As Sir Humphrey said in Yes Prime minister.


“Sir Humphrey Appleby: The Foreign Office is pro-Europe because it’s really anti-Europe. The civil service was united in its desire to make sure that the Common Market didn’t work. That’s why we went into it. Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, French and Italians against the Germans, and the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it’s worked so well?

Jim Hacker: It’s all ancient history, surely.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn’t work. Now that we are inside, we can make a big pig’s breakfast of the whole thing! Set the Germans against the French, French against Italians, Italians against Dutch —The Foreign Office is terribly pleased! It’s just like old times!

Jim Hacker: Surely we are committed to the European ideal!

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Really, Minister!

When we joined originally we were told it was a common market designed to make trading with each other as seamless as possible. We were assured that there was no intention of creating what some cynics said would be the United States Of Europe. Slowly but surely the idea of more integration, less sovereignty, a single currency, open borders. a collective armed force, a single passport, a central Government with it's own parliamentary assembly, centrally imposed laws, rules and regulations, a flag etc etc etc. The only idea that was never pursued was a single language. That had been tried with Esperanto and failed miserably. People started wondering where it would all end. Each and every forecast the cynics made came to fruition. It was almost as if planners followed the thoughts of the cynics and said those are all good ideas, let's put them into practise. It was almost like building an Empire. Empires, however, have a history of collapsing eventually and this "empire" will follow the same route.
Thatcher said Yes Minister was nearer the truth than people realised. It was hilarious and still is.
It is not permission they have to seek it's agreement and there are 27 different states involved in establishing agreement.

Rule Britannia.

bravo....

Many of the issues listed above were successfully resisted and the ones that made sense accepted.
Its a collective trading organisation where to some extent countries pick and choose which was done with discussion. We cant ride roughshod over anyone now as we are a politically isolated country with very little capability to engage in gun boat diplomacy.
Do not look at this as a pro anti EU discussion its about what could possibly happen in the future with the Union.

The question to ask is the Union stronger now than it was say 3 to 5 years ago.

Rule Saint George.

You miss it don’t you.
Sadly any organisation where decisions are made by unelected Commissioners and elected members can only rubber stamp decisions makes it a bit difficult for the EU to look Putin in the face and keep a straight face with that system.

they are really having a vote to split up the country. therefore if any of the three want an independance vote then the other 3 should get the chance to join in as we all could be affected by this. if that did happen then i have a feeling krankie would get her wishes. there is a good number in these countries who see the english as a cash cow where visitors are asked to give em their money, enjoy the gnats and piss off back over hadrians wall.

[quote="derwent"]When we joined originally we were told it was a common market designed to make trading with each other as seamless as possible. We were assured that there was no intention of creating what some cynics said would be the United States Of Europe. Slowly but surely the idea of more integration, less sovereignty, a single currency, open borders. a collective armed force, a single passport, a central Government with it's own parliamentary assembly, centrally imposed laws, rules and regulations, a flag etc etc etc. The only idea that was never pursued was a single language.
if they had left it as it originally was then we would still be part of it without splitting this country and a few others who have not totally bought into it. always remember it aint just foreign politicians and advisors that want this euro super state its people like blair, the right wing of labour, liberals and the tory left. funny that throught my life i seem to be more in agreement on different topics to the tory right and labour left. possibly the original idea of joining the common market was not wanted by many of that side of both parties. the only subject they ever agreed on in their lives but again for different reasons. with that there were reasons for us to say NO and build a statue to chas de gaulle.

One thing about Brexit that opened my eyes was the appalling behaviour of MP’s trying to strangle the referendum result in Parliament which showed a lot of them up for what they are.

and do not forget the unelected house of sodding lords shoving their two penneth in either. another institution that should be gone as quickly as possible. problem is that saying that would be a big vote catcher, but who would trust them to follow it through once they got into power.

Lets just wait a few years to see what shape the Uk union is like then.
I suspect some major changes but only time will tell.

One thing about having a Royal family is we avoid the Presidential system.
Under that, half the country loves you, the other half despise you…whereas with our system we get free air shows up the Mall.