THE EU REFERENDUM – a Christian perspective By David Evans.
INTRODUCTION Many of us are wondering which way to vote in the forthcoming referendum on 23 June. Should we remain in the European Union (EU) or leave it in the so-called Brexit? The subject merits our attention. This article is an attempt at examining the issues from a Christian world view. THE FACTS? We are asked to consider matters that involve major corner-stones of our nation state. These include choice in the allocation of finances; foreign investment, trade deals, employment and the control of legislative processes (EU law vs. UK law) as well as immigration control and the defence of our country. The discussion that is on-going comprises claim and counter-claim for which supporting facts often appear scant. Depending on who is telling the story, we get a particular ‘spin’ on the various issues. It reminds me of an old adage from Mark Twain: ‘There are lies, damned lies and statistics.’ If we are not able to get at the true facts our decision will be based on which protagonist’s delivery we dislike the least. THE CHRISTIAN VIEW? Our task is to find a Christian standpoint amidst this cacophony.
I have just read the Evangelical Alliance’s position (or lack of position) statement. They say the following: ‘…the Alliance takes no position on whether the UK should leave or remain. Our position is only that Christians should engage fully in the debate and vote in the referendum – because the voice of evangelicals matters.’ They follow this objective with a series of pointers for us to consider but in reality we are left with little that is not available to the informed voter and subject to the limitations I have described above. The question remains: is there something that the Christian should be considering that would inform our conscience? My examination focuses on the formation of the EU and its governance and values leading to an examination of some of the issues that are being debated from a Christian perspective.
FORMATION OF THE EU The formation of the EU was in response to the ravages of the first half of the twentieth century covering the two world wars, which led to the death of over 20 million people in Europe. This included the killing of over 6 million Jews in the infamous extermination camps in central Europe. The Yalta Conference (1945) was called to settle the future of the European continent which had been ruined by those wars. Joseph Stalin – the Soviet leader – took control of East Germany and all of the East European states, leaving West Germany to the Americans, French and British. This division led to the subsequent ‘cold war’ where the divide between the West and the East was described by Winston Churchill as the descent of an ‘Iron Curtain’. This lasted until 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell. The fall of the Berlin Wall marked the psychological end of the Cold War and a formal signing of a charter for a New Europe took place at the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Paris (November 1990). In response to the rapid upheaval in the East, Germany (now reunited for the first time since the war) together with France proposed an inter-governmental conference to pursue closer European integration. The resulting Maastricht Treaty (1992) was signed and it was foundational for the modern EU.
The European Union, as it is still known today, became the most recent in a series of European organisations that originated with the European Coal and Steel Community (1951), an association of six European nations whose aim was to rebuild the economies of post-war Europe by pooling resources. The objective of European unity has been from its formative years to promote and to expand cooperation among member states in economy, trade, social issues, security, defence, international foreign policy and in judicial matters. The vision for a European Union contained both political and economic components. The political component was the conviction that only an inter-governmental organisation could bring an end to the succession of wars which have troubled Europe ever since the collapse of the Roman Empire. The economic component included the belief that the larger market would result in greater productivity and higher standards of living. However, in the early days of the EU, most countries were hesitant to surrender control over their national affairs and so the early inter-governmental organisations concentrated on the economic component as an eventual precursor to political unification.
EU GOVERNANCE AND VALUES The concluding of the Maastricht Treaty led to the drafting of an EU Constitution which, according to French President Chirac, is the pure child of the French Revolution and would complete it. Indeed, this document does not mention our Judeo-Christian God – the drafter, former French president Valery Giscard-d’Estaing, had these words included in the Constitution: ‘…Europe is a continent that has brought forth civilisation… Its inhabitants, arriving in successive waves since the beginning of time, having gradually developed over the centuries the values that are the foundation of humanism: equality of all humans, liberty, respect for reason…’ This constitution attempted to replace all earlier EU treaties but was rejected by the French and Dutch voters in 2005. Notwithstanding, the main substance of the Constitution was incorporated into the Lisbon Treaty (2007) amending the Treaty on the European Union (Maastricht, 1992) and the original Treaty Establishing the European Community (Rome, 1957).
The various civil law systems of Europe which underpin these Treaties are generally devolved from Roman and/or Justinian law. They tend to favour collective authority from the top down and form the basis of the European Corpus Juris. This is in contrast to Anglo-Saxon common law which tends to favour the individual and which was first comprehensively documented in Magna Carta. Magna Carta is a Christian document that was first drafted by church leaders to make peace between the King and the Barons; this is illustrated in the second paragraph of Magna Carta with the words: “Know that before God, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, Archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England…” The Magna Carta had Habeas Corpus at its core which was, and even today remains, generally unknown in European Law.
An example illustrating the rights of individuals is found in Clause 39, which reads: "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land." This matter is pivotal to the argument: Habeas Corpus values and gives dignity to the individual, thus reflecting the core Christian message. In Genesis 18 we read about Abraham pleading with the LORD over the city of Sodom – couldn’t it be spared if there were 50, 45, 40, 30, or even just 10 righteous people living in it? The LORD answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”
This emphasises the importance of the individual and this is also reflected in the words of St Augustine, ‘God loves each of us as if there were only one of us.’ CONSIDERATIONS 1. European Values? The European Union has recently appointed a new Special Envoy ‘for the promotion of freedom of religion or belief outside the EU’. His brief is to spread ‘European values’ over the entire globe and to solve the time-old divisions over culture and religion. Speaking at the Vatican on the occasion of the award of the Charlemagne Prize for European Integration to Pope Francis, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker commented on the task facing the Special Envoy, Slovak politician Ján Figel, ‘Freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental right which is part of the foundation of the European Union. The persistent persecution of religious and ethnic minorities makes protecting and promoting this freedom inside and outside the EU all the more essential.’ Thus, although the Constitution as enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty may be godless, the EU likes to think of itself as a community of ‘values’.
Some of these values may have come from Europe’s Christian background, although this is not officially acknowledged, but many can be traced back to the earlier Greek and Roman civilisations, which were so decadent in the time of Christ, and will be subject to periodic revision depending on the nature of the EU leadership. 2. Right to Self-Determination? One of the most basic ideas in the once-free West is that every people has a right to selfdetermination, which is their ability to govern themselves as they see fit and live a life in accordance with their principles so long as they do not infringe on the basic rights of their neighbours. The EU would proudly declare this to be true but in practice does not appear to believe it at all. This was made clear recently when the EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker complained that some European politicians ‘listened too much to their voters’ and not enough to the EU when it came to accepting their share of refugees or migrants from the war-torn Middle East and parts of Africa. The countries to which this applies, such as Poland, Hungary and Slovakia, are now facing a fine of US $290,000 for each refugee or migrant that they refuse to accept. 3. Multiculturalism vs. Assimilation Trevor Phillips, the former chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality commented on the assimilation of the present wave of refugees:
“For a long time, I too thought that Europe’s Muslims would become like previous waves of migrants, gradually abandoning their ancestral ways, wearing their religious and cultural baggage lightly, and blend into Britain’s diverse identity landscape,” he said. “I should have known better.” The liberal former head of Britain’s top multiculturalism agency confesses he “got almost everything wrong” regarding Muslim assimilation and warns the West that Muslims create “nations within nations”. He says that he had been naive to think the real risk of the arrival of these foreign communities was discrimination against Muslims.
4. Rights of Groups vs. Rights of Individuals Earlier Trevor Phillips had attacked the ‘racket’ of multiculturalism sparked by the Blair government. Multiculturalism champions the rights of groups and peoples and is contrary to the foundations of traditional democratic freedoms, which have their roots in an individual’s rights, as well as in objective truths based broadly on the Ten Commandments, against which human behaviour was judged as either right or wrong. In history, the suppression of individuals’ rights along with the redefinition of truth consistent with the values of an ideology which seeks controlling power (e.g. in Nazi Germany and in the former Soviet Union) brought with it the death of democracy and of freedom. In the same way, Political Correctness (PC) today means getting people to conform to the thoughts, names and actions that are promoted and advanced by the zealous advocates of multiculturalism. In the workplace, it is becoming more common for those who do not use the approved terminology to be given ‘re-education’.
If a commercial company does not have the exact PC speak and procedures within its organisation, they will be eliminated from tendering for business with Government Departments. I have lived through a number of decades and as I compare what is now regarded as a ‘hate crime’ to attitudes when I was young, the difference is significant. The identification of a ‘hate crime’ rests on someone’s reaction to what an accused individual has said or done. This goes against the principle of freedom of thought and expression that we used to enjoy in this country. In a free society, a Christian was able to believe in morality as defined in the Bible and express his views. Now what he deems is right, the PC ‘thought police’ condemns as wrong and he is sanctioned severely. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil…” Isaiah 5:20 Even the fact that one may be a Christian of whatever hue presents issues following the publication of Religion and Belief Discrimination in Employment – the EU Law in November 2006 by the European Commission. This document considers that there are several “problematic issues that are likely to arise in relation to religion and belief discrimination”.
After considering the particular conflicts of different groups (note that we are moving away from the individual) and appropriate exemptions, there comes a statement that explains why so often the rights of Christians are subject to the rights of others: “Although the right of freedom to have a religious belief is absolute under Article 9 EHCR, the right to manifest that belief is subject to the rights of others.” In other words, the right of others is greater than the right to act in accordance with our religious beliefs. We can be Christians and the law defends our right to be Christians but NOT to live and act like a Christian. In the same document it states: “The Directive deems harassment to be a form of discrimination where there is unwarranted conduct related to religion and belief with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.” This is the reason why Christians are being dismissed or sanctioned for offering to pray for people, offering them a book or having a religious debate. EU Laws take precedence over National Laws. These provisions link back to the statement earlier in this article that the EU Constitution does not have any regard or place for the Judeo-Christian culture in its laws, institutions or its intentions as it is entirely secular and humanist.
5. Moving towards Totalitarianism? A question: what is stopping a slide towards these excesses? Whilst many may regard this as an ‘extreme’ statement today, we should not disregard history; we should bear in mind that there is no ballot box for the democratic removal and replacement of those leading the European Union. The link which follows contains a sobering message from Vladimir Bukowsky, a writer and former Soviet dissident and political prisoner who spent 12 years in the jails of the former USSR. Faced with international pressure he was released to be placed on probation. He explains his vision of the European Union and its similarities with the USSR. If we vote to remain in the EU, he says to us, “I lived in your future, and it did not work.” See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHOuc12J4W4. Any rhetoric that individuals’ rights, like the rights of individuals in the former Soviet Union, are to be subordinated to a group – in this case the EU – means that democracy becomes an empty term. It is evident that the EU is indeed moving away from democracy in its governance structure and any reference otherwise can only be a cruel charade. The Political Correctness that controls our words and actions today is largely based on the false secular truths of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Those who challenge them may eventually find themselves in the EU’s version of the GULAG (a Russian acronym referring to Corrective Labour Camps).
This is not far-fetched; we are already seeing examples of how English Law is being usurped by Corpus Juris. For example, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties [demonstrated in the case against Bernard Connolly, a British economist dismissed by the European Commission in 1995 for writing a critique of European monetary integration entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe – see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1325398/Euro-courtoutlaws-criticism-of-EU.html] 6. Migrants and Refugees On the point of receiving refugees, what can we glean from the Bible? To the Pharisees’ question on which is the greatest commandment, Jesus replied in Matthew 22:37-40: 37 …“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” ‘Loving one’s neighbour’ is demonstrated in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:3037) and could also be coupled with Jesus’ words on ‘The Sheep and the Goats’ (Matthew 25:31-46). This deals with the giving of food and drink, accommodation and clothes to those in need as well as looking after the sick and visiting those in prison. In the case of Ruth, the archetypal refugee, she had bound herself to her mother-in-law Naomi and to her faith in the God of Israel.
She benefited from the protection decreed by God towards the poor when she went out into the fields to pick up the leftover grain behind the harvesters, as set out in foundational legislation in Leviticus 19:9-10 and 23:22. All three passages need to be read together – we should help those in need. However, there does not appear to be a case in the Bible for promoting the large scale acceptance of refugees who would create a ‘Trojan Horse’ situation by bringing with them an alien culture and religion with customs and beliefs contrary to one’s own. This contrasts with the EU’s foundational freedoms – free movement of goods, services, capital and labour which are backed by law enforced by the European Court of Justice. No government or elected parliament may legally violate or change the laws relating to these freedoms regardless of the wishes of individual voters. The ‘freedom of movement’ law means that our own Government is not free to stop the flow of migrants into Britain. We are battling with the problem of large scale migration at the moment - there will come a time when migrants who have entered into central Europe are given a European passport and will have free and unhindered access to whichever country they choose within the European Union and increase Britain’s headaches.
7. Defence of Our Nation One other issue that has been prominent in recent days is the defence of our nation. There is an EU move to create a European Defence Force where all individual nations’ resources are pooled and controlled centrally. Can this create a more secure Europe? We also have to reflect on how a European Army would be employed – what sort of ‘truth’ would this army operate under? The British Forces uniquely have to go through a Christian ‘Alpha for Forces’ course as part of their basic training; this is designed to offset the general lack of morality training in the home and/or at school. Can we in any event create a secure defence system? At best we can plan for perceived ‘risks’ and hope that we pick up the necessary intelligence in a timely way. The Christian’s security should be based on what King David wrote about in the Psalms. One reference should suffice (Psalm 3:8): ‘From the LORD comes deliverance.’ The issue for the reader is whether he or she is prepared to live by God’s word or whether he or she follows the path of the French Revolution. THE PROPHETIC I copy here words of a Prophecy from David Noakes, given at a Ministry Leaders meeting November 2015 and recorded on the Moriel Ministries website: "I warn you now that he European institution will not repent, even though I bring disaster and destruction upon it.
I urge you, O Britain still beloved by Me for the sake of your godly forefathers, come out of her, so that you may not be caught up in that same destruction, for I am even now arising in judgment to bring to nothing what she has sought to achieve. If you will separate yourself from her declared rejection of God, I will have mercy upon you and restore my hand of protection; and I will use you once again to bring light to many lost in the darkness which is now steadily increasing. "Hear Me, O once godly nation and respond to my call, or you also will come to ruin in that same judgment of destruction. This is not my will for you, but you must choose the course which you will take. I urge you to respond to Me and choose life under my hand of discipline and protection, rather than death in the disaster which is even now coming upon Europe." If Britain returns to Judeo-Christian morality and its corresponding values, which were at the heart of its culture, it can still save its national soul. The words that Moses spoke to Israel over 3,000 years ago are apposite:
9 Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments. 10 But those who hate him he will repay to their face by destruction; he will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate him. 11 Therefore, take care to follow the commands, decrees and laws I give you today. Whilst these words were addressed to the ancient Hebrews, they could have a bearing on our survival as a nation. The pages of history are littered with ruined civilisations that thought they could reject the natural moral law, the Judeo-Christian ethic. The Christian way is to follow the only words we know to be true. One of the Greek philosophers, Plato, came to the same conclusion: “False words are not only evil… but they infect the soul with evil.” POSTSCRIPT The case has been made. You will note that I have not referred to economic or employment issues. I consider these to be ‘red herrings’ in the decision-making process at this juncture.
Consider the arguments of the ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ campaigns – one side produces a report or a so-called authoritative supporter and the other immediately rejects it with warnings about its shortcomings. I feel certain that no-one can say for certain what will happen either way since we can predict the factors which will be affecting world markets going forwards – I can only remind of Harold MacMillan’s words when he was Prime Minister on what he most feared: ‘Events, dear boy, events.’ I am a keen student of Hebrew and I quote from 1 Samuel 15:23, where Saul had his comeuppance with the LORD for failing to carry out the duties assigned to him. “Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king.” The underlying meaning of the word ‘rejected’ in both cases is revealing: it means that ‘the mother’s love has been removed to leave chaos’ – the rejection is removing what underpins security. Do we need to worry about the economic situation?
We need to try to safeguard our future and it is my view that there are enough entrepreneurs in the UK to take advantage of the opportunities that a Brexit would provide. I conclude with a question: would you rather have the UK save her soul than have the Government save its face by following unelected European Commissioners who get their authority from… on the last point I do not know the answer!
Sunday 29 May 2016
Thursday 26 May 2016
THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND VOTES TO ALLOW SODOMITE MINISTERS TO BE IN SAME-SEX MARRIAGES!! I AM SCOTTISH AND I AM ASHAMED OF THIS!!
New post on Now The End Begins |  |
|
"BREAKING NEWS ISRAEL" WITH HOW THE FALSE POPE FRANCIS EMBRACES A TOP IMAM IN A NEW VATICAN POW-WOW OF A MEETING!!
Pope Francis Embraces Top Imam in Vatican Pow-Wow
Relations between the church and Islam have been growing steadily warmer since Pope Francis rose to the position in 2013. His predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, ruffled many feathers when he was perceived to have linked Islam to violence in a 2006 speech, ironically leading to violent protests and reprisals against Christians in several countries.
Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb’s surprise meeting with Pope Francis, announced only last week, began with hugs and kisses between the two leaders. “Our meeting is the message,” Vatican officials reported Pope Francis as saying.
Tayeb’s mosque, also a center for learning, said in a statement that the two sided agreed to convene a “peace conference”. Tayeb was also quoted as telling the pope, “We need to take a joint stance, hand in hand, to bring happiness to humanity. Divine religions were revealed to make people happy, not to cause them hardship.”
While the Vatican would not confirm whether such plans had been formed, a spokesperson described the meeting between the two leaders as “very cordial”, with Tayeb spending 30 minutes with Pope Francis and about an hour at St. Peter’s altogether.
The meeting between the pope and imam represents the reciprocation of a meeting held in 2000 between Pope John-Paul II and the grand imam of al-Azhar at the time, in Cairo. A long time in coming, the Vatican said both clerics had “underlined the great significance of this new meeting.”
Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said in a statement that the pope and the imam had “mainly addressed the common challenges faced by the authorities and faithful of the major religions of the world,” including world peace, violence in the Middle East and terrorism.
During the meeting, Pope Francis presented Tayeb with a copy of his recent encyclical, Laudato Si’, which calls attention to the threats of climate change and economic inequality.
Abbas Shuman, deputy to the imam, told AFP Sunday that Tayeb’s visit to Rome was the result of Pope Francis’s many conciliatory gestures.
“If it were not for these good positions the meeting would not be happening,” he said, adding the imam wishes to promote “true Islam and to correct misunderstandings created by extremist terrorist groups.
“He encourages countries not to deal with their Muslim citizens as groups that present a threat,” Shuman continued, “and he encourages Muslims in Western society to meld with their societies… it is a message for both sides.”
Read more at http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/68398/pope-francis-embraces-top-imam-vatican-pow-wow-05-16/#Soo7JGMXrqaGWva1.99
EVEN MORE INFORMATION ON THE EU REFERENDUM BEFORE YOU CAST YOUR VOTE ON THE 23RD JUNE. TAKE MY ADVICE "AND VOTE LEAVE"!!!
Ash
House, 39
High Street, Chard, Somerset, TA20
1QL
Dear
Sirs
Re: European Referendum
I
have been evaluating the arguments for and against Britain remaining as part of
the European Union in connection with the forthcoming referendum on 23rd.June
2016. My own background research has uncovered the under mentioned facts and I
beg your indulgence for citing facts that you may already be fully aware of but
do so in order to elicit your own views on the same.
In
2007 the controlling body of the EU, the European Council (which incidentally
is unelected) met in Lisbon to set in motion a new Constitution for Europe
known as the Lisbon Treaty. As I understand it this was to modify and replace
the founding Treaty of Rome, together with the 1992 Maastricht Treaty which
itself had been purposely drafted to drive forward the integration of Europe.
All 27 member states as they were then were obliged to ratify this New Constitution
by December 2009.
In
its 2007 pre-election manifesto, the Labour Party promised British voters a
referendum on this proposed New Constitution formulated under the Lisbon
Treaty. Sadly Gordon Brown the then Prime Minster, reneged on this promise and
instead steam-rolled the Lisbon Treaty through Parliament just days after the
Irish had voted NO to this proposed Constitution in their own national
referendum.
My
research have lead me to conclude that the EU is not just a free trade area, a
common market (which we all signed up for)
but its core proposal and intent is to bring about a FISCAL and POLITICAL
union. Very few people are aware of the plans Brussels has been implementing
since 1990 under both the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty. The 25 year plan
known as “INTERREG” is to create a Europe of the Regions, a super-state to
permanently overcome old borders in an endeavour to achieve a united Europe.
Our Government has already devolved its own Union into its own constituent
parts with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland having their own parliaments
since 1998. But under “INTERREG” the EU is preparing to divide Britain into three-
five regions, all being joined to areas in other European countries. Each new
zone is to have its own assembly and flag.
The Arc Manche is one of the five transitional regions that is to
replace England and Scotland which will then cease to exist as we know it. The Arc consists of the southern and south
eastern coasts of Britain and the northern coast of France together with a part
of Belgium. This area will comprise the following County Councils of Kent, West
Sussex, Hampshire, Brighton and Hove City, Southampton City and Devon. On the
other side of the channel, the Arc Manche
comprises Brittany, Normandy, Calais and part of Belgium. The Arc is to be the first Transnational
Regions with others to follow - it is particularly important because it
includes both ends of the channel tunnel - both the south English coast and the
tunnel will be placed under French control. Its administrative capital will be
in Paris and its President a Frenchman.
The Atlantic Region: includes
Western parts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland which they propose joining
with Portugal and Spain.
The Northern Region: has eastern England and parts of Scotland joined
with Norway, Sweden, Demark, Belgium and the Netherlands and parts of Germany.
There
are five stages to “INTERREG” and we are currently in the fifth and final stage
2014-2020. If this plan succeeds it will divided Britain up and place each
Region under foreign control. I understand that Germany is the one country not
to face fragmentation. That will enormously increase Germany’s power which is
already great as she is the largest country in the EU and her banking system is
already controlling weaker EU Nation states. The rest of Europe including
Britain will be balkanised into ineffective little statelets (the Transnational Regions). Both Napoleon and
Hitler attempted to destroy our national sovereignty, freedoms and democracy and
many during the first and second World Wars gave up their lives to defend our
freedoms.
Given
the aforesaid information is true I would be pleased to learn from you
(i) Why successive British Governments
(both Labour and Conservative) have withheld this critical information from the
general public and
(ii) Why there has been a total
blackout in the national media in so far as these facts are not being disclosed
in the current EU referendum debate so that we as citizens have all the
relevant facts and can make an informed decision before casting our vote on 23rd
June next.
I would
be pleased to learn from you whether the facts are as stated and what your observations/views
are on these matters. I await the favour of your reply by return in view of the
imposed time constraints.
Yours
faithfully,
Hazel
Gaul
Heather
Metcalfe
"THE EU - WE HAVE CREATED A MONSTER" FROM "UNDERSTANDING THE TIMES NEWS"!!
THE EU
'WE HAVE WE CREATED A MONSTER'
So says Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek Finance Minister as Greece is bailed out again this week for the fourth time to the tune of another €10 BILLION.
In the video below, Yanis Varoufakis speaks candidly about what he experienced when he dared to challenge the EU 'TROIKA' in 2015. He was elected by the people to stand up to the TROIKA and to bring the message 'NO MORE AUSTERITY''. He knew that previous IMF loans that were supposedly to help the Greek people, had actually been used to BAIL OUT THE BANKS! His fundamental negotiating position therefore, was to stand firm on behalf of the people. It led to his resignation - BUT WHY?
WHY WOULD BRITAIN WANT TO JOIN?
"THE EU REFERENDUM - "BANKS TURN TO LOOTING GREECE" - AND MUCH MORE FROM THE CUTTING EDGE "UNDERSTANDING THE TIMES NEWS"!!
Understanding the Times News
2nd Edition (18) 25th May 2016
THE EU REFERENDUM
"BANKS TURN TO LOOTING Greece"
So says Dr Paul Craig Roberts, the former US Assistant Treasury Secretary and Editor of The Wall Street Journal.
WHY WOULD BRITAIN WANT TO JOIN?
We Have Entered The Looting Stage Of Capitalism — Paul Craig Roberts
May 25, 2016
Having successfully used the EU to conquer the Greek people by turning the Greek “leftwing” government into a pawn of Germany’s banks, Germany now finds the IMF in the way of its plan to loot Greece into oblivion .
The IMF’s rules prevent the organization from lending to countries that cannot repay the loan.
The IMF has concluded on the basis of facts and analysis that Greece cannot repay. Therefore, the IMF is unwilling to lend Greece the money with which to repay the private banks.
The IMF says that Greece’s creditors, many of whom are not creditors but simply bought up Greek debt at a cheap price
in hopes of profiting, must write off some of the Greek debt in order to lower the debt to an amount that the Greek economy can service.
The banks don’t want Greece to be able to service its debt,because the banks intend to use Greece’s inability to service the debt in order to loot Greece of its assets and resources and in order to roll back the social safety net put in place during the 20th century. Neoliberalism intends to reestablish feudalism—a few robber barons and many serfs: the One Percent and the 99 percent.
The way Germany sees it, the IMF is supposed to lend Greece the money with which to repay the private German banks.
Then the IMF is to be repaid by forcing Greece to reduce or abolish old age pensions, reduce public services and employment, and use the revenues saved to repay the IMF.
As these amounts will be insufficient, additional austerity measures are imposed that require Greece to sell its national assets, such as public water companies and ports and protected Greek islands to foreign investors, principallly the banks themselves or their major clients.
So far the so-called “creditors” have only pledged to some form of debt relief, not yet decided, beginning in 2 years.
By then the younger part of the Greek population will have emigrated and will have been replaced by immigrants fleeing Washington’s Middle Eastern and African wars who will have loaded up Greece’s unfunded welfare system.
In other words, Greece is being destroyed by the EU that it so foolishly joined and trusted.
The same thing is happening to Portugal and is also underway in Spain and Italy. The looting has already devoured Ireland and Latvia (and a number of Latin American countries) and is underway in Ukraine.
The current newspaper headlines reporting an agreement being reached between the IMF and Germany about writing down the Greek debt to a level that could be serviced are false.
No “creditor” has yet agreed to write off one cent of the debt. All that the IMF has been given by so-called “creditors” is unspecific “pledges” of an unspecified amount of debt writedown two years from now.
The newspaper headlines are nothing but fluff that provide cover for the IMF to succumb to presssure and violate its own rules.
The cover lets the IMF say that a (future unspecified) debt writedown will enable Greece to service the remainder of its debt and, therefore, the IMF can lend Greece the money to pay the private banks.
In other words, the IMF is now another lawless Western institution whose charter means no more than the US Constitution or the word of the US government in Washington.
The media persists in calling the looting of Greece a “bailout.”
To call the looting of a country and its people a “bailout” is Orwellian. The brainwashing is so successful that even the media and politicians of looted Greece call the financial imperialism that Greece is suffering a “bailout.”
Everywhere in the Western world a variety of measures, both corporate and governmental, have resulted in the stagnation of income growth. In order to continue to report profits, mega-banks and global corporations have turned to looting.
Social Security systems and public services–and in the US even the TSA airline security screening–are targeted for privatization, and indebtedness so accurately described by John Perkins in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, is used to set up entire countries to be looted.
We have entered the looting stage of capitalism. Desolation will be the result.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)