Archbishop: 'We don't need a referendum on Lisbon'
While the Crossbench peer Lord Ramsbotham insisted that the referendum matter was ‘a question of trust’, the Archbishop issued his swift riposte that the promise of a referendum at the last general election ‘was about a constitution’. He continued: ‘If you want to persuade me that the Treaty is the same as the Constitution then you have to do better than simply say: “The element of trust is important”. Of course trust is important. As a man of the cloth, I believe in trust; I believe in honesty and fairness. But let us put that trust in a context which is actually important.’
Cranmer is somewhat puzzled by the meaning of Dr Sentamu’s last sentence, and exasperated that he cannot see what just about every politician on the Continent is admitting, namely, that the Treaty is indeed the Constitution.
But the Archbishop explains: ‘I believe that parliamentary democracy is the answer. If you ask anybody if they want to vote on any subject, and we see this quite a lot in the Church of England, they do. But does that mean that that is always the right question?’
Cranmer cannot be bothered to extract any meaning from this, so he shall cut to the Archbishop’s central thesis:
‘If you ask whether the Queen will still be supreme in Parliament under the new Treaty, will the answer be yes? Will this Parliament still be the highest court in the land? Will foreign policy, defence policy and law and order still be governed by this country?’
Apparently, after each question, there were shouts of ‘yes’ from peers, and so the Archbishop asked: ‘Then why are we making this fuss?’
Sadly, the Archbishop of York has plunged to the lowest level of credibility on Cranmer’s religio-political compass and on his politico-religious satnav. One might expect a theologian to be able to grasp the reality beneath the symbol, and be wise to the EU’s modus operandi which ensures that skimmed milk masquerades a cream. The Queen may be sitting upon her throne, but as a citizen of the Union subject to the aims and objectives of the Union, to whom does she owe her allegiance? If Parliament is the highest court in the land, why are the judgements of the European courts superior to her judgements, and why can these courts force Parliament to amend legislation? How can foreign policy be made in the British Parliament when the EU is creating a High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs to speak on behalf of all member states? And what of the global EU diplomatic service? The emerging European army? The European police force? Corpus Juris?
The Archbishop of York may have had his ego stroked by admiring peers jealous of his rhetorical flair, but his analysis is utterly superficial and completely devoid of any intellectual engagement with the issues.
In a few years the British Parliament will have only two functions – to raise taxes and to authorise war.
Cranmer can foresee only one war in the prosecution of which the British people may ultimately be prepared to be taxed, and that will be a war of secession.
If the Irish referendum has established anything, it is that all that may be said by the demos is what the Commission wishes to hear. There is no alternative, and dissent will be crushed.
The European Union has the constitution of a dictatorship and the laws of a police state.
And the Church of England is complicit in the deception and betrayal.