A Zimbabwean Dictator clinging to power.
An undemocratic body of Eurocrats clinging to their gravy train.
One often refers to war of independence and colonial masters for his purposes.
The other was born out of the ashes of WW2, and pulling together as a United States of Europe to ensure we don't fight militarily and can compete on world stage with the US.
One renamed Rhodesia to Zimbabwe.
The other renamed the Common Market to European Economic Community to the European Community to the European Union, and... just Europe!.
One held previous elections, but ensured win through a variety of tactics including violence.
The other held previous elections, but ensured wins through a variety of tax-payer funded tactics, including brainwashing children.
One is corrupt and doesn't manage food aid correctly.
The other is corrupt and has not had its booked approved by auditors for the past 13 years and caused the recent global food crisis by dumping its food mountains last year and protecting its own markets.
One lost previous election, but refuse to let go, so re-running the election.
The other lost many previous elections, but refused to let go, so has re-run every no vote for the past 20 years until receiving the "right" answer.
No wonder we don't intervene in Zimbabwe...
The fundamental point here is the European Union's lack of legitimacy. They may suggest that it is less than a million Irish voters that have rejected this treaty, out of almost 500 million citizens of the EU. This, however, ignores the lack of a referendum in every other country - what portion of the 500 million actually want a United States of Europe?
I love Europe to bits as a continent, I have friends in every corner, and waste no opportunity in visiting. I've flown and taken the train or boat to about 18 of the continent's countries, and it's only a matter of time before I get to the rest. One would have thought I'd be for the federal super-state. But I'm not - I'm deeply against the whole project, and frankly can think of no decent reasons to defend it. From what I can gather, the main suggestion of the Europhiles is that it benefits us in ways we can't quantify, and if you're against it, you must be a nationalist xenophobe. Try pinning that on me.. (alright, the nationalistic bit might stick!)
Anyway, the French and Dutch rejected the constitution in 2005, and it is clear that the UK would undoubtedly say no in answer to any question - hence why Labour have dodged the issue repeatedly for their entire term. The Czech Government is against it, one of the few in Europe actually to represent the views of their people. The Irish voted No to the Nice Treaty in 2001 and were asked to vote again with a modified question a year later. The Danish voted No to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 - but were polled again after a year.
To quote a headline in one of the weekend newspapers "What part of 'NO' do our leaders not understand?"