The Fiscal Stability Union Treaty

Clanket

I haven't had the time to read through the detail yet.

Can anyone tell me if this treaty is introducing a financial services transaction tax? Was that not the reason the UK would not sign up to it? Or am I confusing two different treaties?

beeftotheheels

Clanket wrote: »

I haven't had the time to read through the detail yet.

Can anyone tell me if this treaty is introducing a financial services transaction tax? Was that not the reason the UK would not sign up to it? Or am I confusing two different treaties?

No, and No.

The UK vetoed it because they wanted certain powers which they already gave to the EU back. This would have required a renegotiation of the TFEU and others were not keen to repatriate financial regulatory powers to London.

Nothing to do with a FTT which is still being talked about but no where near being actually brought into being.

Clanket

Cheers for that.

donegal_road

"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." - Jean Monnet, 'one of the Founding Fathers' of the EU

sorry if this quote has been posted already..

timbyr

donegal_road wrote: »

"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." - Jean Monnet, 'one of the Founding Fathers' of the EU

sorry if this quote has been posted already..

Except that wasn't a quote from Jean Monnet but from Adrian Hilton, a member of the British Conservative party.

daltonmd

timbyr wrote: »

Except that wasn't a quote from Jean Monnet but from Adrian Hilton, a member of the British Conservative party.

But it referred to what Monnet did say:


"Adrian Hilton wrote the following in his book The Principality and Power of Europe


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. After Europe’s coal and steel production were pooled, Europe’s atomic programmes were to be co-ordinated. Then would follow the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Market. After this would come the single currency, and so on. Monnet related on 6th May 1970, that he had explained this to Heath:
‘I told Heath how we had proceeded from the start, step by step, and how we had gradually created the Common Market and today’s Europe, and thaand how we had gradually created the Common Market and today’s Europe, and that I was convinced we should proceed in the same manner”
There may have been no evil intent; Heath and other leaders may have thought they knew best and that the people should simply follow them, uninformed or, if necessary, disinformed.
3 April 1952 Monnet did say
“The fusion (of economic functions) would compel nations to fuse their sovereignty into that of a single European State.”

timbyr

daltonmd wrote: »

But it referred to what Monnet did say:


"Adrian Hilton wrote the following in his book The Principality and Power of Europe


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. After Europe’s coal and steel production were pooled, Europe’s atomic programmes were to be co-ordinated. Then would follow the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Market. After this would come the single currency, and so on. Monnet related on 6th May 1970, that he had explained this to Heath:
‘I told Heath how we had proceeded from the start, step by step, and how we had gradually created the Common Market and today’s Europe, and thaand how we had gradually created the Common Market and today’s Europe, and that I was convinced we should proceed in the same manner”
There may have been no evil intent; Heath and other leaders may have thought they knew best and that the people should simply follow them, uninformed or, if necessary, disinformed.
3 April 1952 Monnet did say
“The fusion (of economic functions) would compel nations to fuse their sovereignty into that of a single European State.”

But you are still glossing over the fact that John Monnet did not say that.
Monnet may have expressed similar ideas of where the EU may lead and how it may arrive at the point, but there seems to be no record of him stating there should be a level of intentional deception or "disinformation".
This certainly seems to be a disingenuous paraphrasing of Monnets actual ideals and intentions, produced from pretty biased conjecture.

daltonmd

timbyr wrote: »

But you are still glossing over the fact that John Monnet did not say that.
Monnet may have expressed similar ideas of where the EU may lead and how it may arrive at the point, but there seems to be no record of him stating there should be a level of intentional deception or "disinformation".
This certainly seems to be a disingenuous paraphrasing of Monnets actual ideals and intentions, produced from pretty biased conjecture.

Sorry but I did not gloss over anything. While Monnet never actually said it, Adrian Hilton, who did say it, did so in reference to what Monnet did say.

Here again is what Monnet did say:

"There may have been no evil intent; Heath and other leaders may have thought they knew best and that the people should simply follow them, uninformed or, if necessary, disinformed."

View

daltonmd wrote: »

Sorry but I did not gloss over anything. While Monnet never actually said it, Adrian Hilton, who did say it, did so in reference to what Monnet did say.

Here again is what Monnet did say:

"There may have been no evil intent; Heath and other leaders may have thought they knew best and that the people should simply follow them, uninformed or, if necessary, disinformed."

You are not quoting your own quote accurately. The bit you quote is what Hilton claimed were the supposed motives of Heath et al - his commentary in other words.

None of which alters that the previous "quotation" attributed to Jean Monnet came from Adrian Hilton and not Jean Monnet. Someone referring to what they would like Jean Monnet to have said doesn't make it a quote from Jean Monnet.

daltonmd

View wrote: »

You are not quoting your own quote accurately. The bit you quote is what Hilton claimed were the supposed motives of Heath et al - his commentary in other words.

None of which alters that the previous "quotation" attributed to Jean Monnet came from Adrian Hilton and not Jean Monnet. Someone referring to what they would like Jean Monnet to have said doesn't make it a quote from Jean Monnet.

Again, the quote from Adrian Hilton, wrongly attributed to Monnet was in reference to what he said.
timbyr Said: "but there seems to be no record of him stating there should be a level of intentional deception or "disinformation".

My underlined bit here:

"There may have been no evil intent; Heath and other leaders may have thought they knew best and that the people should simply follow them, uninformed or, if necessary, disinformed.

Was in reference to that.

View

daltonmd wrote: »

Again, the quote from Adrian Hilton, wrongly attributed to Monnet was in reference to what he said.
timbyr Said: "but there seems to be no record of him stating there should be a level of intentional deception or "disinformation".

My underlined bit here:

"There may have been no evil intent; Heath and other leaders may have thought they knew best and that the people should simply follow them, uninformed or, if necessary, disinformed.

Was in reference to that.

In post #69 above you quote the above directly after "Here again is what Monnet did say:".

Monnet did not say that though if you re-read your post #67 again.

In both cases the "quotations" came from Hilton not from Monnet, hence neither of them are accurate representations of what Monnet believed.

daltonmd

View wrote: »

In post #69 above you quote the above directly after "Here again is what Monnet did say:".

Monnet did not say that though if you re-read your post #67 again.

In both cases the "quotations" came from Hilton not from Monnet, hence neither of them are accurate representations of what Monnet believed.

This quotation came directly from Monnet.

“The fusion (of economic functions) would compel nations to fuse their sovereignty into that of a single European State.”


The second quote, which was from Adrian Hilton (I mistakenly put Monnet instead of Hilton) was in direct reference to what Monnet said in a conversation with Heath

It was Hiltons interpretation and I was referring to a point made by Tymbr where he says that "there seems to be no record of him stating there should be a level of intentional deception or "disinformation" - Hilton never said that - what he said was:"There may have been no evil intent; Heath and other leaders may have thought they knew best and that the people should simply follow them, uninformed or, if necessary, disinformed."

Hope that clarifies it for you. My point was/is that the quote was in reference to what Monnet said.

timbyr

daltonmd wrote: »

This quotation came directly from Monnet.

“The fusion (of economic functions) would compel nations to fuse their sovereignty into that of a single European State.”


The second quote, which was from Adrian Hilton (I mistakenly put Monnet instead of Hilton) was in direct reference to what Monnet said in a conversation with Heath

It was Hiltons interpretation and I was referring to a point made by Tymbr where he says that "there seems to be no record of him stating there should be a level of intentional deception or "disinformation" - Hilton never said that - what he said was:"There may have been no evil intent; Heath and other leaders may have thought they knew best and that the people should simply follow them, uninformed or, if necessary, disinformed."

Hope that clarifies it for you. My point was/is that the quote was in reference to what Monnet said.

It may be in reference to quotes from Monnet and Heath, but I would definitely question the interpretation.
Hilton is inviting his readers to view Monnet's ideal in an non-objective way, framed by his own bias.

The suggestions that a super-state through disinformation is the goal of the EU in the same vein of NWO is a bit too much really.

daltonmd

timbyr wrote: »

It may be in reference to quotes from Monnet and Heath, but I would definitely question the interpretation.
Hilton is inviting his readers to view Monnet's ideal in an non-objective way, framed by his own bias.

The suggestions that a super-state through disinformation is the goal of the EU in the same vein of NWO is a bit too much really.

In faiirness to Hiltons interpretation though, he never indicated that there was any level intended deception regarding what Monnet said. It is accepted by many that Monnets sentiments were pretty close to what Hilton said.

Monnet is also reported as saying:

"Via money Europe could become political in five years" and "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"

Now my own interpretation (for what it's worth) is that this seems pretty close to a "Super - state". One which shared both an economic and political union.

It's my own view of course - but looking at where we are going and the decisions being made - on the surface they are "economic" but they do have political implications.

View

daltonmd wrote: »

This quotation came directly from Monnet.

“The fusion (of economic functions) would compel nations to fuse their sovereignty into that of a single European State.”

That quotation though is quite different to the (false) quotation which donegal_road posted.

It does not indicate that Jean Monnet believed that people should be either mis-led or mis-informed at any stage. Nor does it show he supported any sort of "covert agenda".

Instead, it shows he believed that once started the process would "take on a life of its own".

Since most politicians and/or political operators presumably tend to believe that that their favoured political objectives will be achieved over a period of time (otherwise there would be little point in them advocating for their preferred causes), I am not sure that puts his views at variance with those of most believers in liberal democracies.

Obviously not everyone (and I suspect a few/many of the governments the member states of the EU) will agree with his preferred political objective but that is a different issue to that which was first raised.

fries

Voting No will make no difference whatsoever. The multinationals need Ireland as a low corporation taxed, English speaking, European country.

meglome

fries wrote: »

Voting No will make no difference whatsoever. The multinationals need Ireland as a low corporation taxed, English speaking, European country.

Thank god we have someone who can see the future and reassure us all.

Sorry but don't state as fact what is absolutely clearly not a fact. It's what you want to believe and nothing more. What are your qualifications exactly on the topic? What processes did you use to come to this conclusion?