The New World Disorder
Garth Kant, WND

WASHINGTON – Now that the European Union will be losing the United Kingdom as a result of the Brexit vote, concerns are growing that the E.U. is seeking to expand intercontinentally with the aim of establishing an “empire.”

A week after the British vote on June 23, E.U. Vice President Federica Mogherini released a document outlining the union’s plan for expansion, “A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign And Security Policy,” raising some eyebrows in foreign policy circles.

Not only does the document suggest the possible formation of an E.U. army, it explores expanding the multi-state entity into Asia and Africa.
It even envisions a global government.
“We will invest in regional orders, and in cooperation among and within regions,” Mogherini wrote in the foreword. “And we will promote reformed global governance, one that can meet the challenges of this 21st century.”

“The E.U. wants its own Empire as former Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso made clear when he was in charge,” flatly declared U.K. Independence Party defense spokesman Mike Hookem.

Indeed, the executive summary of the E.U. document suggests a possible expansion into two neighboring continents, Asia and Africa.

“It is in the interests of our citizens to invest in the resilience of states and societies to the east stretching into Central Asia, and to the south down to Central Africa. Under the current E.U. enlargement policy, a credible accession process grounded in strict and fair conditionality is vital to enhance the resilience of countries in the Western Balkans and of Turkey.”

This wording in the document stoked concerns the E.U. will try to become a major military power: “Gradual synchronisation and mutual adaption of national defence planning cycles and capability development practice can enhance strategic convergence between Member States.”

It also called for the technological and industrial means “to act autonomously.”

Mogherini’s foreword stated, “And wherever I travel, our partners expect the European Union to play a major role, including as a global security provider.”

All of that led Hookem to observe, “I’m not sure whether in reality it will be a threat to NATO.” He added, “Although I am sure it would like to be, because NATO are competent.”

A number of European policy makers have called for an EU army and the British paper “The Express” reported, “the latest strategy document suggests Brussels is pushing ahead with plans for further integration on defence.”

Mogherini suggested the time is right to consolidate the various European armies into a single force, because, “the idea that Europe is an exclusively ‘civilian power’ does not do justice to an evolving reality. For instance, the European Union currently deploys seventeen military and civilian operations, with thousands of men and women serving under the European flag for peace and security – our own security, and our partners.’”

However, the British prime minister’s office has flatly stated there was “no prospect of an E.U. army.”

Mogherini left no doubt the new E.U. strategy was in response to the looming departure of the U.K. from the E.U.

“We have learnt the lesson: my neighbour’s and my partner’s weaknesses are my own weaknesses,” she wrote.

Despite British rejection of the E.U. model, Mogherini clinged to the belief that the various member states could become a cohesive force, claiming ” Joining all our cultures together to achieve our shared goals and serve our common interests is a daily challenge, but it is also our greatest strength: diversity is what makes us strong.”

Fifty-two percent of the British public disagreed, taking with them the U.K.’s armed forces, which have the biggest military budget in Europe.

Frederica Modherini is a fool, and a perfect example of the fact you don't have to know squat to hold a position government.

The EU is a tremendous boon to world peace because through the mechanism and auspices of the EU member countries are in continuous contact and engagement unlike the state of countries outside the EU who only engage with each other when trade and security demands.

If the EU expands outside Europe it will be of great benefit to world peace and world trade.

Of course, Australia as a quasi-colony of UK will not be allowed by UK to be a member of global EU.

Well hello Squire, welcome as the latest addition to the leftwing self-proclaimed progressive menagerie.

You'd be working hard to convince 24 million Aussies that they are a quasi-colony of the Uk, but go to it. I admire a person with a passion for hard work.

A boon to world peace eh? Maybe they are going to enlist the 1.5 million migrants (plus the millions yet to come) into their military and provide us with an international police force, able to intervene in the ME, in Ukraine, in the South China Sea.
I'll sleep better tonight knowing my security will now be guaranteed by good trustworthy people like Angela Merkel, Donald Tusk, Francoise Hollande.

Squire wrote on Jul 5^th, 2016 at 5:39pm:



I see in the US they have changed it to 72 Virginians of either sex.

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2016 at 6:12pm:


You changed your mind on that, FD. Remember?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 5^th, 2016 at 10:35pm:


Culture Warrior = Misty/Postmodern Trendoid/Time/etc.

When I Googled the title of this report, none of the responses I saw came from any reputable news sites.  Come to that, I couldn't see anything on it from the Daily Telegraph either.

Squire wrote on Jul 5^th, 2016 at 11:58pm:



Mediterraneans are one people using different words with an integration that can be traced back as far as 5000 years. A Mediterranean League that includes North Africa makes perfect sense but it isn't a popular idea because Mussolini was an advocate.

You seem to be saying that the UK is better off out of the EU. I agree. They would be better off in Anglosphere, another unpopular idea.

I don't agree the EU is thriving however. They seem to be struggling. Putting Germans and Greeks together is a bad idea. Adding Turkey and African nations to the mix is even worse.

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2016 at 8:15am:


Each person's writing style is like a fingerprint; it's unique.
Look for repetition of certain words, phrasings, punctuation, views. There's a few others on here who have two or more accounts. I won't give them away though.

The global trade argument is a fantasy. Global trade existed before there were ever any deals to tie countries into huge multilateral agreements and it will continue to exist after they fall apart.

At suc time as people come to see it has been all a part of an ideological movement to destroy national sovereignty and replace it with collectivist so-called progressive societies.

That has been the EU objective since maybe the 1960s when the idea of a common market was replaced with the idea of an ever expanding political union. That idea is now collapsing in upon itself. More & more people don't want it. They see the dangers of it.

But the progressives continue to push it and impose it where they can. The arrogance of the Eurocrats is astounding.

can you imagine the IN fighting about whos turn it is to stuff it all up...

it wont happen..

AiA wrote on Jul 5^th, 2016 at 11:47pm:

Why would the EU have to expand into North Africa when it's currently allowing North Africa to expand into the EU? Not to mention opening Europe's floodgates to Middle East refugees.

Really, I wouldn't be making any long-term plans for the EU. The whole border-blurring scheme is imploding, thanks mainly to the EU bureaucrats overplaying their hand on immigration.

Ordering individual nations to accept tens of thousands of refugees from 7th-century misogynistic cultures might have made sense on paper, at least in the minds of the EU's Grand Poohbahs.

But when dozens of women and girls in Cologne get raped and fondled by the kind of Muslim mob that abused reporter Lara Logan in Egypt, it's hardly surprising to see citizens of European nations giving the EU their collective middle finger and demanding the right to determine how many refugees, if any, come stampeding into their neighborhoods. And it's hardly surprising to see that sentiment coalescing into Brexit ... and Hungarian PM Viktor Orban telling the EU where it can stick its insistence that Hungary undergo what amounts to "Islamization."

As Orban defiantly stated, echoing the sentiments of citizens throughout the continent: "We have the right to choose whom we wish to live together with and whom we do not wish to live together with."

Frankly, I think it's too late to save the EU. Globalism and transnational oligarchies are out; national sovereignty is in. 

Squire wrote on Jul 6^th, 2016 at 4:13pm:


Hogwash -- here's the latest chapter in your frightful tale of financial gloom and doom, as reported by the Financial Times:

"July 4, 2016 -- Stock markets are extending their post-Brexit recovery as the pound steadies and government bond yields hold near record lows."
http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/07/04/stock-markets-continue-post-brexit-recovery/

It gets better. How about this excerpt from the July 5 Express:
http://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/686509/Europe-stock-markets-PLUNGE-over-fe...
Quote:


Looks like the big financial scare was much ado about nothing. Despite the globalists' best attempt at scaring the pants off Brexit supporters, profit-taking always wins out in the end.

Face it: The EU is on the wrong side of history. Citizens of sovereign nations finally woke up and asked themselves, "Why is my country's immigration policy subject to the dictates of some self-important clown from friggin' Luxembourg?"

Quote:


What does national sovereignty actually mean?

I'm curious. I look forward to a decent discussion on this.

I'll start it off. Vietnam has national sovereignty after it kicked out the French and the Yanks. Today, it sells off its national sovereignty to foreign manufacturers. Vietnam, a communist state, saw the need for foreign capital to develop. To do so, it fosters low-tax free trade zones, keeps down wages, and sells large swaths of its coastline off to Chinese hotel chains.

How does poverty create sovereignty?

Discuss.

Unions can work if they are loose/fuzzy and the member states share a common  history and culture. Greece and Germany do not have this in common. No current EU states share anything with African nations, except a history of failed colonialism.

Squire wrote on Jul 6^th, 2016 at 4:13pm:


Anglos have been the second most successful people in making trade deals, acquiring markets etc. in the last 400 years (the Jews being number one), and now we're to believe that they can only get markets and trade deals through foreign bureaucrats? Laughable.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 6^th, 2016 at 8:41pm:


And in the preceeding 400 years, you’ll find the top two places being occupied by Arabs and Chinks.- with the Venetians a distant third.

Who do you think will take over in the next 400 years, Mistie?

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 6^th, 2016 at 8:43pm:


Personally, I think NAFTA is a mistake - but - it is a loose/fuzzy union:  Mexico City does not dictate taxes on alcohol in New York City.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 6^th, 2016 at 8:55pm:

Joseph Needham would have agreed.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 6^th, 2016 at 10:10pm:


My point wasn't beer, but the Scottish alcohol pricing plan did breach EU law. Mexico City does not dictate the minutiae in NYC. Brussels does dictate the minutiae in Glasgow.

A more important global issue is medicine. Britain provides free medication to.all its residents under the NHS. This is perfectly legal in the EU, even.though other European states have much less generous public health schemes.

The Trans Pacific Partnership, if you remember, stalled over this very point. Australia wanted to keep its PBS. The pharmaceutical lobby in the US wanted to screw us.

When Trump talks about scrapping the TPP, it’s over issues like this. He wants a better dear for American intellectual property, which inevitably means a worse deal for our own sovereignty.

Remember, the business of America is business, not the welfare of Americans. The Donald Trumps of the US empire will always fight for their interests, not the American - or Australian people.

This is why Trump has a policy to overturn universal health cover,  which he disparagingly calls "Obamacare". He wants a better deal for the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies.

Sovereignty, innit.

AiA wrote on Jul 6^th, 2016 at 10:59pm:


Feel free to provide a real example, AiA.

Remember, Poms just voted to leave the EU based on such mistaken, tabloid-inspired  "minutae".

Whoops.

No, 4th, under your proposal, Brussels would still not do any "dictating" to sovereign states. All a visa on arrival for Turks would do is allow Turks to enter Europe’s passport-free Schengen zone.- with a Turkish passport.

Britain is not a signatory to this treaty. All entrants to Britain must still show their passports. If they’re not European, they must apply for a visa.

Yet another example of "minutae" that doesn’t stack up.

Brssels does not force member states to accept refugees, as your Hungaran example shows. All you’ve done is quote a politician meaninglessly railing against Brussels - a staple of Euro politics since the 1970s.

4th, the "plans" you’re describing are proposals. The reason they were "botched" is member states voted against them, just as Eastern European states say they’ll do next time.

The fine proposal is a way for the Northern European states to share the load of taking refugees in. I agree. If a country doesn’t want to settle refugees, it should not be penalised. This is a sovereignty issur. To date, the EU has not imposed refugees or fines on any of its member states. The EU does not have the power to make member states take refugees, or adhere to any imaginary quotas.

Your article clearly states that Britain is exhempt from these proposals "due to its historical opt-out on justice issues". Any refugee Britain takes in must get to the UK - not Europe. This is covered by Britain’s sovereign agreement with the UNHCR. It has nothing to do with the EU. The EU can’t make Britain take any refugees in, and nor do any refugees who make it to the European mainland have any right to enter the UK.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 7^th, 2016 at 1:26pm:

That's all well and good, but the following excerpt from a Daily Express article underscores my point: The Brits' disenchantment about immigration, and the effect of EU policies on their borders, had a major influence on the Brexit vote.

Quote:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/676612/Brexit-what-happen-to-immigration-...

Which brings us back to sovereignty.

The4thEstate wrote on Jul 8^th, 2016 at 2:41pm:


But that's my point, 4th. The Brits got it wrong. The EU has absolutely nothing to do with the UK's refugee intake.

And that's what this means in the context of this discussion.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 8^th, 2016 at 3:28pm:

Well, let's say for the sake of argument that the EU does, in fact, have nothing to do with refugee intake in the UK and every other European nation.

If that's the case, then why does the EU even bother talking about setting refugee quotas and fining member nations for not adhering to them?

That would only reinforce the argument that the EU is a toothless entity that is becoming increasingly irrelevant by the day.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 8^th, 2016 at 4:15pm:

That might be part of it, but stories like this one suggest that the flood of migrants was a major factor in the Brexit vote:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farage-defends-ukip-breaki...

Farage: “as you can see from this picture, most of the people coming are young males and, yes, they may be coming from countries that are not in a very happy state, they may be coming from places that are poorer than us, but the EU has made a fundamental error that risks the security of everybody.”

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 8^th, 2016 at 5:07pm:

Well, if I understand correctly, Pakistani Muslims have been coming there for quite a while, but they're not exactly helping their own cause with stuff like the Rotherham scandal (of course, the UK media uses the prim PC term "Asians").

So that might be a contributing factor as well.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 8^th, 2016 at 5:07pm:

I can't imagine a British leader who would be stupid enough not to block their path and turn them back.

The4thEstate wrote on Jul 8^th, 2016 at 5:27pm:

I'm certain they'd turn them back (or at least have a mind to)... But the sheer numbers would, I'd bet, quickly overwhelm British authorities while possibly easing the problem in France / EU...

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 8^th, 2016 at 6:00pm:


They do turn them back. French and British forces search every vehicle for refugees on both sides of the British Channel.

Nothing will change for refugees when.Britain pulls out of the EU. Those most effected will be the British themselves.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 8^th, 2016 at 6:27pm:


Yeah but it will stop the Bulgarians, Croatians, Czechs, Estonians, Hungarians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles,  Romanians, Slovaks and Slovenians from washing over.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 8^th, 2016 at 6:49pm:


Nope.  History so far in the west is once the buggerers have landed there is no getting rid of them.

Secret Wars wrote on Jul 8^th, 2016 at 6:55pm:


You’re right there, Secret. London has been the destination for European emigres from the French Revolution on. England has never gotten rid of them.

How many have migrated to Poland, Estonia, Romania?

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 8^th, 2016 at 9:51pm:

No, I don't think the French would do that now (and definitely not while the UK is a member of the EU which won't change for some time yet). But I'm imagining a time after the UK's exit.

The4thEstate wrote on Jul 9^th, 2016 at 9:29am:


Soveregnty, innit.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jul 9^th, 2016 at 9:45am:


Good point, dear.

Carry on.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 6^th, 2016 at 1:38pm:


You need to update yourself.

Implying that One Nation is the repository of all things Rightwing and nasty in Australian politics, is very outdated and passé. Less than a year ago Australia's prime minister, Tony Abbott, was telling us that whatever trade deals we make with our Asian business partners - this country's soul will always be linked to the Anglo-sphere of the English-speaking nations.

Howard said pretty much the same thing.

Your monster-under-the-bed One Nation boogey-man has long since been exorcised and sanitized of any evil intent.

Quote:



Quote:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 9^th, 2016 at 10:56am:



Unlike the Labor Party.

..

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 9^th, 2016 at 4:41pm:


Volume is the problem.

Critical demographic mass.

Britain is heading for the racial divide we've just been witnessing in Dallas ... and it has been entirely artificially social-engineered from a standing-start by liberal-progressives.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 9^th, 2016 at 10:33am:

Hmmm ... what, outside the basic 50, do you consider a part of the "American Empire"?

Puerto Rico? Wake Island? Guantanamo Bay?

The4thEstate wrote on Jul 10^th, 2016 at 5:39am:


Latin America, South East Asia, the Middle East, NATO...

I could go on.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 10^th, 2016 at 12:34pm:

You obviously haven't been here lately. Under Obama, Latin America has been moving into the United States -- one illegal family at a time.

And what part of Southeast Asia are you referring to -- the Philippines? Surely you're not still talking about Vietnam. ("For it's 1, 2, 3, what are we fightin' for?")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXspsfoPX50

The4thEstate wrote on Jul 10^th, 2016 at 1:11pm:


The empire is declining, 4th, but the US economi c and military influence in the world meets every criterion of the term, empire.

And yes, now that the US has established trade with Vietnam and opened up US factories and sweatshops,  I am talking about Vietnam. Thailand and Indonesia are others. Suharto was backed by Uncle in the cold war, as were the Thai generals.

In this region, China is slowly taking over, but the US is still a powerful presence.

The US supports those Latinos, 4th. They’re good for business. Not Obama,, but George W Bush gave an.amnesty to over a million illegal immigrants in 2001. US soil is the heart of empire, and all empires need cheap labour. This is the promise of empires: work and fight for us, and we’ll protect your women and children.

The promise, of course, is not always kept.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 10^th, 2016 at 1:28pm:

Declining under Obama, yes. That's what happens when you put leftist ideology and globalism ahead of the interests of the citizens and nation you're sworn to protect. It can be reversed, but not by Granny Pantsuit.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 10^th, 2016 at 1:28pm:

Well, the current administration is more interested in redistributing the global wealth than building up America's economic might. We might as well be ruled by head of the U.N.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 10^th, 2016 at 1:28pm:

Don't tell me that Obama doesn't want Latinos. What you're missing is that they tend to vote Democrat more than Republican, so if you pay closer attention, you'll notice that every prominent Democrat gives nothing but double-talk when it comes to illegal immigrants. In fact, they don't even call them "illegal" -- they call them "undocumented."

That's not to say that the Republican establishment -- or as I like to call them, the Vichy Republicans -- haven't sold out the average American also. They're as much in favor of the multinational trade deals as Obama is, and they like illegal immigrants too, but for cheap labor instead of cheap votes.

At any rate, it's not as if the illegals are getting exploited. They're getting plenty of government freebies, including an education for their kids and free medical care in the emergency rooms if they can't pay for it, while American military veterans are waiting months (and longer) to get a medical appointment at a Veterans Administration facility.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 11^th, 2016 at 1:44pm:

"Mission Accomplished" (much)?

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 11^th, 2016 at 3:55pm:

And war all the time... of course... Don't forget the ole industrial-military complex...

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 11^th, 2016 at 5:13pm:

And yet its like America saying to war... "I just can't quit you".

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 11^th, 2016 at 5:29pm:

Not really -- it's just that when the U.S. reduces its international profile, bad stuff happens. China starts asserting itself in the South China Sea, Russia starts gobbling up Crimea, North Korea and Iran start making noise about nukes, etc.

If you're fine with those countries dictating human rights, environmental and territorial policies throughout the world, feel free to cheer such moves. Personally, I'd rather see the U.S. and its allies running things.

In any case, it's not as if the U.S. is locked into its current budget. The current federal budget is bloated, but nothing's going to change unless Trump wins in November. Granny Pantsuit is an Obama clone who's more interested in the future of her party than the future of her nation.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 11^th, 2016 at 7:47pm:

No, hopefully not.

But there's no guarantee that everybody else in the world will behave themselves in the meantime, particularly Islamic terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda.

And if another 9/11 occurs ... well, you can't expect a nation to allow 3,000 of its citizens to be murdered on its own soil without responding in some fashion -- hopefully decisive.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 11^th, 2016 at 8:06pm:

Yeah, but there was no compelling reason to stay so long in Afghanistan. That's where the "nation-building" part comes in.

It still would have been national suicide to do nothing in response to 9/11. How many times to you allow yourself to get punched in the face before you do something about it?

Besides, the war in Afghanistan did achieve positive results. How many major attacks did Al Qaeda pull off after they got chased out of Afghanistan with their tails between their legs?

I'm no fan of war, but show me a person who thinks it's never necessary and I'll show you a person who lives under someone else's rule.

The4thEstate wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 3:25am:

Afghanis, historically, seem remarkably resistant to foreign "nation building", as Americans have proved themselves to be since the 18th century.

The4thEstate wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 3:25am:

Well, yes. For something with the absolute gravitas of 9/11, a clear and lethal response was mandatory... But the notion that Iraq (or Saddam Hussein) or any nation would have pulled off something as nationally suicidal as 9/11 quickly became the core problem with target identification. Targeting a nation that the Bush Administration had other reasons to be offended by (or saw an opportunity in assigning culpability to Iraq or the Saddam regime) was, shall we say, a gross miscalculation and a squandering of morally justifiable retribution. It might have been closer to the mark to identify Saudi Arabia (or Saudi aligned groups) as the likely source of culpability.

The4thEstate wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 3:25am:

Al Qaeda was never and is not not an immutable entity of blind, violent hatred... Any diminution in that group is a catalyst for the ascendancy of others, like ISIS.

The4thEstate wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 3:25am:

Or a Buddhist monk!

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 6:16am:

I pretty much agree with you on Iraq and Saudi Arabia. I would just note that whatever you think of Bush, it's not as if Obama has done anything in the Middle East that's brought more stability to the region or made the West safer. Quite the opposite, in fact.

The4thEstate wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 3:25am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 6:16am:

ISIS could have been crushed when it was still in its infancy, and before it began mingling with the populace. Its stolen military equipment used to move in a caravan, which would have been target practice for Western fighter jets and bombers.

But Obama had no interest in it, and now the West is paying the price -- especially the Europeans under the stampede of Middle East Muslims ... Obama's kind of people.

The4thEstate wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 3:25am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 6:16am:

Well, that's just it -- how are Buddhist monks doing in Tibet lately?

Exactly. So much for pacifism.

The4thEstate wrote on Jul 12^th, 2016 at 9:51am:

I'm certain it would have been almost impossible for any US administration to manage events in the ME. Many commentators have spoken about the rise of ISIS - including no less than Canon Andrew White - the sadly disheartened and courageous Anglican 'Vicar of Baghdad' - who has risked his life for years by staying with his Iraqi Christian congregation and witnessed it all from Saddam to yesterday.

ISIS is a Sunni-based group and, as White and all others attested, initially almost no Iraqi Sunni soldier would engage them (and no Sunni government would sanction a foreign power to deal with them). As White said of his Sunni bodyguard when he asked him what he would do if he had to fight ISIS - 'Drop my weapon and walk (or run). When asked why, he said he was paid to be in the army not to fight other Sunnis [and by default be supporting the Shi'ites].

These are people who will 'martyr' themselves almost at the slightest critique of their faith... They care nothing for their lives nor the lives of their kin when in defense of Islam.

This is an infinitely complex region whose labyrinth societal complexities would stupefy a Russian epic novelist. To think that any foreign power will prevail there, makes a fool of their comprehension of the peoples there and there extraordinarily long memory.

No US Administration can be criticised for failing in the Middle East... They can only be castigated (and do penance) for having gone there in the first place.