By David Hamilton

1. A WELCOME FOR IMMIGRANTS AND FOR ISLAM

In a question and answer session with a group European journalists, and published in November 2008 by French magazine Café Babel, European Commissioner Jaques Barrot (mail him here) lifted the veil on the secret machinations of the EU rulers and their real views on Islam and mass immigration, and how they are trying to destroy Europe.

Does Europe need immigration?

Yes. The demographic situation of Europe requires a migration which must be concerted.  The mission of Europe is also a will to facilitate exchanges between countries.  Immigration is at the same time an economic and moral requirement.

At the beginning of October, German Chancellor Angela Merkel told new immigrants at their reception ceremony, “Germany thanks you“. Do you conceive such an event on a European scale?

There are many symbolic acts of this kind which can be imagined for showing the immigrants that they have really a place.  We will probably consider this type of demonstration when we write the new directive on the conditions of reception for refugees.

[…]

The European immigration policy, however, does not fit with the logic of gratitude. Critical voices reproach you for building “Fortress Europe”.

We left one very sedentary period where the borders had become an obsession.  Today, the immigration pact which the French presidency has adopted is balanced.  There is a legitimate desire to refuse illegal immigration and, at the same time, a desire for Europe to be more dynamic in taking in immigrants.

You are known to be favourable to “open Europe but with very clear rules of the game”.  How does the current immigration policy accord with this spirit of openness?

First of all, in the legal regulation of migration with the Blue Card for skilled workers will be an entitlement to family reunion.  At the same time by circular migration it will perhaps make it possible for people to profit their compatriots from the knowledge that have acquired in Europe.

Isn’t it, however, about selective immigration if one uses immigrants in the markets in Europe like substitutes?

Therefore we wish to reinforce our knowledge of the needs of Member States for skilled workers and, at the same time, to monitor immigration in Africa to know what is possible or not in each African country - which, obviously, must retain the benefits of its own skilled workers.  This is why we regularise migration of skilled workers in particular, to prevent the plundering of African and Asian brains and human resources.

[…]

Islam is perceived by certain people as incompatible with the European values of democracy, peace and equality of the sexes.  How does the EU see these problems?

This manner of seeing Islam as antagonistic to European values is completely partial and erroneous.  Islam is a monotheist religion which, to me, appears compatible with our secular principles.  What is not, in fact, compatible is fundamentalisms - not only Islamic - which want to segregate and exclude other religions.  From the moment that pluralism is accepted by Islam, in any case in Europe, Islam is welcome.  What is true is that we will always fight against the fact that in the Islamic world Christian communities are not always given the respect they are due.  But that is specific to certain Islamic states, and is not a characteristic of Europe.  Europe is in favour of religious pluralism and, obviously, any Islam which wants to be present in Europe must accept this pluralism.

2. THE OBLIGATION TO INTER-BREED WITH BLACKS AND BROWNS

On December 17 last year Nicolas Sarkozy, himself 25% Hungarian, 25% French, 50% Jewish, called with stunning frankness for métissage, meaning racial panmixia, in a speech to the students of the Ecole Polytechnique in Palaiseau:-

Here is a translation courtesy of Galliawatch:-

“(...) the objective is to meet the challenge of “métissage” - the challenge of “métissage” that the 21st century is confronting us with. The challenge of “métissage”, France has always been familiar with it, and by meeting the challenge of “métissage” France remains faithful to her history. Moreover, it is consanguinity that has always provoked the end of civilizations and societies

In the course of centuries, France has always known “métissage”, France has always been “métissée”.
France has crossbred cultures, ideas and histories. France, who was able to crossbreed these cultures and these histories, constructed a universal language, because France herself is universal in the diversity of her origins.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the last thing: If republican will power does not function, it will be necessary for the Republic to resort to even more forcible methods.

But we don’t have a choice. Diversity at the base of the country must be reflected by diversity at the head of the country.

It is not a choice. It is an obligation. It is an imperative. We cannot do otherwise at the risk of finding ourselves faced with considerable problems.

We must change, so we will change.

3. TREASON AND LIES IN HIGH PLACES

These following documents held in the UK national Archive expose the hidden agenda of bringing us under control in the EU totalitarian state.  The law of treason was repealed but in fact we have been betrayed.  When Minister of State for Europe, Edward Heath, visited Professor Hallstein, President of the European Commission in November 1960, his report noted that Hallstein emphasised that joining the EEC was not just a matter of adopting a common tariff but an introduction to a new statehood.  It would be necessary, insisted Hallstein, for any new entrant to accept the principle that the EU was to evolve into something much deeper “some form of federal state”.

PRO/FO/371/150369: In 1969 the Council of Ministers commissioned the Prime Minister of Luxumbourg, Pierre Werner develop a plan to bring full economic and monetary union to the Common Market. At this time a secret briefing note to Heath from Con O’Neill, our senior civil servant responsible for Europe, described “a process of fundamental importance, implying development towards the political union… going well beyond the full establishment of a common market.”  The Werner plan was for “the ultimate creation of a European Federal State, with a single currency.” Basic instruments of national economic management -  fiscal, monetary, income and regional policies - were to be transferred to the central federal authority within a decade.

PRO/FCO/30?789: Heath lied to the British people.  In the White Paper distributed to every house in June 1971, he stated:” There is no question of Britain losing essential Sovereignty”.  In a Television broadcast to mark our entry into the EEC: “There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty.  Those fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”

The move to the Lisbon Treaty began in May 2000 when Joscha Fischer, then German Foreign Minister, and former Marxist extremist, called for a European constitution, a call endorsed by EU leaders in December 2001 at Laeken, near Brussels as a “constitution for European citizens.”

Then in 2003 the constitution written by Giscard d’Estaing was passed to members governments.  The Constitution was signed in Rome in 2004.  This was resisted but Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, demanded an inter-governmental conference to propose a new text.  This came out in October 2007 and was an old style “amending treaty” rather than a replacement of previous documents.  This was an exercise in obscurantism and the chaos of cross-references, amendments, sub-texts, deletions and protocols are impassable.  It was “The Lisbon Treaty” and described as “The Treaty amending the Treaty establishing the European Community.”  It was ratified in Britain on 18 July 2008 but the public were not told till the day before.  As usual, the Queen signed the instrument of ratification.

We had been promised by Tony Blair that there would be a referendum on the original constitution.  That promise was endorsed by Gordon Brown, and appeared in the 2005 Labour Party election manifesto.  He said:-

“We will put the European constitution to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a “Yes” vote.”

But when it came down to it, Brown denied that Lisbon was in all significant respects the original constitution, and refused to give the country its chance to vote it down.

The Irish referendum result should have ended the Treaty because it should be ratified by all 27 countries.  Sarkozy told the European Parliament in July 2008:-

Irish voters have plunged the EU into a crisis with the rejection of the Treaty.  It is Europe’s duty to act now.

He suggested that the Irish have another referendum - and another and another until the right answer was given!

The House of Lords didn’t amend the Treaty Bill to provide for a referendum.  It refused to slow the ratification by debating the implications of the Irish vote on 11 and 18 June respectively.

Giscard d’Estaing told the Irish Times on July 21st that the rejection had not finished the treaty as it should have done in law.  Instead, he said:-

We’re evolving towards majority voting because if we stay with unanimity we’ll do nothing.

The substantive content of the Lisbon treaty is the biggest transfer of our power to the EU, and the politicians and media know it. 

Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxumbourg, revealed the import to the Daily Telegraph 3 July 2007:-

“Of course there will be significant transfers of sovereignty.”  He said he did not want to draw the attention of the British people to too much specific detail but gave an overall perspective: “There is a single legal personality for he EU, the primacy of European law, a new architecture for foreign and security policy; there is an enormous extension in the EU’s power; there is the Charter of Fundamental Rights.”

Then European Court of Justice was model/ed on the French Conseil D’Etat and this set the precedence for the EEC’s legal procedures from 1964. In Costa V Enel (Case6/64) the judgement is that:-

The transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of the rights and obligations under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights, against which a subsequent unilateral act at variance with community principles can not prevail.

This showed the E.C.J. to be an administrative law court with competence to rule on any legal issue linked to, or arising out of, administrative actions.  It is now an arm of the government of the new state, the European Union.

In 2008 the real nature of the contents of the Lisbon treaty was revealed by Michael Connarty, MP, Labour Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee:-

“Every provision of the Constitution apart from the flags, mottos and anthems, is to be found in the Lisbon Treaty.  We think they are fundamentally the same and the government have not produced a table to contradict our position.”

Angela Merkel admitted to the European Parliament on 27 June 2007 that:-

“The substance of the Constitution is preserved.  That is a fact.”

Author of the Constitution, Giscard d’Estaing, chairman of the Convention, admitted on 17 July 2007:-

“In terms of its content the proposals remain largely unchanged; they are simply presented in a different way ...the reason is that the new text could not look too much like the constitutional treaty.”

Bernie Aherne, Irish PM,  told the Irish Independent on 24 June 2007:-

“They haven’t changed the substance- 90 per cent of it is still there.”

The EU elites are deceiving European people.

4. NATION-KILLING IN THE SERVICE OF THE NEW SOVIET UNION

The articles show how we are being subsumed into a totalitarian EU state by the Lisbon Treaty.  Article 4(2) was added to the Treaty protocol and gives the EU the legal powers to influence the UK into participating in EU plans to control our legal system and to comply in areas of justice and home affairs.

Article61(4) allows the EU to put pressure on us to recognise judicial decisions of other member states. This called the reciprocity principle and is to lead to harmonisation of civil law and constrain our common law and statute.

Article 69D(a) gives the EU Euro-just arm the power to bring criminal investigations and to instruct national authorities the power to bring proceedings.

Article69E(4) makes provision for a European public prosecutor with the power to override decisions by the Crown Prosecution Service and for mandatory co-operation between the police forces of member states. This includes the exchange of information, training, research methods and investigation techniques.

Article69G will expand the powers of Europol making it the EU police force.

Article 68(3) gives Brussels power to impose identity cards on us and the Treaty allows the EU to assume control of our asylum and immigration policies.

We lose control of immigration to the EU as Article 63(b) states we must help pay for asylum seekers on other4 EU states if their economies are not as sound\as ours.

Article 62(1)(a) removes controls on persons crossing internal borders - uncontrolled immigration from EU countries goes on.

Article63(1) gives the EU the power to decide on who and for how long residents of non EU states can stay in the UK.

That the EU is really a state in its own right is proved by article Article46(A) as it confirms that the EU can sign international agreements that will be binding on the UK

The following film features Valdimir Bukovsky explaining the similarity between the methods of the EU and the old Soviet Union (Bukovsky was punished for his dissidence with 12 years in Soviet labour camps and psychiatric units).

Further, Bukovsky told the Brussels Journal:-

“In 1992 I had unprecedented access to Politburo and Central Committee secret documents which have been classified, and still are even now, for 30 years. These documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home.”

“In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included former Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone, former French President Giscard d’Estaing, American banker David Rockefeller and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank.”

The theme of the federal state again: “In the middle of it Giscard d’Estaing suddenly takes the floor and says: “Mr President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen – probably within 15 years – but Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that.  You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other East European countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared.”

Another man who sees what Bukovsky sees is Czech President Vaclav Klaus.  On 20 February 2009, he likened supporters of greater European integration to the Soviets.  Addressing the European parliament, he said:-

“Not so long ago in our part of Europe we lived in a political system that allowed no alternative and therefore no parliamentary opposition …  Here [in the European Parliament] there is only one single alternative, and those who dare think about a different option are labelled as enemies of European integration.”

5. THE NEW CRIMES OF RACISM AND XENOPHOBIA

Muslims marched through our streets chanting for Jews to be gassed … Hizb ut Tahrir recruits on campuses for the Jihad against Europe … an Asian Labour Lord issues a veiled threat of violence unless a member of the Dutch Parliament, Geert Wilders, is refused entry to address a private meeting of British MPs.  It is perfectly plain that things have got out of hand.

The Home Secretary who banned Wilders told the News of the World on 13/04/2008 that security forces are investigating thirty terror plots which threaten Britain:

“We now face a threat level that is severe. It’s actually growing. “There are 2,000 individuals who are being monitored. There are 200 networks involved and 30 active plots… Since the beginning of 2007, there have been 57 people convicted on terrorist plots. Nearly half of those pleaded guilty—so this is not some figment of the imagination. It is a real risk and a real issue we need to respond to”

But she but banned Wilders!

Bukovsky predicted oppressive EU laws against people the elites label negatively:-

“If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union… It has no KGB – not yet – but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes – two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. .. Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes. I think Patricia Hewitt said this publicly.”

On 20 April 2007, the Council of EU Justice Ministers in Luxembourg reached political agreement on a Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia. This concluded the negotiations at the European level, held since 2001:-

?“In the future, there will be binding minimum harmonisation throughout Europe of the provisions on criminal liability for disseminating racist and xenophobic statements. Public incitement to violence and hatred, as well as the denial or gross trivialisation of genocide out of racist or xenophobic motives, will be sanctioned across Europe. With this, we are sending a clear signal against racism and intolerance”

But Muslims are exempt.  Bukovsky added:-

“Look at this persecution of people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve homosexuality.  France passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays.  Britain is passing hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious speech, and so on and so forth. What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures.  Apparently that is the whole purpose of Europol.”

6. THE PLAN FOR UNITING EUROPE, NORTH AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE-EAST

In his Brussels Journal article The Eurabia Code, Fjordman draws from Bat Ye’or’s book of the same name to reveal the full extent of the conspiracy:-

“This is a matter of a total transformation of Europe, which is the result of an intentional policy,” said Bat Ye’or. “We are now heading towards a total change in Europe, which will be more and more Islamicized and will become a political satellite of the Arab and Muslim world. The European leaders have decided on an alliance with the Arab world, through which they have committed to accept the Arab and Muslim approach toward the United States and Israel. This is not only with respect to foreign policy, but also on issues engaging European society from within, such as immigration, the integration of the immigrants and the idea that Islam is part of Europe.”

… This political agenda has been reinforced by the deliberate cultural transformation of Europe. Euro-Arab Dialogue Symposia conducted in Venice (1977) and Hamburg (1983) included recommendations that have been successfully implemented. These recommendations were accompanied by a deliberate, privileged influx of Arab and other Muslim immigrants into Europe in enormous numbers.

The recommendations included:

1. Coordination of the efforts made by the Arab countries to spread the Arabic language and culture in Europe,

2. Creation of joint Euro-Arab Cultural Centers in European capitals,

3. The necessity of supplying European institutions and universities with Arab teachers specialized in teaching Arabic to Europeans,

4. The necessity of cooperation between European and Arab specialists in order to present a positive picture of Arab-Islamic civilization and contemporary Arab issues to the educated public in Europe.  These agreements could not be set forth in written documents and treaties due to their politically sensitive and fundamentally undemocratic nature. The European leaders thus carefully chose to call their ideas “dialogue.” All meetings, committees and working groups included representatives from European Community nations and the European Council along with members from Arab countries and the Arab League. Proceedings and decisions took place in closed sessions. No official minutes were recorded.

Here are further issues raised by Bat Ye’or in her book.

In 2002 Louis Michel,  then Belgian minister of foreign affairs and today a member of the European Commission, told the Belgian parliament that the EU will eventually encompass North Africa and the Middle East as well as Europe.

What has happened since is that European leaders are increasingly open about the idea of enlarging the EU to include the Arab world, although they do of course not present this as surrendering the continent to Islam.  They consider their people to be defeated and irrelevant. After the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty/European Constitution, the people no longer have a say and can safely be ignored.  Open plans for a Mediterranean Union or Union for the Mediterranean, which will include all EU member states, Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey, were launched in mid-2008.

At the same time plans were laid for a north-south co-presidency and a permanent secretariat as well as the definition of a ‘‘short-list’’ of priority projects for the region.  The European Commission proposed the creation of a co-presidency between the EU and a Mediterranean (Muslim) country, chosen with consensus for a two-year term.  Brussels is drawing the institutional profile of what will be called “the Barcelona Process — A Union for the Mediterranean.

7. THE REAL WELCOME LAID ON FOR ISLAM

Writing in an Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, former Italian President Francesco Cossiga in 2008, admitted that the government of Italy in the 1970s agreed to allow Arab terrorist groups freedom of movement in the country in exchange for immunity from attacks.  The government of Prime Minister Aldo Moro reached a “secret non-belligerence pact between the Italian state and Palestinian resistance organizations, including terrorist groups”. According to the former president, it was Moro himself who designed the terms of the agreement with the foreign Arab terrorists.

The terms of the agreement were that the Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country, and they had freedom of entry and exit without being subject to normal police controls, because they were ‘handled’ by the secret services, Cossiga explained.

As Interior Minister, Cossiga said that he learned PLO members in Italy had diplomatic immunity as representatives of the Arab League.

“The Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country.”

This can only be seen as Jizya, and the practice has spread to the entire European Union, which pays the Palestinians tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Euros annually, and seems confident that Al Qaida will never attack it.

For years the Belgian authorities have pursued a policy of turning a blind eye to extremist groups in return for their implicit agreement not to target Belgium. Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt recently indicated that, given Belgium’s conduct in foreign policy, it is unlikely to become a terror target. [MR readers who know of Martin van Creveld‘s “nuclear“ outburst might like to consider it in this context - Ed]

What was thought of as Jewish banking is being taken over by Saudis.  Gordon Brown and Business Secretary Lord Mandelson went to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states in the first week of November 2008 to ask them to fund our faltering economies by putting billions into the International Monetary Fund and offered them some control over Britain and the West. The Saudi regime is behind Islamisation of the West.  It is Saudi’s Wahhabi form of Islam which, together with the Shi’ites in Iran, aims to make Islam dominant in the world. Saudi money has financed the spread of Wahhabi mosques, preachers and educational institutions in this country promoting holy war and converting thousands of British Muslims.

Saudi Wahhabism seeks to conquer the West through a pincer movement comprising violence on the one hand and cultural infiltration on the other and our Prime Minister is colluding with them. Mandelson stated the Saudis and other Gulf states would be given more influence in global institutions.  Barclays Bank, has had almost £6 billion invested from Abu Dhabi and Qatar.

Islamist ideas are also spread through Islamic study centres attached to our universities.  Professor Anthony Glees revealed eight universities — including Oxford and Cambridge — have accepted more than £233.5 million from Saudi and Muslim sources since 1995, spreading radicalism and creating two separate identities and sets of allegiance.  Now the education system is being used to brainwash our children to excuse and encourage Muslim terrorism.

The elites showed their submission to the House of Saud, ignored the law and abandoned the bribery investigation into the arms deal between Saudi Arabia and BAE systems when the Saudis threatened that, if the case was not dropped “British lives on British streets” would be at risk - as explained by former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles.  These are the controllers of terror groups in the West that EU officials are colluding with against the European people!