Sacre Bleu! The Anglo-French Union

22ANDUK · 16-01-2007, 04:28 PM

The Daily Mail today printed an article about the Anglo-French Union, an idea proposed in 1956. The article is quite unabashedly overly positive and tongue-in-cheek about a Federation between France and the UK, mooted by the then French PM Guy Mollet. As a Euro-idealist I'd have to say it is (was) a brilliant idea, France along with Germany being the best two serious options for a Union. It doesn't however mention the EU, in which Britain would have no doubt been sucked into even more if the Union had occured. Anyway, it's a pipe dream but enjoy!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

Quote:

Today's celebrations marking the half-centenary of the Anglo-French Union represent one of the greatest jubilees in world history.

It seems extraordinary that it was only 50 years ago that Great Britain and France were united politically, and Queen Elizabeth II became the monarch of one of the most powerful political federations on the globe.

Along with the United States and China, the Anglo-French Union now exercises such influence on world affairs that it is scarcely credible that it is still so relatively young a country.

It is worth recalling the genesis of this remarkable Union - when, with commendable statesmanship, Anthony Eden grasped at the opportunity presented to him by the French Prime Minister and the idea won ready support from the Queen, who could not resist the opportunity to take her ancestor George III’s official title, King of England, France, Scotland, Wales and Dominions Overseas.

The Union made perfect sense for both countries, worried as they were about the external threats to their imperial possessions around the world, carrying the expense of two separate sets of nuclear weapons, and fearful of the possibility of a resurgence of German power.

Of course, there were some teething troubles over the proposed new Union Jack-tricolour flag, but the eventual design - the so-called Union Jacques - has been waved with pride at the Anglo-French team’s victories in the football World Cups of 1966, 1974, 1982, 1990, 1998, and of course last year, 2006.

Yet the genesis of the brand-new Anglo-French Union was not to be found in sport or personalities or culture, but when it faced its first and, as it turned out, gravest test - the Suez Crisis, when the Eisenhower Administration in Washington opposed what it denounced as Anglo-French "adventurism" in Egypt.

Once the Union was agreed upon, however, there was effectively nothing the Americans could do.

There were plenty of threats from the White House about putting pressure on sterling and the franc but when the two currencies combined during the crisis, it proved so attractive a reserve currency to international investors that instead it was the dollar that was put under pressure.

The fall of Egypt’s Colonel Nasser in January 1957, and his flight to the Bahamas that month, provided the first of many victories for the Anglo-French Union, which left the Suez Canal Zone only in 1974 when its 99-year-lease expired.

Anthony Eden’s own victory in the 1959 General Election made him the first elected leader of the Union, spending half his time in Downing Street and the other half at his new Paris offices in the Elysee Palace.

The Union was fortunate in the prime ministers that followed.

Charles de Gaulle’s wartime popularity helped him beat Harold Macmillan for the leadership of the combined Tory-Gaullist party, and he went on to sweep to victory in 1964.

Later there were some unusual coalitions. Who could have predicted the Thatcher-Mitterrand 'cohabitation' of 1979-95, for example?

But these governments have tended to work well and the Union remains as strong as at any time since its inauguration at Windsor and Rheims 50 years ago today.

One of the surprises of the Union’s history has been how well the British and French armies have worked together all over the world.

The regiments that fought against each other from the Middle Ages right up to the battle of Waterloo proved particularly effective when making common cause.

So when it came to sending in the French Foreign Legion against the IRA in West Belfast in the early Seventies, or French companies refusing to supply Exocet missiles to the Argentinians during the Falklands conflict, political and military integration proved invaluable for both countries.

What, of course, cannot be quantified is the number of would-be opponents who decided not to act against the combined might of Anglo-French interests worldwide.

Some have speculated that the dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, might have been considering invading his smaller neighbour Kuwait in August 1990, but was persuaded not to by the strong Anglo-French Union interests in the region.

Later in the 1990s, there might well have been humanitarian tragedies in places such as Rwanda, Ethiopia and Somalia had not the administrators of the Anglo-French Imperial Condominium been present in force.

Similarly, in the Anglo-French strategic backyard of the Balkans, the death of Marshal Tito might well have led to bloodshed, had not the Anglo-French Union acted so quickly and resolutely under Margaret Thatcher and her deputy premier Francois Mitterrand to nip Serbian pretensions in the bud.

Not everyone, though, has been happy with the Union throughout the past half-century.

Enoch Powell and the Tory Right opposed its very formation in 1957, just as the French Communist Party denounced it on the other side of the Channel, and the path of co-operation has not always run smoothly.

One recalls the refusal of Glaswegian schoolchildren to wear berets in 1990, fomented by the BNP, and the accusations that Interior Minister Jacques Chirac plotted the assassination of Princess Diana, but these proved passing.

Overall, the interaction between the two peoples has been helped by the decision to make both countries entirely bilingual by 1966.

The phrases ‘frog’ and ‘rosbif’ are rarely heard in political discourse these days, as they were in the early days of the Union.

As one looks ahead at the future perils facing the Union, Putin’s Russia remains a worry, especially over our extensive energy supplies: should the Union’s own vast oil reserves in Mosul, North Africa, the North Sea, Canada, Equatorial Guinea and Antarctica really be sold so cheaply to the Russian Federation is a question that must face the National Parliamentary Assembly as it meets in Cardiff this month and Lyons in February.

Politics aside, probably nothing has done more for the strength of the Union than Prince William’s decision to marry Clotilde de Bourbon, the 25-year-old Parisian Olympic show-jumper and fashion model.

The first senior British Royal to marry a Frenchwoman since the 18th century, their engagement has hugely reinforced the popularity of the Union among both peoples, though there are some who claim that, in an uncomfortable echo of his father’s marital history, William’s heart remains with his first love, Kate Middleton.

But such thoughts will be far from the Queen’s mind as she sets off simultaneous fireworks on the Eiffel Tower and London Eye tonight - the Anglo-Franks, as they are known the world over, can rejoice that their country continues to frame global events, and is seen as a worthy partner to America and China in sharing hegemony.

Neither country could have hoped to have achieved this separately back in 1956.

Guy Mollet and Anthony Eden share plaudits for their great prescience in creating the Union.

To have put 1,000 years of feuding to one side and embraced imperial greatness together was an unprecedented act of Entente statesmanship, and one we rightly celebrate today.

mkpdavies · 16-01-2007, 04:39 PM

France would have been welcome in the Commonwealth.

SGK · 16-01-2007, 04:48 PM

Didn't Churchill also propose this at the beginning of the war?
The French also has a commonwealth - it would have been a merging of the two.
I think it would have been a worthy experiment. The world would be very, very different today if it were to have happened. The countries were, more or less, one country in the past.

This-England · 16-01-2007, 04:50 PM

If we hadnt bottled out at Suez and left the French in the **** they would probley have never been any European Union.

g hall · 16-01-2007, 05:15 PM

What would have happened to the former French colonies?

Canada would have happy though especially Quebec

arden forester · 16-01-2007, 05:20 PM

A Commonwealth is so much different from a Union!!

Quote:

France would have been welcome in the Commonwealth.

If we had had a European Commonwealth then we could have proper trans-national agreements where appropriate instead of the inappropriate one-size fits all bureaucratic law making as it is now.

If all countries of the EU had referendums I would hazard a guess that nearly all would vote to dismantle the Delors Delusion in favour of something more harmonious!

Britannist · 16-01-2007, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

France would have been welcome in the Commonwealth.

Yes, they would have put themselves in charge of it and found a way to get the UK out.

Britannist · 16-01-2007, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGK

Didn't Churchill also propose this at the beginning of the war?
The French also has a commonwealth - it would have been a merging of the two.
I think it would have been a worthy experiment. The world would be very, very different today if it were to have happened. The countries were, more or less, one country in the past.

The French 'Commonwealth' was much smaller than the British one. The French would have tried to take over a merged UK-French Commonwealth. After all, they've spent the last three centuries trying to take over europe (manifested of late in their membership of the EEC/EU) - I wouldn't expect them to behave any differently with the British Commonwealth.

France would have tried its age-old divide-and-rule tactic - it would have played on its over-rated alliance with Scotland to try and get the Scottish on the French - and not English side - in a UK-France merged state. In other words, to gain the 'upper hand' in such a union by assisting division within the UK.

It can be argued that much of the division in today's UK - devolution etc. - is a direct result of UK membership of the EEC/EU which the French (as a founding member) see as 'their baby'.

Today's French Commonwealth - known as the Francophone Club (the organisation of French-speaking nations) is a particulary nasty anti-English organisations dedicated (supposedly) to promoting the French language. It's real aim is to push French dominance in the EU and elsewhere in the world and to stop certain former French colonies from moving naturally towards the use of our (English) language.

I certainly would not want anything like that in the (British) Commonwealth.

It is correct (as stated above) that Winston Churchill allegedly called (in 1940) for Union of the UK and France.

My own view is that I would rather the UK be merged with the south pole than with France.

Britannist · 16-01-2007, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by This-England

If we hadnt bottled out at Suez and left the French in the s*** they would probley have never been any European Union.

Why?

Westcountryman · 16-01-2007, 08:57 PM

I have no doubt that it was a power-grabbing measure by the French, which would have seen us all as 'French' citizens, with a French government and Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State was supposed to be some sort of meaningless compromise.

16-01-2007, 04:39 PM	#2 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,604	France would have been welcome in the Commonwealth. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

16-01-2007, 05:15 PM	#5 (permalink)
g hall Uber Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: erehwon Posts: 5,233	What would have happened to the former French colonies? Canada would have happy though especially Quebec __________________ "That government is best which governs least." "This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries". "To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

16-01-2007, 08:57 PM	#10 (permalink)
Westcountryman Uber Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: The Westcountry. Posts: 5,922 Party: None	I have no doubt that it was a power-grabbing measure by the French, which would have seen us all as 'French' citizens, with a French government and Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State was supposed to be some sort of meaningless compromise. __________________ 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."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

16-01-2007, 04:48 PM	#3 (permalink)
SGK Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,237	Didn't Churchill also propose this at the beginning of the war? The French also has a commonwealth - it would have been a merging of the two. I think it would have been a worthy experiment. The world would be very, very different today if it were to have happened. The countries were, more or less, one country in the past.

16-01-2007, 04:50 PM	#4 (permalink)
This-England Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,682	If we hadnt bottled out at Suez and left the French in the **** they would probley have never been any European Union.