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."
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...
You’re absolutely right IMO.
Yes we were. ‘un’-freaking-believable bump!
nic, you know how I feel about the un, and what I think their end game agenda is. It’s situations like this where I feel I’m right.
I have never disagreed with you about what their agenda is, or what their end game is. On that, we’re BOTH right, : )
Anyone who doesn't see the un as a direct threat to our sovereignty, doesn't want to.
Odd that france gets to keep their seat when they are part of the eu as well. Somethings rotten in the state of Denmark.
Yeah. And, btw, 2nd time today Agenda 21’s been posted to me.