Posted on 09/03/2007 6:02:17 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
British withdrawal from the EU is coming into sharper focus, with all the grave consequences that will ensue for the Atlantic order and the cause of market liberalism.
For this we can thank those who recklessly - or mischievously - chose to revive the European Constitution after rejection by the French and Dutch people, when common sense urged Brussels to lie low, lick its wounds, and rediscover patience.
By reopening this can of worms, they have already let France's Nicolas Sarkozy excise the clause "free and undistorted competition" from the core objectives of the Union. Adieu to the single market, the one incontrovertible benefit of EU membership.
It would never have been easy to win a British referendum on the original (better) text, which furnishes the EU with the apparatus of a thrusting state - president, foreign minister, justice department, supreme court, energy tsar, and treaty-making powers. It will be much harder now.
Gordon Brown's plan to slip it through Parliament is becoming untenable in the face of a backbench revolt by Labour MPs, a united Tory opposition, and likely calls for a vote by the Liberal Democrats.
As David Blunkett said last week, Downing Street has failed to justify why Labour is violating its manifesto pledge to hold a referendum. "It is critical for the Government to demonstrate the difference between the original constitutional treaty and the current treaty," he said.
Well, yes, and how is this to be done when Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the author, himself says the changes are "more cosmetic than real", that "the substance is similar or even the same," and that the label constitution has been dropped to "make a few people happy"?
Should Gordon Brown persist with this charade, he will be chased out of Downing Street within two years. British debt deflation is not going to leave him much margin of popularity in any case.
Personally, I might have put a clothes peg on my nose and voted for the original treaty, if the other big states had already said "Yes", and if an isolated British "No" risked UK secession.
It would have been a Realpolitik calculus, hoping that a blocking majority of liberal nations would eviscerate the treaty's effects.
Britain had by then achieved its goal of extending the EU to Eastern Europe, breaking the Rhineland lock-hold that has caused so much grief. A British-led constellation of states had begun to emerge - much to the annoyance of Paris.
The Commission's teeth arms - competition, single market, trade, and farming - had become engines of Anglo-Saxon reform. The European Court was finally shedding its crypto-Hegelian bias as liberal judges swamped the bench.
Having waited so long, and endured such provocation from the Delors junta, it would have been precipitous to leave just as the bargain promised more advantage.
But that was then, before the "No" earthquakes. The dispute is no longer over the meaning of treaty articles. The issue is whether we wish to let the EU ram through the same project - stripped of its anthem and visible symbols of statehood - after voters have already issued their thundering prohibition.
The matter has escalated into a defence of democracy against an enterprise that has slipped its leash, demonstrated a dangerous will to accrete power, and forfeited basic trust - as Tony Blair well knows.
"What you cannot do is have a situation where you get a rejection of the treaty and bring it back with a few amendments and say, 'have another go'. You cannot do that," he said in April 2004.
It is unlikely that British voters can be cajoled into endorsing this Putsch, once debate is joined. No doubt Labour will attempt to turn any referendum into a ballot on EU withdrawal, hoping to scare enough fence-sitters into a reluctant "Yes". But this merely ups the ante. So we await the unstoppable slide into crisis.
Hopes that the French people will rescue us a second time are fading. Mr Sarkozy has a crushing majority in parliament, and is better able to duck a referendum than Mr Brown.
His European theatrics have created the impression of restored French primacy in Brussels, dulling the mood of indignation. The Left - the nucleus of the "No" vote - is in disarray.
Holland remains eerily silent, watching us. No doubt, there are strong factions in Paris, Brussels, and Luxembourg that would like to see the back of Les Rosbifs, and anti-American elements close to power in Madrid and Rome who agree.
But British withdrawal - so obviously forced upon us - would sent tremors through Holland, Denmark, and Sweden, among the oldest democracies in Europe as it happens, and the richest. It would traumatise Ireland, and dismay Finland.
It would alter the strategic equation for Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia, and further enflame the poisonous quarrel between Warsaw and Berlin.
Where all this might end is anybody's guess, but it is a fair assumption that Mr Sarkozy will quickly press for a core-Europe, one more willing to entertain his plans for "Community Preference" (a semi-closed trade bloc), a managed exchange rate, and perhaps capital controls - as allowed by majority vote under Article 59. By then, the French, Spanish, Greek, and Italian housing booms will have popped, so the mood will be receptive.
What we take for granted as the permanent post-War order is more fragile than it looks. Tug too hard on the British thread, and the European system quickly starts to unravel.
Jean Monnet would have seen the dangers of this. Germany's Angela Merkel does not. The provincial and ill-advised Kanzlerin has over-played a tactical hand, heedless of strategic risk. The die is caste.
Hey, that’s out of the Democrat playbook — just keep on voting (or at least recounting) until you get the outcome you want, then freeze the results in place and allow not more changes once implemented to your desires.
Why does Ambrose think that the vote of the “people” will matter to those who want France and Germany running Europe?
If you think the Democrats and the EU have liberal policies when it comes to votes, the UN only required something like 33% of the members to ratifiy the International Criminal Court, before it was accepted. Not only that, only the Presidents or top office holders could respond on behalf of each nation, even if that meant without Congressional or other similar approval.
If the UN wants something bad enough, it’ll set the bar low enough so that it’s a forgone conclusion.
Wow! I had no idea that the Brits were suddenly this close to leaving the EU. It would be a good thing, I think. I wonder what Ireland will do.
“Should Gordon Brown persist with this charade, he will be chased out of Downing Street within two years. “
We can hope.
I agree. Why should England allow Brussels to accomplish by treaty what Napoleon and Hitler were unable to do by force of arms?
“Should Gordon Brown persist with this charade, he will be chased out of Downing Street within two years.”
I would not bet on it. Brits have a high tolerance for incompetence and insane policies.
I wonder what would happen if Brown needed US help against Chavez in the South Atlantic and in the Carribean to protect British interests.
Brown and his policies will bring few allies who will help Britain with anything.
Ambrose has a tendency to hyperbole, especially since The Telegraph is so committed to an EU Constitutional Treaty referendum and UK withdrawal from EU.
UK prime minister has stated on many occasions that this is a treaty and not subject to referendum or any kind of popular vote.
yitbos
Wishful thinking
Two years is when regular elections are scheduled. Tory polls are so low now Labour is seriously considering holding snap elections.
yitbos
The UK and the US have a long and strong enough relationship that the US would certainly help.
Get out of the monster while you can!
‘I wonder what would happen if Brown needed US help against Chavez in the South Atlantic and in the Carribean to protect British interests.’
We won’t hold our breath - when we asked Reagan in 1982 we got nothing, then a few new sidewinders. A single US ship off the Falklands would’ve saved many lives on both sides, but we weren’t deemed worthy enough allies for that.
Interesting. And some good news (even if it is overblown).
The fact that some are still talking about resisting a “United States of Europe” is a good thing.
That was the stated aim of Napoleon, and Hitler. Nothing good will come of it.
You are right, and I deplored it, being a Canadian as well as a US citizen. I had friends who were then serving with the Queens Own Highlanders in the Falklands, among 'em , Alisdair Gilles who now teaches Highland Piping at Carnegie Melon University, and perhaps the greatest piper of our modern era.
Actually, the US shared intel with the UK, gave sidewinders, and also fuel for ships and in flight refueling. Emergency medical services in the USA were also offered but I do not know whether they were used or no.
The problem was that the USA had very positive diplomatic relations with the Argentinians at the time, and advized them against adventurism in the Falklands.
But Gordon Browns socilaist agenda , and his conduct inside his party in relation to Tony Blair, as well as his bailing from Basra due to political conditions he himself helped create to get rid of Tony Blair, will be the stopper against US assistance for Britain in the South Atlantic and the Carribean.
As this article intimates, Gordon Brown will be a very short time PM, especially when both the vested conservative and liberal business interests in former colonies see that Gordo intends to abandon them to the sweet ministrations of local tyrants such as Chavez, a fellow socialist in arms to "Bordom Grown."
Even Her Majesty will not be amused as she observes a precipitous decline in her investment portfolios pursuant to Gordo's policies.
Gordo won't be around for long and the Conservatives will likely make gains on him that will put them into a minority government in a few years.
Unfortunately I predict we are in for a chilly relationship between Britain and the US during the interim, regardless of whether we have a democrat congress or a Republican one; or a democrat president or a Republican one. I am not happy about it, for my heart is highland, and a chasing the deer.
The Euro-nization of Britain will never sit well with the British, Northern Irish, or Scottish people.
Only a dedicated socialist who belives in the one world concept and its concurrent restriction of personal freedom by foreign treaty would be as dedicated as Gordo is to the cause. He has his own " I know better than my people," agenda, characteristic of the new aristocracy, the Socialist Aristocracy, let them eat cake. Hey, maybe his constituents will get smart and refuse to re-elect him?
Or maybe he might fall down and choke on his fish and chips or something? One can only hope.
Good old Gordo.
Here's no more than a beer fart to 'em, while I and many Americans would toast Tony Blair by the week.
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.