Quoted from a page in Mr. Rockefellers’ book ‘Memoirs’ published in 2002, page 405, Chapter ‘Proud Internationalists’: “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure, One World if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty and I am proud of it.”

Manifestations Part 1. of 1.

Humanity, as a progressive species, has guided, shaped and manifested the world that we live in today. Every individual that has existed or exists now bears responsibility for the world around them, the reality that exists and the direction we are heading in. It is easy for an individual to talk themselves down, to think that they cannot make a significant difference in the universe around them. Progressive scientific theories such as the Chaos Theory are allowing for discussion and rational thinking of the idea that small “insignificant” changes or choices can change the course of the future: the “butterfly flapping its wings creating a tornado on the other side of the planet” image illustrates this thinking. The truth is that we all bear responsibility for the state of the world, and the direction in which we, as a species, are heading. By our actions and by our thoughts we are creating the future, subtle choice by subtle choice. If every individual said to themselves: “I will not kill another living being”, the concept of war would cease to exist. If we each personally took responsibility for our actions and our thoughts, our reality and our future could change dramatically. If every individual thought: “I would do that, but nobody else will”, or: “I would do that if everybody else did”, then it would help to destroy any chance of change. This is the power of thought, and the power of the individual.

People have the power to shape their future, but for administration purposes they leave most of the work up to their superiors, the elected or unelected officials; the military; the institutions and organisations; and those who collect enough money, giving them both influence and power. The people believe that the current state of the planet is in the hands of their leaders, and therefore the responsibility lies with the ruling class also. This is not so. The true power lies in the people, a fact that is well known by the world leaders. This is why such evasive methods of control are being implemented, in conjunction with the ever-increasing rules of law, to further increase the illusion that the State and the leaders have the power. In reality, the power is situated inside of every individual, and thus the responsibility for the state of the world must also lie with the individual. And no government or military can stand up to; or restrain the thoughts or actions of; or imprison against the will of; the individual without inflicting on their free will, their basic “human right”, unless it is in accordance with the rule of law of the State, which as stated is becoming ever-increasingly invasive and restrictive to maintain the illusion of power and control. This is because the people have accepted the “laws of the land”, insomuch as a significant majority has not risen up to challenge the laws and/or overthrow the ruling body. This acceptance of the laws of the land does not necessarily mean a placid acceptance; it simply means a significant majority of the people have not changed these laws. In a democratic society, effective change can be pursued through a number of means, with anything ranging from peaceful protests to a revolutionary coup; from democratic voting and petition signing to violent riots, acts of “terrorism”/”freedom fighting” and the like. The differing means have the same end goals, with differing repercussions. In a democratic society, the governing body is elected by the people, for the people, in theory. Therefore it is almost an unwritten rule that the government must listen to the people. If it doesn’t, it faces retaliation from the people, who could vote out the governing body at the next election, or could pursue more active, perhaps violent, methods to ensure the will of the people is heard. The governing body, which should instinctively listen to the will of the people, usually responds to the number of individuals who elicit change. For example, a large number of signatures on a petition will be more likely to influence government change in the people’s favour; a large number of votes for the opposition party could force a governing body out of office; a large number of violent protesters could force a governing body to act quickly – in the form of military/police control initially, perhaps, but again with a large enough number of individuals, the governing body is more likely to accede to the change. However, the point is, the people always hold the power for they greatly outnumber the ruling institutions. The State only exists because the people accept or allow it. At any given moment, the people could rise up and take back their lands, their lives, and their control. As proven throughout history, the people can rise up in revolution, even without a majority, to seize control.  However this is merely an illusion: the power was with the people all along, it is simply that a new governing body or State overthrows the old system and the people accept this new form, for good or for evil. If the people did not accept it, they could change it through the same means as stated before: via armed uprising, peaceful protest, voting if it is “allowed” by the state, or a number of other means.

Whilst the government and subsequently the State are, ultimately, appointed by the people; those “in power” utilise, for the aim of maintaining the illusion of power, methods of control and restriction. This illusion of power maintains the status quo, in that it is utilised to keep the people from rising up, as well as keeping the public cynical about the extent of their own “power”, if you will. The illusion leads the people to think that they are effectively powerless to stop their government from taking certain actions or pursuing certain ways of thinking; that the actions of their military and other functions of the State are “out of the hands” of the people and that their actions cannot be stopped. This can be seen prior to the Iraq War, when great numbers of protestors turned out to protest the illegal war and their governments’ intentions to send their troops to invade. Despite the large turnout of the protests the Iraq War went ahead as planned. Whilst it can be argued that this is evidence that the people cannot change the intentions and actions of the government, let it be noted that had the protests continued for, 6 months shall we say, a different result may have been achieved. General strikes could have been implemented, forcing the State’s hand. Different courses of action could be pursued, and an important factor (as well as the number of individuals that participate) lies in the length of time that a course of action is pursued. Governments, no matter how stubborn, cannot ignore a significant response from the people pursued for a significant length of time. There are many different methods and ways that the people can elicit real change and response, but change comes from the individual. Let it be noted that soldiers are individuals too, and if each individual stated: “I will not kill an innocent life”, or, “I will not participate in an illegal war”, (to show possible examples of powerful thought), then a government’s course of action could not be completed. War could be prevented.

The people hold the power but get trapped in the “accepted” frame of mind, the “accepted” way of looking at things. However, the accepted norms and values of society, and thus the people, are often influenced by the government body; the State; various State institutions; the “laws of the land”, and other influential factors. This is how the government maintains its illusion of power, and constantly reinforces this illusion through various means of control and restriction. Western societies are experiencing advancements in State surveillance and infringements on personal privacy and liberty. The illusion of power is becoming more real, because the people are accepting the “status quo”, because it’s just “the way things are” and the people believe themselves powerless to prevent further advances in State control. The governments are using opportunities to further legitimise their control and their power above the people. Western “democracies” are doing so by exploiting fears of “terrorism” to justify increases in State power. Other States are doing much the same although in countries where out-right dictatorships control, much less propaganda is needed than in the West. If this continues, then the illusion of power will weaken whilst the reality will strengthen. Governing bodies, through the advancements in technology, the increase in the “Police State” framework of Western States, and the increase in the strength of the military, will strengthen their “seat of power” above the people, meaning that any uprising, rebellion, protest, riot, or any other means utilised by the people, will be easily prevented or controlled by the increasingly totalitarian governing body, thus removing any chance of the people regaining control over their country, or their lives. For today even in the most repressed countries in the world, the power still lies within the people, who are accepting their State, their predicament. Please note, that again I am not stating that they are placidly and timidly accepting their fate, or even that that they are accepting it because it is the “way things are”; even in these repressed countries ruled by an authoritarian government, there are individuals fighting against their oppression, their “predicament”, striving for more liberty and for peace. And a lot of countries now, in the 21^st Century, have built up their armies and their military capabilities, using their military against their own people; Police States where the military is used to repress the people, to break up protests, to kill “freedom fighters”. Even America has amended a piece of law which previously prevented the military from policing on American “soil”, though the governing body has yet to use the government in such a way as seen in some of the most repressed of countries. Yet even in these countries, with rebellious groups and individuals who do not accept the ruling body, there lies a significant number of individuals who accept, whether extremely unhappy with the status quo or not, their state and the State. The people always outnumber the military, and a significant number could, at any time, rise up and change their future. This is as stated previously, and this is the reason government organisations across the world are slowly dissolving the illusion of power and replacing it with cold, hard reality. A reality which every individual is responsible for manifesting, and for accepting.

For the governments in the 21^st Century find themselves at the dawn of a new age of technological and scientific advancement. It could be an age of accelerated revolution and harmony, or it could be an age of destruction and oppression. The future of this age is being decided by every individual, every second.

The governing institutions of the world today have at their disposal far more advanced scientific and technical resources than the governments of only a few decades ago. This is how we have come to see the exponential rise in surveillance cameras across the UK, the rise in “Database States” and the collection of personal data such as fingerprints, the increase in State and Police powers, and the rising power of the Secret Services who have at their hands increasingly powerful technology. The power is shifting from the people to the governing organisations, with a shift in attitudes as well. The people, under the illusion that they are “powerless”, are acceding obedience, their rights and their privacies due to fear of external “enemies”; the threat of terrorism and the constant wars keeping the people in a state of paranoia and self-doubt; memories such as the failed protests prior to the Iraq War further serving to promote a sense of “powerlessness”, while the ruling “powers” gather for themselves more resources at their disposal. And all the while the people’s rights and their freedoms are being limited, with the governments generally ignoring the alarmed individuals attempting to combat these restrictions and invasions and to elicit change in the mentality of our governing bodies. However it appears as though the more power our leaders and our States gather, the more numbers of individuals it takes for them to “listen”.

Humanity is always striving, in an almost romantic way, for a utopian future. I hesitate to use the word “perfect” but certainly a future of peace is what we are programmed to believe we are heading towards. It is as if we are to believe that once we advance enough, technologically and scientifically, we will cease to war and to oppress and to limit others; that we will build a utopian, harmonious world free from racism and prejudice; a “good and just” world free from evil, essentially. This, again, is an illusion. It is an illusion propagated by the ruling elite, the governmental bodies, the States. It is an illusion that, again, serves to take power away from the people. We are to be led to believe that once humanity reaches a zenith, a peak in “evolution” or advancement, there will be peace and freedom. We are to be led to believe that this peak will come from technological and scientific advancement, and from our government bodies, our rulers- those to whom we have accepted/consented power to. This places responsibility for the future into the hands of our rulers, out of the hands of the people. And again, is an illusion.

As stated previously, the power lies with the people. The government’s actions are the people’s responsibility, the government is only “allowed” to pursue a course of action because the people accept it, i.e. they do not elicit/force change from the government. The utopian world of peace that we are supposed to be progressing towards could be instigated at any moment by the people; by individuals changing their actions, their thoughts. Humanity does not need scientific or technological advancements in order to manifest a world with more freedom, a world without warfare and oppression. The increases in technology and science are only serving to restrict our freedoms, to limit our power, to increase the suffering in the world. Technology is leading us to more advanced weapons, to more nuclear warheads on the planet. The mentality of our accepted institutions are leading us to warfare in foreign countries over resources, or over another governing body and their restrictive regime- under the pretext that our version of democracy is “freedom”, whilst innocent individuals are killed for a war that they did not ask for.  Under the pretext of security, our Western governments are limiting our rights and ignoring the will of individuals because their number is perceived as being “insignificant”. Under the illusion of powerlessness, the people are losing the will to fight, while terrible atrocities continue across the world- a world each of us is helping to shape.

The perfect utopian, peaceful, “future” of the world would be a world where Man can live in true freedom. To truly be free to explore his free will, without any restrictions. And yet, to not wish to kill, or to destroy another. This is the paradox which is another illusion. The paradox only exists if we are led to believe that “evil” is an existent force inside Man, that one cannot truly be free and also not commit acts of “sin”, that war is an innate part of human kind. This is the unconscious illusionary paradox that is present in modern-day societal thinking, and indeed in the mentality of our governing forces. The truth is, as stated previously, the power is in the individual. If every individual said to themselves: “I will not kill”, then murder would not exist. This is not to say that every individual would turn around and say to themselves, “I will not kill” – the entire military would be out of a job, for example. But it is an example of the power of the individual, and subsequently the people, and it is small changes that make a difference. If a significant majority of individuals thought to themselves: “Violence for any means is wrong”, then it would change their actions and possibly actions of other individuals. This could lead to the individual taking action when encountering violence, i.e. finding out that their country is to go to war could lead to them protesting; seeing war casualties on the news may inspire the individual to give money to the aid, or to volunteer for an aid charity; they could sign a petition or join a group of individuals who share similar views, wishing to change the “status quo”. These are just small brief examples of how an individual changing their thoughts/beliefs could lead to a number of changes. The people hold the power, and the responsibility for the state of the world, and its future. Humanity could “change its ways” merely by changing its thinking, and thereby changing its actions. Either our ruling “elite”, our governing bodies and institutions, would change their thinking, their actions; or the people would manifest change through whatever means necessary- from passive action to active revolution.

The future I described earlier was one of freedom, where individuals explore their free will, in an advancing world free from warfare and oppression. This utopian future may differ from individual to individual, but it is assumed that all these “visions” of the future humanity is heading towards hold some similarities. It would be hard to imagine one’s image of a perfect future to be a world where violence and oppression are still prevalent. However this assumes that whilst governing bodies or committees (or whatever form) may still exist, there would not, for example, be a military or a police force, nor would there be limiting laws or restrictions placed on freedom and free will, for in this envisaged future individuals choose not to kill or to restrict or repress others, but advance and evolve peacefully. It is interesting to note that George Bush Sr. stated in a “historic” speech a different kind of future that humanity has “an opportunity to forge” or rather, manifest. He stated that:

“We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order- a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations”

This simple statement offers a broad insight into the mentality of our governmental organisations. Note the use of the phrase: “law of the jungle”. It is stated that the future will be a world with a “rule of law”, implying that the “law” is above that of the “jungle”; and that the “law of the jungle” is violence, oppression, racism- the “rule of law” will rise above the existing “law of the jungle” to form a “New World Order”, which, it is implied, will be free from the warfare and violence and will “govern the conduct of nations” i.e. free trade, as well as the added bonus of no more fighting over resources- no more wars. A simple search on the internet will bring up multitudes of blogs, web pages and videos on “New World Order”, however it is worth searching for videos or articles on politicians and the phrase “New World Order”; it did not stem from George Bush Sr. in 1991 and has been stated in speeches by individuals such as Gordon Brown and Barack Obama, as well as many other world leaders, powerful individuals, and in various forms in the media in news and print. The phrase and the meaning behind the statement by Bush Sr. above are indicators of the mentality of the world leaders and the future that we are heading towards. Again it is an illusion that may soon become cold reality- a world organisation that extends control and takes away the power from the people. As it stands, the people hold the power to manifest “the future” today – individuals hold this power through their thoughts and their actions. However it may soon come to pass where individuals accede their power to the world leaders and/or this “New World Order” governed by the “rule of law, not the law of the jungle”. This would mean that it would be ever-increasingly difficult for the people to manifest their will over the government organisations that are supposed to be for the people.

George Bush Sr. continues:

“When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order- an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfil the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.”

This sentence sounds rather ominous especially the, “When we are successful, and we will be”- implying that firstly, the public are supportive of this “New World Order”, and secondly, that there is nothing that can be done to stop it. It then begs the question, what exactly was the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders? Was the initial “vision” of the U.N. to be a worldwide government, ensuring the “rule of law, not the law of the jungle”?

Humanity is approaching a crossroad. In fact, it is already at a crossroad. The problem is actually: how long can we afford to stay at the crossroad? Either the people take responsibility for the state of the world, and the future of our societies and ourselves, or we leave it in the hands of our governing bodies. And our governing bodies are increasing their power at an alarming rate. Their military and surveillance capabilities are advancing, and if they truly are aiming for a peaceful future under a “New World Order”, than it should be stated that violence is not the way to go about it. We cannot enter an age of peace under acts of violence. We should stop the warring now, not later. If we as individuals do nothing, our governments will pave the way for our future with warfare, innocent bloodshed , oppression, weapon stockpiling, to name but a few atrocities. We will enter an age of peace with advanced military and Secret Service organisations behind our “elected” officials, and we will enter under this “New World Order” with less rights and freedoms than before we were “better off”.

So in conclusion, if there is any conclusion to be made from the vast, innumerable difficulties facing humanity at present, and the vast innumerable atrocities we are allowing to happen...  The power lies with the people. At the present moment, though government organisations are slowly tipping the balance. The responsibility for the state of the world lies with the people, with the individual, as does the future of the planet. Do we take our fate and responsibility into our own hands, or do we leave it up to our world leaders, who are continuing the violence and repression that echoes throughout history. The choice, is yours. 

Our Veins are full of Oil, Their Pockets are full of Money.

Chevron claims to have found evidence of corruption and bribery in the ongoing Chevron Ecuador Lawsuit. The lawsuit, which has continued since 1993, is backed by 30,000 Ecuadorians. How can a multi-national corporation stand against 30,000 individuals? Quite simply, actually. Corporations have the same rights as humans, in fact in some respects they have more rights. And when a multi-billion dollar corporation goes to court, you can guarantee that things will get ugly. Bribery, corruption, pay-offs.. these are the things we envisage when we imagine a wealthy company engaged in a lawsuit, armed with top lawyers and the deniability claim. And so it is not surprise that this is exactly what has happened, "evidence" has surfaced of bribery and corruption, though instead of Chevron being responsible, the corporation states that the Ecuadorian political side is to blame. Their website states:


"Video recordings reveal a $3 million bribery scheme implicating the judge presiding over the environmental lawsuit currently pending against Chevron and individuals who identify themselves as representatives of the Ecuadorian government and its ruling party"

Chevron has posted the videos on their website, complete with PDF Video Transcripts and the letter written to the 'Ecuadorian Prosecutor General'. Perhaps this is just me, but I feel that during a lawsuit, it is a perhaps a bit wrong for the opposition to be posting videos and reports onto their website, that they are later relying on in court as evidence. Questions arise immediately as to how Chevron got ahold of video footage of secret meetings. Are Chevron employing spies now? Have they hired Ecuadorians to record these secret meetings? Or are they even more sinister than imagined, are they setting up these bribes and corruption, letting Ecuadorian individuals take the fall and essentially undermining the whole lawsuit?

Chevron are claiming that the evidence that they have obtained implicates several individuals including the judge overseeing the lawsuit, Juan Núñez, in bribery and pre-judging the verdict of the lawsuit. Chevron's website also includes copies in PDF format of both a "Motion to Disqualify Judge Nunez" and a "Motion to Disqualify Judge Nunez's Rulings". So if Judge Nunez had pre-judged the verdict to ensure that Chevron lose the lawsuit, and his 'Rulings' are disqualified by Chevron's Motions, then who is to take his place? A Chevron appointed judge? Or a Chevron backed/financed judge? The vacuum that would be left if Nunez is disqualified would mean that Chevron have the upper hand, able to influence or oversee the implementation of a new judge. And I wonder how long it would be before a new judge, with negative attitudes towards the overbearing multi-national corporation, is discovered to be embroiled in deceit and corruption. 

With such a historical and expensive lawsuit, asking around $27 billion from Chevron, bribery and corruption were inevitable. Firstly, because a multi-national corporation is involved. I am pretty sure no-one expects Chevron to roll over and play ball on command. Secondly, because the lawsuit is being judged by Ecuadorian courts. Ecuador is much poorer than Chevron, which is kind of sad in a way. An actual country, with thousands and thousands of people, is poorer than an international oil company. So of course Ecuadorian political individuals, lawyers and even the judge overseeing the lawsuit will be tempted by the money. It is human nature, in a way. And the Chevron site explains that the videos reveal a "$3 million bribery scheme". I'm sorry, maybe this is wrong or irrelevant, but I'm sure Chevron could spend $3 million without batting an eyelid, I'm sure the higher-ups' holidays cost the company more than $3 million each year. But again the question arises, is Chevron involved in the bribery scheme? Did they set it up somehow, knowing that the poorer Ecuadorian individuals involved in the lawsuit would acquiesce? The fact is, that before the lawsuit even begun, anyone could have predicted this. From one side or another, bribery or corruption was bound to have surfaced. From Chevron, who has the capital to influence and destroy decisions and careers, and from the Ecuadorian side, many times poorer than Chevron. Regardless of Chevron's involvement in the bribery scheme, they haven't exactly been playing fair. According to Amnesty International's website:

"Chevron (CVX) has filled a claim with the American Arbitration Association (AAA), so that the Ecuadorian oil company, Petroecuador, will take on any clean up costs and legal fees if Chevron (CVX) loses the lawsuit to the Amazon residents. The Ecuadorian Government and Petroecuador have filled a suit with New York's Supreme Court against Chevron (CVX) and the AAA to stop the arbitration proceedings, which have been temporarily suspended."


So the lawsuit has not yet reached a conclusion, and the multi-billion dollar corporation is already trying to ensure that an Ecuadorian oil company takes on the clean up costs and the legal fees, which goes against many of the principles that the trial is essentially founded upon. It is obvious that 30,000 Ecuadorians have not filed a lawsuit so that one of their own oil companies takes on the costs of Chevron's actions, particularly if Chevron loses the lawsuit. This is on top of Chevron's "Motions" to disqualify Nunez and his rulings. So as well as attempting to void the result of the lawsuit, Chevron are also attempting to ensure that should they lose, they are not liable for the clean up costs or legal fees.


The trial has been ongoing since 2003, and these accusations and games will only serve to prolong the trial. As soon as money comes into the picture, greed and deceit come into play. Chevron doesn't want to admit responsibility, or pay out any money to clean up the toxic waste and the repercussions its had. Ecuadorian individuals involved in the lawsuit have been accused of bribery and corruption. And all this while, the 30,000 Ecuadorians who filed the lawsuit, as well as many more that stand by them, suffer all the more while money causes more problems, and those responsible for the harm caused to these people are tied up in the courts, the law, bureaucracy, paperwork, etc etc, meaning that a decision will still be a long time coming. And reparations to the Ecuadorian area will be longer still. The 30,000 Ecuadorians do not, I imagine, ultimately care about how much money Chevron is made to pay, or if they admit to all the damages or not. They do not care if their lawyers or judge is involved in bribery or not. Ultimately, all these Ecuadorians want is for clean, safe land once more, for an end to the suffering and harm caused to the people and the subsequent generations born in the regions. And this is the same for all people across the globe, who have had to suffer at the hands of multi-national corporations who have more rights than individual human beings, and more money than many countries on the planet today. For these people to get back their safe land and their health, they cannot wage war. They cannot take arms against the intangible corporation, they cannot vote them out of their country or refuse them entry onto their land. They cannot realistically protect their land and its resources from the bloated, wealthy corporations who take the country's resources and sell it on at profit. So they have filed a lawsuit, trying to use the legal system to protect their rights, their basic human rights, and their land. But not having lived in a modern, wealthy capitalist society, these Ecuadorians have not realised something: the legal system protects the wealthy and the corporations, over and above the rights of the individual. And when money is involved, these 30,000 Ecuadorians are pushed to one side whilst arguments of bribery, corruption and unfair practices are uncovered. My hope and compassion is not with the Ecuadorians involved in the lawsuit- the judges and the lawyers and the other individuals. Though I wish them success with winning the lawsuit, bribery/corruption is not acceptable and only serves to weaken their defence against Chevron, who have filed against Judge Nunez and his future rulings. My hope and compassion is with the 30,000 Ecuadorians who filed the lawsuit, and those who suffer even now as we in the West live in comfort, using the oil taken from countries like Ecuador to enhance our standards of living. Because truly, they do not care about the money, or for "revenge" on Chevron; for them it would be enough, I imagine, for the land to be made safe again, their waters to be made clean, and for the damage that has been done in the name of profits to be reversed. 
The damages that the Ecuadorians are filing to be reversed have come from 30 years of oil drilling. Chevron's continuing tactics to divert attention and responsibility from its own actions will only serve to lengthen the ongoing lawsuit and may undermine the final rulings. Ecuadorians are still struggling for survival with devastating levels of miscarriages, cancers and birth defects as a result of the toxic waste that still pollutes the area. 

Lisbon Treaty

Has anyone looked into the Lisbon Treaty? I have read that it effectively undermines our constitution, our parliament, our government, and gives the power to abolish our political parties, force us into the Euro, and basically in conjunction with other EU treaties, is an attempt to create a sort of dictatorship or single governing body which renders individual state governments powerless. So I decided to look into it (sad I know) and came across some clauses in the actual treaty on an EU site:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:SOM:EN:HTML

Well I don't really know what to say, I've written a couple below and said my thoughts on it, I'm still unbiased and not really sure what to think, so I thought I would post some of the clauses of the treaty and see what everyone thinks?

Article 2

Throughout the Treaty:
(a) the words ‘Community’ and ‘European Community’ shall be replaced by ‘Union’ and any
necessary grammatical changes shall be made, the words ‘European Communities’ shall
be replaced by ‘European Union’

(c) the words ‘the Council [shall], acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in
Article 251’ shall be replaced by ‘the European Parliament'

Page C306/14
Article 8A-4:
"Political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness
and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union."
(At the EU’s Party Financing Conference in Madrid in June 1999,parties at the European level were defined as parties with voters in more than 10 countries. Therefore, we do not express the views of "The Union")


Page 306/34
Section 2 "Provisions on the common security and defence policy"
49) (a):
"1. The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common
foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity
drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the
Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in
accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these
tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.’;"
49) (c)
"3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union
for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the
objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish
multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence
policy.

Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities.(!!!!!!) The
Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and
armaments (hereinafter referred to as “the European Defence Agency”) shall identify
operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall
contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed tostrengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in
defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in
evaluating the improvement of military capabilities
(so member states have to actively improve their military capabilities??! For "The Union"?)
49-6
"Those Member States whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and which
have made more binding commitments to one another in this area with a view to the
most demanding missions shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the
Union framework. Such cooperation shall be governed by Article 28 E. It shall not affect
the provisions of Article 28 B."
(does this mean us? Does this mean we will be paty of a "permanent structured cooperation within the Union"?)


Page C-306/15
Article 8-B
"4. Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of
Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the
framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens
consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties."
(So to petition against the EU, you have to ask for further laws?)


Page C-306/12
Article 3-A
"3. Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union and the Member States shall,
in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties"
"The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union's objectives.’."

(REFRAIN FROM ANY MEASURE WHICH COULD JEOPARDISE THE ATTAINMENT OF /THE UNION/'s OBJECTIVES. In other words- do not oppose the EU, sorry, "The Union")

"The Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure
fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the
institutions of the Union." (Member states should take measure against acts of other members?)