President Rompuy

Meet your new President, his name is Herman Van Rompuy and he is currently the Prime Minister of Belgium. He is a Flemish Christian Democrat who is not very well known outside of Belgium.

He has emerged as front-runner and will likely be installed in December, if he can keep a low enough profile until the next EU Summit being held in Brussels next week. He is the favourite of Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy for two reasons. Firstly, he is a low profile character who would mould the role, for his tenure at least as more of a Chairperson than of a jet-setting President. Sarkozy and Merkel have apparently agreed that they do not want to be seen as playing second fiddle to an EU presence on international junkets.

The second appealing factor is Mr Van Rompuys likely legislative agenda as he is a staunch fan of the original EU Constitution and a Federalist. His domestic manifesto was penned largely by him and called for a massive expansion of the presence of the EU in councils, town halls, schools and in sporting events all around the EU. The document also says that apart from the EURO, other national symbols need to be replaced by European symbols, such as licence plates, EU Identity Cards, EU Flags at all government buildings across the EU and EU Sporting teams and events.

When the EU Constitution was dropped by the people of Europe and re-introduced without the EU Anthem he told the Belgian Parliament

It is also a certainty that President Van Rompuy will additionally be the instigator of direct taxation to the EU which he has championed for many years. Initially this will be in the form of “Green Taxes” drawn from petrol pumps and from aviation duties, but the aim will be to ring fence VAT across the EU and make it a direct tax set by and paid to the EU.

“We go on with the ratification of the European Constitution in all our parliaments, but we need to admit that for the moment the project is over. However, this doesn’t mean that we cannot continue to work in a creative way in the direction which the Constitution points in.
“I don’t object if we break up the Constitution into smaller parts, as long as we continue to work in the same direction: in the direction of more Europe.”

The adoption of the Lisbon Treaty has paved the way for a Federal Europe, and this will now be rolled out; but it will be done so under the guise of the wishes of the peoples of Europe, when really it is for the betterment of the new elite. The EU has used soft power as a means to consolidate central control of EU Nations for many years, and it will roll out the next phase of the EU project in the same manner. EU Flags will be sent to town halls, schools and Government buildings. The EU Ring of Stars is already proudly displayed in a number of EU countries, but by no means all. The destruction of National Identity and formal efforts towards a European Identity will be openly adopted. The EU which has been working its way into schools without a mandate for years will now have the final say on the way and manner our children are educated. If they cannot win our minds they will take our children’s instead.

What is our Prime Minister, Gordon Brown likely to do? Nothing. Though Whitehall will give the impression of resisting many of the above mentioned initiatives they are at heart fully sold up to the EU project. It is only for appearances sake that Labour will make some overtures, but as soon as these matters have come into place they will be fully supported and pointed to as Labours willingness and ability to work well with European Partners. But the truth is, it is all about giving the appearance that some domestic control and scrutiny remains when in truth it does not. The Conservatives will talk about a Federal Europe being unacceptable, but they too know the only way out now is what they consider the nuclear option, withdrawal.

Meanwhile, in Italy, Franco Frattini, the Italian Foreign Minister has called for a single European Army to be created to underpin a common European Defence policy. The logic according to Mr Frattini is:

"if we do not find a common foreign policy, there is the risk that Europe will become irrelevant. We will be bypassed by the G2 of America and China, which is to say the Pacific axis, and the Atlantic axis will be forgotten. We need political will and commitment; otherwise the people of Europe will be disillusioned and disappointed. People expect a great deal of us. After Lisbon we have no more alibis".

Was he speaking for you when he said that? No, me either. He continued his assessment concluding that it was a “Necessary objective to have a European Army” because

"Take Afghanistan: at present President Obama asks Poland, or Italy, or Great Britain for more troops. If there were a European army, he would have a 'toolbox' to draw from. He might need 30 aeroplanes: he would be able to ask if the European army was in a position to provide them."

…. Erm, so we should have a European Army because it will make it easier for the Americans to deploy European troops and assets??

Keep your eyes peeled. These are the sorts of discussions that long ago would have been conducted in Parliament by representatives drawn from the people of the UK (and soundly rejected). Now the fundamental decisions of our lives are being made in Brussels, Paris and given in interviews to journalists from the Times along the Tiber. The discussion and topics will be contextualised by the agents who support these changes, and opponents will be quickly marginalised.  Gordon Brown may hark on about Britain having influence in Europe, but he also said that the UK was best placed of all G8 Countries to see out a recession and that his Party would not make spending cuts... His belief that the UK has influence in the EU proves how well Sarkozy and Merkel can marganilise him without him even realising.

Democracy truly is the most valued and also the vaguest of political terms in the political world; oh fair England what is the reason for your extended slumber?



18-Nov-09 Update: I did not realise that Mr Rompuy is also a poet, good thing then that Iain Martin did and has published someo of his work.

National Anthems

There is a situation in Britain that has befuddled me for a while now. I speak of course to our criss-cross conventions on the singing of the national anthem. I support the notion that when the Welsh and Scottish players step out to represent their respective teams that they should feel free to sing the anthem that most closely represents their nationhood. I would like to see the possibility of the English being allowed having their own song as well.

When the UK or GB team compete, I also feel that it is appropriate that the British National Anthem – ‘God Save The Queen be played’.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is not a straightforward matter.

The official national anthem remains God Save the Queen.

In 2006 the Scottish Executive decided to allow the people of Scotland a vote to decide their own National Anthem. Subsequently, the Royal Scottish National Orchestra placed on their website the five favourites to be the new Anthem. The site attracted 65,000 unique visits and 10,000 votes from all around the world. ‘Flower of Scotland’ which had been played at Football and Rugby matches, secured the highest vote with 41%.

Although ‘Flower of Scotland’ won the vote the Holyrood committee dismissed the idea that the Scottish Parliament should debate this further. Thus, from my meagre legal background, it would seem this exercise has moved ‘Flower of Scotland’ from the status of unofficial-anthem to being the official, unofficial-anthem. ‘Scotland the Brave’ is the song that has been used by the Scottish team at the commonwealth games, this won 29% of the vote.

There is a sentiment in Scotland that ‘Flower of Scotland’ is an anti-English song. The counter argument to this, and perhaps part of the reason it is an appealing substitute to the people of Scotland is that God Save the Queen is also perceived as anti-Scottish. However, only the first verse tends to be observed of ‘God Save the Queen’ and this tends to be more widely acceptable. (Depending on where you look on the internet there are up to SIX verses of God Save the Queen, some seem to vary after the initial verse)

Wales has an official anthem in ‘Hen Wlad fy Nhadau’ (or ‘Land of my fathers’), and must be sang in Welsh. It is recognised by convention as the official anthem of Wales; although not by law. Events concerning Wales, ‘Hen Wlad fy Nhadau’ is played. During visits from the Royal Family, both the God Save the Queen and ‘Hen Wlad fy Nhadau’ are played.

Having looked into the matter on the internet I see that Northern Ireland has ‘Londonderry Air’ as their anthem for the Commonwealth Games, but I does not appear to be recognised in anyway passed that.

So Can England have its own anthem? One which can be observed in English Courts and during English only sporting events? I can’t see why not, eventually, but there would be some issues that would need to be addressed.

It would appear that national anthems seem to be dictated more by convention than law. And as such, there is not much in way of precedence. Assuming that there was a national anthem for the UK and then the separate nations had their own separate anthem there should not really be too much controversy. (Should there?)

There will be a few difficulties to this; the first would be to agree on, or set out a new convention for when each should be played. It would be straight forward to suggest that in sports where teams compete as the individual nations such as England, or Scotland their separate national anthems should be observed.

But what about for example, if there were a Welsh sports person and an English Sports person competing in Sport where anthems are observed. Assuming one wished to observe their component nations anthem, and the other wished to observe ‘God Save the Queen’ – Should a convention be legislated as guidance or would the whole UK be comfortable with allowing personal choice and observation in this matter? Could this be reasonable enforced or observed in an international setting?

There is of course another problem that by observing a National Anthem for both the unitary and component nations is that it would be political issue that may promote nationalistic politics. Not just in terms of calls for a looser union or an eventual breakup UK. Additionally, the anthem, much like the Union Flag may be used as a symbol of hate, rather than to welcome and inspire. My feeling here is actually rather simplistic, (perhaps too much so).

Government, and indeed wider Governments; should do more to show our flags and anthems and national symbols as a reflection of what they truly are; the symbol of shared values, the promotion of hope, symbols of security and good will. It is truly sad that there is a political vacuum of support for something that can inspire and represents so succinctly our shared history and values.

Parliament would also be in the ironic position (perhaps) of observing ‘God Save the Queen’ as UK national Anthem, whilst almost certainly restricting such observations to the first verse… an action that MPs may be uncomfortable with, and might cause some embarrassment to Her Majesty.

Despite these reasons, I still think that the UKs respective nations can observe two anthems each, their individaul anthems and 'God Save the Queen'.

So what would my choice for an English National Anthem be I hear you cry? Answer: ‘Land of Hope and Glory’. It is the anthem observed by the England team at the Commonwealth Games and for a time by the England Rugby Team. I feel it is a fitting, non-offence, self promoting, feel good song. It makes reference to God, but can be observed English people of differing faiths.