PDA

View Full Version : North American Union: Future Threat to Our 2nd A RKBA


Paladin
11-14-2007, 12:17 PM
I consider this to be one of my most important threads. I also realize it is just a few steps from some "conspiracy theory" involving the CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergers, the UN, etc. I don't know. I'm just reading the "writing on the wall" and trying to give everyone a "heads up" as to what is happening NOW in Europe and how it could be applied to America in the future.

The below key quote comes from "EU may 'Fast Track' Gun Control" at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7028328.stm

"While the EU cannot intervene in a sovereign countries' own gun laws, Ms McCarthy's committee on the internal market is hoping to push through a new directive - replacing Directive 477 which was passed in 1991 - which would set a series of basic standards which all EU member states would have to abide by."

This is a new way of foreign governments imposing their anti-gun -- or any other -- agenda upon a nation. A "union" is formed and individuals, businesses and nations in the union alter their economies to most efficiently thrive in the new union (i.e., individuals, businesses and nations become "interdependent"). Years later, when the interdependence has progressed to the point where backing out is economically ruinous, the union changes the requirements for membership (e.g., a regulation/ban on private ownership of firearms). If a nation does not go along with the change, that nation may be kicked out of the union and suffer economically since their whole economic structure has now changed from when they were economically independent. They are punished for maintaining their own sovereignty and not submitting to the imposed legislative agenda of the supra-national economic union. This is a "passive aggressive" version of a trade sanctions/embargo, one that the union, rather than individual member nations, imposes. Depending upon the union's constitution, not even other member nations' governments may be able to stop it. They could all be subject to a tyrannical, supra-national government, one that does not answer to member nations governments much less their citizens. (All that is missing is some military force to ensure that the member nations don't try to dissolve the union. That may be unnecessary in that the people may willing give up their freedom and nations their soverignty in the face of economic coercion.)

This is a current threat to European gun owners and a future threat to Europeans' freedom vis-a-vis their own governments (because of the disarmament of their own population).

Since there has been a lot of talk that Bush and others are secretly trying to roll Canada, the USA, and Mexico into a North American Union (with the "Amero" as our currency -- see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H65f3q_Lm9U), this strategy also poses a possible future threat to our 2nd A rights and ultimately our freedom.

Note well: None of this involves the UN (at this time).

yellowfin
11-14-2007, 12:45 PM
The bigger problem is internal, that there are people who would accept or even welcome this.

SemiAutoSam
11-14-2007, 12:58 PM
They have been open about it they just IMHO have lied as to what their objectives are.

Yes IMO its coming and there isn't a lot we as the governed subjects can do about it while there are people in this country that feel its nothing and isn't anything but the ordinary progress in government.

You can Google terms like NAU and NAFTA and find a lot of interesting reading.

At this website Bush debunks the myths and sets America straight.
The only question is do you trust Bush ?

I sure as hell don't.



http://www.spp.gov/
http://www.spp.gov/myths_vs_facts.asp
http://www.spp.gov/images/spp_200.gif
http://www.spp.gov/images/leaders_spp_082007.jpg


Since there has been a lot of talk that Bush and others are secretly trying to roll Canada, the USA, and Mexico into a North American Union (with the "Amero" as our currency -- see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H65f3q_Lm9U), this strategy also poses a possible future threat to our 2nd A rights and ultimately our freedom.

Can'thavenuthingood
11-14-2007, 1:33 PM
Oops, posting in wrong thread.

Vick

CitaDeL
11-14-2007, 2:37 PM
http://saveourstate.org/vforums/showthread.php?t=33771

Its not just about gun control,.. but about soveriegnty, immigration, our money and a whole slew of issues that are seem to be slipping out of our control.

The rally at the is scheduled at noon on 11-17-07 (this Saturday).

I will be in attendance.

AKman
11-14-2007, 3:22 PM
Other than Hillary Clinton, I'm not sure how many of the current candidates has the balls to push the NAU and a total gun prohibition. I'm not too into the tinfoil hat type of thinking, but there is definitely a strong push for North American integration. The US is in a position where the current standard of living and social welfare system is not sustainable. The pyramid scheme known as Social Security and Medicare is on the verge of collapse in the absence of hoards of new workers (i.e., illegal immigrants given amnesty) or some other type of social integration. In addition, its pretty obvious that there is a concerted effort to bring US worker salaries more in line with other countries, thus the trend to outsource jobs and import cheap foreign labor.

As for the dollar, the current monitory policies seem to be aimed at beating down the net worth of the populace so that the Amero looks good. FYI, when Germany switched to the Euro, the people essentially lost 50 percent of their buying power. Something to look forward to.

grywlfbg
11-14-2007, 3:47 PM
Hang on, I'm not sure how the NAU would be bad as it relates specifically to RKBA. Gun ownership in Canada is quite high. Not sure about Mexico but I would assume they don't have that many restrictions on gun ownership. Which country (ies) in a combined NAFTA-government would push an anti-gun agenda?

In Europe, several of the member's governments are anti-gun so I can see how there would be plenty of support for it in the EU.

I know an NAU would be bad for other reasons, just wondering about RKBA.

elenius
11-14-2007, 4:37 PM
FYI, when Germany switched to the Euro, the people essentially lost 50 percent of their buying power. Something to look forward to.

I strongly doubt that. Source?

G17GUY
11-14-2007, 8:55 PM
WTF? bump for exposure

AKman
11-14-2007, 9:12 PM
I strongly doubt that. Source?

I found it hard to believe as well, but I have a German citizen that works for me and she has first-hand knowledge and experience with the changeover. When the DEM was replaced with the Euro, one Euro was set to be equivalent to DEM 1.95583. For the most part, prices for most goods did not change numerically, but only in what currency was accepted. Thus, the price for most goods and services nearly doubled. Other members of her family have complained about it when they were here visiting. I'll have her look for a more definitive source and have her translate it into English.

I did find an article titled "The Euro's an anti-German racket" but it doesn't provide a quantitative evaluation of the monetary change. However, one contributing factor was Germany's huge national debt that was associated with Unification. A devaluation likely allowed Germany to meat the Treaty of Maastricht requirement of a Government debt/GDP ratio of 60%.

Its not unusual for a government to devalue its currency, which in this case would have reduced the value of German debt, while raising prices relative to the old value of the DEM. As you might recall, in 1971 Nixon implemented an overnight 13% devaluation of the dollar against gold.

Speaking of devaluation, the Dollar has devalued against the Euro by about 44percent since October 2000 when one Euro was worth $0.825. The exchange rate closed today at one Euro being worth $1.466. The only reason you don't feel the pain is that you likely buy a lot more cheap Chinese junk than goods imported from Europe. You do, however, feel the pain at the gas pump since OPECers have been demanding payment in Euros instead of dollars. Thank you GWB!

AKman
11-14-2007, 9:25 PM
Getting back to the initial intent of this thread, both Mexico and Canada have much more strict gun control measures than the US, even California. However, Canadians essentially ignored their government's latest gun registration mandate, and, well, Mexico is Mexico when it comes to enforcing anything. No Mexican civilian may own a gun larger than .22 caliber, and a permit is required to buy one. All guns in Mexico are registered with the Ministry Of Defense. Guns may not be carried in public, either openly or concealed. See Guns and Ammo Mag (http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/rk0405/)

G17GUY
11-14-2007, 9:34 PM
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h218/patroticdream/flyuer.jpg

http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=155589

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MARCH AGAINST THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION!
Saturday 11/17/2007 -SACRAMENTO
file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/MPCX/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif
Is this the flag we'll one day be
pledging our allegiance to?
A patriot wildfire is spreading across the nation!
On Saturday November 17th, 2007 there will be a nation-wide
protest march in opposition to the Security & Prosperity
Partnership of North America and establishment of a North
American Union between the United States, Mexico &
Canada.
THE MARCH FOR AMERICA IS FOR EVERY PATRIOT!
We need and encourage everyday Americans just like you to join
us! By walking with a flag in the March for America, you take a
tremendously important stand in showing that there are real people
behind the demands to halt North American integration, to keep the
United States of America a free and sovereign nation.
WE NEED YOU!
The UNITED STATES WILL NOT BE MERGED INTO
ONE-WORLD COMMUNISM!
Sacramento Rally to be held at noon in front of the State Capitol on 12th and L streets. We will be on the sidewalks all around the capitol. Meet directly across from The Hyatt Hotel. It’s where Arnold sleeps when in town! For more info contact mgardner@lframerica.com

SemiAutoSam
11-14-2007, 9:41 PM
Why would you doubt that.

When a country's currency is taken over by a multinational currency wouldnt it make sense that the value of the old currency would not be equal to the new ?

Maybe Kitco has an article on this as the currency was most likely traded on the currency exchange and hence there would have been a record of its value in relation to the EURO when Germany accepted the EURO as its new currency.


I strongly doubt that. Source?

elenius
11-14-2007, 9:49 PM
I don't support the "amero", but Germany did NOT have a 100% inflation rate when they switched to the Euro. I've heard these stories from Germans too, but that doesn't mean it's so.

A result of a quick google:
http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/fridqewps/wp0005.htm


A substantial discrepancy was evident between inflation as measured by the official consumer price indices (CPI) and the one perceived by the general public... the average perceived inflation was approximately 4 times higher than the official inflation rate.

Can'thavenuthingood
11-14-2007, 10:01 PM
Seems to me that in order to make a switch from one standard to another, from dollar to amero, there would have to some sort of unit of value, like gold was the old standard.
The euro hasn't been around long enough to replace the dollar as a tower of strength, meaning staying power. From what I understand the participating countries aren't too thrilled with it. I haven't studied it other than in passing.

To just one day invoke the amero for a dollar swap is a recipe for disaster. I'd think inflation would ensue and a black market for the old dollar.

Like the MPC we had in Viet Nam, making a switch from red to black or green just upped the market value of the dollar and devalued the MPC.

If we just print and give the Mexican gov those units, say amero's, wouldn't they be even more worthless without something backing them?

If this is happens the richer nation will pay dearly and the rest of the global economy will suffer until the actual market forces get things straightened out.

I don't know, I'm just a T-shirt salesman.

Vick

G17GUY
11-14-2007, 10:07 PM
"The proposed plan for a North American Union on the Council on Foreign Relations wevsite, calls for a 15 member council that includes five members from each nation, which will set the agenda for the president instead of Congress.

The plan also calls for replacing Congress with a North American Parliament and a North American Court to replace the U.S. Supreme Court as well as a new continental perimeter and a continental tariff. It also calls for integrated Homeland Security and Customs."

http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=155589

C'mon the exchange rate is the last thing we should be worried about.

dondo
11-14-2007, 10:37 PM
What an absolute ****ing nightmare.

G17GUY
11-14-2007, 10:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTQ0NJ2QfjY&feature=related

AKman
11-15-2007, 4:19 PM
I don't support the "amero", but Germany did NOT have a 100% inflation rate when they switched to the Euro. I've heard these stories from Germans too, but that doesn't mean it's so.

A result of a quick google:
http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/fridqewps/wp0005.htm

It could be a vast German conspiracy to elicit sympathy. However, a lot of goods that were being sold in Germany included imports, which were a lot more price sensitive to the currency change.

As for real versus perceived inflation, does anyone really believe the US CPI? Why is it that most things that I purchase, not counting ammo, have gone up in price far in excess of the CPI? The government saves a LOT of money by keeping the CPI low (e.g., pensions, social security, etc.).

AKman
11-15-2007, 4:20 PM
"The proposed plan for a North American Union on the Council on Foreign Relations wevsite, calls for a 15 member council that includes five members from each nation, which will set the agenda for the president instead of Congress.

The plan also calls for replacing Congress with a North American Parliament and a North American Court to replace the U.S. Supreme Court as well as a new continental perimeter and a continental tariff. It also calls for integrated Homeland Security and Customs."

http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=155589

C'mon the exchange rate is the last thing we should be worried about.

That's true. OLL owners will have been hunted down and systematically exterminated well before the currency exchange occurs.;)

SemiAutoSam
11-17-2007, 10:01 PM
Here is an interesting read on the NAU.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/documents/MergerInTheMaking.pdf

G17GUY
11-17-2007, 11:36 PM
Here is an interesting read on the NAU.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/documents/MergerInTheMaking.pdf

very!

Paladin
11-18-2007, 9:20 AM
As for real versus perceived inflation, does anyone really believe the US CPI? Why is it that most things that I purchase, not counting ammo, have gone up in price far in excess of the CPI? The government saves a LOT of money by keeping the CPI low (e.g., pensions, social security, etc.).All too true. I'm using $50 bills now the way I used to use $20 bills 20 years ago. Yet the official rate of inflation, the Consumers Price Index (CPI), hasn't been that bad during those 20 years.

Over the past 5+ years, more people have caught on to the gov't fudging CPI numbers (as the Boomers get ready to retire), as you can see by the way gold has moved since 2001.

IMO, we need a "Ron Paul Revolution." Between Bush's unconstitutional drive for a North American Union (one step at a time via NAFTA, SPP, etc.), our currency crisis, the unconstitutional undeclared "war" in Iraq (Bush isn't alone in this. IIRC, the last war that was actually declared as required by our Constitution was WW II), the invasion of our country by 12 - 20 MILLION illegal aliens (while we who obey our laws are forced to pay to pay for THEIR health care, THEIR education, etc -- talk about slavery!) (see also: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=016_1194568395 -- which BTW talks about an analogus use of a supra-national organization (in this case NAFTA) to force changes in domestic American law (allowing Mexican trucking lines to travel throughout America) and http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=457_1194569352), the fact that our borders are WIDE OPEN more than 7 YEARS AFTER 9-11 (If 12-20 million gardeners, maids, hamburger flippers can easily enter the country, how many terrorists have come in? Sept 11th only took 19 people to pull off.), to our "runaway judiciary" where five tyrants approved eminent domain takings for PRIVATE use (the Kelo v. City of New London decision in 2005), it is time for a new "Tea Party" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsDlO2Lr_cg).

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaul2008dotcom

*****
http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58527

Expert says feds stealing half of seniors' paychecks
Contends government manipulating data to keep cost-of-living index low
Posted: November 8, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

The Social Security payments Americans receive in the mail are roughly half of what they would be if the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the Consumer Price Index honestly, a veteran econometrician told WND.

John Williams contends the U.S. government statistics intentionally understate inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index, or CPI.

By understating CPI data, Williams argued, government officials are able to avoid increases in Social Security payments that are mandated by law as "cost of living adjustments."

Williams maintains a website called Shadow Government Statistics that is dedicated to examine "analysis behind and beyond government economic reporting."

In an analysis of the CPI, Williams contends the index is understated by roughly 7 percent per year by government intentionally manipulating the data.

Many of the CPI manipulations, Williams asserts, were masterminded by Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman from 1987, under President Reagan, to 2006, under President Bush.[/B]

Williams points out that one of Greenspan's manipulations of the CPI involved the consideration that when steak got too expensive, the consumer would substitute hamburger for the steak. So, Greenspan argued, the inflation measure should reflect the costs of buying hamburger, not steak.

"Of course, replacing hamburger for steak in the calculations would reduce the inflation rate," Williams commented, "but it represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a declining standard of living. Cost of living was being replaced by the cost of survival."

Williams noted the old system "told you how much you had to increase your income in order to keep buying steak. The new system promised you hamburger and then dog food, perhaps, after that."

Williams concluded Greenspan's arguments violated the "intent and common usage of the inflation index."

"The CPI was considered sacrosanct within the Department of Labor, given the number of contractual relationships that were anchored to it," Williams wrote. "The CPI was one number that never was to be revised, given its widespread usage."

The Consumer Price Index is the central statistic the federal government uses to calculate inflation.

The CPI is a complex government statistic that was introduced in the 1920s to track the market cost of a "basket of goods and services."

Beginning in the Carter administration, federal economists have cleverly redefined the CPI, with the goal of removing from the index expensive items, including food and energy, that would push the it higher.

Today, when setting interest rates, the Federal Reserve focuses on a variation of the CPI that measures "core inflation."

The government's calculation of core inflation now excludes items such as food and energy, because food and energy "face volatile price movements."

In other words, since food and energy prices can spike, as they have this year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates "core inflation" without them. The rationale is that the price shocks are temporary and, therefore, would distort the measurement of underlying long-term inflation.

To a family faced with paying rising food and gas prices, however, "core inflation" at 2 percent does not reflect the cost of living.

Other items also can be thrown out of the CPI market basket if their price spikes under the premise that the big price changes reflect passing market disequilibrium that would distort the measurement of long-term trends.

Williams says the inflation rate is further deflated by changing "weighted factors" used in the index.

He estimates the true inflation rate in the U.S. would be close to 11 or 12 percent if the CPI were not manipulated.

The results of this under-reporting are dramatic, with the compounding effect just since the early 1990s of reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security so that today's checks are roughly half what they would be if the CPI were reported honestly, according to the standards of the 1980s.

Greenspan's recently released autobiographical book, "The Age of Turbulence," openly admits the political influences behind the calculation of inflation.

He notes President Richard Nixon imposed wage and price controls in 1971, even though the rate of inflation then was less than 5 percent.

Greenspan argues that the 4.5 percent inflation the U.S. experienced for the half century since abandonment of the gold standard may become the norm, with the consequence that saved dollars will lose half of their purchasing power in about 15 years.

At the height of the gold standard between 1870 and 1913, just prior to World War I, Greenspan correctly notes that the cost of living as calculated by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York rose only 0.2 percent annually.

The dilemma the Fed faces is that under the U.S. fiat currency system, to keep inflation low it must keep interest rates high.

"Yet to keep the inflation rate down to a gold standard level of under 1 percent, or even a less draconian 1 to 2 percent range," Greenspan wrote, "the Fed, given my scenario, would have to constrain monetary expansion so drastically that it could temporarily drive up interest rates into the double-digit range not seen since the days of Paul Volcker."

High interest rates constrict the money supply, make borrowing difficult and generally depress economic growth.

During his term, Greenspan justified 1 percent interest rates, which in 2003 were the lowest rates in 45 years, in a determined plan to keep the economy growing.

Williams argued, however, that the result has been to fuel real inflation.

G17GUY
11-18-2007, 10:04 PM
You might as well walk out into Arlington Cemetery and start pissing on graves, because; that is what establishing a NAU is akin to. This is America! F**k Mexico, f**k Canada. You like those places so much, then go f**king live there. We have God given rights that are supposed to be protected by a government that serves the people. I love this country, and I am damn proud to be an American. It is breaking my heart to see what's happening to this great country of ours. Large corporations, big money, and joe blow minimum wage should get equal say and equal representation from the government. The Republican party is no better than the Democrats. They just serve different masters. None of them give a s**t about you and me after election time. They are nothing but an elite aristocracy that will rule in favor of what's best for those that made it possible for them to get in power. They have no other agenda than to stay in power, which usualy requires eroding our rights.


And then came Ron Paul.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4025303543564443304&q=ron+paul&total=15182&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

SemiAutoSam
11-18-2007, 10:10 PM
AMEN brother.

You nailed it to the cross.

Too bad the American public is mostly asleep.

I would enjoy a nice old fashioned revolution .


You might as well walk out into Arlington Cemetery and start pissing on graves, because; that is what establishing a NAU is akin to. This is America! F**k Mexico, f**k Canada. You like those places so much, then go f**king live there. We have God given rights that are supposed to be protected by a government that serves the people. I love this country, and I am damn proud to be an American. It is breaking my heart to see what's happening to this great country of ours. Large corporations, big money, and joe blow minimum wage should get equal say and equal representation from the government. The Republican party is no better than the Democrats. They just serve different masters. None of them give a s**t about you and me after election time. They are nothing but an elite aristocracy that will rule in favor of what's best for those that made it possible for them to get in power. They have no other agenda than to stay in power, which usualy requires eroding our rights.

Paladin
11-24-2007, 11:19 AM
It just keeps getting worse in Europe. Note how they refer to "EU citizens." Thus, they want being German or French to be no different than being a Washingtonian or Californian. Similarly, that means if they pull off a North American Union, they want being an American to be no different from being a Mexican -- think of what that means economically and culturally. :mad:

Also, if they're starting to regulate food processing and soil conditions out of health concerns, how long do you think it will be before the EU regulates all private ownership of firearms out of existence? If they're planning to make Europe "smoke free," how long will it be until they try to make it "gun free"?

The article that started this thread is the first step. Again, the EU shows us what will happen to the USA if a North American Union is ever established. It took them about a half a century of slow merger to get the EU in place and it took them about a decade and a half after it was in place before they started going after Europeans' guns.

This is a long fight, like breaking a horse, where you slowly put the noose/lasso over its head -- the "frog in the kettle" approach -- where by the time people realize what has happened, it will take a violent revolution to try to overthrow it. And even then, you may not succeed.


*****
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0%2C1518%2C519165%2C00.html
PERFECTING A SYSTEM OF TOTAL CONTROL
How Brussels Regulates our Daily Lives

By Hans-Jürgen Schlamp and Markus Verbeet in Brussels

The European Commission in Brussels wants to protect European citizens even more effectively against danger and disease. Soon there will be a well-intended -- but mostly completely unnecessary -- regulation for every aspect of life.

One-year-old Diego didn't have a chance. Try as he would, he simply couldn't get the old "Made in China" lighter or the new "child-safe" version from France to light. Older children like Tessa, who is almost five, managed to coax a flame from the Chinese model after only three minutes. It didn't take her much longer to light the French version.

From a bureaucratic standpoint, the pre-pubescent subjects' efforts to play with fire -- all in the name of scientific research, of course -- were a complete success. Under an European Union regulation that goes by the code K (2007) 1567, as of March 11, 2008 only "child-safe" disposable lighters will be approved for sale in the EU. But first the lighters' "child safety" must be demonstrated in a test laboratory. Under the regulation, a lighter is deemed acceptable (that is, child-safe), if no more than 15 of 100 kids aged less than 51 months manage to light it.

There are exceptions, of course. For one thing, the regulation does not apply to higher-priced lighters. That's because the bureaucrats in Brussels are convinced no one would allow children to gain access to expensive lighters. But even the bureaucrats sometimes have their doubts about their own basis research. Now they warn that even a lighter labeled as "child-safe" in the future is "not necessarily safe for children," adding that lighters should continue to "be kept out of reach of young children."

It seems only a matter of time before Brussels' compulsion to control everything is subjected to a nonsense standard, which would recognize anything that causes 25 of 100 adult EU citizens to shake their heads in disbelief for a period of at least 30 seconds as general lunacy.

In all seriousness, the EU's inspectors are keeping themselves busy coming up with more and more regulations to govern even the most hidden corners of human existence, and that will cover the length and breadth of the EU -- from Inari in northern Finland to Limassol on the Mediterranean island of Cyprus.

Current regulations already run the gamut from protections against fine dust and noise to soil conservation to protections for workers against solar radiation and protections for non-smokers. A green paper for a "smoke-free Europe" is currently under discussion. The German state of Hesse recently opposed EU bureaucrats' efforts to redefine the term "wine" so that it would exclude non-grape-derived products like its traditional Äppelwoi ("apple wine," a local take on cider). The Hessians were successful -- for now.

EU Commission President José Manual Barroso and his 26 commissioners have nothing but good intentions. Anxious to dispel their image of bureaucrats well removed from the realities of daily life, they seek to portray themselves as the guardian angels of Europe's citizens, the protectors of the old and the young, and the guarantors of a life free of danger.

According to the EU Commission's new "Consumer Protection Strategy Paper," the EU must demonstrate to Europe's 493 million consumers that it has their best interests in mind. This new zeal has led to many a bizarre or even completely nonsensical EU directive, even though many of the new regulations are fundamentally justified. But when taken together, they create new control mechanisms on top of old ones already notorious for their intrusiveness and inefficiency.

Measuring the Obvious

For example, many European cities and regions, at Brussels' behest, are now developing so-called noise maps. To produce the maps, precise noise readings must be taken on every street, whether in downtown areas, in industrial zones, along railway lines or in expensive and leafy residential neighborhoods.

Some communities have already completed the mammoth project, while others are dragging their feet. All are furious about the new requirement.

"We are drowning in a sea of data," complains Munich Mayor Christian Ude. And in the end, no matter how costly the measuring process is, the results reveal what everyone has known all along: that it's louder on busy, high-traffic streets than in exclusive, villa-filled residential neighborhoods with maximum speed limits of 30 kilometers per hour.

Like Munich, many cities developed noise maps years ago. But now Brussels is dictating a new set of criteria, which means that the entire process has to be repeated from scratch. It's "a lot of bureaucracy" and "completely useless," says Ude.

The EU's self-proclaimed protectors of the general health and well-being are especially interested in food hygiene regulations. Their goal is to fully regulate the production, transport and sale of food products from the producer to the consumer's plate. Once again, the underlying concept makes perfect sense, and yet the new rules, while failing to prevent spoiled meat scandals or the excessive use of pesticides, have in fact served up all kinds of new absurdities. A Westphalian pig farmer who fattens his animals in his own forest, just as his grandfather did, runs afoul of the law if he allows the pigs' liquid manure to seep straight into the forest soil instead of draining it through standardized concrete pipes.

In some cases the Brussels bureaucrats' zealous rush to implement new standards has cost ordinary citizens their livelihoods. For instance, a regulation that requires all legal cheese production facilities to have running water and electricity spells the end of many Alpine cheeses. The small dairies that traditionally make these cheeses simply cannot afford the investments needed to satisfy the Brussels requirements.

Europe's "Specific Hygiene Regulations" cover every product and every producer, from "meat from hoofed animals kept as pets" to "frogs' legs and snails" and "animal fats and cracklings."

Anyone who, milk pail in hand, hopes to find fresh milk from the farm these days will have a lot of searching to do. Under Paragraph 17, Section 1 of the Animal Food Hygiene Regulation, "the sale of raw milk or cream to consumers is prohibited."

Only in exceptional cases are dairy farmers permitted to sell untreated milk to customers, and only when they are in compliance with a long list of detailed requirements regulating everything from the condition of the floors in the farmer's milking room to the material used to make his doors.

Of course, the dairy farmer mustn't forget to post a warning sign that reads "Raw milk -- Boil before consuming" in a "visible and legible manner at the selling location."

Paladin
11-24-2007, 11:20 AM
Part 2: Are Europeans Dim-Witted and Unable to Cope with Life?

There is only one thing the Brussels bureaucrats have forgotten in their zeal to slap regulations on just about everything: the often-evoked "responsible citizen." The Europeans of the 21st century appear to be dim-witted and unable to cope with life -- and wholly dependent on the dictates of Big Brother in Brussels. When it comes to protecting the population from its own supposed lack of common sense, Big Brother is enthusiastic.

For example, in the past, a German who wanted to build a small vacation house on the Mediterranean island of Mallorca ran the risk of building on top of a toxic waste site. In response to such hazards, the EU commissioners submitted a draft guideline for "soil protection" which is currently being debated in the European Parliament. Under the guideline, government agencies throughout Europe would be required to test the condition of the soil on every piece of property, from the Arctic Circle to Sicily, and identify "contaminated" sites.

The authors of the draft guideline say that its purpose is to protect the environment. Europe's soil faces all kinds of threats to its purity, from industrial chemical residues to agricultural pesticides, erosion, salt-water intrusion and the adverse effects of rapid development.

But because the EU has only partial jurisdiction in this area, it is essentially left up to the member states to decide what to do with the results of the soil tests.

Moreover, because the EU is so good at imposing regulations, non-profit organizations, businesses and citizens are demanding increasingly comprehensive protections for both the working and private spheres. "Bureaucracy is in demand," says Volker Hoff, a Christian Democrat and the minister for European affairs in the German state of Hesse.

A Tireless Effort to Regulate Everything

Advocates for the protection of consumers, children, animals, patients and practically everything else are tirelessly proposing new things that they are convinced require regulation or, in some cases, ought to be banned outright. The EU administrators in Brussels are only too pleased to comply, while the representatives of the member states are quick to give the go-ahead.

The commotion over US toy manufacturer Mattel's recall campaigns in late summer offers a typical example. A doll made in China had been found to contain lead paint, while another product contained small magnets that posed a potential swallowing hazard for children. These defects had hardly been discovered before millions of the potentially problematic toys were removed from store shelves and children's toy collections. The EU Commissioner for Consumer Policy, Meglena Kuneva, was satisfied and pleased to note that the early warning system was intact and that Europe's consumer protection mechanisms were working. But it would take only a few days before she was proven wrong.

Greens from Germany, leftists from England and tough consumer protection advocates of all stripes and nationalities demanded stricter laws. The usual populist politicians quickly jumped on the bandwagon, forcing the European Commission in Brussels to act hastily. In a session of the European Parliament on Sep. 25, EU Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry Günter Verheugen announced new draft legislation that included the "strictest safety regulations possible."

Who can possibly be against making toys even safer than they already are (and they have already been very safe for a long time)? And what harm can one additional regulation do?

Suffocating Responsibility

In truth, even legal experts find the well-intentioned flood of regulatory fervor overwhelming. Last year the president of Germany's Federal Constitutional Court, Hans-Jürgen Papier, warned "against the constantly increasing regulation of virtually all areas of society and the economy, as well as large segments of private life."

Strict EU hygiene regulations could put an end to centuries-old cheese-making traditions in Alpine communities.
The "expanded apparatus of the Brussels EU Commission" contributes to the fact "that there is now a layer of overregulation that exceeds the reasonable scope of the law," says Papier, the chief justice of Germany's highest court. For this reason, says Papier, the legal system runs the risk "of suffocating the individual responsibility and self-determination it is in fact intended to guarantee." Torsten Stein, a European legal expert at Saarland University, warns that one day EU citizens will become aware "that, long after the end of absolute rulers, a new authority has established itself that once again claims the authority to decide what is good and what is bad for subjects."

Undeterred by such doubts, officials in Brussels continue to perfect a system of total control. "Each citizen is a consumer," the EU Commission postulates. Each consumer is a potential entity requiring protection. And because everyone knows that we are what we eat, the logical conclusion is that protection begins well before our food reaches the supermarket.

Stifling Creativity

In the summer, detailed and highly complicated regulations were enacted over the kind of advertising and product information food manufacturers can and cannot print on their packaging. For the EU, the purpose of the regulations is ensure that citizens eat healthier.

The new rules stipulate precisely when and how a company can highlight the nutritional value of its product for promotional purposes ("high fiber," "low fat") or cite the positive effects of its product on the health of consumers. One of the requirements for using nutritional information as advertising is that the food product in question has a positive "nutritional value profile." In other words, it shouldn't be too rich, too sweet or too salty. As a result, only "good" food products can be advertised using nutritional information, while "bad" products must essentially remain hidden.

Under the rules, health-related information in the future will only be allowed if it appears on a long list the EU is currently compiling. Advertising copywriters will no longer rely on their creativity, but will be required to select the appropriate expressions from the EU's central list ("boosts immunity," "calcium is important for healthy bones").

This commission's creed might as well read "I forbid, therefore I am," complains Silvana Koch-Mehrin, a member of Germany's business-friendly Free Democratic Party (FDP) and of the European Parliament. According to Koch-Mehrin, depriving human beings of all risks creates a false sense of security and makes them "continually less free." What is not expressly permitted is verboten. Instead of "you may," the new mantra is "you may not."

The EU's compulsive need to help its citizens is also constantly being reignited by the fact "that we have 27 commissioners and each commissioner has his own turf," says Hessian Minister for European Affairs Volker Hoff, describing the phenomenon of the overzealous writer of regulations. EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection Markos Kyprianou, for example, "comes up with new ideas every day," says Hoff.

Kyprianou, a Cypriot, is currently working on his masterpiece. Just as his Irish predecessor David Byrne went down in the EU history books as a crusader for a "smoke-free Europe," Kyprianou wants to make a name for himself as Europe's savior from alcoholism. In addition to hard liquor, he wants to ban the consumption of beer and wine by adolescents. Bottles with high alcoholic content, says Kyprianou, should carry warning label that reads: "Drinking can damage your liver" or "Alcohol is hazardous to your health."

Even the higher regional court in the north-central German city of Hamm questions the value of the supposed need to enlighten drinkers. The court argued that in our society, "in a true-to-life sense, an understanding of the effects of alcoholic beverages is a part of basic knowledge."

But the idea of being true to life is problematic in Brussels, especially since health policy is in fact a national issue and not part of the EU's turf. In his anti-smoking campaign, Byrne used a backdoor approach, citing the EU's labor protection authority. Kyprianou is taking an even broader approach.

In his new "strategic approach," Kyprianou, dubbing his commission the EU Commission for "Health in Europe," warns of "multinational epidemics" and the dangers of "bioterrorism." Besides, he argues, Europe's aging population faces dangerous and constantly growing "health risks," including "migration, globalization and climate change." There is only one solution, writes Brussels' physician-in-chief: "The time has come for a strong, comprehensive EU health policy." "What we really lack," says Alexander Radwan, a member of the European Parliament and Germany's conservative Christian Social Union (CSU), "is a guideline to protect us from the EU's consumer advocates." Warning: Life is dangerous!

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan