SGK

ModernUKIP, have a crack at answering a question. Go on, you can do it.

Westcountryman

Sure, which question do you want me to answer monsieur?

__________________
Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

SGK

Well this one:

What actual reason, apart from paranoid assumption, do you have for damning it as a power-grab - bearing in mind that no leader should ever propose something that is not advantagous to his country anyway?

Put up something so that we can have some proper, civilised debate.

Westcountryman

As I said, you call it paranoid assumption, I call it reasonable conjecture. France has a strong sense of tradition, a proud military history and acts entirely to safeguard its own interests. I have little doubt therefore, that this 'act of union' was nothing more than an exercise in safeguarding France's national interests - by using Britain and her resources. I have little doubt also that the French have been insanely jealous of Britain since Britannia ruled the seas and held the largest Empire in Human history.

They tried many times, sometimes with the Spanish, others without to crush this Country, what therefore, suddenly changed their minds? Simple, they didn't, they just tried to screw us in other ways.

__________________
Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

mkpdavies

The people of both countries are fine, it's the scabs and scum who lie and cheat their way to the top of the greasy pole of politics that think like that.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

SGK

No, I was referring to a specific set of posts, not branding any reason at all as paranoid assumption, which is why I asked you to post your reasons.

Up to this point I see nothing wrong in this, indeed I would have expected a union to have safeguarded the national interests of both countries. Didn't union with Scotland come about for the same reasons? Is it possible to have a union occur for any other reason (other than forced annexation)?
Even the EU was created out of the mistaken belief that Europe will be better off united.

Don't you believe France would have anything of worth that Britain would benefit by? Besides, I don't understand why you think Britain would be the helpless damsel that France would carry off over its shoulder.

It does seem to rile them, doesn't it? However, I don't see why that would necessarily mean that they would seek to bring down the country that they were in union with. The EU is a totally different kettle of fish in this respect.

But that does seem a bit paranoid. Do you believe all countries that have gone to war with us will always want to destroy us?

22ANDUK

I'm with SGK on this.

Europe would have been very difficult.

Modern UKIP wrote:

I think we're delusional about Britain's role in the world be the 1950s. If Britain had such great influence and resources, France would never have been able to hijack it. Even today the countries have similar populations and world influence.

The thing is, if the two countries merged then compromise would be needed. Britain adopting French as an official language with English would not be a defeat, as France would also adopt English as a language, and we would become bilingual - a compromise between two nations.

We would cease to become purely 'Britain and France', but instead the Anglo-French Union - a new and exciting concept.

Britannist

It hasn't worked in Canada. The French-speakers have banned the use of English in Quebec in any official, commercial or administrative capacity.

The French-speaking movement in Quebec to get Quebec out of English-speaking Canada is strong.

g hall

If only John Lackland and Mary Tudor had been better as hanging on to our french possessions none of this would have happened

Britannist

I am not your "mate", "SGK".

And there is no "deep-seated paronoia" on my part.

Nor on your part either, no doubt - despite the fact that you have posted three criticisisms of my postings (not worth me responding to) in different threads on the forum over the last week. And that you've done the same with at least two other people in the last couple of days.

As for hating the French - you shouldn't bring in emotion "SGK". I haven't met all 60 million French people - so can't really comment on an overall view of them yet :twisted: .