EU Rules Out Renegotiation

[Garvin]

LucreLout said:

Provided sturgeons hand isn't too far up millibands arse after the election; ie we return a conservative majority, then the referendum will go ahead.

I'd not be feeling too sure the in camp will hold the day, we could very easily vote out. I'm not hugely bothered which way that vote goes as yet, but at least if we stay in then we've democratically voted for the EU as opposed to being gifted it because the baby boomers didn't understand what they were signing up for and failed to consider how that might evolve.

They signed up, as advertised at the time, for a Common Market not an Euopean Union with common currency etc.
They did fail to consider how it might all evolve, but then nobody could have foreseen at that time how it would evolve - you can hardly blame the BBs for not having fully functioning crystal balls!

The EU is like any other club which continues to evolve after you join it. If you don't like the direction it is taking then you try to influence a change and if that doesn't work you are at liberty to leave and not pay anymore club subscriptions.

[otolith]

Garvin said:

They signed up, as advertised at the time, for a Common Market not an Euopean Union with common currency etc.
They did fail to consider how it might all evolve, but then nobody could have foreseen at that time how it would evolve - you can hardly blame the BBs for not having fully functioning crystal balls!

The EU is like any other club which continues to evolve after you join it. If you don't like the direction it is taking then you try to influence a change and if that doesn't work you are at liberty to leave and not pay anymore club subscriptions.

The reality is that the current direction was the intention all along - the BBs were, if not lied to, subjected to a little economy with the actualité.

[Esseesse]

otolith said:

Garvin said:

They signed up, as advertised at the time, for a Common Market not an Euopean Union with common currency etc.
They did fail to consider how it might all evolve, but then nobody could have foreseen at that time how it would evolve - you can hardly blame the BBs for not having fully functioning crystal balls!

The EU is like any other club which continues to evolve after you join it. If you don't like the direction it is taking then you try to influence a change and if that doesn't work you are at liberty to leave and not pay anymore club subscriptions.

The reality is that the current direction was the intention all along - the BBs were, if not lied to, subjected to a little economy with the actualité.

Indeed. Garvin, where we are (and more) was always the intention and was concealed from the public by most.

I recommend watching 'This Sceptic Isle' by Peter Hitchens for a background on the whole thing to anyone who hasn't seen it, and especially to anyone who falsely believes that political and economic goal was not the intention from the outset.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSQiPY3VVyA&li...

[Rude-boy]

otolith said:

Garvin said:

They signed up, as advertised at the time, for a Common Market not an Euopean Union with common currency etc.
They did fail to consider how it might all evolve, but then nobody could have foreseen at that time how it would evolve - you can hardly blame the BBs for not having fully functioning crystal balls!

The EU is like any other club which continues to evolve after you join it. If you don't like the direction it is taking then you try to influence a change and if that doesn't work you are at liberty to leave and not pay anymore club subscriptions.

The reality is that the current direction was the intention all along - the BBs were, if not lied to, subjected to a little economy with the actualité.

They were just plain bloody stupid.

If a school boy about to sit their 11+ Geography could deduce that this was the end game in mind in 1987 it really should have been spotted long before that by others.

[Einion Yrth]

Rude-boy said:

hey were just plain bloody stupid.

If a school boy about to sit their 11+ Geography could deduce that this was the end game in mind in 1987 it really should have been spotted long before that by others.

A pity then that the referendum was held in 1975. Against a background of assurances that continued membership would involve no loss of sovereignty.

[Garvin]

Esseesse said:

otolith said:

Garvin said:

They signed up, as advertised at the time, for a Common Market not an Euopean Union with common currency etc.
They did fail to consider how it might all evolve, but then nobody could have foreseen at that time how it would evolve - you can hardly blame the BBs for not having fully functioning crystal balls!

The EU is like any other club which continues to evolve after you join it. If you don't like the direction it is taking then you try to influence a change and if that doesn't work you are at liberty to leave and not pay anymore club subscriptions.

The reality is that the current direction was the intention all along - the BBs were, if not lied to, subjected to a little economy with the actualité.

Indeed. Garvin, where we are (and more) was always the intention and was concealed from the public by most.

I recommend watching 'This Sceptic Isle' by Peter Hitchens for a background on the whole thing to anyone who hasn't seen it, and especially to anyone who falsely believes that political and economic goal was not the intention from the outset.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSQiPY3VVyA&li...

Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your view point, I don't find Mr Hichens particularly objective, indeed he seems to revel in seeing the dark side of nearly everything.

[Garvin]

Rude-boy said:

hey were just plain bloody stupid.

If a school boy about to sit their 11+ Geography could deduce that this was the end game in mind in 1987 it really should have been spotted long before that by others.

1987! By 1987 the writing on the wall was writ so large even a 5 year old could read and understand it!

In 1973, however, things were not so clear with the innocuous Treaty of Rome still extant. Also, one has to remember the dire state of the country at that time and the environment it generated.

If, by 1975, the writing was clearly on the wall, then we only have Labour and Harold Wilson to blame for misleading the country in the referendum of that year.

[Esseesse]

Garvin said:

Esseesse said:

otolith said:

Garvin said:

They signed up, as advertised at the time, for a Common Market not an Euopean Union with common currency etc.
They did fail to consider how it might all evolve, but then nobody could have foreseen at that time how it would evolve - you can hardly blame the BBs for not having fully functioning crystal balls!

The EU is like any other club which continues to evolve after you join it. If you don't like the direction it is taking then you try to influence a change and if that doesn't work you are at liberty to leave and not pay anymore club subscriptions.

The reality is that the current direction was the intention all along - the BBs were, if not lied to, subjected to a little economy with the actualité.

Indeed. Garvin, where we are (and more) was always the intention and was concealed from the public by most.

I recommend watching 'This Sceptic Isle' by Peter Hitchens for a background on the whole thing to anyone who hasn't seen it, and especially to anyone who falsely believes that political and economic goal was not the intention from the outset.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSQiPY3VVyA&li...

Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your view point, I don't find Mr Hichens particularly objective, indeed he seems to revel in seeing the dark side of nearly everything.

In his film he covers government documents from the time we entered the 'Common Market' that describe the loss of sovereignty and political union that we are seeing today. How open for any subjectivity is reading what was written then in black and white English?

Are you seriously suggesting that Ted Heath was unaware of these realities?

[LucreLout]

Axionknight said:

Were lied to, you mean?

If politicians telling porkies is or was news to you, then perhaps you should refrain from voting?

The logical vote when asked for this would have been no, to force an amendment guaranteeing every subsequent generation a say in being in or out. Seems fair and prevents excessive scope creep where that takes the club in the wrong direction.

[Esseesse]

Guam said:

Indeed I voted in back then, the only people who were objecting were Tony Benn and the hard left, who were written off as nutjobs (sound familiar), I should have listened to Tony (as I should have done on a number of things).

And Powell...

[Garvin]

Esseesse said:

In his film he covers government documents from the time we entered the 'Common Market' that describe the loss of sovereignty and political union that we are seeing today. How open for any subjectivity is reading what was written then in black and white English?

Are you seriously suggesting that Ted Heath was unaware of these realities?

Prior to signing up to the 'Common Market' he may well have been unaware of the 'real' intent. Between 1973 and the referendum in 1975 then I'm sure it would have become a lot clearer and given rise to a lot of government documents.

This does not mean that those who originally voted to join the 'Common Market' in 1973 were deliberately misled by the government of the time. By the 1975 referendum, yes, the government of the day might well have misled the voting public.

[Esseesse]

Garvin said:

Esseesse said:

In his film he covers government documents from the time we entered the 'Common Market' that describe the loss of sovereignty and political union that we are seeing today. How open for any subjectivity is reading what was written then in black and white English?

Are you seriously suggesting that Ted Heath was unaware of these realities?

Prior to signing up to the 'Common Market' he may well have been unaware of the 'real' intent. Between 1973 and the referendum in 1975 then I'm sure it would have become a lot clearer and given rise to a lot of government documents.

This does not mean that those who originally voted to join the 'Common Market' in 1973 were deliberately misled by the government of the time. By the 1975 referendum, yes, the government of the day might well have misled the voting public.

IIRC the name 'Common Market' was just the voter friendly nickname our government gave the EEC. Tenuous I know, but even that is a bit of a smoking gun in my mind; That they felt the need to re-frame what they were referring to us joining to make sure it sounded like merely a free market area. A bit like how the Labour party has recently succeeded in re-labelling the 'Spare Room Subsidy' as a far more sinister sounding 'Bedroom Tax'.

[Axionknight]

LucreLout said:

If politicians telling porkies is or was news to you, then perhaps you should refrain from voting?

The logical vote when asked for this would have been no, to force an amendment guaranteeing every subsequent generation a say in being in or out. Seems fair and prevents excessive scope creep where that takes the club in the wrong direction.

Did I say it was?

[LucreLout]

Axionknight said:

Did I say it was?

Your entire response to my assertion was that you were lied to, so, yes, you pretty much did.

[s2art]

Rude-boy said:

hey were just plain bloody stupid.

If a school boy about to sit their 11+ Geography could deduce that this was the end game in mind in 1987 it really should have been spotted long before that by others.

People such as Norman Tebbit have admitted that in '75 they really hadnt appreciated the consequences of the EEC/EU, and the people who really knew, Heath in particular, had not spelled things out . He was for in then, now he wants out.

[Bluebarge]

Esseesse said:

In his film he covers government documents from the time we entered the 'Common Market' that describe the loss of sovereignty and political union that we are seeing today.

There is no loss of sovereignty. The Uk can pull out anytime it wants. The UK decided to join up to a club and has agreed the rules for operating as part of that club. It's the same as participation in NATO, or the WTO, or having any treaty obligations with any other country, whether under trade or defence agreements.

You can tear up the treaties any time you want, but you suffer the consequences of your lack of bad faith. The EU is just another treaty obligation, and every country has them, even pariah states such as N.Korea. No country ever has complete freedom to do what it wants, just as no person has complete freedom to do what he wants, because we all have to consider the interests of others.

There may be arguments for leaving the EU (although I can't think of any good ones) but the "sovereignty" argument is bogus. Any EU treaties will just be replaced with a whole raft of other agreements with the EU and other trading partners which will restrict the ability of the UK to do whatever it wants. It's been that way since medieval times.

[Garvin]

Esseesse said:

IIRC the name 'Common Market' was just the voter friendly nickname our government gave the EEC. Tenuous I know, but even that is a bit of a smoking gun in my mind; That they felt the need to re-frame what they were referring to us joining to make sure it sounded like merely a free market area. A bit like how the Labour party has recently succeeded in re-labelling the 'Spare Room Subsidy' as a far more sinister sounding 'Bedroom Tax'.

Not really. Read the Treaty of Rome document (or, more accurately, The Treaty establishing the European Economic Community to give it its correct title) and it really is aimed at a 'Common Market'. The fact that some of the first six who signed up to it may have had a more Machiavellian intent is not apparent within it.

[NicD]

Bluebarge said:

There is no loss of sovereignty.

I read some bks on here but that is up there with the best!

What is your personal definition of 'sovereignty' that there has been 'no loss of'?

Certainly isn't the ability to enact binding and sovereign legislation.

[otolith]

The Treaty of Rome begins;

[signatories]

DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of
Europe,

RESOLVED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common
action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,

AFFIRMING as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvement of the
living and working conditions of their peoples,

RECOGNISING that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in
order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition,

ANXIOUS to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious
development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the
backwardness of the less favoured regions,

DESIRING to contribute, by means of a common commercial policy, to the progressive
abolition of restrictions on international trade,

INTENDING to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries
and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the
principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

RESOLVED by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and
liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in
their efforts,

[FredClogs]

otolith said:

The Treaty of Rome begins;

[signatories]

DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of
Europe,

RESOLVED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common
action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,

AFFIRMING as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvement of the
living and working conditions of their peoples,

RECOGNISING that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in
order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition,

ANXIOUS to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious
development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the
backwardness of the less favoured regions,

DESIRING to contribute, by means of a common commercial policy, to the progressive
abolition of restrictions on international trade,

INTENDING to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries
and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the
principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

RESOLVED by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and
liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in
their efforts,

At least it's in English.