Thursday, June 08, 2006

Germany and France decide

The ‘Heart of Europe’ has decided the future of the EU’s Constitution, and the rest of the Union will simply have to get used to the idea. These informal meetings between France and Germany have been the traditional means by which the EU has developed. Both countries are bound by the terms of their bilateral treaty of 1963 to reach ‘as far as possible an analogous position’ ahead of meetings of the Council of Ministers. It is the old empire of Charlemagne, bloodied but unbowed after the Dutch and French referenda. The spirit of Charlemagne lives on, and the way forward is now clear: ‘A functioning Europe needs this (constitutional) treaty’. There is no debate; there will be no discussion; it is simply a matter of destiny.

The plan is to have ‘a period of reflection’, and then ‘review’ the constitutional treaty. It needs to be observed, however, that this ‘reflection’ has a foreordained outcome, and the ‘review’ is rigged. Chirac gives the game away when he says that France ‘trusts the German presidency to steer the ship in the right direction’. The right direction? There is no alternative. He acknowledges ‘certain problems’, but vows to ‘overcome them’. He must mean the clearly-expressed, democratic will of the people.

In the first half of 2007, Germany will be running the EU. The Constitution will be firmly placed back on track. France then holds the presidency during the second half of 2008, and this will be crunch time. Cranmer rather suspects that the Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicae will engineer a name-change for the ‘treaty’, the word ‘constitution’ will be dropped, and hey presto, no need for further referenda (even in the UK)...

27 Comments:

Anonymous Ulster Man said...

No real surprise here then. It's consistent with asking the Irish twice, or the Danish three times, until they give the 'right' answer. It's all so totalitarian and fascist, under the facade of democracy and an EU 'parliament'. The sooner we get out of it, the better (assuming Ulster isn't part of a united Ireland by then).

8 June 2006 at 11:32  
Anonymous Rick said...

The only way Ulster will be run from Dublin is if the folks in London betray them as they have so often in the past. It was not the people of Northern Ireland who wanted Grammar schools abolished, nor to have Dublin interferring in Ulster.

It was the only part of the United Kingdom to have devolution 1922-1972 and is now like England the only part to have direct rule from London

8 June 2006 at 13:54  
Blogger istanbultory said...

The informal meeting also pledged a "Europe of projects" focused on areas such as education, research and energy policy.The founding architects of the European Community, Walter Hallstein and Jean Monnet realized that support for achieving European integration could only be developed by proposing policies that would reap collective benefits (usually economic) that avoided contentious areas of ‘high politics’ directly involving national sovereignty. European integration was (is and will always be) an elite-driven process that would progress in gradual, incremental, silent steps having the assembly of a European polity as their by-product.

With 15 of the 25 member states having ratified the EU constitution, the Chirac-Merkel axis is merely reverting to form. The stuff about the need for 'reflection' was merely a smoke screen. Jacques and Angela will talk only about non-controversial policies and carry on with the pressing business of federalism behind the scenes.

8 June 2006 at 15:27  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr GC,

I had not omitted to note the sinister 'education' project being proposed/revived. With the trans-EU Health laws also being implemented (http://euobserver.com/9/21790), I can't see what else there is for the nation state to do.

8 June 2006 at 16:12  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Cranmer said...

...I can't see what else there is for the nation state to do.

From the perspective of the EU institutions - to passively administer their willing with the minimum of fuss or objection.
Now, he may be a fervent papist, but the Polish President,Lech Kaczynski has summed up the situation rather cogently regarding the EU constitution:"...
it sets a path towards the elimination of nation states and the emergence of a European state in the strictest sense of the word. I'm definitely opposed to it... Let's not delude ourselves that we'll be dictating the laws to Germany or France ? anyone sane knows that it's them who'll be dictating things to others. Also to us.This means a dependence on the large states. It's a different kind of dependence than during the Soviet era, but it's still dependence..."

Could the EU newcomers be about to impede the Franco-German federalist axis? I live in hope...

8 June 2006 at 20:51  
Anonymous Olly said...

GC, have you got a source for that quote? It's very interesting. I don't know what his gripe is, though. They joined the EU knowing full well what the rules of engagement were. They have yet to reform their agriculture, even if they have 'popularised' abortion.

9 June 2006 at 08:03  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Olly, I forgot to put the source on my previous post. But here it is, and the full text is worth perusing:
http://www.e-warsaw.pl/new/index.php?dzial=aktualnosci&ak_id=438&kat=1

(Originally published as "Strong and Moral State: Lech Kaczynski Speaks on His Presidential Plans"
19-20 March issue of Rzeczpospolita p. A5-A7 and 21 March issue of Rzeczpospolita p. A2

9 June 2006 at 09:28  
Anonymous Olly said...

GC, as revealing as this text is, it's simply more proof (if any was needed) that what they say on the Continent is not what is said in the UK. They all seem to be open about EU ambitions and aspirations, but here it is all concealed. The political parties daren't raise the subject for fear of being divided, so the whole plan proceeds, by stealth, with people largely unaware.

Who'd have thought we'd be looking to the leaders of Poland to make the case for the UK? Isn't that more reason for Cameron to forge an EU alliance with them, and leave the EPP!

9 June 2006 at 15:48  
Blogger istanbultory said...

My thoughts exactly...

9 June 2006 at 17:18  
Anonymous Rick said...

They joined the EU knowing full well what the rules of engagement were.

Not true. This Party was not in government when Poland joined the Eu, nor was the Constitution presented to them, and the voting system and agricultural support system is completely different.

By your logic Olly, could you tell me at what point after the 1932 elections German voters should have asked their Government to re-think its stategy ?

9 June 2006 at 19:31  
Anonymous Rick said...

Isn't that more reason for Cameron to forge an EU alliance with them, and leave the EPP!

It would be if Cameron wanted to make a stand on any issue, but I suspect he does not wanjt to take a position on anything.In fact he has found rather a nice fence to sit on

9 June 2006 at 19:32  
Anonymous Olly said...

By your logic Olly, could you tell me at what point after the 1932 elections German voters should have asked their Government to re-think its stategy ?

Sure. About teatime. They'd have been in a better mood.

9 June 2006 at 19:41  
Anonymous Al-Amin said...

There is something good to be said by large countries being prepared to stand up and take a lead and achieve a forward direction in policy. France is a good country, and understands a lot of complex issues, and this is good for the EU because it balances the anti-Muslim rhetoric of Bush and Blair.

10 June 2006 at 12:17  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Mr. Al-Amin,
Your rampant francophilia does you proud. You should perhaps consider permanent relocation to say Lyons or Marseilles.Or the northern suburbs of Paris. But before you do, remember the head scarf ban imposed in all French state schools. The truth is that France is a determinedly secular society uncomfortable (at best) with the 5 million Muslims in its midst."We have no problem with secularism," says Lhaj Thami Breze, president of the Union of Islamic Organisations of France (UOIF).
"Islam must adapt to France, not France to Islam."

I am sure you'll feel right at home. Au revoir.

10 June 2006 at 13:31  
Anonymous Al-Amin said...

It is because there are 5 milion Muslims in its midst that it is a friend of the Islamic world and oposed the war with Iraq and supports freedom for Palestine. Despite the rhetoric of Breze (which is largely for French consumption), France is most cetainly adapting to Islam and has geo-political strategies and foreign policies to prove it.

I am staying here, I am British, and I have rights to not be driven out.

10 June 2006 at 14:32  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Al-Amin,

You may stay, of course you have rights, no-one dispute that you are British. You are free on my blog to discuss anything you wish on the prescribed religio-political themes.

You just don't appear to want those rights to be spread abroad to your co-religionists.

10 June 2006 at 14:55  
Anonymous Rick said...

France is a real mess. It has a criminal as President who should be in gaol for corruption. It has an Imperial Presidency derived from a corrupt elite which has brought the country to ruin.

France is in much the same state as it as interwar and will decline inexorably. It has nothing of any real value to show the world, and lives on its tourism rather than its realism.

No doubt if Britain treated its Muslim population as well as Al-Amin feels they do most people in Britain would be as jolly as the average Frenchman, and if France treated Muslims as Britain does Fremchmen would be torching mosques

10 June 2006 at 23:01  
Anonymous Al-Amin said...

No Cranmer you are wrong, Islam wants its freedoms spread for all mankind to enjoy, and when mankind is truly under God they will be in peace and harmony and true freedom.

11 June 2006 at 13:06  
Blogger Croydonian said...

Depends on how you conceptualise 'freedom' doesn't it?

11 June 2006 at 13:31  
Anonymous Rick said...

Islam wants its freedoms spread for all mankind to enjoy,

But all mankind does not want to have "islamic freedom" and is prepared to make that very clear. There are a lot of Hindus who do not want it, a lot of Chinese who do not want it, a lot of Russians, Europeans, North and South Americans who do not want it.

Now let's discuss illegal settlements like The Dome on The Rock

12 June 2006 at 09:07  
Anonymous Al-Amin said...

Freedom under Allah, peace be upon him, is true freedom, the only real freedom from sin. 'Islamic' freedom is much misunderstood, because you do not appreciate its spiritual liberation, you only see the flesh and the earthly residue. The Dome of the Rock is not an 'illegal settlement', the Masjid al-Aqsa or 'Mosque of Omar' is the third most holy site in Islam and the illegal occupants are the Jews who are occupying the land.

14 June 2006 at 14:09  
Anonymous Rick said...

No The Dome on the Rock is an illegal structure on the site of the Temple. It is clearly in need of removal to the Arabian Peninsula.

14 June 2006 at 16:13  
Anonymous Rick said...

. 'Islamic' freedom

Thus is Freedom qualified with an adjective.

That is the freedom of the kerker and the grave

14 June 2006 at 16:14  
Blogger Croydonian said...

There was a rather interesting piece in The Spectator many years ago that noted that 'the third holiest city in Islam' only ever takes on any substantial significance to them when it is controlled by non-Muslims.

14 June 2006 at 16:31  
Anonymous Rick said...

Christianity is the Faith of the Kingdom to Come..................Islam is the Religion of The Irredentist seeking to pile up riches on earth

14 June 2006 at 16:45  
Anonymous Alfred of Wessex said...

Rick 4:45 PM. Can you please not descend to the level of attacking other peoples' faiths in this way. It really does you no credit, and reduces the discussion the level of "my religion is better than yours, nah nah na na nah".

Key to my becoming a Christian as a chemical engineering student was the discovery that the New Testament is comprised of reliable historical documents that stand up to analysis by the methods used by historians to judge the reliability of such documents. (See F F Bruce 1959 The New Testament Documents / Are they reliable? (Oxford: InterVarsity Press) ISBN 0830827366
(available online:
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm
).

Convinced of their historicity and reliability I came to the conclusion that Jesus is indeed ALIVE, and that I needed to come to terms with His claim on my life. Since asking Christ into my heart, I have experienced God's provision and answers to prayer too many times for it to be coincidence.

However, the acid test for any faith or lack of it should be to ask the question - is it TRUE? Happily for the Christian, the answer is in Jesus' words "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6). The coming of the Holy Spirit on his disciples at Pentecost turned a frightened bunch of misfits into fearless men and women who proceeded to turn the Roman world upside down by their teaching, a task that has continued to this day. The freedoms we still enjoy in this country find their origin in the Christian concepts of how man needs to relate to God and to one other.

But I digress. It is these freedoms we need to defend, and I believe that the best way to do so is to leave the inherently undemocratic insitution of the EU. Incidentally, how many people are aware of the following:

"In former East Berlin, the Pergamon Museum displays the actual gigantic "Altar of Pergamon," described as "Satan's Seat" or the Throne of Satan in Revelation 2:12-13. On its steps, early Christians were martyred for the Faith. After being carefully broken down and shipped to Germany in the late 1800s, the Pergamon Altar was reconstructed in Berlin by Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1902 and was celebrated with an extravagant festival to the pagan gods. Later it became a powerful symbol in Germany under Hitler, who had a grand reproduction built at Nuremberg for his Nazi rallies. Although the Russians removed the Altar to Leningrad in 1945, they returned it after 13 years where it was re-erected in the Pergamon Museum in 1959. In 1999 Berlin again became the capital and the German Government moved back to the Reichstag and to the city where the Seat of Satan is displayed." (http://www.britishisrael.co.uk/articles/9.htm)

Is this the kind of Union of which we in Britain wish to be a part?

14 July 2006 at 13:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

[[[Al-Amin said...
Freedom under Allah, peace be upon him, is true freedom, the only real freedom from sin. 'Islamic' freedom is much misunderstood, because you do not appreciate its spiritual liberation, you only see the flesh and the earthly residue. ]]]

An excellent explanation why Europe should outlaw islam right now and deport all islamists, before it is too late.
Thank you for some honesty among all this islamic "taquiva" double talk.

17 August 2006 at 10:43  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older