28 European Nations?
The Bible specifically states that ten nations head the federation and align with the Antichrist.
Presently 28 nations are members of the European Union. The 28 nations are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Croatia and the United Kingdom.
There is talk of the Union’s expanding to include even more members. Some experts estimate that up to thirty-five countries could make up the Union within a generation. Some even suggest that the Soviet Union could become a member of the Union. After the revolution of 1989, the list of would-be members of the European Union grew. Even Israel joins the list.
Twenty seven members do not resemble the ten-nation federation spoken of by Daniel and John in the Revelation. Currently, discussions concerning the Union going forward with political union with an inner core of nations are underway. A few decades ago when the number of nations which opted for EU membership grew, various bureaucrats determined that the Union must deepen the process of integration before enlarging. The Union must unify politically, economically, and militarily before accepting any new members. Union delegates fiercely debated widening the EU’s membership to include nearby countries. The prevailing view was that the EU should strengthen itself inwardly before it took on any new members. The Commission and the Council of the European Union formerly the Council of Ministers determined that the EU will have to achieve both political and economic union. 
In a larger EU, decisions become harder to reach. Solving language questions becomes extremely difficult. In a nine-language EU, any meeting of ministers requires twenty-seven interpreters. A sixteen-language EU, needs forty-two interpreters at each meeting. Some took this as evidence that a wider community required a stronger central government. With twelve members in the European Council, each representative speaks for ten minutes. This takes two hours, and rises to three hours for eighteen members, and four hours for twenty-four. Unanimous decision making becomes impossible, and a thirty-member Commission and larger European Parliament becomes too unwieldy.
The EU’s founders designed the EU’s institutions for six members. When membership reached twelve, these members expanded its capacity to the full.  According to the Federalist Journal Crocodile, the newsletter of “The Crocodile Club” founded in 1980 by an informal group of members of European Parliament that favored greater European integration and greater powers to the European Parliament:
There are no clear objective criteria for determining the optimum or maximum size of the Union. No one can say how many Member States it can cope with without risking paralysis or regressing into a mere free trade area. It is therefore impossible to lay down the number of Member States admitting of no further enlargement of the Union. No one can gauge the maximum absorption capacity which the Union could not exceed without bringing about its destruction, but it is indisputable that a limit exists.
The Community as presently constituted cannot encompass enlargement. Without further reform, enlargement to include 15 or more Member States would eventually spell its destruction. The choice for the Union is consequently not between deepening or widening but rather between deepening or dissolution.
With enlargement, the EU sought to strengthen itself politically and suggested that a strong united core proceed ahead of the other nations. 
According to European Affairs, a publication which devoted itself to European Union issues:
It might be possible to envision by the end of this century a Europe of concentric circles: (1) the EU at the core; … trying to bring the two parts of Europe closer together responds to a historical urge that both sides feel. The historical basis of a whole Europe or common home after all goes back to the Empire of Charlemagne, and then the holy Roman Empire, and should at a minimum encompass the territories of those empires; both were culturally and geographically primary West European. The EU will become a community of different speeds, tiers and forms of association. 
As the Union prepared to enlarge its membership it went to work on internal strengthening in order to facilitate the incorporation of new members. Each country that joined the Union met strict criteria. They must be sound economically, have secure democratic institutions and adopt the body of EU law.
Former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer called for the relaunch of the process of unification through the creation of a federal core. This core will comprise of a limited number of countries, and will constitute “the centre of gravity” to which all the other states of the Union will be attracted. Another possibility is for Europe to progress at different tiers and speeds. Former French President Valéry Giscard’Estaing published what he called a Manifesto for a Federal Europe. In his manifesto, he calls for the formation of a core group of federalist countries within a wider European Union. Giscard calls this core the “European Power.” It consists of all and only those countries which are a part of European Monetary Union (EMU).
Heads of state meeting in Nice decided to undertake an in-depth review of the future of an enlarged Union and called European citizens to take part in it. The European Policy Centre, a think-tank for EU policy, devoted its resources to this debate. In the fall of 2000, Notre Europe, a think-tank founded by former European Commission President Jacques Delors, held a debate on the structure of an enlarged Europe, which had several contributors including Joschka Fischer. Although they used different metaphors—a multi-speed Europe, a pioneer group, three spheres formed on the basis of a Eurozone, which is the politically integrated area, the avant garde; some writers have referred to this inner political core as the Union’s “avant-garde” for political union —all of the speakers echoed the same message: that with the Big Bang of members about to enter the Union, institutionally the Union cannot go forward as it is currently structured without the new members’ leading to its demise. 
Guy Verhofstadt, former Belgian Prime Minister and EU Parliamentarian authored a manifesto for Europe titled, The United States of Europe: Manifesto for a New Europe, in it he discusses the inner core and added his own proposals and summarized them in his article, “Only a New ‘political core’ can drive Europe forward again.” He stated:
Only through adopting a unified approach in all these areas will Europe really count as a world player. …In such a scenario, Europe would comprise two concentric circles: a political core that is a “United States of Europe” based on the Eurozone, and surrounding it a confederation of countries, or a “Organization of European States.” Naturally, this political core must never prevent or oppose any form of broader cooperation. All EU Member States wishing to join it, old or new, should be able to do so; the sole precondition should be their willingness to work unconditionally on pushing ahead with the overall political project. The notion of a “United States of Europe” is the only option for the old continent. 
The suggested next step after the Lisbon Treaty, which will insure that the Union continues to strengthen and not be diluted by all of its members will be to form this inner core. This solid core will become “the engine of the union.”  Knowing that the Union will have a ten nation federation and that discussions are underway for an inner core, we see that the evolution of the Union lines up with Scripture. Europe will become a giant empire with the EU governmental power house of the Commission and ten nation Council at the center.
The next step for the EU is to form this core and when we see the EU number a political core of ten we know that the Tribulation is right at the door.
The Three Horns Plucked by the Roots
Daniel, in three separate verses, tells us that the Antichrist plucks out by their roots, three of the first horns (Daniel 7:8). Daniel envisions the ten-nation federation at its pinnacle of power. He describes the appearance of a little horn, “before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots.” Disturbed by his vision, Daniel talks to an angel who discloses the truth of the fourth beast. “And about the ten horns that were on its head, and about the other horn which came up (the little horn) before which three fell.” The angel explains: “The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom: and another shall rise after them; he shall be different from the first ones, and shall subdue three kings.”
One view holds that this verse refers to three of the ten kings that the Antichrist subdues. In the Hebrew translation, to subdue means to humble, put down, or humiliate. This contradicts the precept of the ten-nation federation. The ten kings willingly give their power and strength unto the Beast, and have one mind. They receive power with the Beast (Rev. 17:12-13).
The Antichrist, unlike any of the other leaders who held his position, subdues them. These three kings follow his policies unwillingly, unlike the others, and he expels them from the federation. There exist many variables. The Scriptures can indirectly be stating that thirteen kings exist when the Antichrist subdues them. He expels three of them, leaving his final federation with ten. Or he can subdue three of the member nations of the wider group of 27 nations. When the Antichrist subdues three nations, this verifies his position as the man of sin. The Antichrist raises the EU to its zenith of power with his select ten nations (Rev. 13:1).
No article in the Treaty of Rome allows the EU to expel a member. Denmark, for example, rejected the Treaty on Political Union and opted out of specific policies, but it remains a full-fledged member of the European Union. No nation within the Union wishes to forfeit the economic benefits of membership. Each nation relies on its role to influence the EU’s evolution. Previous rocky relations with Greece caused EU partners to lament the absence of an expulsion clause. A petition circulated requesting signatures for the expulsion of Greece. The Constitution that voters rejected included a clause that allowed for expulsion of members. When Denmark rejected the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty), there was talk in Bonn, Paris, and Brussels that Denmark could face expulsion. According to The Economist: “The eleven would renounce the Treaty of Rome and start again with a new treaty that excluded Denmark. The Council of Ministers’ legal service claimed that this would be legal.”
Which three members will the Antichrist expel? Those which probably did not fit into the Old Roman Empire’s original borders? Denmark happens to be one. It presently takes an anti-Federalist stance and initially voted no to the Maastricht Treaty, which caused a stir in the whole Union. It agreed to sign, but only under its provisions. The future world ruler will not tolerate Member States half-hearted in their commitment. A ten-nation federation within the EU’s present institutional structure ensures its strength. It is no coincidence that EU policy makers wish to limit the Union’s membership from the inner core which various EU leaders have proposed since the early 1990’s.
If EU founders originally designed the Union for six members and maxed out at twelve, ten nations will end up being a good number. Taking ten of the most ambitious leaders will help the union reach important decisions quicker and more efficiently. The number might start with fewer or more but will end up at ten.
The leaders of the participating nations will form some sort of agreement like the Schengen agreement which eliminated border controls between the member countries of the Union in the mid 1980’s. Schengen added impetus to the completion of the Common Market and the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 incorporated the agreement into EU law. An Executive Committee ran Schengen and when it became part of EU legislation, the duties of the Executive Committee transferred to the EU’s institutions in the co-decision procedure; the process by which they adopt directives and regulations. The Union will most likely incorporate the political core in the same way. They will draw up an agreement with the aim of moving the Union forward politically. Based on the Bible’s description, the ten nation federation and the Antichrist run the Union. The ten king federation will bring together the ten Council members and the President of the Commission.
The other option is to streamline the European Council which brings together the Commission President and the leaders of the EU Member States to contain members of the political core only. The Vice President of the Commission currently attends its meetings. Or the Council of the European Union which comprises of the Heads of the Member States will be revamped to reduce it to the ten strongest and add the Commission President, i.e. Antichrist. Either way the other Council will comprise of the leaders of the remaining Member States. The EU can also add the core as an additional Institution which would comprise of the ten prime ministers and the Commission President. However the EU makes these changes, the student of prophecy should keep an eye on its evolution.
Meanwhile the EU as a whole will continue to add more members. Despite the EU’s apparent willingness to consider taking in so many new members, there are strict conditions for admission. The criteria for the inner core will be those nations that possess the greatest ambition and commitment to move forward politically to evolve the Union into a full fledged political world empire. These leaders of all the remaining Member States will be ripe for the Antichrist’s leadership and vision to move the EU into becoming the most powerful and crushing world empire that has ever existed. When the Union becomes the ten-nation federation, the ten leaders will be ready to meet and assist their leader in the same way the twelve apostles assisted Jesus. When this core forms the Tribulation will practically be at the door.
States on the Current Agenda
|Recognized candidates||Applied||Potential Candidates|
|Croatia, Macedonia, Turkey||Albania, Iceland, Montenegro||Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia|
|States Not on the Current Agenda||States Outside Europe||Eastern Europe States Outside ENP &Eap|
|Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland||Cape Verde, Israel, Morocco||KazakhastanRussia|
|Special Territories of Member States||MicrostatesWithin western Europe, there are five microstates:||Eastern Partnership States|
|British Dependencies, Danish self-governing communities, French overseas departments and collectivities||Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City. The fifth, Liechtenstein is a member of EFTA. Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City have all signed agreements allowing them not only to use the euro, but to mint their own coins.||Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine|
Croatia became the 28th member in 2013 Macedonia possibly will join around 2016, and Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia, and Turkey following, either together or in smaller groups.
- “European Community from Atlantic to Where?” Economist, 30 August 1991. See also “From Luxembourg to Maastricht,” p. 4.
- “Survival of the Fattest,” Economist, 11 April 1992, p. 54. Bernard Cassen, “How Large Is Europe?” European Affairs, August/September 1991, no. 4, pp. 19-20. See also “Leading to a Community,” Eurocom, September 1991, and Economist, 12 March, 1993.
- “The European Daisy,” Crocodile: Letter to the Parliament of Europe, Brussels, October 1992,
- Report La Commission reporte l’ecamen de cu point a sa 1112eme reunion du z juillet 1992. “Europe and The Challenge of Enlargement,” EC Commission, June 1992. “A New Partnership” #34-38.
- Robert D. Hormats, “Redefining Europe and the Atlantic Link,” Foreign Affairs,” Fall 1989, pp. 80, 84. See also Gregory F. Treverton, “The New Europe,” Foreign Affairs. America and the World, 1991-1992, p. 97.
- “The Debate on the Structure of an Enlarged Europe,” Notre Europe, 10 October 2000. See also Robert J. Gutman, Valéry D’Estaing, Europe, May 1997.
- Guy Verhofstadt and ‘The United States of Europe’: The Eurozone as a new core Europe: Manifesto for a New Europe, The Federal Trust for Education and Research, London, January 2006,Guy Verhofstadt, “Crisis-busting I: “Only a new ‘political core’can drive Europe forward again” Europe’s World, Spring 2006 http://www.europesworld.org/NewEnglish/Home_old/Article/tabid/191/ArticleType/ArticleView/ArticleID/21046/CrisisbustingIOnlyanewpoliticalcorecandriveEuropeforwardagain.aspx
- Olivier Vedrine, “Analyze: A “solid core” to build a political European Union”www.multipol.org, April 30, 2009
- “Europe: The Sick Man of Europe,” Economist, 9 May 1992.
- “Europe Ways Round That Little Danish Inconvenience,” Economist, 13 June, 1992. See also “How to Leave the Stage Gracefully,” European, 13-19 June, 1996.
The Empire: Bible Prophecy and the EU -Free Edition
The Empire: EU and Bible Prophecy-INT
The Empire: As was time of Noah and Lot-1
The Empire: The Antichrist-2
The Empire:Mother of Harlots -3
The Empire: Cornerstone for Uniting the World-4
The Empire: Building an Empire-5
The Empire: Seat of Antichrist- 6
The Empire: Ten Kings-3 Plucked up by roots- 7
The Empire:Mark of the Beast-8
The Empire: United States in Prophecy- 9
The Empire: Israel Peace Treaty -10
The Empire: The Tribulation is Coming- 11