Modeling Journey

Saif Gaddafi

Sarkozy

He was equally dismissive of the USA, of NATO, of the Arab states in his neighbourhood, and of those Libyans who have risen against his father's dictatorship.

Libya is not a piece of cake. We are not a Mickey Mouse.

The new stage brings new, more complicated challenges.

The Armed Forces Supreme Council, the body of top generals that now rules the country after Mubarak's ouster last Friday, has laid out a transition that emphasizes speed, not the sweeping democratic change the protesters want. The military has left the remains of Mubarak's ruling party to dominate the caretaker government and the levers of power, including the powerful police forces.

The organizers fear that unless the ruling party is broken and major change guaranteed, Egypt can fall back into an authoritarian rule, a Mubarak regime without Mubarak...

Also, the protest coalition is trying to fend off fragmentation that has plagued past reform movements, which tended to coalesce behind a single figure in a personality cult and then fall apart over personal disputes.

The new ruling generals urged the protesters to form their own political party. But the coalition refuses, saying a party now would bring out the divisions among them and break their bond of common demands.

The coalition tried to bring in Wael Ghonim, the Google executive who worked on a Facebook page that rallied hundreds of thousands of Egyptians behind the protests. But he has decided to work independently. He has set up a webpage to gather suggestions of what Egyptians think should be done now — so far collecting at least 37,000 entries.

The military has also only suspended the constitution, not dissolved it. It appointed a panel of legal experts that has 10 days to draw up just enough changes to the constitution to allow a multiparty election.

European Union technocrats are waiting with bated breath for the Irish to speak on October 2. A second referendum is being held on the status of the Lisbon Treaty.

What is the Lisbon treaty?

"The Lisbon Treaty could finally come into effect in 2009, eight years after European leaders launched a process to make the EU "more democratic, more transparent and more efficient". Like the European constitution before it, the treaty is often described as an attempt to streamline EU institutions to make the enlarged bloc of 27 states function better. But opponents see it as part of a federalist agenda that threatens national sovereignty. The constitution was thrown out by French and Dutch voters in 2005. The Lisbon Treaty, too, was rejected by Irish voters in 2008. However, Ireland is planning a new referendum in 2009. Under EU rules, the treaty cannot enter into force if any of the 27 member states fails to ratify it."

This from Wikipedia:

"The Treaty of Lisbon (also known as the Reform Treaty) is an international agreement signed in Lisbon on 13 December 2007 that would change the workings of the European Union (EU). The treaty has not been ratified by all EU member states. The treaty would amend the Treaty on European Union (TEU, Maastricht; 1992) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC, Rome; 1957). In the process, TEC is renamed to Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

Prominent changes include more qualified majority voting in the EU Council, increased involvement of the European Parliament in the legislative process through extended codecision with the EU Council, eliminating the pillar system, preventing the provision in the Treaty of Nice (2001) reducing the number of commissioners, and the creation of a President of the European Council with a term of two and half years and a High Representative for Foreign Affairs to present a united position on EU policies. If ratified, the Treaty of Lisbon would also make the Union's human rights charter, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, legally binding."

The Irish have already rejected the Treaty in an earlier referendum:

"Negotiations to modify EU institutions began in 2001, resulting first in the European Constitution, which failed (2005) due to rejection by French and Dutch voters. The Constitution's replacement, the Lisbon Treaty, was originally intended to have been ratified by all member states by the end of 2008, so it could come into force before the 2009 European elections. However, the rejection of the Treaty on 12 June 2008 by Irish voters means that the treaty cannot currently come into force. As of 30 May 2009, 23 of the total 27 member states have ratified the Treaty."

Unwilling to accept the rejection by the Irish voters, the governments of the various EU nations decided to try an end run around the peoples of the EU, by repackaging the Constitution into the Lisbon Treaty, while at the same time preserving the major elements of the rejected Constitutional changes.

The repackaged changes were then agreed to by the governments:

"The treaty was signed 13 December 2007 by heads of government for Member States in the Jerónimos Monastery in Lisbon, Portugal. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown did not take part in the main ceremony, instead signing the treaty separately a number of hours after the other delegates. A requirement to appear before a committee of British MPs was cited as the reason for his absence."

That brought the decision back to the Irish:

"In order for the Irish Government to ratify the Treaty, the Irish government needed to put the matter to a referendum. This requirement arises from a legal precedent that to do otherwise would violate the Irish Constitution. This precedent was established by a 1987 Irish Supreme Court decision that ruled that significant changes to national sovereignty included in the Single European Act require the permission from the Irish voters in the form of a referendum. The Treaty seeks to amend the Single European Act. A part of the the Supreme Court decision is that the State's power to determine its foreign relations is held in trust from the people and may not be alienated by the government without their approval.

The proposed Twenty eighth Amendment of the Irish Constitution, that the Republic of Ireland may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon with, was defeated by 53.4% to 46.6%, with a turnout of 53.1%. A Second Referendum on the same Treaty is set to occur on October 2, 2009.

There were unsuccessful calls for governments to hold referendums in some other member states."

The politicians (especially in Britain and Germany) feared rejection by the people and so refused to ask for their views through use of a referendum. The UK government negotiated opt-outs from various clauses before they approved it.

Why do I hope that the Irish voters reject the Lisbon Treaty?

Because the process used by the European elites to foist the Constitution onto the people of the EU under the guise of the re-packaged Lisbon Treaty is undemocratic. These major changes require people's approval through use of a referendum.

This article sums up the need for a referendum on such issues:

"Berlin, 4th June: A poll in Germany has shown that people are uninformed about the Lisbon Treaty and that they harbour concerns about transparency and democracy in European politics.

Pollsters have revealed that 84% of voters in Germany feel that they have little or no knowledge of the content of the Lisbon Treaty and that politicians are to blame for a lack of clear communication.

A third of respondents believe that the treaty was mainly concerned with foreign and defence issues, two-thirds believe it is mainly to do with issues of economic efficiency, and many are unaware that it is simply the EU constitution under a different name.

By rebranding the European Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty, the European elites attempted to push through the same document without the need for a referendum across Europe, and have only succeeded in confusing voters in order to carry out their own agendas.

Valerie Giscard-D'Estaing clearly stated: "The Lisbon Treaty is almost identical to the once rejected European Constitution".

Previous polls show that 74% of the German population wanted a referendum on the European Constitution, however the will of the people has been ignored by politicians as they have misled the public into thinking that the Lisbon Treaty is a completely different document."

So, citizens of Ireland: Vote No on October 2, and protect democracy.

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.