eurealist.co.uk

Archaic at 23

The amusingly named lefty blog Obsolete written by someone who goes by the name of septicisle. Is claiming that although he? Has not read the Lisbon treaty—–

—-wait for it

“one of the few facts I am certain of is that there are two main important differences between the constitution and the treaty, and one also which affects us personally vis-a-vis the treaty. Firstly, that the treaty, unlike the constitution, is not legally binding, and secondly that the treaty provides one important detail that wasn’t present in the constitution. To what you would expect would be the delight of some in the Conservatives and certainly UKIP, it provides a precise and exact mechanism for leaving the EU,”

I am always cheered by the suggestion that others really do know what will delight EUscpetics and litter their tomes with their own interpretations of our thoughts or what our reactions ought to be! Then, of course when we do not act in the specified manner they start to think there is something wrong with our understanding, after all have we just not be told what to think.

It is also delightful to learn from someone who really knows his stuff, that the Lisbon Treaty will not be legally binding, perhaps as that is the case we should just look upon it as having no more significance than a copy of the Beano. I mean what on earth is all the fuss about? The Lisbon Treaty is not legally binding! I wish we had known that before the MPs wasted, what was it in the end? twelve whole days to debating the Beano for gods sake.

Of course we sceptics are also absolutely delighted to discover that the other one of the two main important differences between the Constitution and the Reform/Lisbon is the inclusion of the withdrawal clause, which sets out a “precise and exact mechanism for leaving the EU”, the Constitution of course did not have a withdrawal clause.

But wait we have not yet begun to even scrape the surface of our delight, because septicisle has left the best till last-

“what” he? asks us with bated breath “would be the biggest benefit of the treaty,”

Of course it is none other than the previously mentioned Beano! But in this case the Beano offered by an earlier version of an EU Minister Keith Beano Vas.

It is The Charta of Fundamental Rights, which we are told “is an extension to the European Convention on Human Rights”

And once again so very kindly interpreting things for us we are explained to that

“This was one of the government’s red lines,” but not only that it was one of the government red lines because, well “mainly because of the sections on “solidarity” which so offend the business “community” and would ride a coach and horses through the restrictions on trade unions we’ve had since Thatcher’s days.”

Now these are three items which are beyond question because septiscale has stated that he is certain of them.