Thursday, July 26, 2007

The money shot

Yes, here it is, ladies and gentlemen; the money shot and the answer to one of my longest-standing questions: why are our politicians selling us down the river to the EU. Over to EU Referendum. [Emphasis mine in all cases.]
[L]ook to the European Council "mandate" where, in paragraph 12, we find the dense but superficially anodyne statement that:
The institutional changes agreed in the 2004 IGC will be integrated partly into the TEU and partly into the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union. The new Title III will give an overview of the institutional system and will set out the following institutional modifications to the existing system, i.e. the Articles on the Union's institutions...

The reference to the "2004 IGC" is of course the code for the EU constitution and the important modification here is to the "Articles on the Union's institutions".

To find these, we have to go to Article I-19 of the failed constitution where we see the definition of the "institutional framework" and a statement of its aims. These are expressed in terms of the "Union" telling the institutions that their aims are to: "promote its values; advance its objectives; serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of Member States; and ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions".

Now, the crucial point here is that the first three of these objectives are entirely new. And, of these, the third is especially important: to: "serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of Member States".

OK, clear enough? The Institutions of the EU serve the EU first, the citizens of the EU second, and the interests of the Member States last. This is important. Why?
However, this is but a curtain raiser to another short insert in paragraph 12, which states (by way of one of the institutional changes): "the European Council (transformation into an institution…)".

OK? The European Council is to be cemented as an official EU Institution (beyond its formal recognition in Article 4 of the Nice Treaty). And I have just explained what the priorities of EU Institutions are, above.
This is of huge significance. Originally set up in 1972 by Jean Monnet, the European Council was presented, during its first meeting under president Pompidou as a "fireside chat" between the heads of states and governments of the then nine members of the EEC.

Indeed, the first meeting was in fact held in Pompidou's private salon, with members lounging in armchairs and even sitting by the fire, but Monnet had far greater ambitions for it. He styled it as nothing less than a "provisional government" of Europe, its task being to steer Europe though the "transition from national to collective sovereignty" (Memoirs, p. 503).

Now, with this proposed change, the European Council is being defined fully as an institution. Furthermore, its aims have been set out, which it shares with the Commission, the EU Parliament and the European Court of Justice. It now will have developed into Monnet's "provisional government", acting, to all intents and purposes, as the "cabinet" of Europe.

The problem, of course, is that the members are still made up from the heads of state and governments of the member states. But, rather than representing their respective nations, they now act as a corporate body – an institution – the aims of which are, in respect of the Union, to: "promote its values; advance its objectives; serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of Member States; and ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions".

Crucially, the requirement to serve the interest of the Union comes first, the "citizens" come second and the Member States come third. The order is neither accidental nor without significance. The European Council has to put the Union first.

Serving the EU is, de facto, what the European Council already does, but this is now to become de jure.

So, under the EU Reform Treaty, the European Council—which is made up of the leaders of our government—will be legally bound to serve the EU first, EU citizens second, and the interests of the Member States, third. In return, they become the effective Cabinet of the EU. What a prize!
It also represents a very significant transfer of power from member states, our leaders having been hijacked and impressed into the service of the Union – all the more dangerous because, as far as the media and the general public is concerned, they are part of an invisible institution, one that will, to them, remain a "summit".

In other words, with the signing of the Reform Treaty, our heads of state and other EC leaders will be legally co-opted into an Institution of the European Union and will be legally bound to serve the EU over and above the interests of British citizens and the British state. And hence, the question of why our politicos would drive us into this entirely non-beneficial (to Britain) superstate is answered.

Every politician wants power, otherwise they would not stand for election. That is a self-evident truth. A minarchist libertarian may stand for election to reduce the power of the government but, ultimately, he stands in order to gain the power by which he may enact his views. So, all politicians desire power, quod erat demonstrandum.

Just imagine! Were you to rise sufficiently, you would not be in the Cabinet of a small—though disproportionately powerful—island of 60 million souls off the north coast of the nearest largescale landmass: you would be on the Cabinet of the entire European continent and over 450 million people. Even were you not actually to sit on this Cabinet yourself, you could be an advisor, someone of influence.

And so it becomes more and more difficult to leave as our own leaders are co-opted, turned and bribed to work against us, their treachery paid for in the oldest coin there is: power. And so we have it: the interests of ordinary people sacrificed upon the altar of ambition by selfish, avaricious politicos.

Suddenly, it all becomes clear.


Not a sheep said...

A question, from previous documents it is clear that the EU demands that employees owe their primary loyalty to the EU not the country they come from but does the order the clauses appear in the Article I-19 passage actually denote their relative importance?

Devil's Kitchen said...

Yes, that is the point of the order in which they appear.


Roger Thornhill said...

This has been clear to me for a long time. Regions will be used to bribe the pompous amateurs of the local and county councils. The sparkling beads of Devolution have already bewitched the Welsh and Scots.

Even Cameron is massaging the Tory party so it can remain "kosher" in the EU, which will soon outlaw political parties that are not aligned to a pan-European grouping that signs up to the concept of the EU in all its forms.

People are being frog-boiled and I think stupor has set in.

Right now, only UKIP is not acting like an outright traitor to the Nation. The biggest traitor of them all is Cameron, for they are not tearing into the detail and implication of the treaty, just wanting a vote - how can they be asking for a vote without articulating the implications? I almost wonder if they want the referendum to be a "yes", so it will be buns for tea.

C4' said...

Great post DK

Oh yeah? So what has happened for the last ten years, exactly?

Over at the ASI, they are posting some of the winning entries of the Young Writers on Liberty. One does not want to put such keen minds off,...