Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Aaron Banks springs to mind, although he is being kept busy by being under constant attack by the electoral commission. 

[Lizzie Zoom]

From what Ive read, Churchill did believe in Europe uniting, but didn't include us in it, as we weren't European, we were British.
He said we should instead turn our gaze to the open seas.

There has been much discussion over the decades about what Churchill meant following his Zurich speech in 1947 with the threat from the Soviet Union very much in his mind:
http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html

However, we must recognise that Churchill, a proud product of British Imperialism, knew the time of the British Empire was over, no matter how he hated the idea of that.  The country was bankrupt and GB was now totally reliant on the new super power, the USA.  He knew Britain could not afford to fight another war, and there was no desire left in the British people to do so.  To gain strength for Britain and the rest of Europe that had been fought so hard for at a tremendous price, and remembering the mistakes made after WW1, a united states of Europe, with joint ways of going forward in peace, albeit knowing the USSR was a big threat to that wish, made every sense.  But, Churchill being a good politician of his time knew the general public had to be let down gentle to acknowledge the new place in the World that GB now occupied, which would of course be starkly realised later in 1956 with The Suez Crisis. So he held back from stating clearly that final statement that Britain would be part of any USE.

No, what Churchill was considering in 1947 was a United States of Europe that would include Britain in the driving seat.

He said in 1944 "We are with Europe but not of it. We are linked but not compromised. We are associated but not absorbed. If Britain must choose between Europeand the open sea, we must always choose the open sea".

In 1953 he said.....

"We are not members of the European defence community, nor do we intend to be merged into a federal European system."

The first step in the recreation of the European family must be a partnership between France and Germany".

"We must be friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine."

http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/index.php?topic=35335.0

 

But as I said he was a true British politician who had to live in the context of his time, but he knew that in future Britain would need to be part of the bigger picture for the future stability of Europe and the World as a whole. That meant we would join a future European Union once the initial objectives were met between, as you rightly state, France and Germany to stop another war between the two that always developed to include others, which always eventually involved Britain as we were in treaties that meant we politically had little choice.

 Churchill knew unity was the key between democratic states, and as I previously stated he also knew Britain's power had greatly diminished so the future meant we would tread a more European path.

But have you got anything to prove that statement, or is it just your own hypothesis?

It is my view based on my readings of books and papers on Winston Churchill in both the political and historical sense.  It was the direction this senior statesman was heading in given the situation and context of the time.

It does make little difference though on the situation now, apart from it should have given GB an impetus to lead the EU once we were in it but we failed to do so which would have disappointed Churchill!

Now the politicians should just come together and obtain the best outcome for Great Britain and regain the trust of the British people which currently they have ALL lost!

[Sir Tigger KC]

It does make little difference though on the situation now, apart from it should have given GB an impetus to lead the EU once we were in it but we failed to do so which would have disappointed Churchill!

It's a complete waste of time trying to work out what Churchill, Thatcher or Richard the Lionheart would have made of it all.

We've always been like the awkward guest at a wedding within the EU, as we joined for commercial reasons rather than political and have been marginalised because of this.

I don't believe that we have ever enjoyed the influence that we should have had as the organisations second biggest economy and this was shown quite starkly when David Cameron vigorously opposed the appointment of JC Junker as the President of the EU Commission, yet was out voted.  As QMV is extended to more areas of policy within the EU and the veto system is phased out the UK would have found itself outvoted more and more, probably to the detriment of our national interest.

The political project is the over riding consideration for the eurocrats and they will pursue and protect it at all costs. All those wailing and knashing their teeth about BREXIT, should bear in mind what they did to Greece. 

[Lizzie Zoom]

On holiday in Thailand a couple of years ago I was in a bar chatting to some people, Australians iirc, and there were some German blokes stood drinking at the bar.  I noticed that they kept looking over at me and thought "Uh Oh"... 

Anyway the others left and I was finishing my beer and was about to leave when one of the German guys came over and the conversation went something like this.

German: Are you English?
Sir Tig: Er... yes..  I am.
German:  Zen I vould like to shake you by ze hand!  You are very clever people you British!
Sir Tig: Er Thanks  Why do you think that?
German: Ze European Union is destroying Europe and you British are doing ze right thing.  Zay vill make it very difficult for you, but you must see zis thing through.  If you do not ve are all lost!

With that he about turned, went back to his mates and as I bemusedly got up to go they all raised their glasses to me. "Prost!" 

The establishment and re-mainstream media would have us believe that the EU is universally popular on the continent.  It's not. 

PS: Apologies to Rolf and any other Deutschlanders for the bad accent, just trying to set the scene! 

That is very interesting to me Sir Tigger as I recognise the distinct echos of nationalism in that simple exchange.

In Germany, undoubtedly the strong country of the EU, in particular there is a strong wish to be an independant and re-establish Deutschland as a proper separate nation away from the weak members of the union. The right wing is always there, and GB leaving Europe could well produce the fall of the Union that many in Germany (and in France?) want.  Then you have the old historical situation emerging of separate strong national powers of Great Britain, Germany and France in true competition, industrially, politically (and militarily??) in existence.

Hopefully we can all live then in prosperity, but the shadows of history repeating itself will always be there unless man changes his ability to wage war.  Then instead of difficult negotiations around tables it will be back to gun fire deciding whatever it can!

On the optimistic side though I am sure we could all work together, without the stupid unregulated, uncontrolled, undemocratic  bureaucracy of the EU once the pain of the leaving process is over.  By God, I hope I am right on that at least!!

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Speaking of British Imperialism.....

In the good old days when Queen Victoria ruled the roost (and half the globe) a number of gunboats would be dispatched to 'make the other side see sense'.......I wonder, would that approach still work today? 

How many ships do we have?.......  I believe it was called gunboat diplomacy.

[Lizzie Zoom]

It does make little difference though on the situation now, apart from it should have given GB an impetus to lead the EU once we were in it but we failed to do so which would have disappointed Churchill!

It's a complete waste of time trying to work out what Churchill, Thatcher or Richard the Lionheart would have made of it all.

My opinion is Sir Tigger that it is not as in history there is always indicators of how man and countries will act towards each other and how parallel situations can degenerate into a repeat of the mistakes of the past.  That is what diplomats of every type should consider when, for instance, dealing with Russia and the Crimea / Ukraine situation.  In Europe particularly we all should ensure what happened in the past NEVER happens again but, who knows.......................................

[Lizzie Zoom]

Speaking of British Imperialism.....

In the good old days when Queen Victoria ruled the roost (and half the globe) a number of gunboats would be dispatched to 'make the other side see sense'.......I wonder, would that approach still work today? 

How many ships do we have?.......  I believe it was called gunboat diplomacy.

I have mentioned that as well Opti, but currently that should not be considered in context of our European allies. But that form of diplomacy is always in the background with the super power of the USA, and the rebel, Russia, which is intimidating Ukraine with the threat of large military presence on it's borders.

Therefore, as painful as the BREXIT negotiations have been, that is by far the best route rather than war and all that entails!

What will happen though when the EU breaks up is anyone's guess 

[Sir Tigger KC]

It does make little difference though on the situation now, apart from it should have given GB an impetus to lead the EU once we were in it but we failed to do so which would have disappointed Churchill!

It's a complete waste of time trying to work out what Churchill, Thatcher or Richard the Lionheart would have made of it all.

My opinion is Sir Tigger that it is not as in history there is always indicators of how man and countries will act towards each other and how parallel situations can degenerate into a repeat of the mistakes of the past.  That is what diplomats of every type should consider when, for instance, dealing with Russia and the Crimea / Ukraine situation.  In Europe particularly we all should ensure what happened in the past NEVER happens again but, who knows.......................................

That's true enough Lizzie, as the old saying goes that we can't work out where we are going, if we don't know where we came from.    But it's just silly I think trying to deduce what people like Churchill who lived in very different times when people had very different attitudes would have thought of todays events. We just don't know.

I watched an interview a couple of days ago with Alexander Downer, Australia's former Foreign Minister and now (I believe) the Australian High Commissioner to the UK.  He said that a lot of intellectual effort has been wasted in the UK arguing about whether or not we should leave the EU after the decision has been made.  He rightly in my opinion, said that if that democratic decision had been accepted and all that intellectual effort poured into making BREXIT a success then the UK would be in a better place than it is today. 

However.... 

[Lizzie Zoom]

It does make little difference though on the situation now, apart from it should have given GB an impetus to lead the EU once we were in it but we failed to do so which would have disappointed Churchill!

It's a complete waste of time trying to work out what Churchill, Thatcher or Richard the Lionheart would have made of it all.

My opinion is Sir Tigger that it is not as in history there is always indicators of how man and countries will act towards each other and how parallel situations can degenerate into a repeat of the mistakes of the past.  That is what diplomats of every type should consider when, for instance, dealing with Russia and the Crimea / Ukraine situation.  In Europe particularly we all should ensure what happened in the past NEVER happens again but, who knows.......................................

That's true enough Lizzie, as the old saying goes that we can't work out where we are going, if we don't know where we came from.    But it's just silly I think trying to deduce what people like Churchill who lived in very different times when people had very different attitudes would have thought of todays events. We just don't know.

I watched an interview a couple of days ago with Alexander Downer, Australia's former Foreign Minister and now (I believe) the Australian High Commissioner to the UK. He said that a lot of intellectual effort has been wasted in the UK arguing about whether or not we should leave the EU after the decision has been made.  He rightly in my opinion, said that if that democratic decision had been accepted and all that intellectual effort poured into making BREXIT a success then the UK would be in a better place than it is today.

However.... 

Very much agree!

[Varche]

I cannot see the EU breaking up. Just wishfull thinking by those that would like to see it happen. The leadership and their sponsors are ruthless. As said look at the Greece process, Italy and their rogue budget which would have incurred a 3 billion euro fine. Oh and the total stitch up of this useless May and her hopeless Chequers plan and the backstop trap. She has behaved like a lost child seeking parental (the establishment) approval. Russia and Ukraine or Baltic states may test the EU.

The rise of far right, populism is just a temporary blip that will go away. I say that even though Vox has come from nowhere and without publicity campaign have taken 12 seats in Andalucia in this months elections.

The Australian guy was spot on. We have wasted nearly two years. Whatever happened to the No deal is better than a bad deal. I hope history records Cameron, May and Corbyn as the charlatans they are. Oh for quality statesmen and innovative negotiators.

[Rods2]

A UK Government No Deal petition here. I've signed it, as currently, it is by far the least worst option and deal on the table.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/229963/signatures/new

In fact I would call it due to May killing the Canada+ deal David Davis & Michel Barnier were negotiating, for May's vested interests establishment grey cardinals #Chequers deal, the only viable deal before 29th March 2019 now on the table. We are at the point now of salvaging the least worst outcome from May's total & utter incompetence along with her support for a very narrow band of EU benefactors and anti-democracy people like Soros (who has put $400m into post-referendum Remain groups), Blair, the Michael Gove family, landed Lords, ex-EU commission officials like the Kinnocks, Cleggs, EU grant benefactors like the BBC & other media groups, charities etc., etc.

The amount of disruption this may cause will depend on how bloody minded the EU wants to be but it will show the worst of the EU to the world and show them up for what they are. My experience from Ukraine is our global friends like America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Ukraine, Japan and others will then rally around and fully support us & supply us with any shortfalls of goods and produce. March & April is also peak season for southern-hemisphere fresh produce with established supply chains used ever year for our always available society, which won't accept most produce now being seasonal. The EU will then be back for an FTA, especially when French, Belgium, Dutch, German & Spanish farmers riot due to loss of income and rotting produce in their fields and warehouses.

Left-wing socialist May has, as planned, destroyed her Conservative 'nasty party' as I can't see them recovering from this disaster, where their reputation for competent government is now totally destroyed. 13 years in opposition was the punishment for incompetitance under Major and that was minor compared to now and took Gordon McRuin Brown's wrecking of our economy 2000-2008, to make them appear as the least worst option.

[Varche]

18,720

[Sir Tigger KC]

Strange how that petition requires your name, email address and postcode to proceed.    Maybe everyone who signs it will be rounded up and charged with sedition. 

So Amber Rudderless has started to promote the 'Norway +' option, which is basically staying in the single market and customs union and I'm sure that she has broken cover on this with May's blessing. 

However, what she hasn't taken account of is that Norwegian politicians have said that they will not support the UK becoming independent members of the EEA and EFTA.     Bloody trouble makers them Brits you see! 

[STEMO]

Strange how that petition requires your name, email address and postcode to proceed.    Maybe everyone who signs it will be rounded up and charged with sedition. 

So Amber Rudderless has started to promote the 'Norway +' option, which is basically staying in the single market and customs union and I'm sure that she has broken cover on this with May's blessing. 

However, what she hasn't taken account of is that Norwegian politicians have said that they will not support the UK becoming independent members of the EEA and EFTA.     Bloody trouble makers them Brits you see! 

The petition about the migration treaty required all your details too. It's so they know you are actually a person, not so the stasi can pay you a visit. 

[Doctor Gollum]

Strange how that petition requires your name, email address and postcode to proceed.    Maybe everyone who signs it will be rounded up and charged with sedition. 

So Amber Rudderless has started to promote the 'Norway +' option, which is basically staying in the single market and customs union and I'm sure that she has broken cover on this with May's blessing. 

However, what she hasn't taken account of is that Norwegian politicians have said that they will not support the UK becoming independent members of the EEA and EFTA.     Bloody trouble makers them Brits you see! 

The petition about the migration treaty required all your details too. It's so they know you are actually a person, not so the stasi can pay you a visit. 

Unintended consequence