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."
Are you familiar with Agenda 21? If not, click on my name.
I just quickly scanned something on it with wikipedia (granted, it’s not a very accurate source of info, but it game me an inkling as to what it concerns). I will read your homepage....later today concerning that. I’ve got to quit playing on here for now....things to attend. Thanks for the headsup re the info. on it; I’ll definitely read it.
You’re welcome. See ya when you get back. :)
I’ll never understand why nations commit suicide.
imho it's simple. Money = power = control.
I am of the opinion that nations do not commit suicide, the leaders of those countries do it for them while the people under them allow it because they are to busy living their lives that they are giving up. Then one day, POOF, their sovereignty is gone and they are just one of the ants.
“How much money is the EU sending to Israel? The answer of course is not one dime.”
As a german I can tell you - that’s wrong. The size of military help and cooperation between germany and israel is enormous.
We gave them second strike ability and they hardly payed for it.
The german army just ordered several hundreds of mine-proof transport vehicles - for what do you think ?
If you followed the debate about meassures against terror in germany you’d see that one part of germany is systematicaly peparing the other for a prolonged war.
10 years down the river germany wasn’t even able to conduct a simple mission outside it’s borders - if you see where we’ve come from the changes are enormous. Yesterday sending a field lazarett was an outrageous thing to do for our people today we are part of OEF and getting involved more and more.
But if we have to take these risks - we want to sit at the table if decisions are up to be made.
Fair enough ?
I appreciate your response. It is good to hear that Germany does provide more help to Israel than I hear about. It still does not help to read article after article from Europe taking Israel to task for it’s actions, then note that the Palestinians get a pass from similar condemnations.
I asked you what the Palestinians had been asked to give in the conquest for peace. Has the EU asked them to give up land? Has it asked them to turn in all arms? Has it asked them to stop demonizing Israel in it’s press? Has it asked them to stop teaching children in grade schools that Jews are sub-human and to prepare for killing them at every opportunity? Has it demanded that surface to surface missile launches be stopped? The answer is no. Israel is asked to give up land or the administration of land and the Palestinians are free from demands.
Monetary support still pours in for the Palestinians from the EU. Not one request is made for the Palestinians to stop what they do, but support still pours in. For this reason I cannot accept on face value your claim that the EU is a serious supporter of Israel.
Look, I don’t hold the US guiltless on this either. We berated Israel until it allowed self-rule in Gaza. So did you guys. What did that buy the world? Hamas took control and now Israel puts up with tens to hundreds of missiles pouring down on it’s territory every day.
When Israel makes incursions to eliminate terrorist cells trying to reduce the missile attacks, they get condemned for it. Frankly, I’m sick of it. The EU would go crazy if Israel fired missiles into the Gaza Strip every day. You know it and I know it. Despit this, the EU remains silent on the subject as long as the Palestinians are doing the same thing to Israel.
During the rule of Yasser Arafat, the Palestinians spent decades calling for and planning for the destruction of Israel carrying out terrorist attacks at will. During this time the European nations and later the EU send billions of dollars into the Palestinian territories without a single enforced demand. Why is that, if the EU is as pro-Israel as you claim?
And please explain why the effort by Israel to build a wall between the Palestinian territories and itself was so demonized by the EU, when it was nearly eliminating mass suicide bombings against it?
On about a monthly basis Israel is compared to the NAZIs with regard to it’s treatment of the Palestinians. Frankly I have never heard it claimed once that the Palestinians were like NAZIs despite their announced goal to destroy Israel and all it’s inhabitants. Has Israel EVER proclaimed a goal of destroying all the Palestinians?
Europe has a long way to go before it can be trusted with a collective Security Council seat. And when it gets that seat, IF EVER, it should not come at the expense of the most pro-Israel state amongst you. It should come at the expense of France which has become a very disgusting player on the world stage. As for Germany, I don’t frankly see it as much better. You folks have been the major European players and yet there is still no recognition that the Palestinians have behaved evily and that terrorists must be confronted and eliminated.
How many troops does the EU have in Iraq? None the less the EU wants a Security Council seat. The EU is a laughing stock when it comes to world stability. Iran has long range missiles that could reach Europe and is about to turn into a Nuclear state, if it hasn’t already. None the less, Europe will not join an effort to isolate Iran and destroy it’s nuclear programs.
Do you guys deserve a seat at the table. LOL, you’ve got to be kidding. You can’t even be counted on to defend yourselves and you want a voice in defending us. What a joke.
For some reason the EU as become a hot-bed of anti-US sentiment. Frace’s most recent leader was incredibly anti-US. Take their seat if you can get it. France should be more than willing to give it’s seat up. The EU seems to be of a single mind these days.
Of all the seats to take, you folks have zeroed in on the only power on the continent that stood up and rescued the rest of Europe twice. And now-a-days the EU sounds as anti-US as it ever has.
Why is it that you folks can’t offer more troops and funding for the war in Iraq that is designed to save us all grief down the road?
Give the EU a seat at the Security Council? Uh, no thanks. You folks need to be able to walk before you can run.
You take no responsibility and demand command. Bull s—t.
“You take no responsibility and demand command. Bull st.”
...but you see that these belong together. That’s a start.
The EU hasn’t manifested any aptitude for leadership including but not limited to it’s own federation.
A Security Council seat now would be on a par with giving one to Venezuela.
“Its been 55 years plus since WWII and you folks havent demonstrated on the world stage that you have learned much of anything from the experience.”
That’s true - but we surely made more sense to the world then the british.
Perhaps to yourselves, but not the world.
That’s possible - but that doesn’t necessarily mean that I am wrong and the world is right.
...nor the reverse.
There's a little more to it than merely stating the EU's position. A permanent member of the UNSC also has veto authority over propositions before the Council. The significance to this isn't so much the participation of the EU in this regard - France, after all, enjoys that prerogative - but the fact that Great Britain wouldn't be able to use hers.
Well, no one can say Chirac isn't up front about the whole thing. "Gloating" might be a more accurate term.
Colonialism. How cliche.
How many colonies do the British actually have these days? I believe the French still maintain quite a few.
Here’s a better idea. Let every European nation that invaded another sovereign European nation, without provocation, during the 20th Century sit down and STFU.
UK - wanna chime in?
“Let every European nation that invaded another sovereign European nation, without provocation, during the 20th Century sit down and STFU.”
Gets my vote.
Imagine a nation with the history of Germany taking another nation to task over colonialism. I don’t remember Britain pledging to exterminate any races and other sub-categories and doing about half the job before being interrupted by force.
Honestly, how quickly some forget! And the idea that France should keep it’s seat and Britain should lose their’s is unconcionable.
THe French Republic also holds a seat on the Security Council last I checked. Why does the European Union not take over the French seat rather than the British seat? Did France win some war (ever) and win double representation through the peace treaty? France suffered humiliating defeat even by its own standards and consequent virtual obliteration during the last major European war while Britain survived, regrouped, and mustered the resolve to ally with America and rescue France from the evil Nazi regime.
So will France now surrender its Security Council seat? India could use a seat given its enormous population, historic civilization, military prowess, and large economy. And why not Japan? Why does Russia today warrant a seat but not Japan?
Ok it’s a Cliché
As yous aid they don’t have any colonies these days and I guess they consider it part of their british attitude - make collonies companions.
So to ‘pool the seat’ would be an excellent fit into that developement.
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.