Posted on 02/22/2005 10:42:20 AM PST by Righty_McRight
The constitution paves the way for the transfer of increasing amounts of defense and diplomatic activity from Europe's national capitals to Brussels. Article 1-16 commits all member states to a "common foreign and security policy." "Member states" are required to "actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's actions in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness." In a recent radio interview, Spanish prime minister Jose Zapatero explained how this might work: "we will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service...we will see Europe with a single voice in security matters. We will have a single European voice within NATO."
And the more that the EU speaks with that one voice, the less will be heard from those of its member states more inclined to be sympathetic to America. And as to what this would mean, well, French Green politician Noel Mamère put it best in the course of an interview last week: "The good thing about the European constitution is that with it the United Kingdom will not be able to support the United States in a future Iraq."
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I suggest that you guys nuke Brussels.
Just in case.
But could you wait till the wind's blowing east please?
Apparently so. With the new EU consttituion, they'll be able to suppress our allies, leaving Europe against us.
I think Japan would love to become more militarily active. If the Diet and Japanese people can amend their constitution, Japan could be a formidable military ally and help us counter the threat of China.
And risk NOT contaminating France? No deal . . .
This is rather interesting. At this moment I'm preparing a paper on the simularities between the Constitution of the Confederate States of America and the EU Constitution. Very similar in tone and tenor.
The only real differences is that the CSA Constitution promulgated slavery and the EU rejoices in the rights of all man. Both rested on assumptions that reflect their society and culture. There are the masses and an elite, the one born to be led and unequipped to decide great issues and the other destined by birth and breeding to lead. In such a world, the greatest tyranny, was the will of a majority that does not, and perhaps can not, grasp the stakes raised by issues of state.
As I said, very interesting.
"The good thing about the European constitution is that with it the United Kingdom will not be able to support the United States in a future Iraq."
with its storied history, i just dont believe that the UK will forfeit its rights to another body. i dont believe that a union with such a diverse set of beliefs and backgrounds could ever survive as one. too many countries have too many different interests in europe.
"with its storied history, i just dont believe that the UK will forfeit its rights to another body"
Too right.
Unfortunatley, Blair would. In fact he's already started.
Since there will be single European foreign policy, they should only get 1 vote in the UN and NATO
If push REALLY came to shove, and it was the US vs the EU (assuming the US was right, as usual), I'm pretty sure the EU would fracture along Anglo lines, and perhaps with smaller "new Europe" countries coming along as well.
Yes, much like a flea threatening an elephant with rape.
There is a lot more to it than we think. They have been lining up against tyhe US and with our help. This is all to establish the New World Order. The disarming of the US Citizens and the destruction of our Constutional Republic.
The Hate Crimes Laws are nothing more than the implementation of the Values set forth in the European Socialist Manefesto. They undermine our Gurantee of Freedom of Speech by the Constitution. The Hate Crimes were put into law to do just that. We have the right to Hate just as we have the right to Love. The Constitution of the United States is slowly but surely being replaced with the Socialist Version of the European Constitution, read it for yourself:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318061/posts?page=6#6
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318038/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318034/posts
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=954
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1254190/posts
WHY IS AMERICA NEGOTIATING AWAY HER SOVEREIGNTY?
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b43515e550e.htm
Right on. If this is what they are saying, that they will be one united force, like all the states of the USA have one fedral military, then also they will only have one contribution to Nato, like the USA does.
It stands to reason that they also have only one vote and voice in the UN. The EU, is after all, going to be several states united under one body, just like the USA is.
We should in fact DEMAND that the EU have only one collective voice within the UN. Or else the USA should have 50.
I would like to know if a right to secede from the Union is explicitly stated in this Constitution.
The US Constitution did not have this, and the consequences were not pretty.
[quote]I would like to know if a right to secede from the Union is explicitly stated in this Constitution.
The US Constitution did not have this, and the consequences were not pretty.[/quote]
I'm curous about that as well. Blood may spill if this is a "grey" area. Can you imagine the EU telling The United Kingdom that it CAN'T leave if it wanted to?
Yes it does. It says that it will take a unaminous vote of all members to allow a country to secede.
I wonder who is going to determine the common security policy. Brussels Eurocrats? Majority vote among countries? If it is a voting mechanism, France may sometimes have to support policies that they don't like as well.
...French Green politician Noel Mamère put it best in the course of an interview last week: "The good thing about the European constitution is that with it the United Kingdom will not be able to support the United States in a future Iraq."
To Mamere what happens in Iraq is not important. What is important is that he has a veto on it, whatever it is.
Everything Europeon will be decided by appointed, not elected, Bureaucrats.
Really? Hmmmm. My draft copy must have been revised (no shock there; they rewrite the bloody thing every month). D'y know where I can get the current draft of their manifes-, er, ''constitution''?
Google it. It is a very long read though.
We are likely to vote "No" to this constitution. The constitution is a dead letter, put together by corrupt former French President, Valerie Giscard d'Estaing. If you want some idea of how corrupt he was, Google him in reference to Jean-Bédel Bokassa, diamonds and the Central African Republic.
The French can keep this nonsense to themselves.
Regards, Ivan
I can just imagine the UK wanting out, who in the EU would stop them, The Germans with dialogue, the French with white flags, the belgians with waffles?
They have been playing us since the end of WWII. We must make sure our Congress is Pro American. Even George I and Clintoon spoke approvingly of the New World Order. Why should we expect anything less from George II?
Isn't this a little ironic, George was the name of the English king that we fought against for our liberty, now we have George again and our Constitution is in jepordy against Europe!
Part 1, Article 59: Voluntary withdrawal from the Union
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention; the European Council shall examine that notification. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council of Ministers, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
The representative of the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in Council of Ministers or European Council discussions or decisions concerning it.
3. The Constitution shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, decides to extend this period.
4. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to re-join, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 57.
Top
We actually have the military. So they can just kindly get out of the way.
Regards, Ivan
In the US constitution, to save space, it would just have said: "We will decide". :)
I hope so. Our military is mighty but I do like having Allies.
US says "DPRK just invaded ROK! We're sending our men"
UK says "Right o, we'll be right there"
France says "Not so fast UK!"
Would Blair ever considered joining the USA instead of the EU?
Former Tory leader William Hague came over to the USA to discuss the UK joining NAFTA. I would be very happy with that.
Regards, Ivan
Me too. I think that may be a viable alternative for UK that many people on both sides of the pond would be happier with.
"We should in fact DEMAND that the EU have only one collective voice within the UN. Or else the USA should have 50."
Would that be wise?
At the moment there are two permanent members of the UN security council who are also EU members.
France and the UK.
France obviously tends not to support the US.
While the UK does support the US
If there was only one EU vote, do you think it would support or oppose the US?
Do you think the UK will pass the constitution?
" Would Blair ever considered joining the USA instead of the EU?"
Well, there would be the small matter of reinstating Her Majesty to her rightful position of head of state.
;o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.