Not choice but prejudice

All this hoo-ha about having a referendum on the Lisbon treaty is a smokescreen. The main proponents for it are the traditional anti-EU brigade and they are not interested in giving people choice (though they say so for PR-friendly reasons), but finding a political device to stop the government from passing it into British law. The referendum dunces hate all the workings of the EU, not just the Lisbon treaty and so they are, it is true, liars when they claim they are interested in letting people choose. If the Lisbon treaty promised heaven on earth, these anti-European crazies would still vote against it. Europeans may as well be Martians as far as they are concerned. Not that they universally hate Europeans, but whether there is a high-level of xenophobia or a low-level of xenophobia, xenophobia there still is.
The argument is that a referendum should be granted because the government promised one on the EU constitution and that the Lisbon treaty is not substantively different. That promise on the EU constitution was a moment of political opportunism by Tony Blair, but as always with Blair, short-term political gain turns out bad for the national interest in the long-term. Moreover, it piled pressure on the French government to grant a referendum which it did. The anti-EU crazies (anti-EU and anti-European are pretty interchangeable with them) jump up and down like wild savages round a pot stewing an unfortunate missionary in the popular image, screeching "See! See! No-one wants this EU constitution!" But why did the French vote against it? It was nothing to do with any of the substance of the constitution, but because the French were worried about Turkey's accession and the legend of the Polish plumber (when they had closed their employment borders for a few years whereas Britian had not), but primarily because they wanted to give their unpopular government a good kicking. The Dutch would have voted the way the French would because they were uncomfortable for the same reasons about Turkey and Eastern Europe but would not want to rock the boat. Blair's gamble had paid off and he would not have to defend the EU in public because his moral cowardice militated against that.
Now, as evidence that people don't want the Lisbon treaty the anti-EU crazies and their propaganda organs in the media, like the Torygraph, they cite that 88% of people want a referendum and 89% are against the Lisbon treaty (which still means at least 1% are against the treaty but don't want a referendum). But how many people in this country have read the EU constitution? How many have read the Lisbon treaty? I think you'll find any poll would find less than 1%. So people are abandoning totally their rational judgement. It's like "We don't what it is, but we know we don't like it." Frankly, if people are so lacking in self-awareness it is pathetic. This is exactly the reason why Plato was so against democracy - that well-organised demagogues could manipulate the popular vote in their favour, even if it was against the popular interest. I think that if a referendum is given (which it won't be), before voting, people must sit down for two hours, not a minute more or less and try and read through the Lisbon treaty. Two hours won't be enough, but skim reading might do it. Then and only then, would they be allowed to cast their ballot. Of course, the majority of the people so motivated to do so would the anti-EU crazies, because most people know little and care little enough about Europe, so it would be a victory for the anti-EU crazis since the pro-Europeans are such a reasonable and moderate bunch but their numbers do not contain as many extremists who are willing to sit down for two hours. Basically, this is an issue for our parliamentary representatives to decide upon because it exceeds the competence and interest of the vast bulk of the people.

Talking of dishonesty, what was Google doing celebrating that fraud Alexander Graham Bell yesterday in its logo? We all know his patent was stolen from the original inventor of the telephone.

A quick note on the interminable violence between the two Semitic groups of Israeli and Palestinian. 121 Palestinians dead, 3 Israelis dead. That's roughly a 40:1 ratio, if that ratio were reversed, imagine the uproar from the Israelis. It's 40 eyes for one eye, 40 teeth for one tooth. Jeremy Paxman managed to fox out of the Hamas foreign minister's spokesman that the rocket attacks were nothing to do with self-defence or resistance, but were actually revenge. The Israeli ambassador to London was more silver-tongued and his circumstances were less straightened, but it's clear that Israel is doing its attacks for revenge too.