Aftermath News

Top Left: António Reis Grandmaster of Grand Orient Lusitano (Portugal), top right: Yvette Nicolas Great Teacher of Women’s Grand Lodge of France, bottom left: José Manuel Barroso President of the European Commission, bottom right: Jean-Michel Quillardet, Grand Master of the Grand Orient of France.

Red Ice | Apr 26, 2008

The French Federation of Le Droit Humain represented by its president, Michel Payen, met on April 8, 2008 with the president of the European Commission, José-Manuel Barroso, [...] This meeting constitutes a major event regarding the place of Freemasonry in the construction of Europe; this place was underscored not only by the interest and attentiveness that President Barroso showed to the delegation and the time he accorded them, but also by the commitments he made to the values espoused by liberal and adogmatic Freemasonry, its positions and its opinions on subjects of concern. It was the first time that Freemasonry, as such, was able to express itself to such a high level European institution.

The delegation received assurances from President Barroso of his attachment to the spirit of “laïcité” and to the principle of separation of religion from the State. The delegation stressed the importance of the Enlightenment in the history of Europe, a dimension to be taken into account at least equally with its religious roots, and certainly more closely tied to the roots of antiquity.

Finally, a principle of communication between the liberal and adogmatic Masonic Orders and the services of the European Commission, to be used whenever needed, was decided upon. Thus the French Federation of Le Droit Humain will propose, in the near future, a recommendation concerning the principle of emancipation that ought to form the basis of all European education systems, in direct relation to a recognition of the contribution of the Enlightenment to the common culture of the peoples that compose Europe, and in accordance with the principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Ed Comment: Because of curiosity I traced the original document/press release from Droit-Humain (found here, pdf), and translated it using Google Translate.

I found it interesting that the above article excluded the information about what organizations had put together the meeting… namely “Women’s Grand Lodge of France”, “the Grand Orient of Portugal” (Grande Oriente Lusitano) and “the Grand Orient of France”. See below for full text.

The French Federation of Human Rights represented by its President, Mr Michel Payen, was received on April 8, 2008 by the President of the European Commission, Mr Jose-Manuel Barroso, in a delegation composed of the Women’s Grand Lodge of France, the Grand Orient of Portugal and Grand Orient of France who had taken the initiative of this rendezvous in agreement with other obédiences adogmatiques at the meeting of the Grand Masters and Presidents of January 2008.

This meeting is a major event about the role of Masonry in construction
of Europe, this place has been highlighted not only by the interest and listening real as President Barroso has shown the delegation and the time he spent but also by the commitments made in terms of attention to the values defended by Freemasonry liberal and adogmatique, its position and his opinion on major issues that concern them. That is the first time that Freemasonry has been able to speak es quality at such a high-level forums European.

The delegation was assured of the commitment of President Barroso to freedom of conscience, the spirit of secularism and the principle of separation of religion from the state. The delegation pointed out the importance of the Enlightenment in Europe’s history, size to be has at least as far as the religious roots and certainly more in line with its roots antiques.

Finally, the principle was incorporated in a communication of orders and Obediences liberal and Masonic adogmatiques with the Commission as necessary. Also, the French Federation of Human Rights will Does in the near future a proposal recommendation on the principle of emancipation which should underlie all education systems in Europe, directly related to the recognition of the contribution of Enlightenment in the common culture of the people who compose it and in accordance with the principles of the Charter Fundamental Rights.

Accordingly, the Freemasons of the French Federation of Human Rights are invited to discuss widely on issues concerning Europe and to raise their opinions for a original expression, strong and nourished can we characterize in the European debate.

The Sunday Times | Apr 20, 2008

By David Leppard

THE head of Britain’s race relations watchdog says lack of control over immigration has led to a racial “cold war” among rival ethnic communities.

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), believes that the failed policy risks inflaming racism among millions of young mothers and working professionals.

In an address to mark the 40th anniversary of Enoch Powell’s infamous “rivers of blood” speech in which Powell warned of apocalyptic social consequences if the rising tide of immigration were not halted, Phillips will say that the predictions have not come true. But he will warn that mass immigration has caused a different form of “war” that is just as worrying.

“Powell predicted ‘hot’ conflict and violence. However, we have seen the emergence of a kind of cold war in some parts of the country, where very separate communities exist side by side . . . with poor communication across racial or religious lines,” Phillips will say.

“In essence, Powell so discredited any talk of planning or control that it gave rise to a migration policy in which government knew too little about what was going on. Ironically, Powellism and the weakening of control it engendered may have led Britain to admitting more immigrants than fewer.”

Phillips will also warn ministers that they are playing into the hands of antiimmigrant parties such as the British National party by failing to respond to justified concerns among large sections of the “settled” population about the impact of mass immigration on their daily lives.

In a speech - to be delivered in the same Birmingham hotel where Powell polarised the public debate on race in 1968 - Phillips will say: “For every professional woman who is able to go out to work because she has a Polish nanny, there is a young mother who watches her child struggle in a classroom where a harassed teacher faces too many children with too many languages between them.

“Wanting a better deal for her child doesn’t make her antiimmigrant. But if we can’t find a better answer to her despair then she soon will be.

“For every boss whose bacon is saved by the importation of skilled IT professionals or crafts-people or health professionals, there are a thousand people who wonder every morning why they have to put up with the misery of a packed railway carriage or bus - if they can get on in the first place. Wanting an infrastructure that doesn’t make getting to work daily hell doesn’t make someone a natural voter for an antiimmigrant party. But it soon will.”

In a wide-ranging interview ahead of his speech, Phillips emphasised that he did not believe that too many immigrants had come to Britain. But he wanted to highlight that mismanaged policy had raised fears in the resident population about the impact of so many migrants on their daily lives.

Britain is probably the most tolerant country in Europe, he is expected to say. But the legacy of Powell and a “lack of control” over immigration policy by governments of both parties meant that it has gained an unfair reputation as one of the most xeno-phobic.

“It always seems like we’re a country that hates foreign people,” he said in the interview. He said this false image - which he described as a “calumny” - alienated highly qualified and well trained foreign migrants.

“My fear is that because we’ve been gripped [by this image] for 40 years . . . then we are going to miss the boat. Why would immigrants come to Britain if we behave as if we don’t want them?”

Powell’s notorious comments had the effect of making immigration a subject to be avoided by mainstream political parties for fear of being branded racists.

In his speech Phillips will lay out a programme for managed migration and will say: People should not be intimidated from making legitimate criticism of ethnic minorities.

Women should be treated equally and children properly protected in all communities. “Fair treatment” should not be reserved for ethnic minorities. “We need to do more for young white men who are having to compete with clever Polish graduates,” he will say.

Ministers should actively manage the geographical balance of migration. More migrants should be encouraged to settle in Scotland.

A “nexus of powers” may at some point be assumed by the EU

EU OBSERVER | Mar 10, 2008

EU OBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The European Union should boost its civil and military capacities to respond to “serious security risks” resulting from catastrophic climate change expected this century, according to a joint report from the EU’s two top foreign policy officials.

The EU and member states should further build up their capabilities with regards to civil protection, and civil and military crisis management and disaster response instruments to react to the security risks posed by climate change, reads a paper by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and external relations commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner.

The seven-page paper, to be submitted to EU leaders at a summit in Brussels later this week, warns of a range of stark scenarios, in particular the threat of an intensified “scramble for resources” – both energy and mineral – in the Arctic “as previously inaccessible regions open up.”

The rapid melting of the polar ice caps is seen as a great opportunity for far-northern economies, as the “increased accessibility of the enormous hydrocarbon resources in the Arctic region” mean new waterways and international trade routes open for business where once there was only ice.

But this does not come without certain hazards. The report highlights the threat to Europe from Russia. “The resulting new strategic interests are illustrated by the recent planting of the Russian flag under the North Pole.”

Eco-migration

Additionally, the report suggests that Europe will come under increasing pressure from so-called eco-migration.

“Europe must expect substantially increased migratory pressure,” says the report. “Populations that already suffer from poor health conditions, unemployment or social exclusion are rendered more vulnerable to the effects of climate change, which could amplify or trigger migration within and between countries.”

The document notes that the UN has predicted that there will be millions of environmental migrants by 2020, and warns that the pressure will not only come from beyond Europe’s borders, but that climate change “is also likely to exacerbate internal migration with significant security consequences.”

Other worries include water shortages and the consequent food price increases that result from lower crop yields, all of which could lead to civil unrest, particularly in the Middle East. This in turn puts pressure on energy security.

“Significant decreases [in crop yields] are expected to hit Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia and thus affect stability in a vitally strategic region for Europe,” predicts the report, while “water supply in Israel might fall by 60 percent over this century.”

The document also warns of major changes to landmass leading to territorial disputes, political radicalisation in poorer regions of the world, and the effects that sea-level rises and increases in the frequency and intensity of natural disasters would have on port cities and oil refineries.

For the most part, however, much of the climate-change-based security risks mentioned in the report have been listed elsewhere. What is new is the proposal of the incorporation of risks resulting from climate change into European defence policy thinking.

The report also proposes an intensification of the EU’s research, monitoring and early warning capacity regarding climate-change-based security risks and an improvement of the bloc’s early response capacity to disasters and conflicts.

The two foreign policy chiefs would furthermore like to see a focus on climate security risks at the international level - in particular within the UN Security Council and the G8 – and within EU regional strategies such as the European Neighbourhood Policy, the EU-Africa Strategy and Middle East and Black Sea policies.

Specifically, the pair say that there should be a development of regional security scenarios for the various possible levels of climate change envisaged.

But some are worried about the direction proposed in the document.

“Some of these recommendations may well be sensible, but there’s no way of knowing until they’re fleshed out. The devil is in the detail. It’s important to know what powers the EU will assume in the event,” said Tony Bunyan, head of civil liberties group Statewatch.

He referred to a “nexus of powers” that may at some point be assumed by either the EU or member states.

Telegraph | Mar 18, 2008

By Bruno Waterfield

Tony Blair is a popular choice to become the first president of the European Union, according to a pan-Europe opinion poll.

The Financial Times Harris poll, carried out in five countries, showed that most Europeans would like to see a prominent political figure as EU president.

The post, created under the Lisbon Treaty, comes into effect next year.

Fifty per cent of Britons backed a high-profile figure, rising to around 80 per cent in France, Italy and Spain. Only the Germans were less enthusiastic, with 45 per cent favouring a political star.

Mr Blair scored well inside and outside his own country. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, was the only other figure to enjoy the same widespread popularity, and she is not a candidate.

In France, after backing from President Nicolas Sarkozy, Mr Blair had a 12 per cent support rating. It rose to around 17 per cent in Italy.

The survey was a blow to candidates such as Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg, and Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish prime minister.

Related

EU citizens want top figure for president

Financial Times

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and Tony Blair, the former British premier, are the only two politicians who get a clear level of support in countries that are not their own.

State Department talks open borders, EU links

WorldNetDaily | Mar 13, 2008

By Jerome R. Corsi

WASHINGTON — A largely unreported meeting held at the State Department discussed integration of the U.S., Mexico and Canada in concert with a move toward a transatlantic union, linking a North American community with the European Union.

The meeting was held Monday under the auspices of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy, or ACIEP. WND obtained press credentials and attended as an observer. The meeting was held under “Chatham House” rules that prohibit reporters from attributing specific comments to individual participants.

The State Department website noted the meeting was opened by Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs Daniel S. Sullivan and ACIEP Chairman Michael Gadbaw, vice president and senior counsel for General Electric’s International Law & Policy group since December 1990.

WND observed about 25 ACIEP members, including U.S. corporations involved in international trade, prominent U.S. business trade groups, law firms involved with international business law, international investment firms and other international trade consultants.

No members of Congress attended the meeting.

The agenda for the ACIEP meeting was not published, and State Department officials in attendance could not give WND permission under Chatham House rules to publish the agenda.

The meeting agenda included topics reviewing the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, and the U.S.-EU Transatlantic Economic Council, or TEC.

The SPP, declared by the U.S., Canada and Mexico at a summit meeting in 2005, has 20 trilateral bureaucratic working groups that seek to “integrate and harmonize” administrative rules and regulations on a continental basis.

Several participants said the premise of the SPP is to create a North American business platform to benefit North America-based multi-national companies the way the European Union benefits its own.

Others noted the premise of the TEC is to create a convergence of administrative rules and regulations between Europe and North America, anticipating the creation of a “Transatlantic Economic Union” between the European Union and North America.

Participants pointed out that transatlantic trade is currently 40 percent of all world trade. They argue that trade and non-trade barriers need to be further reduced to maintain that market share as a framework is put in place to advance transatlantic economic integration.

Still, some participants argued that many corporations in North America already have moved beyond a North American focus to adopt a global perspective that transcends even the Transatlantic market.

“Supply chains and markets are everywhere,” one participant asserted. “What’s to stop global corporations from going after the cheapest labor available globally, wherever they can find it, provided the cost of transporting goods globally can be managed economically?”

Other participants argued regional alliances were still important, if only to put in place the institutional bases that ultimately would lead to global governance on uniform global administrative regulations favorable to multi-national corporations.

“North America should be a premiere platform to establish continental institutions,” a participant said. “That’s why we need to move the security perimeters to include the whole continent, especially as we open the borders between North American countries for expanding free trade.”

One presentation on the agenda identified four reasons why administrative rules and regulations need to be integrated by SPP in North America and by the Transatlantic Economic Council, bridging together European Union and North American markets:
Standardization – to keep prices low and productivity high;

Investment – for every $1 traded, $4 is invested; right now 75 percent of investment in the U.S. comes from the EU, and 52 percent of the investment in the EU comes from the U.S.;

Productivity Improvements – to lower production costs and stimulate trade; and

Open Borders – to facilitate the free movement of labor to markets where employment opportunities are available.

The discussion pointed out the SPP trilateral working groups and the Transatlantic Economic Council were being supported by top-level Cabinet officers and the heads of state in both the EU and in North America.

Progress in EU-U.S. regulatory integration was noted in financial market coordination, investment rule cohesion, trade security measures and efforts undertaken recently to preserve intellectual property rights.

Before the meeting began, concerns were raised informally by participants worried that the Ohio Democratic Party primary had prompted both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to talk of renegotiating NAFTA.

Participants at the State Department meeting pointed out U.S. political candidates could be expected to argue “protectionist themes opposed to global economic integration” as a tactic, without necessarily being committed to taking aggressive steps once in office.

“The political dialogue misses the point of economic reality,” one participant argued. “There is a J-curve correlation between when a currency like the U.S. dollar depreciates and when exports kick in to increase. We should accelerate the J-curve and our discussion about it, to help the local politics catch up with the international reality.”

Part of the discussion was devoted to concerns that national regulators in North America and Europe were too reluctant to abandon provincial regulatory advantages.

“Regulators by nature are advocates, and they are hard to move,” one participant grumbled. “What we need is more diplomats and negotiators to identify solutions, otherwise the bureaucrats will bog down the progress we need to see coming out of the SPP and TEC.”

“North America is already an integrated continental economy and a continental-wide business platform,” another said. “What we need now is more regulatory convergence. ‘Harmonized’ should mean that once approved, the same set of administrative regulations and procedures ought to be ready throughout NAFTA, SPP and the TEC.”

As WND previously reported, the Transatlantic Economic Council, or TEC, was created by President Bush at an April 30 summit meeting at the White House with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the current president of the European Council, and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.

WND also reported the Transatlantic Policy Network, a non-governmental organization headquartered in Washington and Brussels and advised by a bi-partisan congressional policy group chaired by Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, has called for the creation of a Transatlantic Common Market between the U.S. and the European Union by 2015.

A complete membership list of the current 60-person Advisory Committee on International Policy is published on the State Department website.

ACIEP members include corporate officers from General Electric, Exxon Mobil, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Archer Daniels Midland, United Parcel Service, Citibank, Proctor & Gamble, Hunt Oil, CMS Energy, Boeing, 3M, Goldman Sachs and Cargill.

The most recent “Summary of Discussions” published on the Department of State website was for the Dec. 18 ACIEP meeting.

A published article on the State Department website includes photographs of the Dec. 18 ACIEP meeting, listing by name several participants who were photographed in attendance.

Sarkozy gives the secret hand-signal of the elite. A hint of rouge would bring those cheekbones up nicely

Telegraph | Jan 15, 2008

By Henry Samuel in Paris

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France spent 35,000 euros (£26,200) on make-up to woo the French electorate in last year’s presidential elections, French auditors have discovered.

A commission looking into the expenses of last year’s presidential candidates was reportedly shocked to discover that Mr Sarkozy, recently blasted as “narcissistic” by the Socialist opposition, had spent in some cases 450 euros an hour on face and hair make-overs.

His defeated rival, Ségolène Royal, spent even more, however, reaching 52,000 euros for make-up and hairdressing.

The commission spent six months looking at all the candidate’s expenses to decide how much they should be reimbursed by the state.

Judging that the sums were “manifestly excessive” for an activity that was “normally of a personal nature”, it only paid back 12,000 euros to Mr Sarkozy and 17,000 euros to Miss Royal.

The figures are likely to shock the French public at a time when the country is obsessed with falling purchasing power.

The Socialist, who is gunning to take over her party, was also refused reimbursement for the 53,500 euros she spent on electronic bugging detectors for her campaign headquarters. Miss Royal’s team had accused Mr Sarkozy, the former interior minister, of getting domestic intelligence services to track its members.

In all, the commission decided to reimburse roughly half of the 21 million euros the two candidates each spent on their campaigns.

The far-Right Front National leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen, was denied reimbursement for the 157,000 euros he spent on a reception for party militants.

L’Express magazine worked out that the most expensive candidate per vote won was communist leader Marie-George Buffet. She spent 6.81 euros per vote compared to 1.83 euros for Mr Sarkozy.

The lowest ratio went to Trotskyite postman Olivier Besancenot, at 0.61 euros per vote.

“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly.”

- Valery Giscard D’Estaing, former French president who wrote the EU constitution

Tell truth on EU treaty, say MPs

Telegraph | Jan 19, 2008

By Melissa Kite

The battle over the EU Reform Treaty has been reignited after an influential committee of MPs said that the document is no different to the defunct EU Constitution.

As the Government prepares to debate the treaty in the House of Commons, a report by the foreign affairs select committee concludes that it cedes vital powers to Brussels and that ministers are misleading the public by saying that it does not.

The findings come as campaigners reveal plans to stage a series of “mini-referendums” in 10 areas across Britain. The vote, organised by the cross-party I Want A Referendum group, follows a Telegraph campaign backed by more than 100,000 people.

The treaty begins its second reading debate tomorrow with the Government aiming to push it through both Houses of Parliament before the summer. Gordon Brown plans a parliamentary marathon, dealing with the document section by section in a debate that will go on for 15 days.

In its report, the Labour-dominated foreign affairs committee hits out at ministers for deliberately playing down the consequences of the treaty and calls on them to publicly put this right by admitting how much power it really hands to Brussels.

Crucially, the report concludes that there is no difference between the foreign policy provisions in the rejected European Constitution and those in the new EU Reform Treaty, now known as the Lisbon Treaty.

The committee says: “We conclude that there is no material difference between the provisions on foreign policy in the Constitutional Treaty which the Government made subject to approval in a referendum and those in the Lisbon Treaty on which a referendum is being denied.”

It adds: “The Government risks underestimating, and certainly is downplaying in public, the importance and potential of the new foreign policy institutions established by the Lisbon Treaty, namely the new High Representative and the European External Action Service. We recommend that the Government should publicly acknowledge the significance of the foreign policy aspects of the Lisbon Treaty.”

The committee says that the signing of the treaty was the culmination of a process which had “little scope for UK public or parliamentary debate and engagement”.

It concludes: “We recommend that all amendments to the treaty, including extensions of qualified majority voting, should be done by primary legislation and not simply by a vote of the House.”

Last night, the Conservatives said the report proved once and for all that the Government was guilty of a “stitch-up to cut out public debate”.

William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said: “Gordon Brown’s pretence that this treaty is not in effect the EU Constitution reheated and renamed is now ridiculous. All of his arguments have been discredited. He made an election promise that there would be a referendum. He said that keeping manifesto promises was a matter of trust between him and voters.

“If Gordon Brown still insists on ramming this treaty through, all those fine words will be exposed as the most cynical spin.”

Ministers continued to insist last night that the treaty was a “good deal” for Britain. David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said: “The Reform Treaty gives Britain a bigger voice in Europe and enshrines children’s rights for the first time.

“By opposing this treaty, the Tories are yet again completely isolated in the EU. The only parties that share their extreme position in 27 member states are the Portuguese communists, Sinn Fein, the Dutch ultra-Right fringe and the Dutch animal rights party.”

But the swell of demands for a referendum showed no signs of abating. Organisers of “I Want A Referendum” announced on Sunday that half a million people in marginal constituencies will get their chance to have a say on the Treaty in what will be the biggest vote on Europe since 1975, when Britain voted to stay in the Common Market.

“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly.”

- Valery Giscard D’Estaing, former French president who wrote the EU constitution

BBC | Jan 20, 2008

The committee has welcomed some of the treaty’s content

Parts of the Lisbon Treaty, signed by Gordon Brown last month, are no different from the abandoned EU Constitution, a report by MPs has said.

The Commons Foreign Affairs Committee said foreign policy in the treaty was the same as in the constitution, on which Labour promised a referendum.

It also accused the government of publicly downplaying the importance of some new EU institutions and roles.

Ministers argue no referendum is needed as the treaty is not constitutional.

In an interview on BBC One’s Politics Show, Foreign Secretary David Miliband maintained the treaty did not need to be put to a public vote.

“The reform treaty is there for parliament to scrutinise and then to pass,” he said.

“Obviously people will put down an amendment and Parliament will have to decide. But I don’t believe that this treaty meets the bar of fundamental constitutional reform that should be the basis of having a referendum.”

‘Restoring trust’

But shadow foreign secretary William Hague, speaking on BBC Radio 4’s The World This Weekend, said the treaty was widely seen as being “90% or 95% the same” as the failed EU constitution, on which all parties had promised a vote.

“I see it as a very straightforward issue of trust in politics. And one of the ways of restoring trust in politics is to hold that referendum,” said Mr Hague.

Mr Brown signed the Lisbon Treaty, as did other EU heads of state, in December. But it has to be ratified by all EU parliaments, before coming into force - something which begins in Westminster on Monday.

But ahead of the start of the process, the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee has criticised the way the government has represented the foreign policy aspects of the treaty.

Its report, entitled Foreign Policy Aspects Of The Treaty Of Lisbon, claims there are only two small differences in the area of foreign policy between the treaty and the abandoned constitution.

These were the addition of two non-legally binding declarations proposed by the UK and the change of the title Minister for Foreign Affairs to High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

“We conclude that there is no material difference between the provisions on foreign affairs in the Constitutional Treaty which the government made subject to approval in a referendum and those in the Lisbon Treaty on which a referendum is being denied,” the report said.

‘Not beneficial’

It also accused the government of seeking to downplay the significance of new institutions, such as the creation of a new EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security.

This was “unlikely to be beneficial to the UK’s position in Europe”, it said, and called on ministers to acknowledge their true significance in public.

The report welcomed the creation of such new roles, which it said were “major innovations in the EU’s foreign policy-making machinery” which could give the EU a “more coherent development and implementation of external policy”.

But Mike Gapes, the committee’s chairman, said MPs felt Parliament needed to have more say in the treaty’s development.

“Parliament has not been sufficiently involved in the negotiation and the drafting of these proposals last year,” he told the BBC.

“We believe that over the next few weeks [in] the Parliamentary debate we have, we need to press for greater Parliamentary accountability over the implementation and the carrying out of this treaty in practice in the coming years, if it is adopted.”

Mr Brown has argued that no referendum in the UK is needed on the Lisbon Treaty because it does not have the constitutional character of the constitutional document which was rejected by French and Dutch voters at referendums in 2005.

But he is expected to face a rough ride in the Commons with the Conservatives and some Labour MPs expected to press for a referendum.

The Lib Dems will not be pushing for a referendum on the treaty, arguing that any vote should be about Britain’s membership of the EU instead.

Labour MP Ian Davidson, who will campaign for a referendum, said: “This is the start of the battle, rather than the end of the war.

“We hope to get our message out to people in the country who will in turn tell their MPs that they do want a referendum so that by the time we come to the next vote in the committee stage, the pressure will very much have built up.”

Giving his reaction to the Foreign Affairs Committee report, UKIP leader Nigel Farage, who has opposed the constitution in the European Parliament, said there was now “no reason for the government to duck out of their pledge”.

Rules, regs to be integrated without congressional review, a step toward world government

WorldNetDaily.com | Jan 16, 2008

By Jerome R. Corsi

Six U.S. senators and 49 House members are advisers for a group working toward a Transatlantic Common Market between the U.S. and the European Union by 2015.

The Transatlantic Policy Network – a non-governmental organization headquartered in Washington and Brussels – is advised by the bi-partisan congressional TPN policy group, chaired by Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah.

The plan – currently being implemented by the Bush administration with the formation of the Transatlantic Economic Council in April 2007 – appears to be following a plan written in 1939 by a world-government advocate who sought to create a Transatlantic Union as an international governing body.

An economist from the World Bank has argued in print that the formation of the Transatlantic Common Market is designed to follow the blueprint of Jean Monnet, a key intellectual architect of the European Union, recognizing that economic integration must inevitably lead to political integration.

As WND previously reported, a key step in advancing this goal was the creation of the Transatlantic Economic Council by the U.S. and the EU through an agreement signed by President Bush, German Chancellor Angela Merkel – the current president of the European Council – and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso at a White House summit meeting last April.

Writing in the Fall 2007 issue of the Streit Council journal “Freedom and Union,” Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., a member of the TPN advisory group, affirmed the target date of 2015 for the creation of a Transatlantic Common Market.

Costa said the Transatlantic Economic Council is tasked with creating the Transatlantic Common Market regulatory infrastructure. The infrastructure would not require congressional approval, like a new free-trade agreement would.

Writing in the same issue of the Streit Council publication, Bennett also confirmed that what has become known as the “Merkel initiative” would allow the Transatlantic Economic Council to integrate and harmonize administrative rules and regulations between the U.S. and the EU “in a very quiet way,” without introducing a new free trade agreement to Congress.

No document on the TEC website suggests that any of the regulatory changes resulting from the process of integrating with the EU will be posted in the Federal Register or submitted to Congress as new free-trade agreements or as modifications to existing trade agreements.

In addition to Bennett, the advisers to the Transatlantic Policy Network includes the following senators: Thad Cochran, R-Miss.; Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.; Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.; Pat Roberts, R-Kan.; and Gordon Smith, R-Ore.

Among the 49 U.S. congressmen on the TPN’s Congressional Group are John Boehner, R-Ohio; John Dingell, D-Mich.; Kenny Marchant, R-Texas; and F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc.

WND contacted Bennett’s office for comment but received no return call by the publication deadline.

A progress report on the TEC website indicates the following U.S. government agencies are already at work integrating and harmonizing administrative rules and regulations with their EU counterparts: The Office of Management and Budget, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

A step toward world government

The Streit Council is named after Clarence K. Streit, whose 1939 book “Union Now” called for the creation of a Transatlantic Union as a step toward world government. The new federation, with an international constitution, was to include the 15 democracies of U.S., UK, France, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and South Africa.

Ira Straus, the founder and U.S. coordinator of the Committee on Eastern Europe and Russia in NATO, a group dedicated to including Russia within NATO, credits Bennett as TPN chairperson with reviving Streit’s work “seven decades later.”

A globalist with leftist political leanings, Straus was a Fulbright professor of political science at Moscow State University and the Moscow State Institute of International Relations from 2001 to 2002.

The congruity of ideas between Bennett and Streit is clear when Bennett writes passages that echo precisely goals Streit stated in 1939.

One example is Bennett’s claim in his Streit Council article that creating a Transatlantic Common Market would combine markets that comprise 60 percent of world Gross Domestic Product under a common regulatory standard that would become “the de facto world standard, regardless of what any other parties say.”

Similarly, Streit wrote in “Union Now” that the economic power of the 15 democracies he sought to combine in a Transatlantic Union would be overwhelming in their economic power and a clear challenge to the authoritarian states then represented by Nazi Germany and the communist Soviet Union.

Also writing in the Fall 2007 issue of the Streit Council journal “Freedom and Union,” World Bank economist Domenec Ruiz Devesa openly acknowledged that “transatlantic economic integration, though important in itself, is not the end.”

“As understood by Jean Monnet,” he continued, “economic integration must and will lead to political integration, since an integrated market requires common institutions producing common rules to govern it.”

Transatlantic Common Market by 2015

Last February, the Transatlantic Policy Network formed a Transatlantic Market Implementation Group to put in place “a roadmap and framework” to direct the activity of the Transatlantic Economic Council to achieve the creation of the Transatlantic Common Market by 2015.

The Transatlantic Economic Council is an official international governmental body established by executive fiat in the U.S. and the EU without congressional approval or oversight. No new law or treaty was sought by the Bush administration to approve or implement the plan to create a Transatlantic Common Market.

The U.S. congressmen and senators are involved only indirectly, as advisers to the influential non-governmental organization.

In a February 2007 document entitled “Completing the Transatlantic Market,” the TPN’s Transatlantic Market Implementation Group writes, “The aim of this roadmap and framework would be to remove barriers to trade and investment across the Atlantic and to reduce regulatory compliance costs.”

The document further acknowledged the impact the Transatlantic Common Market agenda would have on U.S. and European legislators: “The roadmap and framework will necessarily oblige legislative and regulatory authorities in both Europe and the United States to take into consideration from the outset the impact their acts may have on transatlantic economic relations and to ensure that their respective governmental bodies involved have the necessary budgetary and organizational resources to work closely with each other.”

Full Story

Apparently, since he has converted to Catholicism, Blair can now become the new leader over the entire European empire with the blessings of the papacy

The Observer | Jan 13, 2008

Alex Duval Smith in Paris

Tony Blair launched his campaign to become the first fully-fledged President of the European Union yesterday by describing the notion of left- and right-wing politics as redundant.

With France preparing to oversee the appointment process, Blair set out his vision of modern European democracy at a meeting of the French governing conservative party by also claiming that EU countries could achieve far more by working together than acting in isolation.

‘Europe is not a question of left or right, but a question of the future or the past, of strength or weakness,’ said the former British Prime Minister, speaking in French.

In his most important speech since leaving Downing Street last June, addressing 2,000 supporters of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Blair said globalisation was eradicating traditional party lines and class distinctions and rendering old political remedies obsolete. ‘It’s about today versus yesterday. Less about politics and more about a state of mind; open as opposed to closed,’ he said.

‘Terrorism, security, immigration, organised crime, energy, the environment, science, biotechnology and higher education. In all these areas, and others, we are much stronger and able to deliver what our citizens expect from us as individual nations if we are part of a strong and united Europe,’ he added before supporters of Sarkozy’s Union Pour Un Mouvement Populaire (UMP) party. Blair, a close ally of Sarkozy who advised the French politician during his rise to power, is strongly backed by the French President to become President of the EU Council of Ministers in January next year, a position he has previously said he was not interested in.

Sarkozy, 52, who appeared at the Palais des Sports rally without his 40-year-old girlfriend, Carla Bruni, offered unequivocal backing for Blair yesterday, describing him as an ideal candidate to run Europe. ‘He is intelligent, he is brave and he is a friend. We need him in Europe. How can we govern a continent of 450 million people if the President changes every six months and has to run his own country at the same time? I want a President chosen from the top - not a compromise candidate - who will serve for two-and-a-half years,’ added Sarkozy.

A UMP party grandee, Jean-Pierre Rafarin, wrote in yesterday’s Le Monde newspaper that Blair’s experience in Europe positioned him well for the post. The position of President of the European Council - which meets at head-of-state and government level, usually four times a year - is due to be created by the 27-nation grouping in the second half of 2008, when France will chair EU ministerial meetings.

At the end of this month, Blair will continue his campaign to win the leadership of Europe when he addresses a conference at the Sorbonne of Les Progressistes, a breakaway socialist party group which has joined Sarkozy’s government. Blair is also due to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this month.

After Blair’s speech, Sarkozy took the former Prime Minister for lunch at the Hotel Bristol near the Elysee Palace. Despite support from Sarkozy - who is the architect of the mini-treaty for a European constitution - Blair is an outsider for the EU job. His support for the war in Iraq and Britain’s reluctance to join the euro and other core projects is likely to count against him when EU leaders vote for their president later this year.