Ségolène urges Britain to choose between Europe and America

[Lawman]

[img]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/20/wseg20.jpg[/img]

Ségolène Royal, the Socialist candidate for the French presidency, wants Britain to choose between being a "vassal" of the United States, and embracing a French-led drive for European integration, her adviser on Europe has revealed.

Ségolène Royal had kept her EU policy under wraps

[i]In other words, her party nominated her without knowing her plans[/i]


Throughout Miss Royal's spectacularly successful campaign to sew up the Socialist nomination, she kept the details of her EU policy under wraps for fear of reopening deep splits within her party.

However, in the hours after her victory on Thursday, Gilles Savary, a French MEP and her spokesman and foreign affairs adviser, spoke exclusively to The Daily Telegraph, revealing her EU policies in detail.

He set out a vision of an ambitious new EU treaty, replacing the EU constitution which has been in limbo since French and Dutch voters voted against it last summer.

Britain would be asked to sign up to the new treaty, but if it rejected calls for increased protectionism, an EU foreign minister, convergence on tax rates and moves to create a European army, then France and her allies would agree a treaty among themselves, he said.

Tony Blair's successor as prime minister, whether Gordon Brown or David Cameron, now faces an inevitable crisis over Europe after France chooses its next leader in April.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the centre-Right favourite for the presidency, recently set out his own plans for reviving Europe after the failed constitution, involving a "mini-treaty", extracting elements from the defunct text. [u]Miss Royal, who has no foreign policy experience and has only ever held junior ministerial posts[/u], will seek the immediate support of Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, for her plans, and believes Spain and Italy can also be signed up.

Although Miss Royal "does not want a two-speed Europe," Mr Savary said, he admitted her plans could lead to a "quartet" of nations leading the way, with others scrambling to catch up. He complained that Britain currently led an "ultra-Atlanticist" bloc within the EU.

"Great Britain is absolutely indispensable to the European Union. It is great nation, a global power. But the question the English have to answer is – do the English consider the English Channel to be wider than the Atlantic? We on the continent have the right to deplore the fact that Great Britain appears to consider the Channel is wider," he said.

Miss Royal was confident that "[b]Europe can be relaunched with Germany, Italy and Spain[/b]. It is perfectly possible to have treaties within the treaty, among four nations," he said. "If other nations want to sign up, that's good. But we cannot have a Europe where one part goes to war in Iraq, another part does not, and we all end up paying the bill."

He demanded efforts to integrate foreign policy and cast that struggle in searingly anti-American tones. Mr Savary said: "The question that needs to be asked is – do we want to be vassals of the United States, do we want to be a 51st state?"

Miss Royal's vision was for a new treaty that would address citizens' demands for more protectionism in the face of competition from globalisation. "She believes, like all the French, that Europe should be more protective and should defend itself better," Mr Savary said.

Miss Royal saw the difficulty of achieving unanimous agreement among 25 EU nations, soon to rise to 27 next year, which was why she would first seek support from a hard core of countries. Mr Savary said the goals should include convergence of tax and social security systems and talks on a [b]"European army"[/b] that would not replace national armies.

[img]http://origin.arstechnica.com/journals/apple.media/thumb/200/200/white_flag.jpg[/img]

He said: "The discussion needs to be about what we can do together. What do we want to do? If Great Britain says no, it does not wish to do more together, then we will be obliged to open a dialogue with a group of countries."

[Guest steggyD]

Ahh, the Roman Empire rises from the dead. Wonderful.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='steggyD' post='391072' date='Nov 20 2006, 03:49 PM']Ahh, the Roman Empire rises from the dead. Wonderful.[/quote]

This is where it has been headed all along. I strongly suspect that this is what key figures in the US establishment are actually working for, and they'll be glad to sacrifice the interests, and even the existence, of the US to achieve their goals. Making the US a pariah, gutting the Constitution, bankrupting the economy and culturally eviscerating the US from the left and the right work toward this end. When people lead the US on such a path, and they at the same time belong to internationalist groups in which groups promoting the idea of a United Europe at the head of a global system have always been prominent, the smart money is on their being traitors. It should be really suspicious when they hide behind super-heated, American Extremicisist rhetoric that promises results that make no logical sense.

This woman may only be floating trial balloons, but stay tuned, because sooner or later, the Brits are going to be pull their hand out of the ass of American Presidents, turn their face toward their European mates, and leave their monster on a leash twisting in the wind.

[Lawman]

[quote]Coy Bacon,
but stay tuned, because sooner or later, the Brits are going to be pull their hand out of the ass of American Presidents, turn their face toward their European mates, and leave their monster on a leash twisting in the wind.[/quote]

[quote]Ségolène Royal, the Socialist candidate for the French presidency, wants Britain to choose between being a "vassal" of the United States, and embracing a French-led drive for European integration, her adviser on Europe has revealed[/quote].

[b]Vassal
1: a person under the protection of a feudal lord to whom he has vowed homage and fealty : a feudal tenant
2 : one in a subservient or subordinate position[/b]

Coy,

By your choice of words, Bush is a lap dog to Blair, this claim is contrary to what Ségolène Royal said and what other's (International Media) have said over the years. Do you care to share with us on how you come to such conclusion, if you can

[Nati Ice]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='391299' date='Nov 20 2006, 08:01 PM']This is where it has been headed all along. I strongly suspect that this is what key figures in the US establishment are actually working for, and they'll be glad to sacrifice the interests, and even the existence, of the US to achieve their goals. Making the US a pariah, gutting the Constitution, bankrupting the economy and culturally eviscerating the US from the left and the right work toward this end. When people lead the US on such a path, and they at the same time belong to internationalist groups in which groups promoting the idea of a United Europe at the head of a global system have always been prominent, the smart money is on their being traitors. It should be really suspicious when they hide behind super-heated, American Extremicisist rhetoric that promises results that make no logical sense.

This woman may only be floating trial balloons, but stay tuned, because sooner or later, the Brits are going to be pull their hand out of the ass of American Presidents, turn their face toward their European mates, and leave their monster on a leash twisting in the wind.[/quote]
shouldnt you be out investing in tin foil hats?


"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."

nice touch, by the way

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

Her chances of election still remain marginal. The Socialist Party was in such dissaray in the last couple of years, that the fact that they could united to elect one contender in her is whats generating the news.

And while the Conservatives might be alarmed at the way she was able to unite the Socialists and take so much of the vote, their candidate Sarkozy (once he makes his official entry into the race), is still the favourite going into the election. Especially as he will probably garner the Corporate vote, because he wants to reform that sector big time.

But to describe Royal as a socialist is misleading. She is probably closer to Maggie Thatcher in terms of some of her politics than the Socialist Party she represents. She's pretty centrist in her economic views, favouring deregulation / decentralization and lower taxes (all which are different from the party platform) and if you go by her track record she is tough on crime. Especially youth related.

Royal has inherited a program from her party. The Socialist project was ratified earlier this year and remains typical of the party's rather left-wing traditions. There is little expectation that a Socialist government would succeed in bringing under control France's burgeoning public-sector debt.

We'll probably see in the months leading up to the campaign, if she uses the fact that she was nominated with such a big majority to try to alter the party platform. To make parts a bit more amenable to moderate Conservative voters.

By the way, her brother was one of the 3 French Secret Service agents who blew up Greenpeace's "Rainbow Warrior" in 1984, killing one person. Although, he got a lesser jail term because he had apparently only piloted the Zodiac craft to the ship, and the other two dudes attached the limpet mines to it.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Lawman' post='391539' date='Nov 21 2006, 09:49 AM'].

[b]Vassal
1: a person under the protection of a feudal lord to whom he has vowed homage and fealty : a feudal tenant
2 : one in a subservient or subordinate position[/b]

Coy,

By your choice of words, Bush is a lap dog to Blair, this claim is contrary to what Ségolène Royal said and what other's (International Media) have said over the years. Do you care to share with us on how you come to such conclusion, if you can [/quote]


I suspect that Blair has been something of a "minder" to American presidents rather than their puppet, as is popularly supposed. I recognize that this is a contrarian position. Political figures aren't in the position to point out the structural issues that would point to power being distributed differently in the Anglo-American "special relationship" than conventional wisdom would suggest.

Political figures are products of the ostensible political system, and have a vested interest in maintaining the illusions that shield the real centers of power from excessive public scrutiny. There may be coercive control of the politicians, but much of any control that you would need, no matter how benign and open the sytem is, would already be internalized through their socialization or there would be no reason to allow them to rise to prominence in the first place. It's easy enough to neutralize real mavericks.

It's not so much that the real centers of power are so secret that they can't be divined in at least sketchy outline through the exercise of a little common sense either. There are a lot of things in the world with very obvious influence over the affairs of men that politicians studiously avoid mentioning by name. No matter how mechanical and benign these things may be, the fact that the politicians talk about policy and events without disclosing their role, means by default that they are not conducting political discourse before the public in terms that accurately describe political events.

Money rules politics. Money also aligns itself in various ways that aren't directly realted to the possession of money. Family ties, religious and quasi-religious bonds, social ties, ethnic ties, all come into play. When money becomes concentrated, the political rule of money becomes more concentrated. When the concentration of that rule becomes increasingly institutionalized, you end up with parallel system of control.

None of this is really mysterious, nor is it unknown. Everybody knows that money rules politics, and does as much or more now than it ever has, but people don't like to think about it, because current implications reinforce the understanding that barring them exposing themselves to great risk, they're powerless. The bread and butter of the politicians lies in maintaining "kayfabe" regarding the operation of the political system even to the point where they "mark out" themselves. And there's a lot of bread and butter to be had for people that don't want to work a real job.

So, I submit that when you think about the money and how it is aligned, not only economically, but socially, ethnically, familially, spiritually, occupationally, historically, etc., the "special relationship" between the US and the UK has more to do with British interests hiding behind the might of the US than being vassals to US power. I think there is some complexity added by the presence of other players on the geopolitical stage and the need to deal with wildcat interests, particularly in the US. However, because the US establshment has loyalties other than to the American people, the powers in back of the British government have a significant amount of undisclosed influence over American policy - more than the other way around.

[Lawman]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='391923' date='Nov 21 2006, 07:42 PM']I suspect that Blair has been something of a "minder" to American presidents rather than their puppet, as is popularly supposed. I recognize that this is a contrarian position. Political figures aren't in the position to point out the structural issues that would point to power being distributed differently in the Anglo-American "special relationship" than conventional wisdom would suggest.

Political figures are products of the ostensible political system, and have a vested interest in maintaining the illusions that shield the real centers of power from excessive public scrutiny. There may be coercive control of the politicians, but much of any control that you would need, no matter how benign and open the sytem is, would already be internalized through their socialization or there would be no reason to allow them to rise to prominence in the first place. It's easy enough to neutralize real mavericks.

It's not so much that the real centers of power are so secret that they can't be divined in at least sketchy outline through the exercise of a little common sense either. There are a lot of things in the world with very obvious influence over the affairs of men that politicians studiously avoid mentioning by name. No matter how mechanical and benign these things may be, the fact that the politicians talk about policy and events without disclosing their role, means by default that they are not conducting political discourse before the public in terms that accurately describe political events.

Money rules politics. <a href="http://forum.go-bengals.com/?go=money">Money</a> also aligns itself in various ways that aren't directly realted to the possession of <a href="http://forum.go-bengals.com/?go=money">money</a>. Family ties, religious and quasi-religious bonds, social ties, ethnic ties, all come into play. When <a href="http://forum.go-bengals.com/?go=money">money</a> becomes concentrated, the political rule of <a href="http://forum.go-bengals.com/?go=money">money</a> becomes more concentrated. When the concentration of that rule becomes increasingly institutionalized, you end up with parallel system of control.

None of this is really mysterious, nor is it unknown. Everybody knows that <a href="http://forum.go-bengals.com/?go=money">money</a> rules politics, and does as much or more now than it ever has, but people don't like to think about it, because current implications reinforce the understanding that barring them exposing themselves to great <a href="http://forum.go-bengals.com/?go=risk">risk</a>, they're powerless. The bread and butter of the politicians lies in maintaining "kayfabe" regarding the operation of the political system even to the point where they "mark out" themselves. And there's a lot of bread and butter to be had for people that don't want to <a href="http://forum.go-bengals.com/?go=work">work</a> a real <a href="http://forum.go-bengals.com/?go=job">job</a>.

So, I submit that when you think about the <a href="http://forum.go-bengals.com/?go=money">money</a> and how it is aligned, not only economically, but socially, ethnically, familially, spiritually, occupationally, historically, etc., the "special relationship" between the US and the UK has more to do with British interests hiding behind the might of the US than being vassals to US power. I think there is some complexity added by the presence of other players on the geopolitical stage and the need to deal with wildcat interests, particularly in the US. However, because the US establshment has loyalties other than to the American people, the powers in back of the British government have a significant amount of undisclosed influence over American policy - more than the other way around.[/quote]

So you believe the Queen of England (arguably one of the wealthist families in the world whose wealth may only be matched/exceeded by the vatican) or those within her consortium are the one's calling the shots?

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

[quote name='Lawman' post='391970' date='Nov 21 2006, 09:24 PM']So you believe the Queen of England (arguably one of the wealthist families in the world whose wealth may only be matched/exceeded by the vatican)[/quote]

I don't think that's what he means. The political power they wield is largely ceremonial.

But anyway, on the wealth tip, their wealth is matched and exceeded not only by the Vatican, but other families in England. Gerald Grosvener, the 6th Duke of Westminster has a fortune of approximately $12.2 billion. Based on real estate holdings in some of London's most upmarket areas. He is unrelated to the Queen.

The Queen and her clan (The Windsors) come in at about $5.4 billion. If you bring ordinary British citizens into the mix, they slip back even more.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Lawman' post='391970' date='Nov 21 2006, 09:24 PM']So you believe the Queen of England (arguably one of the wealthist families in the world whose wealth may only be matched/exceeded by the vatican) or those within her consortium are the one's calling the shots?[/quote]

I don't think the Queen is calling the shots. I think the Royals have a place among the elite and they have the ear of some of the movers and shakers. I think that in England more functional power is wielded by financial figures, but I think one of the alignments involved is the Royal bloodline.

As I recall, you present yourself as a church man, so you should be able to appreciate the crux of the matter. As long as the rational-legal model holds - the materialist model - and there is nothing but atoms and quarks and so forth, the ceremonial and ritualistic aspects of these relationships are just so much manipulation and hooey. But if there is something else, then you have to consider the degree to which the powerful seek to tap into it to obtain and maintain their power. Then you can look at what you know, or what you can find out about how such things might operate - IF they exist.

Even if such things don't exist, there is plenty of opportunity to look at how belief in their existence can be used to manipulate even people of prominence that most people assume know better. But if various forces, entities, etc. actually exist - even if only at the level of archetypal psychology, some of these relationships and associations bear a closer look in explaining how power organizes itself and applies itself in the world.

[|Bunghole|]

What is it with this conspiracy theory that the British Royals are behind some kind of global hegemony, the New World Order, etc....?

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='392471' date='Nov 22 2006, 10:35 PM']What is it with this conspiracy theory that the British Royals are behind some kind of global hegemony, the New World Order, etc....?[/quote]

Who said that?