Monday, August 13, 2007

The ECB exposes the EU’s coup d’état

Throughout its 30-year history, the European Council and its summits have been the engine of deeper integration, yet it has remained strictly independent of EU governmental structures; its raison d’être being to guide the 'non-imperial empire' to ever-closer non-imperial political integration. It is composed of the presidents and prime ministers of each member state, and its independent status has permitted these representatives to defend vehemently their national interests, to advocate forcefully on behalf of their peoples, and to argue passionately for their own values and interests. As many of these are sometimes mutually exclusive and stand in diametric opposition, it is perhaps no surprise that the body which Monnet conceived to be the engine of deeper integration has occasionally threatened to be the Union’s nemesis.

However, the ‘Reform Treaty’ has a solution, extracted verbatim from the ‘abandoned’ Constitution. The European Council is to cease being intergovernmental, and is to become supranational. The debate around this change has generated much heat and little light, and there are insufficient numbers in the UK who either understand or care about the differences between the two. In the words of many Europhiles, the amendments are just ‘internal housekeeping’, ‘obscure legalese’, an ‘insignificant paper exercise’, and a ‘complete irrelevance’ to the everyday lives of ordinary people.

But Dr Richard North has argued on the EUReferendum blog that this represents a coup d’état: it is a power-grab of significant proportions, and a distinct diminution of British sovereignty. Those ranged against this thesis are legion, and most notably drawn from HM Government who persist with the mantra that ‘the constitutional concept is abandoned’. The decision to fuse the European Council with the European Commission and the European Parliament will not, they insist, inhibit the British prime minister from defending the national interest.

Well, Cranmer is delighted to announce that he has irrefutable proof that this is a lie. And the source is none other than the European Central Bank. The EUObserver website notes that Jean-Claude Trichet, head of the ECB, has written to the Portuguese EU presidency to query the ‘small but potentially significant change’ to the wording of the bank’s status. The Constitution specifically protected its independence; the ‘Reform Treaty’ lists it alongside all the institutions of the Union.

The letter expresses M Trichet’s concern that ‘with the ECB listed along the commission and parliament as an institution, it will be subject to the same general rules as these institutions which work together and follow certain agreed goals and European values’.

Quite so.

If the European Central Bank is worried that the ‘Reform Treaty’ compromises its independence, then a fortiori should we be concerned that the European Council will be similarly compromised, and will find itself obliged perpetually to promote the EU’s values, advance its objectives, and serve its interests. These will have to take priority over any national loyalty. One does not need a crystal ball to discern where this is leading. Should the ‘Reform Treaty’ be ratified, whenever the British prime minister attends a future summit, there can be no concern with the national interest; no hand-bagging over rebates; no stubbornness over defence; no insistence on foreign policy; no intransigence over agriculture, fisheries, taxation, etc., etc., etc. Mr Brown or any other British prime minister will have an overriding duty to promote the objectives of the European Union.

The change in status of the European Council renders it the de facto Cabinet of EU governance. And by placing a President at its helm for a fixed period of office, the empire simultaneously acquires both its emperor and its imperium. This really will be ‘the end of a thousand years of history’.


Anonymous Neo said...

We should hardly be surprised; for how long was the EU going to allow one of its major institutions retain significant elements of intergovernmentalism?

Ifear that this could well be the straw that breaks the camel's back in terms of reversibility of any accession to The Union.

13 August 2007 at 15:55  
Anonymous Fred said...

I agree. If this constitution is driven through by the colleagues, then we are left with but two choices, both of them pretty unpleasant.

1) Violent revolution to support our Sovereign Lady, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, who will otherwise be relegated to the role of commoner subservient to President Tony Blair (who will be ready having just served his apprenticeship as the Quartet's gofer)

2) Fleeing to another part of the globe, where they do not (perhaps yet) have ambitions to join the globalist "New World Order".

13 August 2007 at 21:01  
Anonymous B. Taylor said...

I believe this is just another example of the EU making changes step by step. I have no doubts that although the European Council will be the de facto cabinet at first, the EU will quietly put through a treaty to make it the de jure cabinet of the nation of Europe.

And sadly, for British patriots, which I hope all cranmerites consider themselves, option 2 is no option at all.

I agree with Neo. We're on the slippery edge of a precipice here. We've been able to walk away before, but if the treaty is ratified, we will go tumbling over the edge. The thud when we hit the bottom will be, I suspect, quite sickening.

13 August 2007 at 22:05  
Blogger Greg said...

Interesting that there were only 3 comments on this article, 24 on the Islamisation of the NHS and 21 on the Islamisation of Europe. I (and maybe only I) think it shows how little this issue of the European Council is understood, how well the tactic of confusion and muddle is working and how well we really understand thereligionofpeace.

15 August 2007 at 09:38  
Anonymous clarence_from_euref said...

It's as if, at a shareholders' AGM, you - as a shareholder - had to promote not your interests but those of the company in which you had shares. Mindboggling.

15 August 2007 at 10:47  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older