What would Cromwell have done in Lisbon?
Thanks for all the comments on the Lisbon summit. The one that has been occupying my thoughts the most is perhaps not the most erudite.
But "True Brits'" list of historical figures whom he or she feels have been betrayed by Brown's signing nags at me.
I keep thinking who would be offended by being left out?
What's Wellington done wrong? Why no ? surely should sue.
But then that got me thinking what the list of true Brits (in fact, all Englishmen, apart from one English woman and a Welshman) had in common.
Not, as far as I am aware, a common view of England, Britain or Europe.
It is easy to see one thing the prime ministers all have in common: they led Britain during the two World Wars, although again I am not sure they would agree for the reasons for those wars or Britain's relations with Europe.
did make a decisive break with continental Europe - in religion, at least - and one that really has significantly affected Britain's perception of the continent.
had a running spot of bother with the Spanish.
But, more importantly, her spin doctors did a good job portraying her as the saviour and embodiment of England.
I am not aware of having any particular views on Europe, but I could well be wrong.
If I were a history teacher it would make a nice Christmas exercise to set the class: compare and contrast the European policy of three of the above. Sum up in fewer than 100 words each the attitude you think any four of the above would have adopted towards the Lisbon treaty.
You can tell I am fun at Christmas parties. But why not have a stab?
Iβm Mark Mardell, the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
°δ΄Η³Ύ³Ύ±π²Τ³Ω²υΜύΜύ Post your comment
Well Winston Churchill famously flirted with the idea of a United States of Europe, so maybe not the best choice for a eurosceptic...
Well, to begin with, I'm sure none of them would have had a problem with the location as Portugal is Britain's oldest ally.
But, being as Wellington once said "we (England) are, always have been and always will be hated in France", I doubt he'd think very much of the EU treaty if he were alive today.
I think Cromwell's first concern would be why there was a Queen in charge of Britain. But Cromwell regarded anyone who wasn't English as second class citizens anyway so I don't expect he'd be too happy with the EU Treaty. He'd probably try and raise an army and sack Brussels.
I doubt if Henry VIII would have agreed to the Treaty of Rome let alone this one.
Not so sure about Henry V though. After all, he spent his reign trying to unite England and France so maybe he'd be happy.
Palmerston was a Liberal so he'd back the treaty but call for a referendum on the wider issue of whether or not we should remain in the EU.
Elizabeth I - she'd have Brown's head chopped off.
Can you Mark mine first please sir?
All great Brits would, I hope, have the long-term interests of the country at heart, as well as a clear understanding of what those interests are.
Therefore, if any of them were alive today, they would - as Churchill did - strongly support Britain's role as part of the European Union, because it's in our national interest. I would hope none of them would be blinded by paranoia, petty prejudice or xenophobia, let alone half-thought-through dewy-eyed nationalism.
But perhaps I'm asking too much.
All great Brits would, I hope, have the long-term interests of the country at heart, as well as a clear understanding of what those interests are.
Therefore, if any of them were alive today, they would - as Churchill did - strongly support Britain's role as part of the European Union, because it's in our national interest. I would hope none of them would be blinded by paranoia, petty prejudice or xenophobia, let alone half-thought-through dewy-eyed nationalism.
But perhaps I'm asking too much.
I wish you would make up your mind whether you want to talk about
'Brits' or the 'English'
They are not Synonymous? All English are Brits, but not all Brits are English.
Re
You have shamed the country today signed on the behalf of the following
winston churchill
oliver cromwell
Henry VIII
elizibeth I
mountbatten
lord nelson
David Lloyd George
Herbert Henry Asquith
all those killed during ww2
Over two and a half million British soldiers were wounded or killed in the First World War.
thanks Gordon for making every thing we did in our lifetimes a act of nothing your a teator to you country.signed the above
Shame about the spelig, but about on par with the rest of the specious rubbish the 'little engerlanders' come up with.
Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and Cromwell had one big European policy in common - that they and the English would not be ruled by a continental European power. Henry freed England from the Pope, Elizabeth from the Spanish King, and Cromwell from a French and Spanish backed Stuart dynasty. They must all now be turning in their graves at the powerless state of the English people to determine their own future, seperate from a corrupt and undemocratic Brussels elite.
Is this the PC brigade redefining history again. none of the people you mentioned like Cromwell or Elizabeth 1st are British because it did not exist as a state then. They are and always will be English. I see nobody Scottish made the list is that because the English still view British and English as the same thing. Would any Scottish people consider William Wallace British. I don't think so
Is this the PC brigade redefining history again. none of the people you mentioned like Cromwell or Elizabeth 1st are British because it did not exist as a state then. They are and always will be English. I see nobody Scottish made the list is that because the English still view British and English as the same thing. Would any Scottish people consider William Wallace British. I don't think so!
I am utterly puzzled at Europe's mad dash towards a single Federal superstate. It seems to me that at least since Alexander the Great, and as recently as Hitler and Stalin, there have been men who wanted to impliment a grand scheme to unify Europe. Europeans from those countries whose leaders were not allied with the current unifiers always regarded them as tyrants bent on conquest, fought them with their last ounce of strength to resist them, at least that's how I learned history. Europeans always boasted of their own nation's individual history, culture, and the unique legacy of their ancestors. They regarded themselves as the current guardians of that legacy to be preserved for their progeny down through the generations forever. Now with hardly a whimper and certainly not with a bang, all that has been jetisoned, the new call is for unity and whether they know it or not, ultimately homogenization. Why? And why now? And why so impetuously? Why so irreversibly? The practical problems of integrating so many diverse cultures, such different values, so many differing and competing needs and stages of development seem insurmountable to this outsider. The Czech Republic and Slovakia, two nations whose differences are relatively minor compared to other EU members could not stay together. Yuogoslavia flew apart at the first opportunity. So how will Spain and Latvia remain united? What is the point of wars between Spain and the Basque who want independence if they will only reunify later under the umbrella of the EU? How do Greece and France reconcile their differences over Kosovo?
The creation of the EU superstate has little precedent. Perhaps the formation of the USSR has some similarities, certainly not the formation of the United States of America. It seems to me as an American chatting on these blogs that not only have many Europeans never learned anything of the history or true culture of my country but little of their own and those of other European countries as well. I will watch as an interested spectator at what seems like a large collection of magnetic north poles whose natural inclination should normally be to repel each other's encroachment be brought together with what must inevitably be considerable force. It will also be interesting to see if once formed, it can stay together as a stable unity. Even the United States of America a far more homogeneous society once reached a point where that seemed hopeless.
Isn't it sad that the little Englander's who revere Churchill so much seem to have no idea of his feelings on the issue. He was actually a bit of a federalist on the quiet and certainly wanted the UK in the EU to avoid future conflicts the like of which cost so many lives.
Also, who does "True Brits" think he (or she) is to dare to speak for those who gave their lives for our Country. I served our country, and lost friends doing so, but I do not presume to speak for them only myself.
In response to the true brit i can see were this person is coming from.These historical figures have one thing in common which brown as not got they loved there country brown as non of these values Europe should have stayed as trade only nothing else now its far more then that
brown would have been sent to the tower of london back then no questions asked by cromwel,elizebeth etc .We fought for British freedom in the 1st and 2nd world war not its was for nothing ...
churchill had the basic idea of a united Europe which did not include Britain Browns betrayed him as well..
totally agree with true brits
George III would have fitted quite well in a EU leadership crowd:
taxation without representation.
That'd have been a small price to pay for not being invited to Boston Tea Party and upsetting some underdeveloped colony across the Big Pond.
Indeed, Cromwell doesn't seem to have paid much attention to the continent. He certainly seems to have missed out on the joint European summit meetings at OsnabrΓΌck and MΓΌnster in 1648.
After 30 years of experimentation, the namby-pamby Eurocrats agreed, over a few months' worth of good dinners, that religious genocide was not about to become feasible, and some of the more unprincipled of them even suggested, off the record, that it might not be a good thing at all.
Cromwell wasn't about to fall for that particular brand of humanistic hogwash any time soon. He had a couple of dates with Parliamentary Committees, a Special Relationship with God and a spot of Freedom and Democracy to spread on the neighbouring island.
Our great leaders from the past had one thing in common they stood for England/britain now they have been betrayed by Gordon Brown and labour.brown should be a shamed to call himself British every thing britain as stood for he as taken away from it ..now whats left of it hardly nothing just a state of the EU.The problems with goverments all over the world once they get in power they forget about jo public and loose touch with their people Gordon Browns a great example of this.I am sure in 100 years time people will see Gordon Brown as the man who sold Britain with the consent of his people..Its a sad time for Britain
Mark, you fall in to the trap of many and fail to differentiate between Europe and the EU. Europe is a group of nations whereas the EU is a political construct. Those against the EU are not haters or Europe or foreigners, but rather haters of the political construct which increasingly undermines Westminster and dilutes democratic representation by pushing law making up to a pan-European level.
It is impossible to tell the attitude of past historical figures towards the EU as it only came into being gradually over the past 50 years. However one can say with some certainty they would be appaled at the idea of merging nations and the willingness of recent generations to give up sovereignty.
Co-operation is one thing, but integration is another. The EU is based on the three words "ever closer union" which necessitates an inexorable march towards a single EU federal state.
Free trade and co-operation, yes; political union, no.
Anyone invoking the death of millions of soldiers in WW1, butchered for nothing more than hatred and political reasons, and describing it as a glorious moment in our history is demented.
The EU has its faults, but the fact that it has put a end to the incessant wars that have torn our continent for millennia is nothing short of a miracle. The involvement of any prime minister in its functioning and evolution towards a more democratic union is certainly not a traitor.
This said from a French citizen of French, Swiss, Spanish, Polish and Russian descent living in the UK.
There is one way to answer this question as the last living greatest prime minister in modern history (sorry Gordon and Tony its not you)It is of course the iron lady Margret Thatcher she could answer the question for you...Mark you could put the question to her
Oliver Cromwell - the religious zealot that he was - would have been in favour of forging closer links with our European neighbours as long as they were Protestants. During the years of the republic there was talk of uniting Britain with other Protestant states such as Holland in order to create a godly alliance.
Well, clearly for the WW1 generation (Asquith, Lloyd George, Churchill), the EU is something pretty close to what they were fighting for - a European community in which democratic government and capitalism are universal, with a legalistic approach to resolving disputes between states.
Churchill famously offered a political union with France in 1940.
Henry VIII sought a place for England as part of a Hapsburg-led European alliance, at least until he lost all hope of Catherine of Aragon bearing him a son.
Cromwell too was perfectly happy to sign alliances with the continentals - even the Papist French - when he wished to do so.
(100 words)
And there weren't two and a half million British killed and wounded in World War 1 - there were two and a half million deaths and wounds. No-one died twice, but many were wounded several times, or wounded then died.
So roll on the day the EU takes over education. At least after that the True Brits of this world might be able to quote statistics accurately and get to know a little of their own history.
Reply to Mark (no. 9):
"Europeans always boasted of their own nation's individual history, culture, and the unique legacy of their ancestors [...]Now with hardly a whimper and certainly not with a bang, all that has been jetisoned, the new call is for unity and whether they know it or not, ultimately homogenization. Why? "
It's nothing to do with replacing one culture with another - one of the aims of the EU is to improve cultural diversity and support the traditions in Member States, see for example initiatives to support the Welsh language in Wales, the official recognition of Gaellic. It's about working together to achieve a common prosperity and making Europe an attractive place for investors and a world leader in research & development and education - see the Lisbon Agenda.
"And why so impetuously? Why so irreversibly? "
Its taken 50 years to get this far and there's nothing which says that a state can't leave, Greenland left in 1984. The Reform Treaty sets out a mechanism for withdrawal.
"The Czech Republic and Slovakia [...]Yuogoslavia flew apart at the first opportunity. So how will Spain and Latvia remain united? "
That's exactly the EU's success - countries that are too different to be united in one state can come together under the umbrella of a collective of individual nation states. Slovakia is now enjoying an annual growth rate of 9%, and the Czech Republic is not far behind.
"The creation of the EU superstate has little precedent."
Really? What about Garibaldi uniting Italy or Bismarck bringing together lots of little German states? Now there is Mercosur in South America, the African Union, ASEAN between China, Japan and South Korea, NAFTA between the US, Canada and Mexico. It's all about regional cooperation and the realisation that more can be achieved by working together, rather than remaining alone dreaming of past glories.
"certainly not the formation of the United States of America."
Really? The Declaration of Independence was signed in secret. Not all states were in accordance with the federal plan which started out as a "league of friendship". There was no single currency and it took over 100 years before all the states were part of the federal structure.
"Even the United States of America a far more homogeneous society"
That's easy to say 250 years after their independance, but settlers to the US came from a variety of different countries and cultures, speaking numerous different languages. Louisiana was French, the English, Dutch and Swedes colonised the east coast, the Spanish in Texas.
To change the question slightly (and then wander off on a tangent) ...
"Henry VIII" -- Once again, JosΓ© Manuel Barroso has missed a historic opportunity to form a new religion and combine the roles of commission president and head of the church into a single hereditary position.
"Lord Nelson" -- To quote myself, "May the Great God, whom I worship, grant to my Country, and for the benefit of Europe in general, a great and glorious Victory;"
"all those killed during ww2" -- We note that the European policy of our time led us into WWII, and then led us to our deaths. Considering this, we view the Lisbon treaty as an improvement, as (to our knowledge), it has yet to claim any lives.
"King Arthur" -- Where the Lisbon treaty really breaks down is in its failure to put a Frenchman in charge of People's Army for the liberation of Cornwall.
now who said i am a euroseptic i am infavor of good relations with Europe but as for the EU and full political and economic union thats a big no no.people need to learn eurosceptic means anti EU not anti europe i have friends from holland poland france and many over there feel the same its a Europe wide debate which the EU turns its back on.So little englander i am not.and i dont speak for the war dead from the world wars but what was the point of these wars were our people thought for there country for its freedom just for the goverment to hand it away in spades.The EU as not kept peace in Europe Nato as.
John Whittle
I suspect not one of those would have liked the EU all that much - however, most of them would have been intelligent enough to realise that Britain will quickly become a third (or even fourth) rate power without joining the EU.
I don't much like the way the EU works, it could be organised much better - but I will take it because it will give my children a voice in the world. I would much rather that, than leave them living in a small country with an economy that is declining in relation to others in the world. Outside the EU Britain will have as much influence on the world as Belgium.
I think everyone has missed the point, the whole issue is about freedom of choice.
There has been no freedom of choice. Few of the Treaties, and few of the decisions have been put to a vote or a referendum, this is the biggest betrayal of the people of surope - the right to self determination. Look at what happened when it was put to a vote, the people rejected it. What must must be and this should be put to a vote. The current process occurring in the EU echelons is not democratic and stinks of authoritarianism - something Europe has been the best at in the past.
If the people of Europe turn against the policies of their leaders because they were so arrogant as not to listen to their subjects, then when the continent tears itself apart in another world war they will only have themselves to blame.
Iβve been a great fan of Markβs diary for years now. Itβs always interesting and sometimes funny. I always find the Europhobesβ comments the most funny, because they are of a single uncompromising view, that the EU is an evil conspiracy designed solely to destroy the UK. They also have this strange idea that British (or English) identity is so fragile that it can be destroyed by EU policy. Which is all the more funny because some continental countries worry about becoming to Anglicised.
Those that are pro-Europe are generally willing to concede that there are problems but the idea is good and we should try and make it work. The problems with the EU are:
1. the population does not get a say in the general direction of travel.
2. national politicians use it to introduce unpopular policies that can be blamed on Brussels.
3. decision making is complex and there is no clear line of responsibility.
4. As there is no one person responsible and no one person representing the EU view the EU can be blamed for everything (this is not to say it gets things right).
Yes the EU is flawed, but itβs the way things have to go eventually. Otherwise are we going to be in a position where there is a UK colony on the moon or mars? The EU is not a project for the next 5, 10 or 15 years it is a project for the next 50 to 100 years. Britain is unrecognisable from what it was 40 years ago. The question is where are we going to be in the next 40 years?
I think most of these figures would have approved of the EU because they all sought to prevent any one power dominating the continent, whether that power was Napoleon, Hitler, Philip II or the Papacy.
The whole point of the EU structure is that no one country or person is predominant. Indeed, not even a combination of the two largest powers (France & Germany pre-2004) is no longer dominant. The most populous countries have far less MEPs, presence on the council of ministers and commissioners than their populations suggests they should.
Therefore these historical figures would have approved of these developments.
I wouldnt like to comment on any of those persons ideas from the past.
As we have moved on from those times
anything that can be done should be
for the benefit of those residing
in the British Isles at the present time and in the future and that the
usage of the English language should
not be forgotten either.
Mark,
As ever this discussion quickly becomes polarised between those supporting a federal European structure and those who don't, but this tiresome argument, in which both sides have a perfect right to hold their own views - and express them - always descends into childish name-calling. Being for or against the EU are both valid political positions, but miss the essential truth: in a true democracy, it should be the people (ie the electorate) not just politicians and their non-elected advisors who decide the issue. As no major party in the UK has offered an alternative to full EU membership, this opportunity has been absent.
Since the referendum in 1975 (itself a hopelessly flawed and one-sided exercise which would be condemned by the EU if carried out in an African country)there has been no real opportunity for the British people to express their views, consent or otherwise, to the wholly new arrangements being constructed in Europe. A full political union, in which Britain becomes effectively a county council within a federal framework, may be something to which the British electorate would agree; on the other hand, of course, they may not. This boil will continue to fester in our body politic until it is lanced by a truly democratic mandate to proceed or withdraw. Interestingly other European countries have the same disquite, and it is instructive of the covert way in which the EU proceeds, and to which so many of its opponents rightly object,that after the rejection of the constitution in France and Holland, no country (apart from Eire which is legally obliged to) is offering the people a chance to air their views in a referendum. Hardly a shining example of a free and democratic institution. This is simply stroring up trouble for the future. No enforced "merging" of sovereignty, whether by military might or political guile, has endured throughout history against the will of the people. We don't have to look too far in either time or location to see evidence of the often bloody results; a depressing thought at Christmas.
To all the Europhiles supporting this project I simply ask one thing: if the concept is so good, and so much in the interests of this and other countries of Europe, then why are you all so afraid of putting your case honestly to the people, and allowing your opponents to do the same, and then allow the electorate to decide? That after all is what democracy demands.
I'm not a british citizen, so can someone please explain a few things to me:
how you deplore nationalism, yet you don't want to be ruled by a continental federal power
why do other countries accept being ruled by a federal power and not the brits? don't they also have their history, their wars fought for recognition, independance, freedom and such, their proud cultures too?what makes the british so special that he cannot accept the thought of being part of something bigger? (same can be asked about the scandinavian)
national democracies are far from perfect, yes not terribly new, so what's wrong with trying to unite as a bigger power?at least trying instead of anticipating and criticizing. don't you think the europeans need a heavier presence on the international scene? or do you really believe Britain (or any singled euro country for that matter) can make it on its own in the world today?
Excuse me if the questions seem aggressive, but i don't mean to criticize, i'm asking objectively only to understand the position of the British
Could someone please explain to me how the EU can be considered to have βput a end to the incessant wars that have torn our continent for millenniaβ (Edunant #19)? In the past 50 years we have had NATO agreements, the Berlin Wall, and most of the army of the USA poised to stop us killing eachother, and weβve messed that up with Kosovo in our backyard. Hardly a bastion of peace, wars have lasted longer than this laughable EU peace.
I'm not a british citizen, so can someone please explain a few things to me:
how you deplore nationalism, yet you don't want to be ruled by a continental federal power
why do other countries accept being ruled by a federal power and not the brits? don't others have their history, their wars fought for recognition, independance, freedom and such, their proud cultures too? what makes the british so special that he cannot accept the thought of being part of something bigger? (same can be asked about the scandinavian)
national democracies are far from perfect, yes not terribly new, so what's wrong with trying to unite as a bigger power?at least trying instead of anticipating and criticizing. don't you think the europeans need a heavier presence on the international scene? do the brits really believe Britain (or any singled euro country for that matter) can make it on its own in the world today?
or would they rather continue being uncle sam's best buddy out there?
Excuse me if the questions seem aggressive, but i don't mean to criticize stupidely, i'm asking objectively only to understand the position of the British
The New Model Army would have tried traitors for treason and despatched them.
The English would have maintained their own Parliament and remained close relationships within the Anglosphere.
Seems like the only place to be is with the English Democratic Party... no one else will offer a referendum on leaving this corrupt EU mess.
Is it not understood that the first free trade zone and unified state in the world is that of the United Kingdom which began it's inception about 1600 while Elizabeth I was on the throne. It was because she had no eires that quietly it was agreed that James of Scots, great-grandson of James IV of Scots and Margaret Tudor should rule England once Elizabeth died. James brought the idea of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales being ruled under one government, the British government, complete with the newly designed Union Flag. In the next decade he faced the same as what we have today, apathy, fear of poor Scottish immigrants crossing the open border stealing jobs in weathier England, etc. The Union Flag became commonly used under Cromwell whilst he was in parliment.
Despite their medievil and primitive ways Oliver Cromwell, the Tudors and others in between developed the predessor to the European Union in that of the United Kingdom. Maybe these people in modern times with a modern attitude would have actually attended the signing of the Lisbon Treaty with fervent and would have apprieciated Europeans peaceful cooperation with one another. I am happy I am living in Europe now and not Europe 60 years ago and earlier.
I think it would be useful to point out that Churchill actually displayed the same good old ambivalent attitude towards Europe when he pronounced his 'Zurich speech'. Note that he was all in favour of a US of Europe as long as Britain kept out of the scheme:
'In all this urgent work, France and Germany must take the lead -together. Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America and I trust Soviet Russia - for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine'.
Looking further back the 'Holy Roman Empire' was also an effort to unite Europe as one state. I thought that eventually fell to pieces as well.
Jerome, please read Malcolm's post. That sums it up for me.
It's not really "No Europe" v.s. "Europe"; it's how much Europe, and what is the mechanism for the people to have a voice in directing it's future.
I wonder what went through true Brits brain when he made that comment, no wait, not just that comment but when he created that name 'true English' would have been better (quick someone check William Wallace's grave its been spinning since 1603!)
Anyway each one of them would have rejected the treaty, yes even Churchill. Why? They lived in a different time period and therefore have a different mind set. Heck I was amused by post #2 Wellington's comment which I'll repeat. "we (England) are, always have been and always will be hated in France"
Yet a life time after Waterloo, 89 years to be exact (less then a century!) the two nations signed the Entente cordiale. Guess he was wrong.
Furthermore don't assume that only the past English leaders would reject the treaty. I doubt any Belgian in 1830s would want a treaty with the Netherlands. I doubt any Portuguese would want any treaty with Spain all the way up till recently. I doubt any French during the middle ages all the way up to the 19th century would want to do anything with the English. Like wise with the Germans.
So what changed? The only thing I can think of is the 1914-1945 time period. Which changed our mind set... well at least for some us. Others are thinking that they're still part of a glorious Empire where the Sun never sets. Heck even Churchill had this disillusion about Britain (see # 37)
#10 Mark you forgot to add Switzerland to your list, a federalist republic consisting of 26 nations or cantons speaking four different languages and they fell apart right after... erm... wait they didn't. Or the United Kingdom they fell apart right after... uhm sadly no and according to 'true Brit' they now even have a common identity (lol, yeh right ;) ) Heck even pre Napoleon Netherlands is an example (United Provinces anyone?). Yet nations who are forced together seem to split up: Yugoslavia, U.S.S.R., Netherlands (1830), perhaps Belgium now. I wonder why...
Cromwell, who was in fact of Welsh descent [his Welsh-born grandfather retaining their Welsh family name], sought Union with what is now the Netherlands and allied himself with France against Spain. It is however difficult to judge how he'd view the EU...the alliance with France was largely realpolitick as Spain was still the dominant Catholic power so he exploited Franco-Spanish enmity to start the English latterly the British empire in the West Indies.
Unfortunately for Phillip [post 23] having worked in a multinational consultancy staffed by Europeans from many diverse states/regions/or whatever-name-you-wish I can assure him that many from the founder states take the view that the EU should always strive to readicate "anglo-saxon" culture and attitudes and having taken part in EU forums on the 'constitution' I found that this was the attitude of most of it's officials. As a result I changed from moderate europhilism to eurosceptiscm.
Mark, isn't this list born out of desperation? The little Englanders need to prove that they are different from "Europe", because they don't understand it, they don't like it and they feel that the EU is a challenge to their simplistic world views.
Nationalism is after all a very practical concept for those who have not much to offer themselves: Your nationality is not of your choosing and it cannot be taken away from you.
All personalities mentioned are Europeans and many of them should have something in common with the continent. The "us and them" theme just doesn't fly.
'In all this urgent work, France and Germany must take the lead -together. Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America and I trust Soviet Russia - for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine'.[#37]
Churchil was right and I, for one, am happy to see "new, improved" Europe living better and shining brighter with every passing day, even without Great Britain's, mighty America's and Soviet Russia's (under reconstruction) sponsorship.
Only can you explain to me this record high inflation, deficit limits' busting, seemingly permanent union protests, and Airbus, BASF, BMW, Daimler, VW, etc., moving their production outside of EU?
Cromwell would not have gone. That period of history not very forgiving and catholic europe was still fighting with the protestant english and dutch.
In some ways things have not changed. It's still "us" and "them" and I vote for "us" everytime. I want my promised referendum.
Jerome
I'm a Brit but I live in France, from choice. I think Gordon Brown's actions over his arrival in Portugal showed exactly what is the British view of the EU: would prefer to be "out" but afraid they might miss something if they were, so they stay "in" and behave badly!
Mark
Wellington was loved by the Portugese and Spanish (still is) and he wanted a united Europe, if only to keep control over the French.
Churchill loved France, holidayed in various other European destinations and, as has already been noted, wanted a united Europe - but with Britain in a leading role (NB for Gordon B).
Henry VIII couldn't have done without Europe (with or without religion): he was rapidly running out of brides and concubines at home.
As Matthew commented, it's not really
"No Europe" versus "Europe"-considering the common challenges European countries as a whole face in the present context-it's how much Europe. Is Britain to abdicate it's
political and moral authority as well to subserve such a European Union? The role of Europe with the
exception of U.K (and Allies) in the two world wars would make it necessary for a referendum in U.K. on the question of political
union-at least on the political modalities of some consequence.
How selective memory can get. Was there not a british Prime Minister who signed some country's sovereignty away "somewhere" on the continent? You rather remember only the famous ones? Gordon Brown signed up to share responsibility in Europe and for Europe, you should be proud of him.
Im sorry but can you stop discribing Cromwell as great!!!
He murdered hundreds of thousands of people in the name of 'GREAT BRITION'
In regard to the Lisbon Treaty if the british people had truly wanted a referendum then they should have it writen into the consitution.
You should really stop complaining that your leadershave made a decision for you when you have given them that power in the first place.
As an Irish person, while i like the idea of a united europe i am still uncertain as to the impact this will have on my country. At the moment I am unable to get much information on this, and therefore i think i will be voting NO in Irelands referndum.
I am supisious on what they arent telling me. if anyone has some information , unbiased please, i would appreciate it.
Cromwell was certainly not great, he marched across Ireland, torched our land and killed our people, all because we didn't want to be a part of "Great Britain"
Did Cromwell study mathematics?
The foregoing commentators disagree - almost violently - on many things, but there is, paradoxically, one thing that unites all of their comments:
They are all personal opinions!
There is no a priori principle whereby any one of these opinions may be accorded greater weight than those of other people. There is no a priori principle whereby the opinions of Gordon Brown and all the politicians may be accorded greater weight than those of other people.
But if we do not accord greater weight to the opinions of any person or subset of persons, then (and this is a statement of mathematical certainty) all opinions must be weighted equally. That is the logical basis of a referendum.
And lest there be anyone who disagrees with this commment, I am more than happy to settle it by putting it to a referendum!! Can anyone who disagrees say the same?
To answer the question in the title. Cromwell would of burnt Lisbon to the ground and murdered the catholic population. March on Brussels, while his hoards of English/British(take your pick) holigans killed and raped every French speaking 'papish' on the way. Before returning to London for a parade and interviews with sky news.
Then again he may have mellowed out with time and have seen the benefits of a federal Europe, who knows.
If we were to compare Cromwell to Brown and the approach he made in Lisbon the only similarity one could possibly draw would be: if it was about the economy both would have addressed the real issue. The issue of the day wasnΒ΄t to sign the Treaty and make a fuss, it was to worry about the matter in hand - the matter being how the economy can survive post credit crisis situation. In fact, there is no comparison, Cromwell wouldnΒ΄t have played such games - fiat money didnΒ΄t exist.
Surely even poor Mark (#1 in lack of undertanding) must surely have heard of the European love of Empires.... didn't his own country come into being (after ethniclly cleansing the local inhabitants) entirely as part of, and a reaction to, European colonialism?
Why then should he be surprized that many Europeans (apart from the kill-joy British -who attacked so many fine European Empires) should give up their "divide and conquer" mentality for a "unite and conquer" system that folds all the previous European Empires into one single system: Something which nobody has been able to achieve since Roman times (and even they missed out a few important bits).
IF Americans (and the English -who should not confuse themselves with the other inhabitants of the british isles -as indeed the Americans should not confuse themselves with the inhabitants of the rest of the world) understood themelves and the rest of the world better -then the the EU would seem quite logical.
How nice of the europeans -for once, to colonise themselves and each other -instead of involving other people with their secret obsessions. How nice it would be if America did the same -and left the rest of the world to sort out (in peace) the awful mess the arogasnt American immigrant usurpers have created for the youth of the planet to inherit.
Re post 48, while I would not defend Cromwell, he was very much a man of his times. As to the hundreds of thousands he murdered, you are wrong. His worst attrocities were undoubtedly committed in Ireland and I reproduce them from Wykipedia below -
At the siege of Drogheda in September 1649, Cromwell's troops massacred nearly 3,500 people after the town's captureβcomprising around 2,700 Royalist soldiers and all the men in the town carrying arms, including some civilians, prisoners, and Roman Catholic priests.[30] At the Siege of Wexford in October, another massacre took place under confused circumstances. While Cromwell himself was trying to negotiate surrender terms, some of his soldiers broke into the town, killed 2,000 Irish troops and up to 1,500 civilians, and burned much of the town
This were attrocities and should be condemned. Cromwell himself justified his sack of Drogheda as revenge for the massacres of Protestant settlers in Ulster in 1641, calling the massacre "the righteous judgement of God on these barbarous wretches, who have imbued their hands with so much innocent blood".[40]
This period of history was bloody, although in total the death toll reached huge figures, the vast majority of these were on the battlefield.
Compared to the then recently ended German Thirty Years War , which reduced the male population of Germany by up to half,Cromwell was not as bloody as many think. Unfortunately, as we have seen throughout history, civil wars are usually the most barbaric.
I only include the above to ensure facts form the basis of the debate and I repeat I would never seek to justify Cromwell's actions, only seek to put them into context.
How amusing. So the EU is a good thing because it will now prevent future wars. This view turns my stomach. Of course there will be no more wars, because the European dream of a forced United States of Europe has now finally come about!
Just one problem though. With so much resentment over the EU caused by the fact that it is unrepresentitive, corrupt and means nothing to a great many people, may it soon come crashing down into the gutter where it belongs. So the weasel Brown and his spineless ministers may think they have drawn a line under the EU issue. FAR FROM IT! I am not European, I will never be European. I for one am sick of our spineless so called leaders. As for being called a little Englander, so be it. At least it would be what WE decide in OUR own country! 'Tot ziens Europa! Ik zal altijd Brits zijn en nooit Europees!' (just in case our EU neighbours thought we BRITISH people were unable to communicate in one of their languages! chin chin
seeing why the country is mainly now anti eu and rising just give us so called little englanders a referendrum and let us get out of this forced union.
To all pro eu saying winston churchill wanted Britain in a UNITED EUROPE get your facts right eres his famous speech-Churchill's view is crystal clear in one of his most famous quotations:
"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. And should European statesmen address us in the words that were used of old, 'Shall I speak for thee to the King or the Captain of the Host?', we should reply with the Shunamite woman 'Nay sir, for we dwell among our own people'".
Eu lets get out britain can survive without it
Commentator sheila (#48 above) writes:
"if the British people had truly wanted a referendum then they should have written it into the constitution".
This misses the whole point of the referendum debate: as the British constitution currrently stands (an amalgam of various acts of Parliament and judicial precedents) the British People cannot write anything into it.
As the British constitution currrently stands only politicians can do that. And if there is one thing that all politicians are agreed upon, it is that the British People must never, ever, ever be given an opportunity to call for referendums. That would destroy the power base of the two entrenched political parties.
It is rather like saying that if the Russians didn't like Stalin they should have overthrown him!!
Cromwell sent a small fleet to Copenhagen at the request of the Swedish King, Charles X, who was besieging the city, having failed at invading Poland and been driven across northern Germany.
However, when Cromwell discovered the Danes were Protestants too, he refused to allow the English fleet to take part in the engagement on the grounds that English forces should only be used against Catholics. The Dutch, incidentally, had a fleet there backing the Danes.
It seems to me that there are few precedents for the upcoming 'Empire of Europe' certainly NOT the USA; the only ones I can think of are Iraq, Yugoslavia and the USSR. All are artificial states created by the forced amalgamation of different ethnic peoples. In Iraq it is the Kurds, Shi'ia and Sunni people, in Yugoslavia the Serbs, Croats, Montenegrans,etc., and in the USSR, the Russians, Chechens, Georgians etc.
What did they all have in common - non were democratic as they could only be held together by strong, ruthless people who used extreme force in order to keep control - Stalin, Tito and Sadam to name but three, and once there was even the slightest hint of democracy, they all three broke apart, with no little bloodshed.
Conclusion, artificial, socially engineered states, such as the EU into which we are being herded like halfwitted sheep, can only be effectively ruled by a dictatorship (communist or fascist - it hardly matters) and there can be no room for democracy. Don't say you have not been warned.
#60 Switzerland? (26 cantons, or nations), Canada, USA (barring the civil war) peaceful unions that are still together. Yugoslavia, USSR and Austria-Hungary Empires for example are forceful unions where one ethnic race has the upper hand (which is not the EU no matter how much the Sun is trying to convince you of that). Other forced unions such as Spain have highly autonomous regions (no the Basque separatists are a minority) or e.g. the UK are becoming more autonomous.
#57 He wanted the British EMPIRE not to be part of the EU. Not to burst your bubble but the Empire is long gone. I wonder if he would change his mind.
#55 Don't make me laugh. There's no such thing as a British identity. Only half of the English see themselves as British. While in the other home nations its the majority (Northern Ireland)or minority (Scots and Welsh). I guess being British is only an English/N.Irish thing. :)
Speaking of undemocratic unions, I wonder how many Scots and Welsh voted "yes" on joining the UK. Rather hypocritical of an English person to use that argument against the EU without looking at one self.
Cromwell passed a law giving the British more power at sea - so he would be in favour of withdrawal from the Common Fisheries Policy. And the only party proposing it is UKIP. Hmm: I'm not sure how he'd take to our monarchist stance :-)
Regarding Mark Mardell's comment about Henry viii having separated England from continetal Europe by his action in nationalising the Church: Although it has come to be seen in that light since then, at the time he was widely seen by his subjects as having been instrumental, at least, in importing a "foreign", particularly German, form of religion. This was in spite of his having earlier accepted the papal honour of "Defender of the Faith" for having put his name to a pamphlet attacking Martin Luther's famous "95 Theses".
Regarding Mark Mardell's comment about Henry viii having separated England from continetal Europe by his action in nationalising the Church: Although it has come to be seen in that light since then, at the time he was widely seen by his subjects as having been instrumental, at least, in importing a "foreign", particularly German, form of religion. {#63]
Much later there was also a small issue of importing a foreign, particularly German, ruling family called Coburg-Gotha. Although it's ceased to be an issue when on the wave of post WWI anti-German feelings the family assumed a name of one of its English castles.