“Creative Ambiguity” – New Speak for “Equivocation”

The garrulous comments on the nonentities to the new EU posts of President and High Foreign Representative are of course irrelevant. The significance is in the process. This is a casebook example of how EU works. The method was described by Guiliano Amato former Italian PM. Through it apparently innocuous concepts are introduced in the EU but with multiple interpretations to enable agreement. These concepts are ‘organic’ in that they can be developed surreptitiously to ensure that when applied they have the meaning required by a federalising Eurocracy (Gisela Stuart MP, The Making of Europe’s Constitution p.27). The most obvious example of this has been the basic concept of ‘ever close union.’ It was presented to the British people as meaning ‘an ever closer cooperation’ Now of, course, the Lisbon/Constitution makes paramount the intended meaning – namely “closer economic and political union.”

Now we see this process of ‘creative ambiguity’ in the open. Brussels is ensuring that the final status of the new Presidency will be as it has intended. Currently van Rompuy is presented as simply a figure head – a mere ‘chairman’ as ex-commissioner Kinnock spins it. This, however, is simply a transitional ploy to insinuate the concept of ‘President’, without stirring worries about the powers associated with such an office. The ultimate aim, of course, is the George Washington figure required by such as Giscard d’Estaing, who would front a Federal EU on the world stage. (Sunday Times 22nd November 2009) But this will occur only when the Franco/German Axis has decided on such a figure. In the meantime they are most content with their choice of Rompuy whose otherworldly haiku writing hides an extreme tax harmonising federalist.
Similarly the appointment of a nonentity also seems to make the Foreign High Representative a non-post, but again it is ready to be refashioned into that of an EU global power broker – when the people have been seen to have accepted the office.

Indeed, there are already specific signs that this policy of deflecting attention from EU aggrandisement through the appointment of nonentities is being successful. No less a figure than historian Timothy Garton Ash has been affected. Incredibly he has said: “These rather feeble appointments are so feeble because the member states want to keep control of the whole show” adding with even more naivete “Lisbon is a completely minimal treaty … The actual federal institutions are becoming weaker and weaker.” This from a professor of Modern European Studies at Oxford during Any Questions on BBC Radio 4 28/11/09. This also despite the Passerelle and the Flexibility clauses which between them give carte blanche to unimpeded federalisation free of democratic constraints. Contrast this embarrassing performance with Anthony Coughland’s cogent demonstration of the actual, ever increasing, massive democratic deficit within the Lisbon/Constitution (European Journal, December 2009 pp 9-10). The ‘Europeanising’ of our universities indeed (see CEC 1993:2 ref. in European Journal Nov’95 p.22)

In addition there is indirect evidence that the deception is working. This was demonstrated by both a former Foreign secretary, Lord Owen, and our former US Ambassador, Sir Christopher Meyer (The Daily Politics BBC Ch2 2/2/10). Each rightly attacked the closure by the government of so many of our overseas embassies, yet neither mentioned that our influence would be replaced there by the massive increase in EU embassies required by the Lisbon/Constitution. These of course are intended to enforce an ever widening EU common foreign policy to which by QMV we will contribute a mere 9% influence. (Constitution: Part I Title III Article 1.6 [p.23]: – ‘member states shall unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty support the Union’s common foreign and security policy …which might lead to a common defence policy’ .) Indeed we are now being prepared for this latter, further massive loss of influence in the current February Green Paper ‘Strategic Defence Review’.
Interestingly Meyer did say this loss of our ambassadorial reach would undermine our position on the already undermined us there (Constitution: Part II Title V Ch II Section I Article III.305 [p.143] insists, ‘When the Union has defined a position on a UN subject EU members on the Security Council request that the EU High Representative be asked to present the Union’s position’.)

This leads to yet a further level of smoke and mirrors in Brussels. With Brown so satisfied to have a Briton as ‘Foreign High Representative’ – a role currently little more than its Gilbertian title – the Franco/German Axis has carved out the most powerful EU commissions for themselves. The Germans have Energy, while the French take over Internal Affairs and Finances there to undermine the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ Free Market and encourage business to move from London to Paris.
There are of course further layers of furtive, conflicting interests across the EU, not least those within the euphemistically termed ‘Think Tanks’ in Brussels which hide the multiple lobbying by pressure groups attempting to influence EU officials (A detailed account of the appalling secret complexity and arrogance within these conflicting groups was presented by the BBC called In the Think Tanks BBC Radio 4, 21st & 28th Jan 2004). Associated with these, is the continuous surreptitious power struggle between the national governments in the secrecy of the Council of Ministers. Indeed this conflict of national interests, though unofficial and angrily denied at all levels, is real within the Commission itself (Fascinatingly, Garton Ash (idem) supports this accusation of Commission illegality as actually ‘now being expected’!). Of course, by definition it is difficult to get absolute proof of specific clandestine politicking. However, we now have been reminded of impeccable evidence confirming Bismark’s assertion that Europe is used as a facade to hide self-interest. A former German Chancellor no less has named his own country as one so involved. Hemut Kohl told his Rhineland in 1997: “Europe has best served German interests because it allows Germany to dominate the continent without re-creating fears of German hegemony” (quoted Sir Christopher Meyer, p.261 Getting our way 500 years of ….diplomacy 2009).

This spike of truth, rising above the morass of deception within the EU, helps us towards resolving the basic EU paradox, namely; “How can sovereign states be prepared to reduce themselves to provinces in a process of federalisation.” Kohl clearly indicates that Germany it is the will to greater power – and because of its impeccable source the EU zealots cannot dismiss this as ‘conspiracy theory’, ‘myth’ or ‘xenophobia’ – their automatic reaction to any criticism. Moreover, we can reasonably extrapolate this explanation one stage further. With their now increased voting rights the Germans can establish a permanent increase in their influence through the EU mechanism of Qualified Majority Voting. By this they circumvent the loss of the veto since, especially as they normally work together as an Axis with the French, their total votes added to those of one other large country can block policies they do not like. (see Bill Cash European Journal Nov/Dec 2007 p.7). Further, the real politik of Brussels suggests we may extrapolate further that were any other groups 9such as the mendicant subsidised countries) to attempt a similar, though for them a far more difficult ploy, the engine of the EU, a euphemism for Germany, could counter it. For she is the largest net contributor and, as seen, so obviously ambitious for power. Therefore, in concert with the French and their dedicated enarques she could suggest counteracting horse-trading which might not be so readily refused by the ‘offending’ parties (See the general context in Sara Moore’s ‘Germany’s Long game?’ European Journal December 2009 pp 6-8)
A case by case study of the rest of the members would indicate the reasons why particular national politicians are willing to forego national sovereignty in order to strut in the EU Club – a situation Havel Klaus so fervently and comprehensively attacks in the context of what he recognises as its USSR trappings. (see e.g. European Journal March 2009 pp 4-6). As ever, Gisela Stuart, from her unique experience at the drafting of the Constitution gives the overall reasons for their politicking when she describes ‘…a European political elite, many of whom have their eyes on a career at European level, which is dependent on more and more integration and who see national parliaments as an obstacle.’ (Stuart op cit p.3)

The final level of control by Brussels is the attempt to cocoon this morass of EU machiavellianism away from the public gaze. The approach is ‘infatilization’ i.e. all should be left to EU ‘experts’. Thus the media and politicians for years have intoned the mantra that Europe is a boring subject too complex and of no interest to the common voter. Thus Mark Mardell, the then newly appointed BBC Europe correspondent, when asked about the government’s crucial negotiating ‘red lines’ replied, ‘Oh I’m not going to be caught [sic] in that. The public is bored with all that detailed stuff.’ (Review of the Year, Radio December 2007). This deceitful condescension is of course endemic. EU commissioner, Jerzy Buzeli was asked what the public was to make of the EU ‘s quadruple presidents (confusing apparently even to Obama who, it has been suggested, consequently cancelled an attendance at an EU summit in Spain). His haughty response as “Such information is not interesting for our citizens [sic]. We must decide about that.” (The Daily Politics, BBC TV Ch 2 13th January 2010).