Modeling Journey

European political elites in the EU countries are showing a willingness to deceive their voters, which, by any measure, is stunningly anti-democratic. Showing the same wisdom which the royal families did in earlier centuries, before revolts toppled them from power and parted some from their heads, political leaders in many countries are on record as recommending policies of overt deceit, designed to achieve through the backdoor what they could not achieve through the front door.

And the British government under George Brown seems intent to collude with these elites, by denying Britons the right to vote on the changes proposed for the EU.

The background to the issue is summarized very well in http://www.openeurope.org.uk/
There is also very good commentary by an astute blogger at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/

What is the issue? Simply this: the proposed EU constitutional treaty perished when voters in France and the Netherlands voted No in referenda.

The political elite refused to accept the verdict of the citizens of those two countries, and set out on a deliberate course to deceive their citizens by avoiding any referendum, and by using techniques which would make Machiavelli shake his head with admiration. This collective exercise in defrauding the public would, if it was about a commercial matter, and took place in the USA, probably land the politicians in court on charges under the Racketeering Act.

What is now being attempted? A new European Union Treaty, which is essentially the same as the Constitutional Treaty which was defeated.

Why are the politicians trying to sneak the same treaty back in, without leveling with their citizens? Probably because of their contempt for the common voters in their countries.

A few quotations will illustrate the depth of this contempt"

"Professor Steve Peers, EU law specialist, summarises the situation: “The different structure of the Reform Treaty (ie amendments to the current EC and EU Treaties) as compared to the Constitutional Treaty means that the two treaties will look quite different. However, the content, as proposed in the draft mandate is largely the same.”"

"These mechanisms would mean that the new Constitutional Treaty could be incrementally changed. In comparison the process under the current treaties has meant that changes in the Single European Act, and the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties have been ‘package deals’, introducing many changes at once, which attracted public interest and sparked debate. The mechanisms set out in the Constitution which would allow it to be gradually altered would be likely to reduce the level of scrutiny of future changes – in theory its adoption could be the last opportunity to call for a referendum."

“The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
(Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, Telegraph, 29 June 2007)

“Only cosmetic changes have been made and the basic document remains the same.” (Vaclav Klaus, Czech President, Guardian, 13 June 2007)


“There’s nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed.” (Astrid Thors, Finnish Europe Minister, TV-Nytt, 23 June 2007)

“The good thing is...that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters – the core – is left.” (Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish PM, Jyllands-Posten, 25 June 2007)

“It’s essentially the same proposal as the old Constitution.” (Margot Wallstrom, EU Commissioner, Svenska Dagbladet, 26 June 2007)

“The constitutional treaty has been abandoned.” (David Miliband, Foreign Secretary, Hansard, 3 July 2007) - Huh?

"Giscard d’Estaing has also argued that: “It is not France that has said no. It is 55
percent of the French people.” (FT, 23 May 2006)"

"Even before the referendums Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker said: “If it's a Yes, we will say ‘on we go’, and if it's a No we will say ‘we continue.” (Telegraph, 26 May 2005) As Juncker previously noted, this is the way the EU has worked in the past. He said: “we decide on something, we leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t know what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.” (Economist, 24 September 2004)"

"For example, a leaked letter from Angela Merkel to other EU leaders proposed that: “The consolidated approach of part one of the constitutional treaty is preserved with the necessary presentational changes.” She proposed “To use different terminology without changing the legal substance” and to “Replace the full text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by a short cross reference having the same legal value.” Another letter from Merkel summarising their recent discussions noted that: “A certain number of Member States underlined the importance of avoiding the impression which might be given by the symbolism and the title 'Constitution' that the nature of the Union is undergoing radical change.”"

"Giuliano Amato, the Italian Interior Minister and Vice-Chairman of the European Convention which drafted the Constitution, has argued that EU leaders should “change the name, but not the substance” of the EU Constitution in the new text. He joked that “the good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it!” (Speech at the London School of Economics, 21 February 2007)"

"“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly.” 34 “All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.” 35 "What was [already] difficult to understand will become utterly incomprehensible, but the substance has been retained… Why not have a single text? The only reason is that this would look too much like the constitutional treaty. Making cosmetic changes would make the text more easy to swallow." – Giscard d’Estaing, Author of the European Constitution"


"“Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?” – Jean Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg"

So, there appears to be a concerted effort to make significant changes in the powers of the EU, impacting member states in important ways, in a manner which is deliberately chosen so as to avoid any recourse to input from the citizens....

These politicians make George Bush's attacks on America's Constitution look like child's play.

The Cat is of the view that there is no way that George Brown can sign this treaty without running the risk of losing substantial votes in the next election. Why? Because avoiding discussing the issues, and obtaining input from the voters, is dishonest, and British voters will punish any Prime Minister who tries to deceive them very harshly.

The next few months should be very interesting.