Is the Lisbon Treaty ‘unavoidable’?
It is an important day for Europe (not just the EU?) because it is now evident and established that the agenda of the political élite overrides the expressed will of a sovereign people. It is indeed a ‘great victory for France’ which rides roughshod over the French. Germany plans to ratify in June, ignoring the voice of the Germans, and Spain will follow later in the year, oblivious to the opinion of the Spanish. Only Ireland it seems is willing to listen to its people, though a ‘no’ vote here would doubtless be dismissed as an aberration which would only cause a further ‘pause for reflection’ with a subsequent vote (and another) until the Irish give the ‘correct’ answer.
President Barroso is adamant that a referendum vote holds as much legitimacy as a parliamentary one, and asserts: ‘We have never opposed ratification by referendum in countries that wish to do it’.
This, of course, is a lie, for wherever a referendum is held and the vote is ‘no’, the perpetual ignoring of the expressed will of the people effectively constitutes opposition to ratification by referendum. And where a parliament ratifies and the vote is ‘yes’, it manifestly outweighs a referendum.
This cannot continue. There is nothing ‘great’ about this process, nothing ‘glorious’ about the deception, and nothing ‘excellent’ about the obfuscation and manipulation of millions of people. It is to the Conservative Party that one must look for liberation. As the Rt Hon William Hague MP observes:
‘(I)f this Treaty is ratified in this country without a referendum and if it is ratified in all other countries and comes into force before a general election, in our view not only would political integration have gone too far but the Treaty would lack democratic legitimacy in Britain. So as we have already made clear, that situation would not be acceptable to an incoming Conservative Government and we would not let matters rest there…
‘The Conservative Party's deep scepticism about European integration for its own sake can be attacked for being typical earthbound British pragmatism. I think that is unfair. Our profoundest concern is that a partly supranational institution must never lose sight of the need for democratic legitimacy. That is the great danger the EU faces if the EU Constitution under whatever name goes through without the people's democratic consent. At the least, the lively, far-ranging debate a referendum campaign would bring about would rekindle popular engagement with the European Union, restore some badly needed trust in British politics and re-empower voters. But a rejection of the outdated approach to Europe embodied in the Treaty, more redolent of Delors than Google, would give us the great opportunity to move towards the nimble, flexible structure that would ensure the EU's success in the twenty first century. It would free Europe's leaders from the prospect of Eurocratic turf wars to deal with the real challenges Europe faces today.’
The incorporation of any alien system of law into the United Kingdom is only as ‘unavoidable’ as our political leaders permit it to be. One may clearly avoid anything by not succumbing to it – anything, that is, bar death, though even here, for the Christian, the eternal consequences are manifestly avoidable.
His Grace blesses Anoneumouse for the excellent graphic.