EU Constitution as viewed from the USA

John Bolton is probably not the favourite US Diplomat in the homes of such luminaries as Mark Malloch Brown, Polly Toynbee and the Unctuous Little Squirt himself (our brand new, never-had-a-proper-job in his life, Blairophiliac Foreign Secretary), not to mention all those Guardian readers who probably froth at the mouth at the mere mention of his name, but his piece in the Financial Times yesterday (here) is important, even if only because it is an outsider's take on the present dangers to the continued existence of The UK as an Independent & Sovereign Nation State.

Bolton's views are important because it may be inferred that others who have a say in US Foreign policy will hold similar views of our impending demise.

One such aspect may well, when we are represented by an EU Foreign Minister, turn on the two permanent and other temporary seats on The UN Security Council: if we speak as one, why do we need so many seats?

For example, why does a "union" with a common foreign and security policy, and with the prospect of a real "foreign minister" have two permanent seats on the UN Security Council and often as many as three non-permanent seats out of a total of 15 council members? France and Britain may not relish the prospect of giving up their unique status, but what is it that makes them different - as members of the "Union" - from Luxembourg or Malta? One Union, one seat.

I commend this article to readers as essential reading concerning the realities of the Constitutional Treaty.