2 November 2010
23:1878167I read the following article today which perhaps sums up most peoples feelings
about our defence agreement with the Froggies.
"British Military in Bed with French Poodles ? "
"So now, for reasons of expediency and a desperate lack of funds, we are going to share our defence with the French...a bunch of no-hope military poodles.
Has today's crop of young British political pygmies no knowledge of history at all?
Agincourt? Waterloo? The Somme?
Dunkirk? Not long after that near disaster, which was made much worse by the utter ineptitude of the French command, and long before D-Day, Churchill spelled it out : "The heaviest cross I have to bear is the Cross of Lorraine"
Then came Indo-China, remember? The French had to be rescued by the Americans, who were finally beaten out at great cost to themselves.
How many years was it that the French refused to share the burden carried in Western Europe and elsewhere by NATO?
Where were they in Iran? Where are they in Afghanistan?
The French book of military heroes is almost as small as the Italian edition.
The French idea of cooperation is wholly one-sided, whatever the issue at stake. They know what they want. They regard the agreed terms as merely a basis for future discussion when things go wrong.
Evidence? The French attitude to EU directives and regulations. If they don't like them they ignore them. They then ignore the fines too, until they are so enormous the EU quietly forgets them. With large numbers of French career bureaucrats in key positions in Brussels that is not a surprise.
Such wimpish flexibility is a much tried-and-tested negotiating technique. It works for the French, and that is all that ever matters to them.
As I saw for myself during five years in the EU lunatic asylum, the French regard with contempt the British attitude to honour and integrity. They openly pour scorn on our gold-plating of EU regulations. They think we are complete idiots.
If this absurd risk to British defence interests goes ahead, our senior military should know they will be shaking hands with a wet fish. He may be Hungarian-born, but Sarkozy comes out of the same mould."
Another nail in the coffin for a once proud Nation.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
2 November 2010
23:2178170great to see you back posting john, thought we had lost you.
2 November 2010
23:3478173Thanks Howard,
Just been a bit tied up lately ( not in the kinky sense of course! )
Guest 672- Registered: 3 Jun 2008
- Posts: 2,119
2 November 2010
23:3578174I seem to remember me posting quite a while ago ( farewell my England ) and a lot of forumites scoffed at it.
Well well.
grass grows by the inches but dies by the feet.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
2 November 2010
23:4078179not true ian, we all read posts and sometimes do not know the answers.
john is an expert on the european union so it is important to hear what he has to say.
i post what i think are important issues and get no replies, just the way it goes.
Guest 672- Registered: 3 Jun 2008
- Posts: 2,119
2 November 2010
23:5078182Very true Howard but I do not understand your reply. ( Fare well my England ) what John is saying is very true, HOW can we let our forces be dictated or ordered to by an inferior ( sorry ) force.
Are we not capable of looking after ourselfs any more? to save money is once again to throw our identity away.
I do not like it.
grass grows by the inches but dies by the feet.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
3 November 2010
00:4178193I'm not a racist, but.... I like the French Army!
John, I fully agree with UKIP policies that we should be an independent Country and quit the e.u.
Howard knows all too well how I love hob-nailed boots and pipes and drums. The Union Jack Flying High! But I am not too sure if Ian's post is right on sugesting that in a military alliance with France Britain would be subordinate! Is it so? One would expect an alliance to be on parity terms.
An alliance with France is nothing negative, as long as it is reciprocal between two countries and does not imply automatically getting involved in wars in other countries. The Nato alliance initially meant the possibility of any member of it's military command getting involved in a war in any member's country, ONLY if that country was INVADED.
Then Nato became a military force involved in wars that had nothing to do with defending a member country from invasion.
If an alliance with France meant quitting NATO and promissing reciprocal support between Britain and France in case either of these were invaded, then I'd say yes.
If Napoleon hadn't advanced at Waterloo, then the British and French commanders could have come to an agreement without loss of life for the two armies. In fact, The French Army was in a position to receive more men and artillary every day, the British were not, being in Belgium.
Because I admire the French Army, I am sad on reading about battles between the English/British and the French.
Well, sorry Ian. No offence meant!
3 November 2010
01:1878195Alex, I assume that this agreement is down to cost saving reasons whereby the defence of our country can take a hit just like other sectors.
However, the continuation of "non-jobs" in the public sector, overseas aid and our propping up of the EU etc., etc., carries on unabated. Much more important than having a truly independant military defence capability of course!
I`m sorry and I know that I don`t speak for everybody, but to my mind this so called agreement is just simply not right, it shouldn`t happen and goes against the grain for all sorts of reasons.
It is also yet more evidence of the demise of the Uk as a Sovereign Nation.
This really is the final straw. ( but it probably won`t be! )
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
3 November 2010
01:4478199John, as you no-doubt read from my post up above, my view suggests an alliance on parity terms, which dies not deteriorate the commitment for a fully functional capability of our Country to defend Herself! It would not imply jeopordising our capacity to defend our Country with our own Forces.
As you no doubt know, I'm for us getting out of Afghanistan on the double, and not poking our noses around the world's trouble spots other than to offer mediation or humanitarian supplies.
But I am for defending our Country if invaded. I would immediately present myself at the Beach with rifle and bayonet levelled if the need arose, without second thoughts.
However, I do not think any country would want to invade us, or has the intention of doing so.
It's no secret on the Forum that I thumbsed up Gov's spending cuts on warplanes and the nuclear sub project, but it is also no secret that I am for millions of disciplines British soldiers ready to defend our Shores with rifle and bayonet levelled, and also learning a trade on the farms and in food-processing factories and in other spheres of production.
That's whee my membership of UKIP comes in, because we need to leave the e.u., and this topic is a part of your post 1 on the thread. And also because of UKIP's commitment to Swiss-style Democracy.
But I thought it rather drastic to take it out on France!
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
3 November 2010
01:4578200Well this is what our glorious leader Monsieur Cameron had to say
"After signing the treaties with Nicolas Sarkozy, the UK PM said it would make citizens safer and would save money.
After he and French President Nicolas Sarkozy signed the two treaties, Mr Cameron said: "Today we open a new chapter in a long history of co-operation on defence and security between Britain and France."
He said it was not about a European army or about sharing nuclear weapons.
"Britain and France are, and will always remain, sovereign nations, able to deploy our armed forces independently and in our national interest when we choose to do so."
Frankly I think he is talking complete "tommy-rot"
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
3 November 2010
01:4778201Ross, UKIP supporter as I am, I fully agree here with the PM!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
3 November 2010
01:5178202France is visible from Dover's Fair Seafront, we have a history of fantastic relations with France, and even in days of past when gov. and the crown were at loggerheads with France, Dovorians and Kentish men - and men of Kent - bravely continued the trade of smuggling with the French, and those who practised this trade certainly were on equal terms with their French friends.
We have no history in Dover of resentment towards France!
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
3 November 2010
07:4378208I dont think we should read too much into this. In an era where everyone is borassic lint it could be a farsighted move towards success. UKIP will always issue these scare stories ( sorry John but good to have you with us though!l
) and hope we all swallow the notion that we are menaced by the infidel and that our sovereignty is being taken over by nasty foreigners...and as a consequence and as a panic measure will go out and vote UKIP.
I think the Prime Minister realises we have two massive aircraft carriers coming into service and that we are in the ludicrous position of not having any aircraft for them. The French have aircraft that fit and work on these carriers, so here we are today. Joint operations and a new joint rapid response unit is not the end of civilization as we know it for the UK, but merely pragmatism in operation in hard times.
In an era where the Russians are beginning to supply helicopters to NATO in Afghanistan, because NATO dont have enough helicopters, one may feel that the world has gone mad. But no...its just that we all recognise the existence of the new enemy and are adjusting acordingly.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
3 November 2010
07:4378209i think john buckleys opion is biased and opionated,seeing that he is a eurosceptic.if my memory is correct the french fought alonside the british troops on the somme,they allso fought along side british troops in ww2.if it worked then,then it will work now.but most people get scared when we join anything thats against our princaples,or so were told.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
3 November 2010
07:4578210John - that is a very tabloid first post, one The Sun or the Sport would be proud of.
The agreement faces the realities of the modern age in which we have the rising infuence and power of The East. The world is changing and the western powers do need more defence co-operation in the face of the new realities.
Lets be clear, I am not a great admirer of the French armed forces per'se and would not exactly trust them on my right flank. But there is room for co-operation. I am also against more EU involvement in Defence (as I am against the EU more generally) buit there is nothing wrong with bi-lateral arrangements.
My blog, written yesterday and due to upload tonight, takes a look at this agreement, a bit more broadsheet than your tabloid style John....
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
3 November 2010
08:3878217I have just been giving this more thought to this important issue and there is an aspect no-one here has covered on this and it is one that I have not dealt with on my blog.
There really is nothing to fear from this arrangement with the French at all.....
They want to control costs and to get more bang (literally) for the buck as the aim.
If we were to fully or even partially integrate our armed forces with the French a huge cost would be incurred that would offset any cost savings.
Think for a moment.
Consider tanks.
We would have to change the gear boxes to slow down forward speed and increase reverse speeds. You just cannot swap a gearbox in a Challenger around because it wont fit, a whole new gearbox would have to be designed, manufactured and installed.
Then there is the cost of equipping every unit from a section size upwards with a white flag. Its not just the cost of the flag its also the laundry bill, they wont stay white for long with heavy use in the field.
As for ration packs. Our troops could not stomach the cheap wine that French peasants love. Even in the unlikely event of France selling us decent Bordeaux at knock-down prices the cost of including wine in every pack would be prohibitive.
Lets not forget the two hour lunch breaks.
The cost of extra personnel to fill the gaps in stag duty alone would offset all the potential savings.
Then there are the language difficulties. I can guarantee that the French will expect us to pay for the modifications to their communications needed to increase the volume to shouting levels.
Yes, never fear - this is not a step towards integration
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
3 November 2010
09:1478225Very funny Barry - I like it.
Roger
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
3 November 2010
09:2678227barryw,i see you have joined the semmitist ukip party,i wonderd how long it would take for you to turn.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
3 November 2010
09:4378232Can someone translate Brianese for me?
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
3 November 2010
09:4578233oh by the way barry,tanks go just as fast in reverse as they by going forward so no aditional cost needed.take it from some one who knows.the only white flag needed is for the tory party [at least they culd claim expences for the dry cleaning bill].