Remembering Guy Mollet,
Paul Carr
I was doing some surfing through wikipedia and I discovered this golden
nugget.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frangleterre
"Suez Crisis 1956 - In September 1956, during the Suez Crisis due to a
common foe an Anglo-French Task Force was created. French Prime Minister Guy
Mollet proposed a union between the United Kingdom and the French Union with
Elizabeth II as head of state and a common citizenship. As an alternative,
Mollet proposed that France join the Commonwealth of Nations. British Prime
Minister Anthony Eden rejected both proposals and France went on to join the
Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community and
strengthened the Franco-German cooperation.[1][2]"
The Mollet proposal was made public in 2007.
Guy Mollet - What a wuss!!! No wonder France had to move on to the Fifth
Republic. :-)
mothed out
> It's amazing the stuff ye learn on wikipedia!!
>
> I was doing some surfing through wikipedia and I discovered this golden
> nugget.
>
>
> "Suez Crisis 1956 - In September 1956, during the Suez Crisis due to a
> common foe an Anglo-French Task Force was created. French Prime Minister Guy
> Mollet proposed a union between the United Kingdom and the French Union with
> Elizabeth II as head of state and a common citizenship. As an alternative,
> Mollet proposed that France join the Commonwealth of Nations. British Prime
> Minister Anthony Eden rejected both proposals and France went on to join the
> Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community and
> strengthened the Franco-German cooperation.[1][2]"
>
> The Mollet proposal was made public in 2007.
>
> Guy Mollet - What a wuss!!! No wonder France had to move on to the Fifth
> Republic. :-)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6261885.stm
incredibly weird indeed. Could never have happened, there would have
been too much resistance from the public and political representatives
on both sides. Even so, I sometimes wonder how Europe would have
developed with a UK/France central alliance, or maybe just with the UK
fully on board.
Paul Carr
I am not quite following you with the remark, "maybe just with the UK fully
on board". I personally have not wondered about the possibility of a
UK/France central alliance. It's just too preposterous to wonder about.
The UK, for starters, loved it some "splendid isolation". The 1950s was a
completely different era, it seems. Continental Western Europe was still
only just picking itself up and building upon the rubble of World War II.
Many in continental Europe, I daresay, not just in France, had an
inferiority complex towards the UK. In the mid-1950s, the welfare state of
the UK was a trailblazer and was probably more developed than those of other
western continental European countries, the UK's per capita income probably
still a little higher than West Germany's or France's. Many in Continental
Europe were anglophiles.
And how things suddenly changed after the EEC was established in 1957.
Economically, Britain grew over the next 11 years but the countries of the
common market grew faster, their welfare states got much better and, before
you know it, Enoch Powell was making his "Rivers of Blood" speech in 1968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech
mothed out
I was thinking about the way that the UK just wasn't very much
involved in the initial formation of the EU project.
Yes, i agree - the idea of a close UK/France alliance on the formation
of a European Union project was so totally unlikely it's difficult to
even think of.
It's just quite interesting in retrospect to see that if there had
been any intention to take a lead in Europe, there was at least some
people who would have been very receptive to the idea.
But the UK, i think, still had ideas of carrying on, if not at the
centre of an empire, still basing its economy around trade with
commonwealth former colonies.
> I personally have not wondered about the possibility of a
> UK/France central alliance. It's just too preposterous to wonder about.
> The UK, for starters, loved it some "splendid isolation". The 1950s was a
> completely different era, it seems. Continental Western Europe was still
> only just picking itself up and building upon the rubble of World War II.
> Many in continental Europe, I daresay, not just in France, had an
> inferiority complex towards the UK. In the mid-1950s, the welfare state of
> the UK was a trailblazer and was probably more developed than those of other
> western continental European countries, the UK's per capita income probably
> still a little higher than West Germany's or France's. Many in Continental
> Europe were anglophiles.
>
> And how things suddenly changed after the EEC was established in 1957.
> Economically, Britain grew over the next 11 years but the countries of the
> common market grew faster, their welfare states got much better and, before
> you know it, Enoch Powell was making his "Rivers of Blood" speech in 1968
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech
How are you seeing the Rivers of Blood speech as fitting into this
question of how the UK related to Europe?
It was a racist xenophobic speech about immigration, immigration that
was in fact coming (by invitation) from former colonies such as
Jamaica, and part of a continuing relationship with them.
Sadly, such xenophobic politics is also found in France with Le Pen
and all that, mostly regarding immigrants from their former colonies
in Africa.
Westprog
>> And how things suddenly changed after the EEC was established in
>> 1957. Economically, Britain grew over the next 11 years but the
>> countries of the common market grew faster, their welfare states got
>> much better and, before you know it, Enoch Powell was making his
>> "Rivers of Blood" speech in 1968
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech
>
> How are you seeing the Rivers of Blood speech as fitting into this
> question of how the UK related to Europe?
> It was a racist xenophobic speech about immigration, immigration that
> was in fact coming (by invitation) from former colonies such as
> Jamaica, and part of a continuing relationship with them.
> Sadly, such xenophobic politics is also found in France with Le Pen
> and all that, mostly regarding immigrants from their former colonies
> in Africa.
The political extremes have been far more prominent in France. Le Pen made
it to the presidential runoff. Before the far right hit it big, the
communists were a major force. Not your weedy Euro-commies, proper
Stalinists.
--
J/
SOTW: "Drive Like Lightning (Crash Like Thunder)" - The Brian Setzer
Orchestra
Sophistry Made Simple
"Paul Carr" <worldp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hda8sh$fga$1...@aioe.org...
> It's amazing the stuff ye learn on wikipedia!!
>
> I was doing some surfing through wikipedia and I discovered this golden
> nugget.
>
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frangleterre
>
> "Suez Crisis 1956 - In September 1956, during the Suez Crisis due to a
> common foe an Anglo-French Task Force was created. French Prime Minister
> Guy Mollet proposed a union between the United Kingdom and the French
> Union with Elizabeth II as head of state and a common citizenship.
> The Mollet proposal was made public in 2007.
Churchill made a similar proposal in 1940 just before the fall of France.
mothed out
<spamala...@yourrplace.com> wrote:
> "Paul Carr" <worldpaulc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hda8sh$fga$1...@aioe.org...
>
> > It's amazing the stuff ye learn on wikipedia!!
>
> > I was doing some surfing through wikipedia and I discovered this golden
> > nugget.
>
>
> > "Suez Crisis 1956 - In September 1956, during the Suez Crisis due to a
> > common foe an Anglo-French Task Force was created. French Prime Minister
> > Guy Mollet proposed a union between the United Kingdom and the French
> > Union with Elizabeth II as head of state and a common citizenship.
> > The Mollet proposal was made public in 2007.
>
> Churchill made a similar proposal in 1940 just before the fall of France.
he even proposed a united Ireland round that time, so rumour goes.
Sophistry Made Simple
"mothed out" <mothe...@live.com> wrote in message
news:a156dc0a-0cbc-43c4...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
He did indeed, and it was no rumour. Dev turned it down for various reasons,
not least the reasoning that if the Germans won the Brits would be in no
position to honour the bargain and if the Brits won they wouldn't need to
honour it.
mothed out
<spamala...@yourrplace.com> wrote:
> "mothed out" <mothed-...@live.com> wrote in message
hmmm not sure he got it right. He could have asked for NI up front
before declaring war.
I think he just hated the idea of doing anything the Brits suggested,
especially fighting on the same side.
He'd certainly have ended up in a stronger position regarding a UI
after the war than he actually did.
Sophistry Made Simple
He could, but nobody asked the Unionists what they thought about it, as of
course nobody needed to ask.
>I think he just hated the idea of doing anything the Brits suggested,
>especially fighting on the same side.
>He'd certainly have ended up in a stronger position regarding a UI
>after the war than he actually did.
See above...
mothed out
it would have been over their heads of course (no wonder they don't
trust the British).....only way it could be done. That's why it was
such a stonking missed opportunity from Dev's point of view.
Mind you, feck knows what the Unionists would have done. It wouldn't
have been pretty.
if by 'see above' you're referring again to the point that the British
couldn't be trusted to keep the agreement after the war, yes, getting
control of NI up front would have been the only way....surely whether
a military re-occupation happened AFTER the war would have been up to
the yanks, same as Suez. They held supreme power. Attlee was cap in
hand to the Yanks begging for reconstruction money after the war, and
they didn't get what they desperately needed on the easiest of terms.
Mind you, on reflection, De Valera would probably have needed to
borrow British troops to force the unionists into line to even have
any pretense of controlling the place, so true enough, none of this
would have been straight forward.
Westprog
> Mind you, on reflection, De Valera would probably have needed to
> borrow British troops to force the unionists into line to even have
> any pretense of controlling the place, so true enough, none of this
> would have been straight forward.
I think a brief moment of reality broke through Dev's dreams and he thought
for one solitary moment "What would the unionists do?". Of course, thinking
about what the unionists might do (apart from settle down as happy citizens
in a gaelic speaking Irish Republic) was taboo thinking and hence would have
been dismissed after the Churchill offer was rejected.
Sophistry Made Simple
****They did find out and though they didn't exactly hit the roof over it,
they weren't exactly happy about it either.
if by 'see above' you're referring again to the point that the British
couldn't be trusted to keep the agreement after the war, yes,
****Well no, it was just the same again that the Unionists would have to be
reckoned with.
getting
control of NI up front would have been the only way....surely whether
a military re-occupation happened AFTER the war would have been up to
the yanks, same as Suez. They held supreme power. Attlee was cap in
hand to the Yanks begging for reconstruction money after the war, and
they didn't get what they desperately needed on the easiest of terms.
Mind you, on reflection, De Valera would probably have needed to
borrow British troops to force the unionists into line to even have
any pretense of controlling the place, so true enough, none of this
would have been straight forward.
****What would be the point? A united Ireland was all well and good, but why
bother if it was only going to bring trouble?