Monday, May 26, 2003
12:19 pm
All Eyes on the Constitution - 26th May 2003, 12.17
James C Bennett provided an excellent column on the perverse arguments of the Europhiles for signing up to the new Constitution. Even if one does not agree wholeheartedly with his alternative, the Anglosphere, it is, at least, an energetic attempt to redefine the goals of British foreign policy and combat the intellectual monopoly of European transnationalism. Best putdown:
Disposing of such lesser objections, we must turn to a remarkable piece by the intelligent but deeply misguided Mike Gonzalez of the Wall Street Journal Europe. In it, he trots out the argument that has been the mainstay of U.S. State Department-received wisdom for the past half-century: that Britain must immerse itself fully in the rapidly-congealing European superstate in order to reform it into a free-market entity, and to carry America's water in the councils of Europe.
This policy makes European membership Britain's new "White Man's Burden" -- carrying enlightenment to the "Lesser Breeds Without the Law." Well, some scholars have always held that Kipling intended that description to mean the Germans anyway, so perhaps there is a poetic justice in that theory.
This is the day when the draft of the European Union is published. The media coverage ranges from downright deceit at the BBC, where they appear incapable of reading a draft constitution that 'permits' nation states to retain their power:
The problem with EU documents like the constitution, however, is that they are designed precisely to allow everyone to interpret them the way they wish. For European federalists, it may indeed be presented as a blueprint for an eventual United States of Europe.
For the more nation-state minded, it can be presented as a clarification and simplification of the role of the EU.
And there's probably enough evidence to allow any shading of view along that line.
to a more factual overview at the Guardian and the FT. Now that it has been unveiled, the figleaf of federalism and the overt ambition of a United States of Europe have been dropped to assuage the concerns of the intergovernmental factions. If Blair spins this as a triumph of British diplomacy, one should take the statement as expedient opportunism. The excisions were designed to maintain unity within the Convention.
The Constitution retains a European Presidency and Foreign Minister. All member states have to "unreservedly" back a European foreign policy, which appears to indicate that further military actions like the Iraqi war could not take place. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is a binding element and all domestic policy is Europeanised. The Convention has stayed silent over the harmonisation of tax or social security but we can expect further pressue to concede on these points over the next few months.
The Tories immediately and unanimously condemned the document. Labour saw things differently:
Peter Hain, UK envoy to the convention, said: "We have achieved over the last few days a lot of the things which we thought we would but the Tories and their friends in the media said we would not."
Yes, we have managed to sell Britain down the river. Hurrah!
James C Bennett provided an excellent column on the perverse arguments of the Europhiles for signing up to the new Constitution. Even if one does not agree wholeheartedly with his alternative, the Anglosphere, it is, at least, an energetic attempt to redefine the goals of British foreign policy and combat the intellectual monopoly of European transnationalism. Best putdown:
Disposing of such lesser objections, we must turn to a remarkable piece by the intelligent but deeply misguided Mike Gonzalez of the Wall Street Journal Europe. In it, he trots out the argument that has been the mainstay of U.S. State Department-received wisdom for the past half-century: that Britain must immerse itself fully in the rapidly-congealing European superstate in order to reform it into a free-market entity, and to carry America's water in the councils of Europe.
This policy makes European membership Britain's new "White Man's Burden" -- carrying enlightenment to the "Lesser Breeds Without the Law." Well, some scholars have always held that Kipling intended that description to mean the Germans anyway, so perhaps there is a poetic justice in that theory.
This is the day when the draft of the European Union is published. The media coverage ranges from downright deceit at the BBC, where they appear incapable of reading a draft constitution that 'permits' nation states to retain their power:
The problem with EU documents like the constitution, however, is that they are designed precisely to allow everyone to interpret them the way they wish. For European federalists, it may indeed be presented as a blueprint for an eventual United States of Europe.
For the more nation-state minded, it can be presented as a clarification and simplification of the role of the EU.
And there's probably enough evidence to allow any shading of view along that line.
to a more factual overview at the Guardian and the FT. Now that it has been unveiled, the figleaf of federalism and the overt ambition of a United States of Europe have been dropped to assuage the concerns of the intergovernmental factions. If Blair spins this as a triumph of British diplomacy, one should take the statement as expedient opportunism. The excisions were designed to maintain unity within the Convention.
The Constitution retains a European Presidency and Foreign Minister. All member states have to "unreservedly" back a European foreign policy, which appears to indicate that further military actions like the Iraqi war could not take place. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is a binding element and all domestic policy is Europeanised. The Convention has stayed silent over the harmonisation of tax or social security but we can expect further pressue to concede on these points over the next few months.
The Tories immediately and unanimously condemned the document. Labour saw things differently:
Peter Hain, UK envoy to the convention, said: "We have achieved over the last few days a lot of the things which we thought we would but the Tories and their friends in the media said we would not."
Yes, we have managed to sell Britain down the river. Hurrah!
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2003
(696)
-
▼
May
(47)
- The Things they say First they say that the const...
- Blogging on the Constitution - 28th May 2003, 23.0...
- More arrogance - 27th May 2003, 23.30 Hain showed...
- The Union's Institutions - 27th May 2003, 23.03 T...
- Discussion on the Constitution - 27th May 2003, 16...
- The European Constitution - 26th May 2003, 23.14 ...
- All Eyes on the Constitution - 26th May 2003, 12.1...
- Anti-War, Pro-Europe - 26th May 2003, 1.12 Tom Sp...
- The Sun says... - 25th May 2003, 23.12 As a follo...
- The Conspiracy - 25th May 2003, 22.55 The Observe...
- Nul point - 25th May 2003, 3.04 Just back from Su...
- Congo Intervention - 24th May 2003, 20.33 No doub...
- So far and no further - 24th April 2003, 16.57 Jo...
- The Referendum The Daily Mail referendum is one o...
- Time to go home Lew Rockwell attempts an economic...
- Losing value against what? The Mises Institute ha...
- Yet another reason to leave the EU Demography is ...
- Not an Imperial People Now it seems that Colonel ...
- Euro Logic So we should join the Euro because of ...
- How divisive is Europe? - 19th May 2003, 10.45 Ve...
- Slovakia - 19th May 2003, 22.28 Slovakia said yes...
- La Haine - 19th May 2003, 22.17 Hain recently cal...
- Decisions, Decisions - 18th May 2003, 22.38 Gordo...
- Run like a CND camp Most antiwar protestors prote...
- Zimwatch: When will we emigrate to Baghdad? - 16th...
- Basra - 16th May 2003, 20.12 The situation in Bas...
- Roll on the Referendum - 15th May 2003, 23.30 Ana...
- How to say a lot about very little - 15th May 2003...
- Krieg der Illusionen - 12th May 2003, 23.10 The 1...
- Lithuania - 12th May 2003, 22.52 Lithuania voted,...
- So you want to do something about Europe? The pre...
- A Critical Atlanticist - 8th May 2003, 23.54 Malc...
- The Iraqi archives - 8th May 2003, 23.16 Insight ...
- Hear, Hear for Heffer - 8th May 2003, 22.19 Altho...
- EU-CIS: A New Marketplace - 7th May 2003, 23.55 V...
- The next big battleground is tax - 7th May 2003, 2...
- Another reason for kicking the American Left - 7th...
- Action by example - 7th May 2003, 11.17 There is...
- Do not confuse neoconservatism with neoconservatis...
- CSIS: Euro-Focus - 5th May 2003, 18.00 The Centre...
- Finnish opposition to a "closed defence core" - 5t...
- German support for the European Army - 5th May 200...
- Zimwatch: Three Kings watch over negotiations - 5t...
- The Future of Europe: A Neo-Conservative Viewpoint...
- Will Tony Blair Resign If He Turns Out to Have Lie...
- So what's the problem Crispin Blunt has resigned ...
- Direct Hits on HMS Blair - 1st May 2003, 22.20 Th...
-
▼
May
(47)
0 comments:
Post a Comment