|
« Not voting in droves
Main |
October 20, 2003
Europe versus America
Daily Mail, 20 October 2003 The simmering tension between America and what it contemptuously calls 'old Europe' is today expected to boil over once again. At an extraordinary meeting called at NATO's Brussels headquarters, the US ambassador and his French counterpart are heading for a slanging match over the proposed European defence force. The Americans are alarmed that proposals in the EU constitution to establish such a force would undermine NATO by setting up separate -- and therefore rival -- EU military planning headquarters. In addition, by proposing that EU members would pledge to defend each other if attacked, the EU would duplicate NATO's own mutual defence guarantee. The Prime Minister has tried to paper over the chasm by blandly stating that he would do nothing to undermine NATO, that he is America's best friend and that he would only support the EU defence force if it were complementary to NATO's capability. Well, as Mandy Rice-Davies might have said, he would say that, wouldn't he? Once again, Tony Blair is trying to be all things to all people by occupying some notional centre ground. Once again, he is posing as the bridge between the US and Europe. But bridges get walked over. The defence proposals and the constitution of which they are part represent a momentous and indeed calamitous development for our country. They are the final stage of the EU's transformation from a trading block into a superstate, aimed at rivalling the US itself. By signing up to the constitution, Britain will destroy the fundamentals of a nation state, surrendering -- amongst other things -- the power to enter into its own treaty alliances. Mr Blair says he will defend the 'red line' issues of tax, foreign policy and defence. Since he has retreated on the vast majority of his previous red lines, this just isn't believable. And his protestations over the EU defence force similarly lack all credibility -- not least because, until recently, the government maintained there wasn't going to be a European army at all. Now the US has realised Mr Blair has been playing them for suckers. Meanwhile, the French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin -- using, of all things, the Dimbleby lecture -- last night deepened Mr Blair's difficulties from the other side, saying there could be no European defence force without Britain. You bet: without the British forces which are uniquely well-trained, experienced and willing to inflict and take casualties, the European defence capability from which all these qualities are conspicuously absent would be a joke. But the British would end up being trapped within a chocolate army. The crunch has arrived. There can be no more fudging. We are faced with a clear choice between two rival power blocks, and two rival views of the world. Ever since 9/11, Britain and Europe have been swept by a rampant anti-Americanism. Indeed, President Bush's itinerary on his imminent state visit to Britain is being truncated because of the likelihood of huge protests. Despite this popular animosity, however, it is clear that when the chips are down British interests lie not with Europe but with the world's one remaining superpower, America. It is NATO that guarantees our security, as Mr Blair is all too aware. But a European standing army would obviously damage it. As the former British ambassador to NATO Sir John Weston has observed, there cannot be two separate multinational organisations with similar membership presiding over the same European military manpower, assets and budgets and each claiming the same responsibility for Europe's defence and security. The push for a defence force arises from the delusion that Europe has one common identity and one common interest. But this is plainly not the case. Just look at Iraq. The French, up their necks in commercial contracts with Saddam's regime, secretly colluded with him to undermine the West. The Germans, burdened as ever by their history, adopted their customary ostrich position when it came to military action. The idea that British defence interests would be served in any way by being shackled to this lot is simply idiotic. The difference in priorities would merely result in deadlock and paralysis. Nor is it the case that being part of the EU defence force would be the same as being part of NATO. There is all the difference in the world between being a member of a treaty alliance as a sovereign power, and being part of a structure that takes away our power to sign our own treaties and conduct our own self-defence. This is precisely what the EU constitution would do to us. But Mr Blair cannot admit it, because while his head may belong with America, his soul belongs with Europe. His overriding desire to be at its heart is blinding him to reality. He has ruled out a referendum on the constitution on the grounds that it would not alter Britain's relationship with the EU. This is mighty disingenuous: the constitution will alter the whole basis of the EU, by effectively tearing up all existing treaties and creating a wholly new legal entity. This Frankenstein state will remove our powers of self-government. It explicitly makes this country's laws subject to European law, takes control over our defence and foreign policy, finance and economics, justice, health, energy and asylum policy, and will turn Parliament into Westminster regional council, with the Queen as no more than a theme-park figurehead. As this paper said last week, the threat to our constitutional monarchy -- about which the Queen has signalled her alarm -- raises urgent questions about what the Queen can and should do to fulfil her role as the ultimate guardian of the nation. The Prime Minister was reportedly warned by Sir Stephen Wall, his most senior adviser on Europe, that refusing to hold a referendum on the constitution would be 'untenable'. After a day of wobbling on the issue, he nevertheless finally ruled it out. The reason is obvious. To accede to a referendum would be effectively to admit the case against the constitution. With the euro, by constructing the fiction that the issue was only about economics, he ensured that the argument was -- improperly -- restricted to the narrow economic issue on which there is clearly a legitimate debate to be had. But having claimed that a referendum on the EU constitution is inappropriate because it does not entail the dismantling of the nation, if he then agreed to hold such a referendum how could he possibly argue the case for the abolition of Britain? The question this country now has to answer is this: which side are we on? Are we on the side of America, which for all its faults remains our best guarantee of liberty, security and the defence of the West? Or basket-case Europe, that crucible of seething hatreds and resentments, papered over by a self-serving oligarchy of unelected bureaucrats, lawyers and bankers who would subject us to sclerotic, undemocratic and corrupt control? The answer is obvious -- except, it appears, to the Prime Minister. Posted by melanie at October 20, 2003
Comments
Rather than 'swooning at the beautiful jawline and eyebrows' of the sharklike French Foreign Minister during his Dimbleby Lecture last night, as was augured in the obsequious BBC Web-blurb, I was both nauseated and incandescent with rage as he ee-awed and sweated his way through his plans for Britain's future. That the BBC should allot its annual prima platform of debate to a man who is hell-bent on diluting the sovereignty of Britain, dismantling NATO and sabotaging the Anglo American alliance (that rescued France from extinction in 1945) should come as no suprise, given France's weirdly treacherous behaviour in the current Iraq conflict. But why is my licence fee being used to stage a propaganda coup against this Nation's interests and those of the one ally upon whom we can rely militarily and consistently, viz. the USA? M.Villepin wants us to choose France rather than America in matters of defence? Ye Gods! The glittering eyed fervour and applause of Neurenburg Rally proportions from the BBC apparatchiks at the climax (or should I say orgasm because it was us he was shafting) of the slimey oration of this arrogant, poncey, oleaginous Franco-Moroccan, indicates just how far the rot has set in at the BBC. Is there no Herculean figure in British politics who can can muck out the Augean stables of Wood Lane. The disdain with which it now treats the current government is so obvious that surely even the most gullible of its viewers and listeners must see what is going on? Who have they got lined up for DL 2004 (next year's Night of the Nepotists) Saddam Hussein? Or perhaps Usama himself? Once again Melanie, your summing up of the dangers of Blair's ambivalence and the dire dangers of the constitutional vandalism of our nation's heritage is brutally apposite and would make any intelligence Prime Minister hang his head in shame; or at least give him palpitations ... Posted by: Frank Pulley at October 21, 2003 02:16 AMPoor France, the modern world has been so hard for her. Ever since Poincare felt able to humiliate Germany in 1923, when with little Belgium it occupied the Ruhr and instigated Weimar hyperinflation; its influence has been minimal. From that high point, Germany always seemed to re-emerge more powerful, and Janus-like able to face East and West....and poor little France fell apart and was partitioned only to be resurrected by Churchillian francopilia........ever since then the game of trying to hold Germany in the same embrace Napoleon held Prussia and the Rhineland has been the object of French policy. Until the emergence of the weak and rootless Gerd Schroeder, France was held at bay by the Atlanticists in Helmut Schmidt and Helmut Kohl; now the SPD has reverted to its 1950s policy of national unity and neutrality between blocs. The aim of 'europeanising' defence is for France to grow muscle; and for Germany to stifle any military capability by its neighbouring states. France is too poor to achieve its ambitions; and Germany too weak to articulate its goals; so when a weak Chancellor wins re-election by calling forth the ghosts of militant pacifism; the French President has to embrace Germany and lock it into a new alliance, without either being clear as to the goals. Schroeder is friendless, and enjoys 16% support with his electorate whih now knows it was duped. The next CDU Government under Angela Merkel will probably isolate France and look to Washington. Blair wants to "dance at every wedding" as the Germans say, and tries to be all things to all men; but if you saw him at a theatre in Durham, it is likely you can spot the different performance in Bristol. He is a man who tries to muddy waters, as in N Ireland, and in Europe; he is now faced with muddied pools along his path. European defence stumbles on the simple fact that Germany thinks it will be a means of spending less than 1.25% GDP; and France thinks it is a way to bolster its weak technological base by increasing its defence equipment market; and Britain knows it cannot go it alone, and is afraid of being the tail on the American dog. The only loical alliance in Europe for Great Britain was rejected by Germany twice - once when Haldane proposed it, and once with Chamberlain.....Germany could have been Britain's ally and saved Europe a lot of problems; instead we got France twice, and a chance to bleed profusely. Posted by: Peter Williamson at October 24, 2003 07:54 AMBrilliant analyses by both Melanie and by Peter Williamson. Blair wants to be all things to all men - or "dance at every wedding" (and have a speaking role at every funeral). The requirements of his hungry ego make him weak, weak, weak - except in the ambition department, where he is blind. He is not going to be (unelected) president of a country called "Europe" if he delivers 59m freeborn Britons into the maw of Europe without their permission. That honour - just a guess here - has already been promised to Dominique de Villepin - a far more suitable name, better hair and more swoonable jawline for such an august station. Blair has lied to the British since the first day he came into office. Remember the tale told on Richard and Judy's couch - or was it Des O'Connor's couch - anyway, it was a couch, of how he stowed away out of (Newcastle, was it?) airport on a flight to the Bahamas? Except Newcastle Airport inconveniently corrected the press by telling them they'd never, since their inception, had a flight to the Caribbean. Ooops! And the cozy father and son story of watching a winning goal by a soccer legend from behind the goalposts of (I think, Newcastle) with his dear old dad. Oh, those treasured childhood memories! Sob sob. Except, oops! - that soccer club didn't have stands behind the goalpost until several years later. And the soccer legend had already quit playing for that club long before Tony's simpering "memory". It's silly to even discuss it, because everyone knows he's lying, but let's be sporting: If there is absolutely no danger that this absurd constitution would ultimately dismantle Britain's long nationhood, why does ol' Tone need "red lines"? If there's nothing threatening in it, what need for protection? We all know that Tony Blair is a two-faced, messianic basket case. He's delusional. He thinks people like him. Does anyone actually like Tony Blair? As in, does he actually have any old friends? Or is it all new best friends, according to the moment? Posted by: Caroline at October 24, 2003 06:20 PMBritain would have no enemies if it wasn't allied to the USA, so it is nonesense to say that our best bet is stay in the US camp. The Muslim extremists are only on our case because we are the allies of the USA. Other than them we have no enemies. Ms Phillips is in favour of US ties instead of evolving EU ties because she knows that the EU will force Israel to deal with its ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their own country instead of aiding and abetting it like the US. The USA isn't forcing Israel to do this because of the Second Coming of Christ nonsense that it takes deadly seriously but which the Europeans have outgrown long ago. Ms Phillips always has the survival of Israel at the heart of her thinking, not the welfare of the West. She is only concerned about the policies of the West if what it does is in the interests of Israel. Posted by: Eric Legge at October 25, 2003 10:29 AM"EU will force Israel to deal with its ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their own country" The implications of Eric Legge's comment are devastating.....he implies that Schroeder and Chirac are trying to undermine NATO to pursue different policies in the Middle East. This is to malign both men. The matter is the security of Western Europe; and if Britain has "no enemies" that is surely a bold statement, and one upon which I do not want to predicate my safety in an era of random terrorism and potent, but small, weapons of devastation. The technological advantage is with the US. Since 1945 the German Army has been ineffectual, and most of its equipment is not battle-tested; France has suffered only military disasters since 1944, and often for the same reason: failure of political will. Britain has Hobson's Choice; the alliance it craved in 1937 and failed to obtain through US isolationism and sentiments in the US rather similar to those expressed by Eric Legge; is the one that Ernest Bevin and Mackenzie King worked so hard to get, to safeguard our freedom of action; that I would be loath to imperil it for the 'gloire' of parade ground soldiery. Posted by: Peter Williamson at October 27, 2003 07:10 AMFrench weapons haven't been of much help to its buyers in general. Still, there was one country that once managed to achieve a decisive victory using them. By the way, that happened in 1967. Posted by: nelson ascher at October 27, 2003 08:36 AM"The implications of Eric Legge's comment are devastating.....he implies that Schroeder and Chirac are trying to undermine NATO to pursue different policies in the Middle East." I would not speak for France because Chirac is not coherent in his policy, but much as I dislike Schroeder, I would not accuse himas Nelson Ascher has done. Much of German foreign policy is akin to that of the Wilhelmstrasse, but the Middle East is not a German focus......it tends to be for the former Mandate powers Britain and France, and the new imperialists, the US with a bit of Russian and Chinese dabbling. I frankly think the EU is trying to grow on the basis of the old Iron Duke's saying about Russia......"if it doesn't grow, it rots." Posted by: Peter Williamson at October 27, 2003 02:03 PMHow did Eric Legge manage to insert Israel into the discussion?Miss Phillips article is neither about nor mentions Israel and whilst not denying the importance of the subject,it can hardly be regarded as the driving force of EU integrationist policy. You know what's interesting about Washington? It's the kind of place where second-guessing has become second nature. Posted by: Wilson Lynne at January 20, 2004 08:55 AM |
