France and Germany Propose Unified European Government

reply to post by Misterlondon


One way it's being done is by breaking up many of the member states into autonomous regions. It is these regions that will have federal EU membership, not the nations they once comprised.

Originally posted by Misterlondon
reply to post by metaldemon2000

 

but I fail to see why a united europe is a bad thing.

it wouldn't be a bad thing and would probably save it.. in an ideal world, in the right hands and with the correct guidance it would be a superpower..
But i cant see some of these nations relinquishing complete power of their countries to a central government, without unrest and conflict.
although the EU has been slowly gaining control and gobbling up nations for years now, so it has a real possibility of happening in the future..

That would lower the amount of paperwork and filed expenses wouldnt it?

Personally I think there is (and has been) much more to this than meets the eye, I have worked implementing EU legislation across many member states and to be honest it is a mess and would almost take an act of the divine to get the system working cohesively.

I'm not sure this will buy the EU time to get it's act together, I guess we will find out in the coming weeks, but something drastic does need to be done to prop up the EU and deeper union is about the only silver bullet they have left to stave off the market wolves.

remember this...?

www.domasjefferson.com...

"To solve the mounting crisis, European government is proposing a massive power grab as part of a long-range plan to save the Union. If the plan is approved, the EU government will set the rules in the future and police itself and any nation, which breaches the rules or disagrees with the draconian measures implemented by the EU, will have their voting rights withdrawn. As one European Bilderberg openly admitted, “What we are heading towards a form of real economic government.”


I have a good memory.

reply to post by JennaDarling

Now that looks very interesting. I've just bookmarked it so I can read it in bed before I sleep (I use a netbook).
I see it goes into Iraq and all sorts of stuff.

Originally posted by NocturnalPhantom
reply to post by JennaDarling

 

Now that looks very interesting. I've just bookmarked it so I can read it in bed before I sleep (I use a netbook).
I see it goes into Iraq and all sorts of stuff.

You probably don't want to read it before sleeping lol

Originally posted by JennaDarling
double post.

This page intentionally left blank.

edit on 16-8-2011 by JennaDarling because: (no reason given)

Been along time since I've seen that: it raised a smile! star for you thanks.

I wonder if this will finally wake up those who are still asleep.
It should be pretty damn clear to most people now that NWO is no conspiracy.

in a move aimed at showing the eurozone's largest members are "marching in lockstep" to protect the euro.

link

A rather unfortunate choice of words -

-------

Its as if each E.U nation has followed one another down a long narrow tunnel - without enough room to turn around - arse to face we crawl forward into the darkness.

In mo opinion there are too many egos and 'chiefs' for this to ever work.. I mean it could work for a little while.. before imploding, unless A LOT changes, this will never work.

reply to post by Jon Quinn


You can blame the economic crisis as a catalyst for one world government all you want but that would be laughing in the face of the facts.
The European Union for sometime was moving to a more collective, strong binding Union up untill about the 2000's where they aimed to expand the Soviet Union by integrating former Eastern block Soviet sattelites. This meant that the EU was more diverse and less unified. This simply caused a delay in the collectivness of the EU which was inevitable with our without a debt crisis. I am sure this sped the process up though.

[font=Courier][color=FF9600]You have to remember, before there were Nation-states(1), there were multi-ethnic empires; the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Russian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire. It was not until the early 19th century that the states began uprisings and free trade caused a rift between kings, princes and merchants.

A lot of the ego behind the Nation-states comes from literature written at those time periods. One could call it propaganda for who’s country is best and other countries are little girls. But it goes even deeper than that, European history is a long and complex one. How the proposed Federalist United European Government would get going without trouble, is beyond me unless the people wipe the slate clean of historical bigotry, racism and all the other dark evil seeds planted during the forming of Nation-states.[/font]

(1)Nation-states; source wikipedia

Originally posted by NocturnalPhantom
reply to post by triune

 

Catholicism is only a big deal in southern Europe. Most of eastern Europe is Orthodox, most of northern Europe is protestant. Thankfully most western Europeans have woken up and realised what a load of hokum religion is.

True, and more and more people leave religions entirely and become atheist's or naturelovers.
I bet only 3-5% of the Danish population actually believe in God even thou most are protestant. Only reason most still is a part of the church is for practicality and tradition's.


Diffrent european populations already voted NO multiple times, which poleticians ignored (read my post on 2nd page). Then You have one of the answers why many is against the union.

Originally posted by Mimir

Originally posted by NocturnalPhantom
reply to post by triune

 

Catholicism is only a big deal in southern Europe. Most of eastern Europe is Orthodox, most of northern Europe is protestant. Thankfully most western Europeans have woken up and realised what a load of hokum religion is.

True, and more and more people leave religions entirely and become atheist's or naturelovers.
I bet only 3-5% of the Danish population actually believe in God even thou most are protestant. Only reason most still is a part of the church is for practicality and tradition's.


Diffrent european populations already voted NO multiple times, which poleticians ignored (read my post on 2nd page). Then You have one of the answers why many is against the union.

edit on 17-8-2011 by Mimir because: (no reason given)

In times of crises people will rally to a common cause. The Pope has already called on Europe to return to its common roots (Catholicism) to stem the tide of Islam spreading over Europe. Does anybody doubt that the majority of present wars are religious.

Also, moves are well advanced for the 'daughter' churches (breakaway christian churches) to return to the Mother Church (Catholic Church).

A European superstate lead by Germany will be the catalyst for a One World Government. To successfully implement a one world government, three ingredients are vital. 1) One world commerce system. 2) One world legal system. 3) One world religious system. Everybody must be rowing in the same direction. If you're not in step, you're an enemy of the state.

Most people know of the 'mark of the beast' system coming for commerce. But the mark of the beast is a two tiered system that is tied directly to religion. The 'Beast' demands that the mark be worn by ALL people as a sign of worship. The Catholic religion will be imposed 'by force' on the world.

So for the poster who can't see a problem with a one world government, look closely. You wont be voting for the leaders. If you don't agree with what they choose for you, to bad, so sad. Look at how the Nazis dealt with dissent in WW2. You better believe it can and will happen again.

An interview with Vladimir Bukovsky about the impending EUSSR

In 1992 I had unprecedented access to Politburo and Central Committee secret documents which have been classified, and still are even now, for 30 years. These documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home.”

The idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the Italian Communists visited Gorbachev, followed by the German Social-Democrats. They all complained that the changes in the world, particularly after [British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher introduced privatisation and economic liberalisation, were threatening to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of generations of Socialists and Social-Democrats – threatening to reverse it completely. Therefore the only way to withstand this onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try to introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once.

Prior to that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union had opposed European integration very much because they perceived it as a means to block their socialist goals. From 1985 onwards they completely changed their view. The Soviets came to a conclusion and to an agreement with the left-wing parties that if they worked together they could hijack the whole European project and turn it upside down. Instead of an open market they would turn it into a federal state. According to the [secret Soviet] documents, 1985-86 is the turning point. I have published most of these documents. You might even find them on the internet. But the conversations they had are really eye opening.

For the first time you understand that there is a conspiracy – quite understandable for them, as they were trying to save their political hides. In the East the Soviets needed a change of relations with Europe because they were entering a protracted and very deep structural crisis; in the West the left-wing parties were afraid of being wiped out and losing their influence and prestige. So it was a conspiracy, quite openly made by them, agreed upon, and worked out. 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.

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.” This was January 1989, at a time when the [1992] 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?

www.brusselsjournal.com...

Single currency single Government. If they introduce a global dollar then a global government would also follow!

NWO - TPTB!

The larger the block of countries, the easier it is to control - if you control the flow of money.

It is a terrific gamble to look at a complete unification of the world because its gives a few at the top immeasurable power and it stifles any form of opposition.

Small countries at least ensure that change can come about which we know stimulates growth etc.

Just a small thing about practicalities, the different languages spoken around the world will be hell to deal with and incorporate and it would take years to get a unified language for administration purposes.

Originally posted by JennaDarling
I am also sick and tired of clueless wonders such as the BNP, EDL, and Uk independant political parties that want out of europe and claim to be able to support themselves when infact they would be WORSE off if they done that.

How would we be worse off? A very quick google search turns up a BBC article which shows the UK being a net contributor (even after our rebate) of approximately 3.5 billion euros.

Why do we need to give our tax money to farmers in eastern europe when the money is needed at home. What we need to do is remove ourselves from the political union and take up a position similar to switzerland or some scandinavian countries where we can have the free movement of people (schengen treaty) and trade with the eurozone.

As to the OP; it's far too late to be flagging this up. The work was done when the Lisbon treaty (EU constitution) was ratified, a process which in itself was a joke. Certain member states such as Ireland put it to a public vote (referendum). When the result of the vote wasn't the one they wanted what did they do? Repeat the referendum until they got the answer they wanted. The negative results don't matter a jot, once a positive result is achieved the steamroller continues and can never be reversed. It's like a child flipping a coin, getting the wrong result so deciding to go "best of 3, best of 5 or best of 7" changing the rules arbitrarily until they get the desired result.

The mistake people make when discussing the EU is arguing over whether it has ambitions to create a european super state or not. That was the entire reason for its formation! The people of the UK were lied to in order to vote us into it. We were told it was purely an economic entity. Notice how the terminology has changed over the years from EEC (European Economic Community) to just the use of EU.

Someone earlier in the thread scoffed at the comparison to the USA. But tell me, what does the EU lack that the US federal system has? It has a constitution enshrining its dominance over the individual states (Lisbon Treaty) it has a head of state (President) a legislature (European Parliament) a judiciary (European Courts) and a fiscal arm (European Central Bank) with a single currency (Euro).

There is nothing missing there. The (Dis)United States of Europe has and always will be the objective and it was achieved completely with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

yawn... old story (and very old wishful thinking)

won't happen anytime soon with greece and portugal being bankrupt and some others at the brink of it... germany still hasn't recovered from the reunion 20 years ago but it's embracing a european government...? no way...

as some of you stated earlier... too many languange barriers, too many cultural barriers and too many financial barriers... the comparison with the united states is ridiculous...

reply to post by beltemps


Thats probably right for now. But the fact that its being discussed now. Its on the agenda for the future whether thats 10 or 25 years. And the introduction of the Euro was the first step!! There will be others and some made sooner than we think!