“‘”Claude Cheysson, the former French Minister of Foreign Affairs and a member of the European Commission from 1985 to 1989 described the mechanism in an interview in Le Figaro on 7 May 1994. He explained proudly that the European Union could only have been constructed in the absence of democracy…’
I’ll say that again for the hard of hearing and the hard of thinking. ‘He explained proudly that the European Union could only have been constructed in the absence of democracy, and he went on to suggest that the present problems were the result of having mistakenly allowed a public debate on the merits of the Treaty of Maastricht.’
It leaked out into the public and they had a debate on it; and that was a mistake according to them, it should have been kept secret. ‘The British newspaper the Guardian lodged a case before the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg complaining of the secrecy in which European decisions are taken. Lawyers for the European Council of Ministers responded by stating to the judges that ‘there is no principle of community law which gives citizens the right to EU documents.’ The average citizen is not allowed to have access to any of the European Commission’s or Union’s documents. This is total fascism. ‘They went on to make the astounding claim that although heads of government had repeatedly called for more openness in EU affairs, their declarations ‘were of an eminently political nature and not binding on the community institutions.’ So they asked the judges to ignore the repeated declarations at EU summit meetings in the past two years in favour of greater openness. Statements by the twelve heads of government were no more than ‘policy orientations’ and had no binding effect.’ So you have no say once you’re taken over into this big conglomerate. That’s all it is, a corporate conglomerate, a fascist system. You have no say whatsoever into anything. You can’t even get a hold of the records or anything they’re doing in secret. He goes on to say: ‘This belief that the nomenklatura knows best and that the public is no more than a hindrance explains why there now exists a profound and dangerous divorce between European societies and their governing elites.’ This is from a guy who is one of the elites. He doesn’t mind saying it and he calls them the governing elites. He says: ‘What was done in secret?’ That was the question. Here’s the answer. ‘Quietly and progressively, power was transferred to the seventeen unelected technocrats…’ A technocrat is someone who has been involved in politics and often they’re unelected. They’re appointed. We all have these characters at the high positions. ‘…technocrats who were the members of the European Commission. Originally, power had been entrusted to the Council of Ministers, which consists of the elected national heads of state or their representatives. As they were more interested in national policies than in the creation of Europe, bit by bit the technocrats of the Commission were allowed to take over executive power.’ He says they were allowed to take over executive power. He’s telling you that there’s a higher authority that selects these characters and puts them in placements in those positions. ‘They have been granted the monopoly right to propose new initiatives for the development of the European Union. Their ambition is not modest. Jacques Delors, the outgoing president of the Commission, declared that in future 80 percent of all laws governing economic, social and fiscal affairs of each European nation would originate in Brussels and therefore from proposals initiated by the Commission. As was certain to be the case, this rush towards technocratic hypercentralization has created a Europe which is hopelessly weak externally and unable to influence the course of world events. Internally, the power of the technocracy is employed to destroy sovereignty, freedom and self-reliance.’ And he’s asked: ‘How do you define a technocrat?’ He says: ‘Usually a technocrat is an ex-politician or a civil servant. He is unelected, virtually impossible to dislodge during his term of employment, and has been granted extensive executive and even legislative power without popular mandate and without being directly answerable to the people whose interests, theoretically, he is supposed to represent.’ That is from Sir James Goldsmith, very good book called ‘The Trap’, worth reading. You can get it pretty cheap I’m sure on Amazon or somewhere. That’s from one of the guys who made a speech at the U.S. Senate, one of the best speeches ever, over an hour long warning them of all the pitfalls. What would happen to the people of the U.S. and Canada, Latin America if they amalgamated and copied the European Union.
What he didn’t mention of course was that The Council on Foreign Relations and The Royal Institute for International Affairs was set-up a long time ago; 100 years ago pretty well was set-up exactly to do this, to turn the world into a three-part trading bloc and they placed their members. They put in the technocrats at the heads of all these big organizations who worked diligently their whole lives long towards the amalgamation process. The big foundations back them up. In fact many of the foundations train them and put them out there. They’re unelected and we have never had really democracy. We simply live one long business plan because that’s what the world is, a long, long business plan. Once again, this goes all the way back, we can trace it through history. You can find people like John Dee who was an advisor at the court of Queen Elizabeth I. He was also a spy for Queen Elizabeth I on his foreign tours of Europe, and his designation was 007 by the way. John Dee wrote about the ‘Brytish Empire’ he called it, and how it would be based on free trade. Those who would join get special grants and be given “most privileged nation” trading status – a term that was given to China just before Britain handed Hong Kong back to China. And on it goes; big business plan.”
[From Alan Watt’s radio program, 17th October 2007]
Claude Cheysson: the EU could only have been constructed in the absence of democracy
“‘”Claude Cheysson, the former French Minister of Foreign Affairs and a member of the European Commission from 1985 to 1989 described the mechanism in an interview in Le Figaro on 7 May 1994. He explained proudly that the European Union could only have been constructed in the absence of democracy…’
I’ll say that again for the hard of hearing and the hard of thinking. ‘He explained proudly that the European Union could only have been constructed in the absence of democracy, and he went on to suggest that the present problems were the result of having mistakenly allowed a public debate on the merits of the Treaty of Maastricht.’
It leaked out into the public and they had a debate on it; and that was a mistake according to them, it should have been kept secret. ‘The British newspaper the Guardian lodged a case before the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg complaining of the secrecy in which European decisions are taken. Lawyers for the European Council of Ministers responded by stating to the judges that ‘there is no principle of community law which gives citizens the right to EU documents.’ The average citizen is not allowed to have access to any of the European Commission’s or Union’s documents. This is total fascism. ‘They went on to make the astounding claim that although heads of government had repeatedly called for more openness in EU affairs, their declarations ‘were of an eminently political nature and not binding on the community institutions.’ So they asked the judges to ignore the repeated declarations at EU summit meetings in the past two years in favour of greater openness. Statements by the twelve heads of government were no more than ‘policy orientations’ and had no binding effect.’ So you have no say once you’re taken over into this big conglomerate. That’s all it is, a corporate conglomerate, a fascist system. You have no say whatsoever into anything. You can’t even get a hold of the records or anything they’re doing in secret. He goes on to say: ‘This belief that the nomenklatura knows best and that the public is no more than a hindrance explains why there now exists a profound and dangerous divorce between European societies and their governing elites.’ This is from a guy who is one of the elites. He doesn’t mind saying it and he calls them the governing elites. He says: ‘What was done in secret?’ That was the question. Here’s the answer. ‘Quietly and progressively, power was transferred to the seventeen unelected technocrats…’ A technocrat is someone who has been involved in politics and often they’re unelected. They’re appointed. We all have these characters at the high positions. ‘…technocrats who were the members of the European Commission. Originally, power had been entrusted to the Council of Ministers, which consists of the elected national heads of state or their representatives. As they were more interested in national policies than in the creation of Europe, bit by bit the technocrats of the Commission were allowed to take over executive power.’ He says they were allowed to take over executive power. He’s telling you that there’s a higher authority that selects these characters and puts them in placements in those positions. ‘They have been granted the monopoly right to propose new initiatives for the development of the European Union. Their ambition is not modest. Jacques Delors, the outgoing president of the Commission, declared that in future 80 percent of all laws governing economic, social and fiscal affairs of each European nation would originate in Brussels and therefore from proposals initiated by the Commission. As was certain to be the case, this rush towards technocratic hypercentralization has created a Europe which is hopelessly weak externally and unable to influence the course of world events. Internally, the power of the technocracy is employed to destroy sovereignty, freedom and self-reliance.’ And he’s asked: ‘How do you define a technocrat?’ He says: ‘Usually a technocrat is an ex-politician or a civil servant. He is unelected, virtually impossible to dislodge during his term of employment, and has been granted extensive executive and even legislative power without popular mandate and without being directly answerable to the people whose interests, theoretically, he is supposed to represent.’ That is from Sir James Goldsmith, very good book called ‘The Trap’, worth reading. You can get it pretty cheap I’m sure on Amazon or somewhere. That’s from one of the guys who made a speech at the U.S. Senate, one of the best speeches ever, over an hour long warning them of all the pitfalls. What would happen to the people of the U.S. and Canada, Latin America if they amalgamated and copied the European Union.
What he didn’t mention of course was that The Council on Foreign Relations and The Royal Institute for International Affairs was set-up a long time ago; 100 years ago pretty well was set-up exactly to do this, to turn the world into a three-part trading bloc and they placed their members. They put in the technocrats at the heads of all these big organizations who worked diligently their whole lives long towards the amalgamation process. The big foundations back them up. In fact many of the foundations train them and put them out there. They’re unelected and we have never had really democracy. We simply live one long business plan because that’s what the world is, a long, long business plan. Once again, this goes all the way back, we can trace it through history. You can find people like John Dee who was an advisor at the court of Queen Elizabeth I. He was also a spy for Queen Elizabeth I on his foreign tours of Europe, and his designation was 007 by the way. John Dee wrote about the ‘Brytish Empire’ he called it, and how it would be based on free trade. Those who would join get special grants and be given “most privileged nation” trading status – a term that was given to China just before Britain handed Hong Kong back to China. And on it goes; big business plan.”
[From Alan Watt’s radio program, 17th October 2007]