4 ms·

This is a Brexit lie based on a superficial change of name - the constitutional basis of the European Union is specified in the 1957 treaty of Rome and the late

by derriz 7y ago

This is a Brexit lie based on a superficial change of name - the constitutional basis of the European Union is specified in the 1957 treaty of Rome and the later Maastricht treaty (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rome). The treaty of Rome explicitly states that the goal is the creation of a single market for goods, labour, services, and capital. This was the foundation of the union that the UK voted to join by plebiscite in the 1970s. The UK - a representative democracy - also ratified the subsequent Maastricht Treaty by democratically elected parliament. The idea that the British people were somehow subjected to a “bait and switch” con job is simply a fabrication and demonstrates historical ignorance.

dfawcus 7y ago
Yes the nature of the organisation has largely stayed the same, during its name changes: EEC -> EC -> EU. We joined a political union, which had goals at the time to create the SM, and a single currency. However the UK did not vote to join in a plebiscite. We joined in 73, and had a referendum on leaving in 75. I'd suggest that the issue in the UK was in part that the changed nature of our constitution after joining was never explained in schools (no Civics classes). Plus almost all discussion of it domestically tended to use the phrase "Common Market". So we ended up creating a generation who were naturally eurosceptic, and were quite surprised by the changes post '94 once the EU emerged, and the single market reforms came in to existence. Basically a lot of the people in that generation were not aware that we had joined a political union, with a level of law and government above that of the nation state. The generation before (who voted in '75) should have known that. The various institutions of state (government, civil service, courts, judges, etc) knew. However that general ignorance existed (and still exists), it being reflected in our MPs, where a lot of them still (after 3 years of confusion) still do not understand the nature of their (and our) relationship with the EU.

by derriz 7y ago

dfawcus 7y ago

Yes the nature of the organisation has largely stayed the same, during its name changes: EEC -> EC -> EU. We joined a political union, which had goals at the time to create the SM, and a single currency. However the UK did not vote to join in a plebiscite. We joined in 73, and had a referendum on leaving in 75. I'd suggest that the issue in the UK was in part that the changed nature of our constitution after joining was never explained in schools (no Civics classes). Plus almost all discussion of it domestically tended to use the phrase "Common Market". So we ended up creating a generation who were naturally eurosceptic, and were quite surprised by the changes post '94 once the EU emerged, and the single market reforms came in to existence. Basically a lot of the people in that generation were not aware that we had joined a political union, with a level of law and government above that of the nation state. The generation before (who voted in '75) should have known that. The various institutions of state (government, civil service, courts, judges, etc) knew. However that general ignorance existed (and still exists), it being reflected in our MPs, where a lot of them still (after 3 years of confusion) still do not understand the nature of their (and our) relationship with the EU.