Why Should Britain be in the EU

[LordChaverly]

Firstly the elected politicians of the time knew what was best as opposed to blokes in pubs. Secondly the question was put to the public in the referendum of 1975 and that referendum voted yes to staying in. All MP's were allowed a free vote and cross party campaigns furiously debated for and against. Unsurprisingly the nation voted yes to staying in.

 

Your first statement encapsulates a fundamental weakness of the EU, i.e. the belief that the political elites always know best and, in particular, know what the people within the EU actually want. The EU has, from the beginning, been an elite project and has been based on the assumption that the people will accept what they are given. Not surprisingly, this has resulted in a massive democratic deficit and disconnection between the elites and the EU populations. It is no wonder that the EU is now shying away from referenda on treaties, given the rejection of the constitutional treaty by French and Dutch voters and the rejection (first time round) of the Lisbon treaty by irish voters. Moreover, recent Eurobarometer surveys have shown declining support for the EU in most member states, including in supposedly 'Europhile' states such as Germany and the Netherlands. Whatever European people want, they don't want 'more Europe'. If anything, they want less of it (something the Euro-elites seem incapable of understanding).

[Mr Prime]

Your first statement encapsulates a fundamental weakness of the EU, i.e. the belief that the political elites always know best and, in particular, know what the people within the EU actually want. The EU has, from the beginning, been an elite project and has been based on the assumption that the people will accept what they are given. Not surprisingly, this has resulted in a massive democratic deficit and disconnection between the elites and the EU populations. It is no wonder that the EU is now shying away from referenda on treaties, given the rejection of the constitutional treaty by French and Dutch voters and the rejection (first time round) of the Lisbon treaty by irish voters. Moreover, recent Eurobarometer surveys have shown declining support for the EU in most member states, including in supposedly 'Europhile' states such as Germany and the Netherlands. Whatever European people want, they don't want 'more Europe'. If anything, they want less of it (something the Euro-elites seem incapable of understanding).

 

Maybe my argument is elitist. For me the political elites are well briefed people whether pro or anti, left or right. I can't stand tap room politicians and would trust a knowledgeable politician over a tap room tabloid reader any day. Sadly most British people are tap room tabloid readers and nothing more. I suspect most Europeans are average tabloid readers too. I don't see anything wrong therefore of respecting opinions based on solid knowledge.

 

However it would be brilliant if the population could have a referendum but only if the population had witnessed a dry and calm debate and knew the facts. If anyone thinks this is possible with today's media I'd like to know how.

[Phoenix One]

I noted references to the 1975 referendum. Here is a quote from a site, and I will supply a link for those interested in viewing the actual documents of the day. However, note I will be replacing "http" with "xxxx". Having just joined I cannot supply a ful link just yet.

 

Quote:

 

1975 Referendum on the United Kingdom's continued membership of the Common Market

It is nearly 25 years since the U.K. electorate was last consulted on the U.K.'s relationship with the European Union (as it is now). At last we now stand to be consulted again: on membership of the EU's Economic and Monetary Union, if and when the Government recommends joining.

 

In 1975 a referendum was held in the United Kingdom, asking whether the electorate wished to remain part of what was then the Common Market. It is a common misconception that this referendum was on whether Britain should join - this is not the case, as Britain was already a member.

 

The referendum was a manifesto commitment of the Labour party under the leadership of Harold Wilson. The Labour party was elected to form Her Majesty's Government and duly held the referendum.

 

The main purpose of this site is to host an online version of the pamphlet distributed to every household by the Government in support of the Government's recommendation that people should vote in favour of staying in. The aim is to provide proof of what the British people were told about membership of the Common Market on the occasion they were last consulted. It demonstrates just how far the European Union has 'progressed' as a political project since then.

 

Please use this link to see the pamphlet text. Scans of the original document should be available soon.

 

The question that was actually 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 House of Commons had voted (9 April 1975) on staying in on the new terms:

396 in favour (70.0%), 170 against (30.0%).

 

Earlier polls had asked:

"If you could vote tomorrow on whether we should stay in the Common Market or leave it, how would you vote?"

Average results: 33% stay, 41% leave, 26% don't know.

 

In Feb 1975 the question was altered to:

"If the Government negotiated new terms for Britain's membership of the Common Market and thought it was in Britain's interest to remain, how would you vote - to stay or to leave?"

Results: 53% to stay, 22% to leave, 25% don't know.

 

The above information is apparently available in:

"The 1975 Referendum" by David Butler and Uwe Kitzinger. ISBN 0-333 662990-3

See my transcript of the the pamphlet HERE

 

link: xxxx://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/index.html

[andyofborg]

Your first statement encapsulates a fundamental weakness of the EU, i.e. the belief that the political elites always know best

 

hasn't that been the fundamental weakness of every political structure over the last 6000 or so years?

[Phoenix One]

A lot has happened since 1975.

 

Back then, we traded with Europe.

 

Nowadays, we're controlled from Europe.

 

If there was a referendum tomorrow, I suspect most people would want us out.

 

A ComRes poll was conducted and released on 28 October 2010 on that very issue.

 

73% of the public don't believe that Britain's contribution to the EU of £48 million a Day is a good value for money, and shows that 75% of the British Public want a Referendum on the EU.

 

Link xxxx://www.comres.co​.uk/eureferendumpoll​oct10.aspx

 

Note: replace "xxxx" with "http".

[Phoenix One]

Well, to be fair you include in your post something asking for the act of treason to be brought back - well it never went away, treason is still an offence.

 

Interestingly, there has never been a section of the treason act that would include taking us into Europe. The only way that would be possible would be if it included getting rid of the monarchy, and even then since the act would have to be signed by the monarch it would still not come under any historical treason definition.

 

So any admission of treason by heath and blair (in relation to europe) are in your mind, and are not real.

 

Oh, and do not insult other posters.

 

I did not state I started the thread, just that certain facts came to light within said thread. It was actually started by "Ben of the North", and what it was really looking at was repeals made under the Blair government. Many posts were made under the thread, including from USA posters who at the time lost their MSN forum and invaded ours. However, the important thing to note was allegations made were supported by directly accessing our Parliament's own archives. Within debates in House of Lords references were actually made to point that the government wanted the Treason Acts repealed because they knew that actions being pursued ammounted to treason. These are a matter of public record within Parliament archives.

 

Further, there were over a thousand actions for treason filed with courts, and all were dismissed as not being in the public interest. They were not even reported, but the actions filed remain on record, all of them.

[Longcol]

 

Further, there were over a thousand actions for treason filed with courts, and all were dismissed as not being in the public interest. They were not even reported, but the actions filed remain on record, all of them.

 

That only proves that there are a thousand nutters in the UK, nothing else.

[Phoenix One]

That only proves that there are a thousand nutters in the UK, nothing else.

 

And on what basis did you arrive at this conclusion? Because they filed actions against the MP's for treason? You don't even know who they were or what evidence they submitted to support their allegations.

[Phoenix One]

Do you have some references for the thousand cases, I would be interested in seeing them.

 

Would have to dig them up, but should not take long to dig up a couple. In mean time here is an extract taken from our Parliament archives.

 

Quote:

 

7 Mar 2005 : Column 475

 

the Treason Act 1817, which was repealed in part by the Treason and Felony Act 1848, so it was dealt with relatively swiftly.

 

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, was the 1351 Act one that applied to the United Kingdom? If not, I wonder why it should be an important part of the law of the United Kingdom today.

 

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are grateful that that Act was followed by a number of other Acts that sought to bring it into force. To help your Lordships, there was the Treason Act 1351, the Treason Act 1702, the Treason Act 1842 and the Treason and Felony Act 1848, which all amplified our splendid common law offence, so Scotland is safe.

 

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I suppose that this could not possibly have anything to do with the fact that European Union Commissioners affirm an oath of allegiance to the European Union. If they do so, they swear allegiance to somebody other than Her Majesty the Queen, which I understand would in itself be treasonable.

[Mr Prime]

And on what basis did you arrive at this conclusion? Because they filed actions against the MP's for treason? You don't even know who they were or what evidence they submitted to support their allegations.

 

Do you really believe these letters were written by serious people? A thousand letters accusing MP's of treason sounds like the usual green ink crank brigade who follow MP's around with their tedious hobby horse approach to life.