Unintended consequences of brexit

Maybe you should just start an allyg cut n paste thread then we can avoid it like everyone else.

Just a question to you MD and Bridgeit. Why do you feel "stifled" it's not intentional. The post is intended as I am sure yours are to prompt discussion. Sadly sometime you don't want to discuss anything other than your own agenda's. Not a problem for me at all. I'll just keep hoping I find something that will hit the spot for you both.

Bridgeit and MaizeD you are both so enigmatic. Have you thought about the cut and paste? Have you any views? Or shall we leave this thread to the four of you again for a while.
I can post this cut and paste elsewhere.

MaizieD
"I think that the stifling is intentional, Bridgeit"
Me too.

Welshwife. I do understand what you are saying about Churchill but I think he was more involved with the development of the UN. This article is about the deliberate embedded deception in the formation of this new state, that became the EU, by Monnet et al; all unelected people. Who really set up a business. In a time when people where hungry and homeless throughout Europe, Governments in disarray, the first step for them all to appear to be economically protected, by being in a tariff controlled steel and coal treaty made sense, and that's when it all started. Later to ruin our coal and steel industries.

See also the copy & paste thread

Could well be MaizeD, & it’s working

I think that the stifling is intentional, Bridgeit

?

Oh Bridgeit!

I think one of the unintended consequences of Brexit is the prolific lifting & posting of articles by Allygran1 on GN being passed of as opinion whilst actually stifling any honest & meaningful flow of the original topic!

Churchill is a rather important omission taking into account the part he had been playing in the fate of Europe - so should not be ignored. I see it as a great flaw in a Daily Express article that he wasn’t included.

Welshwife. Might be better to stick to what it does say rather than dragging Churchill into it.

Well Fennel, what do you glean from that? I know what it is telling me, but then again it is always something that I suspected. I would like to know what you think.

No mention in that article that Churchill was a great advocate of some form of union to help prevent European wars which had raged somewhere in Europe. for hundreds of years. This was also in the 40s - but don’t tell people the British hero thought it a good idea!

So in essence, Allygran, what do you glean from that?

Food for thought about the formation of the EU its very long.

By John Forsythe: The founding philosophy of the EU.

“There was nothing base or inhumane about Jean Monnet, the French intellectual now seen as the founding father of the dream, nor those who joined him: De Gasperi the Italian, Hallstein the German, Spaak the Belgian and Schumann the Frenchman. In 1945 they were all traumatised men.
In the 1930s democracy had failed. In Germany, Italy and elsewhere desperate people had flocked to the demagogues who promised full bellies and a job in exchange for marching, chanting columns. So democracy must go. It could not be the governmental system of the new Utopia. It was not fit to be. (He [Monnet] was already president of the Action Committee for the Superstate, his official title. There is nothing new about the word superstate).
Instead there would be a new system: government by an enlightened elite of bureaucrats. The hoi polloi (you and me) were simply too dim, too emotional, too uneducated to be safely allowed to choose their governments. It never occurred to him to devise a way to strengthen and fortify democracy to ensure that what happened in Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s could not happen again. No, democracy was unsafe and had to be replaced. (This is not propaganda, he wrote it all down).
He faced one last stigma as he sought the support of the six who would become the kernel of his dream: Germany (still ruined by war), France (fighting dismal colonial wars in Indochina and Algeria), Italy in her usual chaos, Holland, Belgium and tiny Luxembourg.
How could the various peoples ever be persuaded to hand over their countries from democracy to oligarchy, the government of the elite? Let me quote from what he wrote: "Europe's nations should be guided towards the Super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."
In other words he could not force them (he had no tanks). He could not bribe them (he had no money). He could not persuade them (his arguments were offensive). Hence the deliberate recourse to government by deception. Both nostrums continue to this day. Study the Remain campaign and the people behind it.
Almost without exception they are pillars of the establishment, London-based, accustomed to lavish salaries, administrative power and enormous privilege. None of this applies to 95 per cent of the population. Hence the need for deception.
At every stage the Remain campaign has stressed the issue is about economics: trade, profits, mortgages, share prices, house values - anything to scare John Citizen into frightened submission. The gravy train of the few must not be derailed. Some of them are already sticking pins into a wax figurine of David Cameron for being soft enough to offer the proles a chance to recover their parliamentary democracy and thus their sovereignty.
As it happened the 1960s was a bad period for Britain. The empire was gone. Australia, New Zealand and Canada were far away, thinly populated and no market for the torrent of manufactured goods we needed to export. The rest of the former empire was African, Asian and Caribbean - also poor. At home our industries were racked with strikes. Our product was either shoddy, over-priced or late. As we headed from Harold Wilson to Edward Heath we were soon to be tagged "the sick man of Europe".
The prospects looked bleak and the Common Market too tempting to pass up. Edward Heath took us in on the best terms he could but they were appalling. Across the Channel the EEC's negotiator was French foreign minister Couve de Murville. "How do you want England?" he asked Georges Pompidou, De Gaulle's successor as president. "Je la veux nue" (I want her naked) was the reply and that was how he got us. That was when the lies began.

In nearly 60 years in journalism I have seen the British told an awful lot of lies but none as many or as bad as on this one subject. Even signing up to the European Economic Community (Common Market only, we were told) we had reservations. Heath calmed them down. What we were signing, he said, would never require "the transfer of significant sovereignty".
He lied. Unlike almost anyone else he had read the entire Treaty of Rome. Massive transfers were yet to come. So we joined, bringing the six nations to nine but still a fraction of today at 28.
For 19 years (1973 to 1992, including the confirmatory referendum of 1975 under Wilson, back in office) we stayed uncomplainingly in the Common Market, slowly and painfully recovering our prosperity under Margaret Thatcher. With it and with the reconquest of the Falklands came our national pride. But the 1980s also brought a disaster. The same voices that urge us today to remain with the EU badgered Margaret Thatcher to join the Exchange Rate Mechanism, precursor of the euro. It was an unmitigated disaster. When we left it under John Major in 1992 it had cost us hundreds of billions.
JOHN MAJOR also suckered us into the Maastricht Treaty without a vote. Again we were lied to, told it was just a "tidying up exercise". No, it was transformational as the Common Market morphed into the European Union. Like Harold Wilson, Major claimed he had renegotiated the terms to our betterment. Like Wilson and now like David Cameron he had achieved nothing.
With Maastricht huge tracts of British sovereignty transferred from London to Brussels. Then came the Treaty of Lisbon, signed shiftily by Gordon Brown out of sight in a Portuguese basement. Great swathes of further sovereignty went to Brussels. We have ceased to cooperate, to collaborate, which we never objected to. We have become subordinate. That is not acceptable.

Founding father of the EU, French economist and financier, Jean Monnet
You have repeatedly been told this issue is all about economics. That is the conman's traditional distraction. This issue is about our governmental system, parliamentary. Democracy versus non-elective bureaucracy utterly dedicated to the eventual Superstate.
Our democracy was not presented last week on a plate. It took centuries of struggle to create and from 1940 to 1945 terrible sacrifices to defend and preserve. It was bequeathed to us by giants, it has been signed away by midgets.
Now we have a chance, one last, foolishly offered chance to tell those fat cats who so look down upon the rest of us: yes, there will be some costs - but we want it back.
Key moments in the EU's development
Treaty of Paris, 1951 France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands signed to form the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).
Treaty of Rome, 1957 The six ECSC members created the European Economic Community (EEC) with the stated aim of achieving "ever-closer union".
Merger Treaty, 1965 Created the first of the joint institutions with the founding of the European Council and the European Commission.
Britain joined the EEC, 1973 Prime minister Ted Heath took us into the European Economic Community on January 1, 1973. This decision was confirmed in a referendum held in 1975.
Single European Act, 1986 Formed the basis of the single market and laid the foundations for further political integration. Made it harder for member states to exert a veto over legislation.
Maastricht Treaty, 1992 Formally created the European Union. It also included preparations for the introduction of the euro, for a common defence and foreign affairs policy and for more cooperation on issues of justice and home affairs.
Treaty of Amsterdam, 1997 Introduced reforms preparing the EU to admit a number of new member states.
Lisbon Treaty, 2007 Created a permanent president of the European Council, a new high representative for foreign affairs and an EU diplomatic service."

www.express.co.uk/news/politics/679277/History-EU-how-bureaucrats-seized-power

Fennel.

For you to copy and paste. It's 17 pages long up to now.

Westministenders: Brexmeggadon Redux. | - Mumsnet

Nobody knows until they open the Brexit box! Or is it Pandora’s box?

Mh is it 'dead or alive'!

I think they're Schrödinger's benefits, harmless. They'll stop but they'll carry on...

I've no confidence at all in a briefing paper by someone who thinks that 'alternately' means the same as 'alternatively'.

Mh which benefits? Anything that comes from the EU will cease on Brexit. That is common sense
You had just been complaining about losing the mobile phone roaming rights and cap that the EU had negotiated with mobile phone companies.