A Home cinema forum. HomeCinemaBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HomeCinemaBanter forum » Home cinema newsgroups » UK digital tv
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SOT: Have I got no news for you



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 13th 19, 11:47 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jeff Layman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 870
Default SOT: Have I got no news for you

On 11/06/19 22:02, Java Jive wrote:
On 11/06/2019 13:05, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 11/06/19 12:23, Alex wrote:

Also, people voted in 1975 to join (not remain in) a European economic
community, not a political union. The two are quite different.


The referendum in 1975 asked "Do you think that the United Kingdom
should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?" (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membershi p_referendum)

But there was a remarkably disturbing hidden agenda behind that
referendum. The vast majority do not know of that lie (for that is what
it was, on a scale which leaves the current argument over our donation
to the EU budget a minor distraction),


Rubbish, see below ...


In your opinion, but hardly anybody else's.

have never been able to read it,
or simply don't want to know. If anyone is interested you can read the
background here (sorry that's it's a pro-leave website):
http://www.acasefortreason.co.uk/fco-30-1048/


No matter, it just claims to reproduce a series of documents, and
probably does so ...

That website discusses Foreign Office document FCO 30/1048, which
related to the matter of sovereignty, and which was declassified in
2002, but not apparently well discussed at the time.The site provides a
link to the official document:
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/acft/FCO+30+1048.pdf
(NB it is a big download - 240Mb).


First, my guess for how the PDF was created is by somebody requesting
copies from the appropriate authority (National Archive?) and then
feeding them through a scanner with an Automatic Document Feeder,
because each page is an image scan of the documents with no text content
that can be searched, or selected and copied - this is what you get
with some modern scanning software when you select PDF as the output.


All pdfs of the document obtainable on the internet which I have looked
at appear to be the same (probably a scan from a print, or maybe direct
scan from microfilm/microfiche?). The quality is poor, and it is
possible that even modern OCR software would have difficulty converting
it to a searchable version. For what it's worth, the document appears to
have been created in November /2007, using an Epson Perfection V10/V100
scanner. This was a single page scanner. I do not understand that date
being on it - it is neither the original date of declassification
(2002), nor the more recent Brexit-related material in 2016. It is of
note that the 1975 Wilson Cabinet Minutes (see below) have been scanned
and OCR used fairly successfully. It is possible to search that document.

No **** Sherlock! But I do have a reason for mentioning this seemingly
obvious point, because *both* the web-page and the PDF contain the
*same* error, a rather obvious one. Presumably the original mistake was
in the PDF, and that, rather than the original copies, was what was used
to create the web page. Alternatively, the mistake was in the copies,
in which case the government source cocked up, but I think the former is
more likely. Either way, whoever created the web page must have either
used OCR and then read through the result to correct it, or else
sight-typed it him/herself, yet, interestingly, neither that person nor
yourself appear to have noticed this rather obvious error - it
suggests a lack of critical faculties being engaged. And no, I'm not
going to mention what the error is, do your own homework.


I'm sure there are many errors in it. There are obvious corrections as
well. As mentioned above, I doubt even current OCR software could deal
with the poor quality of many of the pages, and most certainly not in 2007.

It's worth reading. One question worth asking (and I don't know the
answer) is why such an important document, particularly at this time,
remains so little known, and is difficult to get hold of. The official
National Archive website
(https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11018818) states:

"Ordering and viewing options

This record has not been digitised and cannot be downloaded.

You can order records in advance to be ready for you when you visit Kew.
You will need a reader's ticket to do this. Or, you can request a
quotation for a copy to be sent to you."


I'm not familiar with the usual process for obtaining de-classified
government documents, so can not say how this compares with other cases,
but the documents (there are many separate documents in the one PDF) are
available by you being sent copies, so are not exactly difficult to
obtain. Nor are they important documents, nor particularly worth
reading, which might explain why they're not more readily available.


Why do you think that FCO-31-1048 is not an important document? I
haven't seen anyone else with that view, and certainly the original
authors knew exactly what they meant. No doubt the Government at the
time agreed with them. For what other reason would they classify a
document as "confidential" and keep it hidden for 30 years?

For those who didn't bother to read either the PDF or the web-page, the
documents date from the early 1970s and discuss issues of sovereignty in
the run up to our joining the EEC in 1973, both real sovereignty as it
actually existed, and what now we'd probably call 'virtual' or
'imaginary' or 'perceived' sovereignty as it was, and still is,
incorrectly imagined to exist in the minds of many Britons, and the
difference between these and between what the documents call "the
realities of power", the latter being what really matters. The context
of these discussions are to draft a fact-sheet on sovereignty to be made
available to the public. I have not been able to obtain a copy of the
final fact-sheet that was published, but AFAIAA neither has anyone now
claiming that there was conspiracy to mislead the British public at the
time of accession and/or at the time of the later referendum, so it's
difficult to see how they can make such a claim.


What would be the point of keeping the FCO document confidential and
publishing a fact sheet explaining it? I can't help being cynical, but
it seems to me that a "fact" sheet would have been anything but, by
putting a "sovereignty isn't that important" spin on its conclusions.
And this is from your reference to the article in the Telegraph ("Harold
Wilson was warned"...etc), which notes:

"In a meeting three months before the 1975 referendum, Mr Wilson was
urged by his ministers to inform the British people that membership
would seriously compromise Britain’s ability to govern itself.

In the event, the Government’s official pamphlet explaining the
referendum gave no such warning – and instead assured voters that the
“essence of sovereignty” would be protected by staying in."

So if that was the explanatory document the public was to receive before
the 1975 referendum it not worth the paper it was printed on.

Because it's very detailed and legalistic, it's near impossible to find
quotes that make points representatively yet briefly, and short of
quoting the whole document, which would be massively impractical and
unnecessary as you can read it for yourself, almost anything quoted
could be accused of being selective and out of context. Nevertheless,
to have any sort of meaningful debate, it is necessary to try ...

"Historically, sovereignty was originally invoked to describe the powers
of the ruler within his State. External sovereignty, on the other hand,
has been primarily a negative matter of denying the existence of any
external sovereign authority, with consequent emphasis on equality and
independence."

So internal sovereignty exists, external sovereignty doesn't, but what
really matters is the realities of power. Here are some quotes on that:

"The technical legal aspects of sovereignty, both internal and external
(particularly the latter), must not be confused with the realities of
power. Ultimately it is the latter which count. There may be a tendency
that, in proportion as the facts about the realities of power are
unpalatable, so emphasis on and interest in the comforting and
reassuring legal aspects of sovereignty increases."

In other words, as people don't like to accept that we are no longer a
world superpower but just a middling nation, so they cling like Linus'
comfort blanket to an abstract concept of 'sovereignty', a concept which
has no existence in the reality of world politics, as the next quote
makes clear:

"... questions of power and influence have a close popular connection
with ideas of sovereignty. The British have long been accustomed to the
belief that we play a major part in ordering the affairs of the world
and that in ordering our own affairs, we are beholden to none. Much of
this is mere illusion. As a middle power we can proceed only by treaty,
alliance and compromise. So we are dependent on others both for the
effective defence of the United Kingdom and also for the commercial and
international financial conditions which govern our own economy. But
this fact though intellectually conceded, is not widely or deeply
understood; instinctive attitudes derive from a period of greater
British power."

Note the word "instinctive", in other words most people regard the issue
emotionally rather than rationally.

So in summary, internal sovereignty comes from the monarch acting
through Parliament, external sovereignty doesn't actually exist, and
what matters is that we are a middling nation of limited power that
needs to cooperate with other nations both for both self and mutual
interest.


I have no argument with your summary of some of the text in the
document, but it is the whole rather than its parts we should be
considering. Why go to the effort of producing such a document if the
government wasn't going to release its findings? Were they so scared of
public opinion (even if, in their view, it was a mistaken, old-fashioned
view of sovereignty) that they wanted to suppress the views on
sovereignty for 30 years?

To come now to the central allegation. Was the public deceived about
'loss of sovereignty' either at the time of accession or at the time of
the 1975 referendum. No. Like most Brex**** bull****, this is a myth.
Even the Torygraph admits this, quoting from Hansard at the time:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...new-what-we-w/

"No, Britain wasn't lied to when we joined the EU. We knew what we were
getting into
[...]


So what? It may have been discussed in Parliament, but in general, the
British public do not get home from a day's work and scrutinise Hansard.
It is not clear - at least to me - if the MPs had seen the document and
were discussing it, or had formed their own opinions on what joining the
CM might have meant and led to.

As Conservative MP Enoch Powell told parliament in his speech during
October 1971’s marathon six-day parliamentary debate on Britain’s
accession to the European Community: “I do not think the fact that this
involves a cession — and a growing cession — of Parliament's sovereignty
can be disputed. Indeed, I notice that those who are the keenest
proposers of British entry are the most ready to confess — not to
confess, but to assert — that of course this involves by its very nature
a reduction of the sovereignty of the House.”

SDP founder David Owen agreed from the Labour side: “Of course that
means that one gives up sovereignty, and a lot of the debate in this
House has been focused upon sovereignty, and rightly so, because this is
a central matter to many of the people who fundamentally do not wish us
to go into Europe. They do not wish to give up any measure of sovereignty...

They do not wish to give up any power that we exercise as a nation and
put ourselves into the decision structure of other nations because it
involves compromise. It involves not always getting one's own way. It
is, however, foolish to try to sell the concept of the E.E.C., and not
admit that this means giving up some sovereignty. Of course it does, and
I believe it rightly does. I believe this is one of the central appeals
of it.”


Neither Powell or Owen were exactly trusted by the public at the time,
so anything they said would have been taken with a large pinch of salt.
Any MP can put their spin on anything they want to.

Indeed, the Daily Telegraph reported of the October 1971 debate:
“Continuing a trend, MPs turned more and more to talking about the issue
of sovereignty and tended to be rather brief on economic topics. It has
now got through to a lot more MPs that sovereignty is a vital issue.”

Where there was disagreement was over what pooling sovereignty meant in
practice. Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath argued that the
“Brexiteer” conception of sovereignty was too narrow and legalistic: “It
is right that there should have been so much discussion of sovereignty …
If sovereignty exists to be used and to be of value, it must be
effective. We have to make a judgment whether this is the most
advantageous way of using our country's sovereignty.”

MP David Waddingon, subsequently Margaret Thatcher’s last Home
Secretary, spelled it out further: “[a] country may have complete legal
sovereignty, complete power to pass whatever laws it wishes in an
attempt to control every kind of activity of its citizens, and yet be so
weak as to be incapable of protecting its people from military,
economic, or other action taken by other countries. Conversely, another
country may sacrifice quite a lot of its legal sovereignty and yet, by
acting in partnership with others, be able to exercise very much more
power and give greater protection to its citizens than it ever could and
did before that sacrifice was made.”

Margaret Thatcher’s last Agriculture Minister John Gummer agreed: “if
anyone believes that we have the same power to guide our destinies today
as we had in 1945 or in 1900 he is taking a totally wrong attitude to
life. Sovereignty is defined today as it was in 1900, but the power it
gives us is totally different. Therefore, I am not interested in
legalistic definitions of our sovereignty; I am interested in what we
can do to create a new future for ourselves. How can we control our
environment? How can we control our financial future?”

And I've already stated that, at the time of the referendum, I knew
exactly what I was voting for, as did, AFAICR, everyone I discussed it with.


Hold on a minute. You refer above to the discussions which took place in
Parliament in 1971. As I said, it is not clear to what extent MPs were
aware of FCO-30-1048. The comments they raised at the time were based on
what they saw as an inevitable progression after joining a "Common
Market" (or whatever it might become). The public may, or may not have
agreed with those conclusions. In any case, we had been trying to join
this trading group for years, and had been kept out by De Gaulle. I am
sure that the public optimism at the time (and in the 1975 referendum)
overrode any negative comments from a few Eurosceptic MPs,

And, more to the point, we are looking at two different events. The
public had no say concerning our accession in 1971. Our political
leaders decided we should join as a fait accompli (*see comment below in
next paragraph). In 1975 we were asked to rubber stamp that decision in
the referendum. But we were unaware that FCO-30-1048 even existed. You
say that everyone you spoke to at the time knew exactly what they were
voting for, but my memory is quite the opposite, and I suspect the other
comments here reflect my view. Note the referendum's distinct wording
"Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European
Community (the Common Market)?". By using "European Community (the
Common Market)". they either thought that by omitting the words in
brackets nobody would know what they were talking about, or, more
likely, specifically worded it so that the question was directed towards
one of trade only. Perhaps they thought that adding "...and move towards
further integration" might have led to too many questions as to what it
meant, even if the word "sovereignty" didn't appear. The words "(the
Common Market)" were, in fact, added at a Cabinet Meeting in March 1975:

"Discussion showed general agreement with these proposals. It was
however agreed that the words "the Common Market" should be added in
brackets at the end of the Question on the ballot paper so that it would
run:*
"Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European
Community (the Common Market)?"."

There is no further explanation. (For the 1975 Cabinet minutes see
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&u act=8&ved=2ahUKEwjftsT_iubiAhUSTxUIHRAfCBgQFjABegQ IAxAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffilestore.nationalarchives. gov.uk%2Fpdfs%2Flarge%2Fcab-128-56.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3fzz4U3K8A5jNvSpakLs3K),
in particular page 143.

*There is an interesting comment at the bottom of page 40 of the
FCO-30-1048 document (from V. 7 Conclusions and Implications, 23iv):
"The process of consultation between the Commission, Government experts,
and the European Parliament is complex. The issues dealt with are
neither "foreign affairs" nor wholly domestic to the member states.

The form of the consultations is that they can hardly be watched over by
the House of Commons as a whole - despite the flexibility of Question
Time. The result in the present member states is that Community affairs
are largely the prerogative of the executive to be endorsed _after the
event_ by the elected representative body as though in foreign affairs.
To meet this new problem the creation of a Select Committee on Community
affairs or some quite new Parliamentary device might be considered;"

So it was already recognised that "prerogative of the executive" was a
power to be reckoned with, but the FCO had no real idea how to deal with
it. It's in a somewhat parallel way that Heath dealt with us joining the
EEC - act first and then ask us if it's ok _after the event_! Perhaps
it's not surprising that the public weren't made aware of that way of
doing things by the "executive" (and, by the way, you and I no doubt
have different views on who the "executive" actually is). From the 1975
Cabinet minutes, it is quite clear that nothing had been done 4 years on
(from page 173 - "...the right course was to concentrate on improving
the arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny of Community
proposals...work could be urgently pursued to this end...". ISTM that
"urgently" must have a different meaning to the Government than to the
rest of us).

But, as so often with Brex****, when the facts don't fit, lie. Who
created this lie? Seemingly "Business For Britain":

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...democracy.html

"Business for Britain, the campaigning group which uncovered the minutes
..."


So are you saying those Minutes don't exist? Or they were reported
incorrectly by "Business for Britain"? If neither applies, then what is
your argument? Perhaps you could give a link to where the problem lies
(are you referring to Ref 2 in the Wiki article on BFB?), and it would
be possible to compare what BFB were saying and what the Cabinet minutes
actually said. (On that point note that they may not be complete; if you
look at the "Contents" for the meeting on 20th March 1975 (page 184),
you will find "1. EEC Referendum". Turn to the minutes on page 185, and
it simply states "EEC Referendum 1. This discussion was not recorded". I
wonder why they weren't recorded. No other minutes appear to be missing.)

In any case, the FCO document was exposed years before "Business for
Britain" made any comment. It was in 2002, not long after it was
released, that comments on its contents were made known by the
Eurosceptic Richard North:
http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/FCOsovereignty2.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_for_Britain

"In 2014, the group published non-peer reviewed and misleading research
on the voting record of the United Kingdom in the European Parliament
called Measuring Britain’s influence in the Council of Ministers.[2]"

So they began as they meant to continue, with lies. To return to the
Torygraph article quoting them, there is no link or reference to the
original documents, so we can't tell how selective the quoting is, but
the inflammatory language prominent throughout suggests very. Be that
as it may, as already explained, these things are a compromise. We are
no longer a world power, and to make our way in the world we have to do
economic and political compromises and trades. Being a member of the
EEC/EU is such a compromise, and most of the public at the time seemed
to understand this, and voted in, and we should respect that decision
and the treaties we have signed since.

Many lies all round. Let's open all the files, minutes, discussions,
etc, over the last 50 years or so and let us make our own minds up.

--

Jeff
  #2  
Old Yesterday, 07:15 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Java Jive[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,864
Default SOT: Have I got no news for you

On 13/06/2019 11:47, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 11/06/19 22:02, Java Jive wrote:

On 11/06/2019 13:05, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 11/06/19 12:23, Alex wrote:

Also, people voted in 1975 to join (not remain in) a European economic
community, not a political union. The two are quite different.

The referendum in 1975 asked "Do you think that the United Kingdom
should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?" (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membershi p_referendum)

But there was a remarkably disturbing hidden agenda behind that
referendum. The vast majority do not know of that lie (for that is what
it was, on a scale which leaves the current argument over our donation
to the EU budget a minor distraction),


Rubbish, see below ...


In your opinion, but hardly anybody else's.


In fact, which is what matters, see below ...

have never been able to read it,
or simply don't want to know. If anyone is interested you can read the
background here (sorry that's it's a pro-leave website):
http://www.acasefortreason.co.uk/fco-30-1048/


No matter, it just claims to reproduce a series of documents, and
probably does so ...

That website discusses Foreign Office document FCO 30/1048, which
related to the matter of sovereignty, and which was declassified in
2002, but not apparently well discussed at the time.The site provides a
link to the official document:
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/acft/FCO+30+1048.pdf
(NB it is a big download - 240Mb).


First, my guess for how the PDF was created is by somebody requesting
copies from the appropriate authority (National Archive?) and then
feeding them through a scanner with an Automatic Document Feeder,
because each page is an image scan of the documents with no text content
that can be searched, or selected and copied* -* this is what you get
with some modern scanning software when you select PDF as the output.


All pdfs of the document obtainable on the internet which I have looked
at appear to be the same (probably a scan from a print, or maybe direct
scan from microfilm/microfiche?). The quality is poor, and it is
possible that even modern OCR software would have difficulty converting
it to a searchable version. For what it's worth, the document appears to
have been created in November /2007, using an Epson Perfection V10/V100
scanner. This was a single page scanner. I do not understand that date
being on it - it is neither the original date of declassification
(2002), nor the more recent Brexit-related material in 2016. It is of
note that the 1975 Wilson Cabinet Minutes (see below) have been scanned
and OCR used fairly successfully. It is possible to search that document.


The fact that it is a single page scanner is an interesting and
important point, but still you've missed the fairly obvious error, which
has nothing to do with OCR, see below ...

No **** Sherlock!* But I do have a reason for mentioning this seemingly
obvious point, because *both* the web-page and the PDF contain the
*same* error, a rather obvious one.* Presumably the original mistake was
in the PDF, and that, rather than the original copies, was what was used
to create the web page.* Alternatively, the mistake was in the copies,
in which case the government source cocked up, but I think the former is
more likely.* Either way, whoever created the web page must have either
used OCR and then read through the result to correct it, or else
sight-typed it him/herself, yet, interestingly, neither that person nor
yourself appear to have noticed this rather obvious error* -* it
suggests a lack of critical faculties being engaged.* And no, I'm not
going to mention what the error is, do your own homework.


I'm sure there are many errors in it. There are obvious corrections as
well. As mentioned above, I doubt even current OCR software could deal
with the poor quality of many of the pages, and most certainly not in 2007.


As it happens, currently I'm spending most of my evenings scanning
through a trunk full of ancient MacFarlane documents going back
centuries - including, would you believe, even a parchment (animal
skin) dating to the reign of Queen Anne - so I don't need a lecture on
OCR.

The error I was referring to is more serious by an order of magnitude,
it's one or more pages missing between pages 14 & 15 (PDF Reader page
numbers) of the PDF pages that are there. It's fairly obvious on both
the PDF and the web-page because there is a break both in the sense and
in the sub-headings numbering, but slightly more obvious on the PDF
because the full stop is missing at the bottom of p14, whereas the
transcriber has inserted one on the web-page - which proves that the
transcriber must have made an edit at the very point of the missing
page, but *still* not noticed it, and neither, it seems, has anyone else
since. Whatever happened to English Comprehension tests at school?

So now we have to try and deduce why there is a missing page. Before
your discovery about the scanner above, I was thinking along the
following lines:

1 ADF on scanner fed through two or more pages at once. But now we know
that it was a manual single sheet scanner, that means a human would have
had to do the same thing. Still possible, but less likely, because a
human would usually feel the difference in page thickness and weight,
but see also the further discussion below.

2 Ditto but in NA copier.

3 Redacted by NA.

4 Deliberately omitted by the group obtaining the documents from NA
because the contents of the page(s) didn't fit their agenda.

The problem with assessing both 1 and 2 is that in the PDF at the top of
each page is a cover slip, and these are clearly seen to move about as
you click through the pages, and also, less obviously, are slightly
different from each other - smudges or blemishes on one are not on
others, etc. Therefore, we must presume that, as stored in NA, each
page has its own cover slip, but there is uncertainty about how these
and the pages they relate to were supplied to the document requestors.
If they were supplied in a similar fashion as apparently they are stored
in the NA, something like this ...

-
---------------
-
---------------
-
---------------

.... then that would make it virtually impossible for the person doing
the scanning, or copying in the NA, to omit a page accidentally, because
he/she would have had to pick up three pages of two different sizes as
though they were one. On the other hand, if the copies were supplied
without omission with each cover slip and page pair on one photocopy
sheet, then picking up two pages as though they were one would be a
possible error for the person doing the scanning to make. I have
examined the PDF carefully in an effort to determine which scenario is
correct, but cannot be certain either way - for example there is a
smudge about half-way down the left-margin of every page in the relevant
part of the PDF, but whether that bit of dust was on the copier glass or
the scanner glass is impossible to say. If I was asked to guess which
format the cover slips and copies were supplied in, I'd say on a single
sheet, simply because it seems less work for the NA.

I'm not familiar with the process of obtaining documents from the NA,
but when I've seen examples of documents with redacted content
reproduced elsewhere, the pages are supplied with lines of redacted
content obscured, so I think 3 can be ruled out.

Although it is to be hoped that 1 is the correct explanation, bearing in
mind the proven tendency of Brex****ters to lie when facts prove
inconvenient to their agenda, we should keep in mind the possibility
also that 4 is the correct explanation. One way of finding out would be
for someone else to request the same document, but that would cost
money, and that I can't afford.

Why do you think that FCO-31-1048 is not an important document? I
haven't seen anyone else with that view, and certainly the original
authors knew exactly what they meant. No doubt the Government at the
time agreed with them.


They did, see below ...

For what other reason would they classify a
document as "confidential" and keep it hidden for 30 years?


Again you are blethering on about conspiracy when there's another far
more obvious and simpler explanation, which is that it's *normal
procedure* under the Public Records Act for documents to be declassified
after 30 years.

What would be the point of keeping the FCO document confidential and
publishing a fact sheet explaining it?


Oh FFS! If, as proven, *you* can't even read the FCO document fairly
and honestly, why should you expect the average voter to wade through
it? It clearly needed to be summarised briefly, clearly, and honestly
for popular consumption, as indeed it was, see below ...

I can't help being cynical


Yes, we've noticed, only I'm beginning to think more in terms of
paranoia ...

but
it seems to me that a "fact" sheet would have been anything but, by
putting a "sovereignty isn't that important" spin on its conclusions.
And this is from your reference to the article in the Telegraph ("Harold
Wilson was warned"...etc), which notes:


I've now been able to prove that that was another ******** for Britain
lie, see below ...

"In a meeting three months before the 1975 referendum, Mr Wilson was
urged by his ministers to inform the British people that membership
would seriously compromise Britain’s ability to govern itself.


That article is obviously reproducing almost without any editorial
critique inflammatory publicity material from ******** for Britain. If
any minister did speak such tosh, I'd be surprised, although the tosh
that apparently they did say was quite erroneous enough:
"gross infringement of sovereignty"
"serious attack on Parliamentary democracy"
"dismemberment of the authority of the House of Commons"
We've seen that 'sovereignty', in quotes because let us not forget that
it has no legal status or definition, is constrained by every treaty
we've ever signed; signing the treaty to join the EEC and all the
subsequent ones since for the EU was no different in principle. Those
who claim otherwise don't understand how 'sovereignty' works in the real
world and/or have a particular contrary agenda to support.

In the event, the Government’s official pamphlet explaining the
referendum gave no such warning – and instead assured voters that the
“essence of sovereignty” would be protected by staying in."


More lies from ******** for Britain, see immediately below ...

So if that was the explanatory document the public was to receive before
the 1975 referendum it not worth the paper it was printed on.


I've now found what I'm reasonably convinced was the real pamphlet that
was published at the time of the 1975 referendum - I say 'reasonably
convinced' because I would have preferred to have found it on the NA
website rather than at Harvard, but this does seem to be the real thing:

http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm

"WILL PARLIAMENT LOSE ITS POWER?

Another anxiety expressed about Britain's membership of the Common
Market is that Parliament could lose its supremacy, and we would have to
obey laws passed by unelected 'faceless bureaucrats' sitting in their
headquarters in Brussels.

What are the facts?

Fact No. 1 is that in the modern world even the Super Powers like
America and Russia do not have complete freedom of action. Medium-sized
nations like Britain are more and more subject to economic and political
forces we cannot control on our own.

A striking recent example of the impact of such forces is the way the
Arab oil-producing nations brought about an energy and financial crisis
not only in Britain but throughout a great part of the world.

Since we cannot go it alone in the modern world, Britain has for years
been a member of international groupings like the United Nations, NATO
and the International Monetary Fund.

Membership of such groupings imposes both rights and duties, but has not
deprived us of our national identity, or changed our way of life.

Membership of the Common Market also imposes new rights and duties on
Britain, but does not deprive us of our national identity. To say that
membership could force Britain to eat Euro-bread or drink Euro-beer is
nonsense.

Fact No. 2. No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or
anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a
British Government and British Parliament.

The top decision-making body in the Market is the Council of Ministers,
which is composed of senior Ministers representing each of the nine
member governments.

It is the Council of Ministers, and not the market's officials, who take
the important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the
members of the Council agree. The Minister representing Britain can veto
any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against
British interests. Ministers from the other Governments have the same
right to veto.

All the nine member countries also agree that any changes or additions
to the Market Treaties must be acceptable to their own Governments and
Parliaments.

Remember: All the other countries in the Market today enjoy, like us,
democratically elected Governments answerable to their own Parliaments
and their own voters. They do not want to weaken their Parliaments any
more than we would."

Fact No. 3. The British Parliament in Westminster retains the final
right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on January 1,
1973. Thus our continued membership will depend on the continuing assent
of Parliament.

The White Paper on the new Market terms recently presented to Parliament
by the Prime Minister declares that through membership of the Market we
are better able to advance and protect our national interests. This is
the essence of sovereignty.

Fact No. 4. On April 9, 1975, the House of Commons voted by 396 to 170
in favour of staying in on the new terms."

So, there you have it. The sovereignty issue was described correctly,
exactly, and honestly. Incidentally, before you burst into print again,
read the whole document at the link. It blows your whole case right out
of the water. Most people knew exactly what they were voting for in
1975, even if you and some others here did not, or else your memory has
since become conveniently selective.

I have no argument with your summary of some of the text in the
document, but it is the whole rather than its parts we should be
considering. Why go to the effort of producing such a document if the
government wasn't going to release its findings? Were they so scared of
public opinion (even if, in their view, it was a mistaken, old-fashioned
view of sovereignty) that they wanted to suppress the views on
sovereignty for 30 years?


As above, it's normal practice for HMG documentation.

To come now to the central allegation.* Was the public deceived about
'loss of sovereignty' either at the time of accession or at the time of
the 1975 referendum.* No.* Like most Brex**** bull****, this is a myth.
Even the Torygraph admits this, quoting from Hansard at the time:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...new-what-we-w/

"No, Britain wasn't lied to when we joined the EU. We knew what we were
getting into
[...]


So what? It may have been discussed in Parliament, but in general, the
British public do not get home from a day's work and scrutinise Hansard.
It is not clear - at least to me - if the MPs had seen the document and
were discussing it, or had formed their own opinions on what joining the
CM might have meant and led to.


See the government supplied pamphlet above.

Neither Powell or Owen were exactly trusted by the public at the time,
so anything they said would have been taken with a large pinch of salt.
Any MP can put their spin on anything they want to.


Nonsense, Powell's near racism certainly caused outrage in some
quarters, but others thought he spoke for them, while the defection of
Owen and other moderates from the Labour party certainly outraged its
left wing, but noone much else.

Hold on a minute. You refer above to the discussions which took place in
Parliament in 1971. As I said, it is not clear to what extent MPs were
aware of FCO-30-1048. The comments they raised at the time were based on
what they saw as an inevitable progression after joining a "Common
Market" (or whatever it might become). The public may, or may not have
agreed with those conclusions. In any case, we had been trying to join
this trading group for years, and had been kept out by De Gaulle. I am
sure that the public optimism at the time (and in* the 1975 referendum)
overrode any negative comments from a few Eurosceptic MPs,


And that tells you all you need to know. Most people knew what they
were voting for and voted for it.

And, more to the point, we are looking at two different events. The
public had no say concerning our accession in 1971. Our political
leaders decided we should join as a fait accompli (*see comment below in
next paragraph). In 1975 we were asked to rubber stamp that decision in
the referendum. But we were unaware that FCO-30-1048 even existed.


As above, it was summarised in the government pamphlet produced at the time.

You
say that everyone you spoke to at the time knew exactly what they were
voting for, but my memory is quite the opposite, and I suspect the other
comments here reflect my view.


Evidently, but I've *proved* that you and other Brex****ters are wrong,
and that my memory of the events is the more accurate. As with so many
things in public so-called debate today, your memories are conveniently
selective, and you make no recourse to facts to refresh them.

Note the referendum's distinct wording
"Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European
Community (the Common Market)?". By using "European Community (the
Common Market)". they either thought that by omitting the words in
brackets nobody would know what they were talking about


Yes.

or, more
likely, specifically worded it so that the question was directed towards
one of trade only. Perhaps they thought that adding "...and move towards
further integration" might have led to too many questions as to what it
meant, even if the word "sovereignty" didn't appear. The words "(the
Common Market)" were, in fact, added at a Cabinet Meeting in March 1975:


In this and what follows you're scraping the bottom of the barrel of
credibility, so I'm just going to snip it. As above, I've proved that
the whole deception claim is another sordid Brex**** lie put out by the
likes of ******** for Britain; if you have any honesty and decency left
in you, you should accept that you've been conned by these traitors, and
be f*king angry with them for it, because they've conned you into voting
against the nation's best interests.

There is no further explanation.


As above, there is, but I suspect that you're too wedded to the
conspiracy myth and can't see it for what it is, a myth.

But, as so often with Brex****, when the facts don't fit, lie.* Who
created this lie?* Seemingly "Business For Britain":

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...democracy.html

"Business for Britain, the campaigning group which uncovered the minutes
..."


So are you saying those Minutes don't exist? Or they were reported
incorrectly by "Business for Britain"?


I'm saying that almost certainly they produced publicity material which
contained only highly selective and emotive quotes from the 'No' members
of cabinet, which the Torygraph obligingly reproduced verbatim, or
almost so, without engaging in any critical review of it whatsoever -
certainly it's a totally unbalanced view which a former broadsheet such
as the Torygraph would, when newspapers had higher standards than they
seem to have today, have been ashamed to print, because there isn't a
single quote from any minister who supported 'Yes', and further, as I've
now proved, it lied about the pamphlet that the government finally produced.

If neither applies, then what is
your argument? Perhaps you could give a link to where the problem lies
(are you referring to Ref 2 in the Wiki article on BFB?), and it would
be possible to compare what BFB were saying and what the Cabinet minutes
actually said. (On that point note that they may not be complete; if you
look at the "Contents" for the meeting on 20th March 1975 (page 184),
you will find "1. EEC Referendum". Turn to the minutes on page 185, and
it simply states "EEC Referendum 1. This discussion was not recorded". I
wonder why they weren't recorded. No other minutes appear to be missing.)


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, because you haven't given a
link either. ******** for Britain are claiming to have found some
cabinet minutes, and seemingly have quoted from them highly selectively
to give a very misleading impression, are you now saying that in fact
those cabinet minutes never existed at all?

In any case, the FCO document was exposed years before "Business for
Britain" made any comment. It was in 2002, not long after it was
released, that comments on its contents were made known by the
Eurosceptic Richard North:
http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/FCOsovereignty2.pdf


Fair enough, I'll read that when I have time, but, as above, I've proved
that the government pamphlet discussed the sovereignty question fairly
and honestly, so I don't think what he had to say is likely to alter
anything much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_for_Britain

"In 2014, the group published non-peer reviewed and misleading research
on the voting record of the United Kingdom in the European Parliament
called Measuring Britain’s influence in the Council of Ministers.[2]"

So they began as they meant to continue, with lies.* To return to the
Torygraph article quoting them, there is no link or reference to the
original documents, so we can't tell how selective the quoting is, but
the inflammatory language prominent throughout suggests very.* Be that
as it may, as already explained, these things are a compromise.* We are
no longer a world power, and to make our way in the world we have to do
economic and political compromises and trades.* Being a member of the
EEC/EU is such a compromise, and most of the public at the time seemed
to understand this, and voted in, and we should respect that decision
and the treaties we have signed since.


Many lies all round.


No, all the lies are from Brex**** - noone here has yet come up with a
convincing example of lies from Remain.

Let's open all the files, minutes, discussions,
etc, over the last 50 years or so and let us make our own minds up.


But when we do, you don't believe them! Strange that ...
  #3  
Old Today, 08:14 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jeff Layman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 870
Default SOT: Have I got no news for you

On 14/06/19 19:15, Java Jive wrote:

Well, I've been through the documents again, and accept that you were
right and I was wrong. The pamphlet did mention sovereignty. I was a
bit concerned about the Harvard page being a transcription from about 20
years ago rather than the pamphlet itself (which was promised but never
appeared - see http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/index.html), so
found a copy of the original. It is available he
https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/objects/lse:fug282yox/read/single#page/1/mode/1up

And the "quotes" in the Telegraph article about Harold Wilson do not
appear in the Cabinet minutes. At least I haven't been able to find them
by text searching the pdf. for the actual "quoted wording" as reported
in the Telegraph article.

Apologies for wasting both our time.

--

Jeff
  #4  
Old Today, 12:32 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Java Jive[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,864
Default SOT: Have I got no news for you

On 15/06/2019 08:14, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 14/06/19 19:15, Java Jive wrote:

Well, I've been through the documents again, and accept that you were
right and I was wrong. The pamphlet did mention sovereignty.* I was a
bit concerned about the Harvard page being a transcription from about 20
years ago rather than the pamphlet itself (which was promised but never
appeared - see http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/index.html), so
found a copy of the original. It is available he
https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/objects/lse:fug282yox/read/single#page/1/mode/1up


And the "quotes" in the Telegraph article about Harold Wilson do not
appear in the Cabinet minutes. At least I haven't been able to find them
by text searching the pdf. for the actual "quoted wording" as reported
in the Telegraph article.

Apologies for wasting both our time.


Thank you for having the decency to apologise - respect.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SOT: Have I got no news for you Java Jive[_3_] UK digital tv 5 Yesterday 08:18 PM
SOT: Have I got no news for you Martin[_3_] UK digital tv 25 Yesterday 10:04 AM
SOT: Have I got no news for you Martin[_3_] UK digital tv 3 June 12th 19 09:07 PM
SOT: Have I got no news for you Jim Lesurf[_2_] UK digital tv 1 June 12th 19 11:10 AM
SOT: Have I got no news for you Roderick Stewart[_3_] UK digital tv 0 June 12th 19 10:23 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 HomeCinemaBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.