Tuesday, July 31, 2007

The Constitutional concept

As the name might convey, EU Referendum was set up to debate the issues surrounding a referendum on the EU Constitution. Once that was killed by the unequivocal "no" votes in the Dutch and French referenda, EU Referendum started to concentrate on other things, mostly military in nature.

However, now that the Constitution is back—stumbling along with alarming alacrity and positively screaming for a diet of "brains"—in the form of the EU Reform Treaty, Richard and Helen have been doing sterling work in examining what our EU comrades and traitor politicians have in store for us.

So devious are the misdirections and so convoluted the lies, your humble Devil is unable to pay attention to all of them; thus it is fortunate that we have these two to unravel the deceit. So, let's have a look at the Constitutional Concept, especially as this particular entry involves everybody's favourite Batshit; and, as fugly and irritating as Batshit is, I have yet to lay into the wee fuck in his new role (apart from noting that we will probably have to pay another six grand for his new fucking blog, bespectacled cunt that he is).
Of special importance was a question posed by William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, who challenged Miliband on the comments of Giscard d'Estaing.

He, as readers will recall, had declared, of the European Council's "mandate" that: "This text is, in fact, a rerun of a great part of the substance of the constitutional treaty", adding, "the public is being led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly."

So, by Giscard's own admission, we are being deliberately lied to. Who would'a thunk it? And do you think that the noble policians of this great country are just going to go along with this lie? Er, yes.
In was in the answer, however, that one sees the government's strategy, in holding the line against such assertions, maintaining that the "mandate" is not a re-run of the constitution.

Miliband refused to be drawn on the Giscard statements, but instead referred directly to the first clause of the "mandate", which "clearly states":
The constitutional concept, which consisted in repealing all existing treaties and replacing them by a single text called "Constitution", is abandoned —

"Not reformed," said Miliband, "not amended, but abandoned. The constitutional treaty has been abandoned. That is not just my view, nor is it just the view of our Prime Minister - it is the view of the 27 Heads of Government who signed the document."

Really? That doesn't seem to be anyone else's view, you lying little shit.
The Irish Prime Minister describes it is "90 per cent" the same. Open Europe, after exhaustively analysing the 277-page text, which is still only officially available in French, says "96 per cent". Spain's foreign minister says "98 per cent". The Prime Minister of Luxembourg says "99 per cent".

You are a deceitful little cunt, aren't you, Batshit? Still, enough of the insults, much as he deserves them, and on to the deception.
The exchange continued but it need not trouble us, as we have the bones of the argument. It is developed by sleight of hand and relies on the substitution of one word with another. To see how it works, we have to note how Miliband refers, in the first instance, to the "constitutional concept", calling in aid the "mandate" as his authority.

OK, but isn't this correct? What's the difference?
Now, this "concept" was an innovation in producing treaties. All previous affairs had taken the form of amendments to the original Treaty of Rome. It was these amendments, and only these, the formed the basis of each subsequent treaty, until the constitutional treaty. Then, it was decided to absorb all the treaties and the proposed amendments into one consolidated text, which was to form the new treaty. That was the "constitutional concept", as indeed the "mandate" indicates.

So, all of the Treaties and their amendments were to be collated into one big document, an ubertreaty, and this was to be the Constitution.
The trouble with that was people - many for the first time - were able to see the full text and take on board how many powers had been ceded to the EU. Not a few of the complaints over the text actually related to powers handed over in previous treaties.

Thus, the "colleagues" decided to abandon this "concept" and revert to producing another amending treaty, only this time they would call it a "reform treaty".

So, they have separated out virtually all the new material from the constitution and are offering it as amendments, which will form the basis of the new treaty. Crucially, the effect of the amendments will be, when re-integrated with the existing treaties, a document very similar to the failed constitution. The "reform treaty" will turn the existing treaties into the constitution, in all but name.

And there we have the slight of hand. Miliband takes the phrase, "constitutional concept" and changes one word, to produce "constitutional treaty". In one fell swoop, the "treaty" has been abandoned. Except that it hasn't.

In this way, the EU Reform Treaty does not collate all of the Treaties and amendments into one document; instead, the EU Reform Treaty references the other Treaties and thus looks like merely one big amending treaty.

Except that it retains almost all of the power transfers that the Constitution had. And this is what commenters mean when they say that, whilst the form has changed, the substance of it has not.

And precisely as the whole exercise intended, it allows the liars who rule us to quite honesty declare that this is not the Constitution, merely another amending treaty. And we have never had a referendum on any other amending treaties, so why this one?

For fuck's sake, what a bunch of evil, lying traitorous shits we have running this country. What a bunch of scheming, tossbag bastards infest our parliament. The revolution is long overdue; when shall we enact it and toss the lot of them out, hang the corrupt cunts from the lamp posts and tell our Continental cousins to stick their empire up their collective arse?

More importantly, when will the British people wake the fuck up and understand that our birthright—the freedom that they lend to the government to do those things that we cannot do individually—is being given away for personal gain by those self-same governors?

Listen, you venal fucks: that power is not yours to gift! It belongs to us, the people who lend it to you. And, by god, if you cannot return it when we come calling, you are going to find that we will take more than a pound of flesh in compensation.

Well, one can dream...

1 comment:

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Strangely enough, this issue is the only one apart from the war in Iraq that seems to me to be a lie (by Gordon Brown) so profoundly wicked and so breathtaking in its consequences, that the only remedy should be a prosecution.

Oh yeah? So what has happened for the last ten years, exactly?

Over at the ASI, they are posting some of the winning entries of the Young Writers on Liberty. One does not want to put such keen minds off,...