No deal BREXIT looms

[JustSomeBloke]

Oh blah, blah, blah. I voted in the 1975 referendum, and it was no secret then that the ultimate aim of the EEC was a United States of Europe, any more than it is now.

If it genuinely was 'no secret then', you won't have any difficulty backing that claim up with URLs to reliable documents that demonstrate what you are saying is true. So far, I've provided hard evidence that the government of 1975 ran a deceitful campaign to get voters to approve continued EEC membership, and you've provided absolutely nothing to support your claim.

Do you have anything? Or are you just going to peddle unsubstantiated claims, while desperately hoping that nobody notices?

And I can also prove that the claim currently being made by some Remainers, that the public did not know that a vote for Leave meant leaving the single market (customs union), is a complete and utter fabrication. In a single interview, David Cameron mentioned leaving the single market 28 times! Any Remainers making that claim must have been living in a cave during the referendum campaign if they did not notice that official government policy was that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market!

 

[Nithavela]

 

[lesliedellow]

If it genuinely was 'no secret then', you won't have any difficulty backing that claim up with URLs to reliable documents that demonstrate what you are saying is true. So far, I've provided hard evidence that the government of 1975 ran a deceitful campaign to get voters to approve continued EEC membership, and you've provided absolutely nothing to support your claim.

https://archive.cartoons.ac.uk/GetMultimedia.ashx?db=Catalog&type=default&fname=28063.jpg

Caption: “Oh dear, Rodney is expounding his theory that now we’re the United States of Europe all the blighters should learn to speak English.”

How could a cartoon like that appear in a popular newspaper, in June 1975, if it wasn’t common knowledge?

And I can also prove that the claim currently being made by some Remainers, that the public did not know that a vote for Leave meant leaving the single market (customs union), is a complete and utter fabrication.

“I would vote to stay in the single market. I’m in favour of the single market.”

Who said that? Why Bojo, just two short years ago.

All the times Boris Johnson called for Britain to stay in the single market

 

[Francis Drake]

Oh blah, blah, blah. I voted in the 1975 referendum, and it was no secret then that the ultimate aim of the EEC was a United States of Europe, any more than it is now.

I do not believe you for one moment.
Downing Street was adamant that it was nothing more than a trading partnership, and deliberately concealed from Parliament that they were surrendering sovereignty.
When interviewed on TV in the 90s, Ted Heath admitted that he had lied to get us into the EU, so for you to claim you knew what they were doing is farcical.
And if you did know, then as a Christian you should have done your level best to warn everyone against it!

 

[lesliedellow]

I do not believe you for one moment.
Downing Street was adamant that it was nothing more than a trading partnership, and deliberately concealed from Parliament that they were surrendering sovereignty.
When interviewed on TV in the 90s, Ted Heath admitted that he had lied to get us into the EU, so for you to claim you knew what they were doing is farcical.
And if you did know, then as a Christian you should have done your level best to warn everyone against it!

Oh for heaven sake, ever since Winston Churchill made his speech in favour of the setting up of the EEC, it was the intention that it should eventually evolve into the United States of Europe. I think he even used that very phrase. So unless you think the House of Commons was full of MPs with an IQ of about 80 in 1973, they knew what they were voting for. Kenneth Clarke certainly did, because I can remember reading a story about him being exultant over it.

 

[Francis Drake]

Oh for heaven sake, ever since Winston Churchill made his speech in favour of the setting up of the EEC, it was the intention that it should eventually evolve into the United States of Europe.

My first objection is to your ludicrous claim to have fully known back in the early 70s about the plans to create a United States of Europe, when that deep secret was held by only a small handful of very select people.
One of the prime decisions in the initial meeting for planning the future EU was to keep the voting public entirely ignorant of its true purpose. For that end, they co-opted the Newspaper and Media Barons onto the steering committee.
But in any mention of Churchill in relation to the European Union, it must be prefaced with Churchill's determination that Britain must never be a member of such a union as it would compromise Britain's sovereignty.

I think he even used that very phrase. So unless you think the House of Commons was full of MPs with an IQ of about 80 in 1973,

You really shouldn't exaggerate the IQs of MPs back in the 70s or today, unless of course it was an aggregate figure!
Seriously, given the phenomenal ignorance and stupidity of MPs in general, it's hardly surprising that they know nothing of the machinations of the European Commission back then and today.

they knew what they were voting for.

The MPs were deliberately kept in the dark, and fed a constant stream of disinformation, as were the public.

Kenneth Clarke certainly did, because I can remember reading a story about him being exultant over it.

Of course Ken Clarke knew, he was a member of the Bilderberg Group that started the whole project.

 

[lesliedellow]

My first objection is to your ludicrous claim to have fully known back in the early 70s about the plans to create a United States of Europe, when that deep secret was held by only a small handful of very select people.

Really, I must be a very select person then. And so must the cartoonist I linked to in post #223. I am not really interested in reading the rest of a Brexiteer's asinine conspiracy theory.

Here, Pathe News in 1948. If it was a secret news, it must have been the worst kept one in all of history:

 

[Francis Drake]

Really, I must be a very select person then. And so must the cartoonist I linked to in post #223. I am not really interested in reading the rest of a Brexiteer's asinine conspiracy theory.

The Bilderberg Group is no conspiracy theory.
Unless you understand the central involvement of the Bilderberg Group in EU and global politics, you are clueless.

Regarding the video, as Churchill makes clear, any uniting of European nations must only be done with the heart felt vehement support of the free people who want it,

Ted Heath did the entire opposite of that.

 

[Francis Drake]

Ted Heath's lies to take us into the Common Market/European Union.

“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”

Prime Minister Edward Heath, television broadcast on Britain’s entry into the Common Market, January 1973.


Lies lies lies lies lies, and damned lies.

 

[lesliedellow]

Regarding the video, as Churchill makes clear, any uniting of European nations must only be done with the heart felt vehement support of the free people who want it,

Ted Heath did the entire opposite of that.

Ah, so you think there is an outside chance that MPs might have known about the long term goal of the EEC in 1973. After all, in was a Conservative government, and you would think they might have known something about Churchill’s role in founding the EEC. Everybody else knew about it, after all.

 

[lesliedellow]

Ted Heath's lies to take us into the Common Market/European Union.

“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”

Prime Minister Edward Heath, television broadcast on Britain’s entry into the Common Market, January 1973.


Lies lies lies lies lies, and damned lies.

Yes, well clearly, we have sacrificed so much sovereignty we cannot now withdraw from the EU. Please grow up Brexiteers, if we want to be part of the international community, we are going to have to play by the rules of whatever international bodies we are part of.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

https://archive.cartoons.ac.uk/GetMultimedia.ashx?db=Catalog&type=default&fname=28063.jpg

Caption: “Oh dear, Rodney is expounding his theory that now we’re the United States of Europe all the blighters should learn to speak English.”

How could a cartoon like that appear in a popular newspaper, in June 1975, if it wasn’t common knowledge?

Has it not occurred to you that the role of a cartoonist is to depict a situation in a humourous light, and that among their many tools to do so are gross exaggeration, distortion of facts, and extreme caricature? And in any case, the cartoon does not even directly address the issue of loss of sovereignty, so you certainly haven't proved that the government's 1975 referendum campaign was not deceitful.

“I would vote to stay in the single market. I’m in favour of the single market.”

Who said that? Why Bojo, just two short years ago.

All the times Boris Johnson called for Britain to stay in the single market

So what? It wasn't a referendum on the single market, it was a referendum on the EU membership package as a whole.


By the way, I think that God quite likely takes an interest in EU politics, not least because it involves the issue of borders and free movement. Have you ever read Acts Ch 17 vs26-27?

From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

If God considers that EU policies on borders and free movement have arrogated His authority to set the borders of nations, then I would not be at all surprised if He destroys the EU.

How about the tower of Babel? Have you ever noticed the EU using the slogan "Many tongues, one voice"? Have you ever noticed the striking similarity of the Strasbourg EU parliament building to the painting of the tower of Babel by Pieter Bruegel the Elder? Have you ever noticed that the EU has a sculpture of, and has used artwork of a woman riding a beast? Can you think where such a woman riding a beast depiction occurs in the Bible? Maybe it's all a huge coincidence that the EU has adopted these words and symbols, but I do sometimes wonder if that is all there is to it.

 

[lesliedellow]

Has it not occurred to you that the role of a cartoonist is to depict a situation in a humourous light,

Has it not occurred to you that he was saying something which was never any secret?

Conspiracy theorists of the world unite!

By the way, I think that God quite likely takes an interest in EU politics, not least because it involves the issue of borders and free movement. Have you ever read Acts Ch 17 vs26-27?

From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

If God considers that EU policies on borders and free movement have arrogated His authority to set the borders of nations, then I would not be at all surprised if He destroys the EU.

Presumably you think God was outraged when Alfred the Great set about the business of welding warring fiefdoms together into what is now England.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

Presumably you think God was outraged when Alfred the Great set about the business of welding warring fiefdoms together into what is now England.

No, I don't think that at all. And if that's what you thought upon reading my post, you've misunderstood me. I was merely stating my belief that, based on scripture, God quite likely takes an interest in man-made policies that have the same effect as the abolition of borders, and man-made policies that have the effect of amalgamating different peoples and different nations. Of course God is sovereign, and none of us know his plan. All we know is that his will is going to be enacted. If God considers the EU to be a modern day tower of Babel, and he disapproves, he may decide to destroy the EU. Certainly the EU seems to have a lot of problems at the moment, so I suspect that God's hands may be at work.

Has it not occurred to you that he was saying something which was never any secret?

Conspiracy theorists of the world unite!

I don't think you understand how intellectual debate proceeds on an internet forum. The general idea is that you're supposed to carefully read the opposing person's post, then respond to the points they raised. Simply restating your view, as you have just done, without addressing any of the points they raised, doesn't make you any more right, and may be taken to indicate that you can't offer a valid counter argument to the points that were raised. To help you understand how the intellectual debate process is supposed to work, I'll respond to another one of your posts below, and hopefully you can learn from this how to debate.

Yes, well clearly, we have sacrificed so much sovereignty we cannot now withdraw from the EU.

If I recall correctly, the Article 50 provision in the treaty was included only at the insistence of the UK. If the UK had not insisted on that provision, there would effectively be no legal means to exit from the EU. Only an idiot would enter into a business relationship that could never be terminated, but that is what the EU wanted. Would you sign a phone contract, or energy supply contract, knowing that you could never leave? In the Brexit negotiations, the EU is clearly attempting to use the issue of the Irish border to lock the UK into an agreement that does not even have an Article 50 type mechanism to exit. So yes, the EU set out to prevent any state from ever leaving, and they are attempting the same in Brexit negotiations, ably assisted by UK MPs who do not respect that the UK public voted to completely leave all EU institutions.

Please grow up Brexiteers

This adds nothing to the debate.

if we want to be part of the international community, we are going to have to play by the rules of whatever international bodies we are part of.

There are 195 countries in the world. Being a member of the EU, which comprises just 28 of those 195 states, stops us from striking independent trade deals with the other 167 countries of the world. So it would seem that being a member of the EU makes us less international and more isolationist than if we were free to interact with all those other 167 countries.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, that is the nature of popular sovereignty, isn't it--letting the people choose? And the corollary to that proposition is abiding by the results of the vote!

The problem is, that not everybody is qualified to decide on certain matters.
This is why doctors don't diagnose deseases with referendums of the general non-doctor public.

That's my point.
This type of rule was necessary / usefull for a while, but I feel we are reaching its limits and it is time to evolve the concept of democracy.

At the new year dinner, we were just half-drunk discussing this. Fun times.
I made this software engineering analogy I quite like.

A lot of business utilities start out as simple programs to handle/manage some small piece of a work - the application domain. As the business expands / grows / evolves, that application domain becomes more complex and features get added to the program. Eventually that program becomes an unmanageable monster. So at some point, you want to step back and engage in what we call refactoring. You break down the program into its smallest logical components and rebuild it. In the process, you improve the overall design which will help in maintainability, performance, testability, stability,...

In politics, the application domain is society. It needs to be managed. You require a system to manage it. Communism is such a system. Democracy is another. Democracy worked very good compared to what it replaced all over the world. But society today is a lot more complex and bigger then 50 to 100 years ago.

Just like a software program, democracy has been playing catch-up with a changing society and I feel it has reached its plateau of scaling. It requires a refactoring.

I'm not saying people shouldn't have a voice. I'm rather saying that not everyone is equally qualified to decide on whatever. And that doesn't just go for voters, it goes for the politicians themselves also.

A government should be run more like a company. Politicians today can get away with way too much and a lot of them really aren't capable of doing the job they are supposed to do - as in, they literally aren't qualified. They lack the required knowledge, skills, abilities, education,... But they have "charisma" and get voted into office anyway. In my opinion, they shouldn't even be on the list!

There's a politician in my country that has had so many mandates in different departments, it's ridiculous. He's been minister of defence, health, education,...
I mean, WTH? The dude had no military experience at all, had no medical education at all, doesn't have anything to do with teaching anything.... That makes no sense to me.

That's like making someone without any IT experience, president of the windows development department at microsoft.

Any ol' dictatorship can tell the people what is good for them and then impose it upon them...and we say that we oppose that form of government.

So do I. But that doesn't stop me from realising that certain qualified people do know better then me what needs to be done concerning things of their area of expertise.

I'm not pretending to have all the answers. But I do recognise democracy in this day and age to be inadequate and bloated. It is in need of fixing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But people we actually know the names of.. people we are aware even exist!

Your ignorance is your own responsability.

 

[JazzHands]

Your ignorance is your own responsability.

And your arrogant presumption is your own liability.

p.s. 'responsibility'

 

[Albion]

The problem is, that not everybody is qualified to decide on certain matters.

...which is the argument made by totalitarian governments. The head man knows what is best for you (and, invariably, for himself).

But the idea of a democracy is that the people--the ones who are being governed--are the ones who ought to decide what is best or preferable for them. There is no presumption that the factors each of them uses when judging the alternative proposals must be the same as is used by the next person.

 

[DogmaHunter]

...which is the argument made by totalitarian governments. The head man knows what is best for you (and, invariably, for himself).

No. No single one person could be qualified for all decisions either.
A dicator merely declares himself as such.

But the idea of a democracy is that the people--the ones who are being governed--are the ones who ought to decide what is best or preferable for them.

And I maintain that "the people" are only capable of doing that to a certain extent.
People vote with emotions and their wallet, which is not a rational path to correct answers.

Off course, if there would be some kind of criteria attached to required qualifications for political candidates - perhaps even departments restricted to their particular area of expertise, then that might already go a long way...

 

[Goonie]

Theresa May has just suffered the biggest parliamentary defeat in British parliamentary history on her governments most important bill in modern history.

And guess what she will win a vote of no confidence tomorrow