'Welcome' to the United States of Europe

The Eurozone has been in dire straits for many, many months, as we all know. Most of the discussion has centred around the idea that either Greece will be cut off in order to stop the rot spreading or, alternatively, the debt would be mutualised via a fiscal union that would see the rest of the Eurozone subsequently answering for the debts of Greece (and any others, such as Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland that may be in need of bailouts).

Over the last couple of days, however, it has become clear that Angela Merkel sees the ultimate solution in terms of a literal political union in Europe. She has never hidden these intentions; however the fact she is now speaking about this goal in terms of the solution to the crisis is very revealing. The crisis demands an immediate economic resolution. But rather than focus on the task at hand it looks very much like the crisis is being used as a Trojan horse to achieve ideologically-based political objectives.

Germany's Chancellor Merkel urges EU political union

German Chancellor Angela Merkel says the EU needs a political union even if it means some countries integrating faster than others.

Speaking on German TV, she called for "more Europe", including a budgetary union, saying "we need a political union first and foremost".

"Step by step we must from now on give up more competences to Europe, and allow Europe more powers of control."

Source article

This fits perfectly the well-known and well-worn strategy used to manipulate events by undemocratic means:

Problem —Reaction — Solution

whereby a predetermined outcome is achieved by allowing a serious crisis to develop to the extent that the hood can be drawn over people's eyes when they are told 'we have to do this now'.

Don't expect the politicians pushing for political union to ask what the electorate think about the removal of national sovereignty.

In the US delegates were told 'Vote this through or it will be martial law'. In Europe it will be 'Accept this or the European Union, along with the currency and the banks, will be over'.

The key figures in the European oligarchy have no democratic legitimacy. Democracy is but an illusion used by the EU power elite — the parliament is only there to rubber stamp their designs. Even referendums are an illusion: whenever a nation has voted 'no' on a key subject, such as a treaty change, they have then been asked to vote again; clearly 'no' is not an acceptable answer.

Ref. Dictatorship in Europe — coming to a government near you?

So why is the financial crisis not being addressed logically? Why, indeed, were effective measures not taken months and months ago? Why has the EU continually kicked the can down the street?

Could it be that the Bilderberg cabal is finally seizing its chance? The removal of national governments and political power in the hands of the heads of global corporations and banking institutions? The next step before a global currency, then global — bankster — government?

Funny how events match the expected paradigm, isn't it? Will European nations be asked if they want to give up their independent governments? Even if there were a vote, would it count for anything? Going on past form nations that refused would be told to go and think again.

There is certainly more than economic imperatives at play here. Perhaps the road map outlined in Daniel Estulin's 'The True Story of the Bilderberg Group' is being worked out before our very eyes...

reply to post by pause4thought


Technically Merkel is right though. The eurozone model was always flawed. Image in the united states if each state had its own central bank, its own presidents (or prime ministers), own foreign policy, it would be an utter disaster, and our states have more in common than the countries of europe.

Europe needs to make a decision: either formally united and create the united states of europe that we have all been hearing about or go back to the 1980s model, pre-eurozone. A single currency can't work when you have 30 different countries, agendas, philosophies and politicians trying to all control it.

I'm not sure if there is a conspiracy here though honestly, you'd have to do some heavy polling of europeans. I could see why they would want a real, united europe. If a united Europe was to exist it would be more powerful than even the USA in many ways (bigger economy, more upper-class people). I can also see why individual countries would want to remain totally sovereign, lest you end up like Texas, a juggernaut in your own right but weighed down by Federal policies.

I have a big problem with the EU, especially in it's current model.

Coming from Switzerland I always viewed the EU with suspicion. There is a tradeoff for everything. So what is the tradeoff for joining the EU? Power.

I currently live in the UK and recently saw a number representing the amount of laws/legislations introduced NOT by the UK but by the EU. I really believe democracy is lost if you join the EU.

I can totally see the great idea behind it. How it could possibly make things easier to deal with one economy instead of dozens of small ones. Therein lies the problem though. If that ONE economy goes nuts, who is there to back that up? With several small economies, I imagine, economic disasters could be contained a bit more. My knowledge of economics is somewhat limited thought so correct me if I'm wrong.

Someone mentioned earlier that the Europes countries have such different backgrounds, traditions and customs that it really is difficult to fit them all into one model.

I'm so waiting for this whole EU **** to pass and all countries go back to what they were and are supposed to be: Their own damn country,

Peace

reply to post by KnawLick


That's a well-reasoned response.

I follow the logic of economic and fiscal union insofar a common currency cannot really function efficiently without them. But so much of what has come out of the European project has either ignored the democratic principle or at least duped the masses into accepting moves towards loss of national sovereignty. European law takes precedence over national law. Were the people asked? Key top appointments without elections. Was it explained to the people that if they gave up their national currencies the inevitable result would be a disaster unless they then accepted the demise of national government?!

If the project had remain a European Economic Community it would have made perfect sense. But dig deeper into the origins of the project, and the objectives of the Bilderbergers, and it becomes apparent that it was arguably always about the removal of governments and the moves towards global government.

There is evidence in this direction. It seems a lot to swallow, admittedly. But when you analyze the theory and see things apparently following the predicted pattern, it certainly makes you wonder. After all, does anyone really expect European leaders to encourage open debate about whether the European project has, in financial terms, been a flop, and whether perhaps it ought to be abandoned as a heroic, if flawed, experiment? It seems unthinkable. Yet surely the only reason the matter is not up for honest debate is because ideology is pushing the agenda, not the ultimate good of the people.

Finally Merkal saw the light.

One cannot have a humanity union based upon MONEY - the root of all evil.

EU was created by bankers whom thought it was possible through debt enslavement of nation states within EU. Borrow, go ahead, take the whole vault, but when the bank calls in, pay up with interests or slave your lives and your future generation lives, beholden to the banks.

It would have worked, but too bad the banking scams came to light for all to see in 08, at what the banks had really been doing all the time to achieve their aims - derivatives, reckless loans, being the house and 'whale' of the middle class scamming casiono stock market , colluding with the corrupted, housing bubbles, etc.

The gravy train ended, and thanks to the courageous greeks and EU youths, whom decided enough is enough, stuck their middle fingers to more bank bailouts, for the banks were the ones responsible for the loss of balances in their vaults, yet taxpayers were made to pay, and be stuck with crippling austerity drives that will only drive nations into poverty and starvation.

With a political union, with shared common goals that attempts to leaves none behind, represented by democratically elected representatives from all states, selected best from the various political parties, for checks and balances, to discuss and debate over national issues for the best solution within a parliament or congress, and with an elected best democratic president empowered by the People to veto or takes full sole responsibility for an executive order to prevent political gridlocks.

Such a system is not the perfect way, for the devious unconscionably powerfully rich will still attempt to manipulate events within such a system as USA had proven, but with full open transparent checks and balances, it is currently and best way forward for EU to progress and evolve.

However, such a Union will have to the decision of each and everyone of the EU People, to have that free will to decide,discuss, debate and to choose, and NOT the sole decision of any cabal or tyrant.

Power may be derive from barrel of guns, as China's brutal CCP and Tyrant Putin had proven, but it will be logic and reason that rules the hearts and minds of mankind. Without it, dissatisfaction, anger,chaos will only ultimately come, for the spirit of humanity is for responsible freedom to progress and evolve, never tyranny.

reply to post by Swizzy

I'm so waiting for this whole EU **** to pass and all countries go back to what they were and are supposed to be: Their own damn country

Judging by the way history repeats itself, and the way things are going at present, you may well get your wish. With a European dictatorship first.



reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Another interesting response.

With a political union, with shared common goals that attempts to leaves none behind, represented by democratically elected representatives from all states, selected best from the various political parties, for checks and balances, to discuss and debate over national issues for the best solution within a parliament or congress, and with an elected best democratic president empowered by the People to veto or takes full sole responsibility for an executive order to prevent political gridlocks.

If that were really all it were about it would possibly satisfy a lot of people. And that is indeed how the EU portrays itself. But are you aware of the Communist background of the top brass, such as José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission (and a former Portuguese Prime Minister) who is a former Maoist leader? (Follow the link in the OP for more.) Or of the like-minded intentions of the prime movers behind the Bilderberg group, such as David Rockefeller?

You also mention checks and balances. Referendums are not accepted when they give the wrong answer, powers of veto have been taken from national governments, national legal systems have been subordinated, the highest positions are not democratically elected, etc. And even where delegates to the parliament are elected, how much influence will they have if they only represent the views of one meagre country? And meagre is the word if the respective countries have actually ceded power. Then there is the issue of democratic participation. If it is difficult to motivate people to vote en masse at national elections how are they going to be motivated if their vote is but one among hundreds of millions?

Democracy / democratic accountability are not going to be enhanced by a United States of Europe. Quite the contrary.

reply to post by pause4thought


That is true, they certainly have not done it out in the open. But one has to remember, it's not like Europe has a rich long history with democracy. America had been a democracy for 30 years while Napoleon was still causing michief. So I wouldn't put much faith in the Kings we call presidents today

It may be an overly simplistic view, but to me this is all so damn scripted, I want to hurl big chunks.

The other thing that I find nagging at the back of my mind is the notion that Germany is doing through economic means what they couldnt' do with bombs and guns during WWI and WWII.

I'm wagering a guess who'll be the lead hand in all of this United States of Europe thing . . . sprechen sie deutsch, anyone???

reply to post by KnawLick

it's not like Europe has a rich long history with democracy.

An interesting point. Not one I anticipated.

All I can do is quote Mr Churchill:

Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

And if the antithesis of democracy is government riding rough shod over the wishes of the people, it shouldn't be discarded lightly.

The further the politicians tie the courntries togeather the more nationalist
movements will want to break free. the reality of fiscal union would mean
oversight of budgets of each of the countries. I cannot imagin europeans
with their millenia of seporate identies accepting a new empiral overlord.
and thats what it would have to be, all countries bending down to one.
but given the times we are headed into, the concept of empire will surely be
revived. The russian empire, the european empire, the american empire,
and the chines empire. (sorry getting to far ahead in the game.)