21 min read

Ten Reasons for Getting Rid of the European Union

Ten Reasons for Getting Rid of the European Union

By Jailbird - years ago.

1. The EU Promotes Crime and Instability

The EU does not protect the peace in Europe. On the contrary, it undermines stability in the continent by dismantling border controls at a time of the greatest population movements in human history, with many migrants coming from politically unstable countries whose instability spills over to European states. Through its senseless immigration policies, the EU could become partly responsible for triggering civil wars in several European countries. Maybe it will be remembered as the ‚Äúpeace project‚ÄĚ which brought war.

The European Union has created a borderless region from Greece to France and from Portugal to Finland, yet the citizens of these countries still pay most of their taxes to nation states whose borders are no longer upheld. It is ridiculous to pay up to half of your income to an entity that no longer controls its own territory or legislation. Unless national borders are re-established, the citizens of EU member states no longer have any obligation to pay taxes.

The EU promotes a ridiculous amount of laws and regulations, yet street crime largely goes unpunished and is growing increasingly common. Laws are used to punish the law-abiding while real criminals rule the streets, although this flaw is admittedly shared with many national governments. The EU makes a mockery out of the social contract every single day. As the authorities from Berlin via Amsterdam to London and Rome fail to uphold law and order, citizens have not just the right, but the duty to arm themselves in order to protect their property and the lives of their loved ones.

It is quite possible that we could indeed benefit from some form of European cooperation in defense of a shared civilization, but not in the form of the EU as it is today. The EU is not about cooperation for protecting the best interests of Europeans; it is about turning the entire continent into a Multicultural theme park while the natives get culturally deconstructed and demographically crushed. The EU is a large-scale social experiment conducted on hundreds of millions of people. It is not about the economics of scale, it is about the stupidity of scale.

The EU does not give Europeans a ‚Äúvoice‚ÄĚ in the international arena. It‚Äôs a bureaucratic monster at best, a dangerous Utopian project at worst. It makes our enemies take us less seriously, not more. It is not about giving anybody a voice; it is about silencing the voices we already have, by depriving us of any say regarding our future and the destinies of our peoples.

2. The EU Weakens Europe’s Cultural Defences

The EU is systematically surrendering the continent to our worst enemies. When French, Dutch and Irish voters rejected the EU Constitution, the EU elites moved on as if nothing  had happened. When the Islamic world says that the EU should work to eradicate
‚ÄúIslamophobia,‚ÄĚ they immediately consent to do this. When an organisation ignores the ¬†interests of its own people yet implements the interests of that people‚Äôs enemies, that ¬†organisation has become an actively hostile entity run by a corrupt class of abject ¬†traitors. This is what the EU is today.

The EU is deliberately destroying the cultural traditions of member states by flooding  them with immigrants and eradicating native traditions. This is a gross violation of the  rights of the indigenous peoples across an entire continent. Europe has some of the  richest cultural traditions on the planet. To replace this with sharia barbarism is a crime  against humanity. The European Union is currently the principal (though not the only) motor behind the Islamisation of Europe, perhaps the greatest betrayal in this  civilisation’s history. Appeasement of Islam and Muslims is so deeply immersed into the  structural DNA of the EU that the only way to stop the Islamisation of the continent is to  get rid of the EU. All of it.

3. The EU Promotes a Bloated Bureaucracy

A study released by the organisation Open Europe[1] in August 2008 found that the EU ¬†employs an ‚Äúarmy‚ÄĚ of bureaucrats, and that the actual number of individuals required to ¬†run the EU is close to 170,000 ‚ÄĒ more than 7 times the 23,000 figure sometimes cited ¬†by the Commission.
According to them, “The legislative process of the EU is an extremely complex and  opaque system, making it very difficult to identify how many people are actually involved  in formulating, implementing and overseeing legislation.

However, research by Open Europe, using limited available information, shows that just to draft and work out how to ¬†implement legislation the EU requires a bureaucratic staff of around 62,026 people. This ¬†figure reveals where the EU‚Äôs real legislative work is actually done: in committees, ¬†behind closed doors and out of the public eye. Most of the work takes place away from ¬†the core institutions within Expert Groups, Council Groups, and what are known as Comitology committees.‚ÄĚ

Notice how this closed and secretive process of drafting legislation for half a billion people  resembles that of a dictatorship. The EU follows a strategy of hide in plain sight and  conceals the real power behind layers of bureaucratic complexities. This strategy was  also followed with the drafting of the ridiculously long European Constitution.

If somebody presented you with a contract of hundreds of pages of more or less  incomprehensible technical language which was to govern all aspects of your life and that  of your children and grandchildren, and that person told you to just take his word for it  that it is good and could you please sign on the dotted line, would you have accepted it? That is essentially what the EU has done regarding the fate of an entire continent, not  just a single family. When some annoying people, such as the Dutch and the Irish, were  unkind enough not to consent blindly to their new serfdom, the EU decided that they  were bound by the contract they just rejected, anyway. It’s arrogance on a monumental  scale, if not plain treason.

The EU is not yet a totalitarian entity, but it holds all the tools it needs to in order to  become one. It has managed to corrupt the national elites to sell out the freedom of their  peoples by inviting them to take part in the world’s largest racket, paid for by European  taxpayers. The growing pan-European nanny state now interferes with every aspect of  social and economic life, governed by an unaccountable and often hostile minority of  social engineers who wish to impose their way of thinking on the majority.

4. Excessive Regulation and Centralisation is bad for Freedom and for Prosperity

Europe once became a dynamic continent thanks to competition at all levels. It is now  virtually impossible to find a sector of society that is untouched by the often excessive EU  regulations. The EU functions as a huge superstate centrally directed by statists obsessed  by regulations. They have learnt little from history, where central planning has been an  almost universal failure. Here is what Nathan Rosenberg and L.E. Birdzell Jr. say in How The West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation Of The Industrial World: “Initially, the West’s achievement of autonomy stemmed from a relaxation, or a  weakening, of political and religious controls, giving other departments of social life the opportunity to experiment with change.

Growth is, of course, a form of change, and ¬†growth is impossible when change is not permitted. Any successful change requires a ¬†large measure of freedom to experiment. A grant of that kind of freedom costs a ¬†society‚Äôs rulers their feeling of control, as if they were conceding to others the power to ¬†determine the society‚Äôs future. The great majority of societies, past and present, have ¬†not allowed it. Nor have they escaped from poverty.‚ÄĚ

Moreover, “Western technology developed in the special context of a high degree of  autonomy among the political, religious, scientific, and economic spheres of social life. Is  this high degree of autonomy indispensable to the successful application of technology to  economic welfare? Few Western scientists would disagree with the proposition that a high  degree of autonomy of the scientific sphere from political or religious control is essential  to scientific advance. It is almost as clear that a similar autonomy, in much the same  degree, is essential to the economic process of translating scientific advances into goods  and services.

The technological capability of a society is bound to be degraded if control ¬†of either scientific inquiry or innovation is located at points of political or religious ¬†authority that combine an interest in controlling the outcome of technological ¬†development with the power to restrict or direct experiment. In all well-ordered societies, ¬†political authority is dedicated to stability, security, and the status quo. It is thus ¬†singularly ill-qualified to direct or channel activity intended to produce instability, ¬†insecurity, and change.‚ÄĚ The European Union cannot be anything but anti-liberty because it concentrates far too ¬†much power in a centralised bureaucratic system that is almost impossible for outsiders ¬†to understand. As the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek warned in The Road to Serfdom:

‚ÄúTo imagine that the economic life of a vast area comprising many different people can ¬†be directed or planned by democratic procedure betrays a complete lack of awareness of ¬†the problems such planning would raise. Planning on an international scale, even more ¬†than is true on a national scale, cannot be anything but a naked rule of force, an ¬†imposition by a small group on all the rest of that sort of standard and employment ¬†which the planners think suitable for the rest.‚ÄĚ

5. The Lack of a Real Separation of Powers in the EU Invites Abuse of Power.

We should study the work of the great eighteenth century French thinker Montesquieu, ¬†who admired the British political system. He advocated that the executive, legislative and ¬†judicial branches of government should be assigned to different bodies, where each of ¬†them would not be powerful enough to impose its will on society. This is because ‚Äúconstant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, ¬†and to carry his authority as far as it will go.‚ÄĚ

This separation of powers is almost totally  absent in the European Union, where there is weak to non-existent separation between  the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches, and where all of them function  without the consent of the public. In short, a small number of people can draft and  implement laws without consulting the people, and these take precedence over the laws  passed by elected assemblies. This is a blueprint for a dictatorship.

In 2007, former German president Roman Herzog warned that parliamentary democracy ¬†was under threat from the EU. Between 1999 and 2004, 84 percent of the legal acts in Germany ‚ÄĒ and the majority in all EU member states ‚ÄĒ stemmed from Brussels. According to Herzog, ‚ÄúEU policies suffer to an alarming degree from a lack of democracy ¬†and a de facto suspension of the separation of powers.‚ÄĚ Despite this, the EU was largely ¬†a non-issue during the 2005 German elections. One gets the feeling that the real issues ¬†of substance are not subject to public debate. National elections have become an ¬†increasingly empty ritual. The important issues have already been settled beforehand behind closed doors.

Free citizens should obey laws that are passed with the best long-term interests of their  nation and people in mind. Most of the laws within the EU’s area are no longer passed by  elected national representatives, but by unaccountable EU bureaucrats, some of whom  could potentially have been bought and paid by our Islamic enemies with Arab oil money.
As such, the citizens of these nations no longer have any obligation to obey these laws.

As Montesquieu warned, ‚ÄúWhen the legislative and executive powers are united in the ¬†same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because ¬†apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, ¬†to execute them in a tyrannical manner.‚ÄĚ He also stated that ‚ÄúUseless laws weaken the ¬†necessary laws.‚ÄĚ The current problem with the EU is not just the content of laws and the ¬†way they are drafted and passed, but also their sheer volume. Law-abiding citizens are ¬†turned into criminals by laws regulating speech and behaviour, while real criminals rule ¬†the streets in our cities. This situation will either lead to a police state, to a total breakdown in law and order, or both.

6. The Lack of Transparency Leaves the EU Vulnerable to Hostile Infiltration.

In order to have a system with government under public control, you need accountability  and transparency. The EU fails miserably on both accounts. The reason why European  leaders could commit a betrayal as large as the creation of Eurabia is not only because EU authorities are not formally subjected to the popular will, but just as much because  they have made the decision-making process incredibly complicated and moved real  power out of the public view.

There is every reason to believe that some of those claiming to be our representatives  have been bribed and/or blackmailed by Muslim countries and other enemies to  implement agendas hostile to our interests. No system is perfect, but a closed and non-  transparent system such as the EU is particularly vulnerable to infiltration from outsiders  and hostile foreign interests.

The ‚Äúanti-discrimination laws‚ÄĚ we now see in Western Europe are an indication that the ¬†democratic system no longer works as intended. These laws come from a small group of ¬†self-appointed leaders who respond to pressure from the Islamic world, not from their ¬†own people. The European political elites increasingly risk being seen as collaborators ¬†and puppets for our enemies because that‚Äôs in many cases how they act.

7. The EU Leads to Less Freedom of Speech.

The EU does nothing to promote freedom in Europe, but rather spends a great deal of ¬†time trying to stamp out what‚Äôs left of it. The EU, in cooperation with Islamic countries, is ¬†rewriting school textbooks across the European continent to present a more ‚Äúpositive‚ÄĚ ¬†image of Islam. The EU increasingly views the media and the education system simply as ¬†a prolonged arm of the state. This is the hallmark of a totalitarian state, which is what ¬†the EUSSR is gradually becoming. One gets the feeling that the EU‚Äôs concept of a ‚Äúunited Europe‚ÄĚ means one nation, one people ‚ÄĒ and one allowed opinion. It is tempting to say ¬†one allowed religion as well: Islam.

According to British writer Daniel Hannan[2], ‚ÄúEurocrats instinctively dislike spontaneous ¬†activity. To them, ‚Äėunregulated‚Äô is almost synonymous with ‚Äėillegal‚Äô. The bureaucratic ¬†mindset demands uniformity, licensing, order. Eurocrats are especially upset because ¬†many bloggers, being of an anarchic disposition, are anti-Brussels. In the French, Dutch ¬†and Irish referendums, the MSM [mainstream media] were uniformly pro-treaty, whereas internet activity was overwhelmingly sceptical.

Bruno Waterfield recently reported on a ¬†secret Commission report about the danger posed by online libertarians: ‚ÄėApart from ¬†official websites, the internet has largely been a space left to anti-European feeling. Given the ability to reach an audience at a much lower cost, and given the simplicity of ¬†the No campaign messages, it has proven to be easily malleable during the campaign ¬†and pre-campaign period.‚Äô The EU‚Äôs solution? Why, to regulate blogs!‚ÄĚ

At the time of writing, it looks like the most radical proposals to regulate the blogosphere  and independent websites have been watered down for now, but there is no doubt that  the EU will make new attempts to censor the Internet, especially since the organisation  has successfully bribed much of the traditional media. The EU has encouraged pan-
European laws against ‚Äúracism and hate speech.‚ÄĚ

Every single action the EU has taken  vis-à-vis these subjects have led to more restrictions of free speech, online and offline. There is no reason not to expect that trend to continue, especially since the EU tries  consistently to placate Muslims and other immigrant groups in every way possible. The EU’s attempts to crush dissent and silence criticism of its ideas will become increasingly  aggressive and hard to ignore.

8. The EU Fails to Consult its Citizens and Insults Them When Doing So.

The Irish referendum in 2008 on the proposed EU Constitution/ Lisbon Treaty is a  powerful testimony to the evil nature of the European Union. Before the referendum, a  number of EU leaders made it perfectly clear that the Lisbon Treaty was virtually identical  to the European Constitution which had been rejected by Dutch and French voters in
2005, and which should then presumably have been dead.

Former French President Val√©ry Giscard d‚ÄôEstaing (the chief drafter of the Constitution) ¬†said[3]: ‚Äúthe proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why ¬†this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of ¬†constitutional vocabulary.‚ÄĚ D‚ÄôEstaing also said[4]: ‚ÄúPublic opinion will be led to adopt, ¬†without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly‚Ķ All the ¬†earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.‚ÄĚ

Spanish PM Jos√© Luis Rodr√≠guez Zapatero said[5]: ‚ÄúWe have not let a single substantial ¬†point of the Constitutional Treaty go‚Ķ‚ÄĚ Italian President Giorgio Napolitano said[6]: ‚ÄúThose who are anti-EU are terrorists. It is psychological terrorism to suggest the specter ¬†of a European superstate.‚ÄĚ Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen admitted that he had not read the Lisbon Treaty in full, ¬†but nonetheless assured his people that it was good and that Irishmen should vote ‚Äúyes‚ÄĚ ¬†based on this assurance. He said that voters were being asked to give the EU a ‚Äúmore ¬†effective and efficient decision-making process.‚ÄĚ

If a dictator decides to ignore the opinion of everybody else and implement policies as he ¬†sees fit without consulting anybody, this could be seen as a ‚Äúmore efficient‚ÄĚ decision- ¬†making process from a certain point of view. Is it this kind of ‚Äúefficiency‚ÄĚ the EU is ¬†promoting? Mr. Cowen doesn‚Äôt say, but it‚Äôs tempting to speculate that the answer is
‚Äúyes.‚ÄĚ According to the words and actions of the EU elites, the will of the people is merely ¬†an annoying speed bump which slows down the implementation of their supremely ¬†enlightened policies.

After[7] the referendum, when it was clear that the Irish would have none of this trick, ¬†the Irish EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy[8] revealed that he had not read the Lisbon Treaty himself: ‚ÄúI would predict that there won‚Äôt be 250 people in the whole of the 4.2 ¬†million population of Ireland that have read the treaties cover-to-cover. I further predict ¬†that there is not 10 percent of that 250 that will understand every section and subsection,‚ÄĚ he said. ‚ÄúBut is there anything different about that?‚ÄĚ said the Commissioner, ¬†adding: ‚ÄúDoes anyone read the finance act?‚ÄĚ referring to the lengthy documents he drew ¬†up when he was finance minister in Ireland.

Let us repeat this again. This man stated ‚ÄĒ probably correctly ‚ÄĒ that not more than a ¬†couple of dozen people among millions of citizens actually understood the document they ¬†were supposed to vote over, yet he saw nothing inherently wrong with this. The EU Constitution/ Lisbon Treaty would finalise the transfer of authority to a new pan-European superstate with almost unlimited powers to direct the affairs and lives of half a ¬†billion people in dozens of countries, from Finland to France and from Ireland to Poland. The Irish responded in the only sensible manner, but European leaders made it perfectly ¬†clear that they would press on with the project of dismantling European nation states ¬†regardless of popular resistance.

French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel issued a joint statement[9] ¬†saying they ‚Äúhope that the other member states will continue the process of ratification.‚ÄĚ The German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier[10] said: ‚ÄúThe ratification process ¬†must continue. I am still convinced that we need this treaty.‚ÄĚ The British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said[11] the UK would press on with ratification: ‚ÄúIt‚Äôs right that ¬†we continue with our own process.‚ÄĚ

The President of the European Parliament Hans-Gert P√∂ttering stated[12]: ‚ÄúThe ¬†ratification process must continue‚ÄĚ because ‚Äúthe reform of the European Union is ¬†important for citizens, for democracy and for transparency.‚ÄĚ In other words: The reason ¬†the EU is tossing aside the verdict of the Irish people, as well as the French and Dutch ¬†people and numerous others who never got the chance to voice their opinion at all, is for ‚Äúdemocracy.‚ÄĚ

According to writer Martin Helme[13], it was always clear that the power elites were not ¬†going to accept an Irish ‚Äúno.‚ÄĚ After the first shock they would simply continue carrying ¬†out plan A: ‚ÄúOne of the most disgusting and outrageous talking points already being peddled by the Eurocrats and their friends in the liberal mainstream media is that 862,415 Irish voters ¬†have no right to block the desired goal of some 450 million Europeans. This distortion of ¬†truth should never go unchallenged. First of all, those few million Irish were actually the ¬†only citizens in Europe who were asked for their opinion.

The rest of the 446 or so ¬†millions were never consulted. How can any politician claim that their voters want the ¬†ratification of EU constitution/Lisbon Treaty when the entire political class emphatically ¬†insisted on not asking the people? In fact, in many countries politicians openly admit that ¬†their voters would have done the same as Irish did, i.e. vote against the rotten thing. So ¬†it is not the few million Irish voters blocking the will of hundreds of millions of other European voters but very clearly a mass of Irish voters against a few thousand politicians ¬†and bureaucrats who make up the European power elite. Secondly, what happened to ¬†those 20 million French and Dutch voters who said no to the same document three years ¬†ago?‚ÄĚ

The European Commission in April 2008[14] presented a new plan aimed at increasing EU citizens‚Äô involvement in the decision-making process of the 27-nation bloc, as well as ¬†making it more popular. ‚ÄúWe must consult citizens,‚ÄĚ said the Swedish Commissioner Margot Wallstr√∂m then. She is famous for her remark in 2005[15] that Europeans ¬†needed to approve of the proposed EU constitution or risk a new Holocaust. Three years ¬†after the Constitution was first rejected, and still with no Holocaust in sight, the EU no ¬†longer pretends to care about the will of the people. When Eurocrats talk about ‚Äúconsulting‚ÄĚ citizens, they mean insulting them.

In April 2008, a demonstration[16] comprising people from all walks of life and from  most political parties convened in front of the famous and beautiful Staatsoper (State Opera) in the center of Vienna to demonstrate against the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in the Austrian Parliament, which later occurred without holding a referendum. Opinion polls showed that a majority of Austrians were convinced, as they should be,  that policy is determined almost exclusively by Brussels. They see[17] local politicians as  largely deprived of any power, and many of them were reluctant to grant even more  power to the unaccountable EU.

Opinion polls from mid-2008[18] showed that a strong majority of the Dutch were still  against the Lisbon Treaty, which is virtually identical to the Constitution that Dutch  voters rejected by 62 to 38 percent in the 2005 referendum. Nevertheless, the Netherlands is going ahead with the ratification of the Treaty even after the Irish rejected  it, said Premier Jan Peter Balkenende. The political elites are determined to continue a  process which will essentially dismantle their country and reduce it to just another  province in an emerging Eurabian superstate, and openly ignore their own people in  order to implement this.

As Helme states, “Governments have willfully and knowingly gone against the will of the  people, trashed their own constitutions, corrupted their courts to go along with it (thus  trashing the rule of law) and started to govern without the consent of the people or the  rule of law….This is the path that leads to revolution. Good! As Thomas Jefferson said
‚ÄėThe tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and ¬†tyrants.‚Äô I have a feeling that more and more people around Europe are ready for it. How ¬†about the politicians?‚ÄĚ

9. The EU Undermines Political Legitimacy and Connections between Rulers and  the Ruled.

Proponents of the European Union claim that it is a ‚Äúpeace project.‚ÄĚ But the EU is not ¬†about peace, it is about war: A demographic and cultural war waged against an entire ¬†continent, from the Black Sea to the North Sea, in order to destroy European nation ¬†states and build an empire run by self-appointed bureaucrats. This is supported by ¬†national politicians in order to enhance their personal power, by creating a larger political ¬†entity than their individual nation states and by ridding themselves of the constraints of a ¬†democratic society. The EU corrupts national political elites into betraying the people they ¬†are supposed to serve and protect.

Anthony Coughlan[19], a senior lecturer at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, states the  following in an essay at the EU Observer: “At a national level when a minister wants to get something done, he or she must have  the backing of the prime minister, must have the agreement of the minister for finance if  it means spending money, and above all must have majority support in the national  parliament, and implicitly amongst voters in the country.

Shift the policy area in question  to the supranational level of Brussels however, where laws are made primarily by the 27-  member Council of Ministers, and the minister in question becomes a member of an  oligarchy, a committee of lawmakers, the most powerful in history, making laws for 500  million Europeans, and irremovable as a group regardless of what it does.

National ¬†parliaments and citizens lose power with every EU treaty, for they no longer have the ¬†final say in the policy areas concerned. Individual ministers on the other hand obtain an ¬†intoxicating increase in personal power, as they are transformed from members of the ¬†executive arm of government at national level, subordinate to a national legislature, into EU-wide legislators at the supranational.‚ÄĚ

EU ministers see themselves as architects of a superpower in the making, and can free themselves from scrutiny of their actions by elected national parliaments. According to Coughlan, EU integration represents ‚Äúa gradual coup by government executives against ¬†legislatures, and by politicians against the citizens who elect them.‚ÄĚ This process sucks ¬†the reality of power from ‚Äútraditional government institutions, while leaving these still ¬†formally intact. They still keep their old names ‚ÄĒ parliament, government, supreme ¬†court ‚ÄĒ so that their citizens do not get too alarmed, but their classical functions have ¬†been transformed.‚ÄĚ

The European Union is basically an attempt by the elites in European nations to ¬†cooperate on usurping power, bypassing and abolishing the democratic system, a slow- ¬†motion coup d‚Äô√©tat. Ideas such as ‚Äúpromoting peace‚ÄĚ or ‚Äúpromoting free trade‚ÄĚ are used ¬†as a pretext for this, a bone thrown to fool the gullible masses and veil what is essentially ¬†a naked power grab.

The European Union is deeply flawed in its basic construction and cannot function as  anything other than an increasingly totalitarian pan-European dictatorship, run by a self-  appointed oligarchy. Indeed, there is reason to fear that it was designed that way. Power  is concentrated heavily in institutions that are above the formal restraints of public  consent and above the informal restraints of public scrutiny and insight. EU authorities  can do more or less whatever they want to, as they do in relations to the Arab and Islamic world.

10. The EU Spreads a Culture of Lies and Corruption.

After Irish voters had clearly rejected the Lisbon Treaty (the slightly changed, but  otherwise recycled version of the European Constitution which had been rejected by French and Dutch voters earlier), Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark  said[20] Ireland should be given less than nine months to work out its problems with the
Lisbon Treaty prior to the EU‚Äôs parliamentary elections in 2009. Rasmussen said that the Irish ‚Äúno‚ÄĚ vote to the Constitution should not stop further work by the Union toward ¬†getting the treaty ratified.

European leaders, including Danish ones, have generally  preferred ratification of the EU Constitution without popular referendums because they  know there is powerful resistance to it in many countries. It is meaningless to have  referendums if they only come when the elites want them to, and these elites can ignore  them if they dislike the results.
Mr. Rasmussen[21] is a great example of how the European Union slowly destroys the  democratic system and is deliberately designed to do so.

He is supposed to follow the will  of and interests of his people, but his actual loyalty lies with the rest of the EU oligarchy. He’s by no means the worst person among EU leaders; this isn’t about his personal flaws,  it’s about the EU and how it eventually corrupts even otherwise decent individuals. A  similar thing happened in Portugal, where the PM responded to calls from the leaders of Germany and France, not his own electorate.

The EU is a slow-motion coup d’état conducted against dozens of countries  simultaneously. It is designed to empty all organs subjected to the popular will of any  real power and transfer it into the hands of an unelected oligarchy. In fact, it’s worse  than a coup d’état because this traditionally implied that a group of people seized control  over a country. The EU doesn’t just want to seize control over nation states; it wants to  abolish them. The EU is organised treason.

The EU elites react as one when faced with challenges to their power base from ordinary ¬†people. MEPs in the European Parliament as well as participants at every level of the EU ¬†system get very well-paid jobs for taking part in it, which means that their pragmatic ¬†interests lie with maintaining it. Their loyalty has been bought ‚ÄĒ with the tax money of
European citizens ‚ÄĒ and transferred from their people, where it theoretically should be, to the EU. The EU is their pension plan, so to speak. When you challenge the EU, you ¬†thus constitute a direct threat to their personal financial interests, and they will respond ¬†accordingly.

Just like the Soviet Union, the European Union promotes a culture of lies and corruption  which starts at the top and filters down to society as a whole. The EU system corrupts  virtually everybody who comes close to it.

It cannot be reformed, it can only be dismantled.



1. http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=82
2. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2008/09/04/how_the_eu_plans_to_regulate_blogs?com_num=20
3. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/valeacutery-giscard-destaing-the-eu-treaty-is-the-same-as-the-  constitution-398286.html
4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556175/New-treaty-

5. http://www.la-moncloa.es/Presidente/Intervenciones/Sesionesparlamento/prsp20070627.htm
7. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3340
7. http://53.554.10.022plusf75:DTpqdck196754674448–úA
8. http://euobserver.com/18/26342
10. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080613/tpl-uk-eu-ireland-germany-43a8d4f_2.html
11. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080613/tuk-ireland-eu-referendum-britain-a7ad41d.html
12. http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/783601/part_2/eu-leaders-will-never-consult-us-again.thtml
13. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3350
14. http://euobserver.com/9/25909
15. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1489643/Vote-for-EU-constitution-or-risk-new-Holocaust-says-Brussels.html
16. http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/04/austrians-demonstrate-against-lisbon-in.html
17. http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/06/austrians-were-not-fooled.html
18. http://www.nisnews.nl/public/170608_2.htm
19. http://www.free-europe.org/blog/?itemid=364
20. http://www.cphpost.dk/get/107749.html
21. http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/08/fogh-forget-referendum.html

Editors Commentary:



Copy & Paste the link above for Yandex translation to Norwegian.

WHO and WHAT is behind it all? : >

The bottom line is for the people to regain their original, moral principles, which have intentionally been watered out over the past generations by our press, TV, and other media owned by the Illuminati/Bilderberger Group, corrupting our morals by making misbehavior acceptable to our society. Only in this way shall we conquer this oncoming wave of evil.

All articles contained in Human-Synthesis are freely available and collected from the Internet. The interpretation of the contents is left to the readers and does not necessarily represent the views of the Administrator. Disclaimer: The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the author(s). Human-Synthesis will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. Human-Synthesis grants permission to cross-post original Human-Synthesis articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified.