I recommend wooden stakes, garlic and silver bullets. These buggers are known to rise up from the dead and suck the blood of thier victims in the dark.

A bishop? Hardly. The little hussy didn't want to be seen in the company of clergy. In fact she didn't even want to recognize that such people existed.

David,

Just over two years ago, I offered the following comment on your And at the going down of the sun post:

I don't see the entrenchment of the Franco-German worldview in future EU treaties as inevitable. Especially in the light of the recent emergence of Weaselism, the split between Old and New Europe, the forthcoming humiliation of France (and Germany) following victory in Iraq, Britain's impending postponement of any referendum on the Euro, the failure of the Germans to liberalise their economy, and France and Germany's likely morality-inverting reactions to all these setbacks.

And don't forget to cut off the body parts and bury them deep into the earth's 4 corners.

Burn them for good measure.

--The Constitution will be greatly missed by her many friends and admirers, and especially those among them who believed her to be the lifetime meal ticket they were yearning for. ---

But won't be missed by the trees.

The printers' union, however....

Are you sure? They will be smarter next time;

inconsistant? Please use a spellchecker

Eric,

The word is 'inconstant' and it is spelled correctly.

Jack Straw accused of criminal insantity by citizenries who read this in today's Telegraph:

The Dutch rejection of the EU constitution raises "profound questions" over the future direction of Europe, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said.

Mr Straw said the Government would respect the result. He said the double "no" vote would be discussed at the crucial European Council meeting on June 16.

But he conceded it raised serious questions for the EU.

In a statement Mr Straw said: "The people of the Netherlands have now added their voice to that of the people of France in voting no to the EU Constitutional Treaty.

"This reinforces what I said on Sunday night, that we must all respect the results of the referendums, and we do.

"The Prime Minister and I have long made clear that the Constitutional Treaty is a good deal for Britain and for the EU. But the verdict of these referendums now raises profound questions for all of us about the future direction of Europe.

"In an era of globalisation, when nations need to find new ways to work together to tackle new problems, Europe needs to be capable of giving citizens the prosperity, security, and social justice they require in ways which fit the modern world.

"As I have announced already, I shall be making a statement in the Commons on Monday 6 June on the implications of the French and Dutch referendums."

I am sorry there was no link and I wasted bandwidth, but this was, for some other-wordly reason, put up by The Telegraph under 'Breaking news".

Better prose I haven't witnessed. Spot on.

BUT, do you really think the socialist EuroElites have been vanquished so easily? Like some of us say in the states regarding the war on terrorism, we've got to be right every time, the terrorist only need to be right (get through) once.

From way far across the pond, congratulations!

Bill Dooley
Reno, NV, USA

If the EuroElites continue to force EU integration down their people's throats without solid popular support, they will merely set the stage for a not-too-distant European civil war.

The ephemeral notions of "being European" and "doing what's best for Europe" will eventually give way to basic human nature, and each EU member state will begin to worry about self-interest and "what's best for me and my tribe" as they see its own resources usurped by other EU members and the EU bureaucracy.

The only question is this: Would this civil war occur before or after they fight the unassimilated Muslims within the EU?

Frogs croak.

Cheese eaters don’t surrender.

Whatever next?

I suppose the sensible thing would now be for nation states to reassert themselves as their people clearly don't like receiving their marching orders from Brussels. The only workable compromise going forwards will be a two speed EU with France and its little sycophants (Belgium and Luxembourg) burying heads in the sand in the face of China, India and the globalising world while the rest try to embrace the opportunities of a global economy.

There is of course one giant obstacle to this - the unforgivable historical mistake that is the Euro. As countries try to go their own way or to defend their own way of life they will find that they have suffered a sort of Siamese twin separation in reverse and are surgically attached to non-compatible flesh. Their will be an immune reaction and graft rejection.

Watch for what the Chinese would call 'interesting times' ahead.

Thank the lord that the UK is not in the Euro zone. 3 cheers to Norman Lamont!

Not quite so fast, she's emitting faint signs of life.

In the event that 80% (20 of the 25 nations) of EU member states have ratified the treaty by October 2006, while one or more member states have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the European Council will reconvene and consider the situation.

It's not specified what the Council may do and all member states must still ratify it. However, on Newsnight last night, Barroso was being interviewed by Paxman and was keen to emphasise this point.

To be permanently dead this constitution must be killed six times.

Two countries have rejected it, but 9 countries have ratified it. Therefore, the democratic solution is for ratification to continue and the no votes be ignored.

Seeing as the opposition comes from both 'sides' - or is it all for corners, left/right and Statist/Libertarian the logic is to kill the constitution in its current form. It cannot be 'mended'. It is not about detail. The problem with it is its very aim.

Opposition groups from all four sides can see that the EU aims to render them incapable of operation should they win power in their own countries. The EU aims to permit only one route, with various marketing details. People will be sold product from a cosy cartel if the EU succeeds in its present form.

IMHO the EU constitution needs to be stripped bare and focus on the basics of interoperation and cross border issues of commerce and trade. Alas, as others have alluded to, the EU may be unstoppable, like some form of Terminator -

"LISTEN and understand. The EU is OUT THERE. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear and it absolutely WILL NOT STOP...EVER! until you are DEAD!"

http://www.moviewavs.com/0056218974/MP3S/Movies/Terminator/listen.mp3

Ever wonder what it was like when we voted to ratify our constitution and rid ourselves of the Articles of Confederation. It was the same kind of mess.

The problems that exist for the EU are going to continue to exist with or without a constitution.

They have had a problem with the big countries and the little countries all along. They'll need to go back to the drawing board and end up solving that problem the way we did.

There can be no reform of the EU, going back to the drawing board is a nonsense. The EU has been doing exactly what it is designed to do. The EU 'project' is the creation of the single country of Europe. Why does it have to be repeated over and over and yet some STILL cannot see that?!

To rid ourselves of it we must leave and hope that other countries do so too. We dont' need supranational bodies, Euro organisations created to regulate cross border trade (that's how this thing started!) or anything with the prefix 'Euro-'. Even in a stripped down form the EU would still be marching back for more domination. It is what is does.

If Parliament repealled the various acts relating to our membership the monster would soon be bankrupt anyway. We must leave and kill it, arguing for anything less is naive and foolish.

What will happen now is the eurocrats will quietly renegotiate a "compromise" document which will be sold to the public as a minor "tidying up" treaty.

It will be substantially the same document with the same provisions but they will pretend it isn't. The public will be told there's no need to have a referendum, and all 25 member states will ratify it in their national parliaments.

Nice post. So the constitution is compared to a beautiful, seductive woman - but you know that she has AIDS. You reckon a condom would be any help in this situation? Or would the sex be too wild for that level of protection?

A bishop? Hardly. The little hussy didn't want to be seen in the company of clergy. In fact she didn't even want to recognize that such people existed.

One of the very (very) few good things in this Constitution.

Of course, now we're going to have the God Squad claiming it was rejected because it "wasn't deferential enough"

tres droll

mr carr once again couches his devastating satire in the language of misogyny, non?

creepy man

Smit is correct. They will cobble together something else - well, not really something else; the same thing in different words, and present it as a "compromise after having listened to the people of Europe.".

My guess, the French won't go for it a second time, either. They may be irritating, but they are far from stupid. In fact, a second document is likely to make them even more determined to be heard. For all the wrong reasons, of course, but that's OK. You have to take your allies where you find them.

Bah! The Netherlands vote was merely symbolic. They only voted with the French so their larger, more militarily adept neighbor will protect them from invasion on the next go around.

Haha, there's another story from the BBC here [link]. I just loved the bit from William Horsley saying, "Mr Juncker seemed so distressed that he could hardly take in the fact of the second "No" vote.", coupled with the picture of Juncker holding his nose, presumably against the stench of his failure to secure ratification of what he once assured was a foregone conclusion - that of unanimous assent to a European constitution.

Well, you can all look forward the next Irish referendum now.

Oh, sorry. Next TWO Irish referenda.

See what moving Stateside has done to my poor memory?

If push comes to shove, where do the cobblestones come up and the government buildings get trashed? Brussels? Paris? The Hague? London? All of the above?

And will the perpetrators be liable to arrest by the EroStasi for "xenophobia"?

I am desperately hopeing that the elite will ride roughshod over these two results. The upshot would almost certainly be a string of further Raspberries blown at them. Then there really would be a EU wide crisis.

If they are clever they will kill it. If they don't kill it, we will and the result will be a lot worse for those who have set themselves up as our betters.

In a new attempt to protect European minorities from discrimination, the EU commision has proposed an "incitement to EU no-vote" bill. The bill will enter law in gradual phases, and over an as yet undetermined period of time, no voters (or those inciting a no vote) will be liable to be punished by a variety of means, including but not limited to having to have dinner with Peter Mandelson or having to copy out the EU constitution 100 times.

After these measures have been put in place to help EU citizens gain a better understanding of Europe and it's aims, the EU hope to hold a new referendum on the EU constitution. Many high ranking EU politicians are hoping of matching Hitler's 99.73% 1938 Anschluss Yes vote, although some officials have criticised the lack of pro-integration information available in that referendum.

Mrs Beaten - David doesn't look very misogynistic in the photos we see of him draped all over pretty women at bibulous blogger bashes ...

Pity about the inaccessibility of firearms in Europe. If voting doesn't work, all that's left is insurrection. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

What do you mean "inaccessibility of firearms in Europe"? There are plenty of firearms in Europe! Try driving down a country road in France when some countrymen are out looking for something to shoot for lunch. It's terrifying. Firearms are perfectly common in France. I think they are in Germany, too, and Spain and Portugal. Italy, don't know. Sweden, don't know. I'd be very surprised if there was any "inaccessibility of firearms" in Poland or the newer members of the EU. I think the Danes still have their guns. No, no. Through an oversight in Moscow - oops! - Brussels, the Europeans who want to be are armed!

Britain, on the other hand, was disarmed by a bossy. hissy, preachy little twerp who fancies himself the"little father" of Britain, guiding his little charges along the path of life. I trust one of the first things Prime Minister Davies will put right will be the restoration of the ancient right of the British to own a firearm if they bloody well feel like it.

Its not the slightest bit dead...its just going into stasis for a while. They will not give up on the bloated waste of paper until they are forced to. One does wonder how one would force Brussels to do anything.

Andrew Ian Dodge writes:

"They will not give up on the bloated waste of paper until they are forced to. One does wonder how one would force Brussels to do anything. "

I have to agree. Over the past few days, every interview I've heard with one of the EUlite has enraged me more than the one before. It's not simply that, to use the hackneyed phrase, 'they don't get it' - it truly seems to be the case that they are incapable of getting it!

As for what it might take to force Brussels... I think the question contains its own answer: force. I really am starting to come to the conclusion that it could, one day, come to that, because these mad bastards don't seem about to stop under any other sort of pressure. It's like watching the Gadarene swine in the 3.15 Oblivion Handicap.

Britain, on the other hand, was disarmed by a bossy. hissy, preachy little twerp who fancies himself the"little father" of Britain, guiding his little charges along the path of life. I trust one of the first things Prime Minister Davies will put right will be the restoration of the ancient right of the British to own a firearm if they bloody well feel like it.

We can't just blame Phony Tony for this, he is merely the last in a long line of gun grabbers who have been at work since 1920. The worst have been so-called Conservatives, they were responsible for the Firearms Acts of 1937, 1965, 1988 and 1997. El Phonio tidied things up by banning the pistols which Michael Howard had not banned earlier. I admit he milked the issue shamelessly by inviting Anne Pearston of the Snowdrop gang to preach to the Labour Conference, but in reality Bliar is simply the latest bastard in a long line of bastards. Would David Davies actually roll back any of this rubbish if he were ever PM? Personally he might like to, but would he be persuaded it was practical politics?

I note Mr Barroso isn't yet phased. His view is that if 20 countries do ratify, then the matter is back with the Council of Ministers and he'll get what he wants anyway. You don't survive on the Long March Through The Institutions if you are easily discouraged.

Can we count to six? France, The Netherlands... 2 Denmark? Ireland? Will anyone else get a popular vote?

Austria - borderline - referendum unlikely
Bohemia - referendum possible
Poland - referendum possible
Portugal - referendum likely

No one else will fail to ratify, because everywhere else it is in the hands of parliament exclusively.

And Britain? Well, if it is a question of our being the sixth, and we might void the Barroso bypass, we might not get a referendum. It could still be done by parliament. No European Constitution Bill has yet been published. It could easily just incorporate the Constitution and have done with it. There was mention of a referendum in Labour's manifesto, but they also promised to win it.

--Two countries have rejected it, but 9 countries have ratified it. Therefore, the democratic solution is for ratification to continue and the no votes be ignored.--

????

No, most of those countries' politicians ratified it, not the people.

The German people didn't get to vote.

Oddly enough, after reading comments from the French and the Dutch public (although they rejected the 482 page "constitution" for reasons which sometimes differed), I too have begun to entertain fantasies of the French storming the Quai d'Orsay. They love a good revolution and I would not be astounded if they grabbed this opportunity. I can even see the Dutch, if not storming, at least massing outside the palace and speaking in reasonable tones.

Sadly, I don't think there is a chance of Blair risking a referendum is diminishing by the minute. I think it's on permanent hold.

I think a mood has started to build and we're in for an interesting ride over the next couple of months.

John K - I do take your corrections, but I'd argue that Toni didn't "milk the issue shamelessly", which is trite and diminishes what he did.

Blair grasped an opportunity of lunatic emotionalism promoted by the moronic Snowdrop campaign and it's bizarre founder not only to grab open control of the citizenry (only the military and police are armed) but for insulting crocodile tears over the murdered schoolchildren. Everyone knew this was a freak occurence that was most unlikely to be repeated, ever.

But the expansion of the heavy, mighty hand of the state is what Toneboy lives for and he got a law enacted that, as a by-product, disqualified every British shooter from the Olympic Games and other international shooting events. The man and his wife are beyond ridicule.

Note to the IOC - If London - dear God, please don't let it happen - wins the Olympic Games, where TF are they going to hold their shooting events? Mebbe the boy shot himself in the foot over this dream of elevated glory.

Blair, a febrile, weak individual, disarmed the British because he was frightened of them.

I'm on the night shift, so maybe get a little indulgence for two posts in a row for all the heavy lifting I'm putting in ... but has anyone seen McCavity?

I saw a photo of Trot Straw, tragically under the impression that contact lenses make him look less of a weak fool, apparently giving a talk somewhere.

But McCavity wasn't there.

Sadly the Euro elite will only get it when it is too late and the first separatist car bomb rips through Brussels.It has always been the tragedy of Europe that our rulers are as were the Bourbons,they forget nothing and they learn nothing , utterly surprised when the lights go out ...again.

My concern is what if no matter how many times people vote no throughout Europe, this thing will eventually be forced on everyone by an angry EU?Allowing Europeans to vote now might just be a cover up to appear democratic but I have a feeling that will change. I think you are dealing with a beast trying to disguise itself right now.

Is Blair still trying to tell everyone, "It's not a superstate" when other European leaders are bluntly saying that it is? Can anyone tell me?

Ahhhh Denise

Talk like that is verboten in Britain. Blair would turn white if the truth were widely known. The United States of Europe is Blair's way of abolishing Britain. Whether the EU is wonderful or awful, it doesn't matter to him. It's simply the way to go in order to render the Britain to the history books.

Let's just tell the masses that with the Euro they won't have to change currency when they go abroad. What they mustn't know is that soon enough, under the EU, there won't be an 'abroad'.

Verity

Good point! I hadn't thought of where the shooting competitions will be held in the unfortunate event of London being saddled with the games. A call to the bid HQ is in order.

Verity,

At Bisley, in Surrey. Although in the spirit of UK gun law I should think that the Olympic shooting events will be limited to contestants using non-lethal bullets and firearms specially adapted to not made any unfortunate bang noises. Of course there will have to be very heavy security in case police officers manage to mistake Olympic athletes carrying their guns for someone carrying just a chairleg and open fire on them ...

Verity, Julian Taylor

The shooting will be at the Royal Artillary Barracks at Woolwich in South East London.

I've had a chat with an official at the London 2012 office. Discussions have taken place with the Home Office and all are agreed that 'special measures' will have to be taken to allow the pistol shooting events to take place. It may require a change to legislation, if necessary, or some other means, but the Home Office will do whatever needs to be done.

So, the government deems itself fit and proper to tell me that I am not fit and proper to own a pistol, but when an Olympic bid rolls into town a whole bunch of (mainly) foreigners ARE fit and proper to own, handle and use pistols in the UK.

I can feel a letter to the IOC coming on, copied to the British Olympic Association and Blair. Good luck to the athletes, I'm no killjoy. But if a bunch of foreign civilians are to be allowed to shoot pistols in the UK then so must I.

Update on the possibility of the Czech referendum: It seems unlikely now. A law on referendum would have to be passed first through the Parliament, probability of which is very low.

The EU constitution could be passed by the Parliament only, in theory. In fact, it would require a 3/5 majority in both chambers, which is plainly impossible be it now or after the 2006 elections.

Result: the Czech Republic will most likely NOT ratify the EU constitution.

Blair, a febrile, weak individual, disarmed the British because he was frightened of them.

I don't agree. Bliar was not frightened of Britain's 57,000 pistol owners, because he knew that they were all people who had obeyed the law and obtained certificates for their guns. He banned their guns purely for political advantage. Most of the 57,000 had already been alienated by the fact that the fag end of the Conservative government had just banned most pistols anyway, and the votes of 57,000 aggrieved people did not count in the face of all the headlines he obtained for his "tough crackdown" on guns.

Proof that Bliar had no need to be afraid of UK pistol shooters was that they all complied with the law and surrendered their property, because if they had not been law abiding people they would never have been allowed to own the pistols in the first place.

The only part of the UK where you can still own a pistol is in Northern Ireland, and that is because 9,500 people have permits to carry pistols for self-defence, and even the Phony one did not fancy spinning their disarmament. But as a defence of gun ownership the argument that law abiding people wish to own guns for the peaceful sport of target shooting does not work. It was proven not to work by the Firearms Acts of 1988 and 1997. If a government of any colour decides it is in their electoral interest to ban certain sorts of guns, they will. Not out of fear, but because they are scum who will do anything to get votes. Given that only 1% of the UK population legally owns guns, in electoral terms they are fucked.

John K - I'm sorry. My post, on rereading it, was woolly.

No, of course Blair didn't think a British registered pistol owner may take a crack at him. I meant he feared the singular independence of the British, and anything he could take away from them - any outrage against their freedom - would be demoralising. And would show them the boss had arrived in Downing St and things were going to be different from now on.

And yes, of course, his intention has always been to destroy the United Kingdom. That was obvious from day one. It has often intrigued me to wonder why he entertains such loathing of his own country. There is something there in his past or his family's past that has engendered this abnormal emotion. There is something
very, very weird about Tony Blair. He has given me the creeps since the first time I saw him on TV.

Pete_London, certainly they could conceivably hold the pistol shooting contest at Woolwich's range but it would certainly require a lot of work to bring it up to Olympic standards. Wouldn't they also run into some bureaucratic minefield in using an active military base for what is, in this day and age, a corporate-sponsored event. There are a number of Royal Artillery colonel commandants who I can visualise blowing their top at the sight of French or German Olympic contestants on their hallowed ground - most of the RA's magnificent silverware collection has been accrued over the years from a number of French and German campaigns.

Red Ken Livingscum makes reference in his allocation of venues to the use of Bisley Camp for the shooting competitions. Bisley certainly does have an Olympic-level shooting range as well as a highly competent pistol range but, given the age of that press release, you may well be correct.

Why not hold the shooting events in Manchester,where they are used to free range shooting?

Pete

I thought so. Just what kinds of fools he believes the people of Britain to be is beyond me.

The Commonwealth Games should have had the shooting events in Manchester, since it is part of the ethos of these competitions that they should leave behind sporting infrastructure. However, they weaseled their way out of it and held the shooting at Bisley, thus leaving nothing for sport shooters in the north of England. Shooting was successfully made into the orphan of the Commonwealth Games, and I expect the powers that be would be happy to do the same if London wins the Olympics.