Great Britain

Half of Britons Would Vote to Leave the European Union in a Referendum

Only one third of respondents believe EU membership has been positive for the United Kingdom.

The level of animosity towards the European Union (EU) in Britain remains high, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll, published July 12, 2011, has found.

In the online survey of a representative national sample of 2,003 British adults, a majority of respondents (57%) believe that EU membership has been negative for the United Kingdom, while only one third (32%) think it has had a positive effect. The wording of the question was: ”Overall, do you think EU membership has been positive or negative for the United Kingdom?”

Respondents aged 18-to-34 are more likely to express positive feelings about the EU (45%) than those aged 35-to-54 (31%) and those over the age of 55 (22%). Half of Britons (49%) say they would vote against the United Kingdom remaining a member of the EU if a referendum took place, while only one-in-four (25%) would vote to stay. Older respondents favour the idea of abandoning the EU by a 3-to-1 margin (68% to 19%).

Finally, Britons oppose the notion of the UK adopting the euro as its national currency by a 10-to-1 margin, with 81 per cent of respondents saying they would reject this course of action in a referendum.

Download Full Tables here, pdf.

See more at Angus Reid Public Opinion.

373,000 say no to the EU

373,000 coupons petitioning for an ”in or out” referendum on British EU membership were presented to PM David Cameron on january 31st.

Five senior MPs helped to carry the sacks containng the coupons to 10 Downing Street.

”The message has been delivered straight to the door of Number 10. The Prime Minister will certainly take note of the strength of feeling on this,” said Tory MP Philip Hollobone.

Kate Hoey, a former minister and Labour MP for Vauxhall in south London, said: “The Daily Express should be congratulated. This shows that a huge number of people believe we should leave the EU. Politicians of all parties need to take note.” A Downing Street spokeswoman said: ”We will respond in the usual way”.

The campaign was conducted by British newspaper Daily Express and resulted in 350,000 signed and posted coupons as well as 23,000 website signatures.

Read the full story here.

The people in 5 EU member states say NO to the Euro

Polls in UK, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Estonia show a clear No to the Euro

21st of July 2010

In at least five EU countries there is a majority against the Euro. In referendums you can’t vote “unsure” – only Yes or No count. Therefore below “unsure” has been taken out of results.

In June 2010 polls have been carried out in Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Estonia all showing a clear No.

In Denmark, Danmarks Statistik made the poll for Danske Bank, showing that 56 per cent would vote No if there where a referendum today.
In Sweden, Statistiska centralbyrån SCB made it, showing that 68 per cent would vote No.
In Germany it was Ipsos who made it, showing that 63 per cent would vote No.
In Estonia, TNS Emor made it, showing that 56 per cent would vote No.
In the United Kingdom, the latest poll is from April 2010, made by YouGov, showed that 76 would vote No.

Out of these five EU countries only Germany has the Euro today. The German government has no intention of calling a referendum on the Euro. The EU has said finally Yes to admitting Estonia to the eurozone from January 2011, and the Estonian government has no intention of having any referendum. In Denmark, it is still the official goal of the government to call a referendum with the view of securing a Yes. The governments of the United Kingdom and Sweden have chosen the opposite position, shelving all plans of a referendum on this issue.

French think euro exacerbates crisis

So far we do not have any polls on Yes or No to the Euro from other EU countries. If anyone knows about recent polls, please send us a link about it to ib (at) However we have found an interesting poll from France made in June 2010 by TNS Sofres for Europa 1, itélé and Le Monde. It shows that 68 per cent of the French think that euro will exacerbate the consequences of the crisis (read more in Le Figaro)

Source: Folkebevaegelsen mod EU, Denmark

Spain's economy thrown into chaos

Spain’s economy was thrown into chaos on Thursday when its credit rating was cut, sharpening fears that Britain may suffer a similar fate.

The turmoil came just a day after Greece’s rating was cut, increasing concerns of a Europe-wide financial crisis.

The euro fell sharply and the interest rates European governments pay to borrow money jumped after Standard and Poor’s, a credit ratings agency, downgraded Spain.

Last night the government in Madrid appealed for calm, promising an “austerity programme” to cut spending.

But economists fear that events in Spain show that financial “contagion” is spreading from Greece, as investors are scared off investing in any European country with significant government deficits.

from Telegraph

Statement of solidarity with trade union colleagues in Greece

From (Labour Movement) CAEF - Campaign against Euro-federalism (in Britain)

To our trade union colleagues in Greece. We express solidarity with the actions taken by trade unions in Greece against the draconian criteria of the EU’s Growth and Stability Pact, and the dictats of the European Central Bank.

It is clear that cuts in Public Expenditure are part of an EU wide onslaught by big capital, the European Round Table of Industrialists, European Commission and Germany in particular.

These interests want the working class to “tighten their belts” and pay for and resolve the ills of the fiscal and economic crisis. At the same time it is an attempt to hand everything to the private sector and remove democratic accountability without any regard for the social consequences.

It is clear that for Greece and other EU Member States, including Britain, in a similar situation that the only rational course is to fully recover the right to self-determination and national independence and democracy.

We wish you every strength in your actions in this crucial period.

John Boyd

CAEF is a member of TEAM

Which one would you prefer for the UK: YouGov poll says EFTA 39%, EU 36%

The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) was set up in 1960. Britain had previously been a member of the EFTA, but it left to join the European Community (the EC, which later became the EU) in 1973.

After 37 years of EC/EU membership people of UK are starting to question the road they have been forced to take by their political elite.

Informative site on EFTA (UK-EFTA) and an important survey show how the tides of time change people’s perspectives and expectations.

Out of EU - join EFTA!

You are now a citizen of the European Union super-state

From 1 December you are a citizen of the European Union super-state. All of us in Britain will be ruled by a centralised Euro-federalist government in Brussels. Already four out of five laws emanate from Brussels rubber stamped by the elected government in Westminster. EU legislation is decided behind closed doors by unaccountable and unelected Commissioners -all done in conjunction with the various Councils of Ministers from the 27 Member States. They are now the Euro-federalist government who are responsible for and to the EU and no longer primarily to their national governments.

The Lisbon Treaty, or more properly the EU Constitution, has ditched the inter-governmental arrangements which have been in force since the Common Market was set up in 1957 and has turned the EU into a super-state. This qualitative change has been brought about by stealth over half a century and without changing the name European Union. Totally absent was any democratic procedure, agreement or consultation over the Lisbon Treaty by and amongst 500 million people across the 27 nation-states within the EU bar one, Ireland. The electorates of France and the Netherlands threw out the EU Constitution and then Ireland rejected the deliberately scrambled Lisbon Treaty. This rejection was unacceptable to the political elites so Ireland was according to Irish and EU law illegally made to vote again. Money without limit was poured in to the Yes! camp to set up unrelated arguments which were crafted to frighten and mislead the electorate. With the misinformation and saturated one sided media put before them they understandably voted for the Lisbon Treaty and sacrificed what national independence and democracy they still held and had literally fought for over the centuries.

No other member state was given the opportunity to fully discuss and voice opposition to the Lisbon Treaty. All three major political parties in Britain fell into line and reneged on promises to hold a referendum on Lisbon. The EU Constitution has been imposed from the top downwards and does not have any support from the will of the peoples across the EU. It is a serious blow to democracy and the right to self-determination of nation-states. In historical terms it undoes both the American and French revolutions.

All the EU’s institutions have been strengthened by the Treaty to consolidate this centralised government and the neo-liberal free market initiated by the Thatcher Government. Sixty new areas normally dealt with by national governments have passed to the centralised government. Not one area has been passed back down from Brussels to national capitals. An unelected EU President and de facto EU Foreign Secretary, misnamed High Representative, are part of this Union’s government.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg is the supreme court of the EU which overrides the courts and Parliament in Britain. That includes the recently formed Supreme Court which sits in the Middlesex Guildhall in Parliament Square. The ECJ has made rulings on four important cases which affect the labour and trade union movements and all those who work for their living within the EU. The Viking, Laval, Ruffert and Luxembourg cases have sought to turn the clock back to the 19th Century by undermining trade union rights. This includes collective bargaining, using the free movement of labour around the EU to the detriment of wages, conditions and welfare protection. These impinge on the right to strike and other fundamental trade union and workers’ rights in what has been aptly coined the “race to the bottom”.* A major purpose of the ECJ is to see the objectives of the “free movement of capital, services, goods and labour” of the Single European Market are strictly adhered to. In other words to give big capital free reign and damn the social consequences. The EU Constitution has specified that capitalism shall be the economic system of the Union. This is contrary to every other constitution across the world and specifically blocks the right to legislate for socialist measures let alone a socialist economic system.

Big capital is no longer prepared to tolerate national democracy or be inhibited by the powers of the nation-state. The only institution in existence able to curb the ever growing transnational corporations and banks, and movement of big capital are the governments of nation-states. Just because we have elected governments who do not exercise that power but instead hang on to the coat tails and cow tow to big capital does not negate such powers. However, what does remove the powers of nation-states is the formation of the EU superstate where the real government, the Euro-federalist government, cannot be kicked out and policies and legislation is put in place.

We are all now both subjects in the monarchy of the United Kingdom and citizens of the EU super-state. We have responsibilities and duties to obey the laws and pay heed to all the EU institutions in addition to institutions in Britain. If we wish to resist this new arrangement then first we have to understand the qualitative change that has taken place without notice. Above all we have to understand this remains part of the class struggle between labour and big capital and that well tested and hard won rights have to be defended and used. The longer we dally the worse it will be to untangle this huge reactionary backward step which undermines all forms of democracy.

*Further details can be found on the websites of CAEF and TUAEUC and past reports in the Morning Star.

written by John Boyd, secretary of the CAEF (Campaign against Euro-federalism and editor of The Democrat.

Bruges Group 2009 Annual Conference

With the EU’s drive for power over our democracy and everyday life continuing unabated the Bruges Group held this conference to oppose the surrendering of our freedoms to Brussels.

Speakers: Peter Davies, Christopher Booker, Richard Conquest, Professor Kenneth Minogue, Bruno Waterfield, John Mills, Ian Milne, Gerard Batten MEP, Dr Lee Rotherham.

A great EU stitch-up that demeans democracy

Excerpts from Daniel Hannan’s blog:

When it comes to the EU, a surprising number of people who, in any other context, would consider themselves progressives, line up behind the most anti-democratic project in the western world. Van Rompuy and Ashton are precisely the kind of unelected office-holders that an earlier generation of radicals would have railed against.

Consider their careers. Van Rompuy owes his position to his mastery of Belgium’s labyrinthine coalition trade-offs. A brilliant back-room operator, he went so far as to change the locks of the parliamentary chamber last year in order to prevent Flemish MPs meeting there.

As for Lady Ashton, she has never once taken the trouble to get herself elected to anything. A former chairman of a health authority, she went on to work for a quango before being appointed a life peer. She then steered the Lisbon treaty through the upper house without conceding the referendum that all three parties had promised in their manifestos.

Opposing such a system doesn’t make you anti-Europe; it makes you pro-democracy. Anyone who believes in representative government should be outraged by what happened on Thursday: a lifelong quangocrat was appointed in secret to a post created by a treaty that we never got the chance to vote for.

European Union illegal and not binding since 1688

An excerpt from the nourishing obscurity blog:

Whereas the inalienable rights and privileges of British Citizens are protected by the 1688 Declaration of Rights, which may not be amended or repealed:

All such Acts and Treaties purporting to make Britain a part of the European Union are therefore inherently unconstitutional, illegal and invalid.

Citizenship of the European Union, with as yet unspecified rights and duties purportedly imposed upon every British subject, is therefore unconstitutional, invalid, illegal and unenforceable under law.

Who are the real authoritarians today in Europe, Mr. Miliband?


OCTOBER 22 2009


Foreign Secretary and opponents of a Lisbon Referendum accused of being the new, real authoritarians in British and European politics. As the imposition of ‘President Blair’ becomes ever more likely, David Miliband is challenged to debate in public ‘anti-democratic politics in the EU today’.

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, has launched a typically New Labour, McCarthyite attack on the Conservative party for teaming up with some east European political parties in the European parliament who are alleged to hold anti-semitic, homophobic and ‘neo-Nazi’ views. However, since the European Parliament is clearly not where significant power lies in Brussels, the decision of the Tories to team up with East European centre-right parties is of little legislative consequence, regardless of whether or not the claims made against their new allies have been spun in some typically New Labour way by the foreign secretary.

New Labour, throughout its Peter Mandelson-orchestrated history, has frequently employed a McCarthyite ‘xenophobes under the bed’ tactic against political opponents - whether of the traditional left or right - in order to distract attention from the actual substance of the inconvenient political position or claim being advanced. The foreign secretary in making the attacks he has is merely continuing a long, disreputable tradition, characterised in relation to the European issue principally by former Europe minister Denis MacShane. David Miliband’s intention now is to draw attention away from his government’s anti-democratic breaking of its promise at the 2005 general election to let the British people vote on the Lisbon treaty (the cynically re-named European Constitution rejected by a large majority of French and Dutch voters in 2005). Nor does he want us to focus on the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the system of EU governance that citizens from all the member countries are being increasingly placed under the control of without their consent.

Since Mr Miliband has attempted to create this McCarthyite smokescreen, he should perhaps reflect that, as Dr Laughland’s book The Tainted Source: The undemocratic origins of the European idea (Little Brown & Company, 2000) demonstrates, the original project of creating a Pan-European political system was actually enthusiastically supported by fascist movements. The National Alliance in Italy, the successors to Mussolini’s party and partners in the Berlusconi coalition government, are firm supporters of greater European political union today. The British fascist leader, Oswald Mosley, campaigned post-war on the slogan of ‘Europe a nation’. The original plans for a single currency were drawn up by the Nazis. Former French presidents and drivers for European centralisation, Francois Mitterand, Giscard d’Estaing and Jacques Delors were all active for the Vichy government in various capacities. Mitterand even received the Francisc medal from Marshall Petain for his service to the fascist regime. Robert Schuman, one of the EU’s founding fathers, voted as a member of the French national assembly to give Petain dictatorial power, and then went on to serve as a Vichy minister. Paul-Henri Spaak, whose Spaak report laid the foundations for the creation of the European community, had been a member of the Belgium Nazi party. Fascists were attracted to the idea of a politically unified and regulated continent with a non-elected elite at its heart.

The Democracy Movement believes that the peoples of Europe today are confronted by a new and dangerous post-democratic elitism - Euro-Authoritarianism - of which New Labour and David Miliband are classic manifestations. Euro-Authoritarianism is self-evidently more subtle than Twentieth Century fascism, and it is not motivated by anti-semitism and racism. The Euro-Authoritarians do not seek to end multi-party elections, but rather to greatly restrict the parameters within which electorates can make meaningful collective choices by transferring ever more law-powers to appointed, non-accountable institutions in Brussels. The new Euro-Authoritarians are driven by a post-modernist, Third Way ideology. This represents a direct threat to the liberal, anti-colonialist legacy of the European Enlightenment and the idea that sovereignty should reside with national communities of people rather than unaccountable elites.

Mr Miliband and his associates in New Labour today are working to create a political system based in Brussels that does not accord with the rule of law and can by-pass parliamentary and public accountability. The Euro-Authoritarians fear the concept of popular democracy, hence their hysterical denunciations of the idea that voters should be allowed to directly determine important issues.

The New Euro-Authoritarians support…

  1. …preventing the peoples of the EU member states having a direct democratic say regarding whether or not new law-making powers should be centralised in Brussels. When the French and Dutch voters overwhelmingly rejected the Lisbon treaty (then named the European Constitution) their wishes were ignored. When the Irish rejected both the Nice and Lisbon treaties they were forced to vote again within a year in rigged referenda so that these treaties could be forced through.

  2. …the centralisation of more law-making powers in Brussels. Once directives are passed, no national elected government or parliament can opt to reject or reverse them as the unelected Commission retains the monopoly right to initiate new legislation. Because of the volume of laws emanating from Brussels, most of the measures are passed in Britain through the use of statutory instruments. MPs do not even get the chance to debate them, let alone vote to block them.

  3. …the introduction of a raft of measures designed to increase state surveillance and control. Lisbon will lead to the creation of the Committee on Internal Security (COSI) which will share DNA, fingerprint, CCTV footage and internet surveillance material between security organisations. In May, the EU Data Retention Directive was passed. This enables state agencies to find out what all citizens - not just those suspected of committing criminal offences - have been downloading and who they have been contacting electronically. The Commission is already funding Project Indect which is a mass surveillance project dedicated to identifying “abnormal behaviour” through CCTV footage and a “continuous monitoring of websites, discussion forums, usernet groups… and individual computer systems”. The EU now has an embryonic police force, Europol, whose officers, like senior EU officials, enjoy, revealingly, immunity from prosecution in member states (Statutory Instrument 1997 No.2973). This body will gain powers of “implementation”of operational powers within the member states as a consequence of Lisbon. EU citizens can now under the European Arrest Warrant be deported automatically to another member country without any hard evidence having been provided by prosecuting authorities. The Commission has been for many years financing various projects designed to result in the introduction of ID cards, though their formal implementation is still a matter of national law.

  4. …the current undemocratic structure of the EU. In addition to the unelected Commission’s monopoly right to introduce new legislation, the Council of Ministers meets in secret and votes are not recorded. In reality, the vast majority of its decisions are taken by civil servants representing the ministers from the member states in COREPER. European voters cannot hold these bodies collectively responsible through the ballot box. The executive and the key legislative body, therefore, are beyond democratic account. It is illegal under article 108 of the current treaty for elected representatives from the member states to in any way try to influence the deliberations of the European Central Bank. Under Lisbon, the political leaders, meeting behind closed doors in the European Council, will be able to appoint a full-time president and foreign minister to represent the Union on the World stage.

  5. … an elitist, corporatist system of politics. The mindset of the EU political class is to concentrate power in the hands of elite bodies representing big business and the major trades unions. Hence, the Committee of the Social Partners which affords elite access to the European Round Table of Industrialists. The EU model of corporatist politics cuts out ordinary voters and gives a massive advantage to lobbyists from big financial interests, as was seen in the decision to outlaw 300 alternative health treatments following extensive lobbying by Pfizer, Boots and other big companies. Democracy Movement director Stuart Coster has written to the foreign secretary to challenge him to publicly debate the question of ‘anti-democratic politics in the EU today’ in the wake of Mr Miliband’s accusations that William Hague and the Tory party have consorted with ‘neo-Nazis’. In addition to discussing this question, Stuart Coster wants to investigate to what extent Mr Miliband’s government is helping to advance a fundamentally illiberal, non-democratic politics through its adherence to the Euro-Authoritarian characteristics identified above.

Stuart Coster comments: “New Labour have shown themselves to be notoriously cowardly in terms of openly debating the EU issue, as well as virtually every other issue. They prefer, as good authoritarians, to speak only at controlled, all-ticket party events with no or only planted questions from the floor. Hopefully, Mr Miliband will take me and a lot of other people hugely by surprise and agree to debate Dr Laughland. I gather the foreign secretary claims to be an intellectual so it might just be that he will relish the opportunity to justify, in a contested environment, his European political stance and his recent comments”.

CONTACT: Stuart Coster 020 7603 7796

Northern Ireland Assembly wants the UK to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty

The Northern Ireland Assembly motion of 20th October 2009, passed by 47 to 19 votes, indicated:

“That this Assembly notes the verdict of the Republic of Ireland electorate on the Lisbon Treaty referendum; reaffirms its support for a referendum in the United Kingdom on the Treaty; and calls for a declaration from those parties aspiring to form the incoming Government of the United Kingdom to give an unequivocal commitment to hold, within a twelve month period from assuming office in 2010, a binding referendum on the Lisbon Treaty that is unconditional and unrelated to how other member states choose to vote, and the result of which will not be held in abeyance pending a further referendum on the subject.”

tnx to eGov monitor

Petition the British PM to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty!

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

You must be a British citizen or resident to sign the petition.

British friends, action time!

Why does al-Qaeda support the Lisbon Treaty?

Human rights activists condemn interference of former soldier firm
(press declaration from the 27.09.2009)

On the occasion of the eight anniversary of the assassinations of the 11.09.2001, the former safety firm al-Qaeda has, in the form of a certain Aiman al-Sawahiri, threatened Germany in case, that the Germans do not use the elections to the Bundestag for a change (“Umkehr”). At the weekend before the 21.09.2009, Bekkay Harrach, who also is regarded as belonging to the management level of al-Qaeda, put this more precise, that, if Germany did not withdraw its troops from Afghanistan, a rude awakening after the national elections would be imminent (1).

Now, at the first glance, it looks as if al-Qaeda interfered into the German election campaign for the Bundestag, in order to do an illegal kind of advertisement for parties or politicians, who demand the withdrawal of the German soldiers. This seems, however, psychologically regarded, absurd, because such threatening videos rather increase the willingness of the population to make sacrifices for military interventions in the name of the fight against the terror.

At the 25.09.2009, eventually, an audio message of a certain Osama Bin Laden has been published, who is regarded as the boss of al-Qaeda. In that message, he threatens even the whole of Europe, if the Europeans did not withdraw from Afghanistan (2).

For the investigation of the suspected motive, the time of the publishing seems to be even much more relevant than the content of the criminal and strange threatening messages. According to the point of view of German human rights activists, it looks like the mercenary network al-Qaeda wants to attract the public attention, in order to distract the attention from something else, which is happening at the same time, namely the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

Therefore, it is important to know, that al-Qaeda is former Saudi Arabian security firm, which has, in the 1980ies, supported the integration of mercenaries into the local Mujahideens in Afghanistan (3).

For the insurgence in the 1980ies in Afghanistan, at least 13.770 private soldiers have been deployed. They’ve been rather criminals, which have been disliked in their home countries, then they became islamists (4).

al-Qaeda has, at that time, operated in that milieu as an ally at least of the American and of the Pakistani secret services (3).

Already during the Afghanistan war in the 1980ies, a part of the mercenaries have gone into the drug business. As a result, the number of drug addicted persons at Pakistan has risen from 5.000 (1980) to 70.000 (1983) and finally to about 1.3 millions (1986) (5). These enormous numbers raise the question, if the al-Qaeda network itself is, besides in the mercenary business, also involved in the drug business. The former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has explained to the US Congress, that al-Qaeda is at 95% financed by drug money (6).

This thesis is supported by the fact, that al-Qaeda has trained and supported the UCK in Kosovo/Kosova (6), which is of immense importance for the distribution of drugs in Europe, which have been cultivated in Afghanistan (3).

al-Qaeda is a mercenary company, which has slipped into the organized crime.

The Islamic façade has, primarily, two functions. Firstly, they can recruit suicide assassins for less money this way, then if they had to motivate them with money alone. Secondly, this camouflage helps them, to veil the identities of changing clients. Security firms are fighting for nothing else than for economical profit. And, by far, not every of them adheres to law and order. Money determines for whom or against whom they fight. This is shown very clearly by the assassinations of the 11.09.2001, which give the impression, that possibly someone else has been able to pay better than the US government at that time. This seems not to have hindered the same firm al-Qaeda, to stay working in Kosovo/Kosova (3).

Already in 1994, al-Qaeda has been active in Albania and on the route (in the region, which is the main distribution centre for the selling of Afghan heroin to Europe) with a market value of 400 billion $ per year (3). A military commander of Bin Laden has fought in the Kosovo conflict on the side of the UCK, which is deeply involved into the drug traffic (3), (6).

According to a statement of John Kasich, a member of the US House of Representatives, from the 05.10.1999, Osama Bin Laden has also appeared, when the USA have built up their relations to the UCK in 1998 and 1999 (3).

Mercenary firms, western ones as well as islamist-camouflaged ones, have been under contract in the Bosnia war, in the Kosovo war, and even in 2001 in the attack of parts of the UCK against Macedonia (3).

On the 10.09.2001, the then US minister of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, has, in a speech of principles, tried to get support for partial functional privatization (“transformation”) of the US troops (8). The crime of the
11.09.2001 has led to such a fear and confusion at the USA, that there has taken place no sufficient debate with regard to his speech of principles of the 10.09.2001, before in the time following the US army has been reduced by 15%, and before even so sensitive tasks like fighting services and interrogations have been commissioned to private companies (9). Completely in the interest of al-Qaeda, because this has made the market for mercenary firms in the USA and, according to their example, much further, increase dramatically. According to the US example, Great Britain has even privatized the guarding of embassies and even a part of its fighting services in Afghanistan (10).

If now an assassination by al-Qaeda or by whomsoever took place at Europe, the demand in Europe also for private security services would be immensely increased. Just in the interest of the mercenary sector.

The “Treaty of Lisbon” (11) would be the next step for the growth of the market for soldier firms of any couleur. So there is a motive for mercenary firms like al-Qaeda, and for their suspected clients, to covertly support the “Lisbon Treaty”. Because this treaty would basically oblige the member states to commission private companies with their non-sovereign tasks (“services of general economical interest”, art. 14 TFEU) and with their sovereign tasks (“non-economical services of general interest”, art. 2 of protocol no. 26 to the “Treaty of Lisbon” on “services of general interest”).

At the first glance, it looks, as if the “Lisbon Treaty” would at least omit inner and outer security and the most fundamental structures of the state from the commissioning (art. 4 TEU). There is, however, an erosion mechanism contained on the basis of the prohibition of economical discrimination (art. 18 TFEU), by means of which one could claim at the European Court of Justice (ECJ), that any task, which has been commissioned to private companies in at least one member state, would have to be commissioned to private firms in all EU member states 12.

This way, already with the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty, an erosion mechanism would be started, that by means of law suits to the ECJ a part of the fighting services and the jails (like in Great Britain) would have to be commissioned EU-wide.

Very much in the interest of mercenary companies like al-Qaeda would be the solidarity clause (art. 222 TFEU) of the “Lisbon Treaty”, according to which the EU member states would have to deploy military in the interior for the prevention of terrorist attacks. al-Qaida could, already by threatening, cause an obligation for military interventions in the interior. And more and more of this military would have to be commissioned, because of the erosion mechanism described above, to private security firms.

A draft resolution of the Council of Europe (doc. 11787) shows the dangers of the growth of the mercenary sector world-wide (13). It depicts the danger of the violation of universal human rights, of the humanitarian international law, of civil law and criminal law, of increasing influence of private firms and political elites on governmental decisions with regard to foreign, safety, interior, and defence policy whilst violating democracy, and even of threatening the peaceful coexistence of the states. At 2008, the mercenary sector world-wide has already had about 1 million employed people in over 1.000 firms with a turnover of more than 200 billion $.

The time of the threats by al-Qaeda is of special importance. On the 17.09.2009 and on the 18.09. 2009, four new constitutional complaints against the laws accompanying the “Lisbon Treaty”, have been filed at the German Constitutional Court. Three of them (file number 2 BvR 2167/09) have had mainly the goal, to prevent the change of the type of state to the functionally privatized state mentioned above (14). On the 22.09.2009, the four constitutional complaints have not been admitted for decision by the Constitutional Court. On the 25.09.2009, the German President has ratified the Lisbon Treaty.

The atrocious threats of al-Qaeda against Germany have had the effect, that significant parts of the German population and of the German media have been distracted from the constitutional complaints, which are so uncomfortable for the mercenary sector.

The threat of the 25.09.2009 against Europe, however, seems to refer more to the Irish referendum, with the suspected motive to abuse, of all things, the need of the Irish people to more safety, in order to put through mercenary interests, which are threatening their safety.

The following questions need to be investigated urgently:

  • Who are today the clients of al-Qaeda? Commissioned by whom are these criminals working today?
  • From which sources does the private ”Intel-Center” (15), run by former US secret agents, have their findings on al-Qaeda?
  • Which further mercenary firms, besides al-Qaeda, are involved in the drug trade?


The sources referred to in the footnotes only serves the explanation of this press declaration. One cannot conclude from this, that the authors of those texts would share the conclusions of this press declaration or vice-versa.

(1) - on al-Sawahiri TAZ article of the 24.09.2009 “Terrorvideo zum Jahrestag des 11. September Al-Qaida droht Deutschen und Obama”
- on Bekkay Harrach TAZ article of the 21.09.2009 “Al-Qaida gegen Deutschland neues Terrorvideo aufgetaucht” and TAZ article from the 22.09.2009 “Ein gefährlicher Mann”

(2) - on Osama Bin Laden TAZ article of the 26./27.09.2009 “Al-Qaida-Botschaft II Bin Laden droht Europäern”

(3) “Der inszenierte Terrorismus – die CIA und Al Quaida” (von Michel Chossudovsky)

(4) Dr. Andreas von Bülow, Im Namen des Staates , Piper publishing house, p. 418

(5) Dr. Andreas von Bülow, Im Namen des Staates, , Piper publishing house, p. 210-211

(6) “Amerikanische Tiefenereignisse und das weltweite Drogennetzwerk der CIA” (von Peter Dale Scott)

(7) documenary of arte “Kolumbien - Privatarmeen des Staates”
(Part 1)
(Part 2)
(Part 3)

(8) DOD Acquisition and Logistics Excellence Week Kickoff—Bureaucracy to Battlefield

(9) “The Shock Doctrine. The Rise of Disaster Capitalism”, Naomi Klein, Metropolitan Books (New York) and Knopf Canada (Toronto)

”Die Privatisierung des Krieges - Armee der Söldner”
Privatisierung des Krieges 1/2
Privatisierung des Krieges 2/2
Söldner im Irak - Die private Armee

“readable” version of the “Lisbon Treaty”

on the erosion mechanism, which is postulated already today by the EU Commission from sovereign to non-sovereign, see message from the 20.11.2007 (file number KOM (2007) 725)

(13) Private military and security firms and the erosion of the state monopoly on the use of force

(14) New constitutional complaint = Neu Verfassungsbeschwerde

(15) “Die Medien und ihre Fährtenleser des Terrors” (Ekkehard Sieker)

V.i.S.d.P. (authors of this press declaration):

Volker Reusing + Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing
Thorner Str. 7, 42283 Wuppertal (Germany)
human rights activists according to UN resolution 53/144

If Conservatives win, UK voters get referendum on Lisbon

London/Prague - British Conservative Party leader David Cameron has sent a letter to Czech President Vaclav Klaus assuring him that the Conservatives would call a referendum on the Lisbon treaty after their expected election victory if Klaus delayed its signing on behalf of Prague, Daily Mail writes today.

The British daily published the information about the letter on its website today, referring to sources from the Conservative Party.

The Conservatives´ spokesman confirmed the information, saying the letter “was sent some weeks ago.”

“We have urged no course of action on President Klaus. David Cameron set out our position on the Lisbon Treaty very clearly and firmly, as he has always done. As the treaty is not yet ratified in all member States it is right that European leaders should know what a Conservative government would do in the current situation,” the spokesman told CTK.

Klaus, now attending the U.N. General Assembly session in New York, told Czech Television that he received Cameron´s letter as a purely private, three-page handwritten letter that confirms the British Conservatives´ position.

Klaus said he does not think the letter has influenced his decisions concerning the Lisbon treaty´s ratification.

Eline van den Broek and Gisela Stuart MP advise the Irish

Eline van den Broek, leader of the 2005 Dutch No to the EU Constitution campaign, speaks about the Irish Lisbon Treaty referendum at the Open Europe Dublin meeting 9 September 2009.

Gisela Stuart Labour MP at the Open Europe Dublin meeting 9 September 2009

This and more at Youtube channel.

You are also kindly invited to send your comment (upper left side of the Europe Says No site) and encourage Irish voters to represent your interests and vote in your name as well.

Will BBC admit there is at least 50:50 balance in the Lisbon2 hyped Ireland?

According to “anonymous rumours” from the internet, BBC is preparing a report on situation in Ireland.

“I was speaking to a BBC camera crew who were interviewing people on the street today and asked them what they were getting - they said it was 50/50 with few undecided, with “uneducated” people more likely to vote NO.” reported member of the forum.

Sooner or later, but definitely before the referendum day, media in Europe will have to surrender their YES-backing positions and denounce so many of misleading polls made by “true professionals”.

Polls made by Gael Polls still haven’t been taken seriously. No media in Europe has reported anything - not even that they are a hoax. After one whole day of waiting this can only mean one thing - Brussels keeps tight control over media all over Europe.

Apart from Bill Cash MP from the European Foundation no other politician has yet dared to support these figures publicly.

Prepare yourself for a real People’s Referendum on Future of Europe - without the Lisbon Treaty!

9 days to go - Activists of Ireland, the floor is yours!

We don't need no education, instead we get EU control

Schools cuts will only pay for extra £2bn to EU

This weekend Schools Secretary Ed Balls became the first cabinet minister to set out where the axe may fall on public services, in the government’s bid to bring Britain’s finances back into balance.

But rather than cut the unjustifiable extra £2bn the government plans to give to the EU next year, Mr Balls revealed that he wants to cut the same amount from the schools budget instead.

Speaking to the Sunday Times, Mr Balls said that up to 3,000 senior school staff could be axed instead of excessive spending on the EU.

Primary school heads as well as deputies, assistant heads, plus heads of subject in primary and secondary schools could all find themselves in the firing line.

But any benefit to our public finances contributed by these likely painful schools cuts will be quickly eaten up by the looming 60% increase in the amount Britain pays into the EU’s mismanaged accounts.

More at the Democracy Movement

The Final Treaty

Trevor Colman (UKIP MEP, GB) talks about what could be the final treaty if Ireland caves in to EU pressure.

from UKIP TV

Investors flock to EU critics

Micheál Martin: “It would be unwise” to give investors reason to doubt Ireland’s commitment to EU

Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Micheál Martin last night said that ratifying the Lisbon Treaty would be an “important step towards resolving Ireland’s economic difficulties”.

He emphasised the importance of voting “Yes”, saying that it would send a “strong political message” to foreign investors that Ireland was fully committed to the EU. He argued that investors came to Ireland because it is “fully plugged into the European Union. It would be unwise to give them any reason to think otherwise.”

People’s Movement Chairperson, Patricia McKenna rejected his comments as “scaremongering”, arguing that “Britain is recognised as the most Eurosceptic member state [and this] has not stopped investors [from coming] there”.

from The Irish Times via Open Europe

Scandinavian losses in the new EP

Henrik Brors: Sweden among losers as new EP emerges

Henrik Bors, writing in Swedish newspaper DN, says that Sweden, along with Denmark and Finland emerged as the greatest losers as the new European Parliament power structures became clear. Swedish MEPs were unable to land any of the more important chairmanships in the new parliament as they all went to larger countries.

Surprise, surprise… the big ‘uns - Italy, Germany, France, Great Britain and Poland took all the spoils.

addition (on July 28th)

The French Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has hailed France’s presence on European Parliament committees, saying “With 4 committee and sub-committee chairs, France has only one chair less than Italy, is equal to Germany and is ahead of the UK and Spain.” He added that France “is one of the leading European countries in terms of the number of vice presidents.”

sources: - European Voice - French Government, July 20th

Hot Summer Sun

Sun: German Court decision on Lisbon Treaty rejects EP as a democratic body

The Sun reports that German Constitutional Court judges called the Lisbon Treaty an “illegal power grab”, in their judgement last week, as the Treaty takes away sovereignty from nation states in a number of areas, such as the right to set laws on defence, taxes, the police and education. The Treaty cannot be ratified in Germany until a new law guaranteeing the rights of the German parliament in the EU-decision making process has been approved by the parliament. Open Europe is quoted as saying: “British MPs need to wake up — and demand the same powers.”

A [eader in the Sun writes that the German court decision “even rejects the EU Parliament as a democratic body - pointing out that it does not even have a proper Opposition. This must surely put paid forever to the grandiose dream of a European superstate?”

Meanwhile Czech daily, the Prague Monitor reports that some Czech Senators have indicated that they might lodge a complaint over the Treaty with the Czech Constitutional Court in the first half of August.

84% of Conservative Party members want referendum on Lisbon Treaty even if the Lisbon Treaty is already ratified

84% of Conservative Party members want the Conservatives to hold a referendum if Lisbon Treaty is already ratified

A survey featured on Conservative Home shows that 84 percent of Conservative Party members want the Conservatives to give British people a referendum, even if the Lisbon Treaty is already ratified when a Conservative government is formed. Of the 84 percent, 60 percent said that the referendum should give the Government the mandate to “renegotiate Britain’s wider relationship with the EU”, while 24 percent said that the referendum should give the Government “authority to negotiate an opt-out from Lisbon’s provisions.”

10 percent said that, if the Treaty is in force, the Conservatives should “reluctantly accept” Lisbon and “look to ensure no further transfers of powers to Europe”. Only 6 percent said that the Conservatives should “welcome that Lisbon cannot be undone and get on with being at the heart of Europe.”

Conservative Home blog

Burn the evidence, Marta is coming back!

The EU bureaucrats face a tough five years as whistleblower Marta Andreasen returns to Brussels with a mandate from Britain to sort them out.

The former chief accountant of the EU, Ms Andreasen won a seat from South East region alongside UKIP Leader Nigel Farage.

The pair came second to the Tories in the country’s most populous region and Labour came an abysmal fifth, behind the Lib Dems and Green Party.

82% want referendum on Lisbon Treaty in the UK

New poll: 82% want referendum on Lisbon Treaty in the UK - even if it has already been ratified by the rest of the EU

In the Times Peter Riddell points to a Populus poll undertaken over the weekend, which found that 82% of people agreed with the statement “If Ireland and other countries ratify the Lisbon Treaty on the future of the European Union, Britain should hold its own referendum on the issue”. 52% agreed strongly, and only 14% disagreed. The proportion of voters agreeing with the statement was 76% among Labour supporters, 85% among Lib Dem supporters, and 92% among Conservative supporters.

The poll also showed that 58% of voters believe that the balance of powers between Britain and the EU gives too much power to the EU, including a clear majority of supporters of all main parties. 28% say the balance is about right and 6% say too little power has been given to the EU.

In response to the question, “If the Lisbon Treaty goes through and the new post of President of the EU is established, the job should go to Tony Blair”, only 34% of people agreed.

Asked if the European Parliament has a positive impact on the lives of ordinary people, 61% agreed. However, 58% agreed that “The European Parliament is an irrelevant talking shop and a gravy train for its Members”.

51% agreed with the statement “Britain benefits from being a member of the EU”. On voting intentions for the European Parliament elections, the Conservatives polled 21%, Labour polled 16%, the Lib Dems 13%, and UKIP 4%.

by Open Europe

Syndicate content