It´s finally time to make a post on the post-Lisbon Treaty full ratification era, albeit one long overdue.
What´s the name of our new EU President again? Van Rumpey? Rumpole of the "new" Old Bailey? Oh, indeed not, damn, it´s actually Van Rompuy! How dare I begin my post with such an error and terrible example of British ignorance to the European project! Well, I might as well keep the error now; it sounds rather funny, and if we can´t keep our humour through these troubled and disturbing times, we have little else!
It has taken me some time to get over the shock of the sudden reversal of the Vaclav Klaus´s decision to fight the Lisbon Treaty. Granted, the overwhelming collective might of the 26 might have been too much, but I fear we lost a perfect and unique opportunity to expose this project for what it is. Not unless Vaclav Klaus is complicit to the project, as conspiracy theorists would claim. I won´t venture there but will try to stick to certain facts.
Let´s examine some of them. He is an ardent Euro-sceptic. He could have fought this until the day they impeached him, thereby exposing the project. Only he truly knows the reason for turning his back on his own principles. We can judge him for that hypocrisy only - in all other things he had no obligation, and thus I´ll reiterate, as I have done before, that we cannot blame Klaus for the fact that Britain has signed away even more of its sovereignty.
The deed is done. The Treaty of Lisbon amending previous Treaty texts, essentially bringing the rejected constitution into reality, comes into force on December 1st. Another sad day just around the corner - the good thing however is that being a Tuesday and close to final exams, I´ll be too busy preparing those and observing World Aids Day to worry too much about the Treaty entering into effect. I won´t need it splashed all over the papers in my face - I´ll quietly contemplate the defining moment; the death of large tracts of British political ideology and culture, in a more tranquil setting, from far far away.
Ushering in the Treaty, we saw the appointment of the new EU President and High Representative (a.k.a. Foreign Minister) yesterday. I am ready to comment on the whole saga. I am glad that those who argued for a Chairman´s role for the President as supposed to global showman won that argument. But to be honest there were evils to be had everywhere. Let´s mention them in turn:
a) By opting for a Chairman´s role for the President, this is surely, to borrow the wonderful headline from an article today in The Independent, the
"path to least resistance." Typical EU strategy - condition people to getting used to the situation slowly; the big boys come later.
b) Choosing a President from a small country as supposed to a large one keeps smaller states in line. Belgium is most deserving, as the state that turned itself over to the EU from the beginning, and as the state that could become the sovereign EU if its national government continues along its current path of instability. Is it really crazy to imagine? Sovereign territory is all we need - Belgium would make the perfect Washington D.C., or Mexico D.F. This was a spontaneous thought that occurred to me late last night - and it certainly doesn´t hurt to consider all possibilities - let´s wait for the evidence to manifest itself.
c) The new EU President is a federalist - it couldn´t have been otherwise.
d) France and Germany showed that they still run the show behind the scenes. They got their man, unlike when they didn´t get their Belgian man Verhofstadt to succeed Prodi as Commission President in 2004.
d) The British position - Blair was impossible in the end because the UK is not a member of the Euro or Schengen area. What I find most curious is that there appears to have been the eternal assumption that one of the two jobs would go to the British. Why was this so? If the two jobs are to be shared between small and large states, why were contenders from other large countries not ever taken seriously? The British media spoke a foregone conclusion, and they were right to do so.
I personally believe that the perfect way to keep a Euro-sceptic nation glued to the EU project, especially when one considers the likely entrance of a Euro-sceptic British government in 2010, to be to appoint one of its countrymen to the heart of the project. Europhiles are now rejoicing at the increased British influence and voice at the heart of the EU; I actually see a woman who is committed to upholding the EUROPEAN interest, and shall not answer to any national government. Let´s not forget this overriding fact please. There is no such thing as national influence in Brussels - this can only come from the European Council composed of national leaders. Chairing the meetings of foreign ministers, she won´t be able to increase Britain´s influence - her job will be to influence Foreign Secretaries to the EUROPEAN interest. Point made. The glue is only one way - no increased voice gluing the EU to Britain, but plenty of glue keeping us from wrestling power back from Brussels without a tougher fight. The fact that she is Labour through and through makes the incoming Conservative government´s relationship with the EU even more challenging.
I believe overall that this is a Franco-German ploy to walk the path of least resistance, and to keep the British in line with a plum job. But to close this blog entry quite pointedly there are two remaining things to say - both are linked to this annoying concept known as democracy - but I´m sorry, it must be mentioned. First of all, there is now an unelected Commission, unelected President of the EU Council and an unelected High Representative with responsibility for an "External Action Service" as well as security policy. Do we need any more evidence of the loss of democracy in this project? My mind keeps going back to a comment I read earlier that to be undemocratic, the EU must in turn make its constituent states behave as such - well I think we´ve seen plenty of that since the rejection of the EU Constitution in 2005.
Finally, I´m going to quote from the book immediately turned upside-down and to my left side sitting on the desk. Entitled "The Great Deception: Can the European Union survive?" by Christopher Booker and Richard North, on page 543, in relation to the successful agreement of a European Constitution text, it is stated:
"These hundreds of pages wove the recipe for a system of government as complex as any the world has ever seen. It´s real ingenuity, as had been the case since the launch of the ´project´ half a century before, lay in the extent to which it left all the outward institutions of national governments in place, while hollowing them out from within. It was a system of government which, while preserving some of the outward forms of democratic accountability, through the presence at its centre of elected politicians and through the European Parliament, was in fact almost wholly unaccountable to the peoples in whose name it would be claiming to act."
The new European Constitution enters into effect on December 1st.
Thanks for reading.
