In such a system, the million people they rule over have absolutely no democratic rights at all, and their opinions are irrelevant. This is the definition of a dictatorship.
The EU has no elected executive. They are not elected, they are appointed. They cannot be removed from power through any democratic mechanism because the EU Constitution ensures it is impossible ever to create one.
Respecting Afghanistan’s Sovereignty
The European parliament is merely the veneer of democracy that the Commission use to lend fake authenticity to the rubber stamping of any policy they chose to enact. You may as well vote for your cat. It is simply a financial black hole for dirty money. Which is why criminal banks like HSBC are so keen on it.
Canada’s Sovereignty: The Threats of a New Era - Canadian Global Affairs Institute
One of the largest on Earth. Yet millions of British people, such as the recent Peoples Vote marchers , are apparently desperate to give away all our democratic rights to a bunch of corporate criminals whose despotic rule they seemingly prefer to representative democracy. I suspect this is because most have absolutely no idea about what the EU is, its history or how it functions. In part this is understandable.
Since the Brexit vote, the pro EU bias in the British media has been truly eye watering to behold. In the absence of a critical media, this requires additional research.
Something most hard working people have neither the time nor the inclination to undertake. They expect their media to provide them with facts. Unfortunately they have been betrayed by that same MSM. Which is why it will never be allowed to happen. Unless we insist upon it. If I were a betting man I would wager that Britain will have another referendum. Leaving on WTO terms will never be offered as an option in my view. But perhaps we can live in hope. But if, IF, the British people live up to their responsibilities and make use of the rights afforded to them by the sacrifice of millions who have stood up to both foreign and domestic tyranny in the past; if they demand that the Brexit referendum be honoured in its entirety; if they refuse to allow unelected EU bureaucrats and their UK political agents to simply dictate what they can and cannot do; if they engage in mass, peaceful, civil disobedience and refuse to cooperate with the political and financial elite in Westminster, who would sell their birth right purely to further their own pathetic ambitions, there are a majority of citizens in nations across Europe who would undoubtedly follow suit.
We are already seeing this determination with the French Gillet Jaune protests. Something else the UK media have studiously ignored. We currently have our own means of communication, and are not solely reliant upon the state propaganda pumped out by the MSM. So if you read this, and find value in it, please share it. But many countries do not recognize the sector principle and recognition is the key concept that underlines sovereignty. Figure 1 : A Canadian Ranger on patrol in the Arctic. Source: The Canadian Press. All this, however, is based on the idea that a nation controls the space within its boundaries and that other nations recognize and accept those boundaries.
That was certainly true before the rapid expansion of globalization after the Second World War and the development of computer and internet technology since the s. We arm our forces to protect us from nations that would ostensibly test our sovereign boundaries. However, the real challenges to our sovereignty — and to the sovereignty of virtually every other nation on Earth — come not from dangers from over our borders but from cyber-threats, theft of intellectual property, espionage carried out in non-traditional ways, the spread of propaganda through think tanks and other institutions, and election meddling.
The dangers also arise when Canadian citizens willingly allow themselves to become actors of another state or are coerced into doing so. Cyber-security is probably more important to Canadian sovereignty than control of the airspace over the Canadian land mass. Potential enemies penetrate computer security to plant computer viruses or other agents that can have control over key parts of our social and industrial infrastructure. In the traditional wars of the past, nations, empires or other political entities claimed key geographic features that could make them stronger — an island, a strait, a mountain range — such as the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia that Adolf Hitler demanded in Hitler was prepared to back up his demands with armed force.
Today, a cyber-attack on the electrical power system, the communication system or transportation of the target country or territory would accomplish the same goal of undermining law and order in the disputed territory. War between major nation-states such as the United States, Russia or China would be prohibitively expensive in lives and treasure.
Why risk such conflict when cyber-attacks offer a cheaper and less messy way of conducting aggression?
The widespread theft of intellectual property, and not just military intellectual property but new technological developments in any field, costs the target countries and their industries huge sums of money spent on developing and commercializing new products. Stealing such property through cyber-theft or plain old-fashioned industrial espionage saves the perpetrating country huge sums and great amounts of time, and robs the target country or industry of massive developing sums. Is there any real difference in challenge to our sovereignty if such theft occurs quietly, without violence, over many months or even years, via the internet, or if a large gang of armed attackers crossed our border, seized a factory, denuded it of its intellectual property and then retreated to another country?
Our sovereignty is being undermined in other ways. Large sums of money have been pouring into Canada to help groups who oppose new infrastructure construction, particularly pipelines. Non-Canadian funds have financed much of that activity to interfere in our political processes. Many polls have illustrated that Canadians want to expand sales opportunities to markets other than the United States, but the regulatory, political and judicial system has slowed to the point where virtually nothing is getting done.
This too is a violation of Canadian sovereignty. And although the results of these foreign-funded enterprises may take longer to take hold of political discourse in different parts of Canada, they are no less damaging to our internal debate.
Kinetic dangers to Canadian sovereignty are few and far between. While the state version does not authorise a "nation to nation" relationship between the US federal government and a Native Hawaiian governing entity, the First Nation government legislation like the federal version is a bogus trap. The new law sets up a commission to produce a "Native Hawaiian roll", where Kanaka Maoli sign on to take part in the formation of the First Nation within the state process — the first time there would be any documented evidence of acquiescence to the US government or its subsidiaries.
Topics Hawaii Opinion. Reuse this content. Order by newest oldest recommendations.