|
Post by mouse on Jan 25, 2010 14:12:39 GMT
The EEC was always going to be 'an ever closer union'. That was clear from day one. Anyone who thinks it wasn't hasn't got a clue. yup ..like they havent got a clue about clobal warming man made global warming climate change climate cooling etc etc etc etc etc no body knows anything about anything..and the band played on
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Jan 25, 2010 16:33:11 GMT
Random, yeah, that's my point exactly. The UK voted to join - good thing, bad thing, there's the area for discussion. But the 'we were fooled into joining' argument is just rubbbish. Sorry to upset the apple cart for you and for random Voice, but a lot of people WERE fooled. Let me remind you of the actual question that was put to the electorate back in 1975. It was this:- DO YOU THINK THE UNITED KINGDOM SHOULD STAY IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (THE COMMON MARKET)? Now I am old enough to have voted in that referendum, and I remember the campaign very well. Over and over again the message was that we were simply voting to stay in a common market, and there was never any suggestion of the United States of Europe that it has become. We were told by politicians of all parties that it would have no effect on our sovereignty, or our ability to govern ourselves. If you doubt this, then ask yourself why those who framed the referendum question felt it necessary to add the words "Common Market" in parenthesis after the question. The words are superfluous.....unless one is trying to fool those taking part. It was. They did. And a lot of people had no idea what they were voting for as a result.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 26, 2010 11:55:44 GMT
Sorry to upset the apple cart for you and for random Voice, but a lot of people WERE fooled
Now I am old enough to have voted in that referendum, and I remember the campaign very well. Over and over again the message was that we were simply voting to stay in a common market, and there was never any suggestion of the United States of Europe that it has become. We were told by politicians of all parties that it would have no effect on our sovereignty, or our ability to govern ourselves.
absolutely ben.........there was no question or sugestion of a united states of europe people would never have voted for it....god grief we had only recently spent 6/7 yrs fighting for our freedoms at far too high a price to be giving them away
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 26, 2010 13:58:39 GMT
Yes, well a little research would have been in order then. The treaty of Rome makes explicit reference to: www.historiasiglo20.org/europe/traroma.htm"determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe". So joining the EEC was always going to be about political union as it was the long term goal of the treaty of Rome.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Jan 26, 2010 14:26:04 GMT
Yes, well a little research would have been in order then. The treaty of Rome makes explicit reference to: www.historiasiglo20.org/europe/traroma.htm"determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe". So joining the EEC was always going to be about political union as it was the long term goal of the treaty of Rome. Do you really think that your average citizen, who in 1975 would not have access to the internet, would go to the trouble of firstly obtaining a copy of the Treaty of Rome, secondly of reading it, and thirdly, of understanding it? You are talking balls again; and spouting the official line (again). It's what you do best! We were lied to by the politicians; and THAT is what THEY do best!
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 26, 2010 16:14:34 GMT
Yes, well a little research would have been in order then. The treaty of Rome makes explicit reference to: www.historiasiglo20.org/europe/traroma.htm"determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe". So joining the EEC was always going to be about political union as it was the long term goal of the treaty of Rome. Do you really think that your average citizen, who in 1975 would not have access to the internet, would go to the trouble of firstly obtaining a copy of the Treaty of Rome, secondly of reading it, and thirdly, of understanding it? You are talking balls again; and spouting the official line (again). It's what you do best! We were lied to by the politicians; and THAT is what THEY do best! I was still a child in the early 70s so I AM making assumptions, but I do know that there were YES and NO campaigns; presumably both sides delivered leaflets, and there were televised and radio debates as there would be about such a controversial thing as a referendum. The serious newspapers would have carried lots of articles and opinion. I really can't believe that nobody understood a single thing about it except what was written on the ballot paper. That does defy belief.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 26, 2010 16:16:06 GMT
P.S. don't get me wrong - if people want to say that the EU has turned out not to be what they hoped, and they want to criticise it, that's fine. I just find the idea that nobody in the UK knew what they were voting for and the politicians hid it from them deliberately, even the NO campaign, absolutely unbelievable.
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Jan 26, 2010 16:20:47 GMT
Ben is correct that the politicians of the time did not indicate in any way that it was just a stepping stone to political union.
However, even if you hadn't taken the trouble to read the Treaty of Rome it didn't take a genius to work out that it would lead to closer political ties. In particular France and Germany riven by the war were keen to tie Europe closer to minimise the chances of further wars.
My husband and I were old enough to vote and I can remember the conversations we had at the time. We both wanted trade arrangements although we felt the way that the Commonwealth was being sidelined was wrong, but we both also felt that we did not want political union and we saw political union of some sort as an obvious and inevitable outcome. So we both voted against.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 26, 2010 18:04:26 GMT
would go to the trouble of firstly obtaining a copy of the Treaty of Rome, secondly of reading it, and thirdly, of understanding it? Nobody is suggesting that everyone read the whole document, or even understood it . But 'ever closer union' is not hard to understand. It is the main thrust of the the treaty, Ned. If people cannot understand that, then they cannot possibly claim to been lied to. You can claim to have not understood the full implications of 'ever closer union', but that is a different matter. You could argue that no-one explained it to you in so many words, but that is not the fault of the political mahinery, that is the fault of the voter who did not understand what was going on. You are talking balls again; and spouting the official line (again). When are you going to realise that it is not the offical line, Ned, it happens to be the truth? The truth is that the EEC was ALWAYS about 'ever closer union'. The Labour Party tried to tell people that in 1983, that is why they caimpaigned to pull out of the EU. Or where they lying too? The bottom line, Ned is this: We are in the EU and have to abide the rules of it. We are not leaving the EU within the next ten years and by that time we will be fully intergrated into the EU and there is NOTHING the struting little Englanders can do about it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2010 19:54:51 GMT
We were already in the Union when we were invited to ratify. To pull out at that stage would have caused considerable problems.
But I for one didn't appreciate the nature of the beast..nor comprehend the enormous bureaucratic empire it would spawn. Nor did I anticipate some of the good things that have emerged, such as conservation.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 26, 2010 20:38:03 GMT
Ben is correct that the politicians of the time did not indicate in any way that it was just a stepping stone to political union. However, even if you hadn't taken the trouble to read the Treaty of Rome it didn't take a genius to work out that it would lead to closer political ties. In particular France and Germany riven by the war were keen to tie Europe closer to minimise the chances of further wars. My husband and I were old enough to vote and I can remember the conversations we had at the time. We both wanted trade arrangements although we felt the way that the Commonwealth was being sidelined was wrong, but we both also felt that we did not want political union and we saw political union of some sort as an obvious and inevitable outcome. So we both voted against. Thank goodness for you Firedancer; I was beginning to wonder if everybody was asleep at the time or something. I presume that, given how things have turned out, you remain opposed to the European Union?
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Jan 27, 2010 0:04:46 GMT
The EU does have some advantages I concede, and I am not so opposed as to vote for UKIP, but I have remained suspicious of its 'one size fits all' attitude in relation to, say, economic policies when clearly the needs and problems of, say, Greece are vastly different from those of, say, Germany. It restricts the ability of countries in the Euro zone to make fiscal adjustments that may be necessary. It is now getting very cumbersome and bureaucracy ridden. I wonder if it will exist 100 years from now....? Probably be a bit academic anyway as the axis of power has already shifted towards China, India, Brazil and thinking that the EU provides a strong counterweight to America or these emerging economies is laughable. I fear Europe's star is on the decline and if it is a case of standing or falling together it is likely to be falling......
I think Norway got it right, though Britain, with its outward-looking mentality would never be a Norway!
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 27, 2010 10:47:41 GMT
We both wanted trade arrangements although we felt the way that the Commonwealth was being sidelined was wrong, but we both also felt that we did not want political union and we saw political union of some sort as an obvious and inevitable outcome."""
so trade and ""some sort of political union"""is what you forsaw but not from what you say..the abolition of nation states or a united states of europe with one central government..one sey of laws..police..army..tax system so you would agree then that it wasnt an honest vote with full intent being spelt out which is the point that i and others have always made...it was a con..the long term/goal aims were never spelt out
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 27, 2010 10:56:56 GMT
Yes, well a little research would have been in order then. The treaty of Rome makes explicit reference to: www.historiasiglo20.org/europe/traroma.htm"determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe". So joining the EEC was always going to be about political union as it was the long term goal of the treaty of Rome. Do you really think that your average citizen, who in 1975 would not have access to the internet, would go to the trouble of firstly obtaining a copy of the Treaty of Rome, secondly of reading it, and thirdly, of understanding it? You are talking balls again; and spouting the official line (again). It's what you do best! We were lied to by the politicians; and THAT is what THEY do best! quite right ben...they lied then just as they lie now the slieght of hand over the lisbon treaty should tell you every thing you wish to know about the deliberate con tricks they pull you only have to look at the way the french and dutch were disalowed to vote the way the irish were made to re vote after voting the wrong result and the way we have not been allowed a refferenda to know that the powers that be have NO intention and never had ANY intentions of peoples having any demorcratic say on the question of europe the internet has been a blessing for getting information...but it wasnt available back then
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 27, 2010 11:00:24 GMT
I just find the idea that nobody in the UK knew what they were voting for and the politicians hid it from them deliberately, even the NO campaign, absolutely unbelievable. well now you know that what you believe as unbelievable is quite beliveable .. as fire dancer says Ben is correct that the politicians of the time did not indicate in any way that it was just a stepping stone to political union.""" happy now...
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Jan 27, 2010 12:25:46 GMT
Yes mouse - I agree it wasn't an honest vote insofar as the pro politicians were not voicing their intent of political union (probably because even a lot of the pro politicians did not want a political union, though they must have been either naive or disingenuous not to think that political union would be a likely outcome). Nothing in politics stands still for ever. What was strange (or perhaps not) about the campaign was that the anti-campaign resulted in the oddest of political bedfellows e.g. Enoch Powell, Ian Paisley and Tony Benn sharing a platform and campaigning together. In general the pros were from the political centre with the right wing of the Tories and the left wing of Labour more on the anti side. To go back to your point about about whether my husband and I forsaw the extent of political union, we certainly discussed whether 100 years on there would be a federal states of Europe as that would have seemed the logical outcome of the Treaty of Rome and I remember questioning our local MP (pro) whether he believed that would be the outcome. He said he did not see the end of the nation state but simply closer co-operation on economic and political affairs. That's my recollection anyway but it was a long time ago Personally I now see two possible outcomes - a federation way down the line or the eventual disintegration because the block has become to bureaucratic and unwieldy and, with the Eurozone, resentment from the wealthy more successful nations that they are propping up the less wealthy ones. But I doubt I will be around to see either outcome ;D
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 27, 2010 12:58:58 GMT
I just find the idea that nobody in the UK knew what they were voting for and the politicians hid it from them deliberately, even the NO campaign, absolutely unbelievable. well now you know that what you believe as unbelievable is quite beliveable .. as fire dancer says Ben is correct that the politicians of the time did not indicate in any way that it was just a stepping stone to political union.""" happy now... I'm happy that Firedancer has confirmed that thinking people were aware of the issues at the time, yes.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 27, 2010 13:00:01 GMT
We both wanted trade arrangements although we felt the way that the Commonwealth was being sidelined was wrong, but we both also felt that we did not want political union and we saw political union of some sort as an obvious and inevitable outcome.""" so trade and ""some sort of political union"""is what you forsaw but not from what you say..the abolition of nation states or a united states of europe with one central government..one sey of laws..police..army..tax system so you would agree then that it wasnt an honest vote with full intent being spelt out which is the point that i and others have always made...it was a con..the long term/goal aims were never spelt out How and when are nation states being abolished? That would seem contradictory to the EU's Treaty commitment to subsidiarity.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 27, 2010 13:06:18 GMT
To go back to your point about about whether my husband and I forsaw the extent of political union, we certainly discussed whether 100 years on there would be a federal states of Europe as that would have seemed the logical outcome of the Treaty of Rome and I remember questioning our local MP (pro) whether he believed that would be the outcome.
He said he did not see the end of the nation state but simply closer co-operation on economic and political affairs. """"
like you fire dancer my husband..friends etc all discussed it and asked question to MP,S etc etc etc etc and reading avidly the pro,s and coms the available coments ...it was not an issue to be taken lightly any way you have proved..well reitereated my contention that the truth was not forthcomming and i do not remember once the end of the nation state being discussed .. [which RG and i have argued about before] and i dont think many mp,s actually realised exactly what was at stake and heath was certainly not honest or upfront.. i read some where that the EU will have about anothr 20 yrs before collapsing or imploding thanks for the imput FD
but i also will not be around......
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 27, 2010 13:07:38 GMT
well now you know that what you believe as unbelievable is quite beliveable .. as fire dancer says Ben is correct that the politicians of the time did not indicate in any way that it was just a stepping stone to political union.""" happy now... I'm happy that Firedancer has confirmed that thinking people were aware of the issues at the time, yes. as fire dancer says Yes mouse - I agree it wasn't an honest vote insofar as the pro politicians were not voicing their intent of political union
|
|