Print

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

[Lizzie Zoom]

We could die before this is sorted 

It was not supposed to be this complicated.

Brexit was 'supposed' to be done and dusted in two flicks of a lambs tail.

We issue a set of demands to the EU and all 27  drop to their knees in submission.

........however, in the real world.

Sadly, dear old JRM and his small band of 'hard brexiteers' seem unable to grasp that the days of British imperialism are long gone.

That Opti is what I have been saying all along.

Even dear Winston Churchill recognised the importance for future peace and security in a united states of Europe which would include Britain as a leading force in it's administration, which obviously General Charles de Gaulle hated the thought of and kept us out!

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

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.

[Sir Tigger KC]

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.

The devil or the deep blue sea. 

[STEMO]

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.

Naval gazing. 

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

T wat. 

[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.
 

[Olympia5776]

We could die before this is sorted 

It was not supposed to be this complicated.

Brexit was 'supposed' to be done and dusted in two flicks of a lambs tail.

We issue a set of demands to the EU and all 27  drop to their knees in submission.

........however, in the real world.

Sadly, dear old JRM and his small band of 'hard brexiteers' seem unable to grasp that the days of British imperialism are long gone.

That Opti is what I have been saying all along.

Even dear Winston Churchill recognised the importance for future peace and security in a united states of Europe which would include Britain as a leading force in it's administration, which obviously General Charles de Gaulle hated the thought of and kept us out!

What on earth has "imperialism " got to do with seeking to cut ties with the eu and be sovereign again .
We want to have control of our own country again not invade the sub continent .

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

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

 

[Lizzie Zoom]

We could die before this is sorted 

It was not supposed to be this complicated.

Brexit was 'supposed' to be done and dusted in two flicks of a lambs tail.

We issue a set of demands to the EU and all 27  drop to their knees in submission.

........however, in the real world.

Sadly, dear old JRM and his small band of 'hard brexiteers' seem unable to grasp that the days of British imperialism are long gone.

That Opti is what I have been saying all along.

Even dear Winston Churchill recognised the importance for future peace and security in a united states of Europe which would include Britain as a leading force in it's administration, which obviously General Charles de Gaulle hated the thought of and kept us out!

What on earth has "imperialism " got to do with seeking to cut ties with the eu and be sovereign again .
We want to have control of our own country again not invade the sub continent .

I am sure that Opti mentioned "imperialism" as I also had mentioned it in the context of the mind of the Britishers of the past; those who knew Great Britain was a world power, whose might ensured (usually) the country got what it wanted from other countries one way or another and should not be argued with. Other European countries often felt that power from a military point of view!

So, old fashioned British "imperialism" cannot now force 27 other nations to give us what we want.  We may always punch above our weight, but nowadays in 2018 we do have to use diplomacy to fully negotiate with others to achieve as many of our aims as we can.  That is what has happened so far with Brexit, and it seems the majority of our people are not happy about it one way or another from all parties and personal points of view.

That leaves us with the choice of agreeing with what's on offer, renegotiate a better deal, or pull out or stay in. But we, once more, cannot force anyone to do everything we want them to do. We are a great country, but lack the advantages of the past, so now have to face reality and live within the world community not rule it as I really believe some may think we Great Britain still can by purely saying we can! 

[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.

[STEMO]

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?

[Doctor Gollum]

Matters not a jot what was historically said...

What matters now is that the current bag of wet string gets its shit together in order to release us from the clutch of the three unelected monkeys.

Regardless of the details*, that is all that is required of them by the referendum. Failure to do this is not a viable solution and would lead to unprecedented levels of voter apathy or discontentment for which we will all pay dearly.

*Northern Ireland has been a total cluster opps for about 500 years... Walking away with a border down the Irish Sea is no worse than pardoning the IRA.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

If you had any experience of the place you wouldn't say that. Besides she said recently of the possibility of a border down the Irish sea "I could never allow that to happen, and nor could any British prime minister". A few weeks later, she has done it.
Varadkar has played her like a cheap fiddle. She is the worst waste of skin I have ever seen in a British politician, and that's saying something.
When B. Liar appeased the IRA, he gave them everything they wanted apart from the one thing they really wanted. Even he knew he couldn't get away with that.This moron of a PM has just given them half of it, and made it much easier to get all of it.
When she loses the vote on Tuesday the Tories need to jettison her by lunchtime Wednesday. If they don't, they don't deserve to carry on as a Govt.

[STEMO]

Through all of these heated discussions, I do hope that the people of Europe don't get the impression that we hate/dislike them, although I'm pretty sure that's the message we are sending. Personally, I like the different languages and cultures that make up Europe. From the various cuisines and languages, to the oddities and customs.
It's the EU as an organisation I can't stand. Their self-centred, self-opinionated, self-importance is only the soft shell of a very dangerous group of fanatics. The common market, as it was called, was actually a very good idea. But, over the years, layer upon layer of restrictive practices have been added, that were, almost by stealth, turned into laws that bound every country, every citizen, into the following the will of a few unelected bureaucrats who seek to build a legacy for themselves.
I would gleefully shoot Junker, Tusk and company, and I mean that.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Apart from the French obviously. 
I love the Italians, their language culture style etc. etc. Couldn't trust them as far as you could throw them, but even if they were robbing you they would do it with style.