Dr Richard North Dr Richard North This article is part of the series: The European Council (sometimes referred to as a European Summit) is the highest political body of the European Union.[1] It comprises the heads of state or government of the Union's member states along with the President of the European Commission. Its meeting is chaired by the member from the member state currently holding Presidency of the Council of the European Union.[2] While the Council has no formal executive or legislative powers, it is an institution that deals with major issues and any decisions made are "a major impetus in defining the general political guidelines of the European Union". The Council meets at least twice a year; usually in the Justus Lipsius building, the quarters of the Council of the European Union (Consilium) of Brussels.[3][4][5] The first Councils were held in February and July 1961 (in Paris and Bonn respectively). They were informal summits of the leaders of the European Community and were started due to then-French President Charles de Gaulle's resentment at the domination of supranational institutions (e.g. the European Commission) over the integration process. The first influential summit was held in 1969 after a series of irregular summits. The Hague summit of 1969 reached an agreement on the admittance of the United Kingdom into the Community and initiated foreign policy cooperation (the European Political Cooperation) taking integration beyond economics.[1][6] The summits were only formalised in 1974, at the December summit in Paris, following a proposal from then-French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. It was felt that more intergovernmental input was needed following the "empty chair crisis" and economic problems. The inaugural Council, as it had become, was held in Dublin on 1975-03-10/1975-03-11 during Ireland's first Presidency of the Council of the European Union. In 1987 it was included in the treaties for the first time (the Single European Act) and had a defined role for the first time in the Maastricht Treaty. At first only two meetings per year were required, now there are on average four European Councils each year (two per presidency). The seat of the Council was formalised in 2002, basing it in Brussels (see Seat). In addition to usual councils, there are the occasional extraordinary councils, for example in 2001 the European Council gathered to lead the EUs response to those events.[1][6] The meetings of the Council are seen by some as turning points in the history of the European Union. For example:[1] The European Council isn't an official institution of the EU, although it is mentioned in the treaties as a body which "shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development". Essentially it defines the EU's policy agenda and has thus been considered to be the motor ofEuropean integration. It does this without any formal powers, only the influence it has being composed of national leaders.[1][4] Beyond the need to provide "impetus", the Council has developed further roles; to "settle issues outstanding from discussions at a lower level", to lead in foreign policy - acting externally as a "collective Head of State", "formal ratification of important documents" and "involvement in the negotiation of the treaty changes".[5][6] Since the body is composed of national leaders, it brings together the executive power of the member states, having a great deal of influence outside the European Community: for example over foreign policy and police & justice. It also exercises the more executive powers of the Council of the European Union (the European Council could be described as a configuration of that body) such as the appointment of thePresident of the European Commission. Hence with powers over the supranational executive of the EU, in addition to its other powers, the European Council has been described by some as the Union's "supreme political authority".[2][5][6] However, the body has been criticised by some for a lack of leadership, in part stemming from the weak structure of the body, meeting only 4 times a year for 2 days with no staff and no legislative decisions made.[8] Officially the members of the Council consist of the heads of state or government of the Union, plus the Commission President (non-voting). When meetings take place, the national foreign minister usually attends with the leaders. The Commission President likewise is also accompanied by another member of the Commission. These are the members seen in the "family photo" taken at each Council.[1][4][5] Meetings can also include national ministers, including foreign ministers, other leading national positions (French Prime Minister),Commissioners as required. The Secretary General of the Council (and his/her deputy) is also a regular attendee. The position has become highly important due to its regular role in organising the meetings while also acting as the Union's High Representative. The President of the European Parliament usually attends to give an opening speech outlining the European Parliament's position before talks begin.[1][4][5] However the negotiations usually involve a large number of other people working behind the scenes. Most of those people however are not allowed into the conference room, except for two delegates per state to relay messages. At the push of a button members can also call for advice from a Permanent Representative via the "Antici Group" in an adjacent room. The group is composed of diplomats and assistants who convey information and requests. Interpretors are also required for meetings as members are permitted to speak in their own languages.[1] As the composition is not precisely defined, some states where there is a considerably split of executive power can find it difficult deciding who attends the meetings. While an MEP, Alexander Stubb argued that there was no need for the President of Finland to attend Council meetings with or instead of the Prime Minister of Finland (who was head of European foreign policy).[9] In 2008, having become Finnish Foreign Minister, Stubb was forced out of the Finnish delegation to the emergency council meeting on the Georgian crisis because the President wanted to attend the high profile summit as well as the Prime Minister (only two people from each country can attend the meetings). This was despite Stubb being head of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe at the time which was heavily involved in the crisis. Problems also occurred in Poland where the President of Poland and the Prime Minister of Poland were of different parties and had a different foreign policy response to the crisis.[10] The role of President-in-Office of the assembled European Council is performed by the head of government or head of state of the member state currently holding the Council Presidency. This presidency rotates every six months, with every three presidencies co-operating on a common programme in triplets, meaning there is also a new president of the European Council every six months. The agenda of the meetings are defined by the Presidency, hence it may be misused by the country holding the Presidency by pushing their national interests up the agenda. The presiding country may also have additional negotiators at the table.[1][2][5] The role as President-in-Office is in no sense equivalent to an office of a head of state, merely a primus inter pares (first among equals) role with other European heads of government. The President-in-Office is primarily responsible for preparing and chairing Council meetings, and has no executive powers. It does however offer external representation of the council and the Union and reports to the European Parliament after Council meetings and at the beginning and end of the Presidency.[2][5] Almost all members of the Council are members of a political party at national level, and most of these are members of a European-level political party. However the Council is composed in order to represent the Union's states rather than political parties, and decisions are generally made on these lines. The table below outlines the European party affiliations of the European Council members for each country. Meetings of the council usually take place four times a year (two per Presidency) in Brussels and last for two days, although this can sometimes be longer if contentious issues are on the agenda.[1] Up until 2002, the venue of the council meeting rotated between member states, as its location was decided by the country holding the rotating presidency. However, the 22nd declaration attached to the Treaty of Nice stated that; "As from 2002, one European Council meeting per Presidency will be held in Brussels. When the Union comprises 18 members, all European Council meetings will be held in Brussels."[14] So between 2002 and 2004 half the councils were held in Brussels, and from the 2004 enlargement, all were. The European Council uses the same building as the Council of the European Union (the Justus Lipsius building). However some extraordinary councils still take place outside of the city in the member holding the Presidency; (Rome, 2003 or Hampton Court Palace in 2005). The European Council is due to move with the Council of the European Union to a new building, Résidence Palace, next to the existing building.[6][15] The choice of a single seat was due to a number of factors, such as the experience of the Belgian police in dealing with protesters (a protester in Gothenburg was shot by police) as well as Brussels having fixed facilities for the Council and journalists at every meeting. By having a permanent seat (that's the same as the Council), particularly since enlargement, it was expected the Council would integrate further into the Community framework, rather than continuing under heavy national influence, developing as a governmental body (some have argued it is already the de facto EU government).[6] In 2007 the new situation became a source of contention with the European Council wanting to sign the Lisbon Treaty in Lisbon. However the Belgian government, keen not to set a precedent, insisted that the actual meeting take place in Brussels as usual. This would mean that after the signing, photo suit and formal dinner the entire summit would transfer from Lisbon to Brussels to continue with normal business. The idea of such an eventuality, mirrored with the "travelling circus" of the European Parliament, garnered protests from environmental groups describing the hypocrisy of demanding lower carbon emissions while flying across Europe for the same summit for political reasons.[16] There would be a number of changes to the European Council under the proposed Treaty of Lisbon.[17] The treaty would make the European Council a formal institution, separate from the Council of the European Union (now the Council of Ministers). While the Council of Ministers would continue with the rotating presidency, the European Council would have a single, fixed, President of the European Council with a renewable two-and-a-half year mandate. The position would stay a non-executive, administrative role. It would have an important role in organising work and meetings, providing external representation (including working with the CFSP) and being able to call extraordinary meetings beyond the four that are now formally required to take place.[18] The role of the council is clearly separate from the Council, and primarily follows previous definitions. In separating from the Council of Ministers, the European Council gains no legislative power. It does however gain a greater say over police and justice planning, foreign policy and constitutional matters, including: the composition of the Parliament and Commission; matters relating to the rotating presidency; the suspension of membership rights; changing the voting systems in the treaties bridging clauses; and nominating the President of the European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The High Representative, along with the new post of President, are the only formal changes in composition. Further more, under the "emergency break" procedure, a state may refer contenious legislation from the Council of Ministers to the European Council if it is outvoted in the Council, although it may still be outvoted in the European Council.[18][19][20] Although there may be some informal changes; currently the President of Finland informally takes part in the European Council as s/he is responsible for the Finland's foreign policy outside the EU. This is alongside the Prime Minister who deals with policy within the EU. Under the new treaty the Council becomes a formal EU institution and deals with foreign policy (making it EU policy). Hence, some see the President's attendance would no longer be justified.[21] There has been speculation on who would be the first (full time) President of the European Council, being dubbed as the President of the European Union. Currently the most common name is former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair.[22][23] This was backed up further when, in June 2007, French president Nicolas Sarkozy was the first leader to propose that Blair be the first president.[24]. On July 15th 2009, BBC News reported that the UK Minister for Europe Baroness Kinnock had confirmed that Blair would be a candidate for the role and would have British government support. However in August 2007, there has been specuation that Bertie Ahern, the former Irish Taoiseach, could also be a contender[25]. The Bulgarian government has floated the name of former Prime Minister Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha[26]. In September 2009, the name of Dutch Prime Minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, was reported in the Dutch press[27] as a possible contender for the new post. Balkende has firmly denied that he was a contender, dismissing the claim as "claptrap"[28] .FULL DETAILS AND BACKGROUND OF EUROPEAN COUNCIL END OF THIS ARTICLE.
We've been telling you all this for years.
AND YOUR STILL DEAF!.
WE REMIND YOU OF CICERO STATEMENT!
Cicero
11-3-8
Review on EU - THE EU SCEPTIC MOVEMENT AND EXIT STRATEGY FOR UK.
So it came to pass that Ann Winterton won the parliamentary lottery and got to ask the first question at PMQs today. She chose to ask the prime minister:
"When the Lisbon treaty comes into force, the European Council will become a formal institution of the European Union. As the UK member of that institution, will the Prime Minister confirm that he is bound by its rules and is thus obliged to further the objectives of the European Union in preference to those of the United Kingdom?"
The prime minister replied: We joined the European Union in the 1970s, and we hold by our obligations to the European Union, but that does not prevent us from representing the national sovereignty of this country.
Unfortunately, the "mice" got at the question in the early edition (on-line), with the Hansard converting the "European Council" into "Council of the European Union", which is the current name for the Council of Ministers.
As originally recorded in Hansard, therefore, the question did not make sense. The "Council of the European Union" (aka Council of Ministers) was one of the original community institutions, set up by the Treaty of Rome. The European Council – starting as an informal meeting of the heads of states and governments – did not exist then, and has never formally been integrated into the community structure, until now.
Having now checked the original video recording, Ann most definitely said "European Council". For some bizarre reason Hansard had changed what she had said. To the spoken version though, Brown's answer was revealing – as much for what he did not say as what he did.
"Will the Prime Minister confirm that he [as a member of the European Council] is bound by its rules, and is thus obliged to further the objectives of the European Union in preference to those of the United Kingdom?" he was asked. Did he answer the question?
What he does tells us is that: "we hold by our obligations to the European Union". Yet theconstitutional Lisbon treaty will amend Article 9 of the TEU to incorporate the European Council as an institution of the Union. As such, it:... shall aim to promote its values, advance its objectives, serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of the Member States, and ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions.
That "obligation", according to Mr Brown, "does not prevent us from representing the national sovereignty of this country." Well, we can all be mightily reassured by that. The prime minister is not stopped from representing the national sovereignty of this country.
But, what of the question of whether advancing the objectives of the EU and serving its interests takes precedence over serving the interests of its citizens and those of the Member States?
Bearing in mind that the European Council is also obliged to "ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its [the EU's] policies and actions" – with no mention of member states, where does that leave the prime minister, as member of the European Council?
Answer, of course, there was none. He can represent us ... but his duties and obligations are clear. And, as we all know, EU law takes precedence over UK law. The prime minister, and his successors, are duly obligated to obey.We've been telling you all this for years.AND YOUR STILL DEAF!. WE REMIND YOU OF CICERO STATEMENT!
Review on EU - THE EU SCEPTIC MOVEMENT AND EXIT STRATEGY FOR UK.
The picture from March last year should remind us of what we have lost – what has been stolen from us ... our right as a people to determine our own future. This is theft on a colossal scale. Our government has been stolen from under our very noses.
Elsewhere, The Daily Telegraph is (rightly) making a big deal about the creation of a European Union diplomatic corps, brought in with the constitutional Lisbon treaty. It is warning that, once the process has gone though, "before you know it, another slice of sovereignty has slipped away."
But, in raising the alarm here, the newspaper – in common with virtually every other commentator – is missing the greater danger, ushered in by the same treaty. The danger is "hidden in plain sight" but has been consistently and willfully ignored – and continues to be, to this day.
That danger was highlighted by us in several posts, most notably here and here, identifying the underlying agenda of the "project", which is to create a supreme government of Europe.
Central to that are its institutions, which is why the discussion of "institutional changes" is not an advanced piece of nerdery, but the very essence of the European Union, the very things that create the European Union. Without its institutions it is nothing.
However, dealing with a media, politicians, the broader blogsosphere and people in general, who have but a slender grasp of how our own government works, it is too much to ask that they should have any knowledge of the intricacies of EU government. Most do not have even the remotest idea, and thus the significance of what appear to be arcane changes completely elude them.
But, as we pointed out – nay screamed out - in our earlier posts, the most fundamental change in the constitutional Lisbon treaty is to absorb the European Council into the structural institutional maw of the EU, making it formally an EU institution, bound under treaty law to further the objectives of the EU and subject to EU law.
Since the membership of the European Council comprises the heads of state of governments of the member states, this means necessarily that our prime minister becomes a servant of the European Union, bound by the treaty to promote its objectives, and subject to its law. He will no longer represent us in the European Union but, as part of the supreme government of Europe, is one of 27 who will determine the policies of the EU for individual vassal states to implement.
Thus, as we have remarked many times, come the next general election, we will not be electing MPs, with the wining party then go on to form our government. We will we choosing an electoral college which will then go on to choose the person it wishes to send to Brussels, not as our representative but as one of the 27 who will take part in the supreme government of Europe.
Despite the general election, therefore, the government will not change. We only get to change one member of our government – our member of the European Council. Those MPs who go on to become ministers will, by and large, assume junior roles in the rubber-stamp machine of the Council of Ministers, and then go home to implement EU laws.
To that extent, the next election is devoid of any great significance. Barring those few areas which have not been taken over by Brussels, the new "government" will be shorn of its power. The election is primarily an electorally mandated (partial) reshuffle.
And that is why the constitutional Lisbon treaty is so important. That is why we cannot "leave it there". When the treaty comes into force, the all but final step of creating a supreme government of Europe is complete. All the "colleagues" want now is an elected president and the coup d'étatwill be complete.
The genius of it all though, it that so few will notice. The EU has learned that the way to take over independent countries is not by force of arms but to create "institutional changes" that go unrecognised for what they are. Leave intact the façades of the formerly independent institutions of the member states, and reward the politicians handsomely with the trappings of power, and the deed is done.
The end game is all but complete. Our politicians have sold the pass. They have allowed our government to be stolen. And if they don't care, we should. We are to be ruled by an alien power. It is not our government – it is theirs. We owe it neither loyalty nor obedience.Cicero
11-3-8European Council
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
European Union 
Politics and government of
the European Union
Other countries · Atlas
Politics portalContents
[hide][edit]History
[edit]Powers and functions
[edit]Composition
[edit]President-in-Office
[edit]Council members
[edit]Political parties
.png)
Party # QMV European People's Party 13 191 Party of European Socialists 7 101 European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party 4 25 Independent 2 24 Party of the European Left 1 4 Total 27 345 [edit]Seat and meetings
[edit]Future of the European Council
[edit]References
[edit]External links
Thursday, 15 October 2009
The European Council of the EU-Treason and Treachery of the U.K Politicians since the 1970's reference the EU.
Dr Richard NorthFULL DETAILS AND BACKGROUND OF EUROPEAN COUNCIL END OF THIS ARTICLE.
We've been telling you all this for years.
AND YOUR STILL DEAF!.
WE REMIND YOU OF CICERO STATEMENT!
Cicero
11-3-8
Review on EU - THE EU SCEPTIC MOVEMENT AND EXIT STRATEGY FOR UK.
_crop.jpg)
.JPG){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.png)
Posts
