Black Conservatives Conflicted on Obama Campaign
http://www.newsmax.com/politics/black_conservatives_obama/2008/06/14/104549.html
WASHINGTON -- Black conservative talk show host Armstrong Williams has never voted for a Democrat for president. That could change this year with Barack Obama as the Democratic Party's nominee.
"I don't necessarily like his policies; I don't like much that he advocates, but for the first time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it," Williams said. "I can honestly say I have no idea who I'm going to pull that lever for in November. And to me, that's incredible."
Just as Obama has touched black Democratic voters, he has engendered conflicting emotions among black Republicans. They revel over the possibility of a black president but wrestle with the thought that Obama doesn't sit beside them ideologically.
"Among black conservatives," Williams said, "they tell me privately, it would be very hard to vote against him in November."
Perhaps sensing the possibility of such a shift, Republican presidential candidate John McCain has made some efforts to lure black voters. He recently told Essence magazine that he would attend the NAACP's annual convention next month, and he noted that he recently traveled to Selma, Ala., scene of seminal voting rights protests in the 1960s, and "talked about the need to include 'forgotten Americans.'"
Still, McCain has a tall order in winning black votes, no doubt made taller by running against a black opponent. In 2004, blacks chose Democrat John Kerry over President Bush by an 88 percent to 11 percent margin, according to exit polls.
J.C. Watts, a former Oklahoma congressman who once was part of the GOP House leadership, said he's thinking of voting for Obama. Watts said he's still a Republican, but he criticizes his party for neglecting the black community. Black Republicans, he said, have to concede that while they might not agree with Democrats on issues, at least that party reaches out to them.
"And Obama highlights that even more," Watts said, adding that he expects Obama to take on issues such as poverty and urban policy. "Republicans often seem indifferent to those things."
Writer and actor Joseph C. Phillips got so excited about Obama earlier this year that he started calling himself an "Obamacan" _ Obama Republican. Phillips, who appeared on "The Cosby Show" as Denise Huxtable's husband, Navy Lt. Martin Kendall, said he has wavered since, but he is still thinking about voting for Obama.
"I am wondering if this is the time where we get over the hump, where an Obama victory will finally, at long last, move us beyond some of the old conversations about race," Phillips said. "That possibly, just possibly, this great country can finally be forgiven for its original sin, or find some absolution."
Yet Phillips, author of the book "He Talk Like a White Boy," realizes the irony of voting for a candidate based on race to get beyond race.
"We have to not judge him based on his race, but on his desirability as a political candidate," he said. "And based on that, I have a lot of disagreements with him on a lot of issues. I go back and forth."
Michael Steele, the Republican former lieutenant governor of Maryland who lost a Senate race there in 2006, said he is proud of Obama as a black man, but that "come November, I will do everything in my power to defeat him." Electing Obama, he said, would not automatically solve the woes of the black community.
"I think people who try to put this sort of messianic mantle on Barack's nomination are a little bit misguided," he said.
John McWhorter, a self-described political moderate who is a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute and a New York Sun columnist, said Obama's Democratic Party victory "proves that while there still is some racism in the United States, there is not enough to matter in any serious manner. This is a watershed moment."
"Obama is probably more to the left than I would prefer on a lot of issues," he adds. "But this issue of getting past race for real is such a wedge issue for me. And he is so intelligent, and I think he would be a perfectly competent president, that I'm for him. I want him to get in because, in a way, it will put me out of a job."
James T. Harris, a Milwaukee radio talk show host and public speaker, said he opposes Obama "with love in my heart."
"We are of the same generation. He's African American and I'm an American of African descent. We both have lovely wives and beautiful children," Harris said. "Other than that, we've got nothing in common. I hope he loses every state."
Moderate Republican Edward Brooke, who blazed his own trail in Massachusetts in 1966 as the first black popularly elected U.S. senator, said he is "extremely proud and confident and joyful" to see Obama ascend. Obama sent Brooke a signed copy of his book, inscribed, "Thank you for paving the way," and Brooke sent his own signed book to Obama, calling the presumed Democratic nominee "a worthy bearer of the torch."
Brooke, who now lives in Florida, won't say which candidate will get his endorsement, but he does say that race won't be a factor in his decision.
"This is the most important election in our history," Brooke said. "And with the world in the condition that it is, I think we've got to get the best person we can get."
Williams, the commentator, says his 82-year-old mother, who also hasn't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate, has already made up her mind.
"She is so proud of Senator Barack Obama, and she has made it clear to all of us that she's voting for him in November," Williams relates. "That is historic. Every time I call her, she asks, 'How's Obama doing?' They feel as if they are a part of this. Because she said, given the history of this country, she never thought she'd ever live to see this moment."
Man Changes Name to 'In God We Trust'
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,367185,00.html
ZION, Ill. — A school bus driver and amateur artist from the northern Chicago suburb of Zion has legally changed his name to "In God We Trust."
A Lake County circuit court judge approved Steve Kreuscher's name change petition on Friday.
Under the arrangement, the 57-year-old's first name was changed to "In God" while his last name was changed to "We Trust."
He says the new name symbolizes the help God gave him during tough times and says he can't wait to begin signing his artwork with the new moniker.
Evangelical Fined for Liberty Bell Demonstration
http://www.newsmax.com/us/liberty_bell_evangelical/2008/06/14/104580.html
PHILADELPHIA -- The leader of a Christian evangelical group who expressed his religious views to tourists near the Liberty Bell was placed on one year's probation for refusing to move from a sidewalk where demonstrations are banned.
Repent America director Michael A. Marcavage, 28, of Lansdowne, Pa., was sentenced Friday after a two-day bench trial. He was fined $420 and ordered to notify the National Park Service and get a permit if he planned to return to the site.
"Welcome to the new America," Marcavage said outside the courtroom. "God help us. We're all headed for trouble if this is the direction the country is going in."
Marcavage was charged Oct. 6 while he and others preached their religious views and protested abortion on a sidewalk outside the building that houses the Liberty Bell.
The sidewalk is open to the public but the park service restricted demonstrations there after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Officials at Independence National Historical Park offered Marcavage a demonstration site a half-block away, but he refused.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Arnold Rapoport found Marcavage guilty of violating a verbal permit and interfering with park rangers.
Defense lawyer C. Scott Shields said he would appeal.
Second Batch of Secret Files Found On Train in Britain
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,367123,00.html
LONDON — A second batch of secret government files has been found on a train, this time detailing Britain's efforts to tackle terrorism financing, the drugs trade and money-laundering, a British newspaper said Saturday.
The Independent on Sunday, in a preview made available late Saturday, said the files were found on a London-bound train on Wednesday, the same day classified documents on Al Qaeda and Iraq were handed to the British Broadcasting Corp.
The BBC said those documents, also left on a train and stamped "UK Top Secret," carried assessments of Al Qaeda's vulnerabilities and the capabilities of Iraq's security forces.
The newspaper said the papers were given to it, that it had returned the latest documents and would not be publishing any of the details they carried.
It was not immediately clear where the documents came from or which government body was responsible for their security.
Britain's Cabinet Office, which coordinates policy across various government departments, did not immediately return a call seeking comment late Saturday. Neither did the country's Treasury.
London's Metropolitan Police said they were not investigating the incident.
The British government has suffered a series of highly embarrassing security breaches, including the theft of an unencrypted computer carrying information on 600,000 prospective military recruits from a recruitment officer's car.
But recent incidents were dwarfed by the admission, in November, that tax officials lost computer discs containing information — including bank records — for 25 million people, nearly half the country's inhabitants.
Eye on the EU: The Trouble With Iron and Clay
http://www.fulfilledprophecy.com/commentary/eye-on-the-eu-the-trouble-with-iron-and-clay/
The Lisbon Treaty was rejected Thursday by Irish voters. What does their vote mean for the EU and for the WEU Ten? Guest columnist Mishael Meir — an attorney with interest in EU legal development — answers this question.
Ireland’s “No” vote on the Lisbon Treaty tells us just how brittle the EU structure really is. The existing EU treaties gave rise to a power-thirsty oligarchic government that overlays 27 sovereign democracies. It’s quite a brittle blend of iron and clay, an iron fist attempting to rule over the pliable clay of democracy.
Having bullied the vote on the Lisbon Treaty out of citizens’ hands from all but one democracy, the EU heads of state concocted a bait and switch: get Ireland to say yes by hiding their plans for expansion of the EU military and security mechanisms until after the Irish had voted. Up until the vote results came in early Friday morning, EU leaders had been huddled behind closed doors, divvying up the power they hoped would soon be handed over by the member states under the Lisbon Treaty.
As reality sets in and finger pointing begins, the EU leaders may again pressure the Irish to reconsider and hold a second referendum, just like they did in 2001 when they agreed to insert stronger provisions to preserve Ireland’s neutrality as incentive for the Irish to approve the Nice Treaty on their second vote. More immediately, the EU will press its member states to continue with the remaining ratifications through 2008. Without these outcomes, the EU won’t be able to assess how much work is needed to fashion yet another means to what they call “institutional efficiency.” But more on that later.
What could deepen this crisis even further is that the EU could see more “No” votes in coming months. Thus far, 18 state parliaments have voted “Yes,” Ireland’s citizens have voted “No,” and eight parliamentary votes remain. Citizens in the UK and the Netherlands will bring increasing pressure on their governments to allow them to vote instead of their parliaments.
Without getting the Irish on board and collecting the remaining ratifications, it will be nearly impossible for the EU to enact the failed constitution/Lisbon Treaty under yet another treaty or by legislation. That’s because for EU power to have legitimacy, it has to have at least the semblance of democratic consent. It doesn’t look like it is going to get it.
Meanwhile, the WEU Ten Is the Only Alliance Standing
Without the Lisbon Treaty, the Western European Union alliance remains the only existing military alliance of EU states. The EU will have to determine which direction to go — whether to build their military framework around the WEU Ten or continue by separate treaty among a select group of states with something similar to the Lisbon Treaty’s “permanent structured cooperation.” As I have said here before, if a tragedy hits the EU while it is in disarray, the WEU Ten will be all it’s got.
At that time, the WEU Ten will have to determine which way they will go. The prophet Daniel predicted that the revived Roman Empire would be a brittle kingdom:
40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. 41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. 42 As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. 43 And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay. (Daniel 2:40-43)
Which among the peoples of these 10 kingdoms won’t remain united? Which ones may refuse to go along with the rule of an iron fist and be “pulled out” (Daniel 7:8)? I suggest looking at the cultures and recent histories of the EU and its member states.
EU’s Toxic Brew
What intrigues me most about the failure of the draft constitution treaty and now the probable failure of the Lisbon Treaty is the toxicity brewing in EU culture. Consider for a moment how essential a people’s culture is to the type of government they are willing to accept.
Two examples of opposites come to mind. Putin was able to rip out Russia’s democratic reforms in a very short period of time because, essentially, the Russian people yearn for the economic order enabled by autocratic rule and also for the glory of their former empire.
The other example is how fascism never took root in France during the 1930s despite the numerous fascist movements that formed there. Scholars attribute this to the French people’s deep identity with democracy, something that was not as fervent in the hearts of the neighboring peoples of Germany, Italy and Spain, despite the high levels of unemployment and other troubles that existed in France as well as in these fascist states.
And consider this. Most of the 18 states that have ratified the Lisbon Treaty are either small former Soviet satellites that are desperate for military security and/or they are countries where either fascism, appeasement to fascism, and/or large Marxist political parties is in their recent history. In other words, many of the 18 find oligarchic rule with weak democratic military control much more tolerable than countries like the UK or Ireland do.
After spending the past two decades handing over increasing areas of their sovereign power to the EU, it seems to have become ingrained in EU heads of state that consenting to power transfers from national governments to a central EU authority is a rather noble thing to do. We’ve seen their resort to euphemisms like “institutional efficiency” to justify their collusion in sucking away more and more power from their own people, free of the hassles of democratic intrusion.
We’ve seen large numbers of EU leaders behave, without apology, like bullies, manipulators and deceivers to get what they want from their people. We’ve seen them revel in the glory of the empire they have built and dream of expanding further. All of this is happening with little protest from the European people or media.
It makes you wonder what will emerge from this toxic brew of iron and clay. As Herb would say, stay tuned.
Why Europe’s National Politicians Sign Away National Sovereignty
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2785
I have often compared the European Union to a cartel – a cartel of governments, engaged in a permanent conspiracy against their own electorates and parliaments. This analysis seems to have been dramatically confirmed by the Lisbon Treaty, signed last week, which replaces the defunct “constitution” rejected in referenda in France and the Netherlands in 2005.
Although a lot of anti-EU rhetoric rightly concentrates on the overweening power of the unelected European Commission – which indeed generates far too many laws and has an institutional self-interest in augmenting its own power – what many Eurosceptics overlook is that European integration also, and crucially, favours the power of national governments over that of their respective national parliaments. Because laws in the EU are made by the Council of Ministers, i.e. the committee of 27 ministers for whichever subject is being voted on, EU integration means that governments receive wide-ranging law-making powers.
This is, of course, incompatible with the principle of the separation of powers. According to that principle, the executive power (the government) should be separate from, and accountable to, the legislature (the national parliament) and of course the judiciary. Dictatorship is precisely the form of government in which the executive is not so constrained, and this is also the case in the EU. Because the EU represents a dramatic and constant transfer of legislative power from national legislatures to national executives (sitting in the Council of Ministers), it can also be dubbed “a permanent coup d’état” (to use the phrase François Mitterrand used in 1965 to attack the powers of the Fifth Republic, long before he was happy to wield them himself). The fact that the Council of Ministers, the EU’s legislature, meets and votes in secret only makes the fundamentally anti-democratic character of the European construction even clearer.
It is for this simple reason that all establishment politicians, whether of Left or Right, are in favour of the EU. It increases their power and their room for manoeuvre. How much easier it is to pass laws in a quiet and secret meeting with your twenty-seven colleagues, than it is to do so in front of a fractious parliament where there is usually an in-built opposition which will attack whatever you do! How much more comfortable to engage in a bit of mild horse-trading with like-minded politicians from other countries, than to have to argue your case in the glare of public criticism! How much better to be able to vote an unpopular law and then blame “Europe” for it instead!
For many decades, this conspiracy worked wonderfully, mainly because Europe adopted and stuck to the so-called “Monnet method”. Named after the European Community’s brilliant if vain founder, Jean Monnet, the Monnet method consists in sapping power away from national parliaments on the quiet. This is achieved by pretending that the powers thus alienated are non-political – technical things like coal and steel, the common market, the single currency. This impression that the powers transferred are merely technical is reinforced by the fact that the transfers are usually effected by means of impenetrable treaties written in a language no one can understand.
There have been only two occasions when this principle has been abandoned, and on both occasions it had led to failure. The first was after the signature of the Maastricht treaty in December 1991. That treaty was conceived as a geopolitical quid pro quo for German unification: France agreed to the reunification of Germany on the basis that it would subsume its deutsche mark hegemony into that of the euro. In other words, it was a big political project which was presented to the electorate as such and as a great leap forward for European unification in general. It was rejected by Danish voters in June 1992. France responded by declaring that she too would hold a referendum, which in turn was very nearly rejected in September of that year. The Danes were forced to vote again in 1993, and so Europe’s pet project, the euro, passed by only a whisker.
The second time that Europe announced a big political project was when it drew up the constitution. However little interest people took in the details of treaty law, the word “constitution” was politically resonant. It focussed attention on the federal vocation of the EU, hitherto hidden from view by the Monnet method. People understood that it meant the permanent alienation of power from their nation-states, but it also allowed people to project their other worries clearly onto the EU, especially about excessive deregulation, competition from cheap labour countries in Eastern Europe, and of course the prospect of a new wave of immigration from Turkey if ever that country is admitted as an EU member.
Voters in France and the Netherlands, two founder members of the EU, therefore rejected the proposed constitution.
As a result of that rejection, Europe’s leaders have now decided to put behind them their foolish flirtation with democracy and return instead to the tried and tested method of doing things behind closed doors. Rather than announcing a big political project in a language which most people can understand, the new Lisbon Treaty goes back to the old method of formulating only amendments to previous treaties. You simply cannot understand the text unless you go back through the previous treaties to see what articles are amended, which few people have the time or the inclination to do. Whereas the constitution at least had the merit of clarity, the new treaty displays all the old EU vices of opacity and legalese. This is quite deliberate. Europe’s leaders know that such a difficult text will never attract the same hostility as the old constitution because it is simply too difficult to understand.
How do we know that this is deliberate? We know because the author of the defunct constitution, the former French president, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, has told us so. In an article in Le Monde in October, Giscard wrote that the new treaty had been composed “by jurists” who had taken the content of the old constitution and simply re-formulated it in terms of amendments to existing treaties. “They started with the text of the constitution,” he wrote, “took its elements apart one by one, and made them correspond by means of amendments to the two existing treaties, Rome (1957) and Maastricht (1992) […] What is the purpose of this subtle manoeuvre? First and above all to escape from the constraint of having to hold a referendum by dispersing the articles and by renouncing the constitutional vocabulary.”
As I say, the EU is a cartel of governments and a conspiracy by them against their electorates. It is an affront to democracy and should be dissolved.
Lisbon Treaty - Some Quotes
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/damocles/june_2008/lisbon_treaty_some_quotes.htm
“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly … All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
- Former French President V.Giscard D’Estaing, who helped to draw up the EU Constitution which the French and Dutch rejected in their 2005 referendums and which is now being implemented through the Lisbon Treaty, Le Monde, 14 June 2007
_______
“France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all Member States if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments … There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK.”
- French President Nicolas Sarkozy,at meeting of senior MEPs, EUobserver, 14 November 2007
_______
“The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content … The proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through the old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary.”
- V.Giscard D’Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, The Independent, London, 30 October 2007
______
“They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception. Where they got this perception from is a mystery to me. In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand! But, there is some truth [in it]. Because if this is the kind of document that the IGC will produce, any Prime Minister - imagine the UK Prime Minister - can go to the Commons and say ‘Look, you see, it’s absolutely unreadable, it’s the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum.’ Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new.”
- Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, recorded by Open Europe, The Centre for European Reform, London, 12 July 2007.
______
As ever, draw your own conclusions.
Blair seeks EU constitution by the 'back door'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/21/nlabour21.xml&site=5&page=0
Tony Blair was accused yesterday of preparing to introduce a scaled-down European constitution by the "back door" before he quits as Prime Minister this summer.
The Conservatives and the UK Independence Party reacted angrily after Downing Street confirmed Mr Blair did not believe a referendum would be needed on a new European treaty expected to be agreed during his final days in office.
After the European constitution was rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands, EU leaders are looking at ways of introducing many key changes by amending existing treaties.
Mr Blair told journalists on Thursday that a treaty amending the existing legal base would not have the characteristics of the constitution which aimed to re-establish the Union with the trappings of statehood, such as a flag and anthem.
A Brussels summit on June 21 will be Mr Blair's last appearance on the European stage and will tie the hands of his successor on key EU constitution issues.
Germany, the current holder of the EU's rotating presidency, has confirmed that talks will go beyond setting a timetable for a new European treaty to tackle the substance. Berlin has sent a questionnaire to all Europe's capitals and is asking for feedback on a 12-point checklist of controversial points from the former EU constitution.
Britain, the Netherlands and Czech Republic have all called for elements that have constitutional trappings to be dropped in order to avoid a requirement that it be approved by a referendum.
But the 18 EU countries that have already ratified, or largely ratified, the constitution will resist fundamental change.
Both Labour and the Conservatives were committed to a referendum on the original constitution, but it was shelved after the No votes in France and the Netherlands.
Mr Blair expects to agree the basic outline of a new treaty at the June summit, leaving his successor to oversee negotiations on details and ratification by Parliament.
Downing Street confirmed yesterday it was Mr Blair's view that a referendum on proposed changes in Brussels would not be needed. It declined to say to what extent Gordon Brown, Mr Blair's likeliest successor, had been involved in discussions.
William Hague, the Conservative foreign affairs spokesman, said: "What he is saying now sounds suspiciously like an attempt to introduce elements of it by the back door, despite its decisive rejection by the voters of France and Holland."
Nigel Farage, UK Independence Party leader, said: "The British people have not had a say on our position in the EU for 32 years, and we must have a referendum on any treaty which transfers power away from Westminster.''
Opponents of EU Treaty Accused of Being 'Terrorists'
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/10248/Opponents%2Bof%2BEU%2Btreaty%2Baccused%2Bof%2Bbeing%2B%27terrorists%27
Eurosceptics have been branded "terrorists" just days before Tony Blair prepares to fly to Brussels to smuggle in the new EU constitution by the back door.
Critics of the EU’s secret plans to bring back the failed European constitution by stealth at this week’s summit were blasted by the Italian President, Giorgio Napolitano.
The Italian head of state told a news conference in Siena last week that "those who are anti EU are terrorists".
And he attacked eurosceptics who warn that the promised new EU treaty will go too far in eroding the powers of member states, saying: "It is psychological terrorism to suggest the spectre of a European superstate."
His comments emerged as EU foreign ministers gather in Luxembourg today to negotiate the new treaty to replace the failed EU constitution, ahead of a summit of EU leaders in Brussels on Thursday.
Ahead of what will be his last major political event before he hands over to Gordon Brown, Mr Blair has been forced to deny widespread claims that he will seek to sign up to a new treaty which will revive the key planks of the constitution, which was doomed after it was rejected by French and Dutch voters in referendums in 2005.
Downing Street issued a list of Britain’s "red line" issues where Mr Blair will refuse to hand over powers to Brussels, such as the veto on criminal justice and labour law and Britain’s seat on the UN security council, but refused to offer British voters a referendum on the treaty.
But critics say Mr Blair is, like most other EU leaders, determined to bring the failed EU constitution in by the back door by simply renaming the document as an "amending treaty" and slimming down its original 500 pages.
Campaigners for national referendums on the proposed treaty were left outraged when President Napolitano spoke out last Monday alongside the German President, Horst Kohler, who nodded in agreement at his comments.
President Kohler also described the tactics of eurosceptics as "populistic, demagogic campaigning".
The words of the two men were seen by many in their home countries as a thinly veiled attempt to link euroscepticism with the demagoguery and populism of the fascist regimes of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.
Mr Blair’s claim that the new treaty is not simply a re-hash of the rejected constitution were dismissed by eurosceptic campaigners, who pointed to the statements of other European politicians in recent weeks.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in a letter to fellow leaders, revealed last wek that most countries want to keep the "substance" of the constitution.
And former French president Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, a key architect of the EU constitution, said last week: "I am strongly opposed to a mutilated treaty. The European Council must establish a clear road map and a clear mandate to achieve the process for the ratification of the constitutional treaty."
Meanwhile, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier recently said "closed-door negotiations among the 27 EU governments were making progress in deciding on what to do with the constitution", adding: "Everyone wants to push this forward."
UKIP leader, Nigel Farage MEP, said: "This treaty is the constitution by another name. The agenda has always been to sneak it in under another guise. It is a deliberate and deceitful attempt to prevent free and fair referendums not just in Britain but all European countries.
"It will have enormous adverse implications for Britain, yet it is just being bulldozed through. Blair will sign away our future - just days before he leaves No 10 - and his legacy will be a hand grenade with the pin pulled out."
Brown Breaks Promise on EU
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/47671/Brown-breaks-promise-on-EU;
Gordon Brown was accused of “illegally and immorally” breaking his promise to hold an EU referendum yesterday.
His Government failed in “straight-dealing with the public” by ditching an election pledge to offer a vote over the EU Treaty.
The allegations were made as the High Court in London yesterday heard the first day of evidence in millionaire Tory donor Stuart Wheeler’s action against the Government.
The hearing began a crucial week for the Prime Minister over his EU policy. Tomorrow, the Lords will vote on a last-ditch Parliamentary attempt to revive the referendum over the EU Lisbon Reform Treaty.
On Thursday, Ireland, the only country to hold a referendum on the treaty, will vote. Opinion polls suggest the outcome is on a knife-edge. A “No” vote would throw the EU into chaos.
Mr Wheeler, 73, who runs spread-betting firm IG Index, said in a statement yesterday that the refusal to hold a referendum was “not only immoral but illegal”. He said: “This was a referendum the people of Britain were promised well before the last election, during it, and after it. But instead of fulfilling that promise, Gordon Brown has tried to push the Constitution in via the back door by rebranding a document and presenting it as a completely different text.”
His barrister Rabinder Singh, QC, said: “The Government promised a referendum and should keep its promise.”
He said that at stake were the fundamental principles “of good administration, fair play and straight dealing with the public”.
Labour promised a vote in 2005 but when the Constitution was replaced by a Treaty, it withdrew its pledge.
Mr Singh argued that the promise had given rise to “a procedural legitimate expectation that a referendum would be held in respect of that Treaty – and by implication any Treaty containing substantially similar terms, whatever its name”.
He told Lord Justice Richards and Mr Justice Mackay that the Treaty and Constitution were virtually identical. Mr Brown had unlawfully failed to honour the Government’s promise of a referendum, Mr Singh said.
But asking the court to reject Mr Wheeler’s application, Jonathan Sumption, QC, for the Office of the Prime Minister, said: “This case is politics dressed up as law.”
He said that if the case was accepted, judges could become involved in political issues where assurances had been given to the electorate.
The hearing continues today.
A Day of Shame For The German Parliament!
http://www.larouchepub.com/hzl/2008/3518bundestag_shame.html
Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche is the chairman of the Civil Rights Solidarity Movement (BüSo) in Germany, which has been organizing throughout Germany against the Lisbon Treaty. Her statement is translated from German, and subheads have been added.
April 24, 2008 will be noted in the annals as the day in which 517 German Members of Parliament, for a variety of reasons, agreed to ratify a major treaty in total disregard for the Constitution, an action which, in practical terms, means annihilating the Constitution, and which is supposed to realize an oligarchical dictatorship in Europe.
The biggest scandal in all of this is that with very few exceptions, the majority of the MPs have not even troubled to read the Lisbon Treaty, or, as one stated flatly, "A non-issue, in our Parliamentary group."
It seems at least for now that the calculation that the European governments' leaders worked out last Dec. 13, was not merely to approve the Lisbon Treaty, but to wave it through their domestic parliaments, without any puplic debate in the media or in the parliaments—at least not in a way noticeable by the population.
All this boils down to is a cold coup from above, whereby the pitiful remains of any legislative competences that the domestic parliaments still enjoy, are to be handed over, lock, stock, and barrel, to the European Union dictatorship in Brussels.
But there will be an aftermath, and not in Germany alone. The matter will go up to the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and to other courts, where the matter of breach of the various domestic constitutions will be raised, and also the fact that the Lisbon Treaty purports to make all the constitutions functionless.
One of the most severe violations is that, according to Section 20, Article 2 of the German Constitution,[1] all authority emanates from the people, and if the people elect MPs, it is precisely to represent that right of the sovereign, the people. In earlier decisions, the German Constitutional Court has held that the representatives may indeed delegate some part of that right—for example, to the European Union; but 100%?
Through the Lisbon Treaty, all power has in effect been taken from the citizens, parliamentary democracy has been suspended, and any policy formulation delegated to the newly created office of the European President (who will be elected for two and a half years), to the Council of Ministers, and to the EU Commission.
This amounts to a thoroughgoing change to the Constitution, that comes within the purview of Section 146, which reads: "This Basic Law, which is valid for the entire German people following the achievement of the unity and freedom of Germany, shall cease to be in force on the day on which a constitution adopted by a free decision of the German people comes into force."[2]
The EU Treaty, which is seen by reputed legal scholars, according to their legal conception, as degrading the domestic parliament to the rank of a mere "regional administrative entity," amounts in reality to a change of the Constitution, even if the heads of state used the transparent trick to change the name to "Treaty," rather than "Constitution," after the people of France and Holland rejected the European Constitution by referenda in 2005.
Apart from a tiny handful of German MPs, most have simply waved the Treaty through this week, without even troubling to read it. The document—which intentionally is completely unreadably save by a legal scholar—was first published in consolidated form on April 15 ("consolidated" refers to the original European Constitution, which is henceforth consolidated in the new Treaty with all subsequent addenda, changes, explanations, and so forth). Consequently, every single one of those MPs, who, from the depth of his ignorance and indifference, has thus baldly disregarded his responsibilities as a representative of the people and approved the Treaty, should only receive one answer: to be voted out of office as quickly as possible.
Media Are Shamelessly Complicit
If another proof were been necessary, here you have it, that the mass media in Europe (and, of course, especially in Germany), are controlled top-down: Between Dec. 13, 2007, when the heads of state signed the Lisbon Treaty, and April 24, when the Parliament ratified it, there has been not one article or report in any major German news outlet, purporting to analyze, report on, or discuss the pros and cons of a piece of law that strikes at the core of our social order.
To add insult to injury, the day after Parliament voted, i.e., April 25, Bild Zeitung published a page-two article under the headline: "EU Treaty—Bild reveals the small print." The paper points to some of the disastrous and undemocratic changes, as if saying, "Too bad, Europe just turned into a dictatorship now! So folks, you'd better get used to it."
The shameless and complete complicity of the mass media begs once again the question of who exactly runs them.
Another example of the media's character: Although the entire world can see for themselves, via the Internet, the images in which soldiers who are seen to attack Tibetan demonstrators are actually wearing Indian and Nepalese unforms, the print and electronic media have nonetheless kept referring to those soldiers as "Chinese." Nor has a single newspaper or television program cared to put the matter to rights. The examples of such manipulation by the mass media are too numerous to mention.
Sophistical Arguments
As for those who deliberately support the EU Treaty, their arguments boil down to sophistry, and they cautiously skirt round all discussion of the brass-tacks of the changes. One of the sophists' main arguments is that anyone who dares to criticize the EU Treaty, is actually an enemy of Europe. Or that "peace" in Europe shall now be "secured" through this Treaty, and that the 20th Century's world wars would never have occurred, had all these nations been thus joined into a centralized Europe.
As it happens, those world wars were not the work of a single nation, but of empire.
It was the British, the Austro-Hungarian, the Tsarist Empire, as well as the German Reich, that provoked World War I.
Another sophistical argument is that Europe must be pumped up to confront U.S. unilateralism, that what we now need is a "multipolar" world.
Multipolar indeed—if that means a United States in an imperial mode, alongside an imperial Europe, and a British Empire retooled as an expanded Commonwealth; the three being used as a battering ram against the aspirations of Russia, China, and India to become world powers. This then is the very stuff of which the first world war of the 21st Century will be made.
If Europe is to be strong, then let her be so as de Gaulle understood it: Europe of the Fatherlands, of sovereign republics, that work together on a bilateral and multilateral basis and engage positively with the rest of the world. Whereas the EU dictatorship, now moving to do away with democracy by pulling the wool over our citizens' eyes, will no longer have to waste time playing hypocritical little games of "human rights" and democracy" to the world, that are a mere pretext to launch preventive wars in the guise of "conflict resolution."
Still Time To Debate!
But the die is not yet cast.
There are organizations on the move in 30 European cities, demonstrating against the EU Treaty in response to an appeal launched by Etienne Chouard, who led the fight against the Treaty during the French referendum in 2005. Every Wednesday, these demonstrations take place, drawing passers-by into precisely the debate that Parliament and the mass media have attempted to choke off.
On the legal front, initiatives are now afoot to stop the Treaty in its tracks. In the Czech Republic, a majority in the Senate has postponed all decision until the Constitutional Court has examined the legitimacy of the procedure and the Treaty's contents.
Similar efforts are under way in Austria, France, Germany,
Italy, Denmark, and Great Britain. A referendum is to be held on June 12 in Ireland, preceded by a huge mobilization of Irish farmers, whose interests have been sold down the river by the EU bureaucracy during the World Trade Organization negotiations, despite looming famine worldwide.
There is still time in Germany to force a debate onto the table, as the Senate will vote only in late May. The opportunity will arise throughout the year to decide on a structure for Europe that actually corresponds to the citizenry's aspiration to democracy and freedom. One should never forget that this very year will see an incredible intensification of the worldwide financial crisis, that will make the best-laid plans of our "think inside the box" politicians into a stack of crumbling paper.
The time to debate the upholding of our freedom and our republican principles in Europe, is now!
[1] Article 20 (Basic principles of state order, right to resist).
1. The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social Federal state.
2. All state authority emanates from the people. It is exercised by the people by means of elections and voting and by separate legislative, executive, and judicial organs.
3. Legislation is subject to the constitutional order; the executive and the judiciary are bound by the law.
4. All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, should no other remedy be possible. (inserted 24 June 1968)
http://www.constitution.org/cons/germany.txt
[2] Duration of validity of the Basic Law (amended by Unification Treaty of Aug. 31, 1990 and Federal statute Sept. 23, 1990).
http://www.constitution.org/cons/germany.txt
Irish 'No' clears the EU 's agenda for crunch summit
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1213385585.27
(BRUSSELS) - The European Union has cleared the decks for a pivotal summit next week, when the agenda will be dominated by Ireland's stunning decision Friday to reject a long-awaited treaty of EU reforms.
"I will invite my colleague (Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen) to take the floor and explain the results and reasons for such a vote," said Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa, whose country holds the EU's rotating presidency.
"Afterwards, we'll together look for a way out or for a solution of the current situation," said Jansa, after Ireland voted by 53.4 percent to 46.6 percent against the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum.
Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker -- Europe's longest-serving leader -- also said that it would be up to Cowen "to lead the way out of the crisis", at the summit in Brussels June 19-20.
Before the Irish voters delivered their bombshell, EU leaders had been due to take forward discussions on who might fill the new posts of president and foreign policy supremo foreseen in the treaty. It had been due to enter force in January.
But all eyes will be on Cowen and minds will be focused on how best to take forward a reform project designed to help the 27-nation bloc run more smoothly as it expands -- a project that has been held up in one form or another for years.
Glances will also be cast Britain's way, as the leaders seek reassurance from Prime Minister Gordon Brown -- politically weakened by recent election disappointments -- that he really will soldier on with the ratification process.
The spotlight could also fall on the Czech Republic, and its eurosceptic leaders, as Prague will play an important role in January 2009, when it takes over the EU's rotating presidency from France.
EU leaders had pledged to try to ratify the vast package of reforms by then so that doubts about Europe's institutional future would not undermine campaigning for European Parliament elections next year.
For Juncker, though, that deadline is certain to slip.
"It is clear that the Lisbon Treaty will not take effect on January 1, 2009," said Juncker, who was at the EU's helm when French voters gave the thumbs down the treaty's predecessor, the draft constitution, in 2005.
Talks with Ireland and the Czech Republic could even start this weekend, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his European affairs minister visiting Prague on Monday.
France has the unenviable task of moving the project forward when it takes over the bloc's reins on July 1, with Sarkozy already committed to chaperoning the ratification process to a successful conclusion.
EU foreign ministers will also grasp the Irish nettle on Monday, when they meet for talks in Luxembourg, where they will have an early opportunity to sound out their Irish and Czech colleagues.
However the head of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso has insisted on making the rising price of oil and the strikes it has sparked around the continent one of the top priorities.
EU Internal Markets Commissioner Charlie McCreevy, himself an Irishman, stressed that "the EU will not grind to a halt as a result of today's vote."
"There are many immediate challenges that we must, by working together in the EU, find responses to, not least being rising food and oil prices, an economic downturn and the threats of rising unemployment," he said.
EU referendum: Gordon Brown urged to kill off Lisbon Treaty after 'no' vote in Ireland
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2124969/EU-referendum-Gordon-Brown-urged-to-kill-off-Lisbon-Treaty-after-'no'-vote-in-Ireland.html
Gordon Brown is under intense pressure to declare the Lisbon Treaty dead after Irish voters delivered an overwhelming vote against the European Union's drive toward greater integration.
In the only popular vote on the treaty to be held in the EU, 53.4 per cent of the Irish electorate rejected its terms – plunging the EU's plans to create a new European president and foreign minister into turmoil.
MPs and campaigners from across the political spectrum called on the Prime Minister to halt moves towards British ratification of the text in the wake of the vote, with David Cameron saying the treaty should now be "declared dead".
The agreement, which would sweep away dozens of national vetoes, must be ratified by all 27 European Union members before it can take force next year.
Opponents said the emphatic Irish result meant the project – described as an attempt to revive the defunct EU constitution – should be completely abandoned.
Mr Brown however, is preparing to defy British public opinion by pushing ahead with the treaty's ratification in parliament. Government legislation ratifying the text is due to get its third and final reading in the House of Lords on Wednesday.
David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said: "It is right that we follow the view that each country must follow the ratification process to its conclusion. It is right that we continue with our own process."
Mr Cameron described the Government's plans as the "height of arrogance" and accused the Government of "flying in the face of public opinion."
He said that Mr Brown should go to the commons on Monday to explain what would happen now.
"If this is not dead, we must be able to have the referendum in this country so that we have the chance to pass judgment on this treaty and put the final nail in its coffin," he said.
Ministers privately concede that abandoning the ratification, Britain would seal the fate of the treaty.
Mr Brown is said to believe that doing so would reduce Britain's influence and split the EU, with countries like France and Germany press ahead with their own integration plans.
However, his determination to push ahead with the treaty puts him at odds with British voters, with opinion polls showing that most reject the document.
A Daily Telegraph campaign seeking a UK referendum on the text last year gathered well over 100,000 signatories.
William Hague, the Conservative shadow foreign secretary, insisted that the British parliamentary ratification process must be stopped immediately.
"The Irish people have spoken and they have made clear that they do not want a Treaty that takes so many powers from the countries of Europe and gives it to distant institutions in Brussels," he said.
"Despite all the threats that have been made they have had the courage to make their own decision. They deserve Europe's admiration and congratulations.
The call was echoed by Labour MPs. Frank Field, a leading Labour opponent of the treaty, said the British process should stop at once.
He said: "The result speaks volumes. The people in the one country given a chance to vote have clearly rejected the Treaty. The Government must now withdraw its Bill ratifying the Treaty which should now be dead'.
Ian Davidson, another Labour opponent of the document said: "It is enormously significant that the only people who have had the chance to vote on the treaty have rejected it by a substantial margin. Now is the time for a period of reflection."
However, European leaders were making plans to find a legal way around the Irish 'No' vote.
Nicholas Sarkozy, the French President, was working with EU leaders and diplomats to plan a special "legal arrangement" to bypass the referendum rejection.
In a joint statement with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the French leader insisted the treaty was "necessary" for the EU and would go ahead.
Mr Sarkozy assumes the rotating presidency of the EU next month, and at a summit in Brussels next week he and Mr Brown will insist that the ratification process continues unchanged.
British sources said that the summit is likely to conclude that the Irish vote is a problem for the Irish government, not the rest of the EU.
"The Irish government will have to go away and think about how to proceed, but the rest of us will keep going," said a Foreign Office source.
Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, insisted that treaty would not be stopped.
"The treaty is alive," Mr Barroso said in Brussels. "The remaining ratifications should continue to take their course."
Every major political party in Ireland had backed a Yes vote, with opposition being led by Libertas, a small, privately-funded campaign group.
Declan Ganley, head of Libertas, said the vote should kill the Lisbon Treaty.
"The No result is the final answer on this particular Treaty That's democracy. That's how it works," he said.
Even the pro-European Liberal Democrats said the Irish result should halt Britain's move to approve the treaty.
Edward Davey, the party's foreign affairs spokesman said: "Once scrutiny of the treaty is completed in Westminster next week its ratification should be suspended."
Bill Cash, the veteran Tory eurosceptic, said: "Gordon Brown must now abandon the British moves to ratify the Treaty and renegotiate the treaties of the European Union. The Conservative party must seize the opportunity to decimate the government's European police and restore democracy to the UK."
Officials in London, Dublin and Brussels were at a loss to explain how Ireland's approval for the Lisbon Treaty can be secured following the result.
In 2001, the Irish rejected the EU's Nice Treaty, but were ultimately pressured into endorsing it in a second referendum after some sections of that text were re-written to address concerns about Ireland's military neutrality.
Privately, some diplomats fear that it will be impossible to address the Irish grievances against Lisbon, which are much wider than the objections raised to the Nice Treaty.
One senior British official said: "With the Nice vote, you could identify specific problems the Irish had with the text, answer them and then move on. But this is less focused, more a general rejection of the whole project, and accommodating it within the process could be very, very difficult."
Brian Cowan, the Irish Prime Minister, appeared to rule out a second Irish referendum to ratify the treaty, insisting that the issue of another vote "didn't arise".
He said: "The result does bring about considerable uncertainty and a difficult situation. There is no quick fix."
Brussels calls for Lisbon treaty ratification to continue
http://euobserver.com/9/26324
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – The European Commission has called for ratification of the Lisbon treaty to continue, despite the No result in Ireland's referendum.
"This vote should not be seen as a vote against the EU… [It] has not solved the problems which the Lisbon Treaty is designed to solve," commission president Jose Manuel Barroso said in Brussels on Friday (13 June).
"The ratification process is made up of 27 national processes, 18 Member States have already approved the Treaty, and the European Commission believes that the remaining ratifications should continue to take their course," he added.
According to final results released on Friday afternoon (13 June), 53.4 percent of Irish people voted against the EU's Lisbon treaty in Thursday's referendum, while 46.6 percent voted in favour.
Participation was at 53.13 percent.
Nevertheless, Mr Barroso said he believed "the treaty is alive" and "we should go on and try to find a solution."
It is "important now that the EU does not fall again in depression and does not forget there are other issues to deal with," he added.
In a joint statement later on, France and Germany also called for the ratification of the Lisbon treaty to continue.
"The ratification procedure has already been achieved in 18 countries. Therefore we hope that the other member states will continue the process," the Franco-German declaration reads.
Britain has already said it would press ahead with the ratification, according to the BBC.
Certain politicians and analysts have started floating other possible scenarios however, with some – such as French prime minister Francois Fillon – saying that the Lisbon treaty is dead if one member state rejects it.
Other suggested alternatives include finalising the ratification in all remaining member states and finding a "legal arrangement" with Ireland – as suggested by French EU minister Jean-Pierre Jouyet, or making the Irish vote again on the document at a later point in time – as it happened with the Nice treaty referendum in Ireland in 2001 and 2002.
In any case, the issue will feature high on EU leaders' agenda when they meet in Brussels next week (19-20 June).
They will then expect Irish prime minister Brian Cowen to "explain the reasons for the rejection of the treaty by the Irish people [as well as] discuss about the situation and look for the ways to move forward," said Slovenian prime minister Janez Jansa, whose country currently holds the EU presidency.
For its part, the commission will soon organise surveys to find out the reasons behind Ireland's rejection of the treaty.
Irish PM fails to rule out second Lisbon referendum
http://euobserver.com/9/26327
EUOBSERVER / DUBLIN - Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen has said that his country's referendum on the Lisbon Treaty result must be respected, but was unclear on whether to rule out a second referendum on the document.
"In a democracy, the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box is sovereign. The government accepts and respects the verdict of the people," he told reporters in a first public statement just minutes after the final results were announced giving the No side an emphatic victory.
In a resounding defeat for the treaty, only ten out of 43 Irish constituencies voted in favour of the Lisbon Treaty.
A majority of Irish people - 53.4 percent - voted against the EU's Lisbon treaty in Thursday's referendum, while 46.6 percent voted in favour, according to final results released Friday (13 June). Participation was at 53.13 percent.
"Once again in Europe, a treaty supported by the leaders of all member states has been unable to secure popular support in a ballot", the prime minister said.
"We must not rush to conclusions. The Union has been in this situation before, and each time has found an agreed way forward. I hope that we can do so again on this occasion."
"I wish to make it clear to our European partners that Ireland has absolutely no wish to halt the progress of the Union."
"We still share the goal of a union fit for purpose in this century," he continued.
"We will take the time to explain this to our partners in Europe and the wider international community."
Mr Cowen also said that the result brings about "considerable uncertainty."
"There is no quick fix."
He could not hide his anger at the No side, calling it an "orchestrated campaign of confusion".
Asked by reporters what the result meant for the ratification of the treaty, the prime minister responded: "It's a matter for the national processes in all member states."
He added: "The question of a second referendum doesn't arise."
However, shortly after, in an interview on Irish public television station RTE, asked by the presenter what he felt about comments from other European leaders saying that ratification should continue, he said: "It's a matter for those governments to proceed as they wish.
Pressed whether he could rule out a "Lisbon Mark II", the Irish leader replied: "I'm not prepared to surmise on that.
"I'm not ruling anything in or out or up or down."
Labour: 'Lisbon is dead'
His Yes coalition ally, Labour leader Eamon Gilmore, however disagreed with Mr Cowen that it should be "full-steam ahead".
"The Lisbon Treaty is dead," he said in a separate RTE interview. "Ireland cannot ratify it – therefore Lisbon falls."
"This has to be recognised by everybody – by the Taoiseach [the Irish prime minister], by other member states."
"This proposal is now gone."
Other Irish politicians were scornful of the idea of continued ratification. European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso earlier in the afternoon had said the remaining ratifications "should continue to take their course."
Patricia McKenna, a former Irish Green MEP and leading No side campaigner reacted angrily to the suggestion: "It is completely unacceptable that anyone in Europe should continue with ratification.
"It shows complete contempt for the voice of the people. They simply fail to understand why people are voting No."
"It's time for the EU bureaucrats and senior politicians to come to grips with the fact that they cannot forge ahead without the consent of the people."
Ms McKenna wants her government to now tell other European leaders they must stop the process.
If European leaders carry on regardless, she warned that demonstrations would be organised across Europe.
A great day for Irish democracy
Mary Lou McDonald, a Sinn Fein MEP and the face of her party's No campaign, objected to French European affairs minister Jean-Pierre Jouyet's mid-afternoon suggestion that ratification continue and that some "legal arrangement" could be cobbled together.
Speaking to the EUobserver, Ms McDonald said: "I would remind the minister that the social issues raised by voters in the Irish referendum were essentially the same as those raised by voters in the French and Dutch referendums [in 2005 on the constitutional treaty]."
"And obviously the treaty requires the consent of every member state to come into effect."
Declan Ganley, the millionaire businessman and founder of Libertas, the centre-right anti-Treaty group campaigning around tax harmonisation issues and against European 'red tape', called the vote: "A great day for the Irish people and a great day for Irish democracy."
"We are bringing democracy into the heart of the European Union," he added, speaking to reporters in the courtyard of Dublin Castle, where the central vote count was held.
Mr Ganley also warned against moves to push forward with the same text.
"[European Union leaders] need to listen to the voices of the people. The people of France and Holland have already spoken and now the Irish are making their voice heard."
Loo-las
Outside the black cast-iron gates of Dublin castle, a few dozen people had gathered awaiting the results. Already black and white posters had appeared on railings and sign posts down the street telling European leaders and the Irish government to respect the result, with "No means No" in large letters.
At the gates, Alan Keogh was sceptical that the No vote was really the end.
"There'll be another re-run. Or they'll throw something similar back at us."
He was pleased with the result nontheless. At the beginning of the campaign, said the twenty-something Mr Keogh, then Prime Minister Bertie Ahern had called people that would vote No "a whole lot of loo-las".
He then unfurled an Irish flag on which he had written in black felt pen: "Who's the loo-la now, Bertie?"
But he also did not want the rest of the EU to feel rejected: "Tell Europe we still love them - just not in that way."
Next week Irish foreign affairs minister Micheál Martin is to meet with fellow European foreign ministers and explain the referendum results to his colleagues. The prime minister will do likewise at the next EU summit of heads of state and government at the end of the week.
EU crisis over Irish 'no' vote to rattle French presidency: analysts
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1213372922.69
(PARIS) - The crisis triggered by Irish voters rejecting the European Union reform treaty will likely push aside other ambitious plans of French President Nicolas Sarkozy when Paris takes over the EU presidency next month, analysts said Friday.
The French presidency of the 27-nation bloc, which starts on July 1, has been "thrown into total confusion," said Hugo Brady of the London-based Centre for European Reform.
The Irish "no" vote "will replace the French presidency plan with a new one -- which is what to do about saving the treaty," he said.
He also noted that the next EU summit on June 19, still under the current Slovenian presidency, "will be held in an atmosphere of crisis."
Ireland was the only EU member state to submit the treaty to a popular vote. In the other EU states, the treaty was subject only to parliamentary approval.
Before the negative result of Ireland's referendum, according to near-complete results announced on Friday, plunged the EU into a new institutional crisis, Sarkozy had talked about concentrating his EU presidency on certain key areas, such as defence, energy and climate change as well as a Mediterranean union and an immigration pact.
Ironically, the EU Lisbon treaty was hammered out to prevent paralysis in the bloc after French and Dutch voters rejected a proposed European constitution in referendums in 2005.
Now Paris will have to lead the way to a new solution after the Irish vote, with the EU once again not having a "Plan B" ready at hand.
"The French will try to find a way out of the mess. That won't be easy and they won't have very much time to do it," said Brady, noting that France has essentially a five-month presidency taking into account the August vacation month in Europe.
Brady recalled that three years ago after the French and Dutch referendums, "no immediate answer was found. They decided to have a period of reflexion and basically did nothing for a little while."
However, Jean-Dominique Giuliani of the Robert Schuman foundation thinks the lessons of the 2005 crisis will push the French presidency "to speed up things."
"Nicolas Sarkozy is going to take the bull by the horns and put forward initiatives. He will say: we will move forward no matter what."
On Friday Sarkozy said he was waiting for the final results of the Irish referendum before issuing a joint reaction with Germany.
"We have agreed with German Chancellor Angela Merkel that we would issue a joint reaction. At that time we will say what we think about it," Sarkozy said.
Giuliani speculated that "they will say to the Irish: 'what guarantees do you want', just as they did with the Nice treaty," which Irish voters also rejected in a first round vote in 2001, but passed a year later, he said.
That scenario may not happen if the crisis leaves Ireland opposed by the 26 other EU member states, or "if Britain and the Czech Republic halt their process of ratification (of the treaty), it will reopen the institutional debate without an immediate solution in sight," said Thomas Klau of the European Council on Foreign Relations.
Sylvie Goulard, head of the European Movement in France, said "the French presidency is interested in maintaining its agenda" because there is no reason to renounce its objectives regarding the climate "on the pretext that several tens of thousands of Irish voters said 'no'" to the treaty.
She added however that Paris will find that the EU presidency for the remainder of 2008 will not be "business as usual."
Folly that could wreck Nato
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1024803/Folly-wreck-Nato.html
When our government refused to hold the promised referendum on the European Constitution, it insisted that what it called a tidying-up treaty would not extend the influence of Brussels over defence or foreign affairs, and that all talk of a European Army was so much scaremongering.
As so often with the EU, it turns out that not only have ministers been misleading the British people, but that plans for a European Army are proceeding rapidly, with the support and assistance of our Government.
Next week, a combination of Liberal Democrat and Labour peers will almost certainly rubber-stamp Britain's ratification of the treaty and Ireland will hold a referendum which until recently it was assumed would also back the Constitution (although it now appears the Irish may be having second thoughts).
Once these inconvenient democratic niceties are out of the way, the French are due to take over the presidency of the Union in July. And they have been quite clear that the big project for their six months in charge is to push ahead with plans for a European military force.
It might surprise many in Britain to know that Brussels already has a considerable military capacity. There are two rotating EU battlegroups, seconded from member states, an operations room in Brussels, and naturally, a panoply of committees and other bureaucracies to develop strategy and tactics.
But once the Lisbon constitution is in place, Europe's military ambitions will be able to accelerate. Under a scheme known as Permanent Structured Cooperation, in which Britain, France and Gerseduced-many are all planning to participate, a core group of nations will push ahead with creating a far more significant EU force, 60,000 strong.
Some 10,000 British troops would be permanently seconded to this force, and France is determined that a new military planning centre will be set up in Brussels to run it.
Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, has been scheming to win U.S. and British support by promising that France will fully rejoin Nato, but only in exchange for the creation of a proper EU Army.
Some U.S. politicians - and some in the British Government, although they have been careful not to say so publicly - have been
by this idea because they believe it will encourage other European nations to spend more on defence, shouldering more of the burden which currently falls almost exclusively on Britain and America.
This is, of course, a complete pipedream. For a start, European countries are reluctant to send even the limited number of soldiers they have on overseas operations.
And when European soldiers are sent overseas, they are often under instructions from their governments not to do any fighting. According to reports, in a recent incident in Afghanistan, a senior Taliban commander cornered by German special forces was able to walk away because they were were not allowed to shoot unless shot at.
No wonder that U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates complained earlier this year about 'some allies being prepared to fight and die' and others who are not.
Not only does the EU lack the political will to fight overseas, it has none of the necessary resources either. Britain is virtually the only member with combat-ready helicopters or planes to transport troops rapidly around the world.
So any significant overseas operation inevitably depends on the Americans, who last year spent £270billion on defence, compared with £30billion in Britain and only £8billion in the likes of Spain. Luckily, we are able to work with Washington through Nato, which gives us access to U.S. troops, equipment and their vital spy satellites.
But the development of a European Army would undermine Nato, creating two parallel military bureaucracies that would not only cost a fortune - much of it, as usual, from the UK taxpayer - but compete directly with each other.
How long before the Americans decided the game wasn't worth the candle, and left the EU countries to get on with it? Then, when Britain faced a threat to our national interest, we would be reduced to asking for mythical EU military aid.
France is plotting to create a Euro Army
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1024630/France-plotting-create-Euro-Army.html
Moves to create a European Army controlled from Brussels have been revealed.
France is pushing for a new dedicated military headquarters and more fighting formations.
The French take over the EU presidency next month and will use their six-month term to drive forward ambitious plans to develop Europe's own military structures - a move which critics claim will undermine Nato by excluding the U.S.
Gordon Brown was forced to make a hurried denial, playing down the prospects of a Euro Army, as the fiercely divisive issue returned to the political agenda.
Critics in the UK are deeply suspicious of strengthening the EU's military identity - fearing that the French see it as a way to challenge Washington's world dominance.
Federalists, however, see a Euro Army as a key building-block of a future super-state.
As MEPs debated EU military policy yesterday, the chairman of the European Parliament's foreign affairs committee called for the Union to develop more 'hard power' military capability and spend more money on a European Army.
Jacek Saryusz-Wolski called for 'a common foreign and security policy, including a European army'.
He said MEPs should in future have the final say on military missions under the EU flag - a move which would strip member states of a fundamental responsibility.
France, which along with Germany and Poland has spearheaded support for greater EU defence capability, has already indicated that the issue will feature heavily in its presidency, starting next month.
The French are expected to call on member countries to boost defence spending and commit more helicopters and aircraft.
The proposals, to be unveiled by President Nicolas Sarkozy, will urge the creation of more of the rapid reaction formations - each consisting of 1,500 troops from member countries - which take turns to be on stand-by for EU peacekeeping or humanitarian missions abroad, wearing the Eurocorps badge.
Enthusiasts for these 'EU Battle Groups' see them as the most likely basis for a future European Army. There are currently 15, including one all-British formation, but the French are expected to push for a dramatic increase.
Opponents in Brussels responded by attacking current joint EU military efforts as 'impoverished and amateurish'.
Andrew Duff, a Liberal Democrat MEP and member of the European Council on Foreign relations, said many member states' armies were archaic and hamstrung by 'miserly' military budgets, so talk of ' burden-sharing' was often meaningless. He said recent research showed only a fifth of the two million troops across EU countries were in a fit state to be deployed abroad.
Critics believe an EU Army would be crippled by deep divisions among allies and the failure of member states to match U.S. levels of defence spending.
The U.S. spends around 4 per cent of its GDP on defence, compared with under 3 per cent in Britain and France and even less in some EU states. There are also fears that moves towards an EU army would undermine Nato and weaken Washington's links with Europe on defence and security.
Tory defence spokesman Liam Fox said: 'The idea of a standing European military force under EU command or the creation of an EU defence budget is wishful but dangerous thinking.'
He added: 'This is another example of the EU getting involved in an area in which it has no business'.
Downing Street sought to defuse the row. Mr Brown's spokesman said: 'The Prime Minister's view is that there will not be a European Army. It is important to remember that the European Parliament has no role in policy in this area.'
The Treaty Con
http://www.fulfilledprophecy.com/workspace/the_treaty_con.pdf
(1) Leaked email reveals Government plans to hoodwink voters (2) Treaty may march us into European army
The Government has hatched an elaborate plan to deceive voters over the forthcoming EU treaty referendum, the Irish Daily Mail can today reveal.
A leaked email shows that ministers are planning a deliberate campaign of misinformation to ensure that the Lisbon Treaty vote is passed when it is put to the public as required by the Constitution.
Foreign Affairs Minister Dermot Ahern has even been personally assured that the European Commission will tone down or delay any announcements from Brussels that might be unhelpful.
Alarmingly, the email says that ministers ruled out an October referendum, which would have been better procedurally, because they feared unhelpful developments during the French presidency particularly related to EU defence.
This suggestion will raise grave fears that the States constitutional commitment to military neutrality could be undermined by the treaty a rehashed version of the failed EU constitution.
The memo was sent to the British government by Elizabeth Green, a senior UK diplomat in Dublin, following a briefing from Dan Mulhall, a top official in the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Its aim was to relay to her political masters in London the lengths to which the Government here was going to in its bid to ensure a Yes vote in the referendum.
Ireland is the only EU state which is allowing voters a say on the treaty, and European heads of state are terrified that they will reject it.
Campaigners have warned that the new treaty could remove Ire-land s powers to decide its own tax rates and social policies.
However, the most controversial aspect is the likelihood that it will be used to advance the concept of a European army, which would violate the principle of neutrality that has long been a foundation-stone of the State.
Irish government embarrassed by leaked EU treaty email
http://euobserver.com/9/25979
German chancellor Angela Merkel has called on Irish voters to back the EU treaty on the same day that the Irish government was embarrassed by a leaked email outlining what a UK diplomat says is Dublin's strategy for holding and winning a referendum.
In a state visit to Ireland, the only country to hold a public poll on the treaty, Ms Merkel on Monday (14 April), said "To my mind, the Lisbon treaty offers the best preparation for Europe's future."
"To the sceptics, I can only say that if everything remains as it is now, your concerns will definitely not be better addressed," she told the National Forum on Europe.
Ms Merkel also reassured Ireland, as a small country, that it will have an equal seat at the EU table noting that the new majority voting system in the treaty "is actually more of a problem for the bigger states."
During her visit the Irish government was forced to contend with a story in the Irish Daily Mail which gives details of an email sent by a British official based in Dublin after a briefing by a civil servant in the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs.
According to the article, the email says that the Irish government had ruled out having a referendum in October although it would have been better procedurally because they were concerned about "unhelpful developments during the French presidency – particularly related to EU defence."
The email noted that French president Sarkozy was considered "completely unpredictable."
The defence issue is extremely sensitive in neutral Ireland. Irish voters rejected the EU's Nice Treaty in 2000 largely on the back of a heated debate about neutrality and European defence issues.
The email also alluded to what has been quietly admitted in Brussels since the beginning of the year – that much of EU politics has been put on hold until after the Irish referendum, scheduled to take place on 12 June.
It said that EU communications commissioner Margot Wallstrom had reassured foreign minister Dermot Ahern during a visit to Dublin earlier this Spring that the "commission was willing to tone down or delay messages that might be unhelpful."
Reacting to the article, prime minister Bertie Ahern denied there had been any strategy on Brussels' part.
"On the article today, of course officials from Foreign Affairs, and my department as well, meet our European colleagues on a very regular basis, but the suggestion that Europe will somehow deliberately change announcements ahead of the referendum is without any foundation," he said, according to the Irish Times.
The leaked email – which was not reproduced in full in the newspaper article – has been seized upon by 'no' campaigners.
Declan Ganley, chair of anti-treaty organisation Libertas, said that the most damning part of the email "was the admission that the Government hoped that very few people would actually read the text of the Treaty, and would simply vote with the politicians they trust."
The revelation also came on the same day that a new poll showed that the treaty remains an enigma to most Irish voters.
Some 65 percent of the 1001 people surveyed by the Irish Sun said they had very little or no understanding of the treaty, 28 percent claimed to have some understanding while 6 percent said they fully understood it.
Meanwhile, 60 percent do not know how they will vote on the treaty while 28 percent said they were planning to vote in favour and 12 percent against.
But the same poll also confirmed what has regularly been shown by EU-wide surveys – that Irish voters are the most positive about effects of the European Union. Some 89 percent surveyed said membership of the bloc had been good for the country.
Engarde! Sarkozy's EU Defence Revolution
http://www.taurillon.org/Engarde-Sarkozy-s-EU-Defence-Revolution
When France takes-charge of the European Council Presidency in July expect President Sarkozy to table an array of ambitious proposals aimed at strengthening the European Union’s (EU) defence capabilities. Is Sarkozy set to ignite an EU defence policy revolution or will his six-months at the helm prove fruitless?
The issue of defence in the EU has long been the focus of much debate. Most member states still regard defence as an area of ‘high politics’ and one of the last remaining bastions of sovereignty in a globalising world. This stance is reflected in the soporiferous nature of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), which is undermined by a lack of funding, inter-governmental squabbling and competition from other defence-pacts such as NATO.
Nevertheless, important steps have been taken to advance a single EU military capability. 1997 saw the incorporation of the Petersberg Tasks into the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), which mandated the EU to undertake humanitarian, peace-making and peace-keeping missions. This was met in 1998 with the signing of the St. Malo Agreement with a view to garnering closer defence cooperation and enhanced military harmonisation [1].
Elite Protection
However, Sarkozy has recently let his feelings be known about the state of torpidity currently afflicting the EU’s defence policy, when he claimed that not enough was being done to protect Europeans [2] . This echoes a widespread feeling of animosity towards the EU’s errant failure to avert atrocities such as those witnessed in the Balkans. It is within this context that Sarkozy has revealed plans to forge an ‘elite’ defence force composed of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom (UK) [3].
Pierre Lellouche, Sarkozy’s defence spokesperson, unveiled the proposals when he outlined eight specific tasks that required action if progress was to be made within the ambit of EU defence matters. The tasks include the formation of a 60,000 strong Rapid Reaction Force – initial plans for the force had never taken-off [4] – a commitment of 2% of GDP annually, a ‘Europeanisation’ of military bases and procurement and the establishment of the EU’s own military capabilities [5] .
The plan comes on the back of the November, 2007 speech Sarkozy gave to the European Parliament where he made clear that more had to be done in forming an EU defence identity [6]. Since then Sarkozy has committed numerous troops to the EU’s force in Chad and paid a recent visit to Africa to re-negotiate its defence presence there. But even with this momentum it will not be easy for Sarkozy to rectify the problems at the kernel of the CFSP and ESDP.
Feeding the Beast
Such problems are both financial and political. From a financial perspective, and to borrow one of Mark Leonard’s observations, the EU currently spends more on the cleaners for its offices in Brussels than it does on the CFSP [7] . This is coupled with the fact that the EU does not spend much on research and development nor does it have the types of military ‘economies of scale’ needed to cut overall defence costs. None of these Brobdingnagian tasks can be completed with just six member states. From a political perspective, Sarkozy should not take the military support he craves for granted. At a recent lecture to the College of Europe in Bruges David Miliband - Britain’s Foreign Secretary - stated that while it was ‘embarrassing’ [8] that the EU could not get its defence policy in order the UK had certain foreign policy differences to France – chiefly Turkey’s EU accession - and would rather continue through existent EU structures and NATO [9] .
Furthermore, while Sarkozy should be commended in wanting a strong EU military presence in the world, it will not be prudent to achieve this by undermining overall solidarity. Should six states ever undertake military action on behalf of twenty-seven? Should they ever do it under an EU-banner? Surely it is prudent to construct an environment whereby the CFSP and ESDP are directed by consensus through the Council rather than by the whims of individuals.
Six Months Later…
Expect then a frantic six-month period while France holds the EU Council Presidency, but also expect Sarkozy’s ambitious plans to fail. Sarkozy will have too much of a full-plate to undertake the cyclopean task of reorganising the CFSP or ESDP within six-months – it has taken nearly sixteen years to arrive at the CFSP’s present state. Nevertheless, if his tenure manages to highlight the importance of defence funding and research and development it might prove to be the impetus the EU needs.
EU member states should take Sarkozy’s proposals seriously especially if the EU wants to be a stronger political and military force for good in the world. In this sense one shares Sarkozy’s frustrations, but whether a genuine answer to such dissatisfactions lay in the formation of any elite military group remains to be seen.
Bush, French President Criticize Iran, Syria
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/392693.aspx
CBNNews.com - PARIS -- President Bush and French President Nicolas Sarkozy each directed one-two punches against Iran and Syria on Saturday, telling Tehran to stop enriching uranium and scolding Damascus for backing terrorism that destabilizes the Mideast.
Bush, standing with the French president at a news conference in Paris, said he was disappointed that Iranian leaders on Saturday had rejected "out of hand" a package of incentives that a group of nations, including the U.S. and France, offered to Iran as long as it halted its uranium enrichment program.
The president said an Iran with a nuclear weapon would threaten world peace. Sarkozy chimed in, saying Iran with such a weapon would be "totally unacceptable." The French leader said the only solution was a "faultless, seamless" regime of sanctions against Iran.
Assessments vary widely, but it is presumed Tehran will have enough fissile material for a weapon within a few years. A U.S. intelligence report in December said Iran once had an active warhead program, but shelved it in 2003. But the administration argues that the continuing enrichment means the military program could be restarted at any time, and without the knowledge of the outside world.
Bush also issued a warning to Syrian President Bashar Assad, saying the Syrians should stop working with Iran to destabilize the Mideast. "My message would be `Stop fooling around with the Iranians and stop harboring terrorists,'" Bush said.
Both leaders were asked what message they want to send to the Syrians to get them to normalize relations with the West and achieve stability in Lebanon. In a statement issued by the French presidential palace, the United States and France sought to dispel signs that they have diverging thoughts on Syria. The joint statement called on Syria and Lebanon to quickly establish full diplomatic relations - a signal that the countries hope Damascus will reduce its interference in domestic Lebanese affairs.
Bush said Syria should serve as a constructive force in the Middle East to help advance a Palestinian state and make it clear to the Islamic militant group Hamas that "their terror should stop for the sake of peace."
Sarkozy warned Syria against standing with Iran on the nuclear standoff and other issues.
The French president said he and Bush agreed about the need to guarantee Lebanon's independence.
Sarkozy sought to play down a growing controversy about an invitation extended to Assad - among other Arab leaders - to France's Bastille Day military parade next month, and plans to include Syria in a new Union for the Mediterranean that Sarkozy has championed.
The two also talked about global warming, the Middle East, trade and Afghanistan. Bush thanked France for agreeing to send at least 700 more troops to Afghanistan. They also talked about Sarkozy's new wife, model-turned-singer Carla Bruni.
"She's a really smart, capable woman and I can see why you married her," Bush told Sarkozy. "I can see why she married you, too."
On Iraq, Bush brushed off criticism that a long-term security deal between the United States and Iraq was faltering.
"If I were a betting man, we'll reach an agreement with the Iraqis," Bush said. "Of course, we're there at their invitation. It's a sovereign nation. We're going to work hard to accommodate their desires. It's their country."
The deal would provide a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires. Bush said the agreement would not commit future U.S. presidents to any troop levels in Iraq and would not establish permanent U.S. bases.
Bush's upbeat assessment came as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declared Friday that talks with the U.S. on the long-term deal were deadlocked. Sunni and Shiite preachers have spoken out against enabling American troops to remain in Iraq after year's end.
Al-Maliki said negotiations will continue, but his tough talk reflects Iraqi determination to win greater control of U.S. military operations after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year. Failure to strike a deal would be a major setback for Bush ahead of the November presidential election.
Bush once again predicted that a peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians was possible by year-end, despite setbacks and violence. "Our job is. to keep the process moving, so I'm optimistic," Bush said. "I understand how difficult it is."
Iran's rejection of the new package of incentives was expected. European Union diplomat Javier Solana presented a modified package of economic, technological and political incentives to Iranian leaders on Saturday on behalf of the United States, Germany, Britain, France, Russia and China. Iran immediately rejected the deal because it requires suspending uranium enrichment.
"I'm disappointed that the leaders rejected this generous offer out of hand," Bush said. "It's an indication to the Iranian people that their leadership is willing to isolate them further. Our view is we want the Iranian people to flourish and to benefit."
Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said earlier this week that such a rejection would trigger the international community to "get much more aggressive" about enforcing the U.N. penalties and taking other steps to squeeze Iran's vast international business and banking relationships.
EU backs Israel upgrade, but differs on peace link
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1331936820080613?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union states support upgrading relations with Israel but some want the move to be linked to progress on Middle East peace, EU diplomats said before talks with Israel on Monday.
Diplomats said all EU member states supported the idea of upgrading relations with Israel in areas such as social policy, regulatory issues and access to the EU single market.
"The point of disagreement has been whether and to what extent to link closer EU ties to progress in the Middle East Peace Process," one EU diplomat said, adding that envoys would seek to overcome differences before EU foreign ministers meet their Israeli counterpart Tzipi Livni in Luxembourg.
Last year Israel proposed a range of possible upgrades in relations, including regular summits of EU and Israeli leaders, and meetings with EU sectoral ministers in addition to the current single annual session at foreign minister level.
It also wanted a high-profile joint declaration at the Luxembourg meeting on boosting ties and giving Israel greater access to EU markets, agencies and spending programs.
EU officials said it remained unclear if Livni would attend the meeting of the EU-Israel Association Council and that this might depend on what was agreed on the EU side on Monday.
Israeli officials have said they were looking for a "political signal" favoring the upgrading of relations.
Arab League ambassadors in Brussels expressed concern this week that discussions on upgrading EU ties with Israel were going ahead "in the absence of any settlement and establishing permanent and just peace in the Middle East".
Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad wrote to Brussels last month urging the EU not to boost relations with Israel, which he accused of "flagrant disregard" of Palestinian rights by continuing to build Jewish settlements.
Diplomats say Egypt has also lobbied the EU against boosting ties with the Jewish state when there was scant progress in the Middle East peace process.
Rice to Press Israelis On Settlement Construction
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,367163,00.html
JERUSALEM — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made it clear Sunday she is unhappy about Israel's ongoing construction in areas Palestinians want for their future state, giving the issue prominent mention ahead of meetings with Israeli leaders.
In what has become a near-monthly ritual, Rice is in the region to prod Israelis and Palestinians closer to a final peace deal as the chances of meeting the year-end target set by the sides appear to be slipping away.
Speaking ahead of a meeting with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Rice said she planned to raise the issue of Israeli settlement construction.
"I am very concerned that at a time when we need to build confidence between the parties the continued building and settlement activity has the potential to harm the negotiations going forward," Rice said.
Israel announced last week it would build 1,300 new housing units in east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as their future capital. The announcement brought to more than 3,000 the number of homes Israel has approved for construction in east Jerusalem and the West Bank since the renewal of peace talks late last year. The Palestinians claim both areas, captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war, as part of a future independent state.
Israel differentiates between east Jerusalem, which it annexed in 1967, and the West Bank, whose status remains unresolved.
"We make a clear distinction between the West Bank and Jerusalem," government spokesman Mark Regev said Sunday. Israel also is building in Israeli-populated areas of the West Bank that it wants to keep under any peace agreement.
The Palestinians say the construction undermines the talks by demonstrating to Palestinians that peace efforts are futile.
When talks were launched in the U.S. late last year, both side agreed to try to seal a deal by the end of 2008, just before President Bush leaves office. But in recent weeks Israeli and Palestinian officials have acknowledged that gaps are still wide and they are unlikely to meet that deadline.
The talks are further complicated by the situation in the Gaza Strip, which is ruled by the Islamic militants of Hamas and is the scene of regular clashes between the Israeli military and Palestinian gunmen who launch rockets and mortars at Israeli towns.
Egyptian attempts to achieve a truce between Israel and Hamas have not succeeded so far, but the effort continued Sunday, with Hamas officials scheduled to meet with Egypt's powerful intelligence chief.
Israel has demanded that any truce deal include the release of an Israeli soldier held for two years by Hamas militants, a demand that Hamas rejects. And Hamas has said Israel must open Gaza's blockaded crossings, which Israel fears will only allow the group to strengthen its hold on Gaza and further increase its already considerable arsenal. Hamas officials have openly stated that is their goal.
Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman, criticized Rice's visit. "The visit of Rice and her continuous identical statements reflect how much the Americans are biased toward the Israelis and how they are trying to blackmail the Palestinian negotiators," he said.
Israel has hesitated to launch a large military operation in Gaza despite the near-daily bombardments from the territory because of concerns that such a move would end with high Israeli casualties and might not stop the rocket fire for long. Past offensives in Gaza have failed to halt the crude rockets.
Israel's deputy defense minister, Matan Vilnai, said Sunday that Israel had to make every effort to see if a Gaza truce could be attained.
"It looks like with Hamas it will have to end with a military blow. But an organization that takes itself seriously must look at all the possibilities before that," he told Army Radio.
Exclusive: Israel-Hamas truce deal abandons Israeli captive, like Lebanon ceasefire
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5349
Commenting on the truce deal shaping up between Israel and Hamas for the Gaza Strip, DEBKAfile’s military sources note that the Olmert government has given way to Hamas on its two key demands: the incorporation in the package of the Israeli soldier, Gilead Shalit, who was kidnapped two years ago on Israeli soil, and an end to arms smuggling through Sinai for the Hamas war arsenal.
Those sources note the similarity of this case with that of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 which halted the Lebanon War two years ago; then too, Israel buckled under outside pressures and failed to obtain the release of two Israeli soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, who remain in Hizballah’s hands to this day.
As DEBKAfile reported last week, Israel has essentially accepted Hamas ceasefire terms formulated by Egypt, as Egyptian intelligence minister Gen. Omar Suleiman will inform a Hamas delegation led by Musa Abu Marzuk from Damascus and Mahmoud a-Zahar from Gaza Sunday, June 15.
Hamas, supported by Cairo, stipulates Gilead Shalit’s return will take place in a separate deal for the list of jailed Palestinians handed Israel some months ago. They include hundreds of hard-case terrorists.
Under the deal, Hamas undertakes to stop its cross-border fire from Gaza and Israel to halt its counter-terror operations for a six-month period, during which Israel will ease its blockade of the territory (reopen some border crossings). Cairo wants to include the Gaza-Egyptian border terminal at Rafah in the deal. If the truce holds up in Gaza, it may be extended to the west Bank.
The Lebanon ceasefire has turned out to be a convenient cover for Hizballah’s rearmament by Iran and Syria and escalating demands for the two captured Israeli soldiers. The same pattern is developing in Gaza where too Hamas receives massive Iranian and Syrian military support.
EU's Solana arrives in Tehran for nuclear talks
http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINL1380330620080613
TEHRAN, June 13 (Reuters) - European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana arrived in Tehran on Friday for talks aimed at helping resolve a dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions, Solana's spokeswoman said.
Solana, who meets Iranian officials on Saturday, is due to hand over a package of incentives offered by six world powers if Iran in exchange suspends sensitive nuclear work the West fears is aimed at making bombs.
Tehran has rejected the charge that it is making bombs and has repeatedly ruled out halting uranium enrichment, which can have both civilian and military uses.
Hindu militants launch fresh attacks on Indian Christians
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/hindu.militants.launch.fresh.attacks.on.indian.christians/19531.htm
There have been fresh attacks against Christians in India – the latest in a series of incidents highlighting the pressures facing Christians from Hindu militants, reports Release International.
Reports have come in that two attacks took place on Thursday in Andhra Pradesh. Hindu militants, allegedly from the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party), attacked a group of pastors holding a conference.
The pastors had gathered in Badrachalam in premises rented out to them by the Temple.
During a morning prayer time, extremists attacked the pastors. But instead of arresting the militants, the police arrested 15 Christian pastors, who are now on bail.
The same day, in Hyderabad, a pastor and another man were attacked by Hindu activists, who accused them of forcing Hindus to convert to Christianity.
Pastor John Mohan has been threatened by extremists to stop preaching Christianity in the area.
On Thursday, they accused him along with another man of forcing people to become Christians.
The irony is that the co-accused is not even a Christian. He is a vehicle inspector who refuses to take bribes to illegally certify that vehicles are safe for use. Observers believe the charge of forced conversion was levelled against him to remove him from his position. The man, Ramesh Babu, is a friend of the pastor.
When extremists confronted the pastor and the vehicle inspector, they blocked the road to prevent police dispersing them. They are demanding a halt to all Christian activities in the area and the suspension of the vehicle inspector.
On June 1 militants burst into a morning church service in Chhattisgarh state. They destroyed furniture and accused the congregation of forcing Hindus to convert to Christianity. They threatened them to stop worshipping Christ.
On May 27, militants beat a pastor with iron rods on his way home from a prayer meeting. They accused him of forcing Hindus to convert to Christianity. The day before (May 26) militants demolished a thatched church in Andhra Pradesh.
Last Christmas, militants killed four Christians and burned 730 homes and 95 churches in Orissa.
"The dreadful list of attacks against Christians goes on," says Andy Dipper, CEO of Release International, which supports the persecuted Church. ‘Our partners in India report murder, destruction and intimidation of Christians. Making matters worse, he added, is the growing number of states passing anti-conversion laws.
"Ostensibly to prevent forced conversion, these have become an extremists’ charter, and are being used to try to silence Christian witness. Please pray for our brothers and sisters in India."
Through its international network of missions Release International supports Christians imprisoned for their faith and their families in 30 nations. It supports church workers, pastors and their families, and provides training, Bibles, Christian literature and broadcasts.
No comments:
Post a Comment