OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[AngryRam]

Sprint to the finish now, 100 to go.. I will take the baton back from Tricky after he has beaten Anag up a little more.

[BaaLocks]

Thats a harsh description of Barbara castle, if not inaccurate!!

Actually, I was referring to Emily Pankhurst

[ramAnag]

Sprint to the finish now, 100 to go.. I will take the baton back from Tricky after he has beaten Anag up a little more.

Lol...stands about as much chance as you did last night.

Always remember oh cantankerous one...being in a minority doesn't make you wrong.

[Trickytreesreds]

The first Prime Minister to try to lead Britain into the EEC was Harold Wilson who, from 1966, was convinced that Britain could not survive outside the EEC. His Government's application to join, in May 1967 was vetoed by General de Gaulle, the French president, whose life and career had been saved by the British during the Second World War but whose loyalties were first to himself, second to France and not at all to Britain. Actually, French President Charles de Gaulle rejected Britain's application to join the Common Market twice. In public he argued that Britain, a traditional island nation, was not suited to be part of a European superstate. That was just political flim-flam. In reality he rejected Britain (despite everything that Britain had done for him and France during the Second World War) because he wanted to delay Britain's entry until the Common Agricultural Policy (designed to give huge subsidies to French peasant farmers) had been properly set up. Once the CAP was in place the loathsome de Gaulle suddenly decided that Britain's island history no longer mattered, and he became enthusiastic about Britain joining the Common Market. Naturally, he really wanted Britain to join the Market in order to help pay for the costs of running the CAP and keeping French farmers satisfied. There are a lot of French farmers, and they have always been a powerful voting block. Right from the start of the EU Britain has been used by both America and France. And it is still happening.

Three years later, when the foul and repulsive Ted Heath got into Number 10 Downing Street he began negotiations again, and a treaty was agreed in January 1972. This was the infamous treaty in which the treasonous Heath lied to everyone and betrayed his country.

In the months prior to Heath's betrayal the British public had not been convinced that they wanted their country to enter the EEC. Many, perhaps, simply didn't trust the politicians' claims that membership would be merely a commercial convenience. One opinion poll in early 1971 showed that the British people were against entry by the astonishing ratio of three to one. This opposition came despite the expenditure by the European Commission Information Service of around £10 million on trying to persuade opinion formers of the benefits of membership of the EEC.

With it looking as though joining the EEC might be political suicide the Government became desperate. Heath's Government paid for the distribution of propaganda extolling the virtues of membership, and produced a White Paper which was full of unsubstantiated claims for the EEC and which deliberately omitted any mention of the costs of membership or the fact that joining the EEC was the first step towards a federal states of Europe.

Heath only got away with his Great Betrayal because the press had decided that entry was a `good thing' (for them and their proprietors), and so did not question any of the claims made by Heath's Government.

Editors and columnists slavishly obeyed the dictates of their proprietors. If the press had done its job properly (and had investigated and analysed the purpose and value of the Common Market) Britain would have almost certainly never joined the EEC and would now be a considerably wealthier and more powerful nation.

The Financial Times, the Times, the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, the Sunday Times, the Observer, the Daily Mail, the Sun and The Economist were all wildly enthusiastic about Britain joining the EEC. (As, indeed, most of them still are.) Throughout the run up to the day of our joining, the daily news in Britain was delivered with a preposterous pro-EEC slant designed to suppress the truth and to convince the public that without membership of the EEC neither they nor their country had much of a future. Only occasionally did the papers admit that the politicians were spinning like tops. The Times remarked that Geoffrey Rippon, the Cabinet Minister responsible for negotiating Britain's entry, was behaving `almost as though he has something to hide'. (He certainly did.) The Daily Mirror (which, at the time, had by far the largest sale in Britain) was unrelenting in describing the prizes of membership as immense and warning readers that if they voted against membership of the EEC they would become `mere lookers-on from an off-shore island of dwindling insignificance'.'

When Prince Philip took his foot out of his mouth long enough to claim that the EEC's Common Agricultural Policy was an example of bad management, the Daily Mirror called him a `chump'. (So, now who's the chump?)

The pro-EEC line appeared on news and feature pages and was supplemented with huge numbers of full page advertisements paid for by the European Movement.

Heath took Britain into the EEC with the help of the nation's press and without ever giving the electors a chance to say whether or not their country should become part of the European `project'.

Only the Daily Express `stood alone - with the people' against membership of the EEC. They praised Philip's scepticism about the Common Agricultural Policy announcing that `The People applaud his good sense...and wish it were more widely shared by our rulers.' But once the vote for membership had been won even the Daily Express capitulated and accepted the verdict.

When, at the next election Heath was thrown out by an unusually discerning British electorate the subsequent Prime Minister, crafty pipe sucking Harold Wilson, agreed to the unprecedented idea of asking the British people for their view on membership; he announced that there would be a referendum to decide whether or not Britain should remain in the EEC. (The referendum appeared in the Labour Party's 1974 election manifesto and may well have one of the reasons for Wilson's victory.)

This was the first and last chance the British people had to express their views on the EEC. (For the record I am delighted to report that I voted `No' - against the EEC. It seemed to me pretty obvious that the politicians were lying and planning something considerably more sinister than a trading partnership.)

The question to be asked in the referendum was simple: `Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?'

The referendum vote took place in June 1975 and virtually the whole of the British press joined in to extol the virtues of membership of the EEC. Even the Daily Express abandoned its scepticism and joined the other papers in support of the EEC. Of Britain's national press only the Morning Star campaigned against the EEC.

During the run up to the referendum, the press either supported the `Yes' vote campaigners or ignored the campaign completely. When Tony Benn accurately revealed that almost half a million jobs had been lost in Britain since the country had entered the Common Market, and correctly predicted that many jobs would be lost if we stayed in, the papers dismissed his claim as nonsense. The Daily Mirror sneered about `lies, more lies and those damned statistics'. The Daily Telegraph nauseatingly talked about `an intellectual, moral and spiritual value' in the EEC. The Financial Times predictably quoted John Donne (`no man is an island') and argued that to leave the EEC `would be a gratuitous act of irresponsible folly'. The Guardian described the referendum as `a vote for the next century'. The Daily Mail told its readers to `Vote YES for Britain'. The Daily Express announced: `The Express is for the market'. The Sun told readers: `Yes for a future together. No for a future alone.'

In the days before the crucial vote the national papers had, between them, a total of 188 front pages. Disgracefully, only 33 of those front pages were devoted to the most important vote in Britain's history.

On the day of the vote the Daily Mail (which now, for the sake of convenience, likes to portray itself as a committed opponent of the EU) didn't even put the referendum on its front page. The Daily Mirror's front page on polling day screamed: `A Vote for the Future'. Inside, the Mirror had a picture of nine pupils at an international school in Brussels, one child from each EEC country. Eight of these wretched pawns stood together, cuddling and cosy; warmed by one another's presence and support. The ninth child stood alone, isolated and sad. `He's the odd lad out,' said the Mirror. `The boy beyond the fringe. The one whose country still has to make up its mind. FOR THE LAD OUTSIDE, VOTE YES.'

The vast majority of the material printed in the national press was supportive of the EEC and dismissive of those who questioned the value of membership. There was no debate and the result, therefore, was a foregone conclusion. The political establishment, big business and the press conspired to suppress the truth and to `sell' the electorate a ragbag of lies.

This was, in my view, the beginning of the end for the independence and integrity of the British press. Newspaper proprietors have always used their papers to promote their own views, often for their own commercial advantage, but this was I believe the first time that the British press had united to support such a sinister and dishonest purpose. If editors did not know that they were encouraging the British people to hand over their independence they were incompetent and stupid. if they knew but did it anyway then they were as guilty of treason as Heath, Rippon and the long tawdry line of British Prime Ministers and Ministers who have followed them. If any of the journalists responsible for that great betrayal are still alive they should be publicly flogged.

The result was a foregone conclusion.

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, cheated.

[ramAnag]

Blimey...I know we're going for the longest thread...didn't realise we were going for the longest post too.

[Trickytreesreds]

Blimey...I know we're going for the longest thread...didn't realise we were going for the longest post too.

Maybe not ramanag, but I have taken a lot of **** in here for my views and " conspiracy" theories about the grand plan.
The information has/is always been there, if folks stop listening to propaganda and dig it up.
The plan is real and always was. Folks simply had to ask themselves what they wanted. Federal Europe, or independence?
The only people who have benefited from the "project" are banks and the elite.
Tony Benn( socialist) saw what it meant for the working man. Labour itself did for a while, until it was hijacked by new labour and the "what's in it for me"? brigade.
If I have to suffer short term to sort this country out, then so be it. In the long term, when Spain/Portugal/Italy/Greece have imploded and the eastern bloc have sucked it dry. Folks will learn this.
That's if Merkel hasn't turned Europe into the new Caliphate in the mean time.

[ramAnag]

'That's if Merkel hasn't turned Europe into the new Caliphate in the meantime.'

Oh dear! You do realise that Muslims, despite the 'concentration' based in southern Eastern Europe, only make up about 6% of the European population don't you? That means that 94% aren't Muslim...some Caliphate.

[mistaram]

Bloody hell Tricky there's a lot there for Swales to describe selective and drivel

[swaledale]

Bloody hell Tricky there's a lot there for Swales to describe selective and drivel

Wont even bother, I'm not impressed by quantity and the ravings of a xenophobic conspiracy theorist who ignores reality do not interest me! The thing about zealots is they believe what they believe is reality, and theres no dissuading them so i will stick to debate with people who actually have a grip on reality thanks!

[swaledale]

My comment re having all the facts was in direct response to Baalocks post and was used to show the impossibility of the task. Read the post again.
My point about you not beng a risk taker, in my opinion, is one of the reasons you wanted to remain.. Status quo.. We have heard a lot from the people who voted exit of how they spent a lot of time looking at both sides of the discussion. Did you look at the positives of leaving or did you shut that door early for fear of the Unknown?
There were some, Adi for example, who did this properly. Went in with an open mind, receptive to both sides and able to cast aside the obvious BS. Again that is just an assumption based on an impression and might be way off.. Hand on heart did you ever really look at the exit argument ?
Was it just easier to stay in and hope we can change from within?

Angry are you really suggesting that voting Leave without knowing what that would mean was a risk worth taking??? I cannot believe that statement, why would anyone put their future their children's future should they have any and the country's future at risk on the bais of we hope it will turn out OK?

How is believing staying in the EU the "safe" option given the doom laden arguments by Brexit voters??? Of course its a risk, but the point those who wanted to remain make is that it is less risky than simply voting leave on vague hopes and unfounded fears!

As for those who tout the "we will maybe suffer a bit of slump then be OK" Really? On what basis is that statement made other than a vague hope that things will turn out alright!

Again I point out that the research shows that those who voted for Leave are more likely to be socially conservative and hark back to the good old days, they hate change and more specifically dislike the fact that the world is changing and they cant stop it. Well they will learn son, that the chnage will keep happening and voting leave wont have the desired effect.

[swaledale]

'That's if Merkel hasn't turned Europe into the new Caliphate in the meantime.'

Oh dear! You do realise that Muslims, despite the 'concentration' based in southern Eastern Europe, only make up about 6% of the European population don't you? That means that 94% aren't Muslim...some Caliphate.

Save your keyboard the Tricky isn't capable of coherent thoughts, if he was a muslim he'd be labelled as being radicalised!

[AngryRam]

Angry are you really suggesting that voting Leave without knowing what that would mean was a risk worth taking??? I cannot believe that statement, why would anyone put their future their children's future should they have any and the country's future at risk on the bais of we hope it will turn out OK?

How is believing staying in the EU the "safe" option given the doom laden arguments by Brexit voters??? Of course its a risk, but the point those who wanted to remain make is that it is less risky than simply voting leave on vague hopes and unfounded fears!

As for those who tout the "we will maybe suffer a bit of slump then be OK" Really? On what basis is that statement made other than a vague hope that things will turn out alright!

Again I point out that the research shows that those who voted for Leave are more likely to be socially conservative and hark back to the good old days, they hate change and more specifically dislike the fact that the world is changing and they cant stop it. Well they will learn son, that the chnage will keep happening and voting leave wont have the desired effect.

Yes a calculated risk worth taking when you believe that staying in has a greater risk.
You would be risking your children's future staying in my opinion.
We have continually said, although you and others seem incapable of understanding that there was risk on both choices. Some of us believe that leaving will give our children a better future. Strange as that seems to you, intelligent people have come to that decision.
This country has been built on bold decisions. Our decisions, our future, our choice..
Markets are on the up.. These will be cyclical, no change in or out.
In simple terms, some of us believe that the EU is a flawed concept and is at a very difficult stage.. It could go either way. The change from within that you keep banging on about.. Good luck, we have had a certain amount of success with that I suppose with not going into the euro etc but steadily these special circumstances will dissipate. As Tricky has said what we originally accepted back in the 70s bears no resemblance to what we have today. 30 plus years before we got to say enough is enough.. What will it be like before we get an opportunity to say that again. What pile of poo will I have left for my kids? Are you willing to take that risk?

[ramAnag]

Hate to make you (and me) feel even older Angry but, the seventies to 2016 is more like forty plus years than thirty plus. Your 'what will it be like before we get an opportunity to say that again' was one of my original arguments in allowing younger people to vote. After all it is their future more than ours and I'm sure many are better equipped to vote than some of the eighty somethings. As things stand any seventeen year olds who just missed out on voting in June will be on their way to 60 by your earlier reckoning. Can that be right?

[Andy_Faber]

'That's if Merkel hasn't turned Europe into the new Caliphate in the meantime.'

Oh dear! You do realise that Muslims, despite the 'concentration' based in southern Eastern Europe, only make up about 6% of the European population don't you? That means that 94% aren't Muslim...some Caliphate.

I think that's a very complacent viewpoint. Muslims' intolerance of the ways of other cultures, and the support of the well-meaning, means their impact on European society is way in excess of that.

[Trickytreesreds]

Angry are you really suggesting that voting Leave without knowing what that would mean was a risk worth taking??? I cannot believe that statement, why would anyone put their future their children's future should they have any and the country's future at risk on the bais of we hope it will turn out OK?

How is believing staying in the EU the "safe" option given the doom laden arguments by Brexit voters??? Of course its a risk, but the point those who wanted to remain make is that it is less risky than simply voting leave on vague hopes and unfounded fears!

As for those who tout the "we will maybe suffer a bit of slump then be OK" Really? On what basis is that statement made other than a vague hope that things will turn out alright!

Again I point out that the research shows that those who voted for Leave are more likely to be socially conservative and hark back to the good old days, they hate change and more specifically dislike the fact that the world is changing and they cant stop it. Well they will learn son, that the chnage will keep happening and voting leave wont have the desired effect.

Rubbish. the biggest criticisers of the european project were socialist labour. the only change in tac has been by the whats in it for me brigade. Even Corbyn, (much as I think he's a dick, has never thrown his weight behind it).
You should apply for job in the EU Swale. they pay a bonus to those supporting the project, (fact)