Home page Dishonourable leadership & dishonest foreign policy The most George Brown could venture on the question as to whether there should be referendum on the new European "amending treaty" which is the name switch for the European Constitution, was that other similar treaties had not justified referendums. David Miliband was asked about the manifesto promise concerning a referendum and his reply was that the heads of state declaration on the new treaty was that "there is no new consitution" therefore there is no justification of a referendum. For politiciains wishing to establish a platform of "plain speaking" and "honesty", Brown and Miliband are failing fast. Collusion Constitution is the collection of principles, treaties and laws which determine systems of governance. Brown and Miliband's unashamed collusion in the cynical elitist tactics openly devised by Angela Merkel to get the same result as the European Constitution by "repackaging" its contents is a total disgrace. Brown and Miliband seem to think they are dealing with a British electorate which is to a man and a woman plain idiotic. Brown and Miliband need to take into account that the government enjoys the electoral support of just 19% of the electorate and that 81% of the electorate look on at their irresponsible, insulting antics. Valery Giscard d'Estaing delighted Brown and Miliband need to take into account one or two things. The architect of the original European Constitution, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, is reported to be delighted with the "amending treaty" because according to European Parliamentary sources he considers the essential points to have been retained. The essential effect of the document will be the same as the original European Constitution. Therefore, no matter what the document is called, the fact that the original document justified a referendum because of its significance and likely impact then so should the "amending treaty" be subject to a referendum. Brown and Miliband cannot produce any arguments other than bluff and dishonest quibbles to counter this statement of fact. Tradition of dishonesty must be broken Gordon Brown's limp and somewhat irresponsible statement that former treaties did not have referenda, and therefore nor should this one, is paradoxically a statement of the whole problem and indeed the position of the electorate which he seems to totally misunderstand. CybaCity and E-mancipation have both recorded a severe decline of confidence of the British population in how British governments have handled European affairs and the general stealth nature of the whole European project. This breaking of faith with the British public was initiated by Edward Heath and this continuation of rampant political dishonesty has become normal and acceptable practice as far as political parties are concerned. This shameful behaviour concerning European affairs has become a tradition sustained by whichever British political party has been in power; but it is a tradition which must be broken. Even if the 19% of the electorate who voted for this Labour government do not mind being lied to and misled the other 81% probably do mind. Decadence in European Legal standards Beyond the irresponsibility of the likely willingness of Brown and Miliband to sign up to what will be a significant increase in the power of European Law over British institutions and the life of the people of Britain there is emerging a far more serious problem. The "amending treaty" promises more direct involvement of Europe in criminal law, the Union will be provided with the status of a legal entity equivalent to a state with the ability to negotiate treaties and have the equivalent of the foreign minister (of course under another name). We have reached a stage where the British governments and even less the people of Britain, are unable to defend themselves from arbitrary European legal decisions; this exposure will increase with ratification of the "amending treaty". Government appeals to the European Court of Justice and those of the people to the Court of the First Instance are increasingly to no avail because the European system of justice has been severely, and perhaps irreversably, damaged. Since the last two European Union enlargements, the European Union's justice system has been corrupted by judges who fail rudimentary tests of impartiality. This is the result of almost 45 years of judicial complicity in fixes with the communist party. Sitting and watching as millions of their subjects were carted off to the Gulag and failing to act, even today, on issues of rampant human rights abuse such as segregation and denial of education to minority children. The fact that these countries have now joined the European Union has not made any difference at all to these bad habits. Some 37% of the complement of European Court judges are made up of these people. They take their decisions in small secret panels and apparently by majority vote. They sustain no notion of decisions involving a necesssity of being "beyond a reasonable doubt"; the majority wins. It does not matter how logical any dissenting opinion of any other judges might be. In any case the European Union Courts do not publish dissenting opinions. Such courts have no appeal. This state of affairs is unacceptable since there are no safeguards against judicial abuse and arbitrary decisions resulting from political interference and corruption. British politicians undermining individual freedom British governments have been complicit in threatening the individual freedom of Britons by preparing the ground for the European judicial aim of getting rid of the only British institution which protects individual freedom, the jury. People like Jack Straw, incredibly now the British Minister of Justice, have in the past attempted to reduce the role of juries on completely groundless premises. This same man recently presented a very disappointing paper on constitution called "The Governance of Britain" which does nothing to address the serious erosion in the individual freedom of the people of Britain. The proposals do nothing to secure for the people of Britain a Parliament which comes anywhere close to reflecting the will of the people. This pretentious and dull paper restricts itself to shifting some historic constitutional relics around within the ambit of control of the political parties, all beyond any relevance to the people of the country. Why does the government wish to expose the people of Britain to abuse? Without an impartial judicial system which provides for decisions to be taken on a transparent basis and demonstrably as being beyond a reasonable doubt, any further encroachments of the influence of European Law cannot be regarded as anything other than pernicious. The people of Britain need to demand that the role of the community conscience, in the form of a jury, continues. Indeed, there are sound arguments now for juries to be extended into non-criminal areas 1. It is completely irresponsible for a British Prime Minister and his ministers to try and force the people of Britain into a position, through stealth, where they will lose their ability to defend the freedom of others on the basis bringing the community conscience to bear on legal decisions. A Prime Minister who is willing to expose the people of Britain, without any possible defence or appeal, to the increasingly arbitrary and decadent standards of European Union justice should be impeached. Brown & Miliband Gordon Brown and David Miliband need to confront this vitally important issue before trying to ratify yet another European treaty on the strength of their support by just 19% of the British electorate. They need to take on board that this is a serious and historic crisis. This cannot be resolved in the short or even medium term; bad habits die hard. Gordon Brown and David Miliband need to decide between the freedom of the people of Britain or the corrupt interests undermining the freedom of the people of Europe and Britain by helping them extend the absolute influence of an increasingly arbitrary judicial system which is answerable to no one. 1references: the general issue of the essential benefits of juries in Britain is covered in "The Case for Juries" pp. 187-205 and the economic analysis demonstrating that more juries actually lowers the costs of legal services and improves the quality of legal services is covered in "How Juries reduce the Costs of Settlements" pp. 199-201 both of which are sections in the book "The Briton's Quest for Freedom - Our unfinished journey...", McNeill, H.W., HPC, ISBN 978-0-907833-01-7, July, 2007. Updated: 03:40, 22nd July, 2007.