The end of European democracy

By Thierry Baudet
Thierry Baudet, leader of the new Dutch political party Forum for Democracy / Facebook

In his dystopian classic, The Managerial Revolution (1941), the American political scientist James Burnham coined the concept of “controlled democracy“. According to Burnham, the civil democracies of the second half of the 20th century would – more or less gradually – be overgrown with backroom bureaucratic networks that make the actual decisions, all far away from the electorate and public debate.

While this would slowly but surely erode the democratic mandate of governments, Burnham explicitly didn’t expect that this would lead to the dissolution of the European nation state – in name, that is.

“The many nations that are in fact being absolved will remain existent in name; they can function as administrative subdivisions, but have no sovereignty.”

Elections will also remain in place; they will provide managers valuable insights into the preferences of the consumer-citizen, while at the same time functioning as an exhaust valve to possible opposition forces. Burnham predicted a form of political theatre in the guise of sham elections between candidates who happen to be like-minded on every fundamental subject, who are paid to debate in front of clueless spectators in mock parliaments, while the results were known in advance – after all, the actual decisions have already been made.

Not only did James Burnham’s work serve as the most important inspiration for George Orwell’s 1984, chances are Burnham also had a decisive influence on Jean Monnet and Robert Schumann – the founding fathers of the present day European Union. For after they tried to openly guide their “United States of Europe” through national parliaments, they chose, after the French parliament (while loudly singing the Marseillaise) voted down their plans in 1954, to use exactly the gradual and stealthy approach described by The Managerial Revolution to achieve their goals.

These Eurocrats label their strategy as “functionalism“, behind which the idea is that due to the so-called “spillover effect“, inevitably, ever more power ends up being centralised. One ‘function’ automatically forces another ‘function’. So: you sell open borders as a nice convenience, and after a while, you act surprised when they force you to adopt a centralised immigration policy. You present a monetary union as a facilitator of trade without having to hand over national sovereignty; and when the (inevitable) credit crisis presents itself, your push through a centralised budgetary system.

In the mendacious words of Monnet himself:

“We wish the community to take shape in a gradual process of change. Attempts to predict its final form are a contradictio in terminis.”

While he previously proclaimed to strive towards a federal European state, now all of a sudden it was an ‘open future’ he was after. He even went as far as to claim that it’s harmful to ask too many critical questions:

“Trying to anticipate the results will only smother ingenuity. Only by persevering, forwards and upwards, will new horizons present itself.”

In an attempt to provide some sort of philosophical justification for the European project, the German-American administrative scientist Ernst Haas wrote at the end of the 60’s that:

“We don’t have an alternative. We must seek refuge in graduality, in detours, in functionalism, if we wish to integrate the region. The functionalist who trusts in graduality and detours to fulfil his goals, must choose a strategy that unites the masses and alienates as few people as possible. Only with small steps and without a clear and logical plan, can he move in the right direction. For if he was to take great leaps, he would lose the support of many.”

Haas explains that walking down this path makes integration seem “almost self-evident” until it morphs “from mere customs union into an economic and political union.

And that’s exactly the way it all went. Behind the seemingly spontaneous cooperation between national democracies resides a continental super-state ― built step by step and hidden in the immeasurable corridors of Brussels’ vast bureaucracy, in Commission meetings and shady administrative backrooms, in guidelines that sometimes come into effect years after they were written and in strategic agreements of the “Committee of Regions”. The wiggle room for member states has practically been reduced to zero.


An example. Last summer the Dutch parliament ratified the association agreement between the European Union and Ukraine. The organisations GeenPeil, Civil Committee EU and Forum for Democracy subsequently collected over 300.000 signatures in under six weeks, forcing an advisory, non-binding referendum on the matter. It was held on April 6, 2016, and resulted in an overwhelming 61% against the treaty.

Then something rather odd happened. The Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte stated even if The Netherlands revoked its ratification, the treaty would still be implemented. In other words: the entire national ratification process had been one big sham.

All those debates about the usefulness and necessity of the treaty had been little more than window dressing. Of course, the member states still use national parliaments and national ratification procedures; of course, they won’t fully abolish the institutions that deliver the democratic bread and circuses, but they have been reduced to mere symbols. It is, exactly as Burnham coined it, a form of  “controlled democracy“.

A few months later, another poignant example presented itself. The Dutch parliament was given a few hours (!) to study one hundred pages of EU directives on a centralised pension system. The parliament was asked if it would allow the Dutch Finance minister to approve this grand scheme that would place over 1200 billion euro in Dutch savings under Brussels’ control.

And as was to be expected, the parliament just went with it. An MP highly critical of the plan, Pieter Omtzigt (Christian Democrats), commented that it had simply been impossible to study the consequences of this plan, in such a short amount of time. And as it turned out, hitting the brakes was not longer an option either. The Netherlands no longer had the right to veto in the EU departments where such matters are decided!

One cannot help being reminded of the stringent teacher who assigns a student his homework and says: “This is your task, alright? Do we have an understanding?” The question is merely rhetorical – and is as humiliating to the student who has nothing to offer but his artificial concurrence, as it is to the peoples of this continent.

Meanwhile, national leaders are being co-opted by offering them future EU-positions accompanied by very high (and mostly tax-free) paychecks, a driver and other exquisite working conditions – without the possibility of being relieved by their annoying electorates.

During his national career, the Dutch Finance minister, Jeroen Dijsselbloem was appointed as the head of the Eurogroup ― right at the moment, The Netherlands was about cause trouble by doubting yet another EU bailout package for Greece. A more severe conflict of interest was hard to imagine, since Dijsselbloem had now become both prosecutor and judge. But anything is possible in Eurotopia; and even before the ink of his signature had dried, he abolished the parliamentary work group tasked with exploring exit strategies in case of a next euro crisis.

Coincidence? Hardly.

Universities and civil society

Civil society too has been gripped by the EU. Oxfam, World Wide Fund for Nature, One World Action and hundreds, if not thousands of other ‘charities’ receive annual EU subsidies – and who will bite the hand that feeds him? And to make matters worse, there’s the ‘professional associations’ like the ‘European Union of Journalists’, the ‘European Women’s Lobby’, the ‘European Cyclists’ Federation, and so on – all an integral part of Brussels’ management system, and of course they propagate the virtues of EU expansion almost round the clock.

In universities in the meantime, the EU project is being propagated by professors in the Jean Monnet chairs, creating a pensée unique so visceral that employees at economy faculties frequently whisper my way that it’s categorically impossible to publicly criticise the euro. It would rule out promotions or future appointments, not to speak of research grants.

Does anyone truly expect a critical sound from the European ‘Horizon network‘ (which is allowed to spend billions in previously national research grants)? No, they would rather have one study the perils of ‘nationalism’ and ‘xenophobia’, as criticism of open borders is called in today’s Orwellian newspeak.


The EU has also revealed itself as the big corporations’ best friend. Even though it presents itself as an anti-cartel institution, it actually facilitates the formation of cartels by sitting corporate lobbyists right next to the so-called ‘expert groups’ of the European Commission who draft guidelines and regulations that enable multinationals to expand their operations throughout the EU, while at the same time excluding competition from smaller businesses by making entry conditions next to impossible. The prohibition of the slaughtering of animals on farms, with the official goal of “the protection of public health”, for example. The bio-industry thrives on it, while it kills smaller bio-friendly entrepreneurs. Think of strict regulations for bed&breakfasts regarding sanitary facilities and pets, making it harder for them to compete with large hotel chains.

Think of regulations for window-cleaners and condoms, vegetables and fruits, raw milk cheeses, white and yellow car headlights, vacuum cleaners above 1800 watt, coffee machines and vitamins. If you look closely it’s always a small club of large multinational companies pushing out the middle and small level companies with regulations seem to serve some kind of abstract purpose. Animal welfare, women’s emancipation, or something vaguely environmental.

Big business and big government thus go hand in hand and form a conglomerate of managers who pass each other the ball. This is also why Goldman Sachs executive Draghi’s transfer to the European Central Bank (ECB) went so smoothly, while the ex-president of the European Commission seamlessly transferred to Goldman Sachs. It’s why ALDE’s party leader Guy Verhofstadt cashes 190.000 euro a year as an advisor to investment funds with interests in shale gas (in Ukraine among other places) and why European Parliament member is also a commissioner at Mercedes-Benz.

Can one still be surprised that the automobile industry ‘together with the European Commission’ succeeded in creating legislation that was very advantageous to… diesel engines? While Japan was experimenting with electric cars, during the 90’s Volkswagen had a whole arsenal of TDI diesel engines for sale. A whole body of regulations was drafted to ‘protect the environment’ since diesel engines emit less CO2 than gasoline engines. But in the meantime, diesel does pollute more than twenty times as much as gasoline. The consequence of this EU stimulus package: the market share of diesel engines grew from 10% in 1995 to over 50% in 2012.

Losing grip by watering down

In addition, it’s critical to understand that all these processes and systems are not controlled from one central place – the trick is that European sovereignty is very hard to pin down. To the contrary even, one could say that European sovereignty has been watered down and diluted so much that it spread and branched out like vapour. Almost everyone has lost its grip on it.

The European Commission initiates legislation, the European Council debates (records are classified). The EU Council of Ministers has its say, and don’t forget the EU Court of Justice, counselling bodies of national politicians, formalised lobbies and the Committee of Permanent Representatives. Oh, and of course, there’s the European Parliament with its 751 members ― who can hardly communicate amongst one another due to language barriers ― claiming to represent 600 million Europeans. Enfin, the result of it all is a nightmare that no one actually controls and that no one can reform.

But now for the astonishing part: even the greatest europhile would admit to all this. In an exceptionally cynical manifestation of Orwellian newspeak – again – this is called the “democratic deficit“. They look very serious and serene and repeat: ‘yes, you’re right, there’s a democratic deficit‘.

Brilliant! As if it’s some sort of temporary flaw that can easily be overcome. A cash flow problem that just needs a small credit injection. A lack of vitamins. A mild form of sleep deprivation. Something, that in any case, will soon recover. A disbalance that will soon balance itself out.

But as Burnham’s analysis of the managerial revolution illustrates: the EU’s abolishment of democracy is neither temporary nor overcomeable.The EU is not so much undemocratic as it is anti-democratic. A democratic EU is impossible. The plans by Monnet and Schumann that were voted down when presented honestly in 1954, would suffer a similar fate in 2017. Nobody wants to live in a United States of Europe. Europe is not a country. We don’t speak the same languages. A population of 600 million is too large for a functioning and transparent democracy.

Politicians lie

Government leaders, parliaments and politicians are pretending. They have to pretend the EU isn’t a super state and never will be; they must pretend they have a grip on EU decision-making; that EU officials are democratically elected and owe accountability to an electorate that can remove them – in Copernican terms; they must pretend as if they orbit the common voter. But that’s no longer the case. Mainstream politicians have been incorporated into the continental system. The EUdoesn’t orbit nation states – the nation state has become a satellite in the blue yellow galaxy of the EU.

In 1964 George Orwell wrote an elaborate critique of Burnham’s thinking. Eventually, he proposed, the reign of the managers cannot sustain itself because 1) it’s a closed circuit which will produce minds too weak to uphold the system, and 2) the human inclination toward liberty is too strong, and, due to modern communication, won’t let itself be chained.

While Orwell would expand on Burnham’s dystopian vision in his novel 1984, which is situated in a world where the power of the manager is complete and eternal, his political philosophy is a starting point of hope. The practical translation of which is: the referendum.


All over Europe, we see the call for a plebiscite, for direct participation in public affairs. The people are signing petitions by the masses. It’s become impossible for politicians to ignore, so they reluctantly promise their electorates a direct say. Despite the EU still claiming to be a force of democracy by and for the people, referenda are the management system’s Achilles heel. A public uprising can be put down; a new political movement can be incorporated, but referenda are beyond the grasp of bureaucratic rulers.

One referendum, of course, doesn’t win the war. In 2005, the French and the Dutch both overwhelmingly rejected a European constitution. A few years later, that same constitution was still pushed through, albeit under a different name; the treaty of Lissabon. What followed was a ten-year silence until in 2015 the Greeks had a referendum in which they rejected proposed new austerity measures.  The EU decided to dethrone prime minister Papandreou and replace him with the unelected former vice-president of the ECB, Papademos.

How much longer do Eurocrats hope to maintain this state of affairs? The second Dutch referendum – on the treaty with Ukraine – cannot be ignored completely. The British choice to leave the EU will have severe consequences. Hungary held a decisive referendum on EU immigration quota. The Italian referendum was a victory for anti-EU forces. Finland is considering a referendum on the euro and the Czech president last year considered a referendum on leaving the EU altogether – the so-called Czexit.

The coalition of free nations has thus far been led by Norway, Iceland and Switzerland. With Great Britain as a fourth member, it’s starting to look like a winning team. Through British negotiations, the alternatives to a continental super-state will start to take shape; a vastly more attractive form of cooperation based on freedom, sovereignty and democracy.

Now is the time to pull through and bring down this managers’ empire. Now is the time to replace this controlled democracy by governments who are accountable to its citizens, and act in our interests.

Note: Gatestone Europe greatly appreciates your comments. Our comment section works through a pending system, so a lag might occur between writing your comment, and the comment being published. Our moderators also reserve the right not to publish comments containing incitement to violence and profanities.
  • This is a superb essay that sets out all of the faults with the European Union and why indigenous Europeans must stand united against it. The unity peddled by the EU will be the dissolution of all that is known today as Europe.

    • UncleVladdi

      It’s bureacratic stealth Communism.

    • maltow

      Unity? That’s what Federica Mogherini (yet another Italian politician turned Euro-bureaucrat, now the foreign policy chief of the European Union) likes to pretend to anyone witless enough to still listen.
      She stood on her dignity, or rather the dignity of the European Commission, issuing a warning to America (well to Trump in this instance: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/765976/Donald-Trump-EU-European-Union-Federica-Mogherini-EU-US-relations-Ted-Malloch ) not to interfere with politics in Europe.
      Mogherini went on to surpass herself, claiming that “the strength of the EU and the unity of the EU I believe is more evident today than it was”. Certainly, this “strength” and “unity” are on full display in the latest instalment of the Greek debt crisis.
      We might reasonably wonder what American armed forces have been doing for the past 70 years, effectively providing the defence of Continental Europe and so sparing local politicians the need to raise taxes to pay for it themselves. But this free riding by Europe is apparently an acceptable form of interference. On anything else, America has to be “warned”.
      Taken from an article written by Paul Ormerod, CityAM newspaper (London).

  • A Hopkins

    I would really appreciate it if Gatestone Europe could make their articles printable as they are on the main website. A hard copy magazine version at a reasonable price would also be appreciated.

  • Jaime Lanndan

    Brilliant reading!

  • Deplorable of Kent

    The European Union should be renamed The European Hegemony; its primary aim: to become the dominant government entity from the Urals to the Atlantic, from Lapland to Malta. For more colour on its true aims, set in an exciting fictional thriller, try Danny Roberts’ novel The Belief Gene http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=4032 especially Chapter 15; read about how an inner secret cabal of the EU hierarchy seek the total destruction of the nation state, through slow-but-sure population replacement if the native populus don’t bend the knee to The Hegemony.

  • a man utd fan from israel


  • Fiona Wilkinson

    A stunningly comprehensive and all-embracing history of the inevitability of where the European Project was intended to lead.
    And here we are-and, this excellent account is even able to include the jazz hands omnishambles of the EUs appalling incompetence, failure, unaccountability, cynical machinations as being ALSO part of the process.
    Whatever the problems created?…well set up a Potemkin Parliament, a Pravda media and buy off Alinskys segmented grievance mongers in their 20 languages-until it can no longer be unravelled and Islam with a patina of Euroscommunism are set loose on the plebs.
    Thank GOD for Brexit-and may Le Pen, Wilders and Frauy , Orban and Klaus do all they can to bring this rotten edifice down by stages-as opposed to killing Mediterranean kids, decent European friends who never voted for ANY of this-and allowing the shysters and Muslims to create a hell for ourselves and futre generations.

  • George Guansing

    Corrupt politicians has become the servant Corrupt Industrialists who are actually running the world affairs.

  • johntodd

    There are 63 million who voted for Trump, and the many in NY and CA who did not bother to vote because of the Liberal control of the Electoral College in these states, and their Families, the total is perhaps 150 Million people who are Trump supporters.
    The Liberals are in severe depression as they lost the 2016 election and they grouped together and threatened Macy’s, Nordstrom, and other retailers forcing their hand to eliminate Trump products.
    The time has come to RETAILIATE, loyal Trump supporters must unite, the first step is Boycott Macy’s, Nordstrom’s and Starbucks. More importantly the media have been dishonest and very unfair, actually UN -American. Time to boycott the biggest violators, CNN, NBC, Washington Post and New York Times, boycott them and more importantly their SPONSORS!
    Trump Supporters need a computer savvy person to set up a web site that lists the sponsors of say CNN and NBC News to start, the huge amount of supporters of 150 Million Americans can affect the bottom line of these organizations, CNN’s viewership is already at a record low, this could force them into bankruptcy, where they belong.
    Hollywood is obviously on the top of the Boycott list, I went from 25+ movies per year to 0 since May 2016 and DO NOT miss going to the movies. I believe Hollywood are already seeing the effect as George Clooney’s last movie Money Monster was DOA, Tom Hanks last two movies, Inferno and Sully were both box office disappointments.

    • sheepdog

      Right on, johntodd. Somehow we must organize so as to form a cohesive group. Only then will the dissenters take notice. We could likely change (or create new) news sites and virtually close down Hollywood.

  • Stefan Ehrenkreutz

    I wonder how much the citizens of the smaller European states will prefer having to submit to the requirements of Washington and Moscow, two superstates that don’t allow exiting and have huge power compared to most of the nations of Europe?

    • sheepdog

      Is this your justification for the EU?

    • Bazz12

      They will be required to submit to Saudi Arabia, Tehran etc not Washington or Moscow.

  • sheepdog


  • NK

    Very good article, except for a small detail: The 2015 referendum was proclaimed by the extreme left Tsipras government, with an unbelievable ballot with english text on it, followed by a translation in Greek.

    When the answer (to an extremely convoluted question, basically whether to accept the bailout agreement) turned out to be NO, Tsipras then turned around and said: “This NO will give me more negotiating power”.

    He simply ignored the result and more or less said “NO means YES to a better negotiation” !

    Greeks were not bothered however, a couple of months later, with their borders open, their banks closed and the “NO means YES” debacle, they voted him into power again.

    Greece is too far gone, even the “centre-right” party in opposition , did not dare to vote down the trafficker’s charter that now passes fro Greek citizenship law: You don’t even have to have been born in Greece, you just show up at the border, are picked up, fed and housed by the NGOs and the EU and presto: in 4 years you become a Greek citizen.

    Greece will not last the decade as an ethnic Greek country, practically everyone between 20 and 40 years of age has left or is leaving, and everyone that shows up at the border gets a passport! Last year there were 90.000 live births and 120.000 illegal entries into the country, that all stayed there (there is now a fence at the Greek-Macedonian border).

    Like I said, ethnic Greeks were simply too nihilistic and too far gone to the left, to survive the decade. By 2027 they will be a minority in Greece.

  • UncleVladdi

    Just lying fraud excuse-making: “We didn’t do it, only The Procedures did it! Whee!”

  • UncleVladdi

    Yes. I see the rise of a fact-based, not faith-based, psychology and morality.

  • lbjack

    One of the inherent weaknesses of republican democracy is that we vote to outsource day-to-day governance. We all know the problem of outsourcing. Who’s minding the store? It’s the same problem in politics. The people spend so much of their time struggling to make a iving that they just don’t engage in the participatory democracy — town hall democracy if you will — necessary to keep politicians and bureaucrats under scrutiny. and — most important — for them to know it. That said, I think the so-called “bureaucrats” get a bad rap. They are usually civil servants doing the thankless jobs of implementing rules and regulations laid down by government, the government we elect. (And, since we are a civil society, which the minority undertakes to live under.)

    The problem of outsourced governance is manifest by the decades in which Europeans elected and re-elected the governments who betrayed them. Now that the consequences are in their face, they are paying attention and they are voting. The question is, whether the vote is too little too late — if the genie is out of the bottle. European union has been a noble experiment, but malfeasance of those at the top has made it fail. Their allowing basket case countries in to drag down the rest was based on fraud. As for the Muslim invasion, that Europeans put up with it as long as they did shows how deluded they were by the fake nostrums of multi-culturalism used to justify the catastrophe their governments fomented.

  • johnamiri

    Excellent piece and very well written While I don’t pretend to be any sort of economic or parliamentarian expert its simple to grasp the sometimes quite complex consequences of what is happening in Europe.

  • kris

    Brilliant article, we need a lot more of this kind of informed, intelligent, and well researched opinion that exposes the backroom power brokers for what they are and might actually wake the rest of us up to what is going on before it is too late.

  • tjke

    Europe is finished, unless the real Europeans who want to live in freedom and democracy stay against the devilish ideology called islam and send all the so called refugees back.
    At least 80% of those refugees are muslim terrorists

  • Leo Savantt

    The target will be Russia, in fact politically it already is.

  • BlueScreenOfDeath


  • Peter Irvin Smith

    The EU is designed to be – by the long-drawn-out process so well described here – the Fourth German Reich. I’ve been saying that for 40+ years and nothing has appeared to suggest that I have been wrong. This is why the demand has arisen for a European Army – separate from NATO, intended not for the defence of Europe but for the control of the European people – and the recruits will be the 1 million young male Muslims already imported by Merkel. “For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good people to do nothing.”


    Lord of the Flies.

  • Peter Irvin Smith

    No, not a war against the Muslims, a war with an army OF Muslims (already recruited by Merkel) against the people of Europe. The “threat” from Russia is a fog created to justify the creation of the European Army.

  • maltow

    You are ignoring the fact that the Dutch government itself has admitted it’s utter democratic irrelevance, shown time and again by the EU ignoring national referenda. But clearly this project is dear to your heart.

    I couldn’t be bothered to wade through it, the the ‘latin’ phase
    ascribed to Monnet, is cited somewhere in this citation teeming paper:
    ‘The Development of Agencies at EU and National Levels: Conceptual Analysis and Proposals for Reform’.
    (Professor J.H.H.Weiler European Union Jean Monnet Chair)

    And all I had to do was ‘google’ it.

    • David Price

      Thanks for this reply. NATO was organized for external defence. The European Community (as distinct from the |EU) was designed to encourage internal peace among the six founder nations that included Germany. De Gaulle stopped temporarily — “chloroformed” — this process in the first years.
      Elections to Parliament were only partially undertaken in 1979 and then not as a single European election but as multiple national elections where each government was able to “fiddle’ the rules to get its own people elected. If a Single fair Statute was implemented Europe would be in a better democratic condition.
      Elections need to be made to the legislative committees too. The Commission has been made into a party political secretariat — a function it was supposed to oppose — because political parties in power often abuse their positions against the public.
      The remedy for the Dutch and for the other States is not to rip up the treaties but to follow the democratic rules.
      The big question is how do you get politicians who are now used to undemocratic control, becoming humble democrats and agreeing to the elections and above all to OPEN government. A crisis is one way to open up a real debate about this abuse.
      The Council is no different from the Parliament in Community terms. It should be open so the public can see what is going on and draw the consequences.

      • maltow

        Yes. Understood. And I compliment your far greater knowledge of this subject.
        But it is wishful thinking par excellence to believe that the EU was constituted to hold to the ‘rule of law’ surely? The ‘laws’ (treaty rules in this case), are quite evidently whatever the EU (in its many guises) says they are, and this by design.
        As to ‘governmental openness’, it’s always one step forwards, two steps back, often making no reference to ‘treaties’: https://euobserver.com/investigations/123555
        “The new reporting requirements will mark a sea-change in how the industry is regulated yet the trilogue meeting where it happened remains a closed process.
        Search for any mention of trilogues in the EU treaties and you will draw a blank.
        This is because despite being an accepted part of the lawmaking landscape, in legal terms trilogues don’t exist.” And now that Lisbon is law, the European Council can shift new powers to the European institutions without a new treaty or treaty amendment being required. Powers can shift without there being any treaty on which to hold a referendum then anyway. So the Dutch government are right, and in effect (openly and honestly for once) speaking for all member governments, when they tell us publicly they are inconsequential and irrelevant now.
        And it seems our own parliament was more than happy with this arrangement, and even happy to break solid election pledges, without a murmur from the opposing benches, in pursuit of such arrangements: http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2009/11/cameron-ignorant-or-slippery-i-ask-the-professor.html
        “I asked Damian Chalmers, professor of European Union Law at the London School of Economics and head of the European Institute, to answer a couple of questions about Article 48, known as the passerelle clause.
        One question I put to the professor was this –
        David Cameron’s undertaking is that, under a Conservative government, no new powers will be passed to Brussels in any new treaty without a referendum. It seems to me that under Lisbon new powers can pass to the EU institutions without a new treaty. Is that right?
        Answer from the professor: ‘You are right.’ ”
        Whatever you say is saveable just isn’t in my humble view David. I am overjoyed that the 67% solid ‘majority’ to remain faltered because of facts like these, and the utter inability, still true today, to answer Her Majesty’s own simple question:
        “Can anyone give me three good reasons to remain in the EU?”
        No one could. Let alone organisations seeking to remain, enjoying the full backing of the entire government including the Treasury of the time, and most of the opposition too. I humbly submit that whatever the ‘dream’ was it’s now the nightmare many feared it would be (remember that when the idea was first OPENLY proposed to the French for one, they responded by throwing the whole concept out, thus making the need for subterfuge and piecemeal implementation, always disguised as merely ‘the furtherance of trade’ when really it was ALWAYS about ‘governance’, a necessity of inception), and for us anyway, it’s now over.

  • Caivs Ivlivs

    We have Trump. I still hold strong.