At the Gordon Brown School of Mendacity, the first and greatest lesson is that you must repeat each lie as often as possible that it may in time become truth itself. The theory comes unstuck, however, in the face of a vain old man’s hubris and desire to ensure preservation and recognition of his legacy.

By such an old man’s hand has Gordon Brown’s conscious planned campaign of mendacity, which has as its objective the hoodwinking of an entire Nation that it might quietly acquiesce in the process of its own subjugation, collapsed.

It has collapsed because an elderly and deeply self-important man of eighty-one is so pleased with his handiwork that he feels the need to boast of just how clever he and his associates have been.

In this way Valéry Marie René Giscard d’Estaing, lately third President of the Third Republic of France has written the European Union equivalent of O.J. Simpson’s “If I Did It”, save that in the former’s case the title should simply be “We Did It”. For this descendant of Louis XV and Charlemagne, of imperial mien and bearing, has set out to Le Monde to ensure that all men realize just how clever has been the process of giving renewed life to his brainchild, The Union Constitution.

In so doing he has comprehensively blown the gaff on Gordon Brown who now stands revealed as The Emperor with No Clothes.

Let us delve a little further into the wreck that now is Gordon Brown’s rotten little plot to hand the business of the governance of the British people over to an alien and unelected Imperium.

Take by way of starting the mantra which has been culled from the Union’s own propaganda and which is repeated over and over and over like so many ‘hare Krishnas’: “the constitutional concept is abandoned”. This The Sun King comprehensively demolishes by setting out in extenso the process, which those of us unwilling to be hoodwinked have understood from the outset, by which it is merely the means of creating a constitution that has been changed, not the constitution itself:

For the Lisbon Treaty, by contrast, it was the Council’s legal experts who were given the task of drafting the text. They carried out that task with great care and skill whilst fully respecting the mandate which was given them on 22nd. June by the European Council. They took the classic route followed by Brussels Institutions, that of amending previous Treaties: the Treaty of Lisbon is but the latest in a line of such Treaties from Amsterdam to Nice, all of which the wider public find largely impenetrable.

Those legal experts did not propose any innovations. They took the text of the Constitutional Treaty and extracted therefrom each essential element, one by one, and placed them by way of amendment into the Treaties of Rome (1957) and of Maastricht (1992).

If one now comes to the contents, the net result is that the proposed Institutional reforms in the Constitutional Treaty – the only ones which mattered in the drafting process – are now embedded into the Treaty of Lisbon, re-ordered and spread across the previous Treaties.

Thus he makes it clear that the vital beating heart of the Constitution lives on, albeit in a different form. He describes the process thus:

The end result is self-evident. In the Lisbon Treaty, drafted entirely on the basis of the Constitutional Treaty, the tools are exactly the same. All that has changed is the order in which they are put into the tool-box. The tool-box itself has been repainted using an old model which has three compartments in which one must rummage to find that which one seeks.

This makes it plain that the assertion that this is not the old constitution reborn is, quite simply, a lie.

He is not shy in the least about why it has been done in this way:

The text of the Treaty is thus almost unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. The resulting text is evidently miles from being simple and straightforward. To work out just how far, consult the table of contents of the three treaties!

What is the point of such subtle manipulation? First and foremost to avoid any need whatsoever to have a referendum, thanks to the dispersal of the amendments throughout the treaties and the avoidance of constitutional terminology.

What could be clearer than that? The people are not to be trusted, therefore they must, at all costs, be prevented from knowing what we are doing. What they do not know about will not trouble them.

Next he makes it clear who is actually in charge here:

Above all the Amending Treaty has been, for Brussels Institutions, a crafty way recovering control, after all the wholly unwelcome interference of Parliamentarians and politicians, of the achievements of the European Convention. The institutions have re-imposed their language and their procedures, thus making it all even more obscure and opaque for ordinary citizens.

So much then for the words of the European Commission in its Communication of 3rd. October 2007 (Brussels, 3.10.2007 COM(2007) 568 final):

Today, more than ever, the debate on Europe must be taken beyond the institutions to its citizens. This was emphasised by the 2007 June European Council which underlined the crucial importance of reinforcing communication with the European citizens, providing full and comprehensive information on the European Union and involving them in a permanent dialogue. This will be particularly important during the Reform Treaty ratification process and as we approach the 2009 European elections.

Read and understand: “We are the Masters now”.

Finally Giscard tells us that the chickens have hatched and may now be counted:

The next phase is that of ratification. This should pose no great problem save perhaps in the UK where any referendum would certainly lead to a rejection of ratification. The obscurity of the text, however, and the apparent abandonment of the more grandiose ambitions should be enough to scotch reservations in other countries.

In three pages the Father of the Union has demolished each and every lie which Brown has told. The truth is now out there.

We should be grateful for the vanity of old men.

See here for the full text of the Le Monde Letter in English and French