View Full Version : Leaked! Germany Secretly Aims For EU Army!
walpurgis
03-05-2016, 23:19
It seems that Germany is pushing for a EURO army, with a relaxation of the military restrictions they currently have imposed since WW2. Behind the scenes naturally, as they did not want this in public until after the BREXIT bit was done and dusted. Now maybe the consolidated defence of Europe might be good (I'm not so sure), but thinking ahead. What if there is a successful right wing push for power in Germany leading to a strongly nationalist government (as historically Germany has a tendency to be prone towards this). Could it all lead to the equivalent of a 4th Reich being formed and dominating without even the need to invade other countries? Uncomfortable thoughts.
Here: http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/666516/Anti-Brussels-fury-Germany-secretly-plans-for-EU-army-Brexit
Stratmangler
03-05-2016, 23:34
You have too much time on your hands.
I wouldn't wipe my arse with the Express, never mind believe anything in it.
Oldpinkman
04-05-2016, 05:23
Yeah. We need to make sure we are on the outside of a nazi superstate so we can invite the Americans over for another picnic on the Normandy beaches. Bags I lead the invasion of Le Dramont in the south though. It's one of my favourite beaches. On the other hand if we stay in, a nazi super state would have sound policies on border control and Aryan supremacy for Berlin and Southall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfl6Lu3xQW0
apologies for the advert - only link I could find
"Of course, not all Germans are like that, I have a very good friend who once knew a perfectly decent German, but you can't trust them ..." The world is full of Basils. :D
Could it all lead to the equivalent of a 4th Reich being formed and dominating without even the need to invade other countries?
No. HTH.
A European army and police force has been part of the plan since the 1950s. Nothing new here, except to most people who still seem to think the final destination is just a trading bloc with freedom of movement.
It is intended that the nation states will eventually be disbanded and replaced with EU regions that will overlap the old national borders. There used to be an official EU map on-line that details this but they seem to have taken it down. I wonder why?
Oldpinkman
04-05-2016, 08:15
A European army and police force has been part of the plan since the 1950s. Nothing new here, except to most people who still seem to think the final destination is just a trading bloc with freedom of movement.
It is intended that the nation states will eventually be disbanded and replaced with EU regions that will overlap the old national borders. There used to be an official EU map on-line that details this but they seem to have taken it down. I wonder why?
Do you have a single credible reference for that statement? I readily accept that the EU was intended to be a political union. That's why it has a Parliament and legislature.
But "nation states will be disbanded"???
One credible source.
A European army and police force has been part of the plan since the 1950s.
So, since it's taken about 60 years to get nowhere at all with these proposals, I see no immediate need to worry that Germany is about to take over the world at the head of a EURO Army.
walpurgis
04-05-2016, 09:08
I wouldn't wipe my arse with the Express, never mind believe anything in it.
Other links:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e90a080e-107b-11e6-91da-096d89bd2173.html#axzz47fzR3tCf
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3571178/Brexit-supporters-condemn-fresh-German-push-establish-European-army.html
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/germany-pushes-european-army-1557866
Spectral Morn
04-05-2016, 09:37
Not surprised in the slightest if this turns out to be true. It beggars belief that millions died to fight for freedom from tyranny in Europe, and then one by one countries have given up their sovereignty to a bunch of faceless unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.
Time for the European Project to die methinks, hopes.
Do you have a single credible reference for that statement? I readily accept that the EU was intended to be a political union. That's why it has a Parliament and legislature.
But "nation states will be disbanded"???
One credible source.
As I said there used to be an EU regions map and it was on an official EU site - but I can't find it now so they must have taken it down. It was about 10 years ago and the EU has become much more unpopular since then.
I,m sure ive seen that somewhere too.... Twas some years ago though.
A eu army would make a mockery of those "we must be able to defend the country and have neuclear weapons" though.. Assuming this spreads through the forces of course ,,, as it would.
Who would we fight with this EU army? Or defend against? The Russians?
I suppose if the EU had central control of all armed forces it would prevent the individual states taking unilateral action that the EU disagreed with. Our gov is probably dumb enough to go along with it but I can't see the French going for it.
walpurgis
04-05-2016, 11:41
I can't see the French going for it.
Yes. I expect France probably has the biggest and best set of armed forces in Europe. I can't see them being willing to relinquish any control.
I may be out of date but the Bundeswehr was the largest army in western Europe. As for the French being the 'best' that is debatable. They relied on conscription until 1997. Historically only the Foreign Legion and the paratroops have demonstrated any exceptional fighting qualities. The bulk of their new professional army remains untested.
Oldpinkman
04-05-2016, 12:36
As I said there used to be an EU regions map and it was on an official EU site - but I can't find it now so they must have taken it down. It was about 10 years ago and the EU has become much more unpopular since then.
I'll take that for no then
And presumably this alleged EU map on a web site (internet launched in 1991) was not your claimed evidence of a 1950's plan for an integrated army and police force.
Is anybody here aware that both Turkey and Germany are part of NATO?
I may be out of date but the Bundeswehr was the largest army in western Europe. As for the French being the 'best' that is debatable. They relied on conscription until 1997. Historically only the Foreign Legion and the paratroops have demonstrated any exceptional fighting qualities. The bulk of their new professional army remains untested.
Surely it is the Italian army that is the best in the world?
I'll take that for no then
And presumably this alleged EU map on a web site (internet launched in 1991) was not your claimed evidence of a 1950's plan for an integrated army and police force.
I vaguely remember some hoo-hah about a map of Europe published around ten years ago that missed out Wales, here you go:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3715512.stm
A bureaucratic blunder has left Wales off a map of Europe on the cover of a prestigious EU reference book.
The Eurostat Statistical Compendium has all the facts and figures on Europe.
All EU member states, and the rest of Britain, are accurately represented on the cover - but Wales has disappeared and been replaced by the Irish Sea.
A line was drawn from Chester to the Severn Estuary, roughly along the English border, but to the west there is nothing until the Irish coast.
They've wanted to do this for ages. It won't happen, if anything, because the equipment cannot be standardised. Also, each military has their own doctrine, finally, only three member states have aircraft carriers, so the burden would be disproportionate. NATO more than does the job.
skimminstones
04-05-2016, 18:55
Yes. I expect France probably has the biggest and best set of armed forces in Europe. I can't see them being willing to relinquish any control.
Why do you expect that?
walpurgis
04-05-2016, 19:33
Why do you expect that?
Why not. Since the fifties France has invested seriously in their forces and also develop highly capable weaponry.
Having just had a look my comment seems to be supported: http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing-europe.asp
skimminstones
04-05-2016, 19:45
Why not. Since the fifties France has invested seriously in their forces and also develop highly capable weaponry.
Having just had a look my comment seems to be supported: http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing-europe.asp
Seems a rather unexplained page to be honest with the non descript "in house formula"
walpurgis
04-05-2016, 19:47
Seems a rather unexplained page to be honest with the non descript "in house formula"
There are other sources, have a look.
Ninanina
04-05-2016, 19:48
Not surprised in the slightest if this turns out to be true. It beggars belief that millions died to fight for freedom from tyranny in Europe, and then one by one countries have given up their sovereignty to a bunch of faceless unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.
Time for the European Project to die methinks, hopes.
+1....
A complete nightmare... :doh:
skimminstones
04-05-2016, 19:53
There are other sources, have a look.
Cant say im that fussed to be honest, Ive read plenty of things previously that the UK spends a higher percentage of GDP on defence than any other euro country etc....Its all subjective really. All i know is UK has a smaller armed forces compared to many nations such as India, Turkey, Mynamar etc..... but i know who id put my money on if there was an all out war between us.
I dunno, maybe I'm too relaxed for my own good, but I've been reading this 'OMG the sky's falling in!' stuff on the internet for almost 20 years now, and things just pootle on somehow. My favourite scare story was the one about anti-theft RFID devices being used to track you after you'd made a purchase so They would always know where you were, Wow, spooky eh? There was also stuff about barcodes being the mark of Satan, and the Royal Family being shape-shifting lizards.
(I expect some AoSers are at this point nodding their heads, saying 'yes, that bit's actually true'). I really feel like shouting GET A GRIP FFS!! but that would be rude.
walpurgis
04-05-2016, 20:11
My favourite scare story was the one about anti-theft RFID devices being used to track you after you'd made a purchase so They would always know where you were
They do.
If you carry a mobile phone that's switched on. If you use a GPS. If you carry a credit card. If you have a fancy modern watch. If you are with your chipped dog. If your car has RFID. If there is one in the car sound system. If you use certain tyres on it. If the shopping in the boot has chipped products. If you have certain prosthetics. Etc! Etc!
Virtual-Symmetry
04-05-2016, 20:14
Great. Get all the young uns off the dole & in the Army, that way they should be able to make an army of our own bigger than all those EU countries together?
Jobs a good un
:D
RE: "unelected bureaucrats"
I know that they aren't covered much by the press, and that whenever they occur jokers like Nigel Farage somehow win seats, but they do hold elections to the European Parliament, and we are all able to vote in them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/theresa-griffin/why-the-eu-isnt-a-mass-of-bureaucrats_b_9819604.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
They've wanted to do this for ages. It won't happen, if anything, because the equipment cannot be standardised. Also, each military has their own doctrine, finally, only three member states have aircraft carriers, so the burden would be disproportionate. NATO more than does the job.
Not really - ammunition has been standardised in NATO since the late 1980s as has doctrine. Aircraft carriers are not really relevant as the purpose of NATO was/is to defend Europe against the Russians so aircraft can be deployed from land bases for that purpose.
It would seem to me that the mood has changed since the European project first started. After WW2 it seemed logical for Europe to be one bloc to counter the Soviet Union. Since the Soviet bloc broke up people now want devolution, smaller states that can address local problems directly and work directly for their people. There are a lot more countries in Europe now than in 1990 and even in the UK power has devolved to Wales, Scotland and NI.
Centralised power is no longer what people want, unless they are still clinging to some socialist/communist dream, like the EU leaders.
Not really - ammunition has been standardised in NATO since the late 1980s as has doctrine. Aircraft carriers are not really relevant as the purpose of NATO was/is to defend Europe against the Russians so aircraft can be deployed from land bases for that purpose.
It would seem to me that the mood has changed since the European project first started. After WW2 it seemed logical for Europe to be one bloc to counter the Soviet Union.
That was the raison d'etre for NATO. The EU, OTOH, was formed with the aim of preventing another hugely destructive war between Germany and France and their respective allies.
That's the official line but it doesn't really ring true. Germany was in a bit of a state at the end of WW2, lots of major cities raised to the ground and was split into 2 countries. There was zero danger of them starting anything again and in any case the entire defensive focus was on the Soviets as they started getting eggy almost straight away with the Berlin blockade.
A European super-state was the dream of the European socialists/communists who wanted an end to nation states and a world wide co-operative of all workers - the Soviet Union was their poster boy. Remember at that time the USSR was held in high regard as its comprehensive defeat of the Nazis seemed to be a good indicator that they were on the right lines. The fact that it was, in reality, a brutal police state just as bad if not worse than Nazi Germany, was overlooked or denied.
What we have with today's EU is the mutated child of that dream , which is steadily moving towards a type of corporate fascism very reminiscent of Nazi Germany.
That's the official line but it doesn't really ring true. Germany was in a bit of a state at the end of WW2, lots of major cities raised to the ground and was split into 2 countries. There was zero danger of them starting anything again and in any case the entire defensive focus was on the Soviets as they started getting eggy almost straight away with the Berlin blockade.
A European super-state was the dream of the European socialists/communists who wanted an end to nation states and a world wide co-operative of all workers - the Soviet Union was their poster boy. Remember at that time the USSR was held in high regard as its comprehensive defeat of the Nazis seemed to be a good indicator that they were on the right lines. The fact that it was, in reality, a brutal police state just as bad if not worse than Nazi Germany, was overlooked or denied.
What we have with today's EU is the mutated child of that dream , which is steadily moving towards a type of corporate fascism very reminiscent of Nazi Germany.
I'm afraid that all sounds like a load of old bollocks. It's certainly true that Germany, and the rest of continental Europe, was in a bit of a state after WW2, but if the Soviet Union was the poster boy, why didn't all these socialists/communists simply sign up for some sort of economic/political union with the USSR?
And who wrote this back in 1942?
'‘Hard as it is to say now.. I look forward to a United States of Europe, in which the barriers between the nations will be greatly minimised and unrestricted travel will be possible.’
That well-known communist, Winston Churchill.
A European super-state was the dream of the European socialists/communists who wanted an end to nation states and a world wide co-operative of all workers - the Soviet Union was their poster boy.
This version of events would seem to be contradicted by the fact that in the UK it was the Conservative party that was historically pro-EEC and the Labour party who were against it.
Apparently in 1974 Enoch Powell (not well known for his Marxism) urged people to vote Labour because of their anti-Europe stance. Labour won the election and promptly called a referendum on whether to leave the EEC.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euroscepticism_in_the_United_Kingdom
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGxAPvtXIAEMrYG.jpg
Of course, if there are any references that back up the alternate version of history then please do share them.
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
My partner watched this and said it was very very good indeed. Lots of old footage and interviews with old (and often late) politicians from Benn to Powell.
Apparently there are some great pictures of when we got the entire French government drunk at a very fancy dinner at the British Embassy in Paris - a (successful) bid to get them to warm to us and not veto our application to join the EEC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03qdvcg
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
True that the EU was not popular with the UK Labour Party but I was not talking about the UK. The EU is very much a continental idea from which the UK was originally excluded.
Joe - what Churchill wrote in 1942 is slightly skewed by the events of the time? He also proposed in 1940 that Britain and France become one country. Needs must when the devil bites your arse. He was never in favour of surrendering British sovereignty, to suggest so is a gross mis-representation.
Oldpinkman
05-05-2016, 11:53
True that the EU was not popular with the UK Labour Party but I was not talking about the UK. The EU is very much a continental idea from which the UK was originally excluded.
Joe - what Churchill wrote in 1942 is slightly skewed by the events of the time? He also proposed in 1940 that Britain and France become one country. Needs must when the devil bites your arse. He was never in favour of surrendering British sovereignty, to suggest so is a gross mis-representation.
We were at war you mean?
1946 Zurich, Churchill ‘We must build a kind of United States of Europe.. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important.. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can.’
I could quote Churchill endlessly - he was an ardent believer in a united Europe - but I have seen your approach to debate on climate change. Let the man speak for himself at 2.13
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/europe-unite-says-churchill
Again, from an era when the Soviet Union seemed to pose a threat greater than that of Nazi Germany.
If he was alive today do you really think he would be voting to stay in?
Oldpinkman
05-05-2016, 12:42
Again, from an era when the Soviet Union seemed to pose a threat greater than that of Nazi Germany.
If he was alive today do you really think he would be voting to stay in?
Absolutely. He would firmly believe that the UK, no longer running an Empire across India and the Middle East, should be at the heart of Europe and leading it. He would not want Little Britain sitting on the edge, like Norway or Switzerland, forced to adopt around 70% of EU legislation to preserve their rights to trade, paying significantly to the EU budget, and with absolutely no say whatsoever about how money is spent, or what legislation is produced.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/16/eu-exit-norway-option-costs-thinktank
It's kind of OK for Norway and Switzerland at the moment because they have the UK and its veto to ensure the EU avoids the worst excesses of bureacratic folly and takes account of Western (UK and American) commercial realities - but if the UK leaves who is going to take on that role? Poland?
I think Churchill would take the view that Britain should lead Europe and its Union, not hang around for table scraps. And not be a voiceless almost member like Norway.
Lest you had failed to notice, we have a somewhat unstable Russian leadership creating potential instability in the Ukraine, and with a clear eye on the Baltic states right now - not really very different from the Soviet bloc threat.
Churchill conceived European Union, as one of the founders of that Union, as a way to bring peace and prosperity to Europe, instead of the appalling destructive conflicts of history since Roman times.. In that context it was always conceived as a political union, watered down to get it off the ground as an economic club, as Churchill envisioned in his Zurich speech. And it has delivered over 70 years of European peace - a point I have made to you before. And how ever much you retort that it would have happened anyway - history tells us that at no time since the Roman Empire has Europe had a period even approaching 70 years without war.
Churchill was a visionary for European peace and prosperity. He would remain one today. He would probably want to kick a lot of arse and change the way Europe is run, but he wouldn't want to leave it or scrap it. He would want to run it properly, and ensure Britain exerted as much influence as possible on its direction in the future.
I was about to quote Churchill further, but realise you have reverted to your standard debating stance - knowing what Churchill would say today, rather than discussing what he actually did say. Nobody can argue with such omniscience.
True that the EU was not popular with the UK Labour Party but I was not talking about the UK. The EU is very much a continental idea from which the UK was originally excluded.
Does it not seem odd to you though that the UK Labour party would not be interested in the EEC if it had indeed been the communist dream that you said it was? And furthermore that the Conservative party should be all for it?
When you say the "UK was originally excluded" from the EU this again seems to not fit with the facts. It is a matter of record that the UK sent a representative to the 1955 Messina Conference, but that they decided to withdraw from the discussions. We excluded ourselves from the idea, rather than being excluded. It might seem a nuanced point but it is actually quite important as it is seen as a major misjudgement of UK diplomacy. It might be argued that we have been trying to make up for that mistake ever since, and that the upcoming referendum is yet another echo of that poor decision by Eden's government.
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-10078-1_10
I have no idea whether or not a European superstate was indeed a dream of the left back then, as you claimed, but it would appear to be demonstrably untrue that the people involved in the early EEC as it actually happened in the late 50s were socialists/communists.
R
You make a reasonably convincing case apart from a couple of points
1) we do not curb the worse excess of the EU despite being in it
2) it is not responsible for keeping the peace in Europe, not that we have had peace in Europe anyway or does the little scrap in the Balkans not count?
3) if we are out of the EU we will not be paying into it. We are not comparable with Norway, our economy is 100 times larger.
4) we don't need to negotiate for 'the right to trade' - Europe has no option but to trade with us.
5) your personal attack significantly dilutes the credibility of your argument.
I could quote Churchill endlessly - he was an ardent believer in a united Europe
I knew that he was involved in the European Convention of Human Rights, which seems to so irritate the present Home Secretary, but hadn't really looked much at his involvement in the idea of a united Europe before.
This extract from his speech to the Conference of Europe, almost exactly sixty eight years ago, is unecquivocal in setting out his hopes for the present day, and beyond:
We aim at the eventual participation of all European peoples whose society and way of life, making all allowances for the different points of view in various countries, are not disaccord with a Charter of Human Rights and with the sincere expression of free democracy. We welcome any country where the people own the Government, and not the Government the people. It is not the fault of those who are gathered here today, nor of the Governments involved in the Marshall Plan or in the Western Union, and least of all is it the fault of the United States, that the unity of Europe cannot be at present complete. All the States of the East and South-East of Europe, except Greece, constrained to hold aloof from us and most of them are not allowed to express themselves by free democratic electoral processes. We must aim at nothing less than the union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that union will be achieved.
Click here for the full text of the speech from the website of the Churchill Society. (http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/WSCHague.html)
Oldpinkman
05-05-2016, 14:18
Yup - Churchill was a believer in Europe Robert. He is attributed by the EU's own site as one of its 11 founders. He addressed the original council at Strasbourg in French
Oldpinkman
05-05-2016, 14:28
You make a reasonably convincing case apart from a couple of points
1) we do not curb the worse excess of the EU despite being in it
2) it is not responsible for keeping the peace in Europe, not that we have had peace in Europe anyway or does the little scrap in the Balkans not count?
3) if we are out of the EU we will not be paying into it. We are not comparable with Norway, our economy is 100 times larger.
4) we don't need to negotiate for 'the right to trade' - Europe has no option but to trade with us.
5) your personal attack significantly dilutes the credibility of your argument.
There was no personal attack. I (and others) quote what Churchill ACTUALLY SAID. I even posted a film of him actually saying it. You tell me he had to say that then because of the circumstances but wouldn't say it now. It is impossible to argue with someone who claims special knowledge of what Churchill would say today, and uses that to dismiss what he actually said when he was alive.
For your other points
1) How many times has the UK exercised its veto ? Do you seriously believe we have had no influence on Europe?
2) We have had peace since 1945 in Western Europe. We didn't have it before. The skirmish you refer to was outside the then EU, and RPDX post illustrates Churchills views on that
3) Norway pays. We are bigger than Norway, we would pay more. Norway didn't piss them off by leaving. It is impossible to believe they will not take Napoleons line about "Pour encourager les autres".. Or rather - to discourage the others in this case
4) That is just bollocks. We will have to renegotiate tarrifs from scratch - with a negotiator who has an incentive to discourage other states from leaving. We will get a serious bloody nose. And the city - source of significant UK GDP and invisible exports will suffer significantly
But we have been over those points before. As with climate change, every reasonable credible authority disagrees with you, and has the data and expertise to do so. So they are all wrong and part of a conspiracy to deceive. As with climate change - we can't have a go at both outcomes and see which one is correct afterwards over a pint. As with climate change, if we get it wrong, and leaving the EU is an expensive mistake, there will be no option to go back and put it right.
Since this referendum was set in motion I have not been convinced that many people were really going to change the way they might vote in response to any campaigning.
I may be totally wrong about this, but I have always enjoyed any time I have spent in other European countries and so I would always vote to stay in. I like Europe ergo I like the idea of being part of it.
It seems clear to me that those who want to leave are not going to change their minds about whatever canard it is they are exercised about - immigration, lack of sovereignty, blah blah etc. It is about more than facts and truth, rather it is a gut-feeling.
It may well be that my love for Europe is because I have fallen for the propaganda of THE HARD LEFT, who have taken advantage of my fond memories of French girls to blind me to their evil plan, but that feeling isn't going to be easily changed. Similarly, anyone who believes that Europe is dictating the shape of our bananas and imposing unwanted laws about how we should treat people accused of terrorism is not going to be swayed out of their anger by facts.
R
https://www.facebook.com/notes/british-commonwealth-forces/churchill-did-not-support-a-european-super-state/1002263456522053/
3) Norway pays. We are bigger than Norway, we would pay more. Norway didn't piss them off by leaving. It is impossible to believe they will not take Napoleons line about "Pour encourager les autres".. Or rather - to discourage the others in this case
Just a minor, niggly point; "pour encourager les autres' was not Napoleon's phrase, but Voltaire's, who used it wrt the British executing Admiral Byng over a naval defeat.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/british-commonwealth-forces/churchill-did-not-support-a-european-super-state/1002263456522053/
I do not claim to have read all of that link, but it comes across as mostly hysterical ranting; someone protesting a bit too much, and making all sorts of unfounded assertions, based on very little actual evidence.
Oldpinkman
05-05-2016, 15:48
Just a minor, niggly point; "pour encourager les autres' was not Napoleon's phrase, but Voltaire's, who used it wrt the British executing Admiral Byng over a naval defeat.
Your right - lazy of me. I read bloody Voltaire for A level too (Candide). :doh:
Oldpinkman
05-05-2016, 15:51
https://www.facebook.com/notes/british-commonwealth-forces/churchill-did-not-support-a-european-super-state/1002263456522053/
Churchills own words in the film clip I posted, rather tend to contradict that view a bit. That's why I posted the old boy talking rather than what somebody else allegedly reported him as saying
It's like how Tory supporters get all het up whenever you raise Margaret Thatcher's remark that 'there is no such thing as society'. Immediately they say 'words taken out of context', 'twisted by socialists', 'misinterpreted by communists' and suchlike. But those were her actual words (she would surely have demanded a retraction if she'd been misquoted), so it's fair to assume that she meant what she said, even if her precise meaning may be open to interpretation.
Im not a big Churchie fan overall tbh...he was a great wartime consigliere in gangster talk. As for minister roles etc he was not much cop tbh. He was not a man of the people either, but a Great Briton he was without doubt and he probably made us hold out til we got the help to go on and win. For that he has my utmost respect. I very much doubt he meant a political union as we have now far less what is being proposed.
But of course people will blindly go with the euro position especially if it suits... The attempt to swing the climate change argument into it as a way to discredit anyone is pretty crude
But of course people will blindly go with the euro position especially if it suits...
I wonder why you say "blindly", Grant, and also what you mean by "especially if it suits"?
To just say that someone who holds a different position can't possibly understand the subject is not really a very helpful contribution to any discussion. Even chief grand buffoon Boris Johnson, who is now campaigning for LEAVE as if it were the only intelligent option initially said that choosing a side was an "agonisingly difficult" decision for him, which suggests it was not quite as black and white for him as he now tries to make it seem.
I had a look at the Facebook page you linked to and yes, Churchill was not involved in the formation of the EEC but it is just a sidetrack. It doesn't mention the fact that the UK pulled out of the Messina Conference in 1955. It mentions EFTA, but doesn't mention that it was the comparative failure of EFTA next to the EEC that caused the UK government to apply to join the EEC a few years down the line.
I very much doubt he meant a political union as we have now far less what is being proposed.
Here again this is not really based on anything other than a statement of belief, whereas I posted a link to the full text of the speech he made in 1948, in which we can find the following. It is again, quite unequivocal:
"It is impossible to separate economics and defence from the general political structure. Mutual aid in the economic field and joint military defence must inevitably be accompanied step by step with a parallel policy of closer political unity. It is said with truth that this involves some sacrifice or merger of national sovereignty."
R
Oldpinkman
06-05-2016, 07:27
Im not a big Churchie fan overall tbh...he was a great wartime consigliere in gangster talk. As for minister roles etc he was not much cop tbh. He was not a man of the people either, but a Great Briton he was without doubt and he probably made us hold out til we got the help to go on and win. For that he has my utmost respect. I very much doubt he meant a political union as we have now far less what is being proposed.
But of course people will blindly go with the euro position especially if it suits... The attempt to swing the climate change argument into it as a way to discredit anyone is pretty crude
It's easy to forget the thread of a discussion. The "churchie" element arose because Martin asserted
"A European super-state was the dream of the European socialists/communists who wanted an end to nation states and a world wide co-operative of all workers " and others pointed out that, as well as being supported by well known communists like Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major and David Cameron, the origins of the EU, and the ideas of a union of European Nations, including a reduction (not loss) of national sovereignty were championed by that other well known communist Winston Churchill
Subsequently quoting WC and allowing him to speak for himself were deemed "false" because Martin knows what Winston would think now if he were here today, and knows that he was only making those statements in favour of European union out of misguided necessity of the time. This "my sources are better than the apparantly obvious ones" is the issue.
Of course - Martin was right. It was the dream of European communists like Winston Churchill - and his close association with the most notorious of communists proves this. The TRUTH revealed at last (only in the Sun) :D
http://ww2today.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Churchill-and-Stalin.jpg
Richard, Robert, your arguments are rhetorical and devoid of facts. Churchill has been dead almost 50 years, the world has moved on. if he was alive today and brought up to speed how can you claim he would support the present day EU? Do you really think he would approve of its lack of democratic accountability? I think not.
You should really distinguish between what is opinion and fact. I am expressing my opinion of what Churchill would think. Not stating it as a fact. You may disagree and present evidence for that, I have no issue with that. Simply attacking me and my opinions on other, unrelated subjects, is, as Grant says, an extremely crude method of argument that is unlikely to sway those who have not already formed an opinion.
As for Churchill's opinion on Stalin, I'd advise reading his history of WW2 - in short he was not impressed.
Heath was a traitor, John Major was an idiot, Cameron is an EU lackey looking for a cushy number (like Kinnock) in the EU when he quits.
Joe: Thatcher said 'There is no such thing as society, only individual men and women working together for the common good'
Not such a good socialist soundbite when quoted in full is it? But then the end justifies the means and twisting the truth is what politics is all about. And necessary if your position is crackpot to begin with.
Joe: Thatcher said 'There is no such thing as society, only individual men and women working together for the common good'
On the subject of facts, do you have a citation for that? I can't find any evidence of the common good part, various versions involving family which is very different from what you are trying to suggest.
Does it not seem odd to you though that the UK Labour party would not be interested in the EEC if it had indeed been the communist dream that you said it was? And furthermore that the Conservative party should be all for it?
When you say the "UK was originally excluded" from the EU this again seems to not fit with the facts. It is a matter of record that the UK sent a representative to the 1955 Messina Conference, but that they decided to withdraw from the discussions. We excluded ourselves from the idea, rather than being excluded. It might seem a nuanced point but it is actually quite important as it is seen as a major misjudgement of UK diplomacy. It might be argued that we have been trying to make up for that mistake ever since, and that the upcoming referendum is yet another echo of that poor decision by Eden's government.
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-10078-1_10
I have no idea whether or not a European superstate was indeed a dream of the left back then, as you claimed, but it would appear to be demonstrably untrue that the people involved in the early EEC as it actually happened in the late 50s were socialists/communists.
R
Hi Martin,
I know it's very inconvenient, but you still haven't responded to this, above.
I also strongly object to you saying "your arguments are rhetorical and void of facts" when all I have really done is try to get you to clarify what you said, or at least provide a reference to back up your assertions.
It is disingenuous to accuse me of attacking you and your opinions on other subjects. Not once have I attacked you, I have just asked you a question or two. Not once have I mentioned or alluded to what you said on another thread.
The person who did mention the CC thread did not attack your opinions, but merely your style of argument as displayed in that thread. Amusingly you have fulfilled their prophesy here almost to the letter by claiming that your unqualified opinion of what Churchill might think today effectively trumps things that Churchill unequivocally said when he was alive.
Perhaps you could read back over the thread a bit more carefully? I'm not that interested in Churchill, I don't think anyone is. I for one world certainly appreciate it if you answered the direct question I put to you that I copied above, about your unsupported claim that the EEC was some kind of left wing concoction.
"Rhetorical and devoid of facts"
I think Marco might have to shut this thread down soon, if you are going to keep throwing such nonsense around and carry on ignoring quite reasonable attempts to get you to support what you declaim.
R
:)
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Oldpinkman
06-05-2016, 09:26
Richard, Robert, your arguments are rhetorical and devoid of facts. Churchill has been dead almost 50 years, the world has moved on. if he was alive today and brought up to speed how can you claim he would support the present day EU? Do you really think he would approve of its lack of democratic accountability? I think not.
You should really distinguish between what is opinion and fact. I am expressing my opinion of what Churchill would think. Not stating it as a fact. You may disagree and present evidence for that, I have no issue with that. Simply attacking me and my opinions on other, unrelated subjects, is, as Grant says, an extremely crude method of argument that is unlikely to sway those who have not already formed an opinion.
No - you said the EU was the brainchild of communists. I realise that may have been an opinion. As a fact plenty of non-communists were involved in the project or supported the principle. Winston Churchill was one. Charles de Gaulle another. AHrold MacMillan springs to mind as another communist who failed to persuade the communist De Gaulle to let us in
And regarding Churchill being a communist conspirator with Stalin, and responsible for the purges...
That was intended to be slightly tongue-in-cheek ;)
No - you said the EU was the brainchild of communists.
He didn't actually say that. He said something along the lines of a European Superstate being a dream of communists/socialists, but he didn't actually say they were involved in it.
It was clearly meant for us to infer from it that the EU was, as you say, their brainchild, and therefore as an argument that "THE EU IS A BAD THING".
This is why I am trying to get clarification from his that statement relates to the EEC as it was actually conceived in verifiable reality, but it is proving difficult as everyone keeps banging on about #whatwouldchurchilldo
[emoji13]
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
He didn't actually say that. He said something along the lines of a European Superstate being a dream of communists/socialists, but he didn't actually say they were involved in it.
(Please note Martin that I am helping you here by referring directly to the facts of what you actually said, rather than what I might expect you to say)
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Oldpinkman
06-05-2016, 10:17
He didn't actually say that. He said something along the lines of a European Superstate being a dream of communists/socialists, but he didn't actually say they were involved in it.
It was clearly meant for us to infer from it that the EU was, as you say, their brainchild, and therefore as an argument that "THE EU IS A BAD THING".
This is why I am trying to get clarification from his that statement relates to the EEC as it was actually conceived in verifiable reality, but it is proving difficult as everyone keeps banging on about #whatwouldchurchilldo
[emoji13]
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Yes - you're right. I paraphrased. A dangerously casual approach with a selective pedant. I think you were right in your earlier post - this is an emotive rather than rational issue, and people choose with their hearts and are not going to be swayed by tiresome facts. They weill selectively accept the facts that support their emotive choice.
I realise this is now becoming some thread drift, but shit happens. So I thought I would share my personal take - previously posted on Facebook - and forget about Winnie
I'm wary of politics on Facebook. I'm aware how some posts by friends have irritated me. But I would like to post a personal perspective on the EU debate - for what little its worth.
As someone who is about to become an EU immigrant in France, I note how the debate seems almost exclusively, and most emotively to be about immigration. That's a shame. The vote is to leave the EU - not seal our borders. There are huge , many and varied economic consequences that would result from leaving the EU. It's not just about immigration.
And much of the concern about immigrants, is not about the Poles, Romanians, Czechs and others who now wouldn't be able to freely enter and deliver our DHL packages, paint our houses, and staff our restaurants (hospitals, schools, building sites..). The fear and xenophobia are about Syrian refugees, or other nationalities where leaving the EU is irrelevant to our policies and "control of our borders"
If leaving the EU means that the EU immigrants will no longer be able to stay, UK immigrants to France like Sue and I (and Spain, and Hollland and other EU states) may be forced to return to the UK. Over 2 million of them - significantly skewed towards the elderly, dependant, and state benefit recepients. All needing housing, hospitals, and welfare , clogging up the roads, and being a net cash outflow for the treasury.
The Languedoc - the Haut Vallee, where we are moving will cease to be colonised by the English, who are currently probably half the population, and at least half the local GDP. No more "fish and chips" in the PMU bar. Just local people speaking the local language. No more houses being built and repaired. Half the population no longer shopping in the supermarkets, DIY stores, and town bars and restaurants (bakers, hairdressers, banks, insurance brokers, etc). Half the local taxes no longer being collectible. It will devastate economically a region whose fragile recovery from the loss of the Formica factory and wool mills 20 years ago, has been dependent on an influx of (mostly) EU immigrants.
EU immigration - not the trade benefits of tariff free, single market business, not the influence and wealth of the City in Europe, not the investment by Nissan, and Panasonic and others in an EU member like the UK, EU immigration itself has bought wealth and prosperity and economic growth and tax revenues. Just like the English EU immigrants to Quillan and Lavelanet have brought wealth, spending and local tax revenues to that part of the world. Most EU immigrants work, and generate wealth - only a relative few are on benefits..
But stand ready to welcome back over 2 million UK emigrants, when their EU hosts send them home.
This is a once in a lifetime decision. To quote a well known saying "Be careful what you ask for, as you may very well end up getting it"
Stratmangler
06-05-2016, 10:24
Churchill has been dead almost 50 years, the world has moved on
51 years and counting.
If that qualifies as almost 50 years ........:whistle:
Hi Martin,
I know it's very inconvenient, but you still haven't responded to this, above.
I:)
Robert I'm at work at the moment and snowed under and I have a pal coming over from out of town tonight but I will have come back to this at the weekend and respond then.
51 years and counting.
If that qualifies as almost 50 years ........:whistle:
Good job I edited from '40 years' then...
:sucks:
Marco.
Re them new wheels; make sure they're round and there's four of them.
Did you hear I was getting some new wheels, then? :eyebrows:
No, dahing, round is so 'yesterday'; these will be oval. It's what the real drivers are going for now. It 'focuses your attention' more.
Anyway, if we must talk about yawn-inducing politics, can we not chat about the superb victory in the elections for the SNP, and continued success of Plaid Cymru, with Nicola Sturgeon and Leanne Wood leading their respective parties to achieve such good results, at the expense once again of some twats for the Tories and Labour?
Gawn yersel' girls! :yesbruv: :hifive:
Marco.
Anyway, if we must talk about yawn-inducing politics, can we not chat about the superb victories in the elections of the great SNP and Plaid Cmyru
Ahem
https://www.plaid.cymru
You might at least spell the name right!
Ha - typo...!
Fixt :thumbsup:
Marco.
Ali Tait
06-05-2016, 14:00
Never thought I'd see the tories ahead of labour in Scotland. Definitely a turn up for the books.
Indeed... But the Nicola girl remains head honcho! :)
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/922/GMIpBj.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pmGMIpBjj)
She's shouting out loud: "YA DANCER!" :yay:
:D :D
And anyway, it'll only be a few snooty twats, who live in the 'big houses', in the posh bits of Scotland, who bumped up the Tories ;)
Marco.
Ali Tait
06-05-2016, 15:17
Well it wisnae me!
if we must talk about yawn-inducing politics, can we not chat about the superb victory in the elections for the SNP
Didn't they lose their majority???
Stratmangler
06-05-2016, 17:48
Didn't they lose their majority???
Since when have these discussions have to be grounded in reality?
walpurgis
06-05-2016, 17:53
Since when have these discussions have to be grounded in reality?
Exactly. Introducing reality and even logic into a debate is the easiest way to derail things! :lol: ;)
Oldpinkman
07-05-2016, 07:35
Since we're drifting further into general politics, the really good news from these elections for me, confirmed this morning, was Sadiq Kahn as mayor of London. It would have been too sad if Goldsmith had picked it up after such shabby election tactics. And good to see Kahn successfully dodging the bullets of the Corbyn catastrophe and the anti-semitic exaggerations.
I'm not sure the consensus would interpret the Scottish result your way Marco, and I think it suggests more a return of the traditional conservatives vote for the Conservative party, the decline of the Labour party (Corbyn?) and a new divide between Tories and SNP as the balance of power. Regardless, both Sturgeon and the Scots in general will almost certainly be voting wisely in the coming referendum, and I'll stand them a virtual pint for that. :cool:
https://medium.com/mosquito-ridge/elections-2016-the-scottish-earthquake-continues-f829864192b5#.c2u2sxn2l
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
https://medium.com/mosquito-ridge/elections-2016-the-scottish-earthquake-continues-f829864192b5#.c2u2sxn2l
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Interesting, but fails with this 'people who have different views from me are evil' soundbite: both these progressive parties have lost out to UKIP who are effectively the new representatives of white working class racism in Wales
Although it is really too beautiful a day to be discussing politics. The global warming is really kicking in around here, makes a change ;)
both these progressive parties have lost out to UKIP who are effectively the new representatives of white working class racism in Wales
Spot on, I'd say.
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Arkless Electronics
07-05-2016, 17:49
Since we're drifting further into general politics, the really good news from these elections for me, confirmed this morning, was Sadiq Kahn as mayor of London. It would have been too sad if Goldsmith had picked it up after such shabby election tactics. And good to see Kahn successfully dodging the bullets of the Corbyn catastrophe and the anti-semitic exaggerations.
I'm not sure the consensus would interpret the Scottish result your way Marco, and I think it suggests more a return of the traditional conservatives vote for the Conservative party, the decline of the Labour party (Corbyn?) and a new divide between Tories and SNP as the balance of power. Regardless, both Sturgeon and the Scots in general will almost certainly be voting wisely in the coming referendum, and I'll stand them a virtual pint for that. :cool:
I'm HUGELY pro Corbyn personally. His policies, honesty and conviction are exactly what I've been hoping for for many years! I am however more than a bit disappointed in the way he has seemed so passive rather than really fighting for his beliefs.... it's almost like he still can't believe he is Labour leader and expects to be "found out" any day so is avoiding doing anything much! Nice to have Khan as mayor though.
The "anti Semitic" bit is something the Israelis and to some extent larger Jewish population has been pushing for years!! They have desperately been trying to have all legitimate criticism of Israel, it's government and policies branded as anti semitic. I'm surprised that Corbyn even took this latest spat seriously... Livingston and Shah should be reinstated immediately and with a full apology IMHO!
I'm HUGELY pro Corbyn personally. His policies, honesty and conviction are exactly what I've been hoping for for many years! I am however more than a bit disappointed in the way he has seemed so passive rather than really fighting for his beliefs.... it's almost like he still can't believe he is Labour leader and expects to be "found out" any day so is avoiding doing anything much!
Spot on, and I completely concur. He just needs to have a bit more 'balls', and not let himself be so easily pushed aside/'bullied' by tougher and more determined (devious) opponents, especially during debates in Westmonster.
Marco.
Oldpinkman
08-05-2016, 17:59
Spot on, and I completely concur. He just needs to have a bit more 'balls', and not let himself be so easily pushed aside/'bullied' by tougher and more determined (devious) opponents, especially during debates in Westmonster.
Marco.
Brilliant typo Marco!
Am I completely missing the point? Surely, if you like his ideas, what he needs to do his get his party elected in a governing majority so he can actually do something instead of talking hot air. You have to win an election. For that you have to get enough of the voters to support you. Not more labour party activists than anyone else.
It's the Michael Foot syndrome all over again. The parliamentary labour party know that. They are in for a complete bath at the next election. Kahn made a big point of distancing himself from Corbyn, including the leaked revelation that he was viewed as "hostile" by the Corbyn team, and that was probably critical to his success (if Goldsmiths disgraceful campaign wasn't enough).
The problem for the labour MP's was that this election performance, buoyed by Kahn's result, wasn't sufficiently unequivocally rubbish for them to point out to the general membership that they were going to be lucky to come 5th and retain more than a handful of deposits with him as leader at the next general election. The performance was lukewarm disappointing rather than a rout.
Still - he is another man of reason that can be relied upon to back remaining in the EU, so I'll stand our Jeremy a virtual pint too :cool:
(of course - nobody mention the Liberal Democrats. Oh no, you're right. Nobody did. I mean NOBODY :D)
Lol - I always call it Westmonster, for very good reasons! ;)
'Land of the chinless wonders' would also be equally apt.
Marco.
Im not a big Churchie fan overall tbh...he was a great wartime consigliere in gangster talk. As for minister roles etc he was not much cop tbh. He was not a man of the people either, but a Great Briton he was without doubt and he probably made us hold out til we got the help to go on and win. For that he has my utmost respect. I very much doubt he meant a political union as we have now far less what is being proposed.
But of course people will blindly go with the euro position especially if it suits... The attempt to swing the climate change argument into it as a way to discredit anyone is pretty crude
Yes, simply put, he was the finest war politician for the job. Outside of war, his job was done, but oh what a job.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.