EU 'ambassador' to speak for UK?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Semper_Flexibilis, Aug 13, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

    • Informative Informative x 2
  1. Is it time for an armed overthrow of the eUSSR anytime soon?
     
  2. Non-story, the yanks will talk to the German ambassador if they want to know about Eurozone trade/economic policy, the French if they want to know about agricultural or EU FP...... and this chap if they want to know the latest legaleze from Brussels.

    They have been wanting someone to chat to about the complete bollocks of the EU for decades. If they want something important which requires European help they will phone Dave as the UK represents the atlantacist bloc of the EU.

    Also expect this man to represent the bottom teir of a two teir EU (unofficially) before long, as thats the entire point of the Lisbon agenda, to give small nations a voice. However what they don't seem to have realised is that the Yanks nor the rest of the world wanted to talk to them alone, they dont offer anything together except more pointless people. If that mattered the US would not be off the phone to Indonesia.

    The EU will not usurp British or French Foreign Policy networks and ambassadorial staff in the long term. Because Britain and france run the common foreign and security policy (the bits that matter) of the EU. All this chap represents is the toddler like "LOOK AT ME!!!" cries of the Lisbon Agenda which is very much about establishing a 'Brand' for the EU and not an actual functioning foreign policy portfolio.

    tl;dr this chap is the equivelant of Red Ken's London Embassy's he set up in various countries, just as powerless and unrepresentative and mainly there to be used as a glorified information kiosk.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  3. Exactly - he's going spend lots of time consulting the smaller EU states, probably Belgium - since they don't have a government - and those countries which that great IR theorist Al Murray described as 'the Womble nations', and spend a lot of time whinging about how the British simply won't consult him and must be brought to heel (having been warned by the French that if he moans about them doing the same thing in a similar way, he'll be out of his well-paid job before he can blink).
     
  4. Can anybody remember an official document - I think it originated from France in 1950's - stating how the EU shall be slowly made to take over, bit by bit without anyone noticing and without recourse? It used to be in an Arrser's sig block and I can't remember any of the words.

    I'm giving my Cynical cap a rest, and donning my Optimist cap :

    We should pull out. They need us far more than we need them and since we're a net benefactor of the EU we should save ourselves a tidy wad by downgrading membership to European Economic Area only, like Norway or Switzerland. That would trigger a great impetus to try and turn us into the 51st state. Oh hang on, I'm still wearing the Cynic cap . . .
     
  5. the_boy_syrup

    the_boy_syrup LE Book Reviewer


    There was a document from a German in the 30's & 40's about a united Europe

    Roughly tanslated it meant 1 People, I Leader, 1 Country
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. No need to do that old chap, the whole thing will tumble down in the near term.

    The lisbon conference in 2008, where everyone (including us) ratified or swore to ratify depending on parliamentary assent the EU Constitution contained some really really important information that the media overlooked.

    The entire lisbon agenda started in 1999 had failed to make an impact. The EU had not increased in importance in the minds of the publics of Europes nor was it an increasing factor in member state national decision making, despite an increasing legislative portfolio and new institutions.

    Infact they found (the 300 EU funded academics and the 1300 EU civil servants) that national politicians took LESS notice of the EU, the future of the EU and the role of the EU in national policy creation in 2008 than in 1998. The impact of the EU upon national policy formation started and stopped at the CAP, CFP and ECHR/ECJ. Nothing else mattered and governments were more keen on using the EU as a platform to upload unpopular national policy then download it as an EU directive (hence why we have so much bollocks nation specific stuff coming ourway which means nothing to us)_- The EU had become a tool to bypass unsupportive legislatives and publics.

    So what was the rousing call that went out, the policy decided upon to reverse this and to make sure the EU was triumphant? To give the Lisbon Agenda another 10 years and hope it worked this time.

    Despite the EParliament becomming increasingly anti federalist, the rise of an anti federalist Right wing throughout Eastern Europe, the imminent election of an anti-federalist in the UK[1], the EU's 2nd largest contributor and the removal of the motor of federalism that Labour had been. Finally the ECB was starting to get cold feet about the pace of inclusion, expansion and extension of EMU - legislative federalisation was and is taking place. Just in areas which European nations are politically similar in, the big issues FP, economy etc. it is markedly less succesful.

    Then the Greek Soverign Debt Crisis happened. Which just compounded these issues.

    The Western EU survived its absolute **** ups with Bosnia and Kosovo because it was not viewed as a supranational actor (despite assuming institutions and limited powers to act, or compell to act in 1992, 1994, 1998). It however has been absolutly rocked at an insitutional, member state and international level by the soverign debt crisis. Federalisation might be continuing within EU insitutions as a branding exercise but as a supranational project it is very much on hold whilst the Germans re-appraise.

    Merkel is shakey, the French confronted with a shakey Germany are lurching to the right and have turned their back, for the first time in 50 years, on D'Estang's policy of federalisation as a means of continental dominance paid for by the German tax payer. Our ability to move the EU towards its EUFTA roots is increasing, staying in for the next few years may see us running the thing, and then no one will be moaning about it (Hague's plan was overlooked by the media but it is a ****ing blinder).

    Cup of tea, the chap and author you are thinking of is Giscard Valerie D'Estaing, the man who has masterminded the EU project for 40 odd years. It is no exaggeration to say that he is THE key man in pushing things forward in a federal direction - despite no population actually wanting it. The French refurrendum leading to the re-drafting of the constitution, the Irish 2nd running, I am sure the ink on the paper to withdraw EU funding from nations that were suggesting referenda was his.

    He is the Peter Mandelson of Peter Mandelsons, the arch manipulator and he had quite the Gaulist Mandate, to preserve French continental superiority it achieved for a brief period in 1950-1960 where it had unique constitutional control of its nearest European competitor, Germany (no one viewed Britain as European at the time).

    Anyway Europe's FP budget total spend taken at face value ( even though most of which is wasted) is about the same as our DfID spend, and even less well spent. And they have NO hard power without us. Soft Power without hard power is useless. No matter what a whole generation of EU funded IR academics will tell you (they spend €125 million on funding academics to push their agenda) - EU CFSP with its 'new forms of economic influence' is a complete myth. Total smoke and mirrors.

    [1] Despite what we like to think about D. Cameron due to the referrundum issue, he did some rather important things in Europe in opposition, mainly the creation of an anti federalist, free market, centre right bloc in the EP. Which is on track to being the second biggest bloc within 10 years.
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Interesting post ASIC, thanks.

    I confess I turn my gaze out to sea far more than I do to Europe. What was Hague's plan?
     
  8. umm....lets see....
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. That the EU is recruiting constantly to fill its expanding institutions, we are the defacto head of a number of these (i.e. CFSP - Foreign Policy, H&S, SDSR) - so the idea is to stuff them to the brim with British people, especially patriotic bright young things - not ex-unionists that Labour sent over.

    Basically the EU recruitment drive is ongoing, European higher education institutions turn out far less social scientists than we do and Labour had not pushed Britain into the breach, Hague intends too. One of the reasons we feel europe is 'evil' or biased is because it has had far too many left wing Europeans in the recruitment chain and the last UK gov has done NOTHING to push graduates towards EU jobs, unlike any of the old WEU states who offer scholarships and reduced fees for those planning to go into the EU machinery.

    The city has done **** all recruitment for the last few years and the civil service is going to implode next year as such the vast number of Civil Service Fast Track applicants are being touted for an actual fast track into EU institutions.

    Just to say I did one of my Masters on European Union Politics and Policy and that thesis on CFSP so that was basically a condensed double lecture I give on the Lisbon treaty and the failed lisbon agenda, if you want any reading or expansion on points feel free to ask.
     
  10. Please feel free to correct me, or whatever :)
     
  11. Its not silly and small minded at all, the EU left to its own devices has a continentalist mindset, the French and British, the two primary FP nations in Europe do not share that mindset, keeping dominance in that realm pinning it down and weak is in our national interest.

    Secondly, France and Britain are the only two European nations with a significant power projection capability, I forsee greater ties with the French but we two will remain the sole providers of European hard power (and use it) whether within a CFSP or without it. The two of us run via our domestic policy portfolios the actionable aspects of EU CFSP and EU defence and security policy. Be it hard or soft power. The Germans in the ECB fully admit their failings in attempting to do the CFSP job themselves for the last 15 years. And now there is no more money for EU brand Soft Power (read DfID level of failing).

    France's political hold on the EU is still strong, what has changed is the divide within France between old guard civil servants like D'Estang and the executive. Just because EU policy re; ascension states has gone against 20 years or so of french presidential desires it plays right into D'Estang's idea of an expansive continental suprastate.

    We tried to maneuver the new states into joining and through our efforts they would become vassals of the Atlantacist Northern European Bloc we represent. They however have been absolutly cretinous, either becomming new belgiums in terms of wallowing in a veritable bukkake shower of EU beaurocracy through their decisision to ratify Lisbon to boost their qualified majority powers or in the case of Poland France mk2. in being utterly stubborn and self serving.

    As for Merkel its not so much about her going, its about the coalition she is going to have to form due to rather silly electoral system Germany have, she is going to have to rely on the idiots on the Federal list (read femenists, animal rights chaps, the people who cant get elected by constituency) whilst niche parties clear up on a region by region basis. She is going to be beholden to the ECB, which is basically the Bundesbank with a different hat on, and they have the breaks firmly slammed on.


    New Labour were euro-federalist as far as Blair wanted them to be with his break from primeministerial behaviour, with sofa government he essentially wielded the legislature as a tool of his executive and despite grumblings managed to achieve what ever he wanted up until his last couple of years in office. Brown despite being anti-EMU was pro Europe for similar reasons for Blair, it allowed labour to upload and download un-popular policy, this is best represented by the 1998 ECHR and the prominent role for trade unionists in the British run Health and Safety Executive.

    Obviously everything was not too their tastes but Blair was more than happy to sign away British interests for his personal gain (and then ****ing it all up the wall in 2003 because I think he felt there was probably more cache on the American lecture circuit than as the first EU president). this is best represented by the last round of CAP negotiations in 2002 which Britain signed away rebate, fisheries and other soverign powers in return for no movement of the French position. Blair himself left the most influential man in Europe behind D'Estaing... for a very short period of time.

    There is nothing wrong with needing each other, intergrated economic relations prevent armed conflict because it drives up oppurtunity costs. The EU will provide a useful platform for tackling supranational projects like Global Warming (if its real) and energy security but again the French and British diplomatic and military networks are going to be relied upon for that. Supranational federal state is not necessary, or beneficial, flexable small government, neo-liberal economic policy with a strong financial sector is still the dominant model internationally.

    Finally the great deception of the EUFTA, or the common market in 80s speak is a matter of fierce debate. An Italian cliometrician actually threw a teacup at Stiglitz at a conference for suggesting that most of the politicans of the time were not sure what it was, or what they were singing up for.

    All that is known is that 1/3rd of the members of the WEU thought it was a free trade area and the other 2/3rds saw that neo-liberal reforms taking root in the US and UK were markedly succesful and some element of free market reform was needed.... but they saw the Common Market as a way of countering American neo-liberalism by tempering inevitable increasing market forces with social responsibility and other social aspects. Which as they were the most bureaucratic and institution based were used to leverage federalist demands in.

    Heath had a clue that was going on, Thatcher really didn't, the Germans still flip flop over it constantly now they have full constitutional reform freedom post unification.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. As for whether Jeb Bush will be calling up whatever true blue Etonian is occupying No 10 in 20 years is up in the air at the moment, but given the way things are going, if its maratime then we will probably still be no. 2 globally.

    Have to go see Liam Fox in 4 hours for that one, so going to catch a 3 hours kip.
     
  13. How about killing the EUSSR stone dead?. Do you agree with that?.
     
  14. Interesting, I agree with some of it, and kind of disagree with other part's...but it's coming up on 5AM, so anything I post will probably be nonsense.

    That certainly paints a picture......