Friday, August 22, 2008

Sarkozy: ‘Lisbon treaty would have helped in Georgia crisis’

They never miss a trick, do they? According to Le Président de la République, the Lisbon Treaty would have given the EU ‘the tools it needed to handle the Moscow-Tbilisi war’.

And what would these ‘tools’ have been, precisely?

Everything which HM Government denies is on the cards.

He specifically refers to the ‘High Representative for Foreign Affairs’, endowed with ‘a real European diplomatic service and considerable financial means in order to put decisions into force in coordination with member states’.

This is nothing short of a unified foreign policy, usurping those of national governments, permitting the Union to speak with one voice whilst muting the individual voices of each member state, irrespective of their unique issues of national security or foreign policy interests. According to President Sarkozy, the role of the ‘President of Europe’ in such circumstances would have been to act ‘in close consultation’ with heads of state.

That’s nice. The UK might be consulted by the President, but, rather like the Central Bank, national governments would be unable to make demands or assert any influence.

EU Observer notes: ‘This would very much put the President in the foreign policy field. It would also foresee a formal hierarchy among member states as it would give priority to those considered most affected. This kind of scenario has been predicted by some smaller member states who fear that the president would have an all-powerful role, reducing the say of certain governments, although the working principle of the bloc is that member states are equal.’

Well, in the EU, some are more equal than others, and thus it ever was.

The Treaty of Lisbon is the beginning of the end of the United Kingdom as a key player in international politics, and it constitutes a negation of the defence of its global interests. The British Empire forged links and secured interests throughout the world, and many of these are sustained through the British Commonwealth. It has been the mechanism by which parliamentary government, legal and financial systems, the English language and the Christian faith have spread throughout the world. While it has occasionally erred, British foreign policy has historically been a manifest force for good in the world. Yet it is to be subsumed to the nebulous and undefined ‘aims and objectives’ of the European Union.

And since most of the strategic interests of the UK are antithetical to those of the EU, one can only wonder at which nation the aims and objectives of the Union shall eventually find a high degree of synonymity.


Blogger Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

With all due respect, I do wish to know what interests are antithetical between Britain and a United Europe. Is it defense against a renewed Russian adventurism in its near-abroad? Is it agricultural policy, including subsidized agriculture? Is it monetary policy, including a strong Euro?

As an American, I fail to see where the strategic interests of Europe and Britain diverge in any meaningful sense.

22 August 2008 at 14:57  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

What a load of self-serving crap from Sarkozy. "Europe" can't do fuck all about Russia because the denizen nations of "Europe" are going to become dependent on Russia for energy, chiefly gas, because Nuclear and Coal are being phased out for no-hope "green alternatives".

You heard it from me, Old Europe is going to have to put the brakes on NATO expansion to placate a belligerent Russia. As this is a geopolitical conflict they would have to do this whether "Europe" is "united" or not.

This, combined with energy concerns, could be the thing that buries the EU waste machine. The EU that would be a damn sight simpler to understand in the mass-mind if we simply incinerated £600 Billion a year in commodities. The yearly £600 Billion Doomsday loot is utterly utterly wasted on the EU.

22 August 2008 at 15:37  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

"The EU that would be a damn sight simpler to understand in the mass-mind if we simply incinerated £600 Billion a year in commodities."

By this I especially mean agricultural produce.

22 August 2008 at 15:38  
Anonymous Yokel said...

@ geoffrey kruse-safford
With all due respect, as a Briton, I fail to see any instance where the strategic interests of the EU and Britain converge in any meaningful sense.

22 August 2008 at 20:25  
Blogger the doctor said...

By the time the French had found a helicopter to go to Georgia , Russia would have retaken all of it's old territories .

22 August 2008 at 22:44  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

how we all laugh at the hit comedy show called "little britain" Ha Ha Ha. gordon browns favourite tv show

indeed you might even have considered his signing of the lisbon treaty, his casting aside of the irish passions to function as their own country and history, as a further extension of the comedy .

Much has been said about being Brittain being a post colonial power , ranging from returning the queens honours , to more milder accusations of extortion and selfish cultural end determinations !!

As countries have developed so has their reliance on there developed foster nations , we somewhat puzzled may well have let these colonies find their feet.

To say that modernising a backward and uneducated in the 19th century was a bad thing , says all too much about how history is portrayed to modern minds by the use of todays values badly mixed with hindsight.

The uk may have erred on some foreign policy judgements , but it has never sought to abandone any of its former empires citizens cruelly , which is more than can be said for other colonial countries.

Little Brittain is more like less overt empire , the usefullness of commonwealth , it is certainly not a comedy or a tradegy , as todays countries freely testify , i use the word freely , as that is how we have done things , grudingly perhaps at first , but in the long run it has brought tremendous benefits , with very little use of munitions .

We are little if you judge us on empire , we are truly global if you judge us on friends .

making us a subsiduary state of the EU will never work , not because we no longer command 1/3 of the globe , but because our values and traditions still stand head and shoulders above the benign , flaccid common interest ecnomic formulations currently being force fed to us .

personally why should we accpet any thing less

23 August 2008 at 02:47  
Blogger Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

From the other comments, it seems to me that the conservative position in the UK regarding the EU is, in essence, a revanchist position (if I may be so bold). While it is commendable that Britain might want to retain its traditional role of continental third wheel - keeping its options open to balance out whichever western European power is getting too feisty and guarding its soft underbelly through defense of the Low Countries - this ignores the reality that the fundamentals of politics on the continent have changed. Britain has nothing to fear from either Germany or France (and certainly not from any other continental power), and the French, possessing an independent military and nuclear force, would be more than a match in any case should (for some odd reason) they decided to dominate the continent.

Your brief on the Empire, it seems, seals my own understanding. Yes, indeed, the British Empire did as much good as harm in the world. That all ended generations ago, and belongs to a world long since dead and buried. As a citizen of an Empire in decline, I might add it is far better to accept the brutal realities of the limits of one's own national power and act accordingly than recall glory days, because all that brings are unrealistic dreams of "white man's burden" and recitals of Kipling's poetry.

23 August 2008 at 18:14  
Anonymous Moomintroll said...

When it comes down to it for Russians will continue to behave exactly as they choose in their own back yard. With the Russians being a principal supplier of energy there is no way we could threaten them with economic sanctions, the only way we could take any stand at all is with the threat of military force.

Is this really what the Lisbon treaty will mean, that Britain can be forced into war which is not in its own interests, but is in the interests of the continental powers. Be afraid, be very afraid.

24 August 2008 at 10:50  
Blogger Chalcedon said...

Time to remind Sarko et al that we are a nuclear power, with an army, navy and airforce that at the moment is under our control.

31 August 2008 at 18:50  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older