The “Common Market” con
Those of us who can remember the UK’s admission into the Common Market frequently lament the fact that it didn’t quite turn out as planned. It sounded so commendable and desirable. A trading community. A civilised way to recommence amicable relationships with former enemies. Disposing of the old stereotype picture of “the continent” and becoming a part of it all. A trading community was a sign of progress and sophistication. So what went wrong? To put it quite simply: We were misled and deceived from the outset. Edward Heath, Prime Minister at that time, was aware of the plan:
the ultimate creation of a European federal state, with a single currency. All the basic instruments of national economic management (fiscal, monetary, incomes and regional policies) would ultimately be handed over to the central federal authorities. The Werner report suggests that this radical transformation of present Communities should be accomplished within a decade”. (PRO/FCO 30/789)
The only real concern of Mr Heath and his colleagues was that this plan should not be talked about too openly in public, because this might so inflame public opinion that it would be much harder to persuade Parliament and the British people that it was in their interests to join what they were being assured was no more than a ‘common market’, intended to boost trade. http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/index.live?article=91
The Lisbon Treaty con
A last good idea consists of wanting to preserve part of the Constitution and camouflaging this by distributing it among several texts. The more innovative provisions [of the Constitution] would be simple amendments to the Nice and Maastricht treaties. The technical improvements would be gathered together in a bland and uncontroversial treaty. These texts would be put to Parliaments to vote on them one at a time. Thus public opinion would be led to accept, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly. Valerie Giscard d’Esating – Le Monde 4th June 2007
The Rio Convention – Earth Summit- Agenda 21 con
“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development
Why do we continue to believe these guys? Because the tailoring looks impressive? Because they are politicians and wouldn’t mislead us? Because we can’t be bothered to question things?
It is surely beyond doubt that Phil Gawne truly believes in the value of the Rio Convention. However, as we can see, many a politician in the past has been misled by less than honest dealings. This is a proven tactic. Make it sound wholesome and sensible and hide the real agenda because no one in their right mind would agree to it.
More of Rio Convention/ Earth Summit/ Agenda 21 to come.