Can we believe Gordon Brown?我们可以相信，英国财政大臣布朗？
‘Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?” Johnny Rotten famously sneered to the audience at the San Francisco Winterland in 1978, just before the Sex Pistols split up. '以往任何时候都得到感觉你已经被骗？ "约翰尼烂著名讥给观众，在旧金山冬地，在1978年，就在他的性手枪拆散了。 Well, 30 years on, we have all been cheated: ripped off, swindled, stitched up like kippers.好， 30年后的今天，我们都被欺骗了：受骗，被骗，缝合起来像kippers 。 What happened last week in the vote on the Lisbon Treaty was a confidence trick of epic proportions.所发生的事情，上周在表决里斯本条约是一个信心的伎俩史诗比重。
First, and however grudgingly, all credit to the grifters who pulled off this awesome scam: it was a masterly political operation.首先，不过勉强，所有信贷向grifters退出了这段可怕的陷阱：这是一个高超的政治运作。 Gordon Brown, David Miliband and Jim Murphy, the Europe Minister, played an absolute blinder, in the idiomatic and literal senses: they barely put a foot wrong in their handling of the referendum vote, and they managed, by keeping their cool, remaining poker-faced and burying the debate in obfuscation, to divert the public’s attention almost entirely from what was going on.英国财政大臣布朗，大卫miliband和吉姆墨菲，欧洲部长，起到了绝对blinder ，在成语字面观念：他们几乎付诸一英尺错在处理这次公民投票的投票，而他们的管理，保持冷静的头脑，其余扑克-面对与埋葬辩论迷惑，为了转移公众的注意力几乎完全是从什么事。
My jaw dropped last Wednesday as I listened to the Prime Minister tell David Cameron that it was time for the Tories to move “to the centre of Europe instead of being left at the margins of Europe”.我的下巴下降上周三，因为我听到总理告诉大卫卡梅伦说，现在是为保守党动议" ，以该中心的欧洲而不是被留在边缘的欧洲" 。
Rarely has Gordon sounded so like Tony.很少有戈登吹响了，所以想托尼。 I don’t believe for a second that Mr Brown has become a true believer in the European Union.我不相信一个二说，布朗先生已经成为一个真正的信徒在欧洲联盟。 But - however much the words stuck in his craw - he was willing to say just about anything to get this one out of the way.但-但很多字卡在他的c raw-他愿意把刚才说什么也让这一个出了道路。
When the Prime Minister and his allies looked ahead to the referendum vote in the Commons, not in their wildest dreams could they have imagined that the headlines the morning after would focus on Nick Clegg and the Lib Dem split over Europe.当首相和他的盟友展望全民公决投票中的商品，而不是在自己的梦想，他们还可以想到的头条上午后，将侧重于尼克Clegg先生和数字高程模型库分裂超过欧洲。 Talk about missing the big picture: it was as if the press the day after the storming of the Winter Palace in 1917 had led on drainage problems in Petrograd.谈及失踪全局的大事：这是因为，如果按下后一天强攻的冬季故宫在1917年导致了对排水问题，在彼得格勒。
Much as I like Mr Clegg, I do not think his parliamentary management skills are of greater significance to the real story of Wednesday night: the denial to the British public of a referendum that all three parties promised to them in the 2005 election.虽然我喜欢问Clegg先生，我不认为他的议会管理技巧，是更有意义的真实故事周三夜间：拒绝向英国公众对公投表示，所有这三个当事方答应他们在2005年的大选。 The arguments deployed to justify this treachery were remarkable for their sheer effrontery.论据部署的理由来支持这个奸诈显着，为他们纯粹effrontery 。
We were told, first of all, that the Lisbon Treaty is not the same as the original EU Constitutional Treaty.我们被告知，首先是因为里斯本条约是不一样的原欧盟宪法条约。 Come on, guys: everybody knows that the two texts are so similar that any claim to the contrary is either sophistry or an outright lie.来吧，家伙：谁都知道，这两个文本都是如此相似，任何人，相反，是不是狡辩，或一个弥天大谎。
It is true that some European leaders have joined in the sophistry to claim that the two documents are not the same.我不否认一些欧洲领导人纷纷参加狡辩，声称这两份文件是不一样的。 But the overwhelming majority concur with Valery Giscard d’Estaing’s declaration that “All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”但绝大多数同意瓦莱里吉斯卡尔-e staing's声明说： "所有这些早前的建议，将在新的文本，但会隐藏和伪装，以某种方式" 。
Next, it was argued by the Government that the Lisbon Treaty is no longer “constitutional” and so does not require a referendum.其次，它辩称，政府说，里斯本条约已不再是"宪政" ，因此并不需要进行全民投票。 This is a moot point, to say the least: the deal establishes a permanent EU presidency, an EU foreign minister, wide-ranging extensions of qualified majority voting, dramatic changes to the “passerelle” or escalator system which enables the European Council unilaterally to extend its powers, and - perhaps above all - the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the precise legal significance of which Foreign Office lawyers admitted is unknowable in testimony to the Commons European Scrutiny Committee.这是一个有争议的问题，至少可以这样说：这笔交易建立了一个常设欧盟轮值主席，欧盟外交部长，宽领域的延伸合格的多数表决，戏剧性的变化，以" passerelle "或自动扶梯系统，使欧洲理事会单方面扩大其权力，而-或许上述所有-基本权利宪章，确切的法律意义，其中外国律师办公室承认，是不可知的证词在向欧洲共同审议委员会。
However, let us say, for the sake of argument, that the Government is right and that the Lisbon Treaty is not “constitutional”.不过，让我们说，为了讨个说法，认为政府是正确的，并说，里斯本条约，是不是"宪法" 。 This is, as it happens, irrelevant.这是，因为它发生的，无关宏旨。
When Tony Blair made the original promise of a referendum to the Commons on April 20, 2004, he was absolutely explicit: the proposed deal, he claimed, “does not and will not alter the fundamental nature of the relationship between member states and the European Union”.当英国首相布莱尔提出原来承诺的全民投票，以下议院于2004年4月20日，他是绝对清晰：拟议中的交易，他声称， "没有也不会改变基本关系的性质，成员国和欧洲联盟" 。
He was not constitutionally obliged to hold a referendum, he said, but driven to do so by the “partly successful campaign to persuade Britain that Europe is a conspiracy aimed at us”, and by his own growing desire for a grand reckoning.他没有宪制上的责任，以举行公民投票，他说，但是驱动这样做，由"部分成功的竞选游说英国表示，欧洲是一个阴谋，目的是在美" ，以及由他自己的成长的愿望了隆重的决战时刻。 “Let the issue be put and let the battle be joined!” he declared. "让这个问题付诸表决，并让战斗加入！ "他宣称。 To be clear: Labour made the promise on the grounds that it was ready for a punch-up, and could win.必须明确：劳动作出了承诺，其理由是，它已经做好准备，从更深的行动，并能取胜。 So it is not that there was a constitutional hurdle that the original treaty cleared, but the Lisbon Treaty does not.所以这是不是有一个宪政跨栏认为原来的条约清除了，但里斯本条约不。
What has changed is that there is a new Prime Minister, who is not ready for a punch-up on Europe, and knows he would not win such a confrontation.有所改变的是，有一个新的总理，他是没有准备好，一度昏迷了对欧洲，而且知道他不会取得这种对抗。
The breach of trust in shifting from one position to another is extraordinary.违反信托转变职能，从一个位置到另一个是很了不起的。 Three days before he entered Number 10, Mr Brown said that “The manifesto is what we put to the public. 3天前，他走进10号，布朗先生说， "宣言是什么，我们把向公众交代。 We’ve got to honour that manifesto.我们必须履行这一宣言。 That is an issue of trust for me with the electorate.”这是一个信任问题，为我的选民" 。
Well, apparently not.那么，显然不是。 No referendum for us lot.没有公投，我们很多东西。
And why not?为什么不呢？ Because we are too thick, apparently.因为我们是太浓，显然。 On Thursday’s Question Time, the PM’s close ally, Ed Miliband, said that all the technical stuff in the Treaty was really not the sort of thing to be bothering us dimwit voters with.上周四的质询时间，下午的亲密盟友，海关miliband时说，所有的技术性的东西，在该条约真的是这种东西不是被困扰了我们dimwit选民。
“I don’t think those issues are issues which people in my constituency want to have a referendum on,” said Mr Miliband in a performance of Sesame Street didacticism. "我不认为这些问题是问题的人在我的选区希望有一个公投，说： " miliband在性能芝麻街启蒙主义。 “If you’re interested in improving democracy in this country, having a referendum on issues that don’t speak to people’s lives is not the way to achieve it.” "如果你有兴趣，改进民主在这个国家，有一个公投的问题上不说，以人的生命是不是好的方法，以实现它" 。
Best left to clever folk like you, eh, Ed?最好留给聪明的民俗和您一样，嗯，教育署？ How fortunate we dunces are to have a ruling elite of brainy Fauntleroys to do our thinking for us.如何幸运，我们dunces是有一个统治精英的聪明fauntleroys做我们的思想，为我们。
It is interesting, too, that we now hear the Treaty does not “speak to people’s lives”, having been told so often by ministers that to jeopardise its passage in any way would lead to the downfall of Western civilisation.有趣的是，到过，我们现在听到条约不"的发言，给人民群众的生命" ，有被告知，所以常常是由部长们认为，要影响其通过任何方式将导致衰落的西方文明。 In fact, this particular Bill speaks to our lives in a sense that has nothing to do with Europe and everything to do with the drainage of trust from the political system.其实，这个特别条例草案说，以我们的生命，在一定意义上说，完全与欧洲几乎所有同渠信任，从政治制度。
Osmotically, this latest betrayal will compound the question that all voters now ask about all politicians: why can’t they keep a promise? osmotically ，这一最新的背叛，将复杂的问题，所有选民，现在问及所有从政：为什么不能保持诺言？ Why has the Government that came to power 11 years ago with a pledge card become a gang of card sharks?为什么政府上台执政11年前的一个承诺卡，成为一帮卡鲨鱼？
The battle is not quite over.这场战争还没有真正结束。 This week’s Spectator urges the Lords to make imaginative use of the Salisbury Convention when the Bill goes to the Upper House.这个星期的旁观者促请上议院作出富有想象力的使用索尔兹伯里公约条例草案何时进入上议院。 This tradition holds that the second chamber will not reject a manifesto bill at second reading.这一传统认为，第二院不会拒绝一项宣言草案进行二读。 In this case, however, the Lords should demand, as a matter of conscience, that MPs honour their manifesto commitments to vote for a referendum and send the Treaty back to the Commons.在这种情况下，但是，上议院应需求，作为一个有良知的，即国会议员履行自己的承诺宣言投票选举公投，并把条约回到下议院。
Lord Strathclyde, the Tory leader in the Lords, is already talking to pro-Europeans and cross-benchers, urging them to see this as an issue of principle in which the second chamber has a moral responsibility.斯特拉勋爵，保守党领导人在上议院的，是已经开始讨论，以亲欧洲人和跨委员，敦促他们认为这是一个原则问题，其中第二院有道义上的责任。 There is all to play for, and Strathclyde’s intellectual and persuasive powers are immense.还有的是所有球员，和斯特拉的智力和有说服力的权力是巨大的。 But the odds are not in his favour.但赔率是不是在他的赞成票。
In his book The Politics of Consent, Francis Pym, who died on Friday, wrote “the politics of consent are neither a luxury nor a soft option.他在书中的政治同意，弗朗西斯平阳霉素，死于上周五写道， "政治的同意，既不是一种奢侈，也不是软的选择。 They are the only form of democratic politics that will ultimately work or that can have a moral basis.” He was right, and it is a shame that this principle, so scandalously breached last week, has come to mean so little to those who govern us.它们是唯一的形式，民主政治最终将工作，或者能有一个道德的基础上， "他是正确的，可惜的是，在这个原则下，使可耻违反上周，有来的意思，所以很少向那些治理我们。 They must be very proud.他们必须非常自豪。
UK 英国 Section has more related reports 科更多相关报道 Help keep RINF going..有利于保持rinf去..Comment on 'Can we believe Gordon Brown?' : 评论' ，可我们认为，财政大臣布朗？ ' ：
Related News: 相关新闻：
