20years ago you laughed at me, you are not laughing now , Farage tells EU Parliament

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: smurfy
The thing is, Harold Wilson realised in the 1960's that Britain could no longer go it alone any more. IMHO, he was/is right. Colonialism was knackered, the EEC was the ideal replacement in the face of advances of the rising sun

Agreed, the EEC which the people voted for in a referendum, not political union.

That was later, in 1975. Harold Wilson appplied to join the EEC twice in the 1960's and he was rejected twice by veto of Charles De Gaulle, for no other reason than De Gaulle wanted an EEC package for French peasant farmers sewn up first.
Ted Heath then put Britain into the EEC illegally, because there should have been an election or a referendum for that purpose. That's why Harold Wilson initiated a 1975 referendum..but in retrospect, which ended up also illegal, because the wording was calculated as, 'staying in' when the reality was that Britain was not legally in the EEC in the first place according to British law. Apart from that, Heath lied about sovereignty, he admitted that at some stage later.
Harold Wilson's referendum didn't make it right really, since the EEC's long term goal was also for political union as well. In the dodgy wording of the 1975 referendum, it's pretty clear that Harold Wilson also knew that problem of sovereignty. So, as far as sovereignty goes, the truth is, we were never part of the EU, however Heath signed documents with the EEC, that are legally binding. Who's going to sort that out?

a reply to: smurfy

Semantics, the EEC was the only entity voted for in a referendum before last week. It will only take an act of parliament to leave, article 50 is a con doing it under the terms of the EU.

...it'll never happen of course but thats the reality if a UK government had the balls right now lol

a reply to: gortex

His boorish behaviour was a disgrace to the UK

a reply to: AMPTAH

Stuff and bloody nonsense.

Do you know how many young people in my country can afford to just sod off and go abroad to work? I will tell you right now, it's a bloody small number. It costs an awful lot of money to take advantage of that sort of opportunity, and most people between the ages of eighteen and thirty have no bloody chance of getting it done in the least. Most of us are scraping by at best, because uni tuition fees have SCREWED even graduates, leave alone those who didn't quite make the cut.

Unrealistic twaddle is what that is. Most of the people who go abroad to work have to be offered a metric crap ton of money and a place just to make it worth doing! You really haven't got the first bloody clue what you are talking about! The only exceptions to that, are university graduates in physics, chemistry and genetics. CERN will have them at any cost,will pay stupid amounts of money and expedite virtually any paperwork that needs doing to get a prime mind in. Other than that, it's a bloody prohobitive thing to do, moving away from home.

For the majority of people, those without university qualifications and an obsession with the Starbucks brand, it's a total non starter unless you have already made your money, and really do not require more of it anyway.

Can't stand Farage. Anybody that voted based on the promises and campaign rhetoric of a politician whichever side of the spectrum they're on is quite frankly an idiot.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: smurfy

Semantics, the EEC was the only entity voted for in a referendum before last week. It will only take an act of parliament to leave, article 50 is a con doing it under the terms of the EU.

It's not semantics at all in reality, it's part of what is written of our constitution. What was voted for in 1975 was for eventual political union, except that voters didn't know, besides that, Heath brought Britain into the EEC illegally.. knowing just that according to British law.

Precedents,

The 1689 Bill of Rights contains the following oath: `I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority within this Realm.

That bill is unrepealed to my knowledge, probably used at times in the relatively recent past even.
Now Heath is gone, and so is Harold, and probably most of their governments, however Heath, and his government were signees to the EEC document/s and those documents are legally binding in just about any law, nothing to do with leaving, sovereignty or sod all else.
That makes the EU, entitled if they wished, to make things pretty difficult for Britain in a legal fashion, as a matter of honour even. So far I don't see those ideas coming to the fore from the EU, but someone in the EU might make a point of order.

a reply to: smurfy

Behave, that was never the understanding in the 70's so why are you making out it was a clear and honest deal worthy of defending now?

a reply to: smurfy

Our pre-existing law, as you quoted from your post there, trumps and makes INVALID our membership of the EU as it stands today. They cannot make things difficult, because our laws pertaining to foreign power exerted over this land are more potent and have greater weight than any difficulty they can hit us with.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: AMPTAH

Stuff and bloody nonsense.

Do you know how many young people in my country can afford to just sod off and go abroad to work?

You know there's a bit of a paradox in what you say.

I don't doubt that you are right, in some sense.

But, what I have to wonder about, is how do the others do it?

I mean, all those immigrants poring into London to take away the British jobs, they aren't rich either.

So, something doesn't add up.

If the EU made it so easy to move around and work, so much so that England saw a problem with all the migrants coming in, how come there aren't some similar flow of migrants going out?

How does some poor guy with nothing on his back come all the way from the middle east to europe to find work, but a Brit that is right there can't pick himself up and hop the English Channel?

This is a bit of a puzzle.

The swarm of migrants from North Africa into Europe "proves" that people can be mobile when they want to be, even when they have nothing but the clothes on their backs.

What on earth does a North African have over a Brit? Does he have more "energy", more "imagination", more "will", or what?

I refuse to believe that the average Brit is any less capable than the average migrant in picking himself up and finding the best place to pay him a wage.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: smurfy

Behave, that was never the understanding in the 70's so why are you making out it was a clear and honest deal worthy of defending now?

Eh! An honest deal is the last thing I am talking about, then or now, however our politicians were those that deceived, in that particular time.

If you don't believe me, go and look it up. That has nothing to do with the EEC/EU itself, stance then and now.
If you want more, go and look up Any possibility of American involvement in the creation of the EU...in a word or three, just go looking with your own keywords.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Well for a start there is no way any law abiding person, not driven to extremes by running for his or her life to escape war, is going to strap his or her self to the underside of a Lorry and make for France.

Most British people want a job and a home here, because this is their homeland, and unless it's burning and blood soaked, there are not as many push factors to drive them out. Their government tells them they must work, and refuses to do its bit to create jobs, creating victims to malign in the press, rather than creating instead the kind of work that pays a person a proper salary, and insisting that all work pays. It still does not now, unless one happens to be lucky, a factor which many complaining right wing ninnies forget about the life we live.

A friend of mine is going to be leaving this country on a madcap adventure to Thailand, Veitnam, and other places along the way, with the intention of winding up in Canada at some point. She's worked for a solid decade in jobs she could actually afford to stay in if she wanted it easy, to wind up the bundle of money to go on this backpacking expedition. She's going to be doing it on the cheap, got contacts out there where she can lay her head in the various nations and towns she will be visiting. But all of this took a lot of planning and sacrifice, such that she's living in the leaky room above the bar she manages at the moment.

It wasn't something she did when she was eighteen and looking for work. Why? Because she couldn't bloody well afford to sod off to another country, hell she couldn't afford to get on a bloody ferry to Ireland, leave alone go anywhere else back in the day. I remember the little scamp, tea leafing people's leftover drinks at the pub when she was not technically allowed to be in the pub, not a penny in her pocket worth a crap, desperate to start making money so she could see the world.

You don't go abroad to make your fortune. You have to make a fortune to get abroad these days.

a reply to: smurfy

Yeah I've looked it up and would be happy with the EEC back then not the political union which is the EU.
It is why I voted leave.

originally posted by: rottensociety
a reply to: woodwardjnr
Rubbish, other countries aren't laughing, in fact they are more likely to follow our lead now.

Given that it now became painfully clear that the Brexit camp have no real "exit" scenario at all, and the negative impact it has on the British economy so far, I don't think anybody within his/her right mind would vote "out" in other countries at this moment.

What we learned from all this is that when you consider leaving you need a plan first, and it needs to be supported by the population, on beforehand. If not, you get idiots that think that their personal agendas are that of the nation and they start harassing innocent hard-working people because they are now seen as "foreigners". Shame on them, but who's to blame idiots if there is not even a plan A, let alone plan B..

In fact, that's the main problem with "crowd based binary decisions" like these: the crowd decides - in my opinion mostly on an impulse, certainly when you regard this from the greater perspective of 66 years of EU success - AGAINST something, where it actually should vote IN FAVOUR of something.

You may feel that's a detail, something of no importance - but it is important! if the UK population would have had access to a plan (or a series of plans) that outlined what steps their Government would take if the Brexit would become a fact, they would have had the option to choose in favour of a plan instead of simply, often alas dumb and deaf to reason vote "in" or "out". It would have required them to understand the plans, and instead of focusing on the EU, it would have forced focus on the British responsibility to have a good plan for their future. It would totally have prevented the current chaos and uncertainty.

But discussing a plan is not what the crowd wants to do. They mostly want to reduce complex problems to binary options: Brexit? yes/no. Foreigners? out/in. Free money for all? yes/no. etc. There. Done. And let the ones that you don't trust - your government - figure out the rest, we're off to the pub, we are..

So, if my country ever will decide about a Nexit, I will certainly point out the need for a clear plan, and perhaps even a plan B and C, and will insist that the question we ask our people should not be: "leave the EU", but "To which plan on what our nation will do in the future can you agree". And that, in essence, is what Parliaments do, so actually, you don't even need a referendum..

The main issue has not gone away, my British friends. Parliaments should reflect the will of the people - and because they often don't, the people feel mislead. That's the problem, and it is the very same one in Britain as it is in my country. So, to solve the problem, we don't need a referendum. We need parliament to be in touch with the population, we need mandatory policital education of the population - for starters, choose a political party, become a member and educate yourself.

Nigel Farage has been standing up in the EU Parliament against the Lisbon Treaty ever since Gordon Brown signed it in 2010 without giving us a referendum. Farage has fought long and hard, been jeered at by idiots and now we have had the referendum denied to us before. He deserves some respect.

He was allowed to stand in front of the EP, spit out his unpleasant rhetoric, offend the members there triumphantly (and rather childishly IMO). They did rightfully booo and hiss (it reminded me of Westminster), but the chairmain ended that and he then was allowed to speak freely. That's all the respect he needs, or any other person that represents a part of a population.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: smurfy

Yeah I've looked it up and would be happy with the EEC back then not the political union which is the EU.
It is why I voted leave.

Well, you haven't looked it up at all, because if you had, you would realise that the EEC was part and parcel of a political union even then, that's why Heath lied.

originally posted by: Nonvexatious

His boorish behaviour was a disgrace to the UK

Yes, totally agree. However, the sucking up by the Scottish (nationalist) MEP was also a bit embarrassing. One balances the other.

Also, Jean-Claude Juncker is also a bit of a disgrace. If there is one reason to leave the EU it is Juncker, IMHO. He embodies the problem of the EU.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: smurfy

Our pre-existing law, as you quoted from your post there, trumps and makes INVALID our membership of the EU as it stands today.

Of course it does, but that's my whole point, Edward Heath had only two options in regard to that 1689 bill of rights, the only way he really could properly deal with joining the EEC under that constitutional bill, was (1) dissolve parliament, and have an election, and (2) a peoples referendum. He did neither of those things, and just allowed the house of commons to vote the EEC in an unconstitutional act, with a false premise, that false premise being that it was simply a common market affair, when it was not. He knew that, his advisors knew that, his private secretary knew that, how much the whole government knew is a subject of conjecture, but Harold Wilson certainly knew that, despite his referendum, and because his referendum at the time was worded to, 'remain in' it was also a false premise, because the proper legalities were not done in the first place by Heath.
Wilson simply tried to make it look the proper procedure, not that most people knew the proper procedure anyway, but still the referendum was done retrospectively, and should never have been.

However the big thing when you say this,
"They cannot make things difficult, because our laws pertaining to foreign power exerted over this land are more potent and have greater weight than any difficulty they can hit us with."

is that Heath signed the treaty documents with the EEC, and those documents are legal in law..a legal contract, and that included a political alliance as we now see.

Knowing that, it's easy to see that Cameron totally fecked us up with this last, 'remain/leave' referendum, never mind that it was also false, never mind that it still means nothing even when it needs to be ratifed in the house of commons, (not much mainstream talk about that BTW) which will be a falsehood...(in the same way it was done falsely for entry into the EEC)
The ball is actually in the EU''s court, and we are the offender's, though I dare say they will make light of that original scrap of paper...so likely no big court case, but the single market is much more than a whisker away for us as we have seen already, there is no way the ethos of the EU is going to be compromised.

a reply to: smurfy

If his signature on the document was an act of treason, and fraudulent in that he had no authority to sign without the prior consent of the people, that invalidates our membership.

It is impossible to consider any kind of contract valid, when signatory to it is a violation of the law.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: smurfy

If his signature on the document was an act of treason, and fraudulent in that he had no authority to sign without the prior consent of the people, that invalidates our membership.

It is impossible to consider any kind of contract valid, when signatory to it is a violation of the law.

That's what I have been saying with all these piggin' posts! Scream!

Another thing I mentioned, Boris...I knew he would crap himself...and run, the slimeball. Donald will likely be next, and also leave a mess in the US.