; and, last but not least, European defense is seriously underfunded.
Where will this new army be used? Anywhere up to 2,500 miles from its base, which includes the Balkans, the Middle East, and half of Africa. As Sen. John McCain shrewdly remarked: “It is not hard to envision our allies intervening militarily, under the auspices of their new defense organization and without our concurrence, in very different difficult problems that they are unprepared to resolve, necessitating an eventual appeal to NATO to bail them out.” (6)
Though no politician would say so, creating a defense force had always been on the agenda for the new European state, but it was scheduled to be the last piece of the jigsaw to be slotted into place.
Jean Monnet, The so-called father of the EU, wrote of the outbreak of the Korean war in 1950: “the Federation of Europe would have to become an immediate objective. Army would have to be placed… under joint sovereignty. We could no longer wait, as we had once planned, for political Europe to be the culminating point of a gradual process, since its joint defense was inconceivable without a joint authority.…”(7)
“The existence of an EU army, depriving the constituent nations of their own defense and wrapping them in the foreign policy of the EU, powerfully demonstrates that free trade was a pretense.”
For 50 years the Federalists pretended that the EU (and its predecessors) was no more than a trading bloc and that the acquisition of more power was only to promote free trade. The existence of an EU army, depriving the constituent nations of their own defense and wrapping them in the foreign policy of the EU, powerfully demonstrates that free trade was a pretense.
The new reality is a new country called “Europe.”
Monnet’s “gradual process” has already achieve the supremacy of EU law over national law, with the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg as the ultimate court of appeal. Trade farming and fishing are controlled from Brussels,; No individual country can sign a treaty, which means, for example, that only the EU can negotiate at the World Trade Organization (WTO); and foreign-policy, taxation, and national finances are already heavily circumscribed. Both an EU wide criminal justice system and an EU wide police force, which will eventually run all national police forces, are well on the way.(8)
This long process of integration has been notable by the absence of any democratic choice. The origins of the EU can be traced directly to chance meetings at the 1919 peace conference at the end of the first world war. A small group of largely British and American elites kept in touch and developed ideas for a united Europe while waiting for any chance to start the process. The first attempt, the Franco-Anglo Union, took place in the dark days of 1940s when German armies were overrunning Europe. It failed. The second try was the Council of Europe which Britain deliberately reduced to talking shop by 1950. Finally, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) of six countries began in 1952, with the unelected Jean Monnet at its head. That, too, was nearly stillborn because of the Korean War. While the ECSC report purported to be a trading alliance, it could levy taxes and was responsible to a supranational assembly and a European Court of Justice. It was an embryonic state.
A further push with the Treaty of Rome in 1957 turned the ECSC into the European Economic Community (EEC), embracing all economic activity, not just coal and steel. Over 40 years later, the 15 countries of the European Union may enlarge to 28 countries. Even Russia is waiting in the wings. (9)
There is still a hole at the center of the EU jigsaw. The EU does not have a legal personality; therefore, it is not a state. An EU constitution is likely to be high on the agenda at the 2004 intergovernmental conference. These conferences always precede the next amendment to the fundamental EU document, the Treaty of Rome.
Progress toward one state has been made by a ratchet technique-small advances that only specialist watchers might appreciate for what they really are. Direct assaults on national independence are avoided. Some countries have held referendums on treaty changes. Most infamous where the two Danish referendums on the Maastricht Treaty. The Danes voted “no” in June 1992 and were promptly told they had to vote again. Less than a year later, and with substantial bribery and bullying; “You will lose your job if you vote no”—the Danes voted”Yes.”
In every treaty is the term “irrevocable.” The idea that the movement toward a single European state is inevitable is a constant refrain. Legally speaking, no treaty is irrevocable, and in the words of the old tag, only death and taxes are inevitable. Yet this propaganda is constant.
As a former French Foreign Secretary admitted: “The Europe of Maastricht could only have been created in the absence of democracy.” (10)
“In 1984 (some might well remember George Orwell’s 1984), an inner group of EU countries agreed that there should be a greater “European consciousness” to overwhelm national feeling, and they set up the Committee for a People’s Europe to do just that. The committee created a “pretend” country.”
Propaganda has been keen to oil the wheels of integration. In 1984 (some might well remember George Orwell’s 1984), an inner group of EU countries agreed that there should be a greater “European consciousness” to overwhelm national feeling, and they set up the Committee for a People’s Europe to do just that. The committee created a “pretend” country.
As a result, the EU flag of 12 stars on a blue background flies over the new 132 “embassies”—diplomatically called “delegations”—around the world and over its capital city, Brussels; the EU anthem, Ode to Joy from Beethoven’s ninth Symphony, is frequently played in Brussels with the EU Commissioners standing to attention; every country has adopted the red EU passport; EU drivers licenses are being introduced; and 2002, the currents the EU currency, the euro, replaced the individual currencies of all EU countries except Denmark, Sweden, and Britain.
Brussels is even using religion to promote its political agenda. Some estimates suggest the European commission’s program “A Soul for Europe” has given over 38 million to pro-EU projects throughout Europe. Applicants for grants must “promote the integration of Europe” and “publicly acknowledge that assistance has been received from the EU.” Though supposedly to set up to promote the religious and spiritual aspects of a unified Europe “Soul for Europe” literature doesn’t mention the scriptures; this is strictly political.
The Vatican sees advantages in backing the EU. To promote a Europe in which Catholicism might dominate, the Vatican has pursued EU integration from at least the early 1940s and mainly in secret. (11)The first six members of the EEC are largely Catholic countries.
The Vatican is now taking a more public stance. The Rome Synod of October 1999 declared that it is necessary to “pursue, with courage and urgency, the process of European integration.” Two months later, the Vatican began the canonization process for the so-called “founding fathers of Europe” from Germany, Italy, and France: Konrad Adenauer, Alcide de Gasperi, and Robert Schuman.
“No government dependent upon a democratic vote could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifices which any adequate plan must involve. The people must be led slowly and unconsciously into the abandonment of their traditional economic defenses, not asked, in advance of having received any of the benefits which will accrue to them from the plan to make changes of which they may not it first recognize the advantages to themselves…”
In the first 50 years of political integration, it was easy to disguise what was really happening beneath an economic cloak. As a British conservative MP wrote in 1947 (while praising the good Adolph Hitler had done to make Europe one economic unit): “No government dependent upon a democratic vote could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifices which any adequate plan must involve. The people must be led slowly and unconsciously into the abandonment of their traditional economic defenses, not asked, in advance of having received any of the benefits which will accrue to them from the plan to make changes of which they may not it first recognize the advantages to themselves…” (12)
Once the police and the Armed Forces were to be combined into multinational units, with one justice system, including local EU courts, disguising the true ends would be difficult. Local opposition could even imperil the enterprise.
The EU is now poised at a critical stage. It’s true nature is emerging from the shadows.
At this late stage, political union had to be achieved quickly before serious opposition—even rebellion—could appear, so an inner core of countries is essential. Rules were included in the net in the Nice treaty for five or more countries to accelerate to full union common, leaving the others to catch up later. France and Germany, the two countries that have led the integration process since the beginning, say that full union can be achieved by 2010.
Democracy has been largely conspicuous by it’s absence in the creation of the EU, and the EU is not run as a democracy. The government of the EU, though not yet an name, is the unelected European commission in Brussels. At its heart is the tension between the Commission and the only institution representing the nation-states against the centrifugal power of the EU-The Council of ministers.
Steadily, the nations are losing their powers to the Commission, as the national veto decreases Treaty by treaty. Politicians wrote in 1998: “It is therefore necessary and legitimate for participating countries to take part in each other’s domestic debate.… it is not interference in their internal affairs, of which the number is in any case constantly diminishing.” (13)
Once in Brussels, the 20 commissioners are independent of their “home” government, or in the words of Lady Thatcher: “They go native.” Each commissioner swears “[t]o perform my duties incomplete independence, in the general interest other communities; in carrying out my duties, neither to seek, nor to take, instruction from any government…” (14) About a third of them are former national ministers; governments usually send to Brussels those they regard as politically dispensable. Others have been diplomats or International civil servants.
Nearly 30,000 civil servants (i.e., Eurocrats) back them, though this is still not enough to run such a huge empire. When plans were laid for the present EU in the late 1940s, the College of Bruges solved the problem of a massive and highly visible central bureaucracy. The college suggested a takeover of national civil services.
This clever scheme meant that national opposition would not be aroused; it was erosion from within. A passerby would see the same old government buildings, but inside civil service would be shutting one master, the national government, in favor of Brussels. To facilitate the process, Brussels encouraged civil servants to sit on Brussels committees. This committee system has further subverted democracy. A British parliamentary select committee deplored: “In most cases the only scrutiny of the commissions implementing measures is that undertaken by national civil service in the [Brussels] committees. In practice there is little action in European or national parliaments.…” (15)
So today, unseen by the general population, over 250 EU EU communities and influence the way every country is governed. Out of the public eye, National civil servants horse-trade their way to consensus positions on subjects of which their mastery may be limited or nonexistent. The result is thousands of directives a year, often poorly drafted and inappropriate, replacing national legislation.
A best guess is that about 80% of all legislation going through the British houses of parliament nearly rubber stamps Brussels’s directives. On additional 3000 of Brussels’s regulations are enacted every year by civil servants without any democratic scrutiny whatsoever. It is government by decree.
If that were not a sufficient destroyer of democracy, the EU has set up a charade of a parliament with EU-wide parties, or as the Treaty of Rome has it: “Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the union. They contribute to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union.” (16)
The European Parliament started in 1951 with nominated members until the first elections were held in 1979. Each member of European Parliament (MEP) represents a very large number of people common, Few of who can actually named their representative. Any EU citizen can vote where ever he happens to be, and national nationality no longer counts. The 626 members of the parliament are elected by proportional representation (PR) every five years.
PR voting is a clever way to divide and rule. Votes are not for an individual but for a party. The party chooses candidates, listing them in order of their importance to the party. The number of seats a party wins is proportional to the number of votes cast for that party.
The usual result of a PR election is a compromise. No one party has a majority, and government becomes merely a theater of bartering and horse-trading as coalitions form and reform.
The European Parliament has virtually no powers; it follows the Latin tradition of legitimizing the decisions of the unelected Commission. It has no similarity to parliaments based on the Westminster principle, such as the British and Commonwealth parliaments or the US Congress.
All major decisions are decided by deals between the leaders of the party groups, and MVPs cannot initiate or repeal legislation; they only amend or reject proposals submitted by the commission.
The European Parliament is like a medieval court: MEPs and their offices are constantly on the move, carrying all their files with them. The Secretariat is divided between Brussels and Luxembourg. MEPs are often absent because of the peripatetic nature of the Parliament and the technical nature most of the work as the EU extends its re-met into the smallest nook and cranny of everyday life. But day (like that Eurocrats) are financially well rewarded with excellent pensions and other perks.
Free speech is rationed. The time an MEP may speak in debates is allocated among the party groups according to the numbers in each group. A member of a small party has only 1 1/2 minutes to make his point in the debate before his microphone is automatically cut off.
MEPs vote on commission proposals by following numbers on the list and pressing a button 100 to 300 times in an hour, allowing perhaps 10 seconds for each vote. They have trouble trying to follow the voting list, which will only have been available for a few hours and is published in French.
“Some British MEPs voting 300 times in a two hour session, inadvertently agreed to corpus juris effectively abolishing the British criminal justice system common, including trial by jury and habeas corpus.”
Mistakes are easily made. Some British MEPs voting 300 times in a two hour session, inadvertently agreed to corpus juris effectively abolishing the British criminal justice system common, including trial by jury and habeas corpus.
Even worse, an absent MEP is taken to have voted for this motion.
European parties, without any country links, will become the norm.. All “recognized” party groups are funded from the parliamentary budget according to the size of the group.(17) The corollary must be that parties which are not “recognized” will be closed down.
With such a lack of democracy, it is important to watch for signs that the new state may crush any dissent. Every nation has a treason law holding individuals to account for offenses against the state. So far treason in the EU has not been explicitly mentioned, but the EU set up a European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia in Vienna in 1998.(18) according to the Pan-EU party of European socialists, “Right-wing populism is one of the major dangers to the European experiment… by attacking the European integration and its alleged damage to nation states.…right-wing populism can use a new face of nationalism… this new populist nationalism is also displayed in anti-European rhetoric, blaming Brussels for all kinds of economic, political and social problems.”(19)
“The EU can cancel a country’s voting and other undefined rights but leave it with all its obligations, including payments to Brussels and the enforcement of EU laws. Such a country would be reduced to a colony.”
The EU has already taken action against the country. The EU can cancel a country’s voting and other undefined rights but leave it with all its obligations, including payments to Brussels and the enforcement of EU laws. Such a country would be reduced to a colony.
The first case was Austria. Following a free and democratic election in February two thousand, with the conservative People’s Party. In a move which sent shock waves around the world, the other 14 EU countries promptly sanctioned Austria, claiming the freedom party was fascist.
In retaliation the Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel, set a deadline for the EU to end sanctions against Austria; otherwise he would pull Austrians for their endorsement of using”all suitable means” against the EU, which would have derailed the Treaty of Nice. The EU immediately appointed three “wisemen” to find a face-savings solution. Sanctions were duly lifted.
After the Austrian debacle one British MEP asked in the European Parliament if anti-EU parties should be banned.(20) many MVPs shouted,”Yes.” The EU’s attack on Austria may be just the beginning. The Nice treaty strengthens the provisions of Article 7, under which Austria was sanctioned. Only two-thirds of the member states (i.e.,10) would be needed to ban a country, so even if the victim country had an ally or two, it would not be enough to save it from colony status. It will be even easier for the EU to gang up on one country, saying it is violating the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. Those principles are open to any interpretation: who’s law and whose freedoms?
Even worse, to attract a ban, a country may not have to violate the vague EU principles; it may merely pose “the threat of such a breach.” Again, that is open to interpretation.
If countries and parties might be banned, what about newspapers, books, magazines, even television and radio stations? The only evidence to emerge so far that this could be in the cards is the case of Bernard Connolly, a former head of the EU commission unit for “EMS, national and community monetary policies.”
“In the European Court of Justice on October 19, 2000, the EU’s Advocate-General surprisingly argued that Connolly’s book, The Rotten Heart Of Europe, an academic analysis of monetary union, was akin to the publication of a blasphemous work. Since blasphemy could be punished under the European Convention on Human Rights, then a punishment was permissible for “blaspheming” against Europe.”
In the European Court of Justice on October 19, 2000, the EU’s Advocate-General surprisingly argued that Connolly’s book, The Rotten Heart Of Europe, an academic analysis of monetary union, was akin to the publication of a blasphemous work. Since blasphemy could be punished under the European Convention on Human Rights, then a punishment was permissible for “blaspheming” against Europe.
A further hint came at a conference in 2000″ Media and Democracy” when the European Socialist Party (PES) proposed a European Communications Authority. Such an authority could “recognize” journalists, fund programs, and exert EU control over the media.
The EU commission is not only emasculating the power of each state, but it has divided it to the 15 EU countries into 111 regions. All EU regions are described in the same way—for example, as “London in Europe”—thus abolishing the name of the country and making clear that it is not free or independent.
Each region is in the process of acquiring an elected assembly and a development agency with the same boundaries as the European parliamentary constituencies. Their remits include regional planning, transport, and increasing regional ownership, economic development, agriculture, energy, and waste, all to fit in with the EU planning and funding. All have offices in Brussels.
Each region sends two representatives to the EU’s Committee of the regions “representing” the people in Brussels. A second committee of 222 people,, the Economic and Social Committee, entrenches lobby groups in the EU, such as employers’s groups, trade unions, farmers, consumer associations, charities, and family groups.
Both committees are no more than Brussels wallpaper, but they have created a new political class in every EU country, an inner group to match the new political class in Brussels. Many local officials have reacted enthusiastically to more power and links with other regions in the EU. A few who have benefited financially in a substantial manner. Not surprisingly, they are eager apostles for “more” EU. It may not occur to them that this destroys the nation-state.
What will the future role of the national parliaments be when all the regional “governments” are fully operational? The EU is silent on this point, and the assumption must be that they will fade into obscurity, as decisions are made in Brussels and rubberstamped in the EU regions.
The commission has invented even larger areas, Euro-Regions, linking places which have never in recorded history been united or which once belong to a neighboring country, deliberately reopening old wounds. The EU funds television and radio to broadcast across these borders, to build a new identity, although many locals switch off their sets.
Part of the British Southeast’s “link” across 70 miles of sea with the French area of Haute-Normandy and Picardy. Germany, abutting eight countries, has Euro-Regions enveloping neighboring lands once claimed by Germany. For example, Rhine-Maas, A German-speaking area of Belgium, is joined with part of Germany; and Southern Jutland in Denmark is linked with Schleswig and Holstein in northern Germany, which the Germans conquered in the war of 1864.
The EU plans by 2004 all “internal” border controls will be abolished and one outer EU border set up. A huge border police force is being built up. From 2001, the German and Italian governments exchanged border troops as a vanguard of an EU force to secure the EU’s outer frontiers after the next wave of enlargement to the east.
“While the EU is outlawing most national differences, from imperial weights and measures (anyone selling an pounds and ounces is now a criminal) to currencies and legal systems, it is promoting other local differences at great cost. This can only be part of its deliberate policy to divide and rule.”
While the EU is outlawing most national differences, from imperial weights and measures (anyone selling an pounds and ounces is now a criminal) to currencies and legal systems, it is promoting other local differences at great cost. This can only be part of its deliberate policy to divide and rule.
English, the world’s leading language, is spoken by half of the EU, yet the signatory countries to the charter of minority languages of 1992 agreed to promote regional or minority languages. Across Europe there are over 100 languages, usually around national borders, reflecting Europe’s checkered past. Most of them had virtually died out by 1600. In a bizarre move to reverse this historical trend, within one generation and with EU money, much of local life may once again be carried out in these languages.
Insistence on the use of minority languages, especially in educating children, will ensure that the locality is isolated and limit the opportunities for people in the wider world. It will make them second-class citizens and easier to control. All regional assemblies will have multiple translation services, each will further reduce their effectiveness.
The EU, which describes itself as a Tower of Babel, already has 11 official languages, which causes confusion and vast expense with every document translated and every speech interpreted. On enlargement the number will shoot up again. Germany is already promoting German to become the EU official language, reducing English to minority status.
Why is it that so many countries have queued to join the EU? The answer, Simply put, is money. Only a few countries are net contributors to the use funds (is by far the largest), and most get more than their own money back but naturally only to find EU-Approved projects. And surprisingly few politicians across Europe understand the EU’s undemocratic nature.
The EU’s superstructure is already in place. Enlargement to include countries of Eastern Europe is on track for 2006. The dividing rule policy, actively pursued for years, is accelerating. Strong national governments are being replaced with weak regional assemblies speaking a of languages and reporting directly to Brussels. The EU inner core, led by Germany and France, is gaining strength and may have the power to advance to one country by 2010.
If so, the United States of Europe will have arrived. It will not be a democracy but a dictatorship. Unless there is rebellion, the world may become an even more unstable place.
Endnotes
1. The European Union is currently compile comprised of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland, and Sweden.
2. letter to the daily telegraph(London) 13 June 2001.
3. Chatham House lecture in London.
4. Independent (London) for February 2000.
5. Quoted in Mayne, Richard et al. The Federal Union: The Pioneers. London: Macmillan, 1990.
6. From a Kansas State University lecture, 15 March 1999.
7. Monnet, Jean. Memoirs. Trans. Richard Mayne. London: William Collins and Son Ltd., 1976 (Author’s italics)
8. For a review of how far national governments have already been abolished, see Jinkins, Lindsey. The last days of Britain: The final betrayal. Orange State press, 2001
9. For the history of who created the EU and Y, C Jenkins, Lindsey. Britain held hostage, the calming euro-dictatorship. Second ED. Orange State press, 1998
10. Clause Cheysson.
11. For the early history, sea Cornwall, John. Hitler’s Pope: The secret history of Pious XII. New York: Viking press, 1999.
12. Booklet published in 1947 under the banner”Design for freedom” Whose 24 members were mainly conservative MPs led by Peter Thorneycroft.
13. Dr. Schauble and Karl Lamers in a CDU/CSU paper.
14. Treaty of Rome, article 157.
15. Extracts from the House of Lords select committee on European communities third report, delegation of powers to the commission: reforming Cosmetology, 2 Feb 1999.
16. Treaty of Rome, article 191.
17. Nice Treaty, article 191.
18. Amsterdam treaty, article 29, title V I.
19. A discussion paper produced for the Bern roundtable of the PES, July 2000.
20. Jeffery Titfod, a UKIP MEP.
Waking The Infinite 