The ECB exposes the EU’s coup d’état
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’.
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’.