AWCheney’s Forum On Immigration

European Union: The Future of the Americas?

Just as the potentially serious financial ramifications of the Social Security Totalization Treaty with Mexico have been glossed over by our Administration and ignored by the media, the question of the possible creation of a North American Union is actually ridiculed by both our government leadership and the vast majority of the mainstream media (see the videos on the post North American Union, Part 2 as an example). It seems inconceivable to virtually all of our citizenry that such incredible conspiracies could exist without people knowing about it. Well, if our leadership manages to pull all of this off, it won’t be the first time such a thing has happened elsewhere in the world.

According to Wikipedia, “On 1 November 1993, under the third Delors Commission, the Maastricht Treaty (Treaty on the European Union) became effective, creating the European Union with its pillar system including foreign and home affairs alongside the European Community,” but that is not the end of the story, and it most certainly is not the beginning.


The preceding video is an incredible documentary, “The Real Face of the European Union,” that was filmed in 2004 and which includes considerable information on the background of the formation of the European Union, as well as considerable information on the actual British experience with the EU up to that time. I HIGHLY recommend that everyone take the time to view it in its entirety!

Some examples of what you will learn about the EU from this documentary, other than the centralized justice system, cost, and corruption, are such things as the reality of the consequences of the centralized banking system (including the “one size fits all” monetary and financial systems); the “harmonizing” of legislation without benefit of voter input; the European Rapid Reaction Force, utilizing Britain’s own armed forces to keep member states, including those of the UK, in line; and how the very core of democracy has been subverted at the very seat of democracy. It’s important that you take those 43 minutes to watch this.

The greatest threat to national sovereignty within the EU nations occurred with the Treaty of Amsterdam which was signed in May of 1997, and went into force on May 1, 1999:

The most symbolically important gesture of the Treaty of Amsterdam was the framework sketched out for the future accession of ten new member states. This projected an image of a Europe soon to be united across the old Iron Curtain. Yet it made many more immediate changes. It absorbed the Schengen Convention into EU law, creating open borders between twelve of the member states; expanded the role of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) by creating a High Representative to take overall responsibility for EU foreign affairs, and extended the powers of Europol, the European police agency, on the understanding that both these powers were controlled intergovernmentally.

The open borders nature of the EU is an extremely important element of the unification process, creating essentially one nation under one common government where individual sovereignty, AND RIGHTS, are systematically absorbed into one entity with absolute power in the hands of the few.

New York Times Article

Open Borders Extended Within European Union

Published: December 21, 2007
The expansion of the so-called Schengen zone, where people can travel without showing passports, removed border barriers first in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia at midnight.

Essentially, the European Union of today came into being through a series of treaties dating back to the 50’s, culminating in the Lisbon Treaty which was signed in Lisbon in December 2007 and had actually been drawn up to replace the draft of the European constitution which had been rejected in 2005. The purpose of this was to incorporate all the various treaties and agreements which had, over the years, granted the powers over the member states to the European Union, and thus finalizing and legitimizing its creation.

How similar is Lisbon to the draft constitution?

It contains many of the changes the constitution attempted to introduce, for example:

  • A politician chosen to be president of the European Council for two-and-a-half years, replacing the current system where countries take turns at being president for six months
  • A new post combining the jobs of the existing foreign affairs supremo, Javier Solana, and the external affairs commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, to give the EU more clout on the world stage
  • A smaller European Commission, with fewer commissioners than there are member states, from 2014
  • A redistribution of voting weights between the member states, phased in between 2014 and 2017 – qualified majority voting based on a “double majority” of 55% of member states, accounting for 65% of the EU’s population
  • New powers for the European Commission, European Parliament and European Court of Justice, for example in the field of justice and home affairs
  • Removal of national vetoes in a number of areas.

Most European leaders acknowledge that the main substance of the constitution would be preserved.

If it contains the same substance, why is the Lisbon Treaty not a constitution?

The constitution attempted to replace all earlier EU treaties and start afresh, whereas the new treaty amends the Treaty on the European Union (Maastricht) and the Treaty Establishing the European Community (Rome).

It also drops all reference to the symbols of the EU – the flag, the anthem and the motto – though these will continue to exist.

The universal ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, however, has reached something of an impasse through the rejection of the one member country that had included in their own constitution the right of the people to accept or reject these treaties through referendum…the one thing that the EU governing body had not anticipated. Ireland voted no!

Needless to say, this has created quite a stir in the halls of the EU, and is finally leading to a debate as to its efficacy among some of the representatives (MEPs) of the member states, if not the governing council and commissions. This has brought to light the utter lack of transparency in the European Union governing bodies, and also is publicly bringing out its dark side:

EU presses Ireland to solve Lisbon Treaty crisis

By Stephen Castle and Judy Dempsey

Published: June 19, 2008

BRUSSELS: One week after Ireland’s rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, the Irish government on Thursday was given four months to try to find a way out of the crisis that threatens to stop the European Union’s introducing changes designed to project its power on the global stage.
After Britain completed its parliamentary approval of the Lisbon Treaty on Wednesday, the Irish face growing pressure to negotiate concessions and hold a rerun of the referendum.


Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany rejected out of hand a two-speed Europe in which some countries would continue down the path toward a more integrated Europe while others would be left behind.

“We must ensure that treaties in the European Union are brought forward unanimously,” she said during a speech to the Bundestag, the lower house of Parliament, before heading to Brussels for the meeting. “There is no other way.”

Merkel also ruled out a “period of reflection” like the one that took place after French and Dutch voters rejected the European Constitution in 2005.

“Europe cannot afford another period of reflection,” she said.

This is the European Union and, perhaps, a glimpse of things to come right here in the United States. It is said that, “To be forewarned is to be forearmed.” Although it took many years for this to happen to the UK and the rest of Europe, we seem to be on an accelerated course. However, it didn’t happen overnight, so we do have some time…time for vigilance and action. Let’s not wait until it’s too late.


July 14, 2008 3:08 am - Posted by | North American Union | , , , , ,


  1. […] European Union: The Future of the Americas?The expansion of the so-called Schengen zone, where people can travel without showing passports, removed border barriers first in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia at midnight. Essentially, the European Union of today came into being … […]

    Pingback by Latvia » Latvia - Segulda, Latvia | July 14, 2008 6:11 am | Reply

  2. It is obviously easier for those with recent European background to understand the formation of the EU than for the rest of us. However, what an absolute travesty this appears to have been!!!

    For some time, I have been concerned over the seeming disregard of our elected officials for the opinion and the will of the American people. While some would lay this (like anything else considered to be bad) at the step of the Bush administration, it’s not. It’s much broader and general than one administration or one party.

    Specifically, how does YOUR Representative or your Senator even KNOW your desire on a particular issue, much less follow it? I realize that our elected officials can not consult their constituents on every issue, but on major issues, I think it not unreasonable for them to ascertain the predominant view. For example, is it the desire of most American citizens that our southern border be secured? If the popular desire is “yes,” as I believe that it is, then why is it not done? I have ideas on the method, but that’s not important…successful execution is important, and it IS possible.

    If this nonsense of the NAU is to grow, and surreptitiously evolve as the EU has, then it must come about because our elected representatives of BOTH political parties consider themselves to be inherently more intelligent and more capable of making those important decisions concerning our welfare than we, the common voting citizens.

    The NAU can not happen as the will of one administration or one political party alone.

    Comment by freedom | July 14, 2008 12:20 pm | Reply

  3. You’ve reasoned it precisely, freedom…and that’s exactly the way it happened in Great Britain (you need to check out that documentary when you have the time). Power is actually the one thing that all political parties, and most politicians, can agree upon. Isn’t it amazing how more and more people are saying that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two major political parties in the U.S.?

    The beginnings of the European Union were actually rooted in the rebuilding of Europe after WWII…and the idea of globalization goes back even farther than that (WWI, League of Nations). In this country, one can specifically point to NAFTA as the first major step in our own evolution, and that was a Clinton Administration project, heavily endorsed and supported by President Bush, Sr. The great Amnesty of 1986, although it was on Reagan’s watch, was NOT a Reagan idea, or project…it has Jim Baker (Bush’s former campaign manager) and then Vice President Bush written all over it. That, and subsequent, amnesties were just baby steps in the overall scenario. Totalization treaties were created in 1977…during the Carter Administration. Of course, given that 1977 was the first year of his Administration, the process (or at least the concept) must have begun before then…like during the Ford or Nixon Administration. And then you have Executive Orders…you have no idea how many “baby steps” can be hidden in them. (Example: Did you know that, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy signed an Executive Order that provided for the relocation and possible internment of massive numbers of U.S. citizens during a National State of Emergency…and that order can still be executed?)

    This has nothing to do with political parties…it’s all about ever more power.

    Comment by AWCheney | July 14, 2008 1:04 pm | Reply

  4. Actually I should probably add that it’s also about money…but then money IS power, isn’t it?

    Comment by AWCheney | July 14, 2008 1:14 pm | Reply

  5. Question,

    So if there is the Eu and possible NAU, what is to say that it is not in the name of a ONE world order? (talking about conspiracy theories)Or am I missing something? What other reasoning would there be?

    Comment by Red Dawn | July 14, 2008 6:56 pm | Reply

  6. 3:04 of the video sounds like the Patriot Act

    Comment by Red Dawn | July 14, 2008 7:05 pm | Reply

  7. Well, I guess you could say that, in a way. Often, money is power. However, MOST often, political power results merely from a promise…a promise to the many of money from the few. So sad. 😦

    Comment by freedom | July 14, 2008 9:38 pm | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s