Basic HTML Version
crastinated for more than two
years.
A few American leaders even ad–
vocate withdrawal of U.S. troops
from Europe. Few events would
make the Soviets happier.
Gorbachev's Vlew of Europe
The Russians have long desired to
decouple Europe from North
America. Their European vision
does not include the United States.
The Sydney Morning Herald
headlined an article on the Russian
leader's visit to East Germany:
"Gorbachev Pushes for European
Solidarity." The Soviet Union
wants European union, but a union
that will suit its interests.
Mr. Gorbachev raised the theme
of Continental solidarity. Not since
De Gaulle has this concept been
mentioned so prominently. Said
the Australian article: "His main
message, in the various speeches
during his visit, seemed to be
aimed at Europeans in general and
West Germany in part icular."
Further, Mr. Gorbachev de–
clared that the Soviet Union was
ready to develop its relations with
West Germany- "a E uropean
state of the first importance"
(April 23, 1986). A limited
rap-
November/ December 1986
-
a
prochement
between the Federal
Republic and East Germany is not
out of the bounds of Russian think–
ing. But German neutrality is part
of the price.
The Soviets envision European
solidarity coupled with political
neutrality. But Europe does not
share Moscow's vision.
How the EEC envisions its own
future prosperity and security is
really quite different from what
most observers think. Even in
Bri tain, only a few externa! news–
papermen have pierced through a
thick fog of confusing rhetoric- and
put their finger on the true direction
in which Europe is moving and what
it portends for Britain.
A Future Polltical Unlon
In an article published in
The
Times,
author and journalist Paul
Johnson tried hard to shake Britons
out of their lethargic view of the
EEC. A fundamental alteration in
Britain's relationship to the Com–
mon Market is about to happen. It
is close to becoming British law.
Yet, as he observed:
"It
has
aroused no passion in the Cabinet,
in the Commons or the media"
(June 23, 1986). He fu rther wrote
in
The Times:
"It is, in effect,
[endorsement of] a completely new
treaty, which ought properly to
have been placed on a leve! of sig–
nificance equivalent to that of the
original treaty of Rome."
This is no small matter that the
British public has chosen to ignore.
Says Mr. Johnson of the newly
amended treaty: "It will transform
relations among the EEC states
into a European union and it will
invest the union with the necessary
means of action."
The British Parliament is going
to be weakened. Already European
institutions are infringing on En–
glish sovereignty on a whole range
of subjects from spanking children
to women's retirement age. British
law is in retreat. Pending parlia–
mentary legislation will intensify
and enhance this process.
The Commons has labeled the
legislation
The European Commu–
nities (Amendment) Bi/1.
Paul
Johnson would have quite a differ–
ent title: The European Political
Union Treaty. He asks why was
the proposed legislation not pre–
sented to Parliament as "an act to
create a European superstate?"
The answer he proffers devas–
tates: " ... To do so would have
been to tell the truth; and the EEC
establishment , and our own govern-
3