Brexit - merged threads

[Raja Clavata]

1 minute ago, Newbie to this said:

It may imply that, I can't recall, it has been a very long time since I read it.

If it does it will only be from the side that wanted to take us in.

But the overall consensus was to hide the truth from the British people or they will never allow us to join.

We were deceived and taken into someting, with the powers who be knowing what the underlining intentions were, and that the British people wouldn't approve.

I've not read enough of it to draw a conclusion either way, I will try to soon, but I'd taken it as one persons view of what may pan out.

Isn't there a problem here though, if the take from this document is that there was a plan and we were deceived / lied to from the off then isn't that in direct contradiction to what many have stated here in that there was no blue print for the EU and it grew into the monster it is today by organic development and corruption. Surely there either was a blue print / plan or there wasn't, the two positions can't both be correct, can they?

[JohnfromUK]

17 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Why else was it filed under the official secrets act?

The Official Secrets Act was instigated to protect the officials, not the secrets.  (Words of Sir Humphrey Appleby)

[Newbie to this]

22 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I've not read enough of it to draw a conclusion either way, I will try to soon, but I'd taken it as one persons view of what may pan out.

It's far from one person's view.

 

23 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Isn't there a problem here though, if the take from this document is that there was a plan and we were deceived / lied to from the off then isn't that in direct contradiction to what many have stated here in that there was no blue print for the EU and it grew into the monster it is today by organic development and corruption. Surely there either was a blue print / plan or there wasn't, the two positions can't both be correct, can they?

I can't answer that, since reading this document, I'm under no illusions that they have always had a plan for a united federalist state, controlled by them. 

[Rewulf]

52 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Do you subscribe to the motto that "one document doth not a conspiracy prove"?

Its not really one document is it ?

Whatever the FCO document says, it was covered up until such time as it would be considered palatable by the plebs.
Whatever Monet said or didnt say, in truth , the accusation in the text played out line by line.

Where is the EEC , where is the trade agreement we joined ?
Its buried under more treaties, rules and regulations that would take someone a lifetime to read, its buried under the salaries and pension plans of circa 150,000 past and present EU employees.

You are arguing over whether they told us the ultimate aim of the Common Market was a federal superstate, with autonomy over law, finance and defence passed over to Brussels unelected career snouts.
Why ? Theyve told us recently thats exactly what they want.

Is it too much of a stretch to your imagination that thats what they always wanted ?
Faced with the facts, is it beyond imagination that Monets quote is exactly what he said, and the FCO document with Heaths blessing, WAS covered up ?

Given what we know now , which is the more likely scenario ?

[Raja Clavata]

11 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Its not really one document is it ?

Whatever the FCO document says, it was covered up until such time as it would be considered palatable by the plebs.
Whatever Monet said or didnt say, in truth , the accusation in the text played out line by line.

Where is the EEC , where is the trade agreement we joined ?
Its buried under more treaties, rules and regulations that would take someone a lifetime to read, its buried under the salaries and pension plans of circa 150,000 past and present EU employees.

You are arguing over whether they told us the ultimate aim of the Common Market was a federal superstate, with autonomy over law, finance and defence passed over to Brussels unelected career snouts.
Why ? Theyve told us recently thats exactly what they want.

Is it too much of a stretch to your imagination that thats what they always wanted ?
Faced with the facts, is it beyond imagination that Monets quote is exactly what he said, and the FCO document with Heaths blessing, WAS covered up ?

Given what we know now , which is the more likely scenario ?

I asked two simple questions:

• Is there proof that Monnet actually said what is attributed to him, again on the basis that it is being formalised into fact by a certain agenda - it's a simple question requiring a yes or no answer.
• Was there a plan / blue print all along or was there not - again a simple question best answered with a yes or no.

You've responded to my questions with a load more questions...

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, Raja Clavata said:

I asked two simple questions:

• Is there proof that Monnet actually said what is attributed to him, again on the basis that it is being formalised into fact by a certain agenda - it's a simple question requiring a yes or no answer.
• Was there a plan / blue print all along or was there not - again a simple question best answered with a yes or no.

You've responded to my questions with a load more questions...

Ive asked you to use your powers of deduction and reasoning.

Do you seriously believe they would leave irrefutable proof lying around the internet for us  ?

Occams razor ?

[Raja Clavata]

7 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Ive asked you to use your powers of deduction and reasoning.

Do you seriously believe they would leave irrefutable proof lying around the internet for us  ?

Occams razor ?

I don't think Occams razor is going to give you the answers from me you are hoping for:-P

Applying that principle to the proof of the Monnet quote - I would conclude the proof does not exist

Applying the same principle to whether or not there was a plan all along or it just happened by accident - I would conclude it happened by accident.

Both conclusions thoroughly consistent with the theory as each require less effort, coordination and therefore complication than their alternative conclusions.

[Rewulf]

51 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I don't think Occams razor is going to give you the answers from me you are hoping for:-P

Im not looking for answers, Im already happy with my position.

 

51 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Applying that principle to the proof of the Monnet quote - I would conclude the proof does not exist

I dont think you understand the principle of Occams razor.

 

52 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Applying the same principle to whether or not there was a plan all along or it just happened by accident - I would conclude it happened by accident.

Again , a strange logic...

 

53 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Both conclusions thoroughly consistent with the theory as each require less effort, coordination and therefore complication than their alternative conclusions.

When several past sources state the intention, the present regime states the intention, and the evidence confirms  the intention, you conclude the present state was an accident ?
Im done... like I said , tunnel vision..

[Raja Clavata]

34 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Im not looking for answers, Im already happy with my position.

 

I dont think you understand the principle of Occams razor.

 

Again , a strange logic...

 

When several past sources state the intention, the present regime states the intention, and the evidence confirms  the intention, you conclude the present state was an accident ?
Im done... like I said , tunnel vision..

Good because your constant judgement on ones understanding, logic and sporadic glimpses of intelligence are all rather tiresome. Judgements I suspect you have no formal qualifications in to justify making.

[Rewulf]

Just now, Raja Clavata said:

Judgements I suspect you have no formal qualifications in to justify making.

Doesnt seem to stop you making judgments on people though does it ?
Like I said, you are not interested in hearing an opposing argument because you believe yourself to be intellectually superior, so will never see the argument from the other side, the 'big picture ' if you will.

To say I have no formal qualifications to have an opinion on you, therefore I cant have one, is again, narrow minded, but thats OK, because it is , just my opinion, theres no need to be upset about it.

For a supposedly intelligent man, you are not very good at debating, but obviously I need a Phd in clinical psychology before Im allowed that opinion, so I best not say it 

[Raja Clavata]

11 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Doesnt seem to stop you making judgments on people though does it ?

And you then go on to do / say what, yet again, priceless.

Read back through what you just posted, you really couldn't make it up. And you have the front to judge my logic and reasoning but hey, it's your right.

Sounds like you've indirectly confirmed my suspicion was correct.

PS - citing occams razor really was analogous to a negligent discharge (into ones own foot)

[Rewulf]

5 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

PS - citing occams razor really was analogous to a negligent discharge (into ones own foot)

 

2 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

I don't think Occams razor is going to give you the answers from me you are hoping for:-P

Applying that principle to the proof of the Monnet quote - I would conclude the proof does not exist

So you say , but are you 'qualified' to make the assumption ? 

In the absence of concrete proof or evidence, or a full confession, you are left with theories and assumptions, therefore..

The fact that, as I said , both the FCO document , Monets alleged text, and if you want to bring Kalergis many texts on it, predicting the EUs rise to superstate status, and the undeniable fact that this is exactly what happened, and is happening still, with various members of the EU hierarchy telling us this is what they want to continue happening.
One could assume that this is what was always planned.

But no, you go for it being a complete accident, totally unintentional ?

If thats what you want to believe thats fine, carry on.
But it makes no difference to the state of play, just a tangent that now days makes it more important to escape it.

[old man]

5 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

 

Isn't there a problem here though, if the take from this document is that there was a plan and we were deceived / lied to from the off then isn't that in direct contradiction to what many have stated here in that there was no blue print for the EU and it grew into the monster it is today by organic development and corruption. Surely there either was a blue print / plan or there wasn't, the two positions can't both be correct, can they?

Does it really matter, the end result is the mess we find ourselves in now?

Either path implies corruption and duplicity surely?

[Raja Clavata]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

 

So you say , but are you 'qualified' to make the assumption ? 

In the absence of concrete proof or evidence, or a full confession, you are left with theories and assumptions, therefore..

I'm quite sure my list of qualifications wouldn't change your opinion of me and besides my first aid certificate recently expired 😛

The fact that, as I said , both the FCO document , Monets alleged text, and if you want to bring Kalergis many texts on it, predicting the EUs rise to superstate status, and the undeniable fact that this is exactly what happened, and is happening still, with various members of the EU hierarchy telling us this is what they want to continue happening.
One could assume that this is what was always planned.

And that's fine but if you recall this all started out from me pointing out that there appear to be two opinions on how we got to where we are and they both can't represent the truth. 

But no, you go for it being a complete accident, totally unintentional ?

You're misquoting me, I didn't say a complete accident, I said accident on the basis that the alternative implies a complicated theory of conspiracies and whatever else. It almost implies a clandestine organisation that spanned numerous nations and a few generations of people in various offices of influence. All a bit too illuminati-esque for me.

If thats what you want to believe thats fine, carry on.
But it makes no difference to the state of play, just a tangent that now days makes it more important to escape it.

Agreed on the last bit, the key question though is how do we get out of this mess in an acceptable manner and that is the crux of where our opinions differ significantly. You might well have it another way but at the root of all this I am not pro-EU, anti-Brexit yes, but not pro-EU.

 

17 minutes ago, old man said:

Does it really matter, the end result is the mess we find ourselves in now?

Either path implies corruption and duplicity surely?

Agreed it doesn't really matter except that I was querying the authenticity of the Monnet quote and therefore the validity of using it to promote Brexit based on it being claimed to be a fact.

[Newbie to this]

12 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

You're misquoting me, I didn't say a complete accident, I said accident on the basis that the alternative implies a complicated theory of conspiracies and whatever else. It almost implies a clandestine organisation that spanned numerous nations and a few generations of people in various offices of influence. All a bit too illuminati-esque for me.

Are you forgetting that it has already been tried twice in the not so distant past, we, with help from our allies stopped it both times, with any luck, we will thwart it a third time.

[oowee]

Reporter to Brexit party candidate; You are a single agenda party you don't even have a manifesto. 

Candidate;  What's the point they are not followed anyway. 

🙄

Edited May 13, 2019 by oowee

[pinfireman]

9 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

You answered point A yourself (they did not expect Leave to win).

Regarding B, I believe they included it in their manifestos as they believed that is what the public wanted to see (based on the referendum result). I'm sure some did and would still try to thwart it but based on the points I have raised above I expect the parties went along with it somewhat blindly unaware of the difficulties that faced them. Yes, they have royally messed it up but I can't go along with the notion that they deliberately set-out to thwart it collectively - too much of a stretch for me. Conspiring together to foil the democratic will of the people is political suicide, they are stupid not that stupid, surely. That said, it may end up with the same result / outcome regardless.

They included it in their manifestos, because they did not want the public to believe they were the "bad guys"...............which they were! Which ever one of the two main parties showed direct opposition to Brexit, would have committed political suicide......but they still intended to thwart the will of the people. And for that, they should be booted out of Parliament! We did not struggle for centuries, to get universal suffrage, only for a bunch of political crooks to take it away from us.  Wherever I go, and whoever I talk to, I have never seen such anger against the government AND the Opposition!  Whatever happens now over Brexit, you can bet your bottom dollar that scalps will be taken at the next General Election. 

9 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

I would suggest that when you read his works, based on your inclination you will either believe it and take it as fact or be a bit skeptical and prefer to see proof.

The problem here is that a passage attributed to him is being lauded as fact and used as anti-EU lobbying - isn't that precisely the kind of thing Brexiteers accused Project Fear of?

Anyway as far as I can tell there is no PROOF he said this. Here is a paste from a blog for someone who has spent a lot more time looking at it than me (to be transparent this is an anti-Brexit blogger).

JEAN MONNET - WHAT HE DID AND DIDN'T SAY

 

A comment in support of a pro-Brexit letter in The York Press claims that Jean Monnet, said to be one of the founding fathers of the EU, had proposed the creation of a super state effectively by stealth. I have never heard this and I am not an expert on M. Monnet and everything he ever uttered, which I assume was quite a lot in his 91 years (he died in 1979).

 

The commenter, someone going by the handle 'Pastpractice', apparently quoting Monnet, said:

"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." 

Attributed to Jean Monnet Founding father of the European Union

The above is the doctrine followed by all the leaders of the present day E.U.

 

This did not sound quite right to me, especially since the original Treaty of Rome explicitly calls for ever closer union, so I was interested to see if it was true or just another myth. If I Google the quote, one of the hits is this blog (HERE).  The blog author has done a lot of work to try and verify the quote but cannot find an original text . He does trace a reference to it on another blog post written in 2009 (HERE) by a Phillip Jones, who claims it was written by Monnet in a letter. But the letter cannot be found apparently. 

 

 

The quote is also found in a book by Vaclav Klaus 'Europe: The shattering of illusions' although he claims it was in a speech by Monnet in 1952. But the blog author traces what seems to be the speech given in 1952 but nowhere in it are the words attributed to him.

In another Google hit I find this at the New World Encyclopaedia (HERE)

"The following quote is often attributed to Jean Monnet; in fact it is a paraphrase of a characterization of Monnet's intentions by British Conservative Adrian Hilton: 

"Europe's nations should be guided towards a 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."

"Monnet is reported to have expressed somewhat similar sentiments, but without the notion of intentional deception, saying "Via money Europe could become political in five years" and "… the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would … the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal." 

And in an FT article (HERE) from 2004 I find this:

Some 25 years after his death, debate is raging in Brussels over words attributed to the iconic Frenchman that appear in huge letters in an exhibition staged by the Dutch EU presidency. "Europe's nations should be guided to the super-state without the peopleunderstanding what is happening," he is alleged to have said in 1950. "This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation." It is certainly grist to the eurosceptics' mill. Yet David Price, an eminent European historian, yesterday said he had been unable to find any evidence that Monnet had ever said such a thing, and challenged the European Commission to defend their founding father's honour. 

 

So, I think it is one of those myths surrounding the EU and calling into question the motives of those who fought to create in Europe something that has undoubtedly contributed to peace, friendship and common understanding across the continent.

I left the last bit out as it wouldn't foster love and friendship on this forum...

And still NO PROOF he did not! But given his history, and his writings and speeches, the betting is that he did indeed say it! Love the bit "David Price, an eminent EUROPEAN historian"....no bias there? A bit like calling David Irving a  "Holocaust" historian.

Sorry, but there is no way  you could change my mind on this, so it might save a bit of wear on your keyboard if we continue to disagree.

[pinfireman]

9 minutes ago, oowee said:

Reporter to Brexit party candidate; You are a single agenda party you don't even have a manifesto. 

Candidate;  What's the point they are not followed anyway. 

🙄

and the reporter was.................? From which paper............? And the candidate?  My guess is that the candidate was referring to the manifestos of the major 3 parties, in which case he was correct!

22 hours ago, tandytommo said:

The answer is that  there is just 1 Brexit Party  , UKIP just lost the plot after the Tommy Robinson debacle nobody in their right mind is going to vote for them. The remain vote is split across numerous other Party's , Lib Dems . Greens, Labour, SNP  etc. I think Nige might do pretty well in this election but when it comes to a proper one (General) he'll not get a seat in the grown ups parliament.

 

 

 

"Grown ups"? Best joke on here today! 

[oowee]

1 minute ago, pinfireman said:

and the reporter was.................? From which paper............? And the candidate?  My guess is that the candidate was referring to the manifestos of the major 3 parties, in which case he was correct!

TV South west candidate was femail talking about her Brexit Party. 

[pinfireman]

On 12/05/2019 at 17:59, oowee said:

I can't see the DUP in a Brexit alliance as they can't support separation from the UK or a border option. 

Another possible outcome. If Labour and Con's don't make a deal then May will be out one way or another. Con's will implode and an election would follow. Moderate coalition grouping forms next government. 

We don't want Corbygeddon. 

After the conspiracy to screw up Brexit, how can you have a "moderate" coalition?

[JohnfromUK]

Chukka Umuna tonight on a  Change UK party election broadcast;  I quote,

" ....... so lets have a Peoples Vote and stop Britain leaving the EU."

So he will hold a vote - and stop Britain leaving the EU, apparently taking no account that the  vote might actually say "leave" - or will leave not feature in the vote?

The man is an idiot.

[pinfireman]

11 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

There is no doubt in my mind that the Brexit party will do well, probably very well in the EU elections.

I think the next General election is far too early to call.  We don't know when it will be, we don't know who will be leading the main parties, especially the Tories, and we don't know what will be in the manifestos (especially re Brexit and Labour and Tory).

 

As oowee showed, the manifestos are fiction............

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, pinfireman said:

Moderate coalition grouping forms next government. 

Moderate coalition of whom?  A coalition is between parties.  Who are the moderate parties?  How many MPs do they field?

[pinfireman]

9 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Maybe, it wouldn't surprise me, although the stated manifestos of both labour and the Conservatives was to leave the EU, how many people that would take in I don't know and time will tell. 

I just wish a Conservative leader that believed in brexit could have taken the helm after leave won the referendum, I think the UK would be in a vastly better position now and it wouldn't be long before even staunch remainers would of had to of admitted there were benefits to leaving, May must be one of the worst leaders the Cons have ever had. 

As it stands currently, if Mays deal gets through the only benefit I can see is leave and remain might not argue as much because they'll be united in agreeing Mays deal is a disaster. 

 

"and doing nothing about it?"

[oowee]

5 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Chukka Umuna tonight on a  Change UK party election broadcast;  I quote,

" ....... so lets have a Peoples Vote and stop Britain leaving the EU."

So he will hold a vote - and stop Britain leaving the EU, apparently taking no account that the  vote might actually say "leave" - or will leave not feature in the vote?

The man is an idiot.

I heard that. Made me smile.