Amazingly, it was at the end of October that Valéry Giscard d'Estaing told Le Monde that the Lisbon treaty and the Constitution were effectively the same, but it is only today – nearly two weeks later, and on a Saturday morning – that the BBC Today programme takes up the story.YES, YES, YES: I SUPPOSE THAT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE MEANING OF THE WORD DISHONEST IS.
Ed Stourton interviews the man whom he describes as the "Godfather" of the constitution:
VGD: Let us be very precise about it. You know, the text in Lisbon was written in a different way than the text called Constitution for Europe. When we wrote it, the Constitution, we wrote it directly, article one, article two, article three and so on. What they did in Lisbon is a different work. They took our text, they started from our text and they tries to introduce the different articles or notions into the existing treaties.
So of course the approach is materially and intellectually different, but the substance, they started taking as a basis our test. It's just another presentation and combination of presentation but the text is word to word the same one. If you attach importance to the fact that they are the existing treaties, that is true. But if you take the substance, the nine or ten proposals that were in our text, they are in exactly in the same wording in the new presentation.
ES: If that is the case, if the substance is the same as the constitution…
ES: …the logic of that is surely there should be certainly a referendum in France, which rejected the original constitution, and certainly a referendum in Britain where one was promised if the constitution went ahead
VGD: Well, the question of the way to ratify a treaty is an open question. In France, normally to ratify a treaty, it's through parliament. And its up to the president of the republic to decide if he wants or judges that it's better to go through a referendum. So the normal process for France is parliamentary process. Since the Lisbon treaty is legally a new one, even if the substance is absolutely similar, we can took, the government can took the process, the parliamentary process, without having legal problems.
ES: Well that may be the technical position but it's politically dishonest, isn't it?
VGD: Well, it's not so clear either.
BTW: UNLIKE THE BBC, THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS COVERED GISCARD-D'ESTAING'S PREVIOUS ANTI-DEMOCRATIC PRONOUCEMENTS ON THIS ISSUE.
AND NEVER FORGET: THE EU WAS FROM ITS INCEPTION A PROGRAM OF THE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC STATISTS OF EUROPE:
It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it.
Similary, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all.
When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan. We used to have an organisation which was planning everything in the economy, to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU.
When you look at the type of EU corruption, it is exactly the Soviet type of corruption, going from top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top.
- THE PEOPLE SENSE THIS, AND HENCE HAVE VOTED AN EU CONSTITUTION DOWN.
- THE POLITICIANS KNOW THEY WILL AGAIN, AND HATCHED UP THIS LISBON TREATY TO CIRCUMVENT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
- THE EU IS GOVERNMENT WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. AND THAT IS TYRANNY.