I have been following with great interest the ratification of the European Union Constitution as it makes its way through parliament. Yes, I called it the European Union Constitution, for that’s exactly what it is. Any attempt to refer to it as something else, is disingenuous at best, or dissembling at its worst.
You don’t have to take my word when I say it is the same old constitution that the liberal elite of
“The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
(Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, Telegraph, 29 June 2007)
“We have not let a single substantial point of the Constitutional Treaty go… It is,
without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational
character, a treaty for a new
(Jose Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister, speech, 27 June 2007)
“90 per cent of it is still there... these changes haven't made any dramatic change
to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004.”
(Bertie Ahern, Irish Taoiseach, Irish Independent, 24 June 2007)
“As for our conditions… I outlined four red lines with respect to the text of the
Constitution: to keep a permanent president of the EU, to keep the single overseer
for foreign policy and a common diplomatic service, to keep the extension of
majority voting, to keep the single legal personality of the
stayed.”
(Romano Prodi, Italian Prime Minister, La Repubblica, 24 June 2007)
Still not convinced? Here is one quote from the author of the original constitution:
“This text is, in fact, a rerun of a great part of the substance of the Constitutional
Treaty.”
(Valery Giscard d’Estaing, Telegraph, 27 June 2007)
This clearly reinforces my belief that the bureaucratic beast, a.k.a. The EU wishes to gorge itself further on powers hitherto the domain of member states. For the sake of clarity, and to ensure that there is sufficient “clear blue water”, between myself and others whom simply can’t stand or tolerate
What I object to, and vehemently so, is the insatiable appetite of the European Union beast to emasculate national governments and their representatives of their fundamental purpose, of being accountable to the people they represent.
Proponents of this constitution can not argue with the fact that ratification would mean surrendering vetoes, in somewhere between 45 and 70 policy areas. The tactic of using gobbledygook to write and explain the constitution won’t work either. We the public can see this for exactly what it is – get the constitution through by any and all means necessary. Just look at what Belgian Foreign Minster said on the constitution:
"The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this
treaty is to be unreadable… The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this
treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”
(Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007)
This is breath taking! The politicians failed to win the argument and now they have decided in their collective wisdom, to precede full stop with their project irrespective of what we the public think. This can not be right! We are constantly told by New Labour and the Liberal Democrats that the EU is there for the people, which begs the question, which group of people?
Prime Minster Tony Blair in the last election promised that there would be a referendum on the constitution, and Gordon Brown went further as recently as June 24 2007, when he stated:
“The manifesto is what we put to the public. We've got to honour that manifesto. That is an issue of trust for me with the electorate.”
I will be most appreciative of anyone who can explain to me what part of “trust” did the Prime Minster have trouble understanding. Perhaps I just did not realize it was yet another “aspiration” of New Labour and not a promise. If we can’t count on the Prime Minster to tame the beast of
No comments:
Post a Comment