Forum Topic

Quiz on the Common Market

Who was it who said in 1982:-1. "Above all, the European Economic Community takes away Britains freedom to follow the sort of economic policies we need!"And in 1983:-2."We'll negotiate a withdrawal from the EEC which has drained our natural resources and destroyed  jobs"And in 1997:-3."On the day we remember the legend that St.George slayed a dragon to protect England, some would argue that there is another dragon to be slayed in Europe."Finally in 2005:-4. "I am a passionate pro-European. I always have been."I have purposely called it the Common Market, because we were conned into believing that that's what it was going to be"!....... 

Andrew Michael John Atkinson ● 6718d26 Comments

""When Thatcher took office in 1979...etc etc... Within a couple of years millions were out of work and she had inflicted more damage on the British economy than the Luftwaffe in WW2.""John I disagree with your view on Mrs Thatcher. She saved the nation in my view by standing up to the big unions who inflicted massive damage to our nation in the 1960's and later. (And are still doing at Heathrow Airport!). Those Jack Jones's and Scanlon's,  and others..should have been arrested for their activities...probably funded by the USSR too..  I was an industrial relations reporter at the time..and studied and questioned some of those pay agreements, working practices and alarming spanish customs to which the Unions turned a blind eye.I used to interview many people amongst the Unions, Companies and Employers Organisations...and even Bernard Ingham a journalist who later became MRs T's press officer used to phone me and my colleagues for data.  I knew Ray Padley (TGWU Research Officer) who later became a Hounslow Mayor, The Union's ..including his..turned a blind eye to crazy work practices in a wide range of manuafacturing industry..(ask me about the Shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde!..which cost the UK millions in subsidies..(and the Motor industry strikes!!)and the local authority employees' wangles.) It's a pity that Mrs Thatcher's medicine only got dispensed to 2/3's of the working population..leaving groups like the railways,docks, post office, railways,water boards,local authorities,and some public services untouched...so that they continued to skive when they could.It required national disasters to sort out some of the lax working practices.  Remember 1)the Zeebrugge ship disaster (chap who should have closed the rear doors was in bed) 2) Kings Cross fire (platform staff were all in their mess having a customery 2 hour lunch..swigging booze.)There are tons more examples. Yes there were some awful managements..and yes Harold Wilson and his colleagues did do well with their Incomes Policies to get Unions and Managements to face each other..but it was Mrs T who saved the day..and I'll be most grateful to her.With regard to the Poll Tax. It was a wonderful idea..but it's launch was spoilt and by having to tried out in Scotland first. The Poll Tax protesters in London were mainly scalleywags..who had little respect for fair play on the poll tax matter..and did people like me a diservice. I hate paying £1800 a year to Hounslow Council..when some is being wasted. I have to do £12,000 of business to earn profit and pay tax to fund that bill..and that's unfair.So, your quip about Mrs T has not gone unchallenged.

Jim Lawes ● 6704d

Thought you might be interested in extracts of some of her recent speeches. Note what she says about every childs right to education "REGARDLESS OF WEALTH" i WONDER WHAT CHANGED HER MIND?Kelly's views•  “I come to this as a parent as well as a politician — feeling that every child is different, but of equal worth and believing also that education is the route to an opportunity society; and believing that parents and children must be at the heart of what we do and how we think” Education conference Manchester, Dec 2004 •  “We can’t rest until all children have the same chance in life — with success based on hard work and merit, not wealth or family background. We can’t rest until all children have the chance to go to a good local school” Labour Party Conference Brighton, Sept 2005 •  “I want a state school system that can promote excellence for every one of its pupils; that can set by ability where that is required, particularly in core subjects; that provides special help for those who are falling behind and special opportunities for those who are gifted and talented; and that acts to provide specialist centres of excellence that work to drive up standards in that specialism in other schools” House of Commons London, Oct 2005

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6707d

Tony Blair knew full well what he was doing when he backed the invasion of Iraq. President Bush laid out the facts before him and most likely said who do you want to side with.The problem? Energy security. As I have said lots of times before on here, read up about Peak Oil. Better still, read "Crossing The Rubicon - The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil". Find out why still today the minutes of Dick Cheney Energy Policy Group meeting in early 2001 have never been released despite a Supreme Court order.Fast forward to today and read how the western oil companies are to all be given their share of Iraq's oil. Try to think what Dick Cheney and Blair mean when they say "...our way of life is not negotiable"They needed a reason. The reason is the War on Terror.

Paul Davis ● 6707d

I agree with Dan about the inherent dishonesty of many politicians. When Thatcher took office in 1979 she quoted Francis of Assisi, saying "where there is discord may we bring harmony." Within a couple of years millions were out of work and she had inflicted more damage on the British economy than the Luftwaffe in WW2. Her fanatical pursuit of the poll tax led to riots in the streets and its replacement with the Council Tax that is causing so mny problems today.Given that he says he admires Thatcher, how can we be surprised by Blair's conduct?

John Connelly ● 6707d

The point however is that if the electorate shared your view of his lack of integrity many more people would have turned up at the polls and he wouldn't have won.No they would not have (in my opoinion), the trend is that only hardcore voters will turn out when the majority of the electorate abstain or vote tactically, I think you will find that traditional labour voters, rather than coming out to vote, will abstain or vote tactically for the  conservatives/Lib.Dem., which I believe that is what happened! I don't believe for one moment that the conservatives had done anything radical to achieve the sucess that they had! As regards his report card domestically, we are paying more and more taxes by stealth, he has lost control on our borders and immigration, the Home Office is a shambles, and he lacks the courage to tackle extremists...We had  to stand by and watch Abu Hamza and others spouting their hatred, with the police apparently to scared to arrest him, in case it breached his HUMAN RIGHTS! and 24hrs to save the NHS. Pensioners (I am one) are given a pittance of an increase, which does not even cover the increased council tax, and have to sell their homes, to buy care in their old age (Asylum seekers cost (so I am told) over £400 per week.do you need anymore examples? I have worked for 50 years and get £102, some equality,some legacy to remember him/them by.Yes I am bloody angry

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6707d

Although he did not get the majority of the votes (very few Prime Ministers ever do)he did win the last election and two before that. The point however is that if the electorate shared your view of his lack of integrity many more people would have turned up at the polls and he wouldn't have won.Your definition of what constitutes a liar seems to rely on an aggressive interpretation of semantics. Using this yardstick it would be hard for anyone involved in the world of politics to escape that accusation.History will not share the obsession of his opponents in smearing his character but will look at his legacy. Domestically his report card will probably be broadly positive but on the international front, unless the situation in Iraq makes a dramatic turnaround, he will be adjudged to have failed.

Dan Evans ● 6707d

I don't think he was ever a socialist, but an opportunist who saw an opportunity to hijack a bunch of socialists and take them for a ride via a place called Thatcherism.Now we have Cameron doing something similar only its more like a smarmy cocky 'mejia' spiv hijacking a bus full of bitter old pensioners taking them on a drive through touchy feely liberal Islington. Fools are those that fall for it all over again.

Conal Stewart ● 6708d

He still won an election despite this and I suspect that this has a lot to do with the bulk of the electorate still trusting his integrity if not his competence.The bulk of the electorate did not re-elect him, there was a massive swing to the tories, and he lost 45 or 46 seats as I recall, I hardly think that is voters trusting his integrity. I still believe the man is a liar, and history will tell whether there is a strong case in his favour or not!

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6708d

I don't think he did lie. He was mistaken about the facts and he may have overstated the case but I don't think this constitutes outright dishonesty. You've made some factually incorrect statements earlier in this thread - that doesn't make you a liar.There is a much stronger case for questioning his judgment than his integrity given what has happened subsequently but people seem determined to subject him to outright abuse rather than properly analyse his actions. I don't think this is a naive view. In a way his opponents are being naive by thinking that all this name calling does anything to convince people that they have a strong case.It is very much in Tony Blair's favour when the debate starts to centre around the semantics of official reports. I always believed his intentions were good and honourable in taking us to war in Iraq but that doesn't excuse the fact that it was the wrong decision. He still won an election despite this and I suspect that this has a lot to do with the bulk of the electorate still trusting his integrity if not his competence.

Dan Evans ● 6709d

Are you seriously suggesting that blair didnt lie about the reasons for going to war in Iraq.......WMD's 45minute threat etc? do you still consider him honest? If you do, you must be very naive. How do you know a politician is honest until you elect him/her. I was against the common market expanding into the EEC so naturally I would have looked to Blait to take us out, but when he was elected he "changed his mind" and now thinks it is the best thing since sliced bread. Perhaps now he has changed his mind about being the PM, he is looking further afield and joining up with the other "noses in the trough" Kinnock (2)and Mandelson who have also "changed their mind"!

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6709d

No need to shout!My point was changing your mind about something does not make you a liar. Around the time Tony Blair was in favour of withdrawing from the EEC I thought George Michael was straight and Pot Noodle was a wholesome meal. I have now changed my view - that doesn't necessarily make me a liar.There is nothing inconsistent with saying you are pro-European and being against the EU or EEC.My own view on this is that in fact the British are not so stupid as to elect people who are fundamentally dishonest. If you look at all the prime ministers since the war, whatever their flaws, they all have a degree of personal integrity. The electorate of other democracies have ended up with people like Nixon, Chirac, Clinton and Berlisconi.

Dan Evans ● 6709d

"didnt he get priority with the school of his and Cheries' choice, by snubbing the local comprehensive and sending him to a grammar school 10 miles away"No. There are no grammar schools in London except in Barnet. When the Blairs chose a school they lived in Islington but they were about to move to 10 Downing Street. The schools their children went to in Fulham or Hammersmith were closer."I think it sad, that you believe she deserves credit for taking that course of action, I have always believed that ministers should lead by example.....but perhaps I have misunderstood it! In her position I would have never been able to face my constituents and ask for their support at the next election"She's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. If she hadn't made special provision for her child she would have been condemned for putting left wing dogma ahead of her responsibilities as a mother. I can see the argument that ministers should use the state system to educate their kids so that they are forced to maintain standards but when it comes to special needs this is much more difficult to justify. The Government don't have specific responsibility for the educational priorities in the Borough of Tower Hamlets and it is impossible for any borough to tailor a system that meets the needs exactly of every child with a learning disability. You or I can never really know the specifics of this case because it involves a child and Ruth Kelly can't really properly defend herself because to give a full justification of what she she would compromise the privacy of her child. Thankfully the Conservative in general have refused to sink so low to try and use this matter opportunistically which I presume in part is due to David Cameron's personal understanding of Ruth Kelly's dilemma.Most reasonable people are not going to rush to judgment because they feel they can't without being in full possession of the facts. The majority of the population are likely to feel sympathy with Ruth Kelly and not with the braying pack of hounds from both left and right who are attacking her by targetting her kids.

Justin Harris ● 6710d

Its a pity she didn't also put the needs of our children and doing the best for them as well! Perhaps I got it wrongwith Blair, but didnt he get priority with the school of his and Cheries' choice,by snubbing the local comprehensive and sending him to a grammar school 10 miles away, which this lot deny to others.I think it sad, that you believe she deserves credit for taking that course of action, I have always believed that ministers should lead by example.....but perhaps I have misunderstood it! In her position I would have never been able to face my constituents and ask for their support at the next electionknowing I had done this.

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6710d

I don't think Ruth Kelly was responsible specifically for closing special schools but I suppose she failed to reverse the disasterous policy of integration. She wasn't really education secretary long enough to make an impact which is a shame because she appears to be one of the more talented and intelligent Ministers (not saying much I know).The one person to emerge with any credit out of this is David Cameron who point blank refused to make an issue out of it. Perhaps he recognises that attacking people for basically trying to do the best for their kids would go down very badly with the general public. On the other hand one of his own children has learning difficulties so perhaps his stance is born out of genuine sympathy.The really nasty stuff directed at Ruth Kelly has come from her own party. That they are willing to attack one of their own through her children shows how riven with hatred they have become. In my book she deserves credit because she would have known that she would have been set for a storm of criticism but she put the needs of her child first. Blair didn't actually send any of his children to private school.

Justin Harris ● 6710d

Yes, I should have referred to him and all the other hypocrites in this government as "champagne socialists", not "socialists". You mention Nye Bavan, my hero was a true socialist, in my opinion - Francis-Noel Baker, what a man!There hasn't been any debate on this forum,which surprises me, on Ruth Kelly the former education secretary  who was responsible for the closure of "special schools", who is now sending her own child to a private school, as did Blair and Dianne Abbot, their hypocrisey is breathtaking."Don't do as I do, Do as I say" seems to be the order of the day.What do others think?

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6710d

I doubt if Blair has ever been a socialist...I mean a real one like Nye Bevan or people of that ilk.He could be described as 'Left leaning'at best.imho.

Keith Iddon ● 6710d

MAYBE, HE MAY WELL DO!YOU NEVER KNOW, PERHAPS HE WILL ENLIGHTEN US. I WAS MERELY TRYING TO EXPOSE TONE FOR THE LIAR HE IS ESPECIALLY WITH HIS VIEWS ON THE EEC.

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6714d

'!'You don't disagree, surely?

Dan Evans ● 6714d

!

Phil Andrews ● 6714d

I would have thought very few of us have the same views that we had 20 years ago and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with changing your mind.

Dan Evans ● 6714d

spot on keith, yes it was our beloved pm Tone. I also remember in his long haired days when he wanted to ban nuclear weapons...........how times have changedWasn't Tony Blair a socialist once?

Gareth Evans ● 6717d

spot on keith, yes it was our beloved pm Tone. I also remember in his long haired days when he wanted to ban nuclear weapons...........how times have changed

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6717d

Got to be ex guitarist with 'Ugly Rumours',his holiness the PM?

Keith Iddon ● 6718d

Also the trade links to the Caribbean and parts of Africa.Wonder how the vote would go if it were to be held again?Funny how Norway and Switzerland are very successful economies,having a big + balance of payments with European countries.Enjoying the best of both worlds me thinks!

Keith Iddon ● 6718d

It was not our president in waiting Keith, but I suspect he held similar views!! very warm with your guess.We (the plebs) have never been consulted about this expansion to an economic community. I certainly believed that it would be a large market for trade only, I believe that is  what most of us in the UK thought at the time. The one country that benefited the most was France, unlike us, if they dont like anything they will not accept it. We sold our trade links with Australia and New Zealand in the process. I am sure there are at least two people who will correct me if I have "got it wrong"

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6718d

It's along time since it was called the Common Market Andrew,although that is what it was when a referendum was held.No mention of the EEC,monetary union and interference from unelected diplomats and bankers.I,like many others who are living under this dodgy organisation,was too young to vote,but alas, am about the right age to pay for it.Guess at Gordon Brown as an answer?

Keith Iddon ● 6718d