Re: OT: And remoaners don't believe we've been hoodwinked.

T i m pretended :

So in your last two submissions, your are both commenting on a document you have not read, then saying the document is not there (to read)?

The link I provided, when I provided it, had the same first page as the present one, except the scan of the original entire FCO 30/1048 from

The FCO 30/1048 is a 224 page scanned PDP document from 1971 advising the then government of the pros and cons of joining the EEC. I haven't read it all, but what I have read accurately predicts where the EEC was likely heading. Based on that document, we should not have agreed to go in, but the document was ignored by Heath. Now we pay to get out, as predicted by the document.

Yes, like one often can when it comes from a dubious source or could be someone's 'translation' where they were very likely to have cherry picked a tiny part that suits their crusade?

Correct (as in my last question).

Ok, but not when I saw it so you will have to forgive my confusion?

Yes, I have since got it from elsewhere.

By whom? Someone who is a doG on these matters?

Again and within that same document, doesn't it also confirm some of the advantages re EU membership?

Maybe for good reason (especially at the time)?

No we don't 'pay to get out', we pay our outstanding commitments and wouldn't be doing that if we weren't getting out.

And if this 'doomsday doc' predicted it all, why does it seem to be a big surprise / issue / headline now? Even less reason for the Leavers to complain surely?

Cheers, T i m

One line of Fariges propaganda pamphlet that jumped out at me is:

"I believe it was a majority obtained by fraud and deception".

I wonder what event he was talking about. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

T i m formulated on Thursday :

A National Archive document is hardly a 'dubious source'. I didn't cherry pick, I provided a link to the full 224 page document so you could draw your own conclusions - unfortunately, 'someone' got in first removing the document and replaced it with Nigel Farrage's leave documentation.

No doubt the document will show up somewhere else, then you can enjoy the dubious pleasure of eating your own words.

T i m pretended :

He perhaps had access to the document of 1971 and was referring to how we were deceived into going in by the Heath government. I was one of those who wanted to go in at the time, I feel I was hood winked.

No, that's a Farage doc.

At this URL:

there is what appears to be a transcript of this original document (or set of documents, I suppose):

This link to the PDF is right under the large FCO 30 1048 heading, and underneath that is a warning that it could take 30 mins to download.

I can't tell whether it's a complete transcript or not. The PDF can be downloaded in a few minutes, which is what I did; I had a brief look at it only.

In any case, neither link points at any stuff by Farage or anyone else who supported Leave. It's all dated 1971 or so.

Mind you, debating this stuff with T i m is a waste of time, as can be seen by his liberal use of neutral terms like "dubious source", "crusade", "cherry picking", etc.

Tim Streater explained on 23/11/2017 :

Thank You, those links do still work and both offer copies of the same original document I found..

I agree with you on the matter of Tim - there are none so blind as those who wish not to see.

Tim Streater explained :

Yes, we have already established that thanks. Try this link for the document -

Strange that.

What words are they then? Given I said I hadn't read any of it and only offered the idea that it (the stuff we were first offered here) could have been cherry picked etc?

So, I'll ask again, what have *you personally* taken from the original / source document? Are you likely to be reading it from a neutral or biased POV?

Cheers, T i m

Quite.

Me too.

Agreed.

Yeah, it's not like bm or any other fanatic crusading Brexiter could ever be accused of doing that eh!

So, I'm still waiting for a real neutral review of the document so that we can get a true / impartial overview of it.

Cheers, T i m

How *he* believes that to be the case?

So you have read the entire document and still / then come to that conclusion? There are no redeeming features that may go any way to offset this *supposed* skulduggery?

Cheers, T i m

T i m explained on 23/11/2017 :

Why, are you unable to read it yourself and draw your own conclusions?

They are just simple words, forming sentences, paragraphs and pages.

on 23/11/2017, T i m supposed :

Get your granny to read it for you, if you cannot.

Because the New Left, of which Remoaners are a subset, have all been trained in State schools NOT to think for themselves, or form opinions.

That is the job of Government and the EU and the BBC. To tell them what opinions to have, what to believe and what to hate.

T i m presented the following explanation :

I have and in my opinion we were hood winked. It would be pointless for me to give you my own diagnosis beyond that, because you wouldn't accept that my diagnosis or that of anyone else where it might not suit you..

I'm still waiting for T i m to give us *his* opinion of the document. I expect I'll be waiting a long time.

It has become perfectly clear that the EU is and always was for the benefit of the political class who took us in, and who are trying to keep us in.

Since the BBC and guardian have failed to give their opinion on it, how can he have an opinion himself?