Long Live The New Union? *
Wise Up Journal
By Gabriel O’Hara
The current EU is legally a group of nations/communities called states. The term EU is just used to describe the join pact. At the moment there is no such thing legally as a European Union state. The EU is actually still the European Community according to the most up-to-date treaty in force. The European Community is not a legal entity like the United States of America that has a seat on the UN Security Council. In the eighteen hundreds independent states such as Texas conferred its powers/competencies to the higher entity we now know as the USA . If you did not know the Lisbon treaty is just as significant as the constitution that established the United States of America now is the time to find out.
Article 1 TEU of the Lisbon treaty shows that a new union will be established. The word community has been removed. The communities are dissolved.
Article 1: “By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a EUROPEAN UNION , hereinafter called ‘ the Union ‘ , on which the Member States confer competences ”
We’ve become familiar with using the term EU but this article shows the ordinary person what lawyers already know, that it’s just a term. This treaty establishes the European Union and it prefers to be hailed as “the Union “. The act of article would be the most significant event since Ireland and other nations became states themselves.
Article 47 TEU of the Lisbon treaty gives the new federal Union/state the authority to make commitments by itself; to have legal personality. It states, ” The Union shall have legal personality .” The European Community called the EU never had legal personality; the new Union would have a seat at the UN for the first time (Art. 27.2).
What happened in the 1800’s to Texas and Montana and the other states would be placed upon the Irish state, the Dutch state, the French state and the other 25 European states. Don’t you think the people in those states deserve to be asked if they want this massive transformation? The same nations that fought in world war two to protect nations from a single German Union. The entity that will benefit from this treaty, the EU, has not allowed the public a vote in all the other states besides Ireland . Democratic? Irish constitutional law on giving up power meant the EU could not stop a referendum in Ireland . However it has not accepted Ireland ’s democratic vote. In fact they put these state changing articles along with over 96% of the Lisbon treaty to the French and Dutch public in 2005 when it was called the EU constitution and they voted no as well. They are not being asked this time around. Since Ireland voted the wrong way it’s been asked twice. If you don’t approve of this behaviour by the EU ask yourself would you give it more power allowing it to become a real state in control of the vast majority of your affairs?
Article 21.h TEU of the Lisbon treaty uses the exact term ” global governance ” and commits the new Union to “promote an international system”. Global governance and empire building are terms used many times in the past. The public accept the fact that politicians lie to them, or should I be politically correct and say spin information to them. But when did a large percentage of the public start believing that by putting liars from Italy, Germany, Spain, France, Ireland and other states together then making them unaccountable would change these individual’s psychology? Even though the public know politicians prefer to do favours for the banks and big business (with tax payers money) people certainly do love giving up authority to them and will go along with almost anything if these career spinners/liars use the warmest and fuzziest expression of them all, “for the greater good”. Oldest rhetoric trick in the book, reused over and over again. People can even be lead to kill in a war for peace and with the right rhetoric accept political and economic colonisation of other nations for democracy and diversity.
The prime minister who holds the current rotating six month presidency of the council has no extra authority than the other council members expect cheerleading duties. The Lisbon treaty creates a real Union President for a period of up to five years, two and a half years each term. This president would have powers similar to the United States president and would represent the new Union at the UN. A few EU state heads have recommended Tony Blair as our new president, who is despised internationally almost as much as oil and weapons investor George Bush. “I wouldn’t vote for Blair to be my president” I hear most people saying. Hasn’t the penny dropped by now? You won’t be asked. Our president will not be voted on by the people of the new Union . They are not even pretending to be democratic anymore. If it’s not democratic then what is it? In fact it could be easily be argued we are in a post-democratic era now; just ask the citizens from the European community not given a vote on their nation’s future.
Article 48 TEU shows the Lisbon treaty can be altered afterwards by the Union itself. It said; “The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.” The Union can vote to bring areas with vetoes to Qualified Majority Voting thus removing vetoes then bring in laws unacceptable by some. The public in the other 26 states defiantly will not be voting on amendments, they are not even allowed to vote in or out as the case may be the massive treaty itself. If 51% or more Irish people vote yes in the second referendum on the identical treaty they voted no to the EU would accept this vote. The Irish people would be are agreeing to Lisbon ’s self amending clause. The Irish would agree with the referendum question that Ireland ’s constitution will be subordinate to the Lisbon treaty which makes article 48 constitutional in Ireland . The Lisbon treaty is a blank cheque to a proven undemocratic entity.
The promises/guarantees by the unpopular and mistrusted Irish government are worded to make them unimportant and are irrelevant. Even pro-EU-federal-state journalists wrote they are simply explanations which are not legally binding. Of course there are no false promises/guarantees for the issues mentioned above establishing the new Union as this self amending treaty is a must be for the powers that be . The political spinners at the EU do give lovely lip-services to progressing and expanding this kind of democracy to the rest of the world, hopefully not American or British style who’s peacekeeping bombs are killing millions of citizens under the guise of bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan and the forgotten others who came before them.
The Union ’s Defence Policy
American military power uses the fight-them-over-there-so-we-don’t-have-to-fight-them-over-here ‘defence’/’security’ policy to attack nations that never attacked them. Good for weapon manufacturing stock prices and war zone reconstruction corporations. Ever heard that the best defence is offence? When it comes to the new Union ’s common defence/security policy you might ask what do the British, French, German and the Spanish militaries have in common. They are in Middle Eastern wars. The French military is currently back in one of its former colonies, Chad , with the Irish military under them. So the Lisbon treaty articles of war won’t affect our current stance. The politicians running the show in Ireland have already quietly involved Ireland in foreign conflicts. That is our stance and the Lisbon treaty will legally pledge us to expand our current stance. Article 42.3 TEU of the Lisbon Treaty: “Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. ” The treaty heightens military spending in the EU.
If the Lisbon treaty is pushed in law the new Union itself, not it’s subordinate province states such as Ireland, would decide what are potential threats and make the commands by itself to go to war as article 26.1 clearly asserts: The European Council shall identify the Union’s strategic interests , determine the objectives of and define general guidelines for the common foreign and security policy , including for matters with defence implications . It shall adopt the necessary decisions. ”
Unity: an important word that means all. Article 26.2: “The Council and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall ensure the unity , consistency and effectiveness of action by the Union .”
Under Lisbon the new Union can acquire its own resources as it is a separate entity superior to it’s province states and can take hold of member state resources for wars. As 26.4 TEU of the Lisbon treaty puts it:” The common foreign and security policy shall be put into effect by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and by the Member States, using national and Union resources. ”
Civilian and military “assets” under the control of the new Union
Article 42.1 “The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civil and military assets . The Union may use them on missions outside the Union ”
Article 42.3: “Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy , to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council .” Currently five nations, not all of them, are signed up to Gendarmerie Force which is similar to what this article enforces on all states. The Gendarmerie Force is under the control of the EU and NATO.
Unelected organisations’ partnership with the Union
Although the unelected EU bureaucrats already enters in to force of law recommendations from unelected think tanks and other unelected non-governmental organisations article 21.1 paragraph two of the Lisbon treaty references this partnership in surprisingly plain English for a legal document: “The Union shall seek to develop relations and build partnerships with third countries, and international, regional or global organisations ”
The type of NGOs (Non-governmental organisations) that get their recommended policies implemented in to law at national and international level are ones that contain bankers, military generals, former bureaucrats, former career politicians, PR men, corporate lobbyists and other types with vested interests to exploit the ordinary public. When governments are run by NGOs governments hail how democratic they are by acting on the wishes of non-governmental recommendations. Non-Governmental Organisations can name their group/club anything they want. Some of the fancy names are: The Club of Rome, Royal Institute of International Affairs, The UN’s WHO (World Health Organisation), and the European Council on Foreign Relations.
Human Rights and the EU’s Lethal Protocol 6
Who recommended the EU to sign up to article-2-protocol-6 of the European Charter of Human Rights?
Could it have been the military industry? The current member states are signed up protocol 13 not protocol 6 so they can not condemn anyone to the death. The EU is signed up to protocol 6 and the Lisbon treaty makes the EU a separate state able to use the death penalty. The Lisbon treaty makes the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Charter of Human Rights and their protocols legally binding.
Article 2: “No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.”
Article-2-Protocol-6: “A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such a penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions”.
Ireland being signed up to protocol 13 can not condemn anyone to the death penalty, only the EU can condemn EU citizens and others to the death penalty. In the U.S not all states have the death penalty. What the EU has legally setup would be similar to a federal court condemning a citizen to death. As a real EU citizen the Union has the right to execute EU citizens for “acts committed” (define please) in “time of war” or “imminent threat of war” due to primacy of EU law over national law. Currently EU politicians continuously cry about how Al Qaeda is at war with us and in newspapers they get their imaginings published on how they believe Al Qaeda might possibly attack again at ‘at any time’. Over one and a half million Muslim child and adult citizens have been killed by EU states and the U.S in the Middle East since 2001. There are a number of EU states actively at war with the un-westernised Middle East right now. The question is not when can the EU legally use this, the question is why have they signed up to the death penalty and what “acts committed” (very vague term) are they going to later define fitting for execution? How many times do we have to be reminded that not reading slick lawyer ’small print’ can be perilous?
The ordinary public could end up finding it harder to get out of the Union than the former British Union Ireland was under. There might not be a rebellion nowadays as no body wants to be accused of having anger management problems like their grandfathers.