It is the Little Words that Matter Most
By now most of us are well aware of Ted Heath and his assurances in 1971 when he told us all that joining the EU would
not cause a loss of sovereignty for Britain,
many laugh at the outright lie he told and hold him up to ridicule for his provably false assertion, pointing to recently released government papers to show that when he made this guarantee he was well aware of that this was a lie.
It is clear that Heath wanted to dismiss the argument that joining the EEC would in fact cause a major loss of Britain`s ability to rule itself, and certainly what he said was intended to mislead the British people. Knowing that what he did say would be misquoted in the press and that only the main thrust of his argument would be heard, the words themselves we chosen to imply something that was in fact the opposite of the truth without actually telling an outright lie. Yet if we look at what he really said we will see the claim that he lied to the British people is based on soft ground.
The line from Mr Heath`s White Paper circulated to every household in the country in June 1971 promised,
there is no question of Britain losing essential sovereignty
In a television broadcast to mark Britain`s entry in January 1973, Heath said:
there are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.
Ted heath did not say There is no question of Britain loosing sovereignty he put in the word essential; that one word moves the argument on to what was his understanding of essential, he did not define his meaning but his overall intention was to mislead. And what did he mean when he said I need hardly say these fears are completely unjustified did he mean the fears were not true, or did he mean not fair?
When we read what a politician has said it is always prudent to understand that it is possible to make a clear statement that is in fact the opposite of the truth whilst being totally honest.
This was brought home to me recently in an exchange with someone who had written the following, in an attempt to mislead people into thinking that Britain is a still a self governing nation..
The House of Lords has the power to refer particular points of law to the ECJ but the House of Lords remains our highest court, and it rules on British law, which incorporates EU regulations. If you wish to get rid of all “EU law” then you have to repeal lots and lots of British law.
Of course every word is true but the implication is clear that the House of Lords is in the driving seat and the laws passed in this country even if they do come from the EU are scrutinised and passed by the our own government who have the power to refuse anything they do not agree with.
However If the House of Lords is the highest court then of course it would not need to refer anything, to any other institution. But then the writer did not say it was the highest court, instead he said it was our highest court; Our highest court!
To say the Lords has the right to refer a point of law to the ECJ in no way gives the Lords any power to change the point of law they refer, they are in fact asking a higher authority to rule on the point of law; again a truthful statement but designed to mislead by giving the false impression that the House of Lords is the main body protecting the British people.
In fact the House of Lords do not have the power to do anything about EU law, because it cannot change it, and they cannot refuse to pass it into British law.
If you wish to get rid of all “EU law” then you have to repeal lots and lots of British law.
On one level this is no argument for continuing down the road of further integration into the EU, and does not even begin to address the fact that many people in this country do not want to be ruled by Brussels dictate. And again nobody has said we ant to get rid of all EU law.
So when the Tories say they would like to bring power back to Westminster or will try to negotiate the return of the fishing waters, or as they are now saying control of the fishing waters, what exactly is their intentions. You can try and not succeed, and what does control mean, the intention is to say we will take our fishing water back, but stick control into the equation we then have to ask what sort of control for how long etc.
It is the little words injected into an argument that have the effect of completely changing the meaning conveyed. The little words that have been used to mislead the intentions of those who do not wish to tell an outright lie but are quite willing to use words that will do it for them.
