Thank you to Mr. Vayrynen, what with the forthcoming referendum on the UK’s continued membership of the EU, this report perfectly underlines the mindset of what the European Union is really about.
This report sets out ideas on the relationship between the EU and the UN. It is basically a further grab for power, in that it seeks to challenge UN hegemony in some areas whilst seeking to increase the EU’s role at the expense of member states. It also ludicrously proposes a “World Government”, which, I think, not just shows a lack of realism, but also a willingness to spend even greater amounts of taxpayer’s money on pointless and expensive legislatures.
To my mind points 2 - 6 are the most contentious, as they propose doing away with the British and French permanent seats on the Security Council and being replaced by the EU.
The system of both the UK and France being the permanent members of the Security Council, which I must add came at a huge cost, both financially and far more importantly, in blood and tears, has led to peace and stability since the last world war, and through the most dangerous of times, such as the Cold War.
The UK and France, who, as we all know, often disagree, but they have been able to make quick, expressed decisions in the Security Council, with reflect their national interests, something that cannot be said for the EU. The UK is also a major component and nuclear partner in NATO. This is vitally important in being heard and respected in the Security Council.
How can it be in the EU's interest to give up two seats in return for one, albeit it furthers an expansionist EU into the national security interests of member states? No French or British MEP could support this and genuinely look their electorate in the eye. and that’s without mentioning the revolving membership of the UN Security Council, which has been enjoyed by other EU member states.
I cannot emphasise enough how the Security Council has worked successfully, since its inception, and that it is based broadly on the major nuclear powers. Notwithstanding the Common Security and Defence Policy, the EU is not a nuclear player. Furthermore, it has a poor track record in dealing with Russia. It’s my contention that the EU could actually bring the UN Security Council to a standstill.
The appalling record of the EU in disputes such as the Balkans means there would be little confidence in you to get things right. If you’re unable to deal with problems in your own backyard, why should you be given the opportunity to further involve yourselves in global crisis?
Within the budget proposals is yet another attack on member state sovereignty. The proposal for EU delegations to take on consular responsibility is unnecessary. We have a system that has worked for centuries and is enshrined in the relevant protocols. There is a clear process in the case of a member state not having an embassy in a particular country. It does not need the EEAS undertaking or duplicating this role. It’s just another case of unnecessary expenditure, unnecessary meddling, and highlights how, as an organisation, the EU is searching for a role and trying to justify its existence.
Point 6 is yet another grab for power and setting up new organisations where none are needed. Point 8 is associated but also looking to bring successful organisations, such as the World Bank, under the control of these new bodies. The World Bank is one of the more responsible funders - they can learn nothing from a profligate EU, that hasn’t signed off its own accounts for the last 19 years.
Point 11 proposes “necessary” reforms of the UN. This from an unreformed, unaudited EU.
As Alanais Morissette once said, “Isn’t it ironic, don’t you think”?