News0 min ago
Or We Are Not On Our Way...........
Blair wants a second referendum!!!
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by -SharonA-. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Tony Blair is Yesterday's Man with blood on his hands.
Sadly he lacks the humility and dignity to take his appalling personal history with him and retire quietly. He remains addicted to the false notion that he has influence, and that his opinions matter, coupled with an addiciton to seeing his face on television and in newspapers.
He should be ignored for the fool that he is.
Sadly he lacks the humility and dignity to take his appalling personal history with him and retire quietly. He remains addicted to the false notion that he has influence, and that his opinions matter, coupled with an addiciton to seeing his face on television and in newspapers.
He should be ignored for the fool that he is.
Small clarification, I see the joining of the European Economic Community as being because Edward Heath wanted it. I recall none of us were asked. Once already in we were asked if we wished to stay in the trade block. Then the true intent all along was revealed to us as they changed from EEC to EU, and again we weren't asked. This time around we were asked whether we wished to leave this European Union and gave our verdict.
gulliver - 09.30 YES we did , get your facts correct ,before you disagree with answers that do not agree , with your opinion. OK!. //
Naomi is correct in her assertion, and her post is a fact, not her opinion.
Entry to the Common Market was based entirely on advantageous trade agreements, and not the federalist monstrosity to which we remain manacled, at least for the moment.
The notions of our laws and our borders being compromised were certainly not on the agenda when Geoffrey Rippon negotiated our entry terms.
I normally disagree with two formidable ladies - Mrs Thatcher, and Naomi, but in terms of their approach to the EU, both have been proven to be correct in their assessments.
Naomi is correct in her assertion, and her post is a fact, not her opinion.
Entry to the Common Market was based entirely on advantageous trade agreements, and not the federalist monstrosity to which we remain manacled, at least for the moment.
The notions of our laws and our borders being compromised were certainly not on the agenda when Geoffrey Rippon negotiated our entry terms.
I normally disagree with two formidable ladies - Mrs Thatcher, and Naomi, but in terms of their approach to the EU, both have been proven to be correct in their assessments.
and don't forget the self-serving gits who signed the Single European Act and the Mastricht treaty.
Strangely, they were all Tories. The whole EU saga is a Conservative one. Gordon Brown on the other hand kept Britain out of the euro.
If people had had the sense to vote Labour none of this would ever have happened; but Tory voters just can't stop themselves putting an X in the wrong box.
Strangely, they were all Tories. The whole EU saga is a Conservative one. Gordon Brown on the other hand kept Britain out of the euro.
If people had had the sense to vote Labour none of this would ever have happened; but Tory voters just can't stop themselves putting an X in the wrong box.
Yes, Gulliver, you need to do some research before making your argument. A recommended starting point would be this:
http://
It is the pamphlet sent by Harold Wilson’s government to all households in 1975 prior to the referendum that was held on the UK’s continued membership of the European Community (“Common Market”). Try to read it all, but if you cannot be bothered, a particularly interesting paragraph is this:
-------
The Market is one of the biggest concentrations of industrial and trading power in the world. Its has vast resources of skill, experience and inventiveness.
The aims of the Common Market are:
• To bring together the peoples of Europe.
• To raise living standards and improve working conditions.
• To promote growth and boost world trade.
• To help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world.
• To help maintain peace and freedom.
--------
This passage is conspicuous in what it does NOT mention. It does not mention the Exchange Rate Mechanism and monetary union that was always planned; it does not mention a supra-national court having the power to trump UK law; it does not mention the fiscal union which will clearly be required if the Euro is to survive; it does not mention expanding the bloc to include countries with whom we now share our wealth and who do not have the proverbial pot to P in; it does not mention the common defence policy which is clearly the aim of the EU; it does not mention the EC having embassies in non-EU nations which attempt to usurp the responsibilities of national embassies. There’s a whole lot more it does not mention which are now part of life as an EU member. Crucially, to counter your contention, it does not mention the government’s fear that the UK would be “isolated” if we left. There is no doubt that we did not join (or vote to remain) to become the supplicant state in a Federal Europe as we are today.
“If people had had the sense to vote Labour none of this would ever have happened;”
Really? Hopefully tongue-in-cheek, jno, but the above demonstrates this is clearly not so. It was Harold Wilson’s government that recommended our staying in 1975 and the Commons voted by 390 to 170 in favour of remaining in the EC under the “new” terms. Furthermore, the Lisbon Treaty (without doubt the most damaging of all the EU treaties as far as national sovereignty is concerned) was signed in 2007 at which time Labour had been in power for ten years. This consigned national Parliaments to parish council status and was the EU’s founding Constitution by any other name. The document headed “EU Constitution” having been peremptorily signed by the Heads of State in 2004 had to be ditched following rejections by electorates in the Netherlands and France. The Lisbon Treaty contained more than 80% of the Constitution's provisions.
It is doubtful that either of the main parties would have steered the UK through a different path towards its current EU membership.
http://
It is the pamphlet sent by Harold Wilson’s government to all households in 1975 prior to the referendum that was held on the UK’s continued membership of the European Community (“Common Market”). Try to read it all, but if you cannot be bothered, a particularly interesting paragraph is this:
-------
The Market is one of the biggest concentrations of industrial and trading power in the world. Its has vast resources of skill, experience and inventiveness.
The aims of the Common Market are:
• To bring together the peoples of Europe.
• To raise living standards and improve working conditions.
• To promote growth and boost world trade.
• To help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world.
• To help maintain peace and freedom.
--------
This passage is conspicuous in what it does NOT mention. It does not mention the Exchange Rate Mechanism and monetary union that was always planned; it does not mention a supra-national court having the power to trump UK law; it does not mention the fiscal union which will clearly be required if the Euro is to survive; it does not mention expanding the bloc to include countries with whom we now share our wealth and who do not have the proverbial pot to P in; it does not mention the common defence policy which is clearly the aim of the EU; it does not mention the EC having embassies in non-EU nations which attempt to usurp the responsibilities of national embassies. There’s a whole lot more it does not mention which are now part of life as an EU member. Crucially, to counter your contention, it does not mention the government’s fear that the UK would be “isolated” if we left. There is no doubt that we did not join (or vote to remain) to become the supplicant state in a Federal Europe as we are today.
“If people had had the sense to vote Labour none of this would ever have happened;”
Really? Hopefully tongue-in-cheek, jno, but the above demonstrates this is clearly not so. It was Harold Wilson’s government that recommended our staying in 1975 and the Commons voted by 390 to 170 in favour of remaining in the EC under the “new” terms. Furthermore, the Lisbon Treaty (without doubt the most damaging of all the EU treaties as far as national sovereignty is concerned) was signed in 2007 at which time Labour had been in power for ten years. This consigned national Parliaments to parish council status and was the EU’s founding Constitution by any other name. The document headed “EU Constitution” having been peremptorily signed by the Heads of State in 2004 had to be ditched following rejections by electorates in the Netherlands and France. The Lisbon Treaty contained more than 80% of the Constitution's provisions.
It is doubtful that either of the main parties would have steered the UK through a different path towards its current EU membership.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
Is It Safe To Take Paracetamol
How it Works29 mins ago
