Does Britain Know What It’s in For?

On Dec. 12, 2003, the European Union held a summit designed to have all current and potential EU nations agree on a constitution for Europe. Such a constitution would bind its member nations together in a federal union of nation-states when it expands this May from 15 to 25 members. The summit ended in failure as agreement could not be made on an equitable EU voting system.

For many Britons, this was far from sad news: It kept Prime Minister Tony Blair from signing away British sovereignty. This critical issue, however, is far from resolved. Blair is still working to see that Britain is brought to what he believes is its rightful place in the European sun. Upon his return from the summit, Blair insisted that there was still plenty of time for further negotiations before the planned implementation of the constitutional treaty’s key elements in 2009. He told Parliament, “We must continue to shape the future of Europe in ways that reflect our national interest” (Independent, Dec. 16, 2003).

Blair claimed to have secured agreement on British vetoes of certain clauses written into the draft EU Constitution. These “red line” issues, as he termed them, were meant to counteract the British people’s reluctance to signing over sovereignty of their nation to a federalist superstate. Mr. Blair emerged, in Chamberlainesque manner, from the rubble of the collapsed negotiations in Brussels, claiming victory on these controversial issues: criminal justice, taxation, defense and foreign policy.

The problem is, unlike Chamberlain, Mr. Blair did not even have a piece of paper to indicate that any party had signed to agree that Britain would have such “red lines” drawn through the constitution’s offending clauses. “In reality, what Blair had secured was an agreement from his mate Silvio Berlusconi, then holder of the EU’s rotating presidency. The Italian prime minister’s assurance, however, means nothing now that Ireland holds the presidency.

“And Ireland has made it clear that Blair’s supposed red lines are null and void.

“Ireland’s prime minister, Bertie Ahern, told journalists that despite all Blair’s talk, there was ‘nothing on paper.’ According to the Guardian [January 9], when Ahern attempts to restart the talks in spring, the only texts he will recognize will be [Valery] Giscard d’Estaing’s constitution draft and a set of Italian amendments published in November.

“Blair, then, is back where he started. He will have to return to negotiations with no guarantee of a British veto on any areas crucial to national interest—and with the EU’s federalists keener than ever to steamroller resistance to their dream” (www.eursoc.com, January 9).

What is at stake here is simply the question of whether Britain is prepared to yield up its sovereign right, as a separate national entity, to the federalist agenda of the Franco-German inspired federal union of states envisaged in the draft EU Constitution. The British prime minister is on the back foot. Even as the Eurofederalists seek to “steamroller resistance to their dream,” the signs are that the average Brit is digging in to take a stand against the steamroller!

Waking Up

For years, Britain’s leadership had been serving its subjects a virtual diet of tea laced with the opiate of deceit, brewed in a concoction of lies. This potent elixir drugged the British public into a state of mind where they believed that EU membership would amount to nothing more than an economic trading bloc with no fundamental changes in Britain’s governance or sovereignty. In the past year, however, many Britons have awakened to this diabolical lie and the grave danger inherent in becoming further integrated into the EU.

Britain’s Queen Elizabeth recently raised concern at the prospect of Britain becoming a signatory to the EU Constitution—which ardent realists such as Rodney Atkinson, Norris McWhirter and Adrian Hilton have been warning about for years. The Daily Telegraph (London) of Oct. 16, 2003, stated, “[T]he Palace’s concerns focus on whether the Queen’s supreme authority as the guardian of the British constitution, asserted through the sovereignty of Parliament, could be altered or undermined by Article 10 of the draft text.” Article 10 of the draft constitution states, “The constitution and law adopted by the Union’s institutions in exercising competencies conferred on it shall have primacy of the law of the member states” (emphasis mine throughout).

The next day, the Daily Mail (London) ran a three-quarter page story titled “Why the Queen Must Stand Up to Mr. Blair.” Simon Heffer clarified how the new constitution would subjugate the Queen to the unelected powers of the federalist Eurosuperstate and emasculate the British House of Lords. This would end nearly 1,000 years of sovereign British rule.

Britain has already signed away certain sovereign rights through its accession to various European treaties. However, the government has drawn the line on the most significant issues—Mr. Blair’s so-called red lines. These are matters of major concern to the average British subject, and the government knows it.

Criminal Law

In July 2002, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK was violating the human rights of transsexuals for failing to recognize them legally. Bowing to the EU, the Lord Chancellor’s Department quickly announced proposals to allow transsexuals to marry in their altered gender.

In January 2003, the EU Parliament singled out Britain for a wide range of human rights abuses regarding prisons and “erosions of civil liberties” following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The EU’s condemnation was aimed at Britain’s Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001, which allows for the detention of foreigners, including EU citizens, under suspicion of terrorism or threat of national security.

Following this attack, the EU Parliament called for the creation of a European Human Rights agency to introduce more intrusive monitoring of what the EU sees as abuses. The new agency is to be guided by the principles of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, “which creates a vast array of economic and social rights that do not currently exist in the British legal system” (Daily Telegraph, Jan. 14, 2003). Britain can expect this agency to emerge this year, leaving it powerless to detain or incarcerate foreign or domestic terror suspects holding EU passports.

Last June, Britain’s second-largest labor union threatened to sue the British government in the European Court of Justice over its alleged failure to protect workers’ pension rights, demonstrating that Brussels already has supremacy over London on such issues. Then in July, the European Commission announced preparations to sue the British government for failing to open its rail freight market to competition.

The Oct. 1, 2003, Evening Standard (London) documented the case of a man convicted of attempted theft and possession of a stolen identity card, and thrice deported from the UK, who was then permitted to return to British “sovereign” soil in accordance with EU immigration law.

These eye-opening examples illustrate how, even under current treaties, Britain has compromised itself in criminal justice to the burgeoning federalist EU superstate.

Taxation

One of Britain’s deep concerns relates to Article iii-63 of the draft EU Constitution—supposedly designed to combat tax fraud and evasion. In effect, the application of this proposal would lead to tax harmonization within the EU membership. This effectively would yield control of the disbursement of taxes paid by the British public to the boffins of Brussels. Britain has long resisted yielding up this sovereign right.

Added to this is the prospect of the loss of rights to effective tax havens such as the Channel Islands.

Already, the European Court of Justice makes wide and fortuitous judgments regarding domestic tax laws of EU member nations via Eurocentric interpretations of federal EU law. Submission by Britain to Article iii-63 of the EU Constitution would further solidify this incursion into the nation’s sovereign right to apply its taxes to the benefit of the British nation.

Defense

Are British memories of the German war machine so dim that they cannot be awakened to the danger of the proposed European defense force?

German Lieutenant General Rainer Schuwirth, chief of the EU’s military, has declared that to establish a federal European military force, “National governments would have to give away their authority over their army” (Financial Times, London, Sept. 24, 2003). Blair is stuck between his commitment to support a European army and his stated intention to draw a red line on sacrificing sovereign control of British troops as demanded by the EU Constitution.

Of even deeper concern is Germany’s claim that member nations hand over sovereign control of their nuclear capability to Brussels. On Oct. 24, 2003, the Daily Mail exposed frightening details of a document from the German defense ministry that stated, “[A]nother difficult and delicate area will have to be addressed. That is the transfer of national nuclear weapon capabilities of certain EU countries. They should also be integrated within the European defense system.” These words are quoted from the defense ministry of the very country currently banned from possessing nuclear weapons and responsible for the death of a million British troops in two world wars—Germany.

Foreign Policy

Oct. 19, 2003, at the bbc’s annual Dimbleby lecture, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, despite concerns from the U.S., insisted that European defense had to be at the core of the EU’s future. He warned, “There can be no Europe without European defense and no European defense without Britain” (Daily Mail, Oct. 20, 2003). He then coupled his insistence on Britain’s participation in the EU defense force with the need for a single EU foreign policy—another of Blair’s “red line” issues. “If they want to be able to hold their own on the world stage, Europe must have its own foreign policy and be able to fight for its principles,” de Villepin declared.

Blair insists he will not allow the EU to dictate British foreign policy. Yet, at the same time, he believes the EU must have a defense force in which Britain must participate. Can a nation separate its military from its foreign policy? De Villepin clearly understands that this is impossible: The military is a fundamental and essential component of foreign policy.

British foreign policy has often been incompatible with that of the EU and sides more often with its cultural brother across the Atlantic; London’s full support of the U.S.-led Iraq war most effectively illustrated this fact. Britain could never have a separate foreign policy if it were to accept and come under the authority of an EU Constitution.

Mounting Opposition

The EU Constitution has been a hot topic in Britain’s political landscape. The conservative Tory party, out of favor with the British people for the last decade or so, is quickly recovering. Under the new leadership of Michael Howard, a shift has begun. While Prime Minister Blair and the Labor Party push forward with the EU agenda, Howard has been working to awaken the nation to the EU danger.

Mr. Howard wrote in the Sun that if the constitution was to be forced upon Britain, “The EU will meddle in our justice system and Brussels will have more control over our economy, our employment laws and our immigration policy” (Dec. 12, 2003). In a separate article, the Sun stated, “As a democratically elected leader, [Blair] would be giving irrevocable EU control over the daily lives of our citizens without their consent” (ibid.).

While political figures can yield sway on Britain, there is perhaps no more powerful man than media tycoon Rupert Murdoch. His empire includes the Sun, the Times, the Sunday Times and the News of the World as well as the satellite television group BskyB—all of which, for the last 10 years, has supported the Labor Party. But it appears that is changing.

Last November, Murdoch said he was “torn” between backing Labor and the conservatives in the next election. While he remains impressed with Blair’s efforts in Iraq, he is very concerned over the EU Constitution. He warned of “great dangers” in signing the constitution and supports having a referendum on the subject—which Blair opposes. “I don’t like the idea of any more abdication of our sovereignty in economic affairs or anything else,” Murdoch said. “We’ll have to see what’s in the final constitution. If it’s anything like the draft, then certainly we’ll oppose it” (Daily Mail, Nov. 15, 2003).

While conservatives inside Britain strive to halt Britain from agreeing to an EU Constitution, they are also working to create a new political group from the nations set to join the EU in May. The group, which enjoys the backing of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, aims to contain the Europhile parties from within the EU. It is based on the idea of producing a “Europe of the nations, with close relations with the U.S. and a free market economy,” said Polish European Parliament Observer Adam Bielan (www.europeanvoice.com, Oct. 23, 2003). The idea that there would be significant political support within the EU for closer ties with the U.S. is sure to create enormous division and infuriate ensconced EU nations, especially Germany and France, who are clearly trying to maneuver the EU into the role of the next great superpower, on a direct collision course with that of the U.S.

Britain Must Choose

In May 2003, Giscard d’Estaing, who chaired the convention that drew up the draft EU Constitution, addressed Britain’s loyalty issue: “Britain never considered Europe as a full option,” he said. “It wanted to be in Europe and to have all the options É the special relationship with the U.S. I would say if you want as a wish to be a leading country in Europe I think you should make up your mind in the next 10 years” (Scotsman, May 26, 2003).

Britain must choose. Will it remain with its American brother—or, against all sense, throw its hat in with nations with which it does not agree on the “red line” issues? Would Britain be willing to hand its nuclear weapons over to a new European defense force commanded by German generals? Is Britain willing to allow Brussels to dictate labor laws or transportation jurisdictions, demand it open its doors to competition, or tell the British government whom it can allow and not allow on its own soil? Are Britons willing to give up the pound sterling for the euro and send their gold reserves to the European Central Bank in Frankfurt? Is Britain willing to subjugate its judicial system to Brussels?

Almost 40 years ago—38 years before the EU Constitution was drafted—Herbert W. Armstrong foretold, “Germany is the economic and military heart of Europe. Probably Germany will lead and dominate the coming United States of Europe. But Britain will be no part of it!“ How could Mr. Armstrong be so adamant on this point? Simply because your Bible prophesies that very fact!

Bible prophecy indicates that the time will come when Britain is on the outside, looking in, pleading for help from the German federalist Europe. “Wherefore I have delivered her into the hand of her lovers, into the hand of the Assyrians [Germans], upon whom she doted. These discovered her nakedness: they took her sons and her daughters, and slew her with the sword” (Ezek. 23:9-10).

Britain clearly will not be part of a united Europe at that time because they will be the victim of the united Europe’s attack! God states in His Word that He will punish end-time Israel (which includes Britain) through a German-led Europe (see Isa. 10:5; Hos. 5:5). They will fall to a mighty military, with the remnant being taken captive into Germany (Hos. 9:3; 10:6). Logic would tell us that Britain must be on the outside of this united Europe to be the focus of such an assault!

Sadly, it is only through this attack that Britain will wake up to God’s warning. But there is hope: The people of Britain will turn to God in their time of tribulation, and God will hear them. Speaking of Ephraim in the last verse of Hosea 5 and the first verse of chapter 6, God says, “I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offense, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early. Come, and let us return unto the Lord: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.” (Ezek. 23:9-10).