Treaty is exactly as this blog repeatedly foretold - WHY?

The following is from the editorial, linked here, demanding a referendum in today's Sunday Telegraph: "If anyone needed proof that Europe's bureaucrats regard their mandate to rule as based on something other than the consent of the ruled, this is it.

The democratic deficit at the heart of the project of "ever closer European union" now gapes wider than ever. Worse, as the agreement reached yesterday in Brussels shows, the sovereignty of the individual nation states of Europe is to be diminished further.

The European Council, which is part of the EU, has now said that the Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC) - which represents the interests of the various nation states that make up the EU - when it comes to debate the new treaty can only discuss items on an agenda that the Council dictates. That agenda will not include most of the constitutional reforms adopted by the European Council.

So, instead of being discussed by the IGC, and possibly rejected by it, the latest reforms are now presented as a fait accompli that cannot be changed. The new procedure is not authorised by precedent, by treaty, or indeed by anything at all. It marks another power-grab by the Eurocrats.

Unless it is exposed and opposed, it will, like all their previous power grabs, soon become endorsed and immoveably enshrined in EU governance." BUT the point that should be considered, as anybody reading the postings on this blog over the past few months must quickly realise, is why have I been apparently alone in predicting this inevitable outcome? I have no inside knowledge, access to briefing papers, or contacts involved in either the negotiating process or the EU Commission, yet I exactly predicted both the outcome and manner of its accomplishment. The rest of the British political establishment including the Tories and UKIP must have been able to do the same. The conclusion, therefore, has to be that the whole thing is a stitch-up involving the entire British political establishment and that many of the loud calls for a referendum are simply a carefully planned and orchestrated smoke screen. If a referendum is called no doubt a similar plot is already in hand to ensure it cannot be won. EU money, threats of job losses and fear of house price falls will no doubt win the day for these non-democrats unless an appealing and youth driven alternative is presented to the electorate. Anti- EU democrats must present an attractive democratic alternative within the wider english speaking world where democracy, common law and true free trade based on historical maritime practises will govern. Can any now doubt such is impossible within the EU?