Winston Churchill was a passionate supporter of the free market who walked out of the Tory party

[Bomber_Harris]

And he did so in disgust at the anti-immigrant movement that was stirring in his own party. If he was alive today and a serving Tory MP he most definitely would have been a staunch Remainer and he most definitely would have crossed the floor with the other three Tory defectors and joined this new Independent Group

shout out to ExFarmer for jogging my memory

Churchill must be spinning in his grave at what this Govt and the ERG nutters are doing to our country

 

[rob1]

And he did so in disgust at the anti-immigrant movement that was stirring in his own party. If he was alive today and a serving Tory MP he most definitely would have been a staunch Remainer and he most definitely would have crossed the floor with the other three Tory defectors and joined this new Independent Group

shout out to ExFarmer for jogging my memory

Churchill must be spinning in his grave at what this Govt and the ERG nutters are doing to our country

He would as Mrs T did support the free market, he like her would have never supported the united states of europe. The first is great the second will end in trouble, only a tiny proportion of folk want it but its being slipped in bit by bit

 

[Danllan]

And he did so in disgust at the anti-immigrant movement that was stirring in his own party. If he was alive today and a serving Tory MP he most definitely would have been a staunch Remainer and he most definitely would have crossed the floor with the other three Tory defectors and joined this new Independent Group

shout out to ExFarmer for jogging my memory

Churchill must be spinning in his grave at what this Govt and the ERG nutters are doing to our country

Rubbish. You clearly aren't aware of, or don't understand, his famous Zurich speech, the last sentence is the important one... trolling or simple ignorance...

http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html

 

[7610 super q]

Carpet bombing.

 

[Ashtree]

Are we speaking about the war criminal Winston Churchill, or the other version, with its past conveniently forgotten??

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...e-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

 

[Danllan]

Are we speaking about the war criminal Winston Churchill, or the other version, with its past conveniently forgotten??

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...e-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

The version that fought Nazi Germany rather than cosy up to it...

 

[Bomber_Harris]

Rubbish. You clearly aren't aware of, or don't understand, his famous Zurich speech, the last sentence is the important one... trolling or simple ignorance...

http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html

are you sure you've posted the right link? Churchill, like Maggie, always believed in a close alignment with the EU, like we have now, but never a United States of Europe. I never claimed the latter

 

[caveman]

are you sure you've posted the right link? Churchill, like Maggie, always believed in a close alignment with the EU, like we have now, but never a United States of Europe. I never claimed the latter

Just in case you can't read.

 

[Ashtree]

The version that fought Nazi Germany rather than cosy up to it...

So you don’t deny the facts ....

 

[Danllan]

So you don’t deny the facts ....

Facts can not be denied, although some pretend to ignore them. I am very glad to have had Churchill as a PM who opposed Nazi Germany. I cringe to think of the answer you give when your children ask 'Daddy, what did our country do about Adolf Hitler and Germany?'

 

[Ashtree]

Facts can not be denied, although some pretend to ignore them. I am very glad to have had Churchill as a PM who opposed Nazi Germany. I cringe to think of the answer you give when your children ask 'Daddy, what did our country do about Adolf Hitler and Germany?'

Suppose “one” could have married into them!!

 

[Hindsight]

Rubbish. You clearly aren't aware of, or don't understand, his famous Zurich speech, the last sentence is the important one... trolling or simple ignorance...

http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html

Hi, that's interesting. Broadened my limited education! - hey ho.

Just a comment. The last sentence, yes, I can see what you mean, inference that Churchill refers to a United Europe as a distinct entity separate from Great Britain. But in the same breath he refers to the British Commonwealth of Nations and implicit in the sentence is that Great Britain is one of the ruling powers of the world alongside as equals USA and Soviet Union.

My observation though is the tone of the speech is of a great and powerful individual who has been instrumental in world politics. And who still believes (or hopes) that Great Britain (with its hinterland of empire the commonwealth of nations) is above those 'poor' European countries that should come together. A tad patronising with hindsight though in 1946 at the time given the mans stature entirely understandable.

But now in 2019 some 70 years later subsequent events of which Churchill would not have known, and maybe not have hope would happen, make the sentence dubious. Great Britain does not now have a 'tame' hinterland of Empire - the Commonwealth. And 70 years on the subjugation of being one of the victorious allies carries little or no weight.

Those who follow Nottingham Forest, Sheffield Wednesday and Aston Villa will understand.

Please disabuse me as I say my education was on basis we would be bagging tates after leaving school not reading the Greats!

Best wishes,

 

[Danllan]

Hi, that's interesting. Broadened my limited education! - hey ho.

Just a comment. The last sentence, yes, I can see what you mean, inference that Churchill refers to a United Europe as a distinct entity separate from Great Britain. But in the same breath he refers to the British Commonwealth of Nations and implicit in the sentence is that Great Britain is one of the ruling powers of the world alongside as equals USA and Soviet Union...

Can't say what Churchill's view on the current situation would be, he was unpredictable at the best of times... but I think it fair to say that we can make an educated guess.

I think an examination of Churchill's character indicates that four things would be key to his decision making in this matter: ambition, both personal and national; belief in destiny; distrust of 'the other'; instinct.

He clearly wanted what he thought was best for the UK and what was left of the Empire etc., and I am certain that this would have meant - by his measure - being part of a large block, ideally running it, but being a significant player in any case. He was a pragmatist when he had to be, and would have seen that the UK could not continue to be a global power alone. That would have left four options for the UK, closer ties with: the Empire etc.; the USSR; close allying with the US; Europe.

We can discount the USSR immediately for obvious reasons. Despite his WWII proposal for the UK and France to become one country - I did mention unpredictability... - his past form would indicate a deep mistrust of Europe and France and Germany in particular. Add to that the fact that it would clearly be impossible to lead Europe with the roughly equivalent powers of Germany and France also in it, and no massive benefit to trump that, and I think he would have rejected the UK integrating with Europe.

That leaves the 'English speaking peoples' - and his use of that term speaks volumes. I guess he would have recognised that the US would utterly dominate the UK if it got too close - at too early a stage - and I think this would have repelled him from getting very close to the US at first. Therefore... I think Churchill would have pushed very hard for the 'White' parts of the Empire and Commonwealth to become as one, maybe even as one country and probably on a federal basis. All this with the very long-term view of eventual union with the US.

But, who knows?

 

[Hindsight]

Can't say what Churchill's view on the current situation would be, he was unpredictable at the best of times... but I think it fair to say that we can make an educated guess.

I think an examination of Churchill's character indicates that four things would be key to his decision making in this matter: ambition, both personal and national; belief in destiny; distrust of 'the other'; instinct.

He clearly wanted what he thought was best for the UK and what was left of the Empire etc., and I am certain that this would have meant - by his measure - being part of a large block, ideally running it, but being a significant player in any case. He was a pragmatist when he had to be, and would have seen that the UK could not continue to be a global power alone. That would have left four options for the UK, closer ties with: the Empire etc.; the USSR; close allying with the US; Europe.

We can discount the USSR immediately for obvious reasons. Despite his WWII proposal for the UK and France to become one country - I did mention unpredictability... - his past form would indicate a deep mistrust of Europe and France and Germany in particular. Add to that the fact that it would clearly be impossible to lead Europe with the roughly equivalent powers of Germany and France also in it, and no massive benefit to trump that, and I think he would have rejected the UK integrating with Europe.

That leaves the 'English speaking peoples' - and his use of that term speaks volumes. I guess he would have recognised that the US would utterly dominate the UK if it got too close - at too early a stage - and I think this would have repelled him from getting very close to the US at first. Therefore... I think Churchill would have pushed very hard for the 'White' parts of the Empire and Commonwealth to become as one, maybe even as one country and probably on a federal basis. All this with the very long-term view of eventual union with the US.

But, who knows?

Thank you for your reply and view of what Churchill may at the time of the speech have postulated. As you say 'who knows' But I find it an interesting exercise to reflect. As I had never seen the speech an interesting half an hour read for me.

Regards,

I follow your logic.

 

[Muck Spreader]

Can't say what Churchill's view on the current situation would be, he was unpredictable at the best of times... but I think it fair to say that we can make an educated guess.

I think an examination of Churchill's character indicates that four things would be key to his decision making in this matter: ambition, both personal and national; belief in destiny; distrust of 'the other'; instinct.

He clearly wanted what he thought was best for the UK and what was left of the Empire etc., and I am certain that this would have meant - by his measure - being part of a large block, ideally running it, but being a significant player in any case. He was a pragmatist when he had to be, and would have seen that the UK could not continue to be a global power alone. That would have left four options for the UK, closer ties with: the Empire etc.; the USSR; close allying with the US; Europe.

We can discount the USSR immediately for obvious reasons. Despite his WWII proposal for the UK and France to become one country - I did mention unpredictability... - his past form would indicate a deep mistrust of Europe and France and Germany in particular. Add to that the fact that it would clearly be impossible to lead Europe with the roughly equivalent powers of Germany and France also in it, and no massive benefit to trump that, and I think he would have rejected the UK integrating with Europe.

That leaves the 'English speaking peoples' - and his use of that term speaks volumes. I guess he would have recognised that the US would utterly dominate the UK if it got too close - at too early a stage - and I think this would have repelled him from getting very close to the US at first. Therefore... I think Churchill would have pushed very hard for the 'White' parts of the Empire and Commonwealth to become as one, maybe even as one country and probably on a federal basis. All this with the very long-term view of eventual union with the US.

But, who knows?

He was a person of his time and as you say it would be difficult to predict his thoughts on any modern world situation. I think whilst being pragmatic he still clung to the idea of the UK becoming a world power again throughout WW2 and the post war period, therefor must be partly responsible for squandering of US loans and Marshall aid in pursuit of this goal.

IMO in public he was very pro US out of necessity and with this mother being a US citizen. In private I think he was less so, presumably out of straight forward jealousy of the US's economic and industrial might, which the UK and it's shrinking empire could never hope to match. This is born-out very much in his personal writings in the inter and war time years. So I would doubt that he would have ever wanted anything closer than a continuing special relationship.

 

[Exfarmer]

Probably Churchills biggest mistake, was thinking we could cling on to India. However his mind strust of the politicians campaigning in India for full independence was probably well placed. He realised they had no common goal except the belief in them selves and their lack of concern for the lower classes.
Few people realise that Indians had been getting increasing control f their affairs for at least 50 years before full independence was granted.
Churchill needed India for its vast army, which for many years had been doing our work in the hotter climates especially Malaya etc. where European troops found conditions extremely difficult. The local Europeans repaid this soldiery by excluding them from their clubs swimming pools etc. Such features had been relaxed in India since WW1. This struck the soldiery hard!
During WW2 Churchill had had to agree to pay India large sums for the use of these troops to ensure the politicians stayed onside.a large chunk of our Marshall aid check went to pay this bill. Many here do not realise the number of Indian men who fought for the Japanese 20-40,000!
The truth was the Indians could notget rid of us quick enough and once they had left the rest ofthe empire except Australia, NZ and Canada were all we could hope to keep, as self ruling dominions.
Churchill certainly supported a united Europe, I suspect he would have been happy , if it had been run from King Charles street. But run from Brussels, i am not sure.

 

[wanton dwarf]

And he did so in disgust at the anti-immigrant movement that was stirring in his own party. If he was alive today and a serving Tory MP he most definitely would have been a staunch Remainer and he most definitely would have crossed the floor with the other three Tory defectors and joined this new Independent Group

shout out to ExFarmer for jogging my memory

Churchill must be spinning in his grave at what this Govt and the ERG nutters are doing to our country

As I keep saying you're far Left.

It doesn't matter what Churchill did or did not do.

We currently live in 2019 .. where Politicians, Authorities and the Establishment have allowed 6,000 FGM cases reported per year by the NHS for decades yet no convictions according to records dated 2017, hiding young white girls being raped in their 1000s by ethnic groups for 30 years, Islamic terrorism, 3+ million EU immigrants with all the social issues that brings, 1+ million illegal immigrants, immigration of murderers, terrorists, ISIS, dictators, human trafficking, modern human slavery etc.

Immigration is just part of a problem the establishment has .. there are MANY other issues such as fake wars created on dodgy dossiers, PFI, selling UK gold for a song and telegraphing the event, class war against poor white people - specifically men, creating dodgy "shower" dossiers to castigate Trump, creating offshore wind turbines which benefit MPs directly (John Gummer) which are 2x the cost of onshore wind turbines, unjustifiably-stupid-idiotic-expensive housing, unjustifiably-stupid-idiotic-expensive student loans, unjustifiably-stupid-idiotic-expensive environmental legislation & taxes, unjustifiably-stupid-idiotic-expensive HS2 ..

I'm sure there are many more "benefits" the Liberal establishment have created.

 

[rob1]

Funny how remainers keep saying leaves want to return to the 50'60 or seventies yet keep quoting politicians from earlier etc etc. I voted leave fir the future not to return to the past