eurealist.co.uk

No ID set to music

http://eclectech.co.uk/clarkeidcards.php

Nice dog piano player!

Checking my EU related news feeds I came accross this from
JUS a web site I know nothing about. I am not trying to make any point, but there does appear to be a movement toward a united Muslim peoples. An interesting thought provoking idea.

This snip is only the latter part of the post.

Today, Europeans are more worried about safeguarding their national identities than moving forward with a constitution that places greater emphasis on a European identity. Subsequently, the current problems faced by Europe, and the solutions advocated are no longer viewed from the perspective of a unified Europe, but through the prism of nationalism. The dispute over the budget is a classic example of European nationalism tearing apart the EU.

In contrast, nationalism which was exported to the Islamic world and used to ‘divide and conquer’ Muslims is in full retreat. Today the concept of Ummah has superseded nationalism and has become a unifying force for Muslims across the world. Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia are quickly discovering that they have more in common with the Islamic vision of brotherhood than their present identities defined by artificial borders. The plight of Muslims in Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir, Iraq and Afghanistan is no longer viewed as parochial problems, but as Islamic problems that must have an Islamic solution.

Political Unity Is A Dream For Europe But A Reality For Muslims

The EU experiment was a bold attempt by some European nations to put to rest centuries of division and warfare. This initiative was given further impetus, when the elites in France and Germany realized that American supremacy could not be challenged by them alone. Hence the concept of a European Super state was born. But after 40 years of trying to create a post modern state, the EU has disintegrated into a collection of pre-modern states (nation states), where powerful states like England, France and Germany are at loggerheads over Europe’s future.

This was a predictable outcome. The European continent has been plagued with cultural differences, religious schisms and intense rivalries between powerful states. European history clearly demonstrates that there is very little to unite Europeans except foreign threats.

In the 17th century the advance of the Ottoman army to the gates of Vienna briefly spurred European nations to put aside their differences-only to be resumed later. In the 20th century, the threats from the Soviet Union, and later from America’s global hegemony forced Europe to coalesce in the form of a union.

More often than not, the coming together of European nations is a temporary affair and is used by some to recuperate after experiencing the ravages of war. But as soon as the external threat weakens, in this case America’s position in the world, Europe defaults to a state of disunity.

However, the unification of Muslim world into a single entity is not a mere dream but a reality. For centuries, Muslims irrespective of differences in race, language, color and geography remained part of a single political entity known as the Caliphate.

The present day nation states in the Islamic world are alien to Muslims. They do not have any precedence in Islamic history nor are they a product of Islamic jurisprudence. The nation state was forced upon the Muslims by western powers to prevent the re-establishment of the Caliphate.

As such, the Muslim masses never really expressed their loyalty to these artificial states and had to be governed by tyranny. Now it’s just a matter of time before these regimes of terror are toppled and a global Caliphate is established on their ruins. The rulers of the Muslim world are not blind to these realities; rather they are opposed to them. These rulers continuously preach that Muslims can never be united and that the establishment of the Caliphate belongs to the realm of the past.

If by chance, they ever do suggest unity between Muslims then it is through western inspired institutions like the OIC, Arab League, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and the like. Strangely enough, these institutions and the nation-states that were manufactured to delay the political unity of Muslims have become the vehicles of change. Their impotence has encouraged Muslims worldwide to discard Europe and America as model states, and to redouble their efforts to re-establish the Caliphate.

Abid Mustafa is a political analyst who specializes in Muslim affairs.

Margot Jumping on the bandwagon in order to promote the EU.

The latest post from the EU propaganda web site, otherwise known as the Margot Wallstrom web site, a web site that it is claimed is for her personal thoughts, to show us all that the EU is not filled with faceless Eurocrats but real people.

Real people, Margot do not say;
“Some of you have asked me what issues require cross-border and inter-institutional cooperation. Fighting terrorism is at least one. Next week the Commission will discuss concrete measures like trans-border police cooperation, improved rapid crisis reaction and also how to prevent recruitment of terrorists.

But this is not a day for politics. It is not about making points for or against the EU. We are all on the same side,”

I feel I have to explain if this is not a day for politics, then why did the good lady decide to make points for the EU. WE are not asking “what issues require cross-border and inter-institutional cooperation” we are asking what issues require an overarching unelected, accountable government in Brussels that has the effect of removing our ability to elect and dismiss our law makers. What issues cannot be solved by our respective governments that are accountable to their voters working together.
Margot says “The terrorists steal our thoughts – as well as taking lives” somebody said on TV this morning – and I find that very true. They try to dominate the news; they try to set the agenda”

Much of this can also be said of the EU, It try’s to dominate the news, it try’s to set the agenda. It of course does not use bombs, instead it uses money, our own money to achieve the same ends, to steal our thoughts.

Leader stakes job on vote to revive EU constitution
The Times By Anthony Browne, Europe Correspondent
IT IS either the most futile referendum in the history of the European Union or the most cynical.

France and the Netherlands have both rejected the European constitution, and countries from Britain to Poland have shelved theirs, but Luxembourg — with an electorate the size of Croydon — will go to the polls tomorrow to give its verdict.

Jean-Claude Juncker, the Grand Duchy’s chain-smoking Prime Minister, hopes that his 218,000 voters — just 0.05 per cent of the EU population — will demonstrate such overwhelming enthusiasm for the treaty that they can raise it from the dead.

But if Luxembourg says no, even M Juncker, Europe’s last arch-federalist, admits that the constitution will be dead and he has promised to resign.

Until recently, the idea that Luxembourg could reject an EU treaty was risible. This bastion of “Old Europe” has grown rich off the fat of the EU. It receives €1,700 per head per year from Brussels, five times more than any other member state. Its capital, Luxembourg City, is packed with EU institutions, from the European Court of Justice to the European Court of Auditors, and parts of the European Parliament and Council of Ministers.

It has made support for European integration a cornerstone of its national identity, and being a member of the EU means that its political class can take breaks from organising traffic schemes to hob-nob with President Bush and other world leaders. But the EU has plunged into such a deep crisis that even in Luxembourg support for the constitution is now likely to be tepid at best.

The “no” campaign has no figurehead and virtually no funds, but it is has doubled its support. The last opinion poll — they are banned during the month before the vote — showed that the “yes” camp’s lead had slipped to 8 per cent.

As in France, it is fear of “Anglo-Saxon economics” that seems to be fuelling opposition. Anne Marie Speltz, the “no” campaign co-ordinator, said: “We do not want a treaty that dictates its ultra-liberal orientation, with completely free markets.”

M Juncker, president of the EU until July, earned hoots of derision by standing up after each referendum defeat and insisting that in the Alice in Wonderland world of the EU, the overwhelming “no” votes really meant “yes”. As if determined to prove Eurosceptics right about the anti-democratic nature of the EU, the doyen of EU politics insisted that any country that voted “ no” would have to vote again until it gave the “right answer”.

Europe’s longest-serving prime minister will not treat his voters with the same contempt that he has shown towards those of France and the Netherlands. Although he has always insisted that the project is still alive, he said that if his own country rejected it, it would be dead.

M Juncker’s 11-year career as Prime Minister would also be dead, since he has promised to resign if he loses. He is an extremely popular leader, and putting his job on the line was aimed at boosting support, but it has also angered those who see it as a form of blackmail.

Lucien Kayser, one of Luxembourg’s most respected intellectuals, pleaded in an open letter to M Juncker: “Don’t take voters hostage; let them have a really free choice on what they are being asked.”

But if Luxembourg supports the constitution, M Juncker insists that the entire project would be brought back to life. “In the case that Luxembourg did say yes, this could be the signal that the process is still alive,” he said.

The idea of reviving the constitution may seem far-fetched but that is what some European capitals are plotting.

Karel de Gucht, the Belgian Foreign Minster, said that France and the Netherlands must be made to vote again. “We can create a climate in which the treaty could finally be adopted in France and the Netherlands. We have to proceed with a second vote.”

Telegraph-letters
Sir - Mr Blair was suggesting after the attacks that this terrorist outrage would not change our British way of life, and the values to which we hold dear (News, July 8).

Is this not the man who leads a Government that wishes to dispense with habeas corpus, trial by jury, celebrations of VE Day and Trafalgar, and has already dispensed with a national sport of foxhunting? Is it not Tony Blair that wants to remove the right of the British subject to go about his business and insists on ID cards?

Jon Browne, Copmanthorpe, York

Sir - I am angry because various religious leaders are calling for people from ethnic minorities to “lie low” for a while, as they fear that white people will victimise them (News, July 8). It is an insult to the British people, the majority of whom are fair-minded, tolerant and rational.

Those of us who have chosen this country as our home are an integral part of it. We are British, we vote to choose the Government, and we should be up front and united in fighting this evil.

Why should we segregate ourselves from the rest of the country? That is what the bombers want - to turn people against each other and change the face of our society.

Sabina Ahmed, Taunton, Somerset