The Lisbon Treaty was designed to stifle "real debate", says EU Commissioner

Belgium's newly appointed EU Commissioner Karel de Gucht has admitted that the Lisbon Treaty was designed so that people could not understand it, to avoid "real debate". He said that "Whilst the original Constitutional Treaty was technical, and correct, people didn't read the Lisbon Treaty, they didn't understand the first word about it. No real debate about the Lisbon Treaty could happen. This was a deliberate decision of the European Council".
Conservative Home 2 September 2009

French president Nicholas Sarkozy is lying by calling the Lisbon Treaty a "mini-treaty": It is the same as the Constitution

Giscard d'Estaing said on BBC Radio 4's Today programme on 10 November 2007 that the new treaty is "absolutely similar" to the text he wrote. Giscard d'Estaing is the author of the original Constitution. Source: Daily Telegraph 11 November 2007

24 July 2007: Open Europe reveals the fraud about the new 'mini-constitution': 96% of it is exactly the same as the old constitution.

The shocking truth about the future that our leaders is reserving for us. Direct quotes from the Constitution show you what the politicians do not dare telling you.

February 2007: Dictatorial EU leaders are preparing to do away with democracy in order to hammer through a superficially modified "constitution" without referendums. Source: Daily Telegraph. Let's quote Article I-2 of the failed "Constitution: "The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy ...". So, let's get this right: In order to hammer through a text that says that this is democracy, against the will of the people, we need to suspend democracy.

The following extracts are based on the original Constitution - which has the same contents as the Lisbon Treaty.

Expat Dane, deprived of voting rights¹⁾ as so many other EU nationals who have chosen to live elsewhere in the EU that is without internal frontiers, I will try to make the effort to plough my way through the European politburo's New Constitution. If I cannot vote, I can at least say my opinion in public. Don't stay up late, though. With its several hundred pages, the "Constitution" is not meant to be read by us ordinary mortals, leaving our political elite the opportunity to drag us around by the nose by telling only the parts that they want to tell you.

1) Danes living outside Denmark for more than 2 years cannot vote in Denmark at all. Non-French nationals living in France cannot vote in France, except at municipal and European Parliament elections.

Any highlighting is entirely my own, but the quoted articles have been copied and pasted directly from the Constitution masterpiece on http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2004:310:SOM:EN:HTML. All extracts are written in italics. I only quote extracts, not full articles. If I do not quote articles in their original order, it is to highlight inconsistencies.

I encourage everybody to read the proposed Constitution themselves, rather than listening to comments from politicians. The Constitution itself lies about being based on democracy, so what would prevent politicians from lying about the Constitution?

Article I-5

The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union's objectives. 

So, if a nation's actions do not please the great powers in Bruxelles, Bruxelles just tell them to shut up.

Article I-2

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

Article I-10

2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Constitution. They shall have: 

(a) the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States; 

(b) the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, under the same conditions as nationals of that State;

EU nationals who have moved to another member state thus remain without the most important voting rights in the country they live in and pay taxes to, no matter how long time they have lived there, and some nationalities also cannot vote in the country of which they are citizens. People are indirectly encouraged to take advantage of the Union by living where they please, but they lose most of their democratic rights when they do so. 

Is it democracy that certain EU citizens living in the EU do not have full voting rights?
Is it equality that certain EU citizens living in the EU do not have full voting rights?
Is it respect for rights of persons belonging to minorities that EU citizens living in the EU but in another Member State do not have full voting rights?
Is it non-discrimination that certain EU citizens living in the EU do not have full voting rights?

Article I-12

1. When the Constitution confers on the Union exclusive competence in a specific area, only the Union may legislate and adopt legally binding acts, the Member States being able to do so themselves only if so empowered by the Union or for the implementation of Union acts. 

3. The Member States shall coordinate their economic and employment policies within arrangements as determined by Part III, which the Union shall have competence to provide.

That's what it says, but is that what we want?

4. The Union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy. 

This is a key area. How would this have worked in the case of the second Iraq war? Would half of Europe have had to shut up as ordered by the French president? Whether you were for or against that war is besides the point. The next time, it will be something else. And there is more:

Article I-16

1. The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence. 

2. Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's action in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness.

Article I-40

5. Member States shall consult one another within the European Council and the Council on any foreign and security policy issue which is of general interest in order to determine a common approach. Before undertaking any action on the international scene or any commitment which could affect the Union's interests, each Member State shall consult the others within the European Council or the Council. Member States shall ensure, through the convergence of their actions, that the Union is able to assert its interests and values on the international scene.

The "shut up" clause spelled out.

Article I-26

2. Union legislative acts may be adopted only on the basis of a Commission proposal, except where the Constitution provides otherwise. Other acts shall be adopted on the basis of a Commission proposal where the Constitution so provides. 

There is nothing new, but this part of the undemocratic Union continues. The Commission is composed of appointed civil servants, not elected representatives. No democratically elected member of the European Parliament may propose legislation, as in a national parliament. Compare this with the nice intentions of democracy and so on in Article I-2.

Article I-27

1. Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission. This candidate shall be elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members. If he or she does not obtain the required majority, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall within one month propose a new candidate who shall be elected by the European Parliament following the same procedure.

In the USA, the president is elected by the people. In Europe, the people will have no say, and if the elected European Parliament does not get it right, the European president will be appointed by our heads of government. Democracy?

Article I-28

1. The European Council, acting by a qualified majority, with the agreement of the President of the Commission, shall appoint the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs. The European Council may end his or her term of office by the same procedure. 

2. The Union Minister for Foreign Affairs shall conduct the Union's common foreign and security policy. He or she shall contribute by his or her proposals to the development of that policy, which he or she shall carry out as mandated by the Council. The same shall apply to the common security and defence policy.

This Minister for Foreign Affairs will have enormous power. Yet, he is heading an unelected body.

Article I-29

The Judges and the Advocates-General of the Court of Justice and the Judges of the General Court shall be chosen from persons whose independence is beyond doubt and who satisfy the conditions set out in Articles III-355 and III-356. They shall be appointed by common accord of the governments of the Member States for six years.

In a true democracy, the judging powers should be separated from the executing and law-making powers. It is already a problem in the USA and some European countries that judges are appointed by the executing powers. This same defect will be carried over into our "Constitution" to assure that the EU gets only EU-friendly judges.

Article I-31

1. The Court of Auditors is an institution. It shall carry out the Union's audit. 

2. It shall examine the accounts of all Union revenue and expenditure, and shall ensure good financial management.

It is indeed a very sensible idea to keep having a Court of Auditors. However, no powers are given to them to end fraud, as I have discussed on my page about the problems with the European Single Market, and fraud remains a major problem. The Court of Auditors is a hollow institution to try to give a good façade to a rotten and corrupt financial management.

My Conclusions

As Charles Moore, former editor of the Daily Telegraph says below, this is not really a constitution. It is a document that instead of laying down sound guidelines for freedom and democracy stipulates in frightening detail how citizens and national, democratically elected parliaments and governments should obey their unelected European Masters.

This "Constitution" freezes the existing absence of democracy instead of providing for democracy, while at the same time beginning by saying it is based on democracy. The official name of the former Eastern Germany was indeed "Deutsche Demokratische Republik" (German Democratic Republic). As our new "Constitution", "democratic" was the last word that could possibly apply. Do our leaders really believe that their electors are stupid enough to jump to their feet clapping their hands just because they say "democratic", despite the fact that this totalitarian Europe that is being prepared for us is not democratic? This is indeed The Emperor's New Clothes. The Constitution is lying, and it is contradictory, as I have pointed out above.

The Europe that this "Constitution" is preparing is slowly drifting away from democratic ideals and towards the ideals of a totalitarian state. The last time Europe saw that on a grand scale was in the USSR. They failed, after having spent half a century ruining half of Europe, run by a corrupt regime on the basis of a bogus ideology called communism.

Further Important Reading

Daily Telegraph: Opinion by Charles Moore: "This is not a constitution, certainly not a constitution intended to be understood by those it affects. It is a vast agglomeration of decisions made by governments to take power over citizens of vastly differing countries."

Vote-no.com. British politically independent association against the European "Constitution".

NO
to the European Constitution in its present form

NO
to the absence of full democratic rights in the EU

NO
to an unelected European power executive

YES
to European cooperation and possibly union and integration under full DEMOCRATIC principles

Web

skovgaard.org