Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Jack Knave on April 26, 2016, 08:22:05 PM
-
http://www.ukipdaily.com/really-governs-us/
‘Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.’ Jean Monnet, Founding Father of the European Union
A superstate was what the USSR was. Centrally controlled against the will of the people.
-
Your link has the word "ukip" in it. Are we expected to believe it is remotely capable of presenting a truthful view of the EU?
-
I can't believe anyone on here is linking to a UKIP publication.
This site will lead you to an article that states Monnet did not say that.
http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/03/exclusive-the-danger-of-jean-monnet/
-
The only surprise would be if UKIP failed to deliver this kind of trash.
-
Definition of 'knave':
1. A dishonest or unscrupulous man
2. (in cards) a jack.
I post this purely for information.
-
http://www.ukipdaily.com/really-governs-us/
‘Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.’ Jean Monnet, Founding Father of the European Union
A superstate was what the USSR was. Centrally controlled against the will of the people.
The USSR was an empire, not a superstate.
-
The only surprise would be if UKIP failed to deliver this kind of trash.
Ukip do not know the difference between the Europe Union, and the Council for Europe.
-
Is the leave campaign now prepared to tell us who in this country will get the repatriated money from a brexit (none of the vague we will all benefit bollocks please) and how many skilled people from outside the EU the country will let in and what their wages will be.
Could they also outline what rights enjoyed by British workers will be removed at Brexit
-
Ukip do not know the difference between the Europe Union, and the Council for Europe.
Most of them don't know the difference between their arse and their elbow.
-
Is the leave campaign now prepared to tell us who in this country will get the repatriated money from a brexit (none of the vague we will all benefit bollocks please)
To be decided by the UK government in power at the time.
and how many skilled people from outside the EU the country will let in and what their wages will be.
To be decided by the UK government in power at the time.
Could they also outline what rights enjoyed by British workers will be removed at Brexit
To be decided by the UK government in power at the time.
Is the leave campaign now prepared to tell us how much more we will have to pay, how much immigration will be from the EU, what laws the EU will be changing over the next ten years?
-
To be decided by the UK government in power at the time.
To be decided by the UK government in power at the time.
To be decided by the UK government in power at the time.
Is the leave campaign now prepared to tell us how much more we will have to pay, how much immigration will be from the EU, what laws the EU will be changing over the next ten years?
It will be the conservatives since they have another 4 years to go.
-
It will be the conservatives since they have another 4 years to go.
We'll won't be rejoining the EU for at least 20 years.
-
We'll won't be rejoining the EU for at least 20 years.
A thirty year Conservative Reich Jak? Even with Margaret Thatcher they could manage but 18 years the last time although everyone thought Labour had been removed from government for Good then they had a bit more going for them than a mere dozen or so majority and a complete party meltdown over Erp.
And Labour went spectacularly downhill within 2 years during the Blair brown years (which granted was a bit longer than the Conservatrons between may last year and Osborne's tax credit fiasco.
While we are about it can the Leave campaign also tell us who will own the UK's utilities and transportation or will the same nationalised European companies still be in charge?
-
http://www.ukipdaily.com/really-governs-us/
‘Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.’ Jean Monnet, Founding Father of the European Union
A superstate was what the USSR was. Centrally controlled against the will of the people.
This really is scraping the bottom of the barrel stuff. So a comment made (allegedly because I've seen it disputed whether he ever made it given that it is supposed to have been made in a private letter) in 1952 by a person who was born nearly 130 years ago and has been dead for 37 years is somehow relevant.
You Brexiters keep claiming that the current EU is unrecognisable from that joined in the 1970s yet you appear to think a personal comment from 64 years ago is somehow relevant, even if it is actually what he said. Just ludicrous.
-
Your link has the word "ukip" in it. Are we expected to believe it is remotely capable of presenting a truthful view of the EU?
Read it and find out. It explains the functions of the various bodies of the EU and how many meet and work in secret - just like the USSR and Moscow.
-
Read it and find out. It explains the functions of the various bodies of the EU and how many meet and work in secret - just like the USSR and Moscow.
Does it explain quite how many of UKIP leaders support a form of TTIP that is more extreme than what is proposed in EU, or do they lie about being a neo liberal front?
-
I can't believe anyone on here is linking to a UKIP publication.
This site will lead you to an article that states Monnet did not say that.
http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/03/exclusive-the-danger-of-jean-monnet/
I can't believe that anyone thinks the EU is good considering the evidence of its malfeasance and corruption and lack of democracy!!! Read the article.
-
The only surprise would be if UKIP failed to deliver this kind of trash.
Well, you've come up to your expectations with this trashy comment!!!
-
I can't believe that anyone thinks the EU is good considering the evidence of its malfeasance and corruption and lack of democracy!!! Read the article.
I read it for goodness sake.
-
Definition of 'knave':
1. A dishonest or unscrupulous man
2. (in cards) a jack.
I post this purely for information.
Your definition of information has reached a new level of paucity. Though we wouldn't expect much from chimps. I post this purely for information.
-
The USSR was an empire, not a superstate.
They are one and the same thing. If it walks like a duck....
-
Ukip do not know the difference between the Europe Union, and the Council for Europe.
Oh dear, now I know you're stupid with that comment.
-
We'll won't be rejoining the EU for at least 20 years.
The EU won't last that long. In 20 years time the landscape will be totally different.
-
A thirty year Conservative Reich Jak? Even with Margaret Thatcher they could manage but 18 years the last time although everyone thought Labour had been removed from government for Good then they had a bit more going for them than a mere dozen or so majority and a complete party meltdown over Erp.
And Labour went spectacularly downhill within 2 years during the Blair brown years (which granted was a bit longer than the Conservatrons between may last year and Osborne's tax credit fiasco.
While we are about it can the Leave campaign also tell us who will own the UK's utilities and transportation or will the same nationalised European companies still be in charge?
I doubt if the Tories are going to win the next GE. It will probably be another coalition with a fair chunk being made up by UKIP. ;D
-
This really is scraping the bottom of the barrel stuff. So a comment made (allegedly because I've seen it disputed whether he ever made it given that it is supposed to have been made in a private letter) in 1952 by a person who was born nearly 130 years ago and has been dead for 37 years is somehow relevant.
You Brexiters keep claiming that the current EU is unrecognisable from that joined in the 1970s yet you appear to think a personal comment from 64 years ago is somehow relevant, even if it is actually what he said. Just ludicrous.
Your posts are becoming more and more bizarre as they diverge further and further from common sense, rational thinking and logic, and totally blind to the reality of the situation.
-
Does it explain quite how many of UKIP leaders support a form of TTIP that is more extreme than what is proposed in EU, or do they lie about being a neo liberal front?
Could you clarify and back up your assertion.
-
I read it for goodness sake.
Before or after your inane comment?
-
I doubt if the Tories are going to win the next GE. It will probably be another coalition with a fair chunk being made up by UKIP. ;D
Why will UKIP be any more successful having been in a coalition than the Lib Dems?
UKIP will be a coalition of right wing tories and labour voters worried about jobs. That's like a coalition of carnivores and herbivores.
-
They are one and the same thing. If it walks like a duck....
The USA is a superstate. That doesn't seem to be working out too badly for them.
-
I can't believe that anyone thinks the EU is good considering the evidence of its malfeasance and corruption and lack of democracy!!! Read the article.
Not sure that anyone believes that the EU is good, let alone perfect, JK. What many do believe is that staying within the Union will give the UK a greater global influence than by being outside and that the UK need to be part of a larger union, rather than alone, for a whole range of reasons.
As you are so keen on our leaving the Union, perhaps you could give an response to this:
"There is no doubt that a vote to leave will affect charities, especially those campaigning in Parliament. ... One thing both campaigns can agree on, ..., is that a vote to leave would spark a major upheaval in British politics – and charities campaigning in parliament would undoubtedly be affected by this." http://bit.ly/1pGaIfA
-
I doubt if the Tories are going to win the next GE. It will probably be another coalition with a fair chunk being made up by UKIP. ;D
That assumes, of course, that the 'Leave' campaign win the referendum.
-
Why will UKIP be any more successful having been in a coalition than the Lib Dems?
UKIP will be a coalition of right wing tories and labour voters worried about jobs. That's like a coalition of carnivores and herbivores.
Assuming, of course, that the Tories feel it necessary to touch UKIP with a bargepole.
-
Unfortunately Hope, some will. Not many of course but there will be a few. Don't forget there has already been an MP who defected from Cons to UKIP.
-
Unfortunately Hope, some will. Not many of course but there will be a few. Don't forget there has already been an MP who defected from Cons to UKIP.
Which is why I said 'the Tories' - in other words, the party - in the same way we talk about 'the UK Independence Party', 'the Scottish Nationalist Party' or 'the Lib-Dems'.
-
Your posts are becoming more and more bizarre as they diverge further and further from common sense, rational thinking and logic, and totally blind to the reality of the situation.
The bizarre and irrational approach is to consider that a purported quote, allegedly made by a French politician 66 years ago, who has been dead for nearly 40 years is somehow relevant to the 2016 Brexit debate.
And by the way it is a lie - he never said it and I challenge you to prove that he did and I am quite happy to prove that he didn't. But you first.
-
I doubt if the Tories are going to win the next GE. It will probably be another coalition with a fair chunk being made up by UKIP. ;D
If there is a vote for BREXIT, all the UKIP politicians who have half a brain will immediately join the Tories. If there is a remain vote, UKIP will revert to a bunch of discontented nutters.
-
UKIP will revert to a bunch of discontented nutters.
What do you mean 'revert'.
-
What do you mean 'revert'.
Point taken.
-
Which is why I said 'the Tories' - in other words, the party - in the same way we talk about 'the UK Independence Party', 'the Scottish Nationalist Party' or 'the Lib-Dems'.
Understood. Not some Tories.
-
Why will UKIP be any more successful having been in a coalition than the Lib Dems?
UKIP will be a coalition of right wing tories and labour voters worried about jobs. That's like a coalition of carnivores and herbivores.
It will be a factor of several issues. Dissatisfaction with politics as usual as we are seeing in the Western world (you could include the Greens in this as well as UKIP). The referendum will piquet many peoples' antennae who usually didn't register much of what was going on in the EU before all this. If we stay I reckon people will be clamouring for another referendum in 2 or so years time as the EU start to screw us down. If we leave then the fact that those in power are pro-EU and probably won't negotiate a good deal for us will make many rebel.
There could be other factors like the unelectability of Corbyn and the fact that the Tories have been so venal and two faced. And other things which may not be predictable or foreseen.
-
The USA is a superstate. That doesn't seem to be working out too badly for them.
Your point to the original topic of comparison?
-
Not sure that anyone believes that the EU is good, let alone perfect, JK. What many do believe is that staying within the Union will give the UK a greater global influence than by being outside and that the UK need to be part of a larger union, rather than alone, for a whole range of reasons.
As you are so keen on our leaving the Union, perhaps you could give an response to this:
"There is no doubt that a vote to leave will affect charities, especially those campaigning in Parliament. ... One thing both campaigns can agree on, ..., is that a vote to leave would spark a major upheaval in British politics – and charities campaigning in parliament would undoubtedly be affected by this." http://bit.ly/1pGaIfA
I've started a thread that has a link to 8 economist who say that leaving is better for us. I suggest you read it.
What has charities got to do with anything? This is about the UK.
-
That assumes, of course, that the 'Leave' campaign win the referendum.
No, it will be true where we stay or go. Feelings are running high and there will be fallout after the referendum.
-
Unfortunately Hope, some will. Not many of course but there will be a few. Don't forget there has already been an MP who defected from Cons to UKIP.
A million Labour voters voted UKIP in the last GE. They aren't feeling that Labour are on their side and with many being anti-EU, cause of loss of jobs, Corbyn being for the Remain side doesn't help. Voters also don't like divided parties.
-
A million Labour voters voted UKIP in the last GE. They aren't feeling that Labour are on their side and with many being anti-EU, cause of loss of jobs, Corbyn being for the Remain side doesn't help. Voters also don't like divided parties.
Labour has become a joke, so no surprise they are losing voters. The 'crunch' will come after the referendum when (one way or another) all the parties will suffer some trauma.
-
The bizarre and irrational approach is to consider that a purported quote, allegedly made by a French politician 66 years ago, who has been dead for nearly 40 years is somehow relevant to the 2016 Brexit debate.
And by the way it is a lie - he never said it and I challenge you to prove that he did and I am quite happy to prove that he didn't. But you first.
You're first bit is not logical and rational - what has time got to do with it. It shows the ethos and raison d'etre of the EU's attitude and approach.
If he didn't say it then the EU must have put up a disclaimer - find it!!!
-
If there is a vote for BREXIT, all the UKIP politicians who have half a brain will immediately join the Tories. If there is a remain vote, UKIP will revert to a bunch of discontented nutters.
One thing will be true is that if it is a remain vote the fight will go on and this will not be put to bed. Every slip of the EU will be broadcast from the rooftops and discontentment will grow.
-
You're first bit is not logical and rational - what has time got to do with it. It shows the ethos and raison d'etre of the EU's attitude and approach.
If he didn't say it then the EU must have put up a disclaimer - find it!!!
Come on then - let's have the source please. An actual proper indication that he said this back in 1952.
Oh and by the way, you won't find one - why, because he never said it. Indeed this 'quote' actually originates from material in a book (and even then misquoted from that book's author) written in 1997, which was 18 years after Monnet's death.
So one more chance and then I will put you out of your misery and reveal all as to where your 'quote' comes from, but here's a clue - it isn't from Monnet.
You OP is a lie - pure and simple - Jean Monnet never said what you attribute to him.
-
One thing will be true is that if it is a remain vote the fight will go on and this will not be put to bed. Every slip of the EU will be broadcast from the rooftops and discontentment will grow.
You seem to be saying that UKIP would refuse to accept the results of a democratic election?
I suspect that a few won't but they will just be the 'Nutter on the bus' types - possibly you know someone like that ? :)
-
A million Labour voters voted UKIP in the last GE. They aren't feeling that Labour are on their side and with many being anti-EU, cause of loss of jobs, Corbyn being for the Remain side doesn't help. Voters also don't like divided parties.
Again, how is a right winger on the side of Labour voters?
-
Come on then - let's have the source please. An actual proper indication that he said this back in 1952.
Oh and by the way, you won't find one - why, because he never said it. Indeed this 'quote' actually originates from material in a book (and even then misquoted from that book's author) written in 1997, which was 18 years after Monnet's death.
So one more chance and then I will put you out of your misery and reveal all as to where your 'quote' comes from, but here's a clue - it isn't from Monnet.
You OP is a lie - pure and simple - Jean Monnet never said what you attribute to him.
I'm in no misery, mate. ;D
-
You seem to be saying that UKIP would refuse to accept the results of a democratic election?
I'm saying nearly all the top main Leaver players won't give up. Why should they they are right and true in the quest to do the honourable thing.
-
Again, how is a right winger on the side of Labour voters?
What right winger?
-
I'm in no misery, mate. ;D
Oh I think you are JK.
So the truth behind your 'quote'. Let's remind ourselves what the purported quote is:
‘Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.’
This isn't a quote from Monnet at all - it is in fact paraphrasing of a section of a book written in 1997 by the Conservative eurosceptic politician and writer Adrian Hilton, which incorrectly somehow ended up ascribed as a quote form Monnet, which it isn't and never was. So the section in Hilton's book 'The Principality and Power of Europe' in which he provides his own thoughts (as a right wing Conservative europhobe) on supposed 'super-state' plan is as follows:
'One of the founding fathers of the EU, Jean Monnet, also a devout Roman Catholic, totally rejected the idea that Europe should consist of sovereign nations. He believed in the Catholic vision that Europe should become a federal superstate, into which all ancient nations would be fused. ‘Fused’ is the word he used in a comunication* dated 30th [sic - should be 3rd] April 1952, and is wholly consistent with the language of the Maastricht Treaty. For this to be achieved without the peoples of Europe realising what was happening, the plan was to be accomplished in successive steps. Each was to be disguised as having an economic purpose, but all, taken together, would inevitably and irreversibly lead to federation.'
Not this is the opinion of Hilton (an arch right wing europhobe) as to what he thought Monnet's views were, not Monnet's view and certainly not a quote. Hilton has actually been pulled up over the way in which his section has somehow been misconstrued as a quote from Monnet - he is absolutely clear that there is no Monnet quote that you claim. Again direct quote - this time Hilton clearly making it clear there is no Monnet quote:
'I do not believe that Monnet ever articulated these precise words, but I certainly never said that he did. Looking at the similarities in phrasing and vocabulary, it appears that some over-enthusiast has redacted my words into a Monnet quotation, and this may have become the source of confusion. Yet even then they have paraphrased my words, which shows a peculiar propensity to literary creativity. If there’s one thing I’ve learnt over the past month (and, no, I am no longer the Conservative candidate for Slough), it is that standing for Parliament causes people to twist, warp and misrepresent all manner of things that one has written, no matter how academic the thesis, or how credible and cogent the argument.'
So it is a paraphrasing of the views of Hilton in his book, somehow incorrectly morphed into a purported quote from Monnet - there is no such quote. Indeed Hilton seems pretty miffed that his words have been twisted to imply they are a quote from Monnet.
I suggest you accept the error of your OP, which is in effect libel (or would be were Monnet still alive). Perhaps the best bet is for either you, or the mods, to remove the post as it purport to provide a direct quote from a person, in other words Jean Monnet, when no such quote exists.
-
I'm saying nearly all the top main Leaver players won't give up. Why should they they are right and true in the quest to do the honourable thing.
There several names for organisations that refuse to accept the democratic process. Are we to add UKIP along side ISIS?
-
Your point to the original topic of comparison?
I think it's obvious. Your argument was "superstates are bad because look at the USSR". However, the USSR is only one example. Another example is the USA. Yet another is China and also, on a small scale, the UK.
-
Oh I think you are JK.
So the truth behind your 'quote'. Let's remind ourselves what the purported quote is:
‘Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.’
This isn't a quote from Monnet at all - it is in fact paraphrasing of a section of a book written in 1997 by the Conservative eurosceptic politician and writer Adrian Hilton, which incorrectly somehow ended up ascribed as a quote form Monnet, which it isn't and never was. So the section in Hilton's book 'The Principality and Power of Europe' in which he provides his own thoughts (as a right wing Conservative europhobe) on supposed 'super-state' plan is as follows:
'One of the founding fathers of the EU, Jean Monnet, also a devout Roman Catholic, totally rejected the idea that Europe should consist of sovereign nations. He believed in the Catholic vision that Europe should become a federal superstate, into which all ancient nations would be fused. ‘Fused’ is the word he used in a comunication* dated 30th [sic - should be 3rd] April 1952, and is wholly consistent with the language of the Maastricht Treaty. For this to be achieved without the peoples of Europe realising what was happening, the plan was to be accomplished in successive steps. Each was to be disguised as having an economic purpose, but all, taken together, would inevitably and irreversibly lead to federation.'
Not this is the opinion of Hilton (an arch right wing europhobe) as to what he thought Monnet's views were, not Monnet's view and certainly not a quote. Hilton has actually been pulled up over the way in which his section has somehow been misconstrued as a quote from Monnet - he is absolutely clear that there is no Monnet quote that you claim. Again direct quote - this time Hilton clearly making it clear there is no Monnet quote:
'I do not believe that Monnet ever articulated these precise words, but I certainly never said that he did. Looking at the similarities in phrasing and vocabulary, it appears that some over-enthusiast has redacted my words into a Monnet quotation, and this may have become the source of confusion. Yet even then they have paraphrased my words, which shows a peculiar propensity to literary creativity. If there’s one thing I’ve learnt over the past month (and, no, I am no longer the Conservative candidate for Slough), it is that standing for Parliament causes people to twist, warp and misrepresent all manner of things that one has written, no matter how academic the thesis, or how credible and cogent the argument.'
So it is a paraphrasing of the views of Hilton in his book, somehow incorrectly morphed into a purported quote from Monnet - there is no such quote. Indeed Hilton seems pretty miffed that his words have been twisted to imply they are a quote from Monnet.
I suggest you accept the error of your OP, which is in effect libel (or would be were Monnet still alive). Perhaps the best bet is for either you, or the mods, to remove the post as it purport to provide a direct quote from a person, in other words Jean Monnet, when no such quote exists.
Wow, what a long post about nothing, which I didn't need to read.
So all my other salient points on this and the Referendum thread on the paucity and corruptness of the EU you have failed to argue against (in fact with some you didn't even try) and so you were proved to be wrong on the issues, and so you pick on this trivial empty point to try and get some cred back!!! How sad...
And not only that it took you a while to suddenly to decide to make this up. Perhaps if you faced up to the facts of reality and took your imbecilic ideological glasses off you'd perceive the truth of the situation.
-
There several names for organisations that refuse to accept the democratic process. Are we to add UKIP along side ISIS?
::) The logic of that is ridiculous. I've met dogs with more sense than that. ;D
Try again, LA, and to help you try looking up the meaning of democracy.
-
I think it's obvious. Your argument was "superstates are bad because look at the USSR". However, the USSR is only one example. Another example is the USA. Yet another is China and also, on a small scale, the UK.
The attitude and approach of the USSR and the EU are very similar - what can be called generically Left - and this is why I compare the EU to the USSR. The US has reached a similar position or attitude from the democracy agenda stance going towards the fascist or Right. As we know both in the end look the same, that of a small group of elites telling the populous what to do.
-
The attitude and approach of the USSR and the EU are very similar
Evidence please.
It may have escaped your notice, but the EU has been around for decades and it is still nothing like the old USSR.
-
It's a bit of a long read, but I have to say I agree with just about all he points out.
https://theweeflea.com/2016/04/26/european-referendum-the-tipping-point/
-
Evidence please.
It may have escaped your notice, but the EU has been around for decades and it is still nothing like the old USSR.
Its whole raison d'etre is that of a soviet state. Look at how Moscow was run and how Brussels is run and they are nearly a mirror image of each other.
-
Its whole raison d'etre is that of a soviet state.
Tell me what the raison d'être of the EU is and what was the raison d'être of the Soviet Union. Then we can compare them.
Look at how Moscow was run and how Brussels is run and they are nearly a mirror image of each other.
They don't look like they are run on similar lines at all to me.
-
Tell me what the raison d'être of the EU is and what was the raison d'être of the Soviet Union. Then we can compare them.
Authoritarian rule of the people.
They don't look like they are run on similar lines at all to me.
Moscow - a group of unelected elites dictating to the rest and imposing their will on the people.
Brussels - Ever-Closer-Union : a group of unelected elites dictating to the rest and imposing their will on the people.
The only difference is that the European lot realised that they couldn't impose their will in one massive lump of instant change because the people would rebel against it, as they could see this had happened in the USSR - this being kept together by brute, violent force. So they planned to do it drip by drip so the people, over the generations, wouldn't notice.
-
http://www.ukipdaily.com/really-governs-us/
‘Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.’ Jean Monnet, Founding Father of the European Union
A superstate was what the USSR was. Centrally controlled against the will of the people.
Well isn't that what happened with the vote to go into the EU.
Everyone said they did NOT vote to go in but the votes were all sent to London to be counted together so anyone could have cheated and rigged it. Let's pray to God that the vote for the EU is kept local for counting because believe me they won't be coming out of the EU and nearly everyone is now wanting out.
Our own people living on the streets and they are bringing in people and giving them houses and jobs.
I believe we need to stop this now. The reason for allowing others to come here is to make us all mixed race and nationality countries so we are doomed to remain lumped together. Losing our identity and removing the peoples right as one nation to remain one independent nation.
-
Well isn't that what happened with the vote to go into the EU.
Everyone said they did NOT vote to go in but the votes were all sent to London to be counted together so anyone could have cheated and rigged it. Let's pray to God that the vote for the EU is kept local for counting because believe me they won't be coming out of the EU and nearly everyone is now wanting out.
Everyone is not wanting out.
Our own people living on the streets and they are bringing in people and giving them houses and jobs.
I believe we need to stop this now. The reason for allowing others to come here is to make us all mixed race and nationality countries so we are doomed to remain lumped together. Losing our identity and removing the peoples right as one nation to remain one independent nation.
People of all races and cultures should be welcome, I have no issue with being 'lumped together' with anyone regardless of skin colour. If you identify as British then you are British end of.
I'm for leaving, do me a favour, don't post on this topic again, perhaps you and Floo should have your own debate.
-
Everyone said they did NOT vote to go in
Did you ask everyone then?
-
Well isn't that what happened with the vote to go into the EU.
There was no vote to go into the EU. There was no vote to go into the Common Market. There was a manifesto pledge in the Conservative manifesto before a general election.
A few years later, Harold Wilson organised a referendum on whether the UK should stay in the Common Market. This was done for exactly the same reason as Cameron's referendum: to control an unruly section of his own party. In Wilson's case it was to shut up one Anthony Wedgewood Benn.
-
Everyone is not wanting out.
Just checked my post....I said Everyone said they did NOT want to GO IN.
I never found one person who said they actually voted to go in.
Everyone I have spoken to so far wants out - those who have now got their pensions and are not doctors and professionals members of the Tories, want out. Hence I say NEARLY all want out. Do pay attention. The smaller companies want out. Only the larger business men like the owner of Ryan Air for instance want to remain in for the sake of their own pockets.
People of all races and cultures should be welcome, I have no issue with being 'lumped together' with anyone regardless of skin colour. If you identify as British then you are British end of.
Polish Not British... German Not British. Danish..Not British. Romanian Not Britsh.
Don't play the dumb ass, it doesn't suit you.
I'm for leaving, do me a favour, don't post on this topic again, perhaps you and Floo should have your own debate.
You run a small business hence you are for leaving... I got that right, didn't I. Do me a favour try reading the post instead of judging the person.Perhaps you can get your facts right and address the actual contents of my post before showing yourself up for the bias infidel you appear to be. No one is fooled. No one is advocating racism or any other prejudice.
The government should address our own problems of our people on the street before bringing in others who are not descendants of families who paid their taxes and insurance here for centuries.
Our ancestors paid into the pot for this country. They did not do it, to put our own on the streets and give foreigners their homes.
We need to be out of the EU without the scaremonger tactics. But at the end of the day God has the final decision.
By remaining in the EU Britain will eventually lose it's identity and independence.
You should read your bible you might find something actually useful and what pity the people of Britain allowed all this to happen in the first instance.
-
Just checked my post....I said Everyone said they did NOT want to GO IN.
I never found one person who said they actually voted to go in.
And you could look for a hundred years and you would STILL never find anyone who "actually voted to go in".
Entry of the EEC was an election manifesto commitment by Edward Heath's Conservative Party in the 1970 election. Negotiations resulted in a Parliamentary vote in favour of joining the EEC which took place in 1973.
There was no national vote. There was no referendum. It was decided by a vote in Parliament.
In 1975, on 5 June, the Labour government of Harold Wilson held a referendum on whether or not the UK should remain in the EEC. This referendum was really held for Labour Party internal management reasons - just as the current referendum is really being held for internal Conservative Party management reasons.
Is there anything I have stated above that you do not understand?
-
Just checked my post....I said Everyone said they did NOT want to GO IN.
I never found one person who said they actually voted to go in.
Saying 'everyone likes chips' and saying 'everyone I've ever met likes chips' are not the same statements.
Everyone I have spoken to so far wants out - those who have now got their pensions and are not doctors and professionals members of the Tories, want out. Hence I say NEARLY all want out. Do pay attention. The smaller companies want out. Only the larger business men like the owner of Ryan Air for instance want to remain in for the sake of their own pockets.
Polish Not British... German Not British. Danish..Not British. Romanian Not Britsh.
Don't play the dumb ass, it doesn't suit you.
If someone comes to Britain decides to settle here and consider themselves British then they are British.
You run a small business hence you are for leaving... I got that right, didn't I.
No wrong, not even that simple fact is correct, I work as an E-commerce Manager for a company that is medium sized £35m turnover.
Do me a favour try reading the post instead of judging the person.Perhaps you can get your facts right and address the actual contents of my post before showing yourself up for the bias infidel you appear to be. No one is fooled. No one is advocating racism or any other prejudice.
Facts not your strong point are they.
The government should address our own problems of our people on the street before bringing in others who are not descendants of families who paid their taxes and insurance here for centuries.
Our ancestors paid into the pot for this country. They did not do it, to put our own on the streets and give foreigners their homes.
Nope, to me Britain is a place which should be open to anyone as long as:-
a) they subscribe to broad British values, tolerance, freedom of speech, equal rights, etc.
b) it doesn't make a huge impact on infrastructure
We need to be out of the EU without the scaremonger tactics. But at the end of the day God has the final decision.
LOL, so God put us in the EU then what a prick.
By remaining in the EU Britain will eventually lose it's identity and independence.
What is that? 1950's Britain, scared of brown people, homophobic, illiberal, racist, no irish - no dogs signs and everyone attending church once a week. That Britain is dead, stop living in the past.
You should read your bible you might find something actually useful and what pity the people of Britain allowed all this to happen in the first instance.
Oh I thought it was God that allowed it to happen, make your mind up.
-
And you could look for a hundred years and you would STILL never find anyone who "actually voted to go in".
Entry of the EEC was an election manifesto commitment by Edward Heath's Conservative Party in the 1970 election. Negotiations resulted in a Parliamentary vote in favour of joining the EEC which took place in 1973.
There was no national vote. There was no referendum. It was decided by a vote in Parliament.
In 1975, on 5 June, the Labour government of Harold Wilson held a referendum on whether or not the UK should remain in the EEC. This referendum was really held for Labour Party internal management reasons - just as the current referendum is really being held for internal Conservative Party management reasons.
Is there anything I have stated above that you do not understand?
The United Kingdom EEC referendum of 1975 also known as the Common Market referendum was a post-legislative referendum held on 5 June 1975 in the United Kingdom to gauge support for the country's continued membership of the European Economic Community (EEC), often known as the Common Market at the time, which it had entered in 1973 under the Conservative government of Edward Heath. Labour's manifesto for the October 1974 general election promised that the people would decide "through the ballot box"[1] whether to remain in the EEC. The electorate expressed significant support for EEC membership, with 67% in favour on a 65% turnout.This was the first ever referendum that was held throughout the entire United Kingdom; previously, other referendums had been arranged only in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Greater London and individual towns. It remained the only UK-wide referendum until the United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011.
I guess it is rather tedious that someone thinks they can add and add and add until it distorts out of all proportion.
1975: UK embraces Europe in referendum
British voters have backed the UK's continued membership of the European Economic Community by a large majority in the country's first nationwide referendum.
Just over 67% of voters supported the Labour government's campaign to stay in the EEC, or Common Market, despite several cabinet ministers having come out in favour of British withdrawal.
The result was later hailed by Prime Minister Harold Wilson as a "historic decision".
For him the victory came after a long and bruising campaign against many in his own party, following Labour's promise to hold a vote in its general election manifesto last October.
Faced with the referendum question, "Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?" Britons voted "Yes" in most of the 68 administrative counties, regions and Northern Ireland. Only Shetland and the Western Isles voted against the EEC.
What was your point???
-
Further to Sassy's posts 64 & 68 :
I must admit I've not met anyone who wants out of the EU. We didn't actually vote to go in all those years ago.
Maybe always having lived and worked in London, people from other countries don't bother me at all. I've not known people from overseas take ''our jobs'' or ''our houses'', they fill vacancies the same as anyone else and eventually buy their own house if they want to stay here, some are prepared to work doing things that most of us wouldn't. Who wants to pick turnips at seven pounds an hour! Lots of Poles rent houses and multiply occupy while they earn some money. We all blend a bit, not entirely of course, no-one wants to lose their culture. It makes life interesting. British people go abroad to live and work too.
Jakswan said: ''1950's Britain, scared of brown people, homophobic, illiberal, racist, no irish - no dogs signs and everyone attending church once a week.''
I was a child then but remember all that very well (apart from the church once a week, not everyone did that), some of it carried on into the '60s. People were saying, for example, that West Indians were coming here, taking 'our' jobs and getting 'our' housing. In fact the West Indians, who came from Commonwealth countries, were invited here as jobs could not be filled, eg on buses, British Rail etc. They generally lived in private rented accommodation, multiply occupied, until such time as they could buy their own properties. They were definitely treated badly - even in 'our' churches - and viewed with suspicion. ('Windrush' by Mike Philips is a book about West Indian migration to the UK. I would heartily recommend it.)
Later on, late 1960s and early '70s, there were two waves of immigration from Kenya and Uganda, 'Asian' people, and there was outcry about them but they settled, worked hard, bought houses and are now assimilated.
It makes me feel ashamed that British people were so unwelcoming.
-
I guess it is rather tedious that someone thinks they can add and add and add until it distorts out of all proportion.
What was your point???
You wrote: " I never found one person who said they actually voted to go in." It is clear that you believed there was a referendum to join the EEC.
There never was a vote to "go in".
Even though you have produced extensive material which supports this fact, you don't seem to understand what it says.
Stop digging.
-
You wrote: " I never found one person who said they actually voted to go in." It is clear that you believed there was a referendum to join the EEC.
There never was a vote to "go in".
Even though you have produced extensive material which supports this fact, you don't seem to understand what it says.
Stop digging.
If it was in Heath's manifesto though there would have been. The 1970 manifesto.
-
It also seems to have been forgotten that the UK had already applied twice to join the EU. The first application, in 1961, was made by Harold Macmillan and the second, in 1967, by Harold Wilson. Both applications were rejected as a consequence of Charles de Gaulle, with Adenauer's support on the first occasion, exercising a veto, The other members supported the UK's application. The UK was then instrumental in establishing EFTA.
It also should not be forgotten that Winston Churchill firmly supported the idea of Britain playing a leading role in a United States of Europe. It is bizarre that many of the neanderthals braying for Brexit-regard him as a kind of Patron Saint of Conservatism.
-
It also seems to have been forgotten that the UK had already applied twice to join the EU. The first application, in 1961, was made by Harold Macmillan and the second, in 1967, by Harold Wilson. Both applications were rejected as a consequence of Charles de Gaulle, with Adenauer's support on the first occasion, exercising a veto, The other members supported the UK's application. The UK was then instrumental in establishing EFTA.
It also should not be forgotten that Winston Churchill firmly supported the idea of Britain playing a leading role in a United States of Europe. It is bizarre that many of the neanderthals braying for Brexit-regard him as a kind of Patron Saint of Conservatism.
Was the term United States of Europe around in his time? Did he really understand what it meant, and Ever-Closer-Union, as we do now? I doubt it. These utopian projects always look good on paper but never pay out as they promised to do in theory. If he was around today he would be voting to leave because he would recognise the Son-of-the-USSR in all this, and he knew what a shithole that utopian project was.
-
Was the term United States of Europe around in his time? Did he really understand what it meant, and Ever-Closer-Union, as we do now? I doubt it. These utopian projects always look good on paper but never pay out as they promised to do in theory. If he was around today he would be voting to leave because he would recognise the Son-of-the-USSR in all this, and he knew what a shithole that utopian project was.
Right, JK. You've coloured that page in. Why don't you now choose something challenging - like "Peppa Pig"?
Churchill was half-American. The United States of America is the most utopian project of all time.
Although you do have a point. The USA, where fifty small countries have merged their individual personalities into a single secular nation which then mentions god on its single-currency banknotes and has a haplass millionaire as its impotent figurehead ...
-
Right, JK. You've coloured that page in. Why don't you now choose something challenging - like "Peppa Pig"?
But they are nice colours and it looks pretty!
I prefer Saltee Sow.
Churchill was half-American. The United States of America is the most utopian project of all time.
Well, that explains many of his mess ups.
Although you do have a point. The USA, where fifty small countries have merged their individual personalities into a single secular nation which then mentions god on its single-currency banknotes and has a haplass millionaire as its impotent figurehead ...
Oh right! Insult me first then admit I have a point. On the face of it the US is, or looks, democratic and so looks reasonable but the USSR was obviously authoritarian and it is obvious that the EU is undemocratic and in some ways authoritarian in nature as well. Hence my comments.
-
Further to Sassy's posts 64 & 68 :
I must admit I've not met anyone who wants out of the EU. We didn't actually vote to go in all those years ago.
Maybe always having lived and worked in London, people from other countries don't bother me at all. I've not known people from overseas take ''our jobs'' or ''our houses'', they fill vacancies the same as anyone else and eventually buy their own house if they want to stay here, some are prepared to work doing things that most of us wouldn't. Who wants to pick turnips at seven pounds an hour! Lots of Poles rent houses and multiply occupy while they earn some money. We all blend a bit, not entirely of course, no-one wants to lose their culture. It makes life interesting. British people go abroad to live and work too.
How often each week do you leave your house and go into the cities in England and see the homeless on our streets?
How many homeless people last year turned away when seeking medical help from a hospital...( because they without due thought or care thought they wanted a bed for the night) died because of the medical negligence?
Lot's of Poles claim dole and asylum seekers and get homes and medical attention for free.
Truth is you rarely venture out anywhere and so do not see any reality of what happens to our own people on the streets.
What an hypocritical and denying middle class attitude. I suppose if you commit adultery it would mean that it isn't bad or wrong for others to do it, because if you have done it, then it has to be okay for them. As Christ said:- Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. So if you steal anyone who comes here and steals is ok. Just as it is okay for our own people to be left to die on the street without medical attention or given a home for these polish, Russians, Romanians to come here and get it all.
Jakswan said: ''1950's Britain, scared of brown people, homophobic, illiberal, racist, no irish - no dogs signs and everyone attending church once a week.''
I was a child then but remember all that very well (apart from the church once a week, not everyone did that), some of it carried on into the '60s. People were saying, for example, that West Indians were coming here, taking 'our' jobs and getting 'our' housing. In fact the West Indians, who came from Commonwealth countries, were invited here as jobs could not be filled, eg on buses, British Rail etc. They generally lived in private rented accommodation, multiply occupied, until such time as they could buy their own properties. They were definitely treated badly - even in 'our' churches - and viewed with suspicion. ('Windrush' by Mike Philips is a book about West Indian migration to the UK. I would heartily recommend it.)
The WEST indians already here before the 60's.
19th century[edit]
Prominent African-Caribbean people in Britain during the 19th century include:
William Davidson (1781–1820), Cato Street Conspirator
Rev. George Cousens, a Jamaican who became minister of Cradley Heath Baptist Church in 1837
Mary Seacole (1805–1881), a nurse in the Crimean War.
Walter Tull, footballer and soldier,
Andrew Watson, footballer.
Robert Wedderburn (1762-1835/6?), Spencean revolutionary
Nathaniel Wells, landowner and yeomanry officer.
Early 20th century[edit]
The growing Caribbean presence in the British military led to approximately 15,000 migrants arriving in the north-west of England around the time of World War I to work in munitions factories.[16]
The Jamaican poet and communist activist, Claude McKay came to England following the First World War and became the first Black British journalist, writing for the Workers' Dreadnought.
Later on, late 1960s and early '70s, there were two waves of immigration from Kenya and Uganda, 'Asian' people, and there was outcry about them but they settled, worked hard, bought houses and are now assimilated.
It makes me feel ashamed that British people were so unwelcoming.
The same type of shame as on the Titanic when people from the upper class and your own left lower class women and children shut in the lower decks to drown because they were not of a class worth saving.
Let me see, if the first world war was...
July 28, 1914 – November 11, 1918 and the Titanic sank in 1912. Do you think your class has changed since then?
The truth is that people of your class caused the whole immigration farce in the first instance. People who stuck their heads in the sand and refused to see what was in front of them or the real reason why the people were worried about immigration.
First world war most of the WORKING CLASS were sent to the front even the young boys as canon fodder and not wanting to work in the muntion factories themselves and get blown up they allowed others to come here and risk their lives instead.
They allowed them to fight in the army and they allowed them to work in munitions factories
Working class people have always suffered at the hand of those like yourself, you believe it is alright for them to be used as
fodder. Working class women working in munition factories whilst the other classes kept their hands clean.
Do you see how you purposely remember the 60's but cannot be bothered about the real history.
So please if you want to be ashamed be ashamed of your deliberate ignorance of the reality and truth that you ignored.
It wasn't the working class people ashamed of those on the street or people coming in from those areas which need refuge from abroad. Those working class people were the ones who lived on the street and whom our country saw as the lowest of the low suitable to be canon fodder and munition workers at risk.
You should be ashamed of the class system which still does make those of lower class the problem rather than the class protection system. Without the working class we do not have Country. They don't want immigrants here to make the Country better. They want it, so they can run it as they choose and leave the poor back in the gutter. Families who are british from birth on the street without a home, food and clothes. No provision of safety or assistance once again taking responsibility from our Government to provide. The very first NHS hospital lost it's ER department and now they will close it completely leaving emergency treatment at least 15-20 minutes away even on blues and twos.
Go back to your cocoon... It appears ignorance is really bliss with you.
-
You wrote: " I never found one person who said they actually voted to go in." It is clear that you believed there was a referendum to join the EEC.
There never was a vote to "go in".
Even though you have produced extensive material which supports this fact, you don't seem to understand what it says.
Stop digging.
It was called the Common Market originally. Who were the 17.3 million who voted 'yes'. and the 8.4 million who voted 'no'.
As you can see the British did vote whether to remain in the Common Market now known as the EU.
Want help out of your hole?
http://www.vernoncoleman.com/howthebritishmedia.htm
Conned, tricked, lied to and spun into a world which bore no resemblance to reality, the British people voted to stay in the Common Market. A total of 17.3 million voted `yes' and 8.4 million voted `no'. The establishment, aided and abetted by the press, had turned suspicion and disapproval of the common market into a massive level of support.
It was the British press which helped lying, cheating, conniving politicians trick the electorate into accepting membership of the EEC.
How many people would have voted for the EEC if they had known the truth?
Vernon Coleman is the author of The Truth They Won't Tell You (And Don't Want You To Know) About The EU (published by Blue
Vernon Coleman 2006
-
It was the British press which helped lying, cheating, conniving politicians trick the electorate into accepting membership of the EEC.
How many people would have voted for the EEC if they had known the truth?
Using Vernon Coleman isn't going to strengthen your case!
I repeat - there never was a vote to go in. There was a general election in which entry of the EEC was a manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party. The electorate elected a Conservative government thereby giving it a mandate to enable its manifesto. This is the appropriate constitutional authority and procedure in the United Kingdom.
The later referendum was an expensive political device used by Harold Wilson to bring the Labour Party into line. The upcoming referendum is essentially a device being used by weak prime minister to try to bring his party to heel, that it would result in continued membership of the EU was an assumption made by David Cameron when he dreamt up this charade.
-
Some of the towns which have taken in large numbers of immigrants have actually experienced economic mini-booms. For example, Oldham has taken in quite a large number, and unemployment has fallen; same with Peterborough and Boston. You also find small business increasing, and increased economic activity in general. There are problems, for example, with housing and health provision, but that is down to local and national government to rectify.