They dismantled Denmark.

by Knud Eriksen


The internationalisation of Denmark speeded up during the 2.nd World War. The setting up of the United Nations with sub-organizations was planned by the Allied Powers already during the war (The Atlantic Declaration, which led to the establishing of the UN etc.) and in Denmark the politicians started working energetically for a new constitution in which they also had a paragraph included, which concerned surrender of sovereignty to international organizations. At no time had there been popular interest in changing the constitution, which had been revised latest in 1915. Therefore it was purely a politicians project which had failed prior to the war (1939).

To change the constitution it was necessary to get a majority in favour of the change, but also 45% support from the electorate. In spite of massive media propaganda this was not possible in 1939.When the old politicians were no longer afraid of a popular demand for a settlement of their pro-German politics during the war, and had gained confidence that nothing was going to happen to them, they started over again. When they saw that everything was just like before the war, and that the war had only be a parenthesis in the power game, the work for a new constitution continued. However, the people were still not interested. A Gallup opinion poll in 1949 showed that only 16% wanted a change. By continuous propaganda this figure increased to 39% by the autumn of 1951 and 48% by the autumn 1952.

The attempts in 1939 had demonstrated, that it was of vital importance to get enough popular support for the idea and what that took aside from the cooperation of the press was the support of all the big parties. The "Left" (Venstre, liberals) had been missing in 1939, but that changed when Erik Eriksen was replaced by Knud Kristensen as leader of Venstre in 1949.

In order to ease the new constitution through it was necessary to add a few popular issues, but they were hard to come by. Lowering the electoral age had been popular right after the war, because it had been the youth, not the old politicians, which had demonstrated responsibility as patriots. However, a Gallup opinion poll just before the referendum in 1953 demonstrated, that 65% found the 25-year-limit quite suitable. Doing away the "Landsting" ("Upper House") didn't have much appeal either outside of political circles.

A change of the Law of Succession became the solution. The change was to make it possible for the popular older princess Margrethe to follow her father on the throne instead of the less popular brother of the king, heir presumptive Knud. In January of 1953 the Jyllands Posten wrote: "From being a problem in itself, the succession to the throne has become a propaganda bait. It is unworthy." The Gallup opinion poll from the autumn 1952 (published in Berlingske Tidende 18th January 1953) showed, that in answer to the question: "what issues were being negotiated", 55% mentioned the question of the law of succession, 40 % mentioned the electoral age, while 22% mentioned the abolition of the Landsting. 30% were unable to name any issue from the debate at all.

In this whole non-popular performance there was one change, that was not mentioned publicly at all. It was reduced to a minor detail of the referendum. But it was to have wide-ranging consequences for the Danish Nation.

It was the wording of the paragraph 18 of the old constitution. The only paragraph that directly concerned Denmark's relations with other nations. The politicians had saved that debate till the end, because it was considered so vital that it required an in-depth discussion. (Søren Eigaard, Ideals and Politics).

And maybe because it was undesirable to have a controversial case concerning surrender of sovereignty out in the open, which might disturb the adoption of a new constitution. We had just joined the Atlantic Pact (NATO), in 1949, but it was unpopular in wide circles and gave strong associations to surrender of sovereignty.

Paragraph 18, (almost unchanged from the 1849-constitution)): "The King cannot declare war or make peace, enter into alliances or treatises, relinquish any part of the country or enter into any commitment, which changes the constitutional status."

When the new constitution was passed by a referendum 28. May 1953 with 45,76% of all votes as yes-votes, that is less than 1% of the required minimum, with 12,3% no-votes and with a poll of 59,1%, paragraph 18 was changed into two paragraphs: 19 and 20. At the same time the Landsting was abolished, the electorate age was to be 21 and Princess Margerethe was heir to the throne. And among other things it was secured, that the minimum requirement of electorate consent was reduced to 40%. A future change would be easier.

With the 1953-constitutions paragraph 19 and 20 Denmark was now laid wide open for internationalisation in reality a gradual dismantling as a nation. At the time only the initiate politicians and other leading members of society knew. To-day it is easy to see in the rear view mirror.

Paragraph 19, part 1: "The King acts on behalf of the kingdom in international matters. He cannot, without the consent of parliament, commit any act that increases or reduces the territory of the kingdom or enter into any commitment to the fulfilment of which the cooperation of parliament is necessary. Neither can the king cancel any international agreement without the consent of parliament, which has been entered into by parliament."

A practical consequence of this rule has been, that international treatises and conventions could be made by "the king", in reality the government, which again, in actual fact, means the government officials, if the government officials have decided, that no changes in legislation are necessary and the commitment is not considered of "major importance".

Thereafter the changes in legislation to the full implementation of the convention were made gradually. This was the situation with the 1951-refugee-convention, on which the parliament has had no influence whatsoever. It is the basis of the Aliens Act of 1983, which has undeniably caused a considerable internationalisation of Denmark. The power elite of to-day is very pleased with that. There are indications that this convention has been withheld from the parliament by deceit (Danskeren no. 2. April 1994) see menu "Flygtningekonventionen under lup" etc. or "The Refugee Convention Should be Revoked Immediately" In this issue of Dronten. (It has later been found that also the joining of the EF/EU was done on the sly).

Legally, the most direct internationalisation of Denmark has been done through the new paragraph 20, added as a result of advice from the expert on international law, professor dr. Jur. Max Sørensen, where part 1 went as follows: "Authority, which rightfully belongs to the authorities of the kingdom, can by law be turned over to international authorities, that have been established by mutual consent with other states in order to further international legislation and cooperation."

It was this paragraph which made surrendering sovereignty to EF/EU possible, starting in 1972 and culminating with, so far, two referendi about the European Union 1992/93. Max Sørensen had mentioned two plans of internationalisation, which would directly call for this rule, that is the Schuman-plan (the beginnings of EU) and the Pleven-plan (the European army), but also the membership of the UN would require it in the future, he said.

In the book "Ideals and Politics" by Søren Eigaard, page 252-259, a good outline of this opening in the constitution and its background is given. Most importantly, a responsum by Max Sørensen (later judge at the International Court in Haag) was used as basis for the negotiations and became normative for the changes of paragraph 18, which became the paragraphs 19 and 20.

Max Sørensen was a leading internationalist and was fascinated by the possibilities in the newly established UN, which was to become a world government with a monopoly on military power. In this matter he was in complete agreement with no less than 80 members of parliament, who were at the same time members of "Landsforeningen Een Verden" (National Association for World Government). This association which was later joined with the UN-association and was named " the UN-league (1970) has later in its writings claimed, that it was the originator of the paragraph 20 ("One World", "The World and Us", and now UN-Orientation!). This is also strongly hinted in the book by Søren Eiberg. "Landsforeningen Een Verden" pressed on with two written requests to the constitutional commission, on 27.3.1950 and 6.9.1951, and there is much that indicates, that it was behind the continuation of the failed negotiations concerning the constitution, which followed the enquiry of "De Radikale" in parliament in December 1950 and, which Hans Hedtoft said, was "under an increasing pressure from the outside". As many as 80 members of parliament were members of this association, according to a speech made by Poul Møller in parliament on November 1952 (Rigsdagstidende 1952/53, Folketinget bd. 1, 663-64). It had members from all major parties.

Among other things Max Sørensen stated that it was solely a political evaluation if such a surrender of sovereignty should require a general majority or a qualified majority in parliament, but he added, that on the other hand " the constitution has so far never needed qualified majority for any parliamentary passage." As Søren Eigaard says "That was also a kind of evaluation".

Neither Max Sørensen nor the government parties Venstre, Conservative nor the Socialdemocrats wanted the possibility of a referendum in connection with surrender of sovereignty. This was added after pressure from the members from "De Radikale" of the constitutional commission, Bertel Dahlgaard and Jørgen Jørgensen. It was supposed to be done according to the rules in paragraph 42 in the new constitution, which requires general majority and (for a no) minimum 30% of all votes against (both making future changes in the constitution easier). As a comparison a sportsclub or an ordinary association always requires a qualified majority, i.e. 2/3d or 3/4th in order to approve an amendment of the regions. But the dismantling of the Danish nation?

Who and what was this association "Landsforeningen Een Verden", which was behind the paragraphs, which opened up Denmark?

According to the above mentioned speech, the association wanted to give the United Nations "such a constitution and such strength, that will enable it to secure world peace". Poul Møller was then vice-president. The president was since 1949 professor, dr. Phil. Poul Brandt Rehberg. Brandt Rehberg was also a member of the management of the World-association of World Federalists (originally "World Movement for Federal Government"), of which the Danish association was a branch, he was even in the executive committee for this world association the hard core. He was also a member of the "culturally radical"(liberal wing, k.e.) management of Politiken, elected in 1948, as the only one outside of the circle of owning families "elected on the basis of more contemporary criteria" until 1975 (Politikens Historie set indefra, bd. 2, s. I 72) Piet Hein was the first chairman. Well known actors such as Ebbe Rode and Helle Virkner were also members. As the oldest, now living member, Hermod Lannung (99) (now deceased, k.e.) put it:"everybody, who was somebody, was a member back then".

In the shadow of the threat of atomic weapons and the Cold War, the idea of "One world or no world" or "World Peace through World Law" gained enormous popularity. The Danish branch started in 1948, where it reached 400 members, but already in 1949 it had grown to 4000. The leading idea was, that there should be a world government, which should have a monopoly on military power. Nations should have authority over local matters only, like municipalities under the state. A world-constitution, which could be backed by a superior World Government was seen as the only possibility of avoiding a third world war. The principles were formulated more specifically, among others, in the "Luxemburg Declaration" from the One-world movements 2nd. World Congress in 1948. It was decided to raise the young people, work within the parliaments, make a world constitution before the revision of the UN-pact in 1955 etc. and it was decided to deal with issues such as refugees, human rights etc. as internationalising principles. It was decided to work along all channels, but especially through strengthening of the UN and by regional internationalisation. This movement was behind the formation of the European Movement, The European Counsel, The European Convention of Human Rights, OECD and especially the Schumann-Plan/EU. Anything, that could dissolve the nation states.

This is what lies behind the mass migration into Western Europe and the USA and it lies behind the present attempts to get the UN a sovereign army of which the Danish International Brigade is a small part. Using NATO as a UN-army has been part of the philosophy, and the reconstruction of the UN into a world government is now as from the beginning on top of the list of wishes. There doesn't seem to be any major hindrances now that the USA is the only superpower.

It may be significant that it is Hans Hækkerup, descendant of one of the foremost Danish "One World"-people (note also the leader of the conservative party, Per Stig Møller, son of another leading member, Poul Møller, red.), who has been the busiest with completing this plan. But the plan is agreed upon by the whole international power-clique in Denmark, which just like in 1952/53 is sitting on top of all the parties, probably excepting Fremskridtspartiet (and now maybe also excepting Dansk Folkeparti, red?) in the media, controlling art, film and finance. It is difficult to find a patriotic person at top level. It is not fashionable, but persons connected to the UN-league have also worked energetically for that for 50 years.(Main source: "Een Verden", "The world and we", "UN-orientation")Knud Eriksen (the article was published in Frihedsbrevet, add. to no. 3/94


now also see my websites

'The Controversy of Zion'


Mosaic Upps