Fiji's Family Network
Below is another article from 2007 by the Philadelphia Church of God:
Many may consider such a prognosis unfounded—even diabolical—but it is a realitysteadily coming into sharper focus.
The Trumpet has monitored Britain’s relationship with the European Union for more than 15 years, and we have regularlyexplained why we believe Britain will eventually leave or be banished from the EU camp.
Today, even as secession becomes a distinct reality, many people still disregard the notion of a united Europe minus Britain. After all, since 1973 London has been a stalwart member of the European community, and one of its most influential and dominant states.
But that doesn’t negate reality. Though some consider a British withdrawal unlikely, this does not diminish its inevitability.
Many journalists and analysts are debating whether or not London will sever its ties with Brussels. Too few are considering the more critical question: What are the implications of a British secession?
Barring full-on invasion or perhaps a massive global economic crisis, no event could have more colossal implications for Europe than Britain’s withdrawal from the EU. It will be a revolutionary and defining moment in European history.
To grasp the implications, we must understand Britain’s role within the Union since its triumphant entrance on Jan. 1, 1973, a day that has proven crucial in EU history.
On that day, Britain became a millstone around the neck of European unification—a weight not quite heavy enough to sink the concept of integration, but burdensome enough to prevent it from ever becoming a rip-roaring success.
The reason for Britain’s millstone role is essentially an issue of conflicting perspectives and motivations toward Continental integration.
Conceived after World War ii, the modern concept of European integration began for a number of reasons. In public discussion it was considered a tool to promote mutual economic prosperity for European states. There was also much talk among France and the Benelux nations in particular of how a unified Continent would constrain Germany from starting another war, as it had done twice that century already.
What was not publicized widely was the ultimate aim of the union’s founding fathers to take this trading combine into a final phase that would unite Europe economically, monetarily, industrially, politically and, finally, militarily. In point of fact, their goal in uniting Europe was imperialistic from the beginning. That goal was to remain largely hidden for the following 30 years under the mask of common trade interests.
British perceptions of European unification were always quite different. For Britain, which was politically well-established, economically stable and militarily and strategically secure (thanks to its relationship with the United States), integration with Europe remained principally an issue of economics, a way it could strengthen its economy by forging deeper trade and commercial ties with the Continent.
While European nations seeking political security and a stronger global presence perceived integration as a necessity, Britain saw it as a luxury (albeit, for some, a necessary luxury). Brussels’s need for prosperous, advanced London was far more intense than London’s need for gaunt, weak Brussels.
This divergence in perceptions and motivations has plagued Britain’s relationship with the EU for the past 34 years.
Since 1973, the general perception by British leaders that integration with Europe was more option than necessity made them distinctly casual, even skeptical, about unification. The result: Every time British leaders sit at the negotiating table with European leaders to hash out plans for further integration, they inherently possess a stacked hand. Ironically, the fact that Britain doesn’t need European unification nearly as much as European states do gives it the freedom to demand more from the Union.
This divergence in perceptions has manifested itself regularly over the years, and is the fundamental reason for London’s precarious relationship with Brussels, a relationship that vacillates between cordiality and outright contention. Like a carefully weighted millstone, Britain has displayed enough enthusiasm and political adeptness to avoid tanking the unification project altogether, and enough pessimism and caution to consistently prevent full integration.
This equation manifests itself virtually every time Britain signs an agreement with the EU. Consider the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. Though British Prime Minister John Major finally put pen to paper, ratification came only after Britain had infuriated the rest of Europe with its sloth-like lack of enthusiasm, opinionated opposition and staunch demands. The British Parliament only signed the treaty after it had secured opt-outs from the Social Charter and guidelines for a single European currency. Even after these compromises, the decision to sign the treaty barely passed Parliament.
Earlier this summer, as European leaders gathered in Brussels to nail down the EU reform treaty, Britain weighed the process down by demanding exemption from certain laws and laying out a series of redline issues on which it refused to compromise. True to form, Britain again demanded the right to opt out of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Though the independence afforded Britain serves British leaders comparatively well, it has only frustrated their counterparts on the Continent, particularly the ambitious Eurocrats bent on furthering unification. France and Germany in particular have often aired their annoyance over London’s weak-willed and oftentimes contentious approach toward integration.
A British withdrawal will fundamentally rewrite this entire equation.
How so? We take up the question in a future article.
Tony Blair is committed to further integrating Britain into the EU. A growing number say that’s a terrible idea. Here’s the evidence to support their claim.
On Dec. 12, 2003, the European Union held a summit designed to have all current and potential EU nations agree on a constitution for Europe. Such a constitution would bind its member nations together in a federal union of nation-states when it expands this May from 15 to 25 members. The summit ended in failure as agreement could not be made on an equitable EU voting system.
For many Britons, this was far from sad news: It kept Prime Minister Tony Blair from signing away British sovereignty. This critical issue, however, is far from resolved. Blair is still working to see that Britain is brought to what he believes is its rightful place in the European sun. Upon his return from the summit, Blair insisted that there was still plenty of time for further negotiations before the planned implementation of the constitutional treaty’s key elements in 2009. He told Parliament, “We must continue to shape the future of Europe in ways that reflect our national interest” (Independent, Dec. 16, 2003).
the constitutional treaty’s key elements in 2009. He told Parliament, “We must continue to shape the future of Europe in ways that reflect our national interest” (Independent, Dec. 16, 2003).
Blair claimed to have secured agreement on British vetoes of certain clauses written into the draft EU Constitution. These “red line” issues, as he termed them, were meant to counteract the British people’s reluctance to signing over sovereignty of their nation to a federalist superstate. Mr. Blair emerged, in Chamberlainesque manner, from the rubble of the collapsed negotiations in Brussels, claiming victory on these controversial issues: criminal justice, taxation, defense and foreign policy.
The problem is, unlike Chamberlain, Mr. Blair did not even have a piece of paper to indicate that any party had signed to agree that Britain would have such “red lines” drawn through the constitution’s offending clauses. “In reality, what Blair had secured was an agreement from his mate Silvio Berlusconi, then holder of the EU’s rotating presidency. The Italian prime minister’s assurance, however, means nothing now that Ireland holds the presidency.
“And Ireland has made it clear that Blair’s supposed red lines are null and void.
“Ireland’s prime minister, Bertie Ahern, told journalists that despite all Blair’s talk, there was ‘nothing on paper.’ According to theGuardian [January 9], when Ahern attempts to restart the talks in spring, the only texts he will recognize will be [Valery] Giscard d’Estaing’s constitution draft and a set of Italian amendments published in November.
“Blair, then, is back where he started. He will have to return to negotiations with no guarantee of a British veto on any areas crucial to national interest—and with the EU’s federalists keener than ever to steamroller resistance to their dream” (www.eursoc.com, January 9).
What is at stake here is simply the question of whether Britain is prepared to yield up its sovereign right, as a separate national entity, to the federalist agenda of the Franco-German inspired federal union of states envisaged in the draft EU Constitution. The British prime minister is on the back foot. Even as the Eurofederalists seek to “steamroller resistance to their dream,” the signs are that the average Brit is digging in to take a stand against the steamroller!
For years, Britain’s leadership had been serving its subjects a virtual diet of tea laced with the opiate of deceit, brewed in a concoction of lies. This potent elixir drugged the British public into a state of mind where they believed that EU membership would amount to nothing more than an economic trading bloc with no fundamental changes in Britain’s governance or sovereignty. In the past year, however, many Britons have awakened to this diabolical lie and the grave danger inherent in becoming further integrated into the EU.
Britain’s Queen Elizabeth recently raised concern at the prospect of Britain becoming a signatory to the EU Constitution—which ardent realists such as Rodney Atkinson, Norris McWhirter and Adrian Hilton have been warning about for years. The Daily Telegraph (London) of Oct. 16, 2003, stated, “[T]he Palace’s concerns focus on whether the Queen’s supreme authority as the guardian of the British constitution, asserted through the sovereignty of Parliament, could be altered or undermined by Article 10 of the draft text.” Article 10 of the draft constitution states, “The constitution and law adopted by the Union’s institutions in exercising competencies conferred on it shall have primacy of the law of the member states”(emphasis mine throughout).
The next day, the Daily Mail(London) ran a three-quarter page story titled “Why the Queen Must Stand Up to Mr. Blair.” Simon Heffer clarified how the new constitution would subjugate the Queen to the unelected powers of the federalist Eurosuperstate and emasculate the British House of Lords. This would end nearly 1,000 years of sovereign British rule.
Britain has already signed away certain sovereign rights through its accession to various European treaties. However, the government has drawn the line on the most significant issues—Mr. Blair’s so-called red lines. These are matters of major concern to the average British subject, and the government knows it.
In July 2002, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK was violating the human rights of transsexuals for failing to recognize them legally. Bowing to the EU, the Lord Chancellor’s Department quickly announced proposals to allow transsexuals to marry in their altered gender.
In January 2003, the EU Parliament singled out Britain for a wide range of human rights abuses regarding prisons and “erosions of civil liberties” following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The EU’s condemnation was aimed at Britain’s Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001, which allows for the detention of foreigners, including EU citizens, under suspicion of terrorism or threat of national security.
Following this attack, the EU Parliament called for the creation of a European Human Rights agency to introduce more intrusive monitoring of what the EU sees as abuses. The new agency is to be guided by the principles of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, “which creates a vast array of economic and social rights that do not currently exist in the British legal system” (Daily Telegraph, Jan. 14, 2003). Britain can expect this agency to emerge this year, leaving it powerless to detain or incarcerate foreign or domestic terror suspects holding EU passports.
Last June, Britain’s second-largest labor union threatened to sue the British government in the European Court of Justice over its alleged failure to protect workers’ pension rights, demonstrating that Brussels already has supremacy over London on such issues. Then in July, the European Commission announced preparations to sue the British government for failing to open its rail freight market to competition.
The Oct. 1, 2003, Evening Standard(London) documented the case of a man convicted of attempted theft and possession of a stolen identity card, and thrice deported from the UK, who was then permitted to return to British “sovereign” soil in accordance with EU immigration law.
These eye-opening examples illustrate how, even under current treaties, Britain has compromised itself in criminal justice to the burgeoning federalist EU superstate.
One of Britain’s deep concerns relates to Article iii-63 of the draft EU Constitution—supposedly designed to combat tax fraud and evasion. In effect, the application of this proposal would lead to tax harmonization within the EU membership. This effectively would yield control of the disbursement of taxes paid by the British public to the boffins of Brussels. Britain has long resisted yielding up this sovereign right.
Added to this is the prospect of the loss of rights to effective tax havens such as the Channel Islands.
Already, the European Court of Justice makes wide and fortuitous judgments regarding domestic tax laws of EU member nations via Eurocentric interpretations of federal EU law. Submission by Britain to Article iii-63 of the EU Constitution would further solidify this incursion into the nation’s sovereign right to apply its taxes to the benefit of the British nation.