The British European Referendum

Should Britain leave the EU?


  • Total voters
    43

Dave68124

Active Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
14,761
Likes
496
Points
83
Location
United States
Yet you consistently fail to come up with single point to support the argument that leaving the EU and the single market will benefit the UK.

I voted remain to avoid the failure you continue to accuse me of 'Cheerleading' you may have missed that point when you were typing your CV. But please continue to parade your ignorance on the topic, it is entertaining, if nothing else.
You fail to understand that I don't know if the UK leaving the EU was a good or bad idea nor do I care. I do know that there are significant interests (political and economic) to make sure something gets figured out. When those interests are aligned, shit will find a way to come together.

Personally I think the UK leaving the EU was likely a bad idea in the long-term. However, the EU will have its own issues too.
 

BattleSchool

Chris: Managing Editor
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
4,487
Likes
834
Points
113
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
The European Union itself lists Sir Winston Churchill as one of its ‘eleven founding fathers’

:)
Trotting out Churchill's name as a "founding father" of the EU doesn't prove your point about his supposed support for the UK joining either the EEC or the EU. Neither was on the table in the 1940s. Churchill was still thinking in terms of a (paternalistic) British Empire guiding a recalitrant continent toward a brighter future, one that would put less (future) demands on Great Britain.

Involvement in continental wars, especially with ground forces, has been something that Britain historically has tried to avoid. The spectre of communism spreading across the continent was a more immediate concern, as underlined by Churchill's "iron curtain" reference. Churchill no more desired membership in a European economic and political union than he desired to be drawn into another continental spat between siblings. In a speech to Parliament on 11 May 1953 he reiterated his earlier sentiment about being with Europe, but not of it:

"Where do we stand? We are not members of the European Defence Community, nor do we intend to be merged in a Federal European system. We feel we have a special relation to both. This can be expressed by prepositions, by the preposition 'with' but not 'of' - we are with them, but not of them. We have our own Commonwealth and Empire."
Perhaps the decline of the British Empire in the 1950s and 1960s led Churchill to reexamine his position in the 60s, although FM Montgomery claims that Churchill told him otherwise privately in 1962. In fairness, it is unhelpful to speculate on whether or not Churchill would have supported UK membership of the EU in its current state. Too much has changed in the interim. The Cold War has ended. Germany is the economic powerhouse of Europe. And Britain is no longer "Great," or a particularly "United" Kingdom.

As Dave68124 remarked, the long-term prospects of a UK outside the EU may be poor. Perhaps its constituents parts would be better off inside the EU, Balkan-like, and largely irrelevant in the big scheme of things. Or maybe, the country will reinvent itself. I don't know. But calling it quits because it all seems so hopeless doesn't fit the British bulldog spirit exemplified and perpetuated by Churchill during the dark days of 1940.
 

MrP

Smile,you won didn't you?
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
5,783
Likes
414
Points
83
Location
Woof? Bark? Whine?
Skype
ian.percy
Long term, it'll work out in some way shape or form, but the short term is looking very uncertain. I think history will crucify May if she f*cks this one up (which is not looking unlikely....)
As Dave68124 remarked, the long-term prospects of a UK outside the EU may be poor. Perhaps its constituents parts would be better off inside the EU, Balkan-like, and largely irrelevant in the big scheme of things.
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
17,344
Likes
1,213
Points
163
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Skype
vinnie296
May was really givemn the shit end of the stick by Cameron and the rest. I have a deal of sympathy for her but the respect is fading fast...Her inability to control the extreme ends of her party andf the massive fuck up she presided over with the last election do her no favours.
 

Martin Mayers

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
7,596
Likes
914
Points
113
Location
Manchester
May was really givemn the shit end of the stick by Cameron and the rest. I have a deal of sympathy for her but the respect is fading fast...Her inability to control the extreme ends of her party andf the massive fuck up she presided over with the last election do her no favours.
A deeply evil woman. She'll get nowhere near what she deserves, but if her Premiership ends in utter, irreconcilable shame then that'll be a start.
 

MrP

Smile,you won didn't you?
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
5,783
Likes
414
Points
83
Location
Woof? Bark? Whine?
Skype
ian.percy
We don't get the same level of UK politics coverage here as you guys do for the U.S. What makes her a "deeply evil" woman?
She's not 'deeply evil' Dave, but she's a product of the UK Tory system. Obviously a good party politician, just like every other bad PM, but far too hard and unsympathetic to be anywhere near the frontline of talking to us plebs in the public. She comes across as alternately clueless and and hard bitten - I can't think of a much worse head of party in my lifetime. And like the US, the alternative is no better :)
 

MrP

Smile,you won didn't you?
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
5,783
Likes
414
Points
83
Location
Woof? Bark? Whine?
Skype
ian.percy
This is from a wine industry publication I get every week . Kind of scary. On the bright side for English and non-EU wine I went out for a beer and to watch the football with my cousin on Friday night and a couple of the pubs had signs up saying that they don't serve EU wines now (apart from Prosecco because that's WAY too popular....)

'No deal Brexit? There could be trouble ahead...

You would think it would be hard to get on the wrong side of the Freight Transport Association, but we can be pretty confident there won't be many Christmas cards being sent from its chief executive, James Hookham, to Number 10 this year. At least not unless there is a marked shift in the Brexit negotiations. Worryingly the FTA says its faith in the “government's ability to deliver a 'frictionless' Brexit...is fast collapsing”. With it comes fears of doomsday scenarios at British ports if we drop out of Europe in a hard Brexit. That would mean, he says, having to stop every lorry to check what they are carrying but “currently there is nowhere to check them, and the system to check them does not exist”. His feelings are backed up by the Food & Drink Federation's CEO, Ian Wright, who says a two-minute delay at Dover “would result in a 17-mile queue reaching Ashford; a four-minute delay extends that queue to Maidstone, six minutes takes it to the M25 and anything more than eight minutes would see traffic reaching beyond the Dartford Crossing into Essex”. But we've still got nine months to go...'
 

Martin Mayers

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
7,596
Likes
914
Points
113
Location
Manchester
She's not 'deeply evil' Dave, but she's a product of the UK Tory system. Obviously a good party politician, just like every other bad PM, but far too hard and unsympathetic to be anywhere near the frontline of talking to us plebs in the public. She comes across as alternately clueless and and hard bitten - I can't think of a much worse head of party in my lifetime. And like the US, the alternative is no better :)
Her party's in absolute tatters. She called a snap General Election to try kick the UK Labour Party around and ended up losing her Party's majority. And it's more than likely that at the end of Brexit she'll be so alienated within her own party, and the party so unpopular, that they'll be out of Government for a generation and she'll be onto the after dinner speaking circuit like the guy who called the referendum in the first place is.

Not quite sure how you claim her to be a good party politician if I'm honest.
 

MrP

Smile,you won didn't you?
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
5,783
Likes
414
Points
83
Location
Woof? Bark? Whine?
Skype
ian.percy
That's the part that the public don't really see - you don't get to be a candidate for PM by being a shit politician, you get it by being good at your job and having the support of the rest of your party. But she's the living proof that being a good career politician doesnt make you a good leader...Gordon Brown was the same.
Not quite sure how you claim her to be a good party politician if I'm honest.
 

Paul_RS

Active Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2010
Messages
1,807
Likes
288
Points
83
Location
United Kingdom
Trotting out Churchill's name as a "founding father" of the EU doesn't prove your point about his supposed support for the UK joining either the EEC or the EU. Neither was on the table in the 1940s. Churchill was still thinking in terms of a (paternalistic) British Empire guiding a recalitrant continent toward a brighter future, one that would put less (future) demands on Great Britain.

Involvement in continental wars, especially with ground forces, has been something that Britain historically has tried to avoid. The spectre of communism spreading across the continent was a more immediate concern, as underlined by Churchill's "iron curtain" reference. Churchill no more desired membership in a European economic and political union than he desired to be drawn into another continental spat between siblings. In a speech to Parliament on 11 May 1953 he reiterated his earlier sentiment about being with Europe, but not of it:



Perhaps the decline of the British Empire in the 1950s and 1960s led Churchill to reexamine his position in the 60s, although FM Montgomery claims that Churchill told him otherwise privately in 1962. In fairness, it is unhelpful to speculate on whether or not Churchill would have supported UK membership of the EU in its current state. Too much has changed in the interim. The Cold War has ended. Germany is the economic powerhouse of Europe. And Britain is no longer "Great," or a particularly "United" Kingdom.

As Dave68124 remarked, the long-term prospects of a UK outside the EU may be poor. Perhaps its constituents parts would be better off inside the EU, Balkan-like, and largely irrelevant in the big scheme of things. Or maybe, the country will reinvent itself. I don't know. But calling it quits because it all seems so hopeless doesn't fit the British bulldog spirit exemplified and perpetuated by Churchill during the dark days of 1940.

When quoting Churchill the date and context are critical. Churchill did indeed say, 'Every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea that we shall choose.'. However, Churchill didn't say this in the 1950s, as is often erroneously claimed by eurosceptcs.

Churchill shouted this remark to the French leader, General Charles de Gaulle, in a raging row on the eve of the Normandy landings in 1944. Churchill had a ‘roller coaster’ relationship with de Gaulle and wanted to show loyalty to the US President, Franklin Roosevelt. Churchill angrily added, ‘Every time I have to decide between you and Roosevelt, I will always choose Roosevelt.’ Later, they made up over dinner and fine wine.

The other quote by Churchill is also often used by eurosceptics. 'We have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not combined. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.’ Again, eurosceptcs often claim Churchill said this in the 1950s, but actually, he wrote it for an American newspaper article in 1930.

Contrary to current popular misconception, Churchill was not a eurosceptic. He was an ardent supporter of the European Economic Community and wanted Britain to join.'

And in 1963, just two years before he died, Churchill wrote:
“The future of Europe if Britain were to be excluded is black indeed.”

http://jondanzig.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/winston-churchill-misquote.html

Thread closed? I think so, unless you have any quotes from Churchill after 1963 to support your position :)
 

BattleSchool

Chris: Managing Editor
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
4,487
Likes
834
Points
113
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
<sigh>

AFAIK, no one has suggested that Churchill was a "eurosceptic." It is clear from his correspondence, speeches, and publications that he wanted the continent to be united, to set aside historical differences, and to work together for the common good of Europe. Churchill was very much an imperialist, and saw Britain and her empire as having links to the continent while remaining apart from it.

What has yet to be demonstrated is that Churchill was in favour of the UK joining a) the European Defence Community, i.e., having Britain's military subordinated to European authority (as opposed to maintaining sovereign control within Nato), b) a Federal European system, the ultimate goal of Eurocrats, and c) a continental economic and customs union with a common currency.

Similar claims were made by parties in favour of, or opposed to Maastricht in 1993. And while it is true that Churchill wrote in 1961 that he agreed with the government's decision to apply to join the EEC (a very different beast than the current EU, btw), he said so in a particular context. In his view, there appeared to be no other way to find out if the conditions of membership would be acceptable without applying. This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the EEC, let alone The Treaty on European Union.

In anycase, Churchill's Private Secretary from 1952 to 1965 noted in 1993:

In the late '40s and early '50s, Britain was still probably cock of the roost in Western Europe and the Commonwealth had not become the meaningless fiction it is today: present conditions are so far removed from those prevailing in Churchill's active life-time that all the 'evidence' that proponents can produce of his probable attitude to Maastricht is irrelevant.
And so nothing you have produced supports your position that Churchill would have wished the UK to remain part of the EU. :)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
2,115
Likes
185
Points
118
Location
East Front
Wilders had made reference to the former USSR saying: “Brussels — of course, you cannot compare it with the Soviet Union — but at the end of the day it is a totalitarian, Soviet-like institution."
 

Paul_RS

Active Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2010
Messages
1,807
Likes
288
Points
83
Location
United Kingdom
<sigh>

AFAIK, no one has suggested that Churchill was a "eurosceptic." It is clear from his correspondence, speeches, and publications that he wanted the continent to be united, to set aside historical differences, and to work together for the common good of Europe. Churchill was very much an imperialist, and saw Britain and her empire as having links to the continent while remaining apart from it.

What has yet to be demonstrated is that Churchill was in favour of the UK joining a) the European Defence Community, i.e., having Britain's military subordinated to European authority (as opposed to maintaining sovereign control within Nato), b) a Federal European system, the ultimate goal of Eurocrats, and c) a continental economic and customs union with a common currency.

Similar claims were made by parties in favour of, or opposed to Maastricht in 1993. And while it is true that Churchill wrote in 1961 that he agreed with the government's decision to apply to join the EEC (a very different beast than the current EU, btw), he said so in a particular context. In his view, there appeared to be no other way to find out if the conditions of membership would be acceptable without applying. This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the EEC, let alone The Treaty on European Union.

In anycase, Churchill's Private Secretary from 1952 to 1965 noted in 1993:



And so nothing you have produced supports your position that Churchill would have wished the UK to remain part of the EU. :)
Nothing you have produced supports your position that he wouldn't.

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


But as the EU was created after Churchill died this whole discussion is based on nothing more than your own desire to create a topic for debate where none previously existed (was Chamberlain pro-EU? surely that is the flipside of the argument?). But feel free to express your concerns to the EU and let them know they've got it wrong and that Churchill doesn't warrant being included in the 'EU Founding Fathers' list. Be sure to post to let the forum know how you got on :)

The Original Poster drew a comparison between Chamberlain and Churchill, where, I believe, he likened my position to that of Chamberlain (rather than address the actual issues I raised in my post. A sure sign that nothing coherent was going to be offered as a counter) the inference being that Chamberlain was an appeaser whereas Churchill was a fighter. (Bulldog spirit etc.) Fairly juvenile man-up, grow a pair BS. I challenged that comparison because as history shows Churchill recognised the dangers of national socialism and was tireless in his attempts to alert Britain to the dangers that it posed from the early thirties, but was largely ignored, until it was too late. i.e. warning that complacency would likely lead to disaster. Unfortunately, it took WW2 to prove he was right.

It had absolutely nothing to do with Churchill's thoughts or otherwise on the EU.

Please don't waste your time composing a response and please don't interpret this an insult. It isn't. But I'm really, really, not interested.
 
Last edited: