So? The other side said "they were justified"...
We had the choice
.
The argument at the time (Yes or No) was largely about trade (the Common Market). It doesn't sound as if you have looked at the booklet sent out by the Wilson government to referendum voters.
That was the document on which most people made their choice. Plus two campaigning leaflets which accompanied it. One leaflet was put together by the Yes campaign. The other by the No campaign.
The 'No' leaflet did warn that: "the real aim of the Market is, of course, to become one single country in which Britain would be reduced to a mere province. The plan is to have a Common Market Parliament". Laws would be passed by that Parliament which would be binding on our country. No Parliament elected by the British people could change those laws. Unless you want to be ruled more and more by a Continental Parliament in which Britain would be in a small minority, you should vote No."
You could therefore say that voters were warned. But people on the whole didn't believe it; they were told by the Yes campaign (and the government) that it was scare mongering.
I've been racking my brain over this all day since this thread went up.......but I honestly can't remember how I voted in 1975 or frankly whether I voted at all
I think I might have 'abstained' ..........it might have been the 'lefty' thing to do
I've been racking my brain over this all day since this thread went up.......but I honestly can't remember how I voted in 1975 or frankly whether I voted at all
I think I might have 'abstained' ..........it might have been the 'lefty' thing to do
I think I voted yes for the Common Market but not for the crap we have now.
I think I voted yes for the Common Market but not for the crap we have now.
The Treaty of Rome existed since 1958. So when you and the British public voted they did so with FULL awareness that a EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT existed.
From Wiki:
"
The Treaty of Rome which established the Communities specified that the European Parliament must be elected by universal suffrage using a common voting system. The Council of the European Union was responsible for setting up the elections but it had procrastinated. As a stop-gap measure, members were appointed to the Parliament by the member states from their own national parliaments, as they had done since the Common Assembly.[1] The Parliament was unhappy with this and threatened to take the Council to the European Court of Justice. The Council eventually agreed to elections and the first European Parliament elections were held in 1979 after proposals were put forward in the mid 1970s.[1][2
"
That's not correct, there are other countries that have trade agreements with the EU with none of the freedom of movement rules or having to pay large dues into EU coffers.
Yes but those countries never been part of the EU in the first place. Thus, it's easier for them to have that than it would be for the UK after leaving the union. UK would have to renegotiate everything all over again with the EU.
The Treaty of Rome existed since 1958. So when you and the British public voted they did so with FULL awareness that a EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT existed.
From Wiki:
"
The Treaty of Rome which established the Communities specified that the European Parliament must be elected by universal suffrage using a common voting system. The Council of the European Union was responsible for setting up the elections but it had procrastinated. As a stop-gap measure, members were appointed to the Parliament by the member states from their own national parliaments, as they had done since the Common Assembly.[1] The Parliament was unhappy with this and threatened to take the Council to the European Court of Justice. The Council eventually agreed to elections and the first European Parliament elections were held in 1979 after proposals were put forward in the mid 1970s.[1][2
"
I'm afraid that's typical EU to not put measures in place for years. Whilst there are those who talk about standardisation within the EU, 60 years on and total standardisation doesn't even come close to existing, not even among the founding states. The EU is one big lie and a footy game for the politicians to play at their leisure and without giving a shite for the opinion of the people, whether it's Britain, France, Germany or any other country. A giant steamroller that is running out of steam.
The Euro Parliament existed since 1958 so people knew the score. It was not rocket science.
If you let another parliament have a say, it will. We knew that.
Hardly direct elections to it only started in 1979, in 1975 your average voter wouldn't even have known of its existence and nor would those in the UK when they voted to remain in the Common Market. The UK joined the original 6 founding members in 1973.
The Treaty of Rome existed since 1958. So when you and the British public voted they did so with FULL awareness that a EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT existed.
From Wiki:
"
The Treaty of Rome which established the Communities specified that the European Parliament must be elected by universal suffrage using a common voting system. The Council of the European Union was responsible for setting up the elections but it had procrastinated. As a stop-gap measure, members were appointed to the Parliament by the member states from their own national parliaments, as they had done since the Common Assembly.[1] The Parliament was unhappy with this and threatened to take the Council to the European Court of Justice. The Council eventually agreed to elections and the first European Parliament elections were held in 1979 after proposals were put forward in the mid 1970s.[1][2
"
The voters did not have the benefit of wikipedia. They were handed a government booklet "Britain's New Deal in Europe' to help them decide. There is no mention in that booklet of a European Parliament, proposed or otherwise.
The strange thing in those days was that the left was generally anti Europe and the right pro Europe
The further right you went, the more anti you got though, so that we had the amazing spectacle of Enoch Powell and Tony Benn joining forces to oppose the "Yes" campaign.
Hardly direct elections to it only started in 1979, in 1975 your average voter wouldn't even have known of its existence and nor would those in the UK when they voted to remain in the Common Market. The UK joined the original 6 founding members in 1973.
Whether your average voter knew the minutae of the Treaties isn't relevant. There is no requirement on the voters to do so when making democratic decisions.
You are not going to suggest that the results of a general election here are invalid because the average voter is a bit hazy on the role of the Privy Council (or even of its existence), are you?
Whether your average voter knew the minutae of the Treaties isn't relevant. There is no requirement on the voters to do so when making democratic decisions.
You are not going to suggest that the results of a general election here are invalid because the average voter is a bit hazy on the role of the Privy Council (or even of its existence), are you?
I wasn't the one claiming we all knew about the European parliament in 1975 or pretending in 1975 it was the organisation it currently is. Btw no opportunity for democratic decision making was ever offered to the UK electorate on the EEC or the EU post 1975 apart from ones which were withdrawn.
Whether your average voter knew the minutae of the Treaties isn't relevant. There is no requirement on the voters to do so when making democratic decisions.
Ever considered the average politician should ensure that voters are made aware of the minutae?
You are not going to suggest that the results of a general election here are invalid because the average voter is a bit hazy on the role of the Privy Council (or even of its existence), are you?
You're merely compounding the nonsense in your first paragraph.
I wasn't the one claiming we all knew about the European parliament in 1975 or pretending in 1975 it was the organisation it currently is. Btw no opportunity for democratic decision making was ever offered to the UK electorate on the EEC or the EU post 1975 apart from ones which were withdrawn.
We have had multiple general elections since 75 in which the electorate could have chosen to elect an anti-EU (or anti-European Communities) membership majority to Parliament.
They electorate have repeatedly returned a pro-EU membership majority in successive general elections.
[
You're merely compounding the nonsense in your first paragraph.
Not at all.
If the argument is "Oh the voters didn't know what they were voting on", that is ultimately an argument that we should NOT hold referenda on complex issues since voters will never go to the trouble to understand the minutae of complex issues be they EU related, (Scottish) independence related or even voting system related.
In which case it comes down to we joined and remain a member of the EU/ECs because the voters have elected pro-EU/EC majorities to Parliament.
We have had multiple general elections since 75 in which the electorate could have chosen to elect an anti-EU (or anti-European Communities) membership majority to Parliament.
They electorate have repeatedly returned a pro-EU membership majority in successive general elections.
Ah that boring old argument. Firstly GEs aren't single issue elections and secondly Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems all support remaining in the EU.
I note you ignore the fact the electorate have never been consulted about the EU and no party ever put in its manifesto we are going to sign Treaty A or B which does X and Y.
Nope, the onus is on politicians to tell the people what's going on, voters and non-voters.
Politicians aren't going to strap voters into a chair and force them to learn the minutae of their manifestos, much less of international treaties.
How about some newspaper space laying out policy sans bullshine.
Not at all.
You're still compounding.
If the argument is "Oh the voters didn't know what they were voting on", that is ultimately an argument that we should NOT hold referenda on complex issues since voters will never go to the trouble to understand the minutae of complex issues be they EU related, (Scottish) independence related or even voting system related.
Well of course it suits politicians, and you, to create mushrooms. If you don't know what that means, it means kept in the dark and fed on bullshit.
In which case it comes down to we joined and remain a member of the EU/ECs because the voters have elected pro-EU/EC majorities to Parliament.
Yes, we are a parliamentary "democracy", where the candidates are substantially decided by party machines and elected on a minority vote. The EU "democracy" is even worse.
The EU did not exist in 1973, it just morphed itself into existence
No.
The EC was renamed the EU on 1 November 1993. This followed the Treaty of Maastricht. This treaty was negotiated by all (then) 12 member states. And ratified by their respective parliaments. Referenda were held where these legally necessary. The UK government chose not hold a referendum, because it was not legally required.
Heath and the others knowingly deceived the electorate. De-classified documents show what went on behind he scenes.
All across Europe, from riots in Greece to those protest votes for Marine Le Pen and George Galloway, we see signs of how alienated people now feel from the “political class” which rules over our lives, out of touch with the rest of us, without meaningful opposition, no longer responsive to any democratic control. I am reminded of a document I discovered in the National Archives at Kew in January 2002, when sifting through papers released under the 30-year rule relating to Britain’s negotiations to join the Common Market. It was a confidential 1971 memorandum, clearly written by a senior Foreign Office official, headed “Sovereignty and the Community”.
With chilling candour, this paper (from FCO folder 30/1048) predicted that it would take 30 years for the British people to wake up to the real nature of the European project that Edward Heath was about to take them into, by which time it would be too late for them to leave. Its author made clear that the Community was headed for economic, monetary and fiscal union, with a common foreign and defence policy, which would constitute the greatest surrender of Britain’s national sovereignty in history. Since “Community law” would take precedence over our own, ever more power would pass to this new bureaucratic system centred in Brussels – and, as the role of Parliament diminished, this would lead to a “popular feeling of alienation from government”.
It would therefore become the duty of politicians “not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures… to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community”. Politicians of all parties should be careful to conceal the fact that controversial laws originated in Brussels. By this means it might be possible to preserve the illusion that the British government was still sovereign, “for this century at least” – by which time it would no longer be possible for us to leave.
In other words, here was a civil servant advising that our politicians should connive in concealing what Heath was letting us in for, not least in hiding the extent to which Britain would no longer be a democratic country but one essentially governed by unelected and unaccountable officials.
SECRET Cabinet documents released from Whitehall this week gave a fascinating insight into the way voters were duped in the run-up to the 1975 referendum on Britain’s links with Europe.
And they reveal that official advice given to ministers in Harold Wilson’s Labour government about the full impact on the country of joining the European Economic Community, the forerunner to today’s European Union, was not disclosed to the public.
Ministers were warned that the lawmaking powers of the Brussels bureaucracy would lead to “a gross infringement of the sovereignty” of the Westminster Parliament.
And a senior official told Mr Wilson, who was then prime minister, that transferring powers to the Brussels-based European Commission threatened the “most serious attack on Parliamentary democracy with which this country was faced”.
These disturbing revelations raise fresh questions about the 1975 vote in favour of remaining in the EEC. They also add to the urgent case for a new national poll on whether Britain should quit the EU.
Comments
Wow - if all those purple areas are purple after the next election, UKIP will have a lot of MPs and I will be VERY happy
The argument at the time (Yes or No) was largely about trade (the Common Market). It doesn't sound as if you have looked at the booklet sent out by the Wilson government to referendum voters.
That was the document on which most people made their choice. Plus two campaigning leaflets which accompanied it. One leaflet was put together by the Yes campaign. The other by the No campaign.
The 'No' leaflet did warn that: "the real aim of the Market is, of course, to become one single country in which Britain would be reduced to a mere province. The plan is to have a Common Market Parliament". Laws would be passed by that Parliament which would be binding on our country. No Parliament elected by the British people could change those laws. Unless you want to be ruled more and more by a Continental Parliament in which Britain would be in a small minority, you should vote No."
You could therefore say that voters were warned. But people on the whole didn't believe it; they were told by the Yes campaign (and the government) that it was scare mongering.
Now we know better.
I think I might have 'abstained' ..........it might have been the 'lefty' thing to do
I think I voted yes for the Common Market but not for the crap we have now.
The Treaty of Rome existed since 1958. So when you and the British public voted they did so with FULL awareness that a EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT existed.
From Wiki:
"
The Treaty of Rome which established the Communities specified that the European Parliament must be elected by universal suffrage using a common voting system. The Council of the European Union was responsible for setting up the elections but it had procrastinated. As a stop-gap measure, members were appointed to the Parliament by the member states from their own national parliaments, as they had done since the Common Assembly.[1] The Parliament was unhappy with this and threatened to take the Council to the European Court of Justice. The Council eventually agreed to elections and the first European Parliament elections were held in 1979 after proposals were put forward in the mid 1970s.[1][2
"
Yes but those countries never been part of the EU in the first place. Thus, it's easier for them to have that than it would be for the UK after leaving the union. UK would have to renegotiate everything all over again with the EU.
One side was right and it wasn't the side you're on.
I'm afraid that's typical EU to not put measures in place for years. Whilst there are those who talk about standardisation within the EU, 60 years on and total standardisation doesn't even come close to existing, not even among the founding states. The EU is one big lie and a footy game for the politicians to play at their leisure and without giving a shite for the opinion of the people, whether it's Britain, France, Germany or any other country. A giant steamroller that is running out of steam.
Hardly direct elections to it only started in 1979, in 1975 your average voter wouldn't even have known of its existence and nor would those in the UK when they voted to remain in the Common Market. The UK joined the original 6 founding members in 1973.
The voters did not have the benefit of wikipedia. They were handed a government booklet "Britain's New Deal in Europe' to help them decide. There is no mention in that booklet of a European Parliament, proposed or otherwise.
The electorate voted to stay in a Common Market.
You are wilfully ignoring this fact.
The Left still are anti.
I voted "no" in '75 and will do so again in any future referendum.
The further right you went, the more anti you got though, so that we had the amazing spectacle of Enoch Powell and Tony Benn joining forces to oppose the "Yes" campaign.
Whether your average voter knew the minutae of the Treaties isn't relevant. There is no requirement on the voters to do so when making democratic decisions.
You are not going to suggest that the results of a general election here are invalid because the average voter is a bit hazy on the role of the Privy Council (or even of its existence), are you?
I wasn't the one claiming we all knew about the European parliament in 1975 or pretending in 1975 it was the organisation it currently is. Btw no opportunity for democratic decision making was ever offered to the UK electorate on the EEC or the EU post 1975 apart from ones which were withdrawn.
We have had multiple general elections since 75 in which the electorate could have chosen to elect an anti-EU (or anti-European Communities) membership majority to Parliament.
They electorate have repeatedly returned a pro-EU membership majority in successive general elections.
The onus is on voters to inform themselves.
Politicians aren't going to strap voters into a chair and force them to learn the minutae of their manifestos, much less of international treaties.
Not at all.
If the argument is "Oh the voters didn't know what they were voting on", that is ultimately an argument that we should NOT hold referenda on complex issues since voters will never go to the trouble to understand the minutae of complex issues be they EU related, (Scottish) independence related or even voting system related.
In which case it comes down to we joined and remain a member of the EU/ECs because the voters have elected pro-EU/EC majorities to Parliament.
Ah that boring old argument. Firstly GEs aren't single issue elections and secondly Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems all support remaining in the EU.
I note you ignore the fact the electorate have never been consulted about the EU and no party ever put in its manifesto we are going to sign Treaty A or B which does X and Y.
Go figure.
No.
The EC was renamed the EU on 1 November 1993. This followed the Treaty of Maastricht. This treaty was negotiated by all (then) 12 member states. And ratified by their respective parliaments. Referenda were held where these legally necessary. The UK government chose not hold a referendum, because it was not legally required.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/9233096/Europe-alienates-us-all-as-foretold-40-years-ago.html
http://www.theeuroprobe.org/edward-heath-and-a-letter-from-the-foriegn-commonwealth-office-1972/