Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Good governance is about practicalities as well as emotion. The UK has plenty of emotion. It needs more and better practicality.

Churchill wanted a United States of Europe for sure but he didn't want Britain to be a full part of it:

We see nothing but good and hope in a richer, freer, more contented European commonality. But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.

It's how I feel too. With a few exceptions, we are different to the rest of Europe and trying to unite us all under one roof was never going to work.

Time change. Churchill also wanted to keep the Empire. That didn't work out so well.

If ever the EU decides to tear up the Maastricht treaty, the Lisbon Treaty, and decides to abandon this Eurozone bollocks, admits its mistakes on full integration, and reverts back to a loose trading alliance i.e the Common Market, then I'd be the first to be calling for Britain to join up.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Sorry DINLT -- you are speaking from emotion and you are wrong.

As great a Briton as Winston Churchill looked forward to a United States of Europe.

The future is not to be decided by what people thought 100 or 200 or 500 years ago.

To go back to the idea of a second (or perhaps third) referendum, firstly it needs to be made clear if the result of the referendum will be binding. Always remember that last year's referendum was not binding because in UK law referendums are not binding.

Secondly, the options need to be carefully worked out and stated.

It would be better to have only two options; Remain, or Leave on the stated terms. This will provide clarity.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Time change. Churchill also wanted to keep the Empire. That didn't work out so well.

Wow, thats a pretty quick change of tune, in the space of 3 posts you went from 'even Churchill wants it - so you should too' to 'well churchill was proven wrong - so you shouldn't listen to him'

@ Stranger83

Good point! Are we supposed to listen to Churchill or not? Yes when he supports your point, no when he doesn't?

Sounds like he had his own opinions on things and people should develop their own informed opinions on events too!

 Compel wrote:
Sounds like he had his own opinions on things and people should develop their own informed opinions on events too!

Stranger83 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Sorry DINLT -- you are speaking from emotion and you are wrong.

As great a Briton as Winston Churchill looked forward to a United States of Europe.

The future is not to be decided by what people thought 100 or 200 or 500 years ago.

To go back to the idea of a second (or perhaps third) referendum, firstly it needs to be made clear if the result of the referendum will be binding. Always remember that last year's referendum was not binding because in UK law referendums are not binding.

Secondly, the options need to be carefully worked out and stated.

It would be better to have only two options; Remain, or Leave on the stated terms. This will provide clarity.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Time change. Churchill also wanted to keep the Empire. That didn't work out so well.

Wow, thats a pretty quick change of tune, in the space of 3 posts you went from 'even Churchill wants it - so you should too' to 'well churchill was proven wrong - so you shouldn't listen to him'

It's possible to be right in one situation and wrong in another related one.

Churchill fought the Second World War to help preserve the Empire, which of course ultimately failed. In the context of 1946, though, when Britain still had an empire, it must have seemed a good concept for the three powers in the world to be the USA, USE and the British Empire. That isn't to say that Churchill would have opposed the UK joining the EU when the circumstances changed. See this interesting piece by Edward Heath.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/a-euro-sceptic-churchill-never-1365239.html

I know it's true that Churchill supported the concept of a united Europe, and he'd be open to the idea of the uk joining it. I just don't think it's ultimately the best thing for us to do. If it was a trading bloc and not a political union I'd be cool with it. And yes, it's possible to have the former without the latter. Do you really think Canada, Japan, the rest of the world basically will let the eu take control of their affairs, join the CAP and let the ECJ dictate to them, just to have easier trading? It's not going to happen.

The only Churchill I'm interested in is the Churchill miniature for Bolt Action's Sea Lion campaign.

Great little miniature and I would recommend the miniature and the Sea Lion campaign book to anybody.

Buy it, Future War Cultist, buy it if you don't already own it.

It's a damn good book

..hard to imagine the D. Mail writing like that today eh ?


weird how it's almost the exact same words/phrases but flipped by 180 isn't it ?

 reds8n wrote:

Spoiler:

..hard to imagine the D. Mail writing like that today eh ?


weird how it's almost the exact same words/phrases but flipped by 180 isn't it ?

You old cynic

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Churchill wanted a United States of Europe for sure but he didn't want Britain to be a full part of it:

We see nothing but good and hope in a richer, freer, more contented European commonality. But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.

It's how I feel too. With a few exceptions, we are different to the rest of Europe and trying to unite us all under one roof was never going to work.

In what way are we different from the rest of Europe? Why do you think that we are special?

 r_squared wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Churchill wanted a United States of Europe for sure but he didn't want Britain to be a full part of it:

We see nothing but good and hope in a richer, freer, more contented European commonality. But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.

It's how I feel too. With a few exceptions, we are different to the rest of Europe and trying to unite us all under one roof was never going to work.

In what way are we different from the rest of Europe? Why do you think that we are special?

In the words of IDNLT, "Something something great land, something something, my father, something something invention something somethign something."

 reds8n wrote:

Spoiler:

..hard to imagine the D. Mail writing like that today eh ?


weird how it's almost the exact same words/phrases but flipped by 180 isn't it ?

So, you're saying that back in the 70s everyone, including the DM, knew that the EEC, and the burgeoning EU, was a step towards political union and not just a trade agreement?
How interesting that one of the assertions of the Leave campaign turns out to be a fabrication.

For those who prefer the original posting;

http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/we-were-never-hoodwinked/

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Churchill wanted a United States of Europe for sure but he didn't want Britain to be a full part of it:

We see nothing but good and hope in a richer, freer, more contented European commonality. But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.

It's how I feel too. With a few exceptions, we are different to the rest of Europe and trying to unite us all under one roof was never going to work.

In what way are we different from the rest of Europe? Why do you think that we are special?

In the words of IDNLT, "Something something great land, something something, my father, something something invention something somethign something."

You'd better believe it baby!

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Churchill wanted a United States of Europe for sure but he didn't want Britain to be a full part of it:

We see nothing but good and hope in a richer, freer, more contented European commonality. But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.

It's how I feel too. With a few exceptions, we are different to the rest of Europe and trying to unite us all under one roof was never going to work.

In what way are we different from the rest of Europe? Why do you think that we are special?

In the words of IDNLT, "Something something great land, something something, my father, something something invention something somethign something."

Yeah, sounds like fuzzy bs to me too.
Unless they're referring to tea. We do great tea.

Some people may like to think that nothing ever good happened until the EU came along to 'save us', but I prefer the can do approach.

Yesterday, I read a newspaper article about how human rights in the UK would suffer because we're leaving the EU...

Because nobody in the UK ever stood up and fought for anything. They sat around for years waiting for the EU to be invented.

Suffragettes never marched. Levellers and Diggers never died, and of course, the Labour party and the Trade Union movement never fought for the 10 hour day, or sick pay, or holiday pay, or better working conditions, same sex relationships weren't decriminalised, and the NHS wasn't created in the 1940s, because the EEC/EU never existed then...

And let's not forget that the EU has stopped any war from ever happening in Europe again. The Yugoslav civil war never happened. It was a figment of the imagination.

Some people would have you believe that the EU is the ultimate force for good in the world and Brexit will send this country back to the 1100s. Me? I prefer the facts.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Some people would have you believe that the EU is the ultimate force for good in the world and Brexit will send this country back to the 1100s. Me? I prefer the facts.

A certain quote of yours about "Eggheads" earlier in the thread comes to mind.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Some people would have you believe that the EU is the ultimate force for good in the world and Brexit will send this country back to the 1100s. Me? I prefer the facts.

A certain quote of yours about "Eggheads" earlier in the thread comes to mind.

And I stand by it. It reminded me of those revisionist histories that claim the Battle of The Somme wasn't that bad because 'only' 60,000 men were killed or wounded on day 1, and not 65,000 as originally thought...

Only...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Some people would have you believe that the EU is the ultimate force for good in the world and Brexit will send this country back to the 1100s. Me? I prefer the facts.

A certain quote of yours about "Eggheads" earlier in the thread comes to mind.

And I stand by it.

I'm starting to see how "tired of experts" came about...

"The facts" or "no Eggheads". You can have one, pick one.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I know it's true that Churchill supported the concept of a united Europe, and he'd be open to the idea of the uk joining it. I just don't think it's ultimately the best thing for us to do. If it was a trading bloc and not a political union I'd be cool with it. And yes, it's possible to have the former without the latter. Do you really think Canada, Japan, the rest of the world basically will let the eu take control of their affairs, join the CAP and let the ECJ dictate to them, just to have easier trading? It's not going to happen.

The EU doesn't take control of countries and dictate to them.

Yes, it does. Sure, the countries joined voluntarily (usually for the money) but as time goes on the eu assumes more and more control over them and then starts telling them what to do. Look what it's doing to Greece over its finances, or Eastern Europe over migrants.

What nation has the EU taken control over, exactly?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I know it's true that Churchill supported the concept of a united Europe, and he'd be open to the idea of the uk joining it. I just don't think it's ultimately the best thing for us to do. If it was a trading bloc and not a political union I'd be cool with it. And yes, it's possible to have the former without the latter. Do you really think Canada, Japan, the rest of the world basically will let the eu take control of their affairs, join the CAP and let the ECJ dictate to them, just to have easier trading? It's not going to happen.

The EU doesn't take control of countries and dictate to them.

There are two Elephants in the room, their names are Italy and Greece.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:If ever the EU decides to tear up the Maastricht treaty, the Lisbon Treaty, and decides to abandon this Eurozone bollocks, admits its mistakes on full integration, and reverts back to a loose trading alliance i.e the Common Market, then I'd be the first to be calling for Britain to join up.

If the destruction of the EU were the only way for Britain to participate then I would prefer for Britain to get and stay out of the EU. I like the benefits we (overall, not just Germany) get from the EU even if certain things could be done better (sometimes much better). And no, the Greece deal and the whole austerity programme after the 2008 recession was not good (that was a complete policy failure around most of the world) but burning down the whole house and rebuilding it instead of repairing the bits that don't work is just a colossally bad idea and such a waste of resources. Pushing some paperwork one government abstraction upwards is a small price to pay for a better integration and collaboration.

The EU makes trade inside the EU easier and gives all members negotiation power when it comes to deals with countries outside the EU so smaller countries don't get completely fethed over because they would be powerless if they were alone. Culturally I haven't seen any homogenisation and the only thing that really threatening the individuality of regions/states/countries is rather globalism as pushed by capitalism so that we all get a McDonalds every few kilometres. The EU itself is trying to be a helpful force when it comes to not diluting a region's culture, heritage, and specific products.

The Commission's role is based on Article 3.3 of the Lisbon Treaty which states: “The Union shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and [...] ensure that Europe’s cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced”.

I've yet to see Prussians/French/Scandinavians invading Munich and ransacking the Oktoberfest or somebody forcing us to drink Kölsch, and in return they can do their own thing at home as they like. The same goes for all the specialty meats, cheeses, wines, beers, clothes, and other products from all over Europe that get protected by the EU against copycats. The economic integration of the EU just makes it easier for people to travel and experience all the regional differences. The EU doesn't force anybody into some ominous EU "cultural norm" where we speak Esperanto and our history gets erased for the greater good (or similar fairy tales).

The UK had to go begging cap in hand to the IMF in the mid-70s because the economy had gone to gak.

If you look at a country's economy collapsing due to its own internal mistakes, followed by some organisation bailing it out and requiring some reforms as "taking control and dictating" that should be resisted at all costs, then you are going to see some ugly scenes around the world.

Take modern Venezuela, for example.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 reds8n wrote:

Spoiler:

..hard to imagine the D. Mail writing like that today eh ?


weird how it's almost the exact same words/phrases but flipped by 180 isn't it ?

You old cynic

Cynical would be thinking that one of the main reasons that certain individuals and/or groups... say a newspaper for example, were a bit worried about certain changes the EU want to introduce ...

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/anti-tax-avoidance-package/anti-tax-avoidance-directive_en

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Some people may like to think that nothing ever good happened until the EU came along to 'save us', but I prefer the can do approach.

Yesterday, I read a newspaper article about how human rights in the UK would suffer because we're leaving the EU...

Because nobody in the UK ever stood up and fought for anything. They sat around for years waiting for the EU to be invented.

Suffragettes never marched. Levellers and Diggers never died, and of course, the Labour party and the Trade Union movement never fought for the 10 hour day, or sick pay, or holiday pay, or better working conditions, same sex relationships weren't decriminalised, and the NHS wasn't created in the 1940s, because the EEC/EU never existed then...

This is all irrelevant. 'Look at all the great things 'we've' done' is really a preoccupation of the chest beating, flag waving jingoists. Who cares? That's the past. Its context was entirely distinct from the socio-cultural and economic milieu we live in now. The question was (and is) all about where we'd be best placed to maintain and expand on these things in the future. We've had decades of governments frequently trying to erode civil rights and a current government who explicitly want to ditch human rights in favour of an as-yet opaque charter. I'm far more confident in the EU upholding these rights than British governments left to their own devices.

And let's not forget that the EU has stopped any war from ever happening in Europe again. The Yugoslav civil war never happened. It was a figment of the imagination.

Does anyone really try and argue that the EU has prevented all war in Europe, or just that it has prevented war between its member states, which was all the rage for the previous, what, 1500 years?