What Does the New EU Treaty Mean?

You are here

What Does the New EU Treaty Mean?

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!

Sign In | Sign Up

×

Two years ago France and Netherlands rejected the proposed European Constitution. This past weekend EU leaders ratified a new “Reform Treaty” to chart the unions future course. What it is exactly that they ratified will take weeks to unravel. But the information that is coming out indicates that what was rejected by voters two years ago has been put back in place by today’s leaders and will not be put to the people for ratification.

Here is a summary of what we  know:

The treaty creates a new office of EU President. He will serve a longer term then the current rotating presidency does The planned “Union Minister for Foreign Affairs” is replaced by a “High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy”. Neither of these persons will have full executive authority to speak for all member states on matters of importance such as foreign and economic policy. For the present, the effectiveness of these roles will be determined by the personality and persuasiveness of whoever holds the job.

Poland fought over changes to voting procedures and got a promise to delay the implementation of a new system until 2014. Britain demanded opt-outs from certain provisions, such as on home affairs. After their narrow interests were addressed, both holdout countries signed off on the deal.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy sneaked in a change that deals a serious blow to the single European market. Claiming to speak for Frenchmen who voted down the Constitution in 2005 because they were worried about globalization, Mr. Sarkozy persuaded Ms. Merkel to drop from the new treaty’s list of EU objectives the establishment of “an internal market where competition is free and undistorted.”  Some say that protectionism has just been legitimized.

Stratfor has this to say:
 

As the agreement was put out for all to see, many began questioning whether is was a success — or a sign that the European Union is never going to be a real union. To begin with, the original goal was an EU constitution. This is a treaty, somewhat less than what the original designers had in mind. Also, it still has another two years to be approved — during which time some countries likely will put it to a general referendum — and many items do not take effect until 2017. There also is a clause within that 10-year delay that allows certain items to be put back up for debate. In the end, the agreement postpones the time when most EU states will have to take sides between the European powers, though it does delay the break for another day — or decade.


This treaty is nothing more then a resting point for real progress forward for Europe. The leaders barely agreed to create a document that allows for a titled President and Foreign Minister. Nothing in the document gives them real authority. There seem to be some, like Poland, who still remember what unchecked power in the hands of one country or one man can do to the people of Europe.

Bible prophecy shows that eventually ten “kings” will cede power to one person called “the beast”, a single person who will wield great power in the coming religious political system system called Babylon in Revelation 17. This growing European federation is not close to fulfilling this prophecy. Something dramatic will have to take place to bring Europe to the point of this prophecy.