Churchill as UKIP traitor - Why do the Euroscpetics lionise the man that would have destroyed the UK?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Eurosceptic imagery is often, at best, confused. The UK Independence Party famously used Churchill's image giving the "V for Victory" sign. And there's no denying that this message resonated with the British public - but equally there's no denying that it's an oxymoron. After all, Churchill was a unrepentant Francophile who offered to sacrifice the sovereignty of the UK to build a European superstate - and we're not talking about the confused narrative of sovereignty that we get from modern Eurosceptics, we're talking about literally dissolving the United Kingdom as a sovereign state.

With the defeat of France looming, De Gaulle convinced Churchill a "some dramatic move was essential" to keep France's anti-surrender Prime Minister Paul Reynaud in the war. Churchill's War Cabinet approved this final declaration;

"France and Great Britain shall no longer be two nations, but one Franco-British Union. The constitution of the Union will provide for joint organs of defence, foreign, financial and economic policies. Every citizen of France will enjoy immediately citizenship of Great Britain, every British subject will become a citizen of France."

This was no fringe measure, even if it was one born of desperation. Churchill, De Gaulle, Reynaud and other members of the British and French Governments strongly supported the proposal. The Secretary of State for India, Leo Amery, even came up with a similar proposal independently. Other key figures supported the notion of a European federal superstate after the war. Churchill called for the United States of Europe again as early as 1946.

But finally, pro-armistice parties in the French Government, particularly Marshal Petain, won out. Petain believed that the UK would shortly be knocked out of the war by Germany, and that therefore cooperation with the Germans and switching to an authoritarian Government was preferable.

The rest, of course, is more commonly, known history. The British earned the ire of France by destroying the French fleet in West Africa, although the Alexandrian fleet was handed over peacefully. De Gaulle's difficult personality made the future leader's opinion of Britain wane over the war.

However, France did go on to repeat the offer during the Suez Crisis. Only revealed publically in 2007, Prime Minister Mollet of France proposed that France and the UK become a single state under Queen Elizabeth II. As an alternative, if this was not possible, he offered for France to join the Commonwealth. However, with Anthony Eden's Government fully aware of how reliant the UK was on US support in the modern world, Eden rejected these advances and France joined the Treaty of Rome.

Could more openness about Churchill's EU policy grant a greater depth to EU politics within the UK?

[Gatsby]

I have always found it odd, I'm sure I've even heard a Churchill speech advocating a "United States of Europe", but if some piece of imagery has anything remotely to do with England the UKIP practically soak their pants.

[Menelik_I]

The imagery is convenient for UKIP cause, and Churchill was a champion of of the idea of an Independent UK. It is the OP that is off the mark and completely unhistorical.

1 - The Union with France was proposed to save the UK by dragging out the war into French territory, this would had prevented a possible German invasion of the UK (see operation Sea Lion) or the very real battle of Britain because the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe would be tied into a lengthy battle deep into France.

2 - The United States of Europe speech was given in the context of the Soviet peril post WW2, after Churchill witnessing the liquidation of much of Eastern Europe under the Soviet and the impossibility of the UK fighting another such massive war with them (Especially after the study of Operation Unthinkable, which was a British plan of war against the Soviets post 1946), it was clear that a Union of European states might be needed to keep the Soviet at bay. Instead the USA took up the commitment to protect Europe so the whole plan wasn't needed anymore.

3- The proposal of Union during the Suez Crisis was initiated by the French not the British, so it is a nonsequitur.

1 and 2 shows that the idea of Union was pushed by Churchill only when it was apparent to him that it was the only way to preserve the UK's independence. Thorough history it is not uncommon for patriots to do such Unions to save their countries, you can look at the USA for example, it was created in part because no colony could individually hold off the British forces.

So just to make my position clearer :

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Shneckie]

Churchill may have supported the idea of an EU but he made it very clear, in the same speech, that he doesn't support the UK being a part of such a union.

We see nothing but good and hope in a richer, freer, more contented European commonality. But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Churchill may have supported the idea of an EU but he made it very clear, in the same speech, that he doesn't support the UK being a part of such a union.

That's a fair point, but the rest would have surrender UK sovereignty.

[Gatsby]

In any case, it isn't as though you can claim him to be anymore against EU membership than for it. To take Menelik's quote "we are with Europe, but not part of it".

You can easily call the UK's current status in the EU "with, not part of". The UKIP stance is far more anti-Europe than Churchill appears to be from those quotes.

In reality, he died before we could have truly known how he would have reacted to the UK's current position with the EU and thus it seems somewhat innappropriate to whore out his image in a desperate attempt at nationalist populism.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Churchill may have supported the idea of an EU but he made it very clear, in the same speech, that he doesn't support the UK being a part of such a union.

that wasn't in the same speech, that was in an American Saturday Evening Post column in 1930. He made his "United States of Europe" speech in 1946. You can read that speech here.

WWII naturally changed his opinions, he was a Euroskeptic and protector of the Empire before WWII, and afterwards he was a bit of a Europhile who did not protest the end of the Empire. It's understandable how WWII would do that. He still imagined the UK as a force on its own of course, whcih it did remain into the late 50s, but he changed his priorities.

Ironically, as it now applies to the UK, he said this near the end of his speech:

If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can.

[Basil II the B.S]

I have always found it odd, I'm sure I've even heard a Churchill speech advocating a "United States of Europe", but if some piece of imagery has anything remotely to do with England the UKIP practically soak their pants.

http://aei.pitt.edu/14362/

Download the speech, page 4. Enjoy.

[Gatsby]

http://aei.pitt.edu/14362/

Download the speech, page 4. Enjoy.

I honestly don't mean to sound snide or sarcastic here but I'm just not sure I understand.

Are you simply directing me to the specific source of my memory or are you trying to infer a point through it?

[Basil II the B.S]

I honestly don't mean to sound snide or sarcastic here but I'm just not sure I understand.

Are you simply directing me to the specific source of my memory or are you trying to infer a point through it?

Nah, just providing a source of what you said.

[Condottiere 40K]

If they had managed to pull it off in 1940, not only would it have been the culmination of the Hundred Years War and the creation of a European superstate, the remaining colonies both still controlled would really have made it the greatest Empire the world had ever seen, and a counterweight to both America and Russia.

[Menelik_I]

If they had managed to pull it off in 1940, not only would it have been the culmination of the Hundred Years War and the creation of a European superstate, the remaining colonies both still controlled would really have made it the greatest Empire the world had ever seen, and a counterweight to both America and Russia.

It was all about bogging down the Wehrmacht deep inside France mountainous south and save Britain from invasion, not about creating a super empire but a supreme act of sacrifice to save the Britain's independence, ie France would have to be made a pile of ruble to save London.

The Royal Navy would probably be able to supply Bordeaux and Marseilles by sea thus prolonging the war on the Western Front. The risk of Italian advance from Nice was down to zero.

[Caelifer_1991]

Whatever the case, I see no reason why we should allow the opinion of someone long dead, and from a time much different to the one in which we now live, to hold much sway over our current political decisions. We can make up our own minds based upon facts, logic, and reason just as well if not better than our predecessors (what with the massive flow of information allowed for by current technology). If he was for a European superstate, well good, if not, we shouldn't let that dissuade us from the decisions that are appropriate for us and our future, or our place within Europe and the EU.

[Thorn777]

Because he was just another double faced opportunist smug. Though an entertaining, elequent, and impressionable one.

[Hakomar]

I can imagine this thread is going to bait one or two specific members, eh Ferrets?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Not at all. It originally started as a different thread - Churchill to Cameron, how the British fell out of love with Europe. But I realised how huge it was going to be and I decided to leave it for another day.

[hellheaven1987]

UK loves Europe? I thought Britishs are always viewing mainland Europe like how those Persians viewed Greece in 5th Century BC.

[SLN445]

Yeh but in those times the Persions were right

[hellheaven1987]

Yeh but in those times the Persions were right

That does not change the fact that Persians were trolls, much like Britishs now.

[SLN445]

That does not change the fact that Persians were trolls, much like Britishs now.