Once upon a time in a land not so far away Britain used to have two shop-soiled politicians who we fondly imagined would look after the interests of our country and protect us from the worst excesses of the power-acquisitive foreigners amongst whom they had been thrown. It was, alas, usually a fairy story with no happy ending.

Instead, after a few months of careful lubrication with plates of foie gras and lobster thermidor, washed down with the finest white burgundies and clarets of great vintages, our distinguished former minister would ‘go native’, having worked out that being one of the UK’s EU Commissioners was a cushy billet with a fat wedge of a pension at the end of it and that being agreeable was so much easier than being disagreeable.

Some were more predisposed than others to the method – Jenkins, Patten and Brittan come to mind – but others succumbed just as surely in the end. But at least we had the choice of them no matter what they ended up doing in the end and at least they were ‘our’ caviar-eating and champagne-swilling commissioners.

Our new Constitution will put an end to all that. As Jens-Peter Bonde reminds us, provincial governors of the Empire will in future be able, under Article 9d (8) of the Lisbon Treaty, merely to make ‘suggestions’ for membership of the European Commission:

The Council, by common accord with the President-elect, shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it proposes for appointment as members of the Commission. They shall be selected, on the basis of the suggestions made by Member States….

But there is no obligation whatsoever for the European Council to adopt those suggestions. Thus, after 2014 when the Commission is reduced to 20 members, it is perfectly possible that the EuroNabobery might choose to exclude the UK from having one of its nationals as a Commissioner. This, as Bonde points out, might mean that a cabal of Europhiliac, Federalist Centre-left governments could, using Qualified Majority Voting, ensure the exclusion of the ‘suggestion’ of a British Government that was perceived not to be very Communautaire.

Thus compliant minnows such as Luxembourg, Slovenia and the like might well have their ‘suggestion’ adopted and find themselves elevated to the rank of Tribune of the People, there to lord it over our sixty million. Britain, on the other hand, could only look on in impotent fury. Bonde puts it thus:

This means that the power to appoint the European “Government” in reality will go to an alliance of Christian Democrats and Socialists being able to align 20 of 27 prime ministers and 376 of 751 members of the next parliament.

The national member state representation is gone. The Commission has a monopoly to propose laws. The governments of Europe will lose their own connection to this motor of integration. It will be a motor without responsibility towards voters in the member states. The European parliament can only sack a government by 2/3 majority and absolute majority of members which is very difficult to obtain.

I, for one, hope that this happens. We need provocations of this kind to ram home to our dunderhead political class and to our long-suffering and much-traduced people the extent to which we have ceased to have effective power under this Treaty.

I commend heartily Mr. Bonde’s site to you. As he views things through essentially Danish Eurosceptic eyes he picks up from time to time little gems that we may have otherwise missed that impinge on the likes of Denmark in a particular way but often also apply equally to us.

It appears that Denmark too is being asked to vote on the Treaty before it has had a look at an official consolidation of the new texts. I can do no better than cite what has happened verbatim:

Vote on a treaty we have not received officially

Wednesday and Thursday 24-25 January the Constitutional Affairs Committee will vote on the Corbett-de Vigo report about the Lisbon Treaty. The deadline for amendments was before we had received the treaty. We have still not been able to read a consolidated edition where the many treaty amendments can be read in context and thereby understood.

I have written to the committee and asked for a postponement of the deadline for amendment and the vote. Let us see if the committee is serious or further add to the democratic deficit in the production of this renamed constitution.

The committee has unanimously agreed to establish a consolidated version. The President of the Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, has promised a consolidated version. His staff has refused to establish it – because they feel bound by a decision in the intergovernmental conference not to publish a consolidated version by any institution before it has been ratified by all 27 member states.

This decision tells more than many words. The Prime Ministers want parliaments to sign up to the treaty before they have had a chance to read it. The European Parliament looks like accepting this innovation in parliamentary scrutiny.

The Danish parliament will have its first reading 24 January.

If you were, for example, to be reading a history of how Adolf Hitler achieved complete power in the Third Reich, that passage would fit almost perfectly into our perceptions of how it was done.

That our political class is knuckling under to this sort of legalized coup d’état shows how far detached from the norms of democracy they have removed themselves. So long as they can keep the pig trough close at hand the better to shove their snouts in, why should they be bothered about a mere bagatelle such as the independence of the United Kingdom?

Kept in a form of modern concubinage in which they are periodically serviced with narcotic intromissions of salary, expenses, allowances and granted the odd chance to play with a few minor levers of power, our erstwhile Masters will have been reduced to the level of the pig-sty whose denizens they are so keen to emulate. Once their time at the trough is done they will then be dispensed with and put on the drip feed of a fat pension.

So long, of course, as they behave themselves.

The rest of us will in the meantime have been reduced into a form of servitude in which we are expected to provide the wherewithal for the subsistence of the modern Boyars of Brussels.

But then ask yourself: where are the Boyars now?