« Busy times .... | Main | Madam and Eve »

October 10, 2007

Constitutional referendum

Labour are, as usual, reneging on their promises. They know very well that any attempt to impose the EU Constitutional Treaty on us would be thrown out by the electorate. So the simple answer is - resort to their usual lies and half truths. Every other EU leader has admitted that there is almost no difference between the Treaty the French people rejected, and the new one, but Labour and our crop of traitors masquerading as Ministers of State, insist it is different and that "we have red lines to protect our Sovereignty. Well, Brussels let the cat out of that bag - those so-called Red Lines are totally worthless.

Brussels has stated again and again that the "opt outs" Brown and his bullies talk about are just chimera, worthless and unenforcable. Even our own legal beagles say so, but Brown's cabinet of arrogant failures still refuse to acknowledge that they are wrong. The truth is that they dare not hold a referendum. If they lost it, it would mean that all the horsetrading they have done and the secret deals they have made to keep themselves and their civil service cronies in power with Brussels would be undeliverable - and they would lose out completely.

We must force Brown into an election or a Referendum on this issue, failure to do so will see Westminster turned into an even greater irrelevance than it already is. Already 80% of our legislation is initiated in Brussels and not in Westminster. And once Brussels has decreed we must do something our Civil Service seize it gleefully and Gold Plate the resulting legislation. If we surrender to this "Constitution" we should bite the bullet and dismiss Westminster, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament - and the Civil Service in its entirety - and just let Brussels dictate. After all it would save us all several Billion in tax. Why pay a bunch of treasonous w*nk*rs to eat their heads off and do nothing for our nation?

I am not against the concept of the EU per se. What I am against is the interference from Brussels and the imposition of legislation which we, the people of Britain, have no control over. Our MEP's have no say in this either, it is all down to the whims and fancies of the unelected (and if the truth be told - unelectable) Commissioners and the so-called Council of Ministers, most of whom seem to to be nothing but poodles of the Commission and their bureaucrats.

We MUST have a referendum on this, it is not something that can be left to our Civil Servants and their arrogant, ignorant and self interested Cabinet of dictators. If you are interested in campaigning for a referendum please do visit the "I want a referendum campaign.com".

Posted by The Gray Monk at October 10, 2007 08:33 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


I'm afraid that this is an inevitability of signing on with a governing body that incorporates groups of neighboring countries, which is essentially what the EU is.

Over here on this side of the pond, we have a group comprised of the Presidents of Mexico and the U.S., the PM of Canada, the U.S. Foreign Relations Committee and a "consulting staff" of corporate leaders from all three countries, who meet once a year, no news media allowed, under the guise of the "Security & Prosperity Partnership of North America" (SPP).

Increasingly, American bloggers are picking up on the fact that the SPP agenda is actually a North American Union (NAU) agenda, but it is being offered up as the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" because few Americans would stand still for the idea of an NAU.

As it is, we have recently beaten them on two fronts -- an illegal alien amnesty bill and a project that would have had Mexican truckers without U.S. certification standards roaming American highways, and on both occasions it was because we pummelled our politicians with telephone calls, emails, faxes and snail mails that basically directed them to "deal with this or start typing your resume!"

A country simply can't enter such an arrangement without making its sovereignty vulnerable. There has to be a central government, meaning that politicians from all the countries involved will be sitting down and doing what politicians do -- negotiating: "If your country adopts this policy or that law, my country will lower this tariff or support you on that bill..." Etc etc.

Where an NAU is concerned, the last things I'd want to see are corrupt Mexican politicians and socialist-leaning Canadian politicians (we already have more than enough American ones, thank you) having a say in my country's laws and economic policies.

There would also have to be some sort of central court, which would usurp the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the case of the EU, there are a lot more than a mere three governments involved in continental policy making. Following all the dialogue and the resolutions of issues/bills would be a supremely daunting task, and as such all kinds of stealth legislation that affects the citizens of each member state could sneak by virtually unnoticed.

For me, it's hard enough just trying to keep up with what they're doing in the U.S. House and Senate, and the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Seth at October 11, 2007 11:51 AM

Try 26 nations, all with their own languages, customs and legal systems. That is what this constitution threatens - we would all have to adopt the French model - no thanks!

As Nelson toasted - "Confusion to Bounaparte - and death to the French."

Most of the UK wants to be part of an Economic Zone - not a super state run from the Continent. We fought for almost a thousand years over that!

Posted by: The Gray Monk at October 11, 2007 09:06 PM

Vicente Fox has admitted that Bush and him talked about NAU and even came up with a currency the Amero.

I think we need to worry more about corrupt American politicians then corrupt Mexican politicians.

Posted by: skipjack at October 13, 2007 07:22 AM