Tory Support For The European Union

[Hymie]

This speech in the House of Commons by Ken Clarke in January 2017 is well work a listen, in which he points out that the Conservative party supported our EU membership for more than 50 years and the enormous benefits the UK gained through being members.

 

But then following the referendum, the Conservative party suddenly became anti-EU overnight.

 

 

[bhg481]

The EU was a totally different beast when we joined compared to when we left.

[Hymie]

In his speech, Ken points out some of those changes, in which many of the major ones were instigated by the Tory party.

[Khandro]

If a week is along time in politics, 50 years is an eternity.

The EU didn't exist then it only started in 1993, before that it was the EEC - a trading community as which it should have remained.

[Hymie]

Listen to his speech.

[maggiebee]

Don't be silly Hymie - none of the true blues on this site will ever listen!

[naomi24]

What did he mean by 'if we actually succeed in remaining a member of the European Union?'   Didn't he know we'd already voted to leave - or like many other Remainers, didn't he care about democracy?

[New Judge]

Good grief! Now we're going back seven years!

The very last person I would listen to in connection with the EU is Ken Clarke. The man is a rabid Euro-maniac who, given his way, would settle for nothing less than the UK becoming subsumed into a federal Union.

The reason the Conservative Party became the Brexit Party (not, as you suggest, the anti-EU party) is because they called the referendum and they pledged to honour its result. I don't normally expect politicians to do as they promise (in fact I'm very surprised on the odd occasion when they do), but on this occasion I did. They asked a specific question, received a specific answer and there should have been no doubt what was to be done.

Mr Clarke was among those trying to thwart that process because he didn't like the answer and, as with most EU supporters, concentrates his criticisms on just one topic of our membership - trade. As I keep saying every time you raise these points, there is more to life than trade.

I have no objection to close, friction free trade with Europe. It makes sense and if the EU had any it would facilitate it as much as possible to their benefit and ours. But it hasn't. It has other motives where trade (or the threat to disrupt it) is used as a lever or a club to achieve its aims. They've spent fifty years to reach that position and there is only one direction their evolution will go. You don't give in to threats of that kind so it's a luxury we cannot afford.

[New Judge]

“Don't be silly Hymie - none of the true blues on this site will ever listen!”

I listened to it (well, watched the sub-titles). I actually listened to it when it was first made. Some of the remarks he made could only come from a Euromaniac, such as how the UK’s “Leadership” within the EU shaped its future. Nothing could be further from the truth. The EU does not enjoy (or tolerate) leadership from any of its member nations. It’s leadership comes from the cosy clique of unelected and largely unheard of officials.

"Didn't he know we'd already voted to leave - or like many other Remainers, didn't he care about democracy?"

The second, naomi. He was not a fan of referendums (as stated in his speech) and saw no reason to comply with the result. Instead he preferred to bless the electorate with his own wisdom and judgement. In short “I know better than you what’s good for you.” He was a founder member of the club formed by Vince Cable, whose first utterance I heard on the morning after the referendum was “Don’t worry. We can stop this happening.”

Fortunately they didn’t. The rest, as they say, is history (until it’s dragged up over and over again).

[Old_Geezer]

More fool Ken Clarke.

 

We sure didn't benefit by being bossed by an unelected elite.

 

Joining a decent trading block would be ok; submitting to a federal block is and was a total disaster, which is not reasonably deniable.

[Canary42]

OG is right, trying to extend it beyond trade was bound to fail given European history.  

[Hymie]

In that speech many predictions he made (back in 2017), have either have come to pass (or are about to) as a result of Brexit.

[Canary42]

Yes, well worth a listen Hymie, thanks for the link.  

Ironically, after Thatcher's downfall, nobody in the Tory Party (or in Lab or Lib for that mattr) had the balls to stand against those bullies in the EU trying to force through a federal power model, so like cowards they chose to run away.  Cameron tried to bolster his timidity by enlisting public support - the rest is history.

[Hymie]

In the 2019 election every Tory MPs had to pledge allegiance to Boris’s Brexit; once the Tory party realises that with an anti-EU stance they are un-electable – they will suddenly about-turn again.

 

And if TTT wants to continue being a card carrying member, like all the other Tories, he’ll have to deny he ever expressed any views in support of Brexit.

[New Judge]

“In that speech many predictions he made (back in 2017), have either have come to pass (or are about to) as a result of Brexit.”

It just seemed like a trip down Memory Lane to me. So what, specifically, did he say in that speech that has come to pass (apart from correctly forecasting that his last Parliament would coincide with the UK leaving the EU)? We’ll tackle those that are “about to” if and when they do . Though I don't think we'll be too troubled as he didn't appear to make any predictions at all.

“And if TTT wants to continue being a card carrying member, like all the other Tories, he’ll have to deny he ever expressed any views in support of Brexit.”

I’m not a card carrying member of any political party. None deserves me. I do have Conservative sympathies but Brexit transcends party politics. I couldn’t care less if the Communist Party formed a government so long as we remained outside the EU.
 

[andy-hughes]

As others advised, and I am old enough to remember, Britain joined the EEC which was an entirely trade-based organisation.

Over the intervening time, it has morphed into a federalist state using its unelected officials to force Britain to adhere to decisions over which the electorate have no say.

That is the basis on which the electorate voted to leave.

And as advised, Mr Clarke is a EU believer to the point of fanaticism, and nothing will alter his view - fortunately he is no longer in a position where he can actually cause any real influence with those views.

I have always found it hard to take seriously the opinions of a man who simultaniously holds the post of Health Secretary, while remaining a board member of the Imperial Tobacco Company.

As far is trade is concerned, trade operates the way trade has as long as there have been individual groups of people on the planet.

I have something you want, you have something I want, we will work out a mutually beneficial agreement between us.

Now you can bury that concept under mountains of paper and red tape, and the EU have, but it remains unchanged.

If other countries want to trade with the UK, and vice versa, an agreement will be reached.

It's not difficult, and it's not, contrary to what Mr Clarke believes, dependent on being controlled by bureuacrats in Brussels.

[New Judge]

Very eloquently put, Andy.

However, I fear we are both banging our heads against the wall. However, the important thing is that the UK is no longer a member of the EU. All this noise and nonsense is immaterial.

[andy-hughes]

New Judge - //

Very eloquently put, Andy.

However, I fear we are both banging our heads against the wall. However, the important thing is that the UK is no longer a member of the EU. All this noise and nonsense is immaterial. //

Thank you.

I agree that the 'losers' remain in a permanet state of angst that the bluff called by David Cameron failed spectacularly, a wonderful example of a politician being utterly out of touch with how the people he is supposed to work for actually feel about the way they are governed.

Speaking personally, had the vote gone the other way, I would have been unhappy, but I would have accepted it, because that is how democracy works.

I certainly would not have wasted my time from then until now bleating about 'no-one understood what they were voting for ...' and similar nonsense.

I did know what I was voting for, and I take offence at being told that because I voted in a different way from some AB'ers, it must mean that my faculties are deficient in way that theirs are not.

You lost. Suck it up and move on.

[andy-hughes]

I managed about four minutes of Mr Clarke's speech.

But after his mixture of pseudo-Empire nonsense, when he clearly believes, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Europe regards us as a leadinng and influential player on the world stage, and his frankly alarming statements that the ecconomy benefited from EU membership, I had to curtail his increasingly unreal approach to the events that have unfolded since we joined the EEC all those years ago.

Mr Clarke seriously likes to fantasise that we are lauded and respected by Europe as world leaders, and that is frankly living in cloud cookooland.

The European fatcats openly laugh at such delusions of grandeur, and had they been allowed, the could have continued laughing, while sucking us dry of resources and free trade.

We are no longer a 'world power', and someone should try and make Mr Clarke understand that.

And we are no longer, if indeed we ever were, the 'world's policemen', and a lot of lives could have been saved if Mr Blair could have been made aware of that fact at that time.

They both live in their minds - fortunately, the electorate lives in reality.

[Hymie]

Another person talking sense in the Brexit debate (in the House of Commons), back in 2017.