The Barcelona Declaration

This just popped up on Facebook. I know nothing about it.

It basically states specific ME and European nations, including the EU, itself, signed onto this pact in 1995.

It seemingly explains the influx of Muslim immigrants into Europe, once again without mandate, it enforces multiculturalism in Europe...with financial reward to participating nations. There are numerous links on the subject, many citing it as a massive failure.

An interesting point is Israel signed onto it. Why? Appeasement?

centurean2.wordpress.com...

I coud use some insight on this. A blank page, for me. Any European input would be appreciated, as well.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Interesting read and thanks for sharing. I have to say, the document itself actually makes sense in that all of the "Arab" nations listed border the Mediterranean Sea so are directly influenced by / have a direct influence on the EU area. Friendly relations with neighbours is surely a good thing, no?

a reply to: Flavian

Friendly relations with neighbours is surely a good thing, no?

As long was they don’t try to move in with you.

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: nwtrucker

Interesting read and thanks for sharing. I have to say, the document itself actually makes sense in that all of the "Arab" nations listed border the Mediterranean Sea so are directly influenced by / have a direct influence on the EU area. Friendly relations with neighbours is surely a good thing, no?

It makes sense if the population is consulted and is broadly in accord. Already a number of EU nations have given the EU a 'middle finger' on that agenda, none that signed the agreement, that I can see, though. Ram things down enough peoples' throat and you will get a gag reflex.

They call it 'populist'. I call it 'none of the above'.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I posted this vid in another thread but this vid called Demographic Winter may be what tptb know is coming to a nation near them and they need to act fast to address it .

a reply to: nwtrucker

Tunisia seams to be doing ok, they've integrated values we in the West value into their society, in fact I'd argue that they've just enshrined via law fundamental beliefs they already had.

But each to their own, some will see progress others will see backwardness in ways it conducts itself as a nation.

I wouldn't say this was hidden because I happened to be reading about it the other day, hence why I brought up Tunisia and the work that's came forth before their 2011 revolution and post-revolution.

Such nations are linked to the EU via trade, diplomacy, culture and the Mediterranean sea. I see such efforts linked by the OP as cohesive and productive, I guess that's just my opinion though.

Figured I'd post the 3 questions asked To the Danish Prime Minister:

Question 1: Why have you, our politicians, and the media told us nothing about the Euromediterranean Project, which has been in existence for more than 10 years now?

Question 2: Why is our 1000-year-old identity, religion and culture to be removed and replaced by islam?

[…] thus dismantling our religion and culture, which are called ‘stereotypes and prejudices’.

Question 3: Do you believe, that the credibility of your government and confidence in the undemocratic EU will grow, as we ‘grassroots’ spread knowledge about the Euromediterranean/Euro-Arabian project?

What say you ATS?

Personally I see much prejudice with the questions and a slight ignorance in basing multiple nations and cultures into one called Islam.

I know that some Protestants whom are versed up on their brand of Christianity hate to be linked with Catholicism and find it somewhat offensive when people assume it's all the same. It isn't.

Nations were occupied, cities were sieged and people died over that split. Ask a Spanish or Dutch historian.

Anyways interesting post, threads like this evolve... Looking forward to checking back in at a later date.

a reply to: RAY1990

I don't know much about Tunisia. I 'assume' that it wasn't enforced. A natural merging, so to speak.

I doubt Radical Islam was given much thought in the Barcelona Declaration, either. The Mediterranean nations have had a mixed culture and religions for 1500 years, as well.

Not so with much of Europe. All the more to involve local culture and belief systems to have a say in these things, I would say.

Anything is possible and I would not put it past the architects behind the global takeover to move large groups of people in order to destabilize a region; however, reading through that link you posted OP, is a bit difficult.

It seems the agreement was among the Mediterranean countries, not European, although some are of course European, and it is meant to bring stability to the region and help with prosperity through free-trade -- what we go to war for to make sure happens.

The trade agreement got two Mediterranean islands to join, Cyprus and Malta and even countries that have recently been subject of ethnic cleansing such as Croatia, where muslims were a minority and genocide was committed on them by the Christians. If you're in college or older you may remember this, it's very recent.

Barcelona

You have to dig a bit deeper though, as the link you posted seems to be on open letter to the prime minister of Denmark, so it's an opinion piece, but if you google what they talk about you can get a bit more info.

a reply to: RAY1990

I think those are 3 very reasonable questions.

a reply to: Kharron

Do you honestly think that what we go to war for is to make sure prosperity happens theough free trade?

a reply to: nwtrucker

As different humans of varying degrees we tend to have more to offer than not due to our differences.

We'll always have our crazies, fundamentalists and extremists, I personally don't try to let that obscure the potentials one human can offer another, Tunisia could've easily been Libya in terms of extremism and the potential for it.

Most humans want life, freedom and the potential for growth. It's always going to be easier with more humans and an inclusiveness state of affairs.

Ariel Sharon, one of Israel's prime minister's understood this to be true. Hence his work and guidance in regards to inclusivity towards people's bordering Israel.

As for local culture, it's seldom ever external forces that erode them. It's the people themselves. They allow it to be eroded. The EU actually does a lot of work in regards of safeguarding culture, Paris Ham is only Paris Ham if it's produced by certain standards and in Paris. Ensuring such things by law is one thing the EU can get right at times.

Personally I get depressed without a Sunday Roast, I insist on them. Pub grub regardless of the quality doesn't hit the same spot. It's expensive feeding 10 people at a pub too.

Fish on good Friday kind of stuff, I'm not even religious.

originally posted by: KansasGirl
a reply to: RAY1990

I think those are 3 very reasonable questions.

I never said they were unreasonable.

I said they were prejudiced, if you don't see that I'll assume you are too. Prejudice has a certain ignorance to it.

I'll expand a bit because my words will come off on the wrong foot...

He's prejudiced against his own continent too, we've got more than one religion (a bloody miracle, ty USA for making it hard to find them all) and even if you were inclined to say Europe has only 1 religion then I'd mention that it was fractured once and people died over that split. Look up the Spanish occupation of Flanders, Christian genocide via Christian hands.

Europe is hardly one culture either, that's such a backwards and ignorant statement I'd do best to just laugh. It's better than taking several pages to explain that many cultures were already forced upon people's of Europe and others were annihilated.

a reply to: RAY1990

Hmmm, not 'unreasonable', yet prejudiced? By definition, that's a bit of a contradiction. Much like prejudice and discriminatory. One is 'reasoning, the other not. Misused these days, yes?

The Europeans have had as many, if not more, and worse wars than the ME. For just as long a time.

For myself, I used 'biased'. I am unabashedly biased towards my own culture. Change is incorporated slowly. I assume similar pretty well anywhere on this planet. If one's representatives are elected and discount broad-based disagreement, especially when enforced by law, there will be backlash. Multiple that backlash if the representatives aren't even elected. ( I have no idea in this instance.)

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions....

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: nwtrucker

Interesting read and thanks for sharing. I have to say, the document itself actually makes sense in that all of the "Arab" nations listed border the Mediterranean Sea so are directly influenced by / have a direct influence on the EU area. Friendly relations with neighbours is surely a good thing, no?

It makes sense if the population is consulted and is broadly in accord. Already a number of EU nations have given the EU a 'middle finger' on that agenda, none that signed the agreement, that I can see, though. Ram things down enough peoples' throat and you will get a gag reflex.

They call it 'populist'. I call it 'none of the above'.

The document is from 1995. Many of the EU states giving the EU the finger these days were not even members of the EU when this document was drawn up. And none of them border the Mediterranean.

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: nwtrucker

Interesting read and thanks for sharing. I have to say, the document itself actually makes sense in that all of the "Arab" nations listed border the Mediterranean Sea so are directly influenced by / have a direct influence on the EU area. Friendly relations with neighbours is surely a good thing, no?

It makes sense if the population is consulted and is broadly in accord. Already a number of EU nations have given the EU a 'middle finger' on that agenda, none that signed the agreement, that I can see, though. Ram things down enough peoples' throat and you will get a gag reflex.

They call it 'populist'. I call it 'none of the above'.

The document is from 1995. Many of the EU states giving the EU the finger these days were not even members of the EU when this document was drawn up. And none of them border the Mediterranean.

Exactly. Much has changed since 1995. Still, this 'Declaration' may be the starting point. That's good to know and may open the door to modification.

In general, I have a problem with an open door policy, it's financial and cultural costs, and most importantly, implementation without mandate. It seems a world-wide trend that requires attention from citizens.

a reply to: RAY1990

I don't think that invalidates the questions. Just because Europe has multiple Christianities, plus some minor religions, doesn't mean it's foolish to oppose importing a completely new one. And the same goes for cultures. I don't see anything wrong with the questions. Of course it's total bull# to say that there's a 1000-year old European identity. But isn't all identity pretty much arbitrary in the postmodern age? But European nationalists should upgrade their thinking a bit, for sure. A single European identity is a fiction, but so what? It can be a beautiful and useful fiction. And if some are opposed to it then they should provide something better instead. The EU is struggling to do that. I think they should adjust their thinking too. I don't even demand much; I'm actually really liberal in most regards.

originally posted by: RAY1990
As for local culture, it's seldom ever external forces that erode them. It's the people themselves. They allow it to be eroded. The EU actually does a lot of work in regards of safeguarding culture, Paris Ham is only Paris Ham if it's produced by certain standards and in Paris. Ensuring such things by law is one thing the EU can get right at times.

People complain about EU policies a lot. I think most of them are sensible and good. But I don't think things like ham are relevant for preserving a culture. That's just the French looking out for their interests. If people want to preserve their ham-culture they can do it without laws protecting them. And if not then good riddance; that ham doesn't need to be preserved for all eternity; they don't have ham, let them eat kebab instead! But, for example, a mosque in a European city wanting to start prayer-calls is much more disruptive to European culture/cultures, than the loss of Parisian ham would be.

a reply to: Cutepants

Islam has been practiced in Europe for 1000 years.

People have a right to practice religion in peace, lawfully facilitating such practice in a venue that accommodates such things isn't a problem.

I can't stand all the betting shops in my high street either but they're legally owned and ran.

Mosques have been in Europe for a long time. Look up architecture in southern Spain, Islamic culture is not new to Europe.

Not in the slightest.

a reply to: nwtrucker

In terms if unelected officials it depend entirely upon what part of the EU you speak of. Elections are held for MEPs.

Prejudice is a naturally occurring thing in humans, I would be unreasonable to say otherwise.

Nothing is incorporated slowly and never has been. Seemingly though conversion by the sword is a tad slower than by the gun.

Didn't I ever say that religions are a bane on humanity? That keeping score malarkey wrapped up in "I wantz to save your soulz" bs?

Yeah, I ain't got the time of the day for them. I won't impede their choices though. Ultimately relations with the divine are individual.

I forged my relationships, no other could do that. It's a lie to be led to your spirituality. Pillars of sand.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: Cutepants

Islam has been practiced in Europe for 1000 years.

People have a right to practice religion in peace, lawfully facilitating such practice in a venue that accommodates such things isn't a problem.

I can't stand all the betting shops in my high street either but they're legally owned and ran.

Mosques have been in Europe for a long time. Look up architecture in southern Spain, Islamic culture is not new to Europe.

Not in the slightest.

It's as much cultural as it is religious. There is a backlash occurring in non-med region nations. Even some of those nations, as well. Italy, Greece, et al.

That is reality. Whether these changes are mandated or not, I'd wager the backlash would be the same. Perhaps directed differently, but there nonetheless.

Sooner or later, this will cause major changes in the EU. Perhaps even the end of it when combined with other issues. JMO, though.