ARTICLE 50. NOW THE SERIOUS DEBATE BEGINS.

[Phil Perry]

I decided, in my non-infinite and debatable wisdom; to put up this thread title, since the 'European Divorce Case. . .' channel was getting a little, well. . 'Diverted' ?. . . I decided to do this . . .with encouragement from another RF commenter, as this subject is now going to bring up some interesting stuff. . .well,. . for us in the UK, primarily, with the 'Commonwealth' as a winner if it doesn't get sidetracked and 'Over - Drifted' too much.

 

I'll kick it off with a short video from my good friend Patrick Condell, a very intelligent narrator who has the ability to speak his mind without any notes or teleprompter. . . I've known him personally for around ten years. . . but he really upset me last week, whilst we were having a ruby murray, by saying n an off-handed way that my position was geopolitically, slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan ( whoever he is. . .) ! !

 

Bloody cheek I said. . . . I threw my teddies out of the pram and insisted that HE buy the next round, the smarmy barstard . . . SO. . I countered with:

 

'Why don't you get a better recording studio with decent soundproofing mate ?. . .most of your vids sound like they're done in your bloody garage with a tin roof. . .( They are mostly ) AND, I continued. . .for Gawd's sake wear a bloody proper shirt and tie you scruffy Git'. . . . jeeze . . .

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I'm quite surprised at Richard Dawkins comments in the link provided there, I accept he probably swings Left, but always took him for being a more balanced observer of life's things otherwise.

 

Mind you, like many Lefts, he has never worked a real day in his life nor worried about where his next pay day is coming from.

 

His comments are just dumb, because all that he is accusing the Leavers for, also apply directly to the Remainers, status quo, and it's just pure arrogance and bigoted to determine otherwise.

 

 

[old man emu]

My opinion: The Great Repeal Bill.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

FCO 30/1048: . . . Edward Heath knew that it was treason.

 

This classified government document dated April 1971 remained secret until it was released under the 30 year rule. It proves Heath's government knew the 1972 EEC Treaty would lead to the loss of sovereignty, and was therefore treason. They had a stunningly accurate picture of the EU, which never was the EEC (an Economic Community), expecting Britain to be abolished after the turn of the century.

 

The authors, all civil servants or ministers, are very pro EU, their intent is clearly to conceal the loss of sovereignty. But they understood perfectly it would all be abolished.

 

In public Heath's government all lied the treaty would not affect our sovereignty. This includes Douglas Hurd, still an active senior Conservative, who is also both a liar and a traitor, a point we put to him at the Conservative Conference in Blackpool. He assured us his connections in the legal profession would ensure he was never convicted.

 

Here are just a few of the damning sentences:

 

Parliament controlled

 

11. Membership of the Communities will involve us in extensive limitations upon our freedom of action.

 

For the first time. Parliament is binding its successors.

 

Increasing loss of sovereignty

 

The loss of external sovereignty will however increase as the Community develops, according to the intention of the preamble to the Treaty of Rome "to establish the foundations of an even closer union among the European peoples ".

 

Small threats to sovereignty, like Burgess, Blunt and Maclean's selling secrets to the Russians, attract 30 year jail sentences. The penalty for actually loosing even small parts of it until 1998 was "to hang by the neck until dead."

 

King Charles 1st was executed for treason that was, by comparison, relatively minor.

 

Lord Haw Haw (“Germany Calling” - William Joyce) was hanged for treason on 3rd January 1946. His efforts on behalf of Germany were tiny by comparison with Edward Heath’s.

 

Our law subservient

 

12. (ii) The power of the European Court to consider the extent to which a UK statute is compatible with Community Law will indirectly involve an innovation for us, as the European Court's decisions will be binding on our courts which might then have to rule on the validity or applicability of the United Kingdom statute.

 

The writ of a foreign power is not allowed under the British Constitution, which Heath was breaking.

 

Predicting monetary and military union

 

18..but it will be in the British interest after accession to encourage the development of the Community toward an effectively harmonised economic, fiscal and monetary system and a fairly closely coordinated and consistent foreign and defence policy. If it came to do so then essential aspects of sovereignty both internal and external would indeed increasingly be transferred to the Community itself.

 

No withdrawal, sovereignty diminished

 

22. Even with the most dramatic development of the Community the major member states can hardly lose the "last resort" ability to withdraw in much less than three decades. The Community's development could produce before then a period in which the political practicability of withdrawal was doubtful. If the point should ever be reached at which inability to renounce the Treaty (and with it the degeneration of the national institutions which could opt for such a policy) was clear, then sovereignty, external, parliamentary and practical would indeed be diminished.

 

Disinformation

 

After entry there would be a major responsibility on HMG and on all political parties not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures or unfavourable economic developments to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community.

 

Transfer of the Executive

 

24 (ii) The transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feeling of alienation from government.

 

Erosion of sovereignty

 

24 (v) ...The more the Community is developed ... the more Parliamentary sovereignty will be eroded. ...The right ... to withdraw will remain for a very considerable time. ...The sovereignty of the State will surely remain unchallenged for this century at least.

 

The EU Bureaucracy will rule

 

25. The impact of entry upon sovereignty is closely related to the blurring of distinctions between domestic political and foreign affairs, to the greater political responsibility of the bureaucracy of the Community and the lack of effective democratic control.

 

The writers understanding of the future of the EU was bang on. They wanted the bureaucracy to take over from the democracy. The loss of sovereignty was desirable for them, legally traitors working deep inside our government.

 

* * * This article Re-appeared in mainstream media websites on the runup to the Referendum; it was pulled after a few hours, and never actually printed in any newspapers.

 

 

[storchy neil]

My opinion So that shows that the so called educated idiots misled the peasants about time the peasants stopped bowing and stand up and question the science off fools at the top Neil

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I'm quite surprised at Richard Dawkins comments...like many Lefts, he has never worked a real day in his life...

Bex you might like to ponder that statement, which I've too often seen tossed at the educated.

 

After a lifetime working in a dozen different industries, using my aching muscles as well as my brain, perhaps I am qualified to comment on what work actually is. I can tell you none of those jobs approached the sheer hard work of studying for my Masters, while working full time and trying to keep the rest of my life going.

 

Do not underestimate the mental discipline required to get to where people like Dawkins are- and don't forget the demanding jobs that many students do to work their way thru Uni.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

which I've too often seen tossed at the educated.

I did not use those terms, you seem to have some paranoia?

 

After a lifetime working in a dozen different industries, using my aching muscles as well as my brain, perhaps I am qualified to comment on what work actually is.

And I don't see you going off on rants similar to Dawkins, or other institutionalized career people such as Politicians, Public Servants etc who go off on Far Left rants, who have never had to be concerned where their next pay cheque comes from.

 

Coincidentally, just yesterday a good Mate of mine with an engineering business (Australia) was telling me he couldn't get a good CNC guy for a project and settled for a Professor from RMIT part time (that should tell you something to begin with) who applied, the Prof lasted 3 days when he realised he couldn't work at his own slow pace, and stop for a chat and a coffee every half an hour.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I did not use those terms, you seem to have some paranoia?...

Oh Dear, Bex. I really value much that you post here, but you seem to have some baggage involving our education system. Just don't take it out on people like me who burned themselves out doing their best to improve the lives of the kids in their care.

 

I have often heard this quite derogatory expression tossed at people who got thru our uni system. (I haven't the time or patience to search your posts to see if you have ever used it).

 

Your suggestion that I'm paranoid I find offensive, but courtesy is rare in the Trump era.

 

...And I don't see you going off on rants similar to Dawkins, or other institutionalized career people such as Politicians, Public Servants etc who go off on Far Left rants....

"going off on rants". What does that actually mean? Is that when someone eloquently expresses an opinion contrary to your own?

 

...who have never had to be concerned where their next pay cheque comes from....

This is a recurring theme. You have a point.

 

I'm one of the lucky Baby Boomers. After growing up with poverty and hard work, I got a career with permanency. That wasn't given to me. Most of my classmates left early and got jobs, bought cars and had a pretty good life. I was in my thirties before I caught up with most of them financially.

 

As a salaryman, I might have been protected from market forces, but as an employee, all my creativity and drive went into my work. There were no perks or bonuses, no free flights, etc. In four decades I never so much as received a rail ticket. My employer benefitted enormously from my innovations, yet I didn't even receive a thank you.

 

I always paid full price when buying tools, materials, vehicles, travel, etc. No tax deductions or good deals.

 

I have no investments beyond my home, which I built myself.

 

We need people like yourself, who innovate and create new businesses. In turn, they need to respect the people their businesses rely on.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Bex. but you seem to have some baggage involving our education system.

OK, I didn't say a word about the education system, only alluding that it holds people who have been in it from Primary School to Retirement who don't know how the real world works, but happy to tell everyone how they should behave according to their perfect world. - and I included other similar careers, it is nothing to do with the "education system", but specifically to do with people of that ilk.

 

"going off on rants". What does that actually mean? Is that when someone eloquently expresses an opinion contrary to your own?

Why my dear OK, I respect fine eloquence in opinions and respect them with tremendous appreciation, like drinking a fine wine in a gentle breeze basking in the glow of a glorious sunset, I just wonder old chap if you could point me the way to some in this local please, I have had just a dreadful time finding them.

 

Rants = bollshot, and I don't give a rats azz if it's a PhD, or Bruce the career Level 2 Public servant saying it.

 

But if you want to keep going, then please answer me this generalization;

 

Why are White Collar generally Left leaning, and why are Blue Collar generally Right leaning?

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Perhaps that question has answered itself.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Why are White Collar generally Left leaning, and why are Blue Collar generally Right leaning?

Collars don't get much whiter than those on the Libs and their well-heeled donors.