The Decietful And Insidious EU.

[Jack Knave]

Come on then - let's have the source please. An actual proper indication that he said this back in 1952.

Oh and by the way, you won't find one - why, because he never said it. Indeed this 'quote' actually originates from material in a book (and even then misquoted from that book's author) written in 1997, which was 18 years after Monnet's death.

So one more chance and then I will put you out of your misery and reveal all as to where your 'quote' comes from, but here's a clue - it isn't from Monnet.

You OP is a lie - pure and simple - Jean Monnet never said what you attribute to him.

I'm in no misery, mate. 

[Jack Knave]

You seem to be saying that UKIP would refuse to accept the results of a democratic election?

I'm saying nearly all the top main Leaver players won't give up. Why should they they are right and true in the quest to do the honourable thing.

[Jack Knave]

Again, how is a right winger on the side of Labour voters?

What right winger?

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm in no misery, mate. 

Oh I think you are JK.

So the truth behind your 'quote'. Let's remind ourselves what the purported quote is:

‘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.’

This isn't a quote from Monnet at all - it is in fact paraphrasing of a section of a book written in 1997 by the Conservative eurosceptic politician and writer Adrian Hilton, which incorrectly somehow ended up ascribed as a quote form Monnet, which it isn't and never was. So the section in Hilton's book 'The Principality and Power of Europe' in which he provides his own thoughts (as a right wing Conservative europhobe) on supposed 'super-state' plan is as follows:

'One of the founding fathers of the EU, Jean Monnet, also a devout Roman Catholic, totally rejected the idea that Europe should consist of sovereign nations. He believed in the Catholic vision that Europe should become a federal superstate, into which all ancient nations would be fused. ‘Fused’ is the word he used in a comunication* dated 30th [sic - should be 3rd] April 1952, and is wholly consistent with the language of the Maastricht Treaty. For this to be achieved without the peoples of Europe realising what was happening, the plan was to be accomplished in successive steps. Each was to be disguised as having an economic purpose, but all, taken together, would inevitably and irreversibly lead to federation.'

Not this is the opinion of Hilton (an arch right wing europhobe) as to what he thought Monnet's views were, not Monnet's view and certainly not a quote. Hilton has actually been pulled up over the way in which his section has somehow been misconstrued as a quote from Monnet - he is absolutely clear that there is no Monnet quote that you claim. Again direct quote - this time Hilton clearly making it clear there is no Monnet quote:

'I do not believe that Monnet ever articulated these precise words, but I certainly never said that he did. Looking at the similarities in phrasing and vocabulary, it appears that some over-enthusiast has redacted my words into a Monnet quotation, and this may have become the source of confusion. Yet even then they have paraphrased my words, which shows a peculiar propensity to literary creativity. If there’s one thing I’ve learnt over the past month (and, no, I am no longer the Conservative candidate for Slough), it is that standing for Parliament causes people to twist, warp and misrepresent all manner of things that one has written, no matter how academic the thesis, or how credible and cogent the argument.'

So it is a paraphrasing of the views of Hilton in his book, somehow incorrectly morphed into a purported quote from Monnet - there is no such quote. Indeed Hilton seems pretty miffed that his words have been twisted to imply they are a quote from Monnet.

I suggest you accept the error of your OP, which is in effect libel (or would be were Monnet still alive). Perhaps the best bet is for either you, or the mods, to remove the post as it purport to provide a direct quote from a person, in other words Jean Monnet, when no such quote exists.

[L.A.]

I'm saying nearly all the top main Leaver players won't give up. Why should they they are right and true in the quest to do the honourable thing.

There several names for organisations that refuse to accept the democratic process. Are we to add UKIP along side ISIS?

[jeremyp]

Your point to the original topic of comparison?

I think it's obvious. Your argument was "superstates are bad because look at the USSR". However, the USSR is only one example. Another example is the USA. Yet another is China and also, on a small scale, the UK.

[Jack Knave]

Oh I think you are JK.

So the truth behind your 'quote'. Let's remind ourselves what the purported quote is:

‘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.’

This isn't a quote from Monnet at all - it is in fact paraphrasing of a section of a book written in 1997 by the Conservative eurosceptic politician and writer Adrian Hilton, which incorrectly somehow ended up ascribed as a quote form Monnet, which it isn't and never was. So the section in Hilton's book 'The Principality and Power of Europe' in which he provides his own thoughts (as a right wing Conservative europhobe) on supposed 'super-state' plan is as follows:

'One of the founding fathers of the EU, Jean Monnet, also a devout Roman Catholic, totally rejected the idea that Europe should consist of sovereign nations. He believed in the Catholic vision that Europe should become a federal superstate, into which all ancient nations would be fused. ‘Fused’ is the word he used in a comunication* dated 30th [sic - should be 3rd] April 1952, and is wholly consistent with the language of the Maastricht Treaty. For this to be achieved without the peoples of Europe realising what was happening, the plan was to be accomplished in successive steps. Each was to be disguised as having an economic purpose, but all, taken together, would inevitably and irreversibly lead to federation.'

Not this is the opinion of Hilton (an arch right wing europhobe) as to what he thought Monnet's views were, not Monnet's view and certainly not a quote. Hilton has actually been pulled up over the way in which his section has somehow been misconstrued as a quote from Monnet - he is absolutely clear that there is no Monnet quote that you claim. Again direct quote - this time Hilton clearly making it clear there is no Monnet quote:

'I do not believe that Monnet ever articulated these precise words, but I certainly never said that he did. Looking at the similarities in phrasing and vocabulary, it appears that some over-enthusiast has redacted my words into a Monnet quotation, and this may have become the source of confusion. Yet even then they have paraphrased my words, which shows a peculiar propensity to literary creativity. If there’s one thing I’ve learnt over the past month (and, no, I am no longer the Conservative candidate for Slough), it is that standing for Parliament causes people to twist, warp and misrepresent all manner of things that one has written, no matter how academic the thesis, or how credible and cogent the argument.'

So it is a paraphrasing of the views of Hilton in his book, somehow incorrectly morphed into a purported quote from Monnet - there is no such quote. Indeed Hilton seems pretty miffed that his words have been twisted to imply they are a quote from Monnet.

I suggest you accept the error of your OP, which is in effect libel (or would be were Monnet still alive). Perhaps the best bet is for either you, or the mods, to remove the post as it purport to provide a direct quote from a person, in other words Jean Monnet, when no such quote exists.

Wow, what a long post about nothing, which I didn't need to read.

So all my other salient points on this and the Referendum thread on the paucity and corruptness of the EU you have failed to argue against (in fact with some you didn't even try) and so you were proved to be wrong on the issues, and so you pick on this trivial empty point to try and get some cred back!!! How sad...

And not only that it took you a while to suddenly to decide to make this up. Perhaps if you faced up to the facts of reality and took your imbecilic ideological glasses off you'd perceive the truth of the situation.

[Jack Knave]

There several names for organisations that refuse to accept the democratic process. Are we to add UKIP along side ISIS?

  The logic of that is ridiculous. I've met dogs with more sense than that. 

Try again, LA, and to help you try looking up the meaning of democracy.

[Jack Knave]

I think it's obvious. Your argument was "superstates are bad because look at the USSR". However, the USSR is only one example. Another example is the USA. Yet another is China and also, on a small scale, the UK.

The attitude and approach of the USSR and the EU are very similar - what can be called generically Left - and this is why I compare the EU to the USSR. The US has reached a similar position or attitude from the democracy agenda stance going towards the fascist or Right. As we know both in the end look the same, that of a small group of elites telling the populous what to do.

[jeremyp]

The attitude and approach of the USSR and the EU are very similar

Evidence please.

It may have escaped your notice, but the EU has been around for decades and it is still nothing like the old USSR.

[Ricky Spanish]

It's a bit of a long read, but I have to say I agree with just about all he points out.



https://theweeflea.com/2016/04/26/european-referendum-the-tipping-point/

[Jack Knave]

Evidence please.

It may have escaped your notice, but the EU has been around for decades and it is still nothing like the old USSR.

Its whole raison d'etre is that of a soviet state. Look at how Moscow was run and how Brussels is run and they are nearly a mirror image of each other.

[jeremyp]

Its whole raison d'etre is that of a soviet state.

Tell me what the raison d'être of the EU is and what was the raison d'être of the Soviet Union. Then we can compare them.

Look at how Moscow was run and how Brussels is run and they are nearly a mirror image of each other.

They don't look like they are run on similar lines at all to me.

[Jack Knave]

Tell me what the raison d'être of the EU is and what was the raison d'être of the Soviet Union. Then we can compare them.

Authoritarian rule of the people.

They don't look like they are run on similar lines at all to me.

Moscow - a group of unelected elites dictating to the rest and imposing their will on the people.

Brussels - Ever-Closer-Union : a group of unelected elites dictating to the rest and imposing their will on the people.

The only difference is that the European lot realised that they couldn't impose their will in one massive lump of instant change because the people would rebel against it, as they could see this had happened in the USSR - this being kept together by brute, violent force. So they planned to do it drip by drip so the people, over the generations, wouldn't notice.

[Sassy]

http://www.ukipdaily.com/really-governs-us/

‘Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate 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.’ Jean Monnet, Founding Father of the European Union

A superstate was what the USSR was. Centrally controlled against the will of the people.

Well isn't that what happened with the vote to go into the EU.
Everyone said they did NOT vote to go in but the votes were all sent to London to be counted together so anyone could have cheated and rigged it. Let's pray to God that the vote for the EU is kept local for counting because believe me they won't be coming out of the EU and nearly everyone is now wanting out.

Our own people living on the streets and they are bringing in people and giving them houses and jobs.
I believe we need to stop this now. The reason for allowing others to come here is to make us all mixed race and nationality countries so we are doomed to remain lumped together. Losing our identity and removing the peoples right as one nation to remain one independent nation.

[jakswan]

Well isn't that what happened with the vote to go into the EU.
Everyone said they did NOT vote to go in but the votes were all sent to London to be counted together so anyone could have cheated and rigged it. Let's pray to God that the vote for the EU is kept local for counting because believe me they won't be coming out of the EU and nearly everyone is now wanting out.

Everyone is not wanting out.

Our own people living on the streets and they are bringing in people and giving them houses and jobs.
I believe we need to stop this now. The reason for allowing others to come here is to make us all mixed race and nationality countries so we are doomed to remain lumped together. Losing our identity and removing the peoples right as one nation to remain one independent nation.

People of all races and cultures should be welcome, I have no issue with being 'lumped together' with anyone regardless of skin colour. If you identify as British then you are British end of.

I'm for leaving, do me a favour, don't post on this topic again, perhaps you and Floo should have your own debate.

[Maeght]

Everyone said they did NOT vote to go in

Did you ask everyone then?

[Harrowby Hall]

Well isn't that what happened with the vote to go into the EU.

There was no vote to go into the EU. There was no vote to go into the Common Market. There was a manifesto pledge in the Conservative manifesto before a general election.

A few years later, Harold Wilson organised a referendum on whether the UK should stay in the Common Market. This was done for exactly the same reason as Cameron's referendum: to control an unruly section of his own party. In Wilson's case it was to shut up one Anthony Wedgewood Benn.

[Sassy]

Everyone is not wanting out.

Just checked my post....I said Everyone said they did NOT want to GO IN.
I never found one person who said they actually voted to go in.

Everyone I have spoken to so far wants out - those who have now got their pensions and are not doctors and professionals members of the Tories, want out. Hence I say NEARLY all want out. Do pay attention. The smaller companies want out. Only the larger business men like the owner of Ryan Air for instance want to remain in for the sake of their own pockets.

People of all races and cultures should be welcome, I have no issue with being 'lumped together' with anyone regardless of skin colour. If you identify as British then you are British end of.

Polish Not British... German Not British. Danish..Not British. Romanian Not Britsh.
Don't play the dumb ass, it doesn't suit you.

I'm for leaving, do me a favour, don't post on this topic again, perhaps you and Floo should have your own debate.

You run a small business hence you are for leaving... I got that right, didn't I. Do me a favour try reading the post instead of judging the person.Perhaps you can get your facts right and address the actual contents of my post before showing yourself up for the bias infidel you appear to be. No one is fooled. No one is advocating racism or any other prejudice.
The government should address our own problems of our people on the street before bringing in others who are not descendants of families who paid their taxes and insurance here for centuries.

Our ancestors paid into the pot for this country. They did not do it, to put our own on the streets and give foreigners their homes.

We need to be out of the EU without the scaremonger tactics. But at the end of the day God has the final decision.
By remaining in the EU Britain will eventually lose it's identity and independence.

You should read your bible you might find something actually useful and what pity the people of Britain allowed all this to happen in the first instance.

[Harrowby Hall]

Just checked my post....I said Everyone said they did NOT want to GO IN.
I never found one person who said they actually voted to go in.

And you could look for a hundred years and you would STILL never find anyone who "actually voted to go in".

Entry of the EEC was an election manifesto commitment by Edward Heath's Conservative Party in the 1970 election. Negotiations resulted in a Parliamentary vote in favour of joining the EEC which took place in 1973.

There was no national vote. There was no referendum. It was decided by a  vote in Parliament.

In 1975, on 5 June, the Labour government of Harold Wilson held a referendum on whether or not the UK should remain in the EEC. This referendum was really held for Labour Party internal management reasons - just as the current referendum is really being held for internal Conservative Party management reasons.

Is there anything I have stated above that you do not understand?

[jakswan]

Just checked my post....I said Everyone said they did NOT want to GO IN.
I never found one person who said they actually voted to go in.

Saying 'everyone likes chips' and saying 'everyone I've ever met likes chips' are not the same statements.

Everyone I have spoken to so far wants out - those who have now got their pensions and are not doctors and professionals members of the Tories, want out. Hence I say NEARLY all want out. Do pay attention. The smaller companies want out. Only the larger business men like the owner of Ryan Air for instance want to remain in for the sake of their own pockets.
Polish Not British... German Not British. Danish..Not British. Romanian Not Britsh.
Don't play the dumb ass, it doesn't suit you.

If someone comes to Britain decides to settle here and consider themselves British then they are British.

 
You run a small business hence you are for leaving... I got that right, didn't I.

No wrong, not even that simple fact is correct, I work as an E-commerce Manager for a company that is medium sized £35m turnover.

Do me a favour try reading the post instead of judging the person.Perhaps you can get your facts right and address the actual contents of my post before showing yourself up for the bias infidel you appear to be. No one is fooled. No one is advocating racism or any other prejudice.

Facts not your strong point are they.

The government should address our own problems of our people on the street before bringing in others who are not descendants of families who paid their taxes and insurance here for centuries.

Our ancestors paid into the pot for this country. They did not do it, to put our own on the streets and give foreigners their homes.

Nope, to me Britain is a place which should be open to anyone as long as:-

a) they subscribe to broad British values, tolerance, freedom of speech, equal rights, etc.
b) it doesn't make a huge impact on infrastructure

We need to be out of the EU without the scaremonger tactics. But at the end of the day God has the final decision.

LOL, so God put us in the EU then what a prick.

By remaining in the EU Britain will eventually lose it's identity and independence.

What is that? 1950's Britain, scared of brown people, homophobic, illiberal, racist, no irish - no dogs signs and everyone attending church once a week. That Britain is dead, stop living in the past.

You should read your bible you might find something actually useful and what pity the people of Britain allowed all this to happen in the first instance.

Oh I thought it was God that allowed it to happen, make your mind up.

[Sassy]

And you could look for a hundred years and you would STILL never find anyone who "actually voted to go in".

Entry of the EEC was an election manifesto commitment by Edward Heath's Conservative Party in the 1970 election. Negotiations resulted in a Parliamentary vote in favour of joining the EEC which took place in 1973.

There was no national vote. There was no referendum. It was decided by a  vote in Parliament.

In 1975, on 5 June, the Labour government of Harold Wilson held a referendum on whether or not the UK should remain in the EEC. This referendum was really held for Labour Party internal management reasons - just as the current referendum is really being held for internal Conservative Party management reasons.

Is there anything I have stated above that you do not understand?

The United Kingdom EEC referendum of 1975 also known as the Common Market referendum was a post-legislative referendum held on 5 June 1975 in the United Kingdom to gauge support for the country's continued membership of the European Economic Community (EEC), often known as the Common Market at the time, which it had entered in 1973 under the Conservative government of Edward Heath. Labour's manifesto for the October 1974 general election promised that the people would decide "through the ballot box"[1] whether to remain in the EEC. The electorate expressed significant support for EEC membership, with 67% in favour on a 65% turnout.This was the first ever referendum that was held throughout the entire United Kingdom; previously, other referendums had been arranged only in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Greater London and individual towns. It remained the only UK-wide referendum until the United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011.

I guess it is rather tedious that someone thinks they can add and add and add until it distorts out of all proportion.

   
1975: UK embraces Europe in referendum
British voters have backed the UK's continued membership of the European Economic Community by a large majority in the country's first nationwide referendum.
Just over 67% of voters supported the Labour government's campaign to stay in the EEC, or Common Market, despite several cabinet ministers having come out in favour of British withdrawal.

The result was later hailed by Prime Minister Harold Wilson as a "historic decision".

For him the victory came after a long and bruising campaign against many in his own party, following Labour's promise to hold a vote in its general election manifesto last October.

Faced with the referendum question, "Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?" Britons voted "Yes" in most of the 68 administrative counties, regions and Northern Ireland. Only Shetland and the Western Isles voted against the EEC.

What was your point???

[Brownie]

Further to Sassy's posts 64 & 68 :

I must admit I've not met anyone who wants out of the EU.  We didn't actually vote to go in all those years ago.

Maybe always having lived and worked in London, people from other countries don't bother me at all.  I've not known people from overseas take ''our jobs'' or ''our houses'', they fill vacancies the same as anyone else and eventually buy their own house if they want to stay here, some are prepared to work doing things that most of us wouldn't.  Who wants to pick turnips at seven pounds an hour! Lots of Poles rent houses and multiply occupy while they earn some money.  We all blend a bit, not entirely of course, no-one wants to lose their culture.  It makes life interesting.  British people go abroad to live and work too.

Jakswan said: ''1950's Britain, scared of brown people, homophobic, illiberal, racist, no irish - no dogs signs and everyone attending church once a week.''

I was a child then but remember all that very well (apart from the church once a week, not everyone did that), some of it carried on into the '60s.  People were saying, for example, that West Indians were coming here, taking 'our' jobs and getting 'our' housing.  In fact the West Indians, who came from Commonwealth countries, were invited here as jobs could not be filled, eg on buses, British Rail etc.  They generally lived in private rented accommodation, multiply occupied, until such time as they could buy their own properties.  They were definitely treated badly - even in 'our' churches - and viewed with suspicion. ('Windrush' by Mike Philips is a book about West Indian migration to the UK. I would heartily recommend it.)

Later on, late 1960s and early '70s, there were two waves of immigration from Kenya and Uganda, 'Asian' people, and there was outcry about them but they settled, worked hard, bought houses and are now assimilated.

It makes me feel ashamed that British people were so unwelcoming.

[Harrowby Hall]

I guess it is rather tedious that someone thinks they can add and add and add until it distorts out of all proportion.


What was your point???

You wrote:  " I never found one person who said they actually voted to go in." It is clear that you believed there was a referendum to join the EEC.

There never was a vote to "go in".

Even though you have produced extensive material which supports this fact, you don't seem to understand what it says.

Stop digging.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You wrote:  " I never found one person who said they actually voted to go in." It is clear that you believed there was a referendum to join the EEC.

There never was a vote to "go in".

Even though you have produced extensive material which supports this fact, you don't seem to understand what it says.

Stop digging.

If it was in Heath's manifesto though there would have been. The 1970 manifesto.