What do the dramatic changes that have been forecasted relative to the Lisbon Treaty mean in the perspective of the Bible Prophecies?

There is news afoot that there may be dramatic changes made to the EU Treaty within a very short period of time. Those details are reformatted below in an article by Luke Baker, but from the perspective of the Bible prophecies what are the ramifications, if any, and what are the consequences for those Christians that still are alive at the moment?

There will be a very evil man that will take control of the EU firstly, and then the whole world in a coupe de France whereby there will not be a single shot fired and he will obtain control of the EU by the use of flattery and intrigue only and then afterwards go on to control the whole globe by starting and winning a third world war. The Bible calls this man the Beast, or the Antichrist as he is commonly known as.

Therefore with the latest news in the pipeline that there are going to be quite dramatic changes made to the Lisbon Treaty, the EU Constitution, the ramifications for this can only be too obvious. It can only mean that the whole of the powers for the running of the EU could be handed over to one man, and that man could only be the president that was appointed as a result of the Lisbon Treaty in the first place, Herman Van Rompuy.

Accordingly, if that were ever to become a reality then there could be no doubts whatsoever that in Van Rompuy we would be seeing the vile creature mentioned above - the Beast. However as that has not happened at this stage and may depend on the time that it takes for these changes to be firstly approved, and then acted upon, at this stage we are only able to surmise as to future events and how they will eventually turn out.

That is not to say that events are moving at quite an alarming rate towards the fulfilment of the remainder of the Bible Prophecies.

Q+A-What lies behind Germany's push to change EU treaty?
By Luke Baker

BRUSSELS, Oct 22 (Reuters) - Germany is pushing for changes in the European Union's fundamental framework -- the Lisbon treaty -- to set up a permanent system for handling financial crises such as a sovereign debt default.

Following a deal struck in the French town of Deauville on Monday, Paris supports the initiative, meaning the two biggest and most influential EU states back the idea.

But others in the 27-country EU are sceptical about changing a document that took nearly a decade to negotiate and bring into law, and caused deep internal debate in the process.

Here are some questions and answers on the idea:

WHY DOES GERMANY WANT TO CHANGE THE TREATY?
When the Greek debt crisis exploded early this year and threatened to spread to other euro zone member states, the EU scrambled to come up with a way to handle the situation. The result was a crisis mechanism called the European Financial Stability Fund, a 500-billion-euro safety net put together in May this year with IMF help.

Germany was reluctant to set up the EFSF and remains uncomfortable about it, in large part because it comes dangerously close to violating a clause in the Lisbon treaty against financial bailouts, is taxpayer funded, and has led to legal challenges in Germany's highest court.
The EFSF will expire in 2013. Germany wants to have a more-structured, permanent crisis resolution mechanism in place after that. To do so, and to ensure it is legally sound, the Lisbon treaty would have to be changed.

WHAT DO OTHER EU MEMBER STATES THINK?
While France has indicated it will back Germany in pushing for changes to the treaty, most of the remaining 25 EU member states are thought to be wary of such a move.
In many countries, such as Ireland, Britain, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic, it took a lot of political will and years of handwringing to win approval for the Lisbon treaty, which like all EU treaties had to be unanimously backed by member states and approved by parliament or by referendum.

Reopening the treaty to make changes would again prove divisive and politically dangerous. In countries such as Ireland, which is going through its own Greek-style debt and deficit crisis, there is almost no appetite for such a move.

However, signs are emerging that there may be more support for the idea than originally thought.
For example, Britain has indicated that it could support a change as long as any alterations pertain only to the 16 countries in the EU that use the euro. If that is the case, it would not mean any transfer of power from Britain to Brussels and therefore the move could be approved by parliament without the need to go to the nation for a referendum.

However, ordinary Conservative members of the British parliament are highly sensitive to any sense that the EU is interfering with British affairs and are likely to oppose treaty change, potentially destabilising the Conservative coalition with the centre-left Liberal Democrats.

In several other member states, such as Finland, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden, there is a sense that while governments would prefer not to change the Lisbon treaty, it may be the only way to guarantee a permanent crisis mechanism and stave off the threat of another Greek-style meltdown.

WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS?
EU leaders will meet in Brussels on Oct. 28-29 for a summit at which they are expected to debate the treaty change issue. If they agree, they could give Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council, a mandate to explore the issue further. In a statement made after their Deauville deal, France and Germany said they would like to have concrete proposals on treaty change prepared before an EU leaders' summit in March 2011.

EU sources have told Reuters that Van Rompuy has already held extensive discussions with EU leaders about the issue and appointed the leader of a treaty change team even before he secures a mandate -- a sign he is confident of getting one.

WHAT ARE THE RISKS IF COUNTRIES AGREE TO CHANGE THE TREATY?
The biggest risk is that once the treaty is in play, every EU member state steps forward with its own proposal for changes -- the Pandora's Box scenario. This would risk unravelling the document that is supposed to hold the EU and its institutions together. The key is for any treaty change to be tightly and carefully defined, so that one tweak -- which in the Germany case could potentially be the addition of just one or two clauses -- does not lead to a destructive free-for-all.

WHAT HAPPENS IF CHANGES ARE MADE TO THE TREATY?
If -- and it's a big if that has to negotiate a great number of hurdles first -- there is backing for treaty change and changes are made, they would have to be approved unanimously by all 27 member states and then ratified by each country, in some cases in a referendum. That process could take many months. In the case of the Lisbon treaty, it took two years between the signing of the treaty in the Portuguese capital on Dec. 13, 2007, and its entering into force on Dec. 1, 2009, after all member states had ratified it.