Torygraph: EU will take Britain's UN seat, says Hague (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/20/neu120.xml)

William Hague has attacked a "shocking" Government concession that will give a new European Union "foreign minister" the right to speak from Britain's seat on the United Nations Security Council.

The British government had claimed that powers for the EU foreign policy supremo, rechristened a High Representative, have been reduced and his UN role stripped from the new treaty. However, an EU official confirmed: "We retain, except for the name of the minister, the Constitutional Treaty text of 2004 including the provisions on the UN. There is a provision which provides for the representative of the EU to state the position of the EU at the UN Security Council."

The Government had insisted that negotiations on the treaty had ensured that the British presence on the Security Council would never be replaced by an EU representative. However, the text provides for the British seat to be occupied by an EU minister when the bloc has a united position on issues.

Mr Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, has criticised Gordon Brown for allowing "one of the most damaging and important provisions in the rejected EU Constitution" to be resurrected after referendums by the French and Dutch two years ago voted against it. "It would seriously compromise the independence of our foreign policy," he said. "It is shocking that the Government have yet again let this through and it totally destroys their claim that their so-called red line on foreign policy is effective."

Provisions, drawn word for word from the old constitution, giving the EU "foreign minister" speaking rights from Britain's and France's UN seats will be included in a draft treaty to be presented to a meeting of foreign ministers on Monday, diplomats have confirmed.

"When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those member states which sit on the Security Council shall request that the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs be asked to present the Union's position," the text states.

Unlike Europe's current foreign policy representative Javier Solana, the new "minister" will also be vice-president of the European Commission overseeing an EU diplomatic service, weakening direct control over the post by national governments.

"It is a big step towards the federalists' end goal: a United States of Europe in which we would be represented at the UN not by a British ambassador on the Security Council but by the EU foreign minister, which this new treaty has also taken from the constitution," said Mr Hague.

Speaking in Brussels this week, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the architect of the old constitution, mocked presentational spin over the "minister". "The High Representative for Common Foreign and Security is one and the same as the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs," he said.

The issue is set to become a major stumbling block for efforts by Mr Brown, the Prime Minister, to deny a referendum on the EU Treaty.

"With provisions like this, there can be no question but that the new treaty would fundamentally transform the EU and is in effect the EU constitution in all but name, as Gordon Brown has admitted," said Mr Hague. "So the British people must be allowed the final say in the referendum they were promised."

How come they aren't taking the French Seat?

If we had a referendum, wouldn't it be a re-run of the previous joke? Asking for our views on something that had already been signed. Blare is convinced that he gave nothing away but should we believe him?

So the most corrupt organisation on earth now has a seat on the second most corrupt organisation on earth.
:rolleyes:

If the article is correct, this is the actual contentious text When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those Member States which sit on the Security Council shall request that the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs be asked to present the Union's position.

seems pragmatic to me - if the Union has defined a position on a subject why not reduce the number of negotiators to make the negotiation faster. :confused:

Sounds like a load of politically motivated Euro-myth making. None of the published proposals for enlarging permeant membership of the Security Council include any existing permanent members losing their membership. As I understand it, the proposals are for Germany, Egypt, India, Japan and Brazil to become permanent members (although each candidate member comes with problems attached to their membership so no agreement yet, and probably not for a long time), with the EU, representing a large number of nations in a region and having a (nominal!) common foreign policy, having enhanced observer status. Suppose one could twist this to what Hague says, but the amount of twisting required looks less twist and more spin.:hmm:

ssssshhht, you're making to much sense and debunking another evil-EU story :ugh:

If the EU creates a common position on a foreign policy issue (which has happened only once so far, on Russia), it seems reasonable to carry this position forward in the place where it also matters, the UN.

Never mind that the UK can veto a common position on a foreign policy issue in Brussels. Never mind that by forming a block (as hard as it is) might actually enhance the impact of the UK.

If the EU can't agree on a common position, or is to damn slow to form one, the UK can go about as it wishes. Business as usual

What do the other members of the Security Coucil think about this? Have they been consulted?

There seem to be four possibilities:

1) The 'EU High Representative" becomes an additional memeber

I cannot see the USA, Russia and China sitting back and letting the 'EU High Representative' become a third European member of the Security Council, even temporarily.

2) He replaces both Britain and France.

Logically, since Britain and France both have seats in the security council, replacing both of them with a single person representing the EU would actually reduce the EU's voting strength.

3) He replaces either Britain or France.

If the change means that only one seat is taken and either of the French or the British Ambassadors remains in position, the other members are likely to take exception to either France or Britain being effectively represented twice.

4) The EU High Representative appears as a non-voting petitioner, expressing the combined views of the whole EU as a block. With the EU already having two member states with permanent seats on the Security Council this is of course absolutely unnecessary; by definition the High Representative only appears when the EU has a united policy - i.e. both existing permanent members are already in agreement with the EU policy.

The only logical status for this "EU High Representative" is for him to be such a non-voting petitioner - in other words, yet another useless diplomatic parasite, with EU taxpayers funding the multi-million Euro budget for his 'support staff' and travelling expenses.