Can we believe Gordon Brown?我們可以相信，英國財政大臣布朗？
‘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. '以往任何時候都得到感覺你已經被騙？ "約翰尼爛著名譏給觀眾，在舊金山冬地，在1978年，就在他的性手槍拆散了。 Well, 30 years on, we have all been cheated: ripped off, swindled, stitched up like kippers.好， 30年後的今天，我們都被欺騙了：受騙，被騙，縫合起來像kippers 。 What happened last week in the vote on the Lisbon Treaty was a confidence trick of epic proportions.所發生的事情，上週在表決里斯本條約是一個信心的伎倆史詩比重。
First, and however grudgingly, all credit to the grifters who pulled off this awesome scam: it was a masterly political operation.首先，不過勉強，所有信貸向grifters退出了這段可怕的陷阱：這是一個高超的政治運作。 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.英國財政大臣布朗，大衛miliband和吉姆墨菲，歐洲部長，起到了絕對blinder ，在成語字面觀念：他們幾乎付諸一英尺錯在處理這次公民投票的投票，而他們的管理，保持冷靜的頭腦，其餘撲克-面對與埋葬辯論迷惑，為了轉移公眾的注意力幾乎完全是從什麼事。
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”.我的下巴下降上週三，因為我聽到總理告訴大衛卡梅倫說，現在是為保守黨動議" ，以該中心的歐洲而不是被留在邊緣的歐洲" 。
Rarely has Gordon sounded so like Tony.很少有戈登吹響了，所以想托尼。 I don’t believe for a second that Mr Brown has become a true believer in the European Union.我不相信一個二說，布朗先生已經成為一個真正的信徒在歐洲聯盟。 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-他願意把剛才說什麼也讓這一個出了道路。
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.當首相和他的盟友展望全民公決投票中的商品，而不是在自己的夢想，他們還可以想到的頭條上午後，將側重於尼克Clegg先生和數字高程模型庫分裂超過歐洲。 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.談及失踪全局的大事：這是因為，如果按下後一天強攻的冬季故宮在1917年導致了對排水問題，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.雖然我喜歡問Clegg先生，我不認為他的議會管理技巧，是更有意義的真實故事週三夜間：拒絕向英國公眾對公投表示，所有這三個當事方答應他們在2005年的大選。 The arguments deployed to justify this treachery were remarkable for their sheer effrontery.論據部署的理由來支持這個奸詐顯著，為他們純粹effrontery 。
We were told, first of all, that the Lisbon Treaty is not the same as the original EU Constitutional Treaty.我們被告知，首先是因為里斯本條約是不一樣的原歐盟憲法條約。 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.來吧，傢伙：誰都知道，這兩個文本都是如此相似，任何人，相反，是不是狡辯，或一個彌天大謊。
It is true that some European leaders have joined in the sophistry to claim that the two documents are not the same.我不否認一些歐洲領導人紛紛參加狡辯，聲稱這兩份文件是不一樣的。 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.”但絕大多數同意瓦萊裡吉斯卡爾-e staing's聲明說： "所有這些早前的建議，將在新的文本，但會隱藏和偽裝，以某種方式" 。
Next, it was argued by the Government that the Lisbon Treaty is no longer “constitutional” and so does not require a referendum.其次，它辯稱，政府說，里斯本條約已不再是"憲政" ，因此並不需要進行全民投票。 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.這是一個有爭議的問題，至少可以這樣說：這筆交易建立了一個常設歐盟輪值主席，歐盟外交部長，寬領域的延伸合格的多數表決，戲劇性的變化，以" passerelle "或自動扶梯系統，使歐洲理事會單方面擴大其權力，而-或許上述所有-基本權利憲章，確切的法律意義，其中外國律師辦公室承認，是不可知的證詞在向歐洲共同審議委員會。
However, let us say, for the sake of argument, that the Government is right and that the Lisbon Treaty is not “constitutional”.不過，讓我們說，為了討個說法，認為政府是正確的，並說，里斯本條約，是不是"憲法" 。 This is, as it happens, irrelevant.這是，因為它發生的，無關宏旨。
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”.當英國首相布萊爾提出原來承諾的全民投票，以下議院於2004年4月20日，他是絕對清晰：擬議中的交易，他聲稱， "沒有也不會改變基本關係的性質，成員國和歐洲聯盟" 。
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.他沒有憲制上的責任，以舉行公民投票，他說，但是驅動這樣做，由"部分成功的競選遊說英國表示，歐洲是一個陰謀，目的是在美" ，以及由他自己的成長的願望了隆重的決戰時刻。 “Let the issue be put and let the battle be joined!” he declared. "讓這個問題付諸表決，並讓戰鬥加入！ "他宣稱。 To be clear: Labour made the promise on the grounds that it was ready for a punch-up, and could win.必須明確：勞動作出了承諾，其理由是，它已經做好準備，從更深的行動，並能取勝。 So it is not that there was a constitutional hurdle that the original treaty cleared, but the Lisbon Treaty does not.所以這是不是有一個憲政跨欄認為原來的條約清除了，但里斯本條約不。
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.有所改變的是，有一個新的總理，他是沒有準備好，一度昏迷了對歐洲，而且知道他不會取得這種對抗。
The breach of trust in shifting from one position to another is extraordinary.違反信託轉變職能，從一個位置到另一個是很了不起的。 Three days before he entered Number 10, Mr Brown said that “The manifesto is what we put to the public. 3天前，他走進10號，布朗先生說， "宣言是什麼，我們把向公眾交代。 We’ve got to honour that manifesto.我們必須履行這一宣言。 That is an issue of trust for me with the electorate.”這是一個信任問題，為我的選民" 。
Well, apparently not.那麼，顯然不是。 No referendum for us lot.沒有公投，我們很多東西。
And why not?為什麼不呢？ Because we are too thick, apparently.因為我們是太濃，顯然。 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.上週四的質詢時間，下午的親密盟友，海關miliband時說，所有的技術性的東西，在該條約真的是這種東西不是被困擾了我們dimwit選民。
“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. "我不認為這些問題是問題的人在我的選區希望有一個公投，說： " miliband在性能芝麻街啟蒙主義。 “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.” "如果你有興趣，改進民主在這個國家，有一個公投的問題上不說，以人的生命是不是好的方法，以實現它" 。
Best left to clever folk like you, eh, Ed?最好留給聰明的民俗和您一樣，嗯，教育署？ How fortunate we dunces are to have a ruling elite of brainy Fauntleroys to do our thinking for us.如何幸運，我們dunces是有一個統治精英的聰明fauntleroys做我們的思想，為我們。
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，到過，我們現在聽到條約不"的發言，給人民群眾的生命" ，有被告知，所以常常是由部長們認為，要影響其通過任何方式將導致衰落的西方文明。 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.其實，這個特別條例草案說，以我們的生命，在一定意義上說，完全與歐洲幾乎所有同渠信任，從政治制度。
Osmotically, this latest betrayal will compound the question that all voters now ask about all politicians: why can’t they keep a promise? osmotically ，這一最新的背叛，將複雜的問題，所有選民，現在問及所有從政：為什麼不能保持諾言？ Why has the Government that came to power 11 years ago with a pledge card become a gang of card sharks?為什麼政府上台執政11年前的一個承諾卡，成為一幫卡鯊魚？
The battle is not quite over.這場戰爭還沒有真正結束。 This week’s Spectator urges the Lords to make imaginative use of the Salisbury Convention when the Bill goes to the Upper House.這個星期的旁觀者促請上議院作出富有想像力的使用索爾茲伯里公約條例草案何時進入上議院。 This tradition holds that the second chamber will not reject a manifesto bill at second reading.這一傳統認為，第二院不會拒絕一項宣言草案進行二讀。 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.在這種情況下，但是，上議院應需求，作為一個有良知的，即國會議員履行自己的承諾宣言投票選舉公投，並把條約回到下議院。
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.斯特拉勳爵，保守黨領導人在上議院的，是已經開始討論，以親歐洲人和跨委員，敦促他們認為這是一個原則問題，其中第二院有道義上的責任。 There is all to play for, and Strathclyde’s intellectual and persuasive powers are immense.還有的是所有球員，和斯特拉的智力和有說服力的權力是巨大的。 But the odds are not in his favour.但賠率是不是在他的贊成票。
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.他在書中的政治同意，弗朗西斯平陽黴素，死於上週五寫道， "政治的同意，既不是一種奢侈，也不是軟的選擇。 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.它們是唯一的形式，民主政治最終將工作，或者能有一個道德的基礎上， "他是正確的，可惜的是，在這個原則下，使可恥違反上週，有來的意思，所以很少向那些治理我們。 They must be very proud.他們必須非常自豪。
UK 英國 Section has more related reports 科更多相關報導 Help keep RINF going..有利於保持rinf去..Comment on 'Can we believe Gordon Brown?' : 評論' ，可我們認為，財政大臣布朗？ ' ：
Related News: 相關新聞：
