It seems at long, long, last, people are waking up


But nothing like far enough. There is still a lot more waking up to do.


I write this on the day before the verdict of Stuart Wheeler’s Judicial Review is known.


My prediction for that judgement is below. (History will be the judge as to whether I’m right or wrong).


In summary, Mr. Wheeler’s case against the New Labour Prime Minister and the Secretary of State is that a Referendum on the EU Constitution was promised in the 2005 Election Manifesto, and that the UK should, therefore have a Referendum.


In reply the Government (via Solicitors) have responded to the effect “We are politicians, and therefore people should not believe what we say”. Also “The Lisbon Treaty is not the EU Constitution, so the manifesto pledge does not apply”.


Against all odds, Mr. Wheeler’s request for a Judicial Review made it through to the High Court, and has been placed in front of Lord Justice Richards. Lord Richard’s response was to tell the Government that, since this case is still under judgement, they should suspend the ratification process (even though, by that time, it had received the Queen’s Assent). Reluctantly, Brown & Co. SAY that they have suspended the ratification process.


My prediction, on the evening before the judgement is known, will be that Lord Justice Richards will agree that any pledge, made in any Party Manifesto, cannot ever be legally binding. (Which is why the Government gleefully chant “These things always fail”)


I hope against hope, however, that Lord Richards will remember the essence of legality – which is to underpin morality. In other words that Acts of Parliament are a democratic society’s method of standardising what are, fundamentally, moral issues.


And that the logical consequence of that is: While Party Manifesto pledges are not legally binding, any Government should strive, as far a possible, to implement them as a moral duty to the electorate.


Something that Gordon Brown & Co. have conspicuously failed to do.


And that the overall result will be to tell the Government to ‘think again’. And to offer to the court, and to the British people, definitive and concrete arguments for reneging on this pledge. (Remember: To get to this stage the Government have already exhausted its arguments, above. Such a judgement along these lines would leave them very little room for manoeuvre).


Alternatively, of course, Lord Richards may decree that the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are, essentially, quite different documents, and that the manifesto pledge does not apply. Quite how Lord Richards could come to this conclusion, in the short timescale he has allotted for his judgement, is difficult to imagine.


That’s a summary of the situation on Tuesday, 24th June 2008. Whether I’m right or wrong will be known at about 9:45 am tomorrow.


But, as I said at the start, there is a lot more waking up to be done – even if we get the judgement we would like.


One of the things which must be transparently clear - to just about everyone - is the haste at which all this furore is running. And the immediate, and continued, rejections spat out against the Irish “No” Vote.


I ask you to ponder. Why, do you think, this should be? This ‘steamroller’, this ‘steamrollering’, this (is it not now?) obvious trampling on the wishes of all Europeans?


Surely it is gathering pace. Is it not?


Do you get that feeling?


All the comments I’ve read (including those long before the Irish vote) support the general view that “There’s something wrong with all this. This is not the way democracy is supposed to be. They should be listening to us”.


And so on.


Well, that’s the flavour I pick up. Is it yours?


Do I know why this should be? Probably. But I can’t definitively prove it, so I’m not going to elucidate much further.


Only to say that there is a future date which the people behind all of this need to meet. Otherwise their plan fails. There are many (well documented) reasons to indicate that this is, indeed, the situation.


I believe I know what that plan is. I do know what that target date is. I believe I know what will happen if they manage to meet that date. I am sure that there will be no going back, should they manage to meet it.


I do not know what will happen if they fail to meet their target date but, as I’ve argued above, they appear to be utterly desperate to meet it. (Hence the urgency – they have very little time left, and the clock is ticking).


You don’t have to believe a word of this. All you have to do is watch them. They are way off course, and frantically rowing to get back on course.


They will say (and possibly do) anything to get back on to that course. Does this make sense, when related to their actions? I think you will eventually find it does.



Veronica Chapman

24th June, 2008