Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Obama Is For Federalised Europe

Some more pieces on the EU Federalist puzzle have fallen into place today with President Obama's public backing of a Federal Europe, we are about to see a change to the open foreign policy between the US and Europe.

Nile Gardiner writing in the Daily Telegraph, here, says that President Obama will be travelling to Europe in two weeks as the first President to be openly supportive of the creation of a Federal Europe. On his visit he will strongly back a European Security and Defence Policy.

With France very recently seeking to re-join the NATO fold and with NATO and the EU's command structures increasingly converging, the defence cornerstone of an EU Federalist state is being maneuvered into position.

It would seem that NATO will be the defence partner to a Federalise Europe, and when the time is right the America and Canada will withdraw from its command and logistics structure and Norway will then be forced to come into the EU or go it alone. Such a move may also secure Turkeys ascension into the Union.

This of course leaves the UK in a precarious position. With previous US presidents being cautious of a Franco-German led Federalised Europe, there has been sufficient support for NATO within North America and The UK Governments to present to the voters a counter-balanced international view. That is to say that The UK is looking further than the EU in it's diplomatic relationships.

However, in the last decade, and bound legally by The Lisbon Constitutional Treaty UK Foreign policy has become more EU centric,and dependant. It will cease to exist as a competency at the end of this year, as Foreign Policy will be headed by an EU International Commissioner, and policy within the EU will be considered internal.

So I make one more plea, perhaps upon deaf ears and to the already converted, but ask yourselves, when and where did you vote for a Federal Europe? Where and when did you vote for a Common European Defence Policy? Where and when did you vote to grant this (and previous) Governments the authority that we no longer wish to have self determination, and seek subservience to a post-democratic Union of Europe?

How many lines in the sand must we cross before The UK wakes up to what it is surrendering? We need an open and honest debate about the EU; it is in fact long over due. But we need it now, and yet despite European Elections coming soon there is no talk in our media and in our conversations about Federalising Europe. Do we not already have sufficient evidence that centralising decision making away from voters makes our society weaker and less cohesive?

If the EU and a Federalised Europe is truly the answer, then let it be decided by open debate and persuasion of opinions, rather than by subversive tactics and non-democratic means.

Part of the problem is a lack of coherent vision by alternative theories, but let me set some out. Let these mull around in your brain for the afternoon, and think about if you would prefer A Federal Europe, to one of the below. The other problem is that people opposed to further integration are divided by their positions on how little EU we should have. We need more cooperation between these people and groups.

Free Trade Europe. The EU is not the sum of all European Institutions, there is the Council of Europe and EFTA which are entirely separate. The UK is relatively comfortable within The Council of Europe, and loves EFTA, so why not be like Norway and get the hell out of the EU? It is the trading deal people did vote for in the 1970's without the Federalisation.

EFTA Countries are in the EEA (except Switzerland) but are free to conclude free trade agreements with other countries internationally.

Ask yourself how the UK can best trade its way out of this current recession and you will see that we need to be making independent trade deals with countries like China, India, Singapore and South Korea.

The Commonwealth. The UK has pretty much turned it's back on the Commonwealth and citizens of Commonwealth countries no longer enjoy the same privileges that were once available.

When the UK undertook a space programme in the 60's and early 70's we looked to Australia as partner. Not so long ago The British Empire reigned over a quarter of all people on our planet.

No one in the UK wants to return to Empirical Transnational Influence, there are many, many countries outside of Europe where we share more commonality in Politics, law making, language and history. Re-establishing The Commonwealth as a trade organisation would benefit the UK, and help some of the worlds poorest countries and people.

Anglosphere. As with the Commonwealth it would be a geo-political concept, yet more centralised around an even more tight knit, and familiar cultural basis. Would also allow for the United States to participate, and centre around the English Speaking countries of the world.

See also the Anglosphere Institute, here.

Open To Suggestions. Think you have a better idea? Let me, and everyone know in the comments.

1 comment:

scunnert said...

So the US supports of a federal Europe However, any such commentary about the US of A would be viewed as unwarranted foreign interference in its internal affairs if made by France or Germany for example. So what feckin business is it of the States how Europe organizes itself?

The EU? A feckin con game to strip nations of their sovereignty and open them up for business.

Demand a vote - and vote no.