I did understand you wer joking, but sometimes your constant nagging gets little too much for me. Someone might really take you seriously and vote for UKIP or something to "drain the swamp".
Contempt for elected officials can be infectious from country to country and all countries have politicians who say they aren't politicians and offer too simple solutions. And yes, I'm being too serious.
If I have indeed read your post correctly then that is exactly one of the main things which people in the UK voted against.
You are absolutely correct. Making the EU faster and more efficient means often reducing the possibility to veto everything by everyone and that goes with giving up national power.
And that‘s one of the many contradictary positions that the UK had.
You may not like the following:
UK citizens have never understood and accepted the spirit of burdensharing and integration for the common goal of a European union (not EU). They were only interested in the common market and that comes only for the price of burdensharing (money, laws and rules) and giving up national sovereignity.
UK were always at the front demanding that EU decision processes get faster, but at the same time did not want to give up any national power in the process.
It‘s quite easy and this has been going on for too long and I blame EU politicians for having played this out for too long. They should have stopped the constant leverage with a potential Brexit (since 1975) right at the beginning and back then it would have been much easier to dissolve the UK involvement in all things EU.
Having said this, I am very proud how fast all 27 EU states made all decisions in the 3 year drama of Brexit unified and many times basically overnight - many times giving our UK friends more time to get their issues fixed.
Not too bad for an old and slow lady - just look at your parliament how difficult it is to get a common agreement about what to do and not about what NOT to do with ONE country.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
You may find it strange that I agree with most of your points. Once again I point out I am neither for or against Brexit, my position remains that the result of a free and fair election or referendum (any free and fair election or referendum) should always be abided by. I would hope everyone here shares that sentiment.
You are correct that the British people have never accepted the political integration which comes with EU membership. They did not however vote to join the EU in 1975. They voted to join what they were told was a trading block (Lies by politicians were happening then!) I believe that if the future plans for political integration had been fully explained to the British people, they would not have joined the EEC. Perhaps my British friends might tell me if they think my assessment is correct on this point.
I think the above remark addresses your other points. If the British people had not been led blindfold into this arrangement with the EEC by their politicians and had been informed that they were to join a ‘common market’ whose ambitions in the medium term was to become a political union and they still voted to join there would have been none of what happened afterwards.
So, to blame Brexit on lies may well be correct, but the foundations for Brexit were built upon lies all those years ago in 1975 when the people were promised they were joining a trading arrangement with no mention of political union or the requirement to give up aspects of national sovereignty.
I have looked on the internet for any evidence that the British people were told about future plans for an EU in 1975 and can find nothing to suggest they were. Perhaps if there is anyone here from Britain who is old enough to remember or voted then they may be able to confirm.
They did not however vote to join the EU in 1975. They voted to join what they were told was a trading block (Lies by politicians were happening then!)
Sorry, Joshua,
But you repeat again and again, that a democratic Brexit vote must be followed no matter whatand regardless how politicians lied on their voters and now you say, that the free and democratic vote for joining the EEC must not be followed because politicians lied on their voters?
my position remains that the result of a free and fair election or referendum (any free and fair election or referendum) should always be abided by.
As for what has been said in the 70s:
The development of the EU is work in progress, there are new idea coming up to address the challenges of the time.
One example: in 2016 only Brexiteers scaremongered that the EU were going in the direction of a European Army. That was nonsense back then, but after Donald Trump was elected and after he refused to unconditionally back up the European allies, this became urgent and is now in progress.
There is not only a big masterplan and the EU hides their evil plans. Sometimes it‘s just reactions to reality so, the plan of further integration may not really have been on the table in the early 1970s
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Everyone reading this is well aware of what I wrote (they only have to read it – they will also be aware I have not edited that post) and that that you have chosen to take my words and twist them out of all context. For example you have (purposely?) misquoted me by stating:
"But you repeat again and again, that a democratic Brexit vote must be followed no matter what and now you say, that the free and democratic vote for joining the european trade Union must not be followed because politicians lied on their voters?"
When I said nothing of the sort. You know it, I know it, everyone else knows it and I leave it to them to judge of my post and your response.
The method of operation follows a set path. It is tedious. What should be interesting debate about important political subjects can never reach its potential while this happens.
I have looked on the internet for any evidence that the British people were told about future plans for an EU in 1975 and can find nothing to suggest they were. Perhaps if there is anyone here from Britain who is old enough to remember or voted then they may be able to confirm.
She was wrong. Demagogues sometimes use referendums, but I can't think of a single example of a dictator who used referendums. Referendums are useful if they're used sparingly, it's on an important issue and the choices are clear. The Brexit referendum got it right on the first two, but missed the mark on number three. Remaining in the EU was clear, but leaving can mean so many things. First negotiating a treaty and then letting the people decide between remaining or accepting the deal would have worked much better.
Yes. He did it because he was convinced Remain would win, and that result would calm the Torys who wanted to leave. But while that probably makes Cameron a bad politician, it doesn't make him a dictator or even a bad person.
I checked British referendums on wikipedia. There have only been three referendums on a national level:
1975 about joining the EU, 2010 on reform of the election (where I disagree with the majority, but I'm not British)
And of course the Brexit referendum in 2016. I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened more often, but I can't think of any other issues that would fit a referendum.
The claim that the EU somehow stumbled along and somehow arrived at political integration is utter nonsense. I have taken several passages from an internet site and pasted them here. I await the expected rebuttal.
***
Historical Development of European Integration
The First Treaties
The disastrous effects of the Second World War and the constant threat of an East-West confrontation meant that reconciliation between France and Germany had become a top priority. The decision to pool the coal and steel industries of six European countries, brought into force by the Treaty of Paris in 1951, symbolised the birth of a common purpose and marked the first step towards European integration. The Treaties of Rome of 1957 strengthened the foundations of this integration and the notion of a common future for the six European countries involved.
Legal Basis
The Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), or Treaty of Paris, was signed on 18 April 1951 and came into force on 25 July 1952. For the first time, six European States agreed to work towards integration. This Treaty laid the foundations of the Community by setting up an executive known as the ‘High Authority’, a Parliamentary Assembly, a Council of Ministers, a Court of Justice and a Consultative Committee. The ECSC Treaty expired on 23 July 2002 at the end of the 50-year validity period laid down in its Article 97. In accordance with the Protocol (No 37) annexed to the Treaties (the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), the net worth of the ECSC’s assets at the time of its dissolution was assigned to the Research Fund for Coal and Steel to finance research by Member States in sectors relating to the coal and steel industry.
The Treaties establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC, otherwise known as ‘Euratom’), or the Treaties of Rome, were signed on 25 March 1957 and came into force on 1 January 1958. Unlike the ECSC Treaty, the Treaties of Rome were concluded ‘for an unlimited period’ (Article 240 of the EEC Treaty and Article 208 of the EAEC Treaty), which conferred quasi-constitutional status on them.
The six founding countries were Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
Objectives
The founders of the ECSC were clear about their intentions for the Treaty, namely that it was merely the first step towards a ‘European Federation’. The common coal and steel market was to be an experiment which could gradually be extended to other economic spheres, culminating in a political Europe.
The aim of the European Economic Community was to establish a common market based on the four freedoms of movement (goods, persons, capital and services).
The aim of Euratom was to coordinate the supply of fissile materials and the research programmes initiated or being prepared by Member States on the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
The preambles to the three Treaties reveal a unity of purpose behind the creation of the Communities, namely the conviction that the States of Europe must work together to build a common future as this alone will enable them to control their destiny.
Main Principles
The European Communities (the ECSC, EEC and Euratom) were born of the desire for a united Europe, an idea which gradually took shape as a direct response to the events that had shattered the continent. In the wake of the Second World War the strategic industries, in particular the steel industry, needed reorganising. The future of Europe, threatened by East-West confrontation, lay in Franco-German reconciliation.
1.The appeal made by Robert Schuman, the French Foreign Minister, on 9 May 1950 can be regarded as the starting point for European integration. At that time, the choice of coal and steel was highly symbolic, given that in the early 1950s these vital industries formed the basis of a country’s power. In addition to the clear economic benefits, the pooling of French and German resources was intended to mark the end of the rivalry between the two countries. On 9 May 1950 Robert Schuman declared: ‘Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity.' It was on the basis of that principle that France, Italy, Germany and the Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) signed the Treaty of Paris.
***
As for the other matter. I know what I said, I know what someone else said but I repeat I will leave it to others to judge.
I have looked on the internet for any evidence that the British people were told about future plans for an EU in 1975 and can find nothing to suggest they were. Perhaps if there is anyone here from Britain who is old enough to remember or voted then they may be able to confirm.
That would be me, and the answer is "no".
It is interesting to note that lies (or at least the truth left out) were told on both occasions.
As I am seeing some rumblings about my editing behaviour:
I usually am posting from a phone or an iPad. I hate virtual keyboards because the results are often full with silly typing mistakes.
After I am posting something, I am reading it again and am rooting out most spelling mistakes.
It may be that I am searching for the correct British term ( that takes time and another open window) or double check facts that I have been stating just to make sure.
I often go back, copy quotes from past postings, copy them, shorten them and insert them.
And sometimes, I see the potential that a term or a sentence may be interpreted to be personally offensive and I am softening the language or making things clearer by adding information or even sentences or delete something.
And sometimes after some minutes, I find a better way to express my thoughts and rework my post.
I usually don‘t edit my posts dramatically after someone else has posted ( I still change spelling errors or terms like the EEC when the entire meaning of my post remains the same).
And even sometimes when the f@...ing phone does not properly work, I move to another place, fire up a proper computer and get things done there.
This is how my brain works and this is how I work. I will not apologize for it or change it.
But accusing me for being provocative and then pulling back offensive terms just to let your replies look bad is just plain silly. My haters are not important enough to me to follow such strategies, so save yourself these theories.
Just to debunk that legend, I am sure that my haters still find enough offensive content in my several posts here, if I‘d really be doing that, I‘d have deleted them long time ago just to make you angry
Thank you for listening.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
:x The lady doth protest too much
Nothing like a quick answer ) what is
It interrogators say about truthful answers,
They take a long time , .. or is it that they
Come quickly ? ) Happily I don't have to
Justify any of my posts, as they are there for all to
See ( spelling mistakes and all ) as I'm not trying
To retro fit my answers )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
The claim that the EU somehow stumbled along and somehow arrived at political integration is utter nonsense. I have taken several passages from an internet site and pasted them here. I await the expected rebuttal.
At the Copenhagen European Summit of 14 and 15 December 1973, the Heads of State or Government of the nine Member States of the enlarged European Community affirm their determination to introduce the concept of European identity into their common foreign relations.
Source: Bulletin of the European Communities. December 1973, No 12. Luxembourg: Office for official publications of the European Communities. "Declaration on European Identity", p. 118-122.
A brief, third, concluding section underlined ‘the dynamic nature of the construction of a united Europe’ and reiterated the commitment to building a European union.
So, in 1973, before the 1975 referendum, the goal of a fully integrated EU was already signed as a contract - so to say that the UK voters have been misled by a hidden agenda from the EU can be called debunked.
The contract with the goals existed, if some UK politicians lied about it, the 1975 referendum was still a free and democratic vote.
To say, that this vote does not count is just like saying that the free and democratic Brexit vote does not count because the Brexiteers lied.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
:x The lady doth protest too much
Nothing like a quick answer ) what is
It interrogators say about truthful answers,
They take a long time , .. or is it that they
Come quickly ? ) Happily I don't have to
Justify any of my posts, as they are there for all to
See ( spelling mistakes and all ) as I'm not trying
To retro fit my answers )
Look, I knew that such a reply would show up.
Because of that I have simply ignored your accusations in that direction, but my main goal was to give Joshua some background.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Happily I don't have to
Justify any of my posts, as they are there for all to
See ( spelling mistakes and all ) as I'm not trying
To retro fit my answers )
My posts also. none of them have been edited after people have replied.
I honestly do not think you have any 'haters' here.
You do have a bad habit of editing posts after people have made replies. I am not the only one to point this out in the past in this discussion. I can give you the post numbers if you like.
The referendum to join the EEC: You nor I wasn't there, but by his own admission Barbel was. He already answered the question but if he would be so kind, I would like him to expand on his answer.
Comments
Comedian wins Ukraine elections. Why the shock we've had a bunch
Of comedians in Parliament for years
Yes, we've seen plenty of jokers and chancers in our time, TP!
Making Britain #1
Understand our sense of humour..... even if not wearing " Gas Masks "
You are absolutely correct. Making the EU faster and more efficient means often reducing the possibility to veto everything by everyone and that goes with giving up national power.
And that‘s one of the many contradictary positions that the UK had.
You may not like the following:
UK citizens have never understood and accepted the spirit of burdensharing and integration for the common goal of a European union (not EU). They were only interested in the common market and that comes only for the price of burdensharing (money, laws and rules) and giving up national sovereignity.
UK were always at the front demanding that EU decision processes get faster, but at the same time did not want to give up any national power in the process.
It‘s quite easy and this has been going on for too long and I blame EU politicians for having played this out for too long. They should have stopped the constant leverage with a potential Brexit (since 1975) right at the beginning and back then it would have been much easier to dissolve the UK involvement in all things EU.
Having said this, I am very proud how fast all 27 EU states made all decisions in the 3 year drama of Brexit unified and many times basically overnight - many times giving our UK friends more time to get their issues fixed.
Not too bad for an old and slow lady - just look at your parliament how difficult it is to get a common agreement about what to do and not about what NOT to do with ONE country.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
You are correct that the British people have never accepted the political integration which comes with EU membership. They did not however vote to join the EU in 1975. They voted to join what they were told was a trading block (Lies by politicians were happening then!) I believe that if the future plans for political integration had been fully explained to the British people, they would not have joined the EEC. Perhaps my British friends might tell me if they think my assessment is correct on this point.
I think the above remark addresses your other points. If the British people had not been led blindfold into this arrangement with the EEC by their politicians and had been informed that they were to join a ‘common market’ whose ambitions in the medium term was to become a political union and they still voted to join there would have been none of what happened afterwards.
So, to blame Brexit on lies may well be correct, but the foundations for Brexit were built upon lies all those years ago in 1975 when the people were promised they were joining a trading arrangement with no mention of political union or the requirement to give up aspects of national sovereignty.
I have looked on the internet for any evidence that the British people were told about future plans for an EU in 1975 and can find nothing to suggest they were. Perhaps if there is anyone here from Britain who is old enough to remember or voted then they may be able to confirm.
Sorry, Joshua,
But you repeat again and again, that a democratic Brexit vote must be followed no matter whatand regardless how politicians lied on their voters and now you say, that the free and democratic vote for joining the EEC must not be followed because politicians lied on their voters?
As for what has been said in the 70s:
The development of the EU is work in progress, there are new idea coming up to address the challenges of the time.
One example: in 2016 only Brexiteers scaremongered that the EU were going in the direction of a European Army. That was nonsense back then, but after Donald Trump was elected and after he refused to unconditionally back up the European allies, this became urgent and is now in progress.
There is not only a big masterplan and the EU hides their evil plans. Sometimes it‘s just reactions to reality so, the plan of further integration may not really have been on the table in the early 1970s
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
"But you repeat again and again, that a democratic Brexit vote must be followed no matter what and now you say, that the free and democratic vote for joining the european trade Union must not be followed because politicians lied on their voters?"
When I said nothing of the sort. You know it, I know it, everyone else knows it and I leave it to them to judge of my post and your response.
The method of operation follows a set path. It is tedious. What should be interesting debate about important political subjects can never reach its potential while this happens.
That is all I need to know. Thank you.
That would be me, and the answer is "no".
That was a quote by Margret Thatcher in 1974
I have not twisted anything, I have quoted you properly 1:1
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Bad people use them as tools for their own good, they are not really interested in the people‘s opinion.
Just check why Cameron started the last one
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
1975 about joining the EU, 2010 on reform of the election (where I disagree with the majority, but I'm not British)
And of course the Brexit referendum in 2016. I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened more often, but I can't think of any other issues that would fit a referendum.
***
Historical Development of European Integration
The First Treaties
The disastrous effects of the Second World War and the constant threat of an East-West confrontation meant that reconciliation between France and Germany had become a top priority. The decision to pool the coal and steel industries of six European countries, brought into force by the Treaty of Paris in 1951, symbolised the birth of a common purpose and marked the first step towards European integration. The Treaties of Rome of 1957 strengthened the foundations of this integration and the notion of a common future for the six European countries involved.
Legal Basis
The Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), or Treaty of Paris, was signed on 18 April 1951 and came into force on 25 July 1952. For the first time, six European States agreed to work towards integration. This Treaty laid the foundations of the Community by setting up an executive known as the ‘High Authority’, a Parliamentary Assembly, a Council of Ministers, a Court of Justice and a Consultative Committee. The ECSC Treaty expired on 23 July 2002 at the end of the 50-year validity period laid down in its Article 97. In accordance with the Protocol (No 37) annexed to the Treaties (the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), the net worth of the ECSC’s assets at the time of its dissolution was assigned to the Research Fund for Coal and Steel to finance research by Member States in sectors relating to the coal and steel industry.
The Treaties establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC, otherwise known as ‘Euratom’), or the Treaties of Rome, were signed on 25 March 1957 and came into force on 1 January 1958. Unlike the ECSC Treaty, the Treaties of Rome were concluded ‘for an unlimited period’ (Article 240 of the EEC Treaty and Article 208 of the EAEC Treaty), which conferred quasi-constitutional status on them.
The six founding countries were Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
Objectives
The founders of the ECSC were clear about their intentions for the Treaty, namely that it was merely the first step towards a ‘European Federation’. The common coal and steel market was to be an experiment which could gradually be extended to other economic spheres, culminating in a political Europe.
The aim of the European Economic Community was to establish a common market based on the four freedoms of movement (goods, persons, capital and services).
The aim of Euratom was to coordinate the supply of fissile materials and the research programmes initiated or being prepared by Member States on the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
The preambles to the three Treaties reveal a unity of purpose behind the creation of the Communities, namely the conviction that the States of Europe must work together to build a common future as this alone will enable them to control their destiny.
Main Principles
The European Communities (the ECSC, EEC and Euratom) were born of the desire for a united Europe, an idea which gradually took shape as a direct response to the events that had shattered the continent. In the wake of the Second World War the strategic industries, in particular the steel industry, needed reorganising. The future of Europe, threatened by East-West confrontation, lay in Franco-German reconciliation.
1.The appeal made by Robert Schuman, the French Foreign Minister, on 9 May 1950 can be regarded as the starting point for European integration. At that time, the choice of coal and steel was highly symbolic, given that in the early 1950s these vital industries formed the basis of a country’s power. In addition to the clear economic benefits, the pooling of French and German resources was intended to mark the end of the rivalry between the two countries. On 9 May 1950 Robert Schuman declared: ‘Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity.' It was on the basis of that principle that France, Italy, Germany and the Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) signed the Treaty of Paris.
***
As for the other matter. I know what I said, I know what someone else said but I repeat I will leave it to others to judge.
It is interesting to note that lies (or at least the truth left out) were told on both occasions.
I usually am posting from a phone or an iPad. I hate virtual keyboards because the results are often full with silly typing mistakes.
After I am posting something, I am reading it again and am rooting out most spelling mistakes.
It may be that I am searching for the correct British term ( that takes time and another open window) or double check facts that I have been stating just to make sure.
I often go back, copy quotes from past postings, copy them, shorten them and insert them.
And sometimes, I see the potential that a term or a sentence may be interpreted to be personally offensive and I am softening the language or making things clearer by adding information or even sentences or delete something.
And sometimes after some minutes, I find a better way to express my thoughts and rework my post.
I usually don‘t edit my posts dramatically after someone else has posted ( I still change spelling errors or terms like the EEC when the entire meaning of my post remains the same).
And even sometimes when the f@...ing phone does not properly work, I move to another place, fire up a proper computer and get things done there.
This is how my brain works and this is how I work. I will not apologize for it or change it.
But accusing me for being provocative and then pulling back offensive terms just to let your replies look bad is just plain silly. My haters are not important enough to me to follow such strategies, so save yourself these theories.
Just to debunk that legend, I am sure that my haters still find enough offensive content in my several posts here, if I‘d really be doing that, I‘d have deleted them long time ago just to make you angry
Thank you for listening.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Nothing like a quick answer
It interrogators say about truthful answers,
They take a long time , .. or is it that they
Come quickly ?
Justify any of my posts, as they are there for all to
See ( spelling mistakes and all ) as I'm not trying
To retro fit my answers
https://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/1999/1/1/02798dc9-9c69-4b7d-b2c9-f03a8db7da32/publishable_en.pdf
At the Copenhagen European Summit of 14 and 15 December 1973, the Heads of State or Government of the nine Member States of the enlarged European Community affirm their determination to introduce the concept of European identity into their common foreign relations.
Source: Bulletin of the European Communities. December 1973, No 12. Luxembourg: Office for official publications of the European Communities. "Declaration on European Identity", p. 118-122.
https://penguincompaniontoeu.com/additional_entries/declaration-on-european-identity/
A brief, third, concluding section underlined ‘the dynamic nature of the construction of a united Europe’ and reiterated the commitment to building a European union.
So, in 1973, before the 1975 referendum, the goal of a fully integrated EU was already signed as a contract - so to say that the UK voters have been misled by a hidden agenda from the EU can be called debunked.
The contract with the goals existed, if some UK politicians lied about it, the 1975 referendum was still a free and democratic vote.
To say, that this vote does not count is just like saying that the free and democratic Brexit vote does not count because the Brexiteers lied.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Look, I knew that such a reply would show up.
Because of that I have simply ignored your accusations in that direction, but my main goal was to give Joshua some background.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
My posts also. none of them have been edited after people have replied.
You do have a bad habit of editing posts after people have made replies. I am not the only one to point this out in the past in this discussion. I can give you the post numbers if you like.
The referendum to join the EEC: You nor I wasn't there, but by his own admission Barbel was. He already answered the question but if he would be so kind, I would like him to expand on his answer.