globalwatch-Dec 23rd, 2011

A Weekly Global Watch Media Publication (www.globalreport2010.com) December 23rd 2011

The Global Watch Weekly Report is a publication of Rema Marketing (www.remamarketing.com) and is published every Friday.

For any queries regarding this service please contact us at [email protected]. ©Rema Marketing 2011. All Rights Reserved.

“The Number one weekly report which provides concrete evidence of a New World Order & One World Government agenda”

www.globalreport2010.com

This is a FREE report. Please pass this on to others who you may feel would benefit from this information. Web site owners please feel free to give this away to your site visitors or email lists

Not yet on our mailing list? Then visit the web site link below and sign up to ensure you don't

miss out on these free weekly reports


4 BRITAIN - THE MOTHER LION

8 WHAT ABOUT SPAIN?

9 RECENT NEWS RELEASES

10 BRITAINS FUTURE IN EUROPE

14 400 YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE THREATENED

19 ADDITIONAL SUPPORT MATERIAL

Welcome to the Global Watch Weekly Report Is the United Kingdom mentioned in bible prophecy and what is the future of the United Kingdom in Europe from a prophetical perspective. This edition takes a closer look at the United Kingdom and the historical dilemma. Does it commit 100% to total fiscal political and economic union with Europe or does it continue to adopt the “independent island” and “mother of the commonwealth” mentality. The recent veto by British Prime Minister David Cameron against the European Union plans to restructure its economic policies after the recent Greek and Italian bail out crisis has opened up a wide debate as to whether Britain will remain within Europe or not. Additionally we would like to wish you all a great festive season and hope that you will continue to support us in 2012 as we continue to provide these weekly reports and provide evidence of biblical truths regarding the formation of the world government agenda.

The Global Watch Weekly Report is a publication of Rema Marketing (www.remamarketing.com) and is published every Friday.

For any queries regarding this service please contact us at [email protected]. ©Rema Marketing 2011. All Rights Reserved.


“The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a human being, and the mind of a human was given to it. “ In the identification of the four beasts of Daniel 7, it is good to keep in mind that they are identified relative to the nation of Israel. That is these four beasts are representative of four kingdoms which will occupy the world stage during the end times in which Israel exists as a nation. The association to Israel is consistent with all other prophecies made by Daniel. In Daniel 2 we see that the empires symbolized by the great image of Nebuchadnezzar's dream were all ancient empires that played a significant role during the history of Israel. The same applies to the four beasts of Daniel 7 which play a significant role after the rebirth of Israel as a nation in 1948. The vast majority of all Bible commentaries and teaching material will tell you that the four beasts in Daniel's dream are the same four empires that are mentioned in Nebuchadnezzar's dream of an image in Daniel 2, namely Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome. Most of these commentaries were written decades ago, if not centuries ago, long before modern events began to fulfil these prophecies. It would have been impossible to identify these nations as we now can, as recently as one century ago! We know that the four beasts are modern day powers because at the time of the destruction of the fourth beast (the final world government) at the Second Coming of Christ, the previous three beast

kingdoms have a continuation, Daniel 7:11-12. This verse sets the context for the interpretation rather than trying to interpret these beasts as being ancient empires. The scripture tells us that the first beast is represented by a Lion with eagles wings. The fact the eagles wings are then plucked from the Lion and given a heart and made to stand on the earth indicates a change from reliance or co-operation to self sustenance and independence. The plucking of the wings from the Lion means that the Lion loses its ability to fly and thus loses geographical influence due to limited movement. It is a natural fact that the Lion is prominently known as the national symbol of Great Britain. Could it be that the Lion represents Great Britain during height of its power during the early half of the twentieth century and its involvement with the Zionist movement to bring the nation of Israel back into existence.

Blackberry Under the Spotlight D

BRITAIN - THE MOTHER LION

www.globalreport2010.com 4

Throughout most of its history, England has employed the crowned lion as the official heraldry symbol of the royal families. The Lion appears on almost every coat of arms in the British royal line going back at least 700 years. It is also interesting to note that during World War II the common imagery used as part of the call for men to arms was one with Britain represented as a male Lion with the young lions as representative of the British English speaking colonies such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA. To understand the significance of Britain relative to modern day Israel one must not forget the Balfour Declaration in which the British orally expressed their desire to facilitate a home for the Jewish People. Lord Arthur Balfour, the British foreign minister declaration was approved by his cabinet and then five years later approved by the League of Nations (the former name of the United Nations during the early part of the twentieth century).

Historically speaking, it i s n o t a n understatement to say that the action of the British throne in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was the single most important move t o w a r d s t h e establishment of a

Jewish state in modern history. If you remember your World War I history, you'll recall it was the British army, led by General George Allenby that liberated Jerusalem from the Moslems in 1917.

Once Jerusalem was captured by the British on December 9th, 1917 from the Ottoman Turks the importance was that it would further facilitate the rebirth of Israel's existence due to the fact that the city was no longer under enemy control. The British then opened the door to Jewish immigration into the Holy Land. Britain's efforts towards the rebirth of Israel as a nation in 1948 was followed by the United States which since the demise of Britain as a world power inherited the role as the protector of Israel. Could it be that America is represented in Daniel 7:3 as the “eagles wings”. Note that the wings are first attached to the Lion indicating co-operation, possibly a mother-daughter relationship.

History shows that America descended from the British Isles and the connection between the Lion and eagles wings could possibly be interpreted as the Anglo American alliance that governed world politics during the mid part of the twentieth century. This could explain why the eagle is the national symbol of America and on their dollar bill.




Again, there are few symbols more easily recognizable in the world today than the American Eagle. But how can the American Eagle be associated - connected with - the British Lion? That is an easy answer. The United States of America was originally a colonial territory of Great Britain. But it was plucked up from the British Empire when the citizens of the thirteen original American colonies wrote and signed The Declaration of Independence in 1776, declaring their independence and breaking away the British Crown - King George III. The fact that the wings were removed would clearly seem to refer to the American independence and thereby strengthens the identification.

However there is a change in the relationship because the eagles wings are plucked from the lion, given a heart and made to stand. This probably refers to the establishment of America as a super power which mean that the reliance on the mother nation, Britain, was no longer needed. The loss of wings means the Lion no longer has the ability to fly referring to Britain losing her colonial and imperial power as America rises to supremacy. For a time there is equal cooperation, but after a

time one power rises while the other wanes in influence. Nowhere is this best demonstrated than the 1956 Suez canal crisis when Britain and America were for the first time publicly in dispute. This all stemmed on Britain realizing that her colonial interests in the Middle East were largely threatened by the growing geographical presence of the United States.

Further biblical evidence for the Lion representing Great Britain is found in Ezekiel 38. There is a description of a future invasion of Israel by an alliance of nations including Russia and the Islamic countries of the Middle East. At the time of the invasion there is no military opposition to the invasion except for a diplomatic protest. “Sheba and Dedan and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? Hast thou gathered they company to take a prey, to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?” Ezekiel 38:13 Sheba and Dedan are interpreted as being modern day Saudi Arabia. As many as 4000 inscriptions have been collected from the ruins of Marib in modern Yemen at the south west corner of Arabia. From these inscriptions we learn of the gods, tribes and cities of a million inhabitants that were once features of the area. These inscriptions mention four countries known as the “Spice Kingdom”: Minaea, Kataban, Hadhramount and Sheba. The interesting point is who is Tarshish and all her young lions? The origin of the name “Tarshish” is found in Genesis 10:4,5 where we hear that Tarshish was a son of Javan and inhabited the isles of the Gentiles.




We also know that Tarshish was a long distance away from Israel (Isaiah 23:6-7) and traded with the Phoenicians (Tyre) with “silver, iron, tin and lead” (Ezekiel 27:12). Herodotus an ancient historian who wrote about 450 BC talked of them being known as the “tin islands”. Further evidence is given by the McGraw Hill World History which says about the Phoenicians of Tyre. “They used the Pole Star for their observations, and are said to have circumnavigated Africa and to have reached as far north as Cornwall in search of lead and tin” In Phoenician the word “Tarshish” had a wider meaning of “mine” or “smelting”. Also in pure Celtic “Britannia” signifies “Land of Metals”. The word is derived from the Syria “Baratanac”

So who are the young lion of Tarshish? The Hebrew language has quite different words for the lion describing the various stages of its life: the whelp (gur), the young lion (kephiyr) the fierce lion (shachal), lion (arid) and the old lion (layish). Of the word Kephiyr (young lion) the Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon says: “Namely, such as one as already goes abroad for prey”. The idea conveyed is that of independence, though practicing the ways of the mother in the art of hunting”. The “prey” in Ezekiel 38 is merchandise such as silver and gold, cattle and goods. The young lions of Ezekiel 38:13 must therefore refer to those modern independent nations who follow in the commercial ways of their old “mother country” and as such would include Australia, New Zealand, Canada, United States, South Africa etc.

At the time of the invasion the protest comes from the nations which were responsible for the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 as well as Saudi Arabia. Interestingly enough, since Lawrence of Arabia at the beginning of the twentieth century, Britain has maintained close links with Saudi Arabia. Saudi investment in Britain is a well known fact. Many large British companies are today owned or part owned by Arabian capital. Additionally mutual defence interests also form a link. Britain has a particularly close tie with Oman where the Sultans have stated that as Gulf economic powers they are not able to defend themselves and thus are at risk from another Iraq-Kuwait situation unless Britain and the United States ensure their protection. Also one will remember during the gulf war how the Saudi’s allowed the US to use their air space and locations as launch pads for attacking Iraq. CONCLUSION If the first beast of Daniel 7 represents the Anglo American Alliance yet the fourth beast of Daniel’s vision represents a final world power with ten heads or ten kingdoms then it would seem to suggest that Great Britain is not part of the final ten nations super power. And if as many believe, the final super power is to be a revived Roman Empire consisting of a core ten nations from area of Europe then it would seem to imply that Britain has no place in the future of the European Union as far as both political and economic unity is concerned because of her historic status as the mother nation of her young lions for which the umbilical chord will always remain.




8

BRITAI� VETOES EU TREATY REVISIO�.

Reuters, December 9, 2011

Last Friday, EU leaders met in Brussels to discuss an intergovernmental treaty that will enforce stricter

financial laws among EU members. Four nations initially rejected the treaty but with “a strong diplo-

matic push… the Czech Republic, Hungary and Sweden entered the fold later.” Britain was the only

one of the 27 EU nations to reject the treaty.

Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron said that because the EU would not take action to protect Brit-

ain’s “vital financial services industry,” he was forced to veto the treaty. Mr. Cameron’s vote resulted in

EU leadership restricting the agreement “to the 17 members of the euro zone,” and excluding the 10

non-euro zone members.

Experts see Britain’s veto as an action that will serve to further isolate the island nation, and possibly

force a “split” in Europe (New York Times [online], December 9, 2011). “The euro zone plus nine may

hold a summit without Britain as early as January, diplomats said”

TOWARDS A STRO�GER ECO�OMIC U�IO�: I�TERIM REPORT,

December 6, 2011 cited in Le Figaro

Last Tuesday, Herman Van Rompuy sent a confidential report to all EU leaders asking them to “respond

vigorously by immediate action” to financial issues in Europe. It directed them to take decisive actions

to save Europe. For example, in order to quickly change financial elements of the Lisbon Treaty,

“Changes to Protocol N°12 can be introduced by a unanimous decision of the Council on a proposal

from the Commission after consultation of the European Parliament and the European Central Bank.

This decision does not require ratification at national level. This procedure could therefore lead to rapid

and significant changes.” (Emphasis ours.)

The EU President was promoting actions that would quickly effect international change while bypass-

ing national governments (Towards a Stronger Economic Union: Interim Report, December 6, 2011

cited in Le Figaro, December 6, 2011). Nations that joined the EU may find that they relinquished ele-

ments of their sovereignty they may not have been aware of. Now, leaders within the EU are prepared

to use the powers at their disposal. As further changes are enacted within the EU, power will become

even more centralized.

These events make John’s prophecy all the more clear: “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who

have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. These

are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast” (Revelation 17:12-13).

�EW TREATY I� FORCE WHE� 9 COU�TRIES HAVE RATIFIED

EUobserver – Dec 16, 2011

The first draft of a new treaty meant to tighten economic governance in eurozone countries was circu-

lated Friday (16 December) with the aim to have the text finalised by January and coming into force

once nine countries have ratified it. The ratification threshold would allow the treaty to go into place

even if some euro states – such as Ireland which may have to hold a referendum – are having problems

getting domestic approval. 9

4

We clearly see the Bible in the News when we read the headlines in the Daily Express, “GET US OUT OF EUROPE”. The campaign launched in November of 2010 by the Daily Express is gaining steam with the growing economic crisis in Greece and across Europe. A current article stated,

“After far too many years as the victims of Brussels larceny, bullying, over-regulation and all-round interference, the time has come for the British people to win back their country and restore legitimacy and accountability to their political process.

Withdrawal from the EU should be accompanied by a withdrawal from the jurisdiction of this alien, pan-European tribunal so that matters of British justice are decided once again in British courts.”

The article went on to highlight the problem with remaining in the European Union:

And now the price of belonging to the EU, in terms of surrendered sovereignty, is to be further raised with countries like Ireland effectively having their public spending and borrowing decisions made by the European Central Bank in Frankfurt rather than by their electorates.

A special edition of the Daily Express from January of this year carried headlines, “Get Britain Out of the EU. We demand our country back.” It carried articles with titles such as, “Why we must break free from the EU dictatorship”, “A Crusade for Freedom”, “Brussels is a financial disaster”, “Love the Continent, Abhore the Tyranny”. With the renewed crisis in Greece during October 2011, the British MEP Nigel Farage was quick to point out the growing dictatorship in Brussels:

“During your speech Mr. Barroso, there was an all pervading sense of gloom, and I saw for the first time even your own supporters shaking their heads. They don’t believe in what you are saying. The European people don’t believe in what you are saying. I don’t really think even you now believe in what you are saying, because we all know that Greece is going to default. The endgame for Greece is near. And you cannot say you were not warned. You were told the treaties were fatally flawed. You were all told that Greece should never have joined the Euro. When I stood up here five years ago and talked about Greek bond spreads, you treated me with such utter derision, it was as if I had been let out of the local lunatic asylum. No, you have been warned all the way through. So now what you have got is economic governance, and everybody here in this front row, supports more European economic governance.

What is European economic governance? I’ll tell you what it is. It is a plane landing at Athens airport, out of it which get an official from the Commission, an official from the European Central Bank, and an official from the appalling IMF. Those three people, the “troika” you call them, go in, they meet the Greek government, and they tell the Greek government what they may or may not do. You have killed democracy in Greece. You have three part time, overseas dictators, that now tell the Greek people what they can and cannot do. It is totally unacceptable. Is it any wonder that Greek people are now burning EU flags and drawing swastikas across them. Unless Greece is allowed to get out of this economic prison you may well spark a revolution in that country.”

D BRITAIN’S FUTURE IN EUROPE


4

Farage identifies that the EU is imposing a dictatorship over Europe through financial policy. The British are becoming completely fed up with European bureaucracy, and its pretence of democracy. The frustration is clearly heard in the words of John Bufton, British MEP for Wales, who comments on what the European Parliament really is:

“You know, we have waited here tonight for many hours to speak. It is now 10 o’clock of the evening. You know the one minute speeches come in, and we get allocated time, but it is pathetic! If we are going to spend our time here on important issues for our regions we must be allowed to have our say. There must be a setup within your organization, within the nonsense of a parliament, where we can actually say we are going to be here, and we can be given time to speak. To think that we spend all of this time here waiting and sitting in the hope of getting a speech is nonsense. Our people back in our country, in the UK, are fed up with this nonsense because we cannot speak up for their rights and their issues. This is an absolute travesty. I say to you, take it back to Mr. Baroso, I’ve mentioned to him before that this whole thing is a farce. If I’m going to be here till 10 o’clock at night, on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday night, we should at least be

given a chance to speak on important issues relating to our member states. I ask you now sir, take it back to your governors, because this is not a democracy it is a dictatorship. Thank you .”

Britain is wearily accustomed to the deeply harmful meddling of the European Court of Human Rights, which wants to grant prisoners the vote and routinely blocks the deportation of terrorists.

But, increasingly, the UK’s right to govern its own affairs is also coming under attack from the separate European Court of Justice – which was established by Brussels to enforce EU diktats.

Earlier this year, it delivered a bewildering ‘gender equality’ ruling that women cannot be charged less for their car insurance even though they are far less likely to have a serious crash, and which means that everyone – apart from boy racers – will have to pay more.

Then in November 2011, the Euro court landed two further bombshells. First, it decided that any airline which uses an EU airport must pay green taxes even when it is based entirely outside the jurisdiction of Brussels – sharply inflating the cost of a return flight from Britain to places such as the U.S. or Australia.

Then came the astonishing ruling that we can no longer send asylum seekers who first entered the EU in Greece back to that country, to have their claim considered where it should have been lodged in the first place.



4

Ludicrously, the court says Greece – where huge numbers of Britons readily spend their summer holidays – may not treat them properly because of its economic problems.

In December 2011 Prime Minister David Cameron vigorously defended his decision to veto the proposed European Union treaty in the EU Emergency summit meeting, telling Parliament that he had acted to protect Britain’s interests and that, contrary to criticism, he had not consigned the country to the sidelines of Europe.

He told Parliament, as he has said all along, that he exercised Britain’s veto because the proposed treaty changes, meant to avert future European economic disaster by strengthening fiscal discipline, gave no assurances to safeguard the future of London’s financial services industry, a critical part of the British economy.

“The choice was a treaty with the proper safeguards or no treaty,” he said. “The result was no treaty.”

Mr. Cameron’s veto left Britain standing alone in Europe. All the other 26 European Union countries either agreed to the proposals, which will be negotiated according to intergovernmental agreements, or said they would seek the approval of their parliaments back home.

Ed Miliband, leader of the Labour opposition, said Mr. Cameron had isolated Britain, a dangerous move at a time when European cooperation was essential. He also questioned Mr. Cameron’s purpose, given that the treaty changes seemed likely to go ahead anyway.

“It’s not a veto when the thing you wanted to stop goes ahead without you,” Mr. Miliband said, to shouts of approval from his fellow party members. “That’s called losing. That’s called being defeated. That’s called letting Britain down.”

Olli Rehn, the European commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, said Britain could hardly wall off its financial industry, the bustling City of London. “I regret very much that the United Kingdom was not willing to join the new fiscal compact, as much for the sake of Europe and its crisis response as for the sake of British citizens and their perspectives,” Mr. Rehn said. “We want a strong and constructive Britain in Europe, and we want Britain to be at the center of Europe, and not on the sidelines. If this move was intended to prevent bankers and financial corporations in the City from being regulated, that is not going to happen.”

Mr. Rehn also offered a reminder that Britain had approved “the six-pack of new rules tightening fiscal and economic surveillance” that goes into force on Tuesday. “The U.K.’s excessive deficit and debt will be the subject of surveillance like other member states,” he said, “even if the enforcement mechanism mostly applies to the euro area member states.”

In an interview published in the newspaper Le Monde, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France was quoted as saying that while he and Mrs. Merkel had done “everything in order that the English should be part of the agreement” at the Brussels summit meeting, the reality was that “henceforth there are clearly two Europes: one seeking greater solidarity and regulation, and the other attached to the exclusive logic of the single market.”



4

However else the outcome of the European Union and euro-area summits are judged in the coming weeks, one conclusion seems clear: the countries at the eurozone core of the EU are now determined to take a major step – not only to economic and fiscal integration but also to de facto political union.

When a very small number of commentators have dared to make this prediction in the past year or so, we have been greeted with a mixture of hilarity and disdain. Disintegration, not closer integration, was the future for the euro and eventually the EU as a whole, we were told.

Britain's government under Cameron has, in recent weeks, surprised many observers by predicting the move to closer union as being more or less inevitable. But a truly massive question now emerges: will the combination of eurozone political union and a growing rightwing Eurosceptic revolt in the Tory party now herald the United Kingdom's gradual departure from the European Union?

Perhaps the phrase "United Kingdom" is not the right one. If the coalition feels obliged to seek a new relationship with the EU over the next few years, will the UK as a whole want to follow? It certainly cannot be assumed that Scotland will automatically follow a London Tory-dominated coalition if it seeks progressive disengagement from the EU. After all, the goal of the SNP in the eventual referendum on Scotland's future is an independent Scotland in Europe.

It would not be too difficult to imagine that where Scotland leads Wales and Northern Ireland may want to follow, especially given their need for EU investment.

Of course, nothing will happen overnight in the relationship between London and Brussels. It never does. But the communiqué issued on Thursday at the end of the Brussels summits suggests that in two months' time a draft paper on the way forward will be presented to member states on a possible new treaty. The ambition is to agree this by March next year.

But that is not the end of the story. It is clear from the debate in the German Bundestag this week that Berlin and its allies may want to follow this somewhat later with a more root-and-branch move to a eurozone economic government. There is also work going on about introducing directly elected presidents for the European Union and the European commission, and a further strengthening of the role of the European parliament at a later stage.

The initial treaty changes may have little or no impact on the position of the UK outside the eurozone. That will mean that Cameron's government will have very little, if any, leverage to secure the "repatriation of powers" from the EU to London, which the prime minister talks about. He is, of course, mainly referring to measures giving working people – and especially women – greater rights. He may return to Westminster after these minor treaty changes with very little to show hardline backbench Tory MPs.

A second, more substantial treaty that included a directly elected European executive would be a very different matter. Tory Eurosceptics certainly would not like it. But changes designed to strengthen democratic reform in the EU might make it increasingly difficult for Conservatives to justify their obsessive desire to distance themselves from the union. Some in Brussels even suggest that a new place for Britain might be found as an "associate" but no longer a member of the EU.

Of course, all the new plans for closer integration may come badly unstuck if the eurozone and the wider EU do not quickly agree an economic strategy for sustainable growth. The use of euro bonds to help to finance a major investment for growth in renewable energy and much-needed human and social capital could form an important part of this strategy. It is far less clear where the British government will be able to muster the resources from to reverse the drift by the UK economy into deeper stagnation, recession or something even worse.



400 YEARS OF HISTORY This issue - relinquishing British sovereignty to Europe is one that evokes deep concerns in the British conscience; this arises from a long history of the Island people fighting to defend their independence from Catholic Europe and its pope. That Britain is being told by Germany that it must give up (surrender) and pay to support Europe’s Catholic-socialist dream, is not going to be well received. The history of England was heavily influenced by the Bible, following Tyndale’s translations in 1525 and 1535. It was this (and not the matrimonial concerns of Henry VIII) that separated England from Rome. In view of what we now see, it will be useful to quote from a letter written by Tyndale to King Henry VIII in 1536, the first part of which reads as follows: “I beseech the king’s most noble grace, well to consider all the ways by which the cardinal, (Wolsley) and our holy bishops, have led him since he was first king; and to see whereunto all the pride, pomp, and vain boast of the cardinal is come, and how God hath resisted him and our prelates in all their wiles. We, having nothing to do at all, have

meddled yet with all matters, and have spent for our prelates’ causes more than all Christendom, even unto the utter beggaring of ourselves; and have gotten nothing but rebuke and hate among all nations, and a mock and a scorn of them whom we have most holpen. For the Frenchmen {as the saying is) of late days made a play, or a disguising, at Paris, in which the emperor danced with the pope and the French king, and wearied them; the king of England sitting on a high bench, and looking on. And when it was asked why he danced not, it was answered, that he sat there but to pay the minstrels their wages: as one who should say, we paid for all men’s dancing. We monied the emperor openly, and gave the French king double and treble secretly; and to the pope also. Yea, and though Ferdinand had money sent openly to blind the world withal, yet the saying is, through all Dutch-land, that we sent money to the king of Poland, &c... ” As England spent money for the '‘prelates causes” in the 16th century, so today they have been persuaded to adopt many expensive Catholic principles, such as were outlined in The Common Good (1996).


400 YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE THREATENED


Britain’s Protestant History: The stoning of the pope is still on display at Hampton Court in London.

This quickly frittered away the strong financial position that had been achieved by previous Governments. After some thirteen years of socialism and following the European {the Catholic) model of social doctrine, it now becomes necessary to join the rest of Europe by imposing austerity measures and finding ways to increase revenues through taxation. SOCIAL UNREST? Imposing “austerity measures” upon populations that have enjoyed affluent times, thanks to their credit cards, will bring protests of course such as has been seen in Greece. It was Margaret Thatcher who once said something like: Socialism works very well until you run out of everyone else’s money! When people are forced to tighten their belts, then things can start to get a little rough. So what are the prospects for the future? The reasonable expectation must be that countries that are deeply in debt {Portugal, Spain and Italy who are heading in the direction of the Greek tragedy) will have to impose serious austerity measures and that is bound to result in protests, as well as physical attacks upon banks and other financial institutions which are assumed to be responsible, and the idea that they are responsible is one that has been promoted by Rome for some time. Now if this is to be the outcome and we are saying “if' at this point then we should be prepared for a not very rosy future! Some of us will remember the scenes in Russia and Eastern Europe when Communism collapsed the Capitalist West may well be about to witness similar {or worse) events. Social unrest of this kind and the resultant crack-down by authorities, an outbreak of violent crime, riots and even terror, may be anticipated for another reason. It would be a form of judgement brought upon populations which have become totally godless and immoral. BRITAIN & THE POPE The one country that bears a special responsibility for such gross behaviour in this matter of idolatry of the pope is (the once Great) Britain. Her history is one that has provided her with a wealth of experience and knowledge regarding the

consequences of dealing with the Roman Catholic system. Yet once again she has invited “that man of sin” to visit the country. The very wording contained in “The Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement” (1689) is warning enough: “Whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant Kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince or by any King or Queen marrying a papist...etc.” It is well known that a Roman Catholic cannot occupy the throne of England. For that to happen there would have to be a constitutional shake-up as well as electoral reform. For the British government to spend an estimated £42 million on a papal visit, at a time when they are talking about spending cuts and increased taxation, can hardly be expected to win much popular support! Even if the Catholic claim that ten percent of Britons are now Catholic is true (which is doubtful), it leaves ninety percent of the people with good reason for being upset. The position is a difficult one to defend even if the BBC and the media support it (which they probably will), According to a report from the BBC the National Secular Society has “delivered a 28,000-name petition to Downing Street objecting to any state funding” of the visit. The president of the society has stated that any benefits of such a state visit do not justify its cost. A PRIME MINISTER’S WARNING From time to time it has been found necessary to introduce legislation designed to curtail the growing power of the Catholic Church in Britain. For example, the “Popery Act” of 1698 (passed through Parliament in 1700) had the long title: “An Act for the further preventing the Growth of Popery.” That Act was repealed in 1846. Following the Proclamation of Papal Infallibility in 1870, one British Prime Minister published his warnings to the nation in a paper entitled ‘Vaticanism,' and also in another work which had the title “The Vatican Decrees in their bearing on civil allegiance. The Right Hon. W.E. Gladstone (four times Prime Minister of Britain) wrote about Vaticanism as




follows in 1875: “Of that system as a system, especially after the further review of it which it has been my duty to make, I must say that its influence is adverse to freedom in the State, the family, and the individual; that when weak it is too often crafty, and when strong tyrannical.” He wrote further in explanation of his objective: “My object has been to produce, if possible, a temper of greater watchfulness; to promote the early and provident fear which, says Mr Burke, is the mother of necessity; to distrust that lazy way of thought which acknowledges no danger until it thunders at the doors; to warn my countrymen against the velvet paw, and smooth and soft exterior of a system which is dangerous to the foundations of civil order, and which any one of us may at any time encounter in his daily path. If I am challenged, I must not refuse to say it is not less dangerous, in its ultimate operation on the human mind, to the foundations of the Christian belief, which it loads with false excrescences, and strains even to the bursting.” “On one point I must strongly insist. In my Expostulation, I laid stress upon the charge of an intention, on the part of Vaticanism, to promote the restoration of the temporal sovereignty of the Pope, on the first favourable opportunity, by foreign arms, and without reference to the wishes of those who were once his people. From Archbishop Manning downward, not so much as one of those who have answered me from the standing-ground of Vaticanism has disavowed this project: Many of them have openly professed that they adopt it, and glory in it. Thus my main practical accusation is admitted; and the main motive which prompted me is justified. At last came the crowning stroke of 1870 (i.e. the Decree of papal Infallibility): The legal extinction of Right, and the enthronement of Will in its place, throughout the churches of one half of Christendom. While freedom and its guarantees are thus attacked on one side, a multitude of busy but undisciplined and incoherent assailants, on the other, are making war, some upon Revelation, some upon dogma, some upon Theism itself.”

It is here that Gladstone referred to a war upon Revelation - i.e. upon the Bible itself through the avenues then being pursued such as textual criticism, the theory of evolution and the whole question of authority. By weakening confidence in the Divine Revelation (Scripture), the authority of the Catholic Church (and papal infallibility) became an obvious alternative for religious people. It did not matter that many were embracing humanism and even atheism - for even that was preferable to the authority of the Bible in Vatican eyes. Gladstone was a very perceptive man! For a Prime Minister to write these thing he must have been exposed to and witnessed a great deal of evidence supporting the statements which he made. THE BATTLE AGAINST BRITAIN Before we dismiss the warnings enshrined in Britain’s constitutional Acts, or those of Mr. Gladstone quoted above, it is worth briefly reviewing the pattern of history that reveals the determined efforts that have been made in order to bring Roman Catholics to power in what was once a “Protestant Britain.” Ever since the Bible was translated into English exposing the fraudulent church of Rome, and thus launching the Reformation in England, there has been a consistent and unremitting attempt to turn back the clock and to return the country to papal domination. Some of the main land marks of history are listed below, and gathered from Steinberg’s Dictionary of British History {1970 edition). Among the several plots, conspiracies and even acts of war, we may list the following: The Throckmorton Plot (1583) The Babington Plot (1586) The Spanish Armada (1588) The Gunpowder Plot (1605) The Revolution of 1688 Involving James II The Jacobite Rebellion (1745) The ‘Aggression of the Pope’ (1850) in unilaterally setting up a Catholic hierarchy in Britain resulted in the Ecclesiastical Titles Act (1851). Sinn Fein attempts to overthrow British rule in Ireland began in 1916.




As most of these avenues failed to produce the desired results, British Parliamentarians relaxed their vigilance, and charitable men thought it unfair to their Catholic fellow- countrymen that they should continue to be restricted. So there were those who promoted a Roman Catholic Disabilities (Removal) Bill. Thus the law forbidding Roman Catholics to vote was removed from the Statue Book in 1729. The law which prevented Catholics from sitting in Parliament was removed in 1829. A law forbidding papal bulls from entering the kingdom was taken away in 1846 and as each of these objectives were achieved, it was claimed that it would be a “final settlement” and that thereafter the Roman Catholic Church would not seek to be involved in political matters. And each time the pledge was made it was soon broken. In more recent years and following the guidelines given in papal encyclicals the Catholic push for power has taken a different approach. Since World War Two Catholics have captured many of Britain’s centres of influence not totally, but far in excess of their percentage of population. The British media is littered with Catholics; the Director General of the BBC Mark Thompson for example is Catholic, as have been many editors of prominent UK newspapers. A telling paragraph in a book published some years ago reveals some rather obvious methods used by Catholics to influence opinion. For example, the writer (George Scott, “The R.Cs,” 1967) says: “...Catholics have exerted and do exert pressure... they mount campaigns of protest. I recall, incidentally, the story of the Jesuit priest on the teaching staff at Stonyhurst who told an ex-pupil, ‘I have only to lift that telephone to get 5()0 people sending letters of protest to the B.B.C.’” Such are the modern methods. Every year there are complaints about Britain’s traditional ‘Bonfire Night’ held on November the 5th, recalling the Gunpowder Plot whereby Catholics planned to blow up King James I who had arranged for a new translation of the Bible (the “Authorised” version of 1611). James was to be blown sky-high together with Parliament! This attempt to blot out the memory of that event is

like asking citizens of the United States to abandon the celebrations (and fireworks) on the fourth of July!

But the gradual erosion of Protestantism in Britain has allowed Catholics to increase their influence and power. That, together with the planned secularization of the population, has resulted in an amazing indifference to the whole matter. So much so that The Times newspaper of August 4th, 1998 could carry an article headed: BRITAIN GIVES UP ON THE REFORMATION: “The strange death of a Protestant nation.”




The fact is, however, that Britain still retains a protest-ant spirit, even if not from religious convictions. But then, it was a nation that had forgotten, and that had no desire to teach its children the lessons of its own history. We might suppose that with that the battle was over but oh no. The whole thing had to be taken further and Britain made subject to Catholic Europe and its social teaching. What the Spanish Armada failed to accomplish, perhaps European Treaties could!

The Christian-Socialist State Ever since the pope lost his temporal power in 1870 (that is, his position as a king and monarch, as well as being a religious leader or “false prophet”), it has been the intention of the Vatican to recover that power, as was noted by Gladstone in 1875. A study of the prophecy of the Apocalypse together with history reveals to us a clear attempt to re-create what was known in history as The Holy Roman Empire. The first attempt was seen in the First World War when an Austro-German alliance tried to unite Europe under its domination. The second attempt was made to bring into being a new Europe (Das Nue Europa) under the “Third Reich.” When that failed, a plan to unite Europe under the “Treaty of Rome” was commenced (1957) and has gradually evolved to become the European Union that we see today.

That this ‘United States of Europe’ is governed by Catholic social doctrine is sufficient to demonstrate that it is, in fact, the hand of Rome that pulls the strings and produces the menu. What we see emerging is a (Catholic) Christian socialist state which in symbolic terms is a woman sitting upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns (Revelation chapter 17).

What we need to understand is that the goal of the Vatican has always been and still is POWER. Power and control. If not as a king, monarch or Caesar then as that “great whore that sitteth upon many waters” which “are peoples and multitudes, and nations and tongues” We also need to understand that presently Britain is a post Christian state and it needs to forsake its secularist and atheistic mentality and return to its protestant roots and lead a true revival of Christianity across the European region.




D ADDITIONAL SUPPORT MATERIAL


Please see below for some fantastic additional support material regarding the

controversy of the United Kingdom and the European Union.

Europe: A Super Power on Fast Track The Hidden History of the EU Should Britain Remain in the EU

Link above not working?: Then simply just type the following link into your web

browser and hit the return button. So simple.

http://www.globalreport2010.com/britain-and-europe.htm

Documents

globalwatch-Dec 23rd, 2011