A tough secession clause in the new European constitution would make it illegal for Britain to leave the European Union without permission.
Article 46 of the secret draft text, obtained by The Telegraph, says the terms of departure for any country wanting to leave must be approved by two thirds of member states.
The draft is to be presented this week to the 105-strong Convention on the Future of Europe by the praesidium, headed by the former French president Valery Giscard d’Estaing. It is releasing the Europe’s first constitution piece by piece over the next few months.
The text, still subject to last-minute changes today, would allow a minority bloc of states to impose conditions, offering no guarantee that a departing country could keep its trading rights or reclaim currency reserves held by the European Central Bank.
David Heathcoat-Amory, a Tory MP on the convention, called the text outrageous.
It’s a prison clause, not a secession clause. We thought we could repeal the 1972 European Communities Act if the worst came to the worst, but this shows we’re no longer talking about a voluntary union you can leave whenever you want. It is the final extinction of parliamentary sovereignty.
Mr Heathcoat-Amory said the two European commissioners on the praesidium, France’s Michel Barnier and Portugal’s Antonio Vitorino, had pushed through a highly integrationist text.
Addendum:
for Matt Owen
Presumably the ratification of the Consitutional Treaty will involve an Act of Parliament, which itself could also be repealed like any other Act. Or am I being hopelessly and naively optimistic?
Yes you are; consider the American Civil War.
Joseph Sobran — despite his strange anti-Israel fixation, a very bright man — once said that the right to secede was at the heart of freedom. And indeed, if you have no right to secede from a contractarian union, what remedies will you have should it start to abuse its powers or exceed its authority?
Watch out, Britain. Keep a close eye on your perquisites as you proceed into union with the Continent. We Yanks do the cavalry-riding-to-the-rescue bit fairly well, but we’ve gotten mighty tired of fighting in Belgium and France.
hmm…this is not encouraging to read. Sweden is in this whole mess too. I’m just gonna get out of here (EUrope) as soon as possible. Rats are the first to abandon a sinking ship
Guys, I’m sorry, but the picture of the swastika inside the EU emblem is way over the top. I oppose the idea of a federal Europe but it’s just not an appropriate comparison.
I thought the other one – cross through it and No! – was fine.
David Lawson: We are used to upsetting people with that particular graphic. We stand by it too.
David Lawson: Unlike most of our bitching about the EU (fraud, incompetence, waste, blah, blah, etc…), this issue is nothing less than setting the ground work for a future war when Britain does eventually leave the EU.
So if you do not like the fact we are using emotive images, perhaps you do not understand the gravity of what is being proposed here or what the eventual consequences will be. The image is intended to upset people and I am glad to see it is working.
International treaties don’t matter a damn. They can be torn up at a governmental whim and unless the EU is willing to go to war there’s not a durn thing they can do about it.
Upset, Mr. de Havilland? All I’m thinking is “about bl***y time!”.
Well done, gentlemen!
David, in my own American perspective and in light of American history, I find the graphic ENTIRELY appropriate.
There should be no surprise that the same entity that screams that the US has to obtain permission to defeat terrorist regimes is the same one that would insist a country no longer wishing to be a member have to obtain permission for that as well.
Will the UK then have to draw up its own Declaration of Independence?
If so, here’s one American who would cheer them on.
While I understand that the fantasy superstate proposed by Europe’s political elites would be a statist monstrosity I think there are clear differences between it and Nazism. Everything indicates that Europe will follow the Transnational Progressivist model, anti-sovereignty and pro-professional bureaucracy. Not desirable of course, but in terms of morality still a world away from industrialised mass murder. The swastika represented not only the monolithic state but also the concepts of racial purity and aggressive military expansion, which crucially are missing from the EU vision. I don’t think drawing a distinction between physical force and bureaucratic bullying is mere semantics here, and I think you need symbolism that is not only attention-grabbing but resonant and right. Because you’re right – it is important.
If things ever escalate to the point of a real conflict (unlikely, but who could have predicted the events of the last couple of years?) I think whatever the EU decides to do will flow from its weakness, cynicism and lack of cohesion. Issues like the Rapid Reaction Force and the, er, “common foreign policy” have shown up how laughable the notion of a strong, unified EU is. Unless you don’t share my optimism – can you posit a chain of events where we’d actually be fighting on the beaches again?
Using emotive imagery is fine, but if it doesn’t stand up to sufficient scrutiny it runs the risk of defeating its purpose (and in this case maybe auto-Godwinising?).
I would echo David Lawson’s erudite arguments, the use of the swastika graphic is inappropriate. I think its quite lazy as well! Its too easy to play on the instant recognition and repulsion that the symbol engenders. Surely your argument is strong enough to survive without using such a cheap shot?
Do another graphic (you lazy sods!) and one that doesn’t risk alienating your audience by inviting comparisons between the horrors of the holocaust and the current federalising issue. Unless you really think that genocide is in the planning?
“Issues like the Rapid Reaction Force and the, er, “common foreign policy” have shown up how laughable the notion of a strong, unified EU is.”
People might have said the same thing about the idea of a strong, unified America in the 1780’s, while the US was governed according to the Articles of Confederation. Yet 80 years later the US faced a bloody war to “preserve the Union.”
It’s a fair point, Ken, but prediction is a risky business. I think the strongest arguments against EU integration are the ones which deal with what the EU is right now and what it openly admits it wants to be rather than long-term hypotheses regarding the nightmare it may become in future decades.
I just think these arguments are sturdy enough without raising the spectre of totalitarianism.
Excuse me: what exactly is the EU going to do if a country *does* decide to leave? Bomb them?
Seriously, how and why does this matter: in the event of someone wanting to walk out, what can actually be done to try and stop them leaving?
The swastika represented not only the monolithic state but also the concepts of racial purity and aggressive military expansion
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but we Americans get the impression that anti-semitism is a rising issue in France. From when France ignored Israel’s pleas in the late 70s and built Osiraq/Tammuz 1 in Iraq, to their current support of that regime, to undercurrents of anti-semitism in their popular culture… well, if the shoe fits. According to the CIA, France is 5-10% Islamic and 1% Jewish, with the Islamic proportion increasing and the Jewish proportion decreasing. And that’s not even to mention the neo-Nazis in Germany or Jorge Haider in Austria. Are you absolutely certain that racial purity will never rear its ugly head again in Europe? I’m not.
Additionally, one benefit of the EU is that France will be able to draw upon the resources of a much larger economy to build up a more powerful military. Despite the laughable early attempt reported at Samizdata recently, that is the trend and one stated reason for the existence of the EU (common foreign policy & military). Poo-poo their early progress all you want, but the trend is undeniable. Will a statist, anti-semitic EU with a modern military be so far removed from the ideals of Nazi Germany?
Sofia Sideshow displays some merchandise with a different twist on the EU flag – note the hammer-and-sickle in each of the stars.
Matt, To most Britons, the swastika does not call to mind Germany’s attempt to exterminate a race of people, but a fight to preserve our own liberty at any cost – viz the speeches made by Winston Churchill. The swastika raises folk memories (and memories of those still living) of sacrifice on the battlefield, in the skies and on the home front; tens of thousands of crosses in cemetaries in France and Belgium; folk memories of relentless bombing of cities; the bravery of the invasion of Normandy and the hundreds of little privately-owned boats that set off across the N Sea to rescue Allied military; air raid sirens night after night for five years; tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of civilian deaths; “making do” on powdered eggs and rations; a detemination absolutely not to give in. Not to be enslaved by Germany. We’ve all seen the movies, but those times were lived and fought through, and those sacrifices for freedom made, in real life in real time by our forebears. Thus, Samizdat’s use of the swastika is entirely appropriate to Britain’s new fight to preserve our ancient birthright that we have on our hands.
Good work chaps! I thank you for the effort and withdraw my lazy jibe. Congratulations on picking an image with no troubling connotations of totalitarian slaughter – just good ol’ Uncle Joe 😉
Libertybelle,
I can’t claim to know what ‘most Britons’ think of when they see the swastika, I can only tell you honestly what it symbolises to me. When I see that graphic, l I too think of our heroic resistance, which you describe with eloquence and emotion, (I’m British too btw). I also think about the gas chambers, the forced labour camps, eugenic experiments, lamp shades from human skin, genocide etc… Not everyone will make those same associations but some will. Symbols are powerful things (just ask an advertiser) and not everyone reads them in the same way.
It’s not as if there aren’t plenty of alternatives. If you want to highlight the imperial/centralising direction of the EU why not pick Kaiser Wilhelm’s Prussian helmeted head? Or if its a Franco-German power bloc seeking dominance through backdoor federalism that’s the problem stick Napoleon on there as well. Use your imagination, or have a competition for all readers of samizdat to come up with a new graphic?
You may think me overly precious about this, (I know, I know 😉 ) I’m anti censorship but in this case I think it’s a matter of taste rather than free speech. I also agree with Mr Lawson that you risk damaging your argument unnecessarily. I can see from the new posting that the site authors disagree but I’d still maintain they should get another graphic.
Go on, boot up Photoshop!
Matt
Ps and I do withdraw the work jibe, you’ve clearly put time and effort into your site and it shows.
Byron – there are definitely undercurrents of anti-semitism in French society but it’s a stretch to go from that to a Nazi superstate. Of course, I can’t predict that this will never happen, but that isn’t a good enough reason to invoke the swastika right this minute. I can forsee scenarios where Muslims are ascribed “victim” or “oppressed” group status and decisions are loaded in their favour but Jews are not. You could make a reasonable argument that this framework may even be anti-semitic.
However, the swastika represents something significantly worse than simmering anti-semitism – the supremacy of one white master race (not a multicultural melting-pot) and the systematic removal of Jews from society, followed by extermination. Unless we see indications that the EU is drifting towards such a brutal dictatorship the comparison isn’t apposite.
The success of Haider, Le Pen etc. looks more like a reaction to the intransigence of Europe’s political elites than an EU drift rightward. They want power, naturally, but their philosophies show no sign of becoming part of the larger EU vision.
It’s far better to deal with what the EU is right now. Until the Commission hands down directives akin to the Nuremberg laws and starts rumbling about Lebensraum, using the swastika will be inaccurate, not to mention counterproductive.