The Lisbon Treaty is High Treason

That’s the opinion of the youth movement of Sverigedemokraterna, which has just issued the following press release:

Today, the youth movement of the Sweden Democrats handed in a police complaint against Swedens PM Fredrik Reinfeld on charges of high treason.

The background for the complaint is the fact the Fredrik Reinfeld signed the Lisbon treaty on Dec 13 2007 which is in direct violation of the Swedish constitution:

“The one that that, knowlingly, […] acts in a way that the country of parts of the country […] should be placed under the rule of a foreign power or be placed in a position of dependence of such a power […] should be convicted of high treason and be put in prison from 10 years to life”.

[Nothing follows]

14 thoughts on “The Lisbon Treaty is High Treason

  1. It is, you know. By any measure of any of the foundational documents of any west european country, signing up to Lisbon and, indeed, any of the other treaties forming the EU, is treason. The Bill of Rights contains specific clauses about governments “across the sea” having no authority over the sovereign parliament, yet the European Communities Act handed over precisely that authority.

    I would love to see someone better versed in the legal issues take this to court. Even if it just ends up as empty gesturing it’ll bring some of the facts to the public consciousness.

  2. Why have you not reported on Stuart Wheeler’s legal challenge in the British courts of the Lisbon Treaty? It was given the green light to be heard last week.

  3. Queen —

    I’m well aware of the story, but the only tip sent to me so far was for a blog post which had no linked sources.

    Care to leave me a URL?

  4. Wow. It seems like a very clear violation of the swedish constitution. It will be interesting to see how this develops, and I hope sverigedemokratene keeps pushing even if the police “misplaces” the paperwork.

  5. For those who question whether the Lisbon Treaty is indeed the Constitution in disguise, these are the words of Valery Giscard d’Estaing, who was chair of the committee (what else? – it’s the EU) that drew up the constitution.

    He said this in an open letter published in The Independent newspaper:

    Valéry Giscard d’Estaing: The EU Treaty is the same as the Constitution

    Tuesday, 30 October 2007

    ” The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content. The draft constitution resulted from a political desire to simplify European institutions, rendered inefficient by recent expansions. It was about creating more democracy and transparency within the European Union. It was about opening the way for a “Constitution for the people of Europe”.

    These goals were reflected in the composition of the treaty-drafting Convention which brought together representatives from the European Parliament and national parliaments, from the governments of member states, as well as from the European Commission. The debates were very public. The resulting draft constitution was a new text and replaced all previous treaties.

    For the Treaty of Lisbon the process has been very different. It was the legal experts for the European Council who were charged with drafting the new text. They have not made any new suggestions. They have taken the original draft constitution, blown it apart into separate elements, and have then attached them, one by one, to existing treaties. The Treaty of Lisbon is thus a catalogue of amendments. It is unpenetrable for the public.

    In terms of content, the proposed institutional reforms – the only ones which mattered to the drafting Convention – are all to be found in the Treaty of Lisbon. They have merely been ordered differently and split up between previous treaties. There are, however, some differences. Firstly, the noun “constitution” and the adjective “constitutional” have been banished from the text, as though they describe something inadmissible. At the same time, all mention of the symbols of the EU have been suppressed, including the flag (which already flies everywhere), and the European anthem (Beethoven’s Ode to Joy). However ridiculous they seem, these decisions are significant. They are intended to chase away any suggestion that Europe may one day have a formal political status. They sound a significant retreat from European political ambition.

    The concessions given to French opponents of the constitutional treaty are more symbolic than substantial. The expression “free and undistorted competition” has been taken out at the request of President Sarkozy. It reappears at the request of the British, in an annexed protocol to the new treaty which stipulates that “the internal market, such as is defined in Article 3 of the treaty, includes a system guaranteeing that competition is undistorted”.

    Far more important are the concessions made to the British. The Charter of Fundamental Rights – an improved and updated version of the Charter of Human Rights – has been withdrawn from the draft treaty and made into a separate text, to which Britain will not be bound. In the area of judicial harmonisation and co-operation, Britain will have the right to duck in and out of the system as it pleases. Having already weakened all attempts at further European integration – such as by refusing the title of Minister for Foreign Affairs – Britain has also been allowed to be the odd man out whenever it feels like it.

    Otherwise, the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary.

    The Brussels institutions have also cleverly reclaimed the process from the – to them – unwelcome intrusion of parliamentarians and politicians in the work of the original drafting Convention. The institutions have re-imposed their language and their procedures – taking us even further away from ordinary citizens.

    Now comes the ratification process. There should not be any big problems – except in Britain where a referendum would obviously lead to a “No” vote. Elsewhere, the complexity of the new text, and the apparent surrender of all sweeping ambitions, should be enough to smooth over all difficulties.

    But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention: a stable Presidency; a streamlined Commission; a Parliament with genuine legislative rights; a Foreign Minister, even if he has been given another inadequate title; decisions taken by a double majority of governments and citizens; and the most advanced charter of fundamental rights in the world.

    When men and women with sweeping ambitions for Europe decide to make use of this treaty, they will be able to rekindle from the ashes of today the flame of a United Europe. “

    The writer, a former French President (1974-81), was president of the Convention on the Future of Europe, which drafted a new constitution, 2002-03

    Original publication here:

    As Mr. Wheeler can afford the best of lawyers, I think he’s got a good chance.

    As a side issue – would you agree that when a People’s polititicians have this much contempt for them, then perhaps it’s time for the pitchforks, sickles and ropes to make an appearance?

  6. For those who question whether the Lisbon Treaty is indeed the Constitution in disguise.

    I hope this already is an extinct species… I have seen tons of quotes from lots of EU politicians, not only d’Estaing, that says exactly that.

    An analysis from OpenEurope goes further and proves it:
    Open Europe has also published a consolidated text of the finalised version of the Treaty, featuring a side by side comparison with the rejected European Constitution. The text shows clearly that the Lisbon Treaty is almost identical to the rejected Constitution.

    Download the text here.

    Please do. Very few read the documentation that exists.

  7. queen–

    Our email server is not operational at the moment, so we’ll have to wait till they repair the fiber cut or whatever has gone wrong this time.

    It’s been out a few hours now.

  8. Baron, I tagged this post to one I just did on the vote the Irish will take June 12th.

    No wonder I’m suffering from the PTSD of the modern world, “cognitive dissonance” as a friend put it. It’s mind-numbing; no wonder I can’t keep up or feel like I can’t.

    Good to see Sir Henry Morgan and Papa Bear. I have been away for a while, emotionally at least. My hat goes off to all of you who are able to stay in the crucible that is tieing us to the stake and/or to fight the chains of the latest “ism” tyranny being aligned against us. Good grief!

    I can’t believe how much has happened since the early days for me when I was just beginning to understand the use of the term “virus” to describe a certain ideology. Only a year and a half ago…

    For me, we are being bombarded from all sides all of the time – so much so that it is not always easy to identify all of the players, let alone the “enemies.”

    Been rooting around in my closet for that pitchfork…

Comments are closed.