Creating a constitution for the superstate of Europe- the EU -finally removes from the peoples of Europe the last vestige of any democratic control. If it goes through there’ll be no stopping the eurocrats from doing exactly what they want as and when they want. There’ll be no more popular votes anywhere.
This is another of our warnings: A DICTATORSHIP IS BEING SET UP IN EUROPE. Any American churches or groups that would like Alan Franklin to relate this theme to Bible prophecy, the global meltdown and much else, please contact us.
The politicians wiil not be surprised that the disgraceful decision to force the Irish to vote again- and this time in favor of the constitution- will have caused such criticism. But criticism to them is merely a bore. Their hope and expectation is that the excitement will have died down by the time the referendum comes round and the voters are made to have another ‘go’.
But ask yourself one question. If this treaty is a merely to make things in Europe run more smoothly why does it need a new Treaty? All these ‘nuts and bolts’ issues could be settled separately. NO!
TELEGRAPH Blogs 14.12.08
Why Eurocrats believe that No to EU treaty is the Irish for Yes
For Euro-hirelings, Lisbon isn't about democracy, it's about their mortgages.
By Daniel Hannan
This is becoming like the closing scenes of Terminator. However many times you kill the European Constitution, it keeps lurching to its feet again. Blam! Fifty-five per cent of French voters say "Non". Zap! Sixty-two per cent of Dutch voters say "Nee".
But the automaton keeps advancing, its flesh burned away, its charred metal skeleton stamped with the words "Lisbon Treaty". Then – pow! – 53 per cent of Irish voters vote "No". The machine is briefly swallowed by orange flames. Then, after a short lull, the red lights go on in its skull and, once again, it starts clawing its way forward.
Shortly before Ireland voted, the president of the European Commission, José Manuel Durrão Barroso, warned electors that there was no Plan B. Irish commentators innocently took this to mean that, if the treaty was rejected, it would be dropped. What Barroso in fact meant, as is now clear, is that Plan A would be resubmitted over and over again.
This is how EU leaders invariably behave after a "No" vote. They machine-gun out a couple of platitudes about listening to the people, then carry on regardless. For them, public opinion is an obstacle to tear aside, not a reason to change direction.
Their desire for a second Irish referendum next autumn isn't really to do with voting weights or numbers of commissioners or extensions of majority voting. Many of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty can be – indeed, have been – implemented in anticipation of formal ratification.
For example, the European elections on June 4 will be fought on the basis of the number of MEPs that would have been authorised by Lisbon, not the ones provided for by the current treaties.
No, this is about keeping the project going – a project from which millions now earn their living. The EU employs more than 170,000 officials, on handsome and largely untaxed retainers.
And for every formal Eurocrat there are dozens of fellow travellers: the Europe officers retained by every local council, large corporation and NGO. Their salaries might not be paid directly by Brussels but their livelihoods depend on the process of integration.
For Euro-hirelings, Lisbon isn't about federalism or democracy; it's about mortgages and school fees. They realise, to borrow their favourite simile, that the EU is like a bicycle that will fall over if it stops moving.
And so they have convinced themselves that voters are suffering from what Engels called "false consciousness": that they secretly want their leaders to disregard their votes and push ahead with deeper integration.
If you think I exaggerate, consider these words, spoken to the Czech President last week by Brian Crowley, leader of Ireland's governing party, Fianna Fáil, in the European Parliament: "All his life my father fought against the British domination. Many of my relatives lost their lives. That is why I dare to say that the Irish wish for the Lisbon Treaty."
Disregard the curious way in which Crowley equates his father's campaign for national independence with his campaign against it. Ignore, too, the anachronism: since Crowley's father was born 13 years after independence, he can hardly have spent his life fighting "the British domination".
Focus, instead, on the extraordinary presumption: "the Irish wish for the Lisbon Treaty". So much for the referendum result. Crowley believes he knows the voters' desires better than they do.
Will a second referendum succeed? Irish politicians think so: they calculate that the financial crisis has changed the mood, that their constituents want to be part of a big bloc.
But Irish voters might remember the EU's aggressive attitude when their government sought to guarantee bank deposits. They might have spotted that euro membership exacerbated their crisis by artificially fuelling the boom. They might even notice that the people telling them to vote "Yes", in Dublin and in Brussels, are the ones who presided over the breakdown.
An opinion poll in The Irish Times last month showed the Pro-Treaty Forces (if I might use that loaded term in an Irish context) four points ahead. Then again, they were 18 points ahead at this stage last time, and still got thumped. Received opinion can be woefully wrong.
Two weeks before the last referendum, I urged readers of my Telegraph blog to bet their shirts on a "No" vote, at odds of 7–2. In the event, the "Yes" side was so complacent that the bookies had already started paying out the wrong way before polling stations closed.
I won't repeat that advice, for one reason. The consequences of a second "No" for Brian Cowen would be disastrous: he would have to resign, and would go down in history as the Taoiseach who wouldn't take "No" for an answer.
If, after the European elections next year, the polls are still looking dicey, my guess is that Cowen would find a way to push the treaty through by a combination of parliamentary ratification, executive fiat and judicial activism. But he won't abandon it: that would be unthinkable.
• Daniel Hannan is a Conservative MEP
Betrayal all around from the guardians of democracy
The apparatchiks of the European Union establishment have one thing, at least, in common with serial rapists. They cannot accept that no means no. These people all want it really, they say. They’re not victims; they’re gagging for it. And they’ll love it really when we get our way with them. What the EU establishment wants, it gets. It takes, regardless.
Last week the Brussels nomenklatura once again proved that it won’t accept a no, this time from the electorate of Ireland. In June the Irish voters firmly said no to the European constitution, or rather the Lisbon treaty, or whatever obfuscation the Europhiles dreamt up to bamboozle us. The Irish were not bamboozled; they didn’t want the EU constitution. But no is not acceptable.
So last week Brian Cowen, the taoiseach and Europhile, reassured European leaders that he wouldn’t take no for an answer from his people. He has promised to make them vote again on the matter. Dick Roche, his European affairs minister, then opined, in the majesty of his democratic office: “From a constitutional point of view, there’s no other choice than a second referendum.”
What can he mean? The truth is the precise opposite. Such deliberate untruth, backing Mr Cowen’s promise to ignore his people’s vote, gives new vigour to the phrase barefaced effrontery. Against such wilful, shameless betrayal of the democratic process it is useless to protest; democracy is being undermined by democratically elected governments that don’t understand a constitutional no and smile benignly, or self-importantly, at our helpless rage.
Cowen and Roche should not be singled out for their effrontery. Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European commission, is guilty of it too. Last week he brought out his weary charm on BBC television to ask, “Who are we to stop the Irish having a second referendum?” European leaders, far from stopping a second referendum in Ireland, have put huge pressure on its prime minister to have one or do something – anything – to deliver up an Irish yes.
Barroso must have known this; his question was shamefully misleading. Yet he actually said after last week’s Brussels summit meeting that “Europe has passed its credibility test”. The truth, once again, is the opposite. With its demand for an Irish yes, the EU has passed another incredibility test, in the manner of a deluded rapist.
Our own Gordon Brown, and Tony Blair before him, specialises in shameless, undemocratic effrontery, not least about the EU. Everyone knows Labour promised at the 2005 general election to hold a referendum on the proposed EU constitution. Everyone knows Blair and Brown broke that promise. Brown then sneakily signed the Lisbon treaty, knowing full well that most British voters would have said no. But Brown wasn’t having no. He wasn’t having democracy.
Brown does not restrict his astonishing effrontery to matters European. One of my favourite examples was his claim, many times repeated, that he had inherited “a broken economy” from the Conservatives. He must have known that the opposite was true, but he kept saying it.
I particularly enjoyed the way he and his ministers until recently went about intoning that Britain is one of the best-placed nations in the rich world to withstand the global crisis, since Britain is not overborrowed like other leading countries. The truth is the opposite. Clearly, they think they can get away with it. Perhaps they think we won’t notice or won’t care. Historians may say ’twas ever thus: all politicians lie.
I am not so sure. In my adult life I think there has been a growth in barefaced lies and deception in public office, along with a loss of respect for due process and respect for the freedoms of others. Maybe that’s just because, with the information revolution, we know so much more about what public men and women get up to. Or perhaps there has been a real change.
It’s an odd coincidence that while democracy and meritocracy have truly spread in the past 50 years, while all sorts of institutions and activities have been opened up to people who used never to get a look-in, political democracy seems to be coming under increasing threat.
A perfect example of this is the utterly incurious way Michael Martin, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and his unlucky placewoman Jill Pay, the serjeant-at-arms, were prepared to let the police into the Commons. I don’t believe there was any conspiracy; both were just too ignorant to do their jobs properly and had too little real understanding of the point of parliamentary procedure.
It may be snobbish, but it’s true. Neither is really qualified for the post by education or by experience. They both showed an unquestioning deference to the police. The rise of democracy was supposed to be the end of undue deference, yet here were the defenders of the people’s Commons touching their forelocks to the filth.
The price of freedom is not just constant vigilance – it must be informed and educated vigilance. And that vigilance is protected by procedure. Yet watchers over us are often less well informed and educated than they used to be.
You see small signs of it everywhere. In little committees for local purposes, or in big ones, you see a gradual disappearance of proper procedure. In the past, trade unionists and charitable ladies always used to go by the committee book. Now the tendency is towards friendly consensus, an open show of hands and an indifference to the minutes – to the record, in fact.
One of the problems behind Haringey’s first report on the death of Baby P was that the head of children’s services, in having two roles, had conflicts of interest – a serious procedural problem that was ignored. Procedure is deadly, of course, but it’s there to protect the truth-tellers and the vigilant, especially when they face undue pressure.
The EU is all too often indifferent to procedure, indifferent to the shameful fact that the auditors have not signed its accounts for years. In ignoring, jointly, the democratic procedures of other countries, it suborns individual Europhile leaders into an equal indifference. Procedure matters: it is there to protect us from, among other things, the barefaced effrontery of totalitarianism.