Tuesday, January 22, 2008

EU Constitution debate

John Redwood has a nice summary of the EU Constitution debate, explaining how the various motions work, and also spelling out the duplicity of the Liberal Democrats.

Westmonster quotes Ken Clarke, one of the most unpleasant, authoritarian cunts ever to occupy that Chamber—and there is, let's face it, some stiff competition. Lest one should be in any doubt about Ken's commitment to democracy, here's a telling extract.
I personally think that referendums are a way of weakening Parliament and getting round parliamentary authority in regard to key issues of this kind. I have never accepted that they should be the way forward. For example, the House should vote this evening that it is in favour of the Bill and of the treaty. If we were then to hold a kind of organised opinion poll in which the right-wing press would seek to achieve the result that it wanted, and if ratification of the treaty were defeated, would we all be expected to come back to the House and vote against our judgment of the national interest in line with the result of the referendum?

Yes, Ken, that is precisely what you should do, because this is a fucking democracy, you fat, fucking piece of dried up dog-crap. Fuck you and all of the other evil, self-satisfied scum who are of the same mind, you patrician cunt-rag.

Ken Clarke may think that referendums weaken Parliament, and he would, no doubt, employ the same argument as David Miliband:
... we are a parliamentary democracy and this is an amending treaty...

I note that Miliband does not use the normal form of words, i.e. "representative democracy". And why?

Because when 98% of those MPs elected represented themselves to the electors—by means of their published manifesto—they promised a referendum on the EU Constitution. Committees and authoritative figures, both here and overseas, agree that the Lisbon Treaty is the EU Constitution in all but name.

Therefore, the MPs have reneged on their promises to the voters: in fact, they have represented themselves falsely (an action which, in any other area, we would call fraud, and a criminal offence). In other words, those MPs who promised a referendum on this issue now occupy their place in the House under false pretences: they should either insist on the promised referendum, or resign en masse. All of those MPs who voted to pass this Bill without a referendum are proven liars, cheats and frauds.

But did you expect anything else?

It will come as no surprise to even semi-regular readers of The Kitchen that I expected no honour from this particular pack of thieves, a bunch of people—and I use that word in its loosest possible sense—who are interested in nothing more than maintaining their fat fucking taxpayer-funded salaries and even more generous taxpayer-funded perks (an attitude that is amply illustrated by the perfidious Clarke's ever-burgeoning waistline and multiple dewlap chins).

A few days ago, I was acting as a Fifth Columnist at the Fabian Society Spring Conference—an amusing account of which Trixy has indulged in. Batshit was giving the keynote speech and it was whilst I was listening to the tail end of his encomium to his own ability that I understood why Britain is in such a shitty position in the world.

You see, Batshit seems genuinely to believe that other countries are no longer indulging in "brinksmanship and powerbroking", and that we have some magical world of mutual co-operation; this is, of course, the kind of dangerously naive attitude that could only be held by a particularly stupid Communist.

If all of our negotiations have been made on the basis that other countries are never trying to screw us over for advantage—and this attitude is one that must have been prevalent in the Foreign Office before Batshit arrived there; he could hardly have established this opinion in the few short months that he has been Foreign Secretary—then it is hardly surprising that we always come off worst. We might as well bend over, hold our collective bumcheeks open and wait for the inevitable, painful arse-raping.

If I flit between rage and despair any more frequently, I am going to end up having to rename this blog: something like Dr Jeckyll and Mr Hyde's Kitchen, perhaps.

7 comments:

Mark Wadsworth said...

Where's a list of the bastards who voted in favour? And how many of them voted in favour of a referendum back in February 2005?

Mark Wadsworth said...

I have just found the list over at Vindico's.

Anonymous said...

All of which raises an interesting point:

Parliament is supposed to represent the people of the UK. Moreover, the officers of State are supposed to do nothing to diminish the Sovereign's authority.

What, he asks rhetorically, is the status of a government which does not represent its constituents?

It is perhaps a matter of opinion as to just how poorly this government has represented the citizens of the UK.

What is not in doubt, however, is that members of this government are systematically lying--let me repeat that--'lying'--to the citizens of this nation.

It really doesn't matter WHY they are lying, or even about what they are lying; merely the lie itself makes the liar unfit for office. This automatically renders unfit for office anyone who asserts that the current treaty is substantively different from the EU Constitution.

Okay, that's the bottom line. Officers of government are lying to their own citizenry. The social contract, in short, has been broken, for such officers are no longer trustworthy.

That is simple fact--there is no scope for 'opinion' or 'nuance'.

This being true--that we were promised a referendum, and that promise has been abrogated; and that officers of government are lying outright, and quite brazenly, about the Lisbon Treaty--I must ask a second rhetorical question:

Of what purpose is a government which lies to its own citizenry on a matter of constitutional importance? To transfer national powers to an extra-national authority without a referendum is bad enough; to do so and to lie outright about the process is even more serious.

In short, this government has broken the social contract, and one can objectively prove this to be so. That being the case, what recourse--given that the social contract is in abeyance--do the citizen body have?

First and foremost, publicize the fact that Government has broken the contract, and thus has no further claim to democratic legitimacy. It may still be acting 'within the law', but that's only because, absent a written Constitution, the government itself decides what the law is. But 'legitimate'? I suspect not, on any reading of historical jurisprudence.

One could appeal to the Sovereign, whose ultimate purpose in existence is to protect 'the People' from their own Government if necessary. Indeed, all the pomp and circumstance, the very institution of monarchy, is precisely and ONLY to act as the ultimate deterrent to rogue governance.

So--we can appeal to the Crown, outlining the case for the Queen to dissolve this government and call elections.

Any other ideas?

Vlad said...

"Any other ideas?"

Yes - my usual one.

And if anyone thinks I'm joking ...

Anonymous said...

Clegg knows that this bunch of freaks have less than two years to live.

He thinks that there will be a hung parliament. He has delivered the LibDem votes to Mr Bean on the promise of power.

The Great Simpleton said...

If MP's genuinely believe that in a representative democracy we shouldn't have referendums then, as I say in one of my posts, lets have a free vote and see where that gets us.

Not that I believe this bunch of control freaks and bullies will allow a free ote, but we can live in hope.

Anonymous said...

Agree with your excellent description of Ken "EUrowhore" Clarke, well put. I have often wondered how much income he derives from the EU, they seem to be paying off almost everybody these days, even Bishops I understand.