EU Unmasked: After Brexit, Plans for Full EU Superstate Revealed
by James Corbett, June 28, 2016
Well, that didn’t take long.
The graphite was hardly dry on the Brexit ballots when TVP Info, a Polish broadcaster, leaked a 9-page document drawn up by the German and French foreign ministers calling for an EU superstate, complete with an EU army, integrated border controls and common taxation. The German foreign minister discussed the plans — which are being described as “an ultimatum” — with his counterparts in the Visegrad Group of countries (Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia) this week.
The document, bearing the Orwellian title of “A strong Europe in a world of uncertainties,” lays out the exact tyrannical plans that the EU’s critics have been warning about for years. After identifying key areas of uncertainty and concern affecting Europe — from spreading [false flag] terrorism to [manipulated] cultural tensions to [engineered] economic hardships — the document proposes three new areas for expanded EU cooperation:
- A European Security Compact, including an expansion of internal “security” through a strengthened Europol, and expansion of external “security” in areas like North Africa and the Middle East through coordination with the African Union, G5 and other globalist counterparts.
- A Common European asylum and migration policy, including the expansion of FRONTEX with permanent, dedicated EU-supplied staff, and the creation of a European Asylum Agency tasked with standardizing the registration of asylum seekers and hosting joint EU-controlled databases.
- A Completed Economic and Monetary Union, including “convergence between member states” in strategic sectors of the economy, the development of a European Monetary Fund presided over by EU parliament, and continued moves toward “common taxation.”
Even more stunningly, the paper actually proposes a standing EU-directed military chain of command, up to and including standing European armed forces:
Of course absolutely none of this will come as news to my long-time readers. I laid out in these very pages how last December’s proposal for a European Border and Coast Guard was the first step to the EU superstate. And I also told you how last November’s Paris false flag paved the way for EU President Juncker to call for an EU standing army. And I’ve been warning over and over for years now that the crisis in the Eurozone was going to be used as a way for the banksters to fail forward by claiming that the ECB needs even more powers to wreck Europe’s economy. So none of these proposals are that shocking individually.
What is shocking is to see them stacked together like this in a single document penned by Jean-Marc Ayrault and Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the foreign ministers of France and Germany. It is also shocking that they would be presented as a type of ultimatum to the Visegrad Group, especially since “the EU” (which even the New York Times can now admit means Berlin, not Brussels) has chided these countries quite openly in recent months. Germany and its sidekick France (politely referred to as “the EU”) cannot expect that this attempt at strong-arming will go down well with countries that have openly bucked and brayed at the EU yoke thus far. Which can only mean that they don’t expect it to.
You see, the 3D chess players of the New World Order are smashing the chessboard right now. This is the only way for them to achieve their goals in the long run. But in order to do this, they have to let their mask slip. The EU is acting like the would-be empire that it is.
This leads us to one of only two conclusions:
-The globalists are dumb enough to believe that they can consolidate their power now and achieve the EU superstate.
-They are deliberately setting the EU up for the inevitable populist backlash and chaos.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
Everybody would do well to read up on the Kalergi plan. Merkel recently won the Kalergi prize.
Angela Merkel received the COUDENHOVE-KALERGI PRIZE in 2010
This document is the truth.
https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/publications/five-presidents-report-completing-europes-economic-and-monetary-union_en
Published in June 2015.
That document is about quite a different subject – fiscal and financial union, and the euro. It is not about a “European super-state”, as claimed by Corbett’s document. Fiscal union is indeed theoretically useful. If it will ever happen is far from certain in the present circumstances, but with some changes it could.
Are you saying that the section in this article which says
Is not about the Fiscal union of Europe? And is not the economic union part of the aim to form a so called Super State?
Reading, even the first part of, the PDF I gave a link too says
One should not take just one document but read the whole of many documents which shed light on the aims of any proposal. This one is official policy.
Like I say, the doc is about fiscal union, which is one of the logical consequences of the euro. It is not about a “super-state”. Thinking about fiscal union is an inevitable consequence of the euro; a super-state is not.
And that is even without the obvious point that the document was always completely irrelevant to Britain, as non-member of the euro. Images of the euro are on every page of the doc.
In any case, none of this is going to happen in the present circumstances. Before it could be done, more reform of the EU would be necessary, which would take us well beyond the time of Juncker.
Pulling out these outdated, and in Corbett’s case, probably fake, documents is much like the Brexiteers claim of Turkey imminently joining the EU. Turks laughed themselves silly when they heard that. This one’s on much the same level.
It’s a position paper, not official policy. Assuming, that is, that it is not a Polish fake, which it could easily be. Everything you have comes from tvp.info. Contrary to what people were saying earlier, there is nothing whose source is not tvp.info.
Poland has become the new US agent in the EU, replacing Britain now that it has voted out and is no longer considered reliable. The Poles have always been ready to do whatever the US wants, against EU interests. Poland is fertile terrain for putting up a fake hare of old ideas souped up to fit the post-Brexit world (specifically addressed in the text), to scare people. I see no reason at all that this is not a fake. It is, after all, not the way European thinking is going.
“It’s a position paper, not official policy.”
In recent history, most official have indeed begun as position papers. And besides, haven’t you ever heard of the Lisbon Treaty? You know, “ever-closer union”? This has been in the works for a long time–probably from the start. It should come as no surprise.
Oh, and people: beware of this EU army idea. While they will doubtless try and market it as a way to make Europe ‘more independent’ from Washington’s foreign policy, in fact, any EU army will just be army under NATO’s total control. This will really just be a way to make it impossible for any single European country to sit out one of Washington’s wars in the future, e.g., the way that France did during the Iraq War.
You have been warned.
I may be presumptuous in guessing that the lack of comment on this piece could be due to the fact most of the links contained within it are to the author’s own subscription ‘real news’ website ‘The Corbett Report’, linked neatly to its companion in arms site the International Forecaster, also subscription.
Or perhaps it was sentences such as “And I also told you how last November’s Paris false flag paved the way for EU President Juncker to call for an EU standing army.” If you blinked you may have missed that, but apparently ‘the Paris false flag’ is now a ‘thing’, like Kentucky Fried Chicken, and is apparently ‘real news’ as opposed to just lots of youtube accusations.
I’m surprised this made it on to the off-guardian site as it seems to me to be no more than a Jenga stack of opinion, using the real concerns of the type of people who read these pages (ie, me), who are clearly concerned about these issues, in order to construct a semi-coherent theme of of global-elite-politico-corporate-oligarchical-new-world-order-blideburgering behemoths acting as a single entity underpinning all global events.
Of course, there is a truth to this that most people reading here will be aware of. What annoys me about this, and a host of other ‘truthers’ out there is the tabloid line they take in investigating this. They tilt at windmills with a loud rallying cry whilst raking in hundreds of thousands of views, clicks, likes and, of course subscriptions. There is money to be made here no doubt about it – just ask Alex Jones, but in using the tried and tested technique of using the power of incontrovertible fact to give credence to the weakness of opinion, a trick well established in the very MSM Corbett makes his living from crticising, he merely muddies the pool of genuine dissent.
In doing this there is a very real case for returning the ball to Corbett’s end by suggesting that by adopting this method of reportage and infusing it with empty platitudes which always seem to revolve around the shadowiest of all pronouns, ‘they…’, he is doing nothing but actually undermining the concerns of those who are genuinely concerned about the issues he discusses but do so in a far more analytical and measured approach. He thus places the whole arena of dissent open to ridicule, derision and dismission, and I repeat again, I am very surprised to see it sharing space with the otherwise top drawer journalism I usually encounter here.
As a PS here, I would like to say that I was quite interested in reading the discussion on The Corbett Report about why ‘Everything you know about nutrition is wrong’, so I could compare and contrast with the 23296 other websites (all with ‘useful links’), offering the same ‘Breaking News’. I will never know if I would gain further insight than just following the popular internet meme of ‘If it’s advertised, it’s probably not good for you’, because unfortunately you do need that all important subscription to find out, and I ain’t buying it. Baaa.
The irony here is that in critiquing the piece for allegedly being nothing but didactic opinion offered as fact, you use nothing but didactic opinion offered as fact!
Do you have anything more substantial?
Catte, I’m sorry that in my annoyance at the tone of the piece I didn’t actually acknowledge that these documents certainly do seem to exist. On the contrary I had already read about them elsewhere a little over a month ago, perhaps even here actually. Nor am I discounting the work of this man in its entirety as fabrication and conspiracy theory. My dislike of this latter term led me to write my criticism in the first place as his description of the Paris false flag as though it were a fait accompli makes me deeply sceptical of his wider contributions to alternative media.
Scouting around his sites and youtube videos I saw an interview in skeptiko where ‘paradigm shifts’ were discussed and this is where my problem lies I think. I do acknowledge that a distinct leap has to be made before you can fully accept that on matters of importance the MSM almost always has a narrative to follow and that narrative is only ever a slightly modified version of the official line. But if this paradigm shift lands you in a place where you can rather sensationally state as fact hat the Paris attack (and by logical extension the attacks in Munich, Brussels, Nice etc), was part of a predetermined plan concocted to induce a state of emergency across Europe as… oh I dunno, another step towards the subjugation of the masses as a necessity to the imposition of the New World Order by our puppet masters, or sumfink like that, then this is where I get off the bus.
I’m not disputing that he covers a wide range of issues in his work and focuses on topics that certainly need a critical lens, but many others are doing this too, and they do not operate subscription sites, nor unashamedly provide links to these sites in articles they write elsewhere, nor discuss false flags as facts (yes I am fully aware that false flags have happened before), when they are far from that. In doing this he brings down all manner of criticism and abuse (not least from victims’ friends and relatives) on everything he chooses to add to his various sites and by consequence, on anyone else covering similar material, while all the while his subscription rate increases.
As you say though, this is only my opinion, although I deny it’s didactic!
I notice that you use belittling language and a generalised tone of ridicule to try to make the idea that “the masses” might be “subjugated” by means of false flag terror or other things sound per se ridiculous without the need to demonstrate that it is – in fact – ridiculous. This doesn’t inspire confidence. When I asked if you had anything more substantial I meant quality not quantity. i.e. – can you offer a critique of Corbett’s work in terms of inaccuracies, falsehoods or misrepresentations?
I am not saying it is ridiculous, I am saying that the mention of it as though it is a accepted fact demeans anything else he, or others, say on the matter. I do not deny it as a distinct possibility, nor do I deny the claims for 9/11 being a distinct possibility, but I nor anyone else can state the alternate theories as concrete fact. In saying “And I also told you how last November’s Paris false flag paved the way for EU President Juncker to call for an EU standing army.” he asks the reader to be complicit in a conclusion which is by no means certain.
You seem to suggest that I dismiss all so called conspiracy theories as bunkum, which I certainly do not, but just because information provided is not part of the corporate media, it does not mean that it should not be subject to the same scrutiny and scepticism. The internet is fundamentally a marketplace and my trust in its vendors is hard won.
Everything should be subjected to scrutiny and scepticism. But you have offered little of the first and only generalised instances of the latter.
You are concerned that Corbett alleges the Paris attack was a false flag without offering evidence, but he has offered such evidence elsewhere(here for example), so this is not the same as factual error or statements offered without support, is it? As to the claims of a European superstate, they seem very well-supported by numerous references.
So, as before I remain unclear as to the actual point you are making.
If he had simply said something along the lines of ‘…last Novembers Paris attacks paved the way for….’, there would simply be a justifiable inference that the events were causally linked. Instead, he does not just, as you say ‘allege’, that the false flag claim, he phrases the statement as incontrovertible and something that has been agreed upon. The fact that he has offered evidence elsewhere (and I have seen some of this evidence prior to reading the article) does not alter the fact that he is pronouncing guilt instead of announcing suspicion.
Checking the links in the article, beginning at the top, I find source-material quotes from a Polish source about the ‘European Army’, then a Radio Poland article which has direct input from the Polish FM, and reaction from the German foreign ministry (with attributable quotations), then two Corbett Report items, followed by a substantial piece from the NYT on the EU bringing Poland to heel for multiple infractions.
You seem very fond of the sound of your own voice.
Your post, and the closing PS of 100% garbage it contains, simply litters this site, while making no contribution whatsoever.
He provides nine links in total, two to the NYT, one directly to the Europol homepage, one to TVP, another to Radio Poland, and the remaining four to his own sites. Call me cynical, but four self publicising adverts in a 750 word article is pretty nifty work. In my opinion.
I do indeed.
Shocking? I admire the rhetorical schtick, of course – but I doubt anyone is ‘shocked’ by this at all. Mogherini has been touting the idea of a common EU standing army for some while – in fact she was recently seen debating it with Jens Stupidberg, whose NATO job she plans to inherit.
Yeah, shocked. It reminds me of the famous scene from Casablanca, when the French captain raids Rick’s casino (where he had been a regular for a long time) and professes to be “shocked to find gambling going on here!”
Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.
Not mine. I used pen because i had scene the top secret EUSSR plans to rub out all the Brexit votes. FACT.
If the “European Union” hasn’t worked, How is a European Superstate going to achieve anything better? If a country like Switzerland chose to remain aloof from the EU, and Britain never wanted to accept the Euro as its currency(thereby retaining its Sovereignty), I can’t see how a European ‘Superstate’ will achieve anything.
European countries are better off competing against each other commercially, rather than becoming a ‘commune’ where all they do is sit around and discuss ‘things’ in Brussels.