eurealist.co.uk

The Democratic EU

Members of the EU Parliament Constitutional Affairs Committee have been at it again. Yesterday I wrote about their thoughts on selling the Constitution to the people, now they are preparing to force it down our throats.

They have now brought back an earlier suggestion that all countries should ratify at the same time, this is the nearest they can get to an EU wide referendum, and the EU will of course attempt to treat it as such.

Do these people believe in democracy or not! to change the treaties each country must agree and if a referendum is to be held that is within the country concerned and has no relevance to the rest of the EU as far as the results are concerned. This is not and cannot an EU wide referendum, the fact that people in Germany, France or Spain may vote yes does not count towards the results of the British referendum. If we vote no then it is no and it does not matter how many others vote yes, it is still no and that is a block on the Constitution being accepted by all member states.

Needless to say the idea of harmonising the ratification process was positively received, Bernard Bot the Dutch foreign Minister said that there would be problems, because different arguments would be needed to persuade the Greeks as opposed to the Dutch the Finns or the Latvians. What on earth does that mean? possibly the EU will tailor its lies to each country to get its Constitution through?

A minority of MEP`s did suggest that there be equal funding for the yes and the no camps but this outrageous suggestion was turned down, because according to Mr Bot the Constitution had been adopted unanimously by all 25 governments and they were to forward the same message, that the Constitution was good.

To me that does not seem like any argument against equal funding, because all governments had agreed has no bearing on the funding of any subsequent campaign. If we are going to be faced with a massive EU funded advertising campaign that is individually tailored to each country then why should there not be and equally funded opposition, perhaps Mr Bot thinks that it is his money that will be spent on our education.

Mr Bot also said “The governments have signed and have a right to defend their decision and to say what they think of the situation” that may well be the case, but why should the governments be allowed to spend more than an opposition.

Mr Bot went on “We are not living in a totalitarian system. I am sure the media will be able to express the opinion of those against and in favour of the treaty. So what has that to do with equal funding?

It comes down to being pretty near totalitarian when you start to mess around with access to the media and that is what Mr Bot is suggesting by refusing to acknowledge funding for a campaign should be equal.

Why it is that those in favour have a better argument than those against? Mr Bot should realise that those who are against do believe in democracy we believe that the facts should be put honestly and openly to the people and they should deicide. We do not believe we have the right to stifle the opposing argument Mr Bot obviously believes he has.