What now for the EU ?

How do we all thing Britain would have done in 1939, if we had a land border with Germany and the army in the state it was?

How do you think France would have done if they had occupied this Island and saw Britain invaded, occupied and collaborated extensively by and with Germany?

Twice.

I would bet a centime to a pinch of merde that they would give not a toss, never mind commit blood and treasure to our liberation.
 
How do you think France would have done if they had occupied this Island and saw Britain invaded, occupied and collaborated extensively by and with Germany?

Twice.

I would bet a centime to a pinch of merde that they would give not a toss, never mind commit blood and treasure to our liberation.
They'd have still capitulated and collaborated - they'd have handed over all of their Empirical assets and become the Third Reich's poodle while the likes of De Gaul would have moaned, and moaned, and moaned how it was everyone else's fault.
 
They'd have still capitulated and collaborated - they'd have handed over all of their Empirical assets and become the Third Reich's poodle while the likes of De Gaul would have moaned, and moaned, and moaned how it was everyone else's fault.
But they have extremely good sewing courses, the one for sewing white sheets together is unsurpassed worldwide.
 
I feel the West is at a sort of counter-revolution stage. There has been a social revolution going on since the 70s, with a radical left-wing march through the institutions.

This had created a disconnect between the elite and the plebs, and the plebs have woken up.

Brexit was effectively a very typical British revolution. No one got hurt, but everything has changed, and those in charge know their place (for now).

The US, I feel, is having a more painful revolution but, in the end, money talks, and the money is leaving the politically correct states.

As for Europe (well, Western Europe), I have a bad feeling. Their political structures have a built-in conformity and continuity; the need for coalition means things rarely change, no matter how you vote. That means voting for the usual groups will not change anything, leaving violence or extremists as the way to go.
Democracy is only a democracy, when you have compromise. I just think the anglo-saxon systems are configured to compromise between the state and its people when stressed. Whereas on the continent, its a different model and the coalition of parties represent the compromise and as Donald Tusk says:-

disasters such as, for example Brexit, or Poland's potential exit from the EU, very often happen not because someone has planned them, but because someone has been unable to plan a wise alternative to such a potential drama.

The EU model of planning wise alternatives is a form of compromise, that tries to shut out the people and derogate democracy when the centre comes under stress and its an eventual invitation to the men of violence to step forward or like Italy just saps away peoples support for democracy itself.
 
Democracy is only a democracy, when you have compromise. I just think the anglo-saxon systems are configured to compromise between the state and its people when stressed. Whereas on the continent, its a different model and the coalition of parties represent the compromise and as Donald Tusk says:-

disasters such as, for example Brexit, or Poland's potential exit from the EU, very often happen not because someone has planned them, but because someone has been unable to plan a wise alternative to such a potential drama.

The EU model of planning wise alternatives is a form of compromise, that tries to shut out the people and derogate democracy when the centre comes under stress and its an eventual invitation to the men of violence to step forward or like Italy just saps away peoples support for democracy itself.
I feel that both “Anglo-Saxon“ and “Continental“ systems are designed to sideline extremists and generally work.

The “Anglo-Saxon” system does via regular revolutions (thus removing the need for extreme options) whilst the continental systems does it via conformity and continuity (it screens extremists out or forces them to compromise).

As you identified, the problem is when compromises aren’t enough.
 
How do we all thing Britain would have done in 1939, if we had a land border with Germany and the army in the state it was?
How? That is easy to answer. Your boys would have brewed tea and had only one sausage for breakfast, ours would have had beer and so many sausages that they would have easily passed for fat pensioners.
Then there would have been a football match that you would have lost on penalties.
Afterwards, at dinner, the French waiters would have served the food on white tablecloths flags but in the middle of it they started to strike and there was only self-service.
Our boys would have got up early the next day and reserved the sun loungers with their bath towels, which would have led to protests on your side, but only because your boys were lazy and got up too late.
At dinner, again with white tablecloths er flags, the French waiters in Generals rank would have capitulated before 1700 hrs.
As easy as that.
 
Le sniggeur...

Michel Barnier shocked his former Brussels colleagues by championing a “Frexit” from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The Frenchman said: “We must regain our legal sovereignty in order to no longer be subject to the judgement of the ECJ or the ECHR.”

Oh the irony...

JB
It really is laughable.... (cue photo of Farage doing his open-mouthed full on guffaw with accompanied "I told you he was a cnut" quote)
 

Actingunpaid

War Hero
How? That is easy to answer. Your boys would have brewed tea and had only one sausage for breakfast, ours would have had beer and so many sausages that they would have easily passed for fat pensioners.
Then there would have been a football match that you would have lost on penalties.
Afterwards, at dinner, the French waiters would have served the food on white tablecloths flags but in the middle of it they started to strike and there was only self-service.
Our boys would have got up early the next day and reserved the sun loungers with their bath towels, which would have led to protests on your side, but only because your boys were lazy and got up too late.
At dinner, again with white tablecloths er flags, the French waiters in Generals rank would have capitulated before 1700 hrs.
As easy as that.
No mention of a railway carriage to sign documents in?
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
No mention of a railway carriage to sign documents in?
With a bit of a dance after?
inQNhlk.gif
 

Proff3RTR

Old-Salt
Who in the EU has had more experience of expeditionary warfare than France ?
I reckon that even if we get an EU corps, the French will still do most of the fighting.
And the French do have a habit of getting a good slap (well by us lot at least) also have a tendency to surrender the second they see a German helmut!(insert naughty joke here) and when the cheese eating surrender monkeys do surrender they will collaborate with the enemy, then when we rock up to sort the mess out they will swap sides and claim first place in the victory parade! Oh, they will also ALL claim to of been part of ‘Le Resistance!’
 
And the French do have a habit of getting a good slap (well by us lot at least) also have a tendency to surrender the second they see a German helmut!(insert naughty joke here) and when the cheese eating surrender monkeys do surrender they will collaborate with the enemy, then when we rock up to sort the mess out they will swap sides and claim first place in the victory parade! Oh, they will also ALL claim to of been part of ‘Le Resistance!’

You're very naughty, casting aspersions and the like on the Martial abilities of Le French and the bad behaviour of the Bosche, just as well you're not in EU Land or you'd be first in line for the re-education camps...

JB
 
I must admit to being slightly perplexed on the sanitising of Germany, any press reports you read with regard to WW2 events state the Nazi's did this or that, invaded so and so, bombed such and such....

Where is this country called Nazi that perpetrated these crimes?...

Er, no, I think you will find it was Germany that did anything, invaded anyone, or bombed anyone and that's not counting the atrocities that were carried out by Germans, stand fast your happy helpers in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Ukraine...

Just irritates me...

JB
 
How? That is easy to answer. Your boys would have brewed tea and had only one sausage for breakfast, ours would have had beer and so many sausages that they would have easily passed for fat pensioners.
Then there would have been a football match that you would have lost on penalties.
Afterwards, at dinner, the French waiters would have served the food on white tablecloths flags but in the middle of it they started to strike and there was only self-service.
Our boys would have got up early the next day and reserved the sun loungers with their bath towels, which would have led to protests on your side, but only because your boys were lazy and got up too late.
At dinner, again with white tablecloths er flags, the French waiters in Generals rank would have capitulated before 1700 hrs.
As easy as that.
This was pre 1966......We didnt lose on penalties them days.
 

Proff3RTR

Old-Salt
You're very naughty, casting aspersions and the like on the Martial abilities of Le French and the bad behaviour of the Bosche, just as well you're not in EU Land or you'd be first in line for the re-education camps...

JB
There I go again, always jumping in feet first and inserting my size 9’s into me gob, ah well, at least it’s only the French……………
 
I feel that both “Anglo-Saxon“ and “Continental“ systems are designed to sideline extremists and generally work.

The “Anglo-Saxon” system does via regular revolutions (thus removing the need for extreme options) whilst the continental systems does it via conformity and continuity (it screens extremists out or forces them to compromise).

As you identified, the problem is when compromises aren’t enough.
Very true and the common process of sidelining the extremist works so long, as the extremists eventually break the rules and the law can come after them and the political parties do the job of acting as the firewall to stop them reaching power.

The problem is we have a new revolutionary ideology embodied by terms like 'Modern Progressivism', 'Woke' or whatever you want to call it. That new ideology, has infiltrated the media and political parties and is strongest in those countries who haven't lived under the boot of the 'Ideological', as the eastern european countries have done..

Democracy today is all about the enemy and no longer about compromise and yet the Anglo Saxon countries seem to have enough common sense(UK), or an explicitly designed federal system to fight extremists(US) in power, that we can have public battles without much violence and what Donald Tusk said the other day is exactly why I fear for the continent.
 
Last edited:
I must admit to being slightly perplexed on the sanitising of Germany, any press reports you read with regard to WW2 events state the Nazi's did this or that, invaded so and so, bombed such and such....

Where is this country called Nazi that perpetrated these crimes?...

Er, no, I think you will find it was Germany that did anything, invaded anyone, or bombed anyone and that's not counting the atrocities that were carried out by Germans, stand fast your happy helpers in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Ukraine...

Just irritates me...

JB
Don't forget the Croats, or the fellas guarding the KZ Camp system i.e. Ukrainians. How little do we understand how history shapes peoples attitudes and we have a tendency to see people as good/bad through the filter of our own bias, often fed to us by the media who twist the truth.
 
Not really even old things were modern in their day and in consequence considered progressive. Then there’s a tendency shout at the emperors new clothes and what was in gets chucked out
Actually, I think the modern variety of progressivism is an all encompassing theory, because it never stops stealing other peoples clothes. It mixes a bit of socialism(Envy), with a bit of individualism(Self), with a bit of religion(Righteous) and reintroduces racial politics(You need a victim) and wraps it all up with the cult of youth(young people are not noted for compromise) and is a pick and mix of hatred, that cleverly masquerades itself behind a utopian vision.

Democracy is about compromise and is simply incompatible with modern progressivism, as it can't stand difference.
 
This is what Barnier actually says :

National immigration policy and European immigration policy are not working. And so, when things don't work out and you are a candidate for President of the Republic, you have to change them.

I’m not someone who wants to grab headlines. I have worked seriously on this issue with senior officials from the Constitutional Council and the Council of State, of which I am a member, and European experts. And at the end of this analysis, we believe that we must pause, put a stop to immigration from outside Europe, for three to five years: this is what I called a moratorium.

During this period of suspension, all the procedures on the implementation of the right of asylum, family reunification, granting of residence permits, expulsions must be reviewed. We must take the time to negotiate with our European partners on the functioning of Schengen, in particular the external borders. Time to also discuss a real contract with the countries of economic or ecological emigration. During this moment, we want to regain our sovereignty, in the form of a "constitutional shield" which secures the decisions taken to overhaul our migration policy.

Why ?

Because insofar as there is no real reference to the issue of migratory flows in our Constitution and our national and European texts are too general or imperfect, a lot of room is left for national and European case law in the interpretation of texts. There are multiple legal loopholes, as we saw in the case of this Rwandan who murdered Father Olivier Maire (a Catholic priest).

In a reasonable and reasoned manner, we therefore advocate regulatory autonomy for France, in this area alone and only during the moratorium, while things change in France as in Europe. This “constitutional shield” will be put in place by referendum. For those who criticize my proposal, I did not hear them when, a few months ago, Édouard Philippe (former French PM) wrote in an article that a decision of the European Court of Justice was unacceptable, scandalous, contrary to the interests national and national sovereignty. It was about working time in the army. I haven't heard from Clément Beaune and his friends on this subject. Not a word. Nor when Emmanuel Macron directly calls into question a European directive on motorbikes.

Why are we not lucid enough to see that there are a number of things that need to be changed, calmly, in a targeted manner, in order to have control over our immigration? Such a blind stance will lead to new Brexits. Those who attack me are the same who have said for thirty years that we should deregulate financial services in the name of free trade, that we should not engage in protectionism ... I am not a federalist, I have not. never been. I am passionately European, in addition to being a patriot. Or rather, because I am a patriot, I am deeply European. I will not take lessons from these people. I have something more than them: I have handled Brexit. A great country leaving the European Union is no small feat. If we do not learn all the lessons, it is because we did not understand anything.

« Souveraineté juridique » : Michel Barnier s’explique « Souveraineté juridique » : Michel Barnier s’explique #Politique via @LePoint
 

Latest Threads

Top