eurealist.co.uk

AH Ha! just as I wrote that NM (please excuse the initials but I simply cannot take seriously someone who calls himself Nose Monkey, and I believe that the issues he raises are serious) was convinced that the reform of the EU was a possibility, he comes up with a post in which he explores this contention further.

But not of course without the usual put downs of we who rely on historic evidence to back our claim that the EU is far from being re-formable in the way we want.

NM invites us to answer the question:

How can hardcore anti-EU types maintain that reform is impossible yet simultaneously believe that the EU is heading towards a superstate - which would, in itself, be an immense reform?

Perhaps this is the wrong question a much better question would be how can someone continue to believe the EU can be reformed against all the historic evidence that it cannot?

The point is, as usual, the question is loaded, not only does Dr North EU Referendum not make the claim that the EU is heading towards a “super state” but rather a super overarching government. Further NM is misrepresenting our position, we do not believe the EU is incapable of reform, in fact it is continually reforming itself on its march toward its goal of a totally unified Europe. If that were not the case then there would not be the necessity for so many reforming treaties.

Monnet as NM mentioned is often misquoted, however not on the substance of his Method but on the words, and certainly not on his declaration that the direction of the “Project” was towards a United States of Europe. Thus whilst airily dismissing the quotes of modern superstatists! Such as “Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker” NM conveniently ignores all of the present evidence that the goal of a fully united Europe is still the driving force of the EU.

He would rather have us believe that the ideal of a fully united Europe is not now on the agenda and it is only diehard anti EU types who use old quotes of long dead EU autocrats to bolster an outmoded view of the EU.

Yet the Laeken declaration made it clear that the dream is still very much alive and still at the heart of the EU. That this remains the goal is made absolutely clear, and that clarity directly contradicts the notion that the dream is dead, with clauses such as “the dream of a strong, unified Europe” and “The unification of Europe is near.”

NM ask us to take a gander at the “failed compromises that are the Treaty of Nice and Lisbon Treaty” Yet each and every EU treaty including the Treaties of Nice and Lisbon, makes the claim that the people of the EU member states want the EU to work towards further integration. This confirmation of the Monnet message reaches forwards across the decades, in the treaties and in the actions of the EU. Showing us without a doubt, that the EU is not the least incapable of reform, it is just that it is always reforming and seeking reform in one direction only.

What the EU is incapable of, is letting go of the original dream of a united Europe.

Even the idea of a multi-tier, multi-speed EU on which NM relies as a basis for the future of the Project, is only a mechanism in the direction towards a fully united Europe, as the various tiers are only evidence of differing speeds towards the goal of a fully united Europe rather than differing objectives. The EU objectives are set out in the EU treaties, for all of us to read and they do not indicate the slightest intention that the ideal of a fully united Europe is not now the goal.

This idea that the multi-tier, multi-speed is only a mechanism for further unification is made abundantly clear in one of his links; to the EU s own website

“Multi-speed” Europe is the term used to describe the idea of a method of differentiated integration whereby common objectives are pursued by a group of Member States both able and willing to advance, it being implied that the others will follow later.

and again Romano Prodi

At this point, a vanguard of countries could…be the best way to proceed towards a more integrated union, on condition that door remains always open to those countries willing to join later,”

No I am very much afraid that the ideal of a fully united Europe is still very much alive and still very much at the centre of the European project. And anything else is only evidence that some members feel their citizens do not want to proceed at this pace at this time rather than they do not want to proceed ever. The EU will advance a fast as it can and as slowly as it must, but it will advance, even if it means waiting for us to elected a unifying government.

If the pro EU “it wont happen” brigade want to offer us some convincing evidence then perhaps they could work towards an EU treaty that does not contain the dream of a fully unified Europe, a treaty that does not protect the Acquis, a treaty that returns power to the member states. Instead of the integrating unifying treaties that have historically been offered to us, and then forced through our parliaments on a three line whip, without the chance for us the people of this country to give or refuse our consent to the constant changes of the way we are governed.

Technorati Tags:
EU Constitution, Eu Propaganda, Founding Fathers, The EU, UK Government, reform of the EU
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |