Files
|
|
|
|
|
The EU - the nature of the beast
The European Union can be analysed and debated from a variety of different perspectives - political, historical, cultural, economic. But it is only from a spiritual perspective that it can be truly understood.
first published 13/12/07
by Watchman
  In the aftermath of the second world war, political leaders - the prime movers being France and Germany - made the initial moves to create what is now know as the European Union. And the succession of names given to the growing alliance illustrates the progression in geographic, economic and political scope from the late 1940s until the present day.
-
The European Coal and Steel Community The ECSC was formed in 1950 and this act of bringing coal and steel - as the means of production and the raw materials for the machineries of war " - under one roof" was seen as a way of preventing future European conflict. The six founders were France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. However the scope of the ECSC was set to expand to become -
-
The European Economic Community (EEC - or "Common Market) The Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957, and this treaty formalised both the geographic enlargement that has since progressed, but also the huge expansion of scope to cover most spheres of commerce and industry. The term EEC was very quickly replaced by -
-
The European Community (EC). By dropping the word "economic" from its title the EEC (EC) takes an authority over all areas of life. In turn the term "community" was then replaced to become -
-
The European Union (EU). Through a succession of boundary enlargements, the "Union" now includes countries from the former Soviet Union (FSU).
Successive boundary enlargements
In 1973 the European Communities were joined by Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom, followed by Greece in 1981, Spain and Portugal in 1986, Austria, Finland and Sweden in 1995.
In May 2004, the European Union expanded into Central and Eastern Europe. Ten new countries joined the EU: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.
Bulgaria and Romania joined this year (2007), while Croatia and Turkey are also candidates.
So what started in the late 1940s as an alliance of 6 countries (nation/states) relating to the coal and steel industries has progressed to become something far beyond its beginnings.
(For an overview of the geographic expansion <click here>.)
The Lisbon Treaty - 13 December 2007
The treaty signed on 13 December 2007 is a replacement for the failed Constitution which was rejected by the French and the Dutch in 2005; and - amongst other things - creates the permanent post of President of the European Union and a de-facto office of EU Foreign Secretary. Most European leaders acknowledge that the main substance of the constitution will be preserved.
(For more detailed information <click here>.)
Brueghel's painting of the Tower of Babel
The Empire of Europe - Babel reborn?
 Whilst there are markedly different views on the philosophies under-pinning the formation, expansion and role of the EU, there will be very few, on both sides of the debate who will disagree with the use of the term "super-state" to describe what the EU has now become. What we are witnessing is the creation of a latter-day european empire.
Supporters see european integration as creating the climate for peace and prosperity. Others think differently.
Initially created in an attempt to prevent european conflict many now feel that the EU - in what it has now become - sets the scene and creates the conditions for future strife.
From a biblical perspective, many Christians - supported by the EU's determination to exclude reference to God from its failed constitution - feel that what is apparent is an end-time manifestation of the spirit of Babel.
According to the BBC the European Parliament building in Strasbourg incorporates a unique sound and lighting system which will cause the dome of the parliament chamber to light up as the volume (noise level) of discussions rises. The BBC report states: A lighting system made up of optical fibres is installed like a constellation around the dome of the amphitheatre, blinking more or less intensely according to the sound level of the parliamentary debates.
===========
Ed footnote: What do we make of all of this? Answers on a postcard; or by hitting the "Comment" button below.
|
Watchman, 24/05/2016
|
(page
1
2
3
4
5)
| |
|
John Miller |
10/04/2013 14:50 |
Don't know how it happened but the last anonymous (Guest) post was mine.
|
| |
|
A Pilgrim (Guest) |
10/04/2013 20:14 |
John Miller wrote " She towers above them." She certainly does . When was the last time we heard a good old gospel Hymn being sung at a party conference, if I'm not mistaken it was at one of Mrs Thatcher's party conferences when the hymn " How Great Thou Art." was sung.
|
| |
|
stephen (Guest) |
10/04/2013 21:45 |
I am far from being left wing but cannot help by being repulsed by John Miller's comments:
"In any case her policies and political philosophy did not generally run counter to Christian principles. The left-wing myth that she destroyed the coal mining industry industry was a colossal lie"
I trust that these views do not represent the views of the editor.
I trust that this is not evidence of an extreme right wing undercurrent.
There cannot be many left in Scotland who still hold such views.
|
| |
|
Seumas, Tobermory (Guest) |
11/04/2013 13:43 |
Quote:"In any case her policies and political philosophy did not generally run counter to Christian principles"
Unbelievable.
This evil individual was a friend of Pinochet, engineered a war in the South Atlantic she knew she could win in order to get re-elected on the back of all the "butchers-apron" waving that followed.
Her policies led to the "greed-is-good" yuppie mentality that characterised the 80s. Mammon never had a bigger champion. She destroyed communities, industries, lives.
She was an apartheid supporter, describing Nelson Mandela as a "terrorist". In complete contrast, Mandela, when he was released from his chains showed more diginity, grace and Christian compassion that MT ever did
To equate this individual with christianity is little more than heresy.
BTW, calling her a witch is an insult to Wiccans....
|
| |
|
Friend of the forces (Guest) |
11/04/2013 14:56 |
"engineered a war in the South Atlantic she knew she could win"
Unbelievable.
Ask any serviceman who served in the Falklands what he or she thought of the scale of the task and the fine margin by which the victory was secured.
|
| |
|
Penny Lee |
11/04/2013 16:04 |
And who's 'engineering' the latest Argentinian sabre-rattling? There's never any need to go looking for wars - they usually come to you whether you want them or not!
|
| |
|
Seumas, Tobermory (Guest) |
11/04/2013 16:35 |
The Argentinians have been sabre ratlling over the Falklands for a long long time. So its no real surprise that they are still at it.At best, it was sheer incompetence that allowed them to invade in 1982. At worst, it was "convenient".
Considering that the Thatcher regime was massively unpopular in the opinion polls at the time, it all came about very conveniently. Thatcher and Galtieri were both hugely unpopular at the time. Nothing like a little foreign local difficulty to distract attention from domestic issues.
Quote:"There's never any need to go looking for wars"
The British state and their American puppet masters did just that in Iraq. (WMD anyone?) A war entered into by neo-thatcherite Blair and supported by Thatcher herself.
|
| |
|
John Miller |
11/04/2013 17:00 |
Seumas your theories about the Falklands War are pure fantasy.
|
| |
|
Penny Lee |
11/04/2013 17:23 |
Seumas - The USA and UK didn't go looking for a war with Iraq. They wanted to protect their oil interests but could never use that as an excuse for war. There were plenty other trouble-spots in the world causing even more misery to their own people but offered nothing to be gained by intervening for supposed humanitarian reasons. For democratic countries, financial interests seem to dictate when to engage in aggressive actions and for other countries (usually islamic) or places like N. Korea, it's despotic power which is the driving force.
I personally feel that Iraq and Afghanistan were none of our business and should have been left to sort themselves out. The Falklands are a different matter as they belong to Britain and had already been attacked. Quite a difference! I had no love of Thatcher and remember the misery her policies caused at the time but she was a very strong woman and I dread to think what would have happened with the Falklands if she hadn't been in power at the time. We'd probably have still been in a protracted war to this day.
At least we knew where Thatcher stood. There are those in power today who were elected on false pretences. They pretended to be for one thing and then completely changed their colours once elected.
|
| |
|
John Miller |
18/04/2013 16:01 |
The scriptures read at Baroness Thatcher's funeral service were remarkable. What a pity the bearded gentleman in fancy dress who took the service didn't use them to preach the Gospel!
|
(page
1
2
3
4
5)
|
|
|
|
