Debt Peonage, Corporate Capitalism, Codex Alimentarius, and Tyranny: an optimist’s guide to Lisbon

8/7/2019 Debt Peonage, Corporate Capitalism, Codex Alimentarius, and Tyranny: an optimists guide to Lisbon.

1/24

John Calvin Jones, PhD, JD, professor of law, American University in Bosnia-Hercegovina.Paper for the 5th Annual Conference on European Integration, Skopje, Macedonia, 20 May 2010

Debt Peonage, Corporate Capitalism, Codex Alimentarius,and Tyranny: an optimists guide to Lisbon.

The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety andhappiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors.

Thomas JeffersonIntroduction

The adoption of the so-called Lisbon Treaty, a previous form of which was called the EUConstitution,1 has brought some changes in the governing structure of the EU and further movedthe balance of power from the member state governments to an EU supranational entity. Thispaper will examine certain facets of the Lisbon Treaty and its provisions that centralize authority

in the EU government over the member states in relation to three overlapping, areas: banking andfinance; food and medicine; and personal liberty.

Part I. EU Financial Power: thinking about Greece and beyond

Give me control of a nations money and I care not who makes her laws.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Starting in 2008, financial collapse and severe economic downturns have been seen inLatvia, Iceland, the United States, and Greece. At the same time, nations of the UK, Spain, Italy,and Portugal have reported unemployment rates over 20%, annual budget deficits in excess of12% of GDP, and looming national debts. Among other problems, problematics, and issues,given the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty (hereinafter Lisbon), the new rules spell tragedy for themasses. By contrast, certain aspects of Lisbon will bring more economic power and authority tothe EU, as an entity, and the individual EU ministers themselves.

Arguably all nations and economic blocs like the EU, NAFTA, Mercosur, etc., movethrough cycles of growth and retraction. But in modern times, under the current debt-basedmoney system, wherein banks can create wealth/debt from nothing via fractional-reserve banking- a practice that has moved from a 9 to 1 ratio to that where some investment banks leverage

1 According to authors of a webpage from the Universidad de Zaragoza, in Spain, The Lisbon Treaty, also referredto as Reform Treaty or Simplified Treaty, among other names, is a replacement for the Treaty establishing aConstitution for Europe. While the Constitution attempted to replace all earlier EU treaties, the Reform Treatyamends the previous treaties. In This sense the formal title of the treaty is Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty onEuropean Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community. See The Lisbon Treaty,http://www.unizar.es/euroconstitucion/Treaties/Treaty_Lisbon%20Treaty.htm

1


2/24

John Calvin Jones (2010), Debt Peonage, Corporate Capitalism, Codex Alimentarius, and Tyranny: an optimistsguide to Lisbon

money to the tune of 100 to 12 those governments that allow private banks to control themoney supplies, leave populations vulnerable (Hudson 2009).3

Though some might believe that the adoption of a single currency within the EU wasdone primarily to facilitate trade, economic growth, and efficiency for common people and smallbusinesses, when seen as a mechanism used by private banks separate, if not superior tonational governments the question remains, what is the role of the EU? Does the EU serve asan arbiter between the people, member state governments, and banks which function as aregrettably necessary piece of the economy or does the EU serve those banks? I argue that wecan answer that question by looking at Greece, the most extreme example of an economicproblem that is also occurring in countries like Portugal, Spain, Latvia, Iceland, etc.

Looking at Greece, Looking in the Mirror

In order for Greece to enter the Euro-zone in the year 2000 with full membershipincluding adoption of the euro as its official currency the Greek government had to meet EU-imposed rules about fiscal policy. These rules, the so-called Maastricht convergence criteria,mandate that a nation cannot have an annual budget deficit in excess of 3% of GDP and anational debt in excess of 60% of GDP.4 But when their candidacy was being considered, Greekdeficits were in excess of proscribed limits. To satisfy the Maastricht criteria, via lowering itsdeficits on the books, through the assistance of a self-dealing Goldman-Sachs, Greece undertooka series of so-called credit default swaps.5

Over time it would be shown that the swaps were absolutely fraudulent.6 In 2002, theGreek deficit amounted to 1.2 percent of GDP. After Eurostat reviewed the data in September

2 See commentaries of Max Keiser, Keiser Report, number 35, 20 April 2010.http://maxkeiser.com/2010/04/20/kr35-keiser-report-markets-finance-scandal-and-joe-weisenthal/

3The European Union and International Monetary Fund have told [the governments and peoples of Latvia and

Iceland] to replace private debts with public obligations, and to pay [these private debts] by raising taxes, slashingpublic spending and obliging citizens to deplete their savings. See Michael Hudson, Recovering from NeoliberalDisaster: Why Iceland and Latvia Wont (and Cant) Pay the EU for the Kleptocrats Ripoffs, August 17th, 2009.

4Hudson, Michael. 2009. Recovering from Neoliberal Disaster: Why Iceland and Latvia Wont (and Cant) Pay

the EU for the Kleptocrats Ripoffs. ISLET, Global Research, August 17th. Posted at: http://michael-hudson.com/articles/countries/090817IcelandLatviaWontPay.html

5 Balzli, Beat. 2010. How Goldman Sachs Helped Greece to Mask its True Debt. Der Spiegel, 8 February.

6Goldman-Sachs brokered exchanges of Greek debts denominated in dollars and yen for those denominated in euro

in the short-term. In theory, with differing interest rates on those instruments and due to particular exchange rates,true debts and future obligations could appear lower than otherwise. But Goldman-Sachs went a step further andmade accounting notations with fraudulent and fictional exchange rates. See Max Keiser Report of 19 February2010 on Russia Today. And one should not be fooled into believing this is a Greece-only problem. In previousyears, Italy also used accounting fraud through credit-default swaps to mask its true debt with the help of a U.S.investment bank.

2


3/24


2004, the ratio had to be revised up to 3.7 percent. By February of 2010, the deficit was at 5.2percent of GDP.7

By 2009, nearly 10 years after public information revealed a Greek budget deficit andnational debt underestimated by at least $40 billion, 8 the EU's Economic and Financial AffairsCouncil (ECOFIN)9 demanded that the Greek national government undertake austerity measuresto be in line with the Maastricht criteria.10 And the Greek government did adopt severe austeritymeasures.

Though at the start of the economic decline in Greece during 2009 the governmentextended short-term loans to small businesses, gave grants to the poor, and place moratoria oninterest fees (cf. Taking Aim 16 March 2010), all was reversed in favor of IMF, ECB, and EUmember state preferences of debt serving and austerity (cf. Taking Aim, 16 March 2010). In aneffort to meet the demands of ECOFIN, which would otherwise lead an EU-imposed austerity as

permitted under Article 126.9 of Lisbon Treaty, since October 2009, the Greek government cut$14 billion in state spending and saddled Greeks with more taxes (Taking Aim 16 March2010).11 Such included higher taxes on heating fuel, petrol, and diesel, as well as higher taxes onalcoholic beverages and tobacco products. Greece raised the VAT two percent (Taking Aim 16March 2010). Spending cuts came in the form of a 7% across-the-board pay cut to stateemployees and raising the age of retirement (Taking Aim 16 March 2010). The combined effectof the taxes, spending cuts, lay-offs, and wage cuts resulted in an effective loss of 25%household income across Greece. Yet, as reported in the Wall Street Journal (2010), despite thislevel of austerity, ECONFIN ministers claimed that the government of Papandreou did not cutenough and that is problematic.12

7 Balzli (2010).

8 Max Keiser Report, Russia Today, 19 February 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKCR2k4keMQ&feature=related

9 Ecofin is composed of the Economics and Finance Ministers of the EU member states. The commission addsBudget Ministers of member states when budgetary issues are discussed. It meets regularly once a month.http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=250&lang=EN

10 Eurostats reporting rules do not record transactions involving financial derivatives. According to one derivates

trader: The Maastricht rules can be circumvented quite legally through swaps (Balzli 2010). This fact that EUaccounting and reporting rules purposefully ignore one type of fiscal fraud that ECOFIN would otherwise seek to

prevent in the name of limiting EU-wide inflation and thus increases the possibility that the EU will imposeausterity against a given country is curious. It gives us reason to be skeptical of ECOFIN and EU sincerity about aclaim for rules demanding sound fiscal policy. Given that the EU intentionally fails to record credit default swaps which are only used to push loan repayments into the future the practice will accrue as a benefit to the EU whichwill impose fines and taxes on the fiscally unsound member state.

11 In January 2010, Spain reported a budget deficit in excess of 6% of GDP. Like Greece, the government of Spainled a self-imposed slash and burn program of public spending. One primary target was state spending to createpublic sector jobs as a means to reduce unemployment. See Sinikka Tarvainen (2010),

3


4/24


If tax increases were a reasonable, short-term measure imposed in conjunction with othersteps to reduce present and future odious debt, then the taxes might yield longer-term benefits tothe Greek economy at-large. However, when taxes accompany deep cuts in public spending,

these sin and energy taxes reduce private spending, hence shrink the economy. As the GDPshrinks, at the same time that foreign debts remain on the books, the only way for a nation, likeGreece, to follow EU and IMF mandates is to place larger percentages of state spending into debtservice.

In fact, despite the massive cuts in public spending, as of March 2010, Greece still had anational debt of $400 billion (Taking Aim 16 March 2010).13 Much of the Greek national debt isa result of interest accrued through previous borrowing to pay off earlier debts (Taking Aim 16March 2010). As explained in Der Spiegel, those 10-15 year bonds are coming due and willcontinue for at least the next five years.14 These 10-year bonds have yields of well over 6%(some are over 7%) - a figure which is far higher than the Greek government can earn via

investment or recoup through national economic growth - possibly brought on by infusing theborrowed money into the Greek economy (cf. Taking Aim 16 March 2010). As of mid April2010, Greece needed to raise 11.6 billion euros by the end of May to cover maturing bonds, andanother 20 billion euros by the end of December to pay debt coupons and finance its deficit for2010 (Neuger and Stearns 2010).

This circumstance leaves the Greek government, hence the Greek people, in a bind. (Andwe should remember that the Greek economic reality is facing other nations so the policychoices in Greece are likely to be replicated and or imposed in other EU nations). Because euro-based EU member state governments cannot affect the supply and value of their nationalcurrency, which is controlled by the private ECB directly and by other private banks indirectly,

the primary move that these governments can take to reduce deficit spending is to make cuts ingovernment spending. And Greece will cut her spending by at least 4%.15

In fact, such social spending cuts are expected, as a matter of consequence, by ECOFIN.According to ECOFIN (2010), in the near and long-term, many EU member states are going tohave a fiscal crisis in the area of pensions and related social service spending for the elderly,

12 Article 126.9 allows the European Commission (via ECOFIN) and or the ECB to place the Greek economy in

what amounts to receivership. Under the treaty, if deficits and or debts are deemed too high and national policiesnot effective enough to reduce the shortfalls, the EU, through ECOFIN could take control of Greek fiscal policy andimpose its own terms on Greek national budgets without regard to the interest in the livelihood of working-classGreeks.

13 In an interview in May 2010, Papandreou declared that Greece has an outstanding debt of 300 billion euro (Casertand Becatoros 2010).

14 Balzli, Beat. 2010. How Goldman Sachs Helped Greece to Mask its True Debt. Der Spiegel, 8 Februaryhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,676634,00.html

15 See Neuger and Stearns (2010).

4


5/24


sick, and infirmed due to declining birthrates.16 But Greece spends 51% of its nationalgovernment on social programs, for state workers, etc. (Taking Aim 16 March 2010). Yet whena government has already made drastic cuts, the few other ways to pay for foreign debts are to

raise taxes, sell off national assets and resources, and borrowing more money. Which option willGreece choose?

As of April, the 27 finance ministers of the EU states and the IMF agreed to provideGreece with a short-term, 45 billion euro loan.17 Only three weeks later in the name of helpingthe Greek people, apparently a deal was settled whereby Greece took on a loan of 110 billioneuro with 30 billion coming from the IMF!18 Of course the agreement also required a cut inGreek domestic spending of 30 billion euro a 13% cut in GDP (Ross-Thomas and Stearns2010). By mid May 2010, the bailout package was over $1,000,000,000,000!19 Roughly $325billion would come from the IMF (in fact largely subsidized and guaranteed by the UnitedStates) and around $600 billion directly from treasuries of 16 EU member states.20

It is unsurprising that the EU preference for member states is take on more external debt and even make transfer payments from the public to private banks which hold governmentbonds. EU entities have expressed this message in unexpected places. For example, the EUWorking Group on Ageing Populations and Sustainability claims that EU nations should workwith the IMF and World Bank.21 And note, in this latest example of borrowing, Greece isborrowing from the IMF. So note, the agreement from April was to supply the Greekgovernment with 30 billion euro in the first year (Casert and Becatoros 2010). But a chiefeconomist from Goldman Sachs in London claims that even the monies from the EU memberstates, 30 billion euro, will not cover Greek debts due over the next eight months. So as to payoff private banks and hedge funds which bought Greek national bonds, the national government

had to rely on commercial loans (Neuger and Stearns 2010).

16 ECOFIN, Stability and Growth Pact, posted at: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/sgp/index_en.htm (Updated11 February 2010, visited March 2010); see also EU Economic Policy Committee, Working Group on AgeingPopulations and Sustainability at: http://europa.eu/epc/working_groups/ageing_en.htm

17 Neuger, James and Jonathan Stearns. 2010. Greece Wins EU45 Billion Aid Pledge to Blunt Crisis. BloombergBusinessweek, April 11. Online at: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-11/greece-wins-more-than-eu30-billion-in-eu-imf-aid-update1-.html

18 Casert, Raf and Elena Becatoros. 2010. Euro partners agree on $145B Greek bailout. AP, 2 May.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100502/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_greece_financial_crisis/print; Ross-Thomas, Emma andJonathan Stearns. 2010. EU Bets $146 Billion Greek Bailout to Avert Contagion. Bloomberg, 3 May.http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-03/eu-bets-146-billion-greek-bailout-to-avert-contagion-update2-.html

19 http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/economy/economics-mainmenu-44/3526-trillion-bailout-of-euro-greece-shows-need-to-audit-the-fed

20 Associated Press. 2010. Euphoria Over Euro Rescue Fades. Berlin, 11 May. Posted by NPR at:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123413270

21 See EU Economic Policy Committee, Working Group on Ageing Populations and Sustainability at:http://europa.eu/epc/working_groups/ageing_en.htm (Updated 12 December 2009, visited March 2010).

5


6/24


Ironically and arguably the entire amountof the loan package for Greece will come fromprivate hands because around 600 billion euro, pledged from the EU and other full EU memberstates will actually come directly from the ECB (cf. Neuger and Stearns 2010; AP May 2010).

Thus the loan has two aspects which bode well for private banks and injure the public. First, thepeople of Greece will pay fees to the IMF. Second, people of the EU cannot reject what wasannounced as a loan pledge. Consider, while the national finance ministers agreed, in principle,to share in the risk of loaning Greece money, some states, like Ireland require a parliamentaryvote to approve such spending. But here, in that the ECB is transferring the funds to Greece (cf.Neuger and Stearns 2010), in effect they have made the loan, and member states must repay theECB the citizenry cannot refuse.

Though Greece has and will take a number of steps to reduce their debt via cuttingsocial spending and debt service, which will shrink the economy another 13% , it is likely thatGreece will increase borrowing for the foreseeable future.22 Thus the Greek debt will grow and

grow at a pace that will move the EU and IMF to demand that the Greek government make moreradical cuts in social spending23 and ramp up debt servicing as a proportion of the nationalbudget (cf. Taking Aim 16 March 2010). And the debt service will be first on the list of thespending priorities of the Greek national budget. As ECOFIN recently announced, it, along withofficials from the IMF and ECB, would monitor Greece to ensure that ECOFIN mandates arefollowed (Taking Aim March 16, 2010). And ECOFIN has mandated that it will conduct three-month reviews of Greek books to ensure that the government follows EU dictates in the form ofausterity measures (Taking Aim 16 March 2010).

Worse yet, what happens if Greek fiscal moves are deemed insufficient? The LisbonTreaty holds that should a nation with an excessive deficit (and or debt) fail to satisfy ECOFIN

demands, one of the sanctions is an EU tax.24 Article 126, subsection 11 announces:

11. As long as a Member State fails to comply with a decision [of ECOFIN], the Councilmay decide25 to apply or intensify one or more of the following measures:

22 According to Neuger and Stearns (2010), European pledges in February and March of 2010 to provide so-calledemergency loans to Greece failed to prevent Greek 10-year bond yields from soaring to 7.51 percent on April 8.

23 See Max Keiser, the Keiser Report of 15 April 2010. When speaking about the issue of the Greek debts supposed

loans and coming austerity measures, Keiser calls the deal Win-Win-Win for banks and Lose-Lose-Lose for thepeople of Greece, and other places like Iceland, Ireland, and Spain.

24 See Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - Part Three: Union Policies andInternal Actions - Title VIII: Economic and Monetary Policy - Chapter 1: Economic policy - Article 126 (ex Article104 TEC) posted at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E126:EN:NOT

25 The ruling body of the EU, the Council, may decide with impunity. Moreover member states are without recourseto challenge Council rulings.

6


7/24


to require the Member State ... to make a non-interest-bearing deposit of anappropriate size26with the Union until the excessive deficit has, in the view of theCouncil, been corrected;

to impose fines of an appropriate size.

To believe that the people of any EU nation would subject themselves to such possibilityknowingly and willingly is doubtful. So who benefits should the people of Greece, or Ireland, orItaly, or Spain,27or Portugal face such external sanction and or endure self-imposed austerity asto depress their own economies? My answer is two main parties: (a) the private banks that holdthe debts; and (b) the EU government itself in its growing move of autonomy as agovernment imposing fees to generate revenue for itself as a separate entity, rather than the EUmember states that such a government should serve.

The Ripple Effect

As of April 2010, German and French banks were exposed to over $120 billion to Greekborrowers, from both public and private sources. These same banks have significant exposure atthe level of $900 billion to the five so-called PIIGS, nations of Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece,and Spain (Wall Street Journal 17 February 2010).28 By late May 2010, the public was informedthat weeks earlier the EU nations had agreed to share debts acquired from the IMF but theSpanish government was bankrupt, owing bonds issued at 18%!29 France too was bankrupt andcould not refinance their debt through common business and banking channels due in part to 700billion euro exposure of French private banks to Greek public debt. 30

26 The appropriate size is .2% of GDP plus one-tenth of the difference between the nations excessive deficitpercentage and the maximum level of 3%. See Council Regulation (EC) Number 1467/97, Article 12. Hence thegreater the nations need to have deficit spending, and the less their capacity to pay, the greater their bill to the EU!And while the payment cannot exceed .5% of GDP, like a minimum credit card payment, the EU can use the EDP asa means to create a constant funding stream. Note Article 13 of the regulation 1467/97 allows for the Council toturn the deposit into a fine from which the EU can extract interest after the first two years.

27 See report of Sinikka Tarvainen, Spains economy will take longer to recover than most other EU economies,with the European Commission not expecting the country to rise out of the recession until 2011. The [Spanish]government has announced an austerity plan which was expected to be watched closely by other EU memberstates. From Spanish EU presidency stumbles into action 7 January, posted at:http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/features/article_1523771.php/Spanish-EU-presidency-stumbles-into-action-News-Feature

28 Fuhrmans, Vanessa and Sebastian Moffett. 2010. Exposure to Greece Weighs On French, German Banks. WallStreet Journal, 17 February.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703798904575069712153415820.html

29 See comments of Joern Berninger on the Keiser Report, #46 of 27 May 2010. Online at:http://maxkeiser.com/watch/the-keiser-report/keiser-report-46-27-may-2010-guest-dr-joern-berninger/

30 See Berninger (2010)

7


8/24


Ralph Schoenman and Mya Schoon (2010) argue that the German and French banks arethus able to leverage their extremely risky and overexposed financial positions in the PIIGS tohold their own governments hostage to the idea that the banks should be subsidized like their

American counterparts (Taking Aim 16 March 2010). Less than two months later, theestimations of Schoenman and Schoon proved to be perfect predictions as private banks, notpoliticians or the people, dictated fiscal policy. In the context of the Europe, with the expandingcontrol of the private European Central Bank, and a newly bolstered EU, empowered by theLisbon Treaty, the ramifications are tremendous. Without a complete rejection of these laws,treaties, and practices the banks will win, while the hostages, the citizens of the EU, willcontinue to pay.

In the first scenario, France and or Germany subsidize debt servicing in the PIIGS, eitherwith direct loans or by serving as a surety for IMF loans to these governments. Such a processtakes money out of the hands of the German and French people, as money for public services

will be lent with the primary effect of enriching banks. This scenario works as a system ofpaying Peter to pay Paul and supports the very same private businesses that took on risk thatcreated the economic crisis.

Such would be the worst instance of governments promoting what economists call moralhazard. At the same time, the loan receivers, the governments of the PIIGS nations alreadyenacting austerity programs, would only incur more debt meaning more debt servicing, moreausterity, and further drains on weak and receding economies. On top of that, this new debtwould practically ensure that the EU supranational state would impose fines for fiscalirresponsibility to be paid to the EU!

The last point should be shocking in how clearly it reveals the nature of the purpose andprogram of the EU as a private, supranational state. If the EU were to set forth rules in the nameof assisting the states, like a sports league commissioner for team owners, then all policieswould reinforce the economic health of each member state and all their citizens, not sublimate allpowers and authorities of each member-state government to the collective economic detriment ofEU citizens. The imposition of an ECOFIN and or EU Commission economic penalty, in thename of controlling EU-wide inflation, would make sense if the penalty (lowering the moneysupply) went directly to the debt-holder (further reducing EU-wide debt). But instead anymonies taken as fees and fines simply fill the private coffers of the EU. Hence on this count,Lisbon works to bolster and sustain the political power of the EU in its role as enforcer ofeconomic policies in the interest of private banks.31

31 Note, after being named as president of the EU, the Belgian, Hermann van Rompuy, immediately explained thatthe EU would embark on a program of self-financing [sic] in the form of direct taxation over EU member states without regard to agreements or consent from the legislatures of the member nation governments. See Charter,David and Philip Webster. 2009. Herman Van Rompuy, front-runner for presidency, wants EU-wide tax. TheTimes (UK), November 17, Available online at:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6919380.ece (7 January 2010)

8


9/24


To clarify the last comment, it is easy to see that the EU is positioned as the enforcer ofprivate banking interests. In June 2009, Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, a PhD in economics from theUniversity of Chicago and a member of the Board of Directors of the ECB, gave a speech in

which he described how the global financial crisis was good in the fact that it would enable theIMF along with, to a lesser degree, the World Bank to resume its dominant position in globalfinance. Smaghi said:

The fact that the crisis has restored the IMF to its place at the heart of the internationalfinancial system should provide some hope in this respect making IMF financingeasier. In sum, a new world monetary order requires a mechanism to keepimbalances in check. Key elements of such a mechanism include a prominent role for theIMF in two essential areas: strong and effective surveillance in crisis prevention, andresponsible lending, with appropriate limits and conditionality, to countries in need.32

Why would an Italian national, long-time resident of Belgium, and member of the Boardof Directors of the ECB express any hope, support, and or fidelity to the IMF over the EU and orits member states if the ECB were subservient to either the supranational EU government or themember states? And while EU Commissioners are supposed to maintain a certain level ofdistance from their home countries while working for the good of the EU on the whole (Fairhurst2007, 95-96),33 Smaghi's comments cannot be seen in line with the principle of fidelity to theEU. Rather it reads simply as the machinations of one who is working for the good of privatebanks not people.

In the second and scarier scenario, Germany and France pay for the defaults of the PIGSdirectly to their own banks the American style, TARP program. (To date, through a series of

statutes passed by Congress since October 2008, i.e., starting with the presidency of theRepublican G. W. Bush and continued by the change agent, Democrat Barack Obama, theAmerican taxpayers gifted $12.7 trillion to investment banks and insurance companies, and haveincreased liability to bank-held derivatives contracts in excess of $23.7 trillion).34 Aside fromthe inevitable depression that would ripple through Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain their respective governments would further retract the money supply through austerity andincur more private debt, likely drawn from the IMF (hence heaping more future debt on thecitizens). As a result the EU would slap on its fines, which would never be paid off (Hudson2009), while the governments of Germany and France, if in line with acts of other mainstreamgovernments would redirect public monies to the private banks. And those same mechanismswhich shrink economies and force the people into a lower standard of living i.e., increasing

32 Maessen, Jurriaan. 2009. European Central Banksters seek World Currency, Total Control. Infowars, 6 July.http://www.infowars.com/european-central-banksters-seek-world-currency-total-control/

33 See John Fairhurst, Law of the European Union, 6th edition. Pearson Longman: London (2007).

34 The International Forecaster. 2010. Sovereign Debt - The Implications for Currencies and Gold. Saturday, 6March. Posted at: http://beforeitsnews.com/news/22664/Sovereign_Debt_-_The_Implications_for_Currencies_and_Gold.html

9


10/24


taxes and fees, reductions in spending on pensions and social services in health, policing, andeducation now seen in Greece, would happen in France and Germany. Additionally, if thegovernments of Germany and France would seek to ease the levels of austerity via short-term

private (IMF) borrowing, then the national debts would begin to spiral upward.

Taken on the whole, the powers of the EU supranational state cemented and deepenedthrough the Lisbon Treaty at least in the area of fiscal control show us that current and futureprospects for EU citizens are bleak. With little or no way to control the macro-economic trendsnor any means to limit the EU-based directives and actions, we should expect, to see economicstrife and a constant democratic struggle of poor and working people against government elitesand EU ministers in service of private banks.

Part II. Health, Food, and Medicine

Beyond general matters of the economy, current and future EU rules in the area of treaty-making authority (now vested in the EU itself35 rather than member states solely), as well aspowers in particular things like drugs/medicines and food do not bode well for those who favornature and freedom of choice. One reason is the imposition of Codex Alimentarius.

Guidance from the Codex Alimentarius Commission

Since 2003, the European Community (and hence now the EU with the passage ofLisbon), has accepted the directives, policy papers, and guidelines of a UN organization, theCodex Alimentarius Commission (CAC).36 Thus the CAC has rule-making authority over theEU member states.37

Originally created in 1962 by UN and managed with two heads, the World HealthOrganization and the Food and Agriculture Organization, the Codex Alimentarius Commission(CAC), was tasked with establishing international standards for food, drugs, and medicines

35 See Lisbon Treaty, Article 188 L:

1. The Union may conclude an agreement with one or more third countries or international organisationswhere the Treaties so provide or where the conclusion of an agreement is necessary in order to achieve,within the framework of the Union's policies, one of the objectives referred to in the Treaties, or is providedfor in a legally binding Union act or is likely to affect common rules or alter their scope.

2. Agreements concluded by the Union are binding upon the institutions of the Union and on its MemberStates.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12007L/htm/C2007306EN.01004201.htm

36 European Commission, Drugs, Health, and Consumers.http://ec.europa.eu/food/international/organisations/codex_en.htm (March 2010)

37 European Commission, Drugs, Health, and Consumers.http://ec.europa.eu/food/international/organisations/codex_en.htm (March 2010)

10


11/24


through a document / treaty called Codex Alimentarius.38 First and foremost Codex Alimentariusis nothing more than a manifestation of corporate proprietary interest along the lines of Westerncorporate capitalism. As presented to the public, the CAC serves noble intentions of protect

consumer food health and eliminating barriers to international food trade (Tips 2009). But inpractice, the CAC is a body of a few people who seek to dictate food standards including ruleson pesticides, herbicides, chemical sprays, GMO foods, preservatives, and guidelines for drugs,medicines, supplements, vitamins, and nutrients in the service of corporate profits.

According to the EU itself:

The Codex Alimentarius Commission develops food standards that serve as a referencefor international food trade. More than 180 countries are members of the CAC [includingall 27 EU nations]39 and more than 200 international NGOs and intergovernmentalorganisations have the observer status. The World Trade Organisation Agreement, on the

application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), considers thatWTO members applying the Codex Alimentarius Standards meet their obligations under[the SPA] Agreement.

Thus as the EU explains, the purpose of the Codex Alimentarius, and the CAC is toensure that WTO rules are followed (cf. Taylor 2004). In fact, Codex guidelines are designed toensure EU member state adherence to various WTO treaties including the Agreement (Treaty) onTechnical Barriers to Trade (Tips 2009) and the SPS (as noted above). So one of the firstquestions one must consider in re any CAC ruling, standard, judgment, or policy is to ask whatcorporate interest does the policy serve?

What about the WTO and the Health of Average Europeans?

In theory the WTO represents member states, i.e., governments and hence the WTOshould be a vehicle to develop standards and rules for the protection and benefit of ordinarypeople who consume products. In practice alas, the WTO is little more than a place where statesarticulate demands of their corporate paymasters.

Consider, through the vehicle of Codex Alimentarius, the WTO imposes the followingrules:

WTO member nations are required to take into account the objective of minimizing

negative trade effects; and required to avoid arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions in thelevels of risk protection that it considers to be appropriate, if such distinctions result in

38 Scott Tips, JD. 2009. CODEX ALIMENTARIUS AND THE IDIOCRACY. September 14,NewsWithViews.com. Posted at: http://www.newswithviews.com/Tips/scott101.htm (March 2010)

39http://ec.europa.eu/food/international/organisations/codex_en.htm

11


12/24


discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade (Taylor 2004). 40 Thesedeclarations overtly reference matters of corporate profits as an outcome of trade, nothuman needs or even consumer safety as defined by government ministries or scientific

proof.

Still if we concede that the WTO and hence Codex Alimentarius is designed to servecorporate interests, we still need to investigate whether or not the profit motive of a fewcorporations is at odds with public health, food safety, and human needs. Let us examine someof the ways that EU practices, in pushing the Codex Alimentarius and its regulations, are harmfulto EU citizens and residents.41

Codex Alimentarius includes thousands of standards and guidelines. One of them, theVitamin and Mineral Guideline (VMG), establishes mandates on maximum dosages at whichcompanies can packages or health practioners can recommend for daily consumption of

vitamins, amino acids, and other nutrients (Taylor 2004; Tips; 2009; Null 2010).42 And theselevels are at extremely low if not completely inefficacious (Taylor 2004; Tips 2009; Null2010). Note, at present the EU is not enforcing the Codex maximums per se, rather EU officialsdemand compliance of the EUs own Food Supplements Directive (Tips 2009) a necessarymove done in the name of harm-onizing WTO rules. But this directive was drafted by BasilMathioudakis (Taylor 2004) who also sits on the CAC (Laibow 2009)!

Though two particular researchers/authors Gary Null and Scott Tips have neithercollaborated nor referenced each other, they reach the same conclusion about the purposes andeffects of Codex rules. Null (2010) and Tips (2009) find that the only logical basis to understandwhy the CAC advises people to consume low levels of natural supplements (and in fact demands

that WTO governments criminalize administration of higher dosages or declarations about theefficacy of higher dosages despite evidence of the medical efficacy of any particular dose ofany substance) is to leave the public, as well as doctors, to believe that vitamins and foodsupplements cannot improve human health.43 In fact, Codex guidelines declare that producers of

40See The WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), Article

5; paragraphs 4 and 5. Taylors (2004) dated analysis added this caveat about pre-Lisbon enforcement of WTOagreements as worked through Codex Alimentarius:

technically ... there is no legal obligation on [WTO] Members to apply Codex standards, guidelinesand recommendations [but] Codex texts are used by the WTO as a means of resolving international tradedisputes and WTO Members are legally obliged to abide by WTO rulings. Once the Codex Guidelines for

Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements are completed therefore, all it would take to begin enacting themglobally would be for one of the participating countries to launch, and win, an international trade dispute.

41 In 2010, Toxicologist Robert Verkerk, PhD, who serves as executive director of the Alliance for Natural Health,co-authored a piece published in Toxicology which challenged the methodology used by the EFSA in defining safemaximum levels for vitamins and nutrients.

42 See and hear commentaries of Gary Null, PhD, MD, through his website and the Progressive Radio Network at:http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-gary-null-show-wnye/.

12


13/24


natural supplements shall not be allowed to provide claims of their curative effects lest theyface criminal sanction (Rath 2001). A loss of public awareness in conjunction with a restrictionon free speech is solely for the benefit of pharmaceutical companies that otherwise could not

compete against natural, non-toxic, non-allopathic remedies for a host of so-called autoimmunediseases (cf. Rath 2001).44

Rima Laibow (2009) goes further. She insists that over the years, the CAC has loweredrecommended daily allowance guidelines for vitamins and essential nutrients as a means topromote chronic malnutrition in the population world-wide. Laibow (2009) says that massunder-nourishment will result in an explosion of diseases like cancer, diabetes, cardio-vascularand heart disease, as well as problems with obesity.45

Taylor (2004) explains the practice this way, the CAC guidelines for dosages of vitaminsand nutrients are derived through a standard toxicology rubric, Risk Assessment. The science of

Risk Assessment was developed to examine poisons, chemicals not suitable for human ingestion,chemical fertilizers, and or artificial, pharmaceutical drugs. By definition, vitamins and nutrientsare essential for human health such can restore cell integrity, prevent and even reverse disease(cf. Null 2010). However, the CAC's Vitamin and Mineral Guideline takes the perverse positionthat these substances should be evaluated as toxins that are unnecessary for human health (Taylor2004). If knowledge of natural and essential supplements, phytonutrients, vitamins, etc., is lostor suppressed to the public, health care workers, and even food companies, then the standardtreatment for what the World Health Organization calls non-communicable treatable illnesseswill be drugs made by the illness care industry (Laibow 2009).46

Risk Assessments or Sickness Creation?

A policy centered on destroying or perverting public knowledge as a means to preventpeople from controlling their health and breaking free from drug companies and other corporateinterests is neither an accident nor the result of an unintended consequence. The evidencedemonstrating what amounts to a misanthropic cabal is abundant.

Are we surprised to learn that one subcommittee of the CAC, the Codex Committee onNutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU), is chaired by Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, a

43 Note, according to Gary Null, in the early 1980s, he treated persons suffering from AIDS by administering20grams of liquid vitamin C. This level of dose is far in excess of any standard protocol in mainstream Americanmedicine. See more at www.garynull.com

44 http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/health_movement_against_codex/index.htm (March 2010)

45 Laibow gave a report in 2009 from Duesseldorf, Germany, at the 31st meeting of the CAC. See her report at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P30Itrfhn8o

46 Natural Solutions Foundation, Codex Alimentarius (World Food Code), Summarized in 7 Pointshttp://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=157; see also Rima Laibow (2009) speaking on the Codex Alimentariusand the CAC at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P30Itrfhn8o

13


14/24


physician who has claimed that nutrition is not relevant to health (Talyor 2004). FurthermoreGrossklaus owns the Risk Assessment company that is a paid advisor to the CCNFSDU on theissue of what dosages of given nutrients should be declared illegal (Taylor 2004). And let the

last point be reiterated, employ of Codex Alimentarius and implementing legislation does notonly proscribe certain substances, but even demands criminal penalties for excessive [sic]dosages.47 Again, in pursuit of these Codex policies, the EU European Food Safety Authorityhas promulgated rules that hold unless the EU has certified a given vitamin or mineral substanceas safe, member states much petition for the right to allow said substance or dosage to bemarketed.48 This point is made in the EU Food Supplement Directive, article 2/4:

Vitamins and minerals not included in the annexes may be sold in EU Member States atthose States discretion until December 2009, provided those vitamins and mineral formshave already been in use in the EU and that the European Food Safety Authority has notgiven an unfavourable opinion to a scientific dossier on that substance.49

CAC guidelines and standards cover nearly everything that one would ingest. Rangingfrom oils and food additives to pesticides and natural mineral waters, Codex Alimentarius isinvolved (Tips 2009). And while these standards are to be applied to international trade, theCodex Strategic Plan states specifically that these rules will be applied domestically as well (Tips2009).50

Unknown to the average European citizen, every year, the CAC and relevant EUCommittees on Food Safety and Medical Products,51 make rules that member countries, the EUincluded, are expected to adopt in relation to both international and domestic trade (Tips 2009).But further, since 2003, when the European Community (now the EU) itself became a full

member of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the EU shares the competence with EUMember States in its power to harmonize the relevant legislation (Tips 2009). That is, the EUCommission may adopt legislation regulations and directives in the name of bringing the

47 Natural Solutions Foundation, Codex Alimentarius (World Food Code), Summarized in 7 Pointshttp://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=157

48 See http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/supplements/index_en.htm (March 2010).

49 http://www.erna.org/Key-Features.aspx (March 2010)

50 This policy strategy, using international agreements to dictate domestic policy outside the normal legislativeprocess is also a common means to avoid domestic, constitutional and legal prohibitions on said regulations. In the

case of the United States, Congress used treaties on drug imports and exports to criminalize drug possession.Ironically, because international treaties on drugs like marijuana (namely the Single Convention and its manyamendments) allow for domestic autonomy, the Netherlands can permit marijuana production, sales, and purchasesinside the Netherlands without violating international agreements. But in the case of the Codex Alimentarius, we seethat EU nations will be subject to the dictates of the treaty in re domestic practices though the related treaties andagreements purportedly are designed to regulate international trade.

51 Various commissions and offices of the EU include the European Food Safety Authority, European Agency forthe Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA).

14


15/24


entire EU into compliance with CAC mandates. And because EU law is superior to national law,instead of cooperating with member states, in re Codex Alimentarius, the EU forces memberstates to align with the preferences of EU Commissioners. Of course should any EU member

state be found, by the EU itself, in violation of Codex/WTO-related rules, that nation will besubject to WTO fines and EU-based sanctions.

According to a decision of the EU Council of 2003, the object of the Codex AlimentariusCommission is to harmonise [sic] worldwide health standards.52 Even after the 2005 decision bythe European Court of Justice (from two joined cases C-154/04 and C-155/04) that was seen as apartial victory for consumers, this point was made clear. In that case, the Alliance for NaturalHealth challenged EU directives in re restrictions on supplements and other parts of Codexgenerally, the ECJ upheld the idea that the EU could impose a positive list of vitamins, dietarysupplements, and related matters.53 Via use of the positive list which is a grant of right, ratherthan a governmental edict imposing certain prohibitions on human activity EU Commissioners

have near absolute authority to restrict sales of nutrients, homeopathic medicines, vitamins, andthe like.

Another aspect of harmonization is what the CAC calls the upper limit on vitamins andnutrients (Laibow 2009). These upper limits mean that foods cannot be fortified with vitaminslike B6, B12, omega-3 fatty acid at a level greater than dictated by Codex (cf. Laibow 2009).Why is that important? The reason, as found by Null (2010), Laibow (2009) and others -including Vandana Shiva, is that the growing use of GMO crops, heavily capitalized agriculture,and the ubiquity of processed food has left most people in the industrialized world with food thatdoes not provide sufficient levels of essential nutrients and vitamins. Thus the disease of ricketsis reappearing in the U.S.54 As well, this lack of nutrition has contributed to growing rates of

obesity and diabetes in the developed nations.

GMOs, Good for EU?

Beyond the obstacles that the EU provides its residents who want supplements, the otherproblem for human health is the use of GMO foods. While some member states oppose certaintype of GMO crops particularly maize (Cendrowicz 2010)55 - the WTO, using the dictates ofthe CAC, has ruled such prohibitions as violations on trade. Thus while previously the EU

52European Council Decision of 17 November 2003 on the accession of the European Community to the Codex

Alimentarius Commission (2003/822/EC), preamble; paragraph 1.

53 See press release from the Alliance for Natural Health of 26 July 2005

54 Amandolare, Sarah. 2010. Return of Rickets Has Experts Concerned About Lack of Sun Exposure. April 9,http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/health/2010/april/Return-of-Rickets-Has-Experts-Concerned-About-Lack-of-Sun-Exposure.html

55 Cendrowicz, Leo. 2010. Is Europe Finally Ready for Genetically Modified Foods? Time, 9 March,http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1970471,00.html

15


16/24


allowed wide-scale prohibitions on GMO crops and or demanded labeling, we should not besurprised to see that in the new EU, GMOs are approved. For example, recently the EUCommission approved use of a GMO potato, and over 75% of all soy beans used in the EU come

from GMO seeds (Cendrowicz 2010).

What is the justification, under WTO, hence CAC, and now EU rules, to allow GMOfoods? The answer is Risk Assessment. Hence the very same rubric which defines life-givingnutrients as toxins (which are not to be taken in excess of nearly useless limits), is used toproclaim that GMO foods, pesticides, use of hormones in the production of animal proteins, andterminator seeds are perfectly safe for human consumption. Under WTO and CAC protocols, nonation can ban imports or force GMO labels on foods without a sufficient scientific basis for sucha restriction on trade (cf. Cendrowicz 2010). And while there is good reason to see that GMOfoods are unsafe for direct or indirect human consumption (Ananda 2010),56 we have to wonder,how long it is until right-minded scientists like Grossklaus, sitting on various EU panels and

commissions approve any and all GMOs.

And if hormones in beef or milk from cows injected with BGH are permitted by theCodex, EU citizens cannot change this rule via elections.57 Any change in Codex-based policy orrules can only occur through the very organ that approved the policy in the first place, the EUCommission. There is one other option, the EU Commission, through failure to implement aWTO preference, can choose to breach international obligations leaving the EU susceptible toWTO fines and penalties. Of course the EU will not reach into is own coffers to pay any WTOpenalties. Rather the taxes will be extracted from the citizens of the EU, who, through no faultof the their own save some desire from duly elected, democratic leaders to enact and enforcefood and drug health and safety rules for the betterment of people and their own health over the

demands of corporations to extract wealth and impose sickness and disease on hundreds ofmillions of people.

Part III. Other questions of individual liberty

Liberty every where [is] crushed between standing armies and perpetual taxes.

James Madison (1788) 58

The last section of this paper will examine more tangible and or more traditional concernsabout civil liberties. Along with economic controls exercised from the outside, and a loss of

autonomy over ones food choices and food safety, the new EU is expanding is grip in the formof a police-state. In particular, the EU is creating its own army, has adopted the 1950 European

56 Ananda, Rady. 2010. Three Approved GMOs Linked to Organ Damage. Truthout, 8 January.

57 http://en.euabc.com/word/2152 (March 2010)

58Federalist#41, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_12s22.html

16


17/24


Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and exercised theEuropean Arrest Warrant. Though one might believe or argue that these institutions, policies,and practices might protect civil liberties, when seen in another light, they can easily be used to

remove freedom.

The EU Army

According to James Madison (1787)

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safecompanions to liberty. The means of defence [against] foreign danger, have been alwaysthe instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim toexcite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armieskept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

But was Madison correct? And even if we agreed with his analysis of history, might not thearmy of an enlightened and modern Europe be different?

In February 2010, German Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle, called for the EU toproceed with plans for a European army as called for under the Lisbon Treaty.59 Westerwelledubbed the creation of such an army the beginning and not the end of a common security anddefense policy.60

But the statement begs the question, security for whom, defense against whom?According to Italian Foreign Minister, Franco Frattini (2009), the EU army is a necessary aspect

of a common foreign policy lest Europe become irrelevant bypassed by the G2 of theUnited States and China.61 What he called the Pacific axis.62

Frattini alleged that current practices, whereby each EU member state has its ownmilitary, create inefficient duplications (Owen 2009). However, Frattinis evaluation pertainedto the use of military forces from EU member states in Afghanistan an overtly illegal invasionand occupation. In fact, Frattini argued that a common EU force would reduce unfair burdensharing in the project of imperialism due to the fact that in Afghanistan, French troops werenot there in equal proportion to those of other EU nations (cf. Owen 2009).

59 Church of God News. 2010. Germany Wants EU Army and Meets with Israel. February 6, citing AgenceFrance Presse, http://www.cogwriter.com/news/prophecy/germany-wants-eu-army-and-meets-with-israel/

60Scally, Derek. 2010. German minister calls for Lisbon treaty EU army. The Irish Times, February 8, 2010,

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0208/1224263954855.html (March 2010)

61 Owen, Richard. 2009. Italys Foreign Minister says post-Lisbon EU needs a European Army. The TimesOnline, 17 November. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6917652.ece

62 Owen (2009) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6917652.ece

17


18/24


Beyond the illegal occupation of Afghanistan, Frattini hypothesized that joint EU forcesin the form of a navy could better patrol the Mediterranean Sea (Owen 2009). And as Frattinidropped the issue as a military matter, he did say that such a navy could help share the burden

felt by Italy in trying to save would-be immigrants from drowning at sea (Owen 2009).

Thus the point should be understood clearly. Like the U.S., Europe generally, and the EUin particular, has no external military threat. Neither current nor future military power, in termsof personnel or machinery, can stop criminal acts of terrorism anyway. However, internal anddomestic policing via military, not civilian personnel, would be an easier way to deal with civilunrest. Even now, as Greece has riots and strikes, the state has responded with riot police.What are riot police but nothing more than military personnel by another name? The wearmilitary uniforms and have military pacifying weapons like tear gas and even sound cannons.When the federal government of the U.S. (under the Constitution of 1789) gained control over itsown army outside the control of the several states its first action was to put down tax

protesters in Pennsylvania.63

German Foreign Minister Westerwelle (2010) explains, in Orwellian terms, the true needfor a united military of Europe:

United Europe will only be secure if my generation, which has never experienced war,suffering or hunger, is strongly committed to European integration.

If Westerwelles generation has never experienced war by which he means a land war inEurope, with EU member states taking up arms against each other under a condition wherethere was no EU army, why will security only come if there is an EU army? At present the EU

has no internal borders. Citizens, businesses, and capital can travel freely within the Eurozone.There is one currency. What more integration is necessary? According to Westerwelle, the nextstep is integrating the military. But what will be the result?

How will a new EU army, under the control of a single person, the president, heading theEU supranational state, prevent war, suffering, or hunger? As there will be and are economic,material, and human costs associated with creating, maintaining, and running an EU military, wemust recognize that these costs come at the expense of human needs. Hence on economic andmaterial terms alone the EU army will be a burden on the security of the people of the EU. Andin terms of liberty, the specter is great that in short order, especially as economic unrest spreadsacross states of Spain and Italy, as ethnic tensions grow immigrant vs. national, Muslim v. non-

Muslim, etc., the army will be deployed in the name of keeping peace. Such an army will be amere occupying force.

63 The event is known in American history as the Whiskey Rebellion. The troops of the national, i.e., federal,military were led by the president, George Washington in 1794. In a classic case of that which history had shownmen like Madison, the state used the claim of an external threat to justify the force that would turn on the domesticpopulation.

18


19/24


As the UK Independence Party has explained, the EU has its own armed police unit, theEuropean Gendarmerie Force (EGF), which is essentially a militarized police force. Theprimary function of this force is to deal with civil unrest i.e., crowd control. The UKIP

questions why such a force is needed when national police forces already have such means andmandates. Further as seen by most of us who review history of times when foreign agents policecivilians, it is unlikely that the EGF would exercise restraint when policing disturbances. Thusthe presence of the EGF creates greater potential for serious abuses and use of excessive force an EU military should be no different.64

If the past is prologue, we have good reason to reject the idea that any security can comefrom the burdensome and dangerous creation of a new EU army. To review more words ofMadison (1788):

the liberties of Europe, as far as they ever existed, have with few exceptions been the

price of her military establishments. A standing force therefore is a dangerous, at thesame time that it may be a necessary provision. On the smallest scale it has itsinconveniences. On an extensive scale, its consequences may be fatal.

Human Rights, Gutted Under Lisbon

As amended by the Lisbon Treaty, Article 6 of the EU constitution invokes the idea ofprotecting freedom and ensuring individual liberty through implementation and accession to theEuropean Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).Subsections 2 and 3 of Article 6 read as follows:

2. The Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of HumanRights and Fundamental Freedoms. Such accession shall not affect the Union'scompetences as defined in the Treaties.

3. Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection ofHuman Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutionaltraditions common to the Member States, shall constitute general principles of theUnion's law.

However, a simple reading of the ECHR shows that so-called freedoms againstgovernment tyranny in the form of execution, martial law, restrictions on movement, political

speech and political association, state-led and state-sanctioned home invasions and house arrest,denial of public trials, and the like are all permitted. That is, for each supposed right or freedomarticulated, the state can always override the prohibition or assurance of protection in the nameof national security, public security, public health, or preservation of public morals.

64 UK Independence Party (2008), Criminal Justice Policy (CJP) at 7. http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/law_final.pdf

19


20/24


For example, ECHR Article 2(2)(c) reads that the government can kill a person withouteven an accusation that the person has committed a crime in the name of quelling a riot orinsurrection. Article 4(3)(d) which purports to prohibit state-sanctioned forced labor or slavery,

shall not prohibit the state from extracting labor via compulsory civil obligation. What is mostremarkable is that while even in the U.S., the government may extract forced labor againstcriminal convicts duly convicted via due process of law (see U.S. Const. Amend XIII), there isno similar provision to allow the state to compel ones labor withouta criminal conviction.However, in the EU, now member states can compel labor of innocents. Further, this provisioncan be used by the EU to extract labor either directly or indirectly (via the local, member stategovernment) from EU residents.

Under Article 5(1)(e) governments may detain persons indefinitely with the claim thatgovernment seeks to prevent spread of infectious disease, or said person is of unsound mind or analcoholic, a drug addicts or vagrants. Again we must wonder what ruse shall be perpetuated to

justify home detentions or mass arrests. In 2009 the WHO declared a level 6 pandemic due to theso-called H1N1, swine flu.65 In response, the EU member states, which are bound, by treaty, tofollow WHO dictates on pandemics, ordered millions of dosages of useless vaccine vaccines thateven EU officials found to be ineffective,66 if not dangerous.67

Of course the specter of a claim that HIV is spreading looms over EU citizens despiteevidence that HIV does not exist, or if it does, is harmless.68 Concerns about HIV aside, there is noguarantee that the EU government or its member states shall not proclaim yet another swine oravian or human influenza outbreak. And what of a claim that a person is of unsound mind because they refuse to take vaccines, or anti-psychotic drugs or due to the side-effects of vaccines?The EU/ECHR provision that a state can arrest and detain a drug addict or alcoholic or vagrant is

akin to American laws that were designed to target Blacks, immigrants, Mexican-Americans, andNative Americans for police harassment and constant fear of police (cf. Blackmon 2008).69

Article 6(1), referencing the democratic principle of public trials, explains that trials can bemade private in the interest of justice! Again, the history of the U.S. is instructive. Thejustifications for Constitutional Amendments saying that a defendant has a right to a public andspeedy trial were to protect citizens against abuses of the English crown. But instead of movingjustice forward in the name of protecting a criminal defendant the EU under Lisbon regressesand enables Star Chamber proceedings in a Kafkaesque system.

65 Chan, Margaret, MD. 2009. World now at the start of 2009 influenza pandemic. World Health Organization,

UN, New York. Statement to the press by WHO Director-General, 11 Junehttp://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2009/h1n1_pandemic_phase6_20090611/en/index.html

66 http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/europe-investigate-possible-flu-panic

67 http://organichealthadviser.com/archives/h1n1-swine-flu-vaccine-deaths-being-reported-all-over-europe

68 See Gary Null, Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS (2006); also see documentary film House of Numbers (2009)

69 Blackmon, Douglas. 2008. Slavery by Another Name. New York, Doubleday Press

20


21/24


Article 7(2) allows a nation to arrest, convict, and punish a person who commits a legal act(legal in the manner of not defined as a crime when commenced within that particular jurisdiction,by persons not prohibited), so long as another jurisdiction defines the act as criminal. This rule is

one of the most pernicious. If all citizens or residents are presumed both to know and obliged toobey the laws of the land in which they are, why should innocent activity be criminalized? Whatnotice or defense does one have when innocence is no defense. Not surprisingly the U.S. has aparallel provision. Title 18 of the United States Code, sections 956(a)(1) and (2) declare ascriminal, conspiracy to commit an act outside of the U.S., if committed in the U.S. wouldconstitute the crime of murder, kidnapping, and or maiming.70

Article 8(2) of the ECHR, corresponding to the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,allows for invasions of home and private life in the interests of national security, public safety,morals, and even the economy. Thus, turning the supposed liberty of one to be free of governmentinvasion of privacy, home, papers, and personal effects on its head and granting government near

carte blanche to enter the home and seize persons and effects. Whereas in the U.S., the entry isonly supposed to come as justified by a court order, wherein a judge has been convinced that thereis probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed (see Bascuas 2005),71 the EU ruleallows for armed police to conduct home invasions in the name of the economy! Again, by whatprovision can a judge find that a home invasion and seizure of private property, justified asnecessary in re the national economy, would be legally improper?

And with the Lisbon Treaty, there is no protection for or government assurance of freedomof speech at least not in the way that any American citizen or UK subject would be familiar.72

Article 10(2) allows for criminality of speech (or written and non-verbal expression) on multiplegrounds:

freedom [of speech] may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions orpenalties as are prescribed by law in the interests of national security, public safety,for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for theprotection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of informationreceived in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary;

70 See Indictment of Jose Padilla, United States v. Padilla et al., filed in the Southern District of Florida, 17November 2005

71 Bascuas, Ricardo. 2005. The Unconstitutionality of Hold Until Cleared: Reexamining Material WitnessDetentions in the Wake of the September 11th Dragnet. 58 Vanderbilt Law Review 677.

72 EU Member of parliament complained after receiving a fine for comments he made in the parliament as contraryto common law rules and guidelines about free speech. See MSNBC. 2010. UKIP leader Nigel Farage defiantover Rompuy row. March 3,

http://news.uk.msn.com/forum/thread.aspx?threadid=1670326&thread=00000071-0000-0000-b67c-190000000000&board=00000071-0328-0000-0000-000000000000

21


22/24


Here we see the door open for the most perverse systems of governmental control. Anystatements against government policy or government practices like claims that: (i) HIV does notexist; (ii) vaccines are dangerous causing ailments like Guillain-Barre Syndrome, autism, and

even death; (iii) CAC defined vitamin limits are unhealthy; (iv) EU officials engage in self-dealing or unjust enrichment, etc., can be made a crime! If citizens cannot raise political issues,cannot voice discontent, how can government policy change from below?

Article 11(2) permits governments to deny free assembly and association for the samereasons offered in Article 10. Again, this provision of liberty means that the EU and her memberstates can criminalize political parties, Facebook chat groups, even academic departments in thephysical sciences, humanities, and social sciences alike - in universities have no recourse from theexceptions to free speech and free assembly.

Simon Says, Extradition! The European Arrest Warrant

In this last section I will provide a review of what is truly the final nail in the coffin in reindividual freedom, liberty, and heretofore common notions of due process. The death nail is theEuropean Arrest Warrant (EAW). What makes this EU policy so abhorrent is that whereas theECHR permits one to be arrested in their home nation, the EAW it allows one to be arrested atthe whim of any other EU state! And as is consistent with the move toward police-stateoppression, the list of offenses and the process by which one is to be extradited to theexecuting member state run counter to safe guards of liberty enshrined by documents like theMagna Charta and the U.S. Constitution i.e., bulwarks against tyranny.

Outside the EU, if one nation were to proclaim that a person, outside their jurisdiction,

should stand trial for an accused crime, that nation would seek extradition. Standardrequirements for extradition include both bilateral treaties of extradition and an accusation ofsome serious offense that is also a crime in the place where the fugitive is. This latter principleis called double criminality. The logic of these requirements and or processes is simple. Itpertains to matters of national sovereignty and the autonomy of each nation to adjudge its ownnotions of fairness, justice, and criminality. The grounds by which an EAW is to be issued andthen enforced by the receiving nation run roughshod over these principles. And while questionsof member state sovereignty might not be so significant, at the level of individual freedom andones efforts to remain free from tyranny, the EAW policy of the EU reduces ones protections tonearly nothing.

Building on a framework decision of 2002, at present, throughout the member states ofthe EU, the framework decision that provides for the EAW, among other things, mandates thatmember states take steps to effect timely extradition of accused criminals and criminal suspects.And though the process currently occurs on a state to state basis, with the enlargement of the EUcompetencies in the area of justice (criminal law enforcement) and home affairs (internal

22


23/24


security) under Lisbon, by 2014, the EU government itself, through EUROPOL and EUROJUSTshall be able to exercise EAWs with complete autonomy.73

So what are the significant aspects of the EAW rules? First, the warrants are issued froma member state to another member state. Hence the EAW places burdens and responsibilitiesupon the receiving nation. When certain factors are present, the country that receives the warrantis required to seize the person sought and return him/her to the executing nation. Here I willonly highlight what I see as the worst features.

If one has been duly convicted in the executing nation the receiving nation must effectthe arrest, even if the conviction is not for an act that would constitute a crime in the receivingnation. That is, unlike due process safeguards in Common Law nations, e.g., an extraditionhearing by which a court in the receiving would be allowed to judge the fairness of the processby which the arrest warrant was issued, the EU Directive on the EAW denies such possibility.

Note, while under the present framework, grounds to refuse enforcement of the warrant is that aperson were convicted in absentia. Yet there is an exception here. That is a conviction inabsentia is allowed and hence the EAW cannot be rejected if the executing country tookappropriate safeguards to obtain the conviction in accordance with law.

If the executing nation is seeking an arrest pursuant to a mere allegation of criminality, ifthe punishment for the crime can be at least three years in prison, the receiving country mustaffect arrest despite a lack of double criminality. Worse yet, the list of particular offenses towhich the EAW applies includes crimes of racism, xenophobia, computer-related crime, andfraud that affects the financial interests of the EU itself.74

Of course crimes of racism, xenophobia, and computer-related crime are not defined bythe Directive. But given that any EU member state or the EU itself can declare that heretoforepolitical speech threatens the peace or national security and thus is a crime and or part of aconspiracy to commit a crime, the amorphous nature of the category of crimes within the fieldsof racism and xenophobia or computer-related crime (i.e., using the Internet) allow for example,

73According to the UK Independence Party, EUROPOL operates under the central command of the EU government,

not a nation-state, thus creating jurisdictional problems and questions about how EU member states and nationalcourts can challenge the jurisdiction of EUROPOL and impose legal limits on EUROPOL personnel. For example,EUROPOL officials have exemption from prosecution, and therefore are free to confiscate and damage propertyand even kill suspects without any legal consequences.

According to an article published in The Daily Telegraph of 17 March 2007, EUROJUST, madeup of prosecutors, magistrates and senior police officers from each EU member state, is ready to assume the role of aEuropean Public Prosecutor. And former EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, Franco Frattini(currently the Italian Foreign Minister), favors creating a Euro-prosecutor with the authority to direct police ofmember states.

74 The inclusion of the crimes of racism and xenophobia under the jurisdiction of the EAW has moved the UKIndependence Party (2008) to fear that the EU under Lisbon will effectively eliminate free speech. See UKIndependence Party (2008), Criminal Justice Policy (CJP) at 5. http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/law_final.pdf

23


24/24


the nation of Poland to issue an arrest warrant for a person in France posting a comment on awebsite saying that government should allow Muslim women to have abortions. Or a court inBelgium could issue an arrest warrant for a person in Hungary creating a political party with a

platform in opposition to the use of ECOFIN sanctions against member states.

Conclusion

We are told that the Lisbon Treaty has been adopted and is now law in the EU. Under thenew EU rules nothing is to be amended without agreement of all 27 member nations. From apolitical science point of view, those who would grab power via the super-national state calledthe EU have stacked the deck and created extreme rules in a means to frustrate attempts ofmember states, and more importantly their citizens, to reclaim their sovereignty.

This paper has presented an analysis of a number of policy areas in the EU that severely

restrict individual liberty or put personal health and ones economic well-being at risk, all thewhile allowing any member state to imprison citizens and residents forever or for the offense ofdaring to exercise ones human rights. In theory, most of us might agree that economic unionsprovide advantages of efficiency to the greater benefit of all. But as Americans say, the devil isin the details. The details of the EU governance, rules, and power seem to contradict the corevalues and preferences of those who would be free. Hopefully these laws, policies, andstructures shall be rectified as to protect individual liberty and promote the general welfare ofpersons.

24

Documents

Debt Peonage, Corporate Capitalism, Codex Alimentarius, and Tyranny: an optimist’s guide to Lisbon