The 1975 EEC referendum

[jakesmith]

55palfers said:

Me too!

This point is of limited relevance. Whilst we hear of the stupidity of some European bureaucracy and the laws that annoy us, in the tabloid press, great majority of legislation in the UK is not of European origin. We still have our own parliaments, elections, laws. It is nowhere near the sort of forced economic union that those joining the Euro experience, that we are free from.

[Murph7355]

jakesmith said:

55palfers said:

Me too!

This point is of limited relevance. Whilst we hear of the stupidity of some European bureaucracy and the laws that annoy us, in the tabloid press, great majority of legislation in the UK is not of European origin. We still have our own parliaments, elections, laws. It is nowhere near the sort of forced economic union that those joining the Euro experience, that we are free from.

The point I take from comments like 55palfers' is more that the electorate were sold on a vision of what the EU was (a trading arrangement), only for it to go off in a totally different direction. They felt lied to, conned.

It's hard to argue with that point (despite the small print always including the notion of "ever closer union" I believe).

Now we're being sold a vision of what it will be like to remain. Vetos, no contribution to bailing out the basket case parts of the EU, the ability to curb welfare payouts to EU migrants, no accession of other basket case countries etc. From past experience, should this vision be believed?

I think the points are very relevant and the younger generation should listen to what happened before (I was 5, so in this context also "younger generation" I guess). They may still not care, but they should listen - the general impression I get is that people think remaining is maintaining the status quo and will mean no change. It does not.

I've always found in negotiations that it pays to be ultra cynical and look at the wording of what you're being promised very carefully. And then not to think anything will happen until it's in writing. No part of Cameron's deal with the EU passes either test. Anyone thinking that we will be able to change things for the better (and I believe the vast majority of people in this country and across Europe believe EU reform is necessary) inside the union is kidding themselves. We've not been able to prevent its increasing largesse in the last 40yrs, Cameron's Chamberlain-esque piece of paper is worth nothing and we now know very clearly that pretty much the main aim of the EU is not about trade, but about ever closer union.

[Norfolkit]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I'm just hoping the Catholic church will declare itself in the leave camp and then I'll know for certain I'm on the right track.

An autocratic, thoroughly corrupt, unaccountable organisation that has given itself the right dictate to people how to live their lives. I'd put the Catholic Church down as Remain.

[don4l]

Puggit said:

Eric Mc said:

Times were different.
Circumstances were different.
National concerns were different.

The club we were joining was VERY different.

I disagree.

The "club's" objective is very clearly laid out in the very first sentence of the Treaty of Rome.

Our politicians lied to us, and most of us were gullible enough to believe them.

What I find very odd is that after 40 years there are still people who do not understand what "ever closer union" actually means.

[jakesmith]

Murph7355 said:

The point I take from comments like 55palfers' is more that the electorate were sold on a vision of what the EU was (a trading arrangement), only for it to go off in a totally different direction. They felt lied to, conned.

It's hard to argue with that point (despite the small print always including the notion of "ever closer union" I believe).

Now we're being sold a vision of what it will be like to remain. Vetos, no contribution to bailing out the basket case parts of the EU, the ability to curb welfare payouts to EU migrants, no accession of other basket case countries etc. From past experience, should this vision be believed?

I think the points are very relevant and the younger generation should listen to what happened before (I was 5, so in this context also "younger generation" I guess). They may still not care, but they should listen - the general impression I get is that people think remaining is maintaining the status quo and will mean no change. It does not.

I've always found in negotiations that it pays to be ultra cynical and look at the wording of what you're being promised very carefully. And then not to think anything will happen until it's in writing. No part of Cameron's deal with the EU passes either test. Anyone thinking that we will be able to change things for the better (and I believe the vast majority of people in this country and across Europe believe EU reform is necessary) inside the union is kidding themselves. We've not been able to prevent its increasing largesse in the last 40yrs, Cameron's Chamberlain-esque piece of paper is worth nothing and we now know very clearly that pretty much the main aim of the EU is not about trade, but about ever closer union.

Can't disagree with you re negotiations... but regarding being mislead in the '70s is blindly following a principle rather than a pragmatic attitude. Political situations change vastly over a few months let alone 40 years. Intentions to do X often end up delivering Y. Europe is a vastly complex matter with many factors influencing the political direction of the 'project' so to speak. It's not as soimple as 'They lied to us... now take that!'. That could be cutting your nose to spite your face.

Following a principle is all good and well, it's like worrying about things like dignity. Different people care about them more or less. Dignity for me is being able to have a good stable job and look after my family, not worrying about whether some politicians mislead my parents in the 1970's. If you're going to get upset about being mislead by a politician then I don't really know where to start with that. It's certainly not a valid reason to wreck the present, just to show them. If you think the exit politicians are being any less misleading with their rhetoric now then consider that they are by their nature being completely misleading in making any assertions whatsoever as they can not know the impact of Brexit, it is far less predictable that the status quo

This is not a dig, just my observation but it seems to me that those favoring a potentially destabilising exit are not doing so for what I consider to be rational, pragmatic or especially heavyweight reasons, and I was undecided myself until recently

[uuf361]

My Mum (who never votes) is voting out this time purely on the basis that in 1975 the price of a cauliflower doubled......she's not bitter at all LOL

[FiF]

Covered this before in the other threads but this one is specific.

In 75 Britain was in the doldrums, reasons mentioned earlier. The cold war was in full effect, and the world was dominated by two large blocs, one USA centred, and Soviet bloc. In the middle, geographically and ideologically was Europe.

It made sense, in theory to be part of a bigger bloc, safety in numbers sort of thing.

Problem was that, like now it was almost impossible to get facts, no internet of course, all the papers were solidly for IN, with the exception of the Morning Star, BBC also for in and so on. It was no wonder that the vote went the way it did, with the pro EEC playing the same game as this time, vigorous playing of the man and not the ball. Dragging out a useless renegotiation to keep the NO camp from forming arguments on the grounds that if they raised any issue it could be argued that the matter was still under negotiation

At the time, a struggling post grad student with bugger all to my name, started to investigate further. Quickly figured out that most of the money was associated with CAP, and as they say, follow the money. As soon as understood the CAP that turned me into a No voter. It was a good call.

If you want to read more about 75 see here If you don't wish to listen to it, there is a link to download the transcript.

TL;DR In summary, no then, leave now.


Edited to remove random apostrophe, thanks android auto (in)correct.

Edited by FiF on Wednesday 25th May 11:52

[superlightr]

MarshPhantom said:

Einion Yrth said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I was 13 in 1975 but we had a vote in school and I voted not to join. This time I shall vote to remain in.

There's a lot of arguments both ways but the leave camp definitely has a far higher number of scumbags I utterly despise on board. I can't help thinking that being in the opposite camp to Katie fking Hopkins, Ian an Smith, that tt Farage and Gove, has got to be the right way forward.

I'm just hoping the Catholic church will declare itself in the leave camp and then I'll know for certain I'm on the right track.

You're voting on personalities?

Pathetic, you don't deserve a vote.

He's saying he can see arguments on both sides but has been tipped one way by the scumbags and liars representing team Brexit.

Thats the key isn't it !

If we leave we do have the chance of voting out OUR lying scumbags of MP's
If we vote In we are stuck and can not vote out THEIR lying scumbags.

[Puggit]

jakesmith said:

55palfers said:

Me too!

This point is of limited relevance. Whilst we hear of the stupidity of some European bureaucracy and the laws that annoy us, in the tabloid press, great majority of legislation in the UK is not of European origin. We still have our own parliaments, elections, laws. It is nowhere near the sort of forced economic union that those joining the Euro experience, that we are free from.

2/3rds of legislation is not a great majority? https://fullfact.org/europe/two-thirds-uk-law-made...

Martin Shulz (president of EU parliament) told the French that 70% of their laws came from Europe: http://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2014/...

[dandarez]

superlightr said:

MarshPhantom said:

Einion Yrth said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I was 13 in 1975 but we had a vote in school and I voted not to join. This time I shall vote to remain in.

There's a lot of arguments both ways but the leave camp definitely has a far higher number of scumbags I utterly despise on board. I can't help thinking that being in the opposite camp to Katie fking Hopkins, Ian an Smith, that tt Farage and Gove, has got to be the right way forward.

I'm just hoping the Catholic church will declare itself in the leave camp and then I'll know for certain I'm on the right track.

You're voting on personalities?

Pathetic, you don't deserve a vote.

He's saying he can see arguments on both sides but has been tipped one way by the scumbags and liars representing team Brexit.

Thats the key isn't it !

If we leave we do have the chance of voting out OUR lying scumbags of MP's
If we vote In we are stuck and can not vote out THEIR lying scumbags.

So Twig you're voting based on almost inconsequential personalities/celebs (like Katie Hopkins on the Leave side).

You do realise I hope, that your side includes some seriously hated people who had a tad more power than one Katie Hopkins? I refer of course to the Bliar himself. And the person who, if he had gained power, Kinnock, we were told could the last person to leave the UK switch the light off. Luckily, voters were not stupid. However, the Kinnocks have in 10 years taken 10 MILLION pounds in wages thank you very much from being a soundbite in the EU.

I would suggest you were far brighter in 1975 at school!

I was older than you and did vote in 1975, to stay.

I got wiser with age. OUT!

Edited by dandarez on Wednesday 25th May 12:50

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Norfolkit said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I'm just hoping the Catholic church will declare itself in the leave camp and then I'll know for certain I'm on the right track.

An autocratic, thoroughly corrupt, unaccountable organisation that has given itself the right dictate to people how to live their lives. I'd put the Catholic Church down as Remain.

A self serving bunch of liars who don't want any outside interference into their tawdry affairs and certainly don't want others poking their nose into their business or having any influence over the rotten way they do things. Definitely in the Leave camp!

[jakesmith]

Puggit said:

2/3rds of legislation is not a great majority? https://fullfact.org/europe/two-thirds-uk-law-made...

Martin Shulz (president of EU parliament) told the French that 70% of their laws came from Europe: http://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2014/...

You have just summed up just how pointless quoting this sort of statistic actually is - your source also states "any attempt to make sense of the numbers is highly subjective". And the reason is that there is a massive difference between the quantity of statute law passed, and actual laws applied in cases. So there might well be tonnes of European legislation that applies to the UK but how much of it is actually used here? It might make up a fraction of cases. Who knows, but you certainly can't say that the amount of law passed is a huge issue. If it was really causing that much of a problem it would be much more of an issue than it really is. I can only think of a few examples off the top of my head where European laws caused any contention in this country and they can be silly tabloid / minor issues.

• The greengrocer who was taken to court for selling in imperial weights
• A petrol station where the same happened
• Occasional extradition cases of very unsavory people, and prisoner-brought actions where people claim human rights protection spuriously, which have to be balanced against the protection those laws bring

If it is that much of an issue, without looking it up, how many gross travesties can you think of, where any sensible person would agree that European laws have weakened our legal system?

[Puggit]

jakesmith said:

If it is that much of an issue, without looking it up, how many gross travesties can you think of, where any sensible person would agree that European laws have weakened our legal system?

Your question is irrelevant - EU law should not have precedence over our law.

[jakesmith]

Puggit said:

Your question is irrelevant - EU law should not have precedence over our law.

Unless it doesn't actually cause any problems, and changing it does?

[FiF]

jakesmith said:

Puggit said:

2/3rds of legislation is not a great majority? https://fullfact.org/europe/two-thirds-uk-law-made...

Martin Shulz (president of EU parliament) told the French that 70% of their laws came from Europe: http://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2014/...

You have just summed up just how pointless quoting this sort of statistic actually is - your source also states "any attempt to make sense of the numbers is highly subjective". And the reason is that there is a massive difference between the quantity of statute law passed, and actual laws applied in cases. So there might well be tonnes of European legislation that applies to the UK but how much of it is actually used here? It might make up a fraction of cases. Who knows, but you certainly can't say that the amount of law passed is a huge issue. If it was really causing that much of a problem it would be much more of an issue than it really is. I can only think of a few examples off the top of my head where European laws caused any contention in this country and they can be silly tabloid / minor issues.

• The greengrocer who was taken to court for selling in imperial weights
• A petrol station where the same happened
• Occasional extradition cases of very unsavory people, and prisoner-brought actions where people claim human rights protection spuriously, which have to be balanced against the protection those laws bring

If it is that much of an issue, without looking it up, how many gross travesties can you think of, where any sensible person would agree that European laws have weakened our legal system?

Sorry but you're just showing that you don't really understand the bigger picture.

The reason that it's difficult to put a number on it is because of the multi layered, multi faceted way this works, and it depends just the parameters placed.

Yes the directives and regulations which are required to be enacted locally into statute law snd statutory inttuments can be measured, even though it's a mammoth task as some of it repeals earlier legislation. The problem comes with what is known as soft law, where things arising from the EU, say, don't have your be enacted locally, they may or may not be, but are expected to be followed, examples are opinions, communications, declarations, recommendations, resolutions,
statements, guidelines and special reports of the EU institutions. These do not have to be enacted formally, but through the Open Method of Coordination they are expected to be followed.

This latter brings up another issue, as to whom is responsible for their interpretation and implementation. This often gives rise to the complaint of UK civil service gold plating such soft law, but nevertheless it still amounts to influence and results in the higher numbers in terms of the % claims of influence.

Anyway it's rapidly becoming a side issue, as more and more regulation is decided at a global level, eg UNECE being just one, the EU just takes these and passes them on. An expensive and interfering middle man. Prevents the member nations having a say in the original development work by declaring it an exclusive competence. Better to be at the true top table than having 1/28th of a voice at a remote distance.

[jakesmith]

FiF said:

Sorry but you're just showing that you don't really understand the bigger picture.

The reason that it's difficult to put a number on it is because of the multi layered, multi faceted way this works, and it depends just the parameters placed.

Yes the directives and regulations which are required to be enacted locally into statute law snd statutory inttuments can be measured, even though it's a mammoth task as some of it repeals earlier legislation. The problem comes with what is known as soft law, where things arising from the EU, say, don't have your be enacted locally, they may or may not be, but are expected to be followed, examples are opinions, communications, declarations, recommendations, resolutions,
statements, guidelines and special reports of the EU institutions. These do not have to be enacted formally, but through the Open Method of Coordination they are expected to be followed.

This latter brings up another issue, as to whom is responsible for their interpretation and implementation. This often gives rise to the complaint of UK civil service gold plating such soft law, but nevertheless it still amounts to influence and results in the higher numbers in terms of the % claims of influence.

Anyway it's rapidly becoming a side issue, as more and more regulation is decided at a global level, eg UNECE being just one, the EU just takes these and passes them on. An expensive and interfering middle man. Prevents the member nations having a say in the original development work by declaring it an exclusive competence. Better to be at the true top table than having 1/28th of a voice at a remote distance.

I respect your knowledge on the subject being nothing more than a layperson myself. I would give far more time and credence to your opinions, given your demonstrated understanding of the topic, than that of people harping on about principles, sovereignty, foreigners, and being mislead in 1975. If the debate was being held or lead at an intellectual and well informed level I would be a lot more comfortable. My problem with a 'leave' vote is that it appears to be ill-informed, tribalistic, and as such does not seem to be worth disturbing quite a stable status quo for.

[227bhp]

RYH64E said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Eric Mc said:

And not forgetting the state of the UK as an economy and what it had just come through back in 1975.

Yes. it was in a dire position then, with James Callaghan having to go cap in hand to the IMF for a bailout. Possibly one of the UK`s lowest points since WW2?

Whereas today the UK is doing quite well, the economy is growing, employment is high, life is good...

Our economy isn't failing in the same way as that of Greece, we don't have high rates of unemployment as is the case in Spain and Italy, our economy isn't in recession, we're not part of Schengen and don't have open borders, we're not accepting millions of refugees as is the case in Germany, we're not tied to the euro and still have control over our currency... We're part of the EU and we're doing well, within the EU. What's the problem?

Try comparing us against the Swiss, the difference isn't large, it's almost beyond comprehension.
Life is not good in the UK, we are now a poor country.

[227bhp]

Murph7355 said:

No one can be sure about anything on economics.

For example, can you be sure that the UK wouldn't have done better had it been outside the EU for the last 40yrs?

Us doing well may or may not be down to us being in Europe. And you can use data points to "prove" things either way. It's political...

As per my last post, you could compare us to other non EU European countries such as Switzerland. The comparison is in here somewhere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0

Well worth watching if you've got an hour to spare.

[JagLover]

RYH64E said:

I'm coming to the end of my career, a few more years and I'll be selling up and retiring, but if I were 30 years younger I'd be even more pro-EU membership, free and unfettered access to the single market is a fantastic opportunity for those minded to take advantage of it.

You don't have to be a member of the EU to have "free and unfettered access to the single market" which is the main point really. A leave vote makes clear what has always been obvious, most of the UK don't want to be part of a United States of Europe.

In an ideal world it would lead to treaty change with a federalising core and those who just want to trade joining Switzerland and Norway.

[FiF]

jakesmith said:

I respect your knowledge on the subject being nothing more than a layperson myself. I would give far more time and credence to your opinions, given your demonstrated understanding of the topic, than that of people harping on about principles, sovereignty, foreigners, and being mislead in 1975. If the debate was being held or lead at an intellectual and well informed level I would be a lot more comfortable. My problem with a 'leave' vote is that it appears to be ill-informed, tribalistic, and as such does not seem to be worth disturbing quite a stable status quo for.

Well thanks for that.

Problem is that this was an opportunity to have the discussion once and for all, make an informed decision and move on. The way the debate has been conducted has made that impossible, both sides are guilty, the Remain argument is just as tribalistic and ill informed, indeed the tone has been set by the Prime Minister's antics. Furthermore honestly I don't believe a Remain vote represents anything like a vote for status quo except in the very very short term.