So! Was it a Myth?

[Jim Roper]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union

[kleinboet]

I am getting tired of all this nonsense, We have not been allowed to have a referendum (by our own Incapability Brown) on the new EU reform treaty which was drawn up by the EU after the previous one was rejected by the FRENCH and DUTCH.

This was hailed as a "democratic" document by the EU who stated that if ANY country voted no "the reform treaty" is finished!!!

On the 12th June 2008 the IRISH voted no!!

Now they want Ireland to vote again (after minor changes) and give the RIGHT answer!!!

Is that democratic?

 

I notice you ignoring the fact that the finances of the EU have not been audited because of the big "black hole"!

NOW tell me that it is the best thing since sliced bread!

 

Please don't ignore BOTH questions, as either would be enough to stop wiser people investing in it if it was a business!!

Edited July 1, 2009 by kleinboet

[Guest Rabbit]

Strange that there were several stories on the TV news this morning about the directive being lifted. but no mention of it on any news website that I can find.

 

I expect this is a hoax:

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1246374122.4/

Supermarkets are the real driving force behind conformity with vegetables and similar, they have packaging and display criteria and present their fruit and veg in a very sterile manner. So it is they that are the driving force behind all this nonsense not the EU, as growers now by and large grow for the mass markets that is Tesco and the like then any fruit or vegetable that does not meet the buyers criteria are dismissed. The undeniable fact however IMO is that fruit and veg that is grown naturally tastes far better than the homeginised versions we see in the supermarkets.

[Jim Roper]

So it seems that the EU regulations/directive on 'non-standard-shaped vegetables DID exist, whether or not it was the supermarkets clout that influenced it.

 

The EU(not the Common Market) came into existance in 1993, so we could not have voted on and joined it in 1973/4/5. I voted for joining a common market, but not for a European Parliament.

 

I don't think it's just KB that may have the wrong idea of historical events.

[Alan Stubbs]

I am getting tired of all this nonsense, We have not been allowed to have a referendum (by our own Incapability Brown) on the new EU reform treaty which was drawn up by the EU after the previous one was rejected by the FRENCH and DUTCH.

This was hailed as a "democratic" document by the EU who stated that if ANY country voted no "the reform treaty" is finished!!!

On the 12th June 2008 the IRISH voted no!!

Now they want Ireland to vote again (after minor changes) and give the RIGHT answer!!!

Is that democratic?

 

I notice you ignoring the fact that the finances of the EU have not been audited because of the big "black hole"!

NOW tell me that it is the best thing since sliced bread!

 

Please don't ignore BOTH questions, as either would be enough to stop wiser people investing in it if it was a business!!

 

 

Try answering your falsehoods first.

 

I pointed out the report that the accounts HAD been audited but NOT signed off. It seems that you've reverted to your normal position and taken your personal opinion to be an historical matter of accuracy of events.There's a world of difference between that and the lies you're spouting.

 

For good order's sake let me make one thing plain so that even someone as blinkered as you can get your head around this. I am NOT 'rabidly pro-Europe' as you so inaccurately put it. But I will always challenge a point if it's based upon uncorroborated opinion masquerading as fact, such as you repeatedly put forward.

 

Something which has never been mentioned to the general public, so far as I can find - and so unlike the Kleinboets of this world, I am not going to report this as fact...

 

I attended a couple of lectures last year where the speakers - a BBC Political editor and a professor of political history, said that the principal reason the EU reform treaty hasn't been put to a referendum, nor to a party political vote, is that the Labour Party are just as factionalised over Europe as the Tories. What certainly is fact, historically, is the Labour Party were the ringleaders for the 'No' vote in the 1975 EU membership referendum and lost. To make it clear to you, KB, they didn't win and Britain became a full member of the EU - in direct contradiction to what you reported as fact in a previous post. The party political difference was that the Tories aired their dirty washing in public.

 

The 'No' votes elsewhere were just a convenient screen for the government to hide behind. It seems to be that the government have failed to seell any benefits from the reform treaty as they are outweighed by the downsides for Britain. Now, KB, do you think I'd have admitted that if I was 'rabidly pro-Europe' as you incorrectly allege?

[Alan Stubbs]

So it seems that the EU regulations/directive on 'non-standard-shaped vegetables DID exist, whether or not it was the supermarkets clout that influenced it.

 

The EU(not the Common Market) came into existance in 1993, so we could not have voted on and joined it in 1973/4/5. I voted for joining a common market, but not for a European Parliament.

 

I don't think it's just KB that may have the wrong idea of historical events.

 

 

Jim, there is an alternative way to view the EU - it is an evolution of the original organisation propounded in the Treaty of Rome.

 

You're right that what we have now is not what we were given the vote on in 1975, but the decisions taken were taken by a parliament for which we vote every now and again.

 

I have consistently referred to the EU so as not to confuse other posters given to far more inaccurate reportage than me.

 

I've copied and pasted the timeline below from Wikipedia: Structural evolvement

 

1948

Brussels

1951/52

Paris

1957/58

Rome

1965/67

Brussels

1986/87

SEA

1992/93

Maastricht

(founded EU)

1997/99

Amsterdam

2001/03

Nice

2007/ ?

Lisbon

 

European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM)

European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) European Union (EU)

European Economic Community (EEC) →

P

I

L

L

A

R

S

→ European Community (EC)

↑European Communities↑ Justice & Home Affairs (JHA)

Police & Judicial co-operation in Criminal Matters (PJCC)

European Political Cooperation (EPC) Common Foreign & Security Policy (CFSP)

 

Western European Union (WEU)

[chesters1]

Try answering your falsehoods first.

 

I pointed out the report that the accounts HAD been audited but NOT signed off. It seems that you've reverted to your normal position and taken your personal opinion to be an historical matter of accuracy of events.There's a world of difference between that and the lies you're spouting.

 

For good order's sake let me make one thing plain so that even someone as blinkered as you can get your head around this. I am NOT 'rabidly pro-Europe' as you so inaccurately put it. But I will always challenge a point if it's based upon uncorroborated opinion masquerading as fact, such as you repeatedly put forward.

 

Something which has never been mentioned to the general public, so far as I can find - and so unlike the Kleinboets of this world, I am not going to report this as fact...

 

I attended a couple of lectures last year where the speakers - a BBC Political editor and a professor of political history, said that the principal reason the EU reform treaty hasn't been put to a referendum, nor to a party political vote, is that the Labour Party are just as factionalised over Europe as the Tories. What certainly is fact, historically, is the Labour Party were the ringleaders for the 'No' vote in the 1975 EU membership referendum and lost. To make it clear to you, KB, they didn't win and Britain became a full member of the EU - in direct contradiction to what you reported as fact in a previous post. The party political difference was that the Tories aired their dirty washing in public.

 

The 'No' votes elsewhere were just a convenient screen for the government to hide behind. It seems to be that the government have failed to seell any benefits from the reform treaty as they are outweighed by the downsides for Britain. Now, KB, do you think I'd have admitted that if I was 'rabidly pro-Europe' as you incorrectly allege?

 

someone else that doesnt read nor know their history ,we (england britain UK whatever) have never been asked nor voted on joining the EU ,in 73 we joined the common market and in 75 a referendum of the people confirmed we wished to remain in the common market.

the EU never existed in either years! later came the EEC which we also never voted on ,we joined the common market and nothing more

[gozzer]

Some might be interested in this, the pamphlet that was distributed to the electorate before the 75 referemdum.

 

It makes interesting reading.

 

Then there's this.

 

 

 

 

John.

Edited July 1, 2009 by gozzer

[captain cojones]

Jim, there is an alternative way to view the EU - it is an evolution of the original organisation propounded in the Treaty of Rome.

 

absolutely correct.and thats how its viewed in other countries.

It rolls off the tongue a bit easier than...................

" the organisation that was xyz,then xyz then xyz and then e.u " dont you think?

Im not suprised there is so much confusion though......in a country where the top daily publication has a reported reading age of 8 years old..........what does that say regarding levels of knowledge/education/information?

[Alan Stubbs]

Soom might be interested in this, the pamphlet that was distributed to the electorate before the 75 referemdum.

 

It makes interesting reading.

 

Then there's this.

 

 

 

 

John.

 

 

John, the second link is more an invitation to debate the electoral system within the UK than about membership of the EU / European Community or whatever your preference for the organisation's name happens to be.

 

From a personal viewpoint I prefer the 'first past the post' system as the person polling most votes, wins pure and simple.

 

If you look at the 'single, transeferrable vote' system you could quite ften vote for one person and then have the person who polled second or even third mosts votes declared the winner if no overall majority is achieved in the first round of voting. This sounds like the rigby play-offs where the team that has a clean sweep of wins over the season could end up finishing fourth as a resultt of 2 defeats at the end of a season against teams who have won fewer games and fewer points over a longer period. It's a system loaded in favour of the underdog.