eurealist.co.uk

Eurealist :: Main Page: “The three reasons for Europe
by Eurealist on May 19, 2005 10:20AM (BST)

Give Europe more weight in the world The three reasons for Europe By Javier Solana

Argues for an increase in military capabilities
The three reasons for Europe
by Eurealist on May 19, 2005 10:20AM (BST)

Give Europe more weight in the world The three reasons for Europe By Javier Solana

Argues for an increase in military capabilities

They taught us that diplomacy not backed by credible threats was no match for determined ultra-nationalists. And when we finally took action, together with the US - in Bosnia and later in Kosovo – Europe’s weakness in military capabilities stood out

For further enlargement

Best of all, enlargement is not over. Europe as a transformative power has further to go. Romania and Bulgaria have just signed their accession treaties. If the appropriate conditions are met, Turkey and Croatia will start their negotiations later this year.

And our long-term vision is eventual accession by all Balkan states to the European Union.

Moreover, Europe’s power of attraction remains strong further afield. Think of Georgia in 2003. Think also of Ukraine in 2004 where the EU played a major role in ensuring a peaceful and democratic outcome to the political crisis. This was EU foreign policy at its best: robust in its support for European values; staunch in its defence of the democratic aspirations of Ukraine; open and frank in our dialogue with Russia, and pragmatic in the co-operation between capitals and Brussels. Moldova has also chosen the path of closer links with the EU. And who knows what is still to come, for instance in Belarus next year? When I met with Belarus opposition groups last month, I detected a strong desire for European values and democracy.

And for Europe is to become a global power.

Gaza, Darfur, Belarus, Uzbekistan and Myanmar: each requires a different response. But being a bystander, accepting the status quo, that is not the European way. This is a troubled world. Europe has to be engaged. First, there is really no such thing as doing nothing. If you do nothing, people often believe that is our deliberate policy. The genocide in Rwanda happened in part because the perpetrators thought we, the international community, would do nothing. Second, it would be unreasonable to leave the US as the sole global actor - or to create that impression in Washington. America needs help and support just as much as a responsible Europe deserves respect and influence. And third, in our globalised world, things that happen in far away places, such as Afghanistan, can and do affect our security in unexpected ways. Distance and borders offer no protection.
All this he tells us will be ours if only we vote yes to the EU Constitution

Firstly, the Constitution offers a massive improvement in our ability to tackle old and new security threats. Think of the solidarity clause which will cover both terrorist and natural or man-made disasters. Then add enhanced cooperation on civil protection and structured co-operation on defence. Both promise a more capable Europe, addressing today’s and tomorrow’s problems.

Secondly, in terms of effectiveness, the Constitution inaugurates a new way of preparing and taking decisions. Perhaps the biggest innovation is the proposed EU Foreign Minister which will combine, in one person, the ability to mobilise all the different components of EU external relations. To ensure more consistency, the EU Foreign Minister will also represent the Union abroad. Our partners will thus have one interlocutor – something which is long overdue.

Finally, the Constitution foresees the creation of an EU External Action Service. Europe will thus have a single team working under one roof and answerable to one person responsible for the full range of EU external relations.

The only problem is that he claims that “the second rationale for the European project is to spread this zone of peace, democracy and prosperity to all corners of our continent”.

Its that word democracy that stands in the way when is the EU going to spread democracy to itself.
e”

Eurealist :: Main Page: ” Blair and Brown and the EU
by Eurealist on May 19, 2005 09:51AM (BST)
View Article Blair and Brown and the EU

Patrick Dunleavy, professor of politics at the London School of Economics, is reported as seeing Brown’s approach to Europe as muted. “He seems to be developing a well worked out plan for the premiership succession and certainly wants to start by making a big impression,” Dunleavy said. “There is much talk about what that impression might be, but nothing has been said about any plan for Europe.”

He said the consensus is that Brown is currently neither pro- nor anti-Europe but is simply technocratic. “Theories of a closer union pass him by. That has been his attitude all along, and there is no sign that it has changed. Europe is simply not on his radar,

But as Walker point out “it is the very issue of Europe which could elevate Brown to 10 Downing Street before the next run to the polls. Next year, Britain is scheduled to vote in a referendum on the EU constitution, and there is little evidence to suggest that Blair can swing the historically euroskeptic nation behind a “yes” vote.”

Alasdair Murray, deputy director of the Center for European Reform think tank, said where Blair will likely fail, Brown could succeed. “Brown is the only way to a ‘yes.’ He’s more credible because he’s more of a skeptic. Blair is too pro, so Brown should lead the campaign,”.

Opinion about the tack Brown will take when it comes to campaigning for the referendum is divided. Some analysts believe any deal Tony Blair might have struck with his current chancellor about his future premiership would require Brown to milk his popularity, give the campaign his all, and steer Britain towards approving the constitution.

If the strategy were to fail, it would be a mortal blow to Tony Blair, leaving Gordon Brown to take over but not take the rap because he would only have been the side-kick in the campaign. If, however the referendum scored a “yes” vote, Blair could back out in a final glow of glory.

But others say Brown will keep a healthy distance from the whole issue of the constitution ballot. “He will not choose to undermine the referendum, nor will he put himself in the front line. But it is a short-sighted policy, because if Britain votes against the constitution, he will have a lot of clearing up to do,” Murray said.

Although I do not go along with this idea that Brown is sceptic, the point that someone who was, would have a better chance of getting a yes is one that bears reflection, it really boils down to trust, someone like Blair who is gung-ho for the Constitution and the EU in general, is not likely to look at the down side of the Constitution and will paper over the inconstancies whereas a sceptic will not, so their agreement carries more weight because you would tend to think that they have asked all the right questions and have been satisfied with the answers.

Eurealist :: Main Page: “Voices from the Crypt
by Eurealist on May 19, 2005 09:18AM (BST)

A few days after the last Pope died I was a bit disappointed to see that there were several comments in the Press that he would have voted for the EU Constitution, after all if only we had asked him a few weeks earlier he would have been able to clarify the point. I thought that it was very unfair of those people to wait until he died before claiming his agreement with their political intentions.

Churchill is the British leader who creates a similar controversy, the pro-EU brigade like to claim that he supported the EU, and point to a couple of his speeches to confirm their claim to his authority, unfortunately he also made several speeches and comments that could and are used to show that he was against the EU. So the battle for Churchill rages on with all of us trolling through his speeches to find evidence that he was really on our side.

It would seem that a similar battle for the authorization of the dead is being fought out over the EU Constitution in France, in an amusing article in the Manila Times, of all places Sophie Nicholson writes that “EU charter debate stirs voices from the crypt”

Even the dead are having a say in France’s heated debate over whether to ratify the first European Union constitution.

The voices of great leaders from France’s past—Francois Mitterrand and Charles de Gaulle - are being summoned by politicians of both camps as France debates whether to say “yes” or “no” to the historic charter in a widely watched May 29 referendum.”