Friday, June 13, 2008

Ireland votes ‘No’! - Rejoice! Rejoice! Rejoice!

Today, Cranmer is Irish. He is delighted. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man certainly availethed very much indeed, even when pitted against the colossal spiritual and political influence of the Holy See. Plucky little Ireland, the only country in the EU to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, has rejected it, and has done so convincingly. This latest rebuff follows two years of ‘reflection’ after the peoples of France and Holland rejected the Treaty’s previous incarnation, the Constitution for Europe. And, according to reports, Brussels has no Plan B, and so the EU is plunged into turmoil and chaos.

Interestingly, rural and working-class people voted ‘No’ in considerably higher numbers than the professional middle class, and even the arch-Europhile Bertie Ahern's own constituency turned in a resounding ‘No’. He is probably now regretting his resignation. The Fine Gael sex advertisements backfired spectacularly, just as Cranmer thought they would, with the constituency of its leader, Enda Kenny, producing a firm 60-40 ‘No’ vote.

Various reasons are already being adduced for the failure of the ‘Yes’ campaign – a low turn-out, political sleaze, and (the old chestnut) ‘many voters seem to have voted No for the simple reason that they did not understand the treaty’.

But while the fireworks and bonfires are burning in celebration, and Mr Fawkes is ladling champagne down his throat, let us not forget that we have been here before.

Denmark rejected the Maastricht Treaty, but this was deemed to be the wrong answer, and so the Danish people had to be asked again (and again) before they produced the correct answer. Belgium suspended democracy altogether in order to impose treaties and qualify for EMU by decree. And the brave and noble Irish dared to reject the Treaty of Nice, only to find that they too had given the wrong answer and so had to be asked again.

Plan B exists and it always has.

Every single provision within the Treaty of Lisbon will proceed apace, for many of them were already doing so even before the Treaty had been ratified by any national parliament. We already have Eurojust, a Human Rights Agency, a European Armaments Agency, an External Borders Agency, and a developing worldwide diplomatic corps complete with EU embassies. There is now no legal basis for these, and so they should all be disbanded. But they shall not be.

Already, there is talk of a ‘bridging mechanism’ to accommodate Ireland’s ‘No’ while the rest march on inexorably and proceed unhindered towards creating a Europe which is a ‘brighter, fairer, equal place to work and to live.

This is indeed government by divine right, and the infallible assertions of teleology are grotesque and offensive to all true democrats.


Anonymous BJOE said...


So say China, Russia and the USA.

Oh, and every moron in England.

13 June 2008 at 13:20  
Anonymous Nothos said...

Such optimism is ultimately wasted. Nothing will change in the long run, we should all know that well enough by now.

13 June 2008 at 13:39  
Blogger dizzyfatplonka said...

The Irish also have a plan B as the British well know.

13 June 2008 at 13:40  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

"equal place to work and to live.’"

This doesn't even make sense, unless one understands "equal" as a noun and not an adjective i.e. in the same sense it is used in "Some are more equal than others".

13 June 2008 at 14:17  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Homophobic Horse,

His Grace pondered that, and further contemplated a 'sic', but could not be bothered.

13 June 2008 at 14:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the Irish might be forced to have a second chance to reflect upon their decision, perhaps Mr Brown would like to give us the same opportunity and hey here's great new idea - What about a referendum!

13 June 2008 at 14:40  
Anonymous wrinkled weasel said...

They will get around it somehow. Democracy is dead. Better get used to it.

13 June 2008 at 14:47  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

i smell burning your grace !! it appears to be the notion of subsidiarty

rejoice indeed

13 June 2008 at 14:56  
Anonymous G Eagle Esq said...

Your Grace

Gott ist Mit

Yr Grace's obedient servant etc

G Eagle

13 June 2008 at 15:12  
Anonymous Voyager said...

In 1815 the powers of Europe met in Vienna. the Congress of Vienna had its aim to make the world safe from Democracy.

The rule of emperors over their subjects and serfs is what the Eu seeks to recreate. It is part of Europe's revulsion at mass democracy which first emerged after WWI in the fascist parties of interwar Europe in France, Italy and later Germany - themselves products of the collapsed authority of monarchies and the rise of Bolshevism.

The fear of losing control of the populace produced 'The Divine Right of The Communist Party' to dictate to the public and essentially the EU staffed with former Euro-Communists seeks the same ends in Western Europe.

It is hard to believe that those who seek to develop Plato's republic and become "Guardians" in his sense of the word, will give up because a plebiscite objects to coup by stealth. the end it may well come to violence and tumbrils to recapture sovereignty from arrogant elites who play Bourbons

We English are in that situation that Oliver Cromwell found himself when confronted with a King in league with Catholic France

13 June 2008 at 20:35  
Anonymous jonah said...

"For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet."

Liberty has stirred. With David Davis and the Irish referendum, there is hope yet for Europe.

Thank the Lord!

13 June 2008 at 21:13  
Anonymous G Eagle Esq said...


Tres interessant

Yr obedient servant etc


13 June 2008 at 21:27  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

mm mr milliband has declared that we are to press ahead with ratification !! and wait for ireland to catch up.

how very kind of him to make my mind up yet again !!

i have a prediction for you mr milliband , you will eat your words tonight you will eat your words !!

13 June 2008 at 22:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace.
As Europe will ignore Irelands wishes and Brown continues to deny us our own referendum the time will soon arive at which the EU has no democratic validity whatsoever.
At that point our compact with the State will have broken down; in which direction would you then advise us to proceed ?

Perhaps one piece of Law that specifically derives from Europe can be targetted by our fellow subjects for mass-breakage in a popular campaign of civil disobedience.
It would have to be some action available to all so farming or fishing regulations won't do though perhaps wheelie bins might ?

14 June 2008 at 04:15  
Anonymous CCTV said...

in which direction would you then advise us to proceed

Careful - some answers lead to an absence from everyday life for 42 days.......Rule 18B is well worth looking up for precedents

14 June 2008 at 06:55  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

The peculiar "freight train" demeanour of the European Union (or more precisely, its unelected Commissars and underlings) might in part be explained by the following information.

The Bundesrepublikdeutschland (Federal Republic of Germany) has never signed a peace treaty (Friedensvertrag) with any of the four occupying powers or the United Nations since 1945. Therefore, technically speaking, the German state is still in a "state of war" with the former Allied powers.

The Federal Republic (BRD) is not a democracy. Most Germans call it a "Scheindemokratie" (illusory democracy). They do not have a constitution; instead they have something called the "Grundgesetz" (Basic Law). This law was drafted by the occupying powers with the assistance of Jewish lawyers, and imposed from the outside as an extension of the Morgenthau plan.

In other words, Germany is not the BRD, and the BRD is not Germany. The BRD was in fact constituted primarily to facilitate the payment of reparations.

Most German citizens HATE the illegal BRD, the unlawful European Union (and the euro) and yearn for the return of the old German Reich, founded by Bismarck in 1871 (NB: the Reich that successfully prevented war in Europe) ... complete with the return of the Deutschmark.

Here's the punch line:

The European Union is completely illegal because the BRD's signature is on the founding Treaty of Rome.

No need for a referendum. The existence of the BRD's signature on that document is enough to declare the original Rome Treaty, null and void because the BRD was not, and still isn't a legalised nation state. All constitutional lawyers know this -- they are TERRIFIED lest you discover the truth.

If anyone can further clarify the above then please do so. Those who believe this information should be used to kill off the European Union project, once and for all, should surely convert their belief into action with minimal delay.

As for me, I favour a Confederacy.

PS: God Bless the Irish!

14 June 2008 at 08:39  
Blogger Bert Rustle said...

Mission Impossible - references?

14 June 2008 at 10:55  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

bert rustle ... Good journalists protect their sources, especially when the EUSSR is already employing methods and strategies taken straight from the Stasi handbook. That isn't rhetoric; this fact has been captured on film (Ref: the peaceful protests against Islamic infiltration of the EU that were held in Brussels about 1 year ago, before being violently broken up by State Thugs) and posted on YouTube.

I did write earlier: If anyone can further clarify the above then please do so.

I think further clarification would be more convincing if it came from additional & alternative sources.

Suggest you contact a leading Lawyer and seek his confidential comment or insights. Do you have friends in Germany? That would be as good a place to start as any. All I can say with certainty is that my source is reliable and that, right now, he is being hounded by Zionist organizations based in the BRD for speaking out and speaking the truth. His liberty is under threat as I write.

14 June 2008 at 11:17  
Anonymous CCTV said...

The Bundesrepublikdeutschland (Federal Republic of Germany) has never signed a peace treaty (Friedensvertrag) with any of the four occupying powers or the United Nations since 1945. Therefore, technically speaking, the German state is still in a "state of war" with the former Allied powers.

It did not need a peace treaty - it surrendered unconditionally and so it was unnecessary.

The Grundgesetz is based on the theory of Grundnorm a la Kelsen because German jurisprudence operates differently from Anglo-Saxon systems.

There was a treaty signed in September 1990 but a formal peace treaty can never be signed because the British Empire no longer exists and reparations.

The BRD was a 1949 creation of currency union in the 3 Western Sectors which the Soviets refused to join and simply instigated the Berlin Blockade in 1948.

Very few Germans hanker for Bismarckian Germany and most are perfectly happy with the Federal Republic even though they hate its political class.

14 June 2008 at 15:57  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

With the support of the United States, the United Kingdom and France the Federal Republic of Germany is constituted in 1949. In the USSR occupation zone the German Democratic Republic is established. Konrad Adenauer of the conservative Christlich-Demokratische Union (Christian-Democratic Union, CDU) becomes the first federal Chancellor that year ...

but by what plebiscite?

After the Petersberg agreement West Germany quickly progressed toward "fuller" sovereignty and association with its European neighbours and the Atlantic community. The London and Paris agreements of 1954 restored "most" of the state's sovereignty (with some exceptions) in May 1955 and opened the way for German membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). In April 1951, West Germany joined with France, Italy and the Benelux countries in the European Coal and Steel Community (forerunner of the European Union).

On 25th March 1957, two treaties were signed in Rome that gave birth to the European Economic Community (EEC) and to European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom): the Treaties of Rome. Signatories of the historic Treaty were Christian Pineau on behalf of France, Joseph Luns from the Netherlands, Paul Henri Spaak from Belgium, Joseph Bech from Luxemburg, Antonio Segni from Italy and Konrad Adenauer from the Federal Republic of Germany. The Treaties were ratified by National Parliaments over the following months and came into force on 1st January 1958.

What we need to know is the exact legal status of the FDR at both April 1951 and March 1957!

When did the FDR cease being just a political entity enforced by the three western occupying powers in order to facilitate reparations? From what date did the German people regain full control of their own political and economic destiny? If it was after 1951 (or 1951 and 1957) then the Treaty of Rome is null and void.

Keep in mind that ...

The Allies confiscated intellectual property of great value, all German patents, both in Germany and abroad, and used them to strengthen their own industrial competitiveness by licensing them to Allied companies. Beginning immediately after the German surrender and continuing for the next two years the U.S. pursued a vigorous program to harvest all technological and scientific know-how as well as all patents in Germany. John Gimbel comes to the conclusion, in his book "Science Technology and Reparations: "Exploitation and Plunder in Postwar Germany", that the "intellectual reparations" taken by the U.S. and the UK amounted to close to $10 billion. During the more than two years that this policy was in place, no industrial research in Germany could take place, as any results would have been automatically available to overseas competitors who were encouraged by the occupation authorities to access all records and facilities. Meanwhile thousands of the best German researchers were being put to work in the Soviet Union and in the U.S. (see also Operation Paperclip).

Having been physically, emotionally, intellectually, and financially raped for nigh on 10 years ... when can we say the FDR was in a fit state to sign an international treaty ... especially one whose descendants now have huge implications for all European states, let alone the rest of the world?

Don't speculate ... Investigate!!!


14 June 2008 at 19:17  
Blogger Jeremy Jacobs said...

Your Grace

I find certain comments in the above threads as being anti-semitic. Can you please remove them

14 June 2008 at 20:57  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Jacobs,

Would you care to be specific?

14 June 2008 at 21:18  
Anonymous Voyager said...

How could one have a plebiscite in a state that had been dismembered ? In fact Germany did not exist as a state, its eastern border NEVER having been recognised by treaty until 1990.

Germany has more borders than any other European nation, and its western borders were only defined by the Locarno Treaty 1925. At that stage Saarland was still within France and not Germany - until a League Plebiscite in 1935; and again in 1955.

Germany has been subject to French Occupation and dismemberment for over 300 years and 1949-55 France actually incorporated Saarland into France.

Germany looks at the EU in a Bismarckian way. It is actually a multilateral treaty system to define its identity where Bismarck used bilateral treaties such as the Reinsurance Treaty which the Kaiser foolishly allowed to lapse.

The problem Germany has is that its political class are largely civil servants - c. 40% German MPs are civil servants receiving automatic job promotions while MPs. The bulk of these are in the SPD.

Since 1945 Germany has been pushed in a socialist direction both by the existence of the GDR and the politics of the 1960s. It has led to a self-abnegation with respect to German national symbols and identity with such inanities as removing the name of Juergen Molders from Luftwaffe squadrons and barracks.

The corporatism inherent in German politics is reinforced with the List system and it is unable to be responsive to anything but lobby groups - in this it is proving a role model for Westminster.

The simple fact is that the Left has used the EU as a surrogate nationalism pursuing it with the same fervour that Nazis had for Teutonism and much the same result - it is the denial of German identity for a Pan-Europeanism. Hitler was less a nationalism and more a Pan-European in that he sought to harness language groups and bloodlines crossing national borders and unite them in a new Europe without national borders but simply Blood Ties.

Until 1990s the German Law on Citizenship relied upon a 1914 Act which made bloodlines rather than place of birth as the basis of citizenship - and even Helmut Kohl pursued this notion when repatriating Kazakh "Germans" to become welfare drunks in Germany - simply because he had romantic notions that German-speakers like Jews had a right of return to the "homeland"

Sentimentalism is a big problem in politics and not only in Germany

15 June 2008 at 13:40  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Truly excellent post by Voyager (@ 13:40), if I may say so.

But, can we get closer to THE definitive?

Is the "Treaty of Rome" illegal because the BRD (a co-signatory) was not a properly constituted, independent, and free state (NB: it was still under military occupation) when its representative signed on the dotted line?

Are there any Constitutional Lawyers reading this thread? Please respond and help us out.

15 June 2008 at 14:52  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older