Brexit - merged threads

[pinfireman]

4 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

If you are right on that, I am comfortable with that, though I never like the idea of coalitions (to many compromises to really 'get things done'), anything is better than a lefty remain coalition or a Corbyn hard left majority.

However - I am not at all sure you are right .......... we will have to wait that one out and see!

I think they may - they are starting from a historically low base and will pick up 'remain' votes.

Agreed on those two

And quite likely removal/severe restrictions on private ownership of guns

The Limp/Dumbs may pick up votes, but only at the expenses of the Remain parties. After all, Leavers will not vote for them, so they will split the Remain vote, as the Chukas will, opening up the way for candidates who are clearly in favour of getting us out.....in this case, The Brexit Party,  ERG Tories, and to a lesser extent, UKIP. 

I do agree that a Lab/Lib SNP coalition will put an end to country sports, and may end private gun ownership....after all, it,s the first thing they ban when they have come to power in other countries! That, and a free press!

1 hour ago, 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. 

It,s what you will get! There is NO chance of a "Moderate" coalition? 

[Gordon R]

I have said this before, but can anyone explain the rise of the Brexit Party? After all, the people who voted to leave the EU have allegedly had second thoughts and would vote remain in a second Referendum.

It would appear that voters are keen to express their wish to leave - yet again.

[tandytommo]

25 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

I have said this before, but can anyone explain the rise of the Brexit Party? After all, the people who voted to leave the EU have allegedly had second thoughts and would vote remain in a second Referendum.

It would appear that voters are keen to express their wish to leave - yet again.

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.

 

 

 

[Gordon R]

That is not what the polls are predicting.

[12gauge82]

10 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.

 

 

 

Nonsense, the polls are showing the brexit party with more support than the greens, lib dems and change UK combined. The gap is also likely to grow as the brexit party have launched from nowhere, couple that with many leave supporters are stupidly still likely to vote Conservative and Labour and your theory is blown totally out of the water. It is absolutely clear, far from what the remaniacs are saying, Brexiteers have not changed their minds! 

[12gauge82]

For anyone interested, I thought this was an interesting documentary filmed from the other side, it exposes the EUs real intentions to turn the UK into a powerless lap dog, it is well worth a watch if you have a spare hour. 

 

[JohnfromUK]

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).

 

[Good shot?]

As much as I dislike Tony Bliar, I enjoyed watching his recent interview, discussing the upcoming Eu elections and his desperation was really obvious of the Brexit party gaining the Labour votes.

I am in favour of free speech but he is one of the people I believe should not be given airtime.

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, Good shot? said:

but he is one of the people I believe should not be given airtime.

The good thing is that very few believe a word he says.  People get that way about serial liars.

[Good shot?]

I hope.

[panoma1]

30 minutes ago, Good shot? said:

As much as I dislike Tony Bliar, I enjoyed watching his recent interview, discussing the upcoming Eu elections and his desperation was really obvious of the Brexit party gaining the Labour votes.

I am in favour of free speech but he is one of the people I believe should not be given airtime.

I think many would agree with your second sentence, if you were to take 'time' off the end of 'airtime'

[Raja Clavata]

46 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Nonsense, the polls are showing the brexit party with more support than the greens, lib dems and change UK combined. The gap is also likely to grow as the brexit party have launched from nowhere, couple that with many leave supporters are stupidly still likely to vote Conservative and Labour and your theory is blown totally out of the water. It is absolutely clear, far from what the remaniacs are saying, Brexiteers have not changed their minds! 

I think it is Dominic Cummings who is on record as saying that in the original referendum there were a third of the population who were always going to vote leave, a third who were always going to vote remain and then within the remaining third there were about a fifth overall that were swingable.

When you refer to Brexiteers do you mean anyone (and everyone) who voted leave in the referendum or the leave third I refer to above?

[12gauge82]

2 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I think it is Dominic Cummings who is on record as saying that in the original referendum there were a third of the population who were always going to vote leave, a third who were always going to vote remain and then within the remaining third there were about a fifth overall that were swingable.

When you refer to Brexiteers do you mean anyone (and everyone) who voted leave in the referendum or the leave third I refer to above?

I refer to the vast majority who actually voted leave, most of those who were swingable, voted remain as every trick and horror story in the book was used before the referendum and anyone who could be swayed to vote remain would have been, I believe in another referendum their would be an even bigger leave majority. 

[JohnfromUK]

3 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I believe in another referendum their would be an even bigger leave majority.

Among those I know, I think that is true, and a number of people who either didn't vote, or didn't feel strongly and voted remain would now vote leave - simply to see democracy prevail.  My local sample (mainly laid back traditional rural area) is a fairly small part of the electorate - which is now dominated hugely by the big multicultural cities.

I think people are also coming to the views that (a) Europe has 'negotiated' in a way designed to maximise our ill effects from leaving, and not to maximise the benefits to all, (b) that much (virtually all) of the tales of disaster and horror that we were told would come about if we voted leave were simply not true and (c) that economically we are doing quite well, rather better than the overall EU, who are not having a good time.

[Raja Clavata]

38 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

most of those who were swingable, voted remain as every trick and horror story in the book was used before the referendum and anyone who could be swayed to vote remain would have been, I believe in another referendum their would be an even bigger leave majority. 

That's not how Dominic Cummings told it but fair enough.

In that case the public should use the EU elections as a vote for Brexit and, based on your reasoning, the vote for them should be well above a third, at least 40% perhaps?

In doing so they should be aware that they are voting for a WTO Brexit as this is the stated aim of Farage.

Edited May 13, 2019 by Raja Clavata

[Raja Clavata]

14 hours ago, pinfireman said:

When you read some of his works, you would find it hard NOT to believe this.....he did not believe in the nation state.   His Wiki page has been quite clearly  posted by his Europhile friends, and probably those now in Brussels.  But you can find his writings on the internet, they are hard work, and as dry as dust, but do give an insight into this man,s character.  It,s clear he often backed a loser, yet always came out as on the winning side. 

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...

[12gauge82]

19 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

That's not how Dominic Cummings told it but fair enough.

In that case the public should use the EU elections as a vote for Brexit and, based on your reasoning, the vote for them should be well above a third, at least 40% perhaps?

In doing so they should be aware that they are voting for a WTO Brexit as this is the stated aim of Farage.

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. 

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Just now, 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. 

Undoubtedly, but with such a poor opposition she can carry on doing effectively NOTHING!

[Raja Clavata]

14 hours ago, pinfireman said:

If the MPs did not set out to deliberately thwart Brexit, why did they  a. vote FOR a Referendum, and   b. why did the two main parties include Brexit in their manifestos, which their MPs went along with? 

Surely the truth is that they expected Remain to win, and when that did not happen, they conspired together to  foil the democratic will of the people, and threw their dummies out of the pram! If so, that is unforgivable, and they should pay by losing their seats at the next General Election? Whichever party wins that election, the Remoaner MPs should be booted out! If they cannot be trusted with delivering Brexit, they cannot be trusted to lead this country!

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.

[Raja Clavata]

6 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

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. 

Agreed, I think the risk, from a party political perspective was that someone with belief in a WTO Brexit might have taken over (as is their fear now and in the future). Coupled with the fact that there really aren't many credible candidates.

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. 

Again, agreed and I've said this too, not much of a consolation though.

 

I remember at the time of the GE, wondering if there were factions in the Conservative Party that would have accepted a Labour Government take over delivery of Brexit, such was the awful manner in which they performed prior to the actual election and knowing what a toxic ball of mess it presented...

[Newbie to this]

1 hour 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...

Have you ever read the FCO 10/48 document filed under the official secrets act here in the UK, most of the intentions are all spelled out in it and that was back in the 70s.

Here's a link

https://www.dropbox.com/s/m3860q91f7vvg04/FCO%2B30%2B1048.pdf?dl=0

It's a very eye opening read.

[Raja Clavata]

37 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Have you ever read the FCO 10/48 document filed under the official secrets act here in the UK, most of the intentions are all spelled out in it and that was back in the 70s.

Here's a link

https://www.dropbox.com/s/m3860q91f7vvg04/FCO%2B30%2B1048.pdf?dl=0

It's a very eye opening read.

Thanks for the link, I have read excerpts but not the entire document. Eye opening indeed.

But, that's not the point here, the point is proving whether or not something attributed to someone is true or not.

Have you read the various rebuttals of us being lied to/ misled on this, including the one from Richard Corbett?

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

[Newbie to this]

4 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

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

I subscribe to the new motto "one document filed under the official secrets act, doth a conspiracy prove"

Why else was it filed under the official secrets act?

7 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

But, that's not the point here, the point is proving whether or not something attributed to someone is true or not.

But the point is, whether he wrote it or not, it seems it is indeed their aim.

Reading FCO 10/48 points that out.

9 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Have you read the various rebuttals of us being lied to/ misled on this, including the one from Richard Corbett?

I haven't, I'll have a search for it now.

[Raja Clavata]

1 minute ago, Newbie to this said:

Why else was it filed under the official secrets act?

To be honest I have no idea.

Does the document also not state that we would have stronger international standing by being part of the EU compared to not being a member?

[Newbie to this]

6 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

To be honest I have no idea.

Does the document also not state that we would have stronger international standing by being part of the EU compared to not being a member?

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.

Edited May 13, 2019 by Newbie to this