I'm Really Worried I Have Upset My...
Family & Relationships0 min ago
Churchill - Part 2
Having been one of a handful of men who are taken to have been the ultimate decision makers in WW2, just over a year after the war finished the experience must have been fresh in his mind. The "bottom line" had arrived, he had been right in the centre of it all laden with extraordinary responsibility. There had now been time to contemplate cause and effect and wonder whether it could have been prevented - might it happen yet again ?.
On 19th September, 1946 he gave a speech in Zurich which nevertheless came to be referred to as his Geneva Speech because that was where he was staying at the invitation of the Swiss. It is said that the invitation was a thank you for turning down Stalin's suggestion of attacking Germany from the South by invading Switzerland, a neutral country.
In the speech he said that there was a need for a United States of Europe, starting with France and Germany and then going on to encompass the whole of Europe and, he hoped, also even the then Soviet Union - in order to bring Europe lasting peace and prosperity. It is not difficult to imagine that Churchill meant every word of what he said.
Within a few years the embryonic European Union had emerged and today it includes his country, the United Kingdom. However, the UK is in the process of leaving the EU with "No United States of Europe" having rung out from some of his countrymen's lungs for years and official non-co-operation at the highest level in the active attempt of permanently being obviously different from (more equal than ?) the rest. The British have voted not to be any part of what is, so far, the nearest thing to Churchill's vision. The rest of Europe, particularly France and Germany, is aiming for further integration in years to come. If/when we arrive at the emergence of a United States of Europe then the UK will conspicuously be on the outside, resolutely unwilling to contribute or co-operate, some say because the UK failed to take the enterprise over from the inside and turn it into a replacement for lost Empire. So they are leaving, not for the want of trying, maybe in determination, to prevent a United States of Europe from coming into being.
Normally being totally disinterested, I have now found a tiny reason for visiting London - it is to go to Churchill's grave at a particularly quiet time. I wonder if someone spinning in their grave at great speed produces an audible sound of some sort.
On 19th September, 1946 he gave a speech in Zurich which nevertheless came to be referred to as his Geneva Speech because that was where he was staying at the invitation of the Swiss. It is said that the invitation was a thank you for turning down Stalin's suggestion of attacking Germany from the South by invading Switzerland, a neutral country.
In the speech he said that there was a need for a United States of Europe, starting with France and Germany and then going on to encompass the whole of Europe and, he hoped, also even the then Soviet Union - in order to bring Europe lasting peace and prosperity. It is not difficult to imagine that Churchill meant every word of what he said.
Within a few years the embryonic European Union had emerged and today it includes his country, the United Kingdom. However, the UK is in the process of leaving the EU with "No United States of Europe" having rung out from some of his countrymen's lungs for years and official non-co-operation at the highest level in the active attempt of permanently being obviously different from (more equal than ?) the rest. The British have voted not to be any part of what is, so far, the nearest thing to Churchill's vision. The rest of Europe, particularly France and Germany, is aiming for further integration in years to come. If/when we arrive at the emergence of a United States of Europe then the UK will conspicuously be on the outside, resolutely unwilling to contribute or co-operate, some say because the UK failed to take the enterprise over from the inside and turn it into a replacement for lost Empire. So they are leaving, not for the want of trying, maybe in determination, to prevent a United States of Europe from coming into being.
Normally being totally disinterested, I have now found a tiny reason for visiting London - it is to go to Churchill's grave at a particularly quiet time. I wonder if someone spinning in their grave at great speed produces an audible sound of some sort.
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by KARL. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The EU is a good idea in principle. It's the practice that's the problem.
I voted Remain and was hoping for a really close Remain victory, so close that the Leavers would demand a new vote say in 2019, giving the EU 3 years to improve things in the sure and certain knowledge that, if they didn't, next time we'd be off.
As it turned out, the Leavers got the really close victory and we're off already. The EU has got the kick it needed and it will be interesting to see what they do to improve things - but we won't be part of it.
I voted Remain and was hoping for a really close Remain victory, so close that the Leavers would demand a new vote say in 2019, giving the EU 3 years to improve things in the sure and certain knowledge that, if they didn't, next time we'd be off.
As it turned out, the Leavers got the really close victory and we're off already. The EU has got the kick it needed and it will be interesting to see what they do to improve things - but we won't be part of it.
// It is not difficult to imagine that Churchill meant every word of what he said. //
noop
it is a matter of history that he made grand speeches in facour of a united states of europe whilst in opposition
and when he came to power 1952
did diddly squat about achieving it
so alternatively
It is difficult to imagine but true that Churchill just was making up every word of what he said.
noop
it is a matter of history that he made grand speeches in facour of a united states of europe whilst in opposition
and when he came to power 1952
did diddly squat about achieving it
so alternatively
It is difficult to imagine but true that Churchill just was making up every word of what he said.
It's not a perfect democracy but then only part of ours is elected, so what I'm saying is that it's a simplistic criticism. The EU Parliament is elected, and the European Council and Council of the EU are made of elected Heads of Government/State or elected Ministers, so there is at least a reasonable democratic link.
But anyway.
But anyway.
Scooping, I must admit I assumed some important place in London (should have checked) but then to me there is not much difference as I would have to travel through London. Peter Pedant, it is a simple fact that a British Prime minister, in power for five years at most cannot, can never have much influence outside the UK unless through military action. We don't know what Churchill did or did not do behind the scenes to further influence thinking toward the unification of Europe.
-- answer removed --
1 to 12 of 12
