 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
the culture of deceit
"Our involvement with the 'European project' has introduced
an element of deliberate deceit into our politics which, in its depth
and scale, has no historical parallel... [it] is the most remarkable political
sleight of hand which has ever been practised on the British people: to
lead them step by step into exchanging their own country and political
system for another, totally different; and to pretend at every stage that
none of it is really happening."
Journalist Christopher Booker – read his report
Britain
and Europe: the Culture of Deceit
In Britain today, the official line is that each new step towards European integration merely clarifies existing commitments and poses no threat to national sovereignty or democracy. We hear for example that the proposed Constitution merely "streamlines" the rules of a "club" that now has 27 members rather than the original 6 – and even that it would, in fact, return some powers to nation states!
This myth, whilst it has been largely successful in defusing public concern, bears no relation either to the truth or to the way the integrationist project is spoken about elsewhere. In the case of the Constitution, for example, Brussels made its meaning entirely clear in an engraved plaque it commissioned to mark the signing of the document in 2004 (little suspecting that the people of Europe would later reject what had been agreed in their name). The plaque (which was to be displayed in Rome, where the treaty establishing the EEC was signed in 1957) read:
"On 29 October 2004 in this most sacred Capitoline Hill, which is the citadel of this bountiful city... the high contracting parties of the nations joined in the European Union signed a treaty about the form of constitution to be adopted, so that the races of Europe might coalesce into a body of one people with one mind, one will and one government."
So to recap then, merely a tidying-up exercise that takes power away from the centre and returns it to nation states. Never mind that the end of this statement seems to be a deliberate evocation of a well-known slogan dating from the last attempt to unite Europe – "Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Führer" (interestingly, the Constitution would indeed have replaced the current system of a rotating presidency with a single leader).
Of course, this is not really a case of confusion, merely of tailoring the message to the audience. Where the integrationist project is popular, it is openly admitted. Where it is not, Brussels prefers a strategy of deception and denial beautifully summed up by Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg:
"We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't know what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."
| the official line | |
the truth |
|
||
| "What you cannot do is
have a situation where you get a rejection of the treaty and bring
it back with a few amendments and say, 'Have another go.' You cannot
do that." Tony Blair, who despite this sentiment hung on until June with the sole purpose of ratifying the "new" Constitution on Britain's behalf before he went |
"... to use different terminology
without changing the legal substance... [making only] the necessary
presentational changes..." A leaked letter from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, setting out her view on how the new ceci-n’est-pas-une-Constitution should differ from the one rejected by the French and Dutch electorates |
|
|
||
| "The idea that there
is some hidden agenda to destroy national identity in the EU is
one of the most common scare stories peddled by the Eurosceptics." "What it does is say this far and no further." "I set out a series of red lines for the United Kingdom. In
the negotiations [over the Constitution] we delivered on each and
every one of them." "This Constitution is a victory for Britain and the British
view of Europe." |
“This
is a big change from the basic concept of nation states. It’s
a change of centuries of history.” "We must end the nonsense of this far and no
further." "Absolutely... We are witnessing the last remnants
of national politics." “It is a birth of a political
union, not only an economic and social union; an event unique in
the history of our Continent, a turning point in the history of
humanity.” "The Constitution is the capstone of a European
Federal State." "If you don't want to call it a European army,
fine – you can call it Margaret, you can call it Mary-Ann." "Our continent has seen successive attempts at
unifying it: Caesar, Charlemagne and Napoleon, among others. We,
for our part, seek to unify it by the pen. Will the pen succeed
where the sword has finally failed?" |
|
| "True, the EU has a common
currency, an anthem, a flag and now a proposed Constitution. But that
does not mean by far that, one day, EU countries will be absorbed
within a 'United States of Europe'." European Commissioner Margot Wallstrom |
"The EU Constitution
is the birth certificate of the United States of Europe. The Constitution
is not the end point of integration, but the framework for –
as it says in the preamble – an ever closer union." German Europe Minister Hans Martin Bury |
|
"[The Charter of Fundamental
Rights would have] about as much legal status as The Beano." "[The Charter of Fundamental Rights] should not have legal
status, and we do not intend it to... It should be political in
nature, not legally binding." |
"The Government has always accepted
that the Charter of Fundamental Rights would have legal force under
the treaty if it were ratified." Then Denis MacShane, former Minister for Europe |
|
| In some cases you can even get the offical line and the truth from the same person. | ||
"There is no question
of eroding any national sovereignty; there is no blueprint for a
federal Europe. There are some in this country who fear that in
going into Europe, we shall in some way sacrifice independence and
sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified."
|
"Of course, yes." |
|
| “This is not a major
change... there is no need for a referendum.” Peter Hain, leader of the House of Commons |
“Our task is nothing less than the
creation of a new constitutional order for a new, united Europe.” Peter Hain, leader of the House of Commons |
|
| Of course, it's perfectly possible to argue that Britain would be better off as part of a United States of Europe rather than an independent nation. But politicians who hold this view have a duty to make an honest case for it, rather than hiding the true nature of the integrationist project. "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth
and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its
people." |
||