It seems that Kent Ekeroth’s mission to Prague last weekend was a futile effort.
President Václav Klaus, after months of political and financial arm-twisting — including the ominous spectacle of
I’m amazed that he held out as long as he did. The blatant and egregious threats issued by the leading lights of Europe’s political class made it obvious that Mr. Klaus would have to give in eventually. Too many blood vessels feeding the European carcinoma have become intertwined with the Czech circulatory system — there was no way for the Czechs to excise the EU cancer without killing the patient, at least financially.
Here’s the report from The Washington Post:
Czech President Klaus Signs EU Treaty
PRAGUE (Reuters) — Czech President Vaclav Klaus signed the EU’s Lisbon Treaty on Tuesday, bringing into force the EU’s plan to overhaul its institutions and win a greater role on the world stage.
Klaus was the last EU leader to ratify the treaty and his signature means the bloc of nearly half a billion people can pick its first president and a more powerful foreign representative to speak for it in global affairs.
The treaty is aimed at giving the EU a bigger clout on the world scene and making it more flexible. This is intended to match the rise of emerging powers such as China.
The comparison is apt. Lisbon is also designed to make Europe more like China politically. The New Europe faces suppression of dissent, state control of everything (including the internet), and a permanent ruling oligarchy whose only goal is the maintenance and enhancement of its own power.
The staunchly eurosceptic Czech president signed the pact after the country’s Constitutional Court threw out a complaint against the treaty earlier on Tuesday.
“I had expected the court ruling and I respect it, although I fundamentally disagree with its content and justification,” Klaus told reporters. “I signed the Lisbon Treaty today at 1500 (local time),” he said.
Klaus had been banned by law from signing the treaty until the court had ruled on a complaint by his allies in the Czech upper house of parliament, the Senate, who argued the treaty would erode national sovereignty.
Well, of course it will erode sovereignty — that’s what the treaty is explicitly designed to do, for crying out loud! Only a half-wit or someone who takes diplo-babble seriously could believe otherwise.
“An ever-closer union” — that’s what the Treaty of Rome, the Treaty of Maastricht, and Lisbon Treaty have all been intended to produce. How can you achieve an ever-closer union without giving up the right to decide how thick the rind on your cheese may be? Not to mention your taxation and immigration policy.
The article continues:
- - - - - - - - -
The court rejected the arguments. “The judgment was unanimous; none of the judges filed a dissenting opinion to either the judgment or its reasoning,” the court said in a written verdict.
The Czech parliament has approved the pact but Klaus long argued against it, saying it would turn the EU into a superstate with little democratic control.
“With the Lisbon Treaty taking effect, the Czech Republic will cease to be a sovereign state, despite the political opinion of the Constitutional Court,” Klaus said.
President Klaus has hit the nail on the head. He is now presiding over the final period of sovereignty for his own nation. All those European countries who gained freedom from Tsarist and then Soviet domination have just elected to submerge themselves in a far more insidious tyranny. The EU hands out soma rather than a neck-shot, but it is none the less totalitarian for it.
After Klaus’s signature, the treaty will come into force probably in December, turning attention to who will be the EU’s first president.
EU leaders failed to agree at a summit last week in Brussels on who should take the job, whose powers are still somewhat unclear, and a special summit may be needed to reach a deal.
The latest word is that Merkel and Sarkozy have maneuvered to keep Tony Blair off the throne, and there are hints that Dutch prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende may be able to leap into it just before the Wilders steamroller flattens his political career in the Netherlands:
The chances of the once-favored candidate, former British prime minister Tony Blair, seem doomed after he failed to win an endorsement from the European Socialists, his Labour Party’s allies.
No front-runner has emerged, but possible contenders include Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, former Finnish prime minister Paavo Lipponen and Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker.
Now the fun begins.
Come the first of December, the New Europe will begin to take shape. Nations will be replaced by “regions”, yoking the Danes to the Scots and the English to the Walloons. In the erstwhile states that make up the EU, time-hallowed national political institutions — parliaments, presidents, monarchs, and the like — will become quaint atavisms, powerless entities reduced to the status of tourist attractions or comfortable backwaters where cronies who have fallen out of favor may be granted sinecures to keep them out of trouble.
Real power will be wielded from Brussels and Frankfurt. There will still be elections to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, but its members are unable to initiate legislation, which may only emerge from the unelected European Commission. The Parliament will a provide lucrative stop for the aspiring Eurocrat, and a talk-shop for the disgruntled. If its members are so tactless as to say anything controversial, no problem! Their indiscretions will simply never appear in the compliant organs of the press.
The State is already electronically listening in on its citizens in Sweden and the UK. Expect that capacity to expand and spread across the whole of the EU, further incapacitating the already-damaged right of Europeans to think and speak freely. By such methods the European populace will be kept anesthetized and docile while its successors are imported from Turkey, Algeria, Libya, Palestine, Iraq, Pakistan, and Somalia.
To our American readers: don’t get complacent! As Ralph pointed out, this is our future, too.
In the European example we have been granted the privilege of a peek at what’s to come here in the USA. It’s not just Obama and the Democrats who will be responsible for it — George Bush and the Republicans were equally indifferent to the idea of a sovereign national border.
Obama will hand over control to the UN sooner than would the Republicans, but that’s simply because he’s in the front car of the train and will get there first.
The entire political class is packed into the club cars and sleepers on the same train, and they’re all headed for the same destination.
Hat tip: Ralph.
26 comments:
"The bloc of nearly half a billion people."
It must an irresistible urge, for all those within reach of the relevant political circles, to take advantage of all the power and benefits coming from being at the helm of such a large group of people.
If one can be a dictator wielding the combined power and revenues of 500 million people, one should be a saint to say : no thanks, I'd rather leave the European nations decide for themselves, and be content with the boring status of a greyish international civil servant, preparing the negociation of inter-state conventions, with no particular power to impose my will.
Incidentally, it would be funny to compare the powers of the European Union upon its citizens, with the power of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference upon its own.
I'm ready to bet they are much bigger...
Among the "time-hallowed" institutions that already fell by the wayside in previous rounds of European integration were the Deutschmark, the Franc (both French and Belgian), the Guilder, the Lira, the Peseta and the Irish Pound. Their successor, the Euro, has come to dominate the dollar and may replace it as the backstop world currency, with all the benefits that entails.
European integration seems to have had at least some benefits.
The worthless British Conservative leader David Cameron has backed off on a promise to hold a vote on Lisbon. Not one vote for the worthless Tories!
European integration seems to have had at least some benefits.
It has some benefits but in the long run it means an American-style powerful state with political power increasingly centralised and thus under the control of powerful lobbies and bureaucracies. When you are only 1 of a half billion you become irrelevant unless local governments have some power. When the EU supporters talk about 'integration' often what they really mean is homogenisation; the same laws for people with very different cultures. In effect, we will be colonies in an Empire.
Their successor, the Euro, has come to dominate the dollar and may replace it as the backstop world currency, with all the benefits that entails.
As in being able to purchase all you want from China, only to see your own industries decay and eventually your currency collapse. The Triffin Dilemma.
This is a sad day for the formerly great European nations, and for Formerly Great Britain in particular.
By the way, initial comments on the blog of Jyllands-Posten were almost entirely negative. One should think it was GoV!
Well, it's only another step to one world government which is being discussed at the Copenhagen Treaty.
It is happening in the states too. Watch "FALL OF THE REPUBLIC", if the link doesn't work watch it on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
However much they may want it, the Euro cannot and will not become the new word reserve currency. Even with Lisbon the structural deficiencies within the EU economies mean that the euro will never be stable. Now that Lisbon has been ratified, there's a high chance that the UK will be forced to adopt the Euro as well. This will actually make the Euro even less stable and less desirable as a reserve currency as the UK's economy is totally out of sync with the rest of Europe, even moreso than the peripheral nations like Ireland and Spain. By 2015 or so the Euro will be in the process of collapse and it'll probably take the EU itself with it after a few more years. In appearance it may seem to shamble on for some time after that but in essence it will be dead.
Still sticking to my personal prediction that Italy will be the first country to crash out of the Euro.
Since Britain loses its sovereignty and ceases to be a nation under this formalization of the EU super state, does it also have constitutional implications for countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, where the head of state is the British monarch?
One person can do only so much against Leviathan. Kudos to Klaus for holding out as long as he did. His own country's Constitutional Court forced his hand.
Now of course all the rest of Euro mindrot like expensive "cures" for the fraud of global warming will follow despite Klaus's eminent good sense and principled opposition on this file as well.
This is mass hysteria on a scale never before known. All the Left's carefully sown seeds of destruction are come into full bloom - nefarious leftist propagandists directing sheep-like and science illiterate minds conditioned in public schools to believe utter inanity against all evidence. This includes believing in socialism and the UN as benign and capable of world governance despite their uniform record of 100% failure in anything they lay their corrupt hands on.
It really is true that people who believe in nothing will believe in anything.
I'm more worried about the Falklands. The issue with Argentina now falls under the remit of the EU's foreign policy and I'm pretty sure they'll be minded to just hand the islands over to Argentina without much argument. Gibraltar may be unilaterally handed over to Spain without any argument... I wonder if people will wake up when this happens, or if they'll be soothed over by propaganda that says the UK is still making this decision itself and that it's really for the best.
Graham, I'm taking your challenge and betting on Greece.
There will still be elections to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, but its members are unable to initiate legislation, which may only emerge from the unelected European Commission.
that is wrong, EU laws are voted by the parliament.
Commissions have not the same agendas, only agreements and preferrances. Now with a political EU, commissions will have no more decisional importances.
But I understand that some fear that EU becomes a true "power", hmm aren't the US less free in their decisional powers : some are federal, some are of states,just like by us !
Actually Nomad, your'e wrong. The parliament has no legislative powers, all it can do is vote to amend bills. Directives are created by the European Council, or Council of Ministers, whichever name you prefer - often in secret sessions where not even minutes are taken - and formalised by the Commission. The Commission can take on board suggestions and amendments voted for by the parliament or it can ignore them - and most of the time it does. On top of which, you have the somewhat ironically named Court of Justice that has a very large legislative role and has been used to force countries to implement directives they had previously opted out of. Britain's opt-out from the social chapter was abolished by the court, for instance.
Most legislation sent down by the EU never makes it in front of the EU parliament, being created as regulatory directives, that bypass both the national and supranational institutions.
In short it's a scam. It is not democratic. The fact that you can vote for the parliament does not make it democratic, nor does the fact that the parliament can vote for amendments. Democracy is not about mere voting but about transparency and the rule of law, of which you will find very little within the EU.
Comparing the EU to the US is wrong as well. The US constitution enumerates powers that the States and the people have granted to the federal government, and the rights of the people that the federal government can have no interference with, beyond which it shouldn't be able to stray. The EU constitution (the Lisbon treaty implements the previous constitution without reference to a flag or anthem) is completely opposite this. It enumerates powers that the supranational EU government deigns to allow member state to retain and enumerates the "rights" that the citizens of the EU are granted by the state. Rights granted by the state can be taken away by the state. Powers the member states are "allowed" to retain by the supranational state can be taken away by that same state. Limited powers are granted to the member states by the central authority. This is as unlike the arrangement of the US government as it can be, where limited powers are granted to the federal government by the states, and where everything not specifically authorised to the federal government is retained by the member states.
The EU is not federal. It will not be federal. It is moving towards a unitary state with a single government and a single body of law. To claim that some bits are federal and others aren't is simply a lie, as whatever form the member state governments might take now is merely temporary with the signing of the Lisbon treaty. Those formerly sovereign nations no longer exercise any power whatsoever. They are vassals, empty shells ruled by a remote and authoritarian government, undemocratic, unelected, uncontrollable and unaccountable.
This is NOT in any way BETTER.
NOMAD, Graham is right. Only the Commission can initiate legislation - that is, propose new laws. It has been debated intensely if the Parliament should have that right as well, but so far to no avail.
I don't think that would be much better, as most of the MEP's are die-hard integrationists anyway.
Comparing the EU to the US is wrong as well.
Well, it can be instructive. When the new Constitutional Treaty was drafted, the US Constitution was often referred to as the example to follow - which actually says a lot about the integrationist goals of the Treaty.
Unfortunately, the US Constitution didn't serve as a model in practical terms. Not that I think the US Constitution is flawless - it gives too much power to the executive branch of government - but that's another matter.
What matters here is that the Convent that drafted Lisbon used the US Constitution as democratic window-dressing, while in reality creating an elaboration of the already highly centralized Nice Treaty. This is voiding the nation-states of authority and meaning, and is leading to the end of democracy.
Question is how fast we can make people aware of the deep fallacies here. Mainstream Media isn't exactly being helpful, probably partly due to the lack of qualified, critical journalists.
BTW, I *love* that dragon image!
Graham--
The analysis by you and Henrik is exactly in accord with my own. If anyone has evidence that the EP can draft legislation (as opposed to amending or approving it), or repeal EC directives, I'd like to see it.
But concerning the US Constitution:
This is as unlike the arrangement of the US government as it can be, where limited powers are granted to the federal government by the states, and where everything not specifically authorised to the federal government is retained by the member states.
This is true as far as it goes, but you may not be aware of how radical the Constitution is in guaranteeing popular sovereignty. The Tenth Amendment affirms that powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution are reserved to the several States or the people:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Unfortunately, since we have been governed extra-Constitutionally for some time, the Tenth Amendment is largely ignored these days.
But thanks to President Obama and the incredibly arrogant behavior of Congress and the federal bureaucracy (especially when it comes to borrowing and spending money that the taxpayers will have to repay), there is a strong popular movement nationwide to revive the Tenth Amendment and reclaim the sovereignty of the States.
This is the one small advantage that we have here in the USA -- we have an official founding document that acknowledges -- not grants, mind you, but acknowledges -- the pre-existing and divinely-ordained sovereignty that resides with the people themselves, which cannot be removed or abridged by either the Federal or State governments, and which allows them to govern themselves as they see fit.
The move to re-establish the sovereignty of the States is the most hopeful sign of political sanity that I have seen in my lifetime.
Up until 1865, my State was officially known as "The Sovereign Commonwealth of Virginia".
May that happy condition return!
In the spring, while I was a candidate for the European Parliament, I examined the issue of initiating EU legislation. This is a right of the Commission, and the Commission only.
Interestingly, when members of the Commission take office, they have to pledge loyalty to the Commission, superceding loyalty to their respective countries.
I'm aware of the tenth amendment and the issues around it. I was educating someone (an american no less) about just what it means a few weeks ago. They were completely unaware of it. One of my fellow debaters remarked that it was pitiful to see a foreigner who knew more about the US constitution than someone born there.
And I don't even know that much about it...
I hope your states rights movement continued to grow. It can only improve matters.
@Henrik, I'm glad you clarified that point. The constant barrage of lies about the role of the Commission and the Parliament drives me batty some times.
Interesting new point. Now that the Council of Europe has been made part of the European governmental apparatus, heads of state are required to swear their allegiance to the EU. They no longer represent the member states to the EU, but represent the EU to their respective states.
Graham, most welcome.
BTW, it's not Council of Europe, it's the Commission. Which consists of 27 civil servants employed for the same 5 year period as the EP is sitting. Thus, not our heads of state.
Nono, Henrik, I meant the European Council. The meeting of heads of state that the media likes to refer to as a "summit", which isn't the same thing as the Commission as you're no doubt well aware. (I keep getting it's name the wrong way around and end up referring to the Council of Europe - all these similar names are very confusing.)
Anyway, Lisbon subsumes the European Council into a formal EU institution rather than it being somewhat outside the EU governmental structure, which takes the final step of making heads of state subservient and loyal to the EU instead of loyal to their own nations. It's unlikely it's relationship vis-a-vis the superiority of the Commission wi change, but it's another step towards dissolving the loyalties of the people we allegedly elected to represent us.
Hah - now I messed up Council of Europe and European Council as well.
Yes, the formalization is part of the problem, I absolutely agree. "High Representatives" like Javier Solana, who were groveling to Arab leaders during the Muhammad crisis, is something we do not need. We need someone who represents the good of the Europeans, not a mutually-appointed elite looking for rotten deals of appeasement.
I think we have made the point clear that our heads of state do not pledge allegience to the Union, it's the Commissionars pleding allegiance to the Commission.
Unfortunately in the U.S., the banner of "states rights," once you get past its dubious past history in the support of first slavery and then legalized segregation of races, is nothing more than a political tool used by any politician or ideologue to fight against policy issues he or she disagrees with.
The most useful example of this phenomenon occurred during the Bush II presidency, when conservative "states righters" tried to use the heavy hand of the federal government to snuff out medical marijuana and "death with dignity" laws they opposed, while liberal "federal power" types decried these "assaults on state sovereignity."
Actualy, Gordon, I think you've demonstrated why states rights - and reduction of the size and power of the state - is such an important issue. When the power is there it's just too tempting to use it to override your opponents. The federal government shouldn't be interfering in things like drugs policy or even those death with dignity laws. The government should have very limited powers, in order to prevent just the sort of abuses you've mentioned.
No Gordon and GD! The only way to understand the whys of today’s Western predicament is to question the whole of the liberal paradigm itself, not half of it (Islamization). And race issues are pretty much at the center of the predicament. Every GoV-er should read Conservative Swede’s recent piece “America as the birthplace of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness”.
I agree with him that a Nietzschean revaluation of values is in order. As I wrote in my blog, pivotal is Con Swede’s wishful hope, after the end of the world as we know it, of a revived pre-Christian Germanic spirit. America, on the other hand, caused a lot of postmodern mischief. This was the first modern Western nation that introduced multiculturalism in the 19th century (and cultural relativism in the 20th). Once the paradigm of Western Christian Civilization is shattered after the forthcoming civil war in Europe, a strong revaluation of values not only implies rewriting the books on World War II, but of America’s blunder of granting citizenship to blacks after Lincoln instead of deporting them to Africa (or making them free men and free women, albeit non-citizen civilians).
Don’t miss Swede’s piece!
Graham, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
What I am waiting for, and may be waiting for a LONG time, is an American politician who is willing to back states rights even when such states rights go against a strongly held political belief of said politician.
"Still sticking to my personal prediction that Italy will be the first country to crash out of the Euro." -- I second that. And not just because of the Euro. This week the Euro Supreme Court told Italy to take down all of the crucifixes in its public schools. You guys are just starting to learn how far federalism can go, and how abusive and undemocratic things like "Supreme Courts" can get.
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.