A quiet revolution is taking place. For years we were reassured that the Lisbon Treaty would preclude financial transfers to Member States in difficulty. When the Debt Bubble burst, a proverbial 'coach and horses' was driven through this guarantee, before the ink was even dry, with a huge 450 billion taxpayer-funded bailout secretly intended for European banks who had recklessly financed the borrowings of Greece and other basket-case EU Member-States, who had in turn lied about national debts and tax receipts in the first place to get into the Euro with the connivance of our political 'representatives'.
The UK taxpayer, despite being out of the Eurozone, was also forced to stump up billions disguised under a separate Mutual Aid clause, the wording of which was originally intended only to assist countries suffering natural disasters or similar emergencies. The abuse of that clause (in which the UK has no veto) saw the dying Labour Government shamefully give £8 billion in its final hours, just this year. No legal objection was raised against any of these shenanigans by our Establishment (so much for fighting for British interests), but in Germany, where it is recognised that the much bigger Banker-bound 450 billion Eurozone bailout is undoubtedly illegal under the Lisbon Treaty, the politician-banksters have realised the need for an urgent new Treaty amendment to make their dishonest actions retrospectively lawful.
Which brings us to the present day, where our discomfited 'eurosceptic' Prime Minister has accepted this state of affairs, under the cover of a Budget announcement, overturning ten years of reassurances given to Parliament, whilst simultaneously betraying a recent promise to give taxpayers a Referendum. He says that a minor Treaty change, which will legalise a permanent mechanism for the transfer of the burden of billions in debt to northern Eurozone taxpayers, will not affect us, but if British taxpayers are affected by the fallout of debt from our own banks, then burdening German, Dutch and other consumers and businesses with the debts of failing Member States is bound eventually to depress demand for our goods and services, tourism, investment and job creation, inevitably leading to further demands for tax and spending increases from the European budget.
If Europe is so important to us economically (as the British Establishment always says when it argues against leaving the EU), then it is preposterous to claim that we will not be greatly affected by a new Treaty sharing the problems of Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain with taxpayers in Germany, France and Holland as well as the UK, under the spurious heading of 'natural disaster' emergency assistance. Our Prime Minister curiously had nothing to say about this of course, merely dissembling that a new Treaty is in our interest so that the Euro succeeds, but if he honestly believes that there is such a thing as a successful Euro, then why doesn't he want Britain to be in it? Why exactly is it in our interests to make British workers and businesses suffer the consequences of a flawed single currency by having a new Treaty which legalises a mechanism for spreading financial misery across European markets? If he has principled objections to the Euro, then it must surely be in our interest not to support it. His position is illogical (but mostly, I suspect, just dishonest). He should be arguing for the PIGS to leave the Eurozone or sort out their dodgy finances on their own.
For ten years the Labour Government (yes, even our negotiator Peter Hain) objected to the inclusion of mutual financial aid provisions in the Lisbon Constitutional Treaty, even though they were only proposed for Eurozone Members. They knew and we suspect rightly that Britain would have been substantially, if indirectly, affected by the political and economic fallout of such transfers leading to more direct consequences, later on, with demands for Budget increases and surrendering Budget rebates, as well as the inevitable proposed single economic and fiscal governance of the new United Europe.
The shabby piece of theatre we saw today in Brussels, which was evidently decided weeks ago, along with Hague's new narrative on 'transfers within existing areas', belying the posturing of the Government about its Referendum pledge, budget cuts or freezes, proves at the very least that the new Government is no more honest on Europe than the one it replaced. The significance of today's planned and deliberate underhandedness though is much greater. Years of objection to large inter-State financial transfers in the proposed European Constitution/Lisbon Treaty was based on the expectation that, if allowed, the EU would necessarily demand full Federal economic and fiscal governance of the Member States, eventually leading to full Federal political governance. Like its ambition for a President, Foreign Service and single Armed Forces we know where the Federalists are taking us without our consent. The British Government, with an allegedly Conservative Eurosceptic Prime Minister, has today paved the way for another significant move in this direction. Plus ca change...
Friday, 29 October 2010
EU: A quiet revolution is taking place
A superb posting from Buda Nevey in the Telegraph:
Thursday, 28 October 2010
Conspiracy suits filed against J P Morgan & HSBC over silver manipulation
From Reuters:
When done, let them go after the big one - gold price manipulation. They're selling way more gold and silver than their coffers contain.
- Hundreds of millions in illegal profit alleged
- Triple damages sought in one of two lawsuits
- New tools proposed to thwart price manipulation
When done, let them go after the big one - gold price manipulation. They're selling way more gold and silver than their coffers contain.
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
On EU's 12-point action plan for 2020: global governance
On Monday, the HoC European Select Committee met to discuss the EU's Millenium Development Goals (MDG) for 2020 - in particular, the 12-point plan laid out in addenda 1-5 of EU document 8910/10.
A transcript of the meeting can be found here.
A copy of the 12-point plan can be found here, but I've not been able to locate addenda 1-5, which the meeting was specifically called to discuss. Do you know where they are?
During that meeting, various points were raised in connection with 'international development aid', which involves pushing developing governments to get more children into schooling and more people into 'health care' - oh, and "regional integration".
Schooling and health care are, of course, the very means by which Britain was socialised and by which America is being forcibly socialised.
Well, you could've knocked me down with a feather when Mark Lazarowicz and 'Mr' O'Brien had this little dialogue:
Wow. So the EU wants global governance by 2020, a single EU seat at the IMF and for developing countries to have equal representation to those of the developed (at the IMF).
All this is to achieved by bearing 'gifts' of aid, provided that it's spent on state education, state health care, gender equality issues (i.e., breaking up the family) and other Marxist tools - and more regional integration.
I bet those developing countries don't know what's in store for them. See what else MDG 8910/10 says:
I guess developing countries are about to be offered shedloads of loans - to be paid for by their 'improved revenue mobilisation through taxation'.
The slow motion car crash of Argentina's finances and autonomy is about to go global.
More background info here - particularly interesting are the "specific objectives" towards the end of the document.
A transcript of the meeting can be found here.
A copy of the 12-point plan can be found here, but I've not been able to locate addenda 1-5, which the meeting was specifically called to discuss. Do you know where they are?
During that meeting, various points were raised in connection with 'international development aid', which involves pushing developing governments to get more children into schooling and more people into 'health care' - oh, and "regional integration".
Schooling and health care are, of course, the very means by which Britain was socialised and by which America is being forcibly socialised.
Well, you could've knocked me down with a feather when Mark Lazarowicz and 'Mr' O'Brien had this little dialogue:
Mark Lazarowicz: "I have another supplementary question on progress. It refers to the issue listed as point 12 on page 25. I see that the Commission has raised the issue of global governance. It recommends:
“a swift and adequate implementation of the increases in developing and transition countries’ voting shares in the World Bank and IMF; work towards a single European seat as an ultimate objective and strengthen EU coordination, particularly with regional development banks.”"
What is the Government’s position on that and what progress has been made towards that objective? Is it supported by the Government within the European Union?
Mr O'Brien: In advance of my specific answer, the Hon. Gentleman will be aware that when I was in opposition, I repeatedly argued, under many guises, that in terms of discussions on global governance or other issues considered by any of the international forums in which so many of the developing countries are not only encouraged to take part but are very much constitutionally part of, it has been difficult for those countries to have the capacity to match their arguments with those advanced by the developed world. The developing countries lack the funded research and the evidence base available to the developed world. For that reason, we will be pursuing the launch of an advocacy fund—I am sure the hon. Gentleman has already picked up on that—so that a more equal playing field is established that enables those countries to match the developed world’s level of representation.
In relation to point 12 on page 25 of the Committee’s bundle, that is not part of the final Council conclusions. Given how the hon. Gentleman framed the question, and rather than go through the arguments, I basically need to say that it is a red line for us. Therefore we do not wish to see it transgressed.
Wow. So the EU wants global governance by 2020, a single EU seat at the IMF and for developing countries to have equal representation to those of the developed (at the IMF).
All this is to achieved by bearing 'gifts' of aid, provided that it's spent on state education, state health care, gender equality issues (i.e., breaking up the family) and other Marxist tools - and more regional integration.
I bet those developing countries don't know what's in store for them. See what else MDG 8910/10 says:
FINANCING FOR DEVELOPMENT — ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT 2010
This report monitors the EU's commitments on financing for development, particularly Member State progress against their ODA targets. The report also covers other financing issues such as: improved revenue mobilisation by developing countries through taxation and public financial management; remittances; innovative sources; and strengthening global financial governance.
I guess developing countries are about to be offered shedloads of loans - to be paid for by their 'improved revenue mobilisation through taxation'.
The slow motion car crash of Argentina's finances and autonomy is about to go global.
More background info here - particularly interesting are the "specific objectives" towards the end of the document.
Labels:
Anti-family,
EU con,
global bankers,
Global governance,
NWO
Sunday, 10 October 2010
John Lennon: assassinated?
John Lennon, articulate and vociferous opponent of war, must have been a thorn in the side of the military industrial complex. After all, without war, how can this income- and tax-generating industry survive without? How can governments maintain their deterrent capabilities without a healthy war machine?
Given his worldwide popularity, surely it was in the interests of many governments around the world that he be denied the oxygen of publicity?
Does that necessarily mean that he was assassinated by government decree? What are the odds?
Given his worldwide popularity, surely it was in the interests of many governments around the world that he be denied the oxygen of publicity?
Does that necessarily mean that he was assassinated by government decree? What are the odds?
Thursday, 7 October 2010
German economists believe Euro is doomed
... and that the Deutche Mark will return. They say that the Euro is inherently flawed (a view which Gabriel Stein shares):
Roger Helmer MEP says Conservatives NOT eurosceptic
Labels:
EU con,
European Arrest Warrant,
Eurosceptics,
Roger Helmer
Freedom Zone: Eurosceptics speak at the Tory conference
The Freedom Zone had several days of fringe meetings at the Tory Party conference, but unfortunately, did not capture the speeches on video - something I hope they'll rectify next year!
Still, trusty old RT interviewed many of the speakers at the 'fringe' - amongst them, Alex Deane of Big Brother Watch, Douglas Carswell and Guido Fawkes.
The embed code doesn't seem to be working for the following interviews (on my setup, anyway). You can view them at RT.
Philip Davies interview:
Alex Dean interview:
Guido Fawkes interview:
Douglas Carswell interview:
Still, trusty old RT interviewed many of the speakers at the 'fringe' - amongst them, Alex Deane of Big Brother Watch, Douglas Carswell and Guido Fawkes.
The embed code doesn't seem to be working for the following interviews (on my setup, anyway). You can view them at RT.
Philip Davies interview:
Alex Dean interview:
Guido Fawkes interview:
Douglas Carswell interview:
Labels:
Big Brother Watch,
Douglas Carswell,
EU con,
freedom,
Guido Fawkes
Monday, 4 October 2010
Corbett Report: How to defeat the NWO
James Corbett's archive 150, incorporates scores of ideas from people around the world on how to defeat the NWO.
He kindly mentions Fausty's blog about 27:25 minutes in ...
He kindly mentions Fausty's blog about 27:25 minutes in ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



