People finally coming to their senses?

switchlogic:

Juddian:
I’ll happily have another referendum so long as the question is still the same as the first, In or Out, because what the remainers wish for is to weasel word another referendum question to split the Out vote at least two ways.

Not true at all though it is? Most remainers would be overjoyed with a another simple in out referendum

There’s no downside to them if they get one though.

If Remainers said “Let’s hold another referendum, and if we lose it again, even by an even slimmer margin - we will volunteer to pay 5% extra taxes until Brexit is completed, thus encouraging us at last to “Get on with it” and “back your fellow Briton” rather than carry on with all this EU-serving backbiting that continues to go on…”

Advice to professional gamblers “Never EVER let your opponent draw at you for free. That next free card - massively increases the chance that they can catch a last-second miracle, and bust you utterly with it!”

If Remainers want another referendum - they must be made to pay heavily for it.
If we don’t recognize votes on the first time of asking, no matter how slim the margin of victory - then ALL future polls will become “rotten” when they keep on being contested. We’ll lose our democracy more like this, than by any direct action from the EU.

The EU is a political monster - and must be destroyed. “Britain Leaving” - is half the battle, as it cuts off much of the EU’s vampiric-gotten cashflow from the UK.
Other than than that… I must concur with my esteemed peers above… :stuck_out_tongue:

OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT

newmercman:
That’s my point, at least with the EU poking their nose in they can’t [zb] you completely.

Britain’s problems stem from what our own politicians did to us. The current decline started with the bid to get into the EEC at all costs. Jobs and wages? Thank Thatcher for destroying the unions and privatising our national industries and infrastructure. Unrealistic housing costs, again thank the Thatcher dynasty for flogging off social housing. Immigration spiralling out of control, that’s on Blair.

The Brexit thing was a publicity stunt by Cameron, it was an epic fail, Johnson was his opposition and somehow he disappeared from the running for Cameron’s replacement and May got the gig. WTF? Almost as ridiculous and immoral as Blair handing over the reins to Brown.

And you think this BOCs should run the country? Madness, pure and simple.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Agreed. There was an almighty slump in 1975, right after we were fooled into joining the EEC. Property prices crashed, The stock market crashed, unemployment started to rise sharply, and inflation took off as well. Four years later, this country was on it’s knees, and voted for Thatcher to make the “Nasty” decisions to get us out of it.

Even she didn’t succeed in bringing back the death penalty, or getting us out of the EU though. We were just too damned poor as a nation by that point to climb over the proverbial “Colditz Fence”…

We didn’t really have any opportunity to leave, until 2002, which was probably the zenith of the short-lived prosperity ushered in by Labour, and their laxer public spending plans from 1997 onwards.

Today, some 16 years hence - we are still making enough money that the EU continues to have it’s money beertap firmly rooted in our proverbial juggular.

If Brexit isn’t achieved until the blood is running down the streets - then we risk having another “Hard Right” government in this country, akin to Thatcher, whom even I as a “Moderate Right” - didn’t vote for.
It is in everyone’s interests to get Brexit done as soon as possible, and THEN switch governments if you don’t like the way our incumbents are spending that money gotten back “unwisely”…

Voted out and still want out,don’t be fooled by politicians games to try and scare people into changing their mind just to keep their EU buddy’s happy…it’s propaganda by our government.

Winseer:

newmercman:
That’s my point, at least with the EU poking their nose in they can’t [zb] you completely.

Britain’s problems stem from what our own politicians did to us. The current decline started with the bid to get into the EEC at all costs. Jobs and wages? Thank Thatcher for destroying the unions and privatising our national industries and infrastructure. Unrealistic housing costs, again thank the Thatcher dynasty for flogging off social housing. Immigration spiralling out of control, that’s on Blair.

The Brexit thing was a publicity stunt by Cameron, it was an epic fail, Johnson was his opposition and somehow he disappeared from the running for Cameron’s replacement and May got the gig. WTF? Almost as ridiculous and immoral as Blair handing over the reins to Brown.

And you think this BOCs should run the country? Madness, pure and simple.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Agreed. There was an almighty slump in 1975, right after we were fooled into joining the EEC. Property prices crashed, The stock market crashed, unemployment started to rise sharply, and inflation took off as well. Four years later, this country was on it’s knees, and voted for Thatcher to make the “Nasty” decisions to get us out of it.

Even she didn’t succeed in bringing back the death penalty, or getting us out of the EU though. We were just too damned poor as a nation by that point to climb over the proverbial “Colditz Fence”…

We didn’t really have any opportunity to leave, until 2002, which was probably the zenith of the short-lived prosperity ushered in by Labour, and their laxer public spending plans from 1997 onwards.

Today, some 16 years hence - we are still making enough money that the EU continues to have it’s money beertap firmly rooted in our proverbial juggular.

If Brexit isn’t achieved until the blood is running down the streets - then we risk having another “Hard Right” government in this country, akin to Thatcher, whom even I as a “Moderate Right” - didn’t vote for.
It is in everyone’s interests to get Brexit done as soon as possible, and THEN switch governments if you don’t like the way our incumbents are spending that money gotten back “unwisely”…

We joined the EEC in 1973, (not 1975) under a Covservative government, it was the Labour government elected in 1974 that then held a referendum in 1975 on whether we should stay in, and very much like the last referendum, it had more to do with internal party politics than democracy for the people. In this referendum Margret Thatcher campaigned on the Stay In side.

Margret Thatcher wasn’t anti EEC/EU she wanted the trade benefits, but was more skeptic about its social polices. During the 1980’s leaving the EEC was Labour Party policy, not the Conservatives.

newmercman:
Johnson was his opposition and somehow he disappeared from the running for Cameron’s replacement and May got the gig. WTF?

Now why do you think Johnson made a rapid step into the background as soon as Cameron resigned?

Maybe his support for Leave had more to do with his desire for power than any ideological belief.
Maybe he believed that, as the polls showed, Remain would win, Cameron’s EU deal would happen and the mainly Leave voting, Tory party grass roots would look to oust him, letting Boris step in with his Leave credentials.
so when Leave won, I bet he thought, oh botheration! Well I don’t want the poison chalice of leading the UK through this, far to much work and risk of failure and going down in history as a crap PM.

newmercman:
Almost as ridiculous and immoral as Blair handing over the reins to Brown.

Or Major taking over from Thatcher, but we don’t have a presidential system, we vote for the MP, probably becuase of the party they represent, not the Prime Minister or any other cabinet position and as far as I’m aware neither do many countries.
In fact in many countries you don’t even vote for a representative just a party, then their representative are selected by that party depending on the percentage of the national vote, does stop the party getting trouble makers in their ranks, as they are reliant on making it onto the party list not those who voted. The system does have its advantages as well, like smaller parties getting MP’s, under that system UKIP would of had something like 13 MP’s after the 2015 election and parties couldn’t form a majority goverment on 30% of the vote.

The MP in my mothers area probably would have never got voted in on a party only system, a Remain supporting Lib Dem in a mostly Leave rural area :open_mouth: but he has a great reputation locally for taking up cases for his constituents, he lives locally and not in London like his Consevative rival, who would have been a career MP forced on the local people by central office.

muckles:
Margret Thatcher wasn’t anti EEC/EU she wanted the trade benefits, but was more skeptic about its social polices. During the 1980’s leaving the EEC was Labour Party policy, not the Conservatives.

Leaving the EEC was also ‘Labour’ policy during the 1970’s assuming you followed people like Shore,Heffer and Benn not Jenkins,Wilson and Callaghan.

As for the Cons they were always for the EU unsurprisingly if you replace Unionist with the word Federalist which means the same thing. :bulb: On that note exactly what so called trade benefits.Other than those which,like Heath and Callaghan,she handed over on a plate to the EU with a rocketing trade deficit to prove it.While no self respecting Nation and leadership worth the name would allow itself to be blackmailed along the lines of sovereignty for trade regardless.As I said there are some massive questions which need answering here up to head of state level.

muckles:

Winseer:

newmercman:
That’s my point, at least with the EU poking their nose in they can’t [zb] you completely.

Britain’s problems stem from what our own politicians did to us. The current decline started with the bid to get into the EEC at all costs. Jobs and wages? Thank Thatcher for destroying the unions and privatising our national industries and infrastructure. Unrealistic housing costs, again thank the Thatcher dynasty for flogging off social housing. Immigration spiralling out of control, that’s on Blair.

The Brexit thing was a publicity stunt by Cameron, it was an epic fail, Johnson was his opposition and somehow he disappeared from the running for Cameron’s replacement and May got the gig. WTF? Almost as ridiculous and immoral as Blair handing over the reins to Brown.

And you think this BOCs should run the country? Madness, pure and simple.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Agreed. There was an almighty slump in 1975, right after we were fooled into joining the EEC. Property prices crashed, The stock market crashed, unemployment started to rise sharply, and inflation took off as well. Four years later, this country was on it’s knees, and voted for Thatcher to make the “Nasty” decisions to get us out of it.

Even she didn’t succeed in bringing back the death penalty, or getting us out of the EU though. We were just too damned poor as a nation by that point to climb over the proverbial “Colditz Fence”…

We didn’t really have any opportunity to leave, until 2002, which was probably the zenith of the short-lived prosperity ushered in by Labour, and their laxer public spending plans from 1997 onwards.

Today, some 16 years hence - we are still making enough money that the EU continues to have it’s money beertap firmly rooted in our proverbial juggular.

If Brexit isn’t achieved until the blood is running down the streets - then we risk having another “Hard Right” government in this country, akin to Thatcher, whom even I as a “Moderate Right” - didn’t vote for.
It is in everyone’s interests to get Brexit done as soon as possible, and THEN switch governments if you don’t like the way our incumbents are spending that money gotten back “unwisely”…

We joined the EEC in 1973, (not 1975) under a Covservative government, it was the Labour government elected in 1974 that then held a referendum in 1975 on whether we should stay in, and very much like the last referendum, it had more to do with internal party politics than democracy for the people. In this referendum Margret Thatcher campaigned on the Stay In side.

Margret Thatcher wasn’t anti EEC/EU she wanted the trade benefits, but was more skeptic about its social polices. During the 1980’s leaving the EEC was Labour Party policy, not the Conservatives.

Back then, the incoming Labour government COULD have turned over our entry into the EEC - by scrapping that referendum held on their watch. They didn’t
I would then expect at very least for the Labour Party TODAY to announce that it will absolutely NOT “turn over the result of the referendum” by either holding a second one, or dropping the implementation of Brexit in any way" upon taking office. This needs to be their manifesto committment OR they need to clearly state the opposite, that “Labour, upon being elected - will turn over Brexit with immediate effect”.

All we’re asking here - is for our Westminster rabble - to be HONEST about their intent, after expecting us to vote for them on “unspoken trust” and “promises scant of detail”. :bulb:

Winseer:

muckles:

Winseer:
Agreed. There was an almighty slump in 1975, right after we were fooled into joining the EEC. Property prices crashed, The stock market crashed, unemployment started to rise sharply, and inflation took off as well. Four years later, this country was on it’s knees, and voted for Thatcher to make the “Nasty” decisions to get us out of it…

We joined the EEC in 1973, (not 1975) under a Covservative government, it was the Labour government elected in 1974 that then held a referendum in 1975 on whether we should stay in, and very much like the last referendum, it had more to do with internal party politics than democracy for the people. In this referendum Margret Thatcher campaigned on the Stay In side.

Margret Thatcher wasn’t anti EEC/EU she wanted the trade benefits, but was more skeptic about its social polices. During the 1980’s leaving the EEC was Labour Party policy, not the Conservatives.

Back then, the incoming Labour government COULD have turned over our entry into the EEC - by scrapping that referendum held on their watch. They didn’t
I would then expect at very least for the Labour Party TODAY to announce that it will absolutely NOT “turn over the result of the referendum” by either holding a second one, or dropping the implementation of Brexit in any way" upon taking office. This needs to be their manifesto committment OR they need to clearly state the opposite, that "Labour, upon being elected - will turn over Brexit with immediate effect:

A) I was commenting on your historical inaccuracies.

B) you really don’t get it do you? The Labour Goverment elected in 1974 had the same internal divisions on the EEC as the Tory party of today, hence the 1975 referendum, hokding the referendum was part of the election deal, the same as Cameron promised one as part of his 2015 election campaign, it wasn’t until the 1980’s that Labour had leaving the EEC as part of their election manifesto.

And the Labour Party today still has the same internal divisions on the EU, but maybe not as likely to tear the party apart as it could the Conservative party, but it has other things which pull it apart.

Carryfast:

muckles:
Margret Thatcher wasn’t anti EEC/EU she wanted the trade benefits, but was more skeptic about its social polices. During the 1980’s leaving the EEC was Labour Party policy, not the Conservatives.

Leaving the EEC was also ‘Labour’ policy during the 1970’s assuming you followed people like Shore,Heffer and Benn not Jenkins,Wilson and Callaghan.

Was it in thier election manifesto in the 70’s? Was it actually party policy?

muckles:

Carryfast:

muckles:
Margret Thatcher wasn’t anti EEC/EU she wanted the trade benefits, but was more skeptic about its social polices. During the 1980’s leaving the EEC was Labour Party policy, not the Conservatives.

Leaving the EEC was also ‘Labour’ policy during the 1970’s assuming you followed people like Shore,Heffer and Benn not Jenkins,Wilson and Callaghan.

Was it in thier election manifesto in the 70’s? Was it actually party policy?

As I said it was clearly split along those personality lines with the Labour Brexiteers being a lot more credible than BoJo etc.Heffer’s correct conclusion being that it’s impossible to be an internationalist without maintaining the idea of the nation state.As opposed to Jenkins’ and Callaghan’s predictable obvious Soviet Socialist type view of Europe.Which then of course allied itself with Conservative Federalism in the form of Thatcher in the 1975 referendum and here we are now around 40 years later still arguing over Nationalism v Federalism.Which as I’ve said is historically rarely settled peacefully let alone democratically because Federalists don’t do democracy or secession.

youtube.com/watch?v=K1R3TgChPsU

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I have, since being able to source my own news and not rely on mainstream media, had a bit of an awakening. Take Benn as an example, because of what I read in the papers, I thought he was a bit of a nutjob, but it turns out that that was just propaganda, he’s actually far from a nutjob. A very interesting and intelligent man.

On the opposite side of the coin, I used to be a fan of Thatcher, but now, I see her in a different light, her policies are still having a direct and detrimental effect on our lives to this day.

The current lot, I don’t need hindsight, I wouldn’t give you a cup of cold ■■■■ for any of them.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

newmercman:
Hindsight is a wonderful thing Take Benn as an example, because of what I read in the papers, I thought he was a bit of a nutjob, but it turns out that that was just propaganda, he’s actually far from a nutjob. A very interesting and intelligent man.

On the opposite side of the coin, I used to be a fan of Thatcher, but now, I see her in a different light, her policies are still having a direct and detrimental effect on our lives to this day.

:wink:

You can add Shore and Heffer and possibly Powell to that.All taken out by establishment character assassination or deliberately just kept away from any real position of power.

While did that content of the Paul Ghee etc topics which you’ve previously referred to also help to turn your view in that regard ?.IE all those Brit products on the road weren’t made by workshy militants.More like people who’d fought a war,helped to win it and then came home and rebuilt their shattered country and economy only to see it all handed over to their foreign competition. :frowning:

Carryfast:

muckles:

Carryfast:

muckles:
Margret Thatcher wasn’t anti EEC/EU she wanted the trade benefits, but was more skeptic about its social polices. During the 1980’s leaving the EEC was Labour Party policy, not the Conservatives.

Leaving the EEC was also ‘Labour’ policy during the 1970’s assuming you followed people like Shore,Heffer and Benn not Jenkins,Wilson and Callaghan.

Was it in thier election manifesto in the I 70’s? Was it actually party policy?

As I said

You said it was Labour party policy in the 70’s, it was not, the same way as it wasn’t Conservative party policy in the 2015 election, despite many in the party and even cabinet wanting to leave the EU.

hkloss1:
Better late than never, I guess

msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/b … ailsignout

OUT MEANS OUT Were living in a democracy or have you forgot friggin remoaners :imp: crap unions jeeze

muckles:
You said it was Labour party policy in the 70’s, it was not, the same way as it wasn’t Conservative party policy in the 2015 election, despite many in the party and even cabinet wanting to leave the EU.

:confused:

Which part of.

The ‘Labour Party’ ‘‘votes two to one’’ ( in favour of Brexit ),obviously including Benn,Heffer and Shore among others,at a conference specifically concerning the matter.But which was ‘somehow’ then over ruled by the main remainer players in the form of Wilson,Callaghan and Jenkins with them predictably choosing instead to ally with remainer Thatcher among other Cons.

Doesn’t supposedly fit what ‘I said’ ?.

IE you’re confusing the wishes of the Labour administration ‘cabinet leadership’ with the ‘Labour Party’.Unlike the Cons in 2015 who are the same ideoligically federalist party as that under Heath and will always be so.Which is why there was no place for Powell within it as opposed to EEC/EU supporting Heath,Thatcher,Major,Cameron and now May and side kick Hammond while it seems strange why only Davis chose to support the Grass Roots Out campaign but didn’t seem to want to kick off a by election by walking away from the Cons.Unlike Powell.

Carryfast:

muckles:
You said it was Labour party policy in the 70’s, it was not, the same way as it wasn’t Conservative party policy in the 2015 election, despite many in the party and even cabinet wanting to leave the EU.

:confused:

Which part of.

The ‘Labour Party’ ‘‘votes two to one’’ ( in favour of Brexit ),obviously including Benn,Heffer and Shore among others,at a conference specifically concerning the matter.But which was ‘somehow’ then over ruled by the main remainer players in the form of Wilson,Callaghan and Jenkins with them predictably choosing instead to ally with remainer Thatcher among other Cons.

Doesn’t supposedly fit what ‘I said’ ?.

that is was Labour Party policy!

There were many in the Labour Party and Labour movement as a whole who didn’t want us to be members of the EEC, that I have never denied, but it wasn’t official policy even after the vote.

muckles:

Carryfast:
:confused:

Which part of.

The ‘Labour Party’ ‘‘votes two to one’’ ( in favour of Brexit ),obviously including Benn,Heffer and Shore among others,at a conference specifically concerning the matter.But which was ‘somehow’ then over ruled by the main remainer players in the form of Wilson,Callaghan and Jenkins with them predictably choosing instead to ally with remainer Thatcher among other Cons.

Doesn’t supposedly fit what ‘I said’ ?.

that is was Labour Party policy!

There were many in the Labour Party and Labour movement as a whole who didn’t want us to be members of the EEC, that I have never denied, but it wasn’t official policy even after the vote.

As I’ve clearly shown by all normal defintions the 'Labour ‘Party’ voted 2 to 1 for Brexit in the 1975 referendum campaign.I’ve never denied and in fact agreed that the ‘Labour administration leadership’ supported the Con opposition in the form of Thatcher and Heath being the main players in that campaign on the Tory side having defeated Powell.Which was my point being the question why.IE conspiracy seeming to go right to the top in the form of the Head of State.Unless she can answer the question why would the Head of State allow HM government to hand over the sovereignty of the Nation to a foreign power without calling treason and sending in the forces ?.

I voted out and I would still vote OUT

muckles:

Winseer:

muckles:

Winseer:
Agreed. There was an almighty slump in 1975, right after we were fooled into joining the EEC. Property prices crashed, The stock market crashed, unemployment started to rise sharply, and inflation took off as well. Four years later, this country was on it’s knees, and voted for Thatcher to make the “Nasty” decisions to get us out of it…

We joined the EEC in 1973, (not 1975) under a Covservative government, it was the Labour government elected in 1974 that then held a referendum in 1975 on whether we should stay in, and very much like the last referendum, it had more to do with internal party politics than democracy for the people. In this referendum Margret Thatcher campaigned on the Stay In side.

Margret Thatcher wasn’t anti EEC/EU she wanted the trade benefits, but was more skeptic about its social polices. During the 1980’s leaving the EEC was Labour Party policy, not the Conservatives.

Back then, the incoming Labour government COULD have turned over our entry into the EEC - by scrapping that referendum held on their watch. They didn’t
I would then expect at very least for the Labour Party TODAY to announce that it will absolutely NOT “turn over the result of the referendum” by either holding a second one, or dropping the implementation of Brexit in any way" upon taking office. This needs to be their manifesto committment OR they need to clearly state the opposite, that "Labour, upon being elected - will turn over Brexit with immediate effect:

A) I was commenting on your historical inaccuracies.

B) you really don’t get it do you? The Labour Goverment elected in 1974 had the same internal divisions on the EEC as the Tory party of today, hence the 1975 referendum, hokding the referendum was part of the election deal, the same as Cameron promised one as part of his 2015 election campaign, it wasn’t until the 1980’s that Labour had leaving the EEC as part of their election manifesto.

And the Labour Party today still has the same internal divisions on the EU, but maybe not as likely to tear the party apart as it could the Conservative party, but it has other things which pull it apart.

How old are you btw? I remember my parents arguing about the entire purpose of the 1975 referendum. I remember the NO campaign, and EEC NO being painted on railway overbridges at places like pepper hill. The public got totally lied to, misled, and the immediate slump that happened right after - proved what a totally stupid idea it had all been. In effect, ratifying in 1975 actually led to the scare stories coming TRUE that time around - which was NOT the case with Project Fear’s machinations this time around, when we have finally tried to repair the damage of the past 40 years that gave us slumps, asset bubble boom & bust, Thathcher, unelectable Labour, Bank Bailouts, Multi Culturalism, and now (for the time being until we are out) - everlasting austerity.

My family were Liberal activists (disaffected former Tory Voters) involved with the local Liberal Party (fielding candidate Mary Black) in the first of the 1974 elections. You are correct when you bring attention to BOTH Tories and Labour being as bad as each other here - but I’ve told you my own experience as a kid at the time, on how local politics appeared. I remember my mum uttering “Bugger Mr Heath!” when he refused to go into coalition with Jeremy Thorpe after the first 1974 election ended with a hung parliament. Thorpe should have had balance of power there, and been kingmaker. HEATH bloody well capitulated to Wilson instead, despite the election result giving Heath only 4 seats less than Wilson AND Heath winning the popular vote! If people moan about the 2016 EU referendum result being “so close, as to cause even further divisions”- then the Febuary 1974 election - was the most devisive thing EVER in this country politically, and a turning point in my own childhood, as the slump came to bite the following year, proving our fears to be well-founded. Mortgage rates rose, House prices slumped, unemployment rose sharply… I was just starting Grammar School, only to be faced with deep cuts, thanks to elected local Labour MP Bob Bean pushing the party “Anti Grammar School” line. He got the boot in 1979 of course, and Thatcher’s victory - but by that point, the damage was well and truly done! There WAS no “Project Fear” in the run-up to the 1975 referendum as I recall. We were led like lambs to the slaughter, with no one explaining any risks of “voting in”. The British Working Public got slammed into the brick wall (all the worst fears of todays project fear) by BOTH mainstream parties - and it has taken over 40 years to get back to the point where we made that momemtously bad decision to “trust our mainstream parties to get it right” in 1974. Labour ended up taking our local seat off the Tories, and then the vote switching back again in the 2nd election later that year. The Liberals got sidelined, having missed their chance to get into a coalition government, because essentially Heath lost a handful of seats too many to make a Con/Lib coalition feasible, because others like the UUP and NI Vanguard party (along with maybe Plaid Cymru) would have been needed to make up the numbers to 318 seats, the majority line of the day. “Those that could see if coming” then as now - are as a voice crying in the wilderness. The LIberals only won 14 seats in the Feb 1974 election, although that was nearly double their previous tally. It wasn’t enough to put them into government though, and I suspect UKIP’s tally at the next election, will be a rather similar experience for us, with a shafting straight after, “having not got UKIP involved”.

Thus, I reckon the EU are hoping our mainstream parties today are going to actually do a repeat of what they did in 1974! - Shaft us all over again, and then all be dead by the time another 40 years has passed - before we get another shot at it. :angry: :imp: Theresa May has already kicked the next election down the road (so she thought) to 2022, but now we have a resurgent Labour already threatening to “vote against the Brexit deal” regardless of what it is, which surely will force another election before Christmas, if they stick to this new “Hard Remain” policy roll-out.

Thus the “History” as you see it, and I saw it - are going to be different.

Carryfast:

muckles:

Carryfast:
:confused:

Which part of.

The ‘Labour Party’ ‘‘votes two to one’’ ( in favour of Brexit ),obviously including Benn,Heffer and Shore among others,at a conference specifically concerning the matter.But which was ‘somehow’ then over ruled by the main remainer players in the form of Wilson,Callaghan and Jenkins with them predictably choosing instead to ally with remainer Thatcher among other Cons.

Doesn’t supposedly fit what ‘I said’ ?.

that is was Labour Party policy!

There were many in the Labour Party and Labour movement as a whole who didn’t want us to be members of the EEC, that I have never denied, but it wasn’t official policy even after the vote.

As I’ve clearly shown by all normal defintions the 'Labour ‘Party’ voted 2 to 1 for Brexit in the 1975 referendum campaign.I’ve never denied and in fact agreed that the ‘Labour administration leadership’ supported the Con opposition in the form of Thatcher and Heath being the main players in that campaign on the Tory side having defeated Powell.Which was my point being the question why.IE conspiracy seeming to go right to the top in the form of the Head of State.Unless she can answer the question why would the Head of State allow HM government to hand over the sovereignty of the Nation to a foreign power without calling treason and sending in the forces ?.

So are you saying that despite seemily overwhelming support it was blocked from being Labour Party policy by its leadership?