Obama meddling in UK politics

[Drummond]

I saw this report in today's 'Independent' newspaper. It tells of the Obama Administration's effort to try and stop any likelihood of the British Government granting a Referendum on future European Union membership.

Such calls for a Referendum persist over here, and have been growing increasingly difficult for our Government to reasonably ignore (.. though Cameron is notoriously reluctant to agree to one, anyway). Enter your own Administration on to the scene, with its efforts to try and kill off the chance of change ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/obama-administration-warns-britain-to-stay-in-the-european-union-8444789.html


Britain risks damaging its relationship with America and being sidelined in the international community if it leaves the European Union, the Obama administration publicly warned today.

“We value a strong UK voice in a strong European Union,” the US State Department’s Philip H Gordon, the Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, said starkly during a visit to London to meet ministers yesterday.


“We have a growing relationship with the EU as an institution, which has an increasing voice in the world, and we want to see a strong British voice in that EU. That is in America’s interests. We welcome an outward-looking EU with Britain in it.”


A British exit from the EU would not enhance the “special relationship” in any way, he said. America would continue to forge stronger links with member countries of the EU which it sees as having “a growing voice in the world and a critical partner on global issues”.


The public statements of Mr Gordon, a respected senior member of the administration, show the level of concern in Washington over a mooted referendum on British membership of the EU.

How 'nice' of Obama's Administration to try and scupper our chances of greater self-determination as an independent Nation State !!! The EU interferes in our affairs with ever-increasing regularity and extent .. and most of us Brits are very well aware of it, and are getting properly fed up with it !!

But, 'never mind'. Obama has his Leftie Globalist agenda to keep to, so what's our freedom worth, in the face of THAT ?

[Kathianne]

I saw this report in today's 'Independent' newspaper. It tells of the Obama Administration's effort to try and stop any likelihood of the British Government granting a Referendum on future European Union membership.

Such calls for a Referendum persist over here, and have been growing increasingly difficult for our Government to reasonably ignore (.. though Cameron is notoriously reluctant to agree to one, anyway). Enter your own Administration on to the scene, with its efforts to try and kill off the chance of change ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/obama-administration-warns-britain-to-stay-in-the-european-union-8444789.html



How 'nice' of Obama's Administration to try and scupper our chances of greater self-determination as an independent Nation State !!! The EU interferes in our affairs with ever-increasing regularity and extent .. and most of us Brits are very well aware of it, and are getting properly fed up with it !!

But, 'never mind'. Obama has his Leftie Globalist agenda to keep to, so what's our freedom worth, in the face of THAT ?

The don't want Britain leaving what they hope to duplicate.

[Drummond]

The don't want Britain leaving what they hope to duplicate.

I think it boils down to the fact that a world with just a few mega-powerful SuperStates (such as the EU wants to ensure it'll permanently become) would be, and will be, easier to link with other such States .. bringing true Globalism (with Leftieism predominating) within reach.

Sorry if I'm stating the blindingly obvious, as I think I am ...

The UK finds itself being dominated by the EU in all sorts of ways. From binding (and frequently offensive) judgments passed by the European Court of Human Rights, to tax demands, to demands that public buildings fly the EU flag, or are fined if they refuse, to insistence that our prisoners get the right to vote in elections, to outlawing the sale of bananas with too much of a 'bend' to them ... their insane control-freakery is a well known fact, ensuring the popularity of the UK Independence Party as a mainstream British political Party.

We have to operate an 'open door' policy to other EU Member State citizens .. this making our borders nearly meaningless at times. You know, if Turkey ever gets EU membership, that'd open the floodgates to a far greater Muslim incursion ... here, and throughout Europe.

And Obama wants to keep us tied into that political union ...

[gabosaurus]

U.S. presidents have meddled in the affairs of other countries throughout the history of this country. Why is this any different?

Yeah, I know. There has to be at least five anti-Obama threads made every day here.
And I to think I was labeled as a "Bush hater" when I spoke out during Dubya's regime. :rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

U.S. presidents have meddled in the affairs of other countries throughout the history of this country. Why is this any different?

Yeah, I know. There has to be at least five anti-Obama threads made every day here.
And I to think I was labeled as a "Bush hater" when I spoke out during Dubya's regime. :rolleyes:

If your boy wasn't always shatting in our cereal and trying to enslave us we wouldn't be talking so bad about his sorry worthless ass. Were you to ever really open your eyes you would too!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I saw this report in today's 'Independent' newspaper. It tells of the Obama Administration's effort to try and stop any likelihood of the British Government granting a Referendum on future European Union membership.

Such calls for a Referendum persist over here, and have been growing increasingly difficult for our Government to reasonably ignore (.. though Cameron is notoriously reluctant to agree to one, anyway). Enter your own Administration on to the scene, with its efforts to try and kill off the chance of change ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/obama-administration-warns-britain-to-stay-in-the-european-union-8444789.html



How 'nice' of Obama's Administration to try and scupper our chances of greater self-determination as an independent Nation State !!! The EU interferes in our affairs with ever-increasing regularity and extent .. and most of us Brits are very well aware of it, and are getting properly fed up with it !!

But, 'never mind'. Obama has his Leftie Globalist agenda to keep to, so what's our freedom worth, in the face of THAT ?

obama knows Britain is right on schedule for its destruction and it becoming a muslim state. Why would he want to stop that???? That's right he doesn't !
MUST NOT MESS UP THAT MUSLIM , LEFTIST, GLOBALIST ALLIANCE!--Tyr

[jimnyc]

U.S. presidents have meddled in the affairs of other countries throughout the history of this country. Why is this any different?

Yeah, I know. There has to be at least five anti-Obama threads made every day here.
And I to think I was labeled as a "Bush hater" when I spoke out during Dubya's regime. :rolleyes:

I agree with you, actually. I think even GWB obviously got into others affairs. US Presidents chime in often on the affairs of other countries. But I think you could have made your point better, rather than making it sound like you condemn the membership here.

When you were called a Bush hater, was it because you started 5 anti-Bush threads every day? Because you spoke out when Bush meddled similarly and you pointed it out?

[Drummond]

U.S. presidents have meddled in the affairs of other countries throughout the history of this country. Why is this any different?

Yeah, I know. There has to be at least five anti-Obama threads made every day here.
And I to think I was labeled as a "Bush hater" when I spoke out during Dubya's regime. :rolleyes:

I think I can guess what your view might be. Still, I'm curious. Do you feel that Obama has the right to interfere as he's currently chosen to do ?

.. and ... whether or not other Presidents have been guilty of meddling in the affairs of other countries ... can you tell me the last time one was so blatant about wanting the UK to be robbed of its right to its own choice of self-determination ?

[Drummond]

I thought this article in today's Express might be of interest. It's evidence of growing anger against Obama and his Administration ..

Entitled .. ' HOW DARE THE US LECTURE US ABOUT STAYING IN THE EU' ..

http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/370115/How-dare-the-US-lecture-us-about-staying-in-the-EU


PHILIP Gordon, the US assistant secretary for European affairs, said in London that Britain pulling out of the EU could hurt the trans-Atlantic "special relationship".
<section class="text-description" style="padding: 0px; vertical-align: top; margin: 0px auto;">
He said it was in America's interests to see "a strong British voice in the EU", adding: "We welcome an outward-looking EU with Britain in it."

He is wrong. We are not the 51st state of the US and are not their colony. How dare he suggest that it is not in our and the US's interests to have a referendum on Britain's EU membership.

Why does he think we will become inward looking? We are the country that shaped the United States, its founding fathers. Its Declaration of Independence celebrates liberal ideas yet he would deny us our independence. We shaped an empire.

We built the Commonwealth. We are an island, a trading island. Why does he insult us so?

Mr Gordon also said: "Every hour at an EU summit spent debating the institutional make-up of the European Union is one less hour spent talking about how we can solve our common challenges of jobs, growth and international peace around the world."

Exactly. The unelected Eurocrats spend more time thinking up ways of micro-managing us: adding green taxes to our fuel bills, banning filament lightbulbs and dreaming up quotas for women on boards rather than tackling Europe's failed economies.

Mr Gordon, the EU has supranational control with more than 70 per cent of our laws made in Brussels.

Can you possibly imagine US citizens sleepwalking into such a situation? THE President of the United States is considered by many to be the leader of the free world and his nation a beacon of democracy.

So it is profoundly disappointing to see the US administration endorsing and encouraging something that is fundamentally undemocratic.
</section>

[mundame]

I'm amazed. I had no idea the Obama administration would try so forcibly (or at all) to keep Britain in the EU.

I know the pressure is building rapidly within Britain to leave the EU via referendum. If one was held now, Britain would vote to leave.

I am looking forward to seeing what the Economist has to say about this strange interference by the Obama administration!!

[Drummond]

I'm amazed. I had no idea the Obama administration would try so forcibly (or at all) to keep Britain in the EU.

I know the pressure is building rapidly within Britain to leave the EU via referendum. If one was held now, Britain would vote to leave.

I am looking forward to seeing what the Economist has to say about this strange interference by the Obama administration!!

Ditto, Mundame. So, OK, Obama's bound to want to follow a globalist agenda. Still, this is as blatant as it is abrasive.

I can assure you that very few people here think a Referendum would properly result in a 'let's stay in the EU' vote ... that's been true for years. At least one newspaper here has tried to campaign for such a referendum.

Here's the Express's page on the subject ...

http://www.express.co.uk/web/europecrusade

And we have UKIP .. a Party dedicated to getting us out of the EU. This is its chief reason for existing. Its support has made it a mainstream UK political Party.

The one good thing about this is that Obama's popularity just MUST suffer as a result of this. Finally, and despite our media's regard for him, Obama is now being seen for what he is.

Not before time.

[aboutime]

I think I can guess what your view might be. Still, I'm curious. Do you feel that Obama has the right to interfere as he's currently chosen to do ?

.. and ... whether or not other Presidents have been guilty of meddling in the affairs of other countries ... can you tell me the last time one was so blatant about wanting the UK to be robbed of its right to its own choice of self-determination ?


Sir Drummond. It seems many of our Left leaning, Obama loving, Socialist bound American idiots fully support the Obama attempts to SILENTLY, and QUIETLY force the UK, and the USA into becoming part of the EU...if only financially.
That appears to be his Ulterior motive in driving the value of the American Dollar down, with the Economy. Almost to the point of appearing to be GREECE II in many respects...prior to his attempts to VOID our Constitution, and introduce an ISLAMIC Brotherhood as a replacement for our Democratic Republic style of Government...for MOB RULE.

Of course. Everyone who loves Obama will deny such things.
Because...the word FREE only means one thing to those TOO LAZY TO THINK, or WORK for their own well being.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I think I can guess what your view might be. Still, I'm curious. Do you feel that Obama has the right to interfere as he's currently chosen to do ?

.. and ... whether or not other Presidents have been guilty of meddling in the affairs of other countries ... can you tell me the last time one was so blatant about wanting the UK to be robbed of its right to its own choice of self-determination ?

Gabby considers bammyboy --the lying , worthless bastard to be a God. Of course she thinks he has that right!!
She can not help it she has that lib disease..:laugh:
Besides, remember she be ever so pro=-muslim too. --Tyr

[aboutime]

Gabby considers bammyboy --the lying , worthless bastard to be a God. Of course she thinks he has that right!!
She can not help it she has that lib disease..:laugh:
Besides, remember she be ever so pro=-muslim too. --Tyr


Gabby can't help it. Whether she, or Obama are in a bathroom taking care of business. If the lights are out. BOTH of them STINK the same. Only Gabby is in competition. Trying to be the stinkiest.

[mundame]

Ditto, Mundame. So, OK, Obama's bound to want to follow a globalist agenda. Still, this is as blatant as it is abrasive.

I can assure you that very few people here think a Referendum would properly result in a 'let's stay in the EU' vote ... that's been true for years. At least one newspaper here has tried to campaign for such a referendum.

Here's the Express's page on the subject ...

http://www.express.co.uk/web/europecrusade

And we have UKIP .. a Party dedicated to getting us out of the EU. This is its chief reason for existing. Its support has made it a mainstream UK political Party.

The one good thing about this is that Obama's popularity just MUST suffer as a result of this. Finally, and despite our media's regard for him, Obama is now being seen for what he is.

Not before time.


I'm trying to figure out this strange and forceful warning to Britain, why Obama did it.

We know why the European Union is in our national interest: we don't want any more world wars over there that we'll be dragged into (by Britain, in both cases so far, and perhaps the War of 1812 makes three, when Britain was at war with Napoleon and we got dragged into all that.). That's why we've been promoting European unity all these decades.

The Union is in sorry shape right now, obviously; it has held together with twine and stickum for three years till we've all gotten used to that, but it is possible our State Department has reason to think this may not last much longer.

If Britain leaves...........our State Department must think that will break up the EU! I suppose it would, very possibly. Okay, probably.

If Britain's leaving breaks up the EU, war would follow rapidly, as usual in Europe; if the EU doesn't break up, but Britain is on the outside, that positions Britain for war against the EU itself eventually, with the usual consequence that one of your golden-tongued orators would come over here on a battleship off the coast of Virginia and beg us to save you yet again for the sake of Shakespeare and so on.

That would not be in our interests, obviously.

I THINK that could be going on; leaving aside for the moment the general outrageousness of him telling Britain what to do, do you think I am right or wrong with my analysis of the reasons?

[Drummond]

I'm trying to figure out this strange and forceful warning to Britain, why Obama did it.

We know why the European Union is in our national interest: we don't want any more world wars over there that we'll be dragged into (by Britain, in both cases so far, and perhaps the War of 1812 makes three, when Britain was at war with Napoleon and we got dragged into all that.). That's why we've been promoting European unity all these decades.

The Union is in sorry shape right now, obviously; it has held together with twine and stickum for three years till we've all gotten used to that, but it is possible our State Department has reason to think this may not last much longer.

If Britain leaves...........our State Department must think that will break up the EU! I suppose it would, very possibly. Okay, probably.

If Britain's leaving breaks up the EU, war would follow rapidly, as usual in Europe; if the EU doesn't break up, but Britain is on the outside, that positions Britain for war against the EU itself eventually, with the usual consequence that one of your golden-tongued orators would come over here on a battleship off the coast of Virginia and beg us to save you yet again for the sake of Shakespeare and so on.

That would not be in our interests, obviously.

I THINK that could be going on; leaving aside for the moment the general outrageousness of him telling Britain what to do, do you think I am right or wrong with my analysis of the reasons?

I see we're in disagreement.

Maybe (certainly where WWII is concerned) Britain did want the US to enter the war, but I don't accept that we 'dragged' you into it. America, at that time, was doing well enough in keeping out of it, despite Britain's needs. No, my understanding is that Pearl Harbour 'dragged' you into war, when you started seeing Japan as an Axis enemy.

England had her back to the wall well over a year before you entered that war. If she'd had any power to 'drag' you into supporting her, the right time for the UK to have managed that feat would've been in the summer of 1940, when invasion from Germany was thought to be imminent.

As for the EU ... not even the harshest critic of the EU has any interest in seeing it as an 'enemy'. The nature of the EU has changed over the decades.

Decades ago, it was just a trading bloc, called the EEC. That, and no more. BUT, over the decades, a power vacuum has been filled, and the EU now has its own Parliament, its own lawmaking machinery, and encroaches, daily these days, upon the sovereignty of its Member States. It passes laws and insists that Member States comply with them. It raises taxes, and insists that Member States pay what it demands.

The point of leaving would be to rid ourselves from control from Brussels. NOT to 'wage war', not to become an 'enemy'. Is Norway an enemy of the EU, is it likely to go to war with it ? How about Switzerland, itself free from bureaucratic ties with Brussels .. is it considered an 'enemy State' ?

Consider that we never integrated our currency with the Euro ... so, already, we've resisted fiscal union. Greece, poisoned by being tied into the Euro, is now in a total mess ... if it reinstated the Drachma, would the EU start a war against it ??

No, Mundame, noses would be put out of joint if we left the EU, because we'd be a nation that the EU had lost control over, but it wouldn't be enough to start a war. Probably they'd try to punish us with some disadvantageous trade deals .. but then, we can easily trade with other parts of thw world instead.

The US's only real reason for wanting the UK in the EU has to be because, by its being part of a bigger political union, the cause of globalism is furthered. Obama doesn't want us setting a standard that might encourage others to pull away from this Leftie dream.

[aboutime]

I see we're in disagreement.

Maybe (certainly where WWII is concerned) Britain did want the US to enter the war, but I don't accept that we 'dragged' you into it. America, at that time, was doing well enough in keeping out of it, despite Britain's needs. No, my understanding is that Pearl Harbour 'dragged' you into war, when you started seeing Japan as an Axis enemy.

England had her back to the wall well over a year before you entered that war. If she'd had any power to 'drag' you into supporting her, the right time for the UK to have managed that feat would've been in the summer of 1940, when invasion from Germany was thought to be imminent.

As for the EU ... not even the harshest critic of the EU has any interest in seeing it as an 'enemy'. The nature of the EU has changed over the decades.

Decades ago, it was just a trading bloc, called the EEC. That, and no more. BUT, over the decades, a power vacuum has been filled, and the EU now has its own Parliament, its own lawmaking machinery, and encroaches, daily these days, upon the sovereignty of its Member States. It passes laws and insists that Member States comply with them. It raises taxes, and insists that Member States pay what it demands.

The point of leaving would be to rid ourselves from control from Brussels. NOT to 'wage war', not to become an 'enemy'. Is Norway an enemy of the EU, is it likely to go to war with it ? How about Switzerland, itself free from bureaucratic ties with Brussels .. is it considered an 'enemy State' ?

Consider that we never integrated our currency with the Euro ... so, already, we've resisted fiscal union. Greece, poisoned by being tied into the Euro, is now in a total mess ... if it reinstated the Drachma, would the EU start a war against it ??

No, Mundame, noses would be put out of joint if we left the EU, because we'd be a nation that the EU had lost control over, but it wouldn't be enough to start a war. Probably they'd try to punish us with some disadvantageous trade deals .. but then, we can easily trade with other parts of thw world instead.

The US's only real reason for wanting the UK in the EU has to be because, by its being part of a bigger political union, the cause of globalism is furthered. Obama doesn't want us setting a standard that might encourage others to pull away from this Leftie dream.



Sir Drummond. You would be correct on all points. Over the years. We have learned from many who were there at the start of WWII, how Churchill had asked FDR for help. But the American people wanted no part of the ware in Europe, or the U.K.
But secretly. The straw that broke the camel's back, was when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor...giving FDR more reason to justify the LEND-LEASE deal with Churchill for the American people.
So...Obama is now trying to play the ALTER-EGO kind of phony Leader...like Churchill in Reverse...driving Our Money Down, and building up the EURO financially to make the USA more European, or Greek than he can do on his own.
This is what many Americans call OBAMA'S FORM OF TREASON...but our Democrat Idiots in Congress are all AFRAID to become labeled as ANTI-OBAMA..or rather RACISTS if they dare disagree with the One Person who is Literally SCREWING EVERY AMERICAN.

[mundame]

Maybe (certainly where WWII is concerned) Britain did want the US to enter the war, but I don't accept that we 'dragged' you into it. America, at that time, was doing well enough in keeping out of it, despite Britain's needs. No, my understanding is that Pearl Harbour 'dragged' you into war, when you started seeing Japan as an Axis enemy.

Okay, you are right. I am still resenting WWI, I suppose. I have studied that war extensively. However, you are right that we successfully kept out of WWII until the Week That Was, when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor AND Hitler declared war on us. After that, well, can't blame England.


England had her back to the wall well over a year before you entered that war. If she'd had any power to 'drag' you into supporting her, the right time for the UK to have managed that feat would've been in the summer of 1940, when invasion from Germany was thought to be imminent.

We watched that Inspector Frost series; until I saw the early episodes of that show, I had not realized how terrified, even resigned England was to the imminent prospect of German invasion as WWII started. I was much affected by that and read a number of "what-if" books by historians considering an actual German invasion at that time. And there were at least two stories written by Britons about "When the Kaiser Came" (H.H. Munro) and of course "The Riddle of the Sands" about WWI German invasion.



As for the EU ... not even the harshest critic of the EU has any interest in seeing it as an 'enemy'. The nature of the EU has changed over the decades.

Decades ago, it was just a trading bloc, called the EEC. That, and no more. BUT, over the decades, a power vacuum has been filled, and the EU now has its own Parliament, its own lawmaking machinery, and encroaches, daily these days, upon the sovereignty of its Member States. It passes laws and insists that Member States comply with them. It raises taxes, and insists that Member States pay what it demands.

The point of leaving would be to rid ourselves from control from Brussels. NOT to 'wage war', not to become an 'enemy'. Is Norway an enemy of the EU, is it likely to go to war with it ?

I understand all that; I am very interested in the whole EU situation. No, of course there would not be war immediately -- the point is that we have facilitated the whole EU thing for 65 years because we don't want another big war there and federalization DOES, we know, tend to prevent that. England is, after all, periodically at odds with Norway, and Iceland, too. And if the EU breaks up or England is outside a united EU, whoops, here comes Germany again. They've been doing invasions of England and Italy and everywhere for 2000 years, I don't know why they would suddenly stop now.


Consider that we never integrated our currency with the Euro ... so, already, we've resisted fiscal union. Greece, poisoned by being tied into the Euro, is now in a total mess ... if it reinstated the Drachma, would the EU start a war against it ??


I don't think so......maybe we'll see the answer to that this year. It's still possible: if Greek's departure means Spain and Italy and Portugal follow within days (the usual pace of such calamities, as with the American South breaking up or the Soviet Union), it is possible force might be brought to bear, if the alternative is the immediate shattering of the whole union. But probably not. I'm sure we are all watching with interest, those of us aware there IS such a place as Europe, which is not too many forum dwellers anywhere in this country.



No, Mundame, noses would be put out of joint if we left the EU, because we'd be a nation that the EU had lost control over, but it wouldn't be enough to start a war. Probably they'd try to punish us with some disadvantageous trade deals .. but then, we can easily trade with other parts of thw world instead.

The Economist said punitive trade terms is one of the reason your current government is resisting calls to have a referendum to leave the Union.



The US's only real reason for wanting the UK in the EU has to be because, by its being part of a bigger political union, the cause of globalism is furthered. Obama doesn't want us setting a standard that might encourage others to pull away from this Leftie dream.

Geopolitically, I don't think so. I'm no fan of Obama, but the United States moves in its OWN interest, not some 1848 ideal. There are big, big problems for us when Europe goes up, and we have spent decades trying to clean that up. An ambitious project, considering the history of constant European warfare, and not one that I think can succeed for long. However, peace for even one or two generations is better than the Thirty Years War of 1914--1944. My guess is that is what O is trying to stop starting up again, surprisingly ham-handedly.

[Kathianne]

I found this very profound:

http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/open-letter-to-philip-gordon-us-assistant-secretary-for-european-affairs/


Open letter to Philip Gordon, US Assistant Secretary for European Affairs <small class="entry-meta"> Published <abbr class="published" title="2013-01-09T23:03:27+0000">09/01/2013</abbr>
</small> <!-- .entry-meta -->

<!-- .entry-head --> Dear Mr Gordon,


I read with interest the following comment you made (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20961651) on behalf of the Government of the United States of America, in your capacity as US Assistant Secretary for European Affairs, regarding the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union:



We have a growing relationship with the EU as an institution, which has an increasing voice in the world, and we want to see a strong British voice in that EU. That is in America’s interests. We welcome an outward-looking EU with Britain in it.


This comes as no surprise as it reflects the thinking of other senior members of the Obama administration, who have previously opined that the United Kingdom should remain a member of the EU.
The President of the United States is considered by many to be the leader of the free world, and the United States itself considered to be a beacon of democracy. So it is profoundly disappointing to see the United States administration endorsing and encouraging something that is fundamentally undemocratic. I would like to ask you the following questions.




Would it be acceptable to you and your fellow United States citizens that over 70% of the laws and regulations they were forced to comply with across all 50 states were created by a supranational government comprising layers of complex political and judicial structures, mostly unelected and unaccountable, and made up of delegates from not only the US, but Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, El Salvador, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela and Peru?



Would it be acceptable to you, your fellow United States citizens and members of the Senate and House of Representatives that they were routinely handed diktats from the various bodies that make up the supranational government and were bound by law to implement the directives or be fined or dragged into a supranational court operating an alien form of judicial code and process? Further, that Congress was denied the ability to draft, and the President sign into law, other legislation of national interest whenever the supranational decided it was not appropriate?



Would it be acceptable to you, your fellow United States citizens and the Justices of the Supreme Court that decisions made by the bench, the highest court in your land, could be appealed to a supranational court overseas with the hearing presided over by foreign judges and if overruled the Supreme Court would have to accept that as a binding ruling?


If these scenarios do not sound very democratic or judicious to you and your fellow Americans it is because they are not. Intentionally and by design. But this is the reality of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union and its associated bodies and institutions. UK membership of the EU has entailed a substantial loss of power from our democratically elected Parliament as it has been quietly and steadily transferred to unelected and unaccountable bodies abroad – all done without the people of the UK being asked to give their consent for it to happen.


While it may be in the geopolitical interest of the Government of the United States for the United Kingdom to remain a member of the European Union, opinion polls show this anti-democratic situation is opposed by a majority of British citizens. Membership of the EU dilutes the voice of the United Kingdom. Seats on various world bodies held by the UK have been given up so the EU can supposedly represent the competing and disparate interests of 27 countries in a wholly unsatisfactory fudge that frequently fails to serve British interests.


I am sure you will recognise the obvious contradiction in the position of the United States, on one hand calling for Syria’s regime to heed the wishes of the Syrian people, while on the other calling for the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to maintain membership of the EU, despite the wishes of the British people. I am sure you will also recognise the obvious contradiction of the United States urging countries around the world to embrace democracy, while urging the United Kingdom to maintain its place in political and judicial structures that replace representative democracy with control by unelected and unaccountable aliens who are drawn from a pool of self-selecting career politicians and civil servants.


Would such a situation be an acceptable settlement in the United States? I think we both know the answer to that is categorically ‘no’.


No one who believes in democracy – people power – would endorse and encourage a continuation of this anti-democratic situation for the United Kingdom. That is what this issue is about. So, Mr Gordon, please do not presume to meddle in our affairs and wish on us that which you would aggressively oppose for yourself.


Yours sincerely,
Autonomous Mind

[Kathianne]

http://pjmedia.com/blog/meddling-white-house-wants-britain-to-stay-in-european-union/


Meddling: White House Wants Britain To Stay in European Union

Posted By Mike McNally On January 15, 2013

...

Gordon’s intervention appears carefully timed. British Prime Minister David Cameron is set to deliver a major speech on Europe later this month in which he’s expected to set out plans to comprehensively renegotiate Britain’s relationship with the EU. Cameron is expected to say that Britain should stay out of the process of greater centralization, or “ever-closer union” that Europe has embarked upon, but should remain part of a broader European free trade zone. He also wants to repatriate powers lost to the EU in the last four decades over everything from immigration and human rights to employment law and fishing policy.


The PM has pledged to put any new arrangement to a referendum. However, many “euroskeptics,” both in Cameron’s Conservative Party and the UK Independence Party — which has been enjoying growing success as it attacks Cameron from the right on Europe — would prefer a straightforward in/out vote.


It’s inconceivable that Gordon’s remarks weren’t approved by President Obama, given the timing and Gordon’s seniority.


While it may benefit the U.S. to have Britain as an ally within the EU when, for example, it comes to discussions over financial regulation and trade agreements, the topic within Britain is not whether British membership in the EU is in America’s interest, but whether it is in their own. An increasing number of Britons are coming to the conclusion that it is not. Recent polls (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/majority-of-british-public-wants-to-leave-eu-8352904.html) [2] have shown that, for the first time, a majority supports leaving the EU (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/26/euroscepticism-growing-voters-poll) [3].

...

[Drummond]

Okay, you are right. I am still resenting WWI, I suppose. I have studied that war extensively. However, you are right that we successfully kept out of WWII until the Week That Was, when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor AND Hitler declared war on us. After that, well, can't blame England.

Mind you .. it has to be said that, for us, each of those wars was substantially longer. We Brits think of World War I as taking place between 1914 and 1918. World War 2 .. that was 1939-1945. Try not to take offence (the comment isn't meant that way) .. but there's a standing joke, over here, that Americans turn up late for World Wars.


We watched that Inspector Frost series; until I saw the early episodes of that show, I had not realized how terrified, even resigned England was to the imminent prospect of German invasion as WWII started. I was much affected by that and read a number of "what-if" books by historians considering an actual German invasion at that time. And there were at least two stories written by Britons about "When the Kaiser Came" (H.H. Munro) and of course "The Riddle of the Sands" about WWI German invasion.

There was an Inspector Frost series produced by British television (for ITV, I think) .. but it was a contemporary detective series, with David Jason playing the lead role. We did produce one set during World War 2, called 'Foyle's War' .. is that the one you had in mind ?

For my money, the best 'what if' book (made into a film) was 'Fatherland', set in 1964, in which Hitler's Reich won the war. It was one which said that Hitler was still Leader over a Germany-dominated Europe, but one where the history books, having been written by the victors, had never revealed the truth of the Holocaust. A German policeman slowly uncovers the truth, aided by an investigative journalist, and material proving those horrors comes to light at the very time that Hitler is trying to forge improved diplomatic ties with America ...


I understand all that; I am very interested in the whole EU situation. No, of course there would not be war immediately -- the point is that we have facilitated the whole EU thing for 65 years because we don't want another big war there and federalization DOES, we know, tend to prevent that. England is, after all, periodically at odds with Norway, and Iceland, too. And if the EU breaks up or England is outside a united EU, whoops, here comes Germany again. They've been doing invasions of England and Italy and everywhere for 2000 years, I don't know why they would suddenly stop now.

Well, the mindset in Germans today is very different to what it was in Hitler's day. Oh, I don't doubt that Germany would not be 'best pleased' if the EU showed serious signs of unravelling. But then, just as there might be nations considering their future with Europe, so there are others keen to forge new and improved ties. Turkey, for one ..

I honestly can't bring to mind any notable 'upsets' between England and Norway (.. that weren't football-based, anyway ..). England and Iceland .. yes, the Cod Wars come to mind, going back decades .. more recently, Icelandic banks refusing to free-up funds deposited with them by local councils (and Gordon Brown's use of ANTI-TERRORISM legislation to freeze those assets !!!).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7688560.stm


I don't think so......maybe we'll see the answer to that this year. It's still possible: if Greek's departure means Spain and Italy and Portugal follow within days (the usual pace of such calamities, as with the American South breaking up or the Soviet Union), it is possible force might be brought to bear, if the alternative is the immediate shattering of the whole union. But probably not. I'm sure we are all watching with interest, those of us aware there IS such a place as Europe, which is not too many forum dwellers anywhere in this country.

What would be the nature of that force ? The EU has talked about creating its own army, but has never got around to creating one. So, would individual countries go to war instead ? Otherwise, we're talking about diplomatic 'force', and this from an entity of diminishing size and power wouldn't ultimately amount to much.

I think I'm right .. Obama has an interest in the EU remaining strong, because a much bigger jigsaw piece is more easily slotted into a global jigsaw, than one of miniscule size.

How interested is America in its diplomatic ties with non-EU affiliated European countries, compared with those tied into the EU ? Are the corridors of power in the White House busy with strategic thinking over Norway ? Or, Switzerland ? OR, are they a lot more preoccupied with the EU as a whole ?


The Economist said punitive trade terms is one of the reason your current government is resisting calls to have a referendum to leave the Union.

They ARE said to be worried about this, true. But maybe not quite as much as you might think. We still have links with other Commonwealth countries, after all, and the EU isn't 'the only game in town'. That damage could well result is obvious enough, but would problems arising be severe, or manageable in the longer term ?

I suggest there's only one way to find out. And it would involve some raspberry-blowing in Obama's direction ...

[Drummond]

I found this very profound:

http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/open-letter-to-philip-gordon-us-assistant-secretary-for-european-affairs/

A very good piece ! Thanks for posting it.

[mundame]

Mind you .. it has to be said that, for us, each of those wars was substantially longer. We Brits think of World War I as taking place between 1914 and 1918. World War 2 .. that was 1939-1945. Try not to take offence (the comment isn't meant that way) .. but there's a standing joke, over here, that Americans turn up late for World Wars.

I love the new concept among historians that WWI and II were all just one war. Because the issues of WWI never got settled and the Germans were never defeated. Between WWI and the North Koreans, it is only too plain that Armistices are a very, very bad idea. Never do that. WWI wasn't settled, so after a hiatus, Germany started up again. Ludendorf thought Germany could regroup in five years, but it took longer; he knew it would be Hitler leading the continuation and supported him strongly. The issue of both wars was whether Germany would dominate and control Europe.

As for our turning up late to World Wars, our point of view is always that we don't want to turn up at all. These European wars are terrible! Enough! I would oppose doing it again. And a lot of good that would do me. It seems to be a doom.




There was an Inspector Frost series produced by British television (for ITV, I think) .. but it was a contemporary detective series, with David Jason playing the lead role. We did produce one set during World War 2, called 'Foyle's War' .. is that the one you had in mind ?

Yes, I saw an ad for the Foyle's War series last night and realized I had mixed up the two names. Another excellent account of the terror of expectation of German invasion is in Connie Willis' "Blackout." It's a time-travel story, two volume, and the girl hammers on the door of a London shelter during a bombfall, and when she gets it open she thinks all the people look terrorstruck; but then their expressions subtly change and she thinks she imagined that. But it happens another night when someone else comes to the shelter, and she realizes they are all sitting there quietly in terror that the Germans could invade at any moment.




For my money, the best 'what if' book (made into a film) was 'Fatherland', set in 1964, in which Hitler's Reich won the war. It was one which said that Hitler was still Leader over a Germany-dominated Europe, but one where the history books, having been written by the victors, had never revealed the truth of the Holocaust. A German policeman slowly uncovers the truth, aided by an investigative journalist, and material proving those horrors comes to light at the very time that Hitler is trying to forge improved diplomatic ties with America ...

I've heard of this one. I'll look for it on Amazon.



What would be the nature of that force ? The EU has talked about creating its own army, but has never got around to creating one. So, would individual countries go to war instead ? Otherwise, we're talking about diplomatic 'force', and this from an entity of diminishing size and power wouldn't ultimately amount to much.

It's implausible, isn't it? I can't imagine a European army going after Greece, either. They couldn't even deal with Serbia. If the EU shatters, it shatters, I think. We have just spent three years assuming it will blow apart daily, and it hasn't, so I'm giving up predictions on it; shouldn't do predictions anyway. Maybe they will federalize.



I think I'm right .. Obama has an interest in the EU remaining strong, because a much bigger jigsaw piece is more easily slotted into a global jigsaw, than one of miniscule size.

How interested is America in its diplomatic ties with non-EU affiliated European countries, compared with those tied into the EU ? Are the corridors of power in the White House busy with strategic thinking over Norway ? Or, Switzerland ? OR, are they a lot more preoccupied with the EU as a whole ?

I can't see why we would want a counterweight, but you could be right. It's a creative and interesting idea. Certainly the US has been able to insist Europe be part of our various "coalitions of the willing," ha-ha, and negotiates this aid on the basis of NATO at this point. And we are moving jointly against Libya, Mali, etc.

Britain spent the entire 20th century using us as their "dogs of war," and that of course is not in American interests. Maybe the State Department thinks caging Britain as one state within a European Union federation will prevent another Churchill rising. Likely to be counterproductive to talk like Obama did, though.

[Drummond]

I love the new concept among historians that WWI and II were all just one war. Because the issues of WWI never got settled and the Germans were never defeated. Between WWI and the North Koreans, it is only too plain that Armistices are a very, very bad idea. Never do that. WWI wasn't settled, so after a hiatus, Germany started up again. Ludendorf thought Germany could regroup in five years, but it took longer; he knew it would be Hitler leading the continuation and supported him strongly. The issue of both wars was whether Germany would dominate and control Europe.

It's an interesting idea, and I can see the merits of that concept (I shall ponder it further). Still, I've never thought of them that way .. I've always been set on considering these 'wars' in the traditional way, as two wars. As you say, though, the issue of both wars was the domination of Europe by Germany. Of course .. the EU gives Germany a more peace-oriented way of achieving much the same outcome (.. minus jackboots, though ..).


As for our turning up late to World Wars, our point of view is always that we don't want to turn up at all. These European wars are terrible! Enough! I would oppose doing it again. And a lot of good that would do me. It seems to be a doom.

Well, I'm not someone to WANT any nation to be saddled with fighting in such a conflict, though, then again, I also see there are times when war is the only way to right a wrong. Hitler's Reich was surely proof of the correctness of that view - his regime had to be defeated in order to put a stop to systematic genocide.

Had America stayed out of that war, would Germany have triumphed, and would the Holocaust have been completed, with millions MORE Jews killed ? I think it a distinct possibility. If you agree, can you not go that one step further and agree that America took the decent path by coming in on the Allied side ?


Yes, I saw an ad for the Foyle's War series last night and realized I had mixed up the two names. Another excellent account of the terror of expectation of German invasion is in Connie Willis' "Blackout." It's a time-travel story, two volume, and the girl hammers on the door of a London shelter during a bombfall, and when she gets it open she thinks all the people look terrorstruck; but then their expressions subtly change and she thinks she imagined that. But it happens another night when someone else comes to the shelter, and she realizes they are all sitting there quietly in terror that the Germans could invade at any moment.

Thanks for that - I didn't know of the 'Blackout' story. I shall check further .. looks interesting.


I've heard of this one. I'll look for it on Amazon.

Yes, 'Fatherland' is an excellent story, and Rutger Hauer gives a great performance as a policeman working for the Reich, but oblivious to the evils the German Reich had perpetrated in its lifetime. His is a journey of discovery, realising what had always underpinned the Empire to which he'd hitherto been loyal.

And behind this is the spectre of how completely any State can sanitise crimes done in its name, allowing for the facade of respectability to disguise the truth. Hauer's character is that of a decent man who'd never properly realised what it was he was a part of.

I saw the film adaptation, where it ended with the American delegation driving up to the Reichs Chancellery, with Hitler standing at its steps waiting to welcome them for diplomatic talks ... and documentary evidence of the Holocaust being shown to them even as they approach ... with orders being given to drive past, as the realisation of what a monster Hitler was hits home at precisely that moment.


It's implausible, isn't it? I can't imagine a European army going after Greece, either. They couldn't even deal with Serbia. If the EU shatters, it shatters, I think. We have just spent three years assuming it will blow apart daily, and it hasn't, so I'm giving up predictions on it; shouldn't do predictions anyway. Maybe they will federalize.

Implausible, actually impossible, I believe. I think the EU will ultimately shed a handful of Nation States, gain others, and stagger on. Eventually I think it'll evolve into a two tier State, with the stronger economies forming its 'inner circle', and the remainder at the periphery who'll lose out in certain ways, but gain in others. The hard truth about the EU is that it's a power bloc that was never originally designed to be anything of the sort, until power-grabbers moved to seize the opportunity of creating some.

.. Which is what they did, with individual Member States becoming embroiled in EU dictates .. like sinking in political quicksand ...


I can't see why we would want a counterweight, but you could be right. It's a creative and interesting idea. Certainly the US has been able to insist Europe be part of our various "coalitions of the willing," ha-ha, and negotiates this aid on the basis of NATO at this point. And we are moving jointly against Libya, Mali, etc.

I don't think Europe is supposed to be a 'counterweight', but simply an eminently viable (in purely political terms) large jigsaw piece .. one intended to facilitate the eventual interlocking of all those pieces into a greater World Order. Get common political goals to be agreed from a single authority representing many countries, and you encourage universality between all major powers.

The Left dreams of a World Order. The EU model lends itself to that ideal. Naturally Obama doesn't want dissenters to make their voice heard ... what price REAL democracy, when a piece of Treasured Leftieism stands a chance of triumphing, instead ??


Britain spent the entire 20th century using us as their "dogs of war," and that of course is not in American interests. Maybe the State Department thinks caging Britain as one state within a European Union federation will prevent another Churchill rising. Likely to be counterproductive to talk like Obama did, though.

Now, here, we have definite disagreement. I neither like nor accept the suggestion that Britain used you as 'dogs of war'. The fact of the matter is that yours is a very powerful country, and you should be, considering the values you hold dear, natural allies of Britain. If we'd wanted you as 'dogs of war', as I explained before, we'd have moved heaven and earth to try to get you to fend off the great threat of invasion we had from Germany in 1940.

Painting Britain as any form of aggressor, trying to cynically tie you into warfare through our being 'warmongers' .. this is a gross misrepresentation of the truth, and of what Britain is all about. I note your comment about 'prevent(ing) another Churchill rising' ... WHAT was wrong with Churchill ?? We badly needed Churchill to snap us out of the cloud-cuckooland escapism of Chamberlain, to see to it that we were fit enough to fend Hitler off !

Without his inspirational leadership, I think Britain would've suffered the fate of the Channel Islands and have been taken over by the Third Reich. Indeed ... the scenario of 'Fatherland' would've stood a chance of being our historical reality.

No, Mundame, Churchill was a great Leader, and he was EXACTLY what we needed to see us through. And he further proved his worth as a valuable leading ally behind the Allies generally.

I daresay Obama doesn't like the memory of Churchill, and I heard that he'd ordered the bust of Churchill to be removed from the White House. Well, perhaps what he REALLY hates is the thought of Churchill's memory reminding him of the greatness of his leadership having come from a CONSERVATIVE mindset.

Here's a thought, Mundame. It would've been greatly to our advantage to have America intervene in the Falkland Islands conflict, and put a great scare into Galtieri. Much easier to arrange that, surely, than to send a ragtag collection of requisitioned ships clear across the globe to fight Argentinian invaders ! So, Mundame, if you are our 'dogs of war', how come Mrs Thatcher never insisted that you played along over that one ??

[mundame]

Of course .. the EU gives Germany a more peace-oriented way of achieving much the same outcome (.. minus jackboots, though ..).

Sure, everyone has worked that out, except that Germany wants control, not paying for everything. They want "alles in Ordnung." So they presumably won't play on the terms that they pay for all the extravagent spending.



Well, I'm not someone to WANT any nation to be saddled with fighting in such a conflict, though, then again, I also see there are times when war is the only way to right a wrong. Hitler's Reich was surely proof of the correctness of that view - his regime had to be defeated in order to put a stop to systematic genocide.

Had America stayed out of that war, would Germany have triumphed, and would the Holocaust have been completed, with millions MORE Jews killed ? I think it a distinct possibility. If you agree, can you not go that one step further and agree that America took the decent path by coming in on the Allied side ?


None of it had anything to do with Jews being killed; I suspect you know WWII well enough to be aware of that, but so do I. We were of course not interested in systematic genocide; that's a belated propaganda effort by Jews who lost a lot of population, but no one knew that at the time, at least it was not known generally. No, we went to war because Hitler declared war on us, and because it has been the policy of the United States since about 1875 not to allow regional hegemons, anywhere. "Perfidious Albion" should well understand the utility of keeping power blocs small -- England has ever done the same thing in Europe.


Thanks for that - I didn't know of the 'Blackout' story. I shall check further .. looks interesting.

The whole series is wonderful. Oxford History Department, time-travelling graduate students. The story "The Firewatch" is perhaps her best, about a young man who has been training for four years to go back to travel with St. Paul, but because of an apostrophe "s" mistake (he thinks, erroneously), he ends up as part of the Firewatch on St. Paul's Cathedral in London during the Blitz. Migod, what a direct experience of the blitz that story gives; I've read it several times. Very moving. Her most famous novel is "Doomsday Book," in which a girl student goes back quite a long way for the first time, to near Oxford in 1320. Well, they THOUGHT she was going to 1320...........uh-oh.


Yes, 'Fatherland' is an excellent story, and Rutger Hauer gives a great performance as a policeman working for the Reich, but oblivious to the evils the German Reich had perpetrated in its lifetime. His is a journey of discovery, realising what had always underpinned the Empire to which he'd hitherto been loyal.

And behind this is the spectre of how completely any State can sanitise crimes done in its name, allowing for the facade of respectability to disguise the truth. Hauer's character is that of a decent man who'd never properly realised what it was he was a part of.

I saw the film adaptation, where it ended with the American delegation driving up to the Reichs Chancellery, with Hitler standing at its steps waiting to welcome them for diplomatic talks ... and documentary evidence of the Holocaust being shown to them even as they approach ... with orders being given to drive past, as the realisation of what a monster Hitler was hits home at precisely that moment.


Aha, the Rutger Hauer movie! I saw that; it's been years. I looked up the book and sent for it --- turns out it's one of the Robert Harris novels! His "The Ghost" was really wonderful, and that was a movie, too. Hard to get hold of, as there was a problem about it.......that pedophile director did it, IIRC, and he was out of favor here. But we watched it, finally.


I don't think Europe is supposed to be a 'counterweight', but simply an eminently viable (in purely political terms) large jigsaw piece .. one intended to facilitate the eventual interlocking of all those pieces into a greater World Order. Get common political goals to be agreed from a single authority representing many countries, and you encourage universality between all major powers.

The Left dreams of a World Order. The EU model lends itself to that ideal. Naturally Obama doesn't want dissenters to make their voice heard ... what price REAL democracy, when a piece of Treasured Leftieism stands a chance of triumphing, instead ??


It's possible. Certainly every science-fiction writer from Heinlein on has assumed a One World Order.



Now, here, we have definite disagreement. I neither like nor accept the suggestion that Britain used you as 'dogs of war'.

One of your countrymen did, though, and I was much struck with his phrase. Dick Francis' pilot of racehorse air transport, struggling home after adventures, 30 hours in the air and running out of fuel, flying in low over the channel, finds quite suddenly that two American fighter jets have taken up position on either wing and are motioning him firmly downward to a nearby airport, where he's heading anyway. He refers to them as "the Americans, superb watchdogs" and I about swallowed my gum! I suppose it was an expression of resentment that we still have bases in Britain.


The fact of the matter is that yours is a very powerful country, and you should be, considering the values you hold dear, natural allies of Britain. If we'd wanted you as 'dogs of war', as I explained before, we'd have moved heaven and earth to try to get you to fend off the great threat of invasion we had from Germany in 1940.


You did move heaven and earth to bring us in; I do read Churchill, after all. He goes on about it in "The Gathering Storm." The Foyle stories have a lot about nagging America to join in before it really got going, too. The thing is, we don't belong to you anymore, but that seems to be overlooked every time you all decide to mobilize the colonies. I HATE that. Couldn't you, you know, just depend on Canada and Australia and whatnot? Or maybe cut your coat to fit your cloth: quit taking on Germany. If you think you'll need America to defeat Germany, next time it comes up I suggest you ---- just don't declare war.




Painting Britain as any form of aggressor, trying to cynically tie you into warfare through our being 'warmongers' .. this is a gross misrepresentation of the truth, and of what Britain is all about. I note your comment about 'prevent(ing) another Churchill rising' ... WHAT was wrong with Churchill ?? We badly needed Churchill to snap us out of the cloud-cuckooland escapism of Chamberlain, to see to it that we were fit enough to fend Hitler off !

Without his inspirational leadership, I think Britain would've suffered the fate of the Channel Islands and have been taken over by the Third Reich. Indeed ... the scenario of 'Fatherland' would've stood a chance of being our historical reality.

No, Mundame, Churchill was a great Leader, and he was EXACTLY what we needed to see us through. And he further proved his worth as a valuable leading ally behind the Allies generally.


Yeeeeeessssss, Churchill probably was what you needed to get you through BOTH wars, but also Churchill did sort of cause them, and this was so well understood by 1939 that the nation did not turn to Churchill until Chamberlain's failure was crystal clear. Still.....by then there were some real problems with a raging, rampant hegemon, Germany, taking over everything. Forget the Jews: if Hitler didn't invade you in 1940 he certainly would have if he had won! I read a whole separate book on the German negotiations about a puppet government under Edward VIII, very shocking.

I'm a student of WWI, and Churchill's luncheon Aug. 2, 1914 with a few other voting ministers probably was indeed why Britain went in; that war drives you crazy, it's FULL of stuff like that, the archduke's car making a wrong turn, Churchill's luncheon, Moltke's stroke when the Kaiser tried to call it off rather after the last moment and thus Moltke's loss at the Marne, etc.

I suppose this will shock you, but pretty much every student of WWI comes in the first year of study to the conclusion that it would have been better if Germany HAD won, rather than facing the destruction and serious danger of WWII, its continuation. By then Germany was too malevolent and crazy. The Bosch, the Hun, was less malignant in WWI. Once Hitler came to power, Germany could not be allowed to win, too vicious. Besides, remember, he declared war on us, so we didn't really have a choice any longer. Could we have safely co-existed with a Germany under Hitler? Well, leaders don't live forever, and it might have been possible, same as we live with a European Union. Germany certainly would have unified that continent...... Had Britain stayed out, had Churchill stayed home that day of the luncheon, Germany would have overrun France as it always does and everyone else in central Europe, then perhaps Russia would not have fallen to Communism, and no atom bomb, no Cold War, no Hitler ------ ah, well.

I'm reading everything Churchill wrote, and WHAT a writer, but I am ambivalent. He was your greatest warrior, of course, bar none.

Churchill was extremely strong on Richard II, by the way; the best analysis I've ever seen of that interesting king. I read that section twice.


Here's a thought, Mundame. It would've been greatly to our advantage to have America intervene in the Falkland Islands conflict, and put a great scare into Galtieri. Much easier to arrange that, surely, than to send a ragtag collection of requisitioned ships clear across the globe to fight Argentinian invaders ! So, Mundame, if you are our 'dogs of war', how come Mrs Thatcher never insisted that you played along over that one ??

Reagan had more backbone than most of our presidents. Besides, you all didn't need help. Besides, there's the Monroe Doctrine. You were lucky we let you go in there at all, frankly, and don't think some of us better-educated in geopolitics weren't aware there were some serious issues there; I understood it. However, it didn't look like it could do much harm to American domination of this hemisphere (at least in terms of outside interference from another hemisphere; I wouldn't like to claim we successfully dominate Chavez), and it didn't. I hope it doesn't happen again soon, though. I recognize there are saber-rattlings in the news from Argentina now.

[Kathianne]

I love the new concept among historians that WWI and II were all just one war. Because the issues of WWI never got settled and the Germans were never defeated. Between WWI and the North Koreans, it is only too plain that Armistices are a very, very bad idea. Never do that. WWI wasn't settled, so after a hiatus, Germany started up again. Ludendorf thought Germany could regroup in five years, but it took longer; he knew it would be Hitler leading the continuation and supported him strongly. The issue of both wars was whether Germany would dominate and control Europe.

As for our turning up late to World Wars, our point of view is always that we don't want to turn up at all. These European wars are terrible! Enough! I would oppose doing it again. And a lot of good that would do me. It seems to be a doom.




Yes, I saw an ad for the Foyle's War series last night and realized I had mixed up the two names. Another excellent account of the terror of expectation of German invasion is in Connie Willis' "Blackout." It's a time-travel story, two volume, and the girl hammers on the door of a London shelter during a bombfall, and when she gets it open she thinks all the people look terrorstruck; but then their expressions subtly change and she thinks she imagined that. But it happens another night when someone else comes to the shelter, and she realizes they are all sitting there quietly in terror that the Germans could invade at any moment.




I've heard of this one. I'll look for it on Amazon.



It's implausible, isn't it? I can't imagine a European army going after Greece, either. They couldn't even deal with Serbia. If the EU shatters, it shatters, I think. We have just spent three years assuming it will blow apart daily, and it hasn't, so I'm giving up predictions on it; shouldn't do predictions anyway. Maybe they will federalize.



I can't see why we would want a counterweight, but you could be right. It's a creative and interesting idea. Certainly the US has been able to insist Europe be part of our various "coalitions of the willing," ha-ha, and negotiates this aid on the basis of NATO at this point. And we are moving jointly against Libya, Mali, etc.

Britain spent the entire 20th century using us as their "dogs of war," and that of course is not in American interests. Maybe the State Department thinks caging Britain as one state within a European Union federation will prevent another Churchill rising. Likely to be counterproductive to talk like Obama did, though.

What do YOU think WWI was caused by? Which issues? WWII?