Joelsnan First, to address the specific point you make about "invisible writing" with my extract from para 28 of the White Paper, does this help?
"28. If the political implications of joining Europe are at present clearest in the economic field, it is because the Community is primarily concerned with economic policy. But it is inevitable that the scope of the Community's external policies should broaden as member countries' interests become harmonised. That is the Community's clear intention."
It seems to me clear from that, the Heath Government in 1971 understood that further social and political harmonisation was a component.
Further on, the idea of broadening the scope from a simple economic treaty was discussed in para 36.
"·36. There is no alternative grouping of countries with similar circumstances and interests which could offer us the same opportunities to safeguard our national security and prosperity. ....... the Six have firmly· and repeatedly made clear that they reject the concept that ·European unity should be limited to the formation of a free trade area."
Most of the rest of the paper refers to how the economic, trade and political scenarios are bound up, but it does seem to me to suggest that this was never going to be a static body, just exchanging commodities with lower tariffs.
I appreciate your reference to Maastricht too, but those changes were perhaps logical, and we did have the opportunity to accept or refuse.
Whilst I appreciate that your view is different to mine, I'm afraid I remain a remainer.