[MadIvan]

This issue is not at the forefront of everyone's mind at the moment, Ambrose does us a service by trying to make people think about it.

What Blair and the East Europeans need is an "out", a better deal from the United States than the garbage being offered up in Brussels. I suspect President Bush is wise enough not to want this constitution to happen, and will offer such an alternative.

If we are dragged into this, I won't sit still - I will leave.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Bump!

[dead]

If we are dragged into this, I won't sit still - I will leave.

I got an old couch in the basement.

[Poohbah]

Perhaps Bush should pick up Robert Conquest's idea of a loose association of English-speaking nations--one that derives its stature from the long history of shared language and culture.

[jimt]

It's hard for me to think of a reason why this would be good for the UK.

I'd opt out, if it were me.

[Green Knight]

What kind of an out would you suggest? Me, I have no clue.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

This is terrible news for the true founders of modern representative government---Britain. It means the end of same.

Some of us Biblical End-Timers see the EU as the recreation of the Holy Roman Empire and a fulfillment of prophecy leading to the rise of the Anti-Christ. This is chilling news, indeed!

[vpintheak]

Scary Stuff!

[americanbychoice]

I sincerely hope that many countries will not go along with losing their soveignity, especially Britain, Spain, Netherlands, Italy and the new EU states. It would be like Hitler taking over Europe without firing a shot. This may explain, as I have said all along, the Franco/German collaboration. "Old Europe" needs the new States more than they need them. All the business investment will go there, because of lower labor costs. "Old Europe" just wants to milk them through Social Taxation, since their economies are bankrupt and won't recover.
Enter the U.S. with a new NATO plan excluding "old Europe" and inclusion in NAFTA. At least they would not be slaves to the Aristocracy.

[proud American in Canada]

Oh my...

thank you for posting. I will send this along to two cyber-friends in the UK.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

I guess the U.S. will be the only one not IN globalization.

[Born to Conserve]

Next thing you know, Britain will be attacked by Europe for trying to secede, their cities will be burnt, carpet baggers will arrive and strip Britons of all their wealth, and make it a hate crime to fly their flag.

Glad this kind of thing can never happen in the good ol' USA.

[Batrachian]

Better buy those plane tickets, pal.

Geography and history dictate that the Brits will go with Europe rather than the U.S. I mean, are they going to be the 51st state? Besides, in spite of the current love fest that we seem to be having with Tony Blair, he is still a far-left liberal and a globalist, or am I wrong?

A federal Europe is pretty much a done deal, AFAIK, and Britain either goes along or will be left out in the cold.

[Polybius]

The new order may also be irreversible. Article 46 stipulates that the terms of secession from the EU must be agreed by two thirds of the member states.

Will Britain be "whistlin' Dixie" ten years from now?

[Maeve]

Like many in my family, I believe in a new "Anglosphere" (UK, USA, Australia, EnZed,, Ireland, and other English speaking nations). Canada would be welcomed so long as they expel Quebec to sink on its own.

Why is this such an impossible dream? It makes more sense than the UK giving up its identity to Brussels.

[IoCaster]

"Resistance Is Futile! You Will Be Assimilated!"

This is some scary stuff. Good luck to you and as a last resort you could always emigrate to Canadia.

:o)

[katana]

Our constitution isn't perfect, and the issue of secession was settled after an ocean of blood was spilled, but at least on paper the states have final say on any changes to be made to the basic structures via the 3/4 requirement for amendment.

I remember explaining to Europeans I knew in Belgium back in the early 90's that for us the whole "subsidiarity" question was (again, on paper) very succinctly covered by the provision that any powers not expressly given to the federal government are reserved to the States and people. The practice is quite different, of course, and that is the struggle conservatives here fight every day.

If Labour supports this "European constitution" wouldn't it likely provide the club the Conservatives need to beat them out of office? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd be very surprised if the majority of Britons would buy into giving up their sovereignty to a genuinely federal EU dominated by Germany, France, and Belgium. If they would, I'd agree that you should start planning a move across the pond.

[Weimdog]

"Brussels takes charge of virtually all areas of national life. Unless the EU chooses to waive its primacy, Westminster will be prohibited from legislating in public health, social policy, transport, justice, agriculture, energy, economic and social cohesion, the environment, internal and external trade, and consumer protection."

That's a lot of power taken away from the people.

This seems ripe for a Euro dictator.

God help what's left of the good people in Europe.

[shadowman99]

Odd to think that this is exactly what Hitler wanted, only without a shot fired.

[B-Chan]

Tarrant County, Texas welcomes you. We have jobs, space, low prices, cheap housing, cheap gas, no state income tax, and plenty of other Brits. We also have a professional football (soccer) team, with lots of good players (some ex-FA) for diversion. Please FreepMail if you're serious.

[You Dirty Rats]

I don't agree that Britain and the Eastern European states need an "out".

There is a better response to this Franco-German attempt to take over Europe:

NO!

Britain (England) has survived almost a thousand years as a sovereign nation. If Article 9 is agreed to, it will no longer be sovereign. I do not understand why anyone believes Britain must join the EU on France's terms (let's be honest, THEY are the driving force here), or be "alone" and, somehow, weak. Rubbish! If that's true, why isn't Switzerland hopelessly bankrupt?

Everyone makes fun of Thatcher now, but in her latest book she argued that Britain could negotiate as least as good terms of trade with the EU as, say, Norway. It is entirely possible that Britain would get a better deal outside the EU than they do now.

My guess is that Blair is gambling that he will have more influence over Eastern Europe than the French and can win the internal EU power struggle. Bad idea. If he's wrong, and France has effective control, then you might as well fly the Tricolour from Buckingham Palace.

I understand Germany's guilt over WWII and their willingness to, in effect, pay reparations to France (via agricultural subsidies to French farmers), but why does Britain feel that same need? Why should Britain kowtow to France? Britain liberated parts of France in 1944 and was victorious over France in 1814-15. When was the last French victory over Britain on British soil? Umm ... That's right, there aren't any.

Britain is not, and never should be, part of the Continent. "The wogs begin at Calais". For centuries, Britain's first principle of foreign policy was to oppose any power that attempted to dominate the continent. The EU, through its French, German, and Belgian puppet masters, is that power.

France and Germany have sabotaged the Doha round through their odious deal to keep agricultural subsidies unchanged through 2013. They intend to destroy world trade liberation in order to protect the 3% of the French population who farm. The EU is not an engine for economic growth and political liberty, but an artificial mega-state that will stifle economic growth and restrict personal liberty. Why any free nation, especially those nations that have only recently become free from Soviet tyranny, would want to join this disaster with its godawful proposed constitution is beyond me.