The Hidden Journey to Lisbon

In an interview with the Lidove Noviny newspaper in Prague, former paragon against the EU totalitarian state, Czech President Vaclav Klaus, said, “The train carrying the treaty is going so fast and it’s so far that it can’t be stopped or returned, no matter how much some of us would want that. I cannot and will not wait for British elections, unless they hold them in the next few days or weeks.” However, until recently the metaphorical train had made its journey hidden in a tunnel of deceit and obfuscation.

On 20 February 2009 Klaus had described supporters of greater European integration to the Soviets. He told the European Parliament: “Not so long ago in our part of Europe we lived in a political system that allowed no alternative and therefore no parliamentary opposition… Here (the European Parliament) there is only one single alternative, and those who dare think about a different option are labelled as enemies of European integration.”

The Lisbon Treaty was not actually a secret, but obscure as it has not been openly discussed in its details. Here is some light on the hidden journey through the tunnel. The first three documents are held in the National Archives in Kew.

Minister of State for Europe, Edward Heath, visited Professor Hallstein, President of the European Commission in November 1960. In his report he recorded that Hallstein had emphasised that joining the EEC was a new statehood and entrants should accept that the EU was to evolve into “some form of federal state” (See PRO/FO/371/150369).

In 1969 the Council of Ministers commissioned the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Pierre Werner to develop a plan to bring full economic and monetary union to the Common Market. At this time a secret briefing note to Heath from Con O’Neill, our senior civil servant responsible for Europe, described “a process of fundamental importance, implying development towards the political union… going well beyond the full establishment of a common market.” The Werner plan was for “the ultimate creation of a European Federal State, with a single currency.” Basic instruments of national economic management — fiscal, monetary, income and regional policies — were to be transferred to the central federal authority within a decade (See PRO/FCO/30/789).

Heath lied to the British people in the White Paper distributed to every house in June 1971. He stated: “There is no question of Britain losing essential Sovereignty.” In a television broadcast to mark our entry into the EEC, he said, “There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. Those fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”

The move to the Lisbon Treaty proper began in May 2000 when Joscha Fischer, then German Foreign Minister, and former Marxist street activist, called for a European constitution. It was endorsed by EU leaders in December 2001 at Laeken, near Brussels as a “constitution for European citizens.”

Then in 2003 the constitution written by Giscard d’Estaing was passed to members’ governments. The constitution was signed in Rome in 2004 but resisted by Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, who demanded an inter-governmental conference to propose a new text. This came out in October 2007 and was an “amending treaty”, not a replacement of previous documents. This was an exercise in obscurantism and the chaos of cross-references, amendments, sub texts, deletions and protocols were impassable. This was “The Lisbon Treaty” and described as “The Treaty amending the Treaty establishing the European Community.” It was ratified in Britain on 18 July 2008 but the public were not told till the day before. As usual the Queen signed the instrument of ratification. We had been promised a referendum on the original constitution at the last election by Blair, endorsed by Brown, but denied on the false grounds that this was not the original treaty.

The Irish referendum result should have ended the Treaty because it is supposed to be ratified by all 27 member countries. Sarkozy told the European Parliament in July 2008: “Irish voters have plunged the EU into a crisis with the rejection of the Treaty. It is Europe’s duty to act now.” He suggested the Irish have further referenda until they win!

The House of Lords didn’t amend the Treaty Bill to provide for a referendum and refused to slow ratification to debate the implications of the Irish vote on 11 and 18 June respectively.

Giscard d’Estaing told the Irish Times on 21 July that the rejection had not finished the Treaty as it should have done in law. “We’re evolving towards majority voting because if we stay with unanimity we’ll do nothing.” The substantive content of the Lisbon Treaty is the biggest transfer of our power to the EU, and the politicians and media know it.

Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg, revealed the import in the Daily Telegraph on 3 July 2007: “Of course there will be significant transfers of sovereignty.” He said he did not want to draw the attention of the British people to too much specific detail but gave an overall perspective: “There is a single legal personality for the EU, the primacy of European law, a new architecture for foreign and security policy; there is an enormous extension in the EU’s power; there is the Charter of Fundamental Rights.”

The European Court of Justice was modelled on the French Conseil D’etat and this set the precedence for the EEC’s legal procedures from 1964. In Costa V Enel (Case6/64) the judgement is that “the transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of the rights and obligations under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights, against which a subsequent unilateral act at variance with community principles can not prevail.”

This showed the E.C.J. to be an administrative law court with competence to rule on any legal issue linked to, or arising out of, administrative actions. It is now an arm of the government of the new state, the European Union. In 2008 the real nature of the contents of the Lisbon Treaty was revealed by Michael Connarty MP, Labour Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee: “Every provision of the Constitution apart from the flags, mottos and anthems, is to be found in the Lisbon Treaty. We think they are fundamentally the same and the government have not produced a table to contradict our position.”

Angela Merkel admitted to the European Parliament on 27 June 2007 that: “The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”

Author of the Constitution, Giscard d’Estaing, chairman of the Convention, admitted on 17 July 2007: “In terms of its content the proposals remain largely unchanged; they are simply presented in a different way …the reason is that the new text could not look too much like the constitutional treaty.”

Bernie Aherne, Irish PM, told the Irish Independent on 24 June 2007: “They haven’t changed the substance — 90 percent of it is still there.” Gordon Brown is in on the deception as he told us through the Labour Party election manifesto: “We will put the European constitution to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a “Yes” vote.”

The EU elites are deceiving European people, and the articles show how we are being subsumed into a totalitarian EU state by the Lisbon Treaty.

Article 4(2) was added to the Treaty protocol and gives the EU the legal powers to influence the UK into participating in EU plans to control our legal system and to comply in areas of justice and home affairs.

Article61(4) allows the EU to put pressure on us to recognise judicial decisions of other member states. This called the reciprocity principle and is to lead to harmonisation of civil law and constrain our common law and statute.

Article 69D(a) gives the EU Euro-just arm the power to bring criminal investigations and to instruct national authorities the power to bring proceedings.

Article69E(4) makes provision for a European public prosecutor with the power to override decisions by the Crown Prosecution Service and for mandatory co-operation between the police forces of member states. This includes the exchange of information, training, research methods and investigation techniques.

Article69G will expand the powers of Europol making it the EU police force.

Article 68(3) gives Brussels power to impose identity cards on us and the Treaty allows the EU to assume control of our asylum and immigration policies.

We lose control of immigration to the EU as Article 63(b) states we must help pay for asylum seekers to other EU states if their economies are not as sound as ours.

Article 62(1) (a) removes controls on persons crossing internal borders — uncontrolled immigration from EU countries goes on.

Article 63(1) gives the EU the power to decide on who and for how long residents of non EU states can stay in the UK.

That the EU is really a state in its own right is proved by Article 46(A) as it confirms that the EU can sign international agreements that will be binding on the UK.

We have clear evidence of the deceit and who was behind it from the great Valdimir Bukovsky, a former Soviet dissident who spent twelve years in Soviet jails, labour camps and psychiatric institutions. He told The Brussels Journal in February 2006 that in 1992 Boris Yeltsin needed his testimony at the trial to determine if the Soviet Communist Party had been criminal. He was given access to documents in Soviet archives and by using a small scanner and laptop he copied many including KGB reports to the Soviet government. He has published many in his book: EUSSR the Soviet roots of European integration.

These documents show that changing the Common Market into a federal state was agreed between European Socialists and Moscow.

In his speech Bukovsky related: “In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included former Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone, former French President Giscard d’Estaing, American banker David Rockefeller and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank.”

The theme of the federal state again: “In the middle of it Giscard d’Estaing suddenly takes the floor and says: “Mr President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen — probably within 15 years — but Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other East European countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it; you have to be prepared.”

Bukovsky predicted oppressive EU laws against people they label negatively: “If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union… It has no KGB — not yet — but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes — two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes. I think Patricia Hewitt said this publicly…”

On 20 April 2007 The Council of EU Justice Ministers in Luxembourg reached political agreement on a Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia. This concluded the negotiations at the European level, held since 2001… “In the future, there will be binding minimum harmonisation throughout Europe of the provisions on criminal liability for disseminating racist and xenophobic statements. Public incitement to violence and hatred, as well as the denial or gross trivialisation of genocide out of racist or xenophobic motives, will be sanctioned across Europe. With this, we are sending a clear signal against racism and intolerance.”

But Muslims are exempt… What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures. Apparently that is the whole purpose of Europol.