Page 9
The SPECTRUM (Toll Free) 877-280-2866 (Outside The U.S.) 661-823-9696
APRIL 10, 2001
secret club is getting worried about the public
sector catching up with them.
VOTERS IN SWITZERLAND
SAY NO TO EUROPEAN UNION
From THE SPOTLIGHT, by William
Carmichael, 3/19/01: [quoting]
Another pothole has developed on the road to
the Global Plantation, pitting the Swiss people
against their leadership in a vote to join the EU.
The push toward the Global Plantation, in
which national sovereignty disappears, took
another serious hit during the first week of March
when the Swiss appeared to have overwhelmingly
rejected proposals to start immediate negotiations
to join the EU.
Exit polls in a March 4 referendum showed
78 percent of the electorate were against the
initiative launched by the New European
Movement Switzerland.
Early results showed that 22 of the countrys
26 cantons had voted No.
The Swiss government, parliament, and
industry had opposed early talks as premature and
argued that the Swiss needed more time to get
used to bilateral accords with the EU, mainly on
trade issues.
The proposal puts us under unnecessary time
pressure, said Swiss Foreign Minister Joseph
Deiss.
The Telegraph of London opined: If anti-EU
sentiment is as widespread as the vote suggests,
the government would stand little chance of
getting voters approval for plans to start talks in
2004 to join in 2010 at the earliest.
It was the second time that a referendum vote
has failed to bring Switzerland closer to EU
membership.
In 1992, Switzerland made a formal request to
join the EU, but plans were pushed to the back
burner after voters rejected joining the European
Economic Area, seen as a halfway house to full
membership.
The Telegraph reported that anti-EU sentiment
is particularly strong in the German-speaking
northeast, where Christoph Blochers nationalist
Swiss Peoples Party draws the most support.
The Swiss are angry that the EU is putting
pressure on them to share information on so-
called tax dodgers from EU countries who deposit
undeclared earnings in Swiss bank accounts.
They say it would mean the end of banking
secrecyone of the pillars of the Swiss financial
sector.
The Swiss and the American IRS have
already established what is called a working
relationship, but it is not all-inclusive and
European countries have not extended the same
courtesies.
The Swiss also considered that the EU was
interfering in their neighbors sovereign affairs
in its treatment of Austria when nationalist Joerg
Haiders party won a share of the government in
the 1999 elections.
Television exit polls
showed that while 80-90
percent of German-
speaking Swiss rejected
the EU, more than 55
percent
of
French
speakerswho
are
generally more pro-
Europeanalso voted
No. [End quoting]
If this was a test of
peoples
receptivity
toward the New World
Order, then the engineers
better get back to the
drawing board. Or put
another way, the Swiss
people should expect
some
things
to
happen which help
them to not just see the
value of joining the EU,
but induce them to
DEMAND to join it!
The same machinery
has worked for a very
long time. That is,
behind every important
decision that the public
thinks they are making is
some well orchestrated
events of mind control to
induce them to make the
decision desired by the
controllers.
And while were on
the subject of such persuasion mechanisms, how
about this, which is the more blunt instrument
approach:
EURO-COURT OUTLAWS
CRITICISM OF EU
From The Spectator for December 2000, by
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels: [quoting]
Now Its Blasphemy To Mock EU
The European Court of Justice ruled yesterday
that the European Union (EU) can lawfully
suppress political criticism of its institutions and of
leading figures, sweeping aside English Common
Law and 50 years of European precedents on
civil liberties.
The EUs top court found that the European
Commission was entitled to sack Bernard
Connolly, a British economist dismissed in 1995
for writing a critique of European monetary
integration entitled The Rotten Heart Of Europe.
The ruling stated that the commission
could restrict dissent in order to protect the
rights of others and punish individuals who
damaged the institutions image and
reputation. The case has wider implications for
free speech that could extend to EU citizens who
do not work for the Brussels bureaucracy.
The court called the Connolly book
aggressive, derogatory, and insultingtaking
particular umbrage at the authors suggestion that
the Economic and Monetary Union was a threat
to democracy, freedom, and ultimately peace.
However, it dropped an argument put forward
three months ago by the advocate-general,
Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, which implied that
Mr. Connollys criticism of the EU was akin to
extreme blasphemy, and therefore not protected
speech.
Mr. Connolly, who has been told to pay the
European Commissions legal costs, said the
proceedings did not amount to a fair hearing. He
said: Were back to the Star Chamber and Acts
of Attainder: the rights of defendants are not
respected or guaranteed in any way; the offence
of seditious libel has been resurrected.
Mr. Colomer wrote in his opinion last
November that a landmark British case on free
speech had no foundation or relevance in
European law, suggesting that the European
Court was unwilling to give much consideration
to British legal tradition.
Mr. Connolly now intends to take his case to
Europes other court, the non-EU European Court
of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
[End quoting]
The so-called elite controllers of this planet
are fighting like rats who are losing ground. This