Skip to comments.EU will take Britain's UN seat, says Hague
Posted on 07/20/2007 1:21:25 AM PDT by bruinbirdman
William Hague has attacked a "shocking" Government concession that will give a new European Union "foreign minister" the right to speak from Britain's seat on the United Nations Security Council.
The British government had claimed that powers for the EU foreign policy supremo, rechristened a High Representative, have been reduced and his UN role stripped from the new treaty.
However, an EU official confirmed: "We retain, except for the name of the minister, the Constitutional Treaty text of 2004 including the provisions on the UN.
"There is a provision which provides for the representative of the EU to state the position of the EU at the UN Security Council."
The Government had insisted that negotiations on the treaty had ensured that the British presence on the Security Council would never be replaced by an EU representative. However, the text provides for the British seat to be occupied by an EU minister when the bloc has a united position on issues.
Mr Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, has criticised Gordon Brown for allowing "one of the most damaging and important provisions in the rejected EU Constitution" to be resurrected after referendums by the French and Dutch two years ago voted against it.
"It would seriously compromise the independence of our foreign policy," he said. "It is shocking that the Government have yet again let this through and it totally destroys their claim that their so-called red line on foreign policy is effective."
Provisions, drawn word for word from the old constitution, giving the EU "foreign minister" speaking rights from Britain's and France's UN seats will be included in a draft treaty to be presented to a meeting of foreign ministers on Monday, diplomats have confirmed.
"When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those member states which sit on the Security Council shall request that the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs be asked to present the Union's position," the text states.
Unlike Europe's current foreign policy representative Javier Solana, the new "minister" will also be vice-president of the European Commission overseeing an EU diplomatic service, weakening direct control over the post by national governments.
"It is a big step towards the federalists' end goal: a United States of Europe in which we would be represented at the UN not by a British ambassador on the Security Council but by the EU foreign minister, which this new treaty has also taken from the constitution," said Mr Hague.
Speaking in Brussels this week, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the architect of the old constitution, mocked presentational spin over the "minister".
"The High Representative for Common Foreign and Security is one and the same as the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs," he said.
The issue is set to become a major stumbling block for efforts by Mr Brown, the Prime Minister, to deny a referendum on the EU Treaty.
"With provisions like this, there can be no question but that the new treaty would fundamentally transform the EU and is in effect the EU constitution in all but name, as Gordon Brown has admitted," said Mr Hague. "So the British people must be allowed the final say in the referendum they were promised."
Not that it matters anymore.
Goodbye, Old Europe - enjoy your Islamization and the sacking
of your countries by Germany and the EU.
Hello, Poland - the future.
I know there’s someone out there who has knowledge of the UN Charter —
Is it permitted, under the UN Rules and Procedures, for a nation to cede its place - and, presumably, its SC Veto - to another nation or entity?
Something very, very fishy here......
It happened when Taiwan lost its seat to China.
They HAVE been trying for some time, and Merkel has succeeded where Hitler and the others failed.
Of course, it doesn't matter anyhow as long as we have a president that stays strong and believes as most Americans do.
Where do you get these drugs ?
Ohhhh the evil germans took englands car industry and now they take their UN seat.
Didn’t God himself grant the english world dominance even if they sit on their lazy asses and keep innovations as far from tham as ever possible ?
To compare Merkel with Hitler shows a state of the mind that cries for strong medication - not for a cure but to keep it from imploding.
Well, the US has only one vote instead of fifty at the UN so the EU gettig one is only fair. Let those individual countries see how it feels...
This will essentially cripple defense of the west in the Security Council.
It is pretty raw behavior on the part of the government to try to deny its subjects at least a referendum when the question is that of ceding sovereignty to another state.
I don't think that anyone 100 years ago could have predicted how far that mighty empire on which the sun never sets would have fallen just a scant century later.
I guess no one should be surprised that Sir Winston Churchill's name is to be struck from the history curriculum in secondary schools in Britain.
Dismissing this with jocular language as if it were unworthy of concern is a mistake IMO.
It seems fair. Germany has beaten England. They HAVE been trying for some time, and Merkel has succeeded where Hitler and the others failed.Funny you say this. I was in college when the Berlin wall fell and studying international relations. Point was made about how every time Germany unified, they tried to take over other countries.
The constitution was rejected , so now they implement it by degree through treaties!
Theres a lesson to be learned here..if anyone is paying attention.....
If all was about facts and figures you were right.
But these hitler comparisons are choosen - let’s put it like that not because they are so practical and congruent with the news of the day.
In fact if england gave it’s seat to the EU it would be a honourable step away from colonialism - recognising human rights stand higher then british rights.
so I will keep on hating the guts of most people who easily throw in hitler or WWII comparisons...
like this guy here:
it should take france’s seat ...not britain’s!!!
The most important human rights that any nation is responsible for are those of it's own citizens. Relinquishing sovereignty and world standing is an absolute betrayal of that responsibility.
I must add that you completely lost me with that comment about Colonialism. Maintaining sovereignty is unrelated to colonialism. I will say though that the effort to instill an EU is in effect colonialism on a grand scale, not of undeveloped states in chaos, but of advanced states at the pinnacle of civilization.
The countries that have permanent seats on the Security Council are the countries that won WWII. That made sense at the time. it doesn’t make sense any more.
At the very least, the UNSC should add India and Brazil, maybe Japan. There should probably be permanent members from among the sane and stable nations of the Middle East and Africa ... as soon as there is one. Jordan is the only contender I can think of thr the ME, and South Africa is the closest thing to a stable force on that continent, which isn’t close enough.
I see a good argument for giving the EU a voice, but how the *&^% did they reach the solution of Britain giving its seat over to the EU while France keeps its seat?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.