How A Secretive Elite Created The Eu To Build A World Government

[toadoftoadhall]

"

Voters in Britain's referendum need to understand that the European Union was about building a federal superstate from day one"

link to article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12018877/The-truth-how-a-secretive-elite-created-the-EU-to-build-a-world-government.html

[thecrashingisles]

They secretly put it in the opening paragraph of the founding treaty, the bastards.

[billybong]

And to avoid telling the British people we could call it a Common Market. Ever closer onions.

and it's a lot easier to read copies of the original documents now that there's the internet - and the eu fait accompli. How many people reasonably had access to the full documents when the Common Market was (belatedly after entrance) voted on - very few and UK people know now how misleading and information limited the UK mainstream media is even now and it was even worse then, amazing though that might sound.

[thecrashingisles]

and it's a lot easier to read copies of the original documents now that there's the internet - and the eu fait accompli. How many people reasonably had access to the full documents when the Common Market was (belatedly after entrance) voted on - very few and UK people know now how misleading and information limited the UK mainstream media is even now and it was even worse then, amazing though that might sound.

Every household in the UK received this leaflet paid for by the government as part of the referendum campaign:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/1975ReferendumNO.pdf

"...it sets out by stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation."

Anyone who says they weren't told, simply took no part in civil society. (That said, there were a lot of disingenuous things put out by the yes campaign.)

[billybong]

Every household in the UK received this leaflet paid for by the government as part of the referendum campaign:

"...it sets out by stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation."

Anyone who says they weren't told, simply took no part in civil society. (That said, there were a lot of disingenuous things put out by the yes campaign.)

Indeed the No vote flier correctly predicted it. However in the Yes propaganda the government propaganda successfully and convincingly pooh poohed the idea of a staged merger - at least without the UK people's further approval. The vote was for a Common Market - which has been a failure for the UK as the GDP per Capita has decreased relative to other major eu nations.

It doesn't have any copies of the official documents in that flier. People weren't given copies of the official documents. Those documents weren't widely distributed/broadcast.

People didn't take part in civil society? - you mean didn't/don't agree with you?

[thecrashingisles]

Indeed the No vote flier correctly predicted it. However in the Yes propaganda the government propaganda successfully and convincingly pooh poohed the idea of a staged merger - at least without the UK people's further approval. The vote was for a Common Market - which has been a failure for the UK as the GDP per Capita has decreased relative to other major eu nations.

It doesn't have any copies of the official documents in that flier. People weren't given copies of the official documents. Those documents weren't widely distributed/broadcast.

People didn't take part in civil society? - you mean didn't/don't agree with you?

No I mean that people weren't paying attention or didn't care.

Although you may say that the No leaflet got it right, is it really true, even now, that Britain, France and Germany are close to becoming a single nation state? It's not even fully the case for the Eurozone, to which we have a permanent opt-out.

[SpectrumFX]

Every household in the UK received this leaflet paid for by the government as part of the referendum campaign:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/1975ReferendumNO.pdf

"...it sets out by stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation."

Anyone who says they weren't told, simply took no part in civil society. (That said, there were a lot of disingenuous things put out by the yes campaign.)

Reading that I think that the yes and no leaflets sent out for the last vote should be resent to every household before the next one, so we can compare and contrast what was predicted and what happened.

[billybong]

No I mean that people weren't paying attention or didn't care.

Although you may say that the No leaflet got it right, is it really true, even now, that Britain, France and Germany are close to becoming a single nation state? It's not even fully the case for the Eurozone, to which we have a permanent opt-out.

The first sentence is opinion. I don't think either case is true of most voters interest at the time - although the information voted on and accessible was limited compared to what might be available now (no internet then, colour TV had just began, no morning TV, only BBC1,2 and ITV1 and evening broadcast finished about at 10.30 pm and such like).

Legally in treaty and obligation terms (signed since the Common Market vote) they are all part of the eu single entity although that might alter in due course if there's an eu referendum about UK membership.

[thecrashingisles]

The first sentence is opinion.

An adult who voted in 1975 and now says that people weren't told about the federal nature of the EU is either a liar or a fool. Take your pick.

[billybong]

An adult who voted in 1975 and now says that people weren't told about the federal nature of the EU is either a liar or a fool. Take your pick.

Calm down. No call to be obnoxious and abusive. Incorrect options - the choice is honesty.

It's a forum with honest opinions (emphasis on the word honest) and it's only your opinion again and now you foolishly or deliberately mislead (you choose) to emote and ad hom the voters again - ad hom, so you lose.

People voted on the what was called the Common Market and few got a view of the actual treaty documents.

[thecrashingisles]

Calm down. No call to be obnoxious and abusive. Incorrect options - the choice is honesty.

It's a forum with honest opinions (emphasis on the word honest) and it's only your opinion again and now you foolishly or deliberately mislead (you choose) to emote and ad hom the voters again - ad hom, so you lose.

People voted on the what was called the Common Market and few got a view of the actual treaty documents.

Rather it's you who is ad homing the voters by saying they didn't know what they were doing. The people spoke loud and clear in a free and fair vote after hearing half the cabinet at the time campaigning for a No vote and telling people in no uncertain terms that Yes meant, "merging Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation."

[billybong]

Rather it's you who is ad homing the voters by saying they didn't know what they were doing. The people spoke loud and clear in a free and fair vote after hearing half the cabinet at the time campaigning for a No vote and telling people in no uncertain terms that Yes meant, "merging Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation."

Don't misquote what I said. Of course they knew what they were doing - on the limited information available.

I'm saying that the treaty text wasn't easily available at the time and the vote was on the so called Common Market (then 9 members). The market bit was loud and clear but the merging bit was very much downplayed. There's never been a vote on the subsequent treaties, the further transfer of powers and the massive expansion in members despite many many (cast iron) promises.

[thecrashingisles]

Don't misquote what I said. Of course they knew what they were doing - on the limited information available.

I'm saying that the treaty text wasn't easily available at the time and the vote was on the so called Common Market (then 9 members). There's never been a vote on the subsequent treaties and the massive expansion in members despite many many (cast iron) promises.

It seems to me that what you are really arguing against is democracy, since perfect information and understanding is never going to be available to the whole electorate. How can we trust the ignorant hordes to get it right when they don't even go to the trouble of going to their local library to read the treaty in full?

[billybong]

It seems to me that what you are really arguing against is democracy, since perfect information and understanding is never going to be available to the whole electorate. How can we trust the ignorant hordes to get it right when they don't even go to the trouble of going to their local library to read the treaty in full?

No, I'm in favour of democracy and full disclosure.

They weren't even supplied with a copy of the first page of the treaty on the various fliers. You're assuming every library had a copy of the treaty and millions were to make their way to them to queue for a few hours to spend a few hours reading the treaty in full one by one in time for the vote as well as do their jobs - not likely and not practical.

Ignorant hordes? your words not mine.

[thecrashingisles]

No, I'm in favour of democracy and full disclosure.

They weren't even supplied with a copy of the first page of the treaty on the various fliers. Your assuming every library had a copy of the treaty and millions were to make their way to them to queue for a few hours to spend a few hours reading the treaty in full one by one in time for the vote - not likely and not practical.

Ignorant hordes? your words not mine.

You are the one discounting the value of a vote based upon the level of discernment exercised by the voter, not me. That is not how democracy works. Everyone's vote, whether cast based on a detailed analysis of the treaty or whether cast based on a distaste for frogs legs, counts exactly the same.

[billybong]

You are the one discounting the value of a vote based upon the level of discernment exercised by the voter, not me. That is not how democracy works. Everyone's vote, whether cast based on a detailed analysis of the treaty or whether cast based on a distaste for frogs legs, counts exactly the same.

So you decided to go off at a bit of a tangent. Your first 2 sentences don't describe my position on democracy. Your 3rd sentence is correct for most democracies if people are voting on the correct subject. Democracy fails if there isn't full disclosure on the subject being voted on.

I'm merely saying that the text of the treaty wasn't practically available for most people at the time of the vote (like it might be now due to stuff like the internet). See previous posts. Also that the eu as it is now is far removed from the entity voted on. I would like the UK people to have a democratic vote/referendum on the eu as soon as possible based on accurate information - the sooner the better for the sake of democracy. It's been promised often enough over the decades.

Here's a copy of the government flier at the time of the Common Market vote.

http://

www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm

The only real reference to closer ties is

There was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards an Economic & Monetary Union. This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed.

"This threat" was removed. In the pamphlet the treaty is a "market" treaty. UK/Parliament's sovereignty was going to remain intact. There's certainly no loud and clear message about merging into a single nation in there, quite the contrary.

[thecrashingisles]

So you decided to go off at a bit of a tangent. Your first 2 sentences don't describe my position on democracy.

Then why do you insist on the importance of availability of the treaty texts? Do you think it's reasonable to expect 40 million people to read and understand such a document? Even if it were, the documents alone do not tell the full story without context and an understanding of history.

Perhaps before any future election people should be asked to pass a test on the matter being voted on and those who don't have an adequate understanding should have their vote removed? Would that avoid people like you saying, 40 years later, that the voters were duped?

[interestrateripoff]

It seems to me that what you are really arguing against is democracy, since perfect information and understanding is never going to be available to the whole electorate. How can we trust the ignorant hordes to get it right when they don't even go to the trouble of going to their local library to read the treaty in full?

You can't expect people to put the effort in. It needs to be presented in an X-factor way!

[billybong]

Then why do you insist on the importance of availability of the treaty texts? Do you think it's reasonable to expect 40 million people to read and understand such a document? Even if it were, the documents alone do not tell the full story without context and an understanding of history.

Perhaps before any future election people should be asked to pass a test on the matter being voted on and those who don't have an adequate understanding should have their vote removed? Would that avoid people like you saying, 40 years later, that the voters were duped?

It was your position that people should have read the treaty. My position is that in those days it was impractical for most people.

Perhaps there should be a law about the contents of government pamphlets being accurate. Manifesto promises as well - the manifestos of all the main parties that have promised a referendum over the years. Then there would be much less risk of people being misled.

The issue of being misled has been raised by many people for several decades now and there's always been a promised referendum around the corner. Still waiting and no firm date set even now.

[billybong]

Reading that I think that the yes and no leaflets sent out for the last vote should be resent to every household before the next one, so we can compare and contrast what was predicted and what happened.

+1

Good idea.

[EUBanana]

People wouldn't read the treaty directly, they'd read the opinions of opinion formers who had, whose job is essentially to disseminate to the population in bite sized chunks what's going on.

Obviously lies and propaganda work, anyway, which is the bottom line . The Establishment has always been pro-EU, it's always had a whiff of conspiracy against the people about it. That the No vote is doing so well when they have almost 0 mainstream voice is very telling.

[thecrashingisles]

It was your position that people should have read the treaty. My position is that in those days it was impractical for most people.

I never said that people should read the treaty. I simply said that there was no secrecy.

As an aside, since the 1975 referendum the major parties have both tried campaigning in general elections on an explicitly Eurosceptic platform. Both times they got absolutely crushed. In 1983 Labour wanted to withdraw completely, and in 2001 the Tories were going up and down the country shouting, "Save the Pound!" The voters weren't impressed.

[shindigger]

Howzabout a nice cuppa?

[billybong]

I never said that people should read the treaty. I simply said that there was no secrecy.

As an aside, since the 1975 referendum the major parties have both tried campaigning in general elections on an explicitly Eurosceptic platform. Both times they got absolutely crushed. In 1983 Labour wanted to withdraw completely, and in 2001 the Tories were going up and down the country shouting, "Save the Pound!" The voters weren't impressed.

No secrecy but it wasn't broadcast.

There were other general election issues as well. 1983 was just after the Falklands war victory. in 2001 the NuLabour momentum was still strong and the economy was still "strong" - after the 1997 landslide victory which was in large part due to Conservative sleaze and incompetence plus a "straightforward" guy in charge.

No real conclusions regarding the eu could be drawn from those elections and in 2001 the eu hadn't got into full swing with the impact of the later eu treaties.

[billybong]

But one fought with dirty tricks and misinformation by business and the 'political centre ground' in its pay, is deserving of the invective of a BillyBong.

Just to say it's a lot of other well informed people and believers in real honest democracy as well.

Also to say it's not invective to say in my various posts on this thread that people were misled etc, the treaty text wasn't that accessible to most people and a referendum was continually promised but never materialised and a date still hasn't been set etc. It's the truth.

That's not to say they wouldn't be deserving of invective.