The conversation reports:
It didn’t matter where they were: in front of a café, a tobacconist, or the train station. It didn’t seem to matter who they were: men or women, Italian citizens, “regular” immigrants or asylum seekers. So long as they were black. A shooting rampage against African migrants in the town of Macerata, in central Italy on February 2, unveiled the extent to which the debate about migration in Italy is shaped by fascist forces and racist ideas.
By the end of the rampage, six people had been shot, one woman and five men. One is in a regional hospital with a chest injury, the others suffered lesser injuries and are in stable conditions. A 28-year-old man called Luca Traini, arrested at the scene draped in an Italian flag, was charged with an attempted racially-aggravated massacre. A copy of Mein Kampf and books on fascism in Italy were reportedly found at his flat. In 2017, Traini stood as a candidate for the far right Lega Nord at a local election, albeit scoring zero votes.
The attack came soon after the macabre death of Pamela Mastropietro, whose dismembered body was found in two suitcases in late January, dumped along the road near Macerata. A Nigerian man called Innocent Oseghale residing in Italy with an expired permesso di soggiorno (or permit of stay) was arrested the day after, accused of killing her.
I never met Gideon Atzeke, Jennifer Otioto or any of the other victims of the attack, and hardly anyone has mentioned who they were. But I did meet many asylum seekers in Macerata in summer 2017 during my research on the Italian government’s reception system for asylum seekers. And even then, the everyday and institutional racism confronting them seemed to be their main preoccupation.
Talking to them on the phone in the days since the attack I’ve been struck by the fatalist nature with which they processed the events. A sign, perhaps, of their extraordinary lives, and of their ordinary fears, aspirations, and claims for a secure and decent life, all of which which are constantly devalued and obscured by the migration debate.
Some Nigerians blamed the accusations against Oshigale for putting “all Nigerians in a bad light”. Others evoked the violent and racist abuse they faced in Libya, drawing explicit parallels between their treatments in the two countries. Unfortunately, all seemed to agree that it was best for them to stay put in the hotels and houses where they are hosted, as they wait for their asylum claim to be processed.
I strongly encouraged them not to do so, and to join the various protests and marches that have already taken place or that are planned.
The attempted massacre appears to epitomise how fascist groups and ideas have been mainstreamed and glamorised in Italy, particularly in the run-up to elections on March 4.
After his arrest, Traini was heralded as a patriot by some on social media. Forza Nuova, the party founded by the far right politician Roberto Fiore, expressed full support for Traini and offered to pay his legal expenses.
Other political parties distanced themselves from his alleged actions. Yet they still managed to shift attention away from the political context of the rampage.
Casapound, a far right group, condemned the attack, and denied reports of Traini’s affiliation with them. Roberto Salvini, leader of the Lega Nord, tried to minimise Traini’s past candidature for his party, and linked the event to the “social confrontation” that is brought about by “uncontrolled migration”.
Silvio Berlusconi, the former prime minister and leader of Forza Italia, defined immigration as a “social bomb about to explode” and pledged to deport up to 600,000 irregular migrants. Other right wing parties, such as Fratelli d’Italia, used the events to emphasise their belief that Italy faces a security emergency caused by migration, which needs a strong response from the state.
Marco Minniti, Italy’s minister of the interior, a member of the Partito Democratico, appealed for unity. He tried to placate the situation by insisting that the shootings were unorganised and carried out by a loose cannon. The Five Star Movement, the largest party in Italy according to polls, insisted that it was the responsibility of political parties to maintain “silence” about the attack.
As the migrant support group Coordinamento Migranti asserted, underlying these responses lies a growing racism which pervades Italian politics and which frames migration as a threat to Italians, and seeks to legitimise military and security solutions.
I believe this was an act of terrorism and that it wasn’t an isolated event, but the latest episode of a series of fascist aggressions aimed at intimidating immigrants and those who support them. A strong mobilisation is required against this drift.
There is no doubt that most of Europe has moved to the right at an alarming rate. It is not possible to subjegate so many people and make them second class citizens in their own homeland. The indigenous people of Europe have been wrapped up in knots by political correctness, which is designed to gag them and prevent objection to the never ending torrent of migrants that are not just threatening the very identity of Europe, but is increasingly a threat to the Europeans as a whole.
This will not end well, as Europe moves further to the right, this serves as a barometer that the people of Europe are themselves becoming increasing drawn to resisting the narrative of the political classes. There is a great risk that the resistance will come from within, as Europe hurtles towards a political implosion not seen since the 1930s. On that note, why does it feel that we are fast approaching a re-run of 1933?
Most Europeans believe that the European Union will collapse within 20 years, raising the prospect of new conflicts and wars on the continent. This is the conclusion of the Berlin-based think-tank, the European Council on Foreign Relations, having carried out polls in 14 EU member states. Younger voters, aged 18 to 34, were especially worried about the prospect of war between current EU countries.
The belief that the EU will disintegrate within two decades is an entirely rational one. The union bears many of the hallmarks of an empire in decay: it has over-extended its borders; it is attracting more outsiders than it desires or can accommodate; it has too many leaders; it has emerging nativist movements; and its poor are growing ever-more angry and resentful towards the political establishment.
However, the second belief – that war between former nations will ensue – is unfounded. There is no appetite among EU member states for another European conflict, and no signs of animosity between nation states on the continent, as there clearly were prior to 1914 and 1939. The only hostility evident today is directed against the EU and Germany’s leadership itself.
The First World War was on the cards ever since 1871, with the unification of Germany, a country that was soon going to dominate the continent as France continued its long decline.
Ever since the Napoleonic wars, Britain had made it policy that no single nation should ever again dominate Europe, and by the 1900s Britain and Germany were in an open naval arms race. There was also by then a general desire for war among the populaces, as personified by the cult of Nietzsche and, as Robert Wohl wrote in The Generation of 1914 (1980), the belief that European culture was decadent and needed ‘purification’.
The signs were even more obvious in the 1930s, with Nazi Germany’s re-occupation of the Ruhr, the re-militarisation of the Rhineland, and then the invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland. By 1936, Orwell observed, it was clear to most that a forthcoming war was inevitable.
There are no comparable signs today. If anything, the case is the opposite. The defining aspect of Europe’s nationalist and populist movements is not that they represent growing animosity between nations, but rather that they embody a pan-European alliance among like-minded nationalists. Last Saturday, Matteo Salvini, the Italian populist deputy prime minister, held a rally in Milan attended by leading members of 10 different parties across the continent. One by one they took to the stage to denounce immigration and to denounce Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and the French president Emmanuel Macron as ‘destroyers of Europe’.
The real prospect of war on the continent comes not with the disintegration of the EU, but with its continued existence. There may not be any tangible appetite among other EU members for seceding from the Union, but there is clearly something wrong with the model. If it is to survive it will have to become more federated or decentralised or two-tier, otherwise the likes of Salvini or Hungary’s Viktor Orbán will flourish and multiply. But the EU’s ideological leaders are so wedded to ever-closer union that it’s hard to see this happening.
The EU made it as difficult as possible for the UK to leave, with the view of setting an example to other members. Any future member that wants to leave, when the decadent and decrepit Union has become more reactionary, centralised and oppressive, and its members even more discontent, may ultimately have to take stronger measures. Remember Yugoslavia.
Most Europeans believe the EU could fall apart within the next two decades, according to a new study.
Research published this week showed that levels of support for membership of the European Union are high – but so is pessimism about the future of the bloc. The survey, conducted by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) and YouGov, had more than 60,000 respondents across 14 EU member states.
It found that in every member state except Spain, the majority of voters believe the EU will fall apart within the next 10 to 20 years.
In France, 58% of respondents said it was realistic that the bloc would collapse within two decades, with 57% of Italian and Polish voters agreeing to that. Even in Spain, 40% of respondents said it was a realistic possibility that the EU could fall apart. The data showed that most Europeans saw the collapse of the single market as the biggest loss should the EU break down, followed by free travel across borders and the freedom to live and work in other countries.
A European war?
Significant proportions of people surveyed also said a war between EU countries was a realistic possibility over the next decade. Austrians were most likely to believe a European war was possible, with 38% saying it could happen within 10 years, followed by 35% of French respondents and 31% of Romanians. The belief was also particularly strong among younger people. In Austria and Romania, half of those aged between 18 and 24 believed a war between EU members was possible, while 46% of the youngest respondents in France agreed.
According to the report, there was a greater tendency to hold this belief among supporters of far-right parties, particularly Rassemblement National in France, the Freedom Party of Austria, the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, Jobbik in Hungary, and Golden Dawn in Greece. However, many who supported mainstream parties also thought a European war was possible within 10 years, the study found.
Across all the countries included in the survey, a minority of voters said they believed young people had more economic opportunities than older generations.
There was also a widespread insecurity among respondents that they were doing less well financially than people living in other EU nations. In Greece, more than 70% of people felt they had fewer economic opportunities than people in other European countries, while just over half of respondents in Romania, Spain and Italy believed they had an economic disadvantage.
Respondents in Denmark and Sweden were the least likely to hold the same views.
On the 5th June, 1975, the British public voted in a referendum regarding membership to the EEC, The European Economic Community, which was founded on the 25th March 1957 by Benelux, France, West Germany and Italy and sold to the British nation as a free trade agreement between member states. The sinister agenda of the EEC was intentionally kept secret from the British public, by Prime Minister Edward Heath and Margaret Thatcher, as they were well aware, even then that the masses would not accept a policy of an “ever closer political union in Europe” which was the agenda from day one!
On the 13th March, 1979, the ERM, European Exchange Rate Mechanism was founded, with the intention of reducing exchange rate volatility in Europe and bringing the countries closer to economic union. The UK did not join at that point, as that was just after the ‘Winter of discontent’ and our economy was in pieces. We did however join the ERM in October 1990, but this was to prove catastrophic for the UK, it led to us being plunged in to a recession that lasted for 5 quarters, which was then followed by months without any growth, until one day, on the 16th September 1992, known as ‘Black Wednesday’ our currency was under attack by speculators, the Chancellor Norman Lamont doubled interest rates and was then left with no alternative but to leave the ERM.
That should have been a lesson in Geo-Economics, but it was not. Spurred on by the staggering cost of re-unification, Germany was determined to exploit the economies of other European nations, to save itself from bankruptcy. In the first instance, Germany continued to champion the ERM, which as this point was directly leading to the introduction of the Euro.
The first part of Germany’s plan was to champion the accession of Turkey as a European Union trading partner in 1995. This would allow Turkey to trade freely with Europe, without joining, this would give Germany a source of cheap goods and manufacturing, but also, without being restricted by EU bureaucracy, Turkey had a trading advantage over the European states. This was to become a major factor in the decline of many industries in southern Europe.
The Euro was introduced as an electronic currency on the 1st January 1999, with physical currency coming in to circulation on the 1st January 2002. This was good for Europe wasn’t it?
NO IT WAS NOT!
Germany was still struggling with the cost of reunification and therefore, on entry in the Euro, Germany pulled one of the greatest economic acts of deception on history, it entered the Euro, significantly undervalued, in terms of trading within the EU, this was HUGE. This meant, that the German people had a sense of poverty and needed financial prudence, whilst other nations that joined at a higher rate, suddenly had a false sense of wealth, that encouraged them to spend more. Also, due to the fact that Germany had entered much lower than it should, German goods appeared cheaper and therefore they outsold many other European goods. The other countries needed assistance to keep purchasing, but Germany was happy to lend to them and slowly, enslave them to debt.
Germany pulled one of the greatest economic acts of deception on history
Fast forward 2 decades and the southern European nations have lost most of their textile and light industries to Europe, they are in serious debt to Germany, they have lost control of issues that matter most, but worst of all, after 2 decades of left wing in-doctrine, many people now believe that we would be cast in to economic wilderness without the EU, this is simply not true.
European leaders who are not elected, not accountable to anyone and conduct their decision making in private, without even having minutes of their meetings recorded. People are under the illusion that just because there is a European Parliament, that the EU is a Democracy……..IT IS NOT! It is one of the most arrogant, authoritarian and corrupt institution in the Western world.
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker says ‘stupid nationalists’ are ‘in love with their country’ & hate foreigners
Leaving the EU would offer a chance to put the UK in charge of our own destiny and laws again — and restore our status as a sovereign nation.
According to the Commons Library, up to 60 per cent of regulations originate from the EU and the 28-member Commission in Brussels — none of whom were elected. Britain’s Commissioner, Lord (Jonathan) Hill, is a former lobbyist and Tory researcher who has never stood for elected office in his life. Nor had his predecessor, Cathy Ashton, a Labour appointee and Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament official.
We’d be free to negotiate our own trade deals — especially with the world’s emerging new economies.
Since we import £89 billion of goods more annually from other EU countries than we sell to them, the EU stands to lose more than Britain if it seeks to impose tariffs post-Brexit. We are a crucial export market for Germany, the EU’s most powerful country, which would be the post-Brexit deal-maker.
There are an estimated 3.3 million British jobs ‘linked’ to our membership of the EU. By the same measure, there are more than five million jobs on the Continent that are linked to trade with Britain. This includes one million jobs in Germany, 494,000 in France, 309,000 in Italy and 421,000 in Spain.
We pay far more into the EU budget than we get back — making a net contribution of around £8.5 billion last year (£23 million a day), which is more than we spend on the police service or border controls.
The NHS costs £8.5 billion a month and the Health Service would get an extra £5 billion a year as a result of Brexit.
Also, almost £1 billion of British cash goes to the EU for international aid.
Currently there’s no upper limit on migration and no proper control of our borders. More than three million EU migrants live in the UK — double the number in 2004 when the EU expanded to include Eastern European countries, who have sent more than a million people here (despite the last Labour Government saying it would be only 13,000 a year.)
Net migration from EU countries to the UK, according to official figures, is 184,000 a year — enough to fill a city the size of Oxford. David Cameron has never hit his target to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands — and most agree he never will if we remain inside the EU.
Under EU law, we must let in any EU citizen regardless of their qualifications. The result? Businesses can’t get work permits for highly skilled or educated people from the Commonwealth, U.S., Australia and elsewhere outside the EU.
Using a new points-system, every applicant to live here would be treated on their merit rather than on their nationality. Equally, we’d be able to accept more genuine refugees.
Parliament is powerless, under EU treaties, to defend itself against the rulings of the European Court of Justice — which has interfered in everything from the price of beer to the right to deport terror suspects.
The UK has lost three-quarters of the cases it’s challenged since 1973. This makes a mockery of the idea that the UK’s Supreme Court is supreme.
Thanks to Brussels diktats, some of the EU’s most evil killers, rapists and drug-dealers have been allowed to remain here — because their right to free movement has been put ahead of keeping the British public safe.
A report by the Labour-led Commons Home Affairs Committee said the number of foreign criminals who had not been deported could fill a ‘small town’. British jails hold almost 10,000 foreign prisoners — including 1,000 Poles.
UK law stops anyone from outside the EU entering Britain if their presence is deemed ‘not conducive to the public good’, but Brussels says EU citizens can only be turned away if there is a ‘serious, credible and present threat’.
Thus the list of criminals able to come here include a Latvian who murdered his wife before moving to the UK, where he killed a 14-year-old girl. Over the past decade, UK officials have only been able to turn away 11,000 EU nationals.
The EU’s Frontex border security agency has warned that jihadists are exploiting the Union’s open borders and the migrant crisis to sneak into the continent and plot atrocities. Two of the attackers responsible for last year’s outrages in Paris used exactly this approach.
The British head of Europol also said that as many as 5,000 Islamic State-trained jihadists are moving freely in Europe. And Sir Richard Dearlove, ex-head of MI6, said we could be safer outside of the EU as it would be easier to deport fanatics. Leaving the EU would still allow us to work with U.S. intelligence agencies — as the so-called gold standard ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence-sharing partnership consists of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the U.S. and the UK.
David Cameron has repeatedly refused to drop his government’s support for Turkey — which has 77 million citizens — joining the EU.
Yet he’s said that at the current rate it won’t join until the year 3000 — despite the European Commission announcing last week that Turkey’s membership application was being ‘accelerated’.
Before the referendum campaign, the PM said his wish was to ‘pave the road from Ankara [Turkey’s capital]’ to Brussels. Turkish citizens are already being given visa-free access to mainland Europe after a deal that saw the Turks getting £4.6 billion in aid.
Campaign group Migration Watch has warned an extra 100,000 Turks would flock to Britain every year if the predominantly Muslim country joined the EU.
Last year — for the 21st year running! — the EU Court of Auditors admitted that Brussels expenditure was compromised by irregularities, with ‘a persistently high level of payment errors, which means too much money is still not spent in accordance with the EU’s financial rules’.
By the end of last year, the UK economy was 6.8 per cent larger than it was at the start of 2008, whereas the EU economy was only 1.9 per cent bigger (France’s grew by 2.9 per cent and Italy’s is 8.8 per cent smaller than in 2008)).
Also, unemployment in the UK is five per cent — less than half the 10.2 per cent jobless rate in the eurozone. (In Greece, it is 24 per cent — with youth unemployment at a desperate 51 per cent — and 20 per cent in Spain).
Treasury research has shown that the EU’s ‘single market’ rules could impose costs of seven per cent of GDP on the UK economy. At £125 billion a year, that’s the equivalent of £4,639 per household. Only 6 per cent of British companies export to the EU — but all must comply with EU ‘single market’ legislation.
Small businesses — the lifeblood of our economy — suffer most, whereas big firms can lobby Brussels.
Freedom of movement rules mean we have no idea many foreigners settle here — which means it’s impossible to plan the necessary health, education, transport and housing requirements for them. This has led to intense pressures for anyone trying to get a school place for their child or a GP appointment.
Rents are rising and first-time buyers struggle to get on the housing ladder as prices soar and supply diminishes.
With five more nations — Turkey, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and Macedonia — hoping to join the EU, this will only get worse.
According to its own statistics, 1.3 million people claimed asylum in the EU last year. Some 363,000 came from Syria. Applicants who get EU citizenship are free to move to the UK.
Despite contributing 12.5 per cent of the overall EU budget, the UK sees just 7 per cent of the Common Agricultural Policy budget spent here. By contrast, France gets 16.4 per cent, Spain 11.6 per cent, Germany 11.3 per cent, Italy 10.1 per cent and Poland 8.8 per cent.
The EU’s farm subsidy system meant that prior to 2003, the so-called Single Farm Payment was linked to how much farmers produced — leading to massive over-production and waste.
Now, farmers don’t have to produce a set amount — they are paid automatically for keeping land in ‘agricultural condition’. As a result, it’s been reported wealthy landowners absurdly get Brussels payments for having pony paddocks.
Following the EU’s ban on incandescent light-bulbs, many people suffered epilepsy from the flickering, supposedly eco-friendly fluorescent bulbs. Equally controversially, vacuum cleaners sold in the EU have been limited to an output of 1,600 watts. This directive is expected to be extended to kettles, toasters, hair-dryers and other domestic appliances.
Under EU rules, once a product is liable for VAT, any EU member government is not allowed to abolish that tax without Brussels’ approval. Thus, the lowest VAT Westminster can impose is 5 per cent — which imposes hardship on some British families with VAT charged at 5 per cent on energy bills. (Our Government even had to seek permission to scrap the levy charged on tampons.) Brussels pockets around 0.3 per cent of VAT paid.
EU membership has devastated our fishing industry — halving the number of fisherman to fewer than 12,000 since 1975. Under international law, each nation enjoys an ‘Exclusive Economic Zone’ extending 200 miles from its coast. However, the Common Fisheries Policy pools the zones of member states into a single zone.
The first 12 miles is restricted to a nation’s own fishermen, but the area from 12 miles to 200 miles is open to the fleets of any EU member state.
Spanish vessels last year got a quota of 15,546 tonnes of hake for a large area of the Atlantic off Scotland while UK vessels were allowed just 7,131 tonnes. Leaving the EU would allow us to fish our own waters — and breathe new life into harbour towns.
These are the words of Jean-Claude Juncker, basically saying that his is not concerned with Europeans, he is more concerned about the migrants pouring in from Asia and Africa, which is part of the bigger plan of course.
They don’t like those coming from far away, I like those coming from far away… we have to act in solidarity with those who are in a worse situation than we are in. Jean-Claude Juncker
As we have seen from the behaviour of EU officials as well as Pro-EU campaigners, they cannot construct a logical argument and in true cultural Marxist fashion they resort to abuse, insults, name calling and labels. Racist, Fascist, Xenophobe and many more. Leavers have been making an argument to leave, why they want to leave and what they would want, the remainers on the other hand, have revealed their contempt for Democracy, for the Nanny-state, for thought control which has always been the same. There has never been a period in history when so many people are using their democratic right, to vote for an end to Democracy!
WE MUST LEAVE ASAP
'Today... should have been the day we left the EU': Geoffrey Cox tells MPs it is 'last chance' to deliver Brexit as Boris U-turns AGAIN to say he will back May's deal in decisive vote - after No 10 warns alternative is a FIVE-YEAR delay and an election
It is my assertion that May was put in to sabotage Brexit. She was a remainer, she has close ties with the Rothschilds who are behind open borders and world government, so there is no way that this woman should have been put in charge of this sensitive process.
The first thing she did was to throw away her majority by calling an election when she had no reason to, then she has allowed nearly THREE YEARS to pass, in which time the fanatical remain camp has been waging a war of fear and disaster in every way possible. We now have an army of fanatical people desperately upset because we do not want to give up our sovereignty.
Most people do not actually realise that we DO NOT need a deal, WE ARE the deal, the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU, trade is covered by the WTO and trade, employment agreements are not the issue here, the issue is that the political classes do not want us to leave.
On March the 25th, Greece was celebrating its independence day from the Ottomans, (even though they have since handed ultimate sovereignty to the EU) yet the UK had people protesting to RELINQUISH our independence!
Let that sink in!
Had we left with a hard Brexit back in 2016, the dust would have settled in a matter of weeks and everything would have been running smoothly since. I doubt very much that we will leave now, we will either be fobbed off with a reversible token gesture, or May will call an election which will be won on the basis of a second referendum (on that note, why do we not use the same argument with a general election, after all, 2/3 years later, we could argue that many people who voted have died and all those how have reached 18 since the last election need a voice?) and the next referendum will be won by remainers, not because they are a larger number, but because they are fanatical in their will to give up our sovereignty and at the same time, disillusioned Brexiteers will not bother to vote, after all…………….what’s the point?
Are you falling for the the bullshit that we are being spun by the political classes? We were lied to when our nation was dragged in the ‘Common Market’ and over 3 or 4 decades our country has been become wrapped up in so much red tape and political dishonesty it does not bare thinking about.
We have a youth who have been convinced that we will be isolated in some sort of poverty trap when we leave (if they let us) but in fact, we are in a different world to the one that gave up when we sold our soul to the EU. There is now a world trade agreement, we do not actually need trade agreements with Europe, they are already in place, but they are being used to scaremonger innocent people. We are worth more to the EU than they are to us….let us not forget that!
After a year of political high drama and turbulence, and given the seeming parliamentary impasse over the Prime Minister’s deal, there are massive anxieties about the consequences of leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement in place. Will it plunge us into an economic depression as some doom-mongers predict? Will prices rocket and essential goods be in short supply? Will there be riots on the streets as the ugly new social divisions opened up by Brexit play out?
I don’t doubt for one moment these concerns are wholly understandable and we are right to focus on them. But we should also count our blessings. We are not the only country experiencing turmoil — and for many of our neighbours it is far worse. Around Europe, many leaders are spending Christmas contemplating chaos and confusion politically, and widespread public dissatisfaction, growing unrest and even violence. For some, economic winter is already descending.
The level of corruption that has engulfed the EU is beyond imagination, but what are we to expect from an administration that does not have accountability? What are we to expect from a club that makes decisions in private, one that punishes it’s members by making them forfeit their pension if they criticise the EU? This ‘club’ is rotten to the core.
We have seen this club create debt throughout Europe and then force the citizens who were INNOCENT to pay the price. The UK will have absolutely no commercial losses by leaving, despite the scaremongering, but we may just be saving ourselves from the downward vortex that is engulfing the EU, one that will not end well.
There is only one thing we should fear more than leaving, that is remaining.
No matter what the political classes are telling us, we are approaching the time where we will have to make a final stand for the West, or face extinction. We are being subjected to the greatest invasion in history, but unlike previous invasions, (even though many wars have been created to serve an agenda) this time, it is our leaders who are the perpetrators, the very people who we elected to power (or think we did) are not only instigating this, but they are constantly amending the law, misdirecting public opinion, brainwashing the masses to such an extent that it is becoming increasingly difficult to object.
The foreign ministers of France and Germany have proposed creating a “European superstate” limiting the powers of individual members following Britain’s referendum decision to leave the EU, Polish public broadcaster TVP Info has reported.
The foreign ministers of France and Germany are due to reveal a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states in what is being described as an “ultimatum”.
Under the radical proposals EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels.
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is a series of trade negotiations being carried out mostly in secret between the EU and US. As a bi-lateral trade agreement, TTIP is about reducing the regulatory barriers to trade for big business, things like food safety law, environmental legislation, banking regulations and the sovereign powers of individual nations. It is, as John Hilary, Executive Director of campaign group War on Want, said: “An assault on European and US societies by transnational corporations.” Continue reading