4 ms·

> However, it is something relatively new and not what the EU started out to be when a lot of members joined up. [2] This is a lie. The Treaty of Rome of 1957(

> However, it is something relatively new and not what the EU started out to be when a lot of members joined up. [2] This is a lie. The Treaty of Rome of 1957(!) establishing the European Economic Community already contained the phrase "ever-closer union" in its preamble (though admittedly only in French, German, Dutch and Italian). > If the EU had said from the beginning, "we want to create a United States of Europe" and the people in each new member country had democratically voted for that we wouldn't be having a lot of the problems we have right now. This is exactly what the British voted to join after de Gaulle died and couldn’t keep up the resistance any longer. > It makes the affronts even more egregious when you realize EU citizens have little democratic control over the the European Commission and European Council which accounts for 2/3 of the European legislative body. This is another lie. The commission has to be accepted by the European Parliament, which directly represents the people and the council is made up of the governments of the member countries. If the people in your country have "little democratic control" over your government, there’s your problem. Hint: blaming the EU won’t help. We really don’t need the whole concept of ‘alternative facts’ over here now, too, do we?

jfaucett 10y ago
You are calling my assertions lies, when you aren't citing anything to back up any of your assertions. That's not very civil debate and won't get us anywhere. > This is a lie. The Treaty of Rome of 1957(!) .... The treaty of Paris 1951 [1] was established on the basis of economic trade in coal and steel, which was followed by The Treaty of Rome 1957 which established the European Economic Community which aimed to to do just that create an economic community. [2] Now, you can argue about what the people who set this up wanted and I'd agree many (Churchhill, Jean Monnet, etc) [3,4] did want a United States of Europe with a centralized European Army [4]. You could possibly say people voted on this since some of their leaders believed in this idea, and some of those leaders were elected in a democratic process (notably not Churchhill or Monnet) [5], but its a pretty long stretch. > This is exactly what the British voted to join after de Gaulle If you mean the EEC membership referendum of 1975, this is the actual question the Brits voted on "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?" [6]. That doesn't seem much like voting on being a member state of a United States of Europe to me. But maybe there are multiple ways of interpreting that, still newspapers referred to those in the yes camp as "pro-marketeers" or "Pro-Market" [8] which seems to suggest it was about economic trade and not so much political aspects of giving up national sovereignty. I'd like to provide you with more facts about your other assertions but I don't have the time. Maybe someone else will. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1951) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1951) 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community 3. http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet#Common_Market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet#Common_Market 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_the_United_K... 6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Commun... 7. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/from-the-archive-blog/2015/jun/05/referendum-eec-europe-1975#img-2 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/from-the-archive-blog/2...
- claudius 10y ago
  > You are calling my assertions lies, when you aren't citing anything to back up any of your assertions. That's not very civil debate and won't get us anywhere. I also didn’t cite sources for my assertion that de Gaulle died and that the UK joined the EEC, all of these things are well-known facts. But do allow me to cite my source, namely from the preamble of the 1957 treaty, here in its English translation: HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUCHESS OF LUXEMBOURG, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS, DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples, for an (unofficial, of course) translation, see for example: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_the_European_Economic_Community https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_the_Europ... or http://www.hri.org/docs/Rome57/Preamble.html http://www.hri.org/docs/Rome57/Preamble.html, the primary source at eur-lex.europa.eu seems to be down at the moment. > If you mean the EEC membership referendum of 1975, this is the actual question the Brits voted on "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?" [6]. > That doesn't seem much like voting on being a member state of a United States of Europe to me. But maybe there are multiple ways of interpreting that, still newspapers referred to those in the yes camp as "pro-marketeers" or "Pro-Market" [8] which seems to suggest it was about economic trade and not so much political aspects of giving up national sovereignty. The EEC was founded by the Treaty of Rome and literally the first sentence of the preamble of that treaty contains the phrase "ever-closer union". Please do explain how any reasonable person could think it was not about laying the foundation for a United States of Europe? You may argue that the UK-internal politics and media misrepresented the whole thing horribly, but you don’t fix that by leaving the EU.

jfaucett 10y ago

You are calling my assertions lies, when you aren't citing anything to back up any of your assertions. That's not very civil debate and won't get us anywhere. > This is a lie. The Treaty of Rome of 1957(!) .... The treaty of Paris 1951 [1] was established on the basis of economic trade in coal and steel, which was followed by The Treaty of Rome 1957 which established the European Economic Community which aimed to to do just that create an economic community. [2] Now, you can argue about what the people who set this up wanted and I'd agree many (Churchhill, Jean Monnet, etc) [3,4] did want a United States of Europe with a centralized European Army [4]. You could possibly say people voted on this since some of their leaders believed in this idea, and some of those leaders were elected in a democratic process (notably not Churchhill or Monnet) [5], but its a pretty long stretch. > This is exactly what the British voted to join after de Gaulle If you mean the EEC membership referendum of 1975, this is the actual question the Brits voted on "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?" [6]. That doesn't seem much like voting on being a member state of a United States of Europe to me. But maybe there are multiple ways of interpreting that, still newspapers referred to those in the yes camp as "pro-marketeers" or "Pro-Market" [8] which seems to suggest it was about economic trade and not so much political aspects of giving up national sovereignty. I'd like to provide you with more facts about your other assertions but I don't have the time. Maybe someone else will. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1951) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1951) 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community 3. http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet#Common_Market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet#Common_Market 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_the_United_K... 6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Commun... 7. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/from-the-archive-blog/2015/jun/05/referendum-eec-europe-1975#img-2 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/from-the-archive-blog/2...

claudius 10y ago
> You are calling my assertions lies, when you aren't citing anything to back up any of your assertions. That's not very civil debate and won't get us anywhere. I also didn’t cite sources for my assertion that de Gaulle died and that the UK joined the EEC, all of these things are well-known facts. But do allow me to cite my source, namely from the preamble of the 1957 treaty, here in its English translation: HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUCHESS OF LUXEMBOURG, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS, DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples, for an (unofficial, of course) translation, see for example: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_the_European_Economic_Community https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_the_Europ... or http://www.hri.org/docs/Rome57/Preamble.html http://www.hri.org/docs/Rome57/Preamble.html, the primary source at eur-lex.europa.eu seems to be down at the moment. > If you mean the EEC membership referendum of 1975, this is the actual question the Brits voted on "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?" [6]. > That doesn't seem much like voting on being a member state of a United States of Europe to me. But maybe there are multiple ways of interpreting that, still newspapers referred to those in the yes camp as "pro-marketeers" or "Pro-Market" [8] which seems to suggest it was about economic trade and not so much political aspects of giving up national sovereignty. The EEC was founded by the Treaty of Rome and literally the first sentence of the preamble of that treaty contains the phrase "ever-closer union". Please do explain how any reasonable person could think it was not about laying the foundation for a United States of Europe? You may argue that the UK-internal politics and media misrepresented the whole thing horribly, but you don’t fix that by leaving the EU.