https://twitter.com/GrubStreetJorno/status/1186920039615811585

https://twitter.com/GrubStreetJorno/status/1186987513036103681

§Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. There is no doubt that the result of the referendum in Denmark has come as a surprise and shock to most people in the Community. It inevitably raises some fundamental questions about the Maastricht treaty, and possibly the whole direction of the European Community.

We noted that the Government decided not to proceed with the Committee stage of the treaty in another place. In the light of the referendum result that was sensible because all the 12 governments will have to consider the new situation which has been created. As the Statement makes clear, the treaty amends the Treaty of Rome, which can only be changed by unanimity. In other words, all the 12 members must agree.

The Statement says that the treaty, established the principle of subsidiarity rather than centralism”. Does not the result in Denmark show that many people have not grasped that, or indeed do not understand what subsidiarity means?

https://twitter.com/GrubStreetJorno/status/1186879074293166080

Commision Competentcies Competentcies.

Stalin´s Idea of Subsidiarity and Proportionality according to krushev.

When Stalin Died Krushev denounced him, Brexit is an analogue for the denunciation of the EU (Stalin) yet the EU is still alive or though diminished. I quote the passage in Krushevs´ Speech as it deals with Stalins´ treatment of the Yugoslav crisis.

Enlargement, The Euro, ERM Maastricht and all that.

In a piece called It’s the Money Stupid. Dr North has this to say.

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86351

´´A knowledge of EU history and of our troubled relations with the Community, however, will quickly draw attention to the early days and the “Bloody British Question”. And that will give some clues as to how the battle lines might be drawn up. The early disputes were, of course, about money, culminating with Thatcher’s great victory in 1984 at Fontainebleau on the rebate – more than a decade after we had joined the EEC. ´´

´´And, according to The Times, it has not been long in coming. Yesterday, Joseph Muscat, the Maltese prime minister, currently holding the EU’s rotating presidency, made it clear that the UK will have to sign up to EU divorce terms for Brexit. This included a bill of up to £60 billion, which will have to be settled before talks on a trade agreement can begin.
This is exactly what we were saying on Wednesday and hinting at in December. But it also something the UK cannot pretend is a surprise. We were given notice by Wolfgang Schäuble last November. Mrs May was extremely unwise to ignore this issue. ´´

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1984/jun/27/european-council-fontainebleau

Recently it was the 25^th anniversary of the Maastricht Treaty, one wonders if The Then Mrs Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were really all in for fully integrated state monopoly financialised Capitalism.The Now Lord Lamont, an investment Banker it seems was not and had the rare economic knowledge of monetary history to save, Mr Major (a financial journalist) and the Nation, from himself.and the would be ECB and the then ERM Jekyll’s.

Norman Lamont was interviewed on the ERM Soros and All that recently on Sky News.

But Norman Lamont refused to sign it!
It was signed‎: ‎7 February 1992.
Became effective‎: ‎1 November 1993

“I hated the (Maastricht) Treaty.”
“When I looked at the Trade Statistics for Switzerland, I realised there was no unambiguous advantage for us being in the EU (in 1994).”
“The EURO has inflicted massive suffering & very low growth on Southern Europe. The EURO is a historic mistake.”

Norman Lamont on All out Politics, Sky News, 7th February 2017.

https://twitter.com/GrubStreetJorno/status/1186878491150696448

Britain’s enslavement
Tacitus explains the policy of his father-in-law, Agricola, in bringing the comforts of Roman civilization to the barbarous British:

‘His object was to accustom them to a life of peace and quiet by the provision of amenities. He, therefore, gave official assistance to the building of temples, public squares and good houses. He educated the sons of the chiefs in the liberal arts and expressed a preference for British ability as compared to the trained skills of the Gauls. The result was that instead of loathing the Latin language they became eager to speak it effectively. In the same way, our national dress came into favour and the toga was everywhere to be seen. And so the population was gradually led into the demoralizing temptation of arcades, baths and sumptuous banquets. The unsuspecting Britons spoke of such novelties as ‘civilization’, when in fact they were only a feature of their enslavement.’

Tacitus Agricola chapter 21, translated by H. Mattingly, Penguin 1948, 1973
Read more: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=288#ixzz42Ur1m0hA

§Lord Jenkins of Hillhead My Lords, we thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Through him I congratulate the Prime Minister on the steadiness of the note he struck in the Statement.

940There is not much other basis for congratulation today, although the setback—which it undoubtedly is —needs to be put into perspective. I have been amazed that there has been no earlier severe check to the remarkable momentum of the past six years, particularly as the post-war history of the European idea has been one of frequent severe setbacks overcome with a mixture of resolution and ingenuity. There was the European Defence Community setback in 1954; there was the De Gaulle-Hallstein quarrel of 1965–66; and there was the rupture of the negotiations for British, Danish and Irish entry in 1963 and in 1967.

The Danes have a history of being somewhat lukewarm towards the Community, at the same time intermingled with a good deal of constructive European statesmanship. They have always been loath to go beyond the concept of a purely economic community. The rather cruel early joke at the time when Jens Otto Krag was Danish Prime Minister at the time of their first negotiations for entry was: “Mr. Krag does not want to join Europe but he does want to sell cheese”.

https://twitter.com/GrubStreetJorno/status/1186879828638752773

The referendum result also gives pause for thought about the admission of Sweden, Finland, Austria and Switzerland, the other neutral ex-EFTA countries, let alone Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary. I have always been a considerable advocate of early and substantial enlargement, but if approximately 30,000 votes in one of 12 countries can produce stultification, how much more vulnerable would be a Community of 20 or 25 countries?

§Lord Wakeham My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for the points he made and also to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. I share the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.

941The essence of the Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place was that there would be a pause for reflection…….

The noble Lord referred to the position of Denmark. We understand some of the Danish concerns. Some of Denmark’s concerns are also those of other countries. We ourselves fought hard at Maastricht against a centralised Europe. We believe that the Maastricht treaty was an important watershed in making sure that Europe did not develop into too centralised an institution. I should also make just one comment on the noble Lord’s remarks about enlargement. It is too soon to say what the effect will be on enlargement. Obviously we are consulting our partners on the way forward. The case for enlargement stands on its own merit. The Community must remain open. The Government are committed to making progress under the UK presidency in preparing early accession negotiations with the EFTA applicants.

If they read a quarter, then that's improving on the Maastricht Treaty, which was signed by the government without reading it, and without MPs scrutinising it. https://t.co/Vu4eQADMZR

— Richard Werner (@scientificecon) October 22, 2019

Viscount Tonypandy My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware—as I believe he must be—that the issue of the sovereignty of Britain was not debated at the general election, since the three parties had a common policy? There was never a proper opportunity to discuss the matter.

943I should like to say to him that a small majority—the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, referred to this point —is not to my mind important when there is a referendum. If there had been a small majority the other way, people would have said that the argument was carried and the issue would have been resolved. Nobody would complain if they had won by a small majority.

Secondly, will the Government bear in mind that when the Danish people say no it is just as important as when the French or German people say no? Otherwise, we may fall into the trap of suggesting that a small country is less important than the bigger countries of Europe. That would be a grievous blunder.

(Linking to this in Hansard from Viscount Tonypandy is not implemented? a coincidence?) The Link is to Lord Wakehams prior statement. This is the link to Para 943 where Viscount Tonypandy a previous HoC speaker .

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-administration-and-constitutional-affairs-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/parliament-constitution-role-of-speaker-inquiry-17-19/

09:49:32

Witnesses: Dr Paul Seaward, Director of The History of Parliament Trust, and Lord Lisvane, former Clerk of the House

Chairman.(ChairThey?)

” very briefly at the end of