World Governance Architects III. WTO Bilderberger Boss Lamy and Bilderberger Chancellor Merkel Want UN World Government
Posted by Anders under English, Euromed
Summary: This is a remarkably detailed speech about the New World Order´s World Government structure – by multiple Bilderberger, Pascal Lamy, and with the approval in principle from the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. Lamy believes that the reason for the problems he and his elitist colleagues are creating for the world, are due to the fact that at the end of the cold war no efficient world government was established. For global problems require global solutions! As a horror example he produces the climate lie with islands supposedly dissapearing into the sea (where?). The EU is the only example of supranational governance and a model for world government. This must be sustainable (ie. communist). He defines global governance as “the system “we” (the elite) created to help human societies achieve their common purpose” – also England´s communist EU organisation. Our laws, social norms, values and practices must be standardized (by the elite). National state coherence must be transformed into a global one. The EU is under construction, was the effect of a common political will, a common project and common institutions. Thus the world state, too, will come into being. But as the peoples of the EU increasingly turn their backs on the European project it is lacking legitimacy (legality) – world government consequently, too. Fortunately Europeans are said to require more and better European foreign policy!?? Global governance is to be provided by 1) the rule of law (elite law) with feasible commitments on the basis of consent. 2) Subsidiarity, ie. problem solving in the communities – as desired by the very globalist pope. Naturally, with a supranational authority, namely a triangle: The G20 ist to set policies and to report to the UN World Parliamentary Assembly. 3) also un-elected global institutions. The UN must act as one in the UN family. International issues should dominate the domestic debate to allow world government “legitimacy.” He mentions world governance or an equivlent 15 times, so he really does have this at heart.
The following may be boring, but it is nothing less than the structure of the New World Order´s global government – presented by multiple Bilderberger and WTO boss, Pascal Lamy – as detailed as probably not seen before.
WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy, 9 Nov. 2009 in a speech at the Bocconi University in Milan: “We are in the midst of the worst ever economic crisis and the first to have a global reach. A crisis which has seen a decimation of employment. We are seeing our planet deteriorate due to global warming(???) With severe droughts and violent floods. With entire islands disappearing under water(???). With nuclear proliferation which poses a serious threat to world peace and security. What went wrong?
The reality is that the end of the cold war caught everyone by surprise. It was the end of a bi-polar world. A new world order was being born. And yet there was not enough thinking and discussion about its governance structures. There was never a Bretton Woods Conference or a San Francisco Conference post 1989. As a result global governance structures did not adjust. And here lies the root of many of today’s problems. Global challenges (which the elite is currently creating itself) need global solutions and these can only come with the right global governance, which today, twenty years later, remains too weak (?!).
And yet there is a place on earth where new forms of global governance have been tried following World War II: in Europe. More than half a century ago Jean Monet said: “the sovereign nations of the past can no longer provide a framework for the resolution of our present problems: And the European Community itself is no more than a step towards the organizational forms of tomorrow’s world”. This was as valid then as it is now.
What do I mean by global governance? For me global governance describes the system we set up to assist human society to achieve its common purpose in a sustainable manner, that is, with equity and justice. Growing interdependence requires that our laws, our social norms and values, our mechanisms for framing human behaviour be examined, debated, understood and operated together as coherently as possible. This is what would provide the basis for effective sustainable development in its economic, social and environmental dimensions.
Whether public or private, governance needs to provide leadership, the incarnation of vision, of political energy, of drive.
It also needs to provide legitimacy, which is essential to ensure ownership over decisions which lead to change. Ownership to prevent the in-built bias towards resistance to modify the status quo.
Left: EGF, EU´s Gendarm Force to combat citizens who are disobedient to the Lisbon Treaty
A legitimate governance system must also ensure efficiency. It must bring about results for the benefit of the people.
Finally, a governance system must be coherent. Compromises would need to be found over objectives which often may contradict one another. In sum, the specific challenge of legitimacy in global governance is to deal with the perceived too-distant, non-accountable and non-directly challengeable decision-making at the international level.
As with legitimacy, coherence is also proper to the nation state and it is transferred to specialized international organizations whose mandates are limited. In theory there should be no problem. The coherent action by the nation-state in the various remits of international governance would be translated into a coherent global action.
Handling global problems using traditional domestic democracy models has important limitations, as we have just seen. And yet the very credibility of domestic democracies is at risk if global governance does not find its own democratic credentials(???) If citizens feel that the issues which affect them daily cannot be adequately dealt with.
Europe as a new paradigm of global governance
In these troubled times for the European Union it is no easy matter to present it as a new paradigm of global governance. And yet the European construction is the most ambitious experiment to date in supranational governance. It is the story of a desired, defined and organized interdependence between its member states. It is therefore worth examining how Europe has coped with the challenges I have described above.
My starting point is the building of Europe as work in progress. It is not complete in any of its dimensions. Not in that of geography. Not in its depth, that is, in the powers conferred by its member states to the European Union. And certainly not in the sense of identity that provides the glue which holds any human society together.
The creation of the European Coal and Steel Community in the 1950s was the result of the political will to move beyond these two world wars. This political will was to see peace take root in what Robert Schuman called “de facto solidarities”. To the will and the concrete objective they added a third element: the creation of a sui generis supranational institution — the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community.At the heart of this initial venture was the essence of the European project: the creation of a federal space where decisions can be taken which are directly applicable and enforceable on the member states: a space of pooled sovereignty.
The fact that Community law takes precedence over national law. The creation of a supranational body such as the European Commission that has been given the monopoly of initiating legislation. A European Court of Justice whose decisions are binding on national judges. A Parliament composed of a senate of member states (European Council) and a house of representatives elected by the European “demos” and which has gained in competences over the years.
These are just a few of the things that, taken together, make the European Union a radically new economic and political entity on the scene of international governance.
How does the European paradigm score on the elements of governance mentioned above?
I believe European governance can fare well on leadership and I will use two examples to illustrate it. The first one is the campaign for the creation of the internal market in 1992, first launched by Jacques Delors in 1985. A strong political will emerging after a difficult economic and political period. The clear objective of erasing internal barriers to the movement of goods, capital and people, and a major institutional reform which led to the acceptance of majority voting instead of unanimity for the adoption of decisions leading to the creation of the internal market.
The second one is the creation of the euro.
I also believe that Europe scores positively on coherence. Institutionally the fact that the European Commission acts on the principle of collegiality and has the monopoly of initiating legislation on most areas under Community competence and the growing powers of the European Parliament are drivers of greater coherence. The reinforcement of Community competences, including through the Lisbon Treaty, is also a catalyst for greater coherence.
Moving on to effectiveness, I also believe Europe scores rather highly. The role of the European Court of Justice in ensuring respect for the rule of law, the extension of majority voting for decision-making and the capacity of the European Commission to police compliance with European rules have all been drivers of European effectiveness.
No legitimacy for the EU nor for world governance
If there is an area where Europe would get a B minus, it is probably in legitimacy. We are witnessing a growing distance between European public opinions and the European project. One could have expected that the European institutional set up, with growing powers entrusted to the European Parliament would have resulted in greater legitimacy, but this is contradicted by the declining numbers participating in elections to the European Parliament.
The anthropological dimension of supranationality has probably been underestimated. Once the imminence of the menace of a new war has disappeared from our horizon, it is as if the glue that holds Europe together as a community will also disappear. As if there were no common myths, dreams and aspirations.
On the environment, Europe has a leadership role in the world (i.e. the biggest liar) which is a reflection of the large consensus existing within Europe on the protection and preservation of the environment. And yet the institutional set-up within which Europe acts, the mixed competences and different voices, in my view, prevent Europe from fully displaying its effectiveness in this area. This is an area where Europe breaks even.
The good news is that European citizens demand more and better from Europe in foreign policy. But here we touch upon one of the areas where symbolic barriers, those of dreams and nightmares, those of collective identities and myths remain powerful. This is why I believe that building a European foreign and security policy will require a permanent compromise between interests and values. The creation of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign and Security Policy, who will be the Vice-President of the European Commission and who will chair the General Affairs Council, is in my view a step in the right direction. But it will also take a common will to act together and a common concept, a sort of shared project, to get there (A nice little war?).
But even if these three elements are there, there is a risk that a real or perceived legitimacy problem remains, creating a glass ceiling for further integration. Global legitimacy requires long term care and attention.
European integration provides us with many useful lessons for global governance. I would like to focus our attention today on a few of these.
1.The first lesson I would draw is the importance of the rule of law (whose? Nazi Germani also had the rule of law”) and that of enforceable commitments. Global governance must be anchored in commitments adopted by stakeholders, in rules and regulations with mechanisms which foster and promote its respect. This is also at the heart of what the international community is trying to do on climate change: a multilateral deal where nations commit to emissions reduction accompanied by measures to facilitate adaptation and mitigation. This is also what the international community is striving to achieve in the on-going negotiations on non-proliferation. Commitments which are anchored in a multilateral context, which can be monitored and subject to dispute settlement, foster efficiency and greater coherence.
2. The second lesson I would draw for global governance is that of respect for the principle of subsidiarity. It is about performing functions at the level where these are more effectively carried. And here I would like to quote from the recent encyclical letter of Pope Benedict XVI “Caritas in Veritae” when he argues that “the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice.” The international system should not be overburdened with issues which are better dealt with at the local, regional or national level.”
3. The third lesson is that “coherence starts at home”. Coherence lies first and foremost with the members of international organizations. Take the United Nations. We can and must have the “UN Delivering as One”, but we also have to see the “UN Members behaving as One” in the different organizations which make up the family of the United Nations.
4. The final lesson I would draw is that since the political “demos” remains essentially national, legitimacy would be greatly enhanced if international issues become part of the domestic political debate. If national governments are held accountable for their behaviour at the international level. The exercise of democracy at the national level needs to integrate an international dimension to foster legitimacy at the global level. The fact that the governments which represent states at international organizations are the result of citizens’ choices through domestic elections is, in itself, not sufficient to ensure the legitimacy of the international organizations. National actors — political parties, civil society, parliaments and citizens — need to ensure that issues which are part of the “global level” are discussed at the “domestic level”.
World government
The good news is that many of these issues are already work in progress and that therefore we need not expect a big bang. The global economic crisis we are witnessing has accelerated the move towards a new architecture of global governance the world government, they will see through, anyway!!), in what I have called a “triangle of coherence”
On one side of the triangle lies the G20, replacing the former G8, providing political leadership and policy direction. On another side lie member-driven international organizations providing expertise and specialized inputs, be they rules, policies or programmes. The third side of the triangle is the G-192, the United Nations, providing a forum for accountability.
In the longer term, we should have both the G20 and the international agencies reporting to the “Parliament” of the United Nations (the EU being especially active for this. In this respect, a revamping of the UN Economic and Social Council could lend support to the recent resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly on a UN-system wide coherence. This would constitute a potent mix of leadership, inclusiveness and action to ensure coherent and effective global governance. With time, the G20 could even be a response to the reform of the UN Security Council.
A structure of this type needs to be underpinned by a set of core principles and values. And this is precisely what German Chancellor Angela Merkel has proposed with the creation of a Charter for Sustainable Economic Activity. It is a commendable effort to provide a “new global economic contract”, to anchor economic globalization on a bedrock of ethical principles and values which would renew the trust that citizens need to have that globalization can indeed work for them. It is a signal of our times that this initiative comes from Berlin, Germany, today a re-united country at the heart of Europe.
Among the many regional integration attempts, the European Union remains the laboratory of international governance — the place where the new technological frontier of international governance is being tested.
Lamy is not alone, Bilderberger Chancellor Merkel (2005) is also calling for New World Order
Earth Times 9 Nov. 2009 Berlin – German Chancellor Angela Merkel called Monday for more cooperation between nation states and the transfer of power to multilateral organizations such as the UN, in a speech ahead of anniversary celebrations of the fall of the Berlin Wall. “This world will not be a peaceful one if we do not work for more global order and more multilateral cooperation,” said Merkel, who was to great world leaders in Berlin later Monday. Merkel gave the upcoming UN climate summit in Copenhagen as an example of where nation states must put their narrow interests behind the greater good. “The most important thing, when attempting to overcome barriers, is: Are the nation states ready and willing to give competencies over to multilateral organizations, no matter what it costs?” Merkel said.
Comment
The WTO boss is obsessed with the thought of world governance. Wikipedia: Martin Khor, Director of the Third World Network, argues that the WTO does not manage the global economy impartially, but in its operation has a systematic bias toward rich countries and multinational corporations, harming smaller countries which have less negotiation power. No wonder. Lamy is Rockefeller´s man, being a multiple Bilderberger (2000, 2001, 2005, 2009.
So his speech expresses the hottest desires of the the New World Order elite: World state and world government. He even has the plan for how to do it: The EU! And he goes public with it. This is not conspiracy theory. It is publicly declared full-fledged high treason! Even the pope is in it. And José Barroso, Sarkozy, Gordon Brown incessantly speak of world governance (see videos on right margin of this blog) – and now Angela Merkel joins in.And we do not protest against it!
http://euro-med.dk/?p=12051
link also in comment section- easier to access!
http://euro-med.dk/?p=12051
SEPTEMBER 2009.
NOTHING LEARNED FROM HISTORY—–I SEE!
Sep 2009
Lisbon Treaty II. The Face of Dictatorship: EU Preparing for Armed Gendarmerie Against Treaty-disobedient Populations
Posted by Anders under English, Euromed
Summary: First a video with Barroso’s nervous speech to the masterminds of the EU – the Council on Foreign Relations. Sweden wants an answer as to why EUFOR soldiers are not being used more outside the EU – has even created a Nordic Battlegroup whom Sweden wants to use! Two exercises have been held in Sweden, where EUFOR as the Southern Liberation Army was to defeat a Nordic National League for the benefit of Southeners! Since 2006, there is now a European Gendarmerie Force, consisting of armed combat troops in police uniforms. They are the Sturmabteilung (SA) of the New World Order. The gendarmerie is primarily under the EU, but may be ordered to be deployed anywhere by the UN, NATO, OSCE and other international organizations. They are to be deployed in expected unrests and civil wars (against Muslims?) in countries under the Treaty of Lisbon – as well as against countries that do not want to join it. Gendarms from outside will be sent to a rebellious country, lest they should stick at shooting into demonstrations and at others, which they are entitled to, after death penalty is reintroduced with the Treaty of Lisbon (Prof. KA Schachtschneider, German politician, Klaus Buchner). Buchner describes the Lisbon Treaty as a coup d´état. None of the German Bundestag members had seen an authorized version of the Treaty before they voted for it – because the party leadership said they had to!
We have seen that death penalty will be re-introduced in the EU by the Lisbon Treaty, how Mr. Barroso calls the Lisbon Treaty the Treaty for enlargement – and the EU body, the EESC, calls it the Treaty for a common immigration policy (directed from the top) – and Barroso also calls it the Treaty for world governance and EU-aggressive war.
In order to remove any doubt as for who ultimately masterminded the Lisbon Treaty and the EU on the whole, see this video: The errand boy, Jose Barroso, EU Commission President, speaks on 21 Sept. 2009 as nervous as a schoolboy in examination to his masters, the Rockefeller Council on Foreign Relations, who initiated the unification of Europe and still pulls the EU strings through other Rockefeller clubs encompassing EU´s top leaders – including Mr. Barroso.
Ad omnia paratus? (Motto of Northern EU rapid reaction force, meaning: ready for everything)
The coat of arms of the Nordic EU battlegroup is since 2007 depicted as a castrated lion at the request of female Swedish soldiers. The Times: Coats of arms containing lions without genitalia were given to those who betrayed the Crown.”
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS 8 Sept. 2009 – The Swedish EU presidency wants defence ministers to have a closer look at the bloc’s quick response forces, which so far have never been deployed due to a lack of consensus among member states. “The concept of EU battlegroups is good, but they have not been used until now. We want to have a political discussion on why this is the case,” Olof Skoog, a diplomat representing the Swedish EU presidency told members of the security and defence committee in the European Parliament on 7 September.
Last year, Stockholm co-ordinated the set-up of the Nordic battle group, comprising 2,800 soldiers mostly from Sweden and also from Finland, Norway, Ireland and Estonia. The endeavour cost Sweden more than €100 million. “We made the investment in order for the battlegroup to be used.”
Since January 2007, the EU has in theory always had two battlegroups on call, each comprising at least 1500 combat soldiers.
In Sweden they have had civil war games, where EU´s rapid task force, EUFOR, invades Sweden to fight the “Nordic Nationalist League” (Swedish Home Guard!) on behalf of the good Southeners. In another war game the Nordic Nationalist League was fought by an invasion army of the good Southern Liberation Army alongside of Swedish regular troops around Malmö! (Swedish Army´s link removed!! I previously had the story here – and Altermedia.info had it, too ).
Set up for deployment within 5-10 days, the battlegroups are designed as rapid response forces in emergency situations, when the United Nations or Nato cannot intervene quickly enough. They need the unanimous approval of all EU member states in order to be deployed, which is the main reason why they have not been used so much.
Brussels has set up a new EU police force
The Daily Express 9 Sept. 2007: Critics last night warned that the force could eventually patrol the streets of Britain if Gordon Brown signs up to the new EU constitution, Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, described the new force as “sinister”. He said: “It is not at all clear to me why the EU needs its own police force.”
Wise Up Journal 16 Sept. 2009 reports what I read on and cut from the following EGF-linked articles, which were then suddenly removed from the internet!!! Nevertheless, I keep the links, as they prove this manipulation and the sensitivity of that gendarmerie. Sometimes, the links work again.
The following is official text from the European Gendarmerie Force ( http://www.eurogendfor.eu/), September 16th 2009: “The European Gendarmerie Force (EGF) is an initiative of 5 EU Member States – France, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal and Spain – aimed at improving the crisis management capability in sensitive areas. Now the Romanian and Polish Gendarmerie have joined in, too.
“EGF responds to the need to rapidly conduct all the spectrum of civil security actions, either on its own or in parallel with the military intervention. “Based in Vicenza.
“EGF´s goal is to provide the International Community with a valid and operational instrument for crisis management, first and foremost at disposal of EU, but also of other International Organizations, as NATO, UN and OSCE, and ad hoc coalitions. “Turkey joins the European Gendarmerie force as Observer”
“Furthermore, it is excellently suitable for deployment parallel with or immediately after a military operation to maintain public order and safety as well as in situations where local police services are not (sufficiently) deployed.”
International Military Police
The EGF was declared fully operational on 20 July 2006.
Europe de la Defence: It is made of units from the regular armed forces of each member State. Here is a video showing them in action (training). They are very aggressive.
European Gendarmerie Force (EGF) FAQ (http://www.eurogendfor.org/egfpages/faq.aspx#Q1C)
The EGF will possess an initial rapid-reaction capability up to 800 persons within 30 days, that can be reinforced. The rapidly deployable EGF must be able to conduct, amongst others, operations that support the fight against organised crime and also be able to protect participants of other civilian missions.
The total strength of the Force could reach 2300. Usually the mandate will be based on relevant UN Security Council Resolutions or on political guidelines from EU or other international organisations that intervene in the field of crisis management.
The civilian police capabilities … comprise both police services with civilian status and police forces with military status of the gendarmerie type.
Recognising that a number of countries have initiated studies aiming at changing military police forces to gendarmerie-type structures, the EGF is willing to help facilitating institutional changes in other EU Member States.
The Sturm Abteilung of the EU: EuroGendFor The European rapid reaction force for future civil wars.
“At the European level we are already preparing intensively for the counter-insurgency, which – considering the envisaged measures – could certainly assume civil war proportions.” This is according to a report by a usually very reliable informer under the symbol of “EUROGENDFOR (European Gendarmerie Force).
In a crisis situation, the following course of events is expected: 1. the local police are trying to become masters of the situation. If they do not, 2. EUROGENDFOR then comes to their aid – and their forces do not shrink from shooting. This is how they would still avoid the impression that the national army of an EU-country is to shoot at its own citizens. Only if this measure does not show the desired success, 3. the military can be used “to correct”. It is also intended to use troops from “friendly” foreign nations to let them shoot at one’s own rebellious people.
But it goes even further: The EUROGENDFOR’s founding documents also provide for the basic possibility to intervene in EU countries that have not ratified the Treaty of Lisbon or want to leave the”fold”. On its use in an emergency, a “war council” consisting essentially of the ministers of defense and of the interior of the participating countries, will decide.
Once the EUROGENDFOR force has become active, the national self-determination of the country concerned is out, all buildings occupied by members of the reaction force are no longer accessible for local authorities. National law will as far as possible be overridden.”
Excerpt from the weekly information sheet “Confidential Communications” – from “Politik, Wirtschaft und Geldanlage, No. 3836″.
Berliner Umschau 7. Sept. 2009: The head of the German Ecological-Democratic Party, Klaus Buchner, handed a complaint to the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe on the Lisbon Treaty. Klaus Buchner:1. The Treaty virtually abolishes our democracy. The eternity clauses are removed by the Treaty of Lisbon. It is a coup d´état. 2.The article 151 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union: all social legislation is subject to the condition that the competitiveness of the economy is not disrupted. 3. Coercion to arm and the possibility of wars of aggression. This is explicitly stated about war of oil. It is also expressly stated that in legal suppression of rebellion and insurrection – it is literally in the European Convention on Human Rights – selective killing is allowed. This means that not only is shooting into demonstrations allowed, but people can be taken out and executed.
The basic law remains in force only for so long as it does not contradict any small edict by the EU.
The written form of the consolidated Treaty came only after the vote (in the German Bundestag). The House voted without knowing the contract. I have the testimony of an SPD deputy. He said: “My party leadership has said that the agreement is good, so I agreed.”
To me it was shocking that the military aspects of this Treaty have not been negotiated by the judges. On military aspects was not to be spoken.
But maybe here is hope. The Telegraph 21 Sept. 2009: But the council of ministers will continue to decide foreign policy by consensus, not by qualified majority voting, leaving national governments in the driving seat. In the end, none of these reforms will alter the central fact that member states do not think of themselves as forming a cohesive union.
Comment
This is indeed very sinister. By means of the Lisbon Treaty the cynical New World Order elite is planning to introduce an absolute dictatorship – reintroducing death penalty. If people protest too vigorously, they will be defeated by professional gendarmerie – possibly military forces from other countries not afraid of shooting against their own fellow countrymen. That small countries like Serbia have the New World Order imposed, is an old story. That the EU detached an ancient Serbian province from Serbia and lets the Muslims destroy Christianity there is part of the EU “unity in diversity.”
The EU elite seems to have an itching in the trigger finger – to show the world how big they have grown – and in order to have their share of world governance glory and profit.
The EU builds on 3 policing pillars: 1. The Europol 2. the EU-gendarmerie 3. the Eufor/EDSP. However,other international institutions, e.g. the UN, can order the EGF into action, too.
Klaus Buchner is right: The Frankfurter Allgemeine 5 Oct., 2008: “The Federal Army is to be brought into action within Germany proper in emergencies, and a Constitutional change will be made,” said the chairman of the Union´s parliamentary group, Volker Kauder, after a meeting in the coalition committee.
But the necessary “legal” basis for the offensive application outside the EU of these forces is the Lisbon Treaty. And without that treaty they are not allowed to kill us.
But whom do they suspect to turn violent? Us or the Muslims they let in in ever increasing numbers? Ordo ab chao, say the elitists – order out of chaos – but first create chaos!
http://euro-med.dk/?p=10836
GESTAPO SITE!!
Welcome to the European Gendarmerie Force Official Website
Editorial
The European Gendarmerie Force (EGF) is an initiative of 5 EU Member States – France, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal and Spain – aimed at improving the crisis management capability in sensitive areas. Since Wednesday, 17th December 2008, the High Level Interdepartmental Committee Meeting (CIMIN) decided to welcome the Romanian Gendarmerie to become a full member of the EGF. Therefore the EGF consists from that moment of 6 member states.
EGF responds to the need to rapidly conduct all the spectrum of civil security actions, either on its own or in parallel with the military intervention, by providing a multinational and effective tool.
The EGF will facilitate the handling of crisis that require management by police forces, usually in a critical situation, also taking advantage from the experience already gained in the relevant peace-keeping missions.
Based in Vicenza in the “Generale Chinotto” barracks, the EGF HQ is now developing a comprehensive and coherent operational system, which will permit to be ready in case of prompt deployment to crisis areas.
EGF goal is to provide the International Community with a valid and operational instrument for crisis management, first and foremost at disposal of EU, but also of other International Organizations, as NATO, UN and OSCE, and ad hoc coalitions.
The website board
EGF permanent headquarters participates in the EU Police Force Training (EUPFT) 2009
http://www.eurogendfor.eu/
THE QUEEN HAS DONE A GREAT JOB UPHOLDING HER OATH————-NOT!!
MIND- SHE’S NO LONGER A QUEEN………………………SHE’S NOW JUST A KIDOLOGY PUPPET WE PAY FOR!
The Sturm Abteilung of the EU: EuroGendFor The European rapid reaction force for future civil wars.
“At the European level we are already preparing intensively for the counter-insurgency, which – considering the envisaged measures – could certainly assume civil war proportions.” This is according to a report by a usually very reliable informer under the symbol of “EUROGENDFOR (European Gendarmerie Force).
In a crisis situation, the following course of events is expected: 1. the local police are trying to become masters of the situation. If they do not, 2. EUROGENDFOR then comes to their aid – and their forces do not shrink from shooting. This is how they would still avoid the impression that the national army of an EU-country is to shoot at its own citizens. Only if this measure does not show the desired success, 3. the military can be used “to correct”. It is also intended to use troops from “friendly” foreign nations to let them shoot at one’s own rebellious people.
But it goes even further: The EUROGENDFOR’s founding documents also provide for the basic possibility to intervene in EU countries that have not ratified the Treaty of Lisbon or want to leave the”fold”. On its use in an emergency, a “war council” consisting essentially of the ministers of defense and of the interior of the participating countries, will decide.
Once the EUROGENDFOR force has become active, the national self-determination of the country concerned is out, all buildings occupied by members of the reaction force are no longer accessible for local authorities. National law will as far as possible be overridden.”
Excerpt from the weekly information sheet “Confidential Communications” – from “Politik, Wirtschaft und Geldanlage, No. 3836″.
NAZI STORM TROOPERS…………..STORM NO DOUBT WILL COME!
Pingback: The Armed Enforcers of the Fascist European Superstate… « Centurean2′s Weblog