Debt Peonage, Corporate Capitalism, Codex Alimentarius, and Tyranny: An Optimist's Guide To Lisbon.

John Calvin Jones, PhD, JD, professor of law, American University in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Paper for the 5th Annual Conference on European Integration, Skopje, Macedonia, 20 May 2010
Debt Peonage, Corporate Capitalism, Codex Alimentarius,

and Tyranny: an optimist’s guide to Lisbon.
“The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and
happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors.”
Thomas Jefferson
Introduction
The adoption of the so-called Lisbon Treaty, a previous form of which was called the EU
Constitution,1 has brought some changes in the governing structure of the EU and further moved
the balance of power from the member state governments to an EU supranational entity. This
paper will examine certain facets of the Lisbon Treaty and its provisions that centralize authority
in the EU government over the member states in relation to three overlapping, areas: banking and
finance; food and medicine; and personal liberty.
Part I. EU Financial Power: thinking about Greece and beyond
“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes her laws.”
Mayer Amschel Rothschild
Starting in 2008, financial collapse and severe economic downturns have been seen in
Latvia, Iceland, the United States, and Greece. At the same time, nations of the UK, Spain, Italy,
and Portugal have reported unemployment rates over 20%, annual budget deficits in excess of
12% of GDP, and looming national debts. Among other problems, problematics, and issues,
given the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty (hereinafter Lisbon), the new rules spell tragedy for the
masses. By contrast, certain aspects of Lisbon will bring more economic power and authority to
the EU, as an entity, and the individual EU ministers themselves.
Arguably all nations and economic blocs like the EU, NAFTA, Mercosur, etc., move
through cycles of growth and retraction. But in modern times, under the current debt-based
money system, wherein banks can create wealth/debt from nothing via fractional-reserve banking
- a practice that has moved from a 9 to 1 ratio to that where some investment banks leverage
1
According to authors of a webpage from the Universidad de Zaragoza, in Spain, “The Lisbon Treaty, also referred
to as Reform Treaty or Simplified Treaty, among other names, is a replacement for the Treaty establishing a
Constitution for Europe. While the Constitution attempted to replace all earlier EU treaties, the Reform Treaty
amends the previous treaties. In This sense the formal title of the treaty is “Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on
European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community.” See The Lisbon Treaty,
http://www.unizar.es/euroconstitucion/Treaties/Treaty_Lisbon%20Treaty.htm
1
John Calvin Jones (2010), Debt Peonage, Corporate Capitalism, Codex Alimentarius, and Tyranny: an optimist’s
guide to Lisbon
money to the tune of 100 to 12 – those governments that allow private banks to control the
money supplies, leave populations vulnerable (Hudson 2009).3
Though some might believe that the adoption of a single currency within the EU was
done primarily to facilitate trade, economic growth, and efficiency for common people and small
businesses, when seen as a mechanism used by private banks – separate, if not superior to
national governments – the question remains, what is the role of the EU? Does the EU serve as
an arbiter between the people, member state governments, and banks – which function as a
regrettably necessary piece of the economy – or does the EU serve those banks? I argue that we
can answer that question by looking at Greece, the most extreme example of an economic
problem that is also occurring in countries like Portugal, Spain, Latvia, Iceland, etc.
Looking at Greece, Looking in the Mirror
In order for Greece to enter the Euro-zone in the year 2000 – with full membership
including adoption of the euro as its official currency – the Greek government had to meet EU-
imposed rules about fiscal policy. These rules, the so-called Maastricht convergence criteria,
mandate that a nation cannot have an annual budget deficit in excess of 3% of GDP and a
national debt in excess of 60% of GDP.4 But when their candidacy was being considered, Greek
deficits were in excess of proscribed limits. To satisfy the Maastricht criteria, via lowering its
deficits on the books, through the assistance of a self-dealing Goldman-Sachs, Greece undertook
a series of so-called credit default swaps.5
Over time it would be shown that the swaps were absolutely fraudulent.6 In 2002, the
Greek deficit amounted to 1.2 percent of GDP. After Eurostat reviewed the data in September
2
See commentaries of Max Keiser, Keiser Report, number 35, 20 April 2010.
http://maxkeiser.com/2010/04/20/kr35-keiser-report-markets-finance-scandal-and-joe-weisenthal/
3
“The European Union and International Monetary Fund have told [the governments and peoples of Latvia and
Iceland] to replace private debts with public obligations, and to pay [these private debts] by raising taxes, slashing
public spending and obliging citizens to deplete their savings.” See Michael Hudson, “Recovering from Neoliberal
Disaster: Why Iceland and Latvia Won’t (and Can’t) Pay the EU for the Kleptocrats’ Ripoffs,” August 17th, 2009.
4
Hudson, Michael. 2009. “Recovering from Neoliberal Disaster: Why Iceland and Latvia Won’t (and Can’t) Pay
the EU for the Kleptocrats’ Ripoffs.” ISLET, Global Research, August 17th. Posted at: http://michael-
hudson.com/articles/countries/090817IcelandLatviaWontPay.html
5
Balzli, Beat. 2010. “How Goldman Sachs Helped Greece to Mask its True Debt.” Der Spiegel, 8 February.
6
Goldman-Sachs brokered exchanges of Greek debts denominated in dollars and yen for those denominated in euro
– in the short-term. In theory, with differing interest rates on those instruments and due to particular exchange rates,
true debts and future obligations could appear lower than otherwise. But Goldman-Sachs went a step further and
made accounting notations with fraudulent and fictional exchange rates. See Max Keiser Report of 19 February
2010 on Russia Today. And one should not be fooled into believing this is a Greece-only problem. In previous
years, Italy also used accounting fraud through credit-default swaps to mask its true debt with the help of a U.S.
investment bank.
2
2004, the ratio had to be revised up to 3.7 percent. By February of 2010, the deficit was at 5.2
percent of GDP.7
By 2009, nearly 10 years after public information revealed a Greek budget deficit and
national debt – underestimated by at least $40 billion,8 the EU's Economic and Financial Affairs
Council (ECOFIN)9 demanded that the Greek national government undertake austerity measures
to be in line with the Maastricht criteria.10 And the Greek government did adopt severe austerity
measures.
Though at the start of the economic decline in Greece during 2009 the government
extended short-term loans to small businesses, gave grants to the poor, and place moratoria on
interest fees (cf. Taking Aim 16 March 2010), all was reversed in favor of IMF, ECB, and EU
member state preferences of debt serving and austerity (cf. Taking Aim, 16 March 2010). In an
effort to meet the demands of ECOFIN, which would otherwise lead an EU-imposed austerity as
permitted under Article 126.9 of Lisbon Treaty, since October 2009, the Greek government cut
$14 billion in state spending and saddled Greeks with more taxes (Taking Aim 16 March
2010).11 Such included higher taxes on heating fuel, petrol, and diesel, as well as higher taxes on
alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. Greece raised the VAT two percent (Taking Aim 16
March 2010). Spending cuts came in the form of a 7% across-the-board pay cut to state
employees and raising the age of retirement (Taking Aim 16 March 2010). The combined effect
of the taxes, spending cuts, lay-offs, and wage cuts resulted in an effective loss of 25%
household income across Greece. Yet, as reported in the Wall Street Journal (2010), despite this
level of austerity, ECONFIN ministers claimed that the government of Papandreou did not cut
enough – and that is problematic.12
7
Balzli (2010).
8
Max Keiser Report, Russia Today, 19 February 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=FKCR2k4keMQ&feature=related
9
“Ecofin” is composed of the Economics and Finance Ministers of the EU member states. The commission adds
Budget Ministers of member states when budgetary issues are discussed. It meets regularly once a month.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=250&lang=EN
10
Eurostat’s reporting rules do not record transactions involving financial derivatives. According to one derivates
trader: “The Maastricht rules can be circumvented quite legally through swaps” (Balzli 2010). This fact that EU
accounting and reporting rules purposefully ignore one type of fiscal fraud that ECOFIN would otherwise seek to
prevent – in the name of limiting EU-wide inflation – and thus increases the possibility that the EU will impose
austerity against a given country is curious. It gives us reason to be skeptical of ECOFIN and EU sincerity about a
claim for rules demanding sound fiscal policy. Given that the EU intentionally fails to record credit default swaps –
which are only used to push loan repayments into the future – the practice will accrue as a benefit to the EU which
will impose fines and taxes on the fiscally unsound member state.
11
In January 2010, Spain reported a budget deficit in excess of 6% of GDP. Like Greece, the government of Spain
led a self-imposed slash and burn program of public spending. One primary target was state spending to create
public sector jobs as a means to reduce unemployment. See Sinikka Tarvainen (2010),
3
guide to Lisbon
If tax increases were a reasonable, short-term measure imposed in conjunction with other
steps to reduce present and future odious debt, then the taxes might yield longer-term benefits to
the Greek economy at-large. However, when taxes accompany deep cuts in public spending,
these sin and energy taxes reduce private spending, hence shrink the economy. As the GDP
shrinks, at the same time that foreign debts remain on the books, the only way for a nation, like
Greece, to follow EU and IMF mandates is to place larger percentages of state spending into debt
service.
In fact, despite the massive cuts in public spending, as of March 2010, Greece still had a
national debt of $400 billion (Taking Aim 16 March 2010).13 Much of the Greek national debt is
a result of interest accrued through previous borrowing to pay off earlier debts (Taking Aim 16
March 2010). As explained in Der Spiegel, those 10-15 year bonds are coming due – and will
continue for at least the next five years.14 These 10-year bonds have yields of well over 6%
(some are over 7%) - a figure which is far higher than the Greek government can earn via
investment or recoup through national economic growth - possibly brought on by infusing the
borrowed money into the Greek economy (cf. Taking Aim 16 March 2010). As of mid April
2010, Greece needed to raise 11.6 billion euros by the end of May to cover maturing bonds, and
another 20 billion euros by the end of December to pay debt coupons and finance its deficit for
2010 (Neuger and Stearns 2010).
This circumstance leaves the Greek government, hence the Greek people, in a bind. (And
we should remember that the Greek economic reality is facing other nations – so the policy
choices in Greece are likely to be replicated and or imposed in other EU nations). Because euro-
based EU member state governments cannot affect the supply and value of their national
currency, which is controlled by the private ECB directly and by other private banks indirectly,
the primary move that these governments can take to reduce deficit spending is to make cuts in
government spending. And Greece will cut her spending by at least 4%.15
In fact, such social spending cuts are expected, as a matter of consequence, by ECOFIN.
According to ECOFIN (2010), in the near and long-term, many EU member states are going to
have a fiscal crisis in the area of pensions and related social service spending for the elderly,
12
Article 126.9 allows the European Commission (via ECOFIN) and or the ECB to place the Greek economy in
what amounts to receivership. Under the treaty, if deficits and or debts are deemed too high and national policies
not effective enough to reduce the shortfalls, the EU, through ECOFIN could take control of Greek fiscal policy and
impose its own terms on Greek national budgets without regard to the interest in the livelihood of working-class
Greeks.
13
In an interview in May 2010, Papandreou declared that Greece has an outstanding debt of 300 billion euro (Casert
and Becatoros 2010).
14
Balzli, Beat. 2010. “How Goldman Sachs Helped Greece to Mask its True Debt.” Der Spiegel, 8 February
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,676634,00.html
15
See Neuger and Stearns (2010).
4
sick, and infirmed – due to declining birthrates.16 But Greece spends 51% of its national
government on social programs, for state workers, etc. (Taking Aim 16 March 2010). Yet when
a government has already made drastic cuts, the few other ways to pay for foreign debts are to
raise taxes, sell off national assets and resources, and borrowing more money. Which option will
Greece choose?
As of April, the 27 finance ministers of the EU states and the IMF agreed to provide
Greece with a short-term, 45 billion euro loan.17 Only three weeks later – in the name of helping
the Greek people, apparently a deal was settled whereby Greece took on a loan of 110 billion
euro – with 30 billion coming from the IMF!18 Of course the agreement also required a cut in
Greek domestic spending of 30 billion euro – a 13% cut in GDP (Ross-Thomas and Stearns
2010). By mid May 2010, the “bailout package” was over $1,000,000,000,000!19 Roughly $325
billion would come from the IMF (in fact largely subsidized and guaranteed by the United
States) and around $600 billion directly from treasuries of 16 EU member states.20
It is unsurprising that the EU preference for member states is take on more external debt
– and even make transfer payments from the public to private banks which hold government
bonds. EU entities have expressed this message in unexpected places. For example, the EU
Working Group on Ageing Populations and Sustainability claims that EU nations should work
with the IMF and World Bank.21 And note, in this latest example of borrowing, Greece is
borrowing from the IMF. So note, the agreement from April was to supply the Greek
government with 30 billion euro in the first year (Casert and Becatoros 2010). But a chief
economist from Goldman Sachs in London claims that even the monies from the EU member
states, 30 billion euro, will not cover Greek debts due over the next eight months. So as to pay
off private banks and hedge funds which bought Greek national bonds, the national government
had to rely on commercial loans (Neuger and Stearns 2010).
16
ECOFIN, Stability and Growth Pact, posted at: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/sgp/index_en.htm (Updated
11 February 2010, visited March 2010); see also EU Economic Policy Committee, Working Group on Ageing
Populations and Sustainability at: http://europa.eu/epc/working_groups/ageing_en.htm
17
Neuger, James and Jonathan Stearns. 2010. “Greece Wins EU45 Billion Aid Pledge to Blunt Crisis.” Bloomberg
Businessweek, April 11. Online at: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-11/greece-wins-more-than-eu30-
billion-in-eu-imf-aid-update1-.html
18
Casert, Raf and Elena Becatoros. 2010. “Euro partners agree on $145B Greek bailout.” AP, 2 May.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100502/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_greece_financial_crisis/print; Ross-Thomas, Emma and
Jonathan Stearns. 2010. “EU Bets $146 Billion Greek Bailout to Avert Contagion.” Bloomberg, 3 May.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-03/eu-bets-146-billion-greek-bailout-to-avert-contagion-update2-.html
19
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/economy/economics-mainmenu-44/3526-trillion-bailout-of-euro-
greece-shows-need-to-audit-the-fed
20
Associated Press. 2010. “Euphoria Over Euro Rescue Fades.” Berlin, 11 May. Posted by NPR at:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123413270
21
See EU Economic Policy Committee, Working Group on Ageing Populations and Sustainability at:
http://europa.eu/epc/working_groups/ageing_en.htm (Updated 12 December 2009, visited March 2010).
5
guide to Lisbon
Ironically and arguably the entire amount of the loan package for Greece will come from
private hands because around 600 billion euro, pledged from the EU and other full EU member
states will actually come directly from the ECB (cf. Neuger and Stearns 2010; AP May 2010).
Thus the loan has two aspects which bode well for private banks and injure the public. First, the
people of Greece will pay fees to the IMF. Second, people of the EU cannot reject what was
announced as a loan pledge. Consider, while the national finance ministers agreed, in principle,
to share in the risk of loaning Greece money, some states, like Ireland require a parliamentary
vote to approve such spending. But here, in that the ECB is transferring the funds to Greece (cf.
Neuger and Stearns 2010), in effect they have made the loan, and member states must repay the
ECB – the citizenry cannot refuse.
Though Greece has and will take a number of steps to reduce their debt – via cutting
social spending and debt service, which will shrink the economy – another 13% , it is likely that
Greece will increase borrowing for the foreseeable future.22 Thus the Greek debt will grow – and
grow at a pace that will move the EU and IMF to demand that the Greek government make more
radical cuts in social spending23 and ramp up debt servicing as a proportion of the national
budget (cf. Taking Aim 16 March 2010). And the debt service will be first on the list of the
spending priorities of the Greek national budget. As ECOFIN recently announced, it, along with
officials from the IMF and ECB, would monitor Greece to ensure that ECOFIN mandates are
followed (Taking Aim March 16, 2010). And ECOFIN has mandated that it will conduct three-
month reviews of Greek books to ensure that the government follows EU dictates in the form of
austerity measures (Taking Aim 16 March 2010).
Worse yet, what happens if Greek fiscal moves are deemed insufficient? The Lisbon
Treaty holds that should a nation with an excessive deficit (and or debt) fail to satisfy ECOFIN
demands, one of the sanctions is an EU tax.24 Article 126, subsection 11 announces:
11. As long as a Member State fails to comply with a decision [of ECOFIN], the Council
may decide25 to apply or … intensify one or more of the following measures:
22
According to Neuger and Stearns (2010), European pledges in February and March of 2010 to provide so-called
emergency loans to Greece failed to prevent Greek 10-year bond yields from soaring to 7.51 percent on April 8.
23
See Max Keiser, the Keiser Report of 15 April 2010. When speaking about the issue of the Greek debts supposed
loans and coming austerity measures, Keiser calls the deal Win-Win-Win for banks and Lose-Lose-Lose for the
people of Greece, and other places like Iceland, Ireland, and Spain.
24
See Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - Part Three: Union Policies and
Internal Actions - Title VIII: Economic and Monetary Policy - Chapter 1: Economic policy - Article 126 (ex Article
104 TEC) posted at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E126:EN:NOT
25
The ruling body of the EU, the Council, may decide with impunity. Moreover member states are without recourse
to challenge Council rulings.
6
… to require the Member State ... to make a non-interest-bearing deposit of an

appropriate size26 with the Union until the excessive deficit has, in the view of the
Council, been corrected;
to impose fines of an appropriate size.
To believe that the people of any EU nation would subject themselves to such possibility
knowingly and willingly is doubtful. So who benefits should the people of Greece, or Ireland, or
Italy, or Spain,27 or Portugal face such external sanction and or endure self-imposed austerity as
to depress their own economies? My answer is two main parties: (a) the private banks that hold
the debts; and (b) the EU government itself – in its growing move of autonomy – as a
government imposing fees to generate revenue for itself as a separate entity, rather than the EU
member states that such a government should serve.
The Ripple Effect
As of April 2010, German and French banks were exposed to over $120 billion to Greek
borrowers, from both public and private sources. These same banks have significant exposure at
the level of $900 billion to the five so-called PIIGS, nations of Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece,
and Spain (Wall Street Journal 17 February 2010).28 By late May 2010, the public was informed
that weeks earlier the EU nations had agreed to share debts – acquired from the IMF – but the
Spanish government was bankrupt, owing bonds issued at 18%!29 France too was bankrupt and
could not refinance their debt through common business and banking channels due in part to 700
billion euro exposure of French private banks to Greek public debt.30
26
The appropriate size is .2% of GDP plus one-tenth of the difference between the nation’s excessive deficit
percentage and the maximum level of 3%. See Council Regulation (EC) Number 1467/97, Article 12. Hence the
greater the nation’s need to have deficit spending, and the less their capacity to pay, the greater their bill to the EU!
And while the payment cannot exceed .5% of GDP, like a minimum credit card payment, the EU can use the EDP as
a means to create a constant funding stream. Note Article 13 of the regulation 1467/97 allows for the Council to
turn the deposit into a fine – from which the EU can extract interest – after the first two years.
27
See report of Sinikka Tarvainen, “Spain’s economy will take longer to recover than most other EU economies,
with the European Commission not expecting the country to rise out of the recession until 2011. The [Spanish]
government has announced an austerity plan which was expected to be watched closely by other EU member
states.” From “Spanish EU presidency stumbles into action” 7 January, posted at:
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/features/article_1523771.php/Spanish-EU-presidency-stumbles-
into-action-News-Feature
28
Fuhrmans, Vanessa and Sebastian Moffett. 2010. “Exposure to Greece Weighs On French, German Banks.” Wall
Street Journal, 17 February.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703798904575069712153415820.html
29
See comments of Joern Berninger on the Keiser Report, #46 of 27 May 2010. Online at:
http://maxkeiser.com/watch/the-keiser-report/keiser-report-46-27-may-2010-guest-dr-joern-berninger/
30
See Berninger (2010)
7
guide to Lisbon
Ralph Schoenman and Mya Schoon (2010) argue that the German and French banks are
thus able to leverage their extremely risky and overexposed financial positions in the PIIGS to
hold their own governments hostage to the idea that the banks should be subsidized – like their
American counterparts (Taking Aim 16 March 2010). Less than two months later, the
estimations of Schoenman and Schoon proved to be perfect predictions as private banks, not
politicians or the people, dictated fiscal policy. In the context of the Europe, with the expanding
control of the private European Central Bank, and a newly bolstered EU, empowered by the
Lisbon Treaty, the ramifications are tremendous. Without a complete rejection of these laws,
treaties, and practices the banks will win, while the hostages, the citizens of the EU, will
continue to pay.
In the first scenario, France and or Germany subsidize debt servicing in the PIIGS, either
with direct loans or by serving as a surety for IMF loans to these governments. Such a process
takes money out of the hands of the German and French people, as money for public services
will be lent with the primary effect of enriching banks. This scenario works as a system of
paying Peter to pay Paul – and supports the very same private businesses that took on risk that
created the economic crisis.
Such would be the worst instance of governments promoting what economists call moral
hazard. At the same time, the loan receivers, the governments of the PIIGS nations – already
enacting austerity programs, would only incur more debt – meaning more debt servicing, more
austerity, and further drains on weak and receding economies. On top of that, this new debt
would practically ensure that the EU supranational state would impose fines for fiscal
irresponsibility – to be paid to the EU!
The last point should be shocking in how clearly it reveals the nature of the purpose and
program of the EU as a private, supranational state. If the EU were to set forth rules in the name
of assisting the states, like a sport’s league commissioner for team owners, then all policies
would reinforce the economic health of each member state and all their citizens, not sublimate all
powers and authorities of each member-state government to the collective economic detriment of
EU citizens. The imposition of an ECOFIN and or EU Commission economic penalty, in the
name of controlling EU-wide inflation, would make sense if the penalty (lowering the money
supply) went directly to the debt-holder (further reducing EU-wide debt). But instead any
monies taken as fees and fines simply fill the private coffers of the EU. Hence on this count,
Lisbon works to bolster and sustain the political power of the EU in its role as enforcer of
economic policies in the interest of private banks.31
31
Note, after being named as president of the EU, the Belgian, Hermann van Rompuy, immediately explained that
the EU would embark on a program of self-financing [sic] in the form of direct taxation over EU member states –
without regard to agreements or consent from the legislatures of the member nation governments. See Charter,
David and Philip Webster. 2009. “Herman Van Rompuy, front-runner for presidency, wants EU-wide tax.” The
Times (UK), November 17, Available online at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6919380.ece (7 January 2010)
8
To clarify the last comment, it is easy to see that the EU is positioned as the enforcer of
private banking interests. In June 2009, Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, a PhD in economics from the
University of Chicago and a member of the Board of Directors of the ECB, gave a speech in
which he described how the global financial crisis was good in the fact that it would enable the
IMF – along with, to a lesser degree, the World Bank – to resume its dominant position in global
finance. Smaghi said:
“The fact that the crisis has restored the IMF to its place at the heart of the international
financial system should provide some hope in this respect … making IMF financing
easier. … In sum, a new world monetary order … requires a mechanism to keep
imbalances in check. Key elements of such a mechanism include a prominent role for the
IMF in two essential areas: strong and effective surveillance in crisis prevention, and
responsible lending, with appropriate limits and conditionality, to countries in need.”32
Why would an Italian national, long-time resident of Belgium, and member of the Board
of Directors of the ECB express any hope, support, and or fidelity to the IMF over the EU and or
its member states if the ECB were subservient to either the supranational EU government or the
member states? And while EU Commissioners are supposed to maintain a certain level of
distance from their home countries while working for the good of the EU on the whole (Fairhurst
2007, 95-96),33 Smaghi's comments cannot be seen in line with the principle of fidelity to the
EU. Rather it reads simply as the machinations of one who is working for the good of private
banks – not people.
In the second and scarier scenario, Germany and France pay for the defaults of the PIGS
directly to their own banks – the American style, TARP program. (To date, through a series of
statutes passed by Congress since October 2008, i.e., starting with the presidency of the
Republican G. W. Bush and continued by the change agent, Democrat Barack Obama, the
American taxpayers gifted $12.7 trillion to investment banks and insurance companies, and have
increased liability to bank-held derivatives contracts in excess of $23.7 trillion).34 Aside from
the inevitable depression that would ripple through Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain –
their respective governments would further retract the money supply – through austerity – and
incur more private debt, likely drawn from the IMF (hence heaping more future debt on the
citizens). As a result the EU would slap on its fines, which would never be paid off (Hudson
2009), while the governments of Germany and France, if in line with acts of other mainstream
governments would redirect public monies to the private banks. And those same mechanisms
which shrink economies and force the people into a lower standard of living – i.e., increasing
32
Maessen, Jurriaan. 2009. “European Central Banksters seek World Currency, Total Control.” Infowars, 6 July.
http://www.infowars.com/european-central-banksters-seek-world-currency-total-control/
33
See John Fairhurst, Law of the European Union, 6th edition. Pearson Longman: London (2007).
34
The International Forecaster. 2010. “Sovereign Debt - The Implications for Currencies and Gold.” Saturday, 6
March. Posted at: http://beforeitsnews.com/news/22664/Sovereign_Debt_-
_The_Implications_for_Currencies_and_Gold.html
9
guide to Lisbon
taxes and fees, reductions in spending on pensions and social services in health, policing, and
education now seen in Greece, would happen in France and Germany. Additionally, if the
governments of Germany and France would seek to ease the levels of austerity via short-term
private (IMF) borrowing, then the national debts would begin to spiral upward.
Taken on the whole, the powers of the EU supranational state cemented and deepened
through the Lisbon Treaty – at least in the area of fiscal control – show us that current and future
prospects for EU citizens are bleak. With little or no way to control the macro-economic trends
nor any means to limit the EU-based directives and actions, we should expect, to see economic
strife and a constant democratic struggle of poor and working people against government elites
and EU ministers in service of private banks.
Part II. Health, Food, and Medicine
Beyond general matters of the economy, current and future EU rules in the area of treaty-
making authority (now vested in the EU itself35 – rather than member states solely), as well as
powers in particular things like drugs/medicines and food do not bode well for those who favor
nature and freedom of choice. One reason is the imposition of Codex Alimentarius.
Guidance from the Codex Alimentarius Commission
Since 2003, the European Community (and hence now the EU – with the passage of
Lisbon), has accepted the directives, policy papers, and guidelines of a UN organization, the
Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC).36 Thus the CAC has rule-making authority over the
EU member states.37
Originally created in 1962 by UN and managed with two heads, the World Health
Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization, the Codex Alimentarius Commission
(CAC), was tasked with establishing international standards for food, drugs, and medicines
35
See Lisbon Treaty, Article 188 L:
1. The Union may conclude an agreement with one or more third countries or international organisations
where the Treaties so provide or where the conclusion of an agreement is necessary in order to achieve,
within the framework of the Union's policies, one of the objectives referred to in the Treaties, or is provided
for in a legally binding Union act or is likely to affect common rules or alter their scope.
2. Agreements concluded by the Union are binding upon the institutions of the Union and on its Member
States.’
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12007L/htm/C2007306EN.01004201.htm
36
European Commission, Drugs, Health, and Consumers.
http://ec.europa.eu/food/international/organisations/codex_en.htm (March 2010)
37
European Commission, Drugs, Health, and Consumers.
http://ec.europa.eu/food/international/organisations/codex_en.htm (March 2010)
10
through a document / treaty called Codex Alimentarius.38 First and foremost Codex Alimentarius
is nothing more than a manifestation of corporate proprietary interest along the lines of Western
corporate capitalism. As presented to the public, the CAC serves noble intentions of protect
consumer food health and eliminating barriers to international food trade (Tips 2009). But in
practice, the CAC is a body of a few people who seek to dictate food standards – including rules
on pesticides, herbicides, chemical sprays, GMO foods, preservatives, and guidelines for drugs,
medicines, supplements, vitamins, and nutrients – in the service of corporate profits.
According to the EU itself:
“The Codex Alimentarius Commission develops food standards that serve as a reference
for international food trade. More than 180 countries are members of the CAC [including
all 27 EU nations]39 and more than 200 international NGOs and intergovernmental
organisations have the observer status. The World Trade Organisation Agreement, on the
application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), considers that
WTO members applying the Codex Alimentarius Standards meet their obligations under
[the SPA] Agreement.”
Thus as the EU explains, the purpose of the Codex Alimentarius, and the CAC is to
ensure that WTO rules are followed (cf. Taylor 2004). In fact, Codex guidelines are designed to
ensure EU member state adherence to various WTO treaties including the Agreement (Treaty) on
Technical Barriers to Trade (Tips 2009) and the SPS (as noted above). So one of the first
questions one must consider in re any CAC ruling, standard, judgment, or policy is to ask what
corporate interest does the policy serve?
What about the WTO and the Health of Average Europeans?
In theory the WTO represents member states, i.e., governments – and hence the WTO
should be a vehicle to develop standards and rules for the protection and benefit of ordinary
people who consume products. In practice alas, the WTO is little more than a place where states
articulate demands of their corporate paymasters.
Consider, through the vehicle of Codex Alimentarius, the WTO imposes the following
rules:
WTO member nations are required to take into account the objective of minimizing
negative trade effects; and required to avoid arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions in the
levels of risk protection that it considers to be appropriate, if such distinctions result in
38
Scott Tips, JD. 2009. CODEX ALIMENTARIUS AND THE IDIOCRACY. September 14,
NewsWithViews.com. Posted at: http://www.newswithviews.com/Tips/scott101.htm (March 2010)
39
http://ec.europa.eu/food/international/organisations/codex_en.htm
11
guide to Lisbon
discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade (Taylor 2004).40 These

declarations overtly reference matters of corporate profits – as an outcome of trade, not
human needs or even consumer safety as defined by government ministries or scientific
proof.
Still if we concede that the WTO and hence Codex Alimentarius is designed to serve
corporate interests, we still need to investigate whether or not the profit motive of a few
corporations is at odds with public health, food safety, and human needs. Let us examine some
of the ways that EU practices, in pushing the Codex Alimentarius and its regulations, are harmful
to EU citizens and residents.41
Codex Alimentarius includes thousands of standards and guidelines. One of them, the
Vitamin and Mineral Guideline (VMG), establishes mandates on maximum dosages at which
companies can packages or health practioners can recommend for daily consumption of
vitamins, amino acids, and other nutrients (Taylor 2004; Tips; 2009; Null 2010).42 And these
levels are at extremely low – if not completely inefficacious (Taylor 2004; Tips 2009; Null
2010). Note, at present the EU is not enforcing the Codex maximums per se, rather EU officials
demand compliance of the EU’s own Food Supplements Directive (Tips 2009) – a necessary
move done in the name of harm-onizing WTO rules. But this directive was drafted by Basil
Mathioudakis (Taylor 2004) who also sits on the CAC (Laibow 2009)!
Though two particular researchers/authors Gary Null and Scott Tips have neither
collaborated nor referenced each other, they reach the same conclusion about the purposes and
effects of Codex rules. Null (2010) and Tips (2009) find that the only logical basis to understand
why the CAC advises people to consume low levels of natural supplements (and in fact demands
that WTO governments criminalize administration of higher dosages or declarations about the
efficacy of higher dosages – despite evidence of the medical efficacy of any particular dose of
any substance) is to leave the public, as well as doctors, to believe that vitamins and food
supplements cannot improve human health.43 In fact, Codex guidelines declare that producers of
40
See The WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), Article
5; paragraphs 4 and 5. Taylor’s (2004) dated analysis added this caveat about pre-Lisbon enforcement of WTO
agreements as worked through Codex Alimentarius:
“… technically ... ‘there is no legal obligation on [WTO] Members to apply Codex standards, guidelines
and recommendations’ [but] Codex texts are used by the WTO as a means of resolving international trade
disputes and WTO Members are legally obliged to abide by WTO rulings. Once the Codex Guidelines for
Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements are completed therefore, all it would take to begin enacting them
globally would be for one of the participating countries to launch, and win, an international trade dispute.”
41
In 2010, Toxicologist Robert Verkerk, PhD, who serves as executive director of the Alliance for Natural Health,
co-authored a piece published in Toxicology which challenged the methodology used by the EFSA in defining safe
maximum levels for vitamins and nutrients.
42
See and hear commentaries of Gary Null, PhD, MD, through his website and the Progressive Radio Network at:
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-gary-null-show-wnye/.
12
natural supplements shall not be allowed to provide claims of their curative effects – lest they
face criminal sanction (Rath 2001). A loss of public awareness in conjunction with a restriction
on free speech is solely for the benefit of pharmaceutical companies that otherwise could not
compete against natural, non-toxic, non-allopathic remedies for a host of so-called autoimmune
diseases (cf. Rath 2001).44
Rima Laibow (2009) goes further. She insists that over the years, the CAC has lowered
recommended daily allowance guidelines for vitamins and essential nutrients as a means to
promote chronic malnutrition in the population world-wide. Laibow (2009) says that mass
under-nourishment will result in an explosion of diseases like cancer, diabetes, cardio-vascular
and heart disease, as well as problems with obesity.45
Taylor (2004) explains the practice this way, the CAC guidelines for dosages of vitamins
and nutrients are derived through a standard toxicology rubric, Risk Assessment. The science of
Risk Assessment was developed to examine poisons, chemicals not suitable for human ingestion,
chemical fertilizers, and or artificial, pharmaceutical drugs. By definition, vitamins and nutrients
are essential for human health – such can restore cell integrity, prevent and even reverse disease
(cf. Null 2010). However, the CAC's Vitamin and Mineral Guideline takes the perverse position
that these substances should be evaluated as toxins that are unnecessary for human health (Taylor
2004). If knowledge of natural and essential supplements, phytonutrients, vitamins, etc., is lost
or suppressed to the public, health care workers, and even food companies, then the standard
treatment for what the World Health Organization calls “non-communicable treatable illnesses”
will be drugs made by the “illness care industry” (Laibow 2009).46
Risk Assessments or Sickness Creation?
A policy centered on destroying or perverting public knowledge as a means to prevent

people from controlling their health and breaking free from drug companies and other corporate
interests is neither an accident nor the result of an unintended consequence. The evidence
demonstrating what amounts to a misanthropic cabal is abundant.
Are we surprised to learn that one subcommittee of the CAC, the “Codex Committee on
Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses” (CCNFSDU), is chaired by Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, a
43
Note, according to Gary Null, in the early 1980s, he treated persons suffering from AIDS by administering
20grams of liquid vitamin C. This level of dose is far in excess of any standard protocol in mainstream American
medicine. See more at www.garynull.com
44
http://www4.dr-rath-
foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/health_movement_against_codex/index.htm (March 2010)
45
Laibow gave a report in 2009 from Duesseldorf, Germany, at the 31st meeting of the CAC. See her report at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P30Itrfhn8o
46
Natural Solutions Foundation, Codex Alimentarius (World Food Code), Summarized in 7 Points
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=157; see also Rima Laibow (2009) speaking on the Codex Alimentarius
and the CAC at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P30Itrfhn8o
13
guide to Lisbon
physician who has claimed that “nutrition is not relevant to health” (Talyor 2004). Furthermore
Grossklaus owns the Risk Assessment company that is a paid advisor to the CCNFSDU on the
issue of what dosages of given nutrients should be declared illegal (Taylor 2004). And let the
last point be reiterated, employ of Codex Alimentarius and implementing legislation does not
only proscribe certain substances, but even demands criminal penalties for excessive [sic]
dosages.47 Again, in pursuit of these Codex policies, the EU European Food Safety Authority
has promulgated rules that hold unless the EU has certified a given vitamin or mineral substance
as safe, member states much petition for the right to allow said substance or dosage to be
marketed.48 This point is made in the EU Food Supplement Directive, article 2/4:
“Vitamins and minerals not included in the annexes may be sold in EU Member States at
those States’ discretion until December 2009, provided those vitamins and mineral forms
have already been in use in the EU and that the European Food Safety Authority has not
given an unfavourable opinion to a scientific dossier on that substance.”49
CAC guidelines and standards cover nearly everything that one would ingest. Ranging
from oils and food additives to pesticides and natural mineral waters, Codex Alimentarius is
involved (Tips 2009). And while these standards are to be applied to international trade, the
Codex Strategic Plan states specifically that these rules will be applied domestically as well (Tips
2009).50
Unknown to the average European citizen, every year, the CAC and relevant EU
Committees on Food Safety and Medical Products,51 make rules that member countries, the EU
included, are expected to adopt – in relation to both international and domestic trade (Tips 2009).
But further, since 2003, when the European Community (now the EU) itself became a full
member of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the EU shares the competence with EU
Member States in its power to harmonize the relevant legislation (Tips 2009). That is, the EU
Commission may adopt legislation – regulations and directives – in the name of bringing the
47
Natural Solutions Foundation, Codex Alimentarius (World Food Code), Summarized in 7 Points
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=157
48
See http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/supplements/index_en.htm (March 2010).
49
http://www.erna.org/Key-Features.aspx (March 2010)
50
This policy strategy, using international agreements to dictate domestic policy outside the normal legislative
process is also a common means to avoid domestic, constitutional and legal prohibitions on said regulations. In the
case of the United States, Congress used treaties on drug imports and exports to criminalize drug possession.
Ironically, because international treaties on drugs like marijuana (namely the Single Convention and its many
amendments) allow for domestic autonomy, the Netherlands can permit marijuana production, sales, and purchases
inside the Netherlands without violating international agreements. But in the case of the Codex Alimentarius, we see
that EU nations will be subject to the dictates of the treaty in re domestic practices though the related treaties and
agreements purportedly are designed to regulate international trade.
51
Various commissions and offices of the EU include the European Food Safety Authority, European Agency for
the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA).
14
entire EU into compliance with CAC mandates. And because EU law is superior to national law,
instead of cooperating with member states, in re Codex Alimentarius, the EU forces member
states to align with the preferences of EU Commissioners. Of course should any EU member
state be found, by the EU itself, in violation of Codex/WTO-related rules, that nation will be
subject to WTO fines and EU-based sanctions.
According to a decision of the EU Council of 2003, the object of the Codex Alimentarius
Commission is to harmonise [sic] worldwide health standards.52 Even after the 2005 decision by
the European Court of Justice (from two joined cases C-154/04 and C-155/04) that was seen as a
partial victory for consumers, this point was made clear. In that case, the Alliance for Natural
Health challenged EU directives in re restrictions on supplements and other parts of Codex
generally, the ECJ upheld the idea that the EU could impose a positive list of vitamins, dietary
supplements, and related matters.53 Via use of the positive list – which is a grant of right, rather
than a governmental edict imposing certain prohibitions on human activity – EU Commissioners
have near absolute authority to restrict sales of nutrients, homeopathic medicines, vitamins, and
the like.
Another aspect of harmonization is what the CAC calls the upper limit on vitamins and
nutrients (Laibow 2009). These upper limits mean that foods cannot be fortified with vitamins
like B6, B12, omega-3 fatty acid at a level greater than dictated by Codex (cf. Laibow 2009).
Why is that important? The reason, as found by Null (2010), Laibow (2009) and others -
including Vandana Shiva, is that the growing use of GMO crops, heavily capitalized agriculture,
and the ubiquity of processed food has left most people in the industrialized world with food that
does not provide sufficient levels of essential nutrients and vitamins. Thus the disease of rickets
is reappearing in the U.S.54 As well, this lack of nutrition has contributed to growing rates of
obesity and diabetes in the developed nations.
GMOs, Good for EU?
Beyond the obstacles that the EU provides its residents who want supplements, the other
problem for human health is the use of GMO foods. While some member states oppose certain
type of GMO crops – particularly maize (Cendrowicz 2010)55 - the WTO, using the dictates of
the CAC, has ruled such prohibitions as violations on trade. Thus while previously the EU
52
European Council Decision of 17 November 2003 on the accession of the European Community to the Codex
Alimentarius Commission (2003/822/EC), preamble; paragraph 1.
53
See press release from the Alliance for Natural Health of 26 July 2005
54
Amandolare, Sarah. 2010. “Return of Rickets Has Experts Concerned About Lack of Sun Exposure.” April 9,
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/health/2010/april/Return-of-Rickets-Has-Experts-Concerned-About-Lack-of-
Sun-Exposure.html
55
Cendrowicz, Leo. 2010. “Is Europe Finally Ready for Genetically Modified Foods?” Time, 9 March,
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1970471,00.html
15
guide to Lisbon
allowed wide-scale prohibitions on GMO crops and or demanded labeling, we should not be
surprised to see that in the new EU, GMOs are approved. For example, recently the EU
Commission approved use of a GMO potato, and over 75% of all soy beans used in the EU come
from GMO seeds (Cendrowicz 2010).
What is the justification, under WTO, hence CAC, and now EU rules, to allow GMO
foods? The answer is Risk Assessment. Hence the very same rubric which defines life-giving
nutrients as toxins (which are not to be taken in excess of nearly useless limits), is used to
proclaim that GMO foods, pesticides, use of hormones in the production of animal proteins, and
terminator seeds are perfectly safe for human consumption. Under WTO and CAC protocols, no
nation can ban imports or force GMO labels on foods without a sufficient scientific basis for such
a restriction on trade (cf. Cendrowicz 2010). And while there is good reason to see that GMO
foods are unsafe for direct or indirect human consumption (Ananda 2010),56 we have to wonder,
how long it is until right-minded scientists like Grossklaus, sitting on various EU panels and
commissions approve any and all GMOs.
And if hormones in beef or milk from cows injected with BGH are permitted by the
Codex, EU citizens cannot change this rule via elections.57 Any change in Codex-based policy or
rules can only occur through the very organ that approved the policy in the first place, the EU
Commission. There is one other option, the EU Commission, through failure to implement a
WTO preference, can choose to breach international obligations – leaving the EU susceptible to
WTO fines and penalties. Of course the EU will not reach into is own coffers to pay any WTO
penalties. Rather the taxes will be extracted from the citizens of the EU, who, through no fault
of the their own – save some desire from duly elected, democratic leaders to enact and enforce
food and drug health and safety rules for the betterment of people and their own health over the
demands of corporations to extract wealth and impose sickness and disease on hundreds of
millions of people.
Part III. Other questions of individual liberty
“Liberty every where [is] crushed between standing armies and perpetual taxes.”
James Madison (1788) 58
The last section of this paper will examine more tangible and or more traditional concerns
about civil liberties. Along with economic controls exercised from the outside, and a loss of
autonomy over one’s food choices and food safety, the new EU is expanding is grip in the form
of a police-state. In particular, the EU is creating its own army, has adopted the 1950 European
56
Ananda, Rady. 2010. “Three Approved GMO’s Linked to Organ Damage.” Truthout, 8 January.
57
http://en.euabc.com/word/2152 (March 2010)
58
Federalist #41, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_12s22.html
16
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and exercised the
European Arrest Warrant. Though one might believe or argue that these institutions, policies,
and practices might protect civil liberties, when seen in another light, they can easily be used to
remove freedom.
The EU Army
According to James Madison (1787)
“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe
companions to liberty. The means of defence [against] foreign danger, have been always
the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to
excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies
kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
But was Madison correct? And even if we agreed with his analysis of history, might not the
army of an enlightened and modern Europe be different?
In February 2010, German Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle, called for the EU to
proceed with plans for a European army – as called for under the Lisbon Treaty.59 Westerwelle
dubbed the creation of such an army “the beginning and not the end” of a common security and
defense policy.60
But the statement begs the question, security for whom, defense against whom?
According to Italian Foreign Minister, Franco Frattini (2009), the EU army is a necessary aspect
of a “common foreign policy” lest Europe “become irrelevant – bypassed by the G2 of the
United States and China.”61 What he called the Pacific axis.62
Frattini alleged that current practices, whereby each EU member state has its own
military, create inefficient duplications (Owen 2009). However, Frattini’s evaluation pertained
to the use of military forces from EU member states in Afghanistan – an overtly illegal invasion
and occupation. In fact, Frattini argued that a common EU force would reduce unfair burden
sharing – in the project of imperialism – due to the fact that in Afghanistan, French troops were
not there in equal proportion to those of other EU nations (cf. Owen 2009).
59
Church of God News. 2010. “Germany Wants EU Army and Meets with Israel.” February 6, citing Agence
France Presse, http://www.cogwriter.com/news/prophecy/germany-wants-eu-army-and-meets-with-israel/
60
Scally, Derek. 2010. “German minister calls for Lisbon treaty EU army.” The Irish Times, February 8, 2010,
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0208/1224263954855.html (March 2010)
61
Owen, Richard. 2009. “Italy’s Foreign Minister says post-Lisbon EU needs a European Army.” The Times
Online, 17 November. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6917652.ece
62
Owen (2009) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6917652.ece
17
guide to Lisbon
Beyond the illegal occupation of Afghanistan, Frattini hypothesized that joint EU forces
in the form of a navy could better patrol the Mediterranean Sea (Owen 2009). And as Frattini
dropped the issue as a military matter, he did say that such a navy could help share the burden
felt by Italy in trying to save would-be immigrants from drowning at sea (Owen 2009).
Thus the point should be understood clearly. Like the U.S., Europe generally, and the EU
in particular, has no external military threat. Neither current nor future military power, in terms
of personnel or machinery, can stop criminal acts of terrorism – anyway. However, internal and
domestic policing via military, not civilian personnel, would be an easier way to deal with civil
unrest. Even now, as Greece has riots and strikes, the state has responded with “riot police.”
What are riot police but nothing more than military personnel by another name? The wear
military uniforms and have military – pacifying weapons like tear gas and even sound cannons.
When the federal government of the U.S. (under the Constitution of 1789) gained control over its
own army – outside the control of the several states – its first action was to put down tax
protesters in Pennsylvania.63
German Foreign Minister Westerwelle (2010) explains, in Orwellian terms, the true need
for a united military of Europe:
“United Europe will only be secure if my generation, which has never experienced war,
suffering or hunger, is strongly committed to European integration.”
If Westerwelle’s generation has never experienced war – by which he means a land war in
Europe, with EU member states taking up arms against each other – under a condition where
there was no EU army, why will security only come if there is an EU army? At present the EU
has no internal borders. Citizens, businesses, and capital can travel freely within the Eurozone.
There is one currency. What more integration is necessary? According to Westerwelle, the next
step is integrating the military. But what will be the result?
How will a new EU army, under the control of a single person, the president, heading the
EU supranational state, prevent war, suffering, or hunger? As there will be and are economic,
material, and human costs associated with creating, maintaining, and running an EU military, we
must recognize that these costs come at the expense of human needs. Hence on economic and
material terms alone the EU army will be a burden on the security of the people of the EU. And
in terms of liberty, the specter is great that in short order, especially as economic unrest spreads
across states of Spain and Italy, as ethnic tensions grow – immigrant vs. national, Muslim v. non-
Muslim, etc., the army will be deployed in the name of keeping peace. Such an army will be a
mere occupying force.
63
The event is known in American history as the Whiskey Rebellion. The troops of the national, i.e., federal,
military were led by the president, George Washington in 1794. In a classic case of that which history had shown
men like Madison, the state used the claim of an external threat to justify the force that would turn on the domestic
population.
18
As the UK Independence Party has explained, the EU has its own armed police unit, the
European Gendarmerie Force (EGF), which is essentially a militarized police force. The
primary function of this force is to deal with civil unrest – i.e., crowd control. The UKIP
questions why such a force is needed when national police forces already have such means and
mandates. Further as seen by most of us who review history of times when foreign agents police
civilians, it is unlikely that the EGF would exercise restraint when policing disturbances. Thus
the presence of the EGF creates greater potential for serious abuses and use of excessive force –
an EU military should be no different.64
If the past is prologue, we have good reason to reject the idea that any security can come
from the burdensome and dangerous creation of a new EU army. To review more words of
Madison (1788):
“… the liberties of Europe, as far as they ever existed, have with few exceptions been the
price of her military establishments. A standing force therefore is a dangerous, at the
same time that it may be a necessary provision. On the smallest scale it has its
inconveniences. On an extensive scale, its consequences may be fatal.”
Human Rights, Gutted Under Lisbon
As amended by the Lisbon Treaty, Article 6 of the EU constitution invokes the idea of
protecting freedom and ensuring individual liberty through implementation and accession to the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).
Subsections 2 and 3 of Article 6 read as follows:
2. The Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Such accession shall not affect the Union's
competences as defined in the Treaties.
3. Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional
traditions common to the Member States, shall constitute general principles of the
Union's law.
However, a simple reading of the ECHR shows that so-called freedoms against
government tyranny in the form of execution, martial law, restrictions on movement, political
speech and political association, state-led and state-sanctioned home invasions and house arrest,
denial of public trials, and the like are all permitted. That is, for each supposed right or freedom
articulated, the state can always override the prohibition or assurance of protection in the name
of national security, public security, public health, or preservation of public morals.
64
UK Independence Party (2008), Criminal Justice Policy (CJP) at 7. http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/law_final.pdf
19
guide to Lisbon
For example, ECHR Article 2(2)(c) reads that the government can kill a person – without
even an accusation that the person has committed a crime – in the name of quelling a riot or
insurrection. Article 4(3)(d) which purports to prohibit state-sanctioned forced labor or slavery,
shall not prohibit the state from extracting labor via compulsory civil obligation. What is most
remarkable is that while even in the U.S., the government may extract forced labor against
criminal convicts – duly convicted via due process of law (see U.S. Const. Amend XIII), there is
no similar provision to allow the state to compel one’s labor without a criminal conviction.
However, in the EU, now member states can compel labor of innocents. Further, this provision
can be used by the EU to extract labor either directly or indirectly (via the local, member state
government) from EU residents.
Under Article 5(1)(e) governments may detain persons indefinitely with the claim that
government seeks to prevent spread of infectious disease, or said person is of unsound mind or an
alcoholic, a drug addicts or vagrants. Again we must wonder what ruse shall be perpetuated to
justify home detentions or mass arrests. In 2009 the WHO declared a level 6 pandemic due to the
so-called H1N1, swine flu.65 In response, the EU member states, which are bound, by treaty, to
follow WHO dictates on pandemics, ordered millions of dosages of useless vaccine – vaccines that
even EU officials found to be ineffective,66 if not dangerous.67
Of course the specter of a claim that HIV is spreading looms over EU citizens – despite
evidence that HIV does not exist, or if it does, is harmless.68 Concerns about HIV aside, there is no
guarantee that the EU government or its member states shall not proclaim yet another swine or
avian or human influenza outbreak. And what of a claim that a person is of unsound mind –
because they refuse to take vaccines, or anti-psychotic drugs or due to the side-effects of vaccines?
The EU/ECHR provision that a state can arrest and detain a drug addict or alcoholic or vagrant is
akin to American laws that were designed to target Blacks, immigrants, Mexican-Americans, and
Native Americans for police harassment and constant fear of police (cf. Blackmon 2008).69
Article 6(1), referencing the democratic principle of public trials, explains that trials can be
made private in the interest of justice! Again, the history of the U.S. is instructive. The
justifications for Constitutional Amendments saying that a defendant has a right to a public and
speedy trial were to protect citizens against abuses of the English crown. But instead of moving
justice forward – in the name of protecting a criminal defendant – the EU under Lisbon regresses
and enables Star Chamber proceedings in a Kafkaesque system.
65
Chan, Margaret, MD. 2009. “World now at the start of 2009 influenza pandemic.” World Health Organization,
UN, New York. Statement to the press by WHO Director-General, 11 June
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2009/h1n1_pandemic_phase6_20090611/en/index.html
66
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/europe-investigate-possible-flu-panic
67
http://organichealthadviser.com/archives/h1n1-swine-flu-vaccine-deaths-being-reported-all-over-europe
68
See Gary Null, Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS (2006); also see documentary film House of Numbers (2009)
69
Blackmon, Douglas. 2008. Slavery by Another Name. New York, Doubleday Press
20
Article 7(2) allows a nation to arrest, convict, and punish a person who commits a legal act
(legal in the manner of not defined as a crime when commenced within that particular jurisdiction,
by persons not prohibited), so long as another jurisdiction defines the act as criminal. This rule is
one of the most pernicious. If all citizens or residents are presumed both to know and obliged to
obey the laws of the land in which they are, why should innocent activity be criminalized? What
notice or defense does one have when innocence is no defense. Not surprisingly the U.S. has a
parallel provision. Title 18 of the United States Code, sections 956(a)(1) and (2) declare as
criminal, conspiracy to commit an act outside of the U.S., if committed in the U.S. would
constitute the crime of murder, kidnapping, and or maiming.70
Article 8(2) of the ECHR, corresponding to the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,
allows for invasions of home and private life in the interests of national security, public safety,
morals, and even the economy. Thus, turning the supposed liberty of one to be free of government
invasion of privacy, home, papers, and personal effects on its head and granting government near
carte blanche to enter the home and seize persons and effects. Whereas in the U.S., the entry is
only supposed to come as justified by a court order, wherein a judge has been convinced that there
is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed (see Bascuas 2005),71 the EU rule
allows for armed police to conduct home invasions in the name of the economy! Again, by what
provision can a judge find that a home invasion and seizure of private property, justified as
necessary in re the national economy, would be legally improper?
And with the Lisbon Treaty, there is no protection for or government assurance of freedom
of speech – at least not in the way that any American citizen or UK subject would be familiar.72
Article 10(2) allows for criminality of speech (or written and non-verbal expression) on multiple
grounds:
… freedom [of speech] may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or

penalties as are prescribed by law … in the interests of national security, … public safety,
for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the
protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information
received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary;
70
See Indictment of Jose Padilla, United States v. Padilla et al., filed in the Southern District of Florida, 17
November 2005
71
Bascuas, Ricardo. 2005. “The Unconstitutionality of Hold Until Cleared: Reexamining Material Witness
Detentions in the Wake of the September 11th Dragnet.” 58 Vanderbilt Law Review 677.
72
EU Member of parliament complained after receiving a fine for comments he made in the parliament as contrary
to common law rules and guidelines about free speech. See MSNBC. 2010. “UKIP leader Nigel Farage defiant
over Rompuy row.” March 3,
http://news.uk.msn.com/forum/thread.aspx?threadid=1670326&thread=00000071-0000-0000-b67c-
190000000000&board=00000071-0328-0000-0000-000000000000
21
guide to Lisbon
Here we see the door open for the most perverse systems of governmental control. Any
statements against government policy or government practices like claims that: (i) HIV does not
exist; (ii) vaccines are dangerous causing ailments like Guillain-Barre Syndrome, autism, and
even death; (iii) CAC defined vitamin limits are unhealthy; (iv) EU officials engage in self-
dealing or unjust enrichment, etc., can be made a crime! If citizens cannot raise political issues,
cannot voice discontent, how can government policy change from below?
Article 11(2) permits governments to deny free assembly and association for the same
reasons offered in Article 10. Again, this provision of liberty means that the EU and her member
states can criminalize political parties, Facebook chat groups, even academic departments – in the
physical sciences, humanities, and social sciences alike - in universities have no recourse from the
exceptions to free speech and free assembly.
Simon Says, “Extradition”! The European Arrest Warrant
In this last section I will provide a review of what is truly the final nail in the coffin in re
individual freedom, liberty, and heretofore common notions of due process. The death nail is the
European Arrest Warrant (EAW). What makes this EU policy so abhorrent is that whereas the
ECHR permits one to be arrested in their home nation, the EAW it allows one to be arrested at
the whim of any other EU state! And as is consistent with the move toward police-state
oppression, the list of offenses and the process by which one is to be extradited to the
“executing” member state run counter to safe guards of liberty enshrined by documents like the
Magna Charta and the U.S. Constitution – i.e., bulwarks against tyranny.
Outside the EU, if one nation were to proclaim that a person, outside their jurisdiction,
should stand trial for an accused crime, that nation would seek extradition. Standard
requirements for extradition include both bilateral treaties of extradition and an accusation of
some serious offense that is also a crime in the place where the fugitive is. This latter principle
is called “double criminality.” The logic of these requirements and or processes is simple. It
pertains to matters of national sovereignty and the autonomy of each nation to adjudge its own
notions of fairness, justice, and criminality. The grounds by which an EAW is to be issued and
then enforced by the receiving nation run roughshod over these principles. And while questions
of member state sovereignty might not be so significant, at the level of individual freedom and
one’s efforts to remain free from tyranny, the EAW policy of the EU reduces one’s protections to
nearly nothing.
Building on a framework decision of 2002, at present, throughout the member states of

the EU, the framework decision that provides for the EAW, among other things, mandates that
member states take steps to effect timely extradition of accused criminals and criminal suspects.
And though the process currently occurs on a state to state basis, with the enlargement of the EU
competencies in the area of justice (criminal law enforcement) and home affairs (internal
22
security) under Lisbon, by 2014, the EU government itself, through EUROPOL and EUROJUST
shall be able to exercise EAWs with complete autonomy.73
So what are the significant aspects of the EAW rules? First, the warrants are issued from
a member state to another member state. Hence the EAW places burdens and responsibilities
upon the receiving nation. When certain factors are present, the country that receives the warrant
is required to seize the person sought and return him/her to the executing nation. Here I will
only highlight what I see as the worst features.
If one has been duly convicted in the executing nation – the receiving nation must effect
the arrest, even if the conviction is not for an act that would constitute a crime in the receiving
nation. That is, unlike due process safeguards in Common Law nations, e.g., an extradition
hearing – by which a court in the receiving would be allowed to judge the fairness of the process
by which the arrest warrant was issued, the EU Directive on the EAW denies such possibility.
Note, while under the present framework, grounds to refuse enforcement of the warrant is that a
person were convicted in absentia. Yet there is an exception here. That is a conviction in
absentia is allowed and hence the EAW cannot be rejected – if the executing country took
appropriate safeguards to obtain the conviction in accordance with law.
If the executing nation is seeking an arrest pursuant to a mere allegation of criminality, if

the punishment for the crime can be at least three years in prison, the receiving country must
affect arrest despite a lack of double criminality. Worse yet, the list of particular offenses to
which the EAW applies includes crimes of racism, xenophobia, computer-related crime, and
fraud that affects the financial interests of the EU itself.74
Of course crimes of racism, xenophobia, and computer-related crime are not defined by
the Directive. But given that any EU member state or the EU itself can declare that heretofore
political speech threatens the peace or national security and thus is a crime and or part of a
conspiracy to commit a crime, the amorphous nature of the category of crimes within the fields
of racism and xenophobia or computer-related crime (i.e., using the Internet) allow for example,
73
According to the UK Independence Party, EUROPOL operates under the central command of the EU government,
not a nation-state, thus creating jurisdictional problems and questions about how EU member states and national
courts can challenge the jurisdiction of EUROPOL and impose legal limits on EUROPOL personnel. For example,
“EUROPOL officials have exemption from prosecution, and therefore are free to confiscate and damage property
and even kill suspects without any legal consequences.”
According to an article published in The Daily Telegraph of 17 March 2007, EUROJUST, made
up of prosecutors, magistrates and senior police officers from each EU member state, is ready to assume the role of a
European Public Prosecutor. And former EU Commissioner for ‘Justice, Freedom and Security’, Franco Frattini
(currently the Italian Foreign Minister), favors creating a Euro-prosecutor with the authority to direct police of
member states.
74
The inclusion of the crimes of racism and xenophobia under the jurisdiction of the EAW has moved the UK
Independence Party (2008) to fear that the EU under Lisbon will effectively eliminate free speech. See UK
Independence Party (2008), Criminal Justice Policy (CJP) at 5. http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/law_final.pdf
23
guide to Lisbon
the nation of Poland to issue an arrest warrant for a person in France posting a comment on a
website saying that government should allow Muslim women to have abortions. Or a court in
Belgium could issue an arrest warrant for a person in Hungary creating a political party with a
platform in opposition to the use of ECOFIN sanctions against member states.
Conclusion
We are told that the Lisbon Treaty has been adopted and is now law in the EU. Under the
new EU rules nothing is to be amended without agreement of all 27 member nations. From a
political science point of view, those who would grab power via the super-national state called
the EU have stacked the deck and created extreme rules in a means to frustrate attempts of
member states, and more importantly their citizens, to reclaim their sovereignty.
This paper has presented an analysis of a number of policy areas in the EU that severely
restrict individual liberty or put personal health and one’s economic well-being at risk, all the
while allowing any member state to imprison citizens and residents forever or for the offense of
daring to exercise one’s human rights. In theory, most of us might agree that economic unions
provide advantages of efficiency to the greater benefit of all. But as Americans say, “the devil is
in the details.” The details of the EU governance, rules, and power seem to contradict the core
values and preferences of those who would be free. Hopefully these laws, policies, and
structures shall be rectified as to protect individual liberty and promote the general welfare of
persons.
24

Debt Peonage, Corporate Capitalism, Codex Alimentarius, and Tyranny: An Optimist's Guide To Lisbon.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Debt Peonage, Corporate Capitalism, Codex Alimentarius, and Tyranny: An Optimist's Guide To Lisbon.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

John Calvin Jones, PhD, JD, professor of law, American University in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

Debt Peonage, Corporate Capitalism, Codex Alimentarius,

Part I. EU Financial Power: thinking about Greece and beyond

Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Looking at Greece, Looking in the Mirror

… to require the Member State ... to make a non-interest-bearing deposit of an

to impose fines of an appropriate size.

The Ripple Effect

Part II. Health, Food, and Medicine

Guidance from the Codex Alimentarius Commission

According to the EU itself:

What about the WTO and the Health of Average Europeans?

discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade (Taylor 2004).40 These

Risk Assessments or Sickness Creation?

A policy centered on destroying or perverting public knowledge as a means to prevent

GMOs, Good for EU?

Part III. Other questions of individual liberty

James Madison (1788) 58

According to James Madison (1787)

Human Rights, Gutted Under Lisbon

3. Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of

… freedom [of speech] may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or

Simon Says, “Extradition”! The European Arrest Warrant

Building on a framework decision of 2002, at present, throughout the member states of

If the executing nation is seeking an arrest pursuant to a mere allegation of criminality, if

You might also like