THE EU

In a recent article, Daniel Hannan MEP has pointed out that despite the rejection of the proposed EU constitution in the Dutch and French referendums, that:

‘Formal ratification by all 25 states is regarded in Brussels as a technicality. To all intents and purposes, the EU is carrying on as though the constitution were already in force. Most of the institutions that it would have authorised are either up and running already, or in the process of being established. My
researches have produced the following non-exhaustive list:

•• The European Space Programme

•• The EU criminal code

•• The European Defence Agency

•• The common asylum policy

•• The mutual defence clause, which replicates Nato's Article Five

•• The External Border Agency

•• The Fundamental Rights Agency (néée Monitoring Centre for Racism and
Xenophobia)

•• Autonomous politico-military command structures

•• The European External Action Service (that is, the EU diplomatic corps)

•• The EU prosecuting magistracy
•• The Union Foreign Minister - that silky socialist, Javier Solana

•• The Charter of Fundamental Rights’

Mr Hannan concludes that:

‘"They weren't really voting against the constitution," I am told. "They were voting against Chirac. Or against Turkey. Or possibly against Anglo-Saxon liberalism". Against anything, apparently, except the proposition actually on the ballot paper.

Then again, the EU has never been especially interested in public opinion. The ruling ideology - peace in Europe through political integration - is thought to be too important to be left to the ballot box. If a plebiscite elicits the wrong response from the plebs, they must be suffering from what Marxists used to call "false consciousness". They misunderstand their true interests. They need better information, more education. And, in the meantime, the project goes on.

It is in this context that we should understand Mr Juncker's considered view - cheered to the echo by MEPs - that "the French and Dutch did not really vote 'No to the European Constitution". We may regard such comments as an entertaining hallucination. We may view the whole Carry On film in Brussels as hilarious. But, when the laughing stops, the constitution will be in place.’

It is to be noted that when the people vote in favour of the constitution, it is because they support it, apparently, yet when they vote against it, it is alleged that they really did not mean to do so and they were voting for all sorts of other reasons.

This merely goes to expose the sham of Tony Blair’s recent spin about responding to peoples’ concerns about the EU.

We need our own referendum on the EU sooner rather than later. It is wholly unacceptable that Labour are prepared to impose the new constitution by the back door irrespective of peoples’ wishes or the national interest.