Skip to comments.EU will take Britain's UN seat, says Hague
Posted on 07/20/2007 1:21:25 AM PDT by bruinbirdman
William Hague has attacked a "shocking" Government concession that will give a new European Union "foreign minister" the right to speak from Britain's seat on the United Nations Security Council.
The British government had claimed that powers for the EU foreign policy supremo, rechristened a High Representative, have been reduced and his UN role stripped from the new treaty.
However, an EU official confirmed: "We retain, except for the name of the minister, the Constitutional Treaty text of 2004 including the provisions on the UN.
"There is a provision which provides for the representative of the EU to state the position of the EU at the UN Security Council."
The Government had insisted that negotiations on the treaty had ensured that the British presence on the Security Council would never be replaced by an EU representative. However, the text provides for the British seat to be occupied by an EU minister when the bloc has a united position on issues.
Mr Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, has criticised Gordon Brown for allowing "one of the most damaging and important provisions in the rejected EU Constitution" to be resurrected after referendums by the French and Dutch two years ago voted against it.
"It would seriously compromise the independence of our foreign policy," he said. "It is shocking that the Government have yet again let this through and it totally destroys their claim that their so-called red line on foreign policy is effective."
Provisions, drawn word for word from the old constitution, giving the EU "foreign minister" speaking rights from Britain's and France's UN seats will be included in a draft treaty to be presented to a meeting of foreign ministers on Monday, diplomats have confirmed.
"When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those member states which sit on the Security Council shall request that the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs be asked to present the Union's position," the text states.
Unlike Europe's current foreign policy representative Javier Solana, the new "minister" will also be vice-president of the European Commission overseeing an EU diplomatic service, weakening direct control over the post by national governments.
"It is a big step towards the federalists' end goal: a United States of Europe in which we would be represented at the UN not by a British ambassador on the Security Council but by the EU foreign minister, which this new treaty has also taken from the constitution," said Mr Hague.
Speaking in Brussels this week, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the architect of the old constitution, mocked presentational spin over the "minister".
"The High Representative for Common Foreign and Security is one and the same as the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs," he said.
The issue is set to become a major stumbling block for efforts by Mr Brown, the Prime Minister, to deny a referendum on the EU Treaty.
"With provisions like this, there can be no question but that the new treaty would fundamentally transform the EU and is in effect the EU constitution in all but name, as Gordon Brown has admitted," said Mr Hague. "So the British people must be allowed the final say in the referendum they were promised."
Not that it matters anymore.
Goodbye, Old Europe - enjoy your Islamization and the sacking
of your countries by Germany and the EU.
Hello, Poland - the future.
I know there’s someone out there who has knowledge of the UN Charter —
Is it permitted, under the UN Rules and Procedures, for a nation to cede its place - and, presumably, its SC Veto - to another nation or entity?
Something very, very fishy here......
It happened when Taiwan lost its seat to China.
They HAVE been trying for some time, and Merkel has succeeded where Hitler and the others failed.
Of course, it doesn't matter anyhow as long as we have a president that stays strong and believes as most Americans do.
Where do you get these drugs ?
Ohhhh the evil germans took englands car industry and now they take their UN seat.
Didn’t God himself grant the english world dominance even if they sit on their lazy asses and keep innovations as far from tham as ever possible ?
To compare Merkel with Hitler shows a state of the mind that cries for strong medication - not for a cure but to keep it from imploding.
Well, the US has only one vote instead of fifty at the UN so the EU gettig one is only fair. Let those individual countries see how it feels...
This will essentially cripple defense of the west in the Security Council.
It is pretty raw behavior on the part of the government to try to deny its subjects at least a referendum when the question is that of ceding sovereignty to another state.
I don't think that anyone 100 years ago could have predicted how far that mighty empire on which the sun never sets would have fallen just a scant century later.
I guess no one should be surprised that Sir Winston Churchill's name is to be struck from the history curriculum in secondary schools in Britain.
Dismissing this with jocular language as if it were unworthy of concern is a mistake IMO.
It seems fair. Germany has beaten England. They HAVE been trying for some time, and Merkel has succeeded where Hitler and the others failed.Funny you say this. I was in college when the Berlin wall fell and studying international relations. Point was made about how every time Germany unified, they tried to take over other countries.
The constitution was rejected , so now they implement it by degree through treaties!
Theres a lesson to be learned here..if anyone is paying attention.....
If all was about facts and figures you were right.
But these hitler comparisons are choosen - let’s put it like that not because they are so practical and congruent with the news of the day.
In fact if england gave it’s seat to the EU it would be a honourable step away from colonialism - recognising human rights stand higher then british rights.
so I will keep on hating the guts of most people who easily throw in hitler or WWII comparisons...
like this guy here:
it should take france’s seat ...not britain’s!!!
The most important human rights that any nation is responsible for are those of it's own citizens. Relinquishing sovereignty and world standing is an absolute betrayal of that responsibility.
I must add that you completely lost me with that comment about Colonialism. Maintaining sovereignty is unrelated to colonialism. I will say though that the effort to instill an EU is in effect colonialism on a grand scale, not of undeveloped states in chaos, but of advanced states at the pinnacle of civilization.
The countries that have permanent seats on the Security Council are the countries that won WWII. That made sense at the time. it doesn’t make sense any more.
At the very least, the UNSC should add India and Brazil, maybe Japan. There should probably be permanent members from among the sane and stable nations of the Middle East and Africa ... as soon as there is one. Jordan is the only contender I can think of thr the ME, and South Africa is the closest thing to a stable force on that continent, which isn’t close enough.
I see a good argument for giving the EU a voice, but how the *&^% did they reach the solution of Britain giving its seat over to the EU while France keeps its seat?
Some of us are.
Weren’t we just talking about this? un-freaking-believable.
You do realize the real reason behind all this amnesty insanity is an EU style entity for North America? There is no other reasonable explanation.
“The most important human rights that any nation is responsible for are those of it’s own citizens. “
It’s about the security council - not about british matters.
Of course if you say that the security of this planet is more british, chineese or american business... then ours. But don’t complain next time you’re alone in Helmand !
(Actually I think more of the german army should be there - how about you ?)
So I guess giving this SC seat to the EU is a smart move because up to now the brits have lived quite succesfully by the principle of ‘divide et impera’.
Especially after their former colony over the atlantic tought them modesty.
If they now decide to let have poland, the netherlands or france or germany and the UK a voice in the SC it wouldn’t hurt british interests one bit but improve the british position in europe.
There are many of us that are quite aware that this is what is going on with the spp right here.
If you think it cannot happen, just look at the EU. They have ways around voters.
This incident is a perfect case study, isn’t it?
That you attack FReepers personally to protect
your vicious Germany just shows EXACTLY who you are.
Welcome to FReeRepublic, newbie-GermanMASTERofEngland.
Your logic is as twisted as the sickness that you
Germans used to exterminate people in the WW2.
The whole purpose of the EU was apparently to give you control
of England, because you could not beat them at War.
Hopefully, the Brits will wake up. Doubt it, though.
Many FReepers would be against a North American Union because of the amnesty. I would be against the amnesty because it helps to bring about a North American Union.
You bet. It is on the table for the USA.
And to think so many still believe it just couldn’t happen here.
Hey, you would be most welcome on some of the threads we’ve been frequenting lately- your personal witness of the control freaks’ progression in Europe is valuable. And many Freepers are in denial.
So I was on spot with my guess rofl.
France is a permanent member of the Security Council. There should be an EU seat to replace both the UK and France. Japan should have a seat along with India. Some thought should be given to removing Russia.
However, I noticed one thing that may be of great importance. A lot of people started out with conspiracy theories. This is probably wrong, and it is definitely the wrong way to go about it. Again to compare with the EU, there were a few people (Monnet, Salter etc) who you could call conspirators (very successful too), but quite early on they lost the power over the “project”. It was driven by mainstream politicians who just did not understand where it would lead.
Who cares that the Rome declaration of 1957 talked about “ever closer union”? Just words, words, but in real politics things like lower customs, “industrial politics” etc, that’s the meat and potatoe of the politics. Howeer, the path had been set, and with further unenlightened decisions the rot set in - but only much later did it have an effect on most people. By then too many politicians and too much prestige had been involved......and to put it frnakly, even today most politicians, let alone ordinary people, understand exactly what power the EU wields.
Unfortunately, those few who understood where the Coal and Steel Union, the EEC etc would lead, just overstated their case early on. The few sane voices, like the British parliamentarian Enoch Powell was ostracized because of his views on immigration. (Later developments have shown that he was more right than wrong on that question as well.)
Try to analyze the consequences (economical, legal, constitutional) of a North American Union rather than ascribing them to some evil intent.
And remember just because it is not a conspiracy it may still be very bad politics. And vice versa, bad politics help put bad people in power.
1972 - Ted Heath strongly advises the British people that we should join the ‘Common Market’. Ironically the Left is most against it.
May 1973 - Grocer Heath insists Britain’s future is within the CM, he INSISTS we join.
1st January 1974 - Britain joins the CM.
1st June 1975 - British public narrowly vote to stay in the CM following a rigged referendum.
No real difference until
31st October 1986 - Margaret Thatcher signs the Single European Act, enabling ‘closer economic and political cooperation’(!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????).Common Market renamed European Economic Community (EEC)
1st January 1992 - Maastricht Treaty enacted. A Single European Market is in force. EEC quietly renamed European Community. (EC).
November 1996 - EC now called the European Union. The European Central Bank now prints the first prototype Euro banknotes and coins. UK Conservatives split on the issue. Some voices warn of Britain ‘sleepwalking into a Federal Republic of Europe, the very entity we fought 2 World Wars to prevent’. Dismissed by Labour Opposition leader Tony Blair as ‘Right wing little Englanders.
1st May 1997 - Labour slaughters the divided Conservatives in the General Elections. 24 ours later Blair signs the European Social Chapter, giving special status to the usual racial and sexual minority groups, as well as laying extra bureaucratic burdens on Business.
1st January 2001 - 11 of the 15 member countries ditch their old currency for the Euro. Blair says Britain ‘will be left far behind’ if we keep the pound.
20th June 2001 - Conservatives are whipped again at the General Election. Liberal press and the BBC gloatingly blame ‘Europhobia’ ie. the cranky suggestion that we should have our own laws and freedoms.
29th May 2004. France rejects the proposed new European Constitution, as does Holland a few days later. Chancellor Gerhard Shroeder and his Foreign Minister Joska Fischer now referring to the EU as the European Federation.
2007 - everyting us English Nationalists predicted 30+ years ago is coming true. All 3 main UK parties remain committed to EU membership, despite us never having seen even ONE advantage.
Blame the Germans ?
Not their fault. Chancellor Schmidt said at the very beginning the long term desire is Nation called Europe, and not one British Party leader stood up to try and thwart it.
F*****g traitors. Our MPs should be rounded up and stuck in a barbed wire stockade for high treason.
Oh and one last thing, if Britain becomes a Federal European province I intend to take part in an armed struggle to free us. I don’t care who is reading this.
No, the EU would have two Security Council seats. France has one too.
While true in the EU, there have been no treaties or agreements signed on the SPP, it's all pie-in-the-sky lip-service. Yes, it would be wise to watch what happens, but I don't think we need to get too worried at this point. I think ScaniaBoy in post #34 hit the nail squarely on the head with his comment (and eloquently, I might add):
Try to analyze the consequences (economical, legal, constitutional) of a North American Union rather than ascribing them to some evil intent.
Thanks for posting. Very interesting. Great thread.
This is not good at all.
Building blocks, building block, step by step, our future too.
Yeah....the treaty seemed just FINE.
Unless you read the FINE print.
My comment was more towards the disparity of the numerous tin horn countries who are represented in the General Assembly compared to the US and our one vote.
Thanks for that reasonable view. I do believe that wild-eyed hype doesn’t help anyone, but neither does an assumption of innocence.
These are politicians after all, they are addicted to power over other people, and the use of other people’s money. Our founders knew this very well. A guarded suspicion is appropriate.
I don’t trust this government, the libs or the ‘conservatives’, any more. I learned everything I need to know with this last foray into amnesty.
I will remain in strident disagreement with you regarding the EU taking Britain’s Security Council seat. The EU disagrees with the US more times than not. Now you’re willing to advance it’s position at the risk of our own. This is not an act of stabalization. It will be destabalizing. It will further the cause of the muddy thinkers on the world stage. This would be a huge mistake. I encourage Britain to either demand to retain their seat or withdraw from the EU and keep it as a soverign nation. Otherwise they just as well accept mud puddle status and fold up shop. If so, our cause will suffer. Who has been our most strident ally on the Security Council? Care to guess?
The EU is in close partnership with the US - what are you talking about ?
So far the only disagreement I see was on the Iraqi Invasion.
Coudn’t you think of a scenario where Europe gets more british by this decision ?
so we have allready 2 ;-)
Any change that sees stong defenders of the West get short shrift in governing bodies, is a terrible change. Whether it be England being absorbed in the EU collective or the US into an AU situation, it silences objections or aspirations of clear thinking states.
Think of our relations with just about alll our neighbors in the North, Central and South America. Do we really want to dilute our will to (let’s say) one or two votes out of thirty to fifty?
How would we fight terrorism under these constraints? The absorbtion of England or the US into a large governing body without individual will would be a suicidal move.
Economics is not the most important thing in the world. Survival and free reign to implement military action when necessary without getting permission is an absolute, never to be bargained away.
Are such moves as the EU or the AU a conspiracy? Let’s say they are not (being overly charitable). Even without there being a conspiracy the implementation would be just as destructive to self determination.
Not just no, HELL NO to the EU and most certainly an AU. No way, not now not ever! EVER!!!!
How much money is the EU sending to Israel? The answer of course is not one dime. However it does send hundreds of millions to a group of people who have sworn to destroy Israel. If that doesn’t tell you all you need to know about the EU, that’s too bad. It really should.
The EU equates the Palestinians and Israel equally (at least that’s what they say), but they never give Israel the breaks.
What demands has the EU made upon the Palestinians to give up something for peace? The answer is none. Still the EU constantly demand Israel give up land or come to terms with terrorist organizations. Israel is not my only litmus test, but it sure does lay the EU out for all to see.
The EU is reluctant to take measures against Iran. They are reluctant to take measures against terrorists. They are moving more and more people from terrorist states inside their countries to the point that they cannot think problems out clearly.
The EU is dead set against England’s and our actions in Iraq. They don’t contribute and thwart our moves when possible. Is this what we want in an ally? Do we really want to silence England’s voice on the Security Council?
I sure don’t.
Why would you think giving the governing body of the EU Britain’s seat on the Security Council would make the Security Council more like Britain?
In political terms, the liquid body of the EU and the liquid body of Britain are not soluable. You could mix them, but the fact is, Britain would still drop out to the bottom over time. The EU is muddle headed. They can’t even defend their own states let alone the collective. Take a look at France. It watches as groups riot within it’s borders unable to take decisive action that will defend the nation. It’s tragic really. Now we want to allow it and other states to steal Britain’s Security Council seat.
The EU become more like Britain? Not a chance...