|    Home


EU Constitution: Blueprint for The New World Order

Brussels Quango - The Great Con

By Steve Reed
United Kingdom Independence Party, County-Chairman, Somerset
January 2005

We shall hear many apologies for the wretched document, known as "A Constitution For Europe" - most of them cunningly disguised as equivocal critiques - but this "constitution" is not a curate's egg (i.e. good and bad, in parts) it is the lock on the door of the gas-chamber.

It is, of course, not "A Constitution For Europe", but a book of rules for binding the subject peoples of the Brussels QUANGO (BQ)

It must be rejected in its entirety, because it confirms the existence of a system of permanent, managerial government, in which "civil servants" outrank elected representatives - in which the "democratic" element is consultative only - and which is thus totalitarian in all but name.

It does this, not only by means of the stated provisions - which are bad enough - but through the inclusion of provisions for further, unspecified changes, without further reference to the electorate, at the discretion of the BQ's institutions.  That is to say - it can mutate at will, in the retort of an unaccountable elite.

It sums itself up in its "Preface", which states that it is intended (a) "to bring citizens closer to the European design" (b) "to organise politics" and (c) "to develop [�] a model in the new world order".[emphasis added -Ed.]

How can a "constitution", which promises (a) "to bring citizens closer to" any "design" - i.e. to "design" the citizen - be anything other than a totalitarian document?  Note too, "The European design"!  What, pray, is that?  Unfortunately - like the experience of being immersed in boiling oil - there is only one way to find out. Note especially that, in the minds of the writers, it is "the European design".  That is to say, whatever this "design" may be, which they intend to impose upon us, they're quite sure what it is and that there's only one of them!

How can a "constitution", which promises (b) "to organise politics", be anything other than a totalitarian document?  The democratic state provides, and defends, the means, by which politics - even unto constitutional change - can be expressed without conflict. This is not "to organise politics".  In a democracy, it is politics (i.e. the will of the people) which "organise" the state.  In a democracy, the state does not decree - in a "constitution", or any other document - that it shall "organise politics", still less how they shall be organised; it provides, instead, that it will be bound by them.

How can a "constitution", which promises "to develop [the state] into � a model in the new world order", be anything other than a totalitarian document?  Again - what is this "new world order" - and why is it called "the new world order"?  Clearly - as in the case of "the European design" - in the minds of the writers, what "the new world order" is - and that there is only one "new world order" (which has already been defined by them) - is something "citizens" are not supposed to bother their little heads about!

In summary, the "Preface" to "A Constitution For Europe", promises to "design" and politically organise "citizens" to conform to an unspecified "new world order" - so, if you want to be designed and organised politically by the state, in order to take your place in "the new world order", dreamed of by the writers of this document, fine!  If you don't, you can't say you weren't warned, because all of this appears on page one!

Also on page one - how the "constitution" is going to achieve these aims -

1) - by producing "a better division of competences between the Union and the Member State".
You have to read the whole document to assess what "better" means, in this context; but if you guessed - as well you already might - that this "better division" confers 90% of powers (and an option on the rest) directly upon the Brussels QUANGO, you would be right.
2) - by "giving legal personality to the Union".
This one's easy - it means "by conferring statehood on the Brussels QUANGO" -  thereby conferring provincial status on the subject nations.
3) - by "developing the contribution of national parliaments"!
At this point, we enter the realms of comedy.  Having ceded virtually all power to the QUANGO, the "legacy parliaments" (as they are already called, in Brussels-speak) are going to have their "contribution" developed, by being allowed "consultation" on the QUANGO's forthcoming legislation (do, please, see the relevant, "Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments", which immediately follows the main "titles" of the "constitution", if you have a dark, and robust, sense of humour!)
4) - by "enhancing the role of the Union's three institutions" and "simplifying their instruments of action".
"Enhancing" - but by no means equally - the roles of (a) the "Councils" (of Ministers and of Heads of Government) and the consultative assembly (aka "european parliament") - all of which are quasi-democratic, in that they are composed either of people, who were elected (but not to these positions) or who were elected to these positions (but have no power) and (b) the totally undemocratic "Commission", whose power is becoming absolute, as rapidly as the powers of the "legacy-nations", and thus their "legacy ministers and heads-of-government", diminish.

Well - that's the "Preface".  Next comes the "Preamble" - a Humanist and Globalist manifesto, consisting of one, long sentence, with no subject!  Some treacherous heads-of-government (presumably) "Being conscious that�drawing inspiration from � believing that �convinced that � [and] grateful to �" various dubious propositions, and "who, having exchanged their full powers, have agreed as follows," are never referred to grammatically, let alone by name.  I find this powerfully symbolic of the shameful deception this document represents - no-one will even admit to uttering it!

Then we're into "Title I" - and I really must leave you to voyage on alone among the wondrous "rights", which this document purports to confer, and also reserves the power to revoke - but I cannot go without drawing attention to Title III, "Equality", Article II, which outlaws "discrimination on any ground such as" (an arbitrary list of "groups") except where a group is deemed (by the "authorities", no doubt) to be "under-represented".  This gives a regime power to confer upon, or deny to, any individual, the membership of any organisation, or access to any service. It is the ultimate dismissal of the individual, except as defined by his "group".

Sadly, Peter Hain was right, in a way, when he called this "constitution", "just a tidying-up exercise" (although he was not taking account of its probable, uncontrollable growth, in the future) because nearly all of the powers it confers on the QUANGO, have already been taken, through tens-of-thousands of regulations, which people have been led to believe are laws enacted by our own, democratic institutions.  Some of them have been so enacted, of course - in order to anticipate the "constitution" - but not openly so.  Most of the rest are already being introduced in a similarly stealthy manner.

If this "constitution" is accepted, this de facto tyranny, will be entrenched, and the development of democracy will be stunted, and possibly abandoned permanently, initially, under a pan-continental, and ultimately, under a global, de jure dictatorship.

If, on the other hand, this "constitution" is rejected, the de facto dictatorship, which has been established, will continue to be exposed to erosion - although it will take UKIP-Members of Parliament to erode it - and we may hope to get democracy back into government, which is surely worth fighting for.