Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Giscard proclaims the French ‘non’ was ‘un accident’

Cranmer is indebted to Mr Croydonian for drawing attention to the latest evidence, if any were needed, that the EU is being forged not by democracy, but by teleology. The EU model of government is best understood by examining the Aristotelian notion of telos, which is concerned with ends, purposes, and goals. In cultures which have a teleological world view, the ends of things are seen as providing the meaning for all that has happened or that occurs. If one thinks about history as a timeline with a beginning and end, in a teleological view of the world and of history, the meaning and value of all historical events derives from their ends or purposes, that is, all events in history are future-directed. The Christian worldview is fundamentally teleological; all of history is directed towards the completion of history at the end of time. When history ends, then the meaning and value of human historical experience will be fulfilled. Modern European culture is overwhelmingly teleological in its experience of history, that is, we see history and experience as entirely future-directed. This, in part, explains the insistence that the EU is an unstoppable ‘inevitability’.

Much has already been written on the manifestly undemocratic workings of the EU – how, for example, a treaty is put to a referendum, the people say no, so they are asked again, and again, until the ‘right’ answer is given – but never before has the leader of a democratic nation accused his compatriots of accidentally voting the wrong way. According to Le Monde, the Eurocrats are insisting that 'We cannot stay deaf and blind to the necessity of restarting the process of European integration'. They are indeed gods, intoxicated by their own infallibility; utterly convinced of their self-righteousness. Thus Giscard declares with all the authority of an absolute monarch: ‘The 'No' of 2005 was an accident. The social and economic climate has now changed'.

That’s alright then. Divinity has spoken. The French and Dutch must vote again. But they must remember, ‘non’ is for ‘un jour’, and ‘oui’ is for ‘éternité’, whatever the weather or ‘the social and economic climate’.

22 Comments:

Anonymous Colin said...

Not only Giscard refuses to accept the referendum against the EU constitution. Yesterday, the speaker of the German parliament, Dr. Norbert Lammert, said during a TV interview that the no to the referendum is wrong because the people supposedly mixed up the issue of the much needed EU with their protest against the current national governments. The Green party - always claiming to be in favor of grassroots democracy - published on its website The constitutional treaty is dead. Long live the constitution!.

However, the German Constitutional Court has now stopped the ratification of the EU constitution by the German President mainly because the unanimity rule for the constitution is at variance with the no votes in France and the Netherlands. A member of the German parliament, Dr. Peter Gauweiler, sued against the implementation of the EU constitution because the EU constitution contains - according to an expertise by Karl A. Schachtschneider, Professor of Public Law at the University of Nuremberg, an insufficient protection of the population against decisions of the EU, an insufficient democratic legitimisation, a breach of the economic regulations of the German constitution, and an European Court of Justice which is not in agreement with principles of a lawful state.

Professor Schachtschneider explained in 2005 in an interview: "The constitutional treaty is a milestone in the development of a state of injustice. The constitutional treaty is an empowerment law. It isn't even the final point. The treaty is a preparation for further development. It contains possibilties which are frightening: such as the reintroduction of the penalty of death, not in every situation but in the case of war or of immediate danger of war! It also makes killings lawful if necessary for dissolving crowds and riots."

"The clause IV-445 makes a simplified change of the treaty possible and hence the future constitution for 500 millions of people. This pertains the entire economic constitution including the interior market, monetary union, competition law, consumer protection, and social politics, but also the security concerning the interior politics, the 'domain of freedom, security and law'. These entire regulations in title III part III of the treaty can be changed by the decision of the heads of states and government, also by a European resolution. The European parliament is only heard, the national parliaments are not involved.

That is, this paper will not exist for long, it is an empowerment law. It has been cleverly regulated, I only discovered it narrowly. The normal politician is unable to read such a text of a treaty. For example, it is written that a European resolution to change the constitution will become only effective following the consent of the member states in agreement with their constitutional regulations. That sounds wonderful but in Germany the consent of the government is sufficient. "

The resolution of changing the EU constitution "will be decided among the heads of states and governments together with the president of the European Council and Commission. They can change essential parts of the constitutional treaty completely or in part. They will do it, I think very soon."

"Worst of all is the European Court of Justice: The last president has said himself: 'We are the motor of integration. The Court of Justice is more powerful than all the other European Institutions. By using the basic rights, the court is able to change the entire law system."

"The judges of the European Court of Justice always find everything OK what the Commission and Council is doing. Furthermore, the judges have been selected by the governments for their task of advancing integration. They obtain a basic salary of 17,000 Euros, that is at least threefold the salary of a German professor. In addition, they have allowable expenses. Such salaries are known to have a bribery function. Such jobs one likes to have and if possible again. The judges can be reelected, each time for six years! That is not judiciary independence!"

For those able to read German, here the link to Professor Schachtschneider's complete legal expertise against the EU constitution as submitted to the German Constitutional Court.

To his knowledge, there are no lawsuits against the EU constitutional treaty in other countries. Could a lawsuit be useful in the UK for stopping the teleology of destruction of the nation?

23 November 2006 at 00:26  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Contrasting the situation of "the old man in a hurry" Giscard with that of Lenin in November 1918, having been resoundingly trounced in the elections called by the Kerensky regime which he could not hinder, is instructive.

Lenin's small Bolshevik Party did very badly in the elections but went on to run Russia for over 70 years through wading in blood

Coup plotters rarely give up

23 November 2006 at 06:50  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Fantastic Colin - and great links, but the German constitution isn't as cut and dry as its sometimes portrayed. They were supposed to have issues with Maastricht, and the euro for that matter but it all fell flat. Cranmer's right that 'the project' is teleological, and no earthly German issues will get in the way. You have to ask when it's time to give up. It's like hoping the Republic will never get its hands on Ulster, but it already has and it seems 'inevitable' - it's a one-way street, no u-turns, because politicians who know better have said it must be so.

We might shout 'No Surrender!', but we all really have.

23 November 2006 at 10:11  
Anonymous Voyager said...

no earthly German issues will get in the way.

Oh but they will..........Germany is returning to weimar with more and more parties in the Bundestag.........when this sorry govt falls the NPD and other fringe groups will eat away at the Volksparteien and the SPD and CDU will no longer be major factions but crumbling as they lose control of their regional party machines

23 November 2006 at 10:48  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

I just don't see it Voyager. After the french and dutch rejections, if another key founding member, and one as big as Germany, starts to agitate against the project, the whole house of cards could come tumbling down. Nice thought, but realistically.....???

23 November 2006 at 11:07  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Germany is no longer monolithically controlled as before - the last grand coalition of SPD and CDU lead to the APOs and Baader-Meinhof. This is the endgame for the two major parties and will cause splinter groups everywhere.

Britain was run by a coalition of the two major parties 1931-1945 _ i doubt the country would stand for it today

23 November 2006 at 13:42  
Anonymous old red socks said...

Voyager, That is simply incorrect about Britain in the 1930s.

Certainly Ramsay Macdonald and a tiny cohort joined the 1931 National Government with his remaining Prime Minister. But the Labour Party itself went into opposition, only returning to office in 1940 on joining Churchill's genuine wartime coalition.

23 November 2006 at 16:06  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Sorry but it was a National Government. Ramsay MacDonald was PM because George V asked him to be.

The Labour Opposition and Liberal Opposition were split parties demolished in 1935

The history is clear - the 1931 Govt was a NATIONAL Government

23 November 2006 at 17:16  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Churchill was not even leader of his party in May 1940, nor was he accepted by the Conservative Party - he did not become leader until Chamberlain died in Nov 1940.

It was the same National Government which started in 1931 with Neville Chamberlain as Chancellor of the Exchequer until 1937 when he became Prime Minister by succeeding Stanley Baldwin

23 November 2006 at 17:18  
Blogger Buster George said...

I have just tagged your grace on the ten things he would never do, sorry.

23 November 2006 at 17:28  
Anonymous Colin said...

Thank you for your interesting comments.

I agree with Ulster man that no earthly German issues will get in the way and with His Grace that the EU project is teleological in nature. However, the issue is not Germany but Europe. Furthermore, Hitler's race supremacy and the Soviet Union were also teleological projects and failed. It seems that it often costs a lot of blood terminate teleological projects. His Grace, has correctly pointed out on another thread that not many readers seem to be interested in EU issues in contrast to religious topics. And there was a certain consensus that it is because of the emotional nature of the threat from Islamists in contrast to the more abstract nature of EU politics.

The EU constitution "makes killings lawful if necessary for dissolving crowds..."

In other words, unelected EU officials may lawfully order shooting at crowds of peaceful native Europeans and/or immigrants who are protesting against EU rules or the loss of democracy in the EU.

Shootings, killings and the blood of British, Dutch, German, French and other citizens demonstrating in the streets should be a major emotional issue.

23 November 2006 at 20:08  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Buster George,

Welcome to His Grace's august blog.

For one who has never previously communed here, or fellowshipped with the intelligent and erudite, you appear to have a strange obsession with His Grace's aversions.

Since you are sadly obsessed by trivia, you will find that His Grace has already expressed these on Mr Iain Dale's blog, here.

23 November 2006 at 20:29  
Anonymous Colin said...

According to His Grace's link given above:

"10 things His Grace would never do:

Convert to Catholicism
Convert to Islam
Convert to Judaism
Convert to Hinduism
Convert to Sikhism
Convert to Buddhism
Convert to Jainism
Convert to Scientology
Become an Atheist
Vote Labour"


Since no. 1 - 9 is just about a single thing, i.e. to never follow another faith than the Anglican religion, His Grace has actually mentioned only two things, namely:

10 things His Grace would never do:

(1) Believe in anything but the Anglican religion
(2) Vote Labour
(3) ?
(4) ?
(5) ?
(6) ?
(7) ?
(8) ?
(9) ?
(10) ?

Your Grace, your fans are curious to know your real no. 3 - 10.

23 November 2006 at 20:51  
Anonymous bernhard hitchens said...

His Grace missed off *coughs* Convert to being a friend of Dorothy.
The EU is typical socialism , the cause is more important than the people , therefore doomed to failure.

23 November 2006 at 21:42  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Colin,

His Grace exhorts you to transcend the earthly obsession with trivia, and dwell in the realms of eternal significance.

He encourages all communicants to stick to the topic of the post. His Grace has had a very demanding day, mostly taken up with the issue of British Airways ban on wearing crosses while permitting hijabs, turnbans and karas. People ask such stupid questions.

He is a little tired, and needs to find rest unto his soul.

Be content to know two things that His Grace would never do. One must not permit too much light to interfere with the mystery.

23 November 2006 at 22:02  
Anonymous old red socks said...

Voyager, In 1935, the allegedly 'demolished' Labour Party had 154 MPs and polled 38% of the vote. Macdonald's 'National Labour' won a mere 8 seats and a derisory 1.5% of the vote.

(Even in 1931 Labour captured 30.8% though its Parliamentary representation was reduced to 52 MPs).

If I recall correctly, on a previous thread you erroneously claimed that Hitler served as von Papen's Vice Chancellor.

With respect, you do appear to have a depressingly cavalier attitude towards inconvenient historical facts.

23 November 2006 at 23:03  
Anonymous old red socks said...

I doubt Cranmer, nor the rest of us, will find much rest for the soul in this

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2676069

23 November 2006 at 23:31  
Anonymous Voyager said...

If I recall correctly, on a previous thread you erroneously claimed that Hitler served as von Papen's Vice Chancellor.

Your reading is defective - I said that was the proposal put to Hindenburg whereby Von Papen would be Chancellor using the NSDAP voting bloc but Hitler supplanted him. The discussions took place at Ribbentrop's villa in Dahlem



As for 1935 ytou are so fixated on National Labour that you forgot the Govt majority in 1935 was 350 over all other parties

Read Labour's 1935 Manifesto

The Labour Party's call to power

Four years have passed since the 'National' Government obtained a swollen majority in the House of Commons on a campaign of fraud, misrepresentation and panic. The Government has now decided to plunge the nation into an electoral struggle in the midst of an international crisis.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Labour will propose to other nations the complete abolition of all national air forces, the effective international control of civil aviation and the creation of an international air police force; large reductions by international agreement in naval and military forces; and the abolition of the private manufacture of, and trade in, arms........................Labour seeks a mandate to carry out this programme by constitutional and democratic means, and with this end in view, it seeks power to abolish the House of Lords and improve the procedure of the House of Commons.

Labour asks the Nation for a Parliamentary Majority to promote Socialism at home and Peace abroad.



1935 Conservative Party General Election Manifesto

A call to the nation: the joint manifesto of the leaders National Government (Stanley Baldwin, J. Ramsay MacDonald and Sir John Simon)

The decision of the Nation four years ago to put its trust in a National Government formed from various Parties in the State, was a turning point in the history of Britain and has exercised a profound influence upon the course of international events. Under this leadership we have emerged from the depths of depression to a condition of steadily returning prosperity, and the name of Britain stands high in the councils of the world. There now falls upon the people of this country the grave responsibility of exercising a choice which may well prove equally momentous for the future.

The broad issue is whether the stability and confidence with the National Government have built up are to be preserved in a period of special difficulty and anxiety

The advent of power of the Labour Opposition, pledged to a number of revolutionary measures of which the ultimate results could not be clearly foreseen, would inevitably be followed by a collapse of confidence.



It may upset your Labour Party tribalism but Labour was an irresponsible farce throughout the interwar period just like Germany's SPD, and split so many ways after Mosley that it was a sign of an immature pressure group than a governing party.

National Government was the term, just as in 1916 but even then Labour had to jump ship in 1918 because the Leninists in Russia were being fought by British and French troops.

24 November 2006 at 07:38  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Crimes against Peace

Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933. As Vice Chancellor in that Cabinet he participated in the Nazi consolidation of control in 1933.



VON PAPEN

Von Papen is indicted under Counts One and Two. He was appointed Chancellor of the Reich on 1st June, 1932, and was succeeded by von Schleicher on 2nd December, 1932. He was made Vice Chancellor in the Hitler Cabinet on 30th January, 1933, and on 13th November, 1933, Plenipotentiary for the Saar.



Having been Reichskanzler for 6 months in 1932 this aristocrat certainly did not enter negotiations with the Nazis with the intention of being deputy to Adolf Hitler, nor did Field-Marshal von Hindenburg set out with the intention of making one of his WWI Corporals Chancellor of Germany.............but Hitler had been meeting with the son of Kaiser Wilhelm II and Hindenburg's son, promising to overthrow the Weimar Republic and restore the Hohenzollern Monarchy and had in Erich Ludendorff, Hindeburg's rival for the Presidency in 1925 a supporter, who however was stunned that Hindeburg had made Hitler Chancellor and sen this telegram:

"By appointing Hitler Chancellor of the Reich, you have handed over our sacred German Fatherland to one of the greatest demagogues of all time. I prophesy to you this evil man will plunge our Reich into the abyss and will inflict immeasurable woe on our nation. Future generations will curse you in your grave for this action."

24 November 2006 at 07:58  
Anonymous Colin said...

OK, folks, His Grace exhorted all communicants to stick to the topic of the post which, BTW, is the EU.

With regard to the latter and the accession of Turkey to the EU, the link given by Old Red Socks in his 11:31 PM post is most interesting. Assuming His Grace's permission, here parts of the report:

Hakan Tastan, 37, and Turan Topal, 46, went on trial yesterday for insulting "Turkishness" and inciting religious hatred. Tastan and Topal are facing a prison term of up to nine years. What did they do? They have been accused of telling possible converts that Islam was "a primitive and fabricated" religion. In addition, they allegedly told them that Turks would remain "barbarians" if they continued to practice Islam. Tastan said in court "I am a Turk, I am a Turkish citizen. I don't accept the accusations of insulting 'Turkishness'... I am a Christian, that's true. I explain the Bible...to people who want to learn."

Maybe, Instambultory has more insights on this story?

24 November 2006 at 09:52  
Anonymous old red socks said...

My Dear Voyager,

Can we forget about all the new irrelevant stuff and revert to your original assertion which was:

"Britain was run by a coalition of the two major parties 1931-1945".

Demonstrably it wasn't.

----

And on the subject of von Papen and Hitler, this is what you wrote (on the thread commencing Nov 10th)

"...In 1932 Germany had been ruled by Emergency Decree by-passing Parliament under Reichskanzler Heinrich Bruening.

With the fall of his Govt the way was open for a Military Coup D'Etat but instead Von Papen formed a new Govt with himself as Reichskanzler and the NSDAP as coalition partner, Hitler being Deputy Chancellor...."

You may have meant what you say now (which is indeed accurate) but that's not what you wrote then.

----

As for your presuming my own political affiliations, again you couldn't be more incorrect.

Why not have the good grace to admit occasional errors - we all do - and let's move on. Well, I'm going to anyway.

24 November 2006 at 15:19  
Anonymous Voyager said...

If I wrote that I was incorrect in that Bruening's Govt was followed by Von Papen as Chancellor, then by General von Schleicher, then by Adolf Hitler....................my shorthand led to several errors of timing

25 November 2006 at 13:05  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older