Skip to comments.Here's what Gordon Brown is surrendering by signing EU treaty[UK]
Posted on 12/16/2007 11:20:57 AM PST by BGHater
When we saw Mr Brown emerging from his surreptitious signing of this treaty, we should have been under no illusions as to the significance of what he has set his hand to.
This was the day when our country finally abandoned any pretence to exist in its own right in the world or to run its own affairs.
More than ever, we are to become just a small, subordinate part of this highly questionable new entity which is already in the process of changing our lives - as through its insistence on virtually unlimited immigration - in ways which even ten years ago would have seemed unthinkable.
The fact that we have been denied the right to pronounce on whether we want it or not makes this arguably the most shameful betrayal in our island history.
It was no accident that the document Mr Brown signed yesterday was originally called a "Constitution", because it does mark a further very significant step towards what was always intended to be the ultimate goal of that process - the emergence of the EU as a fully-fledged government in its own right, as a direct counterpart, for instance, to the United States of America.
More obviously than ever before the nations making up what they now like to call just the "Union" will be simply provinces of a "country called Europe" with ever less power to run our own affairs.
So what are ten of the most obvious ways in which this treaty will change our lives irrevocably?
1 For a start, the treaty will make us more formally than before "citizens of the European Union".
For years we have carried "European Union passports"
But now we are to become citizens of this "Union" before anything else - just as the inhabitants of Texas are above all American citizens - with rights and duties overriding those attaching to our subordinate role as citizens of Britain.
2One of the most conspicuous ways in which this "country called Europe" will project itself on the world stage, and to us as its citizens, is that it will for the first time have a permanent President, a powerful figurehead in office for up to five years.
We shall not yet be allowed to choose that President ourselves - he or she will be chosen for us by the "heads of government", the 27 prime ministers making up the European Council - but there will soon be pressure for "our" new President to be elected by all the "Union's" 490million "citizens".
3Alongside him will be the EU's foreign-minister - the so-called "High Representative" - parading on the world stage as the 'Union's' chief international spokesman.
He will have his own diplomatic corps and worldwide embassies, intended gradually to replace those of individual countries such as Britain - and he will be able to exercise the further new right given by the treaty empowering the Union to make any kind of international treaty in our name.
4The "Cabinet" of this new government will be the European Council - which is given a wholly new status by the treaty, with its members placed under a wholly new obligation - to put the objectives of the Union above those of their own country.
So when Gordon Brown or his successors attend future Council meetings, they will not do so representing Britain's interests but as servants of the "Union"
5Remembering that power to propose-EU laws is already exercised solely by the unelected European Commission, another innovation is that for the first time each country will no longer have the right to be represented by its own Commissioner.
That means that, on occasions, laws affecting all our lives will be put forward entirely by officials from other countries.
6The new treaty greatly extends the powers of the unelected Brussels government to dictate laws and policies overriding the wishes of elected national parliaments - although in some cases it has already been exercising those powers even before the treaty is signed.
7The treaty will, for example, give a huge boost to setting up a "Common Defence Policy", based on interlocking all our armed forces and defence industries so that it becomes impossible for any country to act independently.
8The EU-wide police forces will not be far behind.
This week our Foreign Secretary was unable to deny that we might one day see armed Romanian or Latvian policemen of the EU Gendarmerie Force, already taking shape, operating on the streets of Britain.
9The treaty will set up a "Common Energy Policy", making it impossible-for Britain to act independently in looking after its own national needs, just when this is becoming more critical than ever before.
10Another very serious threat to Britain's interests - as yet another City think-tank was warning this week - lies in the new opportunities the treaty will give our "partners" to introduce intrusive and politicallymotivated financial regulations which would undermine the one area of economic strength in which we still reign supreme: All those banking and financial services centred on the City on which all our national prosperity ultimately depends.
On the dotted line: Gordon Brown signing the Treaty of Lisbon yesterday
he looks like a zombie
it's much later than it seems.
this is how a country is taken over. well, one way. it's happening in a slightly different way "across the pond."
11. The EU will decide if Britain will remain a US ally
Bloodshed is their only way out now.
Will be good evidence at his treason trial.
This will be about as effective as The Articles of Confederation.
Either something is a country, or it’s not.
These guys just don't get it. The US Constitution was written by American Patriots from all the states. It was agreed to by elected representatives and ratified by the states, with due process.
This "constitution," a 200 page document that no one can understand, was written up by a bunch of French cheeses, several times rejected by the people, including the French, and then signed by a bunch of elitists without any popular mandate or parliamentary ratification.
The only word for it is bogus. It's goodbye to representative government for the people of Europe. They don't even have an Emperor whom they can hold responsible for errors, and who might have a conscience and a sense of Christian duty. Instead, they have a gang of faceless, unelected bureaucrats, who cannot be voted out and are not answerable to anyone.
The United States of Europe this is NOT.
There are I believe now 4 threads here on this. It's the only place I have seen it.
No major news outlet is covering or even mentioning it. All we get is baseball steroids and snow reports, there is no way its being "simply" missed, its by design.
Brittain only has 2 options . Take to the street and protest in mass or if that doesn't work blood in the streets.
It really is a huge moment for the world, will Brittain be Brittain or will it fall.
Pod person, taken over by the same body snatchers that ate GWB's brain.
These illegal aliens have been taking over the world, ever since Roswell.
Remembering that power to propose-EU laws is already exercised solely by the unelected European Commission, another innovation is that for the first time each country will no longer have the right to be represented by its own Commissioner.
Europeons are kidding themselves if they think that one day they will elect this "president, or this "Council". They will remain the apointee's of the elite who in keeping with their UN goal of global governance by the liberal/Marxist elite- Will have the sole power to appoint these puppets figures.
The UK has finally done it. Signing that Agreement was the kiss of death for what was known (it no longer is an "is") as the UK)
What force or guile could not subdue
Through many warlike ages
Is wraught now by a coward few
For hireling traitor's wages
Come to think of it, the UK never really was the “citizens” country anyways, it was the Queens. They always were only subjects.
Maybe the queen will wake up and realize her kingdom has been stolen from under her, and ask her subjects to rally in defence of her kingdom... Fat chance. Charles will be happy just being a member of the permanent elite and a key to the UN’s wine cellar which of course will have all the finest wines confiscated from all those Europeon countries they just gained rule over.
Make yourself a sheep and you’ll find no lack of wolves
I don't think you're exaggerating.
Like the handing over of the Panama Canal or Hong Kong, the media is complicit by ommission.
The riot-gear business must be freaking booming.
I'm sure this will be reflected in the UN - and Security Council - as soon as the papers are signed....No?
More like 600 pages......that's some heavy tome he is signing into.
Is the last 2/3 the "clarifying" waeasel words....or is the first third the "pre-amble"....
In any case is too long by far.
He is not sovereign over England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland.
Hang onto that picture. I have a hunch it just might attain the notoriety of the Chamberlain “Peace In Our Time” photo - and for the same reason.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Sir Winston Churchill.
maybe Mr. brown read this too much.
It's probably like any other modern instruction manual:
"Teh furst of tree thirdiths are Englisher; hte secondest fo tree thirdiths are Francey; lustiest of tree thirdits insert to Spanners."*
*Printed in China
“I’m sure this will be reflected in the UN - and Security Council - as soon as the papers are signed....No?”
That’s what I have been wondering. Now that Britain and France have signed this treaty, thereby effectively eliminating their national sovereignty, they should no longer hold seats as iondepednent nations on the UN Security Council, nor should they be able to have an indepednent vote in any UN process. The EU will have one vote, just as the US has one vote and the USSR had one vote when it was in existence. The UN Security Council should now be the US, China, Russia, the EU, and India.
some time ago there was a discussion about this in EU. that britain and france should give their UN seat to the EU. but i lost track. don´t know if this is still up to date. but it would make sense. Eu allready uses the french or the british veto in the UN . i wouldn´t make a difference if EU would veto it down or if the EU tells france to veto it down.
Well, yes. China is already on the Security Council. How are you going to kick it off?
“There will always be an England!” How wonderfully assuring that motto was, and how badly it has been betrayed by none other than the Brits.
I may be wrong, but I always thought that the USSR was allowed votes for all of its constituent parts...Did they really only have one?
“There will always be the province of Old England, the province of Old Scotland, and the province of Old Wales, and the province of Northern Ireland.” Let us hope they retain their local flavor for the tourist trade.
“I may be wrong, but I always thought that the USSR was allowed votes for all of its constituent parts...Did they really only have one?”
No, the Soviet Union had its own vote. Ukraine didn’t have its own vote, nor did Chechnya (for two examples of Soviet “Republics”). None of the so-called Soviet republics had their own vote in the UN until they seceded and/or the USSR dissolved.
Then there is not much difference to the American constitution. This new treaty was written by Europeans from all current nations. Then it was signed by elected heads of states that acted as representatives of their voters.
The problem might be that we Europeans copied too much from America. I.e. the representative democracy, which is for sure not the best system after all. There are far better alternatives like the Swiss direct democracy.
I know. The truth is hurting sometimes.
I see you drink the “I am God” snob koolaid. When do you get your cut of the money from the masses of the “little people” who rejected this?
Your assertion is simply, flatly untrue.
This new treaty was written by Europeans from all current nations. Then it was signed by elected heads of states that acted as representatives of their voters.
No, they did not "act" as representatives of their voters, they simply "posed" as representatives. They actually "acted" in defiance to and contrary to the wishes of their people.
This is definitely wrong. They are indeed the representatives of the people who gave them majorities in the national votes. Because of the national constitutions those representatives have the duty to protect the national interests and to decide about such matters. Since a EU membership is in the direct interest of practically all European nations, the practical decision for the European leaders is easy. Democracy is a relative concept. Such contrary concepts like communist "democratic centralism" and direct democracy are labeled as democracy. Many people in the western word are in the dumb belief that their own national concept would be the one that provides the maximal possible freedom, although such simplification is usually wrong. Due to the fact that we Europeans (btw. just like you Americans) do not have the better direct democracies fixed in our constitutions (except of Switzerland) we are forced to live and work with the existing body. Direct democracy would delegate the decision about such fundamental matters directly to the sovereign, the people of a nation. In a imperfect representative democracy the decision about those matters is given to the elected representatives. Exactly this happened in Europe concerning the new EU treaty.
You see - all of us still have to work and fight for more freedom. BTW - do not be offened. I know that the United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law. Things are complex, but i.e. the decision whether a comparable treaty would be signed or not by the US lies in the hands of your president as the representative of your people. Therefore your system would not be better in this concern than the systems in Europe.
As I said - freedom and democracy are relative concepts.
More European solutions in all concerns are from my point of view simply a basic exigence. You may think different here, but the practical needs within Europe are facts and can not be delayed just because we are unable to find perfect national solutions for democracy. This means we have to deal with the existent structures. It might be possible that there are areas in Europe that are not that dependent to a greater Europe like the quarter I live in. We Germans in the south-west are closely interwoven with the Swiss, the Austrians and the French in all concerns. Our neighbors are ethnically closer to us than i.e. Germans from Berlin or Magdeburg. The German national concept does not fit into our needs anymore. Therefore it is quite logical to us to look over the boarders. Believe it or not but within western Europe there are indeed majorities for a closer relationship. The thing is that most people there are afraid of the Europeans from the east and their impact on our societies. The recent vote against the EU-constitution in France i.e. was more a vote against Chirac and his plan to associate the Turks.
The EU gives me open boarders, a common currency and the right to vote i.e. in other European countries if I have my residence there. Furthermore we established a powerful common market that makes us far more independent from other nations than we ever were before. More than 50% of the German exports go to other European countries. Furthermore we were able to find European solutions to reestablish large scale industries and technologies what would have been impossible for a sole nation. Airbus, ESA, EADS, Eurofighter, GALILEO or ARIANE might not be in the interest of the US, but they are for sure in our well understood own interest of European nations. I could extend this list for hours but I am aware that such is not political correct in a conservative US forum. ;)
The EU as a direct counterpart to the US: That was the whole point of it, after all. The US is so 'big' and 'bad', and the whole world is so afraid of us, that Europe wanted to merge all their separate powers into one big superpower, just to be able to contend with us. I don't know whether to feel sorry for them or not. We're obviously the whole reason for the EU's existence. This obviously has bad ramifications for us, specific ramifications that we are unaware of at this time. It also has bad ramifications for them (being overrun by the Muslim hordes, for one). But the European nations were willing to give up their sovereignty in order to become a superpower, to be able to match our power. That's why nations are clamoring to get in to the EU. It's sad, for the individual nations' loss of power, and for the eventual Muslim takeover (that's the way I think it's headed). I feel more sorry for them, at this point, than I do for us. When the US and the EU start having clashes, then I'm sure that will change.
The Ukranian SSR and the Byelorussian (sp) SSR as well as the USSR each had a vote in the General Assembly. Stalin insisted on getting three votes at the UN. He may have wanted all the “republics” to get one and got bargained down to only three, but he did get extra votes.
“The EU gives me open boarders, a common currency and the right to vote i.e. in other European countries if I have my residence there.”
But why does the EU have to involve itself in domestic issues of the member states like abortion and immigration?
Why can’t the EU simply be an economic entity that protects against free trade from outside the bloc, why does it have to be a political union?
The over zealous regulations over domestic issues is what makes Americans wonder why Continental Europeans think the EU is a good thing. An economic union makes more sense in the view of Americans.
I thought the Ukraine had something akin to an “amicus” vote, but not a recognized independent vote. I’ll have to go back to my history books to check on that.
When I was a kid (in the 50s) we’d sometimes get sets of flags of UN nations. They included the flags of Ukraine and Byelorussia—as I recall, they looked like the USSR flag with some kind of design on the bottom or side. When I asked why “Russia” got three votes and we only got one, the teacher’s reply was something like “because it is so big”. In high school I was told that Stalin insisted on extra votes as a price for the USSR’s joining the UNhe felt that his side would lose every vote. Remember, this happened before most of the ‘third world’ were independent and had seats in the UN.
Why should the EU restrict itself to economic issues without any need? I have no problem with the fact that my own nation, Germany, will loose many of its responsibilities to Europe. The old national model is somehow outdated. The national boarders do not reflect the internal coherence of the people. I am living in southern Germany. My neighbors in Austria, Switzerland or France are ethnically much closer to me than someone from Berlin i.e.. Half of my family is living in France. Beside of that I speak fluent French, German and a little bit English (Hehe! - Latin does not count here ;) ). People from Alsace-Lorraine are for sure as important for me than the people from the Uckermark, the area in north-east Germany where chancellor Merkel is coming from.
A European Union just reflects the realities. It is rather a problem that some political dinosaurs fail to give up their national power.
The over zealous regulations over domestic issues is what makes Americans wonder why Continental Europeans think the EU is a good thing.
What Americans might not know is that the inconsistent and overdrawn national regulations are usually the problem. My mother i.e. owns a small factory for sanding blocks. She is exporting to all European countries. We saved trunkloads of money after the idiotic national laws for import were replaced by European legislation. Common European rules are a basement for success.
But why does the EU have to involve itself in domestic issues of the member states like abortion and immigration?
Even with such issues like abortion or immigration it does not make any sense to solve them on a national base in Europe.
If abortion i.e. is banned in Germany after a certain point in time (12th week after start of pregnancy), a woman who want to get rid of her baby simply has to catch a train for the Netherlands. They make it anytime (by law until the 22nd week - practically...) and anywhere. This does not make any sense to me.
Isn't it better to kick out illegal immigrants on the boarders of the EU instead of giving them the possibility to utilize the differences of European national laws?
We Europeans need to be better organized than in the past. The ridicolous national concepts are outdated and not sustainable. Therefore we need the European Union. It is indispensable. The points were discussion is badly needed are the future legitimation of the EU (European parliament etc.) and the values that it shall stand for.
Nope. Being a political or military superpower is neither effective nor desirable for us Europeans. Why? It would require huge investments into defense if we should enable us to project power. You Americans have to spend billions and bazillions and last but not least thousands of American lives for maintaining your superpower status. Projecting power means lots of conflicts in areas far from our real interest zones. We Europeans can live with a defense that is suitable for our continental needs.
In economical regard the EU is already a superpower. The US has a GDP (purchasing power parity) of $13.06 trillion (2006 est.)and a real growth rate of 2.9% (2006 est.) while the European Union as a whole has a GDP of $13.08 trillion (2006 est.)and a real growth rate of 3.2% (2006 est.) (source: CIA-factbook). That means we already have a slightly bigger economy in Europe than in the US. Nevertheless much has to be done. We have i.e. great differences in per capita income among member states (from $7,000 to $69,000). Therefore you will feel our main efforts rather in our own backyard than in animosity with the US.
This American blahblah about Eurabia is quite ridicolous from our side of the big pond. Most muslims in Europe are social underdogs with practically no education. They are simply far too dumb and for sure not enough to build up a "caliphate". 3.7% of the German population are Muslims from Turkey i.e.. If they should try they would loose their welfare check immediately. As far as I know you Americans have also your problems with your minorities. Maybe you remember the L.A. riots in 1992. The damage and the blood toll there was higher than the one in the recent riots in Paris i.e..