As expected, the Irish people - faced with a mounting economic crisis and the offer of substantial bribes coupled with thinly veiled threats - have reversed their original vote against the Lisbon Treaty and have now voted to accept it at the second time of asking.
No doubt some people will argue that this proves that the Irish media, business and political establishment have successfully argued the case for the Lisbon Treaty - personally I think it more accurately reflects the pragmatism of the Irish people who, realising that they will be repeatedly asked to vote again and again until they say "yes", decided to concede now rather later.
So the Irish vote tells us nothing new - just reinforces the point that any attempt by any member nation to reassert their national sovereignty as a member will be received with the usual cold contempt by the architects of the EU.
For me, though, the most infuriating thing about the run up to the Irish capitulation was that whenever the BBC mentioned the impending vote they always referred to the treaty as ".... the Lisbon Treaty - designed to improve/reform/modernise the way the EU works" or something along those lines. This is the worst sort of subliminal indoctrination there is - repeatedly slipping in some term with positive connotations for the explicit purpose of making the subject more acceptable.
Who says that the Lisbon Treaty was "designed to improve/reform/modernise" the EU? The designers! Yet they know full well that that is not what the Lisbon Treaty was designed for. It was designed to give the EU full legal status - to allow for the imposition of a permanent EU presidency and foreign office. It was designed to make sure that the Irish, French, Dutch, British or whoever - regardless of their constitution - will never ever be allowed a referendum on such things again.
Yet not once did you hear any of this from the BBC. And while we are on the subject of BBC bias - I watched this morning as Bill Turnbull interviewed Boris Johnson on breakfast television and asked him about his time in the infamous Bullingdon Club while at university with Cameron - as if this is somehow relevant or important.
It isn't. Sorry to dismiss all the conspiracy theories, but members of parliament and the political establishment belonging to elite clubs and behaving in arrogant, superior ways when they were young is nothing new. It's been going on for centuries and still goes on today. There have been countless ministers of the state who have belonged to these sorts of clubs from both sides of the house.
What is new to British politics is that there are now ministers of state who have been - and may be still are -active communists, but they never get asked about their past by the BBC. I wonder why that is?