Editor's Blog2 mins ago
Book Recommendation On Eu
Hi, could you recommend a good, balanced book about the history of the European Union, which would help me understand in more detail the issues that were discussed during UK EU referendum. Thanks.
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Mr Zippy. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Some have suggested that those wanting to stay in the EU actually share with those who want to leave a particular sentiment toward the whole history of the UK's membership. This is that both are disappointed and even irritated that the UK's aspiration regarding joining it in the first place never came to pass: The UK never got to make Europe its new Empire to replace the one that had just disappeared. The suggestion goes on by saying that the difference between the two groups is that one (the remainers) still holds hope that, the way it has been insisting all along, the UK will eventually truly become more equal than other members and run the show, whereas the other (leavers) has given up hope.
its not a book but look at Fullfact
https:/
https:/
I’m not so sure that the UK ever harboured thoughts that the EU (or the EEC as it was when we joined) would ever become the UK’s new Empire, Karl. It was clear from the outset (and long before we joined) that it was designed for and for the benefit of, principally Germany, with France hanging tightly onto their Teutonic neighbour’s coattails.
The problem was that the UK (or at least the UK electorate but maybe not its politicians) were bamboozled into believing that in 1972 they had joined a trading partnership. They were further fooled into believing this was still so when they voted to remain in 1975. A glance at the 1975 pamphlet which was distributed to household prior to that referendum will demonstrate that either the politicians were fooled or they lied to the electorate.
It is as clear as day now (and has been for some time) that the Euromaniacs’ ultimate aim is for a single European nation stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Black Sea and from the Arctic Ocean to the Mediterranean. "Free Trade" is a convenient sideshow with which to fool the little people that it is in their interests to belong to the club. There have been one or two hiccups on the way to their Utopian dream (the Norwegian electorate wisely refusing their government permission to join - though as members of the EEA they might as well have full EU membership - and Iceland withdrawing its application). But these are minor, insignificant setbacks. Anyone believing that the UK could or would have any influence over this – probably the single biggest shambles enacted by any group of politicians at any time- let alone use it as a base to create an Empire is sadly mistaken.
The problem was that the UK (or at least the UK electorate but maybe not its politicians) were bamboozled into believing that in 1972 they had joined a trading partnership. They were further fooled into believing this was still so when they voted to remain in 1975. A glance at the 1975 pamphlet which was distributed to household prior to that referendum will demonstrate that either the politicians were fooled or they lied to the electorate.
It is as clear as day now (and has been for some time) that the Euromaniacs’ ultimate aim is for a single European nation stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Black Sea and from the Arctic Ocean to the Mediterranean. "Free Trade" is a convenient sideshow with which to fool the little people that it is in their interests to belong to the club. There have been one or two hiccups on the way to their Utopian dream (the Norwegian electorate wisely refusing their government permission to join - though as members of the EEA they might as well have full EU membership - and Iceland withdrawing its application). But these are minor, insignificant setbacks. Anyone believing that the UK could or would have any influence over this – probably the single biggest shambles enacted by any group of politicians at any time- let alone use it as a base to create an Empire is sadly mistaken.
Since when (and I assume you mean my contention that the EU’s ultimate goal is a single European nation)? I don’t need to borrow any books to help me this particular conclusion, Marshwarble.
My answer is since at least 2009 (when the Lisbon treaty was enacted) and arguably since 1992 when the Maastricht Treaty was signed. In fact, you can go back to the founding fathers of the EU in the 1950s. Particular note should be made of this man:
https:/
M. Monnet was the architect of the “gradualist” approach to European integration. Knowing that the citizens of the various member nations would not countenance full integration at a stroke he suggested a “salami” approach – each change taking a small slice from national sovereignty; each slice, on its own, no big deal and only “ a little different to what already exists”. But the end game was clear from the outset.
The EU’s stated aim is “ever closer union”. The Lisbon Treaty – if you’ve read it - not only provides for that but would actually enforce it upon its members if push comes to shove. It does not take a lengthy stretch of the imagination to grasp that “ever closer union” can only mean one thing. Being “ever closer” it will not cease until that aim is achieved. Mr Cameron’s “opt out” from that clause for the UK would have been quietly ditched (if indeed it was ever intended to be provided) as soon as circumstances allowed. This lack of control over the country’s ultimate destiny was one of the principle reasons that the referendum went the way it did. Many European nations are no doubt quite content to see their countries head off down that path. Fortunately most people who bothered to vote on June 23rd were not.
If you want to dismiss my contentions, Marshy, feel free. But at least have the decency to do a bit of research before simply dismissing them out of hand.
My answer is since at least 2009 (when the Lisbon treaty was enacted) and arguably since 1992 when the Maastricht Treaty was signed. In fact, you can go back to the founding fathers of the EU in the 1950s. Particular note should be made of this man:
https:/
M. Monnet was the architect of the “gradualist” approach to European integration. Knowing that the citizens of the various member nations would not countenance full integration at a stroke he suggested a “salami” approach – each change taking a small slice from national sovereignty; each slice, on its own, no big deal and only “ a little different to what already exists”. But the end game was clear from the outset.
The EU’s stated aim is “ever closer union”. The Lisbon Treaty – if you’ve read it - not only provides for that but would actually enforce it upon its members if push comes to shove. It does not take a lengthy stretch of the imagination to grasp that “ever closer union” can only mean one thing. Being “ever closer” it will not cease until that aim is achieved. Mr Cameron’s “opt out” from that clause for the UK would have been quietly ditched (if indeed it was ever intended to be provided) as soon as circumstances allowed. This lack of control over the country’s ultimate destiny was one of the principle reasons that the referendum went the way it did. Many European nations are no doubt quite content to see their countries head off down that path. Fortunately most people who bothered to vote on June 23rd were not.
If you want to dismiss my contentions, Marshy, feel free. But at least have the decency to do a bit of research before simply dismissing them out of hand.
// The EU’s stated aim is “ever closer union”// Very well stated New Judge. I am of the firm opinion that '' ever closer union'' was the aim of Adolph Hitler & his cronies. They couldn't do it by force so later Germany tried a more subtle approach & this time succeeded & we all fell for it. The Frenchies who we helped to escape the claws of the oppressors, this time sneakily hung on to the German coat tails to help be in on the kill.
1 to 12 of 12
