Brexit Treachery Involves Slanderous Abuse, Just Ask The Irish!

Back in December 2008, the Guardian

published a story about the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. “What part of Ireland’s ‘no’ does the EU not understand?” and “Asking the Irish to vote again on the Lisbon treaty is arrogant, insulting and undemocratic”.

“It became worse as comparisons were made such as “Imagine if, following the election of Barack Obama by 52.9% of American voters, the Republican party, which got just 45.7% of votes, demanded another election. Imagine if the Republicans described Obama’s victory as a “triumph of ignorance” brought about by an “unspeakable” and “ignorant” mass of people who should have been “swatted away by the forces of the establishment” and insisted on holding a second election so that, this time, the voters could “get it right”.

“There would be uproar, outrage, widespread disgust at such elite disdain for the democratic process. Well, now you know how the Irish people must feel. In June this year, 53.4% of Irish voters rejected the Lisbon treaty, against 46.6% who supported it (giving the “No” camp a “sweeping victory” similar to Obama’s). Yet now the Irish will be asked to vote again. EU officials’ behind-doors deal to force a second referendum in Ireland reveals their utter contempt for Irish voters, and for democracy itself. It is an historic sucker punch against the sovereignty of the people.

“As soon as the Irish people’s ballots were counted in June, their rejection of Lisbon was treated as the “wrong” answer, as if they had been taking part in a multiple-choice maths exam and had failed to work out that 2+2=4. Now, they will be given a chance to sit the exam again, “until [they] come up with the right answer. The notion that the Irish “got it wrong” exposes gobsmacking ignorance about democracy in the upper echelons of the EU. The very fact that a majority of Irish people said no to Lisbon made it the “right answer”, true and sovereign and final. “No” really does mean no.

“The Irish were subjected to a tirade of slanderous abuse when they dared to reject officials’ carefully crafted and profound (in truth, overlong and turgid) document on the future of the EU. One Brussels official described them as “ungrateful bastards”, on the basis that Ireland has received lots of handouts from the EU and thus should be more obedient to its paymaster. Pro-EU commentators blamed “populist demagogues” for cajoling the Irish into voting no, and said the EU’s plans should not be “derailed by lies and disinformation”.

“It was widely claimed that the Irish simply didn’t understand the treaty, and may have been confused by its “technocratic, near incomprehensible language” (well, they are ignorant Paddies, after all). Some claimed that the Irish mistakenly, possibly even illegitimately, had used the referendum to register disgruntlement with their own ruling parties.

“Margot Wallström, vice-president of the European Commission, said officials should try to “work out what the Irish people had really been voting against”. I would have thought that was obvious: they were handed the Lisbon treaty, they said no to it.

“We’ve been here before. When French and Dutch voters rejected the European constitution in 2005 (and according to Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the current Lisbon treaty is the “same as the constitution”), they were sneeringly insulted by their betters in Brussels. Neil Kinnock said it was a “triumph of ignorance”, [and who would know more about ignorance than Kinnock?].

“Andrew Duff, Liberal Democrat MEP, labelled the “rejectionists” as an “odd bunch of racists, xenophobes, nationalists, communists, the disappointed centre left and the generally pissed off”. He asked whether it is wise to “submit the EU Constitution to a lottery of uncoordinated national plebiscites”.

“Clearly not, since the plebs might just reject it. The EU’s attempts to force the constitution/Lisbon treaty through despite its democratic rejection, and now their offer of a few addendums to the Irish people, make it come across as a corrupt, archaic oligarchy, ensconced in its palaces, looking down at the people of Europe as a strange, dumb, untrustworthy blob.

“A document produced by a cut-off and aloof European elite, those cosmopolitan poseurs who are in reality distrustful of Europe’s masses, whether it’s the thick Irish, the xenophobic French, or the mysterious Turks. The Irish were being properly European; the EU is being merely elitist”.

That must ring bells here in the UK?

After all, in its latest and most patronising policy, Labour claims it “must prioritise reversing Brexit through another referendum, over winning power in a general election, its deputy leader Tom Watson is to say. He will warn that a snap election before the end of the year may fail to resolve the current deadlock. Putting himself at odds with, he will say there is “no such thing as a good Brexit deal” and Labour must campaign unequivocally to remain. Corbyn has promised a further referendum on Brexit.

The UK Labour leader told the TUC conference on Tuesday that if Labour won the next election, it would offer a vote with a “credible Leave option” versus Remain. He met with trade union leaders on Tuesday, who urged him to keep Leave on any ballot. {How decent of them, but “Leave” has been chosen, by 17.4million voters!] Labour’s election manifesto will promise to reach a better Brexit deal, but is not expected to commit to either Leave or Remain.

Apparently, “Elections should never be single issue campaigns” suggesting vital issues such as the future of the NHS, economic inequality and crime will be “drowned out” by Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s “do or die” Brexit message. “The only way to break the Brexit deadlock once and for all is a public vote in a referendum” he will say. [This once and for all referendum vote was spouted by all parties and their leaders BEFORE the 2016 referendum. Who would believe them now?] “A general election might well fail to solve this Brexit chaos”.

Watson says he and many others “respected the result of the 2016 referendum for a long time”. “But there eventually comes a point when circumstances are so changed, when so much new information has emerged that we didn’t have in 2016, when so many people feel differently to how they felt then, that you have to say, no, the only proper way to proceed in such circumstances is to consult the people again”.

Is it pertinent to ask Mr Watson why didn’t we go through this point of changed circumstances after three years of every lousy government of whatever ilk as we watched the ruination of our economy and our way of life? Or is that too awkward for him?

Dividing to ratify the provisions that we dare not present directly

Giscard d’Estaing

stated “The latest brainwave is to preserve part of the innovations of the constitutional treaty, but hide them by breaking them up into several texts. The most innovative provisions would become simple amendments to the treaties of Maastricht and Nice. The technical improvements would be regrouped in a colourless, harmless treaty. The texts would be sent to national parliaments, which would vote separately. Thus public opinion would be led to adopt, without knowing it, the provisions that we dare not present directly. This process of ‘dividing to ratify’ is obviously unworthy of the challenge at stake. It may be a good magician’s act. But it will confirm European citizens in the idea that the construction of Europe is organised behind their backs by lawyers and diplomats”.

How apt! Are we to become the “ungrateful bastards”?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s