Regards, Ivan
Posted on 12/06/2002 11:45:54 AM PST by MadIvan
Britain could be expelled from the European Union if it refuses to accept a fully-fledged European government with powers to launch military or police actions on British soil, according to a draft constitution unveiled by Brussels yesterday.
Any government which accepted this would be immediately disposed of by the electorate - Ivan
The new proposals, secretly drawn up by Romano Prodi, the European Commission president, call for the total abolition of the national veto to prevent policy paralysis after the arrival of 10 new states in 2004.
Utter confusion reigned in Brussels yesterday after Mr Prodi astounded his own top lieutenants by unveiling the plans alongside a separate, less radical text approved by all 20 Commissioners, including Neil Kinnock and Chris Patten.
That document, entitled "Peace, Freedom, Solidarity", was the Commission's formal set of proposals for the Convention on the Future of Europe, which is drafting an EU constitution for an enlarged Europe of 25, 30 or even 35 states.
A federalist wish-list that will alarm Downing Street, it includes an EU foreign secretary operating from the Commission headquarters, a powerful European Parliament with a full say on all EU laws, and a Commission president elected by MEPs.
But the document pales beside the revolutionary 145-page text thrown into the mix by Mr Prodi.
Codenamed "Operation Penelope", it was drafted in total secrecy by a five-man cell under François Lamoureux, the former deputy chief of staff of Jacques Delors, the former Commission president. Mr Patten and Mr Kinnock were not told about it until late this week, and were said to be fuming at the attempt to slip through proposals for a fully-fledged European superstate, ostensibly under the Commission imprimatur, without their assent.
The text, billed as the "Constitution of the European Union", proposes abolishing the national veto in every area of policy including foreign policy, the setting of "European taxes", and future constitutional amendments. The only exception would be the admission of new member states.
A new "Secretary of the European Union" based at the European Commission headquarters would take charge of foreign policy, representing the EU at the United Nations in an attempt to turn the EU into a "world power".
It envisages a military alliance with a mutual defence guarantee along the lines of Nato's Article V, and able to "launch and conduct military operations" beyond its territory.
Brussels should have powers to intervene with force in the domestic affairs of member states in cases of "serious internal disturbances affecting the maintenance of law and order", as long as it was done in a spirit of "solidarity".
The Charter of Fundamental Rights, viewed by the Government as a serious threat to Britain's legal system, should be fully incorporated as a legally-binding text under the jurisdiction of a new "Supreme Court".
Those states "not able to accept the new constitutional system" would face expulsion from the Union under a "special status". The aim is to prevent a repetition of the first Irish referendum on the Nice Treaty, when one state was able to block advances towards greater integration.
The expelled state would be able to negotiate an agreement safeguarding its "existing arrangements" as an EU member, retaining trading privileges as an "associate country", along the lines of Norway. Once a country accepts the new arrangement, it could not leave the EU when it wishes.
A British official dismissed his proposals as preposterous. "It's patently not going to happen. No treaty changes can take place without the unanimous approval of all member states, and none are going to vote for their own expulsion. It's legally impossible."
But "Operation Penelope" has already thought of this. Recalcitrant countries would be "deemed to have left the Union" under an automatic trigger once five-sixths of the EU states agreed to the constitution.
The authors claim this is "in conformity with international law" since the expelled states would be in the position of having "declined to assert" their EU rights.
Mr Prodi said his secret text, which was released on the Commission website last night, was just a "simulation exercise" to help people understand what an EU constitution might look like. It had "no official status".
But EU diplomats suspected that a hard-core group of federalists around Mr Prodi was trying to force the pace. While they are unlikely to win many of their key demands, there are signs that the Convention is moving much further in the federalist direction than Britain had originally predicted.
Regards, Ivan
Best from Houston...
They create a "Growth and Stability" pact and couch it in huge rhetoric about how this is going to bring prosperity to Europe. The reality is that there is neither growth nor stability in most of the Euro zone.
The entire EU adventure is so disconnected from reality you have to wonder if it was made up by a bunch of French and German university students who got drunk together.
Regards, Ivan
Then, maybe we could scrap NAFTA and NATO and form a US/UK/Canada/Australia/NZ trade/defense bloc. Birds of a feather should flock together! We are natural allies, since we are all kin, after all.
They can't even agree on the size of the table to sit at to discuss what to do next.
I thoroughly agree an alliance of English speaking nations should be pursued in the aftermath. Let the Germans and French talk themselves to death.
Regards, Ivan
Your comment: "The entire EU adventure is so disconnected from reality you have to wonder if it was made up by a bunch of French and German university students who got drunk together" points me to this gem from Steyn:
"You’ll recall Louis Michel, the Belgian foreign minister, insisting late last year that the European Rapid Reaction Force ‘must declare itself operational without such a declaration being based on any true capability’. As the Washington Post remarked, ‘Apparently in Europe this works.’
"Asked to set up an actual operational Rapid Reaction Force, most Nato members bristled: the cost would divert valuable resources from social programmes and might mean they’d have to cut back on welfare payments to Islamic terrorists."
Isn't this choice? Even the Washington Post marveled at the lunacy...
Hahaha - in the immortal words of Miss Shirley Bassey, "it's all just a little bit of history repeating". Who will be the British Robert E. Lee? ;)
No idea. I wonder if Mrs. Thatcher will go down as sort of being our John Calhoun, however. I certainly believe in "Nullification" in this instance.
Regards, Ivan
Having been a fervent Euro-Federalist, he can now say,
"Oops ... those crazy Euros have now gone too far ... never trusted the foreign bastards anyway! Besides they are no where near as tough as they ought to be on these Terrorists, which I and my bosom buddy, George Bush are busy fighting, so you ordinary yobbos better vote Labour for the rest of your lives, which are in my hands."
Thanks to OBL and these EU Wonks, this slippery little twit will use one cunnnig stunt after another to remain Prime Minister until I'm in the Happy Hunting Grounds ...dammit!
Anyway, you can tell your lefty neighbors - sorry, neighbours ;) - that this would mean the loss of a seat on the UN Security Council. Maybe that'll get 'em moving against this...
Yes, Tony Blair.
Anyway, you can tell your lefty neighbors - sorry, neighbours ;) - that this would mean the loss of a seat on the UN Security Council. Maybe that'll get 'em moving against this...
Many on the far left are opposed to the EU - Tony Benn, for example, as he feels that the EU is "too capitalist", of all things.
Regards, Ivan
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.