| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| International-UN-NGOs | ||
| EU Constitution to end UK embassies: Zapatero | ||
| 2005-02-19 | ||
Zapatero's views appeared to contradict claims made by British premier Tony Blair that Britain would keep its power to act alone. And it fuelled fears that Britain would have to follow EU policy even if the British government disagrees with Germany and France as it did over Iraq. Spaniards are expected to back the new EU constitution in a referendum on Sunday as their country has received billions of euros in subsidies from Brussels. The new European Constitution states: "Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy." But the British Foreign Office played down Zapatero's claims. A spokesman said: "Britain will keep its embassies, its seat in NATO and its foreign policy. That cannot change without our agreement."
| ||
| Posted by:Seafarious |
| #37 Poison Reverse does go over the top from time to time but he has his moments too. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-02-19 10:46:07 PM |
| #36 2b> If you were aware of a single element of the EU or of the European Constitution, instead of just trolling whenever the discussion arises over whatever different element comes to your attention, then your bizarre predictions might be worth a second's notice. Until that time, your predictions are about as significant and probably as accurate, as Poison Reverse's prophecies that the EU is leading to the one-man worship of the Antichrist. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-19 9:36:56 PM |
| #35 "Educated in Greece" oxymoron??? |
| Posted by: Snump Huperesing6112 2005-02-19 7:11:09 PM |
| #34 it's a sucky watered-down affair ...that it doesn't politically unite Europe *enough*), then we're in complete agreement. Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Unionâs common foreign and security policy OR there can be no such common foreign a security policy if a single member brings forth a veto. Here are the probable outcomes of this: Countries forced to leave the union to protect their own interests; A war will be foughtover the meaning of the word, "unreservedly"; or...most likely the end result will be: Individual economies will come to depend on membership in the EU for economic survival and thus will be forced to subject themselves to an unelected body. You aren't getting a representative union at all. You are getting taxation without representation. Looks good on you though. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-02-19 5:30:42 PM |
| #33 So as an American let me understand the issue a bit... 25 seats in the General Assembly go down to 1 seat. 2 super seats (UK and Fr) are reduced to 1 on the Sec Council and no other EU reps on that body. 1 Seat in the World Bank 1 Seat in the WTO 1 Seat in NATO 1 Seat in the ICC 1 Seat in ..... What's the downside of all this loss of power by the EU to the US? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-02-19 5:04:14 PM |
| #32 "Link, please"? I already gave you the link (didn't you see the url?) .... It's almost too easy. ;) |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-02-19 5:03:07 PM |
| #31 That I said you don't trust French and German people as much as the English? That's my memory of what you've claimed in the past. Am I misremembering? Do you claim to trust them as your own? You find links before spouting such crap, you insulting little piece of shit. AFAIK, polls didn't ask whether they wanted to stay in the EU or leave. Why don't you look for such data if you want to find out? |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2005-02-19 2:57:05 PM |
| #30 He was also almost certainly educated in GB, hence the great English Ignoring most of your post, but here's a "thank you for the compliment". However, I was educated in Greece. And the only thing I hate about UK is its Euro-whining and sabotage. In or out, make up your fricking minds, take responsibility for your choice one way or another, and stop blaming the big bad continent for (boohoohoo) supposedly forcing you to be part of something you supposedly don't want to. Where the EU is concerned, United Kingdom is a slut that tries to present itself as a virgin. She's consented to an an orgy, and she claims to have been gang-raped instead. You can leave whenever you want from the Union, Britain! No tanks will try to stop you, no continental missiles will try to prevent you. "The more the merrier", that's true, but we only want voluntary partners in our little group. Thanks for ignoring my points, mary, and not disputing that it was the right-wing parties in Malta and Greece that supported EU membership and the left-wing parties that opposed it -- thank you for not disputing either that it was the most leftist side of the socialists that opposed the Constitution in France even as the moderate side supported it. Indeed thank you that you reduced your whole post to nothing but a personal attack. Are you another falsified sig, btw, "mary", or is that your only identity here? Bulldog> Which one was the ad hominem again? That I said you don't trust French and German people as much as the English? That's my memory of what you've claimed in the past. Am I misremembering? Do you claim to trust them as your own? Why didn't you answer my question? If the EU is so bad for business why did said Institute only urge against the Constitution, rather than against the EU in its entirety? I answered *your* questions, I should remind you, so do me the courtesy of answering mine. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-19 2:49:21 PM |
| #29 Zappie is to a no vote on the EU constitution in Britain, as Doc Howie as head of the DNC is to increased Republican votes here in the USA. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-02-19 2:43:05 PM |
| #28 I really don't know why anyone continues to discuss this issue with Aris--he's a 25-year old programmer of video games who probably still lives at home with his parents. He was also almost certainly educated in GB, hence the great English and hatred of all things British (isn't that what they teach in the schools over there?) Just let him get back to his surfing--probably the only thing he does all day--and leave off the serious political discussions with him. |
| Posted by: mary 2005-02-19 2:10:05 PM |
| #27 Getting back to the point of the original article (oh yeah, that) I read it the same way TGA and Aris did: that eventually, one day, there will be no separate embassies for the different members of the EU, and that the EU will eventually represent the interests of all the member states in its diplomatic mission. Now Aris first stated that this is something the Euro states would agree to do eventually. How voluntary that agreement will be I don't know, but Zappie makes it pretty clear that, eventually, there will be one federal state that represents all the member states in organizations such as NATO and the UN. That the British Foreign Office says otherwise -- for now -- is part of the political game being played -- for now. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-02-19 1:44:40 PM |
| #26 At your ad hominem straw man bullshit again eh, Aris? |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2005-02-19 1:27:28 PM |
| #25 Why the fuck do we discuss the EU anymore? 'Cuz some of us need the eggs? * ducks * |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-02-19 1:20:44 PM |
| #24 Why the fuck do we discuss the EU anymore? Everyone knows it just works him into a froth. It's like calling his mother a whore, folks, and we should just stop it. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-02-19 12:49:11 PM |
| #23 2b> I'm sure it's lost on you in your zeal, to believe Aris, but this is just too funny. blah, blah, blah. You don't need to convince *me* that the Constitution is a sucky watered-down affair. I've stated so from the start. As long as you concede that it's a sucky watered-down affair in the *opposite* direction of what the Eurosceptics are claiming (namely in that it doesn't politically unite Europe *enough*), then we're in complete agreement. If the EU is so wonderful for business, will you please explain why the British Institute of Directors recently voted overwhelmingly against ratification of the proposed Constitution, Hmm, perhaps because the EU Constitution's primary improvement is in the political and not the economical aspect of the unification, given how the former has lagged way behind and the latter progressed more? You answer me this though: If the EU is so bad for business then why doesn't said Institute support UK's complete withdrawal from the EU, rather than simply try to stop *further* development of the political aspect of the union? Zapatero's socialists are more enthusiastic than Aznar's right-wingers Both support it. Aznar's right-wingers can't be *too* enthusiastic, given how they always need to be able to criticize somewhat the government for not making the best deal possible. And all the quotes from Spain that I've heard attacking the constitution come from a left-wing direction -- namely accusing the Constitution that it ushers a neoliberal economic policy after the UK and American models and so forth. See the quotes that BBC News has in its front page if you don't believe. The red tape and insane bureacracy of the EU is incredibly business-unfriendly, and only becoming more so. I'm sure you'd like to see the red-tape and insane bureaucracies of 25 different nations, instead of having only one such insane bureaucracy to deal with. And if one nation one day decides to nationalize assets of a British industry, I'm sure all those businessmen will just love the lack of a common set of rules applying to all. What about the UK? The Tories reject the Constitution out of hand. The UK is the exception, in this, as in many other matters relating to EU unification. Out of Schengen, out of the Eurozone, etc, etc. But your bringing left-wing opposition to the Constitution is really a red herring, isn't it? It's not surprising that many left-wingers object to their countries being subsumed by the EU. The loss of national autonomy and individuals' democratic influence threatens people whatever their political inclination. Yeah, right, I'm sure that's what the communists and neonazis that hate the EU most of all are concerned about, the loss of democratic influence. That's why the people most in love with the Soviet Union and fascisms of all stripes all *loathe* the EU. That's why Yushchenko's first moves after taking the presidency was to urge membership in the European Union. Why don't you quit *your* argumentation about loss of democracies and so-called dystopias, Bulldog? You've made it clear before that you don't object to the EU because of any lack of democracy in that project -- you hate the union of nations in *principle*, regardless of how democratic, or free, or voluntary, or good. You would never let your nation have to codecide with Germans or French, no matter how free or democratic or beneficial the process would be. Your position doesn't come from either a democratic, nor a freedom-loving perspective -- it comes merely from a nationalistic tribal one. You don't trust the people of these other nations as much as your own. Which is an understandable, acceptable position, but I wish you'd stop hiding it for something else. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-19 12:37:17 PM |
| #22 Everyone must agree! Unless even just one disagrees, then we agree that no one agrees! It's not a bug, it's a feature. On another matter, I'm selling shares in a company where we will hire 10 chiefs, who all promise to agree on everything unless one of them disagrees on anything, in which case we agree not to agree, except that the rules say: he MUST agree! But the rules say he can veto! But the rules say he must agree! The rules say he can veto! agree veto agreevetoagreevetoagreeveto....... haha. Wanna buys some stock? |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-02-19 11:55:00 AM |
| #21 Aris, it was nice of you to highlight the two quotes that show what a joke this is. The new European Constitution states: âMember States shall actively and unreservedly support the Unionâs common foreign and security policy." And it also states that there can be no such common foreign a security policy if a single member brings forth a veto. hahhaaaa! I'm sure it's lost on you in your zeal, to believe Aris, but this is just too funny. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-02-19 11:43:37 AM |
| #20 TGA - I agree with everything you say, but the way the Constitution is sold by different politicians to different audiences in different countries is absurd. Zapatero, Chirac and Schroeder make their intentions clear whereas Blair hides his. At the end of the day, it's a question of 'why take the risk'? Surrender of some national sovereignties to facilitate free trade took place decades ago. Nowadays it's all about common policies and 'harmonisations' which are completely unnecessary in that respect. The Constitution is a giant step too far towards political union. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2005-02-19 11:29:49 AM |
| #19 What a load of bullshit, Aris. If the EU is so wonderful for business, will you please explain why the British Institute of Directors recently voted overwhelmingly against ratification of the proposed Constitution, and a separate poll of big business leaders found the same percentage - ~60% - opposed to it? The red tape and insane bureacracy of the EU is incredibly business-unfriendly, and only becoming more so. This new, stupid, airline compensation law? The tax to be levied on paintings sold at London auctions which will hand the art market to foreign competitors? The scandalous mismanagement of marine resources? The subsidising of inefficient and arcane farming practices? Restriction of access to foreign markets? The list of crimes against corporate Europe committed by the EU is long. To claim that the EU is beneficial to businesses is plainly ridiculous. It could be, if it was just a free trade zone. But that isn't what it is nor what it wants to be. And for every left-wing group opposing the EU constitution there are at least as many right-wing ones. Take Spain, for example, whose referendum is tomorrow - Zapatero's socialists are more enthusiastic than Aznar's right-wingers. What about the UK? The Tories reject the Constitution out of hand. UKIP attracts both left-and right-wing voters, but more of the latter than the former. Do European Libertarians tend to support the Constitution? No. Would a federal EU, wielding power over an entire continent, represent a conservative small-stater's idea of a dystopian nightmare? Yes. But your bringing left-wing opposition to the Constitution is really a red herring, isn't it? It's not surprising that many left-wingers object to their countries being subsumed by the EU. The loss of national autonomy and individuals' democratic influence threatens people whatever their political inclination. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2005-02-19 11:24:07 AM |
| #18 Bulldog, what Eurocrats in Brussels want and what they will get are two things. If you strive for a political union, Zaparero's remarks make sense, but "un dÃa" in Spanish usually means "one fine day". In the early 60s, when De Gaulle and Adenauer signed the Elysee-Treaty, people were enthusiastic and predicting that "one fine day" border controls would cease to exist. This has happened. I'm not sure whether the political union of Europe will take place. Usually these things only happen when there is enough danger and threats from outside to make people give up national independence and freedom. I don't see the British in a United States of Europe. But all EU-nations have already given up a certain amount of "national sovereignty". Even if the EU were only a economic union, this would be the case. The advantages of a economic union were clear to see for anyone. That is not necessarily the case with the political union. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-19 10:52:53 AM |
| #17 JerseyMike> most right-wing parties are in favour of the EU Unless politcally right and left mean the exact opposite of what they do here in the new world Let's see -- if right-wing parties are the ones that strive for freer markets and more competition, then free-market parties generally support the EU given how one of the fundamental elements of the EU is the abolition of borders and barriers, and the free transfer of money, services and capital throughout the continent. It's one of the *fundamental* elements of the EU. (Ofcourse EU is often bashed for being protectionist against the *outside*, and I agree with such criticism, however unlike the abolition of internal borders, external protectionism is not inherent in the EU project itself, it's just a matter of policy) So, tell me, why should right-wing and left-wing mean the exact opposite in order for what I say to occur, hmm? But if you're too lazy to check on the facts... Check out whether it was the right-wing or the left-wing party that supported Malta's entry in the Union. Check out the same about Greece's entry (the right-wing party again in favour, the left-wing party had been agains). Check out how many of the communist party member/Nordic Green Left supported the EU Constitution and how many opposed it. Check out whether it was the left-wing or the moderate wing of the French socialists that supported the Constitution. JerseyMike and anonymous coward with the sig "EU", the reason I "apparently believe it" is because it's true. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-19 10:38:46 AM |
| #16 Indeed. The timescale question is a non-issue. The ambition of EUrophiles and Euro-federalists is political union - a fact which politicians such as Blair try to hide from their own population by presenting this Constitution as a mere 'tidying up exercise'. There are already EU embassies around the world (although perhaps not in name) and they are already replacing national representations. This usurpation of national independence is an underhand and creeping process, and whether it takes one year or ten is unimportant. The British public are increasingly waking up to what amounts to a betrayal of national sovereignty by our politicians; they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more! (I hope.) |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2005-02-19 10:30:47 AM |
| #15 Google's translation ââ¬Â¢ Zapatero predicts greater integration of UE ààThe president of the government Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero foretold Thursday that the European countries will finish to a day closing their embassies so that the European Union promotes a unified foreign policy if the states members approve the constitution common. The president of the government Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero foretold Thursday that the European countries will finish to a day closing their embassies so that the European Union promotes a unified foreign policy if the states members approve the constitution common. "Doubtlessly we will see European embassies in the world, not one of each country, with European diplomats and an European service of Relations Outer", said to Zapatero in a granted interview to the state transmitter National Radius of Spain. Whether un da means immediately, imminently, or eventually seems only a question of how thickly the salami is being sliced. The ultimate intended outcome is clear. "We will see European embassies in the world, not one of each country" sure sounds like no more British embassies unless they aren't part of the EU. But then this means no more French, Belgian or Greek embassies either, so perhaps it's not all bad. But now that the new arrangement is known as la carta magna, the English protests should diminish substantially. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-02-19 9:41:34 AM |
| #14 What he said El presidente del gobierno José Luis RodrÃguez Zapatero pronosticó el jueves que los paÃses europeos acabarán un dÃa cerrando sus embajadas para que la Unión Europea promueva una polÃtica exterior unificada si los estados miembros aprueban la constitución común. "Indudablemente veremos embajadas europeas en el mundo, no una de cada paÃs, con diplomáticos europeos y un servicio de Relaciones Exteriores europeo", dijo Zapatero en una entrevista otorgada a la emisora estatal Radio Nacional de España. "un dÃa" means "eventually" and he's not talking about British embassies. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-02-19 8:58:34 AM |
| #13 most right-wing parties are in favour of the EU and most opposition to it comes from the left-wingers in Europe JerseyMike - Aris says that all the time. Apparently he believes it. Like ITYS's 'say Doom!', it's a sort of 'end of the world is nigh' sandwich board which lets you know the wearer is, at best, detached from reality. Best to leave well alone. |
| Posted by: EU 2005-02-19 8:19:55 AM |
| #12 most right-wing parties are in favour of the EU Unless politcally right and left mean the exact opposite of what they do here in the new world, that sounds farfetched to say the least. It's going to be fun to watch my betters tie themselves up in bureaucratic red tape making them even more paralyzed and less relevant than they are now. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2005-02-19 7:39:37 AM |
| #11 This is all I can say about the matter. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-02-19 6:22:42 AM |
| #10 "Link, please"? I already gave you the link (didn't you see the url?) that has the crucial word "eventually", though I admit that the word isn't placed inside quotes. But then again neither are the unsubstantiated and foolish claims that all this will happen immediately after the ratification of the constitution and without any further approval placed within quotes either. Except that the version *I* believe more reliable has the benefit of accurately describing the situation. Only an ignorant fool would believe that after ratification of the Constitution national embassies would immediately close down, and that all of EU would vote with a single opinion in NATO or the UN. I somehow fail to believe that Zapatero or *any* other politician would have said such a foolish thing. Not even Bush could have said such a thing. Not even Quayle or Gore could have said such a thing. Such a foolish claim has the stench of UK tabloidism behind it instead. Only *they* are stupid enough in the whole world. Which btw is far different to "massive conservative media conspiracies", since most right-wing parties are in favour of the EU and most opposition to it comes from the left-wingers in Europe. UK tabloidism is a branch of lies all on its own. But keep the nonsensical parochialism where you foolishly think that EU is a "left-wing project" also. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-19 4:04:43 AM |
| #9 Zap made a compromise with France and Germany that gave Spain a lesser say in the EU. He's aligning himself with global powerhouses Cuba and Venezuela. The man is a buffoon. The question is: harmless or dangerous? |
| Posted by: Prince Abdullah 2005-02-19 3:47:21 AM |
| #8 Oh he did, did he? Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero told a Spanish radio station: âWe will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service.â Oddly any reference to the idea of this happening "eventually" is missing from the quote. Perhaps that's attributible to that well-known massive conservative media conspiracy that holds all of Europe in it's iron grip eh Aris? He added: âWe will see Europe with a single voice in security matters. We will have a single European voice within NATO. We want more European unity.â Oddly that quote is also not qualified with any concept of this being the "eventual" state of affairs. Nor is it couched in terms of there first being British (or any other) approval for this allegedly "eventual" change. Link please Aris, your assertion is unsubstantiated thus far. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-02-19 3:14:11 AM |
| #7 Ofcourse what Zapatero *actually* predicted is that EU nations may *eventually* agree to closing down their individual embassies and replace their individual foreign policies with a single one. And what he actually stated is ofcourse that the Constitution is a step to that direction of political unity. And I very much doubt he singled out the United Kingdom. http://breaking.tcm.ie/2005/02/17/story189759.html But please, do make it appear as if all this will happen immediately without UK's consent and immediately after the ratification of the Constitution. No need for truths. The new European Constitution states: âMember States shall actively and unreservedly support the Unionâs common foreign and security policy." And it also states that there can be no such common foreign a security policy if a single member brings forth a veto. Nice lying-by-ommission. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-02-19 2:53:09 AM |
| #6 Another way of looking at it. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-19 2:47:04 AM |
| #5 Well, well, I wonder who isn't telling the truth here? Tony wouldn't like now would he. Right. Zappy is all happy and stuff `cause it's a Tranzi wet dream. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-02-19 2:08:50 AM |
| #4 So who is gonna be the Head Euro? Chiraq, Zappy? **choking on sandwich*** |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-02-19 1:41:58 AM |
| #3 He's even better than Howard Dean! |
| Posted by: Dishman 2005-02-19 1:35:40 AM |
| #2 And the EU will, of course, exchange all of the individual country seats at the UN with a single seat. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-02-19 1:32:58 AM |
| #1 . . . and the other shoe drops. Yet another reason why the EU isn't a good idea. And picking Zapatero for a spokesman? Come on, isn't there anyone better? |
| Posted by: The Doctor 2005-02-19 1:12:04 AM |
