Shock horror, tory makes sense

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:31 am

Too bad he 's forgotten about thatcher and her britain can be a service indistry economy.

Why has Daniel Hannan become an internet sensation? | Politics | guardian.co.uk

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:41 am

He's had a couple of mentions here, to an unaccountable lack of reaction.

I'm unsure where previous PMs come into it.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:05 am

Bill Sikes;1164368 wrote: He's had a couple of mentions here, to an unaccountable lack of reaction.

I'm unsure where previous PMs come into it.

Instead of using theb taxes from the north sea oil to invest in our infrastructure or encourage industry investing in research etc etc she used the money from the good time to put everybody on the dole and presided over the wholesale destruction of the UK as an undustrial nation believing we could survive as a service industry economy providing banking and other services to the rest of the world, software rather than hardware in IT etc etc. servicing industry rather than creating wealth by making things.

not just her fault of course but we are paying the price for that drive for wealth created out of greed and little else. labour have pursued the same line and made things worse but she let her hatred of the unions and industry get in the way of common sense IMO. Gordon Brown is a moron living in cloud cuckoo land but it;'s not entirely his fault either.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:19 am

Yet at the end of her tenure, the economy was left in reasonable shape. I tend to agree about Gordon Brown - I felt rather sorry for him when he first became PM - inheriting the humungous crisis instigated by Tony Bliar - however, I do not feel sorry for him now, as he did nothing to help, had in fact previously contributed, and then continued to contribute, to the great disaster. Yes, there was pain during the Thatcher years - however, the gain from then has been wasted, and much more besides.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:45 am

gmc;1164373 wrote: Instead of using theb taxes from the north sea oil to invest in our infrastructure or encourage industry investing in research etc etc she used the money from the good time to put everybody on the dole and presided over the wholesale destruction of the UK as an undustrial nation believing we could survive as a service industry economy providing banking and other services to the rest of the world, software rather than hardware in IT etc etc. servicing industry rather than creating wealth by making things.

not just her fault of course but we are paying the price for that drive for wealth created out of greed and little else. labour have pursued the same line and made things worse but she let her hatred of the unions and industry get in the way of common sense IMO. Gordon Brown is a moron living in cloud cuckoo land but it;'s not entirely his fault either. But what your saying between the lines my auld yin, is that GB inherited virtual collapse of the country that never recovered from the Thatcher years. I know you will come back and do the 'It was his fault as Chancellor' routine again but be fair, the legacy of Thatcher was going to take decades to repair. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. If the folk of America think that GB's handling of the finance of this country under GB is to critised, well hang around a while as Obama is about to bankrupt the States going exactly the same way.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:36 am

oscar;1164434 wrote: But what your saying {snip} is that GB inherited virtual collapse of the country that never recovered from the Thatcher years. I know you will come back and do the 'It was his fault as Chancellor' routine again but be fair, the legacy of Thatcher was going to take decades to repair

Labour inherited a fantastic economy from the Conservatives. In the interim, they have most unfortunately proceeded to ruin it.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:22 pm

Generally, Thatcher, while radical in her mission, was doing well. British Rail was overly ambitious though. the unions behaved irresponsibly forcing Thatcher to put them down. Unfortunately, we could do with stronger union powers right now. There is virtually nothing to challenge the current Government now which is riding roughshod over its electorate.

It was the dumbwit Tories after Thatcher that spoiled everything before Labour came to power.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:33 pm

Openmind: Fortunately, we can vote them out.

Thatcher chucked out a lot of babies with the bathwater but did start the country looking forward rather than back (cue apoplexy north of the border:p). Where we are in the world - oooh, I can get myself in loads of trouble here - we seem to have a lot of clout for a small island or two off the NW coast of Europe. But at present it's hard not to see us as right royally shafted. It's root and branch time - starting with education. Brown simply doesn't have the vision. Cameron might.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:51 am

Bill Sikes;1164379 wrote: Yet at the end of her tenure, the economy was left in reasonable shape. I tend to agree about Gordon Brown - I felt rather sorry for him when he first became PM - inheriting the humungous crisis instigated by Tony Bliar - however, I do not feel sorry for him now, as he did nothing to help, had in fact previously contributed, and then continued to contribute, to the great disaster. Yes, there was pain during the Thatcher years - however, the gain from then has been wasted, and much more besides.

Kind of a moot point-she did some good but she also did a lot of damage to the heart of our economy-you can't have a service economy without something to service. She was a single minded authoritarian that didn't give a toss about the damage she did. Change we needed but whether a sledge hammer was the best approach is something people will be arguing about for years

We need industry but a flexible workforce is all very well unless you are the one being kept on short term employment contracts that end just before you accrue employment rights. Her rejection of the european social contract in case it affected inward investment means that now when a multi national needs to shut a factory they shut the british one regardless of how efficient it is because it's the cheaper option. Her hostility to europe probably did more to out off inward investment than anything else-what we do have in terms of inward investment is due to eec membership-she could never see that. Her drive to build gas fired power stations ignored all the critics that north sea gas would only last about twenty years and we would end up at the mercy.

She did a lot to start blowing up the property and financial bubble that has burst now. Allowing building societies to act as banks and retail banks to act as investment banks may have seemed a good idea at the time but the banks & Bsoc that are surviving without any bailouts are the ones that stayed as mutuals or to their core business. She created a climate of greed that made and making money for money's sake a moral crusade without responsibility which allowed present day bankers to rise to the top in a fevered atmosphere where all that mattered was fast profit and be able to walk away convinced they have done no wrong. Anyone objecting was dismissed as a doom and gloom merchant. Plenty of people did object and point out where all this was going.

The idea that you could trust the money men starts with her in this country, monetarism will go down as one of the sillier ideas of the 20th century imo.

She also destroyed the tories as a viable political force-too many people think a strong leader is one that doesn't listen and surrounds herself with weaker individuals.

On the other hand it's a toss up between her and blair who is the worst prime minister. They just went on with more of the same Gordon brown as a chancellor has been an unmitigated disaster. The first thing he did was raid everybody's pension so he could cut taxes-the knock on effects of that is tremendous-the UK used to have one of the best systems of final alry schemes for industry in europe. The UK had more money invested in private pensions than the whole of europe combined-he just saw it as a iggy bank he could raid-now the only people that will have decent pension will be those working for the government or local authorities-all paid for by the few still working in private industry. The govt is terrified of the civil service unions but if nothing is done (all civil service and superannuation scheme pension are paid out of taxes there is no fund and as people live longer and longer and the working population drops in relation the expense we're heading for a nightmare of epic proportions instead of one pensioner for every four people working and paying taxes it's heading for 50/50)

He also lets companies and individuals away with not paying tax and does little to tackle the number that use tax havens.

This may be a global crisis but the effect it's having on the UK is down to him and no one else. Hes had twelve years top really **** things up.

GORDON IS A MORON.

posted by clodhopper

Thatcher chucked out a lot of babies with the bathwater but did start the country looking forward rather than back (cue apoplexy north of the border). Where we are in the world - oooh, I can get myself in loads of trouble here - we seem to have a lot of clout for a small island or two off the NW coast of Europe. But at present it's hard not to see us as right royally shafted. It's root and branch time - starting with education. Brown simply doesn't have the vision. Cameron might.

The poll tax debacle shows how deluded she had become. Cameron can't be any worse than Brown. But if the tiories get in the animosity to them up here will; probably work in the SNP's favour.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:58 am

gmc;1164943 wrote:

.

Cameron can't be any worse than Brown. But if the tiories get in the animosity to them up here will; probably work in the SNP's favour. From what I've been reading up on, it's not just the favour of the SNP the animosity between Brown and Cameron will benifit. Recruitment figures to the BNP and UKIP are rising steadilly.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 12:14 pm

oscar;1165059 wrote: From what I've been reading up on, it's not just the favour of the SNP the animosity between Brown and Cameron will benifit. Recruitment figures to the BNP and UKIP are rising steadilly.

Protest vote in scotland snp, in england bnp and ukip.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 1:15 pm

oscar;1165059 wrote: From what I've been reading up on, it's not just the favour of the SNP the animosity between Brown and Cameron will benifit. Recruitment figures to the BNP and UKIP are rising steadilly.

I think I could live with SNP. I could not tolerate the BNP though.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 4:52 pm

OpenMind;1165254 wrote: I think I could live with SNP. I could not tolerate the BNP though. That's exactly what i used to think until i decided to research them and ALL of their policies. What about UKIP?

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 5:43 pm

oscar;1165375 wrote: That's exactly what i used to think until i decided to research them and ALL of their policies. What about UKIP?

I think I would find it difficult living with the SNP in England.:wah:

UKIP. The way things are going at the moment, we're likely to become economically dependent on Europe if we aren't already. I don't know if UKIP is the right choice. If we can retain economic independence from Europe, then UKIP might be worth checking out.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 6:24 pm

OpenMind;1165414 wrote: I think I would find it difficult living with the SNP in England.:wah:

UKIP. The way things are going at the moment, we're likely to become economically dependent on Europe if we aren't already. I don't know if UKIP is the right choice. If we can retain economic independence from Europe, then UKIP might be worth checking out. I've been checking out both alot this week. I actually like policies in both parties but of course with the BNP, one of those policies is wayyyyyyy to far right for my liking. UKIP sound similar but in a more limp wristed kind of way (if that makes sense). Recruitment figures to both parties have increased dramatically in the past year especially in the north of the country.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:28 am

oscar;1165441 wrote: I've been checking out both alot this week. I actually like policies in both parties but of course with the BNP, one of those policies is wayyyyyyy to far right for my liking. UKIP sound similar but in a more limp wristed kind of way (if that makes sense). Recruitment figures to both parties have increased dramatically in the past year especially in the north of the country.

I've never had a problem with immigrants, per se. I never grew up as a racist and I don't agree with racism. But neither do I expect immigrants to subvert our culture. Up until the 2nd World War, immigrants came and blended in with our culture. It's our culture that I want to preserve.

The problem has mainly been due to segregation. Caucasian immigrants have not suffered the same abuse that the Asians and Negroids have and they mostly blended in.

Nationalist parties' racial policies are too extreme for my liking. I tend towards liberalism by nature but this problem with racial segregation and illegal immigration needs sorting out.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 3:01 am

OpenMind;1165414 wrote: I think I would find it difficult living with the SNP in England.:wah:

UKIP. The way things are going at the moment, we're likely to become economically dependent on Europe if we aren't already. I don't know if UKIP is the right choice. If we can retain economic independence from Europe, then UKIP might be worth checking out.

Eurpoe is our major trading partner try asking someone who actually does business with europe either importing or exporting what they think of ukip. If rthey get in the UK will become an irrelevant little island off the coast of europe sitting around feeling sorry form ourselves wondering where all the foreign investors went and why we no longer are a trading nation.

We can't survive as an agrarian economy nor as a service industry based one.

Next time you meet a ukip supporter remind them there WAS a referendum about whether we should join and the answer was yes. We've benefited greatly from membership. Most of the ones I've met either don't know or like to forget the fact.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:32 am

gmc;1165510 wrote: Eurpoe is our major trading partner try asking someone who actually does business with europe either importing or exporting what they think of ukip. If rthey get in the UK will become an irrelevant little island off the coast of europe sitting around feeling sorry form ourselves wondering where all the foreign investors went and why we no longer are a trading nation.

We can't survive as an agrarian economy nor as a service industry based one.

Next time you meet a ukip supporter remind them there WAS a referendum about whether we should join and the answer was yes. We've benefited greatly from membership. Most of the ones I've met either don't know or like to forget the fact.

I remember why UKIP was created. There was so much hype going on about it then. And, of course, the idea of independence is always appealing as a concept. But it's not really viable in our world now.

Things move on and times change. We are in Europe and there's no advantage from politically separating ourselves from it even if we stayed in the Market. We're not the empire we used to be and continental constitutions are the way forward at the moment.

I would like to know exactly what kind of organisation it's meant to be though. Unlike America, Europe is made up of nations with radically different constitutions.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:08 am

OpenMind;1165519 wrote: I remember why UKIP was created. There was so much hype going on about it then. And, of course, the idea of independence is always appealing as a concept. But it's not really viable in our world now.

Things move on and times change. We are in Europe and there's no advantage from politically separating ourselves from it even if we stayed in the Market. We're not the empire we used to be and continental constitutions are the way forward at the moment.

I would like to know exactly what kind of organisation it's meant to be though. Unlike America, Europe is made up of nations with radically different constitutions.

It appears to me that both the BNP and UKIP would actually attract more of the electorate if the one policy that attracts the bad press was not so extreme. You only have to mention BNP and people will automatically thing 'rascist'. If they were to tone down that immigration policy, they could attract more votors as they do actuallly have some good policies, ie, removing government targets for the police and allowing them to do their job instead of all the pc crap and the paper-work.

If UKIP toned down the policy re: Europe, again, they do have some good polciies that could get them more votes.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:14 am

gmc;1165510 wrote: Next time you meet a ukip supporter remind them there WAS a referendum about whether we should join and the answer was yes.

Can you remind me when as to when this took place, hmm?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:22 am

gmc;1165510 wrote: If {the UKIP} get in the UK will become an irrelevant little island off the coast of europe sitting around feeling sorry form ourselves wondering where all the foreign investors went and why we no longer are a trading nation.

Why should this be, then, gmc?

Does the latter "sorry" bit apply to other countries who subscribe to the EEA Agreement but are not wholly "in" the EU?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:25 am

Bill Sikes;1165992 wrote: Can you remind me when as to when this took place, hmm?

Please reassure me you are not one of the ukip people that don't believe there was a referendum? Maybe you don't remember the economic straits we were in at the time. I do, believe me it was no fun.

BBC ON THIS DAY | 6 | 1975: UK embraces Europe in referendum

Members of the "No" campaign accepted their defeat and promised to work constructively within the EEC.

Industry Secretary Tony Benn, who had come under criticism from the prime minister during the campaign, said: "When the British people speak everyone, including members of Parliament, should tremble before their decision and that's certainly the spirit with which I accept the result of the referendum."

posted by bill sikes

Why should this be, then, gmc?

Does the latter "sorry" bit apply to other countries who subscribe to the EEA Agreement but are not wholly "in" the EU?

Yes.

European Movement UK: Britain and the EU

With the majority of the former EFTA states now in the EU and others considering joining, for the UK to leave the EU to rejoin EFTA would be a bizarre and retrograde step. Given that over half our trade is with other EU countries, why would we want to put ourselves in the position of having no control over the regulations governing our largest trading markets? We would be walking away from our ability to influence EU decisions and placing ourselves on the margins of Europe, outside the largest centre of power in Europe. Our influence in the wider world would diminish and our economy would be further threatened by our being outside a powerful trading bloc capable of negotiating with the United States, Japan and China in the World Trade Organisation.

The idea of the UK joining a north Atlantic trading area has been around for longer than NAFTA itself. The British Government considered the idea of establishing a free trade area with the US and Canada as an alternative to joining the EEC in the early 1970s. The idea was rejected then because the US would be the dominant partner in any such body and because successive US Presidents preferred Britain to join the EEC.

Although Britain (like every EU member) does do substantial trade with the United States, at around 15 per cent of our total trade it is far less than we do with other EU Member States. It would be economically dangerous to turn our back on our major trading partners in order to concentrate on markets where our position is far weaker. Although the NAFTA is a market covering 400 million people, it has only three members and each of them shares at least one land border with another member state. Britain would be an offshore member, thousands of miles from the other members. In any case, it is not certain that the other NAFTA members would want us to join.

Please also reassure me you are one opf those ukip members that does not know how much we actually trade with the EU. A surprising ampunt of that trade os from factories built by inward investors manufacturing in the UK in order to gain access to the EU. Don't kid yourself nostalgia for past britain would get in the way of business. It wasn't Margaret thatcher and her brilliant policies that had inward investment flooding on to the UK it was membership of the EU.

I'm not claiming the EU is perfect but to pull out would be economic suicide. UKIP, never let reality get in the way of a good theory.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:33 am

gmc;1166029 wrote: Please reassure me you are not one of the ukip people that don't believe there was a referendum?

Do not try to use that technique on me. I am not "one of the ukip people".

Also, please do not tell me that the referendum on joining the "Common Market" was a referendum on joining the "EU". It wasn't. To say that it was is to admit a lie, pointed to by your quote from the BBC:

"Members of the "No" campaign accepted their defeat and promised to work

constructively within the EEC".

Also, please do not tell me that should the question even on part of the EU's machinery - the Lisbon Treaty - be put to a referendum, that the answer would be anything else but "no".

So. Quoting from a "European Movement" resource regarding the EEA is going to produce anything but an anti-sentiment? I doubt it.

Why are you introducing a reference to NAFTA - please do not tell me that you think NAFTA=EEA?

Show me the EU laws that say "EEA members trade at a disadvantage within the EU".

Perhaps you'll tell me where you think "nostalgia for past britain" or refer "Margaret thatcher and her brilliant policies", which have seemingly come from your imagination, are relevant to my last two previously posted questions.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:09 am

Do not try to use that technique on me. I am not "one of the ukip people".

[/QUOTE

Very pleased to hear it. Surprisingly ukip members-at least the very few I jhave met don't seem to be aware there was a referendum.

[QUOTE]Also, please do not tell me that the referendum on joining the "Common Market" was a referendum on joining the "EU". It wasn't. To say that it was is to admit a lie, pointed to by your quote from the BBC:

"Members of the "No" campaign accepted their defeat and promised to work

constructively within the EEC".

eec/eu the words are used interchangeably and if you think people at the time didn't realise that it would result in closer co-operation you are kidding yourself. The referendum was instigated by those who wanted to pull out. Much to their surprise they lost the vote. Tony Benn at least had the good grace to accept defeat and the fact that they had misread the mood in the country.

Also, please do not tell me that should the question even on part of the EU's machinery - the Lisbon Treaty - be put to a referendum, that the answer would be anything else but "no".

It undoubtedly would be no just at it will for every country in the eu. The idea that every nation will give up it's independent nationhood is a red herring, closer political co-operation union yes but not in some super state. people will just not sit still for it. We would be better off being involved in it rather than constantly threatening to run away with our ball under the delusion that anyone would actually care.

So. Quoting from a "European Movement" resource regarding the EEA is going to produce anything but an anti-sentiment? I doubt it.

Why are you introducing a reference to NAFTA - please do not tell me that you think NAFTA=EEA?

No of course not. but according to ukip we will trade freely with everyone else. Most of our trade is with europe, the idea that we can negotiate with every country within it and with the US and China and get advantageous terms is ludicrous. Joining nafta is one of the more ridiculous of te ideas put forward.

Show me the EU laws that say "EEA members trade at a disadvantage within the EU".

They accept what they are given and have to obey all the directives and have no say whatsoever in what they contain. refusing to put up with them and cease trading is not an option. They are supplicants knocking on the door of the big house hoping they will be noticed. If you think that is not a disadvantage I won't waste any time arguing with you.

Perhaps you'll tell me where you think "nostalgia for past britain" or refer "Margaret thatcher and her brilliant policies", which have seemingly come from your imagination, are relevant to my last two previously posted questions.

Britain could have been involved right from the word go but dreams of empire had our politicians kidding themselves they didn't need to change that ot would be business as usual.

Margaret Thatcher always claimed the amount of inward investment was due to her policies, the reality was without EU membership we would not have been the recipient of that investment as building factories outside the eu in a country that wasn't a member would have made no economic sense. The regional development fund did a great deal to revive our economy and it was money that would not have been forthcoming from westminster. Maggie would have left an industrial wasteland behind her. The tories may have left a stronger economy but don't kid your self being in the eu wasn't one of the reasons or that it was all due to maggie.

UKIP cling to this notion of a prosperous britain standing on an equal oar with all the trading nations of the world. the reality is we no longer have an empire and closed markets we can trade in to or a monopoly of resources and the military might to keep out competition. If we left the eu inward investment would leave us-companies build factries in estonia and the czech republic because russia is a growing market so why waste time with a nation that isn't in the eurozone-uses a funny currency and drives on the wrong side of the road and thinks it's all a game of hokey cokey?

Their economic policies suck.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:13 am

[QUOTE=gmc;1166158]Do not try to use that technique on me. I am not "one of the ukip people".

[/QUOTE

UKIP cling to this notion of a prosperous britain standing on an equal oar with all the trading nations of the world. the reality is we no longer have an empire and closed markets we can trade in to or a monopoly of resources and the military might to keep out competition. If we left the eu inward investment would leave us-companies build factries in estonia and the czech republic because russia is a growing market so why waste time with a nation that isn't in the eurozone-uses a funny currency and drives on the wrong side of the road and thinks it's all a game of hokey cokey?

Their economic policies suck. This is the part that puts me off UKIP. They appear to be seriously deluded concerning the EU.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:13 pm

The referendum for the EEC was not a referendum for the EU. This is still being called for. Just Google for UK EU referendum. The Government has stalled on it since Blair took the reins.

1975, most people hadn't heard of a European Union then, only the European Economic Market - which was a different animal with a different purpose mainly to do with trading and tariffs. I don't deny that the EU grew out of the EEC but it's not the same concept.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:11 am

OpenMind;1166377 wrote: The referendum for the EEC was not a referendum for the EU. This is still being called for. Just Google for UK EU referendum. The Government has stalled on it since Blair took the reins.

1975, most people hadn't heard of a European Union then, only the European Economic Market - which was a different animal with a different purpose mainly to do with trading and tariffs. I don't deny that the EU grew out of the EEC but it's not the same concept.

That's the kind of sophistry ukip keep coming out with. The issue was do we want to be part of europe or do we go completely our own way and stay on the outside knocking on the door trying to get in. We were paying the price for not joining in at the beginning. We had to go cap in hand begging to be let in, the price, amongst other things was our fishing industry and our spineless politicians still keep on paying it. An island nation with no fishing fleet. Don't kid yourself people didn't understand what was at stake. Our economy was a shambles, we were bankrupt and people understood only too well the consequences if the isolationists got their way. It was those who OPPOSED membership that called for and got the referendum because they thought theyb would win it. They've been bleating about it ever since. UKIP's economic policies suck, are unrealistic and it would be a disaster for the UK if they ever got to the point they could pull us out of the eu.

None of the countries in europe will go for the creation of super state with national parliaments subservient to the European one. You will notice other countries ignore directives when it suits them we seem to take on board every silly thing, complain about it and then refuse to take part in discussions that will change the way things re done. If we don't then we will still have to put up with directives from europe whether outside or in for the simple reason we need to trade with them.

Their constitutional policy would probably lead to the complete break up of the union as well, UKIP live in a fantasy world, they're a bunch of idiots.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:36 am

Originally Posted by OpenMind wrote:

The referendum for the EEC was not a referendum for the EU.

gmc;1166638 wrote: That's the kind of sophistry ukip keep coming out with.

The UKIP *may* "keep coming out with that" - however, it is perfectly true, and no "sophistry". Had people known what would happen, they would not have voted "yes" - *that's* why there's the trouble now, and no politico dare put it to the test.

gmc;1166638 wrote: eec/eu the words are used interchangeably and if you think people at the time didn't realise that it would result in closer co-operation you are kidding yourself.

They tend to be *now* (which shows ignorance). *Then*, the suggestion that we would become a "EU" was not expounded to the general population. If you think it was, you are deluded; utterly, abysmally, and hopelessly wrong.

gmc;1166638 wrote: The issue was do we want to be part of europe or do we go completely our own way and stay on the outside knocking on the door trying to get in.

No, it was *not* the issue. The issue was did we want to be part of the Common Market.

It's interesting that you mention "do we go completely our own way and stay on the outside knocking on the door trying to get in" - if we'd gone "completely our own way", how would we be "on the outside knocking on the door trying to get in"? Your words make no sense.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:50 am

posted by bull sikes

They tend to be *now* (which shows ignorance). *Then*, the suggestion that we would become a "EU" was not expounded to the general population. If you think it was, you are deluded; utterly, abysmally, and hopelessly wrong.

I was also around at the time and old enough to vote. If you think that possibility wasn't raised as an issue, especially by those opposed to our membership, you are wrong. We had already been in a free trade union-EFTA-UKIP likes to pretend people were fooled in to voting for it but the reality is very different. After the referendum was when things began to turn around, with nissan, honda and toyota and other inward investment began to show up and generate more employment and the regional development fund started to make a difference. Just drive around any industrial estate in the north east of england and in wales and scotland. It's surprising just how much came from the regional development fund.

copy of the leaflet delivered to every household.

1975 Referendum pamphlet

People were not stupid, if this recession is bad you should have been around in the seventies, inflation in double figures, high interest rates, three day working weeks and sod all prospects.

posted by bill sikes

No, it was *not* the issue. The issue was did we want to be part of the Common Market.

It's interesting that you mention "do we go completely our own way and stay on the outside knocking on the door trying to get in" - if we'd gone "completely our own way", how would we be "on the outside knocking on the door trying to get in"? Your words make no sense.

We had already been in a free trade agreement with the eu countries-we were a member of efta. It had taken some time for our application for membership to be accepted. It wasn't until post de gaulle we started getting anywhere. The question asked was DO YOU THINK THE UNITED KINGDOM SHOULD STAY IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (THE COMMON MARKET)?

The result was that 67.5 % of votes were in favour of staying in. The No campaign were left completely bemused.

I'm not suggesting the EU is some kind of fantastic panacea because it's not and there is lot wrong with it. But ukip want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and burn the house down as well. They are idiots and quite frankly so is anyone that supports them. If you find that offensive I can't say I really care.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:24 am

I'm not suggesting the EU is some kind of fantastic panacea because it's not and there is lot wrong with it. But ukip want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and burn the house down as well.

UKIP is nuts. Mad, rolling eyed little Englanders with less grip on reality than my squirrels, who at least know where their nuts come from!

They also miss the point that except for the period when we had a vast Empire we have always been closely involved with Europe, economically, politically, intellectually - in every way. Best to be inside with some say rather than outside with none.