Once respected British Agent: "Do you expect me to speak up, or defend us?"
Mohammed the Terrorist: " No. I expect you to die."
Posted on 11/04/2007 2:07:37 PM PST by Mount Athos
This is too frightening and too important to ignore any longer.
If we don't want to become a neglected outstation of the European Superstate, stripped of our nationhood, powerless to decide who lives here, controlled by laws we don't make and can't change, ruled by a government we cannot throw out, we have rather a short time in which to do something about it.
You may think none of this matters to you, but the trouble is that it does, whether you think so or not.
The European Union is interested in you, your liberty and your money, even if you don't care about it.
Its decisions affect your life, even if you don't realise they do.
When I point out that local councils are changing rubbish collections because of EU laws, people don't believe me.
They rightly think it ridiculous that such things should be affected by what is supposed to be a Free Trade partnership. But they are.
A huge number of our laws have been drawn up in Brussels and hurried through Parliament without anybody really understanding what they were doing.
A lot of us still don't even grasp why it is that we can no longer have nice blue British passports.
They also don't grasp why they have to queue for ages to get back into the country after a holiday.
They aren't paying attention. That passport you have isn't British. It's European. It gives you no more right to enter this country than if you were a Lithuanian.
The border you are crossing is the border of the EU, not Britain. If the Government set up a special channel for UK passport holders it would be breaking EU law. There is no longer any such thing as a British passport.
This has another grim meaning. We cannot control two-thirds of the immigration now revolutionising this country because it comes from EU states.
British people have a way of ignoring the Continent then finding out just in time that what happens there matters – Dunkirk being the most recent example of this complacent folly. We probably won't get another Dunkirk to warn us.
By the time it is clear to everyone what has happened, it will be far too late.
Look at the row we are having, a rather lukewarm row in my view, about the European Constitution, dressed up as the Treaty of Lisbon but still what it always was – the official foundation document of the European Superstate.
At first it looks as if there are two sides, those for a referendum, and those against.
But what use would a referendum be? Who seriously believes that, if Britain said "No", the EU would say: "Oh, sorry to have troubled you with our silly, over-ambitious idea. We'll give it up for good."?
No, they would threaten and suborn the British Government into holding the vote again.
Or they would have yet another summit in which the thing would be adjusted a tiny bit and presented as if it were new. Or they would say: "Very well then, if you don't like it, why not leave?"
Gordon Brown might hold a referendum on that very subject. At this point we would badly need a major political figure to stand up and say: "Yes, please, let's leave."
He could add: "After all, if Norway and Switzerland can cope outside, we certainly can. And I defy anyone to tell me one single way in which this country has benefited from its long entanglement with this horrible organisation."
But this will not happen. Our entire political elite, in all parties, love the EU, not because it is good for the country, but because it is good for them.
They love its regular service of gravy trains, carrying failed Ministers off to a life of high salaries, big expenses and huge pensions, plus an almost total absence of responsibility.
They don't mind at all that it deprives them of the power to do very much. They are, for the most part, short of ideas and lazy, and happy to be able to pass the buck to Brussels while enjoying their pay and perks. Note, specially, the behaviour of the Tory Party. People sometimes ask why I call them 'useless'. Well, here's an example. You get a lot of something called 'Euroscepticism' from Tories. It's a stupid word and it describes a worthless thing.
They act as if they are against the EU grabbing our power and money, and talk sternly about how they disapprove.
But David Cameron, William Hague and Malcolm Rifkind are clear that, if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, that will be that. In the (highly unlikely) event of them coming to power, they won't hold a referendum because, oh dear, it will be too late.
In doing this, they are part of a great tradition. Harold Macmillan first sought British entry to the Common Market in 1962. Then Ted Heath succeeded in getting it, ramming our membership through Parliament with characteristic ruthlessness and sacrificing Britain's fisheries industry for his ambition.
When, in 1975, Harold Wilson held a referendum on staying in, Margaret Thatcher campaigned vigorously for Britain to remain in the Market, sporting a jumper bearing the flags of member states.
When she came to office, she pushed through the Single European Act, a huge surrender of British vetoes. Then she was bludgeoned by Cabinet colleagues into entering the Exchange Rate Mechanism.
By the end of her premiership, she had begun to realise what was at stake. But it was precisely because of this that the Tory Party then threw her out of office.
John Major went on to browbeat and bully his MPs into voting for the Maastricht Treaty, yet another huge surrender of independence.
Mr Cameron represents a firm return to the Europhile days before Lady Thatcher's rebellion.
When it comes to action, the Tory Party will continue to support the EU because they have been committed to it since the Sixties, and cannot admit that this was a mistake.
But they also recognise how unpopular it is, which is why they pretend to be hostile and invented 'Euroscepticism' to console disgruntled voters.
The longer this goes on, the harder it will be to unscramble. My advice is not to be diverted by campaigns for a referendum that will get us nowhere.
It is to consider, very carefully, whether you will be able to look your children and grandchildren in the face when, 20 years hence, they ask: "What did you do to stop the country being taken over by a foreign power?"
I shall continue, week by week, to suggest ways in which you might be able to ensure that they never need to ask that question.
The world's best and brightest may cobble together anything that they wish, but they'll never overcome the force of nationalism. Has any one of them stopped to answer where today are the French, Ottoman, English, Austro-Hungarian and Soviet Empires, as well as the former Yugoslavia? Have they thought about what fractured these artificial entities?
Or still closer to our own time, the failure to thrive of Sub-Saharan African countries used to be most often blamed on their former colonial masters putting together historic enemies (nations) within the same boundaries. And, given the popular outcry of the electorate against CIRA and The DREAM act, I hope our nation's leaders aren't surprised that legitimate citizens of this country are unlikely to ever love illegal aliens to whom they grant McCitizenship
In the end, whatever they cobble together will be driven apart by the centrifugal forces of nationalism, leaving a neo-feudal society or contiguous ethnic diaspora in place of a once great nation. In the end everything finally yields to culture and nationalism. History proves it every time.
OK. So then how do you explain america? What culture and what nation are the people of the USofA?
http://www.unitedcommonwealth.org/Commonwealth%20History.pdf
The United Kingdom, the dominant industrial and maritime power of the 19th century, played a leading
role in developing Western world ideas of property, liberty, capitalism and parliamentary democracy - to
say nothing of its part in advancing world literature and science. At its zenith during the first half of the
20th century, the British Empire stretched over one quarter of the earth’s surface.
The effects of World War I and World War II saw the UK’s strength seriously depleted. The second half
of the 20th century saw the replacement of the Empire with the Commonwealth of Nations and the UK rebuilding itself.
...and that’s all folks!
Nothing, as far as I can tell.
Sorry, but I’ve already written Great Britain off; between the socialists and the Muslims, I believe it over, over there.
Someone needs to develop a commercial with Winston Churchill’s famous quote “Never have so few given so much..” with video footage of the brave WW2 RAF soldiers protecting their homeland followed by a frowning Churchill saying “For this?”. Winston Churchill is rolling over in his grave and Hitler and Satan are having a nice laugh.
what we are doing is the mass exodus of christians out of the country
the royals will be royal over a bunch of muslim third worlders.
the biggest mistake they made was to offer citizenship from previous territories.
downfall from there.
Margaret Thatcher, the Last of the British. Will a modern-day James Fennimore Cooper memorialize her in print?
Please??
Once respected British Agent: "Do you expect me to speak up, or defend us?"
Mohammed the Terrorist: " No. I expect you to die."
Interesting article on the feud between FDR & Churchill on Britain’s *empire* which Winnie wanted to keep and FDR wanted to dissolve.
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/FDRlw95.htm
On May 10, 1982, Henry A. Kissinger mounted the podium at Chatham House, the London home of the Royal Institute for International Affairs, to deliver the keynote address for the bicentenary celebration of the Office of the British Foreign Secretary. Kissinger boasted of his loyalty to the British Foreign Office on all crucial matters of postwar policy matters in dispute between the United States and Britain. The crux of his disagreement with his own nominal country, the United States, he told his audience, was the basic dispute in policy and philosophy between ``Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, reflecting our different histories.’’ Roosevelt, Kissinger stated, had condemned Churchill as being ``needlessly obsessed with power politics, too rigidly anti-Soviet, too colonialist in his attitude to what is now called the Third World, and too little interested in building the fundamentally new international order towards which American idealism had always tended.’’
It is Churchill who was right, and Roosevelt, who was wrong, in these matters, said Kissinger.
Your question seems to imply that the U.S. is not a nation and does not have it's own culture. Just as the French are French, the English are English, Americans are Americans.
I assumed your use of the word “nation” was in the old fashioned sense. That is that a nation is a groupe of genetically similar people, not a political boundary on a map. In that sense, americans are not a nation and our culture is not a culture. It is a hodgepodge of non-culture.
The forces of a genuine evil are taking root. And like certain garden 'ground covers'. . .this evil appears to sleep. . .then creeps. . .and then it leaps. . .
Almost like Islam: The religious kudzu that sleeps, creeps, and before you know it has completely taken over.
Someone should refer this person to the American Declaration of Independence.I thought of that too. The problem is, too many of us in America have forgotten what this document stands for.
They took your guns
The serfs no longer have any power. Unless someone does something extraordinary, the UK is over.
Very scary.....change a few names, and the very same thing more or less is happening here.”
This has another grim meaning. We cannot control two-thirds of the immigration now revolutionising this country because it comes from EU states. “
__________________
Can you say North American Union? Can you say Amero?
Yes... We’re gradually giving up our sovereignity to the UN and the North America Union.
We are well on the way into this abyss. It appears it will come to pass in much the same way, unless we change who is in charge of our political parties.
The two frontrunners for 2008 at this time, R And D , will keep sending us in this direction for the same reasons the author of this piece states.
How very depressing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.