There's a bizarre honesty in Giscard d'Estaing's absolute dishonesty - and a refreshing scepticism in Today
Christina

====================================
EUREFERENDUM Blog 10.11.07
The "Godfather" speaks

Amazingly, it was at the end of October that Valïry Giscard d'Estaing told Le Monde that the Lisbon treaty and the Constitution were effectively the same, but it is only today nearly two weeks later, and on a Saturday morning that the BBC Today programme takes up the story.

Ed Stourton interviews the man whom he describes as the "Godfather" of the constitution:

VGD: Let us be very precise about it. You know, the text in Lisbon was written in a different way than the text called Constitution for Europe. When we wrote it, the Constitution, we wrote it directly, article one, article two, article three and so on. What they did in Lisbon is a different work. They took our text, they started from our text and they tries to introduce the different articles or notions into the existing treaties.

So of course the approach is materially and intellectually different, but the substance, they started taking as a basis our test. It's just another presentation and combination of presentation but the text is word to word the same one. If you attach importance to the fact that they are the existing treaties, that is true. But if you take the substance, the nine or ten proposals that were in our text, they are in exactly in the same wording in the new presentation.

ES: If that is the case, if the substance is the same as the constitution?

VGD: Yes.

ES: the logic of that is surely there should be certainly a referendum in France, which rejected the original constitution, and certainly a referendum in Britain where one was promised if the constitution went ahead

VGD: Well, the question of the way to ratify a treaty is an open question. In France, normally to ratify a treaty, it's through parliament. And its up to the president of the republic to decide if he wants or judges that it's better to go through a referendum. So the normal process for France is parliamentary process. Since the Lisbon treaty is legally a new one, even if the substance is absolutely similar, we can took, the government can took the process, the parliamentary process, without having legal problems.

ES: Well that may be the technical position but it's politically dishonest, isn't it?

VGD: Well, it's not so clear either. I try to be sincere with you. When the French people voted "no" at the referendum, they did not vote on articles, they did not even vote on our proposals. They voted against the political power in place, the people in charge, at that moment. So you cannot tell, say, strictly speaking that they approved or disapproved certain part of the text. They did not in fact, because they did not voted on the text.

ES: Alright, let's deal with the argument in this country, where perhaps it's a little bit clearer because the British people were promised by the government in their last election manifesto that if the constitution went through there would be a referendum. And the point of that was it felt that the constitution contained a real change in Britain's relationship with Europe. Now you've just told us that in substance that what was the constitution has gone through so the logic must be that there should be a referendum.

VGD: Well, there shouldn't be by my evaluation a debate on wording. The new Lisbon treaty do not present itself as a constitution. [It] is an improvement of the existing treaties. For the thought of mythical case of having a constitution or not is not the problem of today. Because you voted already several treaties like the treaty of Nice, the treaty of Amsterdam. They were changing the old treaties and that is what the Lisbon treaty will do. So the question if it's sort of obligation to go to referendum doesn't seem to be obvious. You have a choice and of course it's a political choice. And this political choice belongs to the British authorities and people.

ES: Well, I suspect, you'll forgive me if I say this, but I suspect a lot of people listening to what you've just said will regard it is typical of the kind of dishonesty they see in the way that Europe's political leaders operate because you conceded that in political terms, in terms of substance, what we have before us is what you originally designed. But you've taken refuge in the technicalities of it to escape the possibility that the British people, or the French people come to that, should be able to pass judgement on it.

VGD: You cannot argue with me about it because that is not my proposal. My proposal was the former text. The Lisbon text is the product of government. It's not the product of the European convention. We produced the former Constitutional treaty. And then the government conference. The governments decided that they preferred to take the substance out of this treaty and to send it back to the existing treaties. It is their choice and so they have to answer themselves to the question you press. It's not to me to answer that.
The response of Giscard to the French referendum is quite bizarre. The people weren't voting for (or against) the treaty, they were voting against the people in power. Therefore, the "no" vote can be ignored.

As to the question of the British referendum, "this political choice belongs to the British authorities and people." Only the people, somehow, don't seem to have a choice. That's democracy for you!

Subject: [englishfellowship]

The coming USE - Some dare call it treason
Peter Hitchens The Mail on Sunday 4 11 2007

How will we be able to look our grandchildren in the face when they ask what did you do to stop Britain's taken over by a foreign power - and that includes even you Lady Thatcher.

THIS is too frightening and too important to ignore any longer. If we don't want to become a neglected outstation of the European Superstate, stripped of our nationhood, powerless to decide who lives here, controlled by laws we don't make and can't change, ruled by a government we cannot throw out, we have rather a short time in which to do something about it. You may think none of this matters to you, but the trouble that it does, whether you think so or not.
The European Union is interested in you, your liberty and your money, even if you don't care about it. Its decisions affect your life, even if you don't realise they do. When I point out that local councils are changing rubbish collections because of EU laws, people don't believe me. They rightly think it ridiculous that such things should be affected by what is supposed to be a partnership. But they are. A huge number of our laws have been drawn up in Brussels and hurried through Parliament without anybody really understanding what they were doing. A lot of us still don't even grasp why it is that we can no longer have nice blue British passports. They also don't grasp why they have to queue for ages to get back into the country after a holiday. They aren't paying attention.

That passport you have isn't British. It's European. It gives you no more right to enter this country than a Lithuanian. The border you are crossing is the border of the EU, not Britain. If the Government set up a special channel for UK passport holders it would be breaking EU law. There is no longer any such thing as a British passport. This has another grim meaning. We cannot control two thirds of the immigration now revolutionising this country because it comes from EU states.

Bntish people have a way of ignoring the Continent then finding out just in time that what happens there matters - Dunkirk being the most recent example of this complacent folly. We probably won't get another Dunkirk to warn us. By the time it is clear to everyone what has happened, it will be far too late. Look at the row we are having, a rather lukewarm row in my view, about the European Constitution, dressed up as the Treaty of Lisbon but still what it always was -the official foundation document of the European Superstate.
At first it looks as if there are two sides, those for a referendum, and those against. But what use would a referendum be? Who seriously believes that if Britain said 'No'. the EU would say: 'Oh, sorry to have troubled you with our silly, over-ambitious idea. We'll give it up for good?
No, they would threaten and suborn the British Government into holding the vote again. Or they would have yet another summit in which the thing would be adjusted a tiny bit and presented as if it were new. Or they would say: 'Very well then, if you don't like it why not leave?' Gordon Brown might hold a referendum on the very subject. At this point we would badly need a major political figure to stand up and say: "Yes please let's leave. He could add: "After all, if Norway and Switzerland can cope outside, we certainly can. And I defy anyone to tell me one single way in which this country has benefited from its long entanglement with this horrible organisation."

But this will not happen. Our entire political elite, in all parties, love the EU, not because it is good for the country, but because it is good for them. They love it's regular service of gravy trains, carrying off failed Ministers off to a life of high salaries, big expenses and huge pensions, plus an almost total absence of responsibilty. They don't mind at all that it deprives them of the power to do very much. They are, for the most part, short of ideas and lazy, and happy to be able to pass the buck to Brussels while enjoying their pay and perks. Note, specially, the behaviour of the Tory Party.

People sometimes ask why I call them 'useless'. Well, here's an example. You get a lot of something called 'Euroscepticism' from Tories. It's a stupid word and it describes a worthless thing. They act as if they are against the EU grabbing our power and money, and talk sternly about how they disapprove. But David Cameron, William Hague and Malcolm Rifkin are clear that if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, that will be that. In the (highly unlikely) event of them coming to power, they won't hold a referendum because, oh dear, it will be too late. In doing this, they are part of a great tradition.

Harold Macmillan first sought British entry to the Common Market in 1962. Then Ted Heath succeeded in getting it, ramming our membership through Parliament with characteristic ruthlessness and sacrificing Britain's fisheries industry [and I would add space programme] for his ambition. When in 1975, Harold Wilson held a referendum [3 years too late] on staying in, Margaret Thatcher campaigned vigorously for Britain to remain in the Market, sporting a jumper bearing flags of member states. When she came to office, she pushed trough the Single European Act, a huge surrender of British vetoes. Then she was bludgeoned by Cabinet colleagues into entering the Exchange rate Mechanism. By the end of her premiership, she had begun to realise what was at stake. But it was precisely because of this that the Tory Party then threw her out of office. John Major then went on to browbeat his MPs into voting for the Maastricht Treaty. Yet another huge surrender of independence.

Mr Cameron represents a firm return to the Europhile days before Lady Thatcher's rebellion. When it comes to action, the Tory party will continue to support the EU because they have been committed to it since the sixties, and cannot admit that it was a mistake. But they also recognise how unpopular it is, which is why they pretend to be hostile and invented 'Euroscepticism' to console disgruntled voters. The longer this goes on, the harder it will be to unscramble. My advise is not to be diverted by campaigns for a referendum that will get us nowhere. It is to consider very carefully, whether you will be able to look your children and grandchildren in the face when, 20 years hence, they ask: 'What did you do to stop your country being taken over by a foreign power?' [and I would add not a very pleasant bunch of politicians either].

I shall continue, week by week, to suggest ways in which you might be able to ensure that they never need to ask that question.

EU should create part membership option for UK, says Juncker

Luxembourg Prime Minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, has suggested that EU member states should have the possibility to become just "part members" of the bloc. He noted that without being fully conscious of the move, Britain is already moving towards this status. "It must be possible not only to be a full member," said Juncker. UK Independence Party Newsletter BBC Radio 4 6th November 2007 Join our list Join Our Mailing List Any Questions [] Nigel Farage, UKIP Leader, is appearing on BBC Radio 4's "Any Questions" on Friday November 16th at 8p.m. The programme is repeated at 1.10p.m. Saturday 17th November followed by "Any Answers" at 2p.m. Radio 4 can be found between 92-95FM & 198LW.

DEMOCRACY is the PRECIOUS GIFT of a FREE PEOPLE
MAWGAN-in-MENEAGE VILLAGE BALLOT Held on Tuesday 6th November 2007 In the Village Recreational Hall

On the 6th November 2007, 52 Mawgan Villagers came out in the dark, cold night to vote in their own Village Ballot, denied them by both their parish council and their district council. 51 VOTED IN FAVOUR of a Referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty and 1 VOTED AGAINST IT. It costs nothing but time, and very little in money, to organise a village ballot, and for every village, all across the UK which comes out and does the same, it will mean one more nail in the coffin of a government determined to deny the people of Britain the democracy which is their birthright.
This coming Sunday, is Remembrance Sunday where we remember our dead, not only of two World Wars, but of all the conflicts where our soldiers, sailors and airmen have laid down their lives that we might all have Freedom. After such sacrifice, Democracy must not be allowed to die, and that is why I have organised this Ballot. Many Thanks to All Those who had the Courage to Come Out and Vote. TESS NASH Venton Vean, Mawgan

STOP PRESS On the same day, The Parish of GERMOE held their Ballot on the same question. The result was: 78 IN FAVOUR of a Referendum and 2 AGAINST. On the 2nd November, the Parish of ILLOGAN held their Poll on the same question where the result was 390 IN FAVOUR of a Referendum with 16 AGAINST It is clear that the Village of MAWGAN is not ALONE

La Resistance!
Information briefing 'The Return of the Gulag'
8 th November 2007 Guy Leven-Torres

We were informed yesterday that the EU will be building concentration camps for those of us that disagree with the whole rotten corrupt edifice. I have to say it comes as no surprise and the Reform Treaty makes it abundantly clear to those that read it, that simply saying things about the EU elite, the EU itself, or simply about 'foreigners' will land the culprit liable to summary arrest by Europol, a quick appearance in court (if one is lucky) and a long prison sentence, probably in one of the detention centres currently being used for asylum seekers.
The EU already has camps in the process of being built or that exist already in countries outside the EU, as in Libya to house the influx of impoverished black Africans, heading into Europe on the 'soft underbelly' of the Mediterranean's southern shores. These routes through Africa are used by Islamists infiltrating Europe for their own rotten ends.
The EU has done deals and supplied money, training, weapons, vehicles etc to the countries concerned to prevent these asylum seekers and potential terrorists from reaching our European shores. I have some sympathy with the EU in this matter, provided they do not harm the migrants and their security is efficient, a virtue that it is not exactly noted for in such matters. Migrants have been killed attempting to get through to Europe but figures concerned are not reliable, probably for obvious reasons.

There was recently the huge scandal of the secret CIA interrogation centres in Eastern Europe, meant for Islamists and other terrorists, caught or most likely snatched by squads and carted off at night to a holding point, before being flown by CIA unmarked aircraft to the above interrogation centres deprived of sleep, subjected to 'white noise' that disorientates, blindfolded, and interrogated by the buddy-'if you listen to me I can help you but if you don't I will have to let the nasty guy' techniques.

The EU to its credit also investigated this and criticised countries like Britain that connived in this racket. Torture is no good way to interrogate and laws and obedience to the law are the mark and moral high tide of a civilised state. To fall below these simply makes the interrogator as bad as the terrorist. However what about the EU’s own intentions? No sweep of the Web revealed anything about it or any intentions but I did take the opportunity to read again the Bukovsky speech given to UKIP a year or two ago, warning us of what was in store- I reprint a segment of it below- It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similarly, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all. When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan. We used to have an organisation which was planning everything in the economy, to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU. When you look at the type of EU corruption, it is exactly the Soviet type of corruption, going from top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top. If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union. Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. Please, do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that it has a Gulag. It has no KGB not yet but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. No criminal court on earth defines anything like this as a crime….. That speech from somebody so well up in the old Soviet hierarchy should be ringing alarm bells surely? This fellow knows the facts and having lived under one police state, does not want to repeat the experience. Interestingly enough President Putin is discussing the possibility of establishing a Russian Human Rights legation, monitoring the treatment of EU citizens by its masters. His request has so far been firmly rebuffed. Does he know something we don’t as well, even if Bukovsky has spelt it out and nobody listened….yet? We have found over the years of researching the EU and its intentions, that in almost every case a rumour has been heard, the fact does indeed confirm the case, sooner rather than later. Two examples: although perhaps seemingly innocuous rumours about EU laws preventing a householder from changing a plug or repairing his own car. We heard about these from the same informant and at the time, many scoffed when we told them: ‘Oh, don’t be daft!’ was the usual response. Both laws are now on the book and criminal offences carrying fines or imprisonment if caught. There are others: thousands and thousands of them ready to catch the unwary citizen. Indeed every aspect of the EU citizen’s life will be subject to petty bureaucracy and laws, to control and monitor what we do, say and even think. Such states have throughout history, and in every case that I have studied had detention cells, or facilities to hold large numbers of dissenters. They have also sooner or later ‘removed’ those that refuse to ‘co-operate’. In academia there is what is known as the ‘argument from silence’. This is the idea that simply because something is not written down in the sources from the period, common sense usually dictate that it probably did. Archaeology normally confirms this sooner or later. Our researches so far have found nothing except the camps outside Europe to hold migrants, the CIA secret interrogation centres, and the EU Reform Treaty that frankly is in reality a despot’s charter to do as they will. There is also careful attention given to the bureaucrats, police and the Eurojust Court organisation. These have lifelong immunity from prosecution and are above the law, with powers that supersede the national and local police who actually fall under their orders in criminal cases. Well that kind of thing only ever existed in the USSR, China, Imperial Japan, and Nazi Germany. So why does the ‘democratic’ EU need such immunities and a legal system called ‘corpus juris’ that effectively ends and eliminates trial by jury and habeas corpus, dating from the Magna Carta? Culprits and dissidents will be brought before an investigating magistrate if one is lucky, who will then decide on the evidence if the culprit is ‘guilty of crimes against the EU state’. The latter too is mentioned in the EU Reform Treaty by the way. Xenophobia or criticising the EU is such a crime carrying a long sentence of imprisonment. A labour Minister, one Ms Hewitt said publicly that this would be the case too. That is evidence surely that something is not very nice at the heart of this EU monster? News has reached us that the Americans are building concentration camps of their own. And we at La Resistance! are more than aware that what happens in the States, usually follows here sooner rather than later. Much of the stuff is sent in by EdWatch, that monitors government activity, in respect of education. The wording and legislation is almost identical word for word too, even down to the names and small print. To us the whole Global movement is run from some higher power somewhere in the Corporate-Governmen t ether. We are heading for world government that seeks to turn the UN into a Global authority. It is in breach of its own articles too but that will not stop them. If what we have been told by our very reliable source is true, there will be a lot of very angry people out there, angry at themselves for not listening to people like us the messengers. The EU and American Unions will have to have camps to hold all these dissenters in a reign of terror. America already has its camp and I suspect, knowing the EU we will soon have hours: around 2010 according to our excellent source… EUobserver EUREFERENDUM Blog 6.11.07 Tuesday, November 06, 2007 The battle lines are drawn Entirely predictably, but nevertheless an important milestone in the passage of the EU Lisbon treaty from a draft to becoming part of the British constitution, the Queen's speech today, which was also entirely predictable, included provision for a Bill to ratify the treaty. This drew a response from David Cameron that his Party would table an amendment to "give the British people the referendum they were promised". So far so good, with the sides lining up – again very predicable, as indeed was the offering from Vincent Cable, the Lib-Dim spokesman. Says he: The real issue and concern for the public is over the cumulative impact of repeated deepening and widening of the EU. No one under the age of 50 has had a proper say on our membership. We will seek to amend the Bill to provide for a referendum on our membership of the EU. We can have as much legislative scrutiny as we like, but unless the public are persuaded that EU membership is in their interests British politics will continue to be poisoned by this issue. We want the Prime Minister to join us in making the case for Europe. This may be the Trojan Horse, which the government buys into, in the hope of engendering "Tory splits". The rumours continue to abound that we will be confronted with such. One thing for sure though, there are unlikely to be any significant Labour splits. Such a prospect was being heavily discounted by the BBC on the midday radio news, with the caution not to expect a "Labour Maastricht". So, the battle lines are drawn and we hunker down for the next predictable stage – when the debates start in the New Year. Daniel Hannan MEP If the Euro-constitution comes in, we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves We simply won’t rouse ourselves. When someone pushes a petition form under our nose, we sign readily enough. When someone asks our opinion, we vow that we will brook no more Euro-meddling. But we evidently can’t be bothered to haul our ass to a demonstration. Daniel Hannan at the rally Daniel Hannan speaks at the referendum rally outside parliament I had a long day on Saturday. First, I spoke at a rally outside the House of Commons to demand that the MPs who promised us a referendum - 638 ouut of a total of 646 - keep their words. Then I drove to Wellington College in Berkshire to address 70 undergraduates spending the weekend at a seminar organised by the Young Britons Foundation, a magnificent outfit that offers training and lectures to conservative- minded students. Then came an evening with the Surrey Branch of the Freedom Association. And, finally, dinner with the well-informed and well-heeled members of the Guildford Conservative Patrons’ Club. I made four different speeches, but they had a common theme: that, not for the first time, Britain was leaving things until almost too late. There was a neat demonstration of this at the referendum rally. Most passing cars honked their support. Most passing pedestrians signed the petition. But no more than 500 people had made the effort to attend. Five hundred people to protest the loss of our right to live under our own laws and our own Parliament. Five hundred people to complain about one of the rankest betrayals of modern politics. Daniel Hannan with the crowd No newspaper or television station covered our protest meeting With the exception of The Sunday Telegraph, not one newspaper or television station covered the protest. We can blame the political parties for not emphasising the issue. We can blame Gordon Brown for his deceit. We can blame the Eurocrats for their deliberate obfuscation. But, ultimately, all this is displacement activity. “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings”. With this depressing thought weighing upon me, I ended my speech at the County Club in Guildford with some words spoken by Enoch Powell 20 years ago, almost to the day, and more relevant than ever. “With each day that passes, the British people, by their passive acquiescence, pronounce the verdict upon themselves: ‘We were a nation once; we are not now’. At the end of Plato’s Republic, the voice of Destiny can be heard to say ‘The blame is the chooser’s’. In a free people, we are all choosers, those who speak out, and those who remain silent, those who stand and fight and those who run away”. EU OBSERVER 7.11.07 EU should create part membership option, says Juncker By Honor Mahony \Luxembourg prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker has suggested that EU member states should have the possibility to become just part members of the bloc. Speaking in Berlin on Tuesday (6 November), the veteran politician noted that without being fully conscious of the move, Britain is already moving towards this status. "It must be possible not only to be a full member," said Mr Juncker, according to Austrian news agency APA. "Without noticing it, the British are on their way to becoming part members," he noted, with London not taking part in the single European currency or the EU's borderless zone, the Schengen area, and lately having opted out of key areas in the new EU treaty, such as police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Mr Juncker, who also heads the 13-nation eurozone, said that he believed the EU should develop a core of EU countries. Other countries who do not want to fully take part in all policies should be able to circle around this core and should be able to integrate to a greater or lesser extent in various areas. In his opinion, the EU is heading towards a "crash" if it does not develop in this way. This is not the first time that EU politicians have spoken about a core centre of countries that push ahead with integration leaving others to decide whether they want to join at a later date. The main idea has taken various names include two-speed Europe, multi- speed Europe, Europe à la carte, a Europe of variable geometry, a concentric Europe and a core Europe. However, in the past, ad hoc suggestions for greater co-operation among some countries have given rise to strong criticism with some member states fearing it will mean a directoire run by big states such as France and Germany, or that it would eventually lead to the break up of the EU. The new EU reform treaty, supposed to come into force by early 2009, contains the means for pro-integration states to move ahead however, so long as there is a minimum of nine states involved. -- Robert Henderson Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocitie s.com/ blairscandal/ Personal website: http://www.anywhere .demon.co. uk __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this month.