Democracy and the EU

If there was any doubt as to just how profoundly undemocratic the EU and those who promote it’s dubious benefits are, then they should be dispelled by the fact that those behind the European project clearly do not intend to let a little thing like a democratic rejection of the Lisbon Treaty by the people of the Irish Republic become an obstacle in their unstoppable path.

Democracy only suits the Eurocrats if things go the way they want. Then it is a useful justification, or fig leaf, for their plans. The heart of the European project is not so much undemocratic as antidemocratic. The commissioners hold office by appointment, by dictat.

They did appear more subtle than the likes of Robert Mugabe, at least until the home office started having opposition MP’s arrested, for the time honoured use of leaks from a whistleblower to highlight where the current government were risking security by such poor vetting they were employing illegal immigrants in it’s offices.

Now it seems the Irish people’s clearly voiced democratic rejection of the treaty will not be allowed to stand. They will be bludgeoned with repeated referenda until the Eurocrats get a result they can spin as and acceptance. Meanwhile they go ahead anyway, behind the scenes, as if the Treaty had never been rejected.

The new Taoiseach has said he intends to steer a second Irish referendum to a successful “Yes” conclusion next May. Ireland was the only country where the people were actually allowed the chance to reject the treaty, which they did decisively.

The UK was promised a vote by New-Labour in their election manifesto, but Gordon Brown, cunningly if dishonourably, reneged on this when in office to avoid such a problem.

In a similar vein it will be interesting to see how the much propagandised congestion charging stealth tax beloved of New Labour manages to body swerve the massively decisive rejection dealt it by the people of Manchester in their recent referendum.

Apparently entirely by coincidence, my spell checker keeps trying to change Eurocrats to Autocrats or Euro rats…

House of Lords may yet force a rethink on Lisbon Treaty referendum

It’s quite not over yet…

The house of Lords may still force New Labour and the Lib-Dems to honour their manifesto commitments to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

New Labour have consistently tried to pull the teeth of the house of Lords and destroy it’s more impartial, longer term view, in order to force through legislation unopposed, since they came to power. Now it seems they may not have done quite enough.

The Bill to rubber stamp the treaty without a referendum squeaked through the Commons in March with a majority of 63, thanks to the slavish unwillingness of new Lab and Lib-Dem MPs to honour what Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg presumably now regard as inconvenient election promises.

Now there is a possibility the house of Lords may yet try force them to honour their election commitment to a referendum anyway, by amending and returning the bill to the house of commons.

Lib Dem peer Lord Falkland, who clearly likes to be able to look himself in the eye in the mirror, unlike so many of his colleagues in the commons, said: ”I will be voting for a referendum and, if I am brave enough to withstand the glares of my colleagues, I will speak in the debate.”. “When you give an undertaking, as we clearly did in our last manifesto, you cannot have it both ways. A manifesto commitment has to be sacrosanct.”

Still, it is the whole weight of the European political elite and the European ‘Project’ behind the ‘Treaty’ - don’t hold your breath waiting for a referendum folks.

Nine in every ten UK voters want a referendum of Lisbon Treaty

A recent series of large scale mini-referendaorganised by I want a referendum.com on the issue of a demand for national referendum to ratify the so-called Lisbon Treaty reveals that 88% of voters would like UK ratification of the treaty be subject to a referendum. The turnout to these was higher than in a national election.

The Treaty is effectively identical to the rejected European constitution and hands large chunks of parliamentary power to the EU.

Presumably the voters don’t trust MP’s with the powers they have loaned them. Don’t trust them not to sell all our birthrights for a mess of pottage (lentil stew or soup). Hardly surprising really, when they apparently can’t even be trusted over expenses.

Will this result influence parliament?

Not very likely, based on Gordon Brown’s - and now for some unfathomable reason Nick Clegg’s ludicrous insistence that a referendum is not needed. They are desperately and entirely unconvincingly trying to maintain the lie that the treaty is not effectively identical to the constitution that they agreed did need one. This in the face of continental insistence that it is.

Gordon Brown seems to have forgotten that power is not his by natural right. His power is loaned to him by the electorate. It is given based upon promises his party made before the last election that they would allow a referendum.

Clegg is trying to confuse the issue with suggestions of a referendum on remaining in the EU, presumably because he feels this can be used to fudge the issue as it is less likely the electorate would actually completely repudiate the UK’s EU membership. Brown does not even want to chance that.

If he will not allow a referendum on the treaty, then no matter what he says, his position is not legitimate. Nor his authority. Nor will the treaty be.

New Labour Manifesto Promises are: “Not subject to Legitimate Expectation”

This has been aired elsewhere - but quite frankly can’t be drawn to the attention of the voters often enough, so I make no apology for raising it here.

UKIP took Gordon Brown to court over his reneging on New Labour’s manifesto promise to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution now renamed the Lisbon Treaty.

The case was brought by former New Labour activist, Stuart Bower. He stated:

"From the papers I have been sent, it seems that the Prime Minister is denying the pledge made in his government's manifesto. Surely this is a desperate act as everybody knows the commitment was made and that is why many people gave their votes to his party.

"To me, it is a clear case of breach of contract. They made a written promise and broke it. That was a contract between the government and the people. “

Everybody does know the commitment was made - and it certainly was a factor that many of those who in the end voted New Labour took account of when they voted.

What is (hat tip to the ‘Is there more to life than shoes?’ blog) soooo worth noting though - and seems to be of such little interest to MSM, was Gordon Brown’s Barrister; who blithely informed the court that: "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation "!!

In other words, the Prime Minister’s personal representative, is saying in open court, that the electorate can’t really expect any manifesto promises to be kept.

Now we all know that it may not be possible to deliver of a manifesto promise, due to unforeseen circumstances, including the non co-operation of opposition MPs, but there is a world of difference between that and actively wriggling out of keeping them, deliberately avoiding keeping them.

Even these days, we at least expect them to make the effort.

So there you have it. You don’t just have to rely on personal observation any more - It is official.

You would have to be a mug to be swayed by the blandishments contained in any future New Labour’s manifesto - you really can not expect them to even attempt to honour them.

Gordon, the Pork Pieman, may have been reading his Machiavelli again; Perhaps: “The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.”.

How strong is Cameron’s commitment to a Referendum?

Is Dave the Chameleon 'soft at the edges' on the EU Constitutional treaty referendum issue?

It almost looks like one of those conspiracy theories. You know – where the newly sworn in president is informed we were taken over by aliens in 1963 and although everything looks like business as usual, there are certain things he is not allowed to do…

I am just trying to come up with one for the ‘European Project’ that forces any politicians to back the European Project, or be pushed out of power by those who have already been taken over. I wonder if Dave got a visit from some MIBs recently…

Note to tin foil hat wearers and best selling authors: Try something involving the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire, descendants of Jesus, obscure sects and secret societies. Don't forget the hat tip.

It seems he came under some pressure at the first of his alternative press conferences to Broon’s Breeks Briefings, to give a clear indication that an incoming 'Conservative' government would ensure the voters were allowed a referendum. Curiously he avoided doing so saying that now was the time for a referendum on what is the old EU constitution in all but name.

True enough, he does have a point in that it is far better done now and in fact should have already been done. However it might ramp the pressure up to promise (a real promise as opposed to a NU-Lab manifesto type promise) one.

He is probably conscious of what a political can of worms it would open, if in two years time a referendum produced a no result – that, plus he doesn’t want to suffer the same fate as Maggie, or more significantly JFK…

Miliband condemns them as the refuge of dictators – Referenda. It means what we say it means

Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, speaking about the clamour for a referendum on the recently rubberstamped ‘treaty’ attempted to claim they were the “refuge of dictators and demagogues ”, as has been much noted in the blogsphere.

He went on: “We have a parliamentary democracy. We elect MPs every four of five years, the people elect us to do a job. If they like it they re-elect us if they don’t kick us out,”

What he carefully failed to mention was that his party, presumably being comprised of, in his view, dictators and demagogues had promised a referendum on the EU Constitution.

Well if the cap fits…

The people indeed elected Nu-Lab to do a job – that included ensuring that the people had the opportunity to express their will in a referendum. To ensure that no more of Parliament’s privileges and power were given away to Brussels without the people having a specific say in the matter.

The vote may have gone a different way, had they known in advance that the likes of Brown and Miliband would renege on their manifesto promise using the pathetically thin excuse that it was no longer a referendum because a tiny proportion of the words in the treaty had been changed.

Milliband and Brown are presumably still quite happy to claim that they were the actual people who were elected, given how many of the cells in their bodies have died and been replaced since that election. They can’t so easily claim to have a mandate.

The ‘treaty’ probably contains no less a proportion of the original constitution than they do of the physical matter that they were made of when elected.

Another pledge on Europe from Brown no one will believe.

Following his rubber-stamping the EU constitutional Treaty Gordon Brown is claiming he will has ‘pledged’ to block any further extension of Europe’s power for at least a decade.

What is truly amazing about this is that he has bothered to say it - Surely he does not expect anyone to actually believe anything he promises, after he has been so assiduous in avoiding honouring his party’s election manifesto pledge.

It is clear he does not think a referendum would support the so-called ‘treaty’ - So he has to have rubber stamped the thing whilst clearly believing he was doing so, against the wishes of the majority of the electorate.

He must have a very curious concept of the concept of ‘representing the electorate’ and as an MP and PM is he not elected specifically to represent our interests and concerns?

He gives every appearance of seeking to subvert the UK democratic process on behalf of the European Project.

No matter your views on Europe, if you care about democracy - and the legitimacy of the ‘treaty’, then many will want to express their opinion in a referendum. Only parliament, if it has the stomach for it, can demand one now.

You can contact your MP quickly and easily through the website Write To Them it only takes a few minutes and they monitor how good your MP is at replying. You can cut and paste from the example below, modify it if you like. The example is copyright free.

Why not write asking them to demand a referendum in parliament. No matter Brown’s wriggling on the hook one was promised.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear,

I write to inform you that I wish to have the opportunity to express my views on the ‘Treaty’ that the Prime Minister has just rubber-stamped.

It is in my view, effectively a direct replacement for the constitution that we were promised a referendum on by the government in their manifesto.

Gordon Brown appears to be intent on denying me the right to express my opinion in a referendum, apparently because he believes it will be rejected. That being the case he is acting against the will of the electorate and he knows it.

He is signing away among other things the right to make treaties to Europe that will bind Parliament.

As my representative in parliament I ask that you demand a referendum and support anyone else that does likewise.

Yours faithfully

Gordon Brown betrays Electorate

Gordon Brown today betrayed parliamentary democracy and those who elected him, proving no one can ever trust a Nu-Lab manifesto ‘promise’ again.

He seems to be set to get away with it, as the opposition parties appear too weak to prevent him from doing so and he has ignored a petition for a referendum signed by thousands.

EU leaders in Lisbon emerged, not long after midnight, full of self congratulation, hugging and slapping each other on the back. Barroso crowed what a "great achievement" the Constitutional treaty was.

It seems only Ireland has the courage of it’s convictions. Brown is clearly desperate to avoid any sort of encounter at all with the will of the electorate.

Brown is lying if he says this does not hand parliaments right to the EU – The ‘treaty’ gives the EU power to sign international treaties on it’s own. Being members this can effectively bind Parliament and Britain in treaties they have not been able to debate or decide upon. That is relinquishing power that Brown does not have the right to give away.

It’s like lending someone your car and finding they have sold it.

If those entrusted with power by the electorate can not be trusted to guard that power and use it as intended, then they no longer have any moral right to it and should hand it back.

Brown heading to EU summit set to betray electorate over Constitutional Treaty

Dave the Chameleon has called Gordon Broon Breeks on the promised NU-Lab Referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty that Gordon is blocking. Gordon’s arguments are thread bare, as Ireland is planning a referendum and other nations are looking at the idea.

Gordon Bottled on an election and he is bottling on a referendum. The only logical reason for him to bottle on a referendum is that he does not believe he would get the result he wants in that, any more than he had confidence in his ability to succeed in a general election.

It is quite clear, that if he felt he would win a referendum he would organise one in a trice - and then claim a mandate to betray parliamentary democracy. As it is he is left trying to come up with excuses to avoid a Referendum and getting in Barroso’s bad books.

Broon Breeks tried to claim it was not actually a constitutional treaty at all, only an (is this a new one?) “amending” treaty. He is making out that this is because we have ‘red lines’, or opt outs - as if they will be safe from being over ridden and nullified by the European court.

It is difficult to imagine he actually believes any of this guff.

Given Nu-Lab were elected on a manifesto promise of a referendum that the average voter will interpret as having been broken, for all Broon’s hot air, it is clear he is not acting in the interests of those who elected the Government - or British Parliamentary Democracy.

Brown Still planning to betray his party’s election promise to the UK electorate and agree EU constitutional ‘treaty’

Despite massive opposition, according to the Telegraph, it appears Gordon Brown is still planning on agreeing the EU constitutional ‘treaty’ in On October 18th, breaking Nu-Labs referendum manifesto promise made at the last election.

According to YouGov against the wishes of the majority of the population.

Given that NU-Lab were effectively elected under false pretences it is difficult to see how they can claim to have any real mandate to govern, let alone sign away powers, loaned to them by the electorate, to a foreign power, without a specific mandate.

It will be interesting to see if the electorate will remember the contempt with which they have been treated over this when they next have the opportunity to express themselves. Broon must be betting his whole shooting match that they won’t.

Increasing calls for Referendum on EU treaty

Nu-Lab’s Foreign Secretary, David Miliband is apparently still trying to claim that the EU constitution had been "abandoned" and MPs would be able to see how the new treaty was in the UK's best interests.

It is lost on no one that the so-called 'Treaty' is almost identical (a cut and paste job) to Miliband’s "abandoned" constitution.

Former Europe Minister Nu-Lab MP Keith Vaz is now also calling for a referendum on the EU treaty. Speaking to a tabloid newspaper he said: "I believe the time has come for the government to hold a referendum and decide once and for all Britain's place is at the heart of Europe.”

"The British people should have a chance to vote in a referendum on the treaty which will enable us to continue our engagement with Europe."

Nu-Lab MP, Ian Davidson, has suggested to the BBC that he believed up to 120 Nu-Lab MPs would support a call for a referendum.

There are also calls from opposition MPs and Trade Union representatives for a referendum. If both these apparently diametrically opposed groups feel so strongly on the subject it needs to be taken very seriously.

It is certainly difficult to imagine how Gordon Brown can legitimately continue to push his European agenda without a specific mandate on the issue. Not on a democratic basis.

Faint signs of a less supine stance from some government MPs on EU Referendum

After being closeted with Angela Merkel, the architect of the sly ‘It’s not really a constitution it’s only a Treaty’ con, Gordon Brown, spine no doubt stiffened by Angela and still wriggling to avoid a referendum at any cost bluffed that:

"The proper way to discuss this is in the House of Commons and the House of Lords."

Of course the last thing he wants is to put it directly to the people.

But it is not a matter for the “House of Commons and the House of Lords” as the mealy mouthed GB attempts to claim. The current Government were elected on the basis that it would be a matter for the electorate decided by referendum. No referendum - No mandate.

Trade union leaders have made it clear they are intending to press for a vote at next month's TUC annual congress, demanding the UK electorate are allowed to vote on the EU treaty, pointing out the obvious - that the new EU reform Treaty is:

"substantially the same as the EU Constitution rejected by the French and Dutch electorates in 2005". and condemning it as a blueprint for a: "centralised government, including an EU president, a Foreign Minister called a High Representative, a diplomatic service and an EU public prosecutor".

It seems that some Nu-Lab MPs may actually have some principles. Having been elected on the promise of putting the former constitution, now a treaty, to the electorate in a referendum some 40 of them, led by Ian Davidson, MP for Glasgow South West, are ready demand the Prime Minister re-open talks on the treaty, or hold a referendum.

There is also a suggestion that they hope to use a rewritten treaty to change EU directive on freedom of movement agreed in 2004, that prevented the murderer Learco Chindamo, being deported.

One does note though that they are not actually demanding a referendum quite yet, only if they don’t get what they want - and they should be demanding one, having all been elected on the promise of putting the former constitution, now a treaty, to the electorate in a referendum it should actually be put to the electorate, if MPs like the form and contents of the treaty, or not.

To paraphrase the State propaganda short on benefits cheats still being aired - No ifs. No Buts.

Will Sachem Brown agree to sell another Island to the Europeans

Does anyone here remember the Wappinger Confederacy or the Manna-hata, a tribe of native Americans who lived on the east coast of what is now the USA who were part of it?

What about Peter Minuit? He was born in Wesel on the German Rhine probably of Huguenot Walloon descent.

Now in 1624 when the Spanish invaded and occupied Wesel. Minuit escaped to Holland. He went to the Dutch West India Company's colony of New Netherland and became Governor.

One of his first actions was to legitimize European occupation of the territory, he called together the native sachems and agreed a purchase of the island that the settlement of New Amsterdam had been built on with trinkets and cloth valued at 60 guilders, then worth about 112 pounds (0.7 kg) of silver.

It has been suggested that the Sachems were not absolutely clear as to exactly what they were agreeing to at that meeting.

As many of you will be aware that Island is now known as Manhattan Island, part of New York City in the USA.

There is a modern day parallel here - with another Island. One off the North West coast of Europe. Known as Britain.

The thing is that most native American Sachems, or chiefs were not royalty, or kings. They were chosen by the community - elected - and there were usually multiple chiefs, both peace chiefs and war chiefs. The Chiefs were effectively elected and only loaned their power by the people of their tribes to be used on their behalf.

Rather like, as a (not quite) random example, British members of Parliament.

They are not Princes in their own right. They do not own the country by right. They are elected.
Any power they hold and wield as an MP is only to be used on behalf of the electorate and is loaned for a limited period of time by the electorate.

It is not transferable; they cannot confer it on any other person, or bodies. If MPs and Prime Ministers want to give away or sell those powers, the citizens powers, on loan, held by them in trust, then they need to go back to the citizen and specifically ask the citizen’s permission. That is known as a referendum.

Yes Sachem Brown that means you and your fellow political class Cronies. You have no right to give, or sell, those powers to Brussels; they are not yours to give.

You promised not to without a referendum, now for once honour your party’s tarnished word.

The Manna-hata should have been more careful of what they were agreeing to - so should we.

Finally a ‘main stream’ UK party making vaguely libertarian noises

Finally the Tories are making some vaguely libertarian noises about reducing red tape and subjecting bloated Whitehall empires to annual rounds of ‘deregulation’.

It remains to be seen if such a thing could ever actually really happen.

Needless to say the Socialists in the form of Nu-Lab’s John Hutton are trying to talk it up as a lurch to the right and a fatal mistake. Well they would wouldn’t they, it is one of their areas of weakness.

Now whist it is clear Nu-Lab love regulation for regulation’s sake and would really prefer that citizens had to ask their permission (and preferably have to pay to do so) to do anything - why is reducing regulation suddenly ‘right wing’? Given that Broon has been making noises claiming to be about to do exactly that for ages.

Presumably the response would be an Orwellian it means what we say it means.

Could it be that this is the first sign of sense from Dave the Chameleon’s ‘the party formerly known as the Conservatives’ and it is actually worrying the Broon party machine?

After all with all this talk of the 'Broon bounce' and a big Nu-Lab lead in the polls, Broon must be cursing that he may find it difficult to take advantage of the chance of a snap election, with the “don’t mention the EU Constitutional referendum” albatross hanging round his neck.

Despite the lack of political comment in this direction - A snap election could turn into a referendum and maybe a judgement on previous Nu-Lab manifesto lies. Uncomfortable for Broon

UK Premier's dilemma

There is renewed speculation that Gordon Brown could call a snap general election, in the autumn.

He may be considering if this might be good for him, apart from the ‘Broon Bounce’. He is a man who likes to kill as many birds as possible with a single stone.

He must be wondering if a general election might take the electorate’s eye off the possibility of a referendum on the EU Constitutional ‘Treaty’. Also that it might enable him to suppress demands about a referendum on misplaced ‘loyalty’ grounds in the run up to an election.

Parliament is due to resume just 10 days before he is due to finalise the ‘Treaty’ in Lisbon on October 18th, 19th. If he can get that far and can keep the electorate distracted he probably thinks he will be home free.

He will have to weigh that, against the possibility that it could torpedo his chances, drawing the electorate’s attention back to the fact that Nu-Lab manifesto promises now appear to be proven to be not worth the paper they are printed on.

Decisions, decisions…

More Calls for a Referendum on the EU Constitutional 'Treaty'

Gisela Stuart, the UK MP for Birmingham Edgbaston has strongly criticised Gordon Brown for failing to hold a referendum on the EU Constitutional ‘Treaty’, saying: "One of Tony Blair's last acts was to renege on a promise and it is almost unbelievable that one of Gordon Brown's first has been to do the same," she went on to say "There is still time for Gordon Brown to put this right.

An MP with principles. One wonders if she keeps a hen with a full set of teeth at home too.

The fact is that this so-called ‘Treaty’ is the old EU Constitution in a disguise so thin it would not fool a 5 year old. It is not as convincing as a cheap plastic set of toy glasses nose and moustache.

Hans-Gert Poettering, president of the European Parliament has said as much stressing that the new treaty, while complicated, would preserve the constitution by a different, more 'indirect' method in a letter to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing.

How Gordon Broon can talk of his joke red lines and claim it is not the constitution without going red as a beetroot with embarrassment is difficult to grasp, one can only begin to conjecture it is a testament to his accomplishment as a liar.

Labour was elected on the promise of holding a referendum on the constitution. If this was a lie, as it appears to be, then what real legitimacy do their MPs have?

If an MP is elected under false pretences, as it is increasingly obvious all existing Nu-Lab MPs were, then what right do they have to hold office, or expect the rest of us to go along with it?

Though he must surely be hoping the UK electorate’s goldfish like capacity to forget the most outrageous barefaced lies of politicians will lull them back into a stupor during the parliamentary recess, the Prime Minister, can’t rely indefinitely on their lethargy.

There is a lot of disquiet over this betrayal of trust in many different quarters from poweful Unions, to the more honerable MPs.

The Referendum list is launched.

According to an ICM Poll in June 86% of the electorate want a referendum on the EU constitutional treaty.

The 'Referendum list' has been launched by two UK political Bloggers, Chris Mounsey and Gawain Towler. They decided to canvas all UK MPs plus other relevant representatives to establish:

1. Do they support the people's call for a Referendum on the EU Treaty?

2. If they will actively call for and support a referendum in the House of Commons?

If an MP fails to reply, it will be assumed that they are not in favour of a referendum and that they are in favour of Parliamentary ratification only.

The results will be compiled here bookmark it.

It should help to keep MPs relatively honest on the matter, if they nail their colours to the mast.

UK MPs demand EU Constitutional treaty be rewritten

The Commons' European scrutiny committee, a cross-party group of UK MPs has raised serious concerns over a section in the proposed wording of the EU Constitutional Treaty that states: "National parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union."

The word "shall" means they don’t get a choice. The word actively means they have to be pro active and "good functioning of the Union " appears to put the interests of the EU before the interests and independence of parliament. There are serious concerns they are the weasel words that could allow European judges to block future opposition to Brussels, or it’s dictates, by UK MPs.

The Chairman of the committee, Labour’s Michael Connarty, warned that "no one should instruct Parliament what to do" and during a recent session of the committee warned: "This is a takeover of the rights of this Parliament."

The committee are calling for Gordon Brown to reopen negotiations on the new European Union treaty.

Meanwhile EU foreign ministers, including the UK Foreign Secretary, David Miliband are getting ready to meet in Brussels today to launch the formal Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) will decide the precise treaty language.

William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, intends to make a major speech tomorrow, demanding a referendum on the new treaty, pointing out that it transfers considerable powers from Westminster to Brussels.

Labour promised a referendum in the manifesto they were elected on. It should not be necessary to have to force them to honour that pledge. All the wriggling in the world will not alter the fact that this so-called ‘treaty’ is a thinly disguised constitution - European politicians have boasted that it was just that.

If any Labour pledge, is ever to have any credibility again, they need to honour their promise and hold a referendum.

EU admits UK’s so-called treaty red lines are worthless

On Wednesday Margot Wallström, the European Commission Vice-President, insisted that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights will apply to three quarters or more of British law because it is derived from EU legislation and Britain's "red line" opt-outs are worthless.

She said: "Citizens will be able to claim before the courts the rights enshrined in the Charter," "The Charter will be binding for the European institutions, and also for member states when they implement EU law, even if it does not apply to all of them."

The commission's legal service describe British opt-outs as "limited" as German studies indicate up top to 80%of national law now originates in Brussels.

Sensitive national legislation, such as Britain's opt-out on a Brussels directive that sets the length of the working week will, officials predict, be challenged in the EU courts because it implements European laws.

A legal source described the opt-out as “potentially very thin."

If Gordon Brown is foolish enough to ratify the EU Constitutional Treaty signed up to by Tony Blair he will soon discover the charter, including a "right to strike", will be enforceable in the European courts if trade unions seek to challenge the UK’s reforms of the 1980s.

According to the Daily Telegraph, a senior European Parliament source revealed that Euro-MPs are planning to sponsor early challenges to Britain's opt-outs.

"We are going to make sure that this issue is constantly before the European Court of Justice,"

"There is 30 years of EU jurisprudence to say there can be no two-tier system of European rights."

The think-tank Open Europe has research that indicates EU judges are not likely to be backward in applying the charter. Their Director Neil O'Brien said:

"The Court of Justice will decide for itself whether member states are implementing European law and interpret their national laws for them,"

"Trying to stop the charter changing our laws will be like trying to carry water in a sieve."

If Gordon Brown is getting a bit fed up by now, with always playing second fiddle to someone, or something else, then he would be wise to agree to a referendum on the constitutional 'Treaty' sooner rather than later. He did say he would if the red lines were threatened.

Psst! Don’t mention the treaty to the Brits

How do these people ever expect anyone to actually believe their word? Just like Blair - Brown is insisting Britain's negotiating ‘red lines’ were not crossed at last month's summit, so that no referendum is needed. This despite the fact that Nu-Lab promised in it’s 2005 election manifesto that it would hold a referendum on the constitution.

Whatever else Mr Brown may be he is an intelligent man - and is fully aware that this treaty is the rejected constitution in a rather thin disguise. Yet with no apparent sense of shame, or embarrassment, he makes the barefaced claim that no referendum is needed.

But in fact the new European Union ‘Constitutional’ treaty will mean "transfers of sovereignty" from Britain and Gordon Brown is
absolutely right to conceal it from the UK electorate according to Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg's premier He said, speaking to Le Soir, a Belgium Newspaper:

"one can always explain that what is in the interest of Europe is in the interests of our countries,"

"Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?"

"There is a single legal personality for the EU, the primacy of European law, a new architecture for foreign and security policy, there is an enormous extension in the fields of the EU's powers, there is Charter of Fundamental Rights,"

These are all core elements of the Rejected Constitution.

You have to ask yourself - Why is it that the European elite are always so keen that what they are doing should be concealed from the UK electorate? Also why are our supposed representatives apparently willing to oblige them it this.

Lord Leach of Fairford, speaking to The Daily Telegraph said:

"Gordon Brown should think twice before going back on his party's manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on a treaty that is the EU constitution in all but name.”

"If he is serious about wanting to 'listen and learn' he should let the people have a say."

An ICM/Open Europe poll recently found that 86 per cent of voters want a referendum on the treaty and if Mr Brown refuses one it could damage his electoral chances.