For what it may or may not be worth, Channel 4 News has just said that a leaked exit poll gives the Non side victory with between 53 and 55 per cent of the vote.
Meanwhile, the EU Referendum blog reports that it has read a document which explains that Non will not actually mean No:
In short, the authors conclude that, in the event of one or both countries voting “no”, the ratification process should be neither suspended nor abandoned. They assert that all member states have expressed a commitment to proceed with ratification by virtue of Declaration 30, appended to the Constitutional Treaty. Member states cannot unilaterally or collectively decide to change the ratification process.
Thus, member states which have not already ratified should continue with the process whence, once 20 members have done so, the matter should be referred to the European Council.
In the meantime, the authors caution that “the European Union must not remain paralysed”. Rather, they say, “it must continue and intensify its efforts to relaunch its policies, even by implementing in advance, where possible, the provisions of the Treaty that do not meet with open opposition”.
Thus, the considered response in the event of a rejection of the constitution should be “full steam ahead”. Member states should implement it even faster than they are doing already.
Very helpful. I wish I could be equally helpful in return on this question:
So what, precisely, do we have to do to stop this thing?
I read the EU Referendum blog in the hope of getting answers to questions like that. If they have to ask that, what is the chance that anyone else will have an answer?
Leave.
And the NOs have it !!!!
Another revolution anyone ?
The French news is reporting the “NON” at 55%… despite the massive gov’t campaign for “OUI”
Incredible. Absolutely incredible.
guy herbert says:
“Leave.”
The best comment I have read on the subject for a long time.
I gather, from today’s Telegraph, that Chirac has stated that any country voting “no” must leave the EU.
Oops!
A ‘yes’ vote would have suited British Euro-realists actually.
It would probably have made sure that Ken Clarke didn’t run for Conservative Party leadership (for reasons I stated here).
The ‘no’ is unhelpful because, as with Ireland, they’ll just keep on asking the question until they get the answer they want.
To paraphrase the IRA, the Euro-fanatics only have to get lucky once with their referenda. Euro-realists have to be lucky every time…
AB
Albion, I’m not sure they’ll ask the French to vote again. That would be against the dignity of France and might make the French even crosser with the establishment and motivate them to return an even worse result.
I don’t think they will have a second vote.
I agree that a Oui would have been far better for Britain. Tony Bliar will simply go “Hey presto! The constitution’s finished, so no point in having a poll in Britain! What a shame!” and the Brits will be robbed of their chance to vote for Stuff You.
And I agree with you that it would drive a stake through the heart of Kenneth Clarke for once and for all.
But a second poll for France? No. I don’t think so. What does everyone else think?
“So what, precisely, do we have to do to stop this thing?”
This is like asking from which direction will the sun continue to rise?
there is only one answer and re-asking the question will never change the outcome.
Verity asks:
“What does everyone else think?”
You have the advantage over many of us, having lived in France, but my outsiders’ guess would be that the French (possibly of all people) are sufficiently bolshie to reject a second try by such a thumping margin that no government would dare try it.
I imagine what will happen is that the EUlite will simply carry on implementing whatever they want to do, quite regardless of how the great unwashed from any country votes.
“So what, precisely, do we have to do to stop this thing?”
You have to stop sending money to Brussels. Nothing else will work.
“So what, precisely, do we have to do to stop this thing?”
“You have to stop sending money to Brussels. Nothing else will work.”
Well, sending them a tomahawk might also work.
“So what, precisely, do we have to do to stop this thing?”
Take up arms against the autocracy!
Oh wait, you don’t have arms anymore. Never mind.
The EU makes everything out of nothing, but the nothingness shows through. “They” will always say that you are on the wrong road, if it is your own.
Don’t “stop” the Brussels dictocrats, starve them: Of public monies, of transnational legitimacy, of respect. Render them like unto roadkill on a cul de sac, left festering in toxic philosophic dumps.
Tumors are excised, not replaced. So be it with this phoney “constitution”.
Of course they should re-vote. After all, about 50% of the votes were from women. And when women SAY no….. they really mean “yes”…. n’est pas?
(Heh. Now, before you start throwing things, ponder just how many gloomy “anti-patriarchical, ant-colonialist, blah blah blah”, Euro’s would rise up in outrage from that very sexist statement, then turn around and agree that “Indeed, these hapless voters really DID mean “yes” when they were saying “no”. We just have to keep asking till we get the answer we want to hear.”
Sauce for the fois gras, I guess.
Ho, Andrew X! That was really rather funny!
To all the morons (the word is used advisedly) who suggest a cessation of sending money to Brussels, do you really, really think that:
(a) each person in Britain puts some money (or a cheque) in a little envelope and sends it to Brussels?
Or:
(b) that money each person is required to have deducted as tax with their EU “contribution” factored in – and the fiddling of which will land you in the clink – is sent to Brussels by the British government on behalf of its grateful citizens?
Please think carefully about this because your comments are terribly irritating.
G Cooper, I honestly have no idea what the French will do now. (Did anyone, ever? – throughout human history?)
For sure, there will be yards and yards and yards of turgid discussion programmes on TV with stringently intellectual people leaning forward urgently in their seats to to make their points and many dramatic gestures. And moderators appealing for calm. But what will happen? Who knows?
“Don’t “stop” the Brussels dictocrats, starve them: Of public monies, of transnational legitimacy, of respect.”
Unfortunately the EU has not been able to return a set of accounts for over 10 years now – in 2002 auditors were unable to account for over 90% of the 100Bn Euro annual budget. So yes, I don’t think there would ever be an problem in eventually cancelling their funding, but the problem lies with the politicians themselves. So long as Chirac, Schroder, Blair and all the other petty little failures in real life persevere in their desperate climb to the apex of the EU dunghill we will, unfortunately, never be rid of this monstrous organisation.
Perfectly said, Julian Taylor!
I have constantly said that t bliar is a failure. Had he not lucked into the premiership of the UK as a front man because he had the looks and accent that divorced him from old Labour, today he would be a emollient little barrister in some dreary little chambers taking publically funded cases (which is what he was doing before he became famous) . As would his ghastly wife. Bliar has no accomplishments whatsoever.
He has no history.
He parachuted from a plateau of world nonentity to someone who could take exciting rolling sofa meetings, reveal the name of a man light years ahead of him in intelligence (Dr David Kelly), essentially thereby ensuring his death, command the Queen’s Flight, pose in profile with George Bush as a defender of Western values, commit Britain to war (I agreed with the war; just not with toneboy’s reasons), prissy-hiss his way through innumerable PMQs, announce that he wanted to do away with Western civilisation by demolishing “the forces of conservatism” – in other words, marriage, families and the rule of law as they have developed in Britain/Western civilisation down the centuries), threaten any journalist who might want to publish the truth about life in the “happy” bliar nest … the sucking he has done for Jacques and Gerhardt was energetic enough to make the Channel walkable.
Verity writes:
“….reveal the name of a man light years ahead of him in intelligence (Dr David Kelly), essentially thereby ensuring his death…”
Always assuming it wasn’t done in the fine old “turbulent priest” tradition of British government. I remain quite unconvinced by Dr. Kelly’s alleged suicide.
Naturally, a pip-squeak like Bliar wouldn’t have had the guts to order it, nor have known anything about it. But “Tony wants” is said to be the mantra of government under this most loathsome of premiers.
Meanwhile, the beacons should be lit tonight. England has, once again, received a wonderful deliverance, much like the Armada, or the Battle of Britain – and just as much a lucky break. This is the lever – and it must not be left to rust. It must be leant upon relentlessly until we have managed to free ourselves from this continental delusion that we are – or could be – one nation.
The fourth largest economy in the world, with the benefit of having the world’s preferred language as its native tongue, and perhaps the world’s strongest trading links from Africa to Asia to the Americas has no need of a broken crutch.
All we need is to remember our history, our natural allies, and recover our courage. The rest will follow.
G Cooper – Regarding the late Dr David Kelly, Tony Blair could have had absolutely no concept of what Dr David Kelly did. He can’t understand words of three syllables, never mind scientific concepts.
Tone was in his rolling meetings on his rolling couch and, somehow, some other people on that rolling couch got the idea that someone of the intelligence and experience of Dr David Kelly might not be too good for Tone’s future photo-op-wise.
So while Tone was on a rolling plane to Japan, someone told him that Dr David Kelly – a brilliant scientist for many years in the service of the citizens of the United Kingdom – had “killed himself”. Every single journalist on that plane – left and right – noted – and wrote/broadcast – that Tone turned absolutely white. White. As in, the blood drained out of his face.
Verity wrote:
I thought Bleah lucked into the Toil Party leadership because of John Smith’s fatal heart attack. You’re not saying that Bleah caused that heart attack, are you? 🙂
“So what, precisely, do we have to do to stop this thing?”
Until the tumbrils roll, nothing is enough.
“The armed are those who have a say in whether the regime will continue.” Aristotle is still right.
G Cooper – I too remain unconvinced regarding the alleged suicide of Dr David Kelly. From what we saw of him, he seemed to be a touchy, combative type of individual – not a despairing type.
… but your ayes say oui!
As an American Veteran on Memorial Day, I choose to remember Omaha Beach and all of the men of many nations who gave their lives for Freedom from D-Day onwards.
That said, May GOD FOREVER DAMN to their deserved hell the French Socialists and all of their kind in FRANCE TODAY.
May they die in agony! They deserve it.
Am I odd in that I don’t I believe anyone deserves to die in agony?
Verity says:
“G Cooper – I too remain unconvinced regarding the alleged suicide of Dr David Kelly. From what we saw of him, he seemed to be a touchy, combative type of individual – not a despairing type.”
I thought this too, but then the Gentleman was months from retirement and a pension he could loose because of what was transpiring. A Gentleman with a sick wife to care for who had just been under immense pressure, a man of integrity being abandoned by those around him. A Gentleman.
Guy Herbert writes: Am I odd that I don’t believe that anyone deserves to die in agony?
Yes and No: Christianity teaches that God offers his Love and redemption to all of us. Those that refuse it will suffer through eternity. Christians are taught that it is God that makes that judgment.
Turning the the political world, there remains solid moral and legal arguments in favor of a death penalty imposed on persons guilty of homicide in egregious cases, after a proper trial with full due process. Is this an agonizing death? I don’t know, quite probably.
As to French socialists? I am not personally ready to condemn them to death as a group, however, I await the day when the world fully acknowledges the nearly 100 million people killed by Communism and its variants.
People who like to think of themselves as intellectually sophisticated like to claim that religious belief “causes” wars and deaths. Well, Christians have not warred among themselves for over 500 years. Christians have moved to reconcile themselves with Jews and with Muslims. The biggest killers in the 20th Century were atheists, peopel who directly rejected Christianity and thought that their regimes would outlives Christianity=Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and so on.
So, yes, I do think that there are people who, after a proper trial with full representation, deserve to die for their crimes. Would this be an agonizing death? Probably.
It is important for Westerners to refuse to be intimidated by arch little comments like those of Guy Herbert. Guy you don’t hold the moral high ground
Well, I don’t think French socialists deserve to die in agony! That’s a bit harsh, even for me. I would, though, strip of them of their voting rights for life and disallow them a say in the selection of any future government because they are moral incompetents. (This would also apply to BBC employees.) Oh, and the entire Dutch government. And the British government. Ok, and the Swedish government, because they’re even crazier than the French.
I wasn’t attempting to take any moral high ground, just suggesting that I find the torturer’s sentiment repulsive.
One might believe that certain people deserve to die and not care whether they suffer. Which seems to be your position. leaddog’s on the other hand sees suffering as desirable. I regard suffering–by anyone–as undesirable, and am uncomfortable with the whole idea of desert.
I don’t quite understand how you deduce from that I’m not a Christian. There are plenty of Christians who do not hold with such a concept of temporal desert. The Catholic Church, for example, believes that we may suffer for our sins after death but, allows that they may be attoned for and opposes the death penalty.
Well, Christians have not warred among themselves for over 500 years.
Not remotely true. Even if you mean by that they have not warred among themselves motivated by sectarian division. I don’t know of any examples of open sectarian warfare since the 1990s, but then I haven’t been paying close attention.
Verity writes: ” I too remain unconvinced regarding the alleged suicide of Dr David Kelly. From what we saw of him, he seemed to be a touchy, combative type of individual – not a despairing type.”
Quite so – and it was far too sudden a change from one mental state to the other.
As for TimC’s observations, I can’t help recalling a letter from a pathologist, shortly after Dr. Kelly’s death, suggesting it couldn’t have been due to suicide as there wasn’t sufficient blood at the scene of death.
Later, it was revealed that the paramedic team which attended Dr. Kelly had the same concern.
All of this appeared to vanish beneath the axminster, without sufficient investigation but with a deafening absence of comment.
The known facts about the circumstances that led to the death of David Kelly are sufficient in themselves to condemn the Blair government without any need to indulge in absurd and pernicious fantasies.
Chris Goodman writes:
“…without any need to indulge in absurd and pernicious fantasies.”
Yes, I’m sure you know far better than the attending medical team or an experienced pathologist.
Nothing like putting bumbling professionals in their place from the comfort of your armchair, is there?
Chris, certainly, either way, Blair and his minions bear responsibility for the death of Dr Kelly, but to call entertaining doubts about the “suicide” verdict absurd and pernicious is a bit over the top.
Tim C says: I thought this too, but then the Gentleman was months from retirement and a pension he could loose because of what was transpiring.
Dr Kelly wasn’t stupid. I don’t think they would have dared take away his pension, but even if they had tried to do so, he would have been well aware that he could appeal, and if he did so, they would cave in rather than let him present his case.
And yes, I remember being disturbed that the medics noticed there wasn’t enough blood at the scene for someone to have bled to death.
I agree with G Cooper that the shift from one mental state – apparently his normal mental state of being rather short-tempered and combative – to being suicidal took place awfully quickly – if indeed, it took place.
In fact, they may well have threatened to take away his pension, and he may well have told them he would appeal with some awkward facts.
Actually it is you, from your no doubt very comfortable armchair, who is questioning the verdict of the coroner i.e. the person whose job is to arrive at an informed conclusion about the cause of death on the basis of the available evidence – including expert testimony.
Chris Goodman writes:
“…. questioning the verdict of the coroner i.e. the person whose job is to arrive at an informed conclusion about the cause of death on the basis of the available evidence – including expert testimony.”
Sure. And the Hutton Report was a full, reliable and accurate account of the entire affair.
You should do some reading on the subject, perhaps starting with the following from The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1131833,00.html
Apologies for the non-clickable link. I’ve given up trying to make it work with Firefox.
G Cooper. I hadn’t seen this before! How is it possible that a letter like this got ignored? For Chris Goodman, it is a letter in The Guardian from David Halpin, Specialist in trauma and orthopaedic surgery; C Stephen Frost,
Specialist in diagnostic radiology and Searle Sennett
Specialist in anaesthesiology – discussing the aspects of loss of blood and the effect of the small amount of Co-proxamol found in Dr Kelly’s body.
They say that the vein that was cut is such a small vein that it would have clotted long before much blood had been lost.
Not only was this never pursued, it was never even addressed in passing.
If somebody were to tell you that they believed that the British establishment hired assassins to murder Diana, Princess of Wales, you would, even if they were to refer you to evidence supplied by the letters page of The Guardian, conclude that they knew very little about the workings of the British establishment. The evidence supporting the case of those who believe that David Kelly was assassinated is far more flimsy – on any level of causality that you care to mention.
Chris Goodman, The letter in the Guardian wasn’t written by Mohammed Fayed or any of the other Diana barking moonbats. It was written by three prominent medical specialists who were sufficiently concerned to put their names to a letter for publication.
Verity writes:
“I hadn’t seen this before! How is it possible that a letter like this got ignored? ”
It didn’t entirely. That notorious Leftist conspiracy-monger and all-round Guardian type, Melanie Phillips also noted it and admitted it spurred her questioning mind, too.
Of course, for the likes of Mr. Goodman (who for some curious reason seems to think coroners are infallible), any such commentary is indulging in: “.. absurd and pernicious fantasies”.
There are plenty of reasons for questioning the whole Kelly incident. You don’t even need a tin foil helmet to do so. Just a modicum of intelligence coupled with an unwillingness to believe Alastair Campbell and Co. will do perfectly well.
The fact is, every single journalist on that plane to Japan with Blair said that, when told the news, the colour drained instantly from his face.
This involuntary reaction was so dramatic that every single journalist who saw it commented on it in the media.
Mr.Cooper,
You may recall that you asserted that I was claiming to know better than professionals from the comfort of my armchair. My reply was that actually it was you who were questioning the judgement of professionals; namely those experts who testified at the Coroners Court that the most reasonable conclusion is that Dr Kelly’s death was suicide.
At this point you changed tack, and declared that I was putting two much trust in the judgement of professionals by showing a touching faith in the infallibility of a coroners court! You imply that the coroner was wrong to conclude that his death was the result of suicide. Maybe, but the burden of evidence lies on those who seek to cry foul.
At this point you introduce the evidence of a retired orthopaedic surgeon, a radiologist from Stockholm, and an anaesthesiologist, all of whom as it happens are hard left campaigner against the Iraq War [The first draft of the letter was written by David Halpin to the Morning Star newspaper] and at least one of which actively campaigned against sanctions while living in Iraq prior to the war, who questioned if the cut to his vein, and the amount of the overdose was enough to kill him, even though of course when they found Dr Kelly in a field on one of his favourite walks he was indisputably dead.
I do not regard this to be a knock out punch as far as evidence goes, even when it is combined with the evidence of the ambulance drivers who said that they do not recall there being a lot of blood. But let us for the moment imagine that he was assassinated on the instructions of Tony Blair, or on the instructions of the Home or Foreign Secretary, or perhaps the Minister of Defence; you have to ask yourself why would they do such a thing?
Assassinating a government official on the grounds that he may prove to be a political embarrassment is not of course an unheard of in the sort of Stalinist regimes supported by the Morning Star, but to imagine that a British Prime Minister could get away with doing such a thing, even if you strain credulity and imagine that he wanted to do it in the first place, shows such an ignorance of how Whitehall operates, indeed such an ignorance of the way in which the New Labour elite use their power, that in all honesty I was rather taken aback that you, and Verity, who although very passionate are rarely (if I might say so) anything less than hard headed, could believe it.
It reminds me of the case of an old lady of whom it was claimed for very many years that because she was an active member of CND when she was founded murdered she had been killed by MI5. I understand that her actual murderer was recently found and imprisoned.
‘too much trust’ not “two much trust”!
and
“when she was found” not “when she was founded”!
OK, Chris, never mind the grammatical errors. That the medical people were lefties against the war is interesting. Actually, I thought the fact that they were writing to El G’hardayan with their information was strange … but they still made points that you haven’t refuted.
I can’t speak for G Cooper, obviously, but I don’t think either one of us suggested that T Bliar murdered Dr Kelly or caused him to be murdered. Bliar is too much of a coward to order anyone murdered. He wouldn’t have the bottle.
And yes, I am mercifully ignorant of how Whitehall works, especially now it has been corrupted by Za-NuLab.
Chris Goodman writes:
“But let us for the moment imagine that he was assassinated on the instructions of Tony Blair, or on the instructions of the Home or Foreign Secretary, or perhaps the Minister of Defence; you have to ask yourself why would they do such a thing?”
Why make any such assumption? Particularly as I have expressly said that that I do not believe Bliar is directly implicated. Nor do I believe that any senior cabinet ministers are. Perhaps you didn’t understand the “turbulent priest” reference?
I think it is perfectly possible that in the heat of chaos, decisions were taken at the level precisely designed to avoid association with government. This is not, as you seem to suggest, a ‘New Labour’ process – it stretches back to Walsingham. The executive must always be able to deny responsibility.
Whatever the political leanings of the signatories to the Guardian letter, they were far from alone among members of the medical profession to smell a rat. A similar letter appeared in the Daily Telegraph, though I haven’t a link to offer you as I read the paper version.
As for the reliability of the coroner’s verdict, why was a full inquest was never held?
There is ample medical opinion which disputes the decision of Nicholas Gardiner not to probe further and his dismissive attitude screamed cover-up to anyone who had not made up their mind beforehand to accept the suicide verdict with a shrug.
You claim: “… the burden of evidence lies on those who seek to cry foul.”. You are quite wrong. The responsibility of the coroner is to investigate. He seemed far too ready to close-down the investigation which is his job. It is not the responsibility of “those who seek to cry foul” to find out what really happened – it is his responsibility. Plainly, he chose not to.
Please bear in mind that I am not saying Dr. David Kelly was murdered. Only that the possibility that he may have been was insufficiently investigated and that significant
evidence was ignored.
My original comment on this subject was that: “I remain quite unconvinced by Dr. Kelly’s alleged suicide.” And I remain unconvinced.
Frankly, it stinks.
Mr. Cooper,
I of course was seeking to give a charitable interpretation [i.e. one that is that at least made some sort of sense] to your frankly ludicrous analogy with the assassination of Thomas a Becket. Thank you by the way for reminding us about the cloak and dagger activities of Sir Thomas Walsingham. I bow to you mastery of the Ladybird book of English history.
Before we lose the will to live, let us just agree to disagree. I believe that your assessment is pernicious, and you object to being associated with the tin foil helmet brigade.
The irony is only a few days ago I was thinking of sending you an e-mail saying simply ‘Thank God the world has people like G.Cooper in it’ but I never got round to writing it.
Chris Goodman writes:
“The irony is only a few days ago I was thinking of sending you an e-mail saying simply ‘Thank God the world has people like G.Cooper in it’ but I never got round to writing it.”
Never mind. It’s the thought that counts.
Must dash. I have to get back to my Ladybird Book of Forensic Pathology now.
Has anyone thought why countries in Europe are voting NO TO THE CONSTITUTION? (Speak properly, we voted the ratification of a text where our rights as European citizens were stated, not the acceptation of the EU). I guess, there must be something in the text to be reviewed and maybe re-written. Being against this constitution doesn’t mean being against the already-constituted EU.