egafd.com

As NuLabour thumbs its nose at the electorate and reneges on it?s election promise of a referendum on the latest Euro treaty, is it time to ask whether we have been sold down the river? Are the stateists and beaurocracts of Euroland consolidating their positions of power and privilege without the consent of the people? Are they laughing up their sleeves at us? Have the snotty elitist fuckers got their snouts in the Euro trough? This report from the BBC seems to suggest they have -








Officer Dibble







Officius Dibblus est amplus amor deus

I watched 'The Late Edition' last night and they asked the 100 people in the audience whether they wanted a referendum or not. About 12 people were in the affirmative.

In reality do the general public know enough about the pros and cons of this treaty to vote on such an important issue?

I'm in two minds about this as I feel we should leave decisions to the government that was voted in, by us -- and yet, a promise is a promise.....

Looking back, the government shouldn't have promised such a referendum. We voted them in and so we should trust their decision making. If we don't trust them, they're soon ousted at the next election. It seems that some people trust them enough to run the country, but then want referendums on decisions they may disagree with at a personal level (mainly a reaction to a sensationalist tabloid headline rather than expert opinion or rational thought).

If we'd have had a referendum on going to war against the Nazi's in 1938, we'd have stayed out of it which would have ultimately led to us all speaking German, or Russian right now.

Apathy has always been the problem with the 'EU' question.
With news reports of 'The government is doing this or that' When they are being told what to do by our masters in Brussels. People just don't realise that Westminster has so little power left.

The things thought of as 'our' government's decisions such as changes to Directory enquires, Postal rates, even the closing of post offices all stem from initiatives passed into law by committee without need for discussion on the floor of the House of Commons.


We have been lied too every step of the way ever since heath told the commons that joining the common market would entail no loss of sovereignty.

If they had told the truth from the outset that the primacy of our Parliament and our laws would be subjugated, Would the population have said that it was a good idea? I doubt it.

This is no pooling of power for a greater good, It is a loss of independence no less effective than any military campaign in history, Except our political elite have been complicit in letting this occupying power take over.

I'm one of the ones who as a naive 18 year old believed the politician's and voted yes to remain in the common market. Something now I bitterly regret.

I do think you are wrong in your hypothesis regarding the Second World War. We were a nation of decent people with a strong sense of what was right, And seeing the Germans annexing the Sudatenland would have been enough to stiffen our resolve that however much we might regret going to war, Our duty was to stop the bully.

I think it's paranoia. The EU doesn't want to 'control' the UK at all. It wants us as a partner because even today we are very influential on the world stage. They need a united Europe both politically and economically sand up to the massive US market, and an ever emerging Chinese and Indian strength.

Look what happened with the imperial/metric debate. The EU decided it was a waste of time try to convert us and have left us to use whatever we're comfortable with. Joining Europe fully will mean change, but it won't mean we can't change our own laws or way of life. To keep a united Europe, the EU knows it cannot dictate.

As for my analogy regarding the second world war: I doubt very strongly that the British public would have voted for war against Hitler at the time he invaded Poland. Invading France might have raised the publics eyebrows, but I doubt the masses had sleepless nights thinking of Poland in 1939. It sounds horrid now, but back then the British public still had the horror of the first world war in their heads.

If the public were so gung-ho regarding Hitler I can't see why a politician, like Chamberlain would have done so much to appease the Nazi threat.

Of course, we both cannot say for certain, but in general it's the publics sons and daughters that fight on the front lines so it's very rare that a populace will vote in favour of any war, regardless of morality.

Sam, are you saying that in 1939 the British public didn?t have the stomach to stand up to Hitler? What leads you to that conclusion? Have you studied the history of the period? Maybe you are confusing the people with their leader?


?If the public were so gung-ho regarding Hitler I can't see why a politician, like Chamberlain would have done so much to appease the Nazi threat.?

Well, could it have been that Chamberlain was the antecedent to today?s pretentious middleclass pacifists? Could he possibly have been out of touch with the working class majority, whose natural instincts would have been to kick Adolf?s ass if he started getting lairy? I think this snippet from the BBC news archives throws a bit of light on the question.

?With his policy of appeasement in tatters, the British Prime Minister, Sir Neville Chamberlain teetered on the brink of declaring war. It was the last thing he wanted.
But in the face of a revolt from members of his Cabinet and a growing feeling in the country that Hitler must be tackled he had little choice.
Mr Charman told News Online: "The public mood was such that Chamberlain would have probably been lynched if he had tried publicly to get out of his obligations to Poland."





Officer Dibble







Officius Dibblus est amplus amor deus

[quote]Sam, are you saying that in 1939 the British public didn't have the stomach to stand up to Hitler?[/quote]

Yes, and no. Of course I think they had the stomach to stand up to Hitler. I clearly, clearly stated that I doubted they would have been inclined to go to war in defence of Poland.

The Munich agreement regarding Czechoslovakia was very popular amongst the British public. It wasn't until Hitler's intentions were fully realised, months after Poland's invasion, that public opinion on the war changed. (Chamberlain's popularity didn't change much within the months of peace and declaring war at around 55%, but soared to 68% in 9 months from March 39 - Dec 39).

Chamberlain was very popular and it was only disasters on the battlefield (losses in Norway being the straw that broke the camel's back) that left him no option but to resign. Let's remember that Churchill was dispatched pretty sharpish after the end of WW2.

Both Chamberlain and Churchill were very much in agreement about communism spreading through Europe, and the Stalin threat. A strong Germany was seen as a good thing on all sides. Churchill just realised Hitler was the worse of the two evils much sooner than Chamberlain.

I reiterate: Had there been a referendum in 38, we'd have voted no to war. Common folk never vote for war unless it's the last resort. It's the common folk that take most of the damage let's not forget.

Letting the general populace make important decisions is generally a bad idea as people are very, very fickle with opinion swaying from month to month, depending on the latest trends or headlines.