Although the process of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is as yet far from complete, the Eurocrats in Brussels are hard at work devising a framework for the extensive role the new EU President will have, as well as ensuring that it is accompanied by all those trappings of a fat cat lifestyle that will attract serious politicians to do the job.
Today’s Daily Telegraph focuses mostly on the latter aspects of the post – the palatial residence (“an official ‘White House’ style residence worthy of his status.”) and the Presidential Jet – and does not mention what is really going on until well into its piece. That is that Brussels is already laying out the job specifications before it has any real authority to do so, to wit the fact of ratification by all 27 member states of the Treaty of Lisbon, at least one of whom still has to conduct a referendum. Meanwhile the very fact of these discussions are being very carefully kept from the gaze of the Europe’s citizens who might otherwise be alerted to what our Lords and Masters actually have in mind for the EU as opposed to the lies they habitually peddle.
It is a salutary reminder to us of how the EU is wont to operate. After all plans for an EU Foreign Service to underpin the work of the new EU Foreign Minister are well advanced. All this is done on the basis that the citizens of the EU are the intellectual equivalent of mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed on mountains of, dare one spell it out, shit that emanates from the likes of Margot Wallström, EU Vice-President and Commissioner in charge of Institutional Relations and Communication (and a true believer).
It seems that discussions on the parameters of the new EU President’s power and role are well advanced and the Eurocrats have already got around to thinking about the perks that he will enjoy and which they think appropriate to the post. Unsurprisingly these encompass a palatial residence (a Palace?), a Presidential Jet and a huge staff (far bigger than anything the present President of the EU Commission enjoys). It is worth recalling that the UK can no longer afford a proper jet for its Head of State or its head of Government.
More alarmingly the French (who hold the Presidency of the EU in the second half of this year and are already running de facto the Slovenian Presidency) are thinking in terms of how the new President will play a key role in forming a Euro-defence “vanguard group” of up to eight countries. That, encompassing as it does the eclipsing of NATO as the keystone of European Defence, lies, of course, at the heart of the European Project and is likely to dictate that a serious politician such as Tony Blair is likely to get the job to carry it through. After all, only when they have got themselves a proper Army, Navy and Air Force will they be able to proclaim the EU as the world’s third superpower. When they talk of a ‘common foreign and security policy’, you should understand that they actually mean it, just as much as they mean the words ‘ever-closer union’.
While we are on the subject of Margot Wallström, her website says
The European Commission wants to increase citizens’ involvement in the EU decision-making process. In a Communication entitled ‘Debate Europe – building on the experience of Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate’, it puts forward a set of future actions to foster a general and permanent debate on the future of the European Union among people from all walks of life, at both national and EU level.
Margot Wallström, Vice-President, Institutional Relations and Communication Strategy said: “The policies of the EU affect everyone's lives, whether through its Regulations on subjects such as mobile phone roaming charges or through the free movement of people or goods or any other of the EU’s many achievements. EU policies therefore need to be fully anchored in the political parties, in the national democratic traditions, and in the daily political dialogue. They need to be discussed and debated, whether in the town hall, in regional assemblies, national parliaments, on television shows or on the internet”.
Now, if you genuinely wanted to “increase citizens’ involvement in the EU decision-making process”, what simpler and more democratic way could be devised than a referendum?