Wednesday, December 12, 2007

The E(U)nd of Britain

Britain faces two existential threats this day. They arise directly from that grand experiment in non-democratic socialism that is the European Union, the outrageously imperious acts of the UK's Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and the multicultural ethos of Britain's left that disdains Britain's traditional values, culture and history.

As to the first threat, you can mark your calendars, for today is the most momentous day in British history since the foreign conquest of Britain in 1066. Today marks the second foreign conquest of Britain. This one will occur not with the Norman sword of William the Bastard, but with the pen of Gordon the "____" (feel free to suggest an appropriate title in the comments section). And it will not occur upon the field of Hastings, nor anywhere on British soil. It will occur in Brussels where Gordon the "____" will today sign the Treaty of Lisbon, the document by which he will surrender Britian's sovereignty to the EU. And incredibly, he does so with no mandate from the people of Britain.

The idea of creating a United States of Europe, born more then half a century ago, culminated in the drafting of an EU Constitution in 2004. The Constitution would have replaced all existing treaties and cemented the role of an unelected, anti-democratic EU super-state without any checks and balances written into its structure. It would have officially made of the EU a federal government and turned the countries of Europe into its provinces. Britain's Labour government promised as part of its election platform in 2005 to give the British electorate an opportunity to vote on the Constitution. Polls indicate that Britain's electorate would have rejected the Constitution, but before that came to pass, voters in France and Denmark voted "non" to the Constitution, thus ending it as an issue.

But the leftist elite of Europe and Britain were bound and determined not to allow their world vision to be sidetracked by something as meaningless as the will of the people. Thus they took all of the substantive terms of the Constitution and simply transcribed them into the Treaty of Lisbon as amendments to the other existing EU treaties - with even a few additions to the power structure of the EU not in the original Constitution.. Thereafter, they adopted the canard that, since this is a mere Treaty, no voter referendum is necessary. (Update: For more detail on this and a good, short description of powers conferred upon the EU by the Lisbon Treaty, see this post at American Thinker). Even the canard disappeared today, however, as Gordon the "____" began referring to the Treaty of Lisbon as the "Constitution."

The issue will now go before Parliament who will either allow the treaty to stand or reject it in toto. The former seems assured, though, as EU Referendum reports, there are MP’s in Parliament virulently opposed to the Lisbon Treaty, if not membership in the EU itself. This is a small sample of the debates now occurring on the floor of the "local government’s" Parliament:

. . . [MP] Richard Shepherd, veteran of [the debates over the previous EU Treaty of] Maastricht . . . says:

. . . there is a sameness about these debates. …in this debate, in these proposals, now over 34 years old, in the strong drift towards the creation - or attempted creation - of a federal state, the same question nags away. Who governs? To whom is this Parliament accountable? It is not accountable, surely, to a Commission in Brussels. It is not accountable to institutions formed by others. It is accountable to the people who sent us here.There was a joy, in that at the last election all three parties promised that the people should be invited - no, not invited, but should be given the right, which we would express by law - to take part in a referendum on this treaty.

. . . Labour's 2005 election manifesto promised this:"We will put it" - the European Union constitution - "to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a 'Yes' vote".That was the undertaking given by the Labour party - the Labour Government, in fact - and the then Prime Minister made clear not only that the British people would have their say on the EU constitution, but that if the constitution were rejected he would not sign up to what was simply an amended version. At the time he said:"We don't know what is going to happen in France, but we will have a referendum on the constitution in any event—and that is a government promise".He went on to say:"what you can't do is have a situation where you get a rejection of the treaty and then you just bring it back with a few amendments and say we will have another go".But is that not exactly what is happening now? That is the deceit . . .

Do read the entire post, taking careful note of the concluding line. And see here.

And as goes Anglo-Saxon sovereignty into the dust-bin of history, so too will follow the remenants of the Anglo Saxon culture and values that are the heritage of every free, democratic and capitalist nation on this earth. Gordon the "____" cannot sign those away in Brussels, but it is both Gordon the "____" and the EU that are at the root of the mortal threat to that culture and those values. The threat is defined by the insane immigration policies dictated to Britain by EU law coupled with the multicultural ethos of Gordon the "____"'s Labour - and now local - government. Large scale immigration, the majority of it mandated by EU law over which Britain has no say, is already at crisis proportions, already overwhelming Britain's infrastructure. And the immigrant population is not integrating, thus ultimately threatening to extinguish Anglo Saxon ideals, values and culture.

The failure to integrate is a direct result of the multicultural ideology of the chattering classes. Their brand of virulent multiculturalism combines a disdain for their own culture with a "framework for the coexistence of separate cultures rather than a transitional mechanism for integrating newcomers into a dominant culture." With "open borders" immigration for citizens with no attachment to the anglo saxon ethic, and large scale immigration of Muslims, many of whom are openly opposed to Anglo-Saxon ideals, this is a looming catastrophe. And it is a problem that, as to its Muslim populaton, Labour is massively compounding.

As to the insane EU laws that are driving the immigration problem, they apply to Britain as a result of past treaties dating all the way back to the 1957 Treaty of Rome. In other words, the immigration problems arising out of EU law would continue irrespective of the Lisbon Treaty. EU Referendum explained the laws when commenting on a speech on immigration by Tory leader David Cameron:

[Cameron] concedes that "we should bring down the level of net immigration to a more sustainable level" – although we are not allowed to know what that is. Instead, we are told this:

Of course overall non-EU migration includes asylum seekers, students and family members as well as economic migrants. But non-EU economic migration is something we can and should limit, and I cannot understand why this government has not done so.

Now, here we have an interesting problem because, according to Andrew Green of Migration Watch, writing last year in The Daily Telegraph, among the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, some 30 to 50 percent of the second and third generations marry partners from their countries of origin. And, in Bradford, this figure reaches 60 percent.The effect, he writes, is to increase the number of households greatly, adding to the pressure on housing, and setting back integration by a generation - assuming, of course, that people now living in those rather closed communities wish to integrate.

Now that would seem a significant target for immigration control but, as we see, Cameron excludes it. And well he might. No doubt this time he has been correctly advised that he cannot exclude such persons under EU law – our old friend Directive 2004/38/EC. This gives rights of residence to spouses of "EU citizens" – whether they are nationals of EU member states or of third countries. And of course, immigrants who are awarded British citizenship automatically become EU citizens as well, affording them the full rights under the directive.

Furthermore, this privilege applies to children, parents and in-laws. None can be excluded. Nor indeed can we exclude immigrants from other EU countries, who in turn have immigrated from non-EU countries and have been awarded citizenship of those EU countries. And that applies to their relatives as well.

Similarly, since we have handed over control of the admission of asylum seekers to the EU under Regulation 343/2004, nor can Mr Cameron hope to have any effect on this flow – it is out of his hands.

Read the entire post. And to pile on, there is this today from the Daily Mail:

A migrant baby boom is fuelling the fastest growth in the UK's population since the 1960s - with one in every five children now born to foreign mothers.

Rising fertility rates, particularly among immigrants, are playing a major role in the population growth, the Office of National Statistics said.

On average, foreign women have 2.5 children each - rising to almost five for those from Pakistan, and 3.9 from Bangladesh.

The number of babies born to British mothers is also increasing, but lags far behind immigrants at an average of 1.7 children each.

The ONS predicted the UK population could reach 71million by 2031, with migrants and their UK-born children accounting for 69 per cent of that growth.

Read the entire article. Britain's sovereignty ends as it becomes a province of the EU. And in light of the unrestricted immigration dictated by EU law, the birth rate statistics and Britain's multiculturalist approach to immigrants, the death of Britain's Anglo-Saxon culture and values is in the awning. All of this leads to an inescapable conclusion. The first step that Britain must take to survive as a soverign nation with its Anglo-Saxon values intact is to leave the EU. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be on Gordon the "_________"'s docket today.

Update: And you can find the reaction in Britain to the signing here.

H/T: Bookworm Room / Done With Mirrors

No comments: