EU- president

Hi, John H.
I also dispute your statements about what or what not is power & how these unelected people get thepositions. With regard to the outset of the 2nd WW. It was fought to stop two European countries occupation (enslavement) of several other European countries & the determination to increase the numbers to the whole of the Continent - Ergo, democracy - but lets just agree to differ, because we certainly are not going to agree.
Dezi
 
So it was nothing to do with protecting trade then?

Hi, You appear to be bit confused with regards to history John. The American civil war & the 1st WW were both fought over A] trade & B] domination of the seas – ie Trade. The outset of the 2nd WW was only about democracy & freedom, or, freedom & democracy.
Dezi
 
Hi, You appear to be bit confused with regards to history John. The American civil war & the 1st WW were both fought over A] trade & B] domination of the seas – ie Trade. The outset of the 2nd WW was only about democracy & freedom, or, freedom & democracy.
Dezi

Only in retrospect, Dezi - try looking at that history again. When Germany invaded first the Sudetenland and then Poland, our government did everything it could to get out of following up our treaty commitments until we were forced into a diplomatic corner. And, far from charging in, waving the banner of democracy, we teamed up with an unelected government in the USSR to throw out a hideous but nonetheless democratically elected Hitler. It was about means justifying ends - and the main end was to stabalise Europe because it was our biggest trading partner. When it was all over, Churchill was one of the biggest supporters of a trade partnership in Europe (but not at that stage to include us) because he wanted our trading partners to buy lots of stuff from us rather than knocking the stuffing out of each other. Happy Christmas.
 
Thought you were in bed with an 18 year old from Malta?


oooooohhhh... just got up.... kinelll.. where am i

direpox" said:
Bed" and "18 year old" would tend to predominate over any thoughts of geography or wider cultural discovery

anything is preferable to a debate on why wars start :rolleyes:.. it's friggin obvious anyway...:rolleyes:

it's to see who's got the biggest dad :D


regards
aj
 
Hi
I feel that I am caught up in Derkfaeberwicks, The last word blog.
I am glad that you made the point that Hitler was democratically elected, three times as a matter of fact, being that democracy was my stating point. However I think, as does history, that you are wrong on most of the others points. Lets Pleeeze agree to differ & leave it at that. Merry Christmas.
Dez
 
I did say I'd rather not go down this route but you insisted - so if you think that history disagrees with me on those points, please do list your reasons here. Happy New Year.
 
Last edited:
Well I for one am glad Tony Bliar got the big E! he should be tried for warcrimes not lauded around the world as some kind of saviour.

quite right the mans a disgrace,

The British voters have selective memory even suggesting this warmonger go forward to represent them
 
I'm so sorry friends,? !:confused::eek:
It seems I have been poking in a hornets nest with this thread :confused:
'mea culpa, maxima culpa' :rolleyes:;)
It won't happen again (this week....;))
Take the wild side,:)
Leo
 
I don't think even Historians who have studied the subject for a lifetime all agree on exactly what WW1 was fought over so we're unlikely to do much better :D

As for Tony Liar, he still managed to fiddle an overall majority on 35% of the vote with boundary changes and a few more fibs. So you have to hand it to him in one sense. His methods may not be honest but they were effective.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I did say I'd rather not go down this route but you insisted - so if you think that history disagrees with me on those points, please do list your reasons here. Happy New Year.

Hi John H,
Oh dear, and Friday started so well, my birthday n all.
As YOU insist on it John I will briefly answer your points.
I suggest bystanders with no interest in the subject switch to another channel.
In 1939 the UKs biggest trading partner, by far was the USA, & the British Empire Countries (Commonwealth). More specifically English speaking Nations from the Empire. Australia, New Zealand, South Africa & Canada. Trade with Europe was steady but small in comparison & declining, it did not overtake Commonwealth trade until the 1960 / 70s. The reason we still had an Empire & could trade so freely can be pinpointed to a single day – 21st October 1805 – Trafalgar. This single battle ensured our mastery of the seas for the next 140 odd years. In fact the Empire trade was so important is the sole reason that we became the largest shareholder in the Suez Canal Co. This mastery was briefly challenged by Germany between 1890 & 1916 hence the age of the dreadnought battleships & WW 1. However Admirals Jellicoe & Beatty & a band of merrie matalots effectively snuffed out this threat at the battle of Jutland in May 1916. A pyrrhic victory if ever there was one, but it ensured our trade routes stayed unchallenged for a few more years. Your comment that we went to war in 1939 to safeguard trade is simply wrong.
Churchill did encourage the fledgling Eu trading agreement realising that it was possibly the best way to stop European wars, but his lack of interest with regard to our participation at that time is contained in the above paragraph. Europe was not that big a trading partner.
As a matter of historical interest the Eu was conceived by Nazi Economist during the later stages of 2 WW. When finally signed in 1957 several ex Nazis were part of the German delegation that signed the agreement on Germany’s behalf.
Which brings me full circle to where I started - Baroness Ashton & her undemocratic rise to power.

A step ladder & a couple of hours in the loft will possibly produce the books & research papers that I had to wade through 30 odd years ago.

Dezi
 
Your comment that we went to war in 1939 to safeguard trade is simply wrong.

Happy birthday but methinks you do protest too much. I cannot disagree with much of your pre-World War 2 history but if you read it again you will see that none of it leads to your conclusion that the protection of our trade and the sea-trade routes was not an issue leading to that war and the furtherance of democracy was. I will go further – I cannot think of a single international war that was brought about to extend democracy. If it had been the main reason for WW2 then we would have joined with Germany to fight Russia rather than the other way round.

Further, if you have been listening to the debate in recent days about the new European appointments you will have heard no-one (not even euro-sceptic Tory spokesmen) calling for them to be elected. Some have said they are just symbolic, others have said we don't need them at all, but none have called for them to be elected (basically because no-one wants them to have the real power that would inevitably go with an elected post).

Oh – and your implication that the EU has its origins (or at least some of them) in Naziism is a debate that I definitely would rather not get into – unless you again insist ...........

One thing I am sure we can all agree on though – none of this is going to affect the possibilities for wildcamping in Europe!
 
Last edited:
John H,

I have produced facts, not opinion and got nowhere. lets just do as I previously suggested & agree to differ. Byeeeeeeeee

Dezi
 
John H,

I have produced facts, not opinion and got nowhere. lets just do as I previously suggested & agree to differ. Byeeeeeeeee

Dezi

Yes, but the facts do not support the conclusions
 
I just checked my passport - as I suspected I am British, not European. Phew, we are still an Island then.
 

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top