May To See Jean-Claude Junker On Brexit

[vetuste_ennemi]

What is the formal ceremony when the EU liege-lord gives audience to a tributary?

I do hope it's brief and not too distressing to Mrs May. Mind you, she has to date dealt with humilation with an admirable sangfroid. (Got a bit of the old froggy stuff in there. Like it? Remember ConcordE - E for England, E for Europe, E for Entente. E by gum , them were the days.)

[dannyk13]

Jim , they signed up for an economic trade agreement, nothing more.

[-Talbot-]

So...no evidence of begging desperately then?

[emmie]

the only lie so far has come out of Mrs May's own mouth, No Deal better than a bad Deal, what a load of botox.

[jim360]

Look up people like Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, and other founding fathers of the EU. It's not difficult to research what they were saying and thinking for themselves.

"There will be no peace in Europe, if the states are reconstituted on the basis of national sovereignty... The European states must constitute themselves into a federation..." (Monnet, 1943)

"...this proposal represents the first concrete step towards a European federation, imperative for the preservation of peace." (Schuman, 1950)

[emmie]

but many people across Europe don't like being part of a European superstate, some have sold their souls like the Greeks for 30 pieces of silver.

[emmie]

and see the state they are in, likewise Italy, France, only Germany seems to really want this deal.

[dannyk13]

Quote who you like but you still have not backed up your assertion that we were signing up to a united states of Europe.

[jim360]

Talbot, the personal interactions between de Gaulle and MacMillan were very close, at the end, to begging:

//Mr Macmillan, a weary-looking father figure, at last held out his hand yesterday and offered to try to lead the Commons and the country into Europe, if he can find the way...

Mr Macmillan made it clear that now, after his long contemplation, he wants to go in. He also made it clear why. It might have been a European political community he was talking about. He spoke of the struggle for freedom, and said it was both our duty and our interest to add to Europe’s strength in that struggle.

He spoke sombrely, to Labour and Tory questioners alike, of what might happen if we find that we cannot go in after all. As for his own idea of the chances of success, he told Mr Grimond that he was “not confident, but hopeful.” //

(Guardian, 1961)

It took two years of trying before de Gaulle finally said "Non". Fill in the gaps yourself, if you're interested, but it's odd to have this fixation on Edward Heath when he was merely following the path laid down for him by MacMillan.

[jim360]

My assertion is that we were signing up to a community that was known to be heading in that direction, as was its stated intent. That's not controversial.

[dannyk13]

Jim, that is only [i[your[i] assertion.It does not make it true.

[dannyk13]

^your^

[vetuste_ennemi]

//The EC was always heading towards a united European state. Churchill thought so, the architects of the ECSC said so explicitly//

Indeed they did, Jim. Goes back to the coal and steel stuff - can't remember the Franco-German pact blokes. But joining the Common Market as it was then was never sold to the electorate as a move to political integration. The Common Market was a free trade area within Europe not the first step in a federal Europe. You weren't born then. The first time I voted was against Bernard Weatherall (speaker of the House) in Croydon North prior to the Heath government and MayDeal version 1. I wasn't voting against a federal Europe (I and many others liked the idea of a common European free trade area which include Germany and France - we already had a very useful one with smaller European countries - EFTA), I was voting against the damage to our Commonwealth partners (Oz, NZ, Jamaica etc) and our European partners in EFTA which would be caused by punitive tariffs and the higher prices I would have to pay for meat and sugar etc.

With your triple benefits of youth, high IQ and hindsight you are accusing my generation for stupidity for not having read the small print (Read T&C - tick box). What about Heath, his predecessors, and Wilson who followed him and who gave us the first referendum? You weren't there. I was.. Not one single word about political integration. It was all trade, trade, common standards, trade, trade and common standards. What's not to like?

So don't give me the you're too lazy or stupid to have known stuff. Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Been posted on Alpha Centauri for two and a half million years. (Don't you guys take any interest in local affairs?) Even a copy at the council headquarters. Down the cellar. Use a torch - light bulb dead. Find door marked "Beware of the Leopard". Planning permission for inter-galactic highway.

OK, I and my generation were stupid. Would you allow that all of our politicians at that time (with the honourable exceptions of Powell and Benn) were liars?

[jim360]

No, it doesn't, but the rather transparent statements of the ECSC's founders, coupled with the fact that even in the early 60s, MPs were clear on what joining the EC may mean, makes it a fairly solid assertion. The guardian article I cited talked about MPs complaining:

//Mr Anthony Fell, the Conservative member for Yarmouth ...called Mr Macmillan all sorts of names, including a disaster, and told him in the name of Mr Fell to go.

“His decision to gamble with British sovereignty,” Mr Fell went on, his furious voice rising above the tumult, “and with 650 million people in the British Commonwealth, is the most disastrous thing any Prime Minister has done for many generations past.” //

So... yes, I'm fairly confident that politicians were aware of what joining the EC/EU might mean. What Mr Fell -- and you -- missed is that the benefits outweighed this issue.

[dannyk13]

Jim, slightly off subject but do you get a retaining fee from the EU?

[jim360]

I'm not sure I'm calling you too stupid *then*, except to correct some misconceptions that danny's loudly, and quite wrongly, shouted about. I think joining was the right decision, and I think remaining would have been correct too; given the turmoil of the last two years, I still think remaining is worth it.

We (or, perhaps more accurately, NewJudge and I) have had a similar discussion before, so I was aware that in 1975 most of the campaign literature seemed to focus on trade benefits. To that extent, I'll agree with you that politicians at the time were dishonest. Right now, though, the truly dishonest ones are the hardliners for Brexit who seem convinced that stand up tall and the EU will instantly bow to our demands, or that walk away and we will force them to give in once again, despite all evidence to the contrary.

[-Talbot-]

very close, at the end, to begging


So that means...erm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,not begging?

[jim360]

danny, you're the second person to make that remark in two days.

The answer is pretty simple: No.

[jim360]

Talbot, I need to find the exact quote, but there's an entry in de Gaulle's diary where he paints a picture of MacMillan begging, pitifully. How fanciful it is or not I don't know, but it hardly matters. MacMillan spent two years personally trying to get Britain into the EEC, and his successors spent the next ten years continuing that quest. Whether it was literal begging or not, it was pretty clear that MacMillan, at least, was personally desperate to achieve that.

[emmie]

so we bow our heads and get a good kicking, and we are supposed to beg our masters for more, what planet are you on.

[jim360]

Britain can be part of Europe without being "kicked about". One needs only to accept that being part of a whole means not getting your way rather often. But, equally, the EU has benefitted from having the UK as a member.