Today on Blogcritics
Home » What Part of “No” Does The European Union Not Understand?

What Part of “No” Does The European Union Not Understand?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Voters in Ireland rejected the European Union treaty, 53 to 47 percent, on Friday. Ireland was the only European country to be allowed a referendum vote on the proposed charter, known as the Lisbon Treaty.

The Lisbon Treaty is virtually the same as the EU Constitution that was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005.

Yet the European Union is insisting that, despite these rejections by the French, Dutch and now the Irish, it does not spell the end for the superstate project.

It doesn't matter how many nations cry foul and how many majorities who, when given the vote, shoot it down, the EU will still press on with their squalid Constitution — a joke when you consider that this so-called constitution involves unelected, faceless leaders who are accountable to no-one.

The EU is ignoring its own rules, under which only one "no" vote was enough to kill the treaty. Yet, as expected, the EU will turn a deaf ear to the Irish and pretend that their "no" was actually a "yes."

If the EU doesn't continue with the Lisbon Treaty, then it will once again disguise their oligarchic plans under the earlier Nice Treaty.

The European Union reminds me of a brain-damaged egomaniac, the sort of person who happily thinks everyone loves him, no matter how many people actually scream obscenities at him. The sort of person who, despite being thrown off a train station platform onto the electrified third rail, continues to think "gee, how gorgeous am I?"

Well done, Ireland. The message you sent won't be heeded in any way by your Brussels-dwelling lords temporal, but at least you told them just what you think of their fascism.

And, dear Ireland, at least you got the vote, which is more than the British can claim.

Powered by

About Nightdragon

  • Ruvy

    Well done, Ireland. The message you sent won’t be heeded in any way by your Brussels-dwelling lords temporal, but at least you told them just what you think of their fascism.

    It is just as my “nutjob” friends in the States keep telling me, Mark. The EU is the “Fourth Reich” the incarnation of that regime Hitler predicted before his death of the “coming man.”

    But history, as repetitive as it seems, never repeats itself exactly.

    Ah, to live in interesting times….

  • http://nitpickingnightdragon.blogspot.com Mark Edward Manning

    Ruvy: “But history, as repetitive as it seems, never repeats itself exactly.”

    History not only repeats itself, but people never learn from it. I cannot imagine how pampered the European mindset must be in order to sacrifice security and sovereignty just for fat state pensions that will not be available in 50 years’ time anyway, because Europe will have bled itself dry.

    A bigger exercise in geopolitical narcissism than the European Union I am unable to think of.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    What about the USA? It has half as many people in twice the land area. Maybe it should be broken up?

  • Ruvy

    What about the USA? It has half as many people in twice the land area. Maybe it should be broken up?

    Sounds like a plan to me, Chris. A smaller country in the Americas would have a harder time buying our our leaders and turning them into traitors.

    But, looked at from the point of view of shoving a constitution down people’s throats, the United States ratified their constitution in 1788 according to the rules set forth in the document – no multiple treaties were needed to pull the wool over peoples’ eyes. Well, some folks say to the contrary – that one of the states improperly ratified the document, but in either event, all of the other original thirteen did eventually, so the issue is moot.

    “Europe” seems to be having a hard time accepting the bureaucratic rules from Brussels; your own government seems intent on keeping you from approving (or disapproving) a European constitution at the polls.

    Just a thought….

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    It was a far simpler world in 1788, Ruvy. I’m sure a contemporary USA would have many of the same problems as the EU is facing.

    I am generally in favour of the EU but, although it certainly has to work harder to address certain structural weaknesses, I don’t remotely see it in the same terms as the author of this opinion piece or your Fourth Reich remark.

  • Mike

    Why does it seem that all the comment on this blog despise the EU? Is it at fault for something? Can it be credited with the economic growth Europe has gone through? What’s the deal?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Why does it seem that all the comment on this blog despise the EU?

    Lots of people don’t like the EU, most of them inside Europe. No one likes being ruled by a permanent unelected bureaucracy which is paid 10 times the average salary of regular citizens of most countries and is not accountable to anyone for their actions. They also don’t much like the fact that the structure of the government provides the individual with almost no defense of his rights against abuse of power.

    Is it at fault for something? Can it be credited with the economic growth Europe has gone through? What’s the deal?

    I don’t see any logical reason to credit what economic growth there has been in Europe to the EU. The countries which have been doing well seem to have succeeded mostly by lowering their tax rates, something which the EU as a body opposes.

    Dave

  • Ruvy

    Governance is what you make it, Chris. While I live here and would not move back to the States for anything, I have to admit that as a secular constitution of governance, the United States constitution of 1787 is brilliantly written by men who truly understood what it was they were doing.

    They followed a basic principle, clearly seen even in the 18th Century English and unfortunate (read here British) spelling of the original.

    KISS – KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID.

    Tyrants prefer long rule books, jam packed with bullshit – try looking at your own Inland Revenue Code, or the Tax Code of the States. Intelligent people who prefer freedom tend towards short descriptions of essentials and trust to time to take care of the rest.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Be that as it may, Ruvy, the US Constitution for all its plain language has not prevented over 200 years of bullshittery in the form of statute and case law.

  • Dan Miller

    Ruvy,

    You make your point very well by the reference to the Internal Revenue Code.

    Might I suggest, however, that you amend the reference instead to the IRS Rules? The Code, at least, is written by our elected representatives, although it is quite unlikely that many of them actually understand it. I think I could lift the damn multi-volume thing even though I have a back problem. The IRS Rules, on the other hand, continue to grow in heft constantly and I think my doctor would have a fit were I to try to lift the entire set. They also continue to be authored by employees of the IRS, who are not accountable to anyone. They tend to be internally inconsistent and in some cases self contradictory, and often beyond human comprehension. The courts give substantial deference to the IRS rules, even those which are purely interpretative; after all, the rules and interpretations are written by the acknowledged experts.

    The IRS is not alone in this, but is probably the best known example. I know more about the FCC Rules, having practiced before that illustrious agency for too many years. Offhand, I can’t think of any Governmental agency which is not in the same boat.

    And that is the boat in which the EU apparently desires to float around. As Dave points out,

    No one likes being ruled by a permanent unelected bureaucracy which is paid 10 times the average salary of regular citizens of most countries and is not accountable to anyone for their actions.

    “Expert” agencies are a necessary evil, I suppose, but we have gone too far and as I understand the EU proposed constitution, it would take that concept to a very high level indeed.

    Dan

  • Ruvy

    Dan,

    My room-mate and I (he was also named Dan) once fought the IRS on a tax issue and won. It’s somewhere in their damned rules. The unelected bureaucracy accountable to no-one, framed as a “democracy” to fool the masses of Europeans, does not appear to be fooling Europeans who are given the vote on the matter.

    DD,

    I was praising the constitution. I didn’t talk about the work of the congress-maggots who followed. Even in the first couple of congresses, they were passing bills that violated the constitution.

    I find that people who prefer short simple legal agreements, or people who prefer to work on a handshake, a far preferable to those who insist on long multi-conditioned contracts.

    It was a far simpler world in 1788, Ruvy.

    Chris, if you look at the Swiss federal constitution re-write in the late 1800’s, or even the British North America Act of 1867, you see already the tendency towards bureaucratic dictatorship that western Europe is headed for.

    A constitution is not legislation, it is a description of framework of governance. It should not be an ideological rant or dwell too much on detail. Just the nuts and bolts and basics are needed. The constitution of the German Empire, even though it does not create a democracy t all, is more on the model of the American document.

    You can see the opposite of the American constitution in the constitution of the Union of India. And, you can see, that for all of its claims to be a democracy, India, under this wordy document (originally written as legislation in 1935), tends to be more of a dysfunctional country than anything else, riven with communal violence, corruption and the stink of injustice. It might as well have no constitution at all, like Israel, which tends in the same direction.

    And yes, I’ve actually read the documents to which I refer – all of them.

  • http://nitpickingnightdragon.blogspot.com Mark Edward Manning

    Dr. Dreadful: “Be that as it may, Ruvy, the US Constitution for all its plain language has not prevented over 200 years of bullshittery in the form of statute and case law.”

    Touche, Dr. D. If the Founding Fathers had seen the sue-crazy society to come, they’d have prevented it.

    In absence of the Constitution forbidding statute and case law bullshittery, I’ll gladly settle for tort reform.

  • http://nitpickingnightdragon.blogspot.com Mark Edward Manning

    “What about the USA? It has half as many people in twice the land area. Maybe it should be broken up?”

    Chris, I fully grant you that the U.S. was before and at the time of the Constitution a loose federation of individual states. In those days, the “colonials” saw themselves as a Virginian or a Marylander or what have you. The U.S., at that time, was broken up.

    In the aftermath of the Revolutionary War, in which the States came together to fight a common enemy, the Founding Fathers knew they had to tiptoe very carefully around the individualist nature of the states. The Constitution took into consideration issues which the individual states thought logical and prudent, and allowed for the continuation of state sovereignty (second only to the federal framework).

    The biggest battle, in the wake of the Constitution, was over Hamilton’s big government versus Jefferson’s small government. Only posthumously did Hamilton win that particular debate.

    But the point is, the Constitution did not ride roughshod over the rights and sovereignty of the separate States. There was a very plain nature to the U.S. Constitution, a true document of the people. How on earth can the same be said for the EU “Constitution” which does not enjoy support among most European citizens and which is being forced upon them by unelected, unaccountable leaders?

    You cannot blame the French, Dutch, Irish or other skeptical Europeans for not wishing to pour through page after page after monotonous page of heavy Euro-bureaucratic gobbledygook to find out whet the hell the Lisbon Treaty entails. They are wisely choosing the devil they already know: Europe is it exists currently.

    In short, unless Europe issues a Constitution based on the U.S. model, taking into account separate nation-states’ sovereignty, and can truly be said to represent the will of “We the People,” then it will not work.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    As I said above, Mark, there are structural weaknesses to the EU that need addressing and I think will be, but I don’t favour throwing the baby out with the bath water…

  • Ruvy

    Chris,

    I think you miss the essential point here. The point is that whatever your own views on the EU, you will be denied a vote at the polls to ratify its constitution by your own government. That is the standard way secular constitutions are adopted these days – by a vote of the people.

    You are slowly being put under the authority of a dictatorship of bureaucrats – a Fourth Reich – under the lead of Germany. You may approve or not, but you will not be consulted on the matter.

    All you need for a real and open dictatorship to take power in Europe is major rioting by Moslem minorities, answered by rioting and pogroms by non-Moslems. Suddenly, “the coming man” predicted by Hitler will emerge, backed by the pope.

    And frankly, Chris, I do not think Europeans have evolved from the murderers they were eighty years ago.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Ruvy, I think the essential point with regard to most of your views is that they are invariably some combination of pessimistic, apocalyptic, paranoid, hostile or just plain wrong.

    However, if we see a real and open dictatorship emerge in Europe, rest assured I for one will oppose it.