Even as the European Union continues to pursue ever-closer “integration” in the name of “global governance,” Obama is now working to form a “Trans-Atlantic partnership” between the U.S. government and the EU under the guise of a so-called “free trade” agreement. Formally announced in the United States during the president’s State of the Union address, the highly controversial deal — a scheme that has been under discussion since before the current administration came to power — is expected to take at least 18 months to complete. It also has the backing of both Big Business and Big Labor.
The “Transatlantic Partnership,” of course, is just one of the major sovereignty-threatening international schemes being pursued by the Obama administration simultaneously — closer North American integration and the so-called “Trans-Pacific Partnership” are two of the most prominent efforts. The latest plot, though, has far-reaching, global implications that critics argue represent a serious threat to America and freedom. If the U.S.-EU deal ends up becoming reality, the regulatory regime governing the new bloc, which accounts for about half of global GDP, would become the de-facto standard-setting entity for the entire planet.
“To boost American exports, support American jobs and level the playing field in the growing markets of Asia, we intend to complete negotiations on a Trans-Pacific Partnership,” Obama said during his SOTU speech. “And tonight, I am announcing that we will launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union — because trade that is free and fair across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs.”
Vice President Joe Biden, meanwhile, hinted at the plan even earlier, and since at least 2007, governments on both sides of the Atlantic have been formally working on the scheme. The New American magazine first warned of EU-U.S. integration in a 2009 in-depth cover story by author James Perloff, who concluded that the economic alliance would eventually and inevitably lead to a political merger.
More recently, critics of the “partnership” have also blasted the proposed plan, highlighting everything from concerns over national sovereignty to the fact that supposed “free trade” deals tend to be less about real free trade and more about transnational regulation of commerce by unaccountable bodies. The so-called NAFTA “tribunals” that overrule American laws and courts represent just one example of the dangers of “integration,” according to opponents of the plan. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is another.
“Obama’s open discussion of the two-oceans TPP and TAP free trade agendas during his recent SOTU attests to the persistence of globalists,” noted celebrated author and WorldNetDaily investigative reporter Jerome Corsi, who has played a key role in exposing the myriad plots to subvert American sovereignty using international “trade” regimes. Dr. Corsi also offers some of the history and background behind the latest plot: “The Transatlantic economic integration plan was originated in 1939 by a world government advocate who sought to create a Transatlantic Union as an international governing body.”
Among other measures, the agreement being worked out between the Obama administration and EU negotiators would seek to “harmonize” regulations between Europe and the United States. In simpler terms, American citizens and U.S. companies would end up being governed by rules developed and even implemented by supranational authorities — not elected officials who are accountable to the people. Because the U.S. economy, combined with Europe, represents almost half of the world’s economic output, the new transatlantic regulatory regime would ensure that companies around the globe would have to comply with the new scheme, too; at least if they wanted to sell goods or services in the bloc.
The “Trans-Atlantic Grand Bargain,” as the bold plot was touted in a recent New York Times editorial, would aim to reduce or eliminate some remaining trade barriers. However, tariffs on trade between the United States and Europe average just four percent. Reducing those figures further, of course, could easily be accomplished without ceding even more policy control and national sovereignty to unaccountable international entities.
Instead of worrying about tariffs, however — as supporters and opponents of the plan have both stated — the real goal of the emerging Atlantic union would be to do what the EU has already done to its 27 formerly sovereign nations: centralize authority in the hands of international bureaucrats at the expense of national sovereignty and individual liberty under the guise of promoting trade. In Europe, that has already happened, and now, even the Russian government is being brought into the fold.
As The New American has documented extensively, the vast majority of “laws” governing Europe today already come from Brussels — even with the EU widely considered illegitimate among Europeans — as opposed to national parliaments accountable to citizens. If Obama and his allies pushing the transatlantic scheme get their way, some or even all of those “laws” and regulations might someday be applied in the United States.
In a joint statement dated February 13, Obama, European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, and European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, a former Maoist revolutionary, said they were “pleased to announce” that the EU and the U.S. government were initiating “negotiations on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.” Noting that the “transatlantic economic relationship” is already the world’s largest, the officials touted jobs, investment, and trade as the key motivations behind the scheme. So-called “sustainable development” will also be part of the effort, documents show.
“We are committed to making this relationship an even stronger driver of our prosperity,” the three officials claimed in their controversial press statement, using terms that have become standard whenever governments are promoting otherwise-unpopular policies. “Through this negotiation, the United States and the European Union will have the opportunity not only to expand trade and investment across the Atlantic, but also to contribute to the development of global rules that can strengthen the multilateral trading system.”
Unsurprisingly, opponents of the scheme have already started to speak out forcefully. However, opposition to the transatlantic plan is facing a herculean adversary: a network of well-funded and well-connected think tanks like the Atlantic Council and the powerful, global government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations; Big Business; Big Labor; the “mainstream” media; members of Congress in the establishment wing of both parties; and more. The globalist CFR, in particular, appears to be at the forefront pushing the transatlantic integration effort.
“You have for the first time in Europe a clear commitment, not only in Brussels but among the major leaders in the national capitals, that this is an economic priority for the European Union,” CFR Senior Fellow Edward Alden was quoted as saying in the Fiscal Times. “The Canadians are doing a certain amount of our work for us, because a lot of these issues are being hammered out in the Canada-EU negotiations, which are close to conclusion.” The CFR also touts the integration schemes — within North America and across the Atlantic — all over its websites.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, meanwhile, has also jumped on the bandwagon, urging Obama and policymakers to act boldly on the controversial agreement with the EU. “For the sake of jobs and growth, it’s time to forge a bold, new trade pact with Europe,” explained chamber Chairman Thomas Donohue. “The stars are finally aligned.”
Labor unions, meanwhile, despite having largely opposed such “free trade” schemes in recent decades, are lining up behind the transatlantic scheme as well, hoping to use it to score more European-style government favors for Big Labor in the United States. Multiple prominent unions have publicly voiced their support for closer alignment between U.S. and EU standards on labor laws, with the U.S. government, of course, expected to follow Europe’s lead in terms of highly regulated, rigid labor markets that economists say stifle growth, damage the economy, and, ultimately, hurt the workers themselves.
“People in labor see this as an opportunity, not as a threat,” senior director George Kohl with the Communications Workers of America (CWA) was quoted as saying in The Hill about the transatlantic plot, one of several major union figures cited in the article offering support for the plan. “Now we get to benchmark against a more progressive economy and raise up labor engagement here in the United States.”
At the same time as he seeks to forge a union between the U.S. government and the EU, Obama is also pursuing more “integration” with governments and dictatorships in the Asia-Pacific region through the so-called “Trans-Pacific Partnership.” That scheme, which includes the communist regime ruling over Vietnam as a member, has also been blasted by critics as a threat to national sovereignty and even Internet freedom. The New American has documented and exposed many of the dangers in recent years, too, but Obama wants it complete by the end of the year.
Meanwhile, closer to home, the U.S. government and its counterparts in Mexico and Canada continue pushing closer “integration” in North America as well — a highly controversial effort that critics and supporters have both said is aimed at eventually creating a “North American Union.” Documents released by WikiLeaks confirmed that top officials in all three governments and corporate bosses were working largely under the radar to advance a merger in everything from military to monetary affairs. Again, the CFR’s fingerprints are all over the plot.
While opposition to globalist integration schemes is growing, the trend toward ever-more ambitious and numerous “free trade” regimes is accelerating as well. Critics say it is time to restore U.S. sovereignty completely — not create even more entangling alliances, which the Founding Fathers warned against on more than a few occasions. Withdrawing from NAFTA, the UN, and the various other international entities that continue to usurp illegitimate authority would be a good start. Whether U.S. lawmakers will finally put the brakes on the plots, however, depends largely on the American people waking up to the threat in time.
Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is currently based in Europe. He can be reached at
EU-U.S. Integration: Unattractive Union