Power, Corruption & Lies II: The EU and the UN

If an EU, in the form of a federal government, comes to fruition, will France and the UK be willing to give up their seats as permanant members of the UN Security Council?

From what I understand, a federal construct is currently favored by those advocating a united EU.

As such, nations currently enjoying sovereignty would be subjugated (to an extent) to a federal body lead by an elected figurehead.

So, the question is: will proud nations, that have incredibly rich histories and cultures and still enjoy reasonable amounts of international prestige be will to give that up?

I think a federal EU is such a long, long way off (if it will ever happen at all) that its hardly worth arguing about the question.

Well, who would have thought that there would ever be a standardized currency?

That was a huge relinquishment of national sovereignty.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Well, who would have thought that there would ever be a standardized currency?That was a huge relinquishment of national sovereignty.

What standardized currency? :)

Sorry, how about those who have joined the European Monetary Union?

Maybe you can help me. Besides The UK and Denmark, what other EU members are not EMU members?

my two cents on the monetary issue: when you travel for only four hours and go through three different countries, it's nice not to have to visit the bureau de change even once!

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Sorry, how about those who have joined the European Monetary Union? Maybe you can help me. Besides The UK and Denmark, what other EU members are not EMU members?

The thing is, the question you pose about the security council only really concerns France and the UK. Now as the UK seems currently highly unlikely to even join the single currency (all opinion polls show a clear majority against it and the government, itself divided, is pledged only to do so after a referendum), the issue of the UK voluntarily joining with France in a federal superstate seems a very long way off.

The Brit public would be highly unlikely to go along with such an idea, unless they drastically change their views, and if they _did_ change their views so drastically then presumably the loss of a seat on the security council wouldn't bother them either.

I guess if one grants the highly improbable hypothetical of the UK joining a federal superstate, I would presume that the EU would inherit at least one of the seats under international law about 'sucessor states'. Not much point having two seats, when one is enough for a veto. Maybe they'd let someone else in to make up the numbers (is India in there yet?)

Sure the one EU seat wouldn't represent the UK's interests in the way the current system does, but that's part and parcel of giving up sovreignty. Your question boils down to asking 'will people be happy with giving up soveriegnty if they choose to give up sovereignty' (however the heck the word is spelled)

Originally posted by 404 error I guess if one grants the highly improbable hypothetical of the UK joining a federal superstate, I would presume that the EU would inherit at least one of the seats under international law about 'sucessor states'. Not much point having two seats, when one is enough for a veto. Maybe they'd let someone else in to make up the numbers (is India in there yet?)

there's no way the UN security council would 'let someone else in'. there are 5 permanent members: russia (took over the old USSR seat), the USA, china, france and the UK. there are also 10 other temporary members at one given time. every other member state takes turns in these seats. the UN never would have been formed without the security council permanent-member veto stipulation, as these countries were the most powerful after WWII and the UN needed their support and membership to be successful. to allow another permanent member would be to disturb the balance. and there's no way india would ever be a permanent member. pakistan simply would not allow it (it happens to sit on the security council as a temporary member at the moment anyway). also, as a member of the non-aligned movement during the cold war (although it bought weapons from the USSR), i don't think india would want to be involved in security council politics.

i'm not sure the other SC members would want india as a permanent member, either. it's a sleeping giant. china was a sleeping giant when it became a member of the SC (which is why it was recognised as a source of power and let into the SC), but it didn't have the bomb then (not until the early 1960s). india does--it has a nuclear weapons programme but it's not a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), so the IAEA cannot inspect its facilities. it has the potential to be very powerful, but it's also a bit of an outsider at the same time. also, the volatile relationship between india and pakistan is too much of a destabilizer. pakistan is another nuclear state, and is not in the NPT, either. in fact, my friend fiona did her PhD dissertation on the indian/pakistani nuclear weapons programmes. she believes that there will be a limited nuclear war (in this case, limited war is possible)between the two states sometime in the next ten years if the kashmiri problem is not solved.

Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by 404 error> I guess if one grants the highly improbable hypothetical of the UK joining a federal superstate, I would presume that the EU would inherit at least one of the seats under international law about 'sucessor states'. Not much point having two seats, when one is enough for a veto. Maybe they'd let someone else in to make up the numbers (is India in there yet?)

there's no way the UN security council would 'let someone else in'. there are 5 permanent members: russia (took over the old USSR seat), the USA, china, france and the UK. there are also 10 other temporary members at one given time. every other member state takes turns in these seats. the UN never would have been formed without the security council permanent-member veto stipulation, as these countries were the most powerful after WWII and the UN needed their support and membership to be successful. to allow another permanent member would be to disturb the balance. and there's no way india would ever be a permanent member. pakistan simply would not allow it (it happens to sit on the security council as a temporary member at the moment anyway). also, as a member of the non-aligned movement during the cold war (although it bought weapons from the USSR), i don't think india would want to be involved in security council politics.

i'm not sure the other SC members would want india as a permanent member, either. it's a sleeping giant. china was a sleeping giant when it became a member of the SC (which is why it was recognised as a source of power and let into the SC), but it didn't have the bomb then (not until the early 1960s). india does--it has a nuclear weapons programme but it's not a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), so the IAEA cannot inspect its facilities. it has the potential to be very powerful, but it's also a bit of an outsider at the same time. also, the volatile relationship between india and pakistan is too much of a destabilizer. pakistan is another nuclear state, and is not in the NPT, either. in fact, my friend fiona did her PhD dissertation on the indian/pakistani nuclear weapons programmes. she believes that there will be a limited nuclear war (in this case, limited war is possible)between the two states sometime in the next ten years if the kashmiri problem is not solved.

Yes it crossed my mind that Pakistan might not be terrifically keen on India being a permanent member. So would _would_ happen if UK and France became one nation in the EU? A simple reduction in the total number of seats?

Originally posted by 404 error > Originally posted by AgentWood> > > > Originally posted by 404 error> > I guess if one grants the highly improbable hypothetical of the UK joining a federal superstate, I would presume that the EU would inherit at least one of the seats under international law about 'sucessor states'. Not much point having two seats, when one is enough for a veto. Maybe they'd let someone else in to make up the numbers (is India in there yet?)>

there's no way the UN security council would 'let someone else in'. there are 5 permanent members: russia (took over the old USSR seat), the USA, china, france and the UK. there are also 10 other temporary members at one given time. every other member state takes turns in these seats. the UN never would have been formed without the security council permanent-member veto stipulation, as these countries were the most powerful after WWII and the UN needed their support and membership to be successful. to allow another permanent member would be to disturb the balance. and there's no way india would ever be a permanent member. pakistan simply would not allow it (it happens to sit on the security council as a temporary member at the moment anyway). also, as a member of the non-aligned movement during the cold war (although it bought weapons from the USSR), i don't think india would want to be involved in security council politics.

i'm not sure the other SC members would want india as a permanent member, either. it's a sleeping giant. china was a sleeping giant when it became a member of the SC (which is why it was recognised as a source of power and let into the SC), but it didn't have the bomb then (not until the early 1960s). india does--it has a nuclear weapons programme but it's not a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), so the IAEA cannot inspect its facilities. it has the potential to be very powerful, but it's also a bit of an outsider at the same time. also, the volatile relationship between india and pakistan is too much of a destabilizer. pakistan is another nuclear state, and is not in the NPT, either. in fact, my friend fiona did her PhD dissertation on the indian/pakistani nuclear weapons programmes. she believes that there will be a limited nuclear war (in this case, limited war is possible)between the two states sometime in the next ten years if the kashmiri problem is not solved.

Yes it crossed my mind that Pakistan might not be terrifically keen on India being a permanent member. So would _would_ happen if UK and France became one nation in the EU? A simple reduction in the total number of seats?

i think shug said it best: the possibility of the UK giving up its sovereignty is zero, so it's not an option. hypothetically...perhaps two EU seats. or just four permanent members.

An interesting update from the Financial Times concerning the EU....

EU 'should lose some of its powers to nations'

By Daniel Dombey and George Parker in Brussels

Published: January 15 2003 22:03 | Last Updated: January 15 2003 22:03

The European Union should lose some of its powers to national governments, according to a draft constitution drawn up by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the chairman of the Convention on the future of Europe.

An early version of a future EU constitution, prepared by the former French president's staff and seen by the Financial Times, would forbid the EU from harmonising member countries' laws in areas ranging from industry to employment.

The Convention's steering "praesidium" will discuss the draft constitution articles at a meeting today.

Mr Giscard d'Estaing's move comes in the wake of a Franco-German initiative to create a new president of the European council, the forum of EU leaders, another step seen as bolstering intergovernmental co-operation at the expense of the European Commission.

The proposal by Gerhard Schröder, German chancellor, and Jacques Chirac, French president, would also lead to the election of the European Commission president by the European parliament. The suggestion, which won qualified support from other EU governments on Wednesday, would give the EU two presidents and make the head of the council the political driving force and public face of the EU.

But Mr Giscard d'Estaing's latest contribution - the first of a series of draft constitutional articles - is likely to face an angry response from many of the 105 members of the Convention, which intends to submit a completed text to national leaders in June. More far-reaching ideas to constrain the EU were rejected last year by Convention members, many of whom are suspicious of the influence of big EU member states.

"We either trust the EU or we don't," said Andrew Duff, a federalist member of the Convention. "If you speak to industry or universities or the unemployed, it is my experience that there is full support for greater EU involvement, not less."

The draft text states that "the union may not harmonise member states' laws or regulations" for such things as education, culture, industry, employment, and research and development.

This would restrict the EU's powers compared with the current EU treaty, which says "any action by the community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this treaty".

The Commission is worried about the new articles, arguing that while it often may not be seeking harmonisation in such areas, a constitutional ban would be too rigid.

The Commission also believes that separate provisions in Mr Giscard d'Estaing's draft to allow national parliaments to question the need for European legislation should be sufficient to stop the Commission from overstepping the mark. But some Convention members argue that the future constitution should give greater clarity to the limits of the EU's power than before.

"The European Union is not a state," said Iñigo Mendez de Vigo, one of the members of the praesidium. "States can do everything in their domain but the EU should only be allowed to act where there are competences that have been attributed by the constitution."

Mr Giscard D'Estaing intends to submit a series of draft articles to the Convention in the months up to April, when there should be a full constitution to work on.

www.bilderberg.org