When Brussels Wants To Know What We Think, It Asks Itself
From the desk of Michael Huntsman on Sat, 2007-12-29 19:22
Relatively speaking, the 2005 referenda ‘No’ votes of France and The Netherlands on the EU Constitution have proved to be as mosquito bites to a dinosaur. As the Treaty of Lisbon, which legally replicates the Constitutional Treaty, is railroaded through, it is clear the insects have been swatted away.
Just as some of the European politicians are incautious when bruiting the greatness and cleverness of their achievement in reviving the corpse of the Constitution, so others amongst them from time to time reveal their utter terror of the people of Europe and the remote possibility that any one of the member nations of the EU might suddenly turn around and actually consult their voters about the Treaty.
Thus today Slovenia, which takes up the EU's rotating presidency on New Year’s Day, blurts out a set of truths which lay bare some of those terrors. According to The Daily Telegraph,
[Slovenia’s Prime Minister Janez] Jansa said that after French and Dutch voters rejected the constitution in 2005, Europe's elites were using the parliamentary route rather than risky popular votes to ratify the accord.
EU officials and national governments have drawn up documents "mapping" the political obstacles ahead, Mr Jansa revealed.
To help Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, get the new Treaty through Parliament, Brussels will delay proposals to scrap Britain's annual £3 billion rebate.
The process of bringing the EU Constitution, now in the form of the Treaty of Lisbon, into force, regardless of the wishes of the peoples of Europe, has been one which has entailed considerable but highly secret planning. It is a reasonable inference that the British Foreign Office has lent its skills of deviousness and mendacity to this process and that the British government has played a full part in the subversion of democracy that this process entails: an inference borne out indisputably by the lengths to which Gordon Brown has gone, even to the extent of damaging his own Government and the Labour Party, in order to play his part in getting the Constitution into force across the European Union.
That the process involves the British Foreign Office in dishonesty, deviousness and dishonour is emphatically encapsulated in the apparent scheme whereby Brussels will delay proposals to scrap Britain’s annual £3 billion rebate. This was the amount of money that Mr. Blair meekly yielded to the EU Bully Boys who demanded that changes be made to the sums which the UK recovers from its contributions, a rebate won against the fierce opposition of the EU in the 1980s by Margaret Thatcher. The plan is to delay implementation of that craven surrender beyond the UK’s ratification process so that it can in no way be used to inflame opinion against the EU in general and the Treaty in particular.
However, Mr. Jansa fears
“We cannot exclude the possibility that something will go wrong.”
Such as, for example, a democratic decision being taken which “derails” the whole process. Any decision to vote against this Constitution will be met with the sternest resistance by the Euro Nabobery who have carefully planned the process so that the risk such a “possibility” actually happening is minimised to almost nothing.
Does it not tell us all that we need to know of the EU that its political elite actively and secretly conspires to prevent any of its citizens voicing an opinion contrary to its plans? That the Euro Nabobery is confident of the success of its plot is evidenced by the continuing implementation of a part of the Treaty for which there is, as yet, no lawful basis. The Telegraph writes that:
Slovenia is planning to create the basis for a [EU] diplomatic service to be run by the [EU] “foreign minister” as well as an office for the new President of Europe, raising fears that parts of the new treaty are already being implemented despite the fact it has not been ratified.
This is just one feature of the EU Constitution which many who oppose the EU use as an example of how the EU will acquire all the characteristics of a Sovereign Independent State in its own right in 2009; this and the legal capacity of the EU Foreign Minister to sign Treaties on behalf of the EU as a legal entity. No wonder, then, that there is sensitivity about plans which would seem to be a major case of putting the cart before the horse.
All will ask themselves: why and how do the Eurocrats feel such confidence? Might it be that the nature of their conspiracy against their own people, against democracy itself, is so well-planned and so deep-rooted in their hearts that they believe it to be all over bar the shouting? Which, as always, brings us back to that old chestnut: why, if the European Union Constitution is such a bright shining thing, a construct which will bring palpable and obvious benefits to all its citizens, is the political elite so afraid of asking our opinion on the matter?
Or is it that they have excised utterly the words ‘NO’ and ‘democracy’ from the EU dictionary?
Finally, I leave you with these little gems from one of the earliest of the Euro Nabobery, Charles de Gaulle, who knew a thing or two about when and when not to ask the people for their views, though with his last referendum, a footling thing too, he came a cropper:
* Yes, it is Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, it is Europe, it is the whole of Europe, that will decide the fate of the world. (23 November 1959, Strasbourg)
* When I want to know what France thinks, I ask myself.
That just about sums it all up, does it not?
Is it common sense to issue a constitutional blank check?
Submitted by Marvin Brenik on Sun, 2007-12-30 18:06.
In full agreement with Zen Master's words, I would like to add the following:
Is it common sense to issue a constitutional blank check?
Is it common sense to allow our politicians to sign the Lisbon Treaty, that is to let them forge a blank check to be freely used by a bunch of lying foreign politicians?
Just by looking at Sarkozy’s controversial politics, we may conclude that the EU’s intent with the slogans of “protecting peace, tolerance, increasing security against so called “racism and terrorism” is only a crafted justification for establishing the new centralized Euviet Union. History itself is the proof that large empires are the very source of humankind’s worst miseries. Best examples: the misery under the Roman Empire, under the Soviet Union, under the threat of a Nazi Empire, currently evolving into the new USA empire. We should not think in "big", because that eliminates our direct access to the mechanism making decisions regarding our very life. At the same time we should be able to keep what we have: Belgium and the other nations are endangered by the EU emperors' hostile ambitions.
Two among the many reasons against the USA-like federations and empires: the centralized control eliminates people’s freedom and sovereignty, and the decision making process delegated into the hands of remote interests eliminates accountability and transparency.
The Lisbon Treaty itself is a text of ambiguity leaving many crucial issues open to the decision of the remote and non-transparent EU institutions. The Treaty is a blank check transferring our citizenship-given rights into the hands of highly controversial foreign politicians.
In all countries we should simply demand that the Lisbon Treaty should not be ratified - or wherever it has already been ratified that should be invalidated - because the credibility of the political elite imposing the Lisbon Treaty on the peoples of Europe has been damaged to an unrecoverable degree.
Basic common sense dictates that we should not issue a blank check to anyone, especially not a constitutional blank check, especially not to foreign politicians and most especially not to lying, manipulative politicians. To foreign politicians, whose most dominant leader, Sarkozy is a racist and foreign-hater manipulator, who – in addition - seems to be a supporter of paedophilia.
See more information and the references at the end of my former comment:
There is no racism, only the ambitions of the Euviet Union
The arrogant EU elites rule the public
Submitted by Zen Master on Sun, 2007-12-30 17:33.
The complete arrogance of the EU elites is best demonstrated by the quote below. The elites have such complete contempt for the public that they name an EU ‘foreign minister’ before the Lisbon Treaty has even been ratified.
“Slovenia is planning to create the basis for a [EU] diplomatic service to be run by the [EU] “foreign minister” as well as an office for the new President of Europe, raising fears that parts of the new treaty are already being implemented despite the fact it has not been ratified”.
The elites need to have the people tell them that they are not the EU ‘dictators’ and that the people still live in a democracy.
What happened to Europeans?
Submitted by Dr. D on Sun, 2007-12-30 00:33.
What happened to the people who fought two World Wars of such great savagery? It is difficult to see how people who were able to do that are today so entirely docile as to let this travesty be put over on them. Did the two wars so traumatize the European psyche that the ability to resist is entirely taken away and now Europeans will roll over for absolutely anything?
One of the obvious losses in Europe is the loss of faith, specifically the Christian faith that shaped the continent. This brings to mind the saying "He who stands for nothing will fall for anything." Is that what has happened to Europe? It has ceased to stand for the Christian faith, and now it will fall for anything, even this massive stupidity called Izlam.
DeGaulle as Sun King
Submitted by RS on Sat, 2007-12-29 17:22.
When I want to know what France thinks, I ask myself.
Nice work, Charlie. What an original way to say, "L'etat, c'est moi."