|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 13, 2022 11:57:33 GMT
Well Sandy you failed badly in those efforts to be consistent. I said Heath had all the authority from the 1970 election result + manifesto and you pretended he didn't because you supposed he'd promised a referendum as part of the campaign. A supposition by you that was false and after several pages I got even you to admit it was never made. So after you wasting several pages do you now accept that Heath had all the needed electoral authority the moment he won that election? I have no objection to being wrong. What I do find difficult, and I suppose I should be used to it, is those who pretend that what is written is not written and says something else entirely. I agree that Heath had authority to progress to negotiate, and join, with respect to the 1970 election and I have agreed that that is what it says. I repeat I have never said he promised a referendum. However that authority was tempered with the last paragraph I referred to and although you take the authority as verbatim for some reason you have difficulty understanding what the last paragraph says and the elucidation of Heath's intent given in speeches before the election. Most especially in speeches where he is expanding on what the manifesto says in order to clarify its message. Several pages are never wasted because it highlights those who are evasive in their views. Yes it very much does highlight your ever changing story on this Sandy |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 13, 2022 12:01:14 GMT
Well Sandy you failed badly in those efforts to be consistent. I said Heath had all the authority from the 1970 election result + manifesto and you pretended he didn't because you supposed he'd promised a referendum as part of the campaign. A supposition by you that was false and after several pages I got even you to admit it was never made. So after you wasting several pages do you now accept that Heath had all the needed electoral authority the moment he won that election? I have no objection to being wrong. What I do find difficult, and I suppose I should be used to it, is those who pretend that what is written is not written and says something else entirely. I agree that Heath had authority to progress to negotiate, and join, with respect to the 1970 election and I have agreed that that is what it says. I repeat I have never said he promised a referendum. However that authority was tempered with the last paragraph I referred to and although you take the authority as verbatim for some reason you have difficulty understanding what the last paragraph says and the elucidation of Heath's intent given in speeches before the election. Most especially in speeches where he is expanding on what the manifesto says in order to clarify its message. Several pages are never wasted because it highlights those who are evasive in their views. Do you have an opinion on why both Labour governments and Conservative governments each made two applications, four in all, to join the EEC? |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 13, 2022 12:11:22 GMT
I have no objection to being wrong. What I do find difficult, and I suppose I should be used to it, is those who pretend that what is written is not written and says something else entirely. I agree that Heath had authority to progress to negotiate, and join, with respect to the 1970 election and I have agreed that that is what it says. I repeat I have never said he promised a referendum. However that authority was tempered with the last paragraph I referred to and although you take the authority as verbatim for some reason you have difficulty understanding what the last paragraph says and the elucidation of Heath's intent given in speeches before the election. Most especially in speeches where he is expanding on what the manifesto says in order to clarify its message. Several pages are never wasted because it highlights those who are evasive in their views. Do you have an opinion on why both Labour governments and Conservative governments each made two applications, four in all, to join the EEC? Desperation because both had fucked the country up bigtime; they thought it was the easy way out. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 13, 2022 12:23:30 GMT
Do you have an opinion on why both Labour governments and Conservative governments each made two applications, four in all, to join the EEC? Desperation because both had fucked the country up bigtime; they thought it was the easy way out. Nah it was reality. The progressive dismantling of the empire through the 1950s ended our cartel hold on those markets and we saw significant economic decline because of our less than free access to the expanding European market. Yes we were in EFTA but it was a declining lower division. We have to have access to that European market or we are well up shit creek without a paddle. Those who want to sacrifice the UK-EU trade deal on the altar of pure sovereignty are effectively economic terrorists |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 13, 2022 12:31:23 GMT
Do you have an opinion on why both Labour governments and Conservative governments each made two applications, four in all, to join the EEC? Desperation because both had fucked the country up bigtime; they thought it was the easy way out. So where were the Captains of Industry the industrialists the Entrepreneurs and the rich and powerful people in the country? They were the heartbeat of the economy at that time. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 13, 2022 12:37:35 GMT
Desperation because both had fucked the country up bigtime; they thought it was the easy way out. So where were the Captains of Industry the industrialists the Entrepreneurs and the rich and powerful people in the country? They were the heartbeat of the economy at that time. And they failed, not that they were well led by the governments Worth a read of this report showing how our exports particularly of goods were falling in world terms throughout the 50s leading to our economic issues of the 60s researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8261/CBP-8261.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 13, 2022 14:19:21 GMT
I have no objection to being wrong. What I do find difficult, and I suppose I should be used to it, is those who pretend that what is written is not written and says something else entirely. I agree that Heath had authority to progress to negotiate, and join, with respect to the 1970 election and I have agreed that that is what it says. I repeat I have never said he promised a referendum. However that authority was tempered with the last paragraph I referred to and although you take the authority as verbatim for some reason you have difficulty understanding what the last paragraph says and the elucidation of Heath's intent given in speeches before the election. Most especially in speeches where he is expanding on what the manifesto says in order to clarify its message. Several pages are never wasted because it highlights those who are evasive in their views. Do you have an opinion on why both Labour governments and Conservative governments each made two applications, four in all, to join the EEC? Yes, becasue they all thought it was a good idea at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 13, 2022 14:20:12 GMT
Desperation because both had fucked the country up bigtime; they thought it was the easy way out. So where were the Captains of Industry the industrialists the Entrepreneurs and the rich and powerful people in the country? They were the heartbeat of the economy at that time. The Brain drain, big story at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 13, 2022 15:18:17 GMT
Desperation because both had fucked the country up bigtime; they thought it was the easy way out. Nah it was reality. The progressive dismantling of the empire through the 1950s ended our cartel hold on those markets and we saw significant economic decline because of our less than free access to the expanding European market. Yes we were in EFTA but it was a declining lower division. We have to have access to that European market or we are well up shit creek without a paddle. Those who want to sacrifice the UK-EU trade deal on the altar of pure sovereignty are effectively economic terrorists That was among the things that successive governments fucked up, we were never that good at running colonies unless it was at the end of the barrel of a gun or sword. We got access to the EEC; we were gradually and stealthily led into the EU, not just by the EU but by our very own politicians. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 13, 2022 15:21:10 GMT
Desperation because both had fucked the country up bigtime; they thought it was the easy way out. So where were the Captains of Industry the industrialists the Entrepreneurs and the rich and powerful people in the country? They were the heartbeat of the economy at that time. Running away from our shitty governments, selling out while the going was good. Joining the EEC didn't stop them |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 13, 2022 17:06:10 GMT
Do you have an opinion on why both Labour governments and Conservative governments each made two applications, four in all, to join the EEC? Yes, becasue they all thought it was a good idea at the time. "they"? do you mean the people? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 13, 2022 17:09:09 GMT
So where were the Captains of Industry the industrialists the Entrepreneurs and the rich and powerful people in the country? They were the heartbeat of the economy at that time. Running away from our shitty governments, selling out while the going was good. Joining the EEC didn't stop them Pity they didn't follow the German industrialists who had built German car manufacturing plants in different parts of the world. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 13, 2022 17:20:55 GMT
Running away from our shitty governments, selling out while the going was good. Joining the EEC didn't stop them Pity they didn't follow the German industrialists who had built German car manufacturing plants in different parts of the world. Ours just sold out or merged. The other reason is that Germany spent its Marshall Aid money wisely, your favourite post-war haven't a clue government squandered it on the wrong things. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 13, 2022 17:40:57 GMT
Nah it was reality. The progressive dismantling of the empire through the 1950s ended our cartel hold on those markets and we saw significant economic decline because of our less than free access to the expanding European market. Yes we were in EFTA but it was a declining lower division. We have to have access to that European market or we are well up shit creek without a paddle. Those who want to sacrifice the UK-EU trade deal on the altar of pure sovereignty are effectively economic terrorists That was among the things that successive governments fucked up, we were never that good at running colonies unless it was at the end of the barrel of a gun or sword. We got access to the EEC; we were gradually and stealthily led into the EU, not just by the EU but by our very own politicians. The EEC could not just continue on unchanged. We weren't led into the EU the EEC developed into the EU. Even Freedom of movement was a natural progression, if you want completely open borders for trade you need the same for workers otherwise countries with lower living standards can undercut their neighbours with no import duties to stop them. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 13, 2022 17:43:50 GMT
Pity they didn't follow the German industrialists who had built German car manufacturing plants in different parts of the world. Ours just sold out or merged. The other reason is that Germany spent its Marshall Aid money wisely, your favourite post-war haven't a clue government squandered it on the wrong things.That is one of the great historical what-ifs. Had we rebuilt the economy like Germany rather than Nationalising everything in sight and creating a cradle to grave welfare state, would we be as economically successful?. Personally, given the calibre of post war governments and the power given to the unions I doubt it. |
|
