Kamisiana wrote:...I would be more than happy with a common market +++ deal as we had befor Ted Heath shaffted us.
I am not sure exactly how Ted Heath "shafted us", Kamisiana. The idea of European integration to prevent the devastation that extreme nationalism had caused across Europe started immediately after WWII. Churchill was the first person to promote the formation of a United States of Europe as early as 1946 so it was a UK idea.
The first major attempt at integration was the formation of the Council of Europe in 1949. That organisation concentrated on human values and democracy leading to the European Convention on Human Rights, which the UK largely authored. It didn't really do anything economically and most of Europe's pressing problems were economic, after the massive destruction of capital caused by WWII. As an attempt to deal with the economic problems the European Coal and Steel Community, ECSC, was founded in 1952. It was clearly stated in its foundation papers that it was a "first step" in the federation of Europe so no secret there. Coal and Steel were chosen because they were fundamental to fighting a war so countries who were cooperating on their production and use were unlikely to go to war with each other. I don't think you have any real understanding how much WWII and the determination to not let it happen again influenced the thinking of the time. Viewed from today's perspective peace in Europe appears to be the norm - viewed from the period immediately after WWII it was recognised that war between Europe's nations had been the norm for centuries and peace a goal worth striving for.
In 1957 the same six countries that had formed the ECSC signed the Treaty of Rome creating European Economic Community, EEC, effectively a wider customs union than the cooperation under the ECSC. They also created the European Atomic Energy Community, Euratom, to cooperate on the development of nuclear energy seen as a future replacement for coal. There was a great recognition at the time that you could often gain more by cooperating than competing. For example the UK set up a number of independent research laboratories, ERA, MIRA, PERA etc to get UK industry to cooperate on solving their common problems and hence compete better with countries that hadn't been devastated like the USA. The EEC and Euratom were doing something similar at an international level.
Although they had common administrations these three bodies were independent legal entities. In 1967 the three bodies were merged together to form the European Communities, EC. That was the body that the UK joined in 1973. Then It was exactly what you claim to want to be a part of, i.e. a Common Market. At the time the UK economy was the basket case of Europe and the UK was desperate to join to try to get out of its economic woes. They had tried to join for several years but had been vetoed by De Gaulle. Ted Heath did not drag the UK kicking and screaming into the EEC - we were banging on the gate for several years in desperation.
The EU as we know it today was not formed until 1992 with the Treaty of Maastricht, although other changes like Schengen and the Single European Act had been put in place in the interim. Ted Heath had been out of office almost 20 years when that happened. Further integration of Europe was always the aim and was never a secret. At every stage, however, the UK managed to opt out of the bits of that further integration that it didn't like and, as far as I can see, would continue to do so in the future. As the second/third biggest economy in the EU the UK was an important member and as such got a lot more leeway than people realise. It could not opt out of the founding principles that it signed up to but it has not adopted many of the changes that have happened since we joined.. When David Cameron was asking the EU to allow us to partially opt out of free movement he hadn't even put in place a system to implement the existing rules.
I am no lover of Ted Heath but I think people should be criticised for the things that they did not people's perceptions of what they did.