According to the European Union it is time for stronger action against gun violence, something which has been the subject of a speech by Cecilia Malmström, EU Commissioner for Home Affairs; from which:
We can reduce gun violence by tightening the EU internal market Directive on the possession of weapons, by for example reducing access to particularly dangerous weapons models for civilian use. The Commission will also look at a common approach on how to mark firearms with serial numbers when they are manufactured in order to help tracing those used by criminals. Concrete solutions to procedures for the licensing of weapons will also be examined. The Commission will also look at new technological challenges, such as the online sales of weapons or 3D printing of weapons or ammunition, but also how to reduce the risk of illegal delivery of firearms by postal services. Common EU-wide rules on how to deactivate firearms might ensure that once firearms have been taken out of use they remain inoperable. There is also a need to consider EU legislation with common minimum rules on criminal sanctions to be sure that deterrence works in all Member States and that there are no legal loopholes for the traffickers. Such rules could prescribe which firearm offences should be subject to criminal sanctions and foresee the level of sanctions that should be imposed by MS.
We have had a Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament and we have had a Report on European Commission public consultation on EU firearms policy. Yet while the consultation report states that overall, respondents were opposed to the suggestion of further action on EU level in this area, it would seem that the Commission – in the shape of Malmström – are intent on legislation; which begs the question: why? Why, if considering itself a democratic organisation, would the commission wish to over-rule the wishes of its people?
Astute readers will obviously have made a connection from the heading to this post; and yes, we thus turn to the United Nations in order to answer the question: why. The EU, having concluded the UN Firearms Protocol, a Protocol which will strengthen controls on the transfer of handguns, pistols and other small arms into, out of and within the EU is also following the ‘guidance’ of another, little-known UN organisation – the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA). It is only necessary to look at this webpage from their website to understand from whence the EU is coming.
The Commission can find any number of grounds within the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (articles 3-6) under which it can
introduce legislation comply with the bidding of its master. Yes the EU will have ‘consulted’ Member States, but it will then have formed a ‘reasoned opinion’ which in turn will have formed the basis of its position when concluding the UN Firearms Protocol.
It may well be that had the UK had a seat at the top table on this subject (which Cameron maintains we do as a member of the EU, but most obviously do not), it would have been able to have had input into the final decision reached. Under representative democracy Parliament would have been able to decide with which provisions of the UN Protocol it wished to comply. However, why should that decision be left with Parliament? Should not the people have a voice? No doubt any proposed legislation from the EU will impose prescriptive ‘rules and regulations’ which will also include ‘costs’ for, for example, gun-clubs. If we take the meaning of democracy per se – people power – to its logical conclusion, should it not be those in a local area that decide any rules that apply, for example, to gun-clubs?
That those such as Open Europe (and within the words ‘those such as’ I also include the CEO of Business for Europe; one whose sole raison d’être would appear to be to promote himself, rather than the aims of his organisation) like to present all EU legislation as that coming from the EU when it most obviously does not, only serves to illustrate their lack of knowledge — while also illustrating the falseness of their raison d’être. The words ‘Open Europe’ leads one to believe that their aim is to expose the reasons why the EU exists – yet that it does not do, for two main reasons. Firstly it ignores, totally, the reason for the EU’s existence and, secondly, being an obvious mouthpiece for Cameron, it is intent on promoting the idea that we, as a nation, can ‘change’ the EU – the current ‘Cameron Line’.
That we, the people, are ‘assailed’ with ‘think-tanks’ that purport to inform us about ‘matters EU’; a government that maintains it exists to care for us and safeguard our future – but does not; and a compliant media who give the impression that they could not find their own way home even if they were provided with an ‘idiots-map’; can but lead us to think that we are being lead by ‘Judas Goats’ to our own personal abattoir.
Are we not, as human beings – especially bearing in mind our ‘Human Rights’ – entitled to the presentation of facts rather than fiction? That, under the 6 Demands, we could, at least, insist.
And World Government and Agenda 21 is a myth? Democracy is alive and well, according to our political class? Wise up, people!
Following my ‘Sunday Rant’, readers may consider this as my ‘Monday Rant’. They should, however, bear in mind that there may well be a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday Rant. Just saying…….