It is a sad fact, we have to have great catastrophes before we do what needs to be done. Human rights took a great leap forward after WW2, the world was horrified at what happened. But as we are seeing now, the pursuit profits break down human rights and all that is left is a desire for ever greater profits.
All anyone with an ear listening to this lecture can glean. Is a super national state was the intension from the start. Yet the 1975 Government pamphlet stated " Parliament would continue to ascend " but the EEC became the EU and the British people were decived. Jean Monnet. An EU founder said " Europe's nations should be guided towards a superstate without the peoples understanding of what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps. Each disguised to have an economic benefit. As we arrive irreversibly to Federation". That was not in the Government pamphlet in 1975 and if it had been the result would have been the same as June 23rd 2016. So we glean that the whole EU project has been brought into being by subterfuge against the sovereign people. A con trick by any other name! Oblivious when unaware. Ignorant when you ignore!
S Cook said: "All anyone with an ear listening to this lecture can glean. Is a super national state was the intention from the start." Exactly. Which gives the lie to any claim that the British people were in any way deceived at any stage, including during the first (1975) referendum where 60% of the electorate voted to stay in the (at that time) EEC (as against only 38.4% of the electorate who voted to leave in 2016). As anyone who has traveled widely knows (and has observed) Britain is a very small and insignificant island off the coast of northern Europe, and England an even smaller part of that island. We are northern European. So sad that we have turned down the chance(offered on many occasions) to play a full part in a federal Europe, and continue to puff ourselves up believing we can play a part in World affairs on our own, or as a lackey of the USA.
@@anthonyowen1556 It doesn't give the lie at all. People had very little information compared to today and would not have had easy access to the historical materials we have now. They were repeatedly reassured that there was no loss of sovereignty and that we were not being drawn into a superstate, which was denounced as scaremongering. Also, you are being dishonest about the figures. In the 1975 referendum turnout was 64.62% with a "stay" vote of 67.23%, giving 43.44% of the electorate. In 2016, it was 51.89% on a 72% turnout, or 37.46% of the electorate. By an "all voters" metric, that's about 6% difference in "mandate" and neither is a majority of all the electorate.
Strange isn't it, that people never actually look at the progress of 'ever-closer union'? They seem to always forget that it was Margaret Thatcher who was the prime force behind the Single European Act of 1986, leading to an significant increase in weighted majority voting and consequent reductions in areas that needed to be agreed unanimously. Funny, isn't it?
The only Europe that would work would be regions rather than nation-states re-joining a proportionally represented parliament or set of parliaments. Only this way will the industrial working class regions of Europe be able to to benefit from collective action in the form of socialist parties rather than executive neoliberal types designed to win presidential-style elections.
It seems to me that in many ways, the EU is the "worst of both worlds" as a compromise between a supernational federation and an intergovernmental organization. An EC that was actually accountable to the politicians would probably increase public confidence, and an upper house to the European Parliament elected by national parliaments would make it easier to coordinate national and EU policies. Or perhaps it would be better if the federal project were abandoned entirely and the EU transformed into a pure intergovernmental body.
Excellent, thanks a lot
It is a sad fact, we have to have great catastrophes before we do what needs to be done. Human rights took a great leap forward after WW2, the world was horrified at what happened.
But as we are seeing now, the pursuit profits break down human rights and all that is left is a desire for ever greater profits.
All anyone with an ear listening to this lecture can glean. Is a super national state was the intension from the start. Yet the 1975 Government pamphlet stated " Parliament would continue to ascend " but the EEC became the EU and the British people were decived.
Jean Monnet. An EU founder said " Europe's nations should be guided towards a superstate without the peoples understanding of what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps. Each disguised to have an economic benefit. As we arrive irreversibly to Federation".
That was not in the Government pamphlet in 1975 and if it had been the result would have been the same as June 23rd 2016. So we glean that the whole EU project has been brought into being by subterfuge against the sovereign people. A con trick by any other name!
Oblivious when unaware. Ignorant when you ignore!
S Cook said: "All anyone with an ear listening to this lecture can glean. Is a super national state was the intention from the start."
Exactly. Which gives the lie to any claim that the British people were in any way deceived at any stage, including during the first (1975) referendum where 60% of the electorate voted to stay in the (at that time) EEC (as against only 38.4% of the electorate who voted to leave in 2016).
As anyone who has traveled widely knows (and has observed) Britain is a very small and insignificant island off the coast of northern Europe, and England an even smaller part of that island. We are northern European. So sad that we have turned down the chance(offered on many occasions) to play a full part in a federal Europe, and continue to puff ourselves up believing we can play a part in World affairs on our own, or as a lackey of the USA.
@@anthonyowen1556 It doesn't give the lie at all. People had very little information compared to today and would not have had easy access to the historical materials we have now. They were repeatedly reassured that there was no loss of sovereignty and that we were not being drawn into a superstate, which was denounced as scaremongering. Also, you are being dishonest about the figures. In the 1975 referendum turnout was 64.62% with a "stay" vote of 67.23%, giving 43.44% of the electorate. In 2016, it was 51.89% on a 72% turnout, or 37.46% of the electorate. By an "all voters" metric, that's about 6% difference in "mandate" and neither is a majority of all the electorate.
Strange isn't it, that people never actually look at the progress of 'ever-closer union'? They seem to always forget that it was Margaret Thatcher who was the prime force behind the Single European Act of 1986, leading to an significant increase in weighted majority voting and consequent reductions in areas that needed to be agreed unanimously. Funny, isn't it?
The only Europe that would work would be regions rather than nation-states re-joining a proportionally represented parliament or set of parliaments. Only this way will the industrial working class regions of Europe be able to to benefit from collective action in the form of socialist parties rather than executive neoliberal types designed to win presidential-style elections.
If the military resources are unfied! No chance have war!
Sure you can. It's just it's now called a Civil War.
It seems to me that in many ways, the EU is the "worst of both worlds" as a compromise between a supernational federation and an intergovernmental organization. An EC that was actually accountable to the politicians would probably increase public confidence, and an upper house to the European Parliament elected by national parliaments would make it easier to coordinate national and EU policies. Or perhaps it would be better if the federal project were abandoned entirely and the EU transformed into a pure intergovernmental body.