We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Approval
 |
Kate | Sunday, July 10, 2005 |
The EU is beginning to act alarmingly like Canada;
“Before the French and Dutch referendums, I predicted that, if our neighbours voted “No”, the EU would ignore the result and implement the constitution as though nothing had happened. The Brussels elites have followed the script to the letter [...] Two weeks after the referendums, the European Parliament voted through dozens of Bills that cited the constitution as the source of their authority. One which happened to catch my eye was a report proposing that the British and French representatives on the UN Security Council be merged into a single EU seat. The judicial basis for such a development, said the report, was “the European Constitutional Treaty, which creates a legal personality for the Union and a European Minister for Foreign Affairs”. No one was so indelicate as to point out that, without the constitution, the EU has no treaty-making powers. Instead, we carried on as though nothing had changed.
[...]
Almost to a man, Commissioners and MEPs have decreed that the process should continue. The EU is going ahead as though the French and Dutch electorates had voted “Yes”, harmonising criminal justice, creating a European Public Prosecutor, establishing a diplomatic service, treating the Charter of Fundamental Rights as justiciable. The constitution is not being smuggled in through the back door; it is swaggering brazenly across the porch.”
Via the Corner, where there’s more on the upcoming Luxembourg vote.
About the Author: Kate is a freelance commercial and automotive airbrush artist living in Saskatchewan, Canada. She was one of the original guest bloggers at OTB in November 2004 and soon joined the permanent stable, contributing through January 2007.
Eventually, she turned to writing full time at her own blog, small dead animals, which was voted the Best Canadian Blog in the 2004 Weblog Awards and has been generally considered that country's best blog ever since.
- None Found
- OTB Latenight – Styx
- Berlin Wall Fall: 20 Years Later
- Oklahoma High Schoolers Are Very Familiar With George Washington, Thanks
- Was Fort Hood Massacre ‘Terrorism’?
- Making Jobs More Expensive
- House Trades Freedom for Health Coverage, Senate’s Move
- Hasan a Muslim First, American Second?
- OTB Caption JamTM
- Taking “No” As Iran’s Answer
- Update on the Fort Hood Massacre
- The Uncooperative Blogger linked with The EU Won’t Take No For An Answer
Interesting use of terminology.
First it's "voted through dozens of Bills"
and then the one that caught his eye is "a report proposing that the British and French representatives on the UN Security Council be merged"
I presume he's talking about B6‑0328/2005 which was passed on the 9th of june. Except of course this isn't a bill. Or indeed any form of legislation.
It's a resolution suggesting that the SC nations in the EU should think about , at some point in the future, merging the 2 seats.
Ditto with the "creating a European Public Prosecutor","diplomatic service" etc.
It has no legal authority or weight at all.
Anyone who suggests it does (by calling it say "a bill") is either incompetent to discuss the EU or is deliberately attempting to mislead the reader.
Comments are Closed
