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.

began Pötterdammerung ...

I fell in love with the expression Pötterdämmerung over at the Restricted Section's forum the first time I read it. It describes July 2007 just perfectly. Now, mind you, I still haven't seen the movie, but only because I have to organise several birthday parties at once - for my family, my friends and my collegues. And it really have to be three different thingies. Oh well, let's quiz again before the Doom starts.

I like Hagrid. And I am perfectly satisfied to be just Hagrid. He sounds like a really likeable person and he has some deep inner warmth and loyalty (*sigh* even if the person he is loyal to is not really the best). At least I am not some stupid assuming haphazard child after whom the book is named *hinthint*


Find out your Harry Potter personality at LiquidGeneration!

It should be very clear by now that Harper has suckered the two premiers over the equalization formula. Harper is probably technically right when he says the agreement was not breached. The premiers are being offered two choices: the 'new deal' from the 'new' Tories, which has a cap, or stick with the old deal.

However, it is also clear that anyone dealing with this Prime Minister needs to pay very careful attention to what he says, and what he does not say. Harper is becoming rather famous (should that be 'notorious'?) for being very precise with words. If you want to understand this man, you have to understand what he is NOT saying as much as what he is saying. Harper believes that if he did not say exactly the thing you think he said, then he has not mislead you. If you somehow get swept up by the tone, or the excitement of the moment, of headlines which overstate what he says, tough. He won't correct your incorrect assumptions; after all, did HE say it? If not, game over.

What this means for every politician (lissen up, Jack Layton, lissen up, the Bloc, lissen up, every Premier, lissen up, EU governments, lissen up, Canadian voters) is that if you wish to deal with the Prime Minister of these 'new' Tories, you had better bring your lawyer to each meeting, get it in writing, and be ready to sue him if be does indeed breach it.

You have been warned.

This is not good news for the Liberal Party. In her column on June 12, headed 'Sputtering Conservative machine needs a summer tune-up', Barbara Yaffe has this to say about the Liberal Party:

"And its main opposition, the Liberals, have installed a leader in Stephane Dion who so far has failed to impress. Moreover, the party has not advanced a coherent policy platform to lure voters from the government."

The Cat agrees with her comment on the lack of a coherent policy.

At a time when the Harper 'new' government has run out of new ideas he is willing to table with the voters, when Harper is showing an arrogant tone-deafness to people's concerns, when the Tories are relying on sound and sight bytes instead of policies, when Harper is childishly asking the premier of a province to 'take it outside', when the Tories have tried sleight of hand instead of honesty with regards to the environmental concerns of Canadians and the world, and when the Liberals have had six months to work out the kinks of a new leadership team, the comments of Yaffe and others on the lack of a persuasive program of policies for voters to give serious consideration, are serious, and warrant examination and action.

How about it, Liberal leaders? Time to start leading?

The Cat thinks so.

Pinch me. Our prime minister is wandering around Europe, intent on trashing the Kyoto Protocol at the request of Bush, and he claims that many of the major leaders in Europe are in agreement with him?

His attempt to distort reality is embarrassing for Canadians. There was a time when Canadian Prime Ministers had some influence in the corridors of power, arising from the decency of the country. Harper seems bent on trying to change that.

How on earth can this man think that he can deceive people into believing for one moment that his dismal, Luddite-like climate change policies deserve to be viewed by Europe as an example of where they should go?

Get real, Prime Minister. The Europeans have addressed the science, have concluded that the earth is indeed in danger, have decided that steps have to be taken to reduce emissions, including mandatory caps on emissions and a massive rollback of pollution, using 1990 as the baseline.

Harper's sorry sham policy does not in the least stand up against the Kyoto policy of the EU.

Please stop embarrassing Canadians, Mr. Prime Minister. Just keep quiet and come home.

For a man who prides himself on being the smartest man in the room, Stephen Harper is behaving in an puzzling manner. We agree that it relatively easy to pull the wool over the eyes of his extreme rightwing element, as he did with the abortion sleight of hand. However, we have news for the new Tories: the voter is pretty smart, and can smell phoniness a mile away.

So don't expect that the voters in Ontario will agree with your nonsensical and amateurish proposal to update the representation of voters in Parliament, by shortchanging Ontario through giving them totally inadequate new MPs, and then expecting them to be satisfied because 'it's a step in the right direction.'

Do you really expect Canadians to swallow your foolishness? Do you really expect us not to notice the badly-disguised contempt with which you view us?

Take climate change. Your new program is total rot, from beginning to end. Worse, it is unusually deceptive, even for a conservative government in this day and age. Do you really think we cannot read between the lines? Do you really think you can do an end-run around us by using a few sound bites and some tacky framing?

Think again, Mr Prime Minister.

Think again, new Tories.

We have your number. Especially your plan to back Bush in his attempt to destroy Kyoto and replace it with mush.

Canadians support the Kyoto Accord.
They do not support Harper's clumsy attempt to subvert it and replace it with hogwash.

Random rant: Ironing aid:-D

It is waaay too warm here and I have to iron my clothes tonight. Why ever did I wait three months to try out my new electronical washing DDD Disaster Device of Doom named washing machine I'll never understand (oh wait, that would be cause you're a LAZY BITCH!!!)

So while moping I try to get my spirits higher (without the chemical aid) with some ***TA-DA-DA-DAM!!!*** - quizzes. :-D

You know, that would explain why I never feel comfortable with other people. I'm not even always comfortable inside my own head, daydreaming. I am a failure! An error! Just kill me now. (And it doesn't raise the chances of my clothes getting ironed. More like the chances of the ice-cream getting eaten).



Tried out my chatnick/forumnick. This one sounds better. Not really. A giraffe? Me? He he, more like an elephant. (This reminds me of a Billy Boyd youtube-video, where he tells something about an expression "shagagiraffe". - What a dirty mind you have, hellweiss, but on the other side, it looks good with your laundry and the Realm of Chaos you call your home). Favourite foods: Nuts? Ok, crazy people I like. Berries? If you relate it to fruits, so okay, my interests list clearly shows that I LOVE slash. English teachers? Bah! Hated nearly all of my English teachers in all the schools.

Okay, another one.



Just better and better. Even as a superhero I am a zero. Don't have anything against the nerds, as I said, I like mixed nuts of all kinds, but what a bloody stupid kind of superhero is this? Though, my mood swings could kill anyone, I'll give you this. Perhaps the other nick will be more lucky?



:-D Just look at me now, crying deviously and stabbing a frozen coprse of Walt Disney with a cheese cutter. :-D No more Cinderella for you, guys, sooooo NOT sorry, **insert evil laugh here** Could be something from a bad horror movie. A really bad.

And the last one:



Just this: IIIIIeeeek!



Oha! Well, a callboy (or callgirl) certainly is an option. Likely the last option, but hey, if I ever become this desperate... Okay, if the callboy in question would look like Viggo Mortensen oder Karl Urban, I might be more amenable to the idea, but then again if I would want them only for their looks I could just make myself comfortable with a cutout figure of them - would be less expensive too. No, I certainly could never take an intense enough interest in a person to want to have sex with them and to be so completely uninterestend in their thoughts. Even if I were paying them.

Oh, yeah, this version makes me smile:


note that there is not a mention of the object of 'no kidding':-D Could be everything. Even the stamps collection. :-D