This is an answer to comments by Swan Lake and EU itself a disaster:
The New EU foreign minister and the new European President are both undemocratic appointments to undemocratic posts created by an undemocratic treaty.
A short but very succinct description of the Lisbon Treaty and what it really means for the common people.
That these people are so lackluster and bland apparatichs is not a coincidence according to this article. And there are merits to their arguments.
Another factor is the usual squabble among the top EU nations to get THEIR candidates to the most important posts. And here nations like Sweden CAN ONLY WATCH AND HAVE TO ACCEPT WHATEVER ARE THE OUTCOME.
One small step for union, one giant leap for uniformity
“In fact, the anointing of Mr van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton is completely in accord with the new arrangements that brought about their promotion. The Lisbon Treaty – née the European Constitution – is not about politics. Its chief purpose is to do with management and it has thus created additional layers in an attempt to impose “consensus” more firmly on the still distressingly nationalistic member states.
In that respect, the new executive directors seem ideal. Both have risen without trace through the pathways of management – we are tempted to recall the Peter Principle relating to advancement and competence. Both have reputations that resonate only among their own managerial classes and both lard their public utterances with the buzzwords of managementspeak. Post-Lisbon Europe could hardly be better served.
While commercial management can sometimes be imaginative and innovative and benefit from big personalities, those are not qualities required in bureaucracies. Their survival depends upon a certain drab uniformity (see “consensus” above) enforced by Kafkaesque regulation unintelligible to those outside the circle. Consequently, Mr van Rompuy will direct an army of civil servants whose job will be to bamboozle the leaders of the member states into what can be presented to their voters as the desirable “European” approach.
Baroness Ashton will command a budget of £3.6 billion a year and 3,000 new bureaucrats spanning the globe to mould the foreign relations of what used to be 27 sovereign governments into a similar “European” position.”
For such responsibilities, a distinct lack of charisma is beneficial. Already there have been mutterings among governments that their foreign affairs ministries are being downgraded and concern at a suggestion that their ministers should become EU envoys instead. How long before similar diminution overtakes national justice departments, social security ministries and treasuries? In order to complete this process, Brussels has calculated that for the moment it needs an invisible managerial hand, rather than a political Colossus, so as to confuse potential opposition.
These are early days, however. The European project is a long-term venture and far from being popular (which is why the successor to the rejected Constitution was not generally submitted to electorates and written in such a way as to avoid unpredictable votes in the future). That being so, the appointments of two unknowns were designed not to frighten the horses – hence Mr Farage’s difficulty in responding. The promoters of the single European state know that their vision can only be realised through attrition, not by revolution. Our new managers have the task of achieving a bland, ideology-free European uniformity. Once that is in place, their successors will be free to go all out for full European Union.”
The political elite in Europe DELIBERATELY constructed the Lisbon Treaty so that the common people COULD NOT UNDERSTAND IT and comprehend what was going on.
I.E. THE LARGEST TRANSFER OF SOVEREIGNTY AND POWER FROM the people and local governments to the EU central level.
And the people were NOT allowed to have their say and to vote on it. With one exception, Ireland. Its constitution made it impossible for the politicians not to have a referendum.
The result – the people of Ireland voted NO 54 to 46 %.
But of course – The political elite in Europe doesn’t accept a NO from the people.
As already have happened before in France (2005 – 55% NO) Netherland (2005- 62% NO), Ireland (2001- 54% NO) and Denmark (1992 – 51% NO)
They started their manoeuvring, twisting, some minor concessions here some more money and transfers there etc.
At ALL COST they had to have a Yes on this one. And they got one a year later.
How many times does the voters have to vote NO before NO is really a NO? Or what part of NO! don’t you understand?
And a very INTERESTING Account of how former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, in a meeting with Gorbachev in January 1989, told Gorbachev that Europe in 15 years time is going to be a FEDERAL STATE.
How in the HELL DID HE KNOW THAT??????
Well the answer is very simple – because that’s been the plan all along from the political elite in Europe.
And surprise, surprise, he become the author of the European constitution (2002-03).
Wouldn’t you say that that was another “lucky” coincidence?
Here is the account from Vladimir Bukovksy describing an amazing meeting between President Gorbachev and representatives of the Trilateral Commission, which included David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger.
”In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included [former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro] Nakasone, [former French President Valéry] 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,” said .Bukovksy
”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 Easteuropean countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared,” added the whistleblower.
”This was January 1989, at a time when the  Maastricht treaty had not even been drafted. How the hell did Giscard d’Estaing know what was going to happen in 15 years time? And surprise, surprise, how did he become the author of the European constitution [in 2002-03]? A very good question. It does smell of conspiracy, doesn’t it?” said Bukovksy.
“Paul Belien: You were a very famous Soviet dissident and now you are drawing a parallel between the European Union and the Soviet Union. Can you explain this?
Vladimir Bukovsky: I am referrring to structures, to certain ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction, the inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the purpose of the Soviet Union. Most people do not understand this. They do not know it, but we do because we were raised in the Soviet Union where we had to study the Soviet ideology in school and at university. The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people “Europeans”, whatever that means.
PB: But we have a European Parliament which is chosen by the people.
VB: The European Parliament is elected on the basis of proportional representation, which is not true representation. And what does it vote on? The percentage of fat in yoghurt, that kind of thing. It is ridiculous. It is given the task of the Supreme Soviet. The average MP can speak for six minutes per year in the Chamber. That is not a real parliament.”
Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.
“It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similary, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all. When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan. We used to have an organisation which was planning everything in the economy, to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU. When you look at the type of EU corruption, it is exactly the Soviet type of corruption, going from top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top.
And some citations from the leading figures behind the Lisbon Treaty:
Jean Claude Juncker – Prime Minister of Luxembourg
”Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?”
”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 fields of the EU’s powers,”
– Daily Telegraph 3 July 2007
Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister
“The aim of the Constitutional treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable…The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”
Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007.
Jean-Luc Dehaene, former Belgian prime minister, and former Vice President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution
The Economist of 9 August 2007 quoted some revealing remarks by Jean-Luc Dehaene. The Economist said that in an interview in Le Soir, he said it was “dangerous talk” to want “too much transparency and clarity” in the EU. On 17 October 2007 European Voice quoted him as saying, “The paper [the Reform Treaty] is incomprehensible. Good! We need incomprehensible papers if we are to make progress . . . We have to be realistic.”
Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and the other former Vice President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution.
He said, at a meeting of the Centre for European Reform, recorded by Open Europe, on 12 July 2007 that EU leaders “decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception… . In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand! But, there is some truth [in it]... any Prime Minister – imagine the UK Prime Minister – can go to the Commons and say ‘Look, you see, it’s absolutely unreadable, it’s the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum’ Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new..”
”The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.” – 21 February 2007.
Valerie Giscard d’Estaing, former president of France and president of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution
Writing in Le Monde on 14 June 2007, a few days before the form of the “reform” proposals had been settled: ”A last good idea consists of wanting to preserve part of the Constitution and camouflaging this by distributing it among several texts. The more innovative provisions [of the Constitution] would be simple amendments to the Nice and Maastricht treaties. The technical improvements would be gathered together in a bland and uncontroversial treaty. These texts would be put to Parliaments to vote on them one at a time. Thus public opinion would be led to accept, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly….… All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
On 26 October 2007, writing again in Le Monde he said, “The Lisbon Treaty itself cannot be understood by ordinary citizens since it can be understood only by also reading the treaties which it amends. . . The institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty – the only things which mattered for the members of the European Convention – are in the Lisbon treaty in their entirety but in a different order and inserted into previous treaties. – What is the purpose of this subtle manoeuvre? First and above all to escape from the constraint of having to hold a referendum by dispersing the articles and by renouncing the constitutional vocabulary.”
Dr Garret FitzGerald, former Irish Prime Minister
”The most striking change (between the EU Constitution in its older and newer version ) is perhaps that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual amendments to two existing treaties. Virtual incomprehensibility has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform. As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum.” – Irish Times, 30 June 2007.
Angela Merkel, current Chancellor of Germany and president of the EU from 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2007
“We have renounced everything that makes people think of a state.” Gone are the words, constitution, flag, anthem and motto.
Speaking to the European Parliament, on 27 June, Angela Merkel was keen to point out, “The agreement reached in Brussels [23 June 2007] enables us to retain the substance of the Constitutional Treaty. ” “At the same time, the Reform Treaty contains major advances for the European Union’s capacity to act. Indeed, in some areas we even went further than in the Constitutional Treaty.”
“European integration has to be striven for and consolidated time and again.”
And all this striving for Grandeur and Pomp by the leaders of EU, they Demand Obedience and Attention as if they think they where ancient emperors. Not, as they are supposed to be, servants of the people of Europe.
All paid by the taxes from the common people.
EUROPEAN PRESIDENT HERMAN VAN ROMPUY SLAMMED FOR ‘ACTING LIKE A KING’
Thursday February 4,2010 , By Martyn Brown
THE new European President Herman Van Rompuy was slammed yesterday for “acting like a king” after trying to host his first EU summit in a palace.
Mr Van Rompuy originally wanted to hold the gathering in the 18th Century Palais d’Egmont in Brussels.
But after pressure from Europe’s capitals, he switched the Brussels meeting to another prestigious, but less regal, building hundreds of yards away from the usual office block venue where EU leaders meet.
Diplomats are still predicting “chaos” when EU leaders get together next week in the Bibliotheque Solvay, a cramped 100-year-old library that does not even include interpreter booths.
Far from being a king, Mr Van Rompuy, 62, has been dismissed by his sister Christine, a member of a rival political party, as a clown.
She helped produce a mocking poster last year of her brother sporting a red nose and clown’s hat in an election. Next week’s talks will focus on proposals from Mr Van Rompuy to give the EU more “economic governance” powers in the aftermath of the recession and after implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, which came into force last month.
A diplomat said the palace plan “had to be stopped,” adding: “Who does he think he is, some kind of king?”
Mr Van Rompuy’s spokesman said that the idea was to move to a venue reminiscent of the Union’s original informal “fireside” meetings of leaders. He said: “The President wants to create a more intimate atmosphere for dialogue.”
Diplomats are concerned Mr Van Rompuy might be trying to push EU leaders into agreeing economic proposals without support from national delegations – housed in a different building without communication links.
He has already insisted he alone will draw up a paper proposing economic targets and policy for the year 2020 to be set at the EU level.
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>