October 2021
« Sep    

Surrendering our sovereignty hidden by a smokescreen of legalistic gobbledigook

I doubt there are more than a handful of people in Britain who fully understand the extent to which we’ve handed control of our country and our future to the corrupt, unelected kommissars in Brussels. One reason is that the many treaties we’ve signed are so full of legalistic gobbledigook that few people, including those who signed them, have any idea what’s really in them. After all, the American Constitution 0f 1787 was a mere 4,600 words, whereas the EU Constitution (renamed the Lisbon Treaty) stretched to over 160,000 words. So, I’ll try to explain:

Apparently, the vast majority of Europeans passionately support the new superstate:

“Reflecting the will of the citizens and states of Europe to build a common future, this constitution establishes the European Union, on which member states confer competences to obtain objectives they have in common.”

Countries must subordinate their national independence and security to the higher purpose of creating the new union:

“The member states shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives.”

The EU now has all the main symbols of statehood, including a president, a foreign minister, a police service, a judiciary, military forces, a flag and a national anthem. The EU has exclusive powers over all issues connected with the operation of a single market, including trade agreements, tariff levels, agriculture, industrial support, fisheries, competition policy, movement of capital and movement of people. Moreover, EU countries have forever forfeited the power to pass any of their own legislation of any kind in any of the areas where the EU had exclusive competence:

“When the constitution confers on the Union exclusive competence in a specific area, only the Union may legislate and adopt legally binding acts.”

The EU has power over many other aspects of our lives, including tourism, culture, asylum, education, healthcare, industrial relations, workers’ rights, environmental policy, social policy, humanitarian aid, youth sport, care of the elderly, human rights, consumer protection, food safety, energy, space exploration and some areas of taxation.

In these areas the EU has what the eurocrats call ‘shared competence’ with member states. The words ‘shared competence’ would suggest to most normal people that the eurocrats and the member countries should work happily together as equal partners in these areas of shared competence. However, the EU’s definition of ‘shared’ is rather far from the normal everyday meaning:

“When the constitution confers on the Union a competence shared with member states in a specific area, the Union and the member states may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area. The member states shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised, or has decided to cease exercising, its competence.”

In plain language, in the areas of supposed ‘shared competence’ countries can manage their own affairs and pass their own laws only if the EU has specifically decided not to legislate in that area. Given the tendency of the EU to continually extend its authority wherever it can, the scope for countries to pass their own laws under shared competence will become ever more limited.

Moreover, the EU can take over economic policy, employment policy, foreign policy and increase its control over defence:

“The Union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy.”

And the EU wants the authority to present the EU’s policies at the United Nations Security Council, thus preventing countries like Britain and France, both of which have a permanent seat on the Security Council, from expressing their own countries’ policy positions independently:

“When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those member states which sit on the Security Council shall request that the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs be asked to present the Union’s position.”

Linked to having a common foreign policy is the idea of an EU military force:

“Member states shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy.”

This means that in the future we might see Irish or Swedish or Danish or British soldiers dying to defend the business interests of corrupt Romanian  or Bulgarian politicians under the leadership of Italian officers being commanded by French generals. All in all, this is not exactly something likely to inspire many young soldiers to want to sacrifice their lives.

There you have it folks – the complete surrender of Britain to the Democratic People’s Republic of Europe!

2 comments to Surrendering our sovereignty hidden by a smokescreen of legalistic gobbledigook

  • Bruck Fussels

    “Member states shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy.”

    So at some point in the future, the UK will have to hand over the launch codes for her nukes to the European Union.

    Hmmm, funny how none of our politicians has mentioned that one…

  • MGJ

    I suggest the Treaty of Rome (1957) is an exception in that its content unambiguously outlines the creation of a new state.

    However UK politicians, including anti-EU ones, insist on telling us that it is just a trade agreement which somehow got perverted later. If DC really thinks he can negotiate reform then it suggests he hasn’t read it.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>