Some phrases in the English language become very annoying after a while.

They begin as cute, even devastating, responses to awkward situations. The purpose of them is to confer a powerful air of superiority on the user.

One such phrase is: “What part of ‘No’ don’t you understand?”

All such sayings start life as carefully crafted one-liners by wags in the press, usually half-decent writers, or cerebral contributors to those erudite TV panel shows. An osmotic process ensures they are swiftly deployed by every journalist, editor and media performer in the land.

Then, following a brief moment of triumph, they fade away, almost as quickly as they appeared. They have turned into cliche, and real writers know they are now virtually unusable … by them, at least.

But that’s not the end of it. Ordinary, non-media people pick them up as smart things to say when pressed. Endless TV vox pop interviews — popular because they don’t have to be paid for — are now filled with the dreaded words: “What part of ‘No’ don’t they understand?”

The Irish “No” vote in the EU referendum on Friday has resurrected this tired old bit of phraseology. It’s all over the newspapers again. Even hoary TV commmentators are using it — usually as a quote from someone else to give themselves deniability. The WPONDYU challenge is having its day in the sun.

Have we at Syntagma ever used it? Once or twice a moon or two ago. The problem with it is that it’s rather authoritarian. If someone barks it at you, you’ll know what I mean. It conjures up a particularly abusive school master or a militant feminist responding to an idle pass.

As a public service I have carefully crafted a witty response to What part of “No” don’t you understand? Here it is:

“It’s the ‘N’ that puzzles me. It gets it off to a very poor start.”

Okay, it’s not Oscar Wilde, but then I have nothing to declare but my lack of genius.

The German playwright Bertolt Brecht once wrote a poem in support of a peasant’s revolt. When he presented it to the leaders of the uprising, they told him, “Our people won’t like this. Can’t you change it?”

“There’s nothing wrong with the poem,” retorted Brecht, “Change your people”.

Old Bertie would have made a fine President of the EU Commission in Brussels, for that comes very close to the European elite’s reaction to Ireland’s No vote in yesterday’s referendum on the proposed EU constitution.

Quick Recap for the Uninitiated
The original European Union constitution was rejected two years ago in referendums by the French and the Dutch. Had Britain been allowed the promised vote, it would have been slaughtered, but the No results on the continent saved Tony Blair’s face.

The bureaucrats of Brussels, urged on by Blair and Germany, then shuffled the pack, cut out a few cosmetic bits and renamed the document the European Reform Treaty. This is now in process of ratification around Europe. Only Ireland was given a referendum on it. Britain’s treacherous government under Gordon Brown defaulted on its manifesto promise and is currently forcing the treaty through Parliament to bypass the inevitable verdict of the people.

Yesterday, the Irish said No! … emphatically.
/Recap

This morning the EU is urging the other 26 countries to continue with their own treaty ratification processes, even though it requires unanimity to become law.

The simple fact is, Europe’s political class wants this “constitution” — so-called because it gives the EU a legal identity for the first time — while the people do not.

There are half a billion people against half a thousand politicians. Who will win?

The Commission’s legal team is already working on how to implement most of the constitution’s contents without the need for a treaty. In other words, smuggling most of it into law by the back door.

Why does Britain, the most Eurosceptic nation in Europe, put up with this ghastly authoritarianism? For the same reason we sleepwalked into two world wars in the last century. We preferred not to think about it until it became inevitable.

Sometimes apathy can kill.