BRITAIN BEGINS 2010 AS A VASSAL OF THE E U

Friday 15th January 2010

"To the liberalism they profess, I prefer the liberties we enjoy; to the Rights of Man, the rights of Englishmen." --- Disraeli

As Britain begins a new decade, it does so on a radically different footing. 1010 marks the beginning of Britain being a vassal state to the powerful EU.

It began on 1 December, 2009 when the Lisbon treaty came into force, removing the remaining vestiges of British sovereignty.

Intended as a replacement to the rejected EU constitution, the treaty transfered vast swabs of power from Parliament to Brussels . It also stripped Britain ’s right to veto new EU laws in more than 40 different policy areas.

The treaty also granted new powers to the European Commission, European Parliament and European Court of Justice.

Defenders of the treaty argued that it would create a more powerful Europe . By establishing the first president of Europe and a foreign minister and a diplomatic corps, the treaty paves the way for a European empire not seen since the days of Charlemagne.

The purpose of the treaty was to streamline EU institutions, divesting local governments of decision making ability in order to achieve a greater centralization of power. The 250-plus page treaty also allows more laws to be passed by a simple majority instead of unanimous consent.

LABOUR BREAKS ITS PROMISE
In order to pass, the Lisbon treaty had to be ratified by all 27 member states. Although the treaty was rejected by Irish voters in June 2008, it received overwhelming support in a second referendum in the Irish Republic on 2 October 2009.

The people of Britain , on the other hand, were not given the chance to vote on the treaty, despite the Labour Government having promised a referendum. Indeed, Labour won the 2005 election largely on a manifesto pledge to give the British people a referendum on the treaty.

Tory Euro MP Daniel Hannan said: “It is appalling, demeaning, disgraceful that such a thing should have been done without popular consent and in the absence of the referendum that all three parties had promised.”

LISBON TREATY IN CONTEXT *
The EU has its origins in the Treaty of Rome (1957), which gave birth to the European Economic Community (EEC). The EEC, also known as the “Common Market,” was a customs union. EEC member countries agreed to dismantle all tariff barriers over a 12-year transitional period, and over time a common tariff was also established for all products coming in from third countries.

The Single European Act (1987) extended the scope of the EEC to include not only the free circulation of goods, but also the free movement of persons, capital and services. The Act established a genuine common market, but it also codified European Political Cooperation, which was the forerunner of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).

The fall of the Berlin Wall (1989) and the reunification of Germany (1990) led French President François Mitterrand, who feared a return of German hegemony, to search for a way to permanently anchor Germany within European institutions. Together with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who was keen to relieve misgivings in Paris and London about a reunified Germany , Mitterrand worked to transform the whole of Europe into an all-encompassing union.

In 1989, an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) established monetary and economic union. In 1990, another IGC was called to study the constitution of a political union. Then, in 1992, following three years of closed-door debate which ignored public demands for more transparency, the Treaty of the European Union (also known as the Treaty of Maastricht) came into being.

The Maastricht Treaty modified the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act by moving far beyond the limits of a common market toward political union. The Maastricht Treaty also changed the official name of the EEC to the European Union.

The Maastricht Treaty created three pillars, one of which enables joint actions in foreign policy and military matters, and another one which enhances co-operation in the fight against crime. The Maastricht Treaty also established a European Central Bank (ECB), fixed exchange rates and introduced a single currency called the euro.

In 1998, the Treaty of Amsterdam modified parts of the Maastricht Treaty, again with no public participation. The main change introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty was the creation of a new position called the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy. The treaty also provided the EU with a common security policy, including the gradual formulation of a common defence policy.

In 2001, the Treaty of Nice was designed (once again without public input) to reform the institutional structure of the EU, with a view toward eastward expansion.

Fast forward to 2009, and the stated aim of the Lisbon Treaty is to “complete the process started by the Treaty of Amsterdam and by the Treaty of Nice with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union and to improving the coherence of its action.”...

The Lisbon Treaty is the stunning culmination of more than 50 years of European economic and political integration, a process that has resulted in the systematic erosion of democracy and democratic accountability in Europe .”

READ: Genesis 11; Proverbs 11:21.

PRAY: Genesis 11:6-7 shows that the confusion of the nations (and, by implication, the existence of separate nation states) is God’s way of restraining the effects of man’s fallenness. However, the Lisbon Treaty, like the entire European project, fails to reckon with the doctrine of the fall. Like the Tower of Babel , it is based on the faulty foundation that fallen man can achieve utopia by separate peoples simply working together.

The Utopian aspirations can be seen in the way that defenders of the EU, like apologists for ancient Rome and Nazism, point out that their empire is making one new humanity out of previously warring pluralities, ushering in a new world order of peace. Moreover, they often describe the European project as the final stage in an eschatological climax triumphing over the forces of nationalism, war, self-interest and isolation in order to usher in an age of peace and prosperity. Unhampered by the reality of man’s sin and foolishness, they present a vision of eschatological progress echoing the pretensions of the Babel architects.

Arthur Seyss-Inquart, the Austrian Minister for Security and Interior, made these utopian aspirations explicit in 1938 when he said that, “Above and beyond the concept of the nation-state, the idea of a new community will transform the living space given us all by history into a new spiritual realm. . . . The new Europe of solidarity and co-operation among all its people...will find an assured foundation and rapidly increasing prosperity once national economic barriers are removed. . . . Nations and human beings only develop to the full when they participate actively in a great common destiny."

Gordon Brown echoed Seyss-Inquart’s comments this Spring when he said, "I think the new world order is emerging, and with it the foundations of a new and progressive era of international co-operation."

Despite these utopian hopes, God promises to judge all empires built on the sand of such arrogance (Prov. 11:21). He did not spare Babel or Rome and neither will he spare the new EU superstate. God’s answer to the world’s problems is not a resurrection of Babel but Pentecost (Acts 2), in which separate people groups became united through acknowledging the Lordship of Jesus. Empires that are built on any other foundation than an explicit recognition of Christ’s Lordship will crumble.

WRITE: in a democracy it is crucial that constituents hold their representatives accountable, especially when those representatives have lied to them. It is therefore essential that lots of citizens write to their MPs and complain about the way Government has reneged on its promise of a referendum.  Also share with your MP the words of Immanuel Kant who warned of the consequences of European integration when he said: “The idea of the law of nations presupposes the distinction between independent states. Although this is a state of war...it is still, according to reason, better than the fusion of those states by means of a hierarchy of power culminating in a universal monarchy. Laws which are passed for a large area lose their vigour, and such a soulless despotism, after it has hollowed out the kernel of goodness, ultimately collapses into anarchy.”

*  (Reprinted with permission from Soeren Kern’s article ‘ Lisbon Treaty: Europe ’s Slow-Moving Coup d’État’)