Could the EU invade Britain? Lessons from history

I was very pleased to have received one of Roger Helmer’s electronic newsletters today crammed full of interesting stories and facts about the EU. This particular piece caught my eye and I will reproduce it here in its entirety as I feel this needs the widest distribution possible.

 

In recent months my historian colleague Rupert Matthews has been looking at the political and constitutional debates that took place in the USA in the build-up to the attempts by some states to secede from the Union – a move that sparked the American Civil War. He wondered how they look compared to the position of Britain and the EU today.

 

In 1861 several states voted democratically to leave the USA. The Union government said that those votes had been held illegally, and resorted to war to keep the states within the Union. Roll forward to 2009, and look at the current EU. Could the EU deploy military forces to try to stop Britain seceding? The answer lies in the Treaty of Lisbon (aka the EU Constitution).

 

First, the newly created High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will also head the European Defence Agency (EDA) and have a right of initiative for proposing EU-led military operations. Second, Article 28b allows EU armed forces to be used to deal with any “crisis”. An event will be defined as a crisis by the Council and Commission. Article 28a allows the EU armed forces to be used to protect the strategic interests of the EU; again these are to be defined by the Council and Commission. Finally Article 188r allows armed forces to be deployed to any part of the EU without the agreement of the government of the member state in whose territory they are deployed.

 

These provisions are scattered widely through the Treaty (probably deliberately), but taken together they create an EU armed force that can be deployed anywhere in the EU for any purpose decided upon by the EU Commission and Council.  Never mind getting Ireland to vote again – the tanks might be on the streets. Are we being unduly alarmist? Well maybe. So perhaps somebody could tell us why the EU wants these powers?

 

 

Very interesting stuff I am sure you will agree. It is precisely for reasons like this that we need a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, just as Labour promised us they would.

PMQs 04/02/09

I nearly did not bother to write about PMQs today not because it was boring (it was not that exciting but boring it was not) but because this was the proverbial “the one that got away” sort of PMQs. How on Earth Gordon Brown got out of it looking like he had done a half decent job I will never know. It must be admitted however that as things go Brown did rather well. 

As I have said before Brown’s recent performances have been so dire, that expectations were justifiably low, and it is within this context that his performance must be judged. If things had gone according to scrip Brown should have been on the ropes of the proverbial boxing ring and a well aimed punch from his opponent could have delivered a knock out.

Instead of getting straight to the point David Cameron tried to bring Brown onto the punch by opening with questions on world trade and protectionism, themes which Brown regards as his specialist subjects. This gave the PM a boost as it put him on the front foot, allowing him to argue from a position of strength on ground he could not have chosen better himself. You could sense the nerves on the Conservative backbenches when the Brown got onto sartorial agreements and safeguard clauses.

Mr Cameron then showed his hand with the line “if protectionism is so bad why did he say British jobs for British workers?” Brown’s response was an attempt to paint the opposition as anti British, by asking if the Tories did not want British workers to have jobs in Britain. UNBELEIVABLE! Cameron tried various lines – “taking people for fools,” “error of judgement,” “apologise,” “opportunistic” (as you would expect, that one had the Labour backbenches in stitches).

Feeling rather good about himself, Brown became more relaxed, big mistake. It was all going well until he said “we should agree as a world on a monetary and fiscal stimulus that will take the world out of depression.” So were not in a global recession, were in a global depression, does the PM know something we don’t?  

 

Nick Clegg  went with questions on the subjects of tax evasion and the fiscal arrangements that allow multinationals to avoid paying UK tax (obviously a big Guardian reader). Brown answered with a smile, teased Clegg over “a chief donor to Lib Dems who was a tax evader and to whom they had never returned the money!” Get your house in order Clegg before you go on moral crusades.

 

I would score this PMQs as a slight victory for Brown seen as how he left the session smiling, when he should have been carried out. If it had not been for one of his embarrassing gaffs he would have done much better.

 

Gordon Brown: 6

David Cameron: 5

Nick Clegg: 3

BBC Thatcher Quiz

 

To celebrate the new drama Margaret about the downfall of Margaret Thatcher (done rather sympathetically I am told, but I will withhold judgement until I see it) the BBC has a short quiz on its website. It involves matching the actors to the major characters in the drama, and is quite good fun. Will you be rejoicing at your knowledge or will it be no, no, no! Sorry could not resist.

 

The drama itself covers Margaret Thatcher’s tumultuous final days in Downing Street and will be broadcast on BBC2 later this month.